Boycott the Boycott!

I don’t watch Glenn Beck’s program often. Maybe once a week, normally if I’m at the station; I’m usually reading the news from multiple outlets online when his program is on. I wasn’t watching the program he was a guest on July 28 when he said that Obama was a racist “with a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

There have been rumblings of a boycott led by colorofchange.org, a group founded by one of Obama’s cabinet members. Colorofchange has put pressure on several major companies to pull their advertising from Beck’s show. Now, at least twenty major companies have done exactly that. I have a comprehensive list of companies and products that need to hear our displeasure and feel it in their bank accounts.

Among them is my cell phone carrier: Sprint. I just finished writing them a letter demanding that they retract their insistence upon not advertising during Beck’s program within 30 days, lest I switch to Verizon or AT&T (you know, I HAD been thinking of getting an iPhone). The general reason with all of these companies is the same: they want to reach a “diverse” audience through programs that are “informed, inclusive and respectful.”

Is that so? Well, I have to ask–where was this concern when Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and other MSM talking heads were making sophomoric “teabagging” jokes while they “reported” on the Tea Party protests? Where was this concern during the Bush years, when these same people on the major news networks called Bush a racist, a homophobe, a Nazi, and anything else they could think of? Where is this concern when the MSM only gives us the facts about a news story that they want to give us, leaving FOX and the National Journal to sniff out the rest of it for us?

I had been thinking of switching to either Geico or Progressive for my auto insurance…no more. I won’t give them a nickel of my business. I had gone so far as to get quotes from both. That’s a shame, too, because the Progressive commercials with Flo are hilarious.

Clorox used to be a bleach product I bought all the time. Not anymore! Wal Mart also just lost my business for the same reason. Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club won’t get a dollar of my business for their part in this fiasco. I don’t care how low their prices are.

Cheese is by far one of my favorite foods; in Mel’s world, it’s a food group unto itself. Sargento got a lot of my business until now. I’ll go with anyone else now, because the privately-held company also pulled its ads from Beck. Their spokeswoman had this to say: “We market our products to people regardless of their political affiliations, yet we do not want to be associated with hateful speech used by either liberal or conservative television hosts.”

Really? Then say that to Keith Olbermann, who named Michelle Malkin one of the “worst people in the world” simply for her stance on illegal immigration, or Geraldo Rivera, who threatened to spit on her. Yank your ads from them, too, or shut up.

The real doozie, though, was Procter and Gamble. The giant company issued a statement that any advertising of its products was done entirely in error, and “we will try to be more careful in the future.”

Oh, boy. Here’s a list of the major products from P&G that you need to boycott:

-Febreeze air freshener
-Old Spice products
-Secret deodorants
-Charmin toilet paper
-Luvs and Pampers diapers
-Clearblue easy pregnancy tests
-all Pepto Bismol products
-Duracell batteries
-all Camay, Ivory, Oil of Olay, Safeguard and Zest soap products
-Cover Girl and MaxFactor beauty products (switch to Revlon!)
-Always and Tampax products
-Aussie, Head & Shoulders, Herbal Essence, Infusium 23 and Pantene hair care products
-Clairol hair color products
-Align, Braun, Crest, Scope, and Oral-B oral care
-Fibersure and Metamucil
-Prilosec antacid medication
-Pur water filters
-Vicks healthcare (cough drops, vapo-rub)
-Bounty and Mr. Clean household cleaners
-Swiffer (I’ll do with my old broom just fine)
-Bounce, Cheer, Downy, Dreft, Era, Gain, Ivory and Tide laundry detergents
-Eukanuba and Iams pet foods (I can switch to Science Diet)
-Actonel, Asacol, Didronel, Enablex, Macrobid and Microdantin prescription medications
-Braun and Gillette shaving products
-Pringles snacks
Last but not least, the following fragrances are manufactured by P&G:
-Baldessarini, Boss, Bruno Banani, Escada, Ghost, Giorgio Beverly Hills, Hugo, Lacoste, Naomi Campbell and PUMA.

Don’t just avoid these products. Write P&G an email expressing your distaste for their willingness to aid and abet censorship. I already have. Be sure to be absolutely professional when writing. NO AD HOMINEMS.

If you currently do business with any of the companies listed, contact them and request that they withdraw their support from colorofchange and back it up with a promise to switch to a competitor. If these companies are going to allow hate speech directed at conservatives and speak up only when liberals draw our ire, they need to understand that we will not tolerate it.

To be fair, several of these companies have said they haven’t pulled all advertising from FOX. Most of them have stated that they simply gave the command that their advertising not be run during Beck’s program. I take issue with it regardless, though, as should we all. It won’t stop here; once colorofchange gets advertisers to boycott Beck, they’ll move on to Hannity, O’Reilly, and eventually all FOX programming. If they were advertising during a KKK-supportive show, I might be able to understand it. We should not allow this to continue, because it will result in the bullying of all pundits deemed too conservative by the loudest minority in the world: liberals.

Advertisements

64 thoughts on “Boycott the Boycott!

  1. This is no different than when P&G pulled sponsorship from Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

    Because Glen is strong, and Dr. Laura was in 2000, they will survive no matter what happens. However; when real Americans become angry and stop buying Dixie Chicks music, it’s all seen as some government conspiracy to censor opposing voices to the war.

    Liberals resort to tactics like this all the time. It’s never going to change. But when someone is strong, they will survive regardless.

  2. I understand that these companies want to keep their public images looking good but they are in the business of making money by selling products to people. Any and all people. I haven’t heard the comments and know Glenn gets carried away sometimes (I liked him on his other show on CNN, it seemed less crazy but still getting the ideas across). Of course the founder/now cabinet member claims he had no knowledge of his group’s action but I find it hard to believe. But then what do I know? I’m just a crazy, racist, nazi astroturf plant;-)
    AndyB, NH.

  3. Hey, thanks for posting Procter & Gamble’s contact information. I just commended them for pulling their advertising from that moron’s show. Twenty and counting, that’s hilarious. I’m not sure if Mr. Beck understands this, but his show only operates because of advertising. Once they’re gone, so is his show. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a sandwich made with delicious Sargento cheese to savor…

  4. Um…no. Beck’s show exists because of the two-million-plus viewers who pump money into those advertisers. He’s got one of the top-rated shows. O’Reilly has the number one opinion news show out of all of the news networks according to the ratings.

  5. “Twenty and counting, that’s hilarious.”

    Precisely the number of percentage points Obama has dropped in two months, and about the same number that describes the liberal Congress approval ratings.

    Love comes in many numbers, just depends on what you’re counting.

  6. As I said also, Mel is right. The viewers and the need for Glenn Beck through enormous popularity will override a temporary slight of sponsors. This is a time when people have to stand up and they will more easier because of his popularity.

    GLADD did the same thing to Dr. Laura in 2000. She has 18 million listeners regularly and eventually, people came around and understood that GLADD was more ticked off at her ability to articulate an opposition to their politics.

    By the way, Mel – this was the first time I had ever heard of Tammy Bruce, when she rushed out to Dr. Laura’s defense in 2000.

  7. “Precisely the number of percentage points Obama has dropped in two months, and about the same number that describes the liberal Congress approval ratings”

    You’re an idiot. Congressional Democrats have a relatively low 43% approval, but still leaps and bounds better than congressional Republicans, who have a dismal 10% approval. Your party as a whole enjoys an 18% approval rating, compared to the Democrats’ 44%. Better luck next time though…

  8. I can imagine how many polls you had to sift through in order to get that breakdown – especially being such an independent.

    However, Rasmussen was giving results of Congressional approval ratings and overall, they were in the 20’s somewhere. The reason I remember is because they were correlating it with the slipping support of the health plan from Americans. Basically, nobody likes the plan, therefore; they don’t like the Congress proposing it.

  9. “Better luck next time though…”

    You bet it will, you bet it will. The Democrats are digging their own grave with his misguided health care reform garbage.

    Last Thursday my Congressional Representative was making the rounds at the weekly farmer’s market where I live.

    The bint had a detachment of Unitarians who were ready to break into song in case a shouting match broke out within the crowd.

    Wow…even shouting is free speech. It may lack class and it is bad manners. It is also free speech. Bringing a choir to drown that out is something a Nazi does.

  10. That’s okay, Robert. You insist that FOX makes up their own news and they’re horribly slanted and completely unfair, thus you refuse to give them any merit; the Nielsen ratings, however, show that they have the highest viewership of any news organization on TV.

    I have no idea where you got the numbers you just gave us but they’re bunk.

  11. “I can imagine how many polls you had to sift through in order to get that breakdown – especially being such an independent.”

    Funny that you mention that; it was in the first place I looked – a Research 2000 poll. But, it actually took me several minutes to find anything on congressional ratings from Rasmussen’s website, and even then, the numbers aren’t what you say they are, giving me favorability ratings for the House and Senate leaders of both parties only.

  12. A Research 2000 poll? Oh, them! Yes, they’re referenced all the time.

    I’m certain because Rasmussen is reliable and has a fair reputation that there are lots of polls, so naturally it would take one longer to find one.

    Robert, the Pres went down to 51% in the Gallup today, which is another rock-bottom. Now, you can pretend I am playing politics here and continue to believe that it was ultra-liberalism that America preferred all you want. But the fact is, sooner or later you are going to have to admit it yourself what America wants. If anything, they wanted moderation. Not extreme overhauls.

    This year is so defining for Obama. It is his only chance to copy Clinton and basically pray for a Republican roarback in 2010 so that he can merely sign what is ever sent up to him as Clinton did from Newt from 1994-2000.

  13. “That’s okay, Robert. You insist that FOX makes up their own news and they’re horribly slanted and completely unfair, thus you refuse to give them any merit; the Nielsen ratings, however, show that they have the highest viewership of any news organization on TV.”

    Right, and FOX viewers are the most horribly uninformed and ignorant people out there. They genuinely believe things that are not true. I posted this on another thread, but it warrants repeating:

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908230016

    “I have no idea where you got the numbers you just gave us but they’re bunk.”

    They’re only bunk because you don’t like them. They’re a nonpartisan research firm whose information has appeared in and on CNN, The Washington Post, The Wa(r)ll Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, and even your beloved National Journal. It’s not bunk, deal with it.

  14. BTW, I read this morning that P&G never advertised for Beck in the first place. So this group running around and rallying as some nutty victory here is goofy. P&G rarely sponsors any opinionated radio/TV host to begin with.

  15. “A Research 2000 poll? Oh, them! Yes, they’re referenced all the time.”

    They are. See my examples above.

    “I’m certain because Rasmussen is reliable and has a fair reputation that there are lots of polls, so naturally it would take one longer to find one.”

    I had to search the website using the words Congress and favorability ratings and then scroll through some filler to get any meat…

    “Robert, the Pres went down to 51% in the Gallup today, which is another rock-bottom. Now, you can pretend I am playing politics here and continue to believe that it was ultra-liberalism that America preferred all you want. ”

    I don’t pretend the entire country is progressive as I am, I merely point out that they hate you and your party more than they do so called liberals. And, you do pick and choose. R2K puts his approval at 58%. You cherry picked the lowest number you could find, and I suppose I can’t fault you for that. Just be honest about it.

    “If anything, they wanted moderation. Not extreme overhauls.”

    Well, unfortunately for you and the lunatic fringe, the president received a fairly large mandate, and as he likes to remind you, elections have consequences…

  16. Robert, Fox has been around for at least 15 years, right? That’s 365 days per year at 24 hours a day at 60 minutes per hour.

    That is 7,884,000 minutes of airtime and your proof of such corruption is some contrived one-minute piece of “evidence” from MEDIA MATTERS (where my posts are always removed for some reason) which is funded by Soros.

    Other UNBIASED sources not lead by David Brock say otherwise. If you want to talk mistakes or slander, I look forward to the same link they provide on CNN and MSNBC. And to say that such evidence wouldn’t exist, well, that would end the entire conversation right there.

  17. “That is 7,884,000 minutes of airtime and your proof of such corruption is some contrived one-minute piece of “evidence” from MEDIA MATTERS ”

    That’s merely one example. You have to know that there are more. Likewise, you continue to bash CBS for the antics of Dan Rather. That was only one incident too…

    “Other UNBIASED sources not lead by David Brock say otherwise”

    Oh, you don’t like it when someone jumps ship, huh? I assume you had no problem when he was Richard Mellon Scaife’s beck and call girl in the 90’s, lying about Troopergate and doing everything in his power to destroy the Clintons, am I right?

  18. “I don’t pretend the entire country is progressive as I am, I merely point out that they hate you and your party more than they do so called liberals.”

    Well the so-called liberals you mention were what many swing voters thought were going to miraculously bring prosperity back overnight. Now that they see what is happening, we are seeing that attitude change fast.

    You have to admit, Republican Congress had to be around a lot longer than this one has to suffer such approval ratings. This means that it takes less time through lived experience to convince the majority one way than it does the other.

    And if Russ Feingold is right about holding off until Christmas for the overhaul of health care, it is going to be that much harder.

    2010 will consist of two parties:

    1.) The ones that demand returning the stimulus directly to the American people right away by apportioning it properly to the amount of tax they paid in over the last three years.

    2.) The ones that demand the government keep control of it to disburse to special interests as they see fit.

  19. “If you want to talk mistakes or slander, I look forward to the same link they provide on CNN and MSNBC”

    Mistakes? Is that what we’re calling what FOX has done? Do you honestly think it was a mistake to tell people that the elderly at risk of systematic elimination? You have got to be kidding me! They knew exactly what they were doing, and that is why they should never have been allowed to brand themselves news. Because they’re not news, they’re propaganda for the republican party. As biased as Keith Olbermann is, he is at least objective enough to call someone out in his party when it’s warranted. Check the inter-web for the night that president Obama was his worst person in the world.

  20. “Oh, you don’t like it when someone jumps ship, huh?”

    True, especially when one run jumps ship and abandons the only recipe for Democratic prosperity and success for all to be one of the sole recipients of his very own Uncle Sam.

  21. “Well the so-called liberals you mention were what many swing voters thought were going to miraculously bring prosperity back overnight. Now that they see what is happening”

    What are we seeing happening? The economy starting to turn around, the stimulus actually working, in spite of said propaganda telling people it’s a failure? Unemployment is down, a tiny bit, but down. We went from a projected -6% growth this quarter to an actual -.75%, with expected growth next quarter. You hate the fact the economy is doing better, and so do all the jackals at FOX “News”, with the possible exception of Shepard Smith, who, however grudgingly, admitted that things are getting better and that republicans need to back off.

  22. Oh wait, you mean the Clinton investigation which lead out with 17 convictions?

    Yes – I remember it well. Ann Coulter was part of it, too. Coulter; unlike Brock, managed to hold on to her beliefs and values and make a very successful career out of it in the free market where only the American people can ban her or fire her. She doesn’t have to rely on a sugar-daddy as Brock has to do with Soros.

    Brock was (and remains) as invaluable to the Republican Party as Arlen Spector and Scott McClellan.

    Fox also reported what Emanuel’s brother had said and again, the exact words did not have to be in the bill, one could examine the domino effect this insanity would have on the elderly.

    Americans are/were wise. They will never pick socialism and any government plans will be rammed down their throats in lieu of being welcomed.

  23. What did Troopergate have to do with the Clintons and David Brock?”

    Not the Palin episode, the Clinton one. Where Brock accused Clinton of having state troopers drop prostitutes off at motels he was supposedly waiting at. Turns out Ann Coulter leaked false information to him, and he ran the story in the American Spectator. Funny thing is, that never happened. The troopers were paid by Jerry Falwell to make the phony allegations. Aren’t you people so lovely and honest?

  24. “Fox also reported what Emanuel’s brother had said and again, the exact words did not have to be in the bill, one could examine the domino effect this insanity would have on the elderly.”

    I challenged you to find the words, and you have yet to do it. Once again, put up or shut up.

    “Americans are/were wise. They will never pick socialism and any government plans will be rammed down their throats in lieu of being welcomed.”

    Yeah, I’m sure all the geezers at the town halls screaming this same trite tripe are just hell bent to stop the social security checks from coming in, and are lining up to get off of Medicare. This is exactly what I mean by FOX viewers being ignorant.

  25. Oh ,Steve. The budget deficit has nothing to do with growth in the private sector and you know it. Unless you miraculously now wish to stop seeing them as mutually exclusive. Which is it? Is our economy strong and independent, guided by untouchable market forces, are is it in the hands of the government? Decisions, decisions…

  26. Ann Coulter did not leak information about the officers in that case, she did however leak the information about Bill’s alleged bent penis as noted by Paula Jones (something that makes me giggle, I am sorry). Plus I remember Falwell had no control over who the organization he donated money to was going to use it for. Though, the only discrediting of the officers who testified were alleged personal tragedies such as one cheated on his wife, one stole lunch money in 4th grade, one may have been a wife-beater, etc.

    You know, very general terms like “Falwell paid them to do it.”

    This was another unsolved Clinton scandal much like Juanita Broderick. No conclusion was reached and we have no true awareness of Brock’s true motivation for his sudden change of heart. (Even that Soros is his sugar-daddy, which is still the best guess)

  27. “You know, very general terms like “Falwell paid them to do it.”

    Fair enough. He gave money to Citizens for Honest Government, which in turn, paid off the troopers. Money laundering is just as bad.

    “Even that Soros is his sugar-daddy, which is still the best guess”

    Media Matters has never taken so much as one red penny from Goerge Soros, so cool it with unfounded allegations that you people routinely use in place of facts…

  28. “Media Matters has never taken so much as one red penny from Goerge Soros, so cool it with unfounded allegations that you people routinely use in place of facts…”

    As CNS News reports and Horowicz said:

    “While there is no evidence Soros gave directly to Brock and Media Matters, clearly Soros-funded groups have been instrumental in getting MMA started.”

    David Horowitz is familiar with the practice of changing one’s political ideology, but in Horowitz’ case, he was a 1960s radical who became a conservative author. Horowitz charged that Media Matters’ original claim that it had taken no money from Soros or groups affiliated with Soros was “a lie.”

    “This is typical of Brock’s operation,” Horowitz told Cybercast News Service . “They split hairs to present an untruth.”

    Media Matters can no longer deny its Soros affiliation because “once you have the names (of donors), once you know that Peter Lewis is involved, you can’t deny it,” said Horowitz, who as a conservative, co-founded the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of the Popular Culture and Front Page Mag.com, a news and commentary website.”

  29. Moreover; whenever I presented an argument in the past, the posts were ALWAYS removed.

    Robert, you can say a lot about us here. But we’ve never put tape over your cyber-mouth.

  30. Oh. My. God.

    I cannot believe that Robert not only linked Media Matters, but he tried to present them as UNBIASED.

    Right. They’re so unbiased that on every page on their site, there’s an email signup that reads, “I support MediaMatters: help us fight conservative misinformation.” Now that’s what I call unbiased. You really are somethin’, Robert. Find those numbers that they push on a website that actually IS unbiased before you have the balls to tell ANYONE here to “put up or shut up.”

    I get very tired of going over this with you time and again, but Steve’s right–no matter how irritated we get, we don’t remove your comments. We haven’t banned you. I, however, have been banned from multiple liberal-minded blogs for nothing more than doing what you do (albeit more calmly and without writing comments longer than the original blog).

  31. Steve, are you really taking the word of a certifiable nutcase such as Michelle Bachman over what you yourself can read from the bill? Why do you need her to filter what was actually said, and re filtered through Sarah Palin? None of it is true.

    http://factcheck.org/2009/08/deadly-doctor/

    And if it is your game to twist what someone said years before this debate began, you need only read the portion of the bill that deals with end of life issues, and nowhere in there will you find death panels or any such nonsense.

  32. “While there is no evidence Soros gave directly to Brock and Media Matters, clearly Soros-funded groups have been instrumental in getting MMA started.”

    How sinister! The first part of that sentence summed it up nicely. There is no evidence that Media Matters is, as Matt Drudge put it, a “Soros operation”.

    Think of it this way. I tithed money to my church last year. They then circulated an anti gay marriage petition. Does that mean I funded efforts to ban gay marriage? Don’t be so gullible, Steve.

  33. “Robert, you can say a lot about us here. But we’ve never put tape over your cyber-mouth.”

    Well, congratulations on not being overly fascistic. I’ve had posts never even show up on the fire Andrea Mitchell blog, but you don’t hear me crying about it…

  34. “I cannot believe that Robert not only linked Media Matters, but he tried to present them as UNBIASED.”

    Really? Find my quote saying they were unbiased. You people have a nasty habit of putting words in other people’s mouths.

    “Find those numbers that they push on a website that actually IS unbiased before you have the balls to tell ANYONE here to “put up or shut up.”

    You’re confused. I told Steve to put up or shut about phony death panels, and my source was the nonpartisan factcheck.org. Likewise, the numbers you’re referring to are the polling ones, which in fact, came from a nonpartisan research firm. There is no bias in either organization, so my balls are right where they should be, thank you very much…

    “I get very tired of going over this with you time and again, but Steve’s right–no matter how irritated we get, we don’t remove your comments.”

    Kudos to you.

  35. “Well, congratulations on not being overly fascistic. I’ve had posts never even show up on the fire Andrea Mitchell blog, but you don’t hear me crying about it…”

    Media Matters rarely keeps dissenting opinions on their forums. Whenever I would argue their portrayal of any specific clip they were rebutting, it’d get removed promptly.

    Regarding Michelle Bachmann, she is not a “nutcase.” She read words straight from Emanuel’s mouth. It is horrifying that liberals hold onto the specifcity of words to rebut what a conservative is translating when it’s so plain especially when the same ones holding to that specificity can miraculously find rights for abortion and Gitmo detainees in our Constitution.

    It never needed to say “death panels” as I described to you before. One can read – for example the counseling provided to terminally ill patients and veterans at current VA hospitals and state hospitals in Oregon.

    Robert, your same folk (some of them) defend abortion as a form of population control. The same people complain that human existence and too much of it will leave an irreversible carbon footprint. The same ones who want to slow production of some of our most cherished resources which we rely on as human beings in the name of “global warming.”

    The anti-human statements and positions of liberals go way back and now when Americans who read this bill can see far past its words to what it will actually become to allow legislation to be based on this, when matters can be argued before a court, when the same people find clauses in the Constitution for abortion and rights for Gitmo detainees – they know its time to say no. No to government, no to their control, and no to their ultimate goal of cutting down on human consumption while lowering the “gap” between the most prospering Americans and the alleged poorest ones.

  36. “Um…no. Beck’s show exists because of the two-million-plus viewers who pump money into those advertisers.”

    And what happens when those advertisers are gone? Television works just like radio; advertisement revenue funds the program. You all love to point out how Air America went bankrupt. It didn’t survive in certain areas because it didn’t have advertising dollars, not because it didn’t have listeners. Just look at FOX News. That division of Rupert Murdoch’s conglomerate lost five million dollars per year for its first five years of existence. FOX News didn’t make one dime of profit for five years. Murdoch had the means to keep a losing operation going, and as you pointed out, gullible retards have since made it number one in cable “news”.

  37. “And what happens when those advertisers are gone?”

    The public demand for the show lives on. If Don Imus were as popular as Glenn Beck is, he would not have been fired by MSNBC.

    As I said, Beck has a massive following, so sooner or later, the sponsors will come around again as they did with Dr. Laura Schlessinger in 2000.

  38. “Television works just like radio; advertisement revenue funds the program.”

    And what draws advertisement? VIEWERS. Either these companies will come back or others will take their place. Air America didn’t have enough listeners in those areas to draw advertising dollars, that’s how the market works, Robert.

    “FOX News didn’t make one dime of profit for five years. Murdoch had the means to keep a losing operation going, and as you pointed out, gullible retards have since made it number one in cable “news”.”

    Is it possible for you to attempt to make a point without the ad hominems? Do you have to call those you disagree with things like “gullible retards”? You’re not making a point here, Robert, you’re making yourself out to be an ass. I think a lot of things about liberals that I don’t say either here OR on their blogs, because it’s just not nice and it completely invalidates everything else I have to say.

    Grow up, wouldja?

  39. “Regarding Michelle Bachmann, she is not a “nutcase.”

    What?! This is the woman who made the absolutely ridiculous claim that “this country is running out of rich people”. The same woman who tried to blame the appearance of Swine Flu on a Democrat, harkening back to when it first reared its ugly head during Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, and now under Obama. Nevermind the fact that Ford was President in 1976 when it first came to America. This is the woman who called for McCarthy-like investigations into whether any members of Congress held anti American views. This bitch is bat shit crazy, wanting to privatize Social Security and nuking Iran. She has said that you, Steve, as a gay man, and I quote “suffer from sexual dysfunction” and “sexual identity disorder”. She’s nuts man. Sorry.

    “It never needed to say “death panels” as I described to you before”

    It does if you’re going to quote Michelle
    Bachman and Sarah Palin. I’m willing to bet that you haven’t even bothered to read the link that I posted twice about what Emanuel actually said and his position on it. Read it, then try to stop making wild claims.

    “Robert, your same folk (some of them) defend abortion as a form of population control.”

    That is sickening, and in fairness, I have never heard ANY liberal or progressive take that position.

    “when the same people find clauses in the Constitution for abortion and rights for Gitmo detainees”

    These “same people” you speak of constitute the Supreme Court. They found that a constitutional right to privacy exists, therefore negating any intervention by the Government to force a woman to give birth. And, if you read the constitution, it doesn’t just grant rights to Americans, Steve, it grants them to “persons”. Never is it said, nor should it be thought, that those rights be extended to only citizens of the US. That is why people detained by the US are entitled to those same rights, regardless of whether or not you wish to ascribe to them some invisible intent to do you harm.

  40. “Is it possible for you to attempt to make a point without the ad hominems? Do you have to call those you disagree with things like “gullible retards”? ”

    Perhaps if they didn’t believe things that were flat out untrue. It’s one thing to have an opinion, but when you start to assert your own facts, I have a problem with that. And how many nice things have you said about 9/11 truthers? They tend to believe things that aren’t true, like the government planting bombs up and down the trade towers. Are we to reserve judgment for them? Didn’t think so.

