>>>>You could use your head and avoid the wrong neighborhood.
>>>
>>>There's something utterly wrong in the mere existence of such neighborhoods. And guess what: these didn't exist in socialist countries.
>>
>>Really? There were no bad neighborhoods in the USSR or East Germany?
>
>Didn't live there, wouldn't know. I know of my city and a few others.
>
>>Those riots in France took place in perfectly safe neighborhoods? China has no dangerous slums? Nor Cuba? Surely you jest.
>
>I was talking about socialist country I knew of, where I lived. I didn't live in any of the countries you mention.
>And, besides, France is capitalist,

"in name only" :)

>and China is socialist in name (of the ruling party) only.
>
>>>The latest straw is the credit card companies refusing to send my money to my tobacco supplier. I can still buy cigarettes in the supermarket, but this limits my choice - I want to keep buying it directly from the inventors. But Discover, Mastercard, Visa and American Express seem to have some ideas what I can and what I can not do with my money.
>>>
>>Then don't use them. You have a multiple choices how to pay for things. You don't have to use a credit card.
>
>I'm not, I just have a couple of debit cards. And I can still send checks. It's just something the corporations are preventing me from doing, which was your inquiry.
>

We're looking at this differently. The credit card company isn't preventing you from buying your product. They are limiting the use of their product. You have the coice to use their product or not.

>>>Let's see... a random list off the top of my head:
>>>- I can't choose which TV channels I will pay for. There's only packages, not a la cart.
>>
>>You are buying a service, if you don't like the service then don't use it.
>
>I've cut down my cable to minimum - just a dozen channels, plus two c-spans and two PBSes (and about six sale and/or just commercial channels I've muted out). I think that's worth the $9 a month I'm paying them (and I mean that's for the two PBSes, two c-spans and four community channels; the rest should not be charged for, as they're already paid by advertisers).

My point was that cable is a service provided by a company that should have every right to charge its customers however they see fit.

>
>But this is set up wrong - I don't have a choice between this or other cable provider. There's only one in the area, they have a contract with the city.

DirecTV, Dish Network? C-BAND?

>
>>Without the cable/satellite companies you wouldn't even have so many channels to choose from. Besides, I think al la carte is coming in the near future, thanx to internet competition.
>
>I'd like to see that, and specially to read how come it's feasible all of a sudden, while they kept describing it as "it would be too expensive even if it was possible" for years.

The reason its finally coming along is due to technology advancements that have taken time. Digital broadcasting is only in its infancy. Many networks are offering video segments on the web now and it won't be too much longer before they start broadcasting that way as well. Next some company will begin to offer a range of a la carte channels that way. Then the cable/satellite companies will be forced to compete. Whether they change to a la carte or come other option, only time will tell.

>
>>>- I can't start my own cable service
>>
>>Why not? Many communities have done it. I live 15 minutes from one in fact. Their service sucks and the channel selection is pathetic, but it is all theirs.
>
>I mean my own commercial cable service.

It is a commercial service, it just has a small service range.

>I can't compete with the big guys, and I think I'd need to borrow too much money just to be considered in the next bid for any area.
>

Of course it would require money, time and hard work, but you could do it if you wish. In fact if you're offering a la carte I bet you have a decent chance of success.

>>>- I can't start manufacturing of anything that's already manufactured by a big corporation; they'll price me out, or blackmail the retail chains into not buying from me (I've read of cases when this happened)
>>
>>You could create a better/stronger/faster/more efficient version of a product and they won't be able to stop you. Just look at all the computer companies out there. If a "Corporation" was such a lock then we'd all be typing on IBM machines.
>
>The PC revolution was one of the rare times when the market was going too fast for the big corporations to follow. I know, I was a part of it, and we were one of the first software companies around then (well the only independent one in the city for a number of years).
>
>But let's assume I wanted to produce kajmak (cuy-muk - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajmak) and sell it here. How far could I get?

I guess I'm missing something. Is there some big company that already has the market cornered, preventing you from starting a business?

>
>>>- I can't start a bank which would not keep everyone's money for five "banking" days but rather keep it only for the ten seconds it takes to verify the transaction electronically
>>
>>Untrue. Numerous online banks have popped up recently with instant verification. My bank hasn't put a hold on anything I've deposited in years.
>
>But when you deposit a check from another bank, how long does it take to clear? Presently I have one that hasn't cleared for nine days.

