 |
| image from here - what stuff indeed |
This link. The allegations, or the equivalent, are elsewhere on the web, but this Arthur Frederick Ide post gives multiple links, and appears to hang together in presenting a not too favorable picture of Christian therapist Bachmann's gravitas. That image stinks of pretentiousness. And then some.
___________UPDATE___________
A clarification, the photo image is the subject of concluding sentences, not the image that the Ide item paints of Marcus Bachmann and his "clinic." As to the latter image, that of Mr. Bachmann; see, also, New York Times, here and here.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Ide clearly has a mindset opposed to religion, and reading his various posts shows it. Seeing his information on Marcus Bachmann and some of his conclusions one can see a bias. The New York Times items are less open to objection.
Ide, to his credit, in his publishing of comments does post one objection to his post, that of Greg Des Elms, which refutes questions of "accreditation" and "attended" in terms of distance learning. It should be read. In posting this link to Ide's item, there was no intent to embrace all of the screed, nor to embrace other things Ide published.
Read it, think it over, and decide whether Marcus Bachmann's clinic may be doing more good than harm.
Throughout all of Michele Bachmann's public life, and the operation of the clinic that earns the family cash flow, the question would always be unanswered - is this operation doing more good than harm, or vice versa.
I do not have that answer. Marcus Bachmann's noted the claim that taking Medicaid clients was a small part of the clinic clientele, and would people prefer he deny access based on a poverty measure. It appears to always have been a business, a for profit enterprise, and the Bachmann family has not failed to repay any loan, meaning that it has been a well managed business by that measure. The family has prospered.
With Michele Bachmann retiring from Congress, the family business will likely have less scrutiny, and some may think that scrutiny, so far, has been insufficient. Ide has laid out links in his post, read it with a grain of salt, but in the end, politics and attention will move on as the Bachmann family move from public figure status to private ctizen status. I will leave things there, other than to again note I find that photo pretentious. I expect that feeling was not entirely absent in Sally Jo Sorensen's publishing it before I did. Read her item. And please, I cite both, but am in no way suggesting any overlap or tie between what Sorensen's posted, and what Ide has.
Finally, it is a helpful thing to see Ide can state his views as he does. It is what the First Amendment is about. If only popular or politically correct views are okay, per that amendment, then it would be a sham. After all, it is the unpopular speech that needs protection; that which is popular and politically correct in its time easily fends for itself.
An intention I hope to abide by is to cease writing anything about Michele Bachmann and family, once they shed their public figure status with her leaving Congress (and then presumably not continuing a public figure action set after leaving Congress - if she continues making herself a public figure earning commentary, things might differ).
In closing I note that I have not commented about the reported ethics investigation of Michele Bachmann, as it is separate from my grounds to criticize her conduct, and in hope it can be resolved or resolve itself without any viewpoint about it here.