Activists vs. Rulers

In a comment on my last post, longtime reader and fellow nihilist Repsac3 wrote the following:

This is my whole theory of politics (liberal and otherwise). The fringes come up with ideas and fight for them wholeheartedly, even against others in their own party, while the moderates make those ideas more palatable to the voting center by negotiating with their "equal but opposite mirror images" on other side.

And while I understand what he's saying and see that sort of formulation often, I don't think that's the proper way of seeing our political system.  Because first off, a lot of the fringe ideas really are crazy.  It's not about making them more palatable to the rest of America, but about ignoring them in hopes they'll go away. 

And the reality is that there are a lot of non-fringe people who have plenty of good ideas and really do believe in what they're doing.  Ted Kennedy wasn't dragged to the left; nor was he on the fringe.  And I fail to see what Kennedy would have agreed to that Obama wouldn't have.  The fringe might be louder, but that doesn't mean they're more pure in their beliefs.  And as I keep arguing, I believe the fringe to be far MORE political than the moderates.  For them, policy is a side-effect of the fighting; not the point of it.  They'll take a bloody fight over a policy victory any time. 

And that's why when they complain about Obama, they're forced to ignore all the good things he's done.  Rescission was a horrible practice that all good progressives knew to hate.  Yet, now that Obama has ended it, they don't seem to mention it at all.  Because they cared more about the fight than the policy. 

My Theory of Political Peoples

Here's my theory of all this: There are activists and there are rulers.  Activists are good at fighting and rulers are good at ruling.  When we're in the minority, we need activists to fight as the rulers can't do much of anything.  But when we're in the majority, the activists need to step aside and let the rulers rule, because at that time, shouting and waving signs is useless or even counter-productive.  So just as the rulers are useless when they can't rule, the activists are useless when they can't activate.  (Yes, that's an odd way of putting it, but I just liked the symmetry.)

But unfortunately, the activists don't step aside when it's time to get shit done.  Instead, they go right ahead and attack the rulers again.  And any time the rulers stray in any way from what the activists want, they consider it to be heresy and attack.  And it doesn't matter if the activists are progressives or Tea Partiers or civil rights advocates or racist thugs; activists are activists and that's all they know how to do.

Because for as much as they imagine they're trying to keep the rulers pure by keeping their feet to the fire, the reality is that they're angry because that's what they do: Be angry.  That gives them purpose.  And if you elect these people as leaders, they'll either "sell out" by acting the way rulers act, or they'll do an entirely shitty job because they're in WAAAY over their heads and didn't understand the first thing about ruling. 

That's what we keep seeing from Republicans, as they're great at being pure to their cause, yet don't know much about getting shit done.  And that's because the Republican Party has been over-run with activists for a long time and it keeps getting worse.  Yes, they're good at saying "no," but saying "no" is the easy part.  The hard part is getting to "yes." 

And again, it must be stressed that progressives didn't just start hating Obama.  Progressives hated Clinton.  And they hated Carter.  And they really hated LBJ.  It's only in hindsight that they laud these people as heroes.  The far-left ALWAYS hates whoever's in power.  Dem presidents are all spineless sell-outs until they leave office, and a few years later, once all their victories set in, you'll start hearing about what great people Democratic presidents are. 

How We'll All Just Get Along

And so, no, I don't buy into the idea that activists keep the politicos pure.  I mean, if they wanted to push the political discussion to the left, then why do they focus their wrath on Obama?  Surely a far-leftie would hate the far-righties more, right?  But no, while liberals like myself try to focus on what Republicans are doing wrong, progressives will insist that Obama is to blame for all this, because he's not fighting enough; unaware that that's not what he's supposed to be doing. 

My only hope at this point is that the majority of these people will feel that our defeat in November was enough of a message and will get back to attacking the real problem.  Or at a minimum, they'll focus on all the batshit crazy things the Republican House will be doing and ignore Obama all together.  After all, Obama's not likely to be able to sell anything out for the next two years, so there won't be a lot for them to complain about. 

So here's to hoping that we'll all be on the same team heading into 2012.  Not with progressives shouting at Obama for not being pure enough, but shouting at Republicans for screwing with our country all the time.  That's how we did it before and I'm fairly confident it'll work for us again.

Why Obama's Victories Aren't Enough

I hear repeatedly about how Obama screwed up because he begins from the compromise position, compromises further, and ends up getting his rear handed to him by Republicans, who stood firm and look resolute.  And while I understand the logic behind that and certainly agree that this can be a problem with negotiations, I think this is a bad misreading of the situation, based entirely on unrealistic expectations of what it was we could have gotten.

But first off, let's be real here: In the last two years, Republicans haven't gotten a god damn thing beyond the extension of the Bush tax cuts they still haven't gotten yet; which they were only able to get due to their ability to hold America hostage without repercussion.  Beyond that, they haven't won anything.  All they did was obstruct, which is the easy thing for the minority to do. 

And even their victory on tax cuts was directly related to their ability to obstruct, which is something Obama could have done just as easily; assuming he was immoral enough to play chicken with human lives.  And the problem is that Obama could have done that, but he'd obviously have been bluffing, because he really did care about helping the unemployed.  Meanwhile, Republicans obviously weren't bluffing, because all they wanted were the tax cuts for the rich. 

And if your bluff is easily called while your opponent isn't bluffing, it's best to not bluff at all.  And for that Obama is attacked for giving in to hostage-takers; as if he had any other choice.

Playing Chicken With America in the Backseat

And since he wasn't willing to play hardball against people who had nothing to lose and everything to gain by forcing things until the end, Obama is considered a spineless loser who sold us out; even if he got us most of what we wanted.  And so Republicans watered down our best ideas with impunity, as the media didn't bother explaining any of this beyond the same horse race dynamic they always use to discuss anything related to politics; which invariably involves quoting Republicans for fear of being too "subjective" by telling the truth.

But all the same, Republicans have only one actual victory over the last two years, many defeats, and their best efforts were merely to slightly diminish our victories.  The only standard that allows anyone to imagine we've been "losing" is the standard that insists that we ever could have gotten everything.  We couldn't.  Getting "everything" was never a realistic option. 

And for as much as Obama's critics admit to this, they still insist that we could have gotten a lot more, based upon a fantasy scenario that involves Obama being able to strong-arm conservative Democrats and a couple of moderate-ish Republicans to act in a way that weakened them politically and embarrassed them for allowing themselves to be strong-armed. 

Negotiating With Ourselves

Because a big part of the problem is that Obama wasn't just compromising with or battling Republicans.  No.  That was the easy part, if everything else worked as it should.  The reality is that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were battling against conservative Democrats, the Media, and a rightwing base that would have destroyed Republicans if they dared compromise with Obama.

And it was those first two groups that Obama was compromising with when he started us with the public option, rather than single-payer healthcare.  Because conservative Democrats simply would not support the destruction of the health insurance industry, while the media would have written off the entire scheme as a wacko liberal stunt. 

Because let's face it, single-payer really IS the government takeover of the healthcare industry Republicans were trying to scare us about, and I'm not so sure I'd have been on board with that myself.  Eventually, yes.  We will have single-payer.  But dismantling the entire system all at once could have been a tremendous blunder, both politically and policy-wise.  I'm not sorry to say that I'm not much of a risk-taker and don't believe in trying experiments on the lives of three hundred million people. 

They Weren't All Liberals

And so that's where things stood from the beginning.  Obama didn't have a chance to negotiate this from a far-left position and work towards a left position.  He had to start from a center-left position and move slightly inwards; eventually being forced to abandon the public-option, as some Democrats simply refused to accept it. 

Yes, he had a large Democratic majority, but not all those Democrats were liberals or even centrists.  And all the same, as much as progressives deride our current package as a Republican idea, it was only the mandate and insurance exchanges that were Republican.  The end of rescission, pre-existing conditions, and endless rate hikes were fully in the liberal category.  On the whole, I think the package Obama got us was pretty damn good and not nearly the disaster his critics on the left have chosen to paint it as.  And that's why they refuse to even talk about all the good things we got, as it undermines their point entirely.  For as much as they hated rescission during the healthcare debate, it's not a word progressives talk much about, now that Obama has ended it.

Same with the rest of what Obama got us.  Team Obama didn't start all this by taking a happy medium between themselves and Republicans.  They started things with the position that was to the furthest left that his own side could agree to.  And had Obama began from a truly liberal position, it would have been impossible for us to get as many of the centrist and conservative Democrats as we got. 

And that's the thing: For as much as Obama gets attacked for negotiating with himself, it was really with the conservative Democrats that he had to deal with, as well as the moderate-ish Republicans needed to end the filibusters in the Senate.  The reality is that we were damn lucky to get anything through Congress, and starting further to the left would only have made things more difficult for Obama; not easier.  A far-left position would have forced the conservative elements Obama needed to walk from the table completely, as they simply couldn't associate with those sort of positions.

