Intellectual dishonesty of the left will actually kill people

Let us start by talking about liberalism. I know, I know, what for?  After all we know that they are actually mentally unstable as witnessed by this typical soliloquy (in the NYT)

Elizabeth Renant

Santa Fe, NM

February 26th, 2010

2:41 pm

The Republican party should, uniformly, be stood up as a group against a wall and shot. Their crazed delusions about "free markets", their worship of the corporate elites, their endless lies and misleading statements about "socialism" and "government interference", and their obdurate protection of the millions the health insurance industry has dumped into their campaign coffers, are responsible for these deaths. The reform of the US's disastrous health care "system" is about 30 years overdue. Its incessant deferment is due to politicians with no spine, no morals, and no imagination. That US citizens have put up with this monstrous situation for so long is also pathetic. I wonder how many of the dead voted Republican throughout their lives?

Interestingly enough, this particular rant (one of the lightest, by far) received 59 "recommendations"

But I'm not here to discuss the mental illness that is liberalism, per se (I've done that in my previous posts).  I'm here to discuss the actual dishonesty being perpetraited on the American people.  Some of whom, bless their hearts, are just ignorant at best.  At worst, they are complicit in the lie that our healthcare system is "broken."  My favorite is we have a healthcare "crisis." Libs love to have open discussions, as long as it contains no facts that will show them for what they really are, clueless.

Let us go forth:

In the NYT, Ms. Andrews writes the following:

An earlier study by the Institute of Medicine estimated that 18,000 people died prematurely in 2000 because they lacked insurance; the Urban Institute updated that figure to 22,000 in 2006. The new study, by liberal advocacy group Families USA, applied the same methodology used in the previous reports to drill down and calculate, on both a national and state-by-state basis, the latest figures.

You may be asking yourself, "I wonder, how do they know this?  After all, people die all the time.  Is there some person that works in the hospital that collects the data and sends it out?  Is there some secret code of conduct that doctors have for those w/insurance vs. those w/out? Why is Barney Frank not wearing an orange jumpsuit?" 

Just so we're on the same page, this is an extension of the now widely discredited study that was done by that bastion of liberalism, Harvard.  What the study basically did was use 20 year-old data.  The researches asked people at the begining of the study "hey do you have health insurance?" The respondents said "yea or nay."  Then they followed them, when the person died, they DID NOT ask if that person had health insurance at the time of death, they used that previous "nay."

It is impossible to extrapalate any real data.  This is predicated on the false notion that in this country, if you have no means of paying, you will not get care.  This is not only a lie, but a damned lie.  Anyone who is sick can get care. ANYONE.  Let's say you have the best coverage in the world, will you be treated?  Yup.  Will there be limits?  Probably.  Can you pay out of pocket?  Always.  Now, let's say yo have no insurance.  Will you be treated? Yup. Will there be limits? Nope.  Can you pay put of pocket? Always.  You see, when you walk into the ED, they ask about your insurance, but most of the time, the doctors don't wait to see what kind of insurance you have to begin treatment or even continue treatment.  Let's say that you don't have insurance and the doctor ordered a specific test or medication, does he/she stop said treatment or test, right in the middle?  I don't think so.  What if you're admitted to the hosptial and the doctor orders a test, and you have no insurance, will you get that test or dialysis or the surgical procedure?  You bet your ass you will.  Let's say you need to see a doctor in the outpatient setting.  There are clinics, many, many clinics that will take a person with no insurance.  In fact, there are social workers, whose job it is to get the non-insured, gov assistance.  You can get drugs, procedures, and supplies.  Another point is that if people were not getting life saving care b/c they lack coverage, then these physicians that are withholding life-saving care are complicit in manslaughter, no?  It is very easy to tell if people died b/c of substandard care (sarcasm).  Blind the researcher to insurance and sex and race and everything except the pertinent medical facts.  Then look at the chart and what was done.  Guaranteed 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time the care will not have changed.  Unless the doctors who were working on that patient without insurance, decided they were not going to treat them b/c they had no insurance, then the data would be skewed!  Man, this is a lot more complicated then the media and the left would have you believe.
This being said, there are individual cases.  These cases defy explanation. Most of the stories you hear about someone not getting this or that are usually lost in translation. However, to change the best health care on the planet for those few cases is not only absurd, it is insane.  I'm not talking about "oh you crazy" type of insane.  I'm talking about locked up in a ward, getting anti-psychotics type of insane.

I think the real issues that liberals have is not the fact that some people get insurance and some don't it is the fact that people can afford to get insurance and get different options of treatment.  for example, Nancy Pelosi can get botox.  Some insurances will cover that.  Do most?  Not if it is not medically necessary.  Well, those other people are out of luck.  They have to pay out of pocket.  Well, what about the poor, should they have botox that is not medically necessary?  Well, if they can pay for it, sure!  I don't want to pay for it, why should I?  You see, it's not about anything more than class-warfare.  It's about control. It's about an agenda.  It's about anything and everything except truly providing the best health care.  If it was about providing the best health care, the liberal harpies would be screaming that we cannot go to a system like UK, Canada, et al.

Our media will distort the news and contort themselves to help the agenda of the left.  However, will any of them take the government run health care?  The answer is no.  The answer is no, because they read what goes on in other countries with their health care service.  Remember, the service will decline, because doctors and nurses are human and want to be compensated for their work.  Calling us (I am a physician) money hungry and shills for Big Pharma does nothing for your case.  Many doctors are refusing to treat a certain type of persons. I know of a surgeon that refuses to treat malpractice attorneys.
Anyway, all you have to do is Google "NHS" and see what kind of hits you get.  Here's one to start you on your way.
British NHS- As many as 1,200 patients died amid substandard conditions and care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and 2008.
(By the way, all of these people had goverment insurance, yet they still died).

On a final note, has anyone done a study to correlate the effects of carrots and mortality?  I mean did any of those people that died "prematurely" eat carrots in the past 20 years?  Maybe it's the Big Veggie industry that's responsible.

You know you've made it, when you have your own stalker

In another case of mental illness, liberals show us the real-life example of 'stalking.'
Now, you may think, and rightly so, that a stalker is someone waiting in the bushes for their prey.  Some pervert laying in wait for a lone female.  You may also think of a disgruntled and mentally unstable guy or gal terrorizing his/her ex.  While this is the typical scenario, this is not the only way a stalker operates. 
Stalking (or a stalker):

"Behavior wherein an individual willfully and repeatedly engages in a knowing course of harassing conduct directed at another person which reasonably and seriously alarms, torments, or terrorizes that person."

There are different types of stalking that was described by Mullen et al. in 1999.  The type I will be discussing is the 'Incomptent' and the 'Resentful'

There are certain charecterstics of each.

1) The incompetent:

These intellectually limited and socially incompetent individuals desire intimacy, but the object of their affection does not reciprocate these feelings.

a) They often lack sufficient skills in courting rituals.

b) They may also display a sense of entitlement: believing they deserve a partner, but lack the ability or desire to engage in subdued, preliminary interpersonal relations.

c) Another aspect of these stalkers is that they may have had previous stalking victims.

d) Unlike the intimacy seekers, those in the incompetent category do not view the victim as having unique qualities; they are not infatuated with the victim -- only attracted, and do not assert that the affection is mutual.

2) The resentful:  

a) The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim.

b) These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and desire revenge.

The victim?  Sarah Palin.

1) Chris Matthews  

2) George Stephanopoulos

3) Maggie Rodriguez

4) Chris Matthews #2

5) CBS 60 minutes

6) CBS Sunday Morning

7) MSNBC.com Steve Adubato

8) NBC Today Show

9) Andrea Mitchell

10) George Stephanopoulos

These stories are only from 12/17/09 until 1/15/10.... 
This will lead into Palin Derangement Syndrome (which will be the next story).

Liberalism, an undocumented mental illness part deux

Last time I discussed how liberalism actually includes many of the features of a mental illness called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).  Today I'm going to discuss how libs have the same characteristics as Borderline Personality disorder (BPD).
To start with, all personality disorder traits have one thing in common.  They all have a distorted cognition of reality.  In that alone, this would be enough to label them mentally ill.  However, I will give more correlation.
The classic sign of BPD is something called "splitting."  Splitting is where the patient thinks in terms of only "black and white"  or everyone is only "good or bad."

A) Splitting is not only characteristic in BPD, but in liberalism.  Splitting is also another way of saying 'intolerant'.  This is because to a person with BPD, someone may be all-good at that moment and then turn all-bad in the next.  This is the same as with libs, they may tolerate someone as long as they support their agenda.  As soon as the support begins to decline, so does the love of that individual.

B) Unstable relationships:  This one speaks for itself.  Just pick any lib and look at their relationships.  Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy (any of them) and Clinton, just to name a few.  But this is not the relationship I speak of.  I'm talking about the relationship that libs have with their electorate.  You see, libs use people, until they are no longer useful.  For example.  libs have had a very tumultuous relationship with the senior citizen.  While libs have been using them (for their votes) the libs have been undermining them.  They use the one thing that seniors hold near and dear, their healthcare....for a decades the liberals have been telling them that it is the conservatives that want to take away their  medicare, yet it has always been the liberals who steal and use the medicare fund as their own personal piggy-bank.  The libs are trying, with this healthcare effort, to essentially take away the seniors right to choose their own healthcare.  Another example is how liberals claim that they are compassionate about minority children.  They not only have no compassion for minority children, they have an actual disdain for them.  You see, there are school voucher programs to allow minority kids, attending the rotten public schools, to choose their own schools.  This includes private schools.  The NEA (a teachers union) is not in those schools or if they are has no pull.  Those children get a good education and actually succeed.  Why would the libs then want to cancel these programs?  Well, when you have a mental illness, you don't always make the right choices.

C) Strong feeling of victimization: Another aspect to BPD is that these people have a very highly attuned, albeit incorrect, feeling that they are always the victim.  This falls in lockstep with the liberals own view.  Liberals, like BPD suffers, believe that they are always the victims.  In fact, the key players in this 'victimization' mentality are fake 'victims'.  Election after election, news story after news story show off another class of self-perceived 'victim'.  Whether it's 'minorities', 'single-mothers', 'kids', those with 'illnesses' and today, the 'terrorist.'  They, the 'victims', are thrown into the frey and human nature being as it is, go along with it. 

D) Deliberately manipulative: Since people with BPD have very poor coping skills, they will manipulate the situation or the person to get wanted results.  This too, is the way of the liberal.  They will do anything to get the results they want.  They will lie, cheat and steal.  Case-in-point.  When liberals are faced with a challenge that they are not ready for, they will cry 'foul.'  When conservatives or people in general do not agree with Obama, they are labeled as 'racists'.  The libs will go out of there way to lie about the obvious truth and then try to make you think that you are in the wrong.

E) Suicidal or self-harming behavior: In people with BPD, they will harm themselves, either by cutting themselves (these are the people you may see that have many cut scars on their arms) or by killing themselves outright.  Some of those suicide attempts are cries for help and not real.  The libs do the same thing.  For an ideology they are willing to commit political suicide.  This is best illustrated with the healthcare scenario.  Many of the libs (including blue-dogs) will sacrifice their own candidacy for an agenda that they know will be fatal at the ballot box.  However, they, the libs, do not care. Which goes back to the distortion of cognition.

