Like most people, I've been getting 'health care scare' emails, and after a string of replies that consisted solely of links to Snopes articles, I was sent a link to a Snopes article from a certain Dr. Janda. While it's good to see people slowly learning to do at least a little checking, the Snopes article only claimed that it was "correctly attributed," and didn't do any fact-checking on the content of the article.

Snopes had two versions of the piece he had written - the email forward version, and his original. I am not even going to bother reading the forwarded email text, since those inevitably get garbled, but rather the original text that was provided to Snopes.

The basic structure of his article (essay? writing? screed?) goes like this:

• Introduction to him as a doctor and expert
• Assertion that ObamaCare in came 2 parts, starting with the Stimulus bill
• Issues a warning that ObamaCare is as certainly dangerous like smoking
• Discusses Comparative Effective Research:
• ObamaCare cuts costs through rationing
• The FCCFCER is inhumane and overpaid
• There is a formula for Comparative Effective Research: Cost per treatment divided by number of years patient will benefit
• Cites Betsy McCaughey that the standard will have the effect that "if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, [you'll die]." Says this is on p.464 of the Stimulus
• The plan is the same models as in Britain
• The purpose of Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research is to slow development of meds and tech (HC bill Section 1181, p.502)
• Claims that the Stimulus Bill p 116, 442, 446 guides decisions at the time and place of care; defines penalties for breaking gov't protocol (Stim 366, 478, 511, 518) including prison; claims that Stalin did this.
• Claims section 102 of the HC bill illegalizes private insurance.
• Claims Obama didn't know about section 102
• Claims sec 1233 HC bill mandates counseling every 5 years (annual if chronic illness), and designed to end life sooner.
• Claims topics of these sessions include how to deny hydration, nutrition and initiating hospice care. Claims Obama "hates" prevention.
• Concludes the proposed system is "fascist".

Let's take this one piece at a time, shall we?

• Introduction to him as a doctor and expert
  Dr. Janda begins by telling us that he has "authored books on Preventative Health Care and Health Care Cost Containment." Now, I'm not sure why he decided to capitalize everything, but he has written books on preventative care and health care cost containment. That book was about cost containment in the context of sports injuries, not macro-level policy; so this is mildly untrue but I liken it to padding a résumé. Fine. He gets a pass because everybody on Amazon liked the book. Then he mentions he was presenting "Health Care Reform; The Power & Profit of Prevention" as a keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol in Washington, D.C. This is odd because that that title is often given as the title of the very text we're reading. Again, this is technically true, but why not just say, "I presented the following presentation"? Strange. Also, I couldn't find a record of this presentation, which is also odd because you'd think it'd be mentioned somewhere by someone for as important as he makes it sound.
  
  Summary:
  True, in the way that most résumés are true.
  


• Assertion that ObamaCare in came 2 parts, starting with the Stimulus bill
  He asserts that the Stimulus was the first part of the health care plan, but doesn't tell us anything about what it did. He cites page 152 (you can read it here), which is a continuation of §13405, "Restrictions on Certain Disclosures and Sales of Health Information" section, specifically the part about disclosures that are required if the hospital or whatnot uses electronic health records. This has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of a new arm of the U.S. Government.
  
  Now, a good writer would have simply told us what he was talking about. I am inferring here that, when he talks later about the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which is established by the Stimulus, he means that they are this first part of the Health Care bill.
  
  The problem is that he's conflating a research body with the creation of a Health Care System. This is especially bad because (as I detail below), the FCCCER is absolutely toothless; it has no power to mandate anything at all. Now, why he would lie about something like this, I have no idea. It really has no place in the argument other than maybe adding a little paranoia that Obama slipped something by us.
  
  Summary:
  False, and poorly written to boot.
  


• Issues a warning that ObamaCare is as certainly dangerous like smoking.
  I suppose there might be some creative parallel between smoking and a health care insurance reform bill, but this isn't it.
  
  Summary:
  Non-sequiturs and hyperbole are signs of weak writing. So far this is shaping up to be a pretty poor essay.
  
