Stupidities That Go On Under Communism

So Cuba’s mulling over state-sponsored transsexual surgeries. Check this shit out:

Now President Castro’s niece is pushing for passage of a law that would give transsexuals free sex-change operations and hormonal therapy in addition to granting them new identification documents with their changed gender.

How about that? If you’re a woman in a man’s body, the benevolent Communist dictatorship will pay lots of good money to cut off your dick for you. You know, because they obviously have resources to blow in their healthcare system.

I have no issues with transsexuals whatsoever; they are and should remain perfectly free to get their surgeries. But if America ever gets some sort of socialist healthcare scheme, I sure as hell don’t want my taxes to go up because of elective surgeries. Not just transsexual surgeries… I don’t want America to boob-job itself to fiscal oblivion either, for that matter.

Plus, if I were a transsexual I would have serious qualms about letting a government worker operate on my (apparently superfluous) penis. If I was going to have a doctor turn me into a lady, I sure as hell would want to know that he was motivated by market forces instead of government inefficiency. Just think…

Market forces:

You: “MY NEW VAGINA AND MY ASS ARE NOW CONNECTED! FIX IT!”

Hospital supervisor: “Shit! Get this man a new asshole! Smith, YOU’RE FIRED! Sir, er, ma’am, I’m SO SORRY, here’s a million bucks, just don’t sue plz.

Socialism:

“You: “MY NEW VAGINA AND MY ASS ARE NOW CONNECTED! FIX IT!”

Hospital supervisor: “Hmm, well that’s a shame. Tell you what. Go fill out form 238-D in triplicate, there’s a two-year wait for the vaginagluteusectominal procedure, and it’ll be performed by the same guy who fucked you up in the first place because the doctor’s union has us by the balls, oh and you’ll be wiping yourself with a douche from now on. Have a nice day.”

60 Comments
  1. Don’t forget hair transplants, Stewey. (I know that’s not your name. I just like attributing football-headed evil genius to libertarians from time to time. Sorry if you’ve heard that one far too many times. >:) )

  2. I don’t advocate socialized health care in any way, shape, manner or form (including those already practiced in the US, such as Medicare, Medicaid and required emergency treatment).

    Nor, were I to resign myself to the forms already practiced here, would I support expanding their scope.

    HOWEVER (you knew a whatever was coming), sex-change operations and such are not, strictly speaking, on the same level of “electiveness” as cosmetic surgery (“boob jobs”).

    Someone who gets a breast (or penis) enlargement or reduction is normally trying to enhance qualities he or she finds important within his or her gender. Transsexuals, on the other hand, are normally people who believe their gender was erroneously assigned. They’re not trying to enhance who they are, they’re trying to BECOME who they are. Inability to do so is a source of severe anguish which deserves correction. A mild hernia might not kill you, but it makes you miserable … and fixing it isn’t “elective” as generally understood.

  3. Nobody ever died from not getting a transsexual operation. What did they do before we invented these things anyway? Absolutely nothing, they dealt with it.

    I understand their anguish, and they should always be free to pursue happiness by saving up for surgery. But I shouldn’t have to pay for it.

  4. Stuart,

    I agree that you shouldn’t have to pay for it — but I also agree that you shouldn’t have to pay for a heart transplant, or an amputation, or stitches so that a cut doesn’t heal “ugly.”

    I have no problem with your objection to paying for it — I’m just saying that you’re incorrectly classifying the nature/necessity of it. As far as “nobody ever died from,” that depends on what you mean “died from.”

    If you suffered pain which only opiates could relieve, and you could not get opiates, and you killed yourself because you couldn’t stand the pain any more, would it be reasonable to say that the inavailability of opiates was a factor in your death?

    Some transsexuals consider the mental anguish of not being able to express their gender sufficient cause to commit suicide. It’s reasonable to say that “not getting a transsexual operation” was a factor in their deaths. That doesn’t mean you should have to pick up the check — but you could at least show some goddamn sensitivity.

  5. If we’re going to have socialist healthcare, we should only provide the bare minimum necessary to keep people alive and healthy.

    “Mental anguish,” as real as it may be, is inherently unverifiable and shouldn’t be considered a basis for physical health.

  6. Stuart,

    The solution of the problem to who “considers” what to be a “basis” for anything is to not get (or at least not get any further) into the socialized health care swamp in the first place. Which is exactly what I suggested.

