Wednesday, March 17


Kirk Johnson, "States' Rights Is Rallying Cry of Resistance for Lawmakers". March 16

FIRST, what Pierce said, as a general maxim:
Ask me what I'd do, and I'd probably vote for the ongoing POS that is the Senate bill. However, I would like both Kevin and Matt -- or John -- to explain the "stepping-stone" argument to me. Why , precisely, should I believe that, that once we pass the POS, any opportunity to improve it, largely by the process of political evolution, will remain? Am I to believe that, gifted with a federal mandate requiring people to buy their products, the insurance companies will drop over time their resistance to the kind of health-care system that exists everywhere else in the industrialized world? That they will desist from the practice of buying enough legislators to eviscerate any subsequent attempts to reform the new system to the advantage of their consumers? Why would they do this? Please show your work.

Nothing, nothing whatsoever supports naiveté about Centrists and Centrism anymore. The only Exit door in that direction leads you to rejoining the Right, like y'all did for Iraq. There was no excuse, in 2008, for anyone of voting age to've been innocent of the eight-year attempted palace coup of 1992-2000; there was no excuse for anyone with a passing familiarity with domestic politics, let alone someone with an Ivy League BA in political science, to imagine there'd been anyone in the Republican party interested in vanquishing the Evils of Partisanship, except insofar as it was liberal Democratic partisanship, for the past forty years. There was no reason to imagine that Reagan's "successes" were due to anything other than the accident of "conservative" legislative hegemony by states with more livestock than people, and the cowardly retreat of real Democrats faced with losing an election they lost anyway. There's no getting around what (Nothing) Congress accomplished after being given a clear mandate for change in 2006. And Nothing is more than it accomplished with historical majorities in 2008.
In Utah, lawmakers embraced states’ rights with a vengeance in the final days of the legislative session last week. One measure said Congress and the federal government could not carry out health care reform, not in Utah anyway, without approval of the Legislature. Another bill declared state authority to take federal lands under the eminent domain process. A resolution asserted the “inviolable sovereignty of the State of Utah under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”

Y'know, I remain unconvinced the idiots in Utah can run Utah, without adding in the 70% the Feds take care of so the locals can busy themselves marrying their 14-year-old cousins and waiting for the Archangel Monsanto to bring 'em some more Heavenly Dinner Plates. So fuckin' let 'em try, already. It's obvious the only thing that's ever gonna meet these illiterate fits of teenaged pique is calling 'em on it. They think canned sheep hunts in Former National Parks are going to make up the revenue difference when the people who now tour Utah no longer want to go to the Former National Parks because of the canned sheep hunts? Okay. Only let's set twenty years operating expenses, in advance, as the price for taking them back next time.

Utah, not surprisingly, has been a net recipient of Federal tax money 17 of the last 25 years (okay, so maybe those eight other years are surprising); seems like a fine time for the New Hampshire and Minnesota and Illinois legislatures to turn off the spigot. South Dakota's averaged a 40% lagniappe over that period. Let 'em make up the difference taxing ammo.

Forget missing George Bush; can't anybody here remember him? These fucks can't run a million-dollar parade. They can't beat a country with no army. Run the modern world? Fuck, they can't even figure out how to run from it. In Utah. Jesus H. Christ With An Assault Rifle, whatever happened to the good ol' country wisdom that when you catch your smartass ten-year-old smoking a cigarette you make him smoke the whole pack?

Let Kansas teach its schoolchildren that Jesus rode dinosaurs. What, exactly, will the rest of us lose? The bright kids in Kansas will figure it out anyway, and move someplace civilized, and the rest of the state can listen to the corn grow and hope to die before it gets sick. Okay, so this doesn't bode well for the sheep, but the hip-wader industry will flourish. It's an Ill Wind.

Incidentally, an interesting object lesson in the sort of mindlessness which got us here when, snug in its American Exceptionalist cocoon, it decided to humor these 19th century frontier inbreds in the name of Faux Balance, has been on view in, of all places, local Indianapolis teevee news, where, for one, Reconcilliation is the first parliamentary procedure they've ever paid any attention to, and, two, some guy with a phony diploma who's been practicing as a psychologist has gotten more attention than all the phony practitioners of the Daniels administration combined, even after they were caught tossing a billion at Mitch Roob's former employer. Never mind that the sort of harm the guy could have caused by pretending to be a psychologist is about the same as what a real psychologist can. It's the biggest story ever, helped along by every teaser and graphic that says he was pretending to be a doctor. If the guy's office had been a housekeeping disaster, or full of cats, and he'd left a baby in his car while he ran in for cigarettes, I swear at least one of the anchors would be having uncontrolled orgasms on screen.


Keifus said...

Yeah, the Jane Hamsher thing gets on my nerves. The criticism, best I can glean, is that she dared find common cause with the loony opposition in an attempt to forward a single-payer agenda. (One of the versions that was off the table from the get-go.) Meanwhile, the pragmatists are looking to compromise with centrist luminaries like Max Baucus and Bart Stupak to achieve the same ends (eventually, and in principle). I mean, okay, granted, Norquist is a hirsute movie villain of a conservative, and I'm sure the notion that working with the bastard would help the cause is risibly misguided, but that's an error of judgement. I don't see a huge difference in kind.

Of course, most of what I know about Hamsher is based on the form letters she emails periodically. As such, I'm not a fan.

Poicephalus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JMC said...

I dunno -- slippery slope, is possible. Will they be satisfied w/Utah? Don't think so. I mean, the *entire game* is to turn up the heat on Libs so high that they vacate & turn over things to the right. That's it. There's no other strategy, and a single tactic, rocket-propelled by bald-faced lies. Once they're in and Libs turn up the flame, they'll laugh and laugh and admire the steam heat...

Keifus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Keifus said...

Weird, I have no idea what caused the icon switcheroo. Apparently now back to my usual extraneous self.

(I don't read Jane's emails very often and have little comment on the content--I just hate being spammed.)

lawguy said...

Actually, there seems to be no there there in the various critisms of people who attack HCR from the left.

Is that too confusing? What I mean is that all those who are attacking Hampshire seem to be saying I'm gonna get health insurance and her (our?)response is no you aren't and here is why.

Then their response is you no good )*(&^%$)!!!!

nanute said...

lawyguy: I beg to differ. There is plenty of substance to the argument from the left against this abomination of a "health care" bill. And rest assured, if the bill becomes law, Republicans will beat the Democrats to a bloody pulp with the new and improved narrative: The government is demanding (mandating) that you must by health care from private companies that already have an abysmal and corrupt sysytem of providing "service." Here's a link to Michael Moore's critique: Enjoy.

lawguy said...

nanute I agree that there is pleanty of good critism from the left of HCR. What I'm trying to understand is the visceral hatred from so called liberals who attack people at Firedoglake and others who continue to oppose a bill that most of them insisted that they wouldn't vote for only a month ago.

Kathy said...

Maybe the people who've caved in to the awful HCR bill feel ashamed and guilty, and are lashing out at the Others who are still staunchly against it.

I lean towards the FDL viewpoint; BUT if this bill went into effect *immediately*, and not 3 years from now (probably after its been further gutted, or twisted to favor the insurance companies even more) I might say "Go for it!"

But to vote in favor of a bill that will take effect AFTER the next important elections, seems stupid. At least, stupid if you really *want* improvement.

Here is our country with rapidly rising unemployment; and we know that means rapid rising lack of healthcare: NOW. Those people should not have to wait for help till 2013.

nanute said...

lawguy: I can't speak for anyone but myself. (And I've refrained from criticizing anyone at FDL.) I think some on the left/liberal/progressive side (I hate labels), might in fact be angry with Jane Hampsher for her naive attempt to find common ground with Grover Norquist. Those on the left that still support this monstrosity of a "reform" bill just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that a bad bill is just that; a bad bill. And passing it will not serve the interests of the poor, the uninsured or the future prospects for the Democratic Party. I agree with threatening members of congress that pledged to vote no without a public option that took money from groups affiliated with FDL, that are now considering voting for the legislation.
Isn't it amazing that it is always the progressive/liberals that must give up on principle for the good of the party? I'm angry, disappointed and to the point where I almost hope that the reactionary right regains control of the process. (I'm not sure they ever lost it, by the likes of what's going on right now.) Maybe, just maybe if these charlatans and hucksters are able to convince enough people that the evil liberals are gonna kill their grandmothers we'll elect Sarah Palin and all will be well in Hooverville. Until the country totally falls apart these rubes won't know what's good for em'.

Unknown said...


They won't even recognize it then.

As DHR constantly points out, we've had two financial meltdowns during our (at least his and mine) lifetimes, the perpetrators have gotten off scot-free, the taxpayers have willingly paid for their "mistakes", and the taxpayers ask for more abuse.

Gotta love capitalism, baby.

nanute said...

I'm old enough to be in the same category as you and DHR, and I don't forget easily. (There are times when I wish I could forget.) It's not capitalism by any stretch of the imagination, in my pea brained, humble opinion. Capitalism would've flushed these evil parasites down the toilet long ago. Thanks for the comment!