Bellicose Bumpkin

In this installment of Mike is always wrong, I’m accused of being a statist which is crazy because I’m a left wing nutjob whose trying to promote his agenda of getting welfare benefits for gay pot-smoking greyhounds.

Mike and I also discuss whether or not a medical practitioner should be compelled to offer treatments that clash with their religious beliefs.

---

Mike: Dude… I finally figured it out reading the comments of your latest post at nemasket.net. You are a statist. You believe that the state takes precedent over the individual… that the state defines right/wrong, moral/immoral, and should have control over the individual. You’re as bad as those you despise (the far right wing). it’s also why the slings and arrows that you fire my way don’t bother me much… you’re targeting them, and I’m safely in a different universe… the universe of individual rights. You know… the one that the founding fathers described in the Constitution and that every great president has fought to protect? And you’re right…. we should get together for dinner soon
Mark: I wouldn’t say "takes precedence" necessarily. I would say "sometimes takes precedence". For instance, the state should tax smoking to pay for the health costs associated with it.
Mike: Yes… but the state should not decide that smoking is wrong and not let people do it.
Mark: Unless the common good is better served. For instance making it illegal to possess weapons grade plutonium.
Mike: You’d say that health care workers that are currently aiding and saving people in Haiti from the United States shouldn’t be allowed to practice here if they don’t want to do abortions…. which is insane.
Mark: Yes and no. They should not be practicing here and no that’s not insane.
Mike: Sorry… no and yes. You’re just plain wrong on this one Mark, and no amount of hedging or statements otherwise can change it.
Mark: Not wanting to do abortions is OK for a private practice. It’s not OK for a person providing emergency services to a rape victim or other patient who might need an abortion – even a late term abortion – to save their life.
Mike: You’re OK with statism as long as der Fuhrer is enshrining the ideas that YOU like. It’s OK (not right, but should not be illegal) if it’s a PRIVATE hospital.
Mark: Even a private physician should be compelled to give the patient ALL medical options whether it conflicts with their belief in fairy tales or not.
Mike: even if they believe that by doing so they are committing murder???? WTF? I don’t agree with them, but I couldn’t compel someone to murder (even if it is by their definition).
Mark: So you’re hanging your hat on the treatment thing. Should the state allow private citizens to own weapons grade plutonium? RE: Murder. THEN THEY SHOULDN"T BE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS.
Mike: You see?? individual rights. PERIOD. Even if I don’t agree with some of the decisions people make.
Mike: THAT’S why I’m not in the right wing that you think I am… they’d compel people to NEVER get an abortion, because it’s what they think.
Mike: Sorry Mark. You’re wrong. To deny them the ability to save lives by doing heart transplants because they won’t do abortions is cutting off your nose to spite your face…. insane and wrong.
Mike: There are plenty of physicians that will do abortions on demand, and that’s fine.
Mike: There’s plenty that would prescribe the medicine for the morning after pill… and that’s fine.
Mark: Sometimes abortion is the best medical option for the patient. If they won’t offer it then they are NOT meeting their PRIMARY responsibility of providing the best possible care to the patient.
Mike: To compel someone to do so is wrong. See a different doctor… transfer to a different hospital (the morning after pill can be prescribed any time up to 3 days after the event I believe).
Mike: I’m willing to bet, that in a life-saving situation, the surgery would be performed.
Mark: Example. Your wife is six months pregnant and has some condition that is seriously threatening her life. Now your right wing nutjob doctor downplays or doesn’t even mention the efficacy of abortion as an option – even though it’s the best one. That’s wrong.
Mike: That is, if the surgery was performed, one life is lost, if not, two lives are lost. I’m willing to bet that any physician, given that as a choice, would choose to lose one life… even the radical religious right nut-jobs.
Mark: "I’m willing to bet" – gimme a break. It should not be a choice – it should be REQUIRED.
Mark: And the fact that the teabagging homophobe went out of his way to create such an amendment reveals him for the far right winger that he is.
Mike: Sorry. I disagree. And quoting Keith Olberman does NOTHING to enhance your credibility… it’s as bad as right-wing religio nut-jobs quoting Rush Limbaugh… they’re cut from the same cloth, one communist, and one fascist, both statist and BOTH COMPLETELY INSANE AND WRONG.
Mark: Your half right. Rush is wrong.
Mike: So when’s a good time for dinner?
Mike: Not my half. Not in a million years
Mark: The Olberman thing was a riot – that just cracked me up.
Mark: Maybe a week from this Sat. We’re going to a show in plymouth.
Mike: I have to admit… I laughed too… he’s entertaining certainly. But, the same as Rush, he’s got an agenda, and he pushes FAR in his particular direction. I’d never listen to him for substantive policy advice.
Mike: OK. I’ll have to check the calendar.
Mike: I’d fall back to the ideals of free speech…. you only agree with free speech if you do so for speech you despise. Or put another way: "I may not agree with what you say, but I’d fight to the death for your right to say it." I’d err in that same direction for all things in public policy. I don’t have to agree with people’s decision, but at the end of the day, it’s their decision, not mine.
Mark: Including private ownership of weapons grade plutonium?
Mike: The funny thing is, I get in the same trouble with people I know that I consider to be right-wing religio nut jobs as I do with you… they think I’m a left wing nut and lump me in with Oberman because I defend your side too… for instance, a woman’s right to choose should NEVER be taken away (even if I personally find that choice in most cases to be abhorrent).
Mike: As in all things, including science (for instance, Relativity falls apart at extremely small scales, and quantum physics falls apart at large scales), pushing things to ridiculous extremes causes even the best theories to fall apart.
Mark: OK then, how about seatbelts, helmets, drinking ages, DUI, drugs, etc.
Mike: Clearly, the state has some need to impose restrictions on the individual… but it should err on the side of freedom. Seatbelts should not be required, nor helmets, assigning the drinking age to the same age as adulthood makes sense, similar with drugs. HOWEVER, making a bad choice and not wearing a helmet and dying or becoming a quadriplegics is not the state’s, or my problem… it’s yours because of your own stupid decision.
Mike: DUI should be illegal.
Mike: sorry I missed that on the first list.
Mike: Because the risk with DUI is others… not just yourself.
Mark: And when a severely injured helmet-less motorcycle rider shows up at the hospital uninsured – what happens? The state(ME) pays for it.
Mike: You should be happy about that… it’s what you want… the state pays for everything, right?
Mark: Same with drugs. Drug addiction fuels crime, increases police/court/treatment costs – all of which I have to pay for. Or even become the victim of some drug-addled criminal.
Mark: "Clearly, the state has some need to impose restrictions on the individual" – spoken like a true statist
Mike: Legalize drugs, tax them, use the money to pay for addiction treatment, the crimes that are related to drug addiction are already illegal and punishable, and should remain so.
Mike: And like any liberal, you take that quote out of context… what was the next phrase in the statement?
Mark: I happen to agree with that but you see my point.
Mark: The next statement was "I’m a teabagging right wing homophobe nutjob"
Mike: F-U !!!

