I just wanted to repost a comment I made on Facebook, in regards to a discussion on Hell, its pointlessness, and whether or not religious people choose their own beliefs. I personally thought a discussion on the pointlessness of Hell was a bit odd, as pointlessness would be one of the things that made it hell, but decided against making that point. And yeah, you've been reduced to reading my second-hand Facebook postings. Deal with it.
I don't think people pick or choose their religion any more than they choose which foods taste good to them. Nor do I think people accept religions as-is.
I think their religions are a mirror of themselves, and they see the parts that they want to see. The parts that make sense resonate with them, so that's what they focus on, while they ignore the rest. Authoritarians need authority they don't have, so their religion includes an all-powerful god that punishes dissenters forever. But it's not their religion that gave them the hell, it's their personalities which chose to adopt that part of the religion. And they only believe as far as it gives them power over those who don't listen to them.
Other Christians are confident enough to not require a vengeful god, so they don't really focus on that aspect of their religion. They're kind people who prefer a loving Jesus, so that's what their religion is to them. It's not that one group chooses Hell versus Love, it's just that they focus on the part that mirrors their own personality. A loving Christian has more in common with a Buddhist than they do an angry Christian, because it's not the religion that makes them this way. It's their personality that decides how they adopt their religion. I'm sure there are angry Buddhists too. And there's a reason why some Christians say things that sound like they could have come from the Taliban. Yes, they're citing religious texts, but it's not the religion talking.
And that's what we all do. We all seek those things which resonate with us and fit our identity. We see what we want to see. And as long as we realize that we're doing this and train ourselves to know what truly makes us happy, this isn't a problem. It's only a problem when we don't know what we really want, or try to force our preferences on to others. There is an objective reality out there, but until we understand what our biases are, we'll never really see the whole thing.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Donald Douglas Doesn't Know What a Tax Cut Is
As part of my quest to always be right, I make a point of reading people I disagree with, to see if maybe I've missed something. And one of my favorite sources for this is the unesteemable Donald Douglas of the American Power blog, who never had an original thought he didn't get from somebody else. And while it's pointless to ever read Donald's material for his own thoughts (as you won't find any), I find he's a good repository of cutting edge conservative thought (at least as far as that goes).
And so I happened to read his angry post President Obama's Lying About Taxes because Obama claims to have cut taxes for "95% of working Americans." And I was interested in this, as I had heard this claim repeatedly. But then I read Donald's basis for his debunking (which is itself a collection of other people's thoughts), and saw that I was right back where I started.
Apparently, a tax cut isn't a tax cut unless it's a cut in tax rates which goes towards rich people. Anything else is just a "give away," and if middle-class people pay less in taxes, their taxes still weren't cut unless Donald says they were. And sure, if the marginal tax rate for most Americans goes down, it's still a lie, because...well because...well because the WSJ told Donald that it was a lie; and that's good enough for him.
Oddly, much of Donald's evidence comes from a WSJ article written in October 2008; many months before Obama was even president. Donald also cites an American Spectator piece from January 7, 2009, a PolitiFact article that says Obama's telling the truth, and a Heritage Foundation piece saying that Obama will raise taxes on the rich; which was part of Obama's campaign platform.
Brilliant, Donald. All those quotes and not one that proved your point. Perhaps next time, Donald should look into Obama's actual tax policies.
Besides the Point
And after "debunking" Obama's claim by pointing to a ridiculously inaccurate post he had already written, Donald then moves on to items entirely unrelated to his subject; like the bogus claim of the IRS hiring "thousands" of employees to enforce health insurance mandates, bemoaning tax increases for the rich which the Bush Admin had set to expire, as well as hypothetical tax increases which might never happen.
And finally, we have Donald using other people's words to complain about Obama's dreaded deficits, without noting that the tax cuts Donald wants would only make them worse; just as they did when Bush tried that approach. Nor were Bush's raging deficits mentioned at all. Poor, confused Donald. He spends two long blog posts quoting other people's words to show that Obama's lying, but fails to find any lies in what Obama said.
And if you were wanting to learn if Obama's claim to have cut taxes for 95% of working Americans is a lie, you're just going to have to look elsewhere. Donald just hasn't found the person to quote on that one yet.
And so I happened to read his angry post President Obama's Lying About Taxes because Obama claims to have cut taxes for "95% of working Americans." And I was interested in this, as I had heard this claim repeatedly. But then I read Donald's basis for his debunking (which is itself a collection of other people's thoughts), and saw that I was right back where I started.
Apparently, a tax cut isn't a tax cut unless it's a cut in tax rates which goes towards rich people. Anything else is just a "give away," and if middle-class people pay less in taxes, their taxes still weren't cut unless Donald says they were. And sure, if the marginal tax rate for most Americans goes down, it's still a lie, because...well because...well because the WSJ told Donald that it was a lie; and that's good enough for him.
Oddly, much of Donald's evidence comes from a WSJ article written in October 2008; many months before Obama was even president. Donald also cites an American Spectator piece from January 7, 2009, a PolitiFact article that says Obama's telling the truth, and a Heritage Foundation piece saying that Obama will raise taxes on the rich; which was part of Obama's campaign platform.
Brilliant, Donald. All those quotes and not one that proved your point. Perhaps next time, Donald should look into Obama's actual tax policies.
Besides the Point
And after "debunking" Obama's claim by pointing to a ridiculously inaccurate post he had already written, Donald then moves on to items entirely unrelated to his subject; like the bogus claim of the IRS hiring "thousands" of employees to enforce health insurance mandates, bemoaning tax increases for the rich which the Bush Admin had set to expire, as well as hypothetical tax increases which might never happen.
And finally, we have Donald using other people's words to complain about Obama's dreaded deficits, without noting that the tax cuts Donald wants would only make them worse; just as they did when Bush tried that approach. Nor were Bush's raging deficits mentioned at all. Poor, confused Donald. He spends two long blog posts quoting other people's words to show that Obama's lying, but fails to find any lies in what Obama said.
And if you were wanting to learn if Obama's claim to have cut taxes for 95% of working Americans is a lie, you're just going to have to look elsewhere. Donald just hasn't found the person to quote on that one yet.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Those Who Live In Glass Jaws...
Republicans are much too funny. Because their beliefs only make sense if they cherrypick reality and ignore anything that doesn't fit; which is a large majority of everything real. And so, via Memorandum, I see that Republicans are outraged that Obama savagely smeared them.
Witness this "hyperpartisan" abuse from Obama, after nothing that he had cut taxes for 95% of working Americans:
AllahPundit:
The aptly named Scared Monkeys:
Sure, Obama lowered taxes for these people while they continue to imagine that their taxes went up, but it's offensive for Obama to even mention the irony of this. Scared Monkeys went as far as to insist that this shows how Obama can't take criticism. Sure, they bristle at even the most benign of comments on them, but Obama's the sensitive one. Right. They call him a socialist Muslim anti-American intent on destroying the country, while he notes his amusement, and this makes him the jerk.
But as usual, they protest too much. The only reason they found it so offensive was because it was true, and the reason they're so outraged is because they were already outraged and this was the closest justification they could find for explaining that outrage. And so Obama is attacked for being a despot by people who are angered that he's not taking them seriously. To bozos like these, that's the deepest cut of all.
Witness this "hyperpartisan" abuse from Obama, after nothing that he had cut taxes for 95% of working Americans:
So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying, 'Thank you.'Ouch! That's a sting that will be burning for days. He's amused by people who demand lower taxes from someone who already lowered their taxes, and jokes about how they should say "thank you." Naturally, Republicans were stunned by this hateful slam.
AllahPundit:
this may well be the single most obnoxious soundbite he’s uttered since his immortal bitter/clinger bon mot during the campaign.Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau, who equated Obama's comment to calling Tea Partiers "Ungrateful Slugs":
The statement, outrageous in any case, is a sign of a troubling tendency on behalf of the President.Indeed, by expressing amusement, Obama's either a delusional despot or a trash-talker baiting his opponents. Low-grade trash-talk, indeed.
[...]
Could the President have confused himself with a benevolent despot, someone who does whatever he wants and then waits for the plaudits from a sycophantic public?
[...]
At any rate, such low-grade trash-talking is unworthy of his office. In case he doesn't remember, he's supposed to be President of all the people -- not just of those who agree with him.
The aptly named Scared Monkeys:
President Barack Hussein Obama has nothing on Marie Antoinette as The One says to the Tea Party and Americans for that fact, “LET THEM EAT TAXES”.And what did all these outraged Republicans say about the fact that Obama lowered taxes for a huge majority of Americans? Almost nothing. AllahPundit came closest, with his main complaint being that Obama was essentially a liar because he'd have to raise taxes later, while pretending that this is what most Tea Partiers are complaining about. But the rest of these bozos didn't even seem to understand what Obama's remark even meant.
[...]
What President of the United States mocks and makes fun of the people he serves? Do you ever remember a President being so flipped and condescending?
Sure, Obama lowered taxes for these people while they continue to imagine that their taxes went up, but it's offensive for Obama to even mention the irony of this. Scared Monkeys went as far as to insist that this shows how Obama can't take criticism. Sure, they bristle at even the most benign of comments on them, but Obama's the sensitive one. Right. They call him a socialist Muslim anti-American intent on destroying the country, while he notes his amusement, and this makes him the jerk.
But as usual, they protest too much. The only reason they found it so offensive was because it was true, and the reason they're so outraged is because they were already outraged and this was the closest justification they could find for explaining that outrage. And so Obama is attacked for being a despot by people who are angered that he's not taking them seriously. To bozos like these, that's the deepest cut of all.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The AP Strikes Again
I don't know what it is about the Associated Press, but when I see any story with their logo on it, I know the story's got to be crap. This time, I see yet another article telling us how bad things are for Obama and Democrats, because one poll is so heavily against them. You know, because Obama's still the most popular politician in the country, yet not quite as popular as he's been in the past because his approval rating is a dismal 49%, on a poll with a 4.3 point margin of error.
But first off, it's just one poll. One poll which says a third of people are Tea Partiers. A third?? Fox News' recent poll put the number at 19%, while other polls put it at 13%. That alone would suggest that this poll might have skewed just a bit towards conservatives. And if we view the actual poll results, we see a five point shift of Independents leaning from Dem to Repub, and a six-point shift of people identifying as conservatives, taking three points each from moderates and liberals. Either something massive just happened, or this poll is an outlier which leans right.
Oh, and get this: It showed that 31% of people support the Tea Party, yet only 16% say they know much about it. Oh, and only 28% of people have a "favorable" view of the Tea Party, meaning that 3% of them supposedly don't even like the group they're in. At a guess, I think they're asking the wrong question and this poll didn't say what they think it said.
And the poll shows that only 16% said they "strongly agree" with the Tea Party, while the others only "somewhat agree." Methinks 16% is probably the closer figure for true Tea Partiers, with active Tea Partiers being an even smaller group than that. I wonder why the AP didn't mention that. I also wonder if the media will ever realize that many "Independents" are Republicans who prefer to think of themselves as independent.
Tea Partiers for Obama
And check out this absurdist paragraph:
Oh, and for as badly as things are for Democrats, this poll still shows them as being slightly more popular than Republicans, while Dem numbers actually went up. No word yet on when the AP will tell us about how bad this is for Republicans.
But first off, it's just one poll. One poll which says a third of people are Tea Partiers. A third?? Fox News' recent poll put the number at 19%, while other polls put it at 13%. That alone would suggest that this poll might have skewed just a bit towards conservatives. And if we view the actual poll results, we see a five point shift of Independents leaning from Dem to Repub, and a six-point shift of people identifying as conservatives, taking three points each from moderates and liberals. Either something massive just happened, or this poll is an outlier which leans right.
Oh, and get this: It showed that 31% of people support the Tea Party, yet only 16% say they know much about it. Oh, and only 28% of people have a "favorable" view of the Tea Party, meaning that 3% of them supposedly don't even like the group they're in. At a guess, I think they're asking the wrong question and this poll didn't say what they think it said.
And the poll shows that only 16% said they "strongly agree" with the Tea Party, while the others only "somewhat agree." Methinks 16% is probably the closer figure for true Tea Partiers, with active Tea Partiers being an even smaller group than that. I wonder why the AP didn't mention that. I also wonder if the media will ever realize that many "Independents" are Republicans who prefer to think of themselves as independent.
Tea Partiers for Obama
And check out this absurdist paragraph:
And it could get worse for Democrats: One-third of those surveyed consider themselves tea party supporters, and three-quarters of those people are overwhelmingly Republicans or right-leaning independents. That means they are more likely to vote with the GOP in this fall's midterms, when energized base voters will be crucial amid the typical low turnout of a non-presidential election year.Oh, no! Three-Quarters of Tea Partiers might vote Republican!! Whatever can Obama do to win them back? Oh yeah: Nothing. This isn't a separate movement which could go in either direction. These are the hardcore anti-Obama Republicans who chose to call themselves Tea Partiers to show how rebellious they are towards Obama. This isn't getting worse for Democrats. This is where things were before Obama became president. They're not voting with Republicans. They are Republicans.
Oh, and for as badly as things are for Democrats, this poll still shows them as being slightly more popular than Republicans, while Dem numbers actually went up. No word yet on when the AP will tell us about how bad this is for Republicans.
Why Obama Drives Them Bonkers
I feel bad for Republicans. Obama just doesn't give them much to work with. With Clinton, they had a pot-smoking, draft-dodging, lying baby boomer with an insatiable appetite for putang; back when people actually cared about such things. And Clinton loved to make everything about himself, and took delight in making people eat whatever dung they handed to him. If Republicans wanted to talk about welfare reform or taxcuts, by god, Clinton would make that reform and those cuts his. And conservatives cried all the way to the bank.
But Obama's just not like that. Sure, he's got a sense of humor, but he's really all about getting the job done. And that means crafting policies that give his opponents absolutely nothing to work with, and if you make the mistake of criticizing his policies, you'll end up burying yourself in a stupid position that you should have avoided from the start. And you'll convince yourself that it's a real goldmine to propose gas tax holidays and oppose stimulus bills that send millions to your constitutents.
And when the dust settles and you're further behind in the polls than when you started, you'll do something really dumb, like suggest that he beat you because he's black; as if that's always been some trump card. But no, he's just smarter than you. He'll sit back and patiently wait for you to play all your cards, and once you've shown him everything you've got, he'll take whatever cards cards he needs right out of your hand and make another straight flush for himself.
