Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn pens a column (for WSJ subscribers only) on the Supreme Court case involving whether a conservative Christian student group at Hastings College can be treated equally with other student groups regarding university recognition and funding, when the university itself receives taxpayer funding, and still exclude non-believers and gays from its membership and leadership.
McGurn notes that with bigger and bigger government spreading taxpayers' money more widely in all directions, it becomes harder for any institution to not receive public funding. That leads to contortions such as this:
The dean is Leo Martinez of the University of California Hastings College of the Law. Here he is defending the school policy at issue, which requires the Christian Legal Society (CLS) to admit non-Christians and gays if it wants to be an official student group:
Question: "Would a student chapter of, say, B'nai B'rith, a Jewish Anti-Defamation League, have to admit Muslims?"
Mr. Martinez: "The short answer is 'yes.'"
Question: "A black group would have to admit white supremacists?"
Mr. Martinez: "It would."
Question: "Even if it means a black student organization is going to have to admit members of the Ku Klux Klan?"
Mr. Martinez: "Yes."
Question: "You can see where that might cause some consternation?"
LGBT activists and much of the gay community are opposing the Christian Legal Society, but as McGurn further writes:
That's a much more serious proposition than a simple disagreement with some private organization. That public/private distinction helps explain why CLS has also found allies in the libertarian Cato Institute and Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty. In their own brief, this latter group stresses that it was the ability of gay Americans to form gay associations-whose membership rules they defined for themselves-that gave them a collective voice in the face of an often hostile majority.
Presumably Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty do not share the CLS view of human sexuality. But they understand exactly where Dean Martinez's logic is taking us.
Update. And expect to see more of this:
"Three bisexual men are suing a national gay-athletic organization, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in the Seattle area two years ago. The three Bay Area men say the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance in essence deemed them not gay enough to participate in the series.
An alliance attorney says the group is a private organization and, as such, can determine its membership based on its goals. Good luck with that!
Update. The San Diego Gay & Lesbian News reports:
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) last week filed suit against NAGAAA for enforcing its policy of no more than two heterosexual players for each team competing in the GSWS against three players who now purport to be bisexual. Melanie Rowen, the NCLR attorney representing the plaintiffs, told SDGLN the orientation of five players from the San Francisco-based team "D2" was protested by an opposing team at the GSWS in Seattle two years ago. The protesting team claimed D2 had perhaps as many as five straight players. NAGAAA's tournament rules allow for no more than two per team.
According to Rowen, after being asked what their sexual preferences were, one said he was gay, two refused to answer and two more said they enjoyed both men and women and one of those was married to a woman.
Apparently, the National Center for Lesbian Rights has nothing better to do than sue gay organizations for trying to maintain a gay identity. Of course, when it comes to defending the rights of women to mantaining "safe" and "affirming" women-only spaces, that's apparenlty an entirely different matter.
108 Comments for “Freedom and Tax Dollars: Is There Still a Public/Private Distinction?”
posted by Bobby on
Doesn’t the first amendment mention freedom of association? If I have to admit people I don’t want into my organization, is that freedom not being violated?
posted by BobN on
In their own brief, this latter group stresses that it was the ability of gay Americans to form gay associationsâwhose membership rules they defined for themselvesâthat gave them a collective voice in the face of an often hostile majority.
Uh… the gay organizations they formed were entirely private — even secret — and weren’t student organizations trying to maintain institutional funding while denying fellow students membership.
posted by BobN on
“Even if it means a black student organization is going to have to admit members of the Ku Klux Klan?”
“Even if it means a KKK student organization is going to have to admit black members?”
Someone want to explain to me why these are both such horrible scenarios?
posted by Jimmy on
There is no abridgment of anybody’s freedom to assemble. Any group can form outside the purview, and financial underwriting, of the institution. If groups wish to be exclusionary, let them do it on their own dime.
posted by Jorge on
Oh ****! My entire response deleted. Oh well.
BobN: Because on a college campus that’s 80+% white and 3-5% black or so on, the experience of coming into such an environment is so intimidating and impersonal that a self-contained club is for many people literally the only thing preventing them from burning or dropping out.
A policy requiring a minority student club to admit a white supremacist has an unacceptable potential for abuse. A single oppositional person could, simply by threatening to show up and participate, impede that club’s activities to such an extend that it would be impossible for a group of minority students to assemble and socialize on campus, period. I am not interested in any counter-argument that suggests “this is not likely to happen.” I am convinced it *is* happening to conservative Christian organizations, and that the Hastings College policy is a direct attempt to preventing this conservative Christian organization from assembling and meeting.
Jimmy: Not only is it increasingly difficult for an organization not to receive public funds. It is also increasingly difficult for a student organization to exist without using campus resources. Shall we exclude an organization from reserving space in or meeting in campus offices, holding events in campus gathering places, from squatting in the lunchroom for meetings. After all, the use of campus costs money in overhead, janitors, maintenance, etc., and there is limited time and space to go around. As for money, a group needs to have FOOD, and food costs money. As do plates, printer ink, posters, fliers, magic markers, soda, end of year celebrations, bus and train tickets, and so on. That’s a lot of out-of-pocket expenses and it is simply not possible to sustain an representative organization beyond a certain size on college student’s out of pocket expenses. So when you say they should do it on their own dime, their own time, their own space, there *is* no such thing. There will have to be another private source of funding for restricted activities, and that is going to come from the deep pockets of anonymous Republican businessmen whose hidden agendas are far more seditious to campus life and policy than the stated goals of any radical student. I am not making this last part up.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
A Christian group of students does have far more options when they DO want to associate together.
Gay students, gay CITIZENS do not. When gays and lesbians are sharing the financial burdens, and are students in an environment where their money is supporting the entire school, their access is reasonable to support.
But, rather than compare HOSTILE entities, such as Klansmen and black students, for example (the Klan after all is an avowed hate group), a Christian club should welcome gays and atheists as a means of bridging experience.
Each could learn from each other. The purpose for gay and atheist students to participate isn’t to be disruptive, but it could be argued that Christians, even outside of college campuses disrupt and socio/politically abuse gay people in particular.
Even against their own religious tenant to treat a person the way they’d want to be treated.
It’s getting old, certain Christians complaining that they are being discriminated against for discriminated against what looks like gay people exclusively.
When really what the Christians are doing is breaching contracts and policies that are specific about public access and funding and non discrimination clauses that go with them.
posted by Jimmy on
“I am convinced it *is* happening to conservative Christian organizations, and that the Hastings College policy is a direct attempt to preventing this conservative Christian organization from assembling and meeting.”
Well, I suppose they could always meet at, oh, I don’t, church maybe?
“As for money, a group needs to have FOOD, and food costs money. As do plates, printer ink, posters, fliers, magic markers, soda, end of year celebrations, bus and train tickets, and so on.”
What are we talking about, Rompa-Room?
Give me break. Are any of these “adults” required to belong to any of these extraneous, extra-curricular groups?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Each could learn from each other. The purpose for gay and atheist students to participate isn’t to be disruptive, but it could be argued that Christians, even outside of college campuses disrupt and socio/politically abuse gay people in particular.
But, of course, since Regan supports and endorses disrupting and abusing gay and lesbian people with whose political beliefs she disagrees, that’s just a whole lot of hypocrisy on her part.
Not to mention the fact that, if you go to the websites she endorses, you’ll find out how they attack Christians and Christianity regularly. And if you read up on Regan DuCasse, you’ll find out that she herself is .
posted by Jorge on
A Christian group of students does have far more options when they DO want to associate together.
Gay students, gay CITIZENS do not.
One, you don’t know that. Two, without funding and college support, ANY minority group of students may be effectively isolated and to that extent its ability to assemble is impaired. You have not rebutted that. Three, your point is irrelevant: you are in effect saying the First Amendment should not apply to certain disfavored groups–exactly the reason we have the First Amendment in the first place.
Well, I suppose they could always meet at, oh, I don’t, church maybe?
