Gay Patriot Header Image

The Twisted Imagination of (some of) Our Critics

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:47 pm - January 27, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Conservative Discrimination,Liberals

In a recent post, reflecting on how often those who refuse to understand gay conservatives use the erroneous epithet, “Jews for Hitler,” against us, Malcontent observes that the imagination of the anti-conservative fabulists “is the only place where such claptrap is remotely plausible.” Not long after reading his post, I received an e-mail where the writer showed such fabulism. He had initially e-mailed me to note that Canadian Prime Minister-designate Harper “has pledged to re-visit the gay marriage issue.” My response that this is what happens when “you let courts decide such issues” prompted this diatribe:

“You guys are such self-loathers that it gets in the way of your capacity to use any logic. The fact is that Harper is an elected official. Elected officials pass LEGISLATION….(that means law making, in case that word’s too big for you). Harper wants to make gay marriage illegal legislatively –just like your beloved “W” (sooo dreamy!) wants to do The judicial branch of government and the legislative branch of government have turf wars –you like the legislative because it’s emotional and can respond emotionally to hot-button issues and it frequently feeds into anti-gay hysteria. I prefer the judicial because it’s thoughtful and deliberative. I would suggest that they are reflective of our individual perspectives of the world.”


I hope you were not raised in a place where gays are fags, and blacks are niggers….etc. and Democrats are evil and Republicans are saintly… and the world is black and white, and one’s eyes can’t see the color gray. Are you angry because you wound up gay…. and gay is wrong. Gay is twisted. And the rancorous approach you have to the world…. the misanthropic reflection of self-loathing is transparent The world can see those things, my friend. And I’m sure that within the bosom of your own family, they prefer to see you hate yourself (because gay is disgusting)than to see you at peace with yourself? And you’ve accommodated them –because, well, how could you not? You’ve incorporated their own dirty prejudices about filthy gays?And I wonder…. have they accommodated you… (do they even know about you?)? And what would they think of any partner you might fall in love with? Evil seducer? Sexual predator (like Gene Shalit called Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain)…? Jesus pal! You’ve got one life …. I’ve got one life…. we all have only one life.You may be young… and have it all before you… but don’t let your life be UNLIVED… Drop the loathing that manifests itself in 100 ways you might not even be able to fathom Christ, I do care about you, regardless of the snarky political back-and-forth…

At least this guy wished me well at the end. That beats some of my previous hate mail.

Fascinating how he makes so many assumptions about me, but offers no references to any of my posts. He accuses me of anger and rancor, yet the tone of his e-mail is angry and rancorous. He trots out one of the old standard accusations of leftists who refuse to understand gay conservatives, calling us self-hating. And while he hold that that my “loathing that manifests itself in 100 ways,” he fails to identify a single one of those many ways.

Moreover, he seems unable to understand that someone can support a political leader while opposing some of his stands. As we have made clear on this blog, we think the president was wrong to support the FMA, yet back him primarily because of his leadership in the War on Terror.

I could go on and on. Given this man’s failure to reference any of my posts (or comments) to justify his accusations, his angry e-mail is just further proof that left-wingers’ narrow-minded criticism of gay conservatives derives not from the reality of our ideas (or, our lives, for that matter) but from their own fevered imaginations.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

Please note that I changed the title of this post a few hours after I first posted it.



  1. Cognitively, what’s happening is: your correspondent has an incredibly tiny, fearful view of the world, that he just can’t break out of, where either a person is with the Radical Gay Left Establishment 100%, or with Fred Phelps and a total anti-gay monster.

    Which is the true meaning of “small-minded”.

    Which makes his accusations – let’s call them what they are, “projections” – about your small-mindedness, all the more sad.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - January 27, 2006

  2. I call it “Maureen Dowd Bubble Syndrome”

    Comment by Robert — January 27, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - January 27, 2006

  3. To add to Calarato’s (typically) insightful comment, your writer shows a complete lack of irony to be so dichotic while at the same time admonishing you for your alleged “black-and-white” worldview.

    Furthermore, you show tremendous constitution to read past his elitist views of government: that the representative branches should somehow be subordinated to those appointed for life. This I think is one of the best caricatures of the Left we have today in America.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — January 27, 2006 @ 3:05 pm - January 27, 2006

  4. Curiously, just today I found an interesting comment by A.N. Wilson in his recent book “After the Victorians” made in connection with his attack on E.M. Forster and his novel “A Passage to India:”

    “Perhaps political prejudices based upon sexual preference are, at base, just as racialist as those based upon crude ideology.”

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — January 27, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - January 27, 2006

  5. It’s been my experience that nobody’s more “self-loathing” than the liberals. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been pretty happy for the last 10, or so, years since I came out.
    Alternatively, liberals come across as angry, hate-filled, self-loathing, defeatists. Also, I find it interesting that gay liberals feel compelled to keep their sexuality the paramount issue in their life.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - January 27, 2006

  6. As a gay conservative, my self-esteem doesn’t come crashing to pieces if I don’t get continual and escalating symbols of approval from society, the government, etc. I don’t have the thin skin that gay liberals have. I don’t throw a hissy fit because a majority of the population doesn’t support gay marriage. I don’t need the approval of others to fell good about myself. Gay liberal politics seems to be a kind of perpetual therapy for someone who has deep-seeded personal issues about his/her sexual orientation. It strikes me as particularly hypocritical when someone like that calls me “self-loathing”. O.o

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — January 27, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - January 27, 2006

  7. Well said, Dale, very well said.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 27, 2006 @ 7:57 pm - January 27, 2006

  8. Hilarious

    Comment by hank — January 27, 2006 @ 7:57 pm - January 27, 2006

  9. Kleinian developmental theory suggests that infants begin life in the “paranoid-schizoid” position in relation to the mother: they experience their mother as two separate beings, the good mother and the bad mother. Example: the alternations of rage and cuddling that little children do with mom, the cycle of “l love you, Mommy” and “I hate you, Mommy”. It’s a splitting and split experience and when the child is in the “hate you” mode, it’s paranoid.

    Part of the challenge of growing up is recognizing and internalizing that the loved Mommy and the hated Mommy are in fact the same Mommy. This leads to what Klein calls the “depressive” position. the sad and disappointing experience of knowing that there is in fact no Always Good Mommy. You have to learn to cope with the fact that people are a mixed bag.

    Your esteemed correspondent seems not to have applied that experience to the world yet. Paranoid-schizoid sounds about right for him.

    Your stomach for these kinds of things is impressive! I just roll my eyes and go back to oppressing whatever inferior race, gender, class or sexual orientation I can….:-)

    Comment by EssEm — January 27, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - January 27, 2006

  10. Yes… Dan, I have been meaning to say for awhile that I really admire your and Bruce’s stomach in being able to put up with these things.

    I mean, I can just “check out” whenever I’m (a) busy, or (b) sick of it… you guys seem to read it all… then you still re-assert your own (good) principles, usually with equanimity and good humor. It’s a real service to the world, the way you run this blog.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - January 27, 2006

  11. “Twisted”

    Comment by hank — January 27, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - January 27, 2006

  12. Calarato, thanks for the good word. I used to get angry when I got such hate mails. Now, they just amuse and entertain. This guy, I think, actually meant well, but has no understanding whatsoever of my ideas — or me.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 27, 2006 @ 9:14 pm - January 27, 2006

  13. Poor hank!

    Having met defeat here several times in his attemps to be snotty or snarky and so get “on top”, he raves to himself in insignificant single-word interjections.

    Comment by Calarato — January 27, 2006 @ 10:40 pm - January 27, 2006

  14. “electric”

    Comment by Bobo — January 28, 2006 @ 1:09 am - January 28, 2006

  15. 3: Your comment about “appointed for life” shows a huge and frankly dangerous flaw in the current conservative approach to the 3 branches of government. In an attempt to pass certain laws (ie anti-same sex marriage), conservatives have made judges the whipping boys of this argument.

    Simply put, these anti-gay marriage initiatives fly in the face of established “equal protection” clauses in both state and US Constitutions. Unfortunately, many people in this country seem to have forgetten that our laws and freedoms need to apply to *everyone*, not just the majority.

    The framers of the constitution (revered by many on this site) set up an appointed judiciary was to avoid the pitfalls of influence peddling and graft that could affect the elected officials in the other 2 branches of government. Of course, over the last nearly 230 years, this has happened in all parties ever elected to office in the country. The whole concept of appointed judges has worked out fairly well, yet I find it interesting that it only seems this concept came under fire when the MA Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples were being denied equal protection by not being able to get marriage licenses and benefit from the rights granted by such licenses. Our country has lived through eras of both conservative and liberal run governments, but why now the big change that has becom an attack on the judiciary?

    I’ll reiterate 2 things i’ve mentioned before:
    1) Our government is like a table that’s held up by 3 legs. That table won’t stand too well if you weaken or remove one of the legs.

    2) In the end, citizens of this country have to remain loyal to the ideals upon which our country is supposed to stand and the Constitution of the US, not to the leaders du jour. And that’s true whether you’re liberal or conservative.

    Comment by Kevin — January 28, 2006 @ 1:54 am - January 28, 2006

  16. 6: I find your comment about gay marriage disturbing. Recognition of marriage in this country is not all about approval. It’s about a legal binding contract, issued by states which provides a whole host of legal rights and protections (ie inheritance rights in most cases). I’m guessing from your comment that marriage isn’t an issue in your case (and frankly, it’s not an issue for me personally). I don’t see, however, what’s so wrong about supporting other people like ourselves who do want to have the same legal rights that millions of Americans by obtaining a simple piece of paper.

    Furthermore, it’s hypocritical of our lawmakers and those pushing these initiatives to say that they are “saving” marriage. The divorce rate in this country is well over 50%. Seems to me that if they were so interested in saving marriage, then they would immediately pass laws in every state to outlaw divorce. But then again, that would be mighty inconvenient to our upstanding, family friendly legislators who have / want to obtain divorces themselves….

    Comment by Kevin — January 28, 2006 @ 2:05 am - January 28, 2006

  17. I have a great admiration for REAL conservatives, such as Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter, even Bruce Bawer, because they obviously seem to know what “conservatism” means. They are in the tradition of Burke, Oakshott, Hayek, etc., that is both honorable and viable.

    The difference between REAL conservatives and those who appropriate the appellation for themselves on this group is that they are NOT apologists for obviously anti-conservative policies of GWB and the big-government, social-purists of what is now the Republican party. Indeed, the REAL conservatives see, quite rightly, that GWB and his cohorts are the antithesis of conservatism. What you parade as “conservatism” is more akin to the “patriot” title you wear: chauvinism, jingoism, fascism, and anti-pluralism.

    GWB and his cohorts (among whom I number most on here) have set back conservatism for decades, if not permanently. And, apparently you are willing to sacrifice ALL principles for ONE mistaken ideology: GWB is handling the War on Terror. Has it ever occurred to you guys that GWB has exacerbated the WOT, not diminished it? After four years in Iraq, why is it still unsafe to leave one’s hotel room? Why do military personnel refuse suicide missions, lacking armor?

    No doubt about it, GWB is Commander in Chief. But his failed presidency and perversion of conservatism seems to know no limits. One hopes you will see it someday, before GWB’s fascism is in your face.

    Comment by Stephen — January 28, 2006 @ 2:25 am - January 28, 2006

  18. #16

    You missed the point of his post though.

    BTW, I think what would really help “save marriage” as you put it would be to rid ourselves of the scourge of “Women’s Lib”, but that’s just me.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2006 @ 2:29 am - January 28, 2006

  19. Stephen, must you attach the same angry diatribe to my every post — and not once address the points I raise. By a charge you leveled in a comment to a previous post, by failing to address my points, you, however, are acknowledging the truth of my words.

    And please quit calling Andrew Sullivan a conservative. It’s like calling Benedict Arnold an American patriot.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 28, 2006 @ 2:35 am - January 28, 2006

  20. Well, Sullivan is a whole inch to the right of NGLTF…

    Oops sorry I was viewing things like a gay Democrat again.

    Comment by Calarato — January 28, 2006 @ 4:09 am - January 28, 2006

  21. Not for the first time, we seem to be measuring their standards not by what we support, but by what we oppose, or who opposes us.

    One of the frequent themes at Gay Patriot is the powerlessness of the gay left, how the gay left has gotten the gay community nowhere, how they get nothing from Democrats. Yet by frequently focusing on the gay left, on the angry mail you get from gay liberals, on gays in the Democratic Party, you are only reinforcing the view that most gays are supposed to be liberals or Democrats.

    By this time I think most of the people who genuinely enjoy reading and posting at this blog know that Democrats are not the answer, they know gay liberals have too much of a voice, they know that you don’t think courts are the way to solve a problem. They know that you support President Bush’s War on Terror.

    What else is there? What are your thoughts on how the Republicans deal with gay issues, or how they treat gays in the Republican Party? What are your plans for making America better, or improving the gay community?

    Comment by Carl — January 28, 2006 @ 4:49 am - January 28, 2006

  22. -we seem to be measuring their standard-

    Our not their; I meant our.

    Comment by Carl — January 28, 2006 @ 4:50 am - January 28, 2006

  23. Dale in L.A. — January 27, 2006 @ 7:02 pm – January 27, 2006

    As a gay conservative, my self-esteem doesn’t come crashing to pieces if I don’t get continual and escalating symbols of approval from society, the government, etc. I don’t have the thin skin that gay liberals have. I don’t throw a hissy fit because a majority of the population doesn’t support gay marriage. I don’t need the approval of others to fell good about myself.

    Is this illustrative of conservatives–whether or not they are gay? All I get from conservatives nowadays is “me” and “I,” “I,” “I.”

    Comment by raj — January 28, 2006 @ 7:39 am - January 28, 2006

  24. Carl — January 28, 2006 @ 4:49 am – January 28, 2006

    One of the frequent themes at Gay Patriot is the powerlessness of the gay left, how the gay left has gotten the gay community nowhere, how they get nothing from Democrats.

    In point of fact, gays have gotten something from Democrats, at least here in MA. After we got rid of the homophobes Mike Dukakis and the corrupt midget Billy Bulger (then president of the MA senate) in 1990, the heavily Democratic state legislature passed gay rights legislation. It was signed into law by Republican governor Bill Weld, but he wouldn’t have anything to sign if the legislature had not passed it.

    Yet by frequently focusing on the gay left, on the angry mail you get from gay liberals, on gays in the Democratic Party, you are only reinforcing the view that most gays are supposed to be liberals or Democrats

    I know nothing about “gaypatriot” or “gaypatriotwest” but they remind me a lot of Stephen Miller over at IndeGayForum. Miller has admitted to being a recovering lefty, which is why he bashes (rhetorically, of course) gays who he classifies as being lefties. He’s like an ex-smoker, who bashes smokers. I have no idea whether GP or GPW are recovering lefties, but the analogy should be obvious.

    Comment by raj — January 28, 2006 @ 7:50 am - January 28, 2006

  25. It should be, but NOTHING gets through to these people.

    Comment by hank — January 28, 2006 @ 8:23 am - January 28, 2006

  26. #18 TGC, how has the “scourge” of Women’s Lib hurt marriage? Just curious.

    Comment by Pat — January 28, 2006 @ 9:23 am - January 28, 2006

  27. Furthermore, the left has fastened onto the pointless, Kafkaesque absurdity that they should retroactively get permission for each intercept, which is just stupid. If the vast majority of intercepts are benign and unuseful, all you would be doing is creating bureaucratic busy-work by requiring intelligence officers to justify gathering intel that’s already been thrown away. That seems like a waste of time to me. It also seems reminiscent of the pre-Patriot Act mindset that let terrorists slip easily through because the intel community was worried more about offending the sensibilities of the ACLU than protecting Americans.

    As someone who works in intel, I understand that sometimes you have to sort through a whole landfill of garbage to find one useful nugget of information. That’s probably lost on people who think intelligence work is like ’24’ and Chloe just needs to spend two minutes at the computer to find the terrorist and uncover his plan. If the left were in charge of ’24’s’ CTU, Jack, Chloe, and Bill would be in court all day, getting permission for each terrorist intercept, and probably fought every step of the way by the pro-terrorist ACLU and CAIR.

    Comment by V the K — January 28, 2006 @ 9:51 am - January 28, 2006

  28. #26 — Maureen Dowd writes a book titled Are Men Necessary? and you don’t think that, and the pervasive attitude among feminists it reveals, is harmful to marriage?

    Comment by V the K — January 28, 2006 @ 9:54 am - January 28, 2006

  29. #26 – I believe the Women’s Lib movement hurt marriage because it “needed” a villain. Instead of simply and honestly citing traditional ways as being outmoded, the Women’s Lib movement decided to embody whatever injustices women have faced. That embodiment became the average man. Instead of women striving for equality a real war between the sexes emerged. As a 44 year old man I’m still surprised and dismayed by the unwarranted and unfair disdain I see so many women of the Women’s Lib era practice with such glee. How likely is it that a marriage will survive when the movement reinforces the notion that men are pigs and women are above criticism? Perhaps this was not the initial intention of the movement. But it is the reality.

    Comment by Dave — January 28, 2006 @ 10:11 am - January 28, 2006

  30. Well i guess i should start off with saying im neither gay nor a conservative. And when i first stumbled upon this site i was a bit confused. However i am of the mindset that understanding anothers point of view is the best way to be a balanced individual. I am from just south of Chicago and the only persons of a different sexual orientation than my own i have ever met have always been off the wall liberals. Not that they didnt have their arguements but i found them a bit too extreme at times. Regardless, i want to say that his has been one of the most mature and intelligent discussions ive ever seen on the internet. I want to applaud all of you, especially Dale (for his post on the 27th) for helping me to understand your mindset and it is an EXTREMELY brave one. I agree that the gentleman who issued the letter has more hate in his heart for himself or others (both evident in the letter and the fact that he sent it) than the accused “self loathing” person he is attacking. Anyway im happy i found my way here and though i prefer to usually be the silent observer, i felt it necessary to express my thanks.

    NoLiesJustLove (just an fyi, the name doesnt have anything to do with politics, it is the title of my favorite song, by a band called Bright Eyes)

    Comment by noliesjustlove — January 28, 2006 @ 10:12 am - January 28, 2006

  31. Rants like this were a common occurrence in Vera’s world, which is why Vera moved out of the gay ghetto a long time ago. Vera finds it hypocritical that people, who proclaim to embrace diversity, dissent, difference of opinion and lifestyle, are in fact small-minded bigots who resent free thinking people not towing the party line.

    Vera toasts (with the good champagne) GPW on his intelligence and tact.


    Comment by Vera Charles — January 28, 2006 @ 11:53 am - January 28, 2006

  32. Carl, in #21, it’s up to gay and lesbian individuals to improve our own community. And I need to write more on that.

    Raj in #23, um, Dale’s post was about the self-sufficient “I” not the needy “I” of the gay left. So, you’ve really got that wrong. if you pay attention to conservatives at all, you’ll see it’s not about me” and “I,” “I,” “I.” (as you put it). He believes he doesn’t need approval from the state while the gay left demands it.

    I’m please to be compared to Stephen Miller whom I happen to know and who, I believe, is one of the most thoughtful guys writing on gay issues.

    I agree, hank in 325, nothing gets through to the gay left.

    Very well said, Dave in #29. One of the first gay men I met, an older man — and a “negative” role model if I ever had one, used to describer heterosexual intercourse as “intervaginal masturbation.” It’s sad that so many who advocate change demand overthrowing the old order than just amending it.

    Nolies in #30, thanks for your kind words about this blog and the discussion to this post.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 28, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - January 28, 2006

  33. raj said:

    Is this illustrative of conservatives–whether or not they are gay? All I get from conservatives nowadays is “me” and “I,” “I,” “I.”

    That perception is due in part to the coservative tendency to value individual thought over the group-think mindset of the average liberal.

    (I’m really stepping into it here).

    Fire away raj.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 28, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - January 28, 2006

  34. Er, Ridor, what is a Kapos?

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 28, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - January 28, 2006

  35. This week I heard Paul Begala promoting his new book with James Carville in which he said the answer to our problems in the Middle East was complete energy independence and the development of alternative fuels, and the we were only in Iraq for the oil. I am reminded of this Dave Barry Quote that was featured in a letter to Andrew Sullivan.

    “The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They’re the kind of people who’d stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn’t bother to stop because they’d want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.” I have worked for Habitat for Humanity but there are times that I like to keep clean. Does that make me a Republican?

    The current administration has made some mistakes that is for sure, but overall I much prefer G. W. Bush to Albert Gore or John Kerry. I am so glad that the Bush State Department is handling the Iran problem rather than the Madeline Albright wing of the Democratic Party. It is much easier to be a Gay Republican, even with some of the inconsistencies that the Republican party has these days. I think the Tom Delay wing of the party is suffering, and that is OK by me. With growth there is always pain.


    Comment by Shrubstex — January 28, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - January 28, 2006

  36. #35


    The German concentration camps depended on the cooperation of trustee inmates who supervised the prisoners. Known as Kapos, these trustees carried out the will of the Nazi camp commandants and guards, and were often as brutal as their S.S. counterparts. Some of these Kapos were Jewish, and even they inflicted harsh treatment on their fellow prisoners. For many, failure to perform their duties would have resulted in severe punishment and even death, but many historians view their actions as a form of complicity. After the war, the prosecution of Kapos as war criminals, particularly those who were Jewish, created an ethical dilemma which continues to this day.

    That, from a deaf & clearly dumb retard.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2006 @ 7:09 pm - January 28, 2006

  37. #15, Kevin,
    I want to point out an error in your argument. You state “these anti-gay marriage initiatives fly in the face of established “equal protection” clauses in both state and US Constitutions.” This is incorrect. The “equal protection” clause of state and US Constitutions gives equal protection/rights to all. The fact that a gay man can not marry a gay man does not violate that. I, a straight man can not marry a gay man, nor can I even marry a straight man. There is also nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman too, in fact this has happened many many times. Using your arguments, the state is in violation of the equal protection” clause denying me the right to marry my sister, or my dog.
    But the biggest error your posting has is that GPW wasn’t commenting on the application of the Constitution, but that the Gay Marriage issue is being set back by those in the judiciary that want to interpret the constitution by the “evolving standards of a modern American society”. That the initiatives to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman are only being put on the ballots or through legislatures because of the actions of “liberal” judges in MA, CA or the courts in Canada. I would further note that the ideals of the framers had nothing to do with whether Adam and Steven should be able to marry.
    I would also note that the abomidable divorce rate in this country is a moot point when discussing this subject. It has no bearing on the gay marriage issue.
    As a side note, I really don’t want to marry my dog, he stinks and has bad breath.

    Comment by HCN — January 28, 2006 @ 8:31 pm - January 28, 2006

  38. Dan, or GPW, you’re the one who is constantly using “liberal” in a perjorative manner. Or, haven’t you noticed it? You do NOT extol conservative virtues, because you’re not conservative, but a GWB apologist.

    But let’s set the record “straight,” if we can: YOU assail everything you disagree with as “liberal,” as if virtues and vices were part of a conservative/liberal dichotomy, which they are not, and as if all who disagree with your apologist practices were vile. A virtue is a virtue, and chronically labelling those you dismiss or disagree with YOU as “liberals,” as if (i) this is a prejorative epithet and (ii) it is supposed to substantiate something, when it (iii) simply doesn’t.

    I suspect you are quite young and still in college. It’s a good time to take a course in ethics and critical thinking (sometimes known as informal logic). The above example is typical of the fallacies this blog commits day in and day out, that a course in critical thinking may help you to overcome. It’s not unlike an unenlightened person always calling people s/he doesn’t like a “fag” or some other epithet of that kind. “Labeling” doesn’t do what you and your compatriot think it does; yes, it stimulates the blood of V the K and colorato and the gay conservative, the same five-or-ten folk who think like you do. But it doesn’t do you or the “conservative” agenda any good by debunking others as “liberals.” I know you are not conservative, you are GWB apologists. But if and when you ever do become a conservative instead of a GWB apologist, you may finally discover your apologist bloviating entirely misses the mark.

    As most educated people know, Burke, Oakshott, Hayek, Goldwater, et alia are REAL conservatives, and that GWB is the antithesis of everything REAL conservatives believe. For example, just one, conservatives generally do not outspend welfarist liberals. But GWB has outspent even the granddaddy of welfarist liberals, LBJ. There are literally hundreds of other examples why GWB is NOT a conservative. I and many others have brought numerous examples to the fore. He’s a big-business, big-government, fiancially-inept, and incompetent leader. He doesn’t even respect the laws of the land, a hallmark of conservatism. Whatever GWB is, he is definitely NOT a conservative.

    Michael Sandel, a direheart leftist if ever one existed, extols “republican virtues.” And in his “Democracy and Its Discontents” he identifies how the republican consensus has become perverted (written before GWB, so the examples should be all the more glaring). Before reading this book, I would have dismissed him as a “liberal.” Irony of ironies, he’s extraordinarily conservative. He thinks big-anything, like all previous conservatives, is detrimental to democratic self-government. Echoing that liberal of liberals, Tip O’Neal, he subscribes to the notion that all politics is local. That’s a conservative ideal. Centralized government and gargantuan-business are the antithesis of republican virtues and the conservative creed. It even makes the laissez-faire marketplace a farce. Yet those very antitheses describe GWB to a fault. Have you known GWB not to INCREASE government, corporate-welfare, and dump on private individuals? Does it foster democratic self-government when BIG government and BIG business make all the decisions? Maybe that might help explain the malaise and discontent of the times. WE, the people, are powerless against such enormous forces. That’s the antithesis of conservatism. But, then, GWB is NO conservative; never has been, and never will be.

    Take as ONE example Medicare Part D. This whole scheme was designed and implemented by GWB and the Republicans. Democrats fought it tooth and nail. Why? Because, the LARGEST government program in 50 years is to be run and operated by the very businesses that it’s suppose to control: Insurance and pharmaceutical companies. All OTHER Medicare is operated by the government. And it’s one of few examples of governmental efficiency and cost-containment. And unlike most governmental programs, it’s simple. But GWB needed to repay his “investors,” not the public who elected him, but the BIG BUSINESS that financially supported him. So, for the first time, a governmental program is RUN by the very people it is supposed to contain. But isn’t this the PRIVATE initiative Republicans tout? Hardly. Government ultimately picks up the tab. But because Republicans prohibit any other government from interferring with this “PRIVATE ENTERPRISE,” these two industries get to call ALL the shots, and government under GWB has agreed to pay for it. “Other” Republican governors are outraged, including Schwarzenegger. The insurance-pharmaceutical cabal has total and supreme power, signed off by GWB. The States are powerless, and the federal government will just have to eat it. I’ll cite just ONE absurdity. Before GWB’s Part D, one of the drugs I take cost only $10; under GWB’s plan, it now cost $144. It’s generic, so there’s no way the drug costs anywhere near $144. But Medicare Part D was never intended to benefit the consumer; it was payback to the insurance-pharmaceutical cabal from the beginning for their support of candidate Bush. Oh, and the cabal can raise prices again whenever it wants, but the consumer cannot change membership except once annually. YOU call THIS conservatism? THIS is what you and GP patronize? I know V the K thinks this was a DEM proposal from the outset; but who actually CONTROLS all realms of government? Tis true that beneficiaries may save up to 30% than before Medicare Part D. But the federal government will have to nearly DOUBLE its allocations for Medicare, all coming out the taxpayers’ pockets, meanwhile GWB further reduces the tax burden on the wealthy. Is THIS a conservative principle of democratic self-government? Free-market dynamics? Absolutely, NOT!

    GPW, you wanted specifics. Now you have one. It’s even worse than I describe. But it’s hardly alone. When you stop and behold the brazen cabal between BIG government and BIG business, maybe you’ll see the light. Obviously, GWB’s derisive abuse of queers didn’t have its mark on you. The Iraq fiasco seems to be a rallying point, but maybe our occupation of another country has nothing to do with THEIR fascism, but our OWN. Maybe you’ll actually get a chance to real Hayek or Oakshott, and behold what REAL conservatives believe.

    What’s now going on in Washington under a “Republican” presidency and legislature is so antithetical to anything remotely conservative, I hope you’ll at least (1) stop identifying yourselves as “conservatives,” and (2) stop using the epithet “liberal” as a prejorative. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to be GWB apologists, but hey, it’s still a free country (just be careful in your phonecalls, who you have over, etc.)

    Comment by Stephen — January 28, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - January 28, 2006

  39. Stephen in #39. I suggest that your drug didn’t “cost” $10.00. You just had to pay $10.00 for it. Do some shopping. If the actual cost is $10.00, then you’ll find someone willing to sell it to you for something close to that. If not, then the rest of us “helped” you out on the cost and a thank you would be appreciated. Addressing your larger point, I agree that this is not a good use of government money. My only question is why your homies, the DEMs, are not blocking all Senate business until this outrage is repealed? They seem quite anxious to filibluster a SCOTUS nomination but strangely silent on this truly critical issue. Perhaps you can point us to where Your People are burning the midnight oil to save us from Bush and his evil corporate masters.

    Comment by Bobo — January 29, 2006 @ 12:21 am - January 29, 2006

  40. LOL

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 12:24 am - January 29, 2006

  41. Stephen wrote:

    ” A whole bunch of stuff – Sound and fury, signifying nothing”

    If you pay ANY attention to this blog, you would see that all the things you criticize – “INCREASE government, corporate-welfare, and dump on private individuals? ” and “Medicare Part D” – have all been criticized here by the GP’s and other bloggers who frequent this site.

    It’s a good time to take a course in ethics and critical thinking (sometimes known as informal logic). The above example is typical of the fallacies this blog commits day in and day out, that a course in critical thinking may help you to overcome.

    Lets give the concept of logical arguments a whirl, shall we?

    “You do NOT extol conservative virtues, because you’re not conservative, but a GWB apologist.” – Argument by Excluding the Middle; you assume there is no middle ground between your side and your perception of Gp’s side.

    “YOU assail everything you disagree with as “liberal,” – Affirming The Consequent: logic reversal. A correct statement of the form “if P then Q” gets turned into “Q therefore P”. You envision that, since GP is conservative, that anything GP is against is automatically labeled “liberal”.

    “I suspect you are quite young and still in college.” Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients): Two problems:
    A). Assumes that, as our elder, you automatically know better, and
    B). Assumes that GP is young and in college. This comment you wrote absolutely PROVES you do not read or absorb the material posted by the GP’s. I don’t know how old they are, but, from reading and paying attention, I am pretty sure they are beyond their college stage in life.

    I would like to continue, but I have a gig tonight and must play music and have fun.


    Comment by sonicfrog — January 29, 2006 @ 12:45 am - January 29, 2006

  42. #42

    “Blah! TIMMER!!!”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 29, 2006 @ 12:58 am - January 29, 2006

  43. I’m not surprised that Bobo and calorato don’t get it It’s a bit cerebral. And maybe like GPW, they’re too enmeshed in “mythology” to understand coherent logical concepts. It happens.

    GP and GPW: I forgot to mention that Govs Schwarzenegger, Pataki, et alia are PISSED with the new Medicare Part D. Prior to GWB’s plan, each state negotiated the price of drugs under its Medicaid programs. BUT GWB inserted an unusual provision in the law that States CANNOT negotiate anything; they MUST pay whatever the insurance-pharmaceutical cartel charges. PERIOD. No discussion. But I guess these guvs are “liberal.”

    [What does this have to do with GPW’s post? — Ed.]

    Take a simple example. Viread, an anti-HIV drug, in Dec. retailed for around $500/mo. Most states were able to negotiate the price down to around $200. But GWB’s Medicare Part D disallows states from intervening AT ALL. States MUST pay whatever the insurance-pharmaceutical cartel demands, and what the federal government does not pick up, the States have no choice but to pay the Part D difference. Now, after Part D went into effect, the SAME drug now RETAILS for $800. Up $300 in one month. And the States must pay the difference! They previously paid just $200, but now MUST pay $300 over what Medicare pays. States are PROHIBITED from any and all price negotiations to reduce they costs. So are ALL other parties. Even the “usual and customary” drug-dispensing companies CANNOT negotiate drug prices. Whatever the “market” will bear is the PRICE. Period. But the feds will only pay FMV (fair market value), so the States are saddled with the “new” difference. As it turns out, States are paying MORE now than they did BEFORE Medicare Part D. What taxpayers will pay, no one has a clue!

    So GWB’s plan is quite simple. We’ll let the insurance-pharmaceutical companies DETERMINE price, insist on PAYMENT, and that’s it! Yes, the federal government will pay billions more each year, BUT SO WILL States. but ALL negotiated prices are prohibited. Let “free-market” prices dominate.

    No wonder a generic drug that cost $10 in December NOW cost $144. Did the drug company’s expenses go up? Obviously, the R & D on this drug is past its prime. Did manufacturing costs JUMP 1400 times in ONE month? No. It’s just that the CARTEL can now dictate prices with GWB’s insistence, and NO ONE can argue. Indeed, NO ONE can even challenge the gauging. THIS, is GWB’s concept of the free market?

    Is that “free-market” dynamics? Well, if the Medicare Part D enrollees could change “companies,” MAYBE. But they can’t. The insurance-pharmaceutical cartel can change prices anytime and to any amount they elect, and the federal government will pick up the price (except for those on Medicaid or other assistance). THEN, the States have to pay; NO QUESTIONS ALLOWED. And for the consumer? Prices can change, but membership in an “insurance” program CAN’T. In early January, the above drug was priced at $1,200/mo. For a generic drug! But apparently the hue and cry changed the insurance company’s copay. One way or another, GOVERNMENT will pay.

    In any event, the CARTEL can change prices at whim, but consumers are stuck. Premiums, not copays, can vary by 2000%. So can copays. But according to GWB’s “free-market” accommodation, the CARTEL dictates what the government and insured and States MUST pay; but the States and insured can do NOTHING about it. The FED’s liability IS negotiable, but States and consumers must pay whatever the “market will bear.” This is capitalism?

    Is there ANYTHING about this program that makes sense? The answer is Yes, IF you’re a part of the Feds and the CARTEL. Don’t even get me started on the convoluted, irrational, and incoherent “coverage” offered the consumer. You know. After you pay your monthly Part D premium, you must pay $250 out of pocket, then Part D pays 75% of the next $2,250, after which it pays nothing, until out-of-pocket costs reach $5,100, then Part D pays the rest at 95%. Got that? If you’re elderly and don’t have access to You’re f**ked. Besides, GWB will assign you a plan anyway. And he knows what’s best for . . . ? So you’ll get a premium anywhere between $5.41 and $144.04, and then the CARTEL can determine what prices to charge, or change, anytime in between. But as a consumer, you’re stuck. No. Allowing consumers to change would disrupt GWB’s system.

    Medicare Part D. The Republican Answer to uninsured prescriptions, PROVIDED you are either the insurer or pharmacuetical company. Besides, the taxpayers just got another $100 billion TAX CUT to PAY for this $500 billion scheme! I guess I’ve had to balance my bank account too long to understand it all. I just don’t understand how the BIGGEST government entitlement to insurance and pharmaceutical companies can be paid with another enormous tax cut? Maybe Jesus will provide?

    Comment by Stephen — January 29, 2006 @ 1:21 am - January 29, 2006

  44. Stephen, you really are stunning. There is just no other word. For how far “out of it” you are.

    What I, at least, don’t get is your (1) total logical contortions, and (2) endless masturbatory rants that never actually address who GP and GPW are or what they say.

    In short, Stephen: Your capacity for self-deception. It is truly jaw-dropping. It’s amazing and, in a warped way, delightful to watch. 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 1:27 am - January 29, 2006

  45. I wonder if it is valid to say liberal=democrat, and if it is vlaid to say conservative=republican.
    Headline issues seem to change parties every couple of election cycles, (i.e. states rights vs federal–once was a democract issue, then a GOP stump issue, then back to the dem side again)
    Is it possible to go deeper and define what a conservative really stands for without trying to write a shopping list of issues that may (or may not) really mean something in 5 years, or ten?
    Here is my effort:
    The liberal believes that “Man” is a total and complete being. He is the culmination of thousands of years of evolution and is without question; the highest and most beautiful thing that this earth has ever seen.
    Unfortunately, this “Man”, this perfect being, is surrounded by institutions that are flawed, and these flawed institutions have warped and deformed the man.
    By institutions we mean all forms and groups that influence man, so the liberal tells us that the government is tyrannical, that schools are inept, that the church is hypocritical, that marriage is patriarchal and misogynistic. That the criminal justice system is racist, and biased toward those with money. That democracy is a sham. That national borders are arbitrary and false. That capitalism’s wheels are greased with the blood of the worker.
    But in all this note that “Man” is blameless—it is the world that is always wrong—not “Man”.
    And if only these institutions could be reformed, and be purged of their flaws, then “Man” this perfect being would flower and reach his full potential.

    The conservative believes that “Man” is really not that far off from the animals. That he has a lack in him, and that without society’s institutions he would revert to a semi-barbaric state. (Some {not all} conservatives would define this lack as ‘original sin’)
    That, given the opportunity, the employee will steal from the company, that husbands will cheat on their wives, that of course magistrates can be swayed if the bribe is big enough, that the strong will abuse the weak if no safe-guards are in place, and that government will continually expand and impose upon the people.
    Now the conservative will admit flaws in the institutions, and freely admit when there is an injustice—but before the rush to reform—or the rush to teardown the institution as a whole, the conservative will ask ‘at what cost’, because he knows that there really is no such thing as reform, there is only a series of trade offs. If you want to insure perfect justice in the courts, then how many criminals will go free? Is that worth the cost?
    If you want to publicly fund every school child’s education K thru College, then the taxes spent will increase the unemployment rate, and the poverty rate—Is that worth the cost? If you demand that the military never, never strike first against an enemy, then how many of our people will die in the next attack upon us?—Is that worth the cost?

    Comment by Jim in St Louis — January 29, 2006 @ 5:12 am - January 29, 2006

  46. It’s 3:30 and I’m back from my gig. Stephen, I don’t mean to be rude, but your rant that criticized the GP’s based on your perceptions, comes across as a movie review written by a lazy reporter who never actually took the time to see the movie. It you look through the archives you will find posts that criticize GW for almost everything you claim is so horrible about his presidency.

    Tired, must sleep.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 29, 2006 @ 6:28 am - January 29, 2006

  47. #46
    Your pretentious rudeness is disgusting. Writing in the tone of a priggish maiden aunt, only underscores your lack of manners, and inability to communicate.
    Stephen makes perfect sense, if you take time to realize that he’s trying to help you.
    One would that with as many people who have cajoled, pleaded, insulted, and screamed at you, you would take a look at yourself. But no, you hear only what you choose to hear.
    Let’s hope that one day you’ll wake up.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Comment by hank — January 29, 2006 @ 8:27 am - January 29, 2006

  48. …One would THINK that…

    Comment by hank — January 29, 2006 @ 9:23 am - January 29, 2006

  49. We don’t bother with Stephen, Hank, because, simply put — so many assumptions, so few links or proof of his statements.

    Furthermore, there’s several critical flaws in his argument.

    First off, he doesn’t know the difference between Medicaid and Medicare. They are two drastically-different programs; Medicare is Federal and covers all individuals over a certain age, while Medicaid is state level and has much more to do with income levels. The point of Part D is to take the elderly OFF state Medicaid programs and reduce the overall burden on them, thus freeing up more money for states to use on providing Medicaid. The states kick back a portion, NOT the full amount, of the drug costs that they previously bore. The Federal government is paying the bulk of the drug costs.

    Thus, since the Federal government is covering the bulk of these folks, states no longer negotiate on their behalf. They may do so for their own MEDICAID recipients, but most of these folks are no longer eligible for Medicaid.

    Then his rant here:

    Don’t even get me started on the convoluted, irrational, and incoherent “coverage” offered the consumer. You know. After you pay your monthly Part D premium, you must pay $250 out of pocket, then Part D pays 75% of the next $2,250, after which it pays nothing, until out-of-pocket costs reach $5,100, then Part D pays the rest at 95%. Got that?

    Of course. That’s the way virtually ALL health plans work. You pay a monthly premium for insurance. You are responsible for the first $x dollars you spend yearly (called a “deductible”); once your deductible is met, coinsurance kicks in and covers a certain percentage of the cost. Usually, there’s a yearly out-of-pocket maximum as well.

    Why does this confuse Stephen? If he were at all familiar with private health plans, as he claims to be, this would be obvious.

    Next up, this rant:

    Besides, GWB will assign you a plan anyway. And he knows what’s best for . . . ? So you’ll get a premium anywhere between $5.41 and $144.04, and then the CARTEL can determine what prices to charge, or change, anytime in between. But as a consumer, you’re stuck. No. Allowing consumers to change would disrupt GWB’s system.

    So he’s saying two things — consumers can never choose their Part D coverage level and can never change their Part D coverage level.

    He’s flat-out lying there.

    Finally, Hank, just note the general incoherence and contradictory statements scattered through Stephen’s posts. For example:

    any event, the CARTEL can change prices at whim, but consumers are stuck. Premiums, not copays, can vary by 2000%. So can copays.

    See that? In one sentence, he says copays CANNOT vary, then in the next sentence following, he says they CAN. He completely contradicts himself.

    Now, knowing all that, Hank:

    Stephen makes perfect sense, if you take time to realize that he’s trying to help you.


    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2006 @ 11:28 am - January 29, 2006

  50. #49 hank – yeah, baby! I love it when you wax as bizarre / out there as Stephen, as well! 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 11:43 am - January 29, 2006

  51. And by the way – It didn’t escape my notice how much you are talking to the mirror again, hank.

    Stephen and I have a long history. If and when he ever goes back to making points that aren’t either (1) total logical fallacies, or (2) totally unnecessary because GP, or GPW, or I (for that matter) already agree with him 100% despite his ignorance of that fact and attacking, rude tone….. then, at that point, I may go back to trying to discuss his points specifically.

    And same for you, hank. Please consider making a genuine, constructive contribution to the discussions here sometime.

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 11:47 am - January 29, 2006

  52. aren\’t stephen and hank one person?

    Comment by greek_chorus — January 29, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - January 29, 2006

  53. #54 – Resemblance on certain macro-aspects of content (see my middle points in #53), but different otherwise. I’d be surprised if you were right.

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - January 29, 2006

  54. NDT
    I’m well aware of the deductible. I have a health plan. However, I don’t know of any plan that has a gaping hole in the middle. Between $2,250 and $5, 100 it pays NOTHING.
    I think it’s pretty well agreed that this plan needs to be reworked.
    I’ve had to turn it over to my mothers lawyer, just to figure out how she can deal with it, and he can’t understand it either. I haveto admit that I rarely read essays. And Stephen does love to write;

    Be that as it may, I was reacting mostly to the venom with which Stephen was attacked. Always by the same little group. I am a recipient of their name calling and mindless fury. Just read this post. I’ve been called a moron, an idiot, a leftie, a moonbat, snotty, twisted, snarky, and recently a little bitch. And these same people turn around and claim that they take the “igh road”. They swear that they are thoughtful and considerate. It’s Wonderland here.

    Comment by hank — January 29, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - January 29, 2006

  55. Hank. Checked the comments posted. Did see “snotty” and “snarky”, but couldn’t find the others. Help???

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 29, 2006 @ 1:36 pm - January 29, 2006

  56. Bear in mind that hank is historically unable to fix in his mind the distinction between appropriate name-calling or criticism on bad comments or bad actions of his, vs. attacks on him personally.

    Only TGC makes the latter with any regularity. And TGC is sometimes (admittedly not always) met with reminders some others that they can’t/don’t condone going in that direction.

    Historically, hank has also had trouble with the notion of cause and effect; i.e., with the way that certain names put on his bad comments / bad actions would be legitimate consequences of his bad comments / actions as such.

    Another way to say this is, historically, hank hasn’t liked being held accountable.

    Many times now, I have seen people’s holding him accountable for his bad comments / bad actions provoke his exaggerated “You’re all name-callers, calling me names!!!” type of response in #56.

    I generally don’t call hank personally “snarky”, for example. Yet I have (appropriately) characterized his comments as “snarky” on many occasions, because of their visibly unnecessary, insensible and/or attacking, nasty tone. hank hates it when I do that!!!

    Since so many of hank’s comments are snarky in fact, one does wonder why hank comes back here, and when he will make a genuine, construction contribution to these discussions.

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - January 29, 2006

  57. sorry, “constructive” contribution

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - January 29, 2006

  58. And a follow-up for sonic:

    This would be the thread where TGC called hank “a little bitch”. I didn’t say anything against TGC for 2 reasons:

    (1) I was out of time.

    (2) if you read the whole thread and see how hank was, well, I just didn’t have the heart to blame TGC that time. hank really was at his nastiest and most foolish, in that discussion.

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - January 29, 2006

  59. 58
    These are only your opinions. A little judgemental don’t you think? No surprise.
    I don’t presume to speak for you. Don’t speak for me.

    Comment by hank — January 29, 2006 @ 3:52 pm - January 29, 2006

  60. “I wonder if it is valid to say liberal=democrat, and if it is vlaid to say conservative=republican.”

    Good question J in SL. No, it’s not, except as a matter of established habit. It is a categroy error. Republican and Democrat refer to patterns of political alliances called parties. It is anohter category error to see “liberal” and “conservative” as opposed. “Conservative refers to an outlook that puts the burden of proof on the proponent of a change thta the change he is proposing is going to be an improvement. “Liberal” refers to an outlook that values liberty of individuals, both in politics and in the economic spheres. For instance in all the drama leading up to the Americn Revolution, those oppposing Gorge II and his policies were certainly pushing for an agenda we would call liberal; all they seemed ot talk about about was ‘liberty” and “the rights of man” ie. individuals. Yet they always cited “our ancient liberties” as their theoretical basis,; in other words, they were presenting themselves as the true conservative ithe debate against those who wanted ot introduce foreign models of monarchical prerogative.

    A movement gets started to push for some change – we tend ot call that liberal, since for a long time these agendas have been for greater liberties. (The Islamist agenda is a great big counter-example, but it proves my point – see the difficulty some people have with seeing for the totalitarianism it is.) Then the movement starts to succeed. The change becomes the new status quo. The same people now want to defend this state of affairs. They have becoem conservative. This is what we see in the so-called American left, what was once called the liberal consensus. You fossilized alliances, like the peonage of gay left organizations to women’s organizations – I suppose once upon a time long in the past we got something from cooperating with NOW, but they have been acting a high maintencne bitch for a long time now – and you fossilized political analyses, of the kind that hamstring discussion about race in this country – that blacks are only and eternally the long-suffering virtuous victims of evil, racist whites, that black racism against whites cannot be real racism, that balck racism against balcks does not exist, that is is far more damaging to balcks than white racism is, even, most fundamentally, that the “racial situation in hthis ocuntry is about a divide bewteen white and black, which is just laughably clueless anywhere west of, oh, the Rockies.

    The Democratic Party nowadays is quite conservative. Trapped in the past.

    The Republican party is confused about itself, but in a differnet way. It is a temporary coalition of Dixicrats – the Religious Right and so on – and what used to be the party of business and market economics – basic liberal positions. So what are oyu going to label them?

    Comment by Jim — January 29, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - January 29, 2006

  61. What I don’t understand is the griping about how bad the Medicare Plan is. As far as I can tell the government is giving money away and the recipients are complaining because the free money is too difficult to get. Simple but effective plan of action. Don’t take the money. Imagine the peace mind they will feel not having to deal with the complex nature of the scheme. Not to mention the fact that they will be denying the greedy Bush cronies great wodges of cash. Win/win no? Why aren’t Hillary and Ted all over this. Don’t they care about the well being of our seniors?!?

    Comment by Bobo — January 29, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - January 29, 2006

  62. But government is supposed to meet their every need, instantly and completely, while making them feel like they’re totally self-sufficient and respected. Just like Mommy’s breasts when they were 2 month-olds. Don’t you get it? 😉

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - January 29, 2006

  63. However, I don’t know of any plan that has a gaping hole in the middle. Between $2,250 and $5, 100 it pays NOTHING.

    My consumer-driven plan does, and it’s for a very simple reason; when insurance is structured that way, it’s less expensive and it provides an incentive to control costs at the consumer level.

    Rule of thumb in building prescription drug plans (or any health plan, for that matter): people will never look for the less-expensive alternatives unless more expensive ones hit them in the pocketbook.

    I’ve had to turn it over to my mothers lawyer, just to figure out how she can deal with it, and he can’t understand it either.

    You need a new lawyer.

    Be that as it may, I was reacting mostly to the venom with which Stephen was attacked. Always by the same little group. I am a recipient of their name calling and mindless fury. Just read this post. I’ve been called a moron, an idiot, a leftie, a moonbat, snotty, twisted, snarky, and recently a little bitch.

    I understand why you’re upset. But allying with Stephen is not a good reaction to being upset.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - January 29, 2006

  64. Don’t worry, I’m not allying with anyone.

    So in other words, the real deductible amounts to $2,700 or thereabout.
    It just comes later.

    I think tht’s a terrible plan. Is yours that high?
    Also, is this only a prescription drug plan? Dumb question I kow, but I thought it was more comprehensive.
    My plan (which keeps changing) has no such ‘balloon.”
    However, because I belong to 5 unions, I have a sort of “multiple choice”, as long as I pay the premiums. (Another trap). My drug plan is pretty straightforward. A hefty deductible, but then I pay $10.00 co-pay.

    Watching the “pundits” on Suday morning, I got the impression that this plan is going to be reworked. It was devised on both sides of the aisle wasn’t it? So the blame isn’t partisan. It’s just too compicated.

    As to the lawyer. You got that right;)
    He’s hers not mine. And here to stay.

    I never mentioned how much I admired the graceful way you extricated yourself awhile back, from an untenable dispute (with Jack I believe). No rancour. No hostility.
    You showed great aplomb.

    Comment by hank — January 29, 2006 @ 10:59 pm - January 29, 2006

  65. “Kapos” is the English plural form of the German abbreviation (“Abkurzung”) for KameradenPolizei (commerade policemen). In the Nazi Vernichtungslager (extermination camps) they were usually Jews who believed that they could delay their own extermination by cooperating with the Nazis.

    I suspect, but cannot prove, that there were also Kapos in the Konzentrationszentren (concentration camps), but if there were, they probably would have not necessarily been Jews.

    Comment by raj — January 31, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - January 31, 2006

  66. On the subject matter of most of the comment thread, much of the medical payment problem is that the federal government has allowed some of it to be tax deductable (employer-provided insurance), but not others (personal insurance or out of pocket payments). Employer-provided insurance is merely untaxed income. And there is no reason for the difference.

    Comment by raj — January 31, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - January 31, 2006

  67. I’ve not caught up in a while so am just now getting around to responding and I haven’t read everything. It’s a lot of comments!

    Anyhoo, don’t get me wrong. I support the idea that people should choose who they marry as long as it’s a consenting adult. Someone posted correctly saying it has nothing to do with gay discrimination. It’s gender discrimination. I believe same-sex marriage is the right thing and it will happen in time.

    Having said that, my point was that gay liberals have rather suddenly and irrationally made acceptance of gay marriage the litmus test for whether someone’s a homophobe. Well, unless it’s a Democrat politician like John Kerry or Bill Clinton. They get a pass.

    We’ve never had gay marriage before, over half the population consisting is against it including a good chunk of self-identified Democrats. Meanwhile, more than half support civil unions including GWB which puts them far beyond the label of homophobe at least. Yet GWB “hates” gays and wants to exterminate gays according to many of the ranting left. Where does that come from? It’s fabricated in the fragile psyche of someone who needs, as I said, continual and escalating levels of acceptance from society in order to feel ok about their own sexual orientation. My advice to gay lefty moonbats- learn to love yourself unconditionally. Get your emotions out of your politics and get some real therapy for dealing with your issues.

    I want gay marriage too, but to hear gay lefties today, you wonder how we ever survived without it.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — January 31, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - January 31, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.