Tag Archives: Chuck’s story

Bat Boy journalism and Fox News..

Like I said in the blog,  ‘When does 2+2=4 become debatable? When it’s politics, stupid!” ,  Fox News adds 2+2 and comes up with 7. As if that wasn’t bad enough they get people to believe them instead truth and facts. They even pull the ‘Hey, we’ve researched’ it card to back up whatever claim they are making. Obviously if they’ve researched it and they are this adamant that their information is correct, then they should be believed… right?

Wrong.

O’Reilly lies to Coburn:

‘Nobody’s ever said’ at Fox you’ll go to jail if you don’t buy health insurance. Oh yes they have.



After Senator Coburn told a town hall meeting not to believe what they hear on Fox News, Bill-O decided he was going to take it upon himself to research his station and find out just when it was that anyone on Fox News said that under “ObamaCare” you would go to jail if you didn’t get health insurance.

O’Reilly: Well, tell me, what — because it doesn’t happen here.

And we researched to find out if anybody on Fox News

had ever said you’re going to jail if you don’t buy health insurance.

Nobody’s ever said it.

Well there you go, that solves it. This rumor was nothing more than another attempt of the “Lame stream media” to attack the honest hardworking fact checkers at Fox News, they researched this problem and found it to be an utterly false accusation.

except..


Beck: But if you don’t play by their new rules on health care, oooh, here’s a new little twist. Have you heard this? You’re going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail.

and

… But if you don’t play ball with them now, if you don’t get into their government health care, there will be jail time. And that of course was

Glenn Beck told his audience on Nov. 12, 2009 that they would go to jail. The next day on O’reilly’s own show, Beck was a a guest and repeated the same claim.


BECK: You know, this is the first time in history in our country where, just to be a citizen, just to not go to jail, you have to buy something.

This doesn’t include the Hannity shows and guests he’s had on who echoed same statements.

Sean Hannity tells viewers,

“Penalties for people who don’t get

government-mandated health insurance,

uh, jail time, a possibility?”

November 10, 2009:

If you just happen to be walking by the TV and the sound was off, you still got the news from Fox when they said at the bottom of the screen “Comply or go to jail.”

In a strange twist, a member of the Fox News team admits this was a falsehood spread by Fox News. Neil Cavuto has owned up to the myth Sen. Coburn was talking about.

“I’ve
researched this, and a
number of Fox
personalities had made that comment.”

Cavuto mentioned this fact the day after the O’reilly/Coburn interview, and even then O’reilly again went on his and insisted that  Sen. Coburn “didn’t really have his facts in line,” when it came to saying Fox News perpetuated the jail time myth.

2+2=7

If you are a viewer of Fox News of course you see that this is all just Lame Stream Media attack and spin, how in the hell could you see anything else? To you, Fox is just trying to keep the record straight and they are really having a hard time being the only name in news to give the “fair” and the “balanced”. The problem is, Fox news operates in another reality where they make up the facts and the research to back them up.  This is not the same as MSNBC spending night after night attacking Sarah Palin for using RNC donations for her clothes, her not returning the money for the ‘bridge to no where’ but spending it instead, or  her pimping for the Tea-Party Express which turns out not to be a grass-roots movement but a Republican Political Action Committee movement made up to fool real tea-party members into donating more money. All of that is real, researched truth,  which is the opposite of what you get when you turn to Fox News.

Look, if people want to believe in leprechauns and unicorns they can, there is nothing wrong with that. Thought and fantasy are still free in this world even if saying them out loud isn’t in some places. But for a “News” network to be considered ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ or ‘trusted’ or hell, ‘news’ they have to follow the same rules as the others. If they want to only report on the other sides scandals and misdeeds to make them out to be the party not to be trusted, so be it! If they want to only report on their sides altruistic ideals and actions to make them seem like better party ok. They can’t claim ‘fair’ or ‘balanced’ but ok, have at it. But they cannot just make stuff up and repeatedly get away with it.  Not if their goal is News. If their goal is money, your money..as much of it as they can get, then hell Bat Boy journalism for everyone ! But stop labeling the product incorrectly.

This network has pretty much reduced themselves to, “Bat boy journalism” yet they demand to be treated like real journalism and will cry like scorned little girls the minute they aren’t taken as seriously as a Walter Cronkite-like news organization. Unfortunately for those of us who chose not to believe in unicorns and Bat Boy, we are forced to defend that which is slanted, but true because that slanted journalism is the excuse for the fake or made up journalism. The problem then becomes that we inspire more slant instead of more neutral.

If we didn’t have to live through the consequences of Bat Boy journalism and the voting populists I’d say let them have their sensational stories because like any Jerry Springer episode, they can be good for a laugh.  It’s when we would have to suffer through the choices of the ‘believers’ that we get not just Jerry Springer on TV, but Jerry Springer in the White House that it becomes a detriment to all.

I’m not knocking Springer, but I don’t want this country governed by those who believe his show is on the same level of journalism as a slanted, but accurate,  Rachael Maddow.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

When does 2+2=4 become debatable? When it's politics, stupid!

There was another interesting conversation on muchedumbre.com the other day. It started when a poster accidentally slipped into the politikal section, a section usually avoided by most because it’s a cesspool of insults,misinformation and retardation (which I say with love in my heart since I am swimming around in that cesspool with the rest of them). Upon realizing his error, he looked around and said..

“Yeah, I don’t understand how to play here yet.”

This was met with the humorous , yet essential, advice of…

You have to throw in the occassional [sic] Fuck Off! and then I think you’ll have it..



Anyone who is part of a community like ours, may  find the words crude, but they know the advice is integral.  It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet, if one is bound by political party doctrine to ‘deny at all cost’, to live the motto of just say Hell No!’ it doesn’t matter if the other figure is is bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks, there’s going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate.

It was this ‘field guide’ that brought about an insightful reply from Chuck, and I put it here because of the debate it produced. It is probably the most childish,ridiculous and asinine  debate ever held by adults, but once again.. when the party of ‘Hell NO!” meets anyone saying “uh, yes”  intelligence, logic, and reason is soon lost as you will soon see.

Quote from: uselesslegs on March 31, 2010, 02:40:42 PM

Maybe I can explain it a little bit with some other happenings around the U.S.  Though they may seem very direct and to the point and not as “left to interpretation”…well…let’s start.

Item One.

Recently Scott Brown, newly elected Senator from Mass, has said and suggested that MSNBC host Rachael Maddow is going to run against him during reelections.  Through sources on his end, he’s said that she’s “secretly” gathering up steam and will file and run.  Maddow has stated on her show she is not running, has no intention of it.

End of story right?  Nopey.

Scott Brown was asked on a radio show, following Maddow’s statement,  what he thought of her statement that she wasn’t going to run.  He replied, without ever saying, “well, I guess that changes things, har har”, and instead replied, “mumble mumble….bring it on.”  Implying that he still believed she was indeed going to run and that he was ready for her.

Next Maddow, with her own money, took out a front page ad (in the area of interests) newspaper calling Scott Brown a liar and that she was definitely, emphatically, not running.  She had/has no desire to run and that this was getting silly and to quit saying or implying she was running and using her name to collect campaign donations from individuals, with a lie.

His reply?  He said her front page newspaper statement looked like it came straight from one of the writers at the DNC and that he thought Maddow would make an interesting candidate.  Thus never admitting that he (Mr. Brown) was in error and making sure to twice “imply” through his choice of words, that Ms. Maddow was and STILL IS a candidate.

Item two.

Nine members of a Michigan Militia group were arrested and charged with plotting to kill a law enforcement officer and then many others with homemade bombs, in hopes of starting an uprising against the Government…oh and to battle with the anti-christ.

You would think across the Blogosphere and forums alike, we’d see the individuals involved being denounced…but not so fast mister fancy pants…they’re being defended.  Not by seemingly other milita groups or like minded individuals…but rather…by individuals who are making sure to note that anything this current Government/Administration does is to be suspect and dubious.

You’d think something like this would be pretty cut and dry.  Wanna kill law enforcement officers, check.  Wanna kill many more people with homemade bombs, check.  Wanna be prepared and kill the anti-christ, check.  What is our governments REAL agenda here, che…what?

What you will find, in your journey here, will be two sides to the same coin, almost constantly at odds.  Oft times from political stances.  Oft times from personal interpretations…or both.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.

Welcome aboard, you poor fucker.


More than just being explanatory of today’s political world and how truth is ignored for rhetoric and whatever can incite the masses against any opposition, one part of that sticks out as so true it’s scary.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.


You would think adults all across the political spectrum could agree on that elementary concept, but they don’t. Because one side of the political spectrum has made it their goal for at least 4 years, to oppose anything coming from the current administration, 2+2 does not equal 4 if this administration or anyone speaking in favor of this administration is the one saying it. The Maddow/Brown debate is a perfect instances in a long, long list of other equally amazing 2+2 does not equal 4 examples. The fact that Ms. Maddow has said on her show, said in interviews, taken out a full page add to alert the world of the simple fact that unequivocally and emphatically she is not running against Scott Brown doesn’t matter to the party of “Hell NO!” because to them, 2+2 is not 4 and it is Scott Brown’s 2+2=3 equation that is the fundamental truth here.

The argument that this ‘2+2=4’ statement caused, ended up twisting logic until it no longer resembled its former self.  Some where along the way ‘fact’ became, and  is now, interchangeable with opinion,rumor and gossip.

Here’s an example

Keith Olbermann is biased and does slant opinions against the Right. But that does not mean he is making the news up and reporting his ‘rumor’ as fact. He may not focus on an issue like when a Democrat is caught having an affair with his mistress but he will spend 1/2 his show telling you about a Republican getting caught having an affair with his chief of staffs wife. Slanted, yes! but it is still based on the fact that the Republican did sleep with his chief of staffs wife. That nugget is truthful and not an opinion to be batted around until it becomes a truth in the eyes of the viewers[insert Obama not of US birth] .  Keith Olbermann, no matter how biased he is, is still telling you the truth when he’s telling you the Republican slept with his COS wife.

2+2=4

This goes unnoticed because those who want to de-legitimize everything even remotely ‘Left’, stick to their guns with the idea that since Olbermann is truthful in his bias , then so is Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck who made the opinionated allegation, without a basis in fact, that this President was an white-hating racist, is telling the truth and is delivering a fact because Olbermann reported more on the Republican than he did the Democrat. What’s worse, Beck has spent so much time repeating this concept that it’s believed by 31% of those polled. They can’t differentiate the difference in a “liberal news show’ talking more about a factual Republican scandal is not on the same untruthful level as another show presenting their opinions as facts until they become believed as the almighty truth. It is a ‘tit for tat’ that they just don’t get. Sure the Liberals and Democrats opposed George Bush, but when you look at why it’s not like they were wrong for opposing him. The US just does not torture or we just don’t preemptively  invade countries.. These are real,honest,valid and acceptable differences to have. Not liking the amount of time President Obama uses a teleprompter is just as valid of a complaint, saying he is therefore  unable to run the country, is not!

And yet, like everything else, that statement is somehow debatable…

So, back to my fundamental question, what is the arguement [sic] to believe 1 biased source but not another?


Fox news,most of the GOP,Sarah Palin and followers,Tea-party members along with the most if not all of the rest of the people trying to de-legitimize the other side of the aisle, have decided that their opinions and allegations are just as reliable as being truthful as actual facts given by an ‘enemy source’ whether that be MSNBC,Jon Stewart,President Obama,any Democrat leader or any left-leaning person out there.
When anyone tries to point this inaccuracy out, either they really can’t understand the concept that opinion is not fact and fact is not fiction if it’s told by liberal, or they just don’t care because their hate knows no bounds. Either way  they revert back to the concept of

You deem you are the ultimate say so on who is saying 1+1 = 2. And, incidentally enough, all the people you like get it right, and all the people you don’t like don’t get it right.

You are trying to process all this inside your own bias.

Your main problem, is you refuse to believe the bias of the broadcasters

Only when you understand that can you even begin to answer my question: How can we believe the truth when it comes from a biased source?


In order for me to understand, I need to believe Glenn Becks opinion that Obama is a white-hating racist.. when I accept this as truth, then I can see that  fact given by a biased reporter and opinion given by Fox News are the same thing.

2+2 =4 is now debatable and depending on where you ‘lean’ is what your answer is. Keith Olbermann, because he is biased and gives more time to Republican scandals, is not factually correct when he tells you the answer is 4 unless you also recognize that Glenn Beck telling you the answer is 3 is also correct because they are both biased. So either both are to be believed or neither are.

I told you this was going to be childish,ridiculous and asinine.

This argument of ‘slant and bias’ not affecting the actual truth is a fair point though.  You can have a conservative explain  a factual event and a liberal  explain  the same event and while the reasoning behind the event may be slanted and bias, that doesn’t change the facts of the event.  2 maybe a sissy-boy who liked to play with dolls growing up to the conservatives or 2 might have been a devoted pet-lover with a deep seeded love for parrots, but when added together 2 +2 is still going to equal 4.

It’s not that I am deeming only those I agree with as being ‘factual’ or that I disbelieve the other broadcasters, say Fox News, because of their bias.  It’s just that I deem those reporting  actual truths as being better than those reporting opinion as truth and that is the slight, but albeit glaring difference here.

Fox News is in the habit of reporting an opinion in a way that by the end of the day you can barely distinguish where opinion stops and fact starts and thus the opinion they started off with becomes as commonly accepted as the factual concept of gravity. For example, remember the ‘Czars’ Fox News went apoplectic on?

Obama’s Czars Spark Concerns Among Some Lawmakers

Although former U.S. attorney Alan Bersin and the late Russian ruler Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov appear to have nothing in common, thanks to President Obama, they now share a title.

The slant of the headline and first paragraph, makes it seem like the 1st time a head of a department was ever called ‘Czar’ was under President Obama.  Then there is the slant of the story itself

Czardom does not sit well with Sen. Robert Byrd. Though slowed by age, the West Virginia Democrat remains vigorous in his defense of the powers ceded to the Congress by the Constitution. He said he believes czars are a slick way of governing without having to answer to Congress.

There is no constitutional requirement that czars undergo those pesky Senate confirmation hearings.

Yes, those ‘pesky’ Senate confirmations.

If you watched Fox News during this “Fox News made up conspiracy” you would have thought Red Dawn was no longer fiction and we had been invaded by Russians, and with good reason! Glenn Beck let us know that President Obama, just a few short months into his 1st year, had 19 Czars and counting, compared to only 4 Czars in all of George Bush’s time. A month later, Greta Van Susteren  let us know that number had climbed to 30, she also raised the number of George Bush’s number of Czars from Beck’s 4 to 12. Who wouldn’t look at that and wonder, after being told how Communist President Obama was, what the hell was going on. The problem is, by most counts George Bush has 36 Czars filled by 46 different people. That’s a grand difference than Beck’s 4 and Greta’s 12. But this bad information was propagated day and night throughout the Fox News  “Fair and Balanced” 24 hour rotations.

If you had listened to Fox and Friends during the run up to the election,  you would have heard how then Senator Obama had tired of being asked whether or not he was Muslim and had said “Enough already. There’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but I have been a Christian for two decades now. Enough!”

When in fact, what he said was that he had been a Christian his entire life.

Does anyone remember the ‘indoctrinating our youth’ hoopla made up by Fox News?

Critics Decry Obama’s ‘Indoctrination’ Plan for Students

Which of course led to Fox’s next big question

Will You Keep Your Kids Home the Day Obama Speaks to Schools?”



That was answered with a “yes, yes we will”. But why wouldn’t they, here is a former Muslim, who is turning this country communist, all you have to do is look at his ‘Czar’ list to see that… This “Unprecedented’…  ‘First time ever’ talk to school children is something all parents should fear.

Except it was not ‘unprecedented’. It was not the first time it’s been done, Republican Presidents have done it before.

What about this symbol?

Missle Defense Agencys Web site featires a new red,white and blue logo-described as scarily similar to Obamas campaign logo, as well as the symbol of Islam

Missile Defense Agency's Web site features a new red,white and blue logo-described as 'scarily' similar to Obama's campaign logo, as well as the symbol of Islam

Fox didn’t let the fact that this symbol was chosen more than 3 years ago interfere with informing you of how Islam was coming for America, while Rachael Maddow spent her time thoroughly de-bunking this myth before it could make it into another Fox-made rumor turned into fact. Unfortunately it made it’s way throughout the blog-sphere anyway, even with the original blogger retracting his accusation .

At 2200 words I realize that I could spend ten times that amount just on examples of this idea  that Fox News takes rumor and allegation and reports them like they are fact until they become unquestionable fact, but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples.

Those of us who do agree  don’t just ‘deem worthy’ those who are speaking for our political side, we deem worthy those who speak the truth instead of made up rumors. That is the difference,  we chose to believe the ones who tell us 2+2=4,  because  they’re telling us fact. We chose them over those telling us 2+2=7 because they don’t like the ‘lame stream media’, liberals and this President saying otherwise.

You don’t have to take my opinion that Fox news has a problem with facts. (R) James Coburn echoed the same sentiment the other day. At a town hall meeting he said..

Sen. Coburn: “I want to tell you, I do a lot or reading every say and I”m disturbed that we get things like what this lady said [a women had questioned him on people being jailed for not having healthcare, which he flatly denied and said it made good TV on Fox to say this, but it just wasn’t true] and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected from what I know to the facts. And that comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country. And so please balance and be careful


He implored people to not to be biased by Fox news.

And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good.

David Frum, he’s a pretty big deal in the land of conservatives, said a few weeks ago,

Frum: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox.”

He was called into the bosses office the next morning and fired, but he says it wasn’t because of what he said.  Frum also posted a blog saying…

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Just the other day, Frum said

“Fox, like [Rush] Limbaugh has been pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry,…”




The agenda for Fox News is not the agenda of the United States, but the viewers have been lead by Fox news and others like them to believe that it is. Fox News is the business to get ratings which equals money, to do this they must stand out above all the other news programs, to do that they have to have a ‘shtick’ and they do. They ask a question or comment a rumor, they revert back to that ‘rumor’  throughout the day until the opposition is asked about said rumor, and their denial of the rumor is aired, and that’s when the rumor turns into fact.

Example

I heard the Seth Nobody liked to play with dolls when he was a little boy” a commentator on the early morning says.

“Is that so?” says the co-host? “Well Bob, drop that doll and tell us what the weather’s like outside”

Later in the day, on another gossip labeled “News”  show on the same network this rumor pops up again,

“I don’t know where I heard this, but you know Seth Nobody played with barbies as a boy”

to which the co-host replies

“Well that would explain why he dresses so good.”

Before 24 hour news, that might go on for a day or so.. but now, it only takes hours until  you will get a “journalist” from the same network asking someone in charge, or even another reporter on his show.. “People are saying Seth played with girls dolls as a child, do you think he should really be in charge of the more manly dolls like GI Joe?”

Now that this ‘rumor’ is gaining interest, because we all like the salacious more than the mundane.. other, more reputable news outlet being to report,

“Today Seth Nobody denied he liked to play with dolls as a child”

and viola.. Seth, who supported single payer insurance, started off his morning as a normal guy with just a different political view; but by the end of the day he became a ratings horse for a money and political power-hungry gossip labeled “News” network. Poor Seth is now a freak who played with dolls. This is planted and replanted throughout the cycle until it spreads through the viewers and becomes  a known fact to them.Normal, upstanding liberal political leader Seth is just a queer-bait who cross-dresses at night when he’s home alone. You don’t want to vote with him do you?

You can see this process in action here..

Ignoring all the other examples in this interview, when the interviewer gets to the question about VP Biden’s comment of how the US will be tested under OBama, look at the bias that brings an utter falsehood into the world of facts as we know them today…

“..are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America’s days as the world’s leading power are over?”

Well, no.. no he isn’t. That’s just your biased making things up and unfortunately getting too many people to believe you.

Of course we go back to the other ‘fear’ rumor which has made into a ‘fact’ that too many in this country believe as God’s honest truth.. Socialism

“What do you say to the people who say Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?”

The only people who were saying that was that interviewer, Fox News who wants rating and candidates who want power. It started as a fear technique to scare people out of voting for him, then it was passed around by the gossiping hens on Fox News, then their ‘journalists’ reported that all important  “People are asking….” it became not just news, but fact. William Randolph Hearst did this and it worked to make him rich just like it’s making Murdoch,Beck,Palin, Hannity and many others filthy stinking rich. Don’t believe me? Do you know what Rush Limbaugh gets for telling you these things?$400 million dollars!

Nah, he has no motive to make his show more interesting and keep his numbers up.

How about if they tell you themselves it’s all about the money, and controversy means cash.. would that change anyone’s perspective that they aren’t hearing truths, but what will make the person speaking more money?

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.

They are an ‘entertainment company’, and yet they’ve been able to convince most of the viewing population that they are the most trusted name in news. How is that even possible? Their goal is new entertainment and ratings.

As I said a few hundred words ago, I could go on and on, I could provide 1000’s of examples.. but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples, but in my quest.. I found an interesting ‘beginning’. Yes, the seeds were already there.. one only had to follow the 2008 campaign trail to see it, but something about this struck me like an “AHA! Here is where it really started to become true!” Because I think that up until that point, even with those at the town-meetings believing the rhetoric, it was still mainly a rumor. Until this broadcast sealed the rumor as truth forever. I found it on a blog called JOTMAN.COM. On this is site ‘Jotman’  has 3 videos shot the night of President Obama’s election win. One video is actually from Fox news the following morning showing a crowd of people at the gates of the White House, the broadcaster comments that they are probably drunk, her opinion of course,  and then she draws your attention to the flag someone in the crowd raises, it is the Russian  Communist flag. The Broadcaster is of course curious and wants this watched because ‘what does it mean?”, is it a sign?, do we need to fear this newly elected President or something just as ridiculous.

The second video is reportedly shot from inside the White House that same night, it’s the same crowd cheering at the gates, the man in the video sees the cheering and the flag and he is scared. As he says these  are  people coming out for Obama and cheering the fact that this country is going to change.. he just can’t believe what he is seeing. There is pushing and shoving, look there is the communist flag again, and torches! they’re all over the place it’s so ominous … it’s chaos!

Until you watch the video from the street.

The third video shows the crowd laughing,cheering,smiling and yes.. Chanting.

For the land of  the free….. and the home of the… Braaaaavvveeee!!!

Not to mention USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!

The horror!

Yes, there is the commie flag.. but instead of asking what the flag meant Fox News decided it meant communism was here and they must fight it every step of the way. Fox news knew that morning, like the mornings after every election there was bound to be some pretty pissed off people and they were going to stir up that emotion and bank it. That story was the perfect one to drop the ‘Hearst’ seed and watch it grow. It was  visual proof and with just the right question put to it, maybe another mention of it later, until finally reporting on as a fact in the later broadcasts, President Obama becomes an elected Communist .There was no need for anyone to hear the crowd, the silent view of it  with the added speculation would serve quit nicely. Those watching Fox that segment wouldn’t hear the glee and love for their country coming from that crowd, instead they would see a possibly drunken presence cheering the fact that communism has now come to America when she elected an Communist, Marxist, Socialist the night before. Before long Glen Beck would confirm their other fear, the fear that this  new president also hated white people.

We’ll never know what the flag meant one way or the other, we have video of the overwhelming happiness and pride in the country though, so to me it reinforces the rules of any political debate and that is  …It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet no matter if the figures are bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks there is going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate and to me, this was just a big Fuck you along with a cheerful  goodbye to the despotic  way the country was run for 8 very long years!

Of course this all just my opinion, not a fact and it’s because I know the difference that I deem others who also know the difference to be more worthy of my trust that those who don’t.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Let's just eliminate that dog.

This is who you protect when you wish for Obama to “fail”. This is the side you have chosen to stand with, protect and help defend.

Insurer ends health program

rather than pay out big

// dctile) document.write(‘n’);
// ]]>

// dctile) document.write(‘n’);
// ]]>

Ian Pearl has fought for his life every day of his 37 years. Confined to a wheelchair and hooked to a breathing tube, the muscular dystrophy victim refuses to give up.

But his insurance company already has.

Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl’s.

In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl “dogs” that the company could “get rid of.”

That’s right, Mr. Pearl, is a “Dog” that the company needs to “Get rid of”

Let’s put this is perspective for just a second. I told you about a friend of mine recently to try and put a face many of us know on this healthcare debate.  I wanted Chuck’s story to be on everyone’s mind as they were regurgitating the latest poison from Glenn Beck’s mouth. I wanted people to have a visual of the person they were condemning in their almost orgasmic need to have a United States President fail. A failure that  some of these people  dream of, masturbate to…pray for every chance they get. “At all costs” is the motto, “At any cost” is the pledge.

I failed of course, not even the plight of a great man and amazing friend to many of us made a scratch in the shell that surrounds these ideologues.

So I will try again.

Instead of Mr. Pearl, who has the same condition as Chuck, I want to you again put Chuck’s name, his face, his interaction with you, his “self”.. put him in this story. Does that do anything for you ideologues? Can you sit there and hear that Chuck is just a “Dog” who needs to be gotten “rid of” because he dared to buy an insurance policy, he dared to pay it, he dared to get a debilitating degenerative disease and most of all  he dared to not die quickly enough?  The company that waspaid to cover health costs  can’t cancel one ‘dog’  because it would be against the law, so they just cancel an entire state of ‘dogs’. Is there any face I can put on this problem that will make a dent?

You may say “Oh but Kelly, I’m sure the courts will stop the insurance company from canceling everyone with this kind if policy. I’m sure a judge will see that this man, Mr. Pearl will die if this insurance company is allowed to cancel his policy.” But you would be wrong.

A federal court quickly ruled that the company’s actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.

So much for that ‘check and balance’.

For those that abhor government intervention, will you cry with Glenn Beck if the  Health “Czar” Kathleen Sebelius orders the company to live up to it’s contract.

Sadly, we all know the answer to that… Yes, yes  you will.

Will those of you who even thought about trying to explain just how President Obama was creating “Death Panels” care to pick up your pitchfork against this actual ‘death panel’?  Mr. Pearl needs 24 hr nursing care, he is on a ventilator and needs hourly breathing treatments and continuous intravenous medication. Without this he will die, here is your Death Panel Sara Palin, will you ‘tweet’ about how evil this is? Will you take hundreds of thousand of dollars for a speech on this kind of injustice, will the people who aped your stupidity write Mr. Pearl or even Chuck’s name on a sign and demand they not be forgotten?

Sadly, we know the answer to that is.. no, no you won’t.

Guardian, a 150-year-old mutual company, reported profits of $437 million last year, a 50 percent increase over $292 million in 2007. It paid dividends of $723 million to policyholders and had $4.3 billion in capital reserves, according to its annual report. The company’s investment income totaled $1.5 billion that year, a small increase from the year earlier.

This is who you protect with your hatred of a President. This is who you protect with  your ‘at any cost’  ideologue.

“In an e-mail to four other Guardian executives entered into evidence in the Pearls’ suit, company Vice President Tim Birely discussed how the company could “eliminate this entire block to get rid of the few dogs.”

.. and don’t think you can get away with the argument of “Well, you Democrats are in power now and we can’t do anything stop you.” It’s condescending, it’s insincere and it’s bullshit. Most insulting of all.. you know it, snicker and use it anyway.

20 years ago a friend of mine took a ride with a person he had just recently started hanging around. He didn’t know him too well but he seemed cool and they got along. That night the new guy told my friend he was going to rob a local mom & pop grocer for some extra cash. My friend wasn’t a violent person, he wasn’t a criminal, he wasn’t a bad person in any way… but he because he was 17 and stupid he didn’t speak up.

The new guy went into the store while my friend waited in the car, he could have left at that point but for whatever reason he didn’t. After a few minutes the new guy came running back out, jumped in the car and away they went. They never spoke of what went on inside the store and it wasn’t until the next morning when the police showed up at his parents house to arrest him that my friend found out that the store owner had been shot and killed by the new guy. My friend was tried and convicted as an accessory to the crime and is on death row awaiting his date with the executioner. Does he deserve to die for a crime he had no part in? Some would say yes he does, but then again.. they would also be the ones to tell Mr. Pearl to go out and get a job if he wants health care.

The real “Dog” here isn’t Mr. Pearl and it isn’t Chuck or any of the other poor souls who have paid their premiums each month only to have them canceled because they did not die quick enough. The real “dogs” are the insurance company who cares more about an enormous bottom line over the lives they are supposed to be protecting. You all fighting reform at all costs.. at any cost, this is the dog you have allowed into your bed by not saying anything even when you know what they are doing is not only wrong, dangerous and against humanity, but could possibly be murderous. Just like the saying “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas”  this is on you whether you like it or not.

Lindsey Graham is currently finding that sad fact out. Arlen Specter and Colin Powell could have told him, but a conservative republican of Grahams stature, with his conservative record would have ignored their warnings just as the rest of the ideologues will ignore this liberal’s warning. When you go against the beast you create, the beast you’ve allowed to take over to fight your battle for you, when you go against it… you pay their price. It’s apropos that Graham is now the one to fight off charges that can not be defended because they have no basis in reality. “Fake Republican,” “RINO” (Republican in name only), a “traitor,” “disgrace,” “asshat,” “democrat in drag,” and a “wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy”.

The beast you fed,nurtured, appeased every step of the way while pretending “that’s  not what my belief..it’s theirs”.. and “Hey, you guys are in power not us”.. that beast is self-aware and is devouring your party.  That is who your next leaders will have no choice but to cater to. The metaphorically date with the executioner that you await for being an accessory to the crime, would be justice in and of itself if so many truly innocent people weren’t being punished along with you. Don’t believe there are ‘truly innocent’ people being punished? Well, I give you one final story

17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby

Denied Health Insurance

for Being Too Fat

Underwriters, the people who are in charge of assessing risk for insurance companies, have decided that baby Alex’s pre-existing condition — obesity — makes him a high-risk patient and have denied him coverage.

His parents were shocked.

“I could understand if we could control what he’s eating. But he’s 4 months old. He’s breast-feeding. We can’t put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill,” joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange, a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. “There is just something absurd about denying an infant.”


The beast you continue to actively support or just ignore because the end is justified by the means for you… denied a 4 month old, breastfed baby for the pre-existing condition of  obesity.

I hope you are happy with your creation.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]