The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

I don't know enough about this to know what it would entail.  I'm sure there are nuisance suits but I'd say that people absolutely have a right to sue if a doctor fucks up and costs someone their life or causes some other serious problem.  I'm also realistic enough to know that when you're sick, there are risks.  There are risks to most treatments and surgeries.  So how do we balance out the need for a right to sue but make it drop premiums 50%?

There are a couple of problems:

One of them, you mention.  There is a fair amount of nuisance lawsuits in regards to doctors...estimates from the AMA peg those as high as 30% to 40% of all malpractice suits.  Eliminating those would go a long way toward reducing premiums.  And I suspect that, if people realized they were fighting goverment lawyers, AND weren't going to potentially make a mint on a "boo boo" to their pinky finger every time they turned around, that's exactly what you'd see.

The second one isn't so much about a person's right to sue (which, even docs agree, should be maintained) but about realistic judgements.  It sounds callous to talk about dollar figures in this context, but the issue is that nothing is standardized.  You might have a person burned in a surgical fire getting only 10k, while someone who had a retained foreign body (which is what surgeons call it when they forget to pull everything out....usually a sponge, or something benign like that), who suffered ZERO ill effects other than having to return to the OR, getting 1.5 million.  It just makes no sense and malpractice premiums are based on all that actuarial study which basically accounts for worst case scenario. 

There are guidelines, to be sure...but they're so fast and loose that the jury basically can award whatever they want based on how sympathetic the patient comes across during trial.  In addition, when trying to make a deal to settle, with the "canyon" so wide between recommended amounts, it's hard for the competing interests to come to a reasonable settlement....which means that a lot of these cases go to trial.

REAL torte reform wouldn't eliminate the ability to sue.  It would just limit how much a patient could get in damages, considering what happened to them (boo boos get less than death), and their mitigating circumstances are (single parent, sole wage earners, etc would get a premium), and how "responsible" the surgeon/doctor is ultimately found to be in relation to the cause (gross negligence vs simple human error).  Basically, it's  taking the guess work out of damages, and some of the EXTREME leeway given to juries in awarding them.  ADDITIONALLY, though, you'd also limit the amount that the damages could be reduced during appeal.  Because what happens now is that juries award HUGE damages because they suspect they'll be reduced on appeal...which just leads to more legal costs that are paid out by the insurance company. 

If you do ALL that (and it's what's been done in other countries with nationalized health care), you get a system that "works".  The patients get reasonable compensation, the court systems are not tied up, and everything ultimately "costs less"....so malpractice insurance premiums come down.  AND, to top it all off, I'd guess the goverment would then be the provider behind the malpractice insurance, which also means there's a much greater chance for patient's to collect real $$, and not a paper judgement....as well as the fact the government is really just looking to cover costs and not make an unreasonable (if any) profit. 

Edit: I wanted to add....remember, none of the above would pertain to loss of income or disability damages.  Those are seperate, and actually have a pretty standardized formulaic way for computing them.  We're strictly talking about the damages for the actual malpractice and the physical damage done from it.

[freedom78]

I don't know enough about this to know what it would entail.  I'm sure there are nuisance suits but I'd say that people absolutely have a right to sue if a doctor fucks up and costs someone their life or causes some other serious problem.  I'm also realistic enough to know that when you're sick, there are risks.  There are risks to most treatments and surgeries.  So how do we balance out the need for a right to sue but make it drop premiums 50%?

There are a couple of problems:

One of them, you mention.  There is a fair amount of nuisance lawsuits in regards to doctors...estimates from the AMA peg those as high as 30% to 40% of all malpractice suits.  Eliminating those would go a long way toward reducing premiums.  And I suspect that, if people realized they were fighting goverment lawyers, AND weren't going to potentially make a mint on a "boo boo" to their pinky finger every time they turned around, that's exactly what you'd see.

The second one isn't so much about a person's right to sue (which, even docs agree, should be maintained) but about realistic judgements.  It sounds callous to talk about dollar figures in this context, but the issue is that nothing is standardized.  You might have a person burned in a surgical fire getting only 10k, while someone who had a retained foreign body (which is what surgeons call it when they forget to pull everything out....usually a sponge, or something benign like that), who suffered ZERO ill effects other than having to return to the OR, getting 1.5 million.  It just makes no sense and malpractice premiums are based on all that actuarial study which basically accounts for worst case scenario. 

There are guidelines, to be sure...but they're so fast and loose that the jury basically can award whatever they want based on how sympathetic the patient comes across during trial.  In addition, when trying to make a deal to settle, with the "canyon" so wide between recommended amounts, it's hard for the competing interests to come to a reasonable settlement....which means that a lot of these cases go to trial.

REAL torte reform wouldn't eliminate the ability to sue.  It would just limit how much a patient could get in damages, considering what happened to them (boo boos get less than death), and their mitigating circumstances are (single parent, sole wage earners, etc would get a premium), and how "responsible" the surgeon/doctor is ultimately found to be in relation to the cause (gross negligence vs simple human error).  Basically, it's  taking the guess work out of damages, and some of the EXTREME leeway given to juries in awarding them.  ADDITIONALLY, though, you'd also limit the amount that the damages could be reduced during appeal.  Because what happens now is that juries award HUGE damages because they suspect they'll be reduced on appeal...which just leads to more legal costs that are paid out by the insurance company. 

If you do ALL that (and it's what's been done in other countries with nationalized health care), you get a system that "works".  The patients get reasonable compensation, the court systems are not tied up, and everything ultimately "costs less"....so malpractice insurance premiums come down.  AND, to top it all off, I'd guess the goverment would then be the provider behind the malpractice insurance, which also means there's a much greater chance for patient's to collect real $$, and not a paper judgement....as well as the fact the government is really just looking to cover costs and not make an unreasonable (if any) profit. 

Edit: I wanted to add....remember, none of the above would pertain to loss of income or disability damages.  Those are seperate, and actually have a pretty standardized formulaic way for computing them.  We're strictly talking about the damages for the actual malpractice and the physical damage done from it.

First, if you don't mind my asking, what the fuck is a "surgical fire"?  That sounds awful.  Are you saying the put me under and start playing pyro?

Anyway, I would agree there should be standards.  I'd suggest that the most obvious problem from what you just wrote is that juries determine the awards.  In criminal proceedings, juries make a recommendation, but judges decide on punishment, correct?  This means that, instead of a group of people, who've never seen such a thing and (rightfully) think it's horrible, a judge can take into account their recommendations and make a decision.  The idea is for equal application of the law (something we STILL fall well short of, but not so much perhaps as when people decide on a one time basis).  A judge can make comparisons to prior cases in a way that a jury may have difficulty in doing.

[pilferk]

First, if you don't mind my asking, what the fuck is a "surgical fire"?  That sounds awful.  Are you saying the put me under and start playing pyro?

Did they teach you the "fire triangle" when you were a kid? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle



You're in an oxygen rich environment with lots of electronic equipment  friction dependant "tools", and things that generate heat, with a lot of flammable materials around.  That pretty much covers all three pieces.

Do the math.  They don't happen often (a couple hundred a year, country wide, maybe), but they happen.  And more than 50% of the time, they occur on, or IN, the patient.

Anyway, I would agree there should be standards.  I'd suggest that the most obvious problem from what you just wrote is that juries determine the awards.  In criminal proceedings, juries make a recommendation, but judges decide on punishment, correct?  This means that, instead of a group of people, who've never seen such a thing and (rightfully) think it's horrible, a judge can take into account their recommendations and make a decision.  The idea is for equal application of the law (something we STILL fall well short of, but not so much perhaps as when people decide on a one time basis).  A judge can make comparisons to prior cases in a way that a jury may have difficulty in doing.

Correct on the way sentencing is handled in a criminal cases.

The judge gets very little say in this type of civil cases.  For things like loss of income, disability compensation, etc...it's all VERY speciific and formulaic. Like mandatory sentencing with a small twist involving mitigating factors and "potential" income.  With the malpractice damages, it's usually a range spanning hundreds of thousands, and sometimes even milliions, of dollars.  It's a "guidline" pretty much by definition only and thus allows for a lot of subjective influence.

And what you're suggesting is close to what most doctors (and the AMA) are shooting for in torte reform.  Sure, there are some lobbying for more drastic changes (including the elimination of lawsuits and the implementation of an arbitration process), but not the majority.  I'm not sure they can make the reform to take away the jury's right to award damages and put that in the hands of the judge...I think most docs would be OK with that route, but I'm not sure it's within the civil legal system to do...but the outcome would be the same, IMHO.  Presedent and reasonability are a little easier to present to a judge.  But what's been proposed, instead, is the creation of a very specific set of guidelines, much like the mandatory sentencing guidelines some crimes carry, to guide the jury a bit more specifically. 

[freedom78]

First, if you don't mind my asking, what the fuck is a "surgical fire"?  That sounds awful.  Are you saying the put me under and start playing pyro?

Did they teach you the "fire triangle" when you were a kid? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle



You're in an oxygen rich environment with lots of electronic equipment  friction dependant "tools", and things that generate heat, with a lot of flammable materials around.  That pretty much covers all three pieces.

Do the math.  They don't happen often (a couple hundred a year, country wide, maybe), but they happen.  And more than 50% of the time, they occur on, or IN, the patient.

Don't recall the triangle, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taught.  But I've honestly never heard of this occurring.  Perhaps it's the source of my occasional heartburn?  I really should speak to a lawyer.

Anyway, I would agree there should be standards.  I'd suggest that the most obvious problem from what you just wrote is that juries determine the awards.  In criminal proceedings, juries make a recommendation, but judges decide on punishment, correct?  This means that, instead of a group of people, who've never seen such a thing and (rightfully) think it's horrible, a judge can take into account their recommendations and make a decision.  The idea is for equal application of the law (something we STILL fall well short of, but not so much perhaps as when people decide on a one time basis).  A judge can make comparisons to prior cases in a way that a jury may have difficulty in doing.

Correct on the way sentencing is handled in a criminal cases.

The judge gets very little say in this type of civil cases.  For things like loss of income, disability compensation, etc...it's all VERY speciific and formulaic. Like mandatory sentencing with a small twist involving mitigating factors and "potential" income.  With the malpractice damages, it's usually a range spanning hundreds of thousands, and sometimes even milliions, of dollars.  It's a "guidline" pretty much by definition only and thus allows for a lot of subjective influence.

And what you're suggesting is close to what most doctors (and the AMA) are shooting for in torte reform.  Sure, there are some lobbying for more drastic changes (including the elimination of lawsuits and the implementation of an arbitration process), but not the majority.  I'm not sure they can make the reform to take away the jury's right to award damages and put that in the hands of the judge...I think most docs would be OK with that route, but I'm not sure it's within the civil legal system to do...but the outcome would be the same, IMHO.  Presedent and reasonability are a little easier to present to a judge.  But what's been proposed, instead, is the creation of a very specific set of guidelines, much like the mandatory sentencing guidelines some crimes carry, to guide the jury a bit more specifically. 

Then I could get on board with something like this as part of a larger cost cutting approach. 

[pilferk]

Don't recall the triangle, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taught.  But I've honestly never heard of this occurring.  Perhaps it's the source of my occasional heartburn?  I really should speak to a lawyer.

Yeah, I don't know how prevalent it was in classrooms.  We learned it in 2nd grade, along with the "Smokey the Bear" stuff.  Then we reviewed it again in High School when we started Chem lab...I wonder why??

Then I could get on board with something like this as part of a larger cost cutting approach. 

I think a lot of people would, if it was presented to them without the spin and rhetoric (from both sides) and without the extremist point of view being used in that rhetoric (on both sides).

It's just sort of "reasonable"...which, as we know, flys in the face of partisan politics.   

[freedom78]

Don't recall the triangle, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taught.  But I've honestly never heard of this occurring.  Perhaps it's the source of my occasional heartburn?  I really should speak to a lawyer.

Yeah, I don't know how prevalent it was in classrooms.  We learned it in 2nd grade, along with the "Smokey the Bear" stuff.  Then we reviewed it again in High School when we started Chem lab...I wonder why??

Then I could get on board with something like this as part of a larger cost cutting approach. 

I think a lot of people would, if it was presented to them without the spin and rhetoric (from both sides) and without the extremist point of view being used in that rhetoric (on both sides).

It's just sort of "reasonable"...which, as we know, flys in the face of partisan politics.   

I've always felt we were far too litigious a society.  The right must be preserved, but we take it way too far, often because of lawyers pushing people to. 

[Jdog0830]

Do we not pay a grocery tax already?

Maybe the govt should make fruits and veggies more affordable?

In case the rich population on this forum haven't noticed, eating healthy is expensive as fuck.

It won't be long before they start locking people up for being fat.

No if the goverment and the rich people conspired to something like that they would just plan to eat the fat people Republicans like meat

[Albert S Miller]

The way I see it D, eating healthy may be exensive, but can you really put a price on your health?  My body is my temple and I want to take care of it, no matter what the cost, I would cut corners elsewhere, to provide my bod with what was best, no matter what the price, but just an opinion nothing more .  In my state we pay taxes on food, so imagine our prices on food even more.

[sandman]

i know the left loves to blame america for al qaeda's hatred towards us. anyone care to offer any theories as to why they would torture a 6-year-old boy and laugh about it???

FALLUJA, Iraq (CNN) -- Like many young boys, Khidir loves playing with toy cars and wants to be a policeman like his father when he grows up. But it was his father's very job that caused the tiny child to suffer the unimaginable.

Khidir, now 8, was kidnapped and held hostage for two years by operatives with al Qaeda in Iraq.

"They beat me with a shovel, they pulled my teeth out with pliers, they would go like this and pull it," said Khidir, now 8, demonstrating with his hands. "And they would make me work on the farm gathering carrots."

What followed was even more horrific, an ordeal that would last for two years in captivity. Khidir and his father spoke to CNN recently, more than half a year after his rescue by Iraqi police.

"This is where they hammered a nail into my leg and then they pulled it out," he says, lifting up his pant leg to show a tiny wound.

He says his captors also pulled out each of his tiny fingernails, broke both his arms, and beat him repeatedly on the side of the head with a shovel. He still suffers chronic headaches. He remembers them laughing as they inflicted the pain.

"I would think about my mommy and daddy," he replies, when asked how he managed to get through the agony.

His father, Abdul Qader, struggles for words. "When he tells me about how they would torture him, I can't tolerate it. I start crying," he says. "What hurts me the most is when they hammered a nail into his leg."

The father, a police officer, was sleeping at the police station in Falluja when his son was kidnapped. It was too dangerous to go home regularly. Although Falluja was no longer controlled by insurgents, assassinations against police were common.

"I woke up to the sound of a huge explosion ... and then I heard my name on the radio. I ran outside and they came to me saying your house was blown up," he says.

"When the police patrol came back, they all started kissing and comforting me," he continues. "I was asking, 'What's going on? Where is my family?' They told me that they took my son. This was a disaster. I went mad that day, I wasn't normal, I was hysterical."

Khidir's grandmother was at home with the family at the time.

"The kidnappers climbed the fence and kicked in the door," she says."They were screaming for Abdul Qader. I told them he's not here. They called me a liar and said we want his son. His son was hiding behind me, clutching my clothes. I said this is not his son. They hit me on the back with a rifle and ripped him out of my arms."

The last thing she remembers were his screams of "Granny, Granny!"

The attackers rigged the house with explosives and demolished it before taking off with the 6-year-old. The boy's grandmother and seven other family members rushed out of the home before it exploded.

"The kidnappers called me on the phone and demanded that some prisoners that we had be released or they would slit his throat," Khidir's father says. "But I said no to the release. I would not put killers back out on the street that would hurt other Muslims. So I thought to myself, 'Let my son be a martyr.' "

He even held a secret funeral for his little boy. He didn't want to tell the rest of the family that he had refused the kidnappers' ultimatum, allowing them to hope that he was still alive.

Last December, nearly two years later, police in Taji, about 45 miles (70 kilometers) away, received a tip that terrorists were holding kidnapped children.

"We thought that it was just a tip to ambush us, but we considered the mission as a sacrifice," said Iraqi police Capt. Khalib Ali. "Either we find the children and free them or face the danger and take the risk."

The tip led the Iraqi police to a rundown farm and a series of mud huts. Khidir's tiny body was twisted abnormally. And in another hut, they found another child. Two children are still believed to be with the kidnappers.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has historically kidnapped children for money, to pressure officials, and even to use in terrorist attacks.

For Khidir's father, it was as if his son had come back from the dead.

"He didn't recognize his mother or his grandmother," Abdul Qader says. "But then he saw me in uniform and ran to me. I went flying toward him to hug him. People said be careful; both his arms are broken. So I held him from his waist, and he hugged me, kissed me, smelled me, and then broke into a smile."


The father flips through old family photos -- all they were able to salvage from their destroyed home -- and notes some of the kidnappers are still at large. He still fears for his son's safety, but says he won't quit the police force.

"Never, never," he says. "If I leave the police force, if others leave the force, who will protect us from the terrorists? We are the only ones."

[Axl4Prez2004]

i know the left loves to blame america for al qaeda's hatred towards us. anyone care to offer any theories as to why they would torture a 6-year-old boy and laugh about it???

Let's see, from my left of center point of view...I'd chalk this one up to...they are terrorists.  That's what terrorists do.  Terrorizing the public is a form of control.  The next time Al Qaeda is seen in a neighborhood, the logic holds that when stories like this are heard, people will be much less likely to turn them in to the authorities. 

[sandman]

i know the left loves to blame america for al qaeda's hatred towards us. anyone care to offer any theories as to why they would torture a 6-year-old boy and laugh about it???

Let's see, from my left of center point of view...I'd chalk this one up to...they are terrorists.  That's what terrorists do.  Terrorizing the public is a form of control.  The next time Al Qaeda is seen in a neighborhood, the logic holds that when stories like this are heard, people will be much less likely to turn them in to the authorities. 

i'm glad torturing 6-year-olds and laughing about it (i.e. getting pleasure out of it) makes sense to somebody.

i fully understand the strategy behind terror, but to me, this goes beyond that. cause there are many more ways to accomplish gaining "control." this is pure evil.

but what do i know? maybe they are just fighting for a noble cause.

[Axl4Prez2004]

i know the left loves to blame america for al qaeda's hatred towards us. anyone care to offer any theories as to why they would torture a 6-year-old boy and laugh about it???

Let's see, from my left of center point of view...I'd chalk this one up to...they are terrorists.  That's what terrorists do.  Terrorizing the public is a form of control.  The next time Al Qaeda is seen in a neighborhood, the logic holds that when stories like this are heard, people will be much less likely to turn them in to the authorities. 

i'm glad torturing 6-year-olds and laughing about it (i.e. getting pleasure out of it) makes sense to somebody.

i fully understand the strategy behind terror, but to me, this goes beyond that. cause there are many more ways to accomplish gaining "control." this is pure evil.

but what do i know? maybe they are just fighting for a noble cause.

Sandman, nobody here has ever said Al Qaeda is fighting for a noble cause.  I know I haven't. 

Of course there are many ways to accomplish "gaining control," but when you are outmanned and outgunned, what they did is pretty damn effective...in the short term.  In the long-run, I do believe it's a mistake.  I do believe the overwhelming majority (99%+) of Muslims are good people...this bullshit will scare the masses initially, but in time it will totally hurt Al Qaeda's marketing campaign.  Shit like this will surely marginalize them in the most important eyes, those of the Muslim world.

Does that make better sense?

[sandman]

i know the left loves to blame america for al qaeda's hatred towards us. anyone care to offer any theories as to why they would torture a 6-year-old boy and laugh about it???

Let's see, from my left of center point of view...I'd chalk this one up to...they are terrorists.  That's what terrorists do.  Terrorizing the public is a form of control.  The next time Al Qaeda is seen in a neighborhood, the logic holds that when stories like this are heard, people will be much less likely to turn them in to the authorities. 

i'm glad torturing 6-year-olds and laughing about it (i.e. getting pleasure out of it) makes sense to somebody.

i fully understand the strategy behind terror, but to me, this goes beyond that. cause there are many more ways to accomplish gaining "control." this is pure evil.

but what do i know? maybe they are just fighting for a noble cause.

Sandman, nobody here has ever said Al Qaeda is fighting for a noble cause.  I know I haven't. 

Of course there are many ways to accomplish "gaining control," but when you are outmanned and outgunned, what they did is pretty damn effective...in the short term.  In the long-run, I do believe it's a mistake.  I do believe the overwhelming majority (99%+) of Muslims are good people...this bullshit will scare the masses initially, but in time it will totally hurt Al Qaeda's marketing campaign.  Shit like this will surely marginalize them in the most important eyes, those of the Muslim world.

Does that make better sense?

no, it doesn't make sense. cause i still don't understand the pleasure someone gets from torturing a 6-year-old boy.

i'm not talking about the strategy behind it. but you and many others have justified al qaeda's existence and hatred towards america by placing blame on the western world. specifically, many have pointed out that America's involvement in muslim affairs and presence in the middle east is the key reason they hate us so much.

while there is SOME truth to those statements, i have a hard time giving the benefit of the doubt to an organization that tortures children.

and i find it funny how the left will sympathize with an organization that is so clearly evil.

[jarmo]

no, it doesn't make sense. cause i still don't understand the pleasure someone gets from torturing a 6-year-old boy.

No normal person would understand...

A lot of things happen in this world that we don't understand. Even in your own country there are sick people who do horrible things.



/jarmo

[sandman]

no, it doesn't make sense. cause i still don't understand the pleasure someone gets from torturing a 6-year-old boy.

No normal person would understand...

A lot of things happen in this world that we don't understand. Even in your own country there are sick people who do horrible things.



/jarmo

exactly! thanks for making my point.

that's why i don't understand why people choose to defend anything about these people and place blame on America and other Western nations.

[jarmo]

that's why i don't understand why people choose to defend anything about these people and place blame on America and other Western nations.

I don't know if they're defending anything, just trying to understand why somebody would do it and find an explanation.

Sometimes thy explanation is just "they hate us and feel our way of living is a threat"....

Somebody who doesn't want democracy and/or equal rights might do anything to keep those things away... You know?





/jarmo

[pilferk]

exactly! thanks for making my point.

that's why i don't understand why people choose to defend anything about these people and place blame on America and other Western nations.

It's not the same thing.

You can understand a psychotic's warped logic.  You can, in turn, see a psychotic person's motivations and recognize the cause of their disease or the trigger's to their behavior. 

That doesn't mean you condone every action they take.

I know the analogy is flawed, in some repsects,  in that Al Quaeda isn't acting out of a disease that may be out of their control.  But it's similar in principal.

You can look at our government's actions and see the logical progression, and A.Q.'s perception of those actions as fundamentalis zealots, and come to the realization on WHY they've become what they've become. It doesn't mean you condone it, or any specific action they've taken.

You have to understand your enemy before you can fight them.  And sometimes fighting them doesn't mean JUST doing so on the battlefield.  It means doing things that undermine their ability to spin propaganda, recruit soldiers, etc.  You can't fight the war on that front unless you understand the motivations and warped progression of those fundamentalists.

But, again, that doesn't mean you condone their despicable actions.

[freedom78]

i know the left loves to blame america for al qaeda's hatred towards us.

Keep in mind that there's a difference between explaining the motivating factors behind something, on one hand, and condoning the actions done because of it. 

i'm glad torturing 6-year-olds and laughing about it (i.e. getting pleasure out of it) makes sense to somebody.

i fully understand the strategy behind terror, but to me, this goes beyond that. cause there are many more ways to accomplish gaining "control." this is pure evil.

And, for the same reason, you and I don't understand the rapist or the molester.  Some people are just plain bad people.  I would imagine most terror organizations to be like many criminal pursuits.  Some people are in it for the money/prestige/glory, some are in it for ideology, and some are just mean sons o' bitches who like to hurt people. 

[Bodhi]

Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest
News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric -- and even violence -- of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.

By Bill Sammon
Wednesday, August 12, 2009

News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric -- and even violence -- of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.

When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

"BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE."

Another poster showed Bush's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!"

A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"

Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.

Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.

The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush's motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president's moving limousine.

All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"

Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire.

The lead story in Wednesday's Washington Post, for example, is headlined: "Obama Faces 'Scare Tactics' Head-On."

"As the president spoke, demonstrators outside held posters declaring him a socialist and dubbing him 'Obamahdinejad,' in reference to Iran's president," the Post reported. "People screamed into bullhorns to protest a bigger government role in health care. 'Nobama Deathcare!' one sign read. A young girl held up a sign that said: 'Obama Lies, Grandma Dies.' Images of a protester wearing what appeared to be a gun were shown on television."

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that a Democratic congressman discovered that "an opponent of health care reform hanged him in effigy" and was confronted by "200 angry conservatives." The article lamented "increasingly ugly scenes of partisan screaming matches, scuffles, threats and even arrests."

No such coverage was given to the Portland protest of Bush by The New York Times or the Washington Post, which witnessed the protest.

[Jdog0830]

no, it doesn't make sense. cause i still don't understand the pleasure someone gets from torturing a 6-year-old boy.

No normal person would understand...

A lot of things happen in this world that we don't understand. Even in your own country there are sick people who do horrible things.



/jarmo

You mean in every country there are people like that well that would be better off dead 4 everyones sake