CPC Report; An unabashedly liberal perspective

Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.  George Will

 19 September 2009

So Much Ado About Nothing

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. William Shakespeare, MacBeth

 President Obama vs. Representative Joe Wilson on Health Care Reform- Who's the liar?

President Obama declared before a joint session of Congress that illegal immigrants will not qualify to receive health care benefits under the legislation he supports. Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, breaking House rules of decorum, interrupts the speech by calling the President a liar. Who is telling the truth?

According to a CNN truth squad, this is false. The legislation could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but denies  subsidies for that coverage to illegal residents. What Joe Wilson based his concerns on were two amendments, which were voted down in committee, denying subsidies for such coverage in which in fact has already been denied. In short, his argument is based on the fallacy of the red herring and is so much ado about nothing. For more information click on the following link;

 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/27/cnn-truth-squad-will-health-bill-pay-for-illegal-immigrants-an-update/


An Update On the Most Recent Lies Concerning Health Care Reform & on Rush's Fear of Circumcision

The Right Wing lying Machine (RWLM) have presented a horrific futuristic vision of our country being a nation where the weak, elderly and the unborn are given the lowest priority in the alleged rationing of health care under the health care proposals being debated.

One of the lies is from the seemingly addled-minded Rush Limbaugh who has bombastically broadcasted on the radio airwaves that the legislation would mandate circumcisions for all American males. One need not take this too seriously, considering the source.

Also targeted for denial of care supposedly be women with breast cancer and Republicans. In regards to the former, of all the kinds of cancer, why would breast cancer be singled out? The answer is obvious. The motive of the lie is to scare women who tend to vote for Democrats. Why Democrats would favor this is beyond belief.

Another one of the newest lies running rampant among us is about the alleged rationing of health care that concerns disabled children. Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington (R), who is the mother of a child with Down syndrome, and Trent Franks of Arizona (R), who was born with a cleft palate, were among those promoting this fear. Perhaps they believe this themselves.

Supposedly this fear is based on the health care system in a country like Great Britain promoting the rationing of health care. The citizens of that nation are angry about their health care system being portrayed in this country by the insurance companies and the RWLM in such a manner. The root of this anger is because the claim is an outright lie. Stephan hawking, although not a minor, is nevertheless severely disabled.

Another one of the newest lies running rampant among us is about the alleged rationing of health care that concerns disabled children. Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington (R), who is the mother of a child with Down syndrome, and Trent Franks of Arizona (R), who was born with a cleft palate, were among those promoting this fear. Perhaps they believe this themselves.

Supposedly this fear is based on the health care system in a country like Great Britain promoting the rationing of health care. The citizens of that nation are angry about their health care system being portrayed in this country by the insurance companies and the RWLM in such a manner. The root of this anger is because the claim is an outright lie. Stephan hawking, although not a minor, is nevertheless severely disabled.

In regards to Stephan Hawking, in the Investor's Business Daily, it was written that- "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Stephan Hawking, who is British, responded by saying that he "wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS" and "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."*In reality, he would not have any chance in this country unless this parents could afford health insurance.


Two questions are hereby raised in regards to what has been written so far; Who are you going to believe? And why would it be any different in this country?

If one is truly concerned about health care rationing in America, the bad news is we already have it. Insurance corporations provide it. The rationing is based on the profit incentive. Business typically wants to minimize costs and maximize profit. How else would they do this other than deny coverage to patients whose expenses have gotten too high. Is this the system that Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Trent Franks of Arizona (R) want? A system in which health care is left entirely to the insurance industry? A system in which would deny coverage for Cathy Rogers' child with Down Syndrome and Trent Franks with a cleft palate as a means of maximizing profits? Is this not rationing?

Fortunately in America we do have socialized medicine available for many children under two government ran programs- S-CHIP and Medicaid. But what of the children who do not qualify for these programs? (See "A Town Hall Meeting In Kansas", 29 August 2009)

Health care really should be considered a right in America, not to be denied by the right. It is much too important to be left to those overly thrifty, greedy, inhumane health insurance behemoths, which is a position that the left takes.

 *See Stephen Hawking Endorses the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK, 29 August 2009

For information on more lies running amuck among us, click on the link below.

 http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254

 

The Last Word- George Will is Wrong Again

In an article I had only recently discovered, was published in Newsweek (20 April 2009) entitled "The Last Word".  It is a very partisan attack on Susan Rice who is the current UN Ambassador. It seems to be basically the concept of a "community of nations". However, this has nothing to do with that. On some of the article, I actually agree with George Will. On much of it I am noncommittal by virtue of my ignorance of the particulars given. I must admit that I am leery of George Will's truthfulness since that article he wrote denying global warming in the Washington Post used a university study on global warming to buttress his argument. The problem is that the study in question actually argued the opposite of  George Will's argument on that subject. That was insipid intellectual dishonesty on his part. Before that I had respect for Mr. Will, even though I often disagreed with him. This is no longer the case. What he did was sleazy.

Another example of sleaziness appears in this Newsweek article. In spite of its name, it will not be the last word insofar as what I have to say. That is unless "The Last Word" is only a reference to it being on the final page of the magazine.

