Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war 
> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was 
> clueless about.

I still have not seen anything like unto real evidence that Bush was 
either stupider or more ignorant than anyone alleging either stupidity 
or ignorance on his part.  I do, however, see a boatload of 
Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:24:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Another good one from the same channel:
>
>http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Thanks.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31-7-2009 16:04, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e. 
>> almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make 
>> sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly 
>> americans', and what is the news value of that?
> 
> I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
> Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
> anyway :) )

Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation 
of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All 
other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one 
political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience 
to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in 
the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels. 
Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching 
a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels 
are using politics to bind the audience.

Post a reply to this message

On 31-7-2009 23:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I like how someone points out that McCain was born in 
> Panama.
[]
> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we *do* 
> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.

On which continent was he then?

Post a reply to this message

On 1-8-2009 5:31, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired 
>> of people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the 
>> post.
> 
> You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It 
> actually makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used 
> the wrong tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
> 
> (I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she" 
> are different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who 
> she's talking about.)

My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
> I do, however, see a boatload of 
> Monday-morning quarterbacking.

What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically 
challenged people?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 07:58, andrel wrote:
> to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
> the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
> Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
> a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels
> are using politics to bind the audience.

	That's essentially the free market ideology at work. You end up with 
lots of "specialized" channels - each presenting a certain point of 
view, and most presenting things that are not true mixed in. Sure, if 
you go through almost all of them, no doubt you can figure out what's 
going on. But most people don't have the time, and when given a 
"choice", they'll go for the station that is showing _their_ truth.

	And if that's bad, the Internet as a source is even worse. When you 
have disgustingly partisan sites like the Huffington Post and 
FrontPageMag that make the schisms even more pronounced. People will 
naturally choose the sites that give them the news they want to hear, 
and those sites generally don't display news that goes against their 
point of view.

	A few years ago, a veteran journalist lamented this whole problem. He 
said that at the very least the benefit of newspapers is that a headline 
on the other page may catch your eye, and it takes less effort to read 
that article than to click on it. Unfortunately, newspapers are being 
abandoned for more partisan sources.

	As for The Daily Show, while it _is_ good that it often highlights the 
general inaneness of the main media companies, I don't see it being any 
better as a _sole_ source of news.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I hate to be a grammar nazi

  Btw, does that count as Godwin's law in action?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:58:21 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation 
>of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All 
>other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one 
>political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience 
>to have an political opinion. 

I've only been watching for a few weeks. I can detect a little bias, I think,
but as it is similar to my own political views I heartily approve. :)

>One of the reasons for the sharp divide in 
>the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels. 
>Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching 
>a channel with a different opinion impossible. 

I thought it was more because there was a fear of being thought Un-American.
Although I think that most people tend to stick with what they are comfortable
with.
 
>In a way some channels are using politics to bind the audience.

Do tell ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.

Oh! Is that a bad thing then?

You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
> 
> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
> 
> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P

why not?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:21:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>> 
>> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
>yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
>Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
>know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
>> 

If you follow properly then you would know :)

>> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
>
>why not?

I do the same or so my wife tells me.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
>> I do, however, see a boatload of Monday-morning quarterbacking.
> 
> What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically 
> challenged people?

Claiming, with hindsight, that you know what he should have done better 
than he did at the time.

American Football games are often played on Sunday night.  The tendency 
is for fans to talk Monday morning about what mistakes the quarterback 
made during the game, claiming that they know better (having watched the 
whole game).  The fact that the fans are not under the same pressure as 
the Quarterback, and have access to different information (views from TV 
cameras, rather than being on the field) doesn't seem to matter to these 
people.  They just think that the QBs are idiots, and they are better.

The implication here is that, whatever mistakes Bush may have made 
during office, those complaining about him aren't likely to have done 
any better were they in his situation.

(I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and 
lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd probably even 
vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 11:48, Chambers wrote:
> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and

	He may have been a warmongerer, and a lot more stuff unfit to print, 
but I seriously doubt he was delusional.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one 
> political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience 
> to have an political opinion.

Also, they depend on getting press releases and access to the president, and 
they find themselves snubbed if they annoy the government too much. If 
you're doing comedy instead of news, it's OK to make fun of the government 
two or three days after the event has been reported in all the "serious" media.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
>  The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.

I think one difference is that something like 70%-80% of the people approve 
of (some of) Obama's policies, while 70%-80% disapproved of Bush's policies. 
The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are the ones where he's 
doing the same thing as Bush.

But let's not get into a political argument here. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   I hate to be a grammar nazi
>   Btw, does that count as Godwin's law in action?


Reminds me of one of the meetings I was in.
"Hire Carlyn. She's very good at this sort of management."
"Yes, she's a real requirements Nazi. ... Er, that's a good thing."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:16:01 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

> They do
> honestly believe that Obama's policies will do far more harm than good.

Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim 
that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the 
cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system 
itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average 
life span being something like 37th in the world.

I wonder how we rank in the cost of malpractice insurance for 
doctors....certainly that's a huge part of the insane costs of health 
care here in the US.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 18:25, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:21:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>>>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>>>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>>>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>>> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
>> yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
>> Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
>> know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
> 
> If you follow properly then you would know :)
> 
>>> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
>> why not?
> 
> I do the same or so my wife tells me.
Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it. 
;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of 
'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will 
make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to 
the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the 
listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it 
saves time.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim 
> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the 
> cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system 
> itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average 
> life span being something like 37th in the world.

Why, the cost being highest in the world is what *makes* it the best in 
the world!  More expensive is always better, *especially* if you get a 
lower-quality product!  It shows that you are affluent and have money to 
waste!  And *everything* in America is better than everywhere else, not 
because it's *good*, but because everywhere else is so much worse, yes! 
  Now all we need to do is get rid of those pesky liberals, who have 
their heads in their sand about reality and want to take all our 
hard-earned money and give it to deadbeat minorities who just want to 
suckle on the public teat, and prevent us from our God-given 
constitutional right to bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the 
fact that we haven't had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a 
very long time, certainly not within living memory.  Well, there's those 
illegal immigrants, any immigrants should be illegal to keep the 
American culture pure, and that's sure an invasion and we should be 
allowed to shoot anybody who's different.  Rawr.  (and that's not even 
touching the abomination that is the Federal Reserve, mockery that is 
the UN, travesty of abortion under any circumstances, and whatever other 
sacred cows far-right conservatives have that I can't think of off the 
top of my head)

*cough*

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 31-7-2009 23:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I like how someone points out that McCain was born in Panama.
> []
>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we *do* 
>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
> 
> On which continent was he then?
Ok, ok... Wasn't thinking. Panama is "technically" North America, but 
its a close call. :p

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:50:49 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> *cough*

You should have that cough checked out, unless your insurance provider 
has determined that it's not covered because it's a preexisting 
condition.  Make sure your doctor is in-network and that you've got your 
credit card to cover the co-pay (or more if you haven't met the plan's 
minimum out-of-pocket expense per annum).  And if you are referred to a 
specialist for help with it, your PCP doesn't know if the specialist is 
in-network or not for you, so make sure you check before you make the 
appointment, otherwise you have to pay the specialist completely out of 
pocket. ;-)

(Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 11:48, Chambers wrote:
>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and
> 
>     He may have been a warmongerer, and a lot more stuff unfit to print, 
> but I seriously doubt he was delusional.

Not delusional, but deluded.  From what I've seen, I think he wanted the 
war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:

1) His own view of the available data was biased,
2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or 
unconsciously colored the information they gave him.

Combined, I'm sure that he was convinced he was doing the right thing. 
I'm also certain that he's much more intelligent than people give him 
credit for, and that if he'd had access to better (read: less biased) 
information, he would have made more intelligent choices.  He was still 
biased himself, so he wouldn't be perfect, but he would have done a lot 
better.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and 
> lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd probably even 
> vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)
> 

You sure about that one?

http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire

"Two ways third gender works in the Family: There are these very strong 
wives who oftentimes are very strong-willed people. I'm just reading 
Katherine Joyce's book on Quiverfull … And the other are women like 
Hillary Clinton, who's just a man as far as they're concerned.