    However, I’ll play devil’s advocate based on the current situation: Why should a transsexual have to pony up for Bob Dole’s Viagra, or for your grandma’s hemmorhoid ointment, or for that matter reconstructive surgery on a poor child’s face after a car accident which leaves her head functionally intact but looking and feeling like it took a long slide down the pavement (because it did) — and then be told that his or her complaints aren’t “considered” the “basis” for a turn at the same trough?

    As soon as healthcare and politics meet,the argument becomes “WHAT is ‘the bare minimum necessary to keep people alive and healthy?” And the answer will be a matter of POLITICS. Don’t know about you, but I’d rather keep politics away from my kidneys, etc. entirely.

  7. Oh, I certainly agree on keeping the government out… but it’s gonna happen eventually whether we like it or not. 60something percent of America wants a socialist healthcare system, so we as libertarians need to be figuring out ways to drag our heels and make it suck as little as possible.

  8. Actually we as libertarians need to be figuring out ways to kick them in the nuts and get them to knock it off. We don’t drag our heels until we’ve been knocked down and are being carried away.

    Either way, I don’t see making fun of — or at least posting uninformed blather about — transsexuals as a very good approach. But maybe that’s just me. Yes, I’m guilty of saying things that might not have non-libertarians swimming toward our ship, too, but I’m just saying, you know?

  9. I think we should find out how to make socialized medicine suck as much as possible. If 60 percent of America wants their health to be a political issue that politicians can fight over, they deserve the effects. Make America live with the worst possible socialized system and we might see it go the way of the dodo.

  10. This proposal is clearly discriminatory. I see no offer of free transpecies operations. What the hell is a cat trapped in a human body supposed to do?

  11. Stuart,

    I do hope that someday soon you will learn the difference between cutting invective and cheap vulgarity.

    Or maybe HoT actually aspires to sound like a frat house on the night after exams. In that case, you are brilliantly furthering their goals, and congratulations are in order.

  12. DD: That isn’t right. It’s our job as a political party to give America the best government we possibly can, not ruin it on purpose.

    Susan: What, I displeased you with my opinions? NO WAY… and we were such good friends too!

  13. I have what I believe is a solution to the healthcare problem in America. Rather than socialize medicine, perhaps a program could be started that would provide medical schools to every state university, as well as reducing teh licencing requirements to be a medical professional of varying degrees, and also limiting malpractice lawsuit damages.

    I have to be honest, I am not particularly familiar with the national party’s stance on healthcare, but I have always thought this would make a good addendum, at least.

  14. Devious,

    I can’t agree with your idea “to make socialized medicine suck as much as possible.” While such systems don’t really need any additional help in sucking, the perpetual problem with government programs is that when they inevitably prove to suck, the solution is ALWAYS to ratchet it up a notch to “fix” it, invariably either making it worse or creating some entirely new problems altogether.

    I’m with Thomas on this one – we need to be doing everything possible to prevent a fully socialized medicine program from ever getting a foothold here. Because once it starts, it will undoubtedly become a third rail political issue that is virtually impossible to get rid of.

  15. The premis of the article is assinine. Oppose socialist healthcare for any one of numerous good reasons. But to suggest that your “taxes would go up” because of transexual gender re-assignments is idiotic. How many such surgeries would be performed, even if they were “free,” each year? Whatever the number, there’s no way it would even approach $1 in annual taxes to even the most affluent taxpayer in the “progressive” system.

  16. the LP’s stance on health care sucks. It doesnt make allowance for the fact that emergency medicine of any kind is not a question of applying market tools like magic to make everything OK. There is no causal relationship between supply and demand for starters.

    I’m afraid that health care and typical negative liberty or nothing libertarianism does not go together. Owing to my circumstances here, I’ve spent a great deal of the last 2 months reading every single book on reform of the healthcare system I can get my hands on.

    I’ve come away with the conclusion that while market tools can help in areas where those same tools help OUTSIDE the health arena and on the same kinds of products, there is nothing that libertarianism can speak on that comes anywhere near a plan that can be marketed as a ‘libertarian’ health care reform plan that remains true to the current platform.

    The LP and it’s candidates will have to bend to today’s realities to get back to square one.

  17. The worst thing wrong with medicine is that every part of the system is fighting against every other part of the system that it must work with to remain in business. We have created a total adversarial system, that in reality costs more to operate than a government run system would. A simple examination of the relevent data from several sources nd adjusting for currency exchange and population pretty much tells the story.

