tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32053362.post5316533937244814747..comments2024-03-29T06:37:18.029-04:00Comments on Not Running a Hospital: The power to persuadePaul Levyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17065446378970179507noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32053362.post-38334599884065696012013-07-23T18:20:27.868-04:002013-07-23T18:20:27.868-04:00Dave, I think a consequence of our current society...Dave, I think a consequence of our current society (I tried to use some adjectives in front of 'society' but it's too overwhelming, but you know what i mean), with all these links etc., we fail to take the time to read them and reflect on the content first. Far easier to just knee-jerk a reaction when we really don't know what we are talking about. Social media makes this both more possible and more gratifying.<br /><br />I wish I could live another 50 years and see how humans think and communicate by then. A bit scary for the future.<br /><br />nonlocalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32053362.post-2625031794592888232013-07-22T08:02:24.421-04:002013-07-22T08:02:24.421-04:00On a related note, I recently heard J. D. Kleinke ...On a related note, I recently heard J. D. Kleinke speak about the political process and the conjuring up of imaginary targets. He cited complaints that PPACA is 1500 pages; he said it's actually 900, and most of the complaints are about the 600 pages that don't exist. :) He then rattled off all kinds of junk that isn't in the bill.<br /><br />Another example is the nasty flaming by Obama's opponents last week after his VERY calm statement about race in America. A normally sane friend linked to a commentary asking "What right does he have to question the jury's verdict???" As anyone who WATCHED the video knows, he didn't say a THING about the verdict; he explicitly stayed off that.<br />e-Patient Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381434866099596466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32053362.post-84847517318761133382013-07-22T07:57:11.648-04:002013-07-22T07:57:11.648-04:00But there was a time when the party in power could...But there was a time when the party in power could succeed in persuasion, and was at least afforded a grudging "Well, they won" acceptance. Many talk about the reasons that today it seems quite possible for a very small number of individuals to control a large part of the process - or at least paralyze, if not control in the positive sense.<br /><br />As one example, have we ever seen a case where so many legislators have gone against the wishes of 90%+ of their constituents? That's the case with NH's Senator Kelly Ayotte (and numerous others) on the recent gun control legislation. Now, don't anyone go tangent on WHICH issue it is - reread the question. It's a question, not a rant.e-Patient Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381434866099596466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32053362.post-84243180229642296722013-07-21T19:11:21.738-04:002013-07-21T19:11:21.738-04:00On presidential persuation:
http://www.newyorker.c...On presidential persuation:<br />http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein<br /><br />Maybe not the powerful many might think<br /><br />BradBrad Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10366408815395434941noreply@blogger.com