Lindsay Beyerstein: What's Hillary's involvement with the Family? What 
is she getting out of it?

Jeff Sharlet: As I was researching the book, I knew Hillary had this 
strange connection. I didn't think much of it until I was reporting on 
Sen. Sam Brownback. Everyone knew I was a reporter from "Rolling Stone," 
probably more liberal than they were. So, a way that a lot of Family 
people would reach out to be friendly was to tell me that Hillary 
Clinton was OK with them. They'd tell me that HRC was going for regular 
spiritual counseling with Doug Coe.

Lindsay Beyerstein: Is she still getting counseling from him?

Jeff Sharlet: This was in 2005, and she refused to say anything about 
this. When NBC questioned her about this, her only answer was that 
(she's) not a member and (she) has never given Doug Coe money -- which 
was a strangely parsed kind of answer."

So... Not necessarily a member of the neo-almost-fascist elite, but 
willing to listen to them for advice, even while Bill was President, 
according to an earlier bit...

BTW, the three congress critters recently in trouble over adultery, one 
went to these people for help, when caught, the other two are members, 
and live, tax free, in what is classed as a church, in Washington DC. 
Their philosophy seems to be a) divine right to rule, since its god that 
*gives* people such power, and b) Christianity has been screwed up for 
the last 2,000 years, by trying to help poor people, instead of bringing 
about a world worthy of Christ's return.

Yeah.. Really love the idea of voting for Hillery, given her 
connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and 
background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve 
some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators 
and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in 
Bush's connections would land him with these people too.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )

*Spock-like* Indeed.

I don't have insurance, the only doctor bills I've paid since moving to 
Florida have been dentist, and those were out-of-pocket 
(metaphorically).  ^_^

Side-note, it's really impressive how much dental medicine has advanced 
over the years, even since when I was a wee lad ('course, the first 
dentist I had growing up used equipment from the '60s, and when he 
retired the new dentist had significantly more modern gear, but when I 
moved to FL, the dentist I ended up going to has pretty much the latest 
and greatest, so I was impressed)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 12:47, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.
>
> I think one difference is that something like 70%-80% of the people
> approve of (some of) Obama's policies, while 70%-80% disapproved of
> Bush's policies. The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are

	Somewhat disagree. A lot of that 70-80% disagreement with Bush was 
towards the end. If you look at, say, Iraq war support it was mostly in 
the 40-60% range.

	There may have been some policies that the country was 70-80% in 
disagreement with, but then you'd get the same "some" disclaimer that 
you put with Obama.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are 
> the ones where he's doing the same thing as Bush.

What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have 
the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed? 
Never mind the fact that Bush is the reason we're in the Middle East to 
begin with...

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:17:49 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )
> 
> *Spock-like* Indeed.
> 
> I don't have insurance, the only doctor bills I've paid since moving to
> Florida have been dentist, and those were out-of-pocket
> (metaphorically).  ^_^
> 
> Side-note, it's really impressive how much dental medicine has advanced
> over the years, even since when I was a wee lad ('course, the first
> dentist I had growing up used equipment from the '60s, and when he
> retired the new dentist had significantly more modern gear, but when I
> moved to FL, the dentist I ended up going to has pretty much the latest
> and greatest, so I was impressed)

It's funny you mention that, because the situation I sorta described in 
my reply two above is one I've run into - my main dentist referred me to 
a periodontist for cleaning because my gums were in really bad shape.  
I've been to the periodontist 4 times and had to pay it all out of 
pocket.  Why?  Because my plan doesn't cover periodontal care unless I've 
had periodontal *surgery* first.  In other words, I have to have let my 
gums get *so* bad that it required surgery (which they would cover), and 
then they'd also let the periodontist do my cleanings.

Of course my regular dentist didn't know that Aetna had this precondition 
on getting periodontal care.  I've spent the better part of a year 
fighting with them about whether or not it should be covered, and it's 
like talking to a brick wall.  The specialists at Aetna seem to think 
that it'd be better for me to have things deteriorate further before they 
should have to pay out for coverage.  Never mind the fact that the 
cleanings are $114 each visit and surgery would cost a LOT more than 
that, so they'd end up paying out more if I did have surgery.

And some people think this is the best system in the world.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 13:50, Tim Cook wrote:
> public teat, and prevent us from our God-given constitutional right to
> bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the fact that we haven't
> had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a very long time,
> certainly not within living memory. Well, there's those illegal

	The right to bear arms is meant for both internal and external 
purposes. It's not just about foreign invasions.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 13:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the
> cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system
> itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average
> life span being something like 37th in the world.

1. Cost of health care being high doesn't negate it being the best.

2. To be fair, it all depends on what ranking you look at. Not all place 
the US that low. The usual ranking people invoke is the WHO, which puts 
it just a bit below 30th - nowhere near 50th.

3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care 
don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work 
hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who 
don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being 
the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is 
not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

4. To be fair, among industrialized countries, the US _does_ rank near 
the top for the treatment of certain conditions (e.g. certain cancers, 
etc). I don't know if they include people who just don't get care 
because they can't afford it. To be even fairer, the same study shows 
that the US is worse and in some cases really bad for a number of other 
common serious ailments.

	I haven't deeply looked at Obama's plan. I don't know if it's 
particularly good. It's not what most advocates of universal health care 
want. I don't know of any country that actually uses his plan as a 
model. The countries that do come close (Switzerland?) and have a system 
of private insurance actually enforce limits on the amount of profit 
insurance companies make. That doesn't seem to be in his plan.
	
	I think what a lot of UHC advocates have to understand is that just 
because it's government run doesn't mean it will work at all well. There 
are a lot of issues and concerns that simply are not being addressed. 
It's a long article, but you should read:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

	It's purely discussing government run care, and how in some cases it 
can be really abused, without the guilty party even consciously _trying_ 
to abuse it. If they don't address this kind of stuff, UHC won't work 
that well.


-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:19:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/02/09 13:50, Tim Cook wrote:
>> public teat, and prevent us from our God-given constitutional right to
>> bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the fact that we haven't
>> had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a very long time,
>> certainly not within living memory. Well, there's those illegal
> 
> 	The right to bear arms is meant for both internal and external
> purposes. It's not just about foreign invasions.

The right to bear arms also is specifically with regard to "a well-
regulated militia".  My read of the 2nd amendment is not that it allows 
homeowners to own guns for self-defense, but that it is limited 
specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".

The text reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free 
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed."

I do recognize that my interpretation differs from that of the US Supreme 
Court, but hey, there's nothing that says I have to agree with the 
court's decisions.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 14:04, Chambers wrote:
> Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
> war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
>
> 1) His own view of the available data was biased,

	That makes sense only if you assume he invaded for his stated reasons.

> 2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
> unconsciously colored the information they gave him.

	It actually seems that some in his staff wanted it more than he did. In 
a case or two (perhaps unrelated to Iraq), he had to overrule some of 
his staff in order to be a bit "saner". Rumsfeld, for example, did not 
want federal agencies involved in Katrina. Bush finally overruled.

> Combined, I'm sure that he was convinced he was doing the right thing.

	Perhaps, but "right" is a very slippery term. From a certain 
perspective, destroying a country to get a strategic advantage in the 
reason is the right thing to do. Or so I keep being told.

> I'm also certain that he's much more intelligent than people give him
> credit for, and that if he'd had access to better (read: less biased)
> information, he would have made more intelligent choices. He was still
> biased himself, so he wouldn't be perfect, but he would have done a lot
> better.

	Less biased information?

	The intelligence information he received was mostly correct. The CIA 
warned him that the connections were quite tenuous. They even made him 
remove the Niger link from his speech (or that of someone in his 
cabinet). It was common practice to have a speech vetted by the CIA. 
When Colin Powell finally gave that speech, he did so without the CIA's 
knowledge.


