The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[wendybeth]

They are astroturf. My idiot sister-in-law is one of them. The whole family was raised on military health, then switched to public assistance/medicaid, and now their grandkids are on SSI and Medicaid. They are vehemently against Obama and healthcare reform because everyone knows he's a socialist and socialized medicine is JUST WRONG!!!! (sigh).

[scaeagles]

Perhaps I do not understand the meaning of astroturf. I thought astroturf meant an artificial grass roots movement. The vast majority of the protesters are certainly not artificial.

[SacTown Chronic]

One protester at a town hall meeting in a medicade heavy town near me kept having her concerns (of which there were many) about Obama's socialist health care plans shot down by demonstrable facts. Finally, frustrated by the realization that she had no idea what she was talking about - stupid chain e-mails let me down! -, she showed her Astroturfy colors (uglier than Boise State's) and got to the point: "I don't need no n!gger in Washington telling me what kind of health care I can have". Score!


Oh yes, scaeagles, most of 'em are as artificial as a rubber dong. They take their marching orders from Idiots With Mics and they're not really protesting what they say they are protesting. I know these people. Oh how I fvcking know them. Signs showing swastikas with red circle-slashes go way beyond any reasonable discourse about the direction of health care in this country. Really? We need to drag the Nazis into a discussion about healh care? It seems to me that if you had actual concerns, you'd take the time to get the facts before showing up at a town hall meeting. I'm not seeing much of that.

[wendybeth]

It is artificial. My SIL is an idiot, to be sure, but she's been egged on by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and all the other hate mongers who tell her that her misery in life is caused by Democrats. I've known her a long time and can pretty much state with confidence that is has been a series of very poor choices that has led her to her current situation. She's caught up in the whole Tea Party and Town Hall thing, but if she understood what she was protesting and just how very much she has benefited from (and continues to benefit from) state and federally funded programs, I wonder if she would be such an active participant. I don't bother talking to her about it- I've had enough with trying to reason with stupidity. I really think she just likes belonging to a group that makes her feel important- sort of like joining a cult, but without the expense.

[BarTopDancer]

Does Goodwin's law apply to political debates?

[wendybeth]

Does Goodwin's law apply to political debates?

I think that's pretty much the only time it's ever invoked. The real question is: Does Darwin's Law? Part of me would like to see some of these 'Astroturfers' get their wish. A very small, very mean part of me.

[scaeagles]

I can cite just as many anecdotal examples of why I beleive those for it are "astroturfers" as well. My brother in law is in a union and he was told to go to a recent town hall and support the program. I am certain both sides have those elements, but I am not an astroturfer, and I don't personally know any.

Is the polling data that shows most Americans against it artificial? A Sept 1 Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_health_care_legislation_has_stopped_fa lling_but_most_still_opposed)shows it's 53-43 against. I've read others that show something like a 2-1 margin of independents oppose it. It is just astroturfers swaying the results?

I suppose any conservative upswell against it must be artificial, and those who support the plan just know what's best for America.

[BarTopDancer]

I suppose any conservative upswell against it must be artificial, and those who support the plan just know what's best for America.

No, the upswell in people who are spouting off and have no idea what they are talking about is an artificial movement.

If you want to be against something at least understand what you are against.

I'm going to use a Prop8 analogy again - one of my former marketing managers is LDS, hard core "yes on 8". Except instead of touting "the bible says man should not lay with man, the bible says it's wrong blah blah blah" that most of the "yesers" were saying he was against it because he was against the term marriage being used for anyone not married in a church. He agreed that same-sex couples should get the same rights but this wasn't the way to do it and wanted to see the term "marriage" removed from any joining not preformed in a church.

Or you could compare it to a kid who hates strawberries because mom and/or dad hates them. The kid has never had them but they are gross and disgusting because that's what mom and dad say.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

CP,

I have REPEATEDLY stated that I would be happy to watch the speech with my kids. Please explain to me the difference between you reading the transcript and discussing it with your kid after school and you watching it with your child in the room.

You know what....I can accept that. I take it back.

I disagree that they are astroturf, but I do believe you are correct in your interpretation.Here's the thing - you heard that Pelosi called the protestors Nazis. You believed it and repeated it. It wasn't true. By the time you realized it and "took it back", you may have told other people, and they told other people. This is exactly how all this crap works. This is what "astroturf" is. It's the outrage created when misinformation is repeated. Yes, people are angry and the polls show it. But why? Because someone says "death panels", other people repeat it, and then the first person "retracts" but it's too late. It's outrage based on phony concepts.

[Strangler Lewis]

I will agree there are astroturfers on both sides. I will happily invite anyone who got/gets excited and felt better about themselves because they were/are for Obama and the people who got/get excited and felt better about themselves because they were/are against Obama to join hands and walk into the sea.

[SacTown Chronic]

I suppose any conservative upswell against it must be artificial, and those who support the plan just know what's best for America.Not at all. And that's kinda the point. It's hard enough to understand health care issues without having to wade through piles of intentional disinformation. Rational opposition voices with legitimate concerns about the plan are being shouted down by the red herring chasers and bigots with not-so-secret agendas, imo.

but I am not an astroturfer, and I don't personally know any.I don't presume to think that you are. I've never considered you a right-wing nut job even though you are, in fact, a right-winger and a nut job. I can't picture you strutting around a town hall meeting with a "No Nazis" sign. "No cats", on the other hand...

[scaeagles]

Please explain to me the difference between you reading the transcript and discussing it with your kid after school and you watching it with your child in the room.

Here's the thing - you heard that Pelosi called the protestors Nazis. You believed it and repeated it. It wasn't true. By the time you realized it and "took it back", you may have told other people, and they told other people. This is exactly how all this crap works. This is what "astroturf" is. It's the outrage created when misinformation is repeated. Yes, people are angry and the polls show it. But why? Because someone says "death panels", other people repeat it, and then the first person "retracts" but it's too late. It's outrage based on phony concepts.


As ISM points out, so much is different in presentation as opposed to in print, and also there is a possibility that I might not trust the politics of the teacher of my children to lead the discussions before and afterwards. This is not the case in my particular situation.

Yes, I heard it and saw it. Part of it is based on it's pretty what I would expect Pelosi to do.

[scaeagles]

I would also suspect that it is primarily the outrageous claims that seem to get the press. For example, the CBO says it will not save money in the long term and will increase the deficit. Or how the system can handle 40 million more people having regular doctor visits without an increase in the number of doctors. Or how waiting times will increase because of that. Or how taxes will most likely have to increase to cover the costs. Those are not particularly sensational when someone spouts off about them.

How many of you have been to a town hall on the subject? I went to one with my congressman Shadegg, and it wasn't one with the vitriol or outrageous claims. Those that get the press are the ones with the outrageous claims.

There are plenty of completely reasonable reasons to be against the plan.

[scaeagles]

I don't presume to think that you are. I've never considered you a right-wing nut job even though you are, in fact, a right-winger and a nut job.

Proud to be both. :)

[3894]

How many of you have been to a town hall on the subject? I went to one with my congressman Shadegg, and it wasn't one with the vitriol or outrageous claims. Those that get the press are the ones with the outrageous claims.

Hubbo and I went to one with Rep. Dave Obey last Sunday. We expected wingnuts, since Obey is chair of Committee on Appropriations.

Au contraire and thank God for that. Everyone was civil and there was absolutely no shouting or rudeness.

[Alex]

Or how the system can handle 40 million more people having regular doctor visits without an increase in the number of doctors. Or how waiting times will increase because of that.


This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.


And I know you say you don't watch the various reviled talking heads. I'll take you at your for that. It is, therefore, interesting that through some apparent osmosis much of the time whatever arguments you make for or against a position are the same as what they were saying just a few days before or happen to currently be a link on the Drudge Report. To me, observing you, it looks like you're very much consuming what they say, you just may be getting it secondarily. Either that or you actually do have though processes similar to Glenn Beck. That would be worse.


And yes, "astroturfing" in the sense of centralized and organized excitement of supposedly grassroots movements exists on all sides of the political spectrum and has for approximately 1.2 million years (413 years in Kansas, Alabaman, and parts of Florida) since the first hominid really felt we should get out of the trees to look for food and so slept with the alpha males mate and tricked her into presenting it to him as her own idea.

I have no problem with that. I do have a lot of problem with said leaders telling outright lies and fabrications in pursuit of it. And no, to say that the health care reform opposition is telling some amazing whoppers is not to say that everything they say is a lie. So pointing out some valid concerns is not an amelioration of the charge.

If I say:

1) The sky is blue
2) Cap'n Crunch cereal tastes good but cuts up the roof of your mouth
3) Comcast is a cable company
4) Your grandma is a coprophiliac

When you say "my grandma is NOT a coprophiliac and you're a horrible person for saying such a despicable lie" it would be rightly viewed as in no way redeeming myself if I said "what? but the sky really is blue!"

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Visible.Alex.Mojo.

[scaeagles]

This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.


I have done most of my research through the Heritage Foundation. Lots of articles and info there.

An increase in demand can lead to an increase in supply, but it would most certainly start with a shortage of the supply. Short supply with increased demand increases the cost until supply can be increased. That presents another problem, in that increaing supply isn't as simple as going to a doctor manufacturer and having them make more. We have to have people that want to become doctors, are willing to study long enough to become doctors (and pay the tuition for it), and are qualified to become doctors. So I disgaree with the foundation of your first paragraph. I am not arguing for rationing (though I think it is going to happen based on supply and demand), nor am I abandoning those economic principles.

A side effect of insurance coverage that I experience all the time in arguments with my wife is that the kid has a low fever. "Oh my!" says the wife. "A fever! We must take the child to the doctor. After all, we have insurance, so it only costs us the copay." Well, OK, if the kid still has a fever in a week and the tylenol doesn't take it down, sure, but the immediate reaction is insane. I do not wish for any sick person to be denied treatment, but I think my situation (and no, I haven't done the research) is typical. Our bodies are pretty much made to take care of and heal themselves, and too many people think every little owie or booboo requires a doctor visit.

[scaeagles]

I have no problem with that. I do have a lot of problem with said leaders telling outright lies and fabrications in pursuit of it. And no, to say that the health care reform opposition is telling some amazing whoppers is not to say that everything they say is a lie. So pointing out some valid concerns is not an amelioration of the charge.

Nor is focus on the outrageous claims (both by those that mke them and those who focus on them) reason to ignore the real problems.

[Betty]

We've had health insurance through my husbands employer for 15 years. He's now on disability and since his office is less then what's required for the FMLA, they are under no obligation to continue his health coverage.

My office doesn't have at least 80% of employees willing to sign up. Large percentage of employees are low waged factory workers and just won't sign up. So, it's not available through my employer.

We now qualify for COBRA and with my husband not working and required to continue his medical coverage to remain on disability, we have no choice but to pay for COBRA coverage at about $600 per month or pay substantially more for doctor's visits (that are required for him to continue receiving benefits). We could also sign up for private health insurance.

Friends of mine, who work for the same place I do, pay for their own health insurance and pay, nearly $1000 a month for it.

So, we pay $600 a month - or will anyway.

That won't last forever.

Not having health insurance is not something I want but may be what we get because we just can't afford the $600 a month let alone the $1000. We'll be able to keep it up for a little while but for how long? And then what?

What the heck do I do if I have no health insurance and one of my kids get sick? And let's just hope that's it's not something serious that would require any sort of long term care or hospital stay. That scares me to death.

Why do I suddenly feel like some lower class citizen not deemed worthy enough for health care?

[scaeagles]

I don't know much about it, but have you considered some form of catastrophic health insurance? That could lead to some debt if something big happens, but I would gather that is the biggest concern.

Here (http://www.insureme.com/health-insurance/catastrophic-health-insurance) is a web page I found rather quickly that might help point you to something that you could use.

[BarTopDancer]

I have a catastrophic policy that my parents are graciously paying for until I got a job/insurance kicked in.

It doesn't cover doctors visits, lab fees or anything that isn't remotely catastrophic. Which means preventative care isn't covered and OOP doctors visits + lab fees aren't cheap.

Sure if Betty's family can afford the $600 a month for COBRA then it seems that they could afford a cheaper catastrophic policy but whose to say they could afford the preventative care visits that would prevent a lot of the catastrophic issues?

Leo - put yourself in other people's shoes. Life circumstances now put you in a situation where neither your job nor your wife's job provides medical insurance. What are you going to do? Would you have laid out the tens of thousands of dollars for your daughters knee surgery?

Your life circumstances, that give you the perspective you have can change at any time. Sure, now you have a nice emergency fund but what would you do when that ran out? Start thinking outside your little world, because you never know when you may find yourself in a completely different one.

[scaeagles]

I have been there. I had NO medical insurance as a kid (my family was very lower middle class). My mom died of lupus and nothing about it was covered. She had a brain tumor at the start of the process in 1970, and my dad was still paying for the surgery while I was in highschool. It did, along with some poor decision making processes by my dad, end up in him declaring bankruptcy.

As a kid, we had one TV. One beat up car. Decent house we rented. I can only remember getting one birthday present my entire life as a kid. I had to have a job starting in HS to purchase anything I needed that wasn't food, including clothes. I had to pay for all college expenses that weren't covered by a scholarship I got.

You know what? I survived. I didn't have much of anything material. I have experienced death, not poverty, but a lack of meterial possessions, and most of that came from paying for my mom's health care.

So please, get off your pious high horse and quit making assumptions about me that I don't know what it's like.

[BarTopDancer]

So please, get off your pious high horse and quit making assumptions about me that I don't know what it's like.

Well the tone of all your posts sure as heck implies that you don't have a clue.

And your rant didn't answer my question. What would you do now if you lost your insurance and couldn't afford COBRA.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think Scaeagles' experience illustrates why everyone needs to be covered. If his father could have put more money into his education or into the economy, I submit that would have been a better outcome than paying it to a doctor or, perhaps more aptly, paying interest to a bank. While I don't think that government can or should create a perfectly level playing field, I think we can try to eradicate differences based on things we have no control over such as race, gender and health.

[scaeagles]

Thanks for making assumptions about me, BTD. I guess since I don't sound like you in what I think I must not have any sort of clue at all!

