My YouTube Podcasting Has Erupted

This is the first of the podcasts I’ve been cutting over the past few days.

It’s a lot of fun to switch gears as a broadcaster into new mediums.

Though it’s become clear to me that the fun part of doing the recordings is getting addictive versus the boring part of doing the editing.

These are going to get a bit … wild … in coming updates.

If you’re catching me here then consider linking up with me over on the YT as well.

Glenn Beck & The Right-Wing Media

(WATCH VIDEO: Crooks & Liars “Glenn Beck ‘You’re Going To Have To Shoot Them'”)

I see Glenn Beck as actually dangerous, and not just abrasive and dishonest like other right-wing media pundits.

I first became mildly aware of Beck when he was scathing the Bush White House, but back then he never ever called himself “conservative” and only called himself “libertarian.” Today he has fashioned himself a New Media Joe McCarthy and wants to teach the children of America a distorted and fictitious version of U.S. History.

What has actually risen to the level of public danger is centered on the TV show aspect of what he has done with his career. If anyone doesn’t already know he has mocked setting people on fire, shown a shaky rape video for no reason beyond fear mongering and to cap it all off he called a sitting president a racist on live TV.

Because television gives the illusion of credibility putting the character (I believe he is playing everyone, he said so in an interview around when he got all freaky) of Glenn Beck out there has sent horrible and extremely dangerous repercussions into the nation that can never be taken back.

Without pulling out a pack of URLs it’s quicker to just say that historically the U.S. has kind of “self-policed” this kind of extremism and incitement to violence disguised as free speech when it has happened before and always the figure that resembles Glenn Beck of today had a fall from grace. Usually getting fired. The best recent example is “Dr.” Laura getting the axe: she went into something from a KKK rally and that was the “the line.”

It sounds too simple, I know, but the most serious offender here is News Corp and Fox News.

Glenn Beck is only especially dangerous because his bosses won’t fire him no matter what “line” he crosses. If you minus Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers from this situation then Beck would have been canned for being disrespectful to a sitting president or too libel for his “here’s some violence, but don’t do violence” message he delivers regularly. Since this heartless media empire keeps him alive the kind of normal “quality controls” are not coming into play.

In the wake of the Tucson shooting, another act of domestic terrorism that the mainstream media refuses to label as such, and the moving speech delivered by President Obama there is a strong need to assess ourselves in our words and also more deeply to our mind state. This cannot, however, negate the need for people to speak their opinions about the current state of the nation.

America is on a road of a long, slow decline into moral ambiguity and a complete lack of ethics, and Glenn Beck combined with Fox News and the tea party is the first step toward this destruction of all that is good and decent in America. I don’t say these things to get a rise out of anyone or to single out Glenn Beck, but rather only because I see these words as the simple truth.

If Beck and those similar to him would only stop the incitement to violence, racism and bigotry then I would never raise issue with them beyond to merely disagree. Since this next evolution of political dialogue looks more like McCarthyism and Nazism combined I simply refuse to call it anything else.

America The Hateful (Cyber-Harassment)

I called in to a radio show tonight to express my disgust for the current state of political debate in America today.

Alan Colmes of Fox News Talk has this late night / evening political talk show that has some of the lightest call screening in all of the talk medium, let alone that he is working under Fox. Many doubt it but he is a liberal, I would think of him as the kind of liberal who shops at only Wal-Mart. We might call him the “token liberal” of the opinion-media produced under the Fox mantle.

Here is my fan-script / transcript:

ERIC IN SANTA CRUZ: I want to talk about hate. I think there is a lot of hate out there, and I’m part of it on the left.

COLMES: You’re part of it?

ERIC IN SANTA CRUZ: Well, I’m part of it in that I get upset. I hear you doing it on the [phone] lines too. People will say something and you come back at them. And I just wanted to say that it’s wrong. No matter who does, whether it’s me or whatever, it’s wrong. We hate got to hating each other all the time. You can think whatever you want. I can even call someone a “racist,” or whatever, but you got to find a way to not hate people as individuals and just have your point of view.  It’s all over the internet, it’s going on the [Alan.com] chat room right now, it’s all over talk radio right now…. You start making it about people, and not about opinions; that’s when people get upset and we don’t know what to do. That’s when things get out of hand, people start talking about coming over to your house … You were right about the Tea Party, I think there’s racists — racism — in it, but …

COLMES: Well you don’t fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water.

ERIC IN SANTA CRUZ:

COLMES:

I misstated myself when I said “I can even call someone a racist.” I meant to say: “I can even call someone out on what I feel is racism without attacking person by focusing on the statement instead of the person.” (I also had a runny nose and forgot to blow it so I was making annoying snorting noises while on the air, to be fair here they put me on right away and I was shocked that I was on hold for perhaps less than five minutes. I thought I had a little more time than that…)

Also I could have been more clear that the times when he “hates” is rare, and I only mentioned it because it is the same kind of goading harassment and invective language that I see everywhere. Compared to everyone else on the radio-side of Fox he is a big huggable teddy bear with a pack of ravenous lions, but like anyone who deals with verbal harassment sometimes niceties fail and you end up sounding just like them. I am ten thousand times more guilty of this crime than he, but I’ve heard the sounding cry of the masses and it is hate that rules this tempest waging around us.

Forgetting to focus on the statement and not the speaker is the rule I have forgotten more than once now while online and have been rightly deleted / banned from websites as a result.

Hate begets hate. Violence begets violence.

I am ashamed, but only in my expression and not in my passion.

Cyber-harassment is wrong, and it’s currently the favorite past time of lazy teabaggers who have yet to call in death threats or destroy property of health care reform advocates.

MTV-AP Digital Abuse Study:

Objectives/Background
As part of its multi-year public affairs campaign to address the emerging issue of teen digital abuse,
MTV partnered with the AP on a study that provides an in depth look at the prevalence of digital abuse
among young people today. This research was designed to quantify how young people are affected by
and respond to issues like sexting, digital harassment and digital dating abuse.

Emailing Alan Colmes of Fox News

I doubt anyone cares but I spent a bit of time on this email and perhaps there are some interested in hear about all this:


“You’ve Lost a Customer, Not Like One Customer Ever Mattered”

Alan Colmes,

You’ve lost a customer, but not a friend or a fan of your witty radio banter.

I will not be renewing my Fox News Talk podcast subscription when it ends this year.

I have always believed that one votes with their money in a capitalistic society and I will not “vote” for your program any longer. I have to retract it like I was saying that I believe strongly in ethical journalism and would have resigned from Fox, were I you, in the ACORN racist-crusade. You make your own career decisions, but broadcasting inaccurate information was what I trying to avoid by subscribing to your show out of the Fox News Talk selections.

In 2008, with W. in the White House, you were absolutely right about Fox News in regards to the straight-news being honest and you served to clear up misconceptions spread on the internet or by commercialized news-media.

Things change, my friend. Just as the NY Post has made it their singular agenda to “destroy Barack Obama” this is also true for Fox News as evident in endless cases of failure to report facts.

If you, as a broadcaster, refuse to do any research and refuse to look at any objective data on the matter then you have no credibility on the issue. Period.

As an example: you said on the air that you never get vaccines but you never advocated against getting vaccines on the air. Do you understand? If you had done the latter I would also be unsubscribing in the future. All this political crap we all talk about is no different. You and everyone else can believe whatever the **** you want, but when you spread inaccurate information as “fact” you can bet you drive the intelligent / educated people out of the tent and you also drive the loudmouth assholes like me crazy as hell.

This mindless defense of Glenn Beck (he should have finished college if he was going to claim to a “historian“ on the air) and of Fox News as a network when the line was crossed many lines between individual bias and network bias then you are not standing up for the truth.

There was a time you were not making crap up and when you didn’t know one way or another you would say as such. Now you have several times lied on the air and the only reason I don’t call up tonight to grill you on it is because that would serve to feed the right-wingers that are trying to destroy what is left of your credibility.

By the way: the credibility scale is internet then radio then television then print. You have three and I have barely two. I should just pornography in between paragraphs and you have an existing audience, no matter what network you are under.