Here’s a fun post. Me and my buddy Mike going at it over the Brown/Coakely election.

We always have a great debate that is liberally sprinkled with insults and derision – all in good fun. Mike is a very bright guy who challenges my positions – which makes me hone my thoughts and provides never-ending satisfaction since I’m always right.

Mike: News Flash: Dems maintain control of the Senate.
Mike: Nice response to my comment on FB btw… I got a huge laugh out of that
Mark: which one?
Mike: For all the doom-and-gloom out there from the dems, and all the gloating by the reps, not much really changed except that the dems don’t have as large a majority as they did. It should also be a wake up call to them… if a dem can’t win here, there’s some serious discontentment with what they’ve been doing over the last year.
Mike: The one about me being evil and uncaring… and oh by the way we need to get together for dinner
Mike: The country does not like the health care bill(s) that the dems have been pushing. Something needs to be done, it just ain’t that.
Mike: As I say in a blog post that I’m editing right now, let’s be honest. The goal of the dems has been to socialize medicine. There are those that agree with this (you), and there are those that disagree (me), but that’s clearly been the goal. They’ve been trying to figure out a way to dress it up so that the public would swallow it, and they failed.
Mike: Here’s a guy that captured how I really feel: http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/read.php?id=257
Mark: Brown is a horrible candidate. I think his victory has a large racist component. Many votes were against a healthcare bill that hasn’t been finalized – not for a candidate that has anything to offer. His positions on the environment for instance can be summed up as “let’s do nothing and see how that goes”
Mike: I don’t entirely disagree (except that I think race had absolutely NOTHING to do with it). It was a vote against the dem machine and the approach that they’d been taking in the health care bill(s). it’s clear to me, and I think anyone that reads all the stuff that’s been thrown into that bill (including the kitchen sink) that the real goal was to make private health care untenable and drive people to government run health care.
Mark: He’s a homophobe with no ideas to offer: “I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration”. No suggestion on an alternative. I’m in favor of anti-gravity cars that run on a perpetual motion field generator – but we don’t have those.
Mike: 1. Have a public option that covers everyone for basic (and I mean BASIC) and emergency care paid for by a payroll tax like SS and medicare
Mark: Mike – the public option was throwing people into a tizzy. How do you figure that would fly?
Mike: 4. Take away company sponsored health care and make companies give the money from that benefit back to the employees. People get to choose #3 that best fits them.
Mark: “I am a free enterprise advocate who believes that lower taxes can encourage economic growth”. That’s original. That ought to play nicely with our current deficit problems. Not.
Mike: 6. Put a cap on how much doctor’s are liable in malpractice suits and disallow frivolous suits
Mark: I missed 2, 3, and 5
Mike: 2. Allow people to purchase supplemental insurance that meets their particular needs with no regulations on what has to exist in those policies.
Mike: 3. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines
Mike: 5. Allow prescription plans from #3 to buy medicine from out of the country so they can’t rape us with the cost
Mark: How do we pay for #1?
Mike: If you give me the money back that my company currently pays (i.e. increase my salary) that’d cover that and I’d still have enough left over for supplemental insurance.
Mark: You’re talking about a heavy handed sea-change socialized medicine policy – which I like – but given the mood in the country, I don’t see anything like it ever happening.
Mark: I think I’m missing posts. was there anything after “if you give me the money…”?
Mike: Kinda sorta. The thing is, we already pay for that right now…. hospitals are required by law to administer care to people whether they can pay for it or not. So they end up going to the ER for stupid shit which drives cost WAY up. I’m just talking about using that money to have people go to a doctor’s office instead of the ER.
Mike: I’m not saying I’d really like that idea either…. I’m saying that I could accept something like that. And I think that most reasonable people could too… the problem is 2 things: the left wing of the dems, and the right wing of the reps. The left wing wants nothing less that 100% socialized medicine, and the right wing wants nothing less than 100% market driven private insurance. They’re both wrong.
Mark: Mike you’re crazy. They might want it but it’s not the plan of record.
Mike: But it’s WHY we got the crap that we got.
Mark: Reality check: Republicans want to kill the only deal on the table and have no alternative plan. That’s where we are.
Mike: They kept fighting anything less than that.
Mark: What is on the table is WAY less than that and WAY less than the plan you just floated.
Mike: Reality check… if the dems could work together in any reasonable way with the presidency, the house and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, they could’ve passed something long ago.
Mark: Perhaps but irrelevant to the health care discussion.
Mike: But the left wing wouldn’t accept anything less than what they wanted, and as the middle-of-the-roaders made concessions to the the reps to try and get them on board, they lost the left wing.
Mark: Lost how? A plan passed both the house and senate?
Mike: but nothing passed either of those that would pass in the other.
Mark: That remains to be seen.
Mike: That was the whole problem… they’re talking about that right now. They’ve been saying “Will the house just pass the Senate bill to avoid having to deal with Brown” and the resounding response from the left wing in the house has been “no way… it doesn’t go nearly far enough to get our vote.”
Mark: And you think a plan like the one you floated is more palatable to republicans and likely to pass if it was proposed?
Mike: Probably not…. I did say “reasonable people”.
Mike: But the Senate bill, and House bill, are both crap.
Mike: How about we just start small and deal with things piece-meal.
Mike: 1. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines
Mike: 2. tort reform: stop the stupid malpractice suits…
Mark: Easier said than done. First you have to define “stupid”
Mike: 3. Get rid of mandatory minimum coverage in health care plans (my mom has a plan that requires coverage for Viagra? really? my mom? with no boyfriend even??? really?)
Mike: I think doing it in steps like this its far more likely to get done than one “big bang”.
Mark: Don’t see how that helps. If you Mom has a mandatory benefit that she’s not using, there’s no cost to recoup.
Mike: Huh? That makes HER cost more than it should be… people should be able to get coverage that works for them. That keeps down their cost. That’s the real crisis, btw… out of control cost for the people.
Mark: By that logic, I shouldn’t be charged to cover home care for the disabled or extraordinary costs for conditions I don’t/won’t have. That makes the cost for people with severe conditions prohibitively high.
Mark: You seem to be missing the fundamental machinations of insurance. Many pay into the pool to cover the few.. Most people’s houses will never burn down but they pay insurance just in case and there payments go to the people whose houses do.
Mike: Perhaps… but there’s gotta be a happy medium… I’d love to continue this, but I gotta go work out and shower… helps keep my health care costs down. BTW… one last parting shot. I talked to one of my doctor’s a couple of weeks ago and she said that if the current bills passed, she’d stop taking new medicare patients… with the reduction that she’d get for medicare patients she’d lose money on them. She’d keep her current ones, but wouldn’t take any new ones.
Mike: And one last thing in response to your comment above: you’re completely right… people get fire insurance for their house in case their house burns down. If you don’t buy fire insurance and it does, you’re hosed. So, if I buy insurance to cover home care, that goes into the pool with others that buy home care insurance, and it gets paid out to them if they need it. If you need home care, and you didn’t buy that coverage, you’re hosed.
Mike: Like auto insurance… if you don’t get enough coverage to pay for your car if you get in a wreck, or to cover medical expenses if you’re hurt (or the person in the other car is hurt), you’re hosed. It’s not MY responsibility to make those decisions for YOU and make sure that you don’t get hosed. That’s your responsibility. Now I really gotta go
Mike: Taken from a comment to the editorial from the Globe’s token conservative voice Jeff Jacoby: “I can’t believe I agree with Jeff Jacoby, but he’s absolutely correct. I’m a supporter of the President and I voted for Coakley, but I don’t like how the health care bill has turned out, and it’s certainly cost the President a lot of political capital with the American people. So while I’m not a fan of Scott Brown, the timing and results of this election could very well be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats and a chance to get their act together and chart a more effective course.”
Mike: I couldn’t agree more with this person (except I voted for Brown).
Mark: If that makes you feel better about voting for a misogynist, racist, homophobe, I’m glad for you.
Mike: whatever.
Mark: With “whatever” being defined as the last post by a person who voted for a misogynist, racist, homophobe.

