;)
Tuesday
Apr032012
The Commentariat -- April 4, 2012
CW: I'm having eye surgery -- again -- today, so I don't know when I'll be able to post again because I don't know when I'll be able to see again. When I start up again, posting will probably be light as I'm supposed to rest a lot. So keep coming back. I'll get back up to speed as soon as I can.
My column in today's New York Times eXaminer takes a quick look at today's New York Times op-eds and concentrates on Ross Douthat's amazing post on "The Virtues of the Super PAC." The NYTX front page is here. You can contribute here. Since I compare the Times Opinion page to "The Onion," I suppose I should tell you that this is an "Onion" report, not the Times' daily podcast:
... AND contra Douthat, Fred Wertheimer writes in a Washington Post op-ed that "the only good news about the super PACs flooding the 2012 presidential race" is that "these vehicles for corruption can be eliminated. Congress can pass legislation to end these candidate-specific super PACs that is well within the bounds of Citizens United."
... Trevor Trimm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes on an important ACLU investigation of warrantless cell phone tracking. Trimm also covers the Obama administration's "absurd" pretense that the U.S. might not have a drone surveillance program, and on the FBI's "bending the rules" to surveil Americans. CW: if you were waiting for Big Brother to arrive, turn around. He might be following you.
Don't miss yesterday's comments, especially the last -- a heart-rending memoir by Julie in Massachusetts & a reminder of why we keep rowing against the current.
Your Thought for the Day (thanks to Akhilleus, who I assume is not a Mithraist but perhaps is a Dionysian):
** CW: An excellent post by Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic on his "final thoughts" on the Supreme Court's hearing of oral arguments on the ACA. A good deal of this is review of what I've linked here or written on NYTX, but Cohen puts it all together. Especially if you have been persuaded that the ACA might not be constitutional, you should read Cohen's post. ...
... Maureen Dowd adds nothing to the argument but at least she's finally writing about a substantive political matter, & her characterizations of the Supremes are on target: "Inexplicably mute 20 years after he lied his way onto the court, Clarence Thomas didn’t ask a single question during oral arguments for one of the biggest cases in the court’s history." (If you'd forgotten about that perjury, here's a reminder.) ...
... Still, no matter how warmed-over-blogosphere her column, the right -- hard and soft -- thinks Dowd overstepped her bounds in criticizing the Court. Apparently "the way things should be in the opinionator realm" is that opinion writers may not write opinions that express a right-of-center view.
... Robert Pear & Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times on what GOP legislators would do about health insurance if the Supremes strike the ACA: "Beyond some familiar ideas and slogans about 'patient-centered health care,' the Republicans concede that they have far to go to come up with a comprehensive policy to fill the gap that could be left by a Supreme Court ruling this summer."
** James Downie of the Washington Post on President Obama's budget speech yesterday, and how he used facts to make his points about the Ryan/GOP House budget -- in contrast to Ryan's speech on his budget -- a speech in which Ayn Ryan made up stuff. Video of the speech is at the top of yesterday's News Ledes. ...
... New York Times Editors: "President Obama’s fruitless three-year search for compromise with the Republicans ended in a thunderclap of a speech on Tuesday, as he denounced the party and its presidential candidates for cruelty and extremism. He accused his opponents of imposing on the country a 'radical vision' that 'is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity.'”
... Ezra Klein: "If Obama can convince the electorate that taxes go to fund services they actually care about, and the Republicans are unwisely committed to gutting those services in order to cut taxes on the richest Americans, then he's likely to win. If Mitt Romney is able to persuade them that taxes are mostly wasted, and that spending should be gutted to pay for large tax cuts, then he's likely to win." ...
... David Dayen of Firedoglake: Obama boasts about shifting right. "... the President made a very cogent case against Paul Ryan’s budget.... And he made a very good case that, in a choice between the right and the middle, the middle position, his position, should be preferable. That this leaves out an entire side of the argument should be quite obvious. This isn’t just on Obama, by the way. We’ve had a rightward shift in our politics for the last forty years. Obama didn’t really try to change that, instead positioning himself in the middle on policy, instead of shifting where the middle is perceived. But what major Democratic political figure HAS tried to change that over those forty years?" ...
... CW: I agree wholeheartedly with Dayen's caveat. But I will say this: if President Obama had been giving this kind of speech throughout his presidency, we might not be in the mess we're in. And we might not have a Republican House. Where was this guy? A part of the speech I especially enjoyed actually came in the Q&A session (I think), when Obama pointedly told the assembled reporters that he-said/she-said journalism is inherently untruthful; that the middle ground is not halfway between far right and the center, & they should quit reporting it as such.
