RSS

The Gipper

05 Aug

50 years later, and still no one has articulated the downside to big government better than the Gipper.

Folks, since 1964 this country has spent over $15 trillion dollars on eradicating poverty and today, the poverty statistics are the same if not a little worse. It was reported not too long ago that 4 out of 5 American families are one missed paycheck away from poverty, yet every year and every campaign, big government politicians, particularly Democrats, run on helping the poor – do you believe them anymore? Do you really think more money will cure the problem? Do you honestly believe they want to solve the problem?

The other day Mersault understandably was frustrated over the VA health care administration, to which I remind everyone that is what government health care is – a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy ran by bureaucrats focused more on file organization and lunch breaks than the administration of care, and that is what we are all in for with Obamacare. No one has ever been able to explain to me how adding an additional layer of bureaucracy to an industry can bring down costs.

Welfare, disability, unemployment and labor force measurements are all at alarming levels, so my question to big government advocates is – how is this working out for you?

Advertisements
 
74 Comments

Posted by on August 5, 2013 in Big Government

 

Tags: , ,

74 responses to “The Gipper

  1. GMB

    August 5, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    Think for a moment. If the problem of poverty were to be eliminated or even just substantially reduced, just how federal and state level bureaucrats would be out of work. Think of all that lost revenue that the public sector unions would not be able to kick back to their favorite political hacks.

    The donks want people poor for their own selfish reasons and the rinos want all that cheap labor for their own selfish reasons.

    He who has the money has the power. He who has the power has the money. A pox on all their houses.

     
  2. GMB

    August 5, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    The current relationship between big business and big government needs to be overturned by the people. It needs to be torn down and thrown into the “dustbin of history” As my good friend Thomas likes to say.

    The vast majority of jobs and paychecks out there comes from small business owners. Unfortunately the just don’t have enough money to buy the hacks in D.C. and keep them bought.

    We have to do something about this. If we don’t we deserve what we get.

    We have a government that classified CO2, Carbon Dioxide, A green house gas. WTF world, what do you think makes my farm grow? Wiccan magic? You think I don’t want clean air and clean water? You think I want to grow seeds that are defective? You think I want my customers getting sick or possibly dead.

    Arrghhhh, If I had any hair It would of done been ripped right off my pointy litte head.

     
  3. mitchethekid

    August 5, 2013 at 9:58 pm

    Although I agree with the general tone your comments. let me add a few caveats. Capitalism as an economic philosophy encourages the isolation of the individual and is predicated upon Darwinian mechanics. (I agree with Darwin. Evolution is a fact.) I am conflicted about self-reliance being the pinnacle of human endeavor.
    The fact that our government has not only allowed, but encouraged the moneyed to influence governmental policy has led to what we have today. Not a government of the people, but rather a Corporatocracy that can essentially purchase the law making ability of congress. Those elected are not in the debt of those who chose them to be representative, but rather to those who donated money to by ads which resulted in their being elected.
    As a tender of the earth, I am sure you are familiar with Monsanto and their corporation. They want to genetically manipulate seeds and the plants that grow from their planting. They want to license farmers and make them pay a premium. They have a huge lobby and do whatever they can to influence policy. These people, this company is anti American in my estimation and are only concerned about profit.
    Now lets go to global warming. It is a fact. All planets are terrariums, ours included.Money is an attachment, not a cause. It is beyond any semblance of rationality to declare that a warming planet is a “hoax”. Regardless of human activity or not. The empirical evidence is undeniable and to declare so is a testimony to out right ignorance and stupidity. I can provide scientific inquiry and results that prove the planet is warming, regardless of what the intellectual cretins at B4V proclaim. They are, in a word, dead.

     
  4. GMB

    August 5, 2013 at 10:37 pm

    ” I am sure you are familiar with Monsanto and their corporation. They want to genetically manipulate seeds and the plants that grow from their planting. They want to license farmers and make them pay a premium. They have a huge lobby and do whatever they can to influence policy. These people, this company is anti American in my estimation and are only concerned about profit.

    I grow seeds. Legacy Seeds, Heritage Seeds, Non terminator seeds. Monsanto is the biggest criminal gang in the agricultural industry. The company I work for by leasing my land and providing labor for has faced many threats from monsanto and the likes. They would drive us out of business, if they could.

    Except for mansanto, I respectfully disagree with the rest of your claims. Evolution can’t even prove that cats and dogs have a common ancestor.

    Evolution can not be tested, it can not be verified, and it can not be reproduced. It fails every test of the scientific method

    “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” – Charles Darwin

    …I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray

    Even the man who formulated the theory knew where some problems with his own thinking.

     
    • meursault1942

      August 6, 2013 at 10:25 am

      “I grow seeds. Legacy Seeds, Heritage Seeds, Non terminator seeds. Monsanto is the biggest criminal gang in the agricultural industry. The company I work for by leasing my land and providing labor for has faced many threats from monsanto and the likes. They would drive us out of business, if they could.”

      I find the left-wing freakout about GMOs to be extremely tiresome, but as much as I hate to admit the damn hippies are right about something, I think they’re right about Monsanto. “Criminal gang” is probably the best description that can be applied to that company. It’s positively grotesque how predatory it is and how viciously it wields litigation as a weapon.

      Also, if you raised heritage pork (Duroc/Berkshire/Iowa Swabian Hall), I would beat down your door trying to buy some!

       
  5. mitchethekid

    August 6, 2013 at 5:48 am

    A long time ago, when I was a young upstart, I worked for a crusty old guy who gave me the following advise. “Never discuss politics or religion with a customer”. Aside from the evidence of the fossil record, the aspects of evolution (or lack thereof) that are used to refute it, I take on faith. The same type of faith that a more religious view of the origins of life employs. Evolution: it’s just how things work. The human concept of god provides the why. It’s easy to understand why many scoff at the idea of evolution. One, it challenges a more transcendent entity oriented world view and two, from the individuals perspective of a life that lasts what, 70, 80+ yrs the time involved is unfathomable. It’s millions. And as a rule, gradual. But then we have the Cambrian Explosion of 542 m.y.a. (See Stephen Jay Gould)
    Glad we’re on the same page about Monsanto. Did you ever watch Food Inc? I think it won some sort of an award. Made me want to taste a really free range chicken.

