Why Team Obama dodges gay rights issues
[Posted by Karl]
The right has had a lot of fun watching Pres. Obama, his administration, and his campaign contorting over the issue of same sex marriage. But there is a serious message beneath the laughter. The most powerful man in the world does not knowingly make a fool of himself (esp. against his presumed ideological leaning on the issue) without reason. He does not pass up big campaign donations by refusing to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors without reason.
Yesterday, I opined in passing that Obama was backing off in hopes of keeping North Carolina in the mix of battleground states where the GOP has to spend money. Others have suggested Obama’s concerns are bigger than that. The Hotline’s Josh Kraushaar suggested Obama’s gay rights kabuki is more about the Rust Belt than North Carolina and Virginia, asserting that Obama has a much better shot at winning white votes in the former region than the latter. Kraushaar tweeted this shows Obama is still playing for Ohio and Pennsylvania, casting doubt on the VA/NC model. He believes it shows that Obama’s path to reelection remains challenging, because it relies on getting votes from working-class whites who oppose same sex marriage.
If Kraushaar is correct, he was understating Obama’s plight. That is the lesson of the otherwise funny candidacy of federal inmate Keith Judd, who racked up an impressive 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary. The sort of Jacksonian, bitter clingers voting ABO in that state are also found in southwest Virginia, Western Pennsylvania and southern Ohio.
Moreover, Sean Trende suspects Obama’s reluctance to back SSM relates to the African-American vote and the importance of black churches in getting to his 2008 turnout numbers. Trende suggests that if Blacks voted in composition and number at pre-2008 levels, Obama has little room for error. Given that Black voters overwhelmingly backed the SSM ban on the ballot in North Carolina, despite Obama’s token opposition and a vigorous campaign against it by the NAACP, Trende is likely on target here. Obama likely needs very strong Black turnout in the urban centers of states like Pennsylvania and Ohio (and perhaps Virginia and North Carolina) to balance projected losses among rural and working-class white voters in these states.
In one sense, this is not news. But it gives needed perspective to the propaganda establishment outlets like TIME churn out about the confidence of Team Obama supposedly has in facing Mitt Romney. The media can write for months about how many paths to victory Obama has, and how few Romney has. But Team Obama is not campaigning that way. They are projecting confidence, while campaigning as though November will be a nail-biter. Team Romney would do well to follow that example.
–Karl
Of COURSE, Obama is for SSM. His supporters know this.
That means that he gains nothing, and risks losing a lot, by actually SAYING he is for SSM.
I suppose he can be justly taken to task for not demonstrating the courage of his convictions. But Karl is right — he is playing this for the campaign.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:17 amSo kmart thinks Obama is a liar.
JD (68e099) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:26 amObamanable is amoral, what, he worry? The blacks in general and Black Muslims in particular are dead against ‘gay marriage’, Trende is correct.
Why blow your base for 1.5%? Donks are wilier than Repugnants.
gary gulrud (d652dc) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:36 amNote that Vice President Biden’s predecessor did not come out in favor of marriage “equality” until it was “safe” to do so.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/9/2012 @ 9:56 amIt should happen, but it won’t. What harm does it do? Except to politicians who have the heart to speak up about it?
To some degree, I understand the Democrat strategy. Clinton wasted the first nine months of his Presidency to get DADT. Obama has nine months left, and he does does not want it to be a debate about gay rights.
nk (875f57) — 5/9/2012 @ 10:08 amFOX NEWS announced Obama has called in a reporter and that he intends to “make news” on the gay marriage issue.
ropelight (43b944) — 5/9/2012 @ 10:59 amMaybe Reggie Love finally proposed ?
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/9/2012 @ 11:06 amKarl wrote:
[Guffaws!] Please, stop, I [I can’t stand it!] don’t know if there’s [trying hard not to wet myself I’m laughing so hard] any way I can read this [I’m dying here!] and maintain any {Trying to get a grip on myself] composure at all. [Funniest thing since the Ed Sullivan Show!]
