From Reddit:
So let me get this straight: liberals protest war; conservatives protest health care. Ok. Just wanted to be clear.
Quote Of The Day
You Want “Death Panels”? We Got Your Death Panels Right Here!
Death Panel 1: A group of bureaucrats take away a woman's fibromyalgia medication because it would be too expensive to cover, leaving her in the lurch to the possibility of horrible nerve pain. Exhibit A
Death Panel 2: A miscarriage? According to the bureaucrats in charge of your health care, miscarriages can be considered 'elective abortions' and if its your body, your choice….YOU PAY! Exhibit B
Death Panel 3: Say you're 17 and need a new organ or you'll die. Well guess what, according to the death panels, you don't get the choice to try to get a new organ, nope, it's too expensive as is your life, so time to pull the plug. Exhibit C
Death Panel 4: How about cancer? It seems that there are more and more experimental treatments and possible cures out there, as the research expands and multiplies. What does the bureaucratic death panel think of that? Of course, what they always think! You're too expensive to support and instead have a good funeral. Exhibit D
Death Panel 5: And how about that Nucking Futz guy at John Dingell's townhall's concerns. His son could die from these death panels. And he's right. The government wants to deny coverage to people's children who suffer from debilitating diseases. Exhibit E and Exhibit F
Death Panel 6: These bureaucratic death panels are also crooks. The death panel wants to steal away ALL of your medicare. Exhibit G
Death Panel 7: Part of the problem with these death panels is that to "win", you have to jump through bizarre rules and hoops, that you end up giving up and.or dying. Exhibit H
Death Panel 8: Pre-existing condition? Well courtesy of the bureaucratic death panel, any life saving treatment will be denied, because who wants to save a dirty invalid like you…yeesh…yawn. Exhibit I and Exhibit J
Death Panel 9: The death panel bureaucrats are happy to take your money, but when the time comes that you actually need health care, you'll go to the ER and die off of our dime. They will make the process so hard for you to figure out, you'll just give up in frustration instead of fighting us. Exhibit K
[Adapted from original]Sarah Palin Adds Commentary About “Death Panels” [Update: Palin Supported The Same Provisions She Now Decries As “Euthanasia”]
Just before midnight last night, Sarah Palin posted a "note" on her Facebook page, apparently in response to Obama's comments about "death panels", a phrase that Sarah herself introduced into this increasingly-insane health care debate.
What's interesting about Sarah's note is that it cites legislation, contains footnotes, and makes a cogent (albeit wrong) argument. No references to the military, or the flag, or Trig, or the liberal media, or any of the other Palinisms we've come to know and love. It's grammatically correct, and even includes a semi-colon!
In other words, she clearly didn't write it herself.
But let's set that aside, because now (finally) we can address the substance of something that Sarah has said (now that she has provided substance).
Basically, she expands on her earlier "death panel" note… without using the phrase "death panel" this time. She cites advance directive provision of HR 1233.
"With all due respect, it's misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context."
You see, Sarah concedes that the getting information to Medicare recipients about end-of-life health issues (living wills, hospice, etc.) IS voluntary, but if the information provided is "coercive", then it is not truly voluntary.
Which, I suppose, is a fair point, but — no, no, not really. What is the basis for thinking that such information might be "coercive"? And how does that become "death panels"?
An elderly woman goes to her doctor (not a panel) to get information about living wills and hospice care. Medicare, under the advance directive provision, will pay for that once every five years (or more, if the circumstances require). Other than footing the bill, where is this government in this transaction? This elderly woman (in my example) is talking to her own doctor.
My point? Crazy nonsensical arguments, even when properly articulated, are still crazy nonsensical arguments.
But we appreciate the effort, Sarah.
BONUS CONNECT-THE-DOTS WINGNUTTERY:
Shorter Greg Scanlon of The American Spectator:
The health care legislation says nothing about death panels, but I can think of a way where it might be twisted into the creation of death panels in theory. Therefore, Palin was correct.
Yup. And the health care legislation also says nothing about harvesting the organs of the poor to be used by the rich when the rich fall ill. But just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't mean it is, you know, real, or even likely.
ANOTHER FLASHBACK — LOOKS LIKE PALIN WAS FOR "DEATH PANELS" (AS SHE DEFINES THEM) BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST THEM:
On April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options:
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. […]
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
Though this proclamation is now deleted from the Alaska governor’s website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political.
U.S. Attorneys Vindicated
The U.S Attorney hiring/firing scandal was a big issue in the latter years of the Bush presidency. I blogged about it often.
Basically, it was this: The Department of Justice hired and fired U.S. attorneys based not on their merit, but on political considerations, thus politicizing the DOJ. The Bush White House, and Karl Rove in particular, denied any involvement.
Then the 2009 election came along, and the issue seemingly went away.
But it didn't. There was still an investigation going on in the House of Representatives. Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, who had ducked the subpeonae (citing executive privilege) while they were in office, no longer were able to duck the subpeonae.
And with this week's release of documents, we now know the truth. The White House was heavily involved in the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys, with the criteria being — not merit — but loyalty to Bush politics.
For the fired (Democratic) U.S. attorneys, there is vindication.
How Stupid Is Our National Discourse?
This stupid. Here is Fox New's Megyn Kelly talking to the White House's Bill Burton:
Look, it's quite simple, Megyn.
Is the White House asking people to write them with myths regarding healthcare?
Yes.
Will some of those emails contain the email addresses of other people (including the sender)?
Of course. The White House has no control over what people put in their emails to the White House.
Will the White House be holding on to those emails?
Yes. By law, they have to preserve the emails they receive.
But this does not mean that the White House is "maintaining a list" of people who spread myths about health care!
Sure, the information about myth-spreaders is there, but the White House doesn't care about that and they're not doing anything about that — they care only about debunking the myths themselves.
Photo Of The Day
I love this photo. It was taken at the NH protest when Obama held his town hall in Portsmouth. Click on it to embiggen.
Now, obviously the guy in the middle is having fun at the expense of the others. But his sign ("We have NO idea what we're talking about", with arrows pointing to the protesters) really touches on truth.
What is the message of the protesters?
Well, who knows? It all seems to be misdirected anger. Or rather, anger directed in every direction.
For example, on the left side of the picture, a man wearing a confederate shirt is holding a sign saying "Abolish federal government". Right next to him is a man with a sign saying, "We the People ARE the government".
So apparently, the protesters are collectively saying that we need to abolish ourselves. Good message.
Then there is someone who says "NO to health care reform", while another says "Just give us the same helath care plan as Congress". Uh, fellas? Which is it?
Some of the signs standing alone don't make much sense. "Heath care reform = drug testing = piss in cup first". I swear to God — I know that is in English, but I don't know what that means.
All this goes to my larger point about these protests. Sure, I have no doubt that there are legitimate concerns with health care reform, but I honestly don't know if these people are against health care reform per se, or against particulars of Obama's health care reform. Or maybe they're just against Obama.
On message, people.
Mostly, however, I don't think this is about health care at all. I think these people are mostly just ginned up, fearful, and angry, because they listen to rightwing radio and media, which is doing an admittedly great job of creating fear and anger. Fear about what? Anger directed at what?
It doesn't matter. It's almost like the James Dean line from "Rebel Without A Cause". "What are you rebelling against?" "(Shrug) What do you got?"
UPDATE — I hand the mike over to Darrin Hutchinson at Salon, who makes the same point and expands on it:
On Wednesday, an article distributed by the Associated Press confirmed my original understanding of the protestors' opposition to big government: It is selective and contradictory.
Big government for you, but not for me!
Although the Associated Press article does not analyze the irony of the protestors' positions, it nonetheless presents a factual basis for concluding that many of the activists suffer from selective opposition to big government. Consider the following passage:
Nancy Snyder says she kept quiet when abortion was legalized and prayer in schools was eliminated. Not this time.
"They did it for prayer, they did it for abortion, and they're not going to do it for our healthcare," the 70-year-old nurse from Philipsburg, Pa., said Wednesday as she and her husband Robert, 74, a retired coal miner, waited in a long, snaking line for Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter's town hall meeting.
Apparently, Snyder believes that it is perfectly fine for the government to dictate the reproductive choices of women and to force kids to pray in school. Expanding the availability of healthcare is outlandish. All of these situations, however, involve "big government."
Big government for me, but not for you!
Ironically, many of the people whom the article portrays as fuming over "socialized medicine" probably have state-sponsored health plans. Accordingly, if the protestors actually applied their anti-government rhetoric to their own lives, many of them would lose health insurance coverage or would have to spend a fortune to obtain it.
One protestor is a public school teacher, who undoubtedly has a public-sponsored health plan and pension (along with his salary). In other words, the individual is living on the taxation of others. Another person has a 74-year old husband, who is likely on Medicare — the largest government-sponsored health plan. Even if these individuals have "private" plans provided by their employers, the public still pays for roughly 1/3 of the costs of these plans through favorable tax treatment (for further discussion, see here and here).
According to a recent Gallup report, only 13.3 percent of Americans with health insurance purchase their policies on the open market. The remaining individuals are enrolled in either state-sponsored plans or in employer plans that are heavily subsidized by state and federal tax policy. The notion of a free market in health insurance is a myth for the vast majority of Americans.
Big government for Bush, but not for Obama!
It also seems like many of the protestors have conveniently repressed their memories of George Bush's expansion of government, including his role in the expensive bailouts of the financial sectors and of the auto industry. Bush and Paulson proposed the financial sector bailout and ushered it through Congress. Bush also structured a $17.4 billion bailout for the auto industry, claiming authority to do so pursuant to the financial sector legislation. Despite this very recent history, the protestors apparently blame Obama exclusively:
For many opponents the health care overhaul amounts to the final straw. After seeing Obama bail out banks and car dealers, push a major energy bill and pass a $787 billion economic stimulus package that hasn't driven down unemployment, overhauling the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care system is a step too far.
Certainly, the fact that Bush also accelerated public spending and cut taxes simultaneously should have concerned these proud stewards of the national treasury, but only Obama's spending has caused them to mobilize. The protestors are acting, to use Ron Paul's language, like "born-again fiscal conservatives." If Obama is wrong for spending more during an economic downturn, Bush was definitely wrong for spending more while intentionally taking in less.
Cheney Calls Former President Bush A Wuss
Well, in so many words.
Cheney's outspokenness since leaving office has not been reserved exclusively for President Obama or Democrats. He's now going after his own former boss as well. The Washington Post reports:
In his first few months after leaving office, former vice president Richard B. Cheney threw himself into public combat against the "far left" agenda of the new commander in chief. More private reflections, as his memoir takes shape in slashing longhand on legal pads, have opened a second front against Cheney's White House partner of eight years, George W. Bush.
Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.
"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."
The two men maintain respectful ties, speaking on the telephone now and then, though aides to both said they were never quite friends. But there is a sting in Cheney's critique, because he views concessions to public sentiment as moral weakness. After years of praising Bush as a man of resolve, Cheney now intimates that the former president turned out to be more like an ordinary politician in the end.
Cheney comes from an old-school Nixonian Republican party (he, in fact, served in the Nixon White House). Bush came from, well, partying at Yale Business School. It's nice to know that a little of Bush Sr. came to rest with Junior.
And Cheney? Dude's scary. One wonders what this country would be like if he was in the top seat during the last decade.
North Carolina Perspective On Obama
Perhaps some of my friends up north don't understand why I blog so often about the birthers. And that might be because the birther movement truly is fringe up north.
But not here in North Carolina.
According to a Public Policy Poll released yesterday, only 24% of self-identified Republican voters in North Carolina believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. 47% do not believe that Obama is American born, and 29% of Republicans aren’t sure. I'll spare you the math, but that means that 900,000 Republicans in North Carolina don’t think the president of the United States is legitimate, or aren’t sure about the matter.
That's why I write about it. Because I'm knee-deep in stupid.
Now, certainly not ALL Republicans in North Carolina are stupid. Not really really stupid After all, according to the same poll, 7% of those who voted for John McCain do not believe Hawaii to be a part of the United States. A further 4% weren't sure. That means that one out of every ten North Carolinian Republicans can't say for sure whether Hawaii is part of the United States.
I can see now why Republicans are against improving education in this state. Because if people got smarter, then Republicans would lose more elections.
About That “Tree of Liberty”
This week, MSNBC got a live shot of of a man with a gun in a holster. He was not a law enforcement person; he's one of the protesters at an Obama town hall even in Portsmouth, NH.
Chris Matthews later interviewed him.
At the protest, the man had a sign saying "It is time to water the tree of liberty", a direct reference to the Thomas Jefferson quote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.
That quote rang a bell for me….
Ah, yes. It was on the T-shirt worn by Timothy McVeigh on the day he bombed the Murrow Federal Building in Okalhoma City…
Here is a reminder of McVeigh's handiwork on April, 19, 1995.
McVeigh's bomb claimed 168 lives. Many of them were children. Those were the "patriots & tyrants" whose blood was spilled.
So what is it with this quote?
Well, obviously, it justifies horrific action by the violent extreme right. Assassinate the President? Sure why not? He's a tyrant, and Jefferson — a founding father, for crying out loud — would have approved.
It's interesting doublespeak. Thousands peacefull demonstrated against Bush when he was putting this country into war — the right branded them as "unpatriotic". But to talk openly about "spilling blood" when Obama is trying to pass a health care plan? That's patriotic. It's enough to make one's head explode.
But did Jefferson really say that? Would Jefferson have applauded the efforts of those who openly discuss armed revolt against their country?
The "tree of liberty" quote comes from a letter written by Jefferson to William Smith, John Adam's aide and son-in-law. Here is the letter in full:
Paris, November 13, 1787
DEAR SIR, — I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to show civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason's bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. — I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. — You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. — The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.
So what was this about?
Jefferson, living in Paris (which was in the throes of the French Revolution) as the U.S. ambassador, had received a copy of the newly-written, but not yet ratified U.S. Constitution. He doesn't have much deep commentary on it. He then addresses Shay's Rebellion.
Shay's Rebellion was a post-Revolutionary War rebellion by farmers in central and western Massachusetts. It took place in 1786 and 1787, and is named after one such farmer, Daniel Shay. Their greivance? Debt and taxes.
At the time, the United States was operating under the Articles of Confederation, the first attempt at what we now call "the U.S. Constitution". The rebels shut down Massachusetts courts, preventing them from collecting taxes. Then, in January 1787, about 1000 of them made for the Springfield (Mass) armory, where a Masschusetts militia of 4,000 was waiting. Thousands of rebels were arrested, a few were killed. Shay's short-lived rebellion was over.
But the impact was felt.
Now, in his letter, Jefferson correctly described the rebels as "ignorant" masses. But he downplayed their significance. They're idiots, not evil, he said. And it's better to have idiots involved in the process of shaping their country, than to have evildoers trying to undo it.
So, for those who now take Jefferson "tree of liberty" quote to heart, they should understand that Jefferson was calling them — literally — "ignorant". And included among the blood to be spilled was, and is, their blood.
But the main impact of Shay's Rebellion was that it caused a powerful group of Americans to realize that the national government needed to be stronger so that it could create uniform economic policies and protect property owners from infringements on their rights by local majorities. And that led to the rejection of the Articles of Confederation, and the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
So for anyone prone to thinking that the "tree of liberty" provides a blessing to engage in domestic terrorism, please note the following:
- Jefferson, the man you are quoting, thinks you're an idiot. He was sympathetic and unworried about idiots like you.
- The quote comes before the founding document of this country, the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the "tree of liberty" quote is not patriotic; it is not a founding principle of this nation. It was Jefferson (you know, the slave-fucking Jefferson) being, well, Jefferson.
- "Patriots", I think we all can agree, include all members of the armed forces. These are men and women who take an oath to fight against all foes, "foreign or domestic" — yes, domestic. That's you, pinhead.
In other words, the "tree of liberty" quote doesn't belong in the lexicon of people who care about the Constitution (you know, the document which allows you to have guns in the first place). It's not a quote for people who fancy themselves wrapped in the American flag. It's a quote for anarchists and domestic terrorists. Just like Daniel Shay — ignorant and armed.
Hawking Responds
Stephen Hawking responds to the editorial statement that if he were a citizen of Great Britain (which he is), his life would be considered worthless by the National Health Service and he wouldn't be alive:
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
That's what Hawking, through his talking machine, said.
I Want A Pony
But not just any pony.
I want one of those minature ponies.
But not just any minature pony, but a "special" minature pony that was born with a dwarfism birth defect.
Put bluntly, I want Koda.
Shooting Star
This evening marks the height of the annual Perseid meteor shower, when the Earth passes through the dusty debris from Comet Swift-Tuttle. On a clear night with little haze or light from nearby communities, one could see as many as 200 meteors per hour.
With storms passing through the Triad, I didn't expect to see much. In fact, I plumb near forgot about it. But as I got out of my car following rehearsal, I'll be damned if a beauty didn't streak through the sky above me and catch my eye. Saw a couple more after that.
Forgot to make wishes, though. Damn.
One More Scene From A Town Hall Meeting
Obama has a town hall meeting in Portsmouth New Hampshire today, and the nuts are out in full force.
Get this: MSNBC this morning caught a live shot of a man with a gun in a holster. No, he is not a law enforcement person; he's one of the protesters. And the sign he's carrying? It's got that famous Jefferson quote on it: ""The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
MSNBC was told by local police that the guy with the gun has a legal permit to carry, and he's nowhere near where Obama will be, and he's under constant surveillance.
Still…..
UPDATE: The Obama town hall meeting was televised; it seemed to be civil (invited participants and heavy police guard probably helped)
It's kind of embarrassing (for our country's level of discourse) that it's come to the point where the President of the United States has to publicly state that he's not in favor of killing Grandma.
The Latest In Spa Treatments
Good taste prevents me from explaining, and a sudden uncharacteristic dose of maturity compels me to refrain from making some rather obvious "humorous" remarks.
So I'll just come out and ask the question: