Aug
12
2009

Gingrich: “there is a world that works, and one that doesn’t”

The world that fails?  Government programs.  Obama was not mistaken when he compared the quality of private services (FedEx) and government (Post Office) to health care – DOH!  Correct!  Government healthcare sucks and WILL suck!  Gingrich uses this example, plus the difference between private banking knowing your unique PIN, and the Social Security Admin not recognizing the same SSN used over 40 times.  Enjoy the vids.



32 Comments+ Add Comment

  • I wish Gingrich would move into the background and just ghost write for less hated (by the left) politicians.
    His time as minority whip, and the associated exposure in the MSM has the liberals in our country convinced he has horns and a pointy tail (in my experience, your mileage may vary). They won't address his thoughts, which are frequently very insightful.

  • Insightful comments by Newt Gingrinch.
    Oh yeah, Newt, right wing, family values, icon:
    Gingrich has been married three times. He married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old. She was seven years his senior at 26 years old.[29][30] They had two daughters and divorced in 1981. Jackie Battley Gingrich supported him through graduate school and two unsuccessful congressional campaigns. She had undergone uterine cancer surgery during the successful 1978 campaign, which Gingrich referenced in speeches. Eighteen months later, they separated. While in the hospital recovering from another uterine operation, according to his friend Lee Howell, “Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of ‘out of it,’ and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.” According to Howell, friends in her church had to raise money for her and her daughters. Later, Jackie went to court for adequate support, before they divorced. In his financial statement, Gingrich reported providing $400 per month, plus $40 in allowances for his daughters. Gingrich said he was unable to afford more. The same financial statement listed his expenditures for “food/dry cleaning etc. (one person)” as $400.[31]
    In 1981, six months after his divorce was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther. He remained married to Ginther until 2000, when they divorced. Shortly thereafter, Gingrich then married Callista Bisek, with whom he was conducting an extra-marital affair at approximately the same time he was leading the Congressional investigation into allegations that Bill Clinton lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    Newt, ethics icon:
    On January 21, 1997 the House voted overwhelmingly (395 to 28 ) to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The house ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it had disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
    There is no end to the hypocrisy of the christianist right when it comes to their own.

  • That’s the second time you’ve accused me of being a hypocrite without substantiation. I think I’ll start keeping count. Did I call him a) a family values icon, b) an ethics icon, or c) a Christian? Keep em coming Louis. I need to learn how to be fair like you.
    All you’ve done is prove my point exactly. You’ve engaged in ad hominem attacks and failed to address the content of his thought.

  • >> LOUIS: Oh yeah, Newt, right wing, family values, icon:
    So do you think that Newt’s personal life invalidates his ideas on government? Do you think that his ethical reprimands mean that his ideas are wrong, esp. on other subjects?
    Are you willing to apply these rules to your own ideologues?
    I agree with you, he has not been a paragon of virtue by any means. But has he played the hypocrite and preached those values that he broke? If he did, of course, he should be condemned as a hypocrite. But I do NOT think that it is hypocritical for a conservative Christian to support men with good ideas but questionable character in the public arena, though perhaps it is risky and gives the appearance of hypocrisy. Esp. when his ideas are as excellent as Newt’s.
    I agree, we want men of personal virtue in office, esp. if we espouse public virtue. However, I would also like to have a man with good ideas in office. If I can’t get both in one package, I’ll settle for good ideas, since I don’t make a man’s personal morality the primary litmus test for office.
    I’d rather have a surgeon who knows what he is doing, even if he is a tax dodger, rather than an incompetent one who is honest. The ideal candidate with both skill and honesty would be even better. YMMV.

  • >>JAMES: All you’ve done is prove my point exactly. You’ve engaged in ad hominem attacks
    You are right, Louis’ disgust at perceived (or real) hypocrisy on the right has caused him to miss and evade the point entirely – that Obama himself, in a Freudian slip, admits that government programs suck compared to free market solutions.
    Questioning our character and Newt’s, though they both may be questionable, is clearly an ad hominem – a logical fallacy that does not belong in reasoned discussion of the issues.

  • OH MY!
    Completely off topic, but thought you’d want to sink your teeth into this
    Huffington Post is breaking news with a memo showing Obama and Big Pharma have been full of lies. It details the quid pro quo between the two.
    Front page.
    Did I mention Huffington Post!?!
    You KNOW it’s bad as a lib when the HuffPo is on you…

  • Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal

  • What an effing hypocrite you are daniel! I well remember how you condemned Barney Frank (and his ideas) merely because he's gay. You claimed then that his supposed "immorality" disqualified him. It's soooooo convenient to condemn liberals when they fail to live up to your so-called values, but you give conservatives a pass merely because they agree with you. Thus, gays are condemned out of hand while straights can cheat on their wives, steal, get divorced, etc., and it's the "content of their thought" that's important. No wonder I refuse to engage in "substantive" discussion. I've given up on the christianist right. I'm convinced I can't get a fair shake from you guys. And, frankly, I just don't believe your protests to the contrary.

  • >> LOUIS: You claimed then that his supposed “immorality” disqualified him.
    I don’t think so. I think you’re making stuff up. I think adulterers are as bad as gays in the immorality department. Does that disqualify them from office? I don’t think I said that. I think Barney Frank is dishonest AND has bad (liberal) ideas. The fact that he is gay and ran a male prostitution ring out of his home is just further evidence that he’s not fit for office.
    >> LOUIS: It’s soooooo convenient to condemn liberals when they fail to live up to your so-called values
    Dishonesty in office IS condemnable, on either side. You don’t see me defending the SC Governor. I support Gingrich’s great ideas.
    AND YOU are still avoiding the real argument by going off on a tangent. This isn’t about Gingrich, it’s about Obama admitting that government programs suck, all the while trying to sell us on the biggest government program in history. It shows the illogic of his position in spades (racial slur not intended ;)

  • It is true that it is easier to condemn a sin that you don't have a temptation for. But promiscuity, adultery and homosexuality are still sins, even though all are 'natural' inclinations for people.

  • Hi Daniel:
    Gingrich is wrong about government programs, as evidenced by the clearly superior (to ours) health care systems the rest of the western industrial societies have. Also, I don’t think Barney Frank was running a gay prostitution ring. His partner did but there is no reason to think Frank was involved, as I remember. He’d have been prosecuted otherwise.
    your friend
    Keith

  • Is stupidity, ignorance, and self-righteousness sins? If so, you better watch out!

  • Forget it, Keith, such fine distinctions, no matter how just, are lost on the bigoted. Besides, he's lying.

  • Louis, if he's lying, and not you, then you should provide links to show where he said what you claim he said. Then everyone can see that you're right. Simple, no? As it is, you've left a lot unsubstantiated. The wife cheaters get a free pass? From whom? Are you saying that I *shouldn't* address the content of thought from those I disagree with morally? Are you suggesting that I *should* seek to have a Christian run government? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen you say that people should leave their religion out of political decisions. I, personally, won't speak for anyone else here, base my voting on what I think a person will do towards the governance of the country and the welfare of the people. I think Sanford's a liar and a cheat and can't be trusted with governance. I wouldn't vote for him. I think Barney Frank is a liar and a cheat and I wouldnt' vote for him. I think Gingrich is a liar and a cheat, and I wouldn't vote for him.
    That doesn't mean that I will be dismissive of their thoughts. Nor yours.
    I'll continue to address you one post at a time.
    Keith, saying that socialized healthcare systems are clearly better than ours begs the question. Most people don't agree with you (polls indicate that), and the most cited source for that was a farcicle UN study that ranked the US #37. Why farcicle? Look at their standards of evaluation. It doesn't favor *health* or *care*, it favors socialized medicne, and ranks countries with much much worse health care ahead of the US. Again, that begs the question. If our system is so clearly better, why do people leave Canada to come to the US for urgent care? And Britain? What about cancer survival rates? Are those things so easily dismissed out of hand, so that the other countries have "clearly superior" healthcare? I would suggest not.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
    Oh, and more hits for Obama from the left. OUCH.
    Tom Tomorrow, liberal for sure, and cartoonist on Salon.com gives us this gem:
    http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/08/04/tomo/

  • Hi James:
    You wrote: Keith, saying that socialized healthcare systems are clearly better than ours begs the question. Most people don't agree with you (polls indicate that), and the most cited source for that was a farcicle UN study that ranked the US #37. Why farcicle? Look at their standards of evaluation. It doesn't favor *health* or *care*, it favors socialized medicne, and ranks countries with much much worse health care ahead of the US. Again, that begs the question. If our system is so clearly better, why do people leave Canada to come to the US for urgent care? And Britain? What about cancer survival rates? Are those things so easily dismissed out of hand, so that the other countries have "clearly superior" healthcare? I would suggest not.
    My argument is this: the other major countries provide health care with results at least as good as ours, with at least as much satisfaction as we enjoy, and they get this for half the per capita cost! That's pretty clear superiority if you ask me.
    your friend
    Keith

  • 10/14/2008:
    And I quote:
    me:"And why the repeated use of "gay" to describe Frank?(in a post on the banking crisis)"
    daniel: "Because that is another negative feature of his character – that he is not only a liberal, he is an outspoken supporter and practitioner of sexual perversion.
    "The fact that we have people of dishonesty and *unrepentant* sexual sin in office (just as bad as those adulterers that keep coming up in the news) is another reason that our nation is in trouble, because such people can't really give us wisdom when their characters are so polluted."
    This directly contradicts what he says about Gingrich. How can such an immoral and corrupt man be worthy of giving us the benefit of his "great ideas," of advising those in power or appearing on tv to pontificate about politics?
    daniel is employing a double-standard and is lying about it, a fact I have encountered over and over again when it comes to conservative christianists: they are willing to give their own a pass while coming down like a ton of bricks on everyone else. More evidence? Both Sanford and Senator Engsign called on Clinton to resign because of his sexual escapades and yet refuse to do so themselves. Another interesting fact: "red" states, states most packed with fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, have the highest out-of-wedlock teenage births along with high divorce rates, yet they are the loudest when it comes to blaming gays for it.
    Scribes and pharisees, hypocrites all!
    btw: a simple search, using the search engine on this page, brought up the reference in less than a minute.

  • Keith, what's your sourcing? I'd be interested to look at it, but the only study I've seen that says anythign like what you're saying is the debunked UN one. If you're basing it anecdotally, then I hope you're aware there's plenty of anecdotal evidence going the other way. I find the "cost per capita" thing particularly suspect if you combine it with the quality of care.
    Here's one that seems solid but refutes your general claims:
    http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4952542
    And here's one that I think demonstrates well why high costs are attached to good care, and IMO, well worth it:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/289936.php
    But like I said, I'm happy to look at the reasons for your claims. As broad stroke general opinions, I disagree with them based on the evidence I've presented here and elswhere. If there's good evidence, I'd be happily swayed. On the face of it, I think there's plenty of room for improvement in our system. I just don't think the European or Canadian models have anything to admire.
    I do think there's some great ideas here:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204
    Louis:
    I'll let Daniel speak for Daniel (I'm sure he'd appreciate that). I will say that a link to where you quote from would be helpful, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
    Personally, I think everyone's character is polluted, to some degree or another, that's why I'll continue to try to address the idea or act, rather than the person (else no one would be worth listening to at all, and I'd get awfully bored).
    You point out that ""red" states, states most packed with fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, have the highest out-of-wedlock teenage births along with high divorce rates,"
    But you fail to connect evangelicals and fundamentalists to teenage births and high divorce rates. This is again, a problem where you paint people with overly broad brush strokes. Unless you think everyone in a red state is automatically a Christian? I doubt that. :)
    Even the well documented "Christian church has the same divorce rate as everyone else" things don't hold up too well when you look at cross tabs. I've not seen a poll that showed that people believe they've been saved (born again, are going to heaven… the wording changes by poll), attend church regularly, believe the Bible is the Word of God, and married someone with the same beliefs have a high divorce rate. It actually plummets with those things. And I submit that if you let Christianity self define, then those things are a minimum demonstration of Christian belief (of things that are generally polled).
    "yet they are the loudest when it comes to blaming gays for it."
    I would love it if you could provide a quote here. I can't for the life of me think of anyone, even on the fringe, that's blaming gays for divorce and teen pregnancy (I'd go further, and tear apart such claims on logical grounds, but I'm not sure anyone is even making them).

  • >> LOUIS quoting ME: *unrepentant* sexual sin in office (just as bad as those adulterers that keep coming up in the news) is another reason that our nation is in trouble, because such people can't really give us wisdom when their characters are so polluted."
    You might notice that I said 'unrepentant' – Frank is not repentant about his sinful life of homosexuality, yet Gingrich has expressed contrition about his mistakes.
    I agree with you, I am somewhat giving Gingrich a pass (special pleading), but I do think that his ideas are superior and beg for special pleading, in the same way that you might claim we should listen to Paul Tillich, who notoriously cheated on his wife with many women.
    You may notice that neither Aaron nor I give all conservatives with moral failing a pass. That is because the primary principle here is that this secondary consideration may be overruled by the importance of a person's ideas, as far as considering their positions is concerned.
    I reject Frank because his IDEAS and public performance of his duties suck, and his personal morality, though not a primary reason to not listen to him, is *corroborative* evidence against him.
    So in summary, though you may find this approach disingenous, I do not.
    Frank is different from Gingrich in that he is
    – unrepentant
    – has bad ideas (begging the question, you might accuse)
    – has public reponsibilities that he failed in
    While Gingrich was convicted of ethics violations (and which Frank most undoubtedly should be for his Fanny Mae cronyism), which I do not excuse, I don't think that Gingrich's public policy can be criticized as ineffectual and disastrous, like Franks'.
    Anyway, I grant you that I may provide special pleading for Gingrich, but I think that the superiority of his ideas, which are founded in the ideas that made the west great (i.e., they are not just HIS ideas), and the fact that few are articulating them as well as he, means that I think he may be in some sense excepted from being rejected based on his personal life.
    As I said, the personal life is merely a secondary consideration, that in Franks' case compounds his unworthiness. In Gingrich's case, it merely reduces his worthiness, but the strength of his intellect and ideas, which are my primary concern, carry the day.
    I therefore do not find my position hypocritical. I'm sure you disagree. Have fun with that.

  • I'll let Daniel speak for Daniel (I'm sure he'd appreciate that). I will say that a link to where you quote from would be helpful, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
    Gee, thanks, that's white of you. Do you know how to click on a hotlink? I provided one that led to daniel's comment. You might have to scroll down a bit to find it, but it's there. Hint: 10/14/2008.
    I would love it if you could provide a quote here. I can't for the life of me think of anyone, even on the fringe, that's blaming gays for divorce and teen pregnancy (I'd go further, and tear apart such claims on logical grounds, but I'm not sure anyone is even making them).
    Okay, I'll you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read your friend daniel's comments (though you claim to have followed this blog for a year or so), so I'll provide yet another hotlink (hint: pass your cursor ((the arrow that moves around the screen)) over the highlighted words and, when it turns into a hand, click it with the left side of your mouse): "Gay marriage = higher divorce rates". I eagerly await your attack on his fallacious and bigoted argument.

  • What's there to say? I find you and your way of thinking as repulsive and opaque as you undoubtedly find mine. Nothing you say can surprise me. You merely prove my point that you and your allies get a pass – morally and politically – while everyone else is condemned to the nth degree. Fundamentalist and evangelical christianists are really a contemptible lot.

  • btw: If you want a completely list of the hate-mongering, bigoted, misinformation re: gays go to here for a list of hotlinks to articles by the masters of this blog. When you go through it, you'll be stunned (well, maybe not) by the range and depth of the evil promoted. "Repulsive" is a word easily typed, but it barely indicates the depth of feeling your side brings up in me. How does one argue with radical evil? It is beyond rationality, and can only be fought. Keep that in mind when you demand "substantive" arguments from me.

  • Hi James:
    Cancer survival rates can be misleading (see this link: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63044064.html). But even so, the canadian results compared well with US rates and–I can't stress this enough–they pay about half what we pay per person. They could provide more care than they do and still pay much less than we do. There is every theoretical reason to conclude that free markets will not be efficient in health care what with health care not satisfying very many of the assumptions economists use to prove market efficiency. Also, private insurers have a strong incentive to reduce the risk in their risk pool by denying coverage, which means they have to divert resources from health care to screening out potential claimants and marketing.
    The stats I was referring to were infant mortality and life expectancy, where so-called socialized medicine seems to out perform US medicine and–I must reiterate–at half the per person cost.
    your friend
    Keith

  • Good stuff!
    Now we're getting into some meat. I'm going to challenge you on an assumption:
    "There is every theoretical reason to conclude that free markets will not be efficient in health care what with health care not satisfying very many of the assumptions economists use to prove market efficiency."
    Free markets aren't designed to provide efficiency. Free markets are designed to provide what people want. Right?
    But we don't have a free market in health insurance, do we? For example, if you live in Illinois, can you buy an insurance package that's offered by a company in Virginia? Is it possible to boy insurance coverage ala carte, or have federal and state mandates required that insurance companies must provide things that people don't need and will never use. For example, my wife and I both pay into a private insurance group, both by payroll deduction and employer contribution. That group offers three different choices, each of which has abortion coverage. I will never get an abortion, and neither will my wife. Why do we have to pay for that? The answer is because we don't have a free market, and that is a large part of why costs rise to the individual so precipitously… legislators are free with other peoples' money.
    I found the link on cancer survival interesting, but unpersuasive, because it didn't go the next step (and I couldn't find anything that did). The standard measurement on cancer survival is at that 5 year mark. The study claims that the US number is misleading because they detect it earlier. But don't oncologists across the board state that early detection is the key to successful treatment and recovery? That's why we have screening for common types. If you can find an adjusted study that shows some sort way to take into account the early detection in time, but somehow doesn't fudge the idea that early detection is actually a good thing, which equalizes the two, it'd be a step in the right direction, but on the next level of question, that link seems to support what I'm saying. Survival rates are higher. And someone is grabbing at a pretty poor straw to dismiss that.
    I'd likewise be interested in viewing the infant mortality and longevity numbers. You must know, that hand in hand with socialized medicine is higher abortion rates. Killing babies before their counted might well adjust that first number. I don't know this, it's a guess. Reporting and numbers that show the two or can be found for the same countries in roughly the same time period may be helpful in unravelling that. (Then there's a whole other issue of population stability which this is tied to, which goes far afield but it's tangent connection to this shouldn't be ignored… the FEW babies they're having survive, what are the variables involved there, and is the trade off worth it?)
    Likewise, I'd be curious to look at life expectancy number. Part of why health care is expensive in America is that we spend a lot of time, money, and energy in treating the elderly. Socialized medicine countries do not. I don't know your relationship with your parents and grandparents… or if that matters one whit to you… my wife and I are already very financially committed to keeping our ailing relatives alive. It's not a question of if. We respect life and take seriously our responsibility to our family.
    If that number really is lower, then it either means we're spinning our wheels a bit, or that there's some endemic reporting corruption from the beaurocracy.
    I guess I should ask if you know one more thing that's certainly intertwined. Do you know the mechanisms by which those countries keep their costs low? I do. I wouldn't make any of the trade offs. I'm just curious if you can enumerate them in a straight forward manner.

  • Louis,
    Thank you for the link. I read titles through and found only one that indicated violence against gays, which was a major point you made in one thread. That's the one warning of the rise of Islam in the UK and the related gay (and Christian and Jew) attacks. Islam has a consistent and strong record of violence against gays. Sadly, there are times when Christians in the past ignored vast swaths of Jesus' teaching to do the same. An important distinction between the two is that for the Christian, such violence is not codified in religious texts, for the Muslim, it is. And yes, I'm very familiar with the Old Testament. If you'd like, I'd be happy to either point you to some good "how to read the bible" resources or have the discussion about that directly. That's a rabbit trail I'm very happy to go down.
    Twice in your post, you use the word "evil" to describe the list of articles and I imagine, the people behind them. What is the source of your moral code, and what is its rational grounding? I mean, what standard do you use to describe "evil"? Is it just your gut feel? Or is there something more?
    Repulsive I can understand. That's a term of strong disagreement.
    Evil is a moral distinction, and I'm not sure you use it in a rational manner.
    I'm also curious if you'd remove articles like this from your broad evil declaration:
    http://www.wholereason.com/2008/03/the-churchs-hom

  • James wrote:
    I would love it if you could provide a quote here. I can't for the life of me think of anyone, even on the fringe, that's blaming gays for divorce and teen pregnancy (I'd go further, and tear apart such claims on logical grounds, but I'm not sure anyone is even making them).
    When you fulfill this promise I will address your concerns voiced above.

  • >> LOUIS: I can't for the life of me think of anyone, even on the fringe, that's blaming gays for divorce and teen pregnancy
    You see, to my knowledge, no one here has ever said that. The problem is, conservatives are often not clear enough, and liberals hear through their 'hate and conspiracy' mindsets.
    Even the article on Gay Marriage = Higher Divorce rates said nothing about gay marriage affecting hetero's at all. It just said that gays are less faithful to partners, and have a lower view of fidelity, in general, so it would FURTHER dilute the mess of divorce that hetero's have created through their own abandonment of biblical values.

  • 1. That was James speaking, not me.
    2. You've already proven your intellectual and moral bankruptcy. I refuse to have anything to do with you.

  • Hi Daniel: If the conservative argument was that gay marriage will increase the divorce rate BECAUSE there would be a large number of gay divorces adding to the rate, this argument is IMO a dishonest one. People who don't think gay marriages should even exist do NOT think the break up of those marriages should be avoided. The only reason to make the argument you allude to is to mislead people into thinking that gay marriages will increase the number of heterosexual divorces.
    your friend
    Keith

  • Sure, happy to Louis:
    First, Daniel speaks rightly… that article is not tieing heterosexual divorce to gays. That would be illogical. The only plausbile scenario I see where homosexuality could contribute to heterosexual marriage is where one of the heterosexual partners isn't (heterosexual).
    Likewise, I'm not familiar with any ways for homosexual activity to lead to teen pregnancy (I mean, I could imagine it… but that'd be a stilted scenario to say the least…).
    Then Keith speaks very rightly, that it's a bit off to argue that homosexual marriage will contribute to divorce. It may be true. The conjecture might be supportable, but I think it misses something very important. Right now there is no normalized mechanism to support stable and long term homosexual relationships. Based on my experience, long term monogomous homosexual relationships are MUCH more common that people think, but both the homosexual and heterosexual cultural mileu paints homosexuals as free wheeling, one night standing, and constant casual sex having. If gay marriage, or even civil union, were to become a reality, I think there would be a lot more room for both cultures to recognize and lift up stable, loving, and supporting relationships. So the underlying support to assume that homosexual marriage would lead to higher divorce rate would erode, IMO.
    Keith,
    I think you actually supported my comment abuot cancer screening again. You introduced a red herring (screening from birth to grave), but again, we're talking about real life examples so straying is not helpful to the situation. That mortality rate you give? Another way of saying that is the mortality rate is 25% higher in the UK. That doesn't sound so good, does it?
    We agree on the abortion thing. Are you unaware of people having children that are unlikely to survive long or at all, based on their belief of the sanctity of life and a living and active God? I know that my wife and mine's OBGYN/Pediatrician began to argue with us in the phase of discussion where we addressed possible birth defects, when we expressed a no-arguments allowed view that we would carry any child to term. Should our child have been born with any number of medical problems, he would have contributed to the infant mortality number. If we had aborted him, he would not have.
    Of note, my niece JC just underwent her 10th heart surgery in her 3.5 short years. Her smile is beautiful, her spirit strong, and the doctor said this is likely her last visit until her likely early need for a pacemaker, in the neighborhood of her early 60's. These problems were detected in the 3rd trimester, and abortion was an option. Her mom made a bold and life affirming choice. Her family has all had a part in making sure that JC was taken care of, and all the bills got paid.
    "I question this because my moms "very close friend" Hans is from the Netherlands,"
    TMI? ;)
    "and HIS elderly mother with Altzheimers gets incredibly good care all paid for by the government. But if we provide MORE care for our old and yet THEIR old have loner life expectancies, then we must be doing something wrong."
    Right. If/then. I'm just not sure that the anecdote is useful. I'm sure you've seen the news out of the UK run senior care center where rats had gnawed at a number of the patients?
    I'm interested in a deeper comprehensive (or opposing view points, but still deeper) look at both the birth rate and the senior care thing. Anecdote is too easy to support either way.

  • >> KEITH: If the conservative argument was that gay marriage will increase the divorce rate BECAUSE there would be a large number of gay divorces adding to the rate, this argument is IMO a dishonest one.
    Well, we're getting off topic on this post, but thank you for starting this sentence with "if" :D.
    But I summarized what I thought was the argument being made this way:
    "The gay idea of marriage has less to do with fidelity, and more to do with social legitimization. And *because* it has less to do with fidelity, sanctioning gay marriage results in the degradation of marriage, because gay marriage won't emphasize the most important parts of marriage – fidelity and a healthy, consistent environment for childhood development."

Leave a comment

You must be logged into post a comment.