Vaya a Dios, Vieho
There was a recent letter published in our daily newspaper from an MD who bemoaned the fact that 70% of health care dollars are spent on the elderly, those over 60. His recommendation was to restrict expensive medical procedures, even life-saving, from older folks. (Full disclosure: I am one of those "old folks.") He suggested the return on investment was too little to warrant spending all that money on the elderly, especially since medical costs are so high and rising.
Professor Peter Singer at Columbia University, who is the philosophical guru for the pro-abortion movement, openly advocates assisted suicide and the withholding of medical procedures from the elderly who, in his opinion, are unproductive and not worth the cost.
Obamacare incorporates medical advisory panels responsible for issuing "guidelines" concerning the cost effectiveness of medical procedures. These are not the so-called "death panels" widely discussed by some opponents. I am not in favor of Obamacare, mainly because I don't trust the government to do much of anything right, but the "death panel" accusation is unwarranted, at least for now.
Elderly parents suffering from strokes, Alzheimer's or just general infirmity, are routinely shunted off to nursing homes and often virtually forgotten. Heaven forbid that caring for the old folks should interfere with our lifestyle. I have seen the insides of two well-rated nursing homes and witnessed the neglect to which many residents are subjected. I heard the granddaughter of a 104-year-old resident curtly inform the lady, in response to a plea to go home, "No, Geneva, this is your home for the rest of your days." Geneva lived out her days in half of a semi-private room.
I saw ranks of white-haired old folks, mostly ladies, lined up in wheelchairs against the wall where they spent most of their days except for the occasional visit by an activity person and mealtimes. This was truly warehousing. Family visits were rare, usually on holidays or the occasional weekend. I've been told by someone who worked in nursing homes for years that once-a-year visits by the children are not uncommon.
Caring for the elderly and infirm at home can be daunting, as I well know. In many other cultures, respect and obligation to elderly family members is simply a given. They are permitted to live out their days in familiar surroundings with loved ones rather than in a sterile institution tended by underpaid and often indifferent staff. I have seen this first hand. Even in so-called "good" nursing homes, care is minimal. My wife was of necessity in nursing homes for a period of a few months. I visited with her for most of every single day. Even with my close presence, she ended up with a bedsore and two rather nasty heel ulcers which took months to heal when we finally got her home. Incidentally, I was the one who detected both problems, not any of the staff. (I noticed blood seeping through her socks.)
Most of the elderly are parents who raised children. They loved, nurtured, fed, clothed, housed, educated and protected them through their growing up. Sadly, too many become, in the words of the Pete Seeger folk song, "obsessed with the mania for owning things." They become wrapped up in the daily demands of their own little lives and are wroth to allow anything or anyone to interfere with their hard-won lifestyle. Mom and Dad are fine so long as they are self-sufficient. When that is no longer the case, "out of sight, out of mind" comes into play in too many instances.
To illustrate the attitude toward elderly parents in other cultures, let me relate an example from personal knowledge. A very close friend, an observant Jew (observes all holidays and festivals) with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, had his elderly and infirm mother living with them in Texas. Travel requirements necessitated by family issues out of state made it difficult to continue to care for Mother. Mike then travelled to Israel to other family in Tel Aviv, a sister as I recall, who were able to care for the lady. He transported her to Israel and settled her in the sister's home. She lived there until she died at the age of 100, among family who loved and cared for her. Mike was there when she passed on.
From a purely practical standpoint, the cavalier attitude toward the elderly in this country is quite understandable. After all, effort expended to care for aged parents must be taken from the precious little time available in most families today. Financially, lawyers and advisors are hired to set up finances so that the old folks' assets are transferred early enough that they quickly become indigent and the county pays for their long-term care. Private pay in nursing homes is rare. (I know. I private-payed for my wife, Joan, for one month and it totally screwed up their accounting system to the extent that it took six months to send me the bill. And then it was wrong.)
Many older folks have conditions, usually involving arthritis, that incur chronic and severe pain. By way of example, my wife, Joan, has extremely severe lumbar spinal arthritis (lower back). All five lumbar vertebrae and the one sacral are involved. There is significant stenosis which resuls in extreme pain. She has virtually no discs left. This situation is inoperable and there is no effective therapy. She has been on major pain medication for many years--the notorious oxycodone. Before her stroke, it allowed her to function. (Despite what you may have read in newspaper articles, the stuff does work.) And yes, she is addicted. So what? At her age, this is irrelevent. Her situation is not unusual, yet our daily newspaper and a number of other do-good organizations are crusading to make it difficult for non-cancer patients to obtain pain medication. No-one suggests an alternative; let the old folks suffer.
The stated goal here is to reduce prescription drug abuse by addicts. The fact is, most illicit pain medication is not prescribed, but rather obtained through a thriving black market supplied via the hijacking of bulk shipments. Some drug store chains have resorted to camouflaging their trucks to reduce the chances of being hijacked. Since law enforcement is unable to stem the hijacking epidemic, the (mostly) liberal "fixers" resort to the easier target of the law-abiding elderly under the theory that "we have to do something."
The hard truth is, old folks are a problem in this country. They threaten to bankrupt Medicare, already nearly 50% subsidized by general tax revenue, take too many medications increasing demand which justifies higher prices, and overload clinics and emergency rooms. Worse, they do not pull teir own weight or produce sufficient wealth and contribution to society to justify their expense.
Am I exaggerating? Perhaps I am a bit today, but the trend is there. Rationing of medical care, limitations on drug prescribing and cutting Medicaid payments for long term care are on the horizon. Medicare funding is being cut, somehow magically not impacting service.
Much of this would be solved if we had a culture of caring for our parents and grandparents instead of trying to find ways to duck the responsibility and dump them off on someone else, like government. Most opioid pain medication is generic and not a major contributor to the overall cost of medical care. Unnecessary tests often justified to protect against litigation needlessly increase costs.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is we have a responsibility for our elders. Personal sacrifices made to care for them can be rewarding. I speak from experience. Besides, we owe them! We neglect them at the peril of our souls.
P.S. Translation of the Headline is left to the reader.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Stroke Story (35)
- Face of Evil-Boston (62)
- Terror in Boston (57)
- By Way of Explanation/Guns Revisited (129)
- A Life Lost (7)
- Return (125)
- Face of Evil II (97)
- A Day of Infamy (49)
- Aaaauuuggghh! We Lost!! (75)
- Vote for .... ! (8)
- The War of the Words (52)
- Vaya a Dios, Vieho (103)
- The Religion of Peace (70)
- Dual--Darkness and Light (111)
- The Face of Evil (115)
- The God Particle (92)
- Postmortem (17)
- Cold War Warrior (12)
- "And Some Gave All" (5)
- The Comedy of Errors (30)
- The Class Struggle (28)
- F/A 18D Virginia Crash (10)
- The Death of Morality (94)
- Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! (53)
- Insurrection! (33)
- Patriotism (33)
- The Masque Cometh Away (65)
- "The World's Gone Mad!" (102)
- Contagion! (25)
- A.B.O. (144)
- Where Have All The Jobs Gone? (123)
- Light My Volt! (95)
- The Recallodrome (39)
- In the Eye of the Beholder (93)
- The World's Policeman (13)
- Censorship (26)
- E Pluribus Unum (54)
- The Crash of the Galloping Ghost-Update (13)
- The Crash of the Galloping Ghost (4)
- A 9/11 Retrospective (53)
- Responsibility (47)
- "Please Help the Poor!" (41)
- The Sky Didn't Fall (8)
- Toxic Air (71)
- Tension, Apprehension and Dissension (90)
- Independence Day (109)
- The Penney Idea (117)
- Something is Missing (51)
- Boycott!! (17)
- Memorial Day, 2011 (18)
- The Kloppenburg Konspiracy (74)
- The Assassination of OBL (13)
- ... By Any Other Name (180)
- The Green Thing (10)
- A Date That Will Live in Infamy (2)
- Military Madness (53)
- Japanese Meltdown (44)
- Rights and Freedoms (48)
- Change! (28)
- "You're a Bad Player!" (35)
- Chickens and Potatoes (181)
- Quadrology (72)
- The Road Travelled, The Road Ahead (42)
- Life and time (17)
- Peek-a-Boo, I C U (58)
- Never Forget; Never Again (8)
- "... turns the leaves to flame" (13)
- The Lion Sleeps No More (98)
- A Bit of Election Perspective (28)
- A Plea for Understanding (32)
- Global Humbug VI.1 (29)
- The Persian Bomb (9)
- A 9/11 Perspective (37)
- Blue Skies (26)
- Let Them Build It (11)
- What Happened to the Oil? (19)
- "We have met the enemy ..." (4)
- The Border Problem (11)
- The Tunnel to Nowhere (20)
- Danger from Within (40)
- Sauce for the Gander (50)
- Crying Over Spilt Oil (19)
- Dodging the Bullet - The NY Bomber (17)
- Israel and the PR War (9)
- On Perusing the Newspaper (48)
- Protect and Defend II - Star Wars and Stealth (8)
- Lexideception (21)
- Global Humbug VI--Finis (72)
- An Easter Message (11)
- The Wars of the Roses (8)
- High Iron (5)
- Flight Passages (9)
- Protect and Defend (24)
- Ah So! Coincidence You Say? (22)
- White-Out (9)
- Contrast (17)
- The Elitocracy (90)
- Reverse Profiling (25)
- Life and Time (8)
- Humane or Cost-Effective? (24)
- Goodbye for Now (4)
- Boiling Water (45)
- Law of Unintended Consequences II (18)
- A Personal Health Care Experience (10)
- "What's up, Doc?" (29)
- Nuke Me, Nancy! (22)
- Fly Me to the Moon (7)
- Economic Models (30)
- Apology (71)
- Global Humbug V (78)
- Hero Worship (29)
- Independence Day (25)
- Global Humbug IV (30)
- The Broken Engine (23)
- The Suicide Complex (23)
- The Middle East Muddle (64)
- Blowin' in the Wind (6)
- Judge Me Not (4)
- The Red Shift (9)
- "Batteries Not Included" (2)
- The Boys of Pointe du Hoc (5)
- Mendacity (0)
- Unreality (0)
- Green Space (2)
- The Love Affair (20)
- Torturous Interrogation (7)
- The White Horse (7)
- Social Engineering (0)
- Taxed Enough Already (7)
- Bricks, Mortar and Asphalt (6)
- Nature vs. the News (0)
- Media Control? (15)
- A Deer in the Headlights (8)
- Stem Cells - Unmasked (5)
- The Enemy (15)
- CO Flight 3407 Crash (0)
- Stealth Health (9)
- Global Humbug III (7)
- The Money Tree (0)
- Spare the Rod... (0)
- The Whole Truth (9)
- Whence Digital TV? (0)
- "Rescue Me, Please!" (4)
- Spooks and Snoops (7)
- Airbus A320 Crash (5)
- Paying the Piper (26)
- Feeding Frenzy (0)
- DTV Unmasked (7)
- School Daze (0)
- In the Beginning... (8)
- The Law of Unintended Consequences II (2)
- Winter Wonderland (0)
- The Politics of Corruption (0)
- Deficit Divertissement (0)
- Rescue Me, Please! (17)
- Haitus (6)
- The Law of Unintended Consequences (17)
- The Boys of Pointe du Hoc (3)
- The Mourning After (25)
- "Thru a Glass Darkly" - The Election (9)
- Magical Thinking - The Abortion Controversy (11)
- A Little Decorum, Please (49)
- Give Light ... (4)
- The Sophistication of Deception (9)
- Bailout Boondoggle (3)
- Issues and Non-Issues (9)
- Bailout Bedlam (0)
- Bailout Blitzkrieg (8)
- 9/11 Retrospective (20)
- Perspective on Defense Spending (1)
- Beauty in Creation (4)
- Evolution: Fact or fiction (29)
- It Really is the Sun, Son! (0)
- The Georgian Knot (4)
- The emPHAsis is on the wrong sylLAble (8)
- Jason Lives! (6)
- T. Boone Doggle (1)
- Oil and Nukes (11)
- Wind, Sun and Oil (3)
- Cornpone Politics - Redux (0)
- Moonshine Madness - The Great Ethanol Scam (4)
- The Helping Hand (0)
- Cornpone Politics (0)
- The Latest Obamaflap (4)
- The Corruption of Science (2)
- Parenting 101 (0)
- The Sport of Kings(?) (0)
- "You Can't Say THAT!" (2)
- The Truth About Tuskegee (3)
- DUI in Wisconsin (3)
- Iraq War-Up Close and Personal (3)
- Why Johnny Can't Write, or Read, or Add. (1)
- Whither Wales Water II (0)
- Iraq War Followup (3)
- Global Humbug II (0)
- The Iraq War (Oh No! Not Again!!) (5)
- Economics 101 (3)
- Global Humbug (3)
- A Mania for Development (2)
- Valentine's Day Massacre (1)
- By Way of Introduction (0)
- Whither Wales' Water? (1)
- More Eagle's Eye posts






103 Comments
Carl Hicks - Sep 26, 2012 12:40 AM
this first hand. The jobs best perk was being the bright spot in their day by
making some small improvement in their surroundings.
Carl Hicks - Sep 26, 2012 1:09 AM
shopping and crushing and snorting them and is in chronic pain then I do not see
any real problem.
ahemmer - Sep 26, 2012 6:44 AM
What both of you fail to comment on is the main point of Al's article - how Obamacare and some in society tend to discount the elderly. Specificially the ill. Obamacare will have "death panels" (although they will go by a much "friendlier" and politically-correct names). I think right now there are two panels: the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" and " "United States Preventive Services Task Force." We know what the purpose will be - to deny those people treatment that the government doesn't deem worthy of. They are too old, they are too sick, they are too much of a burden. Scary stuff. But, of course, the lefties and the me-me-me crowd will never admit such. After all, most lefties don't see anything wrong with murdering defensless babies, so what's the prob?
By the way, GWB: Guess who uses the terms "I" and "me" very, very often. So often that even the liberl media notices. Yep, it's President Kardashian!!! See:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/i-me-obama-uses-first-person-pronoun-117-times-1-speech
Yep, it's Barry. And when Barry says "I" and "me" over and over and over during his numerous campaign speeches/state of the unions/etc. I don't think it's out of "self pity." I think it's out of arrogance and narcissism.
MGarber - Sep 26, 2012 8:45 AM
The issue you're describing is not new; my parents generation was probably the
1st to largely "outsource" the end-of-life care for their parents. The
difference now is the sheer numbers, and associated costs that come with the supply of professional caregivers being swamped by the size of the aging population. If I wasnt so tired of the word "unsustainable", Id call it unsustainable. But it truly is.
Did you ever see the Simpsons where Mr Burns wins a million dollars and anounces, while accepting the giant check "Thank You. I will use this money to extend my life by 10 minutes."? Sorry Amy, but at some point we ALL will be too old or too sick to justify further expences (well, those not hit by a bus). Thats the way its ALWAYS been. In the past, options were limited, but with modern medicine, your checkbook is the limit, and the Medicare checkbook is looking slimmer every day. Out-of-pocket care will ALWAYS be available for the Mr Burns of the world.
Pain management is one of the miricles of modern medicine, and I think your concern about it being unavailable to those that need it are unwaranted, Al.
Personally, I fully expect to authorize the pulling of the plug when my quality of life is below a certain threshold.
Todays suggested reading: Mortality by Christopher Hitchens (Ive only read excerpts from Vanity Fair, but WOW!).
WFB resident - Sep 26, 2012 9:41 AM
money ? How about ((your family)) deciding when and how much you want to spend
? Un like Garber and carl , I would like to decide . AS for Al using I ! If you did not
notice ,he used (I) so that negative comments did not come up in this discussion !!
Just ask him , (I) saw it ! lol... I do find it funny that a person like carl complains
about the usage of I but stands behind the o who is mired it the word as a martyr !!!
MGarber - Sep 26, 2012 9:47 AM
ahemmer - Sep 26, 2012 10:27 AM
And who is politicizing the topic, MGarber? Hicks fired the first shot at Rush.
Back to the topic of Al's blog, just because you are fine with "pulling the plug" on your own life when your life is "below a certain threshold, " MGarger, I don't agree with allowing the government to make that decision for you. And that is exactly what (let's call them what they are) Obama's Death Panels will be doing. Deciding who is worthy of living or dying. We already know their views on unborn (and partially born) babies. Why not kill off granny and gramps when they are too much of a burden on society? or those with incurable genetic diseases who have no chance of recovering? or those injured in accidents which leave them totatlly paralyzed and needing of assistance 24-7? Why bother to help them? Obama's Death Panels could deem them a burden, too. What a slippery, scary slope we are on if Obamacare is not repealed.
WFB resident - Sep 26, 2012 10:35 AM
MGarber - Sep 26, 2012 11:02 AM
Thats up to Al. Not you.
"Back to the topic of Al's blog,...."
Which is not Obamacare (as far as I see).
"What a slippery, scary slope we are on if Obamacare is not repealed."
The "slippery slope" argument is always a logical fallacy.
MGarber - Sep 26, 2012 11:28 AM
How is Carl referencing an entertainer politicizing anything?????
WFB resident - Sep 26, 2012 1:02 PM
New York Times ! But (I understand) how you would not ! lol...
Carl Hicks - Sep 26, 2012 1:36 PM
Many become addicted to prescribed medications my point was that as long as
the addicted individual is still aquiring them legally and using as prescribed there
is no shame in their situation.
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 26, 2012 1:38 PM
First and foremost, thank you for your personal reflection on important elderly care and end-of-life issues. The power of your prose comes from your first-person experience. It is one, I am sure, that many of your readers share as well.
The citizens of the United States decided many years ago what kind of society in which we wanted to live. The true nobility of any society is reflected in the manner in which its most vulnerable citizens are treated. Those may be the young, or those of a productive age who may suffer from disabilities, or those in their declining years.
On one point I must part ways, however.
Your statement - “…because I don't trust the government to do much of anything right.”
I have a very hard time understanding that attitude. I really don’t know how you could view the three government programs you mention, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as anything but a huge success. I would hate to think about what kind of human experience those vulnerable citizens would have had without those programs.
I know many conservatives like to think we would all be better off if we just let Social Darwinism run its course. But, I for one would not like to live in that world.
I truly believe that when government is run by people who share your view – “that government can’t do anything right,” – that is when we as a country run into serious problems. When an Administration staffs important positions with people who have nothing but disdain and contempt for the role of government - you get, well, the George W. Bush experience.
In the words of that much-exalted Ronald Reagan, “Government is not the solution to our problems – it is the problem. “
And that Al, is where we part ways.
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 26, 2012 2:02 PM
I forgot to address the misinformation your Dear friend Ms. Hemmer is peddling.
Patients receiving pain killing drugs as part of their palliative care are not considered to be addicted. When those medications are used to reduce or eliminate real physical pain, the brain does not respond in the same manner as when the physical pain is not present.
As in the case of Hemmer's Hero El Rushbo - there wasn't the underlying pain. He was just using his Oxycodone to simply get high - thus his addiction.
And like any addict who simply can't help themselves, Ms. Hemmer has an uncontrollable need to interject her rather large spherical facial orifice onto your blog, which I believe she promised never to do again.
Having cared for two very close relatives who died from prostate cancer, please believe me Al, your wife is not an addict.
ahemmer - Sep 26, 2012 3:29 PM
I never promised not to comment on Al's blogs. Please enlighten me as to when I did so. I may have stated that I was done commenting on a particular blog and that was it.
So, show me the proof, Pierre "my mother is a Canadian fur trapper" Del Norte or just be quiet.
As for Al's wife who is suffering from multiple ailments, which is sad and unfortunate when one should be enjoying their "golden years" - all I can say is that Al stated she is an addict. I would use the term "physically dependent" instead, but there are grey areas when it comes to being addicted. Neither you know or I know all of the details with Al's wife, but I believe that Al does (unless, of course, you are Al's wife's doctor, which is highly doubtful).
And for you to state to Al: " I really don’t know how you could view the three government programs you mention, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as anything but a huge success." Really? Social security wasn't meant to go on for years when the father of American socialism (FDR) put it into play. It was supposed to be temporary. As for Medicare and Medicaid, they have served their purpose and then some - and now have become unsustainable and they need to be reformed so we can keep them going, rather than allow them to go broke (or fund Obamacare).
Funny how my comments always seem to annoy you. I consider that a good thing! Shows I am doing my job on behalf of conservatives everywhere.
jman99 - Sep 26, 2012 3:53 PM
And how do you cope with that for both parties? There are a lot of kids who carry a lot of guilt because their own situation does not allow them to just pick up and move back to the area their parents are living without significant loss of employment value which they have to keep to maintain a lifestyle for their own children.
We all expect to live so long now. When all of these programs were set up, life expectancy was much shorter. Past generations saw dying as something that was part of life and they accepted it more readily.
Now we have technology that can keep the container of the soul alive, even when the soul may want to be freed from it. But how does the soul communicate that to those gathered around the container, they only physical representation of the person they have.
I don't think death is something that needs "defeating" I think it is something that needs understanding and reassurance for those who remain.
I admire your commitment Al. I feel for your frustration for the way things are today in geriatric care. You can't really provide "love and caring" in a for profit, non-professional environment. The hospice model works for end of life care but it does not work well for the long term care of the elderly and the disabled.
Letting go, is not failure. Letting go, is opening the gate to the next part of the journey.
MGarber - Sep 26, 2012 3:56 PM
We don't talk about diabetics addicted to insulin, do we? But isnt that what it largely is?
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 26, 2012 3:56 PM
By Al Neuhauser
Aug. 20, 2012
ahemmer - Aug 28, 2012 6:00 PM
Again, jman99 and Pierre/Buck/Cosette/John Markham: In the words of Pierre: " "And please think twice before you decide to violate Al's precious space. "
Abide by your own words, guys - try getting back on topic. I know it's difficult when you'd rather go after me, but I'll leave now for good, out of respect for Al.
Now, behave. Try discussing Al's blog. Stop "violating Al's precious space" if you have an ounce of decency.
"....but I'll leave now for good." - Hemmer
Just like a real addict Hemmer, you just can't help yourself, can you?
p.s. - Perhaps you could show me where you banned me from posting your blog?
Truth is Hemmer - YOU CAN'T!
ahemmer - Sep 26, 2012 4:41 PM
I was referencing a particular blog, which was quite obvious if you go through Al's past post and read the threads.
Whatever.
And I banned you months ago. There is no where to "show" this, cuz the discussions and your subsequent and frequent attempts at posting comments have been blocked. What more do you want? You are gone from my site. Never to return...unless you morph into yet another alias...it's been known to happen.
MGarber: Good point about "addiction." Dr. Norte probably knows much about it, since he appears to have diagnosed Al's wife, even though Al states otherwise...
Now, how about returning to Al's blog? I know the claws like come out from the lefties as soon as I appear, but this is ridiculous. Control yourselves, guys! Get back on topic.
Al bemoans (and rightly so) how younger generations shirk their responsibility of caring for their elderly parents and/or other relatives. In many cases in our country, this is true. In many cases, this is not. Many nursing homes offer an excellent quality of care. Many do not. Many hospitals aren't as efficient as they could be in regards to the elderly (and all ages, for that matter sometimes!). There are many factors at work here, especially when it comes to a family caring for an elderly member - time, energy, money, proximity, relationships, etc.
However, even though it may be bad in many cases now, with Obamacare we will be moving towards denying the elderly and infirm health care. You are too sick, you are too old - you are done. What we have now many not be perfect - nothing often is - but where we are headed is far worse.
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 26, 2012 6:00 PM
I would like for you - just once in your blog career - admit the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You can't help but to politicize everything you touch. And the the pathetic fact remains - you don't even recognize it. You are completely oblivious to that fact.
As for the addiction issue Hemmer - I watched my brother die of prostrate cancer. He was reluctant to start on pain medications for fear of becoming addicted. I had his Doctor, who happened to be the Chief Oncologist at a major research hospital, explain to my brother exactly why there was absolutely no basis for his fears.
I simply shared with Al his explanation.
No need to call me Dr. Notre.
WFB resident - Sep 26, 2012 6:29 PM
have no idea what they are talking about also !! What idiot thinks that Republicans
want to get rid of all Medical help and all Social securitie funding ? I am amazed that
Dumocrats beleve the slant their unions tell them !! Every one says it should be
(reduced) not totally wiped out !!! Saying ocare should be wiped out means just the
law it is ! But having med help is wanted and needed by all . So the Republicans are
correct again . Stop ocare completely and fix our ss/med aid plans !! Reduction is the
only way to do this . Other wise under the Dumocrat plan we all will not have any !!!!
lol...
yert49 - Sep 26, 2012 7:51 PM
because the government started them is the looniest gem issued by this
chucklehead so far. The idea that we can now have Obamacare, from a
government that is trillion dollars in debt and that it will be pristine and better run
then our current system is the cruelest joke ever put on the American people.
People come here for our medicine. Remember that. We have a problem with how
we pay for medicine. Once we figure that out, Obombacare is obsolete.
Carl Hicks - Sep 26, 2012 8:45 PM
Mainly since addiction is a percieved need for a substance not a medical one. The
diabetic needs insulin to live, painkillers antidepressants etc are not required to
keep a chemical balance.
MGarber - Sep 26, 2012 9:59 PM
Like Pierre, Ive had relatives (both parents) with cancer, and I for one would call their need for pain management as somewhat more than "percieved". I would argue that without pain management, severe chronic pain IS a totally debilitating chemical imbalance that puts the body at risk and certainly prevents an individual from any consistent self care, much less a meaningful existence.
Ditto for antidepressents in chronic cases.
aneuhauser - Sep 27, 2012 1:20 AM
Amy: Sorry, but you do politicize everything. I try to avoid politicizing issues that are not essentially political, like this one. While I respect your opinions, you do tend to muddy the water with politics, starting a mad rush off the subject into the morass of politicking. However, you are still welcome to comment on this blog anytime.
Carl: I agree that comparing insulin dependency with addiction to painkillers, specifically opioids, is apples and oranges.
MG, et al: Thank you for your compassionate comments. I tried to illuminate what I believe from personal experience--Joan also spent a couple of months in Hospice, one of the few that got out alive--is a present and coming problem. My solution is in-home care, which I am doing with professional help which, while expensive, is about 1/3 the cost of nursing home care but unfortunately not covered by insurance.
jman99 - Sep 27, 2012 6:40 AM
Which could be helped out by a change in the tax code plus a home care supplement under a national healthcare plan.
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 27, 2012 8:45 AM
I have one question for you - it's kind of personal, so feel free to take a pass.
Have you and Joan granted medical power of attorney to anyone along with properly executed advanced directives?
The reason I ask is that a mother of a very good friend, who happened to be a nurse, made it very clear to my friend what she did, and did not want in in regards to end of life care. Unfortunately, those wishes were not in writing.
My friend was in anguish for two years watching his mother's life come to an end in a manner she clearly did not want, and unfortunately, was not at all necessary.
aneuhauser - Sep 27, 2012 3:40 PM
What you suggest is an excellent policy that everyone, including you young whippersnappers, should follow.
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 27, 2012 4:20 PM
You have reinforced my sole reason for asking.
WFB resident - Sep 27, 2012 9:20 PM
suggest all do it when you have kids ! lol...
referee33 - Sep 28, 2012 11:21 AM
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 28, 2012 6:41 PM
You and you spouse have done exactly the right thing. Your family will be thankful that you took the time .
One question though - It is kind of personal so feel free to take a pass.
Were they actually using POA's and advanced directives back in the early 1950's?
(You are such a joker Ms. WFB I thought I would reciprocate, lol.............)
WFB resident - Sep 29, 2012 2:03 PM
my words were incorrect but I was trying to point out a dicision . With my previous
comment I assume you will assume another opinion. My lack of understanding the
poa's and direvctives have nothing to do wiith me to my knowledge . (That is why I
allow my lawyers to handle that area of topic) ! Sorry if I made you /or portrayed the
wrog dicision . My spouse nd I have made it clear how we want to die and how the
assets are directed with whom will the dicisions lye with all many yearts ago . I
would assume from your comment that they did not have those back when we set up
our wills and estate planning . So be it . I am at a loss as to what the corrct wording
is ! lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 30, 2012 2:43 PM
My apologies for the ill-conceived attempt at humor. My thought process was that if you were in your 30's when you did your paperwork, and that was in the early 1950's, that would mean you are into your 90's today.
In reality, I have no idea how old you really are. You and your spouse could well be in your 90's. In which case you should be congratulated on a great run!
In addition, since you are a woman, my discussion of age was ill-mannered as well.
I find bringing a little humor to a topic like this helps the discussion.
WFB resident - Sep 30, 2012 8:56 PM
been conversing for a while now , I assume you understand that my !!!!!'s are only
pointing out points of interest not my feelings !! lol... (same goes with big letters)
(for me) .
Pierre Del Norte - Sep 30, 2012 10:20 PM
Please, call me Pierre.
WFB resident - Oct 01, 2012 6:41 PM
WFB resident - Oct 01, 2012 10:13 PM
aneuhauser - Oct 02, 2012 1:01 AM
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 02, 2012 9:48 AM
You are an accomplished wordsmith. You know the importance of word choice, both in terms of their precise meaning and in the context of how they are used.
With that in mind, allow me to drill down on a comment you made in your essay.
“Professor Peter Singer at Columbia University, who is the philosophical guru for the pro-abortion movement,” – Al
I must question your reference to the “pro-abortion movement.” I would challenge that comment simply on its face value. I know a lot of people across the political, social and religious spectrum, and I have to admit to not knowing anyone who is “pro-abortion.”
The main reason that this term is in the political/religious lexicon of today is simply because it “scored” the highest in a Frank Luntz focus group test. The clear objective is to gain a competitive advantage in the political war of ideas.
This is very similar to the attempted change in terminology from the long-held and accepted use of the “inheritance tax” to the “death tax.” Another example would be the term “global warming” instead of “climate change.”
I completely understand the reason for this linguistic slight-of-hand; it works. Whenever you can take a complex concept and reduce it to a simplistic phrase you can use with advantage in the marketplace of ideas – you win. Whether or not it is intellectually honest matters little.
I consider this issue a matter of intellectual integrity. I think when you make an industry out of how effectively you can prostitute the language to achieve some cheap political objective - our culture pays a very heavy price.
WFB resident - Oct 02, 2012 12:49 PM
WFB resident - Oct 02, 2012 6:44 PM
lied and people died ? For he did not lie but somehow it was ok to do it sibnce he
was a Rino ! lol... As for pointing out Al's comment . If his were untrue then your
point wouyld have been spot on . Sorry though !! lol...
ExToDResident - Oct 03, 2012 1:39 AM
Bush is/was not a Rino, in fact G W Bush epitome of what the republican party
has become.
WFB resident - Oct 03, 2012 8:41 AM
understand Conservatives/Republicans ! You assume many things of those you are
against . lol...
WFB resident - Oct 03, 2012 10:49 AM
ExToDResident - Oct 03, 2012 1:16 PM
Ditto for you as well. LOL
And G W Bush is the epitome of what the republican party has become.
aneuhauser - Oct 03, 2012 4:16 PM
"Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.
"We may not want a child to start on life's uncertain voyage if the prospects are clouded. When this can be known at a very early stage in the voyage, we may still have a chance to make a fresh start. This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born, cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible. Instead of going forward and putting all our effort into making the best of the situation, we can still say no, and start again from the beginning."
He has advocated in lectures that it is perfectly acceptable to "terminate" a "defective baby", e.g. with Down's Syndrome, within 28 days of birth. Obviously, he is in favor of abortion at any stage. NARAL loves him.
Incidentally, I erred. Peter Singer is a Professor at Princeton, not Columbia.
aneuhauser - Oct 03, 2012 4:24 PM
aneuhauser - Oct 03, 2012 4:27 PM
WFB resident - Oct 03, 2012 9:50 PM
abortion ?
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 03, 2012 10:57 PM
A simple question - Do you know anyone who is pro-abortion?
You know, as in someone who actually promotes abortion?
Have you ever known a young woman who was a victim of rape or incest?
Would you council that woman she must carry that baby to full term?
In your view, should a Doctor who performed an abortion for that woman, after she had sought advice from her family, religious adviser, medical and psychological professionals - that Doctor should be subject to criminal manslaughter charges?
Having spent some time reading through your archive, I also have questions on your views regarding evolution and climate change.
To what extent are your views informed by your fundamentalist Christian beliefs versus the preponderance of scientific evidence?
I have a great respect for your perspective Al. I am just trying to understand.
aneuhauser - Oct 04, 2012 1:11 AM
No I have not known a rape victim; however, I believe executing the unborn child simply compounds the tragedy.
Abortion is legal, with restrictions in most states. So long as the doctor stays within the law, he should not be prosecuted. That doesn't make what he does right.
My views on evolution and climate change are solely based on my interpretation of the science. I once strayed completely away from religious faith as a youth due to the teaching of evolution in grade school. I returned when in college I began to realize that the Theory of Evolution was scientific nonsense. I still believe that. My religion only provides the alternative. My primary quibble with climate change (you win!) is the assumption that the minor warming is caused by CO2, which constitutes .04% of the atmosphere. I believe solar activity is a much more powerful causation. (So do the Russians.)
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 04, 2012 9:59 AM
I raised 3 issues in my last post, abortion, evolution and climate change - the moral/religious implications of each range from high to low respectively. Let’s examine the lowest – climate change.
Now, I am not the smartest guy in the world when it comes to climate science. Like you, I am not an expert on the subject, but I have read a fair amount on the subject. Some, like you, would have me believe there is a great deal of controversy on the science of anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They would tell me they don’t believe in ACC because of this, that or some other thing.
So let’s say, you were to survey the top climate scientists (about 1,380) in the world and asked them if they believed in ACC. Those “experts” would be those who possessed a high degree of expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility. Further, you ranked those scientist based on the number of peer-reviewed studies that they authored on the subject and the number of times those works were cited in papers done by other experts in the field.
Finally, let’s say the results of that survey concluded two facts – 1) The overwhelming number of experts (98%) support the tenets of ACC; 2) those 2% “experts” who were unconvinced fell in the lowest ranking of expertise and prominence. Bottom line – there is no scientific controversy on the subject.
So, in the face of such a study, would you continue to cling to the belief that global warming is caused by the sun and not by the activities of man?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
WFB resident - Oct 04, 2012 2:04 PM
has anything to do with it !!! That is why they dropped the word "Man made"!!! lol...
Look outdside around 4:00 today you will se climate change with in hours !!
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 04, 2012 3:29 PM
Thank you for that response and allow me to remove any confusion.
You are exactly right - the issue is not whether the climate is changing, but whether it is being caused by the activities of man. That is what the word anthropogenic means - caused by man. That is why I referred to it as Anthropogenic Climate Change, or abbreviated as ACC. That is what is known as an acronym - taking the first letter of each word in a chain of words and using it as a sort of shorthand to reference the longer chain of words.
I properly took the liberty to define that use of the shorthand - (ACC) in the second paragraph.
So, Ms. WFB, are you with Al in believing that our climate is not being caused by the activities of man? If you don't really know, or aren't really sure, that would be fine. Honest answers are always the best.
WFB resident - Oct 04, 2012 9:38 PM
stray a little bit but it will sufise with your comment . : Phlem do you mean Scientists
? Well if you go back one year and look at the
German news corp . They have an artical that 25 Climate Scientists !
Repeat:"Climate Scientists " !!!! Have now switched and are refuting your supreme
leaders opinion !! Were you not awake when the information came out about
doctored Climat studies ??? As for particular names I do not remember the single
names fro both sides ,for it accomplishes nothing but makes PDLS's (feel) superior .
But I am sure if you read the news and see that article you can get 25
names from it !! Have fun learning !!! lol... Better yet why do yopu assume that we
can control the weather ? Temperature ? Have you recently made it get cold for a ski
outing when it was over 100degrees this summer ? Better have you made it over
100 degrees in January of last year ? Why ? I thought you can control, the weather ?
How about telling us how man madfe global warming caused the earth to come out
of the last Ice age ? lol... (sarcasm next) I know it was Barney rubble with his car
that caused the global warming for the past 10,000 years ,right ? Some how the
effect of us coming out of a freezing period over the last 10,000 years seems to
escape your way of thinking ! lol... But we all know that it must be man ,right ? lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 05, 2012 8:01 AM
It is true - we have become a nation of trial attorneys. You say - "Here, look at this piece of evidence. See it proves that everything you are saying is wrong and should be rejected."
I call it the "This, that, or the other thing" defense.
Sorry WFB, but your response is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 9:12 AM
annocdotal evidence !! lol... YTou can tell me how wrong I am , all that you want but
Scientists disagree with you !!!! lol...
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 9:15 AM
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 1:15 PM
Obama-Romney presidential debate 2012: Mitt clobbers Obama lol...
aneuhauser - Oct 06, 2012 1:20 AM
A British climate research group does consist of so-called climate scientists, but that is the bunch largely discredited by getting caught falsifying data to support warming.
I wrote seven papers (blog posts: "Global Humbug I-VII") on this subject based on considerable research. They're in the archives a way back. I am convinced, based on science, that the whole thing is a scam, probably to redistribute wealth mainly from us to the third world.
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 9:27 AM
remembering the fall out of the doctored studies ! Not only that but many climate
Scientists have refuted the Man made part . I can only assume thast he wants to
deny any facts and promote just an agenda !! Did you guys see that electric cars are
(possibly) causing twice the amount of carbon foot print than a fossil fuel car ? lol...
That is just to funny . So the o started to give companies money because he wanted
to reduce the carbon footprint in the world . Yet he doubles it and his henchmen
deny facts !! lol... I would like you PDLS's to actually learn that forcing people to do
things actually hurts us most of the time as a country !!! lol... ps Al did you see the
Tiwanese debate on utube ? lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 06, 2012 12:48 PM
If you haven’t already done so, I highly recommend you read the study, and WFB, read it (only 3 pages).
Sorry Al, but your entire first paragraph – Simply has no bearing, whatsoever, on the study I referenced. As a wordsmith I am sure you recognize that as a complete distraction.
The study started with a universe of 1,372 whose sole field of research was climate science. They were then ranked those by 1) the number of published studies in pier reviewed journals, and 2) the number of times those studies were referenced by other researchers in the climate science arena.
That universe of 1,320 scholars was further reduced to the top 75% based on rankings. That group represented the cream of the crop – no anthropologists or evolutionary biologists.
The purpose of the study was to present incontrovertible evidence that there is absolutely no statistically significant controversy within the scientific community over whether ACC is real.
The practical conclusion is that people who reject ACC do so for reasons other than science. They may be political, religious, economic, whatever (which is fine as long as they are honest and say so), but please don’t say it is because of the science.
Science is under attack from too many directions today. I personally have too much respect for the scientific process to let this kind of stuff just pass.
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 2:39 PM
just ignore them ? lol... Only the ones who agree with you that used the doctored
information ,somehow they are correct huh ? lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 06, 2012 11:12 PM
Please read the study.
What about all those Climate Scientists who disagree with you Pier ?
They would fall within the 2%.
Any other questions?
WFB resident - Oct 07, 2012 12:33 AM
and are you saying global warming is happening ? or it is caused by man ? The two
self proclaimed wiki leaks groups that study it are not studying if man caused it but
that it is happening ! So what is your answer ?
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 07, 2012 4:06 PM
I think you are referring to the stolen emails from East Anglia University.
Here are the conclusions of National Academy of Scientists who reviewed the results of multiple formal investigations into this matter;
"The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate."
This manufactured controversy is completely irrelevant to the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Any other questions?
WFB resident - Oct 07, 2012 5:50 PM
studies so they came out to their wanted conclusions !
WFB resident - Oct 07, 2012 5:53 PM
little amount that we can control will have any effect ? Any proof ? on your part ? Or
are you just one of those that assumes they are able to control the weather ?
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 08, 2012 12:56 PM
Listen to what a four term congressman from Georgia who serves as Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3MbP4WDo&feature=player_embedded
Just as with the global warming issue – there is absolutely no controversy in the scientific community with regard to evolution - NONE!
Here is a guy who sits as chairman of an important science committee in congress who completely reject the long-accepted scientific consensus on evolution, who believes the earth is only 9,000 years old and that creationism should be taught in public schools.
One of the great things about the US is you are free believe any kind of weird stuff and practice any form of religion you want. But when you try to inflict those ideas into the main stream of scientific discovery - it needs to be rejected out-of-hand.
Congressman Braun has completely disqualified himself from making any judgments whatsoever about science, space and technology.
WFB resident - Oct 08, 2012 6:54 PM
to believe what it wants no matter what you are shown !! Yet ,why not debate it over
showing me what like/you minded people say ? Do you acknowledge that some
climate scientists disagree with you ? Do you know more about it than those
Scientists ? Do you admit your side has been caught doctoring studies ? Until you do
,you are just as bad as those unscrupulouse Scientists that would not allow the
studies to prove themselves !!! Just to push their opinions !!! lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 8:07 AM
Like you and Al, I don't claim to be an expert in climate science. So when I am forming an opinion on the subject I tend to lean heavily on experts in the field. You know, like scientists who have studied the subject for most of their careers.
Then I tend to put greater weight on those scientists who are widely recognized as leaders in the field. You know, like those who have published studies in respected peer-reviewed journals. And, those who have their work cited by others researchers who publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Some people like to cling to that 2% who question the validity of man made climate change because it reinforces their religious, political or economic biases.
What I reject is when people try to wrap themselves in the mantle of respectable scientific study in a desperate attempt to legitimize their non-scientific reasons.
Believe me Al, I am not criticizing your religious beliefs. What I am critical of is your attempt to justify those beliefs on scientific grounds.
WFB resident - Oct 09, 2012 12:35 PM
and goverment that want those studies to come out in that direction ! Do you
acnowledge that ? For instance the o recieved an honor/nobel when he first took
office !! Other than just talk what did the o do to aquire it ? Nothing but it made
people feel like something was hasppening ! Kind of like exlax ! lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 1:12 PM
and government that want those studies to come out in that direction!" - WFB
Please read what I wrote.
"Then I tend to put greater weight on those scientists who are widely recognized as leaders in the field."
That recognition does not come from groups or governments. It comes from fellow scientists who also do research in climate change and have studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Do you have a clue what that means?
WFB resident - Oct 09, 2012 2:12 PM
their direction of thinking ! Plus those studies after ward are skewed for the direction
is wanted . You will see that studies can be misdirected even without the Scientist
intentionally trying . For his way of thought is then skewed . When those corrupt
Scientists were caught they showed how their studies were used for many studies
afterward to cooberate information !!! But thery were false from the beginning !!!
Funny how that works . By the way if it were true why did those scientists feel the
need to lie in the first place ? You have yet to answer my previous questions . lol...
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 2:55 PM
Could you give me a source or link that explains what you are talking about?
aneuhauser - Oct 09, 2012 5:41 PM
Just two points: 1) The "near-unanimous" support for ACC is based on a "consensus" of scientists. Consensus has no place in science, which should be concerned with facts, not a confluence of opinion. Those scientists who question ACC are ostracized for deviating from the religious dogma. 400 meteorological scientists signed a letter some years back questioning the dogma of ACC. It saw only a glimmer of daylight before being suppressed. (I can't find a reference to it anywhere.)
2) Some facts: CO2 comprises 0.04% of our atmosphere, 1/2500th part. It is up from 0.035% 50 years ago, most likely due to our paving over of green space. CO2 is an inevitable result of almost all combustion, which is the oxidation of carbon, the most common non-gaseous element on earth. Gasoline, oil, natural gas and ethanol all contain carbon. Coal contains 80% carbon. The human body captures oxygen via the lungs and oxidizes carbon, mostly from sugars, to heat us up to 98.6º. The byproduct is CO2, which we, along with all other animals, exhale.
This proliferation of CO2 is counterbalanced by plant life which uses it for photosynthesis, releasing--you guessed it--oxygen as a byproduct. The more CO2, the happier plants and trees.
The conclusion of the "consensus" that this miniscule component of the atmosphere generates--or will--catastrophic global warming is ludicrous. This is justified via creation out of thin air of a totally unproven "enhancement" effect of CO2 on water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas at 43% atmospheric concentration. There is no observational or any other verification of this effect.
In the words of Prof. Walter Farrell (Marquette), "Follow the money."
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 7:47 PM
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of June 2012[1][2] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [2][3] This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[4] Carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis (in plants and other photoautotrophs), and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[5] The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years,[6] and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.[7]
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
So Al - are you going to address the study I cited or not? Do you question the methodology? Do you have an issue with the conclusions?
Do you believe the earth is only 9,000 years old?
Walt Farrell was a professor of Educational Psychology at UWM. Not sure why you cited him.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 09, 2012 7:51 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/arctic-ice-melt-sea-level-rise_n_1942666.html
WFB resident - Oct 09, 2012 9:29 PM
jumping to conclusion that are unsubstantiated !!! lol... Why do you not see that ? I
thought they were scientists ?
WFB resident - Oct 09, 2012 9:38 PM
proven that water living creatures in various areas in the midwest ! Nowadays when
man is here the waters have receded ! According to Pierre and his scientists that
means man caused it . I have figured out how . Man came around and drank all the
water then walked in to a cave and died ! Taking all the water with him ! lol... lol... I
like that one . Pierre you can quote me I will even except the nobel Prize . lol...
aneuhauser - Oct 10, 2012 1:13 AM
Nobody in the ACC crowd talks much about water vapor because nobody can do anything about it. They pick on CO2 so they can beat up on the evil industrialized West as opposed to the largely rural third world, and make them pay. Even so, the latter generates substantial CO2 by burning wood and coal while we spend billions on scrubbers.
I watched Prof. Farrell on Mark Belling's short-lived TV Sunday morning talk show. I liked him. Could have sworn he was from Marquette, at least at that time. Maybe he moved.
As a rule I don't look up links in comments. I'd rather read what the commenter thinks, not someone else.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 10, 2012 9:52 AM
I don't believe Walt Farrell was ever at Marquette, just UWM. I think he has sinced jumped to U of NC.
That Wiki paste job captured the essence of the ACC position simply and directly. Much of the charts and data come from NOAA - a government funded enterprise that you probably suspect is one of the leaders in what you and your fellow ACC deniers consider to be a grand conspiracy to commit scientific fraud on the human race.
So if you are unwilling to review the link to the study I referenced (only 3 pages), I guess you are perfectly willing to adhere to your concertized belief system.
One last question - How old do you believe the earth is?
aneuhauser - Oct 10, 2012 4:54 PM
I am further disappointed in your repeated attempts to get me to make a religion-based assertion to discredit me, as if religious belief is something to be ashamed of. I am not. To answer your last trap question, I have no idea and neither does anyone else. I question the billions of years concept as it is unproven and implausible. There was some research years ago by someone I believe named Libby that the basis of carbon dating, that the ratio of C12 to C14 is stable, a necessity for carbon dating to be valid, is not so, much to his surprise. It is still changing. He noted that theoretically, it would take 50,000 years to achieve equilibrium. But I really don't know the answer to your question. Scripture says that to God a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years. Good enough for me.
WFB resident - Oct 10, 2012 10:29 PM
gospel. But he refuses to answer questions put forth to him !! lol... Apparently
because his kool aid maker has not given him those answers to be able to spew
opinion as fact !!
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 11, 2012 9:08 AM
I suspected you had some grounding in the sciences. And, certainly Case-Western is not some fly-by-night school. But then, neither is Stanford University nor their Woods Institute for the Environment.
That is why I was a little taken aback when you wrote yesterday that you didn’t even read the 3 page study for which I provided the link. Having been peer reviewed and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, I would think it would pass as a serious study.
The conclusion of study was that there is absolutely no “statistically significant” scientific controversy on the subject of ACC. Were there “Outliers”? – Yes, about 2%.
The study speaks for itself. Perhaps that is why you would not read it. Perhaps it was that demonstrated lack of intellectual curiosity that disappointed me.
Al, as long as you are comfortable living in your 2% world - that is what is important. And if a similar study were done on evolution, I think you know where you would fall in that distribution.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 11, 2012 9:15 AM
I understand that part about God taking 6 days to create the heavens and the earth, and on the 7th day he rested. It requires a little faith, but I can accept that.
The real question I have Al, and I am hoping you can help me with is this -
"What did God do the week before he created the heavens and earth? You know, how did he spend his time?"
I have a hunch, but was wondering what your answer might be.
WFB resident - Oct 11, 2012 11:54 AM
condecending and ignorant enough to believe they can control the weather ! By the
way I do not want it to rain on saturday but I want it to snow 24 inches ! So That is
the order I pit in I am sure you PDLS's will be able to deliver !! lol...
WFB resident - Oct 12, 2012 1:46 PM
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 12, 2012 2:29 PM
I asked a serious question.
Do you EVER take anything seriously?
WFB resident - Oct 12, 2012 8:21 PM
my comments are serious with a little wit added in just to help prove a point !! So
how did man cause the waters to recede ? In the first place .
WFB resident - Oct 12, 2012 8:22 PM
aneuhauser - Oct 15, 2012 4:41 PM
To answer your question about what God did before Creation. I don't know about a week, but there was that war in Heaven with Lucifer and his cohorts, which resulted in his expulsion. That probably took some doing. Since Creation, I suppose He's been quite busy with those recalcitrant Israelites and more recently in keeping mankind from blowing himself up. (Oh, you thought it was Jimmy Carter?) And then there's all those prayers that need answering.
Boy, I'm glad all you folks are doing all that thinking about God. Maybe I'm doing some good after all.
P.S. Sorry about the tardy response. Things pile up.
Alte Man - Oct 15, 2012 8:43 PM
done ?
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 16, 2012 9:58 AM
As long as you are comfortable Al - That is the important thing.
Your hunch on how he spent his time the week before he created the heavens and earth was in the ballpark Al.
I have it on good authority that he use that time to first create hell, and then he created a special place in hell for people like me who ask those kinds of questions!
Peace be with you mi amigo. Now I have a few piles of my own to take care of.
WFB resident - Oct 16, 2012 1:46 PM
WFB resident - Oct 16, 2012 5:34 PM
WFB resident - Oct 16, 2012 9:46 PM
They have come out with a study citing that the so called global warming ended 16
years ago !!! yep lol... You heard that correctly 16 years ago !!! lol... Put out by the
ever rising population of anti Man made global warming scientists !!! lol...
WFB resident - Oct 17, 2012 2:17 PM