Media Matters: The jagged little pill that is health care coverage
Rush Limbaugh believes that there is no health care crisis in America. And he's not alone. With the right wing's relentless onslaught against any attempt to reform health care in America just getting started, the need for honest reporting on the issue is greater than ever. (David Goodfriend's honest comments on CNBC were refreshing, but unfortunately, they represent the exception, not the rule.)
This week, the Congressional Budget Office released a partial analysis of the Senate health committee's draft health care reform bill. And immediately, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, David Brooks, USA Today, The New York Times, and ABC's Jake Tapper all misinterpreted its findings, claiming that the legislation would cost a trillion dollars while still leaving nearly 40 million Americans uninsured. When House Majority Leader John Boehner advanced similar fallacies on The Situation Room, he wasn't challenged by Wolf Blitzer.
CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf actually explained his agency's findings in a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy. He wrote that those considering the analysis should know that "[t]he draft legislation released by the HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee ... indicates that certain features may be added at a later date." Furthermore, the draft legislation evaluated didn't include "a 'public health insurance option' and requirements for 'shared responsibility' by employers. Depending on their details, such provisions could ... have substantial effects on our analysis." In other words, withhold final judgment, because that's what we are doing. But that's not what was done in the press. At least Robert Reich was paying attention.
The other piece of health care news making the rounds this week involved President Obama's speech to the American Medical Association. A bit of background: While the AMA is a powerful lobbying force for the medical industry, it claims only 29 percent of America's doctors as members. Despite this, NBC's Savannah Guthrie and CNN's Kitty Pilgrim both claimed that it represents "the nation's doctors."
It should also be noted that the press often ignores the group's sponsorship by the pharmaceutical industry.
While usually opposing changes to the status quo (the AMA opposed the creation of Medicare in the 1960s, for example), the organization has signaled a willingness to consider a public health insurance option. But in two separate articles this week, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Robert Pear, and Jackie Calmes of The New York Times continued to report that the group is resolutely against such an idea, repeating an omission from the previous week. The aforementioned errors -- overstating the degree to which the AMA speaks for doctors and ignoring its corporate sponsorship -- were also in effect.
Following the pattern, The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly described the AMA as being "the nation's largest physician group" without noting that there are 800,000 doctors in America or that the AMA gets at least 20 percent of its budget from drug companies.
With everything Frank Luntz is doing to undermine health care reform in America, the last thing the public needs is more misinformation on the issue.
Other major stories this week:
Media just can't get it right on Obama, economic polling (MOE +/- 0%)
Five months into his tenure, Obama and his administration remain broadly popular. But in an attempt to generate drama, multiple news organizations interpreted new polling data this week on the economy in the most negative light possible.
ABC's The Note -- yet another liberal product of the "All Barack Channel" -- cited a New York Times/CBS News poll noting that 57 percent of the public had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, as opposed to only 28 percent who thought well of the Republicans. The Note's Rick Klein spun that unambiguous outcome thusly: "The new polls have little good news for Republicans -- unless you count worrisome news for the president as good news for his opponents." Most administrations wouldn't consider support from nearly six in 10 Americans as "worrisome news," but Klein apparently does.
Klein summarized his analysis by writing, "Either something or somebody gets dragged down when a popular president pushes unpopular policies." It was a sentiment echoed by The New York Times, which managed to misrepresent its own survey. The Times article on the poll said, "A majority of people said his [Obama's] policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse." But omitted from the story were several important numbers; among them, the 57 percent of the public that approved of Obama's handling of the economy and the 32 percent who felt that his policies had improved the country's economic condition -- more than twice the number of those who thought they had hurt it. Forty-eight percent of respondents believed that so far, no effect had been felt. The Times grouped that number with the 15 percent who thought Obama's policies had hurt the economy in order to produce the supposed "majority."
Over at Congressional Quarterly, an article on the same poll (and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll) headlined "Honeymoon Over: It's on Obama's Watch Now" commented that while Obama had once enjoyed "a grace period when the public saw the nation's problems as ones he inherited," there was now "public concern ... over the size of the deficit."
It isn't wrong to note that people are concerned about budget deficits. But the article ignored yet another key finding from the NBC/Journal poll: that 6 percent of the public currently blames Obama for the budget situation, while 46 percent blame President Bush. That might not be something worth reporting for Sean Hannity, but it should be for a CQ journalist.
