Broccoli, Vile Weed! (And Even Viler Justices)

There's a famed episode of Seinfeld where Jerry, in order to save a friend's job who works at Kenny Rogers' Roasters, accepts to switch apartments with Kramer, who had started a protest against the restaurant in an attempt to put it out of business so he could resume a regular sleeping schedule (the restaurant's red neon sign prevented Kramer from catching a good night's sleep).

Later in the show, though, Jerry discovers that in spite of the protest, Kramer (and Newman) has become addicted to the chicken, and figures out that Kramer would not have the guts to resume his ploy to put the restaurant out of business even if he had to go back to his apartment. Jerry finds out because he meets Newman at Kenny Rogers' and the clerk who hands Newman the order says "Oh, don't forget your broccoli." Jerry says "Broccoli? You wouldn't eat broccoli if it were deep-covered in chocolate sauce!" Newman's half-heartedly responds "I love broccoli!", so Jerry exhorts him to have some broccoli, then. Newman does and proceeds to spit it out after almost choking on it and exclaims "Vile weed!". That's how Jerry uncovers Kramer's ruse and forces Kramer to switch back apartments.

This week's health care arguments in front of the Supreme Court reminded me of that episode, because broccoli was a central plot twist in the Seinfeld episode and was also a central argument in Justice Scalia's opposition to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Scalia, whose antics are legendary and whose intelligence and rhetorical abilities are obviously greatly overrated, contended that allowing one government mandate (the individual mandate to purchase health care or pay a tax penalty) might lead to another (the government's hypothetical mandate to all Americans to purchase broccoli).

Paul Krugman was one of many commentators who pointed out that Scalia's argument is disingenuous because one American's failure to purchase broccoli does not have any effect on another American's ability to purchase the vegetable or on its affordability. Justice Scalia is a sure vote in the pocket of the Act's opponents, no doubt. His clumsy rhetoric and his inability (or unwillingness) to understand the difference that goes between the grocery market and the health care market.

But where Don Verrilli, Solicitor General of the United States, caught a lot of flack in the mainstream media for his fumbling defense of the ACA's individual mandate requirement, Justice Scalia caught almost none for his pedestrian offense against logic and his attack against the Act's pivotal requirement. This difference in treatment is another example, in case one was needed, of the ridiculous job that the MSM does in informing the American public about the content of the issues. No wonder so many Americans are confused and think that both sides are equally guilty for the country's failures.

Perhaps, as Newman says in the Kenny Rogers' Roasters episode, broccoli is a vile weed. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind, however, that Justice Scalia's presumed defense of individual liberty in the name of broccoli is very vile weed.

Republican "Strategery"

Grover Norquist recently made the following statement (paraphrased broadly): If we can hold on to the House and turn the Senate, all we need in the White House is a man who can work a ballpoint pen. In other words: Conservatives need not fear a Romney presidency. As long as Obama is out of the picture, game over.

Norquist's argument seems reasonable at first blush, but is typically disingenuous in true Republican fashion. Why? Because it is even better for Republicans if Obama wins a second term, while Republicans reconquer the Senate. Let me explain.

If Romney wins the White House and Republicans gain full control of Congress (and they keep their majority in the Supreme Court even if a Conservative on the court should retire or die), there will be no alibi for them. The failures of politics for middle-class and poor Americans will have a single father, for all to see: Conservatism. If on the other hand Obama retains the presidency for another four years, Republicans will presumably still be able to pass favorable legislation with the consent of a weakened White House, and they will also be able to blame their legislative failures on Obama's unwillingness to compromise (read: cave in to their wet dreams).

Either way you look at it, we're already screwed. Conservatives have already won the economic war. They can still fight the "morality" war, but the economic war is done. Warren Buffet has famously said it: There is a class war in the USA, and his class is winning.

Americans have given up on the reality-based world, where facts matter more than spin; they have come to accept Conservative platitudes, for example that high taxes are killing jobs, as are excessive environmental regulations. It doesn't matter that both are demonstrably false claims. No wealthy American pays anywhere the nominal tax rate. Take Mitt Romney, the would-be next President of the United States of Corporate America: The effective tax rate he paid on his income in recent years has been more or less 15%, not the 35& percent which he should have paid before all deductions and loopholes had been exploited to reduce his tax liability.

It seems to me that it makes much more sense for the Republican National Committee to pour money into electing as many Representatives and Senators as they can: It's cheaper than buying the White House and the return on investment is higher anyway. Much of the president's power is symbolic anyway; the real power rests with a few senators in small swing states. Also, rigging a state election is easier and carries less scrutiny than rigging a presidential election.

Republicans may run despicably (take their war against contraception, the latest example of their willingness to turn every non-issue into a war) but they don't run ineffectively. They are well-funded, better organized, and are more determined than Democrats. They represent the economic interests of a tiny percentage of the population, perhaps 2%, and yet they manage to get half of the votes, give and take a few millions, every four years. They fool us into believing that they don't have their act together by fielding a league of idiots, crooks, and liars for President in 2012, but they are masters of sleight of hand: While you are watching the hand that holds the nomination sideshow, with the other hand, the right hand, they are robbing us blind. In other words, they make strategy look like "strategery". But the joke's on us.

Insignificant Markers

So the Dow Jones reached 13,000 for the first time since 2008. Hooray, yes? Could there be a better example that the index that measures the (supposed) health of public companies in this country is completely meaningless in terms of how the American middle class fares?

This is an important point, because all the measures and indexes that you hear quoted on a given day in all of the mainstream media are meaningless? Productivity? Gone up. Unemployment? Down. Wall Street? Up. They are all numbers that are designed to make us feel good and mean absolutely nothing to most of us. How is your purchasing power now, compared to 10 years ago? How did your salary fare in the last ten years? How much of your income goes toward non-discretionary expenses every month? If you look at those numbers, they all probably look worse now than they did last year, five years ago, ten years ago. That's why you never really hear them mentioned in polite Washington conversation. On the upside? Access to contraception would be much, much more difficult if Republicans have there way. That'll fix your life, won't it?

The God Delusion

I found this on Facebook:

Why I reject Atheism?
By xxxxxxxxxx · Wednesday, September 29, 2010 [name withheld to protect the author's privacy]
I prefer truth over falsehood.
I prefer reason over emotionalism.
I prefer substance over vacuity.
I prefer logic over absurdity.
I prefer sound argumentation over provocative assertions.
I prefer life over death.

Oh, dear!

In this person's diseased mind (because I am of the opinion that religious belief is truly a mental disorder), religion stands for truth, reason, substance, logic, sound argumentation, and life. Atheism, which is the rejection of the irrational, fantastic being(s), whose existence cannot be proven and whose influence on human affairs and nature is also impossible to prove, is false, emotional, vacuous, absurd, litigious thinking and, cherry on top, dead(ly).

This is the kind of "logic", "substance", "reason", "truth", "argumentation", and (sanctity of) "life" that we need to overcome if our species is to advance beyond our superstitious stage. Disheartening. But hey, the number of atheists is rising, so there is some hope at least.

Proud To Be An American?

Does America have anything to be proud of these days? Well, if she treasures social injustice, iniquities, and cold-heartedness, maybe she does. Not if you read these articles, however, which I really recommend to the heartless Republicans who seem to abound these days.

America In Decline.
Health Care And The Wages Of Sin

The sooner you guys see the error of your ways, the better for all.

The President Who Does Not (Want To) Get It

One of these days, if and when I get past the unbelievable sense of disappointment, I might get around to commenting on the stupidity and the lack of empathy of a president who, after treating the people who were instrumental in his election like the drunk at the other end of the counter, tells them that they are irresponsible and that they should buck up (after his chief of staff called them retarded, and his press secretary called them the professional left-wing, or something to that effect.)

In the meantime, I am going to leave it at Greg Sargent's eloquent rebuke of the White House and its tone deafness on what progressives are "whining about."

OK, I can't resist the urge, such is the level of my frustration and impatience with this White House: The President and the Vicepresident are either playing dumb, or they are dumb altogether, when they say that folks like me are whining because we did not get everything we wanted. (Or, an even scarier and more offensive prospect, "change you can believe in" was all about misdirection.)

I, as many folks like me, am not complaining because I did not get everything I wanted: I am complaining because I did not get anything I wanted.

Obama's appointments have been dis-appointments, from Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers at the helm of the economic ship.

The advice the President has gotten from his Chief of Staff has been dismal, with plenty of critics coming out of the woodwork now that Rahm Emanuel is on his way out, if this Financial Times article is to be believed.

Obama's approach on health care and financial reform, in pursuit of the mirage of Republican support, was comparable in ineptitude and lack of foresight to Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy. He gave up his negotiating strong points before the negotiations even began. The common thread in both instances is the choice of leaving the foxes (Republicans and Democrats) in charge of the hen-house. The last thing I wanted was more insurance involvement in health care, and that is exactly what we got. No price-controls, no meaningful bans on rescissions (you will see), no public option. In financial reform, no caps on credit card interest rates, no sensible barriers to the size of financial institutions, no meaningful help for people in financial distress. The list could go on for pages, but I am too frustrated and too upset to continue.

If the President and his advisors have any sense left in them, they will realize that his favorability ratings have tanked, the Democrats' prospects are grim for November, and my sentiments about his presidency are shared by many, not because we are whiners, but because we thought we had elected not Anthony Robbins, but FDR. And our discontent is not due to a single factor, but to the sum of the President's actions over the two years since we celebrated the most exhilarating moment in recent political history.

If the President's goal was to appease his enemies, he is fighting a losing battle, and a mighty foolish and hopeless one. And if his desire to appease them is so overwhelming that he will go to any lengths, including insulting the intelligence of those who most believed in him, without ever throwing them a bone, he will be a one-term president, and deservedly so.

David Michael Green Is One Angry Professor

"How stupid are you?", asks Prof. David Michael Green of Hofstra University.

I'll give you this: David Michael Green is one angry professor, as you can tell from his website, The Regressive Antidote. But read through his posts and, "if are not outraged, you are not paying attention." When you are done, you will ask this question: What is there NOT to be angry about?

Prof. Green's latest post is one rightfully angry rant about the State of the Union, and the question "How stupid are you?" is, for a vast number of people in this country, purely rhetorical. (Of course, followers of this blog are largely exempted, or you wouldn't be followers by now.) In any case, we won't have to wait too long to find out that the majority of the country is exactly as stupid as our dear professor fears. We will find out on the first Tuesday of November, to be exact.

In the meantime do yourself a favor, and read The Dismantling of Civilized Society. Pass it along, too, to your family, friends, and--why not?--to people for whom you suspect the answer to the opening question is "very."

Spes ultima dea, as my ancestors used to say.

Your Taxes or Your Health!

Bob Herbert at the NYT has an excellent piece on one hidden cost of health care reform for middle-class Americans. I mentioned it in a post I wrote a couple of days ago (the tax on so-called "Cadillac plans") but Herbert does a bang-up job explaining where the catch is.

There are many troublesome truths in Herbert's piece, but this is the one that sent my blood boiling: "Proponents say [taxing "Cadillac plans"] is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services." (Emphasis added.)

I find that deceitful and offensive. The assumption is that the high cost of insurance is due, to some unspecified extent (leading many to think it is THE problem to address), to the wasteful ways of policyholders. It is possible that there is a number of hypochondriac policyholders who go to the doctor way too much and who demand an excessive number of exams, even unnecessary ones. But this is a way to shift the blame from where it squarely lies: on the shoulders of providers and insurance companies.

I have never gone to the doctor expecting an MRI or X-rays or blood-work, much less demanding any of it. I trust my doctor to do the right thing (which is why, above all reform measures, I favor a system in which your PHCP acts as a gatekeeper--you get to see a specialist only if your family doctor says so; if s/he does not, you are free to go a specialist and pay out of pocket.) You know, the sacred relationship between Americans and their doctors? So for anyone to suggest that the best way (or an effective one) to control costs is to tax "Cadillac" plans, without mentioning that doing so will affect an increasing number of Americans as time goes by and may result in a loss of good health for many people is a despicable thing to do.

Think about it this way: I go to the doctor as often as I think I need to (which is not often, maybe a couple of times a year) because I know doing so won't break my bank and because my policy covers most (almost all) of the costs. Conversely, I go to the dentist as rarely as possible. Not because I think I don't need to, but because my employer's dental insurance covers only 80% of the costs, in some cases even as little as 50%. The result is that my mouth is probably the part of my body which is in worst shape. That reluctance to go to the dentist in order to save money in the present will probably lead to higher costs when I finally must go. But that is what people of ordinary means do: they postpone expenses as far as they can. Now apply that logic to the rest of your body, and see what that does for ordinary Americans.

Health care reform that leads to higher taxes or less health care for Americans is tantamount to President Obama reneging on his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle-class and a way to punish the American people for the greedy conduct, in some cases criminal, of insurers and some providers. It is just another sign of politicians being serfs to moneyed interests and of the fact that what needs reforming is not just our health care system, but our system of government as a whole.

Harry Reid's Fascism? No, Just Curmudgeonly Sloppiness.

It is nice to see that, with Christmas approaching, Mr. Groothuis of Denver Seminary has regained his fire for ignorant polemic.

In his latest post, hyperbolically entitled Harry Reid's Fascism (that would be Senator Reid's Fascism to you, Mr. Groothuis), the incorrigible professor going by the pseudonym The Constructive Curmudgeon, hardly one to bother fact-checking his sources, links to another website with the following hypertext: "If this is true, we no longer live in America, but something else, something terrible." My reply is: If what the Curmudgeon says is not true, then he is gullible, a sloppy researcher, or both, and he deserves no trust for what he posts on his blog.

I have to warn you that it took a bit of digging through several layers of sophistry and/or laziness to get to the bottom of this whole fiasco, but please bear with me: I promise you a happy ending.

The "this" in "If this is true" is a clause found in the following article by a fellow who misleadingly describes himself as "American Thinker."

The article says that The Weekly Standard reports (I know, I know, the deceitful hacks alert is already blaring in my ears, too) that Jim DeMint (I know, I know, the evil idiot alert is already blaring in my ears, too) "pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight."

In particular, Sen. DeMint was troubled by the fact "that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses". Really? Well, I did not know, so I read on and found out that Sen. DeMint identified the guilty sentence under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection." The sentence reads (and I am going to block quote it for added clarity):

it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

Sen. DeMint went on to rail that (and I block quote again to underscore Sen. DeMint's disingenuousness and deceitfulness)

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

(Apparently the Weekly Standard has a thing against proper capitalization.)

There are a few problems with Sen. DeMint's sloppy and deceptive paranoia, which the American Thinker and Mr. Groothuis, sloppy and less than discerning researchers themselves, have embraced without a trace of doubt or guilt. I shall point out the facts for you, so that you can form your independent opinion of the actual merit of the accusation.

First, the formula "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection", or variants thereof, are pretty standard in bills of all kinds. The goal of such a formula is not to prevent a rule or law from ever being repealed; it is simply to require a supermajority (3/5's of the Senate) for a law or rule to be repealed. And, wouldn't you know it, it's been used by Republican Congresses too! Why, a search for the phrase "it shall not be in order" on thomas.loc.gov (the site of the Library of Congress) returns 84 hits for the 109th Congress, 47 hits for the 108th Congress, and 42 hits for the 107th Congress, all under Republican majorities. You'd think Sen. DeMint would remember it: he has been in Congress since 1999. But he's a Congressman, so we should expect selective memory.

Secondly, there is another problem: Sen. DeMint is guilty of omitting the context. Once the context is examined, the purpose of the sentence he rails against is obvious and not nearly so scandalous. Please bear with me.

The subsection that precedes the one quoted by Sen. DeMint is entitled "LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION" and reads:

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).

The key is knowing what the referenced subparagraphs say. It turns out that they deal with the cost of Medicare and cost control mechanisms for Medicare. So, then, the purpose of the sentences that made Sen. DeMint cry wolf is to prevent someone, predictably Republicans, from introducing future legislation that would have the effect of gutting the cost control provisions in the health care Senate bill so that they could later go on to say that health care reform has caused Medicare costs to skyrocket. You know Republicans would love nothing more.

That's it. Grounds for calling Sen. Reid a fascist? Hardly. But rascals like Groothuis do not stop short of publishing accusations they have not fact-checked. For them, it is sufficient to preface any accusation with the disclaimer "if this is true" to find cover and solace. After all, the goal is not to seek the truth, just to smear opponents. If they published a newspaper (and unfortunately some of them do) they would slap the accusation on the front page and the retraction at the bottom of page 17.

But this is a classic example of how Republicans operate: they fill the web and the airwaves with ridiculous drivel and utterly contemptible slime, aimed at filling the American people with doubts about the goals of Democrats in Congress, certain that sloppy researchers (or hacks) like Mr. Groothuis will provide these deceptive or false statements with the needed amplification.

Remember the lies the Right invented and collected into a supposed fact-checking document to scare Americans into opposing H.R. 3200 (the House version of the health care reform bill)? I debunked a handful myself before surrendering, vanquished by the sheer volume of Republican deceit and by the futility of combing through the giant pile of shit they had excreted. And now, consider this: a Google search for the phrase "repeal or otherwise" plus "Reid", which is at the core of this artificial controversy, returns--I kid you not--1390 hits in the past 24 hours! The Republican noise machine, their hacks, shills, and operatives, are very adept at producing bullshit out of thin air.

Now, remember what the exercise of this post was: "If what the Curmudgeon says is not true, then he is gullible, a sloppy researcher, or both, and he deserves no trust for what he posts on his blog." It took me two hours to come up with the research for this post. I am sure that Mr. Groothuis, what with his being a college professor (sigh!) and all, must be very a busy man. But I would hope that a Christian college professor would do a bit of due diligence before accusing the Senate majority leader of fascism. Sadly, he does not. Even more sadly, he is an example for the students who pass through Denver Seminary. I should hope, for their sake, that they see the man behind the mask of academic rigor and authority, and that they look for examples elsewhere.

Obama Is Losing (Has Lost?) His Base

Read this excellent summary of all the things President Obama did since he took office that have pissed off the base that helped him get elected. I, for one, belong to the ranks of people who would support a primary challenger to the president's re-election bid (Gov. Dean, you'd have my full support).

John Barrasso and the Art of Contradicting Oneself

I just heard Sen. Barrasso (R-WY) make the following two-faced argument (summarized) on Hardball:

I do want to vote for health care reform, but I want it to be centered around the patient and doctors, not around the government--as the Democratic plan is.

Then, one minute later, he said, in so many words:

Obesity is a problem in this country for one third of Americans and yet this health reform plan does not do anything to address the costs associated with obesity.

There you have it: On the one hand the duplicitous senator complains about the fact that health care choices should not be dictated by the government; on the other hand he complains that the government does not have any wording in the plan to address obesity. Well done, Senator! I guess that is the same kind of logic that allows one to say that medical decisions should be left between a patient and his or her doctor, while having the government legislate against the constitutional right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

You know, Senator, there is another thing that the plan does not address, and it probably should: the ability of a senator to make consecutive non-conflicting statements in the space of a minute.

The Moral Bankruptcy of Thomas Sowell (Behind His Not So Glittering Words)

"One of the secrets of being a glib talker is not getting hung up over whether what you are saying is true, and instead giving your full attention to what is required by the audience and the circumstances of the moment, without letting facts get in your way and cramp your style. Obama has mastered that art."

And so, apparently, has Thomas Sowell, author of the paragraph cited above.

You see, Sowell even titled the article that contains that little nugget about deceiving one's audience Listening To a Liar: Part II. It really does take a special kind of liar to write what Sowell writes:

To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence. To do so after an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has already showed this to be impossible reveals the depths of moral bankruptcy behind the glittering words.

Except that, quite incoveniently for Sowell, this is what the president actually said in last week's address to Congress:

First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. (Applause.) Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. (Applause.) I will not make that same mistake with health care.

You see, the part I emphasized is really important because it negates Sowell's ill-conceived accusation that "To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence." The intelligence that Sowell refers to is counterbalanced by the dishonesty that Sowell never lacks in his attack on the sitting president, whom Sowell likes to call our "Charlatan-in-Chief."

Sowell, the incorrigible charlatan that he proves himself to be, says that if Obama's health reform plan passes "government-run medical care in the United States can be expected to produce what government-run medical care in Canada, Britain, and other countries has produced-- delays of weeks or months to get many treatments, not to mention arbitrary rationing decisions by bureaucrats."

The problem for Sowell is that for each article or study that he fails to produce in support of his assumed theory about the delays in getting health care in other countries, I can produce one to back the fact that waiting times in the United States are in fact worse than those of the countries that have health systems Sowell would like us to fear. Here is one such article, and here is one such study. It took me all of two minutes to find them. I guess I am not as lazy as Sowell, or perhaps I am more concerned with backing up statements with facts than he is.

And when Sowell refers to "the arbitrary rationing decisions made by bureaucrats", I guess he refers to the fact that bureaucrats are only to be feared if they work for the government; if they work for insurance companies they magically morph from bureaucrats into savvy business people, who--as we know--are much preferable because how could they ever do us harm, even when they determine that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition.

Stories of claims being denied by health insurance companies abound, as well as those of people who have no insurance because of pre-existing conditions or because they cannot afford to purchase it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) collected a few such stories in this pamphlet. (.PDF) And imagine Sowell's elation when he read (did he?) this congressional memorandum about the practice of rescinding insurance policies for things as simple as a typo in an insurance application, knowing that only insurance bureaucrats were involved instead of those scary Washington bureaucrats.

In his total committment to shamelessly misrepresenting reality, Sowell suggests that supporters of universal health care should ask themselves where the president "is going to conjure up the additional doctors, nurses, and hospitals needed to take care of millions more patients"? Wait a minute! Aren't conservatives like Sowell always telling us that the uninsured already have access to great American doctors, nurses, and hospitals, even if they cannot afford insurance? If it is so, why would we have to look for more?

I cannot think of a better quote to close this post with than the one below, written by a great connoisseur of confidence games:

Con men understand that their job is not to use facts to convince skeptics but to use words to help the gullible to believe what they want to believe.

Why, that sentence describes Thomas Sowell's article, and Thomas Sowell, to a tee! He should be proud: He wrote it himself.

Reality for Dummies

Health care reform oppponents like use the word takeover (often accompanied by the adjective "socialist") to mobilize people against any sort of government intervention to regulate or intervene in the unhampered operation of the free market. So, in recent times, the word takeover has been used in relation to the bailout of the financial sector (as in "the government has taken over the bank system"), or to describe the help extended by the government to beleagured car manufacturers. Never mind the fact that the stated goal of government intervention in these areas is not for the government to take over the banks or the auto industry, but to give them subsidies to save jobs in the middle of a recession and to prevent the recession from getting more dramatic, turning into a depression. No one in their right mind would believe that the American government is really seeking to nationalize free enteprise in America. It is absurd, simply because the corporations that own it would not allow it (and many people would revolt against such an attempt.)

Regardless of the fact that the word takeover completely misrepresents what the government has done with the bailouts and is trying to do in attempting to reform health care, those who like to throw the word around so glibly would do well to remember this: There would be no reason for this supposed takeover and for health care reform were it not for the fact that health insurance companies, drug companies, some doctors and hospital chains regard Americans as consumers of the products they offer (and America a nation to pillage and plunder), instead of a people to serve while making a reasonable profit.

Remember: it is not reasonable for the CEO of a health insurance company to walk away with a figure in excess of $700M in stock options, when a good chunk of that money is not earned by running a company that provides a needed service but by running one that sees to maximize profit by letting people die and taking cover behind the laws written by the regulators the commpany buys every 2, 4, and 6 years. This is not hyperbole. It is a shamefully accurate description of the way a large number of health insurance companies operate in this country, aided and abetted by complicit politicians.

Opponents of reform also raise the threat that the entrance of the government into the health insurance market will eventually drive insurance companies out of business. This is an unfounded claim, as it has not happened in other countries where the government plays a greater or smaller role in providing health insurance to its citizens. The risk is also not born out by the domestic examples that the president has mentioned last night and in the past, and those that we can easily identify ourselves, if we stop to think about them for a minute:

- public and private schools coexist, and in fact the push is to allow a larger number of private schools, not to eliminate them;
- the USPS exists along with Fedex, UPS, and other courier services (though they do not provide exactly the same services);
- community colleges and private universities exist in a rather healthy mix
- PBS and NPR are no threat to major networks or cable channels, though they do provide a healty and necessary non-profit service;
- and, finally, my favorite example: there is ample access to all kind of non-government provided beverages along while water is being provided by public entities.

In other words, there a few examples of public and private concerns coexisting in our society, where public does not threaten private (if anything, it's usually the other way around).

Finally, government intervention, government regulation, and government takeover are completely different concepts that cannot and should not be used interchangeably; unless, of course, the true intent of doing so is to deceive. Pro-corporation conservatives would have you believe that any intervention and regulation always equals a takeover, as if the United States was Cuba and Obama were Fidel Castro. But, hear hear, not every person who supports health care reform is a communist in disguise, not even president Obama. Those who would have you believe otherwise are peddling reality for dummies, as in the type of reality that can only be sold successufully to the ignorant and the misinformed.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and think about how best to mobilize people in support of socialized medicine, for the glory of our Supreme Leader.

What a great country!