Thursday, August 27, 2015

Additional Evidence Supporting The Hypothesis That Ayn Rand Hated Poor People

The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor are not pitied... but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which as beggar is a reminder of nothing ~ John Berger (dob 11/5/1926) English art critic, novelist, painter and poet. Berger's essay on art criticism, Ways of Seeing, written as an accompaniment to a BBC series, is often used as a university text.

In a prior commentary (SWTD #303), I hypothesized that because Ayn Rand killed large numbers of fictional moochers in her massive fictional tome (Atlas Shrugged), she hated poor people. Bolstering this case, I believe, was the fact that her "hero", John Galt, called for other wealthy individuals such as himself to take actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of citizens of the oppressive Socialist dystopia that Atlas Shrugged took place in. And, in regards to these deaths, Rand pontificated on how the dead deserved to die due to their support for the Socialist state.

Of course Rand denied that she hated the poor, but I think her writings speak for themselves. A commenter on my blog, when I asserted that the evidence shows hate, asked if I could "point to any statement made by Ayn Rand that she hated the poor". Because Rand never SPECIFICALLY said "I hate poor people"... if I look at other things she said or wrote and conclude that these writings show she hated poor people... that's just my opinion.

Perhaps, but I still contend that the evidence is pretty solid. And I will continue to assert that Rand did indeed hate poor people. The facts I presented in my prior commentary back that up. But those writings I pointed to do not represent the totality of words from Rand that show (IMO) how much she hated poor people. Which is reason for this commentary... to present additional proof of Rand's hate for the less fortunate.

The following concerns Rand's take on money and those who don't have a lot of it.

Rand called the United States a "nation of money", and she meant it as a compliment. "The words to make money hold the essence of human morality", she wrote in a famous passage in her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged. In Rand's hierarchy of virtue the American industrialist is "the highest type of human being" and the needy are rabble. "Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being", Rand wrote in 1963. "Nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism". (Ayn Rand - Paul Ryan's Moral Heroine - Instructs Johnny Carson on the Virtue of Selfishness, 1967 by Mike Springer. Open Cluture 8/14/2012) .

Obviously, given that poor people have less money, they must be less moral (according to Rand). If an individual is less moral as well as a parasite, a moocher, a looter, a brute or a thug; and if they are of "no value"... well, it's clear that Rand's opinion of such people (the poor) was exceedingly low. Heck, sounds like she thought the poor aren't even human, as they are of "no value to a human being". My guess is that the "human being" she refers to would be a rich person.

So, rich people are the only real humans beings, while the poor are nothing but parasites. Of course parasites are creatures that, if they afflict humans, are exterminated. Rand's idea for how the extermination should be accomplished? Eliminate all socialist safety net type programs. Society should not be "geared to their needs", after all. Obviously such a policy would obviously result in some, if not many deaths. Or, as Rand said (in regards to a hypothetical poor man) "if he does not choose to live [by having enough money to do so], nature will take its course [and he will die]".

In other words, "die you evil parasitical scum!". Or, I will sit by and watch you die. And call it "immoral" if anyone suggests help should be provided. Is this hate? You can judge for yourself, but I think more people will say YES than NO. In my opinion. Although it is possible that Rand simply wrote the poor off as trash and did not give them any further thought. However, given how many moochers she killed off in Atlas Shrugged, I doubt it. I mean, she was pretty clear (in AS) that she thought the world would be better off with significantly fewer looters. And fantasized about how to off large numbers of the hated parasitical moochers.

Video: Ayn Rand appears on the Tonight Show, 10/22/1967. According to Rand, a mixed economy (such as we have here in the US) leads to war. Social safety net programs designed to help the less fortunate are "immoral", as are the moochers who utilize them. Given these facts I ask... how could Rand NOT hate the poor, given the evil they represent? (26:37).

SWTD #310

Friday, August 21, 2015

Jared Fogel Pleading Guilty Will Get Him 5 Or More Years. He Will Also Be Raped In Prison Says Expert

We get caught laundering money, we're not going to a white-collar resort prison. No, no, no, we're going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison! ~ Michael Bolton (character played by David Herman) in the 1999 film, Office Space.

15-year Subway Spokesman Jared Fogle has agreed to plead guilty to "distribution and receipt of child pornography and unlawful sex acts with minors" according to TheWrap. Not only will he serve at least 5 years in prison, be out 1.4 million dollars, get divorced by his wife and be branded a sex offender for life, but, apparently the consensus is that another punishment awaits him once he finds himself behind bars.

"Everybody is gonna know that Jared the chomo is here and he's gonna get his footlong every day", Levine explained in raw prison parlance. (Jared Fogle Will Be Marked Man in Prison, Expert Says by Anita Bennett and Tim Kenneally. The Wrap 8/20/2015).

"Chomo" is prison slang for a child molester. So the word is that Jared will be raped in prison. An expert says so. And there are "jokes" about it all over the internet. Seems even one prominent newspaper got in on the yuk yuks.

Former Subway spokesperson Jared Fogle should "enjoy a foot long in jail", according to the New York Post's Thursday cover, which features a photograph of Fogle leaving the courthouse... The controversial cover comes a day after Fogle said he will plead guilty... but it did not sit well with all of the paper's readers. Joking about the sex scandal turned the Post into a top Twitter trend, sparking outrage from some users of the social media platform who thought it was insensitive to joke about the sensitive subject. (NY Post Sparks Outrage With Jared Fogle 'Enjoy a Foot Long' Prison Rape Cover by dude. pub date).

So, rape "jokes" are "insensitive"? Yeah, the dude (statutorily) raped a 16 year old girl (by paying her $100 for sex), but it will not be a part of his sentence to be raped in prison. The judge won't be telling him that, because he raped, he's going to get raped. That's not going to happen. Still, it seems he will be raped.

So, while I have no sympathy for Jared in regards to all the other negative consequences he will suffer, I am disgusted that people are (apparently) accepting of prison rape. Even though (I would say) it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. There is a law on the books called the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 - which was signed by preznit George W bush in 2003. However, according to Mike Farrell, "the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission meets periodically to study the impact of prisoner rape. While they study, rape continues".

Not good enough. Not by a long shot, IMO. Jared's life is going to be destroyed, but YES, he did it to himself and he has earned his punishment. But that punishment should not include a violation of his 8th amendment rights. Prison rape, is cruel and unusual and I don't think enough is being done about it. Perhaps you disagree, but the Constitution applies to everyone. There are no exemptions for people who commit crimes who we might think deserve to be raped in prison.

Shame on the NY Post for their prison rape cover. That a prominent national newspaper thinks this is OK is part of the reason why this problem still exists. By the way, if Jared were a woman, would people still be anyone would be making such jokes? Maybe. BTW, according to a date Daily Mail article more men are are raped in the US than women - when the figures include prison assaults.

In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison. (More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal by Daily Mail Reporter. The Daily Mail 10/16/2013).

I'm assuming, that since the title of the article is "more men are raped in the US than women", that the 216k figure is men raped? Although, later on the article says "according to official statistics on rape conviction rates... 91 per cent of the victims were women and 99 per cent of the perpetrators were men". Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't seem to compute.

Regardless, whether the victim is a male or female inmate, I believe prison rape is totally unacceptable and we should be doing more to stop it from happening. According to Human Rights Watch 2001 report "No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons" the blame for widespread existence of male inmate on inmate sexual violence in American prison lies with indifference and feigned ignorance by prison officials.

As for Jared Fogle... what an idiot! He had a fantastic life, what with his 15 million dollars in net worth for doing a fairly easy job... which enabled him to buy a lot of good will via the charitable organizations he set up. Public opinion of him before this revelation was probably quite good. Now, even after he gets out of prison... he may have a sizeable chunk of his wealth left, but the dude is going to be a pariah.

He not only destroyed his marriage, but his relationship with his two children! With whom he will only be allowed (after getting out of prison) "supervised visits... only with pre-approval of their mother". Yet (at least until he gets out of prison) I think that the "foot longs" will be what he "enjoys" least of all.

Image: Thursday August 20 2015 cover of the New York Post.

SWTD #309

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Josh Duggar Christian Hypocrite Subscribed To Ashley Madison, Cheated On Mother Of His 4 Kids (I Presume) While Lecturing On Morality as Executive Director Of The Family Research Council

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge ~ Christian Bible, King James Version. The Duggars primarily use the KJV, according to the Duggar Family Blog FAQ.

According to a 18/19/2015 The Wrap story by Tony Maglio "disgraced 19 Kids star Josh Duggar named in Ashley Madison leak".

In July 2015, a group hacked the user data of Ashley Madison, a commercial website for people looking to have extramarital affairs. The hackers, calling themselves "The Impact Team", claimed to have stolen personal information about the site's user base, and threatened to release users' names and personally identifying information if Ashley Madison was not immediately shut down. Because of the site's policy of not deleting users' personal information including real names, addresses, search history and credit card details, many users feared being publicly shamed. (Wikipedia/Ashley Madison data breach).

The article goes on to note that Josh, the LGBT bigot who admitted to duggaring several of his sisters, "paid a total of $986.76 for two different monthly Ashley Madison subscriptions from February of 2013 until May of 2015" and that he paid an extra $250 for an "affair guarantee", which promises the customer's money back "if they don't have an affair within three months". Perhaps Josh was not attracted to his continually pregnant wife and that explains why he sinned?

The wife broodmare that got cheated on is 27 year old Anna Renee Duggar (nee Keller), mother of Mackynzie, Michael, Marcus and Meredith. Anna has 7 siblings herself and was obviously aware that Josh has 18, so clearly serving as a Duggar broodmare is something she must be OK with.

Heck, I would not be surprised that she was aware of her husband's Ashley Madison account, given the fact that she has continued to stand by him and knew when she married him what he'd done. Although OK! says Anna was "completely and utterly devastated". Devastated not in regards to the molesting, "but she never thought any of this stuff would come out". Now MORE "stuff" has come out. It's not stuff that has him molesting his own kids... so that's a plus.

Will Anna be further devastated due to the fact that she and Josh did not even kiss until their wedding day, while her husband's Ashley Madison account info reveals that he was looking for "someone I can teach", "likes to give oral sex" and "likes to receive oral sex"?

The sect the Duggars belong to, the Quiverfull movement, eschews all forms of birth control" and Josh's parents "say they have decided to allow God to determine the number of children they have" because God said to "be fruitful and multiply". But Josh might have thought God should butt out and not decide that he should father a child with a woman he was cheating on his wife with. Evidently he wasn't concerned enough to not cheat re the Bible's preaching against infidelity.

Josh was a subscriber for over 2 years, so I'm assuming that he did find someone willing to cheat with him. Some (married?) woman actually thought that an affair with a religious fundamentalist with a growing brood of rugrats was a good idea? Even though this was before the duggaring scandal broke, I'm thinking... why?

Although I do not know why any woman would chose to be continuously pregnant either... so I did a Google search and found that psychiatrists say "the constant need to get pregnant is a mental disorder" and such women "are oftentimes extremely lonely and believe that being perpetually pregnant fills this loneliness and void in their lives".

A likely explanation as to why a woman would have an affair as well. Still, who would want an affair with Josh Duggar? Some women find men with a lot of money attractive, I've heard. Josh was (at the time) the "executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit political action and lobbying arm of the Family Research Council". Advocating Right-wing bigotry probably pays quite well (I'm confidently guessing). And his parents pulled in 25 million large a year (according to the 19 kids Wikipedia page).

May of 2015 is when Josh both stepped down from his FRC position and discontinued his Ashley Madison account, BTW. Priorities change when you find yourself unemployed. But I doubt any woman would be interested in cheating with an unemployed man who duggared 4 of his sisters. I suppose I could be wrong and he only discontinued his account for financial reasons. Or perhaps his wife (if she didn't already know) found out. Now the world knows. Will Anna be MORE completely and MORE utterly devastated? Probably.

Still I predict no divorce, given the fact that "the Quiverfull movement preaches that women must be subservient to all of men's needs". One of Anna's husband's needs being the need to cheat on his wife. Which is why I said I wouldn't be surprised if she knew about the Ashely Madison account... and "submitted" to Josh's need to teach other women how to play hoop snake.

Image: Josh Duggar's wife expecting fourth child, 12/3/2014.

SWTD #308

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Is There Evidence Supporting The Allegation That Ed Schultz Is A Wife Beater?

Upon my tongues continual slanders ride; The which in every language I pronounce; Stuffing the ears of men with false reports ~ William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2 (aprox 1599).

This is an allegation that came up in the comment thread attached to a recent commentary (SWTD #305) in which I wrote about msnbc canceling the Ed Show.

The allegation was made by a miscreant who calls himself Rusty Shackelford. This Conservative blogger has made the allegation many times before and will likely make it many times in the future [1]. The fact is, whenever the name "Ed Schultz" comes up in a discussion on a blog he comments on, he throws the allegation out. Although he doesn't frame it as an allegation. Instead he states it as if it is a proven fact. Even though there is zero evidence that Ed Schultz ever beat his first wife, Maureen Zimmerman, whom he divorced in 1993. The truth is that Ed Schultz is a happily married man who has been with his current wife Wendy for 17 years.

These spurious allegations stem from a temporary order of protection or restraining order that was granted because the situation "involved alleged domestic violence, harassment, stalking or sexual assault". Apparently Schultz's ex-wife requested one - and it was granted temporarily, pending a hearing.

The following hitpiece from The Daily Caller, a politically conservative news and opinion website based in Washington DC, discusses it.

Daily Caller: In 2004, Schultz got all the records from his divorce [from his first wife, Maureen Zimmerman] sealed - which [Schultz's lawyer] claims was for "financial reasons". The only documents that remain accessible to the public are the dates and subject of motions and hearings.

Nearly three years after filing for divorce, Zimmerman obtained an "ex-parte temporary protection order", prohibiting Schultz from contacting her. North Dakota family law attorney Mike Gjesdahl cautions that ex-parte orders are not findings of fact. "It is just a way to say freeze", he explained.

Temporary protection orders in North Dakota expire after 14 days, when the accused is entitled to a hearing. On Nov. 16, 1995, a hearing was held at Zimmerman's request for a regular domestic violence protection order, which a judge can issue for one month, one year or indefinitely.

There is no indication on the public docket on how the judge ruled. The tape of the hearing was sealed on Dec. 13, 1995. Zimmerman could not be reached for comment. Her divorce lawyer is deceased. (That Time A Woman Obtained A Protection Order From Ed Schultz by Betsy Rothstein. 2/20/2015).

All that is known is that a temporary restraining order was requested, it was granted temporarily until a hearing could be held, and (thirdly) a hearing was held. Was a regular domestic violence protection order granted as a result of that hearing? The article says "there is no indication on the public docket on how the judge ruled" [2].

Nobody (except those directly involved) knows why the temporary order was requested (and Maureen Zimmerman has not commented). Or if the judge determined during the hearing whether or not the temporary order should be extended, Or for what reason the order was granted or denied.

Another pertinent fact would be if the police were ever called to investigate any "wife beating". Surely the Daily Caller would have dug that up if they had been, right? But they did not, so this likely never happened. I therefore conclude that anyone saying Ed Schultz is a "wife beater" is engaging in some heavy-duty speculating. There is no proof that Ed Schultz ever laid a hand on his ex-wife, let alone "beat" her.

That Ed Schultz's ex-wife got a temporary restraining order against him might simply indicate there was an angry exchange and his ex-wife FELT threatened (and there was no physical altercation at all).

Or she could have filed for it for another reason, as this excerpt from Wikipedia notes.

Misuse of restraining orders is claimed to be widespread. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has remarked, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage".

A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court that reviewed domestic restraining orders issued in the state found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. Similarly a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false. The low burden of proof for restraining orders has led to some high-profile cases involving stalkers of celebrities obtaining restraining orders against their targets.

My suspicion is that the Maureen Zimmerman restraining order falls into the "8 out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false" category. Most likely (I think) she FELT threatened but wasn't really in any danger of Ed Schultz laying a hand on her *at all* (the order was unnecessary).

I will, however, concede that I too am speculating. The fact is nobody knows what happened. We do know, however, that 8 out of 10 orders are unnecessary or false. Which means that it is 80 percent likely the order Maureen Zimmerman requested was unnecessary or false.

And there is the fact that Ed Schultz has been happily married to his current wife for 17 years with zero evidence that he has ever "beat" her. Which there likely would be, if he were a "wife beater". Someone with an "anger problem" who "needs anger management" (another spurious allegation) who "beat" his wife wouldn't do it just once.

I therefore declare that the allegation is almost certainly false. In any case, the evidence supporting it is worse than flimsy. Anyone determined to continue referring to Mr. Schultz as a "wife beater" should at least add a qualifier to their allegation. I suggest "suspected", in that the person making them suspects Ed Schultz "beat" his wife... despite the available evidence not coming close to proving anything of the sort ever happened.

My suspicion is that anyone sticking to this virtually unfounded suspicion is doing so because they are a Conservative who hates Ed Schultz (for being a strong Progressive), and not due to the facts.

In regards to "wife beating", however, there is another individual who has had the same charge levied against him. This person is a pundit on a channel that Rusty Shackelford frequently touts the ratings of. And the evidence against this person is significantly stronger. According to a 5/18/2015 Gawker story "a court-appointed forensic examiner testified at a closed hearing that Bill O'Reilly's daughter claimed to have witnessed her father dragging [his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy] down a staircase by her neck".

The case against O'Reilly isn't solely based on a restraining order being issued (which does not necessarily mean domestic abuse occurred). With O'Reilly we have court transcripts that support an allegation that a "beating" occurred. Allegations that say "Bill O'Reilly's [16yo] daughter saw him choking her mom".

Does this mean that Rusty Shackelford will henceforth refer to O'Reilly as a "wife choker"? Will he bring up these allegations (which are VERY likely true) whenever he is involved in a conversation and the name O'Reilly comes up? I doubt it.

Footnotes & See Also
[1] In a 6/23/2012 Rusty Shackelford comment from the blog of Willis Hart the idiot says, "Please prove to us that Ed Shultz's exwife did'nt accuse him of domestic violence. Prove that she did'nt have a restraining order issued against him because of his liquor filled rages. I'm here saying Ed Shultz was charged with domestic violence by his ex-wife... I'm here saying his ex-wife went to court and had a restraining order issued against him because she feared his alcohol fueled rages". Obviously Rusty lies, as he has ZERO personal knowledge of what happened (he wasn't there), nor could he have any 2nd hand knowledge of what happened, given the FACT that the court records are sealed.
[2] In regards to the temporary restraining order that Maureen Zimmerman requested, a 2/26/2015 Daily Caller article says "Schultz filed a sworn statement that the 1995 restraining order was issued without any allegations of domestic violence...". (Ed Schultz Convinces Judge To Hold Emergency Hearing Because MSNBC Host Thinks He Needs To Protect His Career by Betsy Rothstein).
[3] See also "WD An Apologist And Supporter of Domestic Violence" for many lies from the moron dmarks concerning the proprietor of this blog "lying about and defending Schultz' domestic violence". dmarks also, in regards to me saying "you have no idea if Ed Schultz beat his wife or not", replied "I know he did". This despite the court record being sealed.

Video: Evidence of Bill O'Reilly's anger problem for which he needs anger management. O'Reilly's profanity-laced outburst occurred at the conclusion of an episode of Inside Edition when O'Reilly gets confused by the phrase "to play us out". According to Wikiquote this meltdown was an "offhand remark to cameraman... late 1980s - early 1990s" (1:32).

SWTD #307

Sunday, August 16, 2015

You Can't Appeal To A Republican Using Either A Religious Or Economic Argument (Re States Accepting The Medicaid Expansion) Because These "Christians" Hate The Poors So Much

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives ~ Willard Mittens Romney (dob 3/12/1947) The failed Repub 2012 potus nominee. Remarks at private fundraiser (re why he would not get the vote of the takers) in Boca Raton FL 5/17/2012.

Remember when Rep Alan Grayson said "if you get sick, America, the Republican healthcare plan is this: Die quickly". He was only referring to people who can't afford health insurance, of course. Rich people do not have this problem. Only the Poors should "die quickly" because people complaining about Poors suffering in order for Health Care Insurance companies to continue making tremendous profits are annoying. Better they die quickly so nobody has to be confronted with that unpleasantness and whining about it.

Republicans feigned outrage and demanded an apology. But Alan Grayson was correct. Proof of this is the Republican desire to repeal the ACA. Failing that, they believe Republican governors should reject the Medicaid expansion. Even though they are losing billions in federal funds by doing so. Even though the ACA gives tens of thousands of new customers to the for-profit health insurers. Punishing poor "takers" takes a higher priority.

Although some Republican governors accepted the money. Jan Brewer is one example. John Kasich of Ohio is another. Although in both cases their respective state legislatures are fighting back [1+2].

Because he is running for preznit, Kasich was confronted on this issue during the recent Fox Nooz potus interview. Megyn Kelly (basically) expressed the Republican outrage re Kasich attempting to help the Poors. How DARE he! Surely this is proof he is unfit to be preznit. Which is why Kelly brought it up. Voters needed to know of this and reject him for his un-Republican actions. This specific un-Republican action (he does pass the anti-choice litmus test). But even passing this very important litmus test is not good enough.

Megyn Kelly: Governor Kasich, you chose to expand Medicaid in your state, unlike several other governors on this stage tonight, and it is already over budget by some estimates costing taxpayers an additional $1.4 billion in just the first 18 months.

You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn't going to ask them how small they've kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program?

*Audience applauds*

Gov. John Kasich: Well, first of all, Megyn, you should know that President Reagan expanded Medicaid three or four times.
Secondly, I had an opportunity to bring resources back to Ohio to do what? To treat the mentally ill. Ten thousand of them sit in our prisons. It costs $22,500 a year to keep them in prison. I'd rather get them their medication so they could lead a decent life.

Secondly, we are rehabbing the drug-addicted. Eighty percent of the people in our prisons have addictions or problems. We now treat them in the prisons, release them in the community and the recidivism rate is 10 percent and everybody across this country knows that the tsunami of drugs is threatening their very families. So we're treating them and getting them on their feet.

And finally, the working poor, instead of them having come into the emergency rooms where it costs more, where they're sicker and we end up paying, we brought a program in here to make sure that people could get on their feet. And do you know what? Everybody has a right to their God-given purpose.

...our Medicaid is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country. ...we went from $8 billion in the hole to $2 billion in the black. We've cut $5 billion in taxes and we've grown 350,000 jobs.

*Audience applauds* (Excerpt from the 8/6/2016 Fox Nooz potus interview).

Getting mentally ill people in prison the treatment they need and getting them out of prison sooner saves money. And, a 10% recidivism is a lot lower than the average, which, according to Wikipedia, is 43.3%.

Treating people in emergency rooms, where they can't be turned away (due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA) is significantly more expensive than scheduling appointments and getting treatment before a medical condition becomes an emergency. People with chronic diseases can't show up in emergency rooms and ask for ongoing treatment (which is needed to combat chronic conditions). These people can only show up and ask for help after their disease has progressed to the point where their lives are in immediate danger. Obviously treating these people earlier would be a lot cheaper.

Lastly, poor people who can't afford to see a doctor missing days of work (due to them being sidelined by treatable ailments) costs the economy money. So the Medicaid expansion in Ohio is "over budget", but it does not factor in these savings. At all. It simply ignores them, in addition to ignoring the inhumanity of locking up treatable mentally ill people. As well as the inhumanity of allowing poor people with treatable diseases to progress to a point where their lives are in danger (and at which point it is sometimes too late... meaning they die).

But Republicans revel in inhumanity toward those they deem lesser because their Christianity is fake. I mean, because in addition to ignoring the religious argument (Kelly mocked him?) they only look at the raw numbers. And totally ignore the (somewhat hard to quantify?) savings of accepting the Medicaid expansion and going "over budget". Frankly, it sickens me.

For many Republicans, that their Christianity is not sincere is proven by Kasich's attempt to appeal to it and failing. Proof, in my mind, of how much these fake Christian Republican hypocrites hate poor people. They refuse to do the right thing (those other governors on the stage that rejected the expansion) when you make an argument that appeals to their supposed religious sensibilities. Obviously these sensibilities are non-existent except when it comes to controlling women's bodies.

And they also refuse to do the right thing when an economic argument is presented (money is saved by accepting the Medicaid expansion). Un-believable callousness and indifference that (for some) crosses the line into outright hate, IMO. Think I'm being hyperbolic? Ayn Rand hated the poor, and Mitten's VP choice Paul Ryan talked her up a lot (until it was pointed out to him that she was an atheist) [3].

Which explains why Mittens wanted Ryan (they had a shared hatred). Ryan's budget, the path to (increased) prosperity (for the rich on the backs of the poor), being proof of his hate for the less fortunate [4].

Footnotes
[1] Court Okays Republican Challenge To Arizona Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a 12/31/2014 Daily Caller article by Sarah Hurtubise) 36 Republican state lawmakers are suing outgoing Republican Gov. Brewer over the legality of a hospital assessment which will fund Brewer's plan to expand Medicaid.
[2] Republican Lawmakers File Lawsuit Against Ohio Medicaid Expansion (excerpt from a HuffPo 10/23/2013 article by Mollie Reilly) The suit, filed with the Ohio Supreme Court... claims the Controlling Board acted in violation of the state legislature by approving the $2.56 billion appropriation of federal funds to expand Medicaid in the state. Governor John Kasich... turned to the board for approval after the GOP-controlled state legislature balked on the issue.
[3] See SWTD #303 (8/10/2015) Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged.
[4] Regarding my correct usage of the word hate in this commentary... many Republican politicians, if they are not simply indifferent to the plight of the poor, actively despise them and want to punish them for being poor. Republican voters, a not insignificant number of them being poor Southern Whites, are oblivious to this hate, instead voting R because the GOP panders to their hate for minorities and their misguided belief that the Bible says abortion is murder, which it does not. Although Repub politicos and their pluto masters have other reasons for wanting to control women.

Video: Kasich defends his Medicaid expansion and gets some applause, but the very fact that Megyn Kelly demanded an explanation from him in the first place? Helping poor people while citing God? No, many "Christian" Republicans don't find that acceptable.

SWTD #306

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Firing Of Ed Schultz Signals The End Of msnbc That Started With The Exit Of Keith Olbermann

We live in a time when much of the corporate media regards politics as a baseball game or a soap opera. Ed Schultz has treated the American people with respect by focusing on the most important issues impacting their lives. He has talked about income and wealth inequality, high unemployment, low wages, our disastrous trade policies and racism in America. I am very disappointed that Comcast chose to remove Ed Schultz from its lineup ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) the longest-serving independent in US congressional history and a self-described democratic socialist. Sanders is currently running for the 2016 POTUS nomination as a Democrat [1].

What follows is an excerpt from the 7/24/2015 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses the idiotic decision by MSNBC to cancel Ed Schultz and give his job to that tool Chuck Todd.

Thom: Bernie Sanders has blasted MSNBC and Comcast for cancelling Ed Schult's show. I wanted to talk a little bit about that. In my opinion, Ed is the last true voice for American working people on MSNBC. He is the only guy on MSNBC willing to talk about our trade policies and how stupid they are. He's literally the only guy. He's the only one who is willing to bring labor on regularly and talk about labor issues. He's the only one who's willing to talk about net neutrality.

These are subjects that, just from watching a lot of MSNBC, I have to conclude that the other hosts are not allowed to talk about these issues, and now they're going to fire Ed. Or lay him off, or he's leaving... whatever. I don't want to represent this. I haven't have any conversation with Ed about this.

I think Roger Ailes is a programming genius and the people at MSNBC are programming idiots. In Washington DC it doesn't matter if you're Left or Right, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat. The thing that matters, THE thing that is consequential, the thing that determines whether or not you get invited to the White House, whether you get invited to THE cocktail parties, whether you get covered in the press, whether your name shows up, whether you appear on television regularly is... are you an Insider, or are you an Outsider?

Bernie Sanders is an Outsider. Ed Schultz is an Outsider. Schultz wasn't towing the line regarding the Insider's conventional wisdom. The Insider's wisdom is that trade deals are wonderful, corporations should run the world, net neutrality is a silly idea... and I think he's getting bumped for that.

The Insider media, the New York Times - there's a great piece over at Alternet about why is the New York Times ignoring the Sanders surge - it's because the New York Times is the ultimate Insider publication. Sanders is the Outsider.

Roger Ailes made this brilliant programming decision to program as an Outsider to Outsiders. MSNBC is moving in the direction of programming more and more with Insiders (Chuck Todd, Brian Williams) to insiders.

Andy Lack [the new Chairman of NBC News Group] used to be a vice president with NBC and now he's coming in [and trying to fix the problem of] their ratings [being] in the toilet.

I think their rating are in the toilet because they are basically an Insider network. The Progressive base is not interested in the Insider prospective. The Progressive base would like the Outsider perspective... which I think is Ed Schultz.

So they got to get rid of him. What they're going to do is go up against the other Insider network, CNN. They going to go more, quote, "hard news" [Andy Lack sez the new strategy is to focus on breaking news and de-emphasize left-leaning opinion programming].

[End 7/24/2015 Thom Hartmann Rant]

Thom adds that he the thinks "the net neutrality riffs by Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes were by way of noting the news, not by way of generating activist behavior. At least in my opinion. Ed Schultz has never backed away from encouraging people to be activists".

IMO Thom is absolutely right. Concerning why Ed is getting the boot, as well as msnbc being an Insider media outlet. Regarding Maddow and Hayes not covering net neutrality, I'll take Thom's word for it. I have basically stopped watching msnbc and switched over to Free Speech TV - which Thom's radio program airs on (as a TV program).

As a member of "the Progressive base" I am not interested in the Insider perspective and want the Outsider perspective, which Free Speech TV offers (The network, which operates as a 501c3 non-profit tax-exempt organization, brands itself as "the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments and corporations").

msnbc's ratings ARE in the toilet because of their drift away from Progressivism and toward what Thom calls the "Insider perspective". The beginning of the end for msnbc (IMO) was the exit of Keith Olbermann on 1/21/2011.

When Keith left msnbc Countdown was the network's top-rated program with 1.1 million viewers. In regards to a (pre departure) suspension of Keith, Russell Simmons said "without Olbermann, msnbc can't survive – and the voice of progress will fall to the dark ages, when one unholy church dictated a fictional version of the truth" [2].

And that is exactly what is happening. Although I don't think Simmons was any kind of oracle, he was simply stating the obvious. Keith Olbermann MADE msnbc and the death of the network started the day he left.

Today msnbc, with the firing of Mr. Schultz, is announcing that they have failed as a Leftwing alternative to Fox Nooz.

MSNBC had decided months ago that they would be dumping their liberal hosts in favor of people like Chuck Todd. MSNBC leadership completely mistreated their liberal audience, and when the audience walked away, the network used the declining ratings as an excuse to blame liberals. ... Ed Schultz was a much needed liberal voice in a sea of cable news conservatives. ... MSNBC is making an ideological statement that liberals are out, and pandering to Republicans with Beltway conventional wisdom is in. (MSNBC Is Canceling Ed Schultz And Giving His Show To Chuck Todd by Jason Easley. Politicus USA 7/23/2015).

In total msnbc is cancelling 3 of it's programs.

Hour-long programs hosted by Ed Schultz at 5 pm Eastern and Alex Wagner at 4pm were both axed, as was The Cycle, a roundtable that aired at 3pm with hosts Ari Melber, Toure, Abby Huntsman and Krystal Ball. (Struggling MSNBC cancels 3 daytime shows with liberal slant. AP Story from 7/30/2015).

Other changes announced...

Andrew Lack told staffers of both NBC News and MSNBC that he plans to rebuild MSNBC to focus on breaking news coverage and to be less of a left-leaning talk outlet. Lack also plans a name change for the network since Microsoft hasn't been involved with the cable channel in years. (Talker's Magazine Odds & Sods, 7/27/2015).

I say screw msnbc, or whatever the hell they end up calling themselves. They will limp along for awhile longer, but they're done. Or not. Whatever happens they are never going to be more than a MINOR network. As they move away from catering to their liberal audience their liberal audience will depart. And there is no need for yet another "Insider" network.

As for Keith Olbermann being "fired" from his latest gig as ESPN2, the sports talk show Olbermann, says they "declined to renew his expiring contract [and that] the move was to cut costs related to Olbermann's salary and the use of the space at Times Square Studios". (excerpted from Wikipedia).

Not being a fan of any televised sport, and having never once watched Keith's sports talk show, I would be completely unaware that "Olbermann" was ending... if not for the Conservative blogger Rusty Shackelford who came to my blog to gloat.

According to the comment Rusty left, Olbermann was "fired" and "his next show could be a podcast from his basement". In response I told Rusty "if Olbermann does a podcast from his basement I will seek it out and subscribe". I forgot to add that I'd only do this if the podcast were political in nature. If he were to do a podcast that was sport-centered I would not be interested.

I am not upset about Olbermann's contract not being extended. Which is what happened. He wasn't fired. Anyway, I watched him on msnbc and Current, but never on ESPN. I don't like sports and I don't care about him getting "fired" or deciding not to move his ESPN program knowing his contract not being extended could be a result.

People like Rusty might call Olbermann a "loser" (or other names), but Keith got 14 Million to leave msnbc and 5 Million to leave the no-longer-existing Current TV. This is money Keith got which he did no work to receive... doesn't sound like a loser to me [3].

As for Ed Schultz, I have to admit I did not watch his program. Mostly because it was on too early. When I watched I tuned in for Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell. Although I switched to Current TV (and watching their primetime lineup when Keith Olbermann was associated with the now defunct network).

I did switch back when (the global climate change awareness champion) Al Gore sold out and cashed out in exchange for in 70 million (his share of the 500 million price) in House of Thani oil money. Which might have been either hypocritical or wise... given the fact that "Current failed to make much of an impact at all".

Maybe Current failed (was failing) because they fired Keith? Or it might just have been because people were simply unaware that it existed. While msnbc's market share is much less than that of Fox, they still are viable. Although (to me) it looks like this Andy Lack fellow is working hard to deep six the network.

Not that the ratings were great, but that was because they were a Democrat Insider network (Keith and Ed being their most Progressive voices). The Insider perspective/sucking up to and carrying water for Insider Dems isn't what most Democratic voters are interested in. Now they're going to go even more Insider. I do not predict success.

Footnotes
[1] The quote from the top of this blog post is from the article Bernie Sanders Blasts MSNBC and Comcast For Canceling Ed Schultz by Jason Easley. Politicus USA 7/23/2015.
[2] Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC (excerpt from a 1/21/2011 story from RawStory) Countdown, the network's top-rated program, attracted 1.1 million viewers, according to Nielsen. (end excerpt). The Russell Simmons quote is from this article.
[3] According to a 4/20/2012 Dennis Marks comment (this is before Keith was awarded $5 million in binding arbitration re his lawsuit against Al Gore's Current) "Keith's frivolous lawsuit [will get] laughed out of court". Oops, looks like Dennis was wrong... as usual.

Video1: Ed Schultz blasts Clinton for refusing to take a position on Keystone and the TPP (Published on 7/29/2015). According to some website called Canonclast "town crier Ed Schultz receiving the ax with many speculating that it is because he turned on Hillary Clinton. You can watch video of that memorable moment below". Well, of course msnbc is in the bag for Clinton. Is this is what got him fired? Could be (3:04).

Video2: Ed addresses being fired. 7/31/2015 (3:03).

SWTD #305, KO #5.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

The Adventuring Companions Formulate An Alternate Escape

But meanwhile time flies; it flies never to be regained ~ Virgil (10/15, 70 BC to 9/21, 19 BC), an ancient Roman poet of the Augustan period.

"I cast a minor glamer to cover my scars - there was zero accentuating of my looks beyond that" an upset Suri declared, poking Steve in the chest with her finger. "And Ceraifiot is absolutely right concerning the murder you just committed. The policeman you killed was not a threat" Suri added, glaring at Steve. Now there were three murders that could be attributed to their group by the authorities. Provided that the man William sucker punched in the market had died. He certainly appeared to be dead, Suri recalled as she fled the scene, leaving William behind.

Now the remaining six companions were apparently trapped within the walls of the city! "There is another way out" Paulina the gnomish rouge informed the group as Steve and Barry deposited the body of the dead police officer in a nearby trash receptacle. But not before Steve riffled thru the dead man's pockets, removing some coins and placing them in his own pocket. Steve, Suri had expected for some time, was a man of low morals.

But a murderer? She was somewhat shocked. The magic user decided she would have to speak with Ceraifiot about booting Steve out of the group. Later, once they were out of immediate danger. She certainly did not want to attract attention by arguing about it now.

"What about the horses?" Barry inquired as they guided their steeds down the sidestreets of the city, avoiding the main thoroughfare. Barry's concern was due to the riding of horses not being permitted within the city walls. Any non-resident entering the city was required to stable their horses as soon as they were able. Although exceptions were made for residents with special permits. But, with the exception of Paulina, none of the adventurers were residents, and therefore none had a permit.

"The stablemaster at the Northgate Inn happens to be a member of the city of Wallis thieves guild" Paulina informed the others. "We can leave our horses with him and escape via the sewers" Paulina added, referring to the extensive network of pipes running beneath the ancient city. "It just so happens that the guild controls a large portion of the sewer system, which is used for smuggling stolen goods and wanted individuals in and out of the city. There will, however, be a price, and it will likely be steep".

"Isn't there are member's discount" Barry asked, concerned about fees when all of the companions were low on funds. "I'm a member, you lot are not" the gnomish woman answered. "Hopefully the horses will be enough". "Now look what that arsehole William has caused" Ceraifiot lamented. His horse and he had a special bond, and he of course did not want to part with her. But it appeared as though he had no choice.

Suri, who had inherited the steed of the group's former mage Morton upon his death, did not have that problem. Suri recited the word of power and her steed Prisilla shrunk down to the size of a chess piece. In fact it looked exactly like a chess piece, the horsey one.

After shrinking Prisilla, Suri picked up the marble chess piece and slipped it into her pocket. "Prisilla shall not be a part of the price, whatever it may be" Suri declared, referring to the steep price Paulina had indicated would be charged by the thieves guild to smuggle them out of the city. "Let us find out how much first" Ceraifiot remarked before any of the others (Steve or Barry) had a chance to object.

Fortunately they made it back to the Northgate Inn stable without being spotted. Now the sun was just about descended and night upon them. "What brings you back" the stablemaster inquired as the group entered the stable, the seven foot tall fighter Olaf leading their five horse inside. Rufus the stablemaster, while fat and balding, was a man of incredible strength, which all could see due to his broad chest and bulging biceps.

"I am a member of the thieves guild" an unnoticed (due to her short stature) Paulina interjected. "I didn't notice you there, shorty" the stablemaster said, glancing down. Then he frowned and asked gruffly, "what's your membership in this criminal organization to me?".

"Here, take my hand" Paulina implored the suddenly gruff man. The stablemaster, knowing why the request was made, went down to one knee and took the gnomish female's small hand in his much larger one. "This might be problem, given the size difference, but I think this should satisfy you" Paulina explained as she went though the motions. "OK, you know the secret handshake" the stablemaster affirmed. "What do you want from me?"

"We need to depart Wallis without passing though any of the city gates" Paulina disclosed. "And why might that be something you're wanting to be doing?" the stablemaster inquired, rising from his one-knee position. "The reason can't be good, that's for certain". "The authorities are currently searching for one of our companions" Suri replied, addressing the stablemaster. "He punched a cleric at the Temple of the Oracles, killing him".

The stablemaster frowned harder, not looking inclined at to help the companions. "He's not here now. I was the only one with him at the time, and he ran off" Suri concluded (without mentioning how Steve had murdered an officer of the Lord Mayor's police force).

"If see" the stablemaster said, stroking his stubbly chin thoughtfully. "Well, I think I can help, for a price. But it's not going to be cheap, given the power of the oracles in this city" he concluded after a few moments of thought. "Now look here" Steve countered, his voice rising in anger. "You should help us because this gnome chick is a guild member. We already heard from her that the cost from the guild itself will be high to smuggle us out. Now you want us to pay you additionally?".

"You got that right" the stablemaster affirmed. "I can send a stableboy to notify someone at the guild headquarters while you lay low here. But, I'm going to need some something to compensate me for my troubles. If you're low on funds I'm sure an alternate payment method could be worked out" he added, lustfully eyeing Suri Cruz (whose facial disfigurement-hiding magics had yet to wear off).

"Ugg. I'm not interested" Suri responded, picking up on the vibe the stablemaster was sending out. "What, is Rufus not good enough looking for you" the seemingly offended stablemaster countered. "This", Rufus said pointing to his belly "is the fuel tank for a sex machine. If you've only been getting busy with pretty boy here", he continued, glancing at Ceraifiot the Bonny bard, "you're in for a treat. By which I mean the size of my equipment will rock your world. That's a guarantee you can take to the bank, girl".

"Sounds like a plan to me" Barry said, noting his agreement with the payment proposal. "Given the fact that Suri was with William when the murdering took place, I say she should do her duty for the group in acquiescing to this gentleman's request to get busy. You send the boy" Barry said, looking the stablemaster Rufus in the eye, "we'll wait here while you take Suri in the back. I'm sure you can locate a suitable pile of hay. It's too bad she's so ugly. Perhaps you can put a bag over her head" Barry concluded, forgetting that Suri's glamer was still concealing her facial disfigurement.

"What are you talking about, this chick is a knockout" Rufus incredulously countered. "Now, how about it babe?" the horsekeeper asked, turning his attention back to the group's magic user. Olaf The Angry looked angry, and was about to take umbrage to the rude suggestion when Paulina spoke. "We were hoping that our horses would cover the price". Rufus considered the offer, then responded, "400 gold pieces, take it or leave it. But you're still going to owe the guild for their services".

"Wait a minute" Ceraifiot objected. "These horses are worth more than a measly 400 gp". "You misunderstand me", the stablemaster interrupted gruffly. "The price for my assistance is 500 gold pieces. I will pay 50gp for a roll in the hay with this fine looking lass, but that leaves you 50 short. And I'm doing you a favor with the 50gp by the way, given the fact that I usually only pay a few silvers at the local brothel".

"It's a deal. Now send that stableboy and we'll wait here while you take Suri in the back", Barry agreed, shoving Suri toward the fat, sweaty stablemaster. Nearly tripping, Suri collided with Rufus, who immediately took her into his steely embrace, wrapping his large arms around her. "Don't struggle girly" Rufus laughed. "Trust me. As I said, a poking by ol Rufus is something you'll remember with fondness for a long time to come".

SWTD #304, WTM #13.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil ~ Gore Vidal (10/3/1925 to 7/31/2012) a political commentator, essayist and novelist who identified with the liberal politicians and the progressive social causes of the Democratic Party.

I think that this, the killing of worthless moochers and takers in her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged (AS), shows that when Rand claimed (see video below) that she did not hate the poor, she lied. Haters usually deny that they're haters. Often they even deny it to themselves. So, even though Rand lied (to herself as well as the public) her writings show she hated poor people. People she referred to as "lice", "looters", "moochers", "parasites" and "takers".

For the record, I have not (nor do I ever intend to) read any of her fiction doorstops (or other published works). What follows are excerpts from articles I found online wherein the article author describes (and comments on) Rand's mass killings of fictional moochers.

when a railway worker in AS decides to punish the wicked socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist government that is being justly punished... [one victim was] an elderly school teacher who spent her life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil..."

And so endlessly on, through over a dozen deserving victims. "There was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas", she notes - so let them burn. (excerpt from a 3/10/2009 HuffPo article by Johann Hari).

But this killing of an entire train full of moochers is just the beginning! The death toll rises considerably when the evil Galt character (the "hero") withdraws to his gulch, from which he encourages other rich a-holes to engage in acts of terror in order to overthrow the socialist government.

Calvin Atwood runs a monopoly for electrical power, and his "going Galt" cuts off the electrical supply for a solid third of North America. Thomas Hendricks' new surgical technique was pushed to the forefront due to government support, resulting in other methods of stroke prevention being ignored, and undeveloped, so when he "went Galt" he directly murdered thousands of people as a result.

Atlas Shrugged is littered with these people. Ayn presented them as heroic figures, the same way in which Osama Bin Laden presented the 9/11 hijackers. In the end, these were common terrorists, common criminals, with John Galt at their head. The blood of millions stained theirs, and John Galt's, hands. (excerpt from John Galt Is A Terrorist by Nathaniel Downes. Addicting Info 12/29/2012).

Millions of looters dead, huh? Perhaps the "non productive people" deserved to die, given the fact that "society damned the wealthy for being productive by expropriating the fruits of their labor". Taxed them too much, in other words. Perhaps we should be thankful that the Koch plutocrats are only trying to buy the presidency and install their Wanker puppet, instead of hatching a plan to kill a significant number of people in order to stop society from cruelly damning them with a relatively low tax rate? (As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real).

In the video below, Rand says (re poor people) that we shouldn't "tailor everything for their convenience". "Convenience" being "the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty". Yeah, it isn't difficult being poor at all. Even though it should be. We don't want the poor to get too comfortable in that social safety net hammock, right?

This would be the hammock that Paul Ryan referred to when he said "we don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives". However, as Paul Krugmann points out in his article The Hammock Fallacy, "Mr. Ryan and colleagues outright misstate what the research says" and that "the reason so many Americans remain trapped in poverty isn't that the government helps them too much; it's that it helps them too little".

Rand did not want to help poor people AT ALL, and so "opposed all forms of welfare" (Ryan's Ayn Rand obsession). If that isn't hate, it surely is total indifference and a complete lack of empathy.

But, as Rand gleefully killing large numbers of moochers in Atlas Shrugs shows, her disdain for the parasites clearly rises to the level of hate. "The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them", Rand says (quoting prosperity theologist Reverend Ike). She also wrote that if a man "does not choose to live, nature will take its course". Poor people who starve, freeze to death in the winter, or croak due to not being able to afford medical treatment have surely CHOSEN not to live, since it's possible (in Rand's view) to chose to not be poor.

So... there should be no welfare (at all) and if poor people choose to be poor nature will take it's course and they will die.

Video: Did Ayn Rand hate the poor? My verdict? Yes, she absolutely loathed them (1:14).

SWTD #303

Friday, August 07, 2015

Anti-Choice Extremist Scott Walker Would Sentence Women To Death (Sez No To Life Of Mother Abortion Exemption)

You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion ~ Hillary Clinton (dob 10/26/1947) 2016 potus Democratic candidate.

Of the 10 top-tier GOP potus candidates, which is the MOST radically anti-choice? Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Paul Kasich, Randal Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker all describe themselves as "pro life", but is there one who stands out as being the most rabidly anti-choice?

The following transcription from the Fox Nooz 8/6/2016 prez debate at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland OH.

Megyn Kelly: Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion? And, with 83 percent of Americans in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?

Scott Walker: I'm pro-life. I've always been pro-life. I've got a position I think is consistent with many Americans out there [audience cheers] ...in that I believe that an unborn child is in need of protection. I've said, many a time that the unborn child can be protected and there are many other alternatives that will also protect the life of the mother.

Thom Hartmann remarked (on the 8/7/2015 edition of his radio program) that Scott "apparently has some magical medical knowledge that the rest of us don't know about". Which is correct. The question, re the life of the mother, has to do with situations where there are "no other alternatives". I mean, Scott could have said he's wary about doctors claiming a "life of the mother" excuse and maybe doing something about people lying so they can get an abortion... but if the mother's life REALLY is in jeopardy, then, YES, they can get an abortion.

But he didn't say that. His answer indicated that he's a solid NO in any conceivable scenario.

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke... "There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option..."

Cecily Kellogg, 44... says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute"... The doctors said they had... perform an abortion to save her. "...they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son". (Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives by Kim Painter. USA Today 10/22/2012).

Scott Walker has got to know this. I mean, surely he did some research when deciding what his position on this important issue (to him as a governor and presidential candidate) would be? He probably spoke with some doctors to make sure what he was saying about these "many other alternatives" was correct, no?

Apparently not. Obviously this is just a political position. He wouldn't really condemn women to death, would he? I think he would. And, if elected, Scott could appoint SCOTUS justices that would overturn Roe V. Wade. It's scary that someone with such a radical notion re condemning a woman to death could possibly be elected president.

As for the other 9 candidates, none of them are that much better when it comes to respecting a woman's privacy. Below I have ranked below in order of most to least extreme (in my opinion). Walker being the most extreme, while Rubio (despite having previously sponsored legislation that included exceptions) now seems to be as extreme as Walker. (in which case they tie).

[2] Marco Rubio does not support an exception for rape, incest or the life of the mother. During the debate Rubio said "I believe that every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws... whether they have a birth certificate or not". (source).

[3] Mike Huckabee, who says "that if he were elected president he would consider using the FBI or National Guard to end abortion by force", is (almost?) as nuts on this issue. In disregarding Roe, he'd trigger a constitutional crisis.

Huckabee said "I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother's womb is a person at the moment of conception". Although he has said (in the past) that he would allow an exemption for the life of the mother. (source).

[4] Randal Paul also holds the un-Libertarian view, that "human life begins at conception and should be granted legal protection from that moment on". Although he does support the idea of exemptions for medical reasons. (source). He wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and says he will "use all legislative vehicles at his disposal"... meaning government shutdown. (source).

[5] Jeb Bush would "ban abortion after 20 weeks, while making exceptions for the life of the mother, rape or incest". Jeb believes "the next president should defund Planned Parenthood". (source).

[6] Paul Kasich is "pro-life" and opposed to abortion with exceptions for rape and incest (as well as the life of the mother... I presume). He also believes there should be a litmus test. (meaning Republican candidates for office should be rejected unless they are "pro-life").

[7] Chris Christie, who used to be pro-choice, now thinks there should be a ban abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions. He wants to eliminate family planning funding from the state budget.

[8] Ted Cruz says that companies can deny insuring birth control and is in favor of a "partial-birth abortion" ban. Is threatening to shut down the government unless Planned Parenthood is defunded. (source).

[9] Ben Carson says "the thought of abortion for the sake of convenience does not appeal to me". What that means, policy wise, is not clear. Depending on whether or not he thinks abortions should be banned (when, with exemptions or not) would affect his ranking. (souce).

[10] Donald Trump (probably realizing there is a litmus test) changed his mind and is now "pro-life" (after years of supporting the pro-choice position).

[End Anti-Choice Extremist Rankings]

Being willing to let pregnant women DIE so their babies will be born is about as extreme as you can get, which is why I rank Walker as the MOST extreme. Rubio has previously sponsored legislation that allowed for exceptions. But now he appears to have changed his mind?

Even Huckabee, with his totally wacko idea of calling out the National Guard to stop abortions, has said there should be an exception to save the life of the mother.

As for this 20 week abortion ban, which that wanker Scott asked the Wisconsin state legislature to author and send to him for his signature (which they did), the reasoning behind it is because "anti-abortion-rights groups claim... that's the point at which fetuses experience pain". But the scientists reject this claim.

And there are other reasons to oppose the 20 week cut off.

...women terminate their pregnancies due to fatal fetal anomalies. Often, those conditions aren't recognizable until the fetus is at least 18 to 20 weeks old. "Say it's a serious heart defect", says Daniel Grossman, a member of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "There isn't a blood test for that. The fetus needs to be a certain size before you can see that. And then it may take a while for a woman to make up her mind about what to do". (20-week abortion bans explained by Molly Redden. 1/23/2015 Mother Jones).

I say abortion should be between a woman and her doctor and find Repubs pandering to anti-choicers for their votes to be sickening. Congress needs to repeal the Hyde amendment because it punishes poor women who need abortions. If you're against abortions don't get one yourself. Stay the hell out of other people's personal lives and personal decisions. It's a matter of a woman's privacy, as the SCOTUS decided in Roe.

This "litmus" test is yet another reason I don't like Republicans. In addition to these recent lies about Planned Parenthood, which Hucky participated in during the debate, saying PP is "in the business of selling baby's body parts like the parts of a Buick" (they're recouping their costs and doing society a solid via the fact that fetal tissue is necessary for medical research, you moron). Heck, even the "moderate" gay-marriage-attending Kasich is quite radical in his opposition to women having control over their own bodies!

Image: 10 Repub hopefuls (hopeful that they'll make a lot of money running for preznit) on stage inside the Quicken Loans Arena (AKA "The Q"), 8/6/2015. (Left to Right) Chris "Big Boy" Christie, Marco "Big Gulp" Rubio, Ben "Obamacare is slavery" Carson, Scott "union buster" Wanker, Donald J. Trump (AKA "The Trumpster"), John Ellis "I'm my own man" Bush (AKA Jeb!), Mike Hucksterbee, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Randal "Liberty Freedom" Paul, John "no chance" Kasich. (click to enbiggen).

SWTD #302

Monday, August 03, 2015

On Debbie Wasserman Schultz Not Knowing The Difference Between A Socialist & A Democrat

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all ~ Adam Smith (6/16/1723 to 7/17/1790) a Scottish moral philosopher and pioneer of political economy who is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Thursday 7/30/2015, was asked by Chris Matthews what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist. Instead of answering the question Debbie dodged it and spoke about the difference between the Dems and the Repubs.

The reason she didn't answer is because the response would not look good for Democrats. Because, as Bernie Sanders himself explained, democratic socialists are for The People.

[If] one takes a hard look at countries around the world who have successful records in fighting and implementing programs for the middle class and working families... Finland, Norway, Sweden, and other countries that have had labor governments or social democratic governments... what you find is that... health care is a right of all people and their systems are far more cost-effective than ours, college education is virtually free in all of those countries, people retire with better benefits, wages that people receive are often higher, distribution of wealth and income is much fairer, their public education systems are generally stronger than ours. (No Really—What's the Difference Between a Democrat and a Socialist? by Arit John. Bloomberg Politics 7/31/2015).

Republicans are the corporate party that fights for the large corporations and the wealthy, and Democrats are the corporate party that tries to strike a balance between fighting for the large corporations/the wealthy and the "lower classes" (and small businesses). Although they do have an entire caucus (the Progressives, which is Congress's largest caucus) that fights for The People.

This "balance" was laid out officially by Bill Clinton, who called it the Third Way. The First Way being fighting exclusively for The People and doing what is best for The People in all cases. While recognizing that what is beneficial to The People will also benefit corporations and the wealthy. Because when The People are doing well the economy does well. And that is beneficial to everyone. This describes the Progressive caucus. And I'd be hard pressed to say what the differences between Progressives and democratic Socialists are.

The Second Way is to sell out totally to the wealthy and corporations and work hard to feed their greed. Even though the wealthy and corporations do well when The People are doing well, for many greedy rich a-holes doing well (and sharing the wealth) is not good enough. They want more, and they want it at the expense of The People. They want the economy run exclusively for their benefit... and screw the "lower classes". They will be harmed in order that the wealthy do FAR better than the rest of us. This is the Way the modern Republican Party has chosen.

The Third Way was a path taken by Bill Clinton and is still the strategy to win elections that the Democratic Party (by and large) follows today. This strategy panders to the corporations and wealthy in order to get cash to fund their elections, while doing less to help The People. Pandering to the wealthy and corporations comes first, while doing what is best for The People comes second. Bill Clinton determined that this Third Way was necessary in order to combat the Republican advantage (of donations from the corporations and the wealthy going mostly to them).

Libertarians, FYI, stand with the Republicans (and follow the 2nd Way). Although they do it with a slight twist, which is their jettisoning of the social conservatism that the Republicans use to trick "lower class" bigots into voting for them. Because the corporations and the wealthy don't care about social conservatism. It simply does not affect their bottom line. In fact, being bigoted might cost a business money (and they'll say NO to Social Conservatism for that reason).

But this explains why the Libertarians are a very minor party. The Republicans have their dupes in the bigots, the Democrats have their dupes, although many vote Democrat simply because there is no better option. Except for the Progressives. They're the better option, and people who aren't duped will vote for them when they can (if a Progressive is running).

Libertarians have their dupes, but they are significantly less of them. They don't have the bigots and they don't have the non-dupes who realize that Libertarians, Repubs and 3rd Way Dems are fighting for the wealthy. The voters who remain, the non-bigoted dupes who believe that fighting for the wealthy will benefit all, work out to be a very small group.

There is another twist in how the Libertarians wish to serve the wealthy that I didn't mention yet. This second twist is that they profess to want to get government out of the way by decreasing regulations significantly. And they also profess to oppose bailouts and crony capitalism. Because they hate government and believe that the wealthy should have all the power (which they do not wish to share with government).

Although (excepting the true believers) this is a somewhat lie. I say somewhat because this is their true desire, but they will not spurn government help so long as it is available. The Koch brothers being an example of plutocrats who say they are Libertarians but fight for handouts from government. (How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies 3/1/2011).

The Koch Brothers might prefer to get government out of the way, but so long as the system exists as it does (a system where bailouts and crony capitalism exist) they will get in line and shamelessly beg for these gifts paid for by taxpayers.

But back to Wasserman Schultz... she obviously could not lay out this distinction... because it would look bad for the 3rd Way Democratic Party. Which the Democratic Party is; in spite of the existence of the Progressive caucus. Most Progressives have to go along to get along. They TRY to serve The People primarily, but simply are not able to. Because the alliance between the corporate Republicans and the corporate Republicans prevent them from working for The People alone.

As for WHY Chris Matthews asked this question in the first place... he was acting as the "tip of the spear" in the 3rd Way Democrat plan to take down Bernie Sanders (for more on this see DSB #16).

Video: Matthews "Dumbfounds" DNC Chair: "Tell Me the Difference Between You and a Socialist". (1:24).

SWTD #301