jimsweb.net

"Uncle Teddy" was way up on my heroes list. I share his political philosophy, you see. It saddens me to think that the ideals he fought for and championed are no longer espoused by most of the people in his own party. The Democratic party now cringes every time someone accuses them of purporting "socialistic" programs such as Social Security, or Medicare, or unemployment insurance, or welfare, or desegragation, etc. etc. He fought for all those things and wasn't ashamed to admit that whatever label you stuck on them they were the right things to do. R.I.P., Teddy

It was interesting to listen to all the talking heads eulogize and canonize Senator Kennedy. Some of this came from people that just the week before were very critical of his health care stance.

What makes this interesting is that I was alive back then. I remember the things he wanted to to do and the things he did. I don't thing last week's talking heads were on the the same time line that I lived.

For balance let me tell you what I remember of him.

I remember a short drive off an even shorter bridge and the profound lack of prosecution of a DUI accident, leaving the scene of an accident and vehicular manslaughter. The Senator called his lawyer before he called the police, let alone rescue personnel.

I remember the women. A writer once wrote, "The Kennedy's like to get laid." His marriage vows didn't stand up to his desire to put as many notches in his belt as was humanly possible.

The quote Jim listed above, "Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins." looses a great deal when you consider its source.

I remember the booze. Right after Bobby's death the spotlight focused on Ted. Commentators to comedians all focused on the Senator's legendary appetite for liquor. Liquor and parties with lots of women.

Most of all I remember the pass he got from the media back then and even today on all these scandals and more. There are two sets of rules for politicians. One for those media pets like the Kennedy clan. And another for those that really did some good in for our nation like Presidents Bush, Bush and Reagan.

Anyone under the other set of rules would have been out of public life for good on anyone of the above items. But not Sen. Kennedy, he was too important to the progressive movement to tarnish with these trivialities.

I remember the Senator's obsession with my guns. He wanted to take them from me with all his heart. Now I can understand that having two brothers killed with by assassins with firearms could have twisted him a little. But the end result was that Sen. Kennedy had absolutely no use for the second amendment and no respect for law abiding firearms owners.

So consider this little rant equal time and balance to Libby's praise of Caesar. He wasn't a saint. He wasn't even very good at his job. He was just another closet socialist that wants to take from me and give it to someone else.

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.

The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If it were so, it was a grievous fault. And grievously hath Caesar answered it."

P.S. You know what? I like that so much, I'm going to turn it into a blog post.

He did run for President, but lost the nomination to Jimmy Carter. No one has tried to turn him into a superhero. He is one of the few politicians who has actually accepted responsibility for his mistakes and has learned from them. What Mr. TV News neglects in his post is that Mr. Kennedy plead guilty to reckless driving and was sentenced to ... Read moreparole in the death of Ms. Kopechne, ergo negating the need for a trial.

If we look at the current political scandals, mostly men cheating on their wives and paying off their mistresses, you will notice that their political careers have been put in jeopardy, but few have admitted any wrongdoing. In fact, one such politician claims that his mistress is his soulmate and that God has forgiven him. The difference between these individuals and Ted Kennedy is that he admitted his wrongdoings, asked for forgiveness, and changed his lifestyle; I can see, though, where it is much easier to ignore change than it is to acknowledge it.

The Kennedy family certainly has their faults, as do most families, but they have made public service a family commitment and for their service, they should be applauded. Without Ted Kennedy we would not have the ADA legislation,without Bobby and President Kennedy we would not have Civil Rights Legislation or the Peace Corps, without Eunice Kennedy Shriver we would not have The Special Olympics.  

I have read his post (TV News').  

I have watched the news coverage, via several outlets, and find that, once again, I'm intelligent enough to make up my own mind about what is presented.  It's funny that when I watched the coverage of his funeral, I saw a human being discussed and all of his good and bad presented.  However, I also listened to what others had to say about him, many from "your party."  Those people talked about the man they knew, the father, the grandfather, the politician.  In the end he was a man and he was a man that made an impact on this country, in a number of ways.  

Indeed, you could.  However, Fidel Castro's impact on Cuba is tangible and ongoing, whereas Che Guevara died before the result of the Bolivian revolution (if you could call it that).  

To attempt to compare Kennedy to Guevara and Castro is like comparing Whiskey to Draino; they lack similarities and possess only contradictions.  Not to mention that much of what we, as Americans, know about Castro and Guevara are filtered through the American political lens.

What we see here is a flawed man (as are we all) being viewed through whatever lens each of us views the world.  I do think he was the lesser of the Kennedy boys, but then he represented a like-minded community to their satisfaction for 47 years.  Aside from being in Congress for the life-span of large land animals, that was what the founders had in mind.  

That the press over-did the whole thing is what the press does ... and, of course, they lost one of their own.  They were just as kind (if far briefer) to Reagan and Ford, and (to the same extent) Michael Jackson.  The press will pass no opertunity to pontificate.  

What I found disgusting was the immediate (and I mean before the man was removed to the funeral home) latching onto his death for purely political purposes.  "Let's get this done for Teddy!"  As if his death ameliorated the abomination in the House.  

Jeanine,

Above you wrote that without Ted we wouldn't have the ADA. I am assuming you mean that remarkably expensive unfunded federal mandate on public and private property called the Americans With Disabilities Act. With that single statement you hit the nail squarely on the head for what is wrong with the way the Kennedys and liberals in general think.

The ADA opened the door to thousands of law suits against employers, retail establishments, landlords, cities, counties, states and highway departments. The ADA required not just new construction to comply, but unfunded retrofits in both public and private property. The costs are in the billions and still piling up. Lawyers representing clients in ADA cases raked in millions in fees.

The city of Colorado Springs, CO is a great example of that waste. That city made curb cuts and ramps at something like 300 intersections near the down town area to accommodate one man in a wheel chair. They had to cut all those curbs, two cuts per corner, four corners per intersection, roughly $1500 per cut (more if there was a traffic light at the intersection), $12,000 per intersection for a total of $3.6 million. All that for one man armed with a lawyer and the ADA. The city had to do 300 hundred intersections, not because the wheel chair bound man traveled those routes regularly, but because he might want to go there some day. Then the city had to pay his lawyer for their trouble.

Backlash to the ADA was swift. Immediately after passage physically and mentally disabled people found more difficult to find a job. Employers are terrified of ADA based litigation. Employers began passing on people ranging from disabled veterans to candidates stupid enough to mention they have ADD during the course of a job interview. Many employers began passing on anyone that had any potential of bringing and ADA action against the company.

Legally savvy landlords are shying away from disabled tenants for fear they might have to remodel a bathroom or tear out a door to make room for a bigger one. Shopping centers and neighborhood stores are being closed in favor of larger properties that can support the cost of ADA requirements. You and I paid the cost of those improvements through slightly higher prices on everything we buy and fewer, but larger more crowded stores.

All of this comes under the heading of the law of unintended consequences.

The ADA throws common sense and cost vs. benefit out the window. But analyzing those things never was one of Sen. Kennedy's strong suits.  

You seem a little weak on your history surrounding Sen. Kennedy's midnight drive on Chappaquiddick, so let me bring you up to speed.

Sen. Kennedy was almost certainly drunk behind the wheel of a car and had an accident that resulted in the death of a 29 year old woman. He left the scene of that accident without calling for help. In fact the first call he made was in the morning to his lawyer. Then he called the police.

Putting the DUI aside for the moment, even back then Massachusetts law called leaving the scene of a fatal accident a felony. What Sen. Kennedy plead guilty to was the traffic code violation of leaving the scene of an accident. He got the hand slap sentence of a suspended two month sentence. From there he got to go on with his life as if nothing happened. Heck, if he didn't get anymore tickets, it vanished off his driving record after seven years.

A reporter did some research into other fatal accidents that occurred in Massachusetts within a few years either side of Chappaquiddick where the at fault driver fled the scene. She even turned up a couple instances where the driver later turned themselves in. In every case, except for one elderly driver that turned out to have Alzheimer's, the fleeing driver got the felony charge and did at least a six months in jail.

"Negating the need of a trial..." You say that like it is a good thing. What are the odds of you or I getting that same deal under the same circumstance back then or even now?

If ever there was need for a highly public trial, that was it.

Sorry about tarnishing your fallen liberal hero. But like I said above, consider this equal time.

Mr. News, you did not tarnish a "fallen liberal hero."  I never said that he was one of my heroes; I merely attempted and did show that Ted Kennedy has brough good things to our country.  Your attempt to show that the Americans with Disabilities Act "throws common sense and cost vs. benefit out the window," does not take into consideration benefitting the greatest number of people.  

I hope that you never have to experience disability in your family; I, however, have been faced with figuring out how to transport a family member who was paralyzed and in recent years, my family and I have had to find funding to make our home ADA compliant for my disabled father.  

My grandfather worked in the coal mines of Washington State until he was injured in an accident preventing him from working in the mines (the only employment in the area). As a result of his time in the mines he developed Black Lung and had to fight the coal industry for recognition of the disease.  In 1980, my grandfather experienced a black out, related to his black lung, fell from a tree he was trimming and was paralyzed from the chest down.  My grandfather was an extremely active person, but because few businesses in our area had ramps and accomodated the handicapped, my grandfather's mobility was compromised to the point that he rarely left the house.  Fast forward five years and there is now a ramp outside the post office in my town, there is now handicapped parking in the downtown business area, and those individuals with handicaps in our area are able to enjoy a degree of freedom and mobility.

Eight years ago, my father suffered a severe stroke.  He went from walking 18-holes of golf to being permenantly disabled in the span of 24-hours.  In the years since my dad's stroke his mobility has decreased exponentially.  Our family home was not designed to accomodate someone with disability; however, because my parents are elderly they qualified for a HUD home repair loan and part of the home improvements that were to be done to our home made our house ADA compliant so that my father could do basic tasks, like showering, that you and I take for granted.  

If we move into the realm of education, the ADA legislation has expanded educational opportunities for children, that cannot be denied.  At the University I taught at last year, students with learning disabilities (diagnosed and documented) are granted a number of accomodations: dragon-naturally speaking, note takers, interpreters, etc.  Similar accomodations are available at the Community College I still teach at.

As a college student, I wrote a paper examining the ADA legislation and found that a person's opinion of the legislation is often based on personal experience with it; thus, operating on that theory, I would say that my personal experience has been positive and while I don't doubt there are those who take advantage of the system (as there are people who do with everything), I find it hard to believe that even you would deny that the disabled should be denied access to private and public buildings because of legislation that forces them to put a ramp outside the building or to make handicapped parking available.

That should read shouldn't be denied access.

Jeanine,

When you wrote, "Your attempt to show that the Americans with Disabilities Act "throws common sense and cost vs. benefit out the window," does not take into consideration benefitting the greatest number of people." you made my case for me.

The City of Colorado Springs spent over $3.6 million dollars to accommodate one man. Better they should have bought a wheel chair van and staffed it 24/7 for his use for the rest of his life. They would have saved at least two million dollars.

That is not taking the greater good of the greatest number of people into consideration. That $3.6 million could have been used to buy another fire truck, maybe hire a couple more police officers, possibly bring on a couple more teachers or any number of practical things that would benefit hundreds ort thousands of the city's residents.

But no. It was wasted on one man armed with the ADA and a lawyer. That is a disgrace beyond words.

But you missed or decided to completely ignores my points. All of these mandates are completely unfunded. That means the money comes out of the pockets of anyone hit with an ADA claim. That results in higher prices or closed stores. It results in higher taxes.

I don't have near as much of a problem with requiring new construction to comply with accessibility requirements. (I still have a problem with government getting into private property on things that go beyond public safety, but that is another post.) It is inexcusable under any circumstances for a judge to be able to hand down a ruling telling any private property owner or public entity they will go back and spend a wheel barrow load of their own cash, cash they may not have, retrofitting existing structures that passed code when they were built.

You also missed, or completely ignored the point about the backlash against the disabled in hiring and housing. When a law is passed that exposes public and private businesses to litigation those affected entities will shy away from that exposure. Kennedy's feel good ADA Act triggered an unspoken discrimination that hurt hundreds of thousands of mentally and physically disabled individuals.

That is what happens when a feels good bill is rammed down our throats without really considering the long range effects.

As for the ADA in schools, it is very rare to see a law that is so widely abused. Public schools across the land are being forced to divert billions of dollars from direct education (teacher's salaries, books, new schools, etc.) to deal with real and imagined disabilities among a tiny minority of students.

