SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (469331)4/6/2009 7:34:27 PM
From: i-node  Respond to of 1577883
 

So you think it's the insurance companies that is causing the inefficiencies, and that killing them off is the right thing to do.


Even though the one well-functioning government-run medical program, Medicare Part D, is based on private insurers providing the coverage, rather than government.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (469331)4/6/2009 8:29:52 PM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577883
 
>So you think it's the insurance companies that is causing the inefficiencies, and that killing them off is the right thing to do.

Yes.

>That's about as logical as fixing the soaring costs of higher education by killing off private universities.

No it isn't. It really isn't.

-Z



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (469331)4/7/2009 7:11:45 AM
From: steve harris  Respond to of 1577883
 
Remember the eye of God pic? Here's the hand of God...



news.yahoo.com



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (469331)4/7/2009 7:15:04 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1577883
 
The End of Philosophy
By DAVID BROOKS
Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy, and the approaches of millions of people since, is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.

One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, “Human,” is that “it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.”

Today, many psychologists, cognitive scientists and even philosophers embrace a different view of morality. In this view, moral thinking is more like aesthetics. As we look around the world, we are constantly evaluating what we see. Seeing and evaluating are not two separate processes. They are linked and basically simultaneous.

As Steven Quartz of the California Institute of Technology said during a recent discussion of ethics sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, “Our brain is computing value at every fraction of a second. Everything that we look at, we form an implicit preference. Some of those make it into our awareness; some of them remain at the level of our unconscious, but ... what our brain is for, what our brain has evolved for, is to find what is of value in our environment.”

Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know.

Moral judgments are like that. They are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong.

In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. Or as Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia memorably wrote, “The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality, and ... moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.”

The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups. Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.

The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasizes the social nature of moral intuition. People are not discrete units coolly formulating moral arguments. They link themselves together into communities and networks of mutual influence.

The second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature. Evolution is always about competition, but for humans, as Darwin speculated, competition among groups has turned us into pretty cooperative, empathetic and altruistic creatures — at least within our families, groups and sometimes nations.

The third nice thing is that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. Moral intuitions have primacy, Haidt argues, but they are not dictators. There are times, often the most important moments in our lives, when in fact we do use reason to override moral intuitions, and often those reasons — along with new intuitions — come from our friends.

The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people. It challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts. It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning.

Finally, it should also challenge the very scientists who study morality. They’re good at explaining how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but they still struggle to explain the feelings of awe, transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to most people’s moral experiences, but central. The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (469331)4/7/2009 11:37:04 AM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1577883
 
Koreans and Bangladeshis Vie in Los Angeles District

By MIRA JANG
nytimes.com

LOS ANGELES — In the last 30 years or so, a six-square-mile area west of downtown Los Angeles has become an enclave of some 50,000 Korean-Americans, the largest concentration of Koreans in the country. The district is now commonly known as Koreatown.

But on the city’s official maps, Koreatown is nowhere to be found, because until 2006 Los Angeles had no formal process for designating neighborhoods, whether well recognized or little known. Korean civic groups say they always simply assumed that the area was officially Koreatown.

They were surprised, then, when an application was filed with the city clerk’s office in October to name dozens of square blocks in what they consider the heart of the neighborhood. The name sought was Little Bangladesh.

The application, submitted by a committee of the growing number of Bangladeshis in Los Angeles, has brought a struggle between two mainly immigrant groups that reflects the complexities of negotiating space and official recognition in an increasingly crowded urban center.

The last official count of the Bangladeshi population, in the 2000 census, showed only 1,700 in all of Los Angeles County. But the Bangladeshi consul general here, Abu Zafar, estimates that there are now 10,000 to 15,000 in Los Angeles and some 25,000 in Southern California, making the region the nation’s second-largest home to Bangladeshis, after New York City.

In what the Koreans thought was Koreatown, a handful of Bangladeshi stores have cropped up, Mr. Zafar said, and the community is growing as a result of migration from out of state.

Moshurul Huda, a member of the Little Bangladesh Project, the committee that filed for official designation, said of the effort, “We just want to show our pride for future generations.”

But that goal is shared by the other side.

“We don’t want to seem like bullies, but this is Koreatown,” said Chang Lee, chairman of the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles. “We will fight for it.”

So the federation, along with several other community groups, filed its own application last month, asking that six square miles between downtown and Hancock Park, an area including the proposed Little Bangladesh, be officially Koreatown.

“This cross-ethnic tension is somewhat new,” said Jan Lin, a sociology professor at Occidental College here whose specialty is ethnic enclaves. “Historically, it’s been whites against nonwhites as new immigrants move into established white neighborhoods.”

But the tension is not surprising, Mr. Lin said, given the tendency of immigrant groups to live in close proximity to one another. In Hollywood, Thai Town is inside Little Armenia. Little Tokyo and Chinatown occupy distinct but neighboring spaces downtown. And a Salvadoran business corridor lies adjacent to Koreatown.

Korean immigrants, who withstood the 1992 riots here, began transforming the city’s core in the 1970s from a depressed neighborhood into what is today a business and social hub so large and dotted with so many Korean-language signs that it has been compared to Seoul. Formal recognition would bolster tourism there and help preserve ethnic heritage, Mr. Lin said.

Bangladeshi leaders acknowledge the de facto existence of Koreatown; many of them live or work in Korean-owned buildings.

“But we have the same aspirations as the Koreans,” said Shamim Ahmed, a Bangladeshi vice consul. “Having a sign doesn’t mean we own it. It’s just symbolic.”

Symbolism also resonates strongly with many Koreans, but their objections to the Little Bangladesh designation, they say, go further. The Wilshire Center-Koreatown Neighborhood Council wrote a letter to the city opposing it on the ground that it would cause “irreparable harm” to Koreatown’s commercial ambitions and cultural influence.

Either designation requires a majority vote of the City Council, and prospects for an official Koreatown appear brighter than those for Little Bangladesh, which is opposed by Councilman Tom LaBonge, who represents much of the area.

“Koreatown has been around for so long that it predates any regulation,” Mr. LaBonge said in an interview. “It’s just as formal, and justified. It is Koreatown.”

Mr. LaBonge has recommended that the Little Bangladesh Project instead erect a monument at a local park as a starting point for a possible future name designation, perhaps of a nearby area.

“I want to see that they are invested in the area,” he said, “and that they’re here to stay.”

Korean leaders say that there is room for a Little Bangladesh, but that there are boundaries.

“It’s nice to embrace other communities,” said Brad Lee, a member of the Koreatown neighborhood council’s board, “as long as it’s not in our backyard. Or in our front yard.”

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company