If one could meld the Republican presidential candidates into a single person, what would emerge? I was thinking along the lines of Jekyll and Hyde and the result, as demonstrated by the illustration above, is not pretty. But then neither is the rhetoric being spoken by this crop of crazies. At any other time in American political history, a politician calling for the banning of contraception would be viewed as an extremist and relegated fringe candidate status. Not in today’s Republican party. Now he’s viewed as a welcome voice for Christian family values and made into a top tier candidate.
Ross Douthat believes that the 2012 Republican field is the weakest in a generation. And if it’s not, he adds the following as a way of explaining the reason why this gang of hapless Republicans may appear weaker than previous fields.
I think what we’ve seen in this cycle is the intersection of conservative media pathologies and mainstream media pathologies. The first has given us the rise of the cable news candidate, whose rhetoric and ambitions are geared toward a prime-time slot on Fox rather than the presidency, while the latter has encouraged the assumption that the Republican electorate is composed of fools, crazies and extremists, and therefore very likely to actually choose a cable news candidate as its nominee. Throw in a legitimately weak frontrunner, and you have the impetus for the seemingly endless series of quickly-dissipating boomlets that we’ve endured since last spring — all which will be seen in hindsight, I suspect, as sideshows in a race that was shaped more by who didn’t enter the field than by any of the non-Romney candidates who actually competed with him for the nomination.
I don’t believe any legitimate journalist is making the claim that that the entire Republican electorate is composed of fools and crazies. What they are saying though, is that an incredibly large percentage of Republican voters must be fools, crazies or extremists. How else does one explain support for twits like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry? I’m not being sarcastic or facetious here. Who but a completely uninformed or misinformed fool could possibly believe that any of the aforementioned politicians (the first two grifters, the last two idiots) are presidential material?
As for Douthat’s first point about the cable news candidates vying for a gig on Fox by way of a presidential run: spot on. Fox gig, the sale of more books, higher speaking fees – that’s what the Cain candidacy was all about.
The real problem here is that the Republican party has become so fractionated (Tea Party, religious right, neocons, establishment, fiscal conservatives, Libertarians, etc.) that no single person could embody the disparate wants of all of them. The result is what you now have; a cast of kooks led by a Mitt Romney, a man so desperate to be everything to everyone that in the end, he is nothing.
…
Contest Time
First person who matches facial part in the above illustration with candidate wins a personalized illustration or photo graphic from me. Write your answers in the comment section. Note that there are 8 facial parts (hair 1, hair 2, eye 1, eye 2, ear, nose, mouth, chin) and seven Republicans to match up with. Yes, one of the candidates was kind enough to contribute two of their facial parts to the morphed illustration.
Go for it.
UPDATE:
No one from the Comments or emails (please use the comment section next time for this type of thing – thanks) guessed the answer correctly. Here’s how the facial parts and candidates matched up.
___
Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.
Hair is Bachmann and Romney. Nose is Santorum. Ear is Gingrich. Eyes belong to Perry and Huntsman. Chin is Gingrich. Mouth is Paul.
Romney – hair and chin
Bachmann – hair
Perry – eye
Gingrich – mouth
Huntsman – eye
Santorum – ear
Paul -nose
I’d say this group is as weak as the 2008 version. It’ll probably be a while before Republicans field a strong list of contenders. Smarter conservatives with presidential potential are too afraid to run in the current climate of Republican politics. Huntsman is the perfect example. The most electable guy in the group and he’s running at the rear of the pack.
The contest, same as Murkey except the nose is Paul’s and the mouth is Santorum. Not sure if the hair on the left side is Romney’s or Huntsman’s but I’ll keep it as is.
hair 1, Bachmann
hair 2, Huntsman
eye 1, Paul
eye 2, Perry
ear, Paul
nose, Romney
mouth, Santorum
chin Gringrich
I want to add, Mario, that’s one damn scary picture! EWWWWWOOOO!
“Who but a completely uninformed or misinformed fool could possibly believe that any of the aforementioned politicians (the first two grifters, the last two idiots) are presidential material?”
This, coming from the team who picked an inexperienced college professor? If he hadn’t had Reid and Pelosi pushing him, he wouldn’t have accomplished anything in the first 2 years.
Great picture.
See ‘Update’ to post on how the illustration was created. No winners but one person from email guessed 7 of the 8 parts so she gets the prize.
@Diana: Not half as scary as what a White House with one of these people running it would do to your beloved country.
@Tommy: I always find it interesting that when anyone from the right is willing to admit that there has been some good in the last three years, the President never gets the credit.
Examples:
bin Laden killed: credit goes to Bush
jobs numbers improving steadily: credit goes to Republicans in Congress
On the other hand, every evil of the last three years is Obama’s fault. The best example is of course, the economy. To hear the right speak, it’s as if the economy was riding along at a healthy clip right up until January 2009.
I sometimes wonder where you get your information. “…Reid and Pelosi pushing him…”. Where does that baseless claim come from? You might not like the policies of this President but it’s plain partisan and silly to not acknowledge that many of the key promises (not all) he made in the election campaign have become policy or acted upon in some fashion – Affordable Care Act, stimulus, DADT, Iraq, Afghanistan.
As well, he has many other accomplishments:
And that’s a partial list. But according to you and your sources, none of it would have been done by the President if not “pushed” by Reid and Pelosi.
Okay, if you say so.
I’m glad that you see those as accomplishments. I don’t.
And how do you know that my claim about Reid and Pelosi is baseless? He was a political rookie, walking into the toughest job in the world, and he had two liberal dynamos chomping at the bit to pass a long list of progressive agendas. “Baseless” would be saying that he was behind all of those “accomplishments”.
And actually, the economy was clipping right along until Pelosi took over.
And why are they not seen as accomplishments, Tommy?
Might it be because you’re not gay, and therefore equal rights (also known as gay rights) is not a concern for you?
Might it be because you’re not poor and therefore acquiring adequate health care is not a concern for you?
Might it be because you’re of good health and preexisting conditions is not a concern for you?
Might it be because you have never been a victim of hate and therefore have no need for a hate crimes bill?
Might it be because you’re a man and therefore the basic right of women deciding what to do with their bodies is not an important issue for you?
How about the environment? Is that a concern for you, Tommy? If so, then why is the investment in clean energy not worthy of your praise? Is an accomplishment for you only things which directly affect you?
What if one of your kids turns out to be gay? Would gay rights be important to you then?
What if one of your kids fell on hard times? Would access to health insurance be important to you then?
Tommy,
“And actually, the economy was clipping right along until Pelosi took over.”
You seriously blame Pelosi for the financial crisis – because she became Speaker of the House?
Call me stunned at your utter lack of knowledge…make that partisanship that so blinds you, you can’t face facts.
That alone should tell you what’s wrong with this country more than anything else.
What’s wrong with this country, Diana, is the way people treat those with whom they disagree.
And Mario, which one of those accomplishments involves less governmental interference in people’s lives?
In my opinion, the distinctions between the two “camps” in this country are clarifying. One camp thinks that people need to be controlled to prevent them from doing something wrong. The other camp thinks that people only need to be controlled after they’ve done something wrong.
You know where I stand.
“The other camp thinks that people only need to be controlled after they’ve done something wrong.”
Would health insurance companies refusing to insure people with preexisting conditions be considered doing “something wrong”…or do you really not give a damn about people at all? Would you really rather let someone die (as tens of thousands do each year) then loosen up on your Ayn Randish philosophic bent?
You rarely answer questions directly, Tommy. You hide behind your ‘less government’ mantra as if it justifies everything. You don’t see, for example, extending equal rights to gays as an Obama accomplishment but when asked if you might think differently should you discover that one of your children was gay, you remain silent.
I have no doubt that you are a decent human being who would not hesitate to help someone in desperate need should they seek your help. It is that which I find most confusing about you and people like you. It would be much more understandable if I knew you wore a white hood in the evenings and went around bombing mosques and abortion clinics. But you don’t. Yet you defend political positions which while pretty on paper, kill people. Do you get that, Tommy? Real people are dying each day from lack of health insurance and other flaws in the US health care system. This president tried to rectify that by introducing reform which a mere decade ago was promoted by the same people you vote for each election cycle. And yet, you just don’t seem to care and it is that attitude which I believe is wrong with America.
Tommy still hasn’t figured it out. One side cares about people. The other side doesn’t.
Ok, here are some direct answers. I’ll ask you to reciprocate when I ask mine.
If one of my children were gay, I would want them to be treated as a human being, nothing more, nothing less. Passing laws that make hurting someone worse because you hate them for who they are, is about the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard of. You either hurt them, or you didn’t. Why you did it, shouldn’t enter into the equation. It moves us from a culture based on the rule-of-law, to one based on the rule-of-man. It’s arbitrary. Talk about bigotry.
As a business, health insurance companies can’t survive paying for the medical bills of people who have pre-existing conditions. Now, I know most of you wouldn’t have a problem if they went out of business, because most of you want the government to pay for all medical expenses. Is that right? (That, by the way, is a direct question to you).
Most of what I espouse has to do with freedom of choice. I help when I can, when I’m asked. I don’t want to be TOLD to help, because that takes away my choice. It’s a slippery slope. If you give up choice once, you’ll give it up forever. I find that most people, who are ok with the idea of using government to take away people’s choice, are the same people that benefit from what government has to give them. This is a freedom issue, Mario. It’s a fundamental position of having choice in our lives. The more power we give government to take from us, the less choice we as individuals will have. That is not the sort of thing that made America a great country.
And I think one side cares about whether they bother other people, and the other side cares about what they get from other people.
It’s not about the government covering medical costs. It’s about making health care affordable for all. Is that not a worthy goal?
As for your answer on gay rights, I honestly am not sure what you’re saying…
(?what the hell are you talking about?)
…but that part about everyone being treated as a human being, well that’s all that is being asked by the gay community. They’re not looking for special status. They just want the same rights as you. Is that asking too much, Tommy? Is that an infringement on your sacred rights and freedoms? If it is, then you might want to start reevaluating exactly what freedoms really mean.
If your son and was thrown out of the military for simply being gay, would you be ok with that? What would you say to some guy who tells you that gays have no right serving in the military?
DADT is gone because of a president who you claim has no accomplishments. Deal with that.
And while you ponder and preach on rights and freedoms, thousands of Americans die each year because of that broken health care system which the party you support wishes to do nothing about. And that, Tommy, is criminal.
Tommy may I ask you where this jibes with wanting the government to make laws about reproduction?
” I find that most people, who are ok with the idea of using government to take away people’s choice, are the same people that benefit from what government has to give them.”
Ron Paul who is the titular head and spokesperson for the Libertarian party wants to make birth control illegal and Doctors who preform abortions jailed, so does Santorum and most of the republicans now in congress or running for president. Does it seem to you that the government should be intervening in that most personal and private decission for families?
Please answer me, since this is very serious question.
Tommy,
You said, “Passing laws that make hurting someone worse because you hate them for who they are, is about the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard of. You either hurt them, or you didn’t. Why you did it, shouldn’t enter into the equation.”
You simply want it to be what it was before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It was called Jim Crow. People were allowed to discriminate by keeping a group of people from voting, from getting a decent education, living where they wanted to, shopping where the wanted, eating where they wanted to, staying in hotel where they wanted to and on and on with no consequences for there treatment of others because of the color of their skin.
You can’t keep people from hating, but you can create consequences ONLY WHEN they ACT upon their hatred. They can keep it to themselves and hate all they want, but hurting others just as other criminals do when robbing or murdering or whatever has consequences. The only difference with the hate crimes bill is MOTIVE and motive often plays a roles in the sentencing for various crimes – sex crimes against children is one. You want that one tossed out, too?
You can push this meme all you want and it still comes back to this – we all have to have rules. We live in a society made up of a bunch of other people who have to get along — which means everyone gives up a bit of freedom so that civil order can be maintained
My advice – accept that role or pack up your ditty bag and take you and yours elsewhere – say Somalia. Because in every single industrialized country you’re going to find that there are laws on the books about fair treatment for everyone. Germany enacted theirs following WWII. We seem to be the only country in the world with this awful history that hangs around our necks that requires laws to make people treat each other fairly…unless, of course, you’re a corporate person – then you get more rights than real live breathing people get.
You live in a country where the majority makes the rules and the rest of us agree to live by them and, if not, then work to get them repealed. But until they’re repealed, you live by them. And I’m guessing 75% of the population is not going to let you and Ron Paul have their way. Got it?
Maybe you all need to move to Texas and secede.
Hey, this looks like a good dog pile :)
I just want to give my opinion of Hate crime legislation, which seems to be what Tommy is getting at. Initially, I agree with the argument from the right, “why give minorities special rights?” In a perfect (or better) world that would not make sense. But we live in THIS world – where blacks and gays and latinos (etc…) have historically found themselves relying on justice from prejudiced juries in regions of this country where they simply don’t like their kind. When the defense team in the Mathew Shepard case argued that the good ole boys who killed him were motivated by the belief that Mathew had made a pass at them, it told us all we need to know about homophobia and the justifications used. Fortunately, the defense did not work in that case. It has in many others. There are many stories of blacks from the south that fall in that category. Juries have often let people go based on petty prejudice.
As usual, the ideals of the Libertarians are oft based on a world which has never been tested or experienced.
“It’s not about the government covering medical costs. It’s about making health care affordable for all. Is that not a worthy goal?”
Mario – There are economic reasons why the price of health care is high. a) Government, through Medicare, Medicare, and many other programs, have thrown a ton of money at the medical industry. “Too much money chasing too few goods.” b) A third party payer system takes consumer oversight out of the equation. c) Limited competition due to government restrictions of the health insurance industry.
Before we try throwing more money at the medical industry, (which is what the medical industry wants), let’s try removing the barriers to lower costs.
dinamic – No.
Diana – I have said many times, in many ways, that there should be laws to punish those that harm others. There are standards that the government is in charge of enforcing. I feel however, that the role of government is as a referee, not a coach.
ocLiberal – “As usual, the ideals of the Libertarians are oft based on a world which has never been tested or experienced.”
I like you, oc. You’re rational. I find it ironic, however, that liberals attack libertarians as dreamers, when all we’re doing, is presenting real world options to reach the peaceful and abundant world liberals keep saying they want.
Do you guys want peace and abundance, or not? You won’t get it, if all you offer is more control.
Tommy,
You’re perceptions of why the cost of health care is high have no basis in fact. They’re simply talking points someone put forth that have been picked up by people like you who have little understanding of how the health care system works. Let’s start with the money thrown at the medical industry by Medicare, Medicaid and many other programs.
1 & 3) Much of the R&D done in the medical industry has been funded by the government – why? Because R&D is damned expensive and offers no guarantees the outcome of that R&D will be successful. Without government funding by the military, NASA, NIH, DHS, etc. there are many drugs and medical inventions we simply would not have. Those lovely MRI machines that are used thousands upon thousands of times daily around the world – came about because of NASA. And it wasn’t NASA scientist’s that only did that development – it was a partnership with the private sector that developed and built these machines and now it is the private sector that profits from that development – NOT government. The citizens who paid for it, however, gain from the wondrous diagnostic tool it is. The flip side is the manufacturing of these machines is still extremely high because it is not a machine that needs to be found in every home or on every street corner.
“According to the OECD Health Data 2009, published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), there are over 7,950 MRI scanners in the US, which equals 25.9 MRI machines per million population. With these figures, the US ranks number two among all the countries studied by the OECD.”
And because of this, the cost to get an MRI is in the thousands, not in the hundreds.
Now if you want to complain about the Bush drug giveaway, I’m right there with you. But there are two sides to this and it seems you are ignoring one of them.
If you think these companies are going to put up the kind of R&D money it takes to develop some of this stuff, you simply don’t understand the risks and costs. We still wouldn’t have drugs for AIDS, if we were waiting on the drug companies. The other part of the equation is — what percent of the population needs this type of drug or device? Why do you think there have been so few advances in physical disability inventions — until now. Now that we have so many of our wounded soldiers returning who have these disabilities. And who is helping to pay for the advances in technology? The taxpayers are funding much of the research, because we now have a greater need for it. And the competition is occurring between scientists, not only in the private sector, but in the public sector in universities – to see who can develop the drug or device first, so they can be rewarded with the next R&D grant because of their previous successes.
Certainly there are private companies doing this as well, but the really heaving lifting for drugs that are needed for a small select group of people where there is little market for the use of the drug or device will always need government funding to get it done. If there is no potential for large profits for the private developers, they’re simply not going to invest in it.
2) You advocate taking third party payers out of the system because it takes “consumer oversight” away. Okay,
you tell me – what’s the protocol for back surgeries? Or cancer treatment? Let’s try something simpler. How about the difference between these CPT codes….99205 and 99201? Do you know what a CPT code is? Do you know who developed a CPT code? (Hint…it was not the government.) Do you know what the quack medical devices are that are being used throughout the health care industry are and shouldn’t be paid for by the consumer? How about an ICD-9 code? Any idea what that is, how it’s used or even who developed those codes and why?
Now let’s get back to the MRIs – How is the consumer supposed to know that the MRI study his/her doctor sends them off to was done because the doc felt they really needed an MRI or because said doc has a financial interest in the facility or is getting a kickback from said facility to send his/her patients there to get a test?
It’s hard enough for third party payers to detect these problems — and they have data sets (not ones they share with others, but that’s another problem) they can use to see these relationships. One the consumer will NEVER have. And I don’t think Angie’s List is going to help consumers figure this out.
And this is just the tip — there are many more underlying issues –just a few are: funding for medical schools (and other universities), underwriting the cost of non-insured health care at hospitals, subsidies to make sure there are providers in rural areas of the country where there is little profit motive for the health care community to be there, underwriting employer’s cost of health care premiums, grants, scholarships, and student loans to educate providers; the cost of consumer protection reviews for approval of devices and drugs to assert their benefits and their proper use by the medical community, working with various professional associations and boards to develop protocols that will produce effective and COST saving results, by making recommendations for best practices vs. what has been proven to not be effective treatments.
We have people in this country who can’t balance a check book and you want to let them decide what type of health care they should choose to receive? How about the seniors in early stages of dementia, where the problems they are experiencing haven’t even yet been diagnosed? Or those with mental disabilities? Or just the average Joe who has no clue how this stuff works — this is what you are advocating. Go read a medical article and then come back and tell us how many medical terms you had to look up before you could understand what the hell they were talking about.
What you are advocating is a kindergarten solution for something requiring an M.D., J.D. PhD, MBA and a CPA degree.
You said:
Well, well, well – we are in agreement since that is exactly what these types of laws do – provide enforcement by the use of punishment for those who break the law. You see there are NO laws that PREVENT crime, so the government is always the referee, not the coach.
At first glance, I was wondering how you have time to write all of this stuff. But then it occurred to me, most of your points are “…simply talking points someone put forth that have been picked up by people like you who have little understanding…” of how business and economics work.. You think it’s all greed and selfishness, and that only government is altruistic.. Tell that to the people of North Korea. I can’t even describe to you how dangerous your viewpoint is to a free people.
“We have people in this country who can’t balance a check book and you want to let them decide what type of health care they should choose to receive?”
And your justification for not giving consumers oversight over the costs, is that people who don’t want them to have that oversight have made the system complicated?
Well, you say that libertarians are “presenting real world options to reach the peaceful and abundant world liberals keep saying they want.” That is fine and there is much upon which we could really agree. But all I can judge by is what I see. Can you name persons of notoriety other than Ron Paul who hold your belief system? As Dinamic points out, Ron Paul often says things I agree with until it comes to morality and Religion according to some arbitrary evangelical worldview. I guess I need to learn more about the philosophy apart from Ron Paul.
I’ll invite you to explore on your own, oc. lp.org is a great place to start.
Let me enlighten you some more, Tommy. I retired for 3 years before the freaks on Wall Street blew up my 401K, so I had plenty of time to do research. But my research began long before that. My job required that I get good at research.
And I am very, very good at research. I’ve had many bonuses over the years to back that claim up.
Having spent close to 20 years investigating medical clinics and learning about all the junk science running around out there passing itself off as FDA approved (when it’s not) or being billed for something other than what the FDA approved it for — I’ve learned quite a bit. I’ve learned about up-coding bills, unbundling them, billing for services not rendered and using modifiers so the billings can be increased.
I’ve also sat in on Chiropractic Board meetings to see how some of this stuff gets approved — boards used to typically take the word of the sales rep that something did what the claimed it did and was FDA approved – even when it wasn’t. It’s better now than it used to be…but not by much.
I’ve also seen how the boards discipline. I am not impressed. I’ve read hundreds of disciplinary reports and found the Boards (and the Attorneys General) are more afraid of a law suit by a health care provider for taking away their “right to earn a living” (even if people die) than they are of the clueless general public, many of whom don’t even know these boards exist.
I’m a single person, my kids are grown and I happen to care VERY deeply about this country and, I always found that if I wanted to offer some solutions, then I’d damned well better know the subject matter before opening my mouth and looking like a fool. Something you might want to consider.
I don’t DO talking points – I do research. You should try it sometime – with the advent of the Internet it’s a whole lot easier than running off to the library for information – something I never had time for.
But beware of the “Internets” — there are foolish people out there who like to spout talking points, without having done their own research – and others are just dumb enough to keeping spreading the BS without doing their own research. You’ll find much of their garbage in your spam box.
If you would like some suggestions, I’d be more than happy to post my list of resources – you can even sign up on many of their websites so they’ll send you information daily, weekly or monthly. The information will come to you and you won’t have to waste your precious time looking for it.
I will say once again – I don’t think all corporations are bad, no more than I think all health care providers are crooks. What I do know is that some of them are and while you believe people will be altruistic all on their own, I know better.
I don’t believe government is altruistic – if it were, we wouldn’t be running around the world pissing people off and getting involved in one war after another. We wouldn’t have people on the streets in need of food and shelter. There would be no war on poverty, as it would have been solved. We’d have full employment because government would hire them. We wouldn’t be putting people in jail for minor drug violations to keep the private prison industry happy.
As far as your comment about North Korea – really, you’re serious? You and I and everyone on this site knows that would never happen in this country. You’re just spinning BS and fear mongering and we all know it. It only goes to show you’ve got no argument, if you have to pull that out of your crack.
As for my so called “justification” – if we were all smart enough to be a doctor, we wouldn’t need them would we? I guess if we all knew Latin, since diseases are named using Latin, we’d have a head start. Personally, I took Russian in high school and college, so i still have to look them up even after all the years in the business.
Just for a FYI – the CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes are developed by the American Medical Association. They were created so that providers could properly code their procedures so insurance companies (and lay persons, if they chose to find out) could make the appropriate payment.
They’re much like the estimate the body shop gives you for the repair of your car. Tell us – do you repair your own car, too? You understand how the engine, transmission and computers all work? Do you know the names of all the parts to your car? I mean, if you’re going to take it to the body shop to have it fixed, it would be a good idea to tell them which panel needs to be repaired and how much time it’s going to take to fix it – or, if it should be replaced rather than repaired. Of course, you could just replace everything — but, wow, it it only took a an hour of labor of say $50 to fix it and it cost $500 to replace, it would be wise to know what the hell it is you’re doing…don’t you think?
How about all the nerves and bones and muscles and organs in your body? Do you know where they are, what their names are, what they actually DO in there? How about the tendons, arteries? How about where the nerves go through little holes in the bones to get from one place to another? How about we talk just about the brain? All the lobes and which sections do what and what if you get cancer in the brain? Then what? What are the options? Which choice is best? Heaven help you if you live out in the country and don’t have access to a medical library or the Internet!
The ICD-9 codes, excuse me, now 10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) were created by the World Health Organization so that where ever in the world you traveled, health care providers around the world would be able to communicate via these codes so you could be treated properly for your illness or disease.
Yeah, Tommy, the system is complicated. Much more so than your car or your house and there is no easy way to unwind that complication. Just try to and watch the AMA, PhARMA, the DME companies, and insurance companies come screaming to the table. Oh yeah, we did that, didn’t we?
I think government has it’s place but more than that I think those in charge of our government — not the everyday folks who work there just doing their jobs like the rest of us do every single day — but those with the real power. The Senators and Representatives and the President who put forth (or block) policy and laws that have an effect on each and every one of us. They are the ones out of control…at least those of them who have put their own sick lust for power and greed ahead of the citizens of this country whom they claim to represent. Those who put their ideology ahead of picking up a white paper done by a non-partisan research group that has done their research to identify a problem and then offered some solutions and the party hacks just can’t stand the fact that science and research have meaning…and just declare it elitism and junk science. Or those who want to keep their jobs by kowtowing to the extremes of their party, rather than standing up to their nuts and declaring it is country first, the job second.
When you want to have a serious conversation about the health care system, Tommy, just let me know when you’ve finished your research on the subject and we’ll talk. Until then, you’re wasting my time because you clearly have no understanding of it at all.
And, if you want to find solutions for the problems in this country, then you’re going to need to find the time to do the research or read the research of others so you can offer some realistic solutions and then you need to keep in mind that you will always need to compromise with those who don’t agree with you. But, then that is the art of politics – the ability to compromise. That, too, seems to be lost today.
If you care about this country – then you’ll make the time. Otherwise, you can spout off all you want to and offer nothing. But then you’ll get nothing in return.
I feel bad for you, Diana. You’re holding a lot of hate and distrust. I’d like to suggest that you consider the possibility that your view of the world, is a reflection of something inside of you.
Don’t feel bad for me, Tommy – your pity is misplaced.
Feel bad for the people who wear rose colored glasses who get scammed every day by people who have no problem in taking advantage of others because they are not willing to spend a little time to educate themselves enough to know the difference between those who would do them harm or trick them or cheat them vs those who would not.
A friend of mine has a motto for her business: “Fighting Fraud Through Education and Communication” – That’s what she and I and others like us do.
Sadly, there are people who have no desire to be educated, who apparently believe ignorance is bliss. You can educate people who want to learn, but there’s an old saying out there – “you can’t fix stupid.”
That doesn’t sound like hate and distrust to me. It sounds like experience and knowledge. People get a little bitter when they pay through taxes for corrupt systems that fail the very citizens they are designed to serve.
Speaking of which: http://www.itnonline.com/article/government-files-150-million-complaint-against-imaging-company-medicare-referral-kickbacks
I rest my case when it comes to fraud in the medical community.
Well Done Diana,
I love the way you think ! Thanks for being a wonderful (and vocal) source of information,
Goldensun
PS – Thank You Mario for providing the venue for such a lively discussion of important issues.
Thank you GoldenSun and OC. I do appreciate your comments. I wish there was an easy fix to our health care problems, but over and above how complicated the system is, our political leaders are doing us no favors in how they discuss it — they only make matters worse with their so called easy solutions and obfuscation.
Excellent discourse Diana. Good work!
The more I come to understand the Libertarian point of view, as described by Libertarian’s such as Ron Paul and Tommy, the more a particular quote comes to mind-
“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” -Einstein
I think it is somewhat natural for people to want to distill everything down into an easy to proclaim manifesto. A simple statement of beliefs, lacking any complexity, nuance or exceptions. This is just human nature, the need to have simple rules to live by, that apply to everything. The problem is that the world, and it’s problems are extremely complex, and cannot be reduced into such simple terms. While the Libertarian ideals look so noble and practical on paper, they break down when applied to the real world. For us, it is enough to go through the thought experiment to see that this break down occurs, time and time again. But for people who are adherents of it, like it is some religion, they cannot let go. It is now a matter of faith that these principles are indeed correct regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. One cannot just “let go” of this kind of belief.
If we were able to setup a parallel universe just like this one, with the only exception that everyone lived by the Libertarian code, and in this parallel universe this would-be utopian society failed. The adherents, true-believer’s they are, would only give the explanation that the universe was setup wrong, by disbeliever’s, and that is why it was doomed to failure. So, in that light, we are wasting our breath trying to use reason with folks like Tommy. What can possibly change this?
Another quote just came to mind, I think I originally read it here at this blog-
“Conservatives define themselves by what they oppose.” -George Will
I urge anyone to look into both Libertarian and Conservative manifesto’s anywhere. This is so definitely true! They are filled to the brim with statements of opposition.
Can you imagine trying to live your life that way? It cannot be done!
Here, we can try the dialog:
Q: “Where are you going?”
A: “I’m against going to the mall, the restaurant, Bob’s house, …”
“But I asked you where you are going??”. “I also oppose travel to destinations greater that 50 miles…”
“What???”
Q: “What do you want to get to eat?”
A: “I don’t want any meat, beans, or legumes of any kind.”
“But what do you want to eat??”. “I cannot eat any coconut products including coconut milk…”
“Huh??”
And this goes on and on. You get the point. One cannot live their life by what they are not doing. Only defining the direction they don’t want to travel. I believe, this is the very basic reason why their philosophes are doomed to failure.
Kudos to you Used to be… Very insightful and I love the way you presented your argument. And, sadly, so very true.
How did we get here? With all the differences between conservatism and liberalism I have no recollection of there being such an entrenchment of ideas. There always seemed to be room for compromise and a willingness to want to move the country forward. Now the goal seems to be to move us backward or over a cliff. They want smaller government – something like the early 19th century it seems, but fail to recognize we no longer live in a 19th century world.
Sure government could be made more efficient. And we have the technology today to do it. Obama is now attempting to do it – as he discussed during his campaign in 2008. We’ll have to wait and see if the “smaller government” folks want to support it. They obviously have reversed themselves on taxes, and their preference is perpetual war – which will always grow government. They blocked Obama’s nomination for the woman he wanted to appoint to review government agencies to see what was being duplicated and ways to streamline. So I guess the smaller government stuff is not so much, too.
How does one deal with people like this and then step all over themselves to lie in order to support their position? How do people blindly accept this claptrap and explain what goes on around them?
It’s all beyond my comprehension.
I was discussing this thread with my wife this morning. She said, “Complexity is used to hide the truth. Simplicity is natural. Complexity is intentional.”
That’s why I love this woman.
“Simplicity is natural. Complexity is intentional.”
Interesting thought there, Tommy’s wife, but it all depends on whether you are referring to the problem or the solutions. I tend to see complexity as a natural order and the viewing of complex structures (or problems) as superficially simple as the part which is deceitful. That said, from complexity one can derive simplicity.
May I direct you to a short talk given at TED which might help shine some light on why complexity is a challenge but should not be feared. The idea here is that attempting to solve complex problems by taking into account all of the influencing factors will most often lead to failure. A better approach might be to isolate exactly what part of the problem we wish to alter or ‘fix’ and then determine the influencing factors within a certain range of the isolated node.
Can complicated answers to complex problems be used to “hide the truth”? Absolutely. The world of politics is a goldmine for this sort of approach to problem solving. Cloak the fixes in so many layers of complexity that we lose sight of what the problem was.
But at the same time, seemingly simple solutions to complex problems can be just as deceitful. This is the sort of approach that politicians on the campaign trail use all the time – so-called solutions to complex issues which can be spitted out in a 10 second soundbite. e.g. 9-9-9 or rewriting the tax code to fit on the back of an envelope. Sounds pretty but totally impractical.
So while solutions to complex problems can be simple in nature, a careful analysis and understanding of the problem is first required. Deluding oneself into believing that the problem itself is not complex leads to false, unworkable solutions.
If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Panes comment regarding his wife’s quote “Complexity is used to hide the truth. Simplicity is natural. Complexity is intentional”, is the premise behind the scientific principle of “Occam’s Razor”.
The principle is often summarized as “simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones.”
The intent of this principle, in regard to scientific theory, suggests we should “tend” towards simpler theories UNTIL we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. It was not intended as a law of physics.
Personally in life’s experience, I find that Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam’s razor:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”.
Mario – I was taught by my Dad that, “the best solution, is a well defined problem”. He said that you have to start with an idea of what something is supposed to look like when it’s working. Then you can figure out what’s preventing it from working.
In politics, we’ve yet to reach a consensus on the role of government. When we’ve all come to an agreement on what the role of government is supposed to be, whatever that turns out to be, then whatever is done beyond that agreement can be considered a problem.
In my opinion, politics is so partisan right now because of how many people have become aware of how far the federal government has strayed from the Constitution, which was supposed to be that original agreement.
This statement could literally be exhibit A. for the point I was trying to illustrate earlier.
You can’t possibly still be missing the point. You’re just messing with us now. right?
In case you are actually stating this sincerely.
1. Mario is correct, the natural order continually grows more complex and irreversibly so. see The Second Law of Thermodynamics
I just found another quote there, and I love it-
“Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics.” -Seth Lloyd
2. “Complexity is used to hide the truth.” and “Complexity is intentional.” really? You’re taking a statement which is obviously true only sometimes and presenting it as an axiom.
Why not say- Words are used for telling lies. (…those pesky words!)
You really don’t see that as oversimplification?
Well, here’s another example of oversimplification for you. I’ve heard this one stated in debate by Ron Paul, here it is from his website-
* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.
…and from the Libertarian website you recommended earlier lp.org-
Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems.
Again, really? Pollution is a problem of property rights? and property owners should take polluters to court?
This might be the single dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. It’s so ridiculous, I can’t believe anyone said it out loud.
So, if I understand correctly, If pollution is detected or suspected, and unwanted(people who don’t detect it or know any better, well, it’s ok for them to get sick and die), it is the duty of the individual(s) who are effected to sue someone? (because multibillion dollar corporations with teams of lawyers on staff, are people too, right?)
So, Grandma, on her social security (wait a second, social security is evil too, so that wouldn’t be around) would need to hire the out-of-work EPA scientists, and spend her very last pennies testing air, soil, and water samples to determine why her cough might not be going away, or why she died two weeks earlier.
And if she IS able to detect pollution, then she needs to prove it in court! good luck grandma!
Grandma is going to have a tough case to make. Well, she has a lot of time on her hands anyhow.
This is ludicrous!
Wouldn’t be much better to try and stop the pollution BEFORE it happens? before people get sick and die.
There is no logic that can support exclusively righting wrongs AFTER the fact. This is just common sense.
The former is another example of gross oversimplification, so that it can be easily digested in one simple sound byte.
To me this this is true deceit (or blatant stupidity?)
How do you have an “idea of what something is supposed to look like when it’s working” when you have no idea what the component parts are?
And as far as ” we’ve yet to reach a consensus on the role of government.” — We’ve been at it for over 200 years, what makes you think there ever will be one? There’s not supposed to be – there is supposed to be tug and pull in government – hence three co-equal branches of government – and (when it’s working properly – meaning all are working in good faith) that tug and pull keeps us centered; sometimes center right, sometimes center left, and the extremes are never allowed to gain control.
Politics is so partisan right now because the GOP embraced the nuts Wm F Buckley disavowed and kept from gaining control back in the 70s and 80s. The GOP establishment thought they could control them and now, to their horror, have found out they can’t. So they’re still pandering to the nuts and bigots.
If all goes well, the GOP will soon find its fine name sitting atop the dust bin of history.
I know I am in sketchy territory here, (start the indignant shouting now) but I want to comment on the use of the Constitution as the preeminent example of civil perfection. I just get tired of hearing people tout the Constitution like it was written by God. It most certainly was not. I don’t need to rerun the same old BS about how the original Constitution treated blacks, women or non-land owners – you all know about that. I guess the signers, our founding fathers did the best they could at the time. They were, after all only men. We have spent the last 200+ years tweaking it for a good reason.
This is one of my problems with the Libertarians and the Tea Party. They are just pulling the same shit with the Constitution as the religious right pulls with the Bible. Most of them don’t even know what is in it. Tommy, I am not speaking about you or your knowledge base, I am speaking in general about the folks I so often see on the idiot box. Stop slapping people with the Constitution like it was designed to bludgeon dissenters. If you want to rail against the eroding of the document, speak out against travesties like the Citizens United ruling, not the EPA. Grandma doesn’t need any more fracking problems…
The Constitution was a damn good starting point. We have done pretty well at fine-tuning it. But spare me the spectacle of worshiping the Constitution as a false idol.
ocLiberal’s comment has been chosen as the Comment of the Week.