Steve Benen: President Obama's remarks about the constitutionality of the ACA have "apparently sent some Republicans looking for the fainting couch. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) told Fox News Radio that Obama may have been 'trying to intimidate the Supreme Court' with comments Smith feared may have been 'threatening.' Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), still trying to prove his hysterical bona fides to his party base, sounded a similar alarm, saying it's 'unprecedented' for any president to try to 'intimidate the Supreme Court.' Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) parroted the same talking points... It's almost as if a memo went out -- saying in reference to the president's comments,'"It is threatening, it is intimidating.'" ...
... Greg Sargent: "If you really want to hear an 'attack' on the court, go check out F.D.R.'s 1937 address, in which he accused the Court of wanting to banish the nation to a 'No-Man’s Land of final futility.' Or check out his Fireside Chat about his court-packing scheme, in which he warned that it was time to 'save the Constitution from the Court' and accused the courts of operating in 'direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution.'”
... Andy Rosenthal of the New York Times: "In the case of the individual mandate, the issue is whether this court will sweep aside deeply established judicial precedent and cripple the government’s ability to enforce the constitution’s commerce clause. The mandate is clearly within that established legal framework. It’s also troubling that some justices are more focused on whether they like this law than whether this law is constitutional. That is the argument Mr. Obama needs to make. His comments [Monday] were a bad start."
Deborah Solomon, now of Bloomberg News: "The phrase 'job-killing regulation' has become a standard part of the political lexicon this campaign season, most often used to disparage President Barack Obama's energy and environmental policies. But a new report suggests we ought to take claims of regulatory-related unemployment with a grain of salt. The Institute for Political Integrity, a nonpartisan think tank associated with the New York University School of Law, finds many of the studies purporting to show mass job losses -- or gains -- from environmental rules use poorly executed economic models that do not accurately measure true costs and benefits." ...
... Gardiner Harris of the New York Times: "... the Obama administration has often been more cautious on regulatory issues than the F.D.A. Its top officials — many of whom have been at the agency for decades — contend that their decisions should be divorced from politics and based solely on assessments of the science." ...
... Jonathan Bernstein in the Washington Post: "... the real importance of the story is that, if the reporting is correct, the White House has made a serious mistake: It has focused too much on criticism from talk radio cranks and yahoos, instead of supporting good policy, even if it might yield 24 hours of attacks from the right.... The possibility that [talkshow hosts will] freak out over policy should be the last thing that the White House considers."
AP (via the NYT): "Surging above $1 trillion, U.S. student loan debt has surpassed credit card and auto-loan debt. This debt explosion jeopardizes the fragile recovery, increases the burden on taxpayers and possibly sets the stage for a new economic crisis."
Right Wing World
Stephen Stromberg of the Washington Post watched Mitt Romney's victory speeches last night last night & couldn't help notice the Etch-a-Sketch is already at work: "It is ... hard to watch Etch-a-Sketch Romney and not think about his long record of pandering.... There [are] those clips in which Romney insists that he is 'severely conservative,' those in which he positions himself right of Rick Perry on immigration, those in which he claims to be enthused about the radical restructuring of the federal government that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) calls a budget, or those in which he obfuscates on climate change. Even the more vigorous shaking of the Etch-a-Sketch that we are bound to see from Romney won’t prevent Obama from replaying all of that film over and over again between now and November."
Yesterday Dave Weigel of Slate, who lives in Washington, D.C., cast his vote for Jon Huntsman. Weigel explains why.
News Ledes
New York Times: "Mitt Romney tightened his grip on the Republican nomination on Tuesday with a sweep of the primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia, and found himself in his first direct engagement with President Obama, an unmistakable signal that the general election would not wait for internal Republican politics. Mr. Romney emerged from the evening with substantial gains in delegates and a growing perception that he was winning over previously reluctant elements of the party." Washington Post story here.
New York Times: "In a move likely to alter treatment standards in hospitals and doctors’ offices nationwide, a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often, and to urge patients to question these services if they are offered. Eight other specialty boards are preparing to follow suit with additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often."
Washington Post: "The standoff between the federal government and a high-profile Arizona sheriff accused of discriminating against Hispanics escalated Tuesday when settlement negotiations fell through and the Justice Department threatened to sue the sheriff. Justice officials have accused Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s department of illegally detaining Hispanic residents and denying them critical services in jail."
AFP: "Syrian forces stormed several rebel bastions on Wednesday despite a truce pledge, as Russia predicted the opposition would never defeat President Bashar al-Assad's army...." Al Jazeera story here.
The New York Times reports on possible motivations of alleged killer One L. Goh, accused of killing seven people, including two Korean-Americans, and wounded three more at a small Oakland, California, college. "On Wednesday, Mr. Goh is scheduled to be arraigned on charges of murder, attempted murder and kidnapping...."
Guardian: "The presidents of Somalia's Olympic committee and football federation are among at least six people killed in a suicide attack on the country's newly reopened national theatre."
AP: "The first detachment of 200 U.S. Marines has arrived in northern Australia, where a permanent joint training hub is taking shape as part of a U.S. shift of military strength in the Asia-Pacific region."
AP: "Campus police pepper-sprayed as many as 30 demonstrators after Santa Monica College students angry over a plan to offer high-priced courses tried to push their way into a trustees meeting, authorities said."
Guardian: "Yahoo is reportedly preparing to announce a massive round of layoffs as the troubled internet company struggles to turn around its fortunes."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (19)
As some of you know, lately I have been trying to understand conservative thinking. I have a long way to go, but in an April 2 post, contributor @Zee inadvertently added a bit to my knowledge.
Zee had written in earlier explaining why he thought the ACA was unconstitutional. Several contributors, including yours truly, contradicted some of his arguments. Zee wrote back, acknowledging that we had made interesting points & commenting on them. Then he wrote,
"Still, it's my humble opinion that the PPACA is a huge Congressional overreach, and one which, if upheld by the Supreme Court, will be as much abused in the future by conservative administrations as by liberal ones.
"I think that the Supreme Court is going to agree with me."
I'm afraid Zee may be right. Here's why. Although I am somewhat overstating the case, what Zee essentially says is, "Okay, good arguments. But I still believe the ACA is unconstitutional."
This is the "don't confuse me with the facts" argument, and we liberals may scoff, but it pervades conservative thinking. It's actually sort of a lawyerly POV: "if you don't have the facts, argue the law; if you don't have the law, argue the facts; if you have neither the facts nor the law, argue the Constitution." There's a certain "means justify the ends" ethos in play, too. The whole conservative schtick is "Whatever works."
That's why Mitt Romney feels perfectly comfortable saying whatever, then saying not-whatever the next week. And it's why I think Zee is likely right when he says the Supremes will rule against the law. Both liberals & conservatives want to have power, but many liberals want to preserve that power for the masses of Americans. Most conservatives want to preserve and enhance it for the elite -- for themselves & their "betters." I think they believe in an aristocracy as much as I don't. And they believe it is righteous to do anything necessary to aid the aristocracy, which is -- after all -- by definition, a minority!
(Liberals do believe to some extent in an aristocracy, but not in a perpetual aristocracy. We think every American should have a more-or-less equal opportunity to flourish & to join the "aristocracy" if s/he does so. But we think (a) the aristocrat should pay back the country & not just as s/he wants to by giving to the charities of her choice; & (b) the aristocracy should be largely one-generational. Yeah, give some of your wealth to your kids, but give a lot to the government, too, so that other people's kids have nearly as good as shot as do yours.)
So Anthony Kennedy, who thought 5 votes should decide a presidential election, who made the incredible argument that money does not corrupt (Citizens United) & who thinks police should be able to strip-search the hoi polloi for a traffic ticket (the assumption inherent in the ruling, I think, is that the cops are not going to be looking over the privates of Anthony Kennedy & the nation's other poobahs), also thinks he should be able to tell the riffraff in Congress how to legislate. Why? Because he has the power to do so.
And why does he think he can get away with this? Because (a) he has gotten away with it many times before, and (b) because the ACA is unpopular enough that the public will believe him when he says the law in unconstitutional.
So forget rational argument. It has no chance when pitted against the powerful. That is precisely what Nino Scalia meant when he raised the broccoli argument: it was an in-your-face means of telling the government's lawyer, "I'm the decider, punk. I can say the most ridiculous thing in the world -- shit, I can make the fucking broccoli argument -- and I am still gonna win."
He's probably right.
In 1972, while living illegally in London (my student visa had run out), I was hit by a van and hospitalized for two weeks. I was in a ward, and the medical students got to try out their "find the vein" skills on my arm, but the care was free, and after two weeks I was released, fully recovered from my injuries.
In 1998, after six years of failed psycho-pharmacology, including one combination of three antidepressants, one anti-anxiety, and a sleep aid, for acute depression, I was hospitalized in the locked ward at Paine Whitney on the Upper East Side in New York City. I was given the best of care for my illness, including several shock treatments (ECT). Although I did not recover immediately, little did I know that I was on my way.
After moving to Maine, I started my own business in 2004. Today, it is thriving, although small. Both of my kids are in college, and I'm happy that I have the ability to provide for them in a manner that seemed impossible 15 years ago. I have not taken any medication for over ten years.
As you might have surmised, my point is that in 1998 I had gold-plated healthcare, so when my psychiatrist determined that I was serious about ending my life he threw me in a cab and checked me in to Paine Whitney. I can't imagine what the outcome might have been had he bundled me off to an overcrowded, underfunded Bellevue instead.
My experience tells me that by keeping healthcare a service for which only some can qualify does not just kill people unnecessarily (although that surely would be enough to cause dismay among those who claim to value human life); it also can piss away potential. Although I normally abhor hypotheticals, I can only speculate on how many potentially productive members of society have been dragged down by a lack of affordable health care.
