by publius
Tonight's speech was one of Obama's very best — and he's delivered some good ones. I don't have any one overarching theme, but here are my thoughts:
First, I'm glad there was such a big focus on benefits to the insured. The threats to insured people — rising premiums, lack of security — are so nontransparent that it's hard to convince these people why reform helps them too.
Second, and relatedly, I thought there was a much better balance of emotion to policy in tonight's speech. We all love us some Orszag, but this cost curve business doesn't exactly get people fi'ed up, ready to go.
Third, I think the primary benefit of tonight's speech is less that Obama will win over skeptics, and more that he'll unify his own coalition. I mean, personally, I thought he made Congressional Republicans seem small tonight. But I doubt Obama skeptics would agree.
In any event, my hope is that the speech will re-energize Democrats and more liberal independents. There have been many blows to liberal morale over the past few months that have been dragging down his health care numbers. Hopefully, this speech will turn that around.
But finally, the best part of the speech was the transition from Ted Kennedy's values to the larger moral defense of government. It was pitch perfect — and it articulated at a fundamental level why so many of us choose to identify as liberals and progressives. After noting America's rightful celebration of individualism, Obama goes on to say:
That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of
others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a
Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our
ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all
in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are
there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work
and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and
fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step
in to help deliver on that promise.
It's easy for conservatives to lose sight of this. I used to be one, after all, and I remember thinking of liberals as strawman types who only wanted to expand government for the sake of government.
But that misses what's fundamental about our political philosophy. No one here is anti-market. There are many areas (zoning, food subsidies, spectrum, intellectual property) where liberals would join hand in hand with conservatives' deregulatory efforts.
But markets aren't always enough. Leaving things to markets can hurt people. And that's where government comes in. It's sort of beautiful, actually — this idea that a broad mass of strangers can come together through legislation and regulation and institutions to ensure basic security for people. That's why we choose to be progressives — it's a politics of empathy.
And as Obama noted, these collective efforts are just as much as part of the American experience as individualism. Social Security and the Great Society and the Civil Rights Acts are all tremendous achievements that helped a lot of people.
It's just baffling sometimes to see the degree of ideological hostility to these efforts. Even if you disagree with certain policies, the transformation of government action into some force of evil is just strange — and it runs counter to many of our nation's finest accomplishments.
As I've said before, the true progressive moment in America can only come when we rehabilitate the idea of government — when we finally escape the Reagan paradigm. Obama pointed in that direction tonight. And it was refreshing to hear.
Publius, I agree. To me, the foundational conceit of the far right worldview is that whatever they have, they’ve earned — government didn’t help them at all. They also either don’t know or deny the reality of what this country was like for a huge proportion of the population during the Gilded Age, so they perversely want to go back to the time of McKinley. In fact, for all the reasons Obama said, America did recognize the evils of those times and changed them. Were those Republican Progressives alive today, they would support health care reform.
This may be pure rambling, but I’ll be kicking myself if I don’t get it off my chest, so…
I remember being heartened by Obama’s defense of his philosophy as well. His vision of what America is and what we can make of it, which has gone a long time without being stated so clearly as here, is what made me hope he would run for the Presidency back in 2006, when I read his book. It’s the Obama that first got me excited.
That said, there’s still that philosophical presumption that our individualism and love of freedom is somehow in conflict with our concern for others. In our president’s writings and speeches, I still get the sense that he’s trying to balance our basic liberalism with communitarianism.
I consider myself a man of the former, and no fan of the latter; but, for me, our empathetic devotion to each other as citizens and human beings does not need to be balanced against valuing freedom for myself — in seeking to expand my own potential, I inexorably seek to expand the potential of (at least some) others.
I think Obama’s plainly expressed philosophy is the best thing we’ve seen from our government in a long while, but — and this is more a quibble I suppose than anything — I still long for that politician who can express the interconnectedness of our individualism and empathy.
Though, having said that, only Lincoln came closer to that. So I may be concerned over nothing…
Markets won’t work for products and services that people don’t have the option to foregoe, lest they die. In this country. we won’t let that happen as moral hazard, so we wait till people get so sick they need emergency care. which is in a way, a defacto public option, and a very costly one.
What was particularly interesting was that Obama articulated a progressive philosophy of government while using conservative-speak, i.e., “security and stability”, hard work, personal responsibility.
Except for an episode of The West Wing, I’ve never seen that chasm traversed so eloquently. (Of course, *I* don’t see it as a “chasm”, but the conventional wisdom of the political landscape paints it as such).
Point: (…)I still get the sense that he’s trying to balance our basic liberalism with communitarianism.
I consider myself a man of the former, and no fan of the latter; but, for me, our empathetic devotion to each other as citizens and human beings does not need to be balanced against valuing freedom for myself — in seeking to expand my own potential, I inexorably seek to expand the potential of (at least some) others.
