While Liberals wear the badge of self-righteous compassion on their sleeves, for the world to admire, some of us are looking beyond the hype for an explanation of this Obama philosophy that has trapped us in economic and moral doldrums for the last four years.
Obama came to the national stage as a messianic figure; he could fix our problems and bring Americans together. Not even the most deluded Marxists among us are still clinging to that claptrap, but the human animal is resilient and clever, and the Liberal thinkers, as well as the simple minded, are looking desperately for other attributes, real or imagined that will justify promoting Obama for reelection until a suitable Liberal leader can be found.
He has his shortcomings and personality defaults, some more obvious and harder to deny than others, but it is this elusive nihilism that is the most provocative.
Nihilism is a dubious term; yet, if we keep it simple and simply say it is an abandonment of values and knowledge, Obama’s nihilism may be a far greater deficit than his narcissism. It is from the Latin root word “nihil” or nothing; thus it is the foundation for words like “annihilate” to destroy completely or destroy to nothingness.
The nihilist believes all values to be worthless, and that nothing can be known or communicated with certainty.
The nihilist is imbued with extreme pessimism and radical skepticism, with no loyalties.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is the German philosopher most often identified with the creed of nihilism, but history may eventually identify Obama with a similar distinction, that of being one of history’s most influential nihilists. Unlike Obama, Nietzsche was an intellect and a prolific writer, but while Nietzsche could write about nihilism, Obama applied the philosophy to a modern industrialized country.
Nietzsche wrote in “Will To Power” notes, (1883-88):
“Every belief, every considering something true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world.”
For Nietzsche, there is no order or structure, unless it is assigned. Therefore the objectiveness of nihilism can be defined through several perspectives:
Existential nihilism, is the easiest concept for college students, because it is the most easily understood; therefore, it is the most recognized form of nihilism. It basically implies that life has no meaning or value.
Political nihilism, is the idea that destruction of all existing political, social, and religions is justified as a prerequisite for future improvement.
Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism is a rejection of absolute or ethical values. Good and evil are vague and necessarily become dubious values assigned by society as a result of social and emotional pressures.
Epistemological nihilism denies knowledge and truth and substitutes extreme skepticism.
Shakespeare was deigned a nihilist because of quotes like this from Macbeth:
Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow,
a poor player That struts and frets
his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more;
it is a tale Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Thus one of the world’s most literate and most intelligent men is judged to be a nihilist because of a few lines, out of millions, lines that may portray feelings with a disdain for life.
But we are left to ponder whether William was describing leaders who were miserable failures or life in general. It seems to be the perfect epilogue for this tragic period of Obama’s tenure on the national stage of politics.
Nihilism is a disturbing philosophy, a philosophy that has been exemplified many times by our president. Whether he is trying to corrupt or neutralize the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church with its belief system on contraception and abortion or ignore our only dependable ally in the Middle East, President Obama is asking Americans to accept his nihilistic theories of nothingness and abandon our traditional belief systems and morality, but choosing to accept “Nothingness” has a price tag. The Nihilist is expected to “feel” as opposed to using logic and reason; thus avoiding the discipline of work required to learn and to reason. To feel requires no input except for a minimum effort, and it compliments the whims of the hedonist.
Nietzsche paid his price for his nothingness. He saw a horse being mistreated and lost his sanity. He began to sob uncontrollably and eventually lapsed into a catatonic state and was declared hopelessly insane. There has been conjecture on whether the mental disease was initiated by syphilis either from a brothel in Paris or a male prostitute in Genoa. Yes, Nietzsche has a similar dubious sexual reputation, but he never married.
Would he have preserved his sanity with a belief system that might have given him a greater moral structure is a question that will never be answered; however, our president will give us insight into the psyche of the nihilist after a rejection or after being given unprecedented powers with little or no restraint in the unlikely event of an Obama victory. In a few hours we will begin to know how the nihilist reacts. As an observer, it will be interesting: as an American, the idea of a nihilist being given the control that he wants to usurp in a second term is frightening, but if he loses, his rejection may well be his mistreated horse.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
Worthwhile reading for the day before the presidential election:
Romney for President
The Obama record is unimpressive.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332484/mitt-romney-president-editors
Since it is all about him, he is better off losing this election (as are the rest of us). True to his narcissist core, he will soon rationalize the “bump in the road”, and spend the rest of his life being worshipped (and spendidly paid) by his true believers.
Hi Skook,
I want to be clear, here. Are you really claiming that it is his intent to “corrupt or neutralize the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church with its belief system on contraception?”
Are you aware that the contraception mandate wasn’t the idea of Obama? And that it wasn’t the idea of Sibelius? Or Ezekiel Emmanuel? Or anyone else associated with the Obama administration? That it was the unanimous recommendation of all 12 doctors in the (non-partisan, independent, non-government, private sector, non-profit) Institutes of Medicine panel which examined all aspects of the issue for more than 6 months.
So all Obama did was to take advice of experts. And charges that this is “corrupting or neutralizing the teachings of the Catholic Church” is a grossly exaggerated overstatement. There is no mandate on employers. There is a mandate on insurers — to offer private, third party contract riders to insurance policies, at the request of the employee, which cover contraceptive services — most importantly the $600 – $1000 homonal depot implants which have greater than 99% effectiveness. As discussed on another thread, a Washington University study showed that, with free contraceptives, the teenage pregnancy rate was reduced to only 1/6th that of national levels and the abortion rate was reduced to only 1/5th that of national levels. No anti-abortion program in the history since Roe v. Wade has ever come close to making that much a difference. And this was in a largely poor urban population which was 50% African American.
What’s worse — contraception or abortion?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Not reading it with comprehension before foisting it (with all its bad policies) on the American people.
Do you think it was inadvertent that it just so happened to destroy the ability for a Catholic charity hospital to continue in existence?
Someone saw that coming.
Probably not Obama who seems to be every bit the 2.6 grade point average ”intellect” he had at Columbia.
Obama skates on the backs of others who you do not know.
You say it was a few MDs?
Were they all secularists?
Were they all anti-religious based medical businesses?
Or were the ones who supported those things over-ruled?
Hi Nan, You live in California. California is one of the states which has a contraception insurance mandate for employers. To my knowledge, this is the exact same mandate which was written into ObamaCare. No Catholic hospital or college closed its doors because of this. It’s been challenged in court, and the challenges lost. Same thing in all other states of which I’m aware. In Wisconsin, if memory serves, the contraception mandate law even applies to the Catholic church itself, as an employer of non-Catholic workers. The Church didn’t close its doors; it reluctantly complies.
You guys seem to think that this is a nefarious evil Obama idea. It’s not. Contraception mandates have been in effect at the state level for years. It never rose to the level of an assault on religious liberty until it got associated with Obama.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Actually, Larry, the FREE aspect of the mandate is new.
Up until ObamaCare people who were insured had a co-pay for contraception.
Even in CA there are lawsuits working their way up through the courts.
Anyway, I won’t be living in California much longer.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
It doesn’t matter, Larry. A government mandate on how a person, group, or entity behaves goes against everything I know about our founding. And that is exactly what this is. A mandate to facilitate certain behaviours. Some freedom there, huh?
Ronald Reagan said in 1980 — during the 1980 presidential campaign:
“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”
We now say in 2012 — during the 2012 presidential campaign:
“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Hussein Obama loses his.”
Vote for Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan and let’s have a REAL recovery BIG TIME.
Heh.
It is SO classy (NOT!) for a guy to try to pick up a woman and use the ploy of him having condoms as part of his line.
That was the original idea behind this free bc mandate.
Must have been a few heterosexuals involved.
But I wonder if homosexuals also get free condoms which would actually do our public health some good.
2012 election priciest to date: $4.2 billion tab and rising
@Nan G:
All I know is that when government passes laws that are meant to facilitate certain behaviours, that it is actually the removal of freedom. But, that is easier to swallow for lefties than actually engaging in personal responsibility, or suggesting that others do likewise.
Hand over your freedom. Vote for a lefty.
@Greg:
I believe it. Considering the number and variation of ads running in our state, both from and for Donnelly, and from and for Mourdock, millions upon millions are being spent. Nevermind, either, that in my area, around Terre Haute, the local representative race is nearly as competitive, and the governor’s race is seeing high dollar amounts being spent too.
Not that I think any of it’s a bad thing, either. Well, except that I’m sick and tired of all of the ads, and cannot wait for after tomorrow. Maybe that’s the one thing left and right can agree on. Too many damn tv ads.
Well done Skook. Nihilism is as you have appropriately attributed, the purview of the self-righteous liberal mind. Its sanctimonious bearing influences its ideology, beliefs, and collective worldview overriding all of its thinking and clouding its perceptions.
IMHO, Nihilism demonstrates no intuitive awareness, while pretending otherwise, but finds collective comfort in pretense of intellect as it sequesters itself behind any ‘findings’ of the very limited ‘scientific method’ which may give credence to the adaptations of its un-inquisitive, cynical and lazy mind.
You have nailed the core of the self-deceiving elitist mind which seeks to change the landscape without a clue of human nature. It may be safe to state that not all liberals are nihilists, however, if one were to parse the deep-rooted self-loathing which surfaces in their writings from their comments here on FA or in articles of the NYT or WaPo, one might be led to think otherwise.
Hi Nan, Whether or not there is a co-pay, the principle is the same. And there are insurance mandates in every state — even in red states, for all sorts of things. These are simple consumer protections. The point is that none of this — including contraceptive mandates — invoked the outrage of conservatives, until it got connected with Obama. Then, all of a sudden, it becomes some sort of horrible violation of First Amendment rights. Even Georgia had a contraception mandate, which didn’t bother anyone, until ObamaCare supporters pointed out the hypocrisy, and then the Georgia legislators belatedly decided that they should consider changing things.
Sorry that you may be leaving our fair state, Nan. Beautiful day today, don’t you think?
Anyway, just for fun –>
Election results predicting this year is like March Madness basketball bracketology.
Below is my prediction. If you are of a mind, and just for fun, make your own prediction on this sort of cool website.
http://www.270towin.com/
My “bracket” came out with Obama taking Iowa, Ohio, and New Hampshire, on the way to an electoral college victory of 281 – 257.
Are there any other intrepid election prognosticators out there, who’d like to take a shot?
P.S. Ya’ gotta love Dick Morris. He’s got about the worst prediction record in history, but I’ll say this for the guy, he’s still out there, sticking his neck out farther than just about everyone else:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/05/dick_morris_stands_by_prediction_romney_will_win_325_electoral_votes.html
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
“Actually, Larry, the FREE aspect of the mandate is new.”
The word FREE has become one of my biggest pet peeves these days as it is used as though there are trees that “stuff” just grows on….
Nothing is free, there is no free lunch…While something may be supplied at no cost there are a number of people who had to work to make sure you got your “free” stuff, in this case contraception….
It’s one of the many things that has gone wrong in this country, too many people expect/feel entitled to have “stuff” provided to them at no cost…
Hi Bob. The only insurance company estimate I saw pegged the actual cost of the mandate as being $20 per year for an individual policy and $40 per year for a group policy. This is the net cost, considering the savings obtained through the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and abortions (realizing that 40% of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion). Providing free contraceptives reduced teen pregnancy rates by 5/6 (i.e. to 1/6th the national rate) and reduced abortions by 80% (i.e. to 1/5th the national rate).
Now, consider the consequences of a teenage pregnancy: either abortion or a teenage single parent, and the ultimate cost to society of that. Consider the great evil that many people consider abortion to be. It seems to me that $20 to $40 per year per woman is a pretty small price to pay for these benefits, which is why the contraception mandate was the unanimous recommendation of all 12 doctors on the Institute of Medicine panel which made the recommendation to the Obama administration.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I predict that Wall Street will gain 1000 points Wednesday due to the relief caused by obama’s overwhelming defeat.
When Obama says, ”it’s going to be FREE!,” what he has really done is GENERATION DEBT: Every American Under 18 Now Owes $218,676…
Not really ”free,” is it, Larry?
Sort of expensive, actually.
When Obama took office that group only (only!) owed ~ $48,000 each.
Obama quadrupled that before the REAL costs of ObamaCare even kick in!
Then there is the increased cost of energy.
Then there is the increased cost of food.
Obama has brought to my mind a verse from the Revelation.
At one point a voice cries out about how expensive life will be: a denarius (days’ wages) for a pint of wheat or a quart of barley (a scant and poor days’ worth of food) but do not harm the olive oil and the wine (the rich will still have their lucious foods.)
Doctors become the newest slave class under ObamaCare, Larry.
Are you just looking forward to the security of that?
JustAnotherHOOSIER
Do you think he’ll end up like a JEREMY WRIGHT?
with his faithful,going every SUNDAY to hear him,while other pass the plate,
The increase in the national debt under Obama, as a result of Obama spending, is very minor. Obama’s first budget was Bush’s last budget. Obama spent the same thing that Bush proposed spending. Since then, the federal budget has not grown out of step with built in inflation. What about the “stimulus?” (you ask). Well, the GOP proposed a $500B stimulus. Obama went with $750B (a third of it tax cuts). So you can blame Obama for an extra $250B in debt, which is trivial.
Where did the increased debt come from? The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, combined with the Obama tax cuts (those in the “stimulus” and the payroll tax cuts). Spending didn’t shoot up; rather revenues shot down.
With regard to personal debt, that’s got nothing to do with Obama. He didn’t raise tuitions. He didn’t create the recession which led to the loss of 750,000 jobs per year when he took office. And he’s had absolutely zero to do with the increased cost of gasoline and heating oil.
Doctors as the “slave class?” Please. I’m a doc. I’m no slave. My older kid is a third year med student. She won’t be a slave. My younger kid (who scored in the 98.5 th percentile on her MCATs and got all As in her pre-med sciences at Harvard) is going to med school, and she’s not going to be a slave, either. Cue the violins for the docs — not. It’s the same great job all over the world, including in countries where there is actual, real socialized medicine (which does not have anything to do with ObamaCare, which is certainly not socialized medicine).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Skook, I remember Shaq O’Neal praising Nietzsche after hearing his mentor Phil Jackson saying how great Nietzsche was. After all it takes a Nihilist to appreciate another Nihilist, and Phil Jackson is certainly one.
@Nan G: #6
“Anyway, I won’t be living in California much longer. ”
Georgia’s a good place. You’ll meet the nicest people in our gun stores here!
And it’s about 3000 miles from California, 1200 from Chicago, 700 from New York…
Let’s talk about the “12 doctors (it was really 15, but who’se nit-picking?) in the (non-partisan, independent, non-government, private sector, non-profit) Institute of Medicine panel” that make the recommendations for Obamacare, shall we?
Twice the panel held hearings to hear testimony from interested parties. Twice the panel refused to allow any pro-life, pro-conscience testimony, and only allowed statements from those interested parties in the open comments section of the hearings. Does that sound like a fair and inpartial panel to you?
And who sat on that panel of “non-partisan” doctors?
Claire Brindis – member of the board of directors of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation
Angela Diaz – former board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health
Paula A. Johnson – Chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and recipient of NARAL’s 2011 “Champion for Choice” award
Magda G. Peck – former board member of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs; Peck contributed $7,000 to Democrat candidates since 2008
Alina Salganicoff – VP and Director of Women’s Health Policy at the (far-left) Kaiser Family Foundation which supports abortion on demand; donated at least $700 to Democrat candidates
Linda Rosenstock – chair of the panel who donated over $40,000 to pro-choice political candidates including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and the DNC.
As is his habit, Larry tries to convince us that a panel constituted of most pro-abortion advocates was a “non-partisan and independent” voice in the abortion/birth control mandate of Obamacare. You see, Larry thinks conservatives/pro-life supporters are stupid, and he can baffle us with his brilliance. Mostly he just lays down a line of b/s, and thinks anyone who disputes him are just being nasty to him.
@johngalt: #12
The TV ads don’t bother me at all.
We haven’t had a TV in our house since we bought it.
After we moved in, I kept telling myself, “Maybe next week I’ll get the cable hooked up.”
But I always had a better use for the money.
It’s been three years and my IQ has increased by 10%.
My kids’ grades average a point higher.
We communicate more, and better. Family time, yeah!
And, we spend a lot more time outdoors!
No TV isn’t right for everyone, but it’s certainly been best for us.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You seem to be confused; we have not had a Constitutionally mandated budget since Obama took office. The one, and only, budget proposed by Obama was defeated by every member of Congress. No exceptions.
Now, are you going to try to tell us that while Obama blamed Bush for $2.00 gasoline, Obama is not responsible for $4.00 gasoline? Are you going to tell us that Obama is not responsible for the skyrocketing inflation in food products? Are you going to tell us that Obama is not responsible for anything that has happened in the last four years except the Obamacare bill, which you support?
Let me remind you of these words:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
March, 2006
Obama went on later, during a 2008 stump speech, to say that the debt he was blaming on President Bush “That’s unpatriotic.”
Yesterday, on a stump speech, Obama, again, said “Osama bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is on the run.” Really? Do you think Sean Smith’s mother and Ty Woods’ father agrees that AQ is on the run?
You blame the fact that American families have less disposble money now on tuitions? My God, Larry, how far are you willing to stretch credulity? Do you think that EVERY American family has a kid in some tony university like you do? Do you really think that those coal miners that the Obama EPA is getting ready to put in the unemployment line sends their kids to Harvard? Frankly, I would be ashamed to come on this board, spewing your left wing mantra while touting how your kid attends Harvard.
Skook, the biggest ideological challenge for the longterm lies in the fact that our colleges and universities which are swimming in liberal, progressive socialism, are feeding the rank and file of our government bureaucracies and our media.
These continually advancing waves of stuck mindsets are irrationally satisfied of their own rationality, and worse, are completely convinced of their own enlightened wisdom.
These often dangerous minds brought us social experiments such as ‘a house for every family’, before they sold themselves on the concept of electing an inexperienced, unknown to lead the Nation. For the most part, these aren’t stupid people, but too many have allocated an overabundance of braincells to ideology which is on most fronts contrarian to human nature.
I worked today and then collapsed from delirium and exhaustion, waking up to the wonderment of what day I was witnessing. I just read the comments, and I am a little surprised that none of you tried to go for the jugular.
British historian Paul Johnson, “Modern Times,” (1983):
Does this ring a bell in the context of contemporary characters?
Nietasche’s death in 1900 was heralding a new era; an era of cataclysmic social change and death by these new heroes of nihilism that has so many enraptured, still today. Enraptured enough to elect an Obama type who espoused the Nietzschean concept of the transmutation of faith into political zealotry and the totalitarian will to power.
Obama struts upon the stage with an ability to impose his personal tastes upon the will of the majority of the people. The stage is set for totalitarianism; he has the support of media and the brothel line-up of celebrities when his image needs plastic support of relative nothingness. Eventually, Obama is the one expected to provide the unthinking masses with the ability to distinguish good and bad or morality and immorality. In effect, he and the monsters of the twentieth century, exploited the weaker minds and won over their adulation. He appropriates their freedom of will and controls them as a benevolent figure. He imposes and incorporates his ideas into the psyche of the weak and disaffected; until he has amassed a strong majority.
It was Nietzsche’s writing that introduced us to the idea of ubermenschen or race of supermen who know what is best for the rest of human society and are willing to impose those ideas and ideals by totalitarian measures, show me a Liberal Socialist and I will show you a potential totalitarian monster. These are the concepts that started ten thousand Brownshirts goose-stepping and the same concepts that lull sophomoric college students to a state of enlightenment between double espressos.
Yes, it is laughable, until you consider the desolation of WWII and the homicidal maniacs who followed their enlightenment of the spirit: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler were all readers of Nietzsche and incorporated many philosophical ideas from Nietzsche as they wreaked their individual brands of genocide upon the world.
Of course, Nietzsche’s reputation was soiled after National Socialism was exposed, but our allies Stalin and Mao had to keep their concepts and reputations alive so to continue their plagues of totalitarian genocide upon their own people.
It was among the children of the warriors of WWII, that Nietzsche was resurrected at university and the circle was allowed to continue. The stage is set, Obama is a pathetic player when compared to the homicidal maniacs of history, but perhaps he is but an intermediate player on this stage of tyranny. The audience must be prepared and willing to accept the soullessness of nihilism before they begin marching in mindless fanaticism. How close are we?
Tomorrow will be an indication.
CharlieGee
hi,
one thing I’m sure is that you will see the companies come back
to work with MITT ROMNEY, AND PROVIDE JOBS IN AN ENVIRONMENT
OPEN FOR DOING SO TO THE MAXIMUM OF PROFITS FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRY AND FOR THEM
HARMONIOUSLY
BYE
SKOOKUM I can imagine he winning another 4 years,
closing his deal with RUSSIA SECRETLY,
selling land treasures to CHINA TO GET MORE MONEY FOR HIS SPENDING SPREE,
SENDING BILLIONS TO CLOSE THE MUSLIM CRESCENT INTO A FULL CIRCLE,
CLOSING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLOITATIONS AND CLOSING THE COAL INDUSTRY COMPLETELY,
BANKRUPT THIS AMERICA, AND DECLARE HIMSELF A DICTATOR WITH THE HELP OF THE UNIONS,
AND INCORPORATE HIS POWER WITH THE GLOBAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UN.
HIS REVENGE ACCOMPLISH
CharlieGee#17 The market (DJIA) is up nearly 5000 points since Obama elected so Romney’s got a ways to go.lol
Actually, I’d expect the stock market to rally slightly with ANY clear cut winner and sell off if results are unclear. Markets dislike uncertainty.
Hi Retire,
Once again, you show yourself incapable of discussing anything at all without taking the opportunity to attack on a personal level. I don’t like discussing anything at all with you. Life is too short for such churlishness.
The other reason I don’t like debating with you is that you are incapable of directly arguing the issues at hand. You toss up all manner of smokescreens. Your very favorite response is to dismiss the veracity of the source. “Oh, that’s an article from the Huffington Post. It’s not worth discussing.” In this case, “oh, some of those panel members are pro-choice.” You avoid the real issues. Why don’t you explain, in the former case, how the Huff Po got it wrong? Why don’t you explain, in the latter case, why the pro-contraceptive data and decisions were in error?
To help you prepare your arguments, here is a link to the full report (which gives a link to a free, downloadable PDF of the complete report):
http://iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Preventive-Services-for-Women-Closing-the-Gaps/Report-Brief.aspx
For the record, here is the membership of the non-partisan, independent, private-sector Institute of Medicine panel:
Now, the above represent a very diverse and well qualified group of experts. They carried out an in depth review of all the evidence and, as stated, the recommendation for mandating contraceptive coverage was unanimous among the physicians on the panel. The single dissent was from a PhD, who was unhappy that his own research was considered but not deemed to be compelling.
There was no censorship whatsoever. In my career as a physician, I’ve had objections to certain policies of government agencies. Twice, I went to Baltimore to testify before independent medical panels, similar to the contraception panel. I had ample opportunity to present my views (including showing slides and data). My testimony appeared in the verbatim transcripts of the meetings. That’s the way that all independent panels which provide recommendations to government operate. It’s part of their contract to ensure that literally everyone who submits information is heard from and their views recorded and considered. One thing that the government does well is to give recourse to its citizens — ultimately through the political system, through their elected representatives. This is not at all the case in the private sector.
The main point, however, is that, once again, this mandate didn’t emanate from Obama, Sibelius, or Emmanuel, or anyone affiliated with the Obama administration. I was simply arguing against the statement by Skook that this was some attempt by the Obama administration to “corrupt” the “traditional teachings” of the Catholic Church. It was no such thing. It was an attempt to improve health care, reduce unwanted pregnancies (especially teenage pregnancies), and to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country.
As I also said, these mandates had been in place, at the state (including red state) level for years and somehow the Catholic Church was able to live with these mandates (which have been upheld in courts, where challenged). Likewise, these mandates were never a big conservative cause celebre, until it got associated with the Obama administration.
Moving on to the later post by Retire, … no, Obama is not responsible for $4 per gallon gas. Canada is oil independent. They pump more oil than they can possibly use. They are a big oil exporter. But gas in Canada sells for $4 per gallon, adjusted for tax differences. Same as here in the USA. Germany pumps no oil at all. They are completely oil dependent. But their gas also sells for $4 per gallon, adjusted for tax differences.
Oil is sold at world price levels. The US has less than 5% of world oil reserves but pumps 10% of world oil. Increasing our oil production by 25% will take years, no matter who is President and that will increase world oil supply by 2.5%, which would reduce the price of gasoline at the pump by 10 cents a gallon and it would be reduced just as much in Germany and China as in the USA. The rest of the world would say, “thanks a lot, America for all that fracking and burning up your oil, so that we can preserve our own petrochemical supplies and enjoy cheaper gasoline.”
Likewise, Obama is not responsible for the price of food, the cost of college tuition, etc. etc.
Your class warfare jealousy of families who work hard to succeed in giving their hard working kids (who earn their way into “tony universities” through their own hard work) a great education is duly noted. Just for your information, kids who earn their way into Harvard and Yale (I had two who did so – one to each of these schools), have a free ride (no tuition) if their families make less than $60,000 per year and families are not required to pay more than 10% of their annual family income in cases where family income is less than $180,000. For 96% of families, it is, on average, cheaper to send their kids to Harvard and Yale (if said kids can earn their way in, through their own hard work and talent) than it is to send them to most 4 year state universities.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
hi,
you know retire don’t lie, and that is a fact, he always tell it as it is,
by the way you mentioned a lot of people, that must have cost a lot of money from GOVERNMENT
TO WIN THEIR POINT ALL FROM THE TAXPAYERS POCKET,
WHEN I’m sure they where debating and never arrived to a consensus, which is impossible with so many expertizes, but they said, you have to pass it before finding what is in it,
did they ask the CATHOLICS’S OPINION? THE BAPTIST? THE EVANGELIST? THE JEWISH ?
AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THE WORD OF THE BIBLE? WHO BELIEVE IN GOD
AND you take away OBAMA RESPONSIBILITY ON ALL HE SIGN WITH HIS EXECUTIVE RIGHT AS PRESIDENT HAVING BEEN GIVEN THOSE POWERS, YOU SAY HE’S NOT RESPONSIBLE,
IF HE DID NOT DO ANYTHING, WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING ON THE JOB ,
WHY DID HE EVEN SEEK THE JOB? WAS IT TO HELP THE FOREIGNERS, THE MUSLIM, THE BREZIL,
THE MEXICAN, THE RUSSIAN, THE CHINA, AFGHANISTAN , THE BROTHERHOOD?
ALL
EXCEPT AMERICA WHICH HE SPENT THE PEOPLE’S MONEY,
TO GIVE TO THE FOREIGNERS BY BILLIONS,
AND WHILE THE PEOPLE VOTE WITH THE BLACK PANTHERS AT THE DOOR
Larry one of the traits of the Obama Administration has been to “stack the deck,” thus making the conclusion inevitable. That was the point Retire made with his reasoned if impassioned response. Even you can see the advantages to picking the correct people for a board and an ordained response.
Now, I must go to work.
Good Morning, Skook.
Obama didn’t appoint anyone on the Institute of Medicine Panel. No one in his administration had anything at all to do with selecting the membership of this panel. The Institute of Medicine is an independent, non-partisan, non-government, private sector, non-profit organization. It provides independent evaluations and recommendations on a totally independent, non-partisan basis.
You can read about the Institute of Medicine here: http://www.iom.edu/
Have a productive work day! I’m going to try to do the same and try not to get too distracted by the events of the day.
Watching Presidential election returns is like watching a big time heavyweight fight. You get settled in for a 15 round slug fest, only to be surprised by a first round knockout, before you’ve finished your first beer. FL, VA, PA. When we have an indication of how they are going, we’ll know whether or not it’ll be a party or a wake.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You continue to want to spin that the panel from IoM was non-partisan, so let’s take a look at those non-partisans and their political contributions (I did not research all of them):
Linda Rosenstock – $40,000 +
Francisco Garcia – $14,200 ($7,600 to Barack Obama)
Kimberly Gregory – $43,200 ($38,400 to the DNC Services Group)
Paula A. Johnson – $4,500 ($500 to Barack Obama)
Roberta B. Ness – $250. to Barack Obama
Magda G. Peck – $7,250 ($1,000 to Barack Obama)
Alina Salganicoff – $950 ($300 to Barack Obama)
Sally W. Vernon – $212 directly to Barack Obama
Carol W. Weisman – $4,500 ($2,000 to Barack Obama)
Eli Y. Adashi – $1,250 to Barack Obama
Wylie Burke – $9,700 ($1,000 to Barack Obama)
Carol A. Ford – $1,000 to Barack Obama
JoAnn E. Manson – $500.00
Rita Redberg – $2,800
Sara Rosenbaum – $1,000 ($500 to Barack Obama)
Out of the 27 names you provided, 15 donated to political causes, with EVERY one of those donations going to DEMOCRATS. There was not ONE donation to a Republican committee or candidate. So do you still want to push the meme that these people were “non-partisan” or do you want to back track on that?
Now, for you to say that Obama has no influence over the cost of gasoline is just factually wrong. He, and his administration, puts the rules and regulations in place that drive up, or down, the cost of gas in the U.S. His failure to support the Key Stone pipe line, forcing Canada to make a deal with China, will only continue to force U.S. gas prices higher. It also helps out Obama’s ME buddies as we continue to purchase oil from nations that wish us harm, when we could have made ourselves independent of ME oil. As to our supply, I suggest you researche the EagleFord project, for one. But as long as greenweenie states like yours refuse to drill for oil off the coastline, gas will not only remain high, it remains undeveloped.
You are also wrong about how long it takes to start pumping from new wells. The average time for well development under George Bush was 14 months from permit to flow. The average time now under Obama, from permit to flow, is 36 months.
Now, to Harvard Med School; we can assume that you are not part of the under $60k/yr family income level. If you are, and that is how your kids made their way into such an expensive university, then I suggest you are not earning at your full potential. A little research shows that UCSF is listed #1 in medical schools. So perhaps you wanted your kids to have that tony university on their resume. Frankly, that is the mindset of most liberals who claim that rich people don’t pay their fair share. If you really believed in the “fair share” rhetoric, you would have sent your kids to UCSF and then picked up the tab for someone else’s kid who couldn’t afford anything but a state university.
As to my “class warfare”, sorry, Bubba, I don’t suffer from class warfare. I am a conservative, remember? I just find it hypocritical that you support a party that does, but you are quick to accuse someone else of that trait. The entire Obama campaign has been on class warfare, yet you continue to support him. I believe in equal opportunity, Larry, not equal outcome. I also believe in a person’s right to fail if they don’t apply their God given intellect. But the whole DNC platform is based on helping the “poor” who really should not exist in a nation where an education through the 12th grade is free, and there are many, many programs to help kids get an advanced education, perhaps not at some tony university like you kids attend, but at a good, quality state college. Ironically, doing a comparison chart on med schools that offer the best tutilage and the most advanced studies, two popped up; Johns Hopkins and the University of Texas. Harvard was not even in the running. The ironic part of all of your “my kids went to Harvard and Yale” bragging is that they will wind up making equally, or less, than an average union journeyman plumber in your failing state of California.
So, are you part of that under $60K/yr that allows your kids to get a free ride at Harvard and Yale, or are you part of the 1% that your own party rails against? Or even worse, are you a high income earner who allows their kids to take a free ride at Harvard and Yale when you could have, in fact, paid for it and allowed some poor kid to get that slot?
As to responding to me; I have told you before, if I upset you because I don’t buy into the b/s you lay down, don’t respond to me. It is just that simple. But you have this personality thing going on that you want to show me just how much smarter than me you are. And my response to that? So friggin what? You put your Hanes on the same way I do. But of course, your ego, and elitism, is why you are a liberal.
So Larry, let’s take a look at the claims you tried to spin:
1)50% of abortions are due to failed contraceptives
In reality, is it less than that, much less than that, according to the arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institution.
2) you asked me if I favored abortion of STIs. I can only surmise that you were going to try to spin it that abortions cured STIs, but after I told you I wasn’t falling for that b/s, you backed off.
3) You claim that Obama, Sebilius and Emanuel were not responsible for the birth control/abortion mandate as directed in the HHS rulings. Perhaps you can tell me when our government began to be controlled, and laws made, by those on some non-governmental board, who simply “recommended” certain things? Are we to assume that some highly partisan board is now in control of our federal laws? You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time making excuses for Obama.
4) You brag on how your kids made it into Harvard and Yale due to their own merit. So while you tout their intellingence, you seem to have no problem that they either got a free ride which knocked some poor kid out that slot or you do not feel guilty being part of the 1% who could help “spread the wealth” but feels no requirement to do so.
You don’t like being challanged. We get it. You hold that elistist viewpoint that we here in flyover country are simply rubes who cling to our God and our guns and that, thank goodness, we have people like you who are so much smarter than we are. Cop that attitude with the plumber when your toilet is overflowing into the hall way, please.
Hi Retire,
I wish that you were not so disagreeable on a personal level. But it seems to make you feel better to put me down, rather than simply discussing the issues at hand. I don’t understand it, but here we are.
With regard to the composition of the Institutes of Medicine panel, the information you now bring to the table is interesting, and I thank you for making the effort to dig that up. But, #1, it’s entirely understandable and, #2 only peripherally relevant.
Allow me to explain:
The Institutes of Medicine is as I have described it to be. I provided a link to it in #34. You can read all about it. It is an entirely independent, non-partisan, non-profit institution which provides analysis and advice on medical (especially public health) issues. Membership on its panels is determined by expertise in the subject matter and not by political affiliation. Most relevant to the current thread is that its membership is not determined by any US government entity, including the Executive Branch.
Why was this panel so top heavy with Democrats? There’s an easy answer. People who devote their careers to public health issues are overwhelmingly Democrats. For that matter, doctors who devote their careers to medical research are overwhelmingly Democrats. And, among all doctors working for medical schools and medical research institutions, the political affiliation is overwhelmingly Democratic. Beyond that, among all people with doctorates in an field, the political affiliation is overwhelmingly Democratic. For example, the engineering faculty at Stanford, home of the conservative Hoover Institution, is — by a large majority — Democratic.
Here’s the deal. Conservatives tend not to get PhDs and, in the case of conservatives who get MDs, they tend not to go into academic or research careers. So what is the result? You seem to imply that there are lots of public health MDs who are Republicans and these experts were somehow excluded from participation on the panel in question because they didn’t pass some political litmus test. That’s not true.
But this is actually beside the point. The point I made was that, contrary to Skook’s impression, the contraception mandate did not originate with Obama, Sibelius, Emmanuel, or with anyone reporting to or appointed by the Obama administration. The additional relevant point has to do with the medical and public health basis for the recommendation by the panel to include a mandate to cover contraceptive services. This latter should be a medical/public health decision and not a political decision.
I’ll repeat again that the contraception mandate didn’t come from the Obama administration and it didn’t even come, originally, from the Institute of Medicine panel. It’s a mandate which was previously in effect in a great many states, including Georgia, and it’s a mandate with which the Catholic Church was peacefully co-existing (and complying), and it’s a mandate which elicited no bloviation at all from conservatives — until it got associated with Barack Obama, when it suddenly emerged as the greatest threat to the principles of American liberty since the founding of our nation.
Once again, you (Retire) sidestep the issue itself, in favor of attacking not the rationale or supporting data, but attacking the source (Huffington Post) or people (e.g. me, e.g. the I.O.M. panel). Using the same logic/strategy, I could answer every argument you make by saying “oh, that can be dismissed out of hand, because you are just writing it on that conservative rag, Flopping Aces” or, “oh, that can be dismissed out of hand, because the person saying it, Retire05, is some hyperpartisan conservative.”
Moving on to the price of gas, your point is that the price of gasoline at the pump is determined by local production. No, it’s not. Kindly explain why the price of gasoline at the pump, corrected for tax differences, is the same in Canada (completely energy independent, huge surplus of indigenous oil), Germany (completely energy dependent, no indigenous oil), and the USA (somewhere in between Canada and Germany). Any oil drilled in the USA will be sold (both domestically and for export) at world prices. Increasing our own oil production would increase world supplies by 2.5%, which would lower the price of gasoline everywhere in the world from $4 to $3.90 (adjusted for tax differences, which are the chief determinants of differences in gasoline pricing around the world).
With regard to your ramble about medical schools, I gave you the courtesy of reading it twice and I’d like to give you the courtesy of a response, but, number one, I don’t understand the point you are attempting to make (beyond somehow attempting to cast aspersions against me) and, number two, your assessment of university rankings is off, e.g. and e.g.
As I pointed out, Ivy League universities (or at least Harvard and Yale) are affordable to all families — more so even than most 4 year state universities. My kids chose where they wanted to go and they earned their way in through their own incredibly disciplined hard work; I didn’t “send” them anywhere. Like virtually all college students, their educations were financed (and continue to be financed) by a combination of savings, loans, work, and scholarships. Kids who want to go to UCSF and can get in and can find a way to pay for it should definitely go there. Same thing with regard to Harvard and Yale. So I can’t begin to understand the point you are trying to make.
What on earth was that last paragraph (the one ending with the underwear reference) all about? I’ll tell you what. You have some personal issues with me that should be best discussed personally, and not on a public forum such as this. Why don’t you write to me personally, or call me on the phone, and we can get this all hashed out. Write to me at: mail@weisenthal.org or call me at 714-596-2100 (best times are 11 AM to 7 PM Central time, Mon-Sat).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
that’s your best side, the one you excel, you have a good sense of humor.
and your humor is also very funny. and you can take the punch
with courage, that’s why we continue,
bye
best to your father also,
Hi Retire, just saw your last:
I didn’t say that 50% of all abortions were owing to failed contraception. I said that 40% of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion (TRUE). And I said that 50% of unplanned pregnancies result from failed contraception (also TRUE).
Quoting you:
Number one, I never “backed off.” As I’ve explained before, I am one person, simultaneously debating with several to many people. I can’t possibly keep track of every last argument which is going on with each and every one of them. Since none of us get paid for writing here, we are entitled to participate to the degree to which we have time and interest. Which means, inevitably, that I accept that I’ll never get the last word and I often end up “backing off” before tying up each and every loose end.
What I asked is what is the greater problem/evil? Abortions or STDs?
This was in reference to your claim that increased contraception leads to increased STDs. I don’t at all concede this to be true, but, for purposes of a thought experiment, what if making free, “bullet-proof” contraceptive measures (e.g. $800 hormone implants) universally available reduced teenage pregnancies by 87% and reduced abortions by 80% (which they do), but increased STDs by 10% or 20% (which I don’t concede they do, but raise the issue as a thought experiment). Would you consider it preferable to have more abortions but fewer STDs — or more STDs but fewer abortions?
Of course, Obama, et al is “responsible” for the ObamaCare contraception mandate! Just as the state legislature and Governor of Georgia were responsible for Georgia’s contraception mandate. I never said they weren’t. What I said was that it was not their idea, hatched up (as Skook charged) to undermine the moral teachings to the Catholic Church. You can argue that the mandate was inappropriate, but the mandate was adopted on the basis of purely medical/public health considerations and not for political/religious purposes.
You say:
With due respect, that’s a silly statement. It’s like me saying that you spend an inordinate amount of time attacking Obama. Look at this whole blog. It’s 90% about attacking politicians and policies which I support. I’m a Democrat. You are a Republican (or, at least, support many Republican positions compared with Democratic positions). So, being a Democrat, don’t you think it’s perfectly understandable that I disagree with you and many others here? As I’ve written before, if Democrats are not welcome to contribute to the Flopping Aces discussion, all Curt has to do is to post a “Democrats not welcome” sign under the blog masthead and I’ll respect the new policy. Until then, I’m “allowed” to defend Obama all I want.
You go on:
It’s really none of your business, but I’m a typical upper middle class private practice physician, except that I self-fund my own medical research, as part of my practice. As I noted before, my kids’ education was financed the way that most kids’ educations are financed: savings, loans, work (both during the summer and during the school year — both kids having regular jobs on and off campus and also tutoring), and scholarships based entirely on objective formulas relating to family finances (H/Y having no “merit” scholarships for either academics or athletics — all their scholarships are strictly need based).
You assert:
I’ve been writing on this blog for more than 4 years. I’ve made literally thousands of comments. There are a score of regulars here who will support me when I say that I don’t simply tolerate being challenged but I love being challenged. It’s the whole reason that I spend lots of time on Flopping Aces and why I’ve never in my life (to my recollection) made a single comment on The Daily Kos and fewer than a dozen lifetime comments on the Huff Po (I do like commenting on the WSJ site, from time to time — much more so than on the NYT site).
What I don’t like is bad manners. I don’t like personal insults. I don’t make them (with the rare exceptions of being provoked to the point of just losing my temper, which is I think something which has happened in fewer than one in 500 comments). And, being human, I don’t like being on the receiving end of personal insults. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. You listen to the same homilies as I do.
Having said that, your comments about “flyover” and “clinging to” and “smarter than” are pure, unadulterated crap.
Let’s call it tough love.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Now you are trying to parse words by saying the IoM is “non-partisan” although almost the entire IoM panel were radically partisan. That is like saying unions are non-partisan although every one of their presidents are radically partisan. I understand what you are doing, and am sure everyone else is. An organization, of any description, is only as partisan, or non-partisan, as its members.
Now, the fact that you make the claim that most in academia are left wing radicals is no surprise to any conservative that has sent their kid to college. Academia has been infiltrated by left wingers since the Frankfort Marxists migrated to the United States in the late ’30’s. Also, I know a number of Ph.D.s and everyone of them are conservative Republicans who say that they have to keep their political leanings closeted in the halls of academia because to not do so, costs their dearly. You see, the Frankfort Maxism is alive and well in your tony universities. Where did those Frankfort Marxists migrate to as professors? Columbia, Harvard, UCLA, just to name a few. Also, let’s be very clear here; I never made any statement about “public health” doctors. So stop putting words in my mouth that were not there. It’s a bad habit of yours to do that.
But you also seem to think that an education is much better if it is at a tony university. So let’s take a look at some people who have actually made a difference in our world:
Mark Cuban – University of Indiana
Michael Dell – University of Texas, Austin
Michael DeBakey – Tulane University
Jonas Salk – NYU
Denton Cooley – UTMB
Notice anything there, Larry? No one Ivy League school among them.
My point (that you can’t seem to grasp)? Is that we hear the accolades of Ivy League education by those who can afford it, or in your case, who uses scholarships that could have gone to a less affluent kid, but many, many brilliant people in this nation graduated from those “state” schools that you seem to hold such disdain for.
Now you tell me to email you directly, or to call you. Why? What could I possibly have to say to you that I would not say here? I have nothing to hide from anyone. And the bigger question is why would you even want me to call you? I have made it quite clear that I not only disagree with you, and everything you stand for, I don’t respect you. Are you so insecure that you need to try to change the minds of some wee person in flyover country that you are not the liberal lunatic you have portrayed? I suggest your desire to be liked is something you probably should seek treatment for.
Get over yourself, Larry. It’s not that I have personal issues with you, per se, it’s that I have personal issues with anyone who subscribes to your political philosphies. Frankly, I think you are un-American and consider your philosphy a slap in the face of the great men who gave us this United States. You represent everything I abhor. Is that clear enough for you, or do you still want some Kumbaya moment on the phone?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, I will continue to challange you. Make no mistake about that. My main objection to you is that you are a spinner. You were more than able to check the Guttmacker stats that say less than 20% of all abortions are due to failed contraceptives, when used properly. You seem to always leave yourself an out by making blanket statements without specifics. Not only is that deceptive, it is spin. You’re smart enough to know that.
Now you are worried about my delving into your personal life, when you make statements about your personal life. If I really wanted to jack with you, there are ways I could do it. But I choose to keep the debate here.
So here is the deal; if you don’t want to feel like you have been insulted (due to your insecurity) don’t spin the facts to favor your opinion. That is all it takes.
Answer these questions, honestly, if you can: do you support abortion laws are they are now? Do you think they should be more restrictive? Do you support gay marriage? Do you support the redistribution of another person’s earnings (wealth)? Do you support the president who seems to usurp the U.S. Constitution and governs through executive fiat (usurpting the Congress on the Dream Act, for one)?
As to “unadulterated crap”: that is what you and your left wing friends excel in spewing.
@Petercat: @Nan G: #6
“Anyway, I won’t be living in California much longer. ”
Georgia’s a good place. You’ll meet the nicest people in our gun stores here!
I know.
I’ve hunted in Georgia back when my late sister lived there with her 2nd husband. (She outlived THREE husbands!)
But we’ve decided, after considering a lot of things, to move to Utah.
Lots of older folks are already there, sort of like Florida.
So, there’s lots of infrastructure for older people already set up.
And it is very business-friendly (like Georgia).
Hubby is considering setting up something small and easy to run.
The climate is somewhat like CA where we live, just colder at night and a bit of snow in winter.
But, Georgia was high on the final list, just so you know.
Hi Retire,
I said that kids who want to go to UCSF should go there, if they can get in and figure out a way to pay for it. Same for the University of Louisville, which was my undergraduate alma mater. Same for Harvard. Same for Michigan (my med/grad school alma mater). Same for Golden West College (our local J.C.). Why did I even mention it? It came up in the context of Nan’s suggestion that doctors were going to be slaves. I simply replied that I didn’t consider myself to be a slave and I’d certainly not want my kids to become slaves. I took the opportunity to brag that my kids worked their butts off to gain admission to hyper-competitive schools. Entirely unnecessary and probably even childish, but most parents will give me a pass, because it’s a typical proud papa thing to do. It’s certainly got nothing whatsoever to do with elitism.
I’d like to ask you to consider something, with regard to the overabundance of liberals in academia. You say that you know some conservative PhDs who feel the need to conceal their political proclivities. Look at the way that you regard me: you seem to have a sense of visceral hatred, simply because I don’t agree with your politics.
Here’s what you said:
Now, you are human. So this is the way you feel. I happen to feel that Alexander Hamilton was a great man, and he was a champion of strong central government. George Washington sided with Hamilton in a nation-defining dispute with James Madison, who espoused a weak central government. Both Washington and Hamilton were great men, who gave us this United States. So, for that matter, was Theodore Roosevelt, who was a strong proponent of progressive taxation and a stiff inheritance tax. And so, for that matter, were FDR and Harry Truman.
But you apparently not only have no use for the 47% who don’t pay income tax but also don’t have any use for those of us who do pay income tax, but who disagree with your politics. So, it would appear, correct me if I’m wrong, you have personal issues with more than half the country. Or close to half.
Now, liberals are human, also. Let’s say that all liberals felt the same way about conservatives as you feel about liberals. Would that create a hostile environment for conservatives in academia? If, by some miracle, we could actually convince large numbers of conservatives to get PhDs and go into academia or go into journalism, can you see that there would probably be the same hostile environment towards liberals in academia and journalism as there appears to be towards conservatives?
Can you agree that this is no way to run a railroad, much less a university or newspaper, let alone a nation?
If Romney wins, he’ll owe his election to independents who believed him when he said he’d be bipartisan. I honestly believe that he would/will be bipartisan and, if he is, that he’ll actually get the congressional Dems to work with him on some important things.
Yes, I actually wish that you would call me or send me an email. You can make up a fake gmail address and remain anonymous, if you wish. It is entirely for selfish reasons. I like writing on this blog. I’ve been told by others that my contributions are not unwelcome. I plan on continuing to contribute, and I’d like to move beyond personal vituperation, if it is your intention to continue to engage with me.
Maybe you can just write out every last thing that you hate about liberals in general and me, personally, in particular, and put it in a single post. Then, from then on, just confine yourself to arguing politics and, instead of throwing in the personal stuff, just say “oh, yeah, and see my comment #44 on the “Beyond Nothingness” thread.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Hi Retire:
No, what I said, for the third time, is that 40% of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortion and that 50% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by failure of contraceptives.
This is precisely why $2 condoms and even $60 per month oral contraceptives aren’t adequate for many women. There are, however, now available bullet proof contraceptives (greater than 99% effectiveness) and, when these are made available, for free, 75% of urban poor women choose these, with the result that teenage pregnancies are reduced to 1/6 th the national level and abortions are reduced to 1/5th the national level — both being utterly unprecedented results which set a new bar to be met by any other approach to reducing teenage pregnancies and abortions.
However, these bullet-proof contraceptives are very expensive ($600 to $1000), which is why the insurance mandates are so important and why they were recommended by the Institutes of Medicine for entirely medical/public health reasons and not for political reasons and certainly not of the express purpose of sticking a finger into the eye of the Catholic Church.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Hi Retire:
You ask:
Regarding abortion: As a physician, I’ve never participated in one (either in med school, residency, and at any time thereafter). I’ve never referred a patient for one. I’ve never been involved with one with any relative or acquaintance. What if my wife or daughter developed a pulmonary hypertension crisis while pregnant (the extremely life threatening situation which occurred in the Arizona Catholic hospital where a nun (the hospital administrator) got into a heap of trouble for permitting an abortion? Would I be complicit in an abortion to save the life of a woman? Yes.
How about abortion laws?
I’ll give the same answer as Joe Biden, but be more specific. I’ll accept the teaching of the Church that life begins at conception. But, as a US citizen, I must concede that this is entirely a religious definition. What, exactly, is “human” life? What’s different between humans and animals? Well, according to a religious definition, we have a soul. When are we en-souled? Beyond the soul, there is the human brain. And that’s the biggest difference. Until a fetus develops an actual human cerebral cortex, the fetus is incapable of human thought and is incapable of feeling pain. So many people, of different religions or with no religion at all, would say that human life begins when the brain forms — which is out at the end of the second trimester. Still others, including some religious Christians and Jews, look at the several places in the Bible where God confers life at the moment of the first breath. These are all defensible definitions of human life, according to different religions and different points of view.
Because of the above, I have a problem with enforcing a continuation of pregnancy at the point of a gun, which is what laws criminalizing abortion do. They threaten women and doctors with arrest and loss of freedom at the point of a gun, for being in often very difficult situations, that cannot be appreciated without walking a mile in the moccasins of the woman in question.
If I were king and could make the laws, I’d be a little Solomonic about it. I’d keep abortion as a legal option for women up to the point where the fetus begins to develop a cerebral cortex. I’d have to look up precisely where this is now thought to begin, but it’s going to be somewhere in the mid-twenties with regard to weeks of pregnancy. This would take care of most cases of rape, incest, health, and whatever reasons a woman would have for being unwilling to carry the pregnancy to term. Beyond the cut off point, I’d be hyper-strict about it. Basically, allow it only to save the life of the mother.
With regard to gay marriage, I’m unequivocally opposed to it, for reasons I described on one of my own original Flopping Aces blog posts:
With regard to “wealth redistribution,” just like Theodore Roosevelt and Adam Smith, I’m in favor of progressive taxation. Just like Theodore Roosevelt, I’m in favor of a stiff inheritance tax. Just as in the case of FDR, I’m in favor of a safety net. Just as in the case of Barack Obama, I favor increasing the top marginal tax rate to the way it was in the Clinton years (39.6%). If you want to call that wealth redistribution, then I guess I support wealth redistribution, but I’d prefer to call it progressive taxation, because that’s all that it is and it’s not socialism.
As for usurping authority, I trust the judicial system and the legislative branch to serve as a check on the powers of the Presidency. In short, I support the constitution. With respect to the example of the “dream act,” law enforcement has always had the ability to focus finite resources where they do the most good. This goes for the county sheriff and for the Attorney General and for the INS. What Obama did was to tell Federal law enforcement to concentrate on rounding up and deporting criminals and not to waste resources on trying to catch and deport “dreamer” type illegals. That makes perfect sense to me, and it makes a lot of sense to a majority of Americans, I’m pretty certain. I don’t view that as usurpation; I view that as common sense executive discretion.
If you want me to point to an abuse of executive power, I’d point to the decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage act. It’s not up to the executive branch to determine whether or not that was/is constitutional. That’s up to the judiciary. I don’t have a problem with prioritizing resources, but I do have a problem with making the statement that a given law is unconstitutional, by executive fiat. If Obama thinks its unconstitutional, he should have called up one of his Constitutional law acquaintances and gotten him to file suit in Federal court (this is actually ongoing, I believe). But until that happens, he’s got no business declaring the law to be unconstitutional.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I really don’t care what Nan said to you. Her conversations with you have nothing to do with me. Nothing. I didn’t join into that conversation, but you wanted to drag me into it.
As far as your parental pride in your kids, fine, share that pride with your neighbors, your friends, your co-wokers, or more importantly, with those kids themselves, but I am not interested in whether your kid is the queen/king of the prom or a drag queen at Charlie Brown’s. I do view your bragging on your kids as nothing more than an extension of your own conceit.
Also, if you think liberals, who support an oppressive central government in clear violation of the 10th Amendment, do not treat conservatives with the same ire that I treat them, you are living in lala land. The lap dog press is especially henious toward anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Shall I remind you of all the things that were said by the press, and by Democrat Congressmen, about people who supported the TEA Party? Or do those things just slip your mind? It is no different in academia as it is in Hollywood. If you are a conservative, you are on the wrong side of the fence and you will be punished.
As to hating 1/2 the nation: I think everyone should pay some form of income tax. I am not a supporter of the progressive tax rate system because it rewards those who are lazy and punishes ambition. I am a flat tax proponent with no deductions. I do not think it is the position of the Federal government to take from one to give to another for no other reason than to garner votes from the largess recipient, consequently, I do not believe in welfare as we know it. What the government now does was better done by churches and charities, and that system did not give us generational leeching.
Yes, you pay taxes, Larry, but the question is; do you support higher taxes for yourself? If so, what has prevented you from sending to the IRS more than your legal liability? You see, Larry, I firmly believe progressives are hypocrites. That includes you. You may want to pay higher taxes, but refuse to do so, as well as wanting others to share that burden.
No, I am not going to email you are call you. If others cherish your [dubious] contributions to this blog, so be it. They are entitled that view. But I have nothing, absolutely nothing, that I care to discuss with you in private that I will not address here. You seem to take my opposition to you as a personal slight. I promise you, it is not personal as I take opposition to all who like you, want to change this country into some little mini Europe with its failed policies. I think your view that it is personal is to salve your own ego. Believe me, in the large scheme of things, you are but one blip.
One other thing; I do not agree that FDR and Theodore Roosevelt were great presidents. History about them has basically been written by liberals/progressives. TR was the first nationally prominent progressive. FDR was simply a socialist who pushed the edge of the envelope and tried to crown himself a pseudo king.
BTW, from what I have read, the cerebral cortex begins to develope between the 7th and 8th weeks of gestation, and continues until a person reaches somewhere around the age of 25.
Larry, interesting answers (#45) to Retire’s questions.
I had not heard that some religions say LIFE begins with the first breath.
New to me.
In my background (Jewish, Lutheran, Christian-n-general) I read the Bible extensively.
God is said to have called Adam a ”living soul” once he took a breath.
But in other places pre-born babies are considered as alive and valued as human as full grown men!
For example,
“Mischief” is damage to the baby, Larry.
So, if the baby comes out prematurely, but lives, he is off the hook for the baby and only answers for damage to the woman.
But if the baby comes out prematurely and is lame or blind as a result, the man can be punished equally to the damage the premature birth caused the baby.
Also, in another place King David writes at
David is writing about DNA, although he did not know it.
He was inspired.
You may have never been put to this test as to whether or not you would take a life because a woman wanted a boy instead of a girl, but other doctors are doing just this.
Run barefoot long enough and you get calloused feet.
Play guitar long enough and you get calloused fingers.
Do enough abortions and you get a calloused conscience.
Yes, I do support higher taxes for myself, along with higher taxes for everyone else. It is very easy to take a principled stand against taxation. No politician ever became unpopular for cutting taxes. But I am not into sitting up in trees to save forests and I’m not into gestures which don’t achieve anything. What I do is to pay the taxes I owe. I have no fear of being audited. I have nothing to hide. I voluntarily send the state of California about $1,000 per year for Internet sales taxes on items I purchase online and voluntarily self report. Most people don’t do this. So this is my one little statement of fiscal virtue.
Thank you for explaining in greater detail your political philosophy. I disagree with much of it, but I understand that a lot of people feel this way and that’s why we have different political parties. The genius of our political system is that it provides a framework for people with honest differences of opinion to resolve their differences in the political arena and produce a functional government.
The way that I look at it; we’ve got an honest difference of opinion. You seem to want to assert that we have differences in character, which are not favorable to me. I hope that you’ll now be satisfied that you’ve made your point.
P.S. Hi, Nan. Thanks for taking the time to assemble those quotes. I’m going to cut/clip/save them. In return, I’ll try to assemble the several quotes (in addition to Adam) which could be used to support the view that human life begins at first breath.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
I believe that the human begin with the soul is the first spark of the universe, IT IS BEYOND THE BODY
it doesn’t feel pain, he doesn’t think,
yes, you said it and NAN ALSO, HE IS THE BREATH OF LIFE,THE INVISIBLE SOUL,
BUT “IS, REAL, YES HE CAME FROM THE POOL OF ALL SOULS IN THE INVISIBLE
WHICH NEVER WILL DIE, EVEN IF WHEN THE BODY BEGIN THE BRAIN, AND IS ABORTED
IT DIE BUT NOT THE SOUL WHICH RETURN IN THE POOL OF THE INVISIBLE ,
THE SOUL IS THE ESSENCE OF LIFE, THE WHISPER OF THE DIVINE GOD
BYE
Hi Retire, Thanks for your input regarding formation of the cerebral cortex. I reviewed this. You are correct. What I was thinking about, precisely, when I wrote “some time in the twenties” (weeks) was the frontal lobe, which is where human consciousness resides and which integrates input from other cortical areas to produce human thought. To my knowledge, frontal lobe development does take place in the twenties.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA