It's funny you put it that way. My fear has always been that one of them will actually be right, but we'll stop even bothering to disprove String Theorists long before we test his claims.
While that sounds like a real utopia, it won't work, and here's why: What are we going to call ourselves? North America and South America? We couldn't settle on names if our lives depended on it. And don't even think either side is willing to give up "America". Well, maybe Texas.
No "health care system" is going to be able to overcome the human propensity to make unhealthy lifestyle choices unless it forces people to bear the costs of those choices themselves.
You're absolutely right. The country that takes the least socialist approach, and places the burden for healthcare primarily on the individual, does have the best health, right? Oh, sorry, you're demonstrably wrong.... according to this here article! Not only does America have the worst healthcare of all of the developed nations, but we pay the most for it and the individual bears the most burden for his unhealthy choices. The result? We tend to make more unhealthy choices, be less active, and eat more shit than any other society on Earth.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with a profit-driven healthcare industry and a profit-driven food industry...
No "health care system" is going to be able to overcome the human propensity to make unhealthy lifestyle choices unless it forces people to bear the costs of those choices themselves.
I've never crossed into obesity.
i've never smoked
i've never drank excessively.
I was diagnosed with crohn's disease 11 years ago and have quickly degenerated after the insurance company dropped me and nobody will sell me a policy at ANY Price.
explain to me what lifestyle choice i bungled again?
You got sick, it's a lifestyle choice. Very similar, in fact, to catching the Gay Virus. Of course, it's possible that you were already gay. If so, God punished you for being gay with Crohn's disease. Come to think of it, that's probably why your insurance dropped you. They don't cover acts of God, sorry.
---
I've gotta drop the act for a minute to say a few things. First, I'm sorry to hear about your condition. It's not a laughing matter, but thank you for coming out and speaking the truth. If millions more Americans would do the same, we could end this bogus debate over night. Lastly, I'm sorry we live in a world where this is even debatable. It's sad, it's sick, and it reminds me of the old biblical arguments for the morality of slavery. Clearly black people deserved it because they were born black.
The NHS is funded from taxes, and it spends more than £42bn every year - £779 for every person in the UK.
£779? That's $1,283 at present conversion rate. Care to guess how much the US pays? I'll give you a hint - I'm young, have no pre-existing conditions, and could pass a Class 1 flight physical. I can't get decent health insurance for $1,283/year... and that's insurance with co-pays and deductibles.
I heard Obama say that someone is already making the decisions about Grandma taking the pain pill or have the operation. Just that now it will be someone different. I can only assume that means the government. No thanks.
Funny how selective your hearing is. He said that "someone different" would be "the doctor".
Precisely, that's why I oppose mandatory health insurance. If they really, really don't want the government involved, they can buy insurance from unregulated companies instead of the government's pre-screened providers. And then they can deny any medical service that could be partially on the government's dime.
An alternative analysis of this would be that health insurance companies can further increase profit margins by encouraging subscribers to self-diagnosis, self-treat, and do their own research online. This can lead to many other problems in treatment, especially when a patient starts trying to nudge a doctor towards a particular diagnosis, but it's undoubtedly more profitable for the insurance companies.
A lot of companies have gone to the military model of allowing employees to workout during business hours. I'm also reminded of the old company baseball team and similar encouragement of group sports within companies. It's a model the military uses with great effect, and one I'd really love to see permeating our society.
Unfortunately, only large companies can really afford many of these and small businesses are a huge sector of our economy.
Thing is, it's *NOT* the job of the Federal Government to make sure that Johnny Dopehead has clean needles for his heroin, paid for with my money, or that Suzy Sleepsaround gets her abortions, child care, and syphillis shots paid for with my money. Where exactly in "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does supporting crack heads and sluts come into the picture?
When I see this self-righteous hatred, I know you're not nearly as good, or generous, as you claim to be... but you are absolutely right - sluts deserve to die from a disease that can be cured for next to nothing if detected and treated in the first or second stage.
But you don't go to the Federal Government and ask them to fix your bad decisions. That's not CHARITY. It's TYRANNY. Plain and simple. The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you're going to understand what made this country great in the first place.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know! Was it self-righteous indignation and contempt for those below them in society? That must've been it.
So all those well-educated people who are losing their homes are an illusion?
The prosperity of people corresponds very strongly with their educational level. Look it up. Well educated people are very likely to be well off. The fact that some lose their houses as a result of a sharp housing crisis and some bad financial decisions on their part doesn't change the overall trend.
So if everyone was well-educated, everyone would be prosperous? I think you're confusing cause and effect. It's not quite as direct as I'm sure you'll try to strawman it to be, but quite clearly well-educated people tend to come from well-educated and prosperous families. And, quite clearly, our economy couldn't afford to reward 300 million workers with PhDs, MDs, JDs, and MBAs the way it does currently.
All those unemployed people who aren't in jail don't have even a GED or owe their newfound poverty to a non-exstent drug habit?
Read up on causes of poverty in USA. Drugs and crime contribute enormously to poverty levels and public housing projects make the matter worse by putting such people into one place where their poor choices are reinforced by those around them.
Once again, I think you're falsely implying causation and extrapolating that to oversimplify the solution. If we just go into all of these areas and make them drug free, it won't instantly change the socioeconomic conditions. It probably won't change much of anything. The problem is far more complex than simply reducing drug use and bad choices. Certainly some people can lift themselves out of these conditions, but they are, as you said the exception to the rule.
Come on, this is a particularly poor example. Almost all single parent homes with young children are caused by irresponsible breeding followed by a divorce (if there ever was a marriage in the first place) and hardly any are caused by one parent dying.
I would argue a big "so what" here. Clearly more needs to be done to encourage responsible behavior, including birth control, sex education, and a culture that discourages people from having children before they are ready. But all too frequently the single parent (read: mother) didn't decide she didn't want any help raising the kid. Dad said "fuck you, I don't want that kid" and left. Yes, she should have used birth control, and I feel that she should have considered an abortion. Yes, he should've used a condom. But our best response, as a society, is to address the new problem: we have a ton of these children being raised in single family homes. We know if we don't take care of them, give them good educations and health care (the basics, people) that they will be more likely to do poorly in life, engage in criminal behavior, and be single parents themselves.
and what sort of insurance policy will they be able to buy at the minimum wage?
Not saying they shouldn't try to move up in life but even at minimum wage it is possible to afford health insurance. If their employer doesn't provide insurance (and many do), at a minimum wage we are talking about what, 2K/month. It's easy to find a decent policy for under $150/month.
Strawman. Even the most liberal of the plans that have been proposed involve some minimum payments by the insured. Obama hinted at a possible waiver system for, perhaps, the poorest 10%, demonstrating exceptional circumstances, etc. But I can assure you, if you think a $150/month plan for a man who's 45 years old and has some health problems is going to provide good coverage, you're living in fantasyland (unless there's already strong legislation in that state mandating minimum insurance levels and prices). A plan like that will have a high deductible, not cover OTC medication, not cover prescription drugs, not cover "experimental" procedures, not cover pre-existing conditions, not cover much of anything. Those plans are very likely t
You had me up until you started blaming everybody for being fat as if it were a simple matter of low willpower, and up until you claimed the gun death disparity was due to "better gun control". Unless, of course, you're talking about peoples' ability to refrain from killing each other. Canadians clearly win in that category, hands-down.
I'm really not in the mood to debate all the individual points, but I'd highly recommend The End of Overeating for a good start. I don't recommend it as a book for treating overeating, but I like the way he laid out why people overeat, and what the food industry does to encourage it. You're a smart guy, I know you know it's simpler than a simple matter of such a large portion of the population deciding they want to gorge themselves.
The worst thing we can do, in my opinion, is to demonize smokers and the obese. We need to bring them back into the circle, be supportive, and try to get them to change their ways. Not through direct government actions that will make them defensive, but as friends, family members, neighbors, and loved ones trying to help them. If we just continue to make them feel bad, they're going to continue to retreat and continue their downward spiral.
Trust me, people already know it's not socially acceptable to be fat.
Additionally, as is already well documented, sin taxes aren't enough to discourage people from overeating and they'll be just another tax that disproportionately affects poor people, exacerbating the situation we already have.
One of my banks, ING Direct, gave me a $1,000 overdraft credit line automatically at 7.5% APY, with no overdraft fees. Oh, and they're a responsible institution, so they didn't need any bailout money...
I used to be a Washington Mutual customer. You remember their "Free Checking!" and "No Fees" adds? Well, one day I deposited my paycheck and "withdrew" $100 of that. My balance before depositing my paycheck was under $100. I'm sure you can guess what they did. Since the check didn't "clear" the same day, it took me into overdraft, charged me ~$25 in overdraft fees. When I complained to customer service, they said it happened all the time - when I told them I would be switching banks, they refunded the fee. I did, of course, close that account.
Sometimes having a Doctor wave some lab reports in front of your face and saying your gonna die soon is enough to galvanize someone into taking care of themselves. I have a friend here in Canada who at 40 went for a checkup, got told he was a prime candidate for a heart attack any day. He changed his diet, slowed down on the work and started exercising. Next Doctor visit is more positive (nice to have feedback that your doing right). He's over 50 now and doing fine. Sometimes we need reminding of our mortally so we do take care of ourselves.
In America, we like to get those reminders from self-righteous assholes who think 45 million Americans don't deserve basic healthcare.
Also, we really, really like making money off of selling Cheetos to the poor.
DO you have some links to back that up? I did a google search for Bush removes reporter critical of him and got no hits stating that. I did however, find a lot of hits for Clinton and Obama. One reporter was even kicked off his tour bus during campaign coverage.
I'm not doubting what you say, I just want to see some creditable evidence of it. I think someone told you a lie or something.
Thanks for asking for a source, that's always a fair question. This one's actually been a real bitch for me to find - I remember it being more commonplace, and I distinctly remember hearing about specific instances when it was happening, but I've been having a hell of a time finding specifics.
The administration's news management has taken many forms, including banning New York Times reporters from Vice President Dick Cheney's campaign plane, cutting short press conferences held jointly with more loquacious foreign leaders, and holding a mere 17 solo press conferences as of December 20, far fewer than the 44 or 84 that Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, respectively, held at a comparable point during their administrations. One-on-one interviews are doled out selectively: Chen says the Los Angeles Times is one of the last major newspapers in the world that has not had an interview with President Bush. It's not personal; it's strategic. "This White House doesn't need California, has no use for California politically," says Chen, "so we carry no clout."
Another good example:
When Cheney went to a Washington, D.C., hospital in November complaining of shortness of breath, Hutcheson called the White House press office and was told he would have to talk to Mary Matalin, a former top aide to the vice president. He called her twice and had to leave messages. Hutcheson later saw a Fox News report that cited Matalin as a source, and as his deadline neared, he called the White House and Cheney's office again. "Sorry, can't help you," was the response.
If you're interested, I can probably dig up a lot more examples. I was probably wrong about how often access was revoked, but the evidence is most certainly there for intentionally limiting access.
It wouldn't be that bad if the US government didn't have contracts with Flickr and use their services as a means to communicate with the population. This is as unacceptable as if Bush used "only" Fox News to fulfill his communications and public disclosure requirements. Actually, it's a little worse because Fox news will discuss criticisms even if there seems to be a slant on it.
That's PRECISELY what Bush did. Members of the press who were not sufficiently friendly towards him had their access revoked. The difference here is that, under Bush, it was directly and overtly organized by his Press Secretary. The Bush Administration went out of its way to reward their most friendly and loyal reporters. Under Obama, it's being done indirectly, and apparently without the knowledge or input of anyone in the administration. How can you say that that is worse? Just because the government has contracts with them? Nearly every large company has government contracts! Is Obama now personally responsible for anything Caterpillar does?
Funny, my survival plan involves following somebody like you to his survival house and killing him once he shows me where everything is hidden.:)
Good luck finding someone smart enough to have a good contingency plan, yet dumb enough to show all his secret holdouts to a stranger. That's a fine line.:)
You're right, I'm going to need breasts and a sex change...
My PRS-500 (first Reader) accepts both SD and Memory Stick in the same slot. From what I remember, so did the PRS-505 and PRS-700.
I'm incredibly happy with my Reader. I bought the accidental damage coverage for ~$20, and got my screen replaced for free when I accidentally crushed the Reader. Battery lasts forever, store is pretty easy to use, and now hopefully they'll let me convert my old purchases to EPUB. It's looking up.
My only real complaint is that the charger is still huge. I'd like to see them standardize on something like mini-USB or the iPod connector. I'm sick of traveling with four chargers!
Not too thick a forest. You need to be able to see people approaching, and not provide assailants with cover within range. As ultranova points out, a typical residential house in an urban or suburban area is not defensible over the long term. My emergency plan involves a little place in the North Ga. mountains - limited approaches, fresh water, good hunting and arable land adjacent, and you can't find it unless you know how. Google Maps and Mapquest will both get you totally lost.
Funny, my survival plan involves following somebody like you to his survival house and killing him once he shows me where everything is hidden.:)
You mean army. The *army* might not read their FM's.
The Air Force has T.O.'s and I assure slashdot that we do in fact read them. There is work out there that is running/jumping/bang bang-stuff, and there is work out there that is "putting all 10,000 pieces of this engine back together within 0.0005" tolerances'.
So as an airman, I'd appreciate it if I didn't get lumped in with all of the army anecdotes. I respect the army but comparing the army to the marines to air force etc. would be like comparing soccer to baseball to football.
-b
You really think mechanics in the Army, Navy, and Marines don't have TOs? Let's take this one another step further... you think aviation mechanics outside of the military, or in foreign militaries, don't have TOs? You need to lay off the Kool-Aid, Airman.
I think it's fair to say there is truth on both sides of this. To begin with, in present American society highly intelligent people are less likely to see the military as a good option. I'm talking the top 10% here. This means there is some self-selection bias, as they rightly know they're more likely to do better (higher earnings potential, more mentally challenging job, more stable home environment) by going to the private sector.
In addition to the self-selection bias, the military actively screens based on aptitude as well. Recruits who score high on the ASVAB will be encouraged to take jobs that make better use of their skills. All branches actively push these people into jobs with harder requirements such as intel, linguist, EOD, air traffic control, nuclear, etc.
The few outliers who make it through all of these selection criteria are very likely to be encouraged by their superiors to consider becoming an officer or take a more challenging role. If they don't, they're likely to be able to rise through the enlisted ranks in short order, quickly becoming NCOs and Senior/Staff NCOs. This also takes them out of the grunt job and pushes them more into the kind of position that, well, writes manuals.
None of this is to say that the American soldier is dumber than the average American. Because of the cut-offs and selection criteria, the American soldier is, on average, brighter than the average American. But our top 2% in terms of IQ are highly unlikely to join the military and even less likely to serve as grunts. The military actively tries to keep the brightest from becoming grunts, and that's the smart thing for them to do. Frankly, I'd be worried if our system worked any other way.
--
As a quick aside, I should note that I'm sharply aware of the differences between different kinds of intelligences. It's difficult to have this conversation without generalizing and making some broad sweeps, but please note that I try to do it objectively and without any contempt.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't let it be "The Dark Force" and please don't let it be dark gravity... please, please, please!
It's funny you put it that way. My fear has always been that one of them will actually be right, but we'll stop even bothering to disprove String Theorists long before we test his claims.
Printed on the box it said "Made in USA"
They were talking about the box.
Actually, the box itself was made of 60% American pulpwood, and it was assembled in Mexico.
While that sounds like a real utopia, it won't work, and here's why: What are we going to call ourselves? North America and South America? We couldn't settle on names if our lives depended on it. And don't even think either side is willing to give up "America". Well, maybe Texas.
No "health care system" is going to be able to overcome the human propensity to make unhealthy lifestyle choices unless it forces people to bear the costs of those choices themselves.
You're absolutely right. The country that takes the least socialist approach, and places the burden for healthcare primarily on the individual, does have the best health, right? Oh, sorry, you're demonstrably wrong.... according to this here article! Not only does America have the worst healthcare of all of the developed nations, but we pay the most for it and the individual bears the most burden for his unhealthy choices. The result? We tend to make more unhealthy choices, be less active, and eat more shit than any other society on Earth.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with a profit-driven healthcare industry and a profit-driven food industry...
No "health care system" is going to be able to overcome the human propensity to make unhealthy lifestyle choices unless it forces people to bear the costs of those choices themselves.
I've never crossed into obesity.
i've never smoked
i've never drank excessively.
I was diagnosed with crohn's disease 11 years ago and have quickly degenerated after the insurance company dropped me and nobody will sell me a policy at ANY Price.
explain to me what lifestyle choice i bungled again?
You got sick, it's a lifestyle choice. Very similar, in fact, to catching the Gay Virus. Of course, it's possible that you were already gay. If so, God punished you for being gay with Crohn's disease. Come to think of it, that's probably why your insurance dropped you. They don't cover acts of God, sorry.
---
I've gotta drop the act for a minute to say a few things. First, I'm sorry to hear about your condition. It's not a laughing matter, but thank you for coming out and speaking the truth. If millions more Americans would do the same, we could end this bogus debate over night. Lastly, I'm sorry we live in a world where this is even debatable. It's sad, it's sick, and it reminds me of the old biblical arguments for the morality of slavery. Clearly black people deserved it because they were born black.
The NHS is funded from taxes, and it spends more than £42bn every year - £779 for every person in the UK.
£779? That's $1,283 at present conversion rate. Care to guess how much the US pays? I'll give you a hint - I'm young, have no pre-existing conditions, and could pass a Class 1 flight physical. I can't get decent health insurance for $1,283/year... and that's insurance with co-pays and deductibles.
I heard Obama say that someone is already making the decisions about Grandma taking the pain pill or have the operation. Just that now it will be someone different. I can only assume that means the government. No thanks.
Funny how selective your hearing is. He said that "someone different" would be "the doctor".
Precisely, that's why I oppose mandatory health insurance. If they really, really don't want the government involved, they can buy insurance from unregulated companies instead of the government's pre-screened providers. And then they can deny any medical service that could be partially on the government's dime.
An alternative analysis of this would be that health insurance companies can further increase profit margins by encouraging subscribers to self-diagnosis, self-treat, and do their own research online. This can lead to many other problems in treatment, especially when a patient starts trying to nudge a doctor towards a particular diagnosis, but it's undoubtedly more profitable for the insurance companies.
A lot of companies have gone to the military model of allowing employees to workout during business hours. I'm also reminded of the old company baseball team and similar encouragement of group sports within companies. It's a model the military uses with great effect, and one I'd really love to see permeating our society.
Unfortunately, only large companies can really afford many of these and small businesses are a huge sector of our economy.
Thing is, it's *NOT* the job of the Federal Government to make sure that Johnny Dopehead has clean needles for his heroin, paid for with my money, or that Suzy Sleepsaround gets her abortions, child care, and syphillis shots paid for with my money. Where exactly in "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does supporting crack heads and sluts come into the picture?
When I see this self-righteous hatred, I know you're not nearly as good, or generous, as you claim to be... but you are absolutely right - sluts deserve to die from a disease that can be cured for next to nothing if detected and treated in the first or second stage.
But you don't go to the Federal Government and ask them to fix your bad decisions. That's not CHARITY. It's TYRANNY. Plain and simple. The sooner you get that through your head, the sooner you're going to understand what made this country great in the first place.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know! Was it self-righteous indignation and contempt for those below them in society? That must've been it.
So all those well-educated people who are losing their homes are an illusion?
The prosperity of people corresponds very strongly with their educational level. Look it up. Well educated people are very likely to be well off. The fact that some lose their houses as a result of a sharp housing crisis and some bad financial decisions on their part doesn't change the overall trend.
So if everyone was well-educated, everyone would be prosperous? I think you're confusing cause and effect. It's not quite as direct as I'm sure you'll try to strawman it to be, but quite clearly well-educated people tend to come from well-educated and prosperous families. And, quite clearly, our economy couldn't afford to reward 300 million workers with PhDs, MDs, JDs, and MBAs the way it does currently.
All those unemployed people who aren't in jail don't have even a GED or owe their newfound poverty to a non-exstent drug habit?
Read up on causes of poverty in USA. Drugs and crime contribute enormously to poverty levels and public housing projects make the matter worse by putting such people into one place where their poor choices are reinforced by those around them.
Once again, I think you're falsely implying causation and extrapolating that to oversimplify the solution. If we just go into all of these areas and make them drug free, it won't instantly change the socioeconomic conditions. It probably won't change much of anything. The problem is far more complex than simply reducing drug use and bad choices. Certainly some people can lift themselves out of these conditions, but they are, as you said the exception to the rule.
Come on, this is a particularly poor example. Almost all single parent homes with young children are caused by irresponsible breeding followed by a divorce (if there ever was a marriage in the first place) and hardly any are caused by one parent dying.
I would argue a big "so what" here. Clearly more needs to be done to encourage responsible behavior, including birth control, sex education, and a culture that discourages people from having children before they are ready. But all too frequently the single parent (read: mother) didn't decide she didn't want any help raising the kid. Dad said "fuck you, I don't want that kid" and left. Yes, she should have used birth control, and I feel that she should have considered an abortion. Yes, he should've used a condom. But our best response, as a society, is to address the new problem: we have a ton of these children being raised in single family homes. We know if we don't take care of them, give them good educations and health care (the basics, people) that they will be more likely to do poorly in life, engage in criminal behavior, and be single parents themselves.
and what sort of insurance policy will they be able to buy at the minimum wage?
Not saying they shouldn't try to move up in life but even at minimum wage it is possible to afford health insurance. If their employer doesn't provide insurance (and many do), at a minimum wage we are talking about what, 2K/month. It's easy to find a decent policy for under $150/month.
Strawman. Even the most liberal of the plans that have been proposed involve some minimum payments by the insured. Obama hinted at a possible waiver system for, perhaps, the poorest 10%, demonstrating exceptional circumstances, etc. But I can assure you, if you think a $150/month plan for a man who's 45 years old and has some health problems is going to provide good coverage, you're living in fantasyland (unless there's already strong legislation in that state mandating minimum insurance levels and prices). A plan like that will have a high deductible, not cover OTC medication, not cover prescription drugs, not cover "experimental" procedures, not cover pre-existing conditions, not cover much of anything. Those plans are very likely t
You had me up until you started blaming everybody for being fat as if it were a simple matter of low willpower, and up until you claimed the gun death disparity was due to "better gun control". Unless, of course, you're talking about peoples' ability to refrain from killing each other. Canadians clearly win in that category, hands-down.
I'm really not in the mood to debate all the individual points, but I'd highly recommend The End of Overeating for a good start. I don't recommend it as a book for treating overeating, but I like the way he laid out why people overeat, and what the food industry does to encourage it. You're a smart guy, I know you know it's simpler than a simple matter of such a large portion of the population deciding they want to gorge themselves.
The worst thing we can do, in my opinion, is to demonize smokers and the obese. We need to bring them back into the circle, be supportive, and try to get them to change their ways. Not through direct government actions that will make them defensive, but as friends, family members, neighbors, and loved ones trying to help them. If we just continue to make them feel bad, they're going to continue to retreat and continue their downward spiral.
Trust me, people already know it's not socially acceptable to be fat.
Additionally, as is already well documented, sin taxes aren't enough to discourage people from overeating and they'll be just another tax that disproportionately affects poor people, exacerbating the situation we already have.
One of my banks, ING Direct, gave me a $1,000 overdraft credit line automatically at 7.5% APY, with no overdraft fees. Oh, and they're a responsible institution, so they didn't need any bailout money...
I used to be a Washington Mutual customer. You remember their "Free Checking!" and "No Fees" adds? Well, one day I deposited my paycheck and "withdrew" $100 of that. My balance before depositing my paycheck was under $100. I'm sure you can guess what they did. Since the check didn't "clear" the same day, it took me into overdraft, charged me ~$25 in overdraft fees. When I complained to customer service, they said it happened all the time - when I told them I would be switching banks, they refunded the fee. I did, of course, close that account.
Sometimes having a Doctor wave some lab reports in front of your face and saying your gonna die soon is enough to galvanize someone into taking care of themselves.
I have a friend here in Canada who at 40 went for a checkup, got told he was a prime candidate for a heart attack any day. He changed his diet, slowed down on the work and started exercising. Next Doctor visit is more positive (nice to have feedback that your doing right). He's over 50 now and doing fine.
Sometimes we need reminding of our mortally so we do take care of ourselves.
In America, we like to get those reminders from self-righteous assholes who think 45 million Americans don't deserve basic healthcare.
Also, we really, really like making money off of selling Cheetos to the poor.
DO you have some links to back that up? I did a google search for Bush removes reporter critical of him and got no hits stating that. I did however, find a lot of hits for Clinton and Obama. One reporter was even kicked off his tour bus during campaign coverage.
I'm not doubting what you say, I just want to see some creditable evidence of it. I think someone told you a lie or something.
Thanks for asking for a source, that's always a fair question. This one's actually been a real bitch for me to find - I remember it being more commonplace, and I distinctly remember hearing about specific instances when it was happening, but I've been having a hell of a time finding specifics.
American Journalism Review has a great article on the Bush administration's "press management". It seems they primarily denied access rather than revoking access, because revoking access would've caused more outrage.
A few key quotes:
The administration's news management has taken many forms, including banning New York Times reporters from Vice President Dick Cheney's campaign plane, cutting short press conferences held jointly with more loquacious foreign leaders, and holding a mere 17 solo press conferences as of December 20, far fewer than the 44 or 84 that Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, respectively, held at a comparable point during their administrations. One-on-one interviews are doled out selectively: Chen says the Los Angeles Times is one of the last major newspapers in the world that has not had an interview with President Bush. It's not personal; it's strategic. "This White House doesn't need California, has no use for California politically," says Chen, "so we carry no clout."
Another good example:
When Cheney went to a Washington, D.C., hospital in November complaining of shortness of breath, Hutcheson called the White House press office and was told he would have to talk to Mary Matalin, a former top aide to the vice president. He called her twice and had to leave messages. Hutcheson later saw a Fox News report that cited Matalin as a source, and as his deadline neared, he called the White House and Cheney's office again. "Sorry, can't help you," was the response.
If you're interested, I can probably dig up a lot more examples. I was probably wrong about how often access was revoked, but the evidence is most certainly there for intentionally limiting access.
It wouldn't be that bad if the US government didn't have contracts with Flickr and use their services as a means to communicate with the population. This is as unacceptable as if Bush used "only" Fox News to fulfill his communications and public disclosure requirements. Actually, it's a little worse because Fox news will discuss criticisms even if there seems to be a slant on it.
That's PRECISELY what Bush did. Members of the press who were not sufficiently friendly towards him had their access revoked. The difference here is that, under Bush, it was directly and overtly organized by his Press Secretary. The Bush Administration went out of its way to reward their most friendly and loyal reporters. Under Obama, it's being done indirectly, and apparently without the knowledge or input of anyone in the administration. How can you say that that is worse? Just because the government has contracts with them? Nearly every large company has government contracts! Is Obama now personally responsible for anything Caterpillar does?
In case people are too lazy to interpret the comment above, CK-12 has free books.
Funny, my survival plan involves following somebody like you to his survival house and killing him once he shows me where everything is hidden. :)
Good luck finding someone smart enough to have a good contingency plan, yet dumb enough to show all his secret holdouts to a stranger. That's a fine line. :)
You're right, I'm going to need breasts and a sex change...
My PRS-500 (first Reader) accepts both SD and Memory Stick in the same slot. From what I remember, so did the PRS-505 and PRS-700.
I'm incredibly happy with my Reader. I bought the accidental damage coverage for ~$20, and got my screen replaced for free when I accidentally crushed the Reader. Battery lasts forever, store is pretty easy to use, and now hopefully they'll let me convert my old purchases to EPUB. It's looking up.
My only real complaint is that the charger is still huge. I'd like to see them standardize on something like mini-USB or the iPod connector. I'm sick of traveling with four chargers!
Not too thick a forest. You need to be able to see people approaching, and not provide assailants with cover within range. As ultranova points out, a typical residential house in an urban or suburban area is not defensible over the long term. My emergency plan involves a little place in the North Ga. mountains - limited approaches, fresh water, good hunting and arable land adjacent, and you can't find it unless you know how. Google Maps and Mapquest will both get you totally lost.
Funny, my survival plan involves following somebody like you to his survival house and killing him once he shows me where everything is hidden. :)
You mean army. The *army* might not read their FM's.
The Air Force has T.O.'s and I assure slashdot that we do in fact read them. There is work out there that is running/jumping/bang bang-stuff, and there is work out there that is "putting all 10,000 pieces of this engine back together within 0.0005" tolerances'.
So as an airman, I'd appreciate it if I didn't get lumped in with all of the army anecdotes. I respect the army but comparing the army to the marines to air force etc. would be like comparing soccer to baseball to football.
-b
You really think mechanics in the Army, Navy, and Marines don't have TOs? Let's take this one another step further... you think aviation mechanics outside of the military, or in foreign militaries, don't have TOs? You need to lay off the Kool-Aid, Airman.
I think it's fair to say there is truth on both sides of this. To begin with, in present American society highly intelligent people are less likely to see the military as a good option. I'm talking the top 10% here. This means there is some self-selection bias, as they rightly know they're more likely to do better (higher earnings potential, more mentally challenging job, more stable home environment) by going to the private sector.
In addition to the self-selection bias, the military actively screens based on aptitude as well. Recruits who score high on the ASVAB will be encouraged to take jobs that make better use of their skills. All branches actively push these people into jobs with harder requirements such as intel, linguist, EOD, air traffic control, nuclear, etc.
The few outliers who make it through all of these selection criteria are very likely to be encouraged by their superiors to consider becoming an officer or take a more challenging role. If they don't, they're likely to be able to rise through the enlisted ranks in short order, quickly becoming NCOs and Senior/Staff NCOs. This also takes them out of the grunt job and pushes them more into the kind of position that, well, writes manuals.
None of this is to say that the American soldier is dumber than the average American. Because of the cut-offs and selection criteria, the American soldier is, on average, brighter than the average American. But our top 2% in terms of IQ are highly unlikely to join the military and even less likely to serve as grunts. The military actively tries to keep the brightest from becoming grunts, and that's the smart thing for them to do. Frankly, I'd be worried if our system worked any other way.
--
As a quick aside, I should note that I'm sharply aware of the differences between different kinds of intelligences. It's difficult to have this conversation without generalizing and making some broad sweeps, but please note that I try to do it objectively and without any contempt.
I couldn't agree more! It's ridiculous that it's gotten this insane, and that the average consumer doesn't know or care.
For ATM fees, though, I like to use USAA. They refund my ATM fees :D