A day late to the Brooks pig pile, but already beat up on Douthat, so few additional thoughts on the Brooks I didn't read.
The way we finance end of life care in the United States remains a deeper, darker secret than what Mitt Romney really believes about anything.
Currently, about 1.4 million of our parents and grandparents are in long-term care. Their average age is 82. Once in residence, they are expected to live another one and a half years. Sixty percent of those cannot pay the $5-7000 a month their care costs, so Medicaid, that is, taxpayers, pay. Those payments add up to about 70 billion dollars a year, almost the cost of a war. Of the fifteen percent who can afford to pay for their care, three years in a nursing home will cost a cool quarter of a million. Because they can afford to pay their way, we call them the lucky ones.
The prospect beyond those simple statistics is even more disturbing. Until the Crash of 2008, our parents and grandparents lived in a world of economic expansion; recessions aside, for them it was mostly Good Times. But for average members of their cohort to pay for their long term care, a couple would have had to put aside 2000 dollars a month for thirty two years, not likely when median household income was less than $50,000. That Medicaid currently pays sixty percent of nursing home care tells us how unlikely it was.
If the majority of our citizens can’t pay for their nursing home care now, what do falling wages, when the share of each dollar earned that goes to workers is the lowest since tracking began in 1947, say about the future?
I think we know. Paul Ryan and his Budget Boosters certainly do. As you said in today's comments, they just don't care about ordinary people, who they define by their income or lack of it.
@Ken: Many of us in our fifties took out Long Term Health Insurance which will assuage the costs of old age dilemmas to some extent. The huge cost of Medicare results in older people getting expensive care that lengthens their life sometimes for only months. John Doe getting a liver transplant at 89; Jane, at 90 kept alive via tubes because her family can't bear to let her go. This kind of treatment has got to stop if Medicare is to survive. There has to be more discussions about "good deaths." (Of course, you know who will call it "death panels.)
A word about Romney's "winning" speech last night, and also Paul Ryan's introductory speech. First Ryan: He's an awful speaker when he's not touting his own bill, reminds me of a high school kid running for president of his class––actually a high school kid would probably do a better job. But what was alarming was most of the speech wasn't about how wonderful Romney is, but how Obama is taking us down the road to disaster. He did not back this up with facts, but with lies–-one after another and I marveled at how the audience loved it, believed him, and put their hands together for long applause. Romney took the floor: He is a good speaker, unlike Ryan, but he, too continued the fabrications until I couldn't stand to listen anymore and turned to PBS' documentary on The Suez Canal project–––always good to get the facts on historical issues.
@ Jack: I was moved by your words. You are a brave man––and if I was wearing a hat, I'd take it off and salute you.
@PD Pepe: Yes, long term care insurance does help. I think my mother's investment of 15 grand or so yielded 90 thousand, the best investment, we joked before she retreated into senility, she ever made. Between that insurance and the proceeds from selling her house during, not after, the bubble, she was able to pay her own way for her last six years of care, which totaled, sans Medicare, more than 300 thousand. My point was that the numbers demonstrate she was the exception. Most nursing home residents are on Medicaid because our economic arrangements don't make it possible for the majority to prepare for their last few years even if they wish to.
An aside: We're supposed to save for our retirement and eventual senescence, but our consumer culture tells us, even if we have more means than most, to spend it all. The savings/spend push-pull--being acted out on the national stage by the austerity players like Ryan-- is a contradiction we have been unwilling to confront. Of course we need to spend and we need to save. The question is who should be saving and who should be spending and on what. It's not about wealth but its distribution, and we're afraid to talk about it.
Forget long term healthcare insurance in the long term. Prudential and MetLife have stopped offering this type of insurance and I am sure more to follow. The only way it will come back is if states allow significant increase in premiums.
@Ken: Yes, I understand your point and I agree that those of us to do have foresight and CAN prepare for our old age are in the minority and even those able to do this don't because yes, our culture doesn't promote saving for a rainy day. Perhaps this economic decline has forced people to think differently.
WISHING MARIE SAFE SURGERY AND GOOD EYESIGHT!
@The Constant Weader--
I really think that you do me an injustice here, suggesting that I've decided that the PPACA is unconstitutional against all logic and precedent.
Back on April 2 you provided me with numerous examples of goods and services that the Federal government “forces” us to pay for whether we want them or not. Examples included the seatbelts in the back seat of your car which you never use, but which Federal safety standards require you to buy, and the Federal safety inspections of the food we—and even our pets—eat.
I acknowledged that your examples gave me something to think about, but not for too long.
Back on December 17 we had a really excellent discussion in this forum on how to read the Constitution. You referred me to a speech by David Souter, in which he discussed the many factors that need to be balanced when the Supreme Court reaches decisions on what is constitutional and what is not. It is not always clean-cut because the Constitution guarantees many good things, some of which are in tension. So the various “goods” need to be balanced against one another and sometimes lines needs to be drawn. These are judgement calls on the part of the Court, and, inevitably, some of the judges and some of the public are going to be unhappy about where the lines were drawn. That's why they call Supreme Court rulings “opinions.”
But such is life. Some black-and-white, but mostly shades of grey.
Virtually all of the examples of “forced buying” that you provided involved public health and safety. These are services and products that—I think—most judges would agree are things the public generally wants and hence are public “goods.” Who wants to drive an unsafe car, eat bad food, poison their pets, or take bad drugs?
And, I think, most judges would agree that they are pretty minor intrusions into our livesl. They don't require us to change our private lives at all. Some, in fact, can be avoided altogether. If you don't want to buy unneeded seat belts, don't buy a car. You can, after all, walk, ride a bicycle, use public transportation, or ride a motorcycle, like me. Absolutely no seatbelts included on motorcycles (or scooters, which are easier to master).
There is no doubt in my mind that it would be a public “good” for every American to have health care insurance. But to me—and, I think, SCOTUS—the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause that will be required to enforce PPACA also affords HUGE opportunities for the Federal government to intrude upon our private lives and behaviors, and and to completely destroy what I regard as one of the most sacred of civil rights, even though it is not enumerated in the Constitution: THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE.
So I've looked at your facts and precedents and decided that they are minor intrusions on our private lives and behaviors, and they also enhance public safety. But I look at what defenders of PPACA are asking me to do to individual liberty by an outrageous reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, and I feel compelled to balance PPACA's “good” against what I regard as the path to tyranny.
David Souter might come to a conclusion different than mine, but I think he would still perform the same balancing act. And he is entitled to reach his own conclusion from the same facts and precedents; again, that's why Supreme Court rulings are ultimately called “opinions.” You and Souter have yours, and I have mine, all stemming from the same facts and precedents.
In fact, it is not PPACA itself that is unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is the expansion of the Commerce Clause to include “inactivity in commerce” as, paradoxically, “activity in commerce,” hence subjecting not buying health care insurance to regulation under the Commerce Clause. But they cannot be the same thing, else the power of the Federal government becomes unlimited under the Commerce Clause, whereas our Founders clearly intended our government to be a limited one, having only enumerated powers.
It is, I think, defenders of this preposterous, paradoxical interpretation of the Commerce Clause who are being irrational, not me.
So I really don't think that I've ignored precedent and logic in reaching my ultimate conclusion that the PPACA is unconstitutional. I've merely balanced facts and precedent against the threat to individual liberty vis-a-vis the Commerce Clause, and drawn what I think is a very reasonable line from very rational thought.
If five Supreme Court Justices conclude that my logic is flawed, well, you will have your way. But remember, there were also four who thought I was right. Again, that's why their rulings are called “opinions.”
I hope that your eye surgery goes well.
@Zee. "Who wants to drive an unsafe car, eat bad food, poison their pets, or take bad drugs?". and who wants to die from a lack of healthcare? You want to be left alone? No problem, no seat belts or no car, no bad drugs or no drugs at all, no health insurance or no healthcare. Your choice.
@Jack: Thank you so much for sharing your story. It reminds me that my son is probably alive today because my insurance plan afforded him 3 chances at rehab and the 3rd one was the charm. His two closest friends are dead.
@Marie: "if you don't have the facts, argue the law; if you don't have the law, argue the facts; if you have neither the facts nor the law, argue the Constitution."
Thanks. That little quote spoke volumes to me. What I can't grasp is why, on this subject, we obsess so over a document that was written when health care consisted of bleeding by means of dirty knives or leaches. Haven't the times changes significantly enough to view this differently? Help me understand why almost all of the countries in the developed world consider health care to be a right while so many here display a "scarcity mentality". Why can those countries afford to provide this most basic human need when we have more wealth? How can partisan politics cause so many to go against their own self interests? How could we have let our government and our futures to be purchased by special interests?
Wishing you a total and speedy recovery. We will miss you terribly while you are gone.
@Geoff, the answer to all of your perfectly reasonable questions is greed. We established a healthcare system whose primary purpose is to make money. Today, finally, a series of physicians panels have made recommendations on unnecessary tests and procedures. No government involvement. It is estimated that about 1/3 of all medical activity is a waste of money. This at least is a start, although we will have to see how many doctors actually follow the new guidelines. I expect about ten nationally besides the members of the panels.
P.S. Don't forget that you have the right to carry a gun because in 1800, we had militias.
Marie, have a successful surgery and a quick recovery. I'd send flowers if I could figure out how to get them into the damn modem.
An addition to the "What Makes Conservatives Tick" project. Not new, perhaps, but colored with a startling revelation picked up in an Atlantic article on those who torture other human beings.
After reading yesterday’s posts here on RC, I was struck by a comment that questioned (rhetorically, no doubt) David Brooks’ outrageous, typically insensitive opinion regarding the fate of those who may end up with no health care at all due to the machinations of his party. Does Brooks sincerely believe in what he says? I think, actually, he does. And here’s why.
