A new type has been discovered, which was previously mistaken with Alzheimer’s. Hope this can help lead to a breakthrough.
29 thoughts on “Dementia”
Comments are closed.
A new type has been discovered, which was previously mistaken with Alzheimer’s. Hope this can help lead to a breakthrough.
Comments are closed.
Perhaps it results in the mass delusion that statism is better than liberty. Bob-1, better have youyrself checked out.
Bilwick,
Instead of taking potshots, would you like to have a discussion or even a debate?
I bet that on a large number of subjects regarding the role of government, we are either in agreement, or, surprisingly, you are actually more statist than me.
Lets run through a few:
Medicine: the newly recognized form of dementia referred to in the article above was identified by scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health. The lead author works at the University of Kentucky. Do you think it is desirable for the US government to fund the National Institutes of Health’s research into preventing dementia? Do you think it is desirable for the state of Kentucky to own and fund a university which pays researchers to study how to prevent dementia?
Stepping back quite a ways to take in the big picture, do you think it is desirable to have a United States of America? How do you suppose I’m more of a statist than you with respect to the existence of the state?
You speak about liberty in contrast to the state. One function of government is to deprive people of their liberty via prison. Do you think the government shouldn’t send people to prison? Other than drug offenses (which I’m going to arbitrarily exclude because I find the subject boring with respect to libertarians), do you think fewer crimes should result in a prison term? Do you think prison terms should be shorter? Do you think prisoners should have more liberty in the form of privileges)? How do you suppose I’m more of a statist than you with respect to crime and punishment?
The United States of America owes its power (superficially at least) to having the most powerful military in the history of the mankind. How do you suppose I’m more of a statist than you with respect to the United States armed forces?
The United States has a border. The border isn’t open for anyone to just walk in. How do you suppose I’m more of a statist than you with respect to immigration?
Or maybe you don’t like my list of subjects. Make your own! How do you suppose I’m more of a statist than you? Do you have any subjects to list besides gun control?
Or maybe you think I don’t know what “statism” means. Here are some attempts at a definition: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/statism.html
Where on that page do you think you disagree with me?
The University of Kentucky’s medical research could probably be funded via the basketball revenues.
And our wealth didn’t come from our military. Our military is a result of our wealth. European nations that maintained large armies didn’t get rich and powerful like England did. Freedom, both economic and political, flourished in England because England didn’t maintain a large standing army at home, instead using a large navy. Navies are pretty useless at oppressing the king’s subjects.
We followed the same model for most of our history, such that we were by far the world’s wealthiest nation while our tiny army and navy were the butt of jokes in Europe.
I agree. It’s very odd to believe that our wealth came from the military. I guess one could believe that we plundered the native Americans, which I’m sure Bob would accept. But out military was relatively weak to other militaries at the time.
The US military is powerful now and since WWII, who have we plundered during that time? Our recent economic growth under Trump has definitely come from the private sector.
Hey Bob, how’s the economic growth of Venezuela? The military is looking pretty powerful there these days. I saw a Michael Moore post that Hugo Chavez gave his people health care for all. How is that working out?
You can misunderstanding what I said , and you can misunderstand history, but I bet you can’t make case that I’m more of a statist than Bilwick, and that’s my point.
That was intended to be my reply for your
May 1, 2019 At 10:39 PM comment below. As for the one above, again, I wasn’t saying that our wealth comes from the military, but since WWII, our military is what has allowed us to remain free, and not vassals to an authoritarian regime. That belief indicates that I have a statist belief, but I’m betting that Bilwick has the exact same statist belief as me. That’s the only point I was making about our military.
since WWII, our military is what has allowed us to remain free
Nonsense. Our military might have allowed Germany, South Korea, and Iraq to remain free; but not the US. The 2nd Amendment has allowed us to remain free. Intrinsic to the right to keep and bear arms is the ability to defend ourselves from authoritarianism. To understand this, I’ll simply note that Hugo Chavez banned private ownership of firearms.
I’m betting that Bilwick has the exact same statist belief as me.
You can make the bet, but so far you’ve failed to make the case to anybody here. I’m sure you won’t pay up.
“Our military might have allowed Germany, South Korea, and Iraq to remain free; but not the US. ”
That’s a wild misunderstanding about why WWII didn’t end with the USA dominated by the Axis, and a wild misunderstanding about why the Cold War didn’t end with the USA dominated by the USSR.
When you say “the 2nd Amendment has allowed us to remain free”, I disagree. I don’t think you can cite a case in the last 100 years where private gun ownership made any difference in the degree to which the USA has avoided an authoritarian takeover. Private gun ownership has made a negative contribution — it has contributed to the assassination and attempted assassinations of the President and members of Congress, but I can’t think of how it kept us free.
Here’s what I think kept us free – and this speaks to my overall point: we have stayed free because the mainstream left and right in this country agrees on so much. Democrats and Republicans are just as statist as each other – any slight tilt toward more statism by one party (and opposed by the other party) on some niche issue is counterbalanced by a slight tilt toward more statism by the other party. There is a balance that keeps us free.
You say I haven’t made my case. Bilwick is the one who attacked me personally. Let him make his case. I bet he can’t.
it has contributed to the assassination and attempted assassinations of the President and members of Congress, but I can’t think of how it kept us free.
Private gun ownership is an example of a freedom. It allows for all sorts of recreation and it also allows defense against criminals. There are other benefits as well. But it hasn’t prevented authoritarian takeovers (or in other words “kept us free”). If you disagree, that’s fine – I don’t want to argue about guns – I want to respond to years and years of Bilwick needling me about being “a statist” as if my ideology and Bilwick’s were really very different.
If the people in Caracas had had guns, this past week might have gone quite differently. It would have helped if they’d had anti-tank weapons, too.
Some liberal anti-gun Harvard professors looked into the claim that private gun ownership helps prevent authoritarianism, and interestingly they concluded that it did.
What they found was that virtually all government genocides of citizens were preceded by the confiscation of private firearms, and that abusive police state virtually never get established in armed societies. An armed populace doesn’t have to use their arms to fight tyranny, as the mere existence of the private arms keeps tyranny from gaining a foothold.
Part of this is simple the simple journalistic dictum of “If it bleeds, it leads.” Tyranny always has to have a first set of victims, and if those victims use deadly force to resist the tyrannical action then everybody hears about it and looks deeply at what their government was trying to do.
But if those first victims aren’t armed they just disappear, and those few who do at least hear that something happened can retain the comfortable assumption that competent and good people are in charge and nothing bad could really happen. Basically, people will assume that ICE agents hauled those migrants to a nice temporary detention center, not to a death camp, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. A large and determined shoot out would provide that contrary evidence, but those don’t occur if nobody has a gun.
And then there’s the problem that police don’t actually like getting killed on the job. It’s pretty hard to order up a genocide when nobody is volunteering to be a red shirt. So every round up of every person requires a massive SWAT raid, and those are pretty obvious to all the other citizens who have to hide in their bathtub as the bullets fly.
And thus in an armed society, whole realms of potential heinous government misconduct are simply outside the realm of possibility, even without a single person firing a single shot, ever.
Think of it as a winning solution to the tyranny and genocide game, which is to change the fundamental balance of power so that nobody is tempted to play at all.
“It would have helped if they’d had anti-tank weapons, too.”
Yes, philosophical conversations about gun control quickly evolve into a conversation about regulating weapons of war. Even though there is disagreement among Americans about technicalities like handgun laws, there is widespread agreement among the American people about the proper extent to which weapons such as the RPG-7 (and much more lethal weapons) should be regulated. And that’s because most Americans just aren’t particularly more or less statist than any other random American, no matter how divisive Bilwick wants to be about a moderate Democrat like me.
Article I section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall among other, have these powers:
The part where it says “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” means private citizens can own warships and field military forces. And that’s actually how we operate. Who do you think owns all those snazzy high-tech weapons before the DoD purchases them?
If Lockheed wants to build a better fighter plane, they can go ahead and build it, and then fly it all over the skies, within FAA regulations for safe operation, of course.
Blackwater Security does indeed field heavily armed private military forces. All kinds of companies make and deploy arms. Elon Musk essentially builds ICBMs. Yet do citizens somehow have fewer rights than corporations?
George,
That’s great. As I said, there is widespread agreement among Americans that weapons of war (except certain kinds of rifles) are already properly regulated so that Lockheed can continue to contribute to the defense of our country, so that SpaceX can contribute to the human race, and so that local police forces don’t face gangs armed with artillery.
Say, regarding your earlier comment on genocide, I’m very skeptical but I’m reluctant to get into a big discussion about genocide prevention, as I just wanted to address Bilwick’s very long-running commentary on who is a statist and who isn’t. But I’d sure like to read the original article. Do you have a link to it?
It would be swell if the “moderate” Democrats took a look at what their party has turned into over the last 30 years. To find the source of Bilwick’s accusations, you have to understand the context of the ideology he references and for that to happen, you need a greater understanding of your own party.
In the past, I have linked you many different youtube channels that would aide in you gaining an understanding of what is going on. YouTube channels that were diverse in their ideological affinities but many that were either left, far left, or reformed left.
There are so many venues for you to learn from but it requires that you actively choose to do it. It isn’t something you will be exposed to by CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, ANC, WaPo, NYT’s, Huffpo, ect ect ect.
Bob-1, people on the American right don’t want zero government, they want a limited government. Having a system of governance in place does not make one a “statist”. Neither does having laws.
Wodun, people on the American left also want a limited government. However, having a system of limited governance in place does indeed make one a statist, according to common libertarian definitions. A statist is who takes that limitation to extremes is a “minarchist”. Most Americans don’t go as far as minarchism, but both Republicans and Democrats certainly want limited government!
people on the American left also want a limited government
Bob, sometimes observing your idiocy is almost physically painful. With such examples of “limited government” as the green new deal, medicare for all, free college, universal gun confiscation, and so-on all being endorsed en-mass by the upcoming presidential applicants of the American left, those words lose all meaning. It is completely impossible to imagine what pharmaceuticals you might be sampling that allows you to define “limited government” the way you do.
One is forced to contemplate what would constitute “not-limited government” in your mind. Presumably North Korea would apply. Maybe. A state church? UBI? Like I said, borderline physically painful.
Curt,
I’m not sure who you mean when you say “en masse” but anyone can run for President. Lets see them win the Democratic Party’s nomination.
You listed four proposals, in two categories:
1) Has no chance of passing:
a) Green new deal (no support in Congress)
b) Universal gun confiscation (Unconstitutional and amending the Bill of Rights has no support in Congress)
2) Very similar to what we already have:
a) Free college (as opposed to free k-12). So what? Free school for k-12 has massive support among the American people. Allowing parents to opt-out and send their kids to private school or home school is also massively popular. Should the vast majority of Americans be shunned as statists because of these beliefs? Would our government be vastly less limited if an additional 2 or 4 years was also available at no charge? (Of course free school isn’t really free at all, but that would be true of free college too.)
b) Medicare for all (as opposed to the current Medicare program). Again, so what? Scrapping medicare entirely has almost no support among the American people. Should the vast majority of Americans be shunned as statists because of these beliefs? Would our government be vastly less limited if Medicare was extended?
When a Republican candidate endorses scrapping public education or medicare, I’ll concede that you’ve pointed out issues where Republicans are much less statist than Democrats. If you were more civil in your conversational style, I’d bother to go on, where I would point out ways that Republicans are slightly more statist than Democrats, providing the equivalence I’m claiming.
Green new deal (no support in Congress)
False. And you know it.
Universal gun confiscation (Unconstitutional
True. And irrelevant. If it were relevant there wouldn’t be so many members of the American left (your words) openly aspiring to become POTUS endorsing it. For progressives, being unconstitutional is nothing more than an irritant.
Allowing parents to opt-out and send their kids to private school or home school is also massively popular.
False. And it’s not just massively unpopular among the segment of the American left that is applying to be POTUS. It is universally so.
Scrapping medicare entirely has almost no support among the American people.
True. And a completely irrelevant (and stupid) statement.
Would our government be vastly less limited if Medicare was extended?
Yes it would. And you know it.
If you were more civil in your conversational style
Incivility can take many forms. One of them involves purposeful corruption of language, which I admit you are somewhat skilled at. “shunned as statists” here (twice) is an example. As in “vast majority of Americans be shunned as statists”. We are expected to accept the “vast” part because its passive; “shunned as statists” being the active part. But the two instances in which you apply it are utterly false. The first demonstrably, the second by virtue of irrelevance. If it’s a result of laziness I’m usually inclined to blow it off. Pretty sure here it’s thought out and intentional. And therefore an example of incivility.
And here we see Bob being his usual disingenuous self. The reason these Democrat statist ideas don’t stand a chance is people like Bilwick oppose not only the ideas but the people who propose these ideas. That is why Bilwick is not a statist. Neither is Curt Thomson.
Time for Bob to pay up. Should Bilwick just put up a go fund me page, or will you just send him money via PayPal, Bob?
Sure, a limited government for abortion, weed, illegal immigration, national defense, and law enforcement.
Three of those things Democrats take a “limited” government approach because it makes our country weak and is incremental change on the road to marxist paradise. One of those things is a moral failing on par with slavery, the treatment of the Native Americans, Jim Crow, and segregation. It is also based in a totalitarian world view where the undesirables don’t deserve life.
The last there is a lot of agreement across the board about being legal but look at the regressive tax structure for legal weed, government cartels, and laws against growing your own.
Pretty much on any issue Democrats are superficially “limited government” digging deeper reveals the opposite is actually true. There are so many inherent contradictions in leftism because most of it is smoke and mirrors to emotionally manipulate people.
Example modern Feminism:
– We need more movies that appeal to women.
– How dare you say there are movies that only women would like.
“A new type has been discovered”
So they’ve finally figured out what causes membership in the Democratic Party, eh? I thought it was insanity, but I guess I was wrong.
George, are you advocating any kind of change in US policy, such as shrinking the US armed forces? And, separately, are you suggesting that the US Army in particular in any way oppresses American citizens? I’m guessing your answer to both questions is “no”, and you’re just musing transterrestrially, so to speak.
If so, I would just point out that today, many wealthy countries in Europe and elsewhere are free from Fascism and Communism because our military. I wasn’t saying that our wealth comes from our military, but I did say that our power comes from it, and with that power, our liberty. (I wonder if that makes me more of a statist than Bilwick?) That said, I believe in soft power too, but I was thinking about how Bilwick is just as much (or just as little) a statist as I am.
separately, are you suggesting that the US Army in particular in any way oppresses American citizens?
George didn’t and you are an idiot, Bob, to think he did.
I wasn’t saying that our wealth comes from our military, but I did say that our power comes from it, and with that power, our liberty.
You are not only wrong, but ass backwards. Our military was nearly wiped out by one attack in WWII. It was our liberty that allowed us to rally and build a more powerful military than Germany and Japan. Crack a history book, Bob.
Bob-1, I think you make some good points and the exchanges show how differently people view things. This might help explain your confusion over the word, statist.
This describes what my 89 year-old mother is going through. If this is hereditary, then my goal of living to 106 (in order to see Halley’s comet’s next appearance, then have a year to talk about it) is probably not going to work out. I mean, I may make it, but will have long forgotten why.
I’ve already experienced the arthritis and eye problems she has, at a younger age than she did. Well, I’d better get living here!