    “You’re not making a point here, Robert, you’re making yourself out to be an ass”

    So, I’m an ass for pointing out that FOX viewers are grossly misinformed? I think what irks me most is that they brand themselves news, when it’s merely opinion and commentary. Plus, they have the gall to label themselves “fair and balanced”. I watch MSNBC fairly often, but I don’t see them pretending to be fair and balanced, or calling themselves a news organization. Bias is fine, as long as you can recognize that that’s what it is, and as long as it doesn’t present itself as news. But when you start to think that every other REAL news outlet is wrong, and your little cable network is correct, and that the government is secretly planning to off the geriatric in record numbers, I’m sorry, but you’re a gullible retard. If that makes me as ass, so be it. Tell a friend.

    “Grow up, wouldja?”

    Never!

  41. “Is it possible for you to attempt to make a point without the ad hominems? Do you have to call those you disagree with things like “gullible retards”? ”

    Case in point:

    “I have to post a short missive about some of the idiocy that has contributed to the stupefying of American culture lately”

    And:

    “Even the most popular “truther” film, Loose Change, tries to pin some of its makers’ half-wit conspiracies on Jews in the banking system”

    And that was in the first post that came up in the 9/11 conspiracies search. Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon, don’t you?

  42. “These “same people” you speak of constitute the Supreme Court.”

    You know you say it like it was so black and white. It was a Supreme Court’s decision and that’s all there is to say about it, right? Could you be that black and white when it comes to overall right and wrong and personal responsibility to start with?
    Of course, there were enough liberals on the Warren court to constitute abortion.

    If I could get you to sign something, or Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi that lawyers with the ACLU will not be able to bring looney suits to the Supreme Court based on critical end-of-life decisions when the integrity and the best interest of the healthy family members whose life of the sick rest in their hands – to use this legislation to argue for the side that says “pull the plug” or “cut the meds!”

    The fact is, liberals will use such legislation to their advantage in moments like these when the private sector of people will be at the Government’s mercy. To get judges to interpret the language the way they see it.

    So, now that before it becomes law and when reasonable people like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann read not only the legislation but can accurately quote an actual adviser of the President and pull all of this together, our side has the absolute right to interpret in such a way that it will inform the American people accurately.

    That’s truth and it’s the passage of information. People can take it and listen for themselves.

    Michelle Bachmann is right, also. Tax revenue is down Robert, in case you didn’t hear. The rich are indeed beginning to fall off.

    How can you tax the hell out of people when they aren’t earning the income to tax to begin with. Of course any person can look at the current economy and unemloyment rate to project such, this isn’t nutty, this is reality.

  43. “So, now that before it becomes law and when reasonable people like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann read not only the legislation but can accurately quote an actual adviser of the President and pull all of this together, our side has the absolute right to interpret in such a way that it will inform the American people accurately.”

    Wow, you’re gone, dude. Neither of those people are reasonable, and Zeke Emanuel said himself that he did not advocate for sacrificing medical care for the elderly or the disabled. As a matter of fact, back ten years or so ago, when doctors were pushing for the legalization of euthanasia, Emanuel opposed it. How you can twist his words and call it an accurate interpretation is frankly a little sickening.

  44. “Wow, you’re gone, dude. Neither of those people are reasonable, and Zeke Emanuel said himself that he did not advocate for sacrificing medical care for the elderly or the disabled.”

    Of course he can say that now after his quotes were accurately interpreted knowing that informing the American people of such will lead to the demise of a government takeover of health care.

    Again, your people have been creating interpretations for years to draw conclusions, ones that are much more far-fetched than what Sarah Palin had done here.

    Zeke Emanuel is a classic Chicago inspired politician – along with Barack Obama and changing the story or miraculously inventing a brand new proclamation is merely the tip of the iceberg of what these folks are capable of.

  45. “Of course he can say that now after his quotes were accurately interpreted knowing that informing the American people of such will lead to the demise of a government takeover of health care.”

    Okay, let this be the last time I have to do this, because clearly, you haven’t got it up to this point. Please READ Dr. Emanuel’s words, and try to keep up, okay? This is from the Hasting Center Report from 1996:

    “Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy. … This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. … Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity – those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations – are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”

    That is clearly not written from his perspective. He was referring to the position of people who align themselves with communitarianism. They hold that position, not Dr. Emanuel. Find me the words where he is advocating for a government takeover of health care. Factcheck.org concluded pretty much what I just said, that “the context makes it clear that Emanuel is describing the implications of a PARTICULAR PHILOSOPHICAL TREND, not offering a policy prescription.”

    And even if your conspiracy theory were true, and he were in a position to create such a policy, HR 3200 has already specifically stated that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.”

    You, and wack jobs like Sarah Palin (P.S., kudos on finally giving up on that Palin 2012 nonsense) and Michele Bachmann have got yourselves all worked up over a) something that doesn’t exist, and 2) something that protects against that which doesn’t exist!

    “Zeke Emanuel is a classic Chicago inspired politician”

    Zeke Emanuel is a doctor, man, not a politician. He’s nowhere near being in the position of affecting legislation. So do us all a favor and let go of this affectation…

  46. “Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon, don’t you?”

    Well, Robert, since every quote you offered was an attack on the subject matter, and NOT the people themselves, I’ll point out that once again, you’re wrong. My whole point was that much of the time, that’s how you start out. Then you get frustrated that you can’t make us think the way you do and you start calling people names. I’ve lost track of the number of times you have called everyone here some nasty name.

    “It’s one thing to have an opinion, but when you start to assert your own facts, I have a problem with that.”

    That’s funny. So do we. You keep saying that FOX makes up its own fact, yet you have nothing to back such a preposterous claim up with. Where, I ask again, is your evidence?

    And please, have some respect for yourself. Don’t get it from Media Matters.

  47. “Well, Robert, since every quote you offered was an attack on the subject matter, and NOT the people themselves, I’ll point out that once again, you’re wrong.”

    Calling someone a half wit is an attack on subject matter? Okay…

    “You keep saying that FOX makes up its own fact, yet you have nothing to back such a preposterous claim up with. Where, I ask again, is your evidence?”

    Um, how about in the very legislation in which supposed mandatory euthanasia exists? You hold this silly assumption that I need the right wing’s lies filtered out for me. I watch FOX News almost as much as I watch MSNBC, and when I see Sean Hannity telling his audience that health care reform means (and I’m paraphrasing here) slaughtering the elderly, I don’t need Media Matters to tell me he’s full of shit. I rely on my own eyes and ears foremost…

    “And please, have some respect for yourself. Don’t get it from Media Matters.”

    Again, I’m sure when David Brock was a shill for the right wing, reporting on things he knew to be false, you didn’t have a problem with him because your ideologies lined up, right? But I’m the one who needs to get self respect…

  48. “Calling someone a half wit is an attack on subject matter?”

