tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post2918951713343026411..comments2024-03-20T12:34:55.100-05:00Comments on Stonekettle Station: Brother’s KeeperJim Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-16251796842110818202011-09-17T01:21:12.133-05:002011-09-17T01:21:12.133-05:00Well I was enjoying your comments, Tux.
But I...Well I was enjoying <i>your</i> comments, Tux. <br /><br />But I'm tired of playing Whack-A-Mole. It's getting to be a full time job dealing with the crazies and the trolls and the illiterate Tea Party types and the goofy word guy.<br /><br />Then there's the hate mail, that's fun. Libertarians are a just a little fanatical, you'd think I insulted their Jesus.<br /><br />________________________<br /><br />On that note, I'm going to close commenting on this post for the night. <br /><br />I may or may not re-open commenting tomorrow depending on how I'm feeling. Night.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-77619508217275933892011-09-17T01:10:36.430-05:002011-09-17T01:10:36.430-05:00Between the guy who debates the epistemology of re...Between the guy who debates the epistemology of reality and the guy who thinks the private sector folks who brought us "liar loans", antifreeze-laced toothpaste, and salmonella-laced turkey are "moral people" , it's like you got an invasion from an alternate universe here, Jim. One wonders what color the unicorns are in their universe, and whether cotton candy grows on trees there.<br /><br />I must say you've been amazingly patient though. My banhammer would have gone *BAM* long ago, I'm just not as patient with deranged lunatics as I used to be. Reality simply *IS*, and folks who don't "get" that... well. Reality has a practice of biting them on the butt sooner or later. So it goes.BadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-3320622588872646852011-09-17T01:00:58.205-05:002011-09-17T01:00:58.205-05:00The private sector is where you'll find a grea...The private sector is where you'll find a greater percentage of <i>moral people who are accountable to one another? <br /><br />Seriously?</i><br /><br />Let's give Anonymous a big round of applause, Folks, it's not often we get a visit by somebody from the land of flying bunnies who fart sunshine and rainbows. <br /><br /><br />Oh, and my unresolved issues are part of my charm, Anonymous. Now, be a pal and fuck right off back to whatever trailer park you drifted in from.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-91814971393633131182011-09-17T00:50:13.544-05:002011-09-17T00:50:13.544-05:00When I person uses swear words in typing out an ar...When I person uses swear words in typing out an argument, it cold be because he has many unresolved issues making him unbalanced in some judgments. I think Jim really missed it with his interpretation on Pauls response. Paul, not always articulate, state that before medicare the private sector took care of people and the example he gave was when he worked at a hospital where no one was turned away. The alternative is today no one is turned away, the govt picks up the tap and the results are worse than in Puals day. So whats the solution?<br /> The debate continues but I'll side with the private sector 99% of the time. Its not perfect the that's where the the you find a greater percentage of moral people who will be accountable to one antoehr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-81867094988807181752011-09-17T00:42:15.082-05:002011-09-17T00:42:15.082-05:00@beachdog67: I see a mean-spiritedness as not simp...@beachdog67: I see a mean-spiritedness as not simply an attribute of the left or right, but as something culturally inherited from Christianity. Having a different belief system is equated with sin and is viewed as a moral problem rather than a benign difference in perspectives. That's one reason why I try to eliminate "should" language (which has moral connotations)from my speech and thought. Because it is part of our cultural language, it's not an easy thing to do.PantaRheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01476564886498127293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-87700399089225130962011-09-17T00:18:43.981-05:002011-09-17T00:18:43.981-05:00There is a mean-spiritedness to the right wing tha...There is a mean-spiritedness to the right wing that transcends political disagreements.beachdog67https://www.blogger.com/profile/09887850845423627424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-70505366977052403392011-09-17T00:18:33.771-05:002011-09-17T00:18:33.771-05:00It's like you just can't help yourself.It's like you just can't help yourself.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-12042497447200779402011-09-16T23:53:49.564-05:002011-09-16T23:53:49.564-05:00Jim,
I certainly have no desire to argue (debate) ...Jim,<br />I certainly have no desire to argue (debate) about anything. I did find value (as I wrote) in your comments and opinion concerning the answer given by Ron Paul to a very good question. You've invited comments on your thoughts and I accepted the invitation. My other posts have been in answer to questions put directly to me. I haven't "argued semantics". I've simply attempted to explain my worldview when asked, which seems to be based on a much different ontological understanding of reality than yours and, it seems, the majority of your readers. Surely you agree that there is a need to be more humble and less arrogant about the assumed truth of our perspectives? And doesn't our willingness to love others lead us to a willingness to attempt to understand the worldview of others... and to substitute understanding for condemnation of those who think differently than we do? And, here I'm not trying to argue about the meaning of words, but in my use of the terms, "understanding" other perspectives is not the same as "agreeing".PantaRheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01476564886498127293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-12866465196210266102011-09-16T23:53:24.516-05:002011-09-16T23:53:24.516-05:00I am not a Ron Paul fan. Just a fan of full disclo...I am not a Ron Paul fan. Just a fan of full disclosure. The exchange was as follows:<br /><br />"Wolf Blitzer propose this scenario to candidate Ron Paul:<br /><br />“A young healthy male decides to opt out of health care (“I'm young and healthy why waste the money”) and later has an accident. He ends up requiring long term medical care, but has no insurance and nothing close to covering the cost in his bank account.”<br /><br />Wolf put the question to Ron Paul: “who should pay for his care at this point?”<br /><br />Paul responded with a weak argument that proposed the young man seek out the aid of charitable organizations or the help of his church.<br /><br /><br />Wolf Blitzer showing a rare display of guts pressed the question by asking; “would you allow him to die?” At that point the Tea Party audience responded with a very loud and resounding, Yes! Ron Paul said no but never really answered the question."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01385578297373021122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-4230781802823055472011-09-16T23:05:25.947-05:002011-09-16T23:05:25.947-05:00Remember in the post where I said, "These peo...Remember in the post where I said, "These people are arguing semantics? PantaRhea is <i>exactly</i> what I was talking about. <br /><br />PantaRhea, I've run out of patience with your continued word games. You want to discuss woulda shoulda coulda, you go do that on your own blog. Either get to the point, if you have one, or cease and desist. I've put up with you this long because,unlike the other trolls you've been reasonably polite. However, I have now reached my limit with your bullshit. This will be your only warning.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-42594354021692605102011-09-16T23:03:45.909-05:002011-09-16T23:03:45.909-05:00@BadTux: I wrote that I am trying to eliminate &q...@BadTux: I wrote that I am trying to eliminate "should" language from my speech and thoughts. You make it more difficult when you ask questions about what I think you "should" or "shouldn't" do. Old habits die hard for me. :)PantaRheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01476564886498127293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-35269561955532860232011-09-16T22:58:42.667-05:002011-09-16T22:58:42.667-05:00"Don't you see that the whole aim of News...<i>"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."</i> -- George Orwell, <i>1984</i><br /><br />Yet someone wonders why I question the motives of those who try to prevent use of a word to describe a class of people like, say, the four Klansmen who killed those four little black girls in Birmingham? If it becomes literally unthinkable to label such people as what they are, then it becomes literally unthinkable to conceive a strategy to deal with their fundamental nature. <br /><br />I'm not going to get into an epistemological pissing contest here, just going to state that labeling people according to their fundamental nature is as necessary as labeling, say, fruits and vegetables, according to their fundamental nature. Nobody gets insulted when I state that lemons are sour, correct? Am I going to bring down the wrath of the Lemon Protection Front, blasting me for defaming the fundamental nature of lemons? Hmm...<br /><br />- Badtux the "Cui bono?" PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-51984926008831368452011-09-16T22:49:25.556-05:002011-09-16T22:49:25.556-05:00@BadTux: You assume that "people" have a...@BadTux: You assume that "people" have a nature. I don't. If the linear society of experiences commonly labeled as a "person" has no essence or nature, but is wholly a social construction, created in what a neuroscientist might describe as a process of "selfing", why would we provide this non-existing "nature" with a description?PantaRheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01476564886498127293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-41540471530894145582011-09-16T22:26:58.021-05:002011-09-16T22:26:58.021-05:00@BadTux: you still didn't answer my question. ...@BadTux: <i>you still didn't answer my question. What word do I use to describe people who call for the death of my fellow Americans, if "evil" is not the appropriate word to use? </i><br /><br />Why do you assume that ANY word should be used to label others? Perhaps you didn't understand my answer... "People" are not things or objects. I would describe the calling for the death of a fellow human being (whether an American or not)in almost all situations, an evil act.PantaRheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01476564886498127293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-82242426383302512582011-09-16T22:15:45.588-05:002011-09-16T22:15:45.588-05:00@PantaRhea, you still have not answered my questio...@PantaRhea, you still have not answered my question. How should I describe people who want to see fellow Americans die, if not the word "evil"? Or are you saying that I should not describe these people because describing the nature of people is "divisive"?<br /><br />As for the whole "tyranny of the majority" nonsense, the majority by definition cannot be a tyranny. One thing that annoys me about Libertarians is that the only way their philosophy could ever be put into practice would be via a tyranny of the minority forcing their views upon the majority at gunpoint, because the majority *like* their Social Security and Medicare. Yet they pretend they stand for "freedom" -- while denying the fact that the only freedom they propose, is the freedom of those with guns to dictate the terms of society to the majority. A situation which the rest of us typically call tyranny, but Libertarians apparently use Orwell's Newspeak dictionary to say "tyranny is freedom".<br /><br />Hmm, perhaps I should ask you what dictionary you're using -- is it MiniTru's latest?<br /><br />- Badtux the Snarky PenguinBadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-4433129017239992032011-09-16T22:11:49.929-05:002011-09-16T22:11:49.929-05:00@sibusisodan: But if you're in a situation whe...@sibusisodan: <i>But if you're in a situation where division already exists, describing the situation - as Jim does - can't exacerbate things, if done honestly.</i><br />Can you not see the difference between labeling your perceived opponents (weren't we taught in grade school not to call names?), and describing a situation?PantaRheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01476564886498127293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-27292114151724901492011-09-16T22:02:58.438-05:002011-09-16T22:02:58.438-05:00@Eric: the basic flaw in your premise is that in ...@Eric: <i> the basic flaw in your premise is that in a democracy or republic, the people and the government are (at least in principle) the same entity.</i><br /><br />"The People" is an abstraction and doesn't exist as an entity. Therefore, "The People", since it is not an actuality, does not produce an effect, it has no power, and cannot cede power.<br /><br />However, I understand your point. In what is popularly called a democracy, the system used here in the United States, "authority" (the legitimate use of power) is ceded to a few in a political process consisting of a tyranny of the majority of decision-makers.<br /><br />It would be very difficult to engage in a friendly rational discussion with someone who has already decided beforehand, that the position that comes closest to the one that he might understand, would automatically be labeled as "stupid", "insane", and/or "childish".PantaRheahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01476564886498127293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-70934937725914320262011-09-16T21:57:10.212-05:002011-09-16T21:57:10.212-05:00If you ever get back to West Michigan I'd real...If you ever get back to West Michigan I'd really like to shake you hand. Reading your blog makes me proud to be a caring, thinking, American. Yes, I am a liberal in a sea of ultra-conservative Calvinists here, but it's nice to read what I've so longed to try to say myself when it comes to some of the hyprocrise's that abound in the ultra-right.Steve S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16243125942473182834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-89454180701165044892011-09-16T21:28:44.147-05:002011-09-16T21:28:44.147-05:00The hypocritical Ayn Rand secured Social Security ...The hypocritical Ayn Rand secured Social Security and Medicare payments, when she needed it, under her husbands surname "O’Connor." Ron Paul is mistaken by many as the entertaining pot smoking grandpa, when in fact libertarianism is the most dangerous of conservative philosophies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-79540729200719936502011-09-16T20:45:18.732-05:002011-09-16T20:45:18.732-05:00Oh, Jim, I love you. This post was so good, I cam...Oh, Jim, I love you. This post was so good, I came up with an idea for a new art piece from reading it. (I'm doing sarcastic jewelry/metalwork for politicians that piss me off.) Just about finished with the "Trophy Necklace for Sarah Palin", which features a bunch of wolf legs & is a commentary on aerial hunting. Once I finish up my anti-rape series, I'm moving on to "Offering Bowl for a Lobbyist", which will bear a striking resemblance to the Capitol dome. Still working out aspects of the Ron Paul piece but so far, my amazing Prof is digging it. :-)Sharon Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09878631693072592000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-42450209742955013472011-09-16T20:27:27.691-05:002011-09-16T20:27:27.691-05:00@Dollarhide 9:58:
Yeah, it feels good. I can aff...@Dollarhide 9:58:<br /><br />Yeah, it feels good. I can afford it; I'll find a way.Tractor_tug_guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028128407997279473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-91353308497311332302011-09-16T20:07:44.990-05:002011-09-16T20:07:44.990-05:00Anonymous, first, what Tux said - and I'll add...Anonymous, first, what Tux said - and I'll add that if you have a splinter or a cold you're not actually seeing the ER doctor, you're probably seeing the Nurse Practitioner or a Physician's Assistant. <br /><br />Second, further down in the text, Anonymous, I <i>also</i> said, "Implied" and even further down I said "These people are arguing semantics." Which is what you're doing.<br /><br />The Uninsured and poor people use the Emergency Room for non-emergency primary care because that's very, very often the <i>only</i> thing available to them. The ER cannot turn them away, by law, but every other medical facility legally <i>can</i> and often does, even if they have cash. <br /><br />Taking this option, the only option, away from poor people is <i>exactly</i> what Ron Paul was talking about. And the reason for it, was to increase the amount of money in the pockets of people just like Ron Paul, i.e. the ones he wants to vote him into the White House - otherwise, well, otherwise the entire question is moot, isn't it? <br /><br />As I said, you're arguing semantics, but no matter how you slice it, it's <i>still</i> baloney. <br /><br />Americans bitch about the cost of the uninsured, but give the uninsured <i>no</i> options except the one that costs the taxpayer the absolute <i>most</i> money.<br /><br />We tried to fix that situation a while back, you might have heard it. You can thank Libertarian Tea Party types like Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin, to name few, for the fact that the situation remains unchanged and you get to pay the maximum amount for the uninsured. The poor remain poor, the uninsured remain uninsured, and your costs remain high. Congratulations on that obstructionism, well done.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-60179828734781037502011-09-16T20:01:55.501-05:002011-09-16T20:01:55.501-05:00I'd like to audition as your superhero sidekic...I'd like to audition as your superhero sidekick. I'd be the bumbling doofus who comes in and cleans up after you kick a bunch of righteous ass, happily humming "what shall we do with the drunken sailor?" while sweeping up Chuck Noris teeth from the floor . . .Tractor_tug_guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028128407997279473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-19599105664029970142011-09-16T19:54:42.464-05:002011-09-16T19:54:42.464-05:00Anonymous, actually the incremental costs of treat...Anonymous, actually the incremental costs of treating a splinter at the ER are minimal. The facilities have to be there for real emergencies. The doctors have to be there for real emergencies. That's 95% of the costs of the ER right there -- the facilities and the doctors -- and they're going to be there whether the dude with the splinter comes through the ER doors or not. Note that the nurses do triage to keep the splinter dood from interfering with real emergencies, he's going to be seen when the doctors and facilities are otherwise not being utilized, not when there's real emergencies to handle. <br /><br />In short, the problem with ER care is not the *cost* of ER care, it's the fact that it's *poor quality* care since there's no followup (e.g., an ER doctor may give you three prescriptions, but if you can't afford to fill them, you'll stay sick). Saying we need to kill our fellow Americans if they don't have health insurance because the cost of emergency care is so outrageous ignores the fact that ER care is actually amazingly cost-effective on an incremental cost basis, the incremental costs basically being just normal medical supplies that hospitals get in bulk for cheap. <br /><br />- Badtux the Healthcare Economics Penguin<br />(Yes, I did a series of healthcare economics posts that touched on this issue back in 2009, with actual numbers showing that ER care wasn't what was causing the run-up of healthcare costs, but hey, what use are actual numbers when we have deeply-held prejudices to uphold, right?)BadTuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345749557330760251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-66858947043036586102011-09-16T19:44:05.760-05:002011-09-16T19:44:05.760-05:00You said:
"We never turn anybody away. That’...You said:<br /><br />"We never turn anybody away. That’s why the costs are so high. Logically therefore, if we turn people away, if we let them die, it’s money in our pockets."<br /><br />That is not what Ron Paul said. He said we never turned anyone away from the hospital. That means people who come in with coughs and cannot sleep, people who come in to have splinters removed, people who come in with ankle sprains and nose bleeds - all are treated, and at enormous expense for noncritical or even serious conditions. <br /><br />DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com