I like to save your credibility and enhance your lack of credibility but now that I have had it out with your producer and thought on it more than that childish angry-email I first sent: I would only like to inform you that it is an accurate statement that you have “lost a fan.”

The only real difference I can make, other than speaking out, is to not feed into the process any longer.

I like the show, and your internet-work.

I just demand honesty, outright with no exceptions. I refuse to tolerate corporate lies coming from you or anyone else.

I want to be clear: I am not pandering to get back on Liberaland. I used my knowledge of psychology to make an awful, mean-spirited joke on Joel’s expense and I was so out-of-line I myself think I should be banned. Any rational person would agree.

I just want you, as the author of this blog, to understand that I thought every-goes because you posted words like “f***” and allowed endless verbal assaults on other users through an obviously moderated site.

I was under the false impression it was like my blog with Net-Neutrality intact. A simple misconception on my part.

So I’ll be enjoying the show via podcast and surely call in sometime soon (statistics show I‘ll call in the next few months or years after listening for about three years at this point, every night) but I’m not going to keep paying when I’m done with this round.

It’s kind of funny because you are the “clean-up crew” on almost every single other issue I can think you that you bring up on the show.

But I’d just be the caller that would hound you about “Fox-this, Fox-that” that actually had the capability to go out get a degree in Media Studies.

Basically, I’m not f***ing around. I thought you weren’t either but I was wrong and it doesn’t change your value as a broadcaster but your value as a social activist.

When I create a network out of thin air like Fox did in ‘94, I’ll hire you. I’d bring you in as Senior Staffer even on the first day.

I get it by the way. I know you just don’t want to attack fellow broadcasters and people in the news-room. It’s just crossed that line, my friend. It’s fully inaccurate to make any case for credibility from Fox Broadcasting as a corporate entity, and if don’t I think the facts are working against you that’s fine. But it’s like the tea-baggers, if you just shove your head in the sand we have nothing else to talk about and I have to just talk over your shoulder.

I believe I’ve said it before: If you are a liberal and not so angry you can barely stand it right now, then you are just not really paying attention to politics.

My suggestion is to have a full segment, perhaps reoccurring, dedicated to previous-guest Joe Conason of Salon talking about matters pertaining to Glenn Beck and Barack Obama.

I have the feeling he would not start screaming in talking about the racism being spread by both your former partner on television and this “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck.

I’m talking about shaking hands with the devil and still trying to make a better case than that. Joe Conason has it wrapped up, you need to talk to him.

“Truth to power.”

It was very cool when I first that in a promo for your show was impressed by your ability to tackle radical right-wing extremism with tact and intelligence. But my real enemy are the corporations and those who promote lies, or dishonesty, in the guise of “journalism.”

The truth comes out, with or without you aboard.

You do your thing, great radio entertainment, and I’ll do mine.

I am not here to question your motives, only to state mine: I follow the guidance of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in that I feel I must speak out rather than remain silent about racism and bigotry.

Those evil idiots who tried to spread lies about you and your “Radio Graffiti” are an example of what qualifies as something I will continue to fight against. But just like you told them “learn your Radio History and call me back” it’s pretty much the same thing here except to you.

Learn your Modern-Media History studies a little better and then we’ll talk about me continuing to promote your product online, and buying it at future dates.

November 16th 2009

Repost: The Tragedy at Fort Hood

1109_fthoodbh

(Image: PBS.org)

The tragedy at Fort Hood had nothing to do with religion. No matter what some Muslim-hater says.

The tragedy at Fort Hood cannot be properly termed that this point an act of terrorism. No matter what some fear-monger says.

Jon Soltz, of VoteVets.org, appearing on Alan Colmes Radio agrees with me that saying such unfounded statements about this tragedy is completely disrespectful to the fallen.

Those equating this incident with terrorism are an insult to this nation.

The raw truth of this, is that this was a mass murder by a highly-unstable person.

My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones in this senseless violence. The nation mourns your loss.

I find it unfortunate in the extreme that unethical broadcasters like Bill O’Reilly use this horrific mass murder on a U.S. Army base to spread the Politics of Fear in the nation.

