Fear of illegals is well founded. We are overrun with illegals in San Diego. Only the most desperate would travel to Washington state. 90% of government, through intelligence, believed Iraq posed a threat because of WMD's. A missle defense system has value especially in the face of allowing North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. To secure the future for my grandchildren I believe missle defense is more important than saving General Motors. I hope our leaders will consider my conflicting view but doesn't seem likely as of today. I too am skeptical of our leaders and the unquestion faith placed in the current administration, so far.

Posted by: Jim - May 29, 2009 4:26 PM

Jim, I respect your concern but a space based defense system is useless against a dirty bomb. We have a defense against other nuclear powers, it's mutually assured destruction. If you launch a missile against me, be assured that 10 will be launched against you. It has worked so far. Personally I would rather the money be spent elsewhere, like providing healthcare for everyone.

Posted by: Ryan - Jun 01, 2009 2:24 PM

We already have free healthcare..... it's called 'go to the emergency room!'. If you don't belivee it, just come to So Cal and see all the illegals filling our hospitals! Where does it all end? It ends when there's a shortage of doctors and it takes months to get simple treatments.

Posted by: Mike - Jun 03, 2009 10:55 AM

Providing for a national defense is a primary function of government. Health care is not. If a missle defense program is not useful then what caused the Soviet Union to collapse? Why are both Iran and No. Korea interested in developing missle delivery systems?

Posted by: Jim - Jun 04, 2009 10:22 AM

Jim, I beg to differ but I'm not going to get dragged into a debate on a inappropriate subject to this forum. Nothing that I say will change your opinion and nothing that you say will change mine. We see the world differently, to each his own.

Posted by: Ryan - Jun 05, 2009 8:45 AM

As this is a political blog the question of national security is perfectly legitimate. I am curious as to how those who agree with Ryan view Iran and North Korea. This will give enough information to evaluate the validity of their views. This is a timely topic of the day.

Posted by: Jim - Jun 06, 2009 9:34 AM

Jim, North Korea and Iran are trying to build nuclear misiles not a space based or land based nuclear defense system (which you implied) As far as I know we have spent BILLIONS trying to make a funtional missle defense system and we are still perhaps decades away from have something that works. Even we were succsessful at building such a system it would have to work 100% of the time. 1 missile that breached the system would be catastrophic. All that a rouge nation would have to do is launch multiple (or hundreds) of missiles and the system would be worthless. I live in NYC, aka ground zero. I don't fear a missile strike. Nope, I fear a dirty bomb. I also fear losing my job and along with it my healthcare, I have a preexisting condition which would make it impossible for me to afford insurance on my own. This is why I truly hope that we get a national healthcare system. You fear a missle strike which would kill thousands but how many Americans die everyyear because of a lack of healthcare? All of our allies have a national system including our strongest ally Britan. Why not us? WHere is it writen that it's not the goverments responsability? You like Social Security and Medicaid right?

Posted by: William - Jun 07, 2009 12:37 PM

Jim, I stand corrected. You didn't imply that N. Korea and Iran were interested in building a space based or land defense system. I stand corrected. I still thinks that that the money could be better spent.

Posted by: William - Jun 07, 2009 1:03 PM

William,I oppose both social security and medicare which I am enrolled in. You illustrate the fault that accompanies a national health insurance plan and which medicare is a great example. Since you and others like you can't or won't afford insurance you want others to pay for you. I know this sounds hard but economic facts must be observed. This is the problem we face today on both medicare and medicaid. The so called premiums paid are not near enough to cover the costs. These programs are already broke. A national health care plan that most envision is NOT possible in the delivery of services and coverage. The costs are beyond even the ability of our citizens to pay. This is a complicated program that cannot be resolved in the space here. Sorry.

Posted by: Jim - Jun 08, 2009 11:54 AM

Jim you are so misguided, you paint everyone with a broad brush and on this one you are so wrong. You are so willing to say that anyone who wants a national health plan can't or won't pay ifor they're own insurance. I have a great health plan right now. That's just it, I have it right now. I just found out that there is a good chance that I will lose my job in sept. I have a serious chronic illness which is just going to get worse and worse. In this work environment most likely I will not find a job with insurance to cover me and there is NO WAY I WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO PAY FOR INSURANCE ON MY OWN WITH A PRE EXISTING CONDITION. Most likely I will go bankrupt and then go on medicaid. My life as I now know it will be over. Our system is seriously flawed. I ask you, are you happy with our current system where insurance companies cheery pick who they cover? Either we pay the insurance companies directly or we pay higher taxes for healthcare. I'd rather pay higher taxes for a plan where I can't get denied coverage, I'm sure that you will also say "I don't want some govt bureacrat admisistering my healthcare. I guess that you would rather have someone from the insurance industry who is getting paid to deny coverage.

Posted by: William - Jun 16, 2009 3:34 PM

Wow, I would like to post something much more personal than what I see so far, so I hope no one minds. I picked up this book today because I am headed to South Korea to teach English in about two weeks. This was a big decision for me, as it will be the first time I have left home, but it is a goal I have had for many years - to teach abroad so that I can live and work among other people and cultures. Of course, it is no secret that North Korea has really stolen the spotlight recently and it almost caused me to change my mind. This little section on the "fear" of terrorism versus the "danger" of terrorism really made me feel relieved in my decision to go anyway. So many people have told me that I should not go because it isn't safe, even as I have spoken to friends who are there now and say that the sentiments in South Korea are nothing of panic and disaster that the media over here have led us to believe. I even laughed out loud when Steves mentioned the calls he recieved from people back home more worried 5,000 miles away than even he was when traveling in a country in crisis. It really hit home and now I can see what he means! Well, I thought he made some excellent points on the way we allow fear to stand in our way. So I'm not going to allow it. And I think we should all take this to heart and examine the way we react to things. You never quite know how it really is until you're there, anyway. Most of it is inflated melodramatic headlines that are only good for the news business. Well, those are my thoughts. I can't wait to go and now I'm more psyched than ever. Thanks Rick.

Posted by: Maureen - Jun 19, 2009 10:47 PM

My first Rick Steves trip was to Rome in the spring after 9/11. The entire group was women except for two men (no couples on that tour). Don (the tour guide)had to pick up his jaw off the floor when he entered the room and saw his group. We women all thought it was funny that men were apparently afraid to travel and the women travelled on! By the way, the trip was fantastic!

Posted by: Jackie - Jun 29, 2009 1:43 PM

http://coomararunodaya.com.

Posted by: sunrisedatacare - Mar 28, 2010 10:13 PM