The Dana who is rolling on the floor laughing his ass off (3e4784) — 5/9/2012 @ 11:12 amYou’re putting words into other people’s mouths JD.
tye (8f12f7) — 5/9/2012 @ 11:17 amKman illustrates the Obama voter perfectly. Just like a nonObama voter, they know Obama is a liar. Its what 100 percent of American voters agree upon.
SPQR (378c94) — 5/9/2012 @ 11:26 amI know many African-Americans as well as “liberal Christians”, all of whom are pro-life, who voted for Obama in spite of his being “pro-infanticide” (with at least some of them knowing he was “pro-infanticide”). I don’t know if people’s opinions on SSM would be a stronger or weaker determinant on voting for President Obama. I agree that he basically wants to pander to two different constituencies at the same time, but most politicians would like to do that and for Obama it’s his MO (eg., “bipartisan not Washington as usual” and “we won, elections have consequences, get over it” at the same time).
I imagine some people are tired of me bringing this up; and I’m tired of bringing it up to typically be ignored (this time, if you think it is a non-issue or you’re just bored over it, please say so).
Freedom of religion makes it possible for some people to believe that Jesus was/is God Incarnate and for others to reject that. The official government position is that the government will not affirm one view over another or otherwise support one view over another. (For some, this is interpreted as meaning the govt should not make any references to religion at all, others believe to never include any reference to theistic religion at all is to in effect support the non-belief view).
I think many people, especially those who are for SSM, think of the issue in the same way; one is free to either support SSM or one can not support it, there is no specific “right or wrong”/”yes or no” that can be demonstrated with evidence. I think many people who themselves are “not interested personally” in the issue nonetheless are happy to “live and let live”, and give legal sanction to SSM to those that want it.
The main question that I (and I believe many who are not in favor of making “SSM” legal) is how similar or dissimilar these examples are in their consequences. As I said before, most people (I think) agree with the idea that a student could write an essay on why they believed or did not believe Jesus was/is God Incarnate and the essay would be judged on the merits of how well it was written, how rational was the flow of thought, etc. If examples of each view were presented for an assignment to “write an essay about some strongly held belief that you live by”, the view itself taken would not be an issue.
What would it mean if two people of the same sex could “get married just like two people of opposite sexes”? How is/would that be different from approving “civil unions” (or whatever you want to call them) for a same sex couple that is identical to the legal rights and obligations of “marriage” as now defined? If use of different terminology is objected to, what are the ramifications of using identical terminology? It makes no sense in any other legal example I can think of to say that “I approve of X for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals” (or vice-versa). One can’t rationally say “Burglary is allright for heterosexuals but not homosexuals” because the law, and societal opinion, both recognize that “burglary is burglary”, and is wrong no matter the identity of who performed the act.
Will students (when asked to write on, say, an issue in the news) be able to write both for or against SSM and be judged on a “topic-neutral” basis as in the religious belief example, or would it be treated like pro-con is it OK to discriminate against someone on account of race?
I primarily want truth in advertising. Do people who are championing SSM want the law and societal opinion to ostracize people who disagree with the moral/societal equivalency of SSM and HetM? It is fair if they want to. I am sure there are people who believe that someone who “disbelieves” in SSM is just as misguided or evil as someone who is an overt racist, and it I believe that is a reasonable and logical view. But I don’t think that view is what many who approve of SSM are thinking; I think many believe, as the argument goes, “what difference does it make to me if two people of the SS want to get married”. Well, if law demands that you agree not only that two people of the SS can get married if they want to but that you are required to think that SSM is “no different than, in every way equivalent to” hetM, then two people of the SS getting married does make a difference to others in society.
The other concern is, “OK, SSM today, polygamy tomorrow”; if not, why not? Because the definition of “marriage” can be whatever we want it to be, but right now there are not enough people who want to define polygamy as marriage to do so? In other words, “No, it’s not ‘SSM today, polygamy tomorrow’, it will be at least 10 years before polygamy will be seriously considered”. I think historically polygamy has been far more common and accepted by society than the idea of “SSM”. Functionally there is more reason for polygamy, societies after a major war often have a shortage of men (Germany post WW II). (China is developing a shortage of women, though polygamy of the form of several men with one woman is not at all normally thought of when people speak of polygamy.)
