Idiocracy

Like a lot of liberals I'm not thrilled with the Senate health care reform bill. There's much to criticize. But whatever it is, it is mostly certainly NOT socialism; in fact, my problem with it is that it's too much of a giveaway to the capitalist for-profit money-takers-from-actual-care that we know as insurance companies.

So, whereas it's fine to hear criticism, and even to lump it under a meaningless term like "Obamacare," it's beyond disheartening to think that the loudest voices out there, the ones behind the protests and the deceptive attempts to derail reform (as in insurers taking over movements to preserve their money, and the RNC surreptitiously taking over movements to preserve or return to power) have no f*cking idea what they're talking about. And that they listen to morons like Steven King. (No, not that one.)

I've yet to hear any of these paranoid lunatics even asked -- much less made to answer -- exactly what freedoms have been taken away in the last 15 months. Nor has anyone been forced to explain in what way any of the Obama initiatives are leading us toward socialism. As banks pay back their loans, as car companies head back to solvency and return to independence.

So there they are today, in DC, those righteous protesters, filled with anger and certitude and disinformation swallowed whole, taking cluelessness to unseen levels, making self-destruction an art form. Taking a page from the movie and sticking it in their own ear: I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to understand it anymore!

I do have a question, though, which I hope someone can answer: is this lady a protester of the tea-baggers, or can't she read, or is she simply bereft of irony?

Unworkable

It's taken almost two-and-a-half centuries, but it's clear that our form of democracy doesn't work. It did. But now it doesn't.

There are certain ironies: clearly, the writers of the Constitution didn't trust people all that much. They eschewed direct governance, and they established an elaborate system of checks and balances; they saw to it that rash decisions would be hard to make, that changes to the Constitution would be difficult, but possible. And yet, fundamentally, they made some optimistic judgements that have proved to be preposterously unrealistic. They counted, it seems, on a basic level of intelligence and education among the electorate and on the idea that those elected to govern would share at least a modicum of deference to the common weal. I can only assume that, back then, there was reason to believe it.

I don't hold Tom and Ben and George and John and Alex and James and the rest responsible for not being able to foresee the development of a major party devoid entirely of either of those basic qualities. Nor, in their zeal for a free press, seeing its necessity as a balance to government and as a provider of information, can I fault them for not imagining the scope and reach of a modern 24/7 news organization devoted entirely to a political agenda. Nor could they have predicted the gullibility of an ill-informed and lazy electorate subjected to constant propagandizing while having been deliberately deprived -- by a cunning mix of religious indoctrination and inadequate funding of meaningful education -- of the tools to recognize it; how could they have foreseen the efficacy of an effort so diabolically designed to deceive? But whether blameless or not, the founders managed to create a form of government that turns out to be entirely unworkable under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.

I've said it before: we don't deserve the democracy we've been given. It's as if we've been handed a precious work of art and are using it as an outhouse. Our democracy is the Buddha carvings after the Taliban got to them. Nor should it be difficult to understand who, in that analogy, are the destroyers. To function, democracy needs people of intelligence, of knowledge, of energy. And of good will. That, most especially: people of good will. In Congress. In the populace. On both sides.

Here's a perfect example of the problem: the "discussion" about trying terrorists in the US civil court system. It's one that is not just amenable to, but NEEDS, rational debate; in my view, the arguments strongly favor civilian courts, but there are reasonable positions to the contrary. Yet we've had nothing of the sort, and the blame is squarely on the right wing. There's the neo-cons and their daughter, desperately trying to defend their failures; there's the Congressional Republican spokesfolk and the usual RWS™, completely ignoring the fact that the current administration is doing exactly what the previous one did, 319 times, for people such as KSM and Richard Reid. And, worst of all, there are the thoughtless but angry, uninformed but certain, "patriotic" but hate-filled people in the streets, tea bags in hand, vitriol fully in throat, hurling epithets with no basis. Unformed rage, misplaced feelings of victimhood, complete incomprehension of how their government works.

For an informative discussion of the terror-trial issue, listen to this. But be warned: it's long and it's thoughtful; it contains facts. It shows why complicated issues are simply too much for our politics, as currently degenerated, where demagoguery replaces debate and hypocrisy replaces helpfulness.