    Government is the source of this problem. But there are some things that simply should not be, regardless of LP beliefs. Human life will always > money, at least to any standard of moral humanity I know. But I cant tell you how many “libertarians” I’ve heard making comments like “if people get sick it’s their own fucking fault. Let them pay for it.”

    There’s a middle ground that must be found between todays bloated semi-private system and “let them pay for it” for the LP to champion.

  18. Before I comment, I must disclose that my husband is a doc. He and I, while bedmates, do not always share the same opinions.
    That said, what makes people believe that they are entitled to anything except autonomy? It is not anyone’s “right” to live past what their body will allow. It is not a “right” to live as a gender different than that which your genetic code assigned. It is your right to pursue that which will make you happier, but not my obligation to pay for it. It is your right to decide that a life (or mental anguish) saving procedure is worth your investment and savings. Stuart’s article, while extreme, is something to think about. Though, I have to admit that I was most affected by the last statement of the cited article.Marriage is not as important in Cuba as in other more Catholic countries. Here consensual pairing is more important,” she said, “What matters is love.” It seems that Cuba’s dictator is a bit more forgiving than ours.

    Comment by Michelle Shinghal ”” 2006-

  19. Tim,

    Let’s start with something we can probably agree on: The “healthcare problem” is complex.

    Let’s move to something else we can probably agree on: Government involvement in healthcare, as in everything else, manifests itself more on the “problem” end than on the “solution” end.

    Finally, let’s move to something I hope we can agree on: Libertarians want freedom and we want affordable, quality healthcare for all and especially lifesaving care for victims of emergency, whether that emergency takes the form of traumatic injury or of catastrophic illness.

    If we agree on those things, then there’s a final bridge to get across: We need to realize that libertarians are not the only political group, and that we don’t have to shoulder the burdens of the other, competing groups. One of our objectives is reasonably affordable, &c. health care. As libertarians, our means for achieving that goal is (continued)

  20. (continued from comment 22) reducing the size, power and scope of government. That’s the means for achieving all of our goals, because it’s the only means we have — it is the essence of our political movement. Lots of groups seek reasonably affordable, &c. health care by other means … but if we use their means, then we cease to be what we are and become what they are.

    Now, I am not a Rothbardian “no particular orderist.” I advocate identifying which reduction in the size, power and scope of government best serves America on any particular issue at any particular time, while not contradicting our general goals, and pursuing that reduction.

    I also advocate letting the other political groups pursue their sometimes similar interim goals by their other, preferred means. We do what we do, they do what they do, we fight them. sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, sometimes it’s a little bit of both and eventually it all comes out in the wash. (contd)

  21. (continued from comment 23) We don’t have to look for the “middle ground” you allude to. Believe you me, we’ll find that middle ground without looking for it, if we are effective in pulling toward — incrementally, yes, and without hopping up and down on one foot and screaming that we must get there NOW or not at all, but toward the far side of that middle ground, where our ideal lies. Because while we are pulling toward our goals, the other groups are pulling toward theirs, creating tension and counterforce.

    If you’ve ever played tug of war, you know that while a slow, plodding pull in your direction may be … well, slow and plodding … it gets you there — but that moving toward the middle means you get pulled into the puddle and out the other side of it, and covered with mud to boot. The other groups aren’t going to seek the “middle ground” (every attempt to form a “centrist” party or movement has failed more spectacularly than the LP has). They’re (cont’d)

  22. (continued from comment 24) going to resolutely do their damnedest to pull the rope and everyone hanging on it to their side of the puddle, and if you suggest that everyone move toward the middle, they’re going say “yeah, sure” — and put their backs into it harder than ever while trying to convince you that they’re down with the whole middle moving thing.

    Incrementalism is great. Picking your battles (and keeping those battles as small as necessary while massing your forces for later engagements) is fine and necessary. Compromise, however … well, let me get radical on you and quote old Ayn: “In any compromise between food and poison, only death can win.”

    We must move in our direction. Maybe slowly, maybe haltingly, maybe in baby steps carefully chosen for minimum negative impacts, but in our direction, not theirs. Every time. If we move in their direction, it had damn well better be because we got clobbered over the head and dragged.

  23. While I’m waxing incredibly verbose, I do want to take a moment to thank Stuart for his always interesting blogging. Sorry to take the piss out of you on this particular post — but you know me. When I have an opinion, no one is safe.

  24. Hey, it’s all good Thomas. I always enjoy a good round of debate. :)

    I’ve actually gotten to thinking due to all this. This post has me at something of an unusual position-to a certain extent, I’m defending the purist position of at least one strain of libertarianism in this. And, well, I don’t typically do that.

    It’s occurred to me that insofar as pragmatism is concerned, there can be a vast inherent utility to “firing up the base” as well. I think I’m going to explore this aspect of pragmatic libertarian politics with my next actual post, see what we strike upon.

  25. Tom,

    you cant apply market solutions where the levers of market solutions have no way to apply themselves. Please note that I said EMERGENCY MEDICINE – there’s a lot that can be done on other parts of the system, but I dont see where a market system can be introduced into a situation where the market driven levvers of control DONT WORK becuase the market relationship between supply and demand does not exist in that instance and cannot be made to exist without making the LP look like a bunch of heartless scumbags.

    You know by now that I dont give a shit about how I am SUPPOSED to think. I think what I think based on observation, research, and personal experience, and I choose my political party based on the best fit, and that fit is still the LP for now, depending on the news from Portland.

    I think for myself. If I think that libertarian beliefs dont apply in a certain instance, I’ll question those beliefs. No philosophy controls me or my direction. I believe what I think is right.

  26. Who decides which medical care is an emergency? You may take your 98 year old grandmother into the hospital. If she is not breathing, you may decide to have her tubed and to pull everything out of the medical bag of tricks. But I believe that Grandma has lived a full life. 98 is old. I think that this a non-emergency matter. It is likely that Grandma is funded by Medicare. What do we decide when we are in the emergency room?

    Trust the government to make this decision for you?

  27. normally, there is presumption that by seeking medical care in the first place, you are seeking treatment for same. If you think that grandma has lived a full life, simply dont take her anywhere. Let her rot in her bed and die and be happy, knowing that you did the right thing in the name of liberty.

    When I was in critical condition and my outcome not assured earlier this year, I have to think I’m really glad I wasnt married to you. I’d be deathly scared you would give up on me for the sake of a libertarian ‘principle’.

  28. I see a lot of Libertarians Quoting Ann Raynd, and I have to let you know, I have contacted the head of the ann raynd library, and from what he said, ms raynd really disliked the libertarian party. he had a few quotes on hand that illustrated this.

    I just thought you should know. she is listed as a prominent libertarian, and really she hated the party.

  29. Tim,

    I wouldn’t dream of asking you to believe anything except that which you think is right, but what you think is right may or may not be right. Same goes for me. Debate is about convincing the other guy to agree with you on what’s right.

    So, I’m going to take another shot at this, since that you blew right past my key point and went off looking for something to bitch about rather than for a way to succeed.

    You say “you cant apply market solutions where the levers of market solutions have no way to apply themselves.” I’m not going to argue about whether or not market solutions are well-suited to emergency medicine. I’m going to stipulate — for the sake of argument — that they aren’t.

    When looking at complex problems, we should take the tools we have (“market solutions”) and apply them to the parts of the problems that they ARE well-suited to, instead of throwing down our tools, pouting, and whining that we should pick out new tools and different problems.

  30. Not every medical procedure is justified because somebody sought treatment. What qualifies as a full life differs for people. My husband (who tells me that he is happily married) and I have agreed on what is important to us with regard to medical treatment. And, we have taken steps to ensure that any required medical care can be paid for by us. My point was that you would probably not like my choice for your grandma, and that I don’t want the government involved in my care- as a provider or payer. I know that you had a pretty eventful year, but I never implied that I would let a loved one rot away. I just wouldn’t ask you to take responsibility for the bill. It really is not as cold as you try to make it.

  31. Michelle,

    I apologize. I read back the post and I was too harsh on you. But there’s has got to be a middle ground NOT IN THE END but in the BEGINNING where we can address this problem as a party. It’s not calling for 98 year old mothers to be put to death in the name of lowering government costs.

    Simply calling for people to pay for their own health care is a loser. In light of your example earlier, I should say that I always though Jack Kevorkian was a hero, and today he sits dying in a jail cell and almost no one remembers him. People Should have the right to end their own life at the time of their choosing. But allowing others to choose that for them is a slippy slope.

    Tom, I dont know what to tell ya. your 4th paragraph is pretty much what I said to start with. But where market forces do not apply, we cant continue to insist that they can becuase our platform says we have to. That not dealing with reality.