Again, I just want truth in advertising. If you think there is a guiding principle that allows marriage to be changed from the union of 2 people of opposite sex to the union of any two people but prevents marriage to be changed to any 3 people please describe the principle and explain why it does not work the same for the proposed endorsement of SSM. If you think there is no guiding principle other than “words mean what society wants them to mean”, and that currently few people want a polygamous relationship to be defined as marriage, but if 10 years from now it’s ok if they do, then let’s just be clear about it.
If someone can make the issues clear in a much shorter space, please do (even though I will be embarrassed to see it done in 3-4 sentences).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/9/2012 @ 11:58 amThe man has no conviction. He has no principle that he’s willing to stand behind. That’s why I respect Bernie Sanders more than Obama. At least he admits where he stands.
Or, maybe it’s an issue that brings up problems in his marriage, considering his rumored past.
Whatever his problem is, the only thing he knows for sure is that we have to raise taxes. Everything else has his finger in the wind.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:03 pmOk, I guess he’s NOT dodging it anymore. Next.
Kman (5576bf) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:05 pmMy principle, MD, is that nobody should be alone.
Isn’t that what He said when He took out Adam’s rib?
Most men want women and most women want men. Some men want men, and some women want women. They are still all men and women.
nk (875f57) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:06 pmNew thread up.
(And he’s till sorta dodging it.)
Karl (f07e38) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:08 pmHuman beings, with a short life to live, coming naked into the world and leaving it naked, with only a little happiness to happen to them, if they can find it. (I guess that’s seven sentences, so please don’t be embarassed.)
nk (875f57) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:14 pmNK,
I think the point is not about people being alone, or in love, or being together, or living together, or sharing a bank account, or visiting each other in the hospital, et al…partners of the same sex can already do all those things.
The issue is, “if any two people” should be given a marriage license by the state simply because they demand one, what exactly then becomes the basis for denying a state issued marriage license to a man and his sister, or a man and his daughter, or a man and a thirteen year old girl, or a man and two different women or a man and three different women.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:27 pmIncest and statutory laws. Age of consent. Ya know, little things like that standing in the way. And before you get to dogs, they can’t sign a marriage license or speak “I do.”
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:31 pmI don’t care about SSM. My problem is gays suing my church for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Tailface Warren (721840) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:37 pmComment by Kman — 5/9/2012 @ 12:05 pm
Ok, I guess he’s NOT dodging it anymore. Next.
His position is now similar to that of Santorum on contraception. (except that santorum is against that)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:45 pmGhost,
Do you believe the state legislature should reserve the authority to determine “age of consent,” “statutory,” and “incest,” and “monogamy” statutes, but not the authority to establish a statute limiting a marriage license to an opposite gender couple ?
Aren’t people who would like to legally engage in incest, underage relations, or polygamy, being discriminated against if their desired relationships are not issued legal marriage licenses ?
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:49 pmI said “men and women”, not children and dogs.
As for suing the church, has it ever happened? They could sue the marriage judge or the county clerk I suppose, but in America no marriage requires a religious ceremony.
Where do you guys come up with that stuff?
nk (875f57) — 5/9/2012 @ 12:58 pmnk–do you have google search on your computer?
elissa (677a36) — 5/9/2012 @ 1:01 pmWith regards to pedophiles, drop it. There is a large difference between consenting adults and coercing a child. As for incest, that’s also completely different. Most of those cases involve sexual abuse, and yes it needs to remain illegal.
Polygamy is the only legitimate argument you can make, and yeah, I also don’t care if people are into that. It neithers picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
I’m also in favor of legalizing prostitution. Consenting adults.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 5/9/2012 @ 1:05 pm23.nk–do you have google search on your computer?
Comment by elissa — 5/9/2012 @ 1:01 pm
Yes. But please give me a search term. And I do believe everything I read on Google.
nk (875f57) — 5/9/2012 @ 1:10 pmThey sued eHarmony for refusing allow gay online dating on their website. So, instead of creating a gay online dating service, like eSodomy, they forced a company via the courts to accept something the compnay didn’t want to do. Here’s an article on the lawsuit.
You can claim that it’ll never happen, but I’d be willing to bet money that it will.
Tailface Warren (721840) — 5/9/2012 @ 1:29 pmGhost,
These are all polite questions. I’m not trying to corner you.
I’m literally just seeking clarification about your position.
I’m not asking you what your personal feelings are toward each of these relationships. I’m asking you to explain the legal basis for allowing the state to “stop discriminating” against same-sex marriage, yet CONTINUE to discriminate against these other relationships.
See, people in favor of same-sex marriage often say that “anyone should be able to marry anyone they want.”
Okay, but of course the reply to that is, “Uh, well, here’s a long list of relationships that the state currently ‘discriminates’ against—so, in the name of allowing anyone to marry anyone, shouldn’t we extend marriage licenses to these other relationships, too ?”
And if not, then what is the legal basis for continuing to refuse to extend marriage licenses to those other relationships ?
Is there an inherent right for anyone to marry anyone ? Or do you believe that state legislatures reserve the authority to pass laws determining who qualifies for a state issued marriage license ?
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/9/2012 @ 1:44 pm27. States can determine who can get married, absolutely. With in limits. They should not be able to forbid “races” from inter-marrying. They should not be able to forbid religions. And I think they should not forbid same sexes.
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 3:47 pmAll I’m asking for is a direct promise that I will never get a note or visit from the school district, the dept of child and youth services, or any other govt entity, city/state/fed/UN that my daughter voiced the opinion that she does not believe that SSM is morally and socially equivalent to marriage between two of the opposite sex, even though both are covered by the same laws, and that she will never be legally discriminated against for the rest of her life for such a view.
Serious replies only. I don’t want someone to say “I promise” like a highly educated donkey. I want a serious answer.
And I don’t want, “Well, wait and see if it happens”. If you do not believe it will happen, please tell me why my concern is not logically coherent.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/9/2012 @ 3:51 pmUm, I don’t why your daughter would ever receive such a letter. You mean the letter would be like a punishment, or notice of bad behavior?
I believe in many areas you can discriminate against someone for their political views. I can not hire a communist because he is a communist as far as I know. So I think your daughter (or anyone) can be discriminated against for supporting SSM or for not supporting SSM, depending on the case.
Does that answer?
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 3:55 pmThey should not be able to forbid “races” from inter-marrying.”
Yep, we did an amendment to address that, well two actually the 13th and the 14th.
” They should not be able to forbid religions.”
Yep, First amendment
“ And I think they should not forbid same sexes.”
No such constitutional right. Bzzzz.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/9/2012 @ 3:56 pm“I believe in many areas you can discriminate against someone for their political views. I can not hire a communist because he is a communist as far as I know. ”
Illegal in Colorado.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/9/2012 @ 3:56 pm31. Yes I am aware of what you post. I was stating my opinion.
32. In CO it is illegal to discriminate in hiring based on political views?
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 3:59 pm31. Yes I am aware of what you post. I was stating my opinion.
32. In CO it is illegal to discriminate in hiring based on political views?
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 3:59 pmIf people who advocate for SSM simply want the same legal protections and responsibilities of “traditional marriage”, why will they not accept it under a different term, such as “civil union”? I think it is because many want a legal basis to say SSM is equivalent to HetM. If that is the “official” opinion, then it is fair to ostracize someone who disagrees, just like it is OK to ostracize a racist. As far as I know, it is not illegal to say, “I don’t like asian/black/Hispanic/white people”, just illegal to act on that belief in a way where there is legal protection, as well as being considered immoral/wrong by most people.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:21 pm“I think it is because many want a legal basis to say SSM is equivalent to HetM. “
35: You are correct. Supporters of SSM want societal acceptance which they feel is imbedded in equality… thus civil unions do not satisfy.
It is not illegal to say you don’t like blacks. It is illegal to not hire someone because they are black.
It is not illegal to say you don’t like communists. It is also NOT illegal to not hire someone because they are a communist.
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:26 pmI’m sure that in certain areas of CO, it is illegal to not hire communists, but you will be rewarded for not hiring a Republican.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:30 pm37: Haha….. but seriously, it is not the law.
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:32 pmMD–I don’t have a good answer to your reasonable question above. I do have a different question for you, though. (If you feel comfortable answering it.) What percentage of practitioners in your profession do you think may share your views on gay marriage and the safety (or lack thereof) especially of gay male sex? I find the religious community (by denomination) to be surprisingly diverse on the subject of gay versus man-woman marriage. Do you find the medical profession to be equally divided?
elissa (677a36) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:35 pmAlex stating what is and is not law is always funny. Who to believe? Alex, or an actual attorney?
JD (d4dd44) — 5/9/2012 @ 4:51 pmJD: Your continued attacks on me seem to indicate you are unhinged. Seriously dude get a life. And if you want to participate, how about addressing the issues at hand instead of attacking people personally. Can you discriminate against someone for their political views JD? Legally? Can you? Go ahead, let us know….
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:10 pmDid you ever wonder why this is;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/07/obamas-doj-and-wall-street-too-big-for-jail/
narciso (8d0f34) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:13 pmOr this, one might suspect a scam.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/05/09/another-electric-car-from-obama-funded-company-catches-fire/
narciso (8d0f34) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:16 pmNarisco, one could argue that Obama is taking this SSM position as a sort of Hail Mary pass thinking he is losing the economy issue. One could really argue that. You know, cause its true. 😀
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:20 pmHate crimes only count against protected classes. What state? All
Pointing out your dishonesty makes me unhinged. Gotcha. Forgive me if I do not look to you for how I am allowed to participate.
JD (d4dd44) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:20 pmthe ‘look squirrel,’ gets very annoying after a while, for the Argument Clinic only goes so far.
narciso (8d0f34) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:27 pmJD: Well I have obviously had a big impact on you. And why do you keep pointing out my statement of a fact? Does the fact irritate you somehow? I really don’t get ya’ But hey, do what you want. I shall consider myself very influential to you, so I will try not to offend further, since you apparently are so easily enthralled.
Alex (c76e4d) — 5/9/2012 @ 5:27 pmI work here is done.
JD (d4dd44) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:08 pmMD #29,
I don’t know about K-12 education but if your daughter criticizes same sex marriage in colleges, you won’t get a letter complaining about her speech. However, she could get a failing grade or be threatened with expulsion.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:18 pmJust another item to cross off your bucket list, JD
elissa (677a36) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:20 pmMD, my ten-year old daughter was made to cry by her teacher for saying she liked Jacob, the werewolf, on Twilight. (Have to watch that show, sometime, just to see what the fuss is about.)
Yes, your daughter will face all kind of things; about what she thinks, what she says, how she dresses, what color her hair is, what music she likes …. F*** them.
As a general rule, there is First Amendment protection, from governmental entities, about opinions expressed, whether political views or TV shows. It has gone so far that you can say “F*** the Draft” in front of SCOTUS. In Cook County, there is a consent decree that the county cannot hire only Democrats.
I believe private employers enjoy the same First Amendment rights as their employees, so they can “discriminate” on political views. Any special bills protecting the employees, from the employer’s political views, would come under First Amendment strict scrutiny since it would be considered government action.
nk (875f57) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:24 pmGood point, Elissa.
Why are so such a h8r, DRJ?
Goodnight all, early morning inaugural open water swim tomorrow. Brrrrrrrr
JD (d4dd44) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:35 pmHey, DRJ.
I had more than one class in college that I dropped, because I disagreed with the instructor. I didn’t sue them, I just moved on.
nk (875f57) — 5/9/2012 @ 6:43 pmOf COURSE, Obama is for SSM. His supporters know this.
