Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

I've grown tired of your posts. Instead of making life miserable for
everyone else posting the same line over and over again without even
cutting quoted material like you do, I am engaging the kill file.
I suggest you implement this method in the future.

 

Quit crossposting, idiot.

 

But 'supplementing' means replacing fossil fuels; just not replacing
100% of fossil fuels. If we 'supplement' fossil fuels with wind power,
hydropower, solar power, cogeneration, etc. wherever such technologies
are appropriate, we will replace a large fraction of our fossil fuel
use.

But nuclear resembles fossil fuels in being centralized in production
and delivery, nonrenewable, dangerous to labor and environment both to
mine, and requiring a lot of effort to keep some very unfortunate
byproducts from finding their way into my body. What works OK for a
top-down heirarchical autocracy with absolute responsibility at each
level, like the US Navy nuclear sub fleet, probably will not fly in
the world of competing for lowest price and biggest corporate
dividends.

What is largely needed is a decentralization of power generation as
much as possible; instead of replacing big oil-fired generators that
produce electricity that gets run across the country to heat up your
water with big solar collectors that produce electricity that gets run
across the country to heat up your water, replace them with solar
collectors on your roof that heat up your water as much as possible,
and supplement that with electricity or fuel burning or whatever where
necessary.

Of course, that is not going to make the power corporations happy,
since they all know that you make more money selling razor blades than
selling razors, and you make more money selling electricity than
selling solar roof panels. And that in trun will make politicians
unhappy, since little solar panel companies are not in the habit of
making big campaign donations the way big energy companies do.

 

Dialysis patients get low-cost or free dialysis from medical centers (this
procedure need not be done at a hospital) every day.

 

That would depend on the doctor, wouldn't it? If the doctor realized
that it was serious there's no reason why the angioplasty wouldn't
have been performed.

Sure, if you can afford it. I can understand why you don't want to
mess with the system when you can afford to benefit from it.

Then why are you running it down?

It can't lower the quality of care for everyone, as some have
effectively no care at all.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Then we agree.

They're the most prominent voice against it right now.

That's not an explanation of why gay marriage rankles, it's an
explanation of what gay marriage is.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc N California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc S California NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Shield of CA Access NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Blue Boston, Mass NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HMO Illinois NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tennessee Health Care Network NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HIP Health Plan of NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Tufts Health Plan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
HarvardPilgrim Health Care NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Triple S San Juan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Care Network of Michigan NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO
Blue Choice Rochester NY NOT-FOR-PROFIT HMO

Wrong. What was your source for this factoid?

Some drugs are helped with tax funded research, some aren't. Nearly all research
doesn't yield a dime of profits. One successful drug in a career makes a
successful career. Without the hope of profits there is no incentive to spend
billions of capital in research.

That's because drugs have gigantice fixed costs, but little variable costs.
That's why generics can be made cheaply AFTER the drug is invented.

Where did you get that factoid? Some drugs are funded with government funds where
the risk is too high to justify capital spending, some aren't. The government
spends money on university research on tons of things, not just drugs.

Well, haven't you?

Any number of reasons. Why do people like retiring where they are from? You
certainly presented no evidence

To bypass the US market and illegally import drugs. .

 

And yet, again, bus loads of people come to the US from Canada to have
procedures like this performed at their own expense raher than wait 6 months
for it in Canada. Your claims do not explain why these people are not
receiving the free care you boast of.

Who can afford it. You pay for your health care with every paycheck through
taxes, I pay insurance. If I could not afford insurance there are plenty of
options available that would still let me get treated immediately. The only
true difference is I will never be put on hold for a procedure because there
is not enough money in the budget.

Because it is inferior, IMHO, to ours, and Liberals like Lloyd refuse to see
it.

Everyone has care available in the US if they need it.

 

To use a word that even you can comprehend: Liar. More on point, you couldn't even
try to substantiate your silly slanders. Yes, that's why Daniel Pearl was killed,
Parker, because he was running around the world championing business for WSJ. The
WSJ has been railing about improper business practices for over a century. They
reported the details of Enron when other publications couldn't even explain the
basics of the scandal. Its writers even published an in depth book in addition to
their newspaper articles. Recently they have been documented questionable
practices by the alcohol industry. Their description of the recent mutual fund
scandals hasn't been "pro business" at all, but has exposed the improper
activities of business and put it in the spotlight. When the former leader of
Tyco stole company funds to host extravagant parties in Sardinia, he told his
staff to keep it quiet so it he wouldn't "read about it on the front page of the
Wall Street Journal". Which is exactly where that scandal was printed.

So in other words even you can't defend Clinton EPA's horrid record with actually
following the written statue, so you attack the messenger. Back to the earlier
topic, the Clean Air Act only requires "Best Available Control Technlogy (BACT)
for new sources. Old plants undergoing mere maintenance don't meet the
"substantial modification" requirement of the actual law.

To quote the article,

"Consider a 1997 strategy memo stamped
"ENFORCEMENT/SENSITIVE" in which EPA staffers complain
that "30 year old power plants are operating longer
and more efficiently than ever." Rather than respond
to any evidence of wrongdoing, they propose to
"identify a manageable number of facilities (25) that
appear particularly deserving of . . . scrutiny." In
sum: "Our intent is to investigate this industry in a
way quite different [emphasis added] from earlier,
more traditional, inspections."

In a 1999 document -- an account of a meeting attended
by EPA and Justice Department officials -- an EPA
representative notes the extent to which "the
Administrator [Ms. Browner] is `emotionally and
professionally' invested in these cases." The official
notes that "the latest NSR proposals are `way greener'
than before," and apparently aware of the scrutiny the
change will draw, warns the others "do not use e-mail
for anything you might not want a congressman or a
magistrate to see."

Yup, that's sure an EPA on the up-and-up. It continues,

An agency manual on "How to Investigate and Prepare a
PSD/NSR Case," meanwhile, contains this charming
political suggestion: "Depositions are open to the
public. Bring lots of people on your side. This can be
very intimidating."

Wrong. Many companies were listed on NYSE long before DCX existed. But earlier
you said, ""DC stock is still listed on the NYSE, as is no other stock of a
company not headquartered in the US." You're waffling, but your waffle is wrong
too.

The first "GLOBAL SHARE". Not the first foreign NYSE listed stock, which is what
you were talking about. Global share is a new entity, but That is like saying the
first LLC is the first company in the US, even though LLCs have only been around
for a few years now. Foreign companies have been listed on NYSE long before DCX
was dreamt of.

 

Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
reasons.

DS

 

Wrong. Modifications are ok, as long as they are not "substantial
modifications." To do otherwise would be to hand a perverse incentive to industry
to not do minor modifications and keep the status quo least efficient and most
polluting operations.

 

Fortunately the letter of actual law does not, only the Clinton EPA did (+
Lloyd Parker).

 

The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously isn't
important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he favors
perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial modifications"
Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .

 

Why on earth would you presume to know what *I HEARD* on the radio, or
even that you and I heard the same broadcast? Yes - it's about the same
case, but one report was from CNN, the other from Reuters. Two *very
different* reports of the same thing, but each related very different
details and insight into the story.

The point of my post was that there you have two consenting adults in
the privacy of one's home - so by the logic of some here, there's
nothing wrong with it.

Below is the transcript of the account that I heard. Bizarre that you
would presume that we heard the same broadcast. I related it accurately
as it was broadcast - the broadcast that I heard had additional details.

"BERLIN (Reuters) - The trial of Armin Meiwes, the German computer
expert who gained worldwide notoriety by killing and eating a willing
victim, has begun, in a case of sexually inspired cannibalism so
perplexing it could make legal history.

Meiwes, 42, described by his lawyer as a "gentleman of the old school",
has confessed to killing a Berlin man who answered an advertisement he
had posted on the Internet seeking a fit man "for slaughter."

They met in Meiwes's elegant half-timbered home in the town of
Rotenburg, central Germany, in March 2001. Meiwes killed the man, named
only as Bernd-Juergen B., with a kitchen knife and filmed the deed on
video tape which may be shown at the trial.

Meiwes's lawyer Harald Ermel said it took the victim nearly 10 hours to
bleed to death and that he had repeatedly urged Meiwes to keep on
cutting him.

Meiwes cut up the body and stored parts in his freezer. "He believes he
ate about 20 kilograms and there were about 10 kilograms left over,"
said Ermel.

"He defrosted it little by little and ate it."

Police arrested Meiwes over a year later, in December 2002, after a
tip-off from someone who had spotted another of his adverts on the
Internet.

Meiwes is expected to repeat his confession at the trial that will be
attended by reporters from all over the world. He is already planning to
write his memoirs, his lawyer said.

Meiwes told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag last week: "I am guilty and
regret what I did." He said he had eaten his victim because he wanted to
make him part of himself, a desire that he had satisfied and that would
not recur.

Professor Andreas Marneros, director of the Halle Clinic for Psychiatry
and Psychotherapy, said: "This is cannibalism as a sexual perversion,
it's a phenomenon that has been known about for centuries. I have
examined four such people."

LEGAL DILEMMA

Prosecutors in the city of Kassel say a psychiatric examination found
Meiwes is not insane but they added that his victim may have been
incapable of rational thought.

So while prosecutors acknowledge the victim said he wanted to die, they
are seeking a life sentence on a charge of murder motivated by sexual
urges.

Meiwes's lawyer wants him to be convicted of "killing on request", a
form of illegal euthanasia which carries a sentence of six months to
five years.

The problem, legal experts say, is that Meiwes's victim wanted to be
eaten. That could make a murder charge difficult to apply, while the
lesser charge of manslaughter carries a term of 15 years or considerably
less, after which Meiwes would be free.

Professor Arthur Kreuzer of the Institute for Criminology at Giessen
University, said the case might make legal history.

"This is killing undertaken for both killer and victim and cannot be
regarded as the worst case of premeditated killing.

"But I don't think it is a killing on request either because it was not
an altruistic, but an egoistic deed."

Kreuzer said the case may go as high as the Federal Constitutional Court
and that prosecutors may be forced to consult new medical experts to
assess Meiwes's mental state.

Meiwes's lawyer has revealed that his client had four other guests in
his home, but let them all go.

"There was a teacher, a cook, a hotel employee and a student. He had
them hanging from the ceiling head down and they had no chance of
freeing themselves. One felt sick, the other didn't want to go on, he
let them all down."

Ermel said Meiwes chatted about cannibalism with at least 280
like-minded people on the Internet. In Germany about 200 people on the
Internet were offering to be slaughtered, 30 ready to do the
slaughtering and 10 to 15 wanting to watch, he said.



Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Wind power has a lot of promise as a practical clean source of energy. Unfortunately, in a place well suited to wind
power, the waters offshore near Cape Cod Massachusetts, the local limousine liberals (e.g. Ted Kennedy, Walter Cronkite,
John Kerry [some days, depending on audience] etc)., are fighting it tooth and nail, because some of the windmills might be
visible on the distant horizon from their McMansions-on-the-shore. They prefer their electricity to come from fossil fuels,
such as oil----as in the major oil spill in Buzzards Bay earlier this year. The doomed fuel oil barge was enroute to the
Cape's oil fired power plant before killing thousands of birds, closing the entire Bay area to shell fishing, and reeking
havoc on all wildlife and human activity on the Bay. The proposed wind turbines would provide 75% of the Cape & Islands
area power.

In California, the very environmentally conscious Sierra Club is opposing wind power, claiming that it puts some birds at
risk. No word on how many birds fossil fuel plants kill. Also no word on what kind of power the Sierra Club actually
favors building, because they have opposed everything. One would presume that their offices and members live in an
electricity free world and their monthly rag is printed on magic fabric, certainly not dead tree paper. They have truly
gone BANANAs -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

 

That sounds rather (to use your word) dogmatic (yes there's a pun there)
to exclude non-humans just because that's the traditional definition of
marriage. (sarcasm)

OK - to take this to a really ridiculous level, how about that
chimpanzee that was trained to communicate with humans - what if *she*
consented to marry a human?

Why do you get to re-define the traditional definition of "marriage",
yet you would deny the same right to those who think they should be able
to marry their (non-human) pet? You get to re-define it for your
imagined "rights", yet you don't allow the animal "lovers" the same
privilege.

Hmmm - reminds me of the Geico commercial in which the gecco is on the
picnic with the beautiful girl, and she's swinging him around in
romantic wistfulness with beautiful music in the background.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?

 

Another comparison of homosexuals to animal-fuckers by the self-proclaimed
non-homophobe.

Surprise, surprise.

DS

 

x-no-archive: yes

So nobody can crosspost, except you, right? Pot calling the Kettle
Black.

 

How do you define abuse? You yourself quoted an entire message to add a line which
had nothing to do with what you quoted. When were you elected netcop?