Warthog Open Thread

brutusettu's picture

[url=http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget]A-10 vs. F-35: The Air Force's Latest Budget Bungle*[/url] Adam Weinstein of [i]Mother Jones[/i] on the USAF looking to starve the Warthog.

[url=http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11415/over-the-horizon-the-a-10-battle-and-military-turf-wars]Robert Farley of WPR on the same issue[/url]*

[url=http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/a10.html#images]The Federation of American Scientist's page on the Warthog[/url]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Sports Team-Up That Needs To Happen

(#274795)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Jeremy Lin and Serena Williams kicking every inch of Jason Whitlock's loud ass.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

You know

(#274798)
HankP's picture

there's an old piece that Garry Trudeau wrote, I think it was the into to one of his Doonesbury books, where he talks about how kids realize that only a very few talented individuals can become star athletes, but anyone can become a sports announcer.

I blame it all on the Internet

and yet it moves

(#274764)
brutusettu's picture

[url=http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/10/a-wild-jewelry-idea/]that loveable Rick Santorum[/url]

[quote]“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do, and when you’ll do it. What’s left, in France, became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that. But if we do, and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”[/quote]

Put Up Or Shut Up

(#274749)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Senator McConnell to introduce Obama budget, daring Democrats to pass it.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

How dare the Democrats play politics

(#274752)
brutusettu's picture

How dare them.

....would it even pass the House? Probably not.

So, how dare Mitch play politics, how dare him!

The best thing I've ever cooked

(#274730)

Imma just leave this here.

 

But cut down on the salt.  Halve the amount you use in the rub, skip it in the scallion-ginger sauce, cut out the tbsp at the end w/the brown sugar.  

 

And my cook time for a 8.5lb shoulder was 7.5 hours at 300.

A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.

 

Amazing. In the true sense of the word.

(#274733)
mmghosh's picture

But a cooktime of 7 hours + puts it outside the available time for ordinary mortals.

You should be inviting people over, sir.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

????

(#274785)
HankP's picture

granted, you need an oven, so maybe we're taking that for granted. But slow cooking for a long period of time isn't very difficult. I made a duck last weekend that I slow cooked at 250F (121C) for about 5 hours, with the temperature turned up to 400F (205C) for the last half hour to get the skin nice and crackly. I also slow cook ribs for at least 4 or 5 hours. Really pretty easy if you remember to put it in around noon.

I blame it all on the Internet

24 hour power is a luxury, sir!

(#274801)
mmghosh's picture

[url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-20/delhi/29563962_1_power-cuts-delhi-reels-maximum-demand]- even in our large cities[/url].  And citywallahs have given up on traditional coal/wood/dung ovens.  Gas is rationed, we're given gas by cylinder, you get a full cylinder after you return an empty one.


 


This is what the world will be like for you, too, when the population gets to 10 billion.  The pressure cooker shall rule (in more ways than one).

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

It's 7.5 hours in the oven

(#274740)

Basting every hour or two - well within an ordinary mortal's tolerance.  But the crucial bit is at the end: rub the fatty top layer with brown sugar, stick in a hot (500 deg F) oven for 10-15 minutes, et voila - a sweet, salty & crispy bark of pork crackling that is to bacon roughly as bacon is to broccoli.

A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.

 

Tall tales there hobbesist

(#274750)

I mean really, to state something is better than bacon is a stretch on it's own.  To go so far beyond that is...is...well, I'm at a loss for words but I think there's a UN resolution against such statements.  Good God man, bacon and broccoli in the same sentence.  I need a shower just having read that.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Take the Hugo Challenge

(#274704)

I was flummoxed the other day by a sneaky leftist who when faced with an audience of skeptics on Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, challenged his listeners by asking them to name a better leader of Venezuela. Nobody was able to meet the challenge, in large part due to our own ignorance of Venezuela and her politics. Are readers of the Forvm ready to take the Hugo Challenge? It`s tougher than it sounds.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

It's a fantastic question.

(#274915)

and a tactic I inten to squirrel away for future use on subjects diverse and varied. Thank you.

Trick question

(#274768)
Bird Dog's picture

The office of the president was a fairly weak one before Hugo took over. After changing the constitution, increasing the Supreme Court by half and installing his own judges, changing the legislature from bicameral to unicameral, and nationalizing countless industries, etc. the job of president today is practically unrecognizable compared to prior to 2000. The fact he amassed so much power unto himself while taking away so many civil liberties and political rights leaves me to conclude that pretty much any prior president was better than Hugo.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Respondents are allowed to answer

(#274816)

The Hugo Challenge asks who is-was the better leader than Chavez. Respondents are allowed to answer with presidents, prime ministers, monarchs, dictators, or any other type of leader.

Chavez never nationalized Venezuelan oil industry, the nation's largest. It was a precedecessor of Chavez. Perhaps you're tempted to put this leader's name forward? If not, put another name forward. Someone, a leader of Venezuela, you feel is better than Chavez. 'Pretty much any prior president was better than Hugo' does not satisfy the Hugo Challenge.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

You changed the question

(#274824)
Bird Dog's picture

Your original question was to "name a better leader of venezuela". I took that to mean chavez versus prior leaders of the country. But I'll stand with Betancourt, the founder of Venezuelan democracy.

Second, I never said Chavez nationalized the oil industry. I said he nationalized countless industries. A good summary here.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I congratulate you

(#274834)

Venezuela is in the third tier of Latin American countries. Brazil is the top dog. Mexico and Argentina are the second tier and Venezuela shares the third tier with a handful of other nations. Point is that Venezuela is a smallish economy and the oil industry is overwhelmingly the nation's major industry. I am no big advocate of nationalization, but it seems a fairly innocent project for a government to pursue. The biggest binge of nationalizing I'm aware of in a capitalist or mixed economy is that of the Atlee government of the UK immediately after WW2. Atlee may or may not be included in lists of the UK's best PMs but on the whole he is viewed favourably, I think. (He nationalized BP, or what was then called the Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Corporation, then finagled the Dulles brothers into engineering the 1953 coup, when Mossadegh nationalized it.)

Point of the Hugo Challenge is to show how little we know of places like Venezuela and her neighbours. It is not esoteric knowledge we lack but common knowledge that anyone living there who takes any notice of the news.

I congratulate you for participating in the Hugo Challenge, but insist I changed no question.

 

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Huh

(#274861)
Bird Dog's picture

I think you're understating Venezuela's influence. They're a member of OPEC, they are the 4th largest importer of oil to the U.S. They have the largest amount of proven oil reserves in the world, recently passing KSA. Oil drives economies, and Venezuela has tons of it. To the extent that Chavez use his oil windfalls to help the Venezuelan people, fine. To the extent that uses those monies to meddle in other countries' affairs, then there may be a problem.

Chavez's nationalization schemes are not terribly innocent, particularly when he took over various media outlets. With the amount of oil Chavez has, you'd think Venezuela would be more prosperous. I suggest that it isn't because of his acts of taking away civil liberties and political rights, and by using his government to intrude into the economy with sure-fire losers such as price controls, etc.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Ridiculous

(#274772)
HankP's picture

are you including all the military dictators that have ruled Venezuela? A quick google shows that Chavez is not unusual in the context of Venezuelan history and is far better than several of his predecessors.

I blame it all on the Internet

I used "presidents" for a reason

(#274773)
Bird Dog's picture

As in, those elected to office. I'm pretty sure I also mentioned the powers of the office of the president. Please try to keep up.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

They were Presidents too

(#274776)
HankP's picture

as in they held the constitutional office of the President. Some were even elected.

 

But sure, if you want to re-phrase it to "every President that BD considers a President was better than Chavez", have at it.

I blame it all on the Internet

No, they weren't

(#274796)
Bird Dog's picture

Prior to 1958, Venezuelan leaders may have called themselves presidents but they were military dictators. I was talking specifically about democratically elected presidents, with the office of the president set forth by their constitution. The timeline would be 1958 and onward. Why are you being so contrary? I'm sure it's because if BD said it, HankWorld has to blindly contest it.

BTW, if there is a president superior to Chavez, the easy choice is Betancourt, the founder of Venezuelan democracy. If anything, Chavez is a socialist wannabe dictator who, if anything, is the underminer of Venezuelan democracy.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Like I said

(#274797)
HankP's picture

if you want to redefine "Presidency" to mean what you want, then sure, Chavez is worse than the cherry picked examples you selected.

I blame it all on the Internet

Yoicks

(#274811)
Bird Dog's picture

Why does it always have to come to this, Hank? Here again, you are redefining words while accusing me of redefining words. Just stop with the falsehoods.

Let me help you out here.

President: "The highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States."

Lest there is any confusion about what a republic is: "A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

Hope that helps. Venezuela began the era of electoral democracy in 1958 after a series military juntas and dictatorships going back to Bolivar. I'll leave you to check out that fact on your own, or you can continue with the ever-more-tedious Mr. Contrary schtick. Your call.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

This is why

(#274812)
HankP's picture

your quote -

 

The office of the president was a fairly weak one before Hugo took over. After changing the constitution, increasing the Supreme Court by half and installing his own judges, changing the legislature from bicameral to unicameral, and nationalizing countless industries, etc. the job of president today is practically unrecognizable compared to prior to 2000.

 

No mention of 1958, no mention of republic, no mention of method of attaining office, in fact nothing other than mentioning the year 2000 and the office of President. That's why we come to this, your original statement was ridiculous and when I point that out you add qualifiers that weren't in the original statement.

I blame it all on the Internet

Indeed,

(#274814)
Bird Dog's picture

it was my quote, and it helps to understand the definitions of words before responding to a person's comment. I keep saying that words mean things, but I guess you'll just have none of that. The leaders prior to 1958 could have just easily referred to themselves as spotted dicks. Doesn't mean it's so. Similarly, the self-referencing as "president".

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

It doesn't matter what they refer to themselves as

(#274815)
HankP's picture

the history books refer to them as Presidents, and at the time they were in office everyone referred to them as Presidents. Just because that label doesn't agree with your beliefs, claiming that your idiosyncratic definition "should" be the one that everyone uses is not how it works. Semantic quibbling again.

I blame it all on the Internet

Mischaracterization

(#274823)
Bird Dog's picture

I guess definitions of words, along with facts, have a conservative bias. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

OK

(#274713)

Without cheating I can't come up with anyone (good or bad) other than Simon Bolivar, and I understand he had his pluses and minuses.

 

But then I can't name the current leader of Denmark, either.  That's because it's a quiet, well-run place that minds its own business. The world could do with fewer Great Leaders and more people that serve their term competently and then retire without making too much history.

If Denmark

(#274720)
HankP's picture

had to deal with US financed coup attempts, I'm pretty sure you'd hear more from and about them.

I blame it all on the Internet

Cause vs effect

(#274735)

Of course we shouldn't be financing coup attempts, especially in countries that pose no significant threat and aren't engaged in large scale murder of their own populations.  

 

But let's not confuse cause and effect here.  His populist-autocrat style,  his Ahmadnejadish tendency to run his mouth, and his leftish political philosophy didn't start with the coup attempt.   These things don't justify interference, but they aren't the result of it either.

Ha

(#274742)
HankP's picture

are you talking about Venezuela now or Indonesia 50 years ago?

I blame it all on the Internet

We're Also Talking About A Guy. . .

(#274741)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .who was a (unsuccessful) coup participant himself (and, sadly, wasn't lined up against a wall as the price of failure). He's got far less sympathy coming than usual for having to deal with that sort of thing.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Do you hear about Indonesia

(#274721)
mmghosh's picture

now that it is [url=http://www.opendemocracy.net/hugh-brody/december-1-1961-fly-flag-of-independence-west-papua-and-indonesian-empire]reasonably well run[/url], and has had US-financed coup attempts in the past?

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Sure, the same will happen to Venezuela

(#274725)
HankP's picture

in 40 years or so.

I blame it all on the Internet

+1. And spouses,

(#274718)
mmghosh's picture

one might add.  More [url=http://www.chemie.hu-berlin.de/ag_sauer/Staff/js.html#cv]Prof Dr Joachim Sauer[/url], less Carla Bruni.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

No knowledge base here but it also depends on

(#274708)

how you measure a good leader. Have the constitution written out and given to all the people. Taking over large sectors of the economy for state use. It would also depend on what has improved and what has not compared to other leaders... 

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo

Ben Smith quotes a study from the Business Group on Health,

(#274703)
brutusettu's picture

[quote]Unintended pregnancies result in substantial excess direct medical claims costs and indirect costs such as disability, employee replacement costs, lost
productivity, and presenteeism.[/quote]

[url=http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/contraception-religious-liberty-compromise-takes]link[/url]

Jihad for me but not for thee

(#274699)
Bird Dog's picture

It appears that bin Laden did not want his kids to join the family business.

Osama Bin Laden told his children to live peacefully in the West where they would get a good education, his brother-in-law has revealed.

Zakaria al-Sadah, whose sister is the fifth wife of the Al-Qaeda leader, said Bin Laden did not want his children and grandchildren following in the same path of terrorism like him.

'He told his own children and grandchildren, go to Europe and America and get a good education,' according to an interview with Sadah in The Sunday Times.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

So When, Oh Dear God When...Can I Start Killing...

(#274693)


...some Mullah's in Saudi Arabia, some member of the American Bishops, and a bunch of Ultra Orthodox Rabbi's?

I love the church, I love the Temple, I love the Mosques...but the leaders, the preachers, the people that insist on telling others what to do...when can I declare war on my real enemy?

[I]Malaysian authorities have deported a Saudi journalist accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad in a tweet.

Police confirmed to the BBC that Hamza Kashgari was sent back to Saudi Arabia on Sunday despite protests from human rights groups.

Mr Kashgari's controversial tweet last week sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats.

Insulting the prophet is considered blasphemous in Islam and is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. [/I]

America is populated by cowards, afraid to stand up to religious intolerance and bullying.

Traveller

Karla Berenice Garcia Ramirez

(#274701)

Bet you never heard of a journalist named Karla Berenice Garcia Ramirez. Shes a Mexican who was uncovering corruption in her country, and had to flee after her life was threatened. She sought, refuge in Canada, was denied and is set to be returned to Mexico.

Canada has a policy of clamping down on the number of refugees it welcomes and Karla is one of the unlucky. A courageous woman, though.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Calling out "prophets" should be mandatory I say

(#274697)
brutusettu's picture

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/world/asia/malaysia-detains-saudi-over-twitter-posts-on-prophet.html]"Malaysia Detains Saudi Over Twitter Posts on Prophet"[/url]

 

 

[url=http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/02/12/saudi-arabia-fate-of-journalist-hamza-kashgari-hangs-in-the-balance/]more on the dude calling a spade a spade[/url], and people calling for his execution for it.

 

[url=http://saudijeans.org/2012/02/08/hamza-kashgari/]link with a YT video of a Saudi cleric with tears for the the loss of the Dear Leader, I think[/url] that guy looks like he'd be pulling hard labor if he goes back into NK, not crying sincerely enough at all.

Ahh, America the bright & shinning Shore....NOT!

(#274669)

 

It's a little hard to figure out what's more ridiculous about the U.K. tourists banned from entering the U.S. after Twitter jokes: Is it how seriously U.S. security folks take their Twitter or how shocked and appalled the Daily Mail is about it? On the one hand, damn, U.S. security really took one tourist's tweets way too seriously: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America," read one, according to The Daily Mail. "3 weeks today, we're totally in LA pissing people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin' Marilyn Monroe up!" read another, per the Register. When the tweeter, Leigh Van Bryan, got to Los Angeles with his friend Emily Banting, the pair was stopped and then formally denied entry because U.S. authorities who'd read Van Bryan's tweets thought they were coming to commit crimes. "Federal agents even searched his suitcase looking for spades and shovels, claiming Emily was planning to act as Leigh's 'look out' while he raided Marilyn's tomb," The Daily Mail reported. Wow, immigration authorities. Overkill!

Van Bryan tried to explain to the authorities that it was all a misunderstanding. All that stuff about Marilyn Monroe was  a Family Guy riff and, per The Daily Mail, "Despite telling officials the term 'destroy' was British slang for 'party', they were held on suspicion of planning to 'commit crimes' and had their passports confiscated." The Daily Mail was shocked—shocked!—that the U.S. authorities didn't take the pair's word for it , locking Leigh up with "Mexican drug dealers," the paper claimed. Those security types really don't understand the young people. Besides, how could anyone deny Banting's airtight explanation that her friend meant no harm? "We just wanted to have a good time on holiday. That was all Leigh meant in his tweet. He would not hurt anyone. He is gay."

 

A fascist police-state society comes celephane wrapped in it's own stale stinking death wish....And without a sense of humor.

 

Shame on the United States.

 

Traveller

What's the news that Gen Petraeus

(#274668)
mmghosh's picture

is setting up to run for President?  True or not? - isn't the position of Director of the CIA a step in that direction?


He would seem to be an excellent person, on the face of it, apart from Tarok Kolache.

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Preventive care does not save money

(#274651)
Bird Dog's picture

Politifact rates Obama's comment false. The key paragraphs:

"Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention ... are overreaching," according to the paper. "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs." They write that "the vast majority" of preventive health measures that were "reviewed in the health economics literature do not" save money.

"Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost," the authors write. "In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient."

Meanwhile, a separate study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society concluded that, while interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease would prevent many strokes and deaths, "as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs."

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Hank is right:

(#274722)

Let me quote from the NEJM article:

[quote]Indeed, some evidence does suggest that there are opportunities to save money and improve health through prevention. Preventable causes of death, such as tobacco smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity, and misuse of alcohol have been estimated to be responsible for 900,000 deaths annually — nearly 40% of total yearly mortality in the United States.1 Moreover, some of the measures identified by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, such as counseling adults to quit smoking, screening for colorectal cancer, and providing influenza vaccination, reduce mortality either at low cost or at a cost savings.[/quote]

Saying that some screenings don't save money would have been accurate. Saying that none of them do is factually wrong.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

No, he's not

(#274765)
Bird Dog's picture

Hank's charge is false, fomented by a weekend of foot-stomping anger in other threads. Since the body of my comment already mentioned the "some", his charge doesn't hold water. On the whole, preventive care does not save money. The title was broad-brushed and intended to be taken on the whole. This does not preclude that some measures do save money, which is why linked and cut-and-pasted as I did. There is also the matter of basic logic. If Obama's broad-brushed statement that "preventive care...saves money" is false, then it stands to reason that the broad-brushed statment that preventive does not save money must be true.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Oh, and logic failure

(#274819)
HankP's picture

"All birds can fly" is false

"No birds can fly" is also false.

I blame it all on the Internet

Congratulations.

(#274818)

I will skate up to the edge of a PRV here, and hopefully not skate right over it: you don't know what you're talking about here, because the person who wrote the Politifact post didn't know what they were talking about.

 

What the NEJM article said was that some preventive screenings aren't cost effective. It also pointed out that, as an example, using statins to treat hyperlipidemia is only cost-effective if the patient has increased risk of coronary artery disease from other factors.

 

 

From the Politifact post:

 

[quote]"Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost," the authors write. "In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient."[/quote]

 

Medicine doesn't happen in a vacuum, Bird Dog. Geography plays a role, pollution and other environmental factors play a role, and a population's socio-economic status plays a huge role. As an example, look at this study from the International Journey of Epidemiology. This is a key point from the study:

 

[quote]Recent observational studies have found that dietary patterns and obesity rates vary between neighbourhoods, with living in a low-income or deprived area independently associated with the prevalence of obesity and the consumption of a poor diet. Such associations have been consistently reported in countries such as the UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, US, and Canada. It has been suggested that this may be due to a process of ‘deprivation amplification’, whereby exposure to poor quality food environments amplifies individual risk factors for obesity such as low income, absence of transport, and poor cooking skills or knowledge.[/quote]

 

Is that the kind of prevention the President was talking about? The NEJM editorialist? Beats me, and you don't know either. The Politifact reporter sure as hell doesn't know. I would hazard a guess that the NEJM article doesn't account for lost productivity, lost quality of life, or other bad outcomes from disease, because those outcomes weren't part of the study and are very hard to measure. I would argue that the NEJM editorialist knew this, hence the statement about some measures being worthwhile because of their benefits. You imply (I think) that since preventative measures don't save tons of money, they aren't worthwhile. I disagree with that position.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Oy

(#274822)
Bird Dog's picture

It's right there in the NEJM, using the author's very own words: "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

Emphasis mine. The president made a broad-brushed unqualified statment that "preventive care...saves money". The statement is false as it stands. He would've made a stronger case had he said that preventive care improves and lengthens lives, but he didn't say that, and he shouldn't be measured for things you wished he might've said.

Also, the point isn't about whether I approve or disapprove of preventive care. My wife and I are of an age where we're in the middle of a series of preventive care visits, so you can draw your own conclusions.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

So what is your point?

(#274831)

nt

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

My point?

(#274860)
Bird Dog's picture

I know this is a long thread, but all you have to do is go back to the beginning. I don't know why you liberals are having such a hard time with what the New England Journal of Medicine is saying.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

"false" "mostly true" same differene....

(#274829)
brutusettu's picture

.... although preventive care as a whole is a net savings, and it saves lives, it reduces lost work hours, etc, it doesn't save money for just the treatments alone in every case and ergo it's "FALSE" with not a chance of "mostly true" or "partially true".

 

Some people might get seriously confused that such a narrow... point would be put forth. Plus this is in light of one the preventive care cost that's been brought up recently, contraception, which looks likes it's cheaper  than getting pregnant, and more pragmatic for things like the pill to be in play every single time its needed than to rely on other means.

Most of the time, when something is at its absolute worst, "partly true," it would be misleading to say it's "false."

Politofact can rate an Obama statement that "water treats dehydration " as "mostly false," because it was unqualified and needed state that there are exceptions.

 

And more people should point out their BS, that's basically what they did and that seems to be their current standards now.

Eh

(#274859)
Bird Dog's picture

You're presenting facts not in evidence when you say that preventive as a whole is a net savings. The NEJM article says no such thing.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

If the dark blue bars in the graph show preventive care

(#274862)
brutusettu's picture

then it looks like preventive care wins in for the cases sample.

Eh

(#274993)
Bird Dog's picture

Key word: sample. I'm sure the authors wouldn't say something that contradicted the graphs they created.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Exactly right.

(#274832)

As I said, the studies in the NEJM editorial don't talk about lost wages, diability payments, etc. It's an apples-to-apples comparison of screening tests to treatment of disease, based on how much gets spent on each.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

once again

(#274775)
brutusettu's picture

Politofact is a blog.

And chart in (#274664), it looks like preventive care overall is a net winner.

the New England Journal of Medicine doesn't seem to support politofact blog's claim.

Obama could say that Derrick Rose is an NBA MVP and Politfact might rate that "false" because Rose has lived most his life w/o having an NBA MVP. "while it's true that Rose is a NBA MVP after last season, most of the time Rose has not been a NBA MVP, so we rate Obama's statement as false."

Whether it's a blog is neither here nor there

(#274793)
Bird Dog's picture

A blog can be credible or not. Paul Krugman has a blog. So what. Your point is meaningless. Politifact is a subset of the Tampa Bay Times, a news organization which uses commonly accepted standards of journalism. They used the NEJM piece as part of their investigation and they interpreted it accurately. It baffles me that you liberals are having such a hard with fact-checkers. I guess facts really do have a conservative bias these days.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

It ain't the arbitotor of truth and it has a bad track record

(#274802)
brutusettu's picture

Plus I pointed out that if the NEJoM had a blog, they'd rate politofact's claim as false.

If a statement is barely more than pedantically & technically not 100% accurate, why on Earth should it baffle anyone that these certain "fact-chekers" are being ignored for rating those "false"??????

politofact "fact checked" sports too, they would be dumb enough to claim that Derrick Rose isn't a NBA MVP, because far more often than not, he isn't one.

Huh

(#274810)
Bird Dog's picture

I can't read words that don't exist and I don't read minds, bru. You didn't point out your hypothetical until just now.

In the NEJM's own words: "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
Politifact isn't faultless. No journalistic enterprise is, but they serve a purpose.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Absent credibility, that purpose is?

(#274849)

[url=http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/02/15/polifact-math/]Politifact Math[/url]

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Irrelevant...

(#274858)
Bird Dog's picture

...as it relates to preventive care. The source was the NEJM, and Politifact accurately cut-and-pasted.

Re Rubio's comment, I wouldn't have rated it "mostly true". Like I said, they're not infallible.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

PRV, again nt

(#274769)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Not going to wade to deep here but it all depends if you

(#274707)

are factoring in lower mortality into the equation. It is cheaper over someones whole life to let them have an MI that kills them at 43 rather than preventing it with a stent and multiple surgeries over the rest of their extended life.... I have never seen the ratio work when you put in life expectancy.... 

 

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo

Politifact is incompetent

(#274656)

there's no use citing them, they have no credibility.

Nope, I'll cite them, a lot

(#274683)
Bird Dog's picture

I guess the facts must now have have a conservative bias.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Politifact is a fracking blog

(#274695)
brutusettu's picture

n/t

But For Contraception, It Does

(#274655)
M Scott Eiland's picture

At least in cases where pregnancy would be covered. Speaking about prevention more broadly is where the problem arises:

"Sometimes preventive measures save money, sometimes not," Neumann said. "The general message is that it depends."

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

As the bishops said,

(#274679)
Bird Dog's picture

this would assume that pregnancy is a disease.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

"Pregnancy as a disease"?

(#274702)
Jay C's picture

Oh, please, BD: the "pregnancy as a disease" formulation is just another BS talking-point from the Bishops' Conference to inform us yet again (as if we need the reminder) that they're really really really against birth control, and that we all of us should be as well.

 

It's disingenuous (to be polite about it) to pretend that the conditions and circumstances of conception/pregnancy/childbirth have no medical component, and thus no connection to "healthcare" issues; or the costs associated with them. If the Bishops want to garland their opposition to contraception with misleading sloganeering, well, that's their right - but I don't see why anyone else has to buy into their nonsense: or at the least, hesitate to call it out.

 

 

No. . .

(#274686)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .it just assumes:

--unwanted pregnancies happen substantially more frequently in the absence of contraception;

--many people choose not to use abortion to end an unplanned pregnancy even if they don't really want a baby right then;

--medical insurance these days generally pays for the costs incurred during pregnancy and childbirth;

--the money saved by preventing one unwanted pregnancy that would otherwise go to term will pay for a lot of reliable contraceptives for a lot of patients who choose to use them because they don't want a baby;

--this will appeal to the bean counters of a typical health insurance company.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Your assumptions are mostly true.

(#274732)
mmghosh's picture

1.  Preganancies, wanted and unwanted, happen more frequently without contraception, why else do you think we have a big population?


2.  Many people do not like abortions.


3.  Yes - over here (the control group) health costs from a properly medically supervised pregnancy are lower than that of an unsupervised one.


4.  Yes, or at least it should do.


5.  Yes, or at least it should do.


 


There are enough medical complications in pregnancy to both the mother and child to warrant the writing of large multi-author textbooks.  I just googled "medical complications of pregnancy".

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

One exception to your list

(#274687)
HankP's picture

most health insurance plans don't cover maternity costs - at least until the ACA forces coverage in 2014.

I blame it all on the Internet

No, it would assume it was a choice nt

(#274681)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Misleading again

(#274654)
HankP's picture

some does, some doesn't , but actual studies show that overall they do save costs especially in the highest cost category.

I blame it all on the Internet

Oy

(#274678)
Bird Dog's picture

I guess it's my day to experience fascist behavior from another commenter. Since the Politifact piece did indeed say that preventive care saves money in some cases, there was nothing misleading unless a person resides HankWorld. In that case, conservatives are the enemy and always wrong. And really mean, too.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Hmmm

(#274680)
HankP's picture

"Preventive care does not save money". Yeah, nothing misleading about that comment title.

I blame it all on the Internet

Indeed, nothing misleading at all

(#274684)
Bird Dog's picture

Since you linked to the exact NEJM article that Politifact cited, you have exactly no point at all, except to pick to try and pick Internet fights with your ideological enemies. Just walk away slowly and figure out another tack, bub.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

You're the one making absolute statements

(#274685)
HankP's picture

if you won't stand by them when challenged, fine by me.

I blame it all on the Internet

Pedantic response

(#274688)
Bird Dog's picture

The link and key paragraphs were included for anyone to see. Seriously, dude, you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Ha, sure Mr. Dictionary nt

(#274690)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Indeed

(#274691)
Bird Dog's picture

It's really too bad that you have to be shown definitions of words, and it's too bad that you've so often made up your own definitions, all in order in to maintain your left-wing storylines. But do indeed carry on. It's quite entertaining, seeing your personal vendetta against your political enemy unfold.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

"Preventive care does not save money" *

(#274692)
HankP's picture

* not intended as a factual statement

I blame it all on the Internet

Thank you,

(#274698)
Bird Dog's picture

for telling me what my intentions are. Yep, you get another one.

[img]http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834515c2369e2012875ca6bf6970c-pi[/img]

It's obviously that you refuse to get it, so I'll spell it out so that even a left-wing zealot on a personal vendetta can understand. The "subject" line said one thing, and the "comment" body provided the context. Had there been no comment in the comment section, the title would have been overly broad, most definitely arguable, and misleading because there are some preventive measures that do reduce costs. But since context was furnished for, with links, your point is beyond lame and tantamount to just another attack on a commenter who dissents from your ideology. This is Blogging 101 here, bub. Take off the blinders and shake off the illiberal intolerance.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

BD, tone it down pls.

(#274717)

I understand you think HankP's been engaging in PRV's, but that doesn't license you to go off with "left wing zealot".

 

I know you'd like a review of these comments and such, but if you both could tone it down and not require any moderating effort that would be appreciated.

PRVs, again

(#274705)
HankP's picture

the title was overly broad, definitely arguable and misleading.

I blame it all on the Internet

Yep, that confirms it

(#274763)
Bird Dog's picture

You failed to grok Blogging 101, which explains a lot when it comes to your own diaries.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

PRV, again nt

(#274767)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

From Your Link

(#274658)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

To the extent that Mr. Obama engages in broad generalizations about the savings attributable to preventative care, his statements are false.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

And to the extent that BD engages in broad generalizations

(#274664)
HankP's picture

his statements are also false. You saw where I said "some does, some doesn't", right? And where BD said "Preventive care does not save money"?

 

And look at the chart that accompanies the article -

 

 

Unless my eyes are gone, that first column shows the preventative care cost savings higher than treatment for existing conditions.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

"It's not illegal if (enemies of our enemies do it)"

(#274639)
brutusettu's picture

[url=http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/israel_mek_and_state_sponsor_of_terror_groups/singleton/]US politicians and public figures are paid spokesmen for a group that kidnaps recruits and promotes mowing down civilians with tanks to save ammunition.[/url]

Color me surprised

(#274633)
Bird Dog's picture

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission greenlights a new nuclear power plant in Georgia. Prior to this, the most recent approval came in 1978.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Once again, missing the most important points

(#274652)
HankP's picture

as summarized here. Key points

 

- $8.3 billion in loan guarantees. That's almost 16 times the loan guarantees to Solyndra. GOVERNMENT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS! Yet no complaints this time, I wonder why?

 

- CBO estimates the likelihood of a nuclear plant loan default at over 50%

 

- The utility has a history of huge cost overruns

 

- Taxpayers are responsible for all waste disposal costs

 

- These reactors are the same type (pressurized water) as the Fujushima reactors that failed so spectacularly last year, but the industry and congress stonewalled any attempts to get the plant designers to change the designs based on what was learned from the Fukushima disaster

 

- The government (meaning taxpayers) assumes all the worst case costs for a serious accident.

 

- The utilities are not putting aside enough money to cover decommissioning costs. The taxpayer will wind up paying for that as well.

 

 

So when looking at all the direct and indirect subsidies giiven to the nuclear power industry, how anyone can claim that it's the free market at work is a joke. Nuclear power as done in this country is not safe or economical to taxpayers or rate payers, but it sure is profitable to those designing, selling and operating the plants.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Oy

(#274677)
Bird Dog's picture

Since I never said that nuclear power involved free market economics, I'll just assume that you're talking to your imaginary conservative enemy. Carry on, bub.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Wise of you to skip the other points

(#274682)
HankP's picture

especially the comparison to Soylndra.

I blame it all on the Internet

are ya thinking that

(#274696)
brutusettu's picture

It's now just evil crony capitalism if you like what that industry does?
It's not just at worst ho-hum if you like what that industry does?

private profits, socialized loses (only bad in certain areas!)

(#274662)
brutusettu's picture

[quote]$8.3 billion in loan guarantees. That's almost 16 times the loan guarantees to Solyndra. GOVERNMENT PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS! Yet no complaints this time, I wonder why?

CBO estimates the likelihood of a nuclear plant loan default at over 50%[/quote]

That's like Solydra, but almost 16 times over! And the no extra added benefit of zero massive radiation trouble!
It still might be better than coal, right? Albeit that's not part of the "government picking winners and losers" [i]argument[/i].

Not only that

(#274665)
HankP's picture

Soylndra had assets that could be auctioned off when they failed. A nuclear plant, not so much.

I blame it all on the Internet

I'm not all *that* surprised

(#274635)

The only real leverage fundamentalist greens have with respect to nukes is that pushing nuclear power is already something of an uphill fight, since nuclear power plants are way expensive.

 

The last few years have shown that greens are basically powerless when there's any kind of actual demand for what they're opposing.  Look at fracking, which actually dumps a slurry of toxic chemicals back into the environment.  Or the Alberta tar sands for that matter.  Getting a yuppie to buy a Prius as social signaling is one thing.  Getting a group of people to pay a bigger electric bill is another thing altogether.

How do you change a yuppie into a dynamitard?

(#274640)

Fundamentalist greens and nuclear engineers have a real concern about the safety of these reactors.


The essential characteristic of this technology is that the reactor’s uranium fuel — about 100 tons in a typical plant — melts quickly without cooling water. The containment structures surrounding the reactors — even the formidable-looking domes at Indian Point — were not designed to hold melted fuel because safety regulators 40 years ago considered a meltdown impossible.


They were wrong, and we now know that radioactive material in the melted fuel can escape to contaminate a very large area for decades or more. It doesn’t make sense to allow such a threat to persist a half-hour’s drive from our nation’s largest city.


(more from V. Gilinsky here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/opinion/is-indian-point-the-next-fukushima.html?_r=1 )


There have already been melting of fuel in three mile island, chernobyl, and fukushima.


 


Now, I see no evidence of this public demand for nuclear power plants you speak of, but I agree that nuclear opponents are relatively powerless before those who would construct these plants.  How do you change a yuppie into a dynamitard?

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

a majority of Canadians favour the Tar Sands megaproject

(#274817)

Nobody appears to be interested in discussing this issue, but I should add that we should be careful about assertions that a majority of Canadians favour the Tar Sands megaproject. It may well be true, but it doesn't change the debate. Those who oppose the project most vigorously are not the yuppies - not necessarily the young, urban or professional. The biggest opponents are the Athabascan Indians whose lives are disrupted most profoundly by the megaproject. They call themselves 'first nations' and integral to their identity is the idea that they are a nation with the right to negotiate with the crown on an equal basis. They don't necessarily believe they have to subsume themselves to the wishes of the majority like, for example, the yuppies. This will be a focus of rising tensions in the future, I predict. Maybe when they are, the issue will be worth discussing.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Greens Will Do Better. . .

(#274637)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .when they start concentrating on lobbying for major funding for development of fusion (which just about everyone agrees would be clean once it was up and running) and promoting mature technology (whether transportation or lighting). Oddly enough, people resent being asked to pay more for energy usage and being forced to give up vehicles/light sources/toilets that do what they need them to do in favor of those that don't (and which often cost more).

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Uh no

(#274642)

The true costs of any energy source/technolgy are not accurately reflected in the direct price that people play. But they are still paying those costs one way or another.



8,000 instances of abuse

(#274596)

100 alleged offenders. 75 of them priests. No wonder they want to talk about birth control.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/archdiocese-bankruptcy-judge-a...

Yeah

(#274597)
M Scott Eiland's picture

That sort of thing *never* happens in public schools. Obviously, it's the whole God thing that's causing the problem.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Of course

(#274645)

it has nothing to do with god. There is no god. God is a part of the idea system that keeps the catholic business machine chugging along, and keeps the pope in Liberaci-style fabulousness. And keeps people sending their money and kids to a system that protects and covers for rapists.

 

I never said there was zero child abuse in other places. But unless you haven't been paying attention or your ears have been clogged up with jesus-wax you'd see that the catholic church has been shown time and time again to systematically cover up or ignore child rape, on top of the fact that its members have been the ones doing the raping. Punishment consists of being transferred to a new parish full of wide-eyed gullible victims who can't possibly believe such a nice, godly man who has done so much bible study could possibly want to fellate their sons.

 

Any other organization that was shown over and over (now with 8,000 more claims covered up) to be doing this criminal, horrible activity would be shut down, and the perpetrators thrown in jail.

 

You reflexively blow smoke with a "look, over there!" comment. Of course you do. Modern US conservatism consists of whatever liberals do not like, updated daily.  

What Catchy said

(#274599)
stinerman's picture

It's not that God is causing the problem (although believe in a God who says priests may have no outlets for their sexual needs doesn't help), it's that because they're a religious organization, the various executive branches are tiptoeing around the issue.  If this would have been a secular organization with this level of criminality and conspiracy, they'd have been shut down under RICO statutes.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

The shielding and coverups are generally different

(#274598)

.

More on Obama's dumb political decision on Keystone

(#274443)
Bird Dog's picture

Joe Nocera:

In Canada, the Keystone XL controversy has created a surprising new resolve.  “Keystone was a transformative turning point in terms of how Harper sees the bilateral relationship,” says Fen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa. Instead of blithely assuming the United States would purchase its oil, Canada is now determined to find diverse buyers so it won’t be held hostage by American politics.  Hence, the newfound willingness to do business with China. Canada has concluded that it simply can’t expect much from the United States, even on an issue that would seem to be vital to our own interests.

As it turns out, the environmental movement doesn’t just want to shut down Keystone. Its real goal, as I discovered when I spoke recently to Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, is much bigger. “The effort to stop Keystone is part of a broader effort to stop the expansion of the tar sands,” Brune said. “It is based on choking off the ability to find markets for tar sands oil.”

This is a ludicrous goal.  If it were to succeed, it would be deeply damaging to the national interest of both Canada and the United States. But it has no chance of succeeding. Energy is the single most important industry in Canada. Three-quarters of the Canadian public agree with the Harper government’s diversification strategy. China’s “thirst” for oil is hardly going to be deterred by the Sierra Club. And the Harper government views the continued development of the tar sands as a national strategic priority.

Thus, at least one country in North America understands where its national interests lie.  Too bad it’s not us.

Regarding the Sierra Club, these are the same Einsteins who took $26 million from the natural gas lobby to fight the coal industry. Like I said earlier, Obama's decision was dumb, politically calculating, reverses the greater environmental good, and is bone-stupid foreign policy with an longtime ally. Canada is going to sell its oil anyway.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

China and Canada Reach Agreements On Oil, Uranium

(#274441)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Another strike for the Chosen One!

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Can deals not be made between sovereign nations? -nt-

(#274460)
mmghosh's picture

=

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

Certainly

(#274487)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I'm not criticizing the Canadians or even the Chinese--I'm blaming Obama for effectively handing a huge, long-term source of energy to our most dangerous economic rival without getting anything significant in return for the decision.

. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).

Huh

(#274499)

Ken White was always saying we fought the Iraq war in part to make sure the Chinese got a lot of oil since that was in our economic interest.

Oh sure.

(#274501)
aireachail's picture

But that was before we discovered that it's physically impossible to get Canadian oil into the US without going through an overland pipeline.

Oil does not work that way

(#274494)
HankP's picture

 

the market for oil is worldwide and fungible, Canada selling to China does not affect the price we pay or the availability of oil in the US.

 

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Hank wins the Internet

(#274560)
stinerman's picture

Well played!

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

That's commie talk, mister. nt

(#274471)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

It's not kind to make fun of the mentally retarded

(#274419)
HankP's picture

but more Republicans are birthers now than before Obama released his birth certificate. Yup, this is the future of America.

I blame it all on the Internet

Why should this be the future?

(#274468)
mmghosh's picture

Mr Obama did in actual fact, win, didn't he?  And the win was accepted peacefully, even by his political enemies. That tells a neutral more about America than anything else.

 

Of course there will be criticism, perhaps some of that might be regarded by some as irrational.  The fact, however, is that even those who believe in the inferiority of some races do manage to get along with people of those races, rather than engaging in violence.  That's the real story, and the real future.  

freedom is a fundamental value that does not need to be justified in terms of some other value like efficiency

The fact is also

(#274473)
HankP's picture

that many in the political opposition views Obama as not being legitimate, which is leading to a complete immobilization of government and an inability to deal with issues. That's a problem.

I blame it all on the Internet

Once again

(#274462)
stinerman's picture

It was never about evidence.  It was about a post hoc rationalization of hating a black guy (but not because he's black, mind you, it's because he's a furriner).  Cue the "I'm not a racist, but..." folks.

 

People who are not pursuaded by evidence are, by definition, unreasonable.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Hank, what a totally racist site

(#274456)

Did you look at the backgound?  Everyone was white.  There were two women in burkas who could have represented races other than white but I doubt it.  Are you sure this is where you want your information to come from?  BTW, Obama was born in Kenya. Nyaaa Nyaaaaaaaaaaa!

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

And Some Beauty...Some Recent Work Since Returning Home

(#274382)

Love is...the Haunting that Follows me Through Every Mirror





When one gets to be a certain age, one has had lots of love...lost and found, soiled and ethereal, healing or hurting...a person that has lived has seen maybe too much love, all the variants....and at the oddest moments, they all come back in a tear-filled rush.

 

Love is...a Lock you can Pick, a Door You can Open



 

 

I did not know that I would feel as badly as I do about this image....I was up on the Burmese border, obviously lots of smuggling...I was, as is my habit, somewhere where I should not be, so I shot the images and left quickly...looking back now, this was a moral failing on my part.
 

I sense there are so many locks, bolts and chains exactly because the animals in these cages are very smart...speaking of smart, I've never really hung out with elephants before, (I've ridden them, etc, but never spent close up time with them), and they are....you can see it deeply in their eyes, very smart.

Spooky smart, almost human intelligence....it was weird, nice....but also strange to be with something maybe as smart as me, (not a difficult measure...lol...but still...!)

 

Love is...Motion


 

like Mr. Smith being broken up in the Matrix Movies....that's the effect here.

This car was in a parking garage, lots of reflections off of its shiny surface....I had a tripod with me...but was hungry for lunch....lol....and so shot about ten of these hand held until I found something interesting...

Click with right hand, hold camera in left, Zoom in during 1s exposure...I was personally shocked at how well it turned out.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

PS Brutusettu, I'm sorry for stepping on your thread, I'll probably delete these tomorrow and do separate diaries for photos and video in the future.

 

Sorry again

 

Hey Trav

(#274417)
HankP's picture

I'm putting this here so you don't edit the diary again. That web site does some weird internal redirection or something, I had to edit your links to make the photos show up.

I blame it all on the Internet