If only that were the case. The problem is that the higher costs are spread throughout the entire insurance risk pool (that is, everybody, even if the perpetrators are uninsured, oddly enough). If you smoke, I end up paying for it, one way or another. And IMO your right to your own particular lifestyle ought to end at my wallet.

Personally, I think smokers should be forced to waive any insurance or government benefits for treating the diseases they're foisting on themselves, period.

You commie liberals won't tell me what I can and cannot eat, drink, inhale, ingest, imbibe, consume, quaff, or absorb! I'm sick of government intrusion! So what if I drive up health care costs for everybody? I pay enough taxes already - too much in fact, for everything I get, without you whiny tards telling me what's good for me! If I want to sit on my front porch and eat an entire stick of butter in one sitting one day, you better stay the hell away! When I finally get up, if my knees can take it, you'll be looking down the barrel of my shotgun! YOU WILL TAKE MY FREEDOM BUTTER WHEN YOU PRY MY COLD DEAD FINGERS FROM IT !!!!1!!!!!

I know at least one (talented) person who has been let go from what was once EDS. I'm willing to bet that a lot more less-talented ones are on the way out.

Seriously. I really don't know what GM did to EDS before HP bought them, but from the stories I've heard, they have to be the largest collection of mental defectives to run an IT shop. Their processes were totally divorced from reality. I half expected Randall P. McMurphy to show up as new employee one day.

I'm no fan of "resource actions", having been through 2 myself, but purging the Enterprise Services division, or whatever EDS has been re-christened, was probably long long overdue.

.

Check out the installment of "This American Life" (the NPR radio show) on the history of NUMMI, and how GM completely failed to capitalize on it, long before their implosion. Seriously, it's a fascinating installment, and one that echoes lessons from business school, particularly in the areas of operations and strategic transformation. I really really recommend it.

I think you could sum that up as "with liberty and justice for ME".

Most conservatives do cling very strongly to science, myself included. The wackos are just very loud

So.. where is this majority of conservatives to which you hint? They're too busy being the silent majority, I suppose.

Unfortunately for you, silence does imply approval.

I disagree with Lewis completely, if only because the teachings of Jesus have become mores in Western civilization and elsewhere, followed by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Ancient Rome was a horrific place, you know: the teachings of the prevalent state-sanctioned deities aligned themselves with the goals of the state exclusively, and dispensed morality for the benefit of the strong (think Neitzsche here..brrr). Murder of certain citizens was frowned upon, for example, but killing slaves and combatants in the gladiator's arena was morally neutral at worst. The very idea that morality must accommodate the weak - the weakest of us, in fact, was revolutionary.

Very few modern societies have since sanctioned the Roman practice of dressing up barbarism as moral rectitude, and the influence of Christianity in this respect is beyond doubt. Whether that particular brand of morality or ethics was followed, or just copied wholesale into other cultures, is incidental.

Besides, Lewis props up a straw man by saying that anyone who would believe those teachings by themselves must be a madman - without providing any evidence for such a goofy claim.

Um, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to the Lord what is the Lord's?". I remember that one. You lose.

And to equate belief in "government", whatever that means, with "religion" is simply farcical. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Jesus was neither a Republican or a Democrat, IIRC. And actually, I do know Catholic monks who are fed up with this "state = evil" attitude. They would and do insist that politics (and politicians) that both restrict/eliminate abortion, while also avoiding the use the power of the people to take care of the disadvantaged, cannot justifiably be called "pro-life". (Oddly enough, abortion rhetoric aside, the current pope would be to the left of Nancy Pelosi on America's socio-political scale.)

Oops, "divine" not "diving". Curse you, submit button!

Well, if you have to ask...

I'm an atheist, and am actually a big fan of word of Jesus. The ideas were revolutionary for morality and ethics in the ancient world. Whether or not Jesus was diving, or even really existed, is unimportant in this respect.

But, having said that, I'm afraid you can find all sorts of examples in the Bible that contradict each other, especially between the Old and New Testaments (e.g. stoning gays vs. loving one another). Not to mention the conflicting geneologies of Jesus in the gospels. (And I'm sure other posters will chime in soon with more examples.) Furthermore, biblical scholars worth their salt do not believe in the literal truth of the text, since it has been translated, edited, and redacted many times over. Much has been lost, forgotten, rejected (Gnostic gospels anyone?), or just plain ignored.

Finally, my biggest complaint with Christians in general is that more often than not they themselves pick and choose which portions of the Bible are true. Just look at the anti-abortion types in the States who also want to cut back on Social Security or Medicare -- a position that is clearly not "pro-life", nor follows through with Jesus' adminitions to take care of the least fortunate. If you wish to use Jesus' teachings as the basis of your ethics, fine -- but either be consistent, or be prepared to be exposed as a hypocrite.

Yep. It's been verified time and time again (barring the exceptions you cite), and is a direct consequence of game theory. Basically, it only takes one entrant to screw up the current equilibrium among all other players, and effectively begin a "race to the bottom".

Please. This explains a lot.

Not to be picky, but Abraham Maslow, the psychologist and father of the concept of 'self-actualization', was the first to use that expression.

And to survive as an investment banker on Wall Street, you need to be a sociopath (or at least afflicted with a severe case of Asperger's). You must believe, with every fiber of your being, that you cannot possibly make enough money -- and that it is entirely fair and just that you do so. Your morals must be self-centric, or at the very least easily suspended. (Confession: I are an MBA, so I know a little about this.)

The question is: Should someone like this, no matter how qualified, be president? I'd say no.

"The audience at the inauguration were puzzled by the beginning of President Romney's long-anticipated speech, in which he simply intoned: 'Attention all planets of the solar federation: we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control..'"