>> ^Herostratus:

I have pretty great insurance and was floored by the statement of benefits ("This is not a bill") I received after acute appendicitis. Everything had been covered 100% (including a pic line and once-a-week homecare nurse for a post-op infection), but they sent me the paperwork. It was insane; a doctor who stopped in my hospital room once for less than 5 minutes and merely asked me "How are you feeling" charged the insurance a ~$700 consulting fee. Next to that was the amount paid by the insurance: $0.
It was hilarious to see the charges and total submitted by the hospital in one column (tens of thousands) and the "fuck you, we're paying you this and you'll like it" from the insurance company in the second column (somewhere around 10-20% of that requested).
I'm not sure who was being the bigger dick in this situation, but I didn't pay for anything (except for my monthly $200 pre-tax deduction from my paycheck, which is still pretty crazy, but I ended up utilizing what most people end up just giving away to their insurance company).


Having family in the health industry, I can at least try and explain why they bill so high and why medical insurance companies pay out so low. It was explained to me that usually insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to pay out as little as possible(most of the time for less than is even economically feasible), so to combat this, hospitals charge exuberant amounts and they meet somewhere in the middle. It's pretty much a negotiation.

It is incredibly difficult for a hospital that is not funded by the government to break even let alone make money. Everything is expensive. Most hospitals barely break even, and when the economy takes a dip, a significant number can close down.

Did anyone else think that this guy had a strange Adam Savage quality? With that exuberance you can make anything exponentially funnier

>> ^FNORDcinco:
>> ^EndAll:
>> ^Sagemind:
A very smooth and smoky feel to her voice!

Indeed.. although I've noticed during some of these videos she seems to lack any emotion - at times her face is entirely devoid of any expression. But aye, a very nice voice, and it complements Jack's quite well when they sing together. Great duo here, with a bright future ahead of 'em, it seems.

It takes a lot of focus to sing like that and you are spoiled by music videos and lip syncs.


I actually despise most (mainstream) music videos, and detest lipsyncing.
But no, you have me all figured out don't ya! I'm not saying her voice isn't good, it is - it's very lovely in fact.
She's just not my type of musician.. too detached and nonchalant. Doesn't seem to really feel what she sings. This song isn't the best example, as it doesn't require much exuberance, but it's not just in this one that I've noticed it.

American Consumer Masses Agree: It Fish Time!

"AMERICA—Many citizens in the U.S. are enjoying Yu Wan Mei fish by-products, which are respected throughout the land for their deliciousness and ease of eating, sources confirmed Monday.

"I love the new exciting taste of the Yu Wan Mei line of products," said typical American consumer Robert Smith. "Who knew the discarded parts of the fish were such an undiscovered treasure trove of taste sensation, waiting to be enjoyed by exuberant American consumers such as me?"

"The deliciousness cannot be contained," he added. "Fish Time is No. 1.""

Don't you just love the Onion?

>> ^gtjwkq:
If you say the Fed arose from the necessity to stabilize interest rates, you just bought into their alleged purpose, you're drinking the kool-aid. You're starting from the premise that because currency used to be issued by private banks, they'd always have an evil agenda and take advantage of people who used it.

I'm far from alone in drinking that particular kool-aid. I wasn't around in the late 19th century, but the history of what people believed and were trying to do at the time is all I've got to go on. Austrians disagree with the majority of history books on, well, all of history. I think that's more easily explained by the theory that Austrians are prejudiced and in a deep well of their own confirmation bias than than that they're right while the rest of the world is wrong.

Personally, I'd rather not have multiple currencies no matter what. I don't even like Xbox Live points.

Linking to an article and just saying "False" makes your view of economics seem simplistic to me.

That was in response to a single clause of a single sentence where you made an entirely false assertion that there weren't crashes in America before 1913. There were. Lots of them.

I don't quite get what's so hard to understand about the idea that markets can be wrong. That's not simplicity, it's just the fact of the world. I think some economists might call it "irrational exuberance". There's also the word hubris, which was probably around before the concept of currency.

Entire schools of thought were built around mistaken or dishonest premises. There are a lot of political motivations behind false economics

Yes, I agree. Austrians put forth a politically motivated school of thought. After the Great Depression, it was proven false. Economists with intellectual integrity moved on to other theories. You'd like the Chicago school. It's just as self-deceptive, and just as politically stilted, and all you really have to change about your politics is say central banks are a necessary evil. It's still a respected school, though the Japanese Lost Decade, and our current crisis are giving it some trouble, just like the bout with inflation in the 70's gave Keynesians trouble.

It remains to be seen whether they adapt the theory to fit the evidence, as the New Keynesians have, or whether they go the way of the Austrians, and descend into strident self-deception.

When you mock me saying I assume something created by govt is bad, it makes me wonder if you truly understand the corruptible nature of govt.

Yes, I do. But I mock you for thinking corrupt behavior begins and ends with government. Seems to me that if bribery affected someone's reputation enough to make them go out of business, it'd easily be good enough to ensure they lose elections.

That doesn't seem to be the case in either sector. If you think politicians are corrupt, boycott the companies who use lobbyists. Seems like a good compromise between your philosophy and mine.

I had the pleasure of attending the first communion for the son of my wife's sister a couple weeks back (he's 8 or so). Everyone was congratulating him with a similar exuberance to parents explaining to their children that Santa is real and is watching everyone. Poor kid.

I was surprised at the politics involved in the mass though. During one of the prayers, among all of the general blessings and requests, the priest threw in "and Lord, please help lead the nations of the world to adopt compassionate immigration policies". The random political injection caught me a bit off-guard.

Similarly, there was a time where people could speak out with prayer requests, like "please help Mr. Smith recover from his surgery". Then one guy's request was "Lord, please guide everyone to see that abortion is murder, and help us bring all of those involved to justice."

After the service I told the kid "congratulations", when I really wanted to say "run while you still can!"



In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
I just sent out a communion card for my 8 year old sister and I'm not sure how to feel about it. I'm a pretty outspoken atheist so I wanted to write "So how did Jesus' flesh taste?" but instead I just wrote "Congratulations."
I'm a softy for 8 year olds getting dressed up and what not, but that's how they gettcha - no one wants to break the illusion.

On the other hand, trying to get those same kids to pay attention in science class, when there really is SO much wonder in the universe, and so much to discover is another thing. They all just came to the communion for the crackers.

I like several things he says, but especially:

"It's like mashed potatoes, but it's not mashed and it's not potatoes."

That's exactly what all these other space aliens sound like when they try to explain what "it" is. Scientology is NOT just like every other religion. No other religion is so clearly documented as a money-sucking scam. Read the well researched Hubbard bio, BARE-FACED MESSIAH on the Xenu website. No other religion keeps their genesis story secret until you reach the $200,000 level, and then you find out it is Xenu! Hubbard pasted religion on his self-help hypnosis scam, and 99.X% of the people who are alive today, and got roped into Hubbard's scam when he was alive, are no longer in the cult.

They never put old people in these videos because they are so f'd up and unintelligible, they can't even fake exuberance anymore. It is like they make a ploy for lonely, desperate young people who want new friends, and to try something mysterious, but Scientology is no longer a mystery.

Hubbard's REAL claims are as far out as red shirt's proclamations. DC-8 replicas 75 million years ago, and streets that look "much the same as they do today."

>> ^chilaxe:
It's possible Olbermann is right, but if Democrats lose the White House in 2016, it will be because of this kind of thing over the next 8 years... going farther to the left than the voting public.
The last time our exuberance for policies that were to the left of the voting public cost us dearly was 2000. Without that episode of irrational exuberance (Nader), we wouldn't even have had Bush & torture these last 8 years


Enforcing the laws on torture isn't a leftist position, it's a human position.

It's not overreaching to charge criminals with crimes, even if they have a 24-hour propaganda outlet defending them.

As for leftist positions being unpopular, you need to look at more polling data. 8 years of broken government seems to have taught most Americans the value of having a working government, and are tilting lefter than I've ever seen it.

Now is the time to prove we can deliver, not to hang back and mimic the Republicans who just got routed.

>> ^chilaxe:
The last time our exuberance for policies that were to the left of the voting public cost us dearly was 2000. Without that episode of irrational exuberance (Nader), we wouldn't even have had Bush these last 8 years


That's a bunch of bullshit.

The left sacrifices to the right time after time and gets nothing for their troubles.

Gore lost, primarily, because the election was corrupted. And because he took the real left for granted with the old "Who else are you going to vote for?" routine.

Fuck Gore and fuck the Democrats. Fucking pussies sell out over and over again.

It's possible Olbermann is right, but if Democrats lose the White House in 2016, it will be because of this kind of thing over the next 8 years... going farther to the left than the voting public.

The last time our exuberance for policies that were to the left of the voting public cost us dearly was 2000. Without that episode of irrational exuberance (Nader), we wouldn't even have had Bush & torture these last 8 years

Don't try taking this out of the Happy channel again, choggie.

The Happy channel is "the place for all things on The Sift that bring sincere happiness and joy, positivity, exuberance, and/or inspiration to the heart, mind and spirit. This is a place for things that beam with warmth and good feelings from the inside and out, as well as the ones that uplift and lighten the mood."

If you're so close-minded that this doesn't make you happy, then that's your pathetic problem, not a problem with the video channel assignments. Stop abusing your privileges.

just wanted to point out that the animutation "Irrational Exuberance" was by Verylowsodium, not AlbinoBlackSheep.

http://www.verylowsodium.com/fanimutation/exuberance

Book review from Publishers Weekly:

A brilliant and important exercise in exposing the limitations of received opinion, this book presents to the lay reader and specialist alike an exhaustively argued case that animals have multiple shades of sexual orientation.

The book is broken into two sections, the second containing species "portraits" detailing recorded homosexual/transgendered behaviors. The main portion of the book sets out to reveal and, indeed, revel in the documented evidence to date that some 450 species engage in both sustained and occasional "gay," "lesbian" and transgendered pairing, parenting and play. Animals (both heterosexual and homosexual) also rape and divorce, commit "child" abuse and infidelity and can be lifelong celibates.

Human claims to uniqueness in this arena are shown to be increasingly difficult to maintain. The overall effect is to detonate the myth that animals are solely driven by heterosexual reproductive urges, as Bagemihl, a biologist, amasses evidence with case study after case study of species ranging from whiptail lizards to bottlenose dolphins, flamingoes, vampire bats and giraffes.

But his book offers more than a zoological laundry list. Biologists who have long classified these behaviors as taking place only in "abnormal" conditions or as "pseudo-copulation," "mistakes," "practicing" and domineering sexual bullying are frequently shown to be willfully ignoring behavior that does not reflect their own worldview or accepted scientific thought.

What might so easily have turned into a tub-thumping activist tract hitched to the need for acceptance of homosexuality among humans is instead elevated to a hugely inclusive, celebratory biological interpretation of the world. Bagemihl convincingly overturns previous inviolable "truths" that scarcity and functionality are the prime agents of biological change, and advances instead the idea that abundance and extravagance ("biological exuberance") are just as crucial to the mosaic of life. Numerous illustrations by John Megahan.

I'd just like the guy to stop jumping around like that. There is a very low probability he's sincerely expressing his natural exuberance. If so, more power to him. It seems a little manipulative to me, like he's trying to portray something, create a persona for himself... the guy who's so brilliant he can't contain it... wank wank wank don't mean to be a hater.

** in hindsight, what Pro said.

I got a little off-topic/carried-away rambling about epistemology. And I'll say right off the bat that referring to the two people in my 1+2=3 story as "Scientists" and putting the story in a scientific context was a mistake. It was a distraction from the idea I was trying to posit. Religion is most certainly not directly applicable to the pursuit of science. It may be a lens through which a person can look at what they observe in science should they choose to, but in order to call something "scientifically true," it must be bound to the logical epistemology, founded only on the assumptions of "trust in the reliability of the senses" and "trust in the solidity and constancy of physical reality," which are both inevitable for scientific pursuits. In other words, we have to just go on the premise that this isn't the Matrix, and that "I" am not a lunatic, so to speak. Obviously.

As Blank said (sort of), religion on the whole is stuck in a perpetual state of the "working model" for the believer. A believer might look at the world and never see anything that directly contradicts their beliefs, and by that he may claim to have a "faith knowledge" of these things, but he cannot say they are scientifically sound conclusions as he cannot likely test them.

In at least the Christian faith, we're all living in the "working model" phase until either death, or--if you happen to be a pre-trib or even post-trib millennialist--until "end-times" prophecy begins to be fulfilled. Even then, said prophesied occurrence are really "data" supporting the "working model"... though plainly more obviously. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least, the only time when a conclusion can finally be made "scientifically" is when "the end" (and consequently the new beginning) occurs, an event that all three religions share to some extent.

As we all know, "working models" are subject to constant re-interpretation and adjustment. Those who refuse to allow for this are going to have trouble explaining what science tells them is almost certainly true. For some reason they are totally convinced that they have perfectly interpreted scripture... which is sadly ironic. Exuberantly religious people need to be sure that they are not so arrogant that they think they understand the Word as well as its Author. I will say though, that some understand it better (read "more correctly") than others. Some of these people are NOT following sound biblical doctrine.


Now, about evolution and natural selection. There is still a solid random factor involved in evolution AND even in natural selection. The non-randomness of it can often be seen as an illusion.

For example, yes, natural selection selects ultimately for not only "who has the most babies," but "who is the most fit." There can be thousands of tiny changes in lower organisms that might make them "more fit" (or "more fertile"). Which changes are made and in what way they change is random. This is a major reason for "genetic drift" and diversification in populations. Now, there are instances, where it is less random, such as when a required change is needed for survival or growth, such as a change in climate or nutritional availability. Those equipped to survive that change in condition will survive, blah blah blah, we know this already, get on with it. The method by which these adaptations occur may be limited, but within that list, it is a random choice and several organisms in the crowd can "choose" differently and consequently diversify. If you want to insist upon calling it non-random, I guess at this point you can, if you at least concede that the "option list" is enormous.

I think it's kind of ironic that if anything in the short term for humanity, our compassion has wound up causing us almost laughable evolutionary problems. For example, if I were born a million years ago as I am, quite nearsighted, I'd likely be dead as soon as that nearsightedness got bad enough for me to screw up and get hurt or eaten or something. Now-a-days more people seem to have poor vision than good vision (genetic traits). We also strain to keep literally everyone alive and well and in the gene pool, no matter what. Morally and Ethically, this is great, but evolutionarily, hehe, not so much.