What's a Palin

[lurker]

Well , gyre, you gave me names, but no instances. I can spit out the names of hospitals and doctors all day. You've gotta say what was done--and a cite would be nice.

I agree with you about HMOs--what I find amazing about your statement tough is that alot of the same people who say things like this about HMOs seem to have no problem moving to the massive HMO that is universal healthcare.

We need government and insurance OUT of healthcare.

Take a look at the uninsurable healthcare industry--plastic surgery, vision correction. Prices are dropping while quality is rising--competition is fierce.

Did you know that the exact same rhinoplastic procedure can cost two to three times as much if it's done as a covered reconstructive surgery than it costs if its done as an elective procedure?

Insurance means that there are more people to pay.

[ygmir]

I've often wondered what healthcare would be like if:

Doctors adhered to their Hippocratic Oath

insurance didn't exist, everything was just cash

frivolous lawsuits weren't allowed

malpractice insurance wasn't needed

people took care of the "little" things themselves



Just a few random thought.............

[Elderberry]

I often have random thoughts.

JK

[dr.placebo]

The Washington Post just came out with a nice endorsement of Obama:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03436.html

It was motivated in no small part by their judgment that Sarah Palin was sadly lacking, and how that choice cast doubt on John McCain's judgment.

[lurker]

OMG! A liberal paper endorsed a liberal candidate! Next you'll be trying to tell us that the sky is blue!

[Elderberry]

OMG! A liberal paper endorsed a liberal candidate! Next you'll be trying to tell us that the sky is blue!

I'll bet you never even read the endorsement. Tell the truth now.

JK

[dr.placebo]

Actually, I posted the Washington Post editorial in favor of Obama because it was well written. It had some nice things to say about John McCain, although not much in favor of Sarah Palin.

Let's get back to respected conservatives in favor of Obama. I had an editing problem with the URL for Wick Allison, so here's the correction.

-- Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Cons ... 0-563.html

Wick Allison has some cojones. He's the editor of D magazine down in Dallas, Texas. He will probably lose a few readers, so the editorial is definitely against his self interest. In other words, I think that he's a patriot, even though I probably would differ from him on a lot of public policy issues.

Then I found this article by Andrew Bacevich, who was leaning towards Obama before he was nominated, and had this to say about Republicans and McCain:

For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.

-- Andrew J. Bacevich, in The American Conservative, 24 Mar 2008

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/

-- Andrew Sullivan, conservative senior editor for the Atlantic

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... index.html

-- Francis Fukuyama, former neo-con advocate for the Gulf War

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... /fukuyama/

Even David Brooks, conservative columnist for the NYT, had some nice things to say about Obama ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html )

And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.

It's short of an endorsement, but it's far from an attack.

And we should not forget that this thread was initially about Sara Palin:

http://media.thedailybeast.com/dailybea ... 662155.mov

[Elderberry]

Actually, I posted the Washington Post editorial in favor of Obama because it was well written. It had some nice things to say about John McCain, although not much in favor of Sarah Palin.

Let's get back to respected conservatives in favor of Obama. I had an editing problem with the URL for Wick Allison, so here's the correction.

-- Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Cons ... 0-563.html

Wick Allison has some cojones. He's the editor of D magazine down in Dallas, Texas. He will probably lose a few readers, so the editorial is definitely against his self interest. In other words, I think that he's a patriot, even though I probably would differ from him on a lot of public policy issues.

Then I found this article by Andrew Bacevich, who was leaning towards Obama before he was nominated, and had this to say about Republicans and McCain:

For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.

-- Andrew J. Bacevich, in The American Conservative, 24 Mar 2008

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/

-- Andrew Sullivan, conservative senior editor for the Atlantic

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... index.html

-- Francis Fukuyama, former neo-con advocate for the Gulf War

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... /fukuyama/

Even David Brooks, conservative columnist for the NYT, had some nice things to say about Obama ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html )

And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.

It's short of an endorsement, but it's far from an attack.

And we should not forget that this thread was initially about Sara Palin:

http://media.thedailybeast.com/dailybea ... 662155.mov

Your post have been interesting, fair and thoughtful; unfortunately, I'm afraid that they will be heard only by the choir.

JK

[ygmir]

yes, the choir,
and Dr. Placebo, the priest............hahahahaa

After all,
that's who you guys are preaching to, isn't it?............

I can't imagine either side here changing anyone's mind, here.........

it is fun, though.........

[Elderberry]

yes, the choir,
and Dr. Placebo, the priest............hahahahaa

After all,
that's who you guys are preaching to, isn't it?............

I can't imagine either side here changing anyone's mind, here.........

it is fun, though.........

Ya, I can't either, but I can't imagine anyone on the other side even reading those articles. Lots of thinking, credible and respected Republican conservatives are coming out in support of Obama.

It will be interesting to see if Colin Powell endorses Obama on Meet the Press this Sunday.

JK

[dr.placebo]

As a priest I fall a bit short, mostly due to insufficient faith and a dislike for dogma. What I am trying to do is to lay out reasonable arguments in a reasonable fashion, without attacking anyone on a personal level. I also think that citing sources is a good idea.

If people are so closed as to ignore the arguments and the sources then it's not my problem. I get to reuse these sources and arguments in other places, and maybe others will be swayed. Like most modern elections this one is likely to be decided on the margins.

I will say that I've never before seen such a reaction of informed and principled conservatives against the excesses of this administration and the current nominees. It gives me hope that a new coalition can be forged that does not attempt to force feed religious views using the power of the state.

[gyre]

Well , gyre, you gave me names, but no instances. I can spit out the names of hospitals and doctors all day. You've gotta say what was done--and a cite would be nice.

I agree with you about HMOs--what I find amazing about your statement tough is that alot of the same people who say things like this about HMOs seem to have no problem moving to the massive HMO that is universal healthcare.

We need government and insurance OUT of healthcare.

Take a look at the uninsurable healthcare industry--plastic surgery, vision correction. Prices are dropping while quality is rising--competition is fierce.

Did you know that the exact same rhinoplastic procedure can cost two to three times as much if it's done as a covered reconstructive surgery than it costs if its done as an elective procedure?

Insurance means that there are more people to pay.

Do you really want chapter and verse or are you just being difficult?
Most cases I know of, there is no paperwork because they just let you sit for days until you leave.
They assume that if you are in pain, you're drug seeking.
A friend was rescued from the med waiting room and taken to Methodist by a friend.
Due to the delay, they were rushed into emergency surgery and just saved.

You're welcome to a set of my medical records from two visits to Methodist without treatment.
Copying costs are running about $100 per box.
Last visit was for treatment for non-stop pain since last visit and loss of speech and all sensation in my right arm.
Diagnosis was "tired and disheveled". Sent home.

MRI says subdural hematoma for over two months.
Paid cash to get an MRI.
Good thing I had the money.
Rushed into icu at Baptist East and neurosurgery the next day.

All damage occurred after the accident due to lack of treatment.
No one knows why I survived it.
Not supposed to.
They weren't sure of my survival until six months after the surgery.

I'm sure most of their cases get buried.

I continue to campign for medical tort reform.
I want criminalization of malpractice.
Is dui really more serious?

[Simon of the Playa]

lets just boil this whole thing down to it's lowest common denominator....

Ass Fucking.

yep, that's right, poop shooting.

i hear alot about the republicans and the democrats all being the same, and they only want to fuck you anyways.

well, if thats the case, the Republicans will LIE to get you in a dark alleyway, then GANG RAPE you violently in the ass, using no protection, and inherently, at least one will give you an std or two or three. Afterwards, they will Blame the Victim, and suffer no consequences.

The Democrats will use minty Lube and Condoms, and while whispering sweet nothings in your ear, will give you a reach around.

afterwards, they'll marry you.


SO, America the Love Hole, which way do you want it?


(editors note, even though his ass hurts a bit, he's happy about the floral arrangements and the caterer)

[ygmir]

sometimes, reading one of your posts in the morning, lets me chuckle all day, Simon............

[Simon of the Playa]

so, does this mean the warming gel is working?

[ygmir]

yeah, but, let go of my ears............

[Simon of the Playa]

those are EARS?

[ygmir]

damn, am I upside down again?..........

[Elderberry]

you guys are starting to get me excited. I feel like a voyer.

Funny stuff.

JK

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Palin is an environment disaster waiting to happen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/18 ... ref=slogin

"The federal government on Friday placed beluga whales that live in Cook Inlet in Alaska on the endangered species list, rejecting efforts by Gov. Sarah Palin and others against increased protection."


Being a subsistence hunter myself, I have very little respect for other hunters that aren't conservationists for the welfare of other species.

AIIZ

[Elderberry]

I'm sort of conflicted on protecting endangered species. When you consider that over 90% of all species have gone extinct; what difference does it really make anyway? Life, in one form or another, will go on.

JK

[ygmir]

I'm sort of conflicted on protecting endangered species. When you consider that over 90% of all species have gone extinct; what difference does it really make anyway? Life, in one form or another, will go on.

JK

*standing behind JK, hand raised, in agreement*........

[dr.placebo]

The theory is that species extinction is a sign that the environment is being stressed, and that there are some nasty consequences for us. In this theory biodiversity is a marker, a "canary in the coal mine," about which we should be concerned.

Biodiversity also has some benefits in terms of protecting us against bugs that can wipe out monocultures (a real danger given current agribusiness), being the source of medicines, and keeping open useful options for hybridization.

I do value our species above the others, but for me it's not a choice between species, but a choice about whether to have a healthy and diverse ecosystem or to waste future potential for the sake of short term profits for a few.

[Elderberry]

The theory is that species extinction is a sign that the environment is being stressed, and that there are some nasty consequences for us. In this theory biodiversity is a marker, a "canary in the coal mine," about which we should be concerned.

Biodiversity also has some benefits in terms of protecting us against bugs that can wipe out monocultures (a real danger given current agribusiness), being the source of medicines, and keeping open useful options for hybridization.

I do value our species above the others, but for me it's not a choice between species, but a choice about whether to have a healthy and diverse ecosystem or to waste future potential for the sake of short term profits for a few.

But that's just a 'theory', like the 'theory' of evolution. I need facts!!! LOL, just kidding.

Again, another compelling argument. I'll have to think on this awhile longer.

JK

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I'm sort of conflicted on protecting endangered species. When you consider that over 90% of all species have gone extinct; what difference does it really make anyway? Life, in one form or another, will go on.

JK

I'm sure what the data you state is about?

93% of all species are still on the list. some species that aren't poster likable may never be taken off due to habitat depletion and denigration. Migratory species may have duel status: protected in the USA, but not in their foreign countries. The Bald Eagle is off the list and is now a pest along with seagulls in some places. On a recent drive to yellowstone park, I may have six or eight along the Gallatin River and Madison Rivers.

Here are some good links:

http://www.edf.org/documents/4465_ESA_S ... ailure.pdf

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_works/

As stewards of this planet and its only intelligent species and the cause of its recent specie decline, we have a duty to protect them. If this was the 17th century imagine what we could still see alive. Like the Giant human eating birds of Madagascar.

I don't see a problem with alaska improving it suage water quality or a reconsidering a dam project. Look wind and solar technology may be cheaper now then building a hydro dam anyway.

AIIZ

Who ever said that shooting wolfs from a plane is a sport?

[Elderberry]

I'm sort of conflicted on protecting endangered species. When you consider that over 90% of all species have gone extinct; what difference does it really make anyway? Life, in one form or another, will go on.

JK

I'm sure what the data you state is about?

93% of all species are still on the list. some species that aren't poster likable may never be taken off due to habitat depletion and denigration. Migratory species may have duel status: protected in the USA, but not in their foreign countries. The Bald Eagle is off the list and is now a pest along with seagulls in some places. On a recent drive to yellowstone park, I may have six or eight along the Gallatin River and Madison Rivers.

Here are some good links:

http://www.edf.org/documents/4465_ESA_S ... ailure.pdf

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_works/

As stewards of this planet and its only intelligent species and the cause of its recent specie decline, we have a duty to protect them. If this was the 17th century imagine what we could still see alive. Like the Giant human eating birds of Madagascar.

I don't see a problem with alaska improving it suage water quality or a reconsidering a dam project. Look wind and solar technology is may be cheaper now then building a hydro dam anyway.

AIIZ

Who ever said that shooting wolfs from a plane is a sport?

I'm talking about all species plant/animal that have ever existed on our planet. Not current species on endangered species list. Considering this history, how much additional damage can be attributed to the polar bear going extinct for example. (I'm watching the commercial to save them right now, and they sure do make a compelling emotional argument, but other than that, what actual difference would it make in the grand sceme of things? And we could always raise them in zoos.)

I am not saying we should or shouldn't protect endangered species, I'm saying I don't have enough info and am not sure of the benefit, if any.

JK

[ygmir]

Ok, JK, that's enough......I've agreed with you 3 times in a row now.....
you're losing your "respected nemesis" status.......hahahaha

It seems, as in all things, there's some sort of balance needed.....

We, as humans, are part of nature.....

some extinctions, are due to lack of adaptability to changing circumstance, not always human caused.......
As JK says (now I'm quoting you, RB), 90% of all ever existing species are extinct. Before us, it was something that caused it, every time......

So much of this is driven by the "cute" factor.......as AZ points out......
In reality, though, it won't matter if the red legged warbler is extinct.......
Whatever it causes, is, exactly how it will be....

The extinction of the dinosaurs was a bummer for them, but, worked out pretty good for us.......( I know I oversimplify here), so, who's to say it isn't still possible for others?.......

We see so much in terms of a few hundred years........
Does anyone think the earth (if you believe it's sentient) cares about a few hundred years?........

Clear cut an area, and, people scream it's ruined for eternity. Perhaps for "their" eternity, but, in the larger picture, it'll heal.........
I'm not advocating unsustainable and/or wasteful practice, I'm just saying perspective is important.......
How much devastation did the huge eruptions in the past of the Cascade volcanoes cause? Much more than any activity we've undertaken there, but, it looks nice now.......

So, if the Polar Bear is gone (damn you JK), ultimately, it just won't matter. Except for some ego centric souls that think everything should be exactly as they want it, to look at and enjoy as they see fit.......

So, I'd call it as I see it, which is people wanting things how they like it, regardless of long term consequences, or, lack thereof.......
Call it a choice, opinion, whatever..........

randomly thinking again.....dang.....

[theCryptofishist]

The theory is that species extinction is a sign that the environment is being stressed, and that there are some nasty consequences for us. In this theory biodiversity is a marker, a "canary in the coal mine," about which we should be concerned.

Biodiversity also has some benefits in terms of protecting us against bugs that can wipe out monocultures (a real danger given current agribusiness), being the source of medicines, and keeping open useful options for hybridization.

I do value our species above the others, but for me it's not a choice between species, but a choice about whether to have a healthy and diverse ecosystem or to waste future potential for the sake of short term profits for a few.

Dr. Placebo, I really value your responces on this thread. I'm only reading your posts in this thread, it's just to ugly for me. But I do find it important to read your responces, level headed, lucid, pertinent, no snark, no bile. I won't say you're an inspiration, but you're damn good.

[Elderberry]

The theory is that species extinction is a sign that the environment is being stressed, and that there are some nasty consequences for us. In this theory biodiversity is a marker, a "canary in the coal mine," about which we should be concerned.

Biodiversity also has some benefits in terms of protecting us against bugs that can wipe out monocultures (a real danger given current agribusiness), being the source of medicines, and keeping open useful options for hybridization.

I do value our species above the others, but for me it's not a choice between species, but a choice about whether to have a healthy and diverse ecosystem or to waste future potential for the sake of short term profits for a few.

Dr. Placebo, I really value your responces on this thread. I'm only reading your posts in this thread, it's just to ugly for me. But I do find it important to read your responces, level headed, lucid, pertinent, no snark, no bile. I won't say you're an inspiration, but you're damn good.

As long as he convinces you to vote for Obama, that's good enough for me!

JK

[Simon of the Playa]

level headed, lucid, pertinent, no snark, no bile.

im going to name a litter of puppies exactly that.