Bush meets the press

[Natoma]

If rich people paid SS tax on all their income there would be no SS crisis.

If the excess funds made on SS taxes were not squandered there would be no SS crisis, but there is...

You make it sound like people aren't aware of this.

The problem is that this is politically untenable. You think the republicans and democrats would piss off their cash cows? Seriously.

 

[RussSchultz]

It is not a tax, per se (or wasn't set up to be that way). SS is set up to be a mandatory savings account.

You should get back-ish what you put in-ish. ( its not exactly "you get back what you put in" because of inflation, etc)

I have no problem having my 'tax' into it be capped, as my benefits out of it are capped.

And yes, SS itself has no problem supporting itself--its just when the funds end up in the general fund to 'balance' the budget and hence disappear into a big fat gaping hole, is when it becomes an untenable solution. (Well, that and the baby boomers had a lot less children than they should have to keep the 'ponzi' scheme going) In a steady state system, with SS funds not being raided, it would serve its purpose.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Err, correct me if I'm wrong here but Bush filed a friend of the court brief in the Michigan case last year, where he supported the repeal of AA, and hoped the SC would rule along those lines.

Bush wanted to eliminate anti-aliasing?!?!

He IS the anti-christ!

 

[Natoma]

Silly goose.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Silly goose.

Yup, it's now my semi-official job here. 8)

 

[John Reynolds]

Silly goose.

Yup, it's now my semi-official job here. 8)

That was a tough decision to make. Kiler put up some stiff competition for that honor.

 

[DemoCoder]

Pollution in our air, Pollution in our water, we're being irradiated at every turn, oh, and don't forget the obesity epidemic.

The sky is falling! What Balderdash. Before the 1940s, the primary problem with air and water was air and water borne disease, plus natural well pollution. Over the last 3 decades, air and water quality have been steady increasing, but the cancer rates have not gone down significantly (except those caused by smoking), the difference boils down to better access to health care and more accurate diagnoses.

And even if you look at cancer, about 1/3rd of them are self-inflicted (lung cancer/smoking and gastrointestinal), another group of them don't show up until near the end of life (e.g. prostate) You would have us believe our cell phones, electricity and microwave ovens are killing us. Puh-lease. Here again you've bought into another quack left "common sense" idea, that synthetic chemicals, wireless signals, magnetic fields, and food preservatives are responsible for a degradation of our health. If anything, they are responsible for our prolonged health.

Your own followup leads to the exact opposite reasoning: We are a nation of overeating, car driving, tv watching couch potatoes, who live unhealthy young and middle age lives, and then live extended old age lifes with expensive healthcare, treating us for all our super-size eating and smoking.

The first three certainly account for a proportion of the rise in sickness in americans

No, they account for an infinitestimal alteration of health. No one even knows what the true rate of cancer or pollution in people's bodies was 60 to 100 years ago, so there is no way to even account for a rise simply in diagnosis power.

No doubt, you can trot out some trumpted up EPA study that carpet in modern buildings shortens X number of people's lives per year, or asbestos increases lung cancer rates by Y. Yeah, and I've seen similar studies which show that the atmospheric nuclear tests from 50 years ago are still killing people. All noise. The vast majority of people are dying from bad diets, smoking, and sitting on their ass all day.

Leading cause of death: #1 Heart disease. No pollution involved. #2 Cancer (leading cancers: Lung Cancer. Self-inflicted pollution. Colorectal cancer. Genetics and diet suspected. Prostate IGF1 hormone and high fat diet suspected. Omega-3 (from fish diet) a potential protectant. Breast Cancer - no known links to any carcinogenic chemicals proven. Genetic basis suspected. Pregnancy before age 30 seems to protect against it. ) #3 Stroke. Then diabetes, and a bunch of insignificant ones after that.

This thread even posits an assertion that I'm not even sure is true: That we are getting sicker. The medicare rolls are filling up because people are living longer, not because they are sicker. As a nation, we are demanding more expensive drugs and treatments, not neccessarily because our health has deteriorated.

People always had arthritis for example, but now people demand Celebrex instead of aspirin. Is this because arthitis is worse nowadays, or because people want something that works better?


Human beings are living longer and longer. Our biological machines are not error free, and over 80 or a hundred years of continuous operation, the bugs in the system accumulate and get the best of us. It is no surprise to me that people in their 70s start getting obscure diseases that they didn't historically get in large numbers: Alzheimers, prostate cancer, etc. The reason we don't all live to 70 or 80 without heart disease or cancer has almost nothing to due with "radiation" and "pollution", the two bug bears of pseudoscienific environmental wacko luddites.

You are most likely going to die from heart disease or cancer, and the biggest thing you can do is to stop eating big macs, start walking more, and stop smoking. Getting rid of your mobile phone means you're more likely going to die from fear and stupidity.

 

[Vince]

#2 Cancer (leading cancers: Lung Cancer. Self-inflicted pollution. Colorectal cancer. Genetics and diet suspected. Prostate IGF1 hormone and high fat diet suspected. Omega-3 (from fish diet) a potential protectant. Breast Cancer - no known links to any carcinogenic chemicals proven. Genetic basis suspected. Pregnancy before age 30 seems to protect against it. )

I can't agree more with your post overall. Another interesting statistic pointed out by Paul Ewland, whom I believe is still at Amherst, is that contemporary medical researchers already agree that 10-15% of cancers have an infectious cause (this is just infectious, not counting genetic or dietary) - this is up from only ~1% roughly 20 years ago. In fact, there are only ~5% of Cancers in which an infectious cause can be ruled out - which could more easily fit the bound established by random genetic error induction and as you stated is an occurance which will happen more frequently as the mean age rises. Human's live a really long time nowadays.

To add to your list of possible pathogen's and causation of common illnesses:

Alzheimer's (Herpes Simplex 1, C. pneumoniae); Breast Cancer (Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus link, EBV); Prostate Cancer (Possible retroviral causation); Head & Neck Cancer (Human Papillomavirus); Nasopharyngeal Cancer (EBV); MS (Chlamydia pheumoniae); Atherosclerosis ( C. pneumoniae, Porphyromonas gingivalis, cytomegalovirus, Actinobacillus actinomycetocomitans); Bipolar Depression (BVD?!?)

He singled out Type 2 Diabetes - which is ironic as I just read an article a few weeks ago from John Hopkins I believe which talked about the strong correllation between increased incidence of Type2 mellitus onset and Hepatitis C. Who know's what other influences shall be found in the future that aren't strictly enviromental or rather a significant bias in it's onset.

So, to even suggest that enviromental causes - namely pollution - have anything to do with a rise in illness is so very unfounded at this point. By 2030/2040 our view of illness and it's cause will be so dramatically different than it is today - people like Natoma will be look back upon and laughed at just as we do the thinking of the Middle Ages. This is a specific topic I'd expect Penn & Teller to take on as they did the anti-logging enviromentalists.

 

[Natoma]

Pollution in our air, Pollution in our water, we're being irradiated at every turn, oh, and don't forget the obesity epidemic.

The sky is falling! What Balderdash. Before the 1940s, the primary problem with air and water was air and water borne disease, plus natural well pollution. Over the last 3 decades, air and water quality have been steady increasing, but the cancer rates have not gone down significantly (except those caused by smoking), the difference boils down to better access to health care and more accurate diagnoses.

And even if you look at cancer, about 1/3rd of them are self-inflicted (lung cancer/smoking and gastrointestinal), another group of them don't show up until near the end of life (e.g. prostate) You would have us believe our cell phones, electricity and microwave ovens are killing us. Puh-lease. Here again you've bought into another quack left "common sense" idea, that synthetic chemicals, wireless signals, magnetic fields, and food preservatives are responsible for a degradation of our health. If anything, they are responsible for our prolonged health.

Your own followup leads to the exact opposite reasoning: We are a nation of overeating, car driving, tv watching couch potatoes, who live unhealthy young and middle age lives, and then live extended old age lifes with expensive healthcare, treating us for all our super-size eating and smoking.

Ding-Ding-Ding!

* finger on nose.

Some people don't seem to catch sarcasm very well at all do they. But thanks for the meaningless diatribe.

Think long and hard why I went on and on about obesity in our nation and what it's doing to us health wise, and come back. You too Vince.

The first three certainly account for a proportion of the rise in sickness in americans

No, they account for an infinitestimal alteration of health. No one even knows what the true rate of cancer or pollution in people's bodies was 60 to 100 years ago, so there is no way to even account for a rise simply in diagnosis power.

No doubt, you can trot out some trumpted up EPA study that carpet in modern buildings shortens X number of people's lives per year, or asbestos increases lung cancer rates by Y. Yeah, and I've seen similar studies which show that the atmospheric nuclear tests from 50 years ago are still killing people. All noise. The vast majority of people are dying from bad diets, smoking, and sitting on their ass all day.

Leading cause of death: #1 Heart disease. No pollution involved. #2 Cancer (leading cancers: Lung Cancer. Self-inflicted pollution. Colorectal cancer. Genetics and diet suspected. Prostate IGF1 hormone and high fat diet suspected. Omega-3 (from fish diet) a potential protectant. Breast Cancer - no known links to any carcinogenic chemicals proven. Genetic basis suspected. Pregnancy before age 30 seems to protect against it. ) #3 Stroke. Then diabetes, and a bunch of insignificant ones after that.

This thread even posits an assertion that I'm not even sure is true: That we are getting sicker. The medicare rolls are filling up because people are living longer, not because they are sicker. As a nation, we are demanding more expensive drugs and treatments, not neccessarily because our health has deteriorated.

People always had arthritis for example, but now people demand Celebrex instead of aspirin. Is this because arthitis is worse nowadays, or because people want something that works better?


Human beings are living longer and longer. Our biological machines are not error free, and over 80 or a hundred years of continuous operation, the bugs in the system accumulate and get the best of us. It is no surprise to me that people in their 70s start getting obscure diseases that they didn't historically get in large numbers: Alzheimers, prostate cancer, etc. The reason we don't all live to 70 or 80 without heart disease or cancer has almost nothing to due with "radiation" and "pollution", the two bug bears of pseudoscienific environmental wacko luddites.

You are most likely going to die from heart disease or cancer, and the biggest thing you can do is to stop eating big macs, start walking more, and stop smoking. Getting rid of your mobile phone means you're more likely going to die from fear and stupidity.

Nice post. Unfortunately going off on a completely different tangent that completely, mind bogglingly, misses the point of the post you responded to.

Again... :?

 

[Natoma]

The reviews on Bush's performance keep rolling in.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/10/MNG0T4T1P21.DTL

Take the assessment by Peggy Noonan, the former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Bush's father and a strong backer of the president, who wrote Monday in the Wall Street Journal that the president had seen better moments.

Bush "seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse,'' she opined. "He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event.''

And GOP strategist Mike Murphy, who advised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger most recently, predicted to the National Journal's Hotline that "the White House's big, big stumble on 'Meet the Press' will dominate the narrative this week.''

...................

"It's not his best format,'' Schnur said. "There's no question he's much more comfortable in front of a large, supportive audience. But he had to send a signal to the Democrats and the broader political community that he was prepared to defend himself.''

I simply adore that last bit.

"There's no question he's much more comfortable in front of a large, supportive audience."



But the part that still gets me is with regard to the timing of the release of information regarding the intelligence failures. The british are getting their report out by July, so why is ours going to take so much longer, i.e. March 2005, 4 months after the election? Political coincidence? I think not.

Also, I found it ironic when Bush said that his only regret about the Vietnam war was that it was a war run by Politicians rather than the military. Well gee, the military commanders were requesting upwards of 400K troops while Don Rumsfeld overruled and ordered a force of only 150K. Yea we took over the country well enough, but we certainly haven't had enough troops to control the country. And that's just one instance where the white house overruled the Pentagon.

It's good to see republicans quaking in their boots about this fall election. Hopefully the movement that ousted incumbents throughout the nation in 2002 and 2003 will continue in 2004. It certainly seems we're headed in that direction.

 

[RussSchultz]

If Edwards was nominated, I wouldn't quake in my boots. Or at least he hasn't given me any reason to.

Kerry, on the other hand, scares the shit out of me. He's the absolute complete wrong thing that we need in the Whitehouse now with respect to foreign policy. Same thing with Dean, and Clark(because he's a bit of a nut, from what he says).

 

[Natoma]

If Edwards was nominated, I wouldn't quake in my boots. Or at least he hasn't given me any reason to.

But you yourself have admitted to not knowing what he's about either.

I underestimated him too frankly, and wrote him off about 5 months ago. Then I started listening to his proposals around December/January, and frankly it opened my eyes. You should try it.

 

[RussSchultz]

If Edwards was nominated, I wouldn't quake in my boots. Or at least he hasn't given me any reason to.

But you yourself have admitted to not knowing what he's about either.

Thats why I said "at least he hasn't given me any reason to"

I'm willing to think the best of people, before they prove me wrong. Kerry has already proven he's not what I respect in foreign policy, and a vote chaser, to boot.

 

[FUDie]

I liked the part about it not being the existance of weapons, or weapons programs, but merely the capacity to make weapons that took us to war. Yup, the cycle of lowered expectations continues. I can only shake my head and hope for the slow and steady implosion to continue right through election day.

Uh, I think the capacity was the weapons programs, which Kay has reported to be real and not missing in action like the actual weapons themselves.

If you have pseudophedrine at home, then you have the capacity to make methamphetamine. Does this mean we should raid your home since you have this capacity?

In law, having the capacity to commit a crime is not enough to prove you guilty of a crime (owning a gun doesn't make you a killer), it's intent or actions that make you a criminal.

-FUDie

 

[RussSchultz]

It takes more than pseudophedrine to make meth, if thats the analogy you'd like to make. And Saddam had plenty of what it took, along with the intent to do it.

 

[Natoma]

It takes more than pseudophedrine to make meth, if thats the analogy you'd like to make. And Saddam had plenty of what it took, along with the intent to do it.

Not after 1998, according to Kay.

 

[RussSchultz]

It takes more than pseudophedrine to make meth, if thats the analogy you'd like to make. And Saddam had plenty of what it took, along with the intent to do it.

Not after 1998, according to Kay.

The intent, or the tools?

Without sanctions, tools are easy to get. Sanctions were on their way out (per the EU and other critics who perhaps were bought off), and doing more harm to the average Iraqi than the regime.

 

[Natoma]

It takes more than pseudophedrine to make meth, if thats the analogy you'd like to make. And Saddam had plenty of what it took, along with the intent to do it.

Not after 1998, according to Kay.

The intent, or the tools?

Without sanctions, tools are easy to get. Sanctions were on their way out (per the EU and other critics who perhaps were bought off), and doing more harm to the average Iraqi than the regime.

The tools. Intent is a very difficult thing to gauge.

But that's what the UN Inspections in 2003 were for. To gauge the tools and the intent by talking to the locals. They found neither the intent nor the tools during their limited time there before they were kicked out, and apparently neither have we after our extended time there.

That in and of itself does put a blot on the prime reason we went to war. But then, we've been down this path before, so there's no need to go over it yet again.

 

[RussSchultz]

They found neither the intent nor the tools during their limited time there before they were kicked out, and apparently neither have we after our extended time there.

You're completely bonkers and have apparently checked out of reality if you believe that.

 

[zidane1strife]

Hmmm, I've got another question...

Members of the President's Council on Bioethics

Leon R. Kass, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman Addie Clark Harding Professor, The College and the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago. Hertog Fellow, American Enterprise Institute.

Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco

Rebecca S. Dresser, J.D., M.S. Daniel Noyes Kirby Professor of Law and Professor of Ethics in Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis.

Daniel W. Foster, M.D. Donald W. Seldin Distinguished Chair in Internal Medicine, Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School..

Francis Fukuyama, Ph.D. Dean of the Faculty, Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.

Michael S. Gazzaniga, Ph.D. Dean of the Faculty, David T. McLaughlin Distinguished Professor, Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College.

Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil. McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University.

Mary Ann Glendon, J.D., M. Comp. L. Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University.

Alfonso Gómez-Lobo, Dr. Phil. Ryan Family Professor of Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy, Georgetown University.

William B. Hurlbut, M.D. Consulting Professor in Human Biology, Stanford University.

Charles Krauthammer, M.D. Syndicated Columnist.

William F. May, Ph.D. Fellow, Institute for Practical Ethics and Public Life. Visiting Professor, Department of Religious Studies, University of Virginia.

Paul McHugh, M.D. University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Professor, Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Heath, Johns Hopkins University.

Gilbert C. Meilaender, Ph.D. Phyllis & Richard Duesenberg Professor of Christian Ethics, Valparaiso University.

Janet D. Rowley, M.D. Blum-Riese Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, and Human Genetics, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago.

Michael J. Sandel, D.Phil. Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government, Harvard University.

James Q. Wilson, Ph.D.
James A. Collins Professor of Management and Public Policy Emeritus, University of California-Los Angeles. Reagan Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University.

Is that real?