I agree. How providing for the basics of not just survival but some level of dignity for one another can be seen as a net reducer of liberty I don’t know. If freedom means living like rats, fighting over scraps, I guess it would make sense. I just don’t see freedom that way, as a race to the bottom.
The health-care debate strikes me as one more step in the maturation of the US as a civilized nation, like the civil rights movement. Health-care reform is something that some segment of the population will oppose. As a result, those people will seem cartoonishly if frighteningly ignorant years from now.
The most encouraging part of the speech was Obama’s confidence and determination that health care reform will be accomplished now. He noted that all of the committees either had or will soon have bills ready, which has never happened before. In other words, the goal is within reach and the will is there.
“I mean. personally, I thought he made Congressional Republicans seem small tonight.”
Well, Congressional Republicans ARE small.
Very small souls with smaller dicks, which they wave around in small spaces, like airport bathrooms, so that they appear large in contrast.
Sarah Palin is well-hung compared to your average Repulbican pol cheating on his wife and denying healthcare to the wife he just cheated on.
Like fire-ants at the picnic, except the Republican media, using special lenses like the Nature Channel magnifies their mandibles as they lay waste to political rhetoric.
Since political rhetoric is now at pre-machete Bosnia, Rwanda levels, the small republicans can now either back off or go the other way, which is chaos and violence.
I think they are SO small, that they neither back off nor take it to the next depth.
Because they are so very small and cowardly.
Like Orcs, only smaller. Like Gollum, only more Gollum-like.
I like that the liars sitting there tonight were so outraged by the President calling them liars. Like Regan in “The Exorcist” cowering as the holy water sizzles.
In the end, I think the Republicans did as much to hurt themselves as Obama did to help himself.
I mean, I think the average voting American has more respect for the Office of the Presidency of the United States than the GOP showed for it tonight.
I don’t think a joint session of Congress — the reason for which is an issue that means much to millions — is the type to give the President the middle finger.
Very tiny Erick Erickson applauds Miniscule Joe Wilson heckling President during speech.
Very large President Obama does not halt speech to bring up the lights and request that small Joe Wilson kiss his ass on national T.V.
Microscopic, nay invisible Moe Lame, can’t overcome penis envy to hit the blam button on Erick, the cracker confederate.
and here i was hoping we could continue discussing (as a nation) the GOP’s freakout over the student speech. i had no idea that the GOP would kick the disrespect and petty dickishness up to a hilarious new level.
calling the president a liar on TV?
(during a time of war? heh)
way to tell the country just what a bunch of wackos you really are!
it’s like Obama doesn’t even have to try – the GOP has whipped itself into such a frenzy that it can’t even maintain a semblance of decorum in his presence. they turn into stampy little children.
he should just walk around the Capitol with a camera crew, egging-on the GOP hotheads and lunatics.
Obama has said that he not indulging in partisanship—and egging on the GOP hotheads is partisanship.
This speech, like much of his substantive policy speeches, is not for the partisans for either side (which includes me). It’s for the mushy middle, whom he campaigned to as being beyond partisan squabbling.
And THAT’S a real campaign promise he’s trying to keep–and one that a lot of people think is more important that specific policy points.
I asked this on twitter (have YOU joined?), but i’ll ask here too. Am i completely wrong about this “you lie” focus?
I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s hilarious. But it seems like a short-term news cycle win in exchange for longer-term shift. A focus on the substance seems like it would lay groundwork for a more permanent shift.
But I’m not at all confident i’m right about that.
In any event, “you lie” seems to be the story. It’s certainly exploded on twitter
“In any event, “you lie” seems to be the story. It’s certainly exploded on twitter”
What’s the ‘you lie’ part?
I read the speech but didn’t see it on TV…
he was heckled by a House Republican — go check out TPM or Huffington, etc. for the video.
Jay –
Rep Wilson (R-SC) yelled, “You lie!” at Obama during the speech when Obama claimed–correctly, according to FactCheck.org–that the health reform bills would not provide illegal immigrants with insurance. It was pretty ugly.
I think and hope that the “You LIE!” story just reinforces one of Obama’s main themes, that he is out there extending an olive branch to the GOP and all he gets for his efforts is spit in the face. Obama says to the opposition, give me your ideas and lets have a discussion and they just yell and holler at him instead.
I thought it was an excellent speech, the man is just smooth as silk, cool as a cucumber, go ahead and pick your favorite metaphor. If courage is grace under pressure then Obama definitely fits the bill.
apologies for keeping the focus on the small story rather than the big one, but my passing thought is:
Wilson is from South Carolina, anyone know if he’s made any comments about Gov. Sanford?