This was a senseless killing of Americans by a deranged individual.

Media Hate-Profiteers may say otherwise, but care nothing for following the facts and care everything for spreading anti-Islamic sentiment while promoting baseless public fear.

At this stage, to call this anything but a mass murder of co-workers by a disturbed individual is purely motivated by a divisive political motive, and the attachment to the issue of the shooter’s religion or ethnicity is motivated purely by the motives of hatred for others based on creed or faith.

I find it a shame that we have a corrupt Media-giant promoting the Politics of Fear and the Politics of Hate under the guise of the credibility of a news group.

I find it a shame that some people have such unethical practices and then claim the title of “journalist,” as Bill O’Reilly does.

Repost: Loyal Opposition No More

1.republican-party
For many years I have felt that for all our disagreements between liberal and conservative individuals in the U.S., there was a shared position by both sides.
A loyal opposition to the opposition, if you will.
For the time being, as since the election of Democratic President Barack Obama, I believe the majority of the conservatives of America have thrown down this national system of civil loyalty in politics in place of a pure obstructionist agenda.
The Party of “No!” is not conservative, nor liberal, it is pure nihilism in place of understanding.
I have not heard any amount of logical rebuttal to an Obama Policy or policy proposal, except in very rare cases.
I find I cannot listen to the standard bearers of GOP right-wing radio these days. Like most people I have my “hang-ups.”
Dismissive attitudes, a complete lack of humility and screaming people down end up on my list.
Every time I have been listening to conservative talk radio, or GOP responses, since the election of Barack Obama I am disgusted by the complete lack of integrity and grace in politics. Every word a smear, every point a spin.
Reducing everything down to simply “look at who is doing the name-calling” is not the issue. Though it is important thing to avoid name-calling as much as possible.
Not sticking to the facts about our democratic representatives and our recent national historical facts is unpatriotic.
I wish it were not so, and no group can claim to innocent of some form of vitriol in these times. But if something I say amounts to “name-calling” then I’m afraid it must be so. But understand I don’t say such things in a state of glee as we see from others screaming rational people down.
I find it offensive that in a matter of weeks all our politics have reduced to childishness and fear-mongering about the government.
Instead of having an actual political dialogue they insist on presenting “vague-facts” along with connect-the-dots logic, which is simply dirty pool politics.

LiberalViewer, October 27th 2009

LiberalViewer on YouTube has touched what I feel is a very important issue facing us today in the U.S.

 

LIBERALVIEWER: Do you agree that the bias at Fox News is quantitatively and qualitatively different from any bias at the other major media outlets?

It’s absolutely different, in every way. The truth of it all, as I see it, is that Fox News just took the model of far right-wing radio and applied it to television broadcasting.

LIBERALVIEWER: Do you think the evidence of political organizing cited by Rachel Maddow is the best evidence Fox News is different or are the combative interview style applied only to one side, the parroting of Republican talking points, and the pattern of partisan distortion of the facts I showed better evidence that Fox News is different?

 

I feel that if 14 members of the GOP truly did write Rodger Ailes hand-written letters about having Glenn Beck retract his comments about race in regards to President Obama and this was ignored for ideological or perhaps commercial interests in place of the common good of the nation by Fox CEO Rodger Ailes himself then that is the best evidence out there. But if that’s a bogus news-story then your analysis without a doubt trumps that of any found on the major networks.

I thought about it and I’m completely against this “boycott Fox” nonsense. I want them to highly reform their television-side and don’t give a hoot about the radio-waves.

If they would just have some level of integrity in the television broadcasting they produce my qualms with them would cease.

I like the “old days” as I call them when Alan Colmes was actually on TV dispelling some of the nonsense. Now he is only really on the radio.

I find it interesting that they uninterested in reviving just the concept of the “CON vs. LIB” television show in a prime-time slot. Little by little all my ability to defend what they are doing as “news” just fades away. I see it as a situation where they are just very big, they have a partial media-monopoly, so they have plenty of room to hire everyone in the world.

I view all radio as morning-zoo, madhouse, boiler-plate, funhouse ride antics. Something happens though with the make-up and the lights and the cameras of television, or at least I think that is what is really going on ‘behind the curtains’ of this issue.

Fox News is more or less playing the role of a criminal while MSNBC operates as a cop.

I would describe the whole situation as: ridiculous.

Fox “Not-a-news-agency” News is Banned From White House Porch

Obama on FOX-thumb-340x229(Chicago Tribune: Swamp Politics)

Is it a good idea to single out just one outlet in the manner that The Obama White House recently has in the case of removing Fox Broadcasting from the press pool?


At first, I was in favor of the move to ignore the Fox Broadcasting Company by Barack Obama.

His efforts to clear his name on the website “Fight The Smears” stem almost entirely from Fox. He has every right to defend himself from these smear-merchants and radical right-wing propagandist supporters.

The right-wing lobby called “Fox News” (as in the cable pseudo-news) and “Fox News Talk” (as in the radio pseudo-news) is still “not a news organization” in my opinion. But I think this label should include everyone from COMEDY CENTRAL to HLN to CNN to MSNBC, everyone except PBS and C-SPAN.

It’s been televised tabloidism in place of televised journalism for far too long. In my view.

Any White House that would send a clear signal that The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown, The O’Reilly Factor, and The Glenn Beck Show are all the same thing would be nothing but a benefit in this age of media-hate & mass misinformation.

These programs are not news, they are purely entertainment-television.

Each of these programs has an agenda, as does the network behind each.

There is nothing wrong with doing agenized-news. But it is dishonest and unethical to claim objectivity if you are playing toward a specific political wing, or any specific agenda. This is the greatest offense of the so-called “Fair & Balanced” Fox Broadcasting. As a network they cater to right-wing political agendas and refuse to declare themselves as a format that promotes conservative ideology. In that case I see it as a function of false advertising on behalf of the network.

All these programs, it‘s important to point out, are television-propaganda toward that agenda. Which might be only the agenda to make you laugh.

The broadcasting produced by this political lobby / news agency / entertainment format in only the viewing of it is not dangerous. It is taking these kinds of broadcasts as serious news formats that is problematic in a democratic society.

The informed viewing of propaganda is merely educational. However, to those who refuse to see the difference between opinions and facts the viewing of the propaganda of reckless liars, there is a dangerous situation produced.

Mine is a somewhat complex argument in regards to The News Wars between The Obama White House and Fox Broadcasting Company:

It is a good move that Obama is standing up to bad journalism mixed with bad business practices, but a bad move that he singled out FOX alone when all the news agencies screw something up.

FOX is just the biggest offender of the smears.

I believe radio and satellite should remain untouched by sweeping regulations, but televised broadcasting of race baiting and McCarthyism is just too much tabloidism for me to handle.

This sensationalist-reporting on politics that has been going almost entirely due to FOX NEWS is not exclusive to them, so I think it would be wise to pick out a few other agencies, perhaps CLEARCHANNEL and COMEDY CENTRAL, to also declare as non-news formats.

It is clear to me when a news group is run by an agenda, thus becoming more like a political lobby than a news group, but it is not clear to everyone.

A President who stands for educating the public should seek to educate people on what exactly “bias” is, and hopefully shed some light on the issue.

The specific near-criminal acts of failure to disclose vital information of a story committed by FOX NEWS should be spoken of plainly and openly if not handled more severely. This tactic of isolation is my only qualm with Obama’s approach to dealing with fake news.

If it is the desire of this White House to tackle the specific crimes against society that Fox has committed, then I would hope the case was made in specifics.

It is my personal view that a news group, of any sort, can lose it’s status as “press” if they fail to uphold the journalistic truth as a matter of course.

I believe Obama did not go far enough to fight unethical journalism and false reporting.

But I certainly agree with the point that FOX has become something other than a news agency when they promote bad journalism that is not related to their opinion-makers.

Did Glenn Beck Commit a Murder-Rape in 1990?

glenbeck199(Times photo, 2000: Fraser Hale)

Did radio and television personality Glenn Beck of Fox Broadcasting commit a murder-rape in 1990?

This blog posting exists only to try and help examine the vicious rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I don’t claim to know the truth of this matter. I only claim to know of a rumor floating around saying that Glenn Beck committed a murder-rape, and I believe that this should be discussed. So I, along with others, are going to do our part to get to the bottom of this.

Why does Glenn Beck not address these charges?

Why would Glenn Beck seek arbitration outside of the U.S. courts instead of coming forward to clear up the rumor?

I’m not saying I think he did it. I, in fact, think he is innocent of these serious criminal charges.

I’m saying that we should discuss this seriously as a nation, and a people. We should ask our friends, our boss, and our colleagues.

The Freedom of Speech must be heard over this specific matter. The voice of the people must come to be known throughout the United States on this very serious national issue we all face.

Notice: This post is a parody/satire of a different author. We all assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we also haven’t yet seen any proof that he didn’t. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

Read the last sentence again. That’s the point.

Bill Clinton Downplays the Anti-Obama Rhetoric

Bill-Clinton-3-08

Former President Bill Clinton appeared on NBC’s “Meet The Press and when asked about the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ that smeared him during his presidency he said this:

GREGORY: “Is it [the right-wing conspiracy] still there?”

CLINTON: “Oh, you bet. Sure it is. It’s not as strong as it was, because America’s changed demographically, but it’s as virulent as it was, .. I mean, they’re saying things about him [Obama] — you know, it’s like when they accused me of murder and all that stuff they did,”

I agree with the former president’s assessment that we have changed demographically as a nation and that the virulence of the right-wing smear factory is as virulent as ever, but Clinton failed to touch on two critical points surrounding this current crusade of baseless slanders against these two democratically elected leaders.

Point One:

The major platform to carry the broken logic of these claims was primarily talk radio when Clinton held the White House. Today these same kind of untrue slanders are carried by FOX News Talk Radio, FOX Cable News, and other talk mediums that include satellite broadcasting which did not even exist within the time he was in office. Then add on top of that a new spinster has come to rival Rush Limbaugh: Glenn Beck.

Point Two:

The McCarthyist and anti-democratic rhetoric coming from the right-wing did not start until several years into the Clinton presidency but have begun almost immediately in the Obama presidency.

Likely he seeks to try to disempower the media-jackals of FOX News, by evading the heart of the matter of the foundation-less smears directed against President Obama; he is trying to avoid giving them bait.

But it must be said: these smears have propagated themselves in much more virulent manner and much sooner than they did for Clinton. It took them years to get around to accusing him of anything even half as extreme as some of the myths about Obama that have been floated around from several months back.

What is worse is the very foundation of this conspiracy is not the same as the one that attacked Clinton. Only the tactics and one of the actors (Limbaugh) remain from that old sideshow.

This is far, far worse and I can not label it anything less than fundamentally un-American.

It seeks to undermine our very system of democracy and our very system of public discourse.



The government is trying to kill you and everyone not with you is a “shill”.

Or … if it’s not the wild conspiracy theories of those like Alex Jones, it’s the equally wild claims of those like Glenn Beck.



The government is trying to control your life and everyone who doesn’t think so is a “Marxist”.

All of this is simply designed to sow fear and distrust for both anyone who supports any not of their opinion then simultaneously spread fear about the government at-large.

In a democratic society we cannot afford to simply forgo coming to the table to discuss our positions with facts and reason then replace this with media-crusades and continuous vicious untrue labeling without dire consequence.

Those who refuse to educate themselves except from known liars need to be recognized as dealt with non-credible.

The insidious plot that is in play here is of another caliber entirely.

It is a giant media body larger and the message is wholly anti-democratic, then you add that we have race baiting going on against the first African-American president by both Beck and Limbaugh, but nobody on the right wing ever cares that they engaged in it and continue to do so at their whim.

A certain element of racism exists not just in what Jimmy Carter said about some white people in the US not feeling a black man should lead this great nation, but also within this intense rush to judgment of Barack Obama in terms of the full scope of his presidency.

The matter of those on the right who wished to keep their children home from school because Obama would address the class in a video is more short-term example of this same rush to negative judgment.

I personally will allow no person to wrap themselves in this claim that anyone is saying that everyone anti-Obama is by value of that a racist.