All, or Nothing At All

And of course, our biggest problem is that most progressives don't really care about this at all.  As they've said repeatedly, they'd rather have gotten nothing than what we got.  And that's an easy position to take, if you're not actually responsible for getting something.  As it turns out, they also don't mind taking a few hostages when it comes to getting their agenda passed.

But that really IS all we would have gotten.  Nothing.  Nada.  And health insurance would still be just as crappy as it was before Obama came to office, and we'd have gotten no stimulus bill, and I would have paid more in overdraft fees last month because we wouldn't have gotten the banking bill that helped save me $140 in fees.  And had Obama ran with an openly liberal platform in the election, we'd probably be griping about all the horrible things President McCain is doing and what a horrible idea it was to bomb Iran.

Because the truth is that politics requires us to be political, while bullies get nothing.  The Bush Admin had a dysfunctional Congress that could barely succeed in getting tax cuts, Muslim war, and a Medicare drug plan; all fairly popular items that were easy to sell.  And they did almost nothing else.  Obama, on the other hand, got us a HUGE amount of policy goals passed, including the end of rescission, pre-existing conditions, and unending premium hikes. 

And the alternative isn't the Pie-in-the-Sky single-payer option.  The alternative was McCain's egregious plans for healthcare.  Or at best, nothing.  And the sad truth is that most progressives would have been happier with nothing, while too many of them would have preferred to gripe about President McCain's horrible policies.  They don't really want to be in the driver's seat.  They just like to yell at the driver.

And for this, Obama's called a spineless wimp.  Why?  Because he lost?  No, because he didn't win big enough.  And the whole time, the people who should have been slinging mud at Obama's Republican opponents while fiercely attacking any Democratic congressman who was holding out, were instead slinging mud at Obama for having sold them out because he wasn't winning big enough battles single-handedly. 

Until these people finally turn their sights back on Republicans and conservative Democrats, Obama's going to be stuck fighting battles on both sides.  We need to be punishing Congress for not being liberal enough.  Obama will sign any liberal bill he can get his hands on.  It's our job to fight for that to happen.

Rebutting Obama by Proving His Point

Here's the obvious video of the day, with Obama defending his record against his progressive critics:


And yep, I've pretty much got to agree with all of that. 

And here's the key part I liked:

This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

And the big question is: What was it about the public option that made progressives believe that this was the linchpin of the whole thing?  Without this, we've been assured, the healthcare reform was nothing but a Republican sham that wasn't worth our time to even consider thinking about, as it'd be even worse than nothing at all.  And even now that we've seen all the good things Obama got us, we're assured that the whole thing is worse than a pile of warm snot on a birthday cake and can't be referenced in any way besides a total disaster.

But what about the end of rescission?  What about the end of pre-existing condition disqualifiers?  What about the 30 million people who will get insurance, or the potential for 100 million people to see lower premiums?  What about the statewide insurance exchanges that will allow self-employed and small businesses to get real insurance at a reasonable price?  Or the fact that these insurance exchanges will include non-profit options?  Surely these provisions are worth something, right?

Apparently not.  Because people didn't get an option for government-run insurance, the whole thing was a giant betrayal and if Obama even attempts to defend his bill, he'll be attacked even further.  There's no effort needed to refute Obama's point.  Without the public option, he can't possibly have given us anything worth anything.

My Definition of Compromise

Here's a post I found because of a long-time reader who now considers me a conservative because I don't think that taxing the rich to make them poorer is a key tenet of liberalism.  Sure, I still support government programs and regulations, as well as supporting the need to force the rich to pay for it, but unless I want to outright hurt the rich by making them less rich, I'm a no-good conservative fink...or something like that. 

Anyway, he pointed me to a blogger who attacked Obama for daring to defend himself against his leftwing critics.  He quoted the Obama passage I quoted above and wrote:

Well, let’s see, first you said you wanted it included, and then when the other side objected, it wasn’t included. What’s your definition of compromise?

And first off, you've got to like the revisionist thinking here.  In reality, the healthcare debate lasted a LONG time, with Obama trying to get the public option before finally giving it up in order to get us these other things.  But in this new reality, Republicans merely objected and it was gone.  As if Obama capitulated without a fight.  Somehow, I seem to recall that battle lasting for months, but I guess I'm mistaken, because I'll be attacked as an apologist merely for saying it happened.

But more importantly, this guy just made the very point Obama was trying to make.  Because they didn't get the public option, the reform was worthless.  In his eyes, there was no compromise.  There was only the public option and anything less than that was complete and total defeat.  Because all the millions who will benefit from this aren't worth the few million who might have benefited even more.  Had the public option been the only thing we were fighting for, this guy would have a point.  But seeing as how we were fighting for an entire reform bill, most of which we got, his point only served to prove Obama right. 

Sure, Obama saved human lives.  But the compromise with Republicans apparently wasn't worth the price.  I wonder how many more people would have died if Obama had listened to his leftwing critics. 

Oh, and does it need to be mentioned that Obama has another job besides fighting for legislation; namely, running the executive branch?  Ir probably should be mentioned, especially as passing legislation wasn't even supposed to be one of the presidential duties; though I guess this makes me an even bigger apologist.

Attacking the Forest to Save the Trees

But this blogger had to ignore all that, just as he's ignored all the good things Obama got us.  In fact, if you read his entire post, you'll find that he had to directly ignore just about everything Obama said, and effectively demonstrated the exact point Obama was trying to make, which this blogger missed completely.  The debate of incompetent v. evil comes to mind, though I'll refrain from casting such aspersions because it's probably uncalled for.  But still, when people demonstrate the very point they're trying to rebut, you've got to wonder about their motivation.

But the point is clear: These progressives don't really care about what Obama got us.  They'll insist it was worthless and that we're not even allowed to consider these gains.  We lost everything and if you try to justify it in any way, then you're one of the enemy.  So I'm a conservative wingnut because I don't want to hurt the rich, while Obama's a spineless sellout because he only ended rescission, pre-existing conditions, and effectively muzzled the health insurance industry.  What a loser!

Of course, the fact that I'd even make this argument just shows what an apologist rightwing sellout I am.  And if any of them read this, they'll be so sure of this that they won't need to refute anything I wrote.  They can merely know in their heart of hearts that they could have done all the great things Obama did, while also giving us the handful of items he wasn't able to do.  And they'd do it by attacking Republicans relentlessly, because of course, that's what voters really want.  Sure, the end of rescission is nice and everything, but what people really want is more political attacks.

Compromise Makes Liberal Jesus Cry

There's nothing inherently liberal about taxation.  Nor is taxing the rich a liberal position.  Liberals believe that the government can solve certain problems, and unfortunately, it costs money for us to do that and the only way we can raise that money is through taxation.  But thus said, if we could somehow solve all our problems with salt water and daydreams, we would.  Taxation is part of the solution; it's not the goal.

Yet, to hear progressives tell it, Obama's compromise which will extend the Bush tax rates for the rich for another two years is an utter sell-out move that shows what a spineless conservative he really is.  Here are a few comments showing what I mean:

"Is Barak Obama ever going to grow a spine?"

"The WH is trying to to put lipstick on this turd, but it's not going to work. Every which way they try it, the stench is too big to cover.  I hope Obama is impeached."

"I expected Obama not to compromise and keep his campaign promise on this one…Sorry you lost me on this one…I’m taking my Obama bumper sticker off."

"Centrist Dem LOL! This guy is going hard right as fast as he can."

"So very depressing. This is Obama's, "no more taxes". I truly believe he just lost his re election."

To hear these and other commenters tell it, we were just sold out.  Yet...what exactly is so liberal about taxing the rich?  Yes, this sucks because it'll just make the deficit worse.  But...so what?  Deficits aren't the end of the world and we clearly got some good out of this.  You'd think Obama just ended Social Security or something, to hear these people rant against him.

The Dread Compromise

And the good news is that if this compromise works, we'll be extending unemployment benefits, reducing taxes for working Americans, and making payroll cheaper for businesses.  And for as much as some commenters went so far as to suggest that these were also Republican ideas, the reality is that this is what compromise is all about.  You get something you want, you give something you didn't want to give.  That's how it works. 

And now Obama has a tiny feather in his cap to show that he's not the Evil One, and even better, he'll be decoupling the Bush taxcuts of the rich from the one for the non-rich.  And so once these are set to expire in two years, Republicans will actually have to openly defend another taxcut for the rich.  And instead of news articles consistently mangling the story by writing that "Republicans want taxcuts for all Americans," as they've been doing, the stories will have to show that they only want taxcuts for the rich.  And they'll be stuck with a Republican presidential nominee trying to explain why the rich should continue getting richer.  Basically, they're losing their leverage on this issue.

And the big irony is the reason why Obama is in this position: Because these same progressives have spent the last two years hounding Obama at every turn, rather than hounding Republicans as they had been during the Bush Years.  And so we got pounded in the election because the strongest rhetorical weapon we have pointed itself right in our face and blasted Obama and the Democratic Party as heretics.  And rather than fight Republicans and Blue Dogs to make sure we got a Public Option and other liberal policies, they insisted that Obama had to do it single-handedly and attacked him relentlessly for not being Superman.

Weakening Obama

And unfortunately, they're still doing that now.  Obama's busy battling rightwing politicians who are hounded by their base if they compromise in any way with him, while also battling his leftwing base for compromising in any way with the right.  And in this case, "compromising" with Republicans means not insulting them at every turn.  Perhaps if these outraged liberals would finally start directing their outrage at Republicans instead of Democrats, we might actually be able to get somewhere.

And as I've said before, the most annoying part about these progressives attacking Obama is that they don't really care about ideology at all.  It's all about attacking Republicans.  That's why Obama's compromise is a sell-out to them.  Because taxes on the rich isn't a liberal position.  But to progressives, attacking Republicans is.  And that means giving Republicans want they want is inherently anti-liberal, even if it has nothing to do with liberalism at all.

Are deficits for the rich a good idea?  No.  Is it a destruction of liberalism?  Not even a little bit.

Insults Are All They Have

I've been meaning to write for some time about a phenomenon I've noticed whenever rightwing commenters see a Democrat's name in a news article or blog post, which entails them flipping out and hurling personal insults at the Democrat, regardless of what the article said.  I mean, it'd be one thing if they made the slightest effort to refute the Democrat's point.  But they seem oblivious to the very concept, and instead hurl personal attacks with no attempt at addressing any issue whatsoever beyond the attack itself.

Like this column by John Kerry in which he totally spanks Mitt Romney in a debate over the new START treaty.  Now, what I'd expect to see from Kerry's critics is some level of rebuttal to something he wrote, even if it was error-ridden and insulting.  But no, it's all insults, like they couldn't comprehend the words Kerry wrote beyond his name. 

And so we end up with Kerry's intelligent argument being greeted with comments like these:

"It seems like the Captain of the good ship Isabel is panicked because he's about to suffer his second big defeat of the year. The first was his cap-and-tax proposal to increase energy costs. That went down in flames. Now he's about to see the Start Treaty sink beneath the waves. No wonder he feels the need to get personal with Mitt Romney. Romney's running circles around John Kerry."

"John Kerry cannot present an argument without demeaning his opposition. Today it's Mitt who isn't smart enough to understand while just a few months ago it was the MA voters he implied were stupid. What an arrogant man!"

As strong as my mind-reading skills are, I simply have no idea what these two guys imagine they thought they were writing.  The second commenter, in particular, seems to be writing only about himself.  It's obvious they know that personal insults are bad, as they're attacking Kerry for doing so, even though he hadn't.  Yet they just couldn't help themselves.  The pot not only called the kettle black, but insulted the kettle for insulting kettles; even though the kettle was talking about nuclear peace treaties the whole time.  Simply amazing.

Dancing with the Morons

I also read a story yesterday in which Margaret Cho claims to have heard from inside sources that Bristol Palin only went on Dancing with the Stars because Sarah Palin made her do it.  Supposedly, because Sarah felt that Bristol's pregnancy cost her the election, Sarah wanted Bristol to get America to love her, so she could win the next election.

Naturally, I have no idea if that's true.  Nor do I really care.  While I suppose it fits Sarah's MO pretty well, I don't really think it makes much of a difference with anything, as Sarah Palin is extremely unlikely to have any impact on my life; unless she inexplicably wins the Republican nomination in 2012, which would be great as it would ensure Obama's re-election.  But Margaret Cho also went on to say how pleasant Bristol was and how they really got along and was a decent person; even if she doesn't agree with Sarah Palin's political views.

Needless to say, the Republicans on that messageboard were ripping Cho a new one.  Why does it matter why Bristol was on that show?  And more importantly, if she's got an axe to grind and isn't reliable, as all the Republicans insisted she wasn't, then why did she say such nice things about Bristol?  If she's inventing stuff, why didn't she invent something damaging, or at least insult Bristol?

I don't know, and neither did the people attacking her.  All they know is that Cho "attacked" the Palins and that's good enough for them.  It didn't matter if what she said was true or relevant.  All that mattered was the attack.  Cho sent one of theirs to the hospital, so they're sending her to the morgue; rhetorically speaking, anyway.

Martha Coakley and the Proverbial Broomstick

And here's another odd incident I just read.  It's a news story about how Dane Cook's step-brother ripped him off and now owes him $12 million for what he embezzled from Cook.  Pretty harmless story, right?  But no.  The story happened to mention Martha Coakley, who was the dope Democrat who lost Ted Kennedy's senate seat to a Republican.

And because a famous Democrat was involved, we get incoherent comments like this, where a guy quotes the article which said:

A spokesman for Attorney General Martha Coakley told the Portsmouth Herald that the next step is for the court to tally the couple's assets.

To which the knee-jerk Republican responded:

Yeah, the only tallying Martha Coakley still can't win is her getting the proverbial broomstick up her a** via Scott Brown!!!!!!!

And, huh??  I get the idea of what this insult is supposed to mean, but...what the hell did he imagine this said?  I mean, you don't "win" tallies.  And to my knowledge, there is no proverbial broomstick that goes up asses.  And is he saying that she "wins" all the other tallies, except for the one which involves her getting a proverbial broomstick stuck inside her?  Is this something Scott Brown is still doing to her, and why?

But most imporantly, why is Coakley being insulted for trying to get Dane Cook's money back?  I'm no fan of Cook's by any means, and feel he "earned" this money just as much as his crooked half-brother did, but still, Coakley isn't doing anything wrong here.  If you're going to attack someone, attack the guy who wrote Good Luck Chuck, as that dude is totally deserving of derision.  But Coakley is the good guy here and the election was eleven months ago.  You won.  Get over it.

But for Republicans, none of this matters.  It's not even important to make a comprehensible insult, let alone one that actually fits the story.  All that matters is that an "infamous" Democrat's name appeared in a story and that's good enough for them.  And, of course, any Democrat they've heard of is "infamous," because they wouldn't have heard about any Democrat who didn't do something "wrong."

And that's the thing: These people don't care about ideology.  Even political stories are too much for them to handle.  All they care about is insulting the enemy.  That's why the term "hypocrite" never applies to them, as they never actually go against their own beliefs.  All they care about is the team and attacking the enemy.  Everything else is negotiable.

The Republicans Suck Healthcare Bill

Carpetbagger's got a post about how a Dem Congressman is daring Republicans to repeal popular provisions of the healthcare law with a bill called HIPA-CRIT (Health Insurance Protects America -- Can't Repeal IT).  And yes, ha ha.  It's a nice little insult and I won't begrudge him that.  But beyond that, what's the point, exactly? 

I mean, Republicans WILL try to repeal either part or the whole thing, or their Tea Partying masters will destroy them.  And they'll fail as they can't possibly get the Senate or Obama to play along.  So they're going to go through with this charade already, meaning that all we're left with is the "hypocrite" insult, which doesn't really apply as they're not being hypocrites in this case because they really DO want to repeal these provisions.  Maybe I'm stupid, but I fail to see why we'd bother with such a silly stunt.

Political Progressives

And the saddest part is reading all the progressives on that board who expose their true agenda: Attacking Republicans.  Sure, Obama got us a decent healthcare law, as well as a whole host of liberal laws passed in a very hostile situation, but he gets no credit for that.  Instead, they celebrate a pointless insult bill that serves no purpose other than insulting Republicans. 

Because passing good laws comes secondary to them.  First up is attacking Republicans with empty political gestures.  They don't give a damn about all the people Obama got insured or the end of rescission.  They just want to see a good mudfight, just like I've been saying all along.

Here are some of the comments I read:

"Better late, than never. Finally we have a democrat able to tie his shoes without help. Now, will Pelosi bring it to the floor?"

"Yes, it's a bit late...BUT, at least someone on the Democratic side knows how to play the game!!! HIPA-CRIT! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MORE, MORE, MORE!!!"

"Maybe Obama should reflect this holiday season on how he might gain the respect of the clowns on capital hill. Most presidents do it by being presidential and tough as nails. The last one to try the nice guy approach, Jimmy Carter, has been a great ex president, but a one term wonder."

