prev <-> next
[2009-08-12 12:50:54] - http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/08/a-rundown-of-google-voice-for-the-uninitiated.ars if you guys hadn't heard about google voice (still invite only) it sounds like it's gonna be pretty useful for some kinds of people - aaron
[2009-08-12 12:26:01] - paul: no lots of people care about energy dependence and foreign oil. especially intelligent military people like my coworkers. also, some people care about emissions. (electricity can cause emissions too, but orders of magnitude less) ~a
[2009-08-12 12:13:38] - aaron: well the EPA could be a little more upfront about it. Like "Yeah, this rating is super dooper awesome, but don't get *too* excited about it". - mig
[2009-08-12 12:09:11] - but then it's kind of unfair to criticize, given that this is the first gas/electric hybrid of its kind, and given that the EPA still hasn't released its official figure... obviously the EPA is going to eventually have to change the way it rates vehicles as electrics become more popular - aaron
[2009-08-12 12:08:24] - Paul: I read that $0.40 per overnight charge stat too. It went further an siad it was based on $0.05 per kWh usage fee. So, ignoring taxes, flat fees, etc. That means it takes 8kWh on an overnight charge, or probably pulls only a kW. That's actually the most impressive part. -- Xpovos.
[2009-08-12 12:07:19] - paul: yeah, but it still seems silly that the figure neglects the cost of electricity. most people care about MPG because they care how much it costs to drive, not because they care about depleting the poor oil companies of their precious gasoline - aaron
[2009-08-12 11:53:33] - Aaron: I think I read somewhere that the gas engine might be able to get 50 miles per gallon and that an overnight charge for the batteries can be as little as 40 cents, so it could be quite a cheap car to power, though. -Paul
[2009-08-12 11:45:30] - xpovos: what a bullshit description. "DVDs are embedded with anti-piracy technology that prevents copying" is a disingenuous statement. "the studios said they have the legal right to retain complete control over how content they've created is distributed" legally? at the cost of fair use laws? nope, because there is no mention of fair use. ~a
[2009-08-12 11:42:44] - paul: oh, pshh lame. alright - aaron
[2009-08-12 10:39:35] - Aaron: Since the Volt an go 40 miles on it's batteries alone, it would only be using gas for those last 20 miles, which is probably something like half a gallon. Using the 60 miles statistic, that would give the Volt 120 miles per gallon. -Paul
[2009-08-12 10:37:59] - aaron: I think the EPA calculated how far the average person drives in a day (let's say it's 60 miles) and figured out how much gas the volt would use for that distance. -Paul
[2009-08-12 10:30:53] - dave: what was the explanation for how they got the 230? did they just start the car with a full tank of gas and no charge or something? - aaron
[2009-08-12 10:27:02] - paul: I was actually very disappointed with the explanation of how they got the 230. I was hoping they were going to figure out a general number for how much gas it might take to generate the electricity and factor that in. I guess that's tough because it could be wind/nuclear/coal etc that generated that electricity as well -dave
[2009-08-12 10:25:19] - xpovos: they're like the 12th company to try to sell something like that, altho perhaps the largest one that I've heard of. All the others were squashed -dave
[2009-08-12 09:04:25] - Aaron: Nice. I didn't even think of the connection there even though I remember thinking it was a little unusual for the EPA to say a car gets such a high number of miles per gallon (since they have to play with numbers a bit to get that number). -Paul
[2009-08-12 08:52:28] - actually i think that was more because I was listening to some wow podcast and they said, "So, we're going to talk to Curt Schilling today!" - mig
[2009-08-12 08:48:29] - Curt Schilling is also an avid wow fan, which kind of surprised me when I first heard of it. - mig
[2009-08-12 08:47:47] - dave: it's been known for quite a while now, actually there was a bit of community mourning when there were rumours that she quit. - mig
[2009-08-12 08:47:22] - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090812/D9A13NAO4.html RealNetwork violates DMCA. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 08:33:51] - Huh, no I didn't know that. I also didn't know that the voice actress for Meg was the same as the actress playing Jackie in That 70's show... Well, that's it. I've hit my learning quota for the day. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 07:43:31] - http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/mila-kunis-talks-70s-show-family-guy-and-her-world-of-warcraft-obsession-1519602.story#m=_q8U_vdg3Eb>1=28135 -dave
[2009-08-12 07:43:27] - did anyone know that Mila Kunis is a WoW fanatic? I didn't particularly care for her before, but now I'm sold! -dave
[2009-08-12 00:12:27] - xpovos: no i misread "Believe it or not, despite being a strong libertarian I could get behind a federal health insurance program, provided it did a very limited number of things.", I kind of stopped there because i think on the basic principle of that statement we agree. - mig
[2009-08-11 19:01:19] - mig: That's the exact opposite of what I suggested, unless I'm misreading you. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 18:14:42] - ... if we limited the scope of medical insurance to be what the concept of insurance was in the first place. really need to learn to finish my thoughts. - mig
[2009-08-11 18:13:28] - pierce: that would be on the assumptions that we would have the same price structures that are currently in place for most things in the realm of healthcare. I would submit that prices for the nonesential/preventic care/etc would drop to a point where it wouldn't be such a financial drain. - mig
[2009-08-11 18:08:14] - http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1332901&cid=29027615 i thought this comment was funny, regarding Chevy Volt's alleged 230 MPG city
- aaron[2009-08-11 18:07:23] - xpovos: strangely enough, i would also be ok with a federal insurance plan to cover solely catastrophic and ludicrous expensive procedures that are necessary procedures. However, I'm fairly certain that's not what Obama is proposing so I will probably be vehemently against whatever his bill ends up being. - mig
[2009-08-11 17:00:41] - Aaron: Exactly. It's like when the federal government was handing out stimulus money and the few governors were thinking of turning it down (for fairly legitimate reasons, IMHO). It was virtually impossible for them to refute the argument from people saying, "how can you turn down free money when so many people are unemployed here?" -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:58:45] - Aaron: Yeah, I realized my analogy was poor as I was writing it. Just substitute "roads" (not sure why I didn't do that in the first place). Nobody ever says the roads are good enough, no need for improvement.
-Paul[2009-08-11 16:57:23] - paul: but, yes i get your point. it's pretty rare for government to get smaller, ever. and it seems like with regard to public wellness, stuff like that... it would almost never happen - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:56:45] - paul: well, murders is a bad example, because the alternative to government-sanctioned police is...? something scary? - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:55:07] - Whoops, that was me. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:55:01] - Aaron: For instance: It's real easy to say, "Murder is a problem, we need more laws and give more power to stop them." It's not as often that you hear, "We've got an acceptable amount of murders now, let's cut back on some laws and give power back to the people".
[2009-08-11 16:53:54] - Aaron: That would certainly seem odd. My best response without doing any research of my own is that it's just the natural tendency of people in power to try to get more power and for governments to grow. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:53:17] - pierce: Logical. Sounds like you're ready to get onboard the Xpovos-plan. We just need a website and a multi-billionaire like Pickens to join us. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:51:29] - if you cover regular checkups, people with bad behavior are subsidizing people with good behavior. if you don't cover them, people with good behavior are subsidizing people with bad behavior. of the two, I prefer the former. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:50:33] - I conclude this because it's not like car accidents where your catastrophic incidents are mostly unrelated to each other. the likelihood of later claims against the system is directly affected by your participation in preventative care, so you want to encourage people in the insurance system to get checkups. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:49:17] - paul: it's just weird how there are all these things which 100% of large modern governments have in common - like roads, or public schools - and that you're like "nahh, those aren't so necessary". but - you'd think if it wasn't necessary - that some government would be doing OK without them... (or, theoretically, thriving in their absence) - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:48:35] - after showering, I've come to the conclusion that even though regular checkups don't fall into the "unlikely/major cost" that insurance is really designed for, they should still be part of the same insurance package (regardless of who is providing that package) because otherwise you're penalizing the people who take better care of themselves. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:48:04] - paul: sorry
i do think roads would be worse off without the government but don't think there's any proof... any modern governments which don't maintain their country's roads are probably just too small, so their roads would be crappy anyway - aaron[2009-08-11 16:46:13] - the silence is deafening
[2009-08-11 16:34:04] - Aaron: I can't tell if you're trying to get me started or just joking.
-Paul[2009-08-11 16:33:23] - aaron: How much of that is technology improvement, though? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:33:02] - above and beyond that. Middle-ranged procedures aren't covered by either. Break an arm and you either need to pay the hospital cash or have a low enough catastrophic deductable. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:32:49] - paul: you can't deny that roads are smoother today than they were before organized government - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:32:22] - Basically, the Xpovos-plan is to provide first-care at zero cost. Everyone gets a yearly physical, or as oppropriate for age and gender. It's for education and screening purposes only. It's voluntary, also. Mandatory actually makes more sense, but rubs me very wrong. Then you can buy catastrophic health insurance similar to what mig has been advocating for anything
[2009-08-11 16:31:51] - paul: oh okay. well, a lot of stuff can't be handled by the private market. stuff like roads and clean air often fall prey to the whole "tragedy of the commons" thing - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:30:52] - Aaron: In general, I don't have a problem with public roads, I just take exception to any claims that we need the government to build them or else we would all be walking to work barefoot on dirt paths.
-Paul[2009-08-11 16:30:32] - a: Believe it or not, despite being a strong libertarian I could get behind a federal health insurance program, provided it did a very limited number of things. I don't think it would be efficient, but it would probably be more efficient than the jumbling of private/government forces we have in operation today. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:30:03] - Aaron: That's why I say I don't quite know where I draw the line. I believe at the time, I was trying to show that roads didn't have to be provided by the government and that the private market could take up the task. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:29:30] - aaron: Your second statement correlates to my first sentence, which was structurally OK, but unclear. Yay, grammar! "Life is," can't really be explained. You have to read this. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:27:01] - paul: i didn't think you were ok with public roads about five-ten years ago, did you change your mind? we had a debate where you were arguing that they were unnecessary - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:26:30] - xpovos: economic literacy would be nice too. which is why i'm not sure that the healthcare bill is a good thing or a bad thing. it just doesn't sit right with me that my parents are alive, but some less lucky temporarily-unemployed people in the same position would be dead. ~a
[2009-08-11 16:26:08] - xpovos: i don't understand anything!! did you mean, "we need to not have basic economic literacy?" or did you mean "we need to have basic economic literacy"? and "life is" seems like an empty statement... did you mean to say "life is irrational" or something meaningful? - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:25:04] - a: My interpretation of you saying that people "needed" health care was that it was necessary for life. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:24:12] - Aaron: I generally think that national defense is a good idea. I'm generally ok with public roads and utilities and fire departments and whatnot. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:23:33] - paul: well then clean water isn't necessary for life. plus who said it needed to be necessary for life? ~a
[2009-08-11 16:22:45] - Aaron: Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I can go as far up as essentially anarcho-capitalism and I can go as far down as a moderate libertarian. It also depends on if it is state or federal government. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:22:44] - a: No, we need to not have huge amounts of private debt and some basic economic literacy. But that's not going to happen. So: health insurance is more expensive than ideal because of irrational people in the system. Life is. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:21:08] - paul: where do you draw the line? - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:20:29] - a: Just because fresh fruit and exercise can't fix everything doesn't mean that they aren't needed for the things that they can fix. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:20:23] - xpovos: right . . . which is why we need health insurance. ? ~a
[2009-08-11 16:19:52] - a: My point is that just because something extends your life, it doesn't mean that I consider it a necessity of life. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:18:51] - just because healthcare can't fix everything doesn't mean that they aren't needed for the things that they can fix. ~a
[2009-08-11 16:18:09] - a: The second part of your original point is the more pressing one. It's still a big chunk of money, and when people are burdened with high debt and living paycheck to paycheck a $100 doctor's bill to check up on your lump isn't in the cards. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:17:56] - a: Ok, if I get shot in the heart with a bullet, health care (probably) won't fix that. Does that mean a bullet proof vest is a necessity of life? -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:17:08] - a: Of the three doctors I've been to in the past 6 years two gave cash discounts. So, anecdotally: 66% of doctors give a cash discount. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:16:04] - aaron: Bet you $20 I can get him to say he agrees with a question that I pose in that format. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:16:00] - Aaron: Agreed, which is why I was trying to get the discussion geared more towards the practicalities rather than idealistic differences, since we at least have a chance of constructive debate with the former. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:15:33] - paul: it's different. if i have a malignant tumor, or a cancerous breast, or pancreas. eating right won't fix that. ~a
[2009-08-11 16:14:33] - Aaron: I don't think that's necessarily true. I just think I draw the line at a different place than the liberals here do. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:14:11] - so i think it's pointless to even start a conversation about public health care, since i think even when it comes to hospitals, public schools, libraries, homeless shelters, you're going to be like "nahh that's not the government's responsibility" - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:13:49] - xpovos: "many"? by "many" do you mean more than one? or do you mean more that 1%? how "many" exactly? ~a
[2009-08-11 16:13:34] - a: Let me try a different approach. Eating right and exercising is supposed to allow us to live longer and healthier lives, right? Would you consider either of those things to be a necessity of life? -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:13:26] - paul: well, all i'm saying is that while most people will rationalize "the government should provide its citizens with x", i think no matter what "x" is, you're going to disagree - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:12:49] - a: Actually, many doctors give a cash discount since they don't have to fill out insurance forms to get reimbursed at 60% of their rate. They'll split the difference with you and charge 80%. Of course, in this scenario, who is really paying 100% (full price). Hint: it begins with a g. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:12:25] - Pierce: Don't forget that I didn't agree on the "get less" part. But I do agree that Aaron has a good idea and that we probably shouldn't talk to each other.
-Paul[2009-08-11 16:12:18] - necessity of life? if you don't have it you'll often die earlier. i'm confused. ~a
[2009-08-11 16:11:19] - okay, off to shower. hope you guys have this figured out when I get back. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:11:04] - a: I think you're missing the point. Xpovos and I aren't saying that health care is useless. We're saying it's not a necessity of life. Call it semantics if you will, but that's the point at least I was trying to make. Health care helps us feel better and live longer, yes, but I feel like for 99% of people, that is more of a luxury than an absolute need. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:11:04] - what if we treated medical insurance the exact same way we treated all other insurance? - mig
[2009-08-11 16:10:45] - mig: I was agreeing with you on that. I can believe that insurance shouldn't cover routine visits, regardless of who you get your insurance from. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:10:19] - xpovos: paying cash to the doctor would be nice, except that the doctor charges more when you don't have insurance. and often he asks for more cash that you have in your bank account. ~a
[2009-08-11 16:09:45] - on the other hand, last time I claimed that you said it was the government's fault our private system sucks, so maybe I should listen to aaron. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:09:42] - paul: the health indices of our country versus comparably-developed countries with various levels of nationalized health care say so. and the statistics measuring health care expenditures per capita. and those two things put together, indicating that we both spend more and get less - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:08:41] - Aaron: I have an unwillingness to draw a distinction between clean water standards and hdtv? -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:08:33] - pierce: i remember that, and obviously I don't agree with you on the incompatibility of capitalism/insurance. But the thing is, would things really be that bad if we just paid out of pocket for the normal things we go to the doctor for? Would it end up really being all that expensive. - mig
[2009-08-11 16:08:28] - it's pretty clear to me that both of my parents would be dead without health insurance or without healthcare. i really think they aren't the exception. ~a
[2009-08-11 16:07:34] - only thing I can theorize is that regular checkups would be expensive enough to discourage people from doing them if they weren't subsidized by insurance, which would increase other costs. that doesn't seem very sound to me though, since people will end up paying for it anyway with higher insurance rates. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:06:54] - mig: as for the second question, I'm more sympathetic to that. insurance is supposed to hedge your bets against unlikely, but major losses. it doesn't really fit for something that's likely-but-minor, like regular checkups. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:06:51] - Pierce: And who is to say that the market isn't providing them at a competitive cost? -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:06:08] - pierce: you probably forgot paul's unwillingness to draw a distinction somewhere between clean water standards and hdtv... maybe you should try arguing with someone else instead - aaron
[2009-08-11 16:04:59] - mig: there are lots of theories for why it's so expensive. a common theory on the republican side is that it's a consequence of out-of-control malpractice costs. I explained my theories last time we had the health care debate here, that I think health care (and especially health insurance) are fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of capitalism. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:04:29] - The problem is the argument that preventative care is long-term cheaper, and people don't pay out of pocket for that. I'm willing to believe that argument, to an extent. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:04:29] - Pierce: The question becomes, what things are we going to decide is a "right" for everybody to have? I personally don't think I have the right to force everbody else to pay for my medical procedures. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:03:47] - Paul: A completely seperate debate. But miguel's take on it is better, IMO. When you 'need' to go to the doctor, pay cash. If the doctor says you've got cancer, then you get insurance help. Doesn't eliminate the cost, but does make it more equitable and somewhat cheaper. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 16:03:17] - Pierce: Sure, just like nobody "needs" fresh fruit and vegetables or HDTVs or retirement funds, and those things could fall under the same umbrella of promotin general welfare. -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:03:02] - but if you're happy with the current level of society then we don't "need" them at all. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:02:19] - I think we "need" all of those things to reach the next level of modernized society, and if the free market is unwilling or unable to provide them at a competitive cost then I believe the government should step in. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:01:11] - Xpovos: I think arguing this on theoretical and idealistic grounds (ie, health care is a luxury and not a need) is not going to get us anywhere. I think the more effective approach might be the practical one (rationed care, increased costs, reduced innovation). -Paul
[2009-08-11 16:00:43] - y'all are really hung up on "need". we don't "need" public roads or clean water standards or military-enforced trade agreements for our energy sources. mankind existed for thousands of generations without these things. but I think they're all measurable benefits that fall under the umbrella of promoting the general welfare. - pierce
[2009-08-11 16:00:41] - a: there are 2 questions that I believe never get answered properly in this debate: 1) Why is healthcare so expensive in the first place? 2) Why do we need insurance to cover every single little thing that we go to the doctor for? Most other types of insurance covers catastrophic events like fires/floods/car accidents that happen rarely. - mig
[2009-08-11 15:55:33] - a: So, I think it's probably safe to say that at least in some cases it prolongs life considerably, but on the average it's a small change, or one that is hard to quantify. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:54:47] - a: In general, little causality (wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#United_States_2 (second paragraph) sourced to this: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:52:16] - a: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-705713381.html an article, specific to patients with cistic fibrosis, a condition in which healthcare is clearly a huge factor: +14 years, or +230%. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:50:15] - a: Excellent question, let me see if I can find it. That'll narrow down my statistic nicely too. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:50:02] - a: Not at all. What I'm saying is pretty much what Andrew is saying. Nobody really NEEDs health care in the same sense that they need food, shelter, drink, etc. It's nice, and helps increase life spans and everything, but I don't qualify it as something everybody needs. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:49:50] - Re: life expectancy, probably 40% is nutrition, 40% sanitation and 20% healthcare. But, I'm not an expert, and those are numbers I pulled from thin air. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:48:45] - paul: what's the life expectancy of people without health insurance? what's the life expectancy of people without healthcare? ~a
[2009-08-11 15:48:32] - a: Hardly do I think we'd be 'better off' without doctors. However, we definitely do not need doctors as much as we use them, and even there I'm using a very broad sense of the word need. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:48:03] - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sci_fi_writer_attributes Sci-Fi Writer Attributes Everything Mysterious To 'Quantum Flux' - aaron
[2009-08-11 15:46:24] - a: Dropping like flies? The life expectancy in the United States is like 70-80 years. That hardly seems like an epidemic of people dropping like flies. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:45:14] - paul: ok, so you think we'd be better off without doctors? i don't think i understand your argument. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:44:30] - a: I was considering taking xpovos' approach, but felt like you wouldn't accept it. I agree with him, though. I feel like people these days think they need a lot more than we do. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:43:46] - hospitals don't offer all that many free services to people who don't have health insurance. usually (this even includes my mother) they charge more not less ~a
[2009-08-11 15:42:56] - paul: they are dropping like flies. living without health insurance is very difficult. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:42:05] - xpovos: paul wasn't arguing that we don't need healthcare he was arguing that we don't need health insurance. to argue that we don't need healthcare seems like arguing that it's ok that people's life expectancy was ~28 thousands of generations ago. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:33:22] - a: I think it's also worth noting that the last I had heard, the health care reform wasn't even going to provide universal health care (although that certainly could've changed). -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:31:30] - a: If health insurance was a necessity, like you say, then wouldn't we be seeing all uninsured people dropping like flies? They seem to have done ok so far. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:31:25] - a: re: swastikas, I have no idea, I can't find any -fact- in any news I read about things like this anymore. I'd assume not, though. But the fact that I assmue not says more about me than it necessarily does about Pelosi or the question of fact on the swastikas. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:30:11] - a: They clearly don't need health care. We existed as a species for thousands of generations before health care. Health care is nice. Very important. Helps us live longer, but not necessary for life to continue. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 15:29:37] - a: Again, I disagree. There are plenty of options for people who don't have health insurance and many hospitals (and I've heard doctors as well) offer a variety of free services to people who don't have health insurance. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:26:45] - i just realized that my pelosi post made no sense. let me try again: were there people carrying swastikas? ~a
[2009-08-11 15:25:39] - but people do need health insurance. you're wrong. without health insurance, you get a worse rate with the healthcare industry. (we can argue that it's lame, but it's still true) without health insurance, you can't afford to pay for health-care. again, it's lame, but health insurance has become more than just hedging bets. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:23:12] - i keep hearing on fox news (and on your volokh link) about "carrying swastikas" from pelosi. it seems like a valid argument if it was true, but nobody seems to be arguing that it was not true. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:23:05] - a: I disagree. People don't need health insurance (different from health care). Insurance is all about hedging bets. People don't need health insurance any more than they need life insurance or auto insurance (except in cases where people are legally required to have it). -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:20:06] - http://www.volokh.com/posts/1249677415.shtml Not quite what we were talking about earlier, but here is a link showing that the intense push-back on health care that is happening now is similar to something that happened before. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:15:36] - people don't need an hdtv. they do need healthcare. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:11:39] - a: Sure, and it has the opportunity to provide everybody with an HDTV too, I just don't think the costs are worth it. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:11:04] - paul: obligation is probably not what i would argue. government has the opportunity to provide health insurance to everybody. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:10:09] - a little cognitive dissidence for you all: "GOP congressman booed for telling people to turn off glenn beck". ~a
[2009-08-11 15:07:36] - a: For the same reason I'm pretty much not for nationalized anything. I think it will decrease the quality of care and increase costs. I don't see why the government has any obligation to provide health insruance to everybody. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:05:21] - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/11/specter.town.hall/index.html "At one point, Specter shouted into his microphone that demonstrators disrupting the proceedings would be thrown out." I just had to mention this since the microphone and throwing people out seemed key to the difference between a speech and a town hall meeting to Pierce. -Paul
[2009-08-11 15:03:21] - xpovos: granted. i actually only know what fox news tells me, which isn't much. ~a
[2009-08-11 15:02:59] - again, probably a silly question, but why aren't you in support of a nationalized healthcare system? how do you get healthcare to people who can't afford insurance? ~a
[2009-08-11 15:00:13] - a: Also, I definitely don't think the party was set up by the candidate because it was just that one guy handing out flags. At least he could've handed out flyers or something more informative.
-Paul[2009-08-11 14:59:17] - a: I fully admit to not knowing most of the details of what bill they are currently debating, but I would have to imagine that I would be against it. I'm not in support of a nationalized health care system. -Paul
[2009-08-11 14:56:25] - a: There's actually a bill in play? I think they finally got something out of comittee, but I don't think it could be categorized as a bill yet. Maybe it can technically, but they're going to tear it to shreds and rebuild it before this is done. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 14:53:57] - even if it was, it could be that the candidate was advertising at the campaign instead of the campaign being set up by the candidate. hey this might be a silly question, but are you for or against the current health-care bill? ~a
[2009-08-11 14:48:26] - a: I can't remember if the flag that I got was in support of a Republican candidate or not. I think the web page was down when I went to visit it. -Paul
[2009-08-11 14:44:52] - he was a gop official if i've ever seen one. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:42:54] - a: Oh, I do remember... the crazy guy waving his pants as a flag, or something? You think he was a GOP plant?
-Paul[2009-08-11 14:37:40] - paul: the kid. i forget what he was doing. ripping apart his pants or something? maybe he had a flag made out of pants? he was saying something too (i don't remember). i was hoping you remembered exactly what he was doing. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:35:45] - it was a bunch of like minded individuals getting together to hang out. i feel like i had that with the freethinkers back at virginia tech. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:34:59] - paul: yeah it does make sense. (it's my guess that) nobody was told what to say or what sort of signs to bring. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:34:04] - a: What kid are you talking about, though? -Paul
[2009-08-11 14:33:40] - a: I was going to bring that up. I have no doubt that the media exposure helped increase the turnout, but I think the vast majority of people just needed to be told that it was happening, not told to go, if that makes any sense. -Paul
[2009-08-11 14:32:51] - dee: ok i change my mind. i'll sign up for the class. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:32:26] - pierce: Not Siberians. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 14:31:55] - paul: i think the tea party we went to was pretty grass-roots. i doubt all those people would have gone if it weren't for glenn-beck and hannity, but still they still seemed to be mostly self propelled activists. except for the kid. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:24:25] - dee: i don't know, maybe i'm wrong. it sounds like the url does discuss at least preparing beginners for whitewater. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:23:55] - dee: in virginia beach. you have pictures. it was a beginner lesson, but a lesson never-the-less. they showed you how to paddle and how to flip gurkie's kayak over. a beginner lesson is really not going to go much past that. you either want a whitewater lesson (which that url doesn't discuss), or you want to just cruise down a nice easy class-3. ~a
[2009-08-11 14:21:46] - paul: no, I'm saying tigers are both black and orange. - pierce
[2009-08-11 14:19:53] - A: Errr lesson. I don't recall... ~dEE
[2009-08-11 14:19:26] - A: When did WE have this class?? ~Dee
[2009-08-11 14:14:40] - Pierce: Are you saying I don't know much about the topic of changing my mind? -Paul
[2009-08-11 13:59:46] - "There's definitely a better chance of changing my mind if it's on a topic I know less about." <---- this. - pierce
[2009-08-11 13:56:45] - a: There's definitely a better chance of changing my mind if it's on a topic I know less about. The more I read about a topic and learn about it, the more that debates on here are just re-hashes of other stuff I've read (and already dismissed). -Paul
[2009-08-11 13:55:58] - a: I feel like my opinion sometimes (admittedly rarely) is changed somewhat, although it's usually just a slight modification instead of an about-face. -Paul
[2009-08-11 13:54:38] - Dee: I could be convinced to go along if others were going. -Paul
[2009-08-11 13:51:14] - gurkie: if nothing else, it's nice to see what people from different parties actually think about something - and you can base how valid you think their argument is based off of it -dave
[2009-08-11 13:50:07] - i feel like i change certain things that I think based on the discussions. Perhaps not any major views, like switching from pro-life to pro-choice etc, but certainly things like the way I think about health-care etc probably change -dave
[2009-08-11 13:39:41] - gurkie: Too late! Your opinion is malformed, and I mock you for it. (Alternate ending: I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.) -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 13:38:11] - and I fully admit I could be wrong, and have absolutely no intention of debating my opinion. ~gurkie
[2009-08-11 13:37:37] - a: sorry fall in along political lines, meaning I think you agree with Pierce... ~gurkie
[2009-08-11 13:36:25] - gurkie: we all agree with who? ~a
[2009-08-11 13:29:04] - My opinions change, but slowly. The topics brought up in debate and argument help shape the future opinions, in much the same way that Pierce mentions. As a result, though Paul and I have close political affiliation, we end up with wildly differnt opinions and even more wildly different ways of presenting those opinions. It's good for diversity. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 13:26:01] - I find most of the debates on here to be wastes of my working hours
We all know Pierce and Paul can argue for hours and just about everyone else seems to agree based on political affiliations with them... I also think that people appear to rarely change their opinions... ~gurkie[2009-08-11 13:24:03] - a: debates are good even if no one switches sides as a result of them. I like being exposed to the weaknesses in my argument or presentation style, and while I rarely (if ever) change my mind completely I definitely adjust my position to incorporate new info. - pierce
[2009-08-11 13:23:32] - gurkie: virginia beach. ~a
[2009-08-11 13:22:09] - Dee: I'd be interested. - pierce
[2009-08-11 13:21:21] - that was gurkie not a
[2009-08-11 13:21:15] - oops
[2009-08-11 13:21:12] - a: when did you already have the beginner lesson? VA Beach?? or was I left out??~a
[2009-08-11 13:20:46] - although their tips for beginners are poorly written and ... kinda dumb... ~gurkie
[2009-08-11 13:20:22] - dee: but we already had the beginner lesson. we need to just do some easy class-3 whitewater. ~a
[2009-08-11 13:18:36] - Dee: depending on when I would be interested... It sounds like a fun days activity... ~gurkie
[2009-08-11 13:17:51] - but that could just be my perception. ~a
[2009-08-11 13:17:27] - i wonder if these arguments actually get anywhere. does anybody actually ever change their mind on anything? i feel like i change my mind too easily and paul/pierce change their minds about nothing ever. ~a
[2009-08-11 13:11:10] - Paul: haha, I'm not sure whether having me on your side is a good thing on this msg board 00 -dave
[2009-08-11 12:56:18] - Would anyone be interested in this as a group outing? Coupon is available til the end of today- Tuesday http://www.groupon.com/washington-dc/ ~Dee
[2009-08-11 12:44:20] - aaron: i'm sure MSNBC did. Because they're fair ... and balanced over there not like Fox News at all. I'm 100% certain of that. - mig
[2009-08-11 12:41:27] - I mean, yes, adrian is correct in the dictionary definition of astro-turf that the "infamous" memo probably fits. But I mean, so what? Is it really that big a deal? Is this really any different than anything else that goes on in any of these political movements nowadays. - mig
[2009-08-11 12:36:35] - Dave: If only you had been here to help me.
-Paul[2009-08-11 12:36:24] - dave: /shrug who knows. It seems that almost everything is astro-turf in politics. It's definitely a lot easier to define in the business world. - mig
[2009-08-11 12:36:22] - Dave: *Sigh* Where have you been all this time? That's exactly what I've been trying to say the entire time: That most grassroots movements are either started by organizations or else helped out by organizations once they start gathering momentum. -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:34:54] - Dave: I've heard anti-abortion and anti-choice (although the second is usually mostly from pro-choice advocates and not directly from the media itself). -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:34:30] - Paul: I'm not quite sure I understand it really - aren't almost all grassroot movements usually prompted by political organizations? Or is a true grassroots movement supposed to be started by solely unaffiliated persons? -dave
[2009-08-11 12:32:51] - Paul: ahhh, I think the label is anti-abortion that you see sometimes. -dave
[2009-08-11 12:32:15] - Paul: I must say, it's a rather clever idea to label it astro-turf -dave
[2009-08-11 12:29:30] - Dave: I believe it started with the Tea Parties. They got a lot of airtime on Fox News and it was discovered that some other organizations jumped on board to help plan them, and so the democrats mockingly called it astro-turf instead of "true" grassroots activism. -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:26:52] - Paul: No, I didn't know that before, hehe. The same thing happens with abortion as I remember. Most people say pro-choice, but there's some other less-nice sounding term that the media uses instead of pro-life to represent the other side most times -dave
[2009-08-11 12:25:35] - mig: heh, well hopefully msnbc approached the topic with a little more impartiality - aaron
[2009-08-11 12:24:55] - dave: i have to go for an hour or so, you'll have to argue with paul in the mean-time. ~a
[2009-08-11 12:24:48] - in fact, isn't it more correct to say that completely unaffiliated persons are much less concerned, in a sense, than the affiliated ones? At least affiliated people care enough to actually affiliate with something -dave
[2009-08-11 12:24:28] - Dave: You do know it's become a derogatory term for (arguably) grassroots republican support, don't you? -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:23:43] - a: i haven't really been following this entire discussion, but it seems misleading to me to say that just because someone is affiliated with one thing or another, that they can't be a concerned individual -dave
[2009-08-11 12:23:09] - a: Also fair enough (re: slimy). I reiterate that I believe it's a little misleading, but if the most damning thing is that people can find is a single person who once worked on a GOP campaign and is simply "affiliated" with the National Committee claiming to be a concerned citizen... I don't consider this an epidemic. -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:22:27] - jeez, since when did astro-turf become a political thing? -dave
[2009-08-11 12:19:45] - a: Fair enough, then I re-submit my links for instances when the democrats did that during the Bush administration. -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:18:43] - paul: her being "affiliated" means that she can't pretend to be a concerned individual without seeming a little slimy when it comes out. it's a small problem, but a problem never the less. be right back, by the way. ~a
[2009-08-11 12:16:05] - paul: to answer your question, astroturfing is when "campaigns [seek] to create the impression of being spontaneous" (quoting wikipedia). the memo is an example of this impression. ~a
[2009-08-11 12:15:49] - a: I'm referring to articles I've read (yes, these are things the democrats in congress are saying). -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:15:11] - Chuck Norris doesn't shout down his representative at a town hall meeting. He does it at townhall.com. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-11 12:14:47] - aaron: and also MSNBC also picked up the memo story and pretty much regurgitated the thinkprogress bias, so it's not just crazyleftistnewpaper throwing this arond. - mig
[2009-08-11 12:14:43] - a: And while I agree it's a bit of misrepresentation, it's certainly possible for somebody affiliated with the GOP National Committee to also be a concerned citizen. Besides, does her being "affiliated" (they didn't say how) mean she can't speak up at a town hall meeting? -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:13:57] - paul: i think you're mis-characterizing someone. "nutjobs and rich white guys are Republicans, it must be 'astro-turf'" is an argument that nobody has made. straw-men often make for easy arguments to discredit. ~a
[2009-08-11 12:11:44] - a: Maybe you can explain the difference between top down organization and astro-turfing then? It seems to me that the difference is that the democrats have "grassroots" but since only nutjobs and rich white guys are Republicans, it must be "astro-turf". -Paul
[2009-08-11 12:10:33] - a: in a technical sense you are correct. it does state strategies to make your #s seem larger than the really are. I just don't think there's really anything wrong with that part of it necessarily. - mig
[2009-08-11 12:08:04] - aaron: the heather blish issue pierce brought up seemed like (maybe minor) misrepresentation to me. ~a
[2009-08-11 12:07:49] - hmm on second thought it's just a variation on Guess_2/3_of_the_average... we should play that some time - aaron
[2009-08-11 12:05:20] - hey that sounds like a fun board game - aaron
[2009-08-11 12:04:42] - mig: oh alright. yeah, there's definitely impropriety on all sides. but usually the pattern is, everyone does terrible things, and then the guy who does the most terrible thing apologizes and everybody else gets off the hook - aaron
[2009-08-11 12:04:12] - mig: yeah i felt a little weird quoting the link, thank you for correcting me. on the other hand, the memo still fits into the definition of astro-turfing. ~a
[2009-08-11 12:03:07] - a: oh okay. why did they misrepresent themselves then? or how did they misrepresent themselves? i understood that their mere presence in the town hall meeting implied that they weren't a part of an organized... political party or something - aaron
[2009-08-11 12:02:45] - aaron: anyways, i guess i was trying to hint at the fact there's a lot of impropriety going around all over the place on all sides at varying levels. It would be nice if they *all* apoligize, not just republicans. - mig
[2009-08-11 12:01:53] - aaron: where did you get that from? that was all in the conversation yesterday? "republicans aren't allowed" and "people were forced to misrepresent themselves in order to attend" is something i missed. there was some (maybe minor) misrepresentation going on for sure, but they weren't "forced" to do it. ~a
[2009-08-11 12:00:18] - but yeah it was a very biased article - aaron
[2009-08-11 12:00:05] - mig: and yes i'm sure www.crazyleftwingnewspaper.net (or whatever the real url was) will be heartbroken by this serious blow to their credability as an unbiased news source
- aaron[2009-08-11 11:57:33] - would be terribly uncommon at this sort of thing, particularly given the strong opinions on the topic by everyone attending. - mig
[2009-08-11 11:56:49] - a: well, i guess i was confused why these people were forced to misrepresent themselves in order to attend - aaron
[2009-08-11 11:56:39] - Moreover, the memo states a lot of common sense things that pretty much anybody should do when confronting politicians in general. Get their voting record, confront them with solid facts and #s. The video on the last article I linked had the guy who authored the memo in it, and there was really no overly uncivil behavior. A lot of hurrumphs but I wouldn't think that ...
[2009-08-11 11:56:10] - paul: top down organization of protesters is fine. astro-turfing is not the same thing as top down organization. ~a
[2009-08-11 11:53:25] - wait, pierce said that republicans weren't allowed in town hall meetings? ~a
[2009-08-11 11:49:27] - of what the actual memo says. Think progress bullet point - "Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate" actual text: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda." Because we all know intelligent debate is fostered by letting politicians regurgitate their carefully perpared answers. - mig
[2009-08-11 11:45:56] - aaron: "Right-Wing Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo" is the headline. After seeing the memo i see no harrassment strategy in it at all, just guidelines for making sure your voice gets heard in a town hall setting. In fact, the memo explicitly states to not harrass, or "squelch dissent". The article tries to create a blantantly misleading impression ...
[2009-08-11 11:42:50] - Aaron: Are they being rude, loud and possibly uncivil? It sounds like a lot of them are, but politics brings out ugliness in people, especially when it involves matters of life and death (like this would). -Paul
[2009-08-11 11:41:42] - Aaron: They way I see it, these are people who believe passionately in this topic and are trying to be heard in an economic environment where they are not well represented in the federal government. -Paul
[2009-08-11 11:39:49] - a: Pretty much everything else since that has been defending my statement against Pierce. -Paul
[2009-08-11 11:39:07] - paul: yeah i agree, based on your discussion with pierce it sounds like town hall meetings are places where republicans aren't allowed, which confuses me - aaron
[2009-08-11 11:38:16] - a: Nobody here did, but that's a lot of what I was hearing in the media ("astro-turf" and whatnot). That was what I meant by my comment originally. -Paul
[2009-08-11 11:36:42] - Aaron: My guess is the Republicans don't see anything wrong with what they're doing, and I'm not entirely sure I disagree with them. I guess I would need to have a better idea of what a typical town hall meeting is like before I say one way or the other. -Paul
[2009-08-11 11:34:01] - paul: nobody said top down organization of protesters was some revolutionary new thing. ~a
[2009-08-11 11:33:08] - mig: but it does sound like according to the "harrassment" link someone from "Americans for Prosperity" was all "hey, that shit was Bob MacGuffie's fault, leave us alone" so... i mean, that's all i meant. as long as the republican party isn't all proud of what they did, that means a lot imho - aaron
[2009-08-11 11:29:39] - in other words, i don't understand your comparison between the article and the protest, but if you want i can draw an equally silly comparison - aaron
[2009-08-11 11:25:33] - mig: i don't understand, what do you want thinkprogress to apologize for? do you want them to apologize for the url, or for the level of hyperbole in the article itself? i don't think they're promoting themselves as an unbiased resource for news (or if they are, they're probably doing it sarcastically) - aaron
[2009-08-11 11:00:29] - It would be nice if thinkprogress would apologize or recant their incredibly misleading and very inflammatory article about the memo (for fucks sake even the url call it a "harrassment memo"), but that probably won't happen either. - mig
[2009-08-11 10:44:09] - paul: otherwise seems to me like people will just cite this as precedent and give both parties an excuse to get rowdy in the future - aaron
[2009-08-11 10:43:46] - paul: the town hall format can probably continue as long as the republican party like recants, and is all "oh... our bad, mate!" Admitting fault at some level would go a little way to ensuring these kind of forums remain civil in the future. but... probably won't happen - aaron
[2009-08-11 10:29:53] - Aaron: Sure, and that's something I think can agree with. I think the acts themselves are the same, just slightly different degrees. It's not like one group is quietly making intelligent debate while the other brings baseball bats to bash in heads. -Paul
[2009-08-11 10:28:37] - Aaron: And my point is, and always has been, that I don't consider those things to be some kind of radically new strategy. Democrats have been standing up and shouting down people for 8 years prior to this. -Paul
[2009-08-11 10:27:03] - paul: oh, alright, well yeah it's not some revolutionary new thing. i think pierce's point (watering it down a little here) was that previous democratic protests were 12.1 meters over the line, but this new republican protest is 12.4 meters over the line - aaron
[2009-08-11 10:26:41] - Aaron: Pierce's link to the memo doesn't seem like some damning evidence to me. It's telling people to spread out and get in the front row and shout out during the presentation. That's all I'm seeing. It even specifically says to "stand up and shout out and sit right back down", not to keep shouting down opposing views. -Paul
[2009-08-11 10:24:47] - Aaron: I never meant to imply that I thought in the past, Democratic organizations have told their protesters to lie about who they are and shout down opposing views. For the record, I don't think I've seen any proof that's what the Republicans are doing either, though. -Paul
[2009-08-11 10:21:30] - Aaron: Whoops, I meant DISAGREE. Big difference there. Sorry. -Paul
[2009-08-11 10:20:39] - aaron: I don't think I necessarily agree with the things you said. I'm not sure what Pierce thought I was arguing, but my point has always been that top down organization of protesters isn't some revolutionary new thing. -Paul
[2009-08-11 10:15:46] - Thinkprogress seems to want to create the impression this memo is at the heart of some neo-facist republican conspiracy, and that's just absurd. - mig
[2009-08-11 10:14:49] - aaron: after reading the memo in full I'm not really sure why such a big deal is being made out of it. It's essentially a guide for people to get their points across at town hall meetings. In fact it specifically suggests that people do not be totally rowdy and uncivil (don't bring in signs, don't make a scene, use positive body language). I mean come on. - mig
[2009-08-11 10:03:35] - and by important, i mean unamerican - aaron
prev <-> next