Mike: whatever.
Mark: Have you been taking debating lessons from a 14 year old girl?
Mike: I do have 2 teenage daughters
Mike: And, just for the record, he’s none of the above.
Mark: What’s the proper term for a person who supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?
Mike: I’m sure he has different political positions than you, but that doesn’t make him any of the things you said, contrary to what your friend on MSNBC said.
Mike: Except, that’s not what his position was during the debates, or were you not watching?
Mike: He actually defined his position as “exactly the same as President Obama’s”… so if he’s homophobic, so’s Obama.
Mark: Brown opposes same-sex marriage, and one of his big political missteps occurred eight years ago, when he said it was “just not normal” for his Democratic predecessor in the state Senate, a lesbian, to have a baby with her partner. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011904877.html
Mark: I doubt that’s Obama’s position
Mike: And as far as misogynist… his position on the morning-after pill was that PRIVATE hospitals should not be forced to administer something that goes against their religious convictions… which I agree with (although I’m totally in favor of women having access to said procedures and medications).
Mike: And I guess, because Martha Coakley said there’s no longer terrorists or the Taliban in Afghanistan, that’s really what she believes.
Mark: Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
Mark: Brown was one of only three members of the heavily Democratic State Senate to vote against a repeal of a state law that barred out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. Later, he would vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage – for which he earned the endorsement of the group The Coalition for Marriage — and he opposed the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-engaged-in-cu_n_425385.html
Mike: Yep. I’m not debating his votes. I just said he’s not a homophobe.
Mark: If someone doesn’t want to give treatments that clash with their religious beliefs, they have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS being a health care provider.
Mike: I’m sorry, but that’s just a stupid statement.
Mark: OK – what is the proper term for him? Anti-gay rights? Pro-family? Either way, in my book, he wants to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference – a position that is untenable for me.
Mike: A person who is anti-abortion and finds it to be morally abhorrent should not be forced to do such a procedure. That’s like saying that someone that’s against the death penalty but works in the justice system should be forced to pull the lever. It’s stupid on its face.
Mike: Well… Obama opposes “gay marriage” but supports civil unions. Is he anti-gay?
Mike: That was his position during the entire campaign. You can’t have it both ways.
Mike: Me personally? I think we should get rid of marriage completely from civil law and make everyone have civil unions. Marriage is a religious concept that has no place in our laws.
Mark: He supports civil unions and is taking a weak position for political reality. Brown is anti-gay and trying to soft sell it.
Mike: Brown supports civil unions also.
Mike: Dress it up however you want. Both play to their parties and have to deal with political realities.
Mark: These stances set him apart even from his fellow state Republicans. In heavily Democratic Massachusetts they earned him derision and awkward headlines. In February 2007, Brown visited his daughter’s high school for a discussion on his stance on gay marriage. At some point during the event, however, he lashed out against the crowd for its poor reception of his position. Brown read aloud the names of certain students and the comments they had posted about him on a Facebook page dedicated to a pro-gay rights history teacher at the school — profanities and all. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-engaged-in-cu_n_425385.html
Mark: “lashing out” at high school kids. Add anger issues and child abuse to his list of attributes.
Mike: And, BTW, I didn’t vote FOR Brown… I voted for more balance in the Senate and the House. The dems still have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They just don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate now… just a smidge of balance.
Mark: heading to work – berate you later
Mike: lol. OK.
Mike: me too.

Mike: Yo… I thought of something after you signed off… you’re party only has themselves to blame for Brown even getting a chance to run. If they hadn’t played party politics and tried to make sure that if Kerry won the presidential election Romney wouldn’t get a chance to appoint a republican, there would have been no special election and Patrick would have just appointed a democrat… hoisted on your own petard.
Mark: What are you talking about? The special election was to replace Kennedy who, in case you’re not keeping up on current events…. died.
Mike: Right… and if the law had not been changed back when Kerry was running for president, then a replacement senator for Kennedy would have been APPOINTED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE. The law was only changed when Kennedy was affraid that a republican would take Kerry’s place back then if he’d won and he lobbied the Mass. legislature to change it to be a special election.
Mike: Oooops. Kinda poetic justice if you ask me.
Mark: OK – you’re right.
Mike: When will you learn that I’m ALWAYS right
Mike: I learned you were always right long ago… time for you to catch up
Mark: You sure are ….. far right.
Mike: Uhhhh… I’d say you’re right… but you’re wrong
Mike: And if, as George Will once said, the genius of American Democracy is gridlock (because if somethings gets enough support to break the gridlock, it’s usually a good idea), the results of this election can only support that genius.
Mark: I think we’re seeing a repeat of the Gingrich congress – oppose the democratic president regardless of the issue.
Mike: Right… the inverse of the Pelosi congress… oppose the republican president regardless of the issue.
Mike: The out-of-power party is ALWAYS obstructionist. I’ll give you that it probably started under Gingrich, but both sides are like that now.
Mark: You do remember who the president was, right?
Mike: Uh… that would be Clinton.
Mark: No – when Pelosi took over
Mike: Wasn’t it Bush Jr.?
Mark: Right
Mike: But, the reason that Coakley lost was that the dems were trying to force through a very unpopular health care bill and they pissed people off enough to elect Brown. As George Will said in his editorial today: “The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the legislation’s unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing.”
Mike: Mass. citizens chose… they don’t want the health care legislation as proposed by Pelosi, Reid, et. al.
Mark: Which is fine if you’re having a referendum on health care. Not so fine if you’re talking about a Senate election
Mike: So, if the dems had listened to the nation (the healthcare legislation was at about 35% approval), and not tried to “inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best,” it wouldn’t have been a referendum. As it was, it was the only way that people saw that they could get this blinkered congress to listen. Again… it’s their own fault.

Without my IM chats with Mike,
I’d have nothing to blog. In this installment, we determine
that lady doctors rule, and that mass consumption of wine is
a good thing. Also that I am fat.

(15:57:37) Bumpkin: So I had my yearly physical. I have a touch of arthritis in my right FU finger and
I’ve gained 18lbs in the last year. Other than that I’m good. My lady doctor
gave my boys a thorough checkout. It was quite pleasant.

(15:58:05) Bumpkin: Lady Doctors Rule!!

(15:58:56) Mike: LOL! I just had my physical also. I’ve held my weight basically constant, but I’m overweight. I need to lose about 30 lbs. As far as cholesterol is concerned…. 178 total. Not bad. HDL too low: 21. Otherwise it all checks out.

(15:59:27) Bumpkin: I need to shed 44. Want to have a competition or weekly weighins or something?

(15:59:51) Mike: I don’t have a lady doctor, but I have a libertarian doctor…. we always have good discussions

(15:59:57) Mike: Sure.

(16:00:37) Mike: I just started working out this week. I’m getting to work at 6:30am and spending an hour working out at the onsite gym (very cool). I think the schedule is going to work for me. I need something to challenge me to eat better though, and that could be the ticket.

(16:00:53) Mike: I’ll tell you right now. I’m at 225.

(16:01:54) Bumpkin: I’m 244 fully dressed. Let’s start with a weighin Monday morning, log the numbers, and check in
each Monday morning. Monday AM is a good time to weigh – it discourages you from overeating
during the weekend.

(16:02:12) Mike: Definitely. Sounds good.

(16:03:08) Mike: Gotta love the red wine:

(16:03:10) Mike: The 2005 Dietary Guidelines recommend one drink a day for women and two a day for men. This doesn’t mean to can save them up for a weekend party and expect to get the same benefits.

Will A Drink A Day Make You Fat?

A drink a day may help keep your brain sharp and heart healthy but what about the calories?

Alcohol supplies calories with few essential nutrients. If you drink alcohol, it needs to be budgeted into “discretionary calories” to maintain a healthy weight according to the 2005 dietary guidelines.

“Most Americans are sedentary, putting them into the lower calorie levels, leaving little room for alcohol, sweets, and extra fats,” states Theresa Nicklas, DrPH, a member of the dietary guidelines advisory committee.

It is more important and healthful to select foods packed with nutrients, such as fruits and vegetables, rather than alcohol when calories are limited. The health benefits of moderate alcohol do not outweigh the risks of being overweight or obese, says Nicklas.

An individual on an 1,800-calorie level eating plan only has 195 discretionary calories or the equivalent of a 9-ounce glass of wine or a small dessert. If you want dessert along with your daily allotment of alcohol, you need to increase physical activity to balance your calories to achieve a healthy weight, according to Nicklas.

(16:03:36) Mike: Notice: 2 a day for men… cool That’s what I drink.

(16:05:20) Bumpkin: My doctor was giving me a little grief over the 10 per week I drink – more to do with
the calories. F-that. At night, I have some wine or a drink while I unwind with
the wife and TV. That’s good for me.

(16:06:10) Mike: Mine too. 10/wk is not too much from a consumption point of view, but the empty calories definitely will add to the waist line if you don’t do something to take care of the extra calories.

(16:06:48) Bumpkin: True. It’s a luxury I don’t want to give up. I’ll make up that 200 cals somewhere else.

(16:07:20) Mike: I’m totally convinced that the reason my total cholesterol is at 178 is because of daily alcohol consumption. Before I started drinking a couple a day, I was at 220 and they started me on medications. I’d rather drink the wine!

(16:07:37) Bumpkin: Still on the meds?

(16:08:48) Mike: Nope. I stopped them 10 years ago. I didn’t like the side effects. Once I started with the 2 drinks a day, the cholesterol stayed down…. and I have a very bad history of heart disease and high cholesterol in my family.

(16:10:12) Bumpkin: I agree. Especially with red wine. That small amount of alcohol seemingly is good for all sorts
of things. Plus the antioxidents and other mystery benefits of red wine. Last but not least,
the enjoyment and relaxation of glass of vino – gotta be good for you.

(16:11:04) Mike: The moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, defined as 1 to 2 drinks per day, has been suggested to increase overall survival rates in a number of different population groups. One standard drink is generally considered to be 1.5 oz of liquor, 5 oz of wine, or 12 oz of beer. The patient groups that appear to benefit most from light to moderate drinking, middle-aged men and women, are also those who are at increased risk for developing cardiovascular disease. Thus, the reduction in total mortality that is associated with moderate alcohol consumption, generally a 30% reduction in risk, is believed to be the result of a reduction in the risk of developing atherosclerotic disease.
When the data from 51 epidemiological studies were combined, they showed that the risk of coronary heart disease decreased by approximately 20% when 0 to 2 alcoholic drinks were consumed per day. Apparently healthy adults, patients with a history of heart attack, and patients with diabetes all appeared to benefit. Results from the large Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, a study in which 38,077 male health professionals who were free of cardiovascular disease were observed for 12 years, suggested that drinking 1 to 2 drinks per day, 3 to 4 days per week decreased the risk of having a heart attack by as much as 32%. The formation of an occluding blood clot in an artery that supplies part of the brain can lead to stroke. Light to moderate alcohol consumption was found to be associated with an approximately 20% reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke and may even be beneficial in preventing subsequent strokes.

(16:11:23) Mike: I totally agree.

(16:11:51) Bumpkin: The Souse Beach Diet
8:00 AM to 8:00PM – healthy food in moderation
8:00 PM to Midnight – As much wine as will fit in your belly

(16:13:13) Bumpkin: So are we competing, betting, or just encouraging one another in the weekly weight loss thing?

(16:13:18) Mike: Take a look at this graph: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/red_wine_image022.gif

(16:13:56) Mike: Just encouraging…. OK… betting…. if you win, I’ll give you some homemade wine, and if I win you’ll give me some. Winning is defined as first to get to goal weight (195 for me).

(16:14:41) Bumpkin: Hmmm,, I have a lot further to go than you, but the stakes are sufficient low.

(16:14:49) Bumpkin: 200 for me

(16:15:03) Mike: right. OK. It’s a bet. May we both win

(16:15:30) Bumpkin: No serious starting til Monday AM – that’s the weighin time.

(16:16:40) Mike: off topic: While I was in West Virginia I was reminded of something my dad used to yell to a friend of his in his home town when he visited (so that everybody could hear)… he’d yell: “Bob Swiger! I was the best man at your wedding!…. and I’m STILL the best man!!!”…. just kinda reminds me of something you might say

(16:17:08) Bumpkin: RE Graph – 3-5 drinks per day and falling – what about all these "no more than 1-2 per day" things
I always hear?

(16:17:42) Mike: I’ve seen a second graph that shows an uptick when it gets above two…. but it’s still a cool graph

(16:18:29) Bumpkin: So I’m not going to fall over with guilt if I have 3 or 4 glasses on a Saturday night.

(16:19:14) Mike: Right.

(16:19:18) Bumpkin: Are you going to the BH walk on Sunday?

(16:19:27) Mike: Nope…. Knee can’t take it anymore.

(16:19:37) Bumpkin: Even if you walk up the road?

(16:19:48) Mike: Not really.

(16:19:55) Mike: And, I’m way too busy this weekend anyway.

(16:20:12) Bumpkin: Too bad. What about if I tied a line to you johnson and towed you up?

(16:21:32) Mike: RIIIGGGHHHTTT! Just call me the gimp (from Pulp Fiction)….

(16:22:06) Mike: Here’s another version of that graph comparing wine, beer and spirits: http://nutra-smart.net/rwfig1.GIF

(16:23:05) Bumpkin: Gotta admit I’m a bit bummed about having arthritis. I’m only 44 for crying out loud.
It’s pretty minor but very annoying. So far hasn’t affected anything except my ability
to knock on doors or I suppose punch someone.

(16:23:47) Bumpkin: RE Graph – Amazing – Beer is a wash, Spirits are bad(over two), and wine is good up to 5.

(16:24:03) Mike: Be glad it’s minor. The arthritis in my left knee is at stage 4… i.e… raw bone on raw bone, wearing a hole in my bone.

(16:24:31) Bumpkin: Will you do a knee replacement eventually?

(16:25:37) Bumpkin: Stick it out for as long as is medically prudent while they perfect it
even more on the guinea pigs – I mean baby boomers.

(16:25:37) Mike: Probably within a few years.

(16:25:44) Mike: Definitely.

(16:26:14) Bumpkin: It’s a pretty successful thing these days – but you know that.

(16:26:39) Mike: Yup. It’ll be more successful in 5 years. My doctor said that if I can hold off for 5 years he’d be amazed…. that was 2 years ago.

(16:27:47) Bumpkin: I’m all fired up to have some wine tonight – Long Life Through Wine

(16:28:25) Mike: OK. Here is where the 1-2/day comes in. The relative risk of dying from ANYTHING is about the same for 2/day as it is for 0/day, but the heart disease drops for more. So, your best bet is to drink the 2/day. Here’s the graph: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh26-4/images/register5.gif

(16:28:33) Mike: That’s the one I’m familiar with.

(16:29:02) Mike: Graph C is heart attack (MI = myocardial infarction)

(16:29:10) Mike: Notice the U shape of the A graph.

(16:30:46) Bumpkin: That’s also alcohol consumption – not necessarily wine consumption.
I liked the other graph better

(16:31:04) Bumpkin: http://nutra-smart.net/rwfig1.GIF

(16:31:06) Mike: … Speaking of alcohol… I gotta go get some beers. Hold on a minute.

(16:31:18) Bumpkin: You SUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(16:32:46) Mike: Ahhh…. a nice cold one in my office… mmmmm….

(16:33:07) Bumpkin: Keep suckin down those empty calories fat boy

(16:33:39) Bumpkin: I hope beer just came out of your nose and all over your pussy mac keyboard.

(16:34:01) Mike: I gotta go drink with my coworkers… I’ll catch you later

(16:34:05) Bumpkin: cya

Musings of a bellicose bumpkin
Fri Oct 13, 2006 – YAMC – Yet another Mike chat -
where I explain to this recovering conservative why
he should *not* vote his concience..

(12:10:24) Mike: dead, Dead, DEAD TO ME! http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/13/ney.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

(12:10:24) Bumpkin <AUTO-REPLY> : Be back soon

(13:09:45) Bumpkin: Now – all you need to do to fully rehabilitate your insane voting record, is to
vote Democrat. None of this "they both suck" business. If you not voting
for a Democrat – you’re voting for the Republican

(13:12:08) Mike: that’s kinda stupid, don’t you think?

(13:12:20) Bumpkin: No. It’s RealPolitick

(13:12:40) Mike: If I don’t vote for KKK Grand Poobah Senator Bird, I’m voting for a Republican?

(13:12:59) Bumpkin: Yes.

(13:13:07) Mike: Nonsense.

(13:13:13) Bumpkin: You’ve got to look at the bigger picture……

(13:14:44) Bumpkin: Sure, it’s bad to vote for Senator Onerous. But…. if the Democrat’s have the majority,
they can do "good" things. If you make a "statement" vote for Birchbark Goodbreeze,
you’re giving the Republican a better chance.

(13:15:48) Mike: Ahhh….. you gotta come up with better fake names than that though…. like they do on the Daily Show: Grabby McSqueezemybuns

(13:15:49) Bumpkin: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/13/abramoff.nonprofits.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
WASHINGTON (AP) — Five nonprofit groups, including one of President Bush’s biggest supporters, may have broken tax laws and put their tax-exempt status at risk by helping convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a Senate Finance Committee report concludes.The 600-page report issued Thursday was prepared by the committee’s Democratic staff. Majority Republicans, however, had agreed to its release and joined with Democrats in issuing subpoenas for documents and e-mails cited in the report.

(13:16:50) Bumpkin: KKK -Grand Poopah

(13:17:08) Mike: or (in this case) Sleezy McGrafty

(13:17:30) Bumpkin: I thought Birchbark Goodbreeze was a pretty good name for a Green party guy.

(13:19:07) Mike: Not bad

(13:19:34) Bumpkin: Sure, in an ideal world, vote independent or for the guy you like the best.
In the real world, vote for the guy who has a chance to get things done.
Our biggest problems right now are brought on by the Republicans. Only
the Democrats can fix it – given the political reality of our essentially 2 party
system.

