I am trying to avoid criticizing her. I have never said she is a good person or a bad one, I am only trying to place myself in both of their positions.

OK, so let's use the phrase getting laid...

Would you be able to kiss your husband good night, prepare yourself for another man, get laid and enjoy it? Or would you be so focused on the situation that you wouldn't enjoy it?

No, it is definitely a bonifide tragedy of great magnitude. Ask yourself this question:

If you were in the wife's position... would you even be able to enjoy a night of sex? Would you be able to kiss your husband good night, meet your man on the side and not see his face in your mind's eye the whole time?

It is obvious that 2 people were crippled during that accident. If it was my wife who was laying in bed, I would not find someone to sleep around with. Thinking about it, when I was single I did not sleep around for sex either; so I know I wouldn't do it if my wife was disabled.

But more importantly, if I was laying in that bed and I knew my wife was seeking the touch of another man I would beg her daily to give me an over dose of pills. I would not want to live with myself knowing that I was such a curse to the woman I loved. Knowing that I was no longer the man who inspired her or eased her pain or took care of her or simply made her smile when she caught me looking at her. Instead I would be reminded that my body was a prison holding both of us.

Were I her husband... those thoughts would scream through my head every day...every time her fingers touched my cheek...every time I smelled her perfume... every time she kissed me goodnight and turned out the light. I would rage at having my world ripped from me and at the cruelty of fate for allowing me to witness the aftermath.

And that is one of the more important reasons why I would not have an affair on my wife if she were in that bed.

No, I would not find solace in the arms of another woman. My wife is my wife, can't put it any plainer than that.

The great thing about these kind of stories is that they allow you to see what you want to see in them.

For myself, I do not see the Zen Master as being portrayed as someone that you should try to emulate.

To see the story in a literal reading, the Master seems to be a man who is completely at peace with whatever the world lays at his doorstep; but if you want to take the story literally try moving one step further. He is so detached from the world that he accepts any burden that anyone hands him. At the end of the story he gives away something he should cherish, seemingly without any concern for its well-being. Had someone raised a child for several years, how would that child feel if (irresponsible?) strangers took him away and the man who was raising him simply said, "Is that so?"

I think that perhaps we might view the story in a more metaphorical light and see the Zen Master as a representation of the Universe. That regardless of the choices we make, the universe will be unmoved and unaffected by us. It is our ego which leads us to see ourselves as being more important and more deserving than we really are; and it is in the defense of our ego that we often make poor choices.

The young girl made a poor choice because she was enslaved to her ego (her father's rage and disdain representing society's condemnation for breaking cultural norms) and she lied (represented something false as a truth) so that the world would believe that she was something she wasn't.

It was only after she accepted herself for who she really was and suffered the consequences that she tried to avoid in the beginning that she was able to free herself from the pains of guilt. In short, her lie spared her from nothing and cost her much.

In traditional Zen fashion, the story shows how the universe is unmoved by our petty reliance on who we think we are. I would say, don't try to be the master -- learn from the young woman.

I am down with Silly on this one. If you are looking for a serious relationship and the other person has kids, you have to evaluate if you want to take on multiple roles and adjust your entire way of doing things.

tough to find, but not impossible.

Reptilians? As in David Icke's Shapeshifting Reptilians?

that is six things. 5 is my limit. She will just have to do without one.

Of course it is possible to reason someone out of a position that wasn't arrived at via reason.

If you think of reasoning as using your mental faculties to reach judgments, conclusions or inferences then we can see that reasoning is not without flaw. Perhaps your OP was referring more to a flawed conclusion... but anyway...

All of Socrates' dialogues are demonstrations of people being walked through the reasoning process to arrive at more valid conclusions than ones that they started with.

Any time someone takes advice and changes their position because their council "makes sense" is accepting the reasoning of another.

The excellent post from Abra demonstrates how we almost inherently accept the expertise of individuals as a validation of their reasoning structures.

When you say "out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason?" I can only assume that you mean people who make choices or accept beliefs based on some emotional quality (e.g., faith). But it should be recognized that reasoning can also be used to obfuscate issues. In fact, people will usually use rationalizations to support emotional or biased positions. You can see this in just about any argument that supports racism (or any other prejudice). This would simply be another way to use reason to change another's opinions.

The art of Rhetoric is supposed to be a way to use logic and reason to illuminate truth. It is a two-edged sword that can also sway people who cannot or will not examine an issue completely.

(just my quick thoughts, good topic)

Like most things, it depends on what you bring to the table. Showing up to a dating site expecting that your genius and wit will be instantly recognized and responded to will work about the same as it works in a bar.

Offer something of yourself, something that is substantial and meaningful and you will be rewarded. Fish with an empty hook and you go hungry.

"Actually, people are quite often turned down for pre-existing conditions. I don't consider preventing that part of discrimination to be ridiculous at all."

The discrimination being referred to is charging higher premiums for one individual based solely on their gender; has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions.

Again, insurance companies are in the business of averages and discrimination. If women, on average, live longer or incur higher expenses due to bearing children, should insurance companies close their eyes to these specific conditions when determining rates??

This is an accepted practice in other areas, why not health care? I remember paying far more for my car insurance when I was a 19 year old unmarried male than the 19 year old unmarried females I was hanging out with.

No, if you develop a serious condition (according to the last point) your carrier cannot force you out of your coverage. In short, when you get your policy you are forming a contract. You pay them money while you are healthy, if something bad happens they have to live up to their side. Like I said, I like that.

If you do not have coverage and develop a serious condition, should you be able to demand coverage at the same rate as someone who is not sick? I don't think you should be able to. The first point from what I see agrees with that. Insurance companies cannot slam the door in your face, but they can charge you a reasonable rate (again, reasonable is a vague term).

Honestly, how much money someone makes is not a valid argument. You seem to believe that they make "too much money". I do not believe there is any such thing as too much money. The more they make, the better -- Provided that the money they make is made fairly (I am a laissez-faire capitalist). But it is important to maintain a business environment that is fair. I believe it is wrong to make unfair demands against either individuals or businesses. You cannot demand a business provide a service while preventing them from fair payment.

Insurance works by evaluating averages and making a profit from that. By minimizing costs and increasing profits they make more money. For the government to impose costs and cap profits on a business would be the same thing as demanding that you buy a new car every year (to help the autoworkers) but freezing your salary.

So to demand that a company provide a service for all individuals (even those who can be expected to need costly treatments) at the same rate is not right. HOWEVER, if the individual had coverage before their condition develops (non-pre-existing) then they cannot be denied the coverage that they have already paid for. Children would be included in their parents status.

What would this mean? It would mean that it is in your best interest to get health coverage and to maintain it. If a situation develops your coverage will be locked in -- should be good news for the insurance companies.

" * No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
* Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
* Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
* No Gender Discrimination
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
* Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
* Extended Coverage for Young Adults
* Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
* Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

I am posting this so that others who were like me can get a summation of ideas. I REALLY like the last idea. If you are paying a company money to protect you against misfortune, then if misfortune strikes you should not have to worry about them refusing you.

But I would caution you to read the first point carefully. You might not be refused coverage, but it doesn't have to be at the same rate as someone who is healthy. I think this needs to be done this way. You cannot ask an insurance company to cover someone who will have expensive treatments for the rest of their lives at the same rate as someone who is healthy.

Then again... there is the whole "affordable" guarantee that I mentioned in my previous post. This has a very real chance of strangling the companies that we have grown to require. Force too many out of business and there won't be any healthy competition.

(and the whole discrimination thing seems a little ridiculous to me, but I have babbled long enough)

"The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:

* Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
* Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
* Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
* Invest in prevention and wellness
* Improve patient safety and quality of care
* Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
* Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
* End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions"

-- Still not sure how this is going to be accomplished.
*reducing health care costs for everyone is great. Would love that. How? Will the government impose a cap on how much hospitals and doctors can charge an insurance company per individual per year? Will the government regulate how much providers can charge per procedure?

*protect families from debt. Meaning what exactly? That hospitals will be unable to recover the monies owed to them? Place a cap on total treatment costs of each individual? If my job was running a hospital or a doctor in private practice, I think I would be updating my resume'.

* Guarantee choice of doctor. This is good too. We largely have this now; if your favorite doctor is outside your plan you might get screwed but this seems to be more of an assurance that the positive things we already have will not be lost.

*Invest in prevention and wellness. Again, something we already have. Insurance companies are in business to make money and the more they spend on you the less they make. The already try to get people to make healthy life style choices; will the government do the same thing they are already doing or will they try something else? In New York, they are adding fees to soft drinks (a tax) to discourage consumption. Additionally, taxes on cigarettes make tobacco products prohibitively expensive. Will the governments prevention component be a carrot or a stick??

*Improve patient care. Would love to see this! If you don't want to get sick, don't go to a hospital. There are more infections and diseases floating around there than anywhere (search MERSA in your free time). Once more, how? Stricter regulations and another bureaucracy to monitor the new regulations? All this costs more money. Besides strict regulations are already in place.

*Assure affordable health coverage for all Americans. THIS one makes me worry. What is "affordable"? Will it vary from state to state? City to city? Or will the people in heartland America have to pay what New York City (or Beverly Hills or South Beach or Long Island...) pay? How will this actually be accomplished? Will the government cut a check to your favorite insurance company to cover the difference between their idea of "affordable" and the companies actual rates? I think the insurance companies would love that. Or will the government impose a cap on premiums? If so, insurance companies and hospitals will be limited in what they can charge to provide their service, but will be unable to control their expenditures due to the other provisions.

*Maintain coverage between jobs. This is a good one. But there will have to be some sort of time limit put on it. Any time limit would necessarily be arbitrary, but it is a good idea for the millions of people who require sustained medical treatments. However, the fact remains... those treatments cost money and that money must be paid by someone. Demanding the insurance companies cover your medical expenses when they are receiving no payments is ludicrous. They will simply shuffle the cost around in a mount of paperwork to insure that any forseeable costs that they will be required to pay will be covered by someone else.

*End barriers for pre-existing conditions. This is a good one too. There should be some REASONABLE way that an individual with a pre-existing condition can get treatment. I am unfamiliar with how insurance companies treat pre-existing conditions so I can't comment too much on that. I would be interested to know how this will work with the 4th point (prevention). As a smoker, would that be considered a pre-existing condition that would cause me to lose coverage by engaging in a potentially hazardous behavior?

I think all of these are really good ideas... but I still want to know HOW they will be accomplished. Owning a car is a really good idea to me as well, but picking out one I like and killing the driver to get it is not. (Just trying to illustrate that HOW something is done is important too).

I followed most of the links on the pages you cited, but I didn't see anything there that will tell me how. Any clues on where I can look?

All I asked for you to tell me was what you liked about it. If you don't want to, I am cool with that.

I was actually hoping that you would be able to articulate what you liked about the plan, other than saying it is good.

I recognize that health care in America must change, I am an avid viewer of documentaries and have seen the figures showing the impact on our economy in the near future. I would recommend the film "IOUSA".

I have heard the reports that the plan will create doctor shortages and ridiculous limitations; but I am unwilling to spend 2 hours finding a legitimate government document and then days to read through the thousands of pages -- not that I am lazy, but I am one of those people who are easily confused by "legal-speak".

If no one is willing to state what is in the plan and then debate what is right or wrong with those specific ideas, then all you are doing is contributing to the confusion that you hope to battle. I am with TJN and Crick on one thing though... I do not trust Obama, so listening to him sell his plan isn't as important to me as knowing what is in the plan itself.

As a side note...

Many years ago I was listening to the syndicated radio program Coast2Coast with Art Bell and he would do shows called "Time Lines" that were brilliant.

The premise was that if Time Travel is EVER invented, then there MUST be a possibility that there is a time traveler in this time right now. He put out an open invitation for any time travelers to call in and give their story.

Best 3 hours of radio I ever heard. :)

All I hear is one side saying: "This is in the plan and it is terrible" or the other side saying: "Things cannot continue as they are."

If anyone can clearly explain Obama's plan, I think that would go a long way to reaching an accord.

I think Ostriches are just natural peckers. 7 foot tall, two legged peckers. Don't stand too close.

Men Rules

We always hear "the rules" from the female side.
Now here are the rules from the male side.

These are our rules:
*Please note .... these are all numbered "1" ON PURPOSE!

1) Breast are for looking at and that is why we do it.
Don't try to change that.

1) Learn to work the toilet seat.
You're a big girl.
If it's up, put it down.
You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

1) Saturday = Sport.
It's like the full moon or the changing of tides.
Let it be.

1) Shopping is NOT a sport.
And no, we are not going to think of it that way.

1) Crying is blackmail.

1) Ask for what you want.
Let us be clear on this one:
* Subtle hints do not work!
* Strong hints do not work!
* Obvious hints do not work!
* JUST SAY IT!

1) "Yes" and "No" are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

1) Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it.
That's what we do.
Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

1) A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem.
See a doctor.

1) Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument.
In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.

1) If you think you're fat, you probably are.
Don't ask us.

1) If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

1) You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done.
Not both.
If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

1) Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

1) Christopher Columbus did not need directions and neither do we.

1) ALL men see in only 16 colours, like Windows default settings.
Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a colour.
Pumpkin is also a fruit.
We have no idea what mauve is.

1) If it itches, it will be scratched.
We do that.

1) If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing", we will act like nothing's wrong.
We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

1) If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.

1) When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine, Really.

1) Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as:
* S.e.x
* Sport, or
* Cars

1) You have enough clothes.

1) You have too many shoes.

1) I am in shape.
Round is a shape.

1) Thank you for reading this;
Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know men really don't mind that, it's like camping.