birdog1960

there's a great deal of misunderstanding here re physician supply. the number of med school spots has increased dramatically over tyne last decade. midlevels are filling a void but i'd certainly prefer to seen an md if i needed care. it's explained very well here: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/18/460291216/kaiser-permanentes-new-medical-school-to-focus-on-teamwork and here http://www.wsj.com/articles/kaiser-permanente-to-launch-medical-school-1450368001. who would have thought? an insurance company starting a medical school. nope, the government isn't going to be doing the rationing as much as the insurance company trained and employed "providers". it's the natural consequence of a for profit medical system. and it is mostly very bad. Kaiser is actually at the trailing edge of a medical school expansion that has been unmatched since the 1960s and 1970s, say specialists in medical education. (Kaiser Health News is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.) In the past decade alone, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, 20 new medical schoolshave opened or been approved. That's no coincidence. In 2006 the AAMC called for a 30 percent increase in medical school graduates by 2015 — by admitting more students and building new schools — to meet a growing demand.

this is actually what i said: " i contend that those still supporting the idea of the confederacy and by extension its link to slavery, are in fact very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't. young makes the point with artistry i don't possess." the distinction between "anyone" and "very likely" is quite clear and purposely ignored by you. "very likely" leaves open the very possibilities and complexities that you describe. additionally, the slavery associated with the confederacy on the whole, was a very different entity than working conditions in apple factories even in the worst case. apple doesn't buy and sell people. they don't sanction rape and whipping and various other types of torture as punishment. to equate the two is ridiculous and doesn't warrant discussion. so you have purposefully misstated my statement and are arguing against it. even a loser like you must recognize the logical fallacy there. intellectual dishonesty? some might go as far as calling it lying. i find it tiresome and futile to argue against those that willfully disregard the rules of proper behavior. i won't engage you again.

"I don't post sources because I read books and primary sources." you mean like this? http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources.html access to such s place should make it all the more easy to reference your sources to support your argument. the library has already catalogued the information and in many cases digitized it. additionally, on sites such as this, there are links to search and even view such materials on line. additionally, such sources are used in dissertations (i assume we are excluding whatever rhino's "thesis" was meant to mean). the authors of such documents often use primary source material as well. but they meticulously reference it if done well. so why can't you? why can't you back up your statements with your sources? smart people reference their sources. meticulously and as thoroughly as possible. including primary sources and conversations. when they don't', other smart people don't take them seriously.

if you're correct then we finally have something in common.

collections of writings are published, no?

parchment or sheepskin?

people that live in glass houses...except I don't really see you living in a mid century modern so you have handwritten notes? that must be a valuable collection. are they on parchment or sheepskin?

disagree. Milton friedman is scholarly. I think he's also more often wrong than correct. there are people in my own field that are scholarly that I strongly disagree with on certain issues. the fact that they are scholarly doesn't hold sway.

i'm not making declarations of "fact" based on the premise that I hold a specific degree. but in healthcare discussions here I've linked to sources (ACP, Doctors for single payer http://pnhpcalifornia.org/, scholarly journals etc.) that those outside the field would likely be unfamiliar with. believe it or not. I don't care. it's not relevant to the argument since i'm not holding myself out as an expert. tom is...without any proof.

so they're published necessarily in order for you to read them. link them.

so list your primary sources (a survivor from the civil war would have to be 175 yo ) and link your books. and refute that very clear wiki line about cruelty and slavery using some source...any source ... other than your inflated ego. oh, and every opinion just about anyone has ever espoused has been put forth by someone else previously. the are very few novel opinions. when they do occur they generally originate from extraordinary people. i'm thinking you don't qualify.

i'm thinking more like this guy: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cliff+clavin+jeopardy+video&view=detail&&mid=3448E3BECCC068FAE4683448E3BECCC068FAE468&rvsmid=FEBF3BBC57C688B2540DFEBF3BBC57C688B2540D&fsscr=0

yup. an appeal to authority without any proof of authority. that's what I thought. so reference the books and primary sources that you are so familiar with that refute the initial sentence in the wiki article, will ya cliff? historical books almost always have footnotes and bibliographies. you might start there. by primary sources you likely mean established experts. they generally publish. and guess what? their publications virtually always contain bibliographies. so have at it...

and what is the basis for your contention that you do? you rarely link sources. you haven't divulged your formal education or publications on the subject. are we to simply trust you? :lol: . not bloody likely... will wiki is flawed, it is peer reviewed and constantly revised based on that review (unlike statements made on ppp. here's the first line of gato'rs linked article: "The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping and sexual abuse, including rape, were common." given your self reported vast knowledge on the subject, an credible reference to refute this should easily come to hand. link it.

start a new thread debating the morality of buying apple products and the alleged link to slavery. i'd be pleased to thrash you there. as it is, this thread is about confederate monuments in NO and their links to slavery. apple is not salient to that discussion. i refuse to be complicit in your attempt to obfuscate the debate with tangential issues. it's a tactic much too often employed by the cons here regardless of the personal attacks on gator for pointing that out.

it's very well described here: http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930. I've linked it before but it's described as"an intellectual journey" so it's not likely to your taste. that's necessary but not sufficient as a credential.

point conceded. doesn't change the argument nor the questions re evidence to support these contentions or academic credential to support claims of intellectual superiority on the matter.

you said nothing about extreme. once again, it's all documented right here. and your academic credentials here are important since you claim superiority of knowledge based on them. so what was your "thesis"? was it just an idea? did you obtain it from a box of crackerjacks? was it recognized by scholars as an important contribution to the field? were your "papers" published? or are you just blowing smoke? go ahead and lie because it's clear you believe you can get away with it. except he didn't say "not the norm" until just now. and in the same vein, how bout your academic credentials here? or are they from the cliff claven school?

you made the statements. were slaves too valuable to purposely harm or not? was slave cruelty an outlier event or not?

fail to see the distinction between what I quoted and what you just recopied. care to explain? were slaves too valuable to purposely harm or not?. if so, produce some evidence. was cruelty to slaves and abuse an outlier event or not? how does context change the meaning of those statements (hint: it doesn't) . what did you mean by the word outliers? I believe I was the first to use it on this forum in reference to gladwell's book. I know what he meant. what did you mean? the rightful indignation is just that. you won't even confirm your documented use of words that have no alternative meanings. it's pitiful. oh, and in my circles, thesis means doctoral dissertation unless otherwise qualified. what was yours? a high school project?

yeah, I was appealing to rationality. didn't actually expect it to succeed.

trump was a frequent topic of discussion with my in laws in London over Christmas. there are several quite conservative members of the family by British standards. Yet everyone of them asked me "he can't win can he?" followed by "who is supporting him and why?". they all found his ascendence very disturbing. one of the Scotsman in the group mentioned that Scotland had just refused a trump request for development in Scotland. Said he thought that could be directly attributed to his prez campaign. so albeit from a small sample, i'd be worried about the trump effect internationally and especially with close allies. of course, many here think we exist in a vacuum and shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks.. kinda like trump. and absolutely incorrect.

rhino: " The history of slavery in the Americas is one of my niches. I've studied it extensively, written papers on it and a thesis. There is no question the root cause of the war was slavery and the desire to see the practice continued and expanded into the new territories. one would think it a pretty facile task to defend statements made by someone so learned on the subject. I would enjoy the privilege to read what is likely to be a very interesting, if not likely well received, thesis. which nonsensical posts are you referring to? cuz this one is pretty nebulous on its own.

you said this: " in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers." i say this is untrue. they were not outliers. it was so common that laws were needed to protect them from amputations or cutting off the tongue in addition to those horrible acts already mentioned. prove me wrong. i believe a consensus of historians would judge your stance quite sympathetic to antebellum slaveholders and quite unsympathetic to slaves. it would most certainly be questioned during a thesis defense. but it's an historical point. and you stated you're an historian that published a thesis on the civil war. the reference to support your point should be easily plucked from your bibliography. go for it.

Didn't characterize you or your politics at all. I characterized your description of antebellum American slavery. Prove me wrong