(13:19:46) Mike: So…. on to a FAR more important question…. Do you think former president Roslyn (sp?) is really dead?

(13:20:28) Bumpkin: What do you mean – I don’t remember her dying in S3-1?

(13:21:02) Bumpkin: Oh -wait – when they rounded up all the citizens to make a statement.

(13:21:47) Mike: Right….. while the one character was escaping, the machine guns went off, supposedly killing Roslyn and Zarek.

(13:22:30) Bumpkin: No – she can’t be dead. She’s too good a character. And besides, we would have heard she was
leaving the show.

(13:23:29) Mike: Perhaps…. I’d hate to see the character go, but on the other hand I would respect the hell out of the show’s producers for having the balls to do that! It makes sense for the story as it is, even if it would suck from a fan point of view.

(13:24:44) Bumpkin: The show would definitely survive. How about the "makeup" on Lee. Amazing. He looks slightly
overweight – not huge. Just soft.

(13:25:04) Mike: On the other hand, I read the story on Ain’t It Cool News where the guy has seen tonight’s episode already…. in the questions about this episode: “Do the Adama boys learn of the deaths of Roslin and Zarek this week? $.1�ó�¨No.”

(13:25:34) Mike: Now, that does imply that she’s actually dead, or maybe that WE don’t find out this week either. Who knows. RE: The makeup, definitely.

(13:26:00) Mike: Hopefully the Emmy Award folks will take a serious look at the show based on all the buzz that it’s been getting and reward it for what it is.

(13:26:19) Bumpkin: Colonel Tigh is an awesome character.

(13:26:44) Mike: One of my favorites, definitely. Certainly, he’s one of the most complex characters on the show.

(13:26:56) Bumpkin: Exactly

(13:27:24) Mike: I love the way he’s taken charge on the planet.

(13:27:36) Bumpkin: This whole thing reminds me of a timeline that shouldn’t be happening.

(13:28:19) Mike: I hope they don’t fall back on something lame like that. This is far too good.

(13:29:07) Bumpkin: I’m sure it wouldn’t be lame if they did it right. But it is the easy way out.

(13:29:45) Mike: EXACTLY… I don’t want them to take the easy way out. I want them to deal with this harsh situation and follow it to its conclusion.

(13:30:24) Bumpkin: I don’t think killing Roslin is necessary. The show is plenty grim and tense without
killing her off.

(13:31:47) Mike: Very true. BUT, if I were the cylons, that’d be what I’d do, along with killing off the Chief and Tigh.

(13:32:33) Mike: From one of the comments: “Personally, I think Cally is the one who’s gonna bite it. She’ll run into the firefight in the forest or something. My theory (and its just a theory) is that the human police fired on the approaching cylons. If you remember, they were all in a group and then ran to one side as the cylons approached, then the scene changed to Cally running and you heard gunfire, but we never actually SAW the cylons firing. It would be cool if the police turned on the cylons and saved the day. Yeah, its a weak theory, I know, but possible…”

(13:33:25) Bumpkin: So what is their motivation – is this essentially a religious crusade for them?
RE police: I thought the same thing when it happened. They didn’t show the cylons firing for a reason.

(13:33:58) Mike: Right. Their motivation for killing them is to cut the head off the resistance so they can assimilate the rest of the humans.

(13:34:13) Bumpkin: I mean their motivation for the whole occupation.

(13:35:10) Mike: #6 and Boomer fell in love with humans and gained enough power to make the rest of the cylons back off from the destruction of humanity to try and live in harmony. Don’t you watch?

(13:35:46) Bumpkin: Of course, but I always think they have other motives.

(13:36:34) Mike: I don’t think so in this case. Remember the line #6 said: “If you’d ever been in love, you’d never ask me that.” or something like that.

(13:36:53) Mike: That’s her whole motivation…. saving Gaius.

(13:37:00) Bumpkin: I think C6 and Boomer are genuine – but not the rest of the cylons.

(13:38:00) Mike: BUT they seem to be mostly controlling the situation (at least so far). It probably won’t last though. What about Starbucks kid!!!!!!!

(13:38:35) Mike: it’s like subliminal rape or something. We didn’t actually have sex, but I took some of your eggs and made a baby without your permission. YIKES.

(13:39:05) Bumpkin: Very twisted. I hope the kid doesn’t stay. Kids + Adult TV = Jump the shark

(13:40:18) Mike: I don’t think so in this case. This is just yet another great moral twist/question that show is raising given our current culture and abilities with artificial insemination, stem cell research, cloning, etc.

(13:40:54) Bumpkin: I like the not-so-subtle parallel with our occupation/crusade in Iraq

(13:41:36) Mike: Definitely…. but, are we the cylons or is Al Queda? I hate the idea that the writers are equating us with the cylons, but they are.

(13:41:56) Bumpkin: We’re the cylons.

(13:42:13) Mike: Yup. THAT SUCKS!!!!!!!!

(13:42:28) Mike: Wait…. Bush isn’t smart enough to be a cylon!

(13:42:29) Mike:

(13:43:30) Bumpkin: The high tech worshippers of the One True God imposing our will on the indigenous population.
That’s as far as it goes though. The writers aren’t wishing that American solidiers get killed. Just
giving us a look at things from the other side.

(13:43:53) Mike: Right.

(13:45:05) Mike: How about this (from the page I quoted above). You know Starbuck’s kid’s name?

(13:45:15) Bumpkin: No.

(13:45:39) Mike: It was in the last episode: Casey.

(13:45:43) Mike: Or KC

(13:45:48) Mike: Or “Kara’s Child”

(13:45:52) Mike: cool

(13:46:23) Bumpkin: Just like Newt’s doll from Aliens.
Is that what the name means? – Kara’s Child?

(13:47:01) Mike: I don’t know, but that’s what the guy on the site said (not the BG site, the aint-it-cool site). Even if it doesn’t really, it’s a very cool coincidence.

(13:48:11) Bumpkin: Right. It’d be fun to be a writer and put all these little easter eggs and inside jokes
in the script. Was you that told me about "Now passing Anara" in ST TNG?

(13:48:28) Mike: Right. I remember that

(13:49:13) Bumpkin: Actually, Geordi LaForge was named after a ST fan.

(13:49:29) Mike: Really? Cool!

(13:49:48) Bumpkin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordi_LaForge
The character was named after George La Forge, a fan of the original Star Trek series who died from muscular dystrophy in 1975.

(13:50:27) Bumpkin: Pretty soon we’ll be able to delete the whole internet and replace it with Wikipedia

(13:50:58) Mike: Definitely

(13:52:33) Mike: I’m going to be bottling the wine kit you gave me this weekend.

(13:52:46) Mike: It’s been in the secondary forever. It’s time

(13:53:04) Bumpkin: Bout time. I need to start a Cab-Shiraz

(13:54:39) Bumpkin: I’ve got about 170 bottles. I’m transitioning into make-em-as-you-drink-em mode.
The plan is to always have about 140-170 bottles, the oldes of which is 9-12
months old.

(13:55:12) Mike: Cool.

(13:55:34) Mike: Are you sure 170 is enough to last 12 months the way you go through wine?

(13:56:20) Bumpkin: I can *highly* recommend the Cellar Classic merlot, cabernet, shiraz, and cab-shiraz. The merlot
is particularly delicious.

(13:56:43) Mike: That much better than the cheap boxes?

(13:56:55) Bumpkin: For an extra 1$ per bottle -yes

(13:57:30) Mike: Hmmm…. a 50% increase in cost?

(14:01:50) Mike: I’ve got a meeting.

(14:43:15) Mike: BWHAHAHAHAHA: “Inevitably, Dave Barry’s years-old quote comes to mind: “Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the ‘most reliable Windows ever.’ To me, this is like saying that asparagus is ‘the most articulate vegetable ever.’”

(14:56:01) Bumpkin: Just got back from visitors

(14:58:48) Mike: This comes from an article in which it’s talking about the vaunted security of the new Longhorn Server: ““The ‘most secure Windows ever’ may be very secure from hackers and malware �ò�ô but what do you do when Longhorn Server lets you install the OS, set up Active Directory, and initialize the domain without once asking you even to create an administrator password?”

(15:00:14) Bumpkin: There’s already been multiple patches – and it’s not even released yet.

(15:01:07) Bumpkin: Viruses Instability Spyware Trojans Adware

Musings of a bellicose bumpkin
A little chat about the evil senator Templeton on Commander In Chief,
Ted Kennedy, Byrd(and the KKK) and generic Republican ranting.

(08:47:41) Mike:Watched CIC last night… very good episode.

(08:47:52) Bumpkin: Wasnt’ it

(08:48:12) Mike: I’ve thought a bit about the kind of character I’d like to see Templeton turn out to be.

(08:48:37) Bumpkin: He has to remain basically evil – the show needs a protagonist.

(08:51:04) Mike: I’d like to see him be a non inherently evil Republican that is a True Believer in the Republican view of government that sometimes agrees with (ala last night) the president, and sometimes disagrees. I’d like the show to write him such that as we follow his decision making process that is governed non by evil self interest but by ideology he ends up at turning points where things won’t work out the way he’d like if he follows his ideology, but he makes that choice anyway.

(08:51:32) Mike: (sorry about the run-on sentence )

(08:53:07) Bumpkin: Well he’s got to be bad enought that you get excited about hating him – like “OH I can’t believe he did that. What an asshole!” – which
doesn’t stray far from making him a “real” believable republican character.

(08:53:10) Mike: In other words, highlight the inherent conflicts that are in any political philosphy when that philosophy runs up against your conscience. It’d be a very difficult thing to write well, but I think it would be far more compelling. The same thing could be done with democrat senators as well (remember, she’s an independent, so both parties can be friends and enemies to her depending on the issue).

(08:54:01) Bumpkin: Sad to say – I believe that most republicans – are more like Templeton than *not* like him.

(08:54:22) Mike: But whatever he does like what you’re saying, it should be because it’s part of a real philosophy (anti big government or whatever) than just because he’s evil.

(08:54:36) Mike: Perhaps. Which would be sad.

(08:55:43) Bumpkin: Look at some of the “big” assholes in the republican party. They seem like pure evil to me. Maybe if CIC
introduced some moderate repubs and left Templeton as the evil guy.

(08:56:16) Mike: What I guess I’m trying to say is that neither the Republican nor the Democrat philosophy (not as implemented by the current crop of practitioners, but the *real* core beliefs of the philosophy) is entirely perfect, and it would be very compelling television to see decision chains that lead to moral conflicts by following either of those philosophies.

(08:57:12) Mike: Throw in a libertarian as well… perhaps a True Believer communist or socialist… make it an intelligent show that really pushes these philosophies and shows them for what they are.

(08:57:39) Bumpkin: Sur e – but it *is* TV and the republicans *are* more evil, and the show *does* need to entertaining and
have a bad guy.
I think Templeton is going to through the help he gave in her face – i.e. run for Pres and
tell everyone how she couldn’t handle the NK issue without his help. That she was
totally out of her depth.

(08:57:44) Mike: Perhaps (as you’d believe), the Democrat philosophy would end up being the right one most of the time, but it would still be very interesting.

(08:58:26) Mike: It doesn’t have to be an evil bad guy, but rather someone that disagrees with the president… I agree that if everyone agrees all the time on the show, that’d be boring.

(08:59:15) Mike: I hope that doesn’t happen… that would be way too cheap and easy.

(09:00:23) Mike: If it does go that way, it’d be very much like the way that Kennedy brought up Cuba in the TV debates but Nixon couldn’t respond fully due to national security issues (remember that from the Oliver Stone movie Nixon?)

(09:01:35) Mike: That was a cheap shot by Kennedy… he knew he’d look good and knew that Nixon wouldn’t be able to respond (don’t get me wrong… it’s good that Kennedy won over Nixon… it’s just a really similar situation to the one you brought up).

(09:01:59) Bumpkin: I’m back

(09:02:03) Mike: ok

(09:02:33) Bumpkin: I don’t remember that from the movie.

(09:03:15) Bumpkin: Take Ted K for instance. I like his positions and basically believe he’s out to do the *right* thing for the common man (or woman).

(09:03:18) Bumpkin: But…….

(09:03:50) Mike: It was a pivotal scene… Nixon’s advisers (James Woods?) were watching the scene from the directing booth commenting on the cheap shot and saying that Nixon should just pull off the gloves and to hell with national security. I can’t believe that you don’t remember it!

(09:04:24) Mike: I’ll accept what you say about Ted K. as a postulate for this conversation

(09:04:52) Bumpkin: That Chappaquidick thing was indefensible and he was a pure asshole during the Carter years. He personally torpedoed Carter
because he wanted the presidency to the point where the Dems looked like a bunch of bickering idiots and possibly
caused Carter to lose to Reagan. Even after he lost the primaries, there was a big moment where he refused

(09:05:02) Bumpkin: to shake Carters hand on TV – it was a big stink.

(09:06:19) Mike: OK… NOW, you might spin that into his entire career and say that he’s really all about maintaining power and that the way he sees as best to do that is to aim his rhetoric at “the common man” to get their vote. To hell with what’s right for the country… give me more money for my state so I can get re-elected.

(09:07:01) Mike: You see? If a republican was writing the show and Ted K. was the opposition… they’d probably spin his character that way… and it would probably be wrong.

(09:07:37) Bumpkin: Well I think he’s grown. He has no more presidential ambitions and this has no real impetus for doing something *other* than
be a good legislator and do the right thing for the people. RE – your point is well taken

(09:09:48) Bumpkin: Bracing myself for a barrage of republican rhetoric wrapped in an independent flag

(09:10:04) Mike: OK… given that… it’d be much more compelling in the long run if Ted K is like you say, but by fighting for what he wants (for good reasons as far as his philosophy which is not inherently evil dictates) he ends up either in conflict with the president, or at moral crossroads where to get what he thinks is right he as to sacrifice things that he considers personally very important?

(09:10:20) Mike: (no republican rhetoric at all… I’m not that predictable

(09:10:59) Bumpkin: Right – so long as you can keep him really “hateable” for the sake of good television.

(09:11:17) Mike:

(09:11:35) Bumpkin: Bring in a charactor like one these old Dems who use to be in the KKK.

(09:11:53) Bumpkin: Byrd was in the KKK …. right?

(09:11:58) Mike: old Coot Dems

(09:12:04) Mike: yup.. Byrd was in the KKK.

(09:13:13) Bumpkin: A year later in 1948, Byrd opposed President Truman’s initiative to integrate the Armed Forces – and he did so using the language of a very much active Klansman. The powerful Senate Democrat vowed then that he would “never submit to fight beneath that banner (the American flag) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

(09:13:44) Bumpkin: YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

(09:13:47) Mike: OUCH! EVIL!!!!!!

(09:14:23) Bumpkin: He’s like a really evil grandfather who washes your kid’s penis just a *little* too long.

(09:14:58) Mike: LOL!!!! (That’s an image I didn’t need!!!)

(09:16:27) Bumpkin: Wow – that quote is really something. Shows you the state of race relations when this guy was elected in the 40′s – just over 50 years ago.

(09:17:15) Mike: In simple terms… I’d like to see all parties represented by how they’d like to be represented, and then have the writes of the show use “proofs by contradiction” to show that the parties aren’t all right all the time. I think that could be very cool (but very difficult to write well).

(09:17:25) Mike: That is an amazing quote.

(09:19:14) Bumpkin: I think that last time we had a “good” republican part was back in 1976-1984. Since then they’ve become
more and more evil so that now they are practically a caricature of evil politicians.

(09:20:15) Mike: I think you might be right… it doesn’t invalidate the core philosophy, but it certainly invalidates the current practitioners that don’t even follow what they purport to believe in.

(09:22:27) Bumpkin: Right. Their core beliefs of personal freedom, decentralized government(i.e. state’s self determination), and small goverment have long been
abandoned. The democrats are much closer to that ideology than the republicans are. Now they are just a bunch of shrill white supremacist
religion zealots.

(09:22:59) Mike: For instance… they purport (but obviously don’t anymore) to believe in small government… small government isn’t good (necessarily), and it isn’t evil (necessarily)… BUT, having a small government would definitely have implications as to our day to day life… what are those implications? What’s good about it? What’s bad about it? etc.

(09:24:29) Bumpkin: I’m not necessarily against small government. I am against saying the you can’t help minorities because that would cause big government – when *in fact*
you don’t want to help them because you’re a racist. When I say *you* – I don’t me you Mike – I mean hard core republicans.

(09:26:11) Mike: I’m willing to say that *some* of those are racist (including idiots like Byrd), but certainly not all, and it’s really not fair to characterize them all as racist because they believe that we shouldn’t help one group to the detriment of another.

(09:26:30) Mike: (and thanks… if I thought you meant me, I think I’d have to punch you in the nose )

(09:26:42) Bumpkin: That’s been my beef all along – the Republicans have been opposing civil rights, gay rights, and other things that
I think are our social obligations – under the guise of it violating Republican ethos of small governement, personal
freedom etc.

(09:27:54) Bumpkin: I just don’t believe that adherence to republican policy is the real reason for their opposition – especially
since the rise of the religious right in the last 20 years.

(09:28:23) Mike: perhaps… it’s really hard to say in all cases (in some cases, it’s easy to say!)

(09:28:54) Bumpkin: Certainly not in *all* cases. Just in a growing number of cases and in the powerful segment of the party.

(09:29:35) Mike: definitely in a powerful (but I believe minority) segment of the party… the vocal moral majority is neither moral nor a majority… discuss.

(09:30:34) Mike: I’m getting a little verklempt.

(09:30:42) Bumpkin: I hope you’re right. We need a fresh infusion of moderates to bring this mess under control. It has never been this
bad – even in the nixon years.’

(09:30:50) Bumpkin: LOL

(09:31:22) Mike: Agreed… like I (and even John Stewart) said… by today’s standards… Nixon was a liberal!

(09:31:54) Bumpkin: Right. A very paranoid and sneaky liberal – but comparatively……… a liberal.

(09:32:01) Mike: I think the pendulum started swinging to the right under Reagan and is nearing apogee (at least I hope it is!)

(09:33:19) Bumpkin: The republicans under Clinton were so freaking evil. They wrecked what could have been a golden
age of accomplishment and advancement for the country. I’ve never seen such a shameful partisan

(09:33:23) Bumpkin: display in my life.

(09:33:30) Mike: in that vein… Alito scares the shit out of me. You know me… non-religio-conservative… BUT, I know the value of NOT having one party in charge of everything… he’d swing the balance way too far to the right.

(09:33:45) Bumpkin: Right.

(09:34:33) Mike: I hope the dems don’t pussy out like John Steward was showing the other night…. Does a justice need just a simple majority to be confirmed or a 2/3 majority?

(09:35:58) Bumpkin: Don’t know. He looked pretty bad yesterday.

(09:36:30) Bumpkin: Give this a quick look:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/11/newt-kettle-black/

(09:37:49) Mike: ouch.

(09:38:06) Bumpkin: The guys got big brass ones.

(09:39:15) Bumpkin: I’m gonna grab a tea and get back to work.

(09:39:28) Mike: I think it’s simple majority…

(09:39:46) Mike: “Advice and Consent”… I think consent is simple majority… it’s gonna be hard to keep Alito out.

(09:39:54) Bumpkin: Too bad.

(09:39:55) Mike: OK… Enjoy the tea and the work

(09:40:05) Bumpkin: I’ll enjoy at least one of them.

(09:40:12) Mike: