Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Thursday, May 4, 2017

dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 09:04AM -0700

Shitty for regular americans but a big political win for the left.
 
If you thought "you can keep your doctor" got a lot of play, wait till "pre-existing conditions will be covered" hits the charts.
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 10:11AM -0700

> Shitty for regular americans but a big political win for the left.
 
> If you thought "you can keep your doctor" got a lot of play, wait till "pre-existing conditions will be covered" hits the charts.
 
> Cheers.
 
Don't be so sure it passes
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 10:41AM -0700

I think it'll get through the house. Not so sure about the senate.
 
Cheers.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 04 08:21AM -0500


> In fact, that is the reason there are so many "round earth" studies.
> It's where the money is. If there was a lot on the other side, you'd
> see a lot of studies on the there. You don't.
 
More attempts at red herrings. Amazing.
 
OK, here is a reasoned argument from a real scientist. I will leave
you with that. You won't understand, I am sure -- your progressive
political religious belief system doesn't allow it. But you'll have
the info, in an accessible form, from an MIT scientist of renown.
You will really have no excuse for being so wrongheaded if you claim
to know and honor science.
 
http://bit.ly/2qIKdHE
 
--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 07:12AM -0700

Guy disagrees with claims that the oceans are becoming more acidic thusly:
 
"In point of fact, the ocean is basic rather than acidic (ie, its ph is always appreciably higher than 7, and there is no possibility of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 bringing it down to 7; note that ph is a measure of acidity or basicness: values greater than 7 are basic and less than 7 acid.), and the purported changes simply refer to making the ocean a bit less basic."
 
So it's not that they're becoming more acidic. They're just becoming less basic.
 
Since you wanted to point out that he's an mit prof, it's worth calling out that every other member of his department at mit put their name to a letter saying they believe his interpretations are wrong:
 
http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump
 
Good on mit for having both views represented in their department, though.
 
No one expects or demands absolute concensus. Science needs skepticism to keep it from becoming religion.
 
Anyhow, interesting article. Worth reading even if there are a couple passages like the one I quoted that are sort of eye roll worthy.
 
Cheers.
JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com>: May 04 07:36AM -0700


> So it's not that they're becoming more acidic. They're just becoming less basic.
 
> Since you wanted to point out that he's an mit prof, it's worth calling out that every other member of his department at mit put their name to a letter saying they believe his interpretations are wrong:
 
> http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump
 
I see this guy is among the signatories:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 04 09:40AM -0500


>> http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump
 
> I see this guy is among the signatories:
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
 
Here you are, trying to do science by consensus again. Science doesn't operate
by consensus.
 
You guys are tiresome. You *should* know that this is fallacious, yet in response
to real argument and evidence you wheel out the same old fallacies. In a debate,
you've lost. Period.
 
 
--
My children didn't have my advantages; I was born into
abject poverty. -- Kirk Douglas
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 08:38AM -0700

So, con, what science have you done here? You know, other than preferring the minority opinion because it matches your political biases.
 
I assume you've analyzed data - what are you using, R? Python with scipy / numpy / pandas? Slinging some scala w/ spark?
 
Surely you're not doing your deep independent analysis using excel?
 
Sort of hypocritical to simultaneously whine and cry that other views aren't being heard on this issue, then declare the debate over and yourself the victor. Just a thought.
 
"Let me prove it with an appeal to authority!"
 
"Ok, all these other equivalent authorities come to a different conclusion, though..."
 
"Science isn't about consensus!".
 
Dude, science isn't *settled* by consensus, but consensus does have meaning.
 
https://ncse.com/project-steve
 
Cheers.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 08:44AM -0700

That's also an interesting article (jgibson) - worth reading both that and the one con linked.
 
Only 6% of scientists identify as conservative? Compared to 55% identifying as liberal?
 
That itself would be interesting to study and understand.
 
Cheers.
"Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" <damonhynes@gmail.com>: May 04 10:29AM -0700

Follow the (grant) money.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 10:40AM -0700

How so, damon? Please give me some details - point me to refuted studies that were falsified in the pursuit of grant money.
 
Here, I'll start:
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22223190
 
Oh, wait, that was the big analysis that conservatives always rolled out to back "austerity measures". Oops.
 
In that case, it was a PhD student planning to confirm the initial conclusions... but the data didn't hold up.
 
Shouldn't there be a bunch of similar instances for climate change? Would be a great way for an enterprising PhD candidate to make their name.
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 09:50AM -0700


> "After his slobbering wet kiss to federal bureaucracy, Mr. Kimmel then went squealing on about Obamacare and how insurance companies, the government and your neighbors should all be forced to pay for everybody else's health care," the conservative wrote. "Easy thing to say for a gazillionaire from Hollywood."
 
> "I mean, really, Jimmy, does your newborn child not mean more to you than petty politics? How do you look at the miracle of your child and think — partisan politics?" Hurt added.
 
> Cheers.
 
This whole Jimmy Kimmel thing brings up some interesting philosophical points - such as how much should be pay of our health care - and should the rich, like Mr. Kimmel - pay more - especially since they're able to.
 
You often hear of parents saying "I'd die trying to protect my children" - and yet....will they spend money?
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 09:58AM -0700

In my experience, absolutely. Parents will take on additional jobs and/or spend themselves into enormous debt to keep their kids healthy and alive, even when cold logic (spending 100k on the mere chance of a few extra months) would suggest the benefit doesn't meet the cost.
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 10:00AM -0700

> In my experience, absolutely. Parents will take on additional jobs and/or spend themselves into enormous debt to keep their kids healthy and alive, even when cold logic (spending 100k on the mere chance of a few extra months) would suggest the benefit doesn't meet the cost.
 
I'd like to agree with you on this - but this is very much not the take I'm getting from the whole Kimmel thing - which seems to be "yay insurance" for someone making $10 large year.
 
this is why, if I were king, there'd be a minimum deductible of 10% AGI
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 10:24AM -0700

Do you think that dude making 10k a year just doesn't want to make 200k a year? But once their child is sick that'll be enough motivation?
 
I interpret what he's saying a little differently. Like "imagine a society where a schoolteacher doesn't have to go 100k in debt (which we're never gonna recover anyways, which results in higher hc costs for you and I and said teacher filing for bankruptcy) and pick up night shifts at piggy wiggly because their child was born with a heart condition".
 
Also "and that child won't spend the rest of their lives paying 10x what you or I spend on insurance because they happened to be born with a heart condition".
 
Which is something pretty much every other affluent country seems to manage. Don't know why it's so hard for us to figure out.
 
I think the same principles around capitalism often pushing companies to over value short vs long term planning is at play here. It's absolutely beneficial (imo) to make sure the vast majority of our kids grow up with great hc and educational opportunities. But the net result - having a strong pool of applicants 20 years out - doesn't improve this quarters statements, even though the costs are on there in red.
 
Anyways... I don't really care what happens today and I don't really care that conservatives simply cannot abide public support systems like ss, medi*, or obamacare. I think y'all are fighting the tide of history and trend just as much as, say, white nationalist parties. Only you're also fighting the trend that's elbowing like crazy - per capita production.
 
As we become wealthier and wealthier, I just don't see the "but it's cost prohibitive" argument standing up.
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 10:38AM -0700

> Do you think that dude making 10k a year just doesn't want to make 200k a year? But once their child is sick that'll be enough motivation?
 
Eh? Wrong spin - think Kimmel/upper middle class bashing - people who already HAVE money not willing to spend it - NOT incentive for the poor.
 
> I interpret what he's saying a little differently. Like "imagine a society where a schoolteacher doesn't have to go 100k in debt (which we're never gonna recover anyways, which results in higher hc costs for you and I and said teacher filing for bankruptcy) and pick up night shifts at piggy wiggly because their child was born with a heart condition".
 
Which gets back to my question - we talk a good game about sacrifices for our kids....

> Also "and that child won't spend the rest of their lives paying 10x what you or I spend on insurance because they happened to be born with a heart condition".
 
> Which is something pretty much every other affluent country seems to manage. Don't know why it's so hard for us to figure out.
 
Every other country ends up rationing - which we don't. And I'm pretty sure that most kids get taken care of anyway - and yes, you and I pay the bills.

> I think the same principles around capitalism often pushing companies to over value short vs long term planning is at play here. It's absolutely beneficial (imo) to make sure the vast majority of our kids grow up with great hc and educational opportunities. But the net result - having a strong pool of applicants 20 years out - doesn't improve this quarters statements, even though the costs are on there in red.
 
> Anyways... I don't really care what happens today and I don't really care that conservatives simply cannot abide public support systems like ss, medi*, or obamacare. I think y'all are fighting the tide of history and trend just as much as, say, white nationalist parties. Only you're also fighting the trend that's elbowing like crazy - per capita production.
 
> As we become wealthier and wealthier, I just don't see the "but it's cost prohibitive" argument standing up.
 
B/c the cost is prohibitive w/o rationing somewhere/somehow
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 09:51AM -0700

by the amount of other people's money we're will to spend.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 09:54AM -0700

Couldn't you apply that logic to infrastructure (like roads), military spending, or anything else fed, state, or local governments spend money on?
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 09:57AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 11:51:44 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> by the amount of other people's money we're will to spend.
 
willING
 
fucking typo
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 09:58AM -0700

> Couldn't you apply that logic to infrastructure (like roads), military spending, or anything else fed, state, or local governments spend money on?
 
> Cheers.
 
Sure
 
Cept one is collective in usage, the other is not.
 
Food/housing would be a better analogy - everyone else should pay for MY steaks and 4 bedroom McMansion.
 
OTOH, food stamps and public housing - is this the sort of "health insurance/care" we want? Shamans and leeches for all?
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 10:32AM -0700

How is healthcare any more / less collective in utilization than roads? Some people use public roads a lot. Some very little. A few not at all.
 
Seems the same as hc to me...
 
To me, your analogy of steaks would be more like someone expecting us to pick up the costs for their calf, butt, and breast implants. Or demanding they get a private room at the hospital on our dime.
You don't have to eat *steak* or have your own room to live - plenty of cheaper alternatives.
 
Cheers.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 03 11:39PM -0500

>> > Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."
 
>> Thought exercise: Obama justice department is prosecuting someone for laughing at Eric Holder. Go!
 
> They'd also be prosecuting for a hate crime.
 
And now, of course, the rest of the story once you go past Daily Kos
and Puffington Host:
 
http://washex.am/2qHgqPK
 
--
The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying
employers must discriminate against people who have low skills.
-- Milton Friedman
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: May 04 10:29AM -0700

In article <065055d1-2086-4319-a991-88ca25e503fd@googlegroups.com>,
 
> The US Department of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at Jeff Sessions - Vox
> https://apple.news/AvzAXYJqzRZiluXsQGlJWnA
 
No, it is not.
 
--
Michael Press
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: May 04 10:16AM -0700

and sending out snarky tweets.....
 
You don't think GOPers saw that?
 
You don't think it emboldened the GOP to get this done?
 
Heck yes it did.
 
How's that burn going to feel in a bit senator menendez?
 
you mess with the bull...you just might get the horns.
 
We rammed it down there throat on gorsuch...about to do the same thing on health care. Taxes coming next.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 09:48AM -0700

Man, we're slipping
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment