|
asdf32 posted:Child bearing versus sperm donor are significantly different roles. So, black widow spiders devour the males after sex therefore all  involving humans are true? This is a lovely argumentasdf32 posted:And again, modern understanding of gender and transgendered people recognizes gender identity is innate, not learned or environmental. "modern understanding" = exceptionally vague appeal to authority but the conclusion of this appears to be TF so I'm not all that concerned
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Modern understanding means: gender identitity (and sexual orientation) is innate. You're saying it's not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
pushpins posted:Can we do throwback ones? This is from 2009 The NY Daily News has the worst editorials, they reprint Kruathammer every Friday
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
There are sexual differences is brain structure, but it is difficult to say how that relates to intelligence. Women, for example, tend to have more grey matter (which contains the neurons responsible for memory, cognition, and behaviour) on average than men. Somehow I doubt that the actual neurobiology is of anyone interested in generalizing about though. Bemoaning the subject as taboo paired with a total ignorance of, and lack of curiosity about, the actual research is far more typical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Modern understanding means: gender identitity (and sexual orientation) is innate. Hes calling you a sperg whos making poo poo arguments hth
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:There are sexual differences is brain structure, but it is difficult to say how that relates to intelligence. Women, for example, tend to have more grey matter (which contains the neurons responsible for memory, cognition, and behaviour) on average than men. this is a fake idea btw there are greater differences between two individuals of the same gender than any comparison that can be made between two brains of different genders when they're imaged it's a whole thing in that field
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
david brooks  https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/fanaticism-white-nationalists-charlottesville.amp.html i literally punched the wall after just reading the blurb of it and I'm almost never mad enough to do that
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:this is a fake idea btw not really shocking
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:david brooks clearly this voluminous series of farts will vanquish the nazis
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
So when he says modesty its as stupid as I think it is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:david brooks quote:Over the next few months I’m hoping to write several columns on why modesty and moderation are superior to the spiraling purity movements we see today. It seems like a good time for assertive modesty to take a stand. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
always has to make everything about him. what a dumb narcissist
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:this is a fake idea btw There are obvious neurological trends that result in behavioral differences. Easy example:  This is why SA is almost 80% male..
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:There are obvious neurological trends that result in behavioral differences. Easy example: oh no yospos
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:There are obvious neurological trends that result in behavioral differences. Easy example: that's a trend in diagnosis, not necessarily a "neurological trend" there certainly is a gender disparity, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's . studies have also shown that doctors are more reluctant to diagnose autism in women. autism diagnosis is finicky and subjective in the first place, with shifting criteria, and the social and cultural differences in expected behavior between different genders also affect itthe fact that the gap is particularly wide for Asperger's, the mild form of autism, points to diagnostic issues
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:that's a trend in diagnosis, not necessarily a "neurological trend" https://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2010/09/16/why_more_boys_than_girls_are_autistic.html these researchers seem to think it's genetic
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
call to action posted:https://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2010/09/16/why_more_boys_than_girls_are_autistic.html and some other researchers think it's not 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Except you have it backwards - Occam's Razor says there are differences because that's what having vastly different biological roles and sexual dimorphism and the example of other sexually reproducing species tell us. But human brains are flexible and develop differently based upon what they're exposed to, with many radical differences observed across different cultures. Keep in mind I'm talking about complex behavior that isn't regulated by just a single, or small number of, genes*. There is no reason to assume that differences in behavior are caused by biological differences, unless they're consistent across virtually all cultures (and even then you run into a problem where human cultures share some sort of common history the further you go back, so it's hard to determine what is an inherited social trait and what is innately biological in nature). Regarding behavior that isn't obviously caused by some understood biological cause (which is most complex behavior), it doesn't make sense to assume it's primarily regulated by biology (given that almost all other complex behavior is primarily social in nature). I understand where you're coming from here; you're basically thinking "well, ultimately humans are biological beings, so human behavior has to ultimately stem from biology in some way." But a number of things - primarily the whole "how humans develop behaviorally is dependent upon environmental input" thing - throw a wrench in the idea that differences should be assumed to be caused by biology. Heck, even if you're assuming a biological foundation it still doesn't make sense to assume everything stems from a person's DNA - see the field of epigenetics. * Unrelated grammar question - how do you deal with a phrase like this? Both "gene" and "genes" seem wrong because they conflict with either "single" or "small number of." Should I use a "(s)"? asdf32 posted:Modern understanding means: gender identitity (and sexual orientation) is innate. Gender identity being innate doesn't imply that the particular behavior we associate with a specific gender is also innate. If, for example, a person is programmed with a general sense of "I'm a girl", they might then just pick up the relevant social cues related to that gender. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 22:50 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:david brooks This is an unironically good column particularly this: David Brooks posted:Modesty is an epistemology directly opposed to the conspiracy mongering mind-set. It means having the courage to understand that the world is too complicated to fit into one political belief system. It means understanding there are no easy answers or malevolent conspiracies that can explain the big political questions or the existential problems. Progress is not made by crushing some swarm of malevolent foes; it’s made by finding balance between competing truths — between freedom and security, diversity and solidarity. There’s always going to be counter-evidence and mystery. There is no final arrangement that will end conflict, just endless searching and adjustment. On a related note: Ytlaya posted:But human brains are flexible and develop differently based upon what they're exposed to, with many radical differences observed across different cultures. Keep in mind I'm talking about complex behavior that isn't regulated by just a single, or small number of, genes*. There is no reason to assume that differences in behavior are caused by biological differences, unless they're consistent across virtually all cultures (and even then you run into a problem where human cultures share some sort of common history the further you go back, so it's hard to determine what is an inherited social trait and what is innately biological in nature). Flexibility doesn't invalidate the existence of general tendencies since everything roughly advanced as a flea can learn and adapt and no one is saying every difference is biologically based. Hodgepodge posted:There are sexual differences is brain structure, but it is difficult to say how that relates to intelligence. Women, for example, tend to have more grey matter (which contains the neurons responsible for memory, cognition, and behaviour) on average than men. Actually you're right that this issue is as much of a litmus test for me as anything else. Except arguing against the existence of some biological differences between sexes (or human nature) is the stance that guarantees a certain lack of intellectual honestly and curiosity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
asd32 as someone who posts in dnd let me tell you, please go back to dnd
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:asd32 as someone who posts in dnd let me tell you, please go back to dnd There is probably a limit to how much time I'll spend here given I don't read linked Twitter posts, click YouTube videos, read jpg memes or know what abbreviations like hth mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
the bad editorials are coming from inside the thread!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
let's hop in the wayback machine and visit the beforetimes - september 10th, 2016 at the nyt The Truth About ‘False Balance’ To anyone who has avoided the debate over “false balance,” apologies for disturbing your bliss. But it’s necessary, because those who haven’t heard this phrase are missing out on one of the more consequential debates to engage the media in years. False balance, sometimes called “false equivalency,” refers disparagingly to the practice of journalists who, in their zeal to be fair, present each side of a debate as equally credible, even when the factual evidence is stacked heavily on one side. As we enter the final sprint of an extraordinary presidential campaign, the use of this term is accelerating, and it typically is used to attack news outlets accused of unfairly equating a minor failing of Hillary Clinton’s to a major failing of Donald Trump’s. This is where The New York Times comes in. Invariably it is the news organization most associated with the ignoble cause of seeking balanced coverage. I suspect The Times is a preferred target for two reasons. It has aggressively covered Clinton going back to Whitewater. And it’s the big gorilla in the room. Lately, these criticisms have been focused on The Times’s coverage of the Clinton Foundation, the $2 billion charity that is generously supported by foreign governments — sometimes with interests before the United States. Media critics and many readers complain that The Times has come up dry in looking at whether donors got special treatment from the Clinton State Department. Why would The Times overplay its hand? Under the false balance theory, to show that it’s equally tough on Clinton and Trump. Much of this criticism has taken place on opinion pages and social media. But many readers writing my office also complain: The Times, they say, is too harsh on Clinton, given the dangers of her opponent. “I am begging you to please refrain from drinking the false equivalency Kool-Aid,” said Rhiannon Hutchinson of Claremont, N.H. “There’s too much at stake in this election for the media to stoke the belief that Hillary’s mistakes (which she has definitely made) are even close to par with Trump’s admitted use of his money to influence political outcomes and the contempt he deliberately displays for America’s citizens, journalists, allies, and longstanding traditions of immigration, equality, and tolerance.” The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates. Take one example. Suppose journalists deem Clinton’s use of private email servers a minor offense compared with Trump inciting Russia to influence an American election by hacking into computers — remember that? Is the next step for a paternalistic media to barely cover Clinton’s email so that the public isn’t confused about what’s more important? Should her email saga be covered at all? It’s a slippery slope. There are plenty of times when the media does a sloppy job of making coverage decisions. It overplays stories, reaches unfounded conclusions and publishes pieces that ought to be killed. But these calls should be based on the individual merits of the stories, not a guiding philosophy that encourages value judgments. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, The Times started with a legitimate issue: did the former secretary of state give improper access to foreign countries that donated tens of millions of dollars to her family foundation? That’s a question voters deserve to have answered. In fact, reporting by The Times and others has turned up so many potential conflicts that the foundation decided to stop accepting foreign government funding if Clinton becomes president. On the other hand, some foundation stories revealed relatively little bad behavior, yet were written as if they did. That’s not good journalism. But I suspect the explanation lies less with making matchy-matchy comparisons of the two candidates’ records than with journalists losing perspective on a line of reporting they’re heavily invested in. I asked Amy Chozick, the lead Clinton reporter and author of several foundation stories, for her view on false balance in The Times’s political coverage. “I hear a lot from readers concerned about ‘false balance,’” she said, “and while we need to be cautious about falling into that trap, a general election campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump means both candidates’ records, positions and backgrounds should be equally scrutinized and, when appropriate, compared and contrasted.” This, of course, is not a typical election. Trump is so erratic and his comments so inflammatory that many in his own party have rejected him. But it is also true that these are two presidential candidates with the lowest approval ratings in history. Neither is very trusted or liked. Which means if ever there was a time to shine light in all directions, this is it. If Trump is unequivocally more flawed than his opponent, that should be plenty evident to the voting public come November.But it should be evident from the kinds of facts that bold and dogged reporting unearths, not from journalists being encouraged to impose their own values to tip the scale. I can’t help wondering about the ideological motives of those crying false balance, given that they are using the argument mostly in support of liberal causes and candidates. CNN’s Brian Stelter focused his show, “Reliable Sources,” on this subject last weekend. He asked a guest, Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine, to frame the idea of false balance. Weisberg used an analogy, saying journalists are accustomed to covering candidates who may be apples and oranges, but at least are still both fruits. In Trump, he said, we have not fruit but rancid meat. That sounds like a partisan’s explanation passed off as a factual judgment. If you fear a Trump presidency, it’s tempting to want the media’s firepower heavily trained on one side. But a false-balance cudgel gripped mostly by liberals is not an effective way to convince undecided voters. Just more preaching to the choir. I hope Times journalists won’t be intimidated by this argument. I hope they aren’t mindlessly tallying up their stories in a back room to ensure balance, but I also hope they won’t worry about critics who claim they are. What’s needed most is forceful, honest reporting — as The Times has produced about conflicts circling the foundation; and as The Washington Post did this past week in surfacing Trump’s violation of tax laws when he made a $25,000 political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general as her office was investigating Trump University. Fear of false balance is a creeping threat to the role of the media because it encourages journalists to pull back from their responsibility to hold power accountable. All power, not just certain individuals, however vile they might seem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
