Archive for November 5th, 2010

I’m honored.

Nov 05, 2010 in Politics

Dana devotes an entire post to highlighting my thrashing of the paper tiger DNW over his insistence that godless lefties somehow regard humans as nothing more than “organisms,” and thus he can talk about us that way. Plus he says we don’t believe in inherent human rights.

I’ve met a lot of these lefty American “organisms,” and they have a lot more humanity than this guy. Anyway, he wants it to be strictly about my beliefs instead of his so he could attack without needing to defend, and I am happy to oblige him. For I sit astride a fortress, built brick by brick over the years, already attacked by far weightier opponents than he, and since fortified.


Wait, health care reform is indefensible???

Nov 05, 2010 in Clueless Conservatives, Health Care, Politics

If anybody has been listening to Mitch McConnel ever, but more specifically since the election, it should be clear that McConnell is such a practiced liar that he would regard anybody who even expected him to tell the truth as naive. He says what he believes will serve his interests, and he will not be bothered by truthfulness.
Already McConnell admitted he pulled a good one by telling Republicans that he will get the “indefensible” health care bill repealed as soon as he gets a Republican Senate and President too.

But wait, what? Indefensible? What? I seem to recall shortly before HCR was passed Obama taking down a room full of Republicans on the issue, but furthermore, I’ve yet to hear what is so wrong about the HCR bill that Obama ran on passing in 2008.

I mean, I know the leftist problem with it: it’s not single payer, it doesn’t have a public option, negotiating prices is ruled out…concessions to business, to the right, to the “center.” But Republicans knew a successful HCR would be a potential death knell for them and a huge success for Obama. As Senator Jim DeMint urged, Republicans had to make HCR his “Waterloo.”

Well, they failed to do that legislatively. But dampened lefty enthusiasm left HCR with few avid defenders, so Republicans just kept up the intense assault and now have supposed 48% support for repeal among those who voted this week.

Yet the only thing Republicans have really rested their case on is the one part of HCR that doesn’t have majority support (surprise, people like all the good things it does), the individual mandate.

You know, that Republican idea from Heritage and Mitt Romney, that delivers customers to the insurance companies and allows them to stay afloat while covering those with pre-existing conditions.

So if you unplug the mandate, then all you get is insurance premiums skyrocketing even more than they did during the Bush years.

Republicans have attempted to sidestep this by going after the liberty angle. Because you’re a slave to the state if you get taxed extra for being irresponsible and not signing up for health insurance.

Um, yeah.

Of course, the way discourse in the media goes, leftist concerns don’t matter, and whatever Republicans say, no matter how extreme or nuts, must be taken very seriously. And so it goes that without many on the left really able to get super-excited by a super-compromised version of what they wanted, the anti-compromise right is getting close to establishing the meme that HCR is “indefensible.”

Oh, yeah, and Republicans love to point out that there were cuts to Medicare as part of the reform. Yeah, those spending-cutting fiscally responsible Republicans…

Against the squawking from the right, HCR is easily defensible. And considering the state of health care as it is, it is absolutely defensible, in fact it was mandatory.

I’m going to stand this ground, and break every Republican who tries to claim McConnell was remotely truthful. It is his claim that is indefensible, and I issue the challenge now.

Of course, right-wingers know they visit this site only to meet their doom, so don’t expect many challenges. Their attacks are to be spammed in venues where they think it can find purchase.

That’s what people who can’t make a case do.


Class warfare.

Nov 05, 2010 in Politics

That’s what they call it when you fight back. Meanwhile, they strip everything away from you:

It hasn’t gotten a lot of press, but a case involving AT&T that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court next week has sweeping ramifications for potentially millions of consumers.

If a majority of the nine justices vote the telecom giant’s way, any business that issues a contract to customers — such as for credit cards, cellphones or cable TV — would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits.

This would take away in such cases arguably the most powerful legal tool available to the little guy, particularly in cases involving relatively small amounts of money. Class-action suits allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, thus giving substantially more heft to their claims.

Oh, I’m sure AT&T has crafted some lovely contracts, and hey, if you don’t want to sign it, you don’t have to. This kind of logic appeals innately to the right, who are hostile to anything that empowers an individual to resist corporate tyranny and abuse. See, if it’s private, it’s not tyranny. So any rigging of the game that corporations and moneyed interests can get away with, any amount of control they wish to attain over your life, it’s all excused. You’ll sign your life away in that contract, and you’ll take what the free market gives you, even if it’s chains.

I’m an actual libertarian because I am wary of tyranny from either public or private forces. I don’t discriminate that way.

Yet the Roberts court has been an utter enemy of the people, scoffing at anything they would do, any way they could unite to resist the tyranny of money. So now we have to wonder if the ability of citizens to join together to sue a giant entity is at threat. Or should I say the liberty of citizens to unite? Of course, Republicans just like to say the word, “freedom.” When it comes down to it, they are in complete subservience to private masters, and far too intrusive in our lives due to their overwhelming “social conservatism.” Should this activist Roberts court strip away the rights of citizens to unite to seek redress for their grievances, freedom will suffer a great loss.