Mark Sanford: Crying in Argentina? UPDATES!

I’m so sick and tired of the sanctimonious attitude of so many who are commenting on this issue, especially those who call themselves “Christian.”

The Bible says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Hello! Who is sin free? Anyone here? I don’t think so, and I’ve always been taught there are no little sins.

I’m especially disappointed in the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. These are two who make no secret of their “religiosity,” and yet they actually find “humor” in this horrible, painful situation.

Personally, I think Governor Sanford should resign and devote himself, slavishly, to his wife and children. But, I do not think he’s any better or any worse than me.

We all live in glass house and should be really, really careful about those stones…just ask the guys who were after the adulterous wife when Jesus came on the scene. Oops!

When it comes to sexual impurity in all its forms, e.g., pornography, infidelity, prostitution, bestiality, masturbation, etc., consequences are rarely thought of. Addiction is a strange animal–it clouds the senses and impairs rational judgement: “I am going to do this, no matter what!” The temporal consequences are bad enough; think of the spiritual consequences, and shudder. This is sin against God. I speak from experience, and I also hear this in my purity recovery/healing group that I lead. That is why addictiive behavior is called “insanity.” Those who have never been through it have difficulty understanding theis behavior.

This whole filthy, stupid mess has me disgusted. Sanford’s conduct disgusts me, but so do the attitudes of many people who think “let he who is without sin…” somehow ends the discussion. I am not without sin, but does that mean I can never judge the actions of another because of that? What if Governor Sanford was stuffing the corpses of Girl Scouts in a crawlspace under the Executive Mansion? I am a sinner, so would I or would I not be allowed to have an opinion on that?

I am not casting stones. I am drawing logical conclusions. Jesus told the woman taken in adultery “go and sin no more.” That was a statement based on his observation of her behavior. Did Christ err in doing this?

The real crux of the matter is this: Women have the power to end the type of behavior which Sanford exhibited. Any woman stupid enough to dally with an adulterer is rewarding this behavior, and guaranteeing that more of it will occur. I am glad that Mrs. Sanford did not stand up with her husband, as that would also facilitate more of the same.

For the record:

That just vindicates (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by jondee on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 04:00:18 PM EST
my theory that if Krauthammer spoke long enough, eventually he’d say something relatively cogent.

There’s an old (none / 0) (#52)
by Zorba on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 05:06:10 PM EST
down-home saying: “Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile.” I guess Krauthead would be that pig.

This AFTER Krauthammer criticized Sanford for being incommunicado.

Winning a Pulitzer prize doesn’t mean someone can’t be a dunderhead at times:

The silver shared tonight by Charles Krauthammer of the “Washington Post” and Bill Bennett of CNN, appalled that the president has referred to the chief Ayatollah as the supreme leader of Iran. “Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator,” says Krauthammer.

“We should be on the side of freedom, and not on the side of this supreme leader, as our president keeps referring to,” whines Bennett. Later the same day, John McCain referred to this guy as the supreme leader.

In March, Senator Richard Lugar called him that four times in one hearing.

And even William Kristol called him that in a column.

It‘s a job title.

I’m yet to find any concern for the massive power grab by this administration though.

Yes, we’d be better off left to the tender mercies of the health care system and insurance companies, thank you for sharing with us today.

Also, I blame the Anchoress for all the Obama worship, as she set the tone with her sycophantic attitude towards the previous inhabitant of the Oval Office in her blog.

I think you’ve made my point.

Not really, but go ahead anyway.

You’re defending the name-calling of Krauthammer and adding one of your own (dunderhead).

So, somebody whose criticism of Obama is that he used the correct term in referring to a specific foreign dignitary as some sort of “abject solicitousness” isn’t a dunderhead?

Then aiming your criticism of the government take-over of the most effective health care system in the world – at saving lives, not money, that is (you forgot the drug companies).

Actually, we have the same health outcomes as other countries, at twice the cost they pay. I wouldn’t term that as “the most effective health care system in the world.”

As for what I said about the Anchoress, as Louis Armstrong said about jazz, if you have to ask, you ain’t never gonna know.

