I don't know - if this was all a top secret plan to make sure there was no public option, then why did the President keep selling it? The criticism that he didn't sell it HARD enough is at least rational, but this is more 15 dimensional chess talk.
Probably not. Desmoinesdem I think posted a link that described what happens to a bill that doesn't have the support of the finance committee but makes it through with the support of the Senate-at-large, and while she described it as inconclusive it looked to me like limbo.
I haven't read the Baucus bill. I suppose I should at some point. But unless I'm persuaded otherwise I can't imagine how a bill that mandates private coverage that isn't all that affordable and leaves no curb on insurance power isn't actually worse than no bill at all.
People say that having no bill will "break" the President. While if true I don't think that it's irrelevant to the discussion, I think it's vastly overstated. Bill Clinton survived the failure of his healthcare bill, which wasn't all that great either, and as far as Congress goes it might actually HELP party identification if its left wing is seen as standing up for some principles and protecting the public. And it certainly puts to rest the whole "unchecked Democrats" line of argument.
Iraq is not artificial - there's always been a state of some sort centered between the two rivers. Most of the time it's either been an empire itself or been swallowed up by one.
Saying that I'm supporting a system that keeps millions in poverty is like me accusing you of supporting an Indian/Pakistan style war repeated all over the globe. It's also a misstatement of my position: I don't support the borders so much as I think that the borders are an easy scapegoat for first-world observers.
National liberation movements aside I don't see a big push inside the countries in question to redraw their own borders. It's an observation of questionable relevance and no earthly solution; nobody is going to call a new Treaty of Tordesillas and hand you a sharpy.
I think there's a lot going on in African conflicts besides tribes who just can't seem to get along.
But whether Jomo Kenyatta was right or wrong, my point is that his point of view represented the consensus of just about all the newly liberated nations, and by-and-large still does. It's only external forces that keep quibbling about what their border SHOULD be, for reasons both benign and occasionally not: witness the repeated idea that Iraq should be split up into states along ethnic lines, which would just happen to leave the most oil-rich region in a state by itself which has never been an independant entity in its entire history.
I just think the issue of borders represents a superficial view of things. Sometimes artifically drawn borders hold stable for centuries, and sometimes they don't. I think a better question to ask is why they fail, when they fail.
Kent is also the name of the chronic masturbator in Real Genius who, while being a suckup to the villain in the movie - a Professor who is using his students to build a weapon, in the end realizes the value of pure science and how it shouldn't be corrupted by military influences.