Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Guest Speed Racer]

But you're right, real life is complex, but you might not know that if you're a fan of Rush Limbaugh, etc.

 

Or any of the left-wing pundits who (as you well know) declare any conservative person as an outright moron. Or violent. Or evil. Or any combination of the above.

 

I don’t know, I wouldn’t go out of my way to seek the support of a group of people who conduct themselves the way the tea baggers (or truthers) have – some things are more important than votes.

 

Only a fraction of them are violent, and only a fraction of them say the things that we see on TV/hear on the radio. Boring, normal people who belong to the Tea Party don't generally make the news, if you haven't noticed.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Not to get back on topic, but here's an interesting analysis about paying for others' bad habits:

 

No Matter What, We Pay for Others' Bad Habits

 

By SANDEEP JAUHAR, M.D.

Published: March 29, 2010

 

"I'm tired of paying for everyone else’s stupidity," is a comment I read on the Internet last week after the health care bill was passed. It summed up the views of many Americans worried about shelling out higher premiums and taxes to cover the uninsured. Why should we pick up the tab when so much disease in our country stems from unhealthy behavior like smoking and overeating?

 

In fact, the majority of Americans say it is fair to ask people with unhealthy lifestyles to pay more for health insurance. We believe in the concept of personal responsibility. You hear it in doctors' lounges and in coffee shops, among the white collar and blue collar alike. Even President Obama has said, "We've got to have the American people doing something about their own care."

 

But personal responsibility is a complex notion, especially when it comes to health. Individual choices always take place within a broader, messy context. When people advocate the need for personal accountability, they presuppose more control over health and sickness than really exists.

 

Unhealthy habits are one factor in disease, but so are social status, income, family dynamics, education and genetics. Patient noncompliance with medical recommendations undoubtedly contributes to poor health, but it is as much a function of poor communication, medication costs and side effects, cultural barriers and inadequate resources as it is of willful disregard of a doctor's advice.

 

A few years ago surgeons in Melbourne, Australia, were refusing to provide heart and lung surgeries to smokers, even those who needed the operations to stay alive. "Why should taxpayers pay for it?" said one surgeon quoted in media reports at the time. "It is consuming resources for someone who is contributing to their own demise."

 

Though some were outraged by this stance — the Australian Medical Association called it "“unconscionable" to ration services based on personal habits — many doctors agreed with it. Like the majority of Americans, they saw nothing wrong with patients paying for the consequences of their actions.

 

The problem is that punitive measures to force healthy behavior do not usually work. In 2006, West Virginia started rewarding Medicaid patients who signed a pledge to enroll in a wellness plan and to follow their doctors’ orders with special benefits, including unlimited prescription-drug coverage, programs to help them quit smoking and nutrition counseling. Those who did not sign up were enrolled in a more restrictive plan that, among other things, limited drug coverage to only four prescriptions a month.

 

The program, by many accounts, is failing. As of August 2009, only 15 percent of 160,000 eligible patients had signed up. Patients with limited transportation options were having a hard time committing to regular office visits. And experts say there is no evidence that restricting benefits for noncompliant patients has promoted healthy behaviors.

 

As a cardiology fellow, I once took care of a young man with severe congestive heart failure. We were supposed to start him on a blood thinner early in his hospitalization, but it got overlooked. Fed up with the delays in getting his blood sufficiently thinned, he left the hospital against medical advice. He said he had to go home to care for his toddler.

 

He came to the clinic a week later looking very embarrassed. He had left without prescriptions, so he had been taking no medications since he left, leaving him short of breath. To compound the problem, he had been eating cold cuts, cheap and readily available, which made his condition even worse. But the attending physician refused to give him prescriptions. She said that he had to go to a walk-in clinic. She said he had to learn personal responsibility.

 

Healthy living should be encouraged, but punishing patients who make poor health choices clearly oversimplifies a very complex issue. We should be focusing on public health campaigns: encouraging exercise, smoking cessation and so on. Of course, this will require a change in how we live, how we plan our communities.

 

"It's the context of people's lives that determines their health," said a World Health Organization report on health disparities. "So blaming individuals for poor health or crediting them for good health is inappropriate."

 

I must admit I often feel like my colleagues who grouse about spending all day treating patients who do not seem to care about their health and then demand a quick fix. I do not relish paying more taxes to treat patients who engage in unhealthy habits. But then I remind myself that we all engage in socially irresponsible behavior that others pay for. I try to eat right and get enough exercise. But then I also sometimes send text messages when I drive.

 

The whole point of insurance is to reduce risk. When people inveigh against the lack of personal responsibility in health care, they are really demanding a different model, one based on actual risk, not just on spreading costs evenly through society. Sick people, they are really saying, should pay more. Which model we eventually adopt in this country will say a lot about the kind of society we want to live in.

[bleedorange]

The Real Anti-Americans

[Good Old Neon]

The Real Anti-Americans

 

I can sort of maybe understand unrest in relation to say, civil rights or a war, but what I cannot understand, is how the right has got itself so worked up in response to a neutered health care bill and some total fabrications regarding Obama’s status as a citizen, his ties to terrorists and/or terrorism, his plot to destroy America, take away our freedoms, and turn the US into a socialist state. And therein, for me, lies the capital D, difference, the right is getting itself all worked up in response to things that, and here is the hook, are not fucking real – and that, I think, matters.

 

With respect to Pat’s concerns regarding North America’s darkening complexion, perhaps it would be wise for him to reflect upon this land masses’ history, the one in which dark skinned people inhabited the land. Assholes like Buchanan appear to believe that history began with the appearance of white men.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

 

Only a fraction of them are violent, and only a fraction of them say the things that we see on TV/hear on the radio. Boring, normal people who belong to the Tea Party don't generally make the news, if you haven't noticed.

 

 

Made it a tad more accurate

[bleedorange]

With respect to Pat’s concerns regarding North America’s darkening complexion, perhaps it would be wise for him to reflect upon this land masses’ history, the one in which dark skinned people inhabited the land. Assholes like Buchanan appear to believe that history began with the appearance of white men.

 

Huh? Talk about finding things that are not fucking real. Of course, far be it from you to misread something to fit whatever opinion you have already formed. Besides, that wasn't even the main point of the article.

 

Plus, is he just an asshole because of his views on immigration?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I can sort of maybe understand unrest in relation to say, civil rights or a war, but what I cannot understand, is how the right has got itself so worked up in response to a neutered health care bill and some total fabrications regarding Obama’s status as a citizen, his ties to terrorists and/or terrorism, his plot to destroy America, take away our freedoms, and turn the US into a socialist state. And therein, for me, lies the capital D, difference, the right is getting itself all worked up in response to things that, and here is the hook, are not fucking real – and that, I think, matters.

 

With respect to Pat’s concerns regarding North America’s darkening complexion, perhaps it would be wise for him to reflect upon this land masses’ history, the one in which dark skinned people inhabited the land. Assholes like Buchanan appear to believe that history began with the appearance of white men.

 

Did you READ the article? I know you revel in the polemic, but ...

[bleedorange]

Did you READ the article? I know you revel in the polemic, but ...

 

And to think that it wasn't even 1/4 as long as most of the stuff he posts here.

[Gobias Industries]

The Real Anti-Americans

 

I think it runs both ways, though. The right are getting all riled up and propagating fear about a bill that really is much less than what it's purported to be, and all their riling up is causing the left to get wayyyyyy too riled up given some "fear" of the right who are supposedly wayyyyy too riled up about the bill. It's getting distorted on both sides of the spectrum, not just one side. Buchanan mildly addresses it at the beginning, but I hardly consider it enough. But, for his entry to make any sense he as to downplay one side to make his point, so I see why it was done. Not that I particularly agree with it, but I understand what he's doing with it.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Okay, so I didn't read the whole article, I'll admit, but that's because the last thing I ever want to do is hear a white, straight male refer to either "nigger" or "faggot" as a "nasty name," (oooh, and even "naughty" later on!) or to deny that anyone who uses them is anything other than a bigot or a racist.

 

Pat Buchanan is someone I find very tolerable, 9 times out of 10, but jesus christ, he has no fucking clue this time around. He may well have ultimately made a good point in that article, somewhere in there, but the opening premise was too offensive for me to continue.

[futureage1]

Naomi Wolf Thinks the Tea Parties Help Fight Fascism -- Is She Onto Something or in Fantasy Land?

 

Naomi Wolf, author of 'End of America,' talks about why she has become an improbable Tea Party darling, and if progressives can learn from the conservative activists.

 

March 30, 2010-In her bestselling End of America, Naomi Wolf outlines the 10 warning signs that America is headed toward a fascist takeover. Using historical precedents, she explains how our government is mimicking those of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin through practices like surveillance of ordinary citizens, restricting the press, developing paramilitary forces and arbitrarily detaining people.

 

The book was lauded by liberals under Bush: the Independent Publishers gave it the Freedom Fighter Award; John Nichols at the Nation named it the most valuable political book of 2007. Now, under President Obama, Wolf's book is providing ammunition for the Tea Partiers, Patriots, Ron Paul supporters and Oath Keepers, who also warn of impending tyrannical government. Even when the book first came out pre-Obama, Alex Jones, Michael Savage and Fox News invited her on their shows, and agreed with her.

It’s not just her message. She speaks their language, referring to the Founding Fathers and American Revolution as models, admitting to a profound sense of fear, warning of tyranny, fascism, Nazism and martial law. When Glenn Beck warns of these things we laugh. When Wolf draws those same connections, we listen. How can both sides be speaking the same language, yet see things so differently? Or are we just not listening to each other? I telephoned Wolf to ask her what it means when your book ends up bolstering policies you oppose...

Justine Sharrock: First off, is your book still relevant under Obama?

 

Naomi Wolf: Unfortunately it is more relevant. Bush legalized torture, but Obama is legalizing impunity. He promised to roll stuff back, but he is institutionalizing these things forever. It is terrifying and the left doesn’t seem to recognize it.

JS: Did you realize that your book is being lauded within the Tea Party and patriot movements?

 

NW: Since I wrote Give Me Liberty, I have had a new audience that looks different than the average Smith girl. There is a giant libertarian component. I have had a lot of dialogue with the Ron Paul community. There are [Tea Partiers] writing to me on my Facebook page, but I figured they were self-selective libertarians and not arch conservatives. I am utterly stunned that I have a following in the patriot movement and I wasn’t aware that specific Tea Partiers were reading it. They haven’t invited me to speak. They invited Sarah Palin.

JS: If they did invite you, would you speak at a Tea Party?

 

NW: I would go in a heartbeat. I’ll go anywhere to talk about the Constitution. I believe in trans-partisan organizing around these issues. When I went on Fox News people asked me why I was going on those shows. Are you kidding? You have to go, especially to people you don’t agree with. We need to get back into grappling with people we disagree with if we want to restore the Republic.

 

I was invited by the Ron Paul supporters to their rally in Washington last summer and I loved it. I met a lot of people I respected, a lot of “ordinary” people, as in not privileged. They were stepping up to the plate, when my own liberal privileged fellow demographic habituates were lying around whining. It was a wake-up call to the libertarians that there’s a progressive who cares so much about the same issues. Their views of liberals are just as distorted as ours are of conservatives.

 

JS: Why do you think the sides don’t understand each other?

NW: Frankly, liberals are out of the habit of communicating with anyone outside their own in cohort. We have a cultural problem with self-righteousness and elitism. Liberals roll their eyes about going on "Oprah" to reach a mass audience by using language that anyone can understand even if you majored in semiotics at Yale. We look down on people we don’t agree with. It doesn’t serve us well.

 

There is also a deliberate building up of two camps that benefits from whipping up home team spirit and demonizing the opposition. With the Internet there is even more fractioning since we are in echo chambers. With so much propaganda it is hard to calm down enough to listen.

 

JS: What do you think is the biggest misconception about the Tea Parties?

NW: The Tea Party is not monolithic. There is a battle between people who care about liberty and the Constitution and the Republican Establishment who is trying to take ownership of it and redirect it for its own purposes.

 

http://www.alternet.org/news/146184/naomi_wolf_thinks_the_tea_parties_help_fight_fascism_--_is_she_onto_something_or_in_fantasy_land__

[MattZ]

Okay, so I didn't read the whole article, I'll admit, but that's because the last thing I ever want to do is hear a white, straight male refer to either "nigger" or "faggot" as a "nasty name," (oooh, and even "naughty" later on!) or to deny that anyone who uses them is anything other than a bigot or a racist.

 

You should have read the article then. His point was not to deny that anyone who uses those terms is anything other than a bigot or a racist. His point was that the Tea Partiers have denied the claims, and that there is no audio or video to prove what was or wasn't said. And that, if true, the terms are despicable and all claims should be investigated.

 

And, for the record, I happen to think Pat Buchanan is (generally) a moron. When did people in here stop reading?

[caliber66]

He did say there's no video of either slur or of Emmanuel Cleaver being spit on. There is video of the spitting. Doesn't look like it was intentional, but I'd be pissed too.

 

here it is

[bleedorange]

He did say there's no video of either slur or of Emmanuel Cleaver being spit on. There is video of the spitting. Doesn't look like it was intentional, but I'd be pissed too.

 

here it is

 

I doubt he'll win an Oscar for that performance

[caliber66]

You don't think he actually got spit on?

[Gobias Industries]

You don't think he actually got spit on?

 

I think he's trying to say that Morgan Freeman could fake a reaction to getting spit on better than Emmanuel Cleaver could react when actually spit on.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I can sort of maybe understand unrest in relation to say, civil rights or a war, but what I cannot understand, is how the right has got itself so worked up in response to a neutered health care bill and some total fabrications regarding Obama’s status as a citizen, his ties to terrorists and/or terrorism, his plot to destroy America, take away our freedoms, and turn the US into a socialist state. And therein, for me, lies the capital D, difference, the right is getting itself all worked up in response to things that, and here is the hook, are not fucking real – and that, I think, matters.

Perhaps oversimplifying -- but that's the point -- the issues are oversimplified to black and white for those who will scream it until spittle purposely or inadvertantly strikes others. There were many videos leading up to the rally of these same tea party zealots repeating the most ridiculous things and people shouting in agreement and working their collective brain cell into a lather (unbiased reporting here).

 

Here's why the Dems are getting all worked up in response -- this is how the Republicans elected an idiot TWICE. And given a chance -- despite the war, despite the deficit spending, complete inaction of six years of Republican leadership in all three houses -- they would vote for him again.

 

These real fears can't be discounted. Enough core conservatives and a whacked but organized rabble will sway a democracy to militia-fed fanatics.

[Analogman]

These real fears can't be discounted. Enough core conservatives and a whacked but organized rabble will sway a democracy to militia-fed fanatics.

 

I do know that Palin (one of the Tea Party leaders, along with Glen Beck) has suggested that they (The Tea Party) join up with the Republican Party.

 

I guess she is busy now with her shows Real American Stories (Fox) and Sarah Palin's Alaska on the Discovery Channel. I don't think she is going away any time soon. There are a lot of misguided people out there.

 

Speaking of Mr. Beck, let's not forget:The 9/12 Project.

 

He should get General Bethlehem to join the movement.

9 Principles, 12 Values

[calvino]

I guess she is busy now with her shows Real American Stories (Fox) and Sarah Palin's Alaska on the Discovery Channel. I don't think she is going away any time soon. There are a lot of misguided people out there.

 

9 Principles, 12 Values

 

Just so everyone can follow the fabulous Palin's career, her new show will be on the Learning Channel. Sarah Palin's Alaska link

(A-Man, I know you must just be part of the socialist conspiracy by giving that deliberately false information.)

[Analogman]

Just so everyone can follow the fabulous Palin's career, her new show will be on the Learning Channel. Sarah Palin's Alaska link

(A-Man, I know you must just be part of the socialist conspiracy by giving that deliberately false information.)

 

When I looked it up, the news stories I found noted the show as being on The Discovery Channel. Interesting.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You should have read the article then. His point was not to deny that anyone who uses those terms is anything other than a bigot or a racist. His point was that the Tea Partiers have denied the claims, and that there is no audio or video to prove what was or wasn't said. And that, if true, the terms are despicable and all claims should be investigated.

 

I read far enough to know that was his greater point, but he's a smart man and is well aware of the power of language. His use of the words "naughty" and "nasty name" are meant to diminish the power of those slurs, for the purpose of proving his point. Shit like that is more than name-calling, but he has to bring it back down to that for his point to work. Since I can't believe in his first claim, then the argument that rests on it is nothing but horseshit.

[Central Scrutinizer]

9 Principles, 12 Values

This is absolute hypocritical hogwash.

 

Principles 1-2 by their very nature render principles 4, 7-9 untrue.

 

If this is a group that stands on its love of country, Christianity and honesty, those principles are biblically incorrect. What is America then if not Democracy, a system of government. How can government be good but an adjust of me and mine rather than part of a community guided by laws and mores?

 

6 attacks their own principle that they are above the law and the rule of the land.

 

I can picture this on a board scrawled by pigs who are dressing up in the farmer's clothes.

[bleedorange]

This is absolute hypocritical hogwash.

 

Principles 1-2 by their very nature render principles 4, 7-9 untrue.

 

If this is a group that stands on its love of country, Christianity and honesty, those principles are biblically incorrect. What is America then if not Democracy, a system of government. How can government be good but an adjust of me and mine rather than part of a community guided by laws and mores?

 

6 attacks their own principle that they are above the law and the rule of the land.

 

I can picture this on a board scrawled by pigs who are dressing up in the farmer's clothes.

 

I'm really not sure I follow your logic.

[bleedorange]

You don't think he actually got spit on?

 

I think anyone can tell the difference between being purposely spit on and accidentally catching some spittle from someone yelling nearby. And his overreaction reminds me of Kramer and Newman in The Boyfriend episode (the magic loogie).

[Central Scrutinizer]

I'm really not sure I follow your logic.

That explains a lot!