> From: "Change to Win" <takeaction at changetowin.org>
> Subject: Stand up for universal health care
>
> We believe that the time has come for universal health care --
> and you can help make it a reality.
>
> The Citizens' Health Care Working Group was set up by Congress
> to find out how to fix our broken health care system. It is
> currently talking to average Americans around the country to
> find out how we feel about the state of health care today.
>
> This important group has developed a set of proposed solutions
> for the health care crisis, and they are seeking comments from
> the public on their recommendations. The comment period ends on
> August 31 -- and with it, our opportunity to ensure that the
> needs of working people are addressed when the recommendations
> are presented to Congress.
>
> You can help by submitting comments on the Working Group's
> recommendations. Follow this link to go to a Web page where you
> can read and comment on each recommendation:
>
> * http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/speak_out/ircomment1.php
>
> There are six different recommendations on the online form that
> you can comment on. We believe the last two recommendations on
> this form are the most important ones to comment on. While they
> are not numbered online, they are Recommendation 5 (which has
> two parts) and Recommendation 6.
>
> We've prepared talking points for you to look over as you
> provide your comments on these two recommendations. You can
> download them (in Adobe PDF format) by following this link:
>
> * http://www.changetowin.org/pdf/CHCWGTalkingPoints.pdf
>
> If you would like more information, including an analysis and
> critique of the Working Group's recommendations, you can go
> here:
>
> * http://www.uhcan.org/campaign/files/resources/analysis.doc
>
> Working people's voices need to be heard in this debate. The
> health of our families depends on it. Help us make a better
> future by standing up for universal health care today!
>
> Thanks for all your support,
>
> Anna Burger
> Chair, Change to Win
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
>
>
> http://changetowinaction.org/join-forward.html?
> domain=ctw_action&r=rpLEwlK1DPIe
>
> If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
> Change to Win at:
>
> http://changetowinaction.org/ctw_action/join.html?r=rpLEwlK1DPIeE
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:53:50 -0400
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <87094F28-8EC7-4A81-AB55-73E8985DD63B at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> > Note that this does not entail dogmatic support for "western"
> > medicine. For instance, clinical trials have clearly demonstrated
> > the analgesic effects of acupuncture. In contrast, recent research
> > on hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women has shown that
> > the "pump em with estrogen" strategy has no positive therapeutic
> > effects and actually increases a woman's risk of ovarian cancer.
>
> Speaking of which, has any "alternative" practice ever been renounced
> as ineffective after rigorous testing? For all the many faults of
> orthodox medicine - functions of money, power, and ego - it is
> capable of substantial changes in practice. Can you say the same of
> the herb-dispensers?
>
> Doug
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 14:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu>
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.62.0608091438500.9656 at freke.odin.pdx.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> > One more point. The key reason behind the modern capacity to accumulate
> > knowledge is, well, "good old" capitalism, or rather its unprecedented
> > capacity to produce and accumulate surplus. The more efficient surplus
> > production, the greater the capacity to support people who can devote
> their
> > lives to scientific pursuits, and thus the greater the output of
> scientific
> > research work.
>
> I've agreed with most of Woj's points on this thread, but I've got to
> contest this one. It is not the social relations of capitalism per se
> that produce the conditions for creating knowledge; it is the (largely)
> public infrastructure in industrialized nations. --E.g., the role of
> the military and public universities in the creation of the internet,
> the role of basic research in universities in the creation of
> genetic screening and gene therapies, etc., etc. Sure, after the
> hard lifting is done, the capitalist entities swoop in and produce
> products and services that allow them to amass profits; however, the
> fundamental base for all that innovation is not capitalism. Rather, it is
> public funded and planned activity in the universities, military, and
> NGOs. In short, it is the application of socialist economic principles
> that made possible the vast accumulation of knowledge we have seen in the
> past few hundred years. Sure, the capitalists have amassed profits
> from the application of this publicly produced knowledge; that's what
> they do. However, the tremendous surplus produced by capitalist
> economic activity is the dependent variable, not the independent variable
> here.
>
> Miles
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:54:29 -0400
> From: "Jerry Monaco" <monacojerry at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] All Hail the Lamont Campaign Staff!!!
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID:
> <b4d7776e0608091454t268b006aj317ca6c2f3c436f7 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 8/8/06, mike larkin <mike_larkin2001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > ....i know them all: coolest bunch of lefties
> > anywhere. Let's help put them in power!
> >
> > __
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> The campaign staff might be nice and generally wish for a better world,
> but
> frankly Mike I don't get it. Why work up enthusiasm over a guy who has a
> moderately liberal program? He might be a good protest vote but what else
> is he? Eugen Mccarthy in his time was a genuinely contradictory
> conservative in a very classic sense, and a good protest vote against the
> way. Lamont is a genuinely middle of the road liberal and a good protest
> vote against the war. Is there any reason to think otherwise?
>
> Jerry
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> ../attachments/20060809/9f2078b6/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:09:15 -0500
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <44DA5D0B.3641318F at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> Miles Jackson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, ravi wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > To address your argument: there are two points that can be offered to
> > > counter it. The trivial counter-argument: the problem of induction
> > > should give pause to any sort of absolutism. The substantive argument:
> > > the softer the science the less autonomous the units under
> consideration
> > > and less rigid the behavioural variance.
>
> It's this rhetoric, "give pause to any sort of absolutism," that
> justifies Kelley's critique -- you are now arguing against a position
> that simply doesn't exist, and this kind of strawman argument pushes
> _my_ buttons.
>
>
>
> Miles Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > Confidence factors gained from
> > > limited studies and testing are less representative of individual
> > > possibilities, I will submit (albeit without the data), without
> > > knowledge of variance within, across individuals and populations,
> > > histories, environmental factors (hence my questioning the ceteris
> > > paribus claims of such studies), etc (there is also a third
> > > methodological argument based on Bayesian vs other interpretations of
> > > probability and statistical distributions, but I am nowhere near
> > > competent to get into the details of that argument, though I am
> > > convinced its a legitimate one from talking to those who know better.
> I
> > > throw it in here in case someone more knowledgeable might wish to
> expand
> > > on it).
> >
> > Science is messy and the results of scientific research are never
> > absolute and definitive, as Woj pointed out in an earlier post. I don't
> > see how this supports your position.
>
> ravi here comes close to an argument analogous to the argument
> creationists use against evolution. One can find problems and unanswered
> questions in evolutionary science -- therefore evolution should be
> tossed overboard. One can find errors and unanswered questions in
> medical science; therefore medical science should be tossed over. But in
> each case there is nothing to substitute for the rejected practice.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:20:00 -0700
> From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Boycott Japan and China
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID: <377401c6bc01$f4530af0$4448a8c0 at pavepaws>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> >> This advantage is slipping away fast.
>
> The GDP of *27* countries combined is now greater than that of the US?
> And that tells you that the advantage the US enjoys of having the
> biggest economy in the world is eroding? Other than being able to add
> up their respective GDPs, what do these 27 countries have in common
> policy- or capability-wise?
>
> The US, especially these days, moves with the flapping of a single
> mouth: that of George. How does the "EU-plus-two" speak or act? You
> can't get 3-out-of-4 EU countries to agree on whether to have doughnuts
> or croissants for breakfast, how do you propose they provide some kind
> of a backstop to US hegemony?
>
> Similarly for your "East Asia" number: I presume this includes India,
> China, and Japan . . .
>
> Fooey!
>
> /jordan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> lbo-talk mailing list
> lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> End of lbo-talk Digest, Vol 32, Issue 99
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20060809/9cfb4109/attachment.htm>