Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 657 Comments
WARMING ADVOCATES: 'REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL!
I'll not dispute that much of the dialogue from the warming advocates (the advocates, not the scientists for the most part) can be classified as "religion".
But I think the label also applies to most of the anti-warming advocates as well.
Since the issue has started, it appears that most of the "no" voices started from a position that it's all a liberalhippie hoax, then moved into the task of discrediting it. This isn't a scientific stress-test . . . its an ideological battlefront.
The initial rejection of Al Gore's movie wasn't based on the scientific data presented being weak. It was rejected because it was Al Gore, whom we all know is a lying demonic hellspawn bent on the destruction of apple pie. Now lets find out what's wrong with it.
The global average temperateure isn't going up. It isn't going up so man-made global warming is a hoax. Okay, maybe it IS going up, but that's natural. Of course its going up because it does that from time to time. So man-made global warming is a hoax.
The answer appears pre-determined. The conclusion isn't built upon the evidence and the investigation, but the evidence and investigation are developed to arrive at the conclusion. That's not scientific debate.
I have no doubt that there are many in the "pro" warming camp who are just as guilty of the same behavior, if not moreso. But yelling "no, YOU'RE biased!" back and forth isn't even remotely related to scientific inquiry or the scientific method . . . and it doesn't get anybody any closer to an answer.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.11.2009 @ 15:22
THE ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY TO ACT LIKE AN ASS
@Mike Reynolds:
"It must take enormous self-discipline to control yourself — especially when the guy you’ve grabbed may be the guy who just shot your buddy. I’m pretty sure that under similar stress I’d just pull out my pistol and shoot the guy in the head.
But then I’m a civilian — and the world is the better for it."
Amen.
I can't excuse police brutality, or a combat massacre . . . but I certainly understand it. I (twice) sought out a career in law enforcement after leaving my criminal defense practice. Both times I backed out when I had to admit to myself that it would probably only take a month (or less) before quite a few of my mouthy suspects would accidentally bang their heads getting in the back of my cruiser. Some of them a few times. Criminals can be a clumsy lot.
Its a tremendously slippery slope, and I don't have the discipline to resist that "No, fu@k YOU" behavior. My hat's off to anybody that can.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.11.2009 @ 15:27
THINKING IMPURE THOUGHTS IS MORE THAN A MORTAL SIN IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN
The more I think about this manifesto, the more it strikes me as an unbelievably bad idea.
If someone agrees with all 10 of these statements . . . then they're already a Republican, aren't they? They certainly aren't voting Democrat. So this won't peel any votes away from the opposition.
The only way for the Reds to win is to get the "semi" votes -- people who may agree with 4 or 5 of those statements, but waver on the other points. Instead of telling those voters "come on over into the tent, we can work together", all this does is tell them "we don't want you". Sure, you may be willing to vote for supporting the military requests in Afganistan and lower taxes, but if you think DOMA is a bad policy then you can take your vote and get the hell out of here. Go vote Democrat, you commie!
Number of votes gained -- zero.
Number of votes driven to the other party -- seems like more than zero.I suppose theoretically, the idea is to get the hardcore that may have withheld their votes in protest back into the fold, but could those voters possibly be enough to (a)shift the balance of power and/or (b) counterbalance the "semis" that this seems designed to drive away? I can't imagine so.
I just don't understand what this was designed to accomplish.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.11.2009 @ 02:19
@funny man:
Agreed. Confession is no doubt good for the mind, if not the soul . . . but the "God insists you do it this way or you'll be punished eternally" aspect of it seemed a bit murky.
Almost as if the practice as institutionalized sprang from the minds of Man as opposed to the Divine . . .
. . . naaaaahhhhh.
On-topic, I think with all the frustration with politicians of all stripes in America today, something that smacks so strongly of "PR talking-point marketing" IMO has a strong chance of backfiring.
The Dem ads practically right themselves:
"The GOP -- great with slogans, but where's the performance?"
"If you're looking for a catchy jingle for a sneaker commercial, vote GOP. If you're trying to run a sneaker company, vote Dem."It won't matter to the faithful, since they believed the talking points regardless (even if some are so vague as to be indefiniable), but the middle might pull away. Really, who didn't think these were Repub positions already? You're not infoming anybody with these "points". All you're doing is calcifing the image of the GOP as TaxCutting, UnionBusting, GayOppressing, GunWaving, AntiChoice ideologues.
The base will love it . . . but these are the descriptors that anti-GOP forces use to make the party unpalateable to the non-base. It seems like these are just doing the alienation work for the opposition.
So, as someone who tends to vote with the opposition (or at least in opposition to these bullet points) . . . Thanks?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.11.2009 @ 21:14
@obamathered:
Now I'm curious.
Is it your position that when the Republicans nominate judicial appointees, they should do so with a primary goal of making sure the judges will inject political/party considerations in their decisions? That a Judge who will decide a case based on the law, rather than on party loyalty, would be a bad judge and therefor eshould be passed over?
Or are only Democrats that evil? Y'know, because they're BadBadBad in thought, word, and deed.
Wasn't raised Catholic, but I never understood the logic* of confession. I'm confessing my sins to God. I talk directly to god (or his secretary) every day when I pray. I get absolution from God.
What the heck am I telling the priest for? Seemed a bit creepy and voyeuristic to me.I lucked out and got Episcopalian in the religion lottery. We had a great "absolution" system. Did you sin? Are you sorry? Well, if you are, then God knows and you're forgiven. If you're not, then God knows so don't waste your time faking it. Either way, it's already taken care of behind the scenes, so you don't have to jump through any hoops. Now let's go get some cake . . .
* yes, I know "logic" and "theology" are sort of mutually exclusive.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.11.2009 @ 18:09
'THE COST OF DYING:' FALSE CHOICES OR THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE?
@BaldNinja:
I think MikeReynolds is more talking about what I mentioned in the post above -- incentive.
Nobody is claiming all doctors are greedy and evil. Nobody is claiming that all politicians (hell, ANY of them) are selfless and altruistic.
The issue here specifically is incentive. Pay-for-service by definition incentivises service, not care. It creates a constant "push" for everything the medical providers do. Does that guide and control all their decisions? Of course not.
Does it have an impact? Surely it must.
No doubt most (if not all) doctors make decisions for the good of the patient. Maybe the doctor advocating radical and extreme treatment to prolong somebody's life for a few weeks is doing so primarily because they don't want their patient to die -- that's sort of a big part of their job.
But doctors are ALSO influenced by selfish concerns . . . demonstrably so. Ever seen a pharmaceutical rep? Ever wonder why they almost always look like hottie covergirl models? Its not because of their extensive knowledge of the product line. Do doctors prescribe the new (expensive) drug-of-the-week becasue GSK incentives them to do so? Some do. Lots do.
Lets say I'm a doctor. My patient is terminal. I don't want them to die. Lets try a major procedure. Might not help . . . but doctors often see patients as things rather than people (occupational hazard), and trying different procedures and treatments often has a "why not", "playing with a big new toy" flavor.
The fact that I can get paid more for two weeks of treatment than I did for the last two years of the patients treatment can't realistically be considered a "non-issue".
Does it drive treatment decisions? Probably not. Is it an inherently bad way to pay for care? Not necessarily so. But thinking its not a factor to consider when looking at the issue seems naive.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.11.2009 @ 15:13
@jackson1234:
"I’ll take the greedy businessman over the political hack who will make his decisions on who lives and who dies on the basis of party and faction."
Really? Good luck with that.
Slight disagreement though. The middle-level bureaucrat isn't making paper-shuffling decisions based on party loyalty -- they're making decisions based on getting out of the office at 4:30. Health-Care "decisions" won't be heard by Senators and Representatives . . . but by regular working stiffs.
Do you think that IRS paper-pushers do their job entirely differently when a new administration comes into power? Or the DEA? Or the EPA? The case worker doesn't say to themselves "How can I promote my political ideals with this case?", they say "How can I close this case?"And assuming politics does come into play, the other party INSIDE the government can expose it. When politics in the Justice Department became SOP, the Dems screamed bloody murder. In a private company, who INSIDE the company is there to argue for the other side, the patients? Nobody. Unless the Insurance company is idiotic enough to write in documentation "lets kill off these dog policies that cost us money by keeping people alive", then the patients (YOU) are SOL.
If a caseworker at a private insurance company can avoid paying a big medical bill for a patient, they can get a promotion, a bonus . . . financial incentive for themselves. If a case worker in the government can block a payment . . . they get squat.
Who has an incentive to screw you? Whether or not they actually DO act in a malicious manner . . . who has the incentive?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.11.2009 @ 17:51
@jackson:
"but you shouldn’t see this through some black and white prism, “government good, health insurance bad.”"
I agree entirely, but I don't see how I'm saying that. In regards to the topic-at-hand with this thread (limits and controls on end of life acre issues), I said that whether we were talking about government funded health care of privately funded health care, the crux of the dilemna was identical. How is that favoring one over the other?
If the topic is strectched to health care reform in general, as I've said in prior threads I'm not for government healthcare instead of private healthcare . . . I'm for government healthcare instead of NO healthcare. The main goal with the reform movement was (in my eyes) to get coverage to the uninsured and to prevent private insurers from denying coverage to those that should be covered. While the government may have a demonbstrated track record of incompetence, they also have a track record of not being profit focused (for better or worse). Private insurance has a track record of denying/excluding coverage if it financially benefits them, regardless of the detriment to the patients. Of those two options, I choose government incompetence.
As I've said before, I'd rather perfect private healthcare . . . but that is demonstrably not going to happen.
This seems to be something conservatives don't understand. I can't speak for a ll liberals, but THIS liberal isn't in favor of government controling all aspects of mny life . . . but I AM in favor of certain minimum things (like healthcare) that, if the private sector can't/won't resolve, then the government will have to do it. The government generally doesn't pass laws because its bored. It doesn't regulate things because they enjoy it. They do so in most cases because the private sector failed to handle it themselves. Auto regulations? "Unsafe At Any Speed". Food safety regulations? Upton Sinclair. Workplace Regulations? Sweatshop conditions and "yello dog" employment contracts. These rules came from somewhere, and there was a pressing need for them.
It's a shame that the government has to act in loco parentis . . . but if the kids are all behaving badly then somebody has to impose some friggin order. You mentioned Schiavo. The government didn't declare what to do -- the court just said that the husband's version of what she wanted was more credible than what her parents claimed she wanted. They didn't dictate the care she received -- Terry Schiavo did. Someone had to referee that fight because the parents and the husband wern't going to agree on their own.
THAT's what government is for.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.11.2009 @ 18:34
@jackson1234:
"This is the Achilles Heel of national health care, isn’t it?"
No. This is the Achilles Heel of health care, regardless of who pays the bill.
If you're indepentdently wealthy, you can spend whatever you like to get whatever treatment you like. If you are one of the other 99.99999999% of the population, you get the care your provider will pay for. Whether that provider is the government or United Healthcare . . . there is a limit.
There can be no (real) debate as to the moral quagmire end-of-life care represents when it comes to potential-vs-practical treatment. I'd love for everybody to get all the care they want, but the world doesn't work that way. That problem, however, isn't an issue with healthcare reform, but a simple matter of supply and demand. Reform healthcare, don't reform healthcare . . . the problem will remain the same.
I would be overjoyed if this country actually bit the bullet and tried to deal with this ethical problem head-on. Sadly, I doubt we will. There is no "good answer" to this problem, and so we are probably going to do what we always do as a society when faced with a painful choice -- avoid it. Far easier to just complain when someone can't get the care they want, or when someone uses up care that could have saved someone else because they were selfish and greedy. Easier to complain about a wrong that has happened than to suffer proactively. Infantile, shallow, and weak . . . but easier.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.11.2009 @ 13:16
'IQ OF A CELERY STALK?' WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT ONE?
@B. Poster:
So . . . because ExxonMobil isn't MORE powerful, that means they aren't extremely powerful?
Looks like in 2008 they spent close to 30 million dollars just on lobbyist influence on the Hill.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firm_reports.php?lname=Exxon+Mobil&year=2008I'd say a 25-30 million dollar annual domestic lobbying budget is pretty goddamn powerful. But as you said, they didn't command all oil and gas reserves be immediately opened . . . so they can't be EXTREMELY powerful.
Since "extremely" is an undefined word here, I can say they are extremely powerful and you can say they aren't, and we'd both be right. How about we define their power in more quantitative terms?
They are a metric a$$load more powerful than you and any of your friends and family . . . combined. Then multiplied.
A fair statement? Or is "b.poster" an alias for "Bill Gates" or "Bill Buffet"?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.11.2009 @ 00:58
