Discussing Mr. Massa, there were suggestions of a democratic cover up. It was said that higher ups "sat on" the allegations about Mr. Massa.
The phrase "sit on it" has another meaning, which may very well apply to Mr. Massa.

"We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what's in it.....WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING" "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance......WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING?????
Nope - not some random member of the Obamacare-Now crowd, but the Speaker Of The House.

Quoting harkin: "We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what's in it.....WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING"

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance......WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING?????

Nope - not some random member of the Obamacare-Now crowd, but the Speaker Of The House.

I take it you've never been self-employed. Or have ever witnessed somebody in a low-payed occupation struggle with health problems. It's hilarious.

Quoting Ocean: I'm fully aware that this is the first comment on this diavlog. I'm fully aware of BhTV rules. I will only present facts.

And a toned down opinion:

Yeah, I was wondering if there was going to be a mention of Clouthier in today's TWIB, considering her performance last week. To begin with, I have always appreciated Matt Lewis' intelligence and open-mindedness, and have said as much in these forums. It was good to have him back. It was nice of Scher and Lewis to stand up for Clouthier in the face of the overwhelmingly critical comments directed at her, but as far as I am concerned, she earned them. Clouthier's confrontational stance, and her repeatedly resorting to political boilerplate, were at cross-purposes to the whole point of TWIB, which as Scher and Lewis themselves point out, is not to score political points, but to provide an overview and analysis of the blogosphere. Clouthier seemed to be trying to turn the diavlog into what Lewis describes as "the modern Crossfire thing," which is exactly what TWIB is not supposed to be.

Quoting listener: It was nice of Scher and Lewis to stand up for Clouthier in the face of the overwhelmingly critical comments directed at her, but as far as I am concerned, she earned them. Clouthier's confrontational stance, and her repeatedly resorting to political boilerplate, were at cross-purposes to the whole point of TWIB, which as Scher and Lewis themselves point out, is not to score political points, but to provide an overview and analysis of the blogosphere. Clouthier seemed to be trying to turn the diavlog into the what Lewis describes as "the modern Crossfire thing," which is exactly what TWIB is not supposed to be.

Yes.

Quoting AemJeff: I take it you've never been self-employed. Or have ever witnessed somebody in a low-payed occupation struggle with health problems. It's hilarious.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. Also, having watched the entire diavlog, other than the fact that the topic of health care reform in general was discussed, the commenter's remarks didn't seem to have any specific relevance to anything Scher or Lewis said. That, and the sarcastic tone of the commenter's remarks (and his use of all caps and repeated multiple punctuation marks), lead me so suspect that this person's interest is more in provoking and venting than in engaging in actual discussion (is that what they call "trolling"?).

Quoting listener: That's pretty much what I was thinking. Also, having watched the entire diavlog, other than the fact that the topic of health care reform in general was discussed, the commenter's remarks didn't seem to have any specific relevance to anything Scher or Lewis said. That, and the sarcastic tone of the commenter's remarks (and his use of all caps and repeated multiple punctuation marks), lead me so suspect that this person's interest is more in provoking and venting than in engaging in actual discussion (is that what they call "trolling"?)

Sometimes harkin seems only to want to provoke a reaction, which is a shame because the harder he seems to be trying to do that, the less interesting his posts become, overall. Lately most of his posts have read like grievance ejaculations with tenuous ties, at best, to either the commentary or to the content. We need better conservatives around here!

One of the harshest lessons I have ever learned was being unemployed for a year and effectively without healthcare for 18 months (my job benefits don't kick in for another couple weeks.) With only two minor cases of sickness: possible H1N1 bout last April, and currently a case of tonsillitis (not requiring surgery.) Both combined only in a total of three trips to UrgentCare for antibiotics, but the cost was about a month's rent all told. It really made me appreciate the difficulty of living this way that many people are forced to that don't have health insurance or don't have income or both. And that's not even the same ballgame as people with REAL problems like cancer, diabetes, HIV etc. I have never felt so strongly that some form of universal healthcare is the way to go for any society that truly cares about it's citizens.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: One of the harshest lessons I have ever learned was being unemployed for a year and effectively without healthcare for 18 months (my job benefits don't kick in for another couple weeks.) With only two minor cases of sickness: possible H1N1 bout last April, and currently a case of tonsillitis (not requiring surgery.) Both combined only in a total of three trips to UrgentCare for antibiotics, but the cost was about a month's rent all told. It really made me appreciate the difficulty of living this way that many people are forced to that don't have health insurance or don't have income or both. And that's not even the same ballgame as people with REAL problems like cancer, diabetes, HIV etc. I have never felt so strongly that some form of universal healthcare is the way to go for any society that truly cares about it's citizens.

Congrats on the new job!

I love Bill Lewis. I love Matt Scher! I love all of the other commenters too.

Quoting Mannish Boy: I love Bill Lewis. I love Matt Scher! I love all of the other commenters too.

And I love McKinley Morganfield. Welcome and congratulations on your first post here.

Quoting listener: Yeah, I was wondering if there was going to be a mention of Clouthier in today's TWIB, considering her performance last week.
It was nice of Scher and Lewis to stand up for Clouthier in the face of the overwhelmingly critical comments directed at her, but as far as I am concerned, she earned them. Clouthier's confrontational stance, and her repeatedly resorting to political boilerplate, were at cross-purposes to the whole point of TWIB, which as Scher and Lewis themselves point out, is not to score political points, but to provide an overview and analysis of the blogosphere. Clouthier seemed to be trying to turn the diavlog into what Lewis describes as "the modern Crossfire thing," which is exactly what TWIB is not supposed to be.

And now we are treated to an episode II of trashing Michelle. Geez! She was new and I think she did an OK job. She answered Bill's questions about the blogosphere on the right. If her answers were boilerplate, as you describe, please remember we've been at this for a year, and we have a 24 hour news cycle. Is she supposed to make stuff up so it's new? And maybe she wasn't up

Quoting AemJeff: Sometimes harkin seems only to want to provoke a reaction, which is a shame because the harder he seems to be trying to do that, the less interesting his posts become, overall. Lately most of his posts have read like grievance ejaculations with tenuous ties, at best, to either the commentary or to the content. We need better conservatives around here!

That presumes that there is such a thing as a better conservative. I find that very hopeful.

Quoting badhatharry: Back off people! Have a heart.

Since Matt & Bob brought it up in their conversation, I thought it would be okay to bring it up here. But okay, maybe I was piling on a little too much. Point taken. We of differing perspectives sometimes need each other to keep each other in line.

Quoting listener: That's pretty much what I was thinking. Also, having watched the entire diavlog, other than the fact that the topic of health care reform in general was discussed, the commenter's remarks didn't seem to have any specific relevance to anything Scher or Lewis said. That, and the sarcastic tone of the commenter's remarks (and his use of all caps and repeated multiple punctuation marks), lead me so suspect that this person's interest is more in provoking and venting than in engaging in actual discussion (is that what they call "trolling"?).

The reason harkin was using caps and periods was that he was riffing of this post bjkeefe made to badhatharry, or one similar, where he mocks tea partiers: bjkeefe:

Quote:

The bulk of your argument, and I use that term generously, can be summarized thus:

Quote:
Keep your government hands of my Medi ... WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING???1?

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=11 You have to be here awhile to see that things are not one-sided. Harkin is well-informed and thoughtful, and the more hostile the attacks that fall on him, the more he's hitting the target Listener, what do you think of harkin's post, above, where Speaker Pelosi says that artists, etc., won't have to worry about

Quoting look:
You have to be here awhile to see that things are not one-sided. Harkin is well-informed and thoughtful, ....

and quite beleaguered, but never afraid to stand up for what he considers to be the truth. Thanks for 'splainin', look. I didn't get the connection either.
Dumbass, conservative that I am.
That and that I don't read any of Keefe's posts that have all caps in them. My stomach can't take it.

Quoting look: Listener, what do you think of harkin's post, above, where Speaker Pelosi says that artists, etc., won't have to worry about keeping their day jobs in order to pay for health insurance?

First of all, thanks for soliciting my opinion and engaging in conversation. I saw the Pelosi interview from which that quote comes, and I have read the Washington Examiner column that harkin linked to. The column was, of course, polemical, and therefore skews Pelosi's words somewhat to make the author's self-admittedly exaggerated points. Polemic is a legitimate form of discourse, but it should be recognized as such and not be mistaken for reasoned, measured argument that attempts to play fair with facts. Here's how I understood Pelosi's point: I think that what she was saying is that there are professions, such as writing and photography, or any freelance profession (whether artistic in nature or not) whose practitioners can't count on a steady employer to help underwrite their health insurance. Pelosi is advocating for a health care structure in which freelancers have the same access to health insurance as those who choose a safer, more corporate career path. (This would seem help society to avoid financially disincentivizing

Quoting badhatharry: and quite beleaguered, but never afraid to stand up for what he considers to be the truth.

or what rush limbaugh considers to be the truth.

Quoting nikkibong: or what rush limbaugh considers to be the truth.

hey! rush is people, too.

Quoting listener: First of all, thanks for soliciting my opinion and engaging in conversation.

Here's how I understood Pelosi's point: I think that what she was saying is that there are professions, such as writing and photography, or any freelance profession (whether artistic in nature or not) whose practitioners can't count on a steady employer to help underwrite their health insurance. Pelosi is advocating for a health care structure in which freelancers have the same access to health insurance as those who choose a safer, more corporate career path. (This would seem help society to avoid financially disincentivizing individualism and risk-taking, values that I would think conservatives would endorse).

As someone who is self employed, artsy and has been for years, I think I can speak to the reality that people who want to be entrepreneurial can actually obtain health insurance! Surprised? All you have to do is make sure that you can make enough money from your little enterprise to pay the premiums. I don't have a cell phone, so am not aware of pricing, but I bet someone who is young can get a policy for what they pay for theirs. I hope I am not appearing to

Quoting badhatharry: I don't have a cell phone, so am not aware of pricing, but I bet someone who is young can get a policy for what they pay for theirs.

I hope I am not appearing to be too self- referential! (that's a reference to McCardle)

You're being like McMegan in another way here, too -- just making up numbers that have no bearing in reality to support something you'd like to believe (e.g., e.g.). If we all could purchase health insurance for the same price as what a cell phone plan costs, there wouldn't be any motivation at all to have health insurance reform of any sort. And before you try to insist that you don't have a cell phone, so how could you know?, I'll point out that you could have found the actual information in about fifteen seconds.

Quoting badhatharry: hey! rush is people, too.

That's stretching the definitions beyond the breaking point.

Quoting bjkeefe: You're being like McMegan in another way here, too -- just making up numbers that have no bearing in reality to support something you'd like to believe

I made up no numbers, so there! Second, I carefully qualified my statement by saying "I bet". So it looks like you can get an unlimited plan for about $69. I bet a lot of people pay more for bells and whistles. And you can get a catastrophic plan in California starting at $79.

Quoting badhatharry: As someone who is self employed, artsy and has been for years, I think I can speak to the reality that people who want to be entrepreneurial can actually obtain health insurance! Surprised? All you have to do is make sure that you can make enough money from your little enterprise to pay the premiums.

I don't have a cell phone, but I bet someone who is young can get a policy for what they pay for theirs.

I don't have the facts at my disposal to confirm or refute that last assertion. I do know that as a working artist, I was able to obtain health insurance only because the state I live in happens to provide low-cost insurance choices for lower-income people. And even at that subsidized rate, my monthly premiums are about 500% of the cost of my cell phone (I don't have a land line so that I can keep my expenses down). And my policy is extremely minimal, with no drug coverage, mental health coverage, etc. As someone who is artsy and has been for years (and you have my deep respect for sticking to that path), you must know that sometimes artists

Quoting bjkeefe: If we all could purchase health insurance for the same price as what a cell phone plan costs, there wouldn't be any motivation at all to have health insurance reform of any sort.

Also note that I did say a young person. I am not talking about cadillac plans, here, obviously. But as the evil CEO of Whole Foods has suggested, it may be those cadillac plans that are partially responsible for the soaring costs in medical care. You know, stuff like people going to the doctor and having no idea of the actual cost of the visit and tests because they never ask and don't shop.....stuff like that.
But geez that would take effort and we wouldn't want the peeps to have to do that. It would be much better to upend the economy and pass a bill before it's been read.

Quoting badhatharry: I made up no numbers, so there!

Second, I carefully qualified my statement by saying "I bet".

So, you didn't make up numbers, but then you for some reason felt qualified to qualify what you didn't make up? Ooooo-kay.

So it looks like you can get an unlimited plan for about $69. I bet a lot of people pay more for bells and whistles. And you can get a catastrophic plan in California starting at $79.

You really think anyone can get this health insurance plan for this price? Again, Megan badhat, if we lived in a glibertarian paradise where everyone was young, had no pre-existing health conditions, etc., sure, this might apply. But we don't live in the land of pixie dust and sparkle ponies, I'm sorry to have to tell you. This is why we need health insurance and health care reform.

Quoting badhatharry: Also note that I did say a young person.

Here in reality, we are not all young persons, with no pre-existing health conditions.

But as the evil CEO of Whole Foods has suggested ...

You know, stuff like people going to the doctor and having no idea of the actual cost of the visit and tests because they never ask and don't shop.....stuff like that.

I can see you're in full glibness mode now, so I think I'll just leave you to your fantasies.

Quoting badhatharry: As someone who is self employed, artsy and has been for years, I think I can speak to the reality that people who want to be entrepreneurial can actually obtain health insurance! Surprised? All you have to do is make sure that you can make enough money from your little enterprise to pay the premiums.

Yeah, I don't know how it's possible that it just doesn't occur to people to do just that. It's so simple. If people only thought a little harder, we would be all successful, rich and immortal. No need for government, I tell you. No caps at all.

Quoting listener: And my policy is extremely minimal, with no drug coverage, mental health coverage, etc.

So I suppose one question is, do we as a community feel an obligation to provide some sort of health care security for those whose "little enterprises" have yet to pay off, or do we feel that we have no such obligation?

No drug coverage, no mental health coverage!!!!
I'm talking about a catastrophic plan with a $5000 deductible. Those can be pretty cheap in the long run. (but admittedly gets costlier as you age). In other words, what you save in paying premiums, you can put towards the deductible if you ever have to use it. And, I feel no obligation to provide health care security other than what is already in place by way of medicaid. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. Artists are no exception.

Quoting bjkeefe:
You really think anyone can get this health insurance plan for this price? Again, Megan badhat, if we lived in a glibertarian paradise where everyone was young, had no pre-existing health conditions, etc., sure, this might apply. But we don't live in the land of pixie dust and sparkle ponies, I'm sorry to have to tell you. This is why we need health insurance and health care reform.

Again, I said young person and I think that that kind of plan would be appropriate (at minimum) and affordable for most young persons if they wanted to avail themselves As I have said on many occasions, I love idea of reform, but not your and your cohorts' idea of reform. In your pixie dust (read democratic rhetoric) ridden brain you think that THE BILL is going to make things better. Can't wait to read your reactions after it's passed.

Quoting badhatharry: No drug coverage, no mental health coverage!!!!
I'm talking about a catastrophic plan with a $5000 deductible. Those can be pretty cheap in the long run. (but admittedly gets costlier as you age). In other words, what you save in paying premiums, you can put towards the deductible if you ever have to use it.

No need for the four exclamation points, my friend. I did shop around, and my plan is the least expensive option that was available to me, and is precisely the "catastrophic" type that you describe -- the term just didn't come to mind as I was typing. We can argue the numbers back and forth, but it looks like the more basic question is the one I asked, and that you answered very clearly:

Quoting badhatharry: I feel no obligation to provide health care security other than what is already in place by way of medicaid. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. Artists are no exception.

I will ask one further question of you. If Medicaid were not already in place, would you be in favor of it if it were being proposed now?

Quoting badhatharry: Can't wait to read your reactions after it's passed.

Appreciate the vote of confidence in that occurrence.

Quoting Ocean: Yeah, I don't know how it's possible that it just doesn't occur to people to do just that. It's so simple. If people only thought a little harder, we would be all successful, rich and immortal. No need for government, I tell you.

No caps at all.

No, I don't think if people thought a little harder they would be successful and rich. But I do think that if people shopped around for health care the costs wouldn't be as high as they currently are. It's interesting that you feel obliged to misstate my view to your advantage. But it spells out perfectly the difference between between us. You think government should take care of people and be there if they can't make it. I think that if people don't rely on government, they have a much better chance at being self reliant and possibly successful. No guarantees, of course. But then that's real life.

Quoting badhatharry: But I do think that if people shopped around for health care the costs wouldn't be as high as they currently are.

What makes you think that it is a problem of shopping around?

It's interesting that you feel obliged to misstate my view to your advantage.

I exaggerated your view to show its basic logical weakness. If the solution were so simple and so accessible, there wouldn't be a problem. Your view is shallow and simplistic.

But it spells out perfectly the difference between between us. You think government should take care of people and be there if they can't make it. I think that if people don't rely on government, they have a much better chance at being self reliant and possibly successful. No guarantees, of course.

What happens with those who fall under your "no guarantee" category?

But then that's real life.

Is this another way of saying "too bad"? I think that "real life" is what we make of it. If real life is unjust or insufficient, then we try to change it. It seems that you are too much of a conformist when it comes to someone else's problems. But I do

Quoting Ocean:

I exaggerated your view to show its basic logical weakness. If the solution were so simple and so accessible, there wouldn't be a problem. Your view is shallow and simplistic

But I do agree in one point. I have followed your comments in recent threads. We are in disagreement in many points. I find your position to be selfish and simplistic. You should leave this discussion here. I don't think we are going to find common ground.

Again, it is interesting to me that you feel OK about calling me shallow, selfish and simplistic. You also have the tendency to call the end of discussion with the air of superiority that is emblematic of the left. And because of this you are correct that we will never find common ground. I may remind you that it was you who originally responded to my comment and not the other way around. You people on the left think you have a corner on caring about people. You all have Utopian ideas which bear little resemblance to being anything useful or practical. "Let's just insure everyone! Damn the cost! Don't worry that this may not actually make things any better! Don't

Quoting badhatharry: Again, it is interesting to me that you feel OK about calling me shallow, shallow and simplistic. You also have the tendency to call the end of discussion with the air of superiority that is emblematic of the left. And because of this you are correct that we will never find common ground. I may remind you that it was you who originally responded to my comment and not the other way around.

You people on the left think you have a corner on caring about people. You all have Utopian ideas which bear little resemblance to being anything useful or practical. "Let's just insure everyone! Damn the cost! Don't worry that this may not actually make things any better! Don't consider that it could be done any way but our way!"

But what I experience is that you mostly care about your caring words and people who agree with you. To me it is a lot of lip service.

I'm sure this will seem like an instance of ganging up; but that's not my intent. I would like to point out that Ocean's post contained no direct personal characterization

Quoting listener: I did shop around, and my plan is the least expensive option that was available to me, and is precisely the "catastrophic" type that you describe -- the term just didn't come to mind as I was typing.

I will ask one further question of you. If Medicaid were not already in place, would you be in favor of it if it were being proposed now?

The reason for the exclamations was that I haven't had anything even close to mental health or drug benefit for so long it seems pretty extravagant. I made some decisions in my life which put me on the road of the self employed and I have understood what that would mean....no benefits. However, I also understood that if I didn't want to lose everything, I had better be covered for the big stuff so no matter what I found the money for the premium. I actually am in favor of providing care to people who can't afford it through Medicaid. However, because I have some knowledge of human nature, I know that some of those people could have provided for themselves if they had wanted to. But nothing is perfect, so I accept that situation.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm sure this will seem like an instance of ganging up; but that's not my intent.

give me a break.

Quoting badhatharry: give me a break.

The victim cloak has been donned!

Quoting badhatharry: give me a break.

Good grief, Harry! Is it true or isn't it?

Quoting bjkeefe: The victim cloak has been donned!

What is this victim cloak you speak of so often?

Quoting badhatharry: Again, it is interesting to me that you feel OK about calling me shallow, selfish and simplistic. You also have the tendency to call the end of discussion with the air of superiority that is emblematic of the left. And because of this you are correct that we will never find common ground. I may remind you that it was you who originally responded to my comment and not the other way around.

You people on the left think you have a corner on caring about people. You all have Utopian ideas which bear little resemblance to being anything useful or practical. "Let's just insure everyone! Damn the cost! Don't worry that this may not actually make things any better! Don't consider that it could be done any way but our way!"

But what I experience is that you mostly care about your caring words and people who agree with you. To me it is a lot of lip service.

Sometimes we write comments to share information, thoughts and ideas. Sometimes we write to vent anger. Rarely both at the same time...

Quoting AemJeff: Good grief, Harry! Is it true or isn't it?

It's absolutely true! if what you are asking about is whether the commenter made no direct attributions to my character. What is not true is that there was no underlying, implicit and/or explicit reference to my character. You know that and I know that.

Quoting badhatharry: It's absolutely true! if what you are asking about is whether the commenter made no direct attributions to my character. What is not true is that there was no underlying, implicit and/or explicit reference to my character. You know that and I know that.

I definitely don't know that. I don't think she needs (or wants) a defense from me, but I don't believe I've ever witnessed anything consistent with that description from that quarter. It is possible to have an opinion about what somebody has said without generalizing that opinion to the person, and indeed it happens fairly often.

Quoting badhatharry: I haven't had anything even close to mental health or drug benefit for so long it seems pretty extravagant. I made some decisions in my life which put me on the road of the self employed and I have understood what that would mean....no benefits. However, I also understood that if I didn't want to lose everything, I had better be covered for the big stuff so no matter what I found the money for the premium.

It seems that you and I are pretty much in the same boat as far as that is concerned... I could have said more or less the same thing about my own decisions and my understanding of their consequences in this society as currently organized.

Quoting badhatharry: I actually am in favor of providing care to people who can't afford it through Medicaid. However, because I have some knowledge of human nature, I know that some of those people could have provided for themselves if they had wanted to. But nothing is perfect, so I accept that situation.

It's encouraging to me to know that although we don't share the same views about whether our society, through its government, can help to ameliorate

Quoting listener: First of all, thanks for soliciting my opinion and engaging in conversation. I saw the Pelosi interview from which that quote comes, and I have read the Washington Examiner column that harkin linked to. The column was, of course, polemical, and therefore skews Pelosi's words somewhat to make the author's self-admittedly exaggerated points. Polemic is a legitimate form of discourse, but it should be recognized as such and not be mistaken for reasoned, measured argument that attempts to play fair with facts.

Here's how I understood Pelosi's point: I think that what she was saying is that there are professions, such as writing and photography, or any freelance profession (whether artistic in nature or not) whose practitioners can't count on a steady employer to help underwrite their health insurance. Pelosi is advocating for a health care structure in which freelancers have the same access to health insurance as those who choose a safer, more corporate career path. (This would seem help society to avoid financially disincentivizing individualism and risk-taking, values that I would think conservatives would endorse).

The Examiner column also makes some assumptions that I think are just plain wrong, such as the more or less

Quoting look: ...

Well, as you know there are artists and there are artists. I foresee scenarios where the artist who lives at home, completely financed by a parent, who's only real financial worry (health insurance) will have been met by people drawing a paycheck.
...

Have you seen any legislative language, or specific text describing it, that supports this interpretation of the proposal? It seems like a long stretch to have made that inference from what sounded to me like offhand rhetoric.

Quoting AemJeff: Have you seen any legislative language, or specific text describing it, that supports this interpretation of the proposal? It seems like a long stretch to have made that inference from what sounded to me like offhand rhetoric.

Offhand rhetoric from the Speaker. Do you think that counts as anything?

Quoting look: Offhand rhetoric from the Speaker. Do you think that counts as anything?

I think it's important to understand what a message is intended to convey. And correctly interpreting the intent of a particular communication is key. The quote from Pelosi was clearly part of a sales pitch aimed at a certain kind of liberal, not a technical definition of the specifics of the intended reach of a legislative initiative.

Thanks, look, for your thoughful response. You wrote, regarding MK Ham's Washington Examiner column:

Quoting look: Yes, I agree that both sides are not presented, but do find this part of Pelosi's statement alarming:

It would be helpful to me if you could explain why you found it alarming, since I didn't find it so.

Well, as you know there are artists and there are artists.

I'm not sure what is meant by this. Perhaps you are saying that there are artists of varying levels of talent and commitment. If so, that is certainly true, but often the distinctions between greater and lesser artists is not so clear-cut. For years, the Beatles were just another local oldies band, scrounging for gigs, judged mediocre at best by their fellow musicians in Liverpool, sometimes driven nearly to the point of giving up altogether, until something sparked and their musical greatness blossomed. You just never know.

perhaps an artist is really more of a hobbyist until s/he can develop a business plan and follow through on it, including the acquisition of health insurance. This may include living at home, paying minimal rent to parents, etc.

I agree that there is a distinction to be made between artistic hobbyists

Quoting listener: Thanks, look, for your thoughful response. You wrote, regarding MK Ham's Washington Examiner column:

I agree that there is a distinction to be made between artistic hobbyists and non-hobbyists. To my mind, the distinction lies in the degree of commitment. A non-hobbyist is totally committed to his or her art, come what may, and is (and I'm not being melodromatic here) willing to put their life on the line for it.

I can appreciate that.

The idea of developing a business plan makes sense to me to the extent that an individual artist may be temperamentally suited to that approach. However, some of our greatest artists' greatness -- their ability to be visionaries in human cultural expression and through their efforts, allowing the rest of humanity to find deeper meaning in their lives -- derives from a singleminded focus on creativity that is incompatible with the concept of "business plan." To put it more simply and bluntly, one can be incomparably great at one's art and shitty at business. To that, you might say, 'well, tough luck, then,' which I could understand, though I would see it differently.

I think part of this depends on what kind of sales the artist, muscian, etc., is making. If they're meeting their rent, food, clothes, kids' expences, their

Quoting AemJeff: I think it's important to understand what a message is intended to convey. And correctly interpreting the intent of a particular communication is key. The quote from Pelosi was clearly part of a sales pitch aimed at a certain kind of liberal, not a technical definition of the specifics of the intended reach of a legislative initiative.

In the case of the Speaker, I think it carries the expectation of authority, and will give the opposition all the more reason to go into OMG mode.

Quoting look: In the case of the Speaker, I think it carries the expectation of authority, and will give the opposition all the more reason to go into OMG mode.

That implies the absurd conclusion that, whoever is Speaker, during their term every utterance can be taken as authoritative. Nobody, not Tip O'Neill, not Newt Gingrich, could withstand such a retrospective take on their public record while holding the office. Part of the Speaker's job is to rally the partisan troops (that might not be a constitutionally defined role, but it's a part of, and always been a part of, the job description). If your aim is to find some arguable position from which to frame oppositional rhetoric with which to mount an attack on the Democrats; then fine, that'll do. But, if you're trying to frame an accurate critique of the actual state of things, that's an awfully weak way to go about it.

Quoting AemJeff: That implies the absurd conclusion that, whoever is Speaker, during their term every utterance can be taken as authoritative. Nobody, not Tip O'Neill, not Newt Gingrich, could withstand such a retrospective take on their public record while holding the office. Part of the Speaker's job is to rally the partisan troops (that might not be a constitutionally defined role, but it's a part of, and always been a part of, the job description).

If your aim is to find some arguable position from which to frame oppositional rhetoric with which to mount an attack on the Democrats; then fine, that'll do. But, if you're trying to frame an accurate critique of the actual state of things, that's an awfully weak way to go about it.

Jeff, if the Speaker is using loose rhetoric to sell a bill, I consider it disingenuous, actually a form of lying. I'm surprised you don't see where I'm coming from, and ask to be set straight by any others who wish to explain my error, because I'm not getting your logic.

Quoting look: Jeff, if the Speaker is using loose rhetoric to sell a bill, I consider it disingenuous, actually a form of lying. I'm surprised you don't see where I'm coming from, and ask to be set straight by any others who wish to explain my error, because I'm not getting your logic.

Then you have to conclude that they've all been liars. Because it's something every one of them did regularly and without apology. There's no secret here.

Quoting AemJeff: Then you have to conclude that they've all been liars. Because it's something every one of them did regularly and without apology. There's no secret here.

Are we talking about the same thing, though? I'm not talking about campaign promises, but about stating, as an enticement, what is in a written bill. Or are you saying that others have also been misleading about the contents of this bill?

Mean people!

Quoting look: Are we talking about the same thing, though? I'm not talking about campaign promises, but about stating, as an enticement, what is in a written bill. Or are you saying that others have also been misleading about the contents of this bill?

I'm just talking about the Speaker, in his or her capacity as the leader of their party caucus within the House, acting - unsurprisingly - like a politician.

Quoting look: I have a daughter who is artistic

did you vaccinate her as an infant?

Quoting look: ...

look, I have mulled over your latest post, and have thought about our dialogue so far, and I think I'm beginning to get a sense that there is a larger question (and some sub-questions that stem from it) that we have been grappling with. So rather than continue to go point by point as we've been doing, I'm going to try to step back and see if we at least agree on what that some of those larger questions are. I don't pretend to have the answers; my purpose here is to explore without having a foregone conclusion (if I already have reached a conclusion, how am I going to learn anything?). My impression is that you are open-minded, and my hope is that you will be willing to go into this with me in the spirit of investigation, without hardening ourselves against the other's perspective (and I think we are already doing pretty well in that respect). We began our discussion with a consideration of Nancy Pelosi saying, "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their

Probably a little late for this, but what the hell ...

Quoting harkin: "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance......WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING?????

One reason the wingnuts are laughing, no doubt, is that they all seem to have read Mary Katherine Ham's dishonestly truncated quote (I know, what are the odds?) as harkin reproduces it above, found in it something that plays to their prejudices, and never bothered to look at the original for context. Here is the whole sentence ...

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk, but not job loss because of a child with asthma or someone in the family is bipolar—you name it, any condition—is job locking.

... and here is how that sentence appeared in the conversation she was having, following from a discussion about the loathsome Stupak:

PELOSI: This bill is

Quoting AemJeff: I'm just talking about the Speaker, in his or her capacity as the leader of their party caucus within the House, acting - unsurprisingly - like a politician.

Upon reflection, what she said wasn't that bad, if she meant the person had a good enough job to cover everything else, like rent, etc. But the question is, if said entrepreneur is only making so much money, can they qualify for completely free coverage?

Quoting nikkibong: did you vaccinate her as an infant?

Go stand in the corner.

This bill probably won't give that entrepreneur completely free coverage. instead, it will subsidize that coverage somewhat it said entrepreneur is on the lower end of middle income (i.e. within 300% of the poverty line or so). Plus, if that entrepreneur is diabetic or HIV positive, it will prevent insurance companies from charging ruinous premiums; he/she will pay a rate that reflects the average for the market. This is a far cry from getting free government health care, but it's an even farther cry from the previous situation, in which potential entrepreneurs with pre-existing health problems or with any family members with pre-existing health problems face the choice of abandoning their ambitions or their access to needed medical care.

Think of a situation where we can internationally competitive because we don‘t have this weight on us that other country—other businesses really don‘t have in other countries because they don‘t have this expense of health care which will all be reined in, those costs under this bill.

We need a good article on what taxes will be like, and placed upon whom.

I just took a look at your website, badhatharry, and your jewelry boxes are gorgeous!

listener said: But it seems to me that the underlying question we're grappling with is this: what is (or what should be) the relationship of the artist to society? And some sub-questions that stem from it: How important is artistic expression to human endeavor? Is it important enough that it would be in the interest of a society to support its arts and culture? If so, what should be the mechanism of that support? If it is decided that there should be some mechanism of support, since there currently seem to be more aspiring artists than there are opportunities for all of them to make a living at it, how do we handle that? And if it is decided that artistic endeavor should be supported in some way, because resources are always limited, how do we distinguish between those who are gifted or promising enough to merit support and those who are not? Or, going in the other direction, should artistic professions simply be treated like any other, on a sink-or-swim basis?

I think Art is extremely important to society, and I support quality art programs in schools...and recess! Cutting the arts and

Quoting Don Zeko: This bill probably won't give that entrepreneur completely free coverage. instead, it will subsidize that coverage somewhat it said entrepreneur is on the lower end of middle income (i.e. within 300% of the poverty line or so). Plus, if that entrepreneur is diabetic or HIV positive, it will prevent insurance companies from charging ruinous premiums; he/she will pay a rate that reflects the average for the market. This is a far cry from getting free government health care, but it's an even farther cry from the previous situation, in which potential entrepreneurs with pre-existing health problems or with any family members with pre-existing health problems face the choice of abandoning their ambitions or their access to needed medical care.

Agreed, thanks.