     
  6. Cluster

    August 6, 2013 at 7:39 am

    A real quick comment as I have a lot of catching up to do at work – corporatism and capitalism are completely separate concepts. Corporatism (big corporations), are as perilous as big government. Conservatism (at least my brand) is the belief in smaller, decentralized business’s and government, which allow the entities to be more proactive, better operated and result in greater efficiencies. While some industries require large corporations – automobile, oil, etc., the vast majority of commercial enterprises are much more efficient while operated on a smaller scale.

     
  7. rustybrown2012

    August 6, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Hi y’all. Nice blog. This is a fine antidote to the odious bfv and I hope I can occasionally post here. Did someone say evolution?

    GMB:
    “Evolution can not be tested, it can not be verified, and it can not be reproduced. It fails every test of the scientific method’

    The theory of evolution has been tested and has emerged stronger by innumerable scientific challenges throughout the last century and a half. It has made many accurate predictions and is settled scientific fact. To paraphrase Dawkins, anyone who now disbelieves in evolution is either dishonest, ignorant or stupid – no other choices.

    Dishonestly quote-mining Darwin is a favored tactic of creationists. Although the quotes you present are purposely misleading, even if they accurately portrayed Darwin as actively disbelieving and denying his life’s work (!) they would in no way disprove the theory and the mountains of supporting evidence for it. This may be news to you but Darwin is not the last word on the veracity of evolution; the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory is.

    Similarly, claiming CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is like saying water is not wet. CO2’s greenhouse properties are well researched and established in the laboratory.

     
    • Cluster

      August 6, 2013 at 10:01 am

      Welcome Rusty,

      Just a couple of comments – evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive concepts, and the continued rise in CO2 has been met with a leveling off of temperature rises over the last decade, so the correlation is not as direct as once thought.

      You’re welcome to post here anytime.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 1:59 pm

        Thanks Cluster,

        Evolution and creation may not be mutually exclusive (as a somewhat religious boy I always thought “so god created the beginning and devised evolution as the process to populate the earth with interesting, diversified life – why are religious people so bothered by evolution?) but I used the term “creationist”, which is commonly understood to mean the denial of evolution.

        Temps over the last decade have not “leveled off”, they have increased, just not as rapidly as the preceding decades and not as rapidly as predicted. For climate scientists working today, the correlation is more direct than ever.

         
      • GMB

        August 6, 2013 at 4:03 pm

        “why are religious people so bothered by evolution?)”

        Like I said before, we are not. You can believe you want to believe. Do you conceded the point to me?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 5:16 pm

        Concede that religious people are not bothered by evolution? No, I don’t concede that. If they weren’t bothered by it they would accept the overwhelming evidence that it is true; they deny it because it puts a lie to the fairy tales of the bible.

         
    • GMB

      August 6, 2013 at 1:48 pm

      “they would in no way disprove the theory”

      How does one disprove a theory? Give some proof that can be observed, tested, then duplicated. Please is that to much to ask. If you believe that science can prove evolution, please show up with the proof.

      Honestly, this is not a hot button issue for me. Or for others within my community. This is a hot button issue for people who think that knowing where they came from will change the day to day circumstances of their life.

      Both evolution and Creationism should be taught to all children so they can make up their own minds. To deny children the knowledge of one but not the other pretty much validates my theory that you are a fascist.

      By the way Rusty, when was the last time you put your house plants in a 100% oxygen environment?

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 2:41 pm

        “How does one disprove a theory?”

        Easy. A fossilized rabbit found in the precambrian is one of many discoveries that would throw evolution into grave doubt. The field of genetics (unknown in Darwin’s time) could have easily disproved the theory, but only strengthened it. The proof goes on and on across multiple scientific fields. Are you seriously asking that proof of macroevolution be demonstrated in a laboratory? That’s impossible because the process takes millions of years. Do you also deny plate techtonics and continental drift? They certainly can’t be reproduced in a lab. Do you have an alternate theory for how mountains were formed or should we all just shrug our shoulders and give equal weight to any idea about it because we can’t bring a mountain into a lab?

        Evolution and creationism should not be taught together in the science classroom because one of them is science and one is not. There is not a shred of proof to back up creationism, not one, and I’m a fascist for not wanting it taught in a science classroom? Are you insane? Are people who don’t want the existence of fairies taught in biology class fascists too?

        You ask for proof; there’s 150 years of literature on the subject – crack a book.

        Regarding CO2, is it your contention that because it nourishes plants it is likewise good and nourishing to all things in all ways? How does a plant using CO2 have anything to do with CO2’s effect on the atmosphere? Elements are neutral – they can benefit some organisms and earthly systems while simultaneously harming others. Hmmm, I guess since flies eat rotting flesh and dogs eat shit that protein must be peachy for us too.

         
      • GMB

        August 6, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        You ask for proof; there’s 150 years of literature on the subject – crack a book.

        And yet none of those books can provide proof. None, not one. Filled with words like consensus, might be, possibly, and the such. You are the one claiming to be scientist. Prove your theory.

        The theory of evolution is just that. An unproven theory. Beg pardon that my disbelief in your religious views is causing you so much distress. Why don’t you go talk to amazona about what a meany head I am.

        Maybe you can convince her to sic the guys in the black suburbans on me again.

        Plate tectonics are another story. The results can be verified, observed, and when another quake happens, duplicated.

        Question for you Rusty. Are you and the “moderator” related?

        Think that over.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 3:41 pm

        GMB,

        Sorry, but you’re just flat-out wrong. We can just leave it off here because you’re not even debating the topic anymore but just stubbornly insisting there is no evidence for evolution when every singe respected scientist in the world would disagree with you – not much I can do with that. One cannot debate a person who wishes to remain ignorant.

         
      • GMB

        August 6, 2013 at 4:07 pm

        ” when every singe respected scientist in the world would disagree with you”

        When one of those scientist can provide proof, get back to me okay. Until then I will keep my beliefs and you can keep your beliefs.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        To repeat: the evidence for evolution is vast, cross-disciplined, incontrovertible, and impossible to present in a single blog post. To begin to understand it you would need to do some reading – but I have little confidence you’ll be doing any of that.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 6, 2013 at 4:32 pm

        Oxygen is an evolutionary development. Creationism is not science, it’s religion, disguised as science. It’s an overt attempt by Christianists and Dominionists to interject their philosophy into school curriculum to warp the minds of innocent sponges so that they lack the ability to think critically. I have no problem with creationism being discussed in a comparative religion class.. None at all but there is no “alternative” to scientific facts. I would not see a doctor who thought that demons caused my sickness nor would I seek a professional who attributed a designer to any conundrum I was experiencing. As I said in an earlier post, to project a universal grand plan as a template for the clockwork of the universe is delusional. There is no god in terms of human understanding and even if there were, he (or she or even it) is mean, hateful and vindictive. Look at the old testament. Kill your neighbor if they labor on Sunday. Stone you wife if she wears clothing made of different cloths. Don’t eat shrimp or lobster. You’ll die a horrible death. The god of the old testament was absolutely horrific. And yet this line of reasoning is supposed to pass as legitimate scientific inquiry? Creationism is a profound,disingenuous retaliation against reason. At it’s basis, it’s not a denial of a metaphysical entity with human like qualities but rather an insistence upon thereof. Creationists demand that the unknowable universe aligns with their religious precepts. It is intolerable for them to accept any alternative and thus they try to convince themselves that by teaching creation myths as “science” that they are both succeeding and controlling the mechanics of the dynamics of how the universe works. It’s religious indoctrination masquerading as non judgmental scientific inquiry. Fortunately, these creationists have failed repeatedly to overwhelm school boards. My state of Kansas included. What’s the matter with Kansas? Alot!

         
    • mitchethekid

      August 6, 2013 at 3:14 pm

      Thanks for the compliment Rusty! Post anytime you want, as often as you want. Just don’t mention beets. (I hate beets.) How did you find us out here in cyber wilderness? Was it a long an arduous trek or a luxury trip on a Gulfstream 5? Complete with Haute Cuisine, cocktails and half clad nubile young temptresses?
      I am fascinated by scientific inquiry. As a kid, I would stay up late reading World Book. I take things apart to understand how they work. I have a particular interest in physical anthropology and quantum physics. I’ve read everything that Stephen Jay Gould has written (RIP) as well as Stephen Hawking, Marvin Harris and Timothy Ferris. Actually, the list goes on. For example, Julian Jaynes proposed a fascinating theory that combined the metaphorical basis of language and human consciousness. Curtis Smith wrote a book shortly thereafter discussing the same idea entitled Ancestral Voices. Richard Feynman took pen to pape and described the experience of being on the cusp of proving the Unified Field Theory, which was confirmed last summer by the LHC. I also am very fond of Sagen’s Dragons of Eden. Wonderful book. With all of that said, I will confess that I enjoy debating science vs religion. Many years ago I came to the conclusion that the idea of god came from man, not the other way around. All religions (plural) have their roots in magic, superstition and a developing self-consciousness. The cave drawings from the Aurignacian period in Europe emphasize my point. When people try to discount evolution, I always try to find out why. Is it because the science of it is riddled with doubt and easily disprovable information or rather is it a defense to bolster a more rigid, “god” oriented view of the universe. If it’s the latter, well all I can say is that the universe is not only uncaring but like a cloud. It changes shape and then goes. Acceptance of evolution…as a fact of life, does not preclude nor exclude a “higher power”, a “force”, an energy within the universe that is beyond the cognitive ability of humans to understand. In many ways our brains are like radios or TV sets. We can only be aware of the bandwidths that our physiology is capable of processing. Allan Watts comes to mind here. As does Buddhism. Interestingly, the The Bhagavad Gita can be understood as a primer to sub atomic particle physics. For example, when it states that reality is an illusion, that is now a demonstrable fact. If we break down matter to it’s most primary, fundamental components, it’s packets of energy and by very definition energy has no mass. No mass: No “physical” existence. The anthrophomorphic nature of religion is no different than the term used by psychologists: projection. This trajectory of scientific inquiry, and the assumptions laid forth by the scientific method apply to the global warming debate as well. The science proves the planet is warming. The pictures of melting ice caps are not photo shopped and the evidence of global temps increasing is not speculation based upon political ideology. It. Is. A. Fact. If one questions the influence of human activity, I refer to Dick Cheney and his 1% doctrine. Or as Remo Gaggi said in Casino, “why take a chance”. Another line of reasoning I employ is to ask if the “theory” of mass and energy applies to nuclear weapons. Well, the end of WWII sure proves it does. As do computers, cell phones and printed circuits. Here is a challenge. What is the most mass produced item on planet earth since the late 40’s? Want a hint? It was developed/created by Bell Labs. It’s a simple switch. Either on or off. It operating system is binary. They are now reduced in size and as a child I had one called a Digi-Comp operated by the kinetic force of rubber bands. Bueller? Spicoli? Anyone? (Not Ben Stein, he turned into a right wing wacko) And besides, I doubt he follows this blog.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 4:54 pm

        Mitch,

        Seems like you’re up on your science reading! Interesting notions, I might check out some of those authors. I found this blog through the “rebutting” blog through bfv. Don’t know if I should post here or at “rebutting”!

        My inclination is toward natural science and I too enjoy religious debate. As you say, god most certainly seems to be the creation of man, not the other way around. I also agree with you that the theory of evolution does not disprove a higher power; yet the existence of god – certainly the commonly accepted anthropomorphic one – seems very unlikely.

        In one of my debates with the children at bfv there was much confusion over the term “atheist”. My contention is that a modern atheist doesn’t claim “there is no god”, merely “I don’t believe there is a god”. There is a distinct difference: the former is a statement of knowledge, the later a statement of belief. Most atheists don’t claim to know for a fact god doesn’t exist, they merely don’t believe in a god – the most rational position to take in my opinion.

         
      • Cluster

        August 6, 2013 at 6:58 pm

        I don’t know how anyone can deny the existence of a higher power, but like you Rusty, I don’t think there is any way possible that man can conceive what that higher power “looks like”. The majesty of our universe and the intricacies of our species makes it impossible for me to believe that this is some random accident. And the study of physics and thermodynamics to me suggests that our soul does move on and travels, and those souls that have traveled become wiser. Of course this is just my opinion, but people like Socrates, Einstein, etc, are people with well traveled souls. Jesus would be another one whose soul has traveled extensively and I believe Jesus was a man that through his travels became very wise and knowledgeable as to the desires of the higher power, ie; God.

