The sad truth, bluntly put.

I do love Watertiger, bless her!

And it's the sad truth. The whole Tea Party movement is astroturf, not grassroots, funded and planned by powerful people who are out for their own interests, not the interests of the crowds they foment, stirring up fear and anger.

It's a graphic graphic and I can just imagine the shitstorm if I put it here, so you can click over to it.

--the BB

Framing, phrasing, and CHOICE - update to correct typo

Phrasing of questions makes a huge difference in polls.

SurveyUSA included the term "choice" in their question. Their August 19, 2009, poll - sponsored by MoveOn.org Political Action - yielded this result. [1200 Adults; margin of sampling error ± 2.9%]

Q. In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance - extremely important, quite important, not that important, not at all important, not sure?

In tabular form the results are these:

Extremely important....58%
Quite important........19%
Not that important..... 7%
Not at all important...15%
Not sure............... 1%

Jed Lewison notes this:

If the question wording here sounds familiar, it's because NBC News and the Wall Street Journal used the exact same question in a poll conducted in June. That poll found nearly identical results to the one released today by MoveOn.org and SurveyUSA.

He also observes that recent NBC/WSJ polls drop the word choice and support for a public plan drops to 43%.

So, if we include the issue of choice, which is part of all the current proposals for a public OPTION, 77% of the public think it's important. Or, as Lewison puts it in the header of his post:

More than 3 in 4 support the public option

So let's put to rest the distortions, misleading comments, and outright lies that say or imply that the people are not behind a public option.

And if "the votes aren't there" in the Senate, then shame on the Senate because the American people want this (protest signs that I saw yesterday to the contrary notwithstanding).


--the BB

It's not about the money

Paul Krugman:

Yes, we can
Get more or less universal coverage, that is. The CBO scoring on an incomplete bill sent everyone into a tizzy — and also led to an avalanche of bad reporting, with claims that it said terrible things about the public option. (There was no public option in the bill.)

Now the real thing has been scored — and it’s OK. Something like 97 percent coverage for people already here, at a total cost somewhere in the $1 trillion range. Bear in mind that the Bush tax cuts cost around $1.8 trillion over a decade. We can do this — and have no excuse for not doing it.

There is a lot of fearmongering around the cost of healthcare reform. If any of those screaming about cost just happen to have voted for or otherwise supported W's tax cuts, then they have zero credibility and may be dismissed out of hand. I wish the tradmed would point this out and just laugh at them. They have no claim on public air waves.

Arm yourselves with facts, people, so you can counteract codswallop.

h/t to John Aravosis at Americablog

--the BB

We, of course, are too lazy or timid to march in the streets for anything (most of us, anyway) - updated 2x

So, if "73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health insurance plan,"[1] then next time you hear any congresscritter say "we don't have the votes," kick them where they should have balls. Hard. Repeatedly.

Of course, it is more effective to call, write, fax and e-mail them. But the American People absolutely must reject bullshit when it is fed to them by lying weasels. Got it?

Now the only reason I can think of why they would say they "don't have the votes" is if they are owned by insurance companies, pharmacies, and the AMA. Which, alas, is probably the case. So if you don't feel like kicking your elected representative, which would constitute assault and be against the law and all that, then maybe we should just ask them, point blank: "Are you lying about this because you are owned by insurance companies, pharmacies, and the AMA?"

For that matter, why aren't the lazy-ass media asking this question?

Thank you. We now return to our regularly scheduled ranting.

h/t to buhdydharma

UPDATE:
An illustration of the problem: Senator Max Baucus, who seeks to perpetrate gross evil on the American people.

Of course Max Baucus wants healthcare reform, he guaranteed the insurance industry a huge new influx of paying customers. And, he's in the process of delivering. They pay, Max delivers.

--nyceve (who passionately follows healthcare issues)

Why would anyone say such a thing? Well, check out what the Montana Standard reports:

HELENA — As Sen. Max Baucus has taken the lead on health-reform legislation in the U.S. Senate, he's also become a leader in something else: Campaign money received from health- and insurance-industry interests.

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus, D-Mont., and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals.

These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008.

Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee that is drafting a major health-care reform bill this month, insists this cavalcade of money is not unduly influencing his work.

Paul Begala has some pointed words for the media ignoring the tales that came before Congress of people whose insurance is canceled when they need it. Why does that not get reported? Surely our front pages could accommodate events in Iran AND some of the most serious issues facing us at home. They might try omitting filler to do this. They won't, of course, the irresponsible drengturds.

The story of rescission makes the health care issue personal. It exposes the mission of insurance companies, the "murder by spreadsheet" dedication to profits over people. And until their incentives are changed, until they need to compete on price and quality instead of competing on how to get out of paying for medical care, absolutely no reform can possibly work. But that requires the facts to be delivered by a media simply resistant to them.

--dday

UPDATE2:

Bill Maher's AMA commercial



Enjoy!
--the BB

If we never heard from her again....

... there would be less political pollution in the nation.

I write of Liz Cheney, of course.

I'm not suggested that she be rendered or have a forced laryngectomy, just that she have the decency to STFU.

Not that the Cheneys, père et fille, believe in decency, or the shared standards of civilization for that matter. You couldn't and still tout torture the way they do.

The Stephanie Miller Show had a nickname for Dana Perino when she was Dubya's press secretary: "the lying sack of cute."

Liz Cheney isn't even cute (pace her parents).


MSNBC had the sleaziest rationale for giving her air time, one that does not hold up at all. Turkana did a terrific parody of it.

“We often have repeat guests on, from both sides of the aisle, when they are interesting and engaging. There are many people who appear frequently throughout the day on MSNBC, and Liz is a great guest.”
--Alan Russo of MSNBC

If a producer is made available, perhaps he/she can explain why MSNBC thinks a guest who has consistently lied (without challenge, meaningful or otherwise) is "great." Or maybe explain why none of the anchors who have handed over their platform to her have asked where she got the classified information she talks about.
--BarbinMD

Dear MSNBC,

I love my dad. Can I be on TV?

Granted, my dad was never so incompetent as to allow the worst ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He never lied a nation into starting an illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war. He never authorized torture. Simply put: he isn't a war criminal. And he never shot anyone in the face. But he's a great guy, and has done a lot of public good. Which should count for something, shouldn't it?

I'm also a great guest. Ask anyone who has ever had me to a party or for dinner. I'm mostly polite, witty, and a charming conversationalist. I clean up after myself. I usually don't steal anything. And I know a little about politics. Granted, my dad never got me political jobs for which I had no apparent qualifications, but I'm still capable of stringing together coherent sentences, when discussing matters political. And although much of what I say is my opinion, when I do speak about verifiable facts, they do prove verifiable. I'm not a good liar. I hope that doesn't disqualify me!
--Turkana

I just don't need one more person whose words or visage enrage me toward apoplexy.

Yes, I know, my reactions are my responsibility. But really, what reason is there to give major exposure to someone who spouts disproved bullshit in support of torture? It's like saying there are two sides to the issue of serial killing.

It's postmodernism, the notion that there is no such thing as truth. There's only your version of events and my version and Charles' version and Harry's version, and the one that prevails will be that of whoever is the most powerful. This seems to fly in the face of the way scholarship has proceeded for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
--Lynn Cheney, Baby Dick's mama

Huh. Who knew?

Candorville recently speculated that Dick Cheney's secret undisclosed location in 2001-2008 turned out to be 2009.

Almighty God, you proclaim your truth in every age by many voices: Direct, in our time, we pray, those who speak where many listen and write what many read; that they may do their part in making the heart of this people wise, its mind sound, and its will righteous; to the honor of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

And fergawdsake, newsoids, challenge people when they lie on your airtime. Sheesh!

--the BB

Admiral mongers twaddle - beware

It was all over the Google News headlines earlier today. This evening I had to scroll down a bit and actually look for it.

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Iran most likely has enough material to build a nuclear weapon, the U.S.'s top military official indicated on Sunday.

The remarks by U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen are the first assessments officially made by Washington on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

"We think they do, quite frankly," Mullen told CNN's John King on State of The Union, when asked to comment on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assessment.
--Mayur Pahilajani - AHN News Writer

Clutch the pearls and pass the salts, Mabel.

Did I not just post a debunking of this sort of fear- and twaddle-mongering (2/21/09)? Yes, I did.

And here is Admiral Mike Mullen pushing bullshit on the American people.

In the article cited above we also read this:

The international agency said in the recent report that the Islamic Republic now has 1,010 kilograms of low-enriched uranium (LEU) hexafluoride, which according to some physicists is enough to build a nuclear bomb.

Now the first half stands up; it is the second half - the classic "according to some" - that is questionable.

As Cheryl Rofer, a chemist, wrote (and I posted earlier):

The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence (Download Iran 0902) that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.

It would take a reconfiguration of the Natanz facility that the inspectors would notice to produce bomb-grade uranium (concentration of U-235 of 90%). The inspectors also take environmental samples to verify the concentration of U-235. They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this.

[Emphasis mine]

I don't know who the "some physicists" are but I'd like to know their names and what they base their opinion on.

I have to ask: Cui bono? (Who benefits?) Pentagon budget, maybe. Or some behind-the-scenes power play among military Brass and the Obama administration. I don't know, but it stinks.

--the BB

Here it is, folks

Just go to Google Images and type "Obama birth certificate" and you will find it. I got this image via TPM (June 12, 2008).

I know this won't shut some folks up (because it obviously hasn't). I have also learned (in holy mother church, no less) that NOTHING is ever enough for some people. You cannot placate or satisfy them. One can find marvelous freedom in realizing this and ceasing one's attempts to placate or satisfy them. Life not only continues but it gets better.


--the BB

Can we ward off panic right now? - updated with new graphic

Juan Cole comments:

Iran cannot construct nuclear bombs with uranium enriched only to less than 4%. It needs to be enriched to something like 90% to make a bomb. So all the silly articles on Friday about how iran now has enough enriched uranium to make a bomb are just illiterate. Moreover, the report in question actually says that Iran is slowing its enrichment activities.

...

Now that the Likud is back in control of Israel, flanked by even less savory far-right forces, we will unfortunately be bombarded by inflammatory propaganda about how dangerous Iran is. Iran hasn't aggressively invaded another country in at least a century and a half. In contrast, the Likud never met a war of aggression they did not like.

[Emphasis mine]

Professor Cole is drawing on chemist Cheryl Rofer's article:

The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence (Download Iran 0902) that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.

It would take a reconfiguration of the Natanz facility that the inspectors would notice to produce bomb-grade uranium (concentration of U-235 of 90%). The inspectors also take environmental samples to verify the concentration of U-235. They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this.

There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess.

So if you hear someone spouting twaddle, you are now armed with information to stop it.

--the BB