I would do EXACTLY what I had to do. I would sell what I could to afford it. I could sell my home, be rid of my mortgage, and rent an apartment a small apartment if necessary. Cancel my cell phones. Cancel cable and internet. How many people (and i really don't know) who don't have insurance have those things but are complaining that they can't afford insurance? It's an issue of priorities.

Should I have to, I would take on debt, much like my dad did. I would ask relatives to assist. Anything I needed to do.

Would I have paid for the knee surgery my daughter needed? Absolutely. I had to pay for a pretty high percentage of it the way my insurance is set up anyway (mine is not catastrophic but is set up in more that way with higher copays but a lower out of pocket maximum, etc).

All of this being said...would I want to have to do any of that? No. I do consider myself fortunate to have a job and insurance.

Hopefully that has answered your question. Sorry my "rant" about you presumptions of me didn't quite cut it the first time. "Oh, he's against that? He must not have any idea what it's like to be on the other side!". Sheesh.

To be against this plan does not mean I am against any sort of reform. It means I am against this plan.

[JWBear]

That's fine and dandy, Leo, if you have a house or other resources. Not everyone is that lucky.

Even if you pay for insurance you have no guarantee that they will pay for your medical condition. There are a lot of people who have insurance, get sick, and are denied by their insurance company; and then we see them in our office.

What would you say to the parents of a child who was born with a congenital heart defect, but whose surgery to correct the defect was denied by the insurance company because it was a "pre-existing condition"? "Sorry, it's your problem, not mine." or "Sorry, you need to choose between losing your child and impoverishing yourselves because your insurance company needs to maximize profits in order to keep the investers happy."

[Strangler Lewis]

I would ask relatives to assist.

Which means that you don't see it as an absolute moral imperative for each individual or each family to soldier on alone. I know you would see nothing wrong with neighbors or church groups rallying to assist the only people on the block whose house burned down in a wildfire. It's a way of spreading the burden, much as insurance companies spread the risk. To my mind whether that burden is spread on the small scale among neighbors or on the large scale as an act of government makes little difference as to the rightness of the enterprise.

[€uroMeinke]

I think the real interesting moral question here is if you break the law for health care for a loved one - steal, prostitute yourself, kill a stranger, etc. Health seems like one of those survival imperatives - you do what you need to do for someone you love consequences be damned.

[BarTopDancer]

Thanks for making assumptions about me, BTD. I guess since I don't sound like you in what I think I must not have any sort of clue at all!

When what's out there is "people need to be responsible for themselves" and "it's not my responsibility to pay for others who are less fortunate" it reeks of the rich get richer and poor get poorer mentality that I am sick of.

If you are against this plan but not overall reform then what do you suggest?

Not everyone has possessions to sell or family to rely on.

[scaeagles]

I believe I also said I would incur whatever debt was necessary. You asked what I would do. I told you what I would do.

I think the best ideas have been on the Heritage Foundation website (simply www.heritage.org). I cannot provide specific links to them, but a simple googling of "Heritage foundation health care" provides a TON of info as to why Obamacare is not what is best and other ideas as well.

I am a huge proponent of medical savings accounts, as described here (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm481.cfm).

I think insurance plans should be able to be sold across state lines, as described in many places on the Heritage Foundation site. Choice and competition? That'll be a bunch of that.

I would recommend you read up on the stuff on the Heritage Foundation site. Simply too much to link.

The information on great conservative ideas is out there. Please note I did not say great republican ideas.

[scaeagles]

What would you say to the parents of a child who was born with a congenital heart defect, but whose surgery to correct the defect was denied by the insurance company because it was a "pre-existing condition"? "Sorry, it's your problem, not mine." or "Sorry, you need to choose between losing your child and impoverishing yourselves because your insurance company needs to maximize profits in order to keep the investers happy."


This is a horrible situation, and I admit I have no ideas for that specifically.

However, insurance companies are businesses. It is not unreasonsable to expect them to look to make a profit. It's why they are there. Is that heartless? I don't know. I fully admit HUGE nervousness when my three children were born, hoping there would be no complications or problems that would make them uninsurable, and great relief when they were healthy - for reasons other than insurance coverage as well, of course.

Please note I did not say they are always scrupulous in their dealings. For my daughters knee surgery, they denied the MRI that showed she needed it, but approved the surgery based on it. I'm currently appealing (and i don't know if this is common, but I haven't been required to pay the bill until the appeal is settled).

[Ghoulish Delight]

However, insurance companies are businesses. It is not unreasonsable to expect them to look to make a profit. It's why they are there.So you're okay with decisions about your health being made based on whether some stock holders will make a profit or not?

Not, it is not unreasonable for a business to optimize for profit. I DO find it unreasonable for health care to be run as a business.

[scaeagles]

So you're okay with decisions about your health being made based on whether some stock holders will make a profit or not?

Not, it is not unreasonable for a business to optimize for profit. I DO find it unreasonable for health care to be run as a business.

Then your problem is with health insurance companies even existing. I would take it then that the President's plan is inadequate in the scope then.

Trust me....insurance companies have about 40 years to catch up to make a profit on me. My surgery at the Mayo clinic was close to 6 figures. And covered. Perhaps i've just had a different experience than most. Mayo wasn't even a hospital that my insurance woulod cover. However, since the only doctors qualified to perform it were at USC, somewhere in Oregon, or in New York, after I went to three local surgeons who took my insurance that all said they were not qualified, they allowed me to go to the Mayo.

I do not regard it as them making decisions. I regard it as i have entered a contract with them for a certain amount of coverage with rules. I can pay more for more coverage, less for less. I am respsonsible to know what is and isn't covered. They are responsible to uphold their end of the bargain. Should they not, it is certainly a pain to deal with, and in matters of life and death, the delay can certainly cost lives, which is not acceptable.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Then your problem is with health insurance companies even existing. I would take it then that the President's plan is inadequate in the scope then.Correct.


Trust me....insurance companies have about 40 years to catch up to make a profit on me.
It's more than whether your individual insurance is adequate for YOU. It's about people who are denied insurance and therefore are entirely on the outside of the system. Yes they can rely on inadequate emergency services, or make the major financial sacrifices discussed before, or make deals with their dr. to pay things off, but that still leaves an entire class (or classes) of people with inferior medical choices that could cost them their life in the long run simply because insurance companies decided that covering them hurts their bottom line. I simply will never think it is okay that a person's access to health care is linked to either how much money they have or how much money someone else is willing to spend on them. Money is not a measure of value of human life.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Not, it is not unreasonable for a business to optimize for profit. I DO find it unreasonable for health care to be run as a business.

I agree with this. I think health care should not be run for profit in the way it currently is. Individuals to get a paycheck- ok. Insurance companies to make zillions of dollars by denying care and claims? Not so ok. In my opinion.

Then your problem is with health insurance companies even existing.

I definitely have a problem with insurance companies. I despise them. I worked for a referral company for a while, and the approval process for claims and authorizations is appalling. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I dislike the current system.

[mousepod]

I really like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98)

[Alex]

I liked the half or so that I watched. But calling that an angry mob (as the page title does) is really unfair -- unless things got a lot worse in the 3 minutes at the end I didn't watch.

[scaeagles]

Correct.


It's more than whether your individual insurance is adequate for YOU.

Hold on. You asked me if I wanted my helath care decisions based on a health insurance company's pofits. So I gave an example of me and why I hadn't found it to be a problem because I view it as a contract entered into, not a right. Then you tell me it isn't all about me. I agree, it isn't all about me, but don't act like I think it is when I answer a question you asked about me.

I recognize that there are many with the viewpoint that the plan as presented doesn't go far enough. I don't think it goes far enough for Obama or Congress either, they just understand the concept of incrementalism.

Do you favor a system such as the Canadian or British?

[BarTopDancer]

Do you favor a system such as the Canadian or British?

I posted this in another thread -

If the NHS is good enough for Stephen Hawking (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205953/NHS-branded-evil-Orwellian-high-level-US-politicians.html) then it can't be any worse than what we have.

Prof Hawking, who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, said: 'I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS.

'I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205953/NHS-branded-evil-Orwellian-high-level-US-politicians.html#ixzz0QNPMN3LE


If you don't like the source of my article just Google "Stephen Hawking health care" and you can find more.

[wendybeth]

Why does it have to be a system like either? I get the feeling that the systems of Canada and Britain keep getting thrown into this conversation because most Americans have a negative image of them and it helps fuel the Anti fires. Plenty of other countries have health care models we could follow just as easily, if we were so inclined. Personally, if it does happen, I think it will likely be a new type, given our long history with insurance, etc, that most other countries have not experienced.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.

An increase in demand can lead to an increase in supply, but it would most certainly start with a shortage of the supply. Short supply with increased demand increases the cost until supply can be increased. That presents another problem, in that increaing supply isn't as simple as going to a doctor manufacturer and having them make more. We have to have people that want to become doctors, are willing to study long enough to become doctors (and pay the tuition for it), and are qualified to become doctors. So I disgaree with the foundation of your first paragraph. I am not arguing for rationing (though I think it is going to happen based on supply and demand), nor am I abandoning those economic principles.You are still saying that medical coverage is earned. That certain people do not deserve to have it. That certain people should go bankrupt when they get sick.

I say this unequivocally: This is morally wrong.

For conservatives to say that they have the moral high ground on this issue is preposterous. As I believe it was Strangler Lewis said, either you get help from family, or your neighbors, or your church....or you just scale it up. People that live in America are my neighbors. They are my community. I care about them. I know this goes against basic conservative principles, but what it follows is basic moral principles.

To follow your logic regarding supply and demand - again, a rather worrisome moral choice. Instead of allowing the system to grow (and face the growing pains) to match the need, you'd rather keep it tight, allowing only those who can pay to receive care.

I have been there.

You know what? I survived. I didn't have much of anything material. I have experienced death, not poverty, but a lack of meterial possessions, and most of that came from paying for my mom's health care.You were lucky, and you should realize that. You could have easily been on the street. My family didn't have medical coverage either, and paying for things like surgery and a broken arm put a huge dent. Why can't you extrapolate that some people don't actually make it past that debt?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ok, I'm visiting heritage.org. Already I've got something to say.

link (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2197es.cfm)
The federal government would decide the level of health benefits that Americans would re*ceive through the exchange. These rules would apply to the new national health plan and all par*ticipating private health plans.

From Factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/), a nonpartisan nonprofit:
Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the “minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental benefits.

Here's a full Heritage article supposedly about why unions support this bill (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm2605.cfm). This is just a snippet:
The most obvious benefit President Obama's health care plan provides to organized labor is a $10 billion taxpayer bailout for underfunded retiree health benefit plans. Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.[4]

The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans.[5] Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers--including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers.
Again, FactCheck (http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/):
Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by labor unions or nonprofit groups. Specifically, it covers “retirees and . . . spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees” who are covered by “employment-based plans” that provide health benefits. It’s open to any “group health benefits plan that . . . is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations,” as well as voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (page 66). Furthermore, the aim of the fund is to cut premiums, copays and deductibles for the retirees. Payment “shall not be used to reduce the costs of an employer.”

Sorry Leo, but this site is lying to you and misleading you. And that's just the first two things I found...

[scaeagles]

You are still saying that medical coverage is earned. That certain people do not deserve to have it. That certain people should go bankrupt when they get sick.

I completely disagree. Where did I say certain people deserve not to have it? I said that putting another 40 million people on some form of government assistance overwhelms the system and creates an immediate shortage, which harms EVERYONE.

As far as a moral high ground....your level of judgmentalism is astounding. I think the corruption of the political system and the imminent collapse of government programs like medicare and social security are great examples of why this is a travesty and will never work. I'd like to see something work. I don't think this is it. As Obama said when not on the teleprompter - "Look at Fed Ex and UPS - they're doing all right. It's the postal service that's ahving all the trouble." Another goverment run program doing horribly. I thought it hillarious when Obama said something to the effect of "Medicare is failing, so we need a different government program to step in". Ludicrous.

Why, when the government is running a 1.6 trillion deficit, and the CBO says this will not save money and in fact may raise the deficit, would I trust them? As a disclaimer, everyone here is well aware (or should be) of how disgusted I was with Bush and the way he spent money. It isn't an Obama thing, it's a government thing. I was against Bush's perscritpion drug program as well.

[BarTopDancer]

As Obama said when not on the teleprompter - "Look at Fed Ex and UPS - they're doing all right. It's the postal service that's ahving all the trouble."

Link?

Not that it's untrue, FedEx and UPS aren't struggling like the USPS is. Maybe the postal system should be privatized. I get all the packages sent via FedEx and UPS but I don't get all the mail sent via USPS.

[scaeagles]

He says it somewhere around 55 seconds of this (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-its-the-post-office-thats-always-having-problems/) video clip.

He is trying to say how private insurance companies won't be run out of business, and ends up completely indicting the government run one. However, I will say that he's quite homnest in what he says. It is the government run one of the three that is running over budget and can't control costs.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I completely disagree. Where did I say certain people deserve not to have it? I said that putting another 40 million people on some form of government assistance overwhelms the system and creates an immediate shortage, which harms EVERYONE.I'm saying, if it will take some growing pains to get to a point where every American has health care, then it's worth it.

Right now, there are people without care, without options. People who go broke due to medical problems. For them, the current situation is more harmful than any possible shortages. When you say it harms EVERYONE, you mean EVERYONE WHO HAS CURRENT INSURANCE, which again cuts out those who are not as fortunate as you and I. I retain my point.

I think the corruption of the political system and the imminent collapse of government programs like medicare and social security are great examples of why this is a travesty and will never work. I'd like to see something work. If you want to talk about the imminent collapse of gov't programs, please provide a link. If you want to talk about funding the programs, that's a whole other question. But if you want to talk about programs that work...

Medicare works. The satisfaction with Medicare is higher than satisfaction with private insurance.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/img/njgraphics/090629_blumenthal.gif
(Full disclosure, I got the chart from this opinion piece (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php), but the chart is from data from the US Dept of Health & Human Services.)

Social Security does what it's supposed to do - keep people above the poverty line (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1863). It was never meant to be a retirement parachute. It keeps the elderly off the streets.

[BarTopDancer]

I started looking at the Heritage Foundation link and CP did a much better job than I summarizing and linking up than I can do this late. But I'll look at it later.

I do have to say though, it appears that it's just another "outrage" site spinning incorrect information.

