[Roger Slater]

You're very quick to accuse people of dishonesty, Bill, which doesn't promote an atmosphere conducive to discussion. It might be a better idea if you were to restrict yourself to the substance of my comments instead of feeling the need to volunteer that I am not just wrong but intentionally being dishonest.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a bill before the Senate right now that would institute a Republican healthcare plan that would indeed deprive children and the elderly (and many in between) of essential health care in order to fund tax cuts for the very wealthy. The premise appears to be, quite simply, that we are not all equal in our entitlement to medical care, but that those of us without the necessary talents to generate funds are to be allowed to go without medical care because those with more than enough funds would prefer to buy a third car just for the beach house.

Was it dishonest of me to notice that you said that "egalitarianism" is a "bad idea" because not all of us are born with the same talents? If egalitarianism is such a bad idea, and only those with talents that produce lots of money are to be entitled to things like medical care, I think you're the one being dishonest. Unless I have misunderstood you, which is quite possible, and you share my opinion that everyone, regardless of financial means, should have equal access to the same health care as everyone else.

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

All that being said, it's also true that humans are not born equal, and that egalitarianism is, by and large, a bad idea.

Egalitarianism is the idea that people should be afforded equal rights and opportunities. That includes women having the right to vote, people who aren't members of the nobility or landowners having the right to vote, black people not being slaves, gays and lesbians being allowed to marry, everyone having access to decent healthcare and education, people not being discriminated against when the apply for jobs on the basis of gender, skin colour, religion, disability and so on. All of this, "by and large, a bad idea"?

I'm not saying you hold these views, that you think that all these things are a bad idea. I'm just expressing my confusion at your statement that egalitarianism is, by and large, a bad idea.

Matt

[William A. Baurle]

Roger,

You wrote:

Unless I have misunderstood you, which is quite possible, and you share my opinion that everyone, regardless of financial means, should have equal access to the same health care as everyone else.

Repeating myself again: In another thread, I mentioned that every state in the US has programs that provide low or no-cost healthcare for people who cannot pay. Even if a person hasn't got a single red cent, they cannot, and will not be denied care. I worked in a hospital for 6 years (this is about the twentieth time I'm mentioning this), and NO-ONE can be turned away from the emergency room. Furthermore, I worked in the foodservice department as team leader on weekends, where I worked 14 hours straight, sometimes without a break. NO-ONE coming to the ER, even if just for food and water, could be turned away - and here's the best part - NOR did we want those people to be turned away. I would receive a call and the RN would tell me, "Bill, can you please send a tray to the ER, just basic stuff, milk, water, whatever food items you can throw on there, thanks..." And we send the tray, and I know by the tone and by certain figures of speech that this is a homeless person or just someone in dire need. Child, adult, elderly, black, green, from Mars, nobody cares, nobody gives a damn. We were paid very well to do our jobs and we did it with pride, and in my case, great joy.

I am sure things are different at hospitals elsewhere, especially in big cities. And I am not suggesting that I have some kind of comprehensive understanding of all this just because I worked in a hospital. Of course not.

I would never let a sick person go without aid, nor would I allow a hungry person to go without food. I would go hungry myself, rather than see someone else go hungry. You can either believe me or not. At this point, I am beginning to think that I am suspected of harboring some kind of nasty beliefs and views that I just won't own up to. For anyone who thinks that's the case, PM me, I will link you to my Facebook page, and to my co-workers and ex coworkers, as well as friends and family who know me and will verify that what I am saying here is reality, and not some kind of fucking game.

How in the world, after my 16 years of participation on this site, and after countless, lengthy posts, wherein I spell out everything in detail (Allen Tice would say TMI), over and over and over, can you still misunderstand me, unless it be from forgetfulness, which I suppose it probably is, or, are you trying to paint a portrait of me that is not true to who I am?

Like George Carlin says in the video I linked to, jokingly, but painfully true to reality, "you have to explain things to liberals...patiently..."

Matt, on to you in a bit. Lots to talk about...stay tuned...

[Emitt Evan Baker]

These programs and emergency room policies exist in spite of not because of the sense of entitlement that sees egalitarian demands for healthcare as free loading or socialist nightmares. These systems, especially the clinics are collapsing under the load in most urban areas. Adequate mental health and oral health is almost nonexistent for the most vulnerable Americans. The lean-to coverage that hospitals provide which you refer to isn't health care, its trauma care (with some exceptions). It is beside the point that Roger is making. No one is really that focused on your compassion creds or the (admittedly fascinating) way that they contrast with what appears to be your political ideas. People are responding to what the ideas and the ideologues you seem into actually do in the world, regardless of your own personal intentions.

Yeah, yeah. You sharp. Liberals dull. Read Roger's post again.

[William A. Baurle]

Matt,

I have to give you a Monty Python version of an answer because life happens and I've other things I need to do, but this should suffice, and I seriously hope it can be understood without much difficulty:

I believe that every human should have equal opportunity to pursue their individual happiness, which means they have equal rights, and that there ought to be no obstruction put in their way by virtue of any immutable characteristic such as race, gender, ethnic origin, size, shape, weight, color, physical appearance, height, size of penis, size of breasts (HOLY CRAP HE'S A SEXUAL PREDATOR IN THAT HE USED THE WORD BREASTS! < Brian Regan imitation: Clean comedian who doesn't even swear, and funny as hell, if hell were funny...) size of hands, length of legs, color of hair, freckles, shape of earlobes...etc.

I DO NOT believe that every human is born equal, meaning that some people will be genetically gifted, and "differently abled" than others, and that some people will be slower, or "minimally exceptional". Hell, my parents had a rough time at first because little Billy would sit there and not do a single thing he was told to do. Nope. He just sat there, probably very upset that he had to get out of bed and get on a big noisy bus and go to a big horrible building where there were multitudes of other kids, 99% of whom were MUCH bigger than him, which no doubt annoyed the shit out of him and scared him into a kind of self-contained little bubble of NOPE, I'm not gonna do ANYthing.

After a few years, once I began to realize that I could read, and not only that, but that I absolutely LOVED the look and smell of books, and the very shape and appearance of words on pages, things got better. So much better, that Billy gained confidence. He even got wickedly good at solving simple math problems. There was a game called Round Robin, where one kid would stand up by the other kid's desk, and the teacher would have flashcards that she would turn around, and on those cards were simple addition and multiplication problems. Well, Billy would know the answer almost instantly, before the other kid could even see the card, or so it seemed to Billy. So, Billy went around the room, from desk to desk, easily answering every problem on the cards way faster than the other kids. When I beat the whole class, I got a quarter, and an ice cream.

The next day, or a few days later, we played the game again, except this time Billy began to feel embarrassed, because he was answering the problems correctly every single time, much faster than the other kids. Billy, being Billy, began to feel uncomfortable. So, he decided, at one point, to let the other kid win. I saw the card, knew the answer, but clammed up, and let the other kid say the correct answer. YAY! I felt inside, I can finally sit back down and forget about this horseshit, because it's no longer any fun, and I can get ice cream when I get home.

Long story longer - nobody had to prod me or to tell me to ease up and let the other kid win. I decided it all on my own, at about seven or eight years old. And my life has been a long journey of under-achievement and avoiding embarrassment ever since. So much so that I can't go to the Accomplished Members area without feeling that feeling that a cat probably gets when her fur is being rubbed the wrong way. I find that forum to be embarrassing. I blush when I go there, and I only go there when I want to congratulate a good poet on publishing a good poem in a good venue.

Now, here comes the tricky part:

Should we really try to cultivate equality in the classroom, when nature and reality are against it, and always will be? Is it a good thing to coddle one student who lost a race in gym class, and suggest to that kid that they didn't really lose the race? That there are no such things as winners and losers in life? How will that pan out? I say we politely and lovingly allow the kid who lost the race to understand that they lost the race, and that maybe, just maybe, running fast AIN'T their particular gift? I think everyone, and I mean EVERYone, is good at something. We just need, as adults, to reach out and discover what that gift is.

Albert Einstein couldn't hit a home run, and Babe Ruth might not be so good at theoretical physics. IT'S OKAY.

***

Before I close, maybe you can answer me 2 questions:

Should a dishwasher earn the same money as a doctor? Of course not.

Should a dishwasher earn the same money as a cook? Nope.

I don't know what your answers are, but those are my answers. And I currently work as a kitchen utility aide in an assisted living facility, and I earn the Arizona MW. I'm OK with that, and why? Because at this point in my life, due to my emotional, bi-polar problems, I cannot handle much more than a simple, grunt-type job. I hope it's temporary, and I hope I can get better so I can take on a management position somewhere once again. But I don't think that's in the cards.

Of course, there's my BIG BOOK, and that Nobel Prize in the offing.

...

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Emitt Evan Baker

These programs and emergency room policies exist in spite of not because of the sense of entitlement that sees egalitarian demands for healthcare as free loading or socialist nightmares. These systems, especially the clinics are collapsing under the load in most urban areas. Adequate mental health and oral health is almost nonexistent for the most vulnerable Americans. The lean-to coverage that hospitals provide which you refer to isn't health care, its trauma care (with some exceptions). It is beside the point that Roger is making. No one is really that focused on your compassion creds or the (admittedly fascinating) way that they contrast with what appears to be your political ideas. People are responding to what the ideas and the ideologues you seem into actually do in the world, regardless of your own personal intentions.

Yeah, yeah. You sharp. Liberals dull. Read Roger's post again.

You are absolutely correct, Emitt. Liberals are really dull. And you don't seem to know what my political ideas are.

I'm what you would call a "Classical Liberal". Lots of people identify under that label. It isn't the whole ball of wax but it will have to suffice for now.

I am FOR individualism, rather than collectivism. I am against big government, and statism. I like the American Constitution. I like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, James Madison, ooooh, and I REALLY love John Quincy Adams, who was sharper than his pop.

Not terribly into Jackson, and that whole "Let's kill the injuns and steal their land" period. Very dark, very sad.

My beloved is Baruch Spinoza, who knew what was going on in our heads, and in politics, almost like no other, save perhaps that Jewish carpenter from Nazareth.

PM me, or email me. You can get my email by sending me a PM.

Or not.

[Matt Q]

Bill,

OK, so you do believe in equal rights and opportunities for all, you don't think that it's a bad idea after all. It's good to have cleared that up. I hope you can see why your earlier post gave both Roger and I a different impression.

The rest will have to wait till tomorrow as I need to sleep.

Best,

Matt

[William A. Baurle]

I need to sleep too, Matt, and thanks.

And I will read S l o w l y through the thread tomorrow, at which time I will no doubt slap myself in the head and say, "BILL! YOU MISSED THAT! YOU DOUCHEBAG!"

And then I will compose my silly self, and try to amend things, if I can.

But it won't be until tomorrow night, when I get off work.

Peace and Love to all of you, from the lowly slug in the ground to the fat cats in high places making decisions that impact our lives...

Emitt! I will comb through your posts and address things I skipped over.

Roger! I love ya, and I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

[Douglas G. Brown]

"ooooh, and I REALLY love John Quincy Adams, who was sharper than his pop."

Adams wrote quite a lot of poetry, the best known of which is "The Wants of Man." It was a favorite on my 5th grade teacher, Olive Macauley, back about 1961.

Search "Presidents as Poets" in the Library of Congress website for more info. on his poetry.

[Jim Moonan]

Douglas: Search "Presidents as Poets" in the Library of Congress website for more info. on his poetry."

I want to stay out of the fray that is the tumultuous political left/right/center politics of the present, but was struck by this simple statement by Douglas above which brought to mind a core reality that is now ours.
In the days before internet, not so long ago, though it seems another lifetime, only by hours of tedious, laborious research could one ever find information on subjects such as "Presidents As Poets". It was information only accessible to those who had a tenacious appetite for obscure information, a good library in which to search it, and a tolerance for the dewey decimal system and rolodex.
But that was way back when. Now it is all literally at our fingertips. What an incredibly seminal, epoch-ending/beginning breakthrough the internet has been. We are unique in that many of us have straddled both worlds.

Which brings me to this:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...les-criticism/

With every new paradigm comes a responsibility to re-learn.