Discover Magazine Discovers Dr. Teh Stupid

Via Dan Collins at Work in Progress. Discover doesn't much care for the push back against Obama's school speech. Is this a priceless line from Discover's blog post, or what?

But you know what? That doesn’t mean we have to give them a voice in the mainstream press.

It has to be this Phil Plait given that's it's the Bad Astronomy blog. You'd think a guy with a PhD would have discovered by now that he's writing a blog, no? Phil's feeling just a bit too full of himself, among other things, this morning, I believe. It's a good thing anyone can post out here, or this idiot might not have passed the test, PHD, or not.

Comments

[Barbara]

Dear Dr. Clueless,
pretend premise that people were upset about his blathering:
The speech was horridly over written for K -12. As expected the kiddies got bored after the first 2 lines. Remind me again why such youngins had to be
subjected to?
now back to reality:
The followup teacher commie talking points after were DROPPED.

[Mr. Sauce]

Phil is full of dark matter.

[Alan Kellogg]

You mean we have to consider what jerks, jerk offs, idiots, bozos, bloviators, blathering fools, and lying creeps have to say seriously? I don't care whether the provider votes Nazi or Shining Path, crap is crap.

[WestWright]

Went to Phil Plait's website....as expected the sicko-phants were very disturbed about parental concern regarding da One's pep talk to da chilluns. The majority of the posters @ Phil's have decided that these parents should be taken away for re-education and are now deemed unworthy of parenting the children of the Oborg!

[ZZMike]

I've noticed that when Dr Phil ventures outside his area of expertise and into politics, he shows himself to be an Obama-worhipper. During the campaign, he was all for Obama.

We can safely ignore him now. Anything he says is said a lot better on democratsunderground.com, moveon.org, and their fellow travelers.

[Jean-Denis Muys]

Well, you don't seem to have much reading skills. Please go back to Phil's post, and re-read it.

Maybe, just maybe, you'll see that he was talking about fools such as those who compare Obama with Hitler.

You would not be among those right? Because for example, you paid attention in your history classes? Right? RIGHT?

[Oort]

Missed the point much? Or do you compare Obama to Hitler? Believe in Death Panels? Still claim no Birth Certificate has been produced? Fear that Obama has a secret army of Militant Muslim Brown Shirts he's training? Really believed that Obama was going to use his educational speech to push socialism? That Obama is a socialist trying to push communism?

That was the point Phil was making. People that voice those kinds of ridiculous claims as if they are true when they are not should just be ignored. You don't like Obama? Fine. Don't like him. But if you are going to bring opposition to the man, at least use subjects that are true and not fringe crazed lies.

That way, when you voice your opposition or displeasure, it is based in truth and reality and a debate or discussion can generate actual progress in ideas.

[Rob Crawford]

What's not to believe in the "death panels"? Obama has called for them himself, just not in those words.

He was asked whether the "government option" would allow for such things as a 100-year-old woman with a strong love of life to get a pacemaker -- and he said "no". He said there should be panels that determine hard-and-fast rules on who gets what care based on the economics, not on intangibles like "love of life".

Obama wants to ration care, and as an effect of that rationing, some people will be denied life-saving treatment. To ignore that is to ignore the reality of his own words. It's a "fringe crazed lie" to think otherwise.

[DragonIV]

Rob, you (and many others arguing this line) appear to believe that this "life-saving treatment" you identify, be it a surgery, drug, therapy or a combination of them, exists outside of the world of economics. That is to say, if they were free, we wouldn't have to ration the care, would we?

Making no changes, health care is rationed today. Those with insurance get it, those without don't. People without insurance die far earlier than those without--only, there's no panel behind this movement of death. So, if we move to a system where by care is rationed differently, nothing changes other than the selection of who gets the best health care.

I would expect the GOP to stick with the economic model--those that can afford it, get it. I'd expect the Dems to stick with the social model--we're all human beings, share the care as equally as possible. The real solution is finding a position between these two extremes, and figure out how much we want to spend on it. This silly death panel talk is ridiculous--the GOP position is just as callous as the Dem position, wouldn't you say? It's just a matter of who gets screwed.

The fact is, we've gotten used to this idea that medicine can extend our lives, and that's fine. We just need to face the fact that we cannot afford to spend an unlimited amount of money on health care, and instead we have to decide where and how to spend our limited funds. By running away from the question and claiming "Dems want death panels," you really add nothing helpful to the debate.

[JoeBlow]

Rob - Do you have health insurance? I do. So did my grandmother. In fact she had excellent insurance. She was 97 when the doctors told her her heart was failing and that a pacemaker/defib might give her another year or two of life.... can you guess what the insurance company had to say about that? They said we're sorry but we're not going to cover it. The benefit to you, the patient, is negligible and the cost is high - so, you can do it if you want but you'll be paying out of pocket. Turns out it was well defined in the policy docs that they could do this and is in fact the same in the vast majority of policies. If you think insurance now doesn't take age, benefits of the procedure and cost into account you are sorely mistaken.

As an aside my grandmother opted not to do the pacemaker even though she could afford it without any trouble - see, she had an actual zest for life and saw that fighting death to the last minute with a constantly degrading quality of life was not the way to go.

[Garry Scholey]

Finally, proof that Republicanoids are totally away from Reality. I hope Obama gives you guys free mental health care.

[Mark]

"What's not to believe in the "death panels"? Obama has called for them himself, just not in those words.

He was asked whether the "government option" would allow for such things as a 100-year-old woman with a strong love of life to get a pacemaker -- and he said "no". He said there should be panels that determine hard-and-fast rules on who gets what care based on the economics, not on intangibles like "love of life".

Obama wants to ration care, and as an effect of that rationing, some people will be denied life-saving treatment. To ignore that is to ignore the reality of his own words. It's a "fringe crazed lie" to think otherwise."

Posted by: Rob Crawford | Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

____________________________________________________________________________________

You have got to be kidding me. Please provide quotations (other than Fox News) for these things you believe Obama said. Is this something you received a forwarded email about? If you have no sources then it's obviously not true. You should really approach things logically. Believing that is completely illogical. It sounds like you're regurgitating the rhetoric put out by conservatives and republican politicians.