« Nevada County Scattershots – 3 March 2012 | Main | Major cash importers finally discovered (updated 6mar12) »

04 March 2012

Comments

George Rebane

SteveF 326pm - I think I'll just let this comment of yours answer your 'bashing' question - I couldn't give a more clear answer. Regarding your proof of the nature of my content, I believe it to be beyond redemption. We established long ago that our individual views of history and elements of proof are maximally incompatible. You're here to present your ideologically interpreted reality to the undecided readers, and snide remarks within reason, you have access to this forum.

Re Gregory's "misnamed Sierra Business Council" - he is being too kind. I have long and more correctly referred to SBC as being cynically named since by any and all measures I judge it to be a promoter of progressive causes and propaganda funded by the public and benefactors of similar mind. And I do resent the public funding component. But all that is another matter between you and Gregory, I have spoken my piece.

Steven Frisch

By the way, standing precedent on General Welfare is defined in the Helvering v. Davis (1937) case.....

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'...There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views...The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event...The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law."

The same case goes on to define when General Welfare kicks in...

"The problem is plainly national in area and dimensions. Moreover, laws of the separate states cannot deal with it effectively. Congress, at least, had a basis for that belief. States and local governments are often lacking in the resources that are necessary to finance an adequate program of security for the aged. This is brought out with a wealth of illustration in recent studies of the problem. Apart from the failure of resources, states and local governments are at times reluctant to increase so heavily the burden of taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. We have seen this in our study of the problem of unemployment compensation...A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all."

George Rebane

MichaelA 356pm - I place no hope at all for my progeny in the hands of the new generation that you have described. And BTW, neither do my kids and grandkids.

Gregory

Steven Frisch, if you wish a modicum of collegiality, try not showing one face at the FUE's and your other one here. Two faces is one too many.

Gregory

Now I'm too kind. You just can't please all of the people all of the time. :)

Regarding Helvering v. Davis, all such rulings from the stacked FDR court need to be taken with a grain of salt, but that said, it's common benefit reasoning applied to the forcing of Catholic hospital abortion services would seem to be in conflict with the tearing apart of a late term aborted baby, who gets the very short end of the stick.

Of course, Obama voted for infanticide while an Illinois state senator and the ancient Greeks even had 4th trimester abortions; Dad could decide the critter wasn't up to his standards (or even that he just didn't want the screaming ruining his sleep) and the kid would be put outside to die.

Todd Juvinall

There will be some major changes in our country regarding taxes and how the money is spent. It has reached a point of absurdity here and the end results are on view with the demise of the Soviet Union and now the troubles in the EU. MichaelA is pessimistic and I totally understand that. But, when the pain reaches down and takes so much of the flesh of th working folks, then all hell may break loose. It won't be a pretty sight. The freedom to be left alone is becoming huge. The use of the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause has become absurd. For us who have fought the battles over the last thirty plus years, it is a "I told you so" moment. We on the horse ringing the alarms are called all kinds of names by the liberals and the big government types but I can tell you, I saw the unrest coming many years ago and was mainly doing it single handed up here. Now we see the results of liberal and big government overreach and it has come down to this stupid attempt by the people who think we should pay for condoms and force private companies to pay for them too. So, when the government comes to take SteveF away for passing gas closer than 25 feet to the entrance to his taxpayers paid for rental office, maybe he will finally get the message. Well, maybe not.

Steven Frisch

Yeah well Greg we are now just slipping into the pit... since you insist on being a Janus I would say that your faces are in conflict as much as you think mine may be.

My posts here today have been respectful, well sourced and accurate. Your team has tried to pull my employer into it, and questioned whether some else is paying for the time I spent here today, all while simultaneously preaching about staying on point. But I notice you can't answer the core questions.

By the way the 1937 Supreme Court was pretty decidedly anti new deal which is why Roosevelt fostered the introduction of the Judicial Reform Bill of 1937, which failed by the way, so it really is not relevant. Your limited grasp of depression history is showing.

And even that is not relevant, because pro or anti new deal, it was the LAW OF THE LAND.

That's what you guys can never quite get down. If one disagrees with the law that is fine, but it remains the law, and the rules of engagement for whatever issue is at hand. You may see it as your right to resist the law, and no one is denying you that, but it is still the law, until it changes. And in this case the law supports my position, which I have provided quite a bit of proof of above.

Steven Frisch

All this talk of resistance, and nullifying laws, and demanding your own interpretation of them, and riding horses, and ringing bells, and unrest, and Judeo-Christian kulture, and being guaranteed the right to live with like minded people (Great Divide).....I suggest you all take up arms...it seems to be the only thing that will satisfy you. I can see it now, the Nevada County militia. This looks a heck of a lot like the recruiting venue. The five of you can all wear nice uniforms on Saturday and Sunday and then go to the Holiday Inn and drink foothill wine and listen to Engelbert Humperdinck.

George Rebane

SteveF 452pm - Your meds are wearing off and you're getting real nasty. Don't you think it's time to review those New Year's resolutions and listen to your wife?

Gregory

There's settled law, and not settled law. If you look at the list of challenges to Obamacare, it is as unsettled as any in my lifetime.

Frisch, you really never last very long before you descend into spinning your bigoted caricatures and then pull a Carmanesque "Screw you guys, I'm going home" as your exit, stage left.

Michael Anderson

George wrote: "I place no hope at all for my progeny in the hands of the new generation that you have described. And BTW, neither do my kids and grandkids."

Then what keeps you guys going? I need a more positive outlook in order to be able to get up it the morning.

Gregory

BTW, Frisch is technically correct regarding the FDR court packing plan, but it was abandoned only because Justice Owen Roberts switched sides in the beginning of '37 in part to stop the changes, which started the swing to FDR's side. In Frish's beloved Helvering v. Davis, in the middle of '37, Roberts did swing to the Majority striking down one of many New Deal challenges. Then a contrary justice retired and FDR got his packing with his pick of a replacement.

It ain't over till its over.

Steven Frisch

Nice to see that you guys can take a joke...it is just a joke right...a poor choice words..here let me try.

I apologize for my poor choice of words. I am sincerely sorry if you were offended by what you heard in my words. They were not intended to be interpreted as harmful. I sometimes use exaggeration to emphasize my points. If you misinterpreted them I am sincerely sorry. I stand by all of my core points, though, and really believe that if the world follows your path we are doomed to destruction. But please don;t interpret that as negative.

By the way Greg, "It ain't over till its over?" That precedent has stood for 75 years. Good luck.

Paul Emery

George

You can't spin out of this one. By saying " no one has yet shown Ms Fluke's need for expensive 24/7 protection for reasons other than that the frequent bother of cheaper slower methods." you sanction that speculations of her private life should be part of the public record if she's allowed to speak before congress. You don't have a clue and neither do I nor do I canre about her sexual activities. You were the one who made it an issue by featuring it in your piece. Her testimony is fair game but that's going too far. Too bad. You really don't need to go in that direction and it's very disappointing to me that you chose to go that way.

Steven Frisch

And think about it Paul, they spent their whole day defending this indefensible position, in the face of overwhelming evidence quoted chapter and verse, article and case.

Paul Emery

Yes indeed Steven. It certainty hints at a problem in judgment and priority and smacks of downright meanness that should not be part of any civil discussion.

George Rebane

Now that SteveF and PaulE have re-declared a conclusive victory on your point about how activist and political operative Sandra Fluke fought for the poor and downtrodden in her congressional testimony, will there be any energy left to consider all the rights that are being unleashed by Obamacare?

Todd Juvinall

I must say PaulE and SteveF are certainly full of themselves. What a hoot! I would say their arses were handed to them on a platter here.

Paul Emery

I had nothing to say on that topic so don't draw any conclusions that I have declared a victory on that topic-fighting for the poor and that stuff. I was too distracted by your personal expostulation on her private life.

Gregory

"They" is right up there with "You people" as divisive rhetoric.

There's precedent, then there's the application of precedent to current cases. There's plenty of red meat for all of the constitutional challenges to Obamacare, and the courts have been pretty good in the past about finding things like religious freedoms to be more important than the upholding of an executive branch interpretation of a 3rd party opinion, which underpins the "contraceptives as a basic right" to be guaranteed by the Federal government being pushed by the Obama administration.

Frisch, your ugly character assassinations are fairly continuous. You manage short spurts of self control when here, though accompanied by an imperious pomposity as you instruct us on the law as you see it. Then you lose it. Why not search your soul and decide who you want to be, and then be it. One face, not two or three. And accept that as president and CEO of the misnamed Sierra Business Council, you're more than just an employee and really can't fling your crap into the fan without you *and* your company being hit by the airborne chunks.

BTW it does appear that Ms. Fluke's surname rhymes with Luck... let's see if I can control my impulses better than Frisch controls his.

Todd Juvinall

I think the liberal min=d is missing a DNA strand. Frisch exhibits nasty name calling of the folks commenting here when he is over at the lefty blog and decries any exposure of his warts by us here as name-calling. What a hoot! I think he and th four or five lefty posters at the fourth most popular local blog in our area is truly funny. A big fish (big!) in a little pond.

Paul Emery

Todd

You of all people commenting on other peoples nastiness certainly is the laugh of the day. You have set standards that leave the rest of us in the dust. Your years of experience are an unsurmountable obstacle for us beginners to overcome. Thanks for your input though although in my humble opinion it's not justified especially when the compliments come from Todd Juvinall, the master local Rush wannabe .

George Rebane

In rereading some of the above, I had a choice of a barfbag or unloading on the keyboard. Perhaps this is an amalgam of the two.

Obamacare – known to some as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – is unaffordable, protects no patients, and destroys our dwindling store of liberties. Almost every aspect of its long-heralded benefits has turned out to be a lie. To reference it here as something akin to having come down from the mountain on stone tablets is an insult to both lexicography and geography.

It was ill-conceived, and in its construction brushed aside other reasonable remedies to our healthcare mess. Obamacare spent its gestation in a dark ‘smoke-filled’ room that recalled the worst of Tammany. And then it arrived on a midnight train in the dark of night to be quickly passed by a single-minded and one-sided cohort of congressional socialists. It never saw the light of day before being signed in haste by a visibly relieved President. Per one of its leadership coven, the bill could not be examined while still in the womb, and had to be extruded before we would know what was in it.

And many would argue that it has still to see the full light of day, for we yet don’t know all that this legislative placenta has in store for us. Because every new provision that emerges smells worse than the last mess it revealed. Save for the details, the nature of this bastard bill was well understood before passage. It was for that reason that upon its signing into law, Obamacare was the immediate object of numerous suits that have now roiled through the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court that will hear it this summer.

To speak of Obamacare in tones of reverence, as if it were the fulfillment of our Founders’ dreams let alone a solution to any national problem, is sheer perfidy. It is an abomination that the productive half of the country hopes SCOTUS will scourge and eliminate from the law books. If not, it will join its peers in the US Code to rain European style devastation on the land.

And we would do well to note that our leftwing considers all forms of legal opposition to Obamacare to be equivalent to treasonous insurrection in addition to an assault on their holy of holies. Our proper attitude should be contrite genuflection as the federal government starts mismanaging another sixth of the nation’s economy, and continues to add yet more to a debt that is already reaching our breaking point.

Gregory

Here's a happy fun piece that Ms. Fluke cowrote last year for a legal journal; it seems contraceptives are not the only right she has discovered to be improperly abridged:

"Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered."

http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance

I've never seen this site or author before and do not vouch for their accuracy.

Todd Juvinall

PaulE is at it again. I would list the things I am most proud of as my family and my friends. I have been blessed with many. Far down the list is being a local Rush. Been there don that. But, since PaulE has seemingly forgotten his own nastiness against many people on these blogs I would say he is not very dependable in the act of memory. But PaulE, I forgive you. God Bless!

billy T

Tonight Gonzaga U plays St Marys in the WCC final. This is important to the current topic because was been no mention if the Gonzaga Bulldog Mascot is covered for contraceptives. Students and employees have been discussed, but what about Mascots? I don't know if the mascots use condoms but maybe they should: http://celebritiesgettingfat.com/2011/09/gonzaga-bulldog-mascot-hits-it-from-the-back/

billy T

Although I have no intention of voting for Speaker Newt, I do like they way he framed this little debate when asked. http://nation.foxnews.com/meet-press/2012/03/04/gingrich-eats-gregorys-lunch

George Rebane

billyT 734pm - thanks for that link, it perfectly frames the background to my remarks about her and Pelosi's congressional show piece that was lapped up hook, line, and sinker by the left.

Douglas Keachie

Good grief you folks have been busy!

I'm too tired to read it all just now, but I will mention that George talks of undermining traditional cultural values, and I'd like to know one, where does Rush get a pass on the same issue, calling a complete stranger a slut? On national daytime, youngster listenable radio, unlike Bill Maher, whom you have to pay extra to hear, why is it just fine to hear this from Rush?

Secondarily, you must have missed the 1960's. The cultural mores have been changed for quite a while. Get your review of the latest state of cultural mores here"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147842/Doctor-Assisted-Suicide-Moral-Issue-Dividing-Americans.aspx

Gregory

Keach, it isn't about different cultural mores, and I'm both younger and probably had more fun than you did. It is about thinking your neighbors should be responsible for buying you your contraceptives.

That if one wants to have sex without consequences, society is *obligated* to pay up.

I've no problem with paying into an insurance plan that has that for female members of the household but it would have to be cost effective compared to other available plans.

You and Frisch seem to agree the Executive branch should design an insurance plan and everyone be forced to buy it. That is odious, hateful, horrible, abhorrent, loathsome, revolting, detestable, repellent, repulsive, obnoxious, abominable and execrable. Suitable only for lickspittles, toadies and running-dog lackies of the current Democratic leadership.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Clean Gene McCarthy, Scoop Jackson, your sober presence is missed.

Douglas Keachie

I watched from 20 feet away as Gene McCarthy delivered a very carefully measured speech to 18,000 students and faculty and hangers on at the Greek Theater. It was plain that he was looking and listening to see how each line was going over, and changing what he was going to say next as he was speaking. My intro to realpolitics 101. 20 feet away? Hired to be a guard, did the same for the Loving Spoonful, You had more fun? Ha! Bay Area and Aspen during 1960's and 1970's, plenty of fun, except for first marriage, and even daughter and grandchildren from that experience makes it bearable.

This is not just about freely available contraception and aids prevention, a very worthwhile investment in the public welfare, whether it is a right or not, ....... it's about a total jerk figurehead for the whacko right going way too far. The lawsuit should be quite a sight!

Gregory

More fun doesn't mean being a bigger slut, Keach. Given I never had a ugly failed relationship, I probably qualify just based on that.

Sorry, but paying for whatever contraception and abortions the reproductive averse want isn't an investment, it's an expenditure, and if the reproductive averse aren't buying their own, their neighbors are buying it for them whether they want to or not. This is not medical necessity, this is a choice.

Fluke is a public person, a political activist seeking attention, and so Limbaugh is probably as immune from a defamation lawsuit as a result as the Mahers, Olbermans and whatsisnames of the left were for their stupid twattish remarks. The cackling on the left over Rush getting Fluked was pure political theater.

Aids prevention takes little more than monogamy and condoms, and a condom a day is about $10 a month. If one can only afford $5 a month, maybe every other day will have to do. Ms. Fluke apparently wants $80 worth of something, to be paid by her fellow students and faculty. I'll take a wild guess and expect most students with her schedule and workload could stretch that Costco economy package to two or three months. Affordable on any $60K a year budget, and that assumes her partner(s) don't pay half.

Michael Anderson

BTW, I listen to and watch Sean Hannity, Lars Larsen, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh with the same set of eyes and ears I use to listen to and watch Ed Schultz, Michael Krasny, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert.

They are all entertainers and they can say whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. It's all about free speech, baby. I don't hold entertainers to the same standard as I would Bob Schieffer, for example.

Sandra Fluke is hardly a delicate flower, and I'm sure she is enjoying her 15 minutes.

Douglas Keachie

"More fun doesn't mean being a bigger slut,"

so you admit to being the smaller slut? What is this, did you catch some disease from Rush, sort of a limited subject Turret's Syndrome? I wonder if Fluke will be making meters soon to measure sluttyness? Seems like Rush has met his Waterloo at Flukishima, and now he is all radio-inactive. And you think I don't have fun???

Michael Anderson

George R., 6:54 pm -- Well George, a barfbag may have been the better choice. I don't speak for anyone else on this subject, just so we're clear.

1. As a libertarian progressive and small business owner, I recognize the inefficiency of gov't regulation and the power of the free market. I also know that gov't is our last hope when corruption and collusion destroy competition and innovation. But all of the negative things you assign to PPACA don't make any sense since we are barely at the beginning of its implementation. This legislation was designed to be a collaborative process; by opting out your side doesn't get to complain about the result.

2. Conservatives are to blame for the Tammany Hall aspects of this legislation. The House and Senate Republicans could have injected tort reform and the selling of health insurance across state lines into PPACA, but instead they chose an-all-or nothing approach. This is the unfortunate nature of our broken congressional system of legislation, and you got beat fair and square; it's time to suck it up and stop whining.

3. I don't ask for contrite genuflection at all. Instead of spending its every waking breathe trying to destroy this presidency and all things Democratic, Congressional Republicans need to behave like a grown-up opposition party and help make the national health care sausage. As in all things in life, you get what you give. And I all see the conservatives giving us right now are temper tantrums, obfuscation, and a demand that we burn the village in order to save it. Until conservatives are willing to throw someone with no health insurance who is bleeding to death in the ER out into the snow, it is clear that this entire issue is all about making sure that President Obama doesn't go down in history as the guy who took the initiative to start fixing our disastrous, dangerous, expensive, and corrupt national health care system.

I stand by my prediction. As long as the United States remains a nation among nations, it will have a national health care program of some kind. We will not be going backwards.

Michael A.

Douglas Keachie

Another peek at the morality of it all:

""The Pre-persons" is a science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick.

It was first published in Fantasy and Science Fiction magazine, October 1974 .... It was a pro-life response to Roe v. Wade. Dick imagines a future where the United States Congress has decided that abortion is legal until the soul enters the body, which is specified as the moment a person has the ability to do simple algebra. -- Wikipedia [HT: Harry]"

Gregory

Michael, we have a national health care program of some kind, Medicare. We're already 50% socialized health care, and socializing the other 50% will quite possibly break the bank. As PJO'R has written, 'If you think health care is expensive now, just wait 'till it's free."

100% FREE contraceptives (whatever the patient wants, not just the cheapest) and abortions is a fine example of this. Ms. Fluke also thinks insurance that won't pay for sex change operations is "heterosexist", so I suppose that's on the table, too.

Todd Juvinall

Wow, a libertarian-progressive! MichaelA is the prime example of why the place is going to hell in a handbasket. He is the true baby-boomer mindset of selfishness, He want it both ways crap.

The left wants freedom from anyone being in their womb (the privacy clause?) and at the same time time having others pay for the most personal of choices regarding the sleeve or the entrance . I knew the liberal was a schizophrenic mindset, now proven over and over again here

This is all political theater and will fade into nothing over the months. After claiming Rush is a bad boy in charge of the R party, now he is just an entertainer according to MA. That new view is to justify his ilk's trashing of women. Schizophrenia is a treatable malady.

billy T

Wow. The Right has been pushing for years for tort reform. Every time tort reform is brought up, I am reminded that the number one contributors to the Dems are members of the Bar Association. At least Texas got some tort reform on a state level. The topic not discussed is it not simply contraceptives Ms. Fluke and her minions desire. That is just the wrapping on the package. It is abortion, abortion pills, abortion, abortion, abortion that must be provided at Jesuit Universities. Maybe the Methodists are ok with that, but it won't fly at the network of small private religious colleges and seminary schools that dot our country from coast to coast. Todd mentioned schizophrenia. The libs are so transparent. I don't know it they are schizophrenic, but they certainly have an ugly identical twin.

Steven Frisch

I just love how these guys claim I am a name caller. (Funny they bring up my employment and question how I spend my time during the day but that seems to be just fine.) What is the worst name I called someone...a Janus?...I bet only 20% of your readers even know what that means (oops I am being arrogant again).

All I have really done is point out the inaccuracies in their posts and ask them a few pointed questions....like how can one agree that the government should interfere in decisions between a woman and her doctor but attack the PPACA as dangerous because it may ration care...the origin of the 'death panel' claims.

Yet I am a name caller. Well sorry guys, that won't stick for anyone who actually reads the posts.

I guess they have lost track of the point that they are coming to the defense of someone who called a citizen testifying to Congress a 'slut' and 'prostitute' and challenged her to post her 'sex tapes' on line (and then slyly implied that if we think these names are negative it must be an example of OUR sexual prudishness). What they never address is that the person who testified never said one word about her own personal circumstances..it was Rush who personalized the issue. Here's a pointer for you guys....it is kind of silly to be calling me a name caller when you are defending the name caller in chief.

I guess it also escapes their notice that I have exposed several fallacies in their logic here (Todd would call that arrogance since he is unprepared in any intellectual fact based exchange) at least two of which required them to admit that their information was wrong.

Let the reader note how woefully unprepared to answer questions regarding the consistency of their philosophies this crew is. It as though they have a disconnected collection of reactionary believes rather than a coherent political philosophy. We run into the same thing regarding their definition of a logical political economy where they are unable to coherently address the inconsistency between their opposition to subsidies, but support for subsides to the industries they favor, particularly the military industrial complex and the fossil fuel industry.


Ah, yet comments like this one from Gregory stand: "You and Frisch seem to agree the Executive branch should design an insurance plan and everyone be forced to buy it. That is odious, hateful, horrible, abhorrent, loathsome, revolting, detestable, repellent, repulsive, obnoxious, abominable and execrable. Suitable only for lickspittles, toadies and running-dog lackies of the current Democratic leadership."

I guess that is not name calling huh?

By the way, under the rules of grammar Gregory, was that diatribe addressing the object or the subject of the previous sentence...and did you leave it intentionally vague? It is as though you are saying that Michael and I are "odious, hateful......execrable". I know, plausible deniability.

What Gregory fails to address is the FACT that CONGRESS passed this legislation. I pointed out quite directly what the remedy is for addressing legislation that one believes to be unconstitutional, and the likely condition and even case law under which it would be considered. We live in a democracy (constitutional republic) and the process, or as right wingers were found of saying in the 90's 'the rule of law', is how things get done. You disagree with how the law is interpreted, elect your people to Congress, the Presidency, and oh yeah...as judges....but then a little clique of you is already working on that aren't you?

It's all there in Mark Meckler's 40-year plan--how to re-shape the nation for 'real American values' and create a 'conservative culture'.

I guess I would ask if you are prepared for the SCOTUS upholding the PPACA? What remedy do you propose then?

This whole discussion is humorous to me because, once again, it is largely a moot point.

By defending the windbag you guys just lost any chance you had of taking the Senate and re-claiming the White House. You stepped on a political landmine. The swing in this election will be two groups--moderate and independent women and Hispanics--and you guys are despised by both of them. You better believe that Democrats and moderate non-aligned voters like me, are going to play this advantage to the hilt. And it is a losing position for conservatives, one that will leave you in the minority for years to come.

You actually think you are winning the 'culture war'? Take a look at the demographics baby..you lost it already.

billy T

Steven F, I don't see a lot of Rush Limbaugh defending on this thread. In fact, I don't see a lot of Rush defending anywhere. Because we challenge Sandra Fluke's position does not mean we defend calling her a slut or ho or are anti-woman folk. Heck, she can shove a Chevy Volt up her uterus for all we care. I think most libowels expect and assume what us knuckle dragging Neo-Cons will do i.e., that we defend calling the young lady a slut. Nay, this thread as gone where it should. On to the issues of Obamacare and Church/State issues, the Supreme Court, and who should pay for voluntary behavior. Ms. Fluke and Rush are just catalysts for a lively discussion where toes are stepped on and people get their feeling hurt and someone's self esteem have have been bruised. I say forgive and forget and move on. Sure, I still mention the Fat Boy's bloggie in unflattering terms, so I am still a work in progress. I am slowly evolving into a regular Metro-Sexual Phil Donahue girlieman, so please bear with me as I become the biggest phony on the planet. If you find my words and actions distasteful now, you should have seen me 20 years ago. That is hope and change you can believe in.

Todd Juvinall

You provide such an easy target SteveF. You are a rent seeker and tax taker. You then try and show us all how smart you think you are by the number of words you spew. You trash the conservatives on other blogs and then come over here and cry when we point out your schizophrenic posts about namecalling. No, you are the poster boy about what ha gone wrong with America. Accept it, Don't deny it, you will feel better. Besides, the $100,000 bucks plus bennies from us to you every year should soothe the pain.

George Rebane

MichaelA 1221am - your prediction for our future in nationalized healthcare withstanding, I will readily concede that we conservatives (and conservetarians) are losing the culture war, if we have not already lost it per "moderate non-aligned voter" SteveF's considerable 857am.

But what I have trouble wrapping my head around is your "progressive libertarian" claim. A progressive, by its very definition, is for an expanded government that will manage/mandate the provision of all social services in addition to many commercial products/services. A libertarian, on the other hand, would be aghast at the prospect of supporting government's takeover of a sixth of its GDP (for openers). Search as I may, I still don't find an ideological bridge connecting the two labels, and know of no-one else who has been able to fashion such a construct. But it most certainly does explain away my inability to follow your logic, and I admit to the shortcoming.

Todd Juvinall

George, you have exposed the lie, excellent!

Douglas Keachie

"Steven F, I don't see a lot of Rush Limbaugh defending on this thread."

It's a case of forest and trees, Mr. T. The fact that the thread exists in it's present form, which is to go chasing only after gov paid or unpaid contraception, and I have been warned to stay "on topic," very clearly shows it is a destroyer, along with many other such blogs and Fox commentators, circling the stricken aircraft carrier, sending up smoke, hoping to screen off the viuew, and prevent any more damage. By framing the topic, the Right attempts to salvage the argument, even as the bilge pumps fail, and Rush capsizes, on the way to the bottom. R.L Crabb, where are you?

billy T

Guess the left hates it when they can not frame the issue in their special terms. There are holes in the aircraft carrier alright. Yep, we conservatives have taken a hit on this one, no doubt. And the media has also been taking hits for a few years now as we refuse to let them frame the issue to their likening. For example, please name one spot in the nation where any adult cannot get access to contraception. I heard insurance providers cover contraception for 75% of the geographic USA, the other 25% being out in the boonies in Northern Alaska or the middle of the Mohave Desert, or the no mans land in the upper reaches of Montana. Like, is there a pharmacy in Camptonville? But you are correct in that there is a battle to frame the issue. Also, I personally feel that Sandra Fluke opened the door for people to question her sexuality when she said it costs 3k for contraception for 3 years of law school. That figure has raised eyebrows and begs the question "why so much?" Planned Parenthood's own web site says the bill costs between 20-50 bucks a month, without insurance, with the norm being closer to $20.00 Walmart sells the Pill for 9 bucks a month, again without insurance. The pills' drawback is some types of the Pill actually thins the birth canal's linings and make one more susceptible to viruses. So, I give her the benefit of the doubt and say she uses the pill and condoms. Then, one has to wonder if she is over inflating the figures to frame her debate. If she had graduated from Clemson with a degree in Gay and Lesbian and Transgender Studies instead of Women Studies, then this slut word may not have arisen. 83 bucks a month sounds like she was too lazy to drive to Planned Parenthood or Kroger's. We are talking Washington DC here, not the boonies. Rush ain't going anywhere, and neither is Bill Maher. In fact, I start every morning listening to a half hour of Don Imus. We are a forgiving nation and we forgive the mistakes of others readily. As you might say "Let he who is within sin cast the first worm casting." Its in our culture. Everyone forgave Harry Reed for calling Obama "an articulate Negro" and Robert Byrd for his Clansmen days. Of course some don't change their ways, like David Duke and has not apologized to my knowledge. But, there is an old saying that goes something like this: One can bury the hatchet but never forgets where it is buried.

Douglas Keachie

"If she had graduated from Clemson with a degree in Gay and Lesbian and Transgender Studies instead of Women Studies, then this slut word may not have arisen"

I doubt Rush was even aware of where she graduated from, or what degree she had. Looks to me like he did not have enough material from the Repubby primaries, and went digging around for anything his writer/researchers could find. I wonder which one just got fired?

Douglas Keachie

Whatever disease Rush has, it looks like he has infected Santorum:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57390626-503544/santorum-likens-obama-administration-to-drug-dealer/?tag=mncol;lst;1

billy T

Oh, Doug, you are stuck on Rush. Well, I have not listened to Rush in years simply cause my mind prefers music and I work while he is on. I listen to KVMR with the volume turned down to focus at the task on hand, except when they have their fundraisers and then I switch to rock. I am still in my earning years and miles to go before I sleep. Last time I did listen to Rush he made me laugh. My mother was visiting and had never heard of him and she was laughing harder than me. Guess we don't take things as seriously as some, especially considering everything that has come down the pike since I was a little bundle of joy. Rush has influence not doubt. I frame the issue as a woman wants the government to force a Jesuit University to cover her contraceptives. Simple as that. For the record, I am not a Catholic. I did attend a Jesuit University for one year as a non Catholic. Remember the campus was dotted with the black robes walking about and those crucifixes in the classroom. As a plus, they had a highly rated business school. Every "Father" that taught even freshman History already spent years becoming a Jesuit Priest and another 6 years obtaining a doctorate. No teacher's aides giving lectures, NEVER! But I digress again. The Georgetown U student website clearly spells out students must carry health insurance. They can choose the coverage offered by the U for about $2,600/year or have their own insurance as long as it covers 100k in coverage. The University has no prob covering The Pill if necessary for medical issues like cramps or acne. I think Ms. Fluke wanted something for free as "a right" and Rush wanted to say what he said.

John Galt

Steve, Michael, Paul and others appauled by Rush's use of the word "Slut"

I don't like the word "slut". I don't use it. And it ticked me off that my grandchildren heard it on the radio (since it was a snow day.)


But when Ed Shultz called cancer surviror Laura Ingraham a "right-wint slut" on his radio show in May of last year, there was little outrage. There was no call for a boycott. And when Laura went on "The View" Barbara Walters just laughed it off.


I know two wrongs don't make a right, but double standard is apparent.


With regard to insurance coverage for contraception. As we're now learning, Fluke is also and advocate of having insurance coverage "gender reassignments" [Sex Changes] as she wrote in the Georgetown Jorunal of the Law in her article titled “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons”.

Just curious if there is ANY LIMIT to what you all belive should be covered by medical insurance?

--John Galt

billy T

The City Council of Berkly voted recently to include sex operations in their city coverage of employees. Its their right as a small entity. Other places such as West Palm Beach, Fla have had sex change coverage for years. Funny, I heard rumors that Berkly is having a wee bit of difficulty balancing their budget. First, they drove the homeless and panhandlers from their business district. Now, they are sewing dongs on their metermaids. Harsh.

Bonnie McGuire

I have to say something in behalf of women regarding some birth control pills. Many years ago a young mother in our church who was 34 years suddenly died from a blood clot her birth control pills caused. Years later a daughter's boy friend was telling us that his mother was having serious health problems and couldn't even get out of bed anymore. It sounded similar to the one in our church who died, so I asked him if she was taking birth control pills, and if she was to ask her doctor if they should be discontinued. It turned out she was along with the other pills she was taking...and the doctor quickly told her not to take the birth control pill. She got well and is still alive. If you live long enough and pay attention it's a great education.

Gregory

Bonnie, when my first wife went into the hospital with blood clots, the attending physician assigned(Greg Steber, MD, who had abandoned me a year earlier when an already treated and solved medical condition meant the FAA needed additional paperwork to issue my flight medical certificate and he couldn't be bothered to return calls) decided her condition was because she was overweight (he put her on a starvation diet while she was stuck in the hospital without consulting with her first) and, yes, on birth control pills. They treated her with blood thinners and discharged her.

A year and a half later she was dead from the ovarian cancer he didn't bother looking for (because he didn't look past The Pill) and another physician missed. Not that diagnosing it a few months earlier wouldn't have changed the ultimate result.

So yes, the pill does have some drawbacks. Both the possible side effects (iirc the clots can be worse in smokers) and that doctors can dismiss a symptom that fits those side effects. There is no free lunch. The diaphragm may be the sweet spot for safety, long term cost and convenience, though it does take a 'script and isn't as effective as the pill.

Gregory

John Galt, I don't mind if an insurance company wanted to sell a product that would cover gender reeassignment surgery. Or any contraceptive or anything else they think there is a need or desire for.

My extreme approbation on the subject is our imperious executive branch, after being given the authority by an imperious Speaker and Senate Majority leader smashing through the enabling legislation without even a reading, to make up the regs to formulate the one size fits all FEDERALLY APPROVED INSURANCE PLAN using a private third party opinion as justification.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it", Nancy Pelosi's words on how to restructure 1/6th of the US economy.

Douglas Keachie

Greg and I agree on his 1:06 pm, especially in regards the diaphram. In college, best friend's girl friend woke up one morning with blue hands, they stopped birth control pills immediately, a day later and she would have been dead.

David King

Murphy’s law? or The rule of unintended consequences?

LMAO!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/investors-flee-carbonite-after-limbaugh-announcement/

Russ Steele

This from our local lefty blog:

KNCO’s Facebook page has been plastered with complaints this week. To be sure, social media is changing how we communicate in small towns, forever providing a grassroots outlet to hold our major media accountable. There is no longer a “bottleneck.” Here’s the memo:

“When the Nevada County community speaks, KNCO listens and reports.

“Due to the heavy volume of negative (and some positive) comments regarding the Rush Limbaugh regularly aired show on KNCO from 9-noon Monday – Friday, Tom Fitzsimmons is conducting a 2-way radio for all of our listeners tomorrow, Wednesday March 7th. What this means is Tom will continue his morning show into the 9-noon hours with open phones for our listeners to comment live on air during the time frame Rush would normally air. The show tomorrow is the time to air your comments. We appreciate your comments and concerns.

“Thank you for your support during this disparaging time.

How come all the fuss when the left called Palin and Bachmann such worse and all the left did was smile. This is not about a co-ed that buys a $1000.00 worth of condoms a year it is about silencing Rush. It is an attack on free speech.

David King

Well, if they pull Rush, they can lower advertising rates since no one will be listing.

Paul Emery

No Russ, it's about the opinion that advertisers no longer want their product associated with Rush Linbaugh and have decided to spend their money elsewhere. Free enterprise pure and simple. Over half the population are women and a majority of them for sure would find his comments offensive.

David King

Let's see what happened to Carbonite Paul.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CarbNas.jpg

OOPS!

Todd Juvinall

Carbonite stock is tanking. I knew it would. There are hundreds of advertisers lined up to be on his show. The left will lose this bigtime. What is fascinating is the "progressives" attack on free speech. The boycott is always right there in their pocket isn't it? This will be over in a few days after the leftwing press tires of it just like they have the "Occupiers".

Paul Emery

Todd

Hundreds of advertisers.... Where do you get that information?

The longer this goes on the better it is for Obama.

Todd Juvinall

Tempest in a teapot. Over in a week. Rush will prevail because he is all about free speech. So PaulE, joining in with the left to boycott SPD and KNCO?

Paul Emery

Did you make up he "hundreds of advertisers or was it your speculation which is OK. We all do that.

Todd Juvinall

No, Rush said it this week.

Russ Steele

Paul, 622pm

I guess all those same people stopped stop watching Bill Maher when he call Palin and Bachmann some very nasty sexual names. Actually, I heard the audience numbers went up as all the sick left flock there for more insults to conservative women. You all on the left are such hypocrites. If the crap comes out of the mouth of one of your heros, it is good stuff, comes from a conservative icon and you all start clucking like chickens. I was very close to signing up for Carbonite, but not now. I think that the investors saw the other side of the street also. There are millions of people who that saw through this Democrat farce, millions who were potential Carbonite customers who will not be signing up. The savvy investors saw what could happen a reverse boycott and bailed. I expect there are others who dropped Rush, that are wondering what their investors think about company action. Advertising is about attracting customers and none does it better than Rush. Where are these losers going find an equally effective ad voice. It is all about the money! And, Carbonite investors are not happy. Who is next?

billy T

Mr. Steele, this may sound crazy, but perhaps Planned Parenthood could fill the void and advertise on the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. They could get much needed dollars and expand their clinics with new found capital. After all, Ms. Fluke testified "Women's health clinics are not able to meet the CRUSHING DEMAND [by women] for contraception care services." Seems to me they need to expand and being on the most listened radio show could not hurt. Now I know why Ms. Fluke did not go to Planned Parenthood. It is full of poor people in DC and crowded. That is not the type of place a woman with a law degree from a top notch law school would frequent, especially at 24k a semester. A first year lawyer from Georgetown in the DC area makes about 160k/year. She could take about 40% of her take home pay and buy a Volt. Who knows. In 4 years she will be one of the 1%ers. And she will never have to go to a women's clinic again.

Douglas Keachie

Rush has a perfect right to say whatever he wants. I have a perfect right to buy whatever I want. If I and a great many others are exercise our rights, and let manufacturers know our preferences for their products may be linked to the shows they advertise on, those are ALL very American Rights.

Rush Limbaugh still has the right to spout off just as much as he wants to. Whether or not advertisers will pay for him to have a microphone to the entire USA on loan from God, well, it is their American right to decide, as they own the stations. Rush can join the folks down at 6th and Mission. He'll fit right in. Nobody is stopping his free speech. Or do you believe that Rush alone is entitled to a nationwide audience? If he is, we all are. Curiously enough, the broadcasters hold a different view.

So, is there a "Rush Entitlement" in the Constitution? If so, please show me where?

Douglas Keachie

You have to pay to watch Bill Maher, so you pay to hear him, do you? That's quite a different mode than daytime AM, available on every car radio, by every teen out there.

Carbonite stock might be tanking, but look to more saavy endusers who can pick up a terabyte of storage for less than a years worth of Cabonite, which is also advertised on Kim Kommander show, carried by KNCO. Pick up several such drives and rotate them in and out of a safe deposit box, and have much better privacy control.

Todd Juvinall

I went over to the local lefty blog last night and read a couple of comments on his Rush bashing posts. Somehow a couple of people's comments, I think one was from Rick Briggs of the Tea arty, made it to the published comments. This morning I searched for them and they were gone! So, if they are gone (maybe I just couldn't find them, wink, wink) it would appear the former Union editor is a censor. That is why his blog is irrelevant to all but the five liberals who post there.
It is clear that if they are gone, he had to purposely delete them. They were respectful comments in reply to the usual suspects there wanting to punish SPD and KNCO for Rush's comments. Now, why would the FUE do that? Because he cannot stand a difference of opinion with his leftwing mantras I suppose. The comments did not attack him or his readers but as I recall, simply were in support of free speech. What does that make Mr. Purple?

Russ Steele

Reason magazine weighs in with: It's Like Totally Different When a Liberal Blowhard Guy Calls a Conservative Woman a Twat!

I recommend reading, it is a stringing rebuke to the left and NPR.

John Galt


Flukes supporters and Rush's antagonists are largely diciples of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

As we debate the point here they're calling radio stations and Rush's adverstisers.

--John Galt

John Galt


Russ 07:24am Thanks for that link. It's a helpul collection of examples of the way leftist think...

...Which in summary is The ends justify the means.

--John Galt

Douglas Keachie

"Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"" never read it. How about you and Gingrich's plans and The Family's plans?

Gregory

Keachie, as an ex public school teacher might not have read Rules for Radicals but he has been referring to the Cliff's Notes version for years.

More on the Fluke from the small l libertarian Reason magazine:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/05/rush-limbaughs-slut-comment-is-a-red-her [ring]

Wade Irving

George -

Sorry for the delay. Seems I've missed much.

I don't understand your argument. The entire point of paying insurance companies is so that they will pay for healthcare stuff.

Also, re: making "your" premiums higher as a result? That could be said about *anything*. By that logic, insurance companies shouldn't pay for any pharmaceuticals, diabetes, cancer treatments, child births, etc.

Please explain how contraception is different.

Wade Irving

There is also, I think, a crucial philosophical argument that is under-addressed here. I, like many, view my employer's contribution to healthcare insurance as part of my compensation. It is something that semantically belongs to me as much as my paycheck. I would no more have them dictate how I spend one than I would the other.

I do not believe that qualifies as "entitlement," in either sense of the word.

Steven Frisch

Precisely, Wade---this insurance is being paid for by the insured--that's the point and the very thing that many here are arguing against. The Commerce Clause issue is whether or not the the government has the right to compel people to pay (kind of like social security eh?). Many here are trying to spin it as government paying for the health insurance.

Douglas Keachie

Enjoyed lightbulb article at reason.com, but would point out that you can get 50 LED christmas lights for $10 on eBay right now, free shipping, 4.8 watts and that about a 100 watt light output in lumens, I suspect, much cheaper than $50/bulb.

Gregory

"Precisely, Wade---this insurance is being paid for by the insured--that's the point and the very thing that many here are arguing against." - Frisch

Precisely NOT.

The insurance is being paid for by a separate organization with whom the insured is associated, an otherwise uninterested 3rd party, through a loophole in income tax law dating from the days of the New Deal and FDR:

Individuals buy health insurance with dollars left over after state and federal income taxes, including social security and mediscare, are taken out of income.

Those third parties can buy insurance with before tax dollars and get to deduct the premiums from their own taxes. The insured gets a free benefit and so many get tens of thousands of dollars of compensation they don't have to pay taxes on. Very popular with the Union set, both public and private.

And in some cases, those businesses think the coverage the *executive* branch has determined must be provided is against their religion.


If the individual working for a church could buy insurance in a free market, they could choose whatever they want. A first step would be to make health benefits taxable, adjusting the tax tables to be revenue neutral. Don't expect public employees and private unionized employees to be happy about that...

Gregory

"Also, re: making "your" premiums higher as a result? That could be said about *anything*. By that logic, insurance companies shouldn't pay for any pharmaceuticals, diabetes, cancer treatments, child births, etc.

Please explain how contraception is different."

It isn't. There are many different drugs and services not covered by one or more insurance companies. For example, Viagra isn't covered by many insurance plans, and I understand Medicare limits it to a handful a month.

If you have a medical savings account (an abomination, but it's silly to not take advantage of it), you can buy the EDD remedy with before tax dollars. Now, since there are $7 a month birth control pills available from discount pharmacies, and this can also be bought through a medical savings account, it sounds like we have parity.

Steven Frisch

Greg, In the real world health insurance is considered part of an employees compensation package....just as Wade stated. On a balance sheet it goes under employee wages, benefits and other compensation. If the employer did not pay for health insurance wages would be 10% higher and individuals would pay for it themselves (of course group plans are about 40% cheaper).

And I would hardly call an employer uninterested. The data on productivity and access to health care is overwhelming...healthy people produce more and cost less for the employer.

If your company does not pay for health insurance, under PPACA, you are required to pay for it yourself through a payroll deduction. You still choose and pay for your own insurance.

What I am saying is that Wade is practically correct--employees think of health insurance as part of their total compensation package and they receive it for their services rendered...in other words they pay for it.

Steven Frisch

Here is a list of what reproductive health services are covered under guidelines for PPACA approved insurance:

http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/

Wade I

Steven -

I believe the "taxpayer / increased premiums" argument is a pretense to maintain the illusion of legitimate interest. Apparently they have no problem "paying" for maternity care, child birth, infant care, etc. These are *vastly* more expensive than birth control.

This just happens to also be the central sham of the Tea Party: "Hey, we're just concerned about the deficit..."

Gregory -

If you and I share an employer / health plan, we are pooling our risk. We probably get different direct benefits. Maybe you get "more" than me. What I am not interested in is your "conscience-based" opinion of my healthcare needs. I prefer my doctor's...

George Rebane

Sorry for being tardy, we have a couple of fire drills going on.

If the parties to the conflict here are only the insurance company, the employer, and the insured employee, then I have no problem with the three coming up with whatever arrangement they will. However, if one of the parties becomes the 800lbs gorilla of government dictating who must provide what coverage for what premiums paid for by whomever, then I have a problem.

In Wade's 403pm example, Greg would not have any opinion, conscience-based or otherwise, of Wade's healthcare needs. Greg would be negotiating with your common employer and insurance company to get his healthcare needs satisfied for the least cost. All concerned would make their decision to buy in or not based on the merits of the plan from your individual perspectives.

Wade I

George -

Here's my (pretty typical) health insurance situation. Employer offers 2 choices (2 different companies). Choice A is low employee premium, high deductible (worse coverage). Choice B is high employee premium, lower deductible (better coverage). That's it. There are no further "choices." There isn't any cafeteria plan. Prescriptions are this much, urgent care visits are this much. We all pay into it and go on about our business. The risks and costs are pooled, the services rendered are different for everybody. The whole point of the insurance model as I understand it.

It is informative that Rush, others, people on this blog are *lecturing* heart disease patients about the availability of cheaper care or procedures. Ditto diabetes sufferers, etc. They are very interested, however, in how some women get birth control and how much it costs. That pretty much blows up any fiscal / big gubmint argument since many, many treatments are mandated by federal / state governments.

This is about unapproved sex.

Wade I

Whoops. AREN'T lecturing heart disease patients...

George Rebane

WadeI 623pm - I really don't think that any of the conservative voices here are having any heartburn about "unapproved sex". And in that assessment you are highlighting what keeps us from coming together on these issues. My (our) concern is exactly as I have stated in this and its follow-on comment streams under 'Candyass ...'.

Gregory

Frisch, in the real world, health care benefits paid by the employer are not included in wages that are reported to the IRS and reduced by income, social security or medicare taxes.

The "gold plated" insurance programs are free money for the beneficiaries, many if not most of them union members, public and private.

Gregory

Wade, if our employer is paying $30K a year to provide nearly unlimited prepaid gold plated health care to us, we are getting a $30K benefit whether we actually consume $30K a year's worth or not.

If you were paid that $30K in after tax dollars, you'd probably choose to spend it differently if you were a frugal user of health care dollars.

Steven Frisch

Greg, you are not even worth talking too because you are so clearly just trying to get a rise out of me. I did not comment on how insurance is reported to the IRS, I reported on how it is carried on a balance sheet and perceived by the employee.

Gregory

Yes, I know Steve, facts are a bitch, aren't they?

What I have been describing is what the reality is of employer based healthcare which, unfortunately, remains a festering mistake of WWII wage and price controls and income tax regulations that were never changed to reflect actual employee compensation policies. That IS the reason we have risk groups that are determined by who works where.

That you are trying to boost Obamacare by ignoring my points isn't surprising.

Gregory

And it is fairly clear most employees don't have a clue how much is being spent for their healthcare insurance. The way to change that is to have it listed on their paystubs.

Todd Juvinall

When the payroll tax is removed under threat of jail by the government on the employer, SteveF knows about that topic, then, the employee is usually unaware as Greg has said. I would like to see the employer be removed from being the tax collector for the government, I still can't figure out how some of these mandates made it through the legal test. But, when the Supremes are wrong as they have been on slavery and the Commerce Clause, we are all the losers.

Bonnie McGuire

Some years ago my doctor cousin employed quite a few people in her office. Health care became an issue, so she asked her employees if they would prefer her paying for their health care, or would they rather receive a pay bonus at the end of the year. They all voted for health care. After the year ended they wanted to know why they weren't getting a pay bonus, and she reminded them of their agreement she'd been paying for all year long.

Douglas Keachie

I don't know what universe your employees live in, but all the teachers in SFUSD are acutely aware of who pays how much for what, and how we are at the mercy of the voters, who could screw us royal at anytime, and who are fixing to do so as we speak, with a member of the Health Service Systems Board who reppresents right wing taxpayers and who votes.

http://www.spur.org/goodgovernment/ballotanalysis/Nov2010/propf

For our ever hungry for morsels to crunch, here we are, from our lickspittle griddle, with some terrible news about how bad SFUSD teachers are:

"National Board Certified Teachers! I am always cheered by this annual event, where we honor the teachers who have achieved National Board Certification — essentially a rigorous advanced teaching credential. SFUSD now has 204 NBCTs, which in percentage terms means we are in the top 2 percent of districts nationally and one of the highest in the state of California (LAUSD has more than we do but they are also 10 times our size)."

rachelnorton.com, a school board member with a blog, provides timely insight into the goings on down there. Our BOS and BOE members might want to emulate her.

Steven Frisch

You know, sometimes you just can't make this stuff up. The one of the named lead plaintiff's in the Florida case going to the SCOTUS later this month recently filed for bankruptcy, including on her medical bills. So, in short, because she does not have health insurance, every other insured party in the country is going to pay more. On average an insured party in the US pays $1000 more per year for health insurance to cover the uninsured.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-plaintiff-20120309,0,6657163.story

Brad Croul

Steve, yes, that is classic.

Also, according to Politico, Limbaugh's site has been scrubbed of the word "slut".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73772.html

Todd Juvinall

Louis thre Calypso Louie Farrakhan spoke at UC Berkley. He trashes the Jews, homosexuals and the great white man conspiracy against the planet. The hero of leftwing liberals and Rush haters like the two posters above here, this is what the students say about Louie's ability to speak. And he didn't get a pie in the face like that Ann Coulter gal.
:"Louis Farrakhan is a provocative, divisive figure with a long history of racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic speech," Yudof said. "It was distressing in the extreme that a student organization invited him to speak on the UC Berkeley campus."

"But, as I have said before, we cannot, as a society or as a university community, be provoked by hurtful speech to retreat from the cherished value of free speech," Yudof said."

I bet Steve Frisch and Brad Croul would pay money to go listen to Calypso Louie.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad