DamnGirl

"Gotta Lotta Erica" "Gives a Meal Erica-Appeal" "But I'd Rather Have a Bowl of Erica" "Four out of Five Dentists Recommend Erica." "You'll Never Put A Better Bit Of Erica On Your Knife." "This Is The Age Of The Erica."

I never said that I needed immediate gratification but only that I enjoy it. Having said that, I can imagine how that probably seems when you consider the ridiculous path I took. When it comes to choosing what to pursue in medicine, I factored that part of my personality into the mix. I had to imagine what I would prefer doing if I was up all night. I knew that I would do best on my feet and using my hands.

So you would favor government restrictions on private companies when it feels that the countries the companies deal with are behaving in an unsavory manner? This sounds more appealing to you than allowing the companies to police themselves (and expecting that they will)? I'm not sure that I understand your assertion that Microsoft has a moral obligation to expand its influence "in as much as it enriches the share holders." In my opinion, the fact that a company's actions are based on the interests of share holders does not afford some morality to those actions.

When I was applying to medical school, I knew that I would face the question, "Why do you want to be a doctor?" Most of the other people I knew didn't venture beyond, "Because I want to help people". I refused to offer that up as my reason because it was untrue. My motivation for becoming a physican was purely selfish. I found the human body, its normal physiology, and all of its pathology fascinating. I loved learning how to evaluate problems, putting clues together, coming up with (ideally) the correct diagnosis, and taking care of the problem (if possible). My interest in going into a surgical specialty was also selfish. I loved watching my hands produce measurable, immediate results without ill-effects. That likely stems from the part of me that enjoys immediate gratification. Had I become a physician solely for the good of others, I never would have made it through medical school. In those moments when people claim to have a right to your skills, skills acquired through more work than they likely will ever do in their lifetimes, you had better have more to fall back on than wanting to serve them to get you through. If the work itself does not have intrinsic value for you, you're done.

Agreed except for there being nothing harsh about your statement.

Well, the rest of the country wouldn't be responsible for rebuilding areas destroyed by "the big one".

Instead of spewing propaganda, I wish Exxon would reimburse the government for the $92 million that it cost to clean up after the Valdez oil spill.

It was fun thinking back, trying to remember what I watched way back when. I have enjoyed looking at everyone else's entries. As for House, I used to love it, but the medicine became far to inaccurate and/or unrealistic that I think I'm done at least for now. I may go back and try again. Well, here's my list if anyone is interested: X-Files - I miss Mulder & Scully. CSI - I'm completely addicted to this show. Iron Chef - Yes. Excellent choice. Family Guy - I never liked the Simpsons, so I was doubtful that I would enjoy this one. I was so wrong. Favorite on the show? Brian with Stewie a close second. Criminal Minds - Mandy Patinkin plays a really interesting character. Six Feet Under - Also miss this one a lot. Dirty Jobs - The host is hysterical. He has a stronger stomach than I. Growing up: Dallas - I loved it. I have to admit it. Big crush on Bobby Ewing. St. Elsewhere - Awesome show. Charlie's Angels - I wanted to be one. CHiPs - Big crush on Ponch. Six Million Dollar Man - Big crush on Lee Majors. (I had a few crushes as you can tell.) Wonder Woman - Wanted to be her, too. The Dukes of Hazzard - Yep. You guessed it. Big crush on Bo.

Why should any business be expected to help the competition? Frankly, I think Microsoft should tell the EU to stuff it. I realize that's not terribly good for business, but the company would survive ultimately. I also suspect EU might change its position (perhaps wishful thinking). Let's not establish an irritating precident.

As much of a pain as it must be, I'm impressed that you all go to such efforts to standardize (as much as possible) the grading between applicants. I would imagine that students from schools using the A=93-100, etc. scale would be quite reassured to know that.

That's kinda how I thought of it, too.

So, MatthewJ, what did she end up doing that night?

No. It's masochism.

I hate make it sound like a lost cause, but I'm not sure that this would work. Someone improving an aspect of him/herself to win my love is not a reflection of a sincere interest in changing, and the person may look less attractive in the end. It's a different story when someone recognizes a flaw and consciously works to improve him/herself. That can be very attractive.

I am just curious to know why the military paid compensation to the victims' families but concluded in their final report that the deaths as the result of an IED. The military pays compensation only when it is responsible. This raised some questions in my mind as to whether there was a larger cover-up. If the soldiers are guilty, then they were wrong to do what they did. What bothers me so much about the military's handling of this is the fact that it thinks that ethics training is the answer to keeping this from happening again. Ethics training? Who is the teacher? Just what is it that they are teaching? Why isn't anyone asking whether this reflects the psychological effects of serving in a war where you can't tell friend from foe (much like in Vietnam) and are constantly at risk of death everywhere you go and from everyone you see. Even the corpses of animals in the road must be avoided as they may be booby-trapped. Children are being used as suicide bombers. How can any of us even imagine what living in such conditions must be like? Again, I'm not saying that what they (allegedly) did was OK, but, instead of ethics training, perhaps the military should be screening soldiers for mental illness and getting them out of there. Oh, wait. Then we might not have anyone left to continue this mess of a war.

Because the lawyers wouldn't have anyone to sue anymore. While I cannot support any pharmaceutical company who deliberately withholds information that would suggest a medication is unduly harmful, I also do not expect it to have the power to predict the future. It bothers me to no end that, when some adverse reaction is detected years after the medication has been on the market after being submitted through all of the legitimate processes in place, people can still sue the drug maker. This is the very reason why interest in developing new vaccines is nil. Look at all of the hysteria over MMR vaccines and autism. Why not just make another Viagra or Lipitor? It's a slam dunk, and you'll make a fortune.

Or to bring a condom.

I actually thought of Cate Blanchett myself, and that picture goes a long way to convincing me that she could play Dagny. Good call!

Not bad. He definitely has that strong elegance, but I think that Liam still has my vote.

Too funny! My contribution: Brokeback Top Gun I think that you may recognize some of the music.

All I have to say is, "Wow." I thought that it was done really well. Made me sad, though. I'm a bit sentimental like that.

Despite the objections of friends in business, I have often regarded today's shareholder practices as rather parasitic. They invest their money and expect to be number one on the priority list of the company. Of course, the companies treat them this way, too. I feel like, if you're going to invest in a company, it should be because you value its products or services, believe in its business practices, and see a future in it not because you expect it to do everything possible to make you a buck despite what it means to its employees. You shouldn't expect to have a claim on that company. You made an educated decision, and you took your chances. I look at it as, here's my money, I think that you run a good business with good business practices, so have at it. If I was wrong, so be it. I screwed up. Instead, we have companies that do anything to please their shareholders even when it leads to the demise of the company and the loss of the retirement savings of its employees who can little afford to have that happen. Maybe I'm just business ignorant, but that's pathetic. As for what happened to these jokers, I agree with D.Odden.

33yo doc. Married. No kids. Two cats.

I wonder the same. I suspect that it, in part, has to do with the fact that it's always easier to meddle in other people's affairs than deal with your own. It is amazing to me that so many people out there are convinced that they "got it right" and that the rest of us should follow suit. What arrogance to presume that you know what is good for the rest of us and what a shame that they may be having an impact! I am insulted that so many of their organizations have names like this: American Family Association Family Forever The Moral Majority People for the American Way Concerned Women for America Who ARE they to take these names that, again, reinforcing some notion that they are the authorities on all things related to the family, that their ideas somehow represent the American way, and that these women are more concerned than I am or have concerns that remotely represent mine (seeing as how I'm an American woman). Again, the arrogance is so frustrating! I think that it is truly a disgrace that people who claim to value family and the sanctity of life would be in more support of a dysfunctional, married, heterosexual couple raising equally dysfunctional children that they had only because they weren't responsible enough to use birth control (oh, wait, that's forbidden) than a stable, loving, homosexual couple who goes through endless hoops to have a child. In which situation are the needs of the child met more? These are the same people who decry abortion but support the death penalty. I guess the sanctity of life only goes so far. When I read stories like this with the anti-commune law, I am just disgusted that our government officials underhandedly legislate their version of morality. Then I read about the founder of Domino's Pizza wanting to start his own Catholic-values-based town. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...62.story?page=1 My first (and primary) response was one of disdain, but then I thought to myself, if all of the idiotic, right-wing Christians moved down there (wishful thinking), good riddance.

Hey, man. It's an Objectivism forum!