By Devin Dwyer
@devindwyer
Follow on Twitter

Nov 17, 2009 8:41am

Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/17/2009

TAPPER: I guess this is for either Mr. Bader or Ambassador Huntsman, but specifically when the President is talking with President Hu about human rights, what is he asking for? What does he want to see? What is he encouraging the Chinese to do? And then for Ambassador Huntsman, how does the fact that the U.S. owes $800 billion to China affect any of these negotiations at all in terms of what President Hu brings up or the ability of the President of the United States to ask for anything?

SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL FOR ASIAN AFFAIRS JEFF BADER: Well, on human rights, you've seen the way the President has dealt with the issue around the world. I mean, he starts with the premise that the U.S. example is persuasive if we have our own house in order. And this isn't a briefing about Guantanamo, but he has worked very hard to correct and improve the image that the U.S. has developed in recent years on human rights. When you have someone who believes in protecting human rights at home and who is as popular and admired a figure as Barack Obama is globally, the appeal of our views on human rights is entirely different than when you have problems that are unaddressed at home and a salesman who is not persuasive. So I think that that is kind of the starting point in thinking about the way in which President Obama is effective on human rights.

Now, the way — what he expects, he talks about the American experience. He talks about American values. He talks about how they have helped us to achieve what we have achieved. And he talks about human rights and democracy as a constantly unfinished project, as something that we need to — it's not something in the past where we're done with it. And there is a sense of pride and accomplishment mixed with a sense that we have shortcomings that we need to be honest with ourselves about.

And that is the kind of presentation, in my view, that is much more effective — is the most effective way to impress upon Chinese private and public audiences the value of human rights. He talks about, as you heard him talking about the Internet and what a free Internet means for — not only for the lives of ordinary Chinese people but for proper governance. So he's talking about us as an example and he's talking about things that the Chinese should be looking at themselves.

This is leaving aside Tibet, which I talked about before.

AMBASSADOR JON HUNSTMAN: Let me just pick up for a second on what Jeff said, because I thought, personally, our President was extremely effective in describing what makes us unique as a country. You have on one side the Confucian tradition; on the other, the Jeffersonian tradition. And it's explaining those differences that oftentimes isn't easy. And to get a President of the United States, as we saw yesterday in Shanghai, who talks about our traditions and is able to explain it to all those who were listening, that's important. And when you get a President in a room like we did earlier today, who does the same thing — explains what makes us unique and why we feel strongly about individual liberty and freedom — that's important. And I thought those comments were well taken.

Let me just say that on the earlier question, and Jake, Mike will talk about the $800 billion question — suffice it to say we have a complex relationship on the economic side that brings us closer than ever before — their interest in our economy and our interest in theirs.

But the question that was asked before about the President's first trip, and let me just say, as someone who just got back from riding with him in the car as we rode from the U.S. embassy back to the hotel, and the kinds of questions that he was asking and the interest that he has in the history and the culture of China, and to hear the kinds of questions that he asked the mayor of Shanghai as we had lunch together, and then last night — they're all the questions that would be on — you would think be on a President's mind: What do you do about jobs? What do you do about migration of workers? What do you do about infrastructure? What do you do about transportation?

And I noticed that the questions he asked were right on. And I could tell through the conversations over lunch and dinner, they were very important tutorials to hear from some of the most important decision-makers on site about what makes this country run.

And I would just say this in conclusion, as I tell many Americans who visit, if you were here 10 years ago and you're coming back for the first time, you don't know China. If you visited five years ago and you're here for the first time — or the second time, you don't know China. If you were here two years ago and back again, you still don't know China. It is changing so quickly and it is so dynamic that you've got to stay connected constantly to get a sense of what this means in terms of the future of China

DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MIKE FROMAN: Just to finalize on the $800 billion question, clearly the U.S. and China have close, deep, broad, and interconnected economic relationships, and that was certainly through the recent economic and financial crisis, working together to come out of it through the G20 and otherwise. The $800 billion never came up in conversation, and the President dealt with every issue on his agenda in a very direct way and pulled no punches. And so I don't think the $800 billion had any impact on the agenda whatsoever.

User Comments

When you have someone who believes in protecting human rights at home and who is as popular and admired a figure as Barack Obama is globally
=========
Embarrassing answer from a US official.

Posted by: MayBee | November 17, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am

When you have someone who … is as popular and admired a figure as Barack Obama is globally
=========
Embarrassing answer from a US official.
Posted by: MayBee | Nov 17, 2009 9:27:46 AM
And we know this is true because Oprah cried her eyelashes off.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am

“And there is a sense of pride and accomplishment mixed with a sense that we have shortcomings that we need to be honest with ourselves about.”
Did he mention we have too many products made in China distributed through WalMart?

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am

These were some of the oddest answers I have ever seen from gov’t officials. This WH operates on the cult of personality of the President. Ooooh, he asked such good questions, ooooh he’s doing so much to clean up America from that awful president from Texas who came before him. It’s just so weird. It’s like they’re all just mesmerized by how great their boss is. It’s no wonder a lot of their actions seem so out of touch with reality to a wide swath of the American population. They operate in la la land.

Posted by: Aaron | November 17, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am

“When you have someone who believes in protecting human rights at home and who is as popular and admired a figure as Barack Obama is globally, the appeal of our views on human rights is entirely different than when you have problems that are unaddressed at home and a salesman who is not persuasive.” (footnote)
All likenesses and similarities to Jimmy Carter are purely coincidental By the way thanks for not asking about ht whole Eric Holder thing, you know he’s independent and all)

Posted by: pauldia | November 17, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am

They operate in la la land.
Posted by: Aaron | Nov 17, 2009 9:50:22 AM
I knew we were doomed when the 20-somethings came up with their own Obama For President seal. The tradition and honor of the Presidential Seal meant nothing to them. It was just a cool graphic in a Powerpoint presentation.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 10:24 am 10:24 am

Because “stop empowering genocide in Sudan and elsewhere” is just too vague a position.

Posted by: Rusty | November 17, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am

If Obama had not been elected president our guilt for the crimes that happened in the past (somehow American arrogance must explain why WWII happened) would hang around our necks forever.
But because the One descended to enlighten us with wisdom, hipness, and icy cool demeanor all is cool – bro.

Posted by: small potatoes | November 17, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am

Huntsman: And I noticed that the questions he asked were right on.
==========
Again, it is so weird for our Ambassador to be praising the questions our President was asking. Like he’s a school boy.
He’s popular and he asks good questions.

Posted by: MayBee | November 17, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am

Because “stop empowering genocide in Sudan and elsewhere” is just too vague a position.
Posted by: Rusty | Nov 17, 2009 10:46:11 AM
Well done.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am

Again, it is so weird for our Ambassador to be praising the questions our President was asking. Like he’s a school boy. He’s popular and he asks good questions.
Posted by: MayBee | Nov 17, 2009 10:51:08 AM
sycophant: a person who uses flattery to win favour from individuals wielding influence; toady

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 10:59 am 10:59 am

Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans Jump to Six-Point Lead on Generic Ballot

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 11:05 am 11:05 am

Honestly, the far right here sounds like a bunch of very cranky people.
What was wrong with the questions that Obama asked the mayor of Shanghai? They seemed the sort of professional questions that a president should be curious about. Should he have asked typical tourist questions?
As for Obama’s comments when talking to President Hu about human rights, he was being honest. In the past, especially under Bush, our country was criticizing others for a lack of human rights and then sidestepping our own laws to house prisoners on Guantanamo. The hypocrisy was very evident to others and lessened our credibility on the subject of human rights. Oh, I know the far right will say that the Guantanamo prisoners were an exception to the rule, but once you start with exceptions, once you treat enemy combatants in a manner that ignores the Geneva convention, you’ve lost the right to insist others follow human rights laws. Every country could think of situations where it would be easier to ignore the Geneva convention rules, but that is nothing but a slippery slope on the way to fascism.

Posted by: Lydia | November 17, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am

Oh, those poor prisoners at Gitmo-I agree that we should apply the Geneva Convention to them. As ununiformed combatants, spies and saboteurs they should be shot.

Posted by: Nephron | November 17, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am

They seemed the sort of professional questions that a president should be curious about.
==========
Yes, which is why it is odd for a top US official to go out of his way to *praise* our President for it.
As for Gitmo- first of all, we are at a war and have several allies. None of them knew what to do with the POW/detainees either. So we have them, in Gitmo and at Bagram. Bagram isn’t going away any time soon.
One of the difficulties in closing Gitmo is that few of our allies want those detainees, and a few that will take them can’t have them because the detainees will be subject to torture.
Such as….China and the Uigher detainees.
Yes, China will use Gitmo as an excuse. Just as they’ve used any number of excuses over the years. Do you remember when they used the 2001 riots in Cincinnati as proof that we have horrible race relations/human rights in the US?
Now. Let’s compare treatment of non-uniformed combatants held at Gitmo with the treatment of Tibetans, or any number of people in countries that China supports- the Sudan or North Korea, for example.
For our President to equate them is nothing short of letting China get away with horrendous treatment of its citizens and support of even more horrendous treatment of citizens of China’s client nations.

