Surely our most cunning strategy yet for preventing people from getting health care, huh.   ;-) Nonetheless, the annoying, bland, hokey communications style of seiu goes on.  When oh when will the communications department at the international be subject to the type of ruthless purge that would be meted out to any organizer as talentless as they are? Who tries to build a cult of personality around a short un-charismatic ex-social worker bureaucrat anyway?  Man if Rivera or Woodruff or Medina (or dare I say it, MacAlevey) was our prez you'd see some more soundbites with BITE, I tellya! Jim <div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> From: "Change to Win" <<a href="mailto:takeaction@changetowin.org">takeaction@changetowin.org </a>> 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:     * <a href="http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/speak_out/ircomment1.php">http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/speak_out/ircomment1.php</a> 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:     * <a href="http://www.changetowin.org/pdf/CHCWGTalkingPoints.pdf">http://www.changetowin.org/pdf/CHCWGTalkingPoints.pdf </a> If you would like more information, including an analysis and critique of the Working Group's recommendations, you can go here:     * <a href="http://www.uhcan.org/campaign/files/resources/analysis.doc"> http://www.uhcan.org/campaign/files/resources/analysis.doc</a> 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. <a href="http://changetowinaction.org/join-forward.html"> http://changetowinaction.org/join-forward.html</a>? domain=ctw_action&r=rpLEwlK1DPIe If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Change to Win at: <a href="http://changetowinaction.org/ctw_action/join.html?r=rpLEwlK1DPIeE"> http://changetowinaction.org/ctw_action/join.html?r=rpLEwlK1DPIeE</a> ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:53:50 -0400 From: Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com"> dhenwood@panix.com</a>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test To: <a href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</a> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:87094F28-8EC7-4A81-AB55-73E8985DD63B@panix.com"> 87094F28-8EC7-4A81-AB55-73E8985DD63B@panix.com</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:cqmv@pdx.edu">cqmv@pdx.edu</a>> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test To: <a href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</a> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:Pine.GSO.4.62.0608091438500.9656@freke.odin.pdx.edu">Pine.GSO.4.62.0608091438500.9656@freke.odin.pdx.edu</a>> 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" <<a href="mailto:monacojerry@gmail.com">monacojerry@gmail.com </a>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] All Hail the Lamont Campaign Staff!!! To: <a href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</a> Message-ID:         <<a href="mailto:b4d7776e0608091454t268b006aj317ca6c2f3c436f7@mail.gmail.com"> b4d7776e0608091454t268b006aj317ca6c2f3c436f7@mail.gmail.com</a>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 8/8/06, mike larkin <<a href="mailto:mike_larkin2001@yahoo.com">mike_larkin2001@yahoo.com </a>> 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: <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/attachments/20060809/9f2078b6/attachment-0001.html">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/attachments/20060809/9f2078b6/attachment-0001.html </a> ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:09:15 -0500 From: Carrol Cox <<a href="mailto:cbcox@ilstu.edu">cbcox@ilstu.edu</a>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test To: <a href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</a> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:44DA5D0B.3641318F@ilstu.edu">44DA5D0B.3641318F@ilstu.edu</a>> 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" <<a href="mailto:jmhayes@j-o-r-d-a-n.com">jmhayes@speakeasy.net</a>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Boycott Japan and China To: <<a href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</a>> Message-ID: <377401c6bc01$f4530af0$4448a8c0@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 <a href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</a> <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </a> End of lbo-talk Digest, Vol 32, Issue 99 **************************************** </blockquote></div>