In my particular specialty, I have no choice but to be my brother's keeper, which is as it should be. I treat with the same diligence the drug dealer shot by the police or the 5 year old child bitten by the family pet. Every physician I work with does the same. No medical decisions are based on anything other than what is in the best medical interest of the patient. My comments on personal responsibility are made from the perspective of my being a tax-paying citizen of a country that struggles under the weight of a medical system that is a bloated bureaucracy servicing a population of consumers with unrealistic expectations.
I totally agree with your comments on addiction. It's poorly understood and hard to treat. If we had a therapy that was effective, I'd be all for paying for it. But we don't. Psychological counseling is of little benefit. A person doesn't stop smoking, or lose weight, until they are ready. Too often it's because they have a debilitating disease caused by same. I have a few friends that smoke. I've tried to get them to quit. I've described the slow death of emphysema, the air hunger, feeling like you're running a race that never ends, although it does when you die. There's not many worse ways to go. But their response is the same, "I'm not ready to quit." Too bad.
One of the great misconceptions US citizens have, is the criticism that physicians are "controlled" or "puppets" of the system, that they receive kickbacks for referrals, etc. These people have never had experience trying to manage physicians, that's for sure. There's not a more fiercely independent group in any work force. They HATE being told what to do and they are the most ethical group of professionals I've ever encountered.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?
You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.
One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.
The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.
Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.
At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.




>> ^Quboid:
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.

Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.

How about not bullying anyone?

You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.

One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.

The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.

Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.

At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.








>> ^Quboid:

>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

>> ^chilaxe:

@ghark
Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs.
Doubling the size of university bureaucracies probably played a role. Other factors like skyrocketing healthcare costs & transitioning into complex technological organizations probably did as well.

@ghark said:
You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?
In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.


Which schools are you referring to, and what costs have skyrocketed? I'm not disagreeing, but by simply saying costs have sky rocketed, you're being a little vague. My point was also not that costs shouldn't be increasing more than the CPI, but simply that because they have, Rychan's point that people are getting themselves into their own mess is very misplaced, things have changed since that viewpoint was valid - even with a job these days many people struggle to pay off student debts (as the Fox interviewer mentions).

And it also comes back to the issue, should education be considered a human right? If it really is a stupid idea to educate yourself in America these days (as Rychan seems to suggest is the case for many people), perhaps something should be done? Just because it may be a bad economic decision to educate onseself doesn't mean the only other option is to remain uneducated, you can pursue policy change that leads to a better education system, take a stand!

I agree with you on the bureaucracies issue, I actually worked for my local University for a while, the pay was good, the job was easy, and the management layers were incredibly deep, we had around 10-11 layers from the lowest workers to upper management. The focus was on marketing; we wanted to present the best image we possibly could to potential Australian tertiary students, it's a numbers game, the more students we had the more profit we made. I was there for presentations from our upper management (such as the pro vice chancellor) and the issues always revolved around the economics of university business and getting published in as many journals as possible rather than the quality of teaching.

@ghark

Even small liberal arts schools with no science departments or interactions with corporations have had sky-rocketing costs.

Doubling the size of university bureaucracies probably played a role. Other factors like skyrocketing healthcare costs & transitioning into complex technological organizations probably did as well.



@ghark said:

You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?
In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.

Economics is "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses."

Every dollar urinated away on fanciful bull$h1t (per the info in marinara's post, the Golfer Administration ramrodded this through with zero oversight) like this is a dollar that could've landed in someone's paycheck (where it would be taxed) and circulated to buy goods people actually want and use (and taxed again).

That's also another dollar that will never be invested freely by peeps who are a lot more cautious with their dollars than thugverment. And these 'lone' dollars we're discussing are far from alone. Each one also costs many more dollars because government bureaucracies filled with government workers have to move them around.

No one is 'against' solar. they want "viable" (meaning cost-effective) solar systems. And people wanted to fly before the Wright Brothers built a plane in their garage using zero tax dollars.

If I believed that the recovery act went to paying wages, I would support it. But I really doubt it. My own personal idea is for the government to subsidize the minimum wage. It would add $5 in salary to each employee making less than $10. Do the math. for 1 million people, it would cost 10 Billion per year.

It seems like such an easy solution, doesn't it? Just pay people a living wage! Except living wages don't come from government, they come from businesses who have to deal with market demand. The American workforce is roughly 100 million. So with your 10 billion in what is essentially workfare (favoring one burger flipper over another) you've given a whopping 1 percent of low-wage earners a larger paycheck...for doing nothing!

Not only will this money be taxed at a higher rate, prices will rise, just like they do every time some vote-buying slug in office suggests raising the minimum wage. And employers will hire less people at $10 than $5. Supply and demand. Only in liberaland does a forklift driver earn the same as a neurosurgeon, because anything less wouldn't be "fair". It's also why double digit inflation is the norm across Europe.

remember, the LAWS don't say take the kids, it's the Bureaucracy (government) that just does it. I guess i need to make it clear, there is no law that says pot=take kids. It's just a ordinance that says CPS government employees spend all day taking kids.

English common law (and therefore law in the British Commonwealth and the US) originally was of the sort you describe; the victim petitioned his local magistrate for justice to be done and if a victim did not seek justice there was no action by those with legal jurisdiction

Over time, a larger bureaucracy developed and positions were created to enforce the local 'peace' on behalf of the local power (who could be anyone from a town magistrate to the king).

Eventually the jurisdiction of the king's court was universal and so criminal acts were considered 'breaking the king's peace' (which is different from the modern legal meaning of that phrase) and were dealt with by the courts.

To this day, criminal acts are considered offences against the whole community so the victim's feelings have no control over their prosecution.

In all 50 states a crime is against the state and can be tried by the local justice system, but the system routinely chooses not to pursue charges for various reasons. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@Lithic Interesting, I guess at heart, I have a slight problem with prosecutions with the victim being "society". I find the idea of justice being between people, with perhaps minor exceptions. That case of child abuse, where the victim is unable to press charges on their own it makes sense, but in adult on adult crimes, seems to make less sense. In my way of thinking, it would also make laws like drug laws unable to be enforced, because there would be no person to take up charges. Just surface thinking atm, haven't really fleshed out the idea. They had something like what I am talking about in "the moon is a harsh mistress", where by any trial that happened had to be fronted by your own cash. Now, I don't supposed that exactly, but that for a trial to happen, there has to be an interested party that isn't the state.

Stardardised testing is the simplification or abrogation of the need for school administrators to actively be involved with their teachers to properly guide or encourage them if they aren't performing up to par. Much like nanny statism encourages adults to let the state set the rules for their child, rather than encouraging them to engage in good parenting, standardised tests ignores all other factors and makes decisions a simple matter of statistics.

That is not to say that there aren't good and supportive administrators our there, but above them sits the bureaucracy who don't want personal contact, it wants neatly lined up and codified numbers.

And we wonder why the current generation seems more inept and inadequate.

These are laughable. Universal education is a failure?! Uhh, on what planet? Despite the enormous problems universal education faces today in the US, it's a hell of a lot better than the last time we left education up to the private sector only. It also put the US on the road towards becoming an economic and military superpower. Social Security has been a failure? How exactly?! The US was not an economic superpower until AFTER SSI began, and amazing, we've been a superpower ever since. Not that SSI caused our ascendance, but it clearly didn't hurt at all. The Post Office is a failure?! A few money issues doesn't change the fact that the post office still delivers mail to anywhere in the US for a nominal charge.

Now, and here's the most laughable thing I've seen WP say yet. That everywhere there's socialism, there's cronyism, corruption, poor standards of living, and routinely oppress people. Uhh, dude, we're more capitalist than virtually every European country, and you're saying there's no cronyism, corruption, standards of living are good for everyone in the US, and we oppress people less than France, Britain, or Germany?! Completely laughable.

And do you know how many failed, corrupt mainly market economies there have been?! Do you understand that the US has suffered two massive recessions (1929 & 2008) after structuring itself missing very basic regulation required along with proper enforcement, right? Oh, of course you don't. Somehow, socialist agendas somehow caused each.

For every Switzerland there's a bad socialist economy. Ok, how about this? Name a single thriving economy that isn't a mixed economy.