"I'm actually on board with this circus sideshow for the sole belief that circus sideshows are the ONLY things we're going to be seeing from the House for the next two years. May as well kickstart the proceedings with votes on HIPA-CRIT healthcare bills, MIL-IONARE tax bills, , and DE-FALT budget bills. GO FOR IT."

Sure, Pelosi and Obama got us actual laws that did stuff.  But since none of their bills had insults in their names, that means they're wimps who always lose.  Much better to stage political theater than get anything done. 

Oddly, we now have progressives who look to uber-centrist Bill Clinton as the model for how Obama should be.  Sure, Clinton was the poster child of the DLC and championed such "liberal" measures as tax cuts, welfare reform, banking deregulation, and bombing Iraq; but damn did the dude know how to fight.  Not that progressives didn't hate him at the time.  But these days, he's the patron saint of the progressive movement, while Obama's awe-inspiring legislative record is cast aside as an after-thought. 

Perhaps if Obama had just been bold enough to insult Republicans with the names of his bills, we could have retained control of Congress.  For as much as I hate to say it, I really wish we could have a few more grown-ups on our side.  There's nothing wrong with winning politely, just as long as you win.  Apparently, many progressives would prefer we lose, as long as we were jerks about it.  And we're to imagine that THEY'RE the ideological hardcore. 

"You Can't Have Government-Run Health Care"

As a followup to my previous post, I just wanted to note how Congressman Where'sMyHealthcare's description of the Healthcare law is entirely in keeping with what I suspected.  It's not that he thinks it's great healthcare that he wants to deny to others.  It's that he thinks it's lousy healthcare that will only make things worse for everyone.

As Think Progress notes:

On his campaign website, Harris explains, “[a]s a physician, I know that our health insurance system is in need of repair. However, the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions that ensure decisions are made by patients and their doctors.”

During an event at the Cecil County Patriots Candidate Forum in February 2010, Harris claimed “there is no constitutionality mandated role for the federal government in health care,” and criticized Medicare and Medicaid. Turning his attention to the health care reform legislation then moving through Congress, he described the public option as “a terrible idea,” adding, “you can’t have government-run health care, it’s just not right.” In July of 2009, Harris also appeared on Fox Business and warned viewers that if health reform passes, “we’ll look like Canada and England.” “Americans are not going to tolerate a bureaucrat making a decision for their families medicare care,” he said.

And yes, he was railing against "government-run healthcare," which he's now embracing.  But that's because he's assuming, correctly, that Congressmen healthcare is great and doesn't let government bureaucrats get between patients and doctors.  And the reason he was against "Obamacare" is because he somehow imagines it does.

And so the problem here isn't that he doesn't want people to have healthcare, because he obviously does.  The problem is that he's too ignorant to even know what it is that he's attacking.  He's been told that government bureaucrats will be making medical decisions for us and he's simply repeating what he's been told.  And while I'm sure he feels like a complete idiot at this point for having bitched about not getting his government healthcare soon enough, it's quite unlikely he'll understand why.  He knows that he wants good healthcare for everyone, he just doesn't know that Obama is getting it for us.

My only hope in all this is that when Republicans finally turn to look at the healthcare law to see which parts they want to repeal, they'll finally see what it is and quit attacking it.  Hell, if they just focus all their energies looking to repeal the part where government bureaucrats make medical decisions, maybe they'll never have time for anything else.  We can only hope.

It's the Ignorance, Stupid

Carpetbagger's got a post about how an incoming Republican Congressman who opposed "Obamacare" is upset that he has to wait 28-days before his taxpayer-subsidized healthcare kicks in, and suggests that it's wrong that this dude wants his taxpayer-funded healthcare while opposing it for everyone else.  And the vast majority of comments on that post insist that this guy is a hypocrite with an "I've got mine, screw everyone else" attitude.

But there's a much better explanation for this: He geniunely thinks "Obamacare" is a bad law that will vastly increase the deficit and destroy healthcare.  It's not that he wants some great healthcare that he's denying to others.  He imagines that the healthcare law is far worse than the status quo because that's what he's been told by people he trusts.  And if the people he's been listening to were correct, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with him wanting good healthcare while trying to save America from horrible healthcare.

And this is a part of the debate that too many liberals/progressives are completely missing.  They keep attacking Republicans for wanting to deny healthcare to people, while Republicans truly believe that they're doing the right thing.  And so we're talking right passed each other; with both sides insisting that we're trying to protect Americans.

Compounding the Ignorance

And of course, the worst problem we've had is that the progressives who shout the loudest in attacking hypocrites and liars have spent the vast majority of their energies attacking Obama for being a lying hypocrite.  And rather than exposing the "Obamacare" lies for what they are, they essentially joined ranks with Republicans in trying to kill it.  And even now, neither of these groups really knows what the bill will do because they're both so positive that it's worse than nothing. 

And for us, the focus shouldn't be on us pushing our POV, but rather, finding out what the other side is saying and addressing those issues.  Calling this guy a hypocrite might feel good, but that's not the problem here.  His problem is that he's listening to the wrong people.  And if our only solution is to personally attack him for something he's too ignorant to be right about, then all we'll do is push him further away and allow him to remain in his ignorance.

Not that I've got some great solution for this, as it's unlikely he'll ever bother to listen to the truth about this at this point.  But pushing him further away with personal insults can't serve any purpose, unless our main purpose is to be self-righteous and insult our opponents.  Unfortunately, I'm positive there are too many people on our side with that exact attitude.  Winning's nice, but attacking opponents is better.

We, the Messengers

Here's a comment I made at Washington Monthly in reply to someone suggesting that Obama and the Democrats needed to do a better job getting the message out. 

I've got to disagree with the idea that Obama is to blame for not getting the message out. That was our job. Obama didn't win in 2008 because he was such a great messenger. He won because WE were such good messengers.

But unfortunately, some of our best players decided to sideline themselves for two straight years in order to make a point. And instead of helping Obama spread our message, they attacked him for not doing enough. That was a big difference between 2008 and 2010. Obama lost the diehards, and that was a big part of the message machine.

And at this point, everyone is saying that they were right the whole time. Republicans will insist that we lost because Obama was too liberal. Progressives will insist we lost because Obama wasn't bold enough. Obama supporters will insist we lost because progressives didn't help us get the message out. And basically, everyone's going to keep saying the same shit they've been saying for the last two years. Which is more or less the same shit they said ten years ago. Just like I'm doing now. It doesn't matter who wins or loses. We all think we were right all along.

And that's the stupid thing about all the "messages" we were supposedly sending to Obama and Congress by not supporting them: People will only hear the message they want to hear. Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 made Republicans want to be more rightwing, while Republican victories will make centrist Dems want to be more rightwing. And now Obama's got to work with an even more aggressive Congress, including a House that can impeach him; making it FAR less likely he'll govern the way liberals would like. Brilliant strategy, guys. It's like trying to run a marathon by punching yourself in the face. You might not win, but you'll get really hurt in the process.

The reality is that sending messages doesn't work. Just vote for the Democrat and hope for the best. No matter how shitty the Democrat is, they're still better than what the Republicans are about to do. Sad, but true.

And most importantly: Voting is one of the LEAST effective means of exercising your political power. If we want better Democrats, we need to start right now. Tonight wasn't as bad as it could have been, and I think that things are well positioned for us to kick mucho ass in two years. But the time to start is now. Power to the people.

Republicans Heart Bank Fees

Imagine, if you will, that Obama imposed a $35 tax on anyone who spent more than they had in their bank account. And every item added to your negative balance would be another $35 you had to pay to the government. And the government would be required to use that money for consumer economic education programs, which taught people how to be more savvy consumers.

Republicans would go apeshit. Hell, *I'd* go apeshit. The very idea is offensive to me. And yet, why is it that conservatives are so eager to support such a system, as long as it's the bank that keeps the money? Hell, they defend it. They think anyone who overdrafts is a lousy lowlife scum who deserves to pay $35 every time you deeper into the red. And they'll attack anyone who prevents banks from taking this money from me.

And I know that because I recently made a boneheaded move and overdrafted. I wrote a big check thinking it wouldn't clear until Tuesday, but it secretly cleared on Monday. And had I known it would clear on Monday, I could definintely have fixed the problem immediately. But for whatever reason, my bank doesn't let me know that checks clear until the day after it happens, after it's too late to fix the problem.

And that wouldn't have been a big deal, but over the weekend, I used my debit card a lot. And because weekends are magical "bank free" days, their computers wouldn't finish processing my transactions until Tuesday morning. And in total, I had nine things push me deeper in the red.

Obama Saved Me Money

Under the old system, I would have been charged with $315 in fees. But thanks to Obama's banking reform last year, I only had to pay $35 for the check that hit on Monday, and didn't pay a thing for the lesser charges I made on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. In total, Obama saved me $280. Now maybe to Republicans, that's a nothing figure. But I was damn happy to save it. I'm trying to save up for a couch right now, and that's part of my payment.

