I have a proposal for the next Democratic debate—hell, the next Democratic and Republican debates: Get rid of the TV personalities and have Paul Krugman moderate the thing. That way, “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert won’t be asking Rep. Dennis Kucinich if he’s really seen a UFO, or Sen. Barack Obama if he believes in E.T.s. And NBC anchor… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (17)Page 1 of 1 pages“Krugman compares U.S. per capita spending with Canada, France, Germany and Britain. Guess who spends the most? And guess who has the lowest life expectancy?”
One has to wonder if the US poor health is self induced. Has anyone noticed all the fat people around in the US? While i am all for adequate health benefits for all, i think we should also be responsible for our own health. Eat right and exercise more. . .
Calling the “rich” bloodsuckers” is not at all helpful. One wonders what the definition of “rich” actually is (someone with more money than me?)? Envy makes for a fat target.
Posted by wolf on Nov 20, 2007 at 3:37 PM Just one quibble with your article. You said: “But he acknowledges the possible political obstacles and offers other options, some of which have been proposed by John Edwards, Obama and even Hillary.” If you actually go and read the health care plans of all 3 candidates, you’ll see that Hillary’s is actually more progressive than either Obama’s or Edward’s. It is definitely true that any of the democratic candidates will bring us better health care than we have had to date.
I do like your proposal for Democratic debates. I would also suggest Keith Olbermann, or anyone who has any conception of what the Democratic party is all about, plus understands what issues Americans are currently most concerned about. I get increasingly angry that these debates are continuously moderated by neocon sock puppets. Perhaps one of the progressive persuasion should then be allowed to moderate the Republican debates then. But the best idea would be to go back to the old format and let the League of Women’s Voters again be in charge of Presidential debates. They alone seem to understand the seriousness of this format.
Posted by CognitiveDissonance on Nov 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM I am am totally disgusted with the excessive pay and benefits going to the CEOs, but I see Susan’s rant exclusively targets neocons did she sleep through the 1990s?
Actually this has been going on even prior to the Clinton/tech bubble era. Under Republican Presidents and Democratic Congresses the money has flowed freely from legislation passed and signed in bipartisan fashion.
Perhaps she hasn’t noticed either that the members of congress have voted themselves similar benefits and golden parachutes. (Perhaps I should say not unvoted, since they get a raise unless they vote NOT to.) Has any disgraced legislator ever lost his pension? Aren’t they virtually guaranteed a cushy lobbyist job when they leave?
Knock off the selective blame game there is enough to go around for all liberal and conservative.
I have yet to hear anyone from either party call for prosecution in the subprime scam which has infected the global economy. This is far worse than Enron and everyone is covering for each other The Treasury Dept., The Fed, financial corporations and rating agencies.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 20, 2007 at 7:24 PM Tax the rich? Absolutely! But—not just because we need the services it will provide—but tax the rich because it is a matter of justice. They didn’t get rich because they worked harder or are more talented or valuable to society than working people.
Dan Quayle asked “why do the good people get punished (with taxes)?
This question is very revealing. Wealthy conservatives actually believe they deserve their wealth! They actually believe they earned it!But in fact, they got rich by exploiting other people’s labor, so they should give some back. They got rich by exploiting our public-funded infrastructure, so they should reimburse society for giving them the means to get rich. It’s a question of justice.
Posted by laura85 on Nov 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM Laura85,
1. Some people do get rich by working harder and saving their earnings.
2. Dan Quayle aside taxes are not a punishment, but the only funds available for any governmental body to work with.
3. You say, “Wealthy conservatives actually believe they deserve their wealth.” And so, by implication the wealthy liberals DO deserve it? All those idiots in Hollywood deserve it?Don’t fall into the same habit this author has overstating the case. A well reasoned argument can do more good and an obviously biased one can cause people to blow off the whole issue.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 21, 2007 at 7:03 PM I was astonished, and gratified, and suspicious, that Paul Krugman identified himself as a liberal, as in the title of his book The Conscience of a Liberal.
If Krugman is a liberal, he must support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to private property, and all of the liberal values as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Alas, no. Krugman is not a liberal, but is a Liberal, which is the most illiberal ideology since Marx, on whom it is based. The Communists could not get themselves elected during the Great Depression when they campaigned as Communists, so they began calling themselves Socialists. They could not get themselves elected when they campaigned as Socialists, either. So they hijacked the Progressive label (Henry Wallace, candidate for President in 1948) and still could not get elected.
So, then the Marxists hijacked the Liberal label and achieved some limited success by pretending to be what they are not. This article concedes as much, as in the statement, “expanding the social safety net and reducing inequality”. That is from the Communist Manifesto, not from the Bill of Rights. And you know what happened to the followers of the Communist Manifesto: Russia collapsed, Eastern Europe embraced free-market democracy, China is trying to reconcile a free-market economy with a totalitarian political structure, and North Korea, the last of the Communist practitioners, is among the poorest nations in the world.
The United States of America will be among the poorest nations in the world to the degree we embrace Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism/Liberalism, or whatever the Leftists choose to call themselves next in their never ending campaign to deceive people and install their unworkable ideology.
Capital in private hands begets investment, which begets growth, which begets jobs and prosperity, which begets investment, which begets growth, which begets jobs and prosperity, which ...
Taxes in the hands of bureaucrats beget untold disasters. I presume LBJ was sincere when he instituted the War on Poverty. Patrick Moynihan predicted that it would be a disaster, and it was. LBJ’s War on Poverty cost $6 trillion, close to the size of the national debt, and the only discernible result was the near total destruction of black families.
The War on Poverty rewarded single-parent fecundity, and penalized family stability. Consequently, where two-parent black families before the War on Poverty represented over 80% of all black families, now two-parent black families are only about 20% of all black families.
The Communist Manifesto advocated destruction of families, and damned if LBJ didn’t accomplish Marx’s goal, at the expense of the most battered segment of our population, and at the expense of the taxpayers who financed this disaster, otherwise known as Tax and Spend. Hell, yeah!
Posted by scorp on Nov 22, 2007 at 11:15 AM Scorp,
We agree on the perversion of the word liberal. Both “conservative” and “liberal” are tossed around with little thought of their original meanings these days. I hold to the idea of individual liberties being worthwhile conserving, but have seen and continue to see them diluted, compromised or just ignored by both major parties. Along with those liberties goes individual responsibility. I maintain government aid should be restricted to emergencies and not continuous. (I don’t expect to see trait either to prevail.)
Susan Douglas advocates “Tax & Spend” which is exactly what we’ve been getting from both parties for decades. Even when Reagan cut taxes my self employment tax went up more than my income tax went down. Bush the First as an eastern Republican was actually more Democrat than Slick Willy β who was all things to all people (but mainly for himself). Bush Jr. with the help of both the Republican Congress and the Democrat Congress has done wonders for the affluent. The 15% tax rate for fund managers is just a minor benefit. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was bigger and ignored by nearly everyone.
The dollar has fallen over 20 percent since 2002 and 9 percent this year β one of the biggest tax increases in our lifetimes.
While how to spend the tax increases will forever divide conservative and liberal by whatever the labels may mean, we for the most part, want the same things for our fellow countrymen. (Used in the literary sense, which includes women so don’t sweat it folks.)
However, Susan will most likely see a lot more of her preferred spending on welfare in the near future. Just as Great Britain became not so great and melted into socialism and mostly a welfare state with generations living on the dole and taking advantage of “free” government programs, we will soon hear increasing demands for the same here.
Too many people have been left out of the “productivity gains” and wealth expansion of the 1990s. Too many are now responsible for their own retirement plans who, as products of our sloppy and diversity targeted educational system (rather than quality oriented), don’t have a clue how economics and investing function. (I heard a woman on TV complain that the tax system is unfair because the wealthy always get bigger tax refunds at year end.)
The only upside I can see as a possible benefit to the dying dollar is that it may bring a revival of our manufacturing. We still have people who remember how to make quality things efficiently. We may soon be seen as a cheap labor market by much of the world. Airbus is already considering moving production here to take advantage of it.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 24, 2007 at 8:45 AM WTH -
The dollar has fallen over 20 percent since 2002 and 9 percent this year - one of the biggest tax increases in our lifetimes.
Ummm, no. While the dollar has fallen against foreign currencies, domestic wages and prices have barely moved at all, consequently it has had no effect on your income or outgo. The only exception to this is our improved competitive position in world markets, as American goods are less expensive and imports are more expensive. We are, in fact, exporting more and importing less in the last few months. You are the one who complains, quite irrelevantly, about “exporting jobs”, so you should be gratified by this development.
There is a potential problem in this, however. In the past, late in a business cycle, interest rates were kept low to keep employment and growth strong. But this had the effect of removing discipline from the markets. When everyone thought that the government was going to protect wages and prices regardless, we lost the fear of economic consequences and raised prices and wages; result, inflation.
The trick now will be to maintain market discipline without veering off into inflation or deflation.
We have learned much about the way our economy works in the last few decades, and much of that learning was pioneered by Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan. Let’s see if Bernanke and Paulson can maintain a stable and growing economic environment.
Keep in mind that the last time the dollar fell this low, if established a base from which we saw Reagan’s spectacular orchestrated rise of the American economy and the equally spectacular crash of the Soviet Union. So far, we are in a similar position without the double-digit inflation and the double-digit interest rates.
Verrrry interesting, as the little German used to say.
Posted by scorp on Nov 25, 2007 at 12:40 AM Scorp,
The scene you describe is straight from the script being read to us by most politicians and Wall St. salemen. Of course the effects of the falling dolllar have not been felt… yet. Economies move a very slow pace and those who want to keep the ball in play as long as possible habitually choose short term comparisons to allay fears.
There is no one around with Volcker’s guts to do what needs doing this time Greenspan is a sick joke played on a gullible public. That’s how we got the tech and real estate bubbles. Bernanke will continue to try to walk a tightrope between killing the economy and bringing on runaway inflation.
The “low dollar means more exports” tune is unsustainable. Raw materials whether oil or sugar must be bought with those same low dollars and shipped at equally higher costs squeezing profits drastically.
The idea that an economy is “manageable” is a myth. People want to believe someone is in control of those things which they either can’t handle or don’t understand. Greenspan was their Santa Claus and god of investment, but in reality he is like the Wizard of Oz A little man with a BIG voice. His advantage (which Bernanke is missing) was his ability to speak a mysterious language requiring continual attempts at interpretation.
Why do you think oil and precious metals have been rising? They are denominated in dollars (for now). Who will continue to buy our debt? China has been selling and holds mostly short term anyway. As the Chinese people become a greater market they will not need the U.S. anymore.
Instead of the Wall Street Journal read history. We are following a classic post leadership pattern of nations.
I would prefer to think positive, but as I have said before buy gold, energy and short the U.S. Like it or not it is working for me.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 25, 2007 at 7:48 AM WTH -
The idea that an economy is manageable is a myth.
If the economy is not perfectly manageable, there are many things we can do to create conditions that foster growth and jobs, and to alleviate potentially disastrous conditions. The dot.com Bubba Bubble was an incipient disaster, and Bush and Greenspan took the correct actions to provide investment funds, which restored growth and jobs after a very mild recession. We are now in the biggest, longest lasting period of growth in the nation’s history.
By way of comparison, Japan in the 1980s was on a growth pattern that many otherwise sober people thought signified that Japan would become the world’s premier economic power. But then the Japanese Bubble burst in 1991, and Japan still has not fully recovered, sixteen years on.
Similarly, people now think that China is on a permanent growth curve, but China is now in a world-class Bubble, and has weaknesses that Japan, much less the United States, emphatically do not face. China’s vulnerabilities include massive overpopulation, massive pollution, functional bankruptcy in many of the state owned enterprises, massive water shortages, and barely contained political unrest (contained, in fact, by their rapid, tenuous, and unstable economic growth). Any one of these problems will require trillions of dollars to solve, so the currency reserves they have, dollars or whatever, will be quickly exhausted when the Bubble pops.
You surely remember the collapse of the price of oil and gold in the early 1980s. Commodity bubbles are always unstable and are characterized by wild price swings and brief peaks. The price of oil, adjusted for inflation, is now almost exactly what it was in the 1950s and in the early 1980s. In constant dollars, oil has stayed in a range for over sixty years, and is now at the top of that range. Do you think oil will continue to rise? Now there is a myth for you. Don’t be a fool.
Posted by scorp on Nov 25, 2007 at 2:31 PM WTH -
On a parallel note, free-market democracy is thriving throughout the world. A century ago there were only about twenty functional democracies world-wide. Now there are well over one hundred.
Right now, there are exactly four nations that are overtly hostile and threatening toward democracy: Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and China. Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have pegged their anti-American fortunes on the rising price of oil. Russia, at least, should know better, since the collapse of the Soviet Union was substantially the result of the fall of prices for oil and other commodities superimposed on their corrupt and inefficient economy. It did not hurt that the United States and Sa’udi Arabia orchestrated the timing and extent of the fall of the price of oil in the 1980s.
China is paying a huge amount for her rising oil imports, offset by exports to the United States and Western Europe. But what happens when the United States stops buying cheap Chinese goods, as you advocate? It is called a collapsed Bubble, but we have already discussed that.
Posted by scorp on Nov 25, 2007 at 2:53 PM Scorp,
You asked whgt happens when the United States stops buying China’s cheap goods.
Well, our pets live longer, our kids are once again protected by our domestic safety regulations and we no longer need to worry about the valiidity of our prescriptions.
As for the spread of democracy nothing has been done about paper trails for ballots, we will elect another person to the White House based on the candidates ability to avoid saying anything which may upset too many people. This of course will insure another mediocre, but wealthy President who is out of touch with mainstream Americans.
We will likely see no improvement in health care, energy independence or reduction in illegal immigrants and will continue lowering the quality of jobs here at home.
Other than that things are looking up.
Give it time you’ll see the light.
Cheers.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 25, 2007 at 3:22 PM “Yes, tax the rich and big corporations and spend it on the rest of America.”
The “rich” are already being taxed a helluva lot. The top 1% of wage earners make 21% of the income and pay 39% of the taxes. The top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the taxes. Seems that the bottom 50% of wage earners are freeloading off everyone else.
Additionally, the idea that ‘corporations’ pay taxes is a myth. Corporations merely collect taxes - from customers, employees, shareholders, etc.
Any increase in corporate taxes is usually offset by one of three ways: 1. Higher prices for consumers (customers pay the tax); 2. Lower dividends to investors (shareholders pay the tax); or 3. Less capital for investing in the company (smaller raises and fewer new jobs for employees; fewer new orders for suppliers, etc. Thus, any increase in taxes on corporations is an increase in taxes on individuals.
Besides, a ‘corporation’ is little more than a legal document in the filing cabinet, a way to do business. All corporations are owned by someone. Considering that more than 50% of all Americans own stocks and bonds, the ‘evil’ owners could very well include the retired widow down the street.
“LetΓ’β¬β’s spend it on healthcare for all.”
US, as a % of gross domestic product, spends more on health care than any other developed nation. Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. Have you ever considered that excessive govt regulation in place today may make health care more expensive for everyone?
Off the top of my head, I can think of two obvious examples of govt interference that make health care more expensive for individuals:
1. Prohibition on interstate competition. For example, someone living in NC, as I do, is prohibited by law from purchasing private health insurance in any other state except NC. When we moved here from IL, we had to drop our Blue Cross of IL insurance because they are not allowed to provide insurance outside of the state. Limits on competition mean higher prices for consumers. Why does govt prevent state-to-state competition?
2. Using after-tax funds are used to pay for health insurance. If the govt really ‘cares’ about us and our well being, why does it prohibit individuals from using pre-tax money to purchase health insurance?
“LetΓ’β¬β’s spend it on decent schools for our kids.”
Again, more money is not the problem. Lack of competition with the public school system is the real problem. The average cost to ‘educate’ a child in the US public school system today exceeds $8,500 per child. And many graduates are not prepared for college or any particular vocation. A recent article in the Daily Herald (IL) said that only 1 in 5 graduates from Illinois schools were prepared for college - a damning indictment of their public school system.
Parents, not bureaucrats, should be making the educational decisions for their children. Kids are not mere commodities to be plied and molded and indoctrinated into becoming good little servants of the State.
“Let’s tax and spend to develop paths to peace.”
Perhaps the most absurd and hypocritical statement of them all.
The definition of “peace” is a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations. Yet, you are advocating a coercive, forceful means (taxation) to advocate these goals - quite the opposite of peace. Taxation is involuntary and coercive, no matter how you sugarcoat it, no matter how noble the intent.
The more authority and power given to the State, the more authoritarian and coercive they become. Even the most diabolical serial killer in American history “only” killed about 50 people.
This does not compare to the countless state leaders - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, to name a few - who have left millions of dead in their wake.
Remember, the government is essentially a monopoly on the use of collective force, which is quite the opposite to the ideals of peace you purportedly espouse. The greatest obstacle to peace anywhere is usually the government.
Posted by JT_Lancer on Nov 25, 2007 at 9:02 PM Scorp,
I’ve given a bit more thought to your China question.
American corporations and economists have been enthralled with the idea that China is a one billion person market. With that in mind we’ve built factories there, sold or even given them technology, and Most Favored Nation status.
Those “favors” include putting up with high tariffs on our goods while keeping ours low on theirs. Oh, yeah, we file protests over counterfeit goods, stolen proprietary processes and poisoned foods and toys β then they bow, smile and promise reform. But the lure of big profits both from sales to them and cost cutting when selling back here blinds us to the realities of commerce.
Here’s what I have experienced up close and personal:
Several of my clients viewed K-Mart, Lowes and Wal-Mart in the same way ββ big volume accounts which, although demanding on price, looked like a pot of gold. Sure, they were sticklers on low price, but they promised huge sales and exclusivity to whoever “won” their business.
My clients for whom I did packaging design had considered the ultimate customer to be the consumer who would be using their products ββ cabinet hardware, fasteners, consumer products in packages with user friendly features like easy opening, child safety protection, and “How-to” illustrations for DIYers.
To get the account the first thing to go was anything which added cost to packaging. (Who cares about the individual customer when the Big Box is King.?)
Then, any items which my client did not already produce had to be added to their production. (Big expenditure, but in time it would be made up on Big Box volume.)
The reality: Once hooked my customer had to continue to jump when new demands were made. Finally, when someone else undercut them, the Big Box switched and began the tactics all over again with the new guys. It becomes a reverse auction, taking prices lower and lower until it is not worth having them as a customer.
-------------------------------China is the Mother of Big Boxes!
They don’t need US anymore ββ we need them! They don’t need to continue buying our sagging bonds and they don’t need our dollars. They call the shots and they have known it all along. If they switch to some other currency oil will immediately be cheaper for them.
(I don’t know if this is true, but I remember hearing that any foreign owned business will become China’s after only twenty years.)
I do know New Balance shoes set up production there and after a time the Chinese said they were no longer interested in the arrangement. Soon New Balance discovered their shoes coming out of Hong Kong at prices far below what they could charge profitably. These were not counterfeit with a logo added ββ they had the patterns, equipment and training and didn’t need the partner any more. This Wall Street Journal article said New Balance was filing a protest, but I heard nothing of the final outcome.
When one of my former clients was sold the purchaser called me to get my artwork. Knowing my inherent rights to the art I refused to send it for free. After several phone sessions with lawyers from both parities I sold the rights.
It seems for two years my client had been using my art after hiring another artist who undercut my prices. Their first offer was half my asking price for the over 700 drawings (no surprise). I pointed out that I was asking only what was a fair price if they were to have them all redrawn.
What convinced them to pay was my threat to have them recall all packages printed after the date of my last invoice. (hundreds of thousands in hundreds of Big Box stores, nationwide)
As the corporations and unions have found out lately, you only win if negotiating from strength. The UAW got some concessions from GM, but GM isn’t strong enough to demand what it would take to give them a level field against their foreign competition. This is a losing arrangement.
China will do what’s best for China, while the U.S. does what’s best for corporate managers.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 26, 2007 at 8:54 AM WTH -
I’m glad you gave a bit more thought to my China question. Your first response was flip and unworthy.
Now give some thought to the alternatives. When Nixon went to China, the leadership of China was a bunch of totalitarian murderers with atomic weapons. What is the appropriate response, hide in a bomb shelter?
I have always thought that the Chinese people are the finest natural capitalists on the the planet. Empowering those people may not be without risk, but it beats any alternative.
You keep concentrating on petty and provincial trade matters. You have run a constant anti-competitive theme, both in your own business matters and with regard to the outside world. China has too many conflicts and contradictions, some of which I mentioned in my post above. Your idea that we need them and they do not need us is ludicrous.
Historically, Chinese governments fail when the citizens become restive. With a dose of prosperity, the people of China will not tolerate a return to the old ways. And yet they have many critical priorities that they need us to solve; pollution is the most obvious.
On my trips to China, there have been tremendous material advances year to year. But Beijing is becoming hourly more polluted as the demand for energy grows. The air quality is atrocious and getting worse, causing major health problems.
On my last trip, we drove north from Beijing and found ourselves on a narrow two-lane blacktop. We had pretty good driving, but the opposite lane was choked with dump trucks carrying coal toward the Beijing power plants, thousands of them. They were crawling along, and when one broke down there was no way to avoid a major stop, as the road was so poor. Right away I figured out that they had another road somewhere for the empty dump trucks to return to the mine, but I did not see any empties headed back.
To avoid revolution, China has got to keep the industries going and to keep people employed. They have to solve the pollution problems. They have to solve the bank and bankrupt enterprise problems. They have major infrastructure problems, such as the road where the coal trucks drove. These are all opportunities, not problems.
But all you see is problems. And you do not accept the data such as employment figures. I can see where you have a problem, but what do you expect me to do about it? If you keep yourself provincial and ignorant, you will stay bogged down in a wonderful world.
Posted by scorp on Nov 29, 2007 at 11:51 PM Scorp,
What makes you think China (those in control, not the people) have changed? We may not have heard of tanks and machine guns mowing down protesters lately, but do you think they’ve finally “got religion”? They have learned how to work the capitalist system to their advantage just like Wall St. has.As for my own business β my whole working experience has been competitive β price, quality and service, you can have any two of them. My comments had to do with the globalization switch changing the game to where price trumps all else. The managers have been cashing in big time. (I suspect from comments you fit into that category.)
My constant theme is one of how the U.S. workers and consumers are getting screwed by the elite partnership of business and government.
You say, “To avoid revolution, China has got to keep the industries going and to keep people employed.”
What a concept! Exactly what we should be doing here. Remember the riots of the 1960s? Those at the bottom here will have less opportunity for work. We already have increasing gang acticvity. Why would we not expect increasing violence and demands for government welfare? The medical cost problem spans most economic classes and age groups. Job quality continues to fall and inflation is obvious to all who eat or use energy. Our country is in deep trouble and denial at the top is only raising blood pressures and creating unrest.
I guess this is why Jimmy Rogers has moved to China. He too, sees what path we are on.
My analogy of China/The Big Box store is valid and I believe it will prove so in my lifetime. The first company where I saw this was Sears. They would place a large order with a small company, keep increasing orders for a bit until the smaller company was financially stretched, threaten to cut them off β then absorb them and add the Sears name to the product.
You can continue to think of this as “petty and provincial” β unless it hits home. To a great many of my friends, relatives and neighbors all across the nation, this is a major economic, social and life changing event.
The government numbers which you accept as gospel are so clearly distorted only a fool or a con man can read them without gagging. The latest inflation report of .8% for this year β the dollar has fallen over 9%! The housing bubble an d subprime scam has virtually every lender working overtime to avoid being forced to honestly price the crap they’ve sold/go on hand. I’ll happily remain “bogged down” with far more liquid investments… thank you very much.
Where did you get the idea that I expect you to do anything about it?
If I thought you were open minded enough too read them I could send you a list of about a dozen books (on both sides of the Globalization issue) which would clarify the factors involved.
Let’s go back to this in a year or two.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 30, 2007 at 9:04 AM I’ve been noticing a lot of people discussing money, but few discussing the World Bank and whats going on there. I just recently saw this film called “Caravan Prague” about a group of bicyclists who travel to Prague to stop an IMF meeting. Really interesting if you’re into activism and protesting. I also learned a lot about World Trade. You can check it out at http://www.caravanprague.com if it sounds cool.
Posted by CinemActivist on Jan 10, 2008 at 9:05 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
