On November 5th Ron Paul supporters, without the direction of the the campaign, organized an online money bomb--inspired by "V is for Vendetta."
Remember, remember, the 5th of November. It was a success. 4.3 million dollars.
We scheduled another money bomb. This time we are using The Boston Tea Party 234th anniversary--today, Dec 16th.
I am hoping to hit 5 million dollars. Going from the 4 to 5 million range will have a good psychological effect.
It looks like it could get as high as 6 million..here is hoping!
So far this morning he has raised 1.7 million dollars. That is more money then Huckabee has raised all quarter.
Who has the real support?
[ December 17, 2007, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The Shvestercrats haven't raised enough to buy a latte.
Again, no support for the Shvestercrats.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Tante, do you take paypal? I will pledge a latte for the Shvestercrats!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Whoo Hoo! Our first contribution! We haven't even floated a candidate, yet.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Obviously not enough coffee.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
They should dump tea.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Well, the par-tea is over. More then $6,000,000 was raised.
During the day over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.
He has already tripled his 3rd quarter fund raising.
For the first time last night I went to bed with a big grin and images of President Paul taking the oath to defend the constitution and sitting in the oval office.
His supporters, myself included, are working harder, donating more, and having a blast.
Think about it. It is Christmas season, 6 weeks ago we stunned the world by raising 4.2 million dollars, he has over 80,000 meetup members donating time and money on a local level, and these people are the type to go out in a blizzard to vote.
Our next push is getting in delegates. We already locked up West Virginia. When we set our mind to something, we succeed.
*Edit Note: locked up is too strong a word. We have most delegates so far.
The momentum is stronger, Huckabee is disappointing; McCain, Romney, and Guilianni have not inspired anyone.
Ron Paul is in full momentum with the cash, supporters, and an expanded base. Exponential growth!!
Go Ron Paul!! W00t~ My brother and I stayed up the last hour and watched the impossible as they raised over $500,000! So many small donations were being made it crashed the server!
This week we have the blimp, $18,000,000 raised this quarter, and a string of long interviews--including 1 hour on the Glenn Beck show.
*happy dance!*
[ December 17, 2007, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We already locked up Virginia.
Can you elaborate or link a story on this statement? Thanks.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
As much as I love him, Ron Paul is proof that money =! victory in politics.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I guess locked up is pretty strong, but he is leading. Since he has the largest grassroots actively filling in delegates, it is likely he will get it.
quote: Ron Paul has increased his delegate count to 229, while Mitt Romney stays close behind with 225 delegates. Fred Thompson is in a solid third place with 170 delegates...
quote: The 20,000 signatures are 5,000 more than Mitt Romney turned in, and double the 10,000 signatures required for a place on the ballot.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks. The first article is about West Virginia, by the way.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Thanks, I edited my first remark about West Virginia.
Paul is also doing well in Alaska, and he can prove to be a big surprise in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I am not sure how that will affect the overall campaign, but I think his momentum will build. He certainly is in for the long haul.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Here is an update: He is doing a spot on TV in Iowa. You can see it's two parts here.
Love him or hate him, I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but at least you hear someone who is honestly talking to the issues according to his conscience.
Personally I am hoping for a man of integrity who sincerely is working for the people and is not paid off by special interest groups. I have faith in the checks and balance system only when you have honest individuals in government.
I am not scared of the parts of Paul's platform I disagree with because his very nature is non-coercive and exposed for all to see. I feel there are no hidden agendas.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
There was actually a Tea Party demonstration here in Santa Monica, where a great gathering made their way to the pier to throw over crates labeled "Iraw War" and "IRS" . I thought I found out too late when I read about it but then I started hearing RP's name being chanted from my apartment I bolted, and got to at least march in the home stretch.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Impressive fundraising. Highest one day total in history.
I still don't think he has a chance. I'll be curious to see who he supports when he drops out, and where his money goes.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I just wanted to drop in and post the email I got from Congressman Ron Paul MD. It is also posted on his website.
Emphasis added by me.
quote: December 17, 2007
What a day! I am humbled and inspired, grateful and thrilled for this vast outpouring of support.
On just one day, in honor of the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the new American revolutionaries brought in $6.04 million, another one-day record. The average donation was $102; we had 58,407 individual contributors, of whom an astounding 24,915 were first-time donors. And it was an entirely voluntary, self-organized, decentralized, independent effort on the internet. Must be the "spammers" I keep hearing about!
The establishment is baffled and worried, and well they should be. They keep asking me who runs our internet fundraising and controls our volunteers. To these top-down central planners, a spontaneous order like our movement is science-fiction. But you and I know it's real: as real as the American people's yearning for freedom, peace, and prosperity, as real as all the men and women who have sacrificed for our ideals, in the past and today.
And how neat to see celebrations all across the world, with Tea Parties from France to New Zealand. This is how we can spread the ideals of our country, through voluntary emulation, not bombs and bribes. Of course, there were hundreds in America.
As I dropped in on a cheering, laughing crowd of about 600 near my home in Freeport, Texas, I noted that they call us "angry." Well, we are the happiest, most optimistic "angry" movement ever, and the most diverse. What unites us is a love of liberty, and a determination to fix what is wrong with our country, from the Fed to the IRS, from warfare to welfare. But otherwise we are a big tent.
Said the local newspaper (http://www.thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=36475b4d132fc0a1): "The elderly sat with teens barely old enough to vote. The faces were black, Hispanic, Asian and white. There was no fear in their voices as they spoke boldly with each other about the way the country should be. Held close like a deeply held secret, Paul has brought them out of the disconnect they feel between what they know to be true and where the country has been led."
Thanks also to the 500 or so who braved the blizzard in Boston to go to Faneuil Hall. My son Rand told me what a great time he had with you.
A few mornings ago on LewRockwell.com, I saw a YouTube of a 14-year-old boy that summed up our whole movement for me. This well-spoken young man, who could have passed in knowledge for a college graduate, told how he heard our ideas being denounced. So he decided to Google. He read some of my speeches, and thought, these make sense. Then he studied US foreign policy of recent years, and came to the conclusion that we are right. So he persuaded his father to drop Rudy Giuliani and join our movement.
All over America, all over the world, we are inspiring real change. With the wars and the spying, the spending and the taxing, the inflation and the credit crisis, our ideas have never been more needed. Please help me spread them https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate in all 50 states. Victory for liberty! That is our goal, and nothing less.
Sincerely,
Ron
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I'm very happy for him; these are extraordinary numbers. While I don't agree with all of his positions, in a contest of integrity and honesty, he is second to none in my book.
I just have this sinking feeling in my heart that several million die-hard, enthusiastic supporters will be useless against a less vocal, uninformed, but much larger group of people. I'm sorry; I think so little of people these days *hangs head in shame* Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don' see spin. Considering one of Paul's undisputed character strengths is that he is not bought by special interest, I feel very comfortable with his answer.
EDIT: Fixed link for better audio. Ironically, Paul was one of the first persons to put out a Christmas video wearing a red shirt . The second half of the interview deals with the racist money.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Of course, the fact that he is the preferred candidate for white supremacists is not an accident. I'll accept for now that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not motivated by racism. I'll accept that he thinks that the Act harms race relations in America.