Which church? Where? Where’s the church? Tell me. Does the campus have a church? If it’s an interfaith church, will the church allow this Christian group to meet as they choose–will the college allow the group to meet whenever they wish? If not, where is the church and how far is it from campus? Is it an imposition to travel to the church for students who do not have a car? If so, is the college willing to subsizide their transportation in order to preserve their right to assemble? And there’s still the issue of advertizing so people know this is the place to assemble. Your solution is untenable even before we get to the fact that it is patronizing.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The really pertinent question that should’ve been put to Dean Martinez: As a condition for receiving student activity funds and/or meeting in campus facilities, should the GBLTQ Student Union be required to make membership and leadership open to self-described ex-gays who want to distribute Exodus and NARTH flyers?
posted by Jimmy on
“As a condition for receiving student activity funds and/or meeting in campus facilities, should the GBLTQ Student Union be required to make membership and leadership open to self-described ex-gays who want to distribute Exodus and NARTH flyers?”
Let them peddle their papers. Let them also choke on said papers when they’re shoved down the throats of the Exodus and NARTH flunkies.
If I thought for a moment that there were demonstrable cases nationwide where the integrity of these groups where really threatened, I may be more sympathetic. As you can see, I’m not.
posted by BobN on
The really pertinent question that should’ve been put to Dean Martinez: As a condition for receiving student activity funds and/or meeting in campus facilities, should the GBLTQ Student Union be required to make membership and leadership open to self-described ex-gays who want to distribute Exodus and NARTH flyers?
What part of “the only group on campus seeking to bar fellow students is the CLS” don’t you get? All these hypotheticals about “outsiders” infiltrating student groups are perfectly possible at Hastings. ALL other student groups are open to ALL students, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, yada, yada, yada.
ONLY the so-called “Christian” group wants to be able to exclude.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I would say, rather, that ONLY the Christian group has had its membership policy tested.
Question: Exactly WHAT is stopping students at Hastings from forming a “third-way” organization called The GLBTQ and Straight Alliance of Conservative Christians Who Believe That Jesus Blesses Monogamous Homosexual Partnerships? (For example.)
Or maybe they could come up with a snappier name than that, but the point is that the conservative Christian gays who were shut out by this group are entirely free to start their own organization. Who knows, they might even draw some members away from the original group! There ain’t nothing wrong with having two conservative Christian groups operating in parallel — one being gay-accepting, and the other not.
posted by Bobby on
“Each could learn from each other. The purpose for gay and atheist students to participate isn’t to be disruptive, but it could be argued that Christians, even outside of college campuses disrupt and socio/politically abuse gay people in particular.”
—Sorry Regan, when I join the Vegetarian Student Society I’m NOT interested in the carnivore point of view. Progressives are so idealistic, yet when Ann Coulter or any pro-Israel speaker shows up on campus they make threats, they shout the speaker down, sometimes they commit violence, vandalism and they show their true colors.
Students have the right to segregate themselves. For example, when DADT ends the ROTC will still discriminate on the basis of weight, age, citizenship, disability and other conditions. By the same token, I don’t think the Black Student Union would be interested in the point of view of black republicans who hate Barrack Obama and oppose affirmative action.
I support the Christians out of principle, you should to. I’m sick and tired of being told that I have to embrace diversity and associate with everyone. No Regan, I hang out with the people I like, if you’re not one of those people then I don’t need you going to my club. To each his own, that’s freedom!
posted by BobN on
I would say, rather, that ONLY the Christian group has had its membership policy tested.
Well, you’d be wrong to say that. All other student organizations abide by the rules and do not discriminate. There was no “test”. The group just out and out refuses to abide by the policy.
posted by BobN on
Question: Exactly WHAT is stopping students at Hastings from forming a “third-way” organization called The GLBTQ and Straight Alliance of Conservative Christians Who Believe That Jesus Blesses Monogamous Homosexual Partnerships? (For example.)
Nothing is stopping anyone from forming any group about anything, just so long as the group is open to all students without regard to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, etc.
This ain’t rocket science.
posted by Throbert McGee on
BobN, should the Queer Student Union be forced to open their membership to anti-gay fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims?
posted by BobN on
BobN, should the Queer Student Union be forced to open their membership to anti-gay fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims?
Throbert, it already is open to them, if they’re fellow students at Hastings.
You’re purposely avoiding dealing with the fact that ALL THE OTHER STUDENT GROUPS obey the rules.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Here’s a detailed summary of both sides of the case.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And this point, from the link I gave above, is pretty key:
In other words, it would appear that one can be openly homosexual and join the group as long as one is committed to celibacy. So they discriminate against those who state their unwillingness to refrain from homosexual behavior, but (apparently) they do NOT exclude people merely because they have a homosexual orientation.
posted by JohnA on
Hi, an actual college student here. And my school has a similar policy (that all clubs receiving Student Association funds must abide by the Student Association non-discrimination policy).
And you know what? The religious groups don’t get funds. They can advertise in the student paper, meet on school grounds, and post flyers all over the place, but they don’t get any direct funding from the Student Association.
And if anyone ever complained to the Student Association about the PFLAG group not allowing someone to join, they would have their funding pulled as well.
That’s how it is. And it works just fine. I’m really not sure what the problem is. Because it’s not that the students aren’t being allowed to meet, it’s not that they’re not being allowed to choose their own policy on membership, it’s that they don’t want to comply with their schools non-discrimination policy while still receiving direct funds from the school (which is different then making use of school facilities for other things).
posted by Jimmy on
The University is a “group”. too. And it’s bylaws don’t happen to call for any of this bullshit, and no piss-ant club’s bylaws are going to trump club #1. Deal with it.
“You don’t have to be here” – That would make a good blues song.
posted by Jorge on
“Three bisexual men are suing a national gay-athletic organization, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in the Seattle area two years ago. The three Bay Area men say the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance in essence deemed them not gay enough to participate in the series.
Didn’t the Boy Scouts case already decide that issue?
…oh, I get it.
All these hypotheticals about “outsiders” infiltrating student groups are perfectly possible at Hastings. ALL other student groups are open to ALL students, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, yada, yada, yada.
I was hoping someone would mention something like that. And JohnA added the other half. I must say I really enjoy this topic. Then why does this group want to be different? Yes, I am making an assumption here.
JohnA’s post reminds me that it’s only conservative-leaning organizations that get attacked and shut down.
posted by BobN on
The religious groups don’t get funds.
There are other religious student organizations at Hastings; they just don’t have the restrictive membership rules that the CLS wants to impose. There’s a Catholic group and another Protestant group. There are also various ethnic groups.
And every one of them is fine with the non-discrimination policy EXCEPT CLS.
Jorge, 1) I didn’t bring it up and 2) you misunderstand my point. Any and all groups are susceptible to “takeover” BUT IT JUST DOESN’T HAPPEN. It’s a teeny, tiny risk and one that everyone manages to deal with.
As to the actual CLS restriction, they claim to be non-denominational and open to any evangelical Christian who… (lots of stuff about loving the Lord, etc.) and living a good, Christian life by upholding certain standards. Let’s, for a moment, leave out the 1996 “clarification” that banned homosexual sex by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. By the wording of the actual oath, a gay person in a religious same-sex marriage would NOT be violating the oath. Some denominations, including some “evangelical” ones have instituted same-sex ceremonies. Sounds like CLS is getting pretty picky about which religious denominations qualify as “Christian”.
posted by BobN on
Then why does this group want to be different?
Uh…. cuz they don’t like gay people and they don’t want us to have rights to any form of legally recognized relationships.
Oh, and they’re on a political mission to carve out exemptions to non-discrimination law so that THEY can discriminate against us while leaving in place the laws and rules that protect THEM from discrimination.
As to why it’s always the right-wingers? Well, first of all, it took DECADES for gay-rights student groups to get any funding at a lot of schools and 2) the left-leaning ones DON’T DISCRIMINATE.
Someone elsewhere mentioned La Raza. They used to have a requirement for membership. One had to be Latino or Latina. They dropped that LONG AGO.
posted by Throbert McGee on
So what if they ARE “picky”, BobN?
posted by Bobby on
Maybe the student activity fee should be abolished. I went to college, the only thing I participated in was the newspaper, so why should I pay so some slacker can do fencing, football, photography or the legalize pot club? Student activity fees are patently unfair, the distribution of funds alone is never equal, and frankly, what’s to stop a student from spending money in the club of his choice? What are we afraid of? That they won’t have money for beer? Give me a break.
Frankly, this country is going nuts. The reason we have different student clubs is because people have different needs. Gays don’t need homophobic evangelical Christianity, gay organizations don’t need homophobes, progressives don’t need conservatives and republicans don’t need progressives.
There is nothing wrong with forming a clique and keeping people out. After all, how many disabled people do you see playing football? When was the last time you saw a fat cheerleader? Both cheerleading and football are funded with student fees in part, and both discriminate. So why is it not ok for some group of Christians for Christianity to keep out the unbelievers?
posted by Throbert McGee on
And what paid for the printing costs of the newspaper, Bobby?
I’m biased, here, because I spent three years in college writing for a student publication that couldn’t have survived on advertising alone. NONE of the student publications could’ve met their printing costs via ads alone — but the magazine I wrote for had only started up about two years before I entered UVa, and hence couldn’t count on donations from deep-pocketed alumni to help finance it, as some of the more established publications could. But all of the publications got student activity money to help with the cost of printing.
And as to why you should help pay for the fencing club: Suppose that someday during your four years of college, you decide you want to give fencing a try, but you’re not sure that you like fencing enough that you actually want to invest
yourmom & dad’s money in a foil and mask and other equipment. No problem! The fencing club has equipment they can loan to beginners for free — and some of that “public use” equipment was purchased with STUDENT ACTIVITY FEES.To put it another way, student activity fees make it possible for sport groups that use expensive equipment to give newcomers a “free one-semester trial.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Here, by the way, is a page from the Yellow Journal, the student publication I wrote and illustrated for at UVa. From wikipedia:
I was at UVa at the time of this case, and I well remember that it was the anti-gay and anti-abortion views espoused by Wide Awake that got certain people on the Student Council all agitated.
posted by Jorge on
you misunderstand my point. Any and all groups are susceptible to “takeover” BUT IT JUST DOESN’T HAPPEN. It’s a teeny, tiny risk and one that everyone manages to deal with.
I understand your point perfectly. Look it’s a strong argument and I took that into consideration. I don’t agree with you.
Uh…. cuz they don’t like gay people and they don’t want us to have rights to any form of legally recognized relationships.
I have my doubts.
posted by Bobby on
I don’t know if the newspaper is funded with the student activity fee, or from other funds. Either way, people rarely read our paper, as News Editor I tried to push controversy but my two editors in chief overruled me time and time again. I hated the political correctness, how the “international postcard” would only mention good things about a foreign country, you can imagine my outrage when that country was Zimbabwe!
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi Bobby, I don’t disagree that the Christian club should have the members it wants to.
What THEY aren’t doing, is complying with a non discrimination policy if they are to be given funding that’s not private.
I’m not saying that they SHOULD have gay or atheist members for the sake of diversity, it’s just a suggestion, not a matter of making them do it.
But people who are Christian, are the one who prosthelytize and try to engage people in their religion (and have, even against their will). It’s kinda oxy moronic that suddenly they exclude.
What I have a problem with, is how this sort of attitude about discrimination goes FAR beyond private and exclusive gathering.
It’s invading the Constitution, it’s crammed into matters of civil and secular law that binds us universally.
And in public accommodation when identifying a Christian would be impossible unless they say so.
And even then, it’s after the fact of unavoidable contact BECAUSE of public accommodation.
Let’s get real, there are Christians who are very inconsistent with their beliefs, and their own discriminatory policy.
And it’s nearly impossible to avoid them.
Perhaps an exclusive college club makes avoidance easier, but the point is, in this way, Christians make problems where there don’t have to be any simply because they keep changing the goalposts and demanding accommodation that OTHER people with other kinds of faith aren’t doing.
posted by JohnA on
Jorge: that’s probably because only when it’s religious groups it gets national attention. If the rock climbing club ended up kicking someone out because they were black and lost it’s funding as a result, who would hear about it? Who would care? People would just say “Huh, I didn’t realize the rock climbing club was so racist” and move along.
You hear about “conservative” “right-wing” groups getting “attacked”, because that’s the headline more likely to grab people’s attention.
posted by Jorge on
I’m not talking about incidents that gain national attention. I’m talking about when I was in college.
posted by Jorge on
But people who are Christian, are the one who prosthelytize and try to engage people in their religion (and have, even against their will). It’s kinda oxy moronic that suddenly they exclude.
Sorry for the double post, but speaking of coercive preaching and indoctrination of questionable realities, have you ever attended a Racial Diversity Day?
posted by Bobby on
“What THEY aren’t doing, is complying with a non discrimination policy if they are to be given funding that’s not private.”
—Then maybe that law needs to be revised. What if I start a hunting club and every time I have a meeting some animal rights people come and disrupt it? At the University of Miami I never saw any crazy Christians invading the LGBT meetings I used to attend, yet people on the left feel entitled to go where they are not wanted.
“I’m not saying that they SHOULD have gay or atheist members for the sake of diversity, it’s just a suggestion, not a matter of making them do it.”
—Ok, I understood. Sorry if I overreacted but I just lost two friends on facebook because of my conservative/libertarian views, so right now I have personal reasons to fear progressives.
“But people who are Christian, are the one who prosthelytize and try to engage people in their religion (and have, even against their will). It’s kinda oxy moronic that suddenly they exclude.”
—Well, I guess they don’t want to bother with people who aren’t really interested in converting.
“What I have a problem with, is how this sort of attitude about discrimination goes FAR beyond private and exclusive gathering.
It’s invading the Constitution, it’s crammed into matters of civil and secular law that binds us universally.”
—My view is that things like freedom of association and speech were not created for popular associations and speeches. We also have to distinguish between services that serve the public at large and private organizations and clubs that don’t. For example, have you noticed that country clubs have been sued for not admitting women yet there are gyms that only admit women?
I think public accommodation has limits, women-only gyms were created to serve only women. Male clubs are created for men who want to get away from women. People in college need their own little groups to go to after class, forcing everyone to mingle does not create unity, it creates resentment and anger. In fact, I used to go to a coming out group and some of the members formed a clique who started socializing, going to the movies, dinner, etc. There was a really freaky guy that none of us liked, the organizer of the coming out group pressured us to include him. So what happened? He killed our clique, we didn’t like him so our members started avoiding our group.
Christians aren’t making problems, they are dealing with problems created by secular extremists. In the 1950s they dominated the culture, now the secularists dominate and they want to impose their values on everybody else.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I think that the policies of both Hastings College and the CLS could stand to be clarified, at least. Two points in need of clarification:
(1) Does a group’s discrimination against sexually-active homosexuals amount to a violation of the school’s ban on discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation? (Remember, orientation and activity are different things.)
(2) More generally, does the school’s current policy prohibit ideologically-based groups from imposing certain litmus tests for group participants who want to be voting members and/or office holders?
I’m not sure if this analogy is relevant here, Bobby, because from what I understand, the CLS is not asserting a right to exclude non-celibate gays, and non-Christians, from even attending their meetings. Rather, they assert a right to restrict eligibility to run for president or treasurer of the CLS, or to vote in CLS elections, or (presumably) to vote on whether CLS will send representatives to on upcoming national event for Christian lawyers, etc.
The distinction between “attendee” and “voting member” seems like a pretty important one, to me.
posted by Jorge on
(1) Does a group’s discrimination against sexually-active homosexuals amount to a violation of the school’s ban on discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation? (Remember, orientation and activity are different things.)
Eh. Gender and religion are very broad terms. I think it’s logical that sexual orientation should be broad, too.
posted by Jimmy on
“Christians aren’t making problems, they are dealing with problems created by secular extremists. In the 1950s they dominated the culture, now the secularists dominate and they want to impose their values on everybody else.”
With three quarters of the US population reporting to be Christian, of one sect or another, to say secularists dominate is laughable. The hegemony of Christianity over our culture makes the argument that Christians have no place in the public sphere in which to exist is a deeply disingenuous assertion.
Christians need to leave to Caesar what is within the purview of Caesar, including institutions that are publicly funded, and by such characteristic, secular. Bob Jones, Liberty, Oral Roberts Universities, et al. have more than enough room for those who wish to be insular.
posted by Bobby on
“With three quarters of the US population reporting to be Christian, of one sect or another, to say secularists dominate is laughable. The hegemony of Christianity over our culture makes the argument that Christians have no place in the public sphere in which to exist is a deeply disingenuous assertion.”
—What hegemony? Thanks to political correctness the “Christmas break” became the “winter break,” school choirs no longer sing religious songs like Ave Maria, the pledge of allegiance is challenged, school teachers who wear crosses have been harassed, school kids are no longer taken to see classic works such as “A Christmas Carol,” cities are either not having Xmas lights or making sure they’re all white and nativity scenes are facing challenges.
Christians have always had a place in the public arena because it was Christians who founded this country. Virtually all the founding fathers prayed, in public, during political meetings, and even issued state sponsored proclamations for people to pray.
“Christians need to leave to Caesar what is within the purview of Caesar, including institutions that are publicly funded, and by such characteristic, secular. Bob Jones, Liberty, Oral Roberts Universities, et al. have more than enough room for those who wish to be insular.”
—You are misinformed, all those institutions are privately funded because they don’t want the evil federal government telling them what to do. Some Christian colleges will not even accept the GI Bill. When the government gives you money, they can regulate you, which is precisely what they don’t want. Bob Jones could not get away with expelling gays if it was publicly funded for example. In fact, Bob Jones banned interracial dating until a few years ago when they changed their minds.
Besides, I find it silly how progressives hate religion unless it’s the Unitarians advocating against war, the black preachers advocating for health care reform, or the Catholic Church preaching to legalize illegal aliens.
Going back to the other issue, freedom of association should imply choosing NOT to associate with certain people. After all, should football teams allow women to become quarterbacks? Can a gay couple participate in an ice-skating competition when the couples are usually male and female? There is a difference between saying “I want to be invited” vs. “they have to take me in.”
Having experienced much rejection in my life, I cannot feel any sympathy for some weird gays that want to participate in a Christian meeting. Before I joined the NRA, I had the courage to ask the customer service if gays were welcomed, she was confused at first but when she said “you have to be a citizen and you cannot have a criminal record” I thought to myself, “gee, sodomy is a crime, but since I’ve never been convicted of sodomy, I guess I can join.” See? If everyone did what I did, we would all save ourselves much aggravation.
posted by Jimmy on
“You are misinformed..”
How so? You made my point. No one is required to attend a publicly funded academic institution. There are plenty of academies for like-minded, insular, aggrieved victims to get their indoctrination from, free of the impurities of public funding.
If people really want to choose not to associate, they should not attend a non-exclusionary public institution. No one’s freedom is being abridged.
posted by Bobby on
Public institutions are funded with EVERYBODY’S money, Jimmy. That means EVERYBODY should get to have a say. I’m tired of paying property taxes for schools that teach socialism, environmentalism, and other bullshit. My freedom IS being abridged.
posted by Jimmy on
“My freedom IS being abridged.”
Bullshit! You don’t get to draw a circle on a public sidewalk, stand in it, and say no one else can enter.
posted by Bobby on
“Bullshit! You don’t get to draw a circle on a public sidewalk, stand in it, and say no one else can enter.”
—Fine, and you don’t get to force kids to watch a pro-gay video or any controversial topic without parental consent. The problem with progressives is that they only want freedom for themselves, or have you not noticed that Joel Klein is accusing Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin of sedition? If anything, GB, RL and SL are fighting to save this country from FDR part II – Hope & Change.
posted by Jorge on
I have a question for you, Bobby.
Whose responsibility is it to protect and enforce the First Amendment rights and the other standards you are advocating?
posted by Jimmy on
“Fine, and you don’t get to force kids to watch a pro-gay video or any controversial topic without parental consent.”
What’s pro-gay? Mere mention of our existence? If a video were shown explaining how the sun is necessary for life and that our planet revolves around it, is that a pro-sun agenda?
Elected school boards approve curricula. Consent of the governed, ever heard of it?
posted by Bobby on
“Whose responsibility is it to protect and enforce the First Amendment rights and the other standards you are advocating?”
—Well, normally I would say the government but it’s usually the ACLU and other lawyers that sue on behalf of those rights. You let the feds do what they want and they’ll shove the federal government up your ass. Ever heard of the EPA? Those motherfuckers can stop you from developing you own land if they find a rare rat. This is not what America is supposed to be about.
“What’s pro-gay? Mere mention of our existence? If a video were shown explaining how the sun is necessary for life and that our planet revolves around it, is that a pro-sun agenda?”
—How ’bout that little video which normalizes cross-dressing? You think that’s acceptable?
“Elected school boards approve curricula. Consent of the governed, ever heard of it?”
—Spoken like a true statist, yet when the elected school board chooses to teach creationism along evolution, liberals like you get angry and sue. I will not be ruled by government nazis, it’s the right of the people to protest government, petition government, and demand that their wishes be respected. I do not accept those teachers that bring their personal biases to the classroom and give rants against George W. Bush or make kids sing songs praising Obama. That’s not an education, that’s indoctrination, and it has to stop.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
It’s difficult for many to admit……even Obama supporters; however, this health-care bill is something about which we all should be a bit concerned.
Here’s a letter-to-the-editor that was in a newspaper I read yesterday. It’s from a doctor and I will omit his name and location:
“True story!
“I recently saw a Medicaid patient in the office. She was single, unemployed, and had four children. Her office co-pay was $3.
“She received medical services and went to her car to get her wallet and never returned.
“I can’t wait for 30 million more patients to enroll in Medicaid.
“Thank you, President Obama.”
posted by Jimmy on
“Spoken like a true statist, yet when the elected school board chooses to teach creationism along evolution, liberals like you get angry and sue.”
That’s because school boards, like everyone else, must adhere to a constitutional mandate with regard to church and state.
Why do you hate America, Bobby?
I wonder why that doctor was seeing Medicaid (and Medicare) patients in the first place, Debrah. Maybe it’s because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be seeing much of anyone. He could probably play golf on Thursday, too.
It cracks me up when I see medicare recipients, who count as a large portion of the Tea Party set, bitching about socialism. The moment anyone suggests we cancel their medicare, and social security particularly, which would look like Enron pensions had it been privatized and invested in the NYSE, is the moment we see them internally combust on-site, resulting in an ash cloud the likes Europe has never seen. I can see it now, US air travel comes to a screeching halt due to volcanic blue-hairs.
posted by Jorge on
Well, normally I would say the government but it’s usually the ACLU and other lawyers that sue on behalf of those rights….
Okay, then, that basically leads to the courts playing a role and you’re suspicious that the government or federal government is abusing its role.
I forgot the point I was going to make. I think it was that I hope the judges throw away all this bottom feeder prejudice and focus on reality and principle.
posted by Debrah on
()))))))))))))) YAWN ((((((((((((((()
No Jimmy, the real problem is the plaintiff’s bar and people like John Edwards who created a carnival in courtrooms by channeling fetuses and running good doctors out of business……..
…….so that he and his now-estranged lard-azz wife could build a multi-million dollar “compound” that looks more like several barns pieced together (most Far Leftists have no taste).
And so his mono-brow offspring could go to private schools and his phony and abusive wife who had a “sweet” demeanor on the campaign trail, but cursed like a sailor and abused campaign workers behind the scenes…….
…….and later spend thousands more to have herself impregnated at 50 and become even fatter while popping out a few more test-tube babies.
Then use her current medical issues as “campaign tools”.
That’s the “two Americas” of the “compassionate progressives”.
At least the country was spared the Edwards idiots.
The rest of America must pay their own way and for everyone else’s freebies……..being financially raped by the ultra-Liberal lard-butts with a perpetual whine.
posted by Jorge on
I wonder why that doctor was seeing Medicaid (and Medicare) patients in the first place, Debrah. Maybe it’s because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be seeing much of anyone. He could probably play golf on Thursday, too.
I question why he feels he has to bite the bullet for the patient’s failure to pay. He should follow the money trail and work for a government hospital, where he will get government funding for stuff like being stiffed. I am confident that President Pelosi-Reid has created an economic incentive that will work for the benefit of individual doctors if they just read the writing on the wall. The era of private practice is over.
Jimmy, about half of doctors polled said they would leave the medical profession if the health care bill passed. There’s one thing I haven’t seen a lot of by the supporters of the health care bill, and that’s support for the medical profession. There’s provisions in one version of the bill or another that I would think the Democrats would want to publicize as speaking to that, but they haven’t. I question why.
posted by Jimmy on
“the real problem is the plaintiff’s bar and people like John Edwards who created a carnival in courtrooms by channeling fetuses and running good doctors out of business…”
Where are we going in this country when the Average Joe is shut out of the justice system? Where does he find redress for his injury?
http://www.consumeradvocatelegalupdate.com/2009/09/articles/medical-negligence-malpractice/are-medical-malpractice-lawsuits-frivolous/
posted by Jimmy on
Jorge –
Which doctors were polled, and by whom? Saying one thing, and doing said thing, are two different things.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
I don’t know about “Average Joe”.
He seems pretty well taken care of if lawsuits and attorneys’ fees are any indication.
Here’s your link and I’m sure everything on that page is designed to make everyone believe they need to …..”Pick up a phone and call an attorney who will work for you!!!!!”
Like doctors, a good lawyer is worth his/her weight in gold.
Trouble is, you have to search for a needle in a haystack to find one.
Right now this country needs to find a way to bring down the cost of health-care.
Tort reform is a gigantic first step.
posted by Bobby on
“That’s because school boards, like everyone else, must adhere to a constitutional mandate with regard to church and state.”
—The constitution demands that the state doesn’t impose a religion, it does not demand enforced atheism or secularism. The founding fathers did not hate religion, even their congressional sessions open with prayers.
“Why do you hate America, Bobby?”
—I don’t hate America, I love America the way the founding fathers created it. It’s during the last 100 years that different presidents have been perverting this country with unnecessary things like the Department of Education, the EPA, the BATF, and many more unnecessary agencies and wasteful spending. The founding fathers would be pissed off if they were alive today.
“I wonder why that doctor was seeing Medicaid (and Medicare) patients in the first place, Debrah. Maybe it’s because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be seeing much of anyone. He could probably play golf on Thursday, too.”
—Yeah, those evil doctors, God forbid they enjoy themselves after 7+ years of medical school and postgraduate studies.
“It cracks me up when I see medicare recipients, who count as a large portion of the Tea Party set, bitching about socialism. The moment anyone suggests we cancel their medicare, and social security particularly, which would look like Enron pensions had it been privatized and invested in the NYSE, is the moment we see them internally combust on-site, resulting in an ash cloud the likes Europe has never seen. I can see it now, US air travel comes to a screeching halt due to volcanic blue-hairs.”
—Well, we can’t cancel their social security because they paid for it. However, someday we might have to get rid of social security and start phasing out medicare. All Obama did was pass a healthcare bill we can’t afford! If you had a $20,000 credit card debt would you just open another credit card and start spending?
The Tea Partiers are patriots, they are independent, education, hardworking, and all they are demanding is a return to small government, the way the founders intended. You progressives in your arrogance see them as stupid people that need to be told what to do. This is why electing Obama was a huge mistake, Hillary Clinton on the other hand, she cares about poll numbers, she listens to the people, she knows how far she can go. Obama doesn’t, I mean, the jackass is now trying to pass immigration reform, an issue the John McCain tried to pass and the country rejected loudly. Of course, Obama being a lawyer loves people who break the law, those 11 million illegals broke the law. And his solution? Legalize them all! Man, I can’t wait for November, we’re gonna show Obama what America is all about, which isn’t socialism.
posted by JImmy on
What portion of total healthcare costs is attributable to malpractice pay-outs?
posted by Jimmy on
That’s what I thought.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The moment anyone suggests we cancel their medicare, and social security particularly, which would look like Enron pensions had it been privatized and invested in the NYSE, is the moment we see them internally combust on-site, resulting in an ash cloud the likes Europe has never seen.
That would be because they have had nine-plus percent taken out of every single paycheck they have ever been paid for these two services for their entire working life of forty-plus years.
And what does Obamacare do, Jimmy?
It takes the money they paid in to hand out checks and freebies to those who refuse to work, refuse to complete their education, and demand that the government pay their mortgages, fill their gas tanks, etc. in exchange for their vote.
Do you understand why they’re furious? They have worked their entire lives and paid for those benefits on the promise that they would receive them — and Barack Obama and the Obama Party are taking that money and those benefits away from them to give to those who won’t work and won’t pay.
Of course, you probably don’t. They’re mostly white, probably straight, likely Christians, which means they should be forced to pay your bills. Right?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What portion of total healthcare costs is attributable to malpractice pay-outs?
Dodge and spin.
What portion of total health care costs are due to unnecessary tests, additional cross-checks, and other things that doctors are forced to do lest Obama Party donors, aka plaintiff attorneys, argue that they should have done a fourth test when they’d already done three?
Silly us. We’re trying to talk rationally to a devotee of a party that claims all doctors are performing unnecessary amputations and tonsillectomies to cash in on the profits.
posted by Jimmy on
That’s not an answer to my question, ND30. Talk about dodge and spin. We’re talking about tort reform; and, it seems to me that those who are so certain that malpractice litigation is such a drag on healthcare that they, by pure muscle memory of the key strokes, could provide that evidence.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Fee for service pricing coupled with medical practice liabilties combine to create incentive to overtest patients.
It’s this perverse incentive to test more regardless of effectiveness that is at the root of our runaway health-care costs.
This new health-care bill reforms neither fee for service, nor medical malpractice, and consequently, will fail to contain health-care costs in any meaningful way.
posted by Debrah on
Health Care Finance: Fuzzy Math
posted by Jorge on
Which doctors were polled, and by whom? Saying one thing, and doing said thing, are two different things.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/09/do-doctors-support-health-care.html
I take back my statement. I agree with the article’s criticisms of the poll.
So what do you think the doctors are going to do? From what I figure, I think the economics will force or keep more doctors out of private practice and into hospitals and clinics. Of course they’re not going to like that, but on the other hand they will still have to make a living.
What portion of total healthcare costs is attributable to malpractice pay-outs?
If I remember correctly (I am not looking it up this time), the exact number was calculated to be about 2-3%. But the supporters of tort reform argue that the threat of malpractice has led to costly defensive medicine: the ordering of additional procedures that are medically unnecessary and are purely CYA measures. They argue that the cost of defensive medicine is not measurable.
posted by Jimmy on
I’ll happily grant that HCR, as it was passed, is the result of the democrats strategy of addressing coverage as a primary issue over the issue of cost. The issue of cost could have been dealt with to a degree had a public option been present, as many Americans wanted, but conservatives wanted to reward their friends, whose knees were knocking at the mere thought of a public option.
If any doctors actually leave their profession due to HCR, it may very well be the ones who happen to hold medical licenses, must absolutely should not be practicing medicine. Those who want to practice medicine, will do it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ll happily grant that HCR, as it was passed, is the result of the democrats strategy of addressing coverage as a primary issue over the issue of cost. The issue of cost could have been dealt with to a degree had a public option been present, as many Americans wanted, but conservatives wanted to reward their friends, whose knees were knocking at the mere thought of a public option.
Actually, it couldn’t have been; the so-called “public option” has been around in the form of Medicaid and Medicare for years, and it in fact has driven UP prices.
Meanwhile, we have examples of things like cell phones and computers in which government has stayed out, costs have plummeted, and amazingly enough, coverage has vastly increased as cost fell.
The fundamental problem here, jimmy, is that we cannot expect Obama Party members like yourself whose primary goal in life is for the government to pay for everything for them as their parents previously did to be interested in anything other than expanding government and forcing other people to pay your bills.
And this was classic:
If any doctors actually leave their profession due to HCR, it may very well be the ones who happen to hold medical licenses, must absolutely should not be practicing medicine. Those who want to practice medicine, will do it.
But meanwhile, Jimmy and his ilk shriek that reform, performance pay, and expense reduction must at all costs be kept out of the educational system because it will upset teachers and cause them to leave or not go into the profession.
By this logic, those teachers who leave were not fit to be teaching anyway, and the ones who will do it will do it regardless of what strictures or reductions are placed on them.
Right, Jimmy?
posted by Jimmy on
There’s nothing stopping doctors from uniting and collectively bargaining in the way teachers, and other professionals, do.
“Obama Party members like yourself whose primary goal in life is for the government to pay for everything for them”
Not at all. As a consumer of services, I have the right to direct my consumer dollars, without regard for anyone’s profit save my own. I have the right to expect more value from the dollar I spend coming in the form of services to me, and to be able to minimize the portion of that dollar that gets directed in interests of administrative overhead and profit.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll happily grant that HCR, as it was passed, is the result of the democrats strategy of addressing coverage as a primary issue over the issue of cost. The issue of cost could have been dealt with to a degree had a public option been present
You’re kidding, right? 1) A bill that will cause massive deficits *without* a public option, and you’re saying the public option would have been economical? 2) If driving down costs *isn’t* the primary reason for health care reform, then Sean Hannity and the talk radio hosts are right, this really is a stealth campaign toward socialism. That is it, that’s IT, I’ve lost all patience with this president.
There’s nothing stopping doctors from uniting and collectively bargaining in the way teachers, and other professionals, do.
posted by Jorge on
Oh. Hmm. Yeah I was going to comment on that but I think I’ll not.
posted by Bobby on
Great points, Jorge. By the way, Obama has QUADRUPLED George W. Bush’s deficit, is that the kind of hope and change the American people voted for?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There’s nothing stopping doctors from uniting and collectively bargaining in the way teachers, and other professionals, do.
Why should inferior doctors receive the same pay as superior ones, which is the case for unionized teachers?
Not at all. As a consumer of services, I have the right to direct my consumer dollars, without regard for anyone’s profit save my own.
Which is, of course, why you support the mandatory purchase of health insurance, which neatly eliminates your right to direct your consumer dollars as you see fit and determine your own profit.
I have the right to expect more value from the dollar I spend coming in the form of services to me, and to be able to minimize the portion of that dollar that gets directed in interests of administrative overhead and profit.
If you’re worried about administrative overhead and profit of health insurers, pay cash for your medical procedures.
And it would seem that, if that was your concern, you would want MORE health insurance companies with the capability to compete with each other, not less, as your Obamacare bill mandates.
But perhaps most ironically, you demand the right to determine the price you will charge, your own value,and your own personal profit, but you deny that right to everyone else.
If you were truly as altruistic as you claim to be, moocher, you would pay the full price. You say no one else should be able to make a profit; why should you?
This is why the best way to get rid of Obamacare in a hurry is for the Republicans to repeal the subsidies. Moochers like Jimmy who were just looking for the government to pay their bills for them will be now forced at gunpoint to buy coverage without kickbacks, and they will start screaming and demanding the repeal of the individual mandate.
posted by Jimmy on
“If you were truly as altruistic as you claim to be”
When did I claim this?
I’m more than happy to see the scam that is the health insurance industry go down in flames. Thanks to conservatives, HCR ended up as a big give-away to the industry. I wanted Americans to have the choice of a public option, better yet, single payer, available to them. Now, we get to live with GOP friendly, Romneyian legislation that is short on reform and a major boon to health insurers. There’s nothing progressive about it, on this we agree.
What spending should be cut, Bobby, to rein in the deficit? Obama’s deficit is true numbers since he banned W’s cooking of the books.
posted by Bobby on
“There’s nothing stopping doctors from uniting and collectively bargaining in the way teachers, and other professionals, do.”
—Actually, is totally wrong. Doctors are paid based on supply and demand economics. A great psychiatrist charges $500 a session while a not so great one might charge $100 or $200, or even $50 a session.
Thus, with collective bargaining great doctors and shitty doctors would end up making the same salary. This does not encourage people to work harder, I know it because I had a friend who worked at a union shop and he saw all kinds of bad employees get away with murder while great employees found it impossible to get promoted.
“What spending should be cut, Bobby, to rein in the deficit? Obama’s deficit is true numbers since he banned W’s cooking of the books.”
—Well, other than the suggestions from the Cato institute and Americans for Tax Reform, how bout the bloated farm bill? After all, why are we paying farmers not to grow things, or to grow the wrong things? After that, we should consider closing military bases overseas, not to mention cut down the inflated budgets of the EPA, the Department of Education, Department of Interior, the BATF, etc, etc, etc.
As for the books, those books aren’t cooked, they are created by the GAO which happens to be non-partisan. Tell me, Jimmy, did you ever see that infomercial about the guy that sells a book filled with “free money” to go to college, start a business, buy a house, etc? That book is real, the programs are real, this is the kind of government that blows millions in stupid grants. Remember the famous artwork of a Jesus Christ inside a vat of urine? The National Endowment for the Arts paid for that. Tell me, why is Uncle Sam paying for that garbage? Why do we even need an NEA? Picasso, Dali, Chagall, they did great artworks without any government money whatsoever. See? We don’t need to finance the arts, let the marketplace work it’s magic and tell Uncle Sam to stay the fuck away.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m more than happy to see the scam that is the health insurance industry go down in flames.
Then don’t pay them. Again, spend your own money and pay your own doctor’s bills. No one requires you to buy health insurance, and if you don’t, you’re not contributing a dime to the health insurance industry.
But again, that would have the problem of you actually spending your own money and paying your own bills, so to rationalize your mooching, you and your fellow “progressives” try a different spin.
I wanted Americans to have the choice of a public option, better yet, single payer, available to them.
Single-payer is not giving people a choice. Single-payer is in fact the abolishment of all choice when it comes to how you prefer to pay for your health care. Furthermore, it completely and totally eliminates utilization as a methodology in determining who pays what, which means that those who never use the service at all pay identical amounts to those who overuse it.
Obamacare makes no sense to anyone other than the moochers like Jimmy who don’t want to spend their own money for coverage and who demand the government pay their bills.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What spending should be cut, Bobby, to rein in the deficit? Obama’s deficit is true numbers since he banned W’s cooking of the books.”
Actually, that’s hilarious.
You see, Jimmy and his fellow moochers in the Obama Party were praising Obama’s budget “realism” with situations like this:
Those were based on assumptions everybody knew were false — that the military would spend no money in Iraq starting immediately even when the administration was committed to fighting indefinitely, that the Alternative Minimum Tax would be allowed to grow instead of held steady as it in fact was every year, that cuts in medicare reimbursement would go into effect rather than be suspended as they were routinely, and so on.
But now, what did Obama do to get Obamacare passed?
He took the fix to reimbursement rates out of the budget.
In short, if you’re going to accuse Bush of “cooking the books”, you need to do the same for Obama. But since your whining was more about Bush-bashing and we all know you support and endorse everything Obama does as right, you’ve just nicely undercut your own argument.
posted by Jimmy on
Yeah Yeah, but the question never gets answered. If we’re to be serious about deficit and debt reduction, and those who are serious about them know that these can not happen without both significant cuts in spending and tax increases, where do the cuts come from?
With regard to single payer – there is a market, called supplemental health insurance, that individuals who want more choice over and above basic universal coverage, can pursue.
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby –
As a TAXPAYER, I like public art and cultural funding. If I could stop farm subsidies tomorrow, I would.
posted by Bobby on
“Yeah Yeah, but the question never gets answered. If we’re to be serious about deficit and debt reduction, and those who are serious about them know that these can not happen without both significant cuts in spending and tax increases, where do the cuts come from?”
—Tax increases ruin the economy. If you tax me more, I have less money, thus I shop less, thus small business owners suffer, thus suppliers suffer, thus the state suffer. Don’t believe me? In New York they raised the taxes on the rich and instead of collecting more taxes, they collected less. You want to fix the economy, then you cut taxes, cut spending, and you’ll see more people shopping, economic growth and the government will collect more taxes.
“With regard to single payer – there is a market, called supplemental health insurance, that individuals who want more choice over and above basic universal coverage, can pursue.”
—So let me get this straight, I’m gonna have to pay more taxes to get a single payer I don’t want, and if I’m not happy then I can buy supplemental coverage? Hmmm, that sounds like fascism to me.
“As a TAXPAYER, I like public art and cultural funding. If I could stop farm subsidies tomorrow, I would.”
—Jimmy, as a taxpayer I like sexy escorts, yet it would be unfair for me to demand Uncle Sam to finance my sex life. By the same token, artists should get their endowments and grants from private organizations. I’m glad you agree on the farm subsidies, but the only way to fix this economy is for cuts across the board.
Watch this about The Forgotten Depression
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2083-c1qB38
posted by Bobby on
Sorry, this clip is better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHAmdwIHjHM&feature=related
posted by Jimmy on
Cutting arts funding is tiddlywinks. Where are the really significant cuts, ones that address deficit and debt, going to come from? Stimulating the economy and cutting the deficit are two different things. According to Darth Cheney, “Deficits don’t matter.”
posted by Bobby on
Don’t complain about Cheney if you’re gonna excuse Obama, who has quadrupled Bush’s deficit.
Besides, cutting arts funding would help, don’t you get it? Watch Suze Orman and you’ll learn how simply things like cutting your daily coffee at Starbucks and eating more at home can help you save lots of money. Government needs to think like that, unless the spending is 100% necessary, sorry, we have to cut it. You wanna be an artist or documentary filmmaker? Fine, work as a waiter, earn your money, and then do what you love. Why the hell should I finance some artist that’s probably not good enough to get it from the private sector?
Honestly, we have too much socialism already, for example, I got a friend getting unemployment checks and because his rent is only $400, he’s in no hurry to get a job. See? If this was 1925, my friend would simply live with his parents until he could find another job, instead he has found the perfect way to cheat the system.
posted by Jimmy on
Necessary is subjective, Bobby. I’m sure there are things you see as necessary that would find unnecessary.
Your friend, like all other workers, helped pay for his unemployment benefits, which do eventually run out. Image what the situation would’ve been had GM had gone under, adding millions more to the unemployment lines. Have you seen my old boss, Ed Whitacre’s new commercial where he states that GM has repaid the federal government 5 years early, with interest?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Have you seen my old boss, Ed Whitacre’s new commercial where he states that GM has repaid the federal government 5 years early, with interest?
Have you seen the fact that the Treasury Department confessed that GM “repaid” that debt…. with more money borrowed from the government?
So your “old boss” is simply lying.
You really ought to take the time to educate yourself, Jimmy. You really look like a fool for claiming that GM had “repaid” its loans, when in fact GM hadn’t done anything other than play shell games with Federal money. It’s really hilarious that you attack successful private companies, but support this sort of chicanery when it’s your Obama Party practicing it.
posted by Bobby on
“Have you seen my old boss, Ed Whitacre’s new commercial where he states that GM has repaid the federal government 5 years early, with interest?”
—I almost got fooled by that one, but my father is an investor who follows the market and was able to catch GM’s lie. These people are shameless, I have worked in advertising and I have never seen such an outright lie.
posted by Jimmy on
Curses! Screwed again by Ed Whitacre! Oh well, can’t win ’em all. At the end of the day, the American people didn’t want GM, or the other American auto makers, to fail. They will look as favorably on their rescue as they did Chrysler’s rescue 25 years ago. Millions of auto workers, and workers in supporting industries, kept their jobs and are paying their taxes.
posted by Debrah on
OK, I’m tired of this discussion.
Let’s get back to the health-care sham.
I’ve always paid for medical expenses out-of-pocket…..on my own.
Of course, it helps to have been lucky and not to have had a serious accident or a serious medical problem.
Last year I took out a private policy and supposedly got a “special rate” because of my good health history.
And even then, the rates were exorbitant.
I also took out a dental policy that I dropped after a few months because dental insurance is basically worthless. The only things you get are two cleanings per year and x-rays.
Anything that most adults might need or desire in dental services—cosmetic and otherwise—it covers nothing. You’re better off putting your money in the bank and paying out-of-pocket.
But one thing I found out through all of this: People who pay for their own health-care this way often pay triple in fees. While you’re not paying those insurance premiums every month, when you do see a doctor, he charges you the tip-top fee…….because he can.
Not so when he’s dealing with the insurance company. They have a “special relationship” where they only pay the doctor back a fraction.
That’s how medical practices and hospitals make up for what they lose from the bums who come in and get any kind of health-care they want for free….and just walk out the door.
The doctor gets about a third from the insurance companies than what he/she will get from those who pay their own medical bills.
And for women, those fees are especially exorbitant because they pad those bills with everything they can.
For a female having a regular pap/pelvic exam and a test for cholesterol (lipid panel), etc……just the basics……..
…….it can be over $600.00 when the “lab fees” are tacked on.
It’s ridiculous for an office visit consisting of about 15 minutes in length to have such fees attached.
Therefore, people are forced one way or another to pay for the bad habits and medical problems of total strangers.
And if that wasn’t enough, more excuses are being made for the self-indulgent ones and the gluttons—– In the WSJ we have A Case For Those Extra 10 Pounds
Yeah, right.
posted by Jimmy on
You really hit at the crux of the issue, Debrah. Basic affordability for most middle class Americans, in or out of the insurance game, is unrealizable. ND30 likes to hurl insults like “moocher” at people, like yours truly, who have paid, and do pay their way, and know full well that millions of Americans who do work, and work hard, to support their families are not making it. I had life saving surgery while I was paying premiums to COBRA, to the tune of almost $600.00 a month. Now, I consider myself lucky; but then, I don’t have a family to support. But, that COBRA premium is nothing compared to what I would pay now, assuming I could even buy a policy at all being high-risk.
posted by Bobby on
We need to choose what kind of country we want, an American-style capitalist democracy or European-style socialism. Obama’s supporters don’t realize what it means to live in a socialist country, first of all, they would have to be willing to pay $10 a gallon for gas, since that’s what they pay in Europe. Then there would have to be a VAT, huge taxes for people who buy cars (they can be 100% in Denmark), lots of government interference in their lives (throw out too much garbage? Your kids are fat? Get ready to deal with big government), not to mention a life where people pray that their government pensions will be high enough to finance their retirement.
Is that what Americans want? Do they want to ride the bus because they can no longer afford to buy a car or pay for gas? Do they want taxes of 50% to 70% like it happens in Finland? Do they want the price of a Diet Coke to go from $1 to $3 because of VAT and additional soda taxes?
Government help isn’t free, it comes with lots of strings attached, so buyer beware!
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
For most, especially people with kids, it’s the number one financial issue. And I feel sorry for them.
I just don’t think this health-care bill will solve the problems unless there are reforms on the periphery.
“Government help isn’t free, it comes with lots of strings attached, so buyer beware!”
*************************************
That’s very true, Bobby.
In the immortal words of Claus Von Bulow……. “You have no idea.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hey, Debrah — whenever you get bored with the crowd here, you might try checking out GayPatriot.net
posted by Throbert McGee on
…where I’ve recently been arguing with others about the wisdom of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”.
posted by Debrah on
Interesting, Throbert.
I skimmed some of the comments.
That’s a topic with no grey areas for most people, although I thought Althouse’s analogy was a particularly loopy one.
Not surprising for her. She’s often given to insipid banality.
On another topic she once opined with a kind of exasperating and sterile condescension…..something like…..”Gays are often treated so horribly.”
LOL!!!
A year or so ago she made a video of herself watching and critiquing an episode of “American Idol” while looking disheveled and drinking a glass of wine.
Her meandering dialogue should have been embarrassing for a supposed “professor”; however, loopy seems to be her signature.
In this case, however, her “Piss Christ” analogy was not only weak, but reveals a dangerous lack of brainpower.
My sentiments are with Eugene Volokh on that issue.
posted by Bobby on
Throbert, how are we supposed to deal with Muslim extremists when we’re afraid of offending them? Today the issue is not drawing Mohammed, tomorrow it might be serving pork in school (in France you can’t anymore), letting women share swimming pools with men, allowing taxi drivers to reject passengers with dogs or wine (that was the case in Minneapolis, but the cabbies lost) etc, etc, etc.
We have to stop accommodating Islam! I heard that in Harvard they are allowing Muslim women to have the pool to themselves for 3 hours a week. Would they do that for white supremacists? As Glenn Beck says, it’s not about social justice, it’s about equal justice.
If we cave to radical Islam, we lose. But if everyone draws Mohammed, then perhaps Muslims will learn what it’s like to live in a free society, they can’t attack all of us after all.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
I’ve got an idea for you in these bad economic times.
You should be Throbert’s manager and start producing videos in which he would be the subject.
With your pragmatism and his performance experience, both of you could clean up.
Granted, you’re not a Frot Guy, but you are a businessman.
If you guys bring in enough cash, you’ll develop an appreciation for it.
LOL!
posted by Bobby on
Interesting suggestion, Debrah, but I’m into hairless, skinny men.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Are you so into hairless, skinny men that you wouldn’t be willing to promote a hairy, stocky dude? Trust me, Bobby — there are legions of men who go for my body type, precisely because I’m so thoroughly average (and therefore “accessible”) in every respect save for girth of my dick, where I’m a bit above the mean.
posted by Bobby on
Throbert, I am average, I am hairy, and I do not have legions of men going for my body type. In fact, 99% of the men who hit on me are fatter or older than me because they think I’m an easier target.
Being average sucks in my experience, I’d be better off being an ugly skinny person because that’s what the market demands. They either want the twink look, skinny look, lean look, hard and toned look, or bodybuilder look. They do not want a 5’11, 215 pound average guy like me unless they happen to be older, fatter, or have a fetish for a hairy body. Of course, since there are hairy bodies that are skinny, lean or muscular, guess which ones make the sale? Not me.
I don’t see how I could promote you when I can’t even promote myself. But I do know that whenever I see a gay advertisement for a bar rag, a gay cruise or gay fashion, I never ever see guys like you and me.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
I’m afraid you and I will unfortunately have to disagree on preferences in men.
“Hairless and skinny” is a type I’d have to pass on.
Although I don’t care for loads of body hair, I do prefer hair on his chest and his arms….and, of course, in the strategic areas.
LIS!
And I don’t care how good looking the guy is, I can’t stand the stocky, bulky, and muscular ones with the short, stumpy legs.
When such men get older, they usually turn into fat….even if they continue the “body building”. And even when they’re young, they look awful in tailored, fitted suits.
I suppose that’s why they stay in athletic gear most of the time.
What looks so sexy is a guy with a fluffy head of hair—not too short and not too long—that just touches his collar. With a slim, toned body. Not muscular, but enough muscle for definition.
When he has on a suit, it looks so fab……the suit just hangs so well…..and when he walks, you have a smooth movement of the threads against his body.
His walk is more of a masculine glide than a swagger.
And it looks simply smashing!
Everything is a green light!
I
posted by Jimmy on
“They do not want a 5’11, 215 pound average guy like me…”
Perhaps it’s your amelioration of the word “average”, Bobby. I’m in the same neighborhood as you and guess what, we’re fat – not even close to average. At 5’11”, average is 175 lbs.
Me…I’m looking for a chubby chaser! They’re out there.
The more you know…*
posted by Bobby on
You’re right, I am fat, and since 65% of Americans are fat, that’s why we like the word “average.” As for chubby chasers, the supply of fat people exceeds the demand of chubby chasers, thus the competition for the few cute chubby chasers is intense. When I used to weight 265 I wasn’t doing much better than I am doing now.
Debrah, thanks for your comments. I’m not into bodybuilders although I do think they’re sexy, after all, I think Arnold Schwartznegger in The Terminator is super sexy, guys like that can get almost anyone they want.
posted by brandon on
hey boobie .
check out this new video of mine .
comment , rate &+ subscribe to all my videos PLEASE !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMrx_-WfLw
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m only 5’7″ (on a good day) and weigh 165 lbs., which I guess makes me fat, too — although I prefer to think of myself as “famine proof.”
The key difference between me and Bobby is that I think my body is really fuckin’ sexy. As in, sometimes a full-length mirror is all the J/O fodder I need! Admittedly, I wish my shoulders and upper arms were better developed, and that my chest hair were thicker. But as Debrah noticed, I’m well-endowed — at least girth-wise. Come to think of it, my dick has the same general proportions as I do — not very tall, but thick, and with a large head! Heh-heh!
(I just measured: circumference of my head at “hat-brim” level is 23 inches; and chest is 44 inches. And when Mini-Me is excited — which is not the case now — he’s about 5-3/4″ long, but a full 6″ in circumference.)
In any case, my proportions are far from the classical ideal, and I’m not everyone’s “type”, but so fucking what? Over the years, Don and Dave and Tim and Eric and John and Mike decided I was sexy enough, and close enough to their “type”, to keep coming back for more. True, none of these guys would’ve made the centerfold of Advocate MEN — Mike, an NYC firefighter, came the closest; he was very muscular, blond, handsome, and hairy-chested. Big dick, too, with honey-blond pubes. BUT he also had a huge port-wine birthmark covering half his chest — which would’ve disqualified him for Advocate MEN or any other mainstream gay pr0n magazine. That’s because the gay pr0n industry is almost entirely run by faggots who value men based on the most superficial characteristics like body-fat percentage and musculature and the presence or absence of body hair (and huge birthmarks!)
I, however, am not a faggot — I’m a homosexual who first and foremost values a man’s authentic masculinity and his personal character. That’s why all these “physically imperfect” guys were PERFECTLY SEXY as far as I was concerned. Just as importantly, they all thought I was perfectly sexy too, for the same reasons.
Reading Bobby’s self-description got me kind of excited — physically, he sounds like the type of guy I’ve always been drawn too: Taller than me, hairy, and “padded,” but not excessively fat. But it was a major turn-off to read Bobby’s self-defeating, self-loathing tone in describing his body. If you don’t love your own body, dude, why the hell should anyone else love it?
P.S. Bobby, if a preference for a hairy body is a “fetish,” then so a preference for lean, hairless twinks!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Dude — your delivery needs a hell of a lot of polishing up, but I agree 100% with your message! You should try re-doing the video with a written script, so that you can collect your thoughts better — you’ll reach a much bigger audience that way.
But again, I agree 100% with the anti-whining statement! America is the closest thing to a Utopia that has ever existed, but there are so many people who don’t appreciate HOW FUCKING EASY LIFE IS in this country.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Oh, I just noticed this:
Dollink! I didn’t know you were a VC reader!
posted by Debrah on
Yeah, Throbert.
I sometimes check out his blog.
He’s hot.
posted by Bobby on
“The key difference between me and Bobby is that I think my body is really fuckin’ sexy.”
—Good for you, buddy, but when I go to a gay bar I’m not gonna approach some trick and say “Hi, I believe my body is really fucking sexy, and if you saw me naked you’d believe it to.” Instead, I believe that the more weight I lose the more people find me sexy. Why else is The Biggest Loser so popular? You don’t see a show on TV where skinny people try to become fat, you’ll never see The Biggest Gainer.
“That’s because the gay pr0n industry is almost entirely run by faggots who value men based on the most superficial characteristics like body-fat percentage and musculature and the presence or absence of body hair (and huge birthmarks!)”
—No, they do what sells. Visit penisbot.com and you’ll find free links for bears, Asians, older men, military men, interracial, but guess which sections are the most popular? Twinks and Hardcore. Porn has diversity, but ultimately it’s the young and skinny who make the most money. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but most beholders seem to want the same thing.
“But it was a major turn-off to read Bobby’s self-defeating, self-loathing tone in describing his body. If you don’t love your own body, dude, why the hell should anyone else love it?”
—People are selfish, they’ll love me or hate me based on their own needs. Nobody sleeps with me for my self-confidence, they do it because they like a hairy top guy. And by the way, I am not self-loathing, I’m just realistic, I don’t like the body I have and I intend to change it.
“P.S. Bobby, if a preference for a hairy body is a “fetish,” then so a preference for lean, hairless twinks!”
—I suppose that’s true, funny how when a preference is common we don’t call it a fetish.
posted by Hyderabad Escorts on
This is a nice post. Thanks for being here.
posted by cathy on
Come here
http://www.voguesale.com
Fantastic place,do not miss it.