Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (51682)	3/4/2008 9:18:49 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542169

OT You may appreciate the irony of this article that appeared in today's NY Post: OBAMA-FEST BAR GETS A 'BLACK' MARK By KATI CORNELL March 4, 2008 -- A Manhattan hotspot that hosted a primary-night party for Barack Obama supporters has been sued by the state Attorney General for discriminating against black patrons. The AG's office accused the Tonic East nightclub, at Third Avenue and East 29th Street, of barring blacks based on an unwritten dress code against popular hip-hop clothing, but allowing similarly dressed white patrons to enter. Tonic East settled the lawsuit with a simultaneous agreement that forces the bar to fork over $35,000, implement training and change its dress code to eliminate references to specific brands. The state launched an undercover probe at Tonic East after black patrons complained that bouncers stopped them at the door, citing policies excluding clothing by Sean John and Rocawear, Nike Air Force One sneakers, Timberland boots and baggy jeans. The Kips Bay bar was the scene of a major party for Obama supporters on Feb. 5, with overflow crowds packing the multi-level club that is built to hold 450 people and spilling revelers out into other area bars.

To: Lane3 who wrote (51682)	3/4/2008 9:32:20 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542169

I'm not suggesting that the majority of people do that In which case I see no reason to compromise my premise. People primarily seek health care when they are ill or fearful that they are becoming ill, in which cases it is not so much a matter of choice as necessity - this is what I mean by involuntary. If you were guaranteed perfect health for the rest of your life would you ever volunteer to see the doctor. There are lots of things that we need that we don't over-consume. We don't over-consume rain gutters, sidewalks, spark plugs, soccer balls, vacuum cleaners, umbrellas, etc., etc I don't really want to get into what over-consumption is or isn't but in my case I would say that wrt at least soccer balls, vacuum cleaners and umbrellas I have consumed more than my fair share. The need for a heart bypass op is categorically different to the need for a vacuum cleaner. If you cannot differentiate health care from household goods nothing I say will convince you that medical services are consumed differently. The fact is that many of the major health problems we face in this country arise as a result of excess consumption, so I don't think that your point stands. The lack of over-consumption isn't enough to differentiate health care. Lack of over-consumption happens because it's involuntary, convince me otherwise and I'll re-consider. I sense you might be looking for something that you don't believe is there.