Supermajority

While I don’t really follow Keith Olbermann, (certainly) Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O’Reilly, I do follow Rachel Maddow.  She’s less snide, she’s called out Obama for failures… overall, she’s pretty darn fair to people.  She certainly has a liberal bias, but let’s face it: reality has a liberal bias.

And here’s what she pointed out last night: as Republicans are talking about being disenfranchised by a possible along-party-lines (mostly) healthcare vote, as they discuss their opinion that nothing of this seriousness should be passed without a supermajority… Maddow suggests that Democrats already have a supermajority, in the most important way:

Total votes cast for the 40 Republican Senators: 44.2 million.

Total votes cast for the 60 Democratic Senators: 82.3 million.

America gave a supermajority to the Democratic party.  Bottom line.

Don’t Kill the Messenger

…because I didn’t make this up:  A new poll by the Public Policy Polling indicates that 62% of Republicans (and, to be fair: 24% of Democrats) think that the government should stay out of Medicare.

We get what we deserve, folks.  We get what we deserve.

On Bringing a Weapon to a Political Discussion

…particularly one that involves the President:

I don’t care what point you’re trying to make.  You’re an idiot, and more than an idiot: you should be in jail.

Given this country’s history with presidents and citizens with firearms (there have been ten presidents in my lifetime; the president has been shot at four times in the same span, not including pot shots at the White House, and also not including political figures like Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy), no one within a five-block radius of the president should be allowed to have a loaded firearm.  Period.

The Debate Gets Uncivil

…which is too bad.  Because this is not about politics at all: it’s about reforming a system that works much better for insurance companies than it does for the American people.

I had an interesting debate yesterday online with a friend wherein I was a little taken aback at her rhetoric.  She shocked me by suggesting, essentially, that she is unwilling to foot the bill for deadbeats and illegal aliens.  That was the gist of her issue, and I was stunned at how easily she has apparently fallen for the fiction (which goes back as far as Reagan, and even farther) that the nation is full of welfare cheats.  It’s just mean-spirited, it’s wrong, and it reminds me of the John Kenneth Galbraith quote:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

Look: as I’ve pointed out before, I’m not married to the notion that we must have single-payer.  I’m not married to anything (except Shanny, of course).  I just want effective healthcare to be available for all Americans.  I view it as a fundamental right, in the same way I view basic education or protection from harm or foreign enemies as fundamental rights.  You don’t think I’m “asking (you) to support deadbeats and aliens” when I ask you for tax money to support public schools or the military.  It’s just what we do.  I put healthcare in that category.  Maybe you don’t; that’s okay.

My problem, fundamentally, is with the continued politicizing of what should be a debate on the merits.  And I guess what bothers me most of all, is that we are getting lied to.  And I’m sorry, Republicans, but according to Politifact, it’s mostly your leaders doing the lying:

It’s pretty impressive: Republicans and opponents make 17 claims, of which 13 are rated either “pants on fire,” or simply “false.”  Democrats and supporters fare a little better, but not as much as we would hope: they make 18 claims, 7 of which are either “False” or “Barely true.”  I should point out, too: shamefully, we note that virtually nobody is telling us the whole truth.

Some facts stand out in this debate:

• There are really four kinds of healthcare systems: Nationalized (or socialized, to use the conservative parlance), nationalized insurance (which is different), regulated, and unregulated.
• The U.S. currently uses all four: Veteran’s Hospitals are nationalized, Medicare is nationalized insurance, Massachusetts uses a regulated-insurer model, and the rest of the country is mostly unregulated.
• Though there have (shamefully) been some widely-publicized issues, vets aren’t clamoring for de-nationalization of their hospitals.
• Medicare recipients are among the happiest with their healthcare of any Americans.

I guess I make the above points mostly to suggest the following: whatever plan we choose, it isn’t about ruining America as we know it.  It’s just about providing effective, cost-efficient healthcare.

Another thing puzzles me in this debate: why is it that when I (a liberal) seem to be winning an argument, then I’m shoving my opinion down your throat, but when a conservative is winning an argument it’s somehow a victory for liberty?  Here I’ll quote from my friend directly: “I long ago gave up the idea that you (or almost anyone on your side of the political aisle) will agree with me — that’s fine by me, as long as your group doesn’t FORCE me agree with you/pay for your ideas.”

The illogic is staggering: “do what you want, but don’t ask for my tax money or buy-in.  By the way, when I’m in power and I send us on a boondoggle of a trillion-dollar war, you’d better shut your mouth and pay up, liberal commie.”  Seriously: What, exactly, would you have us do?  Are you proposing that we have a Chinese Menu of taxation, wherein you pay for what you like and ignore what you don’t?  (Hey, wait… does that mean I could have opted out of Iraq?  Maybe that would work after all…)

Sheesh.  Can we just talk about what works and what doesn’t, without resorting to finger-pointing and accusations?

In any case: this article from Factcheck.org highlights what is true and what is not in people’s recent claims about the healthcare bill.  Or how about this Factcheck post that debunks the nonsensical “death panel” claim (not surprisingly put forth by Sarah Palin)?  Either one would allow us to have a civil conversation that deals in actual facts.  Nice, huh?

Hilarity

This was sent to me by my good friend Joyce Conklin, a conservative with a sense of humor:

http://www.markfiore.com/political/reform-madness

Just Loved This…

…from “John Gray’s Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican.”  Reprinted without comment:

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It’s noon time, and Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he were educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad’s; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.)  Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

Uhh… Whoops.

In a recent editorial suggesting that the U.K. essentially condemns the old and disabled to die, the Investors’ Business Daily offered the following gem:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Cambridge fellow Hawking has… umm… lived in the U.K. his whole life.

BwaaahHaaahHaah!!

I’m laughing my guts out.  Seriously.  Oh my goodness:

This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue.  I’m not picking on Republicans here — most Republicans, and particularly Republican leaders, have long since put this issue to bed.  But I AM picking on the people who continue to insist that Barack Obama was not born in Honolulu.  Because it has come to this:

Leading the march of folks who insist that our President was actually born in Kenya is Dr. Orly Taitz, who: (a) is a doctor, lawyer, and real estate agent (??????); and (b) has a website called “The OFFICIAL website of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.”  Dr. Taitz is a woman.  “Esquire” is a term typically applied to a man.  I think she’s just generally confused, and she’s certainly perplexed in this case.

Dr./The Honorable/ Ms. Taitz, Esq., has posted a Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama.  She won’t reveal where she got it, because she says the originator “fears for his life.”  Here it is, for your comedic pleasure:

Oh, gosh.  There are a few issues:

• The “Republic of Kenya,” which issued this certificate, wasn’t a Republic until 8 months after the issue date on this document.  It was a Dominion at this point.
• While there is a Coast Provincial General Hospital (sometimes called the Coast Province General Hospital), it is never called Coast General Hospital.
• When Obama was born, Mombasa belonged to Zanzibar, and not Kenya.
• In any case, Obama’s father’s village is not near Mombasa.  It is near Nairobi.
• I don’t know, it’s just interesting that: the number 47O44 is Obama’s age at election (47), followed by the first letter of his last name, followed by 44 (and he is the 44th president).  Maybe that’s a coincidence.  Or maybe this is supposed to be a joke.
• E.F. Lavendar, listed as the Registrar, is a laundry detergent in Kenya.
• One wonders if a Muslim country would ask for the baby’s “Christian” name.
• They got Obama’s father’s age wrong, but maybe that was just a mistake.
• The place was called “Central Nyanza District” at the time, and not “Nyanza Province.”  They didn’t become provinces until 1970.
• Gotta say: pretty sweet 50-year-old piece of paper.  Apparently Kenya keeps this stuff in the Vatican’s air-locked vaults or something.  Or a time capsule.

So, you know — homework problems for the tinfoil-hat crowd.

Oh…My…Gosh. The President is a CITIZEN, Okay?

In a national poll commissioned by Markos, we learn the following:

• 23% of Americans respond either “No” or “Not sure” when asked whether President Obama was born in the U.S.
• 58% of Republicans are in either the “No” or “Not sure” camp.

Understandable, since the evidence is so thin:

• Obama produced his birth certificate during the campaign.
• The long-form certificate, as per Hawaii law, is in Hawaii.  Its existence, and its validity, has been confirmed by Hawaii’s (Republican) governor, as well as its head of Health and Human Services.
• It has been confirmed that at least two Hawaiian papers printed a birth announcement for President Obama in the week after his birth.
• Non-partisan Factcheck.org has also confirmed the existence of an original birth certificate in Hawaii.

…which makes this an AWESOME conspiracy!  That Obama’s dad had the presence of mind to insert birth announcements in Honolulu, and get actual birth certificates taken care of, while his child was born in Kenya is just amazing prescience on his part.  And then: to go ahead and get that child elected president, is just… wow.

There are people who believe this.  Seriously.  Lots of them.  Also wearing tin foil hats, and wondering where the sun goes at night.