As things stand China’s financial control over US govt.is high.When they enter private sector, the results will be not good for US.Look at the African countries where china has invested, leading to local unrest, following Chinese policy of hiring only Chinese.Also China shall use this as a lever in diplomacy.
Story:

Chinese manufacturers are looking overseas to acquire the means to move into broader markets.

It is easiest for any developing country’s firms to grow and internationalize in areas that lack head-to-head competition from U.S. and European firms. China’s carmakers are in the vanguard of those Chinese companies now showing a readiness to acquire the wherewithal to move out of the niches and into broader markets.

Learn how small businesses and big corporations like Wal-Mart, Bank of America, and Harrah’s Casino are using the Cash Cube Money Machine to drive crowds and convert visitors into customers.
Continue reading …

When people talk about ‘climate change’ now-a-days, they usually mean ‘anthropocentric’ climate change, which means climate change influenced by human activity.

I used to be in the above crowd. Why not? 250 years of Industrial Revolution actions that dumped millions of tons of hydrocarbon waste into the atmosphere surely must have an effect? And to note, ‘acid rain’, ie rain that is essentially sulfuric acid has fallen on the western side of the Appalachian Mountains here in Upstate New York during the 1970s through the early 1990s, the result of which from the smoke-stacks of coal-fired power plants in the Mid-West.

What has changed my mind?

Let me first say this disclaimer; I am not an atmospheric scientist, just a half-assed informed layman.

In that capacity, after 2 1/2 years of research I have IMHO discovered that there is a global elite who stand to gain significantly (economically) from centralized global control of ‘climate change’ policy.

Now do I think that we, as a global society, should get away from using fossil fuels to power our economies and societies?

Sure. But there are too many reasons to list here.

And the poor nations of the Earth, who get short shrift from the First World Nations anyway, know that their economies still need fossil fuel technology, just to break even and make their loan payments to the IMF.

But the recent climate conferences in the Netherlands in the EU (CO15) were not derailed by poor nations (they did walk out at one point anyway), but was jinked by the US and China (is China Third World or First World now?):

Following a meeting in Brussels to discuss how to rescue the Copenhagen climate process, EU environment ministers emphasized the need for concrete, legally binding measures to combat global warming.

The European Union went to Copenhagen with the hope of achieving a broad commitment to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions below 1990 levels within 10 years, but that and other firm goals failed to emerge in the final accord.

The two-week, United Nations-led conference ended on Saturday with a non-legally binding agreement to limit global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, but did not lay out how to achieve that.

Despite months of preparation and strenuous diplomacy, the talks boiled down to an inability of the world’s two largest emitters, the United States and China, to agree fixed targets.

“Expectations and pressure on the United States have risen after Copenhagen … to really deliver,” Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren told a news briefing on Tuesday after Sweden, as EU president until December 31, chaired pan-EU talks.

Ministers from the EU’s 27 member states will meet again in January to discuss what role the EU can play in cobbling together a stronger agreement.

DASHED PLANS

The bloc went to Copenhagen with a unified position and a plan for financing emissions cuts in the developing world, with a commitment to spend around 7 billion euros ($10 billion) over the next three years to aid poorer countries.

But those aims were largely sidelined as the talks failed to produce a breakthrough. Carlgren described the summit as a “disaster” and a “great failure,” despite what he called Europe’s united efforts.

“Europe never lost its aim, never, never came to splits or different positions, but of course this was mainly about other countries really (being) unwilling, and especially the United States and China,” Carlgren said.

Britain on Monday blamed China and a handful of other countries of holding the world to ransom by blocking a legally binding treaty at Copenhagen, stepping up a blame game that has gathered momentum since the talks ended.

In a sharply worded response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu rejected accusations that China had “hijacked” the climate talks and added: “The statements from certain British politicians are plainly a political scheme.”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the summit as “at best flawed and at worst chaotic” and demanded an urgent reform of the process to try to reach a legal treaty when talks are expected to resume in Germany next June.

But Danish Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard, who quit as president of the talks midway through after being criticized by African countries for favoring wealthier nations in negotiations, said there was no point in getting depressed.

“What we need to do is to secure the step that we took and turn it into a result,” she told reporters as she arrived for the Brussels meeting on Tuesday. Asked whether Copenhagen had been a failure, she replied:

“It would have been a failure if we had achieved nothing. But we achieved something — a first step.

“It was the first time we held a process where all the countries were present, including the big emitters.”

In short, there must be a way to convert the worlds’ societies economies and technologies slowly and evenly with alternate tech over the next 50 years to shift away from fossil fuels. Is there sufficient wealth in the market to begin the change, or is technology being suppressed by the global financial/energy elites so only they have the power to begin the shift, if they feel like it?

If they see money in it, they will start the change.

And the elite aren’t as united as one would think.

EU calls for more U.S. involvement in climate works

hat tip

I continue to be dismayed with President Barack Obama’s position on questions from Black United States citizens. He seems to believe that any request for attention for issues of concern to the Black community (writ large) is exclusively race based. Hence, he developed a flawed boilerplate response that not only diminished legitimate issues but also makes Black citizen functionally second class. The President’s attitude must change. The President is indeed the Chief Executive of the nation; he should therefore act appropriately to his office’s responsibilities.

My concern began with the President’s response to concerns of the Congressional Black Caucus about the high level of unemployment among Black people. The President said,

I will tell you that I think the most important thing I can do for the African-American community is the same thing I can do for the American community, period, and that is get the economy going again and get people hiring again,” the president told Richard Wolf of USA TODAY and Justin Hyde of the Detroit Free Press in an exclusive joint interview.

[...]

I think it’s a mistake to start thinking in terms of particular ethnic segments of the United States rather than to think that we are all in this together and we are all going to get out of this together, he said.

I wrote a response to this statement in a previous post. The President’s “colorblind” approach is intrinsically unfair to those who are not part of the majority. Because non-majority group members will never be the majority–at least in the short term of the President’s first term–their issues necessarily will not get any attention at all using his rationale.

In response to a question from April Ryan, the President reiterated his boilerplate response.

The only thing I cannot do is, by law I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks,” Obama said. “I’m the president of the entire United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That, in turn, is going to help lift up the African-American community.

I realize that the President is the Chief Executive for the whole nation, but Black people are also equal citizens under the law who have the right to bring their concerns to elected officials and to expect that all necessary action will be taken. That does not mean that merely seeking redress from the elected representatives of the people requires the President to prepare race-based legislation. I do not know where the President got that idea from.

I figure that the President should not focus on the identity of the person seeking redress, but rather he should focus on the issues presented. For example, poverty. The President should be able to consult his Ivy League educated staff to develop policy, legislation or both that would be able to help many citizens, including Black people.

Why does the President have expansive and fast action for Wall Street (despite their regression to avaricious behavior that led to the crisis), corporations (particularly in the unsavory health care “reform” Bill), and those with wealth, while being slow footed and slack jawed for everybody else? This is not a proper footing for a President, and he should correct it immediately.

The US Supreme Court is poised to formally cede control of the American democratic process to large, unaccountable corporations and special interest group.  The ruling could potentially allow these groups to dump millions of dollars into elections, while denying voters the right to even know where the money came from.  This is the natural result of the disastrous Buckley v. Valeo decision:  if money = “free speech,” then those who have more money have more rights, creating a two-class system.  Or, to put it another way, it’s the Golden Rule:  them that has the gold makes the rules.

The JHC has faulted the design of BIA and held to account the people responsible ,namely, decision makers in awarding the contract ,okaying the design and not following procedures.No body has denied the mistake pointed out. I do not see any thing objectionable in this.
-NRN should not be criticized-Is he beyond criticism?He is an entrepreneur who made it big and made a power to reckon with in the international arena in IT. That does not make him a God.He can be criticized if he is wrong.May be the media has given him larger than life image. Funnily he has not made any comment, as is proper.Why do others talk crap?
-Private investors will be demotivated.-If private investors commit mistakes, should they be applauded?They must take the rap for their mistakes.Would the private industry let go of their CEO and senior managers, if they make similar mistakes in their companies?How come Hyderabad airport is not censured?Ascribing motive is non sense. The committee has been asked on specific request to go into the affairs of BIA.It has done a job.Now you fault it.At this rate you shall direct the independent agencies or what is left of them,like C&AG and CBI to arrive at conclusions dictated by politicians and industrialists.(unfortunately this is the case). What is sad is the lack of accountability by the industrialists.They do not seem to be different from politicos as for as accountability is concerned.Indications are that the report shall be shelved.
The mistake is to have tabled the report before all members have signed it.
BANGALORE: The state government has landed itself in a spot, as its Joint House Committee report on the Bengaluru International Airport has come
in for severe criticism from industry captains. They believe the report questions the very premise of the public-private partnership model on which the airport project was built.

The Rs 2,500-crore BIA is the first and largest PPP project to have come up in the state. Over Rs 50,000 crore is riding on the back of several PPP projects in road and infrastructure projects. Barring this, the state government is talking of PPP projects in biotechnology, IT, textile and agro-processing, etc.

“How can the state government talk about PPP when this is how they treat their private partners? The government is sending the wrong signal to industry on the future of PPP,” said Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, CMD, Biocon and chairperson of the state’s Vision Group on Biotechnology. “This report will surely create a temporary feel-bad factor in industry. As an industry body, we’ll definitely take up this matter with the government, in the right spirit,” said T Parabrahman, chairman, CII Karnataka chapter.

K R Girish, president, Bangalore Chamber of Industry and Commerce, said, “This report could also damage the state’s prospects for organizing the Global Investors’ Meet in June 2010. Such reports will make it difficult for the government to invite foreign investment and private equity participation for projects in the pipeline.” Harish Bijoor, domain expert, says the Hyderabad airport built with private participation gives you a feel of being in an international airport. So, there is nothing wrong with it.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Experts-slam-House-panel-report-on-BIA/articleshow/5367897.cms

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a $290 million judgement against Microsoft Corp. and issued an injunction that will prevent the sale of its popular Word software.

Microsoft has said that it and the public will both suffer if Word goes off the market while the company devises a workaround. The court said the decision does not affect copies of the programs sold before the injunction goes into effect.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/12/22/general-technology-hardware-amp-equipment-us-microsoft-patent_7232307.html?partner=alerts

This makes one feel that Communism is attractive.!
As ordinary Americans reel from the Great Recession, these gluttonous all-stars continue to claw in absurd amounts of money.

In 2009, the old Silicon Valley joke still rang true: “What’s the difference between God and Larry Ellison? Answer: God doesn’t think he’s Larry Ellison.”

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/144718/10_greediest_people_of_2009

In my earlier post “Crossroad Before the Coming Crisis” I railed on the supposed fact that natural gas would be coming to the world’s rescue. The supply of natural gas and other conventional energy sources has been something I’ve watched for a few years. I became acutely aware of my own dependence on fossil fuels and energy during my deployment to Iraq. Likewise, I was extremely concerned about the vulnerably of supply to attack and the potential for manipulation of prices. By extension this same situation applies to the United States of America as a whole.

With all that in mind and the US government’s need to reassure consumers with propaganda that “everything will be fine”, the following MSM piece on the US domestic supply of natural gas simply puts out more happy sounding hot air.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_energy_shift

Gas could be the cavalry in global warming fight

An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It’s cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.

It’s natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It’s now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low. Long used to heat half the nation’s homes, it’s becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants. Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks.
….
Today, about 27 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow.
….
Gas now trades on futures markets for about $5.50 per 1,000 cubic feet. While that’s up from a recent low of $2.41 in September as the recession reduced demand and storage caverns filled to overflowing, it’s less than half what it was in the summer of 2008 when oil prices surged close to $150 a barrel.

Oil and gas prices trends have since diverged, due to the recession and the growing realization of just how much gas has been discovered in the last three years. That’s thanks to the introduction of horizontal drilling technology that has unlocked stunning amounts of gas in what were before off-limits shale formations. Estimates of total gas reserves have jumped 58 percent from 2004 to 2008, giving the U.S. a 90-year supply at the current usage rate of about 23 trillion cubic feet per year.
….
Tillerson says he sees demand for natural gas growing 50 percent by 2030, much of it for electricity generation and running factories. Decisions being made by executives at power companies lend credence to that forecast.
….
Even with an expected jump in demand from utilities, gas prices won’t rise much beyond $6.50 per 1,000 cubic feet for years to come, says Ken Medlock, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. That tracks an Energy Department estimate made last week.
….
The wells still capture only about a quarter of the gas locked in the shale formations. Future improvements could double that recovery rate. Bottom line: this new source of gas supply in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York and other states holds out the promise of as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of supplies. It is estimated that the U.S. sits on 83 percent more recoverable natural gas than was thought in 1990.

First off: Is that 90 year supply based on an estimate that such a supply will be available if it’s the difficult to recover gas and also if it’s used close to current rates with only a little growth projected? Do those estimates really consider nationwide replacement of power plants, fleet transportation, consumer automobiles, etc. by natural gas? I doubt these estimates are as honest as the scenarios put out by the Canadians which I cited in my earlier post.

Second: were the think tankers and government wonks who came up with these new projections of squeezing more gas from the shale sponge educated in the same institutions which produced such cheerful estimates on real estate profits and sound banking practices prior to 2008? When it comes to estimating profit potential or the supply of a critical resource needed for the the future, it seems people are encouraged to believe both will grow.

Unfortunately in the meantime, articles such as these containing climactic titles and hedged numbers only encourage Americans to continue going along as they have been. No useful information was put out to them which would encourage a reevaluation of their current course or the need to change.

If the housing and banking collapse didn’t concretely illustrate that for the American people already, then I’m sure many will buy into the “cavalry to the rescue” nature of the article rather than look at the horse-droppings already evident on the path. This is how mental bubbles of illusion are created out of thin air. It is later followed by that air being painfully let out of them. In economics this can produce a collapse. In psychology when we look at an alcoholic it is denial which precedes the predictable fall on their face.

Whether it’s societies or individuals, though, hitting rock bottom may be necessary before real personal growth can begin.

http://video.forbes.com/fvn/rich-list-09/american-billionaire-castle?partner=popvideo

It is time Govt. initiate action against Banks.For banks peccadilloes, please refer under banks in this site.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) will say later if it is going to continue its test case against banks over the fairness of their overdraft charges.
It follows the banks’ successful appeal on the issue to the Supreme Court.
It ruled last month that the OFT could not use a part of the unfair consumer contract regulations to decide if bank charges are fair.
At stake is the ability of banks to levy charges amounting to £2.6bn each year on their overdrawn customers.
The announcement, the OFT’s first detailed response to the Supreme Court judgement, is expected at 0700 GMT.
Martin Lewis, whose website Moneysavingexpert.com has played a leading role in the campaign against bank charges, urged the OFT to continue pursuing legal action.
“We know the OFT thinks charges are unfair, because it provisionally said so,” said Mr Lewis.
“If the OFT pulls out, it’ll be a terrible day for justice.
“The banks’ deep pockets, filled to a great extent with taxpayers’ money, have priced out many consumers from fighting unjust charges,” he added.
Supreme Court ruling
The banks and the OFT first agreed to stage a legal test case in July 2007, to decide if the OFT had the powers to rule on the fairness of bank charges.

If the OFT is not going to act as the consumer champion, who is?
Marc Gander, CAG
A consumer campaign on the issue had led to hundreds of thousands of complaints which threatened to swamp the UK legal system.
But after the High Court and Appeal Court sided with the OFT, the Supreme Court turned the tables.
The five judges did not rule on the issue of fairness itself.
They decided that the parts of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) that the OFT was trying to invoke did not, in fact, give it the powers it thought it had.
The judges said that overdraft charges were part of the price that customers agreed to pay for the package of services their banks provided, and as such were excluded from the scope of the regulations.
What next?
The OFT has a number of options. It can:
• publish its investigation into the actual fairness of bank charges, which it has been conducting since March 2007
• find other laws or regulations with which to attack bank charges
• ask the Competition Commission to launch an enquiry into overdraft fees on the grounds that they reflect a lack of competition in the banking industry
• throw in the towel and admit it does not have any power to challenge bank fees at all
• ask the government to change the law to give it increased legal powers
• encourage disgruntled consumers to use the proposed new laws in the Financial Services Bill which will give groups of customers the right to bring court actions against financial institutions
• ask the FSA under its new fairness rules to investigate the way banks charge overdrawn customers.
The government has already told the banking industry to devise a fairer way of charging overdrawn customers in the future.
This may bring no encouragement to the more than one million people who feel they have been overcharged in the past and who have demanded refunds.
Their previously frozen complaints are now either being considered by their banks, or where legal action was started, may soon be decided by county court judges.
“We have here an industry whose business model is predicated on the failure of up to 30% of its clients to repay their overdrafts,” said Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (CAG).
“If the OFT is not going to act as the consumer champion, who is?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8424859.stm

Your Employees Are Your Most Important Asset

Numbers, metrics, sales, service, results, outcomes, profit, loss, success or failure is all due to something that employees create, and affect – “affect” being the operative word here.  An organization’s brand is built, or broken by the people who represent the organization.

I have been reading a lot about employee engagement lately, and I’m glad to see that people are talking about it, especially during these challenging times.  The articles that I have been reading basically all agree that billions of dollars are lost each year due to employees who are disengaged with their work, and their organization.

Some articles blame a lack of leadership (I would agree), and some blame a lack of direction (I would also agree).  There are those who have come up with a “metric” driven solution (there’s probably something of use there), and others point to a lack of communication within organizations that create an environment of “I don’t know what’s going on so I don’t care” employee (yep, I see that as a major issue as well).

Common sense would tell us that if employees are not engaged, bad things are going to happen.  Critical resources (time and creativity) will be wasted if you have employees who just go through the motions each day while at work, creating the impression of “work.”  Anyone can come into an office (for the most part) and make it look like they are working, but it takes a person who has that fire and drive in their gut to make a real difference in an organization.

Disengaged employees drive mediocrity.  Just getting by each day and staying under the radar is a conscious, and unconscious goal of these types of employees.  A culture of mediocrity is a natural outcome due to this type of behavior, and it spreads like a disease across an organization.

Employee engagement does not have to be complicated, or take up a lot of expensive resources.  Basically, educating employees about, and getting them involved with the business is a good start.   Check out my website (www.archofchange.com) for some great ideas about how to build a more engaged workforce.

It is a pleasure to see Indians at no.7 and 8.

RANK NAME CITIZENSHIP AGE NET WORTH ($BIL) RESIDENCE
1 William Gates III United States 53 40.0 United States
2 Warren Buffett United States 78 37.0 United States
3 Carlos Slim Helu & family Mexico 69 35.0 Mexico
4 Lawrence Ellison United States 64 22.5 United States
5 Ingvar Kamprad & family Sweden 83 22.0 Switzerland
6 Karl Albrecht Germany 89 21.5 Germany
7 Mukesh Ambani India 51 19.5 India
8 Lakshmi Mittal India 58 19.3 United Kingdom
9 Theo Albrecht Germany 87 18.8 Germany
10 Amancio Ortega Spain 73 18.3 Spain
11 Jim Walton United States 61 17.8 United States
12 Alice Walton United States 59 17.6 United States
12 Christy Walton & family United States 54 17.6 United States
12 S Robson Walton United States 65 17.6 United States
15 Bernard Arnault France 60 16.5 France
16 Li Ka-shing Hong Kong 80 16.2 Hong Kong
17 Michael Bloomberg United States 67 16.0 United States
18 Stefan Persson Sweden 61 14.5 Sweden
19 Charles Koch United States 73 14.0 United States
19 David Koch United States 68 14.0 United States
21 Liliane Bettencourt France 86 13.4 France
22 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud Saudi Arabia 54 13.3 Saudi Arabia
23 Michael Otto & family Germany 65 13.2 Germany
24 David Thomson & family Canada 51 13.0 Canada
25 Michael Dell United States 44 12.3 United States
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html

Today is the day that over-50 Tea Partiers across the country are supposed to burn their AARP cards to protest the group’s support for health care reform. At least, that’s what one right-wing blogger is encouraging them to do. As I mentioned in a post a few days ago, self-described “Tea Party Patriot” Sam Mela announced the “1st Tea Party Winter Fest for Health Care Freedom & AARP Card Burning”:

The Tea Party Movement is initiating a nation-wide AARP Card Burning, on the first day of winter, December 21, 2009. This is in response to AARP’s duplicitous stance in support of Congress’ attempted thievery of ample health care away from the American people. This response is being called for due to the fact that Congress has turned a deaf ear to the will of the American people, one of the most vulnerable groups of our society, our American Seniors….

Don’t forget your lighters, AARP cards and any other AARP printed material/mailings; home made cards a/or signs…you could even dress up like Santa, or his elves, Scrooge, Tiny Tim, whatever your favorite Christmas character…don’t forget your cameras & video recorders! If YOU don’t send this message NOW, the die will be cast!

It seems unlikely that more than a few stragglers will turn out in Santa suits today to torch their membership cards (and a good thing, too, since as one of my readers pointed out, the cards are plastic). When a West Virginia Tea Party organizer called for a day of AARP card burnings earlier this month, the only reports were of a half-dozen protesters huddled around a fire in the state capital.

That hasn’t stopped Republican politicians from picking up the battle cry. John McCain recently urged AARP members to trash their cards both in Arizona speeches and on the Senate floor. (To his credit, he told them to cut the cards in half and send them back to AARP, rather than burn them.) 

Though AARP has lost tens of thousands of members over the health care reform issue, that’s a tiny fraction of its 45 million total. President Obama and Democratic senators have been making much of AARP’s support for the reform legislation, leading Sam Mela, in a post yesterday, to lament the fact that “in terms of Public Relations and Public Perception, the AARP has been able to steamroll over the Tea Party movement, without encountering even token resistance, although it would have been a simple matter for the Tea Partiers to neutralize them at any time.”

Yet the behemoth group itself seems worried about losing the PR war in what they say is the most divisive issue it has ever encountered. At a press briefing in October, one AARP executive said that despite expending significant resources, it had been unable to unite its membership, while another declared, “We face a communications challenge.” A conservative  group, the American Seniors Association, is exploiting the opportunity, offering half-price memberships to anyone who mails in their cut up AARP card. And polls consistently show the strongest opposition to health care reform comes from the over-65 crowd. 

Although, unlike most reporters covering the subject, I am a member of the age group in question, that doesn’t mean I get what this resistance is all about. Or rather, I understand there being resistance–but it’s for all the wrong reasons. I’ve been critical myself of AARP for their cozy, lucrative partnership with the health insurance industry. And I get testy when I hear about big cuts to Medicare, knowing that the “reform” will only increase the profits of insurance and drug companies. But the reform bill throws seniors a few crumbs, which is about all it does for anyone else. And it’s no threat at all compared with the Republican dreams of remaking Medicare on a privatized model, along the lines of Bush’s Part D prescription drug program. 

Beyond these details, there’s the strange fact that all this resistance comes from right-wing old folks, who enjoy the only single-payer health care program this nation has ever known. As another reader of my previous post pointed out, ”Courage would require that they burn their Medicare Cards and renounce that socialism rather than a meaningless protest against a non-governmental organization.”

Like the now-famous town hall geezer who told his Congressman to “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” there’s some pretty nutty self-contradiction in the comments I’ve seen on the AARP revolt. One response to Sam Mela’s card-burning blog post attacked the organziation for being both a left-wing front and a corporate stooge: “I never have trusted this socialist orgainization that makes it money off of insruance commissions on its members.”

There’s half a grain of truth in this analysis. But somehow, it’s the red menace part that always seem to stick, while the real enemies of decent, affordable health care get a free pass.  In the end, I guess, it all boils down precisely the way it usually does in America: While a divided citizenry haggles over crumbs, the private companies take the cake.