As for Talkleft, there has been much criticism there for his stand on illegal drugs, even by the site owner at times.

Here’s an example:

If it’s not in the president’s vocab… (3.66 / 3) (#2)
by Dadler on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:53:08 AM EST
…then the president, when it boils down to it, is a complete phucking idiot here. then again, he’s an addict too, but his drug is legal, so he’s fine. an absolute hypocrite, but fine.

seriously, is there ANYthing Obama is logically consistent on?

There has also been much criticism by Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend and Pandagon on Obama’s failure to keep his promise about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, but don’t take my word for it, use teh Google and find out if I’m correct.

I suspect it will be something about how Obama isn’t left enough.

Well, no, the logical thing would be that people on the Left would complain about how Obama isn’t right-wing enough for their tastes, just as the Anchoress lambastes Obama on a regular basis because he hasn’t made the country a socialist paradise.

Thanks for demonstrating what John Stuart Mill wrote over 140 years ago:

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

Letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March 1866)

That would be true in Europe, but here in America we have ‘conservatives’ who stalk a family because they make the current status quo look bad(Michelle Malkin, Our Lady of Rage) and others who use the word liberal as an epithet I don’t consider in any way a ‘classic’ or otherwise liberal of any sort, no matter what they say.

My goodness you are a tedious, tendentious, self-important, puffed up, arrogant little snot, aren’t you?

I dunno, are you comparing me to your immediate family or the community in which you were raised in?

We have SIMILAR health care outcomes as other industrialized countries for two reasons, and two reasons only (but for these two, our outcomes would far exceed any other country):

We are a bunch of sedentary fat@$$es, with terrible eating and exercise habits (yes, worse than other industrialized countries); and

Yes, but we also have a significant minority population who are more vulnerable to lifestyle diseases(diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, etc) compared to a lot of the European countries, which should be factored in as well

2. Other countries “game the system” in logging their infant mortality rates, etc., producing health care statistics that are, shall we say, in less than complete congruence with reality.

Is that why our ranks in various health outcome measures have fallen compared to what they were 40 years ago?

Here’s some facts for you to chew over, I hope they don’t give you indigestion:

Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. More is spent on health care in the United States on a per capita basis than in any other nation in the world.[1][2] A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000, found that while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.[3] In 1996, 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all costs.[4][5]
Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[6][7] The WHO study has been criticized in a study published in Health Affairs for its methodology and lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings.[8] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[9] However, the U.S. is the leader in medical innovation, with three times higher per-capita spending than Europe and producing more new pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and affiliated biotechnology than any other country. [10] [11] [12] [13] The U.S. also has higher survival rates than most other countries for certain conditions, such as some less common cancers, but has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[14]

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the “only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage” (i.e. some kind of insurance).[15][16]

But thanks for playing.

Heh, it was child’s play.

I suppose this topic and thread are both stale by now, but I think it’s important enough to bring this up to anyone who might still read this and be confused, as it appears Andrew Batten was by his comment above, that to say “let him (or her) who is without sin cast the first stone” means that you shouldn’t think of Gov. Sanford’s actions as wrong.

Jesus clearly called the adulterous woman’s act sin, and I’m sure he would do the same for Gov. Sanford. What he did not do was insult the woman or insinuate she was worthless, vile, or disgusting because of her sin. Whether or not Jesus could have been in the position to make such a judgment of the woman in adultery, I am certain none of us are in the position to make that judgment of Gov. Sanford.

(cont)

I’d be wary of Zebra crossings if I were you.

You have apparently grown up in an environment that led you to believe a half-witty snark and an unsupported assertion constituted argument.

Then you should have had no trouble pointing to studies and surveys demonstrating the data I presented instead of tedious snark unworthy of a 6th grader.

Since you seem quite sure of your own gifts, I’ll give you one more chance. First, in what regard is ANYTHING you posted inconsistent with or contradictory to my assertions? (Hint: It isn’t. Everything you posted actually fits quite well into my hypothesis, as asserted.)

I dunno, this part here from a non-profit PA and therefore, American, foundation?

A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.

Yes, that supports your hypothesis adequately.

Not.

Second: Thought experiment. Assume everything you posted was gospel truth (and you assume statistics promulgated by international bodies are accurate and without agenda????? You are, indeed, a naif.)

What would the agenda be, make sure America turns into the healthcare hell-holes that the inaccurate statistics promulgated by internation bodies concel until it’s too late?

You are indeed not smart enough to be called a naif, I’m sure if your position were a book it would make Dianetics seem like Newton’s Principia Mathematica by comparison.

How might (i) differences in reporting regimes, (ii) differences in lifestyle, (iii) regular use of high cost diagnostic and treatment modalities in less than crisis situations affect these statistics and outcomes, and (iv) how are cost statistics derived (given that, in many of the countries on which your statistics are based, “costs” are creatures of government bureaucracy, and have little relationship to reality). It’s somewhat complex, so I’ll give you some time, but you need to think a little deeper than bumper stickers – assuming you are capable.

Assertion = evidence to the contrary.

Two – what a racist @$$hole you are. Minorities are the cause of our healthcare problem????? Obama would be mortified by your racist attitudes.

No, it has been documented that there are such differences between minority status and health care outcome, although remember that if you took statistics as I did, that correlation doesn’t imply causation.

Of course, the following is from the HHS website, from our government:

High Diabetes Rates for Minorities

Identifying disparities is a first step toward understanding what causes them and what can be done to reduce them.

* Different studies found that African Americans are from 1.4 to 2.2 times more likely to have diabetes than white persons.
* Hispanic Americans have a higher prevalence of diabetes than non-Hispanic people, with the highest rates for type 2 diabetes among Puerto Ricans and Hispanic people living in the Southwest and the lowest rate among Cubans.
* The prevalence of diabetes among American Indians is 2.8 times the overall rate.
* Major groups within the Asian and Pacific Islander communities (Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, and Korean Americans) all had higher prevalences than those of whites.

eturn to Contents
High Complication Rates for Minorities

Although minorities are more likely than whites to be diagnosed with diabetes, the rates of complications vary by disease and minority group.

Kidney Disease

Diabetes is the most frequently reported cause of kidney failure in the United States. In 1990, it was the underlying cause of kidney failure in 34 percent of patients starting treatment for end stage renal disease (ESRD). Diabetes-related kidney failure affects a much higher percentage of African Americans than whites.3 An AHRQ-funded study of renal disease found that:

* The rate of diabetic ESRD is 2.6 times higher among African Americans than among whites.3
* From 1988 to 1990, the annual incidence of new cases of diabetes-related ESRD was 137 per million African Americans, compared to 38 cases per million whites.3
* ESRD is more likely to be related to type 2 diabetes among African Americans than it is among whites.3
* Rates of early stage kidney disease (proteinuria) are higher among Hispanic Americans, African Americans, and American Indians than among the white population.2

The AHRQ-funded study also found that the proportion of ESRD attributable to diabetes was similar in whites (44 percent) and blacks (41 percent).

The reasons that African Americans have more diabetes-related ESRD are unclear. African Americans have much higher rates of hypertension than whites. The interaction between hypertension and type 2 diabetes, which occur together more frequently in African Americans than in whites, may account for the higher rate of ESRD. Another factor could be a difference in the quality of care furnished to African-American patients with type 2 diabetes.3
Eye Disease

Another serious complication of diabetes is retinopathy, which, if untreated, can cause blindness.

Diabetic retinopathy is the major cause of blindness among adults ages 20 to 74.

* Rates of blindness due to diabetes are only half as high for whites as they are for rest of the population.
* Two studies of retinopathy in Hispanic Americans showed conflicting results, with one showing higher rates and the other showing lower rates than whites.
* Pima Indians in Arizona and Native Americans in Oklahoma have both been shown to have higher rates of retinopathy than whites.

You really are a simpleton.

Don’t beat around the bush, let me know how you really feel. Let it all out, lest it stay within you and twist your sunny and cheery personality.

Cheers!