The standard measure of unemployment simply isn't.

How many people are working for 75% of their prior wages? 75% of their prior hours? How many are working for 40%? Etc. I think by any measure including the fact that people have downshifted into the number is important, but what would be better than a raw percentage is some composite number that assigns greater weight to people who are actually not working, and a fractional value to people who are working less.

Link to some graphs in sig.

The thing I like best about Salon letters are ones like you wrote. Thanks.

Thia should be way more exciting than it is.

Your major talking point, the one thing you repeat ad nauseum as though repetition creates validity, is the 'pragmatic' argument. No bill can pass in the Senate without 60 votes. Oh noes! The dreaded fillibuster! Just the very thought of it and some of our progressive "allies" run off with their tails tucked.

Please. We need 50 votes, no more. That is, until the other Senator from Massachusetts is selected and seated. 50 votes are there, assuming the right kind of pressure is applied. If even your "pragmatic" axiom is obviously false, why should anyone listen to what you have to say?

I'm with Rance. There is a time to negotiate and compromise, and a time to ram the bill down their fucking throats. The latter approach is warranted here. Single payer, for life. If we need to make cuts to make the budget in future, we make them across the whole system at once, so nobody feels too much of a pinch. And the high earners (of which I am one) foot the bill. That's the right thing to do. There is no moral middle ground here.

that it's not about them, or their club, or their stupid little bags of goodies, or their book deal? You're apparently in it to tell the truth, as you can find it. That's what I've seen so far, and I've been reading a couple years. Keep it up.

Your reply to Mackey's comment was utterly perfect (page 4 for anyone who skipped it). I can't imagine a better crystallization of the situation, both his courage in commenting publicly, in this admittedly hostile forum, on his choice, and also your deconstruction of his claims.

I'd add that people who intend to take up the mantle of journalist have a responsibility to fight, in little ways, the corrosive effects that have led us to this pass. The little ways in this case are making damn sure to preface your way to a full and balanced discussion of the various sides' positions before asking the question.

You have a really good point, it's the reason I've continued arguing in various places for a public option as opposed to just standing back appalled at the whole circus. Giving up now means that when catastrophe finally occurs, a whole lot of people will get completely screwed, and many will die. And not one of these Harry and Louise con artists will be called to account for it.

I sort of disagree with one thing: the "anger" the peasantry appear to feel may be genuine, but it has been created whole-cloth by the marketing and manipulation machines of the Right. It isn't natural for poor people to argue passionately against handouts.

Thank you, please don't drop off the grid entirely.

That worked out poorly. A good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. I think one group of corporations is pretty much the same, morally and ethically speaking, as another. QED.

I know your post wasn't intended to make me laugh, but my sense of humor is a little messed up. You hit it right on the head though.. sure, people making 70k/year in the midwest can afford 10-15k/year for health insurance. The problem is that you can live on something like 30k/year, and lots of people do. I did so in Oklahoma for several years. I really wish the people who are going to make the decisions here had ever, ever walked a mile in your shoes.

we confronted the real problem: that there are too many people, and more every year? No amount of conservation can address that. Eventually, even if we all eat five leaves and a grain of rice per day, washed down with a single sip of recycled water, all resources will be spoken for.. so why not push less people, and eventually a lot more per person, not to mention a biosphere that isn't all messed up?

realize that by talking down from your high horse, you discourage others from following him in this. For my part, I'm just glad the man is speaking out. The richer he is, the better. It's hard to dismiss him as just a "disgruntled former employee" when he's got that golden parachute.

Abducted from US soil, ultimately flown out of the US into secret prisons where their very existence is kept classified, and where they can never challenge their detention. What's to stop the government from doing that with anyone they like? If no one knows, there can't be any whistle blown?

But as Cary says, it's harder on the drifters. I was just at an exhibition of photos in SF (moma), and ran across a picture of such a man in midlife. He'd probably been given a jacket and white shirt by Avedon in exchange for the photo. He's #17/26, link in sig.

You need someone new, with an edge like the man you must now leave behind, but not quite so much that he has to leave, too. Remember to value him for being able to stay. Good luck.

until you consider that that followers he's amassed really believe this crap.