F) Impulsive behavior:  People with BPD often engage in reckless behaviors such as promiscuos sex,  reckless driving, substance abuse, and others.  Libs often do these things. Take people like Clinton, who is a serial womanizer.  The late Kennedy who actually killed (no pun intended) two birds with one stone.  Chris Dodd and Kennedy made a waitress sandwich.  Conservatives are not immune from this, obviously, but the point is that these actions are just another symptom in a much broader illness.

Unlike people who actually suffer with BPD, libs display much of the same symptomatology for an entirely different reason.  BPD is a real disorder that is multi-factorial, the libs version of this disorder has only one factor, power.  It's not about the people they represent, it's about their own ideology, which is about power.  The treatment approach to BPD is multi-factorial and includes medication and education.  The treatment for liberalism is education, voting them out and sometimes medication for the rest of us.

Denial is not just a symptom of a disease but it's also an excuse libs use.

Liberalism, an undocumented mental illness, part 1

In order to understand how mental illness correlates to liberalism, we should investigate and explain each.
In the medical world, more specifically, the psychiatric world, the "bible" is a book called the "DSM-IV-TR." It stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Doctors use this book to diagnose certain mental diseases (most of them). There is a subset of mental illness called personality disorders (PD).
"Personality disorder is a general term for a type of mental illness in which your ways of thinking, perceiving situations and relating to others are dysfunctional. There are many specific types of personality disorders."

There are 3 major categories of PD's. They are called 'clusters.' Cluster A, Cluster B, and Cluster C. In each of the clusters, there are subtypes of diseases. Let's make this clearer. I will be very broad.
Cluster A is defined as Odd and Eccentric Behaviors: In this cluster there are the following subtypes:
1) Schizoid PD
2) Schizotypal PD
3) Paranoid PD

I won't go too much deeper because it I may loose you. However, I will tell you the specific criteria and such for the disorders as it correlates to liberalism.

Now let's talk a little politics.
In the "beginning", we, conservatives were called "liberals." Actually we are 'classic liberals.'
Conservatives believed (in the begining) that things should not change. When you discussed conservatives in the age of kings and theocracy (church was the ruler) then you were right to say that this type of 'conservatism' is evil, as the rulers wanted to conserve their rule. When you would say, "I'm a liberal" you would, in essence, be saying that you wanted to be free or liberated.
It's not complicated. Then in the time of John Locke (1632-1704), things began to change. Free men wanted to be free. Locke talked about "Natural Rights." You can translate that as your "unalienable right." INalienable rights are different, so becareful which one you use.
You are probably familiar with the term "Unalianable rights" as it is in the Declaration of Independance .
Unalienable rights are rights that "incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." This includes LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That means that the government cannot take those away from you because they cannot GIVE them to you. Your creator has given you those natural rights, not the government. You understand this?
So when did we change? In the beginning of the 20th century in the United States (and in the 19th century in europe, which infested itself here) " liberalism began to shift its emphasis from protecting individuals from oppressive governments to using government as a device to enable individuals to achieve a more meaningful and rewarding life"

So now you have a complete shift. People did not realize (or did not care) that a government that is powerful enough to give you something, was powerful enough to take it away ( a paraphrase on the great Jefferson quote). One of the 'something' that he must have been talking about were the Natural rights. You see, if a people can be convinced that there Natural rights, were not actually "natural" or unalianable, then people would have no issues with government taking them away, which remember it can't do because it can't give them to you in the first place.
The people, liberals, believe that everything should be equal, not for the sake of bettering a person but because they feel and believe that you may have too much. This, of course, does not apply to them. They believe that they know better than you, what you should do with your natural rights.
A factor that is undeniable and cannot be disputed, but is often the focus of attack by liberals is that your labor ( the consequence of your time doing something while you are on this mortal-coil) is not really yours. Well, if the fruit of your labor is not yours, whose is it? Who gets to decide who it goes to? Who gets to decide how much goes to who? Then, what happens when it (the fruits of your labor) runs out? Who will provide more fruits? These are questions that are not able to be answered by the liberal. Instead they attack your person as "greedy" and "uncaring about the less fortunate." They call claim that if you want to keep the fruits-of-your-labor that you are just a "fat cat." Some things that the liberal does is use force, with threat of libel and reputation destruction (and perhaps physical violence) that if you do not forcibly give the fruits, on your own volition, then you will be punished. The punitive factors can be something as small as being called names, to having your business destroyed, to violence. The liberal does not care what the consequences of his action of the theft is on you (and I do mean you personally or your family or your business, etc). Instead they focus on the 'ends.' To them the 'ends justify the means.' This is of course, as long as it does not effect them in the negative light and may even make it profitable for them. In fact if it does portray them in a negative light, the liberals become full of righteous indignation. They yell from the mountain tops of how they are insulted and that the injustice of the insult, shall change the core of their inner-being. All this while they ignore the truth. The truth is a constant casualty in their assault on anyone who does not agree with them. This almost seems as though they are antisocial. This bridges perfectly into our first PD, Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).

Let's look at the characteristics of APD vs Liberalism:
1) Drug use: APD and liberals (Obama himsself claiming to have done drugs in high school).

2) Narcissism: APD and Liberalism. They both believe they both have a sense of extreme entitlement.

3) Lying: APD and liberalism. They both lie to get what they want.

4) Remorseless: APD and liberalism. Both parties do not care who they hurt as long as they get their way. This is a key to diagnosis. People with APD are the serial killers (not calling libs, serial killers, relax), the Casanovas that leave people penniless. They just don't care, period. They have no conscience.

5) Charm (superficial): APD and liberalism. Both are very smooth talking, a la Clinton. Even Carter had a charming little southern thing going. Obama is Joe Cool.

6) Rights of others: APD and Liberalism. Both parties do not respect the rights of others.

7) Aggressive, violence: APD and liberalism. While the liberals do not, as a society, promulgate violence, they do not hesitate to use it to achieve their goals. This is the same for APD.

8) Poor behavior control: APD and liberals have poor self control. This is witnessed, in the liberal, case as them trying to shout down any conversation they do not agree with.

9) Explosive anger: APD and liberalism. Just say "abortion is murder" or "welfare mother." See what happens.

10) Persistant irritability: APD and liberals. Aren't the libs always looking for an enemy? Big oil, big pharma, etc.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

Cell phones and cancer, is there a link? No! Duh!

Writing for one of my favorite blogs, Science-Based Medicine, is Dr. David Gorski. Let me give you some of Dr. Gorski's creds and then I'll discuss why believing that Cell phones causing cancer is about as likely as Nancy Pelosi saying "No thanks, I don't believe in Botox and plastic augmentation."
Dr. Gorski
"David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University."

Dr. Gorski has one credential that caught my eye. As you may or may not know I loathe alternative medicine ("alt-universe") in terms of their pseudoscientific views on the trappings of illnesses, treatments and how the body functions. They take these troglodytic views and spew them as fact. The public believes them because they have initials after their last names and because they (the public) believe that all of medicine is in some sort of secret society (complete with rings and a secret handshake) that wants only money and will not tell them (the public) the 'truth' on simple treatments. Ask some of the women that have used alternative therapy for their breast cancer...oh wait you can't! Their dead!

Back to Dr. Gorski. What caught my eye is the absolute disdain the "alt-universe" has for him. They try to impune his credibility with argumentum ad personum, not with fact. When I see that, that tells me they are afraid of him because he can expose them for the snake-oil salesman they are. By the way, I do not agree with everything Dr. Gorski says. I don't have to and I shouldn't because not only am I a physician with my own views and experiences (and yes, I do read the majority of the research that comes out, germane to me) but I am a human being with a brain that functions (ask my wife, she will dispute that fact from time to time). Only sheep follow blindly, ask the Obama voters...But, I digress. Here are some examples of the "alt-universe's" hatred for him (taken from the link above):

1: "You know, I was reading the oracknows site the other night & you know how all the pro-poisoning people are - they have this little skeptics circle or whatnot. "

The author of the above blog has great credentials (snort) and has your best interest at heart. That's why he sells Magnesium with SRT! SRT stands for "sustained release technology." And it's patented, don't ya know! Wow! It must be amazing, it even costs $114.97 (plus S&H) for 4 bottles. Wow! It's got that cool "SRT" moniker and it's expensive. It must be good!
The fact is, you can by a product, over-the-counter, called "SloMag" for about $8-$15…or you can show your idiocy and spend the money for the patented “SRT” Man, if only drug companies were that smart!

2: By far, my most favored scam artists, the "Age of Autism"
3
There are way too many for me to list or even care to discuss.

Let’s get to the meat and potatoes of this. Cell phones do not cause “brain cancer” There have two MAJOR studies that say they have not and show why they do not. If you want to read the details, click on the title of this heading. The bottom line is that people get brain tumors and people also use cell phones. There has not been an increase in brain tumors in correlation to the increase in cell phone usage. Also, the technology has gotten better in order to pick up smaller tumors. This in no way correlates to cell phones.

Let’s use an example “if I eat carrots then I will dies from something.” Yes, that prima facia statement is true. “If you eat carrots then you will die”, is true because everybody dies. However, when looked more closely, you cannot correlate the eating of carrots to death from “something”. Certain parameters must be set up such as:

1) If you didn’t eat carrots would you still die?

2) If you did eat carrots, what quantity would you have to consume to in order to die?

3) What is that “something”?

4) How long would you have to have consumed carrots in order to doom yourself?

5) What about people who have a known predisposition to death (it’s called life), who do not eat carrots, will they also die?

6) What about randomization?

7) What about mixing carrots and peas? Will that have an inhibitory or synergistic effect? Which peas and carrots, specifically? What quantities? Will someone eat a placebo pea and/or carrot to find out? What is that placebo going to look like? What's it going to taste like? Will the people taking the placebo know they are taking a placebo?.......yada- yada- yada.....

8) Why do people with hair plugs and comb-overs think that it looks natural?

9) Why do women get offended when men stare at their breasts if they are wearing something low cut?

See, you can make anything nonsensical (except #8 and 9, which I really do want an answer to) seem valid. So go on, and use your cell phone and put it up to your head and stick that blutooth in your ear and text while driving, you won’t get “brain cancer”

Well, I won’t say you won’t, but I will say the evidence does not support it and the fact that you text while you drive just shows you’re an idiot. Nothing to do with anything, just “you’re an idiot.”

Thank you, and good night.

Chiropractors, thy end is near, hopefully

As all who know me, know that I cannot stand chiropractors and naturalists (Tooth Fairy Science, thanks Dr. Hall!) because they are harming people. They pretend to know as much as physicians, but on the contrary know nothing.
Here's some excerpts from one of my favorite blogs SBM about how the end is near for chiropractors! Hip-Hip-Hooray x 3!

"In the 114 years since chiropractic began, the existence of chiropractic subluxations has never been objectively demonstrated. They have never been shown to cause interference with the nervous system. They have never been shown to cause disease. Critics of chiropractic have been pointing this out for decades, but now chiropractors themselves have come to the same conclusion."

"The chiropractic subluxation is the essential basis of chiropractic theory. A true subluxation is a partial dislocation: chiropractors originally believed bones were actually out of place. When x-rays proved this was not true, they were forced to re-define the chiropractic subluxation as “a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health.” Yet most chiropractors are still telling patients their spine is out of alignment and they are going to fix it. Early chiropractors believed that 100% of disease was caused by subluxation. Today most chiropractors still claim that subluxations cause interference with the nervous system, leading to suboptimal health and causing disease."

Let us hope and pray that this will be a quick death. Amen.