Norm, thanks for publishing the Transforming the Liberal Checklist link. It's very interesting and very relevant. Although I certainly knew the words transactional and transformational before reading this article, I hadn't considered them in the context of politics before. Now that we have this vocabularly, I have to ask you this question: If you want to see liberals take on political transformation, why are you not supporting Obama? This is exactly what Obama is all about.

http://www.star-telegram.com/225/story/477630.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/27/obama.black.votes/index.html http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/10/568636.aspx http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Transformation_like_Reagan.html http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/12/krugman-vs-obam.html http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/204645/037

Hi! I'm an Anti-Depressant, And I don't work as well as studies suggest, Only slightly better than a placebo.

Name that fallacy: my guess is non sequitor.

Or how about superstitious BS coupled with intolerance? is that considered a fallacy?

"They make the inaccurate claim that the plan would force people to purchase unaffordable health insurance."

Don't "mandatory" and "forced to buy" mean the same thing, or are we to assume people are too stupid to decide whether something is affordable for them or not?

Have there been any clarifying details as to what the penalties for failing to buy the mandatory insurance would be?

Also, with Dodd being a major influence in the Telecom debate and my view that he was the most knowledgeable candidate when it came to trade issues and international relations, to me, this seems important

Have there been any clarifying details as to what the penalties for failing to buy the mandatory insurance would be?

IIRC, this is one of the major points that Obama attacks Hillary on when he's explaining why he doesn't want mandates. This is from the debates months ago though, Hillary might have come up with a penalty by now, but I haven't heard it yet.

As respects the 'liberal checklist' article, it is a fine article with whose content I agree... though I perceive most of the Democratic Party as just about as neoliberal-friendly as the Republicans (excepting the Progressive Caucus and NAACP in Congress, about 18 old-guard Senators like Kennedy and Dodd, etc. basically)

The Party Leadership are -for- those same policies. Supporting business is a litmus test issue for potential Presidential candidates, and the Democratic Party is willing to risk losing a seat to get rid of people who're making trouble... like Kucinich, for example.

The article on people switching denominations was mildly comic in it's absurdity. Though, I know of many people who've made these changes, and I myself made the transition from Catholic to atheist in my teens. I understand people who switch from an Abrahamic religion to an Eastern religion that is less authoritarian and more of about personal revelation, or classifying themselves as "spiritual but not religious." But this idea of Protestant or Baptist is like Burger King or McDonalds. Are they all not just fast-food chains shucking out edible by-products to impatient consumers with no concern for nutritious content?

Reminds me of an article on the BBC website today about reformations in Islam going on where they're trying to update the texts to fit in with modern society. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

Magnolia Electric Co.,

A few years back I worked a s researcher on a documentary that exposed many of the fallacies and dangers of Anti-depressants. Among the fact that they are barely better than a placebo, they also often cause previously "normal" people to have dramatic fluctuations between elation and depression. One case study I remember was a girl with no prior history of severe depression who committed suicide while participation in a clinical study of an updated form of Prosac. These drugs do seriously affect a persons emotional stability, sometimes for the better but more often than not they just seem to numb the user from experiencing legitimate emotions. The real danger comes from people who take the drugs then decide to stop without proper oversight. The withdrawals often lead to serious depression, anger and uncontrollable reactions. In fact, many of the school shootings of recent years have been linked to this problem - but of course we don't get to hear that in the news. http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm

Have there been any clarifying details as to what the penalties for failing to buy the mandatory insurance would be? IIRC, this is one of the major points that Obama attacks Hillary on when he's explaining why he doesn't want mandates. This is from the debates months ago though, Hillary might have come up with a penalty by now, but I haven't heard it yet.

I know Hillary's plan is equated to the concept behind car insurance mandates but I still don't like the idea of being forced to pay. It just feels like extortion.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

So, you're saying antidepressants don't work very well, but when people go off of them they become horribly depressed...

Hmm...

Having known multiple suicidally depressed people, having lived with them, in my (anecdotal) experience, I can tell when they've forgotten to take their medication.

Never trust "this latest medical report in the mainstream press."

To call the mailers "reprehensible" or reminiscent "Harry and Louise" strikes me as extravagant and misleading, especially given the smear Obama has had to put up with, including outright distortion over Obama's previous votes on abortion.

It is a fact that Clinton's "mandates," as Obama said in his response, "are not mandates that the government provide insurance but mandates that you buy it." Moreover, Obama has said to her, in many debates, in person, almost verbatum what the mailers report: "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." Why did she not throw her tantrum then, if she found it so "misleading" and putatively "Rovian."

Now, in fairness, Obama cannot make a factual criticism of HRC's health care plan because and only because she has not provided nearly enough detail about how her mandates will be enforced. To that extent, the assertoric tone of the mailing is slightly misleading. But the worries that motivate it are completely sound. Just do the math.

A survey last year by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average annual premium was $4,479 for an individual and $12,106 for a family.

• 7.3M of the 47 M without insurance come from family which make over 75K/year.

*6.9 M of 47M without insurance come from families making between 50K-70.

(Note these are family earnings, not individual incomes; the source for these figures is an article ZDZP posted yesterday). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?pagewanted=1&fta=y

Now consider what these figures mean. 7.3M of 47M is a rather small percentage (15.5%) of the total number of people without health insurance. Also notice that combining the figures on the two groups suggests--because at 14.2M of 47M they are 30 percent of those surveyed--that the majority (70%) of those without health insurance have annual family incomes below 50,000. How do you afford $12,106 in healthcare a year with that income? What good, short of magic or a miracle, will a mandate do--a mandate that forces you to buy rather than one that forces the government to provide--if cost is not lowered first?

One last quick point to spell out the logic in my last comment. If HRC's plan exempts families making below 50K/year from mandates, then her mandated plan does not guarantee 'universal' coverage anymore than Obama's, and has no distinctive advantages. If HRC's plan does not exempt family making below 50K/year, then lower-income families will in effect sanctioned or fined for having a lower income.

The crazy "cult" is spreading:

Dodd endorses Obama

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/26/senator-chris-dodd-to-endorse-obama-today/

I hope it's alright to post this article by Richard Cohen from the Washington Post. Maybe many of you have read it already.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502422.html

I agree with Norm that there isn't much difference between Hillary and Obama. However, I'm convinced Obama is more electable. I respect Hillary, she has done things that I've admired. But Obama has won me over, and I think Cohen explains well why he is our best bet.

b.dewhirst,

I guess Iwan't clear that I was referring to non-severe mental-illness cases where the drugs have been shown to be effective - though still occassionally unpredictable. Was intending to illustrate the hoax that has been played on the majority of users who are just dealing with depression and anger but not in severe conditions. Back when I was working on that documentary the statistic was one in25 kids was on an SSRI. I highly doubt one in 25 kids are manic depressives.

Just wanted to clarify.

As you know, SSRIs are contraindicated for manic depressives... and I think you're seriously underestimating the number of causes present for mental illness. Americans work some of the longest hours in the world, for example, and poverty has been established to cause mental illnesses. Wartime service, too, causes mental illness. etc etc.