ParanoiA

Words mean things. As we've seen, in law, the consequences of those meanings are often quite systemic. None of our rights cost anything, nor do they require the state to do anything. The idea being that a right is something that, philosophically, is inherent to human life - hence inalienable. It requires no capital, or work to comply with other's rights - the very existence of the state isn't even necessary, except that it's the state that defines it, in our case. The republic doesn't need any agents at all, for those rights to be in place. (To enforce them; to stop others from violating them, requires agents, but they're not needed for the rights to be exercised ). To consider healthcare a right, requires the state to confiscate property from the public in order for the right to be exercised. It also gives the people a right to other's work. Remember, a right is something we expect no matter the condition of the state - broke, wealthy, depleted, healthy, whatever. So if the government has no money, they're now in blatant violation of our rights, one way or the other. They must enslave a medical worker in order to satisfy your right to healthcare. Or they must deny your right to healthcare in order to keep from violating their rights by enslavement. None of our other rights require infrastructure and capital like this, to exercise. We can be broke as hell, and I can still enjoy my right to walk down the street. When one talks of "rights", we must be forward thinking in how we consider the consequences, including any future potential consequences. And "strawman" is not a valid response to any forward, critical thinking effort. By it's very nature, it is speculative prescience. What's wrong with healthcare being a "privilege"? That's why we have such a concept - to provide for the welfare of the public, without endangering the obligations to the state. Privilege implies a commitment without the structural conflicts of rights. No, it's not separate at all - that's my point. You're taking me to task about resisting calling it a "right", and my reasons are a multi-point list. I provided a couple, but I could add more. It's entirely relevant and responsible to think about the implications of calling something a right. You want to move on? Then don't let this get stuck in the mud of rights. Rights are too seriously polarized to expect flippant approval. We're talking about concepts that would put people in prison. That's the business end of violating a "right". So, we don't take it lightly, and we don't rush through it. I'm not really sure why you're taking these concerns as arguments, but I suppose that's fair. I was speaking to my insistance that we come up with something better - something that addresses the problems in both systems - not cheap lip service, or logical fallacy labels. I want to deal with the problem of elective procedures. I want to deal with the problem of fleeting talent in other socialized systems. I want to deal with the problem of long waiting periods we hear so much about. Those comments were about pointing out what little we do have right about our healthcare, which is excellent compensation, a good talent pool, and I suppose, arguably, quality care. My experience, anecdotal as it may be, has been quality. I'm almost 38, and have had several procedures. They've always been in a quality environment, with competent people, excellent service. I don't know what else to say, I have no complaints EXCEPT that not everyone can enjoy it. So, I don't want to ruin that. It's great. Why screw it up? There's no reason to. We can rollout healthcare as a privilege to the american public, with a design that maintains this quality, or improves it, and doesn't turn me away from elective procedures unless it's purely a matter of doctor's advice, and doesn't make me wait unreasonable lengths of time. That's really the only point of the above. Let's not screw up what we have right, that's all I really meant. No, it doesn't, because you didn't understand my point. My fault too, because after re-reading it, I don't get my point either. I was trying to point out that I don't get denied hip replacement because somebody else needs one worse, and the insurance company can (or will) only afford ONE of us to get one. No, they are contractually obligated to provide both of us with one - assuming it's covered under our plan. The government can claim to "cover" it, yet deny me that elective if they can't afford it. Don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating insurance is better than government, that ought to blaringly obvious that I have no love for insurance at all. Just pointing out that the customer has more say so and more power, armed with law, to enforce compliance with contracts in a private trade. They can't agree to one thing, but then refuse it. Government can, and does, all of the time.

You don't burn the leaves. Well, more accurately, you harvest the bud by destroying the plant and cutting away everything, including the leaves. The THC content is highest in the flower of the plant. Leaves just get you woozy. So, there's a bit of refinement, but not much more than any other vegetable or fruit.

Dudde, I think it would be wise to consider the intensity of intoxication from THC. It's not argued alot, and I have no idea why. Marijuana cannot "knock you out" and leave a teenage girl helpless to the party animals. Alcohol can, and does. Marijuana does not effect your sense of balance, take over your judgement and get you running down your street naked. It doesn't take you over. All of the other fun drugs, do. You'll see a couch of lazy stoners, some of which are "passed out", but you won't see a staggering, drooling fool that can't control himself, or find the floor. Marijuana is a mild intoxication, by comparison. It's effects are felt almost instantaneous. Unlike alcohol, and the other entertainment drugs, which take so long to take effect you can very easily consume too much before you realize how it's going to hit you - and then it's too late. Even iNow will pray to the porcelain god after way too many drinks...

Some interesting perspectives in here. I really appreciate John5746's appreciation for the insult in thinking of healthcare, which requires the servitude of another, as a right. But that doesn't mean we can't think of it as a privilege, for all. Not saying I'm signing on to any particular idea, but I wouldn't kick and scream to start from this premise and move forward. Which is, essentially, iNow's proposal. I think the language matters though. I don't want to see spoiled brats some-odd years from now arguing about how they have a right to this and that. I don't think that conflicts with my insistance we come up with something better than has been conceived by mankind thus far. I don't know that I want an insurance based system. I know I don't have much need for middle men and the very concept of insurance disgusts me. I'd prefer something that ends up with me rewarding my provider, directly. Non-profit sounds like a great angle since we're talking about healthcare. Incidentally, this is partly why the libertarian in me takes a back seat on this discussion, most of the time. Healthcare is a people-first priority and the government, in theory anyway, is best suited for that arrangement. Also, I realize cost is a big issue here. But let's caution ourselves. We don't want to get so focused on minimizing costs that we stop putting quality first. We cannot allow our obsession with efficiency and money to undermine common sense. Good doctors want to get paid. Talent requires good compensation, or it will go away. They work harder than most people, and they deserve it. We deserve them as well. Let's keep that going. For one, when the government does it, I HAVE to contribute, whether I want to or not. Capitalism can't make me do one damn thing. For two, when the government does it, it's one large pool. When capitalism does it, each company is a different pool, varied by success and merit and each compete with each other. I can choose which pool I want to get into, or not one at all, PLUS, they are motivated - by threat of their very existence - to be efficient. The thing is, they're only concerned about being efficient enough to make a profit, not to best serve me. Socialism forces us to assimilate and collect. Capitalism allows us to assimilate, collect, or something else, or not at all. It's like saying I shouldn't bitch about being pushed down the hall when I was already headed that way on my own. I don't take being pushed around very lightly. Yeah, I have to say, this is my most concerned area, actually. This is the kind of thing to make somebody blow up a freaking hospital. I could just see this happening to me, after spending all of my life NOT being a burden on the system, at all. Then, the one time I need something, I don't get it because some other guy - who's no doubt been milking the system since his teens - qualifies for a hip replacement, while I'm not suffering enough to qualify. That's what pisses us insurance payers off. We pay and pay and pay, paycheck after paycheck and we get effective medical treatment in return. It's expensive, to be sure, but we don't get denied because our insurance carrier can't afford it and this is the latest cost saving measure. So when we are forcibly shifted to some universal system, prolific with "electives", it's an insulting downgrade. We should not employ any system that doesn't deal with this equally or better than our current arrangement.

Awe now, we all know damn good and well why they chose weed....it's far more mild of an intoxication than alcohol and far more quickly delivered - both of which make the drug safer, by the way. Alcohol is too debilitating to chug on break, and then enjoy during class. Although, I did have some friends during high school that claimed they tripped on LSD in class. I don't hang around those idiots anymore.

I don't know how much he "trusts" him, but it's clear he isn't sure one way or the other if this will work, and basing a bit of hope on counterintuition, which he has experience with. And hey, for that matter, why not? They already spent the money whether we agreed with it or not, so it's in our best interest to hope it works wonders. So, yeah, let's hope for some major counterintuition. And no, it won't vindicate the biggest spending bill in history, passed without being read by most, if any.

Fair enough, but would that not change at the distribution level? Usually the same guys selling meth, sell weed as well. I could see a significant impact on profits for them if marijuana was legalized - well, depending on how legal it ended up, that is.

Bull. You'd be surprised how forward they get when competing. I've met tens of women like this, and actually work for one right now. She regularly talks about her sex life, and how great she is, and how she does things most women don't like...and she's a pretty cool, down-to-earth kinda person really. And one of the best at her job.

Well, careful though, because in a democratic society the 'state' is not merely 'us', it's 'us, operating in the capacity of law'. I say it that way, because it's important to distinguish personal opinion from legislative opinion - a distinction that I believe most americans are not making. And I blame this lack of appreciation for the distinction for eroding our civil liberties. I personally do not have any use for cigarettes. My preference = no. But my democratic position = yes. Because I do not believe you'll respect my right to do silly things that you aren't in to, if I don't respect your right to do silly things that I'm not into. Put in the context of the OP, the state, or "the people operating in a governing capacity; the power of law" should not make value judgements about the public. If we are to truly legislate equality, then the "state" cannot make subjective value judgements about behavior at all, but rather objective conclusions based on where one citizen's rights end and another's begins. Of course, we're kidding ourselves if we were to believe we could be purely objective, even the nature of rights as I've expressed it is a subjective conclusion, in and of itself. But, if that's our mission statement, then we will be as equal as any society could possibly be in the eyes of the law. And bigotry will never enjoy the power of law.

But everyone is not equal. And you can't support any notion that they are. Instead, we invest this notion in laws, so that everyone is equal in the eyes of the state, legally. This allows society to negotiate equality in any method they choose, if they are truly free. Capitalism is free trade between free people and attempts to allocate resources by merit, as opposed to a judgement by the state. To allow the state to "judge" and allocate resources, is a direct conflict to equality. Individuality is more important, and even more important than that, is diversity of individuality. The more diverse we are individually, the more ideas are contributed to the whole, the more innovative and successful society can be. Of course, this embraces the idea we are not equal. It accepts this reality and uses it to make us better. We can become equal. But not if you lie to yourself and pretend we already are.

And that's how it should be. Maybe it was smoke and mirrors, or maybe just bad journalism. I don't know.

Not to be misunderstood, I totally agree with your intent here, to call out immature, dangerous gun totting sentiment. But I don't agree with the detail here. An ass whipping from a dude 5 times my size, with a bat, is quite sufficient for me to end his life. Not without all due warnings, but certainly sufficient. A guy with a bat, even smaller than me, can kill me fairly quickly. Not sure I'd even get in a mess like that, though, since I believe in picking and choosing your battles.

Maybe we could extend the SCHIP funding to include vice crimes as well. "Hey there kiddo. As soon as we bust somebody screwin' a hooker, we'll getcha' that kidney".

Hmm...well I looked this up on Wiki and I don't understand most of the words on that page. I don't understand the concepts of Potential and Field related to gravity. I can kind of follow along the equations, but I'm not inferring any qualitative value from it. If any fictional setting were to utilize this twist of physics, I'm wondering if it would be better applied in reference to gravitational potential, rather than field strength. My thought was merely for objects high in the air to appear to move faster, in reference, from the ground, due to the difference in reference frames. It seemed some relationship to gravity could be responsible for that. But I never thought about (or even knew about) potential vs field strength, or etc.

Actually, I heard some republican talking about this on the radio, and he made it clear that the intent was to tax the first $100,000 at 10%, and anything over at 25%. So people will still rather earn $120,000 over $99,999.99. That said, there may be some other detail on dependent status too. I don't know. I hope not, though, because it shouldn't matter. Your verbiage is questionable to me: Penalizes? Or rather, refuses to grant special privilege? I get what you're trying to say though, but I don't agree with any notion that choosing to have kids earns one more right to their property than some single person has to theirs. I have two kids and I don't deserve more of a break than my neighbor who has none. Sure I like it. And I'll keep claiming it while all of you single people out there take a screwing over it by making up the difference I don't pay. Thanks all, and sorry, but it's not my idea.

Parden me, if I may be so lazy, but what's the difference between the two? And does that impact my conclusions in the OP?

Still don't know, but I thought this bit was interesting... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/01/house-republicans-stimulus-repeal-budget-plan/ Still no real detail, but if I apply the above to my income taxes this year, I'd have paid double. As it stands, I got money back. I paid about 5% or less in taxes, and I'm plenty over the median income for the nation. This is under the Bush tax code, I presume. That's awfully progressive for someone with my income to owe so little - the rich must be getting soaked here.

Absolutely not. There's enough of that around, we need to be diverse. The US is in the unique position and still retains enough independent spirit that we can contribute to mankind by being innovative and not settling for ordinary, less than impressive solutions. Let those countries play it safe, we need to come up with something new. Insurance is a sham. Strong arming employers to pay for arbitrary expenses like health insurance, is a sham (might as well require them to provide soap and a newspaper). Come on, we're smart people with an incredible pool of intellect - we're probably the smartest, certainly most knowledgable, humans to have ever lived (speaking globally). Why do we have to copy ideas developed by our ancestors? Can't we do better than that? I think we can. I don't know that we will. But I know we most certainly won't if we work from a premise that undermines any truly ground-up innovation. I have no desire to follow here.

Well, it's about time for one of my silly questions. I had asked once before if the gravitational field strength increased or decreased as one moves from the surface of say, the earth, to its core. The answer was that it decreases, roughly linearly, as one moves to the core - finally ending up at zero. Now, I can only assume this is the case as one moves from the surface of the earth, out into space, as well. From this assumption, I would conclude that the gravitational field strength is strongest on the surface. Are these correct assumptions, or have I missed the boat again? This is the setup for my question, in a fictional setting... Let's say that in an alternate universe or whatever, the laws of physics have been somewhat perverted in comparison. Let's say that time is effected by gravity, such that it appears to move faster in a stronger field in reference to weaker fields, and this is exaggerated. So, someone floating in the air 3 miles above the surface should be experiencing a lower gravitational field strength (unless I was corrected above), than someone standing on the surface. My question...Would the reference frames be such that the floating dude appears to be moving in fast-motion when observed by the guy on the surface? And would the guy on the surface appear to be moving in slow motion when observed by the floating dude?

I have a tendency to get real loud, real fast when I feel I'm being "wronged" - including a smart ass "you're welcome" when I hold the door for an unappreciative oblivion. I've come so close to getting my ass handed to me so many times but I manage to stay intact and injury free. I'm a strong proponent for confrontation when it's needed, and it sounds like it's needed in this situation. Some of this attitude comes from personal experience. When I was being a punk in public, growing up in Oklahoma, there was no shortage of folks plenty willing and eager to stand up and I remember being confronted by some really pissed off adults - freaked me the hell out. It was these moments that I realized that adults can totally kick the shit out of me, in a really bad way - it's only a matter of pushing them into it. So I stopped pushing. Sometimes they just need to be reminded of the proverbial stick. And that they are punks because we LET them be punks.

I don't know, Padren, I think it can be planned out and in fact, I don't understand any writing method that doesn't plan it out first. I would never put proverbial pen to paper until I knew exactly how the story is to end, the major themes and the point of what I'm trying to do. Everything else then, can be critiqued about how I got there - but to start things without a cause, to create without a purpose - makes no sense to me. So, yeah, I agree with you here in that it sucks entirely to create mysteries and lay down plot without the detail of direction and coherence, consistency - just thrown to a close. The best twists in any plot, are those that can be reconciled with the events throughout the story and it holds up, solid. And I don't think that can be done by throwing together excuses after-the-fact. And like I pointed out, I'm not sure how a writer does that, in the first place. That's like...storyline fraud. Isn't there a name for this horrible thing? I guess the reason this stuff doesn't really bother me too much is because I never liked it to begin with. To me, BSG was best as the mini series intro, and the first season, and razor. Once we get into the final 5, Hera, maps and quests and religious silliness, it lost it's honesty for me. Some of the struggle with mythology/reality and finding earth was kind of cool and actually fairly honest to the human condition, I thought. But the rest ruined the gritty, realism that started this whole thing.

Hendrix was, since his version was soooo much better. Wasn't that just about prescience, and not really any purpose? I never thought the dream was supposed to help, in any way. I had to laugh here, because I initially thought they were giving a huge green treatment to BSG with some misanthropic notion that we should draw some arbitrary line in our "tool making" so that we never have lights and gizmos ever again... Honestly, I think this would have worked better if it were the other way around. If WE were their ancestors, that evolved into them. It would explain the dialect, the language, the design of our bodies... I had a hard time accepting that they are supposed to be our ancestors, yet they spoke english (like all aliens seem to...), thought and acted like we do, appear to be built like us...I don't know. Maybe the coolest ending would be if the last Cylon ship and the last human ship each fired their nukes, and we all died. All the cylons and humans, dead for good. That would have been sweet.

I don't think you can create a multi-season series like this and have a satisfying ending for everyone. Too much hype. I thought it was terrific. It answered the questions about "this has happened before and will happen again" and even included the present as a variable to that end. It answered all of the dream stuff, with the president and Athena running to the kiddo, and all that, the final 5 elevated above them. It imagined the idea that we came from them. Very neat. And it left other stuff dangling - which I believe creates a purpose for storylines from other BSG concoctions to intersect and answer. Although I can see how that can rub people wrong. The whole Starbuck thing bugs the hell out of me and I'm really hoping there's a good reason for leaving that HUGE hole dangling in the story - I'm hoping they have something else in mind to cover that mystery. Otherwise, that's just chickenshit. I don't have any issues with the series, really at all, other than that. They did great. Deus ex machina? I don't know. I'm one who likes that. The ending to War of the Worlds has always been my favorite. Most would call that deus ex machina. It's also far more interesting, and honest, I think.

Yes, nicely put.

Nope, do not have that correctly. Their ruling did declare the above. I declare differently. Their declaration is empowered with law. Mine is not. I think this. They think that. Their thoughts matter to the masses. Mine don't. It's that simple. And there's no hypocrisy to build arguments off of my thoughts. Arguments like the constitutionality (my declaration) of gay marriage. Why is that so difficult to understand?