And no, that's not in accordance with the rules of Poker, but Obama's not playing Poker. He's running a country, and while you're fuming about how he's not playing the game properly, he's already on to his next victory.
Conservatives Criticize Nothing
So we get headlines like Michelle Obama Makes First Solo Trip Abroad as First Lady, Draws Criticism from the Right. And I had to click on the article, to see if they finally found the nut they were looking for. But no luck, it was an exagerrated headline by a political writer as frustrated at the Obamas ability to keep clean as Republicans are.
Apparently, the strongest "criticism" they could find was a Michelle Malkin post which criticized Michelle Obama for wanting "shamnesty" for illegal aliens, helping Americans fight obesity, and not helping Arizona ranchers deal with violence on the border. Why should border violence be on the First Lady's agenda? I have no idea, and I doubt Malkin does either. Obama is driving them nuts and this is the best they can do.
And worst of all, they really seem to think they've got something. Post a picture of the First Lady successfully using a hoola-hoop, use senseless "quotes" around a phrase she used, and insult Mexicans a few times. That's got to be a recipe for success, right? And yet...nothing seems to gain traction with the people. How can that be? I mean, it worked so successfully with the Clintons that he's widely regarded as being a great president ten years out of office. So it's got to work with a president who actually knows how to get shit done, right? Right?
And, sad. It's all so sad. Attacking liberals is all they've got and now they've got one who won't even pretend to play along.
But Obama's just not like that. Sure, he's got a sense of humor, but he's really all about getting the job done. And that means crafting policies that give his opponents absolutely nothing to work with, and if you make the mistake of criticizing his policies, you'll end up burying yourself in a stupid position that you should have avoided from the start. And you'll convince yourself that it's a real goldmine to propose gas tax holidays and oppose stimulus bills that send millions to your constitutents.
And when the dust settles and you're further behind in the polls than when you started, you'll do something really dumb, like suggest that he beat you because he's black; as if that's always been some trump card. But no, he's just smarter than you. He'll sit back and patiently wait for you to play all your cards, and once you've shown him everything you've got, he'll take whatever cards cards he needs right out of your hand and make another straight flush for himself.
And no, that's not in accordance with the rules of Poker, but Obama's not playing Poker. He's running a country, and while you're fuming about how he's not playing the game properly, he's already on to his next victory.
Conservatives Criticize Nothing
So we get headlines like Michelle Obama Makes First Solo Trip Abroad as First Lady, Draws Criticism from the Right. And I had to click on the article, to see if they finally found the nut they were looking for. But no luck, it was an exagerrated headline by a political writer as frustrated at the Obamas ability to keep clean as Republicans are.
Apparently, the strongest "criticism" they could find was a Michelle Malkin post which criticized Michelle Obama for wanting "shamnesty" for illegal aliens, helping Americans fight obesity, and not helping Arizona ranchers deal with violence on the border. Why should border violence be on the First Lady's agenda? I have no idea, and I doubt Malkin does either. Obama is driving them nuts and this is the best they can do.
And worst of all, they really seem to think they've got something. Post a picture of the First Lady successfully using a hoola-hoop, use senseless "quotes" around a phrase she used, and insult Mexicans a few times. That's got to be a recipe for success, right? And yet...nothing seems to gain traction with the people. How can that be? I mean, it worked so successfully with the Clintons that he's widely regarded as being a great president ten years out of office. So it's got to work with a president who actually knows how to get shit done, right? Right?
And, sad. It's all so sad. Attacking liberals is all they've got and now they've got one who won't even pretend to play along.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Let He Who Is Without Beliefs Cast The First Stone
There’s a small part of me that resents the concept of religious beliefs, as if some people have thoughts that are more important than my thoughts; which usually involve money and porn. But overall, I accept the idea. After all, these beliefs are supposed to come directly from our creator, which implicitly does make them more important than my own mortal thoughts. Not that I believe in any sort of creator, but I’m willing to accept the premise and don’t disbelieve in any of them, so this is something I’m willing to live with.
But there lies a problem: Once you’ve accepted the premise of religious beliefs, you’re forced to respect EVERYONE’S religious beliefs. Not that you have to believe in them yourself, but you’re stuck with the idea that none of these beliefs are right or wrong, beyond how you personally interpret them. And if you expect people to respect your beliefs, you’re stuck respecting theirs. And then there are the poor suckers like me, who don’t get any special privileges because all our thoughts are mortal, but that’s a separate issue.
And so I find it funny when religious people who expect others to respect their beliefs start tossing issues of morality at the religious beliefs of others. A Catholic wants people to respect his beliefs by banning abortion, yet heaps scorn at a Muslim who keeps his wife hidden behind veils. A Baptist demands that alcohol be illegal, yet scoffs at a Hindu for worshipping cows. And I have a Buddhist Facebook friend (who I really do like) who insists that it's misogynistic for a Catholic hospital to not perform hysterectomies. (I believe that's a position they've now changed, though I'm not sure about that.)
But no, it doesn’t work like that. If we respect the idea that a god or whatever might want things a certain way, then we're stuck admitting that it's not the Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, or Hindu doing these things. It's the god or whatever telling us to do things like that. And hey, who's to say god ISN'T a misogynist? Maybe he really DOES want men to work while woman stay at home, have as many kids as possible, and hide behind veils; and maybe all the feminists are going to Hell. That's up to whoever made us, not us.
And if you blame someone for their religious beliefs, you're basically tossing the entire idea of religion right out the window, and then you don't get to have any religion at all. And so while I think it's logically consistent for atheists to crap on religion and insist that none of these people's beliefs deserve special treatment (an attitude I don't support, btw), religious people are stuck acknowledging that someone else's religious beliefs don't necessarily reflect the views of the person espousing them, but rather, the creator they believe in. After all, if religious beliefs were optional, they'd be pretty damn useless.
Now, that still leaves them room to say that these views are wrong, because they believe in their one true religion. But it does mean you can't blame the person for what they believe. The Catholic Church might be misogynistic, but that's because they think their god wants it that way. You can say their god is wrong, but you can't blame them for repeating the claim. It just doesn't work like that.
If you get to believe in karma, then the Taliban gets to believe that music is evil and Allah loves beards. But once you start thinking that these guys are jerks who are abusing religion as a way of gaining power, then you're already halfway to atheism. And soon enough, you reach the sad conslusion that all your thoughts are mortal thoughts and start reaching for the porn.
But there lies a problem: Once you’ve accepted the premise of religious beliefs, you’re forced to respect EVERYONE’S religious beliefs. Not that you have to believe in them yourself, but you’re stuck with the idea that none of these beliefs are right or wrong, beyond how you personally interpret them. And if you expect people to respect your beliefs, you’re stuck respecting theirs. And then there are the poor suckers like me, who don’t get any special privileges because all our thoughts are mortal, but that’s a separate issue.
And so I find it funny when religious people who expect others to respect their beliefs start tossing issues of morality at the religious beliefs of others. A Catholic wants people to respect his beliefs by banning abortion, yet heaps scorn at a Muslim who keeps his wife hidden behind veils. A Baptist demands that alcohol be illegal, yet scoffs at a Hindu for worshipping cows. And I have a Buddhist Facebook friend (who I really do like) who insists that it's misogynistic for a Catholic hospital to not perform hysterectomies. (I believe that's a position they've now changed, though I'm not sure about that.)
But no, it doesn’t work like that. If we respect the idea that a god or whatever might want things a certain way, then we're stuck admitting that it's not the Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, or Hindu doing these things. It's the god or whatever telling us to do things like that. And hey, who's to say god ISN'T a misogynist? Maybe he really DOES want men to work while woman stay at home, have as many kids as possible, and hide behind veils; and maybe all the feminists are going to Hell. That's up to whoever made us, not us.
And if you blame someone for their religious beliefs, you're basically tossing the entire idea of religion right out the window, and then you don't get to have any religion at all. And so while I think it's logically consistent for atheists to crap on religion and insist that none of these people's beliefs deserve special treatment (an attitude I don't support, btw), religious people are stuck acknowledging that someone else's religious beliefs don't necessarily reflect the views of the person espousing them, but rather, the creator they believe in. After all, if religious beliefs were optional, they'd be pretty damn useless.
Now, that still leaves them room to say that these views are wrong, because they believe in their one true religion. But it does mean you can't blame the person for what they believe. The Catholic Church might be misogynistic, but that's because they think their god wants it that way. You can say their god is wrong, but you can't blame them for repeating the claim. It just doesn't work like that.
If you get to believe in karma, then the Taliban gets to believe that music is evil and Allah loves beards. But once you start thinking that these guys are jerks who are abusing religion as a way of gaining power, then you're already halfway to atheism. And soon enough, you reach the sad conslusion that all your thoughts are mortal thoughts and start reaching for the porn.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
What a Fool Believes
To follow-up my last post, I was reading about wingnut Gregory Giusti and his mother's suggestion that Fox News and other radicals were the likely source for Giusti's anger against Nancy Pelosi, and just wanted to note how weird it is that this isn't happening more.
I mean, if you were to take even half the things these people are saying seriously, why wouldn't you be threatening lawmakers? I mean, if you thought the government was seriously intent on taking our liberties and destroying our country, you shouldn't just threaten lawmakers, but actually attack them. That'd just be self-defense. And if this was really happening, we'd all be joining in, not just conservatives. Because as I've said before, we don't have a different vision of what America should be; just a different set of facts. Fortunately for all of us, the conservative "facts" are wrong.
And that's what puts the lie to Beck, Limbaugh, and their followers; because they're not suggesting we even threaten lawmakers with violence, let alone commit violence against them. It's all just a rhetorical game for them, even for the rubes on the street. Sure, they're angry, but they're angry because that's what they do. And it's only the oddball kook like Giusti who isn't in on the joke and really believes this stuff.
Not that they'd ever admit to not believing it, but deep down, they all know they're playing a game here. And that's why they've forgotten completely how much they hated Clinton when he was president, and now see this commie radical liar as a mainstream figure who had many admirable traits. And by 2026, after the glow of Obama's two terms finally wears off, they'll have another batch of Democrats to hate; not because they believe any of the hype, but because hating Democrats is what they do.
And you'll have a few oddballs, like Giusti and that guy who climbed over the Whitehouse fence to see Clinton, who take the rhetoric a little too seriously and remind us of what someone would do if they really believed any of this nonsense. The rest of them are just looking for something to bitch about.
I mean, if you were to take even half the things these people are saying seriously, why wouldn't you be threatening lawmakers? I mean, if you thought the government was seriously intent on taking our liberties and destroying our country, you shouldn't just threaten lawmakers, but actually attack them. That'd just be self-defense. And if this was really happening, we'd all be joining in, not just conservatives. Because as I've said before, we don't have a different vision of what America should be; just a different set of facts. Fortunately for all of us, the conservative "facts" are wrong.
And that's what puts the lie to Beck, Limbaugh, and their followers; because they're not suggesting we even threaten lawmakers with violence, let alone commit violence against them. It's all just a rhetorical game for them, even for the rubes on the street. Sure, they're angry, but they're angry because that's what they do. And it's only the oddball kook like Giusti who isn't in on the joke and really believes this stuff.
Not that they'd ever admit to not believing it, but deep down, they all know they're playing a game here. And that's why they've forgotten completely how much they hated Clinton when he was president, and now see this commie radical liar as a mainstream figure who had many admirable traits. And by 2026, after the glow of Obama's two terms finally wears off, they'll have another batch of Democrats to hate; not because they believe any of the hype, but because hating Democrats is what they do.
And you'll have a few oddballs, like Giusti and that guy who climbed over the Whitehouse fence to see Clinton, who take the rhetoric a little too seriously and remind us of what someone would do if they really believed any of this nonsense. The rest of them are just looking for something to bitch about.
Small Government Conservatives Heart Big Government
I keep hearing from liberals that conservatives have different goals in mind for America and really are different from us. Like this comment at Washington Monthly:
And if they were right about that, I'd agree with them. It's not that they have a different vision and really want Americans to suffer. It's that they have a different set of facts than we do, and truly believe that "Obamacare" will make things worse, based upon lies they were told about it.
And if they really did have a different vision, then they wouldn't have to believe lies. Fox News would gladly tell them that healthcare in America will improve with Obamacare and they'd still reject it because they don't want healthcare to improve. But they DO want Americans to have good healthcare, and we know this because they'll proudly tell us that we already have the best healthcare. Meanwhile, they've been told that Obamacare involves Death Panels.
They're not rejecting Obama's vision of good healthcare. They're rejecting Death Panels. And again, if they were right, I'd agree with them. So would you. Nobody wants a death panel killing their grandma. Similarly, if they knew what was in the law, they'd support it too, because they want America to have the best healthcare. These aren't differing visions. We all want the same thing. We just have different ideas of how that can be achieved, based upon our understanding of reality.
And finally, after eight years of Bush-Cheney and their rubber-stamp Congress, the idea that anyone could suggest that conservatives hate Big Government is a bit scary. I guess conservatives aren't the only ones who use their own set of facts, truth be damned. Conservatives have no problem with Big Government, just as long as they're the ones in control of the government.
What you don't seem able to understand is that this isn't a debate between two parties which have different visions of how gov't should function. This is a debate between one party with various visions of how gov't should function and one party that wants to see gov't fail. The whole 'drown in a bathtub thing'--that's not just empty talk.But that's simply untrue. Because if they really did have a different vision, then why do they have to lie so much? It's not that they really want people to die for lack of insurance, it's that they truly believe that the free-market is better at this than the government, and imagine that Obama is a socialist who really wants big government for the sake of controlling our lives and ruining our country.
And if they were right about that, I'd agree with them. It's not that they have a different vision and really want Americans to suffer. It's that they have a different set of facts than we do, and truly believe that "Obamacare" will make things worse, based upon lies they were told about it.
And if they really did have a different vision, then they wouldn't have to believe lies. Fox News would gladly tell them that healthcare in America will improve with Obamacare and they'd still reject it because they don't want healthcare to improve. But they DO want Americans to have good healthcare, and we know this because they'll proudly tell us that we already have the best healthcare. Meanwhile, they've been told that Obamacare involves Death Panels.
They're not rejecting Obama's vision of good healthcare. They're rejecting Death Panels. And again, if they were right, I'd agree with them. So would you. Nobody wants a death panel killing their grandma. Similarly, if they knew what was in the law, they'd support it too, because they want America to have the best healthcare. These aren't differing visions. We all want the same thing. We just have different ideas of how that can be achieved, based upon our understanding of reality.
