Specifically that because she is a latina woman with certain experiences she would hope she can come to better decisions than a white male. How about Roberts saying

"I would hope that being a white male and having the richness of certain experiences would lead me to bmake better decisions than a latina female>'

He'd have rightfully been thrown out of consideration.

Leo, please read the 2 paragraphs immediately preceding and the paragraph following that 1 line plucked out of the middle. Better yet, read the whole speech.

If you want to find something comparable, you can't use Roberts. You'd have to use Alito and his assertion that coming from immigrant ancestors makes him a better jurist. But before calling for his immediate resignation, you'd probably want to consider the context there as well.

Context is so 20th Century.

Fair enough Scrooge.

I have read it, but still tend to think there are some overtones in it that I don't like. I admit that I dislike enough of her rulings (that I've heard about....I'm sure there are others I'd agree with) that it probably taints me.

And politics is certainly an issue that comes into play. I am a political animal and will fully admit that. Howeever, you won't see me call for a filibuster (even it if were sustainable), as I think all nominees deserve an up or down vote. Just as with Bush's nominees.

Very true. I have no doubt that if it was Obama that had nominated Scalia or Alito, the right would still have tried their hardest to paint them as dangerous liberals.

And if Bush had nominated Sotomayor the left would do the same.

I grow tired of the whole only-the-right-plays-politics attitude. I at least acknowledge that both sides do.

Nothing says pro-life like cold-blooded murder.

To give credit where it's due, I appreciate Sarah Palin's statement on the Tiller murder:

Good for her.

Let's put things in perspective, did you think Palin would come out in support of the murder of doctors? I would be interested in knowing what she said about Tiller before he was killed. Bill O'Reilly named him "Tiller the Killer" and compared him to the Nazis and said, "something must be done!"

Well, something was done. And to-night O'Reilly and Hannity and Palin will all decry the violence they once helped incite.

If Palin should get credit for not celebrating the death of a health clinic worker, then that is no credit at all.

Her reaction was far better (and saner) that Randall Terry's.

Maybe but what office is Randall Terry running for?

According to the first sentence of his Wikipedia page (at least for now) he is apparently an American douchebag. I don't know if that title is elective, appointed, or merely honorary.

Hee hee... I wonder how long it will stay there...

I don't care what color she is, but her stance on gun control is intolerable to me. She is for gun control....

In my mind, I don't get how the left which is angry about the warrentless wiretapping (and rightfully angry about it I might add. Obama is expanding the Bush policies on this issue to. what a load of huey) but then works hard to limit guns when the 2nd amendment is rather clear. It pisses me off both sides seem determined to limit our rights as american's, but they just concentrate on some rights, not others. Then again... I'm a Independent so both the left and the right hate my guts anyway.

I'm long on record as supporting gun control but saying it is best accomplished through the amendment process.

As for Sotomayor, I see nothing to indicate that she'll be a star of the court but nothing to suggest she'll suck. Seems pretty middle of the road in terms of qualifications. I have no real problem with her Latina statement since it is self-obvious even if impolitic when taken out of context.

But we often don't know ahead of time who will be good or bad, or even how they'll end up leaning politically.

Cheney's is finally admitting there's no link between 9/11 and Iraq. But now he's blaming it all on Richard Clarke. Uh, isn't that the guy who was repeatedly warning them about an attack?

WTF?

Source

Jon Stewart settled that last night. Turns out he was blaming the host of American Bandstand.

That's funny. I'm watching that right now on Hulu.
:D

But, Cheney always lies. So if he says there was no link.... But there can't be a link.... but he said..... Arrruuugghhh!!!! *pop*

Well, I thought President Obama's speech in Cairo today was amazing. :snap:

Some of it was laugh out loud funny.

"America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

Umm....excuse me? Islamic countries are the top human rights violaters in the world. Try taking a Bible into Saudi Arabia or seeing what happens to a woman walking down the street with her head uncovered. Tolerant? I'm sorry. Guess that's not funny. That's disgusting.

As a disclaimer, I was just as disgusted when the Bush administration would kiss up to the Saudis.

I also find it funny that it's OK now for Obama to embrace his Islamic roots...having grown up for a while in primarily Islamic nations and even saying his father was Islamic. Let someone mention that during the campaign and they were immediately excorriated.

Well Leo, I appreciate your viewpoint. Maybe I'm just an optimist at heart but I found a good deal of the speech inspiring, not perfect, but still I'm hopeful.

Of course both sides in the US can take this to heart, as well. When I read the above I thought of Dick Cheney immediately. But that's just me.

I didn't hear the speech. But i assume he was talking about the principals of Islam, and not the results of governments in Islamic countries ... just as American principals should hardly be judged by the 90% of U.S. government results.

I might have said this before but it bears repeating.

Fvck Sean Hanity

iSm, if you are insterested the transcript is here. I did not see the speech, only read it. Otherwise, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I second that fvck.

What gets me is why people like Hannity are still allowed to keep their jobs and credibility after they say stupid sh!t like this. Where is the outrage? Where is the accountability? Bill Maher said one stupid thing and he was gone. Period. Imus said one stupid thing and he's gone. Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, they all say innane stupid things all the time and their ratings go up and no one at Fox "News" holds them accountable for bad reporting, bad form, nothing.

GD,

Hehehehe

LOVE the Craig T. Nelson quote!

I can't say I'm offended by this National Review cover...just utterly baffled as to how someone considered it a good choice.

I don't really have a problem with it, just surprised to discover that when the NRO crowd thinks of the word "wisdom" they apparently think of Buddhists. Shouldn't she be dressed like William Buckley?

Like I said, I don't really find it offensive...but I recognize as something that is easily spun into something offensive. Which I suppose they were probably well aware of.

While I won't say he's great, I've always found Shepard Smith one of the better and more enjoyable to watch anchors at Fox News (we used to watch him at lunch at work when we got tired of Russian Roullette on Game Show Network).

Found this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvun...layer_embedded

Wow.

Anyone want to lay odds that that email Shepard Smith read came from Glenn Beck?

More from Shepard Smith.

He must be so conflicted, working for a network that fans those particular flames so well.

Silly Iranians, everybody knows it takes at least a month to properly rig the results of an election.

In defense of our 57th State
 

I know it is supposed to be mocking Sotomayer, but I quite like it. I would be flattered.

To the Republican Gov of SC Mark Sanford:

You are an idiot. Resign.

I don't know yet if he's an idiot. I haven't seen a picture of this Argentinian woman.

I don't think an affair is a reason to resign but if he truly did leave the state without making arrangements for his absence then that seems good enough reason.

Also, "I'm walking the Appalachian trail" is now my code phrase for meeting with girlfriends. Don't tell Lani.

So "Walking the Appalachian Trail" means "Getting some anal in Argentina"? Works for me.

I liked the refrain in his announcement:

"Don't cry for me, Appalachia."

That's OK, 'cause Mark Sanford does. MS should resign just as he called for President Clinton to do after the Lewinsky affair.

No he "shouldn't". It's just as hypocritical for the people who defended Clinton to now be calling for Sanford's resignation as it is for Sanford to have been calling for Clinton's only to have an affair of his own.

If he decides to resign because of it that's his choice. But I my opinion has not changed since the Lewinski affair, infidelity is not reason enough to demand someone's resignation.

His Argentinian stimulus plan.

It's not enough reason to demand Sanford's resignation. It is, however, enough reason to indulge in mocking him as being unfit for office by his own terms.

And I suspect that Sanford probably (though I haven't seen the quotes) didn't call for Clinton to resign because he had an affair but rather to resign because he lied under oath about the affair (yes, convenient political cover but a not entirely invalid distinction).

And so, similar to what I said. The affair is not reason for Sanford to resign. How he went about having the affair (simply disappearing for several days) may be.

I think Sanford should resign, not simply for the affair, but because of his disappearance.

Likewise, with Clinton, it wasn't simply an issue of as affair.

With politicians and affairs, I think an issue of trust comes into play. If a politician will betray the person and/or people closest to them in such a dramatic way, how can I trust them not to be completely self serving in their handling of their duties in their job?

You can't. But you couldn't before the affair either.

Out of curiosity, would you change 401k plans if you learned the fund manager cheated on his wife? Or do you expect that he can separate the spheres?

Hmmm... a fair question. I suppose I might. I certainly recognize that we all have our failings, but as with anyone, I prefer to do business with those that I trust.

Yeah, I suppose there is the capability of separating those two spheres, but I would be much more likely to then wonder if I can trust him with my money (in terms of fraud rather than management capability), and those questions of trust could be enough to make me change some things.

Sanford should resign for leaving the state in which he was governor without a governor. When nobody obn staff or the Lt. Governor knew where he was or how to reach him. For this he should resign. ymmv

That's certainly dereliction of duty.

Wow, Rush Linbaugh is blaming Obama for Sanford's affair. Classic.

So, how many times can one make the same mistake before people have to start thinking it's not an accident?

Just wondering

Oh yes, he "should".

Besides, who is calling for anything? If Sanford believes that one should resign for either an illicit affair or lying, and he has certainly done both, then he should act on these beliefs and do the right thing.

But did he break up with the Argentine? Maybe he can be the first Open Marriage candidate?

Odds are low. His wife's already kicked him out of the house. Plus, Clinton was clearly the first open marriage candidate, even if they weren't entirely open about their open marriage.

I think other Presidents beat out Clinton on that - unless we know something about Hillary's lovers

Its going to be interesting to see how the situation turns out in Honduras. Both sides are claiming to be in the right, but I think the Wall Street Journal spells it out very well.

It seems as if the Honduran President was trying to circumvent the constitution, the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled in that way, the President told a military leader not to abide by the ruling of the court, he told the President he had to obey the court, the military guy was fired, and then the military used force to remove the President for violating the Constitution and the orders of the court.

If this is indeed the case, I am concerned that Obama administration is coming to the defense of the ousted President.

If Clinton had been impeached but refused to leave office I'd still have been concerned if the Army came in of its own accord and gave him the boot (or if the military had intervened to put a stop to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre).

I assume that Honduras has a criminal justice system independent of the military and if so that strikes me as the appropriate forum if indeed the president was engaged in criminal activity.

ETA: And having given my immediate gut reaction to just that WSJ article I'll go try and find out myself what exactly is going on. Then maybe I'll offer an informed opinion too.

Ok, slightly more informed opinion:

Pretty much what I said before. The political institutions of Honduras had ruled his actions illegal. However, there are political and legal solutions to this and the military acting on its own (apparently the claim after a couple days that the military was acting on orders from the supreme court have iffy documentation and the supreme court doesn't have authority to issue such orders anyway) is never a good idea.

As for Obama supporting the wrong guy, you may think that, but he's hardly alone. Not a single single government or international organization has expressed support for what the military did in Honduras.

To me the obvious solution is for him to be returned to power and for the national legislature to proceed with impeachment proceedings if those are warranted.

Military coups never end well.

And besides, the Honduran president has never produced a birth certificate proving his eligibility to be elected in the first place! I heard he was born in Nicaragua!

...And, he's Muslim!

It was more than political institutions rulings his actions illegal. It was the supreme court. I have incredibly mixed reactions. I am not in support of the Honduran military seizing control, but just what is the appropriate reaction when the President goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court of his country? It would hardly seem as if the justice department would have any recourse (that would be adhered to) if he has already violated those rulings.

Not a good situation either way. And yes, I know that governments all over are condemning it.

What evidence do you have of that? Did they try to arrest him? Did they try to try him for his crimes?

Should the military be sent to remove those in charge of the Connecticut firefighters because they've just been found to be in violation of Constitutional law by the Supreme Court?

The same issue exists in this country.

What would happen if the Supreme Court ruled the actions of a president unconstitutional and yet the president continued doing it anyway?

Nothing, at least by the Supreme Court. In fact we've faced this in the past when the Supreme Court ruled that Andrew Jackson's plans for Indians were unconstitutional and he essentially said "ok, now come and enforce your ruling." The ball, at that point is in Congress's court. They chose to do nothing and we got the Trail of Tears.

Sure, the U.S. Army could have said (were it inclined) "we're going to enforce the Supreme Court's rulings and ship Jackson to Canada" but that would be just as destructive to the national institution as the precipitating malfeasance.

Reading more, I see that the Honduran constitution does not have a handy process for removing a president. That really sucks and it might be the only way to resolve the issue would have been to wait for the term to expire. And complete dissolution of the government might have resulted. But a pre-emptive military action (after all, if they were acting to enforce punishment for criminal activity why did they just send him off to Costa Rica) is a horrible way to go as it completely undermines any idea of political resolution and says that civil government continues to exist only as the military deigns.

And that, not necessarily for any love of the existing president, is why every government that has spoken has spoken against the action.

Perhaps a side note, but I assume that if the Chief Justice of the Honduran Supreme Court had been a friend of Hugo Chavez, the WSJ would be calling the president a hero and saying that Bill Pullman should play him in the movie.

Evidence of what? I have been speaking in conjecture this whole time, not asserting anything other than the President has indeed not followed the rulings of the supreme court.

I don't suppose the people in Connecticut will go against the ruling of the Supreme Court, so your point is ridiculous at best. I don't think I've even implied anywhere that actions being found to be unconstitutional is worthy of arrest. Not abiding by the ruling of the court, certainly so.

Alex, what you are saying makes complete sense. Like I said, I'm not in support of the military action....I am just wondering how best to deal with this situation when it appears that the President would seem not to care about his actions being ruled to have been in violation of the Constitution.

That's a fair question now that we've moved beyond being concerned that Obama is supporting the existing president (like I've said I have no idea if he does so much as strongly opposes the military ousting him).

And I'm not saying that military intervention should never happen under and circumstance but I do think it is pretty much the last option on the list and even then should be condemned and forced back out of the picture as soon as possible (kind of like I can understand situations in which I sympathize with a parent mudering the killer of their child but that parent still should probably go to jail).

I can't really see the fact that the president was trying to hold a non-binding poll proposition (even if the issue being polled was entirely unconsitutional according to Honduras's somewhat bizaar emphaticism on signle presidential terms) had reached that point. No lives were at risk, the fundamental institutions of state weren't at risk. If he had tried to hold power beyond his elected term (or in defiance of proper early removal from office) then things get more serious.

Looks like Al Franken (Me, Al Franken) will finally be sworn in as Senator from Minnesota. The Supreme Court just shot down Norm Coleman. About time this got resolved.

The true absurdity is that when Coleman thought he was going to win, he called on Franken to graciously step aside and not be a sore loser. Seriously.

Of course, I expect Coleman will take this all the way to the Federal SC level.

Snowflake = FAIL

Coleman conceded, finally.

Does Franken get an extra half-year on his term?

The good governor needs to chuck it all and get down to Argentina to be with his soul mate. Don't try to fall in love with the wife again -- it aint gonna happen. Just go. Walk that Appalachian Trail to his heart's content.

Oh yeah! That's the part where I was thinking that if *I were his wife, I'd be saying, "Don't do me any favors!"

I believe that some not so subtle messages have been sent about an upcoming Israeli attack on Iran.

Biden came out this weekend and said that the US cannot dictate to Israel what they do (in direct response to a question about Israel and the Iran nuke program). This might just be Biden being Biden, but combine that with a couple other reports....

The Moussad (sp?) has met with Saudi leaders and have said that the Saudis will do nothing should Israeli F-16s pass through their airspace. Neither the Israelis nor the Saudis have denied those reports.

An Israeli submarine is hanging out in the Persian Gulf.

Could be something is going to happen soon.

Potentially interesting Google site for you politico junkies: In Quotes

From this article about interesting Google based websites.

Fox host is apparently a fan of Nazi-like eugenics. Nice.

I can almost kind of see what he was probably trying to say (not that it would have been meaningful) but wow. Not only did he say something else but the individual word choices were awful.

I assume he was trying to question whether the fact that Sweden's population is so genetically homogenous (which generally isn't particularly true or relevant) calls into question how broadly the result would apply.

Wow, that's even better than Glenn Beck agreeing that the best thing that could happen for US security is for Bin Laden to launch another successful attack here.

Though I'm glad to have a president who well commands the English language, I am horrifyingly disappointed in Obama, to a degree beyond what I expected while I voted for him with my nose held.

Beyond all the bungling and broken promises on teh gey issues, there's his multi-hundred billion dollar giveaway to the robber barons of the financial markets which has utterly failed to restart the flow of credit or renegotiate foreclosure loans; the $700 billion poured into the bottomless pit of the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act' which has as yet failed to put a dent in spiraling unemployment; the cowardly and backfiring drone warfare in AfghaPakistan; retaining the Bush policies towards enemy combatants vis-a-vis military tribunals where torture evidence has not been disqualified and, just recently, affirming that many will remain in custody indefinitely without charge; oh, and now going back on a campaign pledge to end the ban on needle exchange programs ...

That last one's just another in the line of seemingly-DAILY back-slidings and pledge-breakings, and true-color revelations of craven hacksterism.


I don't hate him as much as .... well, nearly every other president I've lived through ... but I'm well on the way. Sickening.

I have sworn to vastly limit my criticism of him until July 20 so he has six months in office. It has been exceptionally difficult. My list is rather lengthy, and while that may not be your entire list, I have many more than that off the top of my head.

Does your list include bungling and broken promises on gay issues?

Broken promises in general, and the list goes far beyond just that.

Undoubtedly, but I see I'm going to have to get all Sam Kinison from "Back to School" here: "Say it! Say it! Say 'I'm upset with our president for breaking his promises to the gays! For not fighting against Don't Ask Don't Tell!' Say it!"

Oh, I can wait 10 more days for the unleashing of scaeagles' Bill of Faults. In fact, it's something to look forward to.

:cheers:

One advantage to being in the loyal opposition. You get to be upset if the promises are kept (because you don't approve of what was promised) and also if they are broken (because obviously the guy's a snake for making promises he doesn't keep).

(Not a partisan statement really, the same was true for Democrats the last eight years.)

Scaeagles, if your complaints have to do with Obama being the president he advertised himself to be while a candidate, I'm going to be calling those sour grapes.

Just as a method of categorization. Not to claim your complaints are invalid.

I would say perhaps a small amount might be that, but certainly not much. And i wouldn't categorize it as sour grapes, just why what he is doing (which he might have campaigned on) isn't what I think is best.

You are making it challenging to remain reserved in my comments prior to the 20th.

Sorry. Your complaints are your complaints. But why wait 6 months to complain about him being what he claimed to be? You can complain about that from Day 1, it seems to me.


YMMV ... but I've decided to start complaining right now, at 5 months 2 days. Betrayers and turncoats don't deserve 6 months.

I have avoided any (much? can't say I haven't at all, but don't recall anything specific) complaining to specifically avoid the sour grapes charges.

I put a self imposed six months on it. Will be over soon enough. Maybe after the next 10 days I won't have anything to complain about. Not likely, but anything is possible, I suppose.

Something tells me, and I could be wrong, that this is going to be like the Republicans complaining about Clinton --- when Democrats' complaints about him were that he governed just like a Republican ... and left most of us scratching our heads about what Republicans were on about ... except just wanting to complain, or maybe expressing anger that Bill co-opted all their junk.


Essentially my complaints about Obama is that he's governing like a callous, corporate-tool, wealthy-first Republican ... though, like Bill, talks a forked-tongue sweetness of the oppposite to his intentions.

Let me just jump in here a second. I haven't read this thread much at all so if others have said the same (or argued against the same) I apologize for any ignorance on my part.


You know, I thought one-issue politics were supposed to have been proven to be counterproductive and poisonous.

Yes, I'm upset about the gay rights stuff. But to say he's governing like a callous corporate tool yadda yadda is just classic Steve hyperbole. He's running around pushing for health care for all. I know we've heard it a million times now and have forgotten how crazy this is, but remember, we're talking about HEALTH CARE FOR ALL IN AMERICA. This is a big deal, on many levels. And this isn't just talk. He is making it happen.

There are other ways I'm less than ecstatic about Obama. There are other ways I'm very proud of what's going on. But throwing out the baby (and his administration is still in the toddler stage) with the bathwater is just overdramatic black-or-white universe stuff, especially as we tread entirely new political paths, or at least, paths we haven't even considered since Nixon was elected.

I wish I weren't paying as much attention, but Obama's Chief of Staff, Rom Emmanuel, said two days ago that a public option for health care is likely out of the picture now ... and that the White House will likely agree to competition among insurance companies with a public option to kick in ONLY if it's "deemed" the insurance companies aren't competing honestly enough ... barely hidden code word for NEVER.

The public option which Barack has been on and on about was ALREADY the compromise from single-payer health care, which roughly 80% of Americans want. That was ruled off the table from the get-go. So now the insurance companies are getting their way, it looks like, in eliminating the public option which they claim will put them out of business. Pfft, my hyperbole skills have nothing on the insurance industry.


Something like $700 billion was given away to wall street investment banks with no strings attached. Obama haranged Congress to pass the bill without even reading it, telling them failure to do so would lead to, and I quote, "economic catastrophe." Seems my hyperbole skills have nothing on Obama either. Result of this boondoggle? Credit markets have not loosened up - banks merely pocketed the money, or used to pursue acquisitions in other parts of the world. Oh, and barely 3% of loans approaching foreclosure have been renegotiated to keep people in their houses.


How are these not the acts and telegraphed intentions of a corporate-tool, weatlhy-first president?


What about his backsliding on the Guantanemo prisoners? There are conflicting statement this week from the Justice Dept and the top military brass on whether evidence obtained through torture will be admitted. Why is there no clarity on NO IT WON'T. And, most disgusting of all, the administration now says many of the "enemy combatants" will simply be held forever without charge.


Bush Much? What the Fvck, OBAMA????


Where's my one-issue politics? I haven't even mentioned the plethora of gay betrayals.

I too am getting very, very disapointed in Obama.

Have to say, it's a convincing post, :iSm:.

American experiences French medical system when he has to seek emergency treatment in Paris.

Link

Compelling. And one of the better accounts of care in another country I've heard (specifics, rather than generalities, will do a lot better job of currying my favor)

I don't even want to think of the medical bills my dad's going to have after his recent hospital stay. At least he's got medicare and supplemental insurance. If the same thing had happened to me, I'd pretty much have to declare bankruptcy. No other way around it. (And that's not fair to the doctors, who deserve to be paid for their work)

Ok, six months are up. Calling scaeagles, calling Mr. scaeagles!!

Indeed they are up. I've been out of town the last few days, but will most certainly be posting something soon.

Out of town, eh?

Nice trip?

I'll bet ours was funner.:D


(Hi, Sam!)

No doubt... just wondering if our travels were in the same... um... vicinity.

(Hey Wendy and Bobbi and Tori and Nick)

Mine sucked. Was supposd to still be gone but due to the expenses I listed in the vent thread we had to cut our out of town jaunt to 3 days 2 nights. We were in San Diego. We were supposed to be gone 6 nights. Sigh.

Good life lesson for the kids, though. Gotta pay for the have to before the want to.

Airing of grievances! Airing of grievances!

One of my big projects today is sorting through thousands of pages of Paliamentary Debates for a certain South Pacific country. The country is basically a theocracy. Reading the debates is terrifying. These government leaders are trying to adjust laws so that they coincide with what the bible says literally. Terrifying... imho.

You've got it wrong. While it is in the South, Texas's shores are on the Gulf of Mexico which is connected to the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

Not 20 minutes after I posted that "joke" I was forwarded this story:

http://www.ufwaction.org/campaign/tx709


David Barton, the one quoted above, is a noted Christian Right author who has specifically attacked the separation of church and state.

So yeah, let us know what Texas' future looks like, Brad.

Well, it did take a white man to get Marshall on the Supreme Court. It's not like he got there on his own power.

That's freaky, G.D.

What stocks should I buy?

Has God gone public yet?

So I've watched Hillary Clinton's "outburst" in Africa. I can't really see what the big fuss is about.

Meanwhile, still waiting for scaeagles' advertised "outburst" about Obama. :rolleyes:

I KNOW! I apologize. I haven't invested the time.

oh, pshaw. My Bush list was on the tip of my fingers at all times ...





... and always growing much faster than the fingernails on those fingers. :p

I'm not an angry old curmedgeon like you, though.

yeah .... just old.

Saw this on FB... :snap: :snap: :snap:

Can't argue with that.

VJWM.:snap::cheers::snap:

You go, Barney!!! :snap: :snap: :snap:

Barney Frank is a moron. Not necessarily for this, but he's a complete idiot.

Well if scaeagles says so, it must be true.

I don't think this was the type of tact I suppose a public official should employ in such situations, but I've been dying to see one such official lay it out quite as plainly for one such retarded neanderthal constituent.

Why, because he disagrees with you?

Um, no. Mostly because he engineered the whole Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae lending to unqualified borrowers, pushing legislation to force other banks to lend to less than qualified borrowers, playing a HUGE part in the current economic situation, and recently has asked again for the Freddy and Fannie to be able to relax their lending standards.

There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many more reasons, but that's the primary one.

I don't know about that cult business, JWBear, but the willingness of the Republican party's Unsilent Minority to knowingly disseminate incorrect information in order to keep the grass-roots minions scared and angry is disturbing. The right-wing media machine is the greatest threat to our collective intelligence since MTV.

Agreed.

As they say, a political gaffe is accidentally telling the truth.

I know we all were secretly hoping it would happen...

the Whigs are back.

Intriguing indeed.




On the healthcare front, Robert Reich is batsh*t crazy.

Robert Reich calls for 'march on Washington' in support of public option

Here's the part that is astounding to me:

So let me get this straight - To protect the "public's interest" against the corporations' competing desire to protect their "huge financial stakes in the game", you, Mr. Right, propose that the public stand up and make a racket to protect the corporations' huge financial stakes in the game? Did I follow that correctly????

I'm not sure I'm understanding you (or at least your recap of what Reich said).

Yeah, my bad. I, in fact, did not follow that correctly.

I was thinking of it as, "Public Option" vs. "Completely socialized option' (e.g. single payer), rather than "Public Option" vs. "Don't do sh*t". I retract.

Just one correction, "completely socialized" is not "single payer." Completely socialized is single payer/single provider.

(I only care to correct since so many people are pretending that what is being proposed is the latter when nobody in any position to possibly accomplish anything in America is actually advocating for it.)

I still think Reich is crazy for the most part, but not for that statement. :)

I think scaeagles is batsh!t crazy for that statement.




(but only because I'm impatiently awaiting his Obama rant.)




(And, no, impatient was not an ObamaCare pun.)

I know. I know. I know. Too much to rant about! :)

And I'd like to think of it as more of a intelligent discourse into the error of Obama's ways.

I can hardly wait. Because if you leave any out, I've got plenty of my own.


(I like some of what he's doing, but - as with all presidents - I've got problems with much of it. Still, he's a good public speaker, and we haven't had that for a while. Not as good a bamboozler as Clinton was, but who could match up to that. Obama's quite the bamboozler, though.)

Yeah yeah, I know, that was a rushed retraction else I would have been more precise. I should have said "public option" vs "no more private health insurance".

He can read a teleprompter in a convincing fashion. Get him off the teleprompter and he does not do well.

Some Parents Oppose Obama Speech to Students

Paranoid much?

I'm sure there were/would be parents who were/would be if Bush had spoken to students. I know he read them stories but I don't recall if he ever did this.

We are a divided country and this type of behavior is not helping. Same with the 2012 stickers (though I'm sure if a Republican is elected for 2012 the 2016 stickers will appear).

Heaven forbid our children get brainwashed into believing in the value of a good education. They might start *gasp!* "learning" things, and talking about evolution and sh!t. No, you're right, they should be kept home, safe from such atrocities as being directly addressed by the top elected official in our nation.

Have you seen the literature from the department of Ed that goes along with his speech?

I would not object to my kids seeing it. I would want to be there, though, to see what he is saying and be able to help my kids with anything I objected to. My kids go to a private school and it has already been announced the elementary school will not be viewing it.

Funny. I posted this in the WTF news. ;)

Nope, do you want to share it with us?

What would you object to? Going to school to get a good education?
Would you explain to them why you object or just tell them that Obama is evil and damaging our country beyond repair and they should think that way too.

I remember my dad clearly explaining to me why he felt the way he did about political issues. If he disagreed with something he'd explain what the the issue was, what the current path that he object to was and why he objected to it. It clearly helped me form some critical thinking skills and trying to understand the other side even if I didn't agree with it.

I don't trust Obama in the least. I can't tell you in advance what I would object to because I haven't heard it. It depends on what he says. My younger childern wouldn't necessarily get certain nuances that could certainly exist in what he says.

What I object to specifically about what the department of ed sent out is the proposal that students write essays about how they can help Obama. That's creepy. Like I said, I don't object to it if my younger children listen to it, but I want to be there so I can discuss with them any problems that I have with it. Something tells me if after the Iraq invasion Bush addressed school children and about whatever and the department of ed sent this out the left would be absolutely howling. And rightfully so.

Oh. I thought you were actually going to share the literature (or a link to the literature) from the Department of Ed instead of rambling on. But the outrage then lack of proof is par for the course. I believe someone (GD? JW?) is waiting for a breakdown about issues you had with someone. Can't remember who or what now but I've seen them ask for it and you state you're too busy to provide it.

You also didn't answer my question about how you are going to discuss it with them. To make it easy for you:

I'm sure that people would object to Bush speaking and my reaction would be the same as it is now.

Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country".

How will I discuss it with them? Again, it depends on what he's saying, so I can't tell you. Should he come right out and say "Tell your parents you want the government to ensure your health for your entire life" might meet with a severe and profanity laced outburst, while "Stay in school" would be something to the effect of "yeah, pretty obvious, and I've told you every day of your life when you procrastinate on your homework how important school is - in fact, we pay extra for it because we think it's so important".

At the top of this page are links to pdfs of the department of education suggested activities pre, during, and post speech. It's just creepy. Anything from describing this as an historic event (a President telling kids to stay in school is historic?) and wanting comparisons to other historic Presidential moments to essays about how they can help Obama to asking how the President will inspire them today. Creepy.

I just looked over both sets of literature (Prek-6 here and 7-12 here). It looks like a normal Social Studies or Government lesson to me.

Who is the President. Why is he speaking to us. How can we make our country a better place.

Replace Obama with Regan and I suspect you'd be singing praises about how wonderful it is that he's speaking to students and that they are running these lesson plans. Right? Right.

Oh yes. It is clear that the President is trying to indoctrinate innocent school children into believing that education is good for them. It's probably going to be some communist crap about encouraging them to better themselves. If I had kids, I'd want them to get messages about education from the real role models out there. Especially black kids. They don't need to waste their time with some black President. There are plenty of rich sports heroes and entertainers to teach kids about the really important things in life: booze, babes, and bling. I think it's appalling that a politician would abuse his position to brainwash the nation's children into thinking of ways to improve their country and themselves.

Don't forget about all those "family values" "protect traditional marriage" "won't someone think of the children" toting politicians who have been caught having affairs, some with men.. and some with minors!

I already said that if Obama wants to tell school children to stay in school, great. I just don't trust him. And I know that vast majority here wouldn't trust Bush doing it.

I wouldn't be excited for Reagan to address school children, but it goes beyond that. Would any leftists here want an assignment for elementary children to be "How will Bush inspire you today?". I doubt it. And I'm fine with that.

How about he release a transcript of his speech this weekend so parents can read it? Would that be objectionable?

Gee, I wonder where George was, when the planes hit the Towers.......Oh, yeah! He was reading to a class of students. The horror! As I recall, it was fairly well publicized, even before the deer in the headlights moment. Wtf is wrong with the Right- are you REALLY that frikkin paranoid? LIke it or not, he is the President, and he's trying to reach out to young Americans. What's so insidious about that? He's not the first, and he surely won't be the last. You have a Black, Liberal President- get over it.

I really don't see the problem with that. Is the idea of the president of the United State inspiring children somehow bad, regardless of the party of the president? Whether that be in general (George HW Bush addressed schools and encouraged us to engage in charitable service; what an asshole) or, as appears to be the case from the materials you linked to he is simply trying to inspire them to value education and strive to succeed (god knows he's a horrible example of how educational excellence can help propel you beyond mundane beginnings).

But I'm sure that every fourth frame of the video will flash "Kill Your Parents If They're Republicans."

Sure. He can inspire people to follow his lead or do the opposite. I wonder how many 18 - 22 year old first time voters he inspired to vote for Obama. They were 10 - 12 years old the first time he was elected.

Done

If you had ever been in the teaching game, then you would know that this is standard practice for any major, or even minor, occasion. Prior to Challenger blasting into oblivion, millions of schoolchildren were involved in the process by using before, during, and after the event suggestions to maximize the educational aspect of the experience. Of course, 'after' in the case of Challenger probably involved counseling, but I digress. Any unique opportunity in the classroom (be it public, private, or homeschool) is approached in the manner suggested the Dept. of Education, etc. Nearly every lesson plan I use at home contains many of these same suggestions as applied to the topic at hand.

I agree with BTD, Leo. There is nothing in either of those plans that any reasonable person would describe as "creepy". In fact, most of it sounds like it will bore the kids (if not the teachers) to tears.

What is it about Obama that terrifies Republicans so much? They didn't have this kind of terror of Bill Clinton (just abject loathing). So what is it?


(ETA: When I posted this I didn't realize there was another whole page of posts!)

And now this thread isn't safe for anyone but Kevy... and maybe CM.

It wouldn't have bothered me one bit. But then, I don't have an unreasonable fear of him. I just think he was terribly misguided, corrupt, and incompetent.

You are reading way too much into this, Leo. As WB said, it's paranoia.

???

If you'd like to contact the actual teachers who are the current Teaching Ambassador Fellows who produced these creepy documents, you can find them here. This guy, in particular, I suspect of promoting a subliminal Zionist agenda through teaching aide materials. She's an obvious member of the East Coast Elite trying to indoctrinate our nation's children - she used cognizant in a sentenc.e

Ya, I have no idea what happened. I swore i posted this in the Wal-Mart thread.

Considering the speech is going to be made available to parents and educators prior to being aired, I find it completely inappropriate and irresponsible for a school, private or otherwise, to decide beforehand that they aren't going to let students view it, without so much as reading it first and seeing if anything objectionable is even contained within.

That's far more creepy to me than anything you have pointed out, far more creepy. I would have no choice but to remove my child from such an institution immediately, regardless of their merits.

MBC, my kid's homeschool group is full of this sort of 'thinking'. The parents run around all freaked out about the latest attack on their child's innocence, rarely bothering to ever check it out for themselves. (Harry Potter is a good example). The viciousness of their attacks on Obama is astounding- yet few can actually point to anything he's actually done and cite that as the reason for their alarm. When confronted with facts, it's usually a vague sort of "Well, there's just something about him I don't like/trust." We all know what that something is- it's the skincolor their God gave him. I wonder why they don't ever consider that perhaps their God planned for him to be President? Why not- everything else in their lives is ordained by God- yet they are so reluctant to accept their elected leader. Forget about acceptance; just laying off on the assasination 'jokes' would be a nice change.

To be fair, while I'm certain that a significant portion of distrust stems from racism, I don't think that's the only reason. Nor do I suspect that is where Scaeagles mistrust stems from.

Still, this unjustified paranoia is growing at an alarming rate, fueled by endless emails and television punditry. And perhaps my biggest fear is that one of the moonbat extremists of the party, or a group of them, are going to be riled up by this misinformation to the point that they take matters into their own hands. I sincerely fear that the time is coming where there is going to be blood on the hands of everyone propagating these rumors and misinformation, and yet, they will refuse to consider that they played any role or hold any responsibility for what took place.

The abortion doctor being shot, the Holocaust Museum shooting - just the tip of the iceberg. Threats against the President of the United States have increased 400% since Obama took office. I'm pretty firmly convinced that the next act of terrorism that this country sees will be domestic and from someone who self-affiliates with the Republican party. I hope I'm wrong.

The elementary school indoctrination experience.

"How was school today?"
"Good."
"Anything interesting happen?"
"Zachary's mom brought cupcakes. Emily fell at recess."
"Wasn't today President Obama's speech?"
"Yeah."
"Did your class watch it?"
"Yeah."
"How was it?"
"Good."
"What did he talk about?"
"Stuff."
"Like?"

Crickets.

"Were you listening?"
"Yeah." Pause. "I guess he talked about x."
"What do you think about that?"
"I don't know. Good, I guess."

And now . . . the great teachable moment.

"You know, the president, the governor, all these politicians, the priest/rabbi: they're just people. We hope they mean well, but they can be wrong. So you always have to think about what they say."
"Okay."

I'm glad it's available. I was not aware of that.

Moonbats taking things into their own hands....like the guy in Colorado who vandalized a democrat party office to try to make it look like Republicans did it? Or the other guy who bit off the pinky of an Obamacare protester? Would you say that the US Army soldier who took a grenade into the barracks a few years ago and blew up a bunch of people was inspired by those on the left protesting the war? Perhaps John Kerry who was saying we were terrorizing women and children in the dark of night and killing innocent civilians? Does he get the blame?

I come from the old fashioned school where the individual is responsible for their own actions.

All that being said, I need to read what he's planning on saying in his speech. I do not find my distrust of him unreasonable, and MBC, I appreciate that you know it does not stem from racism.

I totally agree with you. Last night, during The Boy's BTS night, I made sure that his school would NOT be showing this speech. If his school had decided to show it, he would not be going to school on Tuesday.

If it was just the speech, I would still object, but he would go to school. When I read about the stuff that is being sent out with the speech, I got upset.

I don't get into the political side of things very often. I do NOT think Obama is a good president. I did not vote for him. He is over stepping his power every chance he gets.

The crap he has pulled with his "Stimulus" package, and how it is affecting my parents and other retirerees is horrid.

I am ready for him to go now.

Talk about overstepping his power, when I was in high school how is it that JFK had been dead for 25 years and was still somehow making me do shuttle runs twice a year?

VAM

I suppose I would prefer to see any essay topics phrased as "How I Can Help My Country/State/City" than how I can help any particular office holder. I think, however, that the only way that opposition to this event can be principled rather than paranoid is if you think that no president has any business addressing school children about anything. This means no "How can I help President Bush/America win the war on terror," no "How can I help President Roosevelt/America win World War II" Etc. It probably also means no civics or, rather, no teaching of civic responsibility, since people clearly differ on how much we should be allowed to depend on/intrude on one another.

When I was in Fourth Grade, my teacher's adult son was shot and nearly killed in a mugging in New York City. The substitute, or maybe the principal, made us all write letters to Mayor Lindsay, Governor Rockefeller and, I believe, the New York City Chief of Police asking them to make the streets safer. My mother still has Mayor Lindsay's response framed, and I thought it was pretty cool at the time.

On the other hand, perhaps the whole project was inappropriate. There was probably an implicit racist cast to the whole undertaking since New York city crime was inevitably about the blacks and the Puerto Ricans. There were probably sophisticated union issues involved that fourth graders had no business weighing in on, and Lindsay had enough problems with the unions.

The way the (Bakersfield) local schoo odistricts are phrasing it is that they don't show the students anything that has not been reviewed. This is a standard policy, across the board, no matter who is wanting to address the students.

Now, if Nickolas was in high school, and this was shown in a government class, and was open for discussion I would not have an issue. I do have an issue with him in 7th grade, no real discussion allowed. We discuss politics in my house, we review both sides of an issue. When he makes a black or white statement, we discuss that there are shades of gray that also need to be seen.

My parents are ultra conservative. Bakersfield is mostly conservative. I do my best to show him that is more than one way to look at things. I can't count the times he and I have debated about what he heard over at my parents. For an example, he knows that The Old People oppose gay marrage. He knows that I support gay marrage. We talked about it at great length.

Every one is entitled to their own opinion. I may not agree with that opinion, but it doesn't make it any less valid than mine.

Of course you weren't. To be aware of that, so you could educate yourself would go against the "Well I just don't trust him and I don't want my kids to see it...because if they do I might have to hold an intelligent discussion with them about why I feel the way I feel and answer questions and.... *gasp* find out they might feel differently then me". And as a toaster-touting paranoid Republican that just can't happen.

Does that about sum it up?

Settle.

I believe I said I would be willing to watch it with them for the purposes of discussion with them. You think I avoid discussing things with my kids because they might think differently than me?

This all calls to mind a high school assembly from the late '70s that I actually did not attend for some reason. I believe Euro did, however.

As it was described to me, the speaker entered the gym to address the assembled students. He then proceeded to run down America and tout the virtues of the Soviet Union. I don't recall hearing if this provoked a response or not. At some point, however, the speaker revealed that it was an all just an act and that he was simply dramatizing the ideological assaults that the students would be confronting in the real world.

Great work if you can get it. I don't recall if parental consent was solicited for this show.

High school - great. I think for kids that are at the level of being able to think critically about such things it is a wonderful exercise. Elementary school - I don't think the reasoning capacity exists to make value judgements on such things.

Simmadownnow :D

I certainly think it's reasonable for schools to say to high school kids, "You should be able to figure out what you believe, articulate why you believe it and see the strengths and weaknesses in contrary positions." However, I very much doubt that this was the purpose of the exercise in 1970s Orange County. It was us=good, them=bad, and seductive dangers lurk around every corner.

I also doubt that the school intended the students to take critical opinions on the event itself, i.e., that it was ridiculous.

Are you sure about that? I mean - he's dead and all. It would be like Zombie Reagan or something and that wouldn't excite you in the least? :p ;) :D

Yes, because it is important that both the pro and con side be thoroughly presented on the hotly contested issue of valuing education, taking responsibility for your own education, and contributing to an environment where education is respected.

I think Newt Gingrich pretty much nailed it when he said ""Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?"

Though, of course, that was in 1991 when George Bush was doing the same thing (with almost exactly the same talking points as Obama has announced). I don't know if there was an uproar in 1986 when Reagan did a student Q&A broadcast nationally to schools in which he not only talked about the importance of education but also discussed actual politically controversial issues such as nuclear disarmament and taxation.

But in the stupid kabuki of national politics, when Bush did it in 1991 there were some Democrats who decried it as a political event. In the interest of fairness, let me say now that they too were being douchebags (though the Bush event was in the midst of the just ramping up 1992 presidential campaign, but regardless I think it is good).

And our national political leaders interact without pre-filtering with our students all the freaking time. Both of our senators addressed assemblies while I was in high school (the Flinstones-naming-inspired pair that was Brock Adams and Slade Gorton). Are we all aware that Michelle Obama has regularly been visiting our nation's elementary schools since January, indoctrinating children wherever she goes?

But then I honestly don't get this idea that our elementary schools are supposed to be designed to protect our children from teh complex thoughts of the real world. I am amused, however, that among certain circles our current president is apparently just as reprehensible and damaging to young minds as evolution.

So why not let him watch it and then discuss it with him?

I was in HS in 1986, but do not recall seeing the Reagan thing, but it shouldn't have happened, particularly since it included those issues.

But like I stated, it isn't the fact that Obama is addressing the kids that I think is problematic. It's primarily the department of ed suggested discussion points that go along with it.

Except that, as has been mentioned several times already, the material is available for review. They, for their own political reasons, have CHOSEN not to review it apparently.

But you'll shield your child from hearing an elected official speak? On an entirely non-controversial subject matter no less?

Education is the enemy of the modern conservative movement.

Can you point out in the current version of them (the Department of Education materials) specific quoted language you find problematic? Because I read them and don't see in them what you're saying is there.

Obviously that is because we're viewing the world very differently (I think it is wonderful for kids to be exposed to this stuff; you obviously don't).

So I'd be curious to see a mini-Rosetta stone where you say "this exact language means X."

This is not to say that I am all that impressed by the materials. They're full of the bull**** inanities that I hated about them when I was in school. But I don't find them bothersome beyond that.


As a completely side question. If elementary school minds are not yet ready to be exposed to political debate, how is it that they are capable of handling religious indoctrination. I'm assuming you didn't take the position that the nature of god was too complex for your 8-year-old so you were going to filter out any exposure to religious ideas until she was old enough to be properly skeptical?

Suggested discussion points, projects, etc are all geared as an aid to (tired and overworked) teachers, most who welcome guidance in lesson planning for subjects outside their regular curriculum. You should know that pretty much ALL curriculum, public and private, comes with the same type of advice. This is not some new Commy addition to our educational process- like I said before, it's standard. I'll send you a zillion examples from the curriculum sites I use for Tori's school stuff. Ask any teacher- they are not required to follow these suggestions. (Unless specifically directed by the leadership of their school or district, which is rare).

In elementary school I took part in a program called something like "Kids Vote". It was during the '88 election campaign (4th grade for me). We discussed the process of primaries and elections, we talked about the candidates, we either debated or read debate material on a few issues, and it all culminated with a huge "caucus" at Universal Studios (when they had the An American Tail play area thing) where we heard speeches and voted. It was awesome.

That would be fine, but not in a school setting. If he wants to see it he can watch it here, with me, and together we can talk about it.

Carefull MbC… Awhile back, I was eviscerated on this board for suggesting that violent right-wing extremism is on the rise.

So? Do these things excuse the actions of those on the right? I, and many others, decried these events. When was the last time you spoke out against right-wing domestic terrorism?

Why is "But, you're side did it too!" so commonly a fall-back excuse by the right? I never hear Democrats saying that.

Um… because we were?

:snap: :snap: :snap:

Too true.

Like I have said, he can see it, but I would prefer to watch it with him, at home.

I would also not want him to watch it over at my parent's house, where he would be subjected to my father ranting, raving and cussing every time the president opened his mouth.

Why? You don't even know what the speech contains yet, nor are you apparently willing to wait and read it before making that determination. And even worse, the school system that your child attends is apparently unwilling to do this either. That suggests to me that your minds have all been made up on the matter, without having one shred of evidence that there is anything remotely controversial in the President's remarks.

One wonders why we bother with education at all, since it seems the schools are not allowed to teach things like science and politics. Next thing you know, someone will object to them learning arithmetic.

Oh hell, we should just call it what it is: Daycare for older children.

"We don't need no ed-you-cay-shun!
We don't need no thought control!"

I find the story of the pro-healthcare jerk biting off the finger of the anti-healthcare protester to be horrible.

But I admit that I did smile when I learned that the protester had his finger reattached, and that it was covered by Medicare.

Arithmetic does reject god's omnipotence so it is pernicious as taught in our schools and should be avoided if possible.

2+2 always equals 4 should more properly be taught as "Some say that 2+2 always equals 4 but it is an equally valid view -- and, frankly, the right one -- that 2+2 only appears to always equal 4 but that is because you do not take into account the almighty awe-inspiring power of our lord creator to have 2+2 equal 5 when it suits his purposes in answering our prayers or smiting Jews and pagans. So, when doing your homework this evening it may be that at that moment in time 2+2 will equal 5. Unfortunately, when you turn it in tomorrow and I grade it, we may be back to 2+2 equalling 4. So I am going to have to assume than any non-4 answers were not actually erroneously but simply evidence of God's active role in our daily lives. Perfect scores for everybody."

Obviously, a proper education will require much longer lectures, but much easier tests.

I don't think they were able to reattach it. But I did like that he is opposed to Medicare and this was the first time he'd used it because he had no other options. Apparently just letting his finger stump get gangrenous, as he apparently expects others to, or finding a neighbor willing to front him the money, was not an option.

He also admits he threw the first punch after being called an idiot and feeling his personal space was being invaded. I certainly don't condone fighting or biting off fingers, but **** happens in street fights.

We used to be a nuclear powerhouse, one of the most powerful countries in the world.

The political division we are seeing (from both sides) is going to leave us ripe for an invasion in a few decades.

JW -

As far as right-wing domestic terrorism, I think the last specific instance was the killing of an abortion doctor? I do know I condemned that and have condemned abortion clinic bombings. What specific right wong terrorism would you like me to condemn? I condemn all bombings, shootings, whatever, that are done for political motives.

I was not attempting to justify in the least anything said or done by the right wing by pointing out examples of similar things said or done by the left wing. My point was simply that those on the left wing that say and do similar things are never accused of inciting violence. Should an abortion clinic be bombed, there is typically an attempt to link that to those who speak out against abortion. Should a soldier blow up a grenade in the barracks, I am not aware of the attempt to link it to those on the left wing saying the Iraq was is illegal.

All such acts of violence are wrong and should be condemned. Anyone who decides that they can or should take matters into their own hands in such a matter is wrong and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Quite frankly, I'm rather disgusted with your implication that I find any act of terrorism acceptable, but hopefully this will clear it up.

Just curious - Why isn't it okay to have it discussed multiple times with different people? both in school and at home?

Are you afraid your child may come home with a viewpoint you don't agree with and you won't be able to "talk them out of it"?

Leo,

The difference is that right-wing pundant are and do incite violence. Beck, Limbaugh, Bachman, etc, ect, etc... They do it all day long; day after day. Name one left-wing pundant - who has the reach, audience, and corporate support of their right-wing counterparts - who espouses violence.

Seriously, scaeagles and Mousey Girl.

Even if you dislike Obama, do you really think that he is going to push his agenda in a broadcast to schools? Even without reading the transcript, I can tell you that ANY sitting president would not have the balls to do that. I daresay that even Dubya, even at the height of his evil, would not have tried it. I would not have a problem letting my child see ANY sitting president speak specifically to children.

Telling your child that he should not watch something the president has to say tells them two things:

1. When we don't agree with someone, we don't listen to them.

2. I don't trust you to listen to them and then talk to me afterwards if you have questions.

Your kids may not even realize that you can READ THE TRANSCRIPT AHEAD OF TIME and discuss it with them fully after they see it, but I do, and I'm rather let down that those of you who are suspicious of Obama wouldn't use this as an ultimate teachable moment. That is, if you find anything up for debate in his transcript, which again, is beyond thinkable.

How does a child learn to listen to opposing viewpoints, parse out information vs. spin, and make up their own mind? Is it a part of the brain that doesn't function until they cross the threshold of a high school campus? Are they not listening when you have an opinion on something and they are 10 or even 5 years old?

Again - I'm really, really disappointed in you, and I'm really sad for all the kids of America that have parents clapping hands over their ears for no good reason at all.

Listen to opposing viewpoints, CP!?!? That's un-American! You must be one of those unpatriotic commie liberals!


<Tongue firmly in cheek>

CP,

I have REPEATEDLY stated that I would be happy to watch the speech with my kids. I think I indirectly stated that I wouldn't have a problem with my 15 year old seeing it without me because she has critical thinking skills and can apply them. I do not think my almost 8 year old does. My 10 year old might be getting close, but knowing him, I doubt it.

So no, I haven't said in the least we shouldn't listen to people we don't agree with. Why the hell would I be on the LoT if I thought that, when I am constantly bombarded with things I don't agree with? However, I have changed my mind on some things through discussions on this board.

On that one I think everybody was distracted by trying to tie it to the fact that the soldier is a Muslim and therefore must have been in the pocket of Al Qaeda or, as this NRO article suggests Saudi Wahhabists.

But here's an article tying his action to his anti-war views and involvement. Here's another linking his actions to slogans from the anti-war movement (and a perfectly awful slogan it is). Here is an article connecting the dots between the anti-war movement and Asan Akbar.

So rather than saying it didn't happen, maybe you just didn't notice it so much when you were likely more in agreement with the connections being made.

Really, you guys have really picked a wrong thing to pick on. I'm not saying you are nutjobs, but sky-fall shouting on this particular Obamamoment really makes you look like reactionary nutjobs. Do yourselves a favor and wait another 10 minutes for one of Obama's genuine failings. They are many and often enough if you desire to be critical of the president on a weekly basis.

Oh, also ... here's a clue. And I'm not saying you are, but when you go out on the panic limb about this sort of harmless fluffery, you ARE going to seem racist to the casual observer who can see no reasonable basis for your disdain.


So, Leo, what about the pertinent point that the rightwing has the de facto monopoly on (in)famous and wide-reaching inciters of violence? Does that not figure into it at all? Even if any perpetrators are individually responsible for their actions, are the public inciters righteous and good men?

Interesting reading Alex. I fully admit I hadn't heard anything about those articles, and don't know how widely they were publicized.

Does anyone here believe that the antiwar movement was to blame for that? I think HE was to blame for that. Just as I think we are all responsible for our own actions.

Just read this on Huffington post:

:snap: :snap: :snap:

I would not say all are righteous and good, no. There is a recent story of a pastor at a Baptist church in the Phoenix area who has been preaching sermons on why he hopes Obama dies. I do not think he is a good man.

I forget who it was, but some journalist, shortly after Clarence Thomas was confirmed, said the only hope was that he eat large amounts of fatty food and dies of heart disease at a young age. Is that different? I think it's stupid, but I'm not going to blame that journalist if someone goes and kills Clarence Thomas.

I think the problem isnt the speech, but the people who decide what they've heard is reason to be violent. I'm pretty right wing, but I'm not going to be going to kill anyone.

Perhaps I am ignorant on the subject, and I might be, but what domestic violence from the right has there been lately? I don't recall any abortion bombings or assassinations recently.

So if someone shouts "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, they are blameless for the result? If someone goes out and incites a riot, then they are not criminaly liable; but everyone else should get arrested?

This discussion hasn't been about incitement of riots. Through all the Health Care town halls, I am only aware of one turning violent, and that was a protester getting beat up by some union members.

I thought this part of the discussion was about when someone says something and others have time to actually think about what was said and then turn violent on their own at a later time, is the person who uttered the words they dwelt upon to blame.

I'll go let Charles Manson know he should be expecting a pardon.

Hey JW - just read this off of a link (for full disclosure) off of the Drudge Report.

Briefly, the Earth Liberation Front destroyed some property.

Should Obama be liable for the damages because of his stance on global warming?

Of course not. They very suggestion is ridiculous.

Various eco-terrorist actions are large and while I could not venture to guess what percentage of violence this might take on in the realm of demostic terrorism, I would suspect it is sizable. I do not for one moment blame anyone except those who did it.

I guess I was the only parent who got the email from the school about the Obama speech and thought - wow that's pretty cool. The President is going to address students about the importance of education. Pretty cool that with technology they can all view it at the same time.

Leo,

Obama never suggested that these radio towers should be destroyed.

Bill O'Reilly went on the air nearly every single day and suggested that it would be a nifty thing if someone killed Dr Tiller.

Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

But doesn't the urgency of his and others in their environmentalism inspire others into these violent actions? I've been doing a little reserach and there is a lot more ecoterrorism than I was aware of.

(please be aware this is completely rhetorical and I do not believe that anyone is responsible for ecoterrorism other than the perpetrators themselves, and perhaps anyone who might have facilitated and/or ordered it be done - put that in there because of GD's excellent point on Manson)

What JW said. I'm interested if you can cite mainstream liberal figures who have advocated violence and vilified people of the opposing viewpoint the way the right wing pundits have.

It's a HUGE difference between, "This is a very very important issue and it's frustrating that there are people preventing it from being solved" vs. "These people are doing evil things and I'm going to use words like 'Naziism' 'evil' and 'vigilante'."

ETA: Or Glen Becks favorite rhetorical game, "I'm not saying X, but I think X." Like, "I'm not saying Obama's health proposals are going to lead to Eugenics in America, but Obama's health proposals are Eugenics in America."

How about politicians, then? Reid has referred to health care protesters as evil. Pelosi said they were carrying nazi symbolism (as far as I know one guy was with a red line crossing out the swastika). Should they then be blamed for the union people who beat up Kenneth Gladney at a town hall meeting in St. Louis?

Edited to add - the above link clearly has a political spin. However, the man Kenneth Gladney and what happened to him and who beat him up is very, very real.

Talk to me when Pelosi starts joking about poisoning people she disagrees with.

Did they tell/suggest to the union people (or anyone) that they should beat up people who disagree with them?

The difference between that and the murder of Dr. Tiller is this:

Pelosi and the politicians didn't say or suggest people should harm those who disagree with them.

How do you not see the difference between a direct suggestion to cause harm and someone calling protesters evil.

Of course we're all responsible for our own actions. And of course there are generally way too many inputs into a specific persons behaviors for it to be said conclusively that any one input absolutely let to an output.

But to say that a general climate of ideas and rhetoric might increase incidences of specific behavior can be true without saying the individuals who do them are less responsible.

I have no idea why the Asan Akbar did what he did, I haven't paid enough attention (and I am not quick to say that any particular nutjob in the last 6 month was taking marching orders from Beck or O'Reilly). Plus, when spectacular news events of antisocial behavior happen we're all very fond of connecting dots with almost no information and in ways that just happen to support our already existing views of the world (as an example, even though the motiviations of the two kids at Columbine are pretty well known now, the popular thought on it is still seriously erroneous).

I have no problem at all with the idea that within elements of the anti-war movement the general tone of discourse led some people to greater levels of personal or property violence than they would have ever done left to their own devices. And just a few years ago this wasn't such a far-fetched idea among those on the right. See, for example, the release in 2006 of a fake documentary Death of a President that presented in graphic detail the assassination of George Bush. To hear Bush's supporters at the time any attempt then made should result in the execution of the filmmakers while many of those on the right said it was just talk. Now we switch sides and everybody gets to call the other side hypocrites while presenting their own poop smells of daisies.

That said, for the most part I think the fringe-advocates of the anti-war movement were never really placed front and center in the overall national discourse. They certainly weren't hosting their own national TV and radio shows watched by millions of people.

And when Obama is being presented as someone actively seeking to euthanize the elderly, turn our country into a Islamic caliphate, told that he actively hates white people, that if his agenda is allowed to succeed it will mean not only the moral decay of our country but quite possibly the end of our nation, and when the echo chamber of these thoughts is large and pervasive within certain communities, I will not be surprised if one of them is inspired to commit atrocities with the expectation that at least their own little sub-community will embrace them for it as a hero.

Will that reduce ther personal responsibility of the person who does it? Not at all. Does that absolve the people who contributed to the echo chamber, especially if they were doing it cravenly and cynically in pursuit of ratings as an "entertainer"? Again, not at all (nor does that mean their responsibility is criminal).

You're changing your baseline. Previously you said that using the words evil and nazi could inspire the violence. I point out where there elected Dem party leaders are doing just that and you say "well, they didn't do this".

I was quoting GD in his suggestion that using such words incites violence. Of course there is a difference and I do not condone O'Reilly, just like I wrote earlier that I think the Baptist pastor in Phoenix is an idiot.

Pelosi didn't call them Nazis, she said they carried Nazi symbols to a meeting, which they did, and I believe her point was that it is ludicrous for these people to be leveling charges of naziism during a discussion of national health care. Do you seriously think she didn't understand that the people with Nazi symbols were not themselves Nazis? She's not dumb, she didn't say "they're nazis".

So no, I do not consider what she said even in the same ballpark as O'Reilly calling a man "Dr. Death" and advocating vigilantism against him.

Just playing devil's advocate here, because I actually agree (that carrying Nazi symbols to a debate on nat'l health care is stupid), but it's worth pointing out that the Nazis were ostensibly socialist. I can see how they'd make the connection, even though I think it's ludicrous.

They may have used the word "Socialism" (Well... "sozialismus" really) in their name, but it was - if you excuse the pun - in name only. They were a right-wing, pro capitalisim party.

I think it's pretty cool myself. I'm don't agree with the President about everything but I really don't see the harm in this.

As a side note, I hated Bush. I wouldn't have kept my kids out of class if he would have done the same thing. What would he have said about education? yay team! It's important. Be sure to pay attention. You'll go far with one. Be a Republican or you'll be a bad person and may die early? ;)

Seriously, what is it that you think he might say that's so bad?

Wow. Do they really say all that? Wow.

Yes, and more.

I won't say that many people hold all of the ideas, or that they even form the mainstream of Republican/conservative thinking. But within a segment they are all arguments swirling around. But to be somewhat fair, when Bush was president you could find all kinds of crap about how Bush was actively working to dismantle our country (I could find plenty of examples laying out exactly who he'd go about canceling the 2008 presidential election so that he could remain in power forever). Generally I resist the notion that Bush and his administration was acting out of overt malignant desires (even if they had malignant results).

Glenn Beck, however, has skirted or crossed the line on these and many worse. And I will admit that I tend to assume that anybody who says they listen to him with anything less than smirking disdain may have been lobotomized in the past. But that is rude of me to make such judgments without checking for scars.

I think this country needs its diaper changed.


"Is you children learning?"

Hence my use of the word "ostensibly"

I have never listened to Beck, for the record, and I haven't watched O'reilly in many, many years.

I interpretted Pelosi's "nazi" usage much, much differently. I saw it as her trying to link the protesters to skin heads.

I accept that you do not equate them, and niether do I. The reason I brought it up was your specific statement of

Granted, vigilante didn't come into play in Pelosi and Reid, but they were using evil and nazi.

I have to strongly object to that. They were about a state controlled economy. From MSN encarta -

Yes, but not even ostensibly in the way we're using the word today. On the classic political spectrum, National Socialism was always always came from a right-side tradition similar to fascism (and though in many ways communism and fascism look similar in practice they come from very different ideological places) and pretty much opposite from socialism/communism as practiced in Europe at the time.

It wasn't so much socialism in the sense of abolishing property rights and the equality of all but more in the sense of abolishing private property and nationalizing anything that impeded German nationalism (more "only racially German people have property rights" than "property rights are inimical to common man").

Before he was sent off to the Pacific in WWII, my father found himself guarding German POWs. When they found out that he spoke German, they would try to converse with him about how they only wanted to save the world from communism.

That still isn't socialism. The state did not own the companies, just regulated them.

The majority of the piece you quoted had to do with eliminating unions; a capitalist's wet dream.

I didn't say it was socialism. I said it wasn't pro-capitalism. You claimed it was pro-capitalism. You are wrong. The Nazi government controlled industry and eliminated competition.

That's your idea of "regulation"? Yikes.

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: "I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. "They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."




She didn't say they were Nazis. She said, correctly, that they were carrying the symbols. These people have been calling the healthcare proposal a Nazi proposal for months. They have been on the news carrying sings that talk about it being a Nazi program, carrying red line crossing out the swastika signs. She, and everyone else listening and watching, are fully aware that these people are coming to townhall meetings with these symbols with the intention of saying, "What the Dems are proposing is Naziism." There is no way I can possibly believe that she thought that those people are Nazi sympathizers. It's so completely in the domain of obvious that there was no need for her to elaborate and say, "There are people who are carrying "signs with swastikas crossed out" and other anti-nazi signs." Her meaning is clearly, "No, I do not consider them legitimate. I consider no one who is engaging in the hyperbole of bringing swastika to townhall meetings as a shorthand for leveling accusations of Naziism against the healthcare efforts to be legitimage."

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Proud to be both. :)

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.

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!"

Visible.Alex.Mojo.

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.

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.

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?

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 is a web page I found rather quickly that might help point you to something that you could use.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Correct.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I posted this in another thread -

If the NHS is good enough for Stephen Hawking then it can't be any worse than what we have.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

link
From Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan nonprofit:
Here's a full Heritage article supposedly about why unions support this bill. This is just a snippet:
Again, FactCheck:
Sorry Leo, but this site is lying to you and misleading you. And that's just the first two things I found...

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.

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.

He says it somewhere around 55 seconds of this 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.

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.

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.

(Full disclosure, I got the chart from this opinion piece, 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. It was never meant to be a retirement parachute. It keeps the elderly off the streets.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

"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."

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

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.

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).

For full disclosure, I did get this 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.

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

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).

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Wow.


Just, wow.

Do you believe they did this?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

Joe Wilson was an Obama plant.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Our Headline "DUH" of the day:

Story here

VAM.

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?

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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. :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Precisely.

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

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

Only on LoT.

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


Carry on:)

Shameful!

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

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.

What about geese?