If the Sarah Palin phenomenon isn't the perfect proof -- with her deliberate lies, her anti-intellectualism, her faux (and Faux) populism based on demeaning the other guy, her proud vacuity, her careful absence of actual ideas (her performance for the Teabaggers was a classic of appealing to the lowest common denominator, nastiness for its own sake, and avoidance of meaningful proposals), her rabid followers who find her "like one of us" (she is; oh yes, she is!) -- then nothing is. Well, maybe this, too.

Oh, I rant and rave. But I'm deadly serious. I've said we need two strong parties in this country, and intelligent debate over tough issues. But such a concept is predicated on honest intention, of which there simply is none in the current minority party. They won't take yes for an answer, and they never will.

And their followers will never admit it. Because outrage is easier than pitching in. Because believing stuff doesn't take the effort of knowing stuff. Because being led by people who deliberately feed your sense of aggrievement feels gooder than being made to think by people who know what they're talking about. Y'know. Like a charismatic law professor with a teleprompter. Damn sure don't need that, not us real 'Mericans. You betcha.

We no longer have the luxury of stupidity and crass party politics. Those are what got us here, yet those are what still drive the debate. If we can't rise above it, and soon, it'll be too late. But then, in my view, it already is.

High Tea

Those there are that argue -- even here -- that Tea Partiers are just mainstream people of wonderfulness. Not crazy. Not even. Not filled with conspiracy theories or Beckofoxian lies and paranoia. Not them.

So, you defenders of the party of bags: what say you about this? Says conference speaker Steven Millroy:

"If you ever hear the term smart growth, run away. Because the idea is they don't like us living in the suburbs. They don't like us owning land. They want us all in urban areas on mass transit. They want to take away your car. This is really happening. Global warming is the theme that runs through all of this. They say, we need to shrink our environmental footprint so the government can own everything. ... President Obama is not a U.S. socialist. He's an international socialist. He envisions one world government. That's what his whole plan is." [emphasis, with puking, mine.]

Evidence? Can anyone point to a single thing, any ioteri of facts to support the claim? This is lunatic paranoia in its most pure form. The convention, it seems, is full of it. [Both implications intended.] Fox "News" must be in a constant state of warning #3 in those ED commercials.

(Speaking of Fox "News," it's instructive to see what they edited out of the Jon Stewart/Bill O'Reilly interviews.)

This convention would be just a funny footnote, an amusing look into the wacky diversity of this nation, rightly ignored, were it not for Fox "News" and the wide reach of the RWS™. There are, after all, only 600 of them at the meeting. But listen to the "News," you'd think they were just like you and me, and that they number in the trillions. As someone else pointed out, there will be tens of thousands more people at the convention of the National Wild Turkey Federation. Which, as opposed to what you might think, isn't about bourbon drinkers. (And, but for a well-placed "National," would have a wonderful acronym.) Tens of thousands.

We've always had paranoid conspiracy theorists on the fringes; humans are nothing if not gullible sheep. It's just that they've never been given heroic status by an entire "news" organization before. What's novel is the extent to which their views have been mainlined into the national bloodstream (with reused syringes). Somehow, probably because of the scariness of the times, a group of people who have little else to say but how much they fear and hate, who are untethered to reality by even the thinnest of threads -- somehow this group has been married to and nurtured by a similarly reality-barren network and it's taken hold. It's taken hold! It's taken hold!!!

So tell me. What's the evidence, again, that President Obama favors one-world government? Or, for that matter, that he's any sort of socialist. And while you're at it, consider stepping away from this crowd and joining the ranks of those who'd like to see actual solutions to REAL problems. Serious problems. Recognize the harm such craziness does to our country, whether in convention centers or in the dankest studios of Fox "News." Then pitch in and help.

.

Well Said

This guy says what I've been saying and puzzling about for a long time: the Tea Party people are happily, credulously, incomprehensibly doing harm to themselves. Not to mention destroying rest of us, too.

.

Head-Scratcher

I simply don't get it.

Quite aside from the fact that the plan to disrupt health-care town-meetings is overtly to stifle honest debate on a very difficult subject, and despite the fact that there isn't even a bill yet (only a House version and several Senate versions that need reconciling), and even imagining that the anger is real and not ginned up by the distortions and outright lies of the right wing media or fomented by interest groups with a long history of ripping off the health care system for legal profit -- not to mention being fined one point seven billion dollars for fraud -- overlooking all of that: what the hell are these people so mad about?

As far as I can tell, the proposals out there -- the ones that are actually in writing as opposed to the absolutely insane claims of the Rush O'Beckly axis of a$$holery -- are fairly weak-kneed attempts at maintaining the status of most of the quo. Are people really that upset about a bill which aims to prevent their care from being disallowed? Is making insurance portable, and preventing the companies from pulling the plug on coverage when you get sick really that infuriating? Do they comprehend the power of an advanced directive? In what way is any of it socialism? Do any of the protesters even understand the word? I know Sarah Palin frequently says things that make George Bush seem like Demosthenes, but is she really so stupid as to believe her latest? Or is she just another of what passes for Republican thinkers, willing to say anything in order to scare people into accepting the current quo? Which enriches insurance companies at the expense of everyone else.

I have no doubt that plenty of people will buy what she's selling, like it was a 99¢ flat screen TV. Scared people. Bitter people. Malleable, credulous people. (For a thoughtful response to the ex-governor, read this.)

There are plenty of problems -- huge problems -- with reforming health care. Which is exactly why the stifling of discussion is so tragic. Can it really be that those screamers and yellers and shouters like things the way they are? Premiums doubling every few years? Losing coverage when they lose a job? De facto rationing by insurers bent on keeping as much of their money as possible, not spending it on actual health care? Is that what they want? Do they really hate Medicare? Are they so content with the way things are that their only plan is la la la I can't hear you? What do they like so much about the status quo? Has anyone asked them? When they stop screaming?

What's so entirely dispiriting is the extent to which these mobs have been whipped up to argue -- once again -- against their own interests. In the most cynical of ways, for the most ignoble of reasons -- ratings, on the one hand, vis a vis the insanity that is Fox News; and pocketbook, on the other hand, vis a vis the insurers who are off-loading billions of dollars intended to provide medical care -- people have been spun into outrage based on a series of outright lies. Socialism. Coming to kill Grandma. Death panel. It's no less disconnected from reality than if they'd been convinced to complain they weren't being sent to prison. It's unbelievable.

Except that it isn't. Headlong and happily, we're heading off the cliff, cheered on by the very people for whom the system is working fine: making them rich indeed while millions suffer. It shouldn't be possible, it shouldn't be that easy to deceive, but most clearly, it is. What I don't know -- and it's truly scary not to be able to know -- is how much of a threat such people are. (And may I say once again, it's NOT that there are those who disagree with the current iterations of health care reform plans: it's this mindless hatred that's being stirred up, using entirely false accusations.) Most clearly, it's a danger to the President himself, and to various Congresspeople, all of whom have had threats on their lives. One can only hope the Secret Service remains up to the task.

But there's also the threat to us all, as a country, not just of violence, but of destructive manipulation. It simply can't be argued credibly that the health care structure of the US doesn't need serious reform. Nor do I have much belief that either house of congress, nor either party therein, have the wherewithal to do it right. But the prospect that, because of these crazy implanted fears, we might get nothing at all, is depressing. And there are much broader implications: for any of our problems, various entrenched and cynical interests have only to follow the same playbook: lie unrepentantly, scare thoroughly, rely uncontestedly on the ability to misinform and misdirect. There a people aplenty to fall prey to it, as we see now most clearly.

We simply are no longer, as a society, equipped to deal with difficult. It's not in us. Not in enough of us, anyway, to change anything. So I fear, watching the disruptions, reading Sarah, hearing the RWS™ with their latest outrageous outrage.

The only thing I can't figure out is this: where do those guys plan to go when this country, at their urging and entirely of their making, is fully down the tubes?

[Yesterday I read a good suggestion. We should capitulate to the right, and move on.]
.

Friends In Need

Here's how I look at it: you do what you have to do.

At the moment my wife and I are spending more helping people in our family than we are on ourselves. Literally. Quite a bit more. I won't say I'm thrilled about it, but it's something I want to do, feel obliged to do, and am willing to cut back in other areas in order to do it. My car is about to roll 200K, and I think it's got a few more in it. Our deck is aging poorly, but we can do without replacing it. I like having patches on my jeans; makes me feel like a kid again. Traveling is on extended hold.

The thing is, as a country, we've been fed for so long the false notion that tax cuts solve everything, that ignoring essential needs is okay as long as you invade a country once in a while, that there's absolutely no sense of willingness to pitch in in a time of need. Not, in any case, from the loudest on the right.

As in many areas, it's easier to believe than to face facts. How nice it would be if we had no obligations except to ourselves. How pleasant it's been to ignore the crumbling of our economy, the failings of our health care system, the falling behind of our educational institutions, our roads and bridges. How sweet to accept -- because we want to, we really want to -- the smoke and mirrors of tax cuts and deregulation, the sexiness of self-interest. What a great country that demands nothing more of so-called patriots than to slap on a bumper magnet and call it sacrifice. Environment? Oil dependence? What silly issues. Tell me I should use less gasoline? Pay for our excesses? In what world??

So we have tea parties. We have a mob mentality, unformed, but angry. At ... what? Taxes returning to 10% less than under Reagan, on the richest among us. Bailouts, formulated by Bush and Paulson, but now, somehow, blamed on Obama. Government spending to restart the economy, not unlike my spending on my relatives. Still laboring under the delusion that we can have what we want without paying for it, that we can forever ignore the needs of others, these people are pissed, all right. Screw those liberal fascists (oxymoron be damned!) for telling me there's more to citizenship than me me me.

Funny thing is, I bet a lot of these teabaggers wouldn't rise up in protest if their families were in need. Would they? Would they call for new parents if they were told they couldn't afford a vacation this year because there was a need to fix the leaking roof and help cousin Jack with his mortgage payments? Would they grab signs and march up and down their street demanding a higher allowance even if it meant their siblings would have to drop out of school? That's exactly what their default leaders are fomenting -- people like Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly and Coulter and Gingrich and Savage and Malkin, etc., ad nauseum: people who have more money than their followers could ever imagine, and always will. People for whom the state of the economy and of the nation are no more personally impactful than was the fate of New Orleans, and never will be.

But it's even weirder even than that. These people have been whipped up and astroturfed into raging against the people and philosophies who are trying to fix the problems, rather than the people and philosophies who caused them all. It's got to be one of the greatest examples of cynical manipulation of public sentiment since... since... well, since Dick Cheney and George Bush used their "war on terror" to justify looting the country and trashing its constitution.

I don't like spending what I am, but I do it. I expect that sometime conditions will be such that I'll not have to keep doing so, and that it will have been worth the investment: if not for me, then for the ones I'm helping.

Helping out in a time of need; coming together for the common good. In those railing against Barack Obama, there's none of that sentiment; it couldn't be further from their minds. And they're the Christians!

Aren't they?
.

Wind Bags

How many, do you suppose, of the participants in the upcoming tea-bagging parties are actually negatively impacted by President Obama's planned tax increases? My guess: other than the Fox News (sic) stars and starettes, approximately none. It's yet another example of the craven and insincere tricking the crazed and insecure into rising up against their own self-interest. Think anyone will ask them to which taxes they are objecting? "Thirty-six percent now not thirty-nine in two years" doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "fifty-four forty or fight."

It will never cease to amaze me; and, of course, it will never cease. You can't fix this kind of crazy. Or maybe these are the real tea-baggers, and the rest are just suckers.

Blessed with a certain failure of reality testing, many are only too happy to buy into what Fox is selling. In a country of 300 million, even if there were a million nutjobs like these it isn't much of a chunk. But insanity is motivating, so they make a lot of noise, seeing demons where none exist, believing demagoguery even as the disproving facts dangle before their eyes. Were I to address these people there's absolutely no way I could convince them of my point of view; nor could they persuade me of theirs. I have only the hope that the extrapolation is also true: that their numbers aren't growing.

And I wonder -- assuming I'm right that Obama's efforts will turn the economy around and effectively address health care, energy, and a few other things, WITHOUT sending dissenters to camps, stifling capitalism, or destroying democracy -- if at some point any of these folks and their outFoxed leaders would be able to admit they were wrong. Or, for that matter, even recognize it.
.