However we have always had, and continue to have, the means to maintain and reinforce the damn. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's stronger if you put "God" in front of it.

The world is what is the case, which is a subset of the possibilities. — Banno

I think we frame our interactions with the world as if we're having a conversation with it.

When I look for things, for instance, it's like I'm asking the world questions. When I find the answer, it's like the world answered me.

A true proposition is a case where I've heard the world with fidelity. False ones are cases of mistakes or deceit, where someone is lying about what the world said.

The unexpressed proposition signifies that the world has answers that no one has heard yet.

So you let alt-right racists ' coopting one of the oldest human hand gestures stop you from using an emoji? — 180 Proof

Pretty much. You forge ahead your own way, buddy.

I don't use it anymore.

That's a white supremacist gesture.

What is the status of the apple when I pick it up and take a bite? — T Clark

It's an apple.

Applying that test, I can reject the idea that quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality not just for subatomic particles, but also for apples and orangutans. And that is what set me off down this path. — T Clark

We don't know the status of matter that isn't being measured. If that fits your conception of reality, then you're good to go.

This is a Brookings Inst. essay about the history of Russo-American relations.

Republicans claimed that Putin was a bad actor, but didn't depict him as imperialistic. The only reason to suspect that he might become imperialistic would be that Russia has a long history of it.

But also note that the essay doesn't say Putin felt overly threatened by NATO, in fact he defended the placement of a transit hub on Russian soil.

So the tension we see now is a sign of the failure of Obama's "restart" of the relationship.

Over time, you can probably find a few conflicting statements from Putin + team. (And a lot of bullshit.) Not generally reliable as such. Expect more if Putin is sticking around for another 14 years — jorndoe

Yep.

Could be. When experts on Russia are a little confused by his statements and actions, I'm not going to put much weight on my own speculations. :grin:

So he's not real, because he doesn't believe the bartender is real. — A Realist

Jack does believe the bartender is real. He has an extended conversation with someone who isn't there. Happens all the time. :grin:

How do you know? — A Realist

Because there's no way he could be there. They're on top of a mountain in a Colorado winter snow storm.

Jack is hallucinating.

Then he's real. — A Realist

He's not, though.

Real is what you believe to be real. — A Realist

But Jack Torrance thinks the bartender is real.

Was he talking about measures that were taken to prepare for Iranian aggression?

Yes, I'm sure the war in Georgia, which occurred in August, was a big reason at the NATO summit. — Mikie

Oh yeah. I guess that came later the same year.

An imperialist threat from Russia was not one of them in 2008 — Mikie

While he was invading Georgia? What kind of evidence were you looking for?

I'm just more optimistic than you it seems. — boethius

:victory:

Everything isn't a nefarious plot all the time. — boethius

That's pretty naive.

It legitimately seems threatening words and actions. — boethius

Seems? It actually was threatening. The US wanted to destroy Russia, like wipe it off the map. Putin had no choice.

NATO in Ukraine presents 2 entirely real security problems to Russia. — boethius

According to Putin, NATO was planning to destroy Russia. He saw NATO as an existential threat.

Let's go with that.

The Russians have spoken about this red line for decades - — Tzeentch

It's only been two decades since their economy was devastated, so that red line is fairly young. :razz:

So Russian attempts at invading Ukraine will likely push Ukraine into Western sphere of influence. — neomac

It already inspired Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

I think Putin has created a deep abiding hatred of Russia among Ukrainians, so I doubt relations between the two will be normalized as long as Putin is in power.

I’m not so sure about that. If the monopoly on healthcare were to fall, I’m sure men could devise some other scheme that doesn’t involve them becoming state agents. — NOS4A2

Sounds like the state by some other name. This isn't the only issue where centralized control is important. Telecommunications, highways, community owned forests, defense, etc. Anytime an issue comes up that effects everyone, you're going to need something like a state. States allowed us to become what we are now.

It's either go backwards or forge ahead into the unknown. I have a feeling climate change is going to make that decision for us.

The shortage here is entirely state manufactured. — NOS4A2

It's partly state manufactured here in that the way the US addressed the pandemic turned the healthcare system upside down. Staff doesn't have to hang around and take abuse for low wages now. The pandemic sort of emancipated healthcare workers. Vaccination wasn't the issue here because people could get religious exemptions.

At any rate, so-called universal healthcare loses its wring when very few can access it. — NOS4A2

A man in the UK recently died because he couldn't get an appointment with an ENT for an ear infection. He developed a brain abscess. It was partly related to their tele-health system, but it can also take a year or two to get a non-emergent appt. with an ENT in the UK. I'm actually a little horrified at how badly state-run healthcare can be, like the doctors in the UK who decided that women don't need pain meds for birth. Some women got suicidal after delivering. :grimace:

You can't legislate compassion.

Meanwhile public emergency rooms are shutting their doors, unable to hire nurses and doctors, pushing back surgeries, and so on, putting entire communities at risk. — NOS4A2

The same this happening here. It's a labor shortage.

I’m only aware of private clinics — NOS4A2

If a person has a stroke, heart attack, is severely injured in some way, etc., they'll need advanced care that probably wouldn't be available to the community if private insurance is the only source of funds.

It's a problem we've never had to deal with before. If we took the role of funder and administrator away from the government, we'd have to give it to some other entity who would be pretty much identical to the government.

We have private healthcare where I live. — NOS4A2

There's a private hospital? A private ICU? Privately paid heart surgery? If so, all your neighbors are deeply in debt, which is different kind of slavery.

Or it's not as privately funded as you think.

It’s a point of fact that government was not required for healthcare, only that it has developed a monopoly on it. — NOS4A2

The human species hasn't ever had the kind of healthcare we have now. It's fairly expensive stuff. Do you know of a case where contemporary, state of the art healthcare is paid for entirely privately?

And I just disagreed with you for the reasons I stated. — NOS4A2

I don't think you're particularly well informed on the issue, then.

Are we to conclude from this that whatever your hope for the future may be, you recognize the need for the state today? — Fooloso4

Sure.

I didn’t say I want to go back to any sort of funding, only pointing out government funding isn’t required for healthcare. — NOS4A2

I just told you it is. Without Medicare, most US hospitals would have to close their doors.

If all or even most people were self-governing then there would be no need for governments. Do you share his faith? — Fooloso4

I won't live to see it, but I heartily commend those whose optimism creates such bold visions of what we could be.

I was speaking of funding, not practices. I assume that had you worked in one of those places you wouldn’t require a public authority to govern your day-to-day. — NOS4A2

American healthcare, as we know it today, wouldn't be possible without Medicare funding.

You want to go back to 1960s funding, but keep the same level of care? I don't think that's going to work.

Historically, hospitals have been funded from many sources, much of which were not from the government. — NOS4A2

Which lives would you like to stop saving so we can go back to historic practices?

If one thinks through an issue it should be apparent that despite the restrictions imposed by the state we enjoy many benefits that most would not be willing to give up. — Fooloso4

His question is whether people need state governance in order to enjoy those things. Marx said ultimately, no. What do you say?

You position reminds me of that of a privledged child who wishes mommy and daddy would just go away so he could do whatever he wants. — Fooloso4

Your position sounds like that of a person who can't think through an issue.

You follow their rules for funding, not because you require an authority to govern your life. Presumably you would follow the rules according to any source of funding, not just state funding? — NOS4A2

I require the funding, so I follow the rules, plus following the rules saves lives.

There isn't any source of funding other than the government, not that could do what Medicare does.

Yes. You can operate in your day-to-day without some authority telling you what to do. — NOS4A2

No. One of the main ways the US government controls healthcare is by Medicare funding. Few hospitals in America could run without it. In order to secure those funds, every hospital is careful to follow CMS rules, and JCAHO requirements. I acknowledge their authority to intimately guide my actions, and as a result, I am licensed.

So they are not actually present or involved in your day-to-day. — NOS4A2

Present as in Biden texting me about stuff? No?

Do you require their presence? — NOS4A2

Yes. I'm a healthcare worker. Without the massive load of regulations and financial support for healthcare, my profession wouldn't exist.

How much is the state involved in your day-to-day? — NOS4A2

Pretty pervasively.