blurpy

all right all right, it is pretty sick. score a major coup for KomradeKaskadeKlimber. honestly, that used to be a nonsense word, but has apparently, err, taken on a new meaning. so, now it is time to importune the gods of this little universe, requesting a name change to something a little less offensive. dear gods, please help me...

finally, something the kaskadeklimber can understand. now we're talking.

For many closed dark spaces, even a low-wattage appliance bulb is of sufficient brilliance. well, i'm happy it worked, even for you.

In the UK there are private analogues to NHS, and many people purchase private insurance to supplement what they pay for through their taxes. One of the major benefits of universal coverage, if we can figure out how to do it, is the economic stimulus that will result when people are no longer tied to jobs simply for the healthcare benefits. It will also become a boon for small businesses and new businesses. Having been involved with two technology startups I can attest to the millstone that healthcare worries create. Not only is it very hard to afford coverage for employees, it is very hard to attract people in the first place. They may not be too concerned about less pay, or potential disruptions in pay, but few can afford to be without health coverage or with reduced health coverage, especially if they have families. So, in addition, to the social benefits there are real economic benefits to solving this problem. btw, mattp, i applaud your persistence with the knuckleheads. they are clearly uninterested or incapable of sustained, rational conversation. there are those of us out here, though, who read your comments and find them illuminating.

Stated as you did, it's not. Mattp's expressed desire for a government monopolized system has caused me to brush you with his contaminated paint. and you expressed a desire for US to ditch the allies in europe you red fuck. why don't go and suck putin's cock. the reality is you are just a stupid fuckwad and your mom boning high school football team. a classic example, that syphilis and pregnancy don't mix. You remind me of that little creature that sits on Jaba The Hut's lap in the movie Star Wars. ...and you remind everyone else of Jabba the Hutt...

Yes, the gov't needs to bus lardasses up to the Mt. Si trailhead every weekend, and force them up and down the hill with an R.Lee Ermey style "motivational speaker" on their heels. all right smartypants, who is going to pay for the fuel, the drivers, the 'motivational speaker' and the wear and tear from hauling all those fat bums around? my tax dollars? are you kidding? I've got you pegged, friend, you're a commie, pinko, socialist douchebag aren't you! I knew it all along. You Obamalama lover. You're just a sheep in wolf's clothing. go sell your commie, pinko schemes somewhere else, buddy, like Cuba or something. Why don't you smoke Fidel's cigar while you're there.

ok, now we're getting somewhere. the obesity epidemic across the country (illustrated in CA in this case) is burdensome to the healthcare system, and the uninsured (again, in one area, but probably can be extrapolated) are part of a trend that some suggest will overwhelm the healthcare system (at least in those areas) in a matter of years. keep 'em coming....

can you explain what the cost of malpractice insurance is, and what part that plays in the overall economy? I doubt he'll respond. It has been well established that the Republican hype about malpractice lawsuits being the root cause of all that is wrong or even much of what is wrong with our medical system is overbloated hype and pandering to folks who are not interested in facts, figures, or real discussion. I never said that. I cited it as ONE factor, albeit a significant one in the higher costs of medical care. And it's not just malpractice insurance or lawsuits (settlements). The FEAR of lawsuit drives health care providers to go way overboard in providing extra services and care - often unneeded to AVOID lawsuits. Keep the machine plugged in, pump in those expensive drugs - you would not want to be sued, after all. Never mind that Uncle John was an obese fuck whose arteries were clogged by a few thousand pounds of ingested lard over his lifetime, if he dies, it's the doctor's fault, damn it! Speaking of which, unhealthy people raise our costs, as do an aging population - a less and less healthy, aging population. Then there's the freeloaders who don't buy insurance, and suck off the teat of big government, visit emergency rooms, call the ambulance because they're "lonely", excessively use an overburdened system. I know people who work in the health care industry and hear all the stories. Anyways, I'm sick of your bullshit, MattP. Time for you to go on ignore for a while - you're a waste of time. All right then, so malpractice (or the fear of a suit) is a significant factor. How significant? You should be able to express that in terms of the percentage of dollars spent on healthcare, or a percentage of GDP or somesuch. Perhaps you have some evidence the GAO or the CBO didn't have? That was 2004, so perhaps new evidence has come to light. These other items you cite may well be factors too - unhealthy population, uninsured 'freeloaders', aging people. Can you establish just how common and significant they are, and how much of a drain they represent? And, if true, don't they demonstrate that there is a problem in the healthcare arena that we as a society ought to address?

I'll bet those other countries don't have such high malpractice insurance and rapacious lawyers. Reform indeed! perhaps you have a point. according to factcheck.org, bush didn't when he made a similar claim back in 2004: FactCheck.org can you explain what the cost of malpractice insurance is, and what part that plays in the overall economy?

sounds like 'voodoo economics' to me. big deal.

Great summary. These are hard questions that require pragmatism and thoughtfulness to address. Reducing them to slogans helps no one. I like the government telling me what to do / not do, or how to spend my money as little as the next guy, meaning, I don't always like the constraints placed upon me by living in a society. But you cannot have the one without the other, and humans are fallible, so we continue trying to figure it out. A little 'I don't know' goes a long way...

It is curious, and a bit frightening, that some voters become so attached to a personality or fixated on a single issue that they are unable to step back and see the forest. In perusing reader comments at the nytimes, I see similar sentiments expressed, though they seem to be a minority of comments. I wonder how many will actually vote the way they talk now. They sound so categorical, like there is no more deciding to do. I guess we'll see. Maybe its the interwebs talking....

hey, moise, you gotta quit abusing the fruit of your own loins this way. swampwhore? c'mon, it isn't miriam's fault. you forced her!

Someone said here recently that these guys were all dead. So what is this, a hoax or life after death? Linky

Here we go. I assume you're talking about the old guy and not Obama, who was in what, 2nd grade when that was going on? This is more of the right-wingers vacant attempts to conduct the usual character assination. Damn. When we have so many serious issues to put on the table and debate it's pathetic that this kinda crap comes up every election cycle. And no, I'm not confident in the ability of Americans to filter this stuff and critically analyze the issues. Look who was voted in for two terms. Gotta laugh at how you simultaneously mockingly refer to McCain as the "old guy" and then whine like a little girl about "character assassination" w/r/t your candidate. Typical libturd hypocrisy. ummm, i think he was talking about the mr ayers, not mccain..... would this qualify as a typical right-wing knee-jerk?

hmmmm, not sure i follow. the big, glitzy attack on US soil has happened once, but the smaller 'strap on a bomb and walk to the market' variety have been a nearly daily occurrence. Granted, fewer people die per incident, and there have been fewer of them lately than, say, a year ago. But I think it is reasonable to conclude that those are easier to pull off than the US attack. The main point, though, is that because of our war of choice in Iraq, Al Qaida (and others) don't need to go to the bother of trying to hit the US proper (which is hard), yet they still get to make progaganda points and kill Americans. That is the gift we gave them. fifth, to continue the lecture, cherry-picking and intentionally ignoring the point are stock-in-trade here, I get that, but you've got to be more clever about it....

ummm...first, I said 'less risk', not 'low risk'. i might also have added 'and a greater likelihood of success'. strapping on a bomb in najaf or baghdad and successfully killing a bunch of people (including American soldiers) is frankly easier than trying to do so in, say, DC or New York. Planting a bomb in the middle of the street and setting it off with your cell phone when a humvee is over it is frankly easier than trying to do same in the United States. second, I don't think you are aware of how irrelevant being 'shitty' or good 'at war' is in this case. think about it. take your time. third, I honestly believe the things I am writing here, even though this is spray. we human types are quite adept at self-deception, groupthink, distraction from important things, etc. and I'm certainly no different. So if you can point out where i have erred in my logic, missed important details, ignored an important perspective, then I'll be the first to try to learn from that. But you've got to try harder... fourth, I see that I am now a 'journeyman', due I suppose to my important contributions to this site. Does this mean that when I lie about what grade I am capable of climbing, that people will believe me?

read the news. And sorry, but I can't take anyone seriously with the name "blurpy". well, what if my name were KookyKlaptrapKrap? Would you take me seriously then? i'm off now to reading 101. this 'news' thing you speak of, sounds interesting, and perhaps enlightening. where will i find it?

Sorry, but your simplistic analysis is not playing out. ow! ow! ow! the force of your logic and erudition have turned all my arguments to sawdust. I should have known better.

And you are saying a 20:1 kill ratio is losing? Well, let me see. Take the Arab population of the Middle East, multiply by percentage of males under the age of 20, by the percentage of that number who have few economic prospects, and then by the number who believe their very culture is under attack by the West (doesn't matter whether that is true, just what they believe). ummm, yeah, 20:1 is losing. Your 'military doctrine' is a bit out of date. Unless you are prepard to turn the entire Middle East to glass, then any talk of kill ratios (as though this were a set piece fight) is irrelevant.

And we can pick off Al Qaeda. No need to go to them, they come to us. You are arguing FOR an occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda can and does recruit new members, however, they have been decimated in their fight against us in Iraq. Most of their leaders are dead, and now violence is down. Hmm... hah! you must be thinking that by killing 20 of theirs for every one of ours that we're somehow winning. don't think so. they aren't nazi germany, nor are they the soviet union. how many of those dirty, evil (commie, even) VC did we kill for every dead American in Vietnam? The 'body count' was very much in 'our' favor, yet how did that turn out? as to the level of violence, much of it was based on the reckless release of inter-tribal hatreds, and a fair amount of that has burnt itself out for now. and I don't know how you can say that most of Al Qaida's leaders are dead. How do you know that? And even if it were true, does it matter? Does that mean that Al Qaida have been crippled? again, i don't think so.

Lame. Clearly we SHOULD be concerned about whether our government's actions are making us safer or not, and we SHOULD NOT rely upon the "intelligence community" to tell us the answers. Has there been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? From Al Qaida's perspective there doesn't need to be. The US government created (and, through incompetence, nurtured) chaos in an Arab country that had nothing to do with 9/11. They also shipped 150,000 or so high-value targets into that chaos (too few to do the job, too little armour, etc.). The extremists have happily obliged by killing several thousand of them. What a gift! Al Qaida (and others) can pick off Americans (military ones, no less) with far less risk than attacking the US proper, while the Americans 'prove' to man in the Arab street that they are in fact the aggressive, imperialistic thugs the extremists say they are. The next generation of terrorists recruited and trained, courtesy of W, Rumsfeld and Cheney. And you cite that situation as 'proof' that something is working?

The chances of adverse danger are much greater in mountaineering than most other things we could be doing and we know that going in. That would seem to be a good place to draw a line. I love climbing! But I do it for myself. It leaves me with a great amount of self pride and I get a feeling of accomplishment. It gets me into the most beautiful country anyone can imagine. I don’t go into it telling myself I need a fix on those things, but do you see a pattern here? Me, me, me. It really doesn't do anything for my wife who doesn't climb. self-ish: concerned only or primarily with oneself without regard for others. Seems to fit me anyways. Maybe I’m the only one... I would like to clarify that when I said I agree, I agree with Fairweather's post and not the author of that piece. well, i suppose there is 'selfishness' (face it, it makes the world go round) and then there is 'irresponsible selfishness'. it would be, for example, irresponsibly selfish for me to climb K2 for a few reasons. To raise the funds I'd need to mortgage my house, placing my family at financial risk. I would also be placing others in needless danger because I haven't the skills or experience to take on something like that, especially if something goes wrong. Moreover, I have two young children and a wife, all of whom seem interested (for now anyway) in keeping me around. So for me, more moderate goals like Hood (maybe Rainier someday) are suitable, and while 'selfish' they are not irresponsibly so. is it irresponsibly selfish for anyone to climb K2? I don't think so, yet that is the assertion this woman has made, and which Fairweather seems to support (apologies if i'm mis-characterizing you). and besides, you never know, your wife might selfishly enjoy getting that hairy, smelly lout out of the house for a few days every now and then.

She's correct. uh, which part? that 11 mountaineers died on some peak she'd never heard of, or that women don't climb mountains? That climbing a big mountain like K2 (or any dangerous peak) serves no purpose and that "heroism" has better definitions already available. I think it was Mallory's son who recounted later in his life that as a boy he didn't understand or care that his father would be a climbing hero and legend--only that his dad never came home. serves no purpose? serves no purpose, perhaps, that she can fathom. i'd posit that there might be 'purposes' served by such activities that are not strictly utilitarian. she even makes the point herself, though she doesn't realize it: 'Salute! We used to send such men out to explore new continents, conquer frontiers or defeat the barbarians' heroism? is that the only motivator for hiking, climbing, mountaineering? is everyman trying to prove something to others each time he engages in such frivolity? selfishness. this can be pressed to extremes in either direction, i suppose, but couldn't you assert that any activity not directly related to the acquisition of food/shelter (in reasonable amounts, mind you) is 'selfish', especially if any level of risk is involved? Let us suppose that today your are going to travel to Beacon Rock and hike to the top. Now suppose that some doorknob above you (no shortage there) trundles a stone (i've seen 30 pounders knocked down / thrown down by teenages who won't keep to the trail) which kills you. Have you now been killed in the selfish and useless pursuit of 'heroism', and thus needlessly deprived your friends and family of your presence (and economic support). Like I said, such arguments can be pressed to extremes, but where do we draw the line? The woman who wrote this note clearly doesn't get much of what she is talking about, and she draws easy (and specious) comparisons in order to express her righteous rage about this ridiculous, selfish waste, and lets her get on to her true purpose, bashing men. Once she realizes that many women have climbed (and died on) K2 and other peaks, and once she admits the possibility that the troops in Iraq are there in large part to protect her own selfish interests (which she probably wouldn't do), then she might, possibly, admit that her statement is vapid, insipid, insulting and banal. I'm not holding my breath though.

She's correct. uh, which part? that 11 mountaineers died on some peak she'd never heard of, or that women don't climb mountains?