Aug 27 2009, 2:24PM
Why Sarah Palin Should Not Defend Glenn Beck
Sarah Palin takes to the digital pages of Facebook in praise of embattled and boycotted TV host Glenn Beck:
FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House.
Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch.
Palin thus ensures that the current Beck controversy will continue for at least another week. And I continue to be impressed and befuddled by two features of this controversy. The first is the degree to which Beck's supporters are largely unwilling to defend or engage with what Beck actually said to start the boycott. (Namely, that Obama is a "racist" with a "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.") The vast majority of what you hear from Beck supporters is that the left has been mendacious in handling the boycott campaign, by listing among the boycott signatories some companies that never advertised with Beck to begin with. But even if this were entirely true (it's partially true), it misses the point: The factual question of whether the boycott is calculating is unrelated to the interpretive question of whether what Beck said is defensible. And what Beck said was, I submit, stupid and indefensible. Does anyone disagree?
The second surprising feature is the degree to which this is wrongly described as a free-speech issue. This is a pretty big, basic misunderstanding of how free speech works. Free speech is a "negative" right: It prevents the government from silencing you. But it doesn't guarantee you the right to a soapbox or a megaphone or an audience. And it certainly doesn't guarantee a gigantic corporate paycheck for speaking your mind.
You might believe, as Charles Warner apparently does, that the Beck boycott is counterproductive because it gives Beck additional attention and notoriety -- which are Beck's bread and butter. Perhaps that's right. But this tactical debate -- what's the fastest way to have Beck wither on the vine? -- shouldn't be confused with a debate over whether losing an advertiser is like a chunk of the Bill of Rights. On that subject, there's really nothing to debate.
Yes, I think calling Obama racist was and is a pretty stupid position for Beck to espouse. But, after so many years of Bush being called a racist without anyone batting an eyelash, it is hard to get worked up about it. And after Governor Patterson recently calling the New York media racist (New York media!), it is also hard to get worked up about it. And after many (albeit less prominent) voices calling anyone who opposes the Obama proposals for healthcare racist, its hard to get worked up about it.
Yeah, but Kanye West didn't and doesn't have a nightly show on a major cable news channel. He's also not taken seriously by a large segment of the population. Beck said Obama hates white culture and white people. So, according to Beck, he hates his mother, grandparents, and half of himself. This is absurd. What is more telling about this statement is how Beck will say anything just to say something negative about Obama. He's a hack. David Patterson: also not taken seriously. Watch an SNL episode from last year.
What about all of the people calling Bush a Nazi, or Hitler? Glenn just made the point that Obama has thrown down the race card countless times. He spent over 20 years listening to a racist pastor. A person who believes in what Martin Luther King Jr said about judging a person not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character couldn't listen to Jeremiah Wright for more than 2 minutes without leaving, and not for 5 minutes with out throwing up.
Obama has only distanced himself from Wright for political reasons. I think it's a perfectly reasonable observation, to say that Obama has racist tendencies. To say that Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture is an honest opinion that deserves more investigation and less writing off. The things Obama has said are a testament to that.
The idea that Beck is racist is, however wholly absurd. Find me a full episode, not quotes out of context, but a full paragraph by Glenn Beck where he belittles all people of one race. The fact is, he doesn't. He attacks ideologies that a majority of one group may have espoused like for instance liberalism or socialism or progressivism, but he has never said anything like-- "oh Obama's just a 'typical black person'". He didn't listen to an anti-black pastor rant about how the blacks were controlling our lives, as obama did for over 20 years.
Somebody please explain to me, without mincing words or beating around the bush, how Obama could have sat in the congregation of Jeremiah Wright for over 20 years and not have racist opinions!
Somebody please tell me how him saying "typical white person" isn't racist! If I were to call him a "typical black person", I would be slaughtered--but you can lump the whites together all you want?? I don't think so.
People are currently calling Obama a Nazi and Hitler, anyone who says that about Bush or Obama is lazy and has no basic grasp of history. I've listened to racists for twenty years and I don't have racist opinions. Some people don't believe everything they hear from their minister. Again, do you think Obama hates half of his racial identity and half of his family and part of his daughters? Also, interchanging white experience and black experience in America is not really serious. Whites have never been in the minority and can never know what it's like. Who said typical white person? Wright or Obama?
This is actually in response to your second comment in this string... Obama is the one who said, "Typical white person" in reference to his GRANDMOTHER, in his book, "Dreams From My Father."
Palin is trying to rally her base which are ultra conservative and love Glenn. The problem is Glenn is preaching to a minority who thinks they are a majority. Fox News might as well given a show to Alex Jones and they would have gotten the same effect. His book common sense was the biggest attack on the values of the founders of this great nation I have ever witnessed in my own life. I don't just say this to sound facetious, I was truly offended after reading that book and noticing how far Glenn fell short of realizing what Thomas Paine truly stood for.
There is NO way you read that book. The principles in that book aren't conservative or liberal, but basic principles that everybody I've talked to, liberal and conservative, agree on before they find out that it is Glenn Beck. The problem is that the media has portrayed Glenn as a racist bigot, when the claim is COMPLETELY unfounded. You find one full episode where Glenn has made a personal attack on people of another color, and I will buy your theory. But it is unfounded. The liberal media would like more than anything to shut Glenn up, and that is how they want to do it, because they truly can't dispute his points, which are very well documented and accurate to the T. And when you can't attack the principles of a person--YOU ATTACK THE PERSON. You make people think that he's crazy.
BUT YOU HAVE NO PROOF.
No, Jake McKenzie, you haven't read Common Sense. My guess is that you are either one of the Obama personality cult brainwashed by state controlled media, or you are some how benefiting financially from going on blogs and attacking Glenn Beck.
If you really did read his book and you don't believe in the basic principles outlined therein, maybe you're just a communist. It's a reasonable explanation. If so, I would ask you to take your communism and move to Venezuela for a few years, and see if you are still a communist when you come home. If you like communism so much that stay the hell in Venezuela.
Would that be the same "state controlled media" that Beck works for?
Just more crazy talking points spewing from your pie hole.
"You find one full episode where Glenn has made a personal attack on people of another color, and I will buy your theory." - Not how it works. Of course Beck is not going to go on a racist rant on air. His job is to plant the seed of hate so that it can grow in the minds of those too ignorant to think for themselves.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
Thomas Jefferson
Substitute the word newspapers with blogs and/or Fox news for the sake of modernization.
That is not how Beck operates and you know that. His slimey style is all about inuendo then denial then repeating that original inuendo.
Ex #1: And this is a paraphrase of his interview where he called Obama a racist.
Beck: He has a deep seated hatred for the white race and the white culture.
Host: What?
Beck: Im not saying that Obama is a racist
Host: What are you saying?
Beck: Im saying that Obama is a racist.
Ex #2:
Opening with a video clip of a Nazi audience hall saluting Hitler
Then moving on to talk about the Health Care Bill
Then denying that he was comparing that to the Nazi Final Solution
That shows his mastery at the art of manipulation. Which I will give him credit for. But his attempts are built on lies plain and simple. He is the perfect example of what is wrong in American political media.
No, you will never see hi state in a full paragraph or a whole show him saying these things. Because he is (cant believe In using this word in a brief on this jerk) smart enough to know that if he came right out and said these things he would be off the air in a minute.
Why did you call the guy a communist because he didn't like Glenn Beck's book?
Calling someone is a racist is something "liberals" learn to do at 4 months: "goo goo gah gah you racist hater!"
Yet, when Beck calls BHO a racist, Conor Clarke has a five-alarm meltdown. While perhaps Beck should have thought about it in more depth and, for instance, noted that BHO and his handlers have a habit of racializing things.
However, what I'd really like Conor Clarke to comment on is his problem with Beck's use of "white culture". What exactly does that mean to Clarke? What exactly about that phrase is he opposed to? He hasn't yet explained that. To help, he should take a look at this and this (particularly see the "spin" link after the summary) and see this push from the BHO campaign: 24ahead.com/blog/archives/008286.html
The BHO campaign sure seemed to be interested in "white culture", even if it was in the plural sense. Are those cultures OK, Conor? Is some sort of pan-ethnic culture OK? If not, what about the second link? Why is it OK in that case?
That's right, but these people who follow Beck or FOX don't really know what the Constitution says or means because the people who tell them what it is are Beck or FOX and both of those entities are nothing but profound liars and expounders of total falsehoods and bunk and giving them free speech might be the law , but inciting to riot or inciting violence or crying 'fire' in a crowded theater still might not be legal.
Hey, I resent that. I watch Fox, but I also read. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the House Health Care bill. I think you'll find quite a few of us prefer to back up our talk with those annoying things called "facts."
I challenge the claim that Bush was called a 'racist.' Yes, there were some assertions - deservedly so- following his inept handling of Katrina but never to a degree which warrants the categorization of 'so many years.'
He had a free ride - a compliant Congress and a press that was asleep at the wheel, ignoring the resulting accumulation of problems which his successor must now contend with, instead of his own agenda.
As if anyone who would boycott Glenn Beck has actually ever watched him.
Glenn has made it perfecty clear what he feels about whether Obama might be a "racist" and is one of the better hosts out there at laying out his theoretical questions with facts to allow people to make their own conclusions. The real question is why are so many people so scared that Glenn is popular. I much prefer the msnbc talk show hosts who don't address any of the facts, instead they try and defame the character of their opponents by grabbing on to any faux pas phrase spoken, like the terrible sin of questioning whether a black person a might be racist.
As for whether Glenn promotes violence. Glenn has been clear on that as well. Anyone who believes that defamation has clearly, again, never watched him.
Do you, theoretically, think Obama hates his mother and grandparents? And also half of his racial identity?
So I guess it doesn't bother you that a declared communist is advising Obma. Do some research on who is advising Obama. Try and keep an open mind and check out what Glen Beck has said. If it were untrue, then why doesn't the goverment deny what is said. They will not because it is fact. Some of the readers may be of a young age and does not realize what communism and socilisim realy is. Europe is a good example of socialisim, where gas prices are at $7.00 per gallon, where health care is rationed, and the government can't or won't change it because has become law. Do you not understand that over 3,000,000 people are out of work with no prospects for real jobs at this time. Has the Obama stimulus plan worked for them? In health care, I like to make this anology. I ask you, Can you afford health care, to actually pay for it? If you say no, then think about this. How is the goverment going to pay for your care. They can't afford it either. We all want something done about the cost. Why can't the goverment do something about tort reform, to lower the cost that the doctor's have to pay to avoid extreme lawsuit's brought against them. Another thing, take off the mandated state and federal mandates that are put on the insurance companies. Allow them to build a policy according to what the person wants. Example, why would a woman have to pay for prostate surgery for a man, or a man paying for a mammogram for a woman. I could go on and on about what is happening here but you would probably get bored but in any case, please comment if you disagree.
I'd rather have European health care any day. Our system is broken. My wife and I decided to have another child. I am self employed and lived in California. I paid $800 a month for Blue Cross HMO coverage. I was forced to move to Texas for work midway through my wife's pregnancy. Blue Cross told me the pregnancy would no be covered. I could not get insurance through any other carrier because pregnancy was considered a pre-existing condition. Even Blue Cross of Texas would not take me. My self and my other 2 year old son could not get insurance or go to the doctor until the new baby was born. I had to keep the Blue Cross coverage in California because it still covered emergency room treatment (maybe.) Then Blue Cross of California upped my premium to $1100 for the last two months of pregnancy. I recently went to England to visit relatives and one of my kids came down with a serious flu. We went to the doctor - waited about 20 minutes and got amazing care. I paid zero. My dad was treated and cured with testicular cancer in England. He received state of the art care. We no longer live in the dark ages - the poor or the self employed small business owners should not suffer with their lives because they cannot afford health care from greedy corporations. The health insurance companies should not be allowed to call pregnancy a pre-existing condition. Health insurance no longer needs to be paid by employers - it needs to be paid by every single person living in America and heavily regulated. Wayne, when our current health care system fails you or someone you care about then you will see the light. Did you or anyone you know go to public school? Do you call them socialists for taking advantage of public services (socialist by your definition)?
Jack,
Great point, yet this isn't the answer. They are trying to shove a massive program like this down our throats. Your point is completely valid...but the government is pathetic and can't manage any sort of program. How about small legislature versus this gigantic initiative. Why so much so fast??? I think employment is far more important of an issue at this time...don't you? National security? Oh, how about education? In reality that is the root cause here....people put to much faith and trust in our political system and now look where we are at.
Health care reform has been pushed aside for 12 years. If not now when? When will pregnancy not be a preexisting condition? When will the poor put off preventative care only to end up with serious health problems handled in the emergency room. Health Care for Americans is a burden to all tax payers now - the only one making money are the health care fraudsters - why not make the system work for us? Once you get fall through the cracks you too will realize that health care needs to change now. right now.
Tired
I think that you fundamentally misunderstand government. Fiscal conservatives have spent 25 years claiming that it is not the answer, primarily because regulation of markets brings stability for all, but not a windfall profit for the few. For that matter, Reagan stating that the worst thing in the world was "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," is exactly the sort of rubbish I'm talking about. If it's so bad, my good man, why are you so anxious to be a part of it? To save us from it? How noble, but don't take me for a fool.
Rather than complaining that government can't work, why not work to make it efficient? Or is the entire idea of someone or something being put in place to insure the equal opportunity of all the real problem here? That's primarily what the government does: prevent the highest class from kicking the ladder out from under people so that no others can reach their heights. Government, especially in a democracy, thrives from public participation. Isn't it convenient that Conservatives have been scaring people for a quarter century now to get away from government while putting themselves in charge of it? Any trickle down economics that we might feel is purely in the trembles that occur when the wealthiest make poor decisions in greed that threaten to topple the entire system. THEN the government is necessary and useful: when they come to the taxpayers looking for a bailout -- taxes, I might add, that they themselves largely don't pay through tax shelters and large legal teams protecting their money from taxation. Wasn't one of those Conservative mottos "pull your own weight"? Quick to condemn the poor, but quick to use all the services and perks of the taxpayer funded government when it suits them, while largely spending the rest of their time in tax avoidance.
If being in the business of insurance is simply too easy to manipulate, take advantage of, or sabatoge, then it should be controlled publicly. The government is accountable to me: every two years, I can vote out the entire lot of them if I so desire. Corporate executives? They have no incumbancy to protect, and for that matter, no real threat of honest competition. For all the bull about capitalism, it's amazing how companies claim they can't compete. Frankly, in capitalism, that's a sign that you are the weakest link. And frankly, if that were the case, UPS and FedEx would have folded years ago in the face of a government run service that will get a letter from you to your friend across the country for 44 cents. Why are these government programs in financial trouble? We spend into infinity on Defense -- largely pork going to Texas -- and continue to erode everything else, while continually trying to cut taxes. If you want to bring down the cost of government, regulate the private industries that gouge us for products and services greatly inflated past their actual value. Need I mention Pharmaceuticals? Or the fact that they gouge Americans because they know that no other developed world will tolerate that sort of pricing?
For that matter, we went 50 years without strong economic topsy-tervy, only to experience a return to this in the anti-government era of Post-Reagan America.
I don't think Government is the problem here; I think a lack of one is the problem.
Jack nice try. Federal Law prohibits pregnancies from being considered pre-existing conditions.
You are wrong. When you are on an individual health plan moving to a new health plan pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. It happened to me with Blue Cross (now Anthem) of California HMO. If I were poor enough though I would have qualified for Medicaid and the birth would have been completely free thanks to tax dollars. Who suffers most under the current system? Tax payers that can't get the care for free but still pay for the care for the poor and those that pay for their own health care and get inferior service. Idelvalle don't believe the hype. The government regulates health care just enough to make people feel like there is a safety net - but when it comes down to it money wins and Americans suffer.
Hi. Here's a general rule I use: Until you learn how to use an apostrophe, I don't have to take anything you say seriously.
Oooh, those mandated mandates are a drag. Almost as much as dictated dictates or sacrificed sacrifices.
#1 - Name the communist. You don't get to make statements like that without facts to back it up.
#2 - Saying Europe is a good example of socialism is like saying that North America is a good example of rocks.
#3 - You fundamentally misunderstand the health care reform bill being floated. It does not propose to have the government pay for health care. I would encourage you to actually research the bill.
#4 - Tort reform has been implemented in CA and TX and has not brought down the cost of healthcare in either of those states. I would support tort reform however.
#5 - Again, you fundamentally misunderstand the way insurance works. Right now, the money you pay into your health insurance is being used for a mammogram, or prostate surgery, or a hernia operation. Those that are in good health are paying for the treatment provided to those who are in poor health. It is unlikely that you would ever pay enough in premiums throughout your life to cover the costs of treating cancer for example. The insurance co.'s know this and bank on having more healthy people than sick people on their rolls. This is why they deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and charge more for smokers etc.
Wayne, what bothers me is that you and many others are unwilling to either research or accept a few facts.
Yes, Van Jones was once a communist. He changed back 2000. Almost a decade ago he left the communist party behind.
The government doesn't respond to every Beck falsehood, because it would become a full time job to do so. Also, it would give him credibility.
And if you, like so many others, are going to contend that people can't change, I suggest you remember that Beck changed--he is an admitted alcohol and substance abuser who overcame those problems after losing a marriage. Ronald Reagan changed from Democrat to Republican. So it is not a big stretch to believe that Van Jones went from communist to social democrat.
Yes, Van Jones was once a communist. He changed back 2000.
LOL! There is little difference in economic outlook between a communist and a social democrat! They both believe in government ownership of the means of production and they both wish to substitute government bureaucratic edicts for the sovereignty of the consumer. "Social Democrats" usually wish to accomplish this travesty against freedom through "legal" means -- such as a combination of elections, propganda taught to youngsters through the public education system, and manipulation of information through a compliantly leftist media. Whereas communists, on the other hand, usually favor the outright and honest use of force -- sort of like Chavez going around Venezuela with armed thugs expropriating people's private farms. The latter behavior would never go over in the U.S. because...well, because 150 million Americans own guns and ammunition and will start using them against government bureaucrats that start forcibly expropriating their private property. Ah, but if one calls himself a "Social Democrat", that sounds so much more polite. It sounds as if no force is being used against people at all! Van Jones might get away with theft if it's done "legally" by Social Democrats. He'd never get away with it at all if the theft were attempted openly by a group calling itself "Communist."
As Reagan had explained, he didn't really leave the Democratic Party; it was the Democratic Party that had left him, by moving WAY to the left of where it had traditionally been. Face it: today's Democratic Party is, in fact, yesterday's Socialist Party (but without the public-relations embarrassment of having to associate its name with "socialism" or "Marxism" or any of the 20th-century "isms" that wrecked Europe and Asia).
Reagan's change was a change toward intellectual honesty; Beck's change was a change from addiction to non-addition; Jones's change was a change from membership in a party that admits the frank use of force against producers and property owners (Communists) and to membership in a party that believes theft is all right as long as its done in a slow, "legal", non-violent manner (Social Democrats). The last two are both vile, but at least being an open Communist -- as unpopular as it is in the U.S. -- has the virtue of honesty.
Seems that those on the left think their words mean nothing when they say racist, Hitler, and other favorite names they use. They also have honed to perfection how to be loud and obnoxious and try to destroy anyone they do not agree with. It would seem that they would come up with ideas that they could defend with the civil discussion their president says he wants.
> As if anyone who would boycott Glenn Beck has actually ever watched him.
Doesn't matter. I'm not boycotting Beck, I'm boycotting his advertisers.
> The real question is why are so many people so scared that Glenn is popular.
Bigoted views and propaganda spewed by Beck and other Fox talking heads are having a very negative effect on political and social discourse in this country, in my opinion. The fear is that such propaganda and misinformation is a grave danger to the well-being of our country - we will end up with policy decisions based on complete BS. I'm afraid of a media network such as Fox that intentionally generates and perpetuates misinformation - "death panels" as a case in point. Over 50% of folks in the US actually believe death panels are in the current health care proposals. If you are informed and honest you know this is a complete falsehood.
Do you think we're having an honest discussion of how to fix the health care system in the US? I say we're not, and I blame the media and right wing obama haters for that.
I ask you how and why we have such a misinformed citizenry. The answer to How is Fox News and the rest of its ilk. The answer as to Why is less easily answer but I suspect corporate dominance plays a part.
I'd like to see a return to factual, reasoned, articulate discussion of the problems facing our country and decent analysis of the pros and cons of various proposals to fix things. Not vile, divisive, racist trash talk like we're getting from Beck.
I don't give a sh*t about Beck and what he thinks. But I do care that Fox is is giving him a platform. If they're doing it because of the bottom line, then I'll do what I can to take the profit motive out of it for Fox. If they still want to give him a platform then obviously Fox has other motives.
Ponder these questions
- If private health care is so great, why are there 47 million uninsured?
- Do you think the 47 million uninsured would like a choice of a public plan, given that the private insurance industry isn't meeting their needs (has failed them so miserably)?
- If you got laid off tomorrow, COBRA will cost you about $1500 / month and only be available for about 6 months. If you were laid off tomorrow, can you afford those payments and what would you do when COBRA runs? (There may have been some COBRA extensions recently, but the question is the same).
I've heard several comments about the 47K uninsured. About 25K are temporarily uninsured, e.g. those changing jobs who are not insured today but will be in three months. (Then it's a different 25K uninsured). Then there are something like 10K who pay as they go--mostly younger people who have low risk. Another group is the wealthy who pay as they go for different reasons, and finally, there's the remainder who are unable to pay for insurance or who are here illegally.
Conor Clarke, at it again. 0bama, his crew, and his supporters have been playing the race card every since he announced that he was running for president. How many times during the campaign did we see stories about how 0bama was going to lose the election all because of "white racism." Did poor Clarke ever get his panties in a bunch over all those false assertions? I'm betting not, and wouldn't be too surprised if he actually engaged in that kind of BS himself. Now 0bama, his crew and his supporters are charging that anyone who opposes 0bamacare, cap and trade, cash for clunkers (I've got a used 0bama I'd like to give away) or anything else he wants, are racists.
The definiation of "racism" is when a liberal is losing an argument. It's a form of psychological terrorism, designed to scare people into silence. Fortunately, Glenn Beck hasn't backed down, and keeps plugging away. If real "journalists" would look into such things as who 0bama is appointing as Czars (about 37 so far) Glenn Beck wouldn't have to be doing it, but no, all the real "journalists" have their lips planted to firmly on 0bama's behind to actually do their job.
As for Palin's invitation to her Facebook supporters, good for her. I hope Becks ratings went way up, and stay up, since he is the only one on TV who is doing what should be done, exposing the 0bama administration for what it is, a nest of anti-American radicals, and whackos.
In socialist societies, the state, not the people, establishes accepted spelling and only organs of government have the lawful right to imply dubious conspiracies. Americans, wake up!
I don't remember anyone calling Bush a racist, but I do remember people calling him and his decisions stupid.
The GOP is just disgustingly out of touch. It's led and left now with a bunch of anti-intellectuals that seem to prefer our country to be run by an illegal plumber or a beauty queen that took 6 years to get a journalism degree. It's time the party abandoned the morons that want to teach our children the universe was created 6000 years ago. The conservative of today seems only conservative with three things, intelligence, reason and compassion. Opposition orientation is not a charter, or a policy position.
Watch as these cynical and manipulative rich people fool the public in to voting for Republicans by putting a pretty white woman up for election. Low information voters fall in line.
A posty on another site said it like this: "Now to be fair, there are virtually no non-white Republican members of congress, so in suggesting that the party's future hopes rest essentially on white talent Jenkins was arguably just stating the obvious."
Glenn Beck didn't get it wrong when he called Obama a racist. The president has been careful for the most part, but he slips now and then. If he wasn't a racist, he wouldn't have attended the hate church of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. During the campaign, he twice made snide little comments such as reminding the voters that the Republicans would try to scare the voters by reminding them that he was black and that he didn't look like the other presidents on paper money. He also immediately jumped to the defense of Henry Gates, citing racial profiling by the police, in Cambridge, when Gates was the one who doing the profiling. Obama is a brilliant man who doesn't constantly spout racist crap, but occasinally he lets it out. This validates Glenn Beck's statement.
ApostasyUSA
It would seem you have only one position, to insult the other party. Both parties are rich and manipulative. The Clinton's made $100MM in 8 years after leaving the White House. The Gore's did the same. Gore sat on the board of Google prior to the company going public and netted a cool $20MM. Don't fool yourself, the policy position of the dems isn't as genuine as you might think. Both sides have special interest that have destroyed this great nation.
Tired: Glenn said today (and I believe him) that both the Dems and the GOP have scr*wed the American people. Sadly, the problem with those in Congress is the incumbent; they're in the business of getting re-elected.
Gee, did someone suggest Joe the Plumber was going to run the country? I missed that one.
To insinuate it took Sarah Palin 6 years to complete her degree is to suggest she couldn't make it in 4 years. Some of us had to work to put ourselves through school.
I don't recall Bush being called a racist; I do however recall him being called a moron infinite times (hmmm, since his GPA was higher than John Kerry's, what does that make Kerry?). I also remember countless "Kill Bush" posters, but of course nothing wrong with that, that's just freedom of speech. Quite the double standard being set.
I don't know any "Creationist" who believes the Universe was created 6000 years ago? We do study science, you know.
Many of you assume this is a Democrat or Republican controversy. Try ueber Liberal/Marxist/Socialist/Progressive/Statist/Collectivist/Fascist/Commie Pinko (your choice) versus Constitution Loving Conservative. How about electing congress critters who represent the people rather than the special interests that keep getting them re-elected?
Oh, and to the person who said we're a democracy. We are not. We are a Republic. Look it up.
Is Obama a racist? According to Dictionary.com the definition of racist is:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Based upon many statements in his books (especially "Dreams of My Father") and some of his campaign rhetoric, a case could be made in support of the statement that Obama is a racist. At the very least he appears to be a bit prejudiced.
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
As long as he doesn't allow his policy to reflect racism or prejudice, it shouldn't matter.
Blasting Glenn Beck (or anyone else) for having the audacity to call Obama a racist, is just wrong.
This is the United States of America. If anyone makes statements you don't like, by all means argue with them. Debate the point. But don't denigrate them just because you object to their opinion. And certainly, you shouldn't try to harm them, in any way, because you disagree with them. Undermine their position by proving them wrong. But don't try to silence them.
Show others the same respect with which you would like to be treated.
Dear Short: sadly freedom of speech only applies when you're a Liberal.
I am an Independent, void of one party's biasness and manipulative banter than the other. I don't believe everything Beck says, Bush said, or Obama says. They are opinions and view points all with a variety of self serving intentions, that is human nature. I implore you to investigate your assumptions and educate yourself prior to speaking out or writing in blogs.
Yes, people did say Bush was a racist. I didn't understand this being that Bush had more minorities in his cabinet than any other President, even the current one. People called Bush....Hitler...and so what...who cares....seriously. Obama is just as much an opportunist as Bush was. He cares about his own interest....look where he is vacationing...the date in New York by flying up in Air Force One with his wife. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared victory, Obama jets off on your dimes to go on a date....similar isn't it. Selfishness in one way or another.
So, did Beck go to far...who cares. It is his show, he can say what he wants and face the consequences. That is a "free" market people....turn off the station and the radio.
You people that boil this down to race are so far from the issues at hand. Why is everyone fixated on what Bush left behind? The government's problems didn't start in the Bush era....it started long long ago. Focus on your rights being slowly taken away. How long until you are told what to eat and what you can't, what you can drink and what you can't, what you can say and what you can't...wait we are already there. Anyone recall the book Animal Farm. The government is just to big and to intrusive in our lives. Tax cheats, bribes, golden benefit packages, entitlements.....the greed of both parties has all but destroyed this nation.
In closing...our government spent $800 billion in stimulus money to do what? 11% of the funds have been dispersed, yet the media reports the economy is on the rebound already...so why did we have to spend the money. Open your eyes, ears and mind people. Both parties suck!
Our economy is based on speculation. It doesn't matter if the funds have been dispersed - it instills confidence which is all the economy needs.
Under a law known as HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, health insurers cannot consider pregnancy a preexisting condition.
Really Jack...
HIPAA only counts for group plans sponsored by an employer. If you have an individual plan HIPAA has no regulation. Look it up Idelvalle - call some insurance companies. Read the fine print.
"The government is just to (sic) big and to (sic) intrusive in our lives"
I don't even know where to begin. Do you abhor schools, police, the fire department, road and road maintenance, national security and the military? When you go to the supermarket, does it pain you to know that the food you purchase must meet various standards before it can be sold to you? How about the lead-free paint and asbestos-free insulation in your house? Your FDIC insured money in your bank accounts?
You don't want to be told what to eat and drink, but do you make smart, responsible choices? Or do you eat and drink products laden with high fructose corn syrup, saturated fats and other goodies, which affect your health, which has an impact on your need for medical care, which affects on MY health care premiums...
