iNow

Actually, it's a comparison, and it was me who made it, not Moo. Now THAT's a strawman.

And that has zero to do with the topic of this thread, dr.syntax.

Perhaps the issue you're not getting here is that the latter is a conclusion reached by the inability to accomplish the former. These are generally not people easily convinced by things like facts, evidence, and logical reasoning. In your statement is the tacit assumption that there is no discussion going on. I frequently change my opinions when convinced otherwise. Many American conservatives do not. And I think this is really the key point. Most of us have come to this conclusion AS A DIRECT RESULT OF trying, not INSTEAD of trying. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA very interesting article about exactly these points was put out this evening. A slightly chilling read, but worth your 3 or 4 minutes: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all. And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish settler as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did. Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination. <more at the link>

Well... That was helpful. I trust your suggestion now that you've supported it so well. Okay. Maybe I wasn't clear enough the first time. Let me be more specific, then. If it's worked for you, then super, but it won't work for everyone and it won't work for every problem. You bring this up in threads where it is completely unrelated. You are essentially spamming (you've now mentioned it in more than 14 posts), and that is what I was responding to. As an aside, I would presume that if the therapy were as effective as you claim then you would be a much calmer person more capable of dealing with people in social situations. It doesn't matter, though. You're proposing this idea of "primal therapy" for people having darted specks of light in their vision. Not only do you not know the root cause of their issue, but you are spamming an idea which will likely have zero impact on it (hint: it's physiological, not psychological).

I asked Edmond what his definition of race was. I did this for a reason. He did not answer. If the definition you provided is what he meant, then he still needs to supply evidence for his claims and how they tie into the aforementioned definition of race. Now, to more directly address your question, people who say "race" tend to imply skin color, and ignore the fact that there is tremendous genetic overlap, tremendous variance in backgrounds of people, and ignore how we are more often closer genetically with people of different skin colors than people with the same skin color as ourselves. It's a meaningless term... at least in the context of biology, which is the underlying theme of each of the OPs claims. I hope that has clarified. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/ramon2.html Vast new data in human biology have completely revamped the traditional notions of race. Race is a biological term that describes the DNA structure of an individual as a fixed attribute that cannot be changed. This idea is used in biology to discuss how different peoples adapt to environments and hence, making the term "race" have no scientific basis. Today most scientists reject the concept of race as a valid way of defining human beings. Researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in genes that people inherit from their ancestors. Genes vary, but not in the popular notion of black, white, yellow, red and brown races. Many biologist and anthropologists have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. In the past, races were identified by the imposition of discrete boundaries upon continuous and often discordant biological variation. The concept of race is therefore a historical construct and not one that provides either valid classification or an explanatory process. EDIT: I found this rebuttal to be a useful elaboration of my point, as well: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JRScT..29..301L We propose continued use of the concept [of race] for some infrahuman species, while abandoning its application to Homo sapiens. For those biologists and anthropologists who continue to use the concept, scientific accuracy can be achieved by the presentation in lecture and text of the following ideas: first, consensus among scientists on the race concept's utility and accuracy does not exist; second, there is more variation within than between so-called races; third, discordant gradations due to natural selection, drift, and interbreeding make consistent racial boundary lines impossible to identify; fourth, past use of the race concept has had harmful consequences; fifth, the most precise study of human hereditary variation maps one trait at a time; and sixth, racial labels are misleading, especially as most populations have a cultural designation.

My guess is that the minerals help with kidney function, since the kidneys of diabetics are under such stress, however, I'm not sure.

<cough>Primal Therapy is NOT the answer to everything. Stop pretending it is.</cough>

Yep. That's more or less the response I thought I'd get. I appreciate you reinforcing my decision to ignore your hypothesis.

A) Define race B) Show evidence of your claims

No, it's not. Race is actually a rather meaningless and empty word.

Beats me. I don't pay attention to that stuff any more than I pay attention to what color peoples chakras are or what moon Venus is in and how that effects behavior or numerology or any of that nonsense.

Lately, the majority of our populace seems to vote for the one who scares them less. Fear is rampant in the US, and people are being controlled like rats in a maze. Fear, however, ties directly in with the OP, so I found it worth mentioning again. I find your points spot on about the failures we are currently facing in our system.

Actually, she just scored big bucks (six figures) giving a speech in Hong Kong where she criticized US foreign policy. Yes... Sarah Palin... being the wise sage of American foreign policy... I can see why she'd be a good choice for the talk. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090926/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_reappears Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin emerged from a two-month absence from public view with a private talk, heavy on foreign policy, to a group of investors in Hong Kong. Her 90-minute speech Wednesday at an investment conference touched on issues from financial markets to health care, Afghanistan and U.S-China relations. It was generally considered more moderate in tone than those Palin delivered during her 2008 campaign for vice president as Republican John McCain's running mate. Still, a Democratic congressman chastised Palin for criticizing U.S. foreign policy during her first visit to Asia. "Leaving aside the propriety of criticizing the president while on her first trip to Asia, the assertion that the United States is ignoring areas of disagreement with China is flat wrong," said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Seems like trumped up phrenology to me. Further, size of the brain and it's regions is nowhere near as important as its organization and convolution.

Also from the article: “At the end of the day, you just have a promise that they’ll cover you,” said Maine Bureau of Insurance Superintendent Mila Kofman, who did research on faith-based health sharing ministries several years ago while she was on the faculty of Georgetown University. In other words, there’s no guaranteed coverage. “This is why we really need reform. ... People are really desperate and what’s out there right now is not really meeting their need, and then they’re forced to look at these alternatives that may or may not pay for them when they’re sick.”

It's facepalm worthy (IMO) since they are AGAINST providing healthcare for ALL citizens at LOWER prices because they'd prefer to continue with their 2000 year old idea of sending money to the church and letting them decide how it gets doled out to their small handful of congregants. They are using a system which does NOT guarantee coverage, has NO legal ramifications, and which can be so easily abused that it makes ponzi schemes look good ("Oh... you need money to help fix that cancer? You should have stopped smoking like Jesus told you... You get nothing, despite having paid us half of every paycheck you've earned for the last 20 years! Btw... we'll be building a new church with that money, so you can come pray that your cancer will go away. Bless you, my son.") Pangloss shared the most relevant bit in his final quote within the OP. As for subsequent posts, you're right. My response above was based on a misreading my first time through.

Well, I take issue somewhat with your suggestion that these studies I've been sharing do not fit together... that they have "no home in the general puzzle." I find that suggestion incredibly inaccurate, but this may be due to the fact that I've already (in my own past) read studies which address most of the questions you've been asking about language and learning and societies, so perhaps I'm biased since I already know what those "puzzle pieces" look like and how the pieces presented in this thread tie so well together with them. Either way, thanks. Does anyone else have any comments about the specific articles or presentations shared in this thread?

Well, I've seen many different answers to the question in your thread title, answers which were very certain and also very accurate. Is it possible that it's just that none of them are the answer you want?

AFAICT = As far as I can tell.

Those are fair concerns. Many current companies will no longer be able to compete, and will be pushed out of the market. However, IMO, that is a good thing, since the insurers who cannot compete after the new regulations get put in place are (by definition) the insurers who are screwing their clients the most right now. Also, I think your question is slightly off-point. When Obama says, "If you like your current insurance, you can keep it," he means that there will be no mandate for people to switch providers. That's it. The rest of the natural ebbs and flows are still at play. He's just trying to assuage fears that... written into the bill... will be some sort of mandate that people switch from their current plan to a government one. That's not gonna happen. Insurance exchange addresses the "need" of having accessible information and quick references to what is available. The way it works in Massachusetts is that the citizen logs in and they can view on one screen what coverages are available for a family of their size, and at what price each of those coverages is provided. It allows them to "compare" each of the plans in one simple way... Much like when shopping online and comparing multiple products (like digital cameras, for instance). It stacks up the key features side by side, then let's you know the price of each to make a better informed decision with less effort. In the meantime... until that 4 years has passed... it will simply require a bit more effort to make those decisions. That's all. Well, there will be cost controls imposed on the private insurance industry, so that will certainly help. However, we'll really have to wait and see what comes out of this bill. I am relatively confident that a public option WILL be available, but I can't be sure. Is that in the bill... that it will ONLY be available to people currently without insurance? That doesn't sound accurate, but I concede that I'm unsure. Gross income based on family size. It will be determined in much the same way that we determine who is in "poverty." Written into the bill will be language which mandates that any new costs are made up for with new revenues and/or cost reductions in other areas of government. I seem to remember something also about new (unforeseen) costs in the future and how those will be handled, but I'm drawing a blank right now on what that is specifically. History. Insurance companies spend roughly 30% of all income on administration and overhead. Medicare spends much less... closer to 3-5%. The same difference will be in effect with a government option. As for identifying waste and fraud, I believe they will have a set of expected prices for procedures and tests. They will then compare the invoices being sent for payment for those procedures against the expected price. So, if an MRI costs $3000 pretty much everywhere in the country, and an invoice is submitted asking for a $12000 payment for an MRI, they know it's fraudulent. How this differs from what insurance companies are doing now, I really don't know. *Maybe it differs since insurance companies would just reject payment flat out... saying that MRIs are experimental procedures! That's not true at all. They also lie, spread fear, and completely misrepresent what is actually happening.

Amen! I wonder if you heard about this one roughly a month ago: Flying rabbis fight swine flu About 50 religious leaders circled over the country on Monday, chanting prayers and blowing horns, called shofars. The flight's aim was "to stop the pandemic so people will stop dying from it", Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri was quoted as saying in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. The flu is often called simply "H1N1" in Israel, as pigs are seen as unclean. <...> "We are certain that, thanks to the prayer, the danger is already behind us," added Mr Batzri was quoted as saying. I call your facepalm, and raise you a WTF!

Mooeypoo is correct, Dr.Syntax. It was a joke. I'm sorry if I have offended you, as that was not my intent. Also, FWIW... I haven't printed anything myself in over 2 years, and even then it was just a map to a party. I manage all of my data electronically. I find it easier to sort, store, and categorize that way, especially since I tend to work with such large databases. Besides, papers always wind up in a great big mess with me, plus... I try to do my part to be pro-environment and not waste when not necessary. Either way, that's all off-topic. Please accept my apologies. As per the thread topic, it seems to have been answered AFAICT. Do you agree?

Tree killer.

An interesting piece in the NYTimes this weekend. It highlights some interesting points. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27sun1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion It has been frustrating to watch Republican leaders posture as the vigilant protectors of Medicare against health care reforms designed to make the system better and more equitable. This is the same party that in the past tried to pare back Medicare and has repeatedly denounced the kind of single-payer system that is at the heart of Medicare and its popularity. For all of the cynicism and hypocrisy, it seems to be working. The Republicans have scared many older Americans into believing that their medical treatment will suffer under pending reform bills. The general public believes that, too. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll of 1,042 adults found that only 15 percent believe changes under consideration would make the Medicare program better, while 30 percent think they would make it worse. <...> But far from harming elderly Americans, the various reform bills now pending should actually make Medicare better for most beneficiaries — by enhancing their drug coverage, reducing the premiums they pay for drugs and medical care, eliminating co-payments for preventive services and helping keep Medicare solvent, among other benefits. <...> What the Republicans aren’t saying — and what the Democrats clearly aren’t saying enough — is that in important ways, coverage for a vast majority of Medicare recipients, those in traditional Medicare, should actually improve under health care reform. <...> Republicans have done far too good a job at obscuring and twisting the facts and spreading unwarranted fear. It is time to call them to account. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have to make the case forcefully that health care reform will overwhelmingly benefit Americans — including the millions of older Americans who participate in Medicare. What are your thoughts? Have the lies been too well propagated / will kill reform, or is there still enough momentum to implement change? Is that change a net positive or a net negative in your opinion? Discuss.