-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 14:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
> background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
> some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
> and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
> Bush's connections would land him with these people too.

	The "unholy" alliance with the Saudis goes back decades. It's silly to 
put it on Clinton or Bush's lap.

	And yes, I really do think they should shut down Sandia National Labs.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 14:30, Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are the ones where
>> he's doing the same thing as Bush.
>
> What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have
> the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed?
> Never mind the fact that Bush is the reason we're in the Middle East to
> begin with...

	So...what policy are you talking about?

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:19:44 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/02/09 13:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
>> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite
>> the cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the
>> system itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the
>> average life span being something like 37th in the world.
> 
> 1. Cost of health care being high doesn't negate it being the best.

True, but studies have shown that it's not the best in the world.  And 
yes, it does depend on whose ranking you look at and what the criteria 
are.  If the criteria is "makes the most money for shareholders", damned 
straight, we've got the best system in the world. ;)

> 2. To be fair, it all depends on what ranking you look at. Not all place
> the US that low. The usual ranking people invoke is the WHO, which puts
> it just a bit below 30th - nowhere near 50th.

I think I mixed the numbers up, I was afraid I might do that.  The WHO is 
who was cited in the numbers I heard.

> 3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care
> don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work
> hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who
> don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being
> the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is
> not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

Yes, agreed - and I appreciate that you don't agree with that view.  I 
agree that heath care is and should be a human right.  The needs of 
society for a healthy population outweigh the needs for profits or other 
motivating factors.

> 4. To be fair, among industrialized countries, the US _does_ rank near
> the top for the treatment of certain conditions (e.g. certain cancers,
> etc). I don't know if they include people who just don't get care
> because they can't afford it. To be even fairer, the same study shows
> that the US is worse and in some cases really bad for a number of other
> common serious ailments.

Sure, one can cherry pick parts of the system and say "that's good" and 
"that's not good", but the point is to evaluate the *system* not 
individual components of the system.

> 	I haven't deeply looked at Obama's plan. I don't know if it's
> particularly good. It's not what most advocates of universal health care
> want. I don't know of any country that actually uses his plan as a
> model. The countries that do come close (Switzerland?) and have a system
> of private insurance actually enforce limits on the amount of profit
> insurance companies make. That doesn't seem to be in his plan.

I haven't looked at the plan in great detail, but the vibe I get from 
what I hear about it is that it's not a replacement for the current 
system, but an addition to it.  Those who oppose it say it's a bad idea 
because "government run programs don't work efficiently" - like the 
military or the post office don't work well at all.  (But wait, they 
do. ;-))

But those same people then say that it would supplant the current system 
because of competition.  But wait, if the current system is good and 
competition is good, then adding an option run by a supposed inefficient 
government agency shouldn't be a threat to the existing system, should 
it?  The opponents need to decide, either the government can run it 
effectively and competitively (thus undermining shareholder value in the 
current scheme), or the government is incompetent and can't run an 
effective program that's any better that what we currently have - in 
which case, it's not a threat.  It can't be a threat and not a threat at 
the same time.

> 	I think what a lot of UHC advocates have to understand is that 
just
> because it's government run doesn't mean it will work at all well. There
> are a lot of issues and concerns that simply are not being addressed.
> It's a long article, but you should read:

True, and while I support the plan based on what I've heard about it, I 
don't believe it's a magic bullet that'll solve all of our problems.  But 
it's a step in the right direction.

Part of the reason it won't be a magic bullet to solve all of our 
problems is that the legislative process requires compromises be made.  
Some compromises will be good for the plan overall, and some will be bad 
for the plan overall.

> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?
currentPage=all
> 
> 	It's purely discussing government run care, and how in some cases 
it
> can be really abused, without the guilty party even consciously _trying_
> to abuse it. If they don't address this kind of stuff, UHC won't work
> that well.

Sure, but the current insurance-based system also doesn't work that well, 
can be abused, etc, etc, etc.  The same arguments that are used against a 
single-payer system apply to the system we have now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have 
> the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed? 

No, I mean like the "let's continue to detain these people indefinitely even 
tho they've already had a trial and been found to be innocent and 
non-dangerous."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".

Definition of militia:

2) the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military 
service

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".
> 
> Definition of militia:
> 
> 2) the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for
> military service

That definition came around circa 1890, according to the OED.

A more telling definition is one that was in common usage when the bill 
of rights was created in 1789:

3. b. [...] a branch or department of the establishment maintained for 
purposes of war.

Or perhaps an earlier definition:

1. a. A system of military discipline, organization, and tactics; manner 
of conducting warfare; the arts of war.

In 1776, Adam Smith wrote:

"It [the state] may..oblige either all the citizens of the military age, 
or a certain number of them to join in some measure the trade of a 
soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry 
on. Its military force is (then) said to consist in a militia."

While not a definition per se, the connotation here is that a militia is 
a military force made up of citizens who are part-time members of the 
military.

How many actual gun owners are members of, say, the national guard?  Less 
than 100% I'd wager.

Then there's the "well-regulated" part of that phrase in the bill of 
rights.  Someone who goes to the local gun shop and purchases a S&W .38 
handgun to go target shooting on the weekends (or for self defense) isn't 
part of a "well-regulated militia".  They're an individual citizen 
purchasing a handgun for personal reasons.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 14:04, Chambers wrote:
>> Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
>> war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
>>
>> 1) His own view of the available data was biased,
> 
>     That makes sense only if you assume he invaded for his stated reasons.

Not necessarily; I assume that, whatever reasons he had, they were 
colored by his desire to find a reason to invade.

>> 2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
>> unconsciously colored the information they gave him.
> 
>     It actually seems that some in his staff wanted it more than he did. 

<snip>

>     Less biased information?
> 
>     The intelligence information he received was mostly correct.

I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of 
the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the 
higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush 
himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).

According to them, you just did *not* give a report that contradicted 
what the cabinet wanted to hear.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, 
>> and lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd probably 
>> even vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)
>>
> 
> You sure about that one?
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire

Quite an appropriate link for a thread that started about conspiracy 
theories ;)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care 
> don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work 
> hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who 
> don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being 
> the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is 
> not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply 
every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need 
it.  The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply 
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need 
> it.  The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

The reality side of things is that you don't *need* to supply every 
treatment available to every individual who might possibly need it.  You 
only need to supply sufficient treatment to remedy the problem to those 
that do need it.

...the trick is correctly diagnosing the latter.  The current medical 
industry is portrayed as (no reference as to accuracy) intentionally 
foisting as much medication on as many people as it can (misdiagnosing, 
fostering paranoia, et cetera) to maximise profits, which artificially 
inflates demand, and therefore prices.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I haven't looked at the plan in great detail, but the vibe I get from 
> what I hear about it is that it's not a replacement for the current 
> system, but an addition to it.  Those who oppose it say it's a bad idea 
> because "government run programs don't work efficiently" - like the 
> military or the post office don't work well at all.  (But wait, they 
> do. ;-))
> 
> But those same people then say that it would supplant the current system 
> because of competition.  But wait, if the current system is good and 
> competition is good, then adding an option run by a supposed inefficient 
> government agency shouldn't be a threat to the existing system, should 
> it?  The opponents need to decide, either the government can run it 
> effectively and competitively (thus undermining shareholder value in the 
> current scheme), or the government is incompetent and can't run an 
> effective program that's any better that what we currently have - in 
> which case, it's not a threat.  It can't be a threat and not a threat at 
> the same time.
> 
Hmm. Need a new deck for this one. It doesn't quite fit the 6 of 
hearts/diamonds:

"The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. 
Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include "this is just a tool," and "you're 
banning technology."

Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still 
widely-used argument—that technology "can't be regulated." Of course, 
any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but 
this exercise isn't about being cogent, it's about stopping whatever 
intervention the denialist opposes."

or the 6 of clubs and 7 of spades:

"One can always employ the "we can't handle new regulations" argument.

Alternatively, the denialist will argue that they are already highly 
regulated, and thus no new interventions are needed.[10]"

maybe the 10 of diamonds and 10 of clubs:

"Not only do you not understand the delicate denialist, you are 
proposing that the denialist be subject to bureaucrats! ("Bureaucrats" 
is always said with a sneer.) Buzz phrases here focus on denigrating 
Washington.

At this point, the denialist must propose "self regulation" to deal with 
the problem that doesn't exist.  The cool thing about self regulation is 
that it cannot be enforced, and once the non-existent problem blows 
over, the denialist can simply scrap it![19]"

Could be 9H - Muddy the Waters, vs. 9D - Poison the Well... Need to 
think about this a bit. lol

http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:34:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

Cool, I like that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:16:40 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

Only if health care is about money rather than being about health, and 
only if the approach taken is to apply all available treatments 
indiscriminately without considering the most effective treatment that 
gives the best chance for survival/cure/remission.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 14:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
>> background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
>> some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
>> and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
>> Bush's connections would land him with these people too.
> 
>     The "unholy" alliance with the Saudis goes back decades. It's silly 
> to put it on Clinton or Bush's lap.
> 
>     And yes, I really do think they should shut down Sandia National Labs.
> 
Not putting it in their laps, just pointing out that, if your suddenly 
dealing with Middle Eastern terrorists, continuing to deal, as though a 
trusted ally, with someone who has their own 'in house' training camps 
for at least one group of terrorists, is... not terribly bright, no 
matter how much oil they have.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, 
>>> and lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd 
>>> probably even vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another 
>>> election.)
>>>
>>
>> You sure about that one?
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire
> 
> Quite an appropriate link for a thread that started about conspiracy 
> theories ;)
> 
Yes, well.. This is hardly a theory. The guy that wrote the book got 
laughed at, a few years back when he did. Now.. three senators have 
gotten nailed for thinking that they could do things that others can't, 
it turns out that the C-Street boarding house actually exists, and *is* 
listed as a church by the IRS, despite the fact that its clear there is 
no church there, etc. Sometimes conspiracies are real. The problem is.. 
Well, look at who has been spreading most of the conspiracy theories 
about the left, liberal Christians, scientists, etc... Yep, the people 
who just "happen" to get caught doing this stuff recently.

And, to be clear, conspiracy theories from the other side lack any sort 
of internal consistency, because they are all based on random gibberish. 
The stuff coming from the right.. is *very* consistent. "We have the one 
true version of the faith, everyone else is a false believer, or worse, 
and they are all conspiring to undermine religions and our countries 
non-existent 'Christian' foundations." Still get a laugh at that last 
bit. Show me where, in the constitution, or anything written from the 
period, where it says, "You can only have one god, you can't make graven 
images, and you must observe the Sabbath, which ever day is happens to 
be).", or how rules against theft, murder and adultery are 
"non-existent" outside of Christianity, never mind how you can possibly 
have a capitalist economy, if you are forbidden to covet anything anyone 
else has... So.. Why keep trying to post those on every government 
building, if they are **not** what the country is founded on? lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:30:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>> 
>> I do the same or so my wife tells me.


>Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it. 
>;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of 
>'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will 
>make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to 
>the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the 
>listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it 
>saves time.

I don't recognise myself in that paragraph (maybe it does not translate well). I
tend to say "he said" and "he did" without mentioning which "he" I mean. But
with a little effort on the listener's part, mentally shifting subjects when the
sense is lost, understanding can be obtained :P
I tend to oscillate between speaking very precisely, as if I were writing a
functional spec and being too sloppy. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:48:31 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>"Yes, she's a real requirements Nazi. ... Er, that's a good thing."

Jawohl!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 03/08/2009 06:16, Chambers nous fit lire :
> The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

If there is a cost, there is a possible benefit for whoever would make
it, charging the relevant states. And if there is a benefit, it does not
cripple the economy.

Or are you stating that the benefit of some individual is a bad thing
that cripple the economy ?

The facts are rather that it's a harder thing to do than other to make
benefit, so most lazy capitalists are just not lobbying to make an
industry of it.

Post a reply to this message