Does the restriction of being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater REALLY infringe upon your free speech, or is it more important to jeopardize public safety?
Do we forsake common sense and any sense of responsibility just to make you and others with your sense of self-righteousness feel better? I can eat/drink/say what I want! Yes, you can. Congratulations. You can also go swimming in the ocean when there are no lifeguards on duty. There are signs that say "swim at your own risk". Undertow and riptides? Bah! It's my right!
Just because you CAN doesn't mean that you SHOULD.
Were/Are you opposed to DOMA and Bush's proposed Federal Marriage Act? How many "States rights! Federal Gov't is bad!" conservatives opposed it? Even the anti-Roe v. Wade pro-life contingent aren't REALLY against it because it's a federal law - they oppose it because they oppose abortion period, and it wouldn't matter if it were federally mandated or State mandated. But it's a convenient argument. Separation of Church and State? Gun laws and the recent attempt to override States rights and install a federal mandate? Things I approve of are just peachy when they're federally mandated, but the things I don't like should be States' rights issues! How convenient.
None of us live in a bubble, and everything we do has some affect on those around us. Even, and especially, the stupid choices/decisions we make, and it has very little to do with intelligence. If we as a people have proven anything, it's that we need government intervention because we're inherently selfish. Not as individuals, but as a people.
Take the health care debate. Those who have health care are only concerned about what they perceive as their own interests, to the point that they can't see what's right in front of their faces. Who pays for all that expensive and overpriced "free" care for the uninsured in emergency rooms? We do. And that includes illegals as well.
We already have rationed care via the insurance companies, it's just that most people haven't been in a position personally where they've experienced it. There's already a pencil-pusher on the other end, standing between us and our doctors who have to power to say yea or nay with regard to the treatments prescribed by our doctors - the insurance companies who have all of the power to decide whether or not they're going to pay, whether or not you're approved for that test or procedure.
Who paid for Craig T Nelson's "what has the Government ever done for me" food stamps? We did.
For a party that cries "Free Market! Federal Government is incompetent!" I don't see a single one of them proposing an end to Medicare or Social Security.
What did/do you think of the Patriot Act? So it's okay for individual rights to be infringed upon in the name of National Security but not for promoting the general welfare of the people in other ways?
As for cries of racism, which this post is ostensibly about, let's examine White Privilege before we go accusing anyone. Having friends of color, and Bush appointing minorities is just window dressing.
Bush's landing on that aircraft carrier was a political ploy. Obama taking his wife on a date was in no way similar. But then again, the concept of "family values" is only pertinent when it comes to thwarting LGBTQ rights.
Open your eyes is right. You should take your own advice.
I put my first comment(above)in the wrong place. I apologize for that.
ApostasyUSA - Talk down much? It is such a hoot how the lefties have such egos that they can look down their noses, over their little half-glasses, etc. and tell us right-wingers just how silly, foolish and unintelligent we are. "The morons who want to teach our children that the universe was created 6,000 years ago" actually want to present a more intellectually accepted practice of offering an alternative viewpoint. This is something the ultra-liberal-leaning universities of our country have forbidden for many years - opposing viewpoints, that is. Isn't that one of the basic tenets of university life, to present opposing viewpoints so that the individual can seek and find the truth? Genius? Hello?
ShortBaldGuy - You are a wise man that I think I'd like to sit down with and have a beer. We could sit and talk about what a nitwit ApostasyUSA has shown him/herself to be.
"The morons who want to teach our children that the universe was created 6,000 years ago" actually want to present a more intellectually accepted practice of offering an alternative viewpoint."
This is pure poppycock. There is no intellectually accepted practice of offering an alternative viewpoint that has been scientifically proven as impossible. At least not in a science class. For you to define it as such proves that you should be talked down to. If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old then you are a stupid person, or at the very least, ignorant.
The biggest mistake the left has made in the past 10 years is NOT talking down to the people who are assault America with inane garbage that is patently false. There are too many stupid people like you who will accept it without question.
The trick is on the American people and the key word is not racist but rather sensationalist. Glenn Beck says the most sensational comments possible to stay relevant. He comes up with ridiculous theories based on half truths to stir up debate an he knows it. This earns him notoriety and if managed correctly fame, money and right wing martyrdom if he happens to get taken off the air. In my opinion Glenn Beck is manipulating the fears of insecure white Americans for the sole purpose of furthering his own agenda. I believe manipulation of the American public's fears to further your own self interest is un-American. Rather than have an intelligent debate he resorts to name calling the President of the United States. It's not right when the left does it and it's not right now. If a brand name product supports a view I strongly disagree with I have the right as an American to not buy that product. Don't call my president a flat out racist unless you have unequivocal proof. And don't give me the dictionary meaning - everyone in America has had to deal with internal racism on some level and Glenn Beck did not refer to some slight racism or internal racial struggle - he called our president a racist.
Glenn Beck says the most sensational comments possible to stay relevant. He comes up with ridiculous theories based on half truths to stir up debate an he knows it. This earns him notoriety and if managed correctly fame, money and right wing martyrdom if he happens to get taken off the air.
The name Glenn Beck could easily be replaced with Rush Limbaugh. Thank you Jack for saying what I have tried to put in to words for some time now. It's their job and they are paid handsomely to spew forth this garbage. They would be crazy not to. I am just so surprised how many people can not see through that. Have they no minds of their own?
Under a law known as HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, health insurers cannot consider pregnancy a preexisting condition.
Jack you have an uninsured family. Shouldn't you being doing something about it.
Idelvalle I am self employed and pay for my own insurance. HIPAA only regulates employer sponsored health care. I personally last year was told by every single health insurance company in Texas that they would not insure me or my family because my wife was pregnant and we moved from California and had to get a new health plan to be "in network." I hope you come back and read this you arrogant know it all.
Sorry it was such a hassle for you, Jack. I cannot imagine. (I had my daughter at home and the entire bill was $90.)
Jack, you obviously haven't read your Lord Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father". He very clearly expresses his opinion (to which he is entitled) that he prefers black people over white. Is this racist? I think so. I put that in the smallest words possible for your benefit.
It's human nature to feel more comfortable surrounded by people that are the same. It's a matter of insecurity that almost everyone has and it carries beyond race to religion, language, hell even sports fans. Get real and stop denying that deep seated racial tension exists in all Americans. Tell me if any previous president would feel more comfortable in a room of blacks or whites. It's about time people started being honest about racial tension. The book is about a young multi-racial person coming to terms with their identity in a country still recovering from a slave owning intensely racist past. To be honest it sounds like it went over your head Jimbo...
Under a law known as HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, health insurers cannot consider pregnancy a preexisting condition.
Really Jack...
It's nice of you to spam post the same incorrect information over and over Idelvalle. Really trying to get that misinformation out there eh? You must work for Blue Cross. Better get back to denying claims. Time is money. Maybe you can push through some more flawed health care "regulation" legislation. Federal government does not regulate individual health insurance.
I'd love to see a response but I know you won't.
I'm a fiscally conservative ex-Republican. I want to thank you for using a title like "Lord Obama" as it quickly signals that you are opposed to reasonable discussion, that your opinions should be ignored, and that I may save time by skipping your comments. You're being quite helpful in making my search for intelligent comments more efficient by leading off with such balderdash.
Glenn Beck is a rather unintellegent sensationalist who prays on the fears of his audience. If people like Beck were the only ones using his sensationalist techniques to get attention, it would only be amusing, but when entire political campaigns of Congressmen and even Presidents are based on sensationalism and fear it isn't amusing anymore.
Did anyone here pay any attention to how many racial minorities there were at Palin/McCain ralleys? The racial and religious fear that they preyed on was so obvious that a child could see it (in fact my school age son commented quite a bit about it). Beck is an entertainer who's audience is listening to as though he actually knew something. Beck is an admitted crazy person, but for some reason his audience doesn't seem to realize that he wasn't kidding when he said he was crazy.
Let's just consider how rediculous it is to suggest that Obama is racist. The people who raised Obama, who he clearly loved and who loved him, were all white. The majority of the people who have voted for him over the years have been white. The majority of his advisors and coworkers are white. His own children are nearly 50% white. His wife is part white. Obama seems quite comfortable with both white and black people, as well as people of other races and religions. There are extremely few people in America (or the world for that matter) who have shown themselves to be less racist than Obama. He has white and black parents, he functioned extremely well in both predominently white and predominently back environments (first black president of the Harvard law review for example), he almost never describs and issue in terms of a particular race of other minority. Where else in politics can anyone find a person who seems less racist than Obama?
I would be the first to admit that as humans we tend to formulate ideas and then often ignore facts or new data that contradicts what we believe. It would be essentially impossible for anyone to reconsider everything they believe every time they learn something new, so we develope prejudices over time that help us make it through the day. Obama seems to me to have found a middle ground in his beliefs that probably comes closer than anyone I am aware of, to the ideal of non-racist. Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, etc. are essentially classic racists who believe that their clever words will hide this fact. Many people do not remember but Limbaugh was fired from ESPN for continued racist comments. Beck may not even realize that he is a racist, he actually believes that he has good cause for being angry with every other race and religion besides his own.
Conor, sorry to hear about your Sarah fixation, she is quiet addictive isn't she.
Evidently, you guys do know what a "racist" is. You think a racist must hate other races. They frequently do, but a racist does use race as a basis for decisions that do not have racial nexus. Like "green accountants are really smart".
27 years ago, I had a sexist boss who refused to hire a young woman because she might get pregnant and quit. He did not hate women he just used irrelevant characteristics as a basis for a decision.
By the way, I hired her because she was the best qualified and in 4 years she got pregnant and quit. On the other hand, a lot of guys quit in that 4 years too, so I still do not think sex was a valid determinate in the hiring decision.
I met a racist black female attorney. She was convinced that it was legally permissible to hire a less qualified black woman over a more qualified white man solely because she was black and a woman. She was both a racist and a sexist. She was pleasant enough. I doubt she hated whites or men, she just used sex and race as determining factors in decisions where they were irrelevant.
I see evidence that President Obama does in fact frequently use race as a determining factor in his decisions. He also called his grandmother a "typical white person". He thought of his grandmother as a "typical white person". He attended a church for 20 years led by a man that taught that aids was created by white man to destroy the black man.
As for President Obama having whites in his family, that too is irrelevant to the question of whether he is a racist. Neither he or his wife is zebra striped. They are both completely dark complected. I do not believe he has identifies himself as a white person 1/2 of the time.
Frankly, I do not care what his skin color is. I do not like the views he espouses. I do not like the views Bill Ayers espouses.
I do not know if he hates "white culture" but when he says a typical white person fears those that are different from themselves, I do not think that he is being complementary.
I think black, brown, Asian, and white racism are equally abhorrent and the darker complexions of racism are less controlled in the politically correct circles of society.
I do not always agree with Beck, but he puts out his beliefs, the basis for his beliefs and tells you to judge for yourself. That I respect.
And my guess is most good Americans do not like the views you espouses either. Your definition of racism is nothing more than that of ardent racist (Jim Crow). And if I may ask what is white culture? I guess you consider the hate and the lies that are preached by Beck as white culture.
White culture: Oh I have to be a racist because my ancestors came over on the Mayflower and I admit to being proud of my New England roots. That must mean I am racist.
Your notion of equality is skewed and of racism far too simplified. Equality works when everyone starts on the same footing. When a portion of the population goes from slavery to segregation to "equality" the playing field is not even. The notion of instant equality is racist. It's like saying to someone "ok, you are equal and free to join in on this highly competitive car race, good luck competing without a car." The observations of a stereo type i.e. "typical white person" does not make Obama a racist. Unfortunately you do not give any evidence that you see of Obama using race as a determining factor in decisions. It would be nice to forget our nations past but a quick look at the jails and poorest neighborhoods tells you that we are still far from correcting the inequalities established by our forefathers. It's not the fault of the majority most of whom were not born yet and it's not the minorities fault - it just is and it must continually be worked on and fixed from both sides. A hiring decision called racist by you is called equal opportunity for someone else. A decision by Obama to appoint a minority must take into account the nations prior history and the goal of equality for all people.
Jack, I think you may have missed a point that WorkingGuy23 was making. The root of racism is putting a person in a group, and then oppressing that group. It's common among both conservatives ("libtards just want someone to take care of them so that they don't have to") and liberals ("Rethugs are all selfish racists"). I don't watch Glen Beck, so I don't know the context in which he made his remarks, but I have been seeing a lot of this "pseudo racism" in a lot of blogs, but most commonly in the more liberal blogs. In one, I've read of hate for: conservatives, Republicans, the elderly, the rich, Christians, business owners, and all who oppose the current health care reform.
As far as the correcting the inequalities of the past, how do you plan on doing that? Some of biggest problems that hold back the poor (of all backgrounds) are rooted in attitudes. You can't just give people money and expect them to do well -- the lotteries have proven that. Only a few private programs, and even fewer public ones, address the need to set personal priorities or make short-term sacrifices for long term gains, for example. This plight of the poor and criminal can't be properly treated as a discrimination issue. The only way to end discrimination, is to stop discriminating.
Under a law known as HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, health insurers cannot consider pregnancy a preexisting condition.
Self employed with uninsured kids and yet you have time to blog....
There are no federal regulations that prevent individual health plans from denying coverage for health reasons. Read up on your HIPAA eligibility smart guy. HIPAA is a joke and has so many loop holes for insurance companies to exclude anyone they want, including my pregnant wife last year. For your information as soon as the baby was born I switched health care providers - guess what, no more preexisting condition. You are either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading as many people as possible.
Equality works when everyone starts on the same footing.
We already do start off on the same footing: we are all BORN without any unearned, government-sanctioned privileges. We are all CREATED equal before the law.
What you complain of, again, is reality: some are born into wealth, some into poverty. Some are born handsome, some ugly. Some are born smart, others stupid. Can't do anything about that.
Your idea of "equality" requires that government force those who have worked hard and succeeded in life to hand over their wealth to those who have not succeeded in life in order to "level the playing the field." The playing field is never level and can never be leveled. The most government can do is ABSTAIN from granting privileges to individuals or classes.
It's like saying to someone "ok, you are equal and free to join in on this highly competitive car race, good luck competing without a car."
Yet that is precisely what occurred with most groups of immigrants to this country: they were poor but free to compete. After just a few generations, their descendants were doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and professors. They didn't ask for government help, nor did they receive it. They succeeded because they were left free to take advantage of whatever opportunities they could find or create. Conversely, blacks have not succeeded as much as immigrants because they HAVE been the recipients of government-mandated "equality" programs: affirmative action, welfare, etc. Many are now largely dependant on getting special consideration in the form of acceptance of lower academic performance and redistributed wealth. The creation of dependant class (and therefore loyal voting block) is a typical product of government "help" (so-called "foreign aid" is another example that ends up keeping entire countries dependant on U.S. government largesse).
The observations of a stereo type i.e. "typical white person" does not make Obama a racist.
They are when the stereotype is observed by a conservative or a Republican. When made by a liberal or a Democrat, the observations are ignored and then denied to mean what the mean. The racist Sotomayor's idiotic statement about a "wise Latina" being especially capable of making legal decisions is a recent example.
It would be nice to forget our nations past but a quick look at the jails and poorest neighborhoods tells you that we are still far from correcting the inequalities established by our forefathers.
The statistics are what they are. More blacks are in jail because more blacks commit crimes. Even blacks admit that. What you want is UNEQUAL TREATMENT BEFORE THE LAW in order to redress past wrongs. Slavery and segregation were enforced by the federal government; they were federal laws. The most the federal government can and should do is abstain from putting artificial obstacles in the way of a black person's freedom to take advantage of opportunity. It is NOT the duty of government to take opportunity away from others and redistribute it to blacks (or any other minority for that matter).
A decision by Obama to appoint a minority must take into account the nations prior history and the goal of equality for all people.
Then that's racist. obama is taking into account an inessential element -- race -- rather than ability and qualification. When you need surgery, would you really make sure that your surgeon had the "proper" ethnic background? Would you ask if he or she had a "compelling life story" (as obama kept saying of Sotomayor)? Or would you inquire as to the surgeon's abilities, training, experience? Sotomayor is on videotape (check YouTube) admitting that she is a "typical product" of affirmative action: she did not have the grades to get into Princeton. Princeton lowered its academic standards to accept her. Once there -- so she claims -- she flourished and earned very high grades. Really? Can we see them, please? And what about the unfairness of having lowered standards to accept her by rejecting someone else who had excellent grades? Do you mean to say that Sotomayor's high school was racially biased but not Princeton? How could that be when Michelle Obama -- who also went to Princeton on affirmative action -- wrote a thesis (downloadable in PDF form from the Internet) in which she claims that Princeton was a racist school, with a racist campus, racist professors, and racist students -- "I was always made to feel like I was black" Michelle wrote somewhere in that embarrassing tripe she calls a senior thesis.
What about the racist bias exhibited by Sotomayor in her decision on the "Ricci" case? The decision was overturned by the Supreme Court, thank goodness. In "Ricci", white firefighters who had studied hard and passed an exam critical to their promotion within the department were denied promotions by the city because no minorities had passed the exam. Instead of claiming that this proved that the minority firefighters simply hadn't studied hard enough, the city claimed -- and Sotomayor agreed -- that it proved that the exam was "racially biased" in favor of white firefighters. The city, apparently, made this decision because it feared being sued by the minority firefighters on the issue of "racial bias" so it did what you claim is a good thing: it leveled the playing field by denying promotions to anyone, even whites who had studied hard and passed.
There is nothing more depressing to read wingnuts throw around words like communism, socialism, and fascism.
Wayne, even if Ronald Reagan was advising Obama, you and Beck will still hate and probably call Reagan traitor.
I don't care about a book some advisor wrote 20 years ago what i care about is his or her views today, secondly Obama has about 50 advisors, i guess they are all communist and socialist.
Since your brains has been reduced to vegetative and animate state by Beck, Rush, and Sean, let me take the time and enlighten you a little bit.
Both conservatives and Liberals like big government, the difference is the former like it when government intervention redistribute money to the rich (like the government using the National Guard to defend Marshall Fields monopoly in Chicago) and loath it when the redistribution goes to the middle and the lower class.
Stout Pete, don't confuse conservative with Republican. I'm a conservative and am just as ticked at G.W. Bush and his "big government conservatism" as I am at President Obama's attempt to usurp 16% of the U.S. economy. I do not buy into the rhetoric of "plans to ration health care." We ration health care now. I do not buy into the "but some bureaucrat will control your health care." Some bureaucrat controls my health care now.
Let me set you straight - true conservative HATE big government for the simple reason we think we're big enough to take care of ourselves. Does that mean I oppose government providing health care? Of course not. They provide fire and police protection, why not health protection as well? The question is, who controls it? Will it be Congress in D.C. who has an abysmal record of making anything work or state and local governments who have mixed to good results.
I recently watched the Fox Network ....I watched a Mr. Beck and a Mr. O'Reilly show....I assumed the two gentlemen were comedians "spoofing" the real news. They were humorous with many inane comments. Am I to understand that that the Mr. Beck show was not a comedy? The comments he and Mr. O'Reilly made were quite humorous and obviously satire of the actual events.
Am I to understand that these gentlemen were not comedians and entertainers? The remarks they made could not have been made seriously....for they had no bearing on reality. I have watched your Mr. John Stewart show and enjoy his comedy as well.
Re: I ask you, Can you afford health care, to actually pay for it? If you say no, then think about this.
I can't afford tanks or bombers either, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't pay for them. And I definitely couldn't afford to build an interstate highway. Good grief what a silly argument!
And meanwhile I, like most people, can afford my healthcare. This is due mainly to the fact that my employer "pays" me about 7K extra a year in the form of health insurance premiums, with me kicking in about 3K a year. We are constantly told that there really aren't that many people without health insurance. If that's the case then it shouldn't break the government to kick in a similar amount of money to pay their premiums like most people's employers do.
First, Mr. Clarke, you're confusing Constitutional Amendments with Rights. The First Amendment prohibits the government from violating my basic Right of Free Speech. That Right allows me to call you an idiot because it is my opinion and it does you no harm. Glen Beck certainly has the Right of Free Speech to say whatever he wants to say, so long as no harm is done, just as advertisers have the Right to take their advertising dollars elsewhere. I see no harm being done in Mr. Beck stating his opinion in this case (even though I vehemently disagree with it) and in fact it is just this type of discourse that is what is at the heart of Free Speech.
The idea that advertisers are being goaded to control what gets said on the news however, is a huge issue. The fact that you would defend that is very telling. It is more important to shut up Mr. Beck than it is to protect the basic freedom you enjoy in telling him to shut up. Journalists everywhere should be standing behind Mr. Beck and people all across the country should refuse to do business with the reprehensible companies that have tried to control the media. Would this behavior have been allowed if advertisers had tried to control what Walter Cronkite said?
I have been a registered democrat for 20 years. Maybe I am to old school, but to me I could care less if Glen Beck or any other radio talk show host is a racist or not. I don't watch his program and he has the right in this country to say what he wants. As we have the right not to turn Fox, MSNBC, or any other of the crappy cables news channels on. The only reason I turned him on for the last few days is because all the hoppla that's been stirred up by the media.
I don't see what the big fuss is his opinion is shared by many people unfortunately who I have talked with ever since the Rev. Wright story broke and Obama started losing primary after primary. Hillary almost caught him at the time. So we have to think that this isn't the first time Obama has been associated with racism, because of the church he attended.
One thing I do agree with Beck on after watching it is that it is important to be able to ask questions about your government. And quite frankly if the stories are true about all those people Beck listed as admitted Communists, Socialists, and those who admire Chavez. Knowing those people are advising Obama scares me a lot more than some fat dweeb racist news host. I'm more interested in finding out if what he said is actually true? And the background of those people are really legit or not. If this is true and his cabinet is filled with admitted Communists I regret voting for him... If it's a lie well then that just gives us another reason not to watch Fox news.
What decade do we live in? Is this the fifties?
LOL, nice, why she "shouldn't", since it is the high-minded and civic thing to do?
My nightmare is that when historians go back to document the Obama presidency, they might note that it was SARAH PALIN who killed health reform with her DEATH PANEL comments on facebook.
Heh. I thought Beck was being boycotted for being, well, Beck. I'm not sure it's wise to dignify one utterance to the neglect of the flood. Safer not to watch Fox Network at all.
"My nightmare is that when historians go back to document the Obama presidency, they might note that it was SARAH PALIN who killed health reform with her DEATH PANEL comments on facebook." . . .
Good. "Health reform" is a stupid, Orwellian phrase for "socialized medicine," and we've already heard slips-of-tongue from Barney Frank that a "public option" is "the best way to get to a single-payer system"; i.e., socialized medince. The shit-for-brains Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, also said recently that a public option should lead to a single-payer system. Note well: socialized medicine didn't work in the former Soviet Union; it doesn't work in Cuba; it doesn't work in North Korea; it doesn't work Britain; it doesn't work in Canada; it won't work here. Why? Because economics is a science that deals with objectively verifiable laws that are true and valid for any society at any time, anywhere. Economics says "make the price of X lower than the the market sets it at and there will be an increase in demand for X with no corresponding incentive for producers to increase supply. Result? A shortage of X. Likely policy by government to deal with the shortage of X? Rationing according to some arbitrary system. In the case of rationing gas in the 1970s, it was based on the day of the week and whether or not the last digit of your license plate was odd or even; in the case of rationing medical care, it will likely be based on whether you are treatable or not (if you have "dementia"), and whether you have X years of "productive living" ahead of you. Whether this decision is made by faceless ghouls in a "Star Chamber", or whether it is made by friendly bio-ethicists in your hospital room, a "death panel" by any other name is still a death panel; its purpose is to cut costs by rationing medical care and thus ensure that no shortage of medical care develops. Stop being Orwellian about it and call it by its functionally relevant name. Obama's "Health Policy Advisor" is Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm's brother. He has written that doctors OUGHT to consider "society as a whole" when treating a patient...and that they OUGHT to act counter to the Hippocratic Oath, which constrains them to "do no harm" to their patients.
"Death panels" have been revived in VA hospitals -- after being discontinued under the Bush administration -- where they take the form of an "end-of-life" workbook and questionnaire (downloadable from the Web in PDF format), with questions such as "Am I a burden to my family?" etc. It's not enough to kill government involvement in healthcare; we have to kill the entire phony, bullshit field of "bio-ethics" and its cult of "personhood." But I'm assuming you're literate on this subject and know what I'm talking about. My mistake.
As for The Messiah being a racist and Beck's pointing out the obvious to everyone, consider the 20+ years Obama spent in the hate-church of Jeremiah Wright (which was all about hating whitey); the ringing endorsement he received during the campaign from hate-monger Louis Farrakhan (from the white-hating "Nation of Islam"); and most recently, his racist assumption that a white cop named James Crowley "acted stupidly", despite the fact that he also admitted that he "did not have all the facts." It was crystal clear that if any racial profiling was going on in that whole episode, it was done by Obama, and not by the Cambridge Police Department.
Hey, Conor! Throw OUT the leftist crap they taught you at Amherst and start thinking for yourself! Review playwright David Mamet's little piece in the Village Voice a few years ago titled "Why I Am No Longer A Brain-Dead Liberal" in which he writes about some of the thinkers that influenced him to reject leftism: Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and a few others. Follow Twain's advice: don't let your schooling interfere with your education.
We are rationing health care now and the method is greed. But hey lets not hold anyone accountable. Lets pretend we are fine and dandy and keep Americans slaves to dead end jobs because heaven forbid they have to go out and get individual coverage and face the denial stamps. I for one am sick of paying taxes for lower income brackets to have free health care (medicaid, madical in california etc.) meanwhile I get denied coverage while paying $800 a month. Aren't you sick of watching doctors and hospitals pillage the national coffers at one rate for government insured but charge a lower rate to uninsured individuals? Health care is broken here. It may not be perfect in Canada or Britain but its better than here. Imagine a government that takes care and looks out for the best interest of its citizens instead of the highest bidding corporations. Hey, dulyimpressed! Take off your right wing blinders and start seeing for yourself. Public safety should not be based on making profits. What would you say to a privatized national police force?
Health care is broken, but it'd be a lot better if we had tort reform. Between the staggering costs of medical malpractice insurance, subsidized health care for the uninsured, benefits paid to and for illegal immigrants in the areas of emergency health care, food stamps, WIK, and the plethora of other social service programs, it's no wonder the system is on the verge of collapse.
I'm retired and my huge regret was being forced out of my good retiree insurance and having to go on Medicare which is another of the government fiascos. Talk about rationed care! Fortunately, I am healthy and do whatever I can to stay that way so I don't have to use it. Still, it costs my husband and I $600 a month for the Medicare Supplement and Blue Cross for the approximate one visit a year.
Obama IS a rasist, and I'm from Illinois and I should know. I make no apology's for this , and cannot be intimated by the Left. He is a malignant narcissist, who it is quite clear that he doesn't believe former FLOTUS's including his wife should ever be POTUS. He is a biggoted sexist, socialist, Marxist, and asute follower of Saul Alinskey, and has taught "Rules for Radicals," in Chicago's Public Schools. Glen Beck is right to expose this imposter/usurper, and Sarah Palin is right to support Beck.
When did Obama work in a Chicago Public School?
I think you might want to look up the definitions of the words "Usurper and Imposter" ;)
I don’t know if the comments here are more sad than frightening because of their ignorance or more frightening than sad because of their unjustifiable anger with Obama. Every issue Obama is faced with, has both it’s long term source, and short term triggering cause in policies conceived, championed, and implemented by the past Republican administrations.
Healthcare and its out of control cost? The Clinton administration tried to do something about it. Which Republican administration proposed anything at ALL with respect to the availability and unreasonable cost of healthcare?
Financial crisis? A full generation of de-regulation of industries and markets, has resulted in Ivan Boesky, Michael Milkin, the S & L bailout, MCI/WorldCom, the near universal earnings re-statements, ENRON, BCCI, and the near collapse of financial markets due to open criminality in the mortgage backed securities sector. So OBAMA’s failing is that he, uhh, uhhh, acted swiftly to stop the collapse with the means available to him, and on the advice of the best minds in the field?
The issue that the hydrophobic haters have with Obama is simply Obama. That he was elected, that he is black, that he represents the repudiation of race as qualifier (in this case the repudiation of whiteness as the qualifier). You like to derisively call him the “Messiah”. You don’t even realize how much YOU need that to be true. The country is in near collapse because Republicans have convinced people to vote for some vague concept of “race” in preference to their OWN political and economic interests. Do you not realize that most of you have lost economic ground since the 90’s as a result of Republican policies and yet you STILL think that Sarah Palin is the answer?
Communists, as advisors! Friends with terrorists! Like Hitler! Socialist! Fascist! Anti-CHRIST! Failing NON Smoker! This forum provides nearly unlimited space. If there is someone who can provide a logically, factually supported argument explaining why Obama should be reviled like he is, I would welcome reading it.
The only "Death Panel" member in the White House was GW Bush with a record 152 executions while Texas governor.
And let's not forget about babies with their heads blown out like paper bags and other cruel needless 60,000+ deaths during the unnecessary "shock and awe" in Iraq, and its aftermath. Just to get back at Sadaam for taking a shot at his daddy, like some gangland payback massacre writ large.
Maybe all that helps explain why a reasonable person might equate Bush with Hitler, eh?
Do abortions qualify as executions? Who's responsible for those?
Well, certainly not President Obama! And hopefully, if you're against all abortions, you are also against the death penalty and war, because all life is valuable, is it not?
We are rationing health care now and the method is greed.
You're complaining about REALITY. You're complaining about the fact that healthcare services -- like ANYTHING people want or need -- is SCARCE IN RELATION TO DEMAND (just like food, clothing, housing, education, cars, computers...everything), and that the competition among buyers to bid UP the price of a good, plus the competition amongs sellers to bid DOWN the price of that good, results in...THE PRICE! And you believe that because buyers and sellers mutually arrive at an "equilibrium price" that clears the market of a good or service, that the price itself is a form of "rationing".
Under true rationing -- such as the method forced on all of us by government in the 1970s -- no matter how much you scrimped and saved, and no matter how much cash you flashed to a gas-station attendant, you could not buy all the gas you actually wanted; you could buy only a certain amount on certain days. The amount was not governed by what you were willing to forego by agreeing to spend more for more gallons; it was based on pure edict from government. The day you bought gas was not based on your want or need; it was based on arbitrary say-so from government. Result? NO INCENTIVE FROM PRODUCERS TO SUPPLY MORE GAS, HENCE, NO EASING OF THE SHORTAGE.
Not to mention the unfairness of one buyer having to compete against another buyer according to who awoke earlier in the day and was able to be first on line; or who did not have any pressing business that day and could afford to wait, and wait, wait. The long lines and the long waiting times, by the way, are what they have right now in Britain and in Canada for healthcare services, and what they used to have in the former Soviet Union. There, the healthcare shortage was so bad that doctors were constrained by law to spend no more than 7 minutes with a patient, 5 of which were spent doing government paperwork. Infant mortality was very high, but it was made to appear lower (by government decree) because hospitals did not count all babies: you were only a "citizen baby" if you had survived for the first month or so; if you died after that, you went into the official statistics. If you died before that, then by definition you were not a "citizen baby" and were not entered into the official statistics. By statistical manipulations of this kind, the former Soviet Union made it seem as if socialized medicine was "serving the best interests of the people" and had greatly lowered infant mortality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you like such a systen, it can only be for one of two reasons: (1) either you like to be bossed around by government agencies that impose arbitrary constraints on your economic behavior because you're congenitally insecure about "making the right decision" in the marketplace, and you crave a father-figure government bureaucrat who claims to be "looking out for your best interests" because you stupidly believe him when he claims "I'm not greedy like participants in the private sector; I really, really care about you"; OR (2) you're a government bureaucrat who knows that YOU will get special, privileged healthcare, and that the long lines, the interminable waiting, the unending shortages, the unavailability of certain drugs, technology, and procedures, the deterioration in healthcare quality, etc., will be forced on EVERYONE ELSE.
Ted Kennedy is a perfect example of this disgusting mentality. Teddy bought himself the best-of-the-best, latest, cutting-edge care to buy himself a year or two more of life for the sake of his loving family and adoring constituents, despite suffering from incurable brain cancer. The treatments he gave himself would be DENIED to private citizens under obamacare as being "wasteful"; Ezekiel Emanuel and the "comparative effectiveness panels" -- now more correctly known as "death panels" -- will see to that. Under obama's fascist-care system, a private citizen with Kennedy's condition would be put on pain-management and told to go home and die. That's obamacare's cost-cutting in action. This is what actually occurs NOW in Canada and Britain.
It may not be perfect in Canada or Britain but its better than here.
Healthcare is completely dysfunctional in Britain and Canada: latest drugs that we have here for cancer treatments are simply NOT THERE. Why? Cost-cutting. Canada's position is: "Use the older, less effective drugs, and if they don't work, too bad for you: go on pain-management and go home and die. Oh, you mean you WANT the latest U.S. drug to treat your colon cancer and are even willing to forego buying that new car you wanted in order to get access to it? Well, that's very greedy and selfish of you!
The average wait-time to see a GP in Canada is about 8 weeks (I call up my GP, I get an appointment that afternoon or the next day); to see a specialist after being referred can be 16 weeks or longer (I can get an appointment with a specialist in about a week). It takes months on a waiting list to get a simple routine colonscopy. Canadian doctors are having emergency sessions with government to start privatizing insurance and healthcare, because the entire system is imploding: too many patients and a shortage of doctors, nurses, drugs, machines, and facilities. A recent Supreme Court decision in Canada sided with patients against the government: "the 'right to healthcare' does NOT mean 'the right to put your name on a waiting list.'" So where is the additional supply of medical care going to come from? One thing Canadian clinics are doing RIGHT NOW is contracting with U.S. towns on its border to send Canadian patients needing surgery to private clinics in the U.S. to handle all the overflow. WHAT!? YOU MEAN THEY HAVE TO SEND THE OVERFLOW PATIENTS INTO A COUNTRY THAT PRACTICES HEALTHCARE ACCORDING TO A SYSTEM BASED ON GREED?
Yep. Apparently, the system based on the mutual greed of doctors and patients assures the doctors that (i) they won't get overwhelmed by a deluge of patients that they will then be unable to treat, and (ii) medicine, as a field, as a profession, as a "calling", as a LIVING, will be profitable, and they will not feel they've wasted all those years in college and medical school learning a trade that ultimately could not support them and their families. And this same system of mutual greed within a system of free exchange will assure patients that (i) there will always be plenty of doctors to choose from: you don't like one, go to another; (ii) competition amongst medical care suppliers -- just like competition amongst telecom suppliers -- will lead to decreasing prices and increasing quality. That's the way greed works if you stop interfering with it.
Consider the following from the Census Bureau (which appeared in the Wall Street Journal about two months ago): Hussein Obama claims that there are "47 million uninsured Americans" that we "must" insure. Here's the truth about that number from the Census: immediately take 10 million off the top -- they are illegal immigrants. Now we have 37 million "uninsured Americans." Next, lop off another 10 million: these are people earning $75,000 or MORE and who choose -- for whatever reasons -- not to purchase insurance. That leaves 27 million "uninsured Americans." Next, remove another 10 million: these are younger people, earning about $50,000/year who believe "I'm young, I'm healthy, I'm immortal, I take vitamins and a work out in a gym...I don't want to purchase health insurance." That leaves 17 million who want health insurance but have problems either finding it or affording it. Now ask yourself the following: (i) since 17 million out of approx. 350 million people is less than 5%, should we destroy our healthcare system by following a system that we already know is completely dysfunctional and imploding at this very moment -- the system in Canada or the system in the UK...for less than 5% of our population? And (ii) why bring the police-power of centralized government into this when we already know from experience (let alone logic) that the system of "free contractual exchange plus the mutual greed of consumers and producers" -- oh, all right, call it "free-market capitalism" if you must -- serves the interests of all participants better than forcible rationing? Why choose bureaucratic nightmarish inefficiency and rationing when we already know that freedom+greed WORKS? Just so that you can go to sleep at night thinking "Isn't this nice? We're no longer greedy."? Everyone else has to suffer and make do with less healthcare and worse healthcare just so that you can feel that "we're no longer greedy?"
Now consider this:
Since we know from experience that we have no government-run bread industry yet we have all the bread we want at prices we want; we have no government-run shoe industry yet we have all the shoes we want, at all levels of quality, and at all prices; we have no government-run computer industry yet we have wonderful cutthroat competition between Microsoft and Apple, and between Apple and Research In Motion, and between Research In Motion and Palm, and between all of these and the Amazon Kindle, etc., etc., etc. yet we have constantly improving quality and constantly declining prices so that I can now forego less in order to get more; since we know that the GREED of buyers to get as much as they can for as little as possible plus the GREED of sellers to offer as little as possible and get as much as they can, has NOT led to a condition of hostility between consumers and producers but to one in which there is an obvious HARMONY OF SELF-INTERESTS -- a HARMONY AMONGST THE GREEDY -- in the free market; and that EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO BUY BREAD CAN FIND BREAD OF ANY QUALITY AND CAN BUY IT; EVERYONE WHO WANTS SHOES CAN FIND SHOES OF ANY QUALITY AND BUY IT; EVERYONE WHO WANTS A COMPUTER CAN FIND BOTH HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE OF ANY QUALITY AND BUY IT...no shortages, no rationing, no waiting, no lines, declining prices, increasing quality...coincidence? There are no coincidences in economics; there are only economic laws. Why can't we have the same abundance and choice in healthcare as we have in bread, shoes, and computers? Could it be because healthcare providers are "greedier" than telecom providers? I doubt it. We can have the same abundance in healthcare as we do with everything else IF we have the same economic conditions as we have in the other markets: freedom FROM government coercion. There are moral implications to this but I am not making a moral argument. I'm making a strictly economic one. Government interference with the free contractual exchange between greedy buyers and greedy sellers MUST always result in less supply. If you want a shortage of "X", get government involved in its production, or in setting its price on the market; if you do not want a shortage of "X", get government completely out of the market for the production of "X."
It turns out that people -- ordinary, private citizens -- actually do NOT require an overlord from a strong centralized institution like the federal government to watch out for their true interests: they can actually do it themselves -- and they DO do it themselves, IF they are left free to do so. This means, that the same GREED of buyers and sellers -- if left FREE TO BE GREEDY -- can and will also supply all the medical care that people want and need; at all different levels of quality and at all prices.
Imagine a government that takes care and looks out for the best interest of its citizens instead of the highest bidding corporations.
You mean like the benevolent governements of the former Soviet Union? Or the former National Socialist Germany (healthcare was nationalized under the Nazis, and as part of its "cost-cutting" and "streamlining" they euthanized those with incurable diseases and those with dementia -- exactly what Ezekiel Emanuel urges us to do in some of the books he's published!). Does the government of Cuba take care of its citizens and "look out" for their interests? What about the North Korea? You mistakenly believe that socialims is a benevolent idea that only by accident happened to have been taken over by bad people like Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Kim Jong-Il. Socialism is the frank use of force by the government against its own citizens and it cultivates and encourages the appearance of "dear leaders" like Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Kim Jong-Il. There was no greed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, and there's no greed in today's Cuba or North Korea.
Note, and note well: there is nothing that government can offer me that I can't already get for myself: education, healthcare, energy, housing, clothing, food, shoes, computers, etc. I don't want them "watching out for my interests" because it can't possibly know what those are. "Watching out for the best interests of its citizens" means "taking wealth from those who produce it and giving it to those who do not for the sake of creating a dependent and entrenched voting block that will keep government in power." That's what "watching out for the best interests of its citizens" means in practice.
As for your ignorant statement about "highest bidding corporations," the reason one corporation is in a position to bid higher than another corporation is because it's more profitable; the reason it's more profitable is because greedy consumers prefer its products and prices over another corporation's products and prices. A corporation can "bid higher" because the democratic voting in the marketplace -- voting by means of purchasing or abstaining from purchasing -- has given it that power. Sounds perfectly democratic to me. You must not be in favor of democracy if you do not favor that system.
Hey, dulyimpressed! Take off your right wing blinders and start seeing for yourself. Public safety should not be based on making profits. What would you say to a privatized national police force?
Hey, Jack(Ass). "Healthcare" has nothing to do with "public safety." And neither does (i) education, or (ii) postal services, or (iii) energy production, or (iv) housing, or (v) food production, or anything else that government claims it is doing "in my best interest."
For Conor Clarke:
Here's an amusing video from conservative Internet-TV "Pajamas TV" (www.pjtv.com) by an indie commentator named Steve Crowder on the Canadian healthcare system (it's about 20 minutes):
http://tinyurl.com/kudeyt
It was a long URL which I shortened at www.tinyURL.com.
In addition to your mandatory reading of David Mamet's Village Voice piece, your next homework assignment is to read "Give Me A Break!" by consumer-advocate John Stossel of ABC's 20/20. Stossel (a Princeton grad, by the way) started out as a leftist. He is now, however, a strong advocate for the libertarian position on free markets and limited government. He writes about his intellectual odyssey in that book, and how it was precisely his involvement in consumer-advocacy that led him to reject the presumption that government can "know the best interests of its citizens", define these interests for its citizens, and then impose these interests on its citizens whether they want them or not. For an up-and-coming journalist, it's an important read.
Stossel is the author of a series of classroom guides supported and put out by the Heritage Foundation. The material is hardly unbiased. In one, he scoffs at government recommendations to eat more fruits and vegetables, a diet known to be healthier and better for people. I'm assuming his skepticism is because the recommendation came from the big bad government. He is also NOT conservative. He is a libertarian, and believes in all abortions, and no drug laws, among others.
I happen to believe that government is needed (are you going to move that ton of snow from the road so you can get to work in December? Are you going to police your own neighborhood, parks, and shopping areas? How about your trash...want to be responsible for taking that to the landfill each week?)And, oh, the education of your town's children. I'm sure you could round up 400 educated moms or dads to take that on for free since government is so bad at everything they do. Health care is not like buying a pair of shoes. It can be a matter of life and death, and I don't want an insurance entity deciding my level of care. The government is not going to take over the system, they can't.
Stossel is the author of a series of classroom guides supported and put out by the Heritage Foundation. The material is hardly unbiased.
I should hope not. Everything in public education is biased in favor of the institution that funds public schools, i.e., the state. The way to fight bias is with counter-bias, so that students can get at least some exposure to alternative ideas (you can forget about changing the minds of teachers, though. They're on the government payroll, so they have a very strong incentive NOT to learn anything new). Good for The Heritage Foundation and good for John Stossel!
In one, he scoffs at government recommendations to eat more fruits and vegetables, a diet known to be healthier and better for people.
I doubt he scoffs at a diet of fruits and vegetables. The government diet, however, is no better than a number of other diets for losing weight, so the government is wrong about that. Also, the guidelines are incorrect: doctors now recommend 7-12 cups of fresh fruits and vegetables, not "5 servings."
Anyway, if schools were more concerned with teaching intellectual abilities instead of masturbation and birth control, kids would be smart enough to figure out where they need to go to get good information on diet.
I'm assuming his skepticism is because the recommendation came from the big bad government.
Given the fact that central government can force its citizens into any behavior it wishes through the application or threat of physical force, I would say his skepticism is warranted. Given the fact that a government agency like the FDA is responsible for the premature deaths of many thousands of Americans because of its requirements for testing and licensing of new, innovative drugs and therapies, it's necessary that youngsters in school learn to be skeptical of government benevolence, too.
He is also NOT conservative. He is a libertarian, and believes in all abortions, and no drug laws, among others.
I never said he was a conservative, and I did bluntly write that he abandoned leftism to become a libertarian. He doesn't "belive in abortions"; he believes government should have no say in the issue. He doesn't believe people ought to take drugs; he believes government should stay out of the issue. Drug laws haven't prevented anything. Just like anti-alcohol laws in the 1920s, they have done nothing except to keep the price of illegal drugs high, hence make them PROFITABLE to those who have no moral qualms about breaking laws. The violent crime associated with drugs is completely the fault of government.
I happen to believe that government is needed (are you going to move that ton of snow from the road so you can get to work in December? Are you going to police your own neighborhood, parks, and shopping areas? How about your trash...want to be responsible for taking that to the landfill each week?)And, oh, the education of your town's children. I'm sure you could round up 400 educated moms or dads to take that on for free since government is so bad at everything they do. Health care is not like buying a pair of shoes. It can be a matter of life and death, and I don't want an insurance entity deciding my level of care. The government is not going to take over the system, they can't.
Except for defense (including local police) everything you mention -- roads, trash, and above all schools -- can all be provided by private individuals in the private sector on a profit-making basis better and cheaper than anything the government can do. Some cities already have privatized some services, such as road construction and maintenance. Result? No traffic, fewer accidents, and better road quality. Obviously, you must be against these things if you wish to have government own and operate your roads. Your fearful attitude towards the private sector reminds me of the old Soviet fear about privatizing wheat production and bread-baking: "What! We can't have private ownership of wheat and private ownership of bakeries! The greed of the owners would force up prices so high that only the very rich would be able to buy bread! Food production is often a matter of life and death! In order for everyone to have bread, the growing of wheat and the baking of bread must be done by impartial government employees and then sent to distribution centers where each individual consumer will be givern his 'fair share' of bread -- no more, and no less." Yet, government ownership of wheat production and bread-baking led to painful shortages of wheat in the former Soviet Union and mass starvation (remember how the U.S. was always negotiating with the USSR by sending them vast shipments of wheat? How could that be, given that the USSR had control of Ukraine, which has some of the largest areas in the world of rich soil, perfect for growing wheat?).
The fact of the matter is this: it's the greed of buyers, not sellers, that forces the price of a product up -- it's precisely this greed among buyers bidding the price UP that helps to prevent a shortage of the good. It's the greed of the sellers -- the competition of one seller with another -- that helps to force the price of the product DOWN. Where the greed of the buyers meets the greed of the sellers the actual "market clearing price" of the good is formed. The greed of buyers keeps the product profitable for suppliers so that they have an incentive to keep finding ways of supplying it; the greed of sellers keeps the price affordable for consumers so that they have an incentive to keep buying it. It's called "econ 101 - price theory."
Good grief what a mishmash of intertwined misconceptions and simplicities. You initially argue that because health care is a scarce commodity market competition is the only way that these health care companies make money - cost cutting the competition. Get real, the health care companies make money by scamming the consumers, pressuring the doctors and rejecting or rescinding on unhealthy patients. You obviously have health care sponsored through employment. How much has your premium increased? How does your employer feel about our current system? I am self employed and make $70k a year. I am forced to go through unregulated individual insurance. I don't mind paying for insurance but over the last two years my rate went from $600 to $1100 per month. This is for an HMO. To top it off I had to battle with Blue Cross because they told me my wife's miscarriage was due to a pre-existing condition. Essentially I pay for unregulated BS insurance that can drop me at any time for a myriad of made up reasons just so that they can keep high profit margins. These profits are not driven by lowering premiums so they attract more customers than the next insurance company. All the companies are in the same game and work together. Just as rampant Socialism can destroy a society so too can rampant un regulated capitalism. Examples are environmental disasters, worker abuses, and economic meltdown. If you prefer to have no government regulation then I suggest you move to Somalia. Your naive concept of health care companies competing like cross town plumbers for business is sickeningly ignorant.
Americans seem to be struggling w accepting the primacy of racial prejudice in people's perceptions. It is as much a part of us as our sex drive. Furthermore if we cant talk about the power of racism to warp our minds then we give it more power.
In an America where the self identified white population is shrinking rapidly, is it a surprise that we have an all white political party that defines itself as the party of the "real" americans?
We need to talk about this to disarm those who can only see race.
It is dangerous for the American media to fan ethnic division for profit. The corporate interests who are afraid to stand behind Glenn Beck are afraid that Obama will be shot and Beck's inflamatory words will come to haunt them as corporate sponsors.
The best measure of the power of whiteness is the strength of the GOP after all of the years of failure by Bush. There is nothing he did that would not be supported by the GOP voters because loyalty to the GOP is kind of an ethnic identity test for some white people.