Text 12270, 208 rader
Skriven 2007-02-15 18:05:14 av Josh Hill (15713.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:48:54 -0800, Rob Perkins <rperkins@usa.net>
wrote:

>On 2/14/07 5:59 PM, in article 70e7t2hfgt0b396ka4g8f9bg5ge31sqenh@4ax.com,
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> An exaggeration. Nagin's failure was that of transporting the willing poor
>>> out of harm's way. Permitting the regular imperatives of a bus drivers'
>>> union from letting him act in an emergency.
>> 
>> I think the idea was to make it an exaggeration.
>
>That ascribes an ulterior motive to people in power. Nagin specifically
>denied transportation to the poor?

?

I never suggested that.

>What I think is most likely is that the brownian motion inside DHS and
>between DHS and the states was at the time, and still is, quite speedy.
>People are still sorting out what the new organization means. The current
>federal power base is unpleasantly draconian, and dismayed that people
>aren't going along with *this* fight against tyranny nearly as eagerly as
>they did after Pearl Harbor.
>
>(I think it has something to do with the ubiquity of television.)

In part, it may. But I had the impression, after 9/11, that there
weren't very many in the country who wouldn't have enlisted had they
been needed to protect us from Al Quaeda. The problem is that Iraq
wasn't /about/ Al Quaeda. That's one of the strengths of democracy, I
think: many are unwilling to fight unless they believe the war is
truly necessary.

>> I'm thinking a bit of smoothing is in order. The decline probably
>> began under Nixon, continued under Ford and Carter, an idealist, but a
>> hapless one. But it was Reagan who was the anti-Roosevelt, who purged
>> from the public consciousness the idea -- amply demonstrated by the
>> wonderfully successful progressive policies of the first half of the
>> 20th century -- that government could make society better, that
>> society could /get/ better.
>
>There is no denying the difference Social Security and Medicare have made
>for the welfare of the nation as a whole. I pay those taxes gladly and
>without a lot of interest in changing the basic idea.

It would be so simple to extend Medicare to everyone . . . the fact
that we don't, that a few greedy special interests can block just
about any worthy legislation, is an excellent example of what I find
so frustrating about today's politics.

>>>> According to the National Coalition on Health Care, "the number of
>>>> excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of
>>>> 18,000 a year." I don't know why the figures don't include those under
>>>> 25 years of age.
>>> 
>>> Probably because the National Coalition on Health Care was misusing a
>>> statistic. 
>>> 
>>> I consider it valuable to think of health care in terms of what was
>>> available 40 years ago as opposed to today. 40 years ago, there wasn't a
>>> health insurance industry to speak of, because there wasn't much a doctor
>>> could do for something as simple as a stomach ulcer, let alone a clogged
>>> artery or even adult-onset diabetes. $1000/scan MRI's were out of the
>>> question; no computer could process the data fast enough. Sonograms did not
>>> exist. And so forth.
>> 
>> Your timing's off! Which is to say I'm fogy enough to remember the
>> medicine of 1967, which, while not the equal of today's, treated my
>> mother's perforated ulcer (surgery)
>
>...instead of antibiotics and an endoscopic procedure...

Sure. No one's saying things aren't better now.
>
>> and clogged arteries (venous
>> bypass graft)
>
>...instead of a stent...

Don't know if they could have used a stent in her case.

>> and my grandmother's adult-onset diabetes (restricted
>> diet).
>
>...instead of far more effective "miracle drugs" combined with dietary
>change...

Sure.
>
>> That being said, sure, medicine has become more expensive.
>
>I think my case is still valid, if we push the time frame into 60 years or
>so.

Well, the improvement is continuous. Some might date it from the
introduction of Penicillin, still others from c. the turn of the last
century, still others the late 19th century and anesthesia,
antisepsis, the germ theory of disease.
 
>> Well, the flip side of that is that I've noticed a severe and shameful
>> degradation in the quality of medical care since HMO's came on the
>> scene and started rationing.
>
>Yes, that's a problem too. It was interesting when I was with Kaiser to see
>how easily and quickly I could get something like a rapid strep test, for no
>copay, but I had to wait four hours in an exam room for an overworked doctor
>to give me a prescription for something I was sure would cause a kidney
>stone. 
>
>> Sure, they come from dismal poverty to American-level poverty. This to
>> me doesn't justify what's happening to our middle and working classes.
>
>Then, there ought to be a calmer debate on the issue, rather than the
>polarized and idealistic screaming.

True of everything, of course. What I've seen for the most part is
unquestioning hoo-haw about the benefits of free markets and
globalization. That's being countered by talk of outsourcing and the
like. Unfortunately, in a sound-bite world, it's difficult to get a
substantive argument, of the sort an economist might make, into the
public sphere.
 
>>> Even so, I share your hope that a positive-sum optimist will take the White
>>> House. Someone like Obama might not be all that experienced, but neither
was
>>> Clinton, when he moved up from AR, it seems to me.
>> 
>> I tend to think the "experience" thing is a stand-in for "Hmmm, can we
>> really trust a black dude not to screw up?"
>
>Not in my case. And for what it's worth, there was significant concern about
>Clinton's slickness, and his integrity.

Wasn't suggesting that you thought that way.

Don't you think the concern about Clinton was justified? I'm not
talking about the Republican smears, but the fact that he did lie and
perjure himself. I voted for him twice, but never without misgivings.

>> In politics, as in other work, the best performers are frequently
>> /not/ the most socially engaging.
>
>The ones who are socially engaging usually get the work, refuting your
>notion that the most competent, best performers would rise to the federal
>level.

Would refute it only if it were an either-or proposition. In
actuality, there's are positive correlations both between being
socially engaging and advancement, and competence and advancement.

>>> I have the same impression about Mitt Romney. Whatever his position on this
>>> or that issue, he comes across as remarkably positive. Of course I have no
>>> confidence in the Republican machine to look past his religious faith
during
>>> the primaries. 
>> 
>> Sadly, from what I've read, that seems to be true.. And the man I
>> regard as the strongest Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani -- the man
>> who, alone among the Democrats and Republicans in the running, seems
>> to me capable of true greatness -- will probably lose because he
>> favors gay rights and abortion. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
>Either that or he'll cause that fractious faction to simply sit home in
>November, possibly locking in a Dem victory.
>
>The more I think about it, the more I want the evangelicals sidelined for
>the next 12 years or so, unless they can play with others with greater
>respect. 
>
>Too bad, really. A Giuliani/Romney ticket would be *fascinating*. Both men
>are remarkably positive, and would know how to debate Hillary Clinton Or
>Barack Obama with efficiency, alacrity, and competence. The best candidate
>might stand a chance of winning.

Don't know much about Romney. I'm of two minds about Giuliani. On one
hand, I think, as I said, that he could be a great president. On the
other, I don't think this is the time for even a moderate Republican,
because I think the country is ready for a liberal phase -- there's a
huge backlog of necessary changes, such as universal health care,
carbon limits, a more balanced approach to globalization, more
sensible taxation, etc.

>And anyone except *maybe* Clinton or McCain would have a chance at obviating
>"culture war", simply by willing to listen to all factions and incorporate
>good ideas from every direction, something desperately missing from the
>current administration and the last Congress.

Why do you rule out Clinton and McCain? Clinton has, if anything, been
excessively wishy-washy, seemingly designing her opinions to meet the
day's sentiments. McCain, while a conservative, is known as someone
who crosses the aisle.

>Alas, again, it's McCain's "turn", even though he's far more effective in
>the Senate than he could ever be as President.

I suspect you're right there.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)