HEALTH REFORM SUPPORTERS SHOULD DISCUSS DEATH

According to numerous objective medical research organizations, the USA ranks 38th in longevity in the world -- and equally as bad in numerous other categories.

In other words, the American health care system causes people to DIE. Congressman Grayson is absolutely correct about this.

The quicker the American people understand how ROTTEN our system is, how much death it causes, the better off we will be as people like Grayson strive to change a despicable system.

The Dems should have been playing hard-ball tactics all along, mentioning frequently how many people DIE. Instead, all I hear is Republicans talking about how great our system is -- and millions of Americans appear to believe this.

My main criticism of Grayson is that he should have blasted opponents of the health care system, including ultrarich insurance executives and others who profit from denying Americans coverage, instead of Republicans.

Yes, Repubs oppose health care reform. But by blasting them specifically, he was being unnecessarily partisan and nasty.

Shalom,

ZWrite

PLEASE DON'T TELL LIES

Wingnut: "Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980 promising to do three things: 1) Restore America's national pride; 2) Revive an economy crippled by stagflation; and 3) Win the Cold War."

The truth: Reagan promised three things -- dramatically increased military spending, much lower taxes, and a balanced budget.

Reagan failed miserably on the budget as the USA's deficit soared tenfold or something like that. He lowered taxes dramatically for the wealthy, but not for the rest of us. Even Wingnut concedes there was a huge tax hike in 1982 (and there was one in 1986 too). This hike didn't affect the rich who had huge tax cuts in 1981.

I never heard Reagan say anything in his 1980 campaign about winning the Cold War (I worked on Capitol HIll, crashed a Reagan press conference, am in general a news nut). The national pride thing was basically a 1984 campaign commercial, not part of a 1980 campaign platform.

I have a headache.

Shalom,

ZWrite

If this guy owns a hotel in Warren, I have a story.

ZWrite

I HATE TO BE AN EDITOR, BUT

Presentation of information is extremely important. Salon could have dramatically improved the argument meant in this article with a simple chart.

For example, Salon should have compared Sotomayor with Clarence Thomas in one or two charts.

If you went with one chart, you could have had two horizontal columns -- one for each judge -- and several vertical columns with one each for years of experience as a judge, educational achievement, leadership in law journals, etc. Then, you fill in the blanks, thus, for example, making Sotomayor's 17 years on the bench looking far more impressive than Thomas' one, or whatever it was, or Judge X's three.

Or you could have two charts and put them side by side. The headlines on each would be the name. The first item would be Years of Experience: . The second would be Educational Honors: , etc.

You need to grab readers' attention with easy-to-read facts instead of just rambling on -- and risk losing what should be the real focus, the comparison/contrast, in a blizzard of words.

Numbers count.

Shalom,

ZWrite

NO ONE IS SHY ANYMORE

The hugging trend, I think, is one of many results of a culture where shy teenagers are rapidly becoming extinct. On the whole, this is good news.

I'm 100 percent sure that I never hugged anyone as a teen in the 1970s. And, frankly, I don't recall anyone except the most extroverted kids hugging.

In the 1990s, as a reporter who covered schools, I saw girls hugging girls all the time. Whenever a girl left a game, there were hugs. And more hugs. And there were hug/greetings in schools repeatedly.

I also noticed that the more extroverted boys also hugged girls. I never saw boys hug boys, but this NYT article now says that they do.

From my perspective, this is a trend in keeping with the declining number of shy people. Girls tend to be less shy as teens as boys. THey moved toward this hugging culture first, but the boys have apparently followed.

In short, I don't think this practice has anything to do with kids being more promiscuous -- and there is no reason for adults to be concerned about this.

What we may need to be concerned about is a culture full of people who think they can advance just by being outgoing rather than studying, learning, mastering their craft, etc.

Shalom,

ZWrite

Sirota:

It's one thing for anonymous bloggers to engage in name-calling.

It's quite another for a professional writer to engage in the kind of childish name-calling that you exhibited in responding to two bloggers who criticized your work. How old are you?

If I was your editor -- and I have been an editor with a staff -- I would fire you immediately for conduct unbecoming a professional.

And, by the way, what in the world does the fact that Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire have to do with anything? I have never heard of a mayor paying for city projects or projects built by businesses other than his or her own out of his or her own pocket.

Your repeatedly mentioning Bloomberg's wealth is incomprehensibly stupid -- and irrelevant.

Shalom,

ZWrite

how come the very people who are against it have government-paid and government-run health insurance themselves?

If it's so bad, why don't members of Congress who fulminate against socialism give it up and pay for health care out of their own pocket?

Does anyone think Dick Cheney would be alive if he wasn't pampered with socialized health care? This scum had his first heart attack at 37 and had two or three others before turning 50.

WIthout "socialism," CHeney would have been dead 20 years ago.

Shalom,

Zwrite