ParanoiA

I don't have to pretend I'm not responsible for Iraq, I gauran-damn-tee you I did nothing to promote that mess. But I do get your point. Whether we like or not, all of the republic must answer for the republic's decisions - no matter what the individual 'publics' might have voted.

Actually, I was reading an interesting piece by Stratfor called Net Assessment: United States. I don't know much about this media source yet, but it is fascinating reading. This particular report's purpose was to analyze the US outside of the "noise" vacuum, the dirty particulars we are all locked into. It's also necessary to tune out the transitory passions of societies all over the world, and look at the "reality" of it all. From this perspective, they claim Al Qaeda's overall goal to be to recreate an Islamic caliphate. A transnational Islamic state that could threaten US power in the long run. Still from a panoramic focal point, America's response has been to attempt to destroy Al Qaeda, but more importantly, to disrupt the Islamic world for the long run. The complexity involves intruding on the Islamic world without interfering with the flow of oil. They claim the US strategy is focused on disruption, not nation-building, and a large force is not needed for that. It's an interesting point of view, and one with a lot of merit, if you read the whole article. If this is true, it explains much of Bush's actions, and inactions. It explains why the administration carries itself as if they have already won something, while we all bitch about the "progress" in Iraq. It also explains why they're not bothered by our Halliburton cries and blood-for-oil protests - because all of that is incidental, and none of it has smack to do with why we're there, and changes nothing.

We have a caucus here in Missouri too, on 3/15. Was thinking about going, even though I work saturdays and would have to burn a vacation day. I've never done the caucus thing before, and I'm not real sure how that relates with the primary we had back on Super Tuesday. How does the caucus relate to the primary in Texas? Is it just an even split of delegates between the two systems? A kind of bicameral election method?

Yes, I too would like to know if other countries who have government coerced national healthcare insurance have managed to resist the conditioning and see it as a mega-corp. Glad we agree on the first part. But, National healthcare insurance is not "halfway" to anywhere except socialism. I'm just as disturbed about government selling insurance (paid by coercing the citizenry) as I am corporations selling police services. One thing you've pointed out though that I can't get around is the money being used to influence government. I'm always going on about how we seem to prefer using government (legislation) for social engineering, behavior and etc, sparing them the "inconvenient trouble" of persuading the masses in free society. And as you've correctly pointed out, mega-corps do that on an exponential level. Not that I mean to change the thread direction, but how do we stay philosophically consistent to clear principles of freedom to petition the government, pressure government officials, and yet stop the insane lobbying and obvious big money influence? Of course, Hamilton might add that every country is run by a small, elite group, regardless of the design. So, is it even possible?

Ah, the mighty government ISN'T a "mega-corp" thwarting the intent of the system? You don't think that by acting like a corporation and providing health insurance - a business product - on a scale that Wal-mart can only dream about and makes Halliburton look like a small business - that you aren't thwarting the system? Yes, that's not the way corporations nor government should be run. I cannot accept any solution that isn't a solution. Anything short of treating the root of the problem, is augmenting the problem. To me, when you push this kind of legislation, you remove all hope of ever correcting the actual problem. You shouldn't have to have insurance to see someone for a cold. Licensing regulations keep me from seeing a qualified nurse for my ills, oh no, I have to see "the doctor". What a great business boost from the government - the public is mandated to do business with them. Well gee, what kind of competition is that? That's why it costs me over a hundred bucks to get a 3 dollar prescription for Amoxicylin. That's also why I have to have insurance to see them. I once tried to pay cash for a doctor visit since my insurance wouldn't cover any costs associated with workman's comp - they looked at me like I was crazy and the doctor still refused. I was forced to get treatment from some weirdo that worked for the workmen's comp insurance company, in a creepy "warehouse" office with hardly anyone around. He smelled like he smoked two cigarettes at once and looked like he hadn't bathed in a week. Insurance is so ingrained in our thinking and in the system and that is a huge problem. Anything short of addressing this is the equivalent of spin and investment in further corruption. The healthcare system is wrong by design. I'd rather get out of this proverbial box rethink the notions it's built on.

Yeah, it might get close here and there, but after watching him route Hillary over and over again during a couple of their debates, I'm convinced this dude can route anybody. And he can do it without standing on a single polarized issue.

Obama is awesome. To me, he's the epitome of our shallow republic. He has proved that you don't have to say anything, stand on anything - that you can simply use sugar language of "change" and "hope" and "working together" and, my all time favorite, "reaching across party lines". Same ole, same ole...and just like every presidential election, we act like it's the first time we've ever heard it. There's nothing particularly wrong with Obama when compared to anyone else still in the race, he seems as bought and paid for as Bush junior. He's the equivalent of the "feel good" movie, embodied in a politician. It "feels good" to vote for Obama. Can't really criticize him since he has no record really to criticize. Can't figure out what he stands for since he won't say. And, he's better at that than any Clinton. What I think would be interesting would be seeing him and Bill Clinton contesting for office. Obama may be slicker than Slick Willy himself and that would cool to watch them out "sugar" each other. All that said, I trust him more than anybody else still in the race when it comes to chasing the *correct* enemy, OBL. They're all the same on Iraq, but I don't trust McCain to go after Osama. Nobody else is even talking about him and he's our number one enemy, in my mind. Bush junior and congress has failed us. They have not represented us. We wanted OBL. They gave us Iraq. Maybe Obama will give us OBL. He is going to be the next president, no doubt in my mind at all.

Primates can't do any of this? Come on, my dog overrides initial behavioral urges and behaves contrary to them. We are an exception, but not without precedence.

Because it's government intervention that got us into this mess. For crying out loud, pharmaceutical companies in america were artificially protected by the government basically wiping out competition - Canadian imports. This is entirely a perverse form of socialism mixed with capitalism - the worst parts of each. Government intervention did that. Now, I realize your take may be that it was the *wrong* intervention, but isn't that what you get when you ignore the natural dynamics, the inherent checks and balances, of the free market? Regulation is a necessary evil, but we take this WAY too far. We have eliminated competition with government intervention and now we're blaming corporations for being corporations. And, don't you see an incremental insurance "conditioning" mentality here? Everytime we go to the doctor, for any little thing, it's an insurance claim. Why? I mean, I know why we do it right now under this corrupt format, but why isn't that a big clue to everyone? Insurance should be used for select conditions, not as your "account". I should only need to use an insurance card for serious freaking medical problems - not routine doctor visits. As long as insurance is an essential "requirement", then costs will never, ever go down. There is NO competition in effective mandated insurance. And this bill appears to be a huge investment in the very corruption you're fighting against. I say down with traditional notions of medical funding. It's time to think new.

How does this impact the small business of medicine? If I'm a doctor, how does this effect what I charge? Does "the government" decide how much I can make by placing thresholds on what they'll pay? When you use the word "free", it discredits your position. Healthcare will be free when you talk everyone in the medical business into doing it for free. Until then, you're shifting the funding. No value judgement in that statement, just fact. Same with grocery stores, food manufactures, 911 service... The problem is not their motivations (profit), the problem is regulating them into a monopolistic industry - which is what we have done. WE are responsible for the medical issues in this country - not "those dirty corporations" - ALL of us are, including the dirty corporations. You're basically blaming a dog for eating bologne laying on the floor. We know the dog's motivations, so why do we act indignified that he ate the meal we left for him? And why do I keep using dog analogies?

I'm confused, why are we concentrating on health insurance for everyone? The current system is the problem, so why would anyone want to invest more in it? I don't understand this. This feels like redirection/conditioning. Like Pavlov's dog, we're redesigning the bell to change the taste of the food.

A little late I guess, but I got "Founding Brothers" by Ellis and book two of Donaldson's GAP series, "Forbidden Knowledge". Founding Brothers was really cool, a nice read that left me a little more disappointed in Jefferson. Forbidden Knowledge is vintage Donaldson continuing to write characters that are tough to like and plots that are twisty, testing morality and theology. I love it.

All the more reason to go with a shower stall instead, and it leaves more room in the bathroom for other things...

I apologize if this is in the wrong section.. My son, 14, just got in trouble along with some other kids at school, a perfect example of peer pressure and groupthink, I think in this case. Anyway, I thought it appropriate as part of his punishment to have him do some reading on the subject, write me a little paper on it. Thing is, I'm having trouble finding a good article or paper on it. Everything I find is either a single page summary "dumbed down", or a collegiate level contribution using high diction he's not familiar with. Can anyone here suggest a good link to a scientific article or something, relevant to group psychology/behavior, that might go into some depth without overwhelming a 14 year old mind?

I don't know about being done here...seems obvious we need to do something about bath tubs. Of course, there's a statistical problem there too, as I wonder how many bath tub fatalities were actually shower stalls...

That's true if you're doing a 1:1 comparison. However, when we talk about racism, sexism, oil for food gone bad, CIA intrustion and etc - these are all just complicated derivatives of self interested in-group/out-group (pack) behavior - sophisticated predatory pack animals. Right, and I'm including the whole of nature to make the point that we are no exception, in terms of behavior, but quite the exeption in terms of constructing notions of morality in relation to this behavior. If anything, we are wonderful creatures because we have the ability to loathe oursevles, and thus, change. (Or be depressed about it...)

Well, it's kind of snowballed on him. It was a rant he wanted to get off his chest, blow off some steam - not an exercise in misery and depression. At least that's how I read it.

And I'm with you on that one. In fact, if 100% of all dog bites were Pit Bull I still wouldn't support a ban of any sort. Animals can't be expected to "obey human laws" in the sense that we presuppose they have the capacity to negotiate such ideas. People are the problem here, not the dogs. Of course, I also concede that those numbers are inflated, to what extent I don't know. Also the popularity of the breed (which was brought up earlier in the thread) coupled with the seemingly innate attraction by irresponsible owners supports the people problem and explains some of those numbers too, I think.

Ok, so the answer is an implied yes, they're grossly incompetent at their research, at least in this case. Now, back to SkepticLance's error proposition...how far off do you think this will really get? 5%? 10%? 60%? I think it's a fair argument that some people will label their breed incorrectly. I also think it's a fair argument that it's not significant enough to support any notion that's it's all been a big labeling mistake and Pit Bulls are actually sweet muffins. And then there's the obvious question of what breed are they confusing it with? Presumably, we then have a breed that is not being identified, but is responsible for fatal bites - fatal. And despite the attention given a fatal dog attack, they are apparently not identifying the correct breed, which means the proverbial killer is freely roaming the streets while the Pit Bull goes down for it... I see your skepticism, and agree with it actually, but not enough that those numbers aren't meaningful.

Yes, and we are nature too Lockheed, and we just are. That's what I've been trying to tell you. We are doing no different than any other predator on the earth yet you see shame in us and not them. And it's my contention that our unique inclination to dream up concepts such as "shame" and apply them to ourselves is wonderful.

What is the invalid definition? The title of Pit Bull? SkepticLance seems to be making perfect sense here. I'm not sure what the wavelengths of orange, yellow and red represent. From the link: So, the CDC is reporting this, according to the Boston Globe. Are you suggesting the CDC is grossly incompetent at their research?

Right but the OP is lamenting about these constructs, so I was just trying to make the point that rather than see everything as "instinctive good, doing bad things" that perhaps it should be better viewed as "instinctive bad, doing good things". The things he sees as so rotten in this world are found in all of nature, not just mankind. And it's only mankind that has the ability to empathize and construct ideas of moral and ethical behavior and then judge that nature. His depair is of his own making, quite a similar point to yours really.

Remove the human element from nature and you still have a despicable mess of malevolence, every bit as shameful as what we've seen from ourselves. But it's only humans who actually realize it and are ashamed of it. And I'm proud of that. I see humans as creatures instinctively brimming with self serving predatory impulses, with every innate inclination to exploit unscrupulously, that manage to see their way through it to do something decent, to actually give a shit about each other at all. I'm sorry, but I look at this world and I'm impressed there's a living thing on it that has the capacity to be sad for it. That's hope isn't it?

I agree. It's the "thoughtless" bashing that bugs me (although I'm sure I'm guilty of this as well). Or the enmity generated by virtue of their position and philosophy masked in particulars. Why is every great president hated and loved? Partisanship. Why is Bush considered a devil rather than just a guy we disagree with philosophically? Partisanship.

I'm not sure I understand you -- are you saying that's the only thing the president ever does about the economy? I would say that that's not the case at all. Didn't he just sign the stimulus package two weeks ago? A drop in the bucket' date=' of course, but a bigger drop than any knuckle-headedly optimistic public statements, or so it seems to me. [/quote'] No, I meant if "optimism therapy" is the only treatment given, then I don't understand why its effectiveness fluctuates. Yet, like you said in the previous post, it does. I'm really just being rhetorical. Good point and excellent navigation. Which implies another question then...why the hell even comment? You're right, he's not an economist and so my insistance on a clinically analytical review from him is unreasonable, and further still, any comment from him on the matter is equally irrelevent. I know the answer to my question, I just can't help asking anyway.