Is it not amazing how completely opposite the rightwing complex of "principles" is to anything anyone sensible would want to do? I remember being horrified at Nixon's appointees, and later, Reagan's. James Watt as secretary of the interior? It was as if the president deliberately chose, not only the wrong person for each position, but the worst possible person. As if he were deliberately insulting those who disagreed with him. Of course Bush perfected the approach

Your answer to 23skidoo is right on, historically. As I have often said to those who criticize me for not viewing the U. S. as the Great Satan in spite of being liberal and in spite of the fact that many of this country's policies have been horrible: This is a society that has ended slavery within itself, fought discrimination until a black man can be president, given women the right to vote (yes, they should have had it from the start), and instituted a whole bunch of other really fine reforms in citizens' rights.

My naturalized son-in-law, from El Salvador, who saw bodies hung on fences during Reagan's terms, and hid from the soldiers, was overjoyed and incredulous to find that we could say whatever we wanted to about candidates (other than threatening them) without being thrown in jail.

The hitch with what you say to 23skidoo is that many of us may give our lives for causes that will not see fruition till after we die. That removes personal gratification as a motive. The only motive that remains is conviction, belief that the direction you advocate is good and sane. How many people have the moral courage to work for a good result they will never see? Martin Luther King comes to mind.

At any rate, changing society requires lifelong dedication and a degree of selfless effort that is not common. There may be enough people who have the necessary motivation. We have no choice but to act as if there are.

I look at the photo of Blunt heading the article and I wonder how much anybody believes these old white men any more (I am white, male, and probably older than Blunt, by the way).

The private health care industry is going down. Their only hope to salvage anything is to sign on with universal health care. They private insurers know that, given a better alternative, people will leave in droves. So instead of cooperating in an attempt to improve the quality and affordability of health care, they are desperately attempting to block the change, using their usual tactics of lies and fear. This time it won't work.

HEALTH CARE

You told them, gathered together in that room,

that, like the banks, they were inviting doom,

the ax that would reduce their firms to kindling,

to wit: overvalued assets and a dwindling

customer base. Those are the facts of the case.

Oh call it universal health care, Ace,

who cares? Why not save what you can of your wealth

while getting credit for caring about our health?

I was not going to comment on this fiasco, but your comment disturbed me. Blaming the underwriters for the salemen's mistakes? Are you a salesman? I worked for a major insurance company as an actuarial analyst. I cannot tell you how many times I would calculate a rate based on the information we had, only to be told by marketing that they were unilaterally changing it, based on no facts whatsoever, but because "we can't sell this rate." In effect, the marketing division ran the insurance company. All the top executives were from marketing. The analysts were ignored. We were just window dressing.

I would be VERY surprised if it were different at AIG.