And finally, after eight years of Bush-Cheney and their rubber-stamp Congress, the idea that anyone could suggest that conservatives hate Big Government is a bit scary. I guess conservatives aren't the only ones who use their own set of facts, truth be damned. Conservatives have no problem with Big Government, just as long as they're the ones in control of the government.
The All-Mighty Carter
Wow. They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it looks like conservatives really want to put that to the test.
Apparently, a Qatari diplomat smoked a cigarette in an airplane bathroom, made a stupid joke about trying to light his shoes when someone asked him about the smell of smoke, and got arrested by air marshals for it.
This is enough for conservatives to "know" that this guy is a terrorist who either tried to blow up the plane or was doing a test run for blowing up a plane (because we all know that would-be terrorists always clue people in about their intentions by making jokes about bombs), and Obama and the media will cover all this up because Obama's a Muslim traitor.
Seriously. There are lots of people on that one article who insist that this is the most likely scenario, even though we really DID thwart a terrorist attack a few months ago and Obama was happy to talk about it.
A Superhistorian Named Tony
But those aren't the "little knowledge" people I'm referring to. No, I was writing about a guy named Tony, who wrote a comment on that story "Yup....Obama won't let it be known another of his Muslim brothers got caught despite his increasing efforts to make it easier for them...."
And I assumed that to be a joke, until I saw his reply to someone questioning his comment:
According to Tony's reality, Carter installed Saddam in Iraq, deposed the Shah of Iran, started the Iraq-Iran War (during the midst of his re-election campaign, no less), and somehow started Al Qaeda in an entirely different country over seven years after leaving office, and was even able to convince the Shiite Iranians to turn their country into a "training mecca" for Sunni Al Qaeda. And people say Carter was ineffective.
And damn, this sort of thing would leave even Glenn Beck shaking his head in disbelief. It's like someone gave him a few names, dates, and events and told him to develop a Grand Unification Theory that tied it all back to Jimmy Carter. Honestly, it's this sort of thing that really makes me think our schools should stop covering the colonization of America so much in order to allow them to get to more recent history before the end of the year. But then again, perhaps Tony was home schooled.
Apparently, a Qatari diplomat smoked a cigarette in an airplane bathroom, made a stupid joke about trying to light his shoes when someone asked him about the smell of smoke, and got arrested by air marshals for it.
This is enough for conservatives to "know" that this guy is a terrorist who either tried to blow up the plane or was doing a test run for blowing up a plane (because we all know that would-be terrorists always clue people in about their intentions by making jokes about bombs), and Obama and the media will cover all this up because Obama's a Muslim traitor.
Seriously. There are lots of people on that one article who insist that this is the most likely scenario, even though we really DID thwart a terrorist attack a few months ago and Obama was happy to talk about it.
A Superhistorian Named Tony
But those aren't the "little knowledge" people I'm referring to. No, I was writing about a guy named Tony, who wrote a comment on that story "Yup....Obama won't let it be known another of his Muslim brothers got caught despite his increasing efforts to make it easier for them...."
And I assumed that to be a joke, until I saw his reply to someone questioning his comment:
I sound insane? Obama is agreeing to not use nuclear weapons EVEN if our troops are attacked with bio or chemical weapons? And this is just the first step....He's Jimmy Carter the 2nd....Do a little research and you'll find out it was Carter that is really responsible for enabling the rise of terrorism in the middle east....He's the one who put Saddam Hussein in power! He's the one that allowed Ayatollah's to gain power in Iran.....Were it not for Carter, basically there'd be no Al Queida! He's the same president that went around the world apologizing for the US! sound familiar??Yes, without Carter, there'd be no Al Qaeda. No, that doesn't sound insane at all. And his explanation gets even better.
According to Tony's reality, Carter installed Saddam in Iraq, deposed the Shah of Iran, started the Iraq-Iran War (during the midst of his re-election campaign, no less), and somehow started Al Qaeda in an entirely different country over seven years after leaving office, and was even able to convince the Shiite Iranians to turn their country into a "training mecca" for Sunni Al Qaeda. And people say Carter was ineffective.
And damn, this sort of thing would leave even Glenn Beck shaking his head in disbelief. It's like someone gave him a few names, dates, and events and told him to develop a Grand Unification Theory that tied it all back to Jimmy Carter. Honestly, it's this sort of thing that really makes me think our schools should stop covering the colonization of America so much in order to allow them to get to more recent history before the end of the year. But then again, perhaps Tony was home schooled.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Conservatives Boycott Own Self Interests
The Headline: GM Ready to Repay Govt Loan, Sees Chance of Profit
And if that wasn't clear enough, the lede says it all:
And then there are Republicans, who were assured that this was all part of Obama's evil plot to take over America, and insisted that we boycott GM because "every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise."
In other words, they wanted a giant American company with tons of suppliers and employees to suffer, as well as a huge loss of taxpayer money, simply to punish Obama. Brilliant strategy, guys.
General Tso's Motors
At the 9.12 Project last May, they asked the poignant question: Is General Motors About To Become General Tso’s Motors?
Well, it looks like we now have our answer. Yes, it is. And just as General Tso's Chicken is quite popular and delicious, it looks like General Tso's Motors should be showing a profit and the taxpayers will get their money back. And naturally, all the Tea Partiers were quick to admit the err of their ways and swore to never again let their fevered imaginations get the better of them. Or...not.
Here's a miniscule sampling of Teh Crazy from people responding to an article showing that they were wrong:
Now, you'd think from these comments and the hundreds more just like them that GM had gone under and we had lost all our money. But no, this was a positive news story, yet none of these people seem aware of it, while many continue to demand that we boycott GM in a desperate bid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One commenter apparently believes that Wall Street will reward Ford for not accepting the bailout, as if investors care more about supporting moral victories than making money.
But of course, that is how these people think. Their boycott went against their own interests, but because they wanted Obama to suffer, they supported it. And quite a few of these people insist that we boycott all American cars, and in a mindboggling display of idiocy, offer strong support for Toyota of all things. Toyota?! At a guess, I'd say they're outraged that the government punished Toyota with a heavy fine and feel the need to subsidize the company any way they can.
But that's just how it is with these people. They don't understand the markets. The concept of "Too big to fail" eludes them entirely. Even the idea of saving American jobs is foreign to them. No, all they understand is opposing Obama. They've got an anti-Obama compass that points away from wherever Obama is, and that means they want America to fail while supporting a Japanese carmaker who kills Americans.
Moral Relativity doesn't begin to describe these lunatics.
And if that wasn't clear enough, the lede says it all:
General Motors Co., steadily returning to health after its near-collapse in 2009, said Wednesday it plans to pay off its government loans by June — five years ahead of schedule — and could report a profit as early as this year.Now, any reasonable person would see that and say "yea!" This is clearly good news. First, we're told that the bank bailouts are predicted to turn a profit, and now this. Anyone who loves America would surely see the positive nature of this news and celebrate.
And then there are Republicans, who were assured that this was all part of Obama's evil plot to take over America, and insisted that we boycott GM because "every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise."
In other words, they wanted a giant American company with tons of suppliers and employees to suffer, as well as a huge loss of taxpayer money, simply to punish Obama. Brilliant strategy, guys.
General Tso's Motors
At the 9.12 Project last May, they asked the poignant question: Is General Motors About To Become General Tso’s Motors?
Well, it looks like we now have our answer. Yes, it is. And just as General Tso's Chicken is quite popular and delicious, it looks like General Tso's Motors should be showing a profit and the taxpayers will get their money back. And naturally, all the Tea Partiers were quick to admit the err of their ways and swore to never again let their fevered imaginations get the better of them. Or...not.
Here's a miniscule sampling of Teh Crazy from people responding to an article showing that they were wrong:
Thanks to Naked Marxist Obama's policies...we have the most phoney/idiotic President since Jimmy Carter and he's 10 times worse than President Bush II. Marxist President Obama will be a lame duck after 2010 people!!!Anti-Obama Compass
The GM that made America no longer exists thanks to the UAW. Obama bailed out GM with our tax money so he could give it to the UAW as payback. These socialist liars realize they will never have another chance to kill this country so you had better worry! November can't some soon enough.
The gov't should not be in the car business. Since when has the gov't ever ran anything that would show a profit. Should have let GM fail instead of a bailout.
Dear GOD please let GM fail and shut down for ever so there will be one less Obama government take over company in this country. BOYCOTT ALL GM PRODUCTS.
The bail-out with taxpayer money was money well spent, eh? Nothing is "too big to fail." It is failure and adversity that develops the character and strength necessary to survive. You learn and move forward.
Barack-ski inherited the auto industry problem. But like all the other problems, the solution he chose were all his. What a waste of tax $ to become owners of GM. Helped his precious unions though. He forced GM creditors to take a bad deal, ended up owning the company with the unions and now is forcing GM to build clown cars that nobody wants. Jimmy Carter Part 2.
Now, you'd think from these comments and the hundreds more just like them that GM had gone under and we had lost all our money. But no, this was a positive news story, yet none of these people seem aware of it, while many continue to demand that we boycott GM in a desperate bid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One commenter apparently believes that Wall Street will reward Ford for not accepting the bailout, as if investors care more about supporting moral victories than making money.
But of course, that is how these people think. Their boycott went against their own interests, but because they wanted Obama to suffer, they supported it. And quite a few of these people insist that we boycott all American cars, and in a mindboggling display of idiocy, offer strong support for Toyota of all things. Toyota?! At a guess, I'd say they're outraged that the government punished Toyota with a heavy fine and feel the need to subsidize the company any way they can.
But that's just how it is with these people. They don't understand the markets. The concept of "Too big to fail" eludes them entirely. Even the idea of saving American jobs is foreign to them. No, all they understand is opposing Obama. They've got an anti-Obama compass that points away from wherever Obama is, and that means they want America to fail while supporting a Japanese carmaker who kills Americans.
Moral Relativity doesn't begin to describe these lunatics.
We're All Heroes
I just read the story of the Frenchman who jumped into the East River to save a two-year-old who had fallen into the cold water, and the one thing that really bugs me about these kind of stories is how they act as if there's something truly special about this guy. That's not to diss his act in anyway, but I'm quite convinced that almost anyone would have done the same thing in his place.
The truth is that we're ALL heroes. We ALL want to help people. We ALL would jump into freezing water to save someone. People can be short-sighted and greedy and selfish, and act in ways that hurt others, but that's just because they don't see how else to act. The problem with these people is that they lack the imagination required to think outside their own little sphere, and their acts of selfishness generally backfire and end up hurting them more than if they saw the Big Picture and acted less selflessly. I consider myself to be a VERY selfish person, which is why I treat people well and strive to make the world better, as it benefits me more in the long run.
But all the same, even your most selfish person would surely be the hero when the situation arose. Modern life just doesn't present easy options for people to understand how they can do the right thing, but when you see a toddler in the water or some other dire situation with an obvious requirement, the proper response comes easy. People really do want to do the right thing. They just need to understand how.
The truth is that we're ALL heroes. We ALL want to help people. We ALL would jump into freezing water to save someone. People can be short-sighted and greedy and selfish, and act in ways that hurt others, but that's just because they don't see how else to act. The problem with these people is that they lack the imagination required to think outside their own little sphere, and their acts of selfishness generally backfire and end up hurting them more than if they saw the Big Picture and acted less selflessly. I consider myself to be a VERY selfish person, which is why I treat people well and strive to make the world better, as it benefits me more in the long run.
But all the same, even your most selfish person would surely be the hero when the situation arose. Modern life just doesn't present easy options for people to understand how they can do the right thing, but when you see a toddler in the water or some other dire situation with an obvious requirement, the proper response comes easy. People really do want to do the right thing. They just need to understand how.
Black Conservatives Don't Care About Black People
The AP Headline: Black Conservative Tea Party Backers Take Heat
The Story: Black Republicans are attacked for being Republican, while some are closet conservatives who aren't allowed to speak openly about their beliefs.
The Evidence: Absolutely nothing.
Apparently, the AP couldn't find one person to say, either on the record or off, that black people shouldn't be Tea Partiers. But instead, a platform is given to a bunch of poor rich victims who whine about how they're attacked for being conservative by anonymous people we never learn anything about.
And sure, yeah, there are people who attack black Republicans for being Republican, just as there are racist Republicans who attack Obama for being black. And if the article's point stands that Tea Partiers shouldn't be labeled as racists merely because some are, then it should be assumed that Black Republicans aren't taking a significant amount of heat, even if there are some people who attack them for it.
But no. Tea Partiers aren't inherently racist, but black Republicans are "taking heat" from anonymous people who can't be found. And how much "heat" are they taking? I haven't the foggiest. The article mentions absolutely no harm these successful people have taken for being Republicans, beyond unnamed people asking them questions like "How can you not support the brother?" Ouch!
The Story: Black Republicans are attacked for being Republican, while some are closet conservatives who aren't allowed to speak openly about their beliefs.
The Evidence: Absolutely nothing.
Apparently, the AP couldn't find one person to say, either on the record or off, that black people shouldn't be Tea Partiers. But instead, a platform is given to a bunch of poor rich victims who whine about how they're attacked for being conservative by anonymous people we never learn anything about.
And sure, yeah, there are people who attack black Republicans for being Republican, just as there are racist Republicans who attack Obama for being black. And if the article's point stands that Tea Partiers shouldn't be labeled as racists merely because some are, then it should be assumed that Black Republicans aren't taking a significant amount of heat, even if there are some people who attack them for it.
But no. Tea Partiers aren't inherently racist, but black Republicans are "taking heat" from anonymous people who can't be found. And how much "heat" are they taking? I haven't the foggiest. The article mentions absolutely no harm these successful people have taken for being Republicans, beyond unnamed people asking them questions like "How can you not support the brother?" Ouch!
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Obama: Blowing Republican Minds One at a Time
To hear some liberals tell it, the media is a rightwing mouthpiece completely biased against us. But if you get outside of that construct of victimhood, you can see a more accurate explanation: They just like easy storylines. They're story tellers, and there are few stories better than a good conflict.
Just look back at the coverage during the Olympics and you'll see all of the same storylines we see in politics all the time. It's all about this person "blasting" that person and who's trying to overcome what. Same goes with Tiger Woods and his affair, and any other sports story. Anyone can report scores, these people want dirt. How can we expect these people to properly report policy debates when they don't even find sports interesting unless it's coated in human drama?
And so it's just natural that Republicans are interesting for them. Pitting jerkoff Republicans against do-gooder Democrats is a great story, which is why our political landscape so closely resembles professional wrestling. And that's what's so great about Obama, in that he's capable of changing the story.
First off, in case you hadn't noticed, he's black. And that's an interesting story for a president. Fairly unusual, I understand. Plus, he's cool, but not in a "trying to look cool" sort of way; which is always more cool. But beyond that, he's just a bright guy who's able to see the world in all four dimensions, when everyone else is working in two or three, and can reach through the other two dimensions that most people are lacking and completely tweak everyone's noses without them having the slightest clue how he did it.
And he's not only been able to throw Republicans for a loop, but he's convinced the media that there's a new story going on, and they're happily reporting it. Because they really WANT a new story, but Dems were simply unable to weave one for them that they were willing to repeat. Until now. Sure, yeah, they're still reporting Republican stories too, but...they really like Obama's stories.
Two Blacks in a Pod
And this is all a long way to marvel at the joy of seeing the top Yahoo frontpage story: RNC Chairman Michael Steele says he and Obama have it harder because of their race. And wow, like Steele's not getting roasted in RNC headquarters for that blunder. Even Yahoo's subline was good: "An embattled Michael Steele says he and his frequent foe share obstacles related to race." Yikes! Are we ready for our kumbiya moment yet?
And this is what I saw in a flash back in 2008 when Dodd dropped out of the race and I had to take a cold hard look at the top tier Dems, and spotted the great potential of Obama. This is why he was not only the first politician to make me go to a political rally (which was a great thrill, btw), but to actually make me want to go door-to-door to get out the vote before the Texas primary that year.
Not because I somehow thought we needed a black president and not because he gave good speech. But because he and his team are working at a level that most people can't even comprehend. And all the time that progressives attack him for not insulting Republicans enough, he's making profound changes in the very way our politics work and has done more to help liberalism than any progressive alive.
And all the while the "Tea Partiers" are repeating the same mistakes they made with Clinton, Obama is running circles around them in a way that they can't even comprehend. That's the guy I threw my support behind and he hasn't let me down.
Just look back at the coverage during the Olympics and you'll see all of the same storylines we see in politics all the time. It's all about this person "blasting" that person and who's trying to overcome what. Same goes with Tiger Woods and his affair, and any other sports story. Anyone can report scores, these people want dirt. How can we expect these people to properly report policy debates when they don't even find sports interesting unless it's coated in human drama?
And so it's just natural that Republicans are interesting for them. Pitting jerkoff Republicans against do-gooder Democrats is a great story, which is why our political landscape so closely resembles professional wrestling. And that's what's so great about Obama, in that he's capable of changing the story.
First off, in case you hadn't noticed, he's black. And that's an interesting story for a president. Fairly unusual, I understand. Plus, he's cool, but not in a "trying to look cool" sort of way; which is always more cool. But beyond that, he's just a bright guy who's able to see the world in all four dimensions, when everyone else is working in two or three, and can reach through the other two dimensions that most people are lacking and completely tweak everyone's noses without them having the slightest clue how he did it.
And he's not only been able to throw Republicans for a loop, but he's convinced the media that there's a new story going on, and they're happily reporting it. Because they really WANT a new story, but Dems were simply unable to weave one for them that they were willing to repeat. Until now. Sure, yeah, they're still reporting Republican stories too, but...they really like Obama's stories.
Two Blacks in a Pod
And this is all a long way to marvel at the joy of seeing the top Yahoo frontpage story: RNC Chairman Michael Steele says he and Obama have it harder because of their race. And wow, like Steele's not getting roasted in RNC headquarters for that blunder. Even Yahoo's subline was good: "An embattled Michael Steele says he and his frequent foe share obstacles related to race." Yikes! Are we ready for our kumbiya moment yet?
And this is what I saw in a flash back in 2008 when Dodd dropped out of the race and I had to take a cold hard look at the top tier Dems, and spotted the great potential of Obama. This is why he was not only the first politician to make me go to a political rally (which was a great thrill, btw), but to actually make me want to go door-to-door to get out the vote before the Texas primary that year.
Not because I somehow thought we needed a black president and not because he gave good speech. But because he and his team are working at a level that most people can't even comprehend. And all the time that progressives attack him for not insulting Republicans enough, he's making profound changes in the very way our politics work and has done more to help liberalism than any progressive alive.
And all the while the "Tea Partiers" are repeating the same mistakes they made with Clinton, Obama is running circles around them in a way that they can't even comprehend. That's the guy I threw my support behind and he hasn't let me down.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Impossible Burden of Proof
Alan Colmes, the former Elmer Fudd of Fox News, interviewed Dr. Jack Cassell, the Orlando urologist who told his Obama-loving patients to go elsewhere, and guess what: Colmes discovered that Dr. Cassell doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
When Colmes corrected a claim that Dr. Cassell made regarding healthcare reform, the doctor admitted his ignorance and had the gall to blame proponents of the bill for this, giving us this exchange:
Opponents Oppose, Always
And this is the same oddball claim that I heard repeatedly from opponents of the bill, on both the right and left. Apparently, they fail to understand that the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim, not just the supporter of the thing under discussion. And if you can't prove your claim, you don't get to make one. Ignorance isn't an excuse for just making shit up.
And I got the same thing from commenter Tlaloc at Washington Monthly, who imagined that I had to explain exactly how the insurance exchanges will work to his satisfaction before he'd stop insisting that proponents were lying for saying they'd work. I kept telling the guy that I wasn't an expert and suggested he research this stuff himself, but he insisted that because I was the proponent that I had to do all the research and he wouldn't do my homework for me. Even now, he still insists that the exchanges can't possibly work, simply because he doesn't know anything about them.
But no, if you make a claim, you have to support that claim. And if you don't know enough to support your claim, you shouldn't be making it. That's just how it works. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. It's only wrong when you insist your ignorance is knowledge and attack anyone for disagreeing.
When Colmes corrected a claim that Dr. Cassell made regarding healthcare reform, the doctor admitted his ignorance and had the gall to blame proponents of the bill for this, giving us this exchange:
Colmes: If you can’t tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?Indeed. It's as if only proponents of something have to know what they're talking about, while opponents are given free rein to say whatever the hell they want, until they're satisfied that the proponents have explained things well enough. And of course, the bar is set so high that you'd need a time machine to show them what healthcare will look like in twenty years before they'll even begin to contemplate that they may have been mistaken. Merely quoting the bill, explaining what it means, and citing experts will never suffice.
Cassell: I’m not the guy who wrote the plan.
Colmes: But if you don’t know what the deal is why are you speaking out against something you don’t know what the deal is?
Cassell: What I get online, just like any other American. What I’m supposed to understand about the bill should be available to me.
Opponents Oppose, Always
And this is the same oddball claim that I heard repeatedly from opponents of the bill, on both the right and left. Apparently, they fail to understand that the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim, not just the supporter of the thing under discussion. And if you can't prove your claim, you don't get to make one. Ignorance isn't an excuse for just making shit up.
And I got the same thing from commenter Tlaloc at Washington Monthly, who imagined that I had to explain exactly how the insurance exchanges will work to his satisfaction before he'd stop insisting that proponents were lying for saying they'd work. I kept telling the guy that I wasn't an expert and suggested he research this stuff himself, but he insisted that because I was the proponent that I had to do all the research and he wouldn't do my homework for me. Even now, he still insists that the exchanges can't possibly work, simply because he doesn't know anything about them.
But no, if you make a claim, you have to support that claim. And if you don't know enough to support your claim, you shouldn't be making it. That's just how it works. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. It's only wrong when you insist your ignorance is knowledge and attack anyone for disagreeing.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
CensusMyth.Garbage
While researching my last post, I happened upon a website at censusfact.info, which asks the burning question: How much information are you really required to give?
And of course, as I mentioned in that last post, the Constitution is clear that the government is required to hold a census every ten years "in such manner as they shall by law direct." And as I pointed out, the census law clearly states that you have to answer every question truthfully or be fined. So the answer to the question of how much info you're really required to give should be relatively simple: Everything they ask for.
But apparently, that approach is just a little too straight forward for the folks at censusfacts, as they not only ignore the law governing the issue, they don't even cite the sentence from the Constitution which mentions the census. That's right, they wrote an entire piece on the constitutionality of the Census, but failed to see what the actual constitution says about it.
Apparently, there's another approach to conveying facts than the one the rest of us use, which doesn't involve the use of any relevant facts. How interesting.
Noah Webster's Constitution
Not that they're immune to the concept of citations, as they do manage to quote Webster's Dictionary on the meaning of the word "census." And because that dictionary says that a "census" involves counting people, that's apparently the limit to what a census can possibly be and anything beyond that must be unconstitutional.
And sure, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law defines it as:
a periodic governmental count of a population that usually includes social and economic information (as occupations, ages, and incomes)
But that's just a liberal activist dictionary, as are all the other dictionaries that say the same thing. That's why censusfacts went old school, citing Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828. Because that's the way our Founding Fathers would have wanted it. Who needs a law degree when I can just use an old dictionary instead?
Down the Rabbit Hole
From there, the website takes an odd turn. They mention the Title 13 law which says that we're required to answer all the questions, but insists that since "the rule governing statutory construction requires that we do not construe a statute so strictly as to render it unconstitutional," that the law couldn't possibly demand this other information, because it would violate the Constitution.
Yet...nothing in the Constitution limits the Census to only performing a simple headcount; but rather says that Congress will decide what the Census will be, so there is no violation here. And they'd have known that if they bothered reading the Constitution they keep talking about. But instead, they're relying upon Noah Webster's narrow definition as being a legal substitute for the Constitution, and because Webster didn't say the Census could collect other data, the law can't say otherwise; even if it absolutely does.
From there, they walk to the All-Mighty 10th Amendment, which sits alongside the 2nd Amendment in the conservative pantheon as being the only parts of the Constitution that count, to declare that Title 13 couldn't be valid because the Constitution doesn't outright say that they can collect this other information; even though the Constitution clearly says that this law is within the powers of Congress.
But no matter, that part of the Constitution isn't in the 2nd or 10th Amendments, so it doesn't count.
Census in Wonderland
And so censusfacts gleefully declares:
Therefore, if a census taker comes to your door and you get fined $100, rather than answering the questions or paying the small fee, "You can challenge the fine on the basis of the 10th Amendment and be on solid legal ground."
That's right. Solid legal footing which ignores the Constitution and the law, but instead involves a 180-year old dictionary, total ignorance of constitutional law, and a complete disregard for common sense. Armed with that, you need to "resist the encroaching onslaught of socialism" and take "responsibility for the legacy of freedom that we leave our descendants."
Because there is no greater infringement of freedom than to allow the government to know your name, the type of home you live in, or the color of your skin. They're going to have to guess, just like everyone else.
And of course, as I mentioned in that last post, the Constitution is clear that the government is required to hold a census every ten years "in such manner as they shall by law direct." And as I pointed out, the census law clearly states that you have to answer every question truthfully or be fined. So the answer to the question of how much info you're really required to give should be relatively simple: Everything they ask for.
But apparently, that approach is just a little too straight forward for the folks at censusfacts, as they not only ignore the law governing the issue, they don't even cite the sentence from the Constitution which mentions the census. That's right, they wrote an entire piece on the constitutionality of the Census, but failed to see what the actual constitution says about it.
Apparently, there's another approach to conveying facts than the one the rest of us use, which doesn't involve the use of any relevant facts. How interesting.
Noah Webster's Constitution
Not that they're immune to the concept of citations, as they do manage to quote Webster's Dictionary on the meaning of the word "census." And because that dictionary says that a "census" involves counting people, that's apparently the limit to what a census can possibly be and anything beyond that must be unconstitutional.
And sure, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law defines it as:
a periodic governmental count of a population that usually includes social and economic information (as occupations, ages, and incomes)
But that's just a liberal activist dictionary, as are all the other dictionaries that say the same thing. That's why censusfacts went old school, citing Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828. Because that's the way our Founding Fathers would have wanted it. Who needs a law degree when I can just use an old dictionary instead?
Down the Rabbit Hole
From there, the website takes an odd turn. They mention the Title 13 law which says that we're required to answer all the questions, but insists that since "the rule governing statutory construction requires that we do not construe a statute so strictly as to render it unconstitutional," that the law couldn't possibly demand this other information, because it would violate the Constitution.
Yet...nothing in the Constitution limits the Census to only performing a simple headcount; but rather says that Congress will decide what the Census will be, so there is no violation here. And they'd have known that if they bothered reading the Constitution they keep talking about. But instead, they're relying upon Noah Webster's narrow definition as being a legal substitute for the Constitution, and because Webster didn't say the Census could collect other data, the law can't say otherwise; even if it absolutely does.
From there, they walk to the All-Mighty 10th Amendment, which sits alongside the 2nd Amendment in the conservative pantheon as being the only parts of the Constitution that count, to declare that Title 13 couldn't be valid because the Constitution doesn't outright say that they can collect this other information; even though the Constitution clearly says that this law is within the powers of Congress.
But no matter, that part of the Constitution isn't in the 2nd or 10th Amendments, so it doesn't count.
Census in Wonderland
And so censusfacts gleefully declares:
Having established that federal government may not legitimately expand their census inquries beyond enumerating the people in the districts, we shall now see how our courts have treated the issue.And what do they find? A state appellette court from 1897 which declared that the Republic of Hawaii couldn't make a census of wealth, and a case from 1971 which said that the Census was constitutional. But we're informed that this second case was "completely irrelevant", because it didn't cover the specific issue of constitutional authority, and instead stated that the law wasn't vague and wasn't an invasion of privacy. So it should be assumed that the law is unconstitutional because no case has said that it wasn't.
Therefore, if a census taker comes to your door and you get fined $100, rather than answering the questions or paying the small fee, "You can challenge the fine on the basis of the 10th Amendment and be on solid legal ground."
That's right. Solid legal footing which ignores the Constitution and the law, but instead involves a 180-year old dictionary, total ignorance of constitutional law, and a complete disregard for common sense. Armed with that, you need to "resist the encroaching onslaught of socialism" and take "responsibility for the legacy of freedom that we leave our descendants."
Because there is no greater infringement of freedom than to allow the government to know your name, the type of home you live in, or the color of your skin. They're going to have to guess, just like everyone else.
Friday, April 02, 2010
The Evil Obama Census
While it's expected for conservatives to reflexively oppose healthcare reform and other liberalish policies, it's downright hilarious when they start attacking entirely innocuous issues, like the Census. For whatever reason, conservatives HATE the Census. Sure, yes, the Census is constitutionally mandated, but with Obama in charge of it, nothing can be taken for granted, and it should be assumed that he's up to no good.
So what's their big complaint? While they're upset about any question beyond a basic headcount, their primary complaint is that it asks about race. That's right. Because the Census requests that people identify their race, it's a deplorable trick that must be vanquished. After all, conservatives are now "color blind" and see no distinction between the races, while anyone who acknowledges race is a racist who is trying to hurt white people; and that includes the Census, which only started asking about race a mere two hundred and twenty years ago.
You see, that's what color blindness is all about these days: Protecting white people from all those lazy non-whites trying to hurt them all the time.
Sampling teh Crazy
Here's a sample of crazy, from just one post at RedState in which a hapless Republican congressman from North Carolina futilely attempts to persuade conservatives to fill-in their census forms, and is roundly ignored by almost every commenter.
Another commenter took the long view and reasoned that since scientists say that the human race started in Africa, we're all African-Americans, while also saying he's a "Native American" because he was born here. Somehow, it didn't occur to these geniuses that these are just labels for the various races and aren't to be taken literally. I suppose they also object to being called caucasians, because they never lived in the Caucasus.
Ignoring the Constitution
One guy actually suggests that because the original purpose of the Census is no longer applicable, it's ok for us to simply ignore that part of the Constitution:
In fact, ignoring the Constitution was a regular theme for these people. Apparently, the Constitution is an unbreakable rulebook which forbids Congress from doing practically anything, except for the parts they don't like, in which case it's really more of a set of guidelines than actual rules.
Like the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. Sure, it explictly states that Congress can write any laws it needs in order to fulfill its duties, but since it undermines their belief that the government is limited to only the rules explictly written in the Constitution, it doesn't count. Same goes for the Commerce Clause, which simply doesn't exist.
The Punchline
And of course, the punchline is that the Constitution doesn't mandate any of this. It's Title 13 of the United States Code that mandates that we send in our census forms, while the Constitution explictly states that Congress can do this, saying (emphasis added):
And what does the law say about filling out the census form?
Shooting Their Own Feet
So let's see, the Constitution requires the Federal Government to take a census in accordance to whatever law Congress passes, and the law Congress passed mandates that everyone answer the Census accurately or be fined. That sounds pretty damn clear to me. And what's the argument against filling out the census? I haven't the foggiest. For as insistent as these people are that Obama's census is horrible, they never bother explaining what the exact problem is.
At best, they allude to some issue with social programs, but never get around to explaining how it could possibly benefit them to not tell the government they're white. Perhaps they think ACORN will use it to round up all the white people and enslave them, I don't know. But that's not their main beef. Their main beef is simply that anything Obama does is horrible and unconstitutional, and that includes the Census.
As a reminder, they also hated Clinton's Census in 2000. Back then, their main complaint was about the dreaded long form, as well as the evils of statistical sampling; neither of which are issues this time around. Yet, while the complaints are different, the opposition is the same. Because again, this isn't about the Constitution or enumeration or Obama; they just oppose anything Democrats do, no matter what.
And rather than ending the cruel practice of keeping tabs on our nation's racial make-up, all their protest will do is deflate the number of whites in this country, while setting them up to be fined for non-compliance and getting a visit from a census worker; all of which will cost them more money. Way to go, douchebags. And of course, now that it's obvious that the Constitution demands a census and supports the law that makes compliance mandatory, conservatives can be expected to comply fully, having had their criticisms answered.
Or...not. Because again, this isn't about race or the Constitution or the Census or Obama. It's about there being a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Everything else is a sideshow.
So what's their big complaint? While they're upset about any question beyond a basic headcount, their primary complaint is that it asks about race. That's right. Because the Census requests that people identify their race, it's a deplorable trick that must be vanquished. After all, conservatives are now "color blind" and see no distinction between the races, while anyone who acknowledges race is a racist who is trying to hurt white people; and that includes the Census, which only started asking about race a mere two hundred and twenty years ago.
You see, that's what color blindness is all about these days: Protecting white people from all those lazy non-whites trying to hurt them all the time.
Sampling teh Crazy
Here's a sample of crazy, from just one post at RedState in which a hapless Republican congressman from North Carolina futilely attempts to persuade conservatives to fill-in their census forms, and is roundly ignored by almost every commenter.
"Sir, the only questions I object to on my on my census form are those dealing with race and culture. If we are all created equal, why does it matter what race I am or what culture I look to?"That last one, by the way, was the preferred response to the race question, by pretending that their nationality is a race; with at least six people saying that's how they'll fill it out. Others preferred to list themselves as "human," though there are some doubts as to that claim.
"I agree that the race question is offensive. I have filled out my form completely, although reluctantly."
"By all means, all conservative should fill out and return the census forms for enumeration purposes. After that I do not concur on the Constitutional mandate for completing the form."
"I’m not turning my data over to ACORN census takers. The extra data obviously only exists for some some social program overtones."
"There’s no way in hell that one’s race should constitutionally be a factor in doing that (not that the activists on the courts haven’t required it). Nor does one’s age or in what kind of structure they reside have any relevance to COUNTING."
"Maybe I’m just paranoid. Maybe I’m tired of being called a racist every time I oppose something Obama does. Maybe I don’t want those same people who call me a racist be the ones who decide what they are going to do based on my race."
"I for one will be going the “American” route. I will probably fill out the rest accurately, however I will not contribute to the continued race discrimination that our government happily encourages and participates in."
Another commenter took the long view and reasoned that since scientists say that the human race started in Africa, we're all African-Americans, while also saying he's a "Native American" because he was born here. Somehow, it didn't occur to these geniuses that these are just labels for the various races and aren't to be taken literally. I suppose they also object to being called caucasians, because they never lived in the Caucasus.
Ignoring the Constitution
One guy actually suggests that because the original purpose of the Census is no longer applicable, it's ok for us to simply ignore that part of the Constitution:
The reason for the census was done away with when representation was locked into the 435 member House of Representatives and 100 Senators. The enumeration included in the census for 3/5 persons was for the purpose of representation. If that part of the reasoning behind the census has been done away with, why comply with that constitutional mandate since it is now useless?And here's a guy who suggests that it's ok to ignore the Constitution because liberals do the same thing:
Taking the moral high ground and strictly following the constitution are all well and good, and I advocate both when possible, but it’s this kind of logic that has pinned our backs against the wall. I don’t condone skirting the constitution for political gain, but when the opposition brazenly uses such tactics to advance their agenda I think we should reciprocate accordingly.Yes, the Constitution is now optional, and can be ignored if you think its inconvenient.
In fact, ignoring the Constitution was a regular theme for these people. Apparently, the Constitution is an unbreakable rulebook which forbids Congress from doing practically anything, except for the parts they don't like, in which case it's really more of a set of guidelines than actual rules.
Like the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. Sure, it explictly states that Congress can write any laws it needs in order to fulfill its duties, but since it undermines their belief that the government is limited to only the rules explictly written in the Constitution, it doesn't count. Same goes for the Commerce Clause, which simply doesn't exist.
The Punchline
And of course, the punchline is that the Constitution doesn't mandate any of this. It's Title 13 of the United States Code that mandates that we send in our census forms, while the Constitution explictly states that Congress can do this, saying (emphasis added):
The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years in such manner as they shall by law direct.And these dopes would know that if they bothered reading the post they were responding to, as Representative McHenry stated that outright, quoting the Constitution and explaining what it meant. But because conservtives don't like that, they're forced to ignore that part of the Constitution and pretend that the Constitution limits the census to enumeration, because they can't be bothered to read the rest of that sentence.
And what does the law say about filling out the census form?
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects...to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey...shall be fined not more than $100.Oops!
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
Shooting Their Own Feet
So let's see, the Constitution requires the Federal Government to take a census in accordance to whatever law Congress passes, and the law Congress passed mandates that everyone answer the Census accurately or be fined. That sounds pretty damn clear to me. And what's the argument against filling out the census? I haven't the foggiest. For as insistent as these people are that Obama's census is horrible, they never bother explaining what the exact problem is.
At best, they allude to some issue with social programs, but never get around to explaining how it could possibly benefit them to not tell the government they're white. Perhaps they think ACORN will use it to round up all the white people and enslave them, I don't know. But that's not their main beef. Their main beef is simply that anything Obama does is horrible and unconstitutional, and that includes the Census.
As a reminder, they also hated Clinton's Census in 2000. Back then, their main complaint was about the dreaded long form, as well as the evils of statistical sampling; neither of which are issues this time around. Yet, while the complaints are different, the opposition is the same. Because again, this isn't about the Constitution or enumeration or Obama; they just oppose anything Democrats do, no matter what.
And rather than ending the cruel practice of keeping tabs on our nation's racial make-up, all their protest will do is deflate the number of whites in this country, while setting them up to be fined for non-compliance and getting a visit from a census worker; all of which will cost them more money. Way to go, douchebags. And of course, now that it's obvious that the Constitution demands a census and supports the law that makes compliance mandatory, conservatives can be expected to comply fully, having had their criticisms answered.
Or...not. Because again, this isn't about race or the Constitution or the Census or Obama. It's about there being a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Everything else is a sideshow.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Final Post
Guess what folks, my time as “Doctor Biobrain” has come to an end. This is my final post. While I have enjoyed being Biobrain for the past five years, the truth is that I was little more than a paid staffer of the Obama campaign. And now that Obama has gotten healthcare reform and a few other liberal red meat items passed and is preparing for his long hard slog back to the center, my mission is complete. I’ve been tapering off the writing lately and now it’s over. Biobrain has ended.
As of today, I’m closing more than a hundred liberal blogs I’ve been writing for over the years, while I begin to ramp-up the various rightwing blogs I’ve kept on the backburner. By this time next year, I hope to be a myriad of influential fourth-tier tea party bloggers who decide to give Obama a second chance, based upon his support of certain key rightwing issues; beginning with yesterday's announcement of expanded offshore oil drilling, as well as his support for school vouchers, a balanced budget amendment, and a partial privatization of Social Security similar to the one proposed by Bush in 2005. Our analysis suggests that we’ll gain three conservatives for every liberal we lose from this, which is certainly a price we’re willing to pay.
Sorry if this upsets you. I had thought about not mentioning it at all and just letting this place die, but I figured I at least owed you the truth. And hey, it’s been fun and I really did enjoy reading your comments. And who knows, maybe you’ll stumble upon one of my rightwing blogs, notice a few similarities in writing style, and become a regular there. Trust me, the material’s about the same. It’s just the slant that’s different. And honestly, you couldn’t have thought that anyone could REALLY be as enthusiastic about Obama as I seemed to be, did you? I mean, come on. I was practically writing press releases for the guy. If you can find one word of criticism of Obama anywhere on this blog, you win a free Biobrain t-shirt.
Anyway, I hope you liked what you read and that this doesn’t disillusion you too much of Obama. No, he’s not really the Superman we’ve been making him out to be. Nor is he liberal in any real sense of the word. But he’s the Democrat and your boat is tied to his, so you’ve really got no other choice than to support him or sink with him. And that’s pretty much how I rationalized the work I was doing. Sure, it was on the wrong side of moral, but at least the intent was good. You’ve got to give me that.
Biobrain is dead. Long live Biobrain.
As of today, I’m closing more than a hundred liberal blogs I’ve been writing for over the years, while I begin to ramp-up the various rightwing blogs I’ve kept on the backburner. By this time next year, I hope to be a myriad of influential fourth-tier tea party bloggers who decide to give Obama a second chance, based upon his support of certain key rightwing issues; beginning with yesterday's announcement of expanded offshore oil drilling, as well as his support for school vouchers, a balanced budget amendment, and a partial privatization of Social Security similar to the one proposed by Bush in 2005. Our analysis suggests that we’ll gain three conservatives for every liberal we lose from this, which is certainly a price we’re willing to pay.
Sorry if this upsets you. I had thought about not mentioning it at all and just letting this place die, but I figured I at least owed you the truth. And hey, it’s been fun and I really did enjoy reading your comments. And who knows, maybe you’ll stumble upon one of my rightwing blogs, notice a few similarities in writing style, and become a regular there. Trust me, the material’s about the same. It’s just the slant that’s different. And honestly, you couldn’t have thought that anyone could REALLY be as enthusiastic about Obama as I seemed to be, did you? I mean, come on. I was practically writing press releases for the guy. If you can find one word of criticism of Obama anywhere on this blog, you win a free Biobrain t-shirt.
Anyway, I hope you liked what you read and that this doesn’t disillusion you too much of Obama. No, he’s not really the Superman we’ve been making him out to be. Nor is he liberal in any real sense of the word. But he’s the Democrat and your boat is tied to his, so you’ve really got no other choice than to support him or sink with him. And that’s pretty much how I rationalized the work I was doing. Sure, it was on the wrong side of moral, but at least the intent was good. You’ve got to give me that.
Biobrain is dead. Long live Biobrain.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Anything Can Happen
The scariest part of the Bush presidency is that he really WAS in charge. He really DID call the shots. Sure, they fed him fake information and only told him what they wanted him to hear, but all the same, he really WAS the Decider. We know this is true. Watch "W" and you'll see exactly how they worked. They had to convince Bush to do things. He really was running the show.
America wasn't run by some shadowy cabal. Our lives were in the hands of that stupid stupid man. That's far scarier than any New World Order. People believe in gods and conspiracies because they're more comforting than the truth: Anything can happen, anyone can die, and no one's really in charge. Scary as it is, that's the truth. Crazy Muslims can crash your plane, a lone man can kill the president, and a man like Bush can become president. That's reality and there's nothing you can do about it.
Anti-government conspiracies are meant to bring order from chaos and make sense of the random events occurring around us. But there is no conspiracy. No one's really in control. This shit is real. And the best advice is to just get stoned and not worry too much about it, as there's really nothing you can do to fix it. Just roll with the punches and try not to get taken by surprise. That's the most you can hope for. Anything else is futile.
Oh yeah, and thank the stars we finally got a real president who understands what the hell's going on.
America wasn't run by some shadowy cabal. Our lives were in the hands of that stupid stupid man. That's far scarier than any New World Order. People believe in gods and conspiracies because they're more comforting than the truth: Anything can happen, anyone can die, and no one's really in charge. Scary as it is, that's the truth. Crazy Muslims can crash your plane, a lone man can kill the president, and a man like Bush can become president. That's reality and there's nothing you can do about it.
Anti-government conspiracies are meant to bring order from chaos and make sense of the random events occurring around us. But there is no conspiracy. No one's really in control. This shit is real. And the best advice is to just get stoned and not worry too much about it, as there's really nothing you can do to fix it. Just roll with the punches and try not to get taken by surprise. That's the most you can hope for. Anything else is futile.
Oh yeah, and thank the stars we finally got a real president who understands what the hell's going on.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Bad Sources
One of the biggest problems we face right now is that too many people consider the internet to be an illegitimate source of information, while imagining television, radio, and print news to be properly fact checked. And so you have people who repeat third-hand claims they got from Fox News, and who refuse to acknowledge any fact that came from the internet. And even when you point out that blogs cite links to support their claims, while Fox News doesn't, you're still assured that blogs are unreliable and Fox News is properly fact checked.
And the oddest part of all: They trust chain-emails most of all, and truly believe that whatever expert purports to sign his name to the bottom of the email is truly the person who wrote the email, and that they're expertise is absolutely unquestionable. So while Bill O'Reilly's claims trump anything you could read on a blog, emails attributed to Dr. Expert are the best sources of information.
Needless to say, this is all completely backwards, which explains why these people are so seriously misinformed. And no, it doesn't help when I show them the ease it is to fact check a claim yourself. They still prefer Fox News' mythical fact checkers over doing the work themselves.
And the oddest part of all: They trust chain-emails most of all, and truly believe that whatever expert purports to sign his name to the bottom of the email is truly the person who wrote the email, and that they're expertise is absolutely unquestionable. So while Bill O'Reilly's claims trump anything you could read on a blog, emails attributed to Dr. Expert are the best sources of information.
Needless to say, this is all completely backwards, which explains why these people are so seriously misinformed. And no, it doesn't help when I show them the ease it is to fact check a claim yourself. They still prefer Fox News' mythical fact checkers over doing the work themselves.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Spring Break for Biobrain
Speaking to relatives, I discovered that the top reasons why Obama's healthcare reform is bad is because:
1) It forces poor people to get insurance they can't afford.
2) Poor people shouldn't get their insurance paid for.
3) People need to take responsibility and get insurance.
4) Socialized Medicine.
And somehow, they fail to see how the first three of these are mutually contradictory, while the fourth expresses a complete lack of knowledge on the issue at hand. And you end up going round and round, with each of their questions answering the last, and then getting back to square one, and they still refuse to understand what you're talking about; and will insist that everyone should pay for insurance that they can't afford while retaining the choice of not having insurance at all. And the only thing worse than allowing insurers to continue to screw us is allowing the government to protect us from the insurers. Or...something like that.
And the best, the best are the ones who still insist that nobody understands the bill, even though I continue to explain it to them in detail. And after I'm done, I'm told yet again that nobody understands the bill. And it's still too soon. The same people who said we were rushing things in August are still saying we're rushing things now. And I point out that they said the same thing half a year ago, and ask them how much longer this needs to take; and am told that it's just going too fast. They even remember that some of these provisions don't even start until 2014, yet still we're told it's too soon.
And it's obvious that they're completely out of material. Fox News did them such a disservice by keeping them in the dark that they haven't the slightest clue as to where a valid criticism might possibly begin. I'm trying to explain Insurance Exchanges to them, while they keep rattling off about Death Panels. Death Panels?! No, they didn't use the word, but they insisted that this was in the bill and all our care will be rationed, and illegal aliens don't have to pay taxes, and it's all happening too soon.
But it looks like the thing's going to pass, so I felt it was at least my duty to try to explain to them what it is that we're about to get. And in a few years, they'll still be opposing a healthcare plan that never existed, while participating in a healthcare system that works better than anticipated. And yes, this is what I do on Spring Break.
1) It forces poor people to get insurance they can't afford.
2) Poor people shouldn't get their insurance paid for.
3) People need to take responsibility and get insurance.
4) Socialized Medicine.
And somehow, they fail to see how the first three of these are mutually contradictory, while the fourth expresses a complete lack of knowledge on the issue at hand. And you end up going round and round, with each of their questions answering the last, and then getting back to square one, and they still refuse to understand what you're talking about; and will insist that everyone should pay for insurance that they can't afford while retaining the choice of not having insurance at all. And the only thing worse than allowing insurers to continue to screw us is allowing the government to protect us from the insurers. Or...something like that.
And the best, the best are the ones who still insist that nobody understands the bill, even though I continue to explain it to them in detail. And after I'm done, I'm told yet again that nobody understands the bill. And it's still too soon. The same people who said we were rushing things in August are still saying we're rushing things now. And I point out that they said the same thing half a year ago, and ask them how much longer this needs to take; and am told that it's just going too fast. They even remember that some of these provisions don't even start until 2014, yet still we're told it's too soon.
And it's obvious that they're completely out of material. Fox News did them such a disservice by keeping them in the dark that they haven't the slightest clue as to where a valid criticism might possibly begin. I'm trying to explain Insurance Exchanges to them, while they keep rattling off about Death Panels. Death Panels?! No, they didn't use the word, but they insisted that this was in the bill and all our care will be rationed, and illegal aliens don't have to pay taxes, and it's all happening too soon.
But it looks like the thing's going to pass, so I felt it was at least my duty to try to explain to them what it is that we're about to get. And in a few years, they'll still be opposing a healthcare plan that never existed, while participating in a healthcare system that works better than anticipated. And yes, this is what I do on Spring Break.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Why Progressives Should Embrace Reform
The biggest problem for healthcare reform advocates has been that there was no actual plan, as the whole thing was in flux and anything could change. So we had nothing to defend. Meanwhile, opponents could cite anything they wanted, from a vague passage being debated to something they invented in their fevered imaginations, and insist that this was a deal breaker that should stop the discussion immediately.
And so reform was easy to attack and impossible to defend. But, that's just the nature of the beast, and no, it wouldn't have helped if Obama had brought down a plan from Mount Sinai and attempted to do whatever it is progressives think Bush did to strong-arm things when he was in office. Because Bush spent all his political capital pushing popular bills through Congress, like war and taxcuts, while his unpopular privatization scheme completely derailed his presidency. As it turns out, getting things done in Congress is difficult.
But now that we've got a good idea what we're getting and Obama's got something to sell, it really looks like we're going to get it. I'm not sure how many comebacks Obama gets before people realize that he's really quite good at this sort of thing, but it's obvious the man has a bit more magic than his critics give him credit for and I can't figure out why anyone ever doubts him.
Why Progressives Hate It
And yet, there are still reform holdouts on the liberal side. And I've had the hardest time figuring out why, because they so rarely will explain why they're holding out. They'd typically complain about the shittiness of the bill because it lacked a public option, and rarely articulated their specific complaints beyond the generic "It's a Republican bill that subsidizes bastard insurers," as if that was some self-evident point that settled everything.
And I finally found an opponent willing to lay it all out. A Washington Monthly commenter named Tlaloc has been hasselling us reform supporters, insisting that we're all lying douchebags when we say that reform will end rescission, control premiums, end annual/lifetime caps, and prevent insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. But he'd never explain why, though he imagined he did, because he'd complain about the lack of a public option.
Well, I finally got him to explain himself, in a comment you can read here. But you needn't bother, as it's a long way of saying: These new regulations are worthless because there's no enforcement mechanism, and therefore, insurers will continue to do what they've always been doing, no matter what the regulations say. Meanwhile, we'll all be forced to get insurance, so they'll get rich while we all get sicker. So without a public option, this is worse than before.
And that's an awesome paraphrase and the guy could do no better than to quote that the next time he wants to complain about reform, as it's far superior to the "You're all lying douchebags" comments he usually hurls at us. Because, for all of his complaining about how there are no new rules, his real complaint was that there was no way to enforce the new rules, so they didn't really count. But...that's because he didn't understand one of the biggest pieces of the reform: Insurance Exchanges.
Insurance Exchanges
You see, insurance exchanges will change everything. Because if the insurers break these rules, they don't get to sell in the exchange. And people will only buy insurance that's sold in the exchanges, because it will always be better than anything they'd get outside of an exchange.
After all, any insurer with a plan superior to what's in the exchange would surely want to be in the exchange, so nobody would be dumb enough to purchase a plan outside the exchange. It's a self-fulfilling prophcy. In other words, the entire face of insurance is changing, and people still don't seem to realize it. But insurers realize it. They don't want a regulated exchange. They want the wild west. But the wild west is over, if we get this reform.
And so, yeah, sure, a public option would have been nice. But...the free-for-all is over, and indivduals and small businsess are no longer at their mercy. Not only will this be better for them than it is now, it'll be superior to what large businesses use now. Yes, we're still working with the jerks who got us here, but we're no longer at their mercy. And that's a huge difference that everyone should support.
And so reform was easy to attack and impossible to defend. But, that's just the nature of the beast, and no, it wouldn't have helped if Obama had brought down a plan from Mount Sinai and attempted to do whatever it is progressives think Bush did to strong-arm things when he was in office. Because Bush spent all his political capital pushing popular bills through Congress, like war and taxcuts, while his unpopular privatization scheme completely derailed his presidency. As it turns out, getting things done in Congress is difficult.
But now that we've got a good idea what we're getting and Obama's got something to sell, it really looks like we're going to get it. I'm not sure how many comebacks Obama gets before people realize that he's really quite good at this sort of thing, but it's obvious the man has a bit more magic than his critics give him credit for and I can't figure out why anyone ever doubts him.
Why Progressives Hate It
And yet, there are still reform holdouts on the liberal side. And I've had the hardest time figuring out why, because they so rarely will explain why they're holding out. They'd typically complain about the shittiness of the bill because it lacked a public option, and rarely articulated their specific complaints beyond the generic "It's a Republican bill that subsidizes bastard insurers," as if that was some self-evident point that settled everything.
And I finally found an opponent willing to lay it all out. A Washington Monthly commenter named Tlaloc has been hasselling us reform supporters, insisting that we're all lying douchebags when we say that reform will end rescission, control premiums, end annual/lifetime caps, and prevent insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. But he'd never explain why, though he imagined he did, because he'd complain about the lack of a public option.
Well, I finally got him to explain himself, in a comment you can read here. But you needn't bother, as it's a long way of saying: These new regulations are worthless because there's no enforcement mechanism, and therefore, insurers will continue to do what they've always been doing, no matter what the regulations say. Meanwhile, we'll all be forced to get insurance, so they'll get rich while we all get sicker. So without a public option, this is worse than before.
And that's an awesome paraphrase and the guy could do no better than to quote that the next time he wants to complain about reform, as it's far superior to the "You're all lying douchebags" comments he usually hurls at us. Because, for all of his complaining about how there are no new rules, his real complaint was that there was no way to enforce the new rules, so they didn't really count. But...that's because he didn't understand one of the biggest pieces of the reform: Insurance Exchanges.
Insurance Exchanges
You see, insurance exchanges will change everything. Because if the insurers break these rules, they don't get to sell in the exchange. And people will only buy insurance that's sold in the exchanges, because it will always be better than anything they'd get outside of an exchange.
After all, any insurer with a plan superior to what's in the exchange would surely want to be in the exchange, so nobody would be dumb enough to purchase a plan outside the exchange. It's a self-fulfilling prophcy. In other words, the entire face of insurance is changing, and people still don't seem to realize it. But insurers realize it. They don't want a regulated exchange. They want the wild west. But the wild west is over, if we get this reform.
And so, yeah, sure, a public option would have been nice. But...the free-for-all is over, and indivduals and small businsess are no longer at their mercy. Not only will this be better for them than it is now, it'll be superior to what large businesses use now. Yes, we're still working with the jerks who got us here, but we're no longer at their mercy. And that's a huge difference that everyone should support.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Liberals vs. Progressives.
Because Republicans have decided to abstain from any actual debate with Democrats since Obama took office, preferring the Take Their Ball And Leave method of governing, Democrats have basically been stuck debating one another; with the key issue being whether compromise is a necessary evil to getting what we want or a deterrent which prevents us from getting what we want.
And during this debate, I began using the terms "liberal" and "progressive" to differentiate between the two sides, as a sort of shorthand of letting readers know who I'm talking about. And I recently had a commenter at Washington Monthly correct me on that, as she felt that there was nothing "progressive" about the uncompromising progressives, and would prefer to keep that term for ourselves. So I outlined my definition of these two terms, in order to better clarify how it is I use them, and thought it might be helpful to give those defintions here.
Definitions
In my thinking, liberals are people who get things done, while progressives are people who shout that nothing's getting done. FDR and JFK being prototypical liberals who are best known for the things they did in office, while progressives can range from professional politicians like Dennis Kucinich, to professional protesters like Ralph Nader; neither of whom are known for much beyond shouting about how more needs to be done This isn't strictly an ideological test, as liberals can be further to the left than progressives; but merely about their willingness to compromise in order to get things done.
And both sides are needed, as progressives help push the agenda when we're out of power, while liberals implement the agenda while in power. The only problem is when we get power and the progressives start shouting at us too; which is to be expected, as that's all they really know how to do. It's their equivalent of a liberal setting up a thinktank when out of power, which are usually as inoffensive as they are ineffective.
And you can tell which side you're on based upon your compromise-to-shout ratio. Anything above 100 and you're a centrist. Anything below .01 and you're Ralph Nader. Most of us are somewhere in between. And in our current debate, the litmus test would be Obama's healthcare plan. If you think it's a necessary compromise that's better than nothing, you're a liberal. And if you think it's a Republican trick to get us to subsidize insurance companies and worse than doing nothing, you're a progressive. It all comes down to your willingness to accept compromise and acknowledge when something is better than nothing.
And of course, it should be stressed that liberals do not believe that all compromise is good, though they'll be hardpressed to convince any progressive of that. Likewise, liberals mock progressives for having a really lousy track record of getting anything done, as they're more interested in symbolic votes and principles than in actually doing things. And if you'd prefer your congressman to vote with Republicans in order to teach Democrats not to compromise, you're a progressive.
And during this debate, I began using the terms "liberal" and "progressive" to differentiate between the two sides, as a sort of shorthand of letting readers know who I'm talking about. And I recently had a commenter at Washington Monthly correct me on that, as she felt that there was nothing "progressive" about the uncompromising progressives, and would prefer to keep that term for ourselves. So I outlined my definition of these two terms, in order to better clarify how it is I use them, and thought it might be helpful to give those defintions here.
Definitions
In my thinking, liberals are people who get things done, while progressives are people who shout that nothing's getting done. FDR and JFK being prototypical liberals who are best known for the things they did in office, while progressives can range from professional politicians like Dennis Kucinich, to professional protesters like Ralph Nader; neither of whom are known for much beyond shouting about how more needs to be done This isn't strictly an ideological test, as liberals can be further to the left than progressives; but merely about their willingness to compromise in order to get things done.
And both sides are needed, as progressives help push the agenda when we're out of power, while liberals implement the agenda while in power. The only problem is when we get power and the progressives start shouting at us too; which is to be expected, as that's all they really know how to do. It's their equivalent of a liberal setting up a thinktank when out of power, which are usually as inoffensive as they are ineffective.
And you can tell which side you're on based upon your compromise-to-shout ratio. Anything above 100 and you're a centrist. Anything below .01 and you're Ralph Nader. Most of us are somewhere in between. And in our current debate, the litmus test would be Obama's healthcare plan. If you think it's a necessary compromise that's better than nothing, you're a liberal. And if you think it's a Republican trick to get us to subsidize insurance companies and worse than doing nothing, you're a progressive. It all comes down to your willingness to accept compromise and acknowledge when something is better than nothing.
And of course, it should be stressed that liberals do not believe that all compromise is good, though they'll be hardpressed to convince any progressive of that. Likewise, liberals mock progressives for having a really lousy track record of getting anything done, as they're more interested in symbolic votes and principles than in actually doing things. And if you'd prefer your congressman to vote with Republicans in order to teach Democrats not to compromise, you're a progressive.
American Nihilism Update
Just wanted to point my loyal readers to two great nihilist posts I made at American Nihilism.
The first is dedicated to Jihad Jane, the blonde-haired, blue-eyed hottie stealing everyone's heart: Jihottie of the Day
And here's an older one I failed to mention, regarding two Satanic Nihilists who took it upon themselves to teach God a lesson, one burned church at a time: The Face of Nihilism
Enjoy!
The first is dedicated to Jihad Jane, the blonde-haired, blue-eyed hottie stealing everyone's heart: Jihottie of the Day
And here's an older one I failed to mention, regarding two Satanic Nihilists who took it upon themselves to teach God a lesson, one burned church at a time: The Face of Nihilism
Enjoy!
News Break: Powerful People Like Power
I've got a surprise for you: When people devote their lives to gain power, they're generally reluctant to lose it. Yes, I know you're shocked, but it's true. And just as the CEO of Exxon didn't take the job just so he could be ordered around, people don't devote time, money, and energy to get into Congress just so they can be told how to vote and what to say. Not unless they're well compensated for it, anyway. But the rest of them want power so they can exert power, not so they can hand it over to somebody else.
But of course, that's not a surprise at all. I'm not sure how much you've ever considered how thoroughly life-changing a job in Congress would be, but you've got to imagine they're not doing it for fun. They do it so they can change the world, or feel powerful, or take bribes, or whatever; but they're not doing it just so they can warm a seat and take orders. Such a thought is absurd. Yet all the same, many progressives are insistent that there's something inherently wrong when Obama can't flex his muscle and force Congressional Dems to do his bidding.and vote the way he wants them to vote.
And for as much as some progressives could point to a few Congressmen who insisted they wanted Obama to take the lead on healthcare reform, we're now seeing exactly what should be expected: Congressmen who are telling Obama to back-off because they don't like him telling them what to do. And well, duh. Obama's not even supposed to be writing legislation, and we're to imagine that these powerful men are going to be cool with him strong-arming them into passing a risky bill on an issue many of them would rather not even be discussing?
And sure, some of these people wanted Obama to take the lead. But others want to be given lip service, as a sign of respect for their power. And still others truly want to do the right thing and give us a bill that supports their worldview. And without any doubt, these second two groups would most certainly have pushed back against Obama had he taken the heavy-handed tactics many progressives wanted. They would have had no choice. Nobody likes a bully and for Obama to have stepped in immediately and told them what to do would have been an insult to them.
It Was the Boldness, Stupid
And so Obama gave Democrats a year to get their act together, got a really good idea of what they'd find acceptable, and is softly strong-arming them into accepting something they were forced into admitting that they'd accept. And this really was for the best. For as much as progressives insist that the 1994 election disaster was caused because Clinton wasn't bold enough, it's closer to say that his problem was that he tried to force them to accept something they didn't want to accept. In other words, Clinton was too bold and it bit him in the butt. Yet progressives use that lesson to insist that Obama be more bold. Brilliant.
Had Obama given us this exact piece of legislation a year ago and twisted arms to get it passed, he would have been soundly rejected; not only destroying our chances of getting any bill, but making him toxic to other Democrats. Just like what we saw with Clinton. But by spending a full year deferring to Congress and removing the most politically risky provisions from the bill, we're now closer than ever to getting a decent bill passed.
And for as much as progressives complain that the bill doesn't do what the bill actually does, I think the sausage Obama is getting out of Congress is pretty f-ing awesome. Hell, I'm not sure you can get a simple majority of liberals at the average messageboard to agree to any particular piece of legislation, and we're just a bunch of like-minded bozos with no more power than our ability to type. So getting reluctant Congressmen to support a groundbreaking bill is simply amazing. Hell, even Bush had to use reconcilation to get a second round of taxcuts passed, and taxcuts are popular. And for as popular as healthcare reform is, the devil's in the details and getting any plan out of Congress would have been difficult.
Congressmen aren't sheep. They're powerful people who devoted their lives to gaining power, so getting them to relinquish it by supporting something they might not have wanted is a difficult task. And unless we want Obama to get into the Rovian/Nixonian world of bribes, kickbacks, and blackmail to getting things done, I think this is the best we can expect. Democracy works because we all agree to share power. That's a feature; not a bug.
But of course, that's not a surprise at all. I'm not sure how much you've ever considered how thoroughly life-changing a job in Congress would be, but you've got to imagine they're not doing it for fun. They do it so they can change the world, or feel powerful, or take bribes, or whatever; but they're not doing it just so they can warm a seat and take orders. Such a thought is absurd. Yet all the same, many progressives are insistent that there's something inherently wrong when Obama can't flex his muscle and force Congressional Dems to do his bidding.and vote the way he wants them to vote.
And for as much as some progressives could point to a few Congressmen who insisted they wanted Obama to take the lead on healthcare reform, we're now seeing exactly what should be expected: Congressmen who are telling Obama to back-off because they don't like him telling them what to do. And well, duh. Obama's not even supposed to be writing legislation, and we're to imagine that these powerful men are going to be cool with him strong-arming them into passing a risky bill on an issue many of them would rather not even be discussing?
And sure, some of these people wanted Obama to take the lead. But others want to be given lip service, as a sign of respect for their power. And still others truly want to do the right thing and give us a bill that supports their worldview. And without any doubt, these second two groups would most certainly have pushed back against Obama had he taken the heavy-handed tactics many progressives wanted. They would have had no choice. Nobody likes a bully and for Obama to have stepped in immediately and told them what to do would have been an insult to them.
It Was the Boldness, Stupid
And so Obama gave Democrats a year to get their act together, got a really good idea of what they'd find acceptable, and is softly strong-arming them into accepting something they were forced into admitting that they'd accept. And this really was for the best. For as much as progressives insist that the 1994 election disaster was caused because Clinton wasn't bold enough, it's closer to say that his problem was that he tried to force them to accept something they didn't want to accept. In other words, Clinton was too bold and it bit him in the butt. Yet progressives use that lesson to insist that Obama be more bold. Brilliant.
Had Obama given us this exact piece of legislation a year ago and twisted arms to get it passed, he would have been soundly rejected; not only destroying our chances of getting any bill, but making him toxic to other Democrats. Just like what we saw with Clinton. But by spending a full year deferring to Congress and removing the most politically risky provisions from the bill, we're now closer than ever to getting a decent bill passed.
And for as much as progressives complain that the bill doesn't do what the bill actually does, I think the sausage Obama is getting out of Congress is pretty f-ing awesome. Hell, I'm not sure you can get a simple majority of liberals at the average messageboard to agree to any particular piece of legislation, and we're just a bunch of like-minded bozos with no more power than our ability to type. So getting reluctant Congressmen to support a groundbreaking bill is simply amazing. Hell, even Bush had to use reconcilation to get a second round of taxcuts passed, and taxcuts are popular. And for as popular as healthcare reform is, the devil's in the details and getting any plan out of Congress would have been difficult.
Congressmen aren't sheep. They're powerful people who devoted their lives to gaining power, so getting them to relinquish it by supporting something they might not have wanted is a difficult task. And unless we want Obama to get into the Rovian/Nixonian world of bribes, kickbacks, and blackmail to getting things done, I think this is the best we can expect. Democracy works because we all agree to share power. That's a feature; not a bug.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Bush: Flawed by Design
The wanker Mark Halperin has a piece titled How Obama Is Making the Same Mistakes as Bush, and I just can't decide which aspect of it I disagree with more: His assessment of what he imagines Obama is doing wrong or what he thinks Bush's mistakes were. Because his points are as follows:
Neither had a famous treasury secretary
Neither were effective at pushing good polices
Neither attacked Congress enough
Neither had strong domestic cabinet members
And the basis for these claims is that Clinton had a famous treasury secretary, Bush and Obama didn't do more to attack Congress, and that's it. He offers meaningless examples of two of his criticisms, and merely asserts that the other two are valid. And yes, the first and fourth ones are essentially the same, seeing as how the Secretary of Treasury is part of the cabinet; which is probably why he put such distance between them, hoping you wouldn't remember his first point by the time you got to his last..
Bush as Obama
And really, I suppose his view of Bush is the worse of the two. Because yeah, I guess it can be argued that Obama could have hired more vocal cabinet members, done more to push good policies, and attacked Congress more; only in the way that these things are possible. Similarly, I could just as easily imagine reading a Halperin piece in which he bemoaned Obama's over-reaching cabinet, technocratic ways, and attacks on Congress. But at least these things could make sense, even if they don't make sense in any meaningful way.
But this view of Bush as a great, but flawed leader is a total joke. Yes, his cabinet members were weak, but that was by design. Similarly, Bush's focus on politics over policy was by design. And finally, as much as Bush was aligned with Congress, it was because he owned them and they did his bidding; with the examples Halperin gives of bad legislation they pushed being Bush policies, not policies they forced on Bush. So again, that was by design.
These weren't flaws that marred an otherwise good president. This is who Bush was. He reigned as a dictator who hired hypemen to support him, and if you didn't support him, he'd replace you with someone who would. And that's not just a failing of Bush; it's the Republican model of the presidency. They want a strong, decisive leader who commands from above, and these are the sort of mistakes we'll get regardless of what the Repubican's name is.
It's sad that important dopes like Halperin still have this fantasy Bush fetish, in which they regard him as an Obama-like figure who happened to make a few mistakes that ruined everything he touched. So now we're stuck with historical revisionism, in which the Bush deficits were something forced upon him by his out-of-control Congress and Rove didn't push for the Medicare drug plan. I suppose once we get around to learning that the Iraq War was caused by anti-war peaceniks, everything should be complete.
Neither had a famous treasury secretary
Neither were effective at pushing good polices
Neither attacked Congress enough
Neither had strong domestic cabinet members
And the basis for these claims is that Clinton had a famous treasury secretary, Bush and Obama didn't do more to attack Congress, and that's it. He offers meaningless examples of two of his criticisms, and merely asserts that the other two are valid. And yes, the first and fourth ones are essentially the same, seeing as how the Secretary of Treasury is part of the cabinet; which is probably why he put such distance between them, hoping you wouldn't remember his first point by the time you got to his last..
Bush as Obama
And really, I suppose his view of Bush is the worse of the two. Because yeah, I guess it can be argued that Obama could have hired more vocal cabinet members, done more to push good policies, and attacked Congress more; only in the way that these things are possible. Similarly, I could just as easily imagine reading a Halperin piece in which he bemoaned Obama's over-reaching cabinet, technocratic ways, and attacks on Congress. But at least these things could make sense, even if they don't make sense in any meaningful way.
But this view of Bush as a great, but flawed leader is a total joke. Yes, his cabinet members were weak, but that was by design. Similarly, Bush's focus on politics over policy was by design. And finally, as much as Bush was aligned with Congress, it was because he owned them and they did his bidding; with the examples Halperin gives of bad legislation they pushed being Bush policies, not policies they forced on Bush. So again, that was by design.
These weren't flaws that marred an otherwise good president. This is who Bush was. He reigned as a dictator who hired hypemen to support him, and if you didn't support him, he'd replace you with someone who would. And that's not just a failing of Bush; it's the Republican model of the presidency. They want a strong, decisive leader who commands from above, and these are the sort of mistakes we'll get regardless of what the Repubican's name is.
It's sad that important dopes like Halperin still have this fantasy Bush fetish, in which they regard him as an Obama-like figure who happened to make a few mistakes that ruined everything he touched. So now we're stuck with historical revisionism, in which the Bush deficits were something forced upon him by his out-of-control Congress and Rove didn't push for the Medicare drug plan. I suppose once we get around to learning that the Iraq War was caused by anti-war peaceniks, everything should be complete.
Obama's Healthcare Offensive
One annoying thing about the anti-Obama progressives is their utter insistence that we're on an eternal slippery slope. Any misstep by Obama on any issue is ground that we can never recover. If Obama doesn't get us a public option now, we'll never get a public option; so it's better to shoot down this plan than ever consider fixing it. If Obama doesn't hammer Republicans with every speech, he'll never be able to hammer them. And so we have to go all-out all the time, or we lose every inch we don't nail down to the ground.
And of course, that's horseshit. You can't unburn a bridge, but you can always act firm to someone you were being nice to. And that's what we're seeing now, as Obama continues his healthcare reform offensive by saying many of the things progressives were acting like he could no longer say. And that's why they got all this backwards: Had Obama gone balls-out and demanded single-payer healthcare while defying any Republican to dare oppose him, they would have laughed in his face while taking potshots at the giant target he had put on himself. Obama would be painted into a corner that mainstream Democrats in Congress would have been forced to hold the can for.
And worst of all, he would have made all those scare stories of the government taking away your healthcare true. I'm not sure why that keeps getting lost in all this, but for as much as Democrats marvel at the depth of Republican lies on healthcare, many of those lies would have been trues, had Obama listened to progressives. Because many of these people DO have a radical agenda, which even I have serious issues about. They want a serious overhaul of our system, and that's just not something I'm on-board with.
And yes, single-payer is fairly radical; though not nearly as radical as some of the plans they have in mind. Of course, when these people discuss single-payer, they don't have an actual plan in mind; merely a vague concept. And it's a guarantee that, were the current reform plan single-payer, these people would be entirely pissed at how Obama bungled it; no matter what he did. For as much as they imagine they have a firm line in the sand, that line will always be an undeterminable distance from wherever the rest of the Democrats are. That's their purpose in life: To be to the left of everyone else.
A Decent Solution
Were we crafting a perfect solution from scratch, yeah, I'd seriously consider many of these options. But that's not the case. We're trying to craft a decent solution mid-stream, while also keeping politics into consideration, and that's really not the time to get experimental. And for as much as I'm fine with these people having their opinions, I'll be damned if I let them cow me into submission simply because I disagree with them. Because for as much as they bitch about being ignored, their real problem is that we're not all obeying their orders. And in that respect, they're really not much different from Republicans.
And does it need to be pointed out that all these political and policy experts are loudly denouncing Obama for not following their orders, even though he was clever enough to become president, while his progressive critics couldn't even win a spot on their local school board? For as much as they insist that all voters want is a bold leader who takes an action, these people seem completely incapable of putting that simple rule into effect.
So instead, they'll scream at Obama from the comfort of their keyboards, because he hasn't taken the dictatorial powers that they imagine they deserve. Yet as we all know, things would be a lot easier in a dicatorship, just as long as you're the dictator.
And of course, that's horseshit. You can't unburn a bridge, but you can always act firm to someone you were being nice to. And that's what we're seeing now, as Obama continues his healthcare reform offensive by saying many of the things progressives were acting like he could no longer say. And that's why they got all this backwards: Had Obama gone balls-out and demanded single-payer healthcare while defying any Republican to dare oppose him, they would have laughed in his face while taking potshots at the giant target he had put on himself. Obama would be painted into a corner that mainstream Democrats in Congress would have been forced to hold the can for.
And worst of all, he would have made all those scare stories of the government taking away your healthcare true. I'm not sure why that keeps getting lost in all this, but for as much as Democrats marvel at the depth of Republican lies on healthcare, many of those lies would have been trues, had Obama listened to progressives. Because many of these people DO have a radical agenda, which even I have serious issues about. They want a serious overhaul of our system, and that's just not something I'm on-board with.
And yes, single-payer is fairly radical; though not nearly as radical as some of the plans they have in mind. Of course, when these people discuss single-payer, they don't have an actual plan in mind; merely a vague concept. And it's a guarantee that, were the current reform plan single-payer, these people would be entirely pissed at how Obama bungled it; no matter what he did. For as much as they imagine they have a firm line in the sand, that line will always be an undeterminable distance from wherever the rest of the Democrats are. That's their purpose in life: To be to the left of everyone else.
A Decent Solution
Were we crafting a perfect solution from scratch, yeah, I'd seriously consider many of these options. But that's not the case. We're trying to craft a decent solution mid-stream, while also keeping politics into consideration, and that's really not the time to get experimental. And for as much as I'm fine with these people having their opinions, I'll be damned if I let them cow me into submission simply because I disagree with them. Because for as much as they bitch about being ignored, their real problem is that we're not all obeying their orders. And in that respect, they're really not much different from Republicans.
And does it need to be pointed out that all these political and policy experts are loudly denouncing Obama for not following their orders, even though he was clever enough to become president, while his progressive critics couldn't even win a spot on their local school board? For as much as they insist that all voters want is a bold leader who takes an action, these people seem completely incapable of putting that simple rule into effect.
So instead, they'll scream at Obama from the comfort of their keyboards, because he hasn't taken the dictatorial powers that they imagine they deserve. Yet as we all know, things would be a lot easier in a dicatorship, just as long as you're the dictator.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Republicans: Their Own Worst Enemy
Carpetbagger has the hilarious story of an RNC strategy presentation that a Democrat found in a hotel which (surprise surprise) announces their campaign strategy of trying to scare people about Obama and "save the country from trending toward socialism." And I just wanted to point out that this is the exact strategy I said they'd run with heading into the mid-terms.
For as much as progressives worry that Republicans will point to their Democratic opponents and accuse them of being part of a "Do Nothing" Congress, it should have been obvious that Republicans would do the heavy lifting for us and proudly declare that they're the reason Obama's Congress didn't get as much done as they should have. Their strategy wasn't to stop Obama so they could feign outrage that Obama got stopped. They were stopping Obama because they thought people would hate Obama and reward them for stopping his agenda.
And as much as that made them more popular with the base, it worked. But anyone who would be outraged because Democrats got nothing done will be reminded repeatedly by Republicans where the blame lies. Democrats could have commercials in which they merely show their opponent's ad on the TV behind them and say "See, that's why you need to send me to Congress, to make sure freaks like that can't keep stopping progress."
Obama as Enemy
Essentially, Republicans are so high on their own supply that they're going to be running against themselves this year; choosing attacks that help them with the base but offend everyone else. They're going for a re-do of the 2008 election, apparently unaware that the lead villian in their campaign is still the most popular politician in country.
Yes, it would have been effective had Republicans chosen to attack Obama's Congress for not getting anything done, but fortunately for us, they never positioned themselves in a way that would allow them to do it, or even understood why it would be necessary. When they claim that America supports them and is angry at Obama, they really mean it; all evidence to the contrary. This wasn't double-reverse ju-jitsu. This was a thug acting like a thug. And so all the people who insist that Obama should be acting like a thug completely miss the boat. Obama's now seen as the good guy who's trying to make the best of a bad situation, while Republicans loudly advertise that they're the cause of the bad situation. Guess who's going to come out on top of that battle?
And this goes to the heart of a major failing too many people make: Don't obsess on your biggest weakness and imagine that your opponent's going to hit you there. Instead, get inside the mind of your opponent and figure out what they're trying to do; not based upon what you know of your weaknesses, but on how they're doing things.
Republicans made it abundantly clear that their strategy was no deeper than repeating the Obama is Evil mantra. Anyone seeing any more plans than that were merely shadow boxing themselves.
For as much as progressives worry that Republicans will point to their Democratic opponents and accuse them of being part of a "Do Nothing" Congress, it should have been obvious that Republicans would do the heavy lifting for us and proudly declare that they're the reason Obama's Congress didn't get as much done as they should have. Their strategy wasn't to stop Obama so they could feign outrage that Obama got stopped. They were stopping Obama because they thought people would hate Obama and reward them for stopping his agenda.
And as much as that made them more popular with the base, it worked. But anyone who would be outraged because Democrats got nothing done will be reminded repeatedly by Republicans where the blame lies. Democrats could have commercials in which they merely show their opponent's ad on the TV behind them and say "See, that's why you need to send me to Congress, to make sure freaks like that can't keep stopping progress."
Obama as Enemy
Essentially, Republicans are so high on their own supply that they're going to be running against themselves this year; choosing attacks that help them with the base but offend everyone else. They're going for a re-do of the 2008 election, apparently unaware that the lead villian in their campaign is still the most popular politician in country.
Yes, it would have been effective had Republicans chosen to attack Obama's Congress for not getting anything done, but fortunately for us, they never positioned themselves in a way that would allow them to do it, or even understood why it would be necessary. When they claim that America supports them and is angry at Obama, they really mean it; all evidence to the contrary. This wasn't double-reverse ju-jitsu. This was a thug acting like a thug. And so all the people who insist that Obama should be acting like a thug completely miss the boat. Obama's now seen as the good guy who's trying to make the best of a bad situation, while Republicans loudly advertise that they're the cause of the bad situation. Guess who's going to come out on top of that battle?
And this goes to the heart of a major failing too many people make: Don't obsess on your biggest weakness and imagine that your opponent's going to hit you there. Instead, get inside the mind of your opponent and figure out what they're trying to do; not based upon what you know of your weaknesses, but on how they're doing things.
Republicans made it abundantly clear that their strategy was no deeper than repeating the Obama is Evil mantra. Anyone seeing any more plans than that were merely shadow boxing themselves.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
The New Democrat, Further Right Than the Old Democrat
If there's one thing that both progressives and far-righties have in common, it's their insistence that America wants exactly what they want, if only they weren't too stupid to realize it. And they're absolutely convinced that if voters were allowed to have someone like them on the ballot, the person would not only win, but would be able to make all the changes needed to fix this country.
And who's preventing this from happening? The party establishment, of course. And we're assured by both sides that their party's establishment cares more about money than about winning, and if only they'd stop forcing mainstream candidates on us, we'd get the candidates everyone really wants. It's all a big conspiracy of party elders destroying our country for their own personal benefit.
But of course, that's nonsense. The parties want winners, period. They want candidates who make their jobs easier, and the whole reason they prefer mainstream candidates is because it's easier to sell a mainstream candidate than one on either extreme. That's the definition of mainstream. And while I definitely agree that a safe Democratic seat should go to someone Democrats would really love, Red/Purple state seats should go to someone who can win that seat. And let's face it, that's what democracy is all about. We elect people to represent us in Congress; not our political party.
And so we see the progressive nemesis Evan Bayh dropping out, and likely to be replaced with a Democrat who's even more conservative than Bayh. And of course that's what should happen. Indiana deserves a Senator who represents Indiana; not one to satisfy progressives elsewhere. That's how our system should function. And if anything, the problems we're suffering right now are because Republicans are more willing to serve their party's interests over their constituent's. And the progressive solution is to damn any conservative Democrat and make things even easier for Republicans.
For as much as progressives insist that our two-party system is a drag, it's obvious that they're the ones who prefer party discipline over anything else. They're not interested in democracy. They're just looking for a gang war. And anyone who gets in the way of that war is more of an enemy than the people they're at war with.
And who's preventing this from happening? The party establishment, of course. And we're assured by both sides that their party's establishment cares more about money than about winning, and if only they'd stop forcing mainstream candidates on us, we'd get the candidates everyone really wants. It's all a big conspiracy of party elders destroying our country for their own personal benefit.
But of course, that's nonsense. The parties want winners, period. They want candidates who make their jobs easier, and the whole reason they prefer mainstream candidates is because it's easier to sell a mainstream candidate than one on either extreme. That's the definition of mainstream. And while I definitely agree that a safe Democratic seat should go to someone Democrats would really love, Red/Purple state seats should go to someone who can win that seat. And let's face it, that's what democracy is all about. We elect people to represent us in Congress; not our political party.
And so we see the progressive nemesis Evan Bayh dropping out, and likely to be replaced with a Democrat who's even more conservative than Bayh. And of course that's what should happen. Indiana deserves a Senator who represents Indiana; not one to satisfy progressives elsewhere. That's how our system should function. And if anything, the problems we're suffering right now are because Republicans are more willing to serve their party's interests over their constituent's. And the progressive solution is to damn any conservative Democrat and make things even easier for Republicans.
For as much as progressives insist that our two-party system is a drag, it's obvious that they're the ones who prefer party discipline over anything else. They're not interested in democracy. They're just looking for a gang war. And anyone who gets in the way of that war is more of an enemy than the people they're at war with.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Free Tax Software
Oh, and speaking of taxes, just wanted to remind folks that they can do their taxes free online, if they meet certain requirements. Here's the IRS's link on that. No point in paying for something you can get for free.
Why Taxes Are Complicated
I'll admit it: I ran into a tax problem today that really threw me for a loop. I just spent the last hour trying to figure out why my tax software was insisting that one of my clients didn't owe as much in taxes as I thought they would. And I drilled down, looking through the tax worksheets, and then worked them out manually. And then I got it: Capital Gains are taxed at a much lower rate than other forms of income and this guy sold a bunch of assets and therefore had a ton of Capital Gains. Yet, when looking at his Taxable Income, I was thinking of the standard tax rate; not the Capital Gains rate.
And so, yeah, sure, the tax code can be complicated, even for us professionals. But the problem here isn't that the IRS is evil, but because tax rules are written by politicians and politicians have different interests in mind than making things logical. Plus, it's written with a lawyer-mentality, to make sure people can't abuse the system by intentionally misinterpreting the rules. And the people who complain the most about the complexity of our tax code are the very reason why they're so complex: Because these bozos are looking for any loophole they can find, and then get frustrated when they can't find any that help them.
And in the end: The tax software knew what to do, so it really wasn't complicated. While I'll never accept the software's judgment when I don't understand what it's doing; I've found that most discrepencies are human error. And while I've had a few exceptions when the software wasn't capable of handling a specific incident, forcing me to fight with it to figure out how to get something entered; those are always the rare events that software developers couldn't have anticipated. Anyone who runs into these sort of problems should hire a professional anyway, while most people don't need one.
And of course, that's why taxes are so complicated. As with most things in life, 5% of people create 95% of the work. For as much as people rant against the size of the tax code, most of it won't ever apply to these people. But our economy is complex enough that we need all those rules anyway. Thank god for the tax software.
And so, yeah, sure, the tax code can be complicated, even for us professionals. But the problem here isn't that the IRS is evil, but because tax rules are written by politicians and politicians have different interests in mind than making things logical. Plus, it's written with a lawyer-mentality, to make sure people can't abuse the system by intentionally misinterpreting the rules. And the people who complain the most about the complexity of our tax code are the very reason why they're so complex: Because these bozos are looking for any loophole they can find, and then get frustrated when they can't find any that help them.
And in the end: The tax software knew what to do, so it really wasn't complicated. While I'll never accept the software's judgment when I don't understand what it's doing; I've found that most discrepencies are human error. And while I've had a few exceptions when the software wasn't capable of handling a specific incident, forcing me to fight with it to figure out how to get something entered; those are always the rare events that software developers couldn't have anticipated. Anyone who runs into these sort of problems should hire a professional anyway, while most people don't need one.
And of course, that's why taxes are so complicated. As with most things in life, 5% of people create 95% of the work. For as much as people rant against the size of the tax code, most of it won't ever apply to these people. But our economy is complex enough that we need all those rules anyway. Thank god for the tax software.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
