My New Favorite Congressman : Dispatches from the Creation Wars

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Bachmann Adopts the Palin Whine | Main | Mencken on Bachelors »

My New Favorite Congressman

Posted on: August 17, 2009 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA):

"Now folks will say that's not true, but I've got facts on my side and you've got Glenn Beck on your side."

Great line. Video below the fold.

Find more posts in:

Politics

Comments

The comment comes at about 03:15.

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 17, 2009 9:39 AM

That's pretty win.

I've been halfway hoping for a congressman to ask some particularly crazy protester if they ate paint chips as a kid, but I suppose I'll settle for that.

Posted by: Ben | August 17, 2009 10:21 AM

If only our president had such cojones.

I'm pretty pissed off at the Democrats right now... that provided a little solace.

Posted by: havoc | August 17, 2009 11:31 AM

I know this is way off topic, but it was just announced that Tom Fucking DeLay will be on next season's DWTS.

Ed - you gotta write something about this....

Posted by: Pineyman | August 17, 2009 11:46 AM

DeLay? As what, a floor mat? I'd tune in to see that.

Posted by: MikeMa | August 17, 2009 12:18 PM

I like the "Jason" in the "Kucinich" t-shirt at about 5:35.

Posted by: democommie | August 17, 2009 3:09 PM

That Jason guy cited Article 1, Section 8.

That section deals with Congress having the authority to raise revenue. In that context, it would be possible to interpret the phrase "promote the general welfare" as meaning "raise taxes to promote the general welfare."

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but I wonder how the courts have ruled on that, if they have.

The first questioner, the woman who seemed to think that everyone was going to be forced to participate in the "public option," lost credibility with me with her very first sentence. Wasting people's time in such a forum with crap like "I'd like to thank you for being here, and I'd like to thank everyone for being so polite..." is not an encouraging sign as far as I'm concerned.

Wasting my time is not being polite.

Posted by: BaldApe | August 17, 2009 4:20 PM

BaldApe:

Yeah, I know whutumean. People are allatime hatin' on me for SAVIN' their time. I say, 'Hey, just cut to the chase, ya freakin' moron!" and they're all, like, indignorant. Is "indignorant" a word? If not I'm gonna call "neologism" eleventyone!! It perfectly describes the attitude of the deathers; they're all pissed off and don't even know why.

Posted by: democommie | August 17, 2009 4:43 PM

Is "indignorant" a word?

If it ain't, it aughter be.

It's just scary as hell how easy it is to get people scared without any content at all. (At least I'm scared for a reason.)

Posted by: BaldApe | August 17, 2009 5:41 PM

He's my Rep. I've met him before, and he seems like a really smart guy. He's been good to those of us in Washington's second district.

Posted by: AlisonRobin | August 17, 2009 6:29 PM

democommie FTW!

I love neologisms! Take me, I'm yours!

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 17, 2009 11:02 PM

Indignorant- Would it be like that reaction you get from fundies when compare creationism to belief in santa or the tooth fairy. Always beautiful to see.

Posted by: Ramel | August 17, 2009 11:11 PM

Ramel:

Yes. Also it will happen when you tell them that they are credulous boobs. This is because they know what boobs are, but credulous is word that they would have to look up. Alas, spelling is a liberally biased practice.

Posted by: democommie | August 17, 2009 11:49 PM

Does anybody know the number of small dicked morons w/ blue steel dildos present?

Posted by: tincture | August 18, 2009 1:50 AM

That was a good sound bite, but his explanation of why it is important to have everyone in the risk pool was disappointing. How in the world is an average (read: stupid) person going to understand what the fuck he's talking about. He seemed to confuse himself with his explanation.

Posted by: bullfighter | August 18, 2009 2:22 AM

He makes some good points, but listening to him speak is painful. Somebody point him to Toastmasters, quick!

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 18, 2009 7:36 AM

Maybe Jason could run for Persident.

Posted by: teammarty | August 18, 2009 2:23 PM

LOL, the Democrats are getting absolutely thrashed over this health care issue.

As for the quote about Glenn Beck, the guy is not even being completely honest. In the strictest sense, he may be correct that the plan will not force people to change their coverage, but once the government has a public health care option, who is to say companies won't dump their employee health plans and force employees to take the government plan? Since company plans are so expensive, I think it is very likely that would happen. Like I said, he may be correct in the strictest sense, but the end result will probably be a lot of people losing their company health coverage.

Posted by: mroberts | August 18, 2009 9:33 PM

This makes me proud to be from Washington

Posted by: Jamie | August 18, 2009 10:00 PM

once again mroberts jumps in with unfounded claptrap. clearly nobody will lose insurance if we stick with the current system, and since some paranoid, or simply dishonest, whack jobs predict doom and gloom, clearly the alternative is much worse, as is even studying the issue. moron.

Posted by: dean | August 19, 2009 7:41 AM

dean, dean, dean:

I don't mean to chide you, but I must take exceptio to your characterizing mroberts as a moron. Moron's have much higher order cognitive processes than mroberts. He is a mendacious liar who simply vomits up the shit that he is filled with at party HQ.

mroberts:

STFU.

Posted by: democommie | August 19, 2009 7:51 AM

Well, Barney Frank should be your second favorite Congressman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8

Posted by: Brandon | August 19, 2009 11:03 PM

Re the Barney Frank clip. Claiming a gay Jewish person is someone who promotes Nazi/Hitlerite policies . . . you can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 19, 2009 11:33 PM

In regards to company plans eventually going away. This pro-business advocate hopes so. I participated (unfortunately) in placing billions of dollars of business in countries other than the U.S. because of our health care cost burden. That started back in the 1980s and accelerated this decade. In addition, health care costs was a primary factor amongst only a handful of factors causing the companies I worked for to increase business administration operations in countries other than the U.S., high paying professional jobs that could have come here but didn't where health care costs was one of only a handful of other considerations (another was a lack of educated business professionals in the job markets or coming out of the universities coupled to our inability to emigrate such professionals fast enough from other countries - partly because their home countries standard of living was competing or even surpassing ours).

That's kind of the whole point, bringing labor market liquidity back to our market while simultaneously getting a huge cost burden away from U.S. companies forced to compete with global competitors with a small tax burden rather than a large health insurance cost burden. The health insurance lobbyists figure the average large-employer insurance plan costs 11 - 15% of wages, not including the increasing cost and complexity for human resources departments to choose and administrate this benefit.

In addition, some of the four competing health care plans supplant employer-paid plans that are eradicated with a 8% tax on wages in order to provide funds to transition employees who lose such insurance over to a new, superior plan, that won't cost them in net-after tax income (this may not pass). The new plans will be superior to the old ones because they'll have portability (won't be tied to a job), and broader coverage with less risk of claims denials (not to be implemented until 2013).

As always, mroberts' opinions are based on his almost perfect cluelessness.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 19, 2009 11:52 PM

You guys just drink the Koolaid by the gallon, it's unbelievable. Thank God this health care disaster is going down in flames. So let me ask you this: if the government creates a government insurance option and it is meant to be competition (ie cheaper) for private insurance plans, why would a company NOT force their employees onto the government plan to save costs? The whole notion that the government is going to be "competition" is just ridiculous anyway. There is no way that any private company can compete with a govenrment that has trillions in tax dollars at its disposal. The creation of a competitive insurance plan would probably destroy the private health care insurance industry, which has been a stated goal of a few democrats anyway. So why shouldn't the townhallers be worried about all this?

On a side note, I find it ironic how you blame me for typing "unfounded claptrap" but you did nothing to attempt to prove me wrong. That happens a lot on this blog. Simple insults and namecalling are considered strong argument with many on this blog.

Posted by: mroberts | August 20, 2009 10:43 AM

RE: mroberts

May I present the Netherlands.

Public and private insurance options seem to coexist rather well, there.

Posted by: Ranson | August 20, 2009 10:56 AM

mroberts wrote:

There is no way that any private company can compete with a govenrment that has trillions in tax dollars at its disposal.

You might want to call UPS and Fed Ex and tell them that. And all the private colleges and universities that exist despite hundreds of public universities. And Greyhound, which has to compete with government-funded Amtrak.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 20, 2009 10:57 AM

mroberts @ 25:

you did nothing to attempt to prove me wrong. That happens a lot on this blog. Simple insults and namecalling are considered strong argument with many on this blog.

- what I did @24 and others preceding me, was effectively and overwhemingly fisk the merits of your claims, directly. The fact you claim you're perfectly impotent in realizing that speaks volumes regarding the power of your delusions preventing you from any form of elementary reading comprehension.

Given this global observation by mroberts, I assume his denialist delusion is still rock solid as well. In spite of our previously providing overwhelming peer-accepted evidence for AGW while he presented a fraudulent petition developed by a couple of quacks in defense of his denialist delusions.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2009 12:01 PM

This post's thread, especially the recent post @29 piles on the evidence directly refuting mroberts claims, who made the same false assertions there that he does here, which were thoroughly fisked there as well - contrary to mroberts claims we're not fisking his claims but merely hurling insults. It's worth reading @29 given CPT_DOOM is an economist with 20 years spent in the health care industry.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 20, 2009 12:09 PM

On a side note, I find it ironic how you blame me for typing "unfounded claptrap" but you did nothing to attempt to prove me wrong.

Translation: "La la la! I can't hear you!"

Folks have been providing lots of evidence. You refuse to see it. Anyone who says government involvement in medicine never works when it clearly does (and the all of the developed world except the US engages in it) is just not trying to prove his case.

Classic projection scenario. Do some homework son. Don't insult our intelligence.

Posted by: gwangung | August 20, 2009 12:20 PM

thread pirate mroberts:

"you did nothing to attempt to prove me wrong. That happens a lot on this blog. Simple insults and namecalling are considered strong argument with many on this blog."

No, no, no. There are lots and lots of strong, factually accurate and dispassionately rendered arguments put forth--against your spittle flecked screeds. That you are not only incapable of telling the truth, but so abysmally ignorant that you wouldn't be able to understand it if you spent the rest of your life trying is why these people waste their time attempting to educate you.

I, otoh, know that you're nothing but a fucking whanker troll who must jerk off to his fantasies of putting people who are much, much more intelligent and honest than you could ever be, in their place. Nah, that would be a complete waste of time for me. You're a fucking idiot, as each and every one of your posts has indicated for a very long time. If you were a dog I would likely have to "send you to the farm" (N.B. "send to the farm" involves dirt and a shovel, but not in the manner of raising a crop.). STFU.

Posted by: democommie | August 20, 2009 2:43 PM