the state. Whatever the rhetoric the Swedish state has never acted like it believes that government activity produces wealth; instead they act like it's consumption, which puts them in contrast with a good many other left-wing movements. The problem with the Swedish approach, however successful it has been in some dimensions is that slowly, one-by-one, they are losing these key companies and they are not generating new companies to replace them. The hyper-capitalistic Swedish state that preceded the welfare state generated corporations with ease, but the welfare state has had extraordinary difficulties generating even one new profit center. Matt -- decent enough column, and maybe this is a column*inches issue, but when one talks about a lack of popularity and fails to provide any polling data for that, the arguments start to look a tad thin. The utter hypocrisy in this type of argument from the Dems is absolutely mindblowing, especially considering that the GOP is using the filibuster in an arguably more legitimate way, against legislation, and the Dems used it against idelogical appointments they didn't like... but hypocrisy is nothing new out of either side in Washington. Not quite. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, head cousnel of the ACLU got only 3 negative votes in Senate. Most Republican Senators did not like her politics, but they voted for her anyway. They felt she was qualified for the job. Bork was ultra-qualified and he couldn't even get a vote. The real test of the "green jobs" concept will not actually happen,