The “You lie” brouhaha is a perfect opportunity to point out that lying is what Republicans do for a living, but our media somehow keep missing that fact.
When Republicans talk about “death panels”, the media reaction in any sane country would be “Look at how blatantly Republicans lie.” But in this country, the media reaction has been (at best) that “Nobody is actually proposing death panels”.
The media will not call Republicans liars. The best we can hope for is “Democrats say Republicans are liars”. And we won’t even get THAT until prominent Democrats actually start saying “Republicans are liars.”
Our craven media will tell the Wilson story as “Congressman violated decorum.” But Wilson did not speak truth to power; he yelled his own lie to power. THAT’s what the story would be, in a sane world.
But in a sane world, we’d already have universal health care, wouldn’t we?
–TP
What part of the population will actually listen to the speech and not just carefully selected soundbites that can be taken out of context? I fear those who would take the time and effort are not those who actually should.
—
Maybe there should be a taser placed on the lectern, so the speaker could deal with disrespect in a more direct manner 😉 (Why can’t life not be more like Futurama?)
“when we finally escape the Reagan paradigm.”
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”
George Washington
I don’t think this paradigm originated with Reagan.
The “You lie” brouhaha is a perfect opportunity to point out that lying is what Republicans do for a living, but our media somehow keep missing that fact.
Or another opportunity to ask: Does the president lie, for instance about his place of birth?
I wonder which approach our media is likely to take to this story.
Dunno what you mean by this, pubs. Caricatures?
I’ll take the small souls as a given, and I’ll have to defer to your expertise as to the size of their equipment.
I’d want to see the “you lie” bit before believing it, but (taking it as a given for the moment) this is something you just don’t do during a Presidential speech.
Slart, Wilson has already apologized. There’s no controversy over whether he said it, just whether saying it was okay (Erickson, Ruffini, Allahpundit, and others apparently think it was).
If Durbin was forced to offer a tearful apology on the floor for “comparing our troops to Nazis”, then Wilson shouldn’t get off with a letter.
A clear violation of
http://rules.house.gov/archives/house_decorum.htm The question is will the Speaker do anything about it.
Rep Wilson (R-SC) yelled, “You lie!” at Obama during the speech
Wilson has just sewn up his seat for 2010.
I’d want to see the “you lie” bit before believing it, but (taking it as a given for the moment) this is something you just don’t do during a Presidential speech.
New rules, Slarti.
As I watched the speech, letting it wash over me like other preidential speeches I was struck at how calm, sensible and stern the voice was. He believes what he says unlike Bush who tries to get you to believe what he says. As the speech went on I see the republican side of the house deflate like a old party balloon and I can’t stop yelling at them in my mind; “You were and are wrong about everything!” Go over to NRO’s Corner. They are as small and petty as any Fox pundit and frankly, terrified. There is no one in their ranks who can match Obama in style or substance.
I favor a health care plan of the sort that Obama is trying to get, if not even more radical, and I don’t dispute his point that undocumented aliens will be ineligible for insurance under the plans now under consideration. But of course most undocumented aliens don’t have insurance now, and they still get treated at emergency rooms (which for the most part are legally required to treat them), and the cost of their treatment nearly always winds up being buried in hospital overhead and spread to the paying customers. So no, illegal aliens won’t have insurance. But yes, they will remain a financial drain on the system.
Of course, Rep. Wilson didn’t have time to explain all that, and he was rude, and he was literally wrong. But — and I say this as one who wants a single-payer system — there was a point lurking in there. Stopped clocks and all that.
Overall, I thought the speech was o.k. Obama is a terrific speaker, of course. But nothing in the speech was surprising, nor did I see anything that I felt was likely to change the dynamic of the healthcare debate in a significant way (though I hope I’m wrong about that). I agree with Josh Marshall that the atmosphere in the chamber seemed “brittle,” and I don’t think that is likely to change as a result of this speech. (I’ve posted other thoughts in comments over on Edge of the American West, in case anyone is really interested.)
Liars Poker – I have two grandsons who are nine years old. Their favorite defense in times of punishment is to say “he did it”. Last night, in the midst of an historic speech, our government devolved on both sides to liar, liar. And, unfortunately, that becomes the story.
The President, on the largest stge in the world, couldn’t restrain himself from the momentous “They are Lies”. No explanation, no simple truth to follow, just, they lie. Joe Wilson, inappropriately, responded “you lie”. Now that is the story. What a waste.
When my grandsons start the “he lies” argument, they both get punished. As they have gotten older they have learned it isn’t a good defense, so now they do it less. They often take their medicine or just calmly explain why it couldn’t have been them.
Almost all of the good that could have come from last night, I fear, will be lost in the minds of people who now have to decide: who lies? Or do they both lie?
