Friday, August 28, 2009

We're Hucked

Mike Huckabee, Christian, and phony good guy, is, in fact, a f*cking liar and a hypocrite. Big surprise, eh?

Along with other RWS™ he warns Democrats against "politicizing" the death of Edward Kennedy (as opposed to the lengths to which they did just that when Ronnie died). Then he warns that under "Obamacare," the details of which have yet to be written, Senator Kennedy would have been encouraged to die much sooner. I hope to hell someone in the Kennedy family will speak directly in response to this. Caroline?

"To say such a thing," that spokesperson ought to say, "to diverge so far from facts to advance one's political agenda is much more than an insult to the memory of Ted Kennedy. It demeans the speaker beyond redemption. It is a lie on its face. It is despicable and speaks directly to the depths of deception to which the supposed leaders of the Republican party have descended. That the ex-governor, failed presidential candidate, should be ashamed of himself goes without saying. Unfortunately, it also goes without saying that he has so little touch with the idea of shame that expecting self-reflection or apology from him is like expecting the Republican party to start making efforts to participate in meaningful health care reform. It ain't gonna happen. Still, I'll say it anyway: shame on you sir. Shame on you to the very depths of what might be left of your sorry soul."

[And as long as I'm suggesting things people ought to say, and not enough for a post of its own, there's this: Newt Gingrich thinks (affording a generous definition to the word) President Obama ought to fire Eric Holder. "Sorry, Newt," someone should reply, "Firing attorneys general that follow the law is what Republicans do. In this administration, it ain't gonna happen."]


  1. My latest favorite is the RNC questionnaire, in which it is suggested that the health care reform will allow Democrats to deny Republicans health care, based on voter registration. There are some wild imaginations over there on the right.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Sorry, BB. Same old, same old. Useless comments notable for their ignorance; in this case, ignorance of the legislative process. Not to mention the usual willful misinterpretation of the facts at hand. Remarkably like the subject of this post.

    But thanks for stopping by.

  4. To be fair, Sid, I saw BB's comment. That is what the president has said, about the pain pill. And there are a thousand pages of the bill. But I agree with you, of course--he shouldn't be allowed to post here. Can't Blogger block one commenter?

  5. pp: I don't think the President (or Rahm's brother, who is more often misquoted) said anything that could be interpreted as encouraging Kennedy or anyone like him just to take a pill and give up. It's a gross misapprehension of the literal and implicit point.

    As to the bill: first of all, 1000 pages is nothing: so were many of Bush's, including NCLB. Second, if you have read the bill (I have, muchly) there's about a hundred words per page, triple spacing, meaning it would, quite literally, be a two hundred fifty page book. Not tiny, mind you, but not what the conventional wisdom (such as it is) implies.

    Finally, what exists are the house bill and a few unfinalized senate ones, which need to be finished, voted on, and then reconciled with the house bill. So there is, quite literally, no bill yet. Good or bad, depending on how one looks at it. But it's a fact, which mr BB likely knows but chooses to deal with only in terms of his usual useless emptiness.

  6. I think the pain pill reference is here:

    The president does seem to indicate that there comes a time when the problem becomes too expensive and the patient has too little "quality of life" left. The question is, who decides?

    I understand there no bill yet, but how few details are necessary to vote on it? This is sweeping legislation--I hate to think that there's that little specificity in something like this.

  7. As usual, the eye of the beholder is operative. I didn't see a specific answer to her question; ie, he was saying we can't answer every specific question, but we need to find out what works and what doesn't. If something doesn't work, he implied, it wouldn't be paid for. He did not say pacemakers don't work nor that it wouldn't have been paid for. It was a theoretical situation he was addressing: if AN operation (as opposed to THAT operation) doesn't work, then maybe a pill is the better option.

    Funny. You imply the bill is too long, then suggest it isn't specific. I'm not getting that. To the extent that it IS long, it's because it's quite specific in a number of areas.

    But the panel to investigate effectiveness and to recommend coverage is not in place yet, so there's no way the specificity of their hypothetical recommendations would be extant.

    Finally: it IS specified that recommendations would have to be approved by Congress before being put in place.

  8. And to take that specific video another step, I would say it has clearly been edited. After the woman asked her question, there was clearly what's called a "jump cut" which means a piece is edited out and what's left appears to follow directly in sequence with what the viewer has already seen. Furthermore, as soon ask the term "pain killer" comes out of his mouth, the video ends, allowing no further explanation of the point.

    Now I'm not saying the President's message was absolutely distorted here, but I am saying when an entity edits a message and only presents certain points that are congruous with their belief, it leaves the rest of us to wonder what got cut.

  9. Mike: I noticed that, too. Should have commented on it. Even so, it's possible to infer his intent, I think.

  10. Note to BEER BOTTLE: here's the thing: you might recall that on one occasion you emailed me about an issue for which, I assume, you valued my opinion. I answered respectfully, and as helpfully as possible.

    I get many comments here that disagree with me, and I frequently answer them. For some reason, despite your evident ability to ask a respectful question and request and receive a respectful answer in another area, here you insist on comments that are either off point, insulting, or ridiculously inane. Why is that?

    Yes, my posts on this blog are typically strenuous. I called Huckabee a lying f*ucker. Which happens to be true. Nevertheless, I address facts, and make comments that are factually based. When people disagree on the merits, I try to join in a good discussion. When people simply spout irrelevant and stupid bullshit, I don't. Or, in your case, I delete.

    And yet, I know you are capable of better. Why not have a real discussion? Puzzling. Except that you do quite perfectly mirror the level of discourse that we see universally from the right. The difference is I can't delete any of the RWS™.

  11. A. Mike,

    You don;t have the right definition of "jump cut", but there does seem to be an edit. At the risk of being tangential, here's an interesting (maybe) thought on the edit. Take it for what it's worth (would that be TIFWIW?)

    I agree with the doc--the cut of the president is long enough to see his thoughts. Whish I still think may bode ill for the terminally ill.

    As to Kennedy--would it be informative in this discussion to see how much was spent on his care the last couple of months? Would that level of care have been available under the new plan?

  12. there comes a time when the problem becomes too expensive and the patient has too little "quality of life" left. The question is, who decides?

    Isn't this the point of end of life directives?

  13. Anonymous said...
    "The question is, who decides?"

    Your question seems ambiguous, seen one way it sounds like you haven't been listening.

    Right now, "Who Decides" - for non terminal patients - is firmly in the hands of some insurance company operative who is probably getting a bonus based how much coverage, he or she can deny.

    I suppose you could think of such persons as highly compensated executioners. May they die as below - hopefully screaming!

    I know of several people who are dead now (who could have lived a few more years of 'quality' life) because their so-called 'Insurer' pulled the plug on them - without even the benefit of a "Death Panel."

    That's one answer. For terminal patients, the answer is "You Decide" presumably while you are still in a state of mind that allows you to make your wishes known in "Advance."

    Thus the "Advance Directive" available in all states - red or blue. Nobody is required to have one, but everybody needs to be told about the option.

    Even Republicans -"pituui" - understood this before they began raving about "Death Panels for political advantage."

    Regarding terminal patients:
    There is an interesting blogger - Head Nurse - who made some very realistic observations regarding how people die when they neglect to make an advance directive, or insist on "Do Everything to Save Me."

    Basically she says everybody is going to suffer intensely, starting with the patient, who will have tubes in every orifice and suffer from cracked ribs, bruises, various punctures and shocks as they lie in pools of blood, urine and vomit. This, as they code repeatedly.

    It will not be a peaceful death. I suppose that if one did not really like the patient, this could be very satisfying.

    However, if one loves the dying person, one might feel horrified and heartsick - and hurriedly fill out their own advance directive.



Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts