Texas Bans ALL Marriage
Quote:

... The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."...

They now need an amendment to their constitution to fix it.

(Special thanks to N.U. for the story)

Cracks me up!   Best story I've read today.

I had commented in a previous thread that allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines would save a TON of money... and it would.

But watching KO (I think that's what I was watching) I heard something that concerned me greatly.

Apparently there is such talk ... maybe in the Senate??? ... of relaxing these rules.
This seems like a good idea as it would allow smaller insurance companies to have much greater access to many many many more patients... This would, in theory, help drive down costs as it would give some serious competition to the big companies...

But apparently there's no National minimum standard (at the moment) for coverage...

In KY (and many other states), patients rights have been protected somewhat... Specifically in pharmacy there is what's called the "Any Willing Provider" law. This means that any pharmacy that is willing to accept an insurance company's terms MUST be allowed to participate in that insurance company's network. "Participating Pharmacy". This means that you, the patient, can still go to the pharmacy of your choice.

Not every state has this rule. I think Texas doesn't have that rule.... which means, an insurance company does NOT have to allow Any Willing Provider to participate in their network. They can say: "You Must go to Wal-Mart or Rite-Aid to get your Rx's... No other pharmacies will be on our network."

You see the problem?

IF these companies are allowed to operate across state lines then I think it is IMPERATIVE that there be "Any Willing Provider" language.

Otherwise... the insurance companies will move to the state with the LEAST regulations... and that's the only choice you and I will get.

This would be a disaster, IMO.

So...

Let me encourage you to contact your representatives and let them know that any such legislation that doesn't include "any willing provider" language is disasterous and unacceptable.

[apology:  I am at work (as usual) as I write this... the phone rings a LOT and patients drive up or walk in constantly...  It is almost impossible for me to type a single sentence without an interruption...  Much Less do research and look up links.  I hope the content of this entry is enough to spark some conversation even if I don't have "sources"... Thanks for your understanding.]

I think we've all noticed and commented at some point or another the Republican Party's tendency to press  hard for "Ideological Purity".

Any Republican who says something against this group is immediately taken to task... and they often fall in line quickly...  OR LEAVE! 

But as a result it seems they are alienating MANY Conservative Republicans.

Anybody Repug that is Pro-Choice - Unwelcome
Anybody Repug that is Pro-Gay - Unwelcome
Anybody Repug that is Pro-Muslim - Unwelcome

In their quest for ideological purity they are going to have nobody left.

This is evidenced by the formation (and apparent growth) of alternate Conservative Parties such as... well....

The American Conservative Party

And I've hear Rachel (and maybe KO) reporting on the actual formation (in Florida) of:

The TEA PARTY  (No link just yet....)

One has to imagine that these new and growing Conservative partys are composed primarily of Republicans (Former) and some Libertarians...

With the formations of these parties... and their subsequent growth over the past 2 years or so...  And if this trend continues...   one has to wonder if the Republican Party proper will be able to muster enough support to ever get another candidate elected as President.

Are we really seeing the Repug Snake eating it's own tail?  Is their narrowmindedness going to destroy them (as predicted)?

I've blogged about the purpose of "School" before... It's a subject I've considered for most of my life, strangely enough.  I say it that way because, for the most part, I've got no use for school.  I didn't like it when I was in primary education, and I really didn't like it at the secondary level.

To be sure, there were a few teachers along the way that "made a difference" for me...  and interestingly, they were the ones who didn't do things "traditionally".

One of them was an Art teacher who said, "It's true that I give you the assignment, BUT you are not doing the assignment for me.  You are doing it for yourself.   ...and if you've worked hard and you're happy with the results, then who am I to give you anything but an "A"?" 
I took this lesson to heart...  Unfortunately I never met another teacher with that philosophy. 

Another teacher was Mr. Tom Welch.  He taught High School French at Jessamine County High in Kentucky.  Among other things he would keep the classroom COLD!!  This prevented bad students like me from sleeping... and otherwise kept students alert.  But that's neither here nor there.

Mr. Welch went on to be named Teacher of the Year in 1992 (4 years after I graduated)...  He's gone on to do many other things in his career....

I ran into him a few months ago and thanked him... I told him I thought highly of him.  We talked for a bit and I expressed my exasperation with the whole "School Thing"...   I told him how frustrating it was... the structure... the pace... the atmosphere... etc...

