pirana

This will change once you start jumping regularly. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Sometimes pointing out errors is actually a lot of work. Not this time though. 'Eliminate social class' and 'don't tell people how to live' is a humongous disconnect. It is good to speak from the heart. It is also good to keep the brain plugged in. What does living in a free society have to do with criticizing poorly thought out ideas? Other than the fact that people are free to spew poorly thought out ideas and also free to point them out? Maybe I should have taken the Elementary School approach, pasted in a smiley and said "Such a nice thought little Johny. Now you run along to recess." Not my style. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The Social Contract. Further elaborated on by Locke, and then Hume. Forms one of the cornerstones of western thought and our Constitution, if not the outright foundation for our Constitution. A huge influence on Jeffreson and significant in the minds of our Founding fathers as a whole. An extremely liberal idea in the classic sense of the word. A huge step away from everybody just doing whatever the fuck they wanted and had the power to pull off. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

How would you propose to eliminate social class without having to tell people what to do? Example: Education. Level of education is a huge factor in social class. You would need to make certain everybody got a very similar education if you want to eliminate social class. How would you do that without telling them what to do? All of this is of course moot until you tell us what social class we all need to be like. Oops, there's that telling everyone what to do thing again. Like Dennis Moore riding thru the night; you really haven't thought this whole redistribution of wealth thing out very well. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You are correct. If you want Mayo level of care, that everyone can afford, available on demand - - ain't gonna happen, a non-starter, by definition utterly impossible. But good quality of care, at a reasonable price, available to all when they need it is very doable. We don't need 100% on any of them; though I'm not sure how what we do need gets turned into a percentage for the things you list. It will require some level of subsidization and redistribution of wealth, but we've moved way past that point anyway. Key points to a solution have been posted elsewhere. Everybody that knows the business knows this, but too many that are in the business are afraid for their little corner of the world. Cost of care must be addressed. Everything else is just delaying any real fix. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Oh yeah. Popped it open and first thought was "Can't wait to see how this one goes!" I agree, it is kinda funny; just can't decide on which flavor of funny: 1 - Funny as in overload to the senses; kind of like a big train wreck where you just gawk at the incredible level of damage. 2 - Funny like a Three Stooges short, or maybe a Lucy skit. You know, slap your knees and hoot and holler. 3 - Funny like a stand-up comic who isn't really that funny, but is entertaining because instead of telling outright jokes they poke away at the idiotic tendencies of humans. Jon Stewart funny. I'm going with number 3. It does remind me of the Demotivators poster with the one guy in an otherwise totally empty room: "Sometimes the best way to solve morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people." Or something like that. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

We've got a resident clairvoyant AND a resident anarchist. All in one thread. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You take it right. They are, in my eyes, all so close that it doesn't matter. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That guy is the best shit going. Funny, intelligent, good looking; he's got it all. Might I suggest a link? In another thread I've ranted that the whole western world is essentially very liberal, regardless of the insidious devisive self-identifying labels people like Rush, Franken, and company put out. This video is clear evidence that even the relative opposite ends of our supposed political spectrum are nearly identical, at least in the results they generate and words they spew. So why do we continue to bicker and argue about the conservatives this and the liberals that? Why do we insist that we are so different when we are in fact so similar? And now, the rare double-link: Because we like to argue. Putting people down is America's favorite entertainment. Witness the most popular forms of television. Combat cooking, combat landscaping, combat comedy, combat modeling, combat makeover, combat design, combat singing, combat family swapping. A whole plethora of shows for which the strongest common thread is people ripping each other to shreads verbally. It's not enough that they simply compete. The real entertainment is that they strut around cussing and dissing each other non-stop. And the American public just laps it up. I'd try a triple link but I'd probably hurt myself (don't bounce like I used to). I think that counts folks - my first triple-link. That's it, the Pirana has left the building. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Are there any "Western-style" constitutional democratic republics which, at this moment in history, you would consider to be, on the whole, more conservative societies than the USA? I tend to look at the whole and over a long enough period of time that little blips caused by things like who won the last election are pretty much inconsequential. The noise of day-to-day politics is barely worth listening to (but fun to debate). Besides, a historical perspective gives a much more accurate picture of where we are headed long term. It is extremely difficult to accurately assess the long-term effect of current events while in the midst of them. As a whole, all of western culture is overwhelmingly classic liberal. The differences between any of them is just so insignificantly incremental compared to what came before; and certainly not worth anybody getting their undies in a bundle. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yes, both questions have strong appeal to the masses in this age of soundbites and celebrity worship. I think this should be settled with a Sean versus Rush cage match. If that doesn't do it, then we take it down one more notch and host a roller derby. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Ah, I see now this was covered; but in much fewer words than a windy person like me. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Might I suggest A History of Western Political Thought? Well, I guess I did - but will anybody care? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Agreed. The terms have been twisted more ways than a dramatically funneling 16-way zoo dive. I refuse to recognize those uses and go back to the classical meanings, formed back in Europe's dynastic period (the second milenium). Conservatives were the ruling houses that wanted absolute power to reside in the ruling elite. They wanted total control of the masses via their fuedal systems, and involvement of the church only to the extent that it helped control the masses. They wanted no outside interference in their business by any kind of governing body, and were in fact the de facto governing body. What they did not foresee was that their agglomeration of power laid the roots for nationalism that eventually pushed them formally out of power. The liberals were the people that wanted to provide rights and privileges to ordinary people. Thanks to nationialism and the subsequent rise of representative governance, they have pretty much won the day for what passes in general as The Western World. The slow but steady several hundred years march towards socialism IS the liberal agenda. It has retained enough free-market characteristics to remain vibrant, creative, and . . . liberal. In classical terms the USA is an extremely liberal society. A classic conservastive society would have none of this BS where commoners get to make decisions about their lives. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I don't think that is an apples to apples comparison. Scale has a lot to do with the functioning of an economy. Sweden's economy is a small fraction of that of the USA. All forms of governance and participation do not work well on all scales. Comparing the economies of Sweden and the USA would be like me comparing how we run our household to how our county runs it's affairs. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Actually, i am saying the opposite. Just because it isnt specifically excluded it still might not be included. I think some polices have a section about intentionally putting oneself in harms way. If that is the case then its a lawyers fight. To do that they would have to show that you intended to hurt yourself. Kinda like the standard exclusion for suicide. To deny a claim for a covered member, there does need to be an exclusion that applies. So, though something does not have to be named specifically, they do have to point to an exclusion in the contract and show that it applies. I've reviewed a lot of Blue Cross health contracts and never seen one that specifically excluded skydiving injuries (or rodeo or motorsports or scuba or any other adventure sports). I've not reviewed contracts for other companies, so can't say about those, but that USPA article from 2001 is not very clear and doesn't identify a final outcome. I doubt the rules were ever adopted, and at any rate the rules (as explained in the article) were an attempt to prevent denial of an application (denials that I am not aware were ever happening) while leaving the door open to deny claims (denials that may or may not have been taking place - but as mentioned were not happening in MN). Part of the problem in interpretation may be that there are several separate issues though: 1 - Getting accepted for coverage. In MN skydiving is not a part of the health history and can not be used to reject an application. For large group coverage there is no HH even taken. 2 - Denying claims of a covered member specifically because of an adventure sports injury. Again, not done in MN at all (at least not legally). 3 - Denying claims because it was a pre-existing condition. This would be the biggest risk, but is going away with time as a result of the increasing use of continuous coverage provisions. The real wild card is that most of the regulation is still at the state level, so your results may vary. As an aside, the Blues are not a nationwide entity other than being chartered by the BCBS Association to use the brand. There are about 40 different plans, mostly defined by state boundaries. There are a few companies that have been granted use of the brand in multiple states (Anthem, CareFirst, HCSC, etc), but they must comply with each states specific rules for the business they conduct in that state. Wiki has a nice summary of the Blues, including the fact that MN was the first to use the marks and the true home of the Blues. If you live in a state where the approach of the insurance industry and regulators is to deny as much as possible rather than finding ways to finance as much as possible; then maybe keeping the mangled bicycle around is a good idea. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yeah, that's it. Wendy W. Well how much should we have to pay to live in a dictatorship? I don't know if you read the news today but according to the memos that's what we've been under since late 2001. Blues, Cliff Considering we just had a free election in which we not only changed leaders, but changed to a leader from a different party; your comment is not only hyperbolic, but outright false. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

No, but do you advocate the government pointing a gun at me at the same time? What does the issue of emergency services being ubiquitously available and paid for via taxes have to do with the government (or anybody) pointing a gun at you? You are really reaching, though I a can not tell for what. By the way, our volunteer fire department sends a bill for their time. The equipment is completely paid for via government funding; but they charge for the time spent on an emergency (and I'll bet it is waived if the recipient can demonstrate financial hardship). We had a call that occupied 11 firefighters for 2 hours. They billed us $220 for the 22 hours of effort. Pretty cheap really. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So how do we stop people from writing bad checks, stealing cars, breaking into other's homes, and that kind of stuff? Asking them to please not do that again doesn't seem to work. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That is an interesting read on comparing incarceration rates, sentencing, etc. I do agree with some of the writer's thoughts, but would not take much of it at face value. For example, there is the little issue of summary execution. Don't know the frequency of public beheadings in places like say, Saudi Arabia; but a religious monarchy lobbing criminal's heads off in the town square must have an impact on criminal incarceration rates. Another is the zeal with which laws are enforced. The writer seems to take issue with our enforcement of marijuana prohibition. I agree on that one. But I don't see any mention on our enforcement against murder, rape, etc. Maybe we are just better enforcers? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That was kind if difficult to read and understand with so many run on sentences. But I think I understood it clearly enough to ask what it has to do with your ability, and freedom, to join forces with like-minded people to lobby for changes to our laws. Maybe you were not commenting on my statement (that you are free to try to influence changes to the laws you do not like). Apologies if that is the case. If there are particular laws you do not think are right, you are free to try to change them via the courts ot the legislature. If there is more resitance than can be overcome, then you either accept that as part of the Social Contract, or go somewhere else, or keep trying, or resort to anarchy and face possible consequences, or, . . . whatever other options are out there. No matter how you look at it, there are options, and you are free to choose among them. That is far more freedom than exists in most places. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

No. That comment was aimed more at all the priests that like to fondle children. But I do think that pretending to be perfectly straight-laced when a person is not does cause wierdness. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I was in Circuit City last week (they are selling the shelves off the wall in preparation for closing) and a disgruntled customer was having a hissy fit. Towards the end of a heated exchange she threatens to call the police. The employee says "Go ahead, call the police." The customer then asks the checkout person if they could please dial 911. So I take a quick step back up the aisle, keeping an eye on her hands, and scoping out escape routes and places for cover. I thought maybe she was going to shoot the place up. Turns out she just thought 911 would help her get her money back for a purchase she regretted making. I'll bet 911 operators hate high-maintanence self-centered asswipes even more than i do. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That's really too bad, but if a politician is going to call Rush for what he is, then they have to know that the teeming masses that consider him God-like are going to be ordered to arms on his very next propoganda hour. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Very true (the we-ain't-twenty-anymore comment). Funny reminder of it again last night. We got a nice dumping of snow last week. Started a nice sledding chute down the hill by our house; just packed it down a bit with a couple runs with the plan to let it harden and come back. Shoveled up a nice pile halfway down to make things interesting. Last night we went back to it. The run had hardened up nice; a very fast looking groove with a good sized jump. I of course went first just to make sure it was safe. Got within a couple feet of the rampo/jump and thought "Wow, this really is fast!" Up in the air, separated from sled, down hard on the hip and elbow. I laugh at myself now, but that really smarted. i don't bounce up like I used to. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley