Bullshit Mountain, home of Fake News

A wonderful description of Bullshit Mountain (home of Fake News in Alternative Facts land) by Jon Stewart. It is dated but relevant today more than ever. Enjoy.

I guess the article does not require a comment - it exposes hypocrisy at its best.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html

Catholic hospital says it was 'morally wrong' to argue fetus is not a person

By CNN Staff

updated 10:05 AM EST, Tue February 5, 2013

Catholic hospital flips on fetus death

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Catholic hospital reverses stance in case of Lori Stodghill, who died there
• Her husband sued the hospital on behalf of his wife and their unborn twins
• Attorneys for the hospital argued in court that a fetus is not a person

(CNN) -- A Catholic hospital in hot water for claiming in a Colorado court that a fetus is not a person backtracked on Monday, saying it was "morally wrong" to make the argument while defending itself in a wrongful death lawsuit.

The flip-flop concerns the case of Lori Stodghill. She was 28 weeks pregnant with twins when she went to the emergency room of St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City, Colorado, vomiting and short of breath.

She went into cardiac arrest in the lobby and died. That was New Year's Day 2006.

Her husband, Jeremy Stodghill, sued the hospital and its owner, Catholic Health Initiatives, for the wrongful deaths of his wife and their unborn sons.

Mom fights for law protecting fetuses

Case fuels debate over when life begins

Given the Catholic Church's belief that life begins at conception, defense attorneys for the hospital and doctors then entered an unusual argument.

Proposal would give way out of birth-control coverage

They said that under state law, an embryo is not person until it is born alive.

The claim attracted widespread attention and criticism, which apparently forced the about-face.

"In the discussion with the Church leaders, CHI representatives acknowledged that it was morally wrong for attorneys representing St. Thomas More Hospital to cite the state's Wrongful Death Act in defense of this lawsuit. That law does not consider fetuses to be persons, which directly contradicts the moral teachings of the Church," Catholic Health Initiatives said in a statement.

It promised that attorneys for the hospital would not cite the Wrongful Death Act in any future hearings.

Stodghill has petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court to hear his case.

The state's bishops similarly released a statement, expressing support for CHI and for the Stodghill family.

"We join CHI in affirming the fundamental truth that human life, human dignity and human rights begin at conception. No law can ever mitigate God-given human rights," they said. "Each human life is a sacred gift, created as a unique and unrepeatable expression of God's love. Life is given by God, and the right to life is a fundamental good, without which no other rights can be enjoyed."

NRA President David Keene Rejects White House Gun Control Approach

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june13/keene_01-15.html

Here one point of view. We all agree that we cannot fully limit number criminals and mentally ill who will have at some point have access to guns. In fact, well meaning citizens may be pushed to do criminal activity and they may become mentally ill, due to old age for example (Alzheimer, dementia, etc.). Thus, full prevention is impossible.

The idea of NRA is to put guards in schools, other public places, and basically give more guns to "good people". But because there will always be subset of future criminals and mentally ill in the pool of "good people", by increasing ownership we increase number of people who can potentially be dangerous with guns. This in turn means that we need more people having guns to protect against increased future threats. That will again increases the pool and increases the chances of the future criminals and/or mentally ill to have access to guns, and so on and so forth. In the end everybody should really own the gun and police force should become irrelevant, except for serving as guards for hire.

When everybody has a gun and police force is irrelevant, there is no force that can protect property rights for individuals. Thus, either we militarize society to make sure there is at least one force that is stronger than any individual, or we have to accept lawlessness in the form of "law of the gun" - who has better weapon or successfully shots first is right. Neither option is desirable. The former defeats the purpose of having guns in the first place, and second brings less security.

Finally, because we can never catch up by having more guns in the hands of "good people" to protect us against "bad people" with guns, inevitably we become less safe (somewhat counter-intuitively), and the shootings should become more common and violent. The idea here is that by having more guns we undermine the institutions which protect us, thus in instead of being more safe, we compromise our security.

