New Birther Poll Shows A Weird Mix Of Ideology And Ignorance

Ken AshfordObama OppositionLeave a Comment

From Public Policy Polling:

After we conducted polls over the last couple of weeks finding significant numbers of 'birthers' in North Carolina and Virginia, we decided to take the question national but also drum down more specifically on where exactly the people who think Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States do think he's from.

Oh, this should be good.

The answer is that 62% of Americans think Obama was born here, while 24% think he was not and 14% are unsure.

Okay.  So 38% can't say for sure if Obama was born in America.  So….  where do they think he was born?

10% of the country thinks that he was born in Indonesia, 7% think he was born in Kenya, and 1% think he was born in the Philippines.

That makes 18%.  What about the other 20%?  Where do they think Obama was born if not in America, Indonesia, Kenya, or the Phillipines?

Some people who correctly believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but… don't consider Hawaii to be part of the United States. You read that right- 6% of poll respondents think that Hawaii is not part of the country and 4% are unsure.

Shoot. Me. Now.

These people don't vote, right?  PLEASE tell me they don't vote.

And as for the remaining 10%?  Who knows?  THEY certainly don't.

So who ARE these people?  Of the 38% who can't say for sure if Obama was born in Hawaii which is part of America….

-62% are Republicans, 20% are Democrats, and 18% are independents
-57% are conservatives, 33% are moderates, and 9% are liberals
-56% are men, 44% are women
-86% are white, 7% are Hispanic, 4% are black, and 3% are other races

Well, I'm generally concerned about the state of education in this country.  Frankly, the Democrat count is higher than I expected.

Michele Bachmann on Health Care

Ken AshfordConstitution, Health Care, Obama Opposition, Right Wing Punditry/Idiocy2 Comments

I love her.  Here she is on Hannity last night:

Money quote:

It is not within our power as members of Congress, it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, for us to design and create a national takeover of health care. Nor is it within our ability to be able to delegate that responsibility to the executive.

Pinhead, let me tell you what your job description is.  No, let the Constitution tell you what your job description is.  It's all there in Article One.  Among other things, Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.”

That's a pretty broad mandate, something which the then-right-wing Supreme Court recognized and wrote about almost 75 years ago:

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.

It was "familiar law" in 1937, yet Bachmann apparently didn't get the memo.

(And by the way, nobody is proposing that national health care reform be delegated to the executive. It's Congress writing the bills now; not the executive branch).

Still, One has to wonder what Bachmann's view of America is. 

Think Progress writes:

It’s important to note just how radical Bachmann’s theory of the Constitution is. If Congress does not have the power to create a modest public option which competes with private health plans in the marketplace, then it certainly does not have the authority to create Medicare. Similarly, Congress’ power to spend money to benefit the general welfare is the basis for Social Security, federal education funding, Medicaid, and veterans benefits such as the VA health system and the GI Bill. All of these programs would cease to exist in Michele Bachmann’s America.

Theatre News: Anthony Rapp and Adam Pascal To Star In “Rent” For Another Fifteen Years

Ken AshfordTheatreLeave a Comment

The Broadway national tour of Rent starring Anthony Rapp and Adam Pascal will continue into at least January 2025.

When the tour launched this past January with original stars Adam Pascal as Roger, Anthony Rapp as Mark and Gwen Stewart as the "Seasons of Love" soloist, dates had only been announced to August.

The tour's website now reveals dates to Jan. 21, 2025. Playbill.com has learned that the headliners are on board. Producers suggest that the tour's end date is tentative, and may continue for years, or even decades, beyond 2025.

5227799
Rapp and Pascal perform
"La Vie Boheme" "I'm really glad to be doing this forever," said Rapp, sipping on prune juice.  "It's an important groundbreaking landmark in musical theater history, and it is the highlight of my career to be associated — every single day for the rest of my natural life — with it."

Some minor adjustments have been made to the choreography to accomodate Pascal's wheelchair, but otherwise, the staging remains almost true to the original production which premiered on Broadway on April 29, 1996.

Jonathan Larson's groundbreaking, Tony Award-winning, Pulitzer Prize-honored stage musical about 20-something artists and lovers struggling for connection and expression in the age of AIDS was turned into a movie musical about 30-something artists and lovers struggling for connection and expression in the age of AIDS.  Rapp and Pascal starred in the film adaptation as well.

The current tour production is about 40-something artists and lovers, along with 20-something artists and lovers, struggling for connection and expression in the age of AIDS.

[Not really]

The Reason For Health Care Reform Opposition

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Obama OppositionLeave a Comment

It's buried in this MSNBC story, but here it is:

While just 36 percent believe Obama’s efforts to reform the health system are a good idea, that number increases to 53 percent when respondents were read a paragraph describing Obama’s plans.

In other words, when you describe Obama's general health care plan without mentioning Obama, a lot more people like it.

In yet more other words, many people don't like the health care plan because it's Obama's health care plan.  They don't know what it is; they don't even care what it is.

But when you tell them what it is (without ascribing it to Obama), they like it.  In other words, many people, blinded by Obama hatred, are ignorant:

Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.

Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.

I don't know how you can educate people who can't see beyond their own hatred of their President.

RELATED:  A new Public Policy poll shows that 39% of Americans think the government should ‘stay out of Medicare,’ something inherently impossible.

Barney Frank’s Pushback: “On What Planet Do You Spend Most Of Your Time?”

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

This must have been fun:

Steve Benen comments:

There was no defensiveness, and no anger, just someone who knows what he's talking about making someone who doesn't look like a fool.

Matt Yglesias raised a terrific point: "Voters don't have a great deal of knowledge about the issues, or a great deal of interest in acquiring knowledge about the issues. But they are human beings, equipped with our species' excellent ability to read the emotional states of other human beings. If they see a politician acting defensive about his 'side' in an argument, they conclude that this critics are probably on to something. If they see a politicians acting outraged and hitting back fearlessly, they're likely to conclude that he has nothing to apologize for."

Quite right. A low-information voter, with only a passing familiarity with current events, might catch an exchange like this one. Which of the two people in this clip — the crazy person or Barney Frank — comes across as credible?

I realize that Frank has the benefit of serving in a safe Democratic seat, in a highly-educated area. Vulnerable Democratic lawmakers may not feel comfortable openly ridiculing random lunatics who ask stupid questions like Frank did.

But the point is, reform advocates can show this kind of confidence and certainty that nonsensical beliefs are nonsensical beliefs.

Yes, Barney Frank is a representative from liberal Massachusetts, and his pushback isn't going to hurt him politically.  But why can't vulnerable Democratic lawmakers exhibit this pushback behavior as well?  I think you lose as many votes by catering to the crazies as you do by calling them out.

Incidentally, Sean Hannity and Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) (The World's Shittiest Elected Official ™) tut-tutted Frank's behavior.  But they didn't show the actual clip, and they didn't mention the Obama-Hitler sign seen in the clip.  Heh.

Teabagger Yells “Heil Hitler” To Jewish Man Praising Israel’s Health Care System

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Obama Opposition1 Comment

Naturally, he’s offended.  At the end of the confrontation, she makes a mock crying noise, indicating that he’s a wimp.

This is pretty disgusting, even by teabagger standards.  I can’t embed it, but you can see it here .

UPDATE:  Okay, found an embeddable version…

Here’s a short interview with the “Heil Hitler” woman.  Her husband has three jobs and is uninsured.  She thinks there needs to be health care reform, but she doesn’t think the government should handle it.

Pray tell, WHO does she think should handle it?  

Oh, well.  Hard to expect a rational thought process from an irrational woman.

Texting While Driving

Ken AshfordHealth Care1 Comment

This is an excerpt from a half hour Public Service Announcement being shown to kids in British schools.

