More polling information about health care (from actually reputable sources):

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option (published originally in the New England Journal of Medicine)

Obama job approval on the rise

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds 76% support public option

And a de-spun ABC/Washington Post poll shows 76% support a public option if it's reserved for those unable to get health insurance now -- which is the way it would work in all the drafts of legislation being considered.

Mostly though, there's one trend I've seen in all the polls, and a professional poll-watcher like Nate Silver backs me up on this, but the more specificity you provide, the more support for the package rises.

It's something I noticed during the election too -- the more information people got about Obama and his platform, the more support for him rose. Same thing is happening with health care.

This game looks insanely cool, but personally I'm more of a fan of difficult endgame content that is unchanging. Epic spaceship battles do look awesome, yes, but every 3 to 4 months Blizzard comes out with a new endgame dungeon. Call of the Crusade came out yesterday and I'm fucking stoked. Having unchanging content also means I can brag to my friends, "I downed Algalon, did you? Oh right, your guild's still on Auriya, n00b". Saying, "My alliance killed 80% of the so and so alliance" is arbitrary to me.

I suppose this game just isn't for egomaniacs.

Sorry NetRunner, but Schiff is a brilliant libertarian and Keynesian economics is junk science. Krugman's belief that deficit spending is a solution, that we can administer new shots of heroine in perpetuity to avoid withdrawals, is the same as Madoff saying his scheme would never end at its height. It only lasts for as long as you can find new and larger investments. The Fed cannot control long-term interest rates, they can only price fix in the short term in exchange for higher long-term rates. His forecast of perma deflation is pure crap, that would require the Federal Reserve to raise rates higher than Volcker did in a far more dire situation than we were in then. No longer is the majority of our debt financed long-term or domestically. It's majority owned by foreigners in T-bills. There is no exit strategy for the money being pumped in today. This is going to turn into a currency crisis when the debt is monetized and productive foreigners refuse to keep throwing good money after bad into our bond market. "Free Lunch" guys like Krugman who put the cart before the horse, consumption before production, just don't get it in the endgame.

Mish's criticisms are even more laughable. Schiff is a long-term investor, not a trader like Mish. The dollar headfake in the last year where people ran toward the blast initially is not a sustainable trend and totally meaningless. When you know the Titanic is going to sink, you don't stick around because you think you can get one last dance in, and that seems to be what Mish thinks people should do. Decoupling is going to happen whether Mish likes it or not. Our treasury secretary is getting laughed at by Asian students when he tries to reassure them of dollar integrity.

(1) From the creditor's perspective, there's no point in loaning money to someone to consume your production. You don't devalue your currency to export for the sake of exporting, you export for imports or keep your currency strong so that you can consume your own production. Otherwise, you're exchanging products for stashes of paper IOUs that we show no intention of replacing with real products. When the Asian countries figure out how easy it would be to consume their own products, our economy is toast. The only problem for someone like a China is how to head for the exit without causing a stampede. The minute such a large holder of dollars starts spending them, their value relative to goods will diminish substantially. Avoiding a hit now is going to be impossible, but they know that continuing to accumulate dollars is simply creating a larger future hit.
(2) From our perspective, politicians will always do what is expedient in the short-term. Telling the truth and saying you have to cut spending and entitlements by massive amounts for the sake of future generations isn't politically profitable. Not just because of all the people expecting things like unlimited health care regardless of our productive capacity to finance it, but because such a high percentage of our voting population now have overpaid government positions that they don't want to lose. Someone like a Ron Paul tells the truth at the expense of having an chance of winning. Winning requires that you be a candyman.

Savings is underconsumption and required for loans to exist. Ideally, people borrow that finite capital to increase productive capacity, to turn a shovel into a bulldozer and pay the loan off with more production. That is the kind of borrowing that benefits the creditor, the debtor, and society. It's not supposed to be a tool for consumption and winning elections, and that's where this country derailed from the sustainable and healthy growth it had in the 19th century. Whatever "success" we had from things like Medicare and Social Security came at an equal or greater long term cost. It's generational theft in its purest form, borrow to consume in the present to leave each successive generation with a higher and higher interest burden that will have to be paid for with higher taxes or currency devaluation. I say this because it is the fundamental oversight of people like Steve Forbes and Art Laffer who try to cast off trade deficits as "meaningless because it's something we've always had" in debating the resiliency of the bond market without distinguishing how we spent our loans then vs now.

Defaulting on our debt through inflation is a certainty. If you listen to Financial Sense or Schiff's weekly radio show, you'll learn how obvious that conclusion is very quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdj3Gx4A8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

>> ^joedirt:
LOL one person thinks Voyager was the best. If you removed Seven of Nine it would be the shittiest show on television.


That one person would be me. I found that Voyager actually had a GOAL! You know, like something to work towards.