[scaeagles]

If you want to talk about the imminent collapse of gov't programs, please provide a link. If you want to talk about funding the programs, that's a whole other question.

I guess this is where we won't agree. I see running out of funding as a imminent collapse. You see it as a need for more funding.

So the government can just take more and more and more to keep funding this stuff.

What do you think will happen when social security can no longer be funded? The only choice is to once increase taxes.

Look at the Obama example of the post office. They run out of money, they raise the cost of a postage stamp, yet they still run huge deficits. How will this vary from what will happen with any medical programs? It won't. In fact, it doesn't. It appears as if you admit to financial insolvency of SS and medicare, but I suppose if we keep throwing more money at it it wil be fine. This is what happens with all government programs.

[wendybeth]

I think the message that keeps getting lost in all this is that health care reform largely depends on negotiating with the various entities that are driving the costs out of control. I suspects you base your assertions of the price of universal access to health care on current costs, Scaeagles, would that be accurate? Other countries pay far less for pharmaceuticals and equipment, which drives down the costs of testing and care in general. We not only subsidize those without healthcare in our country at present, but the world as well. Most of the medical companies charge us outrageous prices, all because they can. It's interesting that some of the most promising research into cures for diseases and syndromes occurs in countries where the healthcare systems are heavily regulated. It would seem that even without the profit motive, researchers and other medical personnel are still motivated to come to the aid of their fellow human beings.

[wendybeth]

Wow- pretty subversive stuff. It's ironic that parents are keeping their kids home, given the main theme of the speech: Obama's Speech to Schoolchildren (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/obama-speech-to-schoolchi_n_278763.html) .

[Strangler Lewis]

"My ancestors didn't come to this country and sacrifice for their children so that some smartass from Indonesia could tell my children they're supposed to be better than me."

[Gemini Cricket]

I just read Obama's speech. Despite being long-winded, I thought it was a great message for kids to hear.

[BarTopDancer]

It's totally going to turn kids into Socialists and will be directly related to the failure of America. Oh and look! He admitted he lived in Indonesia when he was a kid. He must not be a US Citizen.


I see kids tuning out about a third of the way through.

[Alex]

Well, in a surprising turn of events, Obama's speech contains content I don't consider particularly appropriate for the classroom.

I'm sure it isn't hard to guess which part (not that I am so offended that I'd protest the speech).

[scaeagles]

For full disclosure, I did get this (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html) link off of the Drudge report. I guess politics gets played on both sides of the aisle, with Dems even holding hearings into GHW Bush's speech to students.

I have read Obama's speech and don't find anything in it really problematic. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

[BarTopDancer]

Newt Gingrich was on the Today show this morning saying it was a good speech and all kids should listen/read it.

I have read Obama's speech and don't find anything in it really problematic. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

It must be exhausting being so paranoid all the time.

I couldn't tell you what way ANY of my teachers leaned and we had political integration in school (I was in school during election years and we discussed it).

[scaeagles]

Newt Gingrich was on the Today show this morning saying it was a good speech and all kids should listen/read it.


Wow....I didn't realize you were such a Newt fan.

And uh, I think I just posted that I saw nothing in the speech objectionable. Did you read that?

With this (http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2008/11/07/teacher-belittles-student-for-supporting-mccain/) kind of stuff - and I suppose if I have to I'll post other links to blatant bias - I can't imagine why I'd be paranoid.

Anecdotal? Certainly. Could you perhaps find links with a conservative bent? I'm sure (I did say there could be bias either way).

[BarTopDancer]

Wow....I didn't realize you were such a Newt fan.

I'm not a Newt fan, nor is he an Obama fan. Which is my point. Someone who is such a prominent figure in the Republican party is saying that the speech is good and should be heard.

And uh, I think I just posted that I saw nothing in the speech objectionable. Did you read that?

You may have said nothing in the speech was objectionable but now you're worried about teachers putting a bias on their lesson plans.

. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

[scaeagles]

You may have said nothing in the speech was objectionable but now you're worried about teachers putting a bias on their lesson plans.

Not now. I believe the lesson plans that accompanied it were part of my original problems and was stated as such. Having read the speech, I am fine with it (though I think it is long winded and rather boring and students are going to tune out). This part of my objection stands.

I do realize that I said "now" in what you quoted, and I realize that was misleading in making it seem as if it has only just become a part of my concern. Sorry for the confusion.

[BarTopDancer]

I agree, I think it is long winded and students will tune out. I tuned out half-way through reading it and had to go back and finish it later. ;)

But I don't think students tuning out is related to the speaker. Speeches are just boring when you're in school.

[Alex]

For full disclosure, I did get this (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html) link off of the Drudge report. I guess politics gets played on both sides of the aisle, with Dems even holding hearings into GHW Bush's speech to students.

I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread (can't remember if it was here or at another board) that there'd been protests from Democratic leadership in response to the 1991 speech. I believe the phrase I used was "they were douchebags too."

Absolutely politics gets played by all sides seeking advantage, and that tends to result in a douchebaggery. But I do think there is a substantive difference between "it is outrageous that the president would use Department of Education funds in a ploy to boost his political popularity, even if the content is innocuous, at the beginning of a presidential campaign" and "the president can't be trusted to speak to our nation's children because he'll probably try to brainwash them with his socialist agenda; we ascared of him!" I have yet to see any indication of protest against Bush's speech (or Reagan's) that they were harmful to children.

If the charge had simply been "Obama is giving this speech because he wants to make children like him and therefore subtly influence the political landscape" I'd probably agree that such is an added motivation. "Oh my god! He's using the same methods as Stalin and Hitler!" just, in my opinion, renders the speaker irrelevant to me.

Which reminds me:

Nor is focus on the outrageous claims (both by those that mke them and those who focus on them) reason to ignore the real problems.

No, that is true. When people say really stupid things or completely fabricate things and sprinkle it among reasonably valid concerns the untruths do not diminish the valid concerns.

However, they do eliminate much of the desire to engage in discussion with such people. They also instill a increased level of initial skepticism about any claims while simultaneously reducing the seriousness with which I view that person so that my desire to investigate is blunted. When the BS ratio reaches a certain level, when faced with uncertain additional statements I'm going to assume they're BS until I can determine otherwise whereas with a generally honest debater I will assume the information presented is generally correct and take it as such until given reason to believe otherwise.

[scaeagles]

No, that is true. When people say really stupid things or completely fabricate things and sprinkle it among reasonably valid concerns the untruths do not diminish the valid concerns.

However, they do eliminate much of the desire to engage in discussion with such people.

Agreed. I would figure politics is full of spreading disinformation when you are a supportor of something in an effort to distract criticism from what are real problems, giving the opportunity to discredit those who offer valid criticism as simply being part of the kooks.

[Alex]

That last confuses me. Are you saying that Obama started the stories of death panels, Nazi-ism, Kenyan citizenship, etc., so that he'd be able to discount Glenn Beck et al. as kooks?

Or are you saying that they're just focusing on the kooks so that they can ignore the non-kooks? I'm willing to meet you halfway on that one. Kooks make for better TV so they will get more than their share of coverage. That said, conservatives (at this moment, liberals last year) can't expect to much pity over being represented by morons in the media when millions of conservatives put them in that position of leadership. If they really don't want to be represented by Rush Limbaugh (best of the bunch), O'Reilly, or Beck, then it would be easy to jetison them. But if Obama was friendly with terrorists simply because he was once on a committee with Ayers then certainly the same guilt by association must exist when 15 million people a day (made up number, don't want to look it up) consume the rantings of the mentioned three.

And generally, all it would take is a little bit of vetting on your part to filter out most of the BS you end up passing on that then makes it so much harder to take you seriously sometimes.

I try to be equal opportunity in this regard (and do spend a lot of time actually looking things up, but I enjoy that anyway)

[scaeagles]

That last confuses me. Are you saying that Obama started the stories of death panels, Nazi-ism, Kenyan citizenship, etc., so that he'd be able to discount Glenn Beck et al. as kooks?


I'm saying I put nothing past politicians on both sides of the aisle. Of course, I have no evidence that anything of the sort has happened and do not claim to. Merely putting forth that it would not be a bad strategy if executed properly.

[Alex]

Yes, I know you're saying both sides do it.

But what it seems to me you're saying they might be doing makes no sense. Unless I am misreading you, you said "I wouldn't put it past them to tell lies about what they support so that when people respond to those lies they can be called kooks."

I may be misunderstanding you, though. But if not, could you give an example of how that might apply to the current situation in the debate over health care.

[scaeagles]

I am saying just that...sort of. I think i understand what I didn't explain well. Let's look at one aspect, being the "death panels".

All hypothetical, please understand. I am not saying that they did this.

The Obama admin knows there are problems with budget overruns and deficits, and knowing that the federal deficit is already projected at 1.6 trillion this year, they can't have this discussed in relation to the health care plans. So to distract, they start a rumor that there are death panels and old people will be denied scarce treatment resources because they have nothing left to offer society. They have some operatives spread this anonymously, gullible people pick up on it, and it becomes the point of discussion rather than the legitimate budgetary concerns. They perhaps do this with several different points.

What happens then is two fold. The loudness over the death panels, etc, drowns out the concerns over cost. Since theses ares the loudest points of protestation, and the shouters can be called kooks, it then becomes relatively easy to label all who don't want this as kooks.

I think what I didn't make clear is that the strategy involves anonymity in who starts the rumors. It could not be Obama or a representative getting up and saying "we have death panels". They have to maintain their distance from that so that they can then say those who object are kooks.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wow.


Just, wow.

[BarTopDancer]

I am saying just that...sort of. I think i understand what I didn't explain well. Let's look at one aspect, being the "death panels".

All hypothetical, please understand. I am not saying that they did this.

Cut for length.



Do you believe they did this?

[scaeagles]

What's "wow" about theorizing about political strategies? I said I wouldn't be surprised if political operatives on both sides of the aisle did things like this. Alex asked for a specific example of how that might apply in the health care debate, so I fabricated one, which I clearly said was a fabrication.

[3894]

They have some operatives spread this anonymously, gullible people pick up on it, and it becomes the point of discussion rather than the legitimate budgetary concerns.

So Glenn Beck is really a DNC operative? And his wild rant about a building built by Rockefeller as full of subliminal Communist symbols is all to throw us off the trail? And Limbaugh is a DNC operative? Maybe this is why Sarah Palin quit being Alaska's Republican governor! She's really a double agent!

Continuing your hypothetical, the DNC operatives would have to know for absolute certain that the opposition is filled with (your words) "gullible people".

Wait. This last part about "gullible" is true. Especially if we add stupid, racist, and paranoid.

[Alex]

Ok. So Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Beck/Hannity/etc. would be unwitting dupes of Obama or his political handlers?

I don't recall where you stood on it then, but that strikes me as equally ridiculous to when the same sort of evil mastermindedness was attributed to Karl Rove (much of the criticism of Bush relied on simultaneously believing they were idiots and criminal super geniuses).

But you still have the issue that apparently so many at the forefront of the conservative movement are stupid enough to fall for it and their viewers go along for the ride. Of course, the same was true when Rove was spreading rumors that Bush wanted to kill all the Muslims.

[Strangler Lewis]

Given how things are playing out, I'd almost buy Scaeagles' theory with the minor adjustment that Obama's team concocted the death panel rumor in order to kill health care reform, not to pass it.

[scaeagles]

Yeah, people sure thought (think) Rove was evil, and honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did things in a manner like I suggested. It's what political operatives do. I think Rahm Emmanuel is about as slimey as they come, and I wouldn't put this type of thing past them.

And I feel the need to reiterate - not for you Alex, but for others - I am not in anyway accusing Obama or his administration of starting the death panel thing. It was a hypothetical example based on a question of how this political strategy might apply to the health care debate.

As far as being unwitting dupes....yeah, to an extent. The trick is putting something out there from the bill that might, in some form of wild interpretation, be able to be interpretted that way. Since there are many who expect the worst of the other side of the political aisle (and I admittedly am one of them, as I suspect many here are whether they would like to admit it or not), including those you mention, it then becomes something that is run with. It is then an issue of wild interpretation, spin, and the general distrust that exists between the different sides.

[wendybeth]

What's "wow" about theorizing about political strategies? I said I wouldn't be surprised if political operatives on both sides of the aisle did things like this. Alex asked for a specific example of how that might apply in the health care debate, so I fabricated one, which I clearly said was a fabrication.

The thing is, Scaeagles, the 'wow' factor kicks in when one realizes that you've considered this scenario enough to write about it, even if it was with the usual 'both sides' modifier and the admission that it is a fabricated situation. It's a small step these days from a flight of fancy to fact in the public's mind, especially when it comes to the conservative pundits listed by Alex and others. I'm still waiting for a little less knee-jerk reaction to things like speeches to the kiddies and the like and a little more substantive examples to explain why you just don't like or trust the man. If I were in your brain, I wouldn't like or trust him either- he seems to be far too devious and diabolical for any oridinary man.

[Alex]

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

[scaeagles]

The thing is, Scaeagles, the 'wow' factor kicks in when one realizes that you've considered this scenario enough to write about it, even if it was with the usual 'both sides' modifier and the admission that it is a fabricated situation. It's a small step these days from a flight of fancy to fact in the public's mind, especially when it comes to the conservative pundits listed by Alex and others. I'm still waiting for a little less knee-jerk reaction to things like speeches to the kiddies and the like and a little more substantive examples to explain why you just don't like or trust the man. If I were in your brain, I wouldn't like or trust him either- he seems to be far too devious and diabolical for any oridinary man.


I considered that specific example only after Alex asked a specific question.

However, I don't think (and maybe I'm insane) that I'm that far off in suggesting that this is the type of thing that political operatives do. You've never considered such tricks from Rove or Delay or any other number of Republicans? If not, then not. I suspect it happens all the time.

I suppose I need to get to my long talked about rant over Obama as far as why I do not trust him. It is of course not just a lack of trust but also a dislike of his agenda.

[scaeagles]

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

Of course it is reasonable to assume some kook came up with it, but I don't think most, regardless of their political outlook, are smart (or devious) enough to look at a bill, say "wow! this could be twisted to say we are going to have death panels". It typically comes from a single source and spreads. Someone has to come up with the idea first.