i like the part where they undermine their own logic in order to justify doing the thing the article is both attempting to defend as well as claim they aren't doing
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:that's a trend in diagnosis, not necessarily a "neurological trend" I recall a lot of theorising that girls are typically raised to hyper-focus on socialising compared to boys, and probably typically discouraged from pursuing non-social hobbies. Sometimes the difference between low-functioning and high-functioning autism can be pretty much upbringing as much as genetic severity, with real tragic cases coming from autistic people whose parents gave up on them or never paid enough attention in the first place and let them stay isolated. (or worse, already lived in isolation) And you really need that encouragement, because otherwise autistic teenagers in particular start to view social interaction as touching a hot stove.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:I can’t help wondering about the ideological motives of those crying false balance, given that they are using the argument mostly in support of liberal causes and candidates. CNN’s Brian Stelter focused his show, “Reliable Sources,” on this subject last weekend. He asked a guest, Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine, to frame the idea of false balance. Weisberg used an analogy, saying journalists are accustomed to covering candidates who may be apples and oranges, but at least are still both fruits. In Trump, he said, we have not fruit but rancid meat. That sounds like a partisan’s explanation passed off as a factual judgment. "clearly the people crying about 'false balance' just aren't balanced enough. maybe if they weren't so partisan they'd understand why we're treating this in such a balanced way"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
The Times is terrible. Just like every Lib woo thinks it's an unbiased trust worthy source
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Dispatches from the war of scolding people for acting angry during a historical clusterfuck: DAVID BROOKS - WHAT MODERATES BELIEVE Donald Trump is not the answer to this nation’s problems, so the great questions of the moment are: If not Trump, what? What does the reaction to Trump look like? For some people, the warriors of the populist right must be replaced by warriors of the populist left. For these people, Trump has revealed an ugly authoritarian tendency in American society that has to be fought with relentless fervor and moral clarity. For others, it’s Trump’s warrior mentality itself that must be replaced. Warriors on one side inevitably call forth warriors on the other, and that just means more culture war, more barbarism, more dishonesty and more dysfunction. The people in this camp we will call moderates. Like most of you, I dislike the word moderate. It is too milquetoast. But I’ve been inspired by Aurelian Craiutu’s great book “Faces of Moderation” to stick with this word, at least until a better one comes along. Moderates do not see politics as warfare. Instead, national politics is a voyage with a fractious fleet. Wisdom is finding the right formation of ships for each specific circumstance so the whole assembly can ride the waves forward for another day. Moderation is not an ideology; it’s a way of coping with the complexity of the world. Moderates tend to embrace certain ideas: The truth is plural. There is no one and correct answer to the big political questions. Instead, politics is usually a tension between two or more views, each of which possesses a piece of the truth. Sometimes immigration restrictions should be loosened to bring in new people and new dynamism; sometimes they should be tightened to ensure national cohesion. Leadership is about determining which viewpoint is more needed at that moment. Politics is a dynamic unfolding, not a debate that can ever be settled once and for all. Politics is a limited activity. Zealots look to the political realm for salvation and self-fulfillment. They turn politics into a secular religion and ultimately an apocalyptic war of religion because they try to impose one correct answer on all of life. Moderates believe that, at most, government can create a platform upon which the beautiful things in life can flourish. But it cannot itself provide those beautiful things. Government can create economic and physical security and a just order, but meaning, joy and the good life flow from loving relationships, thick communities and wise friends. The moderate is prudent and temperate about political life because he is so passionate about emotional, spiritual and intellectual life. Creativity is syncretistic. Voyagers don’t just pull their ideas from the center of the ideological spectrum. They believe creativity happens when you merge galaxies of belief that seem at first blush incompatible. They might combine left-wing ideas about labor unions with right-wing ideas about local community to come up with a new conception of labor law. Because they are syncretistic, they are careful to spend time in opposing camps, always opening lines of communication. The wise moderate can hold two or more opposing ideas together in her mind at the same time. In politics, the lows are lower than the highs are high. The harm government does when it screws up — wars, depressions — is larger than the benefits government produces when it does well. Therefore the moderate operates from a politics of skepticism, not a politics of faith. He understands that most of the choices are among bad options (North Korea), so he prefers steady incremental reform to sudden revolutionary change. Truth before justice. All political movements must face inconvenient facts — thoughts and data that seem to aid their foes. If you try to suppress those facts, by banning a speaker or firing an employee, then you are putting the goals of your cause, no matter how noble, above the search for truth. This is the path to fanaticism, and it always backfires in the end. Beware the danger of a single identity. Before they brutalize politics, warriors brutalize themselves. Instead of living out several identities — Latina/lesbian/gun-owning/Christian — that pull in different directions, they turn themselves into monads. They prioritize one identity, one narrative and one comforting distortion. Partisanship is necessary but blinding. Partisan debate sharpens opinion, but partisans tend to justify their own sins by pointing to the other side’s sins. Moderates are problematic members of their party. They tend to be hard on their peers and sympathetic to their foes. Humility is the fundamental virtue. Humility is a radical self-awareness from a position outside yourself — a form of radical honesty. The more the moderate grapples with reality the more she understands how much is beyond our understanding. Moderation requires courage. Moderates don’t operate from the safety of their ideologically pure galleons. They are unafraid to face the cross currents, detached from clan, acknowledging how little they know. If you have elected a man who is not awed by the complexity of the world, but who filters the world to suit his own narcissism, then woe to you, because such a man is the opposite of the moderate voyager type. He will reap a whirlwind. Nebakenezzer has issued a correction as of 01:25 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
What's especially cringe-worthy about that article is that when Brooks says all these things about how prudent, wise, and compassionate moderates are, he's indirectly saying those things about himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
1984 posted:The wise moderate can hold two or more opposing ideas together in her mind at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
funny how the "wise moderate" thinks that government is more often the problem than the solution and should be inclined to stay out of things because it can't enrich our lives the way private companies can almost sounds like the "wise moderate" is actually in the center-right
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:What's especially cringe-worthy about that article is that when Brooks says all these things about how prudent, wise, and compassionate moderates are, he's indirectly saying those things about himself. Well he did teach a class on humbleness at Yale These wise compassionate thoughts include forcing "responsibilty" on the poor for their own condition
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
THE HUMBLE ONE TELLS US WHAT IS WRONG WITH US The Lebanese-born writer Amin Maalouf made an interesting point about identity: Other people often pick ours for us. The anti-Semite elevates the Jewish consciousness in the Jew. The Sunni radical elevates Shiite consciousness in the Shiite. “People often see themselves in terms of whichever one of their allegiances is most under attack,” Maalouf writes. The people who exclude us try to reduce our myriad identities down to one simplistic one. Amartya Sen calls this process “miniaturization.” You may be an athletic Baptist Democratic surgeon with three kids and a love for Ohio State, but to the bigot you’re just one thing: your faith or skin color or whatever it is he doesn’t like. The odd thing is, people are often complicit in their own miniaturization. We live in an atomized, individualistic society in which most people have competing identities. Life is more straightforward when you’re locked into one totalistic group, even if it’s imposed upon you. When you’re disrespected for being a Jew, a Christian, a liberal or a conservative, the natural instinct is to double down on that identity. People in what feels like a hostile environment often reduce their many affiliations down to just one simple one, which they weaponize and defend to the hilt. Today, the world feels like a hostile environment to. … well … everyone. I had assumed that as society got more equal we would all share a measure of equal dignity. But it turns out that without an obvious social hierarchy we all get to feel equally powerless. It’s human nature that we feel our slights more strongly than we feel our advantages, so we all tend to feel downtrodden these days. White males and Zionists feel victimized on campus. Christians feel oppressed by the courts. Women feel victimized in tech. The working class feels victimized everywhere. Even Taylor Swift apparently feels victimized by celebrity. Group victimization has become the global religion — from Berkeley to the alt-right to Iran — and everybody gets to assert his or her victimization is worst and it’s the other people who are the elites. The situation might be tolerable if people at least got to experience real community within their victim groups. But as Mark Lilla points out in his essential new book, “The Once and Future Liberal,” many identity communities are not even real communities. They’re just a loose group of individuals, narcissistically exploring some trait in their self that others around them happen to share. Many identity-based communities are not defined by internal compassion but by external rage. How do we get out of this spiral? The first step is to just get out. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy, confront your opponent with aggressive love. Martin Luther King is the obvious model here. “Love has within it a redemptive power,” he argued. “And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. … Just keep being friendly to that person. … Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. … They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load.” The second step is to refuse to be a monad. Maalouf points to the myth that “‘deep down inside’ everyone there is just one affiliation that really matters.” Some people live this way, hanging around just one sort of person, loyal to just one allegiance and leading insular, fearful lives. In fact, the heart has many portals. A healthy person can have four or six vibrant attachments and honor them all as part of the fullness of life. The more vibrant attachments a person has, the more likely she will find some commonality with every other person on earth. The more interesting her own constellational self becomes. The world isn’t only a battlefield of groups; it’s also a World Wide Web of overlapping allegiances. You might be Black Lives Matter and he may be Make America Great Again, but you’re both Houstonians cruising the same boat down flooded streets. The final step is to practice equipoise. This is the trait we should be looking for in leaders. It’s the ability to move gracefully through your identities — to have the passions, blessings and hurts of one balanced by the passions, blessings and hurts of several others. The person with equipoise doesn’t feel attachments less powerfully but weaves several deep allegiances into one symphony. “A good character,” James Q. Wilson wrote, “is not life lived according to a rule (there rarely is a rule by which good qualities ought to be combined or hard choices resolved), it is a life lived in balance.” Achieving balance is an aesthetic or poetic exercise, a matter of striking the different notes harmonically. Today rage and singularity is the approved woke response to the world — Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. But you show me a person who can gracefully balance six fervent and unexpectedly diverse commitments, and that will be the one who is ready to lead in this new world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
US doctors should realize the nightmares inherent to single-payer (The Hill)quote:Do American doctors want single-payer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:US doctors should realize the nightmares inherent to single-payer (The Hill) Its pretty hosed up, I agree. Without price inflation doctors might not be able to make a down payment on the boat by their 15th year of employment. The more luxurious hospitals might have to like, admit medicare patients once and a while too
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:US doctors should realize the nightmares inherent to single-payer (The Hill) can we talk about how the first paragraph makes zero sense
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Dr. Deane Waldman (@SystemMD), MD, MBA, is a retired pediatric cardiologist and director of the Center for Health Care Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He serves on the board of directors of the New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange and is the author of The Cancer in the American Healthcare System. sounds like a rent-seeker leech, imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:funny how the "wise moderate" thinks that government is more often the problem than the solution and should be inclined to stay out of things because it can't enrich our lives the way private companies can Nebakenezzer posted:Well he did teach a class on humbleness at Yale A similar thing happened in early March, when chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Brooks to complain about that morning’s column criticizing Obama’s spending programs; later in the day, the White House sent over a chart showing that spending was, in fact, holding to historical norms. Brooks told me that Obama had personally signed the chart “Dear Comrade Brooks.” In June, The Washington Post reported that Emanuel had arranged for Obama to “drop by” a briefing Brooks attended. “I feel like I can call anybody,” Brooks says of his access to top White House officials such as Emanuel, Axelrod, and Office of Management and Budget head Peter Orszag. “With Bush, there were months when I was in favor, and months when I was out of favor. Here, you can write whatever you want; you don’t notice any diminution. If I call Rahm or Orszag or Axelrod, they’re happy to talk.” i'm certain obama is still a fan of brooks' droppings
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:can we talk about how the first paragraph makes zero sense What paragraph, every paragraph is a sentence Also: the British have DEATH PANELS and isn't that scary (assuming you always have money for treatment, I mean I'm sure you will, you are smart and hard working how could you not)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 22:23
|
|