        The really interesting thing about life is all the unknowns which could very well be by design. We simply don’t have the capacity to fully grasp all the mysteries that exist.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 9:03 pm

        Cluster,

        Sorry, but I see absolutely no evidence of the soul coming from the fields of physics or thermodynamics; in fact, quite the opposite – the existence of a soul would violate our understanding of those fields.

         
      • Cluster

        August 7, 2013 at 5:27 am

        Rusty, this from where I derive my theory:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

        Our bodies are nothing but heat and pressure, and our souls are energy. Our bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium. Part of the laws of thermodynamics is that molecular energy never dissipates, or is never lost, it simply transfers therefore our soul transfers.

        And creationism is part of science if you believe in the Big Bang.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 7, 2013 at 7:17 am

        You’re not deriving your theory from the laws of thermodynamics, you’re drawing completely unsubstantiated beliefs from them.

        The body is indeed energy, but in the real world we deal with those components that can be observed, measured, graphed, etc. There is absolutely no indication of a soul in a human system; not one shred of evidence that one exists. Until one is discovered, the concept of the soul must remain in the realm of wishful thinking/religion, not science.

        This cuts to the heart of what really bugs me about religion: the attempted highjacking of science or the unreasonable denial of science (evolution) to bolster superstition. Science is all about discovering truths about our real world, and it’s simply the best way of doing so; religion is all about myth, faith and superstition. The two shall not meet. Now if you want to be religious, knock yourself out. Start a church. Talk about it endlessly with your friends. Preach from a street corner. But you must admit your conviction comes from personal faith, not rationality. When you try to co-opt science for your cause you commit a great offence.

        Science never tries to muscle in on religion. Indeed, faith is the antithesis to the scientific method. Science does not need religion. Religion, on the other hand, is constantly trying to claim the imprimatur of science because it cant stand on it’s own two feet. Religion needs science because it’s so obviously full of shit. And that tendency of the religious is both deeply offensive and damaging to our society.

        (…steps down from soapbox)

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 7, 2013 at 7:40 am

        Also, your comparison of creationism to science is fatuous. I, and other rational people, don’t believe in the big bang the way religious people believe in creationism.

        The big bang is a working, incomplete theory that has evidence going for it. It will undoubtedly be subject to refinement and revision as our knowledge and technology increase. That’s very different from believing that the written fantasies of nomadic, iron age men are ultimate truths flowing straight from god.

         
  8. meursault1942

    August 6, 2013 at 10:58 am

    “[the VA is] a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy ran by bureaucrats focused more on file organization and lunch breaks than the administration of care, and that is what we are all in for with Obamacare.”

    I don’t think that’s quite an apt comparison for a couple of reasons:

    1) Part of the problem with the VA is that they aren’t focused on file organization. Their files are an absolute mess, which is why you have people saying that the VA has “lost” their paperwork multiple times, causing them to start over with the claims process. A big part of what I was addressing was the need to get the file-keeping modernized and made more efficient via computerization and increasing compatibility among the various computer systems so everybody can talk to everybody else and quickly share information to get claims handled much more quickly.

    2) We aren’t ALL in for that with Obamacare. In fact, I’d bet that pretty much everybody on this blog is going to stand pat with their current coverage situation, as will the majority of people in this country. But for those without coverage, Obamacare will help. Or at least it might depending on what state you live in, which brings me to….

    3) We’re already seeing Obamacare rollouts going smoothly in places like New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and California, and we’re seeing big drops in coverage costs in those states as a result But that’s because those states are doing the work to make the rollout go smoothly. In various red states, you’re seeing a different story: Nonstop sandbagging, delays, and basically attempts to undermine the law so as to “prove” that it doesn’t work. Some states are even passing laws forbidding the state to set up insurance exchanges. Now, I get the politics of it (refuse to set up exchanges, thereby forcing the federal government to do it for you, at which point you complain about “federal encroachment” and such; throw up as many obstacles as you can to successful implementation, then turn around and say that your state’s failure to implement Obamacare proves that Obamacare itself is a failure), but all that does is hurt your state’s residents–and some of the most vulnerable residents, at that–in order to make a fallacious political point. And it’s a fallacious point that may well backfire: Citizens will see that their counterparts in other states are doing much better than they are with health insurance and wonder why their state can’t get its act together.

    4) Finally, it’s worth noting that the thing Reagan was warning about, Medicare, is actually quite good. Better than the U.S. health care system as a whole, even, as once people enter Medicare, their quality of care catches up to and then surpasses that of other nations that the U.S. as a whole lags behind:

    at age 65, Americans enter a health-care system that ceases to be exceptional when compared with the systems in the other 16 nations studied. They leave behind the private provision of medical coverage, forsake the genius of the market and avail themselves of universal medical insurance. For the first time, they are beneficiaries of the same kind of social policy that their counterparts in other lands enjoy. And presto, change-o: Their life expectancy catches up with and eventually surpasses those of the French, Germans, Britons and Canadians.

     
    • Cluster

      August 6, 2013 at 11:50 am

      Mersault,

      You need to read more into the minutae of the data and headlines that purport Obamacare to be so good:

      “Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions. That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee. Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.”

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

      Aside from this – my own personal insurance premium increased by 20% in May, and the letter informing me of this told me that I could most likely expect another rate “adjustment”. What advocates of the system are not accounting for are the subsidies, like the ones Congress just gave their staff – a very well paid staff mind you and a subsidy no one else gets. And that’s what I don’t understand about Obamacare – Democrats are usually all about fairness, but this law is anything but fair – with waivers, exemptions, subsidies etc., this law plays favortisim depending on who you are. In the next post, I will provide another link worth a look.

       
      • kmg

        August 6, 2013 at 7:50 pm

        The apples to oranges comparisons is when the Republican states put out press releases about how rates are going to skyrocket under the ACA. They are comparing bare-bones plans with little coverage and high deductibles with the ACA plans that have good coverage and lower deductibles.

        Also, how is the employer contribution received by congressional staffers a subsidy that no one else gets? The vast majority of employer-provided health insurance has an employer contribution, or subsidy as you call it.

         
      • meursault1942

        August 7, 2013 at 10:54 am

        Cluster–

        That Avik Roy piece you linked to suffers from some real showstopper flaws, most of which are related to the fact that Roy’s numbers for comparison to Obamacare are actually just teaser rates from eHealthInsurance.com. Forbes itself published an article that shot down Roy’s piece, noting that the teaser rates are almost never actually the rates paid (“You see, while many of us like to describe ourselves as “never having been sick a day in my life”, the reality is that such individuals are extremely rare. Have you ever suffered a migraine headache? If you have, be prepared for a substantial increase over the teaser price stated on a website like eHealthInsurance.com. Ever experience a summer of hay fever? Your rate will skyrocket as a result. Did you have acne as a teenager? Uh-oh..price is going up.”), and further noting that eHealthInsurance.com and other such cut-rate insurance sellers can and frequently do outright refuse to insure people; these are the very people Obamacare will cover.

        The Washington Post did an even better analysis about how poor Roy’s comparison is:

        Click to buy the plan and eventually you’ll have to answer pages and pages of questions about your health history. Ever had cancer? How about an ulcer? How about a headache? Do you feel sad when it rains? When it doesn’t rain? Is there a history of cardiovascular disease in your family? Have you ever known anyone who had the flu? The actual cost of the plan will depend on how you answer those questions.

        According to HealthCare.gov, 14 percent of people who try to buy that plan are turned away outright. Another 12 percent are told they’ll have to pay more than $109. So a quarter of the people who try to buy this insurance product for $109 a month are told they can’t. Those are the people who need insurance most — they are sick, or were sick, or are likely to get sick. So, again, is $109 really the price of this plan?

        Comparing the pre-underwriting price of this plan to those in Obamacare’s exchanges is ridiculous. The plans in Obamacare’s exchanges have to include those people. They can’t turn anyone away or jack up rates because of a history of arthritis or heart disease.

        [snip]

        Some people will find the new rules make insurance more expensive. That’s in part because their health insurance was made cheap by turning away sick people. The new rules also won’t allow for as much discrimination based on age or gender. The flip side of that, of course, is that many will suddenly find their health insurance is much cheaper, or they will find that, for the first time, they’re not turned away when they try to buy health insurance.

        That’s why the law is expected to insure almost 25 million people in the first decade: It makes health insurance affordable and accessible to millions who couldn’t get it before. To judge it from a baseline that leaves them out — a baseline that asks only what the wealthy and healthy will pay and ignores the benefits to the poor, the sick, the old, and women — well, that is a bit shocking.

        So it’s highly disingenuous of Roy to complain that people saying Obamacare will be a boon to California are comparing apples and oranges when what Roy himself is doing is, to quote the Washington Post, “not just comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing apples to oranges that the fruit guy may not even let you buy.”

         
      • meursault1942

        August 7, 2013 at 1:32 pm

        Doh! I have a comment stuck in moderation, probably due to having too many links. Can somebody unstick, please?

         
      • kmg

        August 6, 2013 at 7:59 pm

        A perfect example of comparing apples to oranges. The House Republicans made up some numbers by comparing a low cost plan with thousands of dollars in deductibles, no coverage for doctor visits, and no coverage for preventative care with an ACA plan that does have low deductibles and good coverage. They also do not take into account subsidies for low income people.

         
    • GMB

      August 6, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      I still like my Insurance plan better. Will make layer upon layer of gub’mint paperwork obsolete.

      Get sick, need to the hospital, need meds, hospice care? Just do it and send the bill to the feds.

      Feds cut the checks, evreyone is happy.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 6, 2013 at 2:48 pm

        GMB,

        That’s actually the way single-payer, the best system, works. And you’re right – it’s much more efficient than the private insurance industry.

         
      • GMB

        August 6, 2013 at 3:37 pm

        No, unfortunately thats not the way it works. Layer upon layer upon layer of paperwork and bureaucracy is needed to give what ever flavor of the day exists in D.C a chance to waste money.

        I propose just one layer. A department of Funds Disbursement. The only thing they can do is feed the checks into the printer wait for them to print, then drop them in the nearest mailbox. The employees would, by law, have no say in claim case. In fact if they ever make a question if a claim is valid or not, they will be forced to listen to the “moderator” until their dying day.

        Think happy thoughts.

         
      • watsonthethird

        August 6, 2013 at 3:50 pm

        Since the fed cuts the checks, the fed is spending taxpayer money to pay for your hospital stay. (I can hardly wait for our resident conservatives to cry, “That’s redistribution!”) Anyway, how does one decide how much your hospital care should cost? Does the hospital just issue a bill and the taxpayers pay for it no questions asked?

         
      • GMB

        August 6, 2013 at 4:11 pm

        I don’t see how any other way would work. If you start adding exceptions to the rule, sooner or later we just get back to where we are now. Zillions and zillions of regulations and zillions of “Counts” to carry them out. Waste, corruption, graft, outright theft. You name it, whats your poison.

        Now of course if you have a better idea, please share.

        141 Shopping days till Christmas!!

         
      • GMB

        August 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm

        175k federal laws on the books. At least according to Reason.Com.

        http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/17/life-strangling-laws-from-the-unelected

        Is Reason some kind of Right Wing wacko site?

        “(I can hardly wait for our resident conservatives to cry, “That’s redistribution!””

        Did I get traded? Am I off Team Purity? I hope Team Power also got a “moderator” to be named later in this deal.

         
      • watsonthethird

        August 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm

        Well, suppose I have to have my appendix out and the doctor bills, oh, $100,000 to the taxpayer. And then you have your appendix out and your doctor bills $200,000 to the taxpayer. Should the government just pay the bills?

         
      • watsonthethird

        August 6, 2013 at 5:05 pm

        “Did I get traded?” I was talking about Cluster. lol

         
      • kmg

        August 6, 2013 at 8:02 pm

        GMB,

        I have that plan. It’s called TriCare.

         
  9. Cluster

    August 6, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    a couple more quick comments on Obamacare –

    – Why did Jimmy Hoffa write a letter demanding that Obama and Reid “fix” the program so that his members would not be subject to it?

    – Why did Sen Max Baucus (D), call it a “train wreck”

    – Why did Congress exclude themselves from the program?

    – Why was the employer mandate delayed?

    – Why have hundreds of waivers been issued?

    – Why is the attrition rate of PCP’s sky rocketing?

    In 2008, a healthcare poll showed that 84% had health insurance and were happy with their coverage. That hardly suggests that the industry needed a complete over haul that everyone was subject to. The reason for increasing costs in the industry is due to government regulations and “big” insurance – so the answer was not to add more government.

    Just an aside – unless it is reformed, Medicare is on the path to bankruptcy

     
    • kmg

      August 6, 2013 at 8:11 pm

      1. I don’t know, ask Hoffa.

      2. I don’t know, ask Baucus.

      3. Because Congresses health care exceeds the minimum requirement of the ACA. Just as the plans for most employers and the military do. You are exempt if your plan exceeds the minimum standards.

      4. The employer mandate was postponed to allow time for the rules to be put in place on reporting requirements. If it hadn’t been delayed, I’m sure you would be complaining about the Administration not listening to or caring about businesses.

      5. I don’t know. Which waivers? What were they asking to be waived? What were the circumstances for each waiver?

      6. Do you have a cite proving that attrition has skyrocketed?

       
  10. mitchethekid

    August 6, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Jimmy Hoffa? Are you hiding the body?

     
    • GMB

      August 6, 2013 at 1:57 pm

      I do believe he meant Jimmy Hoffa Junior. I have the original Jimmy Hoffa buried under whats left of our old 61 Allis Chalmers.

      😛

       
  11. mitchethekid

    August 6, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    Alis Chalmers! You should drive it to a cruise night along with my ’66 Thunderbird. Want to see a picture?

     
    • GMB

      August 6, 2013 at 3:39 pm

      Sorry Mitch, it’s just “whats left” No tires at all, no transmission, only a hunk of the engine block.

      In fact, its going to get chopped up for scrap as I get off my lazy butt. I don’t see that happening soon.

       
  12. mitchethekid

    August 6, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    But (no pun intended) it an Alis Chambers! A valued piece of Americana!

     
  13. mitchethekid

    August 6, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    This is funny. Question for you Rusty. Are you and the “moderator” related?
    There are no moderators. We’re just a bunch of old drunk and stoned guys having a go at youth. Pretty soon we’ll pass out and wake up in the morning going WTF did I say now? The Drs. warned me about this behavior!
    I love you GMB, but lighten up. Your sense of humor contrasts with your seriousness. So I am confused.

     
    • GMB

      August 6, 2013 at 5:23 pm

      The “moderator” note the quotation marks resides over at B4V. I am sure we all don’t want that here. Rusty it would seem to me was picking a fight where none was needed. Just like our beloved “moderator”

      Peace, love, prosperity, and maybe a beer or two on New Years Eve

       
  14. mitchethekid

    August 6, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    We are not like them. We are loving. They are assholes. They’re pick fights, we have conversation. They deny New Years exists. We have parties. They have Neo, we have me and Cluster. But with that said, I’d like to take a Louisville Slugger to Neo, throw a dictionary at Amazona,and have the Pope tell Mark Noonan off.

     
  15. GMB

    August 7, 2013 at 12:55 am

    Where do I go with that remark. Lol, except for kim jung “moderator” I think I’ll leave it alone.

    🙂

     
  16. GMB

    August 7, 2013 at 1:03 am

    Cluster, one thing I would like to point out in regards to the topic of this post. At least on the federal level, He only had a republican Senate to work with for two years. The rest of the time both the Senate and the HoR were controlled by the democrats.

    However the buck does stop at the Oval Office.

     
  17. mitchethekid

    August 7, 2013 at 9:32 am

    To continue the conversation about science and religion, I saw this today. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/record-arctic-ice-melt_n_3715226.html

    Neil Degrasse Tyson said that if civilization were to start over, religion would be different but science the same.The laws of physics are immutable and I think it’s possible for some “thing” to arise from no “thing”. There are books written about Chaos Theory. I think that linear thought is an inherent trait. On the physical plane, things have a starting and ending point so it’s only natural for people of faith to have a difficult time with more abstract and paradoxical concepts. I’m generalizing here of course, but usually the most fanatical anti-science folks are also the most religious. I also want to make it very clear that respect of one another is very important on this blog. As GMB said, he has his beliefs (as do others) and folks like me and Rusty have ours, although mine is more of a non judgmental acceptance of empirical facts rather than actual belief. But I do believe that whales speak french at the bottom of the sea!
    I have Playboy collection. Every issue from 1970-1986. A month ago I had a garage sale and thought they might be of value. They’re not. 😦 Anyway, as I was going through them, I came across this essay written by Allan Watts in 1973. (Link below) The reason it comes to mind here is because of the relationship between religious beliefs and it’s influence on government. Not morality, but the conflict between the two.
    “The crucial question, then, is that if you picture the universe as a monarchy, how can you believe that a republic is the best form of government, and so be a loyal citizen of the United States? It is thus that fundamentalists veer to the extreme right wing in politics, being of the personality type that demands strong external and paternalistic authority. Their “rugged individualism” and their racism are founded on the conviction that they are the elect of God the Father, and their forebears took possession of America as the armies of Joshua took possession of Canaan, treating the Indians as Joshua and Gideon treated the Bedouin of Palestine. In the same spirit the Protestant British, Dutch and Germans took possession of Africa, India and Indonesia, and the rigid Catholics of Spain and Portugal colonized Latin America. Such territorial expansion may or may not be practical politics, but to do it in the name of Jesus of Nazareth is an outrage.”
    http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/alan-watts-bible.html
    It’s a bit long, but I found it prescient.
    And as an after thought, there is this. http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

     
    • rustybrown2012

      August 7, 2013 at 10:25 am

      Mitch,

      I agree with Tyson’s analysis. But I’ll add that although religion might be different if we were to start over, it would probably be similar to what we have today; that is, we would probably create a father figure to appeal to for favors and to give us comfort in the face of the existential malaise of aging and death. So we would basically be worshiping different gods than we are now (as we have done throughout history).

      As for respect for one another, it’s my opinion that some ideas are worthy of more respect than others. Beliefs are not equal and have diverse effects on the world. I can respect a personal faith but when it insists on making ridiculous claims while horning in on the secular world, I have a problem. I have kids and I will not tolerate their indoctrination to superstitious nonsense.

      Taking a trip now. Offline for a few days while I obliterate my senses with nature and intoxicants. Thanks be the lord for grandparents! Peace!

       
      • GMB

        August 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm

        “I have kids and I will not tolerate their indoctrination to superstitious nonsense.”

        I have kids and I will not tolerate their indoctrination to pseudo scientific nonsense either.How many millions of years worth of bones and fossils but not one transitional?

        It would seem that as a man of science you would want to get to the bottom of that question.

        Your remark about respect seems to indicate that you should question all authority unless you are the authority?

        Right? Wrong?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 9, 2013 at 8:12 pm

        Wrong again GMB, plenty of transitional fossils have been found and more are being discovered. You see, there will always be gaps in the fossil record, it’s the nature of the beast. And once you find a TF, there will be new gaps to contend with. Say you’re looking for a TF between fossil “A” and fossil “F”. You can discover fossil “D” but are still left with gaps between “A” and “D” and “D” and “F”; that doesn’t make “D” any less of a TF.

        Contrary to your opinion, I don’t mind being asked questions about this – I’m on solid ground.

         
  18. mitchethekid

    August 7, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Have fun! By respect, I had B4V in mind. I agree that the origins of religion are because of an awareness of death, and the god the father concept is because of the dynamics of human families. It’s projection. Are you familiar with Joseph Campbell?

     
  19. GMB

    August 7, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    “The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.”

    Thanks to Everyone and especially you Mitch, for allowing me to be who I am.

    Cheers.

     
  20. mitchethekid

    August 8, 2013 at 8:17 am

    No problemo. I guess I turned out to be different person than you thought, yes? One of my character flaws is that I get outraged easily and I can have a caustic wit. The attitude at B4V was so repellant that I acted on my impulses and even though I tried to reason with them, it is an impossible task. They are just plain closed minded and nasty people.

     
  21. GMB

    August 9, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    And again, after going through zillions( what seems like) pages of evaluational dogma

    we get words like this offered up as proof.

    “Paleontologists suggest that it is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates (fish) such as Panderichthys,

    A “suggestion” is now proof.

    Micro evolution, any where from 14 to 20 steps to go from a sco to humans. Macro evolution, depending on who you want to put your faith in, just forget it. Way too many steps to get from a sco to humans.

    Not only can evolution not stand up to scrutiny it takes more faith to believe in it than it does to believe God.

     
    • bardolf2

      August 9, 2013 at 10:47 pm

      In the manner of Wormwood:

      Do not worry about the youth being taught evolution in school Really, think of it as an inoculation, the same as parents who take their children to a doctor’s office for an annual flu shot.

      Do not worry, I say, because the time will be used to introduce a poorly thought out version of randomness. A time when even the most elementary of genetics calculation is mishandled by poorly trained biology teachers and confused with ideas like Lamarckism no self-respecting adult would engage in.

      In this manner, though the students immediately take to it like a duck to water, they will eventually grow tired of it, just as the immune system begins to work against viruses.

      As adults or even before that, as college students they will realize how childish this ill defined stochastic process called evolution really is. Then, as adults, they will take to heart the advice, to put childish things behind them.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 10, 2013 at 5:35 am

        So, are you a creationist? It seems you are comparing an acceptance of the process of evolution with believing in childish notions. Such as the tooth fairy. Is this because it challenges your faith, or is it something else? Or perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to say..

         
      • Cluster

        August 10, 2013 at 5:55 am

        Gentleman,

        GMB and bardolf have accurately pointed out that what we know of evolution still does not fill in all the blanks, so no one with any degree of 100% certainty can explain the origins. That’s just a fact, and that’s also why it is called “Faith”, and that is hardly a fairy tale. Mans belief in a higher power goes back to the beginning of time.

        I happen to believe that evolution and creation coexist, but I also am unsure as to why the human species is so far advanced above other species, and have to think that there could be some divine reason. But you see that is the beauty of our existence, we may never know and that may be by design.

        I only wish people like Rusty would have just a small sense of humility and admit that there are holes in evolutionary theory, and that maybe there is something else that could explain the origin rather than speak with certainty on the issue in a condescending tone.

         
      • kmg

        August 10, 2013 at 8:11 am

        Inoculation is an ironic example, since it wouldn’t exist without evolutionary theory.

        Someone should start a thread on evolution. The Creationism/Intelligent Design folks can bring their studies and experiments attempting to prove their “theory” and we’ll bring ours proving evolutionary theory.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 10, 2013 at 8:27 am

        GMB,

        If you’ve gone through “zillions” of pages of text explaining evolution and are still unconvinced, you’re reading the wrong things. Did you see my post about transitional fossils above?

        Cluster,

        There are no “holes” in the theory of evolution which present fatal flaws to the theory. There are no “holes” which keep legitimate scientists up at night and prevent them from accepting the overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact. I speak with certainty because it is a certainty. If you disagree, present a problematic “hole”.

        Concerning origins, the theory of evolution does not posit an ironclad explanation; rather, it’s mainly concerned with how life has evolved on this planet since the origin. Abiogenesis is basically a separate field and unsettled – still open to debate and inquiry. I’ll point out that just because we are uncertain as to how life first formed, that IN NO WAY endorses or supports the theory of god or ANY of our religions explanations for it – all religious explanations are ENTIRELY devoid of evidence.

        Why don’t we have a separate thread about evolution and/or religion?

         
      • bardolf

        August 10, 2013 at 9:17 am

        I am saying the GMB need not worry about the teaching of evolution to his children. Whatever is taught in middle and high school is certainly a childish cartoon of science.

        If I were GMB e.g. I would engage my 6th grader thus:

        GMB: According to the adult KMG on the last blog I haven’t been kicked off,
        “Inoculation is an ironic example, since it wouldn’t exist without evolutionary theory.” How do you think the scientists used Darwin’s ideas to come up with inoculation?

        GMB child: I have no idea, can I use Google and Wikipedia?

        GMB: Well those aren’t scientific, but they are historic and might tell you where to start looking.

        GMB child: Well I went to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation and it says inoculation was invented long before Darwin was even born.

        GMB; Well son, we’ll first have to look into the science of time travel!

         
  22. mitchethekid

    August 10, 2013 at 9:04 am

    Other than math, (and quantum physics has raised some doubt there as well) I agree with the 100% comment. Looking into the past is like a jigsaw puzzle. The more pieces you have, the greater the accuracy of where the next piece goes. Because of the advances in DNA studies, the insight evolutionary scientists have gained is exponential. If one asks questions such as “well, show me the human who was born of an ape” the answer is not possible because it didn’t happen.I also think it is species ism to state with a harumph that “I didn’t come from no monkey!” Actually, we did but great apes and monkeys diverged millions of yrs before great apes and humans did, so in practical terms, the answer is no. The question then becomes, is stating the obvious monkey like?
    If one wants evidence of an ape human transition, look no further than Lucy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
    The great contribution Darwin made was in describing the mechanics of the forces that drive all evolution, not just human. Because of the immense amount of time it takes, and from the perspective of a tiny life time of an individual, it’s easy to understand why some scoff at the science and ask unreasonable and imo, absurd questions. Because of the perspective of the Catholic Church, it appeared that the Sun rotated around the earth. As a result, they jailed Galileo. If one were to take the entire history of the planet, and reduce it into a 24 hour day, the rise of man would be the last 30 seconds. I want to emphasize here a natural conflict. We trust our senses because if we didn’t, we could die very easily. And the sun does appear to rotate around the earth. But it doesn’t. If one wants to see evidence of the big bang, turn on a TV set, go to an open channel and observe. Science and religion do not refute each other. Science came from religion and they both serve the same purpose, to explain the why questions. Just because science advances and refutes long held religious beliefs, it doesn’t make the personal experience of spirituality any less, it’s just that religion is easier.
    Bipedalism drove brain growth, and ultimately an increase in brain size led to self awareness and self awareness led to a belief in the concept of god. Interestingly, monotheism is a relatively new concept. So think about that for a moment. People used to think there were gods for everything!
    To me, having faith in science is more practical and evidentiary than religion. Some people don’t have a need for an external god, they find it in themselves. That might explain why I like Mysticism so much. I know that god is neither provable nor disprovable, but so many things in science are.
    Maybe Rusty is just a little conditioned from the experience he received at B4V!

     
    • bardolf2

      August 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

      “The great contribution Darwin made was in describing the mechanics of the forces that drive all evolution” – Mitchiethekid

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21549079

      Darwin was a public relations wizard as Alfred Russel Wallace had most of the same ideas. Neither man knew anything about genetics, the centerpiece of useful biology invented by Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. Strangely, Darwin is well known in school textbooks but Wallace and Mendel are barely mentioned. Well not so strange, his support of Malthusian catastrophe theory is the basic premise of most of the left who promote an “anti-breeder” philosophy. More than 200 years after the Malthusian theory had been contradicted at every possible juncture, did the leading journal in science bury his ‘theory’? Well, actually Science magazine asked “Will Malthus continue to be wrong?”

      While genetics is responsible for most of the scientific breakthroughs in medicine, how has the science of evolution influenced society? Not inoculation. Not antibiotics like penicillin , those were discovered by serendipity. Not surgery. The real influence is most apparent in the modern field of “evolutionary psychology” which explains e.g. why the rape of women is part of natural selection http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/natural-history-rape

       
  23. bardolf2

    August 10, 2013 at 10:18 am

    “As a result, they jailed Galileo.” mitche

    Nope. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/histogal-body.html

    “In fact Galileo never spent a single day in jail. During his trial he was housed in luxury in a cardinal’s palace, and throughout his life some of his greatest supporters were cardinals and other churchmen. At the time of his trial, in 1633, no one had definite proof that the earth orbits the sun. The truth is that astronomy then was not accurate enough to decide between an earth-centered and sun-centered system. Nonetheless, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church (along with many other scholars at the time) was slowly moving towards accepting this new vision of the heavens, and it is likely that the whole conflict could have been avoided if Galileo himself had been a bit less arrogant.”

    That’s from PBS mind you.

     
  24. mitchethekid

    August 10, 2013 at 11:16 am

    I think that the most efficient way to communicate our ideas about this topic, is for you to spell out exactly and with clarity what you think. To be frank, I am confused. Your posits remind me of the Marconi Tesla debate and now Tesla is the name of an automobile company. Huh,isn’t that odd. It seems you agree that radio waves exist, it’s just a matter of who deserves the credit for figuring out how to transmit information on them.
    I won’t make any assumptions about your POV until you detail them. Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes and all of that.

     
    • bardolf2

      August 10, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      My POV is that science needs to present data first and discuss theories which support those data and then develop experiments which challenge those theories. I don’t see that mode of reasoning used in the way evolution is taught in schools. It is barely taught that way in university.

      The way evolution is taught in school is that some observations are made (i.e. there are no labs where students collect data) and then a vague description ties those observations together in a sort of coherent way and then the subject is finished. This is in contrast with radio waves which were predicted by Maxwell as a subset of electromagnetic radiation and generated by Hertz and are part of a good high school physics lab class.

      Evolution as ‘political’ topic is a mystery to me. Everyone should welcome it being taught in high school. My comment to GMB is if he doubts in evolution then he should welcome the way it is taught in schools which leaves everything muddled. A larger point is that it does more harm than good to give complex topics a superficial rendering, see e.g. the horrible way U.S. history is taught which allows the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world to fill in gaps in understanding with bizarre concepts like white guilt.

       
  25. mitchethekid

    August 10, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Well, thanks. Your clarification leads me to believe that generally we are on the same page. Limbaugh should be one of those old fashioned carnival events where you can take 20lb sledge hammer and beat the shit out of a car. For Neo, I would use a knee capping device, poison injection and that bug that crawled into the ear of the Star Trek guy. And hold his eyes open during the entire process ala The Ludivico Technique.
    Schools are like a shuffleboard game. Push them through, and I agree with your statement. But really, that’s another subject for another day. Anyone can be self educated. All it takes is curiosity.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: