Quoting Freddie: Has anyone else found the site to be buffering a lot slower, with a lot more hiccups and pauses lately?

it's the freidersdorf effect zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I, for one, strongly approve of Bloggingheads discussions of video gaming. I'd certainly want to watch an hour of Ta-nehisi Coates talking to Peter Suderman about interactive narratives.

An old doctor friend of mine, now deceased, once remarked that before Medicare radiologists and anesthesiologists were on hospital staffs and were paid a flat salary. But somehow during the Medicare markup process they got that changed to being paid by the proceedure. As a result they went from being among the more modestly compensated doctors to among the highest paid. Just thought I would throw that out there.

Quoting Don Zeko: I, for one, strongly approve of Bloggingheads discussions of video gaming. I'd certainly want to watch an hour of Ta-nehisi Coates talking to Peter Suderman about interactive narratives.

Thanks! I was reading him on Warcraft the other day and thinking the same thing. I'd be up for that if TNC is.

An alternative perspective on 'consumer driven' health care: We take issue with the growing use of the term “consumer-driven” to refer to the transformation of the health care system to one characterized by high-deductibles. “Defined contribution” health care would be a more accurate shorthand way to refer to a health care approach that essentially increases deductibles and shifts costs to sicker employees. Many employees with chronically ill or seriously ill family members will not view this transformation as consumer-friendly, despite the name. ....Because of the combination of variation in risks (which lead to different health insurance selections), and higher tax brackets and ability to meet high deductibles, HSAs will appeal disproportionately to the healthy and wealthy. Many economic analyses, including the American Academy of Actuaries, have reached the conclusion that this type of high deductible health insurance will fragment the risk pool, shift costs to the sick, and ultimately drive low-deductible coverage out of the market since it can not exist side-by-side in the marketplace with high-deductible coverage because of the underlying nature of the health insurance market. http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/co...re/000882.html

Quoting Ken Davis: An alternative perspective on 'consumer driven' health care:

We take issue with the growing use of the term “consumer-driven” to refer to the transformation of the health care system to one characterized by high-deductibles. “Defined contribution” health care would be a more accurate shorthand way to refer to a health care approach that essentially increases deductibles and shifts costs to sicker employees. Many employees with chronically ill or seriously ill family members will not view this transformation as consumer-friendly, despite the name.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/co...re/000882.html

Thanks for posting that. That's one of my core objections to market-based health-care financing schemes. The people who have the greatest need for medical services will find their access limited the most. Libertarian solutions to this particular problem are (I don't have a more polite adjective) repugnant.

that would be great! While I'm masterminding future diavlogs, let me ask you (and Ta-Nehisi, if he's reading) a question: do you play strategy games, and if so, where do you think that they fit into your ideas about what video games can be as an art form? From this diavlog and this post, I get the sense that a game like Civilization IV is bringing something very different to the table than what you're talking about when you praise Bioshock.

Quoting Don Zeko: I, for one, strongly approve of Bloggingheads discussions of video gaming. I'd certainly want to watch an hour of Ta-nehisi Coates talking to Peter Suderman about interactive narratives.

That would not be to my taste, but I did think Peter's thought that video games will eventually become politicized (along the lines of "50 Greatest Conservative Novels") was an interesting one. I wonder who will be the first to come out with a game where you can mow down crowds of liberals with your machine gun. Bet that one would be a big seller.

... about Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy understanding has been addressed. (If you weren't already satisfied with the "days and weeks and months ahead" answer, I mean.) What's next?

What a non-issue, as it was with Obama, Reagan, & pretty much every other POTUS candidate since 1976. This is isn't 1910 or 1810 where the President and the Secretary of State "run" foreign policy. We have a huge State Department and Defense Department along with hundreds of brilliant people (in and out of government) who keep our FP on track. As Reagan showed, we need a President who is Patriotic, puts America first, has judgment, uses force as a last resort and can deal with people. The policy wonks take care of the details. Its nice to know the ins and outs of Luxembourg-US Relations but not really necessary. A knowledgeable, but belligerent nut like McCain is 10x more dangerous than an "ignorant" but calm and peace- minded Obama. So when the DNC partisans talk about Palin's ignorance of FP, I just ignore them - its just more Kieth (Sportscaster) Olbermann hackery.

Quoting rcocean: As Reagan showed, we need a President who is Patriotic, puts America first, has judgment, uses force as a last resort and can deal with people. The policy wonks take care of the details.

Some of those effete liberal elitists probably think that displaying good judgment requires that you be knowledgeable, so it's good to see that rcocean is out there showing us the truth. I mean, it's not like high-level decision-makers, acting against the recommendations of most of the State and Defense department's career staff, could ever lead our foreign policy astray by passionately following through on ill-conceived fantasies about foreign relations.

Quoting rcocean: What a non-issue, as it was with Obama, Reagan, & pretty much every other POTUS candidate since 1976. This is isn't 1910 or 1810 where the President and the Secretary of State "run" foreign policy. We have a huge State Department and Defense Department along with hundreds of brilliant people (in and out of government) who keep our FP on track.

As Reagan showed, we need a President who is Patriotic, puts America first, has judgment, uses force as a last resort and can deal with people. The policy wonks take care of the details. Its nice to know the ins and outs of Luxembourg-US Relations but not really necessary.

A knowledgeable, but belligerent nut like McCain is 10x more dangerous than an "ignorant" but calm and peace- minded Obama.

So when the DNC partisans talk about Palin's ignorance of FP, I just ignore them - its just more Kieth (Sportscaster) Olbermann hackery.

Very few people would really call Obama "ignorant" in regard to foreign policy, unless they're really pretty far out out on a partisan limb, or have an axe to grind. I'm pretty sure both of those descriptions are active here, of course. But, nevertheless, Sarah has yet to articulate a consistent, or even a coherent, thought on foreign policy, except

So it is a disqualifying criteria to have no foreign Policy experience? And Candidate Obama had what kind of FP experience; a grade school sojourn to Indonesia. As often as this short coming was down played by the left you now want to try and put that worn out shoe on someone that you don't like. I would normally find that humorous but in this case all I can see is the hypocrisy.

Quoting piscivorous: So it is a disqualifying criteria to have no foreign Policy experience? And Candidate Obama had what kind of FP experience; a grade school sojourn to Indonesia. As often as this short coming was down played by the left you now want to try and put that worn out shoe on someone that you don't like. I would normally find that humorous but in this case all I can see is the hypocrisy.

Okay, but do you think it more likely that Bam can put it together? He's been to Harvard law school, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, people's minds work differently. A person like Bam can over-think, thinking of all the angles till it's over-whelming, whereas another person can instantaneously see through to the right answer.

Quoting AemJeff: Thanks for posting that. That's one of my core objections to market-based health-care financing schemes. The people who have the greatest need for medical services will find their access limited the most. Libertarian solutions to this particular problem are (I don't have a more polite adjective) repugnant.

Perhaps you can help me with this. I read the article and it says, “Defined contribution” health care would be a more accurate shorthand way to refer to a health care approach that essentially increases deductibles and shifts costs to sicker employees. I don't see how the costs are shifted to sicker employees and the article doesn't explain this. Also you say, The people who have the greatest need for medical services will find their access limited the most. I don't see any evidence for this statement either. From what I know of a high deductible plan (which I happen to have), routine visits are paid for out of pocket and the high deductible policy covers those expenses one hopes one never has. How does this shift the cost to sicker people? What really happens is that those who never get really sick end up

Quoting Don Zeko: Some of those effete liberal elitists probably think that displaying good judgment requires that you be knowledgeable, so it's good to see that rcocean is out there showing us the truth. I mean, it's not like high-level decision-makers, acting against the recommendations of most of the State and Defense department's career staff, could ever lead our foreign policy astray by passionately following through on ill-conceived fantasies about foreign relations.

Yeah, kinda like Eric Holder deciding to treat 'what's his name?' to a civilian trial so that he can demonstrate to the world the greatness of the American justice system. And at the same time explaining 'what's his name?' will never go free. So much for presumed innocence (the bedrock of that great system). Is that the kind of high-level decision maker you're referring to?

You know, there's this great technology called "books." They're full of lots of information. You use them by reading. I hear that this Obama cat reads them like nobody's business, but Palin, not so much. There are probably half a dozen regular posters on this board who know more about international affairs than Palin (and half the people in Congress too). And it ain't from experience.

Quoting badhatharry: Perhaps you can help me with this. I read the article and it says,

“Defined contribution” health care would be a more accurate shorthand way to refer to a health care approach that essentially increases deductibles and shifts costs to sicker employees.

I don't see how the costs are shifted to sicker employees and the article doesn't explain this.

Also you say, The people who have the greatest need for medical services will find their access limited the most.

I don't see any evidence for this statement either.

From what I know of a high deductible plan (which I happen to have), routine visits are paid for out of pocket and the high deductible policy covers those expenses one hopes one never has. How does this shift the cost to sicker people? What really happens is that those who never get really sick end up paying for those who do.

I think market driven schemes are great (surprised?)with the proviso that there must be a way to cover those with a pre-existing condition with an affordable policy as part of a larger risk pool which includes them. This may/probably

Quoting badhatharry: Yeah, kinda like Eric Holder deciding to treat 'what's his name?' to a civilian trial so that he can demonstrate to the world the greatness of the American justice system. And at the same time explaining 'what's his name?' will never go free.

So much for presumed innocence (the bedrock of that great system).

Is that the kind of high-level decision maker you're referring to?

That's called confidence in our system of justice, I think.

Quoting bjkeefe: That would not be to my taste, but I did think Peter's thought that video games will eventually become politicized (along the lines of "50 Greatest Conservative Novels") was an interesting one.

Conservative authors are doing so well that liberals are whining the NYTimes should exclude them from the bestsellers list. Hilarious. They can't compete in the arena of ideas so they wish to game the system.......sounds like the climate change folks in E Anglia.

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder who will be the first to come out with a game where you can mow down crowds of liberals with your machine gun. Bet that one would be a big seller.

Just bizarre how the left can project the hate and violence of the reality of Ft Hood into a fantasy involving conservatives. You could I guess make a game of murder and death by starving of anyone who opposes the oppressive state but who would buy a game called 'CCCP'? If you are truly interested in current conservative fantasies, they include a legislature that reads the bills before they pass them, is actually interested in people's health and not

bjkeefe didn't say experience; he said understanding. Obama may not have been secretary of state or a long-sitting senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, but he demonstrated an interest in the details of foreign policy, co-sponsored some good legislation dealing with nuclear proliferation, and could speak coherently about these things. These aren't great credentials for a President, but they are at least acceptable. Palin talks as if she is completely unaware that there are experts out there that she could have consulted. A private citizen can easily learn more about foreign affairs by reading publicly available material than Palin has shown, and many of the posters on these forums have probably done so. That's the problem.

well that sure was a fun non sequitur. Do you just write that in response to random posts on the forum? Your wignuttery was so indiscriminate that I suspect the shotgun approach works more often than not; maybe this particular post was just bad luck.

And the Socratic like President, that we have now, has achieved what with his wonkish book learned foreign policy?

Not when it is made by the President.

Quoting piscivorous: And the Socratic like President, that we have now, has achieved what with his wonkish book learned foreign policy?

The definition of the word "Socratic."

Quoting piscivorous: Not when it is made by the President.

Not a good place for a one liner. Back up that assertion!

If you can't figure out the meaning of the analogy then there is little us in my trying to explain it to you.

Alienated allies and exposed himself to the ridicule of foes.

Quoting AemJeff: That's called confidence in our system of justice, I think.

I myself believe that an obviously guilty defendant of terror who demands to plead guilty in a military court and be executed be granted his wish. The logistics, costs, demands on NYC just makes Holder's decision (Obama apparently never even discussed the decision, nice to see he's too busy with more vital things like basketball pools and the Olympics) all the more incredible. Even Glenn Greenwald noted Holder's incredibly lame attempts to defend his decision and make logic of which defendants went to which form of court. I fear it's going to be show trials where the United States (esp Bush and Cheney) will be on trial as much as KSM and Co. Hope I'm wrong but Holder doesnt give me much hope. "We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses

let me set up a timeline here. Jan 2001- Nov 2006: run-with-your-gut foreign policy leadership by ideologues and the uninformed leads to a series of major foreign policy disasters Nov 2006- Jan 2009: intellectuals and experiened old hands like Gates and
Petraus partially wrest control of foreign policy from said ideologues and idiots; manage to limit the damage done by previous 6 years of screw-ups Jan 2009-Nov 2009: socratic, wonkish, "book-learned" president takes office; produces some modest successes and some failures during less than a year in office without a fully staffed executive branch (thanks, US Senate!) Nov 2009: piscivorous concludes that book-learning and wonkery makes for ineffective foreign policy.

Quoting Don Zeko: well that sure was a fun non sequitur. Do you just write that in response to random posts on the forum? Your wignuttery was so indiscriminate that I suspect the shotgun approach works more often than not; maybe this particular post was just bad luck.

Thanks! glad you liked it.

Quoting harkin: They can't compete in the arena of ideas so they wish to game the system.......sounds like the climate change folks in E Anglia.

If you are truly interested in current conservative fantasies, they include a legislature that reads the bills before they pass them, is actually interested in people's health and not a $trillion+ attempt to buy political power from the poor and unions with a travesty that only 38% of the American people believe is a good idea.

So glad to know someone else heard about the email scandal. This is another cool link about it. Too bad that no one who isn't already skeptical will be impressed. Just another denier ruse As for your conservative fantasy, I share it.

I think Bjkeefe's head may explode when he see's someone linked to that piece.

Quoting badhatharry: So glad to know someone else heard about the email scandal. This is another cool link about it. Too bad that no one who isn't already skeptical will be impressed. Just another denier ruse

As for your conservative fantasy, I share it.

Starwatcher has been on the case!
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...861#post139861
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...771#post139771
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...634#post139634
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...628#post139628 Prior to performing a jig, it might be useful to take a peek at what this theft has in fact revealed.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I think Bjkeefe's head may explode when he see's someone linked to that piece.

You think so? The guy oversells it pretty badly. "Final nail in the coffin?" AGW is a "conspiracy?" "The greatest [scandal] in modern science?" Feh.

Quoting Don Zeko: let me set up a timeline here.

Jan 2001- Nov 2006: run-with-your-gut foreign policy leadership by ideologues and the uninformed leads to a series of major foreign policy disasters

Nov 2006- Jan 2009: intellectuals and experiened old hands like Gates and
Petraus partially wrest control of foreign policy from said ideologues and idiots; manage to limit the damage done by previous 6 years of screw-ups

Jan 2009-Nov 2009: socratic, wonkish, "book-learned" president takes office; produces some modest successes and some failures during less than a year in office without a fully staffed executive branch (thanks, US Senate!)

...

Gratuitous attempt at insult, from original quote, excluded by choice. Such a finely sliced time line I'm not sure that I can deal with the specificity of it. Oh wait there is no specificity to it; just a standard regurgitation of the left's talking points. As I have addressed these particular talking points on numerous occasions I don't feel the need or have the desire to address them again. The question still remains

And the Socratic like President, that we have now, has achieved what with his wonkish book learned foreign policy?

You could at least address the question somewhere in your response.

This whole episode has been fairly disappointing. I don't think many would put me in the skeptic group, yet I still hoped after first hearing about this that there would be some hardcore evidence of impropriety. The whole attitude of withholding methods, just because some denilist may mis-represent it, is wrongheaded. I think all parties should take a leaf out of the NOAA's book, and have everything be open-access (Though only portions are free).

Quoting Starwatcher162536: This whole episode has been fairly disappointing. I don't think many would put me in the skeptic group, yet I still hoped after first hearing about this that there would be some hardcore evidence of impropriety.

The whole attitude of withholding methods, just because some denilist may mis-represent it, is wrongheaded. I think all parties should take a leaf out of the NOAA's book, and have everything be open-access (Though only portions are free).

I agree. The mantra should be put it out there for everybody to see. Gaffes like this just muddy the water and make the public policy part of this that much murkier.

Gee you don't think that if and when they are convicted there will be no propaganda value in "see the US system is rigged. The President ordered them to be found guilty and executed... blah blah blah. You and I will know it is not true but then we are not the audience it will be sold to. It was a stupid thing to say for any leader of any country that believes in equal justice before the law; though it would be true in many of the countries where this propaganda will be most effective.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee you don't think that if and when they are convicted there will be no propaganda value in "see the US system is rigged. The President ordered them to be found guilty and executed... blah blah blah. You and I will know it is not true but then we are not the audience it will be sold to. It was a stupid thing to say for any leader of any country that believes in equal justice before the law; though it would be true in many of the countries where this propaganda will be most effective.

Let them try. In what way does a military tribunal fix that dynamic? The system works. Showing confidence in that simple fact is a powerful message; and it's the right thing to do.

it's good to see your belief is so unquestioning and your faith unbroken. P.S. Edited unquestionable->unquestioning

Quoting piscivorous: it's good to see your belief is so unquestionable and your faith unbroken.

Unquestionable?

That wasn't a gratuitous insult, it was a critique of your argument. I'm suggesting that the subtext of your question (Obama's foreign policy is a failure because it hasn't produced major gains at this point) was foolish, by pointing out that Obama isn't a full year into his term. While there are certainly some grounds on which to criticize (and praise) him, it's really too early to say much in a definitive way. I also felt like the context, namely that we've tried a foreign policy based upon a contempt for expertise, and it hasn't worked, was helpful for refuting your implied point. If you feel I'm doing your argument a disservice by not responding to your question because I think that it's based on stupid premises that I've critiqued elsewhere, I don't think I'll be able to muster that much sympathy.

Quoting piscivorous: it's good to see your belief is so unquestioning and your faith unbroken.

P.S. Edited unquestionable->unquestioning

That's a slur. I trust the process; and that's all about questioning.

Quoting AemJeff: Let them try. In what way does a military tribunal fix that dynamic? The system works. Showing confidence in that simple fact is a powerful message; and it's the right thing to do.

It's not in the midldle of a large American city, therefore leaving open the chance of endangerment, and it would not be a circus.

I believe in the process myself; only it is a belief in an open and free exchange of information and data not resistance to such exchange. I don't believe it should take an FOI act to get the data and I strongly disprove of statements that all forms of resistance should be used up to and including it's destruction. Does that lend credence to or discredit to the facts contained in the article The Dog Ate Global Warming.

Quoting AemJeff: Market driven schemes that also cover people with chronic illnesses? I'd really like to see such an animal. I'd like to see the market logic that would make itt possible. Really. Meanwhile - throw everybody into the same risk pool, and balance the costs.

Thanks for grabbing this.

Ok, guys, we need to get Conor out of DC STAT!!! I am pretty sure game makers will make games to be entertaining first and foremost. At least for awhile.
Interesting topic to bring up though. Games will be more influential going forward. Even now, the budgets for some of the bigger games rival that of the major movie studios and production values are getting higher and higher. Even the music scores are getting more complex. They are more interactive, last far longer as far as entertainment value goes than movies, and can be highly addictive.
The reward/punishment models they employ have been honed to razor sharpness, and people respond when done well. Gets some people into trouble as it takes up too much of their attention and life, but there it is.
For those that don't play any at all, imagine having a medium that has the capacity to combine the aspects of a movie (impressive imagery, scores that go with the scenes in the game, scores that add more feel than mere text could), the length and depth of a novel, and make it interactive.
THAT is the highest potential of some of the

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder who will be the first to come out with a game where you can mow down crowds of liberals with your machine gun. Bet that one would be a big seller.

Don't get my hopes up. Kidding.. maybe. And btw, they already came out with a Bush game. http://www.sockandawe.com/

If talking points are a critique to you I wounder how you define a substantive argument? But then beauty is in the eyes of the beholder not the beheld.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I think Bjkeefe's head may explode when he see's someone linked to that piece.

Which one? http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=...EmDSy59N1V6KOM

http://fora.tv/2009/06/17/Ian_Bogost...Serious_Gaming
contains games for political ideas and other analysis

Quoting claymisher: You know, there's this great technology called "books." They're full of lots of information. You use them by reading. I hear that this Obama cat reads them like nobody's business, but Palin, not so much.

There are probably half a dozen regular posters on this board who know more about international affairs than Palin (and half the people in Congress too). And it ain't from experience.

From what I gather he likes fiction, too. I used to have a t-shirt that read "Too Many Books Not Enought Time." How true. Anyhow, I just got around to William Faulkner ("Go Down Moses" and "The Sound And The Fury") and was quite impressed away by his immense artistic ability. John

Quoting piscivorous: I believe in the process myself; only it is a belief in an open and free exchange of information and data not resistance to such exchange. I don't believe it should take an FOI act to get the data and I strongly disprove of statements that all forms of resistance should be used up to and including it's destruction. Does that lend credence to or discredit to the facts contained in the article The Dog Ate Global Warming.

That's an interesting use of the word facts. As you may or may not recall, that "Dog Ate Global Warming" piece has already been examined and found wanting.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Don't get my hopes up. Kidding.. maybe.

I am inclined to doubt you are, and in any case, I'm sure there are plenty who unambiguously wouldn't be.

Quoting JonIrenicus: And btw, they already came out with a Bush game.

http://www.sockandawe.com/

A new record for false equivalence.

Quoting AemJeff: That's called confidence in our system of justice, I think.

For an admin that professes to want to show the world how much America has changed from evil Bush/Cheney to respect for real American values, an AG who says he chose which court to send the defendants to based not on their nationality, nature of crime or place of capture but on the likelihood of conviction and a President who says that KSM will be found guilty and executed, and if he's not found guilty he'll never be released anyways is a real hoot. Would you feel the same if a republican president had duckwalked this incredibly comical and hypocritical exhibition? "Holder made plain his desire to increase public confidence in America's respect for the rule of law by putting the man who boasted of being the mastermind of 9/11's atrocities on trial under rules that would apply to ordinary citizens accused of ordinary crimes. Using our standard legal process would show the world we stand by American values of justice and fair play, even for those accused of the most heinous

Quoting AemJeff: Prior to performing a jig, it might be useful to take a peek at what this theft has in fact revealed.

Well, this was revealed: "You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when

Quoting harkin: For an admin that professes to want to show the world how much America has changed from evil Bush/Cheney to respect for real American values, an AG who says he chose which court to send the defendants to based not on their nationality, nature of crime or place of capture but on the likelihood of conviction and a President who says that KSM will be found guilty and executed, and if he's not found guilty he'll never be released anyways is a real hoot.

Is this your first time? Prosecutors always talk this way about the accused. I don't understand conservative cowardice on this matter. What's KSM gonna do? Pull a Jedi mind trick on the City if New York? Get rescued by swashbuckling Taliban? Are you really that much of a sissy? Is your reality so determined by comic books? No; I think there's another reason why you have such a hard-on for detention camps...

Quoting Ray: Is this your first time?

Prosecutors always talk this way about the accused.

I don't understand conservative cowardice on this matter. What's KSM gonna do? Pull a Jedi mind trick on the City if New York? Get rescued by swashbuckling Taliban? Are you really that much of a sissy? Is your reality so determined by comic books? No; I think there's another reason why you have such a hard-on for detention camps...

This is the "first time". One would have to be pretty dense to not understand the opposition. You are correct though...you "don't understand". You are a comic book.

In light of the emails what were once wanting in now proved.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's an interesting use of the word facts.

As you may or may not recall, that "Dog Ate Global Warming" piece has already been examined and found wanting.

What I recall, is you getting called on the fact that your hyper hyperlinks provided nothing to discount the story and provided NOTHING but ad hominem attacks on its author. Then when called on it, you still were UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANYTHING and switched to attacking me. And NOW, you double-down and link back to the same link as if IT DID provide something...I suppose a couple weeks from now you link back to your post here as the proof of the debunking. You are a piece of work, Branflake.

Quoting look: It's not in the midldle of a large American city, therefore leaving open the chance of endangerment, and it would not be a circus.

It's been done before. By, among others, Rudy Giuliani. Endangerment? I'd have trusted such a process during Bush, and I trust it now.

Quoting claymisher: You know, there's this great technology called "books." They're full of lots of information. You use them by reading. I hear that this Obama cat reads them like nobody's business...

He should pick one up on protocol.

Quoting Whatfur: This is the "first time". One would have to be pretty dense to not understand the opposition.

You are correct though...you "don't understand". You are a comic book.

It's not. And the opposition is well understood, Ray's rhetoric notwithstanding.

Quoting AemJeff: It's been done before. By, among others, Rudy Giuliani. Endangerment? I'd have trusted such a process during Bush, and I trust it now.

It seems like such a gimme. KSM is a big fish, and I don't think it would take that much to create mass panic in a huge metropolis like NYC. And there's the possibility that KSM will use this as a bully pulpit and attract sympathy, and end up looking like a martyr, a la Hussein. Or at the very least, rally his followers world wide and create new jihadists. And as I said, this will be a spectacle. That oughta keep the MSM busy for a few weeks, 24/7.

Quoting piscivorous: I believe in the process myself; only it is a belief in an open and free exchange of information and data not resistance to such exchange. I don't believe it should take an FOI act to get the data and I strongly disprove of statements that all forms of resistance should be used up to and including it's destruction. Does that lend credence to or discredit to the facts contained in the article The Dog Ate Global Warming.

I actually don't believe that. All of the content of what you post on this topic is political attacks on scientific work culled from sources with an obvious bias for a particular point of view, so it's extremely difficult to believe that you don't have a predetermined opinion. The jerks who were talking about avoiding FOI requests screwed up hugely. I don't think they deserve to keep their jobs. Michaels' paper doesn't become any less false because of them.

Quoting Whatfur: What I recall, is you getting called on the fact that your hyper hyperlinks provided nothing to discount the story and provided NOTHING but ad hominem attacks on its author.

Then when called on it, you still were UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANYTHING and switched to attacking me.

And NOW, you double-down and link back to the same link as if IT DID provide something...I suppose a couple weeks from now you link back to your post here as the proof of the debunking.

You are a piece of work, Branflake.

I think it is safe to say from long experience that the number of words you type in all caps, and the name-calling, are directly correlated to the weakness of your argument. In other words, shouting isn't going to convince anybody. Those interested in whether or not I addressed the "Dog Ate Global Warming" post can follow the link I gave earlier (repeated here), and decide for themselves. I am not going to bother discussing any further this, or the email hackery, with you or pisc. You're both denialists and you've got your minds made up that your conspiracy theories are reality.

Quoting AemJeff: I actually don't believe that. All of the content of what you post on this topic is political attacks on scientific work culled from sources with an obvious bias for a particular point of view, so it's extremely difficult to believe that you don't have a predetermined opinion. The jerks who were talking about avoiding FOI requests screwed up hugely. I don't think they deserve to keep their jobs. Michaels' paper doesn't become any less false because of them.

It is irrelevant to me what you believe my beliefs to be. And the fearists have proven themselves to have their own predetermined opinions and don't wish to have them air in the free exchange of information because you know they might use the data to attack the fearists stated claims. That is what the "scientific" process is about from my perspective.

Quoting look: It seems like such a gimme. KSM is a big fish, and I don't think it would take that much to create mass panic in a huge metropolis like NYC.

If you really believe that, then I will look forward to your regular condemnations of all the right-wing pundits and commentators who are doing their level best to stir up the panic. My own view is that Americans, and New Yorkers in particular, are made of tougher stuff than you seem to think.

And there's the possibility that KSM will use this as a bully pulpit and attract sympathy, and end up looking like a martyr, a la Hussein. Or at the very least, rally his followers world wide and create new jihadists.

This is a crock. First, there are already thousands of people all over the world trying to recruit new "jihadists." Second, to the extent that you think KSM will be able to be seen as a "martyr," I fail to see how either executing him when he first asked, or trying him through some military tribunal process, would change any of that. Ultimately, trying him in court, in NYC itself, is a clear statement to those who would

Quoting piscivorous: It is irrelevant to me what you believe my beliefs to be. And the fearists have proven themselves to have their own predetermined opinions and don't wish to have them air in the free exchange of information because you know they might use the data to attack the fearists stated claims. That is what the "scientific" process is about from my perspective.

Wow - "fearists." The rhetoric is really ramping up, isn't it? My opinion doesn't matter. You limit yourself.

Quoting AemJeff: Wow - "fearists." The rhetoric is really ramping up, isn't it? My opinion doesn't matter. You limit yourself.

LOL! I was just thinking, sounds like Rush has started trying to push a new word into the dittoheads' lexicon.

Quoting AemJeff: It's not. And the opposition is well understood, Ray's rhetoric notwithstanding.

It IS the first time enemy combatants, taken on the battlefield are being tried in this manner...what are YOU talking about?

Quoting Whatfur: It IS the first time enemy combatants, taken on the battlefield are being tried in this manner...what are YOU talking about?

That's not a detail that changes anything. The Blind Sheik was at least KSM's equal in any measure that matters.

Quoting Whatfur: It IS the first time enemy combatants, taken on the battlefield are being tried in this manner...what are YOU talking about?

What's this "taken on the battlefield" fappery? KSM was arrested -- woken up out of a sound sleep and dragged out of his villa. (Remember?)

Quoting bjkeefe: What's this "taken on the battlefield" fappery?

KSM was arrested -- woken up out of a sound sleep and dragged out of his villa. (Remember?)

He is not the only one being tried in this way, and was his villa somewhere in Rhode Island then?

Quoting AemJeff: I agree. The mantra should be put it out there for everybody to see. Gaffes like this just muddy the water and make the public policy part of this that much murkier.

One can only hope they will muddy the water. But the train has left the station and it's always hard to turn back and reconsider perceived crises of which there are many these days.

Quoting AemJeff: That's a slur. I trust the process; and that's all about questioning.

Perhaps you can tell me why it is that a person who has plead guilty is entitled to a trial. That's not the way it works and I am an expert because I watch re-runs of Law and Order all the time.

Quoting Whatfur: He is not the only one being tried in this way, and was his villa somewhere in Rhode Island then?

Nope. "Rawalpindi, near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad," as you could have found out by following the link I gave. I don't know about the others, as, I suspect, do very many other people. KSM is the focus here. However, if you would like to provide links to back up your claim that they were "taken on the battlefield," please do.

Quoting badhatharry: Perhaps you can tell me why it is that a person who has plead guilty is entitled to a trial. That's not the way it works and I am an expert because I watch re-runs of Law and Order all the time.

Maybe a lawyer can answer that, but I assume that prosecutorial discretion cuts both ways. Obviously the Administration sees a benefit in a public trial.

Quoting Ray: Is this your first time?

Prosecutors always talk this way about the accused.

I don't understand conservative cowardice on this matter. What's KSM gonna do? Pull a Jedi mind trick on the City if New York? Get rescued by swashbuckling Taliban? Are you really that much of a sissy? Is your reality so determined by comic books? No; I think there's another reason why you have such a hard-on for detention camps...

One conservative, Judge Napolitano, is very much in favor of this trial. I don't think the conservatives are lumping together on this one.

Quoting bjkeefe: Nope. "Rawalpindi, near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad," as you could have found out by following the link I gave.

I don't know about the others, as, I suspect, do very many other people. KSM is the focus here. However, if you would like to provide links to back up your claim that they were "taken on the battlefield," please do.

It's a distinction without a difference in any case. "Battlefield?" There's been no formal declaration of war, so the definition of the word is fairly subjective.

Quoting Whatfur: What I recall, is you getting called on the fact that your hyper hyperlinks provided nothing to discount the story and provided NOTHING but ad hominem attacks on its author.

Ad hominems by Bjkeefe? You must be mistaken!

Quoting badhatharry: Ad hominems by Bjkeefe? You must be mistaken!

Ah, badhat. Always ready to join in a group hug underneath the victim cloak, eh?

Quoting AemJeff: It's a distinction without a difference in any case."....

Ahhh we have agreement...thanks Jeff!

Quoting AemJeff: Maybe a lawyer can answer that, but I assume that prosecutorial discretion cuts both ways. Obviously the Administration sees a benefit in a public trial.

Well, Obama is being pretty ball-less (shocker) on this one, pretty much calling it Holder's baby. Do you think he might be hedging his bets?

Quoting bjkeefe: "Grievance-nursing and gutless"...

--thats our Obama

Quoting look: And there's the possibility that KSM will use this as a bully pulpit and attract sympathy, and end up looking like a martyr, a la Hussein. Or at the very least, rally his followers world wide and create new jihadists.

And as I said, this will be a spectacle. That oughta keep the MSM busy for a few weeks, 24/7.

I'm sure KSM (formerly known as 'what's his name?') will bully from the pulpit as will his lawyers. I don't recall, however anyone thinking of Hussein as a martyr. And we all know what happened to him. It'll be interesting and will be great for the news outlets
and talking heads.

Quoting AemJeff: Wow - "fearists." The rhetoric is really ramping up, isn't it? My opinion doesn't matter. You limit yourself.

Aren't you the one who throws 'racist' around with such abandon? Turn about is fair play.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ah, badhat. Always ready to join in a group hug underneath the victim cloak, eh?

Yep, I just love these guys. They tell it like it is and they serve it back to you with great panache.

Quoting badhatharry: Yep, I just love these guys. They tell it like it is and they serve it back to you with great panache.

And, from your perspective, you can cheer while cowering on the sidelines, and run less of a risk that I will address you directly. (Because we know how that ends.) Another win for conservative "courage!"

Quoting badhatharry: Aren't you the one who throws 'racist' around with such abandon? Turn about is fair play.

I don't think you can make that charge stick. I'm pretty careful about the "racist" charge, and I only use it if there's public rhetoric that merits the charge. You're depending on a pretty tendentious analogy here to supprt your point.

Quoting bjkeefe: And, from your perspective, you can cheer while cowering on the sidelines, and run less of a risk that I will address you directly. (Because we know how that ends.)

Another win for conservative "courage!"

That tactic is old and worn out. I am finding no problem in addressing you directly any more, Brendan. Check your extensive catalogued link library. I personally don't have one, nor have time (as you apparently do) for one. After I got over the initial shock of your incivility, I have come to understand that you are very frequently and mostly just a toothless dog.

Quoting AemJeff: I don't think you can make that charge stick. I'm pretty careful about the "racist" charge, and I only use it if there's public rhetoric that merits the charge. You're depending on a pretty tendentious analogy here to supprt your point.

Here's what you said 'Wow - "fearists." The rhetoric is really ramping up, isn't it?' and that's what I responded to. It could just be that whoever was using the term 'fearist' was using it as carefully as you claim to use the term 'racist'. It's all rhetoric, Jeff, and its validity is in the mind of the beholder.

Quoting badhatharry: That tactic is old and worn out.

"Tactic?" What, you see linking to evidence to support an assertion to be a "tactic?" I knew the wingnut mentality was awfully skewed from the way normal people see things, but this is really a new one.

Quoting badhatharry: I am finding no problem in addressing you directly any more, Brendan.

Yet you almost never do. Generally the only thing you do is say things about me, and typically, that only happens when you've gotten caught up in back-patting 'fur or one of your other heroes.

Quoting badhatharry: Check your extensive catalogued link library. I personally don't have one, nor have time (as you apparently do) for one.

I do love the resentment you and your chums show because you haven't figured out how to use the Google yet. Ah, well. Better to nurse a grievance rather than be self-reliant and spend five minutes learning a new skill, I guess. At least, that's how you seem to see it.

Quoting badhatharry: After I got over the initial shock of your incivility, I have come to understand that you are very frequently and mostly just a toothless dog.

I guess you're trying to buck yourself up here, but as anyone else can see from

Quoting badhatharry: Here's what you said 'Wow - "fearists." The rhetoric is really ramping up, isn't it?' and that's what I responded to.

It could just be that whoever was using the term 'fearist' was using it as carefully as you claim to use the term 'racist'. It's all rhetoric, Jeff, and its validity is in the mind of the beholder.

The "open" "mind of the beholder".

So Pakistan is not the battle field?

Quoting piscivorous: So Pakistan is not the battle field?

Not unless we've formally declared war on them since the last time I looked at the news. In any case, it certainly wasn't back in March 2003, when KSM was arrested. But you Fighting Keyboardists keep it up with your "battlefield" nonsense. It helps you feel a little less ridiculous for cowering under your beds, due to the Big Bad Al Qaeda Boogeyman, amirite? Wimps.

Quoting badhatharry: Here's what you said 'Wow - "fearists." The rhetoric is really ramping up, isn't it?' and that's what I responded to.

It could just be that whoever was using the term 'fearist' was using it as carefully as you claim to use the term 'racist'. It's all rhetoric, Jeff, and its validity is in the mind of the beholder.

You either don't read carefully, or you don't really care whether what you're saying has any reasonable basis. I expect that of pisc and 'fur, but I've been under the impression that you make an effort to be more careful. The only similarity here is that these are both adjectives applied to people. "Fearist" is just a dimwitted neologism without a significant context. How about we just say "stupidheads" instead? Calling somebody a "racist" has a testable basis, and carries historical valence. You can argue about the specific basis used for a specific application. But that's not what's been done here.

Quoting Whatfur: The "open" "mind of the beholder".

I really need to go. This commenting thing can be addictive as one waits for a response. But something occurred to me after I responded to Jeff which is apropos to what you are pointing out. I know Jeff is sincere in believing that he can identify 'racism'. He stated that he doesn't make the charge without evidence. However, we who have questioned the data supporting AWG are also sincere in naming it 'fearism' or as Crichton did 'religion'. I also think the current revelations which those emails show gives at least some evidence that the fix has been in for quite some time. But evidence is pretty subjective and doesn't always pursuade. I don't know how you get around dismissing people's beliefs if you just don't see the validity in them. Debate is good but there is seldom resolution. I guess the best we can hope for is some kind of tolerance for others' opinions. That's kinda squishy, but it's the best I can do.

Quoting badhatharry: I really need to go.

Or flee, as the case may be.

Quoting badhatharry: I guess the best we can hope for is some kind of tolerance for others' opinions.

I do enjoy when you play this card. It always comes when you can't think how to respond to rebuttals of your unfounded assertions. We'll see if you remember it the next time you pronounce your horror at some imagined characteristic that "all liberals" or "the left" possess, or even when someone dares to disagree with you.

Quoting bjkeefe: "Tactic?" What, you see linking to evidence to support an assertion to be a "tactic?"

What you call evidence doesn't include enough to be called by that name. I have been posting and responding to you for months now and have even managed to be as snide as you are on occasion. You might be interested to know that after I made my swan song exit, I was personally invited back by one of the founder's of this site. What you are doing is pathetic. For instance, trolling around in other commenter's mailboxes to find what you think is incriminating evidence. I really don't understand your gig, Brendan. And you might consider that other people are also watching what you do and snickering at you as I do.

Quoting AemJeff: You either don't read carefully, or you don't really care whether what you're saying has any reasonable basis. I expect that of pisc and 'fur, but I've been under the impression that you make an effort to be more careful. The only similarity here is that these are both adjectives applied to people. "Fearist" is just a dimwitted neologism without a significant context. How about we just say "stupidheads" instead?

Calling somebody a "racist" has a testable basis, and carries historical valence. You can argue about the specific basis used for a specific application. But that's not what's been done here.

Thanks for thinking I'm careful, because I do try to be. But I disagree that pisc and whatfur are less careful. Mostly they are far more colorful than I am, something that is highly valued in this forum. As I have said before, I think the term racist is ill defined and may be able to be used is ways with which you will most certainly not agree, as in affirmative action.
Also, I think fearism has a valid historical valence. Consider the use of DDT, Rachel Carson's admonitions against it and the eventual banning of it. That led to the unintended

Quoting badhatharry: Thanks for thinking I'm careful, because I do try to be. But I disagree that pisc and whatfur are less careful. Mostly they are far more colorful than I am, something that is highly valued in this forum.

As I have said before, I think the term racist is ill defined and may be able to be used is ways with which you will most certainly not agree, as in affirmative action.
Also, I think fearism has a valid historical valence. Consider the use of DDT, Rachel Carson's admonitions against it and the eventual banning of it. That led to the unintended consequence of the rise of malaria.

Just a thought.

Carson's admonitions were based on facts. The idea that the abstract possibility of unintended consequences is a strong enough claim to dominate how to make a decision a priori is incoherent. You do the best you can with the knowledge you have. And you're still not going to achieve optimal results, probably ever. Creating vacuous new categories post-hoc and characterizing things with already well-established definitions in light of those new, ill-defined descriptions is a cheap, childish rhetorical game. I leave the posting histories of our interlocutors to speak

Quoting badhatharry: I'm sure KSM (formerly known as 'what's his name?') will bully from the pulpit as will his lawyers. I don't recall, however anyone thinking of Hussein as a martyr. And we all know what happened to him

Right you are. I was misremembering this Krauthammer article where he talks about justice not being truly served, and how the taunts of his executioners during the hanging caused Hussein to be the most dignified person in the room. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ution_was.html

Sigh. I suppose that when you say "talking points" you refer to my assertion without evidence that George Bush's foreign policy was very unsuccessful, or maybe my suggestion that his second term was less unsuccessful than the first, and that that lack of failure was largely thanks to the increased influence of non-ideologues like Gates and Petraeus. I figured that nobody would really be interested in defending Bush's first-term foreign policy, but i suppose that assumption may have been incorrect. If you want to dispute any of this, then it's plain that you aren't going to be convinced of any other points either, so I'll just let your embrace of Bush's first-term foreign policy say what needs to be said about your judgement and your argument. If you don't want to dispute it, then I can't imagine what your reply was attempting to say, and I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your remarks so that I can respond to your objections.

Quoting Don Zeko: Sigh.

In the mean time...
I would be interested in the areas you would "praise" Obama for. I do hear from time to time about how he saved the economy from going over the edge because of his initial handling of bailouts, budget, stimulous etc. while at the same time the bailouts,budget, stimulous etc. are blamed as being "inherited" and part of the scourage he had to deal with. I know we were promised things like a coming together, more transparancy in govt., a stimulated economy, an 8% unemployment rate at the high end, a correction to the ways of real estate market, better relations with other countries etc. etc.... to speak of things all of us can get behind, not to forget a closing a Gitmo, a healthcare bill, a Cap and Trade bill or any type of coherent energy program,...while not totally ignoring his Afghanistan policy (finally now decided on to be just short of what his General told him would be the minimum needed to succeed)... but I ramble when it is the areas of praise you mention that I am interested in...

I guess that by your logic then there was no battle field in the Balkans even though we were bombing the shit out of it in the 90's. Pakistan has had Special Forces operating in it since shortly after Bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora in Dec of 2001. I guess since President Clinton's attempt at arguing over the definition of the word "is" is; semantic games are deemed credible arguments. I'm surprised that you still believe that cuts it here.

Quoting piscivorous: I guess that by your logic then there was no battle field in the Balkans even though we were bombing the shit out of it in the 90's. Pakistan has had Special Forces operating in it since shortly after Bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora in Dec of 2001. I guess since President Clinton's attempt at arguing over the definition of the word "is" is; semantic games are deemed credible arguments. I'm surprised that you still believe that cuts it here.

You did neglect to include a kitchen sink in that argument!

Actually I would be glad to argue any specific assertions you wish to make but too argue your generalities would require pages of post and the is a 10,000 character limit here; which I have exceed a couple of times on the very broad accusations you level here as arguments.

No I'm headed over to my friends house to replace that so I won't be able to include it until tomorrow.

Quoting piscivorous: I guess that by your logic then there was no battle field in the Balkans even though we were bombing the shit out of it in the 90's. Pakistan has had Special Forces operating in it since shortly after Bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora in Dec of 2001. I guess since President Clinton's attempt at arguing over the definition of the word "is" is; semantic games are deemed credible arguments. I'm surprised that you still believe that cuts it here.

An excellent example of the kitchen sink* approach, with the usual heavy-handed pisc-poor attempts at sarcasm. However, I still say that, no, Pakistan is not "the battlefield," and it was not "the battlefield" in March 2003, either. Unless, of course, you are looking to keep alive the fiction maintained by your heroes from the Bush Administration, in which the entire planet is defined as "the battlefield" so that laws and treaties can be ignored and you Fighting Keyboardists can feel better about yourselves shouting "traitor!!!1!" at everyone who doesn't think 24 and Red Dawn depict reality. ========== * [Added] LOL @ this. I guess we really did see something that walked like a duck, quacked like ... etc.

So let's at least get the generalities straight here. Would you consider the Bush Administration's foreign policy largely successful? Mostly unsuccessfully? Too much of a mixed bag to make generalizations?

Depends on where you look and the color of the lenses you are looking through. I have and still do support the freedom agenda and the importance of that agenda that he can around to supporting after 9/11. He is much beloved in parts of Africa. The opening of relations with India were and are to his credit, if the current occupant of the White House doesn't blow it. I'm not thrilled with his results in Asia but at least he didn't have the Chinese and Japanese leaders essentially telling him to fuck off. I would say he defiantly blew it with Russia and certain of the former east European puppet states. So you would have to place me in the mixed bag category if you have to apply some sort of taxonomy to it.

Gee I wounder if those at the receiving end of a hellfire missile, fired from a Predator, would sanction that assessment. Oh wait many of them can't make that assessment because they died in the peace zone.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee I wounder if those at the receiving end of a hellfire missile, fired from a Predator, would sanction that assessment. Oh wait many of them can't make that assessment because they died in the peace zone.

Duck hunting?

No they would have had to send vice President Cheney over there if that were to be an effective weapon.

Quoting piscivorous: Gee I wounder if those at the receiving end of a hellfire missile, fired from a Predator, would sanction that assessment. Oh wait many of them can't make that assessment because they died in the peace zone.

The United States government carrying out covert assassinations does not in my mind make the region a "battlefield," no matter how expensive the bullets, no matter how tumescent it makes you and 'fur to recite their brand names, and no matter how poorly they are targeted.

Quoting bjkeefe: The United States government carrying out covert assassinations does not in my mind make the region a "battlefield," no matter how expensive the bullets, no matter how tumescent it makes you and 'fur to recite their brand names, and no matter how poorly they are targeted.

Yow. That was some batshit crazy logic there.

The part about trying to get a friendly editor on the review board is somewhat troubling. I am somewhat agnostic about the comments surrounding RealClimate. I think another way of interpreting those comments is that the author of that e-mail feels that he is in the right, and that any objective website will agree with his conclusions far more then the conclusion's of a guy like Watts (Author of WUWT blog). After all, scientific objectiveness just means looking at the facts without a predisposition to certain conclusions. It is not like what journalistic objectiveness has evolved to, which is letting both sides speak, and pretending both sides have the same amount of credibility, even when that is clearly not the case. But why should I care about a few experts in a field pushing for the removal of an editor they feel is lacking in rigor? Take for instance that ENSO paper awhile back that received alot of attention awhile back, the paper clearly had some issues, and should not have been admitted until those issues were resolved. Why shouldn't relevant experts that publish in a journal not push

Quoting Starwatcher162536: The part about trying to get a friendly editor on the review board is somewhat troubling.

I am somewhat agnostic about the comments surrounding RealClimate.
...
But why should I care about a few experts in a field pushing for the removal of an editor they feel is lacking in rigor?

You are creating straw man arguments Starwatcher, and its not very becoming.

Hi Jeff, Long time no talk. Looks like we're always going back to this health care issue huh? I have something to say in response, but with you, I've learned to try and get my bearings first. So, what is your understanding of libertarian or "market-driven" approaches to health care? Are these terms synonymous with "let the market do everything?" If so, I guess I have nothing to say. But it seems to me that libertarian, and especially, "market-driven" approaches are not always the same as sitting back and doing nothing, in other words, letting the market do its "magic." I don't expect you to agree with any form of market-driven approach, but I have a hard time understanding why the sentiment of repugnance is fitting.

Quoting Jay J: Hi Jeff,

Long time no talk. Looks like we're always going back to this health care issue huh?

I have something to say in response, but with you, I've learned to try and get my bearings first. So, what is your understanding of libertarian or "market-driven" approaches to health care? Are these terms synonymous with "let the market do everything?" If so, I guess I have nothing to say.

But it seems to me that libertarian, and especially, "market-driven" approaches are not always the same as sitting back and doing nothing, in other words, letting the market do its "magic." I don't expect you to agree with any form of market-driven approach, but I have a hard time understanding why the sentiment of repugnance is fitting.

Hi Jay. I'm open to anything that disentangles accidental issues, e.g. someone's state of employment, from access to needed health care. Also any set of issues that distances someone from the ability to get treatment when they need it is anathema. Markets are designed on assumptions that I don't believe hold in the case of immediate or ongoing medical need. People who currently have an illness are not "rational agents" and are rarely in a position to bargain

The most significant notion that has come from this point - after the health care insurance reform and Palin segments - in the diavlog is "political entertainment complex". I wish both pundits would apply that insight to their own careers. An academic coined MIME-met (military-industrial-media-entertainment net) based on his analysis of media coverage and public debate on the Iraq War. So, political entertainment complex is not original, and neither is much on bhTV. But, neither 'head can "follow the money" to find out how the complex works. So, neither are journos, either, at least not competent ones. What are they? Part of the problem. This rationalization, that both have of their own insight into "ideas" is just another meme, like the Palin phenomenon.

I think any discussion about what exactly the "battlefield" is in the "war on terror" involves some twisted logic. These distinctions are becoming more and more pointless.

What about that wingnut MMORPG that David Corn wrote about, does that count? Oh yeah, here we go.

Jeff, Your personal history is certainly relevant, and I would also use it to form my view, if I were you. Glad you're still with us, it sounds like it was a tough row to hoe for a while. I don't want to sound nit-picky, but I suppose I think the term "market-driven" is ambiguous.... we don't have to get tripped up on semantics though. So let me just say that one proposal from an unabashed libertarian (Milton Friedman) is to let the market do its thing when it comes to routine care, and have single payer for catastrophic care. Of course there would be some wrangling over what counted as catastrophic, but suffice it to say for now, certain illnesses, and/or sudden accumulations of high dollar, necessary procedures (not breast implants, for example) would trigger free health care for such a person. Like you said, seriously ill people do not behave like typical consumers; they just need care, period. The fact that this is the case makes incentives less important, and because seriously ill people are always a relatively small percentage of the population, it's not as if it would cause serious fiscal problems to implement such a system, especially if

Quoting badhatharry: What you are doing is pathetic. For instance, trolling around in other commenter's mailboxes to find what you think is incriminating evidence.

That's some bad paranoia, harry.

Quoting Jay J: Jeff,

Your personal history is certainly relevant, and I would also use it to form my view, if I were you. Glad you're still with us, it sounds like it was a tough row to hoe for a while.

I don't want to sound nit-picky, but I suppose I think the term "market-driven" is ambiguous.... we don't have to get tripped up on semantics though. So let me just say that one proposal from an unabashed libertarian (Milton Friedman) is to let the market do its thing when it comes to routine care, and have single payer for catastrophic care. Of course there would be some wrangling over what counted as catastrophic, but suffice it to say for now, certain illnesses, and/or sudden accumulations of high dollar, necessary procedures (not breast implants, for example) would trigger free health care for such a person. Like you said, seriously ill people do not behave like typical consumers; they just need care, period. The fact that this is the case makes incentives less important, and because seriously ill people are always a relatively small percentage of the population, it's not as if it would cause serious fiscal problems to implement such a system, especially if

There's still the problem dealing with the medium and long term consequences. People with chronic illnesses need access to specialists, they need drugs (I have twelve prescriptions - even some of the generics are very expensive, and insulin is never generic), they need therapy, they need weird tests, and lots of bloodwork, etc.... Catastrophic care is band-aid over one problem, but it doesn't address the ongoing needs of people with significant issues.

The problem is that every market solution I can imagine wants you out of the general risk pool after a catastrophic event, or the onset of a chronic problem. Where do such people go for treatment? A separate risk pool just for high risk people is far from optimal, and probably unworkable. Pricing such people out of the market is (to maintain my theme) repugnant. As we continue to live longer, the proportion of people with some chronic issue or other is going to continue to increase. A single payer system, or some other system that keeps the risk spread over the entire population is the only fair way I can think of to manage it.

Jeff, there are several things that come to mind, but first

Quoting Jay J: Jeff, there are several things that come to mind, but first I want to do more of the 'getting my bearings' stuff that I mentioned in my last post. OK so in your first post, well, the post I responded to, (the one that started this little sub-thread), you mentioned that people who have serious ailments aren't rational consumers, and I agreed. So I'm wondering, don't you think it's a fair reading of your argument to assume that you think that some group of rational consumers exist in the health care market (or at the very least, some mentionable portion of the market behaves as if the individual consumers are rational)?

I ask not to imply that you must agree with Friedman's overall proposal, but to try to pinpoint where the disagree resides. It may be possible, for example, that such a system is unworkable because we can't find a workable way to distinguish between the chronically ill and people who just get routine care (or unworkable for other reasons). But *in principle* if there were such a way to do this, well, I think you see where I'm going, so perhaps I should just stop and await your response

Quoting AemJeff: I'm not sure that "rational customer" and "rational agent" map to precisely the same concept. I don't think that as a general rule, people with a need for access to heath care (as compared to people who are currently healthy and are scheduling a checkup) are in a position to bargain. I think that the distinction between them and currently healthy people (for whom medical care consists of checkups and splints and band-aids) is ephemeral. Planning for the former case doesn't prepare you for the day after a stroke. It also doesn't prepare you for your needs ten years after that stroke. (How does a market based system, with its assumption that you're a customer, and therefore that the relationship between you and the provider can be severed, provide any preparation for that latter issue?) We're all potentially in need of long term medical support. Whether or not we ever realize that need is a lottery. The longer you live, the more likely you are to find yourself facing such a need.

Guess who said it:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing

Quoting claymisher: Guess who said it:

There are some people born into this world whose net present value of lifetime earnings is less than the NPV of their health care costs. Either somebody else is going to pay for their care or they're gonna die.

That's Hayek? Interesting. FWIW my billed medical expenses over a three year period were on the same order of magnitude as my parents' lifetime earnings. Somebody else definitely paid. I was damned lucky to have been insured at the start of that.

Do we really expect people to save up $200,000 in case they get really sick? Wouldn't that savings be more productive for society if it was invested in riskier assets (including education)? Why not spend the equivalent in taxes on the average case scenario instead of building up a reserve against the worst case scenario? What if you get really sick when you're 25? How could a 25-year-old possibly save that much money? How is a 25-year-old with a chronic condition supposed to get lifetime insurance in a free market?

Quoting AemJeff: That's Hayek? Interesting. FWIW my billed medical expenses over a three year period were on the same order of magnitude as my parents' lifetime earnings. Somebody else definitely paid. I was damned lucky to have been insured at the start of that.

It could've happened to anyone. You shouldn't have to be lucky. This ought to be a given because we're decent people in a decent society. And there's good reasons of economic efficiency on top of that. Every other rich country figured this out fifty to a hundred years ago.

I'm not sure that "rational customer" and "rational agent" map to precisely the same concept. I don't think that as a general rule, people with a need for access to heath care (as compared to people who are currently healthy and are scheduling a checkup) are in a position to bargain. I think that the distinction between them and currently healthy people (for whom medical care consists of checkups and splints and band-aids) is ephemeral. Planning for the former case doesn't prepare you for the day after a stroke. It also doesn't prepare you for your needs ten years after that stroke. (How does a market based system, with its assumption that you're a customer, and therefore that the relationship between you and the provider can be severed, provide any preparation for that latter issue?) We're all potentially in need of long term medical support. Whether or not we ever realize that need is a lottery. The longer you live, the more likely you are to find yourself facing such a need.

Oh OK, I guess it was just the way you used the term "rational agent" in terms of whether or not

Quoting AemJeff: That's Hayek?

Yeah, the old libertarian intellectuals are often a lot more sensible their followers realize.

You and I have our differences and often spar but I am not looking for that here. Is there one of the conditions or diseases, that you mention , that would not have been covered by Medicaid? There may be differences in some of the treatment methodology and the hospital and doctors may come after you for the balance above and beyond what Medicaid pays but it is not correct that coverage would not have been or be provided.

Quoting Jay J: Oh OK, I guess it was just the way you used the term "rational agent" in terms of whether or not people with immediate medical needs are in any position to bargain or what have you, that perhaps got the wire crossed in my head with "rational consumer." But in any case, I think we're on the same page in terms of what predicament we see sick people as being in.

I wonder if you would indulge me more and tell me, do you see everything other than check-ups as an "immediate" need? What I mean is, it seems to me that there are kinds of medical care people would go without or delay at least long enough to do price comparisons on, that fall short of catastrophic or chronic illness.

I know this isn't a perfect comparison, but we have to maintain and repair our vehicles in ways that aren't covered by insurance, and presumably there is a market with people who are in a position to behave like consumers do in other markets, so do you see this market in health care as being so small as to

Quoting piscivorous: You and I have our differences and often spar but I am not looking for that here.

Is there one of the conditions or diseases, that you mention , that would not have been covered by Medicaid? There may be differences in some of the treatment methodology and the hospital and doctors may come after you for the balance above and beyond what Medicaid pays but it is not correct that coverage would not have been or be provided.

Thanks. I know that when I lost my insurance, we looked hard for some kind of public plan. Nothing was offered to us at the time, and luckily my wife found a job with good coverage several months later; so I only had a temporary lapse.

No need to apologize for the personal information. I'm big on allowing personal, first-person experience to be a guide on what the world is like. And your personal experience is certainly relevant; I'm sure countless others have gone through similar things. What I'm trying to do is pinpoint *precisely* where the disagreement lies. You're right that I have a leaning, but right now I give you my word that I'm really just trying to understand the motivation for the differing views. It could be that this is already obvious to most, but I can't help it, perhaps I'm a little slow. Seriously, I tend to focus on the conceptual background and underlying justifications, so it could be that I'm missing something right in front of my nose... That being said, if you'll indulge me a bit more I would appreciate it. It's just that I think you're probably one of the ones that would be willing to acknowledge that there may be tradeoffs worth making, rather than doggedly committing to a position that *everyone* would be just as well off under a *comprehensive* universal system, or at least that the current message from the America left may

Roger Ailes has been paying attention to Peter's doings.

Quoting Jay J: I am completely open to Friedman's idea being bad, but I would like it to be made very explicit why it's bad, if possible. Something explicit would be something like, "Yes, Friedman was onto something here, because X is true, but he overlooked Y, and this is what we really care about." So far, I haven't gotten you to acknowledge that Friedman was onto anything, but it seems like you would have to acknowledge that he was, on account of your view that seriously or chronically ill people are *unique* by virtue of their inability to bargain. But again acknowledging this would only be granting a preliminary point; I would still have a ways to go to reach my conclusion.

You really can't figure this out yourself?

Yea Clay, I've got it all figured out, I'm just doing this for shits and giggles. Why don't you educate me, since it's all so easy. Seriously...

Seriously, read through the short thread involving where I ask Jeff a couple questions. Then tell me what it is that's so obvious that I'm missing. Don't wait until the possible time where Jeff and I converge on an interesting insight, and declare "duh!" Show me now that you are more aware than I am about what's going on. I look forward to something really good and insightful, you know, like, not trite and obvious..

Quoting Jay J: No need to apologize for the personal information. I'm big on allowing personal, first-person experience to be a guide on what the world is like. And your personal experience is certainly relevant; I'm sure countless others have gone through similar things.

What I'm trying to do is pinpoint *precisely* where the disagreement lies. You're right that I have a leaning, but right now I give you my word that I'm really just trying to understand the motivation for the differing views. It could be that this is already obvious to most, but I can't help it, perhaps I'm a little slow. Seriously, I tend to focus on the conceptual background and underlying justifications, so it could be that I'm missing something right in front of my nose... That being said, if you'll indulge me a bit more I would appreciate it.

It's just that I think you're probably one of the ones that would be willing to acknowledge that there may be tradeoffs worth making, rather than doggedly committing to a position that *everyone* would be just as well off under a *comprehensive* universal system, or at least that the current message from the America left may

Oh OK. Well, in terms of how rationality is related to markets, we're playing with these terms after the word rational, "agent" on the one hand, "consumer" on the other... All I mean is that people have wants they desire to meet, and they shop around and get the best deal from whichever market is relevant in meeting these wants (at the very least, the market behaves as if people are rational in this way). in general, do we disagree that this is a useful heuristic? What I was getting at is that when it comes to non-catastrophic and non-chronic health care, people function the way they would in any market... So apparently I have to back the truck up a bit and say that perhaps we agree even less than I originally suspected. I had thought that you were asserting that people in chronic or truly life-threatening situations are in no position to behave as if they're consumers at all (if you did say that, it's something I happen to agree with). And if this is true, then apparently there are some health care consumers who are at the very least in less desperate

Quoting Jay J: Oh OK. Well, in terms of how rationality is related to markets, we're playing with these terms after the word rational, "agent" on the one hand, "consumer" on the other... All I mean is that people have wants they desire to meet, and they shop around and get the best deal from whichever market is relevant in meeting these wants (at the very least, the market behaves as if people are rational in this way). in general, do we disagree that this is a useful heuristic?

What I was getting at is that when it comes to non-catastrophic and non-chronic health care, people function the way they would in any market... So apparently I have to back the truck up a bit and say that perhaps we agree even less than I originally suspected. I had thought that you were asserting that people in chronic or truly life-threatening situations are in no position to behave as if they're consumers at all (if you did say that, it's something I happen to agree with). And if this is true, then apparently there are some health care consumers who are at the very least in less desperate

I'm not happy wth any idea that puts the chronically ill into a class separate from everybody else, so even if I were to grant existence of a class of "rational"consumers, I wouldn't be able to follow you to where I think this leads. Everything I've been saying has been in support of my belief that breaking us up into separate markets only benefits the providers and the segment who are currently healthy. Belonging to that latter class today, doesn't guarantee what your interests will be tomorrow. What's "rational" in one set of circumstances isn't congruent with what's "rational" in the other. Those interests are, in some ways, in direct conflict. Market solutions tend to play those interests off of each other. That creates forces favoring those with the simplest needs. But, membership in the favored class is provisional. Once you leave, there's no return. (Even a complete return to full health will not change your status.) And, you really have no control over whether you'll make such a transition.

Jeff, I think I must be doing a very bad job of communicating, or you're assuming that I'm smarter than I am, because it doesn't seem like your post is

Quoting Jay J: Jeff,

I think I must be doing a very bad job of communicating, or you're assuming that I'm smarter than I am, because it doesn't seem like your post is even tailored to what I'm saying Milton Friedman proposed. So perhaps I've implied something I didn't mean to, or your response is so abstract as to go over my head, (I'm still waiting on claymisher to enlighten me, BTW, which is another matter). I'm not thoroughly familiar with what Friedman proposed, but I think I've got a good grasp of the fundamentals:

People pay for their medical care out of pocket. When they incur sudden costs that break some threshold, the government picks up the tab. So, if I am diagnosed with cancer, the government then pays for my care, which would include the long-term costs associated with my cancer (the government would also probably have a list of ailments which would automatically prompt coverage).

So I'm not sure how breaking people into segments benefits healthy people; they're the ones who have to pay for their own care, which since they're healthy, would generally involve splints and slings and allergy pills and inhalers, etc, etc. If anything, I would think you would

No problem man. FWIW, I am a "tax and spend liberal" insofar as I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against high taxes (not in the abstract at least) and I can envision being supportive of social programs that cost us quite a bit. But I usually have some concerns about proposed social programs and these concerns are often motivated, at least in part, by my acceptance of the basics of standard economic theory. So I guess that makes me a 'neo-liberal' (Irving Kirtol's criterion "a neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality; a neo-liberal is a liberal who has been mugged by reality but hasn't pressed charges" would fit me as well, I think).

So what you advocate is Medicaid for everyone. What we have now is those with insurance that covers their catastrophic events, those that don't have insurance that are financially able to afford insurance but don't and then have to pay for the catastrophic events either willingly or through the coercion of the courts, and those that are just too poor whose catastrophic events are paid for by the taxpayers.

What I am leaning heavily toward is the proposition that regular, short term medical costs are precisely what should not be free to the individual consumer. As for Medicaid, well, I'm not sure. Does Medicaid cover what we consider to be short term or less serious medical costs, stuff like crutches, allergy pills, inhalers, etc? If so, then no, I'm not proposing medicaid for everyone. Also, does Medicaid fully cover the long term costs of folks with things like cancer? If so, then there is at least one sense in which what I'm attracted to is importantly similar to Medicaid.

Not being an expert in all things Medicaid I can't answer the questions in detail. I can provide this anecdote. I have a friend that has extremely high cholesterol, which is probably genetic in nature. Before he had his heart attack there was no agency or program available to him that would cover the cost of the medicines necessary to treat his condition. This lead to the inevitable heart attack. Thankfully it was a mild one but Medicaid covered the costs of the hospitalization and immediate treatment and now covers the costs of the drugs he takes to control his cholesterol level. I know that some long term treatments are covered such as diabetes and sickle cell as for others it is probably hit and miss and state by state.

personally, i like your idea. at some level of expense, people's health care is automatically paid for out of a single-payer, tax funded insurance program. before that point, markets are more important. To get there i think you would have to bring transparency to those markets. right now it is impossible to do comparison shopping because because each doctor/hospital/procedure has a different price depending on your coverage - not the product you want to consume. combined with some sort of E.I.T.C. type tax instrument to help the really poor have access to basic health care- it might work, not be immoral, and be somewhat market-driven. is that at all like what you are thinking about?

I would second you motion if it included the ability to buy policies people wanted not ones dictated by the particular state you live in, and meaningful tort reform.