Tolerance of Deceit and Lies – Survivor?


As I was working on the gate this weekend, I wondered why a large percentage of Americans would choose to embrace the deceptive and deceitful administration we have in the White House. I then reflected on the current state of television today. I don’t find much of interest to watch, so I don’t. There are plenty of people, however, that choose to watch shows so called “reality tv” and shows like “Survivor”. Of the little “Survivor” I have watched, the overwhelming theme that I observed was deceit. In order to win, you must betray and lie to the other participants. This is essentially encouraged on the show. In an nutshell, if you are a better liar and actor than everyone else, you are very likely to win. This is a similar attitude of the current administration. Perhaps that is why so many Americans are duped by it enamored with it.

I wish everyone would seek truth instead.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. #1 by Mike on September 27, 2004 - 10:41 am

    Actually, if you watch much reality TV, like Survivor or Big Brother, deceit MAY get you to the finals, however, more emphasis is placed by the judges on your WORD. Were you true to your word or alliances as you played the game. One reason I am voting for Bush: I believe he has been consistent and true to his word. You can trust him to do what he says he will do

  2. #2 by Jon on September 27, 2004 - 10:47 am

    Mike,
    Check out this site and see if you still think he is consistent and true to his word: http://pantsonfire.net/lies.htm

  3. #3 by Mike on September 27, 2004 - 11:13 am

    First, you switched premises. Your premise was that deceit wins! You don’t challenge my rebuttal. As to your evidence of lies, it appears suspect because it predominately is coming from the MSM which is suspect of being biased (Re Rather-gate.
    Second, I took a look at one of the sources:
    The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is comprised of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.
    Now that sounds all good and fine, but then I checked to see who is on the board of the Brookings Institute and who do I see but Teresa Heinz (on leave). Now information coming from something she supports is also suspect. Case Not Proven!

  4. #4 by Jon on September 27, 2004 - 11:50 am

    Mike,
    I can’t speak to the winners of Survivor in particular, as I haven’t watched the show long enough to see one. I can say that of the shows I have seen, the players that lied, backstabbed and deceived were more successful at remaining in the game.

    As for the link I provided, let’s look at a couple of specific examples:

    LIE : “One of our priorities is making sure the health care systems are funded.” GWB, 3/1/03.

    TRUTH : Since Bush took office, 3 million more Americans have lost their health insurance, bringing the total of uninsured Americans to over 43 million. New York Times , 1/21/04.

    That seems pretty straight forward to me. If 3 million more Americans are underinsured, it certainly doesn’t seem like it was made a priority.

    LIE: “We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson from Sept. 11.” GWB, 11/27/02.

    TRUTH: Bush opposed and later stonewalled the bipartisan independent investigation into 9/11. Washington Post, 2/05/04.

    LIE: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” GWB, 5/2/03.

    TRUTH: Since Bush made that statement, over four times as many Americans have been killed and wounded as before. Department of Defense, 4/21/04.

    LIE: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq, which the U.N. prohibited.” GWB, 6/1/03.

    TRUTH: The so-called laboratories were designed to inflate weather balloons. New York Times, 8/9/03.

    I think all of those examples show Bush being deceptive, and disingenuous, and they all come from reputable sources.

    Another example of the Administration’s deceit is the current state of Iraq. Bush says that things are getting better, while his own administration disagrees with him.
    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040927/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_8

  5. #5 by Mike on September 27, 2004 - 12:21 pm

    I don’t have time to refute each one, but I did look up the first one:
    TRUTH : Since Bush took office, 3 million more Americans have lost their health insurance, bringing the total of uninsured Americans to over 43 million. New York Times , 1/21/04.

    I found this: The Census bureau(http://www.cbpp.org/8-26-04health.pdf)in August, 2004 released a report stating that uninsured rose to 45 million in 2003 up 1.4 million from 2003. The principle reason cited: “the continued erosion of employment based insurance coverage spurred by continued escalation in the cost of health insurance, sluggish job growth,and the relatively high unemployment level that persisted in 2003.” In addition, one of the groups at greatest risk are non-citizen immigrants and one reason they have limited health coverage is a 1996 law passed that bars coverage for the first five (5) years of residence in the US. Let’s see who was president when that legislation was passed? Hmmm, could it have been Clinton, a Democrat.
    Ask yourself, have health costs gone up because doctors are paying more for their insurance, brought about by all the lawsuits. And haven’t the lawsuits cost the economy $240 Billion last year of which $40 Billion went to the lawyers, one of whom is Kerry’s running mate: Mr John Edwards.
    This is too easy. I suggest you stop reading all the Democratic talking points and broaden your reading.
    Mike

  6. #6 by Jon on September 27, 2004 - 1:34 pm

    Mike,
    I don’t see how you can conclude that lawsuits are the reason for rising health care costs given your quote. The evidence for the real rise in health care is cited in your quote. Health care costs are rising because there are more and more people who can’t pay the bills — they are uninsured, and likely unemployed. Those costs are turned around to those that can pay the bills. The lack of health insurance is a real problem, and not just some talking point.

    For example, in this document: http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/media/docs/release051304a.pdf

    “Seven in 10 (72 percent) emergency physicians say the number of uninsured patients they treated in the past year increased, and eight in 10 (79 percent) say it’s likely to increase again during the coming year, according to a survey released today by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), an emergency medicine specialty society, with the support of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The opinion poll of nearly 2,000 emergency doctors showed overwhelming agreement that the uninsured patients they treat are more likely to delay care, suffer from illness and put their physical and financial health in jeopardy than are patients who have health coverage. In a powerful testament to the importance of having health coverage, three out of four (74 percent) emergency physicians surveyed say their uninsured patients are more likely to die prematurely. The issue has become so critical that nearly three in five (57 percent) emergency physicians ranked providing basic health coverage to all Americans as the number one goal in improving the nation’s health care system.”

    People are more likely to die early if they don’t have health insurance. Wow, that seems kinda important, doesn’t it?

    As for the number of uninsured, check this out http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-154.html

    “The number of people with health insurance rose by 1.5 million between 2001 and 2002, to 242.4 million, and the number of uninsured rose by 2.4 million, to 43.6 million, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today.”

    I still don’t see how Bush’s statement about prioritizing health care is true. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t done anything to help those uninsured. What about this new Medicare benefit that was passed? Well, it doesn’t seem to be much of a benefit:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-13-medicare-costs_x.htm

    “With a new Medicare drug benefit set to begin in 2006, Americans 65 and older can expect to spend a large and growing share of their Social Security checks on Medicare premiums and expenses, previously undisclosed federal data show.

    Information the Bush administration excluded from its 2004 report on the Medicare program shows that a typical 65-year-old can expect to spend 37% of his or her Social Security income on Medicare premiums, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses in 2006. That share is projected to grow to almost 40% in 2011 and nearly 50% by 2021.”

    Read that carefully. It looks like yet another example of this administration being deceptive.

  7. #7 by Mike on September 27, 2004 - 1:59 pm

    My quote said in part: “the continued erosion of employment based insurance coverage spurred by continued escalation in the cost of health insurance”. I suspect one of the major influences spurring the increase is the rising cost of Doctor’s Malpractice insurance. If we could limit the awards, we could lower the cost of malpractice insurance which would lower the cost health insurance, and thus more people would be covered. You and I don’t disagree on the numbers, my statistics were from a later study than the one you quoted.

    Go back to the original “Lie and Truth”:
    LIE : “One of our priorities is making sure the health care systems are funded.” GWB, 3/1/03.

    TRUTH : Since Bush took office, 3 million more Americans have lost their health insurance, bringing the total of uninsured Americans to over 43 million. New York Times , 1/21/04.

    You are blaming the increase of 3 million on lack of funding. I pointed out that yes there is an increase, but your party doesn’t want to rein in one of the principal causes for the rise in costs and your party is responsible for some of the people not being insured.

  8. #8 by Jon on September 27, 2004 - 2:56 pm

    Mike,
    I think it is safe to say that if adequate funding is provided for health care, the number of uninsured would decrease instead of increase. We can debate the cause of the cost rise until the cows come home, but I think in the end, John Kerry has a plan that will mean more health care for real people.

    I just ran across this article that refutes the idea that malpractice lawsuit limits will really result in any savings:
    http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=133

    “The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

    But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.”

    So, I think your claim about malpractice insurance being a primary component of health care cost increases is inaccurate. Thanks for an interesting discussion. I would encourage you to look more closely at Bush’s positions, statements and attitudes and ask yourself if they really are right for the people of this country.

(will not be published)