winsor

I find this interesting Can you expand? Sure, but it is difficult to do so in the short form of this forum. One example is his treatment of health care costs, where he focuses on the mechanism whereby people pay their medical bills. He entirely overlooks the problem of WHY the medical bills are so high. Over 90% of medical costs are overhead. Presented with a bill that includes $10,000 a day for a hospital bed, the key issue is not how to come up with that kind of money but, rather, how it is possible to reduce the overhead to the extent that the costs are only 10x as high as a four-star hotel, not 100x; 1,000 a day for a room alone is still obscenely expensive. The last two go-arounds of "Health Care Reform," one of which saw changes ramrodded into place, were the result of lawyers trying to fix the medical system. Lawyers trying to fix the problem of Doctors charging too much money? What is wrong with this picture? To the question of whether the problem is the medical system, the political system or the recipients of medical care, the answer is an unequivocal "YES." It is hard to say whether our political system, legal system or health care system is the more badly broken. They are all in particularly bad shape. Why is this? Because of us. As Jello Biafra said, "give me convenience or give me death!" We want an affordable health care system where we can get the latest and greatest treatments at our convenience. Any errors made by medical practitioners are unacceptable; since M.D. stands for "Minor Deity," human error is out of the question. Even if we are in the process of dying (aren't we all?) when we show up, we have the absolute right to compensation if we are not satisfied with the outcome. I can, and tend to, go on, but I am suspicious of simplistic treatments from anyone with a vested interest in an issue. This is not necessarily due to conflict of interest, but also comes from being too close to see the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees and all that. BSBD, Winsor

His work ethic and skill set are impressive. The Seventh Day Adventist part of the picture, however, is disturbing. Apart from the specific tenets to which they adhere, religious organizations vary greatly in their power structure, and the more recently founded organizations are all the more transparent. The Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, defies simple analysis because it defines "Byzantine," and the Roman version is no better. OTOH, Scientology and LDS are very easily scrutinized, and their analyses are identical - like an onion, when you get done peeling back the layers of nonsense, there is nothing left. The Seventh Day Adventist Church is similar in that its founding followed the demonstration that its fundamental claims were baseless. Like the world coming to an end last year (thank goodness it restarted instantly...), the reappearance of the Messiah on a particular date at a given location did not work out as planned, and the Church consists of those who were unfazed by the big "nevermind." I am much more comfortable with the viewpoint of a skeptic than that of an adherent of any particular ism, and this includes scientific orthodoxy. When someone comes up with evidence that dispels the Phlogiston or Caloric Theories, I'm with those whose response is "fascinating!," rather than those that respond by chasing their tails, frothing at the mouth and screaming "No! This cannot be!" when their cherished belief system is revealed to be terminally flawed. I do not "believe in" Evolution. It is an effective model that stands up to scrutiny and is thus a useful analytic tool with well known predictive limitations. I hold suspect people such as Dr. Carson who "disbelieve in" evolution; that is an intellectual line that will serve to divide us. Would I have Dr. Carson operate on my kid if his talents were needed and available? Sure. Do I blindly accept Dr. Carson's take on "E) All the above?" Not hardly. Then again, I do not take the work of our Patron Saint of Genius, Albert Einstein, as sacrosanct (nor did he), and am thus not hobbled by the Orthodoxy of Relativity. Albert was not being artificially humble when he rated James Clerk Maxwell as the paradigm of brilliance. In any event, I find Dr. Carson's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast refreshing. I think he addressed symptoms, rather than the underlying syndrome, but it's a start. BSBD, Winsor

BS Part of the bill in Wash State. No warrent needed as is it covered under the bill. But it is a mistake of course http://seattletimes.com/...1_westneat17xml.html So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too? Nice double standard HUH You think a sherif should be able to enter your house once a year to inspect it if you have a gun? "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Eh, comerade?

I am trying to find the source of an anecdote regarding scientific orthodoxy. It seems that the Royal Academy of Science in Paris was having a discussion some time in the 18th century. One learned member pointed out that Aristotle claimed a horse had one number of teeth, while another member noted that Socrates said a horse had an altogether different number of teeth. A young upstart said "there's a horse outside - we could go out and count its teeth," at which point he was beaten severely and ejected. Though the scientific world is not given to superstition in general it does have its orthodoxy, and heresy is not well tolerated. Mind you, the issue is not the number of teeth per se, it is the unwillingness to double-check one's givens that I find troubling. Then again, I a an experimentalist at heart BSBD, Winsor

Ever been to Switzerland? IIRC Iceland qualifies as well, but am too lazy to look into it.

Further support for my contention that stupidity is our single limitless natural resource.

Look, there are some who complain about the use of "agony therapy" to obtain information, and now they have a problem with drones. Sheesh. I'll have you know that every Hellfire missile has an Arrest Warrant engraved on its warhead. If criminals choose to resist arrest, they can't complain if things don't go their way, now can they?

If it is not mandatory, it is forbidden.

That was an IQ test. She flunked.

Ha! I'd like to let him try "Old Betsy" and see how he does with a .40-caliber black powder flintlock. ...commonly known as a "Squirrel Rifle." Okay, so a .36 is definitive squirrel rifle, but a .40 does not qualify as a heavy-hitter. For blackpowder, .577/.58 and up is getting a bit more serious, but even an 8-bore dangerous game blackpowder rifle is not on a par with the modern stuff. If someone was to fire, say, a .577 Tyrannesaur holding it in a stance such as depicted, I doubt if they would be willing to fire another shot when they got out of the hospital. BSBD, Winsor

Ha, but taking a single shot to kill two crosing birds in skeet is not allowed. Can be done, and easy to do even by mistake but doesn't count when scoring. You would only score one hit out of possible two hits for taking one shot to hit both birds. Shooting sports are great and challenging. Since it only happens on a double, you have to repeat the double for it to score. The first bird is scored a hit, even if you miss the first of two on a repeat. Since the game is one of timing, it is hard to change one's pace. I once had to repeat a particular double four times before I used the second shell for the second target, and I was not showboating - it was simply the setup of the trap houses so that the targets crossed when I shot at that station. If someone mounted their shotgun at my club like our plucky CIC did in the picture, people would call a time out before he could shoot, in order to show him the rudiments of how to do so. I cannot recall any neophyte that made it through their first round without showing much more competence than demonstrated in the picture. It was reported that Obama lasted less than 5 minutes when shooting with the Marine detachment, and could not get out of there fast enough. I don't blame him. It would go against the grain even to dry fire when holding a shotgun like that, and I doubt if I would willingly touch off a 3 dram equivalent 12 gauge target load in such a stance. I have broken a collarbone, and it hurts. BSBD, Winsor

James Webb was asked about women in combat, and I liked his answer. He was fine with the idea until after spending time in the Marines in combat in Vietnam. When it was pointed out that the physical training standards had to be lowered in order for a sufficient percentage of women to pass muster, he noted that training for touch football does not do much good if you are going up against the Green Bay Packers. There are, of course, women that would be picked in the first round if you wanted someone to cover your six in bad guy territory. They can walk farther carrying more in worse conditions than their male counterparts, and can hit anything they can see with whatever weapon is available. OTOH, there are also guys who look like buff studs, but are completely useless after a couple of weeks in freezing rain without hot food or dry socks, and are found quivering in the fetal position at the bottom of a foxhole when things start going "bang." Combat is, by its very nature, an insane environment. People who would likely get along famously under other circumstances endeavor to turn each other into rotting hamburger - not a well adjusted line of work. Training people to survive in this combat has historically been as cruel, capricious and unforgiving as the job description warrants. If I have to jump behind enemy lines with a group of people, I really do not care about their sexuality. I do, however, want to know the each and every one of them had to pass a set of very unforgiving standards to be there in the first place. If a woman can schlep a full compliment of field gear day in and day out and function in a world of carnage, she's cut out for the Infantry. Not everybody is. BSBD, Winsor

Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.

Where to begin? At least in my tribe, marriage was originally associated with procreation. Given that the male population tended to be reduced by warfare, there were provisions for polygamy that have been stricken in the interim. In any event, the issue was to ensure that offspring were the result of people who were committed to their upbringing, and rules were put in force accordingly. Similarly, many of the old rules frowned on circumventing the sex -> kids process. Recreational sex of any stripe does not do much from the "be fruitful and multiply" standpoint, fun though it may be. Now that the Miracle of Modern Medicine (tm) has made it possible for children to be generated by various and sundry permutations of parental activity, or lack thereof, the rules have become a bit more blurry and some rethink may be in order. As far as variations on the theme go, offshoots of the Salt Lake City crowd are all for all the wives one can gather. Then there was a guy in Maine who noted that it was not locally proscribed, and proceeded to marry a collie (I am guessing that it was female, at least). Also, there have been various groups that espoused one form of polygamy or another (see "Paint Your Wagon"). Now we get to the most important issue - money. Though marriage has generally been handled by the clergy (or the Captain of a ship, as the case may be), the Government involves itself when it comes to finances, which is were it gets ever the more arcane. Who gets to claim a pension, or inheritance without taxation, or particular tax breaks can add up to quite a few Shekels. Thus, there is a movement to say that the standard biological breeding pair is the limit to the exception allowed by law. While there is no fertility clause, the basic allotment of one of each gender, all from the same species seems to be the norm. Kinky Friedman, when asked about his stance on the matter, made the point that gays should have the opportunity to be as miserable as everyone else. It's a thought. I am largely indifferent to what other people do; if someone wants to marry a begonia, I say have at it. BSBD, Winsor

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dd2d89f4-63c0-11e2-af8c-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Is8aIczs Good article by Wolf on Financial Times. Mini-summary: There is a sharp movement from financial deficit to financial surplus in the PRIVATE sector that is directly attributable to the Federal spending. ... I admire that we care so much for the well-being of the country, but its clear enough that today's private sector surplus would not have been achieved without the public sector during the post-2008 collapse. For anyone who still believes that deficit is our main concern should at the very least read the article. Cheers!

My god! That almost makes perfect sense. Except we're talking about SLAVERY. You do NOT get the moral high ground when you're talking about the "rights" of states when those states completely strip the real HUMAN rights of people. Some people want to think it's their "right" to own SLAVES? Fuck the those people. Lincoln, by his own admission, did not give a rat's ass about slavery per se. His game plan was not so much to free the slaves as to deport them. Flashpoint issue though it was, slavery was largely incidental to the War of Northern Aggression.

Yep, no need for teachers. or police, or firemen. In what way(s) is a teacher more like a police officer or firefighter than is an accountant? I thought vagitarians had copyright on that line. Same way that a fish is like a bicycle.

Its often said, but it's just about never true. That has, however, been my experience. Having lethal force on the table raises the stakes enough that people are prone to eschew conflict.

I agree! Never resort to absolutes!

The fact remains, that he is a business man who's standing on any given issue is indeterminable and he has a thorough contempt for half the population. Contempt well earned.

I read half of Rand's book and OH so long and wordy I quit before fininshing it. Yes the people get the gov't they deserve or the gov't the Supreme Court decides for the people. Do you think if there is sufficient evidence and facts that OBAMA did falsefy documents that the case might be heard by the Supreme Court. What is the responsibility of Courts decision to hear the case as ruled against by lower California case that judge just didn't have the power to sweep all California votes for OBAMA under the table. We'll if the person running was ineligible, then those votes don't matter anyway. I hope for the good of the country they hear the case. Totally surprised this isn't reason mainstream media. Must be the Kabal that running the country hoping no one notices. The key problem here is the implied assumption that someone is in charge. I am reminded of Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, which crashed into the Everglades while the crew was worrying about a burnded-out landing gear light instead of flying the airplane. Anyone who is dumb enough to waste time trying to address the fundamental problems we face will not last long in Washington - assuming they get there in the first place. Face it - we're screwed.

If Obama is not authentic he is, at worst, a phony in the sense of Holden Caulfield. I admit that I do not have a strong enough stomach to get into the gory details of his story (most politicians make me ill), it seems that he has always uses whatever cover story was most useful at the time. His career has been advanced by smokescreen, bluff and leverage from day one, so there are no real surprises there. He has reinvented himself as necessary, keenly aware of the political realities he could thus use to his benefit. Much like Jerry Rivers became "Geraldo Rivera," our CIC has used the identity of Barry Soetoro or Barry Obama or Barack Hussein Obama as necessary. Big deal. His claim to have espoused Marxism in his youth is where I draw the line. I rate that on a par with someone mentioning that they used to fantasize about blowing donkeys when younger - but they don't anymore, of course. I read Karl Marx and Ayn Rand in my youth, and found both to be delusional for about the same reasons. The former attributed great nobility to the workers and was scornful of those at the top of the food chain, the latter ascribed saintly qualities to the economic/intellectual elite and viewed the unwashed masses and their supporters as beneath contempt. Neither view has much merit, though my travels through various Socialist Workers Paradises has left me underwhelmed by the espousal of mediocrity that one witnessed therein. The principle that a society gets the Government it deserves applies here. There is nothing that is likely to come out about the incumbent that was not glaringly obvious when he was running for his first term in office, and he was duly elected in accordance with our political process. This, of course, reflects badly upon us as a society, but likely is an accurate representation of the depths to which we have sunk. If we want better, we have to deserve better, and I suspect the representatives we elect are the best we will find as our way of life goes down the tubes. It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor

Funny how raising the debt ceiling was never an issue when Reagan and Bush did it 25 times. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/barack-obama/obama-says-reagan-raised-debt-ceiling-18-times-geo/ Yea...that's it. The old "he started it" argument. That will fix it. I'm gonna guess you didn't get the Politifact memo. I never said Bush and Reagan did anything wrong, they did the correct thing. Paying your bills is what responsible people do. With IOUs? May I suggest a course in Basic Arithmetic? You will find it fascinating. Perhaps as fascinating as you would find logic 101. Finally, someone willing to teach me the ins and outs of Aristotelian and Combinational Logic, how to construct a proper syllogism or to use a single gate type by application of DeMorgan's Theorem! Please enlighten me with the depth of your insight. This is my lucky day!

Funny how raising the debt ceiling was never an issue when Reagan and Bush did it 25 times. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/barack-obama/obama-says-reagan-raised-debt-ceiling-18-times-geo/ Yea...that's it. The old "he started it" argument. That will fix it. I'm gonna guess you didn't get the Politifact memo. I never said Bush and Reagan did anything wrong, they did the correct thing. Paying your bills is what responsible people do. With IOUs? May I suggest a course in Basic Arithmetic? You will find it fascinating.

How foolish I have been to worry about it.