However, I still think that his policies, if enacted, would harm race relations. And I still think that his policies, if enacted, would cause racists to rejoice.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm curious about why Ron Paul doesn't support the Fair Tax. As far as I'm aware, only Huckabee does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Fair Tax is supposedly revenue neutral, and Paul wants to severely reduce the federal tax base.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If Huckabee were running principally on the Fair Tax, I'd feel less neutrally toward him. I'm fine with him talking about it, though. Is the Fair Tax a consumption tax or something different?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's a national sales tax on new products and services to replace all federal income tax, FICA, Social Security, etc. So yes, it's a consumption tax. But it includes a monthly "prebate" equal to the poverty level, so that everyone at the poverty level and below winds up paying no tax at all. Since everyone gets the prebate, it's an equitable tax, even though that fixed amount is worth effectively more for the poor than it is for the wealthy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I get that Paul wants to reduce the tax base. I do, too. But making the horribly high amount of tax Americans pay more transparent than it currently is is probably the best way to make that happen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He might also be aware of the significant problems presented by the Fair Tax.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Also... since he's an M.D., will he be called Dr. President, rather than Mr. President?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Lisa,
As I understand it, Ron Paul's goal is to eliminate the IRS and the income tax completely. Combined with his goal to severely reduce spending, it makes the fair tax unnessecary.
I don't think he'll be our next president, but I hope that a lot of people use his campaign as a spring board to discover libertarianism.
A swell in anarcho-capitalists is probably too much to hope for.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: He might also be aware of the significant problems presented by the Fair Tax.
I really want to ask you to elaborate, but I think that would be too much of a derailment, so I'm going to start a thread.
[ December 20, 2007, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Edited out because I didn't see you say you'd start a new thread and I don't want to derail.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Oh jeez... anarcho-capitalism? I would suggest a little caution before throwing your support behind a radical theory that has never been implemented in practice. Enthusiastically supporting the elimination of most government functions on the basis of some thought-experiments seems extremely risky. It sounds good in theory but, forgive the red herring, so did Marxism.
The United States was more laissez-faire in the late 1800s/early 1900s than it is now, and the results were hardly impressive. The average factory worker was a virtual slave with some working up to 16 hours a day and 6 or 7 days per week. Even children worked in factories. Hell, the terrible conditions produced by a lack of regulation led people to support regulation in the first place. Regulation proved itself to work in areas where lack of regulation miserably failed.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Of course, the fact that he is the preferred candidate for white supremacists is not an accident.
I feel as uncomfortable with that as I do with the fact the white supremacists tend to be Christian republicans. Not at all.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
New York Times forced to retract Ron Paul's ties to white supremacist.
quote:The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Also... since he's an M.D., will he be called Dr. President, rather than Mr. President?
Heavens, I would hope not. The medical degree is relevant to the arena of healthcare, but nowhere else. Not socially, not politically, not in a letter to the editor (unless the content makes the degree relevant), not in making dinner reservations. It would be like calling a judge "Your Honor" or a lawyer "Counselor" outside of the courtroom.
I'm always more than a bit skeeved out when I see someone referencing the medical degree as a routine part of political campaigning. There was a physician running for office in one of the places I lived, and his campaign billboards showed him in his scrubs and white coat -- again, for me, the same sort of "ewwww."
I think it cheapens the profession and is derogatory and condescending to the targeted populace. The medical degree means nothing other than having the skills and authority to practice medicine -- and outside of medicine, that point is irrelevant.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't know if that's the case. Do you really think that an M.D. should be called Mr., rather than Dr.?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In the way CT is talking about it, yeah, I'd agree with her. Maybe if Paul was talking about healthcare I'd give him a break on it, but otherwise being an MD has aboslutely nothing to do with the job he's running for. If Giuliani wins, we aren't going to call him Sir President, even though he was knighted in Britain. If Wesley Clark had won the presidency when he ran, would you have wanted everyone to call him General President? I don't think ANYONE would have gone for that, and being a general I think is a hell of a lot more relevent to being president than being a doctor. It's about image, rather than respect in this case, and I agree with CT that calling him Dr. President would be beyond goofy into insulting.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
If Mitt Romney is elected, can we call him Elder President?
Or at least Brother President?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't know if that's the case. Do you really think that an M.D. should be called Mr., rather than Dr.?
Well, depends on the MD. Some should be called "Ms." outside of the healthcare arena. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Some should be called "Ms." outside of the healthcare arena."
Teh funny, CT, teh funny. I also liked your use of the term "healthcare arena", although you may not be the one who originated that term.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It's a fight to the death, steven.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Many of my dad's friends' kids call him "Dr. Bill" as a term of respect, like my kids call my friends "Ms." or "Mr." first name (or last name if it's easy enough to pronounce and they are not close friends) as a show of respect. I was always under the impression that addressing a doctor as "Dr." rather than "Mr." or "Ms." was an appropriate show of respect in the social arena. I would not extend this to the term "Mr. President" which is a whole 'nother thing, but I have to contest that it is not proper in social situations, letters to the editor, etc., unless the individual has expressed a preference to be called something else.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My school librarian in elementry school got his doctorate, ad we had to begin calling him Dr.
I never got the hang of it. Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
CT, I wish your view on the use of "Dr. So-and-So" was more widely shared. I have to say that whilst working various jobs as a lowly customer service peon I've encountered a fair amount of doctors (medical and others) who were very insistant on having the "Dr." included on any form of communication sent to them. Sometimes their sole reason for contacting us was to demand that we include "Dr." before their name on their phone bills.
On the few occasions when I actually had someone pull out the "I didn't go to 8 years of medical school to be called Mr." card I always wanted to say "No, I would have thought it had something to do with saving lives or helping people."
--Enigmatic
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I have to say that whilst working various jobs as a lowly customer service peon I've encountered a fair amount of doctors (medical and others) who were very insistant on having the "Dr." included on any form of communication sent to them. Sometimes their sole reason for contacting us was to demand that we include "Dr." before their name on their phone bills.
Well, that's no more polite than intentionally calling a doctor who has not asked to not be called such "Mr." in the first place.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I was always under the impression that addressing a doctor as "Dr." rather than "Mr." or "Ms." was an appropriate show of respect in the social arena. I would not extend this to the term "Mr. President" which is a whole 'nother thing, but I have to contest that it is not proper in social situations, letters to the editor, etc., unless the individual has expressed a preference to be called something else.
I would agree that it is historically common to use "Dr" in social settings in the US. I think it is much less so (either for MD or PhD) on the continent, and that this likely reflects a different culture than in the US. In Europe, it is assumed that one in higher level academia has a PhD, and using "Dr" even while at university is considered gauche. On the other hand, the social status of physicians is not as elevated there as it is in the US, and I bet the title is used more there than for PhDs (though probably still less than in the States). For these reasons and others, my use of the title has always felt rather gauche to me as well, and I avoid it outside of that particular role.
I do myself think it is an archaic and problematic tradition for reasons noted [in my first post on the subject], although I would have no such problems with affectionate usage, as if a pet name. And I would not presume to pass any sort of judgement whatsoever on your father, ketchupqueen, or the physicians of his generation. However, I am glad to see this tradition may be changing amongst my peers.
We can surely agree to disagree.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm with CT on this one. Most of the non-MD doctors don't demand to be called doctor. Heck, I'm a doctor, and my wife will be in 18 months--you can't become a pharmacist any more without a PharmD. I know a few pharmacists who insist on being called "doctor," but they're typically seen as being quite pretentious. An amusing double standard.
I'm not against giving MDs their props, particularly in a professional setting. But whenever I encounter an MD that insists on using the title, it always reminds me of "The Maestro" from Seinfeld.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was brought up to believe that calling someone "Dr" was a sign of respect and politness, whether it was a PhD or MD. Especially in writing addresses, she made us do it formally even if the person wasn't a doctor.
I remember dkw debating on how to her and Bob_S's formal address since she's the Reverend and he's the PhD. I can't remember what they came up with but, I do remember when I had to write thank you letters to my grandparents, the formal address on the envelope that my mom (a schoolteacher) made us write out was a real pain. My grandfather was a retired army Colonel as well as being a Reverend. I remember it taking forever to hand write out as a kid their address to the Reverend Colonel and Mrs. John Doe although I did learn how to spell Colonel as a result which is what I think my mother intended.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ditto, I called adults with any kind of doctorate "Dr." as a child whether that was a PhD or MD-- unless, as I said before, they had asked me to call them something else. And when writing to them, especially addresses, I ALWAYS used the title (and "Rev." for my distant relative who was a minister.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(I would add that adults who had not asked me to call them something else and were not doctors of anything were "Mr.", "Ms.", or if they preferred, "Mrs." if they were a married lady. Relatives were always "Aunt", "Uncle", or "Grandma" so-and-so, not just their first name. If I did not know an adult's name, they were "ma'am" or "sir" to me. And it may be archaic, but I intend for my children to call people by respectful titles as well.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I was mostly joking in situation that AJ remembers, since neither of us uses our "official" title in non-work settings.
In fact, we've lived here for 2 1/2 years and someone at church just asked where Bob got his education and was startled when I finished with "and his PhD from Columbia" because they didn't realize he was a "doctor." I guess they were used to people making a bigger deal out of it.
It is sometimes funny when we get mail -- we can tell which of us the sender knows better/works with by whether it's addressed to "Rev. & Mr." or "Dr. & Mrs." Scopatz.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: ... but I intend for my children to call people by respectful titles as well.)
To be clear -- I would prefer respectful titles be used as well. (For everyone, actually, not merely MDs or PhDs.) Just not this particular title, other than in certain circumstances. I think there are others just as respectful and more appropriate.
But, again, of course we may agree to disagree.
'Tis what makes the world go 'round. *smile
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, I'm glad. I've just been startled that some of my acquaintances, close to my age, from church and the community, do NOT have their children call people "Mr." or "Ms." (or at church "Brother" or "Sister") or relatives "Aunt" or "Uncle", at all, and think it's quaint and archaic when they hear my three-year-old do it. Thinking back, I think I was archaic even for my generation (at least where I was growing up-- my husband, who grew up in TX, said that was normal among his peers, but I think it was fairly abnormal among mine here in L.A.)
As for the doctor (and I guess reverend) thing, it's always been a show of respect for the education and the work more than the office/title itself. I think if someone did not actually work in the field they had a doctorate in, I would be more comfortable not addressing them as "doctor".
I am quite content to agree to disagree with you on this and of course bear you no ill-will, and when my kids meet you will remember to have them call you "Ms.", not "Dr.", since you have requested such. Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:I have to say that whilst working various jobs as a lowly customer service peon I've encountered a fair amount of doctors (medical and others) who were very insistant on having the "Dr." included on any form of communication sent to them. Sometimes their sole reason for contacting us was to demand that we include "Dr." before their name on their phone bills.
Well, that's no more polite than intentionally calling a doctor who has not asked to not be called such "Mr." in the first place.
I'm having a hard time parsing that sentence. It's probably just me, and I'm sorry, but I don't get what you're saying here.
May or may not have anything to do with what KQ said, but I should clarify that this was usually not a case of people asking us to change Mr. to Dr. - the default state for the invoices would be Firstname Lastname, with no Mr/Mrs/Ms/Dr/Rev etc unless somebody specifically requested it be added. My examples of 1) calling solely to add the Dr. to their bill and 2) saying "I didn't go to med school to be called Mr." are completely separate cases.
I get it if it's a formal letter or the way that you're being announced upon arrival to the ball, but I really don't get it if it's a phone bill nobody sees but you.
--Enigmatic
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was saying that they were being very rude to do that.
Sorry it was hard to parse, I was arguing with a three-year-old on another matter while I was writing that post. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I am quite content to agree to disagree with you on this and of course bear you no ill-will, and when my kids meet you will remember to have them call you "Ms.", not "Dr.", since you have requested such.
I cannot imagine a more delightful and admirable woman to have a difference of opinion with. I am sure -- beyond doubt -- that I would be captivated by your children as well.
[Edit!:] I was unable to call my university professors by their first names, even when requested not to use the title. At that point, I just avoided using a name of address. My mentor and very good friend now of 19 years is finally -- finally! -- someone I can call by his first name, but he is the only one. And I have slept in his bed, too. (Housesitting and dogsitting, nothing untoward, but a sort of intimacy of a friendship nonetheless.)
My feelings about this have changed through the years. In part I think this is due to my training years, a time in which most of the physicians I worked with were put off by formality amongst ourselves (I do not know how many of them extended this outside the profession, but I know several did, and I suspect it of many others.) So you could say that I was retrained into a new paradigm, at least for my usage in that circumstance.
I also admit to a huge chip of reverse snobbery. Pride for me is in not being called "Dr." (other than in the medical setting), and this reflects more than just an ideological academic stance -- it is about power, and having been poor, and wanting to be respected but fearing that craving for it, and so on. In other words, it's an issue for me that goes deep in ways that may not be relevant to others.
But still I have this other, more disinterested, concern about the way power works within and between social classes. I think there is a strong and growing resentment of the medical field, and this fuels in part a lot of the recent backlash against physicians and their professional recommendations. Of course there is also much of a positive drive to that movement -- a striving to be informed consumers, a rightful desire to have one's complaints taken seriously, a seeking of a more holistic balanced perspective on health, etc. I just also see this undercurrent that streams beneath it, too, and I really do fear that the insistance on social status based on this job is a good bit of the problem.
Now mind you, for the prior generations of physicians, it wasn't so much an individual insistance as it was just an invivible part of the warp and weft of the social fabric. Things are changing, though, and I think that may be good in unexpected ways. But it's only one person's opinion after all, and again, I have some of the most excellent dissenters.
(I think I will always cringe at politicians using a medical title, though! Again, it's in part reverse snobbery -- it seems so tawdry. But in an interaction that is less obviously a commercial transaction, I find it proportionally less disturbing.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:(I think I will always cringe at politicians using a medical title, though! Again, it's in part reverse snobbery -- it seems so tawdry. But in an interaction that is less obviously a commercial transaction, I find it proportionally less disturbing.)
I would probably agree with that.
And I don't know how old you are, but I have the feeling my dad is not really part of "prior generations"-- he's probably kind of in between your generation of doctors and the "old class" of doctors. He seriously considered becoming a priest as a teenager and when he decided that he was not that invested in the Church, took a year off of school and traveled around the country, earning his way by typing and editing college students' papers, and at the end of it, decided that he wanted to be a priest as a teenager because he wanted to help serve and heal others, and that's when he decided to finish his degree and switch to pre-med and aim for being a doctor. He has carried that into his work all these years, and his friends who are physicians do that too, and I have been privileged to have a PCP (right now my OB/GYN) who has the same attitude (he was a doctor of philosophy and was all set to teach-- and then decided he wouldn't be doing enough good in the world, and wanted to deliver babies instead, and went to medical school.) My mom's colleagues are mostly plastic surgeons who chose, instead of lucrative elective procedures, to specialize in cranial and facial reconstructions and lip/palate repair. My kids' pediatricians are wonderful women who really CARE about their patients and do everything in their power to know every aspect of the care that is given in their offices, including helping the nurses when they are overworked but the doctors have a momentary lull. So I have been fortunate to not really encounter any type of physician but the type who is in the work for the love of healing and helping patients, barring a few incidents as a child, and that is undoubtedly why I am left with such a whole-hearted respect for the profession. I'm aware that there are doctors out there who are probably stuck up, mean, rude, or bad doctors. But they are not what I think of when I think of "doctor," any more than corrupt cops are what I first think of when I think of police officers.
Now, ask me about insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies and I may have another answer for you...
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Ketchupqueen:
Just out of curiosity, do you call all these people Doctor, or just MDs and PhDs? For example, if you meet an architect, a lawyer, a pharmacist or a teacher, do you:
Ask them what kind of degree they have so you know how to address them
Assume that they are a doctor unless corrected
Assume that they are not a doctor unless corrected
Not worry about it
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think the change was in medical schools in the 90s. There was a marked shift from the culture of the 80s, IMO.
Your folks sound like wonderful people.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Speed: if they are a pharmacist, etc., their degree is often on their badge. If I am aware they have a doctorate, I address them as "Doctor" (if I know their last name.) Teachers around here mostly do not have doctorates, so I would tend to assume they are Ms. or Mr., but if I found out they had a doctorate I would ask if they preferred to be called "Dr." (If they teach at a university I would tend to call them "Professor" instead.) Principals usually do have doctorates around here, and are addressed as "Dr." I don't meet many architects, at least not to know what they are. Lawyers I would usually call "Mr." or "Ms." but again, if I found out they had a doctorate I would ask what they preferred to be called. If I do not know what their job or title is, or do not know what their last name is, for that matter, they are "Sir" or "Ma'am" until introduced.
Of course most of this is simplified by the fact that I am usually introduced to people when I am meeting them. Since I have been introduced I will usually know what to call them. Introductions do make things so much simpler. And now that I am an adult, I feel a bit more comfortable addressing people at parties and such by first names when asked to do so, unless they are an "older person", by which I mean, usually, in my parents' generation or older. I just can't bring myself to address people whom I do not know fairly well by their first name if they are old enough to be my mother or father, and ESPECIALLY if they are old enough to be my grandmother or grandfather. I mean, people on Hatrack or something are friends, I would feel comfortable addressing you all intimately. Mostly. But people I meet at church who are 10 years older than my mother? You can bet they will be addressed by titles for a loooong time, if not for as long as I know them.
CT, that would make sense, I guess, since my dad completed his residency in '86, I believe.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Speed: if they are a pharmacist, etc., their degree is often on their badge.
I've never seen a pharmacist with their degree printed on their badge. In all the states I've lived in, a badge at retail pharmacy is only legally required to say that the person is a pharmacist, not whether they have a BS or a PharmD.
Just my experience, though. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, at the pharmacies I go to they put the degree after the name, so that makes it easy for me. Not that I have much call to address the pharmacist, I'm usually just talking to the PA who takes my information and signs out my meds to me, and that only briefly.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Interesting. I guess maybe California has different state laws. Or maybe it's a cultural thing, or some corporate rule at whatever pharmacy you visit.
Let me state again, I'm not saying you should call these people "doctor," even if they are. If Californians are anything like me and my peers, I'm sure they honestly don't care. I just wanted to know how consistent your philosophy was. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't think it's a legal thing, I think they just do it because the places I choose to frequent are usually mom-and-pop pharmacies where they are proud of their degrees or their kids joining the family business and getting degress, too. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I want to be called "Dr. lem" from now on. If Dr. Phil can do it, why not me?
-Dr. lem
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I don't think it's a legal thing, I think they just do it because the places I choose to frequent are usually mom-and-pop pharmacies where they are proud of their degrees or their kids joining the family business and getting degress, too.
Oh, I think now we're getting to the root of the issue. Perhaps when the people you know say they want to be called "doctor," it's not because they're physicians. It's because they're Californians. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, I didn't say they wanted to be called doctor. I said I was taught to call them doctor and that is my default form of address to someone I know has a doctorate in formal situations or social situations if I do not know them very, very well.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
My Dad is a doctor, as is his brother and their father. I was taught that the correct form of address for someone with an M.D. is "Dr."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was raised the same way as AJ and kq -- doctors of all kinds get called "Dr." by the kids.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I would agree that it is historically common to use "Dr" in social settings in the US. I think it is much less so (either for MD or PhD) on the continent, and that this likely reflects a different culture than in the US.
Maybe this reflects the fact that most of my experience in Europe was with academics and their families (and 15 or more years ago), but that is not my experience at all. Some titles translate better than others to languages other than English, of course.
"Herr Doktor Professor" does enable jokes about my father's barber's physician's teacher, though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)