Here We Go Again: More “Tax Protest” Signs

This weekend, “teabaggers” descended on Washington for another of their “anti-tax” rallies (remember, these rallies are about taxes – and maybe healthcare – but aren’t about racism or President Obama…). Unlike the tea parties of April, the media did a bit better job of covering just how crazy some of these people really are. But I still think that some of the worst was completely glossed over.
For example, The Indianapolis Star noted that:

Throngs of people waved U.S. flags and held signs reading, "Obamacare makes me sick" and "I'm not your ATM" as they marched to the Capitol.
Other signs -- reflecting the growing intensity of the health-care debate -- depicted Obama with the signature mustache of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Many made reference to Obama as a socialist or communist, and another imposed his face on that of the villainous Joker from "Batman."

However, none of the most vile posters were shown in The Indianapolis Star (or on the Star’s website). Instead, the picture that appeared in Sunday’s issue of The Indianapolis Star (and for some reason is not shown on the the Star’s website) showed one person holding a poster depicting President Obama as a Che Guevara-like figure and talking about socialism (or “socia lism”) and several people holding posters that say “Not a race issue, not a party issue, just an old American Freedom issue”:

(Sorry for the poor quality, but it is a scan of the photo in the print edition of the newspaper.)
On April 17, 2009, I posted some of the more disturbing images from the tax day tea parties. Based on what I did and, more importantly, did not see in the coverage of this weekend’s “tax” protests in Washington, I’ve decided to take the time to show more of the signs that probably didn’t get much coverage in the mainstream media, just as I did back in April. As with my April 17 post (and please take a look at the update to that post for a Ron Paul related anti-Semitic poster sponsoring one of those April tea parties), these photos have been found and copied from various sources around the web and are shown in no real particular order.

I thought this poster was a nice place to start. The admission that the protest isn’t about healthcare (or, apparently, taxes) at all, but instead is about “power” seemed to set a tone. Add to that the Holocaust reference and the lovely picture of President Obama with the bloody mouth of Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker (and I have to wonder whether the choice of the Joker, with the white face paint is sort of a reversal on the old black face racist portrayals…). By the way, compare this actual image with the way it is described in The Indianapolis Star: “imposed his face on that of the villainous Joker from ‘Batman.’” Somehow, that description doesn’t quite get across what the image really looks like, does it?

This poster quickly reminds us that the protest is purely about President Obama’s policies and not … oops. Sorry. What was I saying?

There are two interesting things to note about this poster. First, perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it sure seems to me that these guys are advocating for a coup d'état or armed insurrection. How very patriotic. Second, and here’s where I start to get confused again, in those first posters I showed, we’re told to be wary of socialism (remember that during the campaign, even Sen. John McCain admitted that then-Sen. Obama was not a socialist…) Anyway, the protesters shown above, seem to think that he’s a Marxist. But then compare those sentiments with the following poster:

Things would be so much simpler if these folks could decide whether President Obama is a socialist, Marxist, communist, or fascist. They again, I suspect that not many of them could really define what any of those ideologies really encompass. And I’m sure that all of those opposed to socialist policies will be happy to forego Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other social programs.

At least the creator of this poster had the creativity to include more than just President Obama as fascists. Is that President Bush in the top row?

I wonder if she could explain the difference between the philosophy on the right of her poster with that on the left. And then, presuming she could, I wonder if she could really explain how the “philosophy” in the middle equates to either of the others. But she does get points for creativity.

Yes, please. Change it back to an administration that starts wars under false pretenses, uses torture, illegally wiretaps US citizens, reveals the identities of covert agents, fails to find Osama bin Ladin, and … oh, never mind.

These guys look like they’re having a great time, don’t they. I just wish that the photo showed the whole of that Nancy Pelosi poster. It looks like it was probably pretty interesting, calling her “the most dreaded Nazi of them all!”

This is one of my favorite sets of posters. Can somebody please explain what, exactly, this person is protesting? For that matter, can someone just tell me what the posters say?

Um, didn’t President Obama say that he supported some tort reform? I wonder how many people advocating for tort reform have ever been the victim of medical malpractice? Lots of people seem to support tort reform until they are the plaintiff. The comparison of Stalin and Hitler to Obama allows me to ask the following question: Precisely how many people (in particular, innocent people, but I’ll keep the question broad) have died as a result of President Obama’s policies? In your answer include all deaths at concentration camps and gulags and in wars. Now compare that number to the number killed by Stalin and/or Hitler. Hmm, doesn’t seem quite comparable, does it?

Multiple posters here! First, I’m sure that use of the “Bro” in the poster on the left is purely by accident and isn’t racially motivated. As to the poster on the right, is that person talking about Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, when they say that socialized health care doesn’t work? And finally, I’d really like to know how anything that President Obama has done – seriously – can be compared to Nazi Germany of 1939. The poster references Aktion T4, which was Hitler’s secret euthanasia program. But as has been consistently demonstrated over and over and over again, HR 3200 (which, by the way, was not authored by President Obama) does not create death panels! (And don’t forget that the provision giving rise to the fear of death panels was authored by a Republican and co-sponsored by the very same Republican who gave the Republican response to President Obama’s healthcare speech last week).

Here we go, back to the theme of comparing Hitler, Lenin (replacing Stalin, this time), and Obama. Again, I repeat the question that I’ve asked in several posts over the last month or so: What is it about President Obama that makes people think that he is actually evil? Come on, tell me one truly evil thing that he has done.

I’m curious to know how President Obama has changed? After all, he did campaign on the very idea of reforming healthcare. For my part, Hope persists.

One of these days, I’m going to have to post a bit about what total nutcases Ron Paul and his followers really are. Just a hint: They don’t like Israel very much.

What would any good tea party rally be without a “birther”. Hey, fella: The State of Hawaii says that his birth certificate is real. And besides, are you really stupid enough to quote WorldNetDaily as a source of anything? Oh, by the way: nice suit.

(Note that in the picture above, I blurred out the image of the aborted fetus.) Remember that this protest was about taxes (and, I suppose, the President’s healthcare reform proposals). Apparently, this protester didn’t quite get that message. How do we know that President Obama supports sodomy or the new world order (and what, exactly, is this “new world order” anyway?)? And don’t forget, the United States Supreme Court also supports sodomy (or at least says that states can’t criminalize it between consenting adults).

I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again: What has President Obama done to make someone think that he is the antichrist? Seriously.

Unlike the other posters that I’ve shown, the one that this girl is holding was professionally printed and was, apparently, being distributed at the rally. Nice sentiment, don’t you think? Oh, and how old is that girl? How great is it that her parents got her involved in a rally like this where she can hold up a poster with such a moving and heartfelt sentiment. Hopefully, she’ll be proud of this photo when she’s older and trying to purchase healthcare for herself and her family.

This has to be one of the scariest posters of the day. Unless I’m mistaken, this jerk is telling us that if he doesn’t get his way, next time he will use weapons. There’s nothing quite like advocating armed insurrection as a result of losing an election. Can you imagine what Republicans would have said if people walked around with signs like this after George W. Bush “beat” Al Gore in 2000?

Another person who doesn’t believe that there are no death panels. Plus, stop for a moment and look at that poster carefully. What kind of seething, visceral hate, does it take to walk around with that poster? That kind of hate scares me.

The guy who made this poster should at least gets creativity points for picking up other historical bad guys. I think he’s missing Pol Pot and the leaders of Rwanda, Serbia, and Darfur.

Note the “Your” President (in italics, no less). And note who is responsible for this poster: LaRouchePAC (I’m not going to bother with a link). For those who are unfamiliar, here’s the Wikipedia entry on its founder, Lyndon LaRouche. He’s a real charming sort of fellow and his followers … um … I think that poster and the others on this page probably sum them up pretty well.

Nicely designed Che Guevara-inspired poster. I wonder if she has any idea who Che was?

I guess that the hearse made me laugh more than anything else. Out of curiosity, I wonder how many people have died because: (a) they couldn’t afford insurance, (b) their insurer terminated their coverage when they got sick, or (c)  had their perfectly valid claim denied?

Some parents were angry that President Obama was going to “indoctrinate” their children by giving a speech to school kids. Oooh, President Obama, evil. But there’s apparently nothing wrong with having a kid walk around a tax protest with a sign like this. Do you think she understands what the sign means? Do you think her parents have explained the issues to her? Do you think it’s a good idea for a kid to be exposed to some of the signs and rhetoric on display at the rally (whether in the form of photos of aborted fetuses, claims that her President is like Hitler, or people advocating for armed insurrection)?

I wonder if granny would be worried about “death panels” if she’d take time to read the bill and stop listening to people who want to scare her or use her to make a political point. And as to her “no socialism” stance, I wonder how soon she’ll be giving back her Social Security and Medicare benefits. (And I wonder if the woman on the far left got her scooter free through Medicare or Medicaid…)

You just knew that there had to be a Terri Schiavo poster somewhere, given the whole healthcare debate. Now remember, Republicans want the government to stay out of end of life decisions. That must explain why Republicans tried to stop Schiavo’s husband from making those decisions for her. But what does any of that have to do with 9/11?

Just another example of someone who decided to broaden the scope from just being about President Obama.

Again, one has to ask, precisely what President Obama has done to make this idiot think that he’s in league with al-Qaeda.

“Impeach the Muslim Marxist”? Who would that be? Certainly not President Obama who is neither a Muslim nor a Marxist. And even if he were, on what grounds would we impeach him? According to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, a President can be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” What precisely has President Obama done that qualifies under any of those provisions? Of course, given that  “Glenn Beck is [this idiot’s] hero” I guess we shouldn’t expect simple things like accuracy or logic.

Another protester who came “unarmed … this time”. Will this person come armed next time? And what will qualify as next time?

This woman scares me. She can’t find her gun? I hope it has a trigger lock so the person that finds it can’t use it. And she doesn’t know how to use an apostrophe. But I suspect that she’s all in favor of vouchers…

Other than the fact that both President Obama and Robert Mugabe are black and are the leaders of their respective countries, what other traits do they share? And if you answer “they stole from the white man”, consider yourself both a racist and an idiot.

And a final “bonus” picture that has been making the rounds among the “teabagging” crowd:

Finally, I thought that this report on CNN was a fitting piece to tie all of this together, especially the first half of the report where some of the teabaggers get to tell you what they really think in their own words.

I don’t know about you, but the sentiments expressed in these posters and by the people in the CNN report demonstrate both the insanity of the tea party movement (and its sponsors like Glenn Beck) as well as the fear that it should be engendering in the rest of us.

Update (September 13, 2010): Hopefully, the dead links are now working properly again. Hopefully.

Update (September 17, 2010): Another try to fix dead links. Sorry.

September 11: Miscellaneous Thoughts

During my morning commute today, I found myself listening to NPR, CNN, and (gasp) Fox News (via Sirius) as they covered the commemorations of 9/11. As I listened, I found myself both sad (for obvious reasons) and angry (I'll get to that in a minute) and I started asking myself several questions. So, in no particular order, here are a few thoughts about 9/11, eight years later.

First, I tried to remember what, if anything, I said about 9/11 last year. When I looked back at my posts, I was (somewhat) surprised to see that I had not posted any kind of remembrance on 9/11/2008. Instead, that day was one of the relatively few days on which I did not post anything as the 2008 election season began to heat up. Apparently, my focus was on Sarah Palin, lies, and push polling and, somehow, I allowed 9/11 to pass without comment. For that, I'm a bit angry with myself.

Then again, though, I wonder why 9/11 continues to have the impact upon us that it does when other horrific events do not. The whole nation does not keep 4/19 in its collective conscience, yet on that day in 1995, 168 people were killed by an American terrorist in Oklahoma City. Nor does 4/20 have a great deal of resonance, yet on that day in 1999, 12 students and a teacher were killed in Columbine. Many people certainly remember 12/7 (/41, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), but I wonder how many stop and think about that event. I'm not suggesting that 9/11 should not have a special place in our collective memory; I'm just curious to understand why it does when these other events (or other similar events) do not.

I've often thought that 9/11 should be a national memorial day focused on the victims of terror. We celebrate our war veterans (Veterans Day), we celebrate working Americans (Labor Day), we celebrate the birthdays of our country and certain prominent Americans, and of course we commemorate those who died in the service of the country (Memorial Day). Perhaps we should have a single day to commemorate those who have fallen, not in the service to America, but rather, simply because they were American (whether on 9/11, in Oklahoma City, in the embassies in Kenya or Tanzania, or on a flight over Lockerbie, Scotland). 9/11 seems like the perfect day for such memorial. Perhaps that day could be set aside for Americans to come together to do good works in the name of those who were the victims of terror, whether it be to clean our streets and parks, plant some trees, feed the poor, or any of a myriad of other activities, with the aim of using our remembrance as an opportunity to show the world why America is great and why terror will never defeat us or break our communal spirit.

Whew. OK, enough of that misty-eyed, idealistic stuff.

As I mentioned, I also got angry listening to the coverage this morning. Out of NPR, CNN, and Fox News, can you guess which station caused by blood to boil? If you've read much of what I've written in the past, you should have no trouble guessing that it was Fox News (or as I've taken to calling them Faux News). While I was (ever so briefly) listening to Faux News, several reporters-analysts-entertainers (I don't know who they were, although I thought I heard Geraldo Rivera's name mentioned) were discussing the horrific videos we all remember from 9/11. The discussion turned to the vision of people jumping from the Twin Towers to escape the inferno. I'm sure those images are seared into our collective memory.

But then Faux News went off the rails. One of commentators -- I don't know who -- suggested that the next time we hear someone complaining about a prisoner at Guantanamo being waterboarded, we should remember those people leaping to their deaths. The suggestion was then verbally applauded by the other commentators. In that suggestion, the folks at Faux News have demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding (or lack of concern) for how our system is supposed to work and what makes America different from your average petty dictatorship. You see, in America, we don't torture people for revenge (and, yes, waterboarding is torture); nor do we torture people because they have knowledge that we want. If we did, then shouldn't we have tortured Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to learn more about right-wing domestic terrorism? Shouldn't we be torturing the accused murderer of Dr. George Tiller or the man who shot a guard at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum? Maybe we should have allowed Valerie Plame to torture Scooter Libby to learn whether Vice President Cheney authorized the leak. Should we allow the police to torture anyone that they arrest? Should we torture felons upon their convictions? Oh, and how do we know that those whom we are torturing actually deserved to be tortured and aren't, in fact, innocent?

We expect the police and armies of dictatorships and tyrannies to use torture as a weapon; we expect terrorists to use torture as a component of their terror, and we expect primitive cultures and barbarous regimes to use torture because, well because they are primitive and barbarous. But the United States stands above all that and, I think, that is one of the things about our country for which we are rightfully proud. Sure it's fun to watch Jack Bauer torture a terrorist, but that is fiction; it isn't real.

Just like you and presumably most everyone else, I feel little other than contempt or even hatred toward those responsible for 9/11 and I don't ever want them to try something like that again, let alone succeed in doing so. But that doesn't mean that the answer is to round up people and torture them in the hope that they might know something.

When I watch video of people jumping to their deaths, I am absolutely horrified and my blood boils. I want to go out and hurt those responsible. But that is the reptilian, animistic part of my brain speaking. The human part of my brain, the American part of my brain, tells me that it is the ability to control those violent retributive instincts that makes me different -- and, yes, better -- than those who would allow their baser instincts to control them or who seek to use violence, terror, and torture as means to their ends.

I don't mean to suggest that we should forgive those responsible allow future terrorists to target us again. The perpetrators and planners should be apprehended, tried, and punished (I'll leave for another day the discussion of what form that punishment should take). And we should do (almost) everything that we can to prevent another attack. But we shouldn't torture the perpetrators just to make us feel better or torture those we fear might try to attack us out of a misguide notion that the use of torture will prevent further attacks (in fact, I would contend that the use of torture only makes us more vulnerable as it serves to radicalize more and more people against us).

So I would answer the commentators of Faux News by saying that, no I don't think about the people jumping from the Twin Towers to make me feel better about torture. Instead, I think about what will happen to an American who falls into enemy hands and I think about what makes America the proverbial shining city on the hill. I reflect upon the fact that we are governed by the rule of law and not the law of the jungle. Knowing that we are better, more civilized? That makes me feel better.

Let us honor the victims of terror by erecting monuments, by engaging in acts of kindness and generosity in their names, and by building a civil society of which they would be proud, not by using torture or violence to stoke the fires of retribution.

A Few Interesting Nuggets Regarding Republican Reactions to President Obama's Healthcare Speech

I wanted to briefly share a few interesting nuggets of information about some of the Republican reactions to President Obama's speech last night to a joint session of Congress.

First, I'm sure that everyone has heard about Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) shouting "You lie!" at President Obama as the President was, in fact, correctly debunking a right-wing lie. Well, according to ActBlue (a Democratic fundraising website), Rep. Wilson's 2010 Democratic challenger, Iraq War veteran Rob Miller, has raised over $150,000 since Rep. Wilson's outburst last night. Let's hope more Republicans like Rep. Wilson open their mouths, too.

It was also interesting to see House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) typing away on his BlackBerry instead of listening to President Obama's speech. A few days before the speech, in an interview with The Washington Times, Cantor was asked about Republican behavior for President Obama's speech (internal links omitted):

Cantor and I talked about how Republicans would behave, and I asked if it would be like a State of the Union when they sit on their hands or hiss for parts they don't agree with.

I also asked Cantor if there were going to be any "no Tweeting" rules for Republicans, since some of them had busy thumbs during Obama's winter quasi-State of the Union address.

"I don’t think we’re going to be guiding the caucus to boo or applaud or whatever. We’re all going to be very attentive," he said.

[Rep. John] Culberson is a frequent user of the Twitter machine, as I noted in a story examining the GOP's social media strategy.

Will the caucus tell Culberson to cool it? I asked Cantor.

"No comment. I don’t think the American people are interested in that or not," he said, adding: "It is time for some adult behavior here."

Attentive adult behavior, huh? And just for yucks, it's also worth noting that back in March, Rep. Cantor apparently elected not to watch President Obama's press conference in order to attend a Republican fundraiser at a Britney Spears' concert. And he didn't even take his daughter.

Anyway, when I saw Rep. Cantor typing away on his Blackberry, I went to Twitter to see whether, and if so what, he was tweeting, and possibly to send him my thoughts. By the time I found him on Twitter (he wasn't tweeting at the time), there were already numerous posts scolding him for his attention to his BlackBerry and inattention to President Obama. I decided to take a slightly different approach and tweeted this:

Do you use your Blackberry during Kol Nidre, too?

Finally, for those who watched Rep. Charles Boustany (R-Louisiana) offer the Republican response (of course to "respond" shouldn't you first "listen"...?) to President Obama's speech, there are few choice nuggets worth noting. First, it shouldn't come as any great surprise that Rep. Boustany took a strong position on tort reform; after all, he's been sued for medical malpractice several times and the State's medical compensation fund has had to pay out at least $1,800,000 for his conduct "below the acceptable standard of care" (and he settled another suit for an undisclosed sum). It is also worth noting that Rep. Boustany was apparently taken in by con artists from whom he attempted to buy a British royal title. He wanted to Lord Boustany! Rep. Boustany has also espoused "birther" views before endeavoring to disavow those same views. Oh, and get this: Rep. Boustany was a co-sponsor (!) of the proposal that Republicans have spent the summer criticizing as giving rise to "death panels" (forgetting that it was authored and co-sponsored by other Republicans).

I'd have to say that we saw a pretty strong performance from the Republican side last night, don't you?

Why the Visceral Hatred? (update) - And a Bonus Discussion of Healthcare

On August 5 I wrote a post entitled Why the Visceral Hatred? which began with the following:

Why do so many (presumably mostly on the right) have such a visceral hatred for President Obama? It is one thing to disagree with his policies ("I don't like his healthcare proposal because..." or "I don't think that the government should have bailed out the automakers"). I understand those sentiments; they lend themselves to discussion of the issues which is, of course, how the democratic process is supposed to work. But in the case of President Obama, there seems to be something else going on, something dangerous.

I answered my own question, in part:

I think that the answer really can be found in that little nugget that I decided to ignore when I began this post. Those who hate President Obama never seem to fail to use his middle name. Why is that so important to them? I wonder how many of them can even tell you the middle names of the last handful of Presidents, including what the "Dubya" stands for .... I think that the name "Hussein" reminds people that President Obama is "different" and maybe, just maybe, too much a name used by "the enemy" (I doubt that Richard Nixon would have been elected has his middle name been Stalin or Kruschev, but who knows). Add to that the obvious fact that President Obama is different (remember that whole, "first African-American elected to the Presidency" thing?) and I think you've found the real reason that many people hate him. Who he is, what he looks like, and where he comes from is the proverbial elephant in the room.

I think that many people who may claim not be racist are, in fact, racist, and whether they'll admit it to themselves or not, cannot stand the idea of a "black" in the White House (never mind that he's half-white); nor can they stand the idea that a man whose father was not an African-American, but rather an actual African, and who has a "funny" name that includes a common Arabic or Muslim name associated with a principal US adversary of the past 18 years (remember Saddam Hussein...?).

I think what we've seen over the last few days makes my initial question ever more relevant. And it makes me believe that my answer was, at least to some extent, on target.

 

Consider for a moment the seething anger at the idea of President Obama addressing schoolchildren (never mind that both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did the same thing; never mind that George W. Bush was reading to schoolchildren when the planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11). What could President Obama have possibly said to our children that could have "indoctrinated" them (presuming of course, that indoctrination was his subversive goal)? Please, somebody, write the sentence that he could have used that would have turned our nation's children into a phalanx of little Marxists. And, before you do so, go back and read the text of President Reagan's speech where he did talk economic politics to kids.

Some have pointed to the proposed lesson plan for teachers from the Department of Education, focusing on the suggestion that children write a letter discussing "how they could help President Obama". Note that the question does not ask the children how they could help President Obama do __________ (insert your favorite Marxist-Socialist-Fascist-Terrorist goal), but rather, simply how they could help the President. I guess that the fear here may go back to Rush Limbaugh's statement that he wants President Obama to fail. I suppose that parents who support that viewpoint would be upset at their children being asked to talk about how they might help the President rather than how they might hinder the President. I've written before about how cynical that viewpoint is, but think of the lesson that we're teaching our children when we tell them that they should want the President to fail. That is the inverse of teaching patriotism and civic spirit, but it seems that the right only believes in patriotism sometimes.

Remember, too, that we're talking about kids. Do we really worry that some 3rd grader is going to be swayed such that he'll write a letter suggesting he'll help the President by joining the proletariat to throw off the reigns of the bourgeoisie; do we really worry that some 5th grader will be emboldened to write to the government to report that his parents failed to pay the appropriate taxes on their domestic help or illegally downloaded an MP3; and do we really worry that a 9th grader will suddenly become a supporter of publicly-financed abortions for illegal immigrants and ask to sit on a "death panel" to help euthanize grandma? I mean, really. Think about it. If people are so afraid that President Obama could have that kind of influence over their children in the course of a 15-minute speech, what does it say about the influence those people have over their own children?

Which of course leads me back to the initial question. What is it about this President, in particular, that creates this degree of hysteria, fear, and hatred? Why would people presume, on the basis of nothing more than the fact that President Obama planned to speak to schoolchildren and the suggestion that children be asked how they could help the President, that President Obama's speech was some secret plan to indoctrinate children? Why do people presume evil intent?

And then consider the heckling outburst from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) during President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last night.

I make it a point to try to watch the State of the Union every year, to watch every Presidential speech to a joint session of Congress, and to watch the inaugural address every four years. And I don't recall ever hearing the President of the United States heckled during one of those speeches by anyone, let alone a member of Congress! So what precisely is it about President Obama that led Rep. Wilson to be so consumed by outrage that he shouted "You lie!" as the President sought to debunk lies being espoused by those on the right? (And, for what it's worth, PolitiFact rated Rep. Wilson's statement "False".)

In a similar vein (though a bit off topic...), consider what the Republicans in Congress did and did not cheer during President Obama's speech. Most importantly, I noted that few if any Republicans applauded when President Obama talked about the fallacy of the "death panel" allegation. Query: Why would anybody not applaud the President for confronting a malicious fabrication that has served to scare elderly Americans? The debunking of this fallacy takes nothing away from legitimate arguments against President Obama's healthcare proposal, so why wouldn't Republicans welcome his efforts to "clear the air" and allow the debate to focus on real issues? The only reason that I can think of is that Republicans don't want to focus on real issues and have relied upon lies and distortions as their only means of combating healthcare reform.

As I was taking a break before finishing this post, I came across a statement from former Gov. Sarah Palin about President Obama's speech that left me ... well ... dumbfounded (that seems an appropriate word given the source):

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility.

Let's not forget that Palin was one of the early proponents of the "death panel" lie:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

And she wants to criticize President Obama for a lack of civility because he pointed out that she and others of her ilk lied? I'm sorry, but pointing out that a false "concern" -- raised for the sole purpose of scaring people and scoring political points -- is bogus and a lie and calling those who spread these lies irresponsible is not uncivil; no, it is patriotic and democratic. As I've noted repeatedly, our system requires a full and open exchange of ideas, but must be based on honest debate. Incivility can be laid at the footsteps of people like Gov. Palin for suggesting that then Sen. Obama "palled around with terrorists," allowing supporters to go unchallenged when they called then Sen. Obama a "terrorist" or shouted "kill him", and for scaring people on the basis of complete falsehoods.

 

Plus, for what it's worth, I would remind Gov. Palin that "unelected bureaucrats" are already (in her words) "given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters": They are the faceless, nameless claims adjusters sitting in cubicles for the insurance companies deciding which patients should not be insured, which patients should be dropped when they become ill, which claims should be rejected (whether for pre-existing conditions or cost or the experimental nature of the treatment or any of a myriad of other bullshit reasons). My wife and I have to deal with these unelected bureaucrats making life or death healthcare decisions relating to my wife's illness and medical regimen. I don't see Gov. Palin or the Republicans making much effort to be sure that those bureaucrats don't have such power; apparently, private bureaucrats seeking to make a profit should be encouraged to make these kinds of life and death decisions; insurance company based "death panels" are just fine. It's OK for an insurance company to kill grandma; just don't let the big bad government and evil President get involved. What a sick, twisted, and cynical view of our society.

 

Thus, I am left to ponder what the future holds for a society that holds so little regard for the truth, that is so willing to believe the worst about anyone, let alone the President, and that allows visceral hatred and malicious lies to replace reasoned debate and discourse. On that note, I strongly encourage people to read Pierre Atlas' terrific essay "Beware extreme rhetoric" published today in The Indianapolis Star in which he reflects on the consequences of political rhetoric of the sort that we're seeing today.

 

I understand a general distrust of government, but I don't understand the hatred and belief that President Obama is evil.

Varvel Takes Aim at Bauer; Lets Bosma and Long Off the Hook

Perhaps I’m misreading it, but Gary Varvel’s September 8 cartoon (published in The Indianapolis Star) about Secretary of State Todd Rokita’s redistricting proposal appears to take an unfair shot at Speaker Pat Bauer while letting Republican leaders off the hook. In the cartoon, a figure bearing a cartoonist’s resemblance to Speaker Bauer is identified as “Legislature” and is seen pointing to crazed Indiana map labeled “Politics”:

The problem with this cartoon is that it is Secretary Rokita’s fellow Republicans who have expressed the most concern about Secretary Rokita’s proposal. According to Star reporter Mary Beth’s Schneider, “Rokita found the most agreement from House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, who agrees that an independent commission isn't the answer. Rokita's general concept, he said, ‘makes some sense.’” Compare that sentiment to the statements Republican legislative leaders: “‘I don't think it’s his business,’ said Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne. ‘The secretary of state has overstepped his bounds’” and “‘Our constitution says this is clearly a legislative function,’ said House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, ‘and not a function of the secretary of state’s office or any other administrative office.’” Yet in Gary Varvel’s world,it is the Democratic leader who stands in the way of redistricting in the name of “permanence of incumbency”.

It is also worth noting that the House, presided over by Speaker Bauer, is very evenly divided; not every race may be competitive, but the House itself is evenly divided (just a few years ago, it was Speaker Bosma and Rep. Bauer). The same cannot be said for the Senate where gerrymandering has given the Republicans an apparently insurmountable advantage.

In the past, I’ve been critical of Secretary Rokita for inserting politics into the electoral process where it does not belong. At first blush, it appears that this proposal does the exact opposite: It seeks to remove politics from the electoral process so that our democracy can be more representative and for that he should be commended (though I’ll reserve final judgment on the proposal until I’ve examined it more thoroughly; for starters, I want to be sure that Secretary Rokita’s proposal was did not incorporate political data ). On the other hand, Gary Varvel should be asked to explain why he took a shot at Speaker Bauer while letting Sen. Long and Rep. Bosma off the proverbial hook.

Finally, for those interested, below are maps of Indiana’s current gerrymandered districts and Secretary Rokita’s proposed revisions (as rendered by The Indianapolis Star). For the record, I live in the 5th Congressional district which, together with the neighboring 4th Congressional district, must be among the most gerrymandered districts around. Perhaps that helps to explain Rep. Dan Burton’s longevity…

[images not presently available]

More detail on Secretary Rokita’s proposal (and the brightly colored but hard to read maps prepared by his office, apparently at taxpayer expense of nearly $110,000…) can be found at the new Rethinking Redistricting website.

Update (September 15, 2009): Repaired broken link to cartoon.

People Are Talking About One of My Posts!

I came across a discussion going on at the forum for Yosemite Area Online about President Obama and right-wing opposition (in particular the "tea party" movement). One of the forum participants posted a link to my post about the signs being displayed at the "tea parties" and the discussion at the forum then included some discussion about the pictures in my post. Cool.

I also felt the need to post the recommendation from a woman (who I met through a non-profit with which I was involved several years ago) to some of her friends about my blog:

I just discovered his blog, which contains nice, articulate demolitions of some of the more egregious prevarications of the right.

I love the sound of that...!

Oh, and sorry for the lack of postings lately. We have a new puppy at home, so patience is thin, time is of the essence, and sleep is ... um ... lacking.

Do You Really Need Your Gun at a Political Event?

One of the more interesting manifestations of anger at some recent town hall meetings and at President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention is the appearance at these events of citizens brazenly displaying weapons, including semi-automatic rifles. I’m not concerned that there was any threat to President Obama’s safety; the protesters were outside the auditorium and were most likely kept far from President Obama’s ingress and egress route. I don’t know if the same can be said of the town hall events at which armed protestors have appeared.

I’m sure that some may want to talk about the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I’ve discussed that in the past and I don’t feel like rehashing the issue now. But the issue of whether people should have the right to bear arms at a political event is, to me, a red herring. The real question is this: Why do these people bring their weapons to these kinds of events? What is the purpose of brandishing a weapon — even calling the news media to be sure that they know to show up and video the display of that weapon — at a political event? I’d be curious to know if these people wear their guns and carry their assault rifles when they go to the grocery or the bank or to see their doctor or their kids in a school play. If so, I guess the question is what these people are so worried about that they feel the need to “pack heat” everywhere they go. But, if not, then the question becomes why they chose to carry — and actively display — those weapons at a political event.

I suppose if the focus of the particular event was gun control, the display of weaponry might make some kind of sense as a show of support for gun rights. But given that the focus of this summer’s town hall meetings has largely been healthcare reform, I don’t see the link between the issue and firearms. Unless, of course, the real issue isn’t healthcare reform at all, but rather, fear and loathing of the government. Bringing a gun to a political event must, it seems to me, have some kind of political statement attached to it; otherwise, why bother? After all, wouldn’t a big “I Oppose the Public Option!” sign be just as effective a means to demonstrate opposition to healthcare reform legislation?

So, if a political statement is being made with a gun, what should we interpret that statement to be? The only thing that I can think of is an implicit (or explicit) threat: “If we don’t get our way, remember that we’re armed!” What else could be the point of bringing guns to a political event? Consider the frequent recitation of Thomas Jefferson’s “blood of patriots and tyrants” quotation and see if you can come up with another explanation for the appearance of weaponry. The display of weaponry may also be calculated to dissuade proponents of healthcare reform from confronting the opponents; after all, who is going to walk up to an armed protester to strike up a discussion on a hotly debated political issue?

Some people have pointed to an incident in 2000 when members of the New Black Panther Party marched outside the convention of the Texas Republican Party with assault rifles. My view on that event is no different from my view of the current display of weaponry. The New Black Panther Party was apparently protesting then Gov. George W. Bush’s refusal to intervene in a scheduled execution. That show of force was, in essence, no different than the current show of force. Of course, in the case of the New Black Panther Party, I think that most of us can agree that they represent a decidedly fringe element of the body politic; query whether those attending political events this summer with weapons represent the fringe or the actual conservative core of the Republican party?

In any event, how are we any different from nations like __________ [insert the name of your favorite third world country] when we view it as acceptable to threaten our elected leaders, even implicitly, with violence? And does the presence of weaponry at events at which passions are running high and tempers are being lost worry anyone else? We’ve seen pushing and shoving and a few fistfights. Should we be concerned about the presence of weaponry in that environment?

People may have a right to carry a gun in public and to come to a political event armed. But that doesn’t mean that they should. The principal message being conveyed by the brandishing of weaponry at a political event is the threat of violence if those who are armed don’t get their way. America’s democratic system works through the ballot box, not through the barrel of a gun. Violence — or even the implicit threat of violence — has no place in American politics. While it may not be possible to ban the presence of guns, responsible voices should be doing everything they can to discourage people from bringing their weapons to political events. But when the only voices that a portion of the right will listen to are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their ilk, then not only do I not have high hopes for the tension to be ratcheted down, I’m actually concerned that passions and tempers could be inflamed further still. And that, with the presence of weapons, would be a truly dangerous combination.

How Can We Have a Debate When People Base Decisions on Lies?

In my recent posts on the healthcare debate and the town hall protests, a point that I've tried to make is that the functioning of our democratic system is premised, in part, on a healthy, open, and honest debate about issues. I've expressed worry and concern that lies are controlling the current debate over healthcare.

There are legitimate arguments both for and against reform and both for and against some of the current reform proposals. What will it cost? How will that cost be paid for? What will be the impact, if any, on employers? Will people be entitled to choose their own doctor? These are just a few of the legitimate concerns that should be discussed (I won't take the time to list the reasons to support healthcare reform; I think that I've done that previously.)

But so long as much of the "debate" is focused on falsehoods (and rebutting those falsehoods), then we're not spending our time actually debating the real issues. I suspect that is precisely the plan of those who are involved in helping to orchestrate the astroturf opposition to healthcare reform: If we keep the discussion from the real merits of the proposals, then we can scare people and make them oppose those proposals which they might support if they knew the truth.

Well, now there is evidence to support the concern that people are basing their decisions on healthcare reform, at least in part, on Sarah Palin's fears of "death panels" and of other falsehoods that have become opposition talking points. According to a new NBC Poll: Myths Endure on Health Care, Highlighting Doubts on Overhaul:

Nearly half of Americans believe that a proposed overhaul of the health care system means the government will decide when to stop providing medical treatment to senior citizens, according to the latest polling by NBC News released this evening.

Some 45% said they believe the plan is likely to include such a provision that has become known as “death panels” despite bipartisan efforts by President Barack Obama and the provision’s author, Republican Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson to dispel the idea. (Isakson, in a recent interview with the Washington Post called the confusion “nuts.”)

To be sure, 50% of respondents said they believe the bill was unlikely to include such a provision, but the deep split over the veracity of “death panels” underscores the difficulty Democrats have had in selling their overhaul to the public.

Further, a majority of Americans (55%) believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants even though no proposals currently under negotiation would do so. An equally high number (54%) believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system, although there is also no actual proposal for that, either.

Additionally, 50% believe that the overhaul will use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions. While it is unclear if the final bill would do so, current law bans federal funds from being used to fund abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. The president has said he is not interested in expanding abortion rights in the health care package. “I’m pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care,” Obama said in a July interview with CBS.

Think about some of those findings for a moment. 45% of those surveyed believe that the healtchare reform proposals include "death panels". Several things about that scare me. First, it scares me that people are willing to simply listen to the fearmongers and won't take the time to try to learn the truth (of course, going to a town hall meeting to hear from a member of Congress won't necessarily be of much help; at some town hall meetings, Republican members of Congress fail or refuse to refute the lie and at others there is so much shouting that the elected representative cannot effectively communicate).

 

Second, I worry about why people would believe these sorts of lies. Is it because President Obama is a Democrat? Or is it because he is ... gasp ... black? Do people really, really think that President Obama or Nancy Pelosi want to euthanize grandma? And if they really, really do think that, ask yourself why. Why would President Obama want to euthanize grandma? What have those people -- or any Democrats, for that matter -- done, that would make people really, really believe that they want they government to euthanize people? Is it because Democrats support reproductive choice but opposed forcing Terri Schiavo to be kept alive? What makes people think that Democrats are really that evil?

Third, the media (well, all except FAUX News, I suppose) has been reporting on the fact that there are no "death panels" in the legislation. Yet people -- 45% apparently -- still believe Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. Obviously people have heard that there are "death panels" from some source and yet they refuse to believe other sources that tell them that the information is incorrect. Why? Why are people both willing to believe the obvious lie and so unwilling to believe the refutation of that lie?

One more set of numbers that I think further illustrates the issue. Daily Kos/Research 2000 conducted a poll on August 10-13. Look at these two questions and the results. Pay particular attention to the difference in responses between Democrats and Independents on one hand and Republicans on the other:

1. Do you think the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress creates "death panels" which have the authority to subjectively determine whether or not a gravely ill or injured person should receive health care based on their "level of productivity in society"?

	Yes	No	Not sure
All	11	72	17
Dem	9	74	17
Rep	37	31	32
Ind	17	61	22

 

2. Does the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress require elderly patients to meet with government officials to discuss "end of life" options including euthanasia?

	Yes	No	Not sure
All	19	58	23
Dem	9	74	17
Rep	37	31	32
Ind	17	61	22

What is causing Republicans to have such a different understanding of proposed legislation?

 

A debate and discussion on the necessity of healthcare reform is essential. A debate and discussion of the form that any healthcare reform takes is necessary. But neither of those debates can occur while we're wasting our time arguing about things that nobody has proposed. And neither of those debates can occur when all we do is yell and scream and not take a moment to be quiet, listen, and most importantly think.

 

----------

Incidentally, if you're interested in reading the provision, it can be found at the website of the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, direct linking seems to fail (the links time out after a day or so), so I've provided instructions that we accurate as of the date of this post as well as the full text of the relevant section at the bottom of this post. To get to the bill, click the link to the Library of Congress, then click on the link for HR3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, click on the link for Text of the Legislation. Then do a find (Ctrl-F) for 1233, click on that link , and you'll finally be at the bill. Try to find a reference to "death panels" or euthanasia.

And, in order to make things even easier, the full text of Section 1233 is reproduced below (sorry for the lack of formatting):

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200:

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
(a) Medicare-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--
(A) in subsection (s)(2)--
(i) by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (DD);
(ii) by adding `and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));'; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`Advance Care Planning Consultation
`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
`(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
`(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
`(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
`(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
`(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
`(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.
(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.
(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-
(1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
`(3) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.
`(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.'.
(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-
(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-
(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:
(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including--
(I) living wills;
(II) durable power of attorney;
(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and
(IV) health care proxies.
(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including--
(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and
(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Barney Frank Responds to Comparison of Obama to Hitler

This short video sums up much of the current healthcare debate:

IN Touch: Keep religion out of alcohol sales debate

My tenth post on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog is now online. I'm going to keep re-posting those entries here (at least until someone from the Star asks me to stop). Go ahead and visit the post on the IN Touch site, anyway.

A recent article in The Star ("Panel thirsts for facts in Sunday alcohol sales debate") discussed some of the pros and cons of Sunday retail alcohol sales. Among the arguments promoted by the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers against expanded Sunday alcohol sales was this: "Remember the Sabbath: Sunday is a religious day. Liquor shouldn't be sold on it." There are, of course, two problems with this particular argument.First is the recognition that alcohol is already sold on Sunday in bars, restaurants, and at sporting events. The issue is not whether alcohol should be sold on Sunday, but whether retail sales should be allowed. I doubt many Hoosiers would support a return to the ban on restaurant alcohol sales on Sunday.

Second, and more problematic, is the suggestion that "Sunday is a religious day." Well, it is for some, but not all. Jews worship the Sabbath on Saturday, Muslims on Friday, and others not at all. Some religious traditions ban all use of alcohol while others include alcohol as an important part of religious observance. If government is going to legislate on the basis of religious tradition, how should government reconcile those competing positions?

It should not be the job of the government to regulate what people can and cannot do on religious grounds. If your religious views tell you not to purchase, consume, or sell alcohol on your Sabbath, then that is your right. But those religious views should not be enforced, through governmental action, on others who may have honestly held but divergent religious views (or no religious views at all). There may be good arguments against Sunday retail alcohol sales, but religious belief should not be among them.

(Note that in the above-copy I've corrected several typos that were created by the editing that was done to the original version of the post that I submitted. I also added the link to the original article that my post referenced.)

IN Touch: Uncivil dissent (update)

A few days ago, I posted my most recent IN Touch blog entry, "Uncivil dissent". Along with my post, several other recent posts on IN Touch have dealt with the issue of the nature of the debate on healthcare reform. Perhaps more importantly, a review of the comments to those posts may serve to illustrate just how off-kilter the entire process of political debate and discourse has gotten.

 

One of the most troublesome lines being taken by those who I'm guessing are on the right (or at least oppose the efforts at healthcare reform) is to say, "Aha! But Democrats/liberals/the left engaged in uncivil debate in the past." Sure there may have been episodes of those on the left (or right) being uncivil, but whether it was of the nature and to the extent of the current healthcare debate disruptions, I'm not sure. From what I've seen and read, it appears that both the frequency and prevalence of disruptive behavior by "the left" and the nature and magnitude of that disruptive behavior was different. I don't recall MSNBC actively promoting tea bag parties or having its anchors stage faux poisonings of Republicans in Congress. I don't recall the left talking about "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots". I don't recall "leaders" from the left (of the stature of Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh) advancing out-and-out falsehoods (e.g., "death panels") in order to scare people. Did Al Gore ever argue that President Bush intended to use the Patriot Act to kill grandpa?

 

But even if the left did engage in that kind of behavior in the past, it doesn't make it right now. And that is the next part of the current meme being advanced by those who appear to support the current spate of town hall disruptions. The argument being advanced is that people like me who advocate for civil discourse and debate and against mob behavior and disruption are hypocrites because we didn't do so when Republicans were allegedly being shouted down. For example, take a look at this comment thread to my "Uncivil dissent" post:

Boy...we sure are lucky none of this type of foolishness happened when the last
administration was in office.

I mean a faux poisoning on TV...what if they made a faux movie about assassination of the sitting President...oh wait, already been done.

And calling the President-to-be a terrorist, what if they printed up signs with his picture that said #1 Terrorist...oh wait, already been done.

What if they shouted down political speakers and even tried to make a citizens arrest for what they thought those politicians were breaking the law for...oh wait, already been done.

Man, I'm having a hard time coming up with something that hasn't already been done.

I hope you realize this happened for 8 years before you finally opened your eyes and acted like it was some sort of travesty.

Like I've said before, what's good for the goose ain't so good for the gander.

(from Kevin Schmidt, who wrote his own IN Touch post on the subject: "Selective amnesia"). My response:

Sorry, but a movie about an assassination is very, very different from the host of a "news" show staging a faux poisoning on his program. A movie is clearly fiction and I suspect that most Americans understand that. On the other hand, when members of the media who Republicans identify as "leaders" app[e]ar to advocate assassination... well that is a very different situation. If you can't recognize that difference, both in terms of magnitude and meaning, then perhaps we've identified part of the problem.

It is also worth noting that "Death of a President" was not made by Americans, but rather, by the British. And it was made in order to advance discussion of certain political issues. How does talking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi facilitate discussion of healthcare reform?

As to shouting down politicians, yes there was some of that during the Bush administration, but I would contend that it was neither to the extent or extreme that it has been taken now nor was it largely based on lies and falsehoods being intentionally repeated in order to sow fear and distrust.

Finally, you seem to suggest that I've endorsed violent political rhetoric in the past and only condemn the current wave of disruptive activity. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think that the lack of civility, from whatever quarter, is dangerous for our system. But I think that it is even more dangerous when it appears to be endorsed by so-called leaders.

And Kevin's response to me:

I think, after watching what Glenn Beck said, more as joke, than anything pales in comparison to the "kill Bush" rhetoric that existed during the Bush administration. If you want an example, take Chris Matthews who heaped praise on the Green Party candidate for NY Governor after he stated that he only supported capital punishment in the case of President Bush being tried for treason. And need only Google "kill Bush" to find numerous stories of people advocating either through art or otherwise the death of President Bush.

Does it make what Beck said any less stupid, no...but it does prove my point that none of this is new and as usual, Republicans are tared and feathered for doing something Democrats consider the norm.

I'm sure you don't think it's productive from either side of the aisle, as do I, but I'd find it more believable had you condemned the same actions when they happened to Republicans.

I don't know, perhaps you did, but I would highly doubt it.

On what basis does Mr. Schmidt "highly doubt" that I condemned disruptive behavior from the left? Or consider these other statements from Mr. Schmidt in responses to comments to his post (and I don't mean to pick on him in particular or suggest that he is unique in his view; it was simply expedient for me to use his words as an example of the rhetorical arguments being advanced):

[T]he left can't have it both ways and that's what they want.

When it was the Iraq war and Republican Congressmen being shouted down it was a-ok. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it's time for peaceful dissent?

Give me a break.

You are the face of hypocrisy.

I'll cut you some slack if you can show me where you denounced those shouting down Republicans. If you can't don't bother commenting.

And:

I agree with you about civil protest and don't agree with what is being done at town hall meetings right now. And trust me, I've had my fair share of experiences being the unwelcome Republican.

As long as you can show me where you complained about the same tactics that were employed by those on the left when George W. Bush was President we'll get along just fine.

Otherwise you can join the rest of the partisan hack hypocrites in the corner.

And:

[M]y point isn't that this kind of protest is civil or the right thing to be doing, it's that when the shoe was on the other foot, it was the "highest form of patriotism" and now it's Nazism and the Klan come home to roost. It's the hypocrisy that upsets me.

What are we to take away from those sorts of posts?

 

In other words, if I (or others concerned about the tone of civil discourse) didn't come out and criticize the left during the Bush administration, then I am being a hypocrite now. I've only been writing publicly since the end of 2007 (and only writing for IN Touch since earlier this year). I don't think that I've ever advocated violence and I don't think that I've ever given a "free pass" to bad conduct because I approve of the speaker or the issue. Those who know me and with whom I've discussed politics over the last few years (or even longer) can probably attest to my concerns with the decline in political civility; in fact, it is a recurring theme in my political discussions. I recall talking about the subject when Rush Limbaugh had harsh things to say about President Clinton and when Rep. Dan Burton made his crazy allegations regarding Vince Foster. But I also recall having similar discussions about the "9/11 truthers", Cindy Sheehan, and disruptions at events like the G8 summit in Seattle. I just wasn't writing about it back then.

It is also, of course, worth remembering the old adage that "two wrongs don't make a right". Even if some on the left did behave badly, does that mean that the right should behave badly now? Because a right-winger killed policemen in Pittsburgh, should a leftist kill bankers? Because a right-winger killed an abortion doctor, should a leftist kill an anti-abortion advocate? Because the Bush administration ignored the Constitution and imprisoned people without the right to counsel or trial, engaged in illegal wiretaps, and used torture, should the Obama administration confiscate guns or allow illegal aliens to vote? Of course not. And I'd be curious to know if people like Mr. Schmidt who were apparently upset at the level of discourse during the Bush administration spoke out during the Clinton administration (and of course that line of inquiry can be taken back ad infinitem to the point of ridiculousness).

Or consider this comment to "Uncivil dissent" from someone identified only as "dabs":

Seriously? An attorney that displays a blatant ignorance of both the First Amendment AND legal precedent? I suspect business is not very good for Mr. Wallack.

In addition to all the responses here that point out SCORES of examples of other "hate speech" demonstrations by "progressive groups" (which I suspect Mr. Wallack considers justified protests), he obviously misses the fact that these American citizens would not even have had the chance to exercise their RIGHT to free speech had the Congress gotten their way and hurriedly shoved this socialist tripe legislation down our throats before the August recess.

But alas, even patently partisan people like Mr. Wallack have the right to voice their opinions... a right that he seems to want to deny others who don't share his radical idealogy.

Sad.

And my response:

"Radical ideology"? Sorry, but I don't understand how the belief that I system is better served by civil discourse than by yelling, screaming, pushing, and threats is a "radical ideology". Dabs, come down off of your holier-than-thou pedestal, go back and look at what I wrote, and stop trying to put words or ideas in my mouth. I did not advocate for or against the proposed healthcare reform legislation. Nor did I suggest that anyone be prevented from expressing their opinion. Nor have I ever condoned hate speech, whether from the right, left, middle, or otherwise. I think that if you look at what I've written, you'll find that I'm worried about the impact of hate speech in all of its incarnations. And I think that you'll find that I encourage people to take time and learn the facts so that they can be properly informed to participate in the political process.

My comments were about the tone of the debate and the fact that yelling and screaming and threatening are not debate at all. If you'd like to debate the healthcare reform proposals, please do so. And let others share their thoughts and opinions, too. Don't scream about "death panels" or yell about socialism. Instead, talk about whether a particular policy is good or bad and why. And take some time to listen to the other side, instead of just screaming. And that goes for most everything in our political process, not just healthcare reform.

Yes, an incitement to violence may be protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn't make it right. Nor does that mean that it is a productive form of discourse and debate.

Finally, I see distinct differences between protest, protest that disrupts others from engaging in core political speech and debate, protest that includes an incitement to violence, protest that includes actual or perceived threats of violence, the staging of violent acts, and the actual commission of violence. I advocate for civility from all sides on all issues. Please tell me where I've ever condoned anything that disrupts civil discourse or the political process.

The point that I thought that I'd made was that disruptive behavior that prevents or hinders civil discussion of important issues harms our democratic process. It just happens that the examples of this behavior that have manifested since I've been writing this blog (or for IN Touch) have involved behavior from those on the right (or those who oppose the healthcare reform proposals). Personally, I don't care who engages in the disruptive behavior or makes the threats of violence. It is wrong. But for anyone to suggest that I'm a hypocrite merely on the grounds that I'm speaking out now is simply ludicrous.

Just for the record, here are a few things that I've said on the subject of political discourse in the year 19 months that I've been writing Me Me Me Me Me:

Unfortunately, two new types of lies seem to have entered the political process. (OK, I'll admit that they've both probably been around as long as elections have, but they seem to be becoming more prominent recently.) The first is the lie of destruction. That lie puts out disinformation about the opponent that has nothing to do with the issues in the election; rather, the lie attacks the opponent's character or fitness to serve. This year, we've seen lies about Sen. Obama's religion and lies about Sen. McCain's involvement in the fire aboard the USS Forrestal. We've seen lies about Sen. Obama's citizenship and lies about Sen. McCain cooperating with the enemy while a POW. These sorts of lies are very damaging to the candidates, and, more importantly, they are very damaging to our very electoral process (would you want to run for office knowing the kinds of things that might be said about you and your family?). Between mass communications and the Internet, these lies can spread faster than they can be rebutted; by the time a rebuttal can be issued, the lie has taken on a life of its own and, to many people, become "true". So, if people are basing their electoral decision on the basis of lies about a candidate's character and background, those electoral decisions will, almost by definition be flawed and the issues on which the election should turn are relegated to a position of lesser importance. This trend has me gravely concerned. If people don't want to vote for Sen. Obama because they don't like his economic policies, fine (although I'd like to talk to them...); but if they don't want to vote for him because "he's a Muslim" then we have a problem. If people don't want to vote for Sen. McCain because he opposes a woman's right to choose, fine; but if they don't want to vote for him because they think he is responsible for the deaths of 134 sailors on the USS Forrestal then we have a problem. And given the prominence of chain emails and websites with just these sorts of allegations, I think that we do have a problem.

(From "When a Lie Becomes an Insult", September 9, 2008.)

When politicians use hate and division as tools, some supporters will take their speech at face value. And when politicians don't listen to what their supporters are saying, they can't help either control those supporters or try to keep a lid on the actions those supporters may take. And should Sen. Obama win the election, then one can only wonder what disaffected McCain supporters will do, especially those supporters who have felt emboldened to shout "kill him" or "Bomb Obama".

(From "What Did John Lewis Say and How the Candidates Responded", October 16, 2008.)

One of the constant themes running through many of my posts since I started this blog has been my concern with the use of language in our political discourse that serves no purpose other than to demonize a political opponent (or, all to often the "enemy") without regard for the damage that such actions will have upon the nation as a whole, especially when the use of such language is devoid of constructive thought or ideas. That we're now hearing elected politicians even mentioning notions like secession is yet another aspect to this radicalization of political dialoge. [sic]

(In response to a comment to "A Sampling of Signs from the "Tea Bag" Parties That You Didn't See on the News", April 17, 2009.) And here is what I said in one of my earliest IN Touch posts ("Ties that bind us", January 20, 2009):

[O]ur nation has for too long been torn apart by infighting where our political opponent is our "enemy" and where we allow ourselves to be divided not just by political party, but by race, religion and so many other categories. We have allowed those divisions to be the basis for our national discussions, often forgetting that we are all Americans, united by the Constitution.

So let us hope that we can take this transitional inauguration as an opportunity to try to bridge those divisions. We may continue to disagree; that is what democracy is all about, after all. But let those disagreements remain civil and principled and let the name calling be replaced by honest debate. We must recognize that those on the other side of an issue are still Americans and that there is more that ties us together than tears us apart.

I haven't taken the time to re-read every post that I've written in nearly two years, but I suspect that I would find numerous examples of statements just like these, hoping for a more civil political discourse. So, I don't believe that any claim that I am a hypocrite on the issue of civil discourse will hold up to careful scrutiny.

But, when there is no defense to the actions of those being criticized, what other response is there to make but to cry hypocrisy and try to deflect attention from the real issue and onto the people calling attention to the issue. At its core, that is the Republican and right-wing mindset. Don't talk about issues, talk about people. Identify people by slogans or race or any other tactic that serves to divide people rather than bring them together ("ooh, socialist"). Take a moment and go back and look at the signs that people were holding up a the tea parties for another fine example of high-minded civil disc... oops, I meant the politics of division and destruction.

And then, when someone does want to talk about real issues, the next response is, of course, to lie.

Or consider another recent Republican talking point: The only reason that people are yelling at their Congressional representatives is because they're not getting answers to their questions. Of course this argument is self-debunking in that people can't get answers to questions if: (a) they don't actually pose questions, choosing instead to yell and scream, and preventing others from asking questions and/or (b) they don't listen to the answers being given. There is also a difference between not getting an answer to a question and not getting the answer that you want. Plus, this explanation doesn't really address the issue of incitements to violence, racist rhetoric, other forms of political demonization (e.g., Rush Limbaugh's comparison of President Obama to Hitler), or the lies being advanced.

I don't know everything that every opponent to every policy of the Bush administration or a Republican elected official did during the past eight years. Nor do I know what every opponent of Bill Clinton did during his term. But I do know that right now our nation is facing important decisions concerning healthcare reform, the state of the economy, and many other serious problems and issues. Yelling, screaming, and threats of political violence will not help us solve those problems or find resolutions for those issues. Disruptive behavior will not help America move forward as a powerful whole, but rather will further tear us apart and erode our sense of national unity. Sometimes you have to wonder whether Americans view the bigger threat to be nations and actors like Iran, North Korea, and al-Qaeda, issues like the economy, global warming, or healthcare, or other Americans (including elected representatives) who hold differing political views.