Take note of everyone who said ObamaCare is unconstitutional

There are lots of laws I'd like to see repealed, whether they're constitutional or not. So right wingers are entitled to hate ObamaCare. But they're not entitled to say it's unconstitutional. 

And they weren't entitled to say it's unconstitutional before today's ruling, as if they not only sat on the Supreme Court themselves but could read the minds of at least four other justices, and read them before they were made up--so a bit of time travel to boot. Even constitutional lawyers who have argued many cases before the Supreme Court don't do that. They know better.

Of course anyone was entitled to say they thought this law was unconstitutional. Just not to declare something constitutional or unconstitutional as a plain fact. 

That's arrogance.

It is extremely telling that the swing vote in today's 5-4 majority was Justice Roberts, one of the very conservative justices. Unless someone can prove that Justice Roberts is a socialist mole, his presence in the majority means not that he is even a liberal--he most assuredly is not--but that he understands the Constitution...possibly better than Rush Limbaugh, astonishing as that might seem. Understands it well enough to vote against his "side" and possibly his personal inclinations.

So you should take note of everyone--from personal acquaintance to Congressman to commentator--who said ObamaCare was unconstitutional before today. Such people proved by saying so that they didn't respect their own limits--and that they didn't respect the intelligence, authority and experience of others. This is the hallmark of the partisan ideologue--utter contempt for anyone and any idea that doesn't match their own.

Today Romney's response was that on his first day of office "I will act to repeal ObamaCare." 

What action might that be? We don't have a monarchy; he isn't running to be King Romney. Even with a Republican majority in Congress, all the Democrats have to do is employ the tactics the Republicans in the Senate have been using every single day since President Obama took office, and they will probably be able to block anything coming up from the House. He can't simply declare ObamaCare invalid on his say-so. 

So what he said is very close to being a lie. This has nothing to do with political persuasions. It has to do with character. And Romney's character is marked by his total comfort with lying--at least in the political sphere--effortlessly and constantly.

The American public, by a large majority, hates ObamaCare and wants it repealed. Um, except for its provisions, most of which they love, when asked about them one by one.

That, my friends, is the power of propaganda, fueled by a vast war chest. Be sure to ask your conservative friends and acquaintances about this when they cite majority opposition to ObamaCare. Even the name they've given the ACA (Affordable Care Act)--ObamaCare--is propaganda, because it personalizes a large, complex act that was crafted by a large committee and enacted after passing a gauntlet of special interests who stuffed it with compromises that President Obama certainly didn't want. Calling it ObamaCare makes it all about one person (a BLACK person, which they'll never say but they'll constantly show you), and lets you forget about its provisions and just focus on hating the person who headed the effort to pass it. 

Propaganda hates complexity, hates ideas really--loves pushing everything down to personal animosities. That's what branding it ObamaCare means and does.

More on the Economist's endorsement of the healthcare bill

The Economist reluctantly endorsed voting for the healthcare reform bill. This garnered dozens of comments from Tea Party types. I said this in response to both (which you also see at the Economist's website):

For readers of the Economist who aren't fluent in American, maybe I can help with some of the terminology used in many of these comments:

Socialism: any regulation of any business in any way.

You see, as a child Ayn Rand was traumatized by the Soviets confiscating her parents' estate. This made her unable to distinguish between regulation and confiscation, and she passed this philosophical virus on to generations of American right wingers.

Liberal/Conservative: in America we use these terms somewhat differently. Basically, conservatives long to restore an America that never was, while liberals long to transform it into a nation that never will be. So they're dueling dreamers.

Conservatives are happy to destroy the environment as long as they can keep driving their three ton SUVs. Liberals are happy to destroy American unskilled laborers' livelihoods in order to make America the safety valve for Mexico's overpopulation crisis (from 20 million people in 1940 to over 100 million in 2000). So neither is either.

And since Conservatism (capital C) has become a religion, they'll regard the Economist's apply of reason to the messy healthcare bill as heresy. Because in a religion, study is not analytical but rather worshipful. And, as you've experienced with Europe's radicalized Muslims, you are not allowed to disagree, with or without reasons--only to obey.

And when you read nutcases here declaring that the Democratic legislators in Congress should be tried for treason by a military tribunal--you'll see that they've left the basic tenets of constitutional democracy far, far behind.

But since our schools teach children facts but not what to do with them, they aren't aware that they've abandoned our nation's basic values--because they didn't understand those values in the first place.

For my part, as a centrist American who's reasonably educated, I think the Economist has assessed our healthcare bill spot on.

Now I'm waiting to see whether our Supreme Court--whose hard-right near-majority lied about their objectivity during their Senate approval hearings--will summarily overturn the universal health insurance mandate in the bill, thus kneecapping it.

Tagging the libertarians

There were a lot of libertarian comments on Dana Milbanks' latest Washington Post blog entry, about the unwisdom of Republicans pinning their next campaign on repealing healthcare reform. It garnered hundreds of very snarky comments (right wingers appear to be in an unusually bad mood today), so I entered the following (and got a little snarky myself):


So our social safety net--now amped up slightly by this healthcare reform act--is an American tragedy, huh?

Meaning that since our safety net (even with the latest bill passing) is the skimpiest of any developed country..and since, apparently, the skimpier the safety net the more virile and successful a country is, ours must be doing the best, and a place like Germany or Sweden the worst.

Hmmm. I bet a lot of Germans and Swedes (including conservative ones) would find that pretty laughable.

But if you really believe that, I encourage you to move to a truly free enterprise capitalist country with no emasculating social safety net, where you can let your overwhelming manliness take wings and soar above the crowd.

I suggest the Philippines. I've been there a couple of times. Pure capitalism--and it's got a lot of American influence. So you all should feel right at home.

Go, now. Shoo!




Still here? You should have the courage of your convictions.

But as long as you insist on sticking around, explain me this:

How are you all such geniuses that you know better about the healthcare reform bill than The Economist?

You know, The Economist--the world's leading periodical devoted to free enterprise capitalism since 1843?

This week's issue endorsed voting for this healthcare reform act. Honestly, it's not their ideal way to do it. But all things considered, at this time, in this place, they recommended voting for it.

What do your towering intellects have to say to the editors of The Economist?

I can't wait.

Let's talk about the Bible and abortion

The abortion debate has become the fulcrum of healthcare reform, so it's a good time to revisit the foundation of "pro-life" ideas: the Bible. Or is it?

Here's every place the word "abortion" appears in the Bible: [nada]

Here's what Christ said we should do about abortion, compared to the other things he told his followers to do: [nada]


So anti-abortion zealots who say they're Christians have placed their ideas above God's and Christ's.

Now the Bible does mention the one who put his ideas above God's: that's Satan.

Which makes anti-abortion zealots Satan worshipers pretending to be Christians.


PS: Anti-abortion zealots constantly state "life begins at conception." Biblically speaking this is unsupported nonsense.

It's what scientists believed in the 19th century. That's what a pope used at the time as the basis for this claim. But 21st century science has proven that this isn't so.

"Life begins at conception" is code language for "God gives us a soul at the moment of conception."

However, anti-abortion zealots don't like to be honest about what they're saying when they're not among fellow Satan worshipers. But if it isn't code words for ensoulment it's empty language, since your liver is also alive, but it doesn't have its own soul.

And we can't all be ensouled at the moment of conception because not all of us are formed at the moment of conception--particularly monozygotic twins and chimaeras--while other fertilized eggs aren't viable no matter how you slice it--so no loving God would ensoul them either.

Other fetuses are theoretically viable but the mother is unable to give birth to them without medical intervention--otherwise they'll die, often taking the mother with them.

So again a loving God would only ensoul such endangered fetuses in countries with universal health care, or whose mothers are wealthy.

Which means that the only religiously justifiable timing for ensoulment is the moment of viable birth--when the baby takes his first breath unaided--not the moment of conception.

But if you want to be strictly biblical, you'd move the goalpost to one month of age, since the Bible accords no status to infants until they reach that milestone.

You'd think people who are this passionate about the Bible would read it.

Looking at healthcare reform defeat

Today's New York Times' lead editorial urges the House to pass the Senate's healthcare reform bill. Here's my comment:

When Paul Krugman said the same thing a few days ago, most of the many comments posted by readers disagreed with this advice--both left wing and right wing.

The diatribes from the political left seemed to be written in total ignorance of what Americans outside of college towns think. And they seem to think Obama was made king of the country, able to make laws by snapping his fingers. The American presidency is closer to being an administrator with a bullhorn.

You know he wants a single payer system. You should know he's just as frustrated as you are by how far the Senate bill is from that. But he lives on this planet.

So it's the mild reforms of the Senate bill, or less, or nothing. Th-th-that's all, folks. And if we get nothing--which all this left-wing howling is helping guarantee--we'll probably get a Republican president in 2012. Followed by a 7-3 Supreme Court corporatist-activist majority. Want that? Keep it up. Karl Rove is cheering you on.

The diatribes from the right mostly assume that the American people are all against the total takeover of American healthcare by European socialist death panels.

Um, the Senate bill was never anything like a takeover, and the lobbyists who form the fourth branch of government have seen to it that it's even milder than it started. It's only socialisim in the sense that Rush Limbaugh and the rest have redefined "socialism" as "any kind of regulation whatsoever."

Of course total gummint takeover is just what the Healthcare Denial Industry has been spending over a million dollars a day to make Americans think Congress is cooking up.

Odd that the right wing comments on Krugman's op-ed piece never--not once--acknowledged that American public opinion has been molded by this $1.4M/day tidal wave of advertising, PR, whisper campaigns, sock puppet pundits and more--countered by a pathetic trickle of truth. I say truth because nearly every claim the Republican leadership has said about the Senate bill has been shown to be a baldfaced lie--according to rigorously nonpartisan fact checking organizations like www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com.

I'm not saying Democratic leaders always tell the truth. They don't. And they've certainly been swayed by lobbying and by public opinion, despite that public opinion being based on well-financed, slickly disseminated lies.

But on healthcare reform the Democrats are saints next to the the Republicans.

I only take slight comfort from knowing that when healthcare reform is defeated by rigid left-wing idealists and foaming-at-the-mouth right wing nutjobs--many in both groups are going to wind up with their tails in a crack as a direct result of healthcare reform failing again.

I heard a caller on one right wing talk show say "I don't want to pay for someone else's pre-existing condition."

Wait'll it's you. And you wind up with one of those medical bankruptcies right wing nutjobs deny the existence of (along with all science whose findings they don't like).

It'll serve you right. So go ahead and gloat at the defeat Democrats are looking at now. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Healthcare reform isn't perfect!

New York Times liberal columnist Bob Herbert published an op-ed piece today saying "There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care." I said:

...And yet equally liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman endorsed passing whatever highly flawed healthcare reform legislation emerges from Congress.

What's the difference between Herbert and Krugman? They're both equally liberal. Perhaps it's that Krugman is a distinguished economist and understands the big picture a little better than Herbert.

If this doesn't pass it's a good bet we'll get a Republican president in 2012, and given the age and health of the Supreme Court's less conservative minority, that ensures that an even farther right Supreme Court majority will be available to overturn progressive legislation and decide close elections in the GOP's favor for generations to come.

Moreover, healthcare reform, once passed, will be modifiable. Without passage of something, however flawed, the GOP sock puppets and their paymasters in Medicine-for-profit-Inc. will ensure that we won't get a second chance for another generation. They're already spending over a million dollars a day spreading breathtaking lies (according to www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com), turning public opinion against reform.

So while Mr. Herbert's complaints may well be valid, considered by themselves, from a larger perspective, we absolutely need to pass healthcare reform, however flawed.

I've read scores of comments on these threads by liberal Democrats declaring that this shouldn't pass because it falls short of their dream (and mine), and that furthermore they won't support Obama next time around because he failed to..what? We didn't elect him king. An American president has very constrained powers compared to many other kinds of heads of state.

When President Palin is busy undoing EVERYTHING Obama accomplished and is putting us in an even deeper hole than Bush put us in...remember this moment and what your whirly-eyed idealism did to us.

www.blogzu.blogspot.com

PS: I've been tallying up comment threads like this on the NYT and WaPo, and either both newspapers' readers are overwhelmingly far right Republican--or non-readers (probably in both senses of the term) are showing up in these forums the same way they showed up at congressional townhall meetings--to shout down anyone they disagreed with and to make it seem like there were more people like them than there really are.

So as you peruse this thread, look for semiliterate broad-spectrum denunciations of Democrats in general and Obama/Pelosi/Reid in particular, frequent mentions of "socialism" and other red-faced hyperbole, and generally venemous tone. And look at yourself reading them--see how they try to suck you into off-topic sparring with them instead of actually talking about Herbert's column.

You must ignore them. It's hard, I know. But you should know that you can't change their minds--that would require minds to change. We must combat them, but not by talking to them. Independents with genuine concerns, yes. Republicans like David Brooks and David Gergen and Colin Powell, absolutely. Not the nutjobs, though. That's what they want.

===============================================

The NYTimes published 279 comments on Herbert's editorial. They deleted this one, though. Apparently it violated their terms, though for the life of me I can't figure out why. The vast, vast majority of the comments said Herbert was right and that healthcare reform resembling ther Senate or House bills should not pass. Most were liberals, but many righty-tighties also wrote in, saying they agreed with Herbert for the first time, then went on to make venemous disparaging comments about the president, all liberals and the congressional Democrats in particular.

I'm sorry "compromise" is so very difficult for people to understand.

I fear we'll get what these NYT readers are asking for: no healthcare reform at all, since it's currently impossible to get the kind they demand. And then we'll get President Palin.