about racism and those conservative principles

The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote. Political scientists assert that minorities do not vote as a unit. Women do not vote as a bloc, they contend; nor do Jews, or Catholics, or laborers, or nudists--nor do Negroes; nor will the enfranchised Negroes of the South.

If that is true, the South will not hinder the Negro from voting--why should it, if the Negro vote, like the women's, merely swells the volume, but does not affect the ratio, of the vote? In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way.

What are the issues? Is school integration one? The NAACP and others insist that the Negroes as a unit want integrated schools. Others disagree, contending that most Negroes approve the social sepaation of the races. What if the NAACP is correct, and the matter comes to a vote in a community in which Negroes predominate? The Negroes would, according to democratic processes, win the election; but that is the kind of situation the White community will not permit. The White community will not count the marginal Negro vote. The man who didn't count it will be hauled up before a jury, he will plead not guilty, and the jury, upon deliberation, will find him not guilty. A federal judge, in a similar situation, might find the defendant guilty, a judgment which would affirm the law and conform with the relevant political abstractions, but whose consequences might be violent and anarchistic.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.

...National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

...The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

No.

the modern conservative movement very much has its roots -- both politically and ideologically -- in the "states' rights" camp of the segregation battle

The modern conservative movement has its roots after the 1860s?

Let's forget about the fact the anti-slavery movement was started by the Clapham sect in England, who were so right-wing extreme they tried to persecute enlightenment leaders as well.

Hence "modern." I'm talking about the Buckley strain of conservatism currently running the country. And this isn't ancient history, these people are still with us and they and their immediate heirs are still the intellectual leaders of conservatism. Just trying to keep things in perspective.

ranked by how much power they think they have
1. weekly standard
2. nro
3. focus on the family
4. southern partisan

ranked by how much power they have
1. focus on the family
2. southern partisan
3. nro
4. weekly standard

http://www.crystalinks.com/stigmatageorgio.jpg

There's a vision. Who'd he nominate to the court, anyway?

"And take those crazy-ass stripes off!"

So I just mean that "conservative principles" might sound attractive until you have to actually start listing them.

It's all about where I live.

That makes no sense.

Wes Clark is a robot, I find. I don't know what people see in him. Great on paper and in theory, but in reality, not a good campaigner, distant and creepy! Very creepy! And how would he govern with no experience? I thought the whole Clark craze was just dot-connecting, ie "people think Dems is weak on defense, I know, let's nominate a GENERAL! That'll solve everything!" Sure, just like nominating guys who served in the miltary helped change that perception vs dudes with five deferments etc.

Even if he had nothing to do with Iraq? Could be the selling piont, in fact.

I understand what you're saying Nabisco about public education, it burns me up, having gone to a fairly shit public high school b/c of no money at my end of the state, and hearing stories about kids from home who went off to decent colleges suddenly discovering they had to relearn basic writing skills and couldn't keep up in math and science courses. Meanwhile Montgomery County school system is wallowing in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, magnet schools, AP classes, video production, tons of clubs and programs. It's not right.

That's simply not true.

A report comparing drug prices under Medicare's temporary prescription discount card with those charged by the Department of Veterans Affairs has reignited a debate over whether the Medicare prescription benefit that takes effect Jan. 1 favors big pharmaceutical companies.

Families USA, a Washington healthcare advocacy group that has repeatedly sparred with the government on issues related to the new drug benefit, said it found that 49 of 50 common prescription drugs could be obtained at lower prices from the VA department than through the discount card.

For example, it said the VA provides the cholesterol drug Lipitor for $498.84 a year, compared to $730.56 under the Medicare discount.

The drug discount card program, which expires in January, was a stopgap measure designed to provide price relief for seniors.

It began in 2004 after the federal government passed the Medicare Modernization Act, which contains the permanent drug benefit.

The Modernization Act was criticized by some because it prevents the government from negotiating bulk prices with manufacturers. Instead, each individual provider, such as health plans and pharmacy benefits companies, must negotiate separately.

WTF

The NEA is the largest union in America (maybe the world??) and votes 95% Democrat. The Dems never vote for school choice because they won't betray the NEA and its members and break up the public school monopoly. We've tripled spending for schools since 1960 (adjusted for inflation too) and they've just gotten worse. I see no evidence that the problem is funding and that throwing money at it fixes it. To say government schooling is a conservative dream right now is like saying the military is a liberal utopia.

Public schools are locally controlled, by locally elected boards, who can try and teach bizarre community-standards bullshit if they like

In the 1980s I remember reading that there are/were federal guidelines for how many cheerleaders teams should have. The personnel may change but the actual policies can be tied in red tape in Washington.

WTF? where? which Administration would actually have that in place?

hahaha. somebody else wanna take this one?

Of course. As it should, since it's a major client. But this bill is a huge influx of new public money into the system, specifically into paying for prescription drugs -- making the federal government one of the biggest, if not the biggest purchaser of drugs -- and the law explicitly prevents Medicare for negotiating discounts. Why? Because the drug industry wants the money, but it doesn't want to have to deal with a behemoth with that much purchasing power. Why? Because they think they can get paid more by forcing each plan to negotiate separately. I don't know if that'll work out to be true, but the point is that the drug industry rode shotgun on this bill and shaped it to their liking. That's nice for them, not so nice for taxpayers. And it also serves the conservative interest of curbing the power of the public sector.

dude, the military IS a liberal utopia

Another thing to consider is that "negotiating" in that environment is kind of a misnomer given that all drugs aren't created equal. How does one "negotiate" the price of Lipitor when there's only one Lipitor? My experience is that the negotiation in this environment is akin to negotiating with Wal-Mart: there is none. You set the price and tell your vendors that's what it is. As a vendor, you either take the business or you don't. But as I noted, you can achieve the same ends by simply apply pressure on the reimbursement side, which frequently forces the private insurers to pick up the slack.

You are absolutely right that the influx of public money into this scheme is ultimately a disaste. Very bad for taxpayers, and probably not that great for non taxpayers either.

My college roommate wrote this.

The gist (at least as it pertains to patents): big pharma "invents" new diseases that can be treated NOT with brand-new drugs they've developed but with existing drugs that are -- coincidentally -- nearing the end of their patent. Once cleared for treatment of a new! exciting! disease, however, that patent is re-upped and they can continue charging full-whack for drugs that SHOULD be generic. Repeat ad infinitum.

And it's not like the pharmaceutical companies are paying for all of that R&D themselves without any help from government-funded research.

Also, it's not only patent protection that allegedly drives up prices; For the biggest drug companies, marketing is a huge cost. The whole marketing environment is an absolute shitstorm for the drug companies right now, and it's going to get much, much worse. You can have an awesome pipeline but your products can fall flat without significant market penetration.

anyway, is there no truth to the idea that the price of healthcare would go down if the government became the national insurer? does gypsy just have the wrong end of the stick here, don?

True!

-- _ (...), October 10th, 2005. (later)

:-)

yes, that's entirely why people were pissed off about the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act, tossing around the no-bid contracts to whatever friends they had, or trying to kill off all the environmental rules & monitoring. There can be no other possible reasoning.