Cynical Nation

Toll house cookies at our house Halloween night. Still warm! (No ex- lax either) We don't get many callers, since we are out in the boonies.
Don't you wish you were a kid in redstate America?

I was a kid in redstate America. And yes. :-)

"I was a kid in redstate America. And yes. :-)

There is no such a thing as a "redstate" America any longer. These are terms of the past. Everything is now blue, bluish, or gray. Not a single state is red any longer.

>Not a single state is red any longer.

Two questions:

1. What are you smoking?

2. Can I have some?

"Not a single state is red any longer."


"Two questions:

1. What are you smoking?

2. Can I have some?"


Bwaaaaahaaaa!!!!

That is priceless!

"Two questions:
1. What are you smoking?
2. Can I have some?

Two answers:

1. Nothing. In fact, I think that the government should outlaw cigarette smoking altogether. Dont you agree? :-)

2. Hmm...Do you need something to dream of redstate maps again? Forget it, no matter what you smoke there is no way that you will be able to see red states again. It is over. Time for you to face reality :-)

It's going to be cool when the Dems sweep and get to use the Repug method of Extreme Gerrymandering like they used in Texas for every state.

Dems need a permanent majority, just like Rove planned, only kinda the other way, you know, so that patriots are in charge, not traitors.

What's happening NOW is that the proverbial "South" is rising again.

Virtually EVERY "New Democrat" elected in 2006 out West & down South were Conservative (also called "Blue Dog") Democrats - "Zell Miller Dems," if you will.

And these are deeply social Conservatives, like Heath Schuler, the Evangelical Christian who won in North Carolina.

As a result of what's been called "the Schumer-Emmanuel plan," the Democratic Party has embraced middle America's Conservatism and given up on trying to "convert them."

As Chuck Schumer said in his recent book, Positively American,; "Democrats have been embarrassingly Liberal, pathetically Liberal, shamefully Liberal and Liberal for far too long." (Pg 37 of the Hardcover)

That's straight from the mouth of one of the architects of the Democratic election strategy!

Somewhere, Zell Miller is beaming...and I'm smiling too. I AM a registered Democrat and I WANT my Party back...I WANT the South to the rise again!

The last time the Democratic Party was great was when it was led by socially Conservative Southerners like Sam Rayburn.

There is no real "ideological battle" between those who believe in a more socialist (higher tax rates, more regulation, more government spending - Keynesian policies) and any other ideologies, because there have been no "new ideas" forthcoming from the Keynesians since the death of John Maynard Keynes!

First, Keynesianism failed utterly under Jimmy Carter and is now utterly and forever discredited.

Second, there just aren't enough of those people to make a real mass-movement and thankfully, and most importantly, those folks who DO believe in such policies (the BWs & BHs) are unable to make affirmative arguments for those policies and they end up tending to alienate people rather than convincing or converting them.

That last factor is a fatal flaw and believe me, I'm glad of it. If the likes of BW or barely actually were able to make positive arguments in favor of more regulation, more government spending and higher taxes and were thus able to convert others, then we could and possibily would be talking about "Keynesianism is gonna rise again."

Again, THANKFULLY, that appears not to be the case.

But the reverse, the Democratic embrace of Conservatism certainly is!

It was Rahm Emmanuel who recruited the likes of Heath Schuler and it was Schumer who recruited the likes of Webb and Tester...and both claim that "This is just the beginning," (of a major recruitment of ideologically Conservative Dems).

I hope so, because, "the South rising again," means a Conservative takeover of the Democratic Party.

As I said above, already, the Liberal Democrats have been hamstrung (mostly by defections within their own ranks, largely by these "New Democrats") in getting any of their agenda across, despite holding BOTH houses of the Congress!

They've failed to "end the war in Iraq," failed to even cut spending on it and largely thanks to these "New Democrats! In fact, the one piece of the Democratic agenda that passed, raising the minimum wage embarrassed nancy Pelosi, as she was caught trying to eliminate the minimum wage in Guam where her biggest campaign donor (Starkist Tuna) has its operations based.

Moreover, virtually EVERY ballot referendum in 2006 went Conservative;

(*) Race/gender-based preferences were voted down by better than 2 to 1 in very Blue Michigan.

(*) Gay Marriage was voted down on 8 of 9 ballot referendums and polled 2/3s of Americans against it.

Eminent Domain (supported by EVERY Liberal SC Justice and opposed by every Conservative) was restricted by vote (again by over 60% of the various electorates) in 11 of 12 jurisdictions.

Those are all in keeping with my own views on those issues and it's heartening to see the likes of Schumer and Emmanuel acknowledging that those people won't be "converted," so it's better to simply accept that "the people know best."

