Let me echo this sentiment. I did my PhD in a esoteric corner of Number Theory. In my first position after graduate school, I submitted a number of papers. Waited a minimum of one year for rejections or impossible demands for revision. The handful of others in my area refused to collaborate with me. I left academia.

Seven years later, a student of one of these people who refused to collaborate submits a paper,
and somehow I get to be referee. I turned it around reasonably quick, rejected because it overlooked many earlier works.

Later that year, I get a request from the student about the same paper, maybe revised, I didn't look too closely. (He doesn't know I was referee for the previous time around.) It has been conditionally accepted at another journal.

Funny, his papers get refereed in 3-6 months and mine took over a year, and only then after pestering editors.

The condition? He has cited my multiply rejected preprint and the editors insist that it must
be put somewhere more stable than my personal website. So I put it on arXiv. Probably I should
have demanded that they publish it.

Thus was demonstrated to me partiality in the peer-review process. It's more petty personal politics than big issue party politics.

An alternative to federalized health care: States
may enter a compact (equivalent of a treaty, between
States of the United States) regarding health care.

By organizing a multistate compact, an individual
state with a generous policy avoids becoming a
magnet. We uphold our federal system, what's
left of it, which delegates limited powers to the
federal government. We devolve power arrogated to
the federal goverment to the States.

Remarks?