GeorgiaDon

I'd like to add "thinking outside the box" to the list. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Good one! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks you for the invite, but I have to go in to work for a few hours, and then I'll be spending the rest of the day with my family. It takes some planning to get everyone to come over at the same time, so it would be quite rude to have them show up for dinner and find I've taken off for the day. It does look to be a beautiful day, and I hope you have a good one. I can easily imagine BHO as their leader. My father is Air Force (retired), by brother-in-law also Air Force (retired), and my brother is still in the Air Force. I appreciate a leader who will measure twice (or more!) before cutting. I despise leaders who waste the lives of our military, and the wealth of our country, on macho displays of dick-swinging. Apparently we are 180 degrees apart on that. To me, nothing conveys disrespect for our military more than putting them in harms way for purposes that do nothing to advance the security and critical interests of our country. Vietnam and Iraq were a flagrant waste of lives, and Bush mismanaged Afghanistan so badly as to also qualify that conflict. If there is a Hell, I hope a place is reserved for the politicians who were so wasteful of lives. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Like I said before, we have been praying for God's will. I personally do not believe he gave BHO again as a reward. Now our work and direction are quite clear. At least it is to me. Perfect illustration of the futility of praying for God to perform an action, such as choosing a President. There are at least four possible explanations for the outcome, with no way to distinguish between them. God may have "chosen" BHO because he was the better of the two candidates, God may have "chosen" BHO as a punishment, God may have chosen to stay out of the process altogether, or there is no God. You (Ron, and anybody else) have no objective way to tell which explanation is true, and so you choose to interpret the outcome through the lens of your own pre-existing prejudices, with the result that any possible outcome of the election would just reinforce what you already believed to be true. Face it, Ron, by "interpreting" the meaning of the election, you are just twisting God's will (whatever that may have been) to your own desires. Talk about arrogance! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hence your party's strategy of ethnic cleansing at the polls. How's that working out for you? Race baiting (Nixon's "Southern strategy") worked for a while, but now you're reaping what you sowed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

But you are aware now, I assume, of what went on in those days. Change how? In that communism was seen as less of a bogey man? In that uppity women/minorities/etc began to demand their civil rights? Sorry if I missed it but I don't get what the specific changes are that you find so threatening. Since you seem to like to quote song lyrics here's one you might know: Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'. For me, when the America of anti-communist paranoia, color bars, and glass ceilings is dead and buried I'll be happy to help shovel a little dirt onto the grave. An America of inclusiveness, where "people are judged on the content of their character" and one doesn't have to be afraid to offer a hand up to someone is what appeals to me. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Honestly, Ron? I mean, I'm pretty sure you were alive during the 1950s (I was, at least the late '50s) and I know you're older than me. So you were alive during the time of Jim Crow, and possibly during the era of McCarthyism. Do you really believe that today's morality, civics, and civility is lower than they were then? Do you really believe that an effort to ensure sick people can get medical treatment is morally more evil than segregation? Do you really believe that allowing consenting adults to marry regardless of race or gender is more evil than lynching people who were only trying to register non-whites to vote? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Request granted!

NASA is still there, only now they will focus on developing new technologies and on exploration. The business of hauling people and cargo into orbit is being handed over to the private sector, where it should have gone long ago. In fact, the anticompetitive nature of NASA (not ever having to worry about making payroll, or a profit) excluded the private sector from developing space capability as a business. It's kind of ironic to have a conservative such as yourself taking an anti-business position and arguing in support of a government monopoly in an enterprise that could be done more efficiently by private enterprise. It sort of suggests you might be responding to "gut feelings" rather than any sort of well thought out rational argument. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Looks like I was correct.

Maybe Ron has room for you in his North Georgia compound. Can you play the banjo? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep; also people tend to have long memories of how they have been treated at the hands of puppet leaders/dictators installed by outsiders. Witness Iran, for example, where the current anti-US leadership is in large part a reaction to the excesses of the CIA-installed Shah. Also it seems many of our more conservative fellow inmates here in Speaker's Corner expect that a US president who is a "real leader" should be able to demand and obtain concessions from foreign leaders. In reality, the best results are obtained when our president can convince foreign leaders that their interests are the same as our interests. Failing that, we should always be careful to leave the foreign leader with a "face saving" way out if we really want to get them to do our bidding. Putting leaders in a no-win situation where they not only have to back down, but also have to be seen to be backing down, can result in a response where they refuse to back down even to the point of going to war (as an example, the way Bush backed Saddam Hussein into a corner where the only alternatives were war or humiliation). Of course, in that case war was probably Bush's intended outcome from the start. Also it seems in some circles that "asking nicely", or even worse "negotiating" (which is suspiciously close to "compromising") is seen as a sign of a weak leader. In any event, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is probably a good idea in international diplomacy, as it is in dealings between individuals. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think ultimately we all want pretty much the same things, we just differ in how to get there. It would be a good idea to keep that in mind rather than automatically writing off those with differing politics as being "not real Americans", or worse. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. There is this one guy I have to work with who is really really conservative: Rush Limbaugh playing in the lab, totally against gay marriage, Obama is the antichrist, etc. One time the conversation turned to Brian Nichols, the guy who killed a judge and two others in an Atlanta courtroom (plus one more person later), and this coworker started going on about what a waste of money it was to even have a trial for the guy, and how all these "rights" were just a liberal love-fest for criminals. Needless to say some of these discussions got heated. To me, these discussions are just a way of airing out different ideas, but it turned out this guy took things very personally; for example, he took my support for gay marriage as a personal attack on his religious beliefs. However, as I said this guy is a coworker and I have to interact with him. So we agreed to not talk politics, ever. When we started talking about other things we found we have a lot in common; he's even brought his kids over to my place when we had baby goats they could bottle feed. We could have let politics lead to a hostile relationship, but by putting politics aside we have a good working and sort-of-friendly relationship. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sounds like a terrible ruling to me. What's the big problem with obtaining a warrant? If police can set up surveillance cameras anywhere on private property, they could do so without any evidence whatsoever, just as a fishing expedition, or to stalk some hot MILF that deputy Bubba has his eye on. If they had any shred of actual evidence they could get a warrant. This is a great example of the slippery slope where "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have no reason to object" leads pretty directly to a police state. If I found cameras hidden on my property I'd shoot them. Would that be a crime if they turned out to be police property? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There is this little thing called the Constitution that might have something to say about that. REQUIRE tolerance? No. No-one has a constitutional right to not be offended. Generally speaking, if you want to get a point across you might want to avoid deliberately alienating your intended audience, but then again some people find any point of view contrary to their own to be offensive. Tolerance is required if you hope to have a dialogue, but dialogue might lead to "compromise" or "flip-flopping" and so is out of fashion in America these days. Screaming, ideally accompanied by lots of flying spittle, is the preferred mode of "communication". BTW I think someone would have to be very thin skinned to have found that sculpture offensive. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Your house has a "package"? Go figure. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just a point to ponder: apparently Japan has no equivalent to FEMA, and cleanup after the tsunami has been handled very efficiently entirely by state/local governments, and NGOs. On the other hand the US population differs from other countries in some ways (a point some use to argue that you can't compare health care systems between the US and Europe), and I wonder how well a Japanese style system would work here. Just some food for thought. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As opposed to your (and Sundevil's and other paleoconservative's) preference for neo-colonialism? Some people can never have enough wars, especially if you don't have to do any of the fighting. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You be quiet! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Oh good. Because if you were, I could pretty much assure you that you won't change their minds,and more than they would change yours. Also, if you met some of these people in person (as I have) you'd probably be impressed with how reasonable and considerate they are. Good people. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just curious, haven't you argued that EMTALA should be repealed? I may be mis-remembering, of course, but even our ongoing discussion in this thread implies that you believe extending care to those who can't pay/don't have insurance is a leading cause of the financial difficulties of the system. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't disagree that routine care (annual physicals, sniffley noses) should be out-of-pocket. With non-Medicare insurance, this already happens due to annual deductibles (I pay the first $400 out of pocket, which covers a few visits to the doctor). I've argued before (and I might have got the idea from you originally) that health insurance (like fire insurance) should protect against catastrophe, not minor issues. I somehow got the idea you were opposed to insurance, and favored a strict pay-for-service system. I guess I got that wrong. Not always. Sure, many cancers result from smoking, obesity, etc, but it is a pretty extreme exaggeration to say they all are. Radon from the decay of radioactive minerals in the bedrock and soil is common in much of the country; it accounts for an estimated 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year, including almost 3,000 in people who have never smoked. I had my house site tested, and when I built it I paid for ventilation pipes under the house to reduce radon entry into the house, but it is impossible to reduce it to zero. Every building in North Georgia (for example) has the same issue; Atlanta is a real "hot spot". Making a "choice" to avoid radon would likely move you to other areas with different environmental cancer risks, such as increased UV and cosmic rays at higher elevations. Many plants we eat contain compounds that increase mutation rates and cancer risk. For example, celery (especially when slightly wilted) contain furanocoumarins that react with DNA and cause mutations. Many fungal contaminants of grains (and other things) contain potent mutagenic compounds. Indeed, rates of oral, esophageal, and stomach cancer are way down from historical norms, due to the use of fumigants to kill fungi in stored grains. What all this means is that significant numbers of people who avoid risky behaviors such as smoking will still develop cancer, including lung cancer. It seems ridiculous to consider eating fresh vegetables, or just breathing, as a "risky behavioral choice". My mistake, I thought you were talking about both. Absolutely. But they do the same thing by going to the doctor, don’t they? One (or two) visits to a doctor's office hardly compares to days/weeks/months of interacting with large numbers of unsuspecting people at work, while out to eat, while riding the bus/train/plane, or in social situations Not so much, if we're talking tuberculosis, or (as an extreme) ebola. Maybe so, if we're talking a common cold. Not so completely irrational. Most illnesses pass on their own, especially when you're young. I'm not young, yet I still don't go to the doctor at the first hint of sickness, in fact I still wait until it's clear the problem isn't going to clear up on its own. I'm sure you would not advocate that people incur bills they can't pay, in fact I imagine you (like me) consider that a positive character trait. If someone is in a situation where an ER visit means you have to stiff the landlord (risking eviction) or not paying tuition (risking not graduating, and losing everything you have invested in your education to that point), one would have to be pretty darned cold-hearted to call a person "irrational" for waiting a while to see if the illness cleared up on its own (as it usually does). You talk about "education", as in "when to seek care", but often that means expecting people to self-diagnose without medical training or equipment. Is it a heart attack, or just really bad heartburn? Which is worse for "national policy": people dying of a heart attack because they thought their pain might be due to heartburn, or people who "waste resources" by going to the ER, thinking they are having a heart attack when it's really heartburn. A visit to the ER, getting hooked up to an ECG, and a cardiology consult will run a couple of thousand dollars at least. Plenty of incentive for people to "give it another hour to see if it gets better". All in all a great way to ensure the system spends less money overall, if you don't mind the body count. We used to do that. And health care was much cheaper. It’s when we sought to help the outliers that costs exploded. I think you should also consider that costs exploded when medicine actually became able to do much to treat disease. Few people recognize that antibiotics such a penicillin became available only after WWII. Before that doctors could sometimes diagnose, but treatment with leeching and mustard packs was generally ineffective. They could set broken bones, though. The first generation or so of antibiotics were remarkably inexpensive, but thanks to drug resistance those are long gone, and today's drugs are orders of magnitude more expensive. However we also have technologies that would have seemed like science fiction to 1950's era doctors, such as MRIs. Those technologies have made medicine remarkably effective, but also remarkably expensive. Who would accept 1950's level of care if they could pay 1950's prices today? I very much suspect any simple model to explain the high cost of the health care system would be doomed to failure. Many of the variables have complex effects on the system. Extending care to all regardless of ability to pay has certainly increased costs, but denying care to a significant number of people would also increase many people's exposure to infectious disease. Shifting costs back to patients, especially for "lifestyle diseases", may produce significant savings up to a point, but beyond some point those savings will come at the cost of lots of dead and disabled people, and a huge increase in the number of medical bankruptcies (which already account for 62% of all bankruptcies). I agree that there are big problems with how health care is paid for. I agree that providing a significant financial incentive to avoid lifestyle diseases could help a lot. I think that an immediate, and ongoing incentive, such as higher insurance premiums, are more likely to work than a threat of bankruptcy and denial of treatment that may or may not happen, at some undefined time in the future. While people might get the message about obesity/heart disease/etc when they start to see huge numbers of people cut off from health care after the system devours their house, retirement savings, and kid's piggy banks, I don't think that is an appropriate course of action for a civilized society, and I don't believe it is necessary to accomplish the objective either (if the objective is to rein back costs). I also don't think we have addressed the costs imposed by the unnecessary testing and "defensive medicine" necessitated by our predatory legal system. Estimates of that cost range from 26% of the cost of the whole medical care system (certainly an exaggeration for political purposes) to a more realistic 2-3%, but that still amounts to tens of billions of dollars per year. Thanks for the discussion. I've had to think about, and look up info on some topics I've wondered about for a while. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, what are you hoping to achieve with this line of questions? You come across (to me) as an "evangelical atheist", intent on spreading the faith (or lack thereof). I'm reminded of a friend from back in Arizona, who used to come in to work on Christmas and Easter, take note of who was and who wasn't also at work, then later interrogate the absentees and accuse them of "going to church". There is a group who stands on street corners and give out Bibles one data year; this guy spent the whole day walking around campus collecting Bibles from these folks so he could throw them in the trash. He was an ass about this, frankly, though otherwise a fun person. I, like you, see no rational reason to believe in supernatural beings. However, I also don't see any point in devoting a lot of energy to trying to convince others to abandon their beliefs, especially when those beliefs are central to their happiness. What is to be gained? As long as people don't try to force me to follow their belief systems, I have no right or interest in trying to force them to follow mine. Of course, if they demand that I teach creationism instead of evolution, or accuse me of being a minion of Satan (as my local member of Congress did recently), that's a different matter and I have to defend my beliefs. Otherwise, if faith makes people happy, who am I to insist that they change? I'm always happy to explain why I know evolution is true, or why I believe the Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, or the Big Bang, and I'm always pleased when I see an idea take seed; but I don't take it personally if they can't (or don't want to) understand. Life is less stressful that way. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sorry, but I though the piece too vile to deserve a point-by-point critique. I'm surprised you don't recognize (or agree) that the entire piece was an opinion based entirely on Wheeler's interpretation of Obama's race. First he goes on and on about whether Obama is white, black, Arab, or whatnot. He defines African-American (a term I personally have no use for) in a manner that specifically allows him to attack Obama based on his heritage, not on anything that Obama has ever said or stood for. In my book, making assumptions (especially negative assumptions) about someone based on nothing more than their race is, in fact, racist. Wheeler then goes on to state that any "liberal" who supports Obama is doing so only out of a sense of "white guilt". I think it's Wheeler who is playing the race card, frankly. Usually I find that when I write detailed point by point comments, nobody responds and it kills the thread. A while ago I wrote about all the policy issues where I disagreed with Romney's policies, and not one rebuttal was offered. I don't think that thread even got another view after that. But when I cut to the chase and call crap crap, people complain. Go figure. I will admit to the occasional straw man argument, though. Sometimes I think it instructive, when someone posts an absolutist viewpoint, to go as far as I can in the other direction, just to show that reality (or the optimal solution) is somewhere in the middle. I did that with Lawrocket's post on "cargo cults", and I recall you complained about that too. The point was that a broad brush claim that doing anything in the expectation of future benefits is "cargo cultism" was going too far, and I think he and I quickly agreed on that. In the case of the present post, I just called it as I actually saw it, not a straw man. You're free to explain why you didn't find it racist, or not, as you choose obviously. Cheers, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)