I also do not know if I would call them stupid. The political pundits all have their own agendas as well, whether Beck or Olberman or Hannity or....the Cajun bald guy....drawing a blank for some reason, so if there is a possible interpretation, they might choose to run with it. I would suspect they also bring up budgets and cost overruns and problems with funding existing programs and whatever else. That's why I read Thomas Sowell and Wlater Williams and, to the dismay of some here, the Heritage Foundation website, because I find them to be quite reasonable as well as scholarly.

Morally reprehensible? Perhaps. Politics in general is morally reprehensible. There are not many politicians or pundits or journalists that I don't find to be morally reprehensible. I will admit that I would rather the conservative ideas that I prefer be touted rather than liberal ideas that I don't be misrepresented.

[SacTown Chronic]

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

[BarTopDancer]

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

Terrible. Funny, but terrible.

And submitted to quotes.

[Strangler Lewis]

Today my children came home and asked what was for dinner.

A dinner they would not make and had no intention of paying for.

DAMN YOU, OBAMA!!!

[Mousey Girl]

The Boy saw the speech today at school. He lived.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm really tired of hearing about death panels. End of life counseling/living wills are a good idea for everyone. I should have one.

And I don't see anything wrong with revisiting it every 5 years for older people. Things change; at age 60 you might want all possible measures taken, but at age 65, maybe you've been diagnosed with something bad, and you want to change your status.

[innerSpaceman]

ok, with all the broohaha over the education speech, why aren't there pages of outrages of the healthcare speech? I hope scaeagles hasn't been in an accident.

[scaeagles]

Didn't watch it, haven't read it.

I am not outraged over the President making a speech. Presidents do it all the time. Like I said after reading the speech that was to the captive audience, I said I had no problems with the content, but stood by my concern over the teachers and their biases leading the post speech discussion as was in the plans.

I have a feeling his health care speech was nothing new, and that all it was was an attempt to rescue the failing (in public opinion) plan. Clinton did the same thing with his attempt.

[Betty]

Neither of my kids watched the speech at school. huh.

[BarTopDancer]

I said I had no problems with the content, but stood by my concern over the teachers and their biases leading the post speech discussion as was in the plans.

Why must you assume that teachers are automatically going to be biased and push their political agenda on their students? For that matter, why must you assume teachers are going to have a political agenda or be unprofessional enough to do it.

Most importantly, were you worried about teachers pushing their bias when it was "your guy" in office?

Do you really remember your teachers pushing their political agenda on you?

I sure don't.

No wait. I take that back. I remember on 9/11/01 my math teacher talking to us about the importance of staying in school because if there was reinstatement of the draft you could be delayed because you were in school. (and he was an obvious aging hippy working for the establishment. It was awesome). Hell, I couldn't even tell the leanings of my political science teachers in high school or college.

Do you really think that kids are going to turn on their parents? And is that a bad thing?

I actually called my dad last night and thanked him for raising me to look at both sides, objectively. For always explaining to me why he was voting the way he did, why he agreed/disagreed with a particular candidate over the issues. For never blanketly saying "I just don't trust him" or "I have a bad feeling about her". For never bad-mouthing "the other guy". For showing me by example that just because he didn't agree with something they were still our elected officials and deserved respect.

I hated GWBush, but he was still the POTUS and that title deserves respect.

We're raising a generation of kids who are learning that they don't have to respect or listen to people they disagree with. Scary. Very, very scary.

[scaeagles]

Why must you assume that teachers are automatically going to be biased and push their political agenda on their students? For that matter, why must you assume teachers are going to have a political agenda or be unprofessional enough to do it.

Most importantly, were you worried about teachers pushing their bias when it was "your guy" in office?

We're raising a generation of kids who are learning that they don't have to respect or listen to people they disagree with. Scary. Very, very scary.


Let's try this for the 100th time.

I said I had no problem with my HS age daughter to watch it or discuss it because she has the critical thinking skills necessary to deal with any form of bias. I said I'd watch the speech with my younger kids. My younger kids do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to disagree on abstract concepts with their teacher.

I do not think there was a situation for me to worry about with agendas being "pushed" in an organized fashion with lesson plans provided to teachers by the administration. So no, I wasn't concerned about it.

I didn't say they would necessarily push their bias. However, even the most objective have biases that come through, whether teachers, judges, journalists, whomever, and it comes through. As far as professionalism, there are literally dozens of stories here in AZ of teachers having sex (or doing something sexually inappropriate) with their junior high or HS students in the last couple years. Everyone in the profession is not professional.

I do recall both political bias (when we were reading 1984 in 1984, my junior year) and religious bias (My 8th grade algebra teacher was a Muslim and I can recall him saying many time "There is no God but Allah").

Did you read the earlier link I posted about bias? Anecdotal, certainly, but I also said you could find examples and i could find many more.

To think there is bias that comes through is not unreasonable.

[innerSpaceman]

Ok ... so why aren't you going to school with your young children on a daily basis, then? Does bias come thru only when the president gives a televised address?

[innerSpaceman]

So ... Joe Wilson ... what a maroon, huh? :D

[Strangler Lewis]

Interesting to learn that scaeagles, like our president, is a Muslim.

Joe Wilson was an Obama plant.

[scaeagles]

Of course bias can come through on a regular basis. I don't claim to be able to protect them from everything (nor should I). However, when something comes through like this that has (at least to me) very obvious opportunities to push political bias, I don't know why any parent wouldn't want to have an opportunity to be involved.

And yeah, Wilson gacked. Big time.

[scaeagles]

Interesting to learn that scaeagles, like our president, is a Muslim.

HA! Funny. I replaced the "as a Muslim" with "was a Muslim" above. :blush:

[Strangler Lewis]

Of course bias can come through on a regular basis. I don't claim to be able to protect them from everything (nor should I). However, when something comes through like this that has (at least to me) very obvious opportunities to push political bias, I don't know why any parent wouldn't want to have an opportunity to be involved.

And yeah, Wilson gacked. Big time.

Depending on where one stands on the issue, one teacher's bias is another teacher's academic freedom.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

My younger kids do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to disagree on abstract concepts with their teacher.


Assuming that you have shared your religious views with your children, did you wait until they were the age of being able to disagree with abstract concepts, or did you feel that they had the critical thinking skills necessary to absorb such a topic?Or, is it only things that you disagree with that you think they cannot handle? I smell a double-standard.

Besides, there were really no abstract concepts contained within this speech for anyone to disagree with. The President of the United States gave a motivational speech to all students, urging them to work hard and stay in school, to better their future and contribute to their community. And it amazes me that any Republican would find fault with any of that. Of course, I doubt that they really do. Rather, they need to keep demonizing him from every conceivable angle, because should he succeed at any of the stuff he is trying to accomplish, their chances in 2010 and 12 are shot. That's really what this all boils down to.

[BarTopDancer]

I do not think there was a situation for me to worry about with agendas being "pushed" in an organized fashion with lesson plans provided to teachers by the administration. So no, I wasn't concerned about it.

But you just said you were. Unless you were referring to my question if you would have the same paranoia if it was "your guy" in office.

[scaeagles]

Depending on where one stands on the issue, one teacher's bias is another teacher's academic freedom.

Indeed. And you would never hear me suggest that those biases not be perimtted in a university setting.

[scaeagles]

Assuming that you have shared your religious views with your children, did you wait until they were the age of being able to disagree with abstract concepts, or did you feel that they had the critical thinking skills necessary to absorb such a topic?Or, is it only things that you disagree with that you think they cannot handle? I smell a double-standard.

Besides, there were really no abstract concepts contained within this speech for anyone to disagree with. The President of the United States gave a motivational speech to all students, urging them to work hard and stay in school, to better their future and contribute to their community. And it amazes me that any Republican would find fault with any of that. Of course, I doubt that they really do. Rather, they need to keep demonizing him from every conceivable angle, because should he succeed at any of the stuff he is trying to accomplish, their chances in 2010 and 12 are shot. That's really what this all boils down to.

Are you seriously equating what I as a parent would choose to impart as far as values to my children at a young age and what the public school teacher might choose to impart? Wow. I am really floored by that. You think it a double standard that as I parent I want to pass along my religious thinking (as well as other things) to my children but don't want teachers to pass along their moral and religious thinking to them? Seriously....that is mind boggling.

And I'll try it again. You'll note that after I read the speech I said I had no objections to it in and of itself. My concern was the guided lesson about the President and his speech afterwards. So your second paragraph is way off base....at least if you were directing it toward me.

[scaeagles]

But you just said you were. Unless you were referring to my question if you would have the same paranoia if it was "your guy" in office.

I was referring to the paranoia comment about "my guy". Sorry I wasn't clear.

[SacTown Chronic]

You can't shield the kids forever, scaeagles. All you can do is vaccinate, teach 'em to wash their hands after any contact with liberals, and hope for the best.

[scaeagles]

I agree, Sac. Which is why I've repeatedly said for my HS daughter, cool. No problems. Younger kids? Some sheltering is required and prudent.

[Alex]

Out of curiosity, do you shelter them from your political points of view? Or is the complaint more that you need the early years to make sure they're properly indoctrinated against other views?

[BarTopDancer]

Our Headline "DUH" of the day:

Census: Income fell sharply last year

Story here (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-09-10-census-healthcare_N.htm)

[BarTopDancer]

Out of curiosity, do you shelter them from your political points of view? Or is the complaint more that you need the early years to make sure they're properly indoctrinated against other views?

VAM.

[scaeagles]

Out of curiosity, do you shelter them from your political points of view? Or is the complaint more that you need the early years to make sure they're properly indoctrinated against other views?

I say to you the same thing I said to MBC. That completely baffles me. Part of parenting is passing along your morals and values to your children while they are young, trying to guide them in the direction you see best, hoping they will see the world the way you do when they get older, but understanding that they may not.

Honestly, I find these questions from you and MBC.....scary, for lack of a better word.

[Betty]

I say to you the same thing I said to MBC. That completely baffles me. Part of parenting is passing along your morals and values to your children while they are young, trying to guide them in the direction you see best, hoping they will see the world the way you do when they get older, but understanding that they may not.

Honestly, I find these questions from you and MBC.....scary, for lack of a better word.

Why are you so "scared" they may not think the same way you do?

[BarTopDancer]

I actually called my dad last night and thanked him for raising me to look at both sides, objectively. For always explaining to me why he was voting the way he did, why he agreed/disagreed with a particular candidate over the issues. For never blanketly saying "I just don't trust him" or "I have a bad feeling about her". For never bad-mouthing "the other guy". For showing me by example that just because he didn't agree with something they were still our elected officials and deserved respect.

Part of parenting is passing along your morals and values to your children while they are young, trying to guide them in the direction you see best, hoping they will see the world the way you do when they get older, but understanding that they may not.

Guess I better call my dad back and tell him he screwed up by raising a daughter who can form independent thoughts separate from what he believes.

At least we know he screwed up when I was young and he started explaining the political process in very basic terms.

[Moonliner]

Guess I better call my dad back and tell him he screwed up by raising a daughter who can form independent thoughts separate from what he believes.

At least we know he screwed up when I was young and he started explaining the political process in very basic terms.

Wait, are you arguing against parents getting involved with their kids? That being a supportive parent squashes independent thought?

Ok, now I'm scared also.

[Gemini Cricket]

I hear what you're saying, Leo, but my children would be raised in a different way. I'd let them learn and hear what they wanted. It's what they do with what they learn that would grab my attention. As long as they're not hurting themselves or breaking the law, who they are is up to them. I would not deny my children access to something like a presidential speech. If it were any president speaking I would sit with my kid and discuss things with them after. But telling a kid 'no, you can't watch that' makes them think 'I'm going to see it no matter what now'.

I'm curious, why are their questions scary? I'm confused by that. When I am secure and content in my beliefs, things are rarely scary.

[Alex]

Honestly, I find these questions from you and MBC.....scary, for lack of a better word.

I must have missed a page, didn't see the back and forth with MBC (though you never answered when I asked the same thing a few pages back).

You shouldn't be scared by me. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily and of course parents tend to pass on their view of the world to their children (it is no accident that while everybody feels their religion is obviously and intellectually the obvious one the most reliable indicator of religious belief in an adult is to see what the religious beliefs of the parents were). I just think you're dishonest in how you frame the objection. Your issue is not with young children being exposed to ideas they can't understand (what you said), your issue is the idea that the teacher would intrude on your territory in taking advantage of them being too young to understand to try and ensure that by the time they are old enough to understand they've already been taught your point of view as the correct one (and thus, are much less likely to question it even once capable).

You also moved the goalposts. Initially you said you didn't trust Obama. Then you shifted that distrust to the teachers. As has been pointed out, if that is the concern it exists independently of whatever the president is doing. But I'm sure you've done your best to make sure your children are in an academic environment least likely to challenge your personal views.

===

In third grade we a required class activity was to read one article from the local newspaper and write one paragraph summarizing it and develop a scrapbook through the year. Am I correct that you would object to such an exercise since it exposed our young minds to all kinds of news and ideas (I can't remember if the oped page was included but I know everything else was)?

[BarTopDancer]

Wait, are you arguing against parents getting involved with their kids? That being a supportive parent squashes independent thought?

Ok, now I'm scared also.

I really hoping I'm missing some sarcasm in your post.

On the chance that you aren't kidding....

For me to have these memories going back as far as I can remember means my dad was pretty flippin involved. He took me with him to vote as soon as I was old enough to know to be quiet in the voting area and not yell "why are you voting for ________". I think I was 4 or 5.

I am arguing that sheltering kids so they only get "mom and dad's perspective on life" is not preparing their child for the path, they are expecting the path to be prepared for their child, or their child to change the path so it meets their needs without understanding the bumps, curves and other paths they may encounter along the way.

We all work to change the path to meet our needs. We also understand that we will meet roadblocks, bumps and curves and sometimes we have to bend with it, and sometimes we have to wait until the block comes down and sometimes we decide that another path is better.

[Alex]

Now. Joe Wilson. What he did was rude, it was not the place or time for it.

That said, the left-side manufactured outrage is silly to watch too. Over the last few years I saw several times it seriously batted around that the president should be required to submit to a British parliament-style questions session before congress every so often. The sole purpose for wanting such a things seems to have been so that President Bush could be heckled (nobody ever seemed to think it would actually accomplish anything useful, though it did highlight how little most people understand the different between our system of government and parliamentary systems).

[scaeagles]

Guess I better call my dad back and tell him he screwed up by raising a daughter who can form independent thoughts separate from what he believes.

At least we know he screwed up when I was young and he started explaining the political process in very basic terms.


What the hell are you talking about? Am I speaking a different language? What part of understanding they might not think the same way I do when they're older didn't you understand? Did I say it was a bad thing?

To answer a few different questions, I am not afraid my children may end up with different opinions than me. What scared me was the thought that, while my children are young, the morals and values of their teacher - or anyone else for that matter - should be considered as more important (or equally so) to mine. That is what scares me.

[Gemini Cricket]

I remember the Democrats clapping inappropriately during Bush's State of the Union speech when he brought up how they stopped his Social Security plans. Half of me frowned at what Wilson did, half of me smiled, same with the clapping.

...though it did highlight how little most people understand the different between our system of government and parliamentary systems).
I don't know very much about the parliamentary system, I admit. But I do like watching the spontaneous back and forth. It's refreshing to see that than a polished, practiced speech. It's like doing improv, you have to think fast and honesty comes out of that lots of times.

[scaeagles]

I must have missed a page, didn't see the back and forth with MBC (though you never answered when I asked the same thing a few pages back).

...

I just think you're dishonest in how you frame the objection. Your issue is not with young children being exposed to ideas they can't understand (what you said), your issue is the idea that the teacher would intrude on your territory in taking advantage of them ...

You also moved the goalposts. Initially you said you didn't trust Obama. Then you shifted that distrust to the teachers.

...

In third grade we a required class activity was to read one article from the local newspaper and write one paragraph summarizing it and develop a scrapbook through the year. Am I correct that you would object to such an exercise since it exposed our young minds to all kinds of news and ideas (I can't remember if the oped page was included but I know everything else was)?

I wasn't trying to dodge your earlier question of me. In all likelihood I missed it as there has been a lot posted here in a short period of time.

I suppose i can't really disagree with your second point. Yes, at a young age, I am concerned about a teacher directly contradicting my moral leanings. Even political leanings. I don't see that as problematic. Once they get to a point of being able to debate and defend and reconsider abstract thought, I do not have a problem with it. I don't see that as unreasonable.

I do not think I moved the goal posts. I think early on (perhaps not my first post on the subject after someone else brought his school speech into the thread) I mentioned my problem with both. After I read the speech, I clearly stated I no longer had a problem with the speech in and of itself.

New thoughts an new ideas in a newspaper article? I'm not sure why you think I would object to that. What you described would be reading facts and summarizing. Even if it were an op ed, I would suspect my child would be doing such as homework and would be discussing it with me (I help my kids with their homework and review it every night).

[Ghoulish Delight]

To answer a few different questions, I am not afraid my children may end up with different opinions than me. What scared me was the thought that, while my children are young, the morals and values of their teacher - or anyone else for that matter - should be considered as more important (or equally so) to mine. That is what scares me.
Why do you even let them out of your house to spend a day with these people if you think their moral are so utterly different than yours and abhorrent that they stand a chance of permanently scarring your children.

[scaeagles]

Wilson was inappropriate and directed the debate away from the plan to how he was inappropriate. He was right to apologize, but the spin on this being something completely new is disingenuous at best.

[scaeagles]

Why do you even let them out of your house to spend a day with these people if you think their moral are so utterly different than yours and abhorrent that they stand a chance of permanently scarring your children.

I don't know how to respond to such a ridiculous extrapolation of what I've been writing.

[katiesue]

I don't get the paranoia about exposing your kids to other ideas, values, cultures, religions, other than my own. Maddie's Algebra teacher is Muslim (and I only know this because she wears the full headscarf etc). I have no issue with her being in her class. Maybe she will learn something about another country and religion. If her teachers were to tell her something I don't belive in, then we have a discussion about that's one way to look at it but here's how I see it.

[Gemini Cricket]

What scared me was the thought that, while my children are young, the morals and values of their teacher - or anyone else for that matter - should be considered as more important (or equally so) to mine. That is what scares me.
But in essence isn't that what you are saying by sending them to a certain school? I mean, private schools thrive on money from people who send kids there because the teachers have the same set of morals and values they have.

But I must say, even at a Catholic school here in Hawai'i, I had teachers who had moral leanings that were directly opposite from the church's. I felt more well rounded because of what I learned from all of them. I picked and chose what I agreed with and what I didn't agree with. Don't all kids do that?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't know how to respond to such a ridiculous extrapolation of what I've been writing.Ridiculous? More ridiculous than thinking that one lesson plan asking a kid what they think about what the President said about staying in school is a threat to your child's moral upbringing?

[scaeagles]

I don't get the paranoia about exposing your kids to other ideas, values, cultures, religions, other than my own. Maddie's Algebra teacher is Muslim (and I only know this because she wears the full headscarf etc). I have no issue with her being in her class. Maybe she will learn something about another country and religion. If her teachers were to tell her something I don't belive in, then we have a discussion about that's one way to look at it but here's how I see it.


How old is Maddie? 8th grade (I guess that because of algebra)? I have no problem at that age level either.

I wouldn't have a problem if, in 3rd as my youngest is, a teacher said "Muslims worship a God called Allah and study a book called the Quran". OK - that's factual. I think it might be different if the teacher said "Allah is great. In fact, he is the true God and all infidels should be killed" - that might be different.

GC, again, once my kids are old enough and mature enough to consider, debate, and reasonably approach ideas vs. fact, I'm cool with it. My 8 and 10 years olds haven't reached that point yet. My 8 year old might be there before my 10 year old.

[Ghoulish Delight]

GC, again, once my kids are old enough and mature enough to consider, debate, and reasonably approach ideas vs. fact, I'm cool with it. My 8 and 10 years olds haven't reached that point yet. My 8 year old might be there before my 10 year old.If you make the decision to exclude your 8 year old from the accompanying lesson plan, and she (she, right?) asks, "Dad, why am I not doing the same homework as everyone else in my class?" would yuo answer honsetly with, "Because the assignment might include opinions that we don't agree with and don't think you should be learning about right now." If so, what do you think that teaches her about hearing opposing opinions?

[Betty]

After reading a few pages here it sure seems like everyone is ganging up on scaeagles. I just wanted to say that I really enjoy the discussion going on and I hope that scaeagles doesn't get his feelings hurt (or however you want to phrase that) by being singled out a bit.

It's a rare message board where everyone can actually discuss differing viewpoints and not have flaming and/or trolling going on.

/I <3 you guys. :)

[Strangler Lewis]

Funny story from a friend of mine: his sister married a Jewish feller and converted and they had a kid. They were religious but not super religious, but when it came time to send their daugher to high school, they sent her to an Orthodox Jewish school. (I don't know if she had been going to Jewish day schools all along.) The main goal was to shelter her from some of the more challenging aspects of public high school. But . . .

the kid drank the Kool-Aid. "We're not religious enough. Dad, you should grow your beard, etc." The kid got herself emancipated at 16, so she could live with a truly religious family.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm sure Leo's fine. I'm just trying to stoke the flames of his inner liberal fireplace.
:D

[BarTopDancer]

What the hell are you talking about? Am I speaking a different language? What part of understanding they might not think the same way I do when they're older didn't you understand? Did I say it was a bad thing?

I do understand that you don't want them to be exposed to any views that aren't yours until they are older. It seems that you think that children shouldn't be exposed to different views until they are old enough to have the critical thinking skills to understand people believe differently then you do.

Problem (or not) is, by the time they reach that age your views will be so ingrained in them that they will think the other views are wrong and they won't have the tools to be able to understand that people do have different views because they won't be exposed to anyone with different views.



And now I feel like we've gone beyond discussing politics in general to criticizing your parenting skills. That, I don't think is cool.

I will apologize for the directness of this to your personal, off-board life. I say what I say about anyone who doesn't expose their kids to different views (general ewe, in a way). The topic is good, the subject direction is a poor choice.

[Strangler Lewis]

If you make the decision to exclude your 8 year old from the accompanying lesson plan, and she (she, right?) asks, "Dad, why am I not doing the same homework as everyone else in my class?" would yuo answer honsetly with, "Because the assignment might include opinions that we don't agree with and don't think you should be learning about right now." If so, what do you think that teaches her about hearing opposing opinions?

We have discussions like that all the time about entertainment choices. I hope I wouldn't ever have to have one about a school project, but I wouldn't rule it out.

[scaeagles]

If you make the decision to exclude your 8 year old from the accompanying lesson plan, and she (she, right?) asks, "Dad, why am I not doing the same homework as everyone else in my class?" would yuo answer honsetly with, "Because the assignment might include opinions that we don't agree with and don't think you should be learning about right now." If so, what do you think that teaches her about hearing opposing opinions?

It is a she. My kids are Heather (15), Jake (10), and Megan (8 on the 17th).

My answer would be "Because it was an assignment on some stuff I was concerned about and the parents were excluded from the process. We can look at the stuff and talk about it together, though.". That is honest.

What that would teach her is opposing opinions are fine and I'm interested in what she's doing (already do homework with her nightly, so that's not really an issue), and some things are important enough that I want to do it with her 100%.

[scaeagles]

After reading a few pages here it sure seems like everyone is ganging up on scaeagles. I just wanted to say that I really enjoy the discussion going on and I hope that scaeagles doesn't get his feelings hurt (or however you want to phrase that) by being singled out a bit.

It's a rare message board where everyone can actually discuss differing viewpoints and not have flaming and/or trolling going on.

/I <3 you guys. :)


I'm used to it. Happens all the time around here. :)

FYI, Betty, I enjoy it around here and it is very infrequent that I feel belittled, and to get ones feelings hurt one must first have feelings. :) I usually am challenged to defend my positions, which I enjoy, and there are a whole bunch of things I've actually changed my mind on from discussions here, and other things I am more convinced of than ever that I'm right.

[scaeagles]

Problem (or not) is, by the time they reach that age your views will be so ingrained in them that they will think the other views are wrong and they won't have the tools to be able to understand that people do have different views because they won't be exposed to anyone with different views.

To the complete contrary!

I was completely immersed in certain philosophies until I went to college. I certainly do NOT share much in common with my dad.

And guiding them through different views does expose them to the fact that there are other views. We don't pretend there aren't any.

[scaeagles]

I'm sure Leo's fine. I'm just trying to stoke the flames of his inner liberal fireplace.
:D

That used to be MBC's job. I feel so....so.....rejected.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm sure Leo's fine. I'm just trying to stoke the flames of his inner liberal fireplace.
:D

That used to be MBC's job. I feel so....so.....rejected.
You're mistaken, MBC was trying to get some flaming liberal inside of you. Subtle, but substantial, difference.

[flippyshark]

All well and good, but, what I can't get my head around is, even before they changed the lesson plan, was it really THAT BAD? It seemed thoroughly innocuous to me, just boilerplate elementary school civics. (Heck, I was assigned to write a letter to President Nixon, along with the rest of my classmates, back in the fist grade. Pretty similar stuff - tell the president what you like best about the country, what you want to see happen in the future - I'm sure we all wrote that we wanted a longer recess and Slurpees in the school cafeteria.) If I've understood correctly, the contentious line, which was changed, was "write a letter to yourself about how you might help the president," and that even in the original version, this, in context with the surrounding material, clearly meant "help the president realize his goal of increasing the number of college graduates." Now, really, what the F is wrong with that?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

You're mistaken, MBC was trying to get some flaming liberal inside of you. Subtle, but substantial, difference.

Precisely.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

All well and good, but, what I can't get my head around is, even before they changed the lesson plan, was it really THAT BAD? It seemed thoroughly innocuous to me, just boilerplate elementary school civics. (Heck, I was assigned to write a letter to President Nixon, along with the rest of my classmates, back in the fist grade. Pretty similar stuff - tell the president what you like best about the country, what you want to see happen in the future - I'm sure we all wrote that we wanted a longer recess and Slurpees in the school cafeteria.) If I've understood correctly, the contentious line, which was changed, was "write a letter to yourself about how you might help the president," and that even in the original version, this, in context with the surrounding material, clearly meant "help the president realize his goal of increasing the number of college graduates." Now, really, what the F is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, which is what makes this outrage so silly.

[BarTopDancer]

You're mistaken, MBC was trying to get some flaming liberal inside of you. Subtle, but substantial, difference.

From a discussion on right-wing paranoia politics to toasters.

Only on LoT.

[sleepyjeff]

Leo, I am with you in spirit....


Carry on:)

[Gemini Cricket]

Yeah! We're #37! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4)

[Betty]

Yeah! We're #37! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4)

Shameful!

[JWBear]

Shameful!

Which; the video, or that we're 37th?

[Prudence]

So, today I got to drive by the usual weekend brunch crowd of people flag-waving on the corner by the library. I realize this particular faction is all about going it alone, with no structured societal support of any kind, but really, the signs need work. If it's in small print - and bad penmanship, no less - people in cars can't read it. All I could read on one guy's sign, because the letters were big enough and it was underlined, was "NO HEALTH CARE". Since I'm pretty sure the group wasn't in favor of government involvement in anything, I'm confident he wasn't protesting any lack of personal health care.

Also, I'm predisposed to turn against any group that encourages honking.

[Tref]

Also, I'm predisposed to turn against any group that encourages honking.

What about geese?

[Gemini Cricket]

The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
The outburst was unexpected from a milquetoast Republican backbencher from South Carolina who had attracted little media attention. Now it has made him an overnight right-wing hero, inspiring “You lie!” bumper stickers and T-shirts.

The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.
I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=2)
I think Dowd nails it in this op-ed.

[Betty]

Which; the video, or that we're 37th?

That we're 37th! And rather ironic when everyone is always putting France down and look who's #1.

[scaeagles]

Good Lord, GC....all criticism of Obama is NOT racism, and while that was not the appropriate place to yell it out, it is getting incredibly tiresome.

[JWBear]

Good Lord, GC....all criticism of Obama is NOT racism, and while that was not the appropriate place to yell it out, it is getting incredibly tiresome.

No, not all... But a large majority of it. That is to say, the people marching and disrupting town halls; the birthers; the pundants on Fox... You know, the nuts.

[Alex]

I would say there is definitely criticism of racism that is fueled or augmented by outright racism or simple disquiet (that is, they'd never overtly do anything particularly racist but have some unconscious tendencies) with having a black president.

Saying that, though, I further say that while it may be true, unless an individual instance of criticism or disrespect can clearly be tied to a racist idea it is politically disadvantageous to bring it up.

[flippyshark]

I also think the racist card is being played far too often by those criticizing the conservatives. Sure, it's justified in some cases, particularly with some of the more virulent protesters, but I think it's best to respond to the challenges that can actually be addressed with facts. Slinging a charge of racism is always a conversation ender, and the person who plays that card is essentially saying, eh, you're not even worth talking to. (that is true in the case of some of the most virulent protesters, of course.) But it's a lot more useful to keep the conversation focused on facts, especially since both sides appear to have their own sets of facts.

Just for starters, I think an awful lot of the tea party faction need to consult some good dictionaries and history books. Judging from their signs, they don't have very good working definitions of fascism, socialism, communism or nazism, and seem to find them all interchangeable.

I know a few libertarians who are part of these protests, all educated and very smart. I'm surprised that they seem to be cool with the nonsense, jingoism and sometimes threatening rhetoric coming from the more (*ahem*) rural participants in these events. ("We didn't bring guns ... THIS TIME") Strange bedfellows.

[scaeagles]

No, not all... But a large majority of it.

I completely disagree that a vast majority is racially motivated.

[JWBear]

I completely disagree that a vast majority is racially motivated.

I (and many others) see them as crowds of angry white people who are frothing because the President is black. Your mileage may vary. <shrug>

[Gemini Cricket]

I honestly do believe that a lot of these protests against Obama's health care plans have more to do with hate of Obama the black president than the health care issue itself. I don't see a lot of people of color at these marches. In the vast majority of the footage that I have seen on CNN, MSNBC, Fox "News" the protesters are white. I think people need to get over it, he's president, let it go.
It's like the people who hide behind their religion to discriminate against gay marriage. They don't give a sh!t about marriage, they hate gay people. You can say it's one thing and mean another.

[wendybeth]

I agree completely, GC.

[BarTopDancer]

I honestly do believe that a lot of these protests against Obama's health care plans have more to do with hate of Obama the black president than the health care issue itself.

And I bet a lot of those same white people voted for him to begin with!

He wasn't elected by a slim margin.

[JWBear]

Trust me, BTD... None of these people voted for him.

[BarTopDancer]

What we have doesn't work. Something needs to be done. What it is, I don't know but what the current Administration is trying to do is fix something that is broken. I get resistance to change - but Obama's campaign promised "change", he was elected and now people are pitching a fit over "change". You can't have it both ways.

I've been on all spectrum of insurance: "good insurance" (Blue Cross), "government insurance" (MediCal) and no insurance.

When I had no insurance I was lucky enough to live in a city that had a stellar community clinic where I could get excellent care for little to no money. Not all cities are like that.

The worst was MediCal, which I paid nothing for and few doctors would take it. They wouldn't cover my allergy medication without a fight, or the few antibiotics that my Dr. prescribed because I am extremely allergic to nearly everything out there (and anything that ends in 'cillin').

"Good insurance" isn't always good. I've had the same fights with them over coverage.

Because of my experience with MediCal I am hesitant to see a truly "government" program. But something has to give.

So while what I have now, or will have in a few months will be "good insurance" I am well aware that it's far from perfect and millions of others aren't as fortunate, and are uninsured.

[JWBear]

You can thank our "wonderful" State Legislature for the fvcked up mess that is Medi-Cal. It's more an example of how bad things are in California rather than what a federal public option plan would be.

Medicare works just fine (except for Part D - W and a Republican controlled Congress's attempt to kill off the old and disabled through pure confusion and frustration).

[CoasterMatt]

Well, I figured this would be as good a place as any for this...

I've got a new picture for the happy right wing conservative message boards-

DO NOT VISIT THE URL AT WORK, DO NOT VISIT THAT URL AT ALL (it may harm your retinas)

[scaeagles]

Ummm....why is that a problem when the same things were done with images of Bush during his administration? Was it OK because Bush was white? Is it only a problem because it is being done to Obama?

[Alex]

No, I found the Bush/Hitler stuff just as vile, and worse as thoroughly empty of content.

Though they do serve a purpose. The people who did such things then and do such things now helpfully identify themselves as idiots.

[BarTopDancer]

Ummm....why is that a problem when the same things were done with images of Bush during his administration? Was it OK because Bush was white? Is it only a problem because it is being done to Obama?

No, I found the Bush/Hitler stuff just as vile, and worse as thoroughly empty of content.

Though they do serve a purpose. The people who did such things then and do such things now helpfully identify themselves as idiots.

I completely agree with Alex.

[JWBear]

Ummm....why is that a problem when the same things were done with images of Bush during his administration? Was it OK because Bush was white? Is it only a problem because it is being done to Obama?

The difference is that the Bush/Hitler comparisons were not supported, either implicitly or with silence, by Democratic Party leaders.

Can you say the same about the Obama/Hitler comparisons? Thought not.

[Gemini Cricket]

When someone compares someone they disagree with to Hitler, it makes me feel that it waters down how truly reprehensible the man was. It's kind of like the Soup Nazi joke. Yes, the joke is funny but what the Nazis did was not. So, yes, it doesn't matter who is compared to Hitler. If it's Bush or Obama or Clinton... not cool.

[scaeagles]

No, I found the Bush/Hitler stuff just as vile, and worse as thoroughly empty of content.

Though they do serve a purpose. The people who did such things then and do such things now helpfully identify themselves as idiots.

This is good. I just find it frustrating when, on whichever side of the aisle you are on, comparisons to Hilter/Stalin/Pol Pot/dictator du jour are fine when pointed a the other side.

I personally think they are ridiculous and serve no real purpose, but also find them more harmful to the side making such accusations than to the side being accused.

[Betty]

The difference is that the Bush/Hitler comparisons were not supported, either implicitly or with silence, by Democratic Party leaders.

Can you say the same about the Obama/Hitler comparisons? Thought not.

:snap: :snap:

[flippyshark]

I'm glad to see that there is a broad consensus on the idiocy of Hitler comparisons. Their ridiculousness is self-evident, and anyone who stoops to such cant should feel a twinge of pathetic shame.

On the other hand, if people feel that their government is doing evil, they should say so.

I honestly feel that the W administration perpetrated evil stuff - possibly with noble intentions, possibly not, I sure don't know. I'm happy to hear out those who would defend enhanced interrogation, warrantless wiretapping, dissembling about WMDs and all the other well-known and much-criticized actions of that recent era. So far, no one has convinced me that those actions and others were justified, I remain horrified by them, but I've managed to have plenty of civil conversations about it. I don't need Hitler as a touchstone. I can give perfectly good reasons why I think those things were fVcking evil without resorting to Godwin tactics.

So far, I can't see any justification for calling Obama evil. He hasn't really done anything much at all yet. (He sure as heck isn't the liberal Messiah some thought he would be.) The accusations against him seem to be based on presumptions about what he is going to do (even though he says he isn't), or about his nefarious origins or his hidden Islamic agenda, etc. In other words, the conversation right now isn't about things he has actually done, things that can be analyzed and disagreed about in the way that the Bush actions can. (It's still early, though.)

To be fair, similar stupid predictions were made about W. Some of my leftier friends were CERTAIN that George was going to cancel elections and declare himself leader over a martial state "until the crisis is over," which would mean never. I didn't buy this scenario for a second, even though, to those who didn't like him, it sounded plausible.

Also note - when comparisons of GWB to Hitler WERE made, it was because of actions he had actually taken. I repeat, I didn't then and don't now like the comparisons, but they did come about as a result of things Bush and company actually did do, rightly or wrongly.

So, to the reasonable conservatives we are lucky enough to have here, I hope that their objections to Obama will be over things he has actually done, or very clearly intends to do. (Like spending ginormous amounts of money, or levying a penalty on the uninsured - hey, even I can understand why people have concerns, really.)

In truth, the conversation here is nearly always leaps above that I've seen anywhere else on the interwebs.

[scaeagles]

The difference is that the Bush/Hitler comparisons were not supported, either implicitly or with silence, by Democratic Party leaders.

Can you say the same about the Obama/Hitler comparisons? Thought not.


Took me about 3 minutes to find that Robert Byrd, in his book Losing America, compared Bush to Hermann Goering. Sounds like a Nazi comparison to me.

Since that took 3 minutes, I'm sure I could find others.

[Strangler Lewis]

Took me about 3 minutes to find that Robert Byrd, in his book Losing America, compared Bush to Hermann Goering. Sounds like a Nazi comparison to me.


The comparison was grossly inapt. Goering was an art lover.

On the other hand:

My (Jewish) father, who was born in Berlin in 1924, told the story of how not long after the Nazis took power, he was in a crowd with his father watching a Nazi motorcade pass by. When Goering drove by, all fat and adorned with too many medals, my father pointed at him and laughed loudly. My father's father promptly slapped him in the face out of concern that such obvious disrespect would draw the attention of the many armed soldiers in the area.

Cf. Bush's mouthpiece, Ari Fleischer (bad Jew), post 9/11: "People need to watch what they do, watch what they say."

[JWBear]

Took me about 3 minutes to find that Robert Byrd, in his book Losing America, compared Bush to Hermann Goering. Sounds like a Nazi comparison to me.

Since that took 3 minutes, I'm sure I could find others.

Can you give me a quote? Or at least which chapter it is in? I'd like to see the context.

Regardless though, comparing him to Goering is not the same as comparing him to Hitler - which is what we were discussing. Close, but not quite.

[flippyshark]

Took me about 3 minutes to find that Robert Byrd, in his book Losing America, compared Bush to Hermann Goering. Sounds like a Nazi comparison to me.

Since that took 3 minutes, I'm sure I could find others.

Given that pretty much everyone here agrees that such comparisons are vile, why do you feel a need to?

Calling out hypocrisy is an easy game, and a boring one, whichever way it swings. None of us compared Bush to Goering. Why don't we talk about actual issues instead?

[scaeagles]

I only did so, Flippy, because JW said no dem leadership would support such a thing.

[JWBear]

Did you even read my last post, Leo?

[JWBear]

It's good to know that there are a few Republicans left who are not buying-in to the lunacy. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-fringe14-2009sep14,0,940651.story)

[scaeagles]

Did you even read my last post, Leo?

I did, but chose not to respond. You can find the page number yourself. I don't care to debate which nazi reference means what or who is worse or whatever. Simply wanted to show that yes, indeed, dem leadership has supported and made such comments.

Please note that I am not saying that YOU are not worth the time or effort. I just see little value in pursuing that train of conversation.

[BarTopDancer]

I did, but chose not to respond. You can find the page number yourself.

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Really Leo, not cool. If you're going to post stuff like that at least make the same effort everyone else does and post a direct link, a page number, something. By not doing it you are saying we're not worth your effort.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I happen to agree with scaeagles on this one. I can't imagine it's hard to find many many examples of democratic policy makers making idiotic nazi accusations (oh look here's one right here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160275,00.html)). I don't think JW is goign to get very far with a, "Democrats never stoop to inflammatory rhetoric" line of argument, it doesn't take accurate reference citing to see it's not a particularly relevant road to travel.

I do think, on the other hand, Flippy made a rather salient point about the fact that at least the vast majority of criticism from the left, even when it wanders into the absurd and inflammatory, deals in actions actually taken, not theoretical outcomes of actions not taken, and not even being attempted to be taken.

[BarTopDancer]

It's not hard to make the effort to post an example either if you're already staring at it.

[scaeagles]

I find it interesting that all someone has to do is google "Robert Byrd" "hermann goering" and "losing america" and they find all sorts of information about it.

To indulge: Chapter 8 of his book begins with a long quotation from Goering and links Bush's justification of the Iraq war to this quote, meaning that Bush is using Nazi tactics to justify the war. Does Byrd say "Bush is a nazi."? No. But I suppose if someone used quotes from Hitler and said "Obama sounds just like that" it might be interpretted in a bad light.

I cannot post a link to the exact page of the book. Most likely due to copywrite it isn't available. What I am referencing is this (http://www.epinions.com/review/Losing_America_Confronting_a_Reckless_and_Arrogant _Presidency_by_Robert_C_Byrd/content_153647419012), a review of the book. If you do not trust it, I suggest you look at the 100s of other links out there pointing to the same information.

I honestly do NOT find any benefit in trying to define which comparisons to nazis are worse than others. JW basically said "oh yeah? well that's just not as bad". I don't see the reason to continue that portion of the conversation.

[scaeagles]

And it's not hard to enter the google search to find the information, either, should you care to. I thnk it's funny that JW says "no dem leader would ever do such a thing", I say to the contrary and site one example, yet I am chastized for not posting the link rather than the person who said what I found to be rather....uninformed.

[JWBear]

Sorry Leo (and GD)... Not the same. Show me a democratic leader who directly compared bush to Hitler himself, or directly supported or approved of someone who did.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not a hair worth splitting, imo.

Anyone throwing around Hitler, Goering, Goebels, eugenics, naziism, etc. in any form in any supposedly rational political debate puts themself straight into my ignore file. Precisely which ludicrous comparison they choose is a level of detail that is irrelevant to the ludicrousness of their supposed debate rhetoric.

I have no problem observing that it comes from the right substantially more often, at louder volume, and more vehemently than from the left. But I am under no illusion that the left is squeaky clean.

[JWBear]

I don't think JW is goign to get very far with a, "Democrats never stoop to inflammatory rhetoric" line of argument...

That's not what I said.

The difference is that the Bush/Hitler comparisons were not supported, either implicitly or with silence, by Democratic Party leaders.

Can you say the same about the Obama/Hitler comparisons? Thought not.

[Ghoulish Delight]

"with silence"? In that case, every dem leader is guilty, as no one seemed to bother to denounce Vanity Fair's depiction of Richard Perle as Goebbels. Or their failure to say anything about the people carrying Bush-as-Hitler signage at war protests for 7 years.

[JWBear]

You guys can split hairs down to fvcking atoms all you want; the fact of the matter is that the right wing bat**** fringe, and it's encouragers, have drug the level of political discourse in this country down to an unbelievably low level. They have no real substancive policy complaint. they just hate the man. At least those who hated Bush did so because of the things he actually did! The "Teabaggers" hate him for things he's never done and has no intention of doing. It's paranoia, pure and simple. And those in power in the Republican party egg them on with more concern with their party's success than what is actually best for America.