I use a credit union and I haven't had a hold placed on any check I've deposited, regardless of the source bank, in years. I think it has to do with average balance vs. deposit amount rather than adhering to a law.
>
>If your answer is "immediately", get me a link to that bank :).
>
http://www.schools.com

>>>Internet wasn't invented by corporations, it was funded by tax money. And so was a lot of research. Last time I looked, the private sector produces only half of US's GNP.
>>>
>>
>>The internet didn't become what it is until private industry got involved.
>
>You mean, there wasn't so much spam, ads everywhere...
>

I never have found a problem with this. Spam filtering software works really well and the free email sites offer it as a free service now. I also don't have a problem with advertising. I have access to an amazing trove of information worldwide for the price of my ISP account. I don't have to pay for almost anything I read online because a little space is devoted to advertising. We have enjoyed network television for free for 50 years following this model.

>>>And don't get me started about medicine, in a country where there's no system
>>
>>Of course there's a system. I pay for mine and you pay for yours. Simple and fair.
>
>Complicated and unfair. I'd prefer to keep paying some always, instead of paying nothing for extended periods of time, then going bankrupt when I really need it.

I think you need to change your health plan. Unless someone is chronoligically ill or on expensive drugs, I suggest a high-deductable (catastrophic emergency) insurance plan. For yearly visits I suggest finding a private practice doctor that you like and just paying him out of pocket for each visit.

>
>And there is no system, otherwise vaccinations would be free for everybody, there'd be a comprehensive system of preventive medicine for everybody, and there'd be only patients, not categories of patients depending on their insurance status. There's no overall system, there are programs and shops.

There are numerous choices. HMOs, private practice, comprehensive plans, catastrophic plans...

I don't want a comprehensive system. I don't want another bloated entitlement eating up more and more money each and every year that cannot be constrained. We already have too many of those. I would like it if there was some reform in the malpractice laws, so that private practice doctors don't have to join HMOs to protect themselves from litigation.

My doctor has done both HMO and PP and I prefer him in private practice.

>Last time we went to a doctor, they dropped the price by a quarter when the answer to "what's your insurance" was "none". Which means that the usual overhead induced by insurance companies is about 33% (and the for-profit ones are taking over while non-profits are waning).

This tells me more about how screwed up the regulations are.

>
>Why would I put my money into an institution whose sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders, and its business is to be the middleman between me and my doctor? To make the best security guards and electronics affordable for their glass-and-marble headquarters?
>

If there was a governmental system in place the same would be true. Except that the politicians would have control of even more money. Scary.

>>>and where there's nothing to stop Merck from repeating Vioxx.
>>>
>>Ummmm. Merck is going to take a HUGE financial hit (read billions) due to Vioxx. I'd say that's going to be quite an incintive to Merck, and others, to not repeat.
>
>Do you mean to say this was the first such case ever so the incentive is just coming into being as we speak? There were no huge financial hits of this kind in the past?
>

There have always been bad people doing bad things. You cannot legislate behavior. However, Vioxx does not erase all the good that has come from the pharmacutical companies. For every Vioxx there's how many liver transplants, or AIDS cocktails or cancer drugs? A quick yahoo search reveals 135 publicly traded drug manufacturers. This doesn't include generics or private companies. How many have created solutions rather than problems?

>>Besides look at all the good things that have been achieved latetly.
>>Drugs : AIDS inhibitors, improved cancer drugs, cholesteral reducers
>>Surgery : Non invasive techniques verses previous open-heart, many more out-patient techniques
>>Research : DNA mapping, genetic advances, stem-cells
>
>Don't forget the purple pill,

What's wrong with Nexium. I have a friend who use to have miserable stomach problems who finally found relief with Nexium.

>narcotics masked as ADD medicine,

This is lazy doctoring and bad parenting more than anything else.

>separate medicaments for various kinds of allergies (as if they knew what's causing them)

As an allergy sufferer I can tell you first hand that these have come a long way. I used to get 2 shots twice a week for 8 years when I was young, just to sniff my way through spring and summer (without the shots I was a real mess). Since then I've switched between several different combinations to find something that works. Now I only suffer for 2 weeks during the change to spring and 2 more during the change to fall. The drug/nasal spray combination I use now is the best I've ever had.

>These guys may invent new solutions for humankind's health problems, but they aren't doing it just to achieve good things. They're in it for the money, and if testing of the next drug shows adverse effects, what are the chances they'll still go for it if they'd look bad on Wall Street if they don't?

I believe that the profit motive is leading the way to these great new things. I have no problem with people being rewarded (profits) for providing goods/services that people need or want. In fact I believe its the greatest system on the planet.

>
>>Since streets are for cars I'll assume you're talking about sidewalks. As long as you're not standing in front of a business I believe you'd be fine.
>
>Streets are for people. Pavements are for people in vehicles, sidewalks for people on foot. What do you do when you meet a friend the main street, where every building is someone's shop? You say "Hi... sorry, can't talk here"?

Would you mind if I did the same on your porch? How about your bedroom?

>
>>Wouldn't you be more comfortable sitting on a park bench, or a table at a cafe if you're going to engage in an hours long discussion? How about a library? Or a bookstore? You have many choices.
>
>Except the choice of talking where you just met? You remember, spontaneously engage in conversation?
>

Not if its private property. If the conversation is going to be short then no one's going to say anything, but if you're going to "spontaneously engage in conversation" for hours, then you should move to a location that won't interfere with someone else's business. It would be a matter of courtesy not just loitering.

>>The point was there is dissent as to whether a "shrinking middle class" is a bad thing. Also, who's to say its not just a cycle?
>
>And who's to say that those who insert cycles in the conversation aren't just trying to delay the dispute until the issue is moot?
>

History says. Economic cycles are well known and documented. The shrinking middle class was a "problem" during the industrial revolution, post-WWII, the booming 80s and apparently now. Seems pretty cyclical to me.

>>I already stated that state-sponsored terrorists are the equivilent of milatary troops.
>
>I know, you even repeated both spelling errors.

Oops, damn cut-and-paste doesn't spell-check.

>
>I wish USA had the greatness of the rotten old SFRY and not stoop down into calling such a thing a war.

I agree with you here. We declare war on everything: drugs, hunger, poverty, acid-rain...

>You've just promoted a bunch of rag-tag guerrila bands into armies. They'd never have achieved such importance without that.

Not true, if that was so then the captured would be POWs. They are not precisely because they are not soldiers.

>
>>Loyalty is rewarded in all political systems. Loyalty to the individual, to the party, to the cause what have you.
>
>The difference between smart governing and cronyism is in how do you reward loyalty. If you start kicking experts out of office just to place someone who helped you during the campaign, no matter how infinitely less competent for the job, that's cronyism. If you have the guts to keep the experts (even if they're not members or sympathisers of your party) and place your loyal guys only where they can really help, that's not.
>

It still happens in all political systems. This says more about human nature than a particular governing system.

>>My point is that there is more information available today than ever before. There will be even more tomorrow, thanks to the internet. More and more people are getting their news online specifically because the major media is not doing the job. I feel that when you work for something you appreciate it more. Here in America there used to be just three networks we could get news from, NBC, ABC and CBS. Now the major media is more diverse than ever before ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, BBC, Univision, Telemundo, NewsAsia etc... This doesn't include the newspapers or radio.
>
>http://organicconsumers.org/rbgh/akre022103.cfm
>
>Now in a situation like this, where you are legally prevented from hearing the truth from a major outlet if it doesn't suit their advertisers... what's the point of having all these media anyway?

The "news" has been manipulated for years. What exactly is new here? There is very little fact-based news anywhere anymore. One must look at many different sources to have an educated opinion.

>>I do not think you understand our bankruptcy laws. If you file for bankruptcy you are declaring that you cannot pay all of your debts in full. You will legally work out a way to pay back as much as you can. You will not be in debt forever, in fact this is a last ditch way to avoid being in debt forever.
>
>That's how I understood the law was until last October. What I heard about the change has got me really worried... and my first order of business is to get rid of this mortgage ASAP.
>

I wouldn't worry about your mortgage. There are tax benefits that may outweigh being free and clear. Definately get rid of any credit or car debt ASAP. This is always the case though, regardless of the laws.

>>>Speaking of Cindy Sheehan, I haven't heard more than ten seconds of what she had to say, it was all voice over. And then those who commented on her got minutes and minutes.
>>
>>You're not trying. :)
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan#Speeches
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan#Articles_by_Cindy_Sheehan
>
>I know. I read dailyKos, CrooksAndLiars et al. And I haven't heard any of that on the evening news on my local channels (CBS or NBC, mostly). She never spoke more than one or two sentences there.
>

Which one do you believe:
1) They stopped showing her because the media is a bunch of right-wing fascists and they didn't want her message to get out any more.
2) They stopped showing her because the media is a bunch of left-wing fascists and they didn't want her far-left rantings to mess up the Democratic party's chances in November
3) They stopped her because the media is a business and she had worn out her usefulness
4) They stopped her because she is yesterday's news

Personally I agree with you! I think she should be run on every channel every single night. :)

>And you and I aren't the regular newsreaders, to go to Wikipedia and elsewhere and dig for news. Your average Joe Q Sixpack still gets his news from the major networks, if even that.
>
Ever see "Street-smarts" or Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" or any man on the street interview? Average people don't even know what their state capitol is. Nor do they care as is their right. Generation dumbass is just the product of their selfish baby-boomer grandparents and spolied gen-x parents.

>>I have changed thanks to several events in my life and I prefer an optimistic outlook especially when compared to how I used to be.
>
>I've never let my cynical POV impede my personal optimism and vice versa :)