BBC Blog Network

User Profile

timohio

Listed below are comments made by timohio between Monday, 5th October 2009 and Tuesday, 24th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

State dinner: the hottest ticket in town 5:57pm on 24 Nov 2009 re. 48 brahma:

"And who knows.. a non topic such as the fact that Prime minister Mohan Sing is a vegetarian and will undoubtedly be offered a wide variety of vegetarian dishes in the White House could possibly do more then the Copenhagen Climate change meetings, to reduce green house gasses"

Oh, I don't know. I tend to emit greenhouse gasses after some vegetarian meals. Can't be good for the climate.
US report on 'harm' of testing for cancer too young 6:10pm on 20 Nov 2009 re. 20. CamberwellBeauty:

"Men surely must have some thoughts lets say, prostate screening? I think the same psychology applies? I'm asking."

Oh yes, indeed. My father died of prostate cancer, so I'm in a somewhat higher risk group. And my doctor's father was diagnosed with it, but it was diagnosed early and he was successfully treated. So she takes it seriously and I get an annual PSA test and rectal exam. And I had to go for an ultrasound once. So I've been through the process of nervously waiting for the test and exam results. But I would rather go through that than discover, as my father and a friend did, that it was diagnosed too late.

Incidentally, whether the insurance company pays for a test often depends on how the physician writes the lab order. Doctors learn how to game the system to their patients' benefit--maybe there should be special classes for this in medical school? Normally the PSA is covered only every other year, but my doctor writes it up as family history and enlarged prostate, both of which are true. But if she simply wrote it up as routine screening the insurance company would probably kick it back at me.
A triumph of justice? 6:06pm on 17 Nov 2009 re. Rather_Be_Cycling (multiple posts)

I think you are missing the point of a criminal trial here. By putting them on trial in a criminal court the US is saying that these are not soldiers, they do not represent any legitimate authority, they are common criminals. And by implication, the US is saying that Al-Qaeda is a band of criminals not deserving of the status of an enemy nation according to international law. Keeping them locked up as enemy combatants in Gitmo was only elevating their status in the eyes of jihadists and confirming Al-Qaeda's self-proclaimed standing as a pan-Islamic nation.

Everyone on the planet knows that these guys are never going to get out of jail. How that is accomplished is the important part.
Obama rising above the sea? 6:15pm on 05 Nov 2009 re. 24. RomeStu:

I know that this is a very different philosophy of how to construct a government from what most European democracies operate under and that even most Americans don't get it, but if you read through any of the accounts of the writing of the US constitution you see that the goal was to prevent any one person or group or state or branch of government from running roughshod over the others. In spite of banding together during the revolution, most of the states didn't trust one another and didn't want to be dominated by the others. Getting things done in short order was not the goal. Keeping things from falling apart was.

Remember that when the constitution was written the US was a fringe of small, slow-moving, largely agricultural, states strung out along the Atlantic coast. I seriously doubt that any of the framers thought that there would ever be a need to move quickly. The only exception in the constitution is in time of war, when the executive branch gets to take over. But according to the constitution only the Congress has the power to declare war, so even that prerogative of the president is hedged.

So change happens very slowly in the US except under extraordinary circumstances like the Great Depression. It takes a long period of consensus-building before there is sufficient agreement among the various stakeholders to actually accomplish something important.
Waiting for deliverance 00:13am on 05 Nov 2009 re. 85. publiusdetroit:

It amazes me that most people don't bother to research candidates and look into the long term pros and cons of policies. And that so few bother to vote even, as you say, in local elections where the outcome affects them the most. But so many will then complain. And so many will content themselves with sound bite statements from demagogues. A democracy requires informed voters or it doesn't work. You can't put the country on cruise control and not expect to have problems. I may disagree with some of the people on this blog, but they are at least engaged in the political lives of their countries and are at least moderately informed about current events.

"Great to see you back"
Well, I won't be back very often. I decided I can blog or have a life, but not both. I just check in every now and then. To be honest, much of what appears here seems to be the same posters with the same arguments. But thanks for the thought.
Waiting for deliverance 6:21pm on 04 Nov 2009 re: 25. David Murrell:

One thing to remember is that federal tax dollars are not distributed uniformly back to states on a per capita basis. There are net losers and net gainers. On a per capita basis, generally the states with the higher population densities and greater industrialization have been net losers (meaning that citizens pay more to the federal government than they get back in federal spending). The more rural states are net gainers. That's partly because of highway spending, spending on national parks, military spending, etc. Oddly enough, many of the more conservative states where people complain about "socialism" benefit heavily from federal spending. Most of the military bases are in the South, for example. Alaska is a huge recipient of federal money on a per capita basis, in spite of its facade of rugged individualism.

About yesterday's election: Off-year elections usually draw a different group of voters than presidential elections. Turnout is usually lower and the voters are usually more committed than voters in a presidential election. As a result the vote reflects the size of a party's established base in a particular state more than the sentiments of the population as a whole.
Airing the Afghan debate 03:02am on 07 Oct 2009 re. 151.GH1618:

Nobody at 18 or 19 is emotionally mature. That's no slur on the US armed forces. At 18 or 19 a person is unduly influenced by peer pressure. Armies and terrorist groups count on that.
Airing the Afghan debate 11:29pm on 05 Oct 2009 re. 35. MagicKirin:
"Knock Bush if you want but he did serve in the National Guard."

I'm not sure that Bush's activities in the Texas Air National Guard constitute "serving." His flight status was revoked and he had an unexplained gap in his attendance. I will give him credit for not crashing his planes, unlike John McCain, who crashed several times before ever reaching combat. I understand we differ on McCain's politics and policies, but Top Gun material he was not.

And Bush's vast military "service" gave him the insight to invade Irag. That kind of military wisdom is something we can do without.
Airing the Afghan debate 11:17pm on 05 Oct 2009 re. 31. TimothyR444 wrote:

"No doubt Britain would take care of the situation with their eyes closed."

Just like they did in 1842.
Airing the Afghan debate 11:14pm on 05 Oct 2009 re. 11. Acolonelartist:

"Increasing troop levels in a country with an incipient army and police force, no air force, and no NAVY..."

Afghanistan is a landlocked country. I certainly hope they aren't squandering our money to build a navy. But perhaps they would anticipate a naval conflict with Austria.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

timohio