The lunatics are running the Republican party

[wendybeth]

And it's not hard to enter the google search to find the information, either, should you care to. I thnk it's funny that JW says "no dem leader would ever do such a thing", I say to the contrary and site one example, yet I am chastized for not posting the link rather than the person who said what I found to be rather....uninformed.


Perhaps this post sums up our differences in a nutshell. Dems want proof, facts, links, whatever- they want to be informed. Repubs seem fine with just repeating things without backing them up with facts. (Death panels, WMD, Birthers, etc). It's well known around here that if you state something specific, especailly something controversial, you'd better be able to back it up. No wonder paranoia runs so rampant in the conservative arena. Did you actually read the review that link presented? What were your thoughts regarding it's content?

[scaeagles]

Whatever you say, JW. It simply isn't worth playing tit for tat with my examples of stupid dems and your examples of stupid republicans.

[Alex]

Dems want proof, facts, links, whatever- they want to be informed.

How did you get all the way through that with a straight face?

[scaeagles]

Perhaps this post sums up our differences in a nutshell. Dems want proof, facts, links, whatever- they want to be informed.

Obviously JW was not informed on the issue. Yet you indict me. Hmm. Wonder why. JW made a blanket statement that was false, but apparently what I wrote it far more eggregious to you. I might suspect JW is a dem, not a republican.

If I am to be criticized for not purchasing Byrd's book, scanning a page, and posting the image, rather than simply posting a link (admittedly not at first until I was chastized for that) to direct quotes from the book, then whatever.

I did not actually read the entire content of the page, no. I was criticized for posting info without a link, so I found something that directly quoted the book, yet that's not good enough either. I could have posted any number of links with the same info. You would rather quibble about the review than about what was in the book when the subject was clearly about leaders of parties either referring to or agreeing with comparison to nazis.

[wendybeth]

Actually, I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject matter. Seems more interesting than continuing this same boring line of "Oh, yeah....well, you guys do it, too!". My bad. Wake me up when the conversation gets reasonably intelligent.

[wendybeth]

How did you get all the way through that with a straight face?

It wasn't easy. The Botox helps.

[wendybeth]

Here is the Goering quote, which Byrd invoked when explaining how we got to this weird state we find ourselves in:

Byrd in his quest to put the current administration in the strongest possible light thus proving that the Emperor Has No Clothes even cites an infamous quotation by Hermann Goering on how to sell a war to the citizenry; it is:

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither did Russia, or England or America, nor for that matter Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leader of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…[V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”—Hermann Goering, quoted in the Nuremberg Diary (1947) by G.M. Gilbert

That is hardly calling Bush 'Goering'- he simply uses Goering's quote to illustrate a point. I doubt very much Bush has ever read the Nuremburg Diary- he, by his own admission, is not a readerer. (Sorry, couldn't resist).

[JWBear]

Obviously JW was not informed on the issue. Yet you indict me. Hmm. Wonder why. JW made a blanket statement that was false, but apparently what I wrote it far more eggregious to you. I might suspect JW is a dem, not a republican.

If I am to be criticized for not purchasing Byrd's book, scanning a page, and posting the image, rather than simply posting a link (admittedly not at first until I was chastized for that) to direct quotes from the book, then whatever.

I did not actually read the entire content of the page, no. I was criticized for posting info without a link, so I found something that directly quoted the book, yet that's not good enough either. I could have posted any number of links with the same info. You would rather quibble about the review than about what was in the book when the subject was clearly about leaders of parties either referring to or agreeing with comparison to nazis.

I did not make a false blanket statement. Just because you don't happen to agree with it, and choose to support your party no matter what, does not make what I said (what I actually said, not what you are pretending to think I said) any less true.

[JWBear]

Actually, I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject matter. Seems more interesting than continuing this same boring line of "Oh, yeah....well, you guys do it, too!". My bad. Wake me up when the conversation gets reasonably intelligent.

Thank you!

I was taught as a child that it it's not ok to do stupid or immoral things just because others have done them. My mother would never let us get away with that one! Some people obviously never learned that lesson.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm certainly one for being unilaterally stupid and immoral

[wendybeth]

Thanks, JW. I just find it ironic that the one link he deigned to look up actually does not support his assertion to the degree that we seem to be discussing here. Granted, the review was uncomfortably slavering in it's admiration for the author, but there was some interesting stuff contained within and Byrd does not seem to directly call Bush another Goering.

[JWBear]

I'm certainly one for being unilaterally stupid and immoral

I suppose it really depends on what type of immorality... :D

[€uroMeinke]

I suppose it really depends on what type of immorality... :D

The stupider the better

[scaeagles]

You guys are the masters of spin.

Byrd used a quote from Goering and basically said that Bush uses the same strategy as a Nazi.

As far as reasonably intelligent....I agree! This is why I tried repeatedly to say I didn't want to go down this line of conversation, but you kept goading. So look in the mirror, WB and JW, as you wonder who keeps pushing it.

And uh, by the way, there's still the whole Durbin thing that GD linked to. But I'm sure there's a way to justify that....after all, he's saying what you think.

For the record - and for you JW and WB, I guess it's the broken record - I didn't bring up anything trying to justify one side doing because the other side did. The ONLY reason I brought up anything was because JW claimed the dem leadership doesn't do it. Quit rewriting thread history and read it.

[innerSpaceman]

I understand the urge to defend yourself scaeagles, but you're really just as guilty in perpetuating the Godwin tangent as anyone. You could just as easily change the subject or stop addressing that one.


I think the Godwin angle is a bore, too. What about the element flippyshark brought up? Do you disagree with the sense that conservatives tend more to complain about the not-yet-happened than progressives do? Or do you think that's an equal-opportunity failing as well?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I understand the urge to defend yourself scaeagles, but you're really just as guilty in perpetuating the Godwin tangent as anyone. You could just as easily change the subject or stop addressing that one.
Umm, he tried. He said he didn't bother responding and JW insisted on demanding an answer.

[scaeagles]

I understand the urge to defend yourself scaeagles, but you're really just as guilty in perpetuating the Godwin tangent as anyone. You could just as easily change the subject or stop addressing that one.

Everytime I get out they keep pulling me back in. I did try to stop, but JW kept pressing for an answer.


I think the Godwin angle is a bore, too. What about the element flippyshark brought up? Do you disagree with the sense that conservatives tend more to complain about the not-yet-happened than progressives do? Or do you think that's an equal-opportunity failing as well?

I think it depends on the issue. I would agree conservatives do tend to be more paranoid about what could happen. I think the left, however, does tend to extrapolate on what could happen. Whether one agreed with FISA (that was the phone conversation monitoring? was that the right acronym?) or not, I always thought it funny that so many were worried that the government had the time, desire, or resources to be even interested in their conversations. Without a doubt the potential for abuse did (and does, unless I missed some repealing of it recently) exist, but I wasn't concerned about it. It seemed the left was incredibly paranoid about the potential. And the charges of the government abuse of it were certainly there prior to passage.

Which is what I think the health care debate comes down to. It is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG bill, and as with any legislation, there is potential for abuse, varied interpretations, and unintended consequences. Are some being put forth ridiculous? Certainly. Are all extrapolations? No.

[scaeagles]

In the spirit of bipartisan unity, I would like to say that I completely agree with Obama that Kanye West is a jacka$$.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Whether one agreed with FISA (that was the phone conversation monitoring? was that the right acronym?)
FISA is the act (and by extension the court process defined by that act) that was circumvented to carry out the wiretapping. Perhaps there was some extrapolation as to where the ultimate endpoint was, but the fact was that the administration had already started making up their own rules and had already actively played CYA games by declaring the President above the law to do the thing it had already done by not submitting their actions to the FISA court for review.

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps he means when FISA itself was enacted. It's basically a rubber-stamp, kangaroo kourt that circumvents the justice system in obtaining wire-taps. It is, itself, I believe, unconstitutional.

The irony of ignoring the FISA court was that it pretty much always granted a warrant to the government. The Bush administration claimed the 24-hour rubber stamp turnaround time wasn't sufficient.

I think I was too young when FISA was enacted (or wasn't politically conscious enough), but I'm sure the potential for abuse was front and center. I'm not sure it's paranoia to foresee that something which loopholes the judicial protections in the constitution might be abused.

I agree with scaeagles that not all prognostications are paranoia, even those stemming from the right. But I certainly think the current crop of heath care "debate" predictions are of the tinfoil hat and purposeful spoiler variety.

[BarTopDancer]

Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I agree with scaeagles that not all prognostications are paranoia, even those stemming from the right. But I certainly think the current crop of heath care "debate" predictions are of the tinfoil hat and purposeful spoiler variety.
Agreed. The majority of the static coming out against the proposals isn't so much theoretical extrapolation of what might happen if the proposals are passed, rather they are outright misinterpretations/misrepresentations of what the proposal says in the first place, often claiming it means the exact opposite of what its actual intent is (e.g., the language that got labeled "death panels" was about giving seniors the right to manage their own end of life care, NOT about the government sentencing seniors to death. The language that some claimed meant hospitals would refuse treatment if you've come in too many times for the same condition actually said the exact opposite).

[scaeagles]

I'm fuzzy on the details. What I'm remembering was related to FISA and the Bush admin ignoring it when it came to conversations with overseas parties that had been marked as threats. Or something like that. I apologize for the poor memory, but I think others are filling in the pieces.

I could throw out a different one based on an item in the local news here in Phoenix today related to a challenge to a law that requires a 24 hour wait after the initial consultation prior to getting an abortion. It does seem to me that any law placing any form of anything on abortion is typically run with by the left proclaiming it to be the beginning of the end of reproductive choice.

And honestly, I don't fault them for doing so. What happens is the look at what the next step might be and therefore want no movement at all in that direction.

[BarTopDancer]

I could throw out a different one based on an item in the local news here in Phoenix today related to a challenge to a law that requires a 24 hour wait after the initial consultation prior to getting an abortion. It does seem to me that any law placing any form of anything on abortion is typically run with by the left proclaiming it to be the beginning of the end of reproductive choice.

I thought that was already the law. I have no problem with a waiting period of 24 hours after consultation. It's a life changing decision.

But I'd love to see all the faux clinics (that are really right-to-life offices) closed down.

Then again, I'm a member of the "left" who doesn't have an issue with gun ownership (after a waiting period. There is no reason you need a gun right-this-second).

[scaeagles]

I thought that was already the law. I have no problem with a waiting period of 24 hours after consultation. It's a life changing decision.

But I'd love to see all the faux clinics (that are really right-to-life offices) closed down.

Then again, I'm a member of the "left" who doesn't have an issue with gun ownership (after a waiting period. There is no reason you need a gun right-this-second).

It is the law in Arizona. It is currently being challenged in court.

[Alex]

Slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily invalid but they're very problematic for reasonable debate since, to a degree they can't be negated. Doing so requires proving a negative.

When it comes to any legislation that reduces in any way access to abortion it is reasonable to be worried about the slippery slope since it is almost always being submitted by people who are quite explicit that the ultimate goal is for abortion to never be legal. Does that mean any such legislation is, on its face, a travesty? I'd say no.

When it comes to health care it is reasonable to worry that the current proposals are the first step on a slippery slope to single payer since many of the people pushing it in the past have said that is there goal and are now counseling that it is best to get there incrementally.

"Even though X isn't that horrible of a thing I oppose it because I see it as the first step towards Y, which is completely unacceptable to me" is not a bad point of contention. Especially if it opens a door for negotiation wherein a proponent of X could include roadblocks that make Y less likely to occur. Or at least attempt to show that the benefits of the intermediate step are sufficient that the battle lines should be drawn at the next step down the slippery slope.

The two problems in how most people using slippery slope arguments are

1. They intentionally misstate (or have been themselves deceived into believing) that the feared end state is actually the immediate result of the item being discussed ("requiring a doctor to mention the opportunities of adoption will result in 2 million botched back-alley abortions a year!" or "the House Ways and Means bill is British style socialist medicine!").

2. Misstatement (intentionally or otherwise) of the intent motivating various parties. I grew up being told not that certain Reagan policies would hurt the poor but that Reagan wanted to starve the poor. This is also an extrapolation of unintended consequences, which are also a type of argument that is nearly impossible to negate. "The mechanism by which the proposed plan funds end of life counseling will create a series of perverse incentives that after several iterations and over time will discourage people from using ever-less-drastic measures for extending life" is a reasonable argument. "Obama wants to euthanise old people" is not. "Requiring parental notification is going to lead to more young girls seeking abortion through less safe means resulting in negative health consequences to both them an the fetus at a rate that negates any avoided abortions" is a reasonable (and by reasonable I don't mean correct, just that it allows for discussion) argument. "You'd rather girls die in back alleys with hangers up their nethers than allow even one safe abortion" is not.

[wendybeth]

VAM.

I'm guilty of the 'slippery slope' speak as well- I suppose many of us are, no matter what our political affiliation. Scaeagles comment "And honestly, I don't fault them for doing so. What happens is the look at what the next step might be and therefore want no movement at all in that direction" is how I feel about many of the conservative's motives, and I can understand they feel the same way about liberal proposals. I don't know if there can ever be a meeting of minds in this environment of such extreme distrust, but I do wish the violent rhetoric would cease. It's non-productive, divisive and dangerous. For the record, I get just as irritated with liberal extremism as well.

[scaeagles]

Alex has us all singing Kum Bah Ya together. Alex for President.

I <3 Alex!

[Alex]

Just read this (http://www.slate.com/id/2228385/) on the incremental "slippery slope" (why do I keep typing that as slipper slope?) of anti-smoking laws and regulations.

Regardless of whether you agree or not with where things currently stand (generally I don't and the last cigarette I smoked was in 1981) try to imagine being back in the early '80s. There's discussion about new laws to ban smoking on airplanes.

How crazy would the person saying "if you pass this law it is just the first step towards them telling you that you can't smoke in your own home, or that you can't smoke in your city park even if there isn't another person with a football field of you?"

But back in 1982 how would you have differentiated this one from the guy saying it'll inevitably lead to the same logic being used to outlaw fatty foods (mostly hasn't happened yet but the logic is starting to move that way in obvious ways) or from the guy saying that it will eventually lead to stoning in the public square of any offenders (still doesn't look likely).

[Strangler Lewis]

While scaeagles teabags Alex, I will observe that the slippery slope argument makes much more sense in criticizing the things the left criticizes the right about than the other way around.

The slippery slope argument from the right assumes that the left's ultimate goal is socialism. The problem with that is that Democrat proposals address large, bulky systems that are naturally only modified incrementally--the economy, the tax structure. Thus, while it may have happened before in other countries, it is less reasonable to assume that some total systemic transformation is the goal.

The Democrats' concern about Republicans' dangerous ultimate goals tends to focus on civil rights issues. These are far more easily undone with the stroke of a pen. Thus, to my mind, the slippery slope fear is more legitimate.

[Alex]

Perhaps, though I'd say it is also the case that slippery slope arguments seem a lot more reasonable when you agree that the feared end state is a bad thing.

I should have had a 3 in my post above about how slipper slope arguments are misused. The 3 is to pretend that there are no countering forces resisting the slide down the slope, that it is a frictionless surface. And therefore, that essentially any end result that can be imagined is equally as likely as any other. (When I see this it reminds me of people who call into sports radio and say "all our problems would be solved if we traded the 25th man on our roster for Alex Rodriguez and Tim Lincecum" in how they seem to think that just because they can imagine it, it must be possible.)

[JWBear]

Ain't capitalist heath care just grand? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html)

An investigation this summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone made at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant...

...During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policyholders they had rescinded. The judge who awarded Bates the $9 million said in his decision: "It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive.

[Betty]

Ain't capitalist heath care just grand? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/insurance-company-must-pa_n_289841.html)

Shameful! What's next? Rewards for the number of people that die waiting for approval when they can draw that process out? Why - it's almost like a death panel! Oh the irony.

Perhaps health insurance should be more of a non-profit sort of deal.

[Betty]

Huge protest - but over what?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924348,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly — the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism."

Because we all know the Nazi Youth Malitia is sooo getting out of hand. :rolleyes:

And they were motivated by a concern about runaway government spending — that, plus an outraged feeling that their views as citizens are not being heard. "We are sick and tired of being ignored," she said. "There is too much money being spent."

Hmmm - and did they protest this when Bush got all spendy I wonder?

Be afraid says Glenn Beck

"I'm afraid," he has said more than once in recent months. "You should be afraid too."


His fears are many — which is lucky for him, because Beck is responsible for filling multiple hours each day on radio and TV and webcast, plus hundreds of pages each year in his books, his online magazine and his newsletter. What's this rich and talented man afraid of? He is afraid of one-world government, which will turn once proud America into another France. He is afraid that Obama "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" — which doesn't mean, he hastens to add, that he actually thinks "Obama doesn't like white people." He is afraid that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington are deeply corrupt and that their corruption is spreading like a plague. He used to be afraid that hypocritical Republicans in the Bush Administration were killing capitalism and gutting liberty, but now he is afraid that all-too-sincere leftists in the Obama Administration are plotting the same. On a slow news day, Beck fears that the Rockefeller family installed communist and fascist symbols in the public artwork of Rockefeller Center. One of his Fox News Channel colleagues, Shepard Smith, has jokingly called Beck's studio the "fear chamber." Beck countered that he preferred "doom room."

What a load of manufactured BS he puts on (for ratings?)

It would seem to be the case when just last year after the election he said in an interview:

The inevitable question is, How much of this industry is sincere? Last year, shortly after the election, Beck spoke with TIME's Kate Pickert, and he didn't sound very scared back then. Of Obama's early personnel decisions, he said, "I think so far he's chosen wisely." Of his feelings about the President: "I am not an Obama fan, but I am a fan of our country ... He is my President, and we must have him succeed. If he fails, we all fail." Of the Democratic Party: "I don't know personally a single Democrat who is a dope-smoking hippie that wants to turn us into Soviet Russia." Of the civic duty to trust: "We've got to pull together, because we are facing dark, dark times. I don't trust a single weasel in Washington. I don't care what party they're from. But unless we trust each other, we're not going to make it."

[BarTopDancer]

I find it sad that the people invoking calls of Naziisim by the Obama administration seem to have forgotten that Nazi's were about white supremacy.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/political-pictures-adolph-hitler-bush-obama.jpg?w=340&h=450

[Strangler Lewis]

Exactly. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[Gemini Cricket]

Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!

[Andrew]

Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!
I must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Gemini Cricket again.

[Alex]

The only thing I strongly disagree with is the very first panel. Yes, by the end they were mostly focused on things he'd actually done. But early on, in my opinion, the Bush hatred was very much focused on the slippery slope and nonsensical arguments (oh how many "here's Bush's secret plan to make himself a dictator" discussions there were).

But I suppose that is the nature of early-Administration hatred versus late-Administration hatred. When you're going to hate someone regardless and they haven't done anything you have to make up reasons, only time allows for pinning it to past actions.

[innerSpaceman]

George Bush had plenty of stuff I hated him for before he was president. He was already on my most-loathed list before there was ever consideration of him running. That doesn't speak for everybody, but I think he was already on the radar screens of a large number of progressives as a brutal, barbaric governor.

[Betty]

I must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Gemini Cricket again.

No worries - I mojo'd him up good!

[JWBear]

The only thing I strongly disagree with is the very first panel. Yes, by the end they were mostly focused on things he'd actually done. But early on, in my opinion, the Bush hatred was very much focused on the slippery slope and nonsensical arguments (oh how many "here's Bush's secret plan to make himself a dictator" discussions there were).

But I suppose that is the nature of early-Administration hatred versus late-Administration hatred. When you're going to hate someone regardless and they haven't done anything you have to make up reasons, only time allows for pinning it to past actions.

IIRQ, most of the protests didn't happen until after he started the Iraq war.

[JWBear]

Oh, BTW...

VGCM!!

[Alex]

IIRQ, most of the protests didn't happen until after he started the Iraq war.

Then you don't recall correctly. Was there marching in the streets much? No, but that isn't what the first panel says. Was there much baseless hatred and doomsday-ism? Yes? Hell, even with the war much of the early criticism was based not so much on what he was doing but on exaggerated fears of what he really wanted to be doing and would slowly but surely actually do (many of which ended with him canceling elections and seizing lifelong dictatorial control).

[innerSpaceman]

Did the early concerns have anything to do with him being a despicable governor? Or perhaps concerns were valid from the presidential get-go since he got going via coup d'etat.

[Alex]

Yes, I believe that is generally the rationalization.

"Our reasons for hating your guy are based solidly on fact. Your reasons for hating our guy are loony loony."

I'm not denying there were solid grounds on which to dislike Bush (and Obama now). I'm just saying that the left-wing crazy-people farts don't smell any better than right-wing crazy people farts.

I'm also not denying that the right-wing crazy people farts have gone more mainstream than did the left-wing crazy people farts.

I like saying X-wing crazy people farts. This will probably disrupt future Star Wars viewings.

[JWBear]

Yes, I believe that is generally the rationalization.

"Our reasons for hating your guy are based solidly on fact. Your reasons for hating our guy are loony loony."

I'm not denying there were solid grounds on which to dislike Bush (and Obama now). I'm just saying that the left-wing crazy-people farts don't smell any better than right-wing crazy people farts.

I'm also not denying that the right-wing crazy people farts have gone more mainstream than did the left-wing crazy people farts.

I like saying X-wing crazy people farts. This will probably disrupt future Star Wars viewings.

Sorry Alex, but I don't remember much widespread protesting of Bush at all before the Iraq war. Regardless though, the right wing craziness we see now is much more intense, and has much more support from the establishment and the MSM than the anti-Bush variety ever did. The cartoon is all about the hypocrisy in the way the two sides are treated; and in that respect, it is dead on.

[scaeagles]

I seem to remember a whole lot about Bush stealing an election. So yeah, there was a whole lot of protesting before the Iraq war. That's when the cries of dictatorship started. He didn't care about democracy, apparently.

As far as the MSM....I could go over SO much that hasn't been in the mainstream media about Obama. Some has certain validity (how much about Van Jones have you heard except that he resigned and there was some grand conspiracy to make him do so, or about ACORN videos, knowing Obama's tight ties with ACORN....please understand I DO NOT think Obama would be supportive of the ACORN people knowingly assisting people trying to set up underage prostitution rings), others I'm sure are insane.

[JWBear]

...ACORN people knowingly assisting people trying to set up underage prostitution rings...

Been drinking the Fox Kool-Aid again, I see.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/)

The video footage -- which has been edited and goes to black in some areas -- was recorded and posted online Thursday by James O'Keefe, a conservative activist. He was joined on the video by another conservative, Hannah Giles, who posed as the prostitute in the filmmakers' undercover sting.

Sonja Merchant-Jones, chair of Baltimore City ACORN, told CNN affiliate WMAR-TV that the fired workers were seasonal, part-time employees and that no senior ACORN staff members were in the building at the time the film was made.

"This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further," Levenson said.

Just another right-wing attempt to smear ACORN.

[scaeagles]

Yawn. I guess the entire House fell for it to, completely voting to defund them. I guess ACORN itself fell for it to, as they've dismissed (at least some, can't say if all of) those involved.

5 different offices. 5 different times. Spin it any way you want. I've watched the videos. Sham? Sure. Try expose'.

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, whether it's indicative of ACORN's policies or not (and 5?, I thought it was once in Baltimore and once in Brooklyn) ... but regardless, it's a true scandal that ACORN is going to have to pay the price for as an org that was already in the target sites of the right-wing establishment.

Frankly, they should disband and interested parties should re-form an organization with similar goals and stronger guidelines.



I daresay that infiltraitors with smearing in mind could pull such an "expose" on just about any organization with more than 30 employees anywhere in the United States (or the world, for that matter). But they got caught on video with their employees doing bad stuff ... and that's the death knell in many instances.


This is one of them.

[scaeagles]

Yep, whether it's indicative of ACORN's policies or not (and 5?, I thought it was once in Baltimore and once in Brooklyn) ... but regardless, it's a true scandal that ACORN is going to have to pay the price for as an org that was already in the target sites of the right-wing establishment.

Frankly, they should disband and interested parties should re-form an organization with similar goals and stronger guidelines.



I daresay that infiltraitors with smearing in mind could pull such an "expose" on just about any organization with more than 30 employees anywhere in the United States (or the world, for that matter). But they got caught on video with their employees doing bad stuff ... and that's the death knell in many instances.


This is one of them.

Throw in San Diego, Washington, and San Bernadino.

I have no doubt that the reorganization you mention will take place.

And I agree with you that it is likely that most large organizations could be caught doing something wrong....but it doesn't get much worse than assisting with underage prostitution rings.

[mousepod]

I have no words. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y)

[scaeagles]

Can you briefly tell us about the subject matter? I can't access youtube at work.

[mousepod]

Can you briefly tell us about the subject matter? I can't access youtube at work.

Absolutely. It's a video made by NewLeftMedia of several of the protesters who marched against ObamaCare in Washington on September 12.

While I know that it's clearly a partisan film, it chills me to see people spouting hateful talking points without understanding the issues that they're protesting.

[scaeagles]

Thanks.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Rush Limbaugh. Fvck him.

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry to go back to ACORN for a moment, but to respond to sceagles ... I heard one of the tapes, and yes - technically - it could be called lending assistance (by giving sage loophole tax advice that any H&R Block would also give, and thus be guilty of "fraud") to people involved in illegal activities ... which I daresay is a good chunk of the people ACORN serves, aka poor people. I love how we shoehorn desperately poor people into lives of crime (underage Guatemalan girls, as but one example), but then can't do anything to assist them lest we be accomplices in crime. Lovely Catch-22. And, oh the outrage of the ruling class! How appropriate.



This is not to say that ACORN didn't get caught with its pants down doing something absolutely inappropriate. But "outrageous?" Pu-fvcking-lease.

[scaeagles]

This is not to say that ACORN didn't get caught with its pants down doing something absolutely inappropriate. But "outrageous?" Pu-fvcking-lease.

I would regard any assistance to a pimp who wants to bring in underage girls for a prostitution ring outrageous. Yes. I do not apologize for that.

[SacTown Chronic]

I have no words. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y) Get that angry mob some sunscreen! And to the dude with a cross on a wheel: That's not how Jesus would do it, you lazy cheater.


What's with all the signs about spending? Did Obama inherit and piss away a budget surplus while I was sleeping?

[Alex]

No, but spending money on credit is mostly immoral only when you're not the one doing it.

[JWBear]

Re: ACORN (again)...

I’m sorry, but the outrage is ridiculous. A couple of employees in one office screwed up, and were fired (as they should have been). That doesn’t mean the whole organization is bad, just those employees. The same filmmakers tried the same entrapment scam in several other offices without success.

Does this mean that if someone at your company screws up (and generates bad press) your company should be shut down? No. ACORN did what it should have done. Fired their asses.

I am deeply annoyed at Congress for cutting their funding. It pisses me off that, yet again, the Democrat controlled Congress caves in to right-wing fauxrage.

[JWBear]

You know... I kept wondering what the right’s problem with ACORN is. It’s an organization that devotes itself to helping minorities and the poor get ahead. It helps them with legal and financial issues, and works to get more of them to register to vote.

Then it hit me… DUH!

[scaeagles]

Because everything is racism. Yawn. Offensive.

And it wasn't one office. It was five offices. If only one office, yeah, some people screwed up and were fired, case closed. Five offices is a completely different problem.

[JWBear]

Because everything is racism. Yawn. Offensive.

Yawn. Dismissive.

Are you really denying that the right is afraid of more minorities voting?

[flippyshark]

Because everything is racism. Yawn. Offensive.

And it wasn't one office. It was five offices. If only one office, yeah, some people screwed up and were fired, case closed. Five offices is a completely different problem.

But, if I read this correctly, only ONE out of the five offices did anything wrong. At the other four, the sting didn't work, yes? Am I wrong here? (I haven't got any research time available to me at the moment.) If that is the case, then sca, your response here makes no sense. (I'm happy to be updated with further data about those other four.)

Anyway, sca, you yourself said that what happened here would not meet Obama's approval (duh), so, it's pretty irrelevant to the topic of Obama's politics or integrity. Even in the campaign, his much-touted "connections" with Acorn amounted to nothing, and hey, didn't McCain speak at Acorn functions too? The whole Acorn deal was beyond a nontroversy.