OurFuture.org Blogs: Brian Dockstader

Defunding The Real Criminal Enterprises

Brian Dockstader — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:25:25 -0700

A few weeks ago I wrote about the brazen hypocrisy with which conservatives in Congress met the revelation that a handful of ACORN employees gave stupid advice to two conservative operatives attempting to provoke them into saying just such stupid things.

While conservatives ravenously pounced on the opportunity to defund the network of community organizations committed to helping and empowering low-income communities (most egregiously by trying to help them participate in their own democracy), they happily and predictably turned a blind eye to the mass levels of fraud, criminality and assorted malfeasance that have been committed by their dear corporate benefactors over the years.

As I noted at the time, the wording on their Defund ACORN Act was written so broadly that they very likely managed to accidentally defund a great number of corporate contractors, especially military contractors which have been among the most egregious law breakers and taxpayer bilkers in recent history.

While the outcome of this ironic misstep still appears to be in limbo, some in Congress have taken the episode as an invitation to start having an honest discussion about the real criminal enterprises that have been swindling taxpayers out of billions upon billions of dollars, without a hint of indignation from those self-righteous corporate cheerleaders on the conservative side of the aisle.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) rose to the occasion and framed the issue beautifully in an impassioned floor speech last week (it is about 12 minutes long, but worth every minute, especially if you yearn to see members of Congress with some integrity and a spine to match):

The sad truth of the matter is that virtually every major defense contractor in this country has, for a period of many years, been engaged in systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. We're not talking here about the $53 million that ACORN received over 15 years. We're in fact talking about defense contractors who have received many, many billions in defense contracts and year after year, time after time, violated the law, ripping off the taxpayers of this country big time. And in some instances, these contractors have done more than ripping off the taxpayers. In some instances, they have endangered the lives and well being of the men and women who serve our country in the armed forces. [...]
Despite violating the law time after time after time; despite being fined time after time after time -- Guess what? In 2007, their punishment was... $77 billion in government contracts, $77 billion in government contracts.

Contrast this with the immediate defunding of ACORN, for committing no crime, and you can see plainly that the right-wing crusade against the community organization had nothing to do with the law, ethics or looking out for taxpayer dollars.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has also used this opportunity to take a stand against corporate fraud and criminality. Yesterday he introduced an amendment with the following purpose:

To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

Now what is this about "mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims"? Well that is the way these contractors try to essentially give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want to their employees, and face no legal consequences. Basically their employees have to sign away legally protected rights in order to be hired.

KBR, a former subsidiary of Dick Cheney's Halliburton, used just such a clause after a female employee was drugged, gang raped, and then locked in a shipping container by her fellow male KBR employees (this all happening on the taxpayer dime, mind you). After she was finally rescued from her imprisonment, KBR used the arbitration clause to try to keep her, a victim of a succession of brutal rapes, from seeking justice. Senator Franken explains it all:

This is just one example of a powerful military contractor and its employees acting criminally, much more so than any foolish employee working for ACORN ever did. A few weeks ago Jason Linkins at HuffPo pointed out other criminal activities that went far beyond what ACORN has been accused of, without any outrage from conservatives in Congress:

And consider this! A taxpayer-funded contractor for Blackwater USA got drunk and murdered an Iraqi in the Green Zone back in October 2007. That's a month after Blackwater employees went on a killing spree in Nisour Square in Baghdad. The taxpayer-funded contractors who guard the State Department facilities in Kabul spend their time taking photos of each other "peeing on one another, simulating anal sex, doing 'butt shots,' and 'eating potato chips out of ass cracks.'" Halliburton, another government contractor, bilked the Pentagon to the tune of $100 million dollars, and basically covered it up through lies and accounting tricks.

And while we're on the subject of ACORN, which had a handful of employees busted for offering assistance to a fake pimp and his fake prostitution business, let's consider the case of taxpayer-funded contractor DynCorp -- its employees actually, LITERALLY, did service a prostitution ring in Bosnia in August of 2002. Girls between the ages of 12 and 15 were involved. And then six years later, employees of the very same contractor went to Iraq and DID IT AGAIN! And this time somebody got killed.

That's one government contractor, two war zones, two continents, two prostitution rings, one known death, zero consequences. What has your member of Congress done about it? SOD ALL, that's what! And DynCorp is still "supporting U.S. interests worldwide."

Add to this at least one massacre by Blackwater in which 17 Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and I think you can start to get a decent picture of the flagrant double standard applied here by conservatives.

Speaking of double standards, let's play a little game. Let's see which senators voted to strip ACORN of all federal funding, while voting against Al Franken's amendment. Out of the 30 senators (30 Republicans, 0 Democrats, 0 Independents) who voted against Al Franken's amendment to hold KBR accountable, 24 of them voted to defund ACORN, and the remaining six didn't show up for the ACORN vote, but it seems likely, given that not a single Republican voted against it, that they would have voted to defund ACORN as well (especially David Vitter, who has made attacking ACORN his raison d'être, with an extra scoop of hypocrisy coming from a former prostitute connoisseur).

So there we have a confirmed 80% (and suspected 100%) of Senate conservatives who are unabashed hypocrites. These senators voted to defund a grassroots community organizing network because a few employees gave stupid tax advice to conservative operatives trying to entrap them, yet voted against cutting tens of billions of dollars in funding to military contractors (coincidentally also their donors) whose employees drugged, gang raped and imprisoned a female employee while the contractor tried to keep the rape victim from seeking justice for the savage crimes against her.

Just take a moment to think about that.

To these people it is worse for employees to give bad legal advice to people trying to trick them into giving bad legal advice, than for employees to drug, gang rape, and imprison a fellow employee. In the first case they demanded the immediate defunding of the entire organization to the tune of a few million a year. In the latter case they voted against cutting any funds to KBR whose employees committed horrific crimes (not even mentioning all of the other cases of criminal fraud committed by the organization itself).

So why the double standard? Well it is painfully simple: in one case they were protecting major corporate donors who give them lots of cash, and in the other case they were engaged in a long-standing crusade to destroy a community organization in order to discourage a particular demographic profile from having a voice (i.e. poor or minorities who might vote against them). Hey, I'm sure it isn't personal though, it is just business--pure, slimy, dishonest, hypocritical business.

In case you wanted to see who our confirmed shameless hypocrites in the Senate are, here's the list for you:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN), John Barrasso (R-WY), Kit Bond (R-MO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Thad Cochran (R-MI), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Wicker (R-MI).

The unconfirmed (at least by this vote), yet almost certain shameless hypocrites in the Senate are:

Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Judd Gregg (R-NH), John McCain (R-AZ) and David Vitter (R-LA).

Congratulations to them for showing us exactly what they are made of.

John Boehner Admits He Is Completely Out Of Touch

Brian Dockstader — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:40:42 -0700

We have long known that conservatives in Congress are hopelessly out of touch with both reality and the American people. So while it represented nothing new, House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) recent comments on health insurance reform made me do a double take:

Boehner claimed, with a semi-straight face, that he has yet to meet a regular "American" who favors the option -- despite polls showing that a majority of voters support to the idea of having the choice of a government plan.

"I'm still trying to find the first American to talk to who's in favor of the public option, other than a member of Congress or the administration" said Boehner, whose sole recent foray into a public discussion of health care reform was a tea-party-style event in Ohio a few weeks back.

Now it is pretty startling that in John Boehner's day-to-day life he hasn't come across a single American who supports a public health insurance option, despite pretty much every poll consistently showing overwhelming public support for a public option (typically between 56 to 62% on the low end and 75 to 80% on the high end). So given that at the very least a simple majority of Americans support it, how the hell has the leading Republican in the House of Representatives managed to not meet a single American who supports it?

How sheltered is this man??

Seriously, it is one thing to oppose policies that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, which conservatives seem to love to do, but to actually have no contact with someone who disagrees with them, or to go out of their way to just pretend these people don't exist...it is just flummoxing.

But on the off chance the top ranking Republican in the House of Representatives doesn't spend all of his personal time locked away in some dark underground lair, surrounded by hand-picked claque of right-wing ideologues, there is one other explanation I can think of to explain his otherwise inexplicable comments: perhaps John Boehner has a very particular definition of "American".

Is it possible that he has so thoroughly internalized that oft-insinuated conservative notion that those who don't agree with them aren't "real" Americans? Has he actually convinced himself that his opponents are literally not American citizens?

You would think someone would have to be very mentally unhinged to slip into such a delusional state, but is it really that hard to imagine? We've heard plenty of this rhetoric from the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and countless conservative pundits over the years. Also keep in mind that a recent poll showed that less than half of Republicans believe that President Obama is an actual American citizen.

This tinfoil hat conspiracy has also been espoused and fanned by many conservative members of Congress, including 12 Representatives who actually co-sponsored the so-called "Birther Bill" seeking to require future presidential candidates to submit proof of citizenship prior to running (you know, so we don't get another Obama situation--event though his birth certificate has been available since early on in his campaign).

So maybe that is it. Maybe Boehner has met plenty of people who support the public option, just no "real Americans", who by virtue of his worldview are unable to support anything he doesn't.

Which is worse? To be that physically isolated from the majority of Americans by his typical circle of far-right ideologues, or to be that blinded by ideology and self-righteousness that he can't even bring himself to acknowledge that those who disagree with him are even citizens?

I'll leave it up to you to determine his malfunction.

UPDATE: Click here to sign the following petition from Health Care for America Now! to Rep. Boehner: "Hey John Boehner! I'm an American AND I support the public health insurance option!"

Right-Wing Plan To "Take Back America": Obama Is Hitler!!

Brian Dockstader — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:41:46 -0700

For six years the Campaign for America's Future organized the annual Take Back America conference, the largest annual gathering of progressives in the country. At the conference progressives came together to discuss how to improve the country, through goals like health care reform, clean energy, investment in infrastructure, and not making America less secure by engaging in unnecessary wars of aggression. These were undeniably happy conferences with positive messages.

Starting this year, after the election of President Obama to the White House, CAF changed the name of the conference to America's Future Now! to reflect the promise of a new progressive era.

Apparently conservatives were inspired because they quickly co-opted the name and held their own conference, this past weekend, named the How To Take Back America Conference.

(See how it isn't a blatant ripoff? They added "How To" at the beginning!)

Now if a confused progressive would have happened to stumble into this conference, expecting to see a positive discussion of how to improve the country for all Americans, they would have been in for the shock of a lifetime. No, that isn't what this conference was about. Instead, it appeared to be the modern equivalent of The Two Minutes' Hate, only spread over two days.

Take for instance one of the workshops which bore the McCarthyesque title of "How to Recognize Living Under Nazis & Communists" (Yes, really, you can't make this stuff up). The obvious point of the workshop was to show attendees how Obama is just like Hitler, specifically a communist Hitler. Quoth the presenter:

We elected Hitler by 98% of the vote by means of the ballot box. How could that happen, that such a monster, would get elected in a 100% Christian nation? The fact is, Hitler talked like an American politician [knowing chuckles from audience] [...] Now, if we would have dictatorships--dictatorship overnight, and had we had our guns, we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. [...] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. [...] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism.

So what did we learn? We learned:

1) Obama, like Hitler, can win democratic elections, even in "100% Christian nations" (for some reason I was under the impression that there were a few Jews in Germany in the 1930's). This means that democracy isn't always right, and an anti-democratic revolution is thus justified.

2) Obama is a great speaker. Hitler could speak well too. Thus, Obama is just like Hitler.

3) We need to stockpile guns and ammunition so we can fight a "bloody battle" against the American government. (US ammo manufacturers are facing shortages because right-wing conservatives are actually doing this).

4) Hitler was a socialist because the name of his party included the word "socialist", and that is all the proof we need. Yup.

This last one always annoys me. It just shows how shallow conservatives' understanding of basically everything really is. A political party 70 years ago included the word "socialist" in its name, thus fascism = communism. Let's forget about the fact that the Nazis hated Communists, and Hitler killed millions of them--a weird thing to do to a group that you are supposedly part of, isn't it? Well hell, let's just ask Hitler what he thought of socialists:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." -Adolf Hitler

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." -Adolf Hitler

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." -Adolf Hitler

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." -Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." -Adolf Hitler

Apparently Hitler didn't get the memo that he was a Commie. Someone probably should have told him. In fact, as it turns out, when you actually look at what Hitler believed and actually did, his policies were generally far-right (thus why he hated the far-left, otherwise known as socialists and communists).

But hey, facts are so inconvenient. It is much easier to just tell people that fascists and communists are the same because of a word in a long-defunct political party's official name. That is of course a lot more important than, I don't know, what the two groups actually stood for, or the history of what actually happened back in the first half of the 20th Century.

But that is par for the course for the conservative movement. Their idea of taking back America appears to be through spreading insane lies about the President of the United States being a Nazi-Communist, and by advocating a bloody armed rebellion against the United States. That's quite a change from the flag-waving jingoism of the "love it or leave it" crowd just a few short years ago.

But should we be surprised? Of course a Take Back America conference from the right-wing isn't going to be focused on taking back America democratically--virtually all of their policies are opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans. So I guess Plan B is advocating treason.

Mind you that at this same event a GOP Congressman denounced the President as "an enemy of humanity."

Anti-ACORN Crusade Backfires In Irony (Updated!)

Brian Dockstader — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:50:14 -0700

I have been restraining myself from writing a post about ACORN for some time now. It isn't that I haven't had plenty of thoughts about the faux scandal and the right-wing-media-led poo storm and subsequent political lynching that followed; I simply felt that there were so many other people writing about it who probably did the subject more justice than I myself could (like Glenn Greenwald and Joe Conason).

So why am I writing about it now? Well, you may not know this about me, but there is little I enjoy more than people being called out on their hypocrisy (I have great respect for those incredibly rare journalists who actually hold politicians and the media accountable for their non-stop hypocrisy, hypocrisy which tends to be especially prevalent among conservative figures). One thing I might appreciate more than exposed hypocrisy, however, is irony. And what happens when you put hypocrisy and irony together? Well you get Congress's recent vote to defund ACORN.

For those who haven't been following the saga, let me first briefly recap how we got here:

First, we had two right-wingers--James O'Keefe and Townhall.com columnist Hannah Giles--who, armed with a hidden video camera*, decided to dress up as a pimp and prostitute duo and went to multiple ACORN offices to try to get the employees there to say something stupid on camera. Why did they do this? Well, let's ask O'Keefe himself:

James O’Keefe, one of the two filmmakers, said he went after ACORN because it registers minorities likely to vote against Republicans: "Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization," O’Keefe told The Washington Post. "No one was holding this organization accountable."

[More background on O'Keefe available here.]

Well, at least they aren't shy about their motivations. So apparently these two conservatives made the calculus that any organization that gets minorities or poor people registered to vote and involved in their own democracy is a direct threat to the political power of the Republican Party, and thus must be stopped. This is, of course, the transparent rationale behind the right-wing crusade against ACORN. We all know it, we aren't idiots, yet it usually goes unacknowledged. And most conservatives are smart enough not to explicitly admit it. They prefer to obfuscate their motivations in distortions about what the organization actually does. O'Keefe apparently didn't get the memo that you aren't suppose to freely admit that it is all shamelessly political.

So we have these two smear entrepreneurs who head out on their mission to try to entrap ACORN employees being stupid. Out of the handful of ACORN offices they visited (actually we have no idea how many they visited, they could have been rejected by 10 offices for every one that agreed to help them for all we know), they were turned away from at least one office, police reports were filed against them in at least two, and in one case the ACORN employee involved suspected a hoax and decided to try to shock them right back with outrageous comments including a lie that she murdered her ex-husband (this statement Fox News ran wild with, before bothering to check with the police to actually verify the untimely death of the ex-husband who, it turns out, is actually quite alive). Nevertheless, despite these setbacks, the filmmakers were able to get video of a few ACORN employees saying very stupid things, and in some cases giving illegal advice (even though some of them turned around and reported the duo to the police right after they left).

And that is of course all it took to set off the right-wing on their latest campaign to tar and feather ACORN. Media Matters did a good job of describing what happened next:

Fox was running so wild with the story that they were willing to lower their already dubious standards. The first problem was one of logic. Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. It was the opposite of how a credible investigation is supposed to function, in which conclusions are withheld until after all the facts are in. By comparison, here, the conservative media had a few isolated facts but were willing to extrapolate an entire thesis from them.

The filmmakers also lied by claiming that every ACORN office they visited was complicit (when they obviously weren't, as noted above). Fox News promoted this, and other blatant lies, in their attempt to take down ACORN. They also managed to guilt the rest of the mainstream media into joining in on their journalism-free crusade.

And without missing a beat House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) had introduced H.R. 3571, the "Defund ACORN Act", which unconstitutionally sought to punish the entire organization by stripping all federal funding, despite the fact that ACORN hadn't been tried or found guilty of anything, and despite the fact that all of the wrongheaded employees in question had been quickly fired (even the ones who filed police reports). Sadly this knee-jerk (and again, unconstitutional) legislation garnered bipartisan support as it shot through Congress with the kind of breakneck speed that would have made the Patriot Act jealous.

It was at this point that I really got steamed. To think of how many billions of dollars the "defense" industry defrauded the federal government out of in Iraq alone--between Halliburton and all of the other recipients of gigantic no-bid contracts--without even a blink from these same people who led the charge against ACORN. Never was their any talk from them about defunding these corporations, cutting off their contracts, or even investigating the scale of the fraud. (For more information about the disgusting amount of fraud in our outsourced war in Iraq watch "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers". It is absolutely appalling.)

What about Blackwater USA, which had five employees indicted on 35 counts each, mostly manslaughter, for their role in a 2007 massacre of 17 Iraqi civilians and the wounding of over twenty more? I would like to suggest that that is just slightly more immoral and criminal than a few poorly paid employees of a grassroots advocacy organization saying stupid things on film. Just maybe. Yet where was the "Defund Blackwater Act"? Where were these same people and their crusade for justice in Congress? Where was the 24/7 news coverage from Fox News denouncing this criminal organization and voicing disgust that taxpayer dollars were funding these heinous acts? (Heinous acts done in our name, with America's reputation on the line).

Of course there wasn't any outrage, not from conservatives at least, because Blackwater doesn't register poor people or minorities to vote which, after all, is the real measure of criminality. They couldn't have been more transparent and hypocritical if they tried. It had nothing to do with right vs wrong, and it had nothing to do with legality, with taxpayer money, nothing of the sort. It had everything to do with trying to prevent American citizens of a particular demographic profile from having a voice. Period.

So that was the hypocrisy, and there was more than enough to go around. Then came the wonderful irony.

It turns out that in John Boehner's pathetic attempt to make the bill not look like a blatantly unconstitutional bill of attainder he included some very broad wording that targeted the defunding toward pretty much any organization that has defrauded the federal government, or has been indicted for some violation of federal or state election law, or has any institutional involvement with anyone who has any such history. Basically the bill unintentionally targeted a hell of a lot more than just ACORN, including some big time corporate friends of its sponsors, like "defense" industry giants Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Halliburton subsidiary KBR and DynCorp, as well as countless other companies (probably including major health insurance companies as well).

Oops!

Seriously, how hilarious is that? They pass a hypocritical bill aimed at singling out an organization that hasn't been indicted, let alone found guilty, of any wrongdoing in what they are ostensibly punishing it for, only to accidentally vote to cut off all federal funding for a bunch of their big military-industrial complex buddies who actually have swindled the United States and American taxpayers out of billions of dollars. Talk about poetic justice.

But of course justice will never have its day. The second their mistake was noticed you can be sure an army of staffers in John Boehner's office were probably hard at work to draft tiny one line amendments to sneak into the next bill that comes along that read something like "Amend the Defund ACORN Act to exclude Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed Martin" etc. Or, maybe an easier way to do it would be to just drop the pretense altogether and write "Amend the Defund ACORN Act to only defund organizations that, among many other beneficial projects, encourage democratic participation among poor and minority groups, who we'd rather not vote."

I just hope that if conservatives in Congress start dropping in loopholes for their corporate sponsors, the media will start actually doing their job and shine a big ugly spotlight on the hypocrisy, corporate fraud, and cronyism that is endemic among this circle of friends.

Or maybe they'll get lucky and be able to avoid it all if/when the bill is ruled to be unconstitutional. Hopefully next time Congress decides to go on a knee-jerk safari against whomever Fox News and Drudge tell them is "bad" they'll actually pause, wait for all of the facts to come in, and maybe even use a little brain juice before choosing to highlight what pathetic sheep they are.

Hmm, I wonder how much time and money the government is going to end up wasting as they go through the necessary process of identifying every organization that gets money from the federal government that qualifies for full defunding under the criteria laid out in the bill. Then will come the lobbying, the lawsuits, the appeals, the backroom deals. But hey, that is what happens when you have irresponsible children drafting shortsighted legislation. Did we really expect anything better from them?

* Note: Making audio recordings of people without their knowledge is illegal in Maryland is illegal, so ACORN is now suing O'Keefe and Giles. I expect Congress to pass the Defund O'Keefe and Giles Act by tomorrow afternoon.

UPDATE: Jason Linkins at HuffPo wrote along the same lines about the epic fraud hypocrisy in Congress, but included some striking examples of just how outrageous this double standard is:

And consider this! A taxpayer-funded contractor for Blackwater USA got drunk and murdered an Iraqi in the Green Zone back in October 2007. That's a month after Blackwater employees went on a killing spree in Nisour Square in Baghdad. The taxpayer-funded contractors who guard the State Department facilities in Kabul spend their time taking photos of each other "peeing on one another, simulating anal sex, doing 'butt shots,' and 'eating potato chips out of ass cracks.'" Halliburton, another government contractor, bilked the Pentagon to the tune of $100 million dollars, and basically covered it up through lies and accounting tricks.

And while we're on the subject of ACORN, which had a handful of employees busted for offering assistance to a fake pimp and his fake prostitution business, let's consider the case of taxpayer-funded contractor DynCorp -- its employees actually, LITERALLY, did service a prostitution ring in Bosnia in August of 2002. Girls between the ages of 12 and 15 were involved. And then six years later, employees of the very same contractor went to Iraq and DID IT AGAIN! And this time somebody got killed.

That's one government contractor, two war zones, two continents, two prostitution rings, one known death, zero consequences. What has your member of Congress done about it? SOD ALL, that's what! And DynCorp is still "supporting U.S. interests worldwide."

These are of course just a few examples of the outrageous things big time corporate military contractors have done and gotten away with, without any uproar from the conservatives in Congress or the media who are all but foaming at their mouths to destroy this network of grassroots community organizations. The hypocrisy is suffocating.

UPDATE (9/25): Here's a great segment by the always great Rachel Maddow on the corporate-backed demonization campaign against ACORN and the media's failure to cover it fairly:

UPDATE (10/2): I just have to add this great floor speech by Sen. Bernie Sanders on this subject. He nails it:

The 1st (And Hopefully Last) Annual 9/12 Teabagger Sign Awards!

Brian Dockstader — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:00:23 -0700

So I went to check out Glenn Beck's little 9/12 Project teabagger rally in front of the Capitol on Saturday and saw a great cross-section of what "real" Americans supposedly look like. First, a little background for those of you who aren't familiar with the premise of the 9/12 Project:

The 9/12 Project was created by Glenn Beck, with the support of corporate front groups like Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, essentially to shamelessly exploit the memory of 9/11 to further their rabid, hate-filled, paranoid, ignorant, right-wing agenda. Or, as a tear-filled Glenn Beck explained it, to take us back to how we felt the day after 9/11--which was apparently panicked, fearful, angry, and confused. Glenn Beck essentially wants to bring America those feelings 24/7/365, or at least until we no longer have a black or a liberal in the White House. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who famously said the following of the families of victims of 9/11:

You know, it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families. ... I don't hate all of them. I hate about, probably about 10 of them. But when I see, you know, 9-11 victim family, on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh, shut up." I'm so sick of them, because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them.

So the 9/12 Project was essentially a 6-month effort by Fox News and corporate lobbying firms to manufacture an astroturf protest, wrap it in the memory of 9/11, and use it to further their right-wing political agenda, and maybe foment a violent uprising of right-wing militias while they are at it.

Before I get into the awards portion of this blog, I just wanted to acknowledge one more thing about the event. When I ventured down to the Mall to do some crazy watching, I was struck but how small the rally was. I had actually expected it to be much bigger than it ended up being. After all, this was the baby of Fox News, the biggest cable news channel. They had spent six months and untold millions of dollars pimping this thing out, plus they even had the backing of FreedomWorks and other right-wing groups. Yet, despite all of that, they were only able to muster between 30-50k, which by DC protest standards is pretty pathetic--something easily dwarfed by a free concert on the Mall. Now the adorable part of this whole thing was how proud the teabaggers were of their little event. Listening to them boast about the size of their rally you could tell they really thought it was enormous...they thought it was unprecedented, a game-changer. Of course it wasn't even close.

And so in true right-wing fashion, they couldn't help but lie to back up their claims. Since the event they have been making the absolutely hilarious claim that between 1.5 and 2 million people showed up. Anyone from DC can tell you that they are either insane or pathological liars. At one point they were actually circulating a photo of an event from the 90's, sans a few obvious buildings that exist today, to "prove" they had a large crowd. It was a comical show of how embarrassed they were over their turnout. Yes, it was a severe case of crowd envy indeed.

Before they get too ahead of themselves in thinking they are going to take over the country, they might want to compare their crowd to massive sea of people at President Obama's inauguration (which had much less favorable weather), or other smaller events like his Portland rally which drew 80,000 with much less planning, money, and advanced notice.

As many have noted, the 2007 protest against the Iraq War drew a much larger crowd--between 150,000 and 300,000 people--yet got much less attention in the media. Is this a symptom of conservative media bias, or just one of the perks of having an entire cable "news" network ~~supporting~~ manufacturing your cause? You decide.

And a few other differences notable differences: Most events in DC, unlike the 9/12 crowd, aren't 99.99% white. (Although I did see two African American protesters, who were actually heckled and run off by a large crowd up their white consorts while I watched in amazement--same team? Obviously not "same" enough!). Also noteworthy was the disturbingly high frequency of both fanny packs and, unfortunately, obesity, which was particularly ironic at an event where health care and personal responsibility were major themes.

But enough digression, I can tell you are ready for the main event, what you've all been waiting for...The 1st (And Hopefully Last) Annual 9/12 Teabagger Sign Awards!

We had a large slate of signs this year, with fierce competition all around, so some categories ended in ties. We'll pick more decisive judges next year.

Most Classy

"Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy" was, hands down, the classiest sign there. There was stiff competition in this category, but this one wins hands down. Adding to the classiness, conservatives put in on the ground, covered it in horse crap, and stood around laughing, pointing, and taking pictures of their proud creation. The was actually one of the few mass-produced signs at the event, and you could see them all over the place.

I'd like to point out that multiple members of Congress endorsed and spoke at this event, offering words of praise and encouragement to their fellow "freedom fighters". Congressional headliners included Republicans Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Mike Pence (R-IN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Phil Gingrey (R-GA). In addition to praising the attendees as "informed" and "outraged', Senator DeMint also added that he had "never been so proud to be an American." After all, what's there not to be proud of?

Most Confusing Message

So this protester is apparently against health insurance, period. She seems to be decrying the fact that doctors must deal with private insurance companies, which is no doubt a huge (bureaucratic) hassle. So, she doesn't want private insurance, she is protesting a public health insurance option, so she either wants a completely nationalized health care system, or she wants to move to a Skittle-based health care market. I really can't tell which.

Whatever her message, I think we can agree that our current private health insurance system is a giant mess, and excessive administrative costs and corporate bureaucracy are strangling the health insurance market. One thing that should be a delight to this protester's ears is that Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private for-profit insurance. For more information about insurance companies, check out Insurance Company Rules.

Most Nostalgic for the Civil War

This was a difficult category to judge. One could argue that the various confederate flags floating around the crowd were in fact the most nostalgic for an armed rebellion in defense of out of control racism; however, those lacked creativity in my mind, and didn't make a strong enough point of how America belongs to the small teabagging minority, and not to anyone they disagree with. You may have thought that "real America vs anti-America" crap faded out with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, but no, it is alive and well, and basically the only geography these people know.

There were, of course, a lot more signs hinting at armed insurrection (treason, as I believe they used to call it), assassinating the President, and violence with guns, however I didn't feel those warranted their own distinct category. Maybe next year.

Most Nostalgic for McCarthyism/Busiest Sign

This woman was a treat (and so was her darling kid, pictured here, with matching t-shirt and crazy sign). She obviously had a lot on her mind, as evidenced by her rambling sign, which hit on such ubiquitous 9/12 themes as communism, fascism, Hitler, and of course "liberals are anti-American". She also hit on the not-so-ubiquitous theme of anti-Janeane Garofaloism.

Upon reading this sign, dripping with paranoia over the supposed commie influence in politics and Hollywood, one could not help but be struck by the disturbing parallels between that language and that of Joseph McCarthy during his infamous Red Scare witch hunts of 40s and 50s. I couldn't help but wonder, do these people realize that we've been down this road before, and that it represented a dark and embarrassing chapter in our nation's history that we supposedly closed long ago? Then I noticed her shirt, "The cure for Obama Communism Is a New Era of McCarthyism." Oh, well I guess they are aware of their historical bedfellows, and they appear unabashedly proud to be following in McCarthy's disgraced footsteps. That's just super.

This actually made me realize how weird it is that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) wasn't speaking at the rally, given that these extremist views go hand in hand with her own. In fact, it was almost a year ago that she went on national television and suggested that the media should investigate members of Congress to expose whether they are "pro-America or anti-America." At the time she also indicated that she'd put the Obamas in the "anti-America" category.

Most Hypocritical

This was, unquestionably, the category with the most nominations. In fact, practically every single sign at the 9/12 rally was a contender for Most Hypocritical. This largely stemmed from the fact that this was primarily billed as an anti-tax protest, yet President Obama has only lowered taxes. Yes, taxes were actually higher under Bush, yet as soon as Barack Obama took office, and lowered taxes, white conservatives suddenly decided that their taxes were oppressive and they needed to overthrow the government. Hmmm....I can't figure out why they'd protest under Obama and not Bush. Hmmm....

Since it would be impossible to say which is the most hypocritical at the rally, I'll call it a thousand-way tie and let them all share the glory of Most Hypocritical '09. Here are a few of our winners:

So here you see the sudden outrage over our national debt. The fact that the federal debt EXPLODED to unprecedented levels under both Reagan and Bush Jr. obviously doesn't bother them. It also doesn't seem to bother them that the bailouts began under Bush, nor the fact that the estimated long term cost of the Iraq War is projected to be somewhere between $2-3 trillion. And then there is the inconvenient fact that "only a sliver" of the current deficit is a result of Obama's policies. In short, they have no idea what they are talking about and, of course, they are complete hypocrites.

I would also like to point out that when Reagan and Bush Jr. racked up enormous debt during their 16 year reign they spent the vast majority of that money on A) feeding our already unbalanced military budget, and B) tax cuts for the rich. At least when President Obama spends money it overwhelmingly goes to things that improve the lives of all Americans and make our nation stronger (in much more substantive ways than our ability to bomb people into dust from tens of thousands of miles away). In short, there is a fundamental difference between how conservatives spend money, and how liberals spend money. Each side has starkly different priorities and starkly different outcomes.

This is just one of the many signs attacking high taxes, but I chose to highlight this one under Most Hypocritical because it is a bona fide octuple whammy. Let's break it down. The signs says ENOUGH:

Bickering - This person does realize they are at a rally organized for the sole purpose of bickering, organized by career-bickerer Glenn Beck, right?. If nothing else, conservatives have been bickering strenuously ever since Inauguration Day.
Lying - Replace "bickering" with "lying" on the last point.
Half-Truths - See "Lying"
Cronyism - See: Dick Cheney, Haliburton, no-bid contracts, and George W. Bush's entire corporate-sponsored cabinet.
Nepotism - See: Bush Sr., Bush Jr. - Not nepotism per se, but that is a whole lot of coat-tail riding. I'm not sure what alleged nepotism they think they are protesting here anyway, Obama didn't appoint family to any positions. We may actually need to check to make sure this protester actually knows what the word means.
Taxes - This is my favorite one, and a ubiquitous theme in this protest. As I mentioned already, President Obama has actually lowered taxes from Bush-levels. Yet these people weren't mad with their higher taxes under Bush. See why this fits perfectly into the Most Hypocritical category? Also, Obama has never suggested raising taxes on anyone making under $250,000/yr, and believe me, the people in this crowd were not the kind of people who pull in that kind of cash (yet coincidentally Glenn Beck and the other corporate backers of this little rally are the kind of people who pull in that kind of money, and much much more. Hmm...). So it obviously isn't about taxes, we've established that.
Trampling of Constitution - With the exception of the crazy "birthers" (who were also well represented in the 9/12 Project), I'm not aware of any other example of supposed violation of the Constitution, so it is hard to tell what this teabagger is referring to. That is generally how it worked at the rally, lots of crazy accusations, nothing to back any of them up. But for this, in the spirit of Most Hypocritical, this person may want to take a little look at all of the ways Bush has violated the Constitution. Here is a good start.
Wasted $$$ - Again, see my previous notes about the Iraq War, no-bid corporate giveaway contracts, and tax cuts for the rich, just to name a few epic wastes of money under the previous administration. Where was the outrage then? Certainly not coming from these folks.

As usual, they know nothing and have no sense of shame. To baselessly attack the current administration is one thing, but to do so right after acquiescing to, if not outright applauding and defending, these actions in the Bush administration is the height of hypocrisy. How they can protest against these fake problems with a straight face is beyond me. And those are just a few of the winners of Most Hypocritical '09! Let's have a round of applause!

Most Historically Ignorant

Now as I've mentioned, the vast majority of these protesters seem to have absolutely no idea what was going on in this country between 2001-2008. It turns out that most of them also had a very weak handle on other parts of history as well. The most common theme, collectively Czars (Advisors) = Communism, takes home this year's Most Historically Ignorant award.

Now I've never accused these people of being intellectuals, but this one is pretty hilarious. In their minds, because Glenn Beck told them so, the Soviet Union and Communist Russia were full of Czars. Of course this is funny because the communists were essentially the exact opposite of the Russian Czars (Tsars). In fact, during the Russia Revolution which brought the communists to power in Russia, the communists actually overthrew the Czarist autocracy and slaughtered Czar Nicholas II and his entire family. Talk about the commies loving Czars!

Now I know this might be a lot for these protesters to soak up all at once, and I know they might be in a little bit of shock at the fact that not only did Uncle Beck lie to them, but he also made them look like fools, so I would encourage them to watch "Anastasia" if an actual book is too much to handle.

Best Obama Is Heath Ledger Sign

I couldn't help but notice that the Obama-is-Heath-Ledger theme was a popular one this year. This one is my particular favorite, for its sheer laziness. Apparently hunting down one of those now-cliche Obama Joker posters was too difficult, so this woman just took a poster for "The Dark Knight", and wrote "OBAMA" on the Joker's forehead. Nailed it.

She also managed to tie in that tired "the New World Order is coming" conspiracy theory. Classic tin foil hatter. But not to be outdone by herself, on the flip side of her poster she successfully identified the President as...Hitler? No. Stallin? No. Heath Ledger again? Nope. Must be Mao then. Not quite. Then who?? Well....ThE aNtI-cHrIsT!! Who else? Yeah, they went there. Are you surprised? At this point, you shouldn't be.

Most Ironic

This is probably my favorite category. Like the others, there was stiff competition, but one stood out and made this year's winner for Most Ironic a no-brainer:

I'm glad you asked: Incredibly.

Honorable Mentions


Category: Most Ironic	Category: Most Classy	Category: Most Ironic

Update: My nomination for best video ever (these are REAL teabaggers, not satirical actors):

Update 2: Glenn Beck and his conservative friends are now claiming their event was the biggest in DC history, ever. Seriously. This settles it, they are pathological, and the people who believe it (their fans) are probably the most gullible people on the planet. Oh, and they are actually citing a source talking about President Obama's Inauguration as their "proof". Yes, because Obama's event was the biggest in DC history, the teabagger event actually was instead...somehow. As someone who attended both events, let me tell you: Glenn Beck's event was like a single drop in an ocean compared to Obama's inauguration.

If you come across any other signs from the 9/12 Project rally that deserve an award, feel free to pull a Kanye and nominate them yourself in the comments.

Conservative Health Care Response Ignores Facts

Brian Dockstader — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:17:54 -0700

The reviews of President Obama's health care speech before a joint session of Congress have been fairly glowing. Most agree that the President made a strong case for health insurance reform and did a good job of explaining why the public option is important, even if he stopped short of refusing to sign a bill without it. Early opinion polls even show that Americans who tuned in to listen were moved by the speech, and support for meaningful health insurance reform jumped.

One group that apparently didn't spend too much time listening to the speech was conservatives, as evidenced by Rep. Charles Boustany's (R-LA) official rebuttal to the President's speech. Now I can't say whether Boustany was otherwise engaged during the speech--perhaps yelling at the President or sending text messages--but from his speech it seems clear he wasn't paying very close attention.

Below is the transcript of his speech, which I have conveniently color coded to make it easier to read. You'll note that I have highlighted lies in orange, hypocrisy in green and bad ideas in blue.

Good evening. I’m Dr. Charles Boustany, and I’m proud to serve the people of Louisiana’s Seventh Congressional District. I’m also a heart surgeon with more than 20 years of experience, during which I saw first-hand the need for lowering health care costs.

Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready – and we’ve been ready – to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford¹.

Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We’re piling huge debt on our children². And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery³, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.

It’s clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality⁴. That’s what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.

Replacing your family’s current health care with government-run health care⁵ is not the answer. In fact, it’ll make health care much more expensive. That’s not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it’s the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office⁶ – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.

I read the bill Democrats passed through committee in July. It creates 53 new government bureaucracies⁷, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt⁸, and raises taxes on job-creators by $600 billion⁹. And, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors¹⁰.

The President had a chance tonight to take government-run health care⁵ off the table. Unfortunately, he didn’t do it.

We can do better, with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. Here are four important areas where we can agree, right now:

One, all individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions¹¹.

Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do¹².

Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor¹³.

And, four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention¹⁴ – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life.

We do have ideas the President hasn’t agreed with. We’re grateful the President mentioned medical liability reform, and we hope he’s serious. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care¹⁵. Real reform must do this.

Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines¹⁶. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance¹⁷. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.

You can read more about all these reforms at healthcare.gop.gov. These are common-sense reforms we can achieve right away – without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, rationing care, or taking away the freedom American families cherish¹⁸.

This Congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce some of the fear and anxiety families are feeling in these very difficult times¹⁹. Working together in a bipartisan way, we can truly lower the cost of health care while improving quality for the American people²⁰. I’m Dr. Charles Boustany. Thanks for listening.

1 - Lie - Rep. Boustany starts off by claiming that Republicans are ready, and have been ready, to "work with the President for common-sense reforms"...which is a lie. With the exception of one or two moderate Republicans, like Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the Republican Party has refused to come to the table with serious ideas for achieving the President's goals of increasing affordability, reigning in the explosive price of health care, and providing universal coverage to all Americans.

In fact, conservatives have been spending inordinate energy in smearing actual common-sense reforms, like a public health insurance option and end-of-life counseling. And despite all of the concessions Democrats have already given to conservatives, they have signaled that few, if any, Republicans will vote for the legislation. It is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act all over again--water it down with bad conservative ideas, then then oppose it anyway. [ up ]

2 - Hypocrisy - For me, one of the most telling parts of last night was the disparate reactions of the two sides of the aisle. Of particular interest was when President Obama explained that not only would the bill not add a single penny to the deficit, but it would actually return a modest surplus according to estimates, conservatives sat on their hands. Despite all of their grandstanding about "fiscal responsibility" they wouldn't applaud a deficit neutral (or even a deficit positive) health insurance reform bill.

Understandably, they were also not ecstatic when the President noted the hypocrisy of their opposition to a deficit neutral health insurance reform bill on the false grounds that it will add to our debt, while these same people steadfastly supported the costly war in Iraq and Bush's tax giveaways to the rich, which each cost far more than universal health care would under Obama's plan. And what did we get for the war and tax cuts for the rich? More dead Americans than the terrorists managed to kill on 9/11, and inequality we haven't seen since the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons.

So for Rep. Boustany, or any conservative, to decry the federal debt, and use it as a weapon to attack vitally necessary programs like health insurance reform, is the height of hypocrisy and disingenuousness. Rep. Boustany apparently thinks Americans don't remember anything prior to January 20th, 2009. [ up ]

3 - Lie - The recovery has not been jobless. Is unemployment still rising? Yes. But does this mean we wouldn't be doing far worse than we are now without the recovery? Definitely not. The Recovery Act has been creating jobs all around the country, and protecting existing jobs from layoffs. Even cynical conservatives, who repeatedly attack the stimulus as failed and wasteful spending, have gone back to their home districts to brag about the jobs it has created, and tried to take credit for these jobs. Yeah, they seem to think no one is watching their doublespeak. [ up ]

4 - Lie - It is funny that Rep. Boustany should mention what the public wants. He seems to think they want to start all over from the beginning, because of course nearly a century of trying to achieve universal health care in this country is just too quick! And of course it couldn't be a cynical ploy to stretch out the reform battle until the public is so tired of hearing about it that war fatigue sets in and they are able to kill reform altogether! Nooo...that couldn't be why they want us to go back to the very beginning. [ up ]

He also seems to think that Americans oppose the reforms that Obama supports, especially the public option. This of course is, and has always been, a lie. A public insurance option has always enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans, and the crazy season of August hasn't changed a thing. In fact a recent poll showed that 8 in 10 Americans support a public health insurance option, including a sizable majority of Republicans.

5 - Lie - Ahh, the good ol' standby favorite lie of conservatives, the "government takeover" boogeyman. This is what leads me to believe that Rep. Boustany was otherwise engaged during the President's speech, because like the other favorite right-wing lies about health insurance reform, Obama did an excellent job of setting the record straight. This made it all the more amusing when Rep. Boustany, unfazed by the preemptive myth-busting, predictably repeated the same tired old lies. [ up ]

6 - Lie - Another lie. The CBO has absolutely not found that the inclusion of a public health insurance option would raise health care costs. In fact, as the President explained in his speech, the exact opposite is true. In fact, it was at this point in Obama's speech that I was impressed with how he articulated, in an easy to understand manner, how a public insurance option would drive down costs by breaking up harmful insurance industry monopolies and open up health insurance markets to competition. Conservatives want you to believe that somehow increased competition leads to higher prices. Boustany may have been a doctor, but he obviously never sat through a freshman economics course (and he is hoping you haven't either). [ up ]

7 - Lie - Typical conservative lie here. When sometime is complex (you know, because running a country isn't exactly paint by numbers), throw out ridiculous numbers, create ridiculously confusing and inaccurate flow charts, and just yell "ZOMG it is sooo complicated!!" These "53 new government bureaucracies" are made out to sound like each and every one is a huge new agency, but in fact the vast majority of them are single positions or oversight committees. For instance, every position specifically created by the bill isn't described as a new job by conservatives; no, it is described as a "whole new bureaucracy", like "Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange" (yes, any position charged with making sure things work correctly is evil, just take their word for it, you don't have to think!).

Other horrible "bureaucracies" include the "Public Health Investment Fund", which sounds more like a fund than a giant bureaucratic octopus strangling the country, and the "Public health workforce loan forgiveness program", which is obviously evil as well, because forgiving loans for people who dedicate their lives to improving public health is horrible! In fact, quite a few of these "new bureaucracies" are nothing more than funds for various improvements, oversight positions to make sure things are working efficiently, and a couple committees. Look for yourself, the list is ridiculous, and just another example of conservatives thinking (hoping) you are stupid. [ up ]

8 - Lie - As I noted in #2, and as the President made crystal clear in his speech before Congress, health insurance reform will not add a single penny to the debt. In fact, that was one of the few lines in the sand the President actually drew during his speech--he vowed in no uncertain terms to veto any health insurance reform legislation that would increase the national debt. Not only are conservatives lying to you here, they apparently think you are deaf. [ up ]

9 - Lie - According to the nonpartisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, 96% of small businesses would see absolutely no tax increase under the health insurance reform plan. Small business would actually benefit from increases purchasing power through the new health insurance exchange. And for small business that cannot afford this health insurance, the government would provide tax credits to make coverage affordable. Horrible, isn't it? Conservatives are not worried about small businesses here, they are worried about protecting profits for large corporations, their biggest sponsors. [ up ]

10 - Lie - Health insurance reform would not cut Medicare. The legislation identifies $500 billion in savings in Medicare, mostly by eliminating overpayments, but also by adding efficiencies to the system, but this most certainly does not equal any kind of cuts in benefits or quality.

And I need to add a little shout out to their shameless hypocrisy on this one as well, because these Medicare related attacks are especially ironic coming from the same people who opposed this highly popular, government-run health care system for decades (including calling it "socialized" medicine that would destroy everything when it was being debated in the 60s), and who have tried at every turn to weaken or destroy it. [ up ]

11 - Hypocrisy - You gotta love how conservatives are now pretending to be in favor of such common-sense reforms like banning insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. And what about all of those years that we've been trying to do this while conservatives have been steadfast in their opposition to additional regulations on the insurance industry (and every industry)? If conservatives have been on board with these reforms, as liberals obviously have been, why couldn't this pass Congress in the past? Why didn't conservatives introduce this legislation when they controlled Congress and occupied the White House? Who have been blocking these reforms all this time...? Hmmm...

Sorry, we weren't born yesterday. You can't oppose these things for decades, defend the current system, and then pretend right before the clock runs out and you know you've lost that you are a consumer champion. That isn't how this works. [ up ]

12 - Hypocrisy - Wow, first a conservative talking about how they favor stronger government regulations on the insurance industry and now a conservative saying we should be more like labor unions?? This is just getting silly. [ up ]

13 - Hypocrisy - See, they want to provide assistance to those who cannot afford it, yet have consistently opposed programs that would do just that. Interesting. So what exactly is your plan to achieve this? Oh, there is no plan, no details, no solutions, no anything (well, except the word "NO!" of course)! Well, if they actually had a plan, you could safely assume that it would include no funding, no oversight, and no new positions (see #7). I can't wait to see how that is supposed to work! [ up ]

14 - Bad Idea - This doesn't sound like a bad idea at first glance, since encouraging people to be healthier is important (and something that Obama has repeatedly emphasized), but that of course isn't what Boustany is talking about. Offering "incentives" is code for what we have now, which basically translates to "if you do anything that could possibly put you at increased risk of anything, you'll have to pay more than everyone else."

If we take away the ability of the insurance industry to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, they'll do the exact same thing with "incentives", and if you don't receive enough "incentives" you'll find yourself with much much more expensive premiums than most people. Maybe your premiums will be so expensive that you just won't be able to afford to be covered anymore... I'm sure that would break some insurance company CEO's heart. [ up ]

15 - Lie - This is more a gross exaggeration than an actual lie. There is nothing stopping us from looking at tort reform, and perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea, but tort reform isn't the panacea conservatives have been pretending it is for decades. It isn't junk lawsuits that are driving up the cost of care, it is the near-monopoly within the health insurance market, which any economist can tell you is a sign of an inefficient market that is broken.

What inevitably happens in these monopolistic environments is that "producers" (i.e. the dominate insurance company in the market), having no competition forcing them to lower prices or increase quality, are free to charge whatever they can get away with (which in the case of health insurance is often whatever they can change without sending their customers into bankruptcy, which they frequently do).

Consumers, basically at the mercy of the insurance provider, are left with the choice between one or two expensive private options, or nothing at all. THAT is what is actually driving up premiums, not lawsuits. You can read more about the tort-reform boogeyman here. [ up ]

16 - Bad Idea - "Letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines" is another decent sounding idea at face value, that isn't so benign when you actually trace the obvious repercussions. The goal here is to start a race to the bottom among states to see who can deregulate the most. This would spell disaster for the health care in this country, and it would be a huge windfall for insurance company profits. [ up ]

17 - Lie - Again, this won't provide consumers with any choice or competition. All health insurance companies would move to set up shop in whichever state deregulated the most (read: gave them the most flexibility to do whatever they want with you) and soon customers would face a whole new array of equally horrible options for health insurance. An insurance company dream. Ask yourself this: Do you really want health insurance run like the credit card industry? Have you checked your fine print lately? How are those interest rates doing? How about now? [ up ]

18 - Lie - Lie, lie, lie and lie. This was basically just a rapid fire reiteration of all of the lies above. The fact is that health insurance reform would not destroy jobs, would not explode (or even increase) the deficit, would not ration care, and would not take any freedom away from American families (in fact it would only give them greater freedom than they have now, which isn't much given that the market is run by a handful of corporate sharks). [ up ]

19 - Hypocrisy - I absolutely love that conservatives are now worried about reducing the "fear and anxiety families are feeling". This coming from the same people who brought you the "death panel", the "death book", the "pull the plug on grandma", the "march of socialism", the "brainwashing your children", the "Obama is building death camps", and a never-ending litany of insane right-wing smears created for the sole purpose of scaring people into fearing reform. These people are fear merchants! And in the very same speech--nay, the very next sentence after suggesting that health care reform will destroy jobs, explode the deficit, ration care, and take freedom away from American families--they say they want to reduce fear and anxiety! How Orwellian can you get?

Here is a tip, in the immortal words of Sarah Palin, if you want to reduce fear and anxiety, how about you "quit making things up?" [ up ]

20 - Lie - No, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a reform that would pick up conservative support AND actually work to achieve the goals of lower costs and improved quality (in addition to universal coverage, which Boustany left out). In fact, conservatives haven't been able to produce any ideas for reform on their own (which is of course why you never heard George W. Bush talking about his health insurance reform plan, and why the issue went nowhere since the last time liberals had power in Washington and were stopped by the same anti-reform crowd). In their mind "bipartisan" means not adding their own ideas, but cutting out as many parts of reform as possible. In essence, their idea is the status quo--what we are suffering with right now--and their idea of "compromise" is getting as close as possible to no change at all. [ up ]

**Note: Since Rep. Boustany's only reason given for why you should trust him at all on the issue of health insurance reform is that he was once a doctor, I would be remiss to not supply a little context to his resume. You can read more about him on this fact sheet, but here are the highlights:

Boustany Has Taken More Than $537,000 In Campaign Contributions From Health Care PACs In His Roughly Four And Half Years In Congress. ($1.25 million total)
Boustany Served As A Director On Health Insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Louisiana’s Physician Advisory Board
Boustany Has Quite A History of Spreading Lies About Health Insurance Reform (many of which he repeated last night).
Boustany Is A "Birther"
Boustany Was Sued For Malpractice, Three Times.

By the way, if you haven't had a chance to see the President's speech yet, here it is:

Update: I should credit Rep. Boustany for one thing, which is acting like an adult (yes kids, adults lie too). Unlike some of his peers, Boustany had the courtesy to wait until his turn to give his rebuttal, instead of interrupting the President of the United States in the middle of an national address before a joint session of Congress. So I want to give him credit for that. And yes, it is sad that we apparently can't take that sort of basic respect for the Commander-in-Chief for granted anymore. But perhaps we should count our blessings that Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) or any of his conservative colleagues didn't hang anyone in effigy or bring guns to the ~~town hall protest~~ Congressional address.

I cannot completely fact check the conservative response without including Rep. Joe Wilson's contribution, which went something like this:

President Obama: There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Rep. Joe Wilson: You Lie!

Actually no Mr. Wilson, in fact YOU LIE!

Two words, big lie, shocking disrespect, epic irony.

Post-Speech: Conservatives, How Stupid Do You Feel Now?

Brian Dockstader — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:30:30 -0700

I wrote last week about the absolutely shameful, shocking and appalling attacks from conservatives against President Obama in response to his plans to give students a back to school pep talk about the importance of education. I wrote at the time that the level of paranoia and vitriol was all the more amazing given the fact that they were reacting to something that hadn't even happened yet--not to mention something that could never possibly happen, outside the confines of their snugly fitted tinfoil hats.

Well now the infamous brainwashing, march-of-communism, Nazi. Maoist, Mussolinist, terroristesque, take-away-our-children-and-force-them-into-Obama's-personal gestapo speech has come to pass, and undoubtedly the right-wingers are gloated that they were absolutely right. And of course they were. I'll swallow my pride and admit it. Here I expected a completely vanilla, completely uncontroversial, completely benign speech to children about staying in school, and the President shocked me by diving right into the Commie indoctrination from the beginning. I was flabbergasted:

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

At this point I was just thankful that I don't have any kids yet, because I couldn't bear to think of my poor child being subjected to such brainwashing! If his introduction wasn't a call for an armed revolt against capitalism I don't know what is. And then he started talking about destroying Christianity:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

And the importance of being pro-choice and not questioning the government:

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And then he topped it all by commanding everyone to become gay:

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

And then he turned them all black:

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

And then, in his parting shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he told all the children to burn flags:

I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

What can I say? Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin were right...it was a horrific speech, a speech full of blatant brainwashing, filled with harmful messages to our children. Thankfully there we parents out there who had the courage to stand up and pull their kids out of school so they couldn't be subjected to such evil words, words like "Don't ever give up on yourself", and in the process giving them a valuable lesson on how the President of the United States, or at least a colored one, ought to be treated as a common criminal.

So obviously gone are the days of our children being taught to look up to the Office of the Presidency, as I was taught when I was in school, so that maybe one day they could aspire to such a prestigious post. Prestigious? Hell no, not anymore! Now we teach them that the President is out to get them, that the President doesn't have their best interests at heart, that the President is no less than the Boogeyman. Wonderful lessons for children. I really hope these people are proud of themselves.

But of course they probably are. Despite the fact that the President's speech was exactly what any sane person would have expected--exactly what I would have expected from any president, regardless of ideological background, regardless of color--these parents, right-wing agitators, fearmongers, and the public school administrators who banned the President of the United States from speaking to students in their schools and districts probably are proud of themselves. They are so out of touch with reality, so full of hate, that I wouldn't be surprised if not a single one of them took a look at the President's speech, saw how ridiculously harmless it was, and blushed with embarrassment over their paranoid delusions, their gullibility, their shamefulness, and how utterly wrong they were.

That is the problem with these people, they have no sense of shame. With them there is zero introspection. They can be proven dead wrong over and over again--they can lie and lie, or be fooled and fooled, over and over again--and every time, when their wild stories and accusations turn out to be false, they never look back, never think about what that episode says about who they are as people. They don't feel embarrassed, they don't feel shame, they don't wonder how they could have been so gullible and ignorant as to be sucked into all of that. They just go about their lives, maybe jumping on the next bigot bandwagon that conservative opinion leaders send down the trail.

Just once I'd like to know that at least one of these people actually feels shame for how they acted. I don't expect this from Glenn Beck or those types...I know they are liars, and they know they are liars, and they are happy with their jobs (and well compensated)...but I would just love for one of these teabaggers, or one of these parents who allowed themselves to get worked into a frenzy by the lies of conservative media, to look in the mirror at some point, and think: Wow, when did I lose my sanity? Who have I become?

So that is my simple wish. I urge all the conservatives out there who bought into this "Obama is gonna brainwash your children" nonsense to take a step back, take a deep breath, watch the video of Obama speech, see how undeniably harmless it was, and then take a look inside and really ask yourself...

A) How could I get so caught up in this madness?
B) How could I fall for something so ridiculous and insane?
C) What does this say about who I am?
D) Did I really just treat the President like a sexual predator or a common criminal?
E) What does this say about all of my favorite right-wing pundits and blogs that filled me full of this paranoia?
F) What else could they be lying to me about?

Oh, and let's add one more, that I'd love for them to really soul-search about:

G) Would I have been this upset about a white president talking to my children?

No, really, ask yourself. Be honest.

As for me, I just want to thank the President for trying to inspire America's youth to work hard and stay in school. We have been coming up short in education for decades, and dropout rates are soaring, especially among the communities that the President has the most influence with. These are serious problems, and for someone with as much power as the President of the United States not to act would be a dereliction of duty. I hope students his message to heart, and I hope he inspires this young generation to stay in school and take education seriously. We will be a stronger country if he is successful in this, and that shouldn't have anything to do with politics or ideology.

Update: Here is the video. Be sure to wear your tinfoil hat before viewing, and hide your pets because they are susceptible to Obama's mind-rays as well, especially terriers and short-haired cat breeds:

Taking Pride In Being Ignorant

Brian Dockstader — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:45:43 -0700

Well the reviews are already in on Obama's big speech on "the importance of education", and they aren't pretty. The descriptions range from "brainwashing" and "indoctrination of your children" to accusations that Obama's speech shows that he is actually Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, and of course, a terrorist.

Right now you might be asking yourself, what speech on education? I didn't see any speech. Did the media not cover it? Why didn't I see any tweets??

Relax, relax, you didn't miss anything, I'm talking about the speech Obama hasn't even given yet, the one he is due to deliver on September 8th, a little less than a week from now. Now you might be asking yourself, but you just said there were damning reviews of the speech already, how is that possible??

Silly reader, didn't you know that conservatives have time machines? They don't need to wait for an event to actually happen to lambaste it with outlandish attacks of tinfoil hat lunacy. They have seen the future!

Yes, a week out from Obama's speech on education, in which he is expected to impart upon students the importance of education, as well as to challenge students to do such abhorrent things as "work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning", conservatives are already in a frenzy over his possible words. And of course the President's anti-American sacrilege doesn't stop there. Oh no, he also brings the war-against-all-that-is-good to parents and teachers, according to a letter from the Secretary of Education:

He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

If that isn't a sign of the impending Red takeover of our society I just don't know what is.

So the speech probably isn't even written yet, but that hasn't stopped conservative opinion leaders from writing their damning rebukes of the President's future speech.

On his radio show Glenn Beck told listeners that "your republic is under attack" and warned them that the public school system, under the direction of President Obama, "is capturing your kids" and "indoctrinating your children." Beck later compared the President to Mussolini.

NewsBuster's contributing editor Mark Finkelstein, attacked "Chairman Barack" alongside a picture of the book, Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong. He warned that teachers "will be sure to imbue every student with correct thinking in the wisdom of the president before he or she is freed, um, graduates." He also suggested there was an "interesting parallel between our president's plan for our children and the approach of another Great Leader from the past."

Michelle Malkin, in a post with a picture of a sign saying "School Indoctrination" warned that President Obama's emphasis on academic achievement is "Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools" and attempted to tie Obama's future speech on education to the philosophy of "old neighborhood pal and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers." Malkin also accused teachers of coercing children into "pro-illegal immigration protests, gay marriage ceremonies, environmental propaganda stunts, and anti-war events."

Lauri Regan with the American Thinker (how ironic) suggested that Obama and his "team of brainwashers" was committed to "indoctrinating America's youth."

No crazy montage would be complete without WorldNetDaily, whose editor Bob Unruh cited a bunch of right-wingers claiming that Obama is "recruiting his civilian army. His 'Hitler' youth brigade" and warning that "we can learn a lot from the spread of propaganda in Europe that led to Hitler's power. A key ingredient in that spread of propaganda was through the youth." Another "concerned parent" warned that "Totalitarian regimes around the world have sought to spread their propaganda and entrench their power by brainwashing the children."

Meredith Jessup on Townhall.com wrote that "your kids are going to be made a captive audience to this forced nonsense" and suggested that the government was trying to force parents to "relinquish your rights and responsibilities as parents to the government." She also called Obama's future speech a "massive abuse of governmental power."

Newsmax.com contributor Pamela Geller raised the alarm that the "fascist in chief is taking his special brand of brainwashing to the classroom. Keep your kids home. I think this man is a threat to our basic unalienable rights. I don't want him indoctrinating my children." She also stated her belief that we should "Keep communists and their propagandists away from small children."

I'm sure it goes on and on (and a big thanks to Media Matters for keeping track of these attacks), but you get the idea. All of this in response to a speech emphasizing the importance of education, that the President hasn't even given yet. And where were these people when, as Media Matters notes, Bush Sr. gave a nearly identical speech to children, or when Bush Jr. "posted a 'teacher's guide' on the White House website intended to help students understand the 'freedom timeline' and encouraged them to 'explor[e] the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President, and Mrs. Cheney.'"? What about when Reagan gave a speech directed at schoolchildren that was almost certainly far more ideological in nature than President Obama's future speech will be?

It turns out it has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the speech, and everything to do with who is giving it. Bush Sr. can give the same speech, and gets wild applause from these people. Bush Jr. distributes "teacher's guides", has the Pentagon engage in a media propaganda campaign, tortures people and holds them indefinitely without charge, starts wars based on lies, and engages in an unprecedented domestic spying campaign which violates federal privacy laws, and not a blink from this crowd that is so fond of crying "fascism". Yet when Obama's Secretary of Education announces that Obama will give a speech explaining the importance of a good education to kids--hardly a radical or partisan statement--they are instantly up in arms, raising the specter of Nazis, communists, government brainwashing, and terrorism.

This episode serves to highlight what has become one of the defining characteristics of conservatives when they are out of power. Some have suggested that they are part of a "Party of No", since Republicans have essentially adopted of strategy of unanimous (or near-unanimous) blanket opposition to any legislation proposed by Democrats, no matter how many concessions they are able to gain to water it down.

Yet I would submit that it goes far beyond that. Legislatively, conservatives are indeed defined by a single word: NO; however when it comes to issues, it turns out they have a lot more to say. Now I don't want you to get the impression that they like to talk about issues, because they actually don't. In fact, almost completely absent in any right-wing commentary on serious issues like health insurance reform, the stimulus package, or global warming are facts, of any kind.

The "debate" coming from the Right is instead packed with lies, hyperbole, outlandish claims, and of course a heavy dose of hate, paranoia, violent rhetoric and racism. It used to be that we'd have to wait for Obama to actually say or do something to have them viciously attack it with lies, to have them call it Nazism or communism or terrorism or the end of the Republic. Now they have devolved to the point where they attack preemptive, reflexively, that is, they attack things that haven't even happened yet. They don't even need anything to attack, they just attack air (or their own straw men).

Conservatives have achieved a remarkable knee-jerk reflex for insanity. If the President so much as twitches a muscle they spring into action, mouths foaming, spewing out an uncontrollable torrent of epithets--"Nazi!" "Socialist!" "Muslim!" "Brainwasher!" "Terrorist!" "Murderer!"--like projectile hate-vomit. It doesn't matter what he says. It doesn't matter if he hasn't even said anything. They will reflexively attack it, and attack it in the most ridiculous, over-the-top invectives you have ever heard.

If Obama says he wants a Supreme Court Justice with, dare I say, empathy, conservatives jump to the attack saying that this shows Obama is against the rule of law, the Constitution, the principles of democracy, and is probably a fascist.

If Obama says he believes health care is a fundamental human right, conservatives attack him as a socialist who is trying to kill your grandma, and your babies. They'll also call him a Nazi and compare his policies to slavery.

If Obama announces he is planning on giving a speech about the importance of education, conservatives attack him as a Nazi, a communist, a brainwasher, a terrorist and Mao Zedong. Oh and he is going to take away your children.

If Obama orders a hamburger with "spicy mustard", conservatives attack him for being "elitist", some suggest he might just be a little gay. No, really. They actually attacked the President for wanting mustard on his hamburger instead of "plain old ketchup." (Thankfully on this occasion they were able to restrain themselves from drawing the obvious comparison between mustard and Hitler...although this was a few months ago, when they were relatively "restrained".)

And that highlights my point: What happens in reality has absolutely NO bearing on how they react. In fact they aren't "reacting" to anything, they just spew lies and hate reflexively--they don't need a reason.

Another thing that this "education speech = brainwashing" lunacy highlights is the general antipathy that conservatives have always had against education. The Right continually rails against so-called liberal bias in public schools and in universities. Why are they convinced there is an omnipresent liberal brainwashing conspiracy in academia, not just in the United States, but in every country? Well because they, like the rest of us, have noted an interesting phenomenon that is evident in pretty much every survey comparing education and political ideology--liberals are more educated than conservatives!

See?? SEE?!?! That proves that education brainwashes people into being libruls!! It couldn't be that *GASP!* maybe the act of gaining knowledge actually makes people more liberal because reality has a liberal bias! Or put another way, perhaps conservatism thrives on the darkness of ignorance and misinformation, and just maybe has a hard time surviving in its absence, under the harsh light of facts, education, and knowledge.

So it should be no surprise that conservatives have done nothing to make higher education more affordable and everything to make it less affordable (except by private loans, which are acceptable because they pump profit into banks and fill their campaign coffers). Nor should it be a surprise that conservatives routinely vote against increased funding for public schools and strongly support charter schools which aren't subject to the same quality standards that the public school system must meet.

Given the hysteria cited above, it should also come as no surprise that millions of conservative families have opted to cut out public education altogether and instead home school their children so they can maintain absolute control over every piece of information or disinformation that comes into contact with them. Don't want your children exposed to "liberal brainwashing" like evolution or a less flattering interpretation of the Civil War? No problem, skip that chapter. Hell, don't even buy that book.

In the end it all comes down, not so much to taking pride in being ignorant--as a flabbergasted Obama once observed during one of his first encounters with this right-wing misinformation during the presidential campaign--but to being utterly reliant on ignorance for political power. So while they engage in generalized anti-education rhetoric and policies, they also have to drown out intelligent debate on any issue, not just education, because if logic or facts (or even common sense) are heard above the frenzy, they will lose the battle.

That is where these insane, almost comical (if there wasn't so much at stake) knee-jerk reactions to anything the President or Democrats in Congress say or do, no matter how benign or uncontroversial, come into play. When in doubt, Obama is a Nazi, period. You have your marching orders, now go scream at a town hall meeting.

What this made me think of is a toy from my childhood, the one where you pull a string or a lever and an arrow spins around, lands on a barnyard animal, and says something like, "The Cow says 'Mooooo!'". That basically seems to be the new modus operandi of the right-wing. Wait, the President is about to speak, get ready pull the lever...

The teabagger says "HITLER!!"

(Post Scriptum: I have discovered that the See 'n Say doesn't quite work how I remembered it working and described above, but whatever, my way is better)

Update: Read the followup: Post-Speech: Conservatives, How Stupid Do You Feel Now?

Michele Bachmann Thinks You Are Crazy Too

Brian Dockstader — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:38:22 -0700

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post entitled "Sarah Palin Thinks You Are Stupid" in which I explored her "death panel" fearmongering and what it showed about how she viewed the American people (hint: she thinks you are stupid). At one point I referenced the fact that she cited Michele Bachmann as a source, whom I identified at the time as crazy, with only a short explanation: "Do you really have to check why I labeled Michele Bachmann crazy?"

If you did need to ask why I think Michele Bachmann is a raving lunatic, let this blog serve as your case in point (one of many).

It was only about a week ago that she told a group of supporters that she asked her supporters to pray and fast for the failure of health insurance reform. She also repeated Sarah Palin's death panel lies, and doubled down, "Thank God that Sarah Palin said that. These are true."

That was mild Bachmann though, or as I like to think of it, Bachmann on her meds. This is Bachmann off her meds [For your reading convenience, I've colored coded Bachmann's statements, with orange for lies and purple for crazy]:

(via Think Progress)

During what was originally billed as a “personal legislative briefing,” Bachmann “got downright biblical” when describing her unwavering opposition to health care reform:

“This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists¹, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass…Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom². And we may never be able to restore it if we don’t man up and take this one on.³”

According to the Colorado Independent, Bachmann also claimed that many Americans pay more than half their income in taxes⁴, adding “it’s nothing more than slavery.⁵”

1 - Crazy - What more explanation do you need? The woman is talking about slitting your wrists and rubbing your bloody wounds on other people's bloody wounds. At a political rally! Even if this was completely metaphorical, it is also completely nutty. Worse yet, her supporters have a proven track record of not being able to differentiate between fantasy and reality, so would it really surprise anyone if some of the most ignorant among them actually try this out?

And since we are "discussing" health care, I would also like to point out how irresponsible swapping blood like that is. You never know what STDs someone is carrying, let alone swine flu, tuberculosis, or maybe rabies... And that is my public service announcement for the day. [ up ]

2 - Crazy - Again with the unnecessary and incredibly graphic and violent imagery. Reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out? Crraaazzzyyyy. See the next point on how this is also all a lie: [ up ]

3 - Lie - Bachmann seems to be trying to the make point that health insurance reform somehow equals a loss of freedom. Since health insurance reform will actually give you more choices of health insurance (i.e. more freedom), and protect you from many of the more horrible and unjust practices of the for-profit insurance industry (e.g. denials based on pre-existing conditions), it is hard to understand how she arrives at this baseless claim. Maybe it is those make-believe death panels? Who knows. Suffice to say, health insurance reform will not take away any "freedoms", it will only give you and your loved ones more freedom. If you, unlike Michele Bachmann, are actually interested in the facts, please check out this great resource for health insurance reform facts.

Oh, and "man up"? Could you be more sexist? (Yes, I'm sure she could). [ up ]

4 - Lie - Here Michele Bachmann runs with the all too familiar "poor rich people" argument that conservatives just love. She makes the interesting claim that under our current system there are some poor rich people who have to pay half of their income in taxes. This is quite an interesting claim given that the income tax rate for the highest tax bracket hasn't been 50% since Reagan. In fact, right now it is actually at one of its lowest points in history, 35% (for some context, during some of the most prosperous years in American history, the post-war era of the 40's, 50's and 60's, the tax rate for the highest income bracket was between 70-90% or so).

For a little more context, let's look at Warren Buffett, the world's second richest person after Bill Gates. How much does this insanely wealthy man pay in taxes? Well let's ask him:

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. Poor Warren Buffett has to pay 17.7% in taxes, and he doesn't even need to seek out loopholes to do it (if he actually tried he could undoubtedly pay even less in taxes, or maybe if he was lucky he could pay zero income taxes like 2/3 of American corporations). Of course Buffett is a rarity--he is one of the few rich people who are able to put considerations of the greater good above self-interest and greed. Buffett has famously rallied against our current tax system because it makes him pay too little!:

"The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

It should be no surprise to you to find that Michele Bachmann is lying to you, yet again. [ up ]

5 - Crazy - Lastly you have this insane and horribly offensive conflation of rich people being taxed at ~~50%~~ ~~35%~~ 17.7%, with slavery. Yes, human bondage. Being the property of someone else, having absolutely no rights whatsoever. Able to be murdered, raped or tortured at any time with almost complete impunity. That is what life is like for the rich people in this country. Didn't you know? Did you ever watch MTV Cribs? Yes, those palaces were just like slaves' quarters. Their country clubs, cotton fields. Their masseuse, their foreman with a bullwhip.

I can't begin to even put to words how utterly offensive and reprehensible it is for Michele Bachmann to belittle and exploit the horrors of slavery in this country and around the world (still in effect in all too many places) for her political agenda. Rich people are slaves in this country???

Despicable.

And I won't even get into a discussion of the racial politics involved in suggesting that the country's first black president is now enslaving white people, but I guarantee that this implication isn't lost on many in her base. (For other examples of conservatives attacking Obama's beneficial policies as "slavery", please see Terrance Heath's blog post, "Everything is NOT Slavery." [ up ]

Insurance Industry Plays The Victim, Admits To Rationing Care For Profit

Brian Dockstader — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:08:42 -0700

♫No one knows what it's like
      To be the bad man
      To be the sad man
      Behind blue eyes

      No one knows what it's like
      To be hated
      To be fated
      To telling only lies

The New York Times ran an article this morning that has been sparking some commentary in the blogosphere. In a piece that was essentially The Who's "Behind Blue Eyes" put to paper, we were presented with a sad tale of how we should feel sorry for the insurance industry, who are, in fact, the real victims of the health care debate.

I, for one, was wondering when someone would have the courage to stand up for the little guy, the Stephen Hemsley's of the world.

Most reactions to this piece focused less on the overall theme of playing the victim and more on the admission contained therein (emphasis mine):

"I believe we're getting the pushback because we are standing up for what we believe in," said Cheryl Tidwell, 45, Humana's director of commercial sales training. "We believe there's a better way to control costs by controlling utilization and getting people involved in their health care."

Now we know they aren't talking about controlling costs to the customer, since health insurance premiums have skyrocketed far above the pace of inflation, the vast majority of personal bankruptcies in this country now come as a result of medical costs, and since it isn't unheard of for an insurance company CEO to pull in $819,363 every single day of the year, or to be sitting on over $744 million in stock options, or to retire with a $73 million golden parachute. The insurance industry also spares no expense in throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into their lobbying blitzkrieg against health insurance reform. Suffice to say, these "savings" aren't being passed on to consumers.

So they are controlling their costs, to maximize their profit. And how do they admit to controlling costs? By "controlling utilization". What does that mean exactly? Well we know what "control" means. It means they, the insurance company, makes decisions. It means the insurance company has the power, all the control.

So what about "utilization"? The utilization of what exactly? Well there are two types of "utilization" that the insurance industry likes to control, because controlling them just so happens to keep their costs down, and their profits plump:

Insurance Utilization: This is the type of "utilization barrier" that effects nearly 50 million Americans. The premise is that if you can't afford to give the insurance industry their pound of flesh, or if you are sick enough that the insurance industry doesn't make a big enough profit in treating you, you don't get insurance, period. This keeps their costs down. Your costs? Who cares? All that matters is that insurance companies don't have to let you "utilize" their product--health insurance.

Treatment Utilization: You can't go to this hospital, you have to go to this one in your "network". You can't get this treatment because it isn't listed on the approved list from your insurance company. Woah, you are really sick, are you sure you never had headaches before? Ever? Do any of those sound familiar? This is where the insurance industry controls which treatments you get to utilize, if any at all, based on their cost-benefit analysis. If it doesn't benefit their bottom line, they don't sign on the dotted line. And then you don't get your treatment. By controlling the "utilization" of treatment, they are making all the decisions. And they are right, it does keep costs down: their costs. (Oh, did I mention that the CEO of insurance industry giant CIGNA "earned" over $120 million in compensation in the last five years alone?)

So that, in a nutshell, is what the euphemism "controlling utilization" actually means. And they control utilization constantly. Millions of Americans are denied coverage for specific illnesses or treatments every year, and millions more are denied any coverage at all.

The funny part is that when these very same people make up horror stories about what will supposedly happen if we even get the option of choosing public health insurance, they call this exact same thing RATIONING.

Get it? When the private insurance industry refuses to cover you, or makes decisions about what treatments they will and will not allow you to receive, that is called "controlling utilization" (and that happens in the real world, every day). Yet when the government will supposedly pull the plug on grandma, even though she is already on (and would continue to be on) Medicare, and is most certainly not being forced into death now nor would she ever be, that is called rationing care (and socialism, Nazi eugenics, death panels, and I'm sure about every other thing liars can dream up to spoon-feed gullible people--oh, and this rationing is only happening in fantasy land).

So that was the little gem buried in the NYT puff piece about what a hard knock life it is for the insurance industry--they admitted that they ration care, right now, and have been for as long as they've been doing business.

But perhaps my favorite part of the column is where they really get out the violins for employees of these insurance companies, to get us to see that they aren't monsters, or in their words, "We are human beings, too." It is really fit to be in the Merchant of Venice (daydream sequence begin):

Hath not a[n insurance industry employee] eyes? Hath not a[n insurance industry employee] hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a [human] is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

*Tear* Beautiful. I hope they do a remake of Evita next.

But of course this is all a straw man, because this anger at insurance industry greed isn't directed at the employees of these mega corporations, who are by all accounts just trying to make a living by doing what they are told. They are, after all, just doing their jobs. It isn't their fault that their job is to decline people coverage to save the company money. That is the one and only goal of a corporation, is it not? They are accountable to their investors, their shareholders, and no one else.

That is the bottom line--The corporation is a beast designed for a single purpose: to make profit and make people (investors) rich. And these employees, the ones being humanized so beautifully in this NYT column, are just cogs in the wheel, and if they refused to do it some other person (faceless bureaucrat, to use the hypocritical language of the conservatives) would fill their spot in an instant. And to their credit, many former employees of the insurance industry, haunted by the things there were made to do in the name of profit, have come forward and spoken out against insurance industry practices, like Dr. Linda Peeno in this ad from American's United for Change:

So no, it isn't about the little people, it is about the entire beast. Has anyone suggested that these people, the employees themselves, are evil? Do reformists think that these people, or even the executives in charge, get up in the morning with the goal of killing people and ruining lives? Of course not. They do what they do best: maximize profit, at all costs. The human lives destroyed are just collateral damage. Some of them, mostly those at the very top, are very much okay with this, and defend it vigorously. Others are haunted and find that they can't bring themselves to keep doing it.

This isn't about them, it is about an industry that is indeed evil, if not in intention, undeniably in effect. Just because a corporation is made up of people, are we not allowed to blame the whole?

That is the funny thing about the concept of "corporate personhood"-- corporations have long fought to enjoy all the rights and benefits of being treated as a living, breathing person, but without any of the costs, like mortality, and now, apparently, blame.