TampaYankee

Have you ever been to Boston?

Please share more of your insights. Most of us have never been to Thailand and many of us will never make it. Seeing it through the eyes of visitors and residents is the closest that many will ever get. Personally, I love to read about Thailand, Brazil, Columbia, Japan, Argentina, and other SE asian countries. I also love to read about the gay scenes in the Czech Republic, Germany and Amsterdam.

I thought the above article would make an interesting read for conservatives, progressives and middle roaders alike. As a former Regan Republican/Independent, this reflects some of why I have no use for the present day Republican Party. And for the record, we ought to stay the hell out of Lybian airspace.

A Reagan Republican Makes A Case Against The War -- And His Own Party Dan Froomkin HuffPost Reporting froomkin@huffingtonpost.com When Paul Craig Roberts watches the U.S. reaction to what's been happening in the Middle East, he is haunted by America's own recent history in the region. "Here we are, we're all concerned about humanitarian concerns in Libya, after we've wrecked two countries ourselves?" Roberts asked in a telephone interview. Roberts, 70, is one of the original Reagan Republicans. From his perch at the Treasury Department, he was a chief architect of Reaganomics. He edited and wrote for the Wall Street Journal editorial page and was a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Now a syndicated columnist living in the Florida Panhandle, he's still a devoted supply-sider. But Roberts is profoundly alienated from the modern GOP, particularly when it comes to civil liberties -- and wars. "In Iraq, there were huge numbers of people dead and dispossessed, with no place to go," he said. "But none of that bothered us. When we're doing it, it's quite all right." Indeed, our interventions have been massive humanitarian disasters. Somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million Iraqis died on account of the war, and some 4 million lost their homes. In Afghanistan, U.S. forces admitted just last week to accidentally shooting and killing nine Afghan boys in a helicopter attack, only the most recent in a litany of civilian deaths directly or indirectly attributable to the U.S. military presence there. And Roberts can't forget how the George W. Bush administration used deception to take the country into those wars in the first place -- in Afghanistan, even though the Taliban had not attacked the United States, and then in Iraq, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "Lies," said Roberts, "and the bastards knew it." Roberts explained in an email what he's seen change since the Reagan era: The GOP has changed. Under the influence of the neoconservatives, the GOP is becoming a Brownshirt party. I am a constitutionalist, a civil libertarian who believes that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the FIRST things to be defended, not the last to be defended or that can be pushed aside in the name of "national security." Without the Constitution and the civil liberties that it guarantees, there can be no security. When it comes to the market economy, I am a realist. I understand that, compared to a nation of farmers and artisans, a market economy--especially under free trade, jobs offshoring globalism--subjects people to massive economic insecurity and requires a strong social safety net. The idea that Republicans are espousing that the social safety net can be sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction in order to pay for wars of hegemony is insane, inhumane, and evil. Such Republicans have nothing in common with President Reagan. A particular sore point now is Afghanistan. Roberts was against the war there from almost the beginning. "I fairly quickly saw that there wasn't any basis for it, other than the neocons' world-hegemony bit and the military-security complex's money. That was the only reason for it," he said. "I suspect what made me see it that way was that the Taliban weren't al Qaeda, and yet I was watching the Taliban be conflated with al Qaeda. It looked to me like something was going on that the public wasn't being told,” he said. “They were demonizing somebody so they could have an excuse to send troops in there." As for the current mission in Afghanistan, Roberts had this to say: "It's absurd. Look, we're getting our ass kicked over there." President Barack Obama's nation-building campaign is hopeless, he said, "But what business is it of ours? We could take care of our own people. We can't nation-build here." Hearing this kind of talk from a former Reaganite does raise an interesting question: What would Ronald Reagan himself make of the war in Afghanistan? There’s a pretty compelling argument to be made that the man modern Republicans claim such allegiance to would, in fact, be against it. When prominent conservative thinker Grover Norquist recently called on Republicans to begin a serious debate about the war, he explicitly aimed his plea to "the people who voted for Ronald Reagan, or would have." And he pointed out that Reagan's response to the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, which cost 241 American lives, was not to occupy Lebanon, but to leave. "Ronald Reagan didn't decide to fix Lebanon," Norquist said. "I think that's helpful in getting the conversation going on the right." Norquist also claimed that many prominent conservatives privately support a quick end to the war, even if they won't say so out loud. Roberts pointed out that two of the most prominent former Reagan officials still around have also spoken out against the war. Reagan's White House communications director, Pat Buchanan, has argued that President George W. Bush made a terrible mistake after the initial invasion. “Had we gone into Afghanistan in 2001, knocked over the Taliban, driven out al-Qaeda and departed, we would not be facing what we do today,” Buchanan wrote in 2009. “Now, whatever Obama decides, we shall pay a hellish price for the hubris of the nation-builders.” Of Obama, Buchanan asked “if he doesn`t believe this is a winnable war, is he a big enough man to say, 'We are going to turn around and walk out, the way Reagan did, on a much smaller level, after he put those Marines into Beirut and they got all killed?'” Bruce Fein, a Reagan-era Justice Department official who was one of the foremost Republicans to speak out against George W. Bush's abuse of executive power, has taken to calling the ongoing war an "objectless, trillion-dollar, 10-year-old war in Afghanistan that is making the United States less safe and less free." And Lawrence Korb, who was an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration but now works for progressive causes, recently wrote: “I am proud of my service in the Pentagon under Reagan and equally proud to be associated with the Center for American Progress. Were Reagan alive today, I believe he would find himself right at home in our organization, as we battle to convince the Obama administration to strategically redeploy troops from Afghanistan, cut defense spending to reduce the deficit, and reduce strategic nuclear weapons.” And yet the war, as started by Bush and restarted by Obama, continues to enjoy broad support from Republican leaders. There are a few exceptions -- here's a Huffington Post tally of 20 Republicans against the war -- but we had to hunt pretty hard for some of them. Why, then, have so few other prominent Republicans broken away from the party heterodoxy to publicly oppose the war, like Roberts has? "They're all on the tit somewhere, aren't they?" Roberts said. "They all need to be accepted. They're getting grants or they're getting employment. They're getting something and they have to support the line. They're just not independent. I don't know why they can't see the whole thing is a ruse." Roberts said he still considers himself a conservative. Asked which politicians he admires, he says it's a short list, comprising of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on the libertarian left, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the libertarian right, and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) a staunch conservative who turned against the war in Afghanistan after visiting one too many wounded soldiers. There would be more Republicans on that list, Roberts said, but too many are "bought and paid for" by party leaders and the "powerful interest groups, such as the military/security complex, AIPAC, Wall Street." "The private oligarchs own the 'party leaders' too," Roberts said. "I don't want anything from them, so I can say what I think." ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. See original story at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/afghanistan-paul-craig-roberts_n_832427.html

Great book, ok movie. Loved his early books. As for politicians, I'll pass the temptation to piss on them here and now, even if they are so richly deserving.

Sounds like a great start of an adventure. Thanks for sharing it with us. I hadn't appreciated the green color of the waterfall before. I look forward to future reports.

The Japanese have some really kink tastes, at all ages. They are so unwestern in attitudes in so many ways and moreso so unAmerican (sometimes in some refreshing ways).

Amazingly, the observed behavior of traffic flow is similar to the behavior of fluids described by classical fluid dynamics. This dawned on me me way back in my early professional life and to others long before that. Thanks for the link to an interesting read if you are into to that sort of thing.

I doubt it. He doesn't cast a shadow so I'm not sure if his image can be captured in a photograph either. Once you start suspending the laws of physics who knows where it stops?

ihpguy, You have a wonderful creative humorous imagination or one unique karma. If the former, might you be a comedy writer? <-- rhetorical question If not, you should consider it.

Gawd, that is so true. I love a fuck with a witty thoughtful mind. If only you were 30 years younger and hung like a horse with a bubble ass...Assuming, ofcourse, that you were still legal. But then maybe you are hung with a bubble ass? ? I know about the one and can fantasize about the two. There are several minds here that stir my lust. Photos and stats may be directed to my inbox. Oops, that makes me sound like a bottom, which I am not. :lol Sounds like Oz's dutiful attention to his sick friend has gotten him horny and prickly. Surely there must be some cute orderly or two that can be waylayed for muscle massage with relaxing relief?

Good for a chuckle, thanks.

Two things off the top of my head... 1. Lot's of stuff seems broken these days including the economy, health care, and gov't receipts and spending. Thus we have work to do. 2. The above maxim supports our continued dependence on foreign oil with the resulting balance of payments outflow, compromised national security with international milatarism to support the pipelines to the U.S, and ceding the green energy revoultion tecnology and economic benefits to foreign countries while we remain mired in the technology of the past. File the second under a suboptimal solution that we cannot afford to depend on universally as we have done in the past. It remains part of our energy support system and will for some time but we need to decrease our dependence on it for a variety of reasons including those mentioned above. So sometimes thing need improving even if they are still working in the normal sense. Else, we'd all be driving horse and buggy contraptions.

One of my favorite and regular escorts of the past had a very hard rule of 'no play in the AM', which for us meant noon to late afternoon. We both were night owls naturally. I eventually learned that he had attained a very firm discipline of his body needs and habits. He ate only at certain times and reigned in his cusine selection when he was 'working'. Nothing too spicy which might generate unintended consequences. Everything worked like clockwork and mornings were off limits. It worked fine once I knew the rules and the reasons behind them. A rather smart, disciplined approach to the profession IMO.

If this poll is accurate then this article gives me hope with regard to the American electorate. I have grown dubious of the ability of the electorate to see through all of the down right lies, distortions and generally widespread mendacity that permeates our news outlets, cable TV, and political commentary. Both sides engage in it although the party out of power and its sympathizers seem to push the envelope more. If this poll is accurate then it shows that many in the electorate are far ahead of the politicians of either stripe. I favor pretty much what this poll says they favor with regard to cutting the deficit. It is rational and logical. It mitigates pain to the most vulnerable sectors and cuts a lot of excessive spending in the defense and national security area. That money needs to be reallocated with real defense and security priorities and not political priorties and cuts need to be made. The wealthy need to pay a little more in taxes in this time of sluggish and fragile economy. Jobs need to be protected not sacrificed in the name of blind cuts to the budgets. These ideas may not be the complete solution but they are one damn good start and can be instigated with the next budget. However, neither political party has the motivation to implement this general plan. It doesn't serve the ideolgies or special interests that fund compaigns. Just another ramification of how our political process is contaminated by money.

Study: Public Sees Both Parties Cutting Deficits The Wrong Way Dan Froomkin HuffPost Reporting froomkin@huffingtonpost.com First Posted: 03/ 3/11 03:52 PM Updated: 03/ 3/11 07:06 PM WASHINGTON -- If the public actually set the public agenda, we'd be cutting the deficit much differently than either the Democrats or the Republicans are proposing to do it. That's according to a comparison of President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, the cuts for the remainder of fiscal 2011 proposed by House Republicans, and the results of an ingenious study of public opinion where a representative sample of Americans, asked how they would reduce their deficit, were presented with actual budget numbers and worked their way through a series of tradeoffs. (Try it yourself.) While the details vary, the White House and Republican leaders both basically want to reduce the deficit by cutting social programs, preserving defense spending and raising taxes relatively little or not at all. The public, by contrast, would do it primarily by cutting defense spending and imposing significantly higher and more progressive taxes on the rich -- while at the same time dramatically increasing spending in such areas as job training, higher education and humanitarian aid. In other words, the public takes a considerably more humane view of spending than either party, is considerably less beholden to the military-industrial complex, and doesn't seem to care if the super-rich get a bit offended. The study was the combined effort of a think tank, the Program for Public Consultation, and the polling firm Knowledge Networks. They presented an elaborate questionnaire to more than 2,000 respondents. Given the goal of cutting the deficit, the average Americans did the job -- cutting it way more deeply, in fact, than either the Democratic or Republican proposals call for. Ironically, the political subgroup that did the worst job was the slice of respondents who identified themselves as Tea Party sympathizers. They were the least likely to raise taxes and also the least likely, when faced with actual programs, to make cuts. The next worst were Republicans, then Democrats. Independents raised taxes more than Republicans (over $300 billion) and cut spending more than Democrats (nearly $200 billion), ultimately reducing the deficit by a whopping half a trillion dollars. A major flaw with the study, however, was that it wasn't able to engage respondents in the biggest deficit-related challenge by far: slowing the increase in health spending. But that can't be done simply by setting targets. That requires doing such things as cutting profit margins for Big Pharma, or reducing payments to specialists, or limiting insurance company profits or changing the incentives that make too many doctors treat patients like ATMs. That's too complicated to present in terms of simple formulas. In this study, the single biggest difference between the public and the current crop of elected officials came in the area of defense spending. At an event marking the rollout of the new comparison on Thursday, Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation, said many respondents were shocked to find out just how big the defense budget really is. (Imagine if they saw it calculated this way.) They responded by cutting defense spending by an average of 18 percent, or about $109 billion per year. That's compared to the 4 percent increase being proposed by Obama and the 2 percent increase being proposed by House Republicans. The respondents also called for $292 billion more in taxes, much of it coming from the rich -- about three times as much as Obama has proposed, and a far cry from the no-new-taxes mantra of the GOP. What explains this huge gulf between what members of the the public see as common sense and what their democratically-elected representatives impose on them? A lot of it can be explained by money. It's not a coincidence that elected officials support more defense spending, given the size and influence of the military-industrial lobby. Nor is it surprising that they are wary of increasing taxes on the people who pay for their campaigns. By contrast, most of the things the public wants to spend more on -- job training, education, humanitarian aid, energy conservation and pollution control among them -- don't have wealthy corporate constituencies. Kull had a somewhat more nuanced view of why the public seems to be able to solve problems, at least on paper, that officials are unable to. "The political process involves leaders making commitments to groups," Kull said. Those groups help them get funding for their campaigns, and in the process, the elected officials "become very chrystalized, very committed to those positions," he said. These positions collide and compete in the legislative process, and what emerges is not the result of one comprehensive approach, but the result of many little battles. "The average person is able to look at the problem in a holistic way," he said. "They are not committed to any position." And while the superficial, emotional response is for people to say they are against either tax increases or budget cuts, when push comes to shove, they can see the need for both, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the anti-deficit Concord Coalition. "When you do drill down and go beyond the surface reaction, the public is actually a great deal more rational that the polls give them credit for, and perhaps even more than politicians give them credit for," Bixby said. Of course, if nobody listens, then it doesn't do any good. "What's important is that this kind of information is communicated into the political discourse," Kull said. That way the image of the public's shallow, abstract responses -- against raising taxes, for instance -- isn't the governing one. "Because there is another image of the public," Kull said, "which is how they respond in the intelligent, rational sense." Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/deficit-public-sentiment_n_830986.html

I should have recalled Canada's parlimentary form of gov't when I put the question. Nevertheless, good information for me, thanks. You guys have such a refreshingly simple process with minimal opportunity for corruption. I wish we could shorten our process and as a consequence get a lot of the money and special interest influence out of it. Such a rational process is not for us. We don't even have a law which makes it illegal for news outlets to 'knowingly' lie. Sadly that would be umamerican. What does that say about us?

Another "Here, Here!!" shout out.

Here, here!!

How is Harper generally viewed in the country? The East? The West? The Heartland? When is the next national election? What is the general view of his reelection or is he term limited? If so then how do the Conservatives look to repeat a win?

That's why underwear has always been much more than just a fashion statement.

America's Most Toxic Cities, 2011 By Morgan Brennan, Forbes.com Feb 28, 2011 Proivded by During the Revolutionary War Philadelphia served as one of America's first capital cities. These days, however, Philadelphia could be considered the capital of toxicity, since the city and its environs ranked No. 1 on our 2011 Most Toxic Cities list. One big reason: The sprawling Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), including parts of four states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and one county in Maryland), is pocked with more than 50 Superfund sites -- areas no longer in use that contain hazardous waste. While the East Coast metro, with its old industrial sites, grabbed the top spot, California metropolitan areas claimed four of the 10 spots on our Most Toxic list, primarily due to the chronic air quality problem known as smog. Now we're not saying that if you reside in one of these areas, you need to pack up and move, or seal your windows shut. But it pays to be aware of the risks in your area. For example, the EPA says when the Air Quality Index for an area climbs above 100 (ratings range from zero to 500, with zero being the best) it can bring on respiratory problems for people with lung disease, children and older adults. Above 150, everyone can suffer. Most cities don't even have a single day each year when the AQI is above 100. But Bakersfield, Calif., which ranks second on our list, had 43 such days in 2009, Fresno (No. 3) had 29 days, and Los Angeles (No. 6) had 14. Behind the Numbers We started with the 80 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau--urban areas with populations of half a million and up. Then we averaged their rankings on five measures, giving equal weight to each of the five. Three of those measures--air quality, water quality and Superfund sites--were drawn from Sperling's Best Places, which compiles health and quality-of-living indexes for cities and towns across the country. The other two we derived directly from EPA data: the number of days when AQI exceeded 100 in 2009 (the latest year available), and the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). What's TRI? Certain industries, including manufacturing, utilities and metal and coal mining, are required to report to the EPA if they release, recycle, treat or manage any of 650 potentially dangerous chemicals. We ranked the areas based on the EPA's tally of how many pounds were reported released in each MSA in 2009. (Find out more about the TRI here.) Of course toxic chemicals have been linked to health problems from cancer to birth defects. But keep in mind that toxic substances are harmful only if you're actually exposed to them. "Simply being near a site doesn't mean you're actually being exposed to that site," emphasizes Robert Chapin, a senior research advisor at Pfizer in Groton, Conn., and affiliate of the Society of Toxicology. A report to the TRI doesn't indicate the chemicals are being improperly handled or are being released in any hazardous way; indeed it's an indication that a company is complying with its reporting requirement. But the TRI was created on the theory that neighbors have a right to know about potentially risky substances in their area. Of our 10 cities the Salt Lake City area (No. 9) stands out as having the highest number of releases on the TRI list. The Western economic hub racks up that hefty number with some help from Kennecott's copper mine, oil refineries including Tesoro's and chemical companies like Huntsman. The Houston MSA (No. 7), with its oil refineries, petrochemical plants and blossoming biomedical industry, had the second-highest toxic release amount on our list. As for water quality, the greater Philadelphia area got hit with Sperling's worst rating; Fresno was second-worst and New York City (No. 4 overall) came in third for its water. We also consulted ratings of drinking water compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. (Since the EWG data doesn't cover all of the 80 metro areas we compared, we didn't use it in our numerical ranks. But it's worth noting that many of our most toxic picks are also on the EWG worst water utilities list.) EWG's rankings are based on its own extensive tap water tests for pollutants and toxic substances. Jane Houlihan, senior vice president of research at EWG, notes that these tests turn up everything from arsenic and lead to water disinfection byproducts. EWG has even found traces of Tylenol, caffeine and birth control pills in some of these cities, though those substances aren't considered toxic and aren't monitored by the EPA. The 5 Most Toxic Cities in America No. 5 Baton Rouge, La. Number of unhealthy air quality days (2009): None Pounds of on-site toxic releases reported (2009): 33.6 million EWG top water concern: N/A No. 4 New York, N.Y. MSA: New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, N.Y./N.J./Pa. Number of unhealthy air quality days (2009): 5 Pounds of on-site toxic releases reported (2009): 4.1 million EWG top water concerns: Total haloacetic acids; dieldrin; total trihalomethanes No. 3 Fresno, Calif. Number of unhealthy air quality days (2009): 26 Pounds of on-site toxic releases reported (2009): 338,000 EWG top water concern: Nitrates No. 2 Bakersfield, Calif. Number of unhealthy air quality days (2009): 43 Pounds of on-site toxic releases reported (2009): 2.2 million EWG top water concern: N/A No. 1 Philadelphia, Pa. MSA: Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pa./N.J./Del./Md. Number of unhealthy air quality days (2009): 2 Pounds of on-site toxic releases reported (2009): 11.3 million EWG top water concern: Total trihalomethanes See orignal article for a link to more cities on the list: http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-most-toxic-cities-2011.html

This would be hilarious if it were not so horrific how the Fox 'News' Channel has to horrendously distorted and corrupted the American political scene and process. I shake my head at how us Americans are real idiots about some things. This is one piece of news you will never see on Fox 'News'. Unfortunately, I doubt you will see it on any other major news outlets either with the possible exception of MSNBC. Our news outlets have a shortage of journalistic integrity when it comes to holding Fox News accountable for their lies and deceit. They are scared to confront lies and deceit from a powerful entity -- nothing new -- but the likes of Edward R Murrow with a platform from which to speak is MIA today. That incluces all of the major anchors and even former anchors like Brokaw who have little to lose by speaking truth to and about power.

Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada Robert F. Kennedy Jr..President, Waterkeeper Alliance; Professor, Pace University Posted: February 28, 2011 09:54 PM As America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades -- against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News -- fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news. Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North." Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity. Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News's notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided. See original article for links to Canadian sources at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html

As passionately as I advocate for affordable accessible health care for all, I recognize that there has to be limits to public assistance for health care. If it is not affordable for all then it is not accessible to all. Like it or not, we are all going to die. There is little justification for expending tremendous amounts to extend the life of the elderly or terminally diseased by a few months when that would deny prenatal care to a dozen mothers-to-be or a pediatric cancer treatment. I'm much closer to the elderly end of the spectrum than I am to needing pediatric care. Even so, I have to say I've had a pretty long run and to extend whatever life I have left for another few months at big cost just isn't practical and doesnt make sense for providing affordable national health care. I have always advocated for private supplemental insurance to provide frills and extras beyond what a basic national program would offer. This could pick up that extraordinary end of life care. Does that mean the rich will have more options than the less well off. Yes, but that has always been the case. Nothing new there. What has not always been the case was affordable good health care accessible to all. Bottom line is David Brooks and Mitch Daniels are stating the pratical and obvious. The devil is in the details. It may not be easy to navigate those details but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done. It should be done and is necessary to provding a practical affordable national health care plan. End of life care should not focus on treatment for extending life but rather for making the end of life stage as comfortable and easy as possible through medications as approrpiate and hospice care as necessary.