And the oddest thing is that when I've tried to explain this to a few Republicans I know, they sarcastically deride it as "Big Brother" saving us, as if I'm some stupid schmo because I needed Obama's help. Sure, they'd scream bloody murder if Obama had the banks collect that fee for tax purposes. But if it's a bank that gets to keep the money, they think it's immoral for Obama to stop it. They think it's wrong for me to use the government to protect me from Big Business. What's wrong with these people?

And really, that's what this election is all about. It's not about whether Obama gave you what you thought we needed. It's about his efforts to protect little guys like me, saving us $280 we'd rather spend elsewhere. I even made a point of contributing 10% of that to Democrats, as a sort of finders fee. (Not that that's the only money I've given this year.) Yes, Universal Healthcare would have been nice, but little regulations are good, too.

That's why we all need to vote this year. To show the world that us little people support Obama.

Associated Press Lies Again

The AP does it again.  The article is titled Poll: Many Obama 2008 Supporters Defecting to GOP, and begins with this ominous analysis:

President Barack Obama's winning coalition from 2008 has crumbled and his core backers are dispirited. It's now Republicans who stand to benefit from an electorate that's again craving change.

Nearly two years after putting Obama in the White House, one-quarter of those who voted for the Democrat are defecting to the GOP or considering voting against the party in power this fall.

Reading that, I immediately found the whole thing to be incredibly unlikely.  Would there be some Obama voters who switch sides?  Of course.  Part of his vote came from independents who weren't loyal to Democrats, and even if they like Obama doesn't necessarily mean they still like Democrats.  But the idea that lots of Obama people are flocking to the GOP seemed extremely dubious.

And I immediately identified the phrase "or considering voting against" as being fairly iffy and was hoping they'd give us the act4a3 details to this poll.

The Actual Results

And sure enough, the spin on this poll is a big pile of garbage.  After reading a bunch about how Obama is losing his coalition, we get the actual results:

_76 percent of Obama voters say they will support the Democrat in their House district, while 8 percent plan to back the Republican and the rest are undecided.

_71 percent of McCain voters say they will vote for the Republican in their House district, while 9 percent plan to get behind Democrats and 20 percent haven't chosen a candidate.

Uhh, what?  76% of Obama supporters say they'll vore for their Dem, while only 71% of McCain supporters say they'll vote for their Republican.  Sounds like Obama's doing better than the Republicans.

Only 8% of Obama supporters are switching sides, while 9% of McCain supporters are switching sides.  This is evidence that Obama supporters are "defecting to the GOP"??

And as you can see, the iffy "or considering voting against" line the article rested upon is actually that the people are undecided.  Yes, it can be argued that they're considering it, seeing as how they're not decided.  But those phrases don't really have the same connatation.  And as your spidey math skills should tell you, 15% of undecided Obama supporters is better than 20% of undecided McCain supporters.

In other words, the entire article is a crock of shit.  Obama's coalition is actually better than McCain's; at least according to this poll.  And only 11% of those who didn't say they'd vote for the Democrat thinks that Republicans will do a better job.  Looks like the only thing crumbling here is the Associated Press's integrity.

The Freedom to Get Sick and Die

Greg Sargent has a post about whackjob Sharron Angle's response during her debate with Harry Reid in which she was asked to name anything she thinks health insurance companies should be mandated to cover, and she responded with:

What we have here is a choice between the free markets and Americanism. America is about choices.  And we need people to have those choices. The free market will weed out those companies that do not offer as many choices and do not have a cost-effective system. 

Let the people decide where they want to buy their insurance.  You don't have to force them to buy anything.  And you don't have to force anyone to offer a product that no one wants.

And first off, the choice between free markets and Americanism?  Am I reading that wrong, or is she saying that Americanism is the opposite of free markets?  And is that even a word?  I guess it is, though I'm unclear as to how she was using it. 

Dying's Not an Option

But my real point is how this just shows the tunnel-vision thinking found so often in folks on both ends of the political spectrum.  People who somehow imagine that we could completely revamp our current system and still get all the benefits that it provides without any of the downside.  People who don't seem to realize that we had a system before labor laws and corporations, and things sucked a heckeva lot more than they do now. 

It's like the magic trick where the magician pulls the tablecloth off the table and everything stays the same.  But what you don't see is all the times the magician screwed it up during practice.  Unfortunately, in real life, we don't get to practie.  If we pull out everything holding up our system, we don't get a second chance at it.  And since we've already seen how things were like without it, there's no reason to take that chance.  Unfortunately, these people seem to forget that we've already seen that life can totally suck without labor laws or capitalism; and somehow imagine that prior generations invented this stuff just because they're stupid or cruel.

But in the case of Angle, it's even worse as the system she prefers is still in existence, yet she still imagines it works just fine.  We're not talking about someone who fails to grasp the reason why our current system was created.  We're talking about someone who insists that the free market will "weed out" crappy insurance; seemingly unaware of how prolific such insurance is.

Pony Insurance for the Free

Because yeah, I like freedom.  I like to be able to choose cheap products if I don't need the do-dads of a more pricey one.  And normally, that's great for me.  I don't want to be forced to buy a Mac if I can get by with a crappy netbook.  But health insurance is different from that, because eventually, I'm going to need it.  It's not a matter of me getting by with a no-frills plan.  It's a matter of me gambling with my life; which is a gamble I'm sure to lose eventually. 

And of course, nobody wants crappy insurance.  They all want the golden plan that takes care of them no matter what.  The problem is that most folks can't afford the insurance they need.  But...there is a way they CAN afford it, or at least a close approximation of it, and it's the very plan that dopes like Angle oppose.  Not only does it give everyone insurance, but it makes it so good insurers don't have to water down their products to compete with crappy insurance that people buy because they're gambling with their lives. 

So everyone's happy.  Well, everyone except for the morons who want to pretend as if dying is an option.  And so they'll cling to their ideals of freedom while ignoring the real world around them; imagining that the free markets will do what we clearly know they won't do.  The reality is that the only way the markets could be self correcting in this case is if people who get sick could hit a Do-Over Button, allowing them to go back in time and buy the insurance they now realize they need.  Short of that, we give everyone good insurance from the start and have them bitch and moan all the way to better healthcare.

And of course, the reality is that insurers want to give you crappy insurance, because it's cheaper for them.  They want to hook you in with cheap rates, which they'll raise without cause every chance they get, and then dump you once you really need it.  The reason Big Business opposes Big Government isn't because they love freedom.  It's because they want to screw over the little guys and Big Government won't let them do it.  There's nothing else to it. 

If the free markets would give us all pony insurance and good wages, Big Business wouldn't mind that the government was forcing them to do it.  And for as much as there are good insurance companies that want to offer good products, this law will only help them with that; as it forces all the crappy insurance companies to compete on the same basis.  And the only people complaining are the scumbag insurers and the people who don't know what they're talking about.  The rest of us should be happy to have the freedom to get good healthcare at a reasonable price.

Hating the Laws They Love

CNN has a story about how businesses which offer their employees crappy insurance plans are getting waivers from the Obama Admin allowing them to continue to offer crappy insurance plans until the insurance exchanges are set-up and we can give them real insurance. 

Without the waivers, these employers would be forced by the new healthcare law to offer real insurance now, but since that would require them to pay a lot more in premiums, they'd either have to raise their premiums or, more likely, just cut the insurance all together.  And while it'd be nice if they could get real insurance now, that's just not going to happen; so this is the next best alternative.

Now, anyone who opposes "Obamacare" should be HAPPY about this story.  Not only does it show Obama's willingness to work with businesses, but it also delays the effect of the healthcare law for these businesses.  So if you don't like the healthcare law or think Obama's a socialist dictator, this would be good news.  It'd be like us hearing that Bush was giving waivers to any soldier who didn't want to go to Iraq.

But of course, that would require these people to comprehend what they had just read, yet if they had these skills, they wouldn't oppose the law in the first place.  I mean, we're talking about a law which requires people to get a service which will be subsidized by taxpayers; and that would be a boon for any business.  As long as the money they collect actually goes towards the service they provide, there shouldn't be a problem. 

Yet all the same, these morons somehow imagine Obama is taking over the insurance industry in order to destroy it.  If that's a government takeover, Obama can take over my business any day.

Morons Speak

And so we get comments on that story like these:

"President Obama is the only leader taking comprehensive action to stop greenhouse gas emissions: He's steadily putting everyone out of work"

"this is just the beginning folks!!! you thought insurance companies were bad?!!! government is 1,000,0000 times worse!!! your gonna beg for insurance companies to come back once government puts them out of business to control your body and life!!!"

"anybody hear this on any of the major news channels....no these were the suck ups who pushed obama non care...this @#$% is wrecking our country and the news people are asleep at the wheel...no more democrats and only conservative republicans...I'm sick of the government in my pocket.....go Fox news and the Wall Street Journal."

"In Socialism the state always takes. The people own nothing! Do not be shocked or surprised as they eat away at home ownership, business owners,  jobs, owning property, anything. They will take it all. We can undo some of what's been done with the next vote."

"Ok - so now we have government run healthcare. And some people are actually happy? This is so the wrong way to go. What they should do is provide incentives to private healthcare providers to provide legimate benefits to Americans."

That last one is perhaps the funniest, as they just described Obamacare.  As I'm sure you realize, it's not government-run insurance at all.  It's private insurance with subsidies from the government, with enough protections to make sure citizens won't get ripped off by bad insurance.  Yet these people are so brainwashed that they don't even realize that Obama just gave them the insurance they wanted.

The Irony of Idiots

And without a doubt, these people didn't read the story.  They saw a headline titled 1 Million Workers Lose Out on Better Coverage and immediately imagine that Obamacare must be responsible for them losing out on the better coverage. 

But of course, the better coverage they're "losing" is what Obamacare is giving them, while this story is about these workers being exempted from Obamacare.   And in fact, these people didn't "lose" anything.  They're just stuck with the same crappy insurance they had before.  The same crappy insurance Obamacare's haters want them to have.  So they're attacking Obama for being flexible and giving workers the crappy insurance Obama's haters want Obama to have left them with.  And they're too stupid to even realize it.

And so we're stuck trying to deal with millions of people who don't even know that Obamacare is doing exactly what they want it to do, while attacking Nancy Pelosi for not reading a bill that they can't even comprehend.  And the saddest part is that many of these people will NEVER understand what this bill did, and will still be complaining about Obama's government takeover of health insurance, while unwittingly benefitting from it every day.  I hate it when irony hurts.

Calories Are Still Calories

In response to a post I wrote recently about nutritionists giving bad advice by pretending as if some calories are better than others, a longtime reader suggested that my theory would posit that a Coke and cotton candy diet with a 2000 calorie daily limit could be healthy.  He also stated that high fructose corn syrup is worse than cane sugar because the body processes it faster. 

I wrote a response to that comment (after a much delayed period in which my internet sucked), but decided it was good enough to be a full post, because I've been such a bum and haven't felt like writing lately.  So I rewrote it to be less of a response and more of a regular post.

BTW, shortly after writing my previous post, I read LiveScience.com's 7 Biggest Diet Myths, which contained some of the same things I had just written about; including the dangers of smoothies.  While I thought a few of them were wrong, I definitely think it's worth a read.

The Coke & Cotton Candy Diet

Regarding the Coke and Cotton Candy Diet, as long as we threw in a daily vitamin supplement and some whey protein, I betcha a lot of people would see a vast improvement in their health compared with the crap they're eating now.  If anything, their taste buds would complain sooner than their health would. People scoffed at the Atkins Diet, too. But eventually, the nutritionists had to grudgingly back down and quietly rework all their theories while pretending they were right the whole time. 

But of course, their advice was based upon superstition and hearsay; not science.  And they rejected a pile of science before they finally accepted what Dr. Atkins was saying.  Not that he was right about everything, as there are other good ways to lose weight, too.  But the fat=bad, carbs=good crock of shit is now dead, no thanks to the nutritionists who kept it alive for as long as possible. 

It sickens me to think of all the people who replaced their protein-rich eggs for calorie-rich muffins because of these fools.  Even now, too many people still consider muffins to be health food, simply because they're not as tasty as their donut and cake cousins.  As one doctor quoted by LiveScience suggested, the low-fat craze was an "uncontrolled experiment on a whole population."

But of course, the nutritionists STILL engage in uncontrolled experiments upon us.  They've now settled on this theory that man-made foods are bad for us, citing minor allergies to MSG as proof that it's dangerous, while neglecting the fact that peanut allergies can kill people.  Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's good for us, as nature produces poisons, too.  But these people continue to pimp this all-natural myth all the same. 

And of course, I wouldn't actually recommend a Coke-Cotton Candy-supplement diet to anyone; but it'd surely be than the 3000+ calories they're consuming right now; even if it came from fruit and vegetables.

The Problem of Quantity

And it should be noted that quite a few people drink at least a 64-ounce Super Big Gulp of Coke every day, which gives them a whopping 776 calories.  That's where the problem with soda is.  It's not the content or lack of vitamins.  It's the quantity.  Anyone drinking a 64-ounce Jamba Juice every day would find their weight balloon, as 64-ounces of their all-fruit smoothies would add almost 1000 calories to their diet; almost 25% more than they're currently getting in their Super Big Gulps. 

That's why the advice for people to give up soda is such foolishness: If it's just a matter of switching beverages, they're doomed.  These people need to change lifestyles.  I personally have found it's quite easy to consume over 800 calories in fruit juice without trying. One cup of juice just isn't very much, and it's ohhhh so tasty.  Anyone with juice in their house is lucky to not consume 500 calories of it a day.  If I didn't have kids, I'd never keep it around.

As for the nutritional value of Jamba Juice, that's all well and good, except the typical Jamba Juice consumer isn't suffering from a vitamin deficiency and doesn't require the 190% daily vitamin C their large Strawberry Whirl gives them; along with 380 unnecessary calories.  These people aren't getting much needed vitamins in the form of a tasty beverage. They're getting a tasty beverage with a few perks thrown in to fool them into thinking they're being healthy.  But the calories still count, even if it comes with vitamins. 

People need to realize that Jamba Juice is a guilty pleasure, not a health food.  Yet the nutritionists aren't warning us about this stuff at all.  But if a smoothie isn't a substitute for a meal, it's just as empty as the calories in Coke. There's no reason someone needs 930% of their daily vitamin C from a sixteen ounce drink with 260 calories, as you'd get in a Acai Super Antioxidant.

BTW, the vitamin C from their medium and large versions of that drink is apparently so ridiculous that they didn't even post it online; though my calculations show the biggest one to have 1860% of your daily vitamin C; along with 520 calories and 2 grams of saturated fat.  That's the health nut equivalent of buying a monster truck to over-compensate for having a small dick.  You're pissing out the excess vitamins while the calories go straight to your hips.

Sugar is Sugar

And the other point is that we need to stop calling fruit "fruit," and realize we're talking about sugar.  You can get sugar from all kinds of plants and there's nothing superior about the "unprocessed" sugars from Jamba's processed fruit drinks.  That sugar is no longer the same as when it's in its fruit format.  Eating a strawberry isn't the same as drinking one.

And the point about corn syrup is simply false, and is based upon what the nutritionists told us; while the scientists have concluded no such thing.  While there is a slight increase in sugar spikes compared with sugar, foods like white bread and potatoes are actually worse and rank higher on the glycemic index.

And one of the biggest problems with the whole concept of sugar spikes is that it's based upon an empty stomach. Mix it up with a belly of food and the sugar spikes aren't nearly as dramatic. It's the same way with alcohol; you'll get drunk a lot quicker on an empty stomach, as your body absorbs it all quicker. But a full stomach makes it harder to test these kind of things, so they don't do it that way. But that just proves my point: Sugar spikes aren't very dramatic if you're actually eating food. 

Too Many Calories

Overall, people need to limit their consumption of ALL unnecessary calories; not just the ones processed by man. The ones in fruit can hurt you, too.  My point isn't that Coke is a health food.  My point is that fruit juice isn't either.  Getting people to switch from one calorie source to another isn't going to fix anything.  And if anything, it has the ill effect of making people believe they're being healthy when they're not.  Eating an apple doesn't justify the brownie they'll have for dessert, and drinking apple juice doesn't help them at all.

IMO, one of the biggest reasons people are overweight (besides genetics and intestinal bacteria) is that people honestly don't know how many calories they're consuming.  Yeah, they know that Big Macs aren't health food.  But until they understand that milk, juice, and bread are also loading them up with calories, they aren't getting the big picture.  Yet they're constantly led to believe that these are health foods; as if the calories don't count.  But of course, ALL calories count, no matter how healthy they are for you.

Eating 900 calories at McDonald's isn't helping them, but it's all to easy to consume that much from just milk, juice, and bread.  Yet not only do the nutritionists not warn us about this; they actually encourage us to consume these.  Our problem is too many calories.  We're not suffering from a lack of vitamin C.  The number of calories we consume is far more important than their source.

A Calorie is a Calorie

Long time readers know that I've got a war on self-proclaimed nutritionists who use their own puritanical superstitions instead of science to give people lousy advice on what people should eat.  And I happened to notice another of those people yesterday. 

Here's an article titled 5 Ways to Limit Liquid Calories, which once again passes on the bogus claim that the calories in 100% fruit juice are magically better than the calories in soda and fruit juice cocktails; based upon the delusion that sugars that come from cane sugar and corn are "empty," as opposed to the wonderful sugars that come from other plants. 

It's as if we're to imagine that drinking fruit juice might somehow make us eat less.  But of course, they don't.  No matter how much fruit juice I drink, I'll still want to eat just as much; thus making them just as empty as the other calories I drink.

Soy Lattes to the Rescue

The writer starts by stating how those delicious Pumpkin Spice Lattes she enjoys at Starbucks have 410 calories, and recommends using soy milk instead of whole milk; which is one of the five ways of limiting calories. 

But what she fails to mention is that, even with the soy milk, this drink still has 370 calories.  That's right, her great advice of omitting the whole milk saves her a whopping 40 calories.  And she gets paid to write this garbage?  I mean, research suggests that we limit our calorie intake to 2,000 a day, yet this bozo is having us spend almost 20% of our calorie budget towards a fricking dessert drink; and imagines she's giving us good advice.

She also gives bad advice on when to consume calories, stating that it's better to drink your calories in the morning, when you can still burn them off.  Yet research has shown that it doesn't matter when you consume calories, and that having them in the morning is no different than having them at night.  That was yet another myth these people continue to push, evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I understand how skipping breakfast could slow your metabolism, but that's a far cry from telling people that it's ok to indulge in calorie-laden coffee drinks if you do it early enough.  That's superstition, not science supporting that claim.

Jamba to the Rescue

And finally, I wanted to highlight one of the commenters, who had the mistaken belief that smoothies are low calorie, as long as they're made with real fruit.

Real fruit smoothies are also great ways to limit liquid calories. As a huge fan of the restaurant chain Jamba Juice, I can say that anything from their All Fruit or Jamba Light menu is a low-calorie, great-tasting snack/meal of sorts in liquid form.

Simply put, if there are a lot of added sugars/unhealthy fats in a drink, don't drink it. But some calories in these drinks (i.e. whey protein) can be good. Just avoid any added sugars, and one can drink virtually anything without intaking too many calories.

And so I went to Jamba's website and see, lo and behold, that this person is full of dooky.  A 16-ounce all-fruit smoothie has 240 calories in it.  By contrast, a 16-ounce Coke has 194 calories.  And no, your body doesn't care where the calories came from.  And if you go for Jamba's biggest all-fruit smoothies, you're packing in over 400 calories.  I don't care what else they add to it, that's a lot of calories from a drink.

And even their "light" smoothies give you unnecessary calories, with a 16-ounce "Mango Mantra" giving you 150 calories; not much fewer than that Coke.  And some of their drinks can REALLY pack in the extra calories, including a Green Tea drink that has more calories than a Big Mac.  Sorry pal, but Jamba Juice is not your friend.

Everything in Moderation

And the biggest problem here is that too many people consider these to be ok, and fool themselves into believing that the calories don't count; as the commenter above clearly has.  And so they drink their 100% fruit juice and all-fruit smoothies, then "reward" themselves with a Spiced Pumpkin Latte; and don't even realize that they just drank half their calorie budget for the day.  And that's not to mention the bran muffins that add several hundred calories, or the Gatorade they drink after working out, which packs on more calories than they burned.

The reality of all this is that there are no tricks to losing weight, beyond moderation.  The reason people don't get fat eating fruit is because fruit simply isn't enjoyable enough to eat so much that you'll gain weight that way.  But the calories still count.  And if people enjoyed eating fruit as much as they enjoy Oreos and brownies, fruit would be bad for you, too.

Of course, even moderation should be done in moderation, and it IS a good idea to reward yourself with a few tasty calories.  Just don't confuse the rewards with the punishment, by imagining that soy milk substitutes and all-fruit smoothies count as the punishment.  They don't.  And the sooner people realize that boring foods can have more calories than fun food, the better. 

The Likely Voter Scam

I just wanted to take this time to once again state my belief that the demise of the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate are greatly exaggerated.  For as much as there is an enthusiasm gap between the parties, which is something I find undeniable, I not only believe the gap will be far less significant on Election Night, but I think it's actually masking how things look right now.

And a big part of this is on the role that polls play on Election Day.  There's this theory that says it's all about momentum, and polls give momentum to a candidate.  And for as much as I think there is some momentum effect at play in every election, I think this effect is grossly overstated. 

Because frankly, I just don't see too many people voting for a candidate merely because polls say he's popular.  As if someone checks the Gallup poll one morning and decides "Hey, this Obama guy's beating McCain by two points.  I think I'll support him," with enough people doing that so that Obama's lead grows by a few percentage points.  That sounds insane to me.  And if anything, any such effect can easily be offset by complacency, where by a voter might not show up because he thinks it's a slamdunk; while the underdog's voter might show up, because he thinks it's needed.

And if nothing else, the momentum of polls is a very ill-understood topic, of which I doubt there is much serious research.  For as much as I think polls are useful, it's merely to identify where the momentum is; not to change it.  And if anything, I think it has more to do with convincing people to donate money to candidates who poll well.  Lobbyist-types are likely to give more to the guy who looks like he'll win, while regular donors are more likely to give to a candidate who has a chance of winning, but still needs the dough.  And that sort of thing can have a real effect on an election. 

But this Likely Voter polling stuff by itself isn't really going to tell us much, beyond making political junkies have their equivalent of a minor Christmas morning every time they read a poll they like.

My Theory of Polls

And beyond momentum, a poll more than two weeks before an election is fairly worthless.  Not that polls are so bad, but it's the "Likely Voter" issue that makes them so worthless.  Yes, Tea Partiers have more enthusiasm than most Democratic voters and they're likely to say that they'll vote than Democrats will.  So what?  That doesn't make it true. 

And if anything, I'd gladly bet that the opposite is true: Angry Tea Partiers who won't vote are more likely to tell pollsters they will, while complacent Democrats will say they don't know if they'll vote, but will.  And that's just got to be correct.  There will always be people who say they'll vote, but won't; and that group will most assuredly lean conservative for this election.  And there will naturally be people who aren't sure if they'll vote, but will; and that group will lean Democratic.  That just makes sense.  And with more urgency on the Democratic side, and more confidence on the Republican side, that'll just happen more.

Because seriously, here's what should happen: The Unions and traditional Democratic base will give a full-court press the week before the election and convince their supporters that this is do-or-die; particularly two days before the election.  This is it, and if they ever supported Obama and his agenda, this is the time to support it.  And that's most certainly true.  2008 was very important, but things are even more important now that we've got everything on the line.  Failure is simply not an option.  And these people will show up in large numbers to vote straight-ticket Democrat; not because they're enthuasastic about the people they're voting for, but because it's better than the alternative.

And in the end, we might lose a few seats, but we could possibly gain a few. But I just don't see the tidal wave giving Republicans the House and/or Senate.  That's been my prediction for most of this year and I'm sticking to it.

Punishing Ourselves to Victory

Obama said:

The single biggest threat to our success is not the other party. It's us. It's complacency. It's apathy. It's indifference. It's people feeling like, well, we only got 80 percent of what we want, we didn't get the other 20, so we're just going to sit on our hands

And I've got to agree with that.  If all the people who voted for Obama in 2008 voted for Democrats in November, it'd be a landslide for us.  We'd slaughter them.  But the problem is that too many people have just given up on Obama.

But that was a big offense for many of the people Obama was referring to.  Apparently, the truth hurts.  So these people have to attack the man who is responsible for more liberalism than these keyboard critics of his will be in their entire lifetimes.  That's not to attack these people, but merely to state a fact:

Proving his point

Here are a sampling of comments to Obama's remark.

"Would that we had gotten 80. Seems more like less than 50%."

"All I wanted was a rollback of Cheney's acquisition of dictatorial powers for the executive, so I got 0%.  I shouldn't have been surprised; the Democrats are accountable only to the center-right."

"Our so called Dem "leaders" in Washington again showed why a large % of people who supported them are now basically disgusted we are with them. I have NEVER seen such totally ball-less group of people in my life. They deserve what happens to them in November, especially the Blue Dogs who really have NO concern for their constituents only concern for their "jobs".'

And there's a lot more just like it. 

And none of this makes any sense.  Because, yes, I suppose many of these people will be "punished" if they don't get re-elected.  But you know who else gets punished?  That's right, us.  The country.  These guys aren't just talking about kicking some traitorous Blue Dogs out of Congress.  They're talking about throwing us to the wolves. 

Anyway, I wrote three comments regarding this, and figured I'd share them here.  Enjoy!

Double-Reverse Psychocology

I'm astonished by the number of Democrats who somehow imagine that we'll get more of what we want if we "punish" Democrats in November. As if it's somehow worth it to allow Republicans to trash the country for two straight years, in the hopes that a rightwing victory will teach Democrats to be more leftwing.

But of course, what we'll get instead is two years of Republican rule, followed by Democrats who are so afraid of another loss that they bend over backwards to appease Tea Partiers. Believe it or not, but the way to strengthen your team is to support them, not attack them. I know, that doesn't feel very satisfactory, but that's how it works.

If you want Democrats to be liberals, we need to give them more seats in Congress; not fewer. And if we abandon them, they'll find someone else who will support them. That's just how life works.

Senator Rand Paul

This isn't Senator Weak-kneed v. Senator Pony. This is Senator Weak-kneed v. Senator O'Donnell.

And look, the main reason Democrats haven't done more is because they're scared. They just don't think there are enough liberals to support a liberal agenda, and that paralyzes them. By abandoning them, they just get more scared and more likely to do nothing or move to the right. It's like punishing your kid by slapping them every time they screw up. You're more likely to traumatize him than teach him to stop screwing up. And as much as I don't like scared Democrats, that's certainly better than emboldened Republicans in charge.

And again, that's what we're talking about. Maybe you'd prefer that Republicans get control of the circus again, but I don't. I'll take an ineffectual Democratic Congress over an effectual Republican one, any day. This election has real consequences.

Rahm's Peeing His Pants
 
A commenter suggested that Obama is ignoring the left because Rahm things he's got them all sewn up.  To which I wrote:
 
Really? You imagine Rahm thinks he's got the left sewn up? Because I believe Rahm's shitting his pants about the left. I think they've written off much of the left because the left wrote them off long ago.

Seriously, at this point, what could Obama realistically do to woo you back? Could he do it in the short time before the election? Or is it already too late? And at what point did it become too late?

He started his presidency with a good 10% of the ultra-left having written him off. Right or wrong, they simply couldn't support him. It didn't take long until another 10% wrote him off, followed by another little chunk. And before long, he's lost 40% of his base or more. And there's nothing that can bring them back. Not realistically. These people already gave up on Obama and the Democrats, and want them punished for their sins.

So at that point, what can they do? Because this was inevitable. Obama would never have more than 70% of the liberal base, and probably less. They went into it knowing that. Liberals just aren't like that. And so what choice do they have but to work the middle, and at least put up a good faith effort towards looking non-partisan?

And let's be serious: The Obama presidency is WAAAAAY better than the Bush years. Anyone who suggests differently is deluding themselves. As much as it's possible to find similarities between Obama and Bush, I refuse to believe that any of you would trade this for another Bush presidency or a McCain presidency. Seriously.

And that's what we're talking about. You can blame Obama and the Democrats all you want, but at the end of the day, we've got to live with two years of Republican hysteria. We'll only be punishing ourselves.

Discovery Channel Hates American Sea Captains

One of the problems with our society is that you can buy justice, in that the better your lawyer is, the more likely you'll do well in our justice system.  But frankly, I can't really think of a better system.  I mean, people should be allowed to choose who they work for, as well as who they hire as lawyers.  And I believe in allowing supply & demand to determine market prices. 

While I can think of some heavyhanded solutions which could solve this problem, I can't really see any of them being implemented.  And even if we succeeded in giving people equal justice, we'd just force the lawyers into back allies, giving advice on the legal blackmarket.

I had written a much longer post, but decided it wasn't worth it.  So I'm only leaving this.  Hope you're not too disappointed.

The Miranda Sham

The NY Times has an article about a fascinating study published by the Standard Law Review called The Substance of False Confessions (pdf), which details an analysis of forty cases in which people confessed to crimes they were later proven to be innocent of.  And the study is an excellent display of how police elicit confessions, what prosecutors do with those confessions, and what these people do intentionally and unintentional to convict the people they believe to be guilty of crimes.

And one of the biggest problems is the Miranda Sham.  While Miranda was originally conceived as a way of reinforcing our right to not self-incriminate, it's now used as a way of locking in statements, giving a technicality by which judges and juries can toss out witness testimony and ignore conflicting evidence, as long as certain words were uttered to the defendant before they were coerced into confessing.

And the whole thing is a sham.  We have the right to remain silent and if someone doesn't want to confess to a crime, we shouldn't be allowed to pressure them into doing so.  And in all of the cases presented in this study, the defendants were tricked into confessing.  They didn't want to confess and didn't even know the necessary details to confess, but due to their lack of intelligence (and more importantly, lack of lawyer), they inadvertently gave up their right to silence, though they had no intention of doing so.

In one case, one innocent person was not only pressured into confessing, but also pinned the crime on four other people.  Three of the other four also confessed.  The one who didn't had a lawyer.

Lawyers for All

And of course, had they been provided with lawyers, none of them would have confessed. Nor would they have endured lengthy interrogations, often involving lies and abuse. They didn't want to confess, but they didn't know how to not confess. And that's simply not how our system should work. We have the right to remain silent, and that right shouldn't only exist for those with the brains to demand it.  People who are too dumb to refuse to speak without their lawyer are the ones who need a lawyer the most. 

As the article states "In twenty-six of the forty cases—or sixty-five percent—the defendant was either mentally disabled, under eighteen at the time of the offense, or both."  And yet their confessions, without the presence of an attorney, were considered valid, even when experts testified that these individuals lacked the mental ability to understand what they were confessing to.  A schizophrenic who hears the "voice of God" during an interrogation is not a reliable confessor.

And just imagine if the right to bear arms was enforced similarly.  As if you only have that right if you actively pursue obtaining a gun, and the police can lock you up for hours, trying to trick you into giving them your gun; after which you've waived your right to possess it.  And then, during your trial, it's argued that you didn't have the right to bear arms because you had voluntarily waived the right, and therefore broke the law when you possessed a gun you didn't have the right to possess.

And yes, that's ludicrous.  But no more ludicrous than our current system of tricking people into confessing, and then acting as if those coerced confessions are rock-solid evidence that trumps all other evidence.  And this applies to guilty people as much as the innocent.  The right to remain silent isn't just a nicety.  It's a fundamental part of our system, which is why it made it in The Bill of Rights top five. 

If someone truly chooses to waive their rights, that's fine.  But if someone wants to remain silent, we don't have the right to trick them out of it.  That completely negates the whole purpose of having it in the first place.  The Constitution isn't just for the intelligent.

God's Mysterious Ways

A man from Charleston was "hiking the Appalachian Trail" and met quite a few people from Colorado.  He thought this might not be a coincidence and decided to ask God why so many people from Colorado were there, and God apparently told him that he was sending him a sign telling him to go to Denver and work at Tim Tebow's charitable foundation; now that Tebow got drafted by the Denver Broncos.  And so he went to Denver, gave a note to the first Bronco he saw, then stood outside waiting for Tebow; holding a bible verse for Tebow to see.

And no, I'm not making this up.  I read it right here.  Some guy actually believes that God altered the vacation plans of quite a few Coloradoans, just to send him a message.  Sure, you'd think an omnipotent being could find some slightly more direct way of communicating, but I suppose if he really COULD do anything, it'd be just as easy for him to use these mind-manipulating bankshots, as it would be to pick up the phone and tell the guy what to do.  That's what omnipotence is all about.

And seriously, this is a mental illness.  This guy is absolutely bonkers if he thinks the reason all these Coloradoans were hiking the Appalachians was so that God could get this one guy's attention.  After all, God apparently still had to tell this guy what to do, so it seems God could have just spared these people the hassle and just talked to the guy directly.  And what, he's never heard of email?

Of course, I don't mean to disrespect all believers by mocking this guy, as I'm quite certain that this guy isn't representative of all Christians.  But still, this guy's beliefs should give us all pause.  After all, it's a fine line between believing the impossible and being stark raving crazy, making it especially important to stay diligent.  When it comes to the supernatural, even the impossible is possible.  But as we've witnessed in others, it's all too easy to find supernatural explanations to ultra-natural events.

As a side note: The oddest part here is how the reporter could report this news, without trying to warn everyone.  When someone's willing to move cross-country because a supernatural being told them to be close to someone else, it's probably not a good thing.  I don't see this ending well.

Tea Party Punishes Conservatives Again

I'm hoping to say more about this soon, but thought this headline made a point I've been saying since the "Tea Party" began grumbling early last year: Sen. Murkowski's Defeat Marks Major Tea Party Win.

That's right.  The Tea Party taking down a conservative incumbent is a "major win."  As far as Obama and Democrats go, these are the same fruitballs that have been attacking them since the beginning, and this represents no change from before.  No, it's the Republican Party that needs to worry.  The far-far right is on the warpath and only the craziest can survive.  And the crazier they are, the easier it is for us.