This came up in my tweet_stream last night:
I’m sure my friend Paul Edwards will deal with that question a few times in the next few weeks (and until the legislation is either overturned or something much worse happens), but I read that question a few times and was left scratching my head.
“Should Christians be upset or happy” about ObamaCare?
I admit it: I think the question is not a good one. because let’s face it: should Christians have been happy or upset before ObamaCare? Did ObamaCare change who we are as Christians one iota?
See: I get it. I met with a guy yesterday with a really big small business who has 51 employees, and now he’s impacted and his life as a business owner is changed. His outlook for his business is changed. I’m not going to lecture about capitalism here, but his life changed and as a businessman, his future as a businessman changed.
As Americans, before ObamaCare we were all carrying around $40K in national debt, and now God only knows how much debt per person we’re carrying around. Our future as Americans has changed. I admit I’m worried about that in a wholly-temporal and what-kind-of-world-will-my-kids-live-in way.
But as a Christian? How do I feel as a Christian about ObamaCare?
I feel like it’s just another false religion competing with my great God and Savior for the attention of people who, in their guts, know they are lost and need saving. And somehow I have an obligation to show off that my God and Savior does not put me in debt but in fact frees me from the debts I have made.
I hope that’s how you feel about ObamaCare. And that you act like that’s how you feel.
March 25th, 2010 | 11:22 am | #1
I liked your conversation over on Adam’s post about Catholics. :-)
March 25th, 2010 | 11:58 am | #2
Amen
March 25th, 2010 | 12:14 pm | #3
I am greatful for Obamacare in this way: It has forced me to think about the legitimate role of government as the Bible defines it.
Also, it has made me think throught the issue of healthcare. Why we are having this debate? Because there are poor people, who are not lazy government sucklings, who simply cannot afford standard healthcare. Frankly, brothers, if there is a person anywhere on God’s green earth that I could help, even in a terminal situation, by buying them a fifth of Jack’s finest, I would do that (Proverbs 31:6), and I am a Baptist.
My prayer in this is that people who suffer will be helped, and if I thought that this was the only way to do that, I would work as hard as I could to give Caesar his due to care for the poor and needy. I grieve that so much depends on Caesar. I grieve that Caesar has had to fill a gap that in my fondest dreams the Spirit empowered Church fills. I just hope that Casear’s cure doesn’t worsen the disease, and I am too ignorant of economics and politics to know if that is the case.
Help me out if I am difficient in my thinking, brethren. The need is out there. Something must be done. What should we do?
March 25th, 2010 | 12:19 pm | #4
Does anybody remember a time when hospitals were named after the denomination that started them? I’m sure there are still a few around, but I’ve noticed that many have changed their names.
Does that have a bearing in this discussion?
March 25th, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #5
David, ironically, churches are doing the same thing. Many churches reject the use of the term “baptist” anymore, so they change it to “community church” or something similar. Its no surprise that hospitals do that.
March 25th, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #6
Actually, I think it has more to do with them going bankrupt than being ashamed of the “Baptist” moniker or otherwise.
March 25th, 2010 | 1:00 pm | #7
My point is that, at some point in history, churches built hospitals. It was viewed as a function of Christian mercy to do so.
Divorced from the gospel, hospitals cease to be a ministry of mercy to the sick, becoming profit centers. People seek the government to step to fill the mercy role for those who cannot afford doctors.
And the government’s idea of showing mercy to those people is forcing them to buy insurance with the threat of fines and jail time.
When God’s people wander away from the gospel, other gods are happy to step in.
March 25th, 2010 | 1:15 pm | #8
My glamorous friend David has, apparently, hit the nail on the head.
We should look at his reasoning here and ask ourselves: isn’t this the reason that marriage is completely shot in our culture, and freedom of religion is shot in our culture, and the love of human life is shot in our culture?
That is: isn’t the problem that the church has somehow forgotten its legitimate role in society and foisted those things onto Government which is a proper minister of justice and not grace?
March 25th, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #9
ObamaCare is as much about control over our lives, if not more, than the claim to spread health care to all Americans. Liberal social policy is a threat to the Church, all Christians, since it seeks to marginalize the Church by taking over the role of the Church in society. Once the State is successful at this, it will not tolerate another institution to compete with it. Instead of continuing to give up ground, how about calling the Church to live up to what it has been called to do? Soon the doctrines of Liberalism may have the force of the State behind them and then we will be faced with some real choices about where our loyalties truly are.
March 25th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #10
Brad Williams #3 raises some good points. But it’s hard for good thought to find purchase on a thread so dominated by silly assertions, fear, and politically inspired dogmatism.
March 25th, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #11
Frank, I wonder how you felt “as a Christian” when G.W. Bush “rammed down your throat” tax cuts mostly to rich people through reconciliation (and cut medicaid to the poor at the same time); his two tax cuts leading directly to increasing national debt. Do you have any idea what kind of legacy he left you with? Did it make you feel good “as a Christian” when Bush took from the poor, and gave to the rich?
The new health bill is far from perfect, but it does expand healthcare to 30+ million Americans, and it DECREASES the primary deficit over time according to the CBO relative to the previous system. You said “I feel like it’s just another false religion competing with my great God and Savior for the attention of people who, in their guts, know they are lost and need saving. And somehow I have an obligation to show off that my God and Savior does not put me in debt but in fact frees me from the debts I have made.
I hope that’s how you feel about ObamaCare. And that you act like that’s how you feel.”
So let me get this straight. In your opinion, sick people who can’t get a health insurance are “lost and need saving”. It’s only the rich and healthy (who presumably all saved?) who need healthcare?
Which version of the Bible do you read? What, according to your Bible, will Jesus say to people on judgement day who haven’t taken care of the sick?
March 25th, 2010 | 3:52 pm | #12
Mr. Pilate,
Thank you for your exercise in missing the point. What was just said was: the church in the last century dropped the ball in its mission. The government picked it up, and is running towards a different goal.
Our target here: the church and its game plan.
March 25th, 2010 | 4:09 pm | #13
I appreciate Frank’s original post and a lot of the thoughtful responses. I don’t think he meant to make it a forum for political talking points.
I read a statistic several years ago (it may or may not be completely accurate but it captures the general point pretty accurately) that if the average church household was immediately reduced to the poverty line income for a family of four (at the time it was ~$17K but that was several years ago) and tithed off of that income, then most churches would immediately double their budgets.
The church I attend has a very fruitful ministry for single mothers that covers health care costs, education/job training costs, subsidizes rent and utilities for up to 4 years to help single moms in need to be able to raise their child/children and support themselves. There is a mutual covenant (including steps of discipleship and not dating for at least one year) but the point is that a generous church can make a huge difference.
I think that Frank’s original post had thoughts such as this in mind.
March 25th, 2010 | 4:58 pm | #14
You know: I make a post about the Gospel and how the Gospel saves us and not anything the Government will do, and we get — now get this — “PontiusP” giving me the business about whether or not I ever criticized or printed a hagiography for George W. Bush when this blog did not exist during GWB’s presidency.
Sheesh. And we wonder what’s wrong with Evangelidom?
PP said:
I just want to point something out: the phrase “rammed down your throat” and all of its cognates are sort of glaringly missing from my post about this topic. Whether the politics which moved this bill into law were just, unjust, brilliant, devious, run-of-the-mill or idiosyncratic, I made absolutely no comment about the politics of this issue. So as PP rants on here about his problems with my post, let’s keep in mind that maybe he didn’t read the post — because his first complaint is about something not in said post.
A legacy of about $40K per citizen — as I mentioned in my actual post. I said, “As Americans, before ObamaCare we were all carrying around $40K in national debt, and now God only knows how much debt per person we’re carrying around.” So let’s think for a minute about that: whence cometh “before ObamaCare”? Did I let anyone off the hook?
What I am saying now, and said before, and will say again, is that we have a LOT of debt, and doubling it or whatever we just did isn’t a great way to make the future rosy: it is in fact antithetical to Christian reasoning to think we are ever putting ourselves in the hands of a savior when we are in fact putting ourselves in debt.
That’s the Gospel, dude: if you want me to say that in such a way that I include every president since FDR as the rogue’s gallery who has taken baby steps to this place, I can: it just makes for overly-long prose to make sure I don’t offend the easily-offended.
Decreasing the “deficit” does not decrease the “debt”. It means we are increasing the actual debt slower. Just to make sure I pointed that out.
But I just want to make sure I am reading you right: you think the additional debt does, in fact, save us, yes? That adding to debt is an act of political/economic/sociological salvation for the people of America.
Let me put it back to you this way: I know a better savior. He has taken all my debts — every bit of wrongdoing I have ever done — and has not told me, “I’ll make your children pay for it,” but “I have paid for it: it is finished.”
That’s actual salvation.
But to make sure we don’t brush your sloganeering under the carpet here, I am in favor of doctors treating patients — which was not illegal last week. I am in favor of Doctors getting paid as well, which may seem a little snitty on my part, but the fact is that you cannot get anyone to do anything difficult well unless there is a reward for them to do so — otherwise you get the kind of workers that hand the wrong stuff out the windows at McDonalds. I’m sure the 30 million people you are worried about don’t actually want that, do they?
Also for the record: those people do not have health care today. They are 3-4 years away from being on the gravy train. I know that rains on your parade, but it is what it is.
That’s close enough, actually.
See: in your world, the “rich” and the “healthy” are somehow preventing the “sick” from getting health care. In your world, it’s a dystopian nightmare and there are sick people everywhere who are doomed to die.
But let’s say for a second that the 30 million number is stone-cold accurate — which means that 1 person in 10 in America doesn’t have “health care”. I can be honest: today I don’t have health care. I didn’t get any health care. I didn’t need Chemo and I didn’t need a band aid. And the hard fact is that most people in America didn’t need health care.
Another hard fact is that many of these people don’t want health care — they are self-employed, and they simply don’t need the benefit. They stay healthy and opt for catastrophic policies in case they fall off a roof or something.
So you can rant about “the rich” if you want, but before you do that I think you need to define what you’re talking about a little more — like whether or not someone who makes $100,000 a year is “rich”.
There’s a funny irony in what you’re saying here, PP — because I can tell you categorically that there are no governments Jesus is going to say anything to. If you read this thread of comments at all (and you didn’t — it’s obvious) you can see what my friend David said here and my response.
The question is not, “Do the sick need care or not?” The question is, “do we slough off our responsibility for charity and mercy to the government which can barely administrate law, or do we take it personally seriously as some we do for real people and not faceless millions who are supposed to make us feel a disembodied guilt that only a disembodied savior can take care of?
I’ll say this here and be done for the day: your rant here is the primary reason I cannot be a political liberal or progressive. It is a mindless embrace of government doing things real people ought to be doing with their own hands and feet and greenbacks — taking all moral responsibility out of the equation yet demanding that we feel some kind of moral onus to force someone else to solve the problem.
I admit it: conservative political reasoning is somewhat cold and calculated and balanced on the back of self-interest — but the alternative is system where justice is spit upon, mercy is traded down for rations from the dumpster, and the real humanity of relational ethics are completely tossed out the window for actuarial and statistical self-congratulations.
March 25th, 2010 | 5:02 pm | #15
Frank,
Well said. Remind me to never get on the wrong side of an argument with you.
March 25th, 2010 | 6:32 pm | #16
While I prayed fervently Sunday morning that God would spare our nation’s children from a mountain of debt and the prospect of a tyrannical medical system that legislates how we live and when we die,
the morning’s service reminded me that both sides of this fight end in failure.
Health care in all its forms has an ultimate 100% failure rate. Jumping off what DPR mentioned, it seems like hospitals run by those who know how to care for both body and soul, and who are free to do so, would ultimately do the most good.
Good luck with that.
March 26th, 2010 | 12:01 am | #17
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Frank Turk, Frank Turk. Frank Turk said: @sdmcbee – here's my answer: http://bit.ly/bPA7Pd [...]
March 26th, 2010 | 9:51 am | #18
Frank,
Oh brother, I pray that you don’t have to check my baptism after this, but here goes.
I am fully, completely on board that the church ought to be filling the gap that Caesar is all too happy to fill. I believe his jumping into this void is bad for him and for us in the long run. I’m on board with that.
But! The church isn’t doing it, see? What should we do? Re-organize NAMB to mean “North American Medical Board”? Can you imagine how trying to get that to come about would look? (Social gospel!! WAAAHHH!!!) So, we can stamp about how to get this is bad, and how the church ought to do it. And we could hang out and complain at Krispy Kreme over donuts about how the country is going into the toilet. But brother, how do we organize the church to do it? And frankly, if we aren’t willing to do that, then Caesar will.
What am I missing here?
March 26th, 2010 | 10:42 am | #19
Brad:
The biblical word for it is repentance. Reading through the book of Isaiah (or maybe at this point, Jeremiah, or maybe next year, Lamentations) will give us a pretty clear indication of where we are as a nation, and they all point to repentance and turning our hearts back to trust in the Lord.
These changes happened in history, and so will their remedy.
March 26th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #20
You’re missing a connection to history, a connection which is essential to understanding where we are today. Many Christians, politically liberal or conservative, operate under a myth that the government had to step in because the Church in the U. S. failed to care for the poor, sick and unemployed. This is almost completely wrong, though not in the way one would expect.
The vast majority of Christians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Progressives in mainline denominations who did not fail to care for the sick and poor; they did so through the means of the government and intentionally so because they believed the State was the chosen instrument of God to bring relief to the poor. If one recalls, the Progressive era was the heyday of the social gospel. The Progressives were so politically energized and powerful they, led by their elites, passed four constitutional amendments (four!) within only seven years: the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal income tax, which made possible large-scale federal entitlement programs; the 17th Amendment authorizing the direct election of U. S. Senators; the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol (recall the influence of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in Prohibition); and the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Woodrow Wilson was elected by the Progressive Christians in this era, and with their blessing he established the prototype federal institutions dedicated to expanding the power of the federal government to care for the poor, sick and unemployed, institutions that laid the groundwork for FDR’s New Deal programs/agencies and the Great Society institutions under LBJ.
So, no, the “the government had to step in because Christians failed to do their job” theory is completely removed from historical reality. That’s not how the federal government got involved. The government got involved because the evangelicals of that day, the Progressives, became captivated at both the populist and elite levels by the same vision of material salvation through the power of the State that was capturing the hearts and minds of the elites of the dominant European culture, to where U. S. elites also traveled to learn. Progressive Christians, who were the vast majority of American Christians at the turn of the century, chose the government.
The problem was not that Christians were involved in politics. The problem was that the Progressive version of the Gospel–the social gospel–embodied in their politics, was a shallow and heretical distortion disconnected from the historic Church through time (we Americans love our clean slates).
Nevertheless, the federal Leviathan today represents the culmination and triumph of the vision of liberal Christians over the past century. Theologically conservative Christians love pointing to the declining numbers of mainline denominations because they think it means they are winning the battle in some Gnostic realm of invisible spirituality; unfortunately, it means something else. They are shrinking because they already won in America in the early 20th century; mainline decline is simply the outworking of their false theology privatizing and eventually eliminating the Church. But the weakness is illusory; the numbers of their “moral therapeutic deistic” descendants are swelling and we see that fact mirrored economically in state capitalism, culturally in the media/arts and politically in our democracy by the increasing centralization and growth of the State (a process which, one recalls, has not been abated for over a century–sorry politically conservative Christians, not even during Reagan–not even close).
The true Church needs to reject both the privatized gospel of fundamentalism which allowed the Progressives free reign by abandoning cultural life and, in truth, the world; and the social gospel of liberal Christianity which denies the centrality of the crucified and risen Savior and His Spirit-filled Body.
We do this not by sticking a “Jesus saves” sticker on whatever modern culture and politics happens to be and doing the same things, but by continuing the re-forming and re-ordering of our lives in every sphere as the historic Church has always needed to do and has done, more or less faithfully, to build up the Kingdom of God.
Today for the Church in globalized America, after a century of false choices, this will mean some big changes that will only happen over time by God’s grace, if He is so merciful. Once again, the Church must be against the world, for the world.
March 26th, 2010 | 11:34 am | #21
Just a last word to “PontiusP” to file in the category of “facts is what they is”, the Washintgton Times reported this bit of information today:
Thanks!
March 26th, 2010 | 11:39 am | #22
Brad:
I think the irony of what you have said here is that NAMB and IMB are already doing this is crisis situations so effectively that they are a first responder working on behalf of the Red Cross. So my opinion is that we know how.
I’m not a guy, as you know, who wants to kick the church in the teeth because we don’t all live in rags and pay for others people’s kids’ college education or whatev’s. But I think that there’s a way to follow the example, if I may be so bold, of the Luthernas and the Catholics in how we use what we would call “cooperative funding” to advance the Gospel by doing the things which are necessary consequences of the Gospel.
There is a baptist health system in place today; it could be larger.
And that’s the sort of thing we have to get our arms around, one church at a time.
March 26th, 2010 | 12:33 pm | #23
Frank,
I apologize for “ranting”. Let’s just establish some Econ 101 facts, and then see how they tie with what our Lord Jesus taught us.
Kenneth Arrow wrote a seminal paper in 1963 (“Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care”), where he showed, simply, that in order for health care to work you need a pool of both healthy and sick people who pay for universal coverage. Why? Because nobody knows when they will get sick, and if they needed a triple bypass, very few would afford to pay it out of pocket. In the paper, Arrow shows it’s in everybody’s interest to be in the pool.
Now, there are three options. First, you’ve never thought of this simple logic. Second, the logic is too difficult for you to understand. Third, you don’t agree that everyone should be forced to pay for universal coverage. Now, the second option seems implausible, because even a toddler would understand the simple logic. Option 3 seems most likely, but there’s no need to thank me, if I just opened your eyes (i.e. option 1 is true). However, you would need to justify option 3 a bit more from a Christian perspective. Here’s why.
First of all, you imply that having access to universal health care hinders people from getting to heaven.
Really?!
I’m not sure of your logic here, but I suppose that you think when people’s health care needs also satisfied, then their spiritual needs are also satisfied, leaving no room for Jesus. There is no Biblical basis for such an argument. Btw. how do you think people view Christianity when guys like you are trying stop them from accessing health care. I’m not sure, but I doubt that it brings them closer to Christ. I really wish that Christians would’ve been the primus motor behind the whole reform (and done it better, as well).
Secondly, you seem to suggest that the church should take care of the sick, right? I agree with you wholeheartedly, but it hasn’t happened. Out of curiosity, how many triple bypasses have you paid for other people voluntarily, out of your personal finances? You should know, as a Christian, that it’s not going to happen either (Rom 3:10-18).
Lastly, let’s talk about the primary deficit. The estimate of 2011 fiscal deficit is 10.6 % of GDP. The normal tax revenue is around 17 % of GDP (it’s less now during the recession). Of the outlays, military accounts for 5 %, health spending is another 5 %, but this is about to go down thanks to the new health bill (see CBO estimates), social security is 5 %, as well. Interest on public debt will soon reach 2 % of GDP. In other words, the current tax revenue only covers these four items. Everything else is covered by new borrowing (homeland security, roads, and other infrastructure, education, judicial and penal systems, etc., etc.). The deficit is not caused by health care costs, which are now about decrease. The deficit is caused by the Republican utopia that you could have a functioning society without any tax revenue. Ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars might slash the deficit by 2 %, but you will still need to raise taxes. The new health care bill only improves the situation marginally.
You should ask your fellow republicans about this. After all, the democrats would rather have you pay for the spending in a responsible way (that’s code for taxes).
Hmm. I’m not sure how that covers the primary deficit. Can you run me through the logic?
Dude, what are you talking about?
I don’t think you’re referring here to your moral responsibility to take care of the sick, because that doesn’t change whether there’s universal healthcare or not. If you refer to sick people having the moral responsibility to care of themselves (which would contradict what you said about charity), then again, you’re following a different Jesus, and reading a different Bible, than I am.
Funny, Jesus never came out as cold, calculated, or balanced on the back of self-interest.
March 26th, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #24
David,
I repent! Let’s do something now.
Albert,
Thank you for the history lesson.
Frank,
Well, let’s do it then. Where do we start? I, too, immediately thought of the “Disaster Relief” things that Baptists do. How do we invigorate ministry to different kinds of disaster? (i.e. Cancer, etc.). Start a Facebook meme? Have a meeting? Tell Tom Ascol? What do we do?
March 26th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #25
Pontius P (nice name)
I didn’t realize this was DailyKos or Huffington Post. Are Democratic talking points all you have?
Frank took your bait and went off on you after your initial post, but you missed the whole point on the original post and the line of discussion. The passing of Obamacare, if you are Christian in America, is an opportunity to check your reactions and discern what the proper response is regardless of your political affliation because, to paraphrase the VP, it is a big **** deal.
How should the Church respond to this? What is God speaking to us in this situation? Is there a lesson in this of some kind for the Church and if so, what is it? I am pretty sure it is somewhere in between armed rebellion and a victory dance.
If you just want to pick a political fight, trolling somewhere else might not be a bad move. If, however you want to contribute something to the discussion besides talking points, feel free.
March 26th, 2010 | 3:33 pm | #26
nice frank – nice.
At least all of us now know we too can use expletives to tell you off. Of course, not in such a clever way and all.
March 26th, 2010 | 4:51 pm | #27
Steve,
I don’t see any democratic talking points in my posts. I’m as apolitical as you could get. I’m merely interested in bringing glory to Christ at all levels of life, and I am just as open to good ideas whether they come from the right or the left.
Your scale between an armed rebellion and a victory dance is scaringly broad, and you completely dropped me. Can you please explain to me why you would even consider an armed rebellion? I don’t know about you, but the main instrument through which God speaks to me is the Bible. So, the premiums will go up for some people. So what? What did Jesus say about paying taxes? It was He who put Obama where he is now. Why would the church have to react in any way?
This whole discussion seems to hinge on the idea that offering quasi-universal health care to people robs them of Jesus. Where is the logic? Do you actually believe that a person will now be lost because of the health reform, who would’ve been saved otherwise? How is that? Health care only competes with your gospel, if yours is merely a social gospel.
Finally, let’s be pragmatic here. As a Christian, consider yourself being an autocratic leader (I’m not saying that Obama is autocratic), and having the chance to offer health care to everyone, and that it’s also the fiscally responsible thing to do compared to status quo. Let’s also imagine that everyone knows that you love Christ. Now, what do you do?
March 26th, 2010 | 10:24 pm | #28
Dac –
Which expletive did I use? Is “Felix Unger” really offensive to you? That’s a shame — because it seems to me that PP did some stuff significantly more offensive than mention a member of the Odd Couple in his two comments here — especially given your previous advocacy for the primacy of property rights. You might focus your drive-by sights on him.
March 26th, 2010 | 10:27 pm | #29
PP –
That’s quite a mouthful. It’ll take me a weekend to get through it all, but the one easy-to-dispose of issue we can get out of the way is this:
Can you explain, in 300 words or less, whether there is a difference between “budget deficit” and “national debt”? I think that will make fascinating reading.
March 26th, 2010 | 10:42 pm | #30
Also for PP –
It’s interesting that the Director of the CBO closes his summary of the impact of H.R. 3590 with this qualification:
I wonder: why would the CBO make that assumption when they know it’s not true? Here’s what I think: because there’s no way to project how the “difficult to sustain” policies will be beefed up in the future.
However, that qualifier at the end of the statement is the ultimate nullifier for the rest of the estimate — because it says, “well, sure: this bit of simple math reduces the impact on the budget, but there’s a ton of stuff we have to leave out because it’s not defined yet.”
Stew on that while I’m reading Kenneth Arrow’s paper you recommended. Let us thank God and Google that this paper is actually available on line.
March 27th, 2010 | 7:40 am | #31
I am just glad to know that rules like Say what you like about us; disagree as strongly as you like; beat us up or slap us around verbally with near-total impunity. But keep within the parameters of Christian civility. We’ll automatically delete comments with profane or unwholesome words, including abbreviated or otherwise disguised ones don’t apply here like they do at your blog (err, Phil’s Blog, so I guess its really not your rules).
Brilliant Strategy!
March 27th, 2010 | 1:13 pm | #32
David Carlson:
Thanks for your input. Is that really the most important thing said or discussed in this thread?
_______
All others:
About once every 3 years I let fly with an expletive of the caliber let loose here. It has been pointed out to me, and I accept the admonition. The offending disambiguation of a texting/twitter “vulgarity” has been removed, and I apologized to all who have been offended. The offense was mine, and you should not have been subjected to it.
March 27th, 2010 | 1:19 pm | #33
Frank Turk: “About once every 3 years I let fly with an expletive of the caliber let loose here. It has been pointed out to me, and I accept the admonition. The offending disambiguation of a texting/twitter “vulgarity” has been removed, and I apologized to all who have been offended. The offense was mine, and you should not have been subjected to it.”
Okay.
March 27th, 2010 | 1:41 pm | #34
Since PP brought it up, I have been reading (and re-reading) Kenneth Arrow’s paper (linked above), and I’m wondering — much as I am wondering if PP read my post — if he has actually read Dr. Arrow’s paper. It has incredible statements like this one in it:
Is that part of PP’s analysis of Arrow’s paper? Prolly not.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact