dash77

All of this comes from research sources; I can share the reference if people want me to 1. The United States is the only Western industrialized nation that fails to provide national health care and the ONLY nation where health care is financed by a for-profit approach. Canada’s health care act, for example, is a nonprofit act. In America, insurance companies make profit off of illness. In 2004 the Institute of medicine attributed 18,000 unnecessary deaths to lack of insurance. This value does not seem to link to anything Christ-like, nor any other nation makes profit on denying people basic health care. 2. Approximately 40 million people do not have heath care, which includes about 9 million children. Not all of these are lazy people not contributing – sometimes bad things (e.g., lay-off) happen to good people. 3. Administrative costs for health care programs consume approximately one-sixth of the 1.9 trillion spent on U.S. health care in 2005 – which estimates to $300 billion a year. This money is due to health-care bureaucracy and to free market competition (e.g. marketing and advertisement). Re-directing this money alone would be enough to cover all the uninsured!!! 4. There are multiple studies that suggest the Canadian health care is equal and in some places better that American health care. 5. Many business leaders – including the big 3 (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) have advocated for a single payer system because it would save them money and cause them to be more competitive (I know Obama is not advocating for a single payer system – what Republicains often call the takeover of socialism). 6. Health care would allow more entrepreneurism because people would be willing to try small business ideas/risks, know that if they failed, they would still have basic coverage. In the end, though, there is nothing Christ-like about making profit on people’s illnesses. In fact, it is downright sickening that people who profess to be serving Christ would allow a for-profit mentality where an industry makes money on sick people. In the city where I live the ambulances have advertisements on them – so as they are attending to people literally dying, they are advertising in the act of suffering so they can make a profit. Again, no other country does this except “God’s” chosen nation. I am all for for-profit, but not in the area of health care. I have no problem giving more in tax money to help the poor and needed, even the occasional lazy ones. I think it aligns to Christ-like values to give and serve the poor and needy. With this said, I know there are some problem’s with Obama’s health care system – its not perfect. But is making profit on illness Christ-like?

Just a guy: First off, I do not trust news report much -- I look more toward research. With that said, the article you sent dos show that insurance orgnization are making between 2to 18 million a year.

Although I do not agree with all aspects of Obama's plan, if it does get struck down -- and if is the key word -- the United States will continue to be the only developed contry that does have provide universal care to its children. Personally, I find that quick abusive and so far away from a ethic of care. Further, the concept of pre-existing conditions -- which only serves to help rich insurance companies get richer -- will continue. Although the United States is so far ahead of other contries in some areas (e.g., technology) it is so far behind when it comes to an ethic of care and its treatment of children from a medica/healthl perspective can only be viewed as abusive.

I have never really thought highly of Glen Beck, but over the past few months I decided to be open-minded and hear his thoughts through Fox news and read one of his books. I also heard a National Public Radio program dedicated to him – and kind of pro and against program. I have come to believe that Glen Beck is a somewhat dangerous person related to issues of hatred and could possibly be into what the Book of Mormon refers to as priest craft, which, from 2 Nephi 26:29 "[is] that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world...." In short, I do not think highly of him from what I have learned (knowing there are limitation to my knowledge).

Caleb: I hope my comments are helpful. As someone who looks more at the sociological aspects of life, many times wards are not tolerate to diverse views. Sometimes it is just the business of life. For example, as a father of four, there are times I am guilty of not be more friend like to new members. It’s an honest mistake I make and I need to carve out time to just be a friendly and nice guy at church. However, there seems to be – from my experience only – a non-tolerance at wards when someone has some deeper questions that you re rising. What I have learned, is that most members that I have interacted with, do not come to church to talk about deep question and do not like to even think about deeper questions – they want simply fun and social aspects. So, know it’s not a problem within you and I agree with you that most LDS’s misuse statistics. The problem is simply your values of conversation (e.g., outlining deeper mix-messages in the Church) do not align with the values of most members (e.g., superficial thinking). What I have found is that friendships develop (sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly) when people have similar convictions and values. I think what might be happening is that your value of wanting to talk about some of these deeper issues is a minority behavior in the church. Hopefully, the Lord will direct you toward a few others who had similar views so there is some true understanding. I hope I am making sense and hearing you. Am I makng sense, Caleb?

Pam: I agree with yoo -- I have often thought about the famiyl of the accussed man. My paryers go out to them also.

John: I am with youo on schools curriculum endoctrinating kids -- one of my fravorite books is "Lies that my teachers told me." I wish schools would teach kids how to think (e.g. evaluate different forms of information, look at rival cause, learn how to interprete qualitative and quantatative research, etc.). Although it both democrates and republications support No Child Left Behind, it is more of the right wing (e.g. Mitt Romney types) who think schools should just be memorizing facts and the facts are also value oriented. It sure would be great is schools would teach more skills on how to think and evalaute information.

You are missing Rubonfan2"s point -- can you find other sources other than the news to conceptualize and think about social issues?

I agree with almost all of what Rubonfan2 has to say. However, I am not sure if it all boils down to good versus evil – there can be honest cross cultural differences in life. However, I agree that it is not an issue of left versus right. I also agree that people need to only use the media sparingly and other sources (websites and forum boards, professional magazines) are paramount. I would also add the need for academic sources and it is good to read academic articles that have differing conclusions. For example, if you want to learn about social issues (e.g., national health care, sporting events and violence, No Child Left Behind) it is good to read different academic sources that highlight different conclusions and then come to some type of personal decision, using prayer in the process. I think the use of media as a primary source to social decision making boils down to a lazy way of assessing social issues -- although I can understand the difficulty of finding time to read and study issue when raising children. But Fox news is the worst. A very well reasoned post, Rubonfan2. Thank you.

I think John's comments right above are spot on regarding all news channels. However, I think Fox is the worst of them all. I am always shocked at LDS 's-- who are suppose to value education -- who watch Fox news. They are all isleading -- but Fox seems to be the most misleading.

Ryanh: Your reply is the most common I hear when I try to underscore how sexual objectification is alive and well in mainstream life, including this website. By locating everything I say within myself, you have delimited responsibility for where it should be directed, namely, those people who continue to perpectuate a harmful societal myth – be it consciously or unconscious (but I guess no one has any conscious or unconscious problem related to this issue at this website – it is just me). Dravin: I honestly do not see how you are putting together euphemism related to this topic and am still waiting for you to provide an explanation. I’ve learned in life that it is much easier to pick apart others ideas, but building and explaining takes much more effort. Please explain your position with greater depth, breadth and clarity. With this said, I think you (and others) are right – I need to drop this topic. I’ve tried to underscore its presence (in this post and others), and the sexual objectification is considered one of the biggest social/psychological issue directed towatd young women by many sociiologists and psychologists. But I think there is a miss-match between what I had hope for (mature and intellectual discussion about normative violence and sexual objectification ) and the motivation of most people at this site is different (social networking, fun joking around). There is simply a lack of integration of the two motivates and in no way am I suggesting that people at this website are not mature or intellectual – it just not a motivation while interacting on this site. So, even though I would like to hear your thoughts Dravin, I can let this subject go for once and for all.

Dravin, please explain to me what you mean by the term euphoniums ,and how it applies to this topic? I thought you meant a substitution for an expression that may offensive. Please explain, because I am not understanding. I think I may understand why there is a gap when I communicate and I think Margin of Errors head banging against brinks captures it well. I think most of you are looking for a single and simply explanation to the social topics I have brought up here. The famous child psychologist Jean Piaget called thinking that lump sums things together as concrete thinking (only someone with a concrete head could handle the banging against bricks). Thinking that can see diversity within groups Piaget refereed to formal thinking. Can it be that there can be multiple explanations? Is it so, that no one has these deeper unconscious motivations than are made visible through language? I do not think I have ever stated in this thread that my explanation is right and others are wrong. In my last post I believe I stated that there could be multiple explanations. Wingnut, you might be right that I may have misinterpreted Gwen. I thought when she stated that “that myth that bigger breasts are better for nursing babies is very much alive and well” that she was supporting it. I did not read as you read it, that she was argueing that other still believe it but she did not.

Jenemarie and Dravin: Assuming I understand both of you correctly, I hear both of you say that words such as “blessed” is nothing more than a euphemism. However, I see it as the opposite, I find words like “well-endowed” and “blessed” as offensive words because they associate larger sizes with gifts and favor and from a Christian perspective – these gifts and favors are from the Lord. I am assuming you are suggesting a euphemism is used to be less offensive. Pam: I have heard your explanation that I am taking these words too literally and that perhaps it’s just people not being thoughtful or reflective enough about the words they use. In regard to you three, I think that all can be true. I am sure there are some that just use words fairly mindlessly and others who use such words as a euphemism. However, I think there still is a good number of people (more so than not) who use such words are expressions of deeper thought patterns (unconscious) that people do not like to admit they have. I think when it comes to sexuality, there is a strong pull to be primitive and act as the natural man would want us to act. So, I can agree with you somnewhat, perhaps in the middle. Gwen: I appreciate your honest thoughts. I also think your thoughts exemplify my argument. There are still women and men that actually think having larger breasts will secrete more milk. Although I am aware of research articles that disproves this, I have provided two web-links that communicate there is no correlation between size and milk production. It a cro-magnum myth that still exists today and has warped into a cro-magnum instinct in which there really are men and women who think having larger breasts is a sign of higher fertility and thus, greater femininity. The same myth occurs with men and sexual attributes that length can cause a greater change of pregnancy. Does my breast size have anything to do with milk production? - Sharecare Breastfeeding: Is there a correlation between breast size and milk production?? - iVillage These are the myth, though, can cause great sociological and psychological damage because they teach women and men at a young age that size does indeed matter, which lays the seeds of sexual objectification and exploitation.

Dravin and others: Let me try to make this more simple. One of my main arguments at this site – in different posts – is that people (including LDS) unconsciously belief that having larger sexual attributes is superior (the bigger is better myth). I think this is harmful to human and spiritual development. There are many proven academic studies that language creates behaviors and personalities and language outlines the unconscious (perhaps the most famous is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that has come out of linguistics anthropology -- it holds that speakers of different languages think differently, just by the nature of language, thus outlining that language creates human personality). I could list other thinkers who agree and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is highly supportive. In essence, I am suggesting that even at this website there is a belief among certain people that larger sexual attributes are better than smaller ones and that this belief (which may be mainly unconscious) is alive and well. I think it is based on low human ego development, pride and the natural man. I have been trying to unmask it at this website in different posts (e.g. motivation behind breast implants) and suggested that nude beaches could help to debunk it (but then began to disagree with my original thinking that nude beaches could debunk this unconscious myth). To this end, can you provide other explanation for why someone might say “I have been blessed up top” or “my wife was blessed up top” when referring to women who are larger but that phrase and term is never used when a women is smaller up top? Can you provide a different explanation when someone says “My husband is well-endowed down there” instead of saying something like “my husband is larger down there” (this is an accurate description without the gifted aspects). Again, deep down, I think when it comes to sexual attributes I think most human are at a lower state of development and unknowing like larger sexual attributes. With this said, Dravin, maybe your suggestion is best. Perhaps I should start a new thread on this very topic in the adult section and see if a good, honest conversation can occur. I really do not mean to offend anyone and I would like the trivial distract of my posts to stop. I will let this topic take its course and see if others think starting a new post and using this thread as the start is a good idea. But please be honest, if you have no interest – or have an interest -- just tell me so (either in this forum or via a private message). Gwen's last post suggests that such a topic could have some promise (for example, Gwen, I would agree with your thoughts in cromagnum period, but do you think there really are people today that would think this -- its been proven for over 50 years that breast size has nothinhg to do with fertility). Do I now make more sense?

Wingnut: Thanks for asking. What I am simply trying to communicate is that our society gives status to larger sexual attributes. Dravin is fairly close in articulating what I think, he has one component of it correct: (1) there are people on this website who actually think that having larger sexual physical attributes is a blessing/favor by God, and (2) there are people who think they are better than others because of this. Some people are conscious of this and others are not-conscious, but use words/phrases that reveal this (e.g. the term “endowed” or “blessed”). Why else would people use words like “my wife was blessed (favored by God) up top” or “my husband is well-endowed (gifted from God)” The result of this is the sexual objectification of women and men. The American Psychological Association has found this to be such a social problem that is has created a task force to help adolescents deal with these issues (see Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls). Likewise the American pediatric s Society has echoed this. If you read the APA task force document, you will easily see the common language of sexaulization in society – something that every LDS should oppose. At the core of my thinking is that LDS should be better people and nowhere in LDS culture – including LDS websites – should the privileging of sexual attributes or sexualization occurs. I am also looking for good conversation related to this topic. That is it.

I fully realize that my purpose of visiting this site is different than most people. I think most people visit here for social networking (e.g., cracking a few jokes, having casual conversations, etc.). I visit here and pick a few topics and want to have an in-depth and serious conversation with Latter-Day Saints. I do not really care about having chit-chat on all sorts of issues, rather, I prefer to spend my time focus on one or two topics and have deeper conversation (although there are a few topics I social network on – in the sports section). Further, the topics I pick are one’s that I find harmful in society that seems acceptable among people and LDS – namely human sexuality, and in particular, the privileging of larger sexual attributes in both women and men and societies acceptance of violence (boxing and ultimate fighting as normative entertainment). To put it bluntly, I find it problematic that LDS accept these two societal norms to be acceptable and I like to have dialog and even debate on the subject. I am not sure why people -- this time Dravin – have to constantly make statement ad hominem’s toward me. Is it not too difficult to see that I simply have a different reason to interact on this website? And if no one is interested in such topics that I chime into, you can remain silent rather than make questionable comments about my motives and character. I think my last few comments make sense and would like to hear the thougths of others. But if you do not want to, just ignore.

Maureen: Hey, optimism is good. The Oilers can only go up!:)

So far into the season I have been right about Detriot and the Canucks. But dead wrong about Ottawa. Any surpises by others?

No matter what a speaker says, you can always learn from another person with the right attitude. I realize some people are more postive, some are better speakers. Some people prepare more. But having an attitude that you can learn can jazz up my Sacrament meeting.

Iggy: Thanks you for your post. Again, I am still trying to learn and figure this out. I need to listen to more voices and thoughts before I can even be in a position to evaluate propositions. With that said, however, there are two propositions in your post that I find disturbing that can create social harm. First, it is OK to disagree with others thoughts, but making fun of other peoples perspective usually results in a prideful elevation of one person (or group) over another. These were real women who were expressing a real concern – so much so that they even went to the Bishop (one of my past wards had HUGE pride problems and one of the aspects of this was body image and vanity and there was much immodesty among the women, who were not very good examples to young women). If you have a difference of opinion, stating it is good, -- however, calling them “stupid” and outlining that is so ridicules you want to “wet yourself” shows no respect for others opinions. When I first heard such claims regarding purchasing larger garments for cleavage showing my initial response was to dismiss them and think that it was silly, but I have learned in life that listening to others – even when you have a difference of opinion – is respectful and helps all people to grow and develop. It is also a sign of higher ego development. Second, I hope I can respectfully challenge you in your post. As I mentioned, the privileging of larger breasts is pervasive in society (which hurts women who are smaller because they feel “less than” and hurts women who are larger because it sexually exploits and objectifies them). The same thing applies to men related to sexual attributes. The word that your were “blessed” with an apply chest clearly suggests a privileging. To be blessed, according to dictionaries, is to be honored, beautified, delightful and is holy. Does this mean that women who are smaller up top are not blessed? And where does this blessing come from? And why not just say “I am larger up top” rather than being blessed? With this said, however, I found your post to be educational regarding the issue of discomfort and can see this as one of the downsides of being larger up top. I would still like to hear more about the topic from other women and men.

Tarnished: I want to thank you for your response because it reminded me to see this issues more from a sociological perspective than from an individual one. Although individuals can choose, the social environment is powerful and shapes our thinking and behaviors. Over the years I have often rolled my eyes when I have heard about larger breasted women having struggles -- and likewise with men in a private area – because I have felt that society (which ultimately means everyday people) clearly privilege larger breasts over smaller ones (and likewise on the make side) – the “if you got them, flaunt them” mentality. I realize that there can be problematic aspects of larger sexual attributes related to both women and men (and once wrote too much detail on the male forum regarding the problems and am grateful for a moderator for deleting my post). My point is I realize there are concerns. At the same time, however, I find it highly troubling when I hear about the struggles of larger busted women because our society promotes that larger bust are better than smaller one (likewise with men). One simply example of this – which I outlined in another post and no one seemed to care – is when we use the words “well-endowed” to refer to larger sexual attributes in both men and women. An endowment is a gift (and so often the chosen word in philanthropy). So when people say something like my wife (or husband) is well-endowed in essence we are saying they have gotten a gift, and implicitly if Christian it means from God. I probable lay too much blame at the individual level. Your last post, Tarnished, helped me re-remember that societal forces are very strong and making choses much more difficult. We have a woman in our ward right now who is very large (naturally) up top and is pregnant for the first time and she told my wife just the other day how difficult it is to purchase modest maternity clothes. Margin of Error: Your post is a good question (post 10) regarding why only larger women purchasing larger garment tops. My answer – which is not a very good one – is that I have heard from a handful of women that this happens with women in the church. I have heard other women tell me that LDS women with larger breasts will purposely purchase larger garment tops so that more cleavage will show. I have not heard of women who are smaller or medium up top going this – but I have not asked. I suppose women who are smaller can do this also – I am not sure – but I will let the females voices at this site educate me on this topic.

John: You might be right!!! :)

I fully realize BYU is in transition in regard to scheduling. And although there are some good teams they play -- Utah, Oregon State, Ol Miss, and perhaps Texas -- I am still surprised with how many very poor teams they play. What do others think?

I think most people who know me at this site know that I are extremely suspect of people who marshal evidence using newspaper articles (I find research support much more pervasive). However, there are times when a topic does not have much research support – such as new societal topics. In regard to pat-downs, I believe a new bomb threat is bra-bombers. Please see the two related links below. I know that there have been men found with bomb making material sewn into their underwear – but not actual bombs (perhaps a little more difficult to conceal:o). This is a very delicate and sensitive issue, but again, I am comfortable being put through scanners and being patted-down in private areas for the sake of safety. Jenamaria: I agree with you that car accidents are more pervasive and have been used to store bombs (e.g., Oklahoma bombing). You point is a good one – but from a resource perspective we can’t pat down every car driver. From an airport security perspective, we have the resources to pat down all passengers or put them through scanners. My understanding is that in larger cities car analysis is done when there is reasonable fears of bombing. Unlike airports, we can’t pat down all drivers. Within the context of airports, it makes sense t me. Bra bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia BRA BOMB ALERT; Airport warning on new terrorist threat. - Free Online Library