anna379

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Mar 3, 2005
16
0
Status
these boards have been so informative for me as i am looking into chaging professions! i think i would enjoy learning the science involved and want to work with people. however, the medical profession is somewhat conservative and i was wondering if most of you tend to be conservative or liberal minded. i'm somewhat liberal minded and am wondering how much of a fit this profession will be for me. i am not trying to start a debate or political discussion on the forum. i'm just curious as to the general attitude.
thank you!
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
anna379 said:
these boards have been so informative for me as i am looking into chaging professions! i think i would enjoy learning the science involved and want to work with people. however, the medical profession is somewhat conservative and i was wondering if most of you tend to be conservative or liberal minded. i'm somewhat liberal minded and am wondering how much of a fit this profession will be for me. i am not trying to start a debate or political discussion on the forum. i'm just curious as to the general attitude.
thank you!
Anna,

I have always thought that people in the medical profession was more liberal. I would say most optometry students are very liberal if the students who post in this forum are a reasonable sample. I'm really not sure why it's important for you to work with mostly other liberals though. Conservatives won't bite, we just have a different point of view on the role of government. If it is really important with you to work with other liberals, then you might want to considering becoming a journalist as most journalists seem to be liberal. Lawyers also seem to be mostly liberals. Also, it seems to me most college professors that teach liberal arts courses at universities like Berkeley, Harvard, and Colorado-Boulder are liberals. I'm curious, Why you think
people in the medical profession are more conservative?
 
OP
A

anna379

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Mar 3, 2005
16
0
Status
Hi,
Thanks for responding. I can see how you can say the professionals tend to be more liberal, but i see the medical profession as a whole in this country as conservative, relying heavily on pharmaceuticals (therefore corporations), and being opposed to alternative therapies. i have a strong science background and want to work with people. but i'm a little nervous about prescribing pharmaceutics (in optometry, we will not usually be dealing with prescription drugs but of course we will be using technology to help patients) and about not having enough time with patients (having to meeting a quota). just my concerns.

Bob_Barker27 said:
Anna,

I have always thought that people in the medical profession was more liberal. I would say most optometry students are very liberal if the students who post in this forum are a reasonable sample. I'm really not sure why it's important for you to work with mostly other liberals though. Conservatives won't bite, we just have a different point of view on the role of government. If it is really important with you to work with other liberals, then you might want to considering becoming a journalist as most journalists seem to be liberal. Lawyers also seem to be mostly liberals. Also, it seems to me most college professors that teach liberal arts courses at universities like Berkeley, Harvard, and Colorado-Boulder are liberals. I'm curious, Why you think
people in the medical profession are more conservative?
 

cpw

It's a boy !!!
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 25, 2001
13,393
0
43
Tampa
Status
Optometrist
anna379 said:
Hi,
Thanks for responding. I can see how you can say the professionals tend to be more liberal, but i see the medical profession as a whole in this country as conservative, relying heavily on pharmaceuticals (therefore corporations), and being opposed to alternative therapies. i have a strong science background and want to work with people. but i'm a little nervous about prescribing pharmaceutics (in optometry, we will not usually be dealing with prescription drugs but of course we will be using technology to help patients) and about not having enough time with patients (having to meeting a quota). just my concerns.
I beg to differ on not using prescription drugs. You have to know the side effects (ocular and otherwise) of all the drugs your patients are taking. you also, have to Rx antibiotics, allergy drugs, antivirals, and then the ocular drops (glaucoma and otherwise).

having enough time with patients depends entirely on your mode of practice.
 

al-majhul

UCBSO c/o 2009
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 28, 2005
112
0
38
Berkeley
Status
anna379 said:
Hi,
Thanks for responding. I can see how you can say the professionals tend to be more liberal, but i see the medical profession as a whole in this country as conservative, relying heavily on pharmaceuticals (therefore corporations), and being opposed to alternative therapies. i have a strong science background and want to work with people. but i'm a little nervous about prescribing pharmaceutics (in optometry, we will not usually be dealing with prescription drugs but of course we will be using technology to help patients) and about not having enough time with patients (having to meeting a quota). just my concerns.
Hello anna,
It seems to me like your question isn't really one of politics, but of lifestlye choices. One should be cautious in labeling a person as a "liberal" or a "conservative" in a broad manner. For example, my personal views on foreign politics are probably more on the liberal side. I would say, however, that my take on certain domestic issues are more conservative. So am I a liberal? or am I a conservative? You can't say.

Now, where do I fall on pharmacology versus alternative medicine -- it's not a political issue, it's more of a question on basic fundamentals of science. As a person who has invested his life into science, and as a future optometrist (God-willing), I will rely on the scientific method for treating patients -- the tool that found to be most readily availabe and nearly universally accepted, is to treat diseases with pharmaceuticals when appropriate. The fact that they are obtained most readily through "the evil corporate powers that be" doesn't mean I ally myself with these corporations. It's more of a: "deal with it cause you have to in order to get your patients the best treatment," sort of thing in my mind.

With respect to meeting quotas, I'm not sure I've seen that sort of constraint on any optometrist -- at least not in private practice. What sort of quotas are they trying to keep up with? Quotas on how many patients they see? or on how many times they prescribe a specific contact lens or med or something? I haven't seen either of those issues raised at the office I currently work at -- we just try to meet our incredibly high overhead every month.
 

rpames

Optometrist
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 30, 2000
1,179
2
Oshkosh, WI
Visit site
Status
Optometrist
If you are in a relatively busy/successful practice, there won't be a day that goes by without you pulling out your Rx pad. If you don't want to perscribe Rxs, check out chiropractic school.
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
anna379 said:
Hi,
Thanks for responding. I can see how you can say the professionals tend to be more liberal, but i see the medical profession as a whole in this country as conservative, relying heavily on pharmaceuticals (therefore corporations), and being opposed to alternative therapies. i have a strong science background and want to work with people. but i'm a little nervous about prescribing pharmaceutics (in optometry, we will not usually be dealing with prescription drugs but of course we will be using technology to help patients) and about not having enough time with patients (having to meeting a quota). just my concerns.

Well, I don't really understand the anti-corporation mindset many young people have. Corporations are just a group of people providing a service or producing a product in order to make a profit and make a living. Physicians rely heavily on medications because in most cases they are the most effective treatment. I have epilepsy, and drugs are the only thing that controls epilepsy. I wouldn't even be able to drive if corporations didn't do the research and produce medications that control epilepsy. People are living longer these days, and I think one huge reason for that is the number of new drugs that have been produced over the last 100 years. Alternative therapies sound good, but if you are opposed to using drugs to treat medical conditions, I am not sure if the medical profession is for you. As far as quotas go, from what I can tell, that's a myth. Most retail stores will not require optometrists to see x number of patients in a day.
 

al-majhul

UCBSO c/o 2009
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 28, 2005
112
0
38
Berkeley
Status
Bob_Barker27 said:
Well, I don't really understand the anti-corporation mindset many young people have. Corporations are just a group of people providing a service or producing a product in order to make a profit and make a living. Physicians rely heavily on medications because in most cases they are the most effective treatment. I have epilepsy, and drugs are the only thing that controls epilepsy. I wouldn't even be able to drive if corporations didn't do the research and produce medications that control epilepsy. People are living longer these days, and I think one huge reason for that is the number of new drugs that have been produced over the last 100 years. Alternative therapies sound good, but if you are opposed to using drugs to treat medical conditions, I am not sure if the medical profession is for you. As far as quotas go, from what I can tell, that's a myth. Most retail stores will not require optometrists to see x number of patients in a day.
Well, it's really the way in which big corporations take advantage of the consumers that are what concern us. Sure, they provide tremendous resources for us to choose from, but why take advantage of the little guy in the process? Corporations are responsible for the destruction of acres upon acres of farm-crops, for example, every year to help keep prices up -- the law of supply and demand. Why do that? Aren't there enough starving people in the world where they could suffer the loss of giving it to people where it's needed? These are the types of things that anger the "people of conscience" as they are termed. But, this is not a forum on politics -- so I'm ending my posts here with this: as with any field, if you want to be a doctor, there are going to be things you will have to do -- whether they agree with your political/religious/personal beliefs or not -- in order to give your patients the best treatments; and THAT should be the ultimate goal of any health professional.
 

xmattODx

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Nov 5, 2003
574
1
Visit site
Status
anna379 said:
these boards have been so informative for me as i am looking into chaging professions! i think i would enjoy learning the science involved and want to work with people. however, the medical profession is somewhat conservative and i was wondering if most of you tend to be conservative or liberal minded. i'm somewhat liberal minded and am wondering how much of a fit this profession will be for me. i am not trying to start a debate or political discussion on the forum. i'm just curious as to the general attitude.
thank you!
I'm a Christian Anarchist and a practicing optometrist - not an ideal fit (as I am currently selling my soul to corporate america) but one's political views change with time and one wouldn't want to drop out of OD school half way through. My classmates were mostly conservative but it made for a lot of fun "discussions". Don't make a career decision based on the political leanings of the class.

BTW I don't think you'll be able to get away without using pharmaceuticals but you might be interested in the behavioural aspect to optometry.
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
al-majhul said:
Well, it's really the way in which big corporations take advantage of the consumers that are what concern us. Sure, they provide tremendous resources for us to choose from, but why take advantage of the little guy in the process? Corporations are responsible for the destruction of acres upon acres of farm-crops, for example, every year to help keep prices up -- the law of supply and demand. Why do that? Aren't there enough starving people in the world where they could suffer the loss of giving it to people where it's needed? These are the types of things that anger the "people of conscience" as they are termed. But, this is not a forum on politics -- so I'm ending my posts here with this: as with any field, if you want to be a doctor, there are going to be things you will have to do -- whether they agree with your political/religious/personal beliefs or not -- in order to give your patients the best treatments; and THAT should be the ultimate goal of any health professional.
Didn't you say you were a conservative on domestic issues? You sound very liberal to me. Liberals love the "little guys are being exploited by evil corporation" mantra. The farm issue you bring up has more to do with our goverment using price control tactics, not reckless greedy corporations. The USDA intervenes in the free market to benefit the farmers at the expense of the consumer. The USDA actually pays farmers with our tax revenue to leave some of their land idle in order for the price of commodities to stay high so that farmers don't risk losing money. Politicians of both parties haved supported this kind of farm welfare in order to buy the vote of the farmer.
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
xmattODx said:
I'm a Christian Anarchist and a practicing optometrist - not an ideal fit (as I am currently selling my soul to corporate america) but one's political views change with time and one wouldn't want to drop out of OD school half way through. My classmates were mostly conservative but it made for a lot of fun "discussions". Don't make a career decision based on the political leanings of the class.

BTW I don't think you'll be able to get away without using pharmaceuticals but you might be interested in the behavioural aspect to optometry.
What is a CHristian Anarchist exactly? I never heard of that before. Thanks.
 

xmattODx

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Nov 5, 2003
574
1
Visit site
Status
Bob_Barker27 said:
What is a CHristian Anarchist exactly? I never heard of that before. Thanks.
Quite simple - an Anarchist (anti-capitlaist, anti-democratic, anti-nationalist, etc.) who believes that man is at his nature sinful, and that God desires a personal relationship with his 'creation' through Jesus Christ his Son.
 

al-majhul

UCBSO c/o 2009
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 28, 2005
112
0
38
Berkeley
Status
Bob_Barker27 said:
Didn't you say you were a conservative on domestic issues? You sound very liberal to me. Liberals love the "little guys are being exploited by evil corporation" mantra. The farm issue you bring up has more to do with our goverment using price control tactics, not reckless greedy corporations. The USDA intervenes in the free market to benefit the farmers at the expense of the consumer. The USDA actually pays farmers with our tax revenue to leave some of their land idle in order for the price of commodities to stay high so that farmers don't risk losing money. Politicians of both parties haved supported this kind of farm welfare in order to buy the vote of the farmer.
I stand corrected on the whole farm thing being government sponsored. Although I dare say that corporations have a hand in it if you dig deep enough. But that's the general idea I was getting at.

As for why I say I'm a conservative on domestic issues, I meant more along the lines of domestic social issues -- religion, family values, etc., etc.
 
OP
A

anna379

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Mar 3, 2005
16
0
Status
thanks for all your replies! al-majhal, the term liberal was a poor one to throw out, but i think i lacked a better term. life-style and values is much more appropriate. regarding corporations in america, they are causing major destruction to our environment and our health (the fast food industry, soda companies, and possibly pharmaceuticals when they are prescribed prematurely or inappropriately). it's not because they are 'evil', but because our current system does not have the appropriate checks and balances in place.

regarding the use of prescription drugs, i understand they are needed but feel they are used much less in optometry than in allopathic or even osteopathic medicine. i did some minor research and found a book called Save Your Sight written by two opthamalogists who encouraged a healthy diet and lifestyle as part of preventing eye problems which occur later in life. i've also looked briefly into behavioral optometry and am trying to learn more about this. i'm wondering if these types of philosophies are uncommon though in practice. thanks again for all your input!
 

Coney Eyeland

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2005
8
0
Status
It's interesting that the original question kind of answered itself in a roundabout way. Just look at the range of opinions on this thread. I think that it's probably indicative of the optometry student population out there, as students come from all different regions and backgrounds.

Bob_Barker27 said:
I'm really not sure why it's important for you to work with mostly other liberals though.
If politics is important to you, I can very much understand wanting to be in an environment with people who share your beliefs. Personally, I consider my views very left wing. I'm part of the Green Party and I'm involved in an environmental group and the anti-Bush movement. These issues are very important to me, and I know that I want to be around as many people as possible who share my beliefs. This is large part of the reason why I chose Boston and New York City as my top choice places to attend optometry school. (Note that I'm not saying that everyone in these areas is left wing. I understand the concept of averages. I'm just saying that you're more likely to find liberal people in these areas.)

In terms of the political views of optometry school faculty, I must say that I was very surprised and pleased by the views of the professors who interviewed me at SUNY. They seemed very interested in the environmental work that I do, and during the interview we discussed the Kyoto protocol, social security changes, the healthcare system, and even Canadians' views of Americans post 9/11 and the Iraq war. I was very honest about my opinions and I voiced many criticisms of the Bush administration, and I was very surprised at the extent to which the professors agreed with me. But this is just one personal experience.

Bob_Barker27 said:
Liberals love the "little guys are being exploited by evil corporation" mantra.
As far as this goes, I think that we can't forget that there are two sides to the coin. Many corporations, the pharmaceutical industry included, continue to pump out more and more products at higher and higher prices, to the benefit of already-wealthy executives. The average consumer does suffer as a result. These corporations however are supplying a demand. People want more and more drugs for more and more "problems", and this in itself is a societal epidemic. What disgusts me most is the big picture. Drug companies seem to be focusing all their time and energy and advertising on the newest and most profitable sexual performance drug, while millions of people in the third world are suffering and dying from infectious disease and other problems that developed nations have the technology to combat, yet take for granted.

Bob_Barker27 said:
most journalists seem to be liberal
Hehe. I'm just gonna let this one be.

Interesting discussion
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
xmattODx said:
Quite simple - an Anarchist (anti-capitlaist, anti-democratic, anti-nationalist, etc.) who believes that man is at his nature sinful, and that God desires a personal relationship with his 'creation' through Jesus Christ his Son.
If you are anti-democratic, doesn't that make you pro-tyranny? If you are anti-capitalist, does that mean you are pro-communism? Are you aware that optometrists engage in capitalism?
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
Coney Eyeland said:
It's interesting that the original question kind of answered itself in a roundabout way. Just look at the range of opinions on this thread. I think that it's probably indicative of the optometry student population out there, as students come from all different regions and backgrounds.



If politics is important to you, I can very much understand wanting to be in an environment with people who share your beliefs. Personally, I consider my views very left wing. I'm part of the Green Party and I'm involved in an environmental group and the anti-Bush movement. These issues are very important to me, and I know that I want to be around as many people as possible who share my beliefs. This is large part of the reason why I chose Boston and New York City as my top choice places to attend optometry school. (Note that I'm not saying that everyone in these areas is left wing. I understand the concept of averages. I'm just saying that you're more likely to find liberal people in these areas.)

In terms of the political views of optometry school faculty, I must say that I was very surprised and pleased by the views of the professors who interviewed me at SUNY. They seemed very interested in the environmental work that I do, and during the interview we discussed the Kyoto protocol, social security changes, the healthcare system, and even Canadians' views of Americans post 9/11 and the Iraq war. I was very honest about my opinions and I voiced many criticisms of the Bush administration, and I was very surprised at the extent to which the professors agreed with me. But this is just one personal experience.



As far as this goes, I think that we can't forget that there are two sides to the coin. Many corporations, the pharmaceutical industry included, continue to pump out more and more products at higher and higher prices, to the benefit of already-wealthy executives. The average consumer does suffer as a result. These corporations however are supplying a demand. People want more and more drugs for more and more "problems", and this in itself is a societal epidemic. What disgusts me most is the big picture. Drug companies seem to be focusing all their time and energy and advertising on the newest and most profitable sexual performance drug, while millions of people in the third world are suffering and dying from infectious disease and other problems that developed nations have the technology to combat, yet take for granted.



Hehe. I'm just gonna let this one be.

Interesting discussion

I would never bring up politics in an interview. You might end up getting rejected just because the professor disagreed with your politics.

You are right that most people in NYC and Boston are liberals. I don't know if it's a good idea to practice optometry in NYC and Boston though, unless you like the higher taxes and higher cost of living that comes with living where large numbers of liberals live.

I don't know why liberals and environmentalists are still pushing Kyoto when I beleive all 100 senators voted against the resolution back when Clinton was office. Obviously it is a flawed protocol. Environmentalists would have you believe Bush is the only person in America who opposes Kyoto.

I think it's amusing how Americans complain about the cost of drugs that improve and prolong their lives, yet they will go out and buy a 3000 dollar tv and expensive cars. I spend 150 bucks every month or so for a bottle of pills that control my epilepsy, and I think it's well worth the money. Seizures aren't too cool.

Why is it important what Canadians think about America post 9-11 and on the Iraq war? We decide our foreign policy, not Canadians. Also, is there no political diversity in Canada? Or is every Canadian anti-Bush and anti-IRaq war?

One thing about liberals is they talk a lot about diversity, but they only really want diversity of skin color, not of political views and ideas. That's why it's important for you guys to be in a profession with mostly other liberals.
 
OP
A

anna379

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Mar 3, 2005
16
0
Status
thank you so much for posting Coney Eyeland (I like your name by the way). I've become more aware of the issues you mentioned over the past year and my concern with starting optometry school is that i will be shutting myself from those ideas and burying my head in the books for 4years. (i know i'll still be burying my head in the books ;) ) my top choices now are suny and pco. i don't know much about the philly area - i was basing my decision in terms of in state tuition and location to family. i'm going to also look into boston now.

bobbarker - thanks for your message. i definitely understand that medical science has improved the lives of many people with diseases and that it has been invaluable to you for controlling epilepsy. i don't have a problem with pharmaceutical companies as a whole (i am currently employed by one), i am questionning the effects that many of these industries have on the health of our environment and our society (including technology industries). i would not go out and buy a $3000 plasma television.
my concern with pharmaceutical industry is when prescription drugs or surgeries are overprescribed for financial gains. it's rarely due to an individual; instead it is a product of the system. medical schools encourage the use of technology to treat disease rather than educating patients to live a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent disease. even charity organizations such as the American Cancer Society primarily fund research that will profit the pharma companies - they are actually tied to pharma companies (the current president of the AMC previously served as a VP of Bristol-Myers). Pharma companies then pay reps to visit doctors in their offices to educate them about a new drug or technology. no one is being paid to educate doctors about alternative therapies that have been successful in other countries. doctors themselves may be under time constraints and may adopt the techniques that has been reported by the research conducted by the pharma companies. it was very easy for the physician to receive education from a pharma company (who will make a lot of money if these procedures are adopted)- a rep comes to his/her office probably treated the office staff to lunch, and possibly takes the doctor and his friends to a fancy dinner to educate the physicians. i personally have two close friends who work as pharm sales reps. i'm not saying its bad - there's just no balance between technology and promoting a healthy lifestyle. some of the advanced technologies are not necessary and cause patients harm. ob-gyns often encourage women to have cesarians when they are not necessary and can be more harmful than normal delivery. ob-gyns also encourage women to have their uteruses surgically removed after their childbearing years even though this surgery is not necessary. many ob-gyns belive they are doing what is in the best interest of the patient because this is how they have been trained and educated. the lack of balance is concerning and it is discouraging that industires we may trust with our health have large financial gains at stake. with all this said, there are invaluable products that have come from this industry. if i was in your situation i would of course spend $150/month for medication i needed.

i appreciate everyone's responses!
 
OP
A

anna379

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Mar 3, 2005
16
0
Status
ps. coney eyeland - i'm not as educated or involved in environmental issues as i would like to be. my roommate is tallking about moving to a very progressive area and living there for a year or two. part of me wishes i could do that to educate myself and surround myself with like-minded people, or travel and volunteer in less a developed country. i'm hesitant about working four years toward a degree in optometry when i want to educate myself and contribute in other areas. but working 'to save the world' is just not very stable ;)
 

Coney Eyeland

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 19, 2005
8
0
Status
Bob_Barker27 said:
I would never bring up politics in an interview. You might end up getting rejected just because the professor disagreed with your politics.
I agree. I only responded honestly to questions that I was asked.


Bob_Barker27 said:
I don't know if it's a good idea to practice optometry in NYC and Boston though, unless you like the higher taxes and higher cost of living that comes with living where large numbers of liberals live.
It’s a curious phenomenon that the states that receive more federal tax money than they take in tend to vote for the candidates that want to lessen the scope of the government and lower the taxes that are benefiting them the most.


Bob_Barker27 said:
Environmentalists would have you believe Bush is the only person in America who opposes Kyoto.
Kyoto is a tough sell, especially in a country where the industries responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions have such a powerful voice in the government. However, 122 countries are in on the Kyoto agreement including all of the heavily industrialized nations except for Australia. The U.S. however won’t even participate in Kyoto discussions. This is a truly global issue that isn’t going to go away on its own, and refusing to even discuss the problem is obviously leading nowhere. The Clinton administration was fully involved in the Kyoto conventions. (And one of the U.S. delegates happened to be John Kerry)


Bob_Barker27 said:
I think it's amusing how Americans complain about the cost of drugs that improve and prolong their lives, yet they will go out and buy a 3000 dollar tv and expensive cars. I spend 150 bucks every month or so for a bottle of pills that control my epilepsy, and I think it's well worth the money. Seizures aren't too cool.
I don’t think that anybody would disagree with you about your epilepsy meds. However, there are medications that are overpriced and there are medications that are overused.

I have a close family member who spends more than 10 times as much money as you do per month for her MS medication. I’ll let you know when she trades in her Oldsmobile.


Bob_Barker27 said:
Why is it important what Canadians think about America post 9-11 and on the Iraq war? We decide our foreign policy, not Canadians. Also, is there no political diversity in Canada? Or is every Canadian anti-Bush and anti-IRaq war?
I haven’t been asleep for the last few years. It’s obvious that we decide our own foreign policy. It’s my opinion however that if our foreign policy is going to involve forcing our administration’s values and ideologies upon other cultures, then I think it may be smart to listen to what other countries have to say every once and a while.

There’s a huge range of opinions in Canada, but if you check out the polls, there’s a pretty clear majority consensus on Bush and on Iraq.


Bob_Barker27 said:
One thing about liberals is they talk a lot about diversity, but they only really want diversity of skin color, not of political views and ideas. That's why it's important for you guys to be in a profession with mostly other liberals.
Sorry, but if I didn’t respect the fact that you have different opinions, then I wouldn’t be responding to you at all.


anna379 said:
(I like your name by the way).
Thanks man.


anna379 said:
ps. coney eyeland - i'm not as educated or involved in environmental issues as i would like to be. my roommate is tallking about moving to a very progressive area and living there for a year or two. part of me wishes i could do that to educate myself and surround myself with like-minded people, or travel and volunteer in less a developed country. i'm hesitant about working four years toward a degree in optometry when i want to educate myself and contribute in other areas. but working 'to save the world' is just not very stable ;)
You definitely don’t need to make progressive issues your life in order to become knowledgeable. In reference to environmental issues, if you’re looking for some good summer reading, try a classic, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. Also, Robert F. Kennedy’s most recent book, Crimes Against Nature is a really good critique of the current administration’s treatment of environmental issues. As far as news coverage goes, I feel that NPR does a fairly decent job covering environmental news (much better than the other major news networks). They also have a good weekly environmental program called Living On Earth.

In a city like New York or Philadelphia I’m certain that you’ll have no problem finding a way to get involved that doesn’t eat up too much of your time.


Best of luck Bob and Anna!

Coney
 

xmattODx

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Nov 5, 2003
574
1
Visit site
Status
Bob_Barker27 said:
If you are anti-democratic, doesn't that make you pro-tyranny? If you are anti-capitalist, does that mean you are pro-communism? Are you aware that optometrists engage in capitalism?
Re-read my first post: I am aware I engage in capitalism but it is not my ideal situation. I am anti-all forms of government. (i.e. the political definition of anarchy.) Democracy by the way does not preclude tyranny.
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
I have a hard time believing that the "red states" are receiving more federal tax revenue than the heavily populated "blue states" like New York and California. I would assume a substantial amount of federal tax revenue that is sent to red states is used to finance the military bases usually found in those states. I agree that that people in "blue states" are paying more in taxes - that is because blue states have higher average incomes, more rich people, and therefore pay higher taxes, than do red states. I find it ironic that liberals who support the "soak the rich in taxation" economic philosophy also complain about the people in the blue states paying more in taxation than people in the red states. If Kerry has been elected, he was planning on raising taxes on the "rich", which would have meant that the blue states would be paying even more taxes compared to the red states. The point is that very few people benefit from excessive taxation in any part of the country, and people that cherish the right to own private property which includes wealth tend to vote against tax loving politicians like John Kerry.


I believe Kerry was also one of 100 senators to vote against ratifying the Kyoto treaty as US law. The Bush adminstration doesn't need to go talk to other countries about AMerican environmental policy. Our own elected leaders are capable of coming up with reasonable policy regarding the environment. The Kyoto treaty doesn't even apply to developing poorer nations that typically pollute the most because they don't or can't invest the kind of resources that a country like AMerica does into environmental technology.


I understand that it can be tough on lower income people when it comes to paying for drugs. However, to suggest that the drug companies are price gouging people with MS seems to me to be engaging in slander if you have no evidence to support that claim. I dug up this useful bit of info from a column the economist Walter Williams wrote a few months ago, "Once a drug is produced, the cost of an additional pill is very low. The real cost of a new drug lies in developing it and getting it through the Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) regulatory hurdles. FDA requirements cost drug companies an average of $800 million per drug, and then, according to a Tufts University study, only three in 10 drugs produce sales sufficient to allow the companies to recoup their development and FDA approval costs".
So, as you can see, our own goverment plays a huge role in the high cost of drugs. I would also assume that MS drugs are much more expensive than your average drug because MS is a less common disease as compared to something like high cholesterol. A smaller number of consumers demanding the MS drug compared to other drugs is what leads to the seemingly "overpriced" cost of the MS drug if the drug company wants to get any kind of return on the huge investment they made in developing the drug in the first place.


I don't seen anything wrong with forcing democracy on countries that live under tyranny. The Iraqi and Afghan people seemed to rejoice in the fact that they could now vote and play a role in who their leaders are. The voter turnout in IRaq during the recent election was as high or higher than the voter turnout for American elections typically is, and the IRaqi people had to brave terrorist attacks at the polls. I think it's rather racist of liberals to suggest that people in the middle east prefer their tyrannical goverments over democracy and freedom. These are human beings, not some dumb animals. If we listend to what France and Germany said, these people would still be under the thumb of Saddam or the Taliban with no basic human rights.

If almost every Canadian is anti-Bush and anti-IRaq war, there is no real political diversity in Canada.

If you are ever interested in another perspective on environmental issues, I recommend a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. I It refutes the alarmist claims made by liberals and greens regarding the environment.
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
xmattODx said:
Re-read my first post: I am aware I engage in capitalism but it is not my ideal situation. I am anti-all forms of government. (i.e. the political definition of anarchy.) Democracy by the way does not preclude tyranny.
That's true what you say about democracy not precluding tyranny. If a majority of Americans support high taxation, the minority of AMericans who do not support high taxation and the violation of the right to own private property are the victims of democratic tyranny. It's like being mugged out on the street by some thugs, except it's legal.
 

al-majhul

UCBSO c/o 2009
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 28, 2005
112
0
38
Berkeley
Status
Bob_Barker27 said:
I don't seen anything wrong with forcing democracy on countries that live under tyranny. The Iraqi and Afghan people seemed to rejoice in the fact that they could now vote and play a role in who their leaders are. The voter turnout in IRaq during the recent election was as high or higher than the voter turnout for American elections typically is, and the IRaqi people had to brave terrorist attacks at the polls. I think it's rather racist of liberals to suggest that people in the middle east prefer their tyrannical goverments over democracy and freedom. These are human beings, not some dumb animals. If we listend to what France and Germany said, these people would still be under the thumb of Saddam or the Taliban with no basic human rights.
...you have no problem with forcing democracy? isn't that tyranny in and of itself? Do you really believe that Bush and his father's cronies are carrying out this war for the good of the iraqi people?

...and don't dare think that those elections aren't being rigged in one way or another, there's a lot of vested interest ($) in this war...just as there was with Afghanistan. The only thing worse than the lack of democracy is the illusion of a democracy.

People are dying for what? Freedom? No...it's all about the Benjamin's. I won't have their blood on my hands for Bush's financial gains.
 

Bob_Barker27

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Dec 16, 2004
184
0
Status
al-majhul said:
...you have no problem with forcing democracy? isn't that tyranny in and of itself? Do you really believe that Bush and his father's cronies are carrying out this war for the good of the iraqi people?

...and don't dare think that those elections aren't being rigged in one way or another, there's a lot of vested interest ($) in this war...just as there was with Afghanistan. The only thing worse than the lack of democracy is the illusion of a democracy.

People are dying for what? Freedom? No...it's all about the Benjamin's. I won't have their blood on my hands for Bush's financial gains.

You are suggesting that forcing democracy and freedom on people is tyrannical, which seems rather twisted to me. Liberating people from a genocidal tyrant like Saddam isn't a form of tyranny. They did not elect Saddam. Was liberating Europe from Hitler an act of tryanny? I don't think so. The IRaq war wasn't just for the good of the IRaqi people, it was for the good of America and for the world. Saddam had a history of using WMD, attacking other countries, associating with terrorist groups such as Hamas and AL Quida, and constantly violating the UN sanctions put on him by the UN after he was defeated in the Gulf War. In light of 9-11, America could not afford to just ignore the threat of Saddam any longer.
Iraq isn't a democracy yet, but it is on the road to democracy. Democracies are not built overnight. I think your partisan hate of Bush prevents you from being objective about the advance of freedom in the Middle East. Liberals like you would rather believe a conspiracy theory than the simple truth.
 

al-majhul

UCBSO c/o 2009
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 28, 2005
112
0
38
Berkeley
Status
Bob_Barker27 said:
You are suggesting that forcing democracy and freedom on people is tyrannical, which seems rather twisted to me. Liberating people from a genocidal tyrant like Saddam isn't a form of tyranny. They did not elect Saddam. Was liberating Europe from Hitler an act of tryanny? I don't think so. The IRaq war wasn't just for the good of the IRaqi people, it was for the good of America and for the world. Saddam had a history of using WMD, attacking other countries, associating with terrorist groups such as Hamas and AL Quida, and constantly violating the UN sanctions put on him by the UN after he was defeated in the Gulf War. In light of 9-11, America could not afford to just ignore the threat of Saddam any longer.
Iraq isn't a democracy yet, but it is on the road to democracy. Democracies are not built overnight. I think your partisan hate of Bush prevents you from being objective about the advance of freedom in the Middle East. Liberals like you would rather believe a conspiracy theory than the simple truth.
So, then, by your logic, why isn't the US attacking the state of Israel?

...oh, yeah, I forgot...it's the Benjamin's.
 

aphistis

Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2003
8,392
36
Indianapolis
Status
Attending Physician, Dentist
al-majhul said:
...and don't dare think that those elections aren't being rigged in one way or another, there's a lot of vested interest ($) in this war...just as there was with Afghanistan. The only thing worse than the lack of democracy is the illusion of a democracy.
...and this is where we introduce al-majhul to an interesting construct called "burden of proof." If you've got some evidence to indicate the Iraqi elections were fraudulent, let's see it; otherwise you've got a very pretty little tautology going here, but nothing even remotely resembling the credibility to tell anyone else what they dare think.
 

aphistis

Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2003
8,392
36
Indianapolis
Status
Attending Physician, Dentist
al-majhul said:
...oh, yeah, I forgot...it's the Benjamin's.
Most likely because we're too busy helping them protect themselves from being turned into a parking lot by the rest of the region.
 

al-majhul

UCBSO c/o 2009
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 28, 2005
112
0
38
Berkeley
Status
aphistis said:
...and this is where we introduce al-majhul to an interesting construct called "burden of proof." If you've got some evidence to indicate the Iraqi elections were fraudulent, let's see it; otherwise you've got a very pretty little tautology going here, but nothing even remotely resembling the credibility to tell anyone else what they dare think.
Easy...go watch FAHRENHEIT 9/11; I honestly cannot understand ANYONE who may have watched that movie and still has any faith that this war isn't about oil. It just boggles the mind.
 

aphistis

Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2003
8,392
36
Indianapolis
Status
Attending Physician, Dentist
al-majhul said:
Easy...go watch FAHRENHEIT 9/11; I honestly cannot understand ANYONE who may have watched that movie and still has any faith that this war isn't about oil. It just boggles the mind.
...OK, and just for the sake of confirmation, you're seriously citing Michael Moore as a source of accurate information?

I've said all I need to, I think.
 

al-majhul

UCBSO c/o 2009
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 28, 2005
112
0
38
Berkeley
Status
aphistis said:
...OK, and just for the sake of confirmation, you're seriously citing Michael Moore as a reliable source of objective information?

I've said plenty here, I think.
yes, you've proven yourself to be an unreliable source of information as far as this topic goes.
 

aphistis

Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Feb 15, 2003
8,392
36
Indianapolis
Status
Attending Physician, Dentist
al-majhul said:
yes, you've proven yourself to be an unreliable source of information as far as this topic goes.
I haven't even *offered* any information; all I've done is call you out for drawing heavily partisan conclusions you evidently can't support. I'm not sure what sort of logician you think you are, but what was good enough for Aristotle is good enough for me. Ciao.
 

cpw

It's a boy !!!
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 25, 2001
13,393
0
43
Tampa
Status
Optometrist
allllllrighty then..... how about everyone takes a deep breath and we re-direct back to the original topic the OP posted on. If you want to talk politics we have the Everyone forum for that .... I don't have enough Xanax to make me go in that forum, so I steer clear.