Thursday Highlights

Good morning. I was real busy yesterday, and didn’t troll for links much. Here’s what I’ve got.

  1. Perhaps, “virtue ethics is for idiots” but is that a statement to put alongside “consequential ethics are for knuckleheads” … what is this meta-ethics for kindergarden? 
  2. A “score” being touted.
  3. Sometimes we all feel that way, eh? (just not at the same time, thankfully)
  4. School admissions and wealth.
  5. Welcome to America, were a little “do you know who I am” and $5 will buy you a sandwich.
  6. Speaking of American responses.
  7. A conversation the liberals avoid. More tight coupling of healthcare and politics means more politics in healthcare. Is that a good thing? That’s really what we need, Tammany hall healthcare, where you need to confirm your political alliance and graft vouchers before your mom gets her bypass. Connections get you stuff. Wonderful. Welcome to the new world as envisioned by Mr Obama and company.
  8. The economics of piracy (not software but on-the-sea with guns and stuff piracy).

10 responses to “Thursday Highlights

  1. More tight coupling of healthcare and politics means more politics in healthcare. Is that a good thing? That’s really what we need, Tammany hall healthcare, where you need to confirm your political alliance and graft vouchers before your mom gets her bypass.

    I forgot, since liberals didn’t take your offer to ‘yield’ on the fact that the health care bill cuts the deficit are you still being dishonest about health care? Would you be so kind as to notify us when and if you decide not to be dishonest.* That might facilitate the discussion.

    * Please also be honest about your notification of intent to suspend dishonesty.

  2. A more serious response to the waiver question….do you even know what the waivers are for or why they are being requested? Are, for example, corporations that tend to donate to Republicans asking for waivers and are getting denied? I think the waivers are a bit less ‘Tammany hall’ and a bit more like the extension you can get on your April 15th tax deadline.

  3. The waiver thing is a perfect example of getting your beliefs from propagandists. This story was created and coordinated by propagandists who are willing to lie, distort, and imply anything to create a certain impression in the sucker (you.)

    This entire narrative is invented, like the “czars” thing. The waivers have nothing to do with political favors.

    Do some thinking of your own instead of outsourcing it to these PAID LIARS.

  4. Or at least try to get paid for lies. The commentator’s union can’t fight for higher wages till this blog starts brining in some more dough!

  5. JA,
    Your response to the waiver thing is a perfect example of your leaping, yet again, to conclusions. I’m not getting this notion from anything I’ve read. It’s just that, as a kid who grew up in the Watergate era and then moved to the exttremely corrupt Chicago scene not to speak of Illinois where the gubenatorial retirement home is the pen, that assumptions of government corruption are the norm.

    Do my own thinking. The logic goes something like this:

    1. Government has increased its intrusion into healthcare is increased.
    2. Government is corrupt.
    3. One of the first and most prominent symptoms of government corruption is partisan payback to/from donors.
    4. Waivers are one way to pay back group donors (like unions).

    Consider the question this way, you were (likely) quick to ascribe corruption to Mr Cheney regarding oil or Iraq reconstruction contracts. Why do you now want to hand a future Mr Cheney the ability to also use Medical waivers and favors as well as the resources the White House had before?

  6. I’m not getting this notion from anything I’ve read.

    LOL yeah, you’re totally unaffected by all the propaganda you read, like the post you linked to about waivers.

  7. JA,
    My expectation that more government in healthcare meant that partisanship of a political nature would pass into health measures was an expexpectation (prediction) made when the bill was debated.

  8. So the answer then is no you don’t have any evidence that the waivers have been or even can be used to punish or reward for partisan purposes. IMO the waivers are probably a feature, not a bug in the bill. But then if we are going to get into the bill we probably should actually get into it rather than simplistic slogans.

  9. My expectation that more government in healthcare meant that partisanship of a political nature would pass into health measures was an expexpectation (prediction) made when the bill was debated.

    No, your expectation that more government in healthcare meant that partisanship of a political nature would pass into health measures was an expexpectation (prediction) “made” by FALSE INNUENDO.

    That’s exactly my point. Your beliefs are largely based on propaganda, not reality.

  10. JA,
    You aren’t making sense. My prediction that government in healthcare predated propaganda. But apparently is based on it. How’s that work anyhow?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>