I agree for once. Conservative Democrats would be the best solution. Hillary is obviously the only choice.

Sorry,
I disagree big time. Conservative democrats suck. The democratic party needs more progressive/liberal democrats and not republican-light ones.

“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”

Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.

Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.

Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates — the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.

You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.

So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.

Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.

As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.

At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”

Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.

But here’s what I don’t understand: Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?

For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate says or does something that reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.

Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.

But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.

Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.

By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.

To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.

And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.

The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.

I wouldn't go so far as pining for the return of Southern Democrats circa 1960s and earlier...the nation can survive just fine without out-and-out racists like Jim Eastland, John Sparkman, Richard Russell...

That's not entirely true, Klubkleb, as the regular folks in places like Boston, Brooklyn, NY, Philly and other such northern garden spots, all opposed Liberal scams, or if you prefer "schemes" like Busing, etc., proving that those common folks were no less "racially sensitive" (I prefer that term over "racist") than their Southern cousins.

I knew only one single fireman who ever actually openly supported that kind of ham-handed social engineering, claiming that he was "happy to have his kids interact with those of different backgrounds and from different communities."

I'm proud to say that he was roundly shouted down, as ultimately were all the pro-busing folks in the north. Come to think of it, where are those folks now???

Sam Rayburn is a cherished American figure, as is, I believe, Zell Miller. In fact, so much so that no yankee (such as you or I) have any moral high ground upon which to suspect their motives. Again, I'm referring to the north's own long cherished history (largely supported by Liberals and Unionists) of segregated neighborhoods - New York, for instance, has long had some of the most segregated communities from "China Town," to "Little Italy," to Harlem & Bedford Suyvesant (black) to "Spanish Harlem" (103rd St - 124th St on the East Side) than any almost any other city in America.

A northerner who speaks piously of "anti-racism" never fails to bring a smile to my lips. Not that I think the northeastern Liberal or moderate is any MORE bigoted, or, as I like to say, "racially sensitive" than any other American, it's just that, in my experience, they aren't any LESS either.

I'd prefer politicians who have a healthy fear and revulsion for federalism and who value the strictly interpreted Constitution, with its emphasis on property rights, on preserving the "minority rights"/"property rights" of that hallowed minority known as the "landed gentry, and their affinity for very limited government and very powerful military and police functions.

"I disagree big time. Conservative democrats suck. The democratic party needs more progressive/liberal democrats and not republican-light ones." (BW)


Those "sucky Democrats" were responsible for almost all the gains the Democrats made in 2006!

They now comprise over 20% of the Democrats in Congress and they are a rather loud group with their own agenda that differs from Pelosi's and Reid's.

Look, I remain skeptical of any plan devised by guys like Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, BUT, they've seemed to come to the conclusion that trying to convert Americans to Liberalism is a poor strategy. That's MY VIEW too!

If over 50 years of virtually complete domination of BOTH the MSM and academia couldn't accomplish that, and the only thing Liberalism has to show for the effort is the emergence of (largely Conservative) Talk Radio
and FoxNews (though it's a CNN affiliate that has Glenn Beck on) and America STILL coming down on the issues the same way they did back in the 1950s (about 2 - 1 Conservative), why bother???

In other words, it appears that Schumer, Emmanuel and many other high ranking Democrats have come to realize that there isn't going to be any sizable "Liberal shift" in America any time soon.

So, they've adopted an "If you can't beat'em, join'em" ideological approach.

In Positively American Schumer warns against associations with what he called "fringe elements," apparently like MoveOn, etc., warning that in the long run those fringe elements do far more harm than good to the Party they support.

Ironically enough, Harold Ford Jr., warns of the same thing today.

The Schumer-Emmanuel strategy is a good one, an effective one and you don't hear ANYONE, not anyone from MoveOn, nor the HuffPoos, nor even the more trashy radicals at the D-Kos (the D-Kos is kind of the National Enquirer of radical sites) championing a strategy of running more Left-of-Center candidates in places down South or out West. In fact, it appears as though the Dems are geared to run even more Conservative Dems ("sucky Dems" in your parlance) in the coming elections!

You wanna win right?

So, would you rather run candidates who oppose Emminent Domain, oppose race/gender preferences, who oppose any kind of Amnesty or more open immigration system, and oppose gay Marriage and WIN, or would you rather run candidates who'd try and change America's mind on those issues and LOSE?

As David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute explained Barely, "The percentage of people diagnosed with prostate cancer who die from it is much higher in Britain than in the United States. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports on both the incidence of prostate cancer in member nations and the number of resultant deaths.

"According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 28 per 100,000 died of it.

"This means that 57 percent of Britons diagnosed with prostate cancer died of it; consequently, just 43 percent survived.

"Economist John Goodman, in "Lives at Risk," arrives at precisely the same conclusion: "In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die...

"...The American five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99 percent, the European average is 78 percent, and the Scottish and Welsh rates are close to 71 percent. (British data were incomplete.)

"* For the 16 types of cancer examined in the study, American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with only 47 percent for European men. Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent. "

SEE: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11052007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/uks_bad_medicine_901295.htm

Americans pay MORE for MORE healthcare, more innovative healthcare and BETTER healthcare.

MRIs are routine in America and rare elsewhere, very rae where offered "for free."

The fact that many Britons and others go undiagnosed with prostate cancer, etc. doesn't bolster an argument that that's a "better system."

Way to lie, just like your heroes, JMK.

***
The data, however, did not measure survival rates, the Commonwealth Fund asserted. Rather, the figures were taken from a chart showing incidences - the number of men diagnosed in a single year - and deaths from prostate cancer per 100,000 men that same year, 1997, the fund said.

For the United States, the incidence was 136 per 100,000 and deaths were 26 per 100,000 males. For the UK, the incidence was much lower, 49 per 100,000, but the deaths were roughly the same, 28 per 100,000.
***

So, the US *diagnosis* more cases, but just as many DIE. Wow, I wonder if the US diagnosis more for the HUGE MONEY made on cancer treatment, huh JMK? Do you think that's possible?

Oh, why do you lie when I can so easily humiliate you!

So you're saying, in effect, "But these go to ELEVEN!"

That's your argument barely....same as Spinal Tap's!

Fewer cases were diagnosed (at least in time) in England because they apparently aren't nearly as effective at diagnosis. That's why there were ONLY 26 deaths per 100,000 U.S. males, compared to 49 deaths per 100,000 in the UK.

In simple terms barely, 26/100,000 is significantly LESS than 49/100,000!

See how that works?

I know, I KNOW...."But these go to ELEVEN!"

(Hint) BOTH Rudy and David Gratzer (of the Manhattan Institute) are right.

Now, go READ http://www.nypost.com/seven/11052007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/uks_bad_medicine_901295.htm

Actually, my quotes are from the same article. You omitted them.

Tsk, tsk, tsk ... liar.

Actually, my quotes are from the same article. You omitted them.

Tsk, tsk, tsk ... liar.

WARNING: JMK HUMILIATION ALERT

Monkeyboy said: "In simple terms barely, 26/100,000 is significantly LESS than 49/100,000!"

For the United States, the incidence was 136 per 100,000 and deaths were ***26 per 100,000 males***. For the UK, the incidence was much lower, 49 per 100,000, but the deaths were roughly the same, ***28 per 100,000***.

LOL! JMK even lies with the facts right before his eyes! What do we believe JMK? Are you a retard or a liar?

BOTH!

Indeed, you're quotes agree with Gratzer, that "The percentage of people diagnosed with prostate cancer who die from it is much higher in Britain than in the United States....

"According to OECD data published in 2000, 49 Britons per 100,000 were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 28 per 100,000 died of it.

"This means that 57 percent of Britons diagnosed with prostate cancer died of it; consequently, just 43 percent survived.

"Economist John Goodman, in "Lives at Risk," arrives at precisely the same conclusion: "In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die...

"...The American five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99 percent, the European average is 78 percent, and the Scottish and Welsh rates are close to 71 percent. (British data were incomplete.)

"* For the 16 types of cancer examined in the study, American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with only 47 percent for European men. Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent."


Yes, that verdict is crystal clear....more Americans are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more survive due to that early detection (as proven by our 99% survival rate over the first five years) compared to the 47% 5 year survival rate for European males.

Thanks for finally agreeing!

Although, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that indeed "The percentage of people diagnosed with prostate cancer who die from it is much higher in Britain than in the United States."

Hey! Would you mind posting another one of your famous "charts" that proves that your initial contention was wrong all along?

It would make this as amusing (for me) as your inane "H-1B Visa arguments."

Whoa! TYPO.

I want to be fair, so, "Yes, that verdict is crystal clear....more Americans are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more survive due to that early detection (as proven by our 99% survival rate over the first five years) compared to the 47% 5 year survival rate for European males," SHOULD READ, "Yes, that verdict is crystal clear....more Americans are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more survive due to that early detection (as proven by our 99% survival rate over the first five years) compared to the 78% five year survival rate for European males.

Hyuk! I lied!

I said: "In simple terms barely, 26/100,000 is significantly LESS than 49/100,000!"

For the United States ... deaths were ***26 PER 100,000 males***. For the UK ... deaths were roughly the same, ***28 per 100,000***.

Hyuk! Now I'm so retarded I'm going to pretend like survival rates don't matter! Hyuk, if you want to IMPROVE HEALTH CARE, you DIAGNOSE MORE PEOPLE with a disease, and then FEWER OF THEM DIE BY PERCENTAGE because so many more of them were falsely diagnosed and given EXPENSIVE TREATMENTS!!!

Durrr, we should use SURVIVAL, we should use PERCENTAGE OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED!

I be a GEEENIUS!!!

Hyuk! I lied!

I said: "In simple terms barely, 26/100,000 is significantly LESS than 49/100,000!"

For the United States ... deaths were ***26 PER 100,000 males***. For the UK ... deaths were roughly the same, ***28 per 100,000***.

Hyuk! Now I'm so retarded I'm going to pretend like survival rates don't matter! Hyuk, if you want to IMPROVE HEALTH CARE, you DIAGNOSE MORE PEOPLE with a disease, and then FEWER OF THEM DIE BY PERCENTAGE because so many more of them were falsely diagnosed and given EXPENSIVE TREATMENTS!!!

Durrr, we should not use SURVIVAL, we should use PERCENTAGE OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED!

I be a GEEENIUS!!!

Hyuk! I lied!

I said: "In simple terms barely, 26/100,000 is significantly LESS than 49/100,000!"

For the United States ... deaths were ***26 PER 100,000 males***. For the UK ... deaths were roughly the same, ***28 per 100,000***.

Hyuk! Now I'm so retarded I'm going to pretend like survival rates don't matter! Hyuk, if you want to IMPROVE HEALTH CARE, you DIAGNOSE MORE PEOPLE with a disease, and then FEWER OF THEM DIE BY PERCENTAGE because so many more of them were falsely diagnosed and given EXPENSIVE TREATMENTS!!!

Durrr, we should not use SURVIVAL, we should use PERCENTAGE OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED!

I be a GEEENIUS!!!

Your quote fully agrees with what I quoted by those esteeemed researchers above;

""Economist John Goodman, in "Lives at Risk," arrives at precisely the same conclusion: "In the United States, slightly less than one in five people diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die...

"...The American five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99 percent, the European average is 78 percent, and the Scottish and Welsh rates are close to 71 percent. (British data were incomplete.)

YES, more Americans are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more survive due to that early detection (as proven by our 99% survival rate over the first five years) compared to the 78% five year survival rate for European males.

Barely, how can your being wrong be a "humiliation" for me?

You read the same data and still came to an erroneous conclusion.

As John Goodman noted, while 57% of those diagnosed with prostate cancer, die from prostate cancer, less than 20% of American males diagnosed with that disease, die from it.

Hyuk, I be too stupid ta see dat usin percentage be retarded!!!

Jus give ups on me, I gotsa go listen to Rush!

Barely, if you don't understand the percentages, you don't understand the argument.

That's OK (not to understand), but then just listen up and stop arguing with the facts.

The above articles prove that more Americans are diagnosed with various cancers (especially prostate cancer) and are diagnosed earlier than in Europe.

THAT'S why 99% of American men TREATED for prostate cancer survive the first five years, compared to ONLY 78% of European men diagnosed with that disease.

The ONLY reason European men survive at such a lower percentage is because many of them are diagnosed too late.

Americans right now PAY MORE because they GET MORE - they get MORE healthcare and they get MORE innovative healthcare.

You SEEM to be arguing that "poorer Americans don't deserve that and should get the same lower quality healthcare, along with rationing and visit & procedure restrictions as exist under every form of government-run healthcare in the world."

Well, I'd agree with that once we go to a "Universal (government-run) Healthcare system, because we'd be forced to cut costs, BUT I like the idea of employer covered healthcare.

My sister-in-law works for Health and Hospitals (1199) and her with her healthcare there are absolutely NO/ZERO copays, she can get any procedure done free....it's a great system....much better than mine.

Corporate America wants out from under insuring over 85% of Americans, and I fully sympathize with them....besides it would be good for investors (stock valuations would rise and so would dividends). So, I fully believe we'll ultimately be moving to a "Universal Healthcare Model," supplemented by private insurance, for those who wish to and can afford to avoid the rationing, the restrictions, etc.

To recap;

Are we going to get Universal Healthcare with rationing and visit and procedure restrictions, etc.?

YES.

Will it be better than the system of employer paid private insurance (at least for the over 85% insured) we have now?

NO.

Those above articles clearly prove that.