What is disturbing is the number of people who obviously have never looked into what people are calling “racist” or “racialist” on the left but truly have a high level of indignation more about the fact that the issue is being discussed than anything else.

To not even entertain thought long enough to form any kind of argument begs the question if they are within heavy stages of denial.

Make no mistake, once these neoconservatives no longer have an enemy to publicly defame and lie about they will go right back to trying to get people to vote for The Republican Party.

And the media in general is not helping by providing massive double standards in their intense questioning of Democrats, but constant softballs to Republicans.

Mad as Hell about Health Care!

Mad as Hell Doctors

“This Fall, the rubber gloves meet the road.”

Find the MAHD on:

(Facebook)+(Twitter)+(YouTube)

_________________________________________________

Dr. Paul Hochfeld on Ed Schultz.

Quoting from MadAsHellDoctors.com:

You CAN handle the Truth
There’s no nice way to say it. The financial cost of health care is killing our citizens, hobbling our economy, crushing small business, and threatening the solvency of our government. 
In the meantime, the Health Care Industry is spending almost two million dollars a day lobbying Congress and manipulating public opinion to accept “reform” legislation that leaves a vicious, for-profit system intact. The “public option” is a trap.  We need real reform that finds immediate savings, controls costs, and accomplishes the moral imperative of true Universal Access. 
A Single Payer plan is the only real path to a Health Care System that is socially, ethically and fiscally responsible. And yet, our elected officials refuse to even discuss the possibility of a Single Payer plan!
 
If that doesn’t make you mad, we recommend checking your pulse.

The “public option” is doomed.
Firstwe will still have a dysfunctional health care system designed around insurance companies.
Secondit will be impossible to cover everyone without raising taxes.
The Obama administration is already saying it is acceptable to leave out 15 million people. Which 15 million? Will you be one of them? Who gets to decide?
Third: in a “post-option” environment you can bet that the health insurance industry will manipulate the rules so that the sickest, most expensive patients will gravitate toward the public plan, which will cause it to fail. When it does, the opponents of real reform will point to the “public option” and scream: “See! Single Payer won’t work!”

There is a time for compromise – this isn’t one of them.
 
  
We believe there is only one way to control costs.
________________________________________________________

This issue and it’s seriousness is severely under-reported or completely propagandized in some media outlets.

This is a map of the uninsured Americans and the percentage of those in your state who are uninsured.

 

Quoting Dr. Hochfeld from a radio-interview with Alan Colmes of FOX News:

“60% of doctors are in favor of government health insurance. The vast majority of primary care providers are in favor of it.”

“We are down to about 30% primary care providers in this country, we should be at about 50%. The more primary care providers you have, and the more resources you put into primary care, the better your health care outcomes and at a lower cost.”

“We are wasting 20% of our dollars on health care costs. It’s a threat to our security. We can’t afford to throw money at health care.”

“Once we get rid of the insurance companies we can have a health care system run by health care professionals.”

“The way ‘single-payer’ works is we take the money we are now spending on health care .. 60% of this 2.4 trillion dollars is already going through the government .. instead of calling it ‘insurance premiums’ it’s just called ‘health tax’. It’s not more money, it’s the same money. Because we cut out the insurance companies, we actually get more for our health care dollars.”

“I’m mad as hell about the political process.”

“I think he [Obama] learned that the industry is far more powerful than he could ever imagine and our political process is far more corrupt than he could ever have predicted.”

 ____________________________________

 

This last quote is vital for me to point out.

 

I find it distrubing those on the left would find it easy to throw the man we elected to change things for the better down the stairs just because the system is broken.

 

That’s why we elected him.

 

Let the man work!

 

This is called ‘incrementalism’ and in my view President Obama should have just gone for the whole-nine-yards of single-payer but it’s looking like that’s not going to happen. Mostly because they are all corrupt in Congress and hyper-corrupt in the GOP so it’s just plain outside of the list of options before Obama.

 

Or at least that’s my take.

 

I support Mad as Hell Doctors and all those fighting for Universal Health Care.

 

My heart is with you. Let’s keep making this case until the establishment will finally listen.