Parents, upset with a teacher or a grade are running to their pediatricians to have their children declared ADD or HDD. Then they go back to the school and hold the threat of an ADA lawsuit over the board's collective heads and begin making demands.

I feel for parents of truly disabled children. I also think the schools should do something beyond warehousing salvageable children though their school years. However the ADA is forcing schools waste resources and money on children that are never going to be anything more then they are right then.

My heart goes out to those unsalvageable children. I've met more then I want to think about. I think they should be loved and cared for. But there are only so many dollars to go around. Forcing schools to become a free baby sitting service and spend money and resources going through motions that are the equivalent of trying to teach a mushroom to read is not a good use of publicly funded facilities.

So tell me, how much does it cost to provide all these wonderful things to all these ADA qualified students in your school? You mentioned Dragon-Naturally Speaking, note takers and interpreters. How much does all that add to the tuition? What programs are short of resources so these nice things can be paid for? And once the recipients of these gifts get their degree and into the real world, how many are really going to be able to function in a real job without their note takers and interpreters?

Jeanine, your argument about benefitting the greatest number of people does not hold water. You are diverting public and private resources and money away from the overwhelming majority to serve a very small number of people.

This is a typical example of how government meddling, government social engineering and feel good laws  screw up the works for everyone.

Mr. News,

First I would like to say that I did not miss or ignore the point you were trying to make.  You offered, as evidence, one lawsuit involving a disabled man fighting a city to get ramps installed for easier access and mobility.  You imply that the result of the lawsuit impacts, negatively, the entire city and positively impacts one person; this is simply not the case.  When an individual sues, a corporation or government entity, citing the ADA more often than not the outcome of the lawsuit effects every disabled person.  Therefore, by installing ramps in sidewalks, Colorado City is making itself accessible to many many people, not just one man in a wheelchair.  It would seem, then, that your true beef is not with the ADA legislation as it is with, what you perceive to be, frivilous litigation.

Second, in your treatment of the ADA in education, you missed some very important information.  1. Special Education is funded from sources completely separate from salary, building, and textbook funding. Monies for special education come from both the state and federal government and the level of funding is dependent on the number of students classified as disabled: this includes, but is not limited to, students with varying levels of retardation, blindness, deafness, ADD/ADHD, Cerebral Palsey, Diabetes, etc.  Thus, funding is used in different ways to provide these students with the education they deserve. 2. schools, not parents, are often the driving force in having students diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. Why?  Because schools get more money when they have more students in special ed. Therefore, it is more beneficial, financially, to the school to have a child diagnosed with ADD and put on meds, than it is for the parent. 3. As to your questions about College level accomodation, there is no impact on tuition in providing disabled students with the accomodations they are provided under the law.  As to your question of whether these people can function in "the real world" and in "real jobs," of course they can.  Dyslexics, the blind, and the deaf have proven themselves to be just as competent in their jobs, if not more than you and I.  In fact, people like Bruce Jenner, James Earl Jones, Helen Keller, Ray Charles, Mozart, Morgan Freeman, and Franklin Roosevelt, to name just a few, have been able to overcome adversity to become not only succesful, but also influential in society. I realize that many of the above mentioned grew up and were educated during a time when there was no ADA legislation; however, many like Freeman and Jones took advantage of the legislation in later life to learn how to read, when their dyslexia prohibited it in the past.  4. there is NO such thing as an "unsalvagable child!"  For you to claim that such children exist shows a level of inhumanity that is immoral.  

I spent a year working in a "resource room" with children you would deem "unsalvagable," while many of these children had rudamentary reading ability, math ability, and will never mentally mature beyond a young age, these children were worth the time and money spent on them.  Because of the special education programs in my school district, these children you deem unworthy of public funds left middle school and high school with the necessary skills to go out and get employment.  

You claim that the ADA is "feel good" legislation and state "feel good laws screw up the works for everyone;" I wholeheartedly disagree.  The ADA is no more feel good legislation than the Indian Rights Act of 1924 or the Voter's Rights Act of 1964.  The Indian Rights Act granted Native Americans citizenship and forty years later, they were the last group of Americans given the right to vote.  To say that any of these pieces of legislation are "feel good," and to dismiss them as "government meddling and government social engineering," is to align yourself with the same bigotry that has, for too long, ruled our nation.  

You've still got a couple of things wrong. The Indian Rights Act and Voter's Rights Act did not Shanghai millions in tax and private dollars under threat of lawsuit. It did not impose unfunded mandates on public entities and private property owners. Those have nothing to do with the unfunded mandates on public and private entities contained in the Americans With Disabilities Act.  

The ADA is in fact government meddling in the private sector, the states, the counties, the cities, the school boards and recreational districts of America. With the ADA the federal government gave it self a seat with absolute veto power on the board of every government agency in the nation. The federal government became a managing partner with veto power in every private business without bringing so much as one dime to the table.

There is nothing bigoted about that. It merely states the readily verifiable fact. How do you get that "align yourself with the same bigotry that has, for too long, ruled our nation" from the above facts?

You are also wrong on the children. There are unsalvageable children. I've seen them first hand. There is almost nothing more heart breaking in this world. Those are the children born with defects so devastating that they are completely unresponsive outside stimuli. A few were born with little more then a brain stem. The exact name of that defect escapes me now but it is not unheard of. One was the result of a botched abortion. Another that sticks in my mind got her brain fried during a drug error in a neo-natal intensive care unit. The only time she showed any signs of life was when she would go into shotgun seizures. (As a paramedic I had business in that school on a fairly regular basis. Far more often then I ever want to remember.)  

This is simply a fact of life. That does not make me inhuman or immoral. If I could change it I would. But that is far beyond my meager pay grade in this life.

Many of those children were thrust upon the school district by parents wanting highly skilled free baby sitting service. It forces the school district to blur the lines between educator and semi-skilled nursing care.

I don't know where your schools get their money, but I where I live special education money comes from federal and state taxpayers. It is funneled through the school general fund as a line item. That is the same funding situation in the school district I saw the warehoused children.

Getting to the college ADA accommodations, you claim that the extra products and services provided for the ADA students do not raise tuition. Some college administrators disagree with you.

State operated colleges in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas slapped students with hefty tuition and fee hikes back in the mid 1990s. I worked on the Texas portion of that story which ran on ABC World News Tonight and then on Nightline. Administrators in all three states cited unfunded ADA mandates as the primary reason for the sharp increase over previous years. There were other rising costs contributing, but ADA expenses overshadowed the rest with huge numbers. They backed their claims detailing out exactly what the ADA was costing their states to bring the schools into compliance. (Just to show that no good deed goes unpunished, Oklahoma got sued under the ADA a few years later anyway. I don't remember the particulars now, but it had to do with a set of stairs in one building.)

So if these leaders of higher education are all wrong, would you be good enough to tell me exactly where the money for these things comes from? While you are at it, could you tell me how diverting funds to special programs that only benefit a very small number of students keeps tuitions low? I would rather be corrected then wrong.

I cited the Colorado Springs case because it is one I am familiar with. The unfunded mandate made possible by the ADA in this case is what offends me. That lawsuit forced the city to spend scarce funds on a project for the benefit of one man. The city checked, they could find no other wheel chair bound people living or working in the area. That is why his original request got turned down. So your argument about benefitting all the disabled people does not hold water.

The federal government excels at requiring cities, states and counties to pony up all sorts of programs without providing the money to set them up and run them. The federal government should not have that kind of power over local government. That is not the way the founding fathers set it up. That needs to be stopped and we need to get back to the original Constitutional foundations of our nation.

As one case in Colorado was not enough for you, how about the 400 plus ADA law suits filed by one man in Los Angeles. In fact he filed so many bullshit lawsuits that he is now forbidden to litigate anymore.(1)  He filed on one business because, among other trivial things, a toilet was one half inch too close to a wall.(2) What good did he do? He cost businesses a great deal of money, changed very little and got himself barred from court.

Take a look at the Disabled Patriots of America. As near as I can tell they crafted a business model extorting large settlements from private businesses filing boiler plate ADA lawsuits.(3) In 2005 the California Chamber of Congress moved to stop the ADA law suit abuse citing numerous businesses that closed under the weight of legal fees alone.(4)

Numerous litigants like the above cost public and private entities millions of dollars in legal fees using the ADA as a club. Many, like the clown mentioned above, were declared "vexatious litigants" by the courts and taken out of the lawsuit business.(5)

If you want more examples, I can spend a hundred pages or more citing them for you.

What kind of an idiot Senator crafts legislation without a grandfather clause? Even municipal fire departments and building departments were unable to force nursing home and nightclub owners to retrofit older structures with fire sprinklers. But have the toilet one half inch too close to the wall and off to court we go our check books lighter and the lawyers richer.

You almost have to wonder if Kennedy's goal was to help the disabled or to give the ambulance chasers a rich new revenue stream.

Jeanine, have you any idea how much money these actions cost those private businesses in legal fees and payoff money? Got any idea how much of that money went to the disabled? (I'll tell you, almost none of it.) Do you have any idea how many mom and pop establishments simply closed their doors because they did not have the money to rip out their 40 year old bathrooms install new ones? How many bankrupted their businesses, their livelihoods, because they could not afford a five or six digit legal bill to fight an ADA claim, let alone the cost of a complete remodel of their premises. Have you considered how many small commercial properties are sitting empty right now because it is impractical to install an elevator?

What gives any government the right to tell private property owner they have to remodel or go out of business just to accommodate a hand full of customers that make up an infinitesimal portion of their total revenue stream? Where is the greater good in any of this?

Jeanine, you are arguing from the heart. It sounds good and all, but in the real world of dollars and common sense one size does not fit all. The ADA may have been crafted on good intentions. But the end result was a money pit for public and private industry, some really rich lawyers milking it for all it is worth and a large number of disabled people being passed over for jobs because employers are afraid of them.

If it were up to me the ADA would be retroactively abolished and something built on common sense put in its place.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(1) articles.latimes.com/.../me-wheelchair18

(2) www.hitchingpost1.com/ADA.html

(3) www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/.../Content

(4) www.calchamber.com/.../ChamberSponsoredLegislationSeekstoCurbADALawsuitAbuse.aspx

(5) www.adalawsuits.com/.../Carlock_v._Collins-_20k_order_of_atty_s_fees.pdf

Jeanine: HALLELUJAH! Amen.

Welcome to my club! It is so refreshing to hear from someone who doesn't necessarily share the political views of TV, EW, and on occasion Jimr. I was beginning to feel like a voice crying in the wilderness. Listening to these guys "preaching to their choir" was becoming a wearying exercise in futility for me. In fact, I was about to give up trying to reason with "The Boys Club". I think I have at last found an ally. Here's hoping more will show up!  

So Libby,

May I assume you do not find anything wrong with the ADA problems I listed above?

...What Jeanine said.

Oh, Come on Libby,

You can do better then that. I just shot her argument full of holes. Three times. It cannot hold water and you simply want to repeat it? Did you even bother to read me posts or just skip over them to get to the good part.

I am disappointed.

It troubles me that you want to give up on "the boys club." I would think that you would learn some things from what you read here. You are exposed to the other side and it is backed with references, facts and figures.

Just because you cannot come back with a logical argument in favor of something you really want is no reason to throw in the towel. It is a reason to dig farther and prove us wrong or admit the error of your way.

Somehow you don't strike me as the type of person that would prefer to cheer along with the choir, right or wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you "Mr. News". You have thrown down the gauntlet, but I refuse to pick it up. I don't argue with people who are utterly convinced of their "rightness". I've learned that to attempt that is an exercise in futility and frustration. Your mind is closed to any opinion other than what you perceive as "The Truth". There is only ONE Truth, and yours is it. I know it is difficult for you to accept that I don't consider your blizzard of "Facts" facts. Just goes to show how "Wrong" I am in your opinion, I'm sure...So I don't chose to play this game with you using your set of rules. "Prove me wrong and I will admit defeat". Are you kidding? You see, in the rules of "my game", there is no right or wrong--there is only differing opinions, and you are free to consider them or not.

P.S. I read every single word that you have written [and everything that Jeanine wrote too]. To do less would be insulting. In the rules of "my game", there are no unworthy opponents. All opinions must be given equal consideration.  

What's not to accept? They are facts. They are well documented.

The difference between an opinion and a fact is that one is subjective and the other is a demonstrable state that can be witnessed by anyone that cares to look.

I think the biggest problem here is the same one that most on the left have. When the facts and figures do not support their position they simply refuse to present an argument other then to say "it is the right thing to do and nothing else matters."

That doesn't cut it. If you are right, prove it to us. I stand waiting to be educated.