Kind of puts the democrat party on the spot doesn't it? Either speed up the conversion to socialism and destroy the country, or be destroyed. Just looking at the democrats elected and serving in congress tells you how they will go. Too many outright anti-American cowards are now calling themselves democrats and their brain washed followers have their heads up their a**.

Threaten to mess with the drug companies unnecessarly and they announce a layoff of 10,000 +. Great first two weeks.

drawing from three of the lowest forms of life on earth (leftist activists, union thugs, and trial lawyers)

Heh.

Well, the whole process will be greased along by the truly lowest form of life on earth, fiercely partisan journalists with collectivist agendas (who, by the way, dominate their "industry").

Good last point "Scrapiron" - the "Pelosi" breed of democrat thinks they can force a private business enterprise to set their prices according to government decrees or they get no business. When will these politicians learn that 'free trade' means just that, a business in America is free to set the price for a product based on costs to thier business. (including the preliminary research costs before any profit was seen)

How can government handle the extra cost of Rxs on Medicare without having the pharmaceutical industry negotiate their price standards? They can estimate the annual cost of the Rx plan, then figure out how to run the Rx payment in the most cost effective manner (as any private citizen must figure out how to pay the standard monthly bills - without any luxury of getting the businesses they deal with to negotiate a better price) Individuals cut the frivolous expenses in order to pay for THE NECESSARY expense.

That's how capitalism works.

The only thing that amazes me about this piece is the apparent stupefaction of Addison that there are democrats who might not want to be in the center. This from a writer on a blog that glorifies and exalts the extreme right?

Holy cow, what's next?

This from folks who used to worship the very earth upon which Tom "The Hammer" trod. This from people who may apparently already forgotten the lockstep votes of the republicans in the last congress? This shock and awe from folks who supported the party that kept votes open till the necessary votes were rounded up? This amazement from the folks who supported the man who made open threats on the floor of the House to a congressman who didn't want to vote in lockstep? This from the folks who support the party that had a congressman openly pass out lobbyist checks (bribes) to influence votes?

Me thinks your observations are pretty funny Addison.

Hugh, Testify! But extreme right is too risky a place for most of the Wizgang to be, even if it were true. And left vs right is too relative a term, anyway. That's why I use Paul Mulshine's term BUSH-BOTS. It's the only quick way to describe the full-tilt toadying to W's positions that the Regs perform, no matter how un-American those positions might be. That's the allure of the strawman approach here. It's always the nits that are picked; never a "what would Reagan do?" post. That might wake somebody up. And that would not be good for Bush. p.s. Has anyone seen a Habeas Corpus post lately?

Ba writes;

How can government handle the extra cost of Rxs on Medicare without having the pharmaceutical industry negotiate their price standards?
(...without any luxury of getting the businesses they deal with to negotiate a better price) Individuals cut the frivolous expenses in order to pay for THE NECESSARY expense.

That's how capitalism works.

Jesus, what an ignorant dipshit you are. That's not how capitalism works at all.... God, I'm amazed you said that. Did you sleep through your coursework?

Capitalism... Free markets. Something is worth the intersection of the buyers purchase price and the sellers selling price. Other people enter the market to sell when the price gets too high. Prices drop when demand falls.

OK, so it works like this. I come to you as a widget maker and say, "forget the ten buck price per unit. Give me a million units for 5 bucks each." You get economy of scale, and while you get less per unit, you get a huge guarenteed sale, and your profits go up. That's a negotiation for price.

Why the hell do you think people go to wal-mart? Or Costco? Volume pricing. Free markets. Capitalism.

Now, consider the law passed last year under the Republicans. It PROHIBITED the federal government from using it's volume to negotiate a better price. It REQUIRED the federal government to single source at full retail.

Dumbass, if you don't like the price you get at shop A, you go to shop B. But no, we passed a law to make it illegal to do that.

Dumbass, if you go to a car dealership, are you going to take the first offer and purchase at full sticker price? We had a law that REQUIRED that.

Go back to school, idiot.

John, you sure throw around insults easily enough for someone who apparently can't even understand his own words.

Your explanation of capitalism, while skeletal, isn't unreasonable. But then you betray your own lack of comprehension of what a "free market" is by insisting the government could be a fair partner in "negotiations." That's insane. There is no free market when one party to the "negotiations" controls the laws under which transactions occur, has unlimited legal resources, and possesses nuclear weapons.

Any "negotiation" would amount to the government demanding a price with the threat of legislatively enforcing their demand if it isn't agreed to "voluntarily."

That's price fixing and, to see the inevitable result, one need only look at the pharmaceutical industries in those countries which have already engaged in this sort of "negotiation," including Canada and most of Europe. While those countries once were fully competitive in the new drugs their companies produced, they have fallen far behind. The United States has taken an overwhelming lead in the discovery of new medicines and medical devices largely because of the price controls instituted by other major economies.

Those countries have an edge, though. They are only bidding on "end of run" production. The drugs have been researched, developed, tested, patented, and approved in the USA, which accounts for most of the actual cost of production. The raw materials used in producing almost all drugs are of little relative cost. The next million pills, after all the expensive work has been done, cost little more than the raw materials used to produce them, so companies can meet the arbitrary price demands of other countries and still make a profit - IF they have the patent rights for fourteen years in the US.

Democrats gave cartoonists nearly a century of copyright protection, but resent the fourteen years creations of actual use obtain under patent law.

The problem is, unlike Belgium, France, and Canada, if we start fixing drug prices and kill or cripple OUR industry, there is no one else to develop the new drugs.

Nobody forces any American to pay high prices for patented prescription drugs. In almost every case there are cheaper alternatives - older patented drugs or generics. People DEMAND the newer, more expensive drugs from their doctors, and their doctors prescribe them, because they are more effective. Don't you expect to pay more for something that's better?

THAT's how the free market works. Dry up profits for drug companies, and the investment capital dries up with it.

If the socialist medicine crowd only understood how much research on how many new drugs to save or improve how many more lives has been funded by Viagra profits, for example, they wouldn't go bleating about so.

Thanks Jim. You went into more detail than I wished to. But I do fully understand 'one government body' cannot tell an entire industry what price they will pay. That certainly is not support of free market pricing. I like to look at things simply. When I pay my phone bill each month, I really can't go to the phone company and tell them I want a better price for the service I receive. It is 'for me' the consumer, to prepare my budget so that I can pay for the service.

and capitalism is just that, in America individuals who start and grow thier company, can charge the price that meets their expenses for thier business plus profit. And it's not for me
to question how they divide up thier profit.

Government has no right to regulate ANY business.
period.

Jim,

May I suggest you delete posts with uncivil, ad hominem attacks and/or name-calling? And ban those who continue the ugliness?

If you can't REASON civilly, and you run with your EMOTIONS, perhaps you're angry or frightened and are not acknowledging it, let alone dealing with it.

Rick,

Spot on. I am angry. I'm angry about loss of critical thinking skills, and the culture of ignorance that's become standard over the last decade.

Jim Addison makes a compelling and coherent argument. I do disagree with a few points however.

The government does not have a monopoly on drug purchases, nor should it be assumed that the government cannot or should not negotiate. The government can and does negotiate on a daily basis for everything from cheese for school lunches to B1 bombers. My position is that the government should not have been prohibited by law from being able to negotiate a volume discount. This benefits the drug companies short term. (I'm too much of a cynic to think the government is trying to take the long term, 10 year drug cycle view to protect innovation.)

Anyway, government does not have unlimited power over business. Government does not have unlimited power period, for the children of the Magna Carta. Besides, it's generaly considered unethical to nuke our business leaders, no matter how much they deserve it.

Anyway, so Ba has not only slept through economics, but apparently civics as well... For example, we get this dribble;

Government has no right to regulate ANY business. period.

So, I open a oil change business. I could dispose of my greasy rags and recovered oil, but that costs me. So I dump the rags in back in a pile and have a big smokey fire once a week or so and dump a few hundred gallons of oil in the creek every day.

This makes great economic sense.

The problem is it's pushing my costs (for disposal) off onto the people downstream (who have no drinkable water, no fish resources).

It's cost dumping.

One of the reasons we establish government, Ba is to "Provide for the Common Good".

Get an education.

John, I understood Jim's explanation and you did too obviously. And you know what - I did expect you to say what you just said: 'The government can and does negotiate on a daily basis for everything from cheese for school lunches to B1 bombers.' Yes, after I wrote it out, I knew that would come up. Here's where you are confused. So let's clarify. When 'the government body' is BUYING a service from a 'vendor' that government body could be called 'the consumer' (picture one body' representing 'a person' purchasing a contract with a vendor) That's NOT what MEDICARE is. Government is not the consumer - the citizen is. Government is the provider OF the service which the consumer pays in via deductions from social security. The citizen is the buyer (consumer) of a service government provides. Also, the working years of paying in via payroll taxes - for medicare insurance. It's not free. We pay for this coverage. (Rx insurance)

It is for the CONSUMER buying the medication he needs to find the most cost effective agent to sell him what he needs. He can as Jim suggested, ask his doctor for a generic brand, he can ask for older patented drugs that work as well, he can buy his product from a discount retail store with a pharmacy on premises) Where the consumer goes for what he needs for his Rx budget is his business. The consumer is the first to pay this bill. (yes, the government plan pays a percentage of the overall cost - but that cost is indicative of the where the CONSUMER gets the product filled) And the CONSUMER should be careful where
he purchases, because the service providing him
insurance re-payment is giving him via all taxpayer's $$. Yes, John, we should as consumers look out for 'the common good' - because our benefit comes from 'all the citizen's monies.'

Now, you understand? It's not the third party government agency to find you the right price, it's not the third party government to speak for you at the doctor's office. (you as independent adult can do that for yourself) They trust YOU to look out for EVERYONE'S TAX DOLLARS because after all, YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. (something that many seem to forget) Many really believe that government is different than they the citizen. That government is their negotiator. A 'big parent' finding you the best price. No. Not at all. Government is YOU. (confusing I know)

Yes, John, Common Good. That means, you the consumer are in charge of ensuring that YOU find the best price for your budget and THE GOVERNMENT who 'represents' you and 'all the people' who pay taxes. It's not government's job to tell a business what to charge you if you decide to patronize them. It's not for government to tell those who make the product what price they must sell the product at. It MIGHT BE for the druggist buying from the pharmaceutical rep to negotiate a price BASED ON the quantity of the drug he purchases for his store (which is probably how discount stores can sell drugs at a discount, they
buy IN BULK)

it's NOT the job of this government in a free land who merely represents YOU to find you the right price, tell you where to get your medicine, tell the drug companies they can only sell their medicine at this price. It's not for the vendors
to make the government's budget work. That's why the democrat politicians want price fixing with pharmaceutical companies, they don't have to think about making the budget for the necessities first, they merely have to get the one's they PAY OUT TO give them a price that works for them 'as is'

Again I say - when "I" make a budget - I need to
make the budget based on the expenses as I agreed to them. Necessities first before 'luxury.' I can't keep the fun stuff by telling any business I pay to, your price doesn't work with the budget I have, you should only be charging me this amount and then it will all be ok. Now, on the other hand, if I want to change the quantity or quality of the services I buy from THAT vendor - ie: less services from the phone company, or less time logged into my internet service provider, then while my price is lower, it is not by reason of same quality less price to me, it is because I took something a bit less in quantity and quality of the service this vendor is offering.

Ok? we clear now. (we get mixed up on who is the consumer, who is the vendor with the product, and who is PAYING the consumer a percent back, as a
benefit given to citizens. Rx health insurance coverage. The democrat politicians who want to be the negotiator with a drug companies pricing are in effect saying to all America, WE DON'T TRUST you to handle YOUR MONEY - we'll HANDLE IT ALL FOR YOU (in effect - when someone does what YOU can do for yourself, they've taken YOUR FREEDOM and put themselves IN CHARGE OVER YOU and that is NOT what 'we the people' government is about.

Understand John?

Ba,

It's an interesting technical argument, and well spoken. I must respectfully disagree however.

You make a distinction that is not observed in practice. As I mentioned the government does negotiate volume discounts. The asphalt I drove home on was purchased under a volume contract. Is the government the consumer of this thing?

No.... I consent to be governed and I support the government with my tax dollars in exchange for representation and the expectation that I will receive an equatable exchange in goods and services for the things I put into the bargin.

So, I'm actualy the consumer of that asphalt. And my kids school services, complete with cheese and the B1 bombers that circle overhead keeping both of us safe.

So, when you said;

It's not government's job to tell a business what to charge you if you decide to patronize them.

That's not entirly true, is it? It ignores monopoly law, and anti-price gouging legislation. The government does in fact have the authority to set price limits.

This argument also ignores the way Medicare pays service providers. Medicare does publish a price list for services, does it not? If you get an X-ray, and you go to your local emergency room they may charge you $300. Medicare may well say this service should cost $250, and the service provider must adjust their cost.

Anyway, the thought that government has no right to regulate any business, period is one that is not held by any serious economist, nor is true, nor would it be in the common good. What you're advocating is way too close to anarchy for my liking.

I think sometimes we tend to forget all the benefits we get from our government. A government that creates a level playing field where business can compete. A safe banking and trading system that promotes investment. A system of rules and regulations that make commerce predictable.

Yeah, it's cool to forget all that and say "If government just would butt out, everything would be great".

If you go to parts of the world where government does not work, or is non existant, and those rules and regulations are not in place you'll see environmental destruction, corruption, lack of faith of investors, and economic stagnation.

So the part of all this I still don't understand is... since the government DOES negotiate on behalf of all of us, whether it's with the Soviets or for free cheese...

Why is in your direct best interest to have a law that PREVENTS the government from being able to negotiate a volume discount with a drug company?

The government is not constrained from being able to negotiate a volume discount for any other purchase. (and the drug industry as a whole is not in financial trouble).

Thanks

Need more clarification of the term 'we the people' ARE the government, eh John? Sure, no problem. Your first statement you said:

>As I mentioned the government does negotiate volume discounts. The asphalt I drove home on
was purchased under a volume contract. Is the government the consumer of this thing?

Now, mind you I'm not a government purchasing
agent, but common sense tells me:

Streets belong to the taxpaying citizens. Citizens pay thier municipalities property taxes which go for the care of the municipality. These taxes go to such expenses as support the school system,as well as other agencies that care for the community. For local street repair jobs the Department of Public Works in a community get a certain amount of the tax dollars for their needs.
Hiring of employees to do the small road repairs, trim trees, plow snow. Who pays the DPW employees salary? 'we the people.'/The government agency is not the consumer, the governing agency is 'REPRESENTATIVE' of the citizens whose money they are using. As such, they have an obligation to seek out if using a private contrator for major roadwork, that contractor whose PRICE is reasonable and will do a GOOD JOB. The purchasing agent, puts out the call for bids to do the job.
(low bids and crummy work are not cost effective to the taxpaying consumer) Note: the word seek out the best BID for a job. It's for the private contractor to evaluate the job and give HIS FEE for the job. It is for the governing representative (knowledgeable of road repair) to determine which contractor's bid with
quality of materials to be used, man hour to be taken, reputation of contractor best utilizes the taxpaying citizens money. (and I might add, road repair is in budgets, and the government agent must also consider that budget when choosing a contractor) So, more than likely - your government purchasing agent did not buy the asphalt you road home on, but purchased by contract bid the services of a private contractor who purchased the asphalt.

But, in the case of the DPW buying a large volume of SALT for snow removal, that they themselves will store. mmm. That government agent is the representative of the taxpayer who can't himself order the salt. Technically, that agent for you,
is the 'consumer' SEEKING OUT a vendor to supply
the salt to the community. Said vendors puts in a bid to supply the salt they produce. NEGOTIATION of the vendors price? mmmm. How could they really?
This is the government agent doing business with
a private business. They CHOOSE the vendor with the BEST PRICE (and quality of service) but they
don't TELL the one what this vendor should charge. Sort of ridiculous isn't it in the free trade America is about.

So to my earlier post, which I didn't elaborate on this aspect on: 'the government body' is BUYING A SERVICE from a VENDOR that government body could be called 'the consumer' using of course taxpayer monies. BUYING A SERVICE, does
not mean negotiating with the vendor - it means putting out the need and accepting bids. It is for the vendor after evaluation for the job, to give his price. Looking at all prices, governing body agent makes his selection.

But again, common sense would tell me that there is no NEGOTIATING THE PRICE with the supplier of the salt; or whatever services one is seeking,
but merely finding the SUPPLIER with the best price. If said government purchaser selects that vendor and that vendor's price, "it's a deal."
Can negotiations occur between vendor selected and agent after vendor is selected. Common sense would say? What need would there be to? The needs were put forth, the vendors each explained what they will supply and why it will cost x amt of dollars...NOW...who do you want.

Back to the Medicare statement 'Medicare may well say this service should cost $250, and the service provider must adjust their cost.' No,
you are forgetting - first not all providers of medical services HAVE TO accept Medicare patients. Most do, why would they not. If they do, they enter into an agreement with this government agency, before even submitting their bills, that they will acccept 'assignment' of what this insurance will pay or will not accept assignment. (and they tell their patients before hand, will or will not accept assignment) Patient then decides: do I still want this doctor who will not accept assignment. The doctor has still said his services are worth this much, and he bills for what he believes service is worth. As the provider of service to 'you the citizen' of the insurance using 'your monies' - they will pay the reasonable and customary fee for this service (I assume is an average of what all doctors charge for the service)If you choose a medicare
provider who does not accept assignment, the balance of the doctor's fee is paid by you, THE PATIENT and the consumer who selected his doctor.

Whew...it can be confusing, but I think that's the gist. Jim: if I'm confused on anything, let me know.

I may have got confused when I wrote the government purchasing agent of the road asphalt
is representative of you the citizen they are using and for the snow removal purchase said: they are technically the consumer buying the salt. In both instances, yes, the government agent seeking out the best vendor for asphalt or salt is a consumer seeking services, but with 'we the people's' monies. So, as rep of the many,
he must find the best price; but in America, he
can't TELL the vendor what price to give. He puts out A BID for the service or supply.

I hold firm: government of the people does not tell any 'people' who wish to do work for government what thier price should be. It's their business. Take them or not.

ooops forgot your last question John:
'Why is in your direct best interest to have a law that PREVENTS the government from being able to negotiate a volume discount with a drug company?'

Besides the answer Jim Addison gave ...

I say: Government of the USA is By the People, Of the People and For the People. The citizens of America are that drug company or any other business (why do I want to tell my fellow citizen what he can charge? We are FOR the people) The citizens pay for all services via their taxes, government uses said monies via budgets - budgets actually voted on BY the people (it's already established how the monies will be spent and how much for what service)and lastly we are governed OF the people, ie: we do not need someone TAKING CONTROL OF our monies earned or spent. We TELL our reps...THEY don't tell us.

makes sense, right John? That's why we don't need democrat politicians telling a pharmaceutical company what price to set and regulating business.
Democrats seem to have forgotten WHO is in charge.
"WE THE PEOPLE" ARE...'they' merely represent.
(though I fear some democrats would love to control every aspect of our lives)

Ba writes;

but in America, he can't TELL the vendor what price to give. He puts out A BID for the service or supply.

I hold firm: government of the people does not tell any 'people' who wish to do work for government what thier price should be. It's their business. Take them or not.

Oh, of course we do. As a purchaser you absolutly can and often do tell your supplier what you're willing to pay. And THEY can take MY business or not. I've spent a lot of time negotiating contracts on both ends, and I can tell you that the great certanty in negotiation is that EVERYTHING is negotiable.

Let's say I'm negotiating for a car. I've got my choice of dealerships, makes and models. The salesperson has something I want, and he wants my business. I name my car, he names my price. We dicker. He comes down. I make conscessions. Nobody is a hostage. At eiether time we could eiether walk away, but we don't because at some point, we'll both find a deal that's in our mutual interest to accept.

I think you assume the government would have the drug manufactures at an unfair advantage, but volume pricing, guarenteed minimums, single point sourcing, etc all have advantages to the seller. It's not allways a bad deal for eiether party, and when done well can be an equatable deal for both parties.

Ba writes;

That's why we don't need democrat politicians telling a pharmaceutical company what price to set and regulating business.

But of course that's not what we're talking about. Nobody is suggesting that the government set a sale price cap for a pharm company's product. We're talking about the government being able to have the ability to a purchase price for a particular deal. The pharm company wants to sell to Wallmart at a differnt price, have at it.

As far as I know, the Medicare Pharm issue is rare in that it ties the federal government's hands and deprives it of it's ability to negotiate with it's suppliers on behalf of it's citizens or clients.

ahh, you understood all I wrote. Not much arguing.

Now you are 'changing your story' a bit..

Now you say: As a purchaser you absolutly can and often do tell your supplier what you're willing to pay.

That's not negotiating. first, government seeks BIDS for work that needs doing. Of course they can tell the vendors they will pay UP TO x amount of dollars. That IS NOT - telling the private business to change his prices. The agent for the government, can I suppose tell what the budget is for this service needing to be done, if someone bids that price and another bids lower and another bids in between the lowest and the most they will pay, that's not negotiating with any individual business and their prices. If there's any negotiating at all, it's on the part of the business that wants the job. I must charge this fee. Government: That's just 'a bit too high for our budget' ...business: Well, look, I know my worth; and you know it also, if I come down to
what you can pay in your budget for this year,
will you allow me to bid on other jobs to
be done by my firm? Please note, all of this involves the MUTUAL agreement process between 2 parties. But it does not at all deal with government regulating prices or price fixing for their one sided benefit. (GOVERNMENT of the people do not tell businesses what they can charge)

I'm glad you see my point on Medicare providers still being able to set thier own fees irregardless of what the insurance will pay for the service.

Jim Addison, help me out here, please

one more point that might be causing John's confusion here. He wrote: 'I consent TO BE GOVERNED and I support the government with my tax dollars.'

I don't know where you got this idea, but "I" never agreed TO BE GOVERNED, by one CENTRAL 'authority' figure over me. The Preamble of the Constitution goes like this:
>>We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the BLESSING OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.

the definition of governed -
>>To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise SOVEREIGN authority in.
further in the Constitution: >governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

You see John, you left off a few important words there. You consent to be governed, but YOU ("We")
the people are the one's who established that GOVERNMENT. WE are the government-and we give just 'powers' by OUR consent

It works great, when all are of understanding of there is ONE SOVEREIGN SPIRIT over all. GOD!
Whether you see it or not - democrat politicians
are the one's who are trying TO BE THE GOD and PROVIDER to 'we the people' - they'll tell us
we can abort flesh and blood from a supreme creator, we can decide to extend our own fleshly lives with human developing embryos, and finally, they controlling our funds, will decide when 'we' are no longer 'productive' and our fleshly life should end (via euthanasia) They are not for our freedom, they wish to BE THE POWER OVER THE WE THE PEOPLE. (and tell private enterprise how
to run businesses large and small)

YES, now I understand where John is confused.

John, like so many others, does not have FAITH in the GOD that lives within his being, that provides him THE REASON and INTELLECT to handle
all aspects of his life. From deciding for himself how much he wishes to earn, to how to earn that living, and by that reason do the questioning of where and how to spend that which he earned via the abilities and blessings that
SOVEREIGN spirit gave. You can HAVE as much or as little as THE FAITH you have in the GOD who will guide you along in your earthly journey. And no
human authority - has to THINK for YOU. YOU can do it yourself WITH GOD!

Isn't it awesome John? It is in that concept that makes YOU FREE!!! and all of us.

Many a democrat cannot grasp the concept. We need to SHOW THEM we the people know right and wrong from THAT ONE OBJECTIVE SOURCE OF RIGHT AND WRONG and by such choosing WE ENJOY ABUNDANCE!! (blessing)

Ba, that's quite a leap of subjects, but theology may be more interesting than economics or civics.

Thanks for easing my confusion on negotitation strategy. I'm 46 now, but I retired at age 44 two years ago in March. I was able to retire in part because of my negotiation skills but had I know you back in the day, I might have been able to retire a few years earlier. Hopefully, everything is going as well for you.

Regarding God, only recently for modern humans, (say the last 10,000 years or so) has god been God, and then only for a relitivley small group of people.

Perhaps you're a middle American and you look around, and people look like you, and they agree on the same concepts of what god is, and you've come to accept that as normal, and evidence that that is what god really is. (My cousin cannot break out of this mode of thinking.)

This I tell you... For the majority of the people in the world, Your god is not their god. God somehow didn't get the message out to everyone. What a stupid and ineffective god that would be.

For the majority of history, God wasn't god eiether. At times, god was a tree, or a man with an eagles head, or a rock or the wind. At one point in history, it was assumed that the world was carried on the back of a turtle.

As humans, we've allways had creation myths about how we got here. We've allways had a need to explain things... Weather. Death. Birth.

When we are young, we have our stories and foolish beliefs. As we get older we learn that Santa is really just Dad, and the Tooth Fairy that left a quarter is really just Mom.

As we get even older, we realise that there is no long robed, white bearded person living in the sky, looking down on us, managing our lives. It's a creation myth, invented by primitive people, sitting around the camp fire, trying to fend off the unknown spirits just outside the circle of light.

Christianity in particualar has done well because it's such an excellent means of controlling a population. It's got a strong moral code, which generaly helps enforce good behavior, but allows for a bit of killing when required. It has a good/evil paradigm which is very central to human and primate us/them group behavior. It has hierarchy which enforces a rulers legitimacy. It has a wait for your reward in the afterlife clause, which makes people more willing to suffer in this life, say under a king, knowing that they will be rewarded eventualy. Same with dying. It's much harder to convince people to die without promising them something that comes after.

Anyway, to answer your question, no... I don't need a mythical being controlling me so that I can have freedom. I don't need a magical construct to tell me right from wrong. I'm able to do that on my own.

In case you're wondering, I was raised catholic. I was quite religious growing up. I am also a scientist by nature, and a sceptic. I reject the argument that life is too complex to have evolved on it's own, therefore requiring an even more complex (and unexplained) creator. I identify as a Buddhist now, with is to say a secular humanist. I am also an ordained minister as a spiritual humanist, so I'm able to have vigorous arguments with myself about theology.

Anyway, gotta go jump in the shower... I'm happy to continue the discussion.

Best regards.

OK, this is off what the topic has become...anyway...

"to keep Democratic lawmakers from straying on populist issues."

Is it just me or did the leftists rocket straight through 'progressive' to 'populist' from 'liberal' in record time? Conservatives are going to keep calling them liberals and the closer the liberals call themselves to socialists the more the middle will reject them...don't you think? Populist...Socialist...I'm thinking they might want to rethink this one.

Meanwhile us conservatives keep calling ourselves...conservatives...irrespective of the new and improved more rabid left's attempts to call anyone right of Hillary a 'neocon'. Sorry, actually, at least on websites it would be NEOCON!!!

John, the topic of faith, spirit, God and how that spirit IS very real is difficult to put across on a weblog. But, I do see I was correct, the reason you think "a group of humans" should tell another group how to run "their business" is because to you ONE GROUP of humans is BETTER than another. Where did that special authority get given to them? Why is it that the businessman who worked his butt off to build his business from small to large, has to answer for the profit he makes and the prices he sets? Whether you believe in God, spirit of not; America is not called the land of opportunity for nothing. Here's the principle: if one applies oneself - one can achieve anything. ANYTHING. And when that one rises 'in spirit' and family is left, why is it wrong that family cannot enjoy the fruit of a loved one's labor FOR HIS LOVED ONES. Why does one group of politicians believe 'they and they alone' are the answer to poverty. Here's the answer even a secular humanist could not reasonably argue with: Each generation makes life easier for the next generation. How? By work! No one gets rich, by dependence on 'self-inclined' generosity of a political party. It's basic psychology, that there are those who are 'nice' purely for what they will get in return (ie: votes) Ok. nuf to think of there.

John; I know your statement: >>Thanks for easing my confusion on negotitation strategy, John writes. John, I know you are being sarcastic. But, it's true 'we the people' are the government and representatives who use our money for service to community are only representing 'us' - whose money they are handling. They are our representative consumers. They don't tell vendors what to charge, they may generally tell the budget, but then all government business is open for bidding on jobs. The best price with quality, gets the work. (quality a factor in cost effectiveness)

As to your ideas about God, that you are a scientist (Mr. Einstein was also a scientist and he could not deny this HUGE universe where everything in some way connects to something else, could not have just happened. He knew there was A SUPREME GOD, spirit, Creator.) What he couldn't come to understand was that such a GOOD spirit lives 'within' the fleshly human)ie: He could not understand the concept of a personal God. Sometimes, I believe, that has a lot to do with too many 'head' ideas while ignoring 'where the spirit of authentic love resides' --
deee--eep within the flesh one will find that spirit that moves, breathes, has his being.

You are certainly correct GOD is not a long haired 'old' man in long flowing robe...and heaven is not 'in the clouds' with pearly gates.(and there is a correlation between explaining the spirit of giving to A CHILD MIND in terms of Santa Claus and explaining the abstract notion of God, spirit.) But--if one pays attention, the childish becomes mature in SPIRIT to feel 'the authentically good spirit' at work without having to depict it in ways a child would understand. EXPERIENCES in life can do much to bring us to a deep understanding of that SPIRIT God at work.
That no human can create a sunset. Why an awkward and shy child has a gift for illustration and telling stories. What prompts 'man' to move for the sake of others; ie: jump in to rescue another person on railroad tracks with no thought to self.

For instance: There is no way flesh, bone, and tissue can think and reason. (certainly animals are made of the same - and they DO NOT think or reason, their actions are purely instinct each day. They don't bemoan "Mondays" and jump with glee for "Fridays"/they don't court their beloved. They don't read books and assimilate the information. What differentiates man from beast? A SPIRIT. SPIRIT. SPIRIT. Catholic sunday School lesson 1 - God is SPIRIT. Man is flesh.

Try again 'an experiment' (you're retired, your older now, you have the time and as a scientist, why not try an experiment for TWO MONTHS. Get a Bible. Read the words SLOWLY. DO NOT READ it literally but seek 'the spirit' behind the mere words. (ex: it is written that Adam and Eve ate of the apple - when they were told not to) It's written analgously and the SPIRIT of this is that 'man'/'woman' - were turned 'away from good' and did 'what pleased them' Whether it was an apple, pear, orange is not the point. The Spirit of the word should be when man turned only to eat of his own desires...they saw themselves like never before. While before they could stand 'naked' to each other (naked: unashamedly pure in intention, innocent) when they ate of thier own desire; they LIGHT of THAT RADIANT SPIRIT WAS GONE...and they 'saw their own flesh' and shame overtook them. READ in SPIRIT of understanding their is an authentic GOOD that works for PURE UNCONDITIONAL GOOD (without thought to self getting back)

let go of all HEAD ideas (they come only from you) and read IN SPIRIT...and slowly ONE paragraph a night of the Gospel messages. Start with Luke. One paragraph. and before reading: just silently say: "I'm open, show me the way"
No mortal human one need know. TRY IT.

I also recommend, for someone of your curiousity as a scientist; to watch the cable show EWTN. If you watch only for the THINKING that goes on there. You will enjoy it. Guaranteed. You are right, we do move from the santa and tooth fairy stages of belief in love and sharing and goodness. And if aware, that is GOD prompting our spirit - to go deeper.

Another way of awareness of this SPIRIT OF AUTHENTIC GOOD is 'PEACE' ...authentic deep down peace even while others are losing their head. When you feel 'no anxiety' - write it in a journal. (scientists keep journals don't they)
write down what you were doing when you felt a true peace no one could disturb. Write down how you felt, any words that come.

TWO MONTH experiment...what's there to lose? Unless, you are afraid of being wrong in your own beliefs. In two months, take your findings to the nearest Catholic parish and talk them over with one who can guide further. (we can't blog here forever) So, seek out a theologian and share what you've experienced by Bible reading, and journaling and your adult questions. You will understand what a priest says as the adult you are then when you were a santa believer, because you GREW. (As our Lord in the flesh grew in wisdom and grace) TRY IT.

Hi, Ba.

That was a very nice letter. Thank you.

Just so you understand, I've tried that experiment. Gave it a bit more than two months though. My uncle is a pentecostal minister. Seen all the manefestations of the holy spirit, talking in tongues, etc...

I spent 3 years or so working on air in Christian broadcasting as a teenager. Been to all the concerts, listened to thousands of hours of preaching. Shoot, I remember Amy Grant from like when she was 13...

My step dad, whom I've know for close to 30 years spent about 20 years as a Catholic priest. As I mentioned, I'm ordained so as to be able to perform weddings.

I've read both the old and new testaments multiple times. I've read parts of the Gnostic scriptures, most of the Bhagdava Gita, all of several translations of the writings of The Buddha, etc...

I can quote scripture like the devil himself.

So I did try. And I tell you all of this because I want you to understand that I truly thank you for considering me, and sharing this with me, and that I'm not just lightly blowing you off.

My expiriment ran close to 40 years. My results cannot verify the existence of god. Neither do they directly disprove the existance of god, but experiments aren't really expected to prove a negative...

So, here's a couple of concerns I have about your line of reasoning...

When we talk about head vs. spiritual belief, we are saying in effect - suspend what logic tells you. What the magnificant reasoning machine that eiether god built, or evolution designed, and just ignore what it's telling you. Go with a feeling. You don't need proof or evidence. In fact, if you have no proof, its a virtue... it's even better because you have faith!

I can't buy into that. Wanting something does not make it so. Suspending disbelief does not make it true.

The second concern I have is when we talk about reading the bible literaly, vs in the spirit in which it was intended... You do know that many evangelicals belive that the bible is LITERALY true, down to every last word. Others believe that some of it's true, some parable, some is just flat out wrong. How do you decide when to stop fudging?

For example is it wrong to be gay? Well, Leviticus says it's an abomination. Leviticus also say's it's an abomination to touch a pig skin, eat shellfish and wear mixed fiber clothing. So, what's the story? You know, cause I was planning on having a shrimp platter, and wearing my poly/cotton Bears jersey for Superbowl coming up. You know these are all abominations in the eyes of the lord according to Leviticus. Or would it be better to just say home and go gay? (wife would not be thrilled...)

Anyway, as you probably know there isn't any author named Leviticus anyway. It's a fabrication, attributed to a fictional author.

OK, so here's a thought experiment for you. I hate to do this to you because you seem like a nice person, and if you think about this honestly you might start questioning your core beliefs. If you don't want it, just skip from here on down...

OK.....

A central concept is Heaven and Hell. You will be punished for all of eternity, or rewarded for all eternety based on some criteria. Acceptance of Jesus perhaps, or perhaps it's your works. Or thoughts. All of these are mentioned as being important. Anyway, pick one, or a combination that suits you as your criteria.

Now line up 5 billion people based on your criteria ranked from best to worst. Perhaps Mother Theresa is way over on one side. Adolph Hitler, perhaps is way over on the other side. Most of the 5 BILLION people are somewhere in between. Very very fine graduation of your selected criteria.

Now, some people are going to Heaven. Some to Hell. There is a dividing line that cuts right between two of those 5 BILLION people. Everybody on one side is tormented for all of eternity. Everybody on the other side is rewarded for all of eternity.

Perhaps the only difference between the two adjacent people on each side of that line is that one dipped their sisters pigtails in ink, and one did not. Or one stole a candy bar as a 12 year old... Or whatever your criteria. It's the absolute dividing line that's important here. Two people as identical as two peas in a pod, yet two binary fates....

Hmmmm... Does this make sense? Does God work this way?

No. Not possible. This concept makes no sense. Under this scenario, since heaven is eternal, each sinner will be punished for over one TRILLION years for each minuite they lived on earth, and that will only scratch the surface of eternity.

And we also think that you must accept Jesus to be saved. What if you lived before Jesus? What if you lived after Jesus, but in some part of the world where you didn't get the memo. What if you did get the memo, but it was at the point of a sword, and his mercy just really didn't sound appealing?

So our second thought experiment is do you really think that Gandi, and The Buddah will be burning in hell because they did not accept Jesus, but Jim Baker will be rewarded for all eternity?

Uh... No. God could not possibly work that way. Makes no sense.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts about these two thought experiments. By the way, the "God works in strange and mysterious ways, we can't understand the mind of god" explanation is not an acceptable answer, so please don't advance that argument in any of it's forms. In fact evangelicals claim to know just what God wants on a daily basis because it's all written down and clear to any who will listen.

Thoughts?

Falze,

Actualy, progressives would work as well, but many of us will answer to liberal. We don't normaly use populist, but that shoe fits as well if you believe the polls and election results over the last 6 months.

I like the neocon distinction since I find that many of the "conservative" policies are not conservative, at all. Truly, there are few conservatives left at all. It's a shame. Liberals and true conservatives have much in common.