Socialist agendas are not aimed at creating bureaucracies for the sake of bureaucracies, and advocates are not selfish. I'm a pragmatist who favors what works. I know for example a well run public education system and wide access to normal people for college educations (first introduced to average Americans en masse in the GI Bill) radically changed society for the better. It's absurd to even argue against that. The US's rise to global superpower came as generations began being generally educated. I know the Tennessee Valley Authority, a New Deal program, laid the foundation to industrialize that region of the US, which helped to produce war material to win WWII, improve the quality of life for people in that region with wide availability of electricity, and lots of jobs. It was originally one of those evil gov't socialist programs you so despise.

We can fix public education without privatizing it, btw. Across the US, there are shining examples of top notch schools that are public schools that outperform private schools, even though private schools get their proverbial pick of the litter. Across the US, there are lots of examples of bad private schools. I went to a public school, and here I am, on my second successful career, intelligent, thoughtful, and in demand by employers. I attended a public university, and I don't regret it at all.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Socialized medicine…only failing because of a lack of funding
Oh of course. Socialism never fails. Instead, socialism just doesn’t have enough money. Just keep on pouring taxes into the meat grinder, and finally socialized (whatever) creates the perfect sausages… Except it never does. War on Poverty. Great Society. Socialized Medicine. Universal Education. Social Security. Post Office. Shoot – take it all the way down to Food Stamps. No socialist program ever has ‘enough money’.
Social medicine fails because socialism is not designed to help people. Socialized systems are designed 100% to create large bureaucracies, which in turn exist only to self-perpetuate in the form of increasing year-over-year budgets. Helping people actually decreases a program’s budget-line, so they work to deny services (or waste them) as aggressively as possible so they can use it as leverage to lobby the government for more money and power. That’s the reason why the UK system (or any socialist program) routinely denies more and more ‘care’, while at the same time costing more and more money.
Guys like BS Bill brag about how wonderful socialist systems are. They ignore the reality. Socialist nations are rife with cronyism, corruption, poor standards of living, and regularly oppress their people. Socialist governments are the perpetrators of the worst tragedies of all human history. Historically, for every Switzerland there are a hundred North Koreas. Even the modern Euro socialist lite nations only work because they have capitalist wealth-creation engines to support (barely) their corrupt and inefficient socialist programs. The US is not failing because it is too capitalist and giving too much to the rich. It is failing because heavily socialized programs are doing what they always do… Collapsing because of internal corruption.
At its heart – socialism is nothing more than laziness and selfishness. People see a problem in society. They feel bad. They think, “Gee – someone should do something…” At that point you have a couple choices. 1. Be a capitalist and solve the problem yourself. 2. Be a socialist and vote for someone who PROMISES to solve the problem for you. That’s the trick of socialism. It preys on people who are well-intentioned, but who are also selfish, lazy, and a bit stupid. Socialists want to ‘help’, but are too selfish and lazy to actually do something about the problems they see. Therefore they become stupid and fervidly believe any liar (like Obama) who says they will solve the problem for them using taxes. It is stupid because there is no evidence that taxes EVER solve social problems.
Examples of lies that socialists believe…
“Aw – you feel bad when there are poor people… Vote for me and I’ll create The Great Society and eliminate poverty!”
“Aw – you feel bad about people who have medical needs… Vote for me and I’ll tax the ‘rich’ so you don’t have to pay for your medical expenses!”
“Aw – you get sad when you see pictures of polar bears… Vote for me and I’ll tax all carbon emissions and change the global climate!”
“Aw – you want children to get an education… Vote for me and I’ll create free universal public education!”
And do these systems work? Of course not. The Great Society didn’t make a dent in poverty. Social medicine denies more care than it provides. Carbon taxes don’t change the climate. Kids that go to public schools come out stupider. But the SOCIAL PROGRAMS created to address these problems? Oh – of course – they just need ‘more money’ and THEN they will start working!
Socialism. The lazy jerk’s way of destroying society while telling themselves they are ‘helping’.

Socialized medicine…only failing because of a lack of funding

Oh of course. Socialism never fails. Instead, socialism just doesn’t have enough money. Just keep on pouring taxes into the meat grinder, and finally socialized (whatever) creates the perfect sausages… Except it never does. War on Poverty. Great Society. Socialized Medicine. Universal Education. Social Security. Post Office. Shoot – take it all the way down to Food Stamps. No socialist program ever has ‘enough money’.

Social medicine fails because socialism is not designed to help people. Socialized systems are designed 100% to create large bureaucracies, which in turn exist only to self-perpetuate in the form of increasing year-over-year budgets. Helping people actually decreases a program’s budget-line, so they work to deny services (or waste them) as aggressively as possible so they can use it as leverage to lobby the government for more money and power. That’s the reason why the UK system (or any socialist program) routinely denies more and more ‘care’, while at the same time costing more and more money.

Guys like BS Bill brag about how wonderful socialist systems are. They ignore the reality. Socialist nations are rife with cronyism, corruption, poor standards of living, and regularly oppress their people. Socialist governments are the perpetrators of the worst tragedies of all human history. Historically, for every Switzerland there are a hundred North Koreas. Even the modern Euro socialist lite nations only work because they have capitalist wealth-creation engines to support (barely) their corrupt and inefficient socialist programs. The US is not failing because it is too capitalist and giving too much to the rich. It is failing because heavily socialized programs are doing what they always do… Collapsing because of internal corruption.

At its heart – socialism is nothing more than laziness and selfishness. People see a problem in society. They feel bad. They think, “Gee – someone should do something…” At that point you have a couple choices. 1. Be a capitalist and solve the problem yourself. 2. Be a socialist and vote for someone who PROMISES to solve the problem for you. That’s the trick of socialism. It preys on people who are well-intentioned, but who are also selfish, lazy, and a bit stupid. Socialists want to ‘help’, but are too selfish and lazy to actually do something about the problems they see. Therefore they become stupid and fervidly believe any liar (like Obama) who says they will solve the problem for them using taxes. It is stupid because there is no evidence that taxes EVER solve social problems.

Examples of lies that socialists believe…

“Aw – you feel bad when there are poor people… Vote for me and I’ll create The Great Society and eliminate poverty!”
“Aw – you feel bad about people who have medical needs… Vote for me and I’ll tax the ‘rich’ so you don’t have to pay for your medical expenses!”
“Aw – you get sad when you see pictures of polar bears… Vote for me and I’ll tax all carbon emissions and change the global climate!”
“Aw – you want children to get an education… Vote for me and I’ll create free universal public education!”

And do these systems work? Of course not. The Great Society didn’t make a dent in poverty. Social medicine denies more care than it provides. Carbon taxes don’t change the climate. Kids that go to public schools come out stupider. But the SOCIAL PROGRAMS created to address these problems? Oh – of course – they just need ‘more money’ and THEN they will start working!

Socialism. The lazy jerk’s way of destroying society while telling themselves they are ‘helping’.

@NetRunner: agreed that it's not the worst, nor is my anecdote...

and certainly odd changes in policy and illogical requirements do increase bureaucracy... but i'm not certain that i can agree that there isn't any valid reason for change...

think back through the last 11 years of us elections, in particular the previous three presidential elections... claims of voter fraud, hanging chad, dead rolls, acorn, etc -- now, i don't know if or what impact wisconsin's regulatory changes have on that... but that's the nature of government: we expect incompetence, and success is generally just a fortunate coincidence

from my tale, our overseas missions weren't always as i described... they changed, radically so, post 9-11 -- i used to be able to phone my nation's consular services and be shown respect and have my questions answered... help was given freely and easily, as one should expect

not so anymore - now we're herded in like infected cattle and treated as a possible terrorist - the 'help' has morphed into a hindrance... but are the reasons for such valid? how can we say...

and no, i wasn't dealing with the department of immigration... just my embassy in filing a consular report of birth abroad (CRBA), and those policies have changed recently too... for no apparent reason

i'm an american citizen, not an immigrant - there wasn't one iota of reason to suspect my not being a citizen... and soooo many reasons to accept that i was...

my family came to north america in the early 18th century... i'm tall, blond, and blue-eyed... i speak perfect american english with a non-regional accent... i served my country for six years in the usmc and am a veteran of the persian gulf war... and this is in addition to all the documentation i presented...

instead, i was treated as 'suspect' by a foreign- and indifferent-looking woman speaking to me in broken english... quite rudely questioning ME regarding something i have always assumed was fundamental: my being a us citizen

i guess my point is that videos like this present the particular situation as being 'scandalous' ... when in fact it's commonplace... and while annoying, it's not really insulting -- try visiting a us consular mission abroad and then complain about the bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, and being treated in a demeaning way

honestly, watching the domestic situation in my home country from overseas for the last 15-odd years is amazing... the partisanship is ridiculous, and so are most of their claims -- it's like having your body (the nation) infested with two distinct groups of intestinal parasites--like an old-south, grangerford-shepherdson blood-feud--the attacks from both left- and right-leaning tapeworms have risen to the level of threatening the very health and life of the host

videos and other seeming vitriol like this appear to me as symptomatic of such an unhealthy bent: a bloody feces-laden discharge

not a perfect process... but what is seen in the video seems reasonable

as an american living overseas for many years, i've seen american bureaucracy at its worst in our consulates, embassies and trade offices ... what is seen in this video pales in comparison

try this one on for size before complaining of invasive, unfair requirements and possible conspiracy:

my son is born overseas and i want to apply for his us citizenship / passport

i try to phone the embassy to ask what documents i will need to bring by three-hour train ride - i get a 10-minute phone tree that answers nothing and simply refers me to their website, which is rattled-off so quickly that i need to listen to the 10-minute phone tree two more times to jot the url down

the website explains that answers cannot be given over the phone, and i can only speak to a human in an emergency circumstance - the website gives me some ambiguous answers, and states that if i have questions i will need to make an appointment online - an online calendar appears showing me possible appointment dates/times - all monday to friday between 9-11am and 2-4pm... also the american citizen services section is closed for all american holidays AND those of the host country - yay for having to take unpaid time off from work!

i get a date and time to appear, and i try to collect all relevant information to only make a single visit

at the appointed time, i appear and am told to surrender my bag and phone, pass through a metal detector, and then i am frisked - upon arriving at the proper office, i am given a number and told to wait - when my number is called, i approach the proper window and speak to an 'american' through a speaker system embedded in the 1-inch bulletproof glass

i have somehow managed to have most all of the necessary documents (not to the website's credit, but to my overkill), but one requirement stops me... they don't accept that i am a us citizen... what the hell?!

i show them my original us birth certificate, my valid us passport, my valid us driver's license, my social security card, proof of my us address, my us high school and university diplomas, my voter registration card, etc...

all are unacceptable proof...

i am told that to satisfy their requirement, they will need at least five-years' worth of us school transcripts from a single us location... since i was a military brat, and changed schools often, this was an impossibility

i finally get through to a supervisor who i had phone my state senator, who is a family friend, and he rips them one and they finally relent

clear? nope... one further requirement is that my son's notarized foreign birth certificate needs to be translated into english and notarized - i have the translation but not the notary seal (this can only be done at the embassy) - i ask them to notarize it and they inform me that i will have to leave and mail it to them with a check and pre-paid, express-mail return envelope - once i receive that, i should set up a new appointment and return... with their assuring me that the process (CRBA) would be complete at that point

i do what they said, and two weeks later I receive the now-notarized translation and set up a new appointment - i return at the stipulated time with all the proper documents and go to pay the fee...

then i am told that my infant son has to be present as well... and so the process can't be completed at that time

i return home, a 6-hour roundtrip commute by train, and set up a new appointment... returning with my 6-month-old son so that they can see him through the bullet proof glass, and then i can pay the exorbitant fee

as if all of this isn't enough, the cashier will not provide change... and they want me to leave, set up a new appointment and return with exact change - i offer to leave 'a tip' of close to us$20 in order to finalize this ridiculous process without having to return... they refuse

having read all of this... can you still complain about what this woman and her son had to go through?

nonsense

*blocked because Germany sucks in some minor aspects like bureaucracy.