  
• Discusses Comparative Effective Research:
• ObamaCare cuts costs through rationing
  The biggest problem with the bill is how to pay for it, and I am honestly worried about that aspect myself, but rationing of care will happen no matter what plan is in place — right now, heath care is rationed away from people who aren't incredibly rich, and get sick (sadly, this is most people). Health insurance companies do things to get out of their responsibilities (pre-existing conditions, lifetime and yearly caps, etc.) and thereby ration heath care with little regard for the morality or even responsibility of their role as insurers. Not only does Dr. Janda not back up this claim with evidence, the very problem with the current system is that it is rationing health care in a way that makes every single person vulnerable to death-by-denied-claims.
  
  Summary:
  A red herring at best, an intentionally misleading lie at worst.
  


• The FCCFCER is inhumane and overpaid (or generally that $1.1B is too much money for research stimulus), and run by "ivory tower" bureaucrats.
  Here is the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council "provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system."
  
  Page 73 of the Stimulus Bill (§804 (b)) creates this Council with this purpose: "The Council shall foster optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources."
  
  The $1.1 Billion is money that is directed towards research, and one of this team's jobs is to direct that money to places that will keep the U.S. at the forefront of medical technology. That's a lot of money for a lot of white-collar jobs that patent a lot of high-value technology, which is I think an extremely good place to put stimulus money. The Council is also limited to use at most 1% of their total budget for staff and administrative support ((§804 (f)). 99% has to go to research.
  
  As to whether they're bureaucrats, the bill does state that they must be "senior federal officers or employees," but Dr. Janda omits the rest of the sentence. The full sentence is: "The Council shall be composed of not more than 15 members, all of whom are senior Federal officers or employees with responsibility for health related programs, appointed by the President, acting through the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the "Secretary"). The appointment by the President means that they are members of his Cabinet.
  
  As for who was chosen: They are mostly clinicians, but also have the Chief Policy Officer for the Center for Disease Control, a Rear Admiral, and other "that makes sense" places. All but 2 have M.D.'s. The qualifications also require that "[a]t least half of the members of the Council shall be physicians or other experts with clinical expertise" (§804 (d)(2)(B)), with senior members from seven various health care-related agencies including the VA ((§§804 (d)(2)(A)(i-vii)). Based on their credentials, and the continuing requirements for the members, the claim that they're just random government bureaucrats is also false.
  
  Finally, it is difficult to imagine how this entity could be inhumane, because their sole purpose is to fund research based on what they believe is most important to doctors. As noted below, they do not have the power to mandate any kind of care or procedure.
  
  Summary:
  All of the claims in that almost-incoherent paragraph are wild, terrible lies.
  


• There is a formula for Comparative Effective Research: Cost per treatment divided by number of years patient will benefit. Cited as "Section 9201 H.R. 1 Version of the Stimulus Bill."
  
  There is no Section 9201 in that bill. The phrase, "Federal Council" never appears in that bill. I can't find this formula anywhere on the Internet or in the bills — only in this chain mail. Moreover, the Council cannot force anybody to do anything to any patient, because the last thing the Stimulus section that established it has to say about it is this:
  
  (1) COVERAGE. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.
  
  (2) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. — None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates.
  
  Summary:
  A HUGE lie.
  
  
• Cites Betsy McCaughey that the standard will have the effect that "if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, [you'll die]." Says this is on p.464 of the Stimulus.
  There is no page 464 of the Stimulus bill, which is 407 pages long. Also, being diagnosed with various terminal diseases is already something that insurers deny coverage for all the time. That's part of the problem. That's why people are proposing reform.
  
  Also, Betsy McCaughey is a terrible, terrible person to cite about health care since she's been willing to lie about health care reform for a long, long time and never really stopped: she's the one who came up with those ridiculous death panels!
  
  Summary:
  Exploring bottomless new levels of calumny.
  


• The plan is the same models as in Britain.
  I haven't been able to find a clear yes or no on this; I heard somewhere that it's not that same (that it's less government-centric), but I can't cite where I heard that.
  
  Summary:
  Not sure. Given the track record of the essay so far it'd be a small miracle if it were true.
  


• The purpose of Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research is to slow development of meds and tech (HC bill Section 1181, p.502)
  That section says that the Center's mission is to "conduct, support, and synthesize research ... with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically." It then talks at length about how it will do that (via gathering official data, creating forums, etc.). The group is essentially a data-gathering and disseminating unit.
  
  How that inhibits development and research is anybody's guess since they aren't given any strong-arm abilities.
  
  Summary:
  False.


• Claims that the Stimulus Bill p 116, 442, 446 guides decisions at the time and place of care; defines penalties for breaking gov't protocol (Stim 366, 478, 511, 518) including prison; also claims that Stalin did this.
  Page 116 is about the promotion of heath information technology.
  Page 366 is about how hospitals can report their data using.
  None of these talk in any way about guiding medical decisions.
  Pages 442, 446, 478, 511, and 518 do not exist because the document is 407 pages long.
  
  Summary:
  False, and apparently Stalin is the new Hitler.
  


• Claims section 102 of the HC bill illegalizes private insurance and that Obama didn't know about section 102 when asked in an interview.
  In his essay (I'm using the term loosely at this point), Janda uses the following response from Obama to claim that he didn't know that the plan would illegalize private insurance: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about." But Dr. Janda omits the following: "I'll — let me just speak for the Obama administration. I have committed myself consistently to a very simple proposition: If you have health insurance, and you like it — and you have a doctor that you like — you can keep it. Period. And I won't, uh, sign a bill that somehow would make it tougher for people to keep their health insurance" (here's the source).
  
  Section 102 is on page 16 of the bill itself (which is here). It basically says that insurers' plans don't have to follow the health care rules (on cost, care, etc.) if the plan is grandfathered in by being active for 1 year beforehand. Dependents are allowed to be grandfathered in with the primary insured person. The insurer also can't jack up their grandfathered insurance plan coverage rates or reduce benefits after they're grandfathered in (§102 (a) 1 to 3). This doesn't apply to limited-benefit plans that I frankly don't understand in (§102 (b) 1 (B)). The following section (§111) is the rules that insurers have to follow for all their new (not grandfathered) plans.
  
  Summary:
  Wildly false, to the point where I wonder if they actually read this section or just picked a number at random.
  
  
• Claims §1233 HC bill mandates counseling every 5 years (annual if chronic illness), and designed to end life sooner. Also claims topics of these sessions include how to deny hydration, nutrition and initiating hospice care. I won't really go into this whole "death panel" thing much, because it has been disproven and discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
  
  Summary:
  No points for guessing — false.
  


• Claims the proposed system is fascist.
  Fascism is a lot of things. In short, it's highly eugenic, emphasizes government power, is corporate, and aggressive. I can almost see how Dr. Janda might see something like that in his distorted and frankly insane characterization of the health care bill. But unfortunately, that's all it is: insane.
  
  Summary:
  Justification for institutionalization.

GENERAL SUMMARY:

This is absolutely full of distortions and lies. And actually the more I read it, the more unhinged I realized it was. When I first read it, I thought it was at least relatively sane, in that it sort-of had a structure and didn't misspell things. But after really breaking it down and looking at the arguments, I have to say this person is either intentionally distorting the truth, is completely insane, or more likely is just like so many other Americans who'll believe anything they hear if it's said at high enough volume and justifies their most ludicrous fears.

Now, I've managed to hold a regular 40-hour-a-week job, plus some side freelance work, start setting up my new house — bought with help from the stimulus — write an album, and clean up the house from time to time, all while still learning all this stuff. And I'll tell you, it took me a whole lot more time to write than to read all this.

Yet somehow I don't think the people yelling at the town halls are taking the time to do even a fraction of the research I've done here. Hell, it took me as long as it did to get this written because it took forever to track down every ludicrous claim this quack misinformed doctor came up with, or that he was told. But I did this because I love my country, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let people like him screw up necessary reform by lying.

Be a patriot. Be informed. Forward this to whomever sent Dr. Janda's screed to you. Maybe it will eventually get back to him.

I would LOVE to see what he has to say.

Labels: conspiracy, David Janda, health care, idiots, lies

Labels: idiots, Obama, politics

What we need to talk about, what someone needs to talk about, particularly now, is our ever-deepening ignorance (of politics, of foreign languages, of history, of science, of current affairs, of pretty much everything) and not just our ignorance but our complacency in the face of it, our growing fondness for it. A generation ago the proof of our foolishness, held up to our faces, might still have elicited some redeeming twinge of shame—no longer. Today, across vast swaths of the republic, it amuses and comforts us. We're deeply loyal to it. Ignorance gives us a sense of community; it confers citizenship; our representatives either share it or bow down to it or risk our wrath.

Seen from a sufficient distance (a decade abroad, for example), or viewed through a protective filter, like film, or alcohol, there can be something almost endearing about it. It can appear quaint, part of our foolish-butauthentic, naive-yet-sincere, roughhewn spirit. Up close and personal, unromanticized and unfiltered, it's another thing entirely. In the flesh, barking from the electronic pulpit or braying back from the audience, our ignorance can be sobering. We don't know. Or much care. Or care to know. What do we care about? We care about auto racing and Jessica. We care about food, oh yes, please, very much. And money. (Did you catch the last episode of I Love Money?) We care about Jesus, though we're a bit vague on his teachings. And America. We care about America. And the flag. And the troops, though we're untroubled by the fact that the Bush Administration lied us into the conflict, then spent years figuring out that armor in war might be bookstores to lay our money down.

Wherever it may have resided before, the brain in America has migrated to the region of the belt—not below it, which might at least be diverting, but only as far as the gut—where it has come to a stop. The gut tells us things. It tells us what's right and what's wrong, who to hate and what to believe and who to vote for. Increasingly, it's where American politics is done. All we have to do is listen to it and the answer appears in the little window of the eight ball: "Don't trust him. Don't know. Undecided. Just because, that's why." We know because we feel, as if truth were a matter of personal taste, or something to be divined in the human heart, like love. I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don't believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about—constitutional law, for example, or sailing — a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don't believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who can tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers' speculation that's so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that's so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. "Way I see it is," a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, "if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us."

Labels: idiots, money, people, police

"Obama told the 20 or so of us at breakfast that 'his first trip as President would be to Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim country,'" Leary recalled.

"He then said when he got off [Air Force One], he would say 'xxxxxxxx' - which we, of course, didn't understand," Leary emailed. "He said that it was Indonesian (which he speaks) for, 'I am back, dudes.'"

"A few weeks ago an American I met at a friends house asked a much repeated query, 'Why do you the Muslims hate the Americans?' To which I answered in the same way as all the preceding instances in which this question was posed to me: 'We don’t hate the Americans, we might disagree with a certain US policy and dislike recent American actions in the Muslim world but we surely don’t hate the American people.'

The American who interrogated me was clearly not convinced with my answer and secretly I wasn't either. The truth is that at present the Muslims hate America and now, they hate not only its policymakers but most of the American people since they have proven recently without a shadow of doubt that they agree with their elite by voting back into office. [...]"

"What were you thinking when you threw the Qur'an in the toilet or when you used religion as a means of torture? I fail to see the efficacy of such actions in the so-called war on terror. These methods only point to a deep sickness in your society to which it will take decades for us and the rest of the world to understand its cause and to measure its destructive results. No, the question which someday will have to be answered is why, why do you the Americans hate us the Muslims so much?"

Labels: America, Catholics, diplomacy, idiots, movies, Obama, politics, religion

Labels: birds, idiots, neighbors, pets

Labels: high school, idiots, school, teenagers

Labels: Christians, idiots, politics, religion, school, science

CuckingFunt said:

Originally Posted by angel_luv

My thinking Senator Obama could be the anti christ is similar to someone looking at a tall person and wondering if they play basketball.

No.

No it's not.

Your thinking Obama could be the anti-Christ is more like looking at someone with a Super Mario Bros. t-shirt and wondering if they're going to anally and vaginally rape you, simultaneously, with your own amputated limbs.

Labels: God, idiots, Obama, religion, sports

I don't generally like Rand, but that was an excellent quote. It relates to something I missed in the debate (I missed the first few minutes). Holy crap, what an important 5 minutes! McCain proposed a fix to the mortgage crisis (followed up with details the next day). I was reading an article about it by Michelle Malkin - who is verrry far right - about it. Turns out - he wants to do what ACORN does. When did McCain start supporting ACORN and Obama stop? This is crazy. Here is another economist’s clarification of the various plans including McCain’s.

On another wholly unrelated note: It looks like Obama’s going to win (he would win even if he lost every toss-up state in the nation, according to the right-leaning RealClearPolitics), but I’m really worried about the negative tack that McCain’s camp is taking. In particular, I’m worried that they are going to whip up the less-sane voters to the point where they’ll become a poison to the country. Wild exaggerations about Obama’s associations with Ayers are getting to the point where when McCain says, "who is Barack Obama?", the audience has yelled back, "terrorist! " Even the NRO - bastion of right-wing thinking - is talking about how it’s going too far:

"Those who press this Ayers line of attack are whipping Republicans and conservatives into a fury that is going to be very hard to calm after November. Is it really wise to send conservatives into opposition in a mood of disdain and fury for a man who may well be the next president of the United States, incidentally the first African-American president? Anger is a very bad political adviser. It can isolate us and push us to the extremes at exactly the moment when we ought to be rebuilding, rethinking, regrouping and recruiting."

No campaign should surrender when they feel they’re right. That much is obvious. But it serves no good to the country (quite the opposite) to send your supporters into such a level of spite that they will hurt the nation because they are convinced that Obama really is a Muslim terrorist who hates America. I’m also very sad that McCain, who had very honorably not used his son’s service to further his political campaign has begun to do just that.

It is also disgusting to me that religion is being used to whip up this sentiment, both through fear (of Muslims) and faith (through prayers like this):

"O God, we are in a battle that is raging for the soul of this nation. You, O God, have raised up Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin for such a time as this ... Help them, O God, to strengthen our economy, to keep our taxes and spending low ... and grant them the privilege of being elected the next president and vice president."

Labels: idiots, John McCain, Obama, politics

Labels: idiots, joke

• The very barest outline of American history (i.e., 1776, 1812, the Civil War, 1917, 1941, Vietnam).
• How tax deductions work with a normal 1040.
• 
  

Labels: idiots, politics, voting

Labels: alcohol, guns, idiots, joke

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Labels: Bush, idiots

"We need the United States to lead rough-minded diplomacy, this includes direct engagement with Iran, similar to the meeting we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War"

- Barack Obama, 15 February, 2008

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

- George W. Bush, 15 May, 2008

Labels: Bush, idiots, Obama, politics, TV

Mr. Simpson, that does not even make sense. You think a secret radical Muslim would marry an atheist? Even if it was purely to piss off Christians? Sleeper agent jihadists are not known for their tolerance of Enlightenment principles!

Seriously, West Virginia, we are going to give you back to Virginia unless you can demonstrate that you can handle statehood again. And no one wants that.

Labels: idiots, money, Obama, politics, race

The Obamabots are under the delusion that if Obama wins the nomination (which he hasn't yet, by the way), all of us in the Hillary camp will forget about the misogyny and come over to their side. Make nice for the sake of party unity. Forgive all the abuse.

Nope.

Several of us have tried over the past couple of months to explain why that won't happen, but the Obamabots don't seem to understand. And I know why: it's because they don't take sexism seriously. When women say we will not reward misogyny, we’re laughed off. The Obamabots just tell more jokes and hurl more insults and write more crass articles about how the little lay-dees have their little pan-tees in a twist.

Labels: feminism, idiots, Obama, politics

Labels: idiots, immigration, Mexico, politics

I was totally out raged.

Try harder next time

Labels: blog, grammar, idiots

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities*. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that's their own fault.

Labels: idiots, politics, TV

Labels: Conservatives, idiots, Internet, Nazis, school

Labels: ambition, idiots, Obama, people, politics, president, voting

I want to make clear firstly that I do not peruse your scandal sheet. There are volunteers who read the Stranger and inform us when a campaign of anti-Christian slander has slithered from the sewer like a demon from Hell.

I thought you liberals hated interrogating "terrorists"? Oh that's right that is only for your "approved" religion of Islam and the Islam-o-fascists [sic] whom you believe to be somehow your "buddies".

...the Secular Fascist Left, been doing for 30 years to eventually annihilate Christianity, Christians, America, Faith, [etc.] ...

And rest assured this lawsuit WILL GO FORWARD, and your conspiracy will answer in OPEN CHRISTIAN COURT for your lies, defamations, slanders, [etc.], flat out meaness [sic] and rotteness [sic], and any other damn thing you have up your sleeve and haven't been vile enough to do yet!

Need I remind you, sir- glorious [volcanic] Mount Raineer [sic, should be Rainer] is a scant 60 miles away from your temple of degeneracy, and the LORD GOD will not be mocked!

IN THE NAME OF JESUS, HIS FATHER, SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT- Dale Richard Huff, SEMPER FI DO OR DIE!

Labels: God, government, idiots, Jordan, religion

Labels: Bush, history, idiots, politics

• Dodging snipers in Tuzla (Awesome parody 1, awesome parody 2)
  
• SCHIP exaggerations
• Exaggeration of White House experience
• "As far as I know", Obama not a Muslim
• Tax returns
  
• Negotiating peace in Northern Ireland
  
• McCain and I have experience
• "Obama Can't Win The General Election"
• Limbaugh
• "Significant" states
• Richardson's irrelevance
• The Kitchen Sink
• 3 AM
• Needs a superdelegate coup
• Bleeding superdelegates anyway
• Michigan and Florida hijinks
• Las Vegas hijinks
• The Iraq vote
• Not reading the NIE
• Not congratulating O's victories
• "Always asked the first question"
• The martyr vibe in general
• "Get Obama a pillow"
• Dual presidency concerns
• "Lobbyists are people"
• PAC money
• Disorganized, poorly-planned campaign
• Various Clinton admin. scandals (speculation, etc)
  
• Denounce AND reject (video)
  
• Calling Nevada/Texas a "win" for Clinton
• "Change you can Xerox"

Labels: idiots, politics

Trash it. Start over. It's crap.

Labels: anecdote, idiots, Impulse Nine, music, school, teaching

• iPods did not exist.
• The World Trade Center still existed.
  
• The Segway was just a rumor.
• USB 2.0 was brand new.
• Cell phones didn't have color screens.
• Google had a few dozen employees.
• The newest version of Windows was ME.

Labels: design, idiots, rant, work

Labels: idiots, Internet, sleep, webcomics

"You might support your government in a war against a country full of people you don’t know. But would you support a war that has a good chance of killing your e-mail friend Phlubanakawahaha and his entire family?"

Labels: blog, cartoons, computers, government, idiots, information, Internet, life, people, politics, power, random, reason, technology, war

"There are been several Gitmo detainees who've confessed under those circumstances. The issue is morality, though, and is water boarding unethical." - Ms. Proctor

"I find it curious that in the debate involving the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, there has been a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional coercion will compel a source to provide actionable intelligence, the only issues in contention being those legal and moral arguments in favor or in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive data to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence to suggest the contrary."

- Former USAF interrogator Steven M. Kleinman's Statement before the Senate 9/25/07

Labels: conspiracy, idiots, politics, torture

"There are been several Gitmo detainees who've confessed under those circumstances. The issue is morality, though, and is water boarding unethical." - Ms. Proctor

"I find it curious that in the debate involving the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, there has been a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional coercion will compel a source to provide actionable intelligence, the only issues in contention being those legal and moral arguments in favor or in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive data to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence to suggest the contrary."


- Former USAF interrogator Steven M. Kleinman's Statement before the Senate 9/25/07

Labels: idiots, military, politics, torture

"You know, liberalism is a greater threat to freedom, democracy and human rights than these detainees. Maybe we should consider a swap."

- Amy Proctor

"I think what's really notable about this is just the incredible petty cruelty and dehumanizing aspect of all of this. Detainees are punished for tearing a sheet or for very, very minor infractions."

-Jennifer Daskal, Human Rights Watch

That said, the sum total of my experience suggests the most effective means of conducting interrogations—and by effective, I mean achieving consistent success in obtaining accurate, comprehensive, and timely information—is through what has been frequently described as a “relationship-based” model. Let me emphasize that this is far more than just establishing rapport; it involves the pursuit of operational accord. Employing non-threatening principles of persuasion and enlightened cultural finesse, the interrogator seeks to establish a productive, nonadversarial relationship wherein the source perceives his interests to be best served by engaging cooperatively with the interrogator.

Since issues relating to coercion and torture continue to occupy centerstage in the public debate over this country’s interrogation policy, I feel compelled to briefly address this issue, especially as it relates to the question of effectiveness. I find it curious that in the debate involving the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, there has been a pre-supposition that physical, psychological, and/or emotional coercion will compel a source to provide actionable intelligence, the only issues in contention being those legal and moral arguments in favor or in opposition. To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive data to support that supposition and considerable historical evidence to suggest the contrary."

- Former USAF interrogator Steven M. Kleinman's Statement before the Senate 9/25/07; Emphasis mine

Labels: evil, idiots, politics, torture, war, women