Slashdot Mirror


Talk to This Year's Quirkiest Senatorial Candidate

Not many candidates for the U.S. Senate are 4'9" tall and only have one hand. But Oregon Democrat Steve Novick qualifies on both counts -- and uses them as pluses in his TV ads. Like this one, where he shows why he's the best beer-drinking partner among all the candidates. Or this one, where it's obvious why he's for "the little guy." Also, as far as we know, he's the only candidate this year for any major office who has his own brand of beer. And his online campaign manager is a major Slashdot junkie, too, which is certainly in his favor. But will humor and oddness get Steve into the Senate? We don't know. So ask him. In fact, ask him anything else you'd like about campaigning and politics. He's promised to respond, and seems like the kind of guy who will give interesting answers, at that. (Please follow Slashdot interview rules, as always.)

364 comments

  1. Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From your website on issues, you say:

    I would join many other U.S. senators, and the rest of what we might call Google Nation, in supporting "net neutrality." We need to prevent broadband providers from creating a two-tiered system of access to information, in which content providers with money would have an advantage over those without it, and Internet users would often find it harder to Google their way to the information they really need. Your net neutrality rhetoric rings true with this readership, for the most part. How exactly do you propose you would enforce this?

    I mean, you say yourself that the companies with money are going to want this, how do you plan to fight the opposition? If your opponent Gordon Smith opposes net neutrality, you're going to face a lot more of that in the senate. Voting to ensure it in bills is one thing but what makes you unique to any other Senator trying to keep the net neutral? What are the best things we can do to help this? I tried explaining it to my friends and family but often find I've at best confused them.

    Allow me to play the devil's advocate, argue against this point:

    The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?

      (Recogizing that you've playing devil's advocate, you may already agree with the following.)

      The nation's telecommunications infrastructure is in no way a "free market". Telecom companies were granted rights-of-way and extensive subsidies to lay cable; it's not like an mom-and-pop shop can start stringing copper from the telephone poles and start competing.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think he was looking for the vehicle that would allow net neutrality be enforced. It was more to be looking for what kind of laws would be in place or what supported and what he thinks he can do/bring to make a difference in the fight.

      Something as simple as a law saying that no purposeful discimination of traffic on the internet shall take place where a consumer doesn't get what he paid for or something of the sorts. Maybe not allow the filtering of specific packets either.

  2. Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If elected as Senator for Oregon, how hard would you push for environmental action? You seem to promote fiscal responsibility and I find these two topics to have interesting relationships to each other. Hypothetically (and I know this wouldn't be your responsibility) if Oregon had the chance to switch to a garbage disposal system that resulted in twice as much materials being salvaged from waste but also cost the citizens twice as much to fund, would you make the switch?

    On Slashdot, we often get stories where great new ideas come but require extra cash to go green. They are under heavy fire from fiscally responsible people. Where do you stand on this? I can think of many things if you'd care to address them. Like the investment to move to a wind powered infrastructure, compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb usage being enforced by the government, tighter emissions on all transportation, electronic circuitry recycling costs, etc.

    If you care to further elaborate, I'm also interested in how fiscal responsibility can be maintained in addition to your pledge to reform healthcare.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by jd · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I've personally never seen the conflict myself. If you salvage twice as much, provided it is done efficiently, then you reduce the cost of mining and ore processing (both of which are expensive), which must lead to a net reduction in cost of materials, which in turn must lead to a saving for the consumer. Efficient environmentalism is expensive to start, but would (on the longer-term) work out cheaper.

      The same is true on pollution controls. A lot of pollution is generated by the processing method itself, so improving the method must reduce the pollution. Since creating pollution consumes resources (materials and power) that the company has paid for, it would seem to follow that the less pollution a company creates, the cheaper it would be. Now, there's only so far you can go with this, and the research to get any further than what is presently done isn't cheap and will give declining returns, so filters and overheads are inevitable, but it does lead me to believe that environmentalism is cheaper than we're being led to believe.

      (Since we can reasonably assume companies want to make money and therefore want to lower overheads, we can assume that a lot of the research and development necessary is beyond a lot of private industry at this time, and/or there's not enough incentive to handle the high initial costs. Maybe the role of government can be to fund some of the work, perhaps provide X-prize-like challenges, and once things are cost-effective to deploy, offer tax cuts on business so that it's practical to switch methods and add an inefficiency tax to make it impractical not to.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by josecanuc · · Score: 1

      I've personally never seen the conflict myself. If you salvage twice as much, provided it is done efficiently, then you reduce the cost of mining and ore processing (both of which are expensive), which must lead to a net reduction in cost of materials, which in turn must lead to a saving for the consumer. Efficient environmentalism is expensive to start, but would (on the longer-term) work out cheaper.

      There may be an overall/net savings, but the cost of greener waste processing is borne by the taxpayers, whereas the savings produced by the resulting reduced demand (or perceived reduced demand) for mining and ore processing is considered a negative on the bottom line of the mining and ore processing companies.

      I don't know if Oregon has much mining industry. If not, then the net result in Oregon is higher taxes and no change in the cost of goods, because the commodity price of metals would not be affected significantly by the relatively small increase in supply generated by the greener waste processing. If Oregon does have a significant mining industry, then a policy which would get the government into the metals business would likely not be something an Oregon politician would be likely to push.

      Like it or not, politicians have an obligation to serve the interests of their constituents, which includes both individuals and the businesses that employ and serve the individuals.

    3. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by SteveNovick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks for the question. Environmental action has been one of the centerpieces of my record of public service. I spent over eight years at the U.S. Justice Department, suing polluters for violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act and I was a board member of the Oregon Environmental Council for the past decade.

      Your question does raise a challenge of transitioning to sustainable practices. In some instances, like Superfund cleanup, there are steps we could take right now to reduce the burden on average taxpayers by restoring the polluter pays principles that originally paid for toxic waste cleanup.

      But in other instances, like making the investment in renewable energy or expanding mass transit and other conservation initiatives, it will cost some money. That is why in this campaign I have been advocating several moves towards better fairness in our tax code like requiring people who make their money buying and selling stock to pay the same rate as what people pay on regular income. Or that people making a million dollars pay Social Security tax on all of their income, not just the first $100,000. In the long run, reducing our energy consumption, using it more efficiently and reducing the massive cost of global warming and pollution to our economy, health care system and communities will save money. But you are absolutely right that it will take some money up front. I'm committed to telling folks the truth about that and how we are going to pay for it.

    4. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

      But, with that same argument -- which constituents?

      Say that on paper, it costs 2x as much to recycle vs. landfill, but that the increased costs are in labor for sorting, etc. (I'm just making up random numbers, I have no idea what the actual economics are of recycling). So, the constituents might be those who'd be employed in the recycling industry -- although, the jobs might be lower paying than those in the mining industry.

      So, although there's increased costs, if it reduces the unemployment rate, and the money goes back into the local economy (including the tax base). At what point is it then a toss-up between recycling vs. landfills?

      Of course, there are still a number of variables I'm not considering -- if we have to wash our food containers before recycling, how much extra water is used in the households vs. just going to a landfill; how much extra carbon is used in having both recycling and trash trucks collect each week (for those where it's not handled by the same truck), etc.

      I'm not going to say that one is better than the other (I'm guessing that it's likely a function of just what is being recycled, and how it's being processed in that particular area), but that there are probably dozens if not hundreds of variables for each situation that suggest which way to go in this decision.

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    5. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      "Progressive" = Liberal = Socialist. I have a close Marxist relative with whom I don't mind sharing a beer and a laugh or two on occasion. That doesn't mean I'd vote for him for anything more influential than dog-catcher. I also conduct a thorough sweep of my car floorboards after I give him a ride, lest there be any stray dope residue that might have fallen out of his raggedy-ass hippie jean pockets along the way. Gotta love 'em. Don't have to vote for 'em.

    6. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by jd · · Score: 1
      Exactly. There are mathematical models which allow you to determine the optimum values for those variables, but you've got to know what the variables are and what constrains/impacts them before you can model them. That's daunting enough for engineers, I seriously doubt politicians can figure out the ideal balance point. (There may, in fact, be multiple ideal balance points, where different combinations of variables produce an impact of I for some group of people P, such that IxP is the same for all those balance points.)

      Common sense says that for any function, there must be some number of points (between 1 and infinity) where that function is at its minimum value. It might be that the minimum is achieved when there is no recycling (x=0), it might be at some other point or points, and if the function turns out flat, it might be at every point. I believe that at least one minimum exists when x!=0, but without carrying out the analysis, I can't know for certain, but until someone does the maths, I can be certain that nobody else is any more certain about what x should be than I am.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      On a related note, if you're an individual in the Portland area, you can opt to help pay the extra yourself (to the tune of roughly $7/month) and Portland General Electric will help ensure that your electricity use is offset with renewable sources (wind and biomass): http://www.portlandgeneral.com/home/products/power_options/renewable.asp

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    8. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by CTilluma · · Score: 1

      Interesting you happen to cover waste disposal and CFC's in a single post. While CFC can significantly reduce energy consumption, they pose a significant issue to waste disposal as they contain Mercury and can not easily be disposed. Their longer life span does help reduce the frequency they must be disposed of, but it is still a hazardous material none the less. LEDs seem to present a much better alternative for light as they can provide a brighter, more controlled spectrum while significantly reducing energy consumption even over CFC bulbs.

    9. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by CTilluma · · Score: 1

      "Progressive" = Liberal = Socialist. So according to your math - the only way for this country to progress is to have liberals and socialists. Even more interesting that you wouldn't vote for any of these. If you are so against progress, then how are you even on a computer? Technology is progress.
  3. Pork... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

    1. Re:Pork... by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Adding to that, would you be in favor of tougher sunset clauses on appropriations? What about the much maligned practice of earmarking?

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    2. Re:Pork... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Excellent question. I would love to hear a Democrat actually answer this question and see if they care about fiscal responsibility. And yes, I know the Republicans have been spending like drunken idiots, but at least that is in contradiction to what they *say* they believe in. Democrats traditionally believe in large government transfers of wealth from one group to another. It would be interesting to hear what they say now that we simply can't continue as we're going.

      Prediction: If this is asked, he'll dodge the question by saying he'll cut the defense budget, and then use that money for social programs. Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget, but he won't mention that, and he certainly won't mention cutting anything else where it NEEDS to be cut. And he'll totally ignore the part about pork spending.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:Pork... by polar+red · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget, but he won't mention that, err ... I'll give you my source : http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm and you'll give yours ?
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    4. Re:Pork... by eln · · Score: 4, Informative

      Defense is a "relatively small" part of the budget? Are you sure we're talking about the same country here?

      The 2008 budget calls for total spending of $2.9 trillion (on tax revenues of $2.66 trillion). Of that, $481.4 billion goes to the Department of Defense. That's 16.6% of the entire budget. If you count other defense related areas, such as the "Global War on Terror" ($145.2 billion) and the Department of Homeland Security ($34.3 billion), we're up to $660.9 billion, which is 22.79% of the total budget.

      All of this, of course, doesn't even include the cost of the Iraq war, which is financed through separate appropriations. Bush has requested an additional $105 billion for 2008 war costs, which would bring total defense-related spending in 2008 to $765.9 billion, or 26.4% of the total budget.

      That's right, more than one quarter of the entire national budget is dedicated to defense spending, including the war in Iraq. By comparison, the next largest budget item, Social Security, comes in at $608 billion, or 20.97% of the total budget. And I'm not even including any military-related spending that may be assigned to other Cabinet departments or other programs.

      Sure, people like to throw around meaningless numbers like defense spending is only around 4 or 5% of total GDP. But guess what: we don't pay for it with total GDP, we pay for it with tax dollars. It's absurd to compare budget items to the total GDP, because it implies that spending a giant percentage of our total production on the federal government (around 20.27% assuming a projected $14.31 trillion total GDP in 2008) is somehow okay.

      Sources:

      GDP Estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(nominal)
      2008 Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008
      2008 Iraq war appropriations: http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/f/me080225b.htm

    5. Re:Pork... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      >That's right, more than one quarter of the entire national budget is dedicated to defense spending, including
      >the war in Iraq.

      Isn't most of that money being recycled into the hands of people? When it's "spent", it "goes somewhere".
      Raw materials, labor, R&D? Doesn't it serve to increase the value of almost every corporation and many, many small businesses?

      The *reason* Defense and War cost so much is because the people who provide the services and materials are being compensated.

      If war were truly necessary for survival, this might change. Government might take authority over the means of production for warfare, instead of buying it on an open market. Individuals would contribute without asking for compensation. If it were truly essential to survival, that is. Then the cost would be measured in terms of natural resources alone, and not in "dollars".

      But for the time being, the "cost of defense" is just another way of redistributing wealth. Buy stock in defense contractors, profit, and invest your profits into the peace movement.

    6. Re:Pork... by paitre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you speak of social program expenditures, please also include that for Medicare/Medicaid, SCHIP, and HUD.

      The combined total of which results in closer to 45% of the total budget.

      The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution, while Defense most certainly is. Unlike so many wrong-headed individuals, I believe that unless the Constitution actually grants a power to the Federal government, then it DOES NOT have it, regardless of what others may wish to be the case.

    7. Re:Pork... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! and if I add in everything else the government spends money on except for defense, it results in closer to everything the government spends money on other than defense!

      Throwing in more stuff doesn't make the defense budget any smaller.

    8. Re:Pork... by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a small part of the budget. Obviously to some, 17% is too high. But it's not. Many believe believe that the DoD gets the lion's share. Social programs and pork get the lion's share.

    9. Re:Pork... by SteveNovick · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first step on the path to fiscal responsibility is help the American public understand where their tax dollars go. In terms of federal spending, roughly 20 percent goes to defense, 20 percent to Medicare & Medicaid, 20 percent to Social Security, 8 percent to interest on the debt, and everything else is a relatively small portion for things like transportation, education and the environment. Even the earmarks that have been recently decried are only about 1 percent of the budget. Of course those earmarks include obvious pork like the "Bridge to Nowhere," but getting our fiscal house in order is going to take more than cracking down on appropriations.

      Part of what I would propose are moves towards tax fairness, like repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the capital gains and Social Security tax reforms I mentioned in a previous reply. But we also need to spend our taxes more wisely. I do think there are some programs - like the V-22 Osprey or the International Space Station - that are not a great investment of our tax dollars. I also think we can give federal agencies more of an incentive to save by rewarding them if they come in under budget.

      You can read a bunch more about this and my record of working to educate the public on budget and tax policy, as well as fighting waste in the Oregon State Lottery.

    10. Re:Pork... by meteors · · Score: 1

      There's an old joke about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both spend money, but only Democrats enjoy it.

    11. Re:Pork... by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      If they are "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy", why repeal them -- just add some tax cuts for the poor too!

    12. Re:Pork... by paitre · · Score: 1

      Hey! and if I add in everything else the government spends money on except for defense, it results in closer to everything the government spends money on other than defense! Throwing in more stuff doesn't make the defense budget any smaller.

      Considering the parent decided to roll in all supplemental and emergency military spending into their post, I believe it appropriate that all social programs be rolled in to mine.

      Don't like it? Then don't get involved in the argument.

    13. Re:Pork... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 2, Informative

      How else do you interpret the words ``general welfare''? What about ``necessary and proper''? The government is created to advance certain goals, and it is enabled to do anything necessary and proper to achieve those goals. Also, social security and medicare/medicade are not part of the general budget: If abolished those taxes would also be abolished, so general incomes would not rise.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    14. Re:Pork... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

      It's been there since the beginning, not sure how you could have missed it. If healthcare and the others mentioned aren't part of the general welfare, then what is?

    15. Re:Pork... by rifter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't most of that money being recycled into the hands of people? When it's "spent", it "goes somewhere".
      Raw materials, labor, R&D? Doesn't it serve to increase the value of almost every corporation and many, many small businesses?

      I don't think so. It would seem that most of this money is going directly to 3-4 giant companies that are designed to handle this sort of thing. Maybe some of it trickles down (if the contractors live, and are still being paid the higher wages they used to rather than the relatively low wages people talk about now, they might be able to spend some), but most of it seems to be going into profits. For those companies that have stock (IIRC Blackwater is still privately owned) that could mean a bump in stock price, so theoretically others could ride the gravy train. But it's usually a few big contractors that make the best money off of wars. The rest of us are paying the big contractors the big bucks out of our paycheck. I am not sure we are getting a very good deal there.

    16. Re:Pork... by rifter · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution, while Defense most certainly is. Unlike so many wrong-headed individuals, I believe that unless the Constitution actually grants a power to the Federal government, then it DOES NOT have it, regardless of what others may wish to be the case.

      I agree with you regarding the Constitution. I also think that government loses its legitimacy when it opposes the Constitution. (Uhm, HE-LLO ... your existence and range of power is DEFINED by this document you are destroying .. if it is gone where is your claim to power?).

      However, as much as I can understand your feelings as far as the cost of government entitlements, I have to point out that this is actually explicitly covered in the Constitution. In fact it is mentioned right in the preamble:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Now I know better than to think that "the general welfare" means what "welfare" means today w/r/t entitlements. However it is according to the Constitution (and basic government ideals) the job of government to act as much as it can to make life generally better. That can come in a lot of packages. But any program will cost money, and some will be relatively direct payouts as the most hated entitlements are.

      BTW yes if you combine all the entitlement programs in the budget it becomes a big slice of the pie. In fact Social Security has usually turned up as the largest piece. But that is a misleading pie chart. For one thing, it leaves out where the money is coming from, and if you look into that you see that Social Security is pretty much paying for itself (that might be changing, but still). So you might even take that out of the graph, or leave in just the net.

      Then you have to look at things that aren't in the budget; if you are comparing defense spending. The previous poster was way low on the Iraq War's cost in emergency appropriations (I would have said by an order of 10, but WikiPedia seems to come near half that, for now, and double that eventually. Still it's only fair to count what is being spent now if you're comparing the budget.

      What about all the research that goes into designing better weapons and ways to train soldiers and frighten an dmanipulate enemies? Is all of that contained under the Defense budget? Or does some of it sneak into places like the education budget or foreign aid? (well, those are both way too small to hide much).

      In any case, we spend a lot on our military. Unfortunately now someone has decided to build a parallel military, which is being paid more than the entire budget for our regular military. That can't be cutting defense costs. Either way, a properly designed pie chart would give a very different picture. Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that; one man's truth is another man's poison.

    17. Re:Pork... by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      1. You've got it wrong. If defence is 25%, "social programs" are likely the other 75%. Actually, defence is there to protect the general welfare of citizens as well, so lets count it as a "social program." So 100% of the budget is spent on social programs. (Congressional salaries is a form of welfare IMO, so count them too!)

      2. Either the constitution has changed since the last time you checked (entirely possible given recent fluxes in the spacetime continuum) or you didn't read the exact sentance which also allows for defence. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html for reference: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

      My guess is that it changed since last you read it.

    18. Re:Pork... by paitre · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe, at this point, that we are quibbling on the definition of 'general Welfare', of which I do NOT believe Social Security, Medicare and the specific granting of public monies to individuals is a part.

      Specifically, you are referring to the "general Welfare of the United States" NOT "the People", which is a distinctly separate class within the Constitution that DOES refer to individuals.

      see http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm if you're further confused on the specific meaning of this clause. In particular, read Mr Madison's comments specifically regarding the 'general Welfare' clause in which he eviscerates any attempt at misreading the clause such that it applies to individuals.

      It absolutely does not, and this is a very specific example of why the 'living, breathing Constitution' 'idea' is so abhorrent, and further, why political litmus tests have so thoroughly permitted the judiciary to, themselves, permit the entirety of the Federal government to ignore the document under which our Republic was founded.

    19. Re:Pork... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      You hold the Madisionian view, but that's hardly the only one. Hamilton held the view that it does encompass the general welfare of the people. From wikipedia: "To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law." Even since the early days of this country (see Justice Story) we've gone with the Hamiltonian view. The Madisonian would even eliminate public schools. Clearly those disagreeing with Hamilton on this one are fighting a lost cause. I won't bother to read the Free Republic article - next time post something from a site with less of an agenda.

    20. Re:Pork... by feyhunde · · Score: 1
      Mr. Novack, as an Oregonian, and registered voter who tends towards republicans, I need to know you can tell the difference between real pork and political programs. I'd also like to know you can tell what is good and bad for Oregon.

      For example, Senator Smith has had the tendency to introduce RIAA written bills that have a massive negative effect on the Oregon Economy. I'm in the tech industry, and a bill that gives Media companies the ability to regulate standards of new technology for piracy problems doesn't exactly represent the best interests for Oregonians.

      On the other hand, giving Korea Most Favor Nation status wouldn't either, as they have a tendency to underwrite their fabs and be able to outprice us.

      The ISS however, despite being a very political football, is very important for research. Advance crystallography is superior in microgravity; allowing advanced viral research. The space shuttle, however is a jobs project for southern states. Saturn V's are cheaper than the shuttles and have a better price per pound. If you actually do some engineering on them you can get better payloads too. I personally would prefer to have NASA commission additional private industrial research in the field then be the sole consumer of them, but that may be some time off.

      --
      I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
    21. Re:Pork... by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      What would your beloved Founding Father write in their Consitution and Bill of Rights for today? The documents can't be right for all time and so they need to be understood as intended but overridden when outdated.

    22. Re:Pork... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "The government is created to advance certain goals"

      No, the government is created only for the purpose of upholding and defending the rights of its citizens.

      "How else do you interpret the words ``general welfare''?"

      There are two main views to the general welfare clause, the Madisonian and the Hamiltonian. The Madisonian view is that all spending must be related to one of the enumerated powers; the general welfare clause is not an enumerated power in and of itself. The Hamiltonian view is that spending is an enumerated power and so does not need to be related to one of the other enumerated powers; however, spending must be general in nature and not favor any specific subset of the population. The latter view is more widely held today. In neither case do you find a view allowing for the ability to appropriate a segment of money to a specific segment of the population. Here is specifically what Hamilton said on the subject.

      "If abolished those taxes would also be abolished, so general incomes would not rise."

      The observed difference would be one less rights violation.

    23. Re:Pork... by sfjoe · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution,...

      As usual, nutjob paeoconservatives have no idea what's in the Consitution.
      The phrase "...promote the general welfare" certainly refers to the health and well-being of the population.
      Of course, the Republicans won't spend money on anything that can't be used to kill people.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    24. Re:Pork... by samwichse · · Score: 1

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      Sam

    25. Re:Pork... by CTilluma · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution, while Defense most certainly is. Unlike so many wrong-headed individuals, I believe that unless the Constitution actually grants a power to the Federal government, then it DOES NOT have it, regardless of what others may wish to be the case. Interesting you should bring up your support for our military as a constitutional item and then bring up from the constitution that they don't have it unless granted. So yes - the constution grants the federal government the need for defense. Nowhere in there however do I see it the right to declare war (preemptive strike) against a sovereign nation. Last I checked attacking somebody isn't defense. If you'd like to argue otherwise - i'll gladly come visit you and apply your theories. If in the event I end in court for manslaughter - I can simply point to your own arguments that it was defense.
    26. Re:Pork... by CTilluma · · Score: 1

      Yes - congress is granted the right to declare war: To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; 1. That's the legislature - not the executive branch. 2. The majority of the federal contracts violate this 2 year maximum. Many federal military contracts are 5 year contracts.

    27. Re:Pork... by CTilluma · · Score: 1

      Great! Time to use the document to it's fullest, call a constitutional convention, and set it straight.

    28. Re:Pork... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The documents can't be right for all time ...

      Where is the Constitution wrong when it comes our current needs? Any specifics? It's really a very minimalist document, you know, deliberately so. It can be Amended, and has been ... but that process was made intentionally difficult.

      ... and so they need to be understood as intended ...

      Correct

      ... but overridden when outdated.

      No, that's where you and a lot of other people got it wrong.

      Look, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of our Land. There is no other. Consequently, if you want to "override" it you must Amend it ... and that can only be done by "process contained within itself." To do otherwise is to pay lip service to the Constitution, while doing whatever you damn well please. That way leads to a government far more powerful than the Founders wanted, or We the People need. I might add that's exactly what our various governments have been doing for some time now. Mostly, I suppose, that's because obeying the law is, well, inconvenient for some people (and a darn sight less profitable.)

      If you look at where America has been going wrong for the past fifty years, it's generally in areas where we decided to "override" the Constitution, because somebody felt it was "outdated". That in spite of the fact that it is the Supreme Law of These United States.

      Don't underrate the Founders and their accomplishment. Their words are no less true today, and all the more valuable because the combined wisdom of Congress and every Administration for the past half century don't hold a candle to the likes of Jefferson and Franklin.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    29. Re:Pork... by meglon · · Score: 1

      "Section. 8. (pertinent points)

      The Congress shall have Power....

      To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

      To provide and maintain a Navy;

      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

      .... No Air Force mentioned, too bad for the flyboys.. they're unconstitutional.

      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

      .... So, a standing army is not authorized in the constitution.

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."



      The anti-federalists lost their argument over 200 years ago, do we really need to go back to it? We obviously need to increase the amount of US government class time required to graduate from high school. Insulting people just because they don't agree with you doesn't make you look intelligent, just thugish.

      It also doesn't mention in the Constitution that we should be, by force, spreading democracy through the world.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    30. Re:Pork... by paitre · · Score: 1

      AS usual, the usual liberal dumbasses have no idea how to read the Constitution and do not recognize that The United States is a separate class indicating the STATES THEMSELVES and not THE PEOPLE (which is, obviously enough, who the identifier The People refers to).

    31. Re:Pork... by paitre · · Score: 1

      No argument, I am clearly in the Madisonian camp, and have been for years.
      Hamilton, however, also indicates that there are limits to even his expanded view of the clause, and I daresay that neither Hamilton nor Madison would at all be pleased with the direction we have allowed our governance to take.

  4. Why Democrat? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After reading your views, I see a few things that put you at odds with the current Democrat party. What causes you to align yourself with the Democrat party? What differences do you personally see in yourself that by and large the Democrats adhere to? If elected, would you promise to remain Democrat or would you entertain the idea of going third party/independent?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Why Democrat? by SteveNovick · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have been willing to buck the establishment in this campaign and I think voters will appreciate that. But let me make clear that I am a Democrat through and through and will stay in the party no matter what. As Paul Wellstone said about himself, "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

      I will continue to stand up for my principles, even when I disagree with my fellow Democrats. But I truly believe that by expressing the progressive values, we will strengthen the Democratic Party. It is that willingness to tell the truth, regardless the consequences that I see as my biggest contrast with the D.C. Democratic establishment.

    2. Re:Why Democrat? by operagost · · Score: 0

      If "progressive" means "progressing towards higher compliance with the limited powers allocated to the Federal government in the Constitution," I'm all for it. But we all know that's ridiculous, and being progressive means discarding the Constitution and creating your own.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Why Democrat? by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Steve,

      I'm the elections administrator of the Pacific Green Party of Oregon, and I've followed your campaign with interest. A number of our members have donated to your campaign as a strategy within the Democratic Party as a hedge that the Democratic Party will still restrict ballot accessibility and continue to suppress third parties. I know we both despise what the Democratic National Committee and their DLC/New Democrat-types have done to your party, and the Green Party has gained a lot of traction as a voice for those made voiceless by the DNC's corporate takeover, but if we can get a commitment that you'll champion Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution with your fell Democrats, which enables preference voting and proportional representation, in particular, preference voting, perhaps the Greens can gain some traction in getting preference voting implemented at the local level. Bill Bradbury, our Democratic Secretary of State has been opposing our local campaigns vigorously to get things like IRV into local jurisdictions like cities and counties, and even a bill in the state legislature, which he was instrumental in killing.

      I'm not old enough to run for U.S. Senate against the Dems, but I can find somebody who will, particularly if you fail in the primary.

      If you're really part of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, then the Green Party needs your help to help keep the Democrats honest to their core values without having to force Democrats to "spoil" our elections against Republicans. As you know, if there are only two viable parties in a first-past-the-post system, they will get as close to indistinguishable as possible in an effort to grab the middle of the political gamut. That's basic game theory. A preference voting system would enable people like you to take back your own party. If you fail in this effort, know that the Green Party is here for people like you. We're the ones out trying to change the system so that people like you can get elected without being gamed by centrists.

      I'll get to my point, though. We're inclined to stay out of the race if you win the primary, but if we don't hear anything from any of the candidates on the ideas of election reform, including you, we will run a candidate. Teresa Keane (I was on her campaign committee) got fifty thousand votes in a two month campaign against Ron Wyden and Al King. If it comes to it, we'll run another candidate and point out that we need election reform, now.

      Regardless of what we believe in, without election reform to enable true representation of the people, regardless of view or party, nothing we believe in will get traction, because the game theory shows us that it's really just centrists that get elected and never any outside voices.

      You've spent your life fighting for the little guy. Well, the little guy has no voice because Oregon won't enact Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, which was put in place in 1908 to enable us to be truly representative. You can help by making it a part of your public view. You don't have to make press releases or anything, but if people view your website and it covers this issue, it would greatly help inform people of the eventual need to be more open and accessible about their voting system, without any of Phil's absurd open-primary lunacy.

      Seth Woolley,
      Secretary, Parliamentarian, and Elections Administrator
      Pacific Green Party of Oregon

      IANAL

  5. Nucular... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?

    1. Re:Nucular... by stuporglue · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nuke 'em til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.

      It's sigs like yours which make people afraid of nuclear energy. And guns.

      --
      https://www.facebook.com/digitizeicm -- Show your support for the digitization of the Iron County Miner newspaper archiv
    2. Re:Nucular... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People only fear what they don't understand. Then you'll fear my nucular gun.

      Oddly enough, it's the people who understand the most about both in which nuclear energy and guns find the safest hands.

    3. Re:Nucular... by andphi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's possible to both fear and favor a given course of action - expanding our nuclear energy base, changing jobs, or owning a fire-arm for self-defense, for example - if the alternatives are less favorable or more fearful than the one which worries one even as one chooses it.

    4. Re:Nucular... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Actually a very valid question in OR. Our only "power generating" Nuclear reactor was shut down a decade ago. Trojan Nuclear power plant generated 12% of the state of Oregon's power supply when it was shut down. Most of the rest of the states power came from Dams (especially along the Columbia river). Now, in order to keep up with demand, and to replace Trojan's power generation capacity, many natural gas power plants have been built in the state, increasing emissions in the "green" state..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:Nucular... by Null537 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't this a bit of a weighted question?

      "Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?"
      "I'm against nuclear energy"
      "Ha! Nuclear fearing member of the sheeple!"

      How about "Are you for or against nuclear energy, and why?"

    6. Re:Nucular... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a bit weighted, but I wanted to editorialize instead of trying to appear "unbiased." I want him to show how - if he's against nuclear - that the alternative is better.

    7. Re:Nucular... by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      What was that called again, begging the question?

      Seriously, while I have a Neutral-To-Positive view of Nuclear power, so many proponents of it uses such fallacies. Can you not simply ask if he is in favor of Nuclear power? Just because someone isn't, doesn't automatically mean they are 'afraid' of it, it could very well mean they have something else in mind that might fit the situation they have better.

      Really, I don't know why you haven't been modded as a troll yet.

    8. Re:Nucular... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And do you still beat your wife?

      # Jesus Christ guys, can you ask a question without
      # loading it with your personal agenda?!?

    9. Re:Nucular... by willllllllllll · · Score: 1

      I'm very afraid of nuclear power, but I'm still for it. Not enough mutants these days, and have you noticed how the world's warmed up since we stopped having all those nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s?

    10. Re:Nucular... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I intentionally loaded it instead of going non-biased. You can waffle on a non-loaded question. This way, the answer also has to address my view.

    11. Re:Nucular... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I wanted it loaded on purpose. A non-loaded question can be answered with a waffle maybe-answer. I wanted to present a challenge - he has to address my view to answer the question.

  6. Mending the "Unchecked President" by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Complaints have been registered far and wide of our cowboy president. Democrats voting on bills hasn't done anything--some Democrats seem to have sat idly by as it happened. If you're elected into office, how are you going to stop this? More importantly with the president in his last term, how are you going to undo what has been done? Whether Clinton, Obama or McCain win, give us plans of action for how you intend to undo what you listed on your site: "warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, covert CIA 'black site' prisons, use of torture in interrogations and other tactics in tension or direct violation with the law have sparked outrage here at home and sullied our name abroad."

    --
    My work here is dung.
  7. Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Steve, your state already tried, and aborted, an attempt at universal health care. Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Would you raise federal income taxes to make it work? How much?

    1. Re:Universal Health Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      Parent is a troll. He wants healthcare reform not to be increased. Right now, Oregon healthcare is a lottery it needs to be fixed.

      Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Please present proof that "Oregon needs to take money from other states to make [healthcare] work."
    2. Re:Universal Health Care by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

    3. Re:Universal Health Care by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That right there is a good argument against universal health care. Unless you really want government intruding on and micromanaging everybody's life. You don't have to worry about it being abused - universal health care, by its very nature, is an abuse.

    4. Re:Universal Health Care by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      I would expect that a person has to be open minded enough to not have NIH syndrome and look at countries that actually have a well running universal healthcare system.
      And BTW there was, is and always will be a percent of "the fat, lazy, and stupid" that will abuse the system.

    5. Re:Universal Health Care by imag0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please remember that, when using inflammatory rhetoric like that, the largest receivers of government welfare money happens to be large, multinational companies and not the "fat, lazy, and stupid" that you are probably thinking of.

    6. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 1, Troll

      Hear Hear! It's much more important to keep that money handy for the present day and upcoming stock market bail outs, and let medical care trickle down from that. Viva la (Reagan) Revolución! VIVA!

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Universal Health Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof schmoof. There's no proof that Oregon needs to do that, but the evidence suggests that they were not able to do it, within their own budget. Leave proof (for either side) until later. Until then, though, the position that some states could magically provide universal healthcare without being subsidized by the richer states, needs some evidence. That position currently doesn't have any credibility at all. When that position is able to at least make a believable case for itself, then we can talk about proving one or the other. Right now, the position you're asking for proof on, is the only one that doesn't look like a joke.

    8. Re:Universal Health Care by mcpkaaos · · Score: 0, Troll

      Since when is FUD +Insightful?

      Notquitecajon, would you please elaborate on how the fat, lazy and stupid would abuse a universal health care system?

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    9. Re:Universal Health Care by halivar · · Score: 1

      Going to the emergency room regularly when all you need is some 'tussin.

    10. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      (Score:0, Troll)

      Ah, yes. I forgot. Don't taunt the happy fun pudge. Especially when his friends have points.

      C'mon baby, make it hurt so good

      --
      What?
    11. Re:Universal Health Care by Dice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just abuse by We The People that we need to worry about. A federal health care system means putting control of what goes into our bodies in the hands of the government. Let me remind you that this is a government which has a well documented history of experimenting on its own people for the purposes of developing mind control drugs and the like.

      I, for one, do not welcome our new Big Government overlords.

    12. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wall Street gets universal "health" care. Why can't we?

      --
      What?
    13. Re:Universal Health Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are already these people (and doctor's catering to them)...they are part of the reason health insurance has gotten insanely expensive in this country.

    14. Re:Universal Health Care by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

      These are two different questions. I would imagine you would stop abuse by putting people who commit fraud, or get extra drugs, or doctors who perform unnecessary surgeries in jail. Much like the options currently available to HMOs. There may even be some kind of oversight.

      As for some people having higher health care costs, you seem to be misinterperting several things. First off, since there is guaranteed emergency room care, the status quo is that people who are fat, lazy and stupid go there, taking time away from real emergencies, getting more costly care (whose costs are passed on to you) instead of local doctor care, and preventing a 'stitch int time'. So, those people would actually cost less.

      Secondly, the whole point of insurance is that some people are going to have higher costs than others. Because we don't know who is going to be whom, we all chip in. And, I would say that the slight (see point three) increase in costs is worth the freedom of not having the governement try to make us eat healthily. The current status quo still, because most health insurance is in mass by employeers, lumps the fatties in with everyone else.

      Thirdly, the highest costs in health care, as well as those most easily identified as preexisting conditions, are chronic diseases/conditions. Most of these are not due to being overweight, but instead an inherited or acquired condition that the person cannot change (think: cancer, AIDS, alzhimers, etc.) The diseases associated with weight are much smaller in cost than those not. So, it seems like being unable to distingish the "fat and lazy" from the "already sick" is a necessary condition of handling those with other preexisting conditions.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:Universal Health Care by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      universal health care, by its very nature, is an abuse

      I see all today's mods are from the US, the only industrialized nation in the world without universal health care!

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:Universal Health Care by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      One is the already mentioned emergency room issues (money holes in many hospitals); another is the rampant idiocy of people stuffing their faces with way too much - and unhealthy - food, and not knowing enough or not caring about what goes into their bodies. I don't want my tax dollars further supporting anyone who eats half their meals at McDonald's, exercises too little, smokes, and drinks too much. Yes, I know what the poor in this country don't have access to. Yes, it's wrong - but how many take the easy way out when they COULD be going in another direction?

    17. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Hi Pudge,

      Oregon has not tried universal health care. It's voted on a version of it, but it never got around to trying it.

      Seth Woolley, Secretary, Pacific Green Party of Oregon

    18. Re:Universal Health Care by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      Have you checked your healthcare insurance premiums lately?

      You're already paying for it. National healthcare would simply redistribute the load more evenly across the entire populace. I suspect there's not a whole that can be done by any non-draconian system to enlighten the hypochondriac's among us. I understand it's a bit of an oxymoron to advocate an efficient national healthcare system, however when you look at the raw number of what we spend as a country currently and the level of service provided compared to nation healthcare system similar to our friends up north have, the term would apply.

      I'm not aware of any governmental system that legislates fat, lazy, and stupid both fairly and effectively. Are you going to discriminate against people who eat oreos? Be prepared for retaliation legislation ad naseum. Absent of that, the only thing left is to reduced the problem to pure economics to reach the best logical system. If the goal is efficiently, a national program wins by raw numbers alone.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    19. Re:Universal Health Care by UdoKeir · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, there are a lot of posters presenting false oppositions that are getting modded as insightful. Looks like the Faux News mouth-breathers are out in force today.

    20. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Oregon has not tried universal health care. It's voted on a version of it, but it never got around to trying it. What I was referring to is the fact that it has failed politically, thus far, mostly because of financial considerations.

    21. Re:Universal Health Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, stop with all the micro-this and micro-that comments, give the little guy a break.

    22. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      This is a politically heated debate began by someone making a baseless assumption that Novick will raise taxes to reform healthcare! Apparently, you did not read what I wrote, as I did no such thing. Asking someone if they will raise taxes is not assuming they will. My only assumption is something everyone agrees with: that it will cost a lot of money. Therefore, how that money will be raised is a perfectly reasonable question.

      Perhaps you should not accuse me of a straw man, by using one yourself.

      Oh, I see, you're an anonymous coward. Carry on, then.
    23. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      You're already paying for it. National healthcare would simply redistribute the load more evenly across the entire populace. No, that's just not true. It would do a hell of a lot more than that. Some of us would have to pay even more; regional cost differences would be obliterated, punishing some people for living in an area with a lower cost of living; most likely, choice and quality of care would be reduced for many; and so on.

      I understand it's a bit of an oxymoron to advocate an efficient national healthcare system, however when you look at the raw number of what we spend as a country currently and the level of service provided compared to nation healthcare system similar to our friends up north have, the term would apply. Unfortunately, you set up a false dichotomy: the current system, or a national system. We can do much to lower costs, increase choice, and get broader health care access, in the existing (mostly) private system. It used to work. There is absolutely no reason it cannot work today.

      I'm not aware of any governmental system that legislates fat, lazy, and stupid both fairly and effectively. Are you going to discriminate against people who eat oreos? Be prepared for retaliation legislation ad naseum. One of the best reasons to be absolutely against national healthcare.

      Absent of that, the only thing left is to reduced the problem to pure economics to reach the best logical system. If the goal is efficiently, a national program wins by raw numbers alone. No, it does not. It loses because it ruins healthcare for those of us who have it already, destroys liberty, and costs more money.

    24. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      My only assumption is something everyone agrees with: that it will cost a lot of money. Therefore, how that money will be raised is a perfectly reasonable question. Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now.

      If you're asking where the money would come from: the same place it comes right now: the existing health care system.

      I've actually worked in the health care system in Oregon, for a primary care clinic with 20 doctors, running computer systems for billing purposes. Single-payer systems would be the best way to approach the problem: the government is the single payer.

      A progressive income tax that treats payroll and capital gains similarly is the best way to pay for such a system.
    25. Re:Universal Health Care by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points, you'd get -1:Obfuscation.

      If you should be afraid of any states having issues such as these, You should OMGUBERFUDCUZIDUNNOHOWFINANCESWORK about Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    26. Re:Universal Health Care by UdoKeir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oooh! I got a troll mod too!

      I guess this Mr Novick must have the Republicunts running scared if they're having to silence any opposing views.

    27. Re:Universal Health Care by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

      How will you prevent universal fire service from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the accident-prone, careless, and stupid from playing with matches or storing oily rags next to the furnace, and running up the tax bills for fire department services?

      We don't worry much about that because we know that no one gets their house burned down by choice, even if fire service is free. (I.e., without additional cost to the recipient - of course TANSTAAFL, it's paid for by taxes.) We do of course engage in public education campaigns to reduce the risk, mandate building codes, put warning labels on dangerous things (I love the label on my water heater, which features a burning stick figure running from an explosion - a very clear message of "do not fsck with this appliance"), but by and large we don't interfere with people's daily lives to make sure they're not risking the public expense of a fire.

      And in the same way, no one gets sick by choice, even if medical care is free. I don't care if you start giving away coronary bypass surgery, paying the sick leave, and giving away a free bottle of single malt with every surgery (a drop of the craythur thins the blood and helps prevent blocked arteries, you know) - I'd rather not have my chest carved open and a vein ripped out of my leg, so I try to eat right and exercise.

      Also, we understand that it's to my benefit to have my neighbor's flaming house put out before the fire spreads. We ought to understand that it's also to my benefit to have my neighbor get his TB or herpes or bird flu treated before it spreads - or better, gets preventative care to maintain his health so he doesn't get infected in the first place. Especially in this age of bioterrorist threats, universal basic health care is part of the state's mandate to "provide for the common defense".

      If the Interstate Highway System is seen as part of the nation's defense (as it allows for troop mobility), surely an Interstate Health System that protects against epidemics (natural or through enemy action) and keeps Americans healthy enough to fight ought to be justified as well.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    28. Re:Universal Health Care by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Funny

      Going to the emergency room regularly when all you need is some 'tussin.

      Because, you know, going to the emergency room is so much fun that you have to charge a cover to keep it from getting too crowded. Nothing I love more than getting sick or injured so I can go sit and wait in line with a bunch of other sick or injured people.

      Yes, you get the occasional edge case who really does enjoy it. You'll spend more time, money, and trouble trying to create a system to keep him out than you would spend if you let him in, gave him a bottle of cough syrup, patted him on the head, and sent him on his way.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    29. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      My only assumption is something everyone agrees with: that it will cost a lot of money. Therefore, how that money will be raised is a perfectly reasonable question. Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now. Unfortunately, that is false, on several counts. The first is that it is a false dichotomy to say we should do Universal Health Care because it is better than "the current system," because there are other options to improve the current system.

      For example: deregulating who can provide basic preventative care would make it far more accessible than the current system, and perhaps moreso than a universal system. Deregulation (along with other reforms) can also reduce the COST of health care, thus reducing the need for insurance to cover many things, thus reducing bureaucracy. And don't say it won't work, because this is how it used to be, and it still works for many people today.

      Another way that you're wrong is that you assume that bureaucracy will be smaller, or that we will necessarily pay less due to economies of scale. I see no reason to accept either of these assumptions.

      And most obviously, you are wrong because many people WILL PAY MORE, and will get no better care for it. It may cost less overall -- that is unknowable -- but we absolutely do know that many people will pay more. Even John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- and even Dennis Kucinich -- admit this. Saying it will cost less is false.

      If you're asking where the money would come from: the same place it comes right now: the existing health care system. Nope. Many people would have to put more -- far more -- into a universal health care system than they do into the existing health care system.

      I've actually worked in the health care system in Oregon So have dozens of people I know personally, including members of my immediate family, who oppose single-payer. You won't win on an appeal to authority. Sorry: you have to try to win on the strength of your arguments themselves.

      Single-payer systems would be the best way to approach the problem: the government is the single payer. Single-payer systems would be the WORST way to approach the problem: the government is the single payer.

      A progressive income tax that treats payroll and capital gains similarly is the best way to pay for such a system. A progressive income tax -- well, any income tax, really -- destroys liberty, which is, without any question, the most important goal of the United States government.
    30. Re:Universal Health Care by SteveNovick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would suggest that Oregon's attempt at universal health care never got off the ground because major portions of it were blocked by the Republican-controlled legislature. I think that experience underscores the need for us to address health care reform at a national level. The path our health care system is on is clearly unsustainable, with exploding costs and declining coverage. I think there are several comprehensive plans out there to ensure everyone has affordable health care, while tackling the cost of care. Here's a fuller explanation of what I think that will take and several measures we need to take to control costs.

      With the current path we are on, we will need to raise taxes or slash benefits to cover the cost of Medicare when baby boomers retire. Neither of those are good options. That is why we must reform our system now, before it is too late and we are faced with unacceptable options.

    31. Re:Universal Health Care by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      You're already paying for it. National healthcare would simply redistribute the load more evenly across the entire populace. No, that's just not true. It would do a hell of a lot more than that. Some of us would have to pay even more; regional cost differences would be obliterated, punishing some people for living in an area with a lower cost of living; most likely, choice and quality of care would be reduced for many; and so on.

      I understand it's a bit of an oxymoron to advocate an efficient national healthcare system, however when you look at the raw number of what we spend as a country currently and the level of service provided compared to nation healthcare system similar to our friends up north have, the term would apply. Unfortunately, you set up a false dichotomy: the current system, or a national system. We can do much to lower costs, increase choice, and get broader health care access, in the existing (mostly) private system. It used to work. There is absolutely no reason it cannot work today.

      I'm not aware of any governmental system that legislates fat, lazy, and stupid both fairly and effectively. Are you going to discriminate against people who eat oreos? Be prepared for retaliation legislation ad naseum. One of the best reasons to be absolutely against national healthcare.

      Absent of that, the only thing left is to reduced the problem to pure economics to reach the best logical system. If the goal is efficiently, a national program wins by raw numbers alone. No, it does not. It loses because it ruins healthcare for those of us who have it already, destroys liberty, and costs more money.

      All of your points may be valid, but it depends on exactly what sort of National health care system is implemented. There are quite a few systems that could be implemented that would actually improve health care for everybody, including those who would already have it. Some (not very many, but some) of the possible systems could even do that while lowering the actual cost of healthcare. The problem is determining which potential systems can do this, implementing one, and keeping the elected officials from continuously messing with it. That last part sounds like a real problem.

      If a system is basically chosen at random, only partially implemented, with politicians constantly messing with it, the problems you describe are almost certain. That makes the whole proposal a bit of a problem. It is really hard to get the politicians to do the right thing, or to even do what they said they were going to do.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    32. Re:Universal Health Care by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wall street pays for it themselve. Why don't you?

      I know you are actually dumb enough to not see why wall street can afford their health care and you can't. So I guess I will have to take your statement as a loaded one.

    33. Re:Universal Health Care by seifried · · Score: 1

      Because putting your health in the hands of medical insurance companies and HMO's is working out so well for you? I hate to say this but the US life expectancy is 5 years less than Canada now. Granted there are other factors, but health care is a pretty significant one (and 5 years is a pretty huge difference).

    34. Re:Universal Health Care by Dice · · Score: 1
      Correlation does not equal causation. There are many other contributing factors which help explain Canada's higher life expectancy, not the least of which is the fact that they're not as fat as we are.

      Even so, Canada's adult obesity rate was significantly lower than that in the United States. While 23% of Canadian adults were obese in 2004, the rate was nearly 30% south of the border.


      Anyway, I'm not against the idea of "health care for everyone", I'm against "health care for everyone provided by the federal government". Power granted to the government is power that will be abused, at one time or another. If you want to help people obtain easy access to free or low cost health care then you should be donating to charities.
    35. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My only assumption is something everyone agrees with: that it will cost a lot of money. Therefore, how that money will be raised is a perfectly reasonable question.

      Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now.

      Unfortunately, that is false, on several counts. The first is that it is a false dichotomy to say we should do Universal Health Care because it is better than "the current system," because there are other options to improve the current system.

      I never set up a dichotomy. I think it's the best system of many alternatives.

      For example: deregulating who can provide basic preventative care would make it far more accessible than the current system, and perhaps moreso than a universal system. Deregulation (along with other reforms) can also reduce the COST of health care, thus reducing the need for insurance to cover many things, thus reducing bureaucracy. And don't say it won't work, because this is how it used to be, and it still works for many people today.

      Single-payer health care does not regulate the decisions of the AMA and other medical agencies composed of practitioners who would be delegated the role of making policy, just as it is done in many other western nations.

      Are you clumping one proposal with another? Clear your mind, first.

      Another way that you're wrong is that you assume that bureaucracy will be smaller, or that we will necessarily pay less due to economies of scale. I see no reason to accept either of these assumptions.

      I don't actually assume it. Insurance company overhead is around 25%, but medicare is less than 5%. Insurance companies consistently pay more than medicare reimbursements, as well. Total cost of providing health care is greatly increased by private insurance. Since you haven't actually worked in the industry and clearly make false statements without having done any research, you don't have a basis either in experience or research for understanding the problem.

      And most obviously, you are wrong because many people WILL PAY MORE, and will get no better care for it. It may cost less overall -- that is unknowable -- but we absolutely do know that many people will pay more. Even John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- and even Dennis Kucinich -- admit this. Saying it will cost less is false.

      Of course some people will pay more. That's fine with me, particularly if they have the income to afford it. That's the entire basis for progressive taxation and the role of all healthy, modern governments: to ensure a strong middle class by wealth redistribution and equal opportunity.

      If you'd like, I'd just have a 100% estate tax that would cover it and every other social program we need instead of an income tax, but an income tax is simply a more market-based approach. But I suppose being born with equal opportunity is not really an important part of your desires for the role of government.

      If you're asking where the money would come from: the same place it comes right now: the existing health care system.

      Nope. Many people would have to put more -- far more -- into a universal health care system than they do into the existing health care system.

      I've actually worked in the health care system in Oregon

      So have dozens of people I know personally, including members of my immediate family, who oppose single-payer. You won't win on an appeal to authority. Sorry: you have to try to win on the strength of your arguments themselves.

      You're still not qualified to discuss the matter. I am, you are not. Get one of your family members to discuss it with me so we can talk about real issues.

    36. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would suggest that Oregon's attempt at universal health care never got off the ground because major portions of it were blocked by the Republican-controlled legislature.

      Yes, because of the obvious problems in PAYING for it. That the legislature blocked it is a good thing: universal health care does no one any good if everyone is broke. The proposed system was literally incapable of sustaining itself.

      I think that experience underscores the need for us to address health care reform at a national level. The path our health care system is on is clearly unsustainable, with exploding costs and declining coverage. I think there are several comprehensive plans out there to ensure everyone has affordable health care, while tackling the cost of care.

      None I've seen. All of them only discussed more regulation, and direct cost controls, to control costs, which either wouldn't work, or would only work in the short term, increasing costs and decreasing care in the long term (which always happens when you remove competition).

      Here's a fuller explanation of what I think that will take and several measures we need to take to control costs.

      I see several problems. First, Medicare negotiating lower drug prices causes INCREASED prices for those not on Medicare. This will be a big hit to middle class and poor families. I agree with this in principle, but see no way around it harming others. The middle class especially is already subsidizing drugs to Canada and other countries; now they would be subsidizing drugs to Medicare recipients.

      This does not actually reduce national costs, it just shifts them, from the taxpayer to the drug consumer, which seems to me to be the wrong direction that most Democrats who favor universal health care want to go.

      I also absolutely disagree with federal school lunch standards. The federal government has no business of any kind in the local public schools. Period, end of story.

      As to hospitals, similar story: the federal government should not be paying for this equipment, or restricting its purchase.

      However, I ABSOLUTELY agree that we need to reform the drug patent system. Thanks for highlighting that. I don't believe government should be in the business of handing out monopolies JUST FOR THE SAKE of handing out monopolies. The Constitution is clear: the point of a patent is to encourage innovation. It is only worthwhile to the extent it does that, and patent terms should be tailored to provide the MINIMUM rights necessary to accomplish that goal.

      Further, I agree that taxpayers should not be subsidizing drug companies' ads. Indeed, we should not be subsidizing drug companies at all, including money for research. This ties into the patent issue because we pay them to do research and then give them a patent, too! Any research we DO subsidize should be public domain.

      Which brings me to farm subsidies: no, we should cut all of them. We do not need them. Yes, the cost of food may rise, but our taxes will be significantly less (assuming the government doesn't spend that money on something else ... ha!), and individual states can increase food aid to needy families if necessary.

      But all this put together will only begin to address the cost problems. The real big problem (other than tort reform, which is not a big issue for some, but a huge issue for others) is the lack of competition and choice that allows all kinds of health care providers -- from drugs to machines to hospitals -- to jack up the cost of health care. It's very similar to the patent issue. That is what government should be working on: finding ways to introduce more competition.

      Providing insurance to everyone is not the answer. Reducing the cost of health care is the answer. And while you have some good ideas, it is only barely a start. Frankly, I think many people -- not sure if this includes

    37. Re:Universal Health Care by operagost · · Score: 1

      And we're on the right side, because many of those other nations are trying to shut down their failed healthcare Ponzi schemes.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    38. Re:Universal Health Care by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's only two years. So you're probably totally wrong in your assumption.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:Universal Health Care by operagost · · Score: 1

      But I suppose being born with equal opportunity is not really an important part of your desires for the role of government.
      It's not mine either. Even if "equal opportunity" is something we don't have but need, who says government is to give it to us? Have you ever read "Harrison Bergeron"?
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:Universal Health Care by ThatTallGuy · · Score: 1

      > Please remember that, when using inflammatory rhetoric like that, the largest receivers of government welfare money happens to be large, multinational companies

      And state-wise, the largest recipients of federal money are those red states who say they don't want any of their money going to help other states...

    41. Re:Universal Health Care by morari · · Score: 1

      You've never seen the populace of Southern Ohio, have you?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    42. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      But I suppose being born with equal opportunity is not really an important part of your desires for the role of government.
      It's not mine either. Even if "equal opportunity" is something we don't have but need, who says government is to give it to us? Have you ever read "Harrison Bergeron"? Is that seriously your reply?

      artificial equality != equal opportunity and equality under the law

      As a suggestion, you should really try to argue your point based on an understanding of critical distinctions in the discussion. People might then begin to take your arguments seriously.
    43. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Guess what would have happened to me in the US?

      If you guess I'd have been better off, well. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the state. There's no way to know from the limited information you've provided. Since generally speaking, health care in the U.S. is better (there's just less access to it for many), your problem very possibly would have been solved in a lot less than six years.

      The purpose of society isn't to serve the strong - it's to help the weak. Nope. The purpose of society is to provide a framework for protecting the individual rights of all.

      I guess the basic concepts of having a democratic society just have escaped you. Nope. On the contrary, a system that respects the people (democracy) must respect therefore the individual person (hence, republic).

      Next time? Think before you speak. I already did. Your turn.

    44. Re:Universal Health Care by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the reason they keep going is because, by and large, they don't pay for it. Third-party "insurance" picks up the tab. If you don't pay for something yourself, the tendency is to try to milk it for everything you can get. This is why universal health care is a boondoggle. It will only be more of the same problem.

      In the US, calling it "insurance" is really a misnomer anymore. It's not just for unforeseen catastrophes. It's more like a payment plan system that covers even "maintenance" and routine expenses.

    45. Re:Universal Health Care by why-is-it · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Steve, your state already tried, and aborted, an attempt at universal health care. Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Would you raise federal income taxes to make it work? How much?

      I think the OP is expressing an opinion on universal health care, but it is so subtly disguised in this question that I am unable to find it...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    46. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now.

      Unfortunately, that is false, on several counts. The first is that it is a false dichotomy to say we should do Universal Health Care because it is better than "the current system," because there are other options to improve the current system.

      I never set up a dichotomy. I think it's the best system of many alternatives.

      You did. You compared it to the current system. If you think it is better than all other alternatives, fine, but your argument addressed this particular dichotomy.

      Single-payer health care does not regulate the decisions of the AMA and other medical agencies composed of practitioners who would be delegated the role of making policy, just as it is done in many other western nations.

      You're so cute. Of course it will. We already have Novick here trying to control what schoolkids eat, and many municipalities doing the same for entire populations. The government loves to try to control our health, when their costs are on the line, and when they are directly paying the bills, so much more so. We see government doing this in Medicare already.

      Are you clumping one proposal with another?

      No.

      Clear your mind, first.

      Already perfectly clear.

      Another way that you're wrong is that you assume that bureaucracy will be smaller, or that we will necessarily pay less due to economies of scale. I see no reason to accept either of these assumptions.

      I don't actually assume it.

      Yes, in fact, you do.

      Insurance company overhead is around 25%, but medicare is less than 5%.

      Medicare is not a single-payer national health care system. The comparison is invalid. Plus, once again: false dichotomy.

      Total cost of providing health care is greatly increased by private insurance.

      By some forms of it, yes. Also, by most forms of single-payer health care (those that don't drastically decrease quality of care).

      Since you haven't actually worked in the industry ... you don't have a basis either in experience or research for understanding the problem.

      See. There you go again. Look. This is called an appeal to authority logical fallacy. It is entirely invalid, and only makes you look like a prick. Again: if you can't win on the strength of your arguments, then you ... can't win. Saying "I know better than you" instead of actually backing up your arguments is admitting you lost the argument.

      If you like, I can forget about your terrible mistake, and let you try again. Would this suit you?

      And most obviously, you are wrong because many people WILL PAY MORE, and will get no better care for it. It may cost less overall -- that is unknowable -- but we absolutely do know that many people will pay more. Even John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- and even Dennis Kucinich -- admit this. Saying it will cost less is false.

      Of course some people will pay more.

      So you admit you were wrong. Thanks.

      That's fine with me, particularly if they have the income to afford it.

      Sorry, but it is literally impossible to determine whether someone can afford more taxes, by their income. The two are not directly related. This is a fundamental flaw in all progressive taxation schemes. It assumes that everything belongs to the government, and no one has any right to any property or possessions.

      That's the entire basis for progressive taxation

      Exactly.

      and the role of all healthy, modern governments: to ensure a strong middle class by weal

    47. Re:Universal Health Care by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An abuse? Oh really? Are you aware that city water supplies are an example of universal health care? Fluorine is added to reduce tooth decay. It works, and it's pretty cost effective. Benefits everyone except possibly dentists. Lots of other things are done to the water supply. So we dodge the thrills of cholera epidemics that happen all too often in places that don't have good water supplies. But maybe you'd prefer to dig your own wells and buy your own filters and softeners, giving up the cost savings to be had from doing this on a massive scale, and do all the maintenance and monitoring yourself and worry about whether your neighbors' wells will dry out yours, stuff like that? And wonder when your young one will end up in a class seated next to the child of someone too poor to afford such niceties? That's why we have very low cost vaccinations, and will even give them away to the desperately poor. They're so worth it.

      Likewise there's a lot of savings to be had if we'd just put up a little money up front for checkups and preventative care. Sadly, you can't just get a blood test, no you've got to fill out a ton of paperwork about all the details of your health insurance, questions about your health history, and read and sign many pages worth of disclaimers, permissions to disclose info, permissions to substitute generic drugs, acknowledgments that you owe what your health provider fails to pay, and maybe an arbitration agreement, and, always, always pay some kind of fee. Often, poor people are poor because they have no financial sense. They find it very difficult to budget such things. The fee alone is enough to keep them away. Even if it's free of fees, it's not really free if you have to spend an hour or more on paperwork, sit on your butt in a doctor's waiting room for more hours (don't you just love being told that you can put your wait to good use by filling out forms?), and perhaps drive 20 plus miles just to reach the place. Our health care system is full of those kinds of inefficiencies. So if one such poor person works as a janitor at a school, and comes down with tuberculosis or the flu perhaps and feels very ill but does not see a doctor and instead keeps on working because he needs the money, and consequently gets half the student body infected, that's going to cost a whole lot of money. A few free tests and doctor visits for everyone once every 2 years or upon reaching certain ages, or some such, could save us all money. You may have noticed that often employers will spend a day or two to host some kind of health checkup for all their employees. Once had my cholesterol levels checked that way. Pretty haphazard and spotty checking, doing it like that. If you're away on a business trip or sick that day, guess you just miss out.

      Forcing people to pay for basic health care is like forcing people to pay to use toilets. Some airports used to do that. If you make it cheaper to crap on the floor, then some will. Those persons might care that it's unhealthy, and understand that it will cost society more in the long run, but feel they need that quarter more right now, and find their act to be the most pungently appropriate way of expressing their displeasure over such a system.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    48. Re:Universal Health Care by seifried · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, it is only 2.34 years. Still a major difference for two countries so closely linked. I did however check the hospital beds and doctor stats and we're about 10% ahead of the us (3.9 hospital beds per 1,000 in Canada, 3.6 per 1,000 in the US). That and the fact that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US:

      http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

    49. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      If you're going to accuse me of a false dichotomy whenever I make a comparison between a proposal and the existing system, then I need to know what other system you actually think is better and where in the world it's been implemented. I can then do a proper comparison. Do you realize that all comparisons imply you're comparing two or more things? That's not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when you say there are only two ways that aren't a full complement of each other and thus they don't cover the full range of possibilities. At no point did I say that you have to choose my way or the existing way.

      Your grasp of logic is remarkably poor.

      So, what is this miracle third way and why do you think it will be both cheaper and equitable?

      Secondly, you are transferring my statement that an overall cost reduction implies that all will have cost reductions. I even said of course not. You asked where the money was coming from -- go read your first post. I told you where it could come from (multiple ways it could be done) and even said it would be an overall cost reduction due to reduced overhead. Where does reduced overhead imply that certain people will have to pay less? There are lots of assumptions going around in your arguments, Pudge. Please, I request again, clear your mind of them and argue the logic and the evidence.

      Thirdly, I made no such assumption that the order was meaningful, if you thought that, I apologize for your mistake. I said they were first and third, not first in importance or third in importance. If you want to attack my arguments, try attacking what I actually say and not some assumption about what I have said that I didn't say.

      Jefferson also didn't think that slaves or women were entitled to the rights of white men, either, so, please, stop appealing to "authority" here. I'm not a strict constructionist, and I don't think the intent of the framers is as important as more modern, progressive ideas that make the union more perfect. If anybody realized that the union was going to have to evolve, it was Jefferson. I was merely pointing out that the government's role is to protect life. How it protects life is a matter of discussion, and Jefferson had some thoughts on the matter, but if you can't actually carry on a discussion without such appeals to authority, then is there any sense in having a discussion with you?

      About qualifications to discuss the matter, I wasn't saying that a priori reasoning established my opinion on your and my qualifications. A posteriori criteria are at play. You're a fundamentalist/religious Libertarian that has an agenda that thinks that having a health care system with any contribution from government is already wrong, so I have no reason to believe that you'd be open to any data that indicates that government involvement in health care financing is viable. You've ignored the figures for medicare (which, actually IS a single-payer system, despite your ignorance) without so much as reasonable counter, for example.

      I'm not interested in a religious discussion, I'm interested in a pragmatic discussion.

    50. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      All of your points may be valid, but it depends on exactly what sort of National health care system is implemented. There are quite a few systems that could be implemented that would actually improve health care for everybody, including those who would already have it. EXTREMELY unlikely. I've never seen such a system or reasonable proposal for one. Many Americans get GREAT health care, and the only thing that could be improved upon significantly for them is not having to deal with billing/paperwork so much; but that would not be improving their health care.

      And most likely, for most of us, it would be worse, including myself. We've had some issues and have seen many specialists, usually without more than a few weeks of waiting, and almost surely we'd have less freedom to do that in a national system.

      Some (not very many, but some) of the possible systems could even do that while lowering the actual cost of healthcare. Let's assume that no one's health care quality would decrease, since I reject that it is realistically possible to increase everyone's quality of care. Yes, this is theoretically possible, but also extremely unlikely, because the only real way to do with government regulation is with cost controls, which will in the long run result in decreased quality of care.

      It is DEregulation that can cut costs without lowering quality: having true competition and choices that right now we don't have because of our messed-up health insurance system.

      The problem is determining which potential systems can do this, implementing one, and keeping the elected officials from continuously messing with it. That last part sounds like a real problem. Even if we could find a system that could possibly do this, which I do not believe is possible, and then implement it ... yes. The government absolutely would mess it up. No question about it.
    51. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Oregon has not tried universal health care. It's voted on a version of it, but it never got around to trying it. What I was referring to is the fact that it has failed politically, thus far, mostly because of financial considerations. The proposal was outspent by millions of dollars to 20 thousand dollars, so yes, that's a financial consideration. I also don't think the particular referendum was the best way to implement it, particularly because of details with how it would be funded, although it was good enough for me to support it. Polls consistently showed that people wanted universal health care but were swayed by insurance companies that were the big losers in the system to not support it on false technicalities, so, no, it didn't fail politically. The concept is still alive.

      But more importantly, if you mean something, next time, try saying it rather than making an untrue statement that any normal reading would indicate that the program was tried and repealed due to public discontent. Polls of Canadians (and other western countries) show a much higher content with their system than USians do about their system, so any argument for a political failure of health care systems with government involvement is flatly contradicted by evidence.

      The real problem is that people like you are corporate sheep, willing to go along with their manufactured consent.
    52. Re:Universal Health Care by marnues · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the rhetoric. Care to provide any real substance?

    53. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Oregon has not tried universal health care. It's voted on a version of it, but it never got around to trying it. What I was referring to is the fact that it has failed politically, thus far, mostly because of financial considerations. The proposal was outspent by millions of dollars to 20 thousand dollars Damn straight. As it should be.

      Polls consistently showed that people wanted universal health care but were swayed by insurance companies that were the big losers in the system to not support it on false technicalities, so, no, it didn't fail politically. False. It DID fail politically. That is self-evident fact. It was tried, it failed. That doesn't mean it cannot succeed later, but it does mean that it is a fact: it failed.

      Further, yes, it is the same old story: people say they want universal health care, but EVERY SINGLE PLAN to provide it is fatally flawed. What you call opposing for "false technicalities," most people call "damned good reasons." I have a lot of family in Oregon, and they know a hell of a lot more about it than you do: that you would imply they were ignorant only makes you look stupider.

      But more importantly, if you mean something, next time, try saying it I did. I always say precisely what I mean to say. It's a curse.

      ... rather than making an untrue statement I made no untrue statement.

      ... that any normal reading would indicate that the program was tried and repealed due to public discontent. False. You don't read very well.

      Polls of Canadians (and other western countries) show a much higher content with their system than USians do about their system, so any argument for a political failure of health care systems with government involvement is flatly contradicted by evidence. False. It is amazing you can string two sentences together while believing things that are so obviously untrue. Comparing different nations is fraught with difficulty: just because it works in one nation -- or even every other nation -- does not imply in the slightest that it will work here. I know this comes a shock, but it's true. So therefore the evidence does not contradict any such argument in the U.S.

      The real problem is that people like you are corporate sheep, willing to go along with their manufactured consent. False. My only goal is rights: life, liberty, property. Period, end of story. I could care less about what any corporation thinks, unless it lines up with my principles. You are the one who called me a libertarian; if you know what that means, then you would not call me a corporate sheep. So you have some sort of disconnect in your thinking.

      I see, however, that you are a Chomsky disciple (a religion like any other). Color me unsurprised.

    54. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you're going to accuse me of a false dichotomy whenever I make a comparison between a proposal and the existing system, then I need to know what other system you actually think is better and where in the world it's been implemented.

      I already did. A system that encourages competition through deregulation and other means. Where it's happened before? Here, in the U.S. It served us well for many years until the last few decades, when government regulation and lawsuits consolidated the power in the medical business into the hands of a few. Ever notice how family doctors don't exist anymore? And how health insurance is required for pretty much everything you want done? It didn't use to be that way.

      Do you realize that all comparisons imply you're comparing two or more things? That's not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when you say there are only two ways that aren't a full complement of each other and thus they don't cover the full range of possibilities. At no point did I say that you have to choose my way or the existing way.

      Yes, in fact, you did: you said "we should have Universal Health Care because it is better than the current system."

      Your grasp of logic is remarkably poor.

      Um, since you literally stated that every person who has worked in health care is qualified to speak on this, and NO ONE ELSE is, I'll eschew your counsel on what is, and is not, a good grasp of logic.

      Secondly, you are transferring my statement that an overall cost reduction implies that all will have cost reductions.

      No. I addressed what you actually wrote. If you didn't mean to say what you wrote, don't blame me.

      I told you where it could come from (multiple ways it could be done) and even said it would be an overall cost reduction due to reduced overhead. ... There are lots of assumptions going around in your arguments, Pudge.

      Considering you still assume that there will be an overall cost reduction, you're one to talk.

      Thirdly, I made no such assumption that the order was meaningful

      False. You did precisely that. Your argument relied on it. I said liberty was the most important goal, and you said -- in rebuttal -- that life is the first goal. That necessarily implies that because it comes first, that it is more important. Please, you are far too transparent, and I am far too good at this, for you to convince me you didn't say what you clearly said.

      Jefferson also didn't think that slaves or women were entitled to the rights of white men, either

      False. I am unsurprised you didn't know that fact, though. He was one of the most outspoken opponents of slavery, and said, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that [slaves] are to be free." He believed them to be inferior, as Abraham Lincoln did, but he believed them to have the same rights as all men. That he continued to own slaves is a sad thing, but it does not reflect his belief of what slaves were entitled to. Kinda like how Al Gore uses more oil than anyone else, despite believing it's a bad thing.

      so, please, stop appealing to "authority" here

      I am not, in the argument sense, appealing to authority. That would be what YOU did, where I would say something like, "Jefferson said something, so therefore it is right." I am not saying that. I am saying it is something I agree with, that formed the foundation of our government. I am stating facts.

      I'm not a strict constructionist

      Obviously; if you cared about following the law as written or intended, you would not favor the clearly unconstitutional federal health care plans.

      and I don't think the intent of the framers is as important as more modern, progressive ideas that make the union more perfect

      What matters is the intent of the people who wrote the law as it stands today, whoever and whenever they were

    55. Re:Universal Health Care by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      Hey, Pudge, never knew you were a Seattleite. I go to OSCON every year here in P-town. I'll have to buy you a local microbrew (root seems to be your preferred variety, and there are plenty microbrew roots around here,) after your lecture.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    56. Re:Universal Health Care by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Since generally speaking, health care in the U.S. is better (there's just less access to it for many)

      Let's step back from insurance a second and think about the real problem. With a car analogy!

      In the fictional country of Foozbekistan, people are calling for the nation to buy cars for everyone because nobody can afford a car. Lots of people argue that it's not the government's job to buy everyone cars even if everybody needs a car in order to survive, and lots of other people argue that it's the government's job to make sure that the public can survive so the government should buy cars.

      Not one single person asks why the only cars for sale are Rolls Royces.

      So, back to healthcare. There is an enormous gap between charity clinics and paying top rates for "the best". The problem isn't that "there's just less access to it for many", it's that there's a large gap where there is no access to it, except for the legal requirement that hospitals accept uninsured patients into the ER. Of course, the situation is actually starting to improve, for instance if you've got a basic sniffle or redeye, several chains of drugstores are now hosting Nurse Practitioners (for instance, Take Care Health Systems at Walgreens in a few select cities) where you can get simple stuff fixed up quickly for under $100, but it's still a long way from something like competitively-priced healthcare in general.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    57. Re:Universal Health Care by Alegery · · Score: 1

      You make a good point. Allowing undesirables to live would impede progress toward the master race. But limiting it only to "the fat, lazy, and stupid" is not efficient enough. Those with disabilities that require maintenance care should also be culled to keep costs down. As well as those with latent inadequacies discovered by genetic testing. Really, the cheapest and most efficient method for lowering health care costs would be if everyone else just hurried up and died. Damn those bastards who insist on wanting to live despite the intolerable crime of not being me.

    58. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Since generally speaking, health care in the U.S. is better (there's just less access to it for many) Let's step back from insurance a second and think about the real problem. With a car analogy! Oo! I like cars! And analogies! Well, good ones, anyway. Of both.

      So, back to healthcare. There is an enormous gap between charity clinics and paying top rates for "the best". The problem isn't that "there's just less access to it for many", it's that there's a large gap where there is no access to it, except for the legal requirement that hospitals accept uninsured patients into the ER. Right.

      Of course, the situation is actually starting to improve, for instance if you've got a basic sniffle or redeye, several chains of drugstores are now hosting Nurse Practitioners (for instance, Take Care Health Systems at Walgreens in a few select cities) where you can get simple stuff fixed up quickly for under $100, but it's still a long way from something like competitively-priced healthcare in general. Exactly. I want to see a LOT MORE of this. We need to do many things to make good, low-cost, health CARE (not insurance, but actual care) available to a lot more people. We do not even have this basic first tier of quality care in this country, for many people, so we're not going to even begin to solve the problems of catastrophic care.

      We should focus on deregulation and competition and providing a much broader and much cheaper array of quality care. See where that gets us.

    59. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Rock. See you in Portland ...

    60. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the rhetoric.
      Care to provide any real substance? That doesn't make much sense. I did provide a lot of substance, relative to the amount I posted. I discussed the option of deregulation; the fact that many people will pay more. What more do you want?
    61. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      If you're going to accuse me of a false dichotomy whenever I make a comparison between a proposal and the existing system, then I need to know what other system you actually think is better and where in the world it's been implemented.

      I already did. A system that encourages competition through deregulation and other means. Where it's happened before? Here, in the U.S. It served us well for many years until the last few decades, when government regulation and lawsuits consolidated the power in the medical business into the hands of a few. Ever notice how family doctors don't exist anymore? And how health insurance is required for pretty much everything you want done? It didn't use to be that way.

      I go to an independent primary care physician, Health insurance isn't required, I can negotiate with them, and they make more than somebody in any other country by working here. How do I know how much they made? How do I know their policies? I ran their billing system.

      What world do you live in?

      Do you realize that all comparisons imply you're comparing two or more things? That's not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when you say there are only two ways that aren't a full complement of each other and thus they don't cover the full range of possibilities. At no point did I say that you have to choose my way or the existing way.

      Yes, in fact, you did: you said "we should have Universal Health Care because it is better than the current system."

      I meant any other system, which is accurate because the current system includes all sorts of micro systems, none of which work as well as universal, single-payer health care. We've tried pretty much every delivery system you can imagine besides universal health care in this country. Everybody else in a modern country enjoys it, save us.

      Your grasp of logic is remarkably poor.

      Um, since you literally stated that every person who has worked in health care is qualified to speak on this, and NO ONE ELSE is, I'll eschew your counsel on what is, and is not, a good grasp of logic.

      I didn't say nobody else. I said that's why I'm qualified to discuss it, which doesn't imply that other people have to have it to discuss it. You simply don't have any qualification there, nor any other qualifications.

      Secondly, you are transferring my statement that an overall cost reduction implies that all will have cost reductions.

      No. I addressed what you actually wrote. If you didn't mean to say what you wrote, don't blame me.

      Say that all you want, the record is clear.

      I told you where it could come from (multiple ways it could be done) and even said it would be an overall cost reduction due to reduced overhead. ... There are lots of assumptions going around in your arguments, Pudge.

      Considering you still assume that there will be an overall cost reduction, you're one to talk.

      I pointed out why, but you still haven't addressed the reduced overhead numbers.

      Thirdly, I made no such assumption that the order was meaningful

      False. You did precisely that. Your argument relied on it. I said liberty was the most important goal, and you said -- in rebuttal -- that life is the first goal. That necessarily implies that because it comes first, that it is more important. Please, you are far too transparent, and I am far too good at this, for you to convince me you didn't say what you clearly said.

      It didn't rely upon it. You implied that liberty is the only goal, and I pointed out that there are other goals as well that you were ignoring.

      Strawman my argument all you want, but people can see past it, Pudge.

      Jefferson also didn't think that slaves or women were entitled to the rights o

    62. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      I go to an independent primary care physician, Health insurance isn't required, I can negotiate with them, and they make more than somebody in any other country by working here.

      Yes. And? What's that got to do with anything? Obviously, you can do anything without health insurance, but you pay exorbitant rates. For most people, health insurance is required for most things, because they can't afford to it otherwise.

      Nice straw man though.

      Yes, in fact, you did: you said "we should have Universal Health Care because it is better than the current system."

      I meant any other system, which is accurate because the current system includes all sorts of micro systems, none of which work as well as universal, single-payer health care.

      False. All of them work BETTER than universal, single-payer health care.

      We've tried pretty much every delivery system you can imagine besides universal health care in this country.

      And all of them are better.

      ... you literally stated that every person who has worked in health care is qualified to speak on this, and NO ONE ELSE is, I'll eschew your counsel on what is, and is not, a good grasp of logic.

      I didn't say nobody else. Yes, in fact, you did. You said I am not qualified BECAUSE I did not work in the system. That necessarily means that everyone who has not worked in the system is not qualified. You might have meant something else, but that is what you actually said.

      You simply don't have any qualification there, nor any other qualifications.

      False. My qualifications are the best possible: I have a brain, and I use it. None other qualifcation is required, and none is its equal.

      It is amazing to me that you continue to defend your textbook example of an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy.

      Considering you still assume that there will be an overall cost reduction, you're one to talk.

      I pointed out why, but you still haven't addressed the reduced overhead numbers.

      False. I did address it, quite specifically. What I said was that you cannot compare Medicare to a single-payer universal system. You cannot know that overhead would continue to be less than 25 percent, let alone as low as 5 percent as you implied it would be. Medicare offers limited procedures, for limited people. The comparison you made is invalid.

      It didn't rely upon it.

      Yes, it did.

      You implied that liberty is the only goal

      I did no such thing. But I will allow that you thought so. It makes absolutely no sense that you thought so, since I did not come anywhere close to implying it, but you have made many illogical claims, and this one would not be exceptional. If you had been actually addressing what I said -- which was that securing liberty was the PRIMARY goal of government, not the only goal -- then yes, you would have necessarily been implying that the order mattered. Since you apparently thought something I've never thought or expressed, let alone attempted to imply, that changes things.

      Strawman my argument all you want, but people can see past it, Pudge.

      That's really funny, since either you were misrepresenting Jefferson, or you were making a straw man attack on MY argument.

      [Jefferson] believed they didn't have equal rights, otherwise he would have freed his own fucking slaves, idiot.

      False. That is an illogical claim. And you admit it:

      You should know that I campaigned against Al Gore and have criticized Gore's carbon credit scheming as a guilt-transfer economy. I think Al's just as much a hypocrite as Jefferson.

      Good. At least you are consistent. You're right, Gore is a hypocrite. But that doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he says, just as clearly, Jefferson DID believe slaves had the same rights. He was just

    63. Re:Universal Health Care by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      The NHS is a mess. If you are going to compare the US and the UK health systems, I'd prefer the US unless I was uninsured.

      However, my experiences with the: French, Spanish, Japanese, and even several South American healthcare systems was excellent, and there's every indication that they are viable. The outcomes are better than the US for most socialized care systems.

      What is needed to make a healthcare system work is accountability. There are a lot of ways to get accountability, and the free market isn't one of them. You may have little idea how much of the quality of healthcare that there is in the US is a result of the possibility of medical malpractice suits.

    64. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wall street pays for it themselve.

      No they don't. We all do. You're full of it if you think they pay for anything. And the way they throw money around in their tight little circle, it just pushes prices up for everybody else. And just in case you didn't notice, I was talking about their latest and ongoing bail outs, not about their doctors bills, which you can be sure are also covered. The saying has changed. The biggest welfare queens wear Armani. So let's ask our latest "big man of campus" if he would continue bailing out the Forbes top 500. And anybody who thinks he should has no room to complain about universal health care or any other social program.

      There's some more fodder for you idiot troll mods from the pudge FOX network. You've revealed yourselves quite clearly.

      --
      What?
    65. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Looks like the Faux News mouth-breathers are out in force today.

      Well, pudge is one of the Fauxiest. It is election season and protecting the homeland will become more difficult if they can't win hearts and minds. Gotta tame this internet thing if they want to keep control of what we see and hear. What we have here is a clear misuse of the moderation system.

      --
      What?
    66. Re:Universal Health Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're running up the bill they're the fat, lazy, and stupid I'm thinking of, regardless of whether they're a corporation or an individual.

    67. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Only to start up their soon to fail and already failing international and domestic finance Ponzi schemes. Which will end up costing far more than anything except the war. They only dropped their health care and other social programs to reduce trade tariffs being used against them. Many western social programs worked pretty well until they came under attack by the merchant class who sought to impose those tariffs.

      --
      What?
    68. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1
      Government doesn't require anybody to raise their prices for people without insurance, but everybody does it. Why?

      It's their freedom to do so. If you don't have the ability to do collective bargaining through an insurance company, you have to do the bargaining on your own, and of course, most people aren't effective at negotiating on their own. I know how the system works so I can walk in, and as long as it's not an emergency room visit, I can tell them I'm going to go elsewhere if I don't get a rate comparable with an insurance company contract. Most young people only show up at the doctor for emergency room visits, though, so there's no room to bargain. Even if you could bargain, if you don't have insurance, you'll often go bankrupt.

      In our system, this is what happens:

      http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

      Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

      The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

      Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

      Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

      None of that involves government intervention. How are you going to blame all that on government intervention?

      It's also curious that you make a distinction between "being right" and "holding" of the law, while complaining that interpreting the law in disagreement with your idea of "rights" implies lawlessness. If what's right is not held, then their interpretation would be lawless, but they're legally able to hold such an opinion. It's lawless and lawful? How do you work yourself out of that antinomy?

      For what it's worth, I've heard your shitty arguments from other right-wing idiots about the Supreme Court not being the final arbiter of the constitution. They simply don't hold water:

      The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court ... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

      It doesn't say that the judicial power doesn't apply to some cases, like, when you think their decision was wrong under the Constitution, it says it extends to all cases. If the judicial power didn't have a say about the constitution, then all their decisions about the constitutionality of inferior laws are mooted, since one could just follow the constitution instead in each of those cases and then it would get up to the supreme court and their decision would simply be wrong if they decided against it. The argument you make is that the court is only able to decide laws inferior to the constitution, but not the constitution itself. If any law contradicts the constitution and remains upheld, since the constitution is the supreme law of the land, the inferior law is overridden by the constitution.

      But the justices decide things in many ways contradicted by the constitution's plain reading. Free speech? Not in case of public endangerment, for example. Legal theories aside, the Supreme Court effectively interprets the constitution. Are they thus lawless?

      About rights, I was arguing against their transcendent status, but it seems you're in agreement that they aren't transcendental, that instead they are merely "self-evident", which to me means thei

    69. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Government doesn't require anybody to raise their prices for people without insurance, but everybody does it. Why?

      Because they can. The way to keep costs down is competition, which is severely restricted in our current system due primarily to regulation.

      If you don't have the ability to do collective bargaining through an insurance company, you have to do the bargaining on your own, and of course, most people aren't effective at negotiating on their own.

      In a deregulated system where there is true competition, and more opportunity for competition, these insurance companies will have obvious incentive to lower prices without such negotiation, but also to make it easier for potential customers to get the information they need to make those choices.

      Obviously, the system today is not conducive to this type of process, because it is not DESIGNED for the consumer: it's designed for the employer. This needs to change. This does not argue for a universal health care system, but against the current system of employer-centered health insurance.

      Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

      Yes. This backs up what I have been saying about the need to cut costs through increased competition and deregulation.

      Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance.

      Exactly. As I have been saying, we should not try to lower the cost of insurance; we should be lowering the cost of health CARE.

      None of that involves government intervention.

      Yes, of course it does. Even Steve Novick agrees with me on that, as he talks about the drastically increased costs of drugs due to poor patent policies. More importantly, however, government regulation severely restricts who can provide what treatment and services, and under what circumstances insurance is available, and what that insurance can/must cover, and so on. ALL of this drives up the cost of health care, significantly.

      It's also curious that you make a distinction between "being right" and "holding" of the law, while complaining that interpreting the law in disagreement with your idea of "rights" implies lawlessness.

      I have stated it several times, so I don't know why you persist: lawlessness is not disagreement about interpretation. Lawlessness is denying that the law has validity, REGARDLESS of interpretation. This is what you do when you refer to "modern laws" as being more important, when you create arbitrary -- man-based, instead of law-based -- rules for which laws should be followed and which shouldn't. This concept of lawlessness has NOTHING to do with with disagreements over interpretation.

      If what's right is not held, then their interpretation would be lawless

      False. It's just wrong, not lawless. Lawlessness is when you disregard the law, which is what you do. They are merely disagreeing with the proper interpretation of the law.

      Some of them, anyway. Justice Breyer actually wrote a book defending lawlessness, called "Active Liberty." He is in the minority, however. Thankfully.

      How do you work yourself out of that antinomy?

      There isn't any such thing, obviously.

      For what it's worth, I've heard your shitty arguments from other right-wing idiots about the Supreme Court not being the final arbiter of the constitution.

      Shrug. Swear all you want, but I am absolutely correct. Unless you actually believe the Supreme Court could order the President to only nominate new justices that they gave prior approval for. Do you believe that?

      They simply don't hold water:

      The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court ... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, t

    70. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1
      No disagreement about drug patents, but that's not about health care delivery, it's about patent policy that effects costs that then cost the insurance companies.

      Secondly, it's not "designed" for the employer. You can buy health insurance on the open market right now. Are you saying the government intervenes to make employer coverage cheaper? If anything, things like cobra and hippa prevent insurance companies from dropping people who have continuous coverage inside and outside their work. That's intervention that keeps people insured where the market would tell them to get lost and they'd be fucked.

      If you think that "increased competition" would reduce costs, you also don't seem to understand that insurance companies aren't the main drivers of increased health care costs. The costs they add is essentially a fixed overhead of around 25%. Their profits are in the low single digits. There are three main drivers of cost increases -- increased drug prices and aggressive marketing of patented drugs vs generics that work just as well, increased technology and diagnostic tests capable of increasing diagnostic accuracy requiring things like vascular MRI scans for a couple grand a pop just to rule something out without running the machines full-tilt 24/7 to keep costs down, and lastly, an aging population. If we gave breaks on MRI scans for people who come in at 2am or simply scheduled people who wanted an earlier appointment in the middle of the night, that would reduce the cost increases in half. This country is also extremely slow to implementing electronic medical records systems, and the EMR companies have demonstrably failed to standardize on intercommunication formats (HL7 is a joke). Paper and faxes are the main way the medical community still communicates.

      What a universal system would do is ensure that: 1) drug prices can be set reasonably based on cost to recuperate expenses and public welfare, not fleecing people. 2) Advertising of drugs would be eliminated again (that's the stupidest deregulation ever). 3) technology would be used consistently and more thoroughly. 4) Standardized protocols and EMR would save paper, 5) single-payer system eliminates the process of manual EOB entry. 6) EOB auditing can be done programmatically due to a standard EOB format and interpretation. 7) Deciding what is and isn't covered becomes a medical decision with less bias. Preauthorization would be eliminated.

      But that's not even the important part. Cost savings are just a tiny fraction of the importance of a universal health care system. The main benefit is that everybody gets it, for free. There aren't any haves and have-nots. Entrepreneurs pop up because they don't have to fear their medical risks any more. Old people don't have to make sure they have enough saved for all the pills they might have to take.

      Absolutely. My property is the product of my liberty. To deny my right to property is to deny my liberty. My liberty is the result of my life. To deny my liberty is to deny my very existence. So to deny my right to property is a direct assault on my right to exist.

      You are denied your existence because you shouted fire in a crowded room and were charged with a crime?

      Do you actually believe your failed attempt at syllogism?

      Let's put this in a two-column proof format, assertion, reason, form, so we can tease out the hidden assumptions.

      assertion: My property is a product of my liberty (l -> p)
      reason: assumed
      assertion: To deny my right to property is to deny my liberty
      reason: ~p -> ~l (contrapositive)
      assertion: My liberty is the result of my life. (f -> l)
      reason: assumed
      assertion: To deny my liberty is to deny my very existence.
      reason: ~l -> ~f (contrapositive)
      assertion: So to deny my right to property is a direct assault on my right to exist. (~p -> ~f)
      reason: ~p -> ~f (syllogism of ~p -> ~l and ~l -> ~f)
      unstated assertion: I have a right to life (f)
      reason: assumed

    71. Re:Universal Health Care by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people STILL won't use it properly if it's free. Incentivized health care checkups in the private sector, and let people write off their premiums. Introduce more free-market applications and PUT THE CONSUMER back in the doctor-pharmaceutical-insurance loop (the main problem nowadays). I REALLY don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for someone who can't put down a bag of Oreos.

    72. Re:Universal Health Care by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't remember getting a tax to pay for their health care, I don't remember congress ever passing a bill providing for their health care. In fact, they pay it themselves with their earnings. If you somehow think that everyone is paying for it because we buy things that filter back up there, you would be correct. But suggesting that they don't pay for it themselves would be like you claiming your paycheck belongs to someone else because you are above the consumer too.

      Now the bail outs, they are happening for a reason. It is because of the effect it will have over the economy. So it is either pay them to keep the economy solvent, or not pay them and let you lose your job so you can draw limited welfare and hope things get going again before you run out. It that a goo thing or a bad thing? I think it is a good thing. I don't want to lose all my business because no one can buy my services.

      And you do realize that the latest bail out isn't using public money right? It is using private money and the biggest effect it will have is future loans. I'm sure you already understand that from all the study of the situation you have done to come to the conclusions that you have.

      And yes, I do have a right to bitch about waisting money on universal health coverage regardless of whether or not I support corporate bailouts. It si my money they are going to take to fund it. It is my money they are going to take to do either. I have a right to have an opinion on how they spend it.

    73. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      No disagreement about drug patents, but that's not about health care delivery, it's about patent policy that effects costs that then cost the insurance companies.

      And COSTS is what I am talking about.

      Secondly, it's not "designed" for the employer.

      Yes, it is.

      You can buy health insurance on the open market right now.

      I never said anything different.

      Are you saying the government intervenes to make employer coverage cheaper?

      I said government regulation encourages employer-based insurance, which makes it harder to get inexpensive and quality insurance that is NOT through an employer.

      That's intervention that keeps people insured where the market would tell them to get lost and they'd be fucked.

      Only because it is hard for them to get quality insurance because of government intervention in the first place. In addition to what I mentioned above, in WA, they go even further: our insurance commissioner is working hard to further regulate individual insurance plans, which necessarily will mean more cost and fewer options for consumers.

      If you think that "increased competition" would reduce costs

      It's true.

      you also don't seem to understand that insurance companies aren't the main drivers of increased health care costs

      Dude. I have over and over again stated quite clearly that my main concern is the cost of HEALTH CARE, not insurance. I am talking primarily about competition in PROVIDING CARE. Jeez, follow along, willya?

      increased technology and diagnostic tests capable of increasing diagnostic accuracy requiring things like vascular MRI scans for a couple grand a pop just to rule something out without running the machines full-tilt 24/7 to keep costs down

      Nothing of the sort is "required." This is a huge part of the problem, though: we pretend that we have a right to all the latest and greatest technology. We do not.

      This country is also extremely slow to implementing electronic medical records systems

      Yes, thankfully. I consulted with a research group working on such a system. They had barely any thought at all given to privacy of the patients. They talked about security, but very little about privacy. I'll take privacy over efficiency every time.

      What a universal system would do is ensure that: 1) drug prices can be set reasonably based on cost to recuperate expenses and public welfare, not fleecing people

      Right. Price controls. Because THOSE always benefit everyone! Ha. What really happens is that it drives off competition, increases costs of other things to balance it out, and in the long run drastically decreases quality of the products.

      Advertising of drugs would be eliminated again (that's the stupidest deregulation ever)

      Yeah, exactly: fuck freedom of speech! Oh right, you don't believe in rights.

      technology would be used consistently and more thoroughly

      Thus increasing costs.

      Standardized protocols and EMR would save paper

      Paper is renewable. Don't care. If you mean decreasing COSTS, that is an assumption. It is well-documented that such moves often do NOT decrease costs.

      single-payer system eliminates the process of manual EOB entry

      At cost of my liberty. Don't care.

      EOB auditing can be done programmatically due to a standard EOB format and interpretation

      Ibid.

      Deciding what is and isn't covered becomes a medical decision with less bias. Preauthorization would be eliminated.

      Which also necessarily means that we have less options if something is decided to be NOT covered. At least Canadians -- for now -- can choose to go to the U.S. when that happens. Where we will go? Mexico?

      Cost savings are just a tiny fraction of the importance of a universal he

    74. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      You're still confusing the metaphor I was using.

      Of course you have a right to your opinion. However a bit of consistency does one's credibility good. The bailouts do nothing but maintain the economy's dependence on a small group of people, which creates a cascade of disaster for everybody every time one of these companies fart. So it's helping nobody accept that top 0.001%. Your widget sales shouldn't depend on the well being of the stock market. It's exactly the same kind of centralization that you complain about with the government, but is now being concentrated on Wall Street. If you think trickle down is any more secure than the government's programs, you have a hell of a surprise coming. I prefer to cut out the middleman. If the government wants to hand out money, they can give to us directly instead of using it to keep their buddies in the pink, and leaving only crumbs on the floor for the rest. I'll take social security over corporate welfare any day of the week. Either way the government is still bailing us out of private maleficence, while most remain fixated on the latest sex scandal. And if you think the government is taking too much of your money, then your prices are set too low, and you're taking the wrong perspective on the matter. Simply do the math, and demand what you think your time is worth after all the bills, including your taxes, are paid.

      --
      What?
    75. Re:Universal Health Care by rifter · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you set up a false dichotomy: the current system, or a national system. We can do much to lower costs, increase choice, and get broader health care access, in the existing (mostly) private system. It used to work. There is absolutely no reason it cannot work today.

      Great; then you should love the current system proposed by Democrats: either subsidized or mandatory health insurance for the current system. Obama's plan allows a subsidy for lower incomes but does not mandate insurance. Hillary's plan is to make health insurance like car insurance, where everyone has to buy it. Either way, the system does not appreciably change. And it will not as long as the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies lose a little bit of their power and quit subsidizing their profits at our expense. It's crazy that we have to consider buying drugs from Canada that are from the same companies that currently sell to us wholesale at rates higher than what we can get rretail from their OTHER customers.

    76. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Hah, I shot holes in your logical proof and you told me that your first statement (which is always an assumption) was "necessarily deducted". Dude, Pudge, you don't understand how these things work. When you prove something, you start with assumptions and work to a conclusion. If my two-column proof formatting was incorrect, then please, provide your own, and outline your assumptions explicitly. The whole point of the exercise is to tease out your hidden assumptions by making everything explicitly and formally logical. Moreover, when you're going to use terms like "necessarily deducted" while not in the context of modal logic and modal qualifiers, you're going to look like an idiot to any logician.

      And if you're going to use a modification of the term liberty to include "liberty unless it impinges upon the liberty of other white male humans", then you need to be explicit. Does it apply to living animals, for example? Women? Blacks? When does the right to life take place? Such things are not "self-evident", but are to their very core questions any political philosophy needs to answer. The framers even answered it incorrectly 232 years ago.

      Thirdly, your entire line revolves around the idea that insurance companies need the flexibility to decided what not to cover. The whole idea of health insurance coverage implies that you're covered for health reasons. They are merely saying if you want to be in the business of providing health insurance, so as not to be considered fraudulent in what you market, you have to include X. You're opposed to fraud, yes? If they didn't include X, if somebody needed help for X, the system would have failed for them anyways, and the private system would have failed them. Failure of insurance is not how you go about making sure everybody has the insurance they need. But of course, you don't think that people should have to have health insurance, and the whole point of your philosophical reasoning is to say why those who suffer should be suffering despite the excesses and greed of those who could ease their suffering but refuse to do so.

    77. Re:Universal Health Care by rifter · · Score: 1

      Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now.

      Exactly how does the creation of a new Bureaucracy create less bureaucracy?? That is the kind of thinking that created the Homeland Security department, whihc has been a big mess. (Yes, let's create a new organization that the FBI, FEMA, et al have to go to "mother may I" to do anything, and from whom they get orders (even though from people less qualified to comment on their particular specialty).

      I'm all for some solution to the health care crisis, but unless we trim current bureaucracies awe willl have more and not less, and if we do not break the stranglehold of the insurance companies and drug peddlers (among many many others) it will not get any cheaper.

    78. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you set up a false dichotomy: the current system, or a national system. We can do much to lower costs, increase choice, and get broader health care access, in the existing (mostly) private system. It used to work. There is absolutely no reason it cannot work today. Great; then you should love the current system proposed by Democrats False.

      either subsidized or mandatory health insurance for the current system I absolutely oppose both of those things. Both are unconstitutional, and the latter is literally a tax on being alive. Hillary wants to tax us for being alive, tax us when we die, and use that money to kill us before we are born.

      Obama's plan allows a subsidy for lower incomes but does not mandate insurance. It mandates it for children. So only CHILDREN have a "life tax" under Obama. So much better!

      Either way, the system does not appreciably change. Nonsense. I will end up paying MUCH more in taxes. That is an appeciable change in the system, from any rational perspective.

    79. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Hah, I shot holes in your logical proof Well, no, you didn't. Your very first claim about it was incorrect. The rest was built on a foundation of sand.

      and you told me that your first statement (which is always an assumption) False. The assumption was that I have life. The rest is deducted.

      Dude, Pudge, you don't understand how these things work. False.

      If my two-column proof formatting was incorrect I already proved it was.

      then please, provide your own, and outline your assumptions explicitly No. My prose statement was clear enough for anyone with half a brain.

      The whole point of the exercise is to tease out your hidden assumptions by making everything explicitly and formally logical. I'm sorry. As long as you still maintain that it is not a logical fallacy to claim that you are qualified to discuss and I am not, you have no claim to know a damned thing about formal logic.

      Moreover, when you're going to use terms like "necessarily deducted" while not in the context of modal logic and modal qualifiers, you're going to look like an idiot to any logician. How would you know, since you obviously have no grasp of logic, as you continue to maintain that you were not making an explicit appeal to authority logical fallacy, when, in fact, you were giving a textbook example of it?

      Yes, I am in fact making an ad hominem attack here. But as long as you continue in your fallacies, I have no problem returning the favor.

      And if you're going to use a modification of the term liberty I am not. Indeed, I already stated, quite clearly, that the right to liberty IS NOT restricted by the liberty of anyone else. However, their right to liberty affects our ability -- though not our right -- to act on that liberty.

      Such things are not "self-evident" False.

      Thirdly, your entire line revolves around the idea that insurance companies need the flexibility to decided what not to cover. False. Indeed, I never expressed any such thing. You are making false assumptions. Again. As usual.

    80. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1
      Pudge, Pudge, Pudge...

      This is downright comical how illogical you are.

      The assumption was that I have life. The rest is deducted. f = life
      p = rest (right to liberty, right to property)

      assume: f
      conclusion: p

      Tell me again how do you get p with f as the only assumption (f -> p)?

      If you can do that without adding any assumptions (which you state you don't have), you'll have revolutionized symbolic logic and we'd now have a proof for everything!

      You said you were so logical that when I decided to get to a technical proof, I hoped I would get a well-done proof. It turns out you're just talking out of your ass when it comes to logic. Based on your previous responses, I figured that your prose was just a weak spot and that your logic might actually be fine underneath. It turns out, that was too much to hope for.

      I'm sorry Pudge, but you'll have to actually read up on symbolic logic this time. You can't just use the last word as your protection.
    81. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      This is downright comical how illogical you are. Shrug. You have proven yourself to lack logical skill, and you have utterly failed to win any argument against me.

      The assumption was that I have life. The rest is deducted. f = life
      p = rest (right to liberty, right to property)

      assume: f
      conclusion: p

      Tell me again how do you get p with f as the only assumption (f -> p)? The key word is "again." I already did it. Read.

      It turns out you're just talking out of your ass when it comes to logic. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

      I'm sorry Pudge, but you'll have to actually read up on symbolic logic this time. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

    82. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      The assumption was that I have life. The rest is deducted. f = life
      p = rest (right to liberty, right to property)

      assume: f
      conclusion: p

      Tell me again how do you get p with f as the only assumption (f -> p)? The key word is "again." I already did it. Read. You can outline a two-column proof here right now and end the debate with your powerful mastery of logic.

      I already showed how your proof is flawed. The burden of proof is on the one trying to prove their proof. All you did was assert that my representation of your proof into a two-column format was wrong without giving any reason other than that a premise wasn't a premise at all. All you have to do is show where that non-premise comes from other premises and you'll have given a logical reason for dismissing my refutation of your proof, but you didn't. Instead you dug yourself into a deeper hole and asserted the conclusion in response to a request to formulate a two-column proof.

      If you're unable to formally prove it, just let me know, I'll let up and wait until you've read a book on the subject.

      So you know, I asked you for a two-column proof because I really was confused what you were taking as premises and what your rules of inference were. It turns out that was the correct move to make, because you clearly have no grasp of how to do a logical proof. That clarifies many of your earlier responses.

      If you were drunk or high when you were replying -- or temporarily incapacitated in some other way, say that too, and we can start fresh and hopefully use logic. Maybe I should wait until you sober up, as well. I have a cousin up in the Darrington/Arlington area, and I know the favorite past-time up there is rural-poverty-induced intoxication. I'll just chalk it up to that if you would like.

      I'm trying to give you an out here. Just say the word.
    83. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      You can outline a two-column proof here right now and end the debate with your powerful mastery of logic. Shrug. I can do lots of things. I do not, however, do things just because someone is taunting me to do them. I do not recognize your illogical assertions that there is any need for me to do so. You have not presented ANY case for this. What has happened is that you have lost every single one of your arguments against me, and so you resort to trying to get down to a technical proof you are incapable of even understanding, that has nothing to do with any of what has been discussed.

      I already showed how your proof is flawed. False. On the contrary, I already showed how your attempt to do so was flawed.

      I'll let up and wait until you've read a book on the subject. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

      you clearly have no grasp of how to do a logical proof Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

      If you were drunk or high when you were replying -- or temporarily incapacitated in some other way, say that too, and we can start fresh and hopefully use logic. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

      I'm trying to give you an out here. Just say the word. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

    84. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      I appealed to my information through my expertise. You have no expertise in both health care and logic. You're not qualified to discuss either issue. It shows here. If you had information that helped your cause, you'd be qualified, but you refuse to discuss the actual particulars of health care, so you're using a philosophical argument for ignoring the real issues to ignore real issues.

      Then I questioned your philosophical arguments and you came back with absurd unsound reasoning.

      You assume only life exists. That's your only assumption: you say so yourself. How do you get to liberty, something not identical to life without any other assumptions by which to base your logical inferences (if you had any)? There's no way in logic to do that, and any logician knows it, so I'm waiting for you to prove me and all the logicians of the world wrong. Come on, just do it.

    85. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      I appealed to my information through my expertise. Please, do not continue to lie. What you did is say you were qualified to discuss the topic because of your "expertise" and I was not because I lacked it.

      You're not qualified to discuss either issue. Yes, like that. That you do not recognize the unassailable fact that this is a logical fallacy shows YOU are not qualified to discuss logic.

      It shows here. False.

      If you had information that helped your cause I do.

      you refuse to discuss the actual particulars of health care False.

      so you're using a philosophical argument for ignoring the real issues to ignore real issues. False.

      Then I questioned your philosophical arguments Illogically.

      and you came back with absurd unsound reasoning. False.

      You assume only life exists. False. I neither stated or implied any such thing. You are lying again.

      That's your only assumption: you say so yourself. False. I said it was the only assumption in a given statement, not that it is my only assumption. And even if it was my only assumption -- and it certainly is not, as I also assume that math exists, for example, that 2+2 must always equal 4 -- it would not stand to reason that nothing other than life exists, which is what you said I assume.

      How do you get to liberty Obvious deduction. How do you NOT? Indeed, it is entirely irrational to come to any OTHER conclusion. If nothing else, liberty must be deduced by process of elimination. That is not necessary, but it would stand just the same. If I exist, and I know I exist, and am capable of controlling my own thoughts and acts -- all necessarily true, both by deduction and observation -- that necessarily means I have the liberty to think and act as I choose.

      It is impossible for it to be otherwise.

      Sad that you don't realize it. But predictable.
    86. Re:Universal Health Care by rifter · · Score: 1

      "Either way, the system does not appreciably change."

      Nonsense. I will end up paying MUCH more in taxes. That is an appeciable change in the system, from any rational perspective.

      What I meant was the Health Care system. That doesn't change because of taxes. I do agree that higher taxes are probably going to be required, because for the forseeable future our defense costs are unlikely to go down much.

    87. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1
      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

      An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

      1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
      2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
      3. Therefore, C is true.

      This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

      It's not a fallacy to appeal to authority, only if they aren't an authority.

      As I said time and time again that real expertise doesn't make the fallacy, but you say differently.

      I said it was the only assumption in a given statement,

      That's the problem, it was the only assumption in that logical argument.

      not that it is my only assumption.

      but it was your only assumption there.

      And even if it was my only assumption -- and it certainly is not, as I also assume that math exists, for example, that 2+2 must always equal 4 -- it would not stand to reason that nothing other than life exists, which is what you said I assume.

      I didn't say you assumed that only life exists in all parts of the world, but rather, only for that argument.

      You now make another stab at logic:

      How do you get to liberty [from life existing?]

      Obvious deduction. How do you NOT?

      I already explained that you need more assumptions and deductions, which you failed to provide. It's not obvious. If it were obvious, you'd have made a two-column proof and the debate would be settled.

      Indeed, it is entirely irrational to come to any OTHER conclusion.

      Actually, it would be rational to generalize it and say that if you exist, then at least one person exists if you have the property of being a person.

      Oh, wait, is that another conclusion? I'm just joking here though, I know you actually mean that I couldn't come to the conclusion that liberty doesn't exist from life existing. You meant to say it would be irrational to come to the opposite conclusion.

      But then, you just fell to the false dichotomy, which you earlier accused me of doing. Way to go. Actually, just like my argument wasn't really hurt by the accusation of false dichotomy when taken in its best light (which you fail to do in order to understand the points of your opponent), if I merely break the dichotomy into what you actually meant, and make a reasonable response, my argument is ten times stronger, since it's anticipating the response.

      But of course, you're just a troll, disinterested in a reasonable discussion. You just want to "win points", even if the arguments aren't sound.

      Guess what? People just think you're an asshole when you do that.

      If nothing else, liberty must be deduced by process of elimination.

      The more accurate term is proof by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum, since you have said that depriving one of liberty also deprives them of life, which _contradicts_ the earlier premise of life (this also falls to the fallacy I'll mention below, as well as your reductio ad absurdum arguement here).

      That is not necessary, but it would stand just the same. If I exist, and I know I exist, and am capable of controlling my own thoughts and acts -- all necessarily true, both by deduction and observation -- that necessarily means I have the liberty to think and act as I choose.

      This Cartesian/rationalist converse is just as pointless as his, but I'll assume what you say here is true just because it's actually incomplete. All you've shown, if somebody buys your argument, (which I don't, because I don't think you actually control your own thoughts as completely as you think you do,

    88. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Either way, the system does not appreciably change. Nonsense. I will end up paying MUCH more in taxes. That is an appeciable change in the system, from any rational perspective. What I meant was the Health Care system. That doesn't change because of taxes. Yes it does. The Health Care system is significantly different because it costs me -- and many others -- a lot more. That is in itself a significant difference of the Health Care system, but further, it is also a fundamental difference that WILL necessarily have significant and lasting effects on other parts of that system.

      I do agree that higher taxes are probably going to be required, because for the forseeable future our defense costs are unlikely to go down much. John Edwards -- oddly, since he is generally quite dishonest -- was the only one really honest about the costs of his plan, and it was going to cost more than the war does on an annual basis.

    89. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      It's not a fallacy to appeal to authority I never said it was.

      I didn't say you assumed that only life exists in all parts of the world Yes, you did.

      I already explained that you need more assumptions and deductions You were incorrect.

      You meant to say it would be irrational to come to the opposite conclusion. No, I do not recognize any "opposite" conclusion. I meant, a conflicting conclusion, which is what I actually did say, using a very common and longstanding English idiom that has precisely that meaning, for most people.

      But then, you just fell to the false dichotomy False. I did not compare my view to any other particular view (some mythical "opposite conclusion"). That is why I said ANY OTHER. Although it is very funny (read: stupid) for you to say I meant something I didn't say, and then claim that what I didn't say is fallacious.

      But of course, you're just a troll, disinterested in a reasonable discussion. You just want to "win points", even if the arguments aren't sound. Yawn. Tell me again how you didn't commit a textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

      The more accurate term is proof by contradiction False. That is a different thing. Process of elimination would be bring up all the logical possibilities and eliminating them, and the only one not eliminated is the answer. Proof by contradiction is very different: it tries to prove the opposite is not true, and therefore it must be true. For example, I am told four men are in the room, one is black, three are white. I can show that the three white men are white, therefore showing the black man is black. Or, I could show directly that the black man is not white, and is therefore black. Two different things.

      I don't think you actually control your own thoughts as completely as you think you do Irrelevant to my argument. That you control them in any significant way is sufficient.

      ... if somebody buys your argument, then you've only shown that you have liberty to think and act as you choose Um. Yes. Exactly.

      You've not explained why we should go from your having some ability to the idea that your having the ability *should* be *enforced by government*. Um. Where the hell did you come up with that? The topic in this specific branch of the discussion is that I have rights. I was never discussing the intersection of rights and government. You denied that these rights can be deduced from self-evident principles. I showed that you are wrong. Government recognition of those rights is beside that point.

      You are -- as usual -- extremely confused.

      Since you're into fallacies, what you're doing is called the is-ought problem If I were saying that because we have rights, therefore the government should recognize them, yes, I would be doing that. But as I am not, nope.

    90. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Oh, great, you agree that I didn't commit the fallacy and that your "proof" of existence of an ability doesn't have any bearing on how we should run government! Thanks for playing!

      Since you're using the words "ability" and "right" synonymously, which most people won't understand, since for everybody else a right is something that government shouldn't interfere with, but abilities in general are not prohibited from being legislated, I'll just use the word "ability" when you say "right".

      But I do find it odd that you don't prove that abilities should be protected by the government. Actually, that would be pretty much absurd on its face, because it's accepted that the ability to murder shouldn't be protected by government.

      Maybe you want to take one more stab at explaining how rights are different than abilities, and how to derive a _right_ that should be supported without falling into the is-ought trap.

    91. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      you agree that I didn't commit the fallacy False.

      ... and that your "proof" of existence of an ability doesn't have any bearing on how we should run government! False.

      Since you're using the words "ability" and "right" synonymously Only in certain contexts, such as existentially, where they necessarily ARE synonymous. There is no rational distinction. If I have the ability to think and act, I therefore have the right to do so. That is a given. How else could it possibly be? Can you give a single counterexample? You mentioned murder, but I absolutely do have the right to murder. And everyone else has both the individual and collective right to prevent me from doing so, or punish me for the attempt.

      The only way you can say I don't have the right to murder is if you say there is some higher metaphysical power which says so. Otherwise, my existential abilities necessarily ARE existential rights. That doesn't mean all abilities are rights, but in this case, they are.

      But I do find it odd that you don't prove that abilities should be protected by the government. I never would. I am talking about rights, not abilities.

      Maybe you want to take one more stab at explaining how rights are different than abilities There's no need.

      and how to derive a _right_ that should be supported without falling into the is-ought trap. No, this discussion is about whether rights exist. That is the discussion YOU started, with your attack on the existence of rights, and whether they can be self-evident, which is not a discussion of rights in government. A discussion about whether those rights "should be supported" is a separate discussion that cannot continue without this foundation being laid first.

      Nothing I said, or would say, about rights falls into your "is-ought" trap.
    92. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Wow, Pudge, you've been served. Only someone who doesn't understand the discussion could possibly think so.
    93. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      I'm fine using the term "ability" when you say right, since that' the meaning you're giving. If you would like, I'll call your definition of right "Pudge-right", or, an ability regardless of whether we should support it. You still haven't said how rights are any different from abilities. If you'd like, you're free to give your own definition of Pudge-right.

      Why should we use government to enforce your property Pudge-right?

    94. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      I'm fine using the term "ability" when you say right, since that' the meaning you're giving. False.

      You still haven't said how rights are any different from abilities. False.

      Why should we use government to enforce your property Pudge-right? No such thing.
    95. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      You said they're different but only in relation to a "higher power", which isn't really meaningful, and isn't even relevant to our discussion, so you have yet to say how they are distinct for the purposes of your derivation of "should".

      Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now? I'm giving you an opening.

    96. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      You said they're different but only in relation to a "higher power" False. I said no such thing.

      Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now? Nope. Foundational principles first, little one.
    97. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      You said they're different but only in relation to a "higher power" False. I said no such thing. Here's where you did, to refresh your memory:

      The only way you can say I don't have the right to murder is if you say there is some higher metaphysical power which says so. Otherwise, my existential abilities necessarily ARE existential rights. That doesn't mean all abilities are rights, but in this case, they are. I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers", and thus don't "say there is" one, so you're saying (by definition of otherwise) that the abilities are rights.

      You even clarify and say "in this case, they are", referring again, to the most recent antecedent: the lack of a higher metaphysical power. Or did you goof and use an ambiguous pronoun?

      In addition to that book on logic, you might desire to pick up a book on basic grammar. When you get to the bookstore, just ring me up and I'll tell you what books you need to get, since I fear you'll forget when you get there. I'm sure you don't get to a book store very often since you're in the back woods of my ancestral home, Snohomish County.

      P.S. Your use of "existential" is meaningless. Existence isn't a predicate, instead it's demonstrated. If you mean it in terms of, say, an existential school of thought, then you've unnecessarily loaded the terms with baggage that prevents clear logic from application. I suggest you avoid such use of the term unless you know how to properly handle it.

      Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now? Nope. Foundational principles first You don't think you supported them well enough? I've given you plenty of opportunity to do it. Ball's been in your court for some time now.

      little one. Your weight problem has no bearing on the quality of your argument.
    98. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      You said they're different but only in relation to a "higher power" False. I said no such thing. Here's where you did False.

      The only way you can say I don't have the right to murder is if you say there is some higher metaphysical power which says so. Otherwise, my existential abilities necessarily ARE existential rights. That doesn't mean all abilities are rights, but in this case, they are. Yes, I said that. No, it does not say abilities and rights are only different in relation to a higher power. I am not sure where in there you think I did.

      First, I was talking about only certain rights/abilities, as I explained from the outset, and you claimed (again) that I was referring to all. Second, I said here in this context that they are NOT different, but I left room for you to try to claim that they are by superimposing some higher power, since that is the only possible way to do it. Obviously, not the same thing as how you characterized it.

      I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers" Exactly. So you have no justification for saying that I do not have rights.

      You're kinda slow, aren't you?

      In addition to that book on logic Yawn. Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy.

      Your use of "existential" is meaningless False.

      If you mean it in terms of, say, an existential school of thought No.

      Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now? Nope. Foundational principles first You don't think you supported them well enough? Of course I did. Yet, you still don't get it. When you do, then we can continue.

      Ball's been in your court for some time now. False. All along you have been trying to grasp the simple concepts involved. This is all about you, not me.

      little one. Your weight problem has no bearing on the quality of your argument. Of course it doesn't. Something that does not exist cannot have a bearing on anything.
    99. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      You said they're different but only in relation to a "higher power"

      False. I said no such thing.

      Here's where you did

      False.

      The only way you can say I don't have the right to murder is if you say there is some higher metaphysical power which says so. Otherwise, my existential abilities necessarily ARE existential rights. That doesn't mean all abilities are rights, but in this case, they are.

      Yes, I said that. No, it does not say abilities and rights are only different in relation to a higher power. I am not sure where in there you think I did.

      First, I was talking about only certain rights/abilities, as I explained from the outset, and you claimed (again) that I was referring to all. Second, I said here in this context that they are NOT different, but I left room for you to try to claim that they are by superimposing some higher power, since that is the only possible way to do it. Obviously, not the same thing as how you characterized it.

      I said they weren't different to you, then you disagreed and brought up only certain contexts and brought up a higher power yourself. Here's the quote:

      Since you're using the words "ability" and "right" synonymously

      Only in certain contexts, such as existentially, where they necessarily ARE synonymous. There is no rational distinction.

      But since you still insist that ability and right are synonymous, I'll give you definitions:

      right: something to which one has a just and/or proper claim (where claim means to ask for especially as a right):

      the dictionary seems to think a right is a statement of volition made properly or justly, in that the request ought to be satisfied.

      In fact, the etymology of the word "ought" is actually from "to own". Property and "ought" are linked linguistically. Property is in fact something to which you can make a "proper" claim, to own. In fact, the word proprius in Latin means "own". Hume was essentially saying you own your life, your liberty, and what you own.

      Saying a right to property is self-evident is merely just saying a tautology: you have a right to have what you have a right to have, since the definition of property is merely, what you have a right to have. A redundant and _circular_ statement. Circular statements can never be used to justify anything. That's a fallacy, you know?

      Unfortunately most property-rights activists don't realize that the debate around property right is really a debate over what people own, not over whether or not to protect what people own. Do you own the air above the land? Property "rights" people would say yes, even though the government may not recognize that type of ownership as proper since we actually share common air.

      That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself.

      I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers"

      Exactly. So you have no justification for saying that I do not have rights.

      You're kinda slow, aren't you?

      I can discuss what you own without appealing to metaphysics.

      In addition to that book on logic

      Yawn. Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy.

      I'm an expert.

      Your use of "existential" is meaningless

      False.

      If you mean it in terms of, say, an existential school of thought

      No.

      Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now?

      Nope. Foundational principles first

      You don't think you supported them well enough?

      Of course I did. Yet, you still don't get it. When you do, then we can continue.

      I came up with a secondary rationale that

    100. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      It loses because it ruins healthcare for those of us who have it already, destroys liberty, and costs more money.
      Pudge, on the off-chance that you're still following this thread: According to Novick, around 20% of the GDP go towards Medicare/Medicaid alone. In my (Western European) country, overall healthcare expenditure (public and private spending, including mandatory and supplementary private insurance) is about 10% of the GDP. In light of this and other successful examples around the world, how can you claim that universal healthcare would be more expensive? Thanks.
    101. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I screwed up, the numbers are wrong. My point still stands, however: In 2004, the US spent 15.4% of its GDP on healthcare.

      In response to your opinion that universal healthcare would increase waiting times and limit your choice of doctors and hospitals: this is simply not what I've experienced here. I've never waited more than a few days for anything. I can freely choose from government-owned and private hospitals and I can freely choose my doctor.

    102. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      Okay, to clarify: the US spends about 15.4% of GDP on healthcare, Western Europe about 10%.

    103. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      It loses because it ruins healthcare for those of us who have it already, destroys liberty, and costs more money. Pudge, on the off-chance that you're still following this thread: According to Novick, around 20% of the GDP go towards Medicare/Medicaid alone. In my (Western European) country, overall healthcare expenditure (public and private spending, including mandatory and supplementary private insurance) is about 10% of the GDP. In light of this and other successful examples around the world, how can you claim that universal healthcare would be more expensive? Thanks. First, I do not believe any claims that it will not cost more than what it costs now. Comparisons to other countries are not what matter: comparisons to the U.S. government itself is what matter. And when it takes on functions from the private sector, things ALWAYS end up costing more. Either it will cost more, or the quality will go down, or both.

      Second, it is an undisputed fact that I, and many other people, would have to pay a LOT more.

      In response to your opinion that universal healthcare would increase waiting times and limit your choice of doctors and hospitals: this is simply not what I've experienced here. I've never waited more than a few days for anything. Then you are one of the lucky ones. It is also undisputed that -- in many countries, at least, including England and Canada -- depending on the procedure, wait times can be months or years. And here's the rub: the government, not you or your doctor, in such cases, decide what types of procedures have wait times of days, and which have wait times of months or years. This is one of many I reasons call it "liberty-destroying."

    104. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      I said they weren't different to you, then you disagreed and brought up only certain contexts and brought up a higher power yourself. Yes, and then you mischaracterized what I said further.

      But since you still insist that ability and right are synonymous False.

      I'll give you definitions Also false. You apparently are unaware of the undisputed fact that dictionaries do not define words, they describe common definitions, and often do so incorrectly. A dictionary is absoultely the wrong tool to use to try to prove philosophical terms.

      you have a right to have what you have a right to have, since the definition of property is merely, what you have a right to have. A redundant and _circular_ statement Yes, this I proved this reasoning of yours is false, since I proved that it is deduced from the self-evident fact that I am alive.

      Unfortunately most property-rights activists don't realize that the debate around property right is really a debate over what people own, not over whether or not to protect what people own. So, you think the leftists who try to take away such rights are liars. For example, the King County executive who said that their critical areas ordinance that prohibited you from developing a majority of your own land was not taking your land, or saying you didn't own it. He said it is yours, and you can still pick blackberries on it, you just can't build on it.

      In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place.

      That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself. Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy.

      I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers" Exactly. So you have no justification for saying that I do not have rights.

      You're kinda slow, aren't you? I can discuss what you own without appealing to metaphysics. No, you really can't, because the rights being discussed ARE METAPHYSICAL RIGHTS. That you do not understand this fact is unsurprising, and yet telling.

      In addition to that book on logic Yawn. Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy. I'm an expert. The only thing you've shown yourself to be an expert on is actually COMMITTING logical fallacies, and then sticking to them. On everything else, I've been proven superior to you.

      You keep handing the ball back to me despite your not scoring, but I'm trying to give you points. Why not try? Because I have no reason to. You have yet to win a single argument. I have won every one of the dozens of arguments we've discussed.

      That would apply to things that don't exist, but your weight problem still stands. Shrug. Nope, I have no weight problem whatsoever. You are welcome to try to prove otherwise, to compound your many and continuing logical fallacies in two ways: by asserting a red herring/ad hominem, and by stating something as fact that has absolutely no evidence supporting it.

    105. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      I said they weren't different to you, then you disagreed and brought up only certain contexts and brought up a higher power yourself.

      Yes, and then you mischaracterized what I said further.

      But since you still insist that ability and right are synonymous

      False.

      I'll give you definitions

      Also false. You apparently are unaware of the undisputed fact that dictionaries do not define words, they describe common definitions, and often do so incorrectly. A dictionary is absoultely the wrong tool to use to try to prove philosophical terms.

      you have a right to have what you have a right to have, since the definition of property is merely, what you have a right to have. A redundant and _circular_ statement

      Yes, this I proved this reasoning of yours is false, since I proved that it is deduced from the self-evident fact that I am alive.

      I can't reply to a syntax error because you accuse me of misinterpreting you whenever you do it and I attempt to figure out what you actually meant.

      Each time, it turns out that you didn't actually mean what you said.

      Unfortunately most property-rights activists don't realize that the debate around property right is really a debate over what people own, not over whether or not to protect what people own.

      So, you think the leftists who try to take away such rights are liars. For example, the King County executive who said that their critical areas ordinance that prohibited you from developing a majority of your own land was not taking your land, or saying you didn't own it. He said it is yours, and you can still pick blackberries on it, you just can't build on it.

      Owning the land is different than developing into the airspace on top of it. Nobody can come remove your land (without eminent domain and just compensation), as it's yours, but if they've prohibited building permanent structures on it, then that's something you simply don't own. What's so difficult about the logic? Again, you think you own something ancillary to the land itself, which was what I was complaining that property-rights activists don't understand. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

      In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place.

      That's a false conclusion, which is why you've consistently lost the argument in court. No court recognizes that an ability to use X with your land is an extension of your land ownership. They say, instead, and rightly so, that the ability to use X is the ability to use X, and not the ability to use your land in any way you see fit. You can't use your land to murder somebody, for example, as that's a use of your land that's regulated. The government has default sovereignty, and then gives up rights in the Bill of Rights. Most of the sovereignty then falls to the states, and the states get to say that you can do whatever you want unless it violates its laws or, for example, the 14th amendment, which further makes applicable a number of rights in the bill of rights, but most definitely not the right to build whatever you want on top of your property.

      That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself.

      Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy.

      When you don't have a reasonable reply, you repeat this even though I've addressed it over and over. You even reply to where I address it here, saying I'm an expert. I'll not reply to it anymore.

      I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers"

      Exactly. So you have no jus

    106. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      And here's the rub: the government, not you or your doctor, in such cases, decide what types of procedures have wait times of days, and which have wait times of months or years.
      Well, what you're talking about is shortage of hospital staff I assume? Of course the "goverment" (many (most?) hospitals here are owned by the municipality) has some influence concering the hospitals it owns. But my point is: government-mandated medical insurance does not mean that there aren't private doctors and hospitals (there are) as well as (probably slightly more expensive) private insurance. I really don't know where this either - or mindset comes from (well, I've seen old US commercials that say that you can't choose your doctor if there's universal healthcare, so maybe that's it).

      If I wanted to set up a new healthcare system, I'd try to pick the best bits from all over the world. You don't have to dream up theories and doomsday scenarios, just look at what's out there.

      I'd also urge you to look at countries where mandatory government-established insurance was privatized and as a result became much more expensive (e.g. The Netherlands). Unfortunately, healthcare doesn't always follow the same rules of supply, demand and private-sector efficiency as other commodities.
    107. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      I can't reply to a syntax error

      There is none.

      because you accuse me of misinterpreting you whenever you do it and I attempt to figure out what you actually meant.

      False. I accuse you of misinterpreting me when you ASSERT that I said something I did not.

      Each time, it turns out that you didn't actually mean what you said.

      False.

      but if they've prohibited building permanent structures on it, then that's something you simply don't own

      Exactly. The Democrats pretend you DO own it, but you do not. They make you pay taxes on it, your name is on the deed as the owner, but they prevent you from doing anything with it.

      What's so difficult about the logic?

      Nothing. Why do you ask? It's the Democrats who don't understand it, not property-rights advocates, who understand it completely. This is what I said in the last reply.

      Again, you think you own something ancillary to the land itself

      False.

      which was what I was complaining that property-rights activists don't understand

      Yes, and you were wrong.

      Thanks for demonstrating my point.

      I didn't.

      In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place.

      That's a false conclusion

      False.

      ... which is why you've consistently lost the argument in court. No court recognizes that an ability to use X with your land is an extension of your land ownership.

      Also false. Unsurprisingly, you do not know what you are talking about. Indeed, there are many decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, that regard certain land use restrictions as takings. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), and so on.

      That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself.

      Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy.

      When you don't have a reasonable reply

      Ummmmmmm. You want a "reasonable reply" to an ad hominem/red herring fallacy? That is what "That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself" is. It is a fallacious claim. There is NO SUCH THING as a reasonable response to such a claim, except to call it a fallacy. And instead of doing that, I just brought up the fallacy you've been working on since the beginning, since that is more entertaining.

      you repeat this even though I've addressed it over and over

      Oh, I know you have addressed it. And you are absolutely and unequivocally incorrect: your claim that you are qualified to discuss the issue because of your "expertise," and that I am not because I have no similar "expertise," is, in fact, a textbook example of an appeal to authority logical fallacy. It has no logical merit whatsoever. And so when you make ad hominem attacks against me, it is, and will remain, my reply of choice.

      I can discuss what you own without appealing to metaphysics.

      No, you really can't, because the rights being discussed ARE METAPHYSICAL RIGHTS. That you do not understand this fact is unsurprising, and yet telling.

      Nice, you just lost the argument. False.

      Now you have to support metaphysics, which all logicians have failed to do.

      Ummmmmm. No. You don't understand what you are talking about. Metaphysics is not something that needs to be supported. Metaphysics is just the study of things that transcend physics. If we HAVE rights, they are not physical, obviously; therefore, they must be met

    108. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      And here's the rub: the government, not you or your doctor, in such cases, decide what types of procedures have wait times of days, and which have wait times of months or years. Well, what you're talking about is shortage of hospital staff I assume? No. There are many reasons for delays.

      But my point is: government-mandated medical insurance does not mean that there aren't private doctors and hospitals For now. I know the Obama and Clinton plans do not go there. But the ultimate goal is complete government control. And even if my prediction there does not come true, the private care providers will be mostly run out of business, except for those for the super-rich, due to massively increased regulations and price controls.

      If I wanted to set up a new healthcare system, I'd try to pick the best bits from all over the world. I wouldn't.

      You don't have to dream up theories and doomsday scenarios, just look at what's out there. What's been shown consistently is that just because something works in the U.S. does not mean it will work elsewhere, and vice versa.

      I'd also urge you to look at countries where mandatory government-established insurance Mandatory health insurance OF ANY KIND is evil. And I do not use that word lightly. It is literally a tax on BEING ALIVE. We have nothing like that in our society now, and I will fight against it with all I've got.
    109. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      For now. I know the Obama and Clinton plans do not go there. But the ultimate goal is complete government control.
      Oh, paranoid much? ;-).

      Mandatory health insurance OF ANY KIND is evil. And I do not use that word lightly. It is literally a tax on BEING ALIVE. We have nothing like that in our society now, and I will fight against it with all I've got.
      Okay, you call it a tax. Fair enough. Time to privatize the fire brigade then? Some things, like healthcare, prisons and law enforcement just don't work that well if they're privatized.

      I kind of like not having to step over sick people in the inner cities like I do when I visit the US. I don't think your zealotry in this regard does anything to help the poor get health insurance; but if that's not your goal, fair enough. I think a little bit of pragmatism would go a long way.

      But let's leave it at that, seeing as we won't ever agree ;-). Thanks for responding and I'm glad you understood me despite my terrible English.
    110. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can't reply to a syntax error

      There is none.

      Re-read it.

      because you accuse me of misinterpreting you whenever you do it and I attempt to figure out what you actually meant.

      False. I accuse you of misinterpreting me when you ASSERT that I said something I did not.

      I didn't assert them, when they were vague, I just tried to make something consistent out of it. Since you don't actually have a consistent set of thoughts on this matter, I can't assume that you've merely made a mistake in transcribing your thoughts. So I'm not going to assume you're consistent anymore.

      Each time, it turns out that you didn't actually mean what you said.

      False.

      but if they've prohibited building permanent structures on it, then that's something you simply don't own

      Exactly. The Democrats pretend you DO own it, but you do not. They make you pay taxes on it, your name is on the deed as the owner, but they prevent you from doing anything with it.

      They tax your land and/or the improvements (depending on the exact scheme), not the area above.

      What's so difficult about the logic?

      Nothing. Why do you ask? It's the Democrats who don't understand it, not property-rights advocates, who understand it completely. This is what I said in the last reply.

      Keep asserting.

      Again, you think you own something ancillary to the land itself

      False.

      So you don't own the airspace above the land and the ability to build on it. I'm glad we've established that.

      which was what I was complaining that property-rights activists don't understand

      Yes, and you were wrong.

      Thanks for demonstrating my point.

      I didn't.

      In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place.

      That's a false conclusion

      False.

      p = you own land

      q = you own the airspace above the land

      Now show me again how you go from p to q?

      If you want both rights, you have to buy p and q.

      ... which is why you've consistently lost the argument in court. No court recognizes that an ability to use X with your land is an extension of your land ownership.

      Also false. Unsurprisingly, you do not know what you are talking about. Indeed, there are many decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, that regard certain land use restrictions as takings. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), and so on.

      An example of takings is when you take the right to use the airspace above the land when you already had ownership of the airspace above the land. But if you never had the right, and the government was just letting you use the airspace and then changed their mind later, that's not takings. The debate is, as you agree, about what you actually own, not over takings itself.

      That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself.

      Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy.

      When you don't have a reasonable reply

      Ummmmmmm. You want a "reasonable reply" to an ad hominem/red herring fallacy? That is what "That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself" is. It is a fallacious claim. There is NO SUCH THING as a reasonable response to such a claim, except to call

    111. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      For now. I know the Obama and Clinton plans do not go there. But the ultimate goal is complete government control. Oh, paranoid much? ;-). I see the winky face, but really, no, it is not paranoia. I've been watching this debate carefully for a long time, and I've noticed that all the "mainstream" UHC proponents have all gone to an incrementalist approach. Like here in WA, the state insurance commissioner proposed a universal CATASTROPHIC (+basic preventative) care policy. It would cover everyone in the state. And the plan literally is a mess, because it would mean most people have two policies ... there is no way it would last. Clearly the goal is to eventually make it full coverage.

      And that is just one of the more obvious examples. Hillary's record is pretty clear too: she has never disavowed her firmly held beliefs about UHC from 15 years ago.

      Mandatory health insurance OF ANY KIND is evil. And I do not use that word lightly. It is literally a tax on BEING ALIVE. We have nothing like that in our society now, and I will fight against it with all I've got. Okay, you call it a tax. Fair enough. Time to privatize the fire brigade then? Some things, like healthcare, prisons and law enforcement just don't work that well if they're privatized. No, you are missing my point.

      If I want to not own a home, not have income ... I am allowed to. And I won't pay any taxes. We decide that we tax certain activities: ownership, income, and so on. This is the first example of where I would be taxed FOR BEING ALIVE. It is a fundamental shift in the way we do things, and it is very, very wrong.

      I don't think your zealotry in this regard does anything to help the poor get health insurance That's like saying someone's zealotry in attacking the government for wiretapping or torture doesn't help us catch terrorists. I reject the premise that everything I say has to involve trying to solve the specific goal at hand. I am talking about fundamental rights here, and it is not acceptable to ignore rights to solve another problem. I have, and have expressed, many ideas for helping the poor get health care (not insurance, as insurance is utterly unimportant). But it's beside the point I am making.

      I think a little bit of pragmatism would go a long way. I reject too that I have some obligation to speak to solving the problem in order to criticize someone else's solution to the problem. Again, same analogy: it is not fair for me to say to someone, "fine, you don't like warrantless wiretapping, but you won't tell me how we can get intelligence without it." That is beside the point. They are allowed to say "you can't do that because it violates my rights" without coming up with their own solution.

      This, to me, is a form of framing the issue that I find to be fallacious. When you propose something, EVERYTHING that proposal is about is fair game, and I have no obligation to do anything in addition to criticizing it. I should work toward a common solution, but that is not necessarily a part of the same process.

      Cheers.
    112. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now.

      Exactly how does the creation of a new Bureaucracy create less bureaucracy??

      It creates one bureaucracy that replaces thousands of little inefficient corporate bureaucracies.

      Most people don't understand that corporations aren't shining examples of efficiency themselves, particularly when for competitive reasons they fail to create standardized protocols as is where we are now with the health insurance industry.
    113. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Re-read it.

      There is none.

      I didn't assert them

      False.

      They tax your land and/or the improvements (depending on the exact scheme), not the area above.

      I never talked about "the area above."

      So you don't own the airspace above the land and the ability to build on it.

      It is not possible to build on airspace.

      The debate is, as you agree, about what you actually own, not over takings itself.

      False. The court decisions are quite clear. I agreed that when the Democrats take what I own, they pretend they are not taking what I own. That is where the debate lies: whether they actually ARE taking what I own, or merely restricting its use.

      There is a reasonable reply to it

      Not possible. It was a logical fallacy. The only reasonable reply is to point out that fact, which I did, in my own way. Whether you had a hidden point within the red herring is unimportant, since the entire claim is invalidated by the fallacy.

      Actually, expertise is the qualification and is an affirmative defense against the fallacy

      Utterly false. You demonstrate again that you completely misunderstand the fallacy. The fallacy rests on the fact that logical argumentation is built on ARGUMENTS and not PEOPLE MAKING THEM. So no, EVERY TIME you say "this argument has validity because of who is making it" -- which is what you did -- you are committing a fallacy.

      The only exception is sometimes when the argument is about the person making the claim. For example, your saying "I like cheese, this is fact because I said so" is not a fallacy. But that is obviously not the case here.

      I'm merely stating that you aren't qualified to merely assert things without evidence

      Ummm. NO ONE is. You're committing the fallacy again, by implying YOU CAN do that.

      And you are lying anyway, because your point had nothing to do with evidence, it had to do with my presumed lack of exerience. Please don't lie.

      which is what you were doing

      False.

      If you gave evidence, then my whole point would be mooted, as I've never said you couldn't bring evidence to the table, just that you aren't qualified to discuss it until you bring evidence or expertise to the table.

      You're lying. You talked only about experience, not evidence. And besides, those are two different things, and one is not a substitute for the other. You said you were qualified because of experience, and I was not because of lack of it. Do not lie and say you talked about evidence, and do not be an idiot and pretend that your experience exempts you from needing to provide evidence.

      You have no clue what metaphysics is, apparently.

      No, sorry, that is MY line to YOU.

      Hume would be disappointed!

      Hume was a moron.

      You need to invoke metaphysics in order to make your point

      Shrug. You brought up metaphysics when you decided to set out to show self-evident rights do not exist.

      If you can't say why here on earth things would be better because of your idea (which would bring it back down to the physical), then you're just talking bullshit

      Sorry, that is a textbook example of the begging-the-question fallacy, and therefore it cannot be logically responded to. Try again.

      Hah, unclean hands, again. You're admitting that you did make an ad hominem remark

      There is nothing fallacious about an ad hominem remark, as long as it is not trying to win a logical point. When met with a hostile foe (as you first turned hostile to me, clearly, with your personal attacks), I will insult them in return. That may not say much for me in some ways, but in comparison to you it means nothing, and it has no impact on my arguments.

      You do realize the main reason I'm still here is because for everybody else in thi

    114. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      So Hume is a moron. Plato and Aristotle, too, like in The Princess Bride?

      Name the philosophers that weren't morons and I'll use their work to destroy you, instead.

      You just ad hominem'd the man who demonstrated the is-ought problem that you haven't figured out how to get around. That's an excellent move in grade school, but not here.

      Have you ever read Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics or the Critique of Pure Reason or the Critique Practical Reason?

      Kant carried on in Hume's tradition and rigorously annihilated Descartes. That's the philosophical basis of my argument. What's yours, just Descartes' armchair bullshitting?

    115. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      If I want to not own a home, not have income ... I am allowed to. And I won't pay any taxes.
      Okay, clarification: pretty much like that everywhere. _If_ you are employed (or self-employed), however, you pay for health insurance (if you're on unemployment you don't pay anything and still have health insurance, much like the US I think). So see it as a tax if that helps. Like the fire department. A tax on being legally employed. It's not illegal not to be insured, it's just damn hard not to be. I just don't feel less free because of it; I would have to pay for that anyway (most likely more, if the US is any indication) if my employer didn't.

      That's like saying someone's zealotry in attacking the government for wiretapping or torture doesn't help us catch terrorists.
      Sorry, I don't follow. Let's not get absurd here. JFTR, I don't believe in the currently fashionable terrorism boogeyman.

      I certainly accept your right to express your opinions and disagree. I am concerned, however, that some of your earlier statements (no choice of doctors, can't choose private healthcare, more expensive overall) stem from a lack of information about the rest of the world. When I showed you that this doesn't have to happen if done right, your only reply was "no, it won't work here, because we're the US, period." I don't take issue with you expressing your fundamental beliefs, I just think you should research the supposed facts you justify them with a little bit more.

      BTW, I've just seen your videos on YouTube. Very funny. That being said, I just can't get into that Republican mindset. Let's just accept that. No disrespect indented whatsoever. And don't shout so much please ;-). Have a good night.
    116. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      So Hume is a moron. Plato and Aristotle, too, like in The Princess Bride? Nope. Plato was a genius. Aristotle was smart, but way to full of himself, and he lacked perspective. He had some good ideas but didn't think about them critically enough.

      You just ad hominem'd the man who demonstrated the is-ought problem that you haven't figured out how to get around Except I already proved that I didn't fall afoul of it. Try again.

      Have you ever read Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics or the Critique of Pure Reason or the Critique Practical Reason? Nah, he was a real pissant.

      What's yours, just Descartes' armchair bullshitting? No. The only thing I borrow from Descartes is cogito ergo sum, which is, in fact, unassailably true.

    117. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      If I want to not own a home, not have income ... I am allowed to. And I won't pay any taxes.

      Okay, clarification: pretty much like that everywhere. _If_ you are employed (or self-employed), however, you pay for health insurance (if you're on unemployment you don't pay anything and still have health insurance, much like the US I think). So see it as a tax if that helps.

      If you are FORCED to have such insurance, then it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. It has nothing to do with being employed.

      It's not illegal not to be insured

      Under Hillary's plan, yes, it absolutely is.

      I would have to pay for that anyway

      Irrelevant. I own a car, and am a Christian, but if you say it is illegal to NOT own a car or be a Christian, I am gonna be pretty pissed off about it. The fact that it is forced is the point.

      That's like saying someone's zealotry in attacking the government for wiretapping or torture doesn't help us catch terrorists.

      Sorry, I don't follow. Let's not get absurd here.

      In fact, it is not absurd at all. The analogy is perfectly apt. I am not sure why you think it isn't.

      JFTR, I don't believe in the currently fashionable terrorism boogeyman.

      I don't care what you believe specifically; I doubt you disagree that terrorism IS a threat, and that we should use at least SOME resources to prevent attacks. We've plenty of evidence to this. Whether you think it is as great a threat as some others, is beside the point, which is simply that just because we can agree on the goal (preventing terrorism, making health care available) doesn't mean that I cannot attack the methods (violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, or the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) without directly addressing a solution to the problem.

      I am concerned, however, that some of your earlier statements (no choice of doctors, can't choose private healthcare, more expensive overall) stem from a lack of information about the rest of the world

      No. I have plenty of information about the rest of the world. That is irrelevant, as just because it "works" in one place doesn't mean it will work the same way here. It won't. And further, as expressed above, just because it "works" doesn't make it right. I think it is very, very wrong: it violates my rights, and doing so undermines democracy itself.

      The whole point of a republican democracy is that a. the people get to make the decisions (directly or through representation) and b. there are overriding principles at play to protect individuals FROM the majority. Taking away my rights at BEST violates the latter, but it also undermines the former, as it is the people who first put those protections in place.

      Our society is built on these things. We are on a slippery slope where we will soon enough have no rights at all, if things continue in this direction. Lines must be drawn. This is a far more important issue than whether people have health care. Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.

      When I showed you that this doesn't have to happen if done right, your only reply was "no, it won't work here, because we're the US, period."

      Yes. Which means two things: many of us have rights we are not willing to give up, and we do not and will not operate as other countries do. People of many other countries have this notion that they will just accept some inconveniences for the "common good." We do not believe that here, not when it involves the government stealing our rights and forcing us to comply. And I am very thankful for that fact.

      I just think you should research the supposed facts you justify them with a little bit more.

      You should try to understand America a bit more.

      BTW, I've just seen your videos on YouTube. Very funny. That being said, I just can't get int

    118. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      If you are FORCED to have such insurance, then it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. It has nothing to do with being employed.
      Where exactly is this the case? I just said that in every country I know you don't have to be insured if you choose to stay outside the system (i.e. aren't employed, self-employed etc.). Again: like other essential services that you have to pay for whether you want to or not. Not even Evil Hillary (tm) could force people who don't make money to pay for healthcare.

      No. I have plenty of information about the rest of the world. That is irrelevant, as just because it "works" in one place doesn't mean it will work the same way here. It won't.
      Oh well, sorry, your mentioning only Canada and the UK as examples of universal healthcare led me to believe that you get your information from mainstream media. I apologize. I still haven't seen a compelling argument why it could never work in the US. It works fabulously elsewhere. You should make money as a clairvoyant if you are so sure about future events ;-).

      I'm really amazed at how much time you spend on countering some dude who can't even write understandable English. Thanks for the entertainment ;-).
    119. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      If you are FORCED to have such insurance, then it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. It has nothing to do with being employed. Where exactly is this the case? I just said that in every country I know you don't have to be insured if you choose to stay outside the system (i.e. aren't employed, self-employed etc.) I already told you: Hillary's plan.

      Not even Evil Hillary (tm) could force people who don't make money to pay for healthcare She said she would. Shrug. She said everyone must get insurance. If you can't afford it, then you STILL have to have it, which is an affront on its own: you are required to still sign up for it. But I never said anything about not being able to afford it: I said you have no income. Lack of income != lack of ability to pay.

      Oh well, sorry, your mentioning only Canada and the UK as examples of universal healthcare led me to believe that you get your information from mainstream media. I barely get ANYTHING from the mainstream media. I watch PBS NewsHour every night, and use Google for any more news than that.

      I still haven't seen a compelling argument why it could never work in the US. I gave you a reason why; you have yet to show why my reason doesn't matter.

      It works fabulously elsewhere That is simply not true. It is well-known that many countries -- yes, including Canada and the UK -- have major problems with single-payer health care. We have, on the record, people who have died because they could not see a doctor within days, instead of weeks or months. We have lawsuits in Canada over the freedom to practice medicine privately, a fundamental right in any free society. And so on.

      Cheers.

    120. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      It works fabulously elsewhere

      That is simply not true.
      Okay, so I may have a rather poor command of the English language, but as far as I'm aware, "elsewhere" doesn't mean "everywhere else." It's rather ignorant to claim that it doesn't work anywhere else.

      Good night.
    121. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      It works fabulously elsewhere That is simply not true. Okay, so I may have a rather poor command of the English language, but as far as I'm aware, "elsewhere" doesn't mean "everywhere else." It's rather ignorant to claim that it doesn't work anywhere else. I didn't claim that. I said it doesn't work "fabulously." Refer to my previous point about how whether or not it "works," it destroys liberty, which destroys justice. As Bastiat -- a Frenchman! -- said (insert "health care" into his list), "Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force."

      Here is, however, one of my favorite pssages: "Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.

      "Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task."
    122. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      [...] (insert "health care" into his list) [...]
      Let me ask you: do you oppose taxation to finance basic services and infrastructure in principle? You very well may, since it was supposed to be a temporary measure the US (at least on income). But if you're not, you may want to point out why healthcare is any different. (I refer you to my other posts as to why people who don't pay taxes generally don't pay for healthcare and as such isn't A TAX ON BEING ALIVE -- see, I can use caps too!)
    123. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Hah, you think it's unassailable...

      Cogito ergo sum is merely just an argument from the Instantiation Principle. The Instantiation Principle is actually a form of deduction. Descartes never doubted his existence, even though he should have -- his mind may merely be a computed automaton exposed to external inputs of contrived sensory data. What he thinks of himself may all be totally wrong. And because he can't tell the nature of this computed automaton, he doesn't really know anything about it at all.

      But the important thing is that by saying "I think", he really means to say, "I exist and think", since to instantiate "I" implies its existence:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instantiation_principle

      So he's really saying "I exist and I think, therefore I exist". That's really just a syllogism from existence. Existence was the observation necessary to establish that he existed. The thinking was merely additional. It's no more meaningful than "I defecate, therefore I exist."

      I'll talk about Plato's problems next.

    124. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      [...] (insert "health care" into his list) [...] Let me ask you: do you oppose taxation to finance basic services and infrastructure in principle? No. I am against income tax, and I dislike property tax, but it is preferable to income, and consumption taxes can't solve all the taxation needs, so I support a combination of low property taxes and consumption taxes.

      But if you're not, you may want to point out why healthcare is any different As I have been saying over and over, it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. We tax income, we tax property, we tax consumption, we tax other activities: we have never ever before taxed BEING ALIVE.

      I refer you to my other posts as to why people who don't pay taxes generally don't pay for healthcare and as such isn't A TAX ON BEING ALIVE Yes, and I refer you to my last post where I pointed out that this is beside the point, for two reasons: first, because you are still required to HAVE health insurance even if you do not pay financially for it, which means the government is still taking from you (your time, your liberty, your privacy); second, because people who don't have income still have to pay for it if they are able, according to Hillary, who said that those who can afford it will have to buy it.

      And further, just because SOME people don't pay the health-care-tax-on-being-alive does not mean it is not such a tax on those who DO have to pay it, so your point is moot anyway.

      see, I can use caps too! Shrug. There's nothing wrong with using caps.

    125. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Hah, you think it's unassailable... It is.

      Descartes never doubted his existence, even though he should have False.

      his mind may merely be a computed automaton exposed to external inputs of contrived sensory data If that is the case, he still exists. So ... you're not doing anything to dismiss his premise.

      What he thinks of himself may all be totally wrong Yes, of course. But that he exists cannot be wrong.

      But the important thing is that by saying "I think", he really means to say, "I exist and think", since to instantiate "I" implies its existence: Yes, to think the word "I" means you necessarily exist. That is, of course, his point.

      Existence was the observation necessary to establish that he existed Exactly; but in order to establish this existence, the existence has to be observed, as you note. That is where the thinking comes in. So you are agreeing with Descartes.

      The thinking was merely additional The thinking was necessary in order to recognize existence.

      You appear to -- quite incorrectly -- think that Descartes was saying that thinking somehow creates existence. No, it is merely evidence of it.

      It's no more meaningful than "I defecate, therefore I exist." Except that you cannot prove that you defecate. It could be an illusion. You CAN prove that you think.
    126. Re:Universal Health Care by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      Repeating your mantra doesn't make you right. Forget Hillary, you are arguing against the very idea of universal healthcare, aren't you? (BTW, healthcare costs are usually tied to your income. So if you are really poor, you have to pay very, very little or nothing. As opposed to private insurance, which you wouldn't be able to afford. And no, not being insured is neither good for you nor for the community. Please, please look at working existing implementations before rushing to conclusions.)

      Let me close this, ahem, interesting thread with a question: are you okay with me quoting you as: "Universal healthcare destroys liberty, which destroys justice."? (This is a direct quote from you.) Cheers and EOD ;-)

    127. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      You appear to -- quite incorrectly -- think that Descartes was saying that thinking somehow creates existence. No, it is merely evidence of it. That's a huge straw man argument.

      Thinking doesn't create existence. I never said anything was "created", in fact I said, "to instantiate 'I' implies its existence". I don't know how you got "create" from "implies", but didn't get "evidence of". An implication is certainly evidence for something.

      You're off your rocker, dude.

      You just said "thinking is required to think that something exists" (but you said recognize instead of think, but cognition is the process of thinking). I don't think thinking is relevant to the existence question. Stuff exists, then recognition happens.

      Ask yourself, how do you "see" thoughts. Is what you "see" an implication of existence of anything else? If you can doubt what you "see", you can surely doubt that you "see" that you're thinking. It might be the most obvious of observations, but still, that doesn't imply that thinking is a metaphysical statement. It's just a statement that he exists (observed) and that he's, in addition to existing, thinking as well. Existence comes first, and his implication is thus redundant because he's instantiated it already. That he thinks is merely CONSISTENT with his existence.

      You can prove you defecate with as much certainty as you can prove that you can think -- not absolute. In fact, you might not be thinking about thinking, but, you might have been made to have the impression that you thought, but you were just given memories of thinking in the past with the impression of continuity backwards, now, and even forward progression of thinking memories. It might be more accurate to say, "I have memories, therefore I exist". How far back does that go? Descartes was just an imperfect skeptic and confused his observations with self-evidence.

      But I guess I'm just a shitload smarter than you and this is way over your head.
    128. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      Repeating your mantra doesn't make you right Um. Yes, and? I never implied it did.

      Forget Hillary No.

      you are arguing against the very idea of universal healthcare In part. That particular comment is not directed at "the very idea of universal healthcare," no. It was explicitly and obviously directed only at mandated insurance coverage.

      BTW, healthcare costs are usually tied to your income Yes, which is extremely evil. It puts the government in the position of saying "you have no needs beyond what we say you have, therefore you have the ability to pay what we say you can," which the government has no right -- let alone ability -- to say. It has only force, and force used in this way destroys justice.

      And no, not being insured is neither good for you nor for the community Saying so doesn't make it true. Who the hell are YOU to tell me what is good for myself? This is the problem Americans have with socialists: thinking they know what is best for every individual. They do not.

      Please, please look at working existing implementations before rushing to conclusions.) Please, please do not assume my disagreement implies ignorance. Because that would be, well, pretty damned ignorant.

      are you okay with me quoting you as: "Universal healthcare destroys liberty, which destroys justice."? (This is a direct quote from you.) Of course. And it is absolutely true.
    129. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      You appear to -- quite incorrectly -- think that Descartes was saying that thinking somehow creates existence. No, it is merely evidence of it. That's a huge straw man argument. False. Unsurprisingly, you do not understand basic logical fallacies. I said what your argument APPEARED to be doing.

      in fact I said, "to instantiate 'I' implies its existence" Yes, and then you went on to mangle that into something else, trying to say that you have to exist before you can think, which DOES imply that Descartes was saying that thinking creates existence.

      You just said "thinking is required to think that something exists" (but you said recognize instead of think, but cognition is the process of thinking) So by restating my argument into a self-evidently true statement, you express your agreement with me.

      I don't think thinking is relevant to the existence question. Except that it proves it.

      If you can doubt what you "see", you can surely doubt that you "see" that you're thinking. False. That's utter nonsense. Seeing is not self-evident, but thinking is. Seeing is mere sensory input. Thinking is not a sense, it is an activity that necessarily proves that something exists.

      It's just a statement that he exists (observed) and that he's, in addition to existing, thinking as well. So you agree with Descartes. This is precisely his, and my, point.

      Existence comes first No shit. No one ever said differently. Again, this is you implying that Descartes or someone else said that thinking creates existence, which no one ever did.

      and his implication is thus redundant because he's instantiated it already. Calling it redundant is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is true, and you have several times admitted it is.

      That he thinks is merely CONSISTENT with his existence. No, it is more than that. It NECESSARILY IMPLIES existence.

      You can prove you defecate with as much certainty as you can prove that you can think -- not absolute False. Thinking is a necessarily self-evident activity. It is, in fact, logically impossible to appear to yourself to be thinking, and yet not actually be thinking.

      In fact, you might not be thinking about thinking, but, you might have been made to have the impression that you thought, but you were just given memories of thinking in the past with the impression of continuity backwards, now, and even forward progression of thinking memories. That's a bunch of bullshit. Fine, I was given fake memories. So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that I am thinking, right now, about those memories.

      It might be more accurate to say, "I have memories, therefore I exist". No, because as I just proved above, memories are completely beside the point.

      How far back does that go? Descartes was just an imperfect skeptic and confused his observations with self-evidence. False. And you even agreed with Descartes several times, you're just too dumb to know it.

      But I guess I'm just a shitload smarter than you and this is way over your head. If that were true you would not be agreeing with Descartes and thinking you were disagreeing with him and changing your argument every other sentence. You're not smarter than anyone. You're quite the moron. And I don't say that lightly. You have some little bits of knowledge, but you are incapable of bringing them together and recognizing how they all fit, and you make shit up that has no basis in logic or fact or even history of thought, just to support your unsupportable mishmash of self-made bullshit.

      Not a single thing you've ever said or thought in your entire life is over my head. That you don't realize how truly ignorant you are is kinda sad. Well, it would be, if you weren't such an asshole.

    130. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      You see that you were thinking in the past, but you aren't now, nor have you ever been thinking.

      Seeing is not thinking, as you said so yourself. That I'm able to reduce it to a possibility that your supposed thinking is merely just an act of observation (you yourself admit that it's an observation, though for some reason you say it has to transcend the sight) annihilates the entire point of Descartes' attempt at analysis.

      That you are unable to doubt this is not a weakness in the argument, it's an argument from ignorance, Pudge.

      Just saying it's self-evident doesn't make it so.

      But if you said, I observe (and one of those observations is my existence through the instantiation of "I"), therefore I exist, I wouldn't care, because they are merely identical, tautological statements that are truly self-evident. But self-evidence is not meaningful for understanding reality.

      For years the rationalists thought they had won the synthetic a priori argument, but true skeptics came along and showed that Peano's Postulates and Euclid's Axioms were found to both not be necessarily true. Euclid's Parallel Lines Never Intersect Axiom was shown that it's not necessarily true on curved space (relativistic geometry is a physical manifestation of curved space). Every axiomatic system ever developed has been shown to be unable to inform unless a synthetic observation is incorporated into its definitional framework.

      That you're ignorant about basic logic and geometry and it shows in your ignorant philosophy is not an argument for your philosophy.

    131. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      You see that you were thinking in the past, but you aren't now, nor have you ever been thinking. False. I am thinking right now. This is unavoidably and necessarily true, and any claim to the contrary makes no logical sense and is provably -- and proven -- false.

      Seeing is not thinking, as you said so yourself. That I'm able to reduce it to a possibility that your supposed thinking is merely just an act of observation Observation -- or, at least, being able to process the observation -- IS thinking.

      Just saying it's self-evident doesn't make it so. Correct. However, I proved it is self-evident.

      But if you said, I observe (and one of those observations is my existence through the instantiation of "I"), therefore I exist, I wouldn't care, because they are merely identical, tautological statements that are truly self-evident. Exactly. Now you understand Descartes. Congratulations.

      But self-evidence is not meaningful for understanding reality. Red herring fallacy.

      That you're ignorant about basic logic and geometry and it shows in your ignorant philosophy ... Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

      ... is not an argument for your philosophy. Straw man fallacy.

    132. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      Since we're agreed that tautological statements aren't significant in providing a posteriori knowledge, tell me again, why "I exist, therefore I exist" (which is an identity principle) is a meaningful construction that leads to "the government should defend my private possessions." In proof form.

      Thanks.

    133. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      "I exist, therefore I exist" (which is an identity principle) is a meaningful construction that leads to "the government should defend my private possessions." No. Again, those are separate discussions. You are not very bright. You decided to have a tangential discussion about self-evident rights. I can link the two -- very easily -- but that is not the point of this discussion you started.

    134. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      "I exist, therefore I exist" (which is an identity principle) is a meaningful construction that leads to "the government should defend my private possessions." No. Again, those are separate discussions. You are not very bright. You decided to have a tangential discussion about self-evident rights. I can link the two -- very easily -- but that is not the point of this discussion you started. That was the whole point of the discussion I started. You need it to establish that we need to follow your government intervention philosophy.

      Remember? I had a government intervention philosophy and you asserted that in your philosophy my intervention philosophy was incorrect based on the proof of yours. I was happy to entertain a proof of yours, but now you're saying it's not the point of the discussion. If your assertion has any validity to disprove mine through the soundness of yours, you need to finish your argument.
    135. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      That was the whole point of the discussion I started. You need it to establish that we need to follow your government intervention philosophy. No, in fact, I do not have to do any such thing. In fact, I could have had a totally arbitrary basis for what government should do, as you do.
    136. Re:Universal Health Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please just stop. This conversation is getting sad to read.

      At first, pudge looked like a smug and defiant ass, who was unwilling to recognize that he was being badly beaten. We were all getting a big chuckle from his pathetic attempts to keep up. But now pudge is starting to look more like a smug and defiant retard, who is unable to recognize that he is being badly beaten. I'm starting to feel bad for the poor guy.

    137. Re:Universal Health Care by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Substituting generic drugs is a damn good way to save money for, say, helping more people not die. Once something goes off-patent, the drugs companies are relying on the stupid and uninformed "but the expensive one just worked for me before" public to continue sales (or, say, reformulations and repackaging, putting 2% caffiene in paracetamol, etc).
      But, here's the secret, the generics are the same molecules with the same pharmacology, the same pharmacokinetics, the same efficacy, the same side-effects and the same metabolic byproducts. They're just being sold at the cost it takes to manufacture the expensive ones!

      I Am A Medicinal Scientist.

      Disclaimer: I think patents and high profits are necessary in order to pay for the initial research. We also got a good thing going with the patent expiry times, it guarantees that medicine will be universally accessible within a generation. This does not represent the opinion of my employer etc etc.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    138. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      That was the whole point of the discussion I started. You need it to establish that we need to follow your government intervention philosophy. No, in fact, I do not have to do any such thing. In fact, I could have had a totally arbitrary basis for what government should do, as you do. 1) If you don't like arbitrariness, then you should defend your philosophy as not arbitrary if it's to undermine mine.

      2) If you think my philosophy is arbitrary and you don't like arbitrariness, then you should continue down that argument.

      Either way your one-line assertions aren't helping your case.
    139. Re:Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 1

      That was the whole point of the discussion I started. You need it to establish that we need to follow your government intervention philosophy. No, in fact, I do not have to do any such thing. In fact, I could have had a totally arbitrary basis for what government should do, as you do. 1) If you don't like arbitrariness, then you should defend your philosophy as not arbitrary if it's to undermine mine. See, that's the thing: someone can complain about arbitrariness, but YOU are not that someone, since YOUR philosophy is totally arbitrary.

      2) If you think my philosophy is arbitrary and you don't like arbitrariness, then you should continue down that argument. There's nothing to argue. It's self-evident (if we take as given that you exist, and that you have the philosophy you've been espousing). Your philosophy has no basis other than, at root, "I think it should be this way, therefore it should be this way."

      I would say to most rational people, "you can't disagree with this obviously true statement," but as you have a history of disagreeing with obviously true statements, I won't bother.

    140. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

      I find it curious that your argument is:

      P: You make absolute statements
      P: I don't make absolute statements
      (hidden assumption) If and only if one doesn't make absolute statements is one arbitrary
      (some hidden deductions)
      C: You aren't arbitrary
      C: I am arbitrary

      Your hidden assumption is flawed due to a false dichotomy of absolute and arbitrary. There's a bunch of area between those.

      Thanks for playing Avoid Fallacious Logic, though. Try again next time.

  8. Most quirky? I dunno... by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That blue guy Stan Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Jones was pretty cool.

    Just picture him at a Senate costume party with deelybobbers on - instant Andorean.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  9. Beer by esocid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What will you do to get more Oregon beer east of the Mississippi river?

    But seriously, you state that The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources. How would attempt to improve the reliability of the EPA's research and encourage transparency within its ranks as to thwart its recent politicization and "bullying" of its scientists who don't produce data to support a political agenda?

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:Beer by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

      What will you do to get more Oregon beer east of the Mississippi river?

      Conversely, as you will be serving **Oregon**, how will you keep the Oregon beer in the NW so we can horde it all? ;-)

  10. Are you going to interview on Comedy Central? by davidwr · · Score: 5, Funny

    America's finest and most accurate television news and opinion programs, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report respectively, would be honored to interview a candidate of your stature.

    Have you considered gracing their shows with your presence? If not, why not?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Are you going to interview on Comedy Central? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      As a follow-up:

      George W. Bush: Great president, or Greatest president?

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  11. Internet's Effect on Campaign Finances by roadkill_cr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does the advent of the Internet mean that a politician can win elections without requiring as much financial support? Or is it simply another media out of the many already used (radio, televsion, etc.) that one must now campaign on, making campaigning more expensive than before?

  12. Left hook by Lucas123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like the name of your beer: Left Hook Lager, but why choose a lager to represent yourself versus, say, a stout?

    1. Re:Left hook by eln · · Score: 1

      Alliteration, obviously. Besides, the lager name has been polluted for too long by the swill that the American macrobreweries call "lagers". Believe it or not, making a tasty lager is not only possible, it's actually done by many small breweries out there.

    2. Re:Left hook by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Now's my chance to ask the immortal question, that my friend Lurch asked a little person: "So, do regular beers seem really, really big to you? Since you're a midget and all?"

      I hope the answer isn't "Fuck you" which is what he got when he asked.

    3. Re:Left hook by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Most Americans are Pilsners, although some American Pilsners try to pass themselves off as Lagers.

      This is a day late, guys. St. Patrick's day was yesterday (that link does not lead to "St. Patrick's Day" but instead links to an IRA terrorist drink. Cheers;)

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Left hook by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Most Americans are Pilsners

      I am an American. I am not a Pilsner. I do not know anyone who is a Pilsner, nor have I heard of anyone who knows someone who is a Pilsner.

      Also, I can't say that I've ever met someone trying to pass themself off as a Lager.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    5. Re:Left hook by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, that's because of the Pilsner Fathers and the Mayflower.

    6. Re:Left hook by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      Also, I can't say that I've ever met someone trying to pass themself off as a Lager.

      There's an old folk song, not sure where it's from, I think Canada since they do a lot of logging up there, and it gets damned cold. It was on an album called The Weavers On Tour IINM,AIPA.

      The Frozen Lager
      As I sat down one evening, 'twas in a small cafe,
      A forty year old waitress to me these words did say:
      "Well, I see that you are a lager, and not just a common bum
      'cause nobody but a lager stirs his coffee with his thumb.

      "My lover was a lager, there's none like him today.
      If you poured whiskey on it he would eat a bale of hay.
      Well, he never shaved his whickers from off of his horney hide.
      He'd just drive them in with a hammer and bite them off inside.

      "My lover came to see me one cold and freezing day.
      He held me in his warm embrace and broke three vertebre.
      He kissed me when we parted so hard that it broke my jaw.
      I could not speak to tell him he'd forgot his macinaw.

      "The weather, it tried to freeze him. It tried its level best.
      At a hundred degrees below zero he buttoned up his vest.
      It froze clean throgh to China. It froze to the stars above.
      At a thousand degrees below zero it froze my lager love.

      "And so I lost my lover, and to this cafe I come.
      And here I wait 'til someone stirs his coffee with his thumb."
      My ex wife usually has pills in her.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  13. Effect on Party Platform by explosivejared · · Score: 3, Informative

    You seem to be pretty frank about your policy on the war. How much effect do think you could have on the Democratic platform regarding Iraq? The party has equivocated (eg pulling funding) on whether or not it will go full force at ending the current deployment of troops and on just how it would plan to work with regional players. How do you think you can work to providing a consistent and working policy for Iraq? Your site says that you are amazed at the war can still be sold. What are you going to change about that?

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  14. I'm a fan by djcapelis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been tracking your campaign for awhile, you seem like a really good candidate for the senate slot and a good fit for Oregon. Unfortunately I'm a Californian democrat... and I know that most Oregonians aren't terribly fond in Californians interfering with your state.

    Is there a way I can support you without getting you in trouble with your constituents? I know even a donation opens you up to the story of "funded by San Francisco Democrats" which would probably play pretty poorly in some parts of Oregon... Should we just stay on the side-lines or is there something folks outside your state can do to help you get your message out?

    And one more related question: In this increasingly interconnected world, how do you see interstate involvement in local campaigns as changing the United States as a whole? The DSCC seems to be a pretty critical source of extra-state funding for instance...

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
    1. Re:I'm a fan by vardavas · · Score: 1

      Send him money! I live in Oregon and I've been shaking down my friends everywhere. He will be outspent by his primary opponent but he can win if he raises enough to run the campaign he needs to run.

    2. Re:I'm a fan by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      A large number of Oregonians (like myself) ARE ex-Californians! And residents of all three west coast states share many command concersns. Much of northern California has more in common with Oregon than with southern California. What Oregonians don't like is the diversion of Northwest water and power to fuel the ever-growing needs to southern California. For example, the current half-dozen plans to build Liquified Natural Gas terminals in Oregon -- for which there is no demand whatsoever in Oregon! Apparently this is a reaction to reistance to building a terminal at Cabrillo beach (where I learned to windsurf) and to resistance to terminals in northern California. Apparently the energy companies plan now is to submit as many proposals as possible in the hopes that one sticks, snd then build pipelines (using eminent domain) from whereever to California. Why are they doing this? Because the companies supplying the Natural Gas are the very same companies that own California's electrical utilities. Utilities are highly regulated and not expected to make large profits for shareholders. However, they are operated on a "cost-plus" basis, meaning if you own both the utility and the suplier, you can pay yourself serveral times the market value for energy and evade regulation.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:I'm a fan by SteveNovick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I need all the help I can get from the netroots across the United States. I don't have the DSCC tapping big national donors on my behalf and we are accepting contributions from all states via ActBlue, where my campaign total is currently third highest for all Senate candidates. I suppose some might argue I should only take money from Oregonians, but the reality is that campaigns take money and I'll be proud to stand up in the Senate for progressive folks from across the country. It is only through citizens from across the nation coming together to demand real change that we are going to change the direction of the U.S. Senate.

      Thanks for your help!

    4. Re:I'm a fan by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      Done.

      If there's other ways people can help, let us know.

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
  15. It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat by geekoid · · Score: 1

    with out hitting a dozen people with their own beer label.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what are the odds of hitting someone running for Senate as well?

    2. Re:It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      And this is bad how....

    3. Re:It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      And most taste like the dead cat.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    4. Re:It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat by mikeraz · · Score: 1

      Why throw cats when you can swing hop vines?

      But do the other vanity brew owners have something from Jamie Flood at Ninkasi (Under Construction site)? It's like having a beer from Craig Nichols, Christian Etinger, John Harris or John Meier.

      If one fourth of Steve Novick's decisions are as well placed as his brew selections he'll be a top notch senator.

      --

      There's more to it than this.

    5. Re:It's Oregon, you can't throw a dead cat by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty disgusting way of finding people with their own brands of beer.

      Now a dead *pig*, well, that's just good eatin.

  16. Interrogation... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With your opposition to some current tactics, how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?

    1. Re:Interrogation... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There are many good and proven techniques that don't require torture.

      In fact, the US is pretty good at it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Interrogation... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?

      Most of these people want to attack the U.S. because the U.S.'s policy in the Middle East has been brutal and stupid. Iran hates us because we overthrew a democratic government and installed the Shah. Bin Laden got people on his side because many were upset with a U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has been an Al Qaeda recruiter's wet dream.

      If you want to defend against "militant Islamists", stop helping them recruit followers - reform foreign policy. Get troops out, make support of Israel contingent on human right improvements, stop backing dictators. Oh, and stop torturing people, that'd help a lot.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  17. Congressional Accountability by pashdown · · Score: 1

    How will you make the Senate more accountable to the people? At a minimum, what example will you display in your own Senate office?

    1. Re:Congressional Accountability by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You have your politicians mixed up. The House is supposed to be accountable to the people, the Senate is a check against the Tyranny of the majority". That's why there are different numbers of Representatives (from the HOUSE of REPRESENTatives) depending on a state's population, while the Senate has two members per state.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Congressional Accountability by pashdown · · Score: 1

      So the Senate has no accountability to the people who elected them? They can work wholely for wealthy interests that financed their races and buy them trips while ignoring their constituents? Sorry, I'm not interested in that. They're all accountable to the electorate. I want to know how this candidate plans to insure that.

    3. Re:Congressional Accountability by jtev · · Score: 1

      The way the founders intended it: No. The senate was supposed to represent the states, not the people. But, for quite some time they have had to worry about popular election, diluting the purpose of them as a preventative measure against the people. The constitution intened there to be a balance between the power of the states, the power of the people, and the power of the federal state. The federal state has eroded the power of the states by pandering to the people, and to their expectation of power. I'm not going to make a judgement on this trend eitehr way, other than to state that it exists.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    4. Re:Congressional Accountability by Copid · · Score: 1

      What's interesting about that is how things have changed. It's starting to look like the congressional districts are so badly gerrymandered that it's the representatives who don't have to be responsive to their districts because they're rarely in competitive elections, while the senators sit in unstable seats that they have to defend against meaningful challengers (albeit less regularly). Oops.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  18. Building the team? by D3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When you decided to get into politics and/or make this run, how did you build your team? How did you choose your advisers? Were they all people you already knew or just knew one or two and they made recommendations? Basically, how does one go from "I think I could be a good Senator" to having the political machinery to make a run at it?

    --
    Do really dense people warp space more than others?
  19. Thoughts on the Federal Reserve by ThomasFlip · · Score: 1

    What are your thoughts on the sinking dollar and the price of gold? Do you support the abolishment of the federal reserve and a return to a hard currency?

    --
    If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
    1. Re:Thoughts on the Federal Reserve by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Ok, once and for all... there is not enough gold mined in the entire world for this to work; even with the ridiculously high price of gold.

      It is estimated that there has been 150000 tonnes of gold mined to date about 25% of which is held by other nations as resevse to their currency, most of the rest is held by private citizens as jewelry. Even assuming the total amount, 150000 is about 5.6 billion ounces. 5.6 billion ounces comes to 5.6 trillion USD. The GDP of the US is 13.8 trillion dollars.

      If we even tried this plan, the value of gold would have to increase by atleast one, probably two orders of magnitude. The result on the global economy would be absolute chaos.

    2. Re:Thoughts on the Federal Reserve by lavaface · · Score: 1
      question: why did the value of gold in relation to US dollars suddenly rise in 1973?

      question: why is everything, from coffee to autos, so much more expensive now?

      answer: our currency has been devalued through inflation. Saying that our economy is worth 13 trillion dollars is meaningless when it costs twice as much (or more) to buy things. I suggest you research the history of the financial system a little more thoroughly. This Bear Stearns bailout/subprime crunch is just the beginning . . .

    3. Re:Thoughts on the Federal Reserve by willllllllllll · · Score: 1

      ...which is why we have to conquer the moon, and then Mars, and do it before the Chinese/Muslims get there first. We can set up goldmines and ship it back to Earth to secure the dollar against our own gold standard, just the way nature intended. And we'll all ride round on moonbuggies and wear silver jumpsuits.

    4. Re:Thoughts on the Federal Reserve by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how much inflation has increased since the 1970's, the price of gold has also done so. It remains economically imposible to return to the gold standard, and it is also against the Internation Monetary Fund's policies which the US is a member of.

      Inflation is an unfortunate side effect of the poor way we currently run our economy. Trying to adopt the gold standard to curb inflation will not solve the root causes any more than giving an AID's patient an infusion of T-cells will cure HIV.

  20. Fiscal Responsibility by explosivejared · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You talk about fiscal responsibility. Does that include government regulation that promotes sustainable growth over growth for growth's sake? If so, what would such regulation be? Finally, I think we can all agree that Americans live beyond their means. What role should the government in dealing with the current credit crises? What action should be taken at the microeconomic level? Are you in favor of the Bear Sterns bailout, etc?

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  21. Medical Marijuana by phobos13013 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where do you stand on the issue of medical marijuana in your state? For ten years, use of marijuana has and created a legal vacuum for the public interest versus the private use issue. Would you protect growers of medical marijuana in your state from federal prosecution when such situations occur? Do you support the free and open use of a chemical that has no known addictive qualities, no known adverse health effects and broad, diverse public support for its decriminalization?

    --
    ...and it should be known by now
    1. Re:Medical Marijuana by esocid · · Score: 1

      While I agree with everything else, I don't know about the no known adverse health effects. When smoked it has been linked to an increased risk of gum disease. So maybe eating it or drinking it as tea has no adverse health effects. Plus in general it prevents and helps with glaucoma, one thing I know I'll never get.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    2. Re:Medical Marijuana by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
      When smoked it has been linked to an increased risk of gum disease [reuters.com].

      Anything smoked also increases the rate of heart and lung disease and stroke.

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    3. Re:Medical Marijuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Oregon resident who is a terminally ill cancer patient, I obviously have a great deal of interest in this topic, and frankly, I will be a single-issue voter on this issue. I would appreciate a detailed policy statement not only on how you intend to protect Oregon residents from Federal prosecution, but also on how you intend to allow medical marijuana users the right to carry their medicine across state lines without fear of prosecution. As a side-note, vaporization removes the vast majority of risks associated with smoking marijuana and for medicinal users is the preferred dosing method, along with adding it as an ingredient in cooking.

    4. Re:Medical Marijuana by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the no known adverse health effects.

      Well, the more general issue with marijuana prohibition is: should policy be set by politicians or by doctors? Who is more likely to know of adverse effects, weigh possibly adverse effects against beneficial effects, and make the best informed decision? Why is government spending so much effort and taxpayer money, on micromanaging such a small and seemingly arbitrary aspect of healthcare, while not arresting people for wearing casts made of new materials on their arms, or arresting cardio doctors for not wearing their stethoscopes in an exact manner that is proscribed by Congress? What is so special about this one treatment, that Congress feels sure that their judgement is not only superior to the judgement of people that have spent years in medical school, but so superior, that they need to enforce criminal laws to get their way?

      And if doctors' judgement can't be trusted, then other professionals' judgement probably shouldn't be trusted either. For example, if a congressman representing Redmond WA were to conclude that Linux has adverse effects, we now have a precedent that it would be ok for the federal government to outlaw Linux. For our own good.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    5. Re:Medical Marijuana by Descalzo · · Score: 1
      You ask an awful question:

      should policy be set by politicians or by doctors?
      There is no doubt about it: policy should be set by our elected representatives. No doubt about it. The problem lies in how the decision is made. We obviously need politicians who make better decisions, but that's their job. Doctors should definitely advise them about medical issues, and there's no doubt about that either. But keep in mind that politicians have more than medical reasons to make their decisions, so that means that they may make wise choices, even if they contradict the doctors' recommendations.
      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    6. Re:Medical Marijuana by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lets get serious here. Do you support the right of an adult to use marijuana for recreation? If yes, what are you going to do to support that right? If not, do you support the right of an adult to use alcohol for recreation?

      If you answered yes to the first, and no to the second, how do you reconcile those answers? Be sure to note the fact that marijuana is less toxic, less addictive, less likely to cause violence, and less harmful in every other way than alcohol.

      If you answered no to both questions, thanks for your time anyway.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  22. sex offenders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question for the candidate:

    Oregon is one of the few states that still has enough respect for civil liberties to show leadership and not adopt the unfair Federal Sex Offender Registration guidelines.

    The question is, as a Senator, what would you do to end the blatant harms that a online-available, register everyone, one-size-fits-all sex offender registration policy has caused? Do you acknowledge that sex offender registries are in fact punitive (regardless of their stated intent)? What would you do to ensure that individual property and privacy rights are not infringed (any worse than they already are)? Thank you

  23. Iraq Pullout by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I was among the many Americans that didn't want the military to engage in Iraq, not we are there.

    You want to pull out of Iraq within 6 months.
    How to you propose to do that? What efforts are you going to put into rebuilding.
    Just leaving would be a horrible mistake that would cause even more strife to the Iraqis.

    Wouldn't it be better to ahve a rebuild plan that is shared with the rest of the world? remove more of out troops as specific goals are met?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Iraq Pullout by meteors · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up please!

  24. Because of the owls by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

    In Oregon?!? There's a bunch of folks who've lost their jobs because of Washington, as far as they're concerned (environmental lobbyists to be exact) and they want their due. In other words, start carving up that pork because the rest of the country owes them for keeping the owls happy!

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:Because of the owls by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Dude, they were your kooks to begin with. Just because you couldn't control them and they made congress pass a law doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer. Live with it or more would be my best advice. Or perhaps getting control on the enviromental whackos who thing an animal is more important then a human.

  25. Flat Tax, Fair Tax by penguin_dance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where do you stand on having a Flat Tax? What about the Fair (or Consumption) Tax? And why.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    1. Re:Flat Tax, Fair Tax by daigu · · Score: 1
      Here's a question for you, penguin_dance. Why are you asking about Fair Taxes and Flat Taxes when no country on earth uses them? From Money Magazine:

      Critics claim the FairTax has two major flaws: It wouldn't work in practice and, even if it did, it wouldn't raise enough money...Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan's Office of Tax Policy Research says that only six countries in the world have tried to collect a sales tax north of 10 percent, and four of them eventually adopted alternatives like a VAT. Consumers might also be unpleasantly surprised by all the things that get taxed: Not just milk at the grocery store, but legal fees, rent on an apartment, even health-care expenses.
      From Just how fair is the 'FairTax'? Given the fact that it doesn't work and the Fair Tax book makes some major and unsubstantiated assumptions of the impact of said tax on the economy, why are you talking about this as if it were a solution - particularly when we are conducting wars costing trillions. Where's that money going to come from?
    2. Re:Flat Tax, Fair Tax by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      Not so, Russia instituted a 13% flat rate on income in 2001 and other former Soviet countries have followed.

      I don't know why you jumped to the conclusion that I supported the FAIR tax. I wanted to know what HE thought. I asked the question in the most straightforward and unbiased manner possible. Unlike a lot of people, I didn't couch my personal feelings on a subject--pollitians love that--you tip your hand and they spoon-feed you what you want to hear.

      Actually, because you asked, I HATE the so-called FAIR tax. By the time you add it on to city/state taxes (you know those aren't going anywhere) it will be a 30% tax on goods. I also don't believe for a minute that because companies are saving money (via having to deal with payroll taxes(!?)) they're going to graciously turn around and lower their prices! Ha! I think it will lead to black marketing and there is no real way to have a cut-off point for lower income families. I think some like it because they feel the only way to get the government to stop spending so much is if people see how much is actually coming out of their pockets. Me, I think it would just turn into a VAT-type tax, rolled into the price, like in the UK. And I haven't seen their taxes going down.

      A flat tax would be a lot more sensible than the mess we have now (of course a lot of accountants and tax lawyers lobby against it because a whole industry--theirs--would be largely out of business.)

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    3. Re:Flat Tax, Fair Tax by daigu · · Score: 1

      While true that Russia's has a flat tax of 13% on personal income, it also has taxes on capital income, value added, corporate and other taxes that make it a bit more complicated and mean a higher effective tax rate. See this discussion.

      I jumped to the conclusion because the guy is clearly not supporting the Fair Tax as it is typically talked about, flat (meaning single rate) taxes or taxes on consumption. So, it looked like something you were bringing to the table because of an agenda - and in reading your second post, I see I was right. You may not be for the Fair Tax proposal, but I've heard plenty of flat taxers make the same arguments you make - and neglect to consider the fact that the approach doesn't work.

      Russia has a problem with corruption and a poor tax enforcement system, so this move worked for them. Our problems are a little bit different, and a flat tax - while perhaps easier for tax filers - will bankrupt the government.

    4. Re:Flat Tax, Fair Tax by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it's logical saying a flat tax would bankrupt the government. That doesn't make sense. 13% isn't fixed in stone. For the US it may be 10%, it may be 15%. I'm sure they know roughly how much American's make and therefore what % would pay the bills. It would not replace every tax (unfortuantely)--I'm sure congress still wants it's death tax, gas tax, sin tax, sales tax. It would replace the income tax and having to filling out tons of confusing forms every April 15th. About the only "deductions" I can see are for # of dependents, handicap, etc.

      And if they want to raise the tax a % you're going to have a LOT more Americans asking, "Why?" Right now the bottom 50% of the taxpayers pay something like 5% of the tax burden. We've got people who don't PAY anything out in taxes expecting rebates when they're given. They don't care when the government spends more money because it's being spent on them.

      You shouldn't have to have a lousy collection system (Russia's real problem is the Russian Mafia runs everything) to have a simplified and truely fair tax system. I expect we would collect more in taxes also as people wouldn't be running around trying to find shelters.

      While I respect Mr. Novick's trying to slog onto Slashdot yesterday (I suspect most politicos don't know which end of a mouse is up) it's pretty clear that we would disagree on many things. When a politician starts talking about "tax cuts for the rich" and "tax fairness" I hold tight to my wallet.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    5. Re:Flat Tax, Fair Tax by daigu · · Score: 1

      Do the math. In the most current complete year, 2005, we have taxable income - which is basically the government's way of saying gross income it can tax - is $5,137,165,874,000. Then, scroll over to the Total Tax Payments line item: $1,083,700,046,000.

      $1,083,700,046,000 / $5,137,165,874,000 = ~21%

      This number assumes no credits and dealing with the economic impact that comes from not giving preferencial tax treatment for companies paying foreign taxes, child care, elderly & disabled, education, retirement savings, children, etc. Any additional will drive up the effective flat rate. The problem is the math doesn't work out, and most people that favor flat taxes have never bothered to look at the numbers. If 21% is the lowest rate you can get to replace existing revenues and it would do so by shifting the tax burden to the poor - which will likely have many macro-economic effects such as taxing demand for goods out of the economy. So, we have the problem that the tax rate isn't anywhere near where you say it will be and that this system will have many effects that you don't understand.

      And if you are going to conduct wars in Iraq and elsewhere, that are estimated to cost more than all of the tax that is collected in a single year, then you have additional issues driving up government expense that ultimately need to be covered by taxes.

  26. Science by geekoid · · Score: 1

    As a brewer I am sure you understand the value of science.
    What will you do to see that a strong science advisory board is available to the senate?

    What about a strong technology advisory board?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  27. What Committees Interest You? by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    If you are elected, which committees would you like to serve on and why?

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    1. Re:What Committees Interest You? by SteveNovick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I will take every opportunity to make environmental issues a focus of my service in the Senate. Whenever anyone asks which committees I want to serve on, I list the Environment and Public Works Committee, and explain that I would list the Energy and Natural Resources Committee if Oregon Senator Ron Wyden's presence there did not make such an appointment extremely unlikely. I hope that given my background at the Justice Department and my decade of service on the Oregon Environmental Council Board, Senate leaders will grant my request to serve on EPW.

  28. Oh Shut Up by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

    Enough of this gold standard crap. That bridge has been crossed (and burned) and none of your Econ. 101 blathering is going to bring it back.

    --
    -
  29. Have you considered hook alternatives? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hooks are so 17th century. Which of the following would you consider adopting if you win your election?

    1. Fighting claws as seen in Enter the Dragon
    2. Hydraulically actuated pincer
    3. Chainsaw
    4. Rocket fist

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  30. But what about policy? by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    That is all well and fine, but Oregon has trampled upon the unalienable rights of its citizens for years now. Will this guy change any of that?

  31. Quirky campaigning? by Chardish · · Score: 1

    Steve,
    In 2006 Kinky Friedman ran for Governor of Texas, using a similarly "quirky" campaign approach, injecting humor into his message and campaigning in a style considered by many to be unconventional. While he made a strong showing as an independent (with 12.5% of the vote), he still placed fourth. What influences your campaigning style, and how do you seek to avoid the same pitfalls of other lighthearted (though serious) campaigns?

  32. Senatorial candidates with national ambition? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mr. Novick, your YouTube presence has attracted a lot of attention -- even mine. I find your ads pithy, sharp, witty.

    When Senator Hillary Clinton ran for the open Senate seat in New York everyone knew it was but a springboard to the US President campaign trail. When Senator Obama left the State Senate for the US Senate, many people dreamed -- and more, probably, feared -- it was but a springboard for the top national office.

    What is your opinion on candidates who use a limited election to project a national campaign? Who, while denying the charge, are seen as using an office for personal gain rather than determinedly seeking to serve in the very office they fight to obtain?

    Lastly...what makes your beyond-the-borders campaign different than those (named and not named) others whose State-representing Senatorial campaign have reached national (and international) attention?

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  33. Not like other politicians? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In your television ads, you state that you are not like other politicians. How do your political actions differ from those normally held by politicians: namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs - through taxation or deficit spending; and advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

    Also, how do your political motivations differ from those that have become the norm in politics? Politicians, acting as the "supply", have increasingly manipulated the economy to service the demand of corrupt companies offering to fund their campaigns - such as by contrived monopolies or selective tax breaks. How do your influences differ from the standard fare?

    1. Re:Not like other politicians? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

      Come on. You may oppose taxes or want a lazzie-faire system, but to put those concerns as the same level as human rights is pretty insulting.

      There are valid disagreements about the optimum role of taxation and government regulation (there cannot be none of either, even at the minimal contractual enforcement level of uber-libertarians). Whereas, I would say that human rights are things that are pretty universally agreed upon within the western world.

      namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs

      I actually care a lot about which of these he wants to spend money on.

      through taxation or deficit spending

      Again, a distinction that I care about greatly.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Not like other politicians? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "but to put those concerns as the same level as human rights is pretty insulting."

      What it comes down to is this: in order to live and survive in the US, one must work and get paid for that work an amount of money that he and his employer freely agree upon as the correct compensation for his productivity. This is a fundamental need.

      It follows from that need that one must also have an inalienable right to the "sweat of his brow" - a right to the amount of money that he and his employer agree is the correct "conversion factor" to go from N hours of productivity to X dollars. He can then use his X dollars to buy other peoples' products - the results of other peoples' productivity. The economy is simply the free exchange of your hours of labor for others' hours of labor.

      Forced taxation is a violation of the inalienable right to your productivity. Voluntary taxation, on the other hand, would not be, nor would be freely donating some percentage of your income to a charity of your choosing, and persuading your friends, family, and community to do the same.


      "through taxation or deficit spending" - "Again, a distinction that I care about greatly."

      Taxation is simply taking your money at gunpoint now (literally, not metaphorically), while deficit spending is a promise to take your money at gunpoint later (call it an IOU).

    3. Re:Not like other politicians? by j-beda · · Score: 1
      "Forced taxation is a violation of the inalienable right to your productivity. Voluntary taxation, on the other hand, would not be, nor would be freely donating some percentage of your income to a charity of your choosing, and persuading your friends, family, and community to do the same. "

      There is a strong argument however that the benefits of living and working within the framework of a society that has all sorts of infrastructure and legal protections is measurably of greater value than the "lost" productivity. Thus the arguments against such "forced taxation" become much weaker since benefit has accrued.

    4. Re:Not like other politicians? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Thus the arguments against such "forced taxation" become much weaker since benefit has accrued."

      There is no "argument against" forced taxation. It is a violation of fundamental rights. Your statement is as irrational as saying "arguments against murdering another person or stealing his property become much weaker..." Such a statement is equally nonsensical in the framework of a functioning society.


      "There is a strong argument however that the benefits of living and working within the framework of a society that has all sorts of infrastructure and legal protections is measurably of greater value than the "lost" productivity."

      Any apparent "benefits" are temporary and only help some at the expense of harming others. Most importantly, though, they violate my rights and the rights of my friends and members of my family, neighborhood, and community. Can you be more specific about what benefits you are referring to, and how the government is able to provide these benefits while private organizations are not?

    5. Re:Not like other politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Taxation is simply taking your money at gunpoint now (literally, not metaphorically), while deficit spending is a promise to take your money at gunpoint later (call it an IOU)."

      And a system of voluntary taxation would be expecting to pay nothing and receive the sweat of someone else's brow.

    6. Re:Not like other politicians? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you be more specific about what benefits you are referring to, and how the government is able to provide these benefits while private organizations are not?

      Heres a short list of things. Tell me where you think free enterprise can hold a candle. I'll even leave out the standard police/army examples.

      1. Fire departments
      2. Road construction
      3. Park maintence
      4. Libraries
      5. FDIC
      6. Rural electification
      7. Unemployment insurance
      8. Flood insurance
      9. Food and drug safety testing
      10. Welfare
      11. Social security
      12. Farm price supports
      13. Witness protection
      14. EPA
      15. Net Neutrality (coming soon?)
      16. Postal Service

      In all those cases there is a natural monopoly, a trajedy of the commons, an issue of ensuring fairness, or just the small size of private organizations.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Not like other politicians? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      Several of the ones you have listed are actually done by private organizations, or by contract with the government, or are still done by private organizations in regions outside the US, or were historically done by private organizations. In particular are all the safety examples (fire departments, flood insurance, unemployment insurance, drug safety testing, witness protection, etc), for which an individual paid an individual freely paid an insurance company. The insurance company's incentive is to keep the insured healthy and safe so as to avoid having to pay out large sums in the case of an emergency. And because there are multiple competing insurance companies (provided government does not intervene and create a monopoly), the individual is guaranteed a competitive prices, options, and results. Why do you believe a government can do these things better? Why do you believe it is alright to steal others' productivity (aka money) simply because you have this belief that the government can do it better?

      You list social security, which is about to die a miserable death and cannot possibly succeed in covering the baby boomers. What's worst of all is that social security simply involves setting aside a portion of your earnings for retirement. But because of how the government works, you are actually giving your money to the currently retired and getting an IOU in return, with the hopes that sometime in the distant future, the government will still be around and able to afford paying you what they said they would. Not only does it make more sense in the long term to have a diversified investment portfolio, to reduce the risk, but you will also get a much larger payoff. Find me a single economist who recommends social security over a diversified portfolio.

    8. Re:Not like other politicians? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      ... or were historically done by private organizations. In particular are all the safety examples (fire departments, flood insurance, unemployment insurance, drug safety testing, witness protection, etc), for which an individual paid an individual freely paid an insurance company.

      I know that, and that's explicitly why I chose those examples. Private fire departments were a miserable failure (look into how well they worked in New York, for instance.) Flood insurance caused a market failure. I question witness protection greatly. As for unemployment insurance or drug safety testing, where's the private analog?

      And because there are multiple competing insurance companies (provided government does not intervene and create a monopoly),

      Really? ADM's internal motto is rumored to be "the competitor is our friend and the customer is our enemy." Insurance companies, by definition, have to be fairly big, and there cannot be many of them. Oligopolies are almost as bad as monopolies.

      And, as I mentioned, flood insurance produced a market failure.

      Why do you believe a government can do these things better?

      As I explained before, all of these require a large actor, have trajedy of the commons problems, have a natural monopoly, market failure, actually, read my earlier post.

      Why do you believe it is alright to steal others' productivity (aka money) simply because you have this belief that the government can do it better?

      The answers are many. First I contend it is not stealing. As I mentioned earlier, all libertarians concede there is some need for taxation, so there cannot be a moral distinction. Property is granted by the government (your wages are only worth anything because the governement doesn't produce trillions of dollars and spend it as opposed to taxing you a small degree). Aside from the money supply, the government is the arbiter of who gets what property. And, I would say an easy case could be made that taxes are a natural entropy on your wealth.

      Leaving aside why I won't think you have any right not to have your money taken, there are good reasons to take your money. The veil of ignornace, which states part of the governement's job is to lift up people who got the shaft through bad luck makes me feel okay about it, as 'better' does not just include efficency, but also fairness (who wants to live in a country where black people are denied fire department protection?) The other is that the government is often more efficent. They lack marketing budgets, etc. Medicare spends an order of magnitude less (according to the numbers that most favor your position) on administrative costs than private insurers.

      What's worst of all is that social security simply involves setting aside a portion of your earnings for retirement. But because of how the government works, you are actually giving your money to the currently retired and getting an IOU in return

      That's a fairly new way of looking at Social Security. The first person to recieve Social Security was an 87-year-old woman who never paid into the system. It's not a retirement plan, else you would be correct that you could get better returns elsewhere. It's a caring for the elderly/disabled plan. There is no IOU (well, the government borrows the surplus from the social security trust, but that's a different story.) If the government cancelled social secuirty tomorrow there would be no promise broken.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  34. Where do you stand on drugs? by TarpitSerpent3270 · · Score: 1

    Steve, do you support the legalization of any drugs, or all drugs? What about decriminalization? Thank you for your availability today.

  35. Digital piracy? by pdxprogress · · Score: 1

    What is your stance on digital piracy?

  36. not the only major candidate with their own beer by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    Sorry to break it to you, but he's not the only major candidate running this year to have his own brand of beer. A brewery in Kenya, home of Barack Obama's father, is brewing Obama Beer.

  37. Water infrastructure? by bbasgen · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Infrastructure is failing in various parts of our civil society, while we also have droughts throughout the country that will continue to persist if not worsen. Oregon experiences its share of both of these important issues.

      I'm curious if you have considered a national water infrastructure? It would certainly be difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Is long term planning no longer viable in our modern political climate? Like so many other issues such as national debt, corporate greed, and the environment: is short-term expediency too powerful a force to overcome? Is it even conceivable in the modern political landscape for audacious projects to occur, such as the interstate system for water?

  38. Re:not the only major candidate with their own bee by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    Darn it, if we had a few more candidates, we could have hell of a drinking game!

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  39. You may be for the little guy... by mi · · Score: 1

    But will you ever be even-handed?

    Have you ever considered becoming an economist?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  40. Will you uphold the Law? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Dear Mr. Novick:

    The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Will you uphold the Law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Mr. Novick:

      The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?


      I'm sorry, but that's going on your permanent record.

    2. Re:Will you uphold the Law? by grishnav · · Score: 1

      Ironic that should come up, as I was just arrested for "intercepting" my conversation between myself and a friendly police officer...

  41. I volunteer. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    My question: How can I help your campaign?

    I'm a registered Democrat in Portland, Oregon. I have professional editing experience. I have advertising copywriting experience. Obviously, since I'm on Slashdot, I have plenty experience with computer technology. Other sciences, too. I'm comfortable meeting and talking with groups of people. If there is any interest in my helping, reply or write to my email address above.

  42. Interesting turn by greenies on Nuke power by spineboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many Greepeace activists are now in FAVOR of nuclear power - because it's less polluting than coal or oil. Doesn't screw up the environment like giant hydro-electric dams either.

    As far as what to do with the nuke waste - we do have a state called Nevada It's almost the size of California, but with only 2.6 million residents, with 85% of them living in Reno or Vegas. It's dry, so little worry about run off. I've driven thru it many times - there really isn't much out there at all, so even a 100 square miles is easily spared. Heck - Nevada could even make money off it, by charging for it.
    Am I "dumping" on Nevada? No...Every state has some resource that other states don't. Some have prairies/plains that are good for crops, some have coasts good for fishing. Nevada has wide open desolate space, and that's a resource for holding/containing things.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  43. Economic policy and teh "defense" budget by NoSelf · · Score: 1

    As the US economy heads into a recession and the dollar falls like a rock against the Euro and other currencies, what's your position on the size of the defense and national security budgets compared to our national investments in science & technology research, health care, education, and (domestic) economic development? Would you be willing to take a stand on freezing the defense & national security budgets and reallocating them more sensibly? Would you be willing to go so far as to call for a reduction in overall defense spending in order to achieve energy independence?

  44. intriguingly alluring by nguy · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the X-Files:

    NUTT: Not all woman are attracted to overly tall, lanky men such as yourself. You'd be surprised how many women find my size intriguingly alluring.

    MULDER: And you'd be surprised how many men do as well.

    (I figure this is OK, since he is using his size in his campaign :-)

  45. Campaign slogan? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

    Would a campaign slogan consisting of "One of us! One of us! One of us!" reach its target market of voters effectively?

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  46. Drugs. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2

    would you support legalization of any/all drugs?
    If not how can you justify the 'war on drugs', and do you believe that people should be protected from their own stupidity by laws instead of information?
    If you will which drugs? and how would you defend yourself against the claims that this would create more drug addicts?

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  47. Education in Oregon by jd · · Score: 1
    Oregon has a disasterous reputation when it comes to education. State schools are not doing well and the department of education at the state level has a reputation for being gridlocked. Whether or not this reflects events on the ground, it hurts Oregon to be seen this way. It hurts the migration of business in, it hurts those who are already in Oregon, and it depresses those entering or in the system. I've lived in Oregon for many years now and have yet to hear a single good word about the schools here. To the extent that it is true, it's far from necessary. Oregon has some of the brightest people in the world, has an amazing reputation for creativity and expression, and has all the natural, historic and modern resources a teacher could possibly want for any art, science or social science class you could imagine.

    What would - or, indeed, could - you do to improve the reputation and quality of Oregon schools, to produce the kind of skilled yet generalized mind so badly needed?

    Contextual Information: Oregon could - and should - be one of the leading States in America in education and should be regarded in much the same way as the Oxbridge or former JMB regions in England are - centres of excellence. The old JMB region (which covered five educational districts in the northwest of England) is probably the closer of the two - they are roughly from the same era, the industries past and present are roughly the same, and the resources available are comparable. There, the comparison seems to end. The Universities in Cheshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire are ranked amongst the best in the world. The schools are generally highly regarded and the state-run schools are considered comparable with the old grammar (ie: private) schools. Not equal, in terms of intake - the grammar schools are very select - but certainly comparable in terms of what they do with who they take. Even if the only real difference between them and Oregon's system was on of image and attitude, Oregon's system is broken and theirs isn't. The fix exists, apply it.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  48. Health care by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    . I will be an outspoken fighter in the Senate for comprehensive national health reform. I want to make sure everyone has affordable health care, and that means doing the hard work of addressing the complex web of factors that drives up costs.

    Many democrats now support socialized health care as reform. Would you vote for or against Senator Clinton's national health care bill?
  49. Re:Running for Office by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    When are you running for President? We need someone with a sense of humour in office.

    What's this "we" shit? You're British! But don't feel bad, as I live in Ill inois instead of Oreogon I can't vote him into the Senate either.

    However, if I was rich I could buy the sucker, and it would be legal, thanks to our insane laws that allow bribery as long as you bribe both major party candidates before the election and call your bribes "campaign contributions".

    If I was Bill Gates I wouldn't even bother voting. I would have no need to!

    -mcgrew
    (The McGrew on this page is an imposter. He doesn't even have the first name spelled right, the illiterate buffoon! It's spelled like the guy in the bible that got stoned.)

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  50. A simple list. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1, Troll
    1. When do you want to see all USA troops removed from Iraq. If window > 12 months, WHY?

    2. Will you introduce or back a bill to immediately restore habeus corpus? If not, WHY?

    3. Will you seek to imprison or support the imprisonment of the Bush Junta for their obvious war crimes? If not, WHY NOT?

    4. Will you introduce or back a national adoption of the International Depletion Protocol, as developed by Prof. Heinberg of California? If not, WHY NOT?

    5. Will you introduce a bill or support a bill that bans practices such as extreme rendition and waterboarding? If not, WHY NOT?

    6. Will you support the prosecution of those responsible for the practice of extreme rendition and waterboarding? If not, WHY NOT?

    7. Will you introduce or support a bill that will close American military bases outside the USA? If not, WHY NOT?

    8. Do you repudiate american imperialism? If not, why not?

    9. Will you introduce or support a bill that reinstitutes a graduated income tax that will actually force the rich to pay a larger percentage of their wealth than the working middle class? If not, WHY NOT?

    10. Will you introduce or support a bill that reduces military expenditure by at least 50% over the next 4 years? If not, WHY NOT?

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:A simple list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . like the one who modded this fucktard "Interesting?" If not, WHY NOT?

    2. Re:A simple list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. Will you eventually climb down out of Ron Paul's ass? If not, WHY NOT?
  51. His own beer brand? by ivoras · · Score: 1

    What's it called, "Brawndo"? Is it full of electrolytes?

    --
    -- Sig down
  52. Re:not the only major candidate with their own bee by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Sorry to break it to you, but he's not the only major candidate running this year to have his own brand of beer. A brewery in Kenya, home of Barack Obama's father, is brewing Obama Beer [observer.com].

    Obama isn't running for the Senate, he's already a Senator running for President. But ok, he's running. Steve Novick is the only candidate with his own brand of beer that doesn't have a hate filled racist preacher!

    A white man voting for Obama is like a black man voting for a candidate whose preacher is in the KKK. I've been to his church's web site, its fugly and by that I'm talking about the rhetoric, not the looks. Racism is wrong no matter what your race. I don't see how his preacher can even call himself a Christian. There should not be any such thing as a "black church" or a "white church". If everyone in your church's congregation is the same color, maybe you should join a Christian church!

    -mcgrew

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  53. School closure leading to success... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I would like to hear how much you think the closure of your school, and thus your removal from public education, lead to your success in life.

    1. Re:School closure leading to success... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If his publick skewl was like my publick skeool then he prahbably did arright.

      Seriously, my public school chose to single out people, and not read their own policies.
      Then if we could get them to read a policy in front of my parents, it was "well, that doesn't apply to this situation..." Luckily the board listened.

      Public education needs some assistance, and not just inner city. Accross the board reviews need to be made. Not sure how it is in Oregon, but up here in WA I could cite for days various injustices that I witnessed, or expierienced. There were one or two teachers who really made a difference in my life, vs. the rest who did their best to keep things at the status quo.

      I may be Jaded, and such can't accurately review.

      How many bruises does a kid need before someone does something? How many signs of drug abuse must a teacher see before parents are contacted? How many times does one kid get singled out accused for something they were not involved in? Why, when someone decides to turn around their life, do they get pushed down? How come extreme success is rewarded, and mediocrity and failure ignored? Or vice versa? Why does special needs attention only go to mentally handicapped? How come competent mentally handicapped people can't be recognized for their success? Or are ridiculed due to a relation? Why don't we have a system for picking up on patterns accross educational years instead of within years? "How can 5% of the student population cause 95% of student problems?"
      If I can't spin my horror stories into others success what was the point of this life? My experiences left me bitter about public education, interestingly enough, I am considering teaching as a career for when I retire, and or administration.

      Which leads me to another issue, how can an average, uneducated man make more money per hour worked than a teacher? (otherwise I'd teach now, and retire into a computer career)

      Teaching is so rewarding on many levels, but they have to eat too. They have desires to travel, have a fancy dinner, buy a gift for their signifigant other, have children, and own a home just like the rest of us.

      The only way my children (not born yet...) will go to public school is if I am somehow unable to work for long periods of time, and my portfolio decides to tank during the same period. I'll ride a bike to work in the snow, and sacrifice any unneeded luxuries (except my coffee...) to ensure that they are treated with kindness and wonder, and that their education will have them performing where they want to be instead of where they have to be.

      No child left behind? How about "Opportunity for every child"

  54. Why don't you hire a proof reader for your site? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "Even TIME magazine recently did an expose on the boondoggle known as the V-22 Osprey.on the boondoggle known as the V-22 Osprey. "

    *Cough*I'm just sayin'.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  55. nothing out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You realize what is directly underneath and adjacent to the proposed nuke waste storage facility? The largest aquifer in the west.

  56. Equal Time by AlHunt · · Score: 1

    The house is not without it's own lunatic fringe.

    Professor John Frary http://www.fraryforcongress.com/ has thrown his hat into the ring and his dignity to the wind in an effort to unseat long-time democrat Mike Michaud.

    --
    1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  57. As an Oregon voter, let me amplify that: by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Okay Mr. Novick, I have a specific instance for you as an example:

    About 20 years back, Josephine County (Grants Pass, et al) got a massive infusion of cash in repayment for gov't-enforced restricted logging rights in their area. During this period of time, IIRC they spent it like drunken Sailors on Leave (e.g., they pretty much poured it into programs which has nothing to do with stimulating industries that didn't involve cutting down trees).

    The payments timed out last year, and now the county government is in full-on panic mode. They simply have no cash available to keep feeding all the expansions they poured the dough into all this time, and are even in a crunch as to funding basic services. Some towns in the Northern end of the county are even considering changing their incorporation so that they become members of the county to their north.

    So... if (okay, when) they come screaming to you for a return of federal funding to help dig them out of their (IMHO self-created) multi-hundred-million-dollar mess, what will you do? Tough Love, Open the floodgates, what? (and if there is any money going that way, please stipulate some sort of money-management controls for the idiots running the show down that way...?)

    /P (who lives in Portland, but have relatives living down that way)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:As an Oregon voter, let me amplify that: by Curien · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea.

      They should get a massive loan from JP Morgan to keep themselves solvent. The bank wouldn't normally want to do this, of course, so have the Federal Reserve (read: the taxpayers) hold the collateral (read: bear all the risk).

      Remember, that wouldn't be a "bail-out" but sound economic policy. We can't have all the counties going bankrupt like dominoes.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
  58. Re:Why don't you hire a proof reader for your site by SteveNovick · · Score: 1

    Thanks, geekoid. The typo has been fixed, and in the spirit of the Bush Administration, the person responsible has been given a raise and promotion.

  59. Re:Most quirky? I dunno... by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 1

    Novick is quirky yes, bat-shit loco he's not. He is a highly intelligent, humorous, and all around nice guy with a lot of great ideas. He is a hard working guy that is very approachable. Like his campaign ad says, he really is a guy you'd like to have a beer with. Jones may have been insane, but other than the blue skin he wasn't that different than some of the other nuts like Conrad Burns, Dennis Rehberg and Judy Martz. Jones was always entertaining at debates. I think he sometimes forgot where he was. Rehberg is intelligent but just a completely evil jerk. Burns is simply a total dumb redneck much like W. I moved to Oregon from Montana 2 years ago. I now work for an organization that has endorsed Novick.

  60. Beyond Global Warming by headwes · · Score: 0

    Aside from global warming, what are your major environmental priorities and what remedies will you seek as Senator to address them?

  61. Will the real Steve Novick please stand up? by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    I see that this Slashdot account started posting today, just after this "Ask Slashdot" question was posted.

    Slashdot has a process for 'verifying' certain 'celebrity' names to make certain that someone posting as a certain name is actually that person. In addition, the "Ask Slashdot" style is that they collect up the highest rated and/or best questions, then present them to the subject 'offline', for 'offline' answer. They don't expect the subject to actually reply in-thread.

    So what I'm really asking is that if you (Slashdot user "SteveNovick", user number 1258404,) are really the Oregon Senate candidate Steve Novick, please go through 'proper channels' so that we know that your posts really are you. (In addition, if this account is "official", I would like to know if it is candidate Novick himself, or a staffer, that is posting these answers.)

    (P.S. I'm an Oregon Democrat, and from what I have seen, it is almost guaranteed that I will vote for you.)

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
    1. Re:Will the real Steve Novick please stand up? by SteveNovick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, this is the real Steve Novick. Thanks for the feedback--I was starting to feel like I was drinking from a firehose anyway. We're back in contact with the moderator and he is going to run things properly from here on out.

    2. Re:Will the real Steve Novick please stand up? by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was a bit surprised to suddenly see an answer to one of my questions! ...if he's actually slogging through /. I'll give him bonus points for that! I don't think most politicos even know anything beyond email...maybe.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    3. Re:Will the real Steve Novick please stand up? by penguin_dance · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks for the feedback--I was starting to feel like I was drinking from a firehose anyway.

      Funny...we have one of those here too! :)

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  62. OT: signature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they gave an orgy and nobody came? It would be proof positive my Congressman's invitation got lost in the mail.
  63. It all depends on how you amortize your costs by why-is-it · · Score: 1

    f elected as Senator for Oregon, how hard would you push for environmental action? You seem to promote fiscal responsibility and I find these two topics to have interesting relationships to each other.

    Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...

    Seriously though, I see the two as inherently compatible. It all depends on how you calculate costs and the timeframe you are concerned with.

    Looking ahead to the future, environmental responsibility offers long-term benefits, but few (if any) short-term benefits. The costs however, must be borne up front and will diminish over time. On the other hand, in the immediate short-term, there is no business case for any kind of environmental responsibility. Of course, there is no business case for any kind of intermediate-term or long-term behavior that does not offer immediate gratification either.

    A better way to look at the situation is to compare the intermediate-term and long-term costs of our short-term choices. My belief is that it will be much more expensive in the future if we continue to not pay the true economic costs of our collective lifestyles. Gasoline for example, is dirt cheap compared to other staples we purchase on a regular basis. The artificial subsidy of gasoline drives other decisions (what kind of car we drive, where we live, what we do in our spare time) that affect our behaviour largely because we do not have to pay for the real costs or consequences of our actions. Unfortunately, since those costs will be borne in the future, it is difficult to persuade people to alter their short-term behaviour.

    We should not look to politicians for leadership in these matters. Politicians pander to today's voters. The people in the future who will pay the price for the choices we make today aren't voting in this election, so their interests will not be represented.

    The business case for environmental responsibility is that it will be more expensive in the long-term if we do not make any changes to our current behaviour. The easiest way to modify the behaviour of people and corporations is to use taxation. We should heavily tax behaviour we want to discourage, and provide incentives for behaviour we want to encourage. That way, even those people who only care about immediate short-term advantages will behave in ways that offer medium-term and long-term benefits.

    If you care to further elaborate, I'm also interested in how fiscal responsibility can be maintained in addition to your pledge to reform healthcare.

    How about the fact that public health care in the other G8 nations costs less per-capita than it does in the US, and all of their citizens have coverage? It seems to me that fiscal responsibility demands public health care, rather than opposes it.

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    1. Re:It all depends on how you amortize your costs by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      And all the people who need important surgeries and shit done NOW come to the US to get it done cause otherwise they would die waiting for their surgery/needstogetdonenow shit.

    2. Re:It all depends on how you amortize your costs by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      And all the people who need important surgeries and shit done NOW come to the US to get it done cause otherwise they would die waiting for their surgery/needstogetdonenow shit.

      And you point is?

      What do poor americans who have no health coverage do?

      Do you care about what happens to them?

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    3. Re:It all depends on how you amortize your costs by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Get real jobs and either get insurance through work or start shelling out the ~150-200 a month it costs to get it on your own. There is NO REASON not to have a job in this country if you are anything less than a quadriplegic, and even then you can still get one. There is always work, it's just a matter of being willing to do it, and knowing about it. If these people are too lazy to get real jobs or to even look around for other/better jobs than they have now, then no, I don't give a fuck. That's their choice, it's not my job to take care of someone who can't take care of themself.

    4. Re:It all depends on how you amortize your costs by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      I don't give a fuck. That's their choice, it's not my job to take care of someone who can't take care of themself.

      Fair enough, you don't care about what happens to other people.

      I just don't understand how your perceived self-interest leads you to conclude that you are better off with the current state of health care in the US. The publicly funded health care systems in Europe and Canada have been shown to be more cost effective than the alternative. Better still, WHO metrics indicate that they provide better service.

      Yes, people with money do visit the US to jump the queue for elective medical procedures, but you don't see very many of those people permanently relocate...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    5. Re:It all depends on how you amortize your costs by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      I do care what happens to other people, but when my money is taken from me at the tip of a gun to take care of people who can't even handle getting a job I get pissed.

    6. Re:It all depends on how you amortize your costs by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I actually don't mind my money being taxed away to help the poor. I mind my money being taxed away to make the rich even richer or more powerful.

      Sure some of the poor are stupid and/or lazy, but you know when stupid people get desperate they might do really stupid things like kill you just so they can eat or afford medical treatment or drugs.

      In Indonesia you often have riots, one of the factors is the poor there really have nothing much to lose. When your odds of survival from day to day aren't that high in the first place, you stop caring so much even if the cops threaten to shoot you for rioting. "Breads and circuses" does work - if they know their stomachs will be filled every day, things will be safer for everyone.

      Rich countries (or countries with extensive lines of credit like the USA ;) ) can afford to keep their poor alive[1].

      Apparently the USA spends USD200 million a day in Iraq. Assuming 10% of the USA are poor, keeping 30 million US poor alive with USD6/day each is difficult, but I wouldn't say it's impossible. It's more than what many people in poorer countries get for wages but the USA is more expensive to live in.

      I wouldn't mind paying my equivalent (I don't live in the USA) of USD0.70/ day (90% pay for 10%) just to reduce the "desperate crime" rates significantly. Heck I'm sure the top 10% rich in the USA can afford to pay more, not that they'd want to.

      [1] Excluding very expensive therapies - I think there has to be a point where people must be considered "beyond economical repair by the State" then it's up to themselves and others. Because as technology improves I forsee more and more ultra-expensive treatments appearing.

      --
    7. Re:It all depends on how you amortize your costs by CTilluma · · Score: 1

      Get real jobs and either get insurance through work or start shelling out the ~150-200 a month it costs to get it on your own. Some people do work real jobs and can not afford health insurance. Even the low end you are giving of 150-200 a month (it's closer to 300-500 a month in my area) is difficult when you are earning $10 a hour (far higher than the minimum wage). Even before any taxes are applied (sales, income (state and federal), FICA, etc...) that leaves $1600 a month. Knocking off $200 from that doesn't leave much - especially in an area where a single room can cost between $500 and $1000 a month.
  64. Must... Resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the sound of one hand clapping?

  65. The forgotten 5% by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    There's a rampant discrimination against short men everywhere in the world as well as in the USA. The consequences are visible both at the workplace as well as in social situations and in everyday (non-social) life. No politician really cares to do anything to change this deep-rooted discrimination - one where you shouldn't mention it because "it's funny" or it makes you look bad. Since you are definitely a short person, will you do something about it? Or will you actually NOT do anything because it's a cause better fought for by the tall?

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:The forgotten 5% by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      Wow. Have issues much? Maybe instead of a booster chair you should pay for some therapy there, lil fella.

    2. Re:The forgotten 5% by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Wow. Have issues much? Maybe instead of a booster chair you should pay for some therapy there, lil fella. This post of yours illustrates exactly and clearly what I was talking about.
      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:The forgotten 5% by willllllllllll · · Score: 1

      So little men really ARE touchy. And I thought that was just a baseless prejudice!

    4. Re:The forgotten 5% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You sure cut him down to size Paranatural. I bet you feel mighty good about yourself. But thank you for providing a fine example of a typical heightist jerk. Maybe you need some education, lil brain.

  66. Copyright Law by Mawginty · · Score: 1

    In 1994 Congress passed the anti-bootlegging provisions, and 18 U.S.C. s. 2319A, that give perpetual, and retroactive, protection to unauthorized recordings of live musical performances. In 1998 Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which lengthened the copyright term from the life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years; the average copyright term is now longer than one human lifetime all but obliterating the usefulness of a "public domain." (As a point of reference the original copyright term in the first American copyright act was at most 28 years.) The statutory damages which accrue per instance of copyright infringement (up to $150,000) far exceeds actual damages in most cases. Thus, infringers who copy 50 songs which would have cost them $50 dollars on iTunes, or even $1000 in traditional CD format, end up owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

    Is a more balanced, public domain friendly copyright law on your agenda?

  67. Huh? by iknownuttin · · Score: 1

    What? I was just saying that's the politics in Oregon. Stop projecting on me ... "Dude".

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:Huh? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And I'm just saying that it your/their problem. The rest of the country doesn't owe anything. Didn't you claim that he needed to start carving the pork up because the rest of the country owed them?

  68. Bringing high-tech employers to non-Portland areas by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mr. Novick,

    First, I work for a large software company that has a significant operation some distance away from Portland. But, they are one of the only high-tech companies in the area. With the thinly veiled threat of outsourcing and off shoring, what are you going to do to bring more high-tech jobs to areas in the state that are not the Portland metro area? The economic benefits of bringing highly-skilled and highly-paid workers to the rest of Oregon should be obvious.

    Second, did you know that on the eastern side of the Cascades there is actually more of Oregon besides ski resorts and their associated towns? It always seems that people (and politicians) who live in the western portion of the state think that Idaho begins just on the eastern side of Bend and Sunriver - I was wondering if you knew about the rest of it, unlike the governor and most of the other state Democrats.

    Finally, can you do something about all of the Californians moving here? :)

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  69. Re:Bringing high-tech employers to non-Portland ar by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
    High-tech companies need a pool of skilled workers; that is why most tech companies are located near a major university and why the famed Sand Hill venture capital firms are located literally across the street from Stanford University. (Grass Valley Group was an exception to this rule.) So it would only make since to encourage tech companies in Corvalis and Eugene. Corvalis already has some tech; HP has been there forever and the nanotechnology initiative is located there. I'm not familiar with Eugene, but I'm sure there must be some tech companies in Eugene as well. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to try to encourage more companies to locate in these towns. And given the high cost of doing business in Seattle or the Bay Area, they certainly have incentive to to relocate. The best way to encourage growth is to make sure University of Oregon and Oregon State University turn out a steady stream of world-class engineers to work in these companies. This means the education system from preschool onward needs to focus on educating students at each students optimal learning rate to prepare them for tech careers.

    Tech companies also need to be reasonably close to an international airport. Seattle has Sea-Tac; Portland/Vancouver has PDX (and Beaverton/Hillsboro has Hillsboro Airport), and the Silicone Valley has both San Francisco and San Jose airports. So you would probably also want to improve the transportation infrastructure in these college towns as well.

    Finally, tech companies need a source of capital. This should come from private, not public, investment, but I am sure there are things the government can do to encourage investment in these areas.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  70. Not a question by terrymr · · Score: 1

    This isn't a question - but that beer opening ad should have played during the superbowl.

  71. ok that blue guy is quirky by holiemolio · · Score: 1

    thank you for turning me onto that little jewel of political trivia

  72. Re:Why don't you hire a proof reader for your site by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

    Thanks, geekoid. The typo has been fixed, and in the spirit of the Bush Administration, the person responsible has been given a raise and promotion. Just like a politician to give the person who fixed it a raise and a promotion and not the person that found and identified the problem.
  73. Re:Why don't you hire a proof reader for your site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoooooosh...

  74. Re:Why don't you hire a proof reader for your site by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

    whoooooosh... Yeah, I totally deadpanned that one too. Pretty easy to do on text.
  75. Re:Why don't you hire a proof reader for your site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fair enough, but your first clue should've been when he mentionned the Bush administration ;)

  76. Re:Why don't you hire a proof reader for your site by sethawoolley · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, but your first clue should've been when he mentionned the Bush administration ;) I was making a joke on his joke by interpreting his post literally as if the most recent antecedent of his pronoun (which he meant to refer to the typo creator, the second antecedent) was accurate (the most recent antecedent being the typo fixer).
  77. Re:not the only major candidate with their own bee by Copid · · Score: 1

    While we're at it, let's drum all of the crazy hate spewing preachers out of politics--including the ones whose boots the Republicans have to lick every election year. I thought that part of Obama's appeal was that he understood the set of people for whom a fringe religious lunatic is part of the standard entourage.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  78. Re:not the only major candidate with their own bee by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Amen to that!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  79. ... to reduce the "desperate crime" rates ... by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    You better start distributing free drugs on the street (no, not of medical kind)!

    At least in the US if I were poor and hungry, but still *reasonable*, I'd commit a crime of squatting on some remote land somewhere once (and grow myself some potatoes) rather than keep mugging people for $20 over and over again, risking being beaten up, or shot.

    Not to mention that there are many charities which seem to be able to come up with $6 per desperate person per day to feed them.

    Food is cheap. Illegal drugs on the street are (comparably) not, and this is what, I'd expect, most of the muggings are happening for.

    Paul B.