Quoting jeffpeterson: On the hated "death panels," here's the President in April, launching the debate over health reform: 1) "Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting."

Q So as we say, all of this is "How does this affect me?" And we want to get to your questions, and I want to start with Dr. Orrin Devinsky, is he here? Dr. Devinsky.

Q Yes, in the past, politicians who have sought to reform health care have tried to limit costs by reducing tests, access to specialists. But they've not been good at taking their own medicine. When

Pinky seems to have gone off the deep end with his Obama Derangement Syndrome by pushing unsubstantiated "feelings" that abortion and euthansia will be encouraged in the bill and that Illegal aliens will qualify.

Quoting Wonderment: People who work here and allow agriculture to thrive have a right to health care.

"Illegal alien" is not a good way to refer to under-documented families.

Quoting Tim O: Pinky seems to have gone off the deep end with his Obama Derangement Syndrome by pushing unsubstantiated "feelings" that abortion and euthansia will be encouraged in the bill and that Illegal aliens will qualify.

Quoting harkin:
And they paint the guy with the poor decorum skills during the speeech as the problem.

Quoting Wonderment: "Illegal alien" is not a good way to refer to under-documented families.

People who work here and allow agriculture to thrive have a right to health care. We should face up to the problem.

Quoting Wonderment: "Illegal alien" is not a good way to refer to under-documented families.

Quoting Tim O: Pinky seems to have gone off the deep end with his Obama Derangement Syndrome by pushing unsubstantiated "feelings" that abortion and euthansia will be encouraged in the bill and that Illegal aliens will qualify.

Quoting harkin: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage"

Quoting mattcbrown: Absolutely.

I agree that the Corn and Pinkerton diavlogs are always great to listen to. But I was really surprised at just how off the rails Pinkerton was in the first half of this thing. It was just unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim, followed by defensive posturing. I think even Corn was surprised by it.

Quoting badhatharry: Did anyone notice how the 47/50/over 50 million uninsured was suddenly changed to 30 million?

Hmmmmm...

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Yes--Megan McArdle had a post on it: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/...aded_the_n.php

Quoting Wonderment: "Illegal alien" is not a good way to refer to under-documented families.

Quoting Wonderment: In my county, for example, 70% of the farm workers have no health insurance. Trust me, if they got deported you would not be happy at the grocery store, where the price of your celery, strawberries, lettuce, and assorted other produce would go completely through the roof. Nor would you be happy if their communicable diseases went untreated in our public schools.

Quoting Wonderment: People who work here and allow agriculture to thrive have a right to health care. We should face up to the problem.

Quoting harkin: Kopechnecare

Quoting Tim O: Pinky seems to have gone off the deep end with his Obama Derangement Syndrome by pushing unsubstantiated "feelings" that abortion and euthansia will be encouraged in the bill and that Illegal aliens will qualify.

He puts forth the idea that people don't like parts of the bill, like death panels, but won't admit that the public has not been given accurate information to make an informed assessment of the concepts and proposals.

Not to mention, the idea that he gives anything Sarah Palin says any credence what so ever. She knows just enough to make her dangerous.

I really do expect more from Jim. Honestly, I like him even though I disagree with most of his positions. This is always one of the best diavlogs.

Quoting thouartgob: McCain said that Wilson was a problem so add him to the "they". Adding people to the "they" list is a conservative's job I guess.

This is a new phrase to me. Can you explain what "under-documented" means?

but it is accurate and legitimate unless you are willing to ignore our laws completely. I think admitting that the rule of law is a good thing, even when we disagree about particular laws, is essential to a democracy.

so you support the idea of abusing illegal aliens to lower our food prices? paying a living wage for farm work would make the "need" for illegals disappear, although it would raise food prices. I'm not sure that would really be a that bad of a thing over time.

Quoting Wonderment: Really? Did you feel that way about segregation?

I will ignore the silly first sentence in the quote above. Even if you like inflation throughout the economy, you'd still be stuck with finding enough people to do the back-breaking work. Not likely to be enough even at a living wage. You'd just end up "legalizing" the same poor Mexicans who are used to hardcore farm labor.

The people who do the hardcore farm labor here usually have just a primary school education, if that. 20,000 of them in my county are Mexicans who do not speak Spanish. They speak indigenous languages. When they get an education, they get out of the fields. You should try picking for a couple of weeks. Then you tell me if you think the US has the workforce to accomplish the job, even at a high wage.

Quoting Wonderment: It's probably new to you because I just made it up in that post. I am unsatisfied with the stigmatizing slur "illegals," and "undocumented worker" isn't quite accurate either.

The US cannot arrest and deport its way out of critical labor markets, like agriculture. The workers are part of the system. If they are "illegals," then so is everyone collaborating with them, including the manager at your local supermarket. Demonizing the impoverished Mexicans is not the solution.

So, what are the option? Continue with the status quo? Ignore the law completely? Open borders? Grant citizenship to the migrant workers and their famlies?

Would you erase the border and enforce a minimum wage and benefits for all who are hired?

Quoting Tara Davis: Under nine minutes before David Corn slaps down the race card and accuses those who disagree with the current health care bill of doing so because the President is black.

Stay classy, Dave.

Quoting Tara Davis: Under nine minutes before David Corn slaps down the race card and accuses those who disagree with the current health care bill of doing so because the President is black.

Stay classy, Dave.

Quoting Wonderment: "Illegal alien" is not a good way to refer to under-documented families.

In my county, for example, 70% of the farm workers have no health insurance. Trust me, if they got deported you would not be happy at the grocery store, where the price of your celery, strawberries, lettuce, and assorted other produce would go completely through the roof. Nor would you be happy if their communicable diseases went untreated in our public schools.

People who work here and allow agriculture to thrive have a right to health care. We should face up to the problem.

Quoting Tara Davis: Under nine minutes before David Corn slaps down the race card and accuses those who disagree with the current health care bill of doing so because the President is black.

Stay classy, Dave.

Quoting bkjazfan: Oh yes, Josh Cohen floated the same idea last time on here. His was for low white support for President Obama. Apparently, he was not aware that the white vote has drifted into the republican column for presidential elections since Reagen if not before. This was adequately covered by Thomas Edsall in his excellent book "Chain Reaction" published in the 90's which dealt with the split in racial politics: whites increasingly moving to the right and not just in the south.

John

Quoting AemJeff: That's a pattern that has been increasing since the Democrats took ownership of the civil rights issue. Racism is a factor here regardless of how you slice it.

Quoting badhatharry: but are most racists republican?

Don't forget, Robert Bird was a grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan!

Oooops, he's democrat.

Quoting badhatharry: but are most racists republican?

Don't forget, Robert Bird was a grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan!

Oooops, he's democrat.

Quoting badhatharry: but are most racists republican?

Don't forget, Robert Bird was a grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan!

Oooops, he's democrat.

Quoting AemJeff: The Democrats owned racism right up until they championed civil rights. Pointing out that there are vestiges of the heritage remaining doesn't invalidate the thesis. Nor does pointing out that there certainly still exist contemporary racists in the party.

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, and he's a million years old. You guys are going to have nothing to say when he kicks the can.

Quoting badhatharry: What thesis is that Jeff?

I'll ask again, as I have before and never received an answer (not from you in particular)....what is racism?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am not sure what others feel it is, but I have always viewed it as judging the individual by preconceptions one has towards the larger ethnic group.

I have spent some time in a couple of Deep South states, from my experiences, I would say racism is fairly common (In the South at least) across all political, ethnic, and income divides.

Probably one of the main reasons the Republican party is viewed as the more racist party, is because Republicans can play dog whistle politics to gain votes from racist whites, while the Democrats cannot do the same to racist minorities, as much of the racism in prevalent in minority groups is towards other minority groups, which are also affiliated largely with the Democrats. That, and of course, most Democrats are white.

Quoting AemJeff: C'mon, Harry We're talking about the relationship between "racism" and the major American political parties.

I don't think there's any particular ambiguity about that term. Why don't you tell me what isn't "racism," if you really want to engage in a word game.

To make a little easier for you, let's stipulate that the word, like every other useful word in the language, embodies some degree of ambiguity. Where do you think a useful line can be drawn?

Quoting AemJeff: C'mon, Harry We're talking about the relationship between "racism" and the major American political parties.

I don't think there's any particular ambiguity about that term. Why don't you tell me what isn't "racism," if you really want to engage in a word game.

To make a little easier for you, let's stipulate that the word, like every other useful word in the language, embodies some degree of ambiguity. Where do you think a useful line can be drawn?

Quoting badhatharry: I think the most useful line will be drawn when we no longer use the term. Increasingly the races are becoming more mixed, so much so that in time everyone may look the same, at least in the western nations. To call Obama the first black president is only half right.

And as far as the parties and racism goes, I don't accept what I think is your thesis that republicans are more racist than say nice, liberal, progressive, democrats. But I will say that there are those who believe this.

Further, I say the whole thing is ridiculous and not worth worring about. As I stated, quoting Paul, it's a sin of the heart and everyone must examine their own conscience.

Quoting AemJeff: What can I say Harry? Within my lifetime, "Whites Only" signs still appeared in various places. The proportion of whites in upper echelon positions in industry and politics does not reflect their proportion on the population. Income distribution, medical outcomes, infant mortality - by every metric, one racial group is the clear winner. So please tell me how this "sin of the heart" is purely an issue of individual conscience.

You also misstate the original thesis. There are racists in everybody's closet. The difference between the parties at the moment isn't that there are racists in one party, but not in the other. The issue is that one of the parties can credibly take responsibility for enacting and generally supporting the framework that has led to the current pattern of the above listed inequities being mitigated over time. The other party can just as credibly be blamed for taking advantage of the tumult created by that framework and helping to consolidate itself around the opposition to that.

Quoting badhatharry: OK, Jeff, you keep worrying about racism. I'm sure that will speed things up.

The distribution of whites in high places can be looked at as history, not racism. Humans have been at this for a while and have come up with all sorts of organizational schemes. It seems that whites have been long on agression and conquest for some time. But they are also good at some more convivial things also. Things that have been quite good for others.

But there have been tremendous changes in the makeup of the boardroom and other places lately and without legislation, those changes will continue to happen. I hate to say this because you'll laugh (and I hate to make you laugh) but this is what the free market is all about. Get the best person for the job...no matter the race or sex.

But I'm still perplexed by this "The other party can just as credibly be blamed for taking advantage of the tumult created by that framework and helping to consolidate itself around the opposition to that." I'm preety sure I know what the party is, but what is the

Quoting AemJeff: Do you hear terms like "reverse racism" (the claim of victimization by the majority) emanating from Democrats?

Quoting badhatharry: One little thing more:

It seems the Supreme Court saw reverse discrimination pretty recently. Those pesky republicans must have gotten to them.

And it also seem to me that you are much more prone to use terms like racism and majority/minority than I. What does that say?

I think it is good to have both of these outlooks in operation. I think they provide balance.

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.

Utilitarianism is described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Therefore, it is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utilitarianism can thus be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to

Quoting Tim_G: Jim Pinkerton kept insisting that Americans don't like "Creepy Utilitarianism."

As someone sympathetic to utilitarianism myself, I ask: what's so creepy about utilitarianism? Do most Americans even know what it means? Why don't they like it? It seems like an especially good philosophy as a basis for public policy.

Quoting Wonderment: Really? Did you feel that way about segregation?

Quoting Wonderment: I will ignore the silly first sentence in the quote above. Even if you like inflation throughout the economy, you'd still be stuck with finding enough people to do the back-breaking work. Not likely to be enough even at a living wage. You'd just end up "legalizing" the same poor Mexicans who are used to hardcore farm labor.

The people who do the hardcore farm labor here usually have just a primary school education, if that. 20,000 of them in my county are Mexicans who do not speak Spanish. They speak indigenous languages. When they get an education, they get out of the fields. You