Before quoting the relevant passage that I take exception to, it is necessary to provide context. In a part I actually agree with were the criticisms of Saudi Arabia, which is unfortunately true of much of the Arab world. My dissent is only indirectly related to this.

George Will noted that George W. Bush boycotted the U.N. Human Rights Council because "it includes despotic regimes that are ludicrous auditors of other nations' respect for human rights."* Again I have no argument, although it should be noted that the torture of enemy combatants undertaken by the Bush Administration is a violation of civil liberties. This will be addressed on 21 November later this year.

His criticism is leveled against the Obama's decision to join that U.N. Council. Although I support President Obama in general, I tend to side with George Will one this as well. However, I cannot help to wonder about Mr. Will's opinion on some of the "despotic regimes"  we have cuddled up to in the past, such General Pinochet's regime of Chile who was not only responsible for murdering his opponents in his own country, but also in this one as well. Again, I digress.

The passage in which is the root of this dissent is as follows;

"An unmarried 23-year-old Saudi woman became pregnant when abducted and gang-raped. She was convicted of adultery and sentenced to a year in prison- and to a perhaps fatal 100 lashes after her child is born. Another woman was visited by two men- one had been breast fed by her; another was bringing her bread. Convicted of the crime of  being in the presence of men who are not family members, she was sentenced to 40 lashes, which is perhaps a death sentence to for a 75-year-old."*

These stories are believable. I have read of similar tales, such as a teenage Iraqi girl who was cruelly raped by her own brother and summarily executed in order to protect the family honor. The boy was not punished. This occurred during the occupation of American troops.

It is ironic that George Will would use Saudi Arabia as a example of a despotic regime since the Bush family has had close relations with the House of Saud. Ex-president George W. Bush of which George Will had written so highly of in regards to promoting human rights, was no exception. In his dealings with the Saudi royal family, it is doubtful that violations of civil liberties were ever brought up. Once more, I digress.

The problem is that out of necessity we must deal with governments in which are despicable in the treatment of their citizens. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it's all about oil. These are facts that George Will ignores.

The following is the statement in which I take exception with- "The 'community of nations' that liberals like Rice believe in certainly has what liberals celebrate: diversity."* Celebrating diversity does not mean that there are no boundaries in regards to human rights; that  violations as described are to be acceptable in the name of diversity. That statement was made without a proper foundation being laid capable of supporting it. Since World War II liberals have always been the ones promoting civil rights at home and abroad. To say otherwise is to lie.

Civil liberties are a concern world-wide. Susan Rice in particular has criticized the failings of the United Nations in a speech at New York University's Center for Global Affairs. (In fairness to George Will, this speech was made since his article was published. But just the same he made no effort to be fair.) Her criticisms included U.N. policies in which promote the status of women as being "uncoordinated, inefficient, and  ineffective.'"** From these remarks, it should be clear that Susan Rice is concerned about the civil rights of women abroad. She went on to declare;

"Sitting on the outside will not . . . defend those bleeding under the boot of despots. Real change does not come from sitting on the sidelines. Real change can only come through painstaking, principled diplomacy . . . It will not be easy. It will not be quick. But let's remember the words of a former university president who once said, 'If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.'  Well, if you think engagement is imperfect, try isolation."**

The world is a place lacking perfection. We have to deal with nations in which habitually violate the most basic human rights. Short of invasion and overthrowing these regimes, like we did in Iraq, what is the alternative? The problem is that are too many such regimes to deal with in such a manner.

George Will is wrong. His remarks about liberals in general and Susan Rice in particular are libelous. Then again, what would one expect from a liar.

*George Will

**Politics Daily (Website) "Envoy Susan Rice to UN: 'The United States is Back' ", 13 August 2009


The Road Not Taken; poem by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;       
 
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,       
 
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.       
 
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

  

PSYCHO PSEUDO HEADLINES

BETTY MCCAUGHEY, DEATH PANEL INVENTOR, ACCIDENTALLY TELLS THE TRUTH

RUSH LIMBAUGH'S CIRCUMCISION GOES AWRY; ACCIDENTALLY GETS CASTRATED INSTEAD; INSURANCE REFUSES COVERAGE FOR "ELECTIVE SURGERY"

JOE WILSON ACCUSES HIMSELF OF LYING; REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE

RUSH LIMBAUGH TO OPEN AT THE MET SINGING SOPRANO

GOVERNOR MARK SANFORD GOES HIKING ON APPALACHIAN TRAIL; PRESUMED LOST IN BERMUDA TRIANGLE

    EX-GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN GOES HIKING; TINA FEY TO TAKE HER PLACE AS STAND-IN

GLENN BECK'S PARANOIA IMPLICATES HIMSELF IN HIS LATEST CONSPIRACY

SEAN HANNITY TELLS JOKE ON PURPOSE

DEATHER KILLS BIRTHER IN HIT AND RUN

GRIM REAPER TO HEAD DEATH PANEL

DEATH PANEL LETS MICHELLE BACHMAN LIVE; ORDERS LOBOTOMY FOR HER INSTEAD

  ANN COULTER'S RABIES DEEMED INCURABLE; DEATH PANEL ORDERS EUTHANASIA*

*See 15 August 2009

                                         Glynn Braman

 

Make a Free Website with Yola.