That means that he gains nothing, and risks losing a lot, by actually SAYING he is for SSM.
Comment by Kman — 5/9/2012 @ 9:17 am
— So you’re saying that on this issue Obama is “on the down-low”? Or is it more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” kinda thing?
Ok, I guess he’s NOT dodging it anymore. Next.
Icy (1ffe87) — 5/10/2012 @ 2:17 amComment by Kman — 5/9/2012 @ 12:05 pm
— Libs just LOVE to say “move along,” don’t they?
States can determine who can get married, absolutely. With in limits. They should not be able to forbid “races” from inter-marrying. They should not be able to forbid religions. And I think they should not forbid same sexes.
Comment by Alex — 5/9/2012 @ 3:47 pm
— Trust me, nobody wants you to suffer, buddy!
Comment by Alex — 5/9/2012 @ 4:26 pm
Supporters of SSM want societal acceptance which they feel is imbedded in equality… thus civil unions do not satisfy.
— Well, of course “equality” trumps “liberty” in the mind of a leftist!
It is not illegal to say you don’t like blacks. It is illegal to not hire someone because they are black.
— Thanks for the Discrimination Primer. Gosh, we’d all be lost without you!
It is not illegal to say you don’t like communists. It is also NOT illegal to not hire someone because they are a communist.
— Obviously. Just look at what the American people did in 2008!
Can you discriminate against someone for their political views JD? Legally? Can you? Go ahead, let us know….
Comment by Alex — 5/9/2012 @ 5:10 pm
— Your political views are gay; therefore, you have been dis-invited from my Fourth of July party.
JD: Well I have obviously had a big impact on you. And why do you keep pointing out my statement of a fact? Does the fact irritate you somehow? I really don’t get ya’ But hey, do what you want. I shall consider myself very influential to you, so I will try not to offend further, since you apparently are so easily enthralled.
Icy (1ffe87) — 5/10/2012 @ 2:51 amComment by Alex — 5/9/2012 @ 5:27 pm
— Your not-born-in the-USA slip is showing!
elissa- docs, like other people, heed Paul Simon’s observation that people “hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest”. In addition, docs are part of larger “regional” cultures. The vast majority of docs I’ve worked with here in Philly are very liberal as one would expect of an east coast city. Morality, or perhaps amorality, comes first, then you find ways to justify what you believe and ways to try to make it work. This is what has happened with HIV prevention policy in Africa. It is verified fact that the “ABC” policy works, reliance upon condoms doesn’t, at least in the African context. (Edward Green’s writing).
One thing that a like-minded colleague of mine noted was the degree to which people, including doctors, found it hard to believe that a professional, like a doctor, would treat with respect and serve a person who was gay even though they personally did not endorse homosexual practice.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2012 @ 4:16 amelissa, follow up-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2012 @ 4:33 amback in 04 I had a resident physician cut short his afternoon following me around to take part of a Move-On activity. I forget how it came up, but he thought opposition to same-sex partners was a bunch of hypocrisy as “everybody knows lesbian porn is a popular turn-on for hetero males”… Well, I don’t recall seeing anything supporting that in my years among men on a major college campus. Maybe all of the 40,000+ students and others around campus made it a point to hide the existence of other porn.
Sorry, should have read:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2012 @ 4:36 amMaybe all of the 40,000+ students and others around campus made it a point to hide it from me, but they didn’t hide the existence of other porn.
from experience, doctors are no smarter than the people around them, except in certain instances, just like with all the other people.
some folks are exceptional, some are average, many are forgettable.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/10/2012 @ 4:50 amyes, red, it’s interesting to see docs and PhD’s who think critically while reading professional journals suspend all critical thinking when reading the newspaper
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2012 @ 6:45 amA graduate from you Alma Mater lectured me at length why Palin should have aborted Trig. I didn’t hit him, he has a little girl of his own. He is in an OB/Gyn residency right now. He is smart, he will not share table talk in a professional environment. His attendings, department chiefs, and quality control, will keep him in line. We’re mistakes, we make humans.
nk (875f57) — 5/10/2012 @ 7:14 ambut some attendings I know encourage such problems, like openly advocating euthanasia where it is not legal, (and not-as-openly practicing it).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2012 @ 7:20 amThe hypocrisy, is even wider, Axelrod and Sally Quinn, have special needs children, yet he was
narciso (8d0f34) — 5/10/2012 @ 7:22 ambehind some of the tank slander against her, and
Gen. Quinn’s daughter, and networker into the Bradlee clan, can’t stop complaining about her.
We put my mother in hospice, I signed the DNR order. It was euthanasia. The hospice people were scolding me for giving her the minimum doses of morphine. Their scolding was based on her elevated respiration rate, 38 per minute, which they called discomfort. Her caregiver, who loved her, wanted her lucid so she could have a drop of water and spoontip of liquified nourishment, patiently, over hours.
nk (875f57) — 5/10/2012 @ 7:32 amIt is in the medical literature that one can increase the amount of morphine or other narcotic for pain and give a stimulant like Ritalin at the same time to promote alertness. If the medical and nursing team were thinking about the needs and desires of the patient and family instead of their predetermined notions, it would probably be a more common combination.
I spent a lot of time trying to make sure that a DNR order for my grandmother was just that only, not a “give up on care order”. I don’t think everyone on her treating team understood the concept, even though that is the concept, at least it was when I was still in training.
Why is it so d*** hard for someone to listen to what you say, think about it, understand it or ask a question, and respond accordingly, even if the response is “Go to h***”?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2012 @ 5:45 pmI am very glad you read and post here, MD in Philly. I have leasrned so much useful information through your comments.
elissa (d9a1fd) — 5/10/2012 @ 6:06 pmOf course, Obama is still dodging the issue. It’s not an original observation, but he can’t take the position he believes states should decide. And then take the position that his administration shouldn’t defend the Defense of Marriage Act because banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Those are in direct conflict. If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, then it’s not a matter up to the states to decide.
He does this quite a bit. When you look at the various grievance groups that make up the Democratic party base they have nothing in common. It’s a mass of contradictions held together with duct tape. Like his position on so many other issues, he was able to keep this coalition together by convincing one group that he really supported their position and was lying to the others. He was able, until recently, to convince the gay marriage supporters and gay marriage opponents in the Democratic party that he was really on their side.
It appears the gay marriage supporters got tired of his game, so he had to “clarify” his position because he needs their cash. So now his “evolved” position involves lying to the gay marriage opponents that he’ll respect their views and let the states decide. While his administration works to impose his view on the states that don’t come along willingly.
It’s like gun control, which he assured Sarah Brady that he was working on “under the radar.” Because he also needs the votes of those knuckle-dragging union members bitterly clinging to their guns and religion to vote for him. It seems Obama may not have the skills to keep the Democratic party coalition together. It may be breaking down under it’s own weight, which I think is long overdue. Black voters aren’t going to vote for Romney because of Obama’s stand on gay marriage, just like Hispanics won’t cross the aisle because Obama hasn’t delivered on amnesty.
But many of them may stay home.
Steve (90e0d3) — 5/10/2012 @ 6:44 pmRemember as an Illinois senator, Barack Obama voted against a law that allowed homeowners to use pistols to protect their homes.
Ergo, people can “marry” someone of the same sex, but if someone who has a problem with it decides to express disagreement by breaking down the front door with a hatchet, that is just tough shit.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/10/2012 @ 7:06 pmMost days it is somewhat easy to assume the dems either mean the opposite of what they say, or at least doesn’t mean what they do say.
Specifically, I gave the Dems a -10 on sincerity when they said they were against a fed definition of marriage law or amendment because they thought it should be left to the states. Yeah, right; left to the states so whatever laws they make can be overturned by fed district court judges and hopefully reach the SCOTUS for a favorable hearing pro-gay marriage.
Thank you elissa for the compliment and you’re welcome.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/10/2012 @ 8:22 pm