    Read the quote again. I said their half-wit CONSPIRACIES. Don’t put words in my mouth and then turn around and get pissed at us when you accuse us of the same thing.

    “…when I see Sean Hannity telling his audience that health care reform means…”

    Oh, good grief…Hannity is an OPINION show! You expect that kind of thing from him, he’s paid to give his opinion. And I’m sure you know already that when it comes to “death panels,” we may be paraphrasing, too, but we conservatives believe that’s what’ll happen because it’s in the bill. It actually had to be addressed, and at least one senator has vowed to have the provision removed. Again, please tell me what exactly FOX invents.

    A story about pickup trucks that are dangerous because the placement of their gas tanks causes explosions in accidents? Nope…that was NBC.

    Oh, wait, I got it…a story about Bush going AWOL from the Air National Guard, complete with memos about the incident? Wrong again, that was Dan Rather at CBS!

    At least O’Reilly and Hannity have liberals on their shows to give some real balance. I can’t remember the last time Olbermann or Maddow gave one ounce of respect to a conservative guest (or had one on, for that matter).

  49. “Read the quote again. I said their half-wit CONSPIRACIES. Don’t put words in my mouth and then turn around and get pissed at us when you accuse us of the same thing.”

    Oh, I see, so adding the word conspiracies should negate the word makers right in front of it. Okay, so if the makers’ conspiracy is half witted, what exactly does that make the makers? Don’t get pissy and try to spilt semantic hairs when I draw a legitimate inference that YOU implied.

    “And I’m sure you know already that when it comes to “death panels,” we may be paraphrasing, too, but we conservatives believe that’s what’ll happen because it’s in the bill.”

    It is not in the bill. Nowhere does it make anything mandatory! Did you not read the section that says Congress is prohibited from mandating coverage for any portion of the bill? Why is this so difficult? It’s merely an option for seniors to discuss end of life issues with their doctors, no one is forcing grandma to get a lethal injection. And like Johnny Isakson said, anyone who came to such a ridiculous conclusion is nuts.

    By the way, no one here has bothered to acknowledge the irony in this:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/palin-deathpanel-flipflop/

    “At least O’Reilly and Hannity have liberals on their shows to give some real balance.”

    The only balance comes when they tell people to shut up or cut their mics because they’re losing the argument:

    “I can’t remember the last time Olbermann or Maddow gave one ounce of respect to a conservative guest (or had one on, for that matter).”

    What? I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a conservative on Countdown (except the radio host who was waterboarded), but Maddow has had cons on her show, and is very respectful towards them. She lets Pat Buchanan come on and spew his racist drivel and she doesn’t cut his mic. She was nothing but polite to Meghan McCain when she came on. And more to the point, if the above video is how FOX hosts treat liberals or anyone with an opposing point of view (which I believe is pretty representative), I’d rather they not even bother to keep up the appearance of trying to be balanced. I don’t tune into a television program to watch pundits bicker at each other. So, maybe it’s better that Olbermann doesn’t invite people on that will either scream at him or that he will scream at. Makes sense, no?

  50. “Don’t get pissy and try to spilt semantic hairs when I draw a legitimate inference that YOU implied.”

    You started that game, Robert. Describing an idea, or a conspiracy, or a belief does not necessarily imply that the description of such is levelled directly at the deliverer. And, if you notice, I don’t attack the truthers personally by calling them retards. I attack their arguments with sound, proven logic. When you decide you don’t like something here the first thing you do is get personal. Grow up.

    “Did you not read the section that says Congress is prohibited from mandating coverage for any portion of the bill?”

    Again, we’re not reading the same bill. And again, you’re putting words in our mouths. At no point have we (or Palin, for that matter) suggested that the “death panels” will be requiring grandma to get a lethal injection. The concept of a death panel is to decide when a person will no longer benefit from continued medical care and it will simply be too expensive to try to care for them. When the decision is made to stop providing expensive treatments you have a death panel; this is something that exists in EVERY form of universal healthcare.

    Since I’m actually working and can’t access YouTube at the moment, I will reserve judgment for that video clip until later; however, I do believe I know which clip you’re talking about, and it is the only time O’Reilly has ever done that. I’ve watched him for years and I’ve not once seen him do that to a liberal except for the single clip that liberals keep circulating. Try again.

    “She lets Pat Buchanan come on and spew his racist drivel and she doesn’t cut his mic.”

    Really? Racist drivel? Do you have quotes? Prove it. And since I just mentioned that cutting a mic is NOT something O’Reilly regularly does, I’ll let the previous mention speak for this.

  51. Oh…and I absolutely love the link to thinkprogress. Yet another exercise in liberal BS. I don’t see anything in that quote on their website that makes Palin out to be a hypocrite.

  52. “Again, we’re not reading the same bill”

    Then you’re reading something that doesn’t factor into anything that’s actually been put forward, and that doesn’t surprise me.

    “And again, you’re putting words in our mouths. At no point have we (or Palin, for that matter) suggested that the “death panels” will be requiring grandma to get a lethal injection”

    And how is “we” defined? If by “we” you mean conservatives, then I have not put words into anyone’s mouth. Chuck Grassley (once a moderate, and surprisingly turned psycho) has said that he doesn’t want “a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma”. The lethal injection thing was my way of adding to the mix.

    And, P.S., Palin didn’t need to say what I did verbatim. Take her word for it:

    “The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context. … These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?”

    That last sentence sums it up. She, and other wingnut conservatives have leapt to a conclusion all their own, one that never existed.

    “The concept of a death panel is to decide when a person will no longer benefit from continued medical care and it will simply be too expensive to try to care for them”

    Which, according to conservatives, is a roundabout way of killing off the elderly, right? I don’t see why we’re arguing over semantics here.

    “Really? Racist drivel? Do you have quotes? Prove it”

    Are you honestly going to pretend that Pat Buchanan isn’t a racist?

    Okay:

    “There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.” (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan’s 1988 autobiography, p. 131)

    “If we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them up in Virginia, what group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?” (“This Week With David Brinkley,” 1/8/91)

    “integration of blacks and whites — but even more so, poor and well-to-do — is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable.” (Washington Post, 1/5/92)

    So, blacks are incapable, Pat? They cause problems for whites?

    Also:

    “There is a legitimate grievance in my view of white working-class people that every time, on every issue, that the black militants loud-mouth it, we come up with more money…. If we can give 50 Phantoms [jet fighters] to the Jews, and a multi-billion dollar welfare program for the blacks…why not help the Catholics save their collapsing school system.” (Boston Globe, 1/4/92)

    Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that “white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.” (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the “Boer Republic”: “Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?” (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

    In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler’s anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was “an individual of great courage…. Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.” (Guardian, 1/14/92)

    In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as “an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage.”

    And, let’s not forget his defense of Rush Limbaugh and his assertion that Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama’s presidential bid because he’s black, assigning this particular motive to Powell in spite of the fact that among Powell’s chief reasons were the economy and the Supreme Court. Buchanan called those considerations “silly”, and insisted that Powell had made his decision based on Obama’s race, ignoring his given reason to attribute his racist slant to it. You know, them blacks must stick together, there’s no other reason for it. Ridiculous…

  53. “Oh…and I absolutely love the link to thinkprogress. Yet another exercise in liberal BS.”

    Why on earth does it matter what my source is? Think Progress didn’t make up Sarah Palin quotes. You did the same thing with Media Matters, as if they doctored video of CNN coverage to make the guests say whatever they want the liberals to hear. This is such a ridiculous argument on your part. You seem to think that the outfit reporting the facts has some bearing on said facts.

    Here, this doesn’t have a Think Progress logo at the top, maybe this will satisfy you:

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:_qjXL_3J08EJ:www.eeo.state.ak.us/archive-50122.html+%22HEALTHCARE+DECISIONS+DAY%22+palin&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    The point of the story was that as Governor, Palin advocated seniors being able to have the choice to receive end of life counseling, and now she’s calling the EXACT SAME THING death panels. She has shown herself to be nothing more than opportunistic and disingenuous. And that is absolutely hypocritical. The fact that you can deny the hypocrisy simply because you don’t like the website presenting the facts is just plain ludicrous. You didn’t hear me dismissing the things that Jeremiah Wright was stupid enough to declare from his pulpit just because FOX News reported it. He said the words, and although I tend to somewhat agree with him, it was flat out wrong for him to have used his pulpit to deliver such a message, and regardless of which right wing blog informed me of the controversy, it still happened. There’s no way I can deny the truth of that because I despise Roger Ailes. You would be wise not to parse facts just because you don’t like the fact that Think Progress quoted Sarah Palin verbatim…

  54. “Which, according to conservatives, is a roundabout way of killing off the elderly, right? I don’t see why we’re arguing over semantics here.”

    Neither do I. HR3200 does, in fact, have a section that provides for expensive healthcare for those who “would not benefit” from such services. That is the bill that is out front right now. As I said, one senator (I can’t remember which one, I believe it was Lieberman but I’d have to look it up and I’m at work right now) specifically addressed that provision and said that if healthcare reform were to be passed that provision would have to be nixed first.

    “Are you honestly going to pretend that Pat Buchanan isn’t a racist?”

    I don’t personally care for Pat Buchanan, but I’m not willing to call him a racist, either. Racially insensitive at times? Sure, I can go along with that. But most of your quotes from the man appear to have been cut and pasted from another blog site which could have simply left out other contextual statements to make their point. I’ve made that mistake in the past myself, and it came back to bite me in the ass. I’m still not convinced that he’s actually a racist.

    “You did the same thing with Media Matters, as if they doctored video of CNN coverage to make the guests say whatever they want the liberals to hear.”

    I never said Media Matters doctored anything. All they have to do is leave a few key facts out and they haven’t actually lied or made anything up.

    “This is such a ridiculous argument on your part.”

    And it’s one you make regularly, albeit against FOX News, which actually has credibility.

    “You seem to think that the outfit reporting the facts has some bearing on said facts.”

    Didn’t you have the same problem with the National Journal? How did you describe that “outfit” again?

    “The point of the story was that as Governor, Palin advocated seniors being able to have the choice to receive end of life counseling, and now she’s calling the EXACT SAME THING death panels.”

    Uh…NO. It’s quite different. There’s an enormous difference between offering counseling services for people who are nearing the end of their lives and convening bureaucratic panels to decide what the health care management office is going to be willing to spend money on. BIG DIFFERENCE. What that quote talks about is advance directives; in my line of work we call it a DNR (short for “do not resuscitate”). It is perfectly legal, and if I get to a certain point in my health, I’d want one, too; it is the patient making the legal decision to stop advanced life support and/or doctors from taking extraordinary measures to save their lives. That’s a decision made by the patient. Stopping funding for health care based on whether some group of penny-pinchers feel a patient would benefit from it is a whole different ball game, buddy.

  55. Time to jump in. For my entire teen an adult life the nation has railed against the Religious Right for trying to push their moral values through new and existing laws on to everyone. Of course people should be upset about that. I sure was and am.

    But now we have the Democrats trying to do the same thing with healthcare under the cloak of economics. They talk about the high cost of health care, pre-existing conditions, denial of care, and the rest of those negatives.

    But, what is really going on here is the attempted advance of a moral value system on to a segment of the population who doesn’t want it. This advancement attempt is made under the guise of economics. But don’t fool me. I see right through it.

    If it is wrong for the Religious Right to push its moral agenda then it is wrong for the Liberals to do the same.

    If the Liberals want this health care nonesense then they at least owe to America to to tell the truth.

    This is all about shared responsibility whether you want it or not. There are plenty in this country who don’t buy into that garbage because they know it is inherently wrong.

  56. “And it’s one you make regularly, albeit against FOX News, which actually has credibility.”

    That’s precious, it really is.

    “Didn’t you have the same problem with the National Journal? How did you describe that “outfit” again?”

    The National Journal op ed you posted didn’t report any facts, they merely attempted to debunk numbers (if that’s even possible). That’s markedly different than quoting a person’s actual words.

    “There’s an enormous difference between offering counseling services for people who are nearing the end of their lives and convening bureaucratic panels to decide what the health care management office is going to be willing to spend money on.”

    Well, either way you slice it, you’re wrong. There’s nothing in the bill that impanels a committee to decide on who gets health care either.

    Direct from factcheck.org, referring to HR 3200:

    Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

    False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium insurance plans. It would have NO POWER to decide what treatments anybody will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

    So, in essence, in both instances, conservatives have either created something out of whole cloth or jumped to an illogical conclusion, triggering fear and paranoia where none is warranted.

    “Stopping funding for health care based on whether some group of penny-pinchers feel a patient would benefit from it is a whole different ball game, buddy.”

    That is true, but unfortunately, it’s a ball game you just created in your head…

  57. “If the Liberals want this health care nonesense then they at least owe to America to to tell the truth.”

    John, that’s a very specious argument coming from a conservative. You have only to read the bill for yourself to find out that the most outrageous claims made by the right are completely fabricated. You choosing to believe them despite the lack of their very existence is another story…

    http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

  58. “The National Journal op ed you posted didn’t report any facts, they merely attempted to debunk numbers (if that’s even possible).”

    I’d express disbelief but this has become par for the course for you. How is it possible to debunk numbers, you ask? (Well, actually, you didn’t ask but I am going to explain it.)

