wsws.org website May 21st, 2008 8:34 pm
Please correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that in order to block an appropriation bill (war funding) all that is needed is a simple majority in either house to vote against it. The Democrats have that. The story that they need 60 votes or 2/3 is not true.

I'm reassured that even if they have to remove half of the good Senator's brain, he'll still have plenty to avoid slipping into Republicanism.

When Obama is declared the Demo nominee by Kennedy, McCain is assured of being our next president.

We're all gonna die, Kem.

I'm 57 years old, and Sen. Kennedy has been a big part of my political landscape for most of my life. I wish him well, and hope a recovery is in the cards. But even if it's not, there are others who will carry on the struggle for civil rights, labor rights, health care, education and a sane foreign policy.

I'm 72 ~Socialist~ and I don't plan on making it past 125. So I won't be posting my comments here forever, which should please quite a few. My first post, which I erased was supposed to be funny. ___ It wasn't.

Your first post, for those who missed it and wonder what in the world I was responding to, was "He's gonna die."

I realize most people think Senator Kennedy is a king-maker, but I don't. While he was successful at many things, including avoiding answering for the death of Mary Jo Koppecke; he was also responsible in part for the failure of Carter's bid for a second term of office; if he had not challenged Carter, maybe the Republican mayhem wouldn't have occurred. Just think, no Bush the first, maybe we won't have Dubya and his band of bullies to deal with now.

My ancestors come from island of Britain, and I say we who are progressives must wish Edward Kennedy a speedy recovery and a return to the struggle to be a voice for those who have no voice as he has been for decades. Keep on fighting the good fight. This is one Anglo Saxon in there backing all the way this great Irish fighter for justice.

Eugene McCarthy, "Mr Peacenik" gave the Gipper his good housekeeping seal of approval support in 1980. He is more responsible for the Gipper making it to the White House than Edward Kennedy by a country mile. McCarthy gave outright support to the slime ball Gipper, and Minnesota Democrats did the right thing by not putting him up as a senate candidate the next time that pampered jack ass wanted to get his whiny booty back into politics.

And now they are all praying for him. Perhaps those prayers will offset the prayers by Pat Robertson et al, you know, the prayers for the death of a supreme court justice surely didn't stop there. They must also be praying for an end to all liberal blasphemy.

What happend during the Carter re-election is emblematic of how liberals can't agree because they tend to dice things too finely. It's what will divide us now. Go ahead and disagree, argue and bicker as I know you must.

What is it that Democrats have about blaming others for their own candidates f--- ups? Carter lost because of Kennedy. Gore lost because of Nader. Bull hockey. Democrats will lose every time (except in a case where the Repug is seriously wounded as in Clinton's case), because we keep putting up candidates who are either incompetent (Carter) or just plain bad candidates (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry). If we blame Kennedy and Nader we don't have to assume responsibility for our own bad choices. Grow up, people. Assume some responsibility for a change instead of blaming others for your own failure to nominate an electable candidate.

I didn't fail! Damn Eugene damn McCarthy failed the great state of Minnesota and all progressives, and if it takes a "good old boy" from the US South to damn say it, then so be it.

All this talk about party unity is so 50 years ago when party affiliation really meant something. Today people couldn't damn less about party, and will vote regardless of party based on other things including their own racism, opposition to racism and other evil isms, and right on across the board. The Democrats and the Republicans are so much hot air over all. I don't want it to be that way, but that's the way it really is. Thus united this party or that is just so much mush as far as I can see.

Just get the truth out about Johnny "straight lies, anything but a maverick" McCain, and we can beat that bitch, rich pampered white boy, and I say that as someone of that persuasion.

I don't think the nations swing to the extreme right in 1980 was the result of a singular failed campaign or a political endorsement. People wanted the empire to continue to expand and to thrive, or, at least, bought what was being sold by the right wing reactionaries---who wanted to kill any political progress made by the working and disenfranchised class in the 20th century. In any case, Kennedy fought some of the good fights on behalf of the powerless. I felt Robert Byrd's pain at having one less ally to resist the real plutocrats. We needed Kennedy. Hopefully, someone halfways-decent will replace him.

As for Teddy Kennedy and "the liberals." ...

Liberals and their supporters have allowed this country to move -- and move DRAMATICALLY -- to the right for over 30 years now.

Their political cowardice and knee-jerk acceptance of the status quo is shameful.

As the following article points out, http://www.swans.com/library/art14/ga251.html
Obama, Hillary, McCain and the rest of the political establishment, conservative and liberal, do not support:

-- Single Payer National Health Insurance.

- Total US military and corporate withdrawal from Iraq.

-- Deep cuts in the military budget.

-- Crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.

-- Solar and wind power instead of nuclear power.

Do you think average working class Americans support these positions? Of course they do! But does the Democratic Party?

In addition to the above-stated positions, the Democratic Party has barely uttered a peep about a whole host of topics -- illegal wiretapping, torture, renditioning, impeachment, defunding the War, the upward shift of wealth, US imperial ambitions, and on and on.

And Ted Kennedy is an honorable Democrat.

So, please, if you want to wish a speedy recovery to the ill, that's one thing. May we all live and be well. (Even those who can well afford it.) But let's not make elitist- enablers into heroes.

"Liberal acquiescence" in the face of a right-wing takeover of this country -- and I include in that group The Nation magazine, John Nichols and all the other "cruise missile liberals" -- is as much to blame as as any of the right-wingers themselves. To acquiesce is to support.

And, let's be clear, Ted Kennedy was as much a part of that acquiescence as anyone else.

I love your roar Ted Kennedy. I wish you comfort and peace.

Whether you like him or not, Ted Kennedy has been a major player in American politics for nearly 1/2 century. And like you, he is a human being and has a family. How about just praying for him and his family?

Save the political analysis.

This is a bad, and often fast type of cancer. The brain has almost no natural immune support- the immune cells that are on the "other" side of the blood-brain barrier ARE the glial cells which now have become cancerous. Bad news, bad prognosis.

A doctor says, "The usual course of treatment for Kennedy's type of tumor includes radiation and chemotherapy."

The latest news is that "genetic" testing is being done on Senator Kennedy which could change the "usual" treatment plan for his particular form of melanoma and potentially increase his chances of survival. Radiation and chomotherapy may be included in the medical arsenal, but they are not the only treatments available today. If his genetic tests prove him eligible for alternative treatments, Ted Kennedy could be fighting in the Senate for a long time.

Best wishes, Senator, I'm cheering for you!

Best wishes fir Sen. Ted Kennedy, hope and pray he recovers soon.

"Democrats are on the march, poised to gain control of both the White House and the Congress for the first time since 1994–and, perhaps, for the first extended period since Kennedy came to Congress in the 1960s."

So what! Nothing reminds me more of a Republican than a Democrat nowadays. The Democratic Party is COMPLETELY DISCREDITED. The Pugs and Dims are now allies. How fitting it was the other day to see the Dim's Leader, Nancy Sell-Out Pelosi wearing a red shirt as she gushed all over Bush wearing a blue tie. Like Obama said, no red states and no blue states. Exactly, one political party, two wings. Bipartisanship is the buzz word.

This morning I heard that Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger and his Kennedy wife (Maria Shriver) have two lawn signs in front of their mansion. One is for Obama and the other for McCain. This is the most fitting metaphor I can imagine.

Still not convinced? Today I heard on NPR that around 40% of Hillary's supporters would rather vote for McCain than Obama. That means a large number of Democrats are really Republicans. No surprise there. None at all.

And lastly, the Dims could've stopped the war in its tracks two years ago by simply refusing to fund it. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton both supported the war and refuse to end it by withdrawing ALL THE TROOPS even by end of their first term if elected. The Dims could have impeached Bush instead of getting in bed with him.

You know what would make a huge difference for the entire planet? Dump the Dims and the Repugs and vote for the Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.

Well said, tailcap!

Several years ago, Ralph Nader's father was asked: "What do you think of a third party?"

To which he replied: "I'd settle for two."

One indication of how pathetic the so-called liberals and Democrats are -- and how radically the country has moved to the right -- is that many of them now think fondly of Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, many feel that Obama will select Jim Webb, Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, as his running mate.

Obama is going to fundamentally change absolutely nothing. Nada!

As far as the ruling class in the US is concerned, Obama serves the same function as did other political pretty boys -- re. JFK, Jimmy Carter, the all-new 1992 *liberal* Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas (remember his sorry ass?) Howard Dean.

As they say in Texas: "All hat and no cattle."

Anyway, you said it beautifully in your post. Ralph or Cynthia, or maybe the SEP will be "allowed" to run a presidential candidate on the ballot here in Florida.

For more info on the SEP (Socialist Equality Party), click here www.wsws.org

NOTE: I have no doubt that upwards of 85% of the American public would *agree* with the comemnts and analysis offered at this site. And, while I'm not very good at math, I do believe that 85% of the American public constitutes a vast majority of the electorate.

The ruling elite, a numerically puny percentage of the population -- make no mistake about it! -- are scared to death that the American public sooner if not later wise up to the con game they've been playing. ... "Profits over People."

wsws.org website
Thanks a lot. I always enjoy your posts because WSWS is my favorite website and one of the very finest sites on the web. I would support a SEP canidate too.

Get well, Ted. We're praying for you.

A Massachusetts Democrat

A couple other thoughts, tailcap, if I may ...

You write in your post:

"... the Dims could've stopped the war in its tracks two years ago by simply refusing to fund it."

Quoting from the following article by Gilles d'Aymery, "Meeting Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez" ...

"The Democrats keep saying that they don't have the vote to stop war appropriations for Afghanistan and Iraq -- only 50, at most 51 votes -- and therefore have to reluctantly and pragmatically accept the status quo.

"They then, of course, say (as they said in 2006) that things will change in 2009 when a Democrat is in the White House and they have a bigger majority in Congress.

"But Matt (Gonzalez; Ralph's running mate), fully cognizant of the arcane rules of the Senate, convincingly argued that all the Democrats needed was to secure 41 votes to block any legislation. Indeed, if a two-thirds majority in each house is required to overcome a presidential veto, only 41 Senate votes are needed to block a bill from being sent to the Oval Office.

"In other words, the wars can be defunded by 41 resolute senators.

"Matt throws an almost mischievous smile at the company, his sparkling eyes beaming all over the room as though he wanted to ask the assembly: So, are they really against the war? Is that the 'change' that Clinton and Obama are advocating for 2009? You know the answer to these two questions.

"Instead he went on to introduce a man who truly needs no introduction, Ralph Nader."

Here's Gilles d'Aymery's thumbnail bio of Ralph Nader:

"He is an American patriot who has garnered over almost half a century a larger body of legislative accomplishments than any member of Congress has without ever being a member of Congress.

"He spearheaded and facilitated the passage of many legislations, like, just to cite a few, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Freedom of Information Act.

"He's been a consumer and people's advocate for decades, and he's running for president...the most qualified candidate in the field -- trustworthy, ethical, right on the issues, a real agent of positive change for the country as a whole." http://www.swans.com/library/art14/ga251.html

And, I might add: representative of the best interests of at least 85% of the American public.

Compare that to what ANY liberal -- the Kennedys included, muscle-bound, corporate-whipped in-laws and all -- has done for the average workingclass American.

The Kennedys have always been part of the problem, part of the con.

As for the neo-Camelot candidate they now support -- for what the *real* Barack Obama will do if elected, see the following -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

After what happened to his 2 brothers, I was always suspicous that Chappaquiddick might have been a set up. It was widely expected he would have run for office in 1972, but the events in 1969 took away this possibility. Obviously, a 3rd assassination would have been too much for even the conspiracy deniers to believe.

He also was thinking about running in 1976 but withdrew his consideration after death threats against his and RFK's kids. His only run was 1980, against an incumbent Democrat. I suspect at this point he was no longer seen as a threat to the establishment, and beating an incumbent in the same party is a long shot anyways. His running served one purpose, it put an end to the questions of why Ted wouldn't run for President. This question fueled the conspiracy view of JFK and RFK's assasinations

Then you have JFK Jr's plane crash in 1999, the reporting of which had so many inconsistencies you had to suspect some funny business. There were rumours he was going to announce his plans to run for President, or the NY Senate seat held by Hillary today.

Funny how a nation with 70 million Catholics has had only 1 Catholic President, and he got shot. And the others who would have run and had a good chance of winning were killed, in plane crashes or discredited. Must be a coincidence with bad luck. Hmm.

So he has a tumour (hopefully it can be treated). I am unaware of any technology to give this to him, so CIA is off the hook. Unless HAARP does brain tumours also. LOL

As for the liberal lion roaring again. Maybe the pussy cat can mew a little, but I don't see no lions in the Democratic camp. Obama and Hillary are dead center, maybe even right of Center. The performance by Democrats the last 2 years in Congress has been gutless and disgraceful.

ww and the dixie dance kings, you wrong about a whole lot. No Edward Kennedy and the Kennedys aren't part of the problem, but it sounds like you might be. It's just a thought. The Kennedys are great, but so is Cynthia McKinney, however, I may very well vote for an Obama/Webb ticket. Barak Obama and Jim Webb ought to be a done deal for the Democratic national ticket, if they want to be sure to win, and that damn sure isn't guaranteed with Diebold as always on the job. It will take a big margin to overcome the GOP strength in the high tech steal industry exemplified by Diebold. But I think Jim Webb be able to take it to the GOP on the dawg! "Hep me!" "Let's work through it!:"

Still if we can get a landslide going for the Democratic national ticket then I could go ahead on and vote for McKinney.

Didn't Kennedy lead on deregulation of the economy. Yeah, that was a real winner wasn't it?

And No Child Left Behind? That has been such a wonderful addition to our schools hasn't it? Another major Kennedy initiative.

This guy did lead on single payer...many years ago.

He hasn't even made a serious effort to find out who really killed either of his brothers. That is truly sad.

I'm sure Robertson, Hagee and the others think this brain tumor is the result of divine wrath. Of course they are immune because to have a brain tumor, you have to have a brain. Not much chance they'll have heart attacks, either, but their spleens, bladders, penises and colons could cause problems.

"If his genetic tests prove him eligible for alternative treatments, Ted Kennedy could be fighting in the Senate for a long time."

So, the rich man senator gets all the technology and medical science that money can buy. You and me on the other hand, our treatment is "somewhat different"

"GIVE US $100000 IN CASH OR WE WON'T OPERATE" (don't care or matter if you've got insurance - GIVE US THE MONEY NOW!)

"Yes we hooked you up for chemo, NOW, GIVE US $45000 IN CASH OR WE DON'T TURN ON THE MACHINE."

We live in two VERY DIFFERENT countries. Mr. Kennedy gets all the prerogatives and perquisites of his CLASS. We die.

That's how Oligarchy works.

Richfilth are humans, we are meat.

Yes Mr. Nichols the democratic vacuum!

Many people here in the USA think to give their vote in the upcoming election to someone who they think represents the absolute truth, maybe Nader? To do that would at the same time elect by default the very same regime that has brought America to this present. After all and under scrutiny this is not a democracy, and the "truth" as presented has more than a few deficiencies.

I have followed patiently the dreamers, the pseudo intellectuals, and the great scholars, on the pages of many blogs, periodicals, and media who think they have the sort of thinking able to help bring the USA back from the horrid mess it has become. There are those, like so many who write, who like me have seen through the sham and the shame of the present global dilemma. Many in these tomes offer their great thinking to help us to see more clearly, good Liberal egalitarian ideas, that might help our situation if adopted and I hope seen by others.

Few here have touched the central issues, this countries greed, the economy and your 401ks. You have been sold this scheme so you could be good Americans and invest in the scam of Wall Street. By so doing you all have become part of this bogus system of economics that continues a way of life that will undo the world civilization, built on the layers of blood of countless generations. This form of economics- which panders to the worst human values- It is equal to one investing in a gambling house, but you have been led to believe it is your way to survival rather than the world's doom. Greed is a very difficult motivation personified by the "killer capitalism" of the USA and fans the seeds of greed, an acquisitive human characteristic that holds nothing or no one sacred, as of course some of you know.

The essence of the fight for human retrieval of hope and security, and the reestablishment of ethics, morals and purpose - so many write about - and who are disgusted with the American system fast becoming the global system - who would like to see change regardless of how questionable or what the downside might be. It is the reason people spend their time on blogs reading petty responses to the huge problems we face. Responses grounded in the rubbish the leaders of this sorry mess of an empire have indoctrinated their people to believe. This empire fueled by an auto-centered culture supported by the advertising indoctrination machine that supports the bogus media.

Those who respond to the articles on blogs, written by people who are surely less than the quality of the true thinkers like, Nietzsche, Camus, Dostoevsky and so many others who have written about human fallibility, the human condition and the abuse of power in America and the West. One of the best amongst them in the modern era is Noam Chomsky, a great American scholar and a champion of truth, who articulated the USA and its power lust for empire in his book "Hegemony or Survival.

Those who write, are people generally frustrated, those who feel helpless in terms of where we see this entire human global adventure going and see clearly that the present American election possibly holds the seeds to genuine change in the USA if not the world should it really should occur? In view of rapid change and absolute necessity in the USA for global survival we have to look at the so-called democratic process. The comparison between the facile political landscape as presented in media and look at this abomination called reality. Power is a strange issue, it can be best represented by its two possibilities, Power to and power "over" as represented by the present US administration. The power to "create" as represented by Obama's rhetoric is the hope of half of the USA. Yes, there are many political power brokers that hold the keys to Obama's success and we must accept the compromise of the imperfect but it is the best there is at this critical time. At the very least he has invigorated Democracy and interest in this failed Democratic, extreme capitalist experiment.

However, many are not fooled by the array of candidates and their claims to complete truth and fairness, this is, as it should be. A healthy pessimism is necessary so long as it is not cynicism. Some of us understand that survival is surely not based in the petty politics practiced on the media, or on-line which is a mirror of the American people and clone of the US Congress. However, many truly care and see clearly why the USA has morphed into a right wing crazed oligarchy. Many people writing her genuinely care about this superpower gone amuck, called the USA. Most of the world's people polled think the USA should be feared as a rogue state. Moreover, there are people in government who are genuinely worried about the extreme of American plutocracy on the world stage.

Sadly, many of us know the slate of candidates running leaves a great deal to be desired. Yes, they have all dissembled, as politicians are wont to do, in the endless necessity for compromise, even to achieve small things for the people. One cannot come from the masses in the USA, be a politician who aspires to become president of this woebegone culture and not have to assume the sickening compromises that would attract support to continue on the quest to accomplish change. It is impossible to be pure but it is possible to hold new truths close to ones fundamental belief system until possible to employ those ideas and idealistic visions of a better world. When people rally behind the leader who becomes transparent in office it is possible for the people begin to believe the leadership of a visionary. America believed in the JFK speech that accomplished the moon landing!

I believe Obama's hope and vision is to restore the USA to its former respected place in the world in a new way. One can see how it is veiled in his rhetoric but it is there. We can only hope that he is not murdered using some obscure assassin. When I think of the charge against Obama that he supported that toad, Joe Lieberman or the many obfuscations, of Clinton and McCain to paint him "black" I have to laugh at the simplistic charges and the lack of understanding of what is necessary to be a politician in the USA.

But there are some who hold out the small hope that if Obama, the least of all the evils presented to the electorate, somehow becomes president he may become another great man in the office and in effect serve the people, the country and the globe. He is the only one, in my view, who holds that possibility, without question, if we join and accept some of the thinking written on the pages of common dreams and other liberal blogs, many agree with this idea. It is so because of his background, his actions in Chicago, despite his missteps, and the fact that this is the final chance at survival for the human family!

We must take this chance and hope that the creeping filth of corporate power in collusion with government and media that has brought humanity to this pass will not assassinate him; if he truly tries to affect the changes that must take place in America and the world, for make no mistake about it: survival is at stake.

Yes, many nations look to different nations and models other than the USA in this for leadership and assistance turning their back on the US and the rejection of the Bush regime. The USA can take on a new challenge, with a new leader, a new vision with a country and a congress that supports him! I believe Obama can assume a place in the world as one of the leaders of the world- rather than, the lone, dogmatic, power driven capitalistic - globalized monster eating everything in its path for it own advantage. I believe that Obama, in recognizing the state of this world, seen with the idealistic vision he espouses, is able to help the USA join with other nations in the world, not as the sole leaders but one as one of its important contributors. The USA is a technological giant it is time to use its strength to assist the world, as it once did, not only for its GDP but also the truth of its responsibility and concern for the problems humanity confronts.

Now, as never before, to the present degree, a great leader and vision is required to help draw the world back from the nightmare now taking place. The climate, energy, food, water, the oceans, forests, human health, world poverty and so many other issues will require a man that has the youth and the guts to try to bring about the change in the USA needed for the future generations who see his vision. Change is fundamental to his campaign alone, since he has captured the belief of so many whom once believed it to be impossible. However, in the end it all may be too late!

Kennedy has his flaws to be sure, but I still wish him all the best. While many posters slam him for running against Carter in 1980, I was pulling for Kennedy. Carter gave in to pressure from the Trilateralists and took that cretin Shah into the US which facilitated the hostage crisis. Sorry to say that about Carter; he is a wonderful human being, but he was lousy President. Need I mention the high inflation and the collapsing Dollar under his watch. He even went on to boycott the Olympics because he didn't like the way the Soviets handled their business in Afghanistan and he helped reignite the Cold War. Kennedy called a spade a spade when it came to the Shah and I will always respect him for that. I also appreciate all the Kennedys for standing up against British injustice in Ireland.

tailcap,

To answer your question ...

Here's the excerpt from Matt Gonzales' remarks (Matt being Ralph Nader's VP running mate) that I posted earlier. Click here for the entire article -- http://www.swans.com/library/art14/ga251.html
--

"The Democrats keep saying that they don't have the vote to stop war appropriations for Afghanistan and Iraq — only 50, at most 51 votes — and therefore have to reluctantly and pragmatically accept the status quo.

"They then, of course, say (as they said in 2006) that things will change in 2009 when a Democrat is in the White House and they have a bigger majority in Congress.

"But Matt (Gonzalez; Ralph's running mate), fully cognizant of the arcane rules of the Senate, convincingly argued that all the Democrats needed was to secure 41 votes to block any legislation. Indeed, if a two-thirds majority in each house is required to overcome a presidential veto, only 41 Senate votes are needed to block a bill from being sent to the Oval Office.

"In other words, the wars can be defunded by 41 resolute senators.

"Matt throws an almost mischievous smile at the company, his sparkling eyes beaming all over the room as though he wanted to ask the assembly: So, are they really against the war? Is that the 'change' that Clinton and Obama are advocating for 2009? You know the answer to these two questions."

So, with 41 Senators being the crucial number, the Democrats could have blocked the funding of the War even BEFORE November 2006!

Also, I read recently that Joe Kennedy, the bootlegger, that is, at first thought of entering politics as a Republican. But decided against it, believing that the Democratic Party was "the wave of the future."

My point being -- the Kennedys were always political oportunists; every last one of them. "Bobby," who is now revered in some liberal quarters (see, for example, the cover story in this month's "Vanity Fair") was, with his brother Jack, a primary force in starting the Vietnam War in the first place!

As for race relations, JFK moved extremely slowly in that area. And, again, making sure he covered all his bets, right and left, before doing so.

Ted, for his part, has moved, predictably, along with the rest of the liberal establishment to the political-right. As spineless as the rest.

If, excepting Bernie Sanders, Ted Kennedy is the most liberal member of the Senate, then that doesn't say much for modern-day liberalism in the US.

(As for the self-described "socialist," Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is a socialist like my Aunt Tillie is Miss America. Sanders has stated on many occasions that he will support either Hillary or Obama. Some socialist! Sanders, too, is not hesitant to "go with the flow," i.e., abandon his ideological positions and move to the right along with the political establishment in general.)

So-called "liberals" in government today are about as liberal as, say, Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican, was in the 1960s.

In fact, more progressive legislation was passed during Nixon's six years in the White House than in the eight years "Wall Street Bill Clinton" occupied the office.

If Nelson Mandela or Hugo Chavez or Martin Luther King Jr., or any other great, principled, "Here-I-Stand" leader were as spineless as your average modern-day liberals, they'd soon be relegated to the "dustbin of history."

Liberlas have, arguably, done more to subvert social and economic justice than the radical right. Because to accept is to support. And liberals, and their fellow-travelers, e.g., Barack Obama) do it under the guise of "change." When, in fact, they fundamentally change nothing.

Well said, my friend. We are living in 1984. "Change" really means more of the same.

luckylefty May 22nd, 2008 11:56 am
"If his genetic tests prove him eligible for alternative treatments, Ted Kennedy could be fighting in the Senate for a long time."
So, the rich man senator gets all the technology and medical science that money can buy. You and me on the other hand, our treatment is "somewhat different".

luckylefty,

Ted Kennedy has been fighting the right wing for decades to get real "health-care" not just "profit-care" in this country. Also, there are thousands of people with average health insurance or no insurance at all involved in new research treatments since the genome project and the growth of the biotech industry.

But yes, you're correct that money can buy opportunities not available to everyone.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3633
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AmQ4lzYV_xKsFO4FuHnz9xp82PAI?p=glioma+cannabis&fr=my-myy&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

"So I won't be posting my comments here forever..."

Thank you, there is a G-d in the Universe!