Fucking around in the neutral zone? Meh. Data? Overrated. Picard? Bald.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked TNG, grew up on it in my formative years.

But none of that can compare with Species 8472. Or alliances with the Borg. Or the Delta Quadrant.

Intrepid Class>Galaxy Class

And this is hard to beat.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.


I see we can add "Lacks reading comprehension skills" to your list of character flaws.

I said "we created this problem", an obvious reference to the current rash of so called "islamofascist" terrorists, not terrorism in general. Throughout the 1980's this country covertly spent one billion dollars to fund the Afghanistan Mujahideen in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And then when they succeeded the US cut off all ties to the Afghani people, refusing to provide even one million dollars in aide to rebuild schools. And because of it, a power vacuum formed that allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the CIA assets led by Osama bin Laden) to seize control and turn hundreds of thousands of young men against the US. Or as the man behind the money for Operation Cyclone, Charles Wilson, once said, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." So yeah, the US created this problem. Try getting your history from somewhere other than Faux News.


As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.


Actions speak louder than words, and sadly diplomacy is really just a lot of empty words. But with the current economic climate, we're really at a loss to be able to do much more than talk. Regardless the damage done to diplomacy by the previous administration will be a constant burden for years to come.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations. But whenever we make an effort, we do the least we can and often leave places in worse situations than we found them.

Well, we both know, and Israel knows, that nearly all of the people in Gaza can't leave. All of the nations in the middle east, friend to Israel or friend to any faction of the Palestinians, will not accept any large number of refugees beyond those already present in their country (and are in fact unlikely to grant citizenship to the refugees already there).

Honestly, I think that there is no and never was a clear consensus amongst Israeli leadership as to the exit strategy for this campaign. I think everyone involved agreed that some form of military response was necessary/called for, and that they all had and have different ideas of how they want it to end.

Hamas is in the position of balancing further casualties and suffering amongst their members and constituency against the possible goodwill they can gain in the region by mimicking Lebanon's performance in the previous war.

To be entirely blunt, the Palestinians in Gaza (including Hamas) have been losing a lot, and stand to lose a lot more if the IDF pushes forward.
I think the likely "out" in the near term (and possibly the endgame that a majority of Israeli leadership is pursuing) is that a sufficiently large majority of Hamas operatives in Gaza will decide that it is in their best interests to reach a compromise that accedes to some but not all of Israel's demands.

Joedirt, Hamas leadership in Syria has consistently refused a ceasefire without Israel first completely withdrawing, which I think is rather unrealistic.
This Arabic daily criticizes Hamas leadership for obstructing cease-fire negotiations (see the bottom) http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=15352
Here's the Telegraph, saying that there is division as to a cease-fire between the Syrian leadership of Hamas and the leadership on the ground in Gaza http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4240932/Analysis-The-choices-confronting-Hamas.html

In the long term? Personally, I had been thinking that unilateral distancing by Israel was a positive step towards peace. However, if Israel leaves open any significant access to Palestinian territories, additional weapons or weapon-precursors will enter the region and be used against Israel.
As we have seen, Palestinian militants will tunnel or otherwise attempt to circumvent even relatively thorough security procedures put in place by Israel.
This leaves Israel in the unenviable position of deciding whether to leave the Palestinians with relatively open borders, and suffer proportionately more attacks, or completely isolate Gaza (and probably the West Bank as well) in a truly thorough fashion.

This is a classic asymmetric warfare situation, which historically have been very bloody and nigh-impossible to end peacefully. I don't know of any historic examples that didn't end in the militarily superior power either pulling out completely ala Russia in Afghanistan or the U.S. in Vietnam (not a realistic or moral option here) or committing genocide as in many Medieval and Colonial conflicts (also not a realistic or moral option).

To end this before it gets any longer, simply giving the Palestinians a homeland will not bring peace to the region as long as a significant portion of the Palestinian population is willing to pursue the destruction of the state of Israel via violent means.

I do not dispute that there have been a number of bad actors affiliated with Israel. However, I believe from personal experience that the vast majority of Israelis would be happy for the Palestinians to have their own state, but also believe that many Palestinians would continue to pursue the violent destruction of Israel even if they had full sovereignty.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.

I don't disagree with the intention of your words, but I
have a few problems:

Why would it matter whether Hitler or Mother Teresa go to
heaven or hell, or anywhere in between? I've never understood
the significance of an afterlife. In my opinion, the idea of
an afterlife is gluttonous. Why are we so obsessed with living
forever?

Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad
deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

Also, moral relativism exists whether you choose to believe
so or not. If it didn't, we wouldn't need police, jail and
prison systems, mental health facilities, military or
psychiatrists. The fact is, people can and will do what they
want (or what the voices in their head want) when they want.
Whether or not a god or gods exist has no bearing on this
reality. Even if you believe it does, your belief does not
change the fact that murder, rape, disease, supernovas and
golden parachutes happen. It's our responsibility to prevent
these things from happening, not a gods.

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."


Now, if you're thinking the way I think you're thinking,
which is that religion provides us with absolutes, the problem
becomes thus: Which god or gods, tenet, belief system do I
believe in? There really is no absolute answer, and if there
is, only a handful of people in the world (universe?) will
ever know. There's this thing called truth (which even itself
is somewhat difficult determine) -- does truth matter or is it
merely the idea that matters? If it's only the idea of
religion that matters, you haven't solved the so-called
problem of moral relativism, you've only hidden the truth from
the believer so that they do the "right" thing. So in other
words, you're lying. Is lying bad? Yes.

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

Thanks for voting and giving me a gold star!

Sounds good! I'm in CST as well.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
I live in Central timezone and work at 10 on Friday. Count me in so long as it's a couple hours beforehand.

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
Ok! So it seems like for this game, unless someone else chimes in throughout the week, that it will be you me and gwiz. So, do you have any requests for game type? map type? Preferred special game rules?

I was thinking having us three and then a full board of AI's on Noble/monarch/whatever difficulty, depending on how good you folks are. Maybe we could potentially ally up if prudent when we find each other and just try to survive against them? Or would that be too easy/unfun?

As for game start date/time, how does friday late afternoon or evening sound? We basically only have to all simultaniously be there to start the game. Everything else is just gravy.

Let me know.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
Not familiar with Pitboss but it sounds intriguing. Count me in. Beyond the Sword really balanced out the techs in the endgame better, I think. Also, reduced the power of catapults etc. by about half. I have tried playing online a couple times but it seems the anti-cheat codes aren't fixed. That and everyone logs in and out. I have a few friends who play but am waiting for them to get the BTS expansion.

I live in Central timezone and work at 10 on Friday. Count me in so long as it's a couple hours beforehand.

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
Ok! So it seems like for this game, unless someone else chimes in throughout the week, that it will be you me and gwiz. So, do you have any requests for game type? map type? Preferred special game rules?

I was thinking having us three and then a full board of AI's on Noble/monarch/whatever difficulty, depending on how good you folks are. Maybe we could potentially ally up if prudent when we find each other and just try to survive against them? Or would that be too easy/unfun?

As for game start date/time, how does friday late afternoon or evening sound? We basically only have to all simultaniously be there to start the game. Everything else is just gravy.

Let me know.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
Not familiar with Pitboss but it sounds intriguing. Count me in. Beyond the Sword really balanced out the techs in the endgame better, I think. Also, reduced the power of catapults etc. by about half. I have tried playing online a couple times but it seems the anti-cheat codes aren't fixed. That and everyone logs in and out. I have a few friends who play but am waiting for them to get the BTS expansion.

Ok! So it seems like for this game, unless someone else chimes in throughout the week, that it will be you me and gwiz. So, do you have any requests for game type? map type? Preferred special game rules?

I was thinking having us three and then a full board of AI's on Noble/monarch/whatever difficulty, depending on how good you folks are. Maybe we could potentially ally up if prudent when we find each other and just try to survive against them? Or would that be too easy/unfun?

As for game start date/time, how does friday late afternoon or evening sound? We basically only have to all simultaniously be there to start the game. Everything else is just gravy.

Let me know.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
Not familiar with Pitboss but it sounds intriguing. Count me in. Beyond the Sword really balanced out the techs in the endgame better, I think. Also, reduced the power of catapults etc. by about half. I have tried playing online a couple times but it seems the anti-cheat codes aren't fixed. That and everyone logs in and out. I have a few friends who play but am waiting for them to get the BTS expansion.

Not familiar with Pitboss but it sounds intriguing. Count me in. Beyond the Sword really balanced out the techs in the endgame better, I think. Also, reduced the power of catapults etc. by about half. I have tried playing online a couple times but it seems the anti-cheat codes aren't fixed. That and everyone logs in and out. I have a few friends who play but am waiting for them to get the BTS expansion.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'endgame' to 'endgame, LHC, Switzerland, physics, The Week, Jaws of infinity' - edited by MarineGunrock

No problem -- honestly, I probably would have reacted the same way if I had been in your shoes.

In reply to this comment by moodonia:
Your right Sarzy, I'm sorry I just went a bit mental at the whole sexual harassment thing and wasnt quite thinking straight. thanks for commenting too

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
I'll admit that Obsidianfire was wrong to threaten you with violence and call you out for sexual harassment for making what was clearly a joke, but what's your endgame for discussing this? Do you want him... banned? What? You're just turning a minor kerfuffle into a major, much more public one. I'd * return this myself, but I'll wait to see what the point of this is.