He quietly nodded his head and said, "That's exactly what I'm working on right now."  He went on to explain in very general terms that in his view the world is changing and that education needs to change with it.  He said he was trying develop Web Based approaches that allow each Learner to proceed at his/her own pace... etc...

I confess I didn't follow up with him... until today.

Perhaps some of you remember my original Blog WRT "School" wherein I asked the purpose of School...  

Well... Mr. Welch, it seems, has similar concerns.  Check out his website, if you will, and see what you think.

http://www.twelchconsulting.com/

There's a Blog there, too...  some pretty good comments can be found...  But the basic idea is:  We should be teaching kids how to LEARN...  ... get away from traditional Classroom Based systems... and take advantage of 21st century technologies.

Anyway...

I don't intend for this to be a Tom Welch promotion thread (although that's what it seems like)...

I just really wanted you guys to read some of his ideas... compare them with your own experience... and tell me what you think.

Saw this earlier today....

11.08.09 -- 9:35PM // RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (95) 2010 or 2013? TPM Reader BK disagrees that health care reform's greatest vulnerability will be the 2010 election. Actually, its greatest point of vulnerability will be the 2012 election, since much of it doesn't take effect until 2013. The mandates that will drive up costs will take effect before then--young people will pay much more since premiums will be equalized for all age groups and private companies will have to cover even sick people. Since there will be no opt-out or no competition, they will be able to charge whatever they want. Read more » --Josh Marshall

I think it's a damned good point... My first thought was: "Damn!" But it fails to consider several important factors. For starters, the Dems actually picked up a seat in the house in last weeks elections. Also, it's unlikely that the GOP will experience a groundswell of support between now and then... They don't have an ACORN... they don't have ANYBODY to lead them.... Romney? Huckabee? Newt? Palin? C'mon... It's not likely that ANY of their folks are going to garner very much support... and it's almost impossible to imagine a scenario where they could come up with anybody that would rally voters the way Obama did. The dems may lose a few seats, but they'll still hold a pretty solid majority and as such there's virtually no chance of them repealing any HCR that may exist by then. (Thanks to my friend KBOB for his insights on this)

"They" can spin this however they want... The right is saying "We are turning the corner... the people like what we have to say... " but I don't believe it. The Repugs are polling extremely LOW... 

The Blue Dogs can say "This shows that the people agree with our centrist views..." But I think it's the opposite! I think this is evidence that the people REJECT centrist policies...

When THE BASE believed in CHANGE, they (WE) were motivated to hit the streets and knock on doors... and donate money... and make phone calls...

After winning we haven't seen that Change.

Actually we've seen a sprint to the middle (That's the OPPOSITE of change as far as I'm concerned).

When the BASE has been snubbed... and doesn't see the point in going all out... then it's not likely that "the voters" will be influence in favor of any Dem candidate. IMHO

______________________________________________

Tonight's big lesson
by kos

Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:32:52 PM PST

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/4/800316/-Tonights-big-lesson

____________________________________________________________________

We on the left were not caught off guard.  I've read plenty and seen plenty of us predicting exactly this kind of result. 

We were not caught off guard...  we were ignorned.

Try winning ANY election after you've ignored and snubbed your base.  Good luck with that.

Lie down with blue dogs in the middle of the road and you get run over.

That's what Iowa (and the WH, and EVERY DA in the country) claims.

This story from NPR has me just a bit pissed off.

It's OBVIOUS that a Crime was committed - by the Prosecutor!!! But there's not a damned thing that can be done about it.

It's OBVIOUS that JUSTICE has NOT been served... nor does it appear it will be.

Furthermore... What does this MEAN? Seriously.

They are literally claiming that there's "No Constitutional Right Not To Be Framed".

Are you kidding?

Check out the story linked below... read it... listen to it... Tell me what you think.

Legal minds in the house, I'd really like to hear what you have to say (from a legal perspective) as well.
_______________________________________________________________________

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120069519

Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday.

On one side of the case being argued are Iowa prosecutors who contend "there is no freestanding right not to be framed." They are backed by the Obama administration, 28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country.

On the other side are two black men -- Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee -- men who served 25 years in prison before evidence long hidden in police files resulted in them being freed.

Harrington, McGhee And The Principal Witness

Back in 1977, Harrington, captain of his Omaha high school football team, was applying to college and being recruited for a possible scholarship at Yale.

Then he and McGhee were arrested for the murder of a retired police officer in neighboring Council Bluffs, Iowa, just across the state line.

The principal witness was 16-year-old Kevin Hughes, who had a criminal record, and after being arrested in a stolen car, first fingered two other men, one of whom turned out to have been in jail on the night of the crime.

After his first stories didn't pan out, Hughes implicated Harrington and McGhee, but his eyewitness account was riddled with errors.

He initially got the site of the shooting wrong and the weapon. He said the murder was committed with a handgun, then said a 20-gauge shotgun and finally a 12-gauge shotgun.

He also failed a polygraph test. According to lawyers for Harrington and McGhee, the Council Bluffs police and prosecutors knew all this and more. But they went ahead and indicted the two men, winning convictions before an all-white jury.

........

The Council Bluffs prosecution team, while still maintaining that Harrington and McGhee are guilty, contends that even if the men were in fact framed, prosecutors, under established Supreme Court precedent, have total immunity from being sued.

The Supreme Court has indeed said that prosecutors are immune from suit for anything they do at trial. But in this case, Harrington and McGhee maintain that before anyone being charged, prosecutors gathered evidence alongside police, interviewed witnesses and knew the testimony they were assembling was false.

The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed." Stephen Sanders, the lawyer for the prosecutors, will tell the Supreme Court on Wednesday that there is no way to separate evidence gathered before trial from the trial itself. Even if a prosecutor files charges against a person knowing that there is no evidence of his guilt, says Sanders, "that's an absolutely immunized activity." _____________________________________________________________________

So very wrong. 

Aren't we supposed to have a right to petition for redress of grievances? 

You mean to tell me that a prosecutor can KNOWINGLY "FRAME" an innocent person and send them to prison...  and the prosecutor has done nothing "Illegal".

C'mon.

What's this all about?

http://ctforlieberman.blogspot.com/

http://ctforlieberman.blogspot.com/

Quote: The Connecticut for Lieberman Party (CFL) rejects the fraud perpetrated on the members of this party and the citizens of Connecticut by Joe Lieberman when he used the creation of this party to get on the general election ballot in 2006. The CFL is an independent, anti-war, anti-corruption, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-democracy party, that stands for individual liberties and real problem-solving in government. The CFL wants everyone to know that in the United States of America, voters are free to join any party they wish, and participate in the democratic process according to the laws of Connecticut and the United States.

We had five candidates for state representative on the ballot in Connecticut in 2008 (see below).

A few years ago I was called for Jury Duty and this was "educational" to say the least.  I could go on about some silly stuff like Per Diem and parking... but I won't. 

The Judge before this particular case spoke to potential jurors at length about the importance of rendering our verdict based SOLELY on the Law.  It wouldn't matter if we agreed with the law or not... our own personal opinions on the law could have nothing to do with our decision. If we had a question about the law we could ask the court and the court would explain it.  But it was CRUCIAL that we follow ONLY the Law.

This was being pounded into my head by a Black Woman.  I couldn't believe my ears!  You mean to tell me that, if somehow, this black woman was sitting on a Jury and asked to uphold certain Jim Crowe Laws, for instance, that she'd be "OK" with that?   ...or, if there were some kind of criminal case over Women's Suffrage???   No way! 

There has to be a way to kill an "Unjust Law" if the Jury feels it necessary.

Jury nullification is the process whereby a jury in a criminal case nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law--that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge--which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is--but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

Strictly speaking, a jury verdict which rules contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute[citation needed]. Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the evidence and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, especially when that practice has drifted from its constitutional origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the verity of the evidence presented,[2] instructions that are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.

Historical examples of nullification include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law,[3] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,[4] the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases,[5] and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[6]

Much more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

So... needless to say, I was very relieved to learn of this "Option".   Juries DO have the ability to Not Convict if they feel the Law is Unjust.  Whew!  

Wiki is careful to point out several pro's and con's to this...

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny.[7][8] Others view it as an abuse of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law.[9] Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God." United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71 ~.1 (D.C. Cir. 1977).[10][11] They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the distinction between acquittal and conviction is irrelevant.[12]

Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions.

So... This (BOLD PRINT) gave me pause.  I'd never considered Jury Nullification in Reverse before!  Perhaps some Legal Minds can chime in on this???
Is it conceivable that a Jury could convict somebody who has not actually broken a Law?  Could they, in effect, create a "New Law" if they felt there needed to be one in this particular case?