Speaking of deficits, conservative commentators have, of course, used much ink and airtime to attack Obama on that and other economic issues. Media coverage has, by and large, given them free rein to do so, in the process helping to promote the idea that neither the public nor responsible economic commentators will tolerate increased deficits. This was the narrative advanced by the Journal, NBC's Nightly News, the CBS Evening News, and the Times this week.
While a majority of the public does want the administration focused on deficit reduction (52 percent in the Times/CBS poll, 58 percent in the NBC/Journal poll), the reports, being so eager to portray the tide of opinion as turning against Obama, failed to note that prominent economists have disagreed with the idea that reducing the deficit should be the administration's most important priority at the current time, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman and Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi among them.
Hey, Fox News. Jealous much?
So, what happened when ABC News announced plans to broadcast a June 24 prime-time special called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," a town hall meeting on health care reform with Obama, from the White House? Fox News and media conservatives went absolutely nuts.
That's right: To say that Fox News hosts and guests have been critical of ABC News would be putting it mildly. One host, for example, agreed with a Republican National Committee complaint that ABC's special "will become a glorified infomercial" for the Obama administration. But in expressing concerns about the ABC News broadcast, those on Fox News did not make any attempt to distinguish -- or even mention -- the extraordinary access Fox News had to Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking administration during the Bush years -- using those opportunities to lob softball questions and provide an uncritical platform for administration talking points -- from the ABC event.
In a flashback of sorts, Media Matters for America noted that just last year, Fox News was boasting about its "unprecedented" access to the Bush White House. Who could forget their moving "George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish" tribute?
Some Fox News hosts and guests have also suggested a "conflict of interest," pointing to the fact that former ABC News correspondent Linda Douglass is now communications director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Health Reform. Again, Fox News' concern over the ABC News special is noteworthy given Fox's history. In 2006, Tony Snow, then a Fox News anchor and radio host, left Fox to serve as Bush's White House press secretary.
One highlight of Fox's weeklong whine-fest was how hosts and guests attempted to explain away their own network's rightward tilt. On Special Report, Charles Krauthammer actually acknowledged that Fox News is the "voice of opposition in the media," while Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy laid it on rather thick, saying that "here at Fox we still do journalism" and that "when you watch the other channels ... you don't hear a lot of the criticism."
Perhaps Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow here at Media Matters, said it best appearing on Fox News when he said: "I think conservatives are confusing being in the minority with being victims of liberal bias."
Walpin: They'll turn this into a scandal or die trying
Since Gerald Walpin was fired from his position as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service last week, conservatives and Fox News hosts have claimed that he was removed for investigating an Obama ally. The White House has since provided a list of reasons for Walpin's termination, including but not limited to the corporation board's concerns over Walpin's behavior and conduct, as well as a complaint filed by acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California Lawrence G. Brown regarding Walpin's actions during his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps grants given to a nonprofit organization in Sacramento, California.
Fox & Friends aired on-screen text this week asserting as fact the claim -- disputed by the Obama administration -- that Walpin was "fired for protecting taxpayers." Other graphics that aired throughout the report asked whether Walpin was "dismissed for doing his job" and if there was a "cover-up at AmeriCorps."
As has become standard operating procedure, Fox's Glenn Beck took things to the absurd, stating that Walpin was dismissed because he "wouldn't sit in the last row of seats; he wouldn't get up from the counter." Get it? Walpin's firing equals the struggle for civil rights.
Walpin attempted to mount a defense this week by taking to the conservative airwaves with appearances on Glenn Beck and Fox & Friends as well as Laura Ingraham's radio program. In each of his appearances, hosts failed to note or ask Walpin about Brown's allegations. Specifically, that Walpin and his staff "did not include" or "disclose" relevant information regarding the case involving the misuse of AmeriCorps to Brown's office; that Walpin repeatedly discussed the case in the press after being advised "under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation"; and that Walpin's "actions were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."
This week's media columns
This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Boehlert wonders if Fox News big enough for Shep Smith and Glenn Beck; Jamison Foser asks when a 63 percent approval rating became a bad thing; and Karl Frisch offers up a Top Ten list for David Letterman's conservative critics.
Buy the book
Don't forget to order your autographed copy of Boehlert's compelling new book, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press (Free Press, May 2009).
Do you Facebook or Twitter?
If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of Boehlert, Foser, and Frisch as well. You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, Foser, and Frisch on Twitter.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary.
Really? Even the Daily Show pointed out the idiocy rampant on the show with their criticism of MTV followed by the tackle football with bikini-clad "players. The scene of the host with his butt in the face of one of the girls got the comment fromm the blonde that the skit was the best thing she'd ever seen on TV.
Now that'sjournalism. What a Doocy-bag.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,5870586.story
So, from the Republicans' play book of 'confusion and distraction' on America's Healthcare Reform - Grade A+. Ding, ding, ding Republicans definitely got game.
That is, 4,000 patients are killed every week. If the airline industry killed passengers at that rate, it would be shut down in a day.
Obesity, asthma, diabetes and heart disease progress at alarming rates in the US.
We spend over 80% of our healthcare dollars in the last 6 months of life. Often while the patient is on a respirator, wired up like a Christmas tree to a myriad of hi-tech monitors all reporting the same thing: barely breathing, unconscious, as good as dead.
So many of the debates surrounding healthcare in the US seem to assume that access to it is a good thing.
Has anyone calculated recently the odds of a positive outcome following an encounter with the US healthcare system?
"Obesity, asthma, diabetes and heart disease progress at alarming rates in the US."
In what context is this relevant? These things are not on the rise due to "preventable errors." They are on the rise due to our increasingly gluttonous and sedintary lifestyle. (Excepting Asthma, maybe, but again - still not something that's caused by "medical error."
"Has anyone calculated recently the odds of a positive outcome following an encounter with the US healthcare system?"
I will never argue that we don't need better systems, better training, more access to second opinions, etc... BUT regardless of of all that, without coverage you can't even get into the system. Do you really think that a heart pateint, cancer patient, diabetic, etc... Is better off at home, not seeing a doctor? Better off being shut out? Do what you want, but I'll take my chances with the Doctors and the Hospitals. I guarentee your odds of a "positive outcome" will improve.
(And if you're suggesting support for 'alternative medicine' don't bother. You'll never find "odds of a positive outcome following an encounter" with alternative medicine of ANY kinds, because they never do any sientific studies at all.)
Thanks for the link:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,5870586.story
Truly remarkable. On the other hand, should we be surprised to learn that those who would profit by denying health insurance would do so?
Health insurance firms are in the business of taking in money via premiums and keeping it. Every claim is an opportunity to prevent a loss. Deny a claim...prevent financial loss.
Does it not strike you as 'freakonomic?'
People working for insurers have families to raise, mouths to feed, car payments, mortgages...just like the rest of us. They fulfill these needs by preventing financial loss to their employer. They get paid to deny claims.
Physicians get paid when their claims are accepted. The acceptance criteria is set by those whose jobs are to deny claims.
The LA Times article may be targeting only the tip of the iceberg. It targets the most obvious contradiction: the insidious practice of insurers to refuse all coverage to those who need it most. When they need it most.
What about the more subtle denials that take place everyday?
It may be that the 800 pound gorilla in the room is our own economic naivete. As a society we have designed an economic system that rations medical care that will only work in our interests when the actors act against their own.
Solutions that overlook this apparent fundamental truth might tend only to add more complexity and disruption to an already over-complex and disrupted system.
As for the subtle denials, I suppose we should make a case of them either in companion with or after this major, monstrous, overt middle finger to America and Americans that nobody will cover.
Of course, anyone who saw Sicko knows that these companies all have departments that do nothing but think of ways to reject legitimate claims. This all needs to be splashed everywhere. Please do show that link to everyone!
The CBO did release a report saying that obamacare would INCREASE the deficit by 1.6 TRILLION, and only cover an additional 10 million people.
So...browsing back through the constitution, can any progressive on this site help me understand why the federal government is collecting my money to pay for someone elses healthcare? That is not in the constitution. Let's focus on what MADE this country. It was not big government.
Conservatives do not want money...or power...we just want the government to do what it was designed for. Get out of the way of the people. What is wrong with that?
You owe me a new keyboard from the spit take I did when reading that whopper of a lie.
Unless it's the bedroom. Then the cons are all up in your business.
The UNITED STATES was founded that way, fool. When people are uninsured, then the COMMUNITY should take care of them, not the federal government. READ THE CONSTITUTION. Your philosophy is straight from fascist Italy. Go back.
And again, you are wrong on the bedroom jab. Stop watching MS-LSD for all your info. Conservatives want to uphold the DEFINITION of marriage, which is a RELIGIOUS institution, not civil. That's it. Conservatives don't care what happens in the bedroom...you just need that to help justify your beliefs.
"When people are uninsured, then the COMMUNITY should take care of them, not the federal government."
I don't see how this changes the principle. You'd still be taking money from others, right? I'm also curious how you define "community". If you have a community that's largely wealthy, then there would be some people who would get necessary help. If you're talking about a generally poor area, then very few people would get the care they need. And in the areas that have the most money to give, there would be less people to give it to. But if you expand it to a state or national level, then it would make more sense.
What is the founding principle of this country that implies that we can't have public health care?
Think of how stupid your argument is...Why does the federal government CARE if you have a life-long bond? It does NOT. Period. All that matters is that your property is moved to the proper person after your death, and not the state. That's it. Get a will.
The founding principle is that the federal government will stay out of the peoples way, and not TAKE ALL the money and distribute how it sees fit.
There are other questions besides inheritance, such as hospital visitation, making decisions about someone in a comatose state, or putting someone on your insurance plan. But even in your simplistic version of reality, try to imagine the mess when someone doesn't have a will, or when the will can't be located. Obviously it makes more sense to have an established system of transference to avoid needless litigation. "Get a will" does not refute the point, even if I were to accept your framework.
If the federal government isn't supposed to take people's money, then how do you imagine the military would be funded? And I don't see anything that addresses the point about wealthy communities vs. poor communities. Why not?
Two little known provisions in the Constitution gives the legislature the authority to do this: The part where it states the legislature can levy taxes and the part where it states the legislature makes the law.
All this "we just want less government talk" is pure rubbish. What you mean to say is they only want the government that caters exclusively to them.
What do you call wanting corporate deregulation? Overturning Roe v Wade? A constitutional marriage amendment? Tax havens? Pre-emptive wars? Drilling from wildlife land? Removing homosexuals from the military? Keeping homosexuals from adopting? Prayer in school? Adding Creationism to school curriculum? Building a 700-mile fence on a 2,000 mile border? Removing the inheritance tax? Allowing warrantless wiretapping? Smoking bans? Placing corporate profit over the health of the planet? And, of course, wanting the fed to override states that legalize marijuana despite crowing on forever about states' rights?
And meanwhile, after all of 6 months out of the White House, suddenly they want revolution. That is not conservative, that is selfish. And let's not forget that the group of people who publicly fly the conservative flag (whether that's actually accurate or not) is filled with open bigots and extraordinarily wealthy people pretending to speak for poor folks as if they actually cared one wit and weren't always trying to get over on people.
The neo-conservative movement has no ideas, no credibility and no track record of doing anything for anyone but themselves.
You are wrong.
Corporate deregulation is only desired in so much as to get FEDERAL government out of business. That is how capitalism works. Regulations are by definition designed to take from one entity, and give to another.
Roe v Wade is a federal ruling that should be done at the state level. Period. That is all the conservative voice says. Let each state VOTE, let the people decide. What are you afraid of...that the overwhelming polls showing most people are against murdering unborn babies will become law?
The marriage amendment is to define the term "marriage", as it should be since it is based on a religious concept, not civil. No conservatives (true conservatives) care if civil unions take place. Its really a question of property rights...make a will.
Gays in the military is not a conservative vs progressive debate. There are many more non-gay military that are uncomfortable with the living conditions. Do we make all of them sacrafice for a very small minority? No. Do we spend millions to build new "gay" barracks? No.
No one is stopping gays from adopting. Good homes are good homes. Who cares?
Prayer and creationism are from the same branch. Our founding fathers wrote often how this country would need strong morals, specifically religion, to succeed. Prayer is not a bad thing. Again, the VAST majority of the country is Christian. But, we are not allowed to pray in school. But, the small minority of non-religious dictate? That is ridiculous. Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. Additionally, the comment was referrencing the FEDERAL government dictating a single religion. When the original 13 states formed their constitutions, half had offical state religions. It's the progressive motto to remove religion. Refer to Hitler...he HATED Christianity. Wonder why...?
A 700 mile fence was proposed because progressives who want to have open borders resisted anything more. Duh. Plus, large portions of the border are huge deserts, and do not require a fence in the traditional sense. Do you think our country does not have a right to enforce its borders?
Taxes suck. Why you even reference the inheritance tax is beyond me. Why should the government get to double dip. The money was taxed once on income. Why again on death? Because you don't have one? Grow up.
Warrantless wiretaps is not a conservative thing. A Republican president did it, yes. But, conservatives did not like it. Still don't.
Smoking bans, same thing. Do what you want. Now...let's talk about the progressives recent vote to put tobacco under the FDA so they can regulate the advertising, increase taxes, and have FEDERAL control over the industry. What do you say about that? More power...hmmm...Check!
What corporate profit vs plant are you talking about? This crap debate over global warming? Oh yeah...I forgot...the debate is over, right? Al Gore said so. Not ONE SINGLE CONSERVATIVE says this. This is complete crap, and you, and all the progressives know it.
And what idiot rag did you read that said Conservatives want the fed to legalize marijuana? I would need to see that...is it Puffington Post? Or some other whack job?
You progressives are destroying this country. Move to Europe. They love progressives. THIS country was founded on small government, strong people. For every "extraordinarily wealth" conservative, I give you Holly-wierd. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is. And again with the name calling...Conservatives are not bigots.
The CONSERVATIVES do have credibility. Its called the CONSTITUTION! It was these principles that founded the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is the progressives that want to take from the people who work hard, and give to the lazy, not the other way around.
I don't know why I keep responding to this web site. People like you make me sick. Its all rhetoric, lies, and slander to make your point that you need big government taking ALL the money and redistributing, then claim its conservatives that want power and control. How stupid are you?
There were more blacks than whites in the military when it was deregulated and I am sure many of them were at the time uncomfortable serving with blacks. They got over it.
Good for you on warrantless wiretapping.
Saying global warming is crap only shows how brainwashed you are. There just isnt any question what the scientific consensus is. Feel free to deny the sky is blue.
You Ebenezer Scrooge worshipping cons are destroying our good country. Just get out. Go away and let us make a society. Go live on an Island and Play Lord of the Flies.
Did you really snivel about namecalling in the same post where you tell us who progressives make you sick and are destroying the country? Hypocrite.
There is nothing unconstitutional about universal healthcare. I know you have been programmed like one of Pavlovs dogs to say there is but there isnt. It is a dumb argument.
I dont know why you do either. You never know what you are talking about. Selfish Ebenezer Scrooge worshippers like you make ALL decent people sick. You regurgitate the talking points Rush TOLD you to think and many of them are as flat out stupid as this one. The relevant question is how stupid are YOU? The answer is pretty sad really
Good to hear your crap again. Yep, I'm tired of playing the nice game. You progressives are all about name calling, lying, etc...
Some laws are needed to keep order. But...the federal government does not need to regulate what cars are made. People should decide that. When Pintos were found to be unsafe, they were taken off the market. It had NOTHING to with the government. A lawsuit from the people to the business is how it works. Do you think the engineer who designed the Pinto INTENDED to kill people.
Race is quite different from sex. Stupid argument.
No, the global warming debate is not over. You progressive nut jobs all listen to your apostle Al Gore. The is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, IDIOT. How many times do we need to rehash this crap? If you only look at progressive crap science, you will only have half the truth.
I have a country. Its the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It has a constitution. It has a history. I'm not going to stand by and let progressives take my country, and turn it into Europe.
While I admire Rush, and Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilley, and anyone else who has the courage to speak a conservative voice, they do not have the market on expressing conservative viewpoints. No more than Keith Olbermann is your messiah...
Why is it selfish to work hard, believe in God, and want the federal government to stay out of my life? You fascists are all alike. Take from the workers, give to the lazy. Are you even employed? Give away all your money. I've worked hard for mine.
You can scream all you want that there isnt a scientific consensus. All it shows is you are a LOUD idiot who is brainwashed and doesnt know what he is talking about.
You talk big but since you cons have gotten your BUTTS kicked in the last two elections there isnt anything you can DO about what progressives decide to do in this country. Feel free to leave.
You may know we HAVE a constitution you just have no idea what it says or you wouldnt make the astonishingly stupid argument you have been making which assumes somehow a nationalized healhcare system is against it or is unconstitutional.
It isnt selfish to do THOSE things it is selfish to whine and snivel so pitifully about having to do your part in society and to just pretend everyone who needs help is lazy so you dont have to CARE about the thousands that DIE from lack of access to healthcare. Selfish beyond all belief. Typical of you though. Oh yes I am employed. A great job I make a lot of money and have top quality healthcare. The difference between us is I want my nieghbor to have it too. Right now more than forty MILLION of my neighbors dont have healthcare. I dont want my nieghbor to DIE from lack of access to healthcare. Right now about 18,000 of them a year do. YOU dont care if they die or do without healthcare because you got yours. The very essence of being a selfish weasel
1 - Nonsense. Free market does not mean carte blanche. Free markets require firm regulation. Just flat wrong.
2 - First of all, I'm not pro-choice or pro-life. I think both sides have lost the plot. In any event, this is a cherry pick "states right" argument. It's used when it suits, and ignored when it doesn't. Fail.
3 - Utter tripe. And you didn't argue that this is conservatives asking for more government. Fail.
4 - Big. Fat. Wah. So we should discriminate because some heterosexuals have the mental capacity of a 3-year old. Super.
5 - Wrong. They are stopped from adopting. Routinely.
6 - More complete piffle that ignores my point. And sir, your knowledge of what the founding fathers were about is abysmal. Massive fail.
7 - More nonsense. Failito.
8 - Pfft. If I did inherit mass amounts of money, I'd be perfectly happy to turn over an inheritance tax. Then again, I'm not a greedy and selfish.
9 - Yeeeah, riiiiight. They didn't ever say anything like "well, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to wqorry about". Fail.
10 - Blah blah blah...
Sorry, I can't even bother with this anymore. You have seemingly no acquaintance with reality. Your side is just a shining beacon of Americana as you rewrite history and spew blatant falsehoods blah blah blah and everyone who doesn't think like you should leave the country yadayadayada.
No cred. No point. No more of my time.
Beyond that, Jewish people, Born-agains and conservative Christians have the three highest divorces rate by faith in America. The lowest? Agnostics/Atheists. By geography, the Bible Belt has easily the highest rate among all regions.
GAME. OVER.
Most of your responses were name calling. What the hell?
And this last post...Seriously? What does divorce have to do with the argument. Nothing. Stay on subject. No game.
I will not argue with you over who knows more about US history. I think that shows for itself. I will say you should read a couple great books:
1. The 5000 year leap
2. Liberal Fascism
3. The Real George Washington
That may help you...depends if you want to learn or not.
As for marriage, gosh I guess you're right... what could divorce possibly have to do with marriage? I mean, what a stupid point to note factually that religious folks are far more prone to having failed marriages, thus further invalidating your claim to religious sovereignty over the institution. How ridiculous of me!
Yawn.
First off, you can pray in school all you like. You just can't push it on others. I don't see how the number of Christians is relevant in the least. The minority is still protected. If you stretch your mind a little and try to imagine if Islam was the predominant religion here if you would want public schools to have organized prayer. Your kid comes home one day, faces Mecca and starts praying. I expect you would bust a blood vessel.
And why can't religious morality be distributed through actual religious channels? Why does it have to involve schools? You say "get a will" in order to separate marriage from the government, so why doesn't "go to church" work even better?
This crap debate over global warming? The crap is conservative argument against it. The debate is over, at least among experts in the climate sciences. But another feature of modern conservatives is the bizarre view that talk radio hosts or college dropouts like Sean Hannity have an opinion equal in value to scientists with real expertise. Al Gore has studied the issue for decades and was a leader in the House and Senate learning from experts. You know, experts, the kind of people you tend not to believe if an uneducated hack with a microphone tells you not to.
People like you make me sick. People like you make me sad. Your retreat into ignorant, self-referential opinion instead of reason and fact will lead the nation into decline and eventual disintegration. Reactionaries like you are the problem not the solution.
By the way, you are of course completely wrong on this issue as well. See here. You likely won't go but a poll 6/12-16/2009 asked whether the supreme court should overturn Roe v Wadeand 64% said no.
Here's your sign.
Now that I would tune in for.
Additionally, cons often refuse to account for folks who through no fault of their own can never be rich. They may have been born without the capacity to acquire a skillset that pays well in our economy. In my view of liberalism, these folks need to be respected because they have a role to play in our society outside of slaves for corporate masters. They should have a access to a decent wage for a decent day's work, even if that work entails digging a ditch or teaching a child, rather than trading a stock, of finding a way to deny health care coverage. Abject poverty and specifically substandard health care shouldn't be the punishment for not being one of elite. This is, to me, the great schism between cons and liberals. I only wish we could be having this debate about real values rather than the shouting matches that pass themselves off as discourse these days.