Senator Roy Ashburn, Republican from Prop 8-happy California, and a staunch opponent to gay rights, was arrested on a DUI while leaving a gay bar with an unidentified male companion.
People tend to say such things are ironic, but technically it’s not. It’s being caught in a display of hypocrisy, but there’s not an actual word to cover it. Maybe we should call it “hycronic.”
PAD
• 
Tsk tsk tsk… why always think the worst?
.
Obviously, he was there by coincidence… no wait.
.
He was there to save a few souls and guide them back to the narrow path…no wait
.
Drugs made him do it… no wait
.
…he had a wide stance.
The sad part is that the “gay bar with… companion” angle will get more attention than the DUI (which could, y’know, lead to the injury or death of people). I suppose the hypocricy comes from the knowledge that being gay is toxic in some areas — especially among convervative Republicans (sorry, Log Cabiners) — so folks can score popularity by publically campaigning against what they are and/or practice in private.
And, on a sort of related side, here’s another article on an anti-gay politician getting caught in their own type of hypocricy (beware: LOTS of profanity):
“WHEREAS you’re writing from Canada, and WHEREAS my Canadian readers patiently endure my rants about conservative American politicians (like last week’s rant about New Hampshire state representative Nancy “Wiggle in Excrement” Elliott), and WHEREAS my American readers might assume that Canada—where gay marriage is legal, everyone has health care, the boys are hot, and the girls are hotter—doesn’t have any batshit-conservative politicians of its own, BE IT RESOLVED that I will make an effort to write about Canada’s batshit-conservative politicians every once in a while.
No time like the present: I could write about your batshit-conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, who’s always proroguing the šhìŧ out of your parliament. (I don’t know what proroguing is exactly, but like the šhìŧ in French on breakfast-cereal boxes, it sounds pretty fûçkìņg filthy.) But a better example of conservative batshittery would be Vic Toews. Canada’s unofficial “Minister of Family Values,” member of parliament Toews—surprise!—doesn’t like the gays because we’re a threat to the family and the institution of marriage. Toews has described gay marriage ceremonies as satanic “Black Masses” and insisted that adding gays and lesbians to existing Canadian civil rights statutes would bring the “jackboot of fascism [down] on the necks of our people.”
You know where this is going, right?
It turned out that Toews—who once warned that gay marriage could lead to polygamy—was cheating on his wife of 25 years. After getting a much younger woman pregnant, Toews wound up getting divorced. Another marriage destroyed not by gays stomping around in fabulous jackboots, but by another straight “Christian” šhìŧfûçk politician slamming his dìçk into someone who isn’t his wife.
Toews’s affair became public two years ago, but the scandal didn’t destroy him—he became minister of public safety this January—because the Canadian press sniffed that Toews’s affair and divorce were private. Excuse me, Canadian-press pansies, but a politician who scares up votes attacking the private lives of others, a politician who insists that other people are out to destroy his marriage, can’t be allowed to hide behind “my private business!” when it turns out that the only threat to the politician’s marriage was the politician’s own greasy çøçk.
Here’s hoping that all straight folks everywhere one day realize that anti-gay ravers come in just two flavors: áššhølëš who are externalizing their own internal struggles against homosexual desires (Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, Joseph Ratzinger, et al.) and áššhølëš who are attempting to compensate for and/or draw attention away from their own moral shortcomings (David Vitter, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Vic Toews, et al.).”
Profanity aside, yeah, that about sums it up. Was at a bistro next door to my domicile when they wound up invaded by a meeting of Conservative Party members for some sort of luncheon and the one thing which kept being overheard was when was Prime Minister Harper going to follow up on his promise to hold a vote to rescind the gay marriage law. *sigh* Dinosaurs …
Actually, he did hold that vote.
It was an open vote, done quietly and quickly after his first election, and defeated by the opposition. Promise kept, and he never goes back to it again.
I will assume the unidentified male companion has zero self-respect, to be seen in the company of that douche-hat.
You assume he knows who that douche-hat is. Not everyone actually follows politics (or in the case of your country, is even registered to vote). I for one wouldnt be able to recognize more than 25% of my country’s parlament.
.
(But then my country’s system encourages that)
I’m from Southern California, and while the elected officials seem full of hate, I don’t think it’s fair to say that California is “happy” with it.
(and I forgot my smiley, to indicate I don’t actually think that’s what you meant. I just think it’s a poor choice of words to say “prop 8 happy California.”)
The guy might not be anti GAY, just anti gay RIGHTS. lol, he just wants to use them.
And the countdown begins for the next yet-to-be-outed politician.
I know we’re supposed to enjoy the poetic justice or hycrony, or whatever it is, but it still bothers me whenever any politician is attacked because of his private life. Even though this guy made other people’s private lives an issue in his politics. I just wish the good guys would take the moral high ground. Isn’t that how you know they’re the good guys?
I’m not gay. But i have gay friends.
.
(No, not “Some of my best friends…”; i mean i have gay friends i know are gay.)
.
But if i were gay (what is this, an “Avenue Q” song cue?), i would cheerfully exploit and publicise any such lapses by politicians who were trying to criminalise my life choices.
.
Just as, if i were black, and had heard about it in time, i would have trumpeted from the rooftops that Strom Thurmond had a daughter with a black maid when he was young.
You’re right. Politicians should be left alone to commit crimes in their own private lives. 😛
I agree with you about the private life angle, but the DUI made it public. And the gap between his public stance and his private life is what kicked it to a whole new level.
.
On the other hand, I’m still unclear as to why Tiger Woods’ love life is anyone’s dámņëd business.
.
PAD
While I think respecting people’s private lives (even politicians private lives) is immensely important, I would question whether elected officials who make people’s private behaviour political footballs, in effect rendering legal obstacles to people proceeding with their normal living, can really object to the lesser offence of having their own private lives being made general knowledge.
Because Tiger is a public figure. And as far as the media…and to a slightly lesser extent, the public in general…are concerned, public figures aren’t entitled to privacy of any kind.
I’ve noticed this a lot lately, maybe just because I’m paying more attention or there are so many flagrant examples of it, but we as a people aren’t very nice to our celebrities. We insist that we have to know every detail about every facet of their lives; not just that we want to, but we HAVE to. And if they don’t willingly share it with us, we’ll support papparazzi invading their lives to essentially take those details whether the celebs like it or not.
We also feel we have every right to then judge all those details we insisted on getting. We feel we have the right to judge them on their personal apperance and grooming, the state of their mental and physical health, how they behave both in public and in private, who they become romantically involved with and why, their parenting skills and choices, and so on. We feel that we can pass judgment on everything that they do…and we are actually outraged when they try to deny us that. We insist that because they’re public figures, they “owe” us that. It’s really mind-boggling to me, because if the media and general public did that to any of us “normal joes”, we’d be crying “foul” loud and long…yet we think nothing of it when we all do it with celebs.
On the other hand, I’m still unclear as to why Tiger Woods’ love life is anyone’s dámņëd business.
.
Well, I think that goes back to athletes being held up as role models, as well as people expecting better of those who choose to make their fortune by being a pitch-man.
.
But then, I’m not sure why we bother to hold athletes up as role models, so maybe this is more of a ‘we have only ourselves to blame’ situation.
I also believe that it was because Tiger did not appear to have any skeletons in his closet. But I’m sure that there were those who didn’t trust his wholesome image, and therefore want to keep hounding for details as some sort of vindication…even if they never statean opinion regarding Tiger not being “genuine”
Peter David: Maybe we should call it “hycronic.”
Luigi Novi: I think that makes him sound like he was smoking weed.
Is he publicly for tougher drug enforcement?
.
If so, he probably was.
Meanwhile, in other barking moonbat news, a Larouche organiser in Texas, whose campaign rhetoric included frequent calls for the impeachment of Barack Obama, has won the Democratic Congressional primary. (In Tom Delay’s old district…)
I imagine he just wanted to save himself from himself…
Last year the documentary “Outrage” covered the topic of anti-gay politicians being gay themselves. It was well done and tried to look into minds of these people. Not sure if its out on DVD.
According to Amazon, yes, it’s been out on DVD since January.
.
PAD
…it’s been out on DVD since January.
…if you’ll pardon the expression…
A shameful new pronouncement from the Virginia AG:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501582.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Plus – gay prostitue scandal for the Vatican.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/vatican-hit-by-gay-sex-sc_n_486218.html
I am a little biased as I am still waiting for the Papal blessing of my marriage that I paid for in 2000. Does anyone know if the Vatican has a consumer complaints department?:)
The wedding by Captain Barbossa wasn’t enough?
This from the AG of the state that was the last one to overturn laws banning blacks from marrying whites. Who’d have guessed?
.
>AD
“Does anyone know if the Vatican has a consumer complaints department?:)”
I think it’s called the Episcopal Church…
.
Not surprising really. Sadly, we’re the same state with a politician who said this (and is now backtracking like mad) last month:
.
“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically,” Marshall was quoted by the Times. “Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”
.
“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”
.
Welcome to the Virginia GOP.
I thought it was the Lutheran Church that handled Consumer Complaints…
I don’t know if it’s hycronic, but it certainly seems to be a chronic occurrence.
Indeed. At this point, I just assume that the amount a politician rails against homosexuals is in direct ratio to how far he is in the closet.
“Run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.”
.
I think some of them feel as if if they make enough noise, nobody will suspect them…
.
Like a “reform” “dry” Mayor who makes most of his income off payoffs to allow illegal saloons to operate, and every election rants about how we need to clean up our town.
But that just makes no sense at all–a logical man would think that if he made himself persona non grata to a particular group of people and then tried to get all, uh, grata, well, that’s a pretty easy way to get caught. he’s a state senator. my state senators could all mug me at gunpoint and I’d be poorer but none the wiser. On the other hand, if some state senator made it his or her goal in life to make my life miserable–start a “let violent convicts return to high school” program, perfect example–their visage would be seared, seared into my brain like a holiday in Cambodia.
.
What. A. Moron.
.
(I am assuming, of course, that it’s true that this dope is genuinely anti-gay. One could vote against gay marriage (which I support) and not hate homosexuals. I know others disagree with that statement but there you are. Maybe he’s one of those politicians who believes he has to vote what the majority of his constituents believe. Unlikely, I know, but I’ll throw out the possibility.)
.
(Interesting–apparently this has been an open secret for some time–he was even “outed” a while back by the mayor of West Sacramento, but nobody seems to have cared much at the time. Maybe with the current scandals of Paterson, Rangal, and Massa it was just the wrong week to not give up sniffing glue.)
Actually, Bill, rather than “What. A. Moron.” I would go with Bugs Bunny’s description:
.
“Wotta maroon. Wotta tah-rah-rah-goon-de-ay.”
.
PAD
What an embezzle!
.
Do you know we are raising an entire generation of kids who have barely had any exposure to the classic bugs cartoons? Small wonder things are going to hëll in a handbasket.
.
Contributions to Ian’s education always welcome.
.
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7484736&style=movie
Actually, I’m rather fond of the “If you don’t learn the less-on, you’re a…” line, myself.
“On the other hand, I’m still unclear as to why Tiger Woods’ love life is anyone’s dámņëd business.”
.
Because when you get millions of dollars in endorsements on an image, when you have everyone overlook boorish on-course behavior in order to sustain that image and when you perpetuate the image of you being a great dad/husband/all-around guy by letting “People” and like magazines into your home to paint a flattering portrait and do gushing stories to enhance that image, then it is certainly newsworthy when that image turns out to be such an enormous lie. That’s why.
His image was that of someone who could bounce a golf ball off his club and then hit same ball 500 yards into a sippy cup. If he’d done it while rubbing his wife’s back, THEN the issue of his fidelity MAY be of some slight interest. What goes n in his life off the links is nobody’s business.
I don’t agree. I’m more inclined to look up to someone because they hold true to ideals that are inspirational and uplift the human condition, not because they can hit a ball with a stick or look good on a cereal box.
What’s more, I think these individuals present themselves as models of human behavior. Maybe Tiger or Ashburn didn’t mean for their foibles to become public knowledge, but it doesn’t make their behavior any less wrong. Additionally, by lying, it calls into question any other issues about which they could be deceptive.
And let me clarify; Ashburn’s possible homosexuality is NOT reprehensible, his closeting it while voting down gay rights IS.
If I were to lie about my sexual orientation and capitalize on it, or cheat on my wife, I would expect that people would call me on it were I discovered. Condoning bad behavior is almost as bad as the behavior itself. I don’t think public officials or celebrities should be exempt from this. Perhaps they should be held to a higher standard.
His value for endorsements was predicated on the image of a man who had almost preternatural control and poise. Now he looks like a lunatic. My daughter and I recently had to catch a flight and it seemed like every other billboard on the walls of the airport had tiger but the message was now a bit muddled. One had him looking at a ball perched precariously on a cliff. I don’t know what they were selling, all we could think was hoe he now looked like he was contemplating jumping off the cliff.
We have to distinguish between several different considerations:
1) When somebody famous does something embarrassing, people are interested because it is gossip.
2) When a politician does something embarrassing, his political opponents are interested because it affects his image as a product in the political arena.
3) If a politician does something that is hypocritical (like being gay while talking against gays), then both his political opponents and voters in general are interested because it reflects on his political behavior.
4) If a celebrity does something which affects his public image, then people in the business world are interested because the public image of a celebrity has a commercial value to them. Although what gives it value is that regular people actually care about the image of a celebrity in a way that makes it worth while to use it in marketing.
I wonder if the image of a celebrity who is famous for being a womanizer/sleeping around will be harmed if it turns out he’s secretly monogamous. What if it turns out that George Cloony is impotent, Mick Jagger a virgin and Angelina Jolie is terrible in bed? Will they lose endorsements too?
“What if it turns out that George Cloony is impotent, Mick Jagger a virgin and Angelina Jolie is terrible in bed? Will they lose endorsements too?”
I’m willing to make personal sacrifices for the education of the general public. I’m willing to find out whether or not Angelina Jolie is terrible in bed. No need to thank me, serving the public is reward enough.
I don’t particularly care about Tiger Woods’s love life. But I find it ridiculous how he is trying to present himself as a helpless guy with an addiction.
We should just accept that some people just aren’t cut for marriage.
It is sad that these news doesn’t surprise me anymore. If the entire Republican party were caught in a gay orgy right after another particularly big campaign against gay rights I think I wouldn’t be surprised either.
And the anti-gay closeted gays are only the worst examples of hypocrisy. I’ve read that many dudes in the Bush administration made jokes in private about all the weirdos and crazies in the Religious Right they had to deal with.
And Mary Warner, a guy that has dedicated himself to make my private life hëll in order to gain power? That his how private life has been shattered by the social taboos he helped to bolster is the dictionary definition of poetic justice. Who said God doesn’t exist?
I never denied that it was poetic justice, only that such justice is truly just.
I can understand your feelings. There are plenty of politicians who work to make my private life Hëll, as well.
But having your private life, all your secrets, exposed against your will is one of the most terrifying situations imaginable. Trust me. I’ve long lived in fear of my personal secrets being revealed to people I know.
I’m sorry, but I can’t wish that sort of thing on my enemies. After all, we’re all somebody’s enemy, aren’t we?
When you drag this guy’s secrets out into the open, you set the precedent for draggin out everybody’s secrets, including those who have commited no hypocracies.
When you drag this guy’s secrets out into the open, you set the precedent for draggin out everybody’s secrets, including those who have commited no hypocracies.
.
I suppose, but the chances are they wouldn’t be newsworthy. It’s the fact that they are hypocrisies held by public officials, particularly when their stated policies infringe on the rights and privacy of constituents, that makes it newsworthy. The nation, the average viewer, the average reader, doesn’t really care if a private citizen is a hypocrite on some issue.
.
PAD
The premises of the movie “outrage” (about closeted gay politicians) are that:
a) Closeted gay politicians are more likely to promote legislation and rhetoric which is hostile toward gays.
b) There is something morally wrong when gay politicians promote legislation and rhetoric which is hostile toward gays, since they, by hiding their true identity, are immune from the repercussions of said laws and rhetoric.
So, from that point of view, the fact that they are secretly gay is relevant to their policies, and therefore should be revealed. It is similar to a politician promoting increase in taxation while not paying his own taxes, or an environmentalist who secretly pollutes.
The movie also argues that while the media is obsessed about uncovering gossip about the sexual lives of heterosexual celebrities/politicians, when it comes to homosexuality they suddenly become more concerned about privacy. The argument is that the media is actually promoting the idea that homosexuality is something that should remain hidden.
Mary, it’s not (just) that the guy is my enemy. It’s a matter of responsibility, of being aware of the consequences of your own actions.
The very moment you decide to gain power by championing a certain agenda, you make yourself wide open to scrutiny regarding that specific agenda. It’s only fair. It’s putting your money where your mouth is.
I’m not a big fan of the mayor of my city (Sao Paulo). He is a conservative and a bit of a crook. But he never tried to gain power by defending family values. In the campaign, his left-wing opponent aired a commercial with hints of the mayor’s homosexuality, because he is a middle-aged man that never married and, frankly, he has a lot of typical gay traits.
I thought it was pretty rotten and I’m glad it backfired.
That is interesting, Micha.
I don’t know about politicians, but as far as other kinds of celebrities go, the media really comes out of its way to help keep them in the closet, while publishing every scrap of gossip about heterosexual liasons.
I think the ultimate reason is commercial. Sex sells, but the entertainment industry still thinks gáÿ šëx will make a male celebrity less marketable. “Girls will not coo and sigh anymore if they know Keanu Reeves is gay. No one will go see his movies! We can’t destroy the illusion!”
Personally, I think that sort of thinking is a bit clueless and underestimates the public.
I don’t care what Tiger Woods does while he is not on the golf course. He drove his vehicle into public property, and paid the fine. End of story. Anything else should be between himself and his family.
.
Stephen Bergstrom said:
.
“What’s more, I think these individuals present themselves as models of human behavior.”
.
All Tiger did was play golf and rake in the money. At no point did he tell anybody how to run their life.
.
And further more, Tiger Woods SHOULD be having many, many children. He obviously has superior genetic genes for athletic purposes, and, according to the principle of survival of the fittest, his having many children could only improve the human race.
Apparently, someone should have told Tiger that cheating on his wife is bad.
In the words of the inimitable Ron White: “If you don’t cheat, you can’t get caught.”
He may have superior athletic ability, but his skills at judgment-making negate the genetic advantage.
.
“And further more, Tiger Woods SHOULD be having many, many children. He obviously has superior genetic genes for athletic purposes, and, according to the principle of survival of the fittest, his having many children could only improve the human race.”
.
I really, really hope that was meant as a joke.
Self-hatred will make you magnificently inconsistent. Surrounded by people who insist that being gay is an abomination and that those who ‘chose’ that lifestyle are doing something unnatural – appeasement of their views must seem a sole option to some.
For what it’s worth, I don’t envy this guy. Living a double life and having it resolved by the general public instead of your own strengths has got to hurt. Here’s hoping his better nature rises to the challenge and he can accept himself.
Republican State Sen. Ashburn says he’s gay, but won’t support gay rights legislation.
Possibly the reason he’s so brave is that it’s his last term. And apparently the vehicle he was driving was a state-owned SUV…
He says specifically:
.
“I felt my duty — and I still feel this way — is to represent my constituents, not my own point of view, not my own internal conflict,” he told Barks.
.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. I mean, maybe I just don’t get it, seeing as I’m not gay and therefore cannot understand (insert eye roll here), but if you’re gay, why would you want to represent such constituents in the first place?
And then there are the words of Edmund Burke:
.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
.
In this instance, not only has he betrayed his constituents, he has betrayed himself.
.
PAD
Now would also be a good time for a “It’s always the Anti-Health Care Politicians”, as well, after Palin admits to crossing the border for some good ol’ Canadian socialist health care.
Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor…
.
What’s dim about that is that she’s told that exact same story before, but before, with an American audience, she said that they went to a hospital in Juno instead. It’s so great how she can keep her stories straight for longer than a cup of coffee.
.
😉
As a side note to this subject, was Rep. Massa anti-gay?
Washington Post article:
http://tinyurl.com/yl7gh5w
Well, here’s his position on the topic:
I know from personal experience in the military that the current policy, “don’t ask, don’t tell,” doesn’t work. I fully support civil unions and equal legal rights for all Americans. Although civil unions do not provide all of the answers for the issues facing same sex couples, I believe they are a good start, and I support them. I do not support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage; that is a wedge issue and a political ploy designed to distract voters from the massive failures of the Bush administration and Congress; it would also be the first amendment in our country’s history to explicitly restrict rights.
.
PAD
Well, no real hypocrisy there. He could have a stronger gay rights position, but not by much and he makes this position sound pretty reasonable.
.
Of course, he’s still a scumbag in other ways if the allegations are true. Just not a hypocrite on this particular topic. The fact that he’s going on Glenn Beck’s show to claim that a conspiracy against him drummed him out of the House because of his “no” vote on the Health Care bill is pretty lame, too.
I don’t think Massa is a hypocrite. He’s a lunatic. Which is a far more dangerous thing to have in a member of the ruling class.
.
“I don’t think Massa is a hypocrite. He’s a lunatic.”
.
Must be why Glenn Beck likes the guy.
.
“He’s a lunatic. Which is a far more dangerous thing to have in a member of the ruling class.”
.
Sad thing is that I’m finding it harder and harder to not see a lot of “ruling class” on either side of the isle as lunatics these days. Well, or at least mild mental cases.
“And further more, Tiger Woods SHOULD be having many, many children. He obviously has superior genetic genes for athletic purposes, and, according to the principle of survival of the fittest, his having many children could only improve the human race.”
You know, if all we are considering is eugenics and not little things like character, then basically you’re basically saying the ultimate disciple of eugenics, Hitler, actually had the right idea with his goal of a Master Race. Which is pretty scary and insulting. It’s like people who say only people who have a certain IQ should breed.
“Now would also be a good time for a “It’s always the Anti-Health Care Politicians”, as well, after Palin admits to crossing the border for some good ol’ Canadian socialist health care.”
.
Or we could enjoy a “It’s Always The Universal Health Care Politicians”, like the Canadian pol who came down to the good ol’ USA for care he didn’t have time to wait for under Canada’s “better” (cough – “bûllšhìŧ!) health care system. If we adopted the system his homeland currently has, the guy would really be screwed, despite all our eeeevil insurance companies and eeeeevil pharmaceutical companies.
So he’s reaping the benefits of a system he doesn’t want to give to his constituents. Real nice.
.
VS
.
Watch the whole video. Pay close attention to Hannity’s show fave Dog.
.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap
.
🙂
Which is better:
1) Healthcare you can;t afford at all?
2) Healthcare that that doesn’t bankrupt you but you have to wait a bit for?
.
Depends. If you have very little time left…
.
But (slightly more) seriously, the big boogeyman that the Right likes to bring up about other countries’ systems is something of a false logic argument. You can point to things that we do here that work better for than the same basic system does in other countries all the time. Say that something doesn’t work as well as it could in Country ‘A’ so it won’t work here is weak.
.
Shifting it to a different topic: These guys are the equivalent of the people telling the Wright Brothers that since the guys in the next state over couldn’t build a working flying machine…
.
Jeez…
.
I’m just too tired this week to edit on the fly. Too many 12s and 16s this week.
If we adopted the system his homeland currently has, the guy would really be screwed, despite all our eeeevil insurance companies and eeeeevil pharmaceutical companies.
.
He could be, but he’s a politician. But hey, let’s continue to refuse to cover medicines and procedures on a whim. Let’s drop coverage altogether on bûllšhìŧ excuses. Let’s outright refuse coverage to a child because of even more bûllšhìŧ excuses.
.
In other words, our health care is just fûçkìņg great, right?
.
Wrong.
Bill,
“He’s a lunatic. Which is a far more dangerous thing to have in a member of the ruling class.”
.
Unfamiliar with him until this manufactured “scandal”. What in your opinion makes Massa a lunatic?
I think his actions of the past week qualify and it just gets creepier and creepier with every new revelation. Even ignoring the claim that he was run out of town by Obama for being too liberal (!) the revelations of his serial sexual harassment (which would probably have stayed under wraps if he’s been smart and/or sane to just bow out gracefully for “health reasons) are entering skeezy territory.
.
““Now they’re saying I groped a male staffer,” (Massa on The Glen beck show). “Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was ‘kill the old guy.’”
.
If this guy were a boy scout counselor he’s be in jail. Yeah, the classic “tickle fight defense”. Good riddance.
.
(And he’s done something I never thought possible–almost make me feel bad for Rahm Emanuel, a slimy Chicago pol but someone who probably deserves a better fate than to forever be known as “the guy who pokes you in the shower”)
.
(Do congressmen really shower together? Not that there’s anything wrong with…no, actually, sorry, it’s all kinds of wrong. Henry Waxman and Al Franken snapping towels at John Boehner, ack, my eyes!)
.
“(Do congressmen really shower together? Not that there’s anything wrong with…no, actually, sorry, it’s all kinds of wrong. Henry Waxman and Al Franken snapping towels at John Boehner, ack, my eyes!)”
.
As a rule? No. But I do believe he said that was at the private gym that the members use.
“In other words, our health care is just fûçkìņg great, right?”
.
nice language, especially considering a whopping 85 % of the people in this country are happy with their healthcare, a super-huge majority of 76 % are happy with the system in general and an overwhelming majority don’t want Obamacare.
I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority didn’t want school integration, or Social Security, or Medicare, and I bet if you did a poll back in 1776, they didn’t want to go to war with England either.
.
PAD
Bladestar,
“Which is better:
1) Healthcare you can;t afford at all?
2) Healthcare that that doesn’t bankrupt you but you have to wait a bit for?”
.
What would be best is if you didn’t present such a false choice. It’s yet another great myth of the Left.
.
Everyone talks about the cost, but no one seems to be bothering to ask themselves about the QUALITY of the health care in this country, which is why people come here to get taken care of. In fact, it’s a reason a lot of people immigrate here.
.
If you subtract the illegals, young people who feel they are healthy and don’t want to pay yet and people on Medicaid and programs like CHIP, there are approximately 8 million people who are struggling to pay for health care,. In a nation of 300 million!
.
It may make sense to blow up the current system that works for over 98 percent of the population, but many people who are using logic and reason would rather just refine it to help those struggling 2 percent and not screw everyone else.
I know plenty of Canadians and the only time they complain about health care up there if they’re in a hurry, but true emergencies are handled in a timely manner.
There is no “quality” difference ultimately.
It’s not a false choice or a myth.
It’s simple practicality.
People don’t immigrate to america for overpriced health care, they come here because their home countries are a pitiful shambles of drug wars and poverty (Mexico and Cuba for example).
Get some real facts instead of Republican rhetoric J…
it’s a reason a lot of people immigrate here.
.
You’re going to need to find something to back that up, because I certainly don’t recall hearing/reading this before.
.
Considering that insurance companies in this country are sending people to Mexico and southeast Asia for medical procedures, it sounds like immigrating here is getting pointless, if it’s ‘a lot of the reason’ people come here.
.
would rather just refine it to help those struggling 2 percent and not screw everyone else.
.
Only, the Republicans have no interest in refining anything. They’re very happy with the screw job that everybody is getting.
I don’t know of any studies that would be able to estimate how many (if any) people come here in large part because of health issues. On the other hand, I teach ESL kids and could give lots of anecdotal tales of how terrible the health care situation is in at least some parts of central and south America. There may be people being sent to Mexico for medical procedures but that has little bearing on whether or not a poor Mexican has real access to good health care.
.
But that’s what makes a lot of these comparisons between countries so hard to accurately assess. For example, it is often trumpeted that the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than other countries but some or all of that could be due to how that rate is reported–what is considered a premature birth that subsequently dies (and thus adds to the IMR) in one country might just be reported as a stillbirth (and thus not part of the IMR) in another.
.
Certainly though, those who think that the USA is such a bad place must be mighty puzzled by the fact that so many risk life and limb, (or, at the very least, are willing to leave all they have known) to get here.
Certainly though, those who think that the USA is such a bad place must be mighty puzzled by the fact that so many risk life and limb, (or, at the very least, are willing to leave all they have known) to get here.
.
Well, how many countries have a 2000 mile long fairly porous border with another, much poorer nation?
.
I mean, you don’t see people flooding the Canadian border in either direction. 🙂
Does anyone know how many non-South American’s would immigrate to the USA if they could? (one valid argument against our current crappy immigration policy is that it penalizes non-Latino immigrants-they pretty much are being controlled in their numbers to make up for the fact that we can’t or won’t control the influx from the south. I just wonder how many people we would get if we basically flung open the doors and said “C’mon down!”.
.
At any rate, while thee has definitely been a slowdown in Latino immigration to my neck of the woods, I haven’t seen too many in a hurry to go back.Must be something here they like, even in a terrible economy. Some of the stories I’ve heard are blood curdling (more from the central american kids than the ones from mexico.) Mexico has some excellent private hospitals, which makes me wonder–if they have universal health care how do private hospitals stay in business? What do they offer that can beat free?
.
Bill Mulligan,
“And he’s done something I never thought possible–almost make me feel bad for Rahm Emanuel, a slimy Chicago pol but someone who probably deserves a better fate than to forever be known as “the guy who pokes you in the shower”)
.
Whereas I have lately felt bad for Emanuel because he seems to be the only one in the Obama Administration or in Congressional leadership who isn’t politically tone deaf and who is trying to accomplish things the public actually supports. So far, it appears he’s losing.
Rene,
“I don’t particularly care about Tiger Woods’s love life. But I find it ridiculous how he is trying to present himself as a helpless guy with an addiction.
We should just accept that some people just aren’t cut for marriage.”
.
Exactly. And like I said earlier, he can’t invite people into his home, tell “People” magazine how happy he is to be married and a dad and present himself in a carefully packaged way and then expect people to back off when things don’t go your way and your carefully crafted image blows up in your face.
.
Well, you can, but I don’t have to all respect that expectation.
.
And what really burns me up is when someone like John Salley says, “What do you expect? He’s a man!” Screw you, you ignorant, classless, overrated ex-jock! Don’t lump me in or anyone else for that matter with people for whom vows, commitment and loyalty and respect are just words. Don’t dare do that.
Totally. People who use the “boys will be boys” excuse should be shot.
Jerry,
“Shifting it to a different topic: These guys are the equivalent of the people telling the Wright Brothers that since the guys in the next state over couldn’t build a working flying machine…”
.
Whereas I see Obama and his minions to be like another Chicagoan Jerry Krause of the Bulls, who despite winning three straight titles and six of eight, was concerned they might slip a notch or two because they were getting older and he, Jerry Krause, would keep the championships rolling with a new coach and new players and blew his still championship-caliber squad up, despite the fact he had Phil Jackson, arguably the best basketball coach ever and Michael Jordan, arguably the best basketball player of all time; Scottie Pipen, named one of the 50 Greatest Players Ever; Toni Kukoc, the Best Sixth Man; and Steve Kerr, one of the top 3-point shooters.
.
None of that mattered, because he, Jerry Krause, decided he was so brilliant he was going to put together a team that was even BETTER.
.
The Bulls haven’t sniffed an NBA Championship since, haven’t even won a playoff series – and Krause’s arrogance seems to be matched by the Chicagoan currently in the White House.
.
OF course, at least he on;y wants to mess with health care, he doesn’t want to reduce or eliminate our advantage in nuclear weapons, cheap energy, industry and competitively low tax rates, at least – oh, wait…
.
Jerome: “nice language, especially considering a whopping 85 % of the people in this country are happy with their healthcare, a super-huge majority of 76 % are happy with the system in general and an overwhelming majority don’t want Obamacare.”
.
You’re gonna have to start sourcing some of your % or else I can’t take them as completely credible. I don’t think you’re making up the numbers, it’s just that I want to know which poll it is that your sourcing because, as has been noted before, the numbers be put out by Obama critics are less than the complete story about the polls. There are a number of polls that show that people are against the Obama healthcare reforms until either (A) they’re actually shown what is and isn’t in it or (B) they’re asked if they would support it if it contained a strong public option. In both cases the numbers flip for Obama’s healthcare proposals.
.
”
OF course, at least he on;y wants to mess with health care, he doesn’t want to reduce or eliminate our advantage in nuclear weapons, cheap energy, industry and competitively low tax rates, at least – oh, wait…”
.
Yeah, because pushing for military research for better and smarter weapons, pushing new and alternative fuel sources to decrease the demand on the supply of fossil fuels and passing tax cuts in his first year in office don’t count I guess.
.
Oh, and on that polls thing… There are also a number of polls out there showing that “Obamacare” is wanted by a majority of the population. So it’s pretty much just a matter of who you want to believe I suppose.
But is how can we be for or against a bill that doesn’t exist in its finished form yet? They are still arguing about language regarding abortion–if you have strong feeling on either side how can you support the bill when you don’t know how it will affect that issue, to name just one.
PAD,
“I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority didn’t want school integration, or Social Security, or Medicare, and I bet if you did a poll back in 1776, they didn’t want to go to war with England either.”
.
With all due respect, your strong suspicions are not backed up by anything resembling fact and I think that would be a minimum requirement when you are saying what you propose and support is the right thing to do, that something so strongly opposed is done so by the great unwashed, uneducated masses and that somehow you are on the right side of history.
.
And the Civil Rights Act, Social Security and Medicare – along with things like the Americans With Disabilities Act were all strongly supported in the end by BOTH PARTIES. We have never had something this broad and sweeping be rammed through by a single party. Ever. EVER!
.
And part of the reason for that, part of the reason for that, is that there is no grand push for it – Americans are much more concerned about the economy and national security right now – AND no firm rationale for it. At first, it was so everyone would be covered. Then, it was discovered that the plan would still leave millions uninsured. So the rationale given was that it would save costs, reduce the deficit and make it easier to reform other entitlements. Except the simple truth that it would increase costs started smacking them in the face and so now it’s about insurance reform – even though Obama had them on board as well as the pharmaceutical companies and it was the surprisingly strong opposition to it by the American people that stopped it dead in it’d tracks. So, now he’s demonizing the entities he took under his wing and giving explanations for what he’s doing that defy logic and sense and are opposed by a majority of the American people. Is it any wonder almost nobody takes this guy seriously?
Jerry Chandler,
“Oh, and on that polls thing… There are also a number of polls out there showing that “Obamacare” is wanted by a majority of the population. So it’s pretty much just a matter of who you want to believe I suppose.”
.
Not really. It’s the same as when people answer that all politicians are corrupt but they support their guy. In this case, it’s the converse that’s true. Because of the “crisis” presented by the propaganda machines at CBS, ABC, CBS, CNN – I’d say MSNBC too, but only about seven people in America still watch it so who cares what they do when no one takes them seriously? – then they say, yes, we want something to do be done so these “sympathethicindividuals can be helped.
But when 85% of Americans look at the care, they’re getting they’re pretty happy with it and know it’s important to them and their loved ones and don’t want anyone to screw with it.
I’d say MSNBC too, but only about seven people in America still watch it so who cares what they do when no one takes them seriously?
.
I’d say you stop with your own hyperbolic bûllšhìŧ start backing your stuff up with facts, because you’re outright saying I’m wrong, PAD is wrong, and Jerry is wrong… because you say so. Not because you’ve presented any actual evidence, which you continually fail to produce when asked.
.
For the record:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news
.
Considering the figures presented there – and pay real attention to both full day and prime time, considering MSNBC’s main programming is prime time – I guess CNN no longer belongs in the discussion either if you’re so willing to dismiss MSNBC… which, let’s face it, you’re only doing out of bias.
.
Speaking of bias, you never addressed all the bias pointed out regarding Fox News in a previous thread. I wonder why that is? And then I ask myself, once again, why I just haven’t shrouded you already.
.
But, Craig (with a ‘C’)… Bill O’Reilly says that MSNBC is the lowest rated prime time in cable news and that nobody is watching them anymore so it just must be true. I mean, it’s just not possible that a Fox News host would lie about something.
Jerry Chandler,
“Yeah, because pushing for military research for better and smarter weapons, pushing new and alternative fuel sources to decrease the demand on the supply of fossil fuels and passing tax cuts in his first year in office don’t count I guess.”
.
Not as much as: his overall appearance of weakness, obsession with reducing our nuclear stockpile, his indecision on Afghanistan, his unwillingness to acknowledge success in Iraq and be a true statesman and say that Bush may have had something to do with that, his push for Cap and Trade and unwillingness to drill for cheap oil here and the taxes he has proposed. Not as much as all that, they don’t.
Bill,
“Does anyone know how many non-South American’s would immigrate to the USA if they could? (one valid argument against our current crappy immigration policy is that it penalizes non-Latino immigrants-they pretty much are being controlled in their numbers to make up for the fact that we can’t or won’t control the influx from the south. I just wonder how many people we would get if we basically flung open the doors and said “C’mon down!”
.
Don’t have exact numbers, but it would be quite a lot. I think a lot of the politics involved deprives us of some real opportunities.
.
For example, there have been plenty of Iraqi refugees that wanted to immigrate here. The problem with absorbing them is complex, however. On the one hand, who better to appreciate what America has to offer than people, especially women, hat we have freed from oppression. The problem is if we take the brightest of the bright and the best of the best, we will be accused of weakening their homeland. And if we take too many pro-democracy people, we will leave t i the hands of people who want to go back to an oppressive system that they were at least used to and that worked for them. Of course, if we don’t take most of those refugees in – and so far we haven’t – then there is a good chance they will be severely disappointed – and some may develop a severe hatred of the U.S. and disgust for the promises of democracy if they feel they were lied to, abandoned or rejected.
Craig,
“I’d say you stop with your own hyperbolic bûllšhìŧ”
.
My. Testy, aren’t we?
.
“start backing your stuff up with facts”
.
When do you do this exactly? Seriously. In one of your most recent posts you feel free to say stuff like:
.
“He could be, but he’s a politician.” Which still doesn’t explain why he just wouldn’t get the best care in his own country, rather than come to use our (“overpriced”, in your words)health care, since I keep hearing over and over from “liberals like yourself – even at comic award shows in Toronto, – how much better their health care system is. And it’s always from the liberal Americans, never the Canadians who actually have to live with it.
.
“But hey, let’s continue to refuse to cover medicines and procedures on a whim.”
.
You talk about facts, yet this is just a hyperbolic talking point, since there is no way to prove or disprove this, since the definition of a “whim” is pretty amorphous.
.
But it doesn’t make much sense if you take into account the overwhelming majority of Americans are happy with their health care.
.
“Let’s drop coverage altogether on bûllšhìŧ excuses.”
What to you might be “bûllšhìŧ excuses” might actually be the result of several facors and legitimate reasoning. But as usual, you never seem to feel the side in opposition to you to have a legitimate argument. You are happier making hyperbolic, vitriolic attacks with amorphous reasoning at best.
.
“Let’s outright refuse coverage to a child because of even more bûllšhìŧ excuses.”
.
Same deal as above. And where in this little rant of yours do you explain how Obamacare is actually, you know, solve all these problems exactly. Where is YOUR detailed explanation, versus, “it’s got to be better than what we have now”?
.
“In other words, our health care is just fûçkìņg great, right?Wrong.”
.
Typical. You ask a question and then provide the answer. Because of course, in your mind, you MUST be correct, polls and logic and intensity of disapproval of what’s going on. It’s like in “Punisher 2099” where a sociopath is killing his family and he says it’s because “No family is ever truly happy” and his sister-in-law says “But we are happy! We are!” and he says it can’t last and he’s doing her a favor in the long run and he just KNOWS this – and proceeds to blow her away.
.
“because you’re outright saying I’m wrong, PAD is wrong, and Jerry is wrong… because you say so.”
.
“Well. I definitely disagree with you and I do feel the facts and logic are on my side.”
.
“Not because you’ve presented any actual evidence, which you continually fail to produce when asked.”
.
I will try to do better in that regard. But really, ask yourself a question, if this bill was so great, do you really think it would be so hard for Republicans who have been more than willing to buck their party wouldn’t do so again for something they felt was for the greater good? Do you really think it would be necessary to basically bribe Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson? Or sway “undecideds” with dubious methods – like Rep. Jim Matheson suggesting he might switch his vote after his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship and Alan Mollohan deciding he might be open to it and then – poof! – the FBI announces it is dropping an invesyigation that has been swirling around the Congressman.
.
I guarantee you in this environment Charlie Rangel wishes he had declared himself “undecided” as well.
.
“Considering the figures presented there – and pay real attention to both full day and prime time, considering MSNBC’s main programming is prime time – I guess CNN no longer belongs in the discussion either if you’re so willing to dismiss MSNBC… which, let’s face it, you’re only doing out of bias.”
.
I do loathe many of the personalities at MSNBC. That said, if they actually had anything resembling a real viewership, I would give them credit for doing something right. But they don’t so I can’t.
.
CNN is losing influence and viewership also and more than a little credibility, but at least it still has the ingredients of a legitimate news organization. MSNBC doesn’t.
.
As for bias, how many times have others brought up a dissenting point of view here and been greeted with invective against them for being a “Fox News watcher”. The thinking being that if someone holds a conservative point of view, they must be a “Fox News zombie” or somesuch nonsense.
.
As for facts, I have used them many times, moreso than you, I would estimate. But it seems that people such as yourself, when confronted with facthat don’t reinforce what uyou belive to be true, not only dismiss the facts but attack the credibility of the entity that they were gleaned from. Fox News is just the lates example. Someone I’ve known for a long time was going on about how people actually support health care. I provided him with the latest Rasmussen Numbers that were available at that time and he started going on about how they were “bought and paid for”. he never bothered to tell me who bought and paid for them, which would seem to be pretty important when making an accusation like that. But it’s more an indication of refusing to believe anything one believes to be true could possibly be false – and I have found that to be increasingly true when I attempt to have intelligent conversations with People On The Left.
.
“Speaking of bias, you never addressed all the bias pointed out regarding Fox News in a previous thread. I wonder why that is?”
.
Because we’ve moved on to other threads? Because nothing I say will even resonate with Fox-haters anyway? Because I’ve been busy with very important personal issues and professional projects the past three weeks and can’t spend my entire day here?
.
“And then I ask myself, once again, why I just haven’t shrouded you already.”
.
And I ask myself, once again, why you always seem so angry at those who dare to disagree with you.
“…Republicans who have been more than willing to buck their party…”
.
Now THAT’S a funny joke. You were joking, weren’t you?
.
JUST SAY NO!
“like Rep. Jim Matheson suggesting he might switch his vote after his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship”
.
Source it. Source the actual quote where he says that. I’ve heard that allegation a lot on Fox News and Conservative talk radio, but no one has actually present the first shred of evidence. And others believe quite the contrary actually.
.
From The Salt Lake Tribune:
.
“[Sen. Orrin] Hatch said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination.
.
“I can assure you [of] that,” Hatch said. “I don’t think Jim would change because of it anyway.”
.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, questioned the timing of the nomination, coming as the White House makes an earnest press for action on health care, but Chaffetz says he still finds it hard to believe Obama was trying to buy Matheson’s vote.
.
“It should be crystal clear that Scott Matheson is eminently qualified, and I applaud the president for appointing him,” Chaffetz said. “The timing, I can see why it raises eyebrows. [But] I find it hard to believe. I see no evidence” of vote buying.”
.
.
“As for bias, how many times have others brought up a dissenting point of view here and been greeted with invective against them for being a “Fox News watcher”. The thinking being that if someone holds a conservative point of view, they must be a “Fox News zombie” or somesuch nonsense.”
.
Actually there was an easier response to that than my below response. What is it?
.
Bill Mulligan.
.
While Bill is a bit softer on some issues than he might have been four years ago, he’s certainly no liberal lefty. Even before he and I became a bit more friendly and started trading emails about bad horror films I never hit him with a Fox News remark and I only think I’ve ever seen that done to him here once or twice before by some of the same twits who called me things like a “Bush apologist” at one time or another.
.
There have been other posters here as well who have presented conservative ideas and a dissenting POV who haven’t gotten that response as well. Probably because they articulated a point of view without repeating word for word the talk radio and Fox News talking point of the week.
.
I brought up Fox News around your comments a while back because you were defending Hannity and Beck in ways that made it seem that you were watching them regularly, you referenced word for word the talking point “a newfound vulnerability to terrorism” that was the buzz phrase for Fox News for about two weeks running, you made an entire post that read word for word like Fox News talking points (which, to be fair to people who read it, it was since you copied and pasted an entire Ðìçk Morris article and forgot to attribute it to him in the post) and you kept repeating the on air claim that Hannity and O’Reilly like to make that Fox News ratings are getting a lot bigger and that more Democrats and independents are tuning in in huge numbers than ever before despite the real world date showing a marginal increase in viewers over the last year. You also repeated debunked stories about the teleprompter and Obama not using certain words long after everyone but Fox News and conservative talk radio had corrected their reporting and debunked the initial false reports.
.
So, yeah, when you articulate a POV, even one that mirrors the Fox News POV, in a manner that looks like you have actually thought it over and not just repeated it from the broadcast you just watched the “Fox News” tag doesn’t come up. Some posters here did the word for word regurgitate thing a lot and, whether it was from time constraints or tiredness, a lot of your posts in the last few months did the same thing.
.
Kinda why I reacted the way I did. We don’t see eye to eye on a lot of political matters, but some of your past posts looked well thought out and explained you POV fairly well even if I disagreed with your POV. This recent batch, and again it may just be the lack of time you have right now with everything you mentioned a few days ago, looked a lot more “word for word talking point” and a lot less thought out POV.
.
You stated that you’re not watching Fox News that much anymore. Fine. I don’t bring it up unless it’s actually in your posts. You might want to think about something though. If you’re not watching Fox News lately, then you might want to stop being their gung-ho defender. If you’re not watching the actual shows, you really gave no more ability to defend them than some here who refuse to watch them at all have in making detail specific condemnations about specific shows or quotes. That should have become obvious when you defended Beck against my complaints about some things he said by stating that Beck doesn’t talk about things like that and I then presented a slew of Beck quotes where he had been saying exactly what I said he was saying.
.
I watch Fox News programing and I listen to Fox News on my XM quite a bit. I make a point of getting about three of any week’s days worth of news from Fox just so I can be informed on what’s being said out there. If you’re not watching them at least that much then you really defend them very well.
.
“As for bias, how many times have others brought up a dissenting point of view here and been greeted with invective against them for being a “Fox News watcher”. The thinking being that if someone holds a conservative point of view, they must be a “Fox News zombie” or somesuch nonsense.
“
.
Well, usually only when the person is using word for word the talking points that Fox News has been hyping all week, reference a long debunked story that is still being played up on Fox News or directly references Fox News hosts by name.
.
“CNN is losing influence and viewership also and more than a little credibility, but at least it still has the ingredients of a legitimate news organization. MSNBC doesn’t.”
.
Well, if it helps, MSNBC pretty much sucks these days too. However they don’t have the institutionalized habit of just plain making stuff up on their shows that a lot of Fox News personalities do. They’re biased as hëll, but they have nothing on Fox News in the Porky Pies Department.
.
“But it seems that people such as yourself, when confronted with facthat don’t reinforce what uyou belive to be true, not only dismiss the facts but attack the credibility of the entity that they were gleaned from. Fox News is just the lates example.”
.
Well, you sort of did that above.
.
“Not really. It’s the same as when people answer that all politicians are corrupt but they support their guy. In this case, it’s the converse that’s true. Because of the “crisis” presented by the propaganda machines at CBS, ABC, CBS, CNN – I’d say MSNBC too, but only about seven people in America still watch it so who cares what they do when no one takes them seriously?”
.
You don’t like the facts so the facts must be from a propaganda machine and are therefore to be dismissed. The facts are that the polling data shows that more people want the healthcare reform if they actually know what is and isn’t in it, once they’ve had stuff like the conservative talking point “Death Panel” bûllšhìŧ dispelled, and that some people switch from ‘against’ to ‘for’ if the public option is added into the bill again. The facts are that a number of the people throwing around poll numbers showing that people don’t want the thing that are 100% accurate, but they’re not saying that the numbers change based on the above factors.
.
The other thing you’re throwing around is, if your quoting Rasmussen, not correct. 76% of those with insurance are satisfied with it, not 84%. There is a tiny problem with that number though.
.
By the data that the insurance companies have on their own customers, nothing like 76% or 84% of their customers have ever had to use their insurance for anything more serious than a surgery. Interestingly, it’s the people that have actually had to deal with a major health crisis that end up discovering what a con job a lot of health insurance can be and that the death panel boogeyman really does exist in the current system as a branch of the insurance companies.
.
But, more importantly than that, it’s also a totally meaningless poll figure.
.
What does that actually mean? They’re satisfied and they think their insurance is good. Okay, but what does that actually say insofar as the “for or against” argument? Not much. I like my house. I’m pretty satisfied with it. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t welcome the opportunity to get a better one down the road. I like my house. I’m pretty satisfied with it. Doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t mind getting a better car if the option popped up.
.
Just saying that someone is happy with something that they have doesn’t mean that they don’t want to see improvements in it or that they don’t want to see better options open up down the road.
.
As for a pollsters credibility…
.
“I provided him with the latest Rasmussen Numbers that were available at that time and he started going on about how they were “bought and paid for”. he never bothered to tell me who bought and paid for them, which would seem to be pretty important when making an accusation like that.”
.
Maybe he was just aware of the fact that “Scott Rasmussen Inc” was a paid consultant for both the Republican National Committee and George W Bush. Might not mean anything, but then it might. Their polls have been fairly accurate in some predictions, but it does raise questions. It’s a bit like the reasons I don’t take much seriously from Frank Luntz or Zogby these days either. Well, that and Zogby loading the questions to get the answers he wants and then not reporting the actual wording of the question.
.
“not only dismiss the facts but attack the credibility of the entity that they were gleaned from. Fox News is just the lates example.”
.
It’s not attacking Fox News to point out that they have very little credibility. That’s just stating a fact. This is after all the same “news” channel that has hosts and news stories that have:
.
1) Falsely and repeatedly stated that Obama never used the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” in his responses to the underwear bomber.
.
2) Falsely and repeatedly stated that Obama never used the word “war” in the State of the Union.
.
3) Played on their shows doctored footage of the anti-Obama rallies that they promoted on their shows to falsely show more people there than really showed up while calling the officials, including law enforcement officials, who cited the real numbers liars. And not just showed the wrong reel, but showed edited footage that switched from the rally to the crowd from a prior event several times.
.
4) Been caught on camera being told that an anti-Obama rally they promoted for weeks before hand had less than 5000 people attending and then moments later announcing on air that the estimates placed the crowd at two or three times the expected 5000 attendees.
.
5) Have repeatedly claimed, in order to show how much Obama is out of touch with the pulse of America VS George W. Bush, that W. never played golf while this country was at war.
.
6) Just today used the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force’s interim report on coastal and marine planning to claim that Obama is going to ban sport fishing despite the ever so minor fact that there’s nothing of the kind in the bill.
.
7) Repeatedly declared that death panels were outlined the Democrat health bills despite the fact that there was no such language and half of the time the parts of the bill they claimed contained it didn’t even refer to treatment matters.
.
8) Cropped John Stewart’s statements and reported that he said the exact opposite of what he actually said.
.
9) Falsely claimed that Obama created a policy that said that the military had to consult lawyers before launching attacks on terrorists. (First, the policy isn’t that broad and, second, the thing has been around since at least 2003. Fox News should know that since they actually reported on it back then.)
.
10) First reported and then, long after it was debunked, continued to repeat as fact the falsehood that Obama used a teleprompter to talk to sixth graders.
.
11) Completely distorted (to the point of making up) the criticisms of newly hired Fox News contributor Sarah Palin found in the book “Game Change” and then attacked and slandered the writers. Of course, the same book’s criticisms of Obama and Clinton were reported by the same hosts as the unvarnished truth.
.
12)Reports on people while substituting their names for cutesy nicknames like “Dr. Tiller” while adding in made up facts about what their work entails.
.
13) Covered for James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles when their claims about the ACORN video started to unravel and actually lied on their behalf about the facts coming out.
.
I could go on for about 100 or more points where flat out, known falsehoods were stated by Fox News hosts as facts if I wanted to. I won’t, but I’ll add this little bit about how Fox News has no credibility.
.
CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS news do not let their active roster of currant hosts act as hosts or keynote speakers for partisan events. You did not see news anchors and hosts from those channels speaking at anti-Bush, anti-GOP or anti-war rallies and functions back when Bush was in office. And when there is an event that is neutral enough that they can speak at it they do not do the primary reporting on the event if something partisan gets kicked off at that event.
.
Fox “News” lets its hosts act as keynote speakers at Tea Parties, the CPAC conventions, anti-Obama rallies and pro-Republican events and then it lets them report on those same event themselves. Real news organizations that are discussing the politics of the day don’t do that kind of thing. But then, to quote Roger Ailes defending Beck’s stupidity, Fox News isn’t in the “news” business, it’s in the “ratings” business.
Well, if it helps, MSNBC pretty much sucks these days too.
.
MSNBC, the cable channel, does not claim to be a ‘fair and balanced’ news station, as Fox News does.
.
Their motto: ‘The place for politics’. That’s all they claim to be, and that’s all they are.
.
(It’s pointless to consider MSNBC.com as relevant to the discussion, because, like so many other news organizations, a lot of their articles is pulled from the AP, etc)
.
No, sorry, but you can say that all day long and it does not change the fact that MSNBC bills itself as MSNBC News and was just a short while ago billing itself as the fastest growing news channel.
.
MSNBC is also suffering from the same problem that Fox suffers from in that the programing that is supposed to be just news is even injecting opinion into its delivery and anchor comments.
.
Look, when a guy like Craig Crawford leaves you and discusses how he “could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there’s no oxygen” then you just might have a bias problem going on.
Hmm. Crawford expanded on his explanation to Mediaite’s Steve Krakauer: “I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.”
.
Krakauer added his two cents as well: “The decision by a Countdown regular to leave MSNBC because of his the way he perceives the network is a notable one. Although Crawford isn’t purely left-wing, he is a commentator that represents the left perspective. His exit, and his reasoning, show some level of discontent among those who may be politically on the same team at MSNBC.
.
Again, when someone like that exits for reasons of left wing bias… You just might have a problem.
No, sorry, but you can say that all day long and it does not change the fact that MSNBC bills itself as MSNBC News and was just a short while ago billing itself as the fastest growing news channel.
.
I’m looking at Wikipedia, and they do list
“America’s Fastest Growing News Channel” as one of the slogans. So, you’re right, they did bill themselves as that at one point. To use it as desperate as Fox’s ‘fair and balanced’ slogan; MSNBC has always had *even less* actual news programming than Fox News, whether it’s biased or otherwise.
.
And I’m honest when I say I don’t recall seeing that slogan used on the channel. But then, I don’t watch MSNBC that often, contrary to what I’m sure some people assume. No, I don’t religiously watch Olbermann, even though I do like his ‘shtick’, I really don’t like Chris Matthews, and I think Maddow is a poor Olbermann-wannabe.
.
I’ve never seen the channel referred to as ‘MSNBC News’. Just MSNBC.
.
Yeah, I used to laugh when MSNBC promoted itself as a news channel when they had barely any news during the day, only two prime time shows that repeated for hours on end and only occasionally had a few hours of news programming on the weekends that broke up their nonstop airing of trash documentaries.
.
I can barely take them seriously as a news channel now and they probably have more news programing now than when they used that slogan.
Alan Coil
“Now THAT’S a funny joke. You were joking, weren’t you?
.
JUST SAY NO!”
.
I was talking about before this divisive Administration took power. There were people bucking Bush and Republican leadership long before The Anointed One took power. heck, Bush and Trent Lott and McCain were in support of true bipartisan immigration reform not that long ago. McCain was part of the Gang of Twelve who compromised to get nominees through. And both McCain and Lindsey Graham have been excorciated by Glenn beck for being too “progressive”.
.
More importantly,seeing as how much of what Washington dreams up – but especially this Administration – that is bad for the country in the long term sometimes “No!” is the only logical, justifiable and honorable answer.
Except for Olbermann, who gets most of his fact from the DailyKos.
.
No. I have my issues with Olbermann, but he gets his news from the AP and other sources just the same as everyone else there. Sometimes he even gets his facts straight from the source.
.
Now, what he chooses to do with those facts once he has them in his grasp…
“Source it. Source the actual quote where he says that. I’ve heard that allegation a lot on Fox News and Conservative talk radio, but no one has actually present the first shred of evidence. And others believe quite the contrary actually.
.
From The Salt Lake Tribune:
.
“[Sen. Orrin] Hatch said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination.
.
“I can assure you [of] that,” Hatch said. “I don’t think Jim would change because of it anyway.”
.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, questioned the timing of the nomination, coming as the White House makes an earnest press for action on health care, but Chaffetz says he still finds it hard to believe Obama was trying to buy Matheson’s vote.
.
“It should be crystal clear that Scott Matheson is eminently qualified, and I applaud the president for appointing him,” Chaffetz said. “The timing, I can see why it raises eyebrows. [But] I find it hard to believe. I see no evidence” of vote buying.””
.
Well, it was first brought to my attention
by a column by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, who said, “Those who support the President can expect favors. No sooner had Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship.”
.
Then “The Weekly Standard” and RedState.Com both pretty much said that Matheson was qualified but the timing stinks to high heaven. There is a quote in the “Standard in which Matheson’s press secretary makes a point of saying he has not made up his mind on health care. It may not be him saying “I’m undecided”, but it’s awfully close – and the timing of all this absolutely reeks.
.
The timing sucks, but everything I’ve read about the guy says that he was being looked at for the position anyhow and was highly qualified for the job. And, lets be honest here a minute, the spin from the Right if he was turned down for a lesser candidate would be that the Evil Obama is punishing Jim Matheson by playing the dirty Chicago political game of attacking his family.
.
Some times bad timing is just bad timing. Sen. Hatch isn’t exactly a healthcare supporter himself and has been demonizing reconciliation, so what’s in it for him to lie or stand up for Obama in the matter?
.
By the way… Just judging off of the all hours posting and really late night posts… Who has the worse sleeping habits here, you or me?
“By the way… Just judging off of the all hours posting and really late night posts… Who has the worse sleeping habits here, you or me?”
.
Good question! Actually, with my projects and my determination to stay up wje I’m “in a groove”, people thinking nothing of calling me at 4AM to deal with certain things and my usual, natural “night owl” tendencies as a writer, I’d say I MIGHT edge you out! BTW, did “Wolverine” get fried by a Sentinel (in your photo) or what?
.
Nah, I just got tired of looking at my face all the time on blogs and went back to using Ultraman.
Has anyone ever actually seen Ultraman and Jerry in the same room? Huh? Anyone?
.
Be a dámņëd big room.
word.
“The timing sucks, but everything I’ve read about the guy says that he was being looked at for the position anyhow and was highly qualified for the job. And, lets be honest here a minute, the spin from the Right if he was turned down for a lesser candidate would be that the Evil Obama is punishing Jim Matheson by playing the dirty Chicago political game of attacking his family.
.
Some times bad timing is just bad timing. Sen. Hatch isn’t exactly a healthcare supporter himself and has been demonizing reconciliation, so what’s in it for him to lie or stand up for Obama in the matter?”
.
I would be inclined to believe the “sometimes bad timing is just bad timing” bit a little more if it weren’t for the fact that I live here in PA and Arlen Specter’s primary opponent, Joe Sestak, has flat-out said that he was ofered a lucrative position – likely Secretary of the Navy – if he would drop out of the primary. He was pretty dámņ furious because it was obvious to him that Obama was offering it to “muzzle” him.
.
Given that, plus the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid and the sellout to the unions, tos in the stated sentiment by Gibbs that Obama will do “whatever he has to” (wink, wink) to pass what he is seemingly obsessed with passing, and, well, forgive me if i think maybe hatch doesn’t want to cast aspersions on someone from his state that he knows well and that “bad timing” was actually the plan from the White House.
.
“I would be inclined to believe the “sometimes bad timing is just bad timing” bit a little more if it weren’t for the fact that I live here in PA and Arlen Specter’s primary opponent, Joe Sestak, has flat-out said that he was ofered a lucrative position – likely Secretary of the Navy – if he would drop out of the primary. He was pretty dámņ furious because it was obvious to him that Obama was offering it to “muzzle” him.”
.
Granted I’m at a disadvantage general info-wise here and I’ve only read a little about this here and there when it got some play a bit ago, but I missed Sestak claiming he was upset and thought they were trying to muzzle him. And this doesn’t even make sense as an “Obama will do “whatever he has to” (wink, wink) to pass what he is seemingly obsessed with passing” story since Joe Sestak is maybe even more supportive of healthcare reform than Specter. Hëll, he was for the public option before Specter and, based on the timing of Specter’s support of it, he may even be the cause of Specter’s support of it.
.
Looking at what I’ve seen of the two of them, if I were Obama I would want Sestak in that seat more than Specter because he seems to be a more reliable vote for the thing and all the bells and whistles involved in it. I freely admit that I could be wrong here, but the digging I’ve done here and there today only reinforces what I thought before. Feel free to throw me a link or two if you’ve got ’em.
Jerry Chandler,
“5) Have repeatedly claimed, in order to show how much Obama is out of touch with the pulse of America VS George W. Bush, that W. never played golf while this country was at war.”
.
Do you have facts to back this one up, because all I remember seeing is that Hanity and others were criticizing Obama for playing MORE golf in one year than Bush did during an entire term, and that Michael Moore and others criticized Bush but there was no criticism of Obama by anyone BUT Fox.
The “repeatedly claimed” part is mostly just Hannity. Here’s one of them.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFczaatFEVI
.
It was also been shown that Bush was still golfing some months after the incident that he cited as the cause for his giving up golf while in office from that day onward.
“The “repeatedly claimed” part is mostly just Hannity. Here’s one of them.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFczaatFEVI
.
It was also been shown that Bush was still golfing some months after the incident that he cited as the cause for his giving up golf while in office from that day onward.”
But again, can you name one other part of the MSM besides Fox that has even put Obama’s golf playing in a negative light, the way they did Bush?
.
Honestly, I don’t remember a lot of the MSM giving Bush grief over the golfing thing specifically until he himself claimed in an interview that he gave it up and did so based on a set event on a set date and it was shown that he continued to golf for some time after that. I do remember some in the MSM giving Bush grief over the huge number of vacation days he took prior to 9/11 and in the early days of Iraq.
.
But, no, I didn’t see the press ripping Bush a new one about golf itself until after he claimed he gave it up on one date and there was news video of him still playing golf some months later. He did take some heat for the clip that was used in Fahrenheit 9/11 (and played in every add for the thing) where he made the less than bright “now watch this drive” remark, but that was more over the remark and the I-don’t-really-care-about-this attitude he seemed to give off with it.
.
Point in fact it would be difficult for the press to have reamed him too much on golf specifically because he did give it up in late 2003. Now, he did start mountain biking recreationally after that and even there I saw little attacking of the president for that.
.
You also have to factor in one significant difference between the two. Bush started the war in Iraq and partly campaigned as a war president. Obama didn’t. Likewise I remember seeing some MSM criticism (I know I saw it on Crossfire, but I’ll be dámņëd if I can find a link) of Clinton for golfing right after the launch of Bosnia since it looked bad.
Jerry Chandler,
“Granted I’m at a disadvantage general info-wise here and I’ve only read a little about this here and there when it got some play a bit ago, but I missed Sestak claiming he was upset and thought they were trying to muzzle him. And this doesn’t even make sense as an “Obama will do “whatever he has to” (wink, wink) to pass what he is seemingly obsessed with passing” story since Joe Sestak is maybe even more supportive of healthcare reform than Specter. Hëll, he was for the public option before Specter and, based on the timing of Specter’s support of it, he may even be the cause of Specter’s support of it.
.
Looking at what I’ve seen of the two of them, if I were Obama I would want Sestak in that seat more than Specter because he seems to be a more reliable vote for the thing and all the bells and whistles involved in it. I freely admit that I could be wrong here, but the digging I’ve done here and there today only reinforces what I thought before. Feel free to throw me a link or two if you’ve got ‘em.”
.
I’ll do my best. In the meantime, think about what you’re saying. Sestak would be a more reliable vote? Yeah, IF he gets in. And that’s a big if. Sestak still has a name recognition that pales compared to Specter’s and his campaign warchest is far behind as well. Very few give Sestak a chance at winning…
EXCEPT…for the very reason you mention – that Sestak can claim to be more pro-health-care than Specter and more of a Denocrat, period. His experience in health care and in the military don’t hurt him in PA. The more people hear him and get to know him, the more they like him. Combine that with the anti-incumbent fervor – which Obama adds to by saying Washington is “broken” – and while Specter’s name recognition and political machine would likely tough such a battle out, it would likely leave him severely drained of cash for the fight against his challenger Pat Toomey, who is still polling incredibly strong – which is why Specter switched parties in the first place.
.
Plus, it’s very simple. Obama is trying to pass health-care reform THIS YEAR. Sestak can’t be appointed by Obama to take Specter’s place and next year might be too late if health care goes down in flames this year.
.
So does he push for the guy who is trailing both his primary opponent and looks like he’ll get creamed in the general election, in the HOPES that he’ll be a more reliable vote in the future, or does he try to keep a reliable majority in the Senate by saying, “If you fight hard for this, we’ll help you out down the line and do our best to clear the primary for you?”.
.
Think about it.
.
I thought about that angle as well, but it still didn’t track right. Specter is (from what I’ve read) actually taking stronger stands on healthcare because of the challenge by Sestak. That tends to look like naked pandering and he’s already getting that tag and rep more than most with his party hopping and position reversals. I have a few family members up in PA who have said that, in their work and social circles, Specter is hurting himself with some of it. They may not represent the majority, but they’re all I’ve really got to go on insofar as knowing what the people up their honestly think until it really becomes a two man race for the election and we see much more solid numbers.
.
But, beyond that, I don’t know that anyone with a brain would really trust Specter much on some issues. He could win his primary and then go back to more Right leaning stands on some healthcare issues to try and get some middle ground voters. Obama would have to realize that risk here.
.
Beyond that, I’m not sure Specter’s one vote has the weight it would have had if the bills were still in the House and Senate. Looking at the game being played right now I think Obama is setting up an interesting play through reconciliation where he may be able to do this even if he didn’t have Specter’s vote.
Jerry Chandler,
“7) Repeatedly declared that death panels were outlined the Democrat health bills despite the fact that there was no such language and half of the time the parts of the bill they claimed contained it didn’t even refer to treatment matters.”
.
All right this one just irks me and I must respond to it. Of course there are no actual “death panels” in the bill. But by adding millions of patients to our health care system while not increasing the number of physicians and lowering the compensation for those who practice, causing many to retire or refuse to take the same number of patients and having the government exercise more authority in these matters, why do you think is going to happen?
.
It’s like those who required blacks to take a test in able to vote saying, “Nowhere in the law does it say we’re discriminating against n—–s. We’re just trying to make sure our voters are informed”.
.
It’s semantic bûllšhìŧ at best and deceit at worst.
Speaking of semantic bûllšhìŧ:
.
“All right this one just irks me and I must respond to it. Of course there are no actual “death panels” in the bill. But by adding millions of patients to our health care system while not increasing the number of physicians and lowering the compensation for those who practice, causing many to retire or refuse to take the same number of patients and having the government exercise more authority in these matters, why do you think is going to happen?”
.
This appears to be a case where some jërkøff says, “I got mine. Screw yours.”
.
Well, you’re presenting a theoretical outcome of what you think may happen, but a “what if” discussion about the future is hardly a “death panel” and it’s certainly not what was described as a death panel by Fox Hosts.
.
They spent almost two weeks on and off pounding away at a section that was a “death panel” provision that was supposedly there to encourage people to euthanize their loved ones. Hey, after all, the provision even stated that it was there for “end of life” services. Except… It wasn’t anything of the kind.
.
The provision was outlining what would and would not be covered insofar as discussions with a healthcare provider or expert in regards to living wills, preplanning hospice care and dealing with other matters that come up in the last few years that most people are alive. So the intention of the provision was to give people more information so that they could handle end-of-life issues when they’re ready and on their own terms. And it wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything since the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions or require a doctor to offer one. It was not in any way, shape or form a “death panel” or the Obama government promoting the euthanasia of grandma. The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors’ appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians.
.
How about this humdinger that Palin launched and that Fox News hosts ran with.
.
Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.
.
Fox ran with that one as well. Problem is, like a lot of Sarah’s statements, there was no there there. There is no provision and no indication of ever being a provision where things like that would happen.
.
It is semantic bûllšhìŧ at best and deceit at worst. It’s just that the bûllšhìŧŧërš and liars are the Fox News hosts who keep making up things that can be found nowhere in any bill and constantly distorted what was actually in the bill.
Sorry Jerry. You are completely wrong. It’s happening right now. Rep. Stupak, who is leading the pro-life Democrats, said in a published interview today that the language that permits abortion funding in the healthcare plan is staying in there. It will not come out. By way of an explanation, he said that the Democratic leadership told him that it’s staying in because if abortion isn’t funded, millions of babies will be born who otherwise would have been aborted. And the healthcare for those babies would cost money that the taxpayers can’t afford.
.
The language isn’t staying in because of a woman’s right to choose. Because liberals believe that the Constitution guarantees abortion rights.
.
It’s because the government needs those babies aborted to cut expenses.
.
The interview is here:
.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU0MDYxMWEyOTdiNGU1OGU3ZjYzYmE3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY=
.
“If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
.
How big a leap is it from wanting a baby aborted to save medical costs to deciding that Grandma’s treatments aren’t worth the cost to taxpayers? Or the little kid with cancer is on a two year waiting list for treatment because, frankly, there’s almost no chance she’ll survive anyway?
.
These aren’t far fetched situations. They happen all the time right now today in countries with socialized medicine. And if you don’t believe that they can happen here, you’ve taken up permanent residence on Fantasy Island.
.
For God’s sake, look at people who are on government funded medical programs now. Is it a dream come true for them? Do they get everything they want right away with no hassle? Or do they sometimes get denied care that their doctors want them to have because the government refuses to pay the tab? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t go on Medicaid except as a last resort. And I would get back on private insurance as soon as I could. I’d be grateful for the help, but I’d get off of government care as soon as I could.
.
My wife and I have a special needs child. When we were trying to get him diagnosed and treated for his condition, my wife spent hours on the telephone arguing with our insurance company over what was covered and what wasn’t. Finally, the hospital had to intervene for us with the insurance company and we won the argument. It really sucked, and we were both pretty frustrated and feeling very uncertain about what the future would bring for our son if he needed additional treatments. We were talking about it one day, and my comment to my wife was, “Well, I’m really happy that we don’t live somewhere with a government run health system. At least we could argue with our insurance company. If worse had come to worse, we could have sued them for not upholding their contract with us. But if the government was running healthcare and had decided that Christopher didn’t need the care that his doctor prescribed, that would have been the end of it. You can’t argue with the government.”
.
I hope that no one denies that we need healthcare reform in this country. We absolutely do. It’s too expensive and it needs to be more accessible. (Accessible defined as actual ability to get care. Not the right to carry a card in your pocket and wait on a 2 year waiting list if you have cancer.)
.
But man, you’ve got to be loony to want Obamacare. Think about the long term. It’s only a matter of time before the Republicans are back in charge. You want George Bush, Ðìçk Cheney, and Sarah Palin deciding what healthcare the government is going to cover for you? I don’t, and I’m a conservative. Those people need to stay as far away from my healthcare as I can get them. I don’t care what their ideology is. I don’t want them running healthcare. (On the other hand, it would solve a few things. Get the single payer system, put the Republicans in charge, and WHAM! Take out the abortion funding, and no more babies get aborted.)
.
Is that what you want?
.
No Tim, you’re completely wrong. The wording in the bill now is from the Capps amendment. The Capps amendment prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. However, it would still allow the public plan to cover all abortions, so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers and it does not restrict the private plans purchased with federal subsidies (“affordability credits” for low-income families and workers) to cover abortion.
.
Stupak’s language is being fought over because it’s overly broad and it could cause some women who now have abortion coverage to lose it, by forcing private insurance companies to drop abortion coverage from plans so that they can be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. The way Capps is worded it would prohibit most abortion to be funded by someone using the government run insurance as their primary insurance, but it would not effect the insurance carriers who currently cover abortions. Capps doesn’t change anything that’s already out there while Stupak does.
.
Also, when it comes to defining a death panel as described by Fox News, you are, again, completely wrong. No one is here is forming a panel that is denying medical treatment to anyone under Capps. No one is telling a doctor that they cannot do something that the doctor thinks he needs to do under Capps. And no one will be forcing doctors or patients to do something against their will under Capps.
.
Not a death panel. Play again when you have facts. Buuuuuut given your past tendencies to promote editorials and hit pieces on Democrats you don’t like as “news stories” and your past tendencies to look documented, sourced and linked facts that you don’t like square in the eye and declare that you see no facts… I ain’t holding my breath.
.
As for Stupak’s comments… I don’t doubt that he has “been hearing” things like that. I’ve heard that kind of thing before as well. However, it’s far from the majority that I ever hear it from. When Stupak is ready to give specifics I’ll take his “someone said” stuff a bit more seriously.
.
“My wife and I have a special needs child. When we were trying to get him diagnosed and treated for his condition, my wife spent hours on the telephone arguing with our insurance company over what was covered and what wasn’t. Finally, the hospital had to intervene for us with the insurance company and we won the argument. It really sucked, and we were both pretty frustrated and feeling very uncertain about what the future would bring for our son if he needed additional treatments. We were talking about it one day, and my comment to my wife was, “Well, I’m really happy that we don’t live somewhere with a government run health system. At least we could argue with our insurance company. If worse had come to worse, we could have sued them for not upholding their contract with us. But if the government was running healthcare and had decided that Christopher didn’t need the care that his doctor prescribed, that would have been the end of it. You can’t argue with the government.””
.
Well guess what. You’ll get to keep your insurance if you want to so you can still sue them provided the Republicans haven’t passed the language that they like that would make it harder for you to do that. Oh, and the situation you described? It’s one of the things that the reforms are meant to address. Have a nice weekend.
.
How big a leap is it from wanting a baby aborted to save medical costs to deciding that Grandma’s treatments aren’t worth the cost to taxpayers?
.
Let me guess: you also believe that gay marriage will lead us on the ‘slippery slope’ to people marrying several people, the dead, and their neighbors dog?
.
(Hint: your leap is a flying one off a cliff to nowhere.)
Alan Coil,
“This appears to be a case where some jërkøff says, “I got mine. Screw yours.””
.
Nonononono. That’s not it at all. It’s more like a case where reasoned, intelligent people are saying:
A.)Let’s put more of an emphasis on education – and REAL education, that will better people’s lives – not throwing more dollars at schools so they continue producing semi-illiterate children and so colleges can churn out graduates in majors like Tourism and Women’s Studies – let’s encourage our children to truly excel at math and reading and the sciences and produce MORE DOCTORS AND NURSES and the like BEFORE YOU DO THIS
B.) Let’s cut out the waste in Medicare BEFORE YOU DO THIS
C.) Let’s wait until our economy is growing again and producing more tax revenue and giving people a higher standars of living BEFORE YOU DO THIS
D.) let’s get the entitlement programs we already have – which are a huge part of the budget NOBODY wants to touch – under control and/or reformed BEFORE YOU BURDEN THE COUNTRY WITH ANOTHER ONE!
.
And what is the rationale behind this plan, anyway? To cover everyone? That’s not going to happen. To lower costs? That’s not going to happen either. Obama has admitted as much which is why he is now saying it’s about “insurance reform”. But really, what does that mean? And really, if you can’t simply explain what the main goal of this “reform” is, then why the hëll would you be so determined to pass it?
Anyone who is against universal health care in these United States is either a buffoon or a Republican. Maybe both.
Alan,
“Anyone who is against universal health care in these United States is either a buffoon or a Republican. Maybe both.”
.
Ah, Alan. As open-minded and willing to respect those who disagree with you, as always.
That’s right, I’ve stooped to your level.
.
After all the bûllšhìŧ from the Grand Obstructionist Party over the last 3 decades, and especially over the last decade, I have become just like you.
Jerry,
“Well guess what. You’ll get to keep your insurance if you want to so you can still sue them provided the Republicans haven’t passed the language that they like that would make it harder for you to do that. Oh, and the situation you described? It’s one of the things that the reforms are meant to address. Have a nice weekend.”
.
How, exactly, will these “reforms” address the situation Alan described. you know, just asking.
.
And again, what is the main goal of this massive bill? universal coverage? It doesn’t do that, despite what Alan Coil has deludedhimself into thinking.. Obama has even said so. save costs? It doesn’t do that either? I would hope you agree that ‘doing something” is not a good enough answer when you’re talking about something that takes up 1/6th of our GDP and, unlike hot-button issues like abortion and capital punishment, will affect every American? What is the rationale our leadership has given that this massive, unpopular bill is warranted?
It doesn’t matter how good or bad the bill eventually will be, it will pass. the democrats have no real choice here. People who are against it will not suddenly support them if it dies and people who support it will stay home if that happens. So they have to pass it and hope that when nothing bad happens (and despite having to pass it so quickly that they are already going back on their word that the reconciliation would be posted for 72 hours before the vote, the truth s that much of it does not kick in for a few years) people will calm down and/or the president will get some boost for winning a political victory. At any rate, not passing it seems an impossible option, whether they like it or not.
.
The fact that so many are not committing to supporting the bill probably has more to do with trying to get some sweet deal in exchange. When push comes to shove they’ll vote for it.
.
Sad but true. The Dems have placed themselves in an interesting box here. They cannot not pass this thing in some way, shape or form. That’s why I don’t really see the Specter/Sestak matter as vital in the immediate future and don’t think that the Obama administration does either. They have to get this passed and if there’s any way to do it they’ll do it.
.
Besides, it’s not like the people who won’t vote Democrat in the next election will suddenly change their minds now if the Dems drop the issue tomorrow.
.
“How, exactly, will these “reforms” address the situation Alan described. you know, just asking.”
.
A number of the provisions in the bills are written to address matters like preexisting conditions (like my wife’s) and incidents where insurance companies stall or fight patients over coverage that they are supposed to be addressing. The bill’s legalese is sometimes a nightmare, but I have lawyers in the family to translate from time to time. And if things are bad enough you can also opt in.
.
“And again, what is the main goal of this massive bill? universal coverage? It doesn’t do that, despite what Alan Coil has deludedhimself into thinking.. Obama has even said so. save costs? It doesn’t do that either?”
.
It gives some people a better option, it covers some people who have no coverage and the debate about saving costs is still open.
I would be absolutely gobsmacked if it saved costs. I would be amazed if it even did not cost many many dollars more than it is supposed to. I’m trying hard to think of a government program that has actually only cost as much as it was supposed to.
.
It would be an interesting proposition though–what if they passed the law on the proposition that if it ended up costing, after 5 or 10 years, 50% or more than projected, the whole thing gets scrapped. That won’t happen for a few reasons, the main one being that it is very difficult to undo a law and also, there’s a reasonably excellent chance that it will cost more than they say it will. There is no free lunch and never will be. Covering more people will always cost more than covering less. Cutting pay to health care providers will result in less health care availability. Paying more will cost more. And when the boss has the ability to print money the incentive for finding less expensive ways to do things is just not there.
.
Not saying that we don’t need reform and some better ideas but in my experience the more the government interferes with medicine the more the people who need it most get kicked in the teeth. Ask my ex-wife, the neurologist, just how helpful the government has been. Used to be she could provide lots of free medicine and stuff to people thanks to the drug companies practically throwing samples at her. Someone decided that this was A Bad Idea and that source dried up (the nerve of these companies making money and trying to get doctors to use their life saving medicines! bášŧárdš! String ’em up!) (Yeah but keep those life saving medicine breakthrough coming, oh hated ones).
.
If a doctor sees medicare patients they are required by law to make sure that they never charge less for a patient than they do for a medicare patient. Now, you might think that there is no way a doctor would get ion trouble for giving free aid to someone, you know, give someone a break if they are having a bad time, or maybe are a family member. Nope, said doctor will get in some real trouble. Whatever paltry amount they get from medicare, free is even less, so they would be breaking the law.
.
And if anyone buys the idea that doctors are too busy playing golf and running off to Aruba on the weekends to ever consider pro bono work (not like those sainted lawyers…the ones who probably wrote the law)…well, you don’t know many doctors.
.
But as I said, the law is coming and I don’t think the midterm elections, regardless of the result, will do much to change it. My advice to the youth of today–get a government job. Worked for me! And as ludicrous as some of the entitlement programs are, like the pension funds that are going to absolutely crush the state budgets, when you work for the guy who runs the printing press and can tell everyone else how much of their pay they get to keep, well, your future is a lot sunnier than many others.
.
I’m not 100% sold on the savings either. But I’m not convinced that it will be the financial black hole that some are painting it out to be either. The fun bit with this thing is that both sides are pointing to their own cherry picked numbers that support their POV… and they’re often from the same sources.
.
A bunch of people have been pointing to the CBO numbers, but they keep pointing to only one set or just one or two paragraphs out if any given point. But when you look at all of the CBO reports on the issue and don’t cherry pick just one paragraph or one set of numbers; you do get projections that show that savings will be negligible for about a decade with possible savings to come in the decade after that. However, no matter how tiny they may be, “negligible” savings are still savings and not losses. Whether or not the projections hold is anyone’s guess though.
One problem I see with the CBO numbers, if I understand this correctly, is that they accept without qualifications any claims that there will be proposed cuts and savings due to fraud waste or whatever else the politicians pull out of thin air.
.
Experience tells us that if politicins say they will spend money you should take them at their word but when they talk about vague cuts and such, keep your hand on your wallet. If there were easy to find waste and fraud they’d probably be cut by now and what you or I would consider waste is probably considered an absolutely vital earmark for the politician who is the sponsor of the Robert Byrd Memorial World’s Largest Ball of Twine Museum and Expo.
.
At any rate, the current administration has not had much luck with their projections thus far, when it comes to budgets and unemployment. I can’t be optimistic that they got this one thing right.
As usual, the CBO is wrong because it agrees with the Democratic Party on this.
.
How typical of the Republicancers.
.
Oh come off it, Alan. Bill’s conservative, but he’s hardly a Republican these days. And Jerome, as much as I disagree with some of his political opinions, will reevaluate things when someone can present facts that undermine something he thought was accurate. Neither guy is exactly a lockstep Republican and Bill is far, far from being one.
Jerry, I stopped caring what Alan thinks about me a while ago. There’s nothing there to respond to. In a forum where people of differing opinions can express them rationally, and most do, you have to let the ones who think it’s clever to say “Republicancers”, “DemocRATS”, “Obamanations” and other tired cliche’s along those lines just argue amongst themselves. This is why they have to sit at the card table with the paper plates and plastic sporks.
.
