Karla,

I have a pet peeve - the use of the word "Gravitas" to mean "stature" or "importance", implying power. My understanding is that gravitas means (or the Romans used it to mean) that quality in a person denoting a seriousness and sense of duty.

Aside from that, I enjoy reading BlueOregon and occasionally participating in the debate.

I also appreciate the fact that many of the participants here read the posts and give constructive criticism where they feel it is valuable to the discussion. The number of contributors who add only rants and explatives to the fray are very few considering the open, loosely moderated nature of the blog. This is may favorite "progressive" blog.

Carla,

My apologies for the "K." Have a good friend who spells it that way and it just came out. I meant no harm.

Glad to see we both have things in our lives that are not perfect and that those things are basically trivial.

One of my pet peeves is haggling over word choice....

Using the right word distinguishes good writers from the rest.

Bill:

"Good" is a subjective term.

I prefer to be "effective". Also subjective, but with the possibility of tangible results.

I prefer to be "effective".

In that case, you will need to choose your words wisely and well.

What we have here is a case of a highjacked thread. What was the topic again?

Which may suggest there isn't that much interest in Wyden's health plan.

Its too bad that the Intelligence committee requires that the super secret stuff can't see the light of day when it is detrimental to the nation. "State's secrets" has always grated on me. Who decides what is a "State secret"? The administration. Fox guarding the hen house if you ask me.

What does the committee know about Gitmo? Or the false intel about WMDs and other lies that took us into Iraq? We will never know because it seems the members of the committee believe their commitment to keep their mouths shut supersedes the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution. Laws have been broken, the Constitution has been violated. They know it, I know it and anybody paying attention knows it. And yet they hide behind the "National security" canard.

Its all bullshit. And Senator Wyden plays along.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed. "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Its all bullshit. And Senator Wyden plays along.

Worse still is Wyden playing along with Likud, Kadima and, probably in the future, with Avigdor Lieberman on Israel.

I received a copy of Wyden's e-mail on his position on Gaza. It is an insult to the intelligence of any independent-minded person who is paying attention to what has been going on there for years. Wyden focuses on the sins of Hamas, of which there are many, but totally ignores the greater and more punishing sins of Israel's right wing. Wyden's e-mail includes this link to his statement on Gaza.

It appears after the Israeli elections Avigdor Lieberman could prove to be a power broker in the next Israeli Knesset. Google for Avigdor Lieberman's name, read a couple of results, then ask Wyden if he will continue with his blind subservience to Israel with this increase in racism and injection of fascism.

While you are at it, Google for Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and Amira Hass on Gaza. They are among the many decent and courageous faces of Israel seeking an honest and just peace.

If Wyden wants to get a health plan going he would do well to support the UNICEF Gaza Childrens Emergency Fund to help pay for the care and treatment of hundreds of innocent children maimed by Israeli forces using weapons supplied by the United States.

Dan, you old Hijacker, looks like this thread will not be about the relative merits of Wyden's healthcare plan after all, but will instead be a forum on Wyden's Middle East policy, as discussed by those too lazy to write their own damned guest column.

What do you think the chances are of Blue Oregon's editors posting an outsider's comments that are critical of Democrat party leaders? I've submitted articles that were modestly critical and they went nowhere. I'm working on my own political web site, but in the meantime I'll use whatever opportunity I get to fight injustice and human rights violations. And expose naked emperors.

if not with their rhetorical attacks and flourishes, ...

Are you referring to the words "racist" and "fascist" that I used? If so, then I can presume you didn't Google for "Avigdor Lieberman."

Dr. Dan McCanne (http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day):

"The good news is that individuals from the media and from the policy community are acknowledging, on the side, that single payer would cover everyone, would improve health outcomes, and would cost less than the other current proposals for reform...

"The bad news is that all too often these are only side comments as the discussion then moves forward with the need to support 'feasible' approaches that do not cover everyone, waste tremendous resources, and cost far more than would a publicly-administered and publicly-financed system...

"Are we such automatons that we need to set aside facts about an approach that would benefit all of us, and reflexly accept deficient, perverse policies that would benefit the private insurance industry? Why is gifting our funds to the private insurance industry feasible, while spending those funds on health care that people need is not?"

(Let's not talk about Wyden's stance on U.S.-Israel, as it could develop into a discussion about U.S. war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that blasphemy would enrage the "progressives".)

I frequently agree with what Bill has to say - and we're virtually two peas in a pod with respect to Israel - but I often disagree with how he presents it.

Kevin: I formerly had a different style by being diplomatic, courteous, and occasionally understating my position to avoid offending opponents, but that proved to be ineffective except among a few friends with whom I share a mutual respect. That style doesn't cut it when you're up against people with a political agenda with the philosophy of winning being the only thing and no holds barred. People like that will brush gentlemen and ladies off as doormats. In circumstances such as some of these threads, blunt candor has a better chance of getting a point through to some people.

Most likely, I have also been influenced by Walter Karp, I. F. Stone, Robert Fisk, John Pilger and others through Counterpunch who don't believe in mincing words.

Okay, let's talk health care reform. I followed Dan P's very useful link and gained the understanding that the Wyden-Bennett plan has a number of virtues but has its questions and shortcomings. I then followed with a Google for "WYDEN-BENNETT HEALTH REFORM PLAN" and came to a similar conclusion after perusing several search results from apparently more-or-less independent sources. So, I give Wyden much credit for the good he has achieved, and would encourage others in a position to do so to consider building on the merits of this plan to resolve questions and deficiencies related to it.

One of the problems with the Wyden-Bennett plan may be the Bennett part. Based on a search for "Senator Robert Bennett" he is certainly no progressive. His Irregular Times Rating on the Progressive Patriots web site gives him a Progressive Action Score of 6 which means that Sen. Bennett has acted to support 6% of a slate of progressive policies in the 110th Congress. His Right Wing Index Score is 75. That means that Senator Bennett has acted to support 75% of a slate of conservative, wrongheaded policies in the 110th Congress.

That's My Congress dot com gave Bennett a Progressive Action Score of 14 and a Regressive Action Score of 40 for the 111th Congress.

There were three in 2005 and two in 2007. We published two, one in 2005 and one in 2007.

Not a single one of the other three were about Oregon.

<h2>The two that you published were not about Oregon either, but they dealt with principles that applied to all citizens, including Oregonians.</h2>