The David Brookses and Paul Ryans of the world feel that their side is blessed with the unassailable imprimatur of moral superiority and correctness. If some old people don’t have health care and end up institutionalized in a place that would make Abu Ghraib look like the resort at Baden-Baden, so be it. They were likely not very moral people to begin with or had other failings that removed them from the veil of consideration the GOP throws over those they DO consider worthy of their efforts and their unflagging attention.
Mostly, rich white right-wingers.
Doesn’t every single Brooks column for the last 10 years have, at its core (when not touting his own “research” efforts on behalf of intellectually and morally specious GOP policies), a scolding, finger-wagging morality tale that separates the world into those who are moral (white people, rich people, people who vote Republican, conservatives of every stripe, and most people who hate anything or anyone who came to prominence in the 60s on the side of progress and causes such as civil rights, women’s rights, etc.) and those who are immoral (most people of color, poor people, immigrants, liberals, progressives, anyone who desires change from the hidebound social and economic straight-jackets prescribed for them by Brooks and his ilk).
It’s a clear case of clean, decent, upright, DESERVING moral Americans versus dirty, smelly, immoral, drug addled, sexually uncontrollable, UNDESERVING flag burning hippies.
This sense of innate moral superiority makes it okay to condemn people to lives of pain and misery. Their certainty in their own value and status as deserving of a good life allows them to blithely dismiss the pain of others whom they conceive as undeserving.
It’s the reason Bush and Cheney had such an easy time subjecting other human beings to illegal and highly immoral torture that would break many and kill some. We still don’t know how many were actually murdered by Bush and Cheney and their inquisitors. In a recent article in the Atlantic, Cullen Murphy compares the ‘rules’ used by the murderous, sadistic, evil masters of the Church’s inquisitions during the middle ages with those put down in black and white by Bush apologists such as Jay Bybee, who was awarded with a lifetime appointment and honor as an appellate court judge for his service in allowing Bush interrogators to beat, torture, maim, and murder other human beings, all in the service of Bush and the right-wing’s self-serving sense of moral certainty.
Incredibly, when reading these rules back to back, the Church’s rules for torture instruct the inquisitors to STOP at the point at which Bush allowed his interrogators to BEGIN. So in fact, it wasn't actually considered serious until AFTER the point at which some of the most sadistic, brutal barbarians the world has ever seen were required to HALT their murderous work.
But this was fine and dandy to people like David Brooks. No problem there. Just moral people trying to get immoral terrorists to confess their sins.
Why then would anyone wonder what could possibly possess people like Brooks and Ryan and the other bastions of right-wing morality (yeah, I know that’s an oxymoron) to so easily dismiss the suffering directly inflicted on other human beings by the implementation of policies they champion?
If you consider yourself a morally, intellectually superior being, you might not feel at all obliged to place the concerns of indigent, unemployed, elderly, or immigrant populations, or the children of those people, above your own requirements to make the world a better and safer place for already well off billionaires. Why? Because those white billionaires DESERVE IT and YOU DON’T.
Just be glad you were not pulled in during one of their round-ups in Iraq or were renditioned to some black site for torture that even by standards of the worst torturers in history would be considered out of bounds.
That’s the morality of the modern GOP.
Don’t forget our old friend Isaiah Berlin’s warning about those whose moral certainty allowed them to construct a Final Solution. In his essay Pursuit of the Ideal, Berlin suggests that to those who, like most right-wing leaders, consider themselves on a mission to bring the nation around to their way of thinking, even by force, violence, chicanery, stolen elections, etc, no price is too high to pay to ram their version of Nirvana down everyone’s throats. And don’t think for a second that John Roberts would disagree with that.
Any other questions?
Akhilleus, you don't need my approbation, but here it is anyway. Thanks for every comment you write.
@Marvin Schwalb, @Jack Mahoney, @Geoff and @Akhilleus--
I guess that I once again have to remind you all that I support implementing a single-payer health care insurance system in this country, along the lines of Canada or Australia. @Marvin and @Akhilleus, I might have hoped that at least you two would have remembered that.
But there is a right way to go about bringing universal health care to this country, and a wrong way. Reinterpreting the Commerce Act to allow implementation of PPACA is the wrong way.
As I outlined in this forum on April 2, a single-payer system will be completely constitutional, and is the right way to go. Even if it takes time to accomplish.
@Marvin and @Geoff, apparently you have decided that the complete sacrifice of individual liberty in favor of universal health care is acceptable. Because that's what it will be if the Commerce Clause is reinterpreted: an admission that Representative Pete Stark is right, that
“The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” --Rep. Pete Stark
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40581.html
Welcome, O Brave New World!
If @Marie thinks that she has gained some insight into how Conservatives reason from my April 2 comments, well, I have gained some insight into how Progressives think, too, from the 10 months or so in which I have been participating in this forum.
Progressives claim to be deeply concerned about the increasing intrusiveness of the Federal government into our privacy, and its constant diminution of our civil rights. Witness @Janice's comment on April 3. She expressed concern about everything from the National Defense Authorization Act to transvaginal probes to strip searches.
Yet, when it comes to getting things that they want —such as universal health care— Progressives are prepared to hand the government the right to intrude into every detail of their private lives. Which is what the expansion of the Commerce Clause will be.
Which is it: Do you—justifiably, in my eyes—worry about governmental abuse of power at every turn? Or do you selectively trust that the government will do the right thing when it suits your purposes, yet anxiously claim to fear government intrusiveness at all other times? I think you Progressives take the latter approach, and sooner or later it will turn around and bite you. Hard.
Government's natural tendency to accumulate power unto itself should be feared at every turn. That's my approach, and I think that it is the correct one.
@Geoff--
You say/ask “What I can't grasp is why, on this subject, we obsess so over a document that was written when health care consisted of bleeding by means of dirty knives or leaches. Haven't the times changes significantly enough to view this differently?” --Geoff (bold emphasis added)
Well, the last time I looked, the Constitution—that old document --was the supreme law of the land. If a Supreme Court can re-write the Constitution to suit your purposes today with a mere “opinion,” why can't it re-write it to suit my purposes—and to your extreme dissatisfaction—tomorrow?
Perhaps you should go back to the December 17 discussion (+/- a day) in this forum. And if you don't like the supreme law of the land, either amend it or call for a Constitutional Convention. You have that prerogative, after all. But don't be an idiot and assume that the Supreme Court will always interpret/re-write the Consititution to suit your purposes.
@Marvin--
I thought you would have presented some better arguments in support of the PPACA. Instead, all I heard was nonsense.
@Akhilleus--
I am indeed white, but I am neither rich nor powerful, and as we have discussed before, I am a self-confessed Progressive Christian. Yet, still I oppose PPACA. What do you make of me?
@Jack Mahoney--
I am grateful that you had “gold plated healthcare” in your time of need. As one who has been treated for depression—and I still am—I empathize mightily. Though I never reached the point of institutionalization, I actually think I understand the depth of despair to which you may have sunk . I just couldn't confess it.
As an aside, can you imagine how difficult it is to go through a security clearance reinvestigation after admitting that you have been treated for depression? I know from personal experience. It is not pleasant.
As I said, you have my sympathy.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Marie. I had eye surgery recently and will have to have another, too. So far, so good.
@Marvin: I suspect you are quite right about greed creating the ills in our health care system and national debate. I hope I live to see a day when we can unite around values that direct us to act as a civilized society.
@Marvin Schwalb, @Jack Mahoney, @Geoff and @Akhilleus--
I guess that I once again have to remind you all that I support implementing a single-payer health care insurance system in this country, along the lines of Canada or Australia. @Marvin and @Akhilleus, I might have hoped that at least you two would have remembered that.
But there is a right way to go about bringing universal health care to this country, and a wrong way. Reinterpreting the Commerce Act to allow implementation of PPACA is the wrong way.
As I outlined in this forum on April 2, a single-payer system will be completely constitutional, and is the right way to go. Even if it takes time to accomplish.
@Marvin and @Geoff, apparently you have decided that the complete sacrifice of individual liberty in favor of universal health care is acceptable. Because that's what it will be if the Commerce Clause is reinterpreted: an admission that Representative Pete Stark is right, that:
“The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” --Rep. Pete Stark
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40581.html
Welcome, O Brave New World!
If @Marie thinks that she has gained some insight into how Conservatives reason from my April 2 comments, well, I have gained some insight into how Progressives think, too, from the 10 months or so in which I have been participating in this forum.
Progressives claim to be deeply concerned about the increasing intrusiveness of the Federal government into our privacy, and its constant diminution of our civil rights. Witness @Janice's comment on April 3. She expressed concern about everything from the National Defense Authorization Act to transvaginal probes to strip searches.
Yet, when it comes to getting things that they want —such as universal health care— Progressives are prepared to hand the government the right to intrude into every detail of their private lives. Which is what the expansion of the Commerce Clause will be.
To me, this is a truly amazing example of cognitive dissonance.
Which is it: Do you—justifiably, in my eyes—worry about governmental abuse of power at every turn? Or do you selectively trust that the government will do the right thing when it suits your purposes, yet anxiously claim to fear government intrusiveness at all other times?
I think you Progressives take the latter approach, and sooner or later it will turn around and bite you. Hard.
Government's natural tendency to accumulate power unto itself should be feared at every turn. That's my approach, and I think that it is the correct one.
@Geoff--
You say/ask “What I can't grasp is why, on this subject, we obsess so over a document that was written when health care consisted of bleeding by means of dirty knives or leaches. Haven't the times changes significantly enough to view this differently?” Geoff (bold emphasis added)
Well, the last time I looked, the Constitution—that old document --was the supreme law of the land. If a Supreme Court can re-write the Constitution to suit your purposes today with a mere “opinion,” why can't it re-write it to suit my purposes—and to your extreme dissatisfaction—tomorrow? Be careful what you wish for.
Perhaps you should go back to the December 17 discussion (+/- a day) in this forum. And if you don't like the supreme law of the land, either amend it or call for a Constitutional Convention. You have that prerogative, after all. But don't be an idiot and assume that the Supreme Court will always interpret/re-write the Consititution to suit your purposes alone.
@Marvin--
I thought you would have presented some better arguments in support of the PPACA. Instead, all I heard was nonsense.
@Akhilleus--
I am indeed white, but I am neither rich nor powerful, and as we have discussed before, I am a self-confessed Progressive Christian. Yet, still I oppose PPACA. What do you make of me in your analysis of what makes Conservatives tick?
@Jack Mahoney--
I am grateful that you had “gold plated healthcare” in your time of need. As one who has been--and still is being--treated for depression I empathize mightily. Though I never reached the point of institutionalization, I actually think I understand the depth of despair to which you may have sunk. I am very glad things turned out well.
@Marvin Schwalb, @Jack Mahoney, @Geoff and @Akhilleus--
(I tried to post this several times previously and it bounced each time. So I apologize if it eventually appears multiple times. @Geoff: I also sincerely apologize for the unwarranted use of a pejorative term in the previous versions, should they ultimately appear in this forum. It was extremely stupid and disrespectful of me to do so.)
I guess that I once again have to remind you all that I support implementing a single-payer health care insurance system in this country, along the lines of Canada or Australia. @Marvin and @Akhilleus, I might have hoped that at least you two would have remembered that.
But there is a right way to go about bringing universal health care to this country, and a wrong way. Reinterpreting the Commerce Act to allow implementation of PPACA is the wrong way.
As I outlined in this forum on April 2, a single-payer system will be completely constitutional, and is the right way to go. Even if it takes time to accomplish.
@Marvin and @Geoff, apparently you have decided that the complete sacrifice of individual liberty in favor of universal health care is acceptable. Because that's what it will be if the Commerce Clause is reinterpreted: an admission that Representative Pete Stark is right, that
“The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” --Rep. Pete Stark
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40581.html
Welcome, O Brave New World!
If @Marie thinks that she has gained some insight into how Conservatives reason from my April 2 comments, well, I have gained some insight into how Progressives think, too, from the 10 months or so in which I have been participating in this forum.
Progressives claim to be deeply concerned about the increasing intrusiveness of the Federal government into our privacy, and its constant diminution of our civil rights. Witness @Janice's comment on April 3. She expressed concern about everything from the National Defense Authorization Act to transvaginal probes to strip searches.
Yet, when it comes to getting things that they want —such as universal health care— Progressives are prepared to hand the government the right to intrude into every detail of their private lives. Which is what the expansion of the Commerce Clause will be.
Which is it: Do you—justifiably, in my eyes—worry about governmental abuse of power at every turn? Or do you selectively trust that the government will do the right thing when it suits your purposes, yet anxiously claim to fear government intrusiveness at all other times? I think most Progressives take the latter approach, and sooner or later it will turn around and bite you. Hard.
Government's natural tendency to accumulate power unto itself should be feared at every turn. That's my approach, and I think that it is the correct one.
@Geoff--
You say/ask “What I can't grasp is why, on this subject, we obsess so over a document that was written when health care consisted of bleeding by means of dirty knives or leaches. Haven't the times changes significantly enough to view this differently?” G--eoff (bold emphasis added)
Well, the last time I looked, the Constitution—that old document --was the supreme law of the land. If a Supreme Court can re-write the Constitution to suit your purposes today with a mere “opinion,” why can't it re-write it to suit my purposes—and to your extreme dissatisfaction—tomorrow?
Perhaps you should go back to the December 17 discussion (+/- a day) in this forum. And if you don't like the supreme law of the land, either amend it or call for a Constitutional Convention. You have that prerogative, after all. But don't be naive and assume that the Supreme Court will always interpret/re-write the Constitution to suit your purposes.
@Marvin--
I thought you would have presented some better arguments in support of the PPACA.
@Akhilleus--
I am indeed white and conservative, but I am neither rich nor powerful, and as we have discussed before, I am a Progressive Christian who tries to act accordingly. Yet, still I oppose PPACA. What do you make of me in your analysis?
@Jack Mahoney--
I am grateful that you had “gold plated healthcare” in your time of need. I hope you still have such insurance. As one who has been treated for depression—and still is—I empathize mightily. Though I never even came close to the point of institutionalization, I still think I can understand the depth of despair to which you sank at the time.