Though I do wish Alan would call the North Carolina Democratic party and tell them to stop emailing and robocalling me on account of my being a republicancer and all. Boy, volunteer for one presidential candidate and you will have friends for life, whether you want them or not.
.
Interestingly enough, I hear people talking about how much money the plan will save after the first decade but the CBO itself warns that A detailed year-by-year projection for
years beyond 2019, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would
not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great. But what do THEY know?
.
“A detailed year-by-year projection for
years beyond 2019, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great”
.
VS
.
CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, December 20, 2009: “All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law — with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP”
.
Like I said, they’re all over the place and even some of the pro and con people are sourcing the same page, just different paragraphs, to back their points up. Also, some of what they are referencing in the passage you cite are positive uncertainties.
.
“A detailed year-by-year projection for years beyond 2019, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great. Among other factors, a wide range of changes could occur — in people’s health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care (such as advances in medical research, technological developments, and changes in physicians’ practice patterns) — that are likely to be significant but are very difficult to predict, both under current law and under any proposal.”
.
Advances in medical research and technological developments would likely be a good thing that may actually lower costs. The flip side is that new breakthroughs that my save lives or cure cancers may also have a huge price tag.
.
Of course, the same CBO then also put out a paper saying this as well.
.
“In the December 19, 2009, cost estimate for PPACA, CBO and JCT estimated that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting PPACA would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010–2019 period. Thus, the act’s effects on the rest of the budget—other than the cash flows of the HI trust fund—would amount to a net increase in federal deficits of $226 billion over the same period. Those two aspects of the legislation would have differing effects on debt held by the public: The changes to HI revenues and costs, by themselves, would reduce that debt, while changes in other revenues and costs would increase it.
.
For the decade beyond 2019, CBO expects that enacting PPACA would reduce federal budget deficits relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product.2 The legislation would have positive effects on the cash flows of the HI trust fund in that decade that would be larger than its effects on federal budget deficits as a whole. Therefore, leaving aside the cash flows of the HI trust fund, CBO expects that PPACA would yield a net increase in budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019.”
.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11005/01-22-HI_Fund.pdf
.
But that’s then been contradicted to a degree by stuff that’s come out since. Again, they’re kinda all over the place.
Given the far more pessimistic view the CBO has of the president’s budget, I should think there would be many who are praying they got things wrong!
.
If I had to bet, I’d say that the future will see what we have seen so far–more and more medical advances that come with a higher and higher price tag. Not so much with the big stuff–I think a cure for cancer would be a definite net gain–but more in the quality of life issues. How much is spent every year just on acid reflux? A few years ago that would mean nothing more than a pack of tums. Now we have all those awesome drugs that can keep it under control and have made the world a far far better place. But I’ll bet the cost is off the charts.
.
Of course, that’s a better thing than the alternative–no option at all. And I hope that any new law we pass does not in any way discourage innovation and invention. Just my luck, they’ll find a cure for death right after I die.
.
“Just my luck, they’ll find a cure for death right after I die.”
.
Don’t worry, we can always bring you back a s a hologram. Just the standard model of course since your plan doesn’t cover hard-light.
You know, people talk about doing stuff like that, downloading our memories into a computer and all and act like that’s going to be some kind of great thing…I don’t see it. Ok, let’s see, someone downloads my personality into a computer, I’ll live forever…no, I won’t. I die. The computer me lives forever. And don’t think I won’t bring it up to me every chance I get. Good God!
.
There would have to be some kind of transition phase where you could actually feel your consciousness slip from one form to another, a continuity of cognition. Anyway it sounds expensive.
.
Anyway, in the words of my favorite Woody Allen quote, I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying.
.
See! You’re already as cranky as Rimmer. Halfway there already.
.
.
.
.
Check your email.
.
You know, that always has been a fascinating question. If the hologram/android/program/whatever had your every memory and the personality of the original person… How is that not them? It’s a bit like the SG-1 where the team was duplicated and the duplicates were given their consciousness. The duplicates were so perfect that they didn’t know they were dupes until it was discovered that they were androids.
.
If no one told you, would you even know until reality smacked you in the face?
If the hologram/android/program/whatever had your every memory and the personality of the original person… How is that not them?
.
because as soon as enough time goes by for the copy to experience an individual thought, memory, observation, experience…they cease to be a copy.
.
Boy, what a nightmare scenario we have here. Me and my computer shadow. I come home from a hard day of dodging spitballs and he’s been playing LEFT FOR DEAD 2. he argues with me constantly and with his perfect memory and instant access to google, wins every time. That would blow. I’d be welcoming the cold embrace of death before this was over.
.
I was kinda working off of the “you’re dead” scenario rather than have two of “you” around. And if enough time (like, say, five or six seconds) passes for it to have an original thought… If it’s all built on your memories and experiences, wouldn’t it have an original thought that was well in line with an original thought that you would have? Even if it doesn’t react to something in the exact same way that you think you might on that given day, wouldn’t the reaction be a reaction in line with one you might actually make?
.
If you are the blueprint and the only data it has to the point that it doesn’t even know (or, ala Rimmer, simply tries not to think about the fact) that it’s not you, how would it not react just like you until enough years have gone by that it would have enough new experiences of its own to have new options? And, if it picked up your life basically where you left off, how do you know it’s “new experiences” would mirror those that you yourself may have had?
Er… would not just mirror those that you yourself may have had?
I really believe that if you could go back 10 years and pluck me form where I was then and stick me somewhere else the results could be very dramatic. If, for example, I had been tossed into the Gobi Desert 10 years ago, whereas I am now a beloved teacher of science and part time filmmaker with a lovely wife and 3 children, I would instead be a bleached pile of bones. Truly, we are products of our environment.
.
All jocularity aside, it’s always been interesting to see those separated at birth stories (though identical twins are not truly identical). Would we see similar results with the computer persona? Very likely, since being a computer would bring with it radical changes in how one uses the intelligence. In fact, that’s a potential problem–what happens when a human personality has total access to all information, total recall of said information, etc etc? Is it possible that you would end up with the same result no matter what persona you placed in the computer? Assume for the moment that many of our differences in philosophies and such are due to our upbringing, the realities we were exposed to. Now imagine two widely divergent personalities are able to know all that is knowable. If we assume that each one starts from a rational basis it is possible that they will, upon digesting all that can be known, end up with exactly the same background, exactly the same knowledge and result in exactly the same thoughts and choices?
.
In other words, it is the fact of our limitations that makes us human in the usual sense of the word. Eliminate that–give everyone the same knowledge base–and you eliminate differences. So goodbye individual personalities. basically–the Borg.
.
(One might critique this by pointing out that our Human computers do not start out the same so they would not end up with exactly the same personalities–true but given the unimaginable amount of knowledge, memories and experiences they would end up with, those initial differences would be no more significant than events that happened to us on the day of our birth–insignificant details that have little bearing on where we end up.
.
Along these lines, I recently read an article somewhere that postulated that the reason we haven’t seen aliens is because any life form likely to make the trip across the light years will almost certainly be more mechanical than biological and just the fact that we are still in our biological stage of development would make us of little interest. We would have nothing to offer.
1) Bill and Jerry, I would expect you of all people to be familiar with more than one “after-death option”.
.
[Palin: Obamacare promotes necromancy]
.
.
2) Re: Turning Bill into a computer program.
.
You should read an article called “The Chinese Room” by John Searle. I wrote a paper on it. It’s a philosophy article about the mind/body question and what is consciousness.
.
The article argues against the solution to this problem called computationalism or functionalism which says that consciousness is like a computer program with the physical brain being just the hardware (an assumption which is taken for granted in sci-fi).
.
Searle says that what a computer does is manipulate meaningless data according to a set of rules. Imagine, he says, a closed room, with you in it, that has cards with all the letters of the Chinese alphabet and a book of instructions that says something like: if symbol # then symbol * etc. From the perspective of a Chinese speaker who sends into a room a sentence in chines, it would seem that the room responded to the sentence with another sensible sentence in Chinese. But there is no consciousness of knowing Chinese in the room, it’s just the manipulation of meaningless symbols. Ergo, consciousness is not a computer program (Searle says).
.
This means that the Bill Program will behave like Bill, giving Bill responses to questions and so forth, but there will be no Bill consciousness.
.
Scary Sci-Fi scenario. Data from TNG appears to be behaving like a sentient being, but for all we know it might just be a machine that has a set of rules that creates the simulation of sentient behavior, but there is no consciousness there.
.
.
3) re: knowledge and experience:
.
On the one hand they are not the same thing. So if you have two sentient computers, even if they have access to the same knowledge, their experience and therefore there personality will be different.
.
You can have a sci-fi scenario where you have two copies of the same program being switched at the same time in two different places. But the first thing one operator will ask the computer to do was run a self diagnostic, while another will ask him to compile all the data on zombies. Maybe one computer will become a anxious neurotic and the other a fan of zombies.
.
I think even now people who work on AI try to give their programs experiences as part of the developmental process.
.
I wonder if there is a difference between really experiencing something and having false memories of experiences (like in Dollhouse)?
.
A computer Bill will have a new set of experiences simply because he will have easier access to knowledge and computation skills than the human Bill. So your personality might change the more time passes. It might be like Riker getting Q’s powers. The vast knowledge might turn you into a megalomaniac, or you might be paralyzed by all the contradictory knowledge.
.
In any case, you have here ideas for several sci-fi stories.
.
.
4) “Along these lines, I recently read an article somewhere that postulated that the reason we haven’t seen aliens is because any life form likely to make the trip across the light years will almost certainly be more mechanical than biological and just the fact that we are still in our biological stage of development would make us of little interest. We would have nothing to offer.”
.
It’s hard to imagine what a completely alien race might think. Would we even have a way to communicate considering how different our environments, experiences, thought processes are? Would they even realize that we are sentient?
or would they see us and just not consider what we have to be true sentience?
.
I realize that computers,as they are now, are no more sentient or intelligent than a oven mitten. I like to point that out t my students, that all of them are more intelligent than a computer. But will that always be true? +We don’t really understand how the brain works but (assuming there is no spiritual aspect to our minds) it is reasonable to assume that one day we will have a computer with enough memory to store as much as a human brain. Is that the moment where it begins to think?
.
It’s true that knowledge and experience are not the same but couldn’t a computer take knowledge and run a simulation as “real” to it as reality is to us, and thus gain insight about that knowledge?
.
I wonder if in the end a vital key will be to make the computers less perfect. Sounds contra-intuitive but maybe it is our imperfections that give us that extra edge–could creativity be in part a reaction to a lack of understanding, a way to make sense of things? You have a kid and a computer sitting on a field looking up at the clouds (ok, it has a long extension cord, work with me folks). The little kid sees a cloud and says “that looks like a duck, quack quack, once upon a time a little duck named ping ping…” while the compute looks up and says “Hey look, a cloud.”
.
Or it goes into a stream of randomness that would make Robin Williams’ genie want to scream. It might be for the best that computers never think like us since that raises the possibility that they could go insane and the next thing you know it’s AM from Ellison’s I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream.
.
Yeah, but Bill hasn’t quite been working off of the same page as I have been so where sorta talking at cross-afterlifes. I’m not talking about duplicates with all sorts of bells and whistles that allow them instant Google access or perfect computer thinking. Like I said, I’m using the Arnold Rimmer template or the SG-1 episode where they were replaced by androids that didn’t even know that they were androids.
.
If you added in the cloning factor, you would simply be reloading you template back into a flesh and blood body and brain with zero differences from your own other than physically being maybe a few decades younger than you were.
.
I’m not working off of the model of the new you have all sorts of extra bells and whistles because, yeah, that would instantly start radically changing how the new you interacts and reacts to every situation.
.
“It’s true that knowledge and experience are not the same but couldn’t a computer take knowledge and run a simulation as “real” to it as reality is to us, and thus gain insight about that knowledge?”
.
There are programs doing something close to that now, just minus using the data for its own purposes afterwards. Hëll, there’s a couple of video games out there that are working off of borderline AI to a small degree. The things actually think about what’s going on in the game in interesting ways.