Even still... I think Juries should be told about this option.
For consideration:

Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.

• First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.
• Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.
• Third, whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising his power of jury nullification.
• Fourth, whether all legal arguments, except perhaps on motions in limine to exclude evidence, should be made in the hearing of the jury.

Any Lawyers in the house?  Any non-lawyers wanna chime in?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I've noticed more than a few threads that have discussed God, Religion, The Bible, etc...   And I'm impressed by everyone's ability to be level headed about all of it.  So many times these discussions devolve into fisticuffs.

I thought I'd share my thoughts with you and get some feedback from you, if you don't mind.

Many years ago... over 2 decades ago, actually... I spent some time alone.  That is to say:  I didn't have a girlfriend, lived alone, and wasn't very social.  I recommend everybody do something like this at some point because it forces you to deal with the man/woman in the mirror.  When you can look in that mirror and be comfortable then you know you can go forward with relative ease.

During this time I was attending the University of Kentucky and  taking classes in Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Philosophy, etc... I wrestled with God and Religion (among other things) and I formed some ideas... Tell me what you think.

Entropy made a dent in my thinking and I keep that in mind throughout this entire thing....

Entropy is the great constant.  It's for real and it affects everything.  Living creatures "resist" entropy by healing (for example), but ultimately succumb.  Non-living things like rocks and building just crumble over time with no resistance.

It's the easiest thing in the world to contribute to entropy.  If you don't like that building across the street you could just be patient... it will disappear in time... OR you could accelerate the process by setting it on fire  [DO NOT GO SETTING BUILDINGS ON FIRE!!!  It's just an example... a thought experiment if you will...].   If you don't like something you can always contribute to it's entropy to get rid of it quicker.

The HARD thing is to resist that entropy.  If you like that building across the street then you should try to keep it there.  Good luck.  You can do it, but it takes constant work!  There's always something that needs to be done to make sure that building is in good shape.

I like being alive.  I really dig it, considering the alternative.  If I didn't like being alive I could contribute to the entropy that's eating me away... I could accelerate my demise.  But I'm not about to do that.  I resist that entropy.  I try to eat well and take care of myself...  but more than that, I try to take care of those around me.

Do I want to live in a world where nobody trusts anybody?  Where people steal from one another?  Where people run around killing each other?   No.  Of course not.  All of those things contribute to the entropy of the whole thing.  ALL of those things DESTROY what's around them.  I'm way more interested in Building and Maintaining this life.

So... from just a "Common Sense" approach it seems to make sense to me that we don't Lie, Cheat, Steal, Kill, etc...    And we don't need some Big-Invisible-Guy-In-The-Sky-By-And-By to tell us it's bad.  All it takes is an agreement among us that we all like being here (alive) and we want to keep it that way for as long as possible.

________________________________________
At this point, I'm going to interrupt myself and share with you an episode of "DINOSAURS" I once saw.

The Grandmother dinosaur had died and gone to Heaven.  She was waiting outside the pearly gates, but looking through with joy on her face!  St. Pete steps up and says, "Oh, I'm sorry. This is a mistake.  You're not supposed to be here yet."  And, POOOOF!!!  She was alive again, back here on Earth.
This depressed her.  She had seen Heaven and she didn't want to be here anymore.
She went around telling everybody how Great Heaven is. "There's shuffleboards as far as the eye can see...." she told them...  She made the talk show circuit.  EVERYBODY was listening to her stories and they loved what they heard...
EVERYBODY wanted to die so they could get to Heaven.  NOBODY wanted to be here on Earth anymore...   Society was DREADFUL!!!!
So... she died again.  In Heaven it was explained to her that she couldn't do this!!!  Everybody would be in Heaven soon enough, and when they were it'd be FOREVER!!!   Life on Earth is fleeting and people should enjoy it while they can.  She was told she needed to go back and spread this new message.

I always liked that lesson.
____________________________________

I only have 46 chromosomes.... 23 from Mom and 23 forom Dad... this is my opening LIMIT.  I don't have 48, or 80, or 100....   This design provides me with a brain that weighs approximately 3 pounds.  Another LIMIT.  It's not 5 pounds or 100 pounds...   just 3.   And only about 10% of this brain appears to be doing much of anything... Another limit.
And this brain gets ALL of it's information from 5 senses...  4 really as smell and taste are pretty much the same thing...  but still, 5 is another Limit.  I don't have 6, or 8, or 10...
Limits limits limits...

Let's say there's a blue cup sitting in front of us on the table.  How do we know this?  Well... because photon's of certain wavelengths bounce off of that object and travel to the back of our eyeball where they collide with receptors.

Now... this takes time.  Light travels very fast, to be sure... but still... it takes a little bit of time for that photon to travel the distance from the cup to my eye....   So, it's NOT POSSIBLE for me to see the cup as it is right now... I can only see it how it WAS a short time ago.  This becomes more pronounced as distances grows.

When that photon hits my retina there is a chemical reaction or two or three or 1,000 that take place.  During EACH reaction Energy is lost (in the form of heat)... So, after one neuron does it's thing and transmits to the next, energy (information) is lost...  Sure, it's just a small amount... but it's real.

All these reactions take the signal to my brain where there are still more reactions taking place until I ultimately 'realize' that there is a "Blue Cup" sitting in front of me...  All the while energy is being lost...

So, the image of the blue cup that my brain receives is Not only the cup as it was a short time ago... it's also a little fuzzy because some energy has been lost along the way.

The same goes for ALL of my other senses.

So... If I can not accurately discern the 'blue cup' in front of me as a matter of fact, then I'm quite CERTAIN that it's impossible for me to "Know" God or God's will...

And neither can anybody else.
_______________________________________

Given these physical limits (and others I'm sure I've missed)
I can say for sure that I don't know if there's a God and neither does anybody else.
I can say for sure that there might be a God.
I can say for sure that it doesn't matter to me if there is or isn't as far as living my life here on Earth goes.

I don't require the promise of Heaven (or the THREAT of Hell) to make me behave and love my neighbors.  I simply don't see the need and it makes no sense to me and I've already explained why.

Why, then, do others (some of you most likely) find it necessary to believe in a God well defined by church dogma or otherwise?  
If it's to teach you "God Is Love"... Well... you don't need a church or a Bible for that. 
If it's to teach you not to lie, cheat, steal, or kill...  C'mon... You KNOW not to do those things anyway... You don't need God, Church, nor Bible to know these things.
Is it the promise of Heaven that you need?  Really? In lieu of everything else, this is that important to you?

Well...  OK.  Cool. 

 

 

Back in the late 90's Congress initiated a series of cuts to Medicare...  those cuts are ongoing and will become a huge problem come January 2010.  If the cuts are made, Doctors will be facing a 21% cut in reimbursement rates.  This would mean that a LOT of doctors would simply stop accepting Medicare all together.

Check out NPR's story: http://npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113950331

Congress Wrestles With Yearly Medicare Fee Cuts

A scheduled 20 percent cut may force many doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients.

___________________________________________________

This "fix" is independant of the current Health Care talks and would be an added expense not offset by other spending cuts, etc... as the above NPR story points out.

___________________________________________________

Now we see this story coming from the WSJ:

By GREG HITT and JANET ADAMY

WASHINGTON -- The idea of creating a government-run health-insurance plan, once on life support in the Senate, is making a recovery among Democrats writing health-care legislation.

So far, no one is talking about a nationwide Medicare-like plan of the sort sought by many liberals, but several variations short of a national plan are being considered.

One would establish a national plan only if other proposals in the Democrat-led health overhaul fail to expand insurance coverage. Another would create a government plan, but allow states to opt out. Still another would allow states to opt in to a government plan, or experiment with their own plans. Prospects are growing that one of these variations -- or a blend of them -- will make it into the final Senate bill.

"This issue is alive, and we're looking at it," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125599567408695255.html
_____________________________

Don't be surprised to find the AMA supporting the Public Option as soon as this "Fix" is in.

I didn't write this... a friend of mine did and has given me permission to post it elsewhere...

For the past couple of days (on another board) we've been visited by our sporadic and emotional "Commie"...  Her visit sparked a memory of the following "Rules" and I dug them up for re-posting.

I think TPM functions at a fairly high level (despite DickDays best efforts.... NOODGE!!!) and, because of this, as a compliment to you, I thought you'd get a chuckle out of this.

Hope you enjoy it :)
<blockquote>
The Kbob Guide to Igniting a Flame War


1) Flame Wars Are All About Respect

Or, rather, the LACK of respect. The easiest, fastest and most efficient way to begin a flame war is to show no respect for the object of your flames or for that person's opinions.

For example, if one is to say "I like apples," the best response here would be "Apples?! WTF is wrong with you?!" This would instantly demean not only the opinion but the individual who expressed it thus stifling any further discussion.

Remember, discussion is the opposite of Flaming and should always be avoided at all costs if one is to successfully ignite a Flame War.

2) Disagreement is NOT Disrespect

Do not confuse disagreement with disrespect. Often a mere statement of "I disagree..." can be a sign of respect. It means that you have read the post, acknowledged it but wish to discuss it further even though you don't agree with it.

For example, if one is to say "I like apples" one might respond with a disagreement such as "I actually don't like apples at all because..." This sort of response is only going to encourage debate and further communication and discourage a good flame.

Please note the use of "because." This word is counterproductive to igniting a good flame, because it only leads to backing up one's opinion, thus leaving you open to further discussion.

3) Sarcasm is the Fuel of a Good Flame.

You may have noticed that this very thread is full of such sarcasm. My intention here truly is not to encourage Flame Wars, but to hopefully suggest means to avoid them. Or perhaps you haven't noticed. This is the true gift of sarcasm on a message board -- sarcasm is very difficult to interpret by written word alone. Many a Flame War has begun with simple confusion of intent.

To resolve any confusion, I will use one of the more useful smilies on this board...

This smiley is difficult to find among the many cats, but it's there.

3a) Use the Term "LOL" Whenever Possible.

This is a subset of the use of sarcasm.

As we know, "LOL" is an abbreviation of "Laughing Out Loud." In and of itself, it might seem convenient, but without context it's like when your friends in the rented tuxedos pointed at you in your rented tuxedo at the prom and giggled -- it's not always easy to tell if someone is laughing WITH your or AT you.

For example, if one is to say "I like apples," you might respond with "Apples?! LOL!" Is this sarcasm or not? Difficult to say. The point is that you've successfully created confusion and have potentially made the subject of your statement feel small and weak.

4) Always Remember that Your Subject is Small and Weak

One necessary aspect of message boards such as this one is that all of its members are anonymous. This makes it much easier to dehumanize your subject and view them only as a collection of words on a screen rather than as a living, breathing human being with a history, dreams, loved ones and all that crap.

Rather, imagine the subject of your flame as small and weak because you know they can never physically hurt you. So you might as well pound them into the virtual ground with your mighty hammer of rhetoric.

5) Be Sure to Go Off-Topic

If the topic of the thread is "I like apples," be sure to make the subject of your post something about how much you hate oranges or feel like taking a bath or wonder why the music in your head is getting louder. This is a great, indirect, wonderfully disrespectful way to indicate that you do not care for the subject of the thread and would rather talk about what YOU would like to talk about. You have successfully discontinued discussion. Feelings are certain to be hurt.

6) If Feelings Are Hurt... So What

Occasionally, a member might indicate that a post was personally hurtful. Always remember that even though you composed the post, and even though your intentions might not have been to be hurtful... the fault lies with the person who feels hurt. (Repeat to yourself: "small and weak... small and weak.) So regardless of what you do, don't take responsibility.

7) Take Things Personally

Sometimes, fault really does lie with the person whose feelings have been hurt due to a misinterpretation of intent. (Sarcasm is useful here.) Remember, YOU can be that person. It gives you great license to ignite your Flame War.

"Apples?! Are you calling me an Apple? I don't know what your problem is, but I am NOT an apple. You're an apple, you f*ck*ng apple!"

Responses like that one are far easier than to respond with a question about the poster's intent. That can only serve to encourage discussion.

8) It Takes Two To Tango

In the long run, the best way to begin a Flame War is to be the subject of flames and to flame back. Always bear in mind that your pride is on the line. If someone has rudely expressed that you are an idiot for liking apples, then you must remind yourself that they feel that way only because they are small and weak.

There are such useful functions as "Ignore" buttons on this board, and you always have the option to actually ignore the post that offended you... but where's the fun in that? You have been challenged. You have no choice but to fight back using the same tactics as have been outlined here.

THEY are small and weak. YOU wield the mighty hammer of your powerful rhetoric. Go for it!

LOL.
</blockquote>


You know I'm kidding, DD.  :)

I've been reading everybody's comments WRT Healthcare Reform... and as good as everybody's ideas are... as good as your arguments are.... as sincere as you all seem to be...  I keep feeling that we are either missing something substantial, OR perhaps all the various threads are so spread out and fragmented that I can't make sense of it all...

PLEASE!!!!  Take the time to listen to (or read) the following!  I heard this over the weekend and found it to be the absolute BEST coverage of the subject.
_________________________________

THIS AMERICAN LIFE is a very intelligently written and produced Radio Show found on Public Radio... It's also available for podcast download, etc...

This weekend (and Next) they focused on HEALTH CARE.

MIND BLOWINGLY Informative.

I can't recommend it enough if you want to get a much, much, MUCH better explanation and understanding of what the hell is going on!

Check it out. You won't be sorry.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1320

What is the purpose of School?

Full disclosure:  I do not have a college degree.  I went to college for 4 & 1/2 years but eventually grew very disenchanted with the whole system and quit.  I now own a pharmacy... (well, the Bank owns it, but they're nice enough to let me work for them until I get it paid off....)....  I am married with beautiful wife and two beautiful children.  Everybody is healthy and we function at a pretty high level.  We all get along wonderfully and life is good.

I say these things to illustrate that it's entirely possible to live a great life without a college degree.

Personally, I just couldn't stand paying all the tuition money required to get a degree.  I discovered that I made my best grades when I did NOT go to class... When I just stayed home an learned the subject all by myself, I would have a better understanding of the subject all around.  So, why in the world was I paying all that money to this institution when I was perfectly able to learn anything I wanted to learn all by myself?  I didn't need them in order to learn.

I think it was Twain who said, "I've always enjoyed learning but I haven't always enjoyed being taught."

So... WHAT is the purpose of School?

Is it to insure that I will earn more money once I get my degree?
Is it to provide me some job security once I get my degree?
Is it to prepare me for the "Real World"?

Well... It isn't likely to be the Money.  Check out these folks:  http://www.twincommas.com/billionaire-college-dropouts

NONE of them have college degrees.  The opening paragraph on this page says:
"You will recognize the men below as some of the richest in the world. But did you also know that none of them completed college? Some of them didn't even graduate from high school, yet they went on to amass enormous fortunes and create humanity-changing companies. So what does this say about the of utility college education? Perhaps nothing - college is a reasonable way for most people to launch their careers. On the other hand, these examples prove that for the truly intelligent, motivated, and brave, there may be better ways to spend several youthful years than sitting in a classroom."

So, if it's money you're after, then maybe school isn't the best way to go.

Job Security?  Really?  Just how many people are unemployed in the US today?  In a way, a degree might be a way to insure you DON'T have job security.  When a company can hire 20 employees in China for the same price as 1 employee here in the US, you tell me.  There are a LOT of intelligent people with degrees who do not have a Job.  And it's not just out-sourcing...  My own father was working for a company that went bankrupt about a decade ago...  He has a college degree and maintains very high end scientific equipment.  But that's ALL he does.  Rather specialized.

Maybe you think it's to prepare you for the "Real World"?   Well... I can tell you from personal experience that school has little to do with the real world.  It doesn't prepare you for adult level, meaningful, productive, functioning relationships... nor does it prepare you for the CRAP life can throw your way while building and maintaining those relationships... nor does it prepare you for dealing with all the assholes out there that have been at it for a while and know all the tricks to slip you up as you try to forge ahead...  Nor does it prepare you for bankers, lawyers, and crazy clients... Nor does it prepare you for a VERY RAPIDLY changing world... 

I don't care what you get a degree in, once you enter your chosen field you are almost certain to LEARN a WHOLE LOT MORE than you ever learned in class...  (To the point that you may question why you went to class in the first place...  Well, at least some of you may have felt that way...).

It just seems to me that school doesn't adequately provide a good answer to any of those questions.

WHO needs a college degree?

I think we can all agree that there are certain professions that should pretty much require a certain level of education:
SUREGEONS come to mind.  I really don't want somebody operating on me who hasn't had any formal education on the subject.  Maybe Scientists fall into this category as well, but not necessarily.  I'm sure it's possible to do good science all on your own.  Science is, afterall, a process or method of looking at what's in front of you, thinking about it, forming some theories, and testing them...  It's not necessary to have a degree to do that... but I suspect an academic environment is better suited to this kind of work... and it wouldn't make any sense for a University to provide such an environment to people who didn't get a degree...   Afterall, how would the University stay in business if it didn't support it's own education programs, you know?
I guess anybody who wants to have a carreer in academia would be required to have a degree.  Afterall, it's what they do.  They can't rightly sell the benefits of a degree if they themselves don't have one.

So... WHY get a college degree?

Although I can't find the link right now, I just heard on NPR that 1 in 7 Millionaires in the US today does not have a college degree.  Gates, Jobs, Dell...  just to name a few...  But 1 in 7???  I think there's a LESSON right there.

If money is what you're after in life, then school isn't necessarily the best way.

Also, although these jobs aren't glamourous, they pay good money and they provide a lifestyle with some free time:
Plumbers and electricians, for example.
These folks can make $40, $60 or $80/Hr...  They are able to name their hours (often)... and their job security is about as stable as anybody's nowadays if not more so.
Sure, they need some education, but most of it can be learned "on the job"... very little formal education is actually necessary.  And these types of jobs are likely to always be needed no matter what happens in technology... at least for the foreseeable future.

There are those, like me, that own their own businesses.  We don't have college degrees yet we hire people with degrees all the time to work for us.  So, it's not necessary to have a formal education in order to live a good life and even provide jobs to others (those with degrees or otherwise).

A CONCERN of mine:  The VERY RAPID advancements in technology.

Check out this YouTube clip for some very interesting statistics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

• The top 10 "In Demand" jobs in 2010 didn't exist in 2004.  We are currently preparing for jobs that don't exist yet...  That will be using technologies that haven't yet been invented.... In order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet...
• The US Department of Labor estimates that the current Learner will have 10-14 jobs by the time they are 38 years old!
• 1 in 4 workers have been with their current employer for less than a year.
• 1 in 2 has been there less than 5 years.

Etc...

So again:  WHAT is the purpose of school.

It isn't possible that school is there to teach you ONE SUBJECT that's going to serve you well the rest of your life.  That would be irresponsible in lieu of the aforementioned numbers, wouldn't you agree?

After thinking about this for a while, I really don't know if there is a perfect answer...  

But it seems to me that School should exist to teach us HOW TO LEARN.   Maybe they can teach WHY it's important to know HOW to learn... but focus mainly on teaching us HOW...   Perhaps they could also focus more attention on our children (and us) providing an atmosphere and opportunity to work together in groups to solve problems....  I dunno.
(Educators must keep in mind that different people learn in different ways... some are tactile, some are visual, some are audible...  but that's a subject unto itself..)

IMVHO, School systems, up to and including College, simply don't provide the kind of "education" that can hold up to the stresses of the future workplace and employment environment.  

If people are taught HOW to learn new things then they will be better prepared to deal with the "Real World" and better equipped to provide a living (and hopefully a LIFE) for themselves and their loved ones.


I sincerely hope that some of the Educators on this board will chime in on this subject.  I'd really like to know what you all think on this subject.  Thanks for your indulgence.  :)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59534Z20091006

LONDON (Reuters) - Gold hit a record high at $1,036.40 an ounce as the dollar dropped on a report, later denied, that Gulf Arab states were considering abandoning the U.S. currency for oil trade.

A positive technical picture for gold fueled buying on the fund side, traders said. However, the weight of near-record long positions in New York gold futures still leaves the market vulnerable to correction.

Spot gold was bid at $1,032.05 an ounce at 1319 GMT (9:19 a.m. EDT) against $1,016.65 late on Monday.

U.S. gold futures also hit an all-time high, with gold futures for December delivery on the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange hitting a peak of $1,038.00 an ounce. They were later up $16.10 at $1,033.90.

"Investors (and) funds keep buying as the technical side looks good," said senior Commerzbank trader Michael Kempinski. "Even without the weak U.S. dollar, gold is performing quite well."

Gold also hit six-month highs when priced in sterling and euros, breaking above 700 euros an ounce for the first time since early April.

The dollar slipped sharply in Asian trade after UK newspaper the Independent said Gulf Arab states were in secret discussions to end the use of dollars in oil trading.

The newspaper said the states were in talks with Russia, China, Japan and France to replace the unit with a basket of currencies. The dollar pared losses after the report was denied by Saudi and Russian authorities, but stayed soft.  (More at link above)

____________________________

The last part is the real nuts and bolts of the story, IMHO.

If other coutries are in "Secret Discussions" to drop the Dollar (in oil trading)...  Sheesh...

If this comes about, then might it be the initial action of a domino effect?

And what of the certain inflation that coming our way...  Todays news is unsettling to say the least.