There is another interesting point to be made. NRA says that criminals and mentally ill are as dangerous with guns. However, criminals will use guns with intent and they are safer for people in a sense that criminals will allow for negotiations in exchange for extraction of goods and services. On the other hand, mentally ill use guns not as threat but as a means to kill people, the one and only goal of their activity. Thus, if no citizen would have gun then surely we will all be vulnerable to gun-owning criminals, but we would be safer against being attacked by mentally ill because they will have less access to guns.

And as for statistics, violence and violence are not equal to each other so it is not correct to say that less guns did not decrease crime. We have to specify which crime, number of gun-related victims, and especially how often guns were used in criminal activity.

http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2013/01/guns-conservative-principles-and-three.html?showComment=1359526484051#c3504739903062696948

Grover Nodquist and Bush tax cuts

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/02/grover-norquist-this-is-obamas-pound-of-flesh-because-he-won-the-presidential-election/

While Blitzer suggested that Republicans supporting the deal would essentially be backing a tax increase, Norquist disagreed and clarified:

"They're not voting for a tax increase, they're voting to save tax cuts for as many people as they can over Obama's objections."

Okay, so let's clarify. The bill increases taxes for some but preserves old taxes for the rest. Grover says that Republicans vote only for one part, which is to preserve old taxes, but not vote to tax increase. But hey, it is the same bill! Republicans did not vote for parts of the bill, but for the WHOLE bill!

By that definition Republicans will never vote for ANY tax increase. Say, there is a bill that both increases taxes and changes the date of the Daylight Saving Time. Then Grover can always say that Republications only voted for the Daylight Savings Time, but not tax increase. This is classic BS. 

By the way, I think his argument would be true if the bill that is voted would ONLY lower taxes on the middle class which previously increased (when Fiscal Cliff really happened). But that is not what happened. The bill was clearly related to expiring Bush taxes and made some permanent and some . 

Besides, why majority of Republicans in the House voted against it by claiming it is tax increase? Are they confused?

 Finally, here is Grover Nordquist himself clarifying that actually what happened was a vote for tax increase. So he reversed his position for the convenience of the situation. 

=============================

 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/grover-norquist-pledge-gop-bush-tax-cuts-compromise.php

Sahil Kapur June 12, 2012, 5:58 AM 4087

Ahead of the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, an influential activist known for enforcing GOP anti-tax absolutism is reinterpreting his famous pledge, making it harder for Republicans to compromise in a way that ultimately raises federal revenues.
All but a handful of congressional Republicans have signed — and strictly adhered to — Grover Norquist’s pledge to “oppose any and all efforts” to raise taxes or revenues. But the White House’s insistence that President Obama will veto attempts to extend all of the Bush tax cuts creates a new incentive for Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats after the election. For that reason, Norquist is insisting on an interpretation of his pledge in which failing to prevent a tax increase — or even voting to partially cut a lapsed rate — would constitute a violation.
“I think the American people would look at anything that raised taxes from where they are today to be a tax increase,” Norquist told TPM Monday. “Everybody knows this has been coming.”

===============

Other:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/grover-norquist-bush-tax-cuts-tax-hike_n_905624.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/02/1175852/-Grover-insists-Democrats-are-the-party-of-low-taxes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/01/grover-norquist-vote-for-deal-is-vote-to-cut-taxes/
- so are the heroes, those who voted for or against the bill?

An Argument Against Seeking Fiscal Fix in Cuts to Medicare and Social Security

Republicans never acknowledged why there is bugdet deficit so they look at the wrong place
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NewshourHeadlines/~3/LvpJldDn_AE/entitlements_12-06.html

Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements but earned benefits.

Why Romney lost elections

Another interesting compilation

Bush Still Gets More Blame for Economy Than Obama

I think it is actually positive. American public may not believe in evolution but they sure remember who brought on them the great recession.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127472/bush-gets-more-blame-economy-obama.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/americans-blame-bush-obama-bad-economy.aspx