Monday, August 17, 2009
Who says honesty is the best policy?
Well, it looks like you can fool way too many people, way too much of the time.
It appears that without having any verifiable facts on their side, the Liars for Freedom of the GOP, paid industry shills and the credulous boobs who are their useful idiots have scared the president and the U.S. Congress into making healthcare reform as big a failure as possible.
I'm not hearing shit from my Senators as a result of sending my letter last saturday; my congressman is someone whose help I would neither ask for, nor expect.
I am, quite simply, stunned by the lack of concern on the part of most americans in reaction to this issue. To put it bluntly, most of them just don't fucking care. They don't write letters or have public rallies or DO anything, except complain. Most aren't even doing that. The topic of discussion, in most places I go, is NOT the healthcare crisis.
Well, I'm still going to give a fuck, and I'm still going to get all pissy and nasty with assholes who try to tell me that "we can't afford" change.
I've coined a neologism (I hope!); "Indignorant". It's for the idiots who rail against a healthcare plan that is not only NOT intended to take away their rights, but is intended to operate in a better way than what we currently have. They're totally pissed and yet have no idea why they should be. Nobody I've talked to who is totally opposed to the plan really has any cogent arguments. It's a lot of hand waving and word salad--they're indignorant, AND DAMNED PROUD OF IT!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Trillions on the military, but hand-wringing over the cost of healthcare ...
Don't back down, Demo.
They can haz my rage when they can pry it from my cold, dead, brain!!
Well said, Demo. And this is largely why I hung up my blogging hat. (Not “hanged” up; on a person can be hanged. Who says English isn’t a warm and cuddly language, when we have a specific past tense of “hang” just for our executioners …)
Anywho, this is precisely why I got out of the blogging biz. I’m full up to here with the crazy. Just can’t take it any more.
Soldier on.
Demo, Did you see this story over at raw story? This sorry bastard, Republican Phil Gingrey is supporting threats to the President's life. When I called to complain they just blew me off saying they didn't expect my support, anyway. After all I'm a democrat and fuck democrats. When I tried to talk about the sorry state of health care in this country and suggested that 39th on the WHO evaluation was not the best in the world as Gingrey repeatedly states they said the WHO was not comparing "apples to apples" and that we did indeed have the BEST Health Care in the World. No they are not comparing apples, but things like infant mortality rates. These fuckers are hopeless liars and don't give a damn about anything except their checks from the insurance lobbyists. Negotiating and compromising with people who would just as soon kill you when they can't get their way is also crazy. I put his response email to a lady friend to her complaint about his supporting threats on the Presidents life over at the Generals. Read it and weep then go after the bastards.
Dave von Ebers:
You deserve a rest, my friend. I have no doubt, however, that you will continue to read and think and, dare I say it, keep the tools of your trade polished and sharpened.
Brother Knowdoubt:
I will attempt to read that tripe, although such nonsense usually doesn't engage me.
All of these "deathers" are either delusional, willful idiots or cynical manipulators. I will not be civil to them or to the "Birfers".
Dave,
I was a bit distressed when your blog link suddenly read
Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name journalplagueyear is available to register!
Originally I began visiting your site because after years of social troubleshooting America, I came to some conclusions that I was hoping an American lawyer may have some observations on.
You've heard these observations, but I don't get the sense that anyone even considers a bigger picture perspective, one that takes into account centuries of history and different modes of social operation. Too often I simply get 'America is huge, and it is what it is.' Doesn't anyone look past the end of their noses?
I can tell you that what I see is comparable to a nation painting all newborn babies blue, and when an outsider suggests 'uh, what's with the baby painting?' it's the outsider who's the weirdo.
I don't really care if I'm right about your government and Constitution/Declaration, but I wish you could direct an outsider wanting to know about America. After all, you're sitting in the midst of it. You're having an impossible time getting relatively ordinary social programs in place. Why is that?
Joe Visionary:
I don't know that Dave von Ebers will or won't answer your question, but I'll say this.
One of the reasons the U.S., imo, has the sorts of struggles going on over a lot of things IS it's sheer size and diversity.
There are larger countries, in terms of population (China, India) and larger countries in terms of landmass or square miles. There are more diverse countries (a number of them). But there are few countries that combine the size and diversity of the USA. It also has 50 soveriegn states that are members of a federal union.
For better or worse, I think our constitution--which I think you do not like--is the muck that holds us back AND the glue that binds us together.
I think our constitution ... is the muck that holds us back AND the glue that binds us together.
Gosh demo, that's a great line.
You're right, I've realized that I DON'T like it, and perhaps I should stop letting Americans know that.
I'm of the mind that your Founding Fathers are not so hallowed as Americans would like to wax poetically about, and I find absolutely no legitimacy within a federal structure they designed, that can't review such fundamental laws.
Furthermore, neither can the whole of the right wing, who are so loathed to hand over even an ounce of power to such an expensive and ineffective body. Arguably this is why healthcare is getting such a rough ride.
What's the expensive and ineffective body? Your federal government, it would seem, which remarkably was fashioned at the same time as the Constitution, by the same people.
In an effort to ensure that power had been vested in a number of government agencies that would offer 'checks and balances' of power, they had created a power structure that couldn't help but be routinely paralyzed: having THREE elected bodies guarantees stalemate on most issues, particularly because lobbyists and interest groups can so easily waylay any decision making.
For us mercifully, only our House of Commons is elected; our Senate is actually a collection of professional jurors who sit on committees holding hearings (complete with research departments) as they vet government proposed laws. I stand a better chance of having a say in such new law when I make a presentation to a senate committee than I do by ranting at my Member of Parliament (MP).
You, on the other hand, are far more easily dismissed, as those with cash speak louder to any or all of your elected reps.
Perhaps you can see why I'm not so sure the fruits of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 were so magnificent.
I think that despite the variety and size of America as you point out, it CAN thrive happily, but I don't see how it can do so with mechanisms and within the framework authored eras ago, for very different circumstances.
Joe Visionary:
I'm gonna let that sit and see if Dave von Ebers cares to make a rebuttal.
You know I disagree with you on most of this but not in the way I disagree with the assholes that have been trying to destroy my country for the last 40 or so years.
I'll check back!
Thank you for your patience.
Say, Demo … did you catch my latest film review in the comments section over by the General’s? Creative use of the f-bomb, ask me. In its many, many forms.
Counsellor von Ebers:
I will be doing so presently.
Joe Visionary:
One thing I did mean to say earlier is that we only have two elected branches. The judiciary, at the federal level is all appointed.
The three I was referring to were the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
Your Judiciary is appointed, as is ours, however we don't rely on Supreme Court judges to author public laws as a result of their decisions.
Laws are created by the government of the day as they try to implement the will of the people, then subsequently vetted by the senate. Previous judicial rulings would probably be an additional consideration, presumably by the House, and certainly by the senate.
For all the derision the senate suffers, Canadians can always watch senate hearings, usually on CPAC.
While some partisan politics is assumed among senators, for the most part they all see themselves as senators first, apparatchiks second. The few who reverse this order are usually reviled by ALL senators.
On another note, I'll assume that Dave's take on my questions here can be summed up with a 'No Comment.'
For a myriad of reasons, that CAN be a legitimate response, Dave.
Joe Visionary:
Thanks for clearing that up. But that is one of the reasons our system is set up that way. Two elected branches that "answer" to their constituents and one that answers to no one. I know that is honored in the breach, more often than I would like.
I doubt that David von Ebers agrees to the extent that he would not comment. It might be press of business or family dynamics.
Post a Comment