What Islamists Do To Those Who Teach Women
BlackFive has only the latest in a string of reports over the years that would have any self-respecting American Liberal hooting in horror. But since their enemy is our own government, and not the worldwide Islamist movement, you won’t see this on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric tonight. (h/t – GP Reader Calarato)
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.
Mr Halim was one of four teachers killed in rapid succession by the Islamists at Ghazni, a strategic point on the routes from Kabul to the south and east which has become the scene of fierce clashes between the Taliban and US and Afghan forces…
*SIGH* I long for the day when Liberals believe in freedom and liberty again… for people other than their friends driving BMWs and protecting their private beachfront property in Malibu.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
44 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I know this comment is only going to start a firestorm (but clearly I don’t care or I wouldn’t post it), but give me a friggin’ break about liberals protecting their friends with BMWs and beachfront property, while so-called “conservatives” (and I use the quotes on purpose) do everything in their power to hand over control of our government to the businesses and executives who just get richer at the expense of the middle class. I get it, Bruce, that you think the American Liberal is in favor of the terrorists. But I think it’s beneath you to use anguage implying that hollywood liberals are the problem, when it’s the “conservatives” who are ensuring that the rich get richer and the gap between rich and not rich gets larger every year. (Note: I don’t have a problem with conservative economic policies. I think we can, as adults, legitimately disagree. But selling out my government to every special interest with a deep pocket – which both parties are equally guilty of – is not conservative.)
And frankly, I’m not going to disagree with the beginning of your post. We should be hearing about that on the evening news. We should be hearing more of it to convince the American people that there IS an enemy out there, and it IS fundamentalist Islam, which even this liberal knows is infinitely more violent and unforgiving than our own christian (lower-case “c” intended) fundamentalists or any other sect that I can think of. People do need to know that, and I’m sorry as well that our MSM isn’t covering it.
Comment by Mike — December 4, 2006 @ 9:03 am - December 4, 2006
Your red meat offerings are growing rancid. It was tiring before the election, and now a month later it seems desperate and bitter.
Of course I have not seen a post from you these days about how the media is lying about the progress of the Iraq, reporters are just lazy, things are getting better etc.
An then there is this quote from Gen. Michael Maples:
“Attacks by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq account for only a fraction of the insurgent violence”
Does he hate America and not understand the threats?
And then of course there is Newt’s quote:
“Unless the Bush administration admits that the war in Iraq is a ‘failure,’ it will never develop a strategy to leave the country successfully.”
Is Newt so consumed by Bush hatred that he wants us to lose?
Comment by keogh — December 4, 2006 @ 10:22 am - December 4, 2006
Note how keogh immediately attacks his own nation, and not our enemy.
Typical.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — December 4, 2006 @ 10:29 am - December 4, 2006
No, what is typical is that you feel that your ideology is OUR nation.
Comment by keogh — December 4, 2006 @ 10:48 am - December 4, 2006
Since when is Freedom and Liberty NOT the cause of all Americans?
Comment by GayPatriot — December 4, 2006 @ 10:51 am - December 4, 2006
I know this comment is only going to start a firestorm (but clearly I don’t care or I wouldn’t post it), but give me a friggin’ break about liberals protecting their friends with BMWs and beachfront property, while so-called “conservatives” (and I use the quotes on purpose) do everything in their power to hand over control of our government to the businesses and executives who just get richer at the expense of the middle class.
The fact that liberals even HAVE beachfront property and BMWs proves what hypocrites they are.
Since they want to sniffle about the gap between rich and poor, you’d think they’d start closing it themselves.
Since they obviously believe that anyone rich doesn’t legitimately deserve to be and got so by illegal means, you’d think they’d stop their own criminal behavior and hand over all their ill-gotten loot to the “deserving poor”.
And, since they obviously believe it’s wrong to give large sums of money to politicians and political causes and that doing so is “buying the government”, you’d think they wouldn’t be among the most prolific of contributors.
Since liberals hate income inequity and private business so much, then let’s hear them start cheering for Communism — or start coughing up their own money.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - December 4, 2006
No, what is typical is that you feel that your ideology is OUR nation.
keogh, you and Gwyneth Paltrow are so typical.
You bash our capitalism system as you enjoy the fruits of its labor.
You use the freedoms our government grants you to support those like Hizbollah who kill civilians indiscriminately.
You demand that we “engage” terrorists while you yourself sit comfortably behind our borders, not daring to set a foot in these places like Iran that you consider paradise or among the people like Hizbollah and Hamas who you consider legitimate.
And finally, you criticize taking action against a brutal dictator who imprisoned, tortured, and murdered millions of people — while you and your fellow leftist organizations grew fat and wealthy on his bribes.
The necessary cost of having the United States is that it creates people like you and Gwyneth Paltrow — spoiled, selfish children with nothing but contempt for the country and system that produced them.
Fortunately, it’s a cost we’re willing to pay — for now.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - December 4, 2006
I long for the day when Liberals believe in freedom and liberty again
Again? GP, they never believed it in the first place.
Freedom and liberty to do what you want also means that other people are free and at liberty as far as deciding whether or not they wish to support you.
In the conservative’s viewpoint, if you want to stick needles full of heroin in your arm, you are perfectly free and at liberty to do so. But that does not require us to pay for your healthcare or the damage you cause — and it also does not require us to be lenient on you when you start trying to push it to our children.
In the liberal concept, if you want to stick needles full of heroin in your arms, it is society’s fault for making you do so; therefore, society should be forced to pay for it and for you and should be lenient on you because you’re its victim.
The Democrats who hold power have an interesting view of the world; like Gwyneth Paltrow, they believe most Americans are stupid and uncivilized, but they need their support to hold power. That’s why they preach that all of us are victims, that we can’t make it on our own, and that they, acting through government, will feed us, clothe us, and shelter us, all while protecting us from “the rich” that supposedly keep us down.
This appeals to two groups — those who truly are undereducated and those who, like Dem leadership, have inherited wealth and think they deserve to rule paternalistically over others.
To the rest of us, who hold degrees, don’t mind getting our hands dirty, and realize that the money for these things comes right out of our pockets, it doesn’t work at all.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2006 @ 1:14 pm - December 4, 2006
The described is a horrible crime, but it’s also one of the primary reasons the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are failing. Before these countries can have western style democracy, the entire area needs a social reformation.
Unfortunately, that is something that can not be forced and will take time. It’s going to have to occur naturally.
Comment by Chase — December 4, 2006 @ 1:37 pm - December 4, 2006
The fact that liberals even HAVE beachfront property and BMWs proves what hypocrites they are.
Since they want to sniffle about the gap between rich and poor, you’d think they’d start closing it themselves.
NDT, you and I rarely agree on much, but this is one I’m not going to argue with you about. I agree there is hypocrisy there, especially from so many of our Hollywood liberals in particular. This liberal is no fan of them. But even thinking this is hypocrisy assumes that every liberal is a communist/socialist (see below). A great many liberals believe that one shoudl get rewarded for working hard, that enjoying those rewards is our right as well, but we believe fundamentally in a different method of economic policy.
Since they obviously believe that anyone rich doesn’t legitimately deserve to be and got so by illegal means, you’d think they’d stop their own criminal behavior and hand over all their ill-gotten loot to the “deserving poor”.
You probably weren’t trying to put words in my mouth, but I’m guessing maybe you think that this is my position? Maybe not. Either way, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that people who are rich get it illegitimately. But there are an awful lot of people who get paid enormous sums of money for doing nothing of value. And “the deserving poor” is so tired. Why is that so many of you conservatives think being poor is such a fundamental character flaw, or at least talk that way?
And, since they obviously believe it’s wrong to give large sums of money to politicians and political causes and that doing so is “buying the government”, you’d think they wouldn’t be among the most prolific of contributors.
My point stands as I attempted to say it before – both ends of the political spectrum are guilty of this. The problem is not the contributors – it is the elected representatives on both sides of the aisle that vote for business first and maybe sometime they remember people who work for a living.
Since liberals hate income inequity and private business so much, then let’s hear them start cheering for Communism — or start coughing up their own money.
As usual, it’s fair on this site to lump every liberal into the “communism” pile, just like it’s fair to lump every liberal into the “loves terrorists” pile. And why not, since every liberal site lumps conservatives into the “theocrat” pile, right? Why step above the fray and recognize that NOT all liberals hate income equity and private business. In fact some of us are in favor of both, but think the government’s job is to provide a level playing field for all, and I’m willing to bet most of the silent majority of the middle class certainly doesn’t think the field is level anymore.
Of course, note that my bet might not be worth much, as I’m one of those middle-class, middle-management types that’s still trying stay a bit ahead with a bank account that’s too small.
Comment by Mike — December 4, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - December 4, 2006
[...] Via GayPatriot Posted in Infidels, Convert or Die, War on Terror, Politics, Islam revealed by Sistainfidel [...]
Pingback by Infidels Are Cool » Blog Archive » You Educate Girls, You Die — December 4, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - December 4, 2006
Chase writes: “Before these countries can have western style democracy, the entire area needs a social reformation. Unfortunately, that is something that can not be forced and will take time. It’s going to have to occur naturally.”
I’m reminded of some comments French diplomats are recorded as saying to American Ambassador Benj Franklin when he was urging the French to send a portion of their naval assets to the American coast and help the Continentals win against the Brits… “We are disposed to think of the colonists as rough and undeserving of freedom as any group of uncivilized, uneducated people might be. Neither France nor the world will miss these failures if the colonists lose. They are unworthy of liberty, enlightement or reason.” Thank God the French were convinced otherwise… if it hadn’t happened, we’d still be English and suffering the Royals. And I think that was the LAST time the French did something of merit, too.
Chase, there was no excuse when Bush 41 and the 1st Coalition left Iraq’s Shia to the vicious vices of Saddam… and there’s no good reason why democracy can’t suceed in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan –with strong leadership and steadfast resolve. The effort to place liberty into the hands of those peoples could be as fundamental a shifting moment for Western civilization as was the rise of Christianity.
This is simply too great an opportunity to forfeit just so that petty partisans in Congress can gain the political spoils.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 4, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - December 4, 2006
And “the deserving poor” is so tired. Why is that so many of you conservatives think being poor is such a fundamental character flaw, or at least talk that way?
Because, Mike, we don’t understand the concept of staying poor.
When I went off to college, I had an academic scholarship and ultimately earned a football scholarship — but still worked three jobs simultaneously (lunch shift at one restaurant, evening shift at another, and cleaning floors after close in a third). Even after I got out of college and moved to another city, because the jobs in my profession dried up during the tech collapse, I ended up doing temporary work during the day, waiting tables in the evening, and late-night DJ’ing for almost two years until things finally picked up — and now I’m quite comfortable.
Sure, there were times when I wished someone would “level the playing field”. But at the same time, it was like the advice my high school coach gave me; instead of worrying about who else was faster, bigger, or stronger, I would do better if I worried about being as fast, big, and strong as I could be. My parents reinforced that by simply pointing out that, with a high school diploma and a college degree, I could still get a cowboying job — but without one, that was the only job I could get, and I’d seen what happened to cowboying jobs when the cattle market went south.
So are you going to claim that it wasn’t fair that I had to go to college to get job security, that I had to actually pay for college by working since my parents couldn’t, that I actually had to succeed in high school to get into college in the first place, and that I otherwise had to struggle with a playing field that wasn’t level?
By the way, since I’m a white male, I don’t think you’ll get into trouble with anyone in your party if you say, “No”.
In fact some of us are in favor of both, but think the government’s job is to provide a level playing field for all, and I’m willing to bet most of the silent majority of the middle class certainly doesn’t think the field is level anymore.
The problem is, Mike, that you are judging whether or not the field is level based on end results.
Why, exactly, should you be making any more money or getting any more benefits than a steel-mill worker?
The answer according to your party is that you shouldn’t. And their cure for that is to slap a tariff on imported steel and steel products that neutralizes the incredible labor and capital cost savings that other countries enjoy and allows American steel workers to receive paychecks and benefits that are at or even above the level enjoyed by many college graduates.
That’s not leveling the playing field. That’s making the fastest kid wear weighted shoes so that the others can keep up.
And what the Democrats don’t realize is that it kills competition. Why succeed, when you’ll only be punished? Why work on getting faster when a) it’ll end up making you be forced to wear a weighted belt and b) when you can much more easily demand that the other kid be slowed down?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - December 4, 2006
Okay, NDT, your response did make me smile this time, probably because you’ve touched on the libertarian streak that runs through my liberal core.
So are you going to claim that it wasn’t fair that I had to go to college to get job security, that I had to actually pay for college by working since my parents couldn’t, that I actually had to succeed in high school to get into college in the first place, and that I otherwise had to struggle with a playing field that wasn’t level?
By the way, since I’m a white male, I don’t think you’ll get into trouble with anyone in your party if you say, “No”.
Nope, I’m not going to claim it wasn’t fair. It was fair (and yes, of course now I’m in trouble with my party). I didn’t work through college, but if it weren’t for a scholarship from my government that I paid back in service for over 6 years after school (ROTC), I couldn’t have afforded school either (nor could my parents) – I would have had to work. I respect that immensely. Plenty of my friends worked through school too. In fact, even now I work 40+ hours a week and go to professional school at night because I can’t afford to quit working. And it is fair to expect poor (less fortunate, pick your euphemism) parents to push their kids to improve their lot in life. But parenting is almost an entirely different issue, isn’t it? Related of course, but not the same.
So what’s the answer for parents who work two jobs already, with no health care coverage, and still struggle to make ends meet? The better question is why should anyone have to work two jobs to put food on the table? I don’t think the answer to that is “Because I had to” or “Because that’s how it is”. We should be better than that as a people. We should at least be trying to elevate people to a dignified existence, instead of punishing them for not having the time or money to improve themselves. (And yes, I know the answer to that is everyone has the time if they make the time. I simply disagree based on completely non-scientific evidence of my own observing.
)
The answer according to your party is that you shouldn’t. And their cure for that is to slap a tariff on imported steel and steel products that neutralizes the incredible labor and capital cost savings that other countries enjoy and allows American steel workers to receive paychecks and benefits that are at or even above the level enjoyed by many college graduates.
That’s not leveling the playing field. That’s making the fastest kid wear weighted shoes so that the others can keep up.
No argument here. I’m generally a free-trader myself (once again, slap on the wrist form the party). But the problem isn’t that the fastest kid is wearing weighted shoes. The problem is that when we let him win, we’re tell the other kids to go play a sport they’ve never tried, aren’t going to get any training or practice time in, and oh-by-the-way, we’re not going to care if you win, lose, or whatever, because our investors already got their gold medal from the fast kid. (Long, rough metaphor, huh?)
That’s what I think is essentially the problem. What matters is only what Wall Street thinks, and how much money investors make. When 5000 people lose their jobs so that this quarter’s bottom line looks better, that’s just fine. Never mind that those people can’t find work anywhere else that pays the same wage. It becomes a downward spiral, even for people who worked hard and who have degrees.
Some people might respond by saying that those workers should have improved their skills. But with companies demanding ever longer hours, most workers can’t if the company isn’t supporting it. And a lot of those workers in that kind of example have current skills anyway.
Our form of capitalism and our method of government, is the best in the world. Like any system, it’s not without it’s faults.
Thanks for the intelligent discussion, NDT. As I’ve told GPW, it’s the reason a liberal like me keeps up with this blog as opposed to some others.
Comment by Mike — December 4, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - December 4, 2006
Your innuendo is absolutely outrageous! The news story comes from a liberal-left source (Independent UK). It’s been picked up on at least some mainstream news sites and liberal blogs, because I’ve seen it several times since yesterday. These kind of stories ARE covered by the MSM, or they soon will be. If it’s overshadowed by the latest horror in Baghdad that’s because the death tolls have been so horrific.
We’re back in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Did you not notice that the invasion of Afghanistan won near-unanimous support from liberals in Congress? Do you hear a deafening chorus of liberal voices calling for the abandonment of Afghanistan? I don’t. It’s yet one more strike against Bush’s despicable misadventure in Iraq that the distraction has allowed the Taliban to regain the initiative in Afghanistan.
Who’s in denial? Not Liberals! Talk to your pals at Fox:
http://digg.com/politics/O_Reilly_Taliban_Resurgence_In_Afghanistan_Is_A_Myth
Comment by Jed Weber — December 4, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - December 4, 2006
A story similar to this, about education in Afghanistan, was published in the L.A. Times on December 3, 2006.
Comment by Gene — December 4, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - December 4, 2006
Mike,
You say, “We should at least be trying to elevate people to a dignified existence, instead of punishing them for not having the time or money to improve themselves.” What punishment are you alluding to? And as for, “So what’s the answer for parents who work two jobs already, with no health care coverage, and still struggle to make ends meet?”, I don’t know. What was it for my ancestors who never heard of health care coverage and worked sun up to sun down? Health care is not a divine right. Our species existed for many millenia without it and will continue to do so.
Comment by taxman56 — December 4, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - December 4, 2006
It’s a good thing we finished the war in Afghanistan and totally defeated the Taliban four years ago.
Because if we didn’t finish that war, and we didn’t truly defeat the Taliban, and we simply threw Afghanistan away like a cheap toy on the day after Christmas because we felt like destroying another country….
Well, that really would be something to hoot with horror about.
Wouldn’t it?
Comment by zota — December 4, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - December 4, 2006
Michigan-Matt,
You make a good point. But I’m afraid we care more about Iraq than the Iraqis do.
Comment by Chase — December 4, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - December 4, 2006
LOL….you have to laugh at Jed’s desperate attempt to cover up for his fellow liberals.
Did you not notice that the invasion of Afghanistan won near-unanimous support from liberals in Congress?
So, in other words, the liberals wouldn’t even all vote for military action even after the United States had been attacked.
And that also ignores the fact that stories like Mohammed Halim’s had been coming out of Afghanistan for years prior to 9/11, with nary a protest from the Democrats.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2006 @ 7:20 pm - December 4, 2006
Our brand, the American brand, is radioactive in the Middle East. Nobody wants to be associated with it. That was the fundamental problem with the mission in Iraq from the get go. They won’t listen to us, even if we have their best interest in mind.
Comment by Chase — December 4, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - December 4, 2006
And the Iraq war also won “near unanimous” support from Congress at the time… let’s not forget that. And Congress got either the same stuff as Bush, or more carefully-word and nuanced stuff than Bush got, from the intelligence agencies about Iraq.
All these Democrat leaders have been yelling “Bush lied!!! Bush misled!!!” to cover their own gross dereliction of duty (if the war was really that bad an idea, a premise I don’t grant).
Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - December 4, 2006
whew. its nice to know that only liberals have money in this country; that all conservatives are living simple, modest means, give all their money away to charity and believe in hot dogs, mom, apple pie and baseball.
Love it when you throw those little red herrings / false premises into your posts.
Comment by Kevin — December 4, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - December 4, 2006
Woo-hoo! From Blackfive, to GP, to Powerline!! Congrats Bruce!
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016111.php
Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - December 4, 2006
#21 – Chase – I’d be hard pressed to imagine a more senseless remark. Are you saying that the “American brand was radioactive in the Middle East” in 2002 and 2003, before the ‘get go’ of the Iraq invasion? (You appear to be.) In that case, how has the Iraq war made anything worse? By your own logic, it has not.
And is the hard work of KILLING TERRORISTS and of PUTTING FEAR INTO THE EVIL really a Betty Crocker bake-off, or other popularity contest? I’d say the “American brand” is nearly radioactive enough – That is the problem!
Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - December 4, 2006
(typo – “I’d say the ‘American brand’ isN’T nearly radioactive enough” – sorry)
Comment by Calarato — December 4, 2006 @ 9:10 pm - December 4, 2006
You do know that the Dems want to send more troops to Afghanistan? Right?
Comment by AJB — December 4, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - December 4, 2006
You say, “We should at least be trying to elevate people to a dignified existence, instead of punishing them for not having the time or money to improve themselves.” What punishment are you alluding to? And as for, “So what’s the answer for parents who work two jobs already, with no health care coverage, and still struggle to make ends meet?”, I don’t know. What was it for my ancestors who never heard of health care coverage and worked sun up to sun down? Health care is not a divine right. Our species existed for many millenia without it and will continue to do so.
You’re right taxman56, we did exist for millenia without health care and health care coverage. No offense, but to use that as an argument is crap. We lived for millenia without cars, reliable energy, computers, industry, etc…the list goes on. Should we give all those up too? Health care coverage is not a divine right, but that doesn’t mean more people shouldn’t have reasonable, affordable access to it. (And that’s key – reasonable and affordable, not entitled to it by right) My partner runs his own business – it’s just him. A individiual health care policy for him would be over $350 a month out of his pocket for a policy that covers his needs. My COBRA when I got laid off this year would have $370. Who has that much money to spare every month? No one I know, and certainly no one I know who’s in that job-loss situation, or trying to make a small business work.
Again, I agree that health care is not a divine right. We have the best quality health care in the world in this nation, and I for one am grateful. But our delivery of that care needs work. I don’t necessarily think universal health care is the best option, but there has to be a middle ground on which we do better.
And that’s where the punishment comes in. People who work two jobs often work without health care coverage. So what happens when they get sick or injured? They go to the hospital. As a result they lose work time they can’t afford to lose, in extreme cases some get fired, and then they’re stuck with a massive hospital bill that puts them further behind. We’re punishing them. It may not be intentional, but it’s the real effect.
All I’m saying is I think we can do a little better for many of our fellow Americans without becoming the communists so many of you conservatives thinks all we liberals are. Call me an idealist I guess.
Comment by Mike — December 5, 2006 @ 8:55 am - December 5, 2006
#28 – Well lead the way, Mike! Buy health insurance for someone who doesn’t have it. Or set up a charity or interest group.
Oh, wait – you had in mind to use government force to give MY money to them? (The little there is.) Umm, well, that’s where the “communist” label would rightly enter.
Indeed it is not.
Do you believe that going further down the road of government mandates and forced subsidies will magically generate the necessary human innovation and increases in efficiency?
Gee, it’s worked so far. Health care costs have sure dropped (NOT) sinced we piled on program after program, mandate after mandate, and subsidy after subsidy over the last 45 years, right? Let’s continue the floggings until morale improves.
When people have health insurance that they view as “free”, they over-use. They bend your ear with a great story on how the extra doctor visit is “necessary” and you nod sympathetically – but come on, as soon as they have to pay for it, they discover it isn’t.
Thus, “free” insurance (funded by employer and/or government) is one factor massively driving up costs for all of us, over the last 45 years. Litigation (malpractice insurance awards) would be another. Let’s end those things.
For a couple good books on how to really solve our health care issues, see here, or here.
Comment by Calarato — December 5, 2006 @ 10:39 am - December 5, 2006
Calarato, please don’t put words in my mouth. At no time in my post did I suggest that more tax dollars should be used to pay for people to have health care. In fact, on this issue I’m fairly conservative – I think private industry can do a better job. But why should we view health care as a burden (in terms of a business cost). Couldn’t it be viewed as a retention tool? A competitive force in the market for labor?
I disagree that government programs are “driving up the cost of health care”, when in fact costs from providers to the Medicare/Medicaid program are lower than to private insurers. But I’m still not advocating more government programs.
And our litigation emphaiss should change too (and this coming from a lawyer-in-training). But punitive damage awards aren’t handed out by lawyers – they’re handed out by lay juries, your neighbors and mine.
Eseentially what I’m saying is the whole paradigm is out of whack. If we don’t think health care is a divine right, we also need to stop giving doctors a god-complex, and not questioning them. In that way HMOs have it right. Our health care consumers need to be better educated. But it’s a two way street.
And in a way, I am buying health care insurance for someone else. I’m lucky that my new employer offers domestic partner benefits, so we chose that route recently. And it makes my taxes higher. So I’m paying for it, but of course not as much as if I were paying the entire cost!
It’s a good example (in my opinion) of a private employer seeing a competitive advantage in hiring and retaining workers.
Again, thanks for the discourse.
Comment by Mike — December 5, 2006 @ 11:10 am - December 5, 2006
And is the hard work of KILLING TERRORISTS and of PUTTING FEAR INTO THE EVIL really a Betty Crocker bake-off, or other popularity contest?
No, but convincing the average Middle Eastern Arab, the type that sells baklava out of a deli, is. We’ve never done well winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people or of the broader Muslim world.
That’s why we are losing the war.
Comment by Chase — December 5, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - December 5, 2006
Chase, with all respect, you couldn’t be more wrong. Fundamentally wrong. We’re losing the war because it’s no longer standard practice for politicians and the MSM to back Americans fighting the WOT. There’s more to be gained by those politicians and media types in reporting the gore and presenting a quagmire than in maintaining American resolve to fight the WOT.
It’s what happens when it becomes fashionable and politically prudent for the opposition to undercut American opinion and public resolve to the win. Kerry and the Democrat wannabe-prez types started to do that stuff out on the campaign trail in 2004-5. Kennedy and others did it from the well of Congress in tandem with the politicians aiming to nab the DemocratLeft primary vote. And the media saw an opportunity and sold it out the back end of the wagon.
Happened with VN. Happened with Korea. Happened with Beiruit. Happening now with Iraq and Afghanistan will be next. The winners in a war aren’t determined by who is right –just by who is left standing. The antiwar crowd isn’t right or morally correct… just base enough to use dead soldiers to their partisan advantage.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 5, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - December 5, 2006
Furthermore, Chase, what is deliberately left out of the equation by Democrats and leftists is the consequence of inaction.
Kerry and his fellow anti-American leftists got the US out of Vietnam, for which I’m sure he received a handsome premium from the Viet Cong and the adulation of their European supporters…..but they for some reason never discuss the million-plus people that the Viet Cong then merrily went about starving, “re-educating”, and erasing.
And the same needs to be shown to the baklava seller. One wonders if he’ll be as supportive of sharia and Taliban-esque movements like Hizbollah if he realizes that keeping his shop open during prayers or on other holy days is now worth his death — or that, when his daughter goes out to get flour unaccompanied or with comfortable shoes on, she will return in chains and covered with welt marks for being a harlot.
What you need to confront, Chase, is that Hizbollah and other movements deliberately mislead people as to how harsh their rule is by justifying their actions based on “the Great Satan” — and that, by his constant need to smear and bash American actions, Kerry and his fellow Democrats reinforce that notion that Hizbollah, et al.’s actions are justified.
When Democrats like you can ask Ted Kennedy why he didn’t seem to care one whit about torture on a mass scale at Abu Ghirab when Saddam was doing it, THEN you’ll have progress. And when you can hold accountable organizations like the UN who scream “no blood for oil”, but themselves took billions of dollars in oil money to turn a blind eye to Saddam’s systematic genocide, THEN we’ll believe that you actually stand against such things.
But until then, you’re no different than Kerry, who honestly thinks the rest of us don’t notice that the lips which spoke platitudes about his “brothers in arms” in 2004 were the same ones calling them baby-killers and murderers in the ’70s when he was aiming to get into Jane Fonda’s pants and on her ballot.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - December 5, 2006
#30 – Mike, please don’t put words in my mouth. For the record, I didn’t put words in yours. I ASKED you if you thought more tax dollars should be used to pay for health care. Kindly read #29 more closely.
Also, for the record:
- Employer-paid health insurance is viewed by businesses as a cost because… umm… it is. Politically labelling it “an employee retention tool” changes no fundamentals. Wages and salaries, another top employee retention tool, are also a cost – are they not?
- You said, “I disagree that government programs are ‘driving up the cost of health care’, when in fact costs from providers to the Medicare/Medicaid program are lower than to private insurers.”
Well Mike, again sorry, but your re-framing or disagreeing that something is a certain way, won’t change it. Yes, the government does use force (law and regulation) to artifically compel below-market prices from some providers. That doesn’t breed the efficiency and innovation we need to get better, so to speak. It does force providers to raise prices elsewhere to make up for shortfalls – DRIVING UP COSTS.
And in any case, that whole debate misses my actual point: that because the CONSUMER isn’t paying the true costs (Medicare, Medicaid, etc. step in for him), far more money is blown on health care than ought to be. It’s easily documented.
John Stossel has a wonderful analogy for it. Imagine that we all expected employers to provide “food insurance”. And that people like you went around saying “Government has to step in and, by issuing its magical orders, guarantee universal access to good coverage at low prices.” What’s the first thing that would happen? People would not spend carefully at the supermarket. Their carts would be overflowing with lobsters and premium steak. The only question they’d ask is, “Does my insurance cover it?”
What would happen after that? Food prices would shoot through the roof; Foodicare and Foodicaid would then have to step in to regulate prices at gunpoint (which is what government fiat is); many food providers would drop out of the business, while the survivors simultaneously became ever more bloated and inefficient, and demanded and received ever higher prices from all. In 20 or 45 years, we’d go from being a country where people spend 3-5% of their income on food, to five times that.
- You said, “But punitive damage awards aren’t handed out by lawyers – they’re handed out by lay juries, your neighbors and mine.”
Because the law allows them to. We badly need tort reform. Still.
- You said, “the whole paradigm is out of whack.”
Indeed it is. But taking more of the poison that got you into the mess (government intervention, orders, fiats, regulations, subsidies in various forms) is not how you solve the problem.
We should reverse course and poison the market less: restoring true incentives / costs to consumers and true freedom to providers.
Comment by Calarato — December 5, 2006 @ 3:20 pm - December 5, 2006
P.S. Apologies to all, for my being part of the thread going SO off-topic. I will shut up now!
Comment by Calarato — December 5, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - December 5, 2006
But, but, but Calarato, we’re having so much FUN being off topic!
Comment by Mike — December 5, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - December 5, 2006
continuing off topic…
Here’s a solution for you Mike. It may be one that Calarato might like too.
Take the money we currently spend on Medicare and Medicaid (at the federal level) and divide it equally among every citizen in the US to subsidize the purchase of their own health insurance. In 2006 we spent 563 billion dollars on those two programs (pfd file, table 3). That equals $1,875 per person.
That would cut your health insurance costs nearly in half.
The administrative costs could easily be paid for by the elimination of the preferential tax treatment of employer provided health insurance benefits .
Comment by John in IL — December 5, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - December 5, 2006
One soldier, based in Ramadi and training Iraqi soldiers, captured in a nutshell why I think we aren’t, won’t and can’t win the war:
“In Iraq, we try to win the hearts and minds of population,” said 1st Lt. Gerard Dow, 32, of Chicago. “They want Americans out of here. They blame us for all their problems. They look at us as the terrorists and then they turn around and help the terrorists who are trying to kill us.
The Iraqi army is getting there, but they are still not where they need to be and I doubt they will be by (2008). Too many times, they are in a selfish state of mind. Too often they are along for the ride while we do the work for them.
They are only going to do the right thing if someone’s watching and they know they will be punished if they don’t. That’s not every soldier. I have met some great guys, but it is a lot of them. They don’t care, and this is their country.
U.S. soldiers are dying trying to help people who don’t want their help. That makes you angry.”
That basically sums up the entire problem. The Iraqis hate us and no matter what we do or say, even if we have their best interest in mind, will not follow or listen to us. We are trying to do something, establish a government, that takes the trust of the people. Yet, we have no credibility in Iraq. They do not trust us.
Thus, it will never work.
Comment by Chase — December 6, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - December 6, 2006
I’m so happy to see an interventionist, nation-building worry about the plight of women in other countries. Let’s raise taxes and call a draft and liberate women everywhere.
Comment by sean — December 6, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - December 6, 2006
(I wasn’t sure if I could actually put “conservative” between “nation-building” and “worry”…)
Comment by sean — December 6, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - December 6, 2006
#13. It isn’t a “concept”; it is a reality for too many folks. And if many of those folks weren’t pro-life, I’d love to see what the base of the GOP would look like.
2nd base. Double. Congrats and cheers!!
Comment by sean — December 6, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - December 6, 2006
Well, of course the Iraqis blame us for all their problems.
First off, that’s the mentality of the Ba’athist and Islamic fundamentalist leaders; the only reason that they don’t control the world is because the Jews and the Americans keep them down, and if the Iraqis would just give power to them, everything would be peachy-dandy.
Second off, it’s the mentality of the anti-American left, especially in Europe and the UN, to whom the fall of Saddam represented the elimination of a major market, free of US competition, for their exports, and a perpetual cash machine that enriched their bureacrats in exchange for looking the other way.
Bush hit the nail on the head when he said, “They hate our freedoms”. Saddam, bin Laden, and his ilk cannot stand the fact that, in the United States, people are allowed to choose their own government, their own rules, and their own religion. The anti-American leftists cannot stand the fact that their socialist and communist models not only cannot keep up with us, but keep collapsing in the process.
Finally, what adds to that, though, are Democrats like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Jimmy Carter who, desperate to curry favor with the anti-American leftists, are constantly telling the rest of the world how awful the US is, how all our soldiers do is torture and murder civilians, and how the Iraqis were so much better off under Saddam (or how the Venezuelans are better off under Hugo Chavez, or how the Iranians are better off under their Islamic fundamentalist government, or whatever the anti-American dictator of the week is).
The problem with the United States is that we have an entire generation of people, most of whom are Democrats, that honestly don’t realize how good they have it and who consider the inconveniences of their life under the Bush administration as equivalent to the horrors the Iraqis underwent under Saddam (and aided by anti-American leftists who covered up the worst of Saddam’s abuses). Furthermore, as in the case of the misguided “human shields” who went to Iraq prior to the invasion at Saddam’s behest, only to find out that he expected them to defend non-humanitarian targets, once they are confronted with reality, they slink away and hide, rather than publicly stating, “We were wrong.”
The United States truly is a model for the rest of the world. However, that’s hard for people to figure out, when you and yours not only yield the floor to people who are viciously anti-American, but aid and abet them yourselves.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - December 6, 2006
I agreed with just about everything the Iraq Study Group said today. They hit on all my major points and I thought the tone was correct. I was particularly surprised that James Baker, in every interview he gave, unabashedly said the President must change course in Iraq. He didn’t shrink against the pressure from the right.
I thought this quote by Baker was particularly noteworthy, especially considering NDT’s usual talking points:
‘The Iraqis themselves dare not dream: they have been liberated from the nightmare of a tyrannical order only to face the nightmare of brutal violence.’
I agree with the commission that one last go at it is probably best, but that we are at the make or break point. All may already be lost, but I liked what I heard today. However, the clowns in the White House are still the ones setting the policy and that doesn’t bode well for a succesful outcome. After all, they’re the ones who screwed it up in the first place.
Comment by Chase — December 6, 2006 @ 9:15 pm - December 6, 2006
[Comment deleted for violating community rules of conduct.]
GP Ed. Note – Anti-Christian bigotry will not be tolerated on this blog. Period.
Comment by God of Biscuits — December 11, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - December 11, 2006