SoulPancake

@flashbanding Man. When I make a mistake, I reeeeally make 'em; 1600's Quakers and 622 Islam. Only one digit off, albeit the MOST significant digit. 'scuse me....

@1more "In the broadest of generalities, can I conclude that Quakers believe in Christ and God, but not in the church and the clergy? "
nice to see your interest - and that it is of a fairly deep nature.

and those beliefs....well - almost.

the thing is, that its liberal core means that whilst it is Christian in its history and its core, it allows doubt, and Buddhists atheists and many others not only attend, but are welcomed at Quaker meeting...
many members are closer to Atheists than any of the mainstream religions - definitely including Islam.

What I love about Quakers is the absence of creeds, the absence of dogma, the presence of love and the presence of inclusiveness. The absence of hierarchies, the absence of intermediaries, the presence of equality, the absence of fear.

however people describe the presence, when the meeting has this amazing presence, it is equally felt by all without hysteria. The understanding of human beings connectedness is what shines out...

I have read a little about Islam but it clearly predates Quakerism by quite a way, how Quakers developed in the 17th century and to this date is very different from how Islam spread across the parts of the world it did.
- and the Quakers stance on peace is so very much the opposite of the notion of Jihad - its hard to think of two religions more opposed in this way - and yet I know of Muslims and Quakers who are good friends..(In Cardiff where I used to live)

@flashbanding "and when faced with many contradictory statistics cobbling is not such a bad thing - it is almost like averaging and getting a sense."

I'm pleased you noticed I wasn't throwing a rock. I'm not a big fan of statistics that are generated for public consumption because there's ulterior motives with virtually all of them, and it takes so much effort to glean anything meaningful. But I'm preaching to the choir.

Since we're "off the front page" with this post now, I have an unrelated question I've wanted to ask you. Some time back, you mentioned you're a Quaker, and I was wondering since you're in the U.K., which do you associate yourself with? In the broadest of generalities, can I conclude that Quakers believe in Christ and God, but not in the church and the clergy?
Also, I looked into the Quakers a bit on my own and noticed a chronological correlation between the formation of the Quakers and the advent of Islam. Not to imply anything other than coincidence, but I did find that intriguing. Obviously I know very little, but my curiosity never leaves me alone. Any insight would be appreciated. Cheers

@1more
I hear you,
and when faced with many contradictory statistics cobbling is not such a bad thing - it is almost like averaging and getting a sense.

The litigious society is taking over here as well now, drives me nuts - people believing they should sue for every mistake - and it all ends up making lawyers rich when a simple and sincere "sorry" was the right answer...

The insurance and law industries don't come out much better from moral scrutiny than the arms or pharmaceutical and medical industries - lawyer jokes bear testimony to just how much esteem they are held in...

@flashbanding If I'm understanding your response to my question, the answer is you cobbled your own statistic.
Economies of scale pose problems for solutions that work with smaller populations when those solutions are applied to larger and larger groups.
The medical industry, including but not limited to the pharmaceutical companies, has been consistently making affordability a challenge for decades. One of the fundamental reasons for this that rarely comes up is the legal community and litigation of medically related suits. Malpractice, for one, is one of the principle initiators for insurance companies ultimately coming between doctors and patients, and was also the cause of private practices falling away to HMO's; private practices couldn't afford the malpractice insurance on their own anymore. Private citizens carry an equal part of the responsibility for this though, since lawyers wouldn't have a case without a litigant. The attorneys couldn't care less either way though, since they're getting the case whether the medical side or patient side is in error.
Another huge problem is people taking lousy care of themselves in the first place; prevention is far less expensive than cures. But this requires personal responsibility. Oh God no! Anything but that.

The WHO uses different criteria to those I would choose - (they have an inherent 1st world bias, like the world bank)
I relate it slightly differently to per capita income - as in, Cuba is way above the USA in terms of supplying adequate medicine and speedy treatment for the poorest 15% of the population (as opposed to heart transplants for the rich, for example) and then the most important aspect that the WHO fail to take properly into account. (admittedly Cuba does not have the same wealth spread but that is half the point, you don't need money to buy health there)

the other big factor is the percentage of that population who suffer from Iatrogenic illness... http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

7 million killed in a decade in the USA, (3 million if you discount those who might have died anyway) another 18 million seriously ill and/or life chances permanently lowered by drug or doctor treatment
- that is the worst per capita rate in the world, and it is mainly among the group who have some health insurance but at a very low level - along with the even poorer unemployed, the very group that the healthcare bill is needed for.

I have taken these figures from several sources including some that might be dismissed as politically biased (but those ones tend to place the USA lower than 80th) my point is that spending the money proportionately as Cuba does would mean less excellent treatment for the very rich, but speedy and adequate treatment for the very poor...
and that aid for the poor at a minor cost at the expense of the rich is what the drugs companies are spending billions to persuade Americans is a very bad idea.

anyone in the States know that Cuba exports doctors they train to the rest of Latin America?

@flashbanding "our wonderful health system" (its about the 80th best in the world incidentally) "

My apologies for following you outside your topic, but where did this statistic come from? Even the WHO (world health organization) has the U.S. at #37 last time I looked.

@scottpowell
I hear you
and Obama fell into the trap of believing he could tackle all those agendas - leaving a lack of clarity that so irks the American psyche...

as fo Jackson Browne being an extremist - Michael has a finger on the problem the right wing in America has painted simple good liberal idealist as "Damned socialist commie bastards out to destroy our wonderful health system" (its about the 80th best in the world incidentally)

who are the extremists?- (as in as extreme as Cheney is on the right)
I can't think of any in your public life?

@scottpowell "btw, is jackson browne really an extremist?"

No and therein lies the rub. The right wing propaganda machine has skewed America's thinking so far to the right that Democrats are afraid to be democrats and the only welfare of real concern is that of the corporation.

btw, is jackson browne really an extremist?