    We have to start with reality, TODAY.

  32. I’m pretty familiar with gender patients. A conversation with transgenders and both pre-operative and post-operative transsexuals showed me that somewhere around 100% of them like the idea of paying for hormones and surgeries and all related treatment by themselves. It’s part of their way of life. It means something to them, even if no one else can understand it.

    Insulting them as done here at Hammer of “Truth” merely means the Libertarian Party pretty much loses their votes. According to Lynn Conway’s website, that is about 1 in 250 to 1 in 500 US citizens as a conservative estimate.

    Can the party afford to alienate entire groups of people with ignorant and abusive insults such as evidenced on this website? If so, have at it. If not… well… engage brain before starting post.

    I’ll be first: Due to this, I will not vote for any Libertarian candidate in th enext election. Convince me I should reconsider.

  33. Natalie,

    I’ll take a shot at convincing you to reconsider.

    You should vote Libertarian for two reasons:

    1) Libertarians are on your side.

    2) The candidates of the other parties are not.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever been involved in a team competitive activity — sport or whatever — before, but if you have, you’ve probably found people on your team whom you maybe didn’t like or who offended you.

    But, they were on your side. They were trying to help you achieve your goals. So you put up with them, even if the people on the other team, who were trying to make you lose, were nicer or more polite.

    I didn’t like this post, primarily because of the way it approached the issue of transsexuality. I bet that Bill Frist and Ted Kennedy wouldn’t publicly make fun of transsexuals. But if Frist, Kennedy and Stuart were on the ballot for election to public office, I’d vote for Stuart, because he is seeking the same goals as I am.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  34. Hi Thomas,

    “…if Frist, Kennedy and Stuart were on the ballot for election to public office, I’d vote for Stuart, because he is seeking the same goals as I am.”

    From my POV, three bad choices – just like a real election! :)

    Not that Ted Kennedy is a pillar of honesty, but I’d vote for Kennedy. Stuart is abusive and shows he doesn’t even care to understand transsexuality at all, and is willing to do the same as most any Republican these days: avoid truth and kick a group of people for political gain.

    No one who does that is on my side. I refuse to vote for someone who is brazenly, publicly dishonest – and that is how I view Stuart with regard to this post.

    Thank you for trying, however.

  35. Not that Ted Kennedy is a pillar of honesty, but I’d vote for Kennedy. Stuart is abusive and shows he doesn’t even care to understand transsexuality at all, and is willing to do the same as most any Republican these days: avoid truth and kick a group of people for political gain.

    No one who does that is on my side. I refuse to vote for someone who is brazenly, publicly dishonest – and that is how I view Stuart with regard to this post.

    What the hell? How did I “abuse” transsexuals? If I’m abusing anyone here, it’s the fucking stupid government. It IS an elective surgery, yeah it’s important to them and I’m not saying it isn’t, but the facts are that it is possible to survive without a transgender surgery. It is not *medically* necessary.

    There’s people out there that think that transgenders are horrible sinners or whatever, and want to ban those surgeries. THOSE fuckers are the guys you want to be pissed at. I just threw some humor at a ridiculous situation.

  36. Oh yeah, and for that matter, where was I dishonest? Those are my honest-to-God opinions up there, in the comments, everywhere.

    Also, I don’t speak for the Libertarian Party, I just post on a blog. I don’t speak for the LP, in fact I typically get more bitchouts from the average party member than high-fives. If you’re gonna be pissed about my opinions, be pissed towards ME, not towards some political party that didn’t say shit about this.

  37. Stuart,

    Let’s start with the dishonesty aspect.

    “.. to cut off your dick for you”

    For male to female patients, not really what happens in typical inversion or flap techniques, nor in resection: vagina, clitoris, labia and cervix are manufactured from the material. I note you didn’t mention anything at all about female to male patients.

    Your “opinion” is not the matter of factual reality.

    And I am not “pissed” at you. I just think you are incredibly ignorant on the subject, and attempting to use it for political gain – just like the Republican party uses gay and lesbian issues for political gain.

    “…sure as hell don’t want my taxes to go up because of elective surgeries.”

    Neither do transsexuals – including for surgery. Your post implies otherwise. BTW, general rule of thumb is 50% of transsexuals commit suicide before the age of 30 years. Elective? I’ll say for some, maybe all, maybe not all – but I won’t say for certain that it is always elective.

  38. What are the finances for reassignment surgery, Stuart?

    male to female 1 surgery – inversion technique is about $10 grand.
    female to male has three surgeries and totals about $70 grand minimum.

    I thought you were working on the finances of the situation of healthcare?

    Honesty. Got any?

  39. Abuse.

    Honesty is not abusive, Stuart.

    Dishonesty is abusive.

    Please learn about things you don’t know diddly squat about before you write about them. Thank you in advance.

  40. Oh, EXCUSE ME for not being a fucking doctor! So what, anyone that doesn’t know every last bit of info about transsexuality is automatically “abusive” whenever they mention the word?

    For male to female patients, not really what happens in typical inversion or flap techniques, nor in resection: vagina, clitoris, labia and cervix are manufactured from the material. I note you didn’t mention anything at all about female to male patients.

    Blah blah blah fuckyou. I’m talking about politics here, not medicine. This is a political blog. Here, we talk about POLITICS. If we talked about medicine, it would be a MEDICAL blog. Consequently, it means that I don’t have to know every fucking thing about medicine. So I was factually incorrect-I honestly doubt that anyone here is taking this site as a source of medical information on transsexual surgery.

  41. And I am not “pissed” at you. I just think you are incredibly ignorant on the subject, and attempting to use it for political gain – just like the Republican party uses gay and lesbian issues for political gain.

    Political gain? WTF? I support transsexual rights, you can fuck all kinds of off! I found this more humorous than anything, you don’t like it, deal.

    Well, I gotta tell the truth… there was a secret plan the Libertarians were hatching with the Illuminati Jews at the center of the earth that by sacrificing the blood of transgenders to Satan, we would be able to take over America. You caught us. We’re screwed now, oh shucks.

  42. Neither do transsexuals – including for surgery. Your post implies otherwise. BTW, general rule of thumb is 50% of transsexuals commit suicide before the age of 30 years. Elective? I’ll say for some, maybe all, maybe not all – but I won’t say for certain that it is always elective.

    IMPLIES? IM-FUCKING-PLIES? THAT is what you’re going on to call me dishonest? You’re one of those feminazi types that can read offense into just about anything, aren’cha?

    And you know what? It’s not my problem. Everyone’s gotta live with the hand they’re dealt. Transsexuals are free to pursue happiness just like the rest of us… it’s not our obligation to make sure they catch it.

  43. What are the finances for reassignment surgery, Stuart?

    male to female 1 surgery – inversion technique is about $10 grand.
    female to male has three surgeries and totals about $70 grand minimum.

    I thought you were working on the finances of the situation of healthcare?

    Honesty. Got any?

    When did I even mention the cost of transgender surgery period? Oh that’s right, I DIDN’T. So you wanna go ahead and retract that little bitchfit of yours about me being dishonest? And for someone who can take deep personal offense over something someone said on a blog, you sure as hell are awesome at dishing out unmerited attacks without even knowing what the hell you’re talking about.

    Anyway, the cost of this surgery is irrelevant to my post because that wasn’t the point of what I was saying. If your argument is that it’s wrong for libertarians to not support free surgery for transsexuals, well, then pretty much everyone here is gonna be against you.

  44. So in conclusion, I think you’re just a little bitch who takes WAY too much offense at nothing, and if you’re gonna take it out on the LP by not voting for us… well, it was just a matter of time anyway if your politics revolves around who hurts your widdle fucking feewings the least. And that, right there, is my HONEST opinion. You don’t like it, too bad, but I’m not lying to you and I never was.

  45. My my, Stuart. Aren’t you in a tizzy? Please don’t let me interrupt your rantings. Was just looking for someone honest in politics. Didn’t find it here. Oh well.

    And no, my “widdle feewings” aren’t hurt in the slightest, thank you so much for asking. I am far stronger than you will ever be. However, by the way you write, I can tell yours are – you do seem a tad upset, hmmm? Amazing the way perceptions come across the internet, isn’t it?

    Now what is this hysterical nonsense: Cost is not relevant to socialized healthcare? Excuse me, didn’t realize you were not only ignorant but insane. Have you considered seeing a doctor about that problem?

    Have a good evening, Stuart. Try to relax. You are obviously far too upset over a little discussion in which you have little knowledge and even less sanity.

    Ta!

  46. Oh no you don’t. You don’t post all that emotionalistic garbage and then try to waltz out of here looking like the mature one.

    I’m not upset at all, I just think it’s bullshit that you can be all offended over nothing. And I think your deranged opinions are hilarious, to boot.

    I am far stronger than you will ever be.

    I’m sorry, I just really really have to laugh at this. This is just too fucking hilarious… did they teach you to say that in a NOW handout or what, Riot Grrrl? “Empowerment” is such a fucking joke… people who are truly strong don’t have to keep telling it to themselves.

    I’ve had much smarter, much more eloquent people than you come after me on this blog. You think you got me angry? Don’t flatter yourself.

  47. Jeez, Stuart. Take a chill pill. Feminazi? Calling Natalie a bitch is absolutely offensive. It is offensive to me and I am a blogger here. Natalie is, perhaps, new here. She may not understand that we oppose government intervention in healthcare whether it is a gender change or marital counseling. And, she has a point that it is a pricey, pay on your own surgery. At least it is here, in America. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=transgender+surgery+and+payment+options&fr=FP-tab-web-t376&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8 Cursing her and lobbing statements like, “Empowerment is such a fucking joke” makes you look like a joke. I know that you are not a joke- but Natalie and whatever traffic she sends won’t. We all step in a little shit sometimes. This time, it is your shoes that smell.

  48. Yeah, accusing me of dishonesty is pretty lame though. Disagree with what I say, sure, but dishonesty? Come on now.

    If she can’t take it, she ought not to dish it out. If she had stayed respectful to begin with, it would have been a fruitful exchange of ideas, a la Thomas Knapp’s statements above. I don’t see what I said as any worse than what she said. But you know what? I’m not getting into a “she started it” pissing match so whatever. I’m done in this post.

  49. While you said that you had no problem with transgender surgery, the tone was mocking. T. Knapp called this early in the thread. Those of us in the fold knew exactly what you hoped to do. You used something that most Americans deem extreme to make a very valid point. The problem is that you were totally disrespectful to an opposing opinion. The dishonesty here was that you were acting as MSM. You sensationalized something for ratings. You could have won this Natalie. You alienated her instead. You are the blogger. And you should be able to “take it.” We are here for the purpose of promoting liberty. You, as a reform champion, ought to know that. After all, you have been preaching it all day.

  50. Oh no you don’t. You don’t post all that emotionalistic garbage and then try to waltz out of here looking like the mature one.

  51. *shrugs*

    I’m sorry that you’re offended. Anyway, it looks like a whole whopping two people (Knapp disagreed but didn’t seem offended) have been offended by my post-the rest saw it for what it was-offbeat political news accompanied by humor. If that’s “sensationalist,” I dunno what to tell you except that we obviously have very different definitions of the term.

    If there’s anything else you want me to respond to, email it. I’m not personally having it out with a fellow blogger in public.

  52. I will mail you in the morning. Later morning, I mean. We need not have it out- though you should be more inclined to have it out with me, than verbally assault, with profanity, a potential ally. I agree with your point. But I know your point. Newbies will be lost. We will continue later, privately, as you requested.

  53. Please, everybody, less heat and more light.

    Stuart, I know you’re not the worst offender, but you’re an official blogger here and have some responsibility to keep things civil! And even try to talk down people who get too upset without getting so yourself (or at least without the macho anger flash) — like Michelle is doing.

    If you weren’t upset, writing what you wrote above, you could have restrained yourself.

    I appreciate lots of your posts. Please keep it up, but with more care.

    btw, Something’s wrong with this page. Inside box #53 I get three box #1’s that I suppose should have been boxes #54 thru #56. I’m using IE 6.0.

  54. Holy moly, Stuart. A friend of mine, who convinced me that I’m not a Republican after all, turned me on to your blog… which has me laughing. After reading all of the comments, it appears you have some Libertarian readers who were, at one time, convinced that they aren’t bleeding-heart liberals.

    At the root of a healthy political discussion is the suspended dis-belief that your adversary in debate is not out to kill you. The emotional replies to your post are cracking me up. These whiners are probably loosing sleep at night because they’ve left their own destiny in someone else’s hands. Calm down, everyone. Don’t head for Switzerland just yet.

    Smaller government and the preservation of personal liberties requires that only your own hands are in your own pockets. Your post goes a long way to invite others into your way of thinking. The offendees ought not go into a battle of wits with half of their brains tied behind their respective backs.

    Blog on, my friend. I’m reading.

%d bloggers like this: