Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Temporary Pessimism
I am pessimistic these days. It appears that the voting public is more interested in dramatic lies told by the candidates or their surrogates about each other than in the important issues that are going to be settled by the coming election. The public is titillated at accounts that "perhaps" John Kerry told a few lies to get his medals and his purple hearts. The public would be equally titillated at an account of how George W. Bush really spent his time in Alabama while supposedly serving in the National Guard. The truth or falsity of such assertions are completely irrelevant to the qualifications of either man to be the President. They have nothing to do with the policies that either man would probably follow if he is elected (or reelected) in November. Nevertheless, these stories crowd out the more important issues that are to be settled next November, such as:
I look forward to a lively discussion about these and other important issues.
- Who will replace John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and William Rehnquist when they retire from the Supreme Court?
- Will advances in stem cell research occur in the United States or, perhaps, in Korea?
- Will the Republican plan to "privatize" and effectively eliminate Social Security proceed?
- How quickly will the United States regain its good name after the bungle we've created in Iraq?
I look forward to a lively discussion about these and other important issues.
Comments:
<< Home
The dramatic lies and deceptive half-truths by Republicans certainly are a distraction. The truth could "set us free," but people don't seem interested in facts.
Ask any Republican friends you may have why they support Bush, and see if they give any factual reasons for their support. By facts, I mean specific information, not just something like "he's a strong leader, blah, blah . . .
[The following is a modified excerpt of an article by Arianna Huffington (formerly a Republican . . .) on this problem:]
"I realize that facts mean next to nothing to the fanatics in the Bush White House or to most of those who support Bush. But facts mean a hell of a lot to the people whose lives they depict.
Here then, for your voting-booth convenience, is a quick overview ofPresident Bush's "great record":
Since he took office, 1.2 million people in America have lost their jobs, bringing the total to 8.2 million.
The number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by 4.3 million to 35.9 million - 12.9 million of them children.
The number of Americans with no health insurance has increased by 5.8 million - with 1.4 million losing their insurance in 2003. The total now stands at 45 million.
Forty percent of the 3.5 million people who were homeless at some point last year were families with children, as were 40 percent of those seeking
emergency food assistance.
Median household income has fallen more than $1,500 in inflation-adjusted terms in the last three years, and the wages of most workers are now falling behind inflation.
Average tuition for college has risen by 34 percent, while 37 percent of fourth graders read at a level considered "below basic."
One third of the president's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts benefits only the top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans.
President Bush also failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive," traded the moral high ground for preemptive war and the horrors of Abu Ghraib, never attended a funeral or memorial service for
any of the 975 soldiers killed in Iraq, pulled out of the Kyoto agreement on global warming, gutted the Clean Air Act, initiated the rollback of more than 200 environmental regulations, backed a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriages, and refused to follow through on his promise to extend the assault weapons ban even though the ban is favored by police and
law enforcement throughout this country."
Those are enough FACTS for me.
Ask any Republican friends you may have why they support Bush, and see if they give any factual reasons for their support. By facts, I mean specific information, not just something like "he's a strong leader, blah, blah . . .
[The following is a modified excerpt of an article by Arianna Huffington (formerly a Republican . . .) on this problem:]
"I realize that facts mean next to nothing to the fanatics in the Bush White House or to most of those who support Bush. But facts mean a hell of a lot to the people whose lives they depict.
Here then, for your voting-booth convenience, is a quick overview ofPresident Bush's "great record":
Since he took office, 1.2 million people in America have lost their jobs, bringing the total to 8.2 million.
The number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by 4.3 million to 35.9 million - 12.9 million of them children.
The number of Americans with no health insurance has increased by 5.8 million - with 1.4 million losing their insurance in 2003. The total now stands at 45 million.
Forty percent of the 3.5 million people who were homeless at some point last year were families with children, as were 40 percent of those seeking
emergency food assistance.
Median household income has fallen more than $1,500 in inflation-adjusted terms in the last three years, and the wages of most workers are now falling behind inflation.
Average tuition for college has risen by 34 percent, while 37 percent of fourth graders read at a level considered "below basic."
One third of the president's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts benefits only the top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans.
President Bush also failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive," traded the moral high ground for preemptive war and the horrors of Abu Ghraib, never attended a funeral or memorial service for
any of the 975 soldiers killed in Iraq, pulled out of the Kyoto agreement on global warming, gutted the Clean Air Act, initiated the rollback of more than 200 environmental regulations, backed a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriages, and refused to follow through on his promise to extend the assault weapons ban even though the ban is favored by police and
law enforcement throughout this country."
Those are enough FACTS for me.
# posted by 
: 6:32 PM
: 6:32 PM
On the importance of the next President regarding selection of Justices for the United States Supreme Court: The Rhenquist Court has repeatedly voted five to four on critical issues of civil rights and women's rights. Many of these rights have been secured after over 50 years of social struggle and judicial litigation. The gains in civil and women rights in the last century - with a woman's right to choose being paramount - will likely be reversed if George Bush is in the White House for four more years.
Think about what Al Sharpton so aptly stated during his speech at the Democratic National Convention: "I suggest to you tonight that if George Bush had selected the court in '54, Clarence Thomas would have never got to law school."
Think about what Al Sharpton so aptly stated during his speech at the Democratic National Convention: "I suggest to you tonight that if George Bush had selected the court in '54, Clarence Thomas would have never got to law school."
# posted by : 10:12 AM
: 10:12 AM
Dramatic lies? half truths? Your statistics ARE half truths, lets take one, "anonymous" wrote:
The number of Americans with no health insurance has increased by 5.8 million - with 1.4 million losing their insurance in 2003. The total now stands at 45 million.
Really? Where do you get your regurgitated pablum anyway? Democrats counted among the 45 million anyone that lost their insurance for even 1 day! So people that changed jobs, insurance companies, etc.. were counted among the hapless millions! When you remove those intentionally inflated numbers the count drops to around 20 million. We went from approximately 1 in 6 to 1 in 12. Democrats again intenionally included younger americans earning over $50,000 a year, that OPTED to have no insurance, It does happen folks. Democrats included illegal immigrants too, when these are subtracted and we get to the REAL americans that need health insurance, the poor, we find our original over inflated uninsured fell from 48 million to right around 5 million. President Bush has pledged $90 Billion to help these folks.
I could go on and on, the horrors of Abu Ghraib? Give me a break, it's war. I suppose our service members being blown up, burned and dragged through the streets was mildly appalling to you? 9/11 wasn't enough? Quit spewing party rhetoric, President Bush meets privately with families, as he said himself, you won't see him grieving with these people, it's none of your business, these are private affairs between him and them.
I realize this is falling on deaf ears, but you wanted factual reasons, here are a few of mine:
1. Not one more instance of domestic terrorism since he declared war on Al Qaeda and terrorism.
2. Tax cuts!
3. He is AGAINST gay marriage, as are the overwhelming majority of americans.
4. He doesn't bow to international pressure when not in our best interest.
5. He believes in a strong military.
6. 144,000 new jobs last month, every economic indicator showing growth, despite the worst terrorist attack in US history.
7. He believes less Government is more; the democrats ultimate nightmare!
Finally, I don't believe America ever lost it's "good name", I am proud of the job our servicemen and women are doing and believe the world will be a safer place becuase of it.
The number of Americans with no health insurance has increased by 5.8 million - with 1.4 million losing their insurance in 2003. The total now stands at 45 million.
Really? Where do you get your regurgitated pablum anyway? Democrats counted among the 45 million anyone that lost their insurance for even 1 day! So people that changed jobs, insurance companies, etc.. were counted among the hapless millions! When you remove those intentionally inflated numbers the count drops to around 20 million. We went from approximately 1 in 6 to 1 in 12. Democrats again intenionally included younger americans earning over $50,000 a year, that OPTED to have no insurance, It does happen folks. Democrats included illegal immigrants too, when these are subtracted and we get to the REAL americans that need health insurance, the poor, we find our original over inflated uninsured fell from 48 million to right around 5 million. President Bush has pledged $90 Billion to help these folks.
I could go on and on, the horrors of Abu Ghraib? Give me a break, it's war. I suppose our service members being blown up, burned and dragged through the streets was mildly appalling to you? 9/11 wasn't enough? Quit spewing party rhetoric, President Bush meets privately with families, as he said himself, you won't see him grieving with these people, it's none of your business, these are private affairs between him and them.
I realize this is falling on deaf ears, but you wanted factual reasons, here are a few of mine:
1. Not one more instance of domestic terrorism since he declared war on Al Qaeda and terrorism.
2. Tax cuts!
3. He is AGAINST gay marriage, as are the overwhelming majority of americans.
4. He doesn't bow to international pressure when not in our best interest.
5. He believes in a strong military.
6. 144,000 new jobs last month, every economic indicator showing growth, despite the worst terrorist attack in US history.
7. He believes less Government is more; the democrats ultimate nightmare!
Finally, I don't believe America ever lost it's "good name", I am proud of the job our servicemen and women are doing and believe the world will be a safer place becuase of it.
The angry Republican who uses the pseudonym "Michael Moore-on" wants to know where the 45 (44?) million uninsured figure comes from. I decided to do a simple Google search and see who was right. It's really not that hard to find accurate information, if you want to:
Congressional testimony from an economist and the vice president of the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) reveals where the figure comes from. HSC is an independent, nonpartisan health policy research organization that is principally funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The testimony was as follows:
"Forty-four million is the "official" number from the most recent Current Population Survey, but the truth could be (and is) on either side. The CPS asks: did you have health insurance at any time in the 12 months ending two months ago? Penn State Professor Pamela Farley Short's chapter clarifies the overwhelming evidence that many respondents answer the CPS insurance questions incorrectly. Even if answered perfectly, this concept omits quite a large number of people who lack insurance for a period shorter than 12 months or the interval in which they lacked insurance did not match the particular window asked about. So the truth is that far more than 44 million are uninsured for a period shorter than 12 months in a given year.
"On the other hand, other surveys make clear that the 44 million number overstates by as much as a factor of two the people who were uninsured for all of the prior 12 months. The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, HSC's Community Tracking Household Survey, and AHRQ's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, as well as the Urban Institute's National Survey of America's Families, all have probed survey respondents for years and said, now, are you really sure that you didn't have any insurance for that time period?
"The subtle lesson here is to pay attention to time frame. The longer the period of time, the smaller the number of people who are always without health insurance and the larger the number of people who are without insurance for some of the relevant time period.
"Perhaps the most important thing to establish from a policy perspective is not the precise number, as long as we are confident that the number of uninsured for an entire year is in the tens of millions, and researchers are confident of this. The most important analytic measurement may be the time trend in the percentage of non-elderly Americans who are uninsured, which has recently been quite adverse. Trends are more reliably calculated, assuming that the same kinds of respondent errors and measurement imperfections are present each year, which is a reasonable assumption."
******************************************
So, from the above information, it appears that Mr. M. Moore-on is wrong, certainly as to the health insurance issue. He sates: "Democrats counted among the 45 million anyone that lost their insurance for even 1 day."
In reality (i.e., the truth), the figure of 44/45 million was arrived at by asking the following very different question: "did you have health insurance at any time in the 12 months ending two months ago?"
And the reality is, as stated in the above testimony, as follows: "So the truth is that far more than 44 million are uninsured for a period shorter than 12 months in a given year."
The sources I used for this information are as follows:
http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/655/?topic=topic01
and seconded by
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P91042.asp
What are Mr. M. Moore-on's sources of information? A talk-radio host?
Congressional testimony from an economist and the vice president of the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) reveals where the figure comes from. HSC is an independent, nonpartisan health policy research organization that is principally funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The testimony was as follows:
"Forty-four million is the "official" number from the most recent Current Population Survey, but the truth could be (and is) on either side. The CPS asks: did you have health insurance at any time in the 12 months ending two months ago? Penn State Professor Pamela Farley Short's chapter clarifies the overwhelming evidence that many respondents answer the CPS insurance questions incorrectly. Even if answered perfectly, this concept omits quite a large number of people who lack insurance for a period shorter than 12 months or the interval in which they lacked insurance did not match the particular window asked about. So the truth is that far more than 44 million are uninsured for a period shorter than 12 months in a given year.
"On the other hand, other surveys make clear that the 44 million number overstates by as much as a factor of two the people who were uninsured for all of the prior 12 months. The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, HSC's Community Tracking Household Survey, and AHRQ's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, as well as the Urban Institute's National Survey of America's Families, all have probed survey respondents for years and said, now, are you really sure that you didn't have any insurance for that time period?
"The subtle lesson here is to pay attention to time frame. The longer the period of time, the smaller the number of people who are always without health insurance and the larger the number of people who are without insurance for some of the relevant time period.
"Perhaps the most important thing to establish from a policy perspective is not the precise number, as long as we are confident that the number of uninsured for an entire year is in the tens of millions, and researchers are confident of this. The most important analytic measurement may be the time trend in the percentage of non-elderly Americans who are uninsured, which has recently been quite adverse. Trends are more reliably calculated, assuming that the same kinds of respondent errors and measurement imperfections are present each year, which is a reasonable assumption."
******************************************
So, from the above information, it appears that Mr. M. Moore-on is wrong, certainly as to the health insurance issue. He sates: "Democrats counted among the 45 million anyone that lost their insurance for even 1 day."
In reality (i.e., the truth), the figure of 44/45 million was arrived at by asking the following very different question: "did you have health insurance at any time in the 12 months ending two months ago?"
And the reality is, as stated in the above testimony, as follows: "So the truth is that far more than 44 million are uninsured for a period shorter than 12 months in a given year."
The sources I used for this information are as follows:
http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/655/?topic=topic01
and seconded by
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P91042.asp
What are Mr. M. Moore-on's sources of information? A talk-radio host?
# posted by : 12:52 PM
: 12:52 PM
An insightful response to Mr. Michael Moore-on's supposed facts about the number of people in this great country without any health insurance. And I would also note the following on another issue --
Mr. Michael Moore-on states: "Not one more instance of domestic terrorism since he [Bush] declared war on Al Qaeda and terrorism."
He seems to be ignoring the dozens of people in this country who have been arrested on terrorism charges for alleged crimes under the Patriot Act - I think those qualify as instances of domestic terrorism. If not, all those people so arrested in this country should be vindicated and freed (just like that Muslim lawyer in Oregon who was wrongly accused of criminal conduct in the United States related to the terrorist bombing in Spain).
However, I guess Mr. Michael Moore-on is only looking at things being blown up on our soil, not less dramatic but equally evil terrorist criminal activity - of which, based on the color-coded alert system we have, there seems to be a fair amount of potential for.
You can't have it both ways. Either we safer and Bush's terrorism alert system is fundamentally flawed, or we're still in danger of terrorists. The latter may well be true because Bush misled the country into the war in Iraq, and abandoned his earlier bravado to get Osam bin Laden "dead or alive." As I recall (to paraphrase), Bush subsequently said, "I don't know where he [Osama] is . . . and I don't care. It really doesn't matter."
Well, it matters to me.
Post a Comment
Mr. Michael Moore-on states: "Not one more instance of domestic terrorism since he [Bush] declared war on Al Qaeda and terrorism."
He seems to be ignoring the dozens of people in this country who have been arrested on terrorism charges for alleged crimes under the Patriot Act - I think those qualify as instances of domestic terrorism. If not, all those people so arrested in this country should be vindicated and freed (just like that Muslim lawyer in Oregon who was wrongly accused of criminal conduct in the United States related to the terrorist bombing in Spain).
However, I guess Mr. Michael Moore-on is only looking at things being blown up on our soil, not less dramatic but equally evil terrorist criminal activity - of which, based on the color-coded alert system we have, there seems to be a fair amount of potential for.
You can't have it both ways. Either we safer and Bush's terrorism alert system is fundamentally flawed, or we're still in danger of terrorists. The latter may well be true because Bush misled the country into the war in Iraq, and abandoned his earlier bravado to get Osam bin Laden "dead or alive." As I recall (to paraphrase), Bush subsequently said, "I don't know where he [Osama] is . . . and I don't care. It really doesn't matter."
Well, it matters to me.
# posted by : 2:36 PM
: 2:36 PM << Home