    First I need to ask you where the numbers came from. That one million dead number. Who came up with that and how? The National Journal piece was NOT, in fact, an op-ed (and the fact that you would call it such tells me that you didn’t read it). It was simply news reporting. Here’s how it went:

    The one million dead figure was first reported by the Center for Public Integrity. Like it or not, they get a great deal of their funding from activist/billionaire George Soros (half of its operating budget, in fact, comes in the form of grants from Soros’ Open Society Institute). CPI also accepts funding from other organizations that have axes to grind, including abortion and campaign finance. So, yes, Robert–the Center for Public Integrity has a lot of reason to be biased.

    A group of “researchers” were sent to Iraq to take a sort of census of how many Iraqis had died in the war. They went to areas that were known to be pro-insurgency and went door-to-door to ask families how many loved ones they’d lost to the war. What was conspicuously missing from the report were other questions: who is this person, and how are they related to you? Did they live in this house? How did they die?

    Little to no concern was given to the lies that might be told–and frequently HAVE been told by insurgents and their supporters–to give much higher numbers.

    The AP and the NY Times frequently quote CPI reports as fact, without doing any investigations of their own. As soon as another report that Americans were evil occupiers came over the wires, most MSM outlets were eager to report it as fact. That report was poorly done, no actual research actually occurred, and it is still being quoted by folks like you who demand no proof.

    You simply want to hear that kind of thing, and when you do hear it, you take it as gospel. That is where you and I differ.

  59. “First I need to ask you where the numbers came from. That one million dead number. Who came up with that and how? The National Journal piece was NOT, in fact, an op-ed (and the fact that you would call it such tells me that you didn’t read it). It was simply news reporting”

    The emergence of the numbers that got you all riled up came from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. They did a survey based study in 2006 that found that an estimated 400,000 to 950,000 died as a result of our invasion in 2003. To be clear, no one has attributed every one of those deaths to have come from bullets or bombs. This number simply reflects the excess deaths that would not have occurred had there been no war. Iraq Body Count’s number differs for this very reason. This article in the NewScientist tackles the “debate” over the numbers (and even acknowledges the National Journal’s criticism), conducting an investigation of Gilbert Burnham’s research, and along with other researchers, found that his methods were correct.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16555-what-is-behind-criticism-of-iraq-deaths-estimate.html

    Just in case you’re thinking of asking me for a detailed analysis of the methodology (because these days, you’re wont to do so), forget it . Johns Hopkins will only release its study to recognized academic institutions or scientists.

    The Johns Hopkins numbers were then the basis for the report by the Lancet. I can condede that it would have been prudent for the Lancet to conduct its own research, but nevertheless, the original numbers have been found to be sufficient. Again, this is an estimate, so it’s not perfect, but from what I read from scientists and those experienced in these survey based studies, it is indeed accurate. It should also be pointed out that the National Journal is not a scientific magazine, and as such, any attempts to amend these numbers or come up with different ones should be taken with a very large grain of salt. One of the National Journal’s allies in attacking these numbers is Michael Spagat, an economist for the University of London. Not a member of any scientific community, but an economist. Also a major source of criticism is/was the American Association of Public Opinion Research. Well, in March of last year, the AAPOR’s own journal, published this:

    http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/72/2/345

    The writer, David Marker, says Burnham’s methods were “preferable to most of the other counting methods out there”, albeit not perfect.” This, coming from one of his fiercest critics, once they actually analyze the data.

    Also, this guy from Columbia University has studied Burnham’s findings, and had this to say:

    http://www.biosciencetrends.com/action/downloaddoc.php?docid=36

    Now, here we are in 2009, and of course people have unfortunately continued to die, up to and even after our withdrawal from Iraq. Opinion Business Research, one of the UK’s leading research firms, has released its methodology of how it came to the conclusion that roughly 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the US led invasion. In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency, a representative sample of 1,720 adults aged 18+ answered the following question:

    Q: How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e. as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.

    A: None 78% 
One 16% 
Two 5% 
Three 1% 
Four or more 0.002% 

Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063.

    The poll also questioned the surviving relatives on the method in which their loved ones were killed. It reveals that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance.

    Note: 
The opinion poll was conducted by ORB and the survey details are as follows:
    


    •Results are based on face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults aged 18+ throughout Iraq 

    •The standard margin of error on the sample who answered is +/- 2.5% 

    •The methodology uses multi-stage random probability sampling and covers fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq. For security reasons Karbala and Al Anbar were not included. Irbil was excluded as the authorities refused our field team a permit. 

    •Interviews conducted August 12th – 19th 2007. 
•Full results and data tabulations are available at http://www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom.aspx
    •ORB is a full member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules

    “They went to areas that were known to be pro-insurgency and went door-to-door to ask families how many loved ones they’d lost to the war. What was conspicuously missing from the report were other questions: who is this person, and how are they related to you? Did they live in this house? How did they die?”

    First, as is documented, they went where they were allowed. And they did ask how they died, and only the residences in which the people who were killed actually lived in the house were questioned.

    “Little to no concern was given to the lies that might be told–and frequently HAVE been told by insurgents and their supporters–to give much higher numbers.”

    And little to no evidence exists to suggest that. It’s yet another example of grasping at straws to support your side of the story. Much like the National Journal piece (which was written like an op-ed). Here’s the Journal’s extent to the “reporting” it did:

    “NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros’s Open Society Institute.”

    “Potential” problems? That’s proof? “Possible” flaws? George Soros? This is all speculation, what ifs and conspiracy. There is no evidence to show that the study in incorrect, and that’s why I called it an op-ed. Like I said, bona fide researchers have looked at the data and ruled it sufficient. Apparently that’s not good enough for a magazine that has no roots in the scientific community. I suppose I shouldn’t bash the article or the magazine, but I’d much rather take the word of researchers and scientists over laymen.

    “You simply want to hear that kind of thing, and when you do hear it, you take it as gospel. That is where you and I differ.”

    Perhaps it’s not.

    P.S. I apologize for the length of this comment, but you asked kind of a loaded question…

  60. “John, that’s a very specious argument coming from a conservative. You have only to read the bill for yourself to find out that the most outrageous claims made by the right are completely fabricated. ”

    I never said I buy into any of the details of this health care policy plan. The Democrats are pushing this bullshit of Shared Responsibility. I’ve heard my own Congresswoman say that very thing.

    Shared Responsibility is a moral agenda just like prayer in schools. At least the Religious Right did not try to hide they were pushing a moral agenda.

  61. “Shared Responsibility is a moral agenda just like prayer in schools. At least the Religious Right did not try to hide they were pushing a moral agenda.”

    You have a point. But unlike the religious right’s efforts, the morality of preserving human life is presumably one we all share. That’s very different than pushing religious beliefs on others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s