Phi for All

Newt Gingrich alluded to this (although he was grateful, not concerned) last summer, when Putin Trump was lying about the crime rates. He stressed that if people FELT crime was on the rise, that was more important than the reality that it wasn't. He went as far as implying that feelings ARE fact. This tactic can help justify a whole lot of miserable, ignorant misthinking anywhere. In our media and our politics, it's unconscionable.

And how do you feel about this being used to misinform? It seems pretty disingenuous to count Obama's pronouns like they were off the charts when they were actually below what many politicians use. It's like reporting that Obama increased federal spending to US$3.6T!!! It's true, but it's a lower rate of spending than any other president since Eisenhower.

It's ridiculously easy to fool us with lies that sound plausible, or that we can easily imagine. Cops/donuts, politicians/first-person-pronouns, black welfare queen. I think the US media has gotten wicked good at using the fewest words possible to invoke the most emotional responses. They flash "Immigration" across the screen and instantly those viewing know how they'll feel about the ensuing story. And the media knows that a story about a dog rescuing a drowning toddler won't keep you tuned in as long as the story about a cache of automatic weapons found in an urban neighborhood, so if they have to choose, they'll cover the guns.

A colony on Mars gives us most of what we'd get from the moon in terms of experience and knowledge, plus it's closer to the metal-rich asteroid belt, where we can source materials for further colonization. If we do that though, Ceres might be a better choice.

You should fight laws that are wrong. You shouldn't equate the legal but "not right" (Citizen's United ruling and capital punishment and poor cabinet choices) with the illegal (assault, breach of contract, and fraud).

I would say the media in the US is agendized. First is profit, second is getting across the message your parent corporation wants you to convey. Is it a conservative approach that causes a corporation to deny AGW, or is it profit? Is it a liberal approach to equate all sides in an argument, or is it to make it look like there's more controversy and thus more reason to stay tuned? Both sides of our politics claim the media sides with the other guys, but in reality I think it's just about the money. It's certainly not about keeping us decently informed. It is funny about the personal pronouns though. Exactly the type of thing someone would jump on if they don't like you, but how does anyone get along without using "I" and "me"? Reminds me of a Jim Gaffigan line about the stereotype of cops liking donuts so much and using it against them. You shouldn't do it because you know who else loves donuts? EVERYBODY.

I want to point out that you're basically saying the law shouldn't matter if you think something is "not right". Further, you imply ("at minimum") that your views make this an actionable offense. I can't agree with this. It's not on the same level as, say, advocating assault.

In recent years, privatization of prisons has come under scrutiny as a failed experiment. Similarly, many municipalities are now rethinking their decision to sell public utilities to private energy companies. Reagan-era federal government downsizing in the 80s led to selloff of public energy assets. Retail costs have soared over the years and continue to go up, while wholesale energy is getting cheaper and cheaper. We were promised cost-effectiveness due to large-market efficiencies, and it seems that has happened but hasn't been passed along to the consumer. Many consumers want to go back to public ownership and control, especially now that the big energy corporations are denying climate science. What do you think? Is energy a commodity for market concerns, or in modern times is it an essential service that should be in the public's control?

! Moderator Note Please abide by the rules you agreed to when you joined. Do NOT bring up supernatural explanations in a science thread in a science section of the site. Mainstream science only, please.

I've been slamming "the wealthy" for this type of mentality, and of course I realize that's a blanket condemnation, but it seems to be the mindset of those with wealth who seek political power as well that any type of socialized medicine or welfare is a handout, given by the masters to the servants, instead of an investment in society. They want to control, they want to pass judgement because they're better, and they want to punish or praise based on their whim. The concept of investing in people's prosperity through effective socialism, working alongside effective capitalism, is lost on most Americans.

Coming from someone who is so clearly anti-science, I find this claim devoid of even a shred of intellectual honesty.

This is beyond the pale. First, you fail to show even a single example of the hypocrisy you accuse us of, then you make up your own facts to support the claim instead. Plenty of people showed him where he was wrong. Is it hypocritical of me to ask you to stop lying, to stop making shit up to defend your behavior here?

A big part of the unnecessary expense that doesn't get talked about is overcharging to compensate for cash flow. As part of the cost of doing business, US medical corporations have to build in extra charges because the insurance companies can take years to pay out on claims. Many doctors get into some serious cash-flow problems that can keep them from updating equipment, give raises to employees, and many other standard practices. Add to the equation that each office has to deal with multiple private insurance carriers, each with different paperwork and criteria, and it's a recipe for administrative and fiscal disaster.

Thanks for your unequivocal condemnation, which undermines your claim of intelligence.

So he's got a point and people are 8 pages of unhappy with the hypocritical way the volunteer moderators run the site for the administrators. I acknowledge my behavior is subject to biases, and I've worked hard over the last decade with the staff to help set up the rules to reduce judgement calls that are influenced by bias. What do you suggest we do to change all this unhappiness, Ophiolite, because I sure didn't see anything reasonable from proximity1?

If you're dealing with actual doctors and nurses, the care is decent and even superlative in some areas. But the wealthy insist that health is a private business matter, and force us to use insurance as a means to access a viable risk pool, ensuring that profit is the priority. Insurance is great when you know the value of something and want to protect it, but it's a pretty awful way to keep people healthy. I think the wealthy expect the rest of us to settle for a fixed value on our health, the way we do with life insurance. The US injects capitalism where it has no business. We spend more for almost everything except gasoline, so we tend to have very little savings.

! Moderator Note You can get help here, if you can tell us what you have so far, and what part is hanging you up. That's the discussion. You can't get answers here. If we did that, teachers would hate us.

Cool. So we adopt the exact system the UK has for healthcare, which incidentally saves us about $5000/year per person! And if everyone puts half the extra into a mandatory retirement account, and gets an extra $2500 to spend or save as they like, we're all much better off. What else could help us have more savings?

Could you ask that question again? I was confident I understood, and yet have failed.

It shows how creepy money can make some people. I'm absolutely blown away that Eisenhower's party has gotten in bed with a dictator who so emulates (and admires) WWII Western Axis leadership and their tactics. And screw that whole "Red Scare" bs argument. Putin isn't the USSR of the 50s. Standing against Putin the Thug, Putin the Dictator, isn't standing against communism.

Here's the problem with what you're suggesting. Testicle transplants aren't done for the purpose of viable sperm production, mainly because the donor would be the father, not the recipient. If you can't get help through gene therapy or some other method to father your own children, the only other option for live birth is to use a donor. Which makes more sense, going through the surgery to transplant a testicle from the donor, or simply using the donor sperm? It's not a problem that needs an ethical solution.

Personally, I think choosing to quote yourself in a discussion is a very good way to continue making the same mistakes, over and over again. Just sayin'.

I don't understand exactly what's being asked. Is this a question about transplanting a penis and testicles, is that how the second person uses the first persons genitals?

That bugged me too, not joking. I changed the title. Reusing means you've already used it at least once, and are going to use it again before throwing it away. It shouldn't apply to anything taken in doses. I'm not reusing my toothpaste every time I brush, I'm just using it. As to the OP, my primary care physician told me the expiry dates are less important for solid pills where slightly less strength isn't going to affect efficacy as a cure. I was specifically asking about baby aspirin (81mg) and ibuprofen (200mg) in tablet form, and their respective abilities as anti-inflammatories and pain inhibitors. It's tempting to buy in bulk to save money, but often these family deals go past expiration.

That's why I used the word "pertinent". In the early days of television, the US enforced an hour/day devoted to pertinent news Americans needed to know, as part of the charter letting them use those frequencies. It worked fairly well until the laws were eroded and undermined by both Reagan and Bill Clinton. Now there is very little stopping them from informing us of only those things the corporations that own them want us to know. Putin is withholding access to reporters (not journalists) who criticizes him, so it won't be long before he has them trained just like he does in Russia.