I think these 4+ minutes is pretty effective enough to get the point across.

Should The Supreme Court Stay The Execution Of An Innocent Man?

Ken AshfordConstitution, Crime, Supreme CourtLeave a Comment

Yes, right?

Well, maybe not.

Here's the story of the Troy Davis case:

Twenty years ago, a late-night scuffle broke out in a Burger King parking lot in Savannah. When Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer, tried to intervene, someone pulled a gun and killed the officer. Soon after, Sylvester "Red" Coles, came to the police with a lawyer, accusing Troy Davis of the shooting.

Witnesses say it was Coles, not Davis, who killed MacPhail, but once the man-hunt began for Davis, law enforcement officials wanted to believe he was the man responsible for the slaying, and pressured witnesses accordingly. At this point, most of the witnesses who testified at trial have signed statements contradicting their identification of the gunman. Other witnesses who fingered Davis have said they made their stories up, facing police threats.

What we're left with is a case in which a man was sentenced to death despite no physical evidence, based on the word of witnesses who have since recanted or contradicted their testimony.

What about the witnesses who say Cole shot MacPhail? They're anxious to say so, but their testimony was blocked by federal courts, citing a provision in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Yesterday, in a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court took the highly unusual step of ordering the lower court to hear the new evidence.

Scalia dissented, writing:

"This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

Justice John Paul Stevens responded to Scalia:

"Imagine a petitioner in Davis's situation who possesses new evidence conclusively and definitively proving, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that he is an innocent man….The dissent's reasoning would allow such a petitioner to be put to death nonetheless. The court correctly refuses to endorse such reasoning."

Stevens is right.  But here's the thing – so is Stevens.

A habeus corpus petition is a legal device that goes back to the Magna Carta.  It's what prisoners — particularly death row inmates — use when all their appeals have been denied.  Basically, it allows someone imprisoned for a crime to petition the court on the grounds that their incarceration is illegal or unconstitutional.  In effect, if the habeus petition is heard and granted, it amounts to another trial — another bite at the apple to prove one's innocence.

Traditionally, most habeus petitions aren't even heard, and when they are heard, the court considers the arguments, and usually denies a new trial.  That's because, in order to win, the petitioner must show some defect in the trial that led to conviction.  An incompetent lawyer, a bribed jury, etc.  In other words, the prisoner must show that he did not get his constitutional right to a full and fair trial.

Scalia's point here is well-taken.  Troy Davis got a full and fair trial.  Did the witnesses who pointed their finger at Davis lie at the trial?  Well, it would seem so, but that doesn't make the trial "unfair".  Why not?  Because Davis' lawyer got to cross-examine those witnesses, try to expose them as liars, etc.  He failed, but that doesn't make the trial unfair or unconstitutional.

So yes, believe it or not, "actual innocence" is not an independent ground for a new trial. 

But of course, "actual innocence" can only be determined by a new trial in the first place.  Catch-22.

It should be noted that, by the strict letter of the law, Scalia is right.  The constitution does not protect an obviously innocent man who got a fair trial and was found guilty.

Stevens and the other five judges in the majojrity are, strictly speaking, going beyond the letter of the law, expanding the scope of habeus review, and allowing a hearing on whether this guy should get a new trial.  They are invoking humanity.  Or reason.  Or both.  They're not saying he's innocent; they're just saying that he has a right to have the new evidence considered so that a court could order a new trial.

Any way you look at it, it is an interesting development in habeus jurisprudence.

Guns At Obama Town Hall Meetings

Ken AshfordGun Control4 Comments

It started of in New Hampshire last week.  A guy with a loaded pistol strapped to his leg in the protester crowd.  Law enforcement could do nothing; the guy had a permit.

It's happened a few times since then, culminating this past weekend in Arizona when some anti-Obama protester showed up strapped with a loaded semi-automatic rifle.  Again, all perfectly legal.

And why was he there?  His quote: "We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

Yeah, I'm troubled.  This country has a rather prolonged history with political violence, and — with the exception of some radical bombings in the 1960's — almost all of it, and certainly all of it in the past 30 years, has come from the gun-toting NRA-loving right wing crowd.

I know, I know.  Second Amendment and all that.  But this isn't a discussion about rights.  The Second Amendment, very broadly, gives one the right to have guns for self-defense.  Well, what kind of self-defense is needed by right-wingers at an Obama town hall meeting?  It's not as if liberals arm themselves to the teeth, or froth at the mouth making violent protests.

It seems to me that the presence of guns at political rallies is intended to send a subtle, subconscious signal to ratchet up the already overheated political debates.  I mean, when a guy with an assault rifle shows up at a presidential event, saying that he will resist the will of the majority, he's not talking about self-defense.  He's talking about violent overthrow of the government.

UPDATE:  Yes, these people are dangerous:

Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding associate at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday — and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol — was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.

And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11.

RIP Bob Novak

Ken AshfordIn Passing, Plamegate, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Some greatest hits:

He was an old-school Washington reporter.  He took a downward spiral when he became a member of the fledgling Tv network CNN in the early 1980's.  The Evans-Novak Report was pretty thoughtful, but then came Capital Gang, and the Crossfire, setting the groundwork for TV political panel yell-a-thons.  Then he became a tool for the Bush White House, outting Valerie Plame.  This led to a few on-air bad behavior incidents.  He retired last year after being diagnosed with a brain tumor.

In 2007, he explained what he envisions heaven to look like: “I’m going to a place where there are no blogs.”

UPDATE:  Eleanor Clift, who often sparred with Novak on The McLaughlin Group remembers Novak:

On television, we were rarely on the same side. Bob Novak reveled in his hardline views. I was one of those bleeding-heart liberals whose views he routinely ridiculed. It was the mid-'80s, and we would sometimes drive out together on Friday afternoons to the NBC studio to tape The McLaughlin Group. The top would be down on his LeBaron convertible, and he always wore his Chicago Cubs cap. I considered him a friend, and he was instrumental in getting me on the show, which at the time was all male.

His office was on the same floor as NEWSWEEK's Washington, D.C., bureau, in a building just one block from the White House. He'd been there since 1964; I was a relative newcomer, arriving a dozen years later. We shared the elevator and a copying machine and enough face time in our comings and goings over the years that I thought we were buddies. But when that red light came on atop the camera to signal that the taping had begun, more often than not, he would lunge forward, wag his finger in my face, and ascribe some terrible left-wing transgression to "Eleanor Clift and her ilk."

Birthers Still Grasping At Straws

Ken AshfordObama Opposition, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

The hubbub may have died down, but WorldNetDaily hasn't given up on Obama's birth controversy.  The latest?

Myspacebirther

WorldNetDaily considers websites to be more credible than state documents, I guess.

The online media lizard notes that Obama's Facebook page correctly lists 1961 as his birth year, as do all other online references, including earlier archived MySpace pages.  But rather than simply dismissing the current MySpace error as, well, an "error", WND thinks it apparently means something sneaky is going on.

Oy.

District 9

Ken AshfordPopular Culture1 Comment

I'm not one for summer blockbusters anymore.

I'm old enough to see the cliches, the clunky plot expositions, the cookie-cutter charactors — all designed to show-off yet another gee-whiz battle sequence or demolition of another American city and/or landmark.  I think it was during "Independence Day" when I crossed over.  A fun movie, but really — outside of the SFX, who cared?  Did we really care about Will Smith's relationship with what's-her-name?

District 9, I'm told, is a movie which actually has charactors and a signficiant story.  And, oh yeah — aliens and great SFX.  That seems to me what the best science fiction should be — not just cool things exploding, but an allegorical message and a story that can't be summarized in ten words.

Count me in.