I have heard statistics like these. I don't doubt their accuracy, but I wonder how much of it is related to the health-care system, and how much is related to the differing demographics of the US vs Canada. For example, does Canada have the same proportion of the population having out-of-wedlock babies as the US? I don't know. And what about low-income-housing, like the US? What about the proportion of the 2 countries that live in urban areas vs rural? These are good questions. The only problem with questions like these is that they can be seen as a smoke screen (they can also be used as a smoke screen). Of course, bare life expectancy statistics can be used as a smoke screen as well.
Thanks for your response. I knew when I posted that quote that it wasn't necessarily "the Truth," and I am always glad to get more info about it. Socialized health care is a big concern to me for several reasons, but I'm still not 100% convinced that it is as bad as I think it is (does that make any sense?).
Not really adressing your statement, but it reminds me:
"When I was young, my father had a serious heart attack. He survived, but we lost our house and car. Under the Canadian Medicare system, though, we would have kept the house and car and would have just had to pay the inheritance tax." -- Emo Philips
"The most fiscally irresponsible action the country has undertaken in the past 30 years."
But I thought that Bush was AGAINST nationalized health care!
No, seriously, you make a good point. I was trying to make the point, though, that Clinton wasn't doing it because he was fiscally responsible, but because he was being a punk to Congress.
I certainly do wish that Bush would veto something. This is making me sick. The Republican party used to be able to call itself the party of fiscal responsibility, but they are being very disappointing in that regard (to say the least).
"I long for the good old days of the Clinton Administration's fiscal responsibility."
I think the Clinton fiscal responsibility was largely an illusion created by the fact that congress hated his guts and wouldn't support any spending, and he vetoed down everything congress threw at him. Also, I hear the 'balanced budget' was due to slick bookkeeping.
We have sown the financial wind, we will reap the financial whirlwind.
Well, we have to achieve a balance between living in a police state and living in an anarchist state (apologies to all the anarcho-capitalists out there if I am abusing the word anarchist here). We collectively trade a little bit of our liberty for a little bit of security. We seem to have this choice forced upon us as the price of living in a civilized society. Yes, it puts us on a slippery slope, but it seems to be worth it (as long as we keep it under control).
I think the real question ought to be: how far is too far?
I think I agree, especially about the slippery slope. Here are my thoughts on it (I posted this elsewhere, but I'll try to summarize because it helps me think):
I think we can trust Bush to not take this any further than it is now. That may be naive of me, but there it is. That doesn't mean, though, that he should necessarily be doing it, because we are pretty much guaranteed to eventually get a president that I DON'T trust to not take it too far. This is one of the many reasons that increased government power is so often a bad thing.
That said, it's easy for us to say things like this, because we aren't the ones directly responsible for protecting the USA from terrorist attacks. I wonder what a better solution to the problem is...
I'm not a fan of this sort of spying, either, but let's not blow it out of proportion. They are not listening in on your phone calls (at least, not in this instance). It sounds like they are only scanning the records to see if patterns emerge.
Too much? Probably. The End Of Freedom As We Know It? Not quite.
"Bottom line, do you trust this Presidency to stay within the law governing privacy, search and seizure, and due process?"
Do you trust ANY presidency, should be the question. I think Bush is trying to do the right thing here, and I trust him to TRY to do the right thing. I don't think he's out to get us, but I do think he is setting it up so that another president (one I totally don't trust) can do bad things.
Before I get flamed for voting for Bush and for admitting that I think he's trying to do the right thing, let me point out that I never said that I believed that he is doing the right thing here, merely that I think he believes it to be the right thing.
It bothers me that sometimes stories like this one turn in to a Bush-bashing festival. I think the real danger is that it is not about Bush, but about power. Whether or not we think Bush is doing the right thing here, we have to consider that we will all eventually get a president we don't trust, and that president will inherit whatever powers Bush has taken for himself.
PVC is the way to go. I have been using PVC for irrigation since I was 12, and while aware of the problems (if that purple stuff gets in your clothes it ain't coming out), it's far better than the alternatives. We did some sprinklers for my granny, and we didn't use PVC, and it was a pain. PVC offers superior durability for a reasonable cost, and it is so easy to glue. The only drawbacks are flexibility and it's a pain in the butt to cut.
It's because people are so sick of Apple (or more enamored of it) that this is news here. People seem to be feeling stronger about Macs every day. Either they hate it more or love it more all the time. It's not Slashdot's fault if this story attracts a lot of posts.
I guess the moral is that Apple has so successfully built their image that there is no longer any such thing as a trivial Apple story.
"No. Theology is pretty much useless unless there is a God. One's belief in such will not make theology useful."
You may be right there.
As for Him doing it "for you," apparently He knew that future generations would also benefit from this. As for how it benefits you, that kind of seems like a bigger question. A theological question. I'm not trying to argue theology here, just maybe explain why everphilski wrote "for us" in his post. It seemed obvious to me: he believes it.
I guess you could say that all of those things have come at a price. We relinquish a lot of responsibility and freedom for all of these things. I like to think of public education as an example of this:
Parents send their kids to school, giving up a little control. The State takes this control, and expands it. Now parents MUST send their kids to school, or have a dang good excuse, or homeschool them. Is this fair? Can I ethically compel someone to send their kids to school? Can I compel dada21 to pay for my kid's education? Can I compel him to pay for the schooling of all my umpteen nieces and nephews? I have now siezed control over not only the parents of the nation (they MUST comply, or face the consequences), but those who may not have kids (they MUST pay, or face the consequences). We have now reduced the freedom of the parents, the neighbors, and the children. All for 'their own good.'
Before you all go beating up on me for dissing the public school system, I should tell you that I do believe in it. I teach 3rd grade. But everywhere I look I see more and more power going to the federal government and less and less to the parents and teachers (not to mention the students).
I think that's what is meant by unintended consequences. Like now we have people demanding that their children be taught about Intelligent Design! I don't think I want that taught in a science class, but if I live in Kansas, my kid is gonna get it whether I want it or not.
I sometimes feel like the bird trading his feathers to the fisherman for worms. Every day, he gives the fisherman a feather for a handful of worms. Small cost, good meal. He becomes the most well-fed bird in the land. Until one day the bird can't fly away anymore and the fisherman brings home a fat bird for dinner.
"...I would first like to know whether religion is true."
If you really want to know if it's true, there are ways to find out. Maybe some of us can point you in the right direction. You are right, though: theology is pretty much useless unless you believe in God first.
As for why he included "for us" in his post, I imagine that he believes that Jesus sacrificed himself for you as kind of a gift. You don't need to ask for it to get it. Plus, assuming that it is all true, you benefit from it whether you want it or not, to one degree or another.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
Then there's the exercise even older than that: the search for a superior moral justification for exercising dominion over another man.
That wasn't what I was trying to say. If I own a printing press, I am free to sell it or hire it out to anybody I wish, even an evil corporation. If I am a journalist, I am free to sell my soul or hire it out to anybody I wish. That's all I'm trying to say. I wasn't trying to comment on whether it's good or bad. I wish it were not the way it is, but I don't know how to stop it, short of regulating it, which would make it no longer free.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your response. I knew when I posted that quote that it wasn't necessarily "the Truth," and I am always glad to get more info about it. Socialized health care is a big concern to me for several reasons, but I'm still not 100% convinced that it is as bad as I think it is (does that make any sense?).
"We're sinking!"
"What are you sinking about?"
"I'd rather have our system than the free-for-all (aka ****-em-all) system of the USA, where you have to pay up or die on the sidewalk."
Then, immediately, you say:
"Now if only we could be a little more selective about WHO we treat for free; kick those welfare ***-kissers out!"
I apologize if I missed some sarcasm, but your statements don't seem to make any sense.
"When I was young, my father had a serious heart attack. He survived, but we lost our house and car. Under the Canadian Medicare system, though, we would have kept the house and car and would have just had to pay the inheritance tax." -- Emo Philips
But I thought that Bush was AGAINST nationalized health care!
No, seriously, you make a good point. I was trying to make the point, though, that Clinton wasn't doing it because he was fiscally responsible, but because he was being a punk to Congress.
I certainly do wish that Bush would veto something. This is making me sick. The Republican party used to be able to call itself the party of fiscal responsibility, but they are being very disappointing in that regard (to say the least).
Complete with links and everything.
Let me know what you think.
I think the Clinton fiscal responsibility was largely an illusion created by the fact that congress hated his guts and wouldn't support any spending, and he vetoed down everything congress threw at him. Also, I hear the 'balanced budget' was due to slick bookkeeping.
We have sown the financial wind, we will reap the financial whirlwind.
I hope everyone remembers how little they trust the government the next time a discussion starts about health care.
I wonder what his religion has to say about breaking the law.
I think the real question ought to be: how far is too far?
I think we can trust Bush to not take this any further than it is now. That may be naive of me, but there it is. That doesn't mean, though, that he should necessarily be doing it, because we are pretty much guaranteed to eventually get a president that I DON'T trust to not take it too far. This is one of the many reasons that increased government power is so often a bad thing.
That said, it's easy for us to say things like this, because we aren't the ones directly responsible for protecting the USA from terrorist attacks. I wonder what a better solution to the problem is...
Too much? Probably. The End Of Freedom As We Know It? Not quite.
Do you trust ANY presidency, should be the question. I think Bush is trying to do the right thing here, and I trust him to TRY to do the right thing. I don't think he's out to get us, but I do think he is setting it up so that another president (one I totally don't trust) can do bad things.
Before I get flamed for voting for Bush and for admitting that I think he's trying to do the right thing, let me point out that I never said that I believed that he is doing the right thing here, merely that I think he believes it to be the right thing.
It bothers me that sometimes stories like this one turn in to a Bush-bashing festival. I think the real danger is that it is not about Bush, but about power. Whether or not we think Bush is doing the right thing here, we have to consider that we will all eventually get a president we don't trust, and that president will inherit whatever powers Bush has taken for himself.
I made the mistake of replying without reading the background.
Perhaps, but then you wouldn't have any family responsibilities at all, no?
I think that family responsibilities dwarf all others.
PVC is the way to go. I have been using PVC for irrigation since I was 12, and while aware of the problems (if that purple stuff gets in your clothes it ain't coming out), it's far better than the alternatives. We did some sprinklers for my granny, and we didn't use PVC, and it was a pain. PVC offers superior durability for a reasonable cost, and it is so easy to glue. The only drawbacks are flexibility and it's a pain in the butt to cut.
I guess the moral is that Apple has so successfully built their image that there is no longer any such thing as a trivial Apple story.
You may be right there.
As for Him doing it "for you," apparently He knew that future generations would also benefit from this. As for how it benefits you, that kind of seems like a bigger question. A theological question. I'm not trying to argue theology here, just maybe explain why everphilski wrote "for us" in his post. It seemed obvious to me: he believes it.
Parents send their kids to school, giving up a little control. The State takes this control, and expands it. Now parents MUST send their kids to school, or have a dang good excuse, or homeschool them. Is this fair? Can I ethically compel someone to send their kids to school? Can I compel dada21 to pay for my kid's education? Can I compel him to pay for the schooling of all my umpteen nieces and nephews? I have now siezed control over not only the parents of the nation (they MUST comply, or face the consequences), but those who may not have kids (they MUST pay, or face the consequences). We have now reduced the freedom of the parents, the neighbors, and the children. All for 'their own good.' Before you all go beating up on me for dissing the public school system, I should tell you that I do believe in it. I teach 3rd grade. But everywhere I look I see more and more power going to the federal government and less and less to the parents and teachers (not to mention the students).
I think that's what is meant by unintended consequences. Like now we have people demanding that their children be taught about Intelligent Design! I don't think I want that taught in a science class, but if I live in Kansas, my kid is gonna get it whether I want it or not.
I sometimes feel like the bird trading his feathers to the fisherman for worms. Every day, he gives the fisherman a feather for a handful of worms. Small cost, good meal. He becomes the most well-fed bird in the land. Until one day the bird can't fly away anymore and the fisherman brings home a fat bird for dinner.
If you really want to know if it's true, there are ways to find out. Maybe some of us can point you in the right direction. You are right, though: theology is pretty much useless unless you believe in God first.
As for why he included "for us" in his post, I imagine that he believes that Jesus sacrificed himself for you as kind of a gift. You don't need to ask for it to get it. Plus, assuming that it is all true, you benefit from it whether you want it or not, to one degree or another.
Then there's the exercise even older than that: the search for a superior moral justification for exercising dominion over another man.
That's it EXACTLY!!!
That wasn't what I was trying to say. If I own a printing press, I am free to sell it or hire it out to anybody I wish, even an evil corporation. If I am a journalist, I am free to sell my soul or hire it out to anybody I wish. That's all I'm trying to say. I wasn't trying to comment on whether it's good or bad. I wish it were not the way it is, but I don't know how to stop it, short of regulating it, which would make it no longer free.
That's just it. It's being pushed almost like it's a religion.