Posted by: MayBee | November 17, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).
Just 29% agree with the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other terrorists suspects in a New York city courtroom. Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm

Der Spiegel:
US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) now disapprove.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 17, 2009 12:32:04 PM”
Wow Fasicts is now citing a lefty European magazine oped that rants about America to attack Obama.
Did you read the rest of the article?
“For most Americans, the world beyond the US’s borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance. Hence arguments based on appeals about drowning Bangladeshis, starving Africans and flooded islands in Indonesia have little effect. In Hollywood, the United States has an industry that continually pushes the materialistic ideal of Western prosperity to billions of people around the world, while at the same time bombarding them with apocalyptic visions in the form of disaster movies.
Many Americans clearly also believe that real climate change is just something dreamt up by the entertainment industry.
Obama derangement syndrome indeed.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm

“I don’t think it was ever really feasible that the Obama green team could undo the damage done during the past eight years this soon. After all, under the last admin, all United States’ negotiations were run by hard-core anti-scientific conservatives. They blocked all domestic action, opposed international deals and even actively worked to undermine the efforts of other countries (see Kyoto Protocol).”
Yes, by all means, let us look at the Kyoto Protocol: The United States Senate voted 95-0 against it. Talk about a bipartisan consensus!
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the US congress, while capable of monumental stupidities, will not enact any legislation now pending on the issue of carbon emissions. And that’s a very good thing. (Waxman-Markey would require that by the year 2050 US carbon emissions per capita be reduced to the level of the year 1875.)
I am a conservative, and am educated in the scientific method (published in applied mathematics). I am by no stretch of the English language “anti-scientific.” I am simply far more persuaded by the scientists who contend that the effect of human activity on the earth’s temperature is swamped by the effects of non-human factors. And when Al Gore talks about their being a “consensus” he is simply lying.
Obama told us during the campaign that during his administration the oceans would begin to recede. And well they may, but not because of anything he or any legislation or treaty does. What garbage.
By the way, what is required to earn the title of “environmentalist?”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm

105th Congress, S. Res. 98 (passed 98-0):
“Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that–
“(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would–
“(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
“(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States….”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) now disapprove.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.The organizations — including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group— will make clear that they believe the president’s $787 billion stimulus program has not gone far enough to fight unemployment.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:14 pm 1:14 pm

Many Americans clearly also believe that real climate change is just something dreamt up by the entertainment industry.
Posted by: Ryan C |
That sounds totally made up. Is it?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 17, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm

All over America demand for firearms and ammunition is rising amid concerns that rising unemployment, which passed 10 per cent this month, will lead inexorably to higher rates of crime. Fears of terrorism have also helped to lift demand, as have concerns among gun owners that the Obama Administration may introduce restrictions on gun ownership and impose additional taxes.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm

Can anyone give me one specific example of any of the claims made by the global warming zealots that have actually come true?Can anyone give any scientific experimental proof that confirms that anthropogenic climate change exists?Can anyone prove that recent climatic changes are not do to periodic solar activity variations?Without this data what is the point of the Copenhagen conference?

Posted by: Nephron | November 17, 2009, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm

If we want to do the semantics thing we could argue about the definition of consensus as there are multiple meanings…
Posted by: @Octavia
Consensus science is not science.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 17, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm

Lydia,
The United States has not signed the part of the Geneva Conventions that covers militias and resistance movements.
POW status (and the Geneva convention) was only applied to uniformed soldiers.
The only time that just carrying arms openly qualifies one for POW status is when there is no time and the enemy is approaching. Other than that, they must fulfill all of the requirements listed in article 4, not just one.
Traditionally, soldiers out of uniform are treated as spies. Similarly, the same applied to our soldiers when out of uniform.

Posted by: Krakatoa | November 17, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm

Can anyone give me one specific example of any of the claims made by the global warming zealots that have actually come true?
Well, San Francisco’s under water, isn’t it?

Posted by: Krakatoa | November 17, 2009, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm

Liberal Democrat Mickey Kaus:
“GM ‘says it will begin to pay back U.S. loans.’ But of course it’s paying back that debt to taxpayers with money from … taxpayers. Even the new, nicer Truth About Cars isn’t falling for it. GM got $50 billion from the government, after all, mainly for a 60% share in the company. It’s planning to pay back $1.2 billion in December–basically a PR attempt, TTAC speculates, to erase its negative consumer image as a bailout baby. The only hope for the taxpayers actually being repaid for their entire $50B investment is an IPO. TTAC pinpoints 2010 as the ideal year, when the innovative Chevy Volt will be conveniently not yet released. “GM’s hail-mary will provide a speculative upside to GM’s value as long as it’s still just around the corner.” …
“P.S.: Also, these financial results are not GAAP-ready. “North American Operations are still bleeding cash. And, as Henderson has admitted, the fourth quarter results for 2009 are only going to bring worse news.” [TTAC again] … P.P.S.: But GM will launch a company-wide sale this week to clear excess U.S. inventory. A sure sign of success!”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm

“uh… did I say you were ‘anti-scientific’ or ask where you’ve been published?”
I have no idea whether you did either thing, and I do not care.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm

A powerful House Democrat used unusually harsh terms to blast the Obama administration’s manipulation of stimulus data Monday night, and demanded an honest accounting of results from the $787 billion government program.
Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, took the administration to task for pervasive errors on the Web site designed to monitor disbursement of the stimulus funds. He called those errors “outrageous.”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm

Fascist Hyena writes:
“when Al Gore talks about their being a “consensus” he is simply lying.”
—————————
Wikipedia has an article entitled “Climate change consensus” with copious footnotes.
The article reads, in part:
“The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word ‘consensus’ when referring to this conclusion.”

Posted by: Danny | November 17, 2009, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm

Consensus science is not science.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Nov 17, 2009 1:40:05 PM
And that is relevant why?
Posted by: @Octavia |
Because you claim a majority of scientists creates a consensus which validates the theory.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 17, 2009, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm

“Liberal Democrat Mickey Kaus:”
You mean DLC Democrat.
Liberals are not foreign policy hawks who advocate severe welfare reform while hating unions.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm

“Yes, by all means, let us look at the Kyoto Protocol: The United States Senate voted 95-0 against it. Talk about a bipartisan consensus!”
Wrong.
The Senate has never voted on Kyoto.
The Senate in 1997 voted on a non binding resolution that unless Kytot included developing countries we would not sign it.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm

Do I? Where do *I* make that claim? Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method nor a stand-alone scientific argument. But when someone tries to argue by consensus I will argue our side’s consensus is bigger, hence if that’s a valid argument to them, as it is sometimes in public policy, we got it covered. And if they deny consensus on top of denying the scientific arguments, I’ll argue they’ve got it wrong on both counts.
Posted by: @Octavia |
You just made the claim again.
Get back to us when you can use the word proof in a sentence.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 17, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm

“I am a conservative, and am educated in the scientific method (published in applied mathematics).”
Now he’s a math genius.
Before he was a graduate of Harvard Law.
What’s next Astronaut?

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm

“That sounds totally made up. Is it?”
Nope, that from the Der Spiegel article that Drudge grabbed a headline from because it attacked Obama.
Right wing parrots of course rushed to post the same excerpt not having read the article.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm

“POW status (and the Geneva convention) was only applied to uniformed soldiers.”
Wrong.
Geneva protections are also extended to partisans, civilians in war areas etc.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm

I’m sorry @Octavia,but it appears that you don’t understand science or the scientific method.”Consensus” is a code word for “unproven”.150 years ago the consensus was that bacteria arose from spontaneous generation in waste water.200 years ago the consensus was that the best medical treatment was bleeding.Even as recently as World War II it was a consensus that whole blood transfusions were detremental to victims of trauma.I have yet to see an experiment determined by consensus- too many times I have had results that did not fit the expected solution(and that can REALLY complicate things!)

Posted by: Nephron | November 17, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm

The United States has not signed the part of the Geneva Conventions that covers militias and resistance movements.”
Wrong.
The US signed and ratified all four Geneva Conventions.
Two protocols from 1977 were signed but not ratified.
One of those protocols that we did not ratify clarified guerilla warfare by stating it must be clear they are combatants to get POW status.
It also made total war illegal and total war is our bread and butter when it comes to military action.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm

“A powerful House Democrat used unusually harsh terms to blast the Obama administration’s manipulation of stimulus data Monday night, and demanded an honest accounting of results from the $787 billion government program.”
Still stealing people work without credit I see.
And you were improving for awhile there.
The above was written by Jeff Muskus of the Huffington Post

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm

,but it appears that you don’t understand science or the scientific method.”Consensus” is a code word for “unproven” years ago… 150… 200 years ago
Posted by: Nephron
making specious comparisons of scientific thinking and analysis 150 or 200 years ago and now is more than lame.. even your WW2 analogy is foolish..

Posted by: OK | November 17, 2009, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm

Nope, that from the Der Spiegel article that Drudge grabbed a headline from because it attacked Obama.
Posted by: Ryan C |
Does it cite any evidence or do you need any?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 17, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm

Does it cite any evidence or do you need any?”
I was just posting the other parts of article right wingers rushed to post.
They apparently did not read the article but latched onto it because Drudge put up the blurb attacking Obama.
There seems to be a pattern lately of right wingers taking anything critical of Obama and posting it even when the right winger AGREES with Obama and despises the source attacking him.
Obama derangement syndrome indeed

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm

From a news artcile a few years ago entitled: “New Proof That Man Has Caused Global Warming,”
Times Online, 2/18/05
“In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.
It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.”

Posted by: Danny | November 17, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm

For our President to equate them is nothing short of letting China get away with horrendous treatment of its citizens and support of even more horrendous treatment of citizens of China’s client nations.
Posted by: MayBee | Nov 17, 2009 11:56:38 AM
But it does help me buy a really cheap big screen tv… /sarc

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm

Not a math genius, but I do have an MS and a JD.
Congressman Obey says the bogus jobs data will lead people to conclude that the administration “doesn’t know what it’s doing.”
Ya think?

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm

Hence arguments based on appeals about drowning Bangladeshis, starving Africans and flooded islands in Indonesia have little effect.
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 12:59:14 PM
Hmmm. Then I guess that wasn’t a big donation bin full of coins and paper money at my local Costco when the tsunami hit. Must have been my imagination.
And apparently my local church doesn’t have a group who donate their time, money and effort to go to Malawi to build a shelter for abused women.
We are just so dang selfish here…

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm

I, and I alone, determine whether and when I cite to a source.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm

“Before he was a graduate of Harvard Law.”
Still am. Send Kaus an e-mail. Ask him who he had for contracts, torts, criminal law and civil procedure. (Answers: Areeda, Horwitz, Dershowitz and Chayes, respectively.)

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm

“Hmmm. Then I guess that wasn’t a big donation bin full of coins and paper money at my local Costco when the tsunami hit. Must have been my imagination.”
I agree.
Your issue is with the writer of the Der Spiegel Article.
Posted here by right wingers because it attacked Obama.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm

Many Americans clearly also believe that real climate change is just something dreamt up by the entertainment industry.
Posted by: Ryan C |
That sounds totally made up. Is it?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Nov 17, 2009 1:23:56 PM
Nope, that from the Der Spiegel article
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 2:29:30 PM
Snort… that? Made up? Nah. Gotta be fact. Everyone knows it.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm

Obama derangement syndrome indeed
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 2:55:55 PM
Oh we’re fine with him existing. Just not as President.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm

I agree.
Your issue is with the writer of the Der Spiegel Article.
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 3:30:05 PM
I think you posted the context from the article I quoted. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm

But I don’t have time (or space) to walk you through the science and hear all the usual skeptic-denier talking points…
Posted by: @Octavia |
How remarkable that your unproven claim is often met with skepticism.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 17, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm

“…compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.”
Find me a computer model published in 1999 or earlier that predicted the behavior of the temperatures in the past decade.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm

AP Poll: “But 49 percent said any changes made by the government probably would cause them to pay more for health care. Thirty-two percent said it wouldn’t change what they pay, and just 12 percent said they would end up paying less.”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm

“missed point, My son will be attending middle school this year. While reading their website today I learned 7,000 teachers will be laid off this year. 7,000! I guess NC didn’t get any stimulas.”
_________________________________-
U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced that more than $1 billion is now available for North Carolina under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This funding will lay the foundation for a generation of education reform and help save teaching jobs at risk of state and local budget cuts. North Carolina will be eligible to apply for another $409 million this fall.
Posted by: danita | Jul 31, 2009 9:08:35 PM
________________________________
First thread I checked. No quotes. No source. OK?

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm

Creating Job Creation? Lawmakers Question Obama Administration Stimulus Claims
Vast Errors in Reporting Jobs Data Leave Lawmakers Angry at Recovery.gov Numbers
By RICK KLEIN
Nov. 17, 2009
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey is calling the inaccuracies on Recovery.gov, the $18 million Web site that’s tracking stimulus spending, “outrageous,” and called on the Obama administration to immediately fix problems that have come to light.
“The administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes,” said Obey, D-Wis. “Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We’ve got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen.” – ABC News

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm

“It also made total war illegal and total war is our bread and butter when it comes to military action.”
All war was made illegal by the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
What is “total war,” and when did we last wage it?

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm

“Look at how many Americans don’t seem to care that 45,000 people die every year due in part to lack of health insurance and many of them are veterans.”
Please give us the scientific support for the 45,000 figure.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm

“Look at evangelists who don’t believe in evolution (see Sarah Palin).”
Look at Barack H. Obama: he prays to Jesus every day, and believes in an afterlife.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm

The study in question as reported by the LA Times
“Patients who lack health insurance are more likely to die from car accidents and other traumatic injuries than people who belong to a health plan — even though emergency rooms are required to care for all comers regardless of ability to pay, according to a study published today.
An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery.
Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.”

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm

“Here are the simple facts,” Obama said. “I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night.”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm

“Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance.”
I thought it was 45,000. And I’m still waiting for the science behind either number.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm

Posted by: @Octavia | Nov 17, 2009 4:10:46 PM
This so vague and biased it’s laughable. Do we really need to go around the world and discuss what people don’t care about and are cynical about to prove you DON’T have a point?

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm

“What is “total war,” and when did we last wage it?”
Total war is attacking not just an enemies’ military but all means to support that military including industrial resources, power resources, transportation systems etc.
Sherman’s march is a well known example as would the attacks on Japan and Germany in WW2.
The invasion of Iraq was an example of waging total war in my opinion as we hit power stations, water treatments plants, communications systems etc. as a means of depriving the Iraqi military the means to fight.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm

Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 4:30:43 PM
Passing over my post?
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 17, 2009 4:03:48 PM

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm

“Still am. Send Kaus an e-mail.”
I am sure he would be happy to know his attorney is name dropping him on blogs.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm

“First thread I checked. No quotes. No source. OK?”
You missed this.
“While reading their website today I learned 7,000 teachers will be laid off this year. 7,000! I guess NC didn’t get any stimulas.”
That poster is referring to recovery.com
Which is what danita quoted.
She should have used quotes and identified the source more clearly.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm

“Look at Barack H. Obama: he prays to Jesus every day, and believes in an afterlife.”
Obama is a creationist like Palin?
Prove it.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm

“The invasion of Iraq was an example of waging total war in my opinion…”
If we had waged total war we would have intentionally inflicted mass casualties on civilian populations (as FDR and Churchill did) and we would have used nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm

“I am sure he would be happy to know his attorney is name dropping him on blogs.”
I am not, and never have been, his attorney, nor have I ever said that I was.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm

“If we had waged total war we would have intentionally inflicted mass casualties on civilian populations (as FDR and Churchill did) and we would have used nuclear weapons.”
100K Iraqi civilians were killed directly in violent action.
That does not take into account those who died from lack of electricity, clean drinking water etc.
We also deemed sections of Iraq during the invasion and in the subsequent major military actions in Fallujah as free fire zones.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm

Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 4:44:40 PM
I’m sure there are more blatant abuses, but I’ll move on. I understand where you’re coming from on this issue and I agree. Personally, I think it’s frustrating not being able to post links here. Is there a reason for that?

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm

“I’m sure there are more blatant abuses, but I’ll move on. I understand where you’re coming from on this issue and I agree. Personally, I think it’s frustrating not being able to post links here. Is there a reason for that?”
I assume they do not want the liability of people posting links with viruses, rick rolls etc.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm

I assume they do not want the liability of people posting links with viruses, rick rolls etc.
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 4:54:08 PM
Ok, that was over my head ;-) Links in viruses? Rick rolls? Looks like I’ve got some googling to do!

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm

“) Links in viruses? Rick rolls? Looks like I’ve got some googling to do”
Well links to pages that contain malware or spyware.
Or even writing the html to hide where the link goes (says ABC but you end up with porn).
Rick rolls is more of an internet joke.

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm

Despite your critics here at home, every one of us in all 57 states are proud of you Mr.President!

Posted by: J House | November 17, 2009, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm

“100K Iraqi civilians were killed directly in violent action.”
Not entirely by the US, anot intentionally. An enormous effort was undertaken to spare civilians, and to spare targets that had no military uses.
Designating areas as free-fire zones does not mean that we engaged in total war; if we had, the entire country would have been so designated. We haf free-fire zones in Vietnam, yet no one contends we waged total war there–to the contrary, McNamara’s entire strategy was characterized as gradualism.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm

Posted by: Dave Svensson | November 17, 2009, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm

Dave Svensson
isn’t it interesting – the President makes so few verbal gaffs his critics have to go back over a year ago to dig out this one tired slip of the tongue. And then they repeat it.
Sort of like the “I can see Russia from my house”????
Happens with both sides, try again

Posted by: Mello | November 17, 2009, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm

RE: 57 states, two deep bows, 875 congressional districts for the House of Representatives, SEIU President Andy Stern’s 19 White House visits and 5 sessions with Obama — more than Gen. Stanley McChrystal, flying to Copenhagen for the Chicago Olympic bid but not for the Berlin Wall anniversary, his AG dismissing the Black Panther case and bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial, and on and on…
As a wise old professor used to say:
“The best way to avoid ridicule is to avoid saying or doing anything ridiculous.”

Posted by: Krakatoa | November 17, 2009, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm

Obama actually said: “Over the last fifteen months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states, I think — one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii… I was not allowed to go to … my staff could not justify it.”
Sarah Palin did not say “I can see Russia from my house”.
This was the exchange which prompted the Tina Fey punch line, “I can see Russia from my house”:
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Posted by: Krakatoa | November 17, 2009, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm

“PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.”
That actually makes her sound dumber than “I can see Russia from my house”

Posted by: Ryan C | November 17, 2009, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm

“PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.”
Posted by: Ryan C |
Is it just me or does it sound like something Obama would say? Is she reading one of his speeches?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 17, 2009, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm

“Associated with” and “caused by” are two very different things.
I have never seen Malkin’s blog.
The 45,000 figure has proliferated very much like the mythical 3 million homeless. The number can be traced back to a study tracking a number of people who were and were not insured at the time the study began, then following their death rates. No effort was made to determine whether any of the uninsureds acquired insurance after the study commenced. The study did not control for lifestyle differences between insured and uninsured, although I understand that subsequent analyses have attempted to do so.
There is no doubt in my mind that it is a good idea to have health insurance, but bogus statistics of this kind are not a factor in my conclusion. In any event, how many of the indeterminate number of people who died “because” they had no insurance had elected not to insure themselves even though they could afford to do so? How many were eligible for such programs as Medicaid but simply had not enrolled?
That very dubious 45,000 figure provides no support at all for anything like the monstrously stupid legislation the House just passed.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 8:15 pm 8:15 pm

I await a sensible defense of the administration’s decision to try some terrorists by military commission and others in the federal court system. None has yet been proffered.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm

“Hospitalized Children Without Insurance Are More Likely to Die, a Study Finds”
Did the study consider whether the factors that led to the children’s being uninsured also contributed to the likelihood that they would die?

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm

Did Chang give us the 45,000 figure? And did he offer any conclusions as to why the presence or absence of insurance was a factor in mortality?

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 9:18 pm 9:18 pm

“Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly — from 7.2 per cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly the administration’s ‘stimulus’ bill — which in February provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no cost to the states.
As Larry Summers, the president’s top assistant for economic policy, noted in July, ‘the unemployment rate over the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would normally be attributable to the contraction in GDP.’ And the rate has moved nearly a percentage point higher since then, even though GDP increased. Countries with much deeper declines in GDP, such as Germany and Sweden, have unemployment rates far below ours.”
Two point nine million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus was enacted.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm

Fresh from the pen of the Dean of the Harvard Medical School:
“Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.
“Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that’s not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 17, 2009, 9:35 pm 9:35 pm

every one of us in all 57 states are proud of you Mr.President!
—-
Isn’t it interesting – the President makes so few verbal gaffs his critics have to go back over a year ago to dig out this one tired slip of the tongue. And then they repeat it.
Posted by: Dave Svensson | Nov 17, 2009 6:31:39 PM
“I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you.” – President Obama, early Nov, 2009

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm

Dollar falling through the floor, our president bowing to promote foreign policy?
He missed out on the econ, finance, history and critical thinking classes.

Posted by: Gibberish | November 17, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm

“The Visitors did not just get here. They have been here for years.”
“We want to give you universal healthcare.”
“And net “neutrality.”
Do not resist, we are here To Serve Man.
Rare, chilled and on the half shell…

Posted by: Gibberish | November 17, 2009, 11:09 pm 11:09 pm

That actually makes her sound dumber than “I can see Russia from my house”
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 17, 2009 7:27:32 PM
From her Facebook page:
“Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the AP somehow nabbed a copy of the book before it was released. They’re now erroneously reporting on the book’s contents and are repeating many of the same things they spewed during the campaign and afterwards. We’ve heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, “fact checking” research! Imagine that – 11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to “fact check” what’s going on with Sheik Mohammed’s trial, Pelosi’s health care takeover costs, Hasan’s associations, etc. Amazing.”
Liberal priorities revealed.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 17, 2009, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm

“…I firmly believe the rhetoric on the right has been much more exaggerated and deceptive, and I think that is putting it mildly.”
Of course you do. I take it you also firmly believe that support for the legislation has fallen because the public is ignorant (those pesky voters re-elected Bush, didn’t they?), and because the right-wing lies are for some reason accepted more than the left-wing ones.
How about, “if you like your current insurance, you can keep it?” In your relentless quest for the truth, did you find yourself gagging on that one?

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 18, 2009, 12:01 am 12:01 am

“First, yes, the bills deal with access and achieve an important social goal. A vital social goal, in my opinion.”
Dean Flier did not say the bills achieve an important social goal; he said they address them.
California long ago “addressed” the issue of uninsured motorists by legislating that all motorists purchase insurance. Yet in 2007 18% of California motorists were uninsured.
More important, there are numerous ways of increasing access that are far preferable to the proposed legislation.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 18, 2009, 12:11 am 12:11 am

Illegals don’t bother with insurance.
From personal experience being hit by them. Most don’t even bother with a valid license.
Why bother?

Posted by: Gibberish | November 18, 2009, 12:17 am 12:17 am

More important, there are numerous ways of increasing access that are far preferable to the proposed legislation.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
you must mean the ‘ways’ that never seem to happen under neo-con republicans

Posted by: X3 | November 18, 2009, 12:38 am 12:38 am

Liberal priorities revealed.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas
oh you ‘rightists’, demanding your lies go unchallenged….
even McCain and his people are calling her a liar..
and there are many video examples showing more of her lies.. Palin can’t even keep track of her lies from day to day….
Palin/Prejean 2012
campaign slogan: ‘incapable of telling the truth’… not that it would matter to their fringe supporters

Posted by: OK | November 18, 2009, 12:45 am 12:45 am

Palin/Prejean 2012
campaign slogan: ‘incapable of telling the truth’… not that it would matter to their fringe supporters
Posted by: OK | Nov 18, 2009 12:45:50 AM
Funnily enough, I just read that Palin doesn’t rule out a Palin-Beck ticket in 2012 in an interview with Newsmax.
The SNL skits alone….

Posted by: Callie | November 18, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am

“The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch.”
Posted by: @Octavia | Nov 17, 2009 11:16:21 PM
_________________________________________
Unfortunately Congress has made this into a bloated nightmare of legislation.
I thought the goal was to get everyone insured and lower the cost of health care. This legislation does neither.
It would be oh so much cheaper to go back to high deductible insurance policies. Ours costs us about $2,500 a year in premiums for our family. We have a $7,000 deductible. Doctors visits w/in our PPO are discounted but we pay out of pocket up to the $7000 which is rarely met. We can det a yearly physical for $75. This is much cheaper than the 13,000 dollar policies I would have to purchase in the house bill.
To encourage more to enter Medical School I think it would be a great idea for the government to institute a loan forgiveness program where doctors could work off their student loan debt by working in free clinics.
All medical records computerized would save $$$$, and insurance companies would know all history and couldn’t bail on you because of some condition you forgot to report. The duplication of tests is ridiculous. Tort reform is essential. Access to insurance co. across state lines would increase competition.
My husband had surgery this year the bill was over $30,000, our insurance was terrific. He was in the hospital for less then a week. His roommate had been there for a month. He had no insurance. He needed to have both feet amputated. They were trying to stop the gangrene. He was a diabetic and hadn’t known it because he didn’t go to a doctor. Not only is it terribly sad, it is a drain on our society…this didn’t need to happen.
Republicans and democrats know something needs to be done…it’s the demonization of each party that allows no agreement and no consensus.
I’m not an “evil” Republican. I just don’t think government running our health care is the answer to our problems.

Posted by: wow | November 18, 2009, 11:26 am 11:26 am

Top

Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/17/2009

Related Videos

Leave a Reply