News Briefs 25-08-2009
Posted by Jameske at 14:08, 25 Aug 2009Nice pic of clouds and some interesting debate today.
- The third man who is not there.
- The first synthetic species by the end of the year?
- Krugman and Ferguson at war over inflation.
- Taxpayers duped by Einstein.
- Giant sphere valuable for persistent surveillance.
- What about people who accept evolution but are holocaust deniers?
- Mysterious tubular clouds defy explanation.
- A grand bargain over evolution.
- We are the Martians.
- Wikipedia to add editing safeguard for the living.
- Genomic study yields plausible cause of Colony Collapse Disorder.
- What soviet medicine teaches us.
- Greenpeace mistake delights climate change skeptics.
- Ancient map offers key to Mesoamerican history.
- Stopwatch found for the solar system.
- Surivival in a post-apocalypse blackout.
- Mars lights and lightning.
Quote of the Day:
We have heard the chimes at midnight.
William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Act 3 Scene2
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments
8 July 2009
2 hours 43 min
Linking to a Ludwig von Mises Institute article on the healthcare debate? Tomorrow are we going to get a link to the always insightful Stormfront's commentary on standardized test score underperformance in the inner cities?
Gross.
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
if you like - give me the link
8 April 2006
4 weeks 4 days
Having actually read through the House and Senate bills on HealthCare reform, I have to say that what Mises observes is pretty much what will happen to Health Care in the United States if they are adopted.
Both the House and Senate bills enact a "public" section that will eventually bankrupt all private insurers and force everyone onto state-controlled Health Care. That will pretty much eviscerate what is the premiere system in the world into another third-world statist system. Bank on it.
Health Care is NOT a right. It is a commodity, no different from a car, a television, or a house. It is NOT the responsibility of the US Government to provide Health care for anyone, and, in point of fact, there is no provision in the US Constitution to specifically allow the government to provide such a program.
Before the Obama Sycophant Express starts to undermine US Health Care, it ought to start by fixing all the other programs that government has enacted and broken over the past 70 years: Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Welfare, Education, Agriculture Subsidies, etc.
Government is the absolute worst way to run anything, and should only be used when no other option is available, or possible.
Respects,
Gwedd
12 April 2007
34 min 36 sec
Health Care is NOT a right. It is a commodity
Come again?
Don't you have that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thingy on your bill of rights? Wouldn't health care be implicit in the right for life? You know, as opposed to merely inhaling Oxygen and exhaling Carbon Dioxide as proof that you're not dead...
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
8 April 2006
4 weeks 4 days
Ummm, in a word, no.
The Declaration of Independence uses the words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
The "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution is not a list of the rights the US Government grants to the people. It is a reminder to the Federal Government of those inherent rights which belong to the people, ALL people, regardless of the government they select and appoint.
The US Constitution specifically sets limits on what the Federal Government powers are, and those are essentially those things which the individual states cannot or cannot easily do. Providing for the common defense, the regulation of interstate commerce, negotiating treaties with foreign governments on behalf of all the several states, and promoting the general welfare of the population.
At the moment, there is a rising tide amongst state legislatures to remind Congress that Article 10 reserves to the several states all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government. In short, the Federal Government has taken upon itself powers that it does not constitutionally have, and has forced itself into areas reserved for the several states to oversee.
Come next year, you will find that the Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate will be severely reduced, and likely returned to Republican control. The leftists have shown themselves incapable of both governing, and understanding their roles within the Constitution.
But I digress. Health Care is a commodity, like Automobile repairs, roofing repairs, etc. Doctors attend medical schools at their own expense, and spend years in school, residency, and associative learning before striking out on their own. Their skills are how they have chosen to earn their living, no different from an electrician. a lawyer, or a steam fitter, or plumber. You would hardly expect to have your car serviced for free, or your home furnace or hot water heater repaired for free. Why should you expect medical services for free?
By the way, those "free" services are never free, and often more expensive and restrictive than those offered through the free market. SOMEONE has to pay the costs, and it is taken from my pay, and your pay, and every other taxpayer and used, very inefficiently, to "provide" a service or product. The government has no profit incentive, and therefore no reason to improve, as has been demonstrated in EVERY country who has a "free" health care system. The money if forcibly taken from you by the taxman, depriving you of not only your wages, but of your choices on how to spend it.
Respects,
Respects,
Gwedd
12 April 2007
34 min 36 sec
I think the main problem in the current discussion that's been held in the US stems over the two opposing concepts of State that the two sides favor.
From what I gather from your comment, you view the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as instruments that restrict how much the State is allowed to interfere with your life; almost as to determine that, provided those restrictions are respected, the State will leave you pretty much on your own —a stance I'm sure was the common denominator back on the days of the Frontier and David Crockett.
The other group views the State as an entity that's supposed to endow the citizens with certain services and liberties, provided the citizen follows the rules.
You don't have a right to have a car. What you have is a right fro transportation, and that's why the State is supposed to give public options (buses, trains, etc).
You don't have the right to have a computer, but you do have the right for education. I have never heard that the people who attack public health care also attack public schools. I don't pretend I'm an expert in the American school system (far from it), but wouldn't I be right in saying that the public schools are at an unfair advantage in relation with the private ones? Isn't that the reason why private colleges in America are so expensive?
I agree that those "free" services are not really free. They are paid through taxes, and the State is supposed to use those taxes to try to make things as equal as possible for all the citizens, despite their personal circumstances.
I'll use the same example I used on Jameske's blog: Suppose the mayor in my town issues a new tax devised to pay for a special ramp that's intended for wheelchair users, so they can easily access the town hall. Wouldn't I be in every right to refuse to pay that tax, for the obvious reason that it won't benefit ME, since I can walk with my own two legs?
In the end what I fear is that the health care plan that will be approved won't satisfy anyone; not the Democrats that want a single payer plan, and not the Republicans that want things to be just the way they are. It will be a horrible hybrid concocted in the spirit of bipartisan shenanigans. It will be merely a bandaid intended to patch a dam.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
synchronicity - i was just replying to your comment on my blog and brought up the issue of carbon dioxide. Spooky. Go for liberty - dont hold your breath ;-P
14 July 2008
1 week 2 days
The 'theory' of evolution (as it is currently forwarded) has so many holes in it that one could say (without fear) that it was nearly nonexistent. Further, denying evolution is often less a denial of the basic concept than it is the current forced precept.
On the flipside, the holocaust has a far more contiguous line of proof of event than does evolution. There are, in fact, many alive today who can testify first-hand to the validity of what happened to them at the hands of the Nazis. But fingering the old flipping coin again, there is hardly anything that could be further from the truth when arguing the case for the current evolutionary model.
Lastly, science (like religion/faith) should not find itself mingling and mixing with politics. It is entirely unhealthy. Holocaust denial is almost entirely political. Evolution, one could hope, is something else... even if we're not yet sure exactly what.
...
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
if only science didnt mix with politics... a robust result of knowledge production wont require political intervention to affirm or promote its truth.
26 August 2009
18 hours 8 min
The right wing nonsense portrayed in what soviet medicine teaches us has no place at all on this site...for shame TDG
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
that's funny, i used to get the same sort of criticism for posting quotes by karl marx. I reckon it does have a place, and I reckon you need to read it more than most. doesnt mean you have to believe it or agree with it. but read it anyway. does the article have a good case? if not, why not?
26 August 2009
18 hours 8 min
Please explain to me your reason for it deserving a place? i live in the UK and our health service is second to none this sort of right wing bullshit is nothing but corporate propaganda and lies, i have many american friends who can't afford to get sick under any circumstances who are screaming out for a NHS, i'm sorry but i fail to see your point, are you the same guy who posted that holocaust denial crap not so long ago? i mean come on just stick a swastika in your banner headline and be done with it.
8 July 2009
2 hours 43 min
Holocaust denial.
Huh.
I can't believe I went on a sensible forum and promoted this place as a well reasoned, non-batshit fortean blog. Sucks to be me.
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
If it helps you - i certainly do not support the Nazi ethnic cleansing policy of Jewish people or the concentration camps. Or in the use of force or coercion to achieve aims whether by Nazis, Communists, or Democrats or Republicans or whatever. So if that confuses you even more - go figure.
30 April 2004
4 hours 29 min
I can't believe I went on a sensible forum and promoted this place as a well reasoned, non-batshit fortean blog. Sucks to be me.
The day that one of the 120 to 200 links on our front page *doesn't* offend someone, then I'll know it's time to quit.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
Presumably you would not be a fan of Noam Chomsky, who said, and i am paraphrasing, free speech is for precisely the ideas you dont like.
If you think I am a Nazi then fair enough. I could not care less. But note that it was the Nazis that did not like free speech, the Soviets also did not like free speech. And you dont like it either. Hmmm....
30 April 2004
4 hours 29 min
Presumably you would not be a fan of Noam Chomsky, who said, and i am paraphrasing, free speech is for precisely the ideas you dont like.
If you think I am a Nazi then fair enough. I could not care less. But note that it was the Nazis that did not like free speech, the Soviets also did not like free speech. And you dont like it either. Hmmm....
I don't think you can push it as far as saying that the commenters above are against free speech - and then especially implying they are aligned with Nazism, which is just a cheap shot. They simply don't like what you post, and think you shouldn't post it. That's not necessarily being against free speech, which would require the opinion that you should not *be allowed* to post it. I'm all for free speech, but there's still a lot of internet posts that I consider would probably have been better off never posted.
Given the history of persecution of minorities, I can certainly understand people's concerns about posts on topics such as holocaust revisionism. So I don't think it's right to put words in their mouth for expressing a fairly understandable opinion. At the same time, if we got caught up in worrying about being politically correct here on TDG, we'd never post anything - the whole point is about questioning accepted knowledge/wisdom.
As we always end up saying, debating points is good. Cheap shots are not.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
Well it is a cheap shot to assume i am a Nazi. Or that I should be posting things that conform to accepted views on the world. It has to work both ways otherwise it doesnt work at all. And it depends what you want. Do you want free speech or not?
Addendum: put it this way. I can fight my corner. But if holocaust revisionism is unacceptable to post on TDG let me know because then I will know free speech is dead on TDG.
30 April 2004
4 hours 29 min
Well it is a cheap shot to assume i am a Nazi. Or that I should be posting things that conform to accepted views on the world. It has to work both ways otherwise it doesnt work at all. And it depends what you want. Do you want free speech or not?
Yes it is a cheap shot from the reader, I wasn't defending their actions. My point was that as news admins, if we post controversial topics then we should accept that it's going to inspire a reaction from some quarters, and that we should be ready to deal with it intelligently. Not incite things further with a "Nazi right back atcha" non sequitur. If you post it, be ready for the blowback.
Addendum: put it this way. I can fight my corner. But if holocaust revisionism is unacceptable to post on TDG let me know because then I will know free speech is dead on TDG.
That's not strictly correct. As you know, TDG posting is under a pretty loose rein. But if you posted 15 links a day about some new toothpaste you liked, and I deleted it, it's not because "free speech is dead". It's because I'm going "WTF is this doing on TDG", and exercising some editorial control. Similarly, if holocaust revisionism is posted, and its intelligent and well-argued, then I'm all for people thinking about things and debating them. But if you posted some of the moronic Storm Front-ish Holocaust Revisionism, which is purely ignorant, racist bile without a shred of intelligence and which accounts for probably 95% of 'revisionism', then I'm likely to say "WTF is this doing on TDG" and remove it.
But in having said that, I don't think I intimated that I was going to squash free speech anywhere? I was just suggesting that news admins not insinuate that readers are Nazis.
Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail
1 May 2004
2 days 19 hours
At the time the Soviet Union was collapsing, just such conditions were observed and reported by NBC News. I saw the reports. There is no exaggeration of the miseries suffered under the system. The only difference is that the author leaves out the "extras" afforded party men. They did not just enjoy ample supplies and care, but lovely things like marble floors, crystal chandeliers, and modern Western medical equipment. Oh, and don't forget the gate and guards with Kalashnikovs to keep regular people out of the hospital for the elite.
1 May 2004
2 hours 1 min
dont say things like that. you risk getting viewed as a far right winger or, heaven forbid, a nazi :-O
1 May 2004
2 days 19 hours
I'll live. Unless I move to England and get the sniffles, anyway! ;)