I have lots of other thoughts about a great speech gone awry, the paying for it part was less than credible, the last part was truly Presidential, bringing up the inherited deficit was unnecessary and just not relevant, the first part was clear and concise, etc.
I watched four MSM news shows this morning and got four three minute reports on, Liars Poker. Too Bad.
Publius wrote:
“No one here is anti-market.”. Just so I’m clear about this…where is “here”? On the site? In the Dem Party? Progressives? The nation as whole? Because FWIW….I’m “anti-market’ when it comes to health care. Market dynamics and health care don’t go together for reasons that have been covered elsewhere.
How is bringing up the fact that the Republicans had no problem squandering the surplus that they inherited with tax cuts and spending on wars with no thought of the deficit but that all of a sudden health reform must not increase the deficit, not relevant. Especially since Obama concedes the point, he is committed that the plan will not increase the deficit, the public option (if there is one) will be self-funding. The true fiscal conservatives should be over-joyed but, no, god forbid that one illegal immigrant might get some government health care, just pathetic.
Almost all of the good that could have come from last night, I fear, will be lost in the minds of people who now have to decide: who lies? Or do they both lie?
Well, Marty, the obvious solution to this dilemma is to look at the truth. And the truth is on the President’s side.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an institution that understood its job as reporting on current events by independently establishing the truth and then, among other things, clearly helping the public figure out who is really lying.
Unfortunately, there is no such institution. And even the liberal Joe Klein and Michael Kinsley think that those of us who long for such an institution are totally shrill and unserious in our radical demands that the media bother to know what the hell they’re talking about.
So I suspect you’re correct, Marty: truth is more or less irrelevant in our politics today (I know that’s not what you set out to argue, but it’s what you are saying) and it’s hard to score points merely because truth is on one’s side and the other side is cynical and mendacious. But unlike you, I have a hard time expressing moral disapproval for those who try to do so.
The President, on the largest stge in the world, couldn’t restrain himself from the momentous “They are Lies”. No explanation, no simple truth to follow, just, they lie. Joe Wilson, inappropriately, responded “you lie”. Now that is the story. What a waste.
But, Marty, are you denying that prominent conservative figures have been lying blatantly, easily demonstrably so? How was there no simple truth to follow? How does one demonstrate that there are no death panels in the legislation other than to correctly state it? How do you say, correctly, during a speech, that illegal immigrants will not be covered other than to simply say it, which Obama did?
When one person is telling the truth and pointing out the demonstrable lies of another, that’s not a case of liar’s poker. That’s a case of a truthful person calling out a liar. Why don’t you blame the people who, by lying in the first place, forced the president to call out their lies in defense of the truth?
MArty, are you saying that Obama was wrong to call a lie a lie? That was one of the high points of the speech to me. I have heard the term misinformation too often when in actuality the correct descriptor is lie. It was refreshing to hear Obama use the term properly.
Meanwhile, Wilson lied when he called what Obama said a lie.
Disagree also on the inherited deficit. He made extremely valid points about people whining about the cost for this plan which at least in theory is paid for when they had no problem voting for unfinanced expenditures.
He was very subtle in backing the public option. Basically he said “Unless you can come up with a plan that works as well or better, the public option is in my plan.”
I don’t think there is such a plan, and I have a hunch neither does he.
There was an explanation. In the speech. At factcheck.org, basically everywhere.
This is some serious contrarianism Mary. World class in fact.
“The President, on the largest stge in the world, couldn’t restrain himself from the momentous “They are Lies”. No explanation, no simple truth to follow, just, they lie.
There was an explanation. In the speech. At factcheck.org, basically everywhere.
This is some serious contrarianism Mary. World class in fact.”
Great comments, he did say some things, not necessarily true, like the carefully constructed:
“No FEDERAL money will be spent on abortions” a fine line,
“No illegal immigrants will be covered” questionable once the states run the coops,
“I won’t sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future” so no current bill could get signed, except,
“We will have a trigger that forces us to cut spending if the savings don’t occur” a ploy that, even on this blog, has been discussed that the current Congress can’t force a future Congress to actually do that. Not to even bring up where those cuts might happen (services?) in that undefined future where certainly the bill will cost more than anticipated.
President Obama can stake his ground on Death Panels being false but most of the rest is really not so clear as it gets represented here.
“The President, on the largest stge in the world, couldn’t restrain himself from the momentous “They are Lies”. No explanation, no simple truth to follow, just, they lie.
There was an explanation. In the speech. At factcheck.org, basically everywhere.
This is some serious contrarianism Mary. World class in fact.”
Shorter Marty, so what? He engaged them at their level and lost all of the momentum in the speech for those who weren’t cheering him on in the first place. If it made all of the progresives feel good that he chastised those nasty liars then good for ya’ll. It wasn’t a constructive part of the speech.
The false equivalency is the most galling part of Marty’s comment. The President gives a substantive speech on a crucial issue and the media is fixated on this picayune stuff. Is the US media really that far gone? I guess we will see.
Again, Marty, I have to disagree with you. First of all, it was one point that he called a lie, but a significant point, since many people had started to believe the lie. It was critical that he call it what it is, a lie. That is not engaging them on their level at all. Calling it misinformation is minimizing it whereas calling it a lie actually points out some of the motivation behind it. It also calls into question anything else the opponents say, which is good psychology.
In a court of law if you can discredit a witness on one statement he/she makes, you call into question the credibility of the entire testimony. That is what Obama did last night.
I love your weasel lines like “a fine line.” Not really. He is talking about the legislation before the Congress and is factual.
And actually, the legislation he is talking about with a trigeger to force cuts in spending is legitimate and legal. Can a future Congress vote to override it? Of course, but also irrelevant to the debate at hand.
You are trying very hard to find something negative, and I am sure you could do so legitimately, but trying to justify your original comment with the examples you use is not working.
And all the media I am seeing is focusing on Wilson’s claim and not Obama’s.
Apparently South Carolina isn’t willing to cede the title of ‘America’s Looniest State’ to Texas–thanks to Joe Wilson and the hiking Governor.
The consensus is that Wilson’s outrageous explosion was a new low–even by already low GOP standards. But I think this misses a larger and more disturbing point.
President Obama didn’t lie concerning coverage of illegal immigrants. But that’s beside the point. Many Presidents have addressed Congress and told outright whoppers, exaggerations, misstatements and certainly debatable comments. None–until Wilson–elicited outbursts. What changed?
People didn’t used to wave assault weapons around at political meetings. What changed?
The notion of a US addressing schoolchildren used to be considered an affirmation of good civics. What changed?
There’s only one explanation: there’s a black man in the WH.
Dana Milbank notes that Wilson wasn’t the only one breaking decorum.
As I have stated before, I do not think that the cost ‘illegal aliens’ cause are the main problem for the target audience of the lie.
The impression I get is that they would like to make it illegal for medical personnel to help or treat illegal aliens at all (even if they could pay for the treatment). I think I remember proposals in that direction as ‘motivational tool’ to get the illegal aliens (and preferably all legals too) to leave on their own accord.
“This is some serious contrarianism, Mary.”
You probably mean “Marty”, who may be a contrary one, but he’s our contrary one.
The President called the liars ….. liars.
Where does the lying, confederate, Beckish, South Carolina delegation want to go with it now?
The talk is trash from armed racists. Is that all they’ve got?
The trajectory of the rhetoric points in a very bad direction — the direction Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich directed it to go 16 years ago.
Wilson’s apology should not be accepted. In fact, Obama should up the ante and change the wording in the healthcare legislation to explicitly state that immigrants (legal and illegal) should receive benefits under the plan BEFORE South Carolinian racist Republicans do.
We should settle immigrants in South Carolina and displace the unAmerican squatters who infest the place now.
Do they talk cracker trash in Galt-land?
Not that there would be anything wrong with that, but I’m trying to figure out the distance between their lying mouths and their trigger fingers.
Or are they just playing dress-up Civil War?
President Obama is a fine speaker, of course. But i was notso wowed by the speech as some. Despite the relative forcefulness of it, it was still a defensive speech defending a defensive plan; e.g.’Yes, a public option is a possible option (but only a small piece), but only 5% of people will buy into it, so government’s role will be insignificant and we are loath to compete in any significant way with private insurance, since that would be bad’ (paraphrase, obviously).
This is muddled in a ‘uniquely American’ way, kind of like ‘Santa Claus is Coming To Town’; ‘He knows if you’ve been bad or good/so be good for goodness’ sake‘. Are you being good for ‘goodness’ sake’ or are you being good because you’ll get caught otherwise?
It doesn’t take a bleeding heart to understand that we are all in this together – it just takes some basic intelligence. It doesn’t take rarified altruism to understand that justice is in everybody’s *self-interest* in the long run. I think liberals need to start framing this in a more practical way, rather than appealing to sentiment.
“And all the media I am seeing is focusing on Wilson’s claim and not Obama’s.”
Media is and will focus on that, the impact on the listeners will tell the tale. Although:
from George Stephanopoulos here
certainly ties them together. I am not, in fact, “trying” to find something negative. As stated, I think many parts of the speech were Presidential. But I heard things differently than you, maybe others did also.
“Where does the lying, confederate, Beckish, South Carolina delegation want to go with it now?”
Actually, it seems to be giving the Republicans some good press for condemning it and demanding he apologize. I am sure they got together and decided which of them would take the hit to make the rest of them look more reasonable.
Single combat, then? Pistols at twenty paces?
Well, Marty … John McCain and Newt Gingrich demagogue the rhetoric when it is useful to them, Gingrich most of all.
He sets off bombs in the back of the room and then rushes to the front to calm the crowd and appear the statesman. “It’s very simple ….” he begins every sentence.
McCain is just pathetic. I didn’t use to think so.
“I am sure they got together and decided which of them would take the hit to make the rest of them look more reasonable.”
Do they have meetings beforehand about this? Do they ask for a show of hands of those who might volunteer to be today’s designated Republican “a**hole”?
“Hey, I did it last month for a whole week, somebody else step up. How about some of the republican women step up”, as Michelle Bachmann basks in the glow of equal rights for female a@@ho@es.
Do they draw straws for which one will volunteer to be today’s righteous philanderer? “C’mon, it’s fun duty and you make the rest of us look good.”
They’ve pretty much been through the entire republican caucus …. thrice, at all levels of government.
The Senate was much cooler when the Senators would challenge each other to duels, or fight it out with canes, instead of just going “Neener neener I might say no so you can’t work on that” like they do today.
Forget making them talk, let’s see some action movie fillibustering!
John Thullen | September 10, 2009 at 11:26 AM
I think they are Borg, so they don’t have to work that hard at it.
Actually, it seems to be giving the Republicans some good press
it’s only good if you fail to recognize that he’s apologizing for saying what the GOP base has been screaming at the top of their lungs for the past year and a half. Wilson’s sin was a violation of decorum – not a big deal in itself. but what he’s really done is shine a bright spotlight on the mouthbreathing idiocy that is the modern day GOP.
maybe you think it’s great that hypocrites like Cantor and Hoyer can get up there and clutch their pearls for the cameras. maybe you think nobody will notice that Wilson has brought the GOP’s insanity back to the front page – and not a week after they disgusted pundits of all colors for the school speech freak out. and this coming on the heels of the death panels, and the guns at speeches, and the rude townhall behavior, and the birther nonsense, and the all other bullshit that the GOP has chosen to peddle, instead of trying to govern.
the GOP is spiraling out of control and Wilson just made sure we keep talking about it for another week.
I’m actually all in favour of the president being yelled and heckled at, being called to order by the legislature more. If the president wasn’t such an elected monarch, the last goon wouldn’t have had the deference and leeway he needed to get away with so much.
However, the timing of Southern conservatives’ conversion to this way of thinking is highly dubious. Even if it’s not a conscious choice on their parts, I’m sure it’s the colour of Obama’s skin that suddenly lets these guys feel freer to yell and berate him, and flout established forms of behaviour in what is still a very stilted and formal arena.
john miller: Meanwhile, Wilson lied when he called what Obama said a lie.
Liar liar – pants on fire…
Well, maybe Wilson could have jumped up and called O-Blah ‘a prevaricator by ommission?’ or ‘a dupe of unintended consequences?”
The outburst was in bad taste, no doubt — but Wilson has a legitimate beef: the way the bill reads now, if it’s passed any illegal who signs up will get whatever services the health care bill provides.
For instance, if Francisco Hernandez, here in L.A. illegally, buys a phony drivers license, or a phony social security card with the name Barack Obama on it, and presents it to the clerk at whatever health care offices are set up to issue a health care card — he’s going to get the card, no questions asked.
There are no provisions in the bill to weed out that kind of fraud. And six months after the bill goes into law you’ll have two million illegals signed up here in California, plus a lot more rich document forgers in Boyle Heights and City Terrace and East LA, hombre. (present street cost for SS card and drivers license package: $75)
So if O-Blah is serious about stopping people from ‘gaming’ the system as he said in the speech, why doesn’t he tell the Democrats to add enforcement language to the bill (the Republicans tried that, and were overruled by the Dems).
And john, you gotta stay out of those airport men’s rooms — or people will talk.
More generally, I don’t know why the Republicans aren’t being called on their supposed Christian values more. Everything they say concerning health care (yay private insurers! etc) evokes the concerns of Mammon, not of Jesus. Certainly their indignation at the notion of illegal immigrants getting medical attention flies in the face of what my mother always taught me about ‘Christian charity’.
“it’s only good if you fail to recognize that he’s apologizing for saying what the GOP base has been screaming at the top of their lungs for the past year and a half.”
Who is going to notice all that when they universally condemn this “minor” violation of decorum? Maybe they weren’t being so uncooperative after all?
“Certainly their indignation at the notion of illegal immigrants getting medical attention flies in the face of what my mother always taught me about ‘Christian charity'”
Actually, no. Christian charity is based on giving selflessly to others who are more in need. Not passing a law that says everyone else has to give.
Who is going to notice all that when they universally condemn this “minor” violation of decorum?
anyone who asks “what did he think Obama was lying about”.
I realize that Jay is reestablishing his persona (breathlessly unaware with a healthy dose of tu quoque) after having been away awhile, but this
The outburst was in bad taste, no doubt
followed by
And john, you gotta stay out of those airport men’s rooms — or people will talk.
makes me think that he climbed Mt. Totally Oblivious. Without oxygen.
Do they draw straws for which one will volunteer to be today’s righteous philanderer? “C’mon, it’s fun duty and you make the rest of us look good.”
Doonesbury had a series of strips in this general territory not long ago. Great minds think alike…. 😉
I did not hear a single word or phrase that should cause a moments’ discomfiture or anxiety to the Health Insurance parasites, who are going the have a fucking bonanza, figgering ways to replace the profits that being forbidden to refuse coverage or do recissions might cost ’em…
byrningman: I’m sure it’s the colour of Obama’s skin that suddenly lets these guys feel freer to yell and berate him, and flout established forms of behaviour in what is still a very stilted and formal arena.
No, it more a sign of the times… just check out any of the American reality TV shows with teams or individuals competing against each other to see what obnoxious levels of behavior and speech are now common and acceptable. Why, they’re almost at the level of rudeness shown in British Parliament at every session, where — believe it or not — half the room in unison loudly hisses the statements of their rivals…!!!
publius: “But it seems like a short-term news cycle win in exchange for longer-term shift. A focus on the substance seems like it would lay groundwork for a more permanent shift.”
I disagree. I think it’s very important, especially combined with the other bits of Republican disrespect. — I assume that most people don’t pay a lot of attention to politics. The fine details of the construction of the health care exchange will be lost on them. They will not click over to the actual bill and figure out what, exactly, it means that the government might pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling, etc. Moreover, and unfortunately, they’re inclined to think that when two sides are fighting, the truth probably lies somewhere in between — which is a good operating assumption when both sides are arguing in good faith, but not otherwise.
On the other hand, people do, over time, tend to reveal their basic nature. (One of the scary things about blogging.) Often this doesn’t matter when politicians do it, since voters are often not paying attention; but it happens. And when one side reveals its basic nature on an occasion when a lot of people are watching, and it goes viral, that’s a big deal. That, I think, is what happened last night. I do not think most people will be in doubt about which side acted like children last night. And that’s a very big deal.
No one here is anti-market.
Pub, do you ever read your comment threads?
Yglesias compared Wilson’s outburst to Parliamentary heckling in the Westminster tradition, which he prefers (as do I) to the quasi-religious respect given to the American President. However, Wilson would be out-of-bounds in Westminster, since you are not allowed to call a fellow member of the House a liar. The phrase “economical with the truth” was invented for just such a purpose.
I suspect Wilson’s outburst will hurt the Republicans politically, but the underlying mammalian dynamics explainig that are unpretty.
OK, so I listened to the speech on YouTube.
If it made all of the progresives feel good that he chastised those nasty liars then good for ya’ll.
Yeah, thanks, actually I did enjoy it.
It’s nice to see that are still people in public life who can call things by their proper names now and then.
It did my heart good.
It wasn’t a constructive part of the speech.
Why, because he challenged a bunch of lying weasels on their BS?
By my lights, it was the single most constructive thing he said.
Regarding Wilson, maybe it was just the quality of the YouTube clip, but when he spoke it just sounded like somebody farted.
I hope he enjoys his fifteen minutes.
Folks who say that Obama is skillfully employing centrist, or even conservative, rhetoric to advance his liberal agenda misjudge him, IMVHO.
Obama’s a centrist, perhaps a slightly conservative centrist, who is also moderately liberal on social issues. Emphasis on “moderately”.
That’s who he is. As far as I can see, the rhetoric he employs reflects his own thoughts.
I’m well to the left of Obama. I’d be fine with public, single-payer health insurance.
That’s not something that’s ever going to happen in this country. There’s too much built-in private infrastructure, and too much money involved. It would be too disruptive to actually providing health care, and to the economy, to just rip it all up and start over.
So, since I try to live in the real world, I just don’t lose too much sleep about it.
In this country, we’re going to have some combination of public and private efforts, with most of the actual provision of care and insurance coming from the private sector, and regulation coming from the public sector. We’re going to do it that way because that’s how we roll.
In that context, I thought Obama’s speech was pretty much perfect.
What he presented is not what we’ll end up with. Congress will slice and dice it, everyone will get their favorite little thing tacked on. Whatever health care bill actually passes will probably have provisions subsidizing large-mouth bass farms in the Ozarks and a new exit on I-95 in New Jersey.
Cause that’s how we do things.
What the speech did was lay down the expectation that Congress will, by God, pass something remotely useful this year. It was a solid, civil, appropriate, knock-heads-ever-so-gently “come to Jesus” speech.
It’s what was needed, and hopefully it will have it’s desired effect.
The ball is now in Congress’ court.
I do not think most people will be in doubt about which side acted like children last night. And that’s a very big deal.
Obama’s great political gift is his ability to walk into any situation and look like the adult in the room.
Obama 1, Wilson 0.
Dear il-liberal japonius
I was just kidding john for this comment he posted above:
“Well, Congressional Republicans ARE small.
Very small souls with smaller dicks, which they wave around in small spaces, like airport bathrooms, so that they appear large in contrast.”
If he wasn’t hanging around in airport bathrooms, how is his visual descripton of Republicans waving their penises around so vivid?
But I guess you’re into the double-standard mode when it comes to bad taste — john can castigate Republicans by referring to their waving dicks (good taste?) but you’re gonna get on your high horse if I refer to his referral.
Isn’t that a wee bit hypocritical?
Miller’s opponent has raised over $100K on actBlue, since the speech.
i hope it’s more than enough.
@hairshirthedonist:
“As a result, those people will seem cartoonishly if frighteningly ignorant years from now.”
“Years from now”? Why the future tense???
Marty: Actually, no. Christian charity is based on giving selflessly to others who are more in need. Not passing a law that says everyone else has to give.
Actually, no. Christian charity is based on ensuring that the poor, the sick, the hungry, the afflicted, are helped.
The right-wing Christian notion that it’s not about helping others, it’s all about earning the Jesus-points in the salvation game, helps only conservatives who want to believe that what Jesus wanted them to do with their political power was to police other people’s sex lives, not to do anything so lefty-liberal as taking Matthew 25 34:40 at face value.
There is much more textual evidence in the gospels for supporting universal health care and a cradle-to-the-grave welfare state than there ever was for opposing a legal right to same-sex marriage or to sodomy. But conservatives prefer to assume Jesus cares what they do with their dicks, but not what they do with their taxes.
Of course, Rep. Wilson didn’t have time to explain all that, and he was rude, and he was literally wrong. But — and I say this as one who wants a single-payer system — there was a point lurking in there.
What point? That illegals might still get treated if they show up at an ER. What is the alternative? Sending sick people away to die because they don’t have their papers? And what does that have to do with health care reform? The reform bills are about what will be covered by insurance. Illegals will not. There is no ambiguity on this point. If Wilson wants to make a separate point about how hospitals should not be required to treat people without insurance if they are illegal aliens then he can try to sell that sort of cruelty as part of a separate discussion but it has absolutely nothing to do the reform of health insurance rules.
If he wasn’t hanging around in airport bathrooms, how is his visual descripton of Republicans waving their penises around so vivid?
he read their depositions.
Hilz – I hope you’re right. And you probably are. I almost wrote a post on this, but then I didn’t have enough confidence in my correctness.
I’m actually a pretty bad judge of how these viral things will play out. It seems like it’s been a postive-for-Obama development.
“What point? That illegals might still get treated if they show up at an ER.”
No, that they’ll be able to sign up for FULL COVERAGE, like everyone else.
An incentive that will, in turn, attract more illegal entry into the US (what? I can sneak in, sign up, and they won’t verify I’m not a citizen? Ho boy! I’m on my way!!!)
“Actually, no. Christian charity is based on ensuring that the poor, the sick, the hungry, the afflicted, are helped.”
Jes, I am not sure how we got from healthcare to sex lives, but there is a difference in Christian charity and right wing Calvinism.
After all the politics get stripped away, the vast majority of Christians in this country give regularly to charities focused on helping the poorest and neediest in this country and around the world. The depiction of them as an uncaring horde who worship money is inaccurate and arrogant.
Telling people who they should be helping is the achilles heel of almost all progressive policy making. The stated assumption that Christians don’t care and don’t give what they can to help the people they believe need it the most is insulting.
Just because someone doesn’t see the needs you think are greatest as what they think are greatest doesn’t give you the right to question their caring, generosity or intelligence.
New Calvinism be damned, along with the Catholic monarchy, most of the people who get lumped in and ridiculed are honest, caring, loving Christian people.
No, that they’ll be able to sign up for FULL COVERAGE, like everyone else.
So what part of which bill repeals the laws against insurance fraud?
“but not what they do with their taxes.”
And Jesus was quite explicit on this subject.
“Years from now”? Why the future tense???
I hear ya, Jay C. But I was writing in terms of broad, uncontroversial consensus – the historical perspective.
For most of the people who comment here, yes, we’re there already. Certainly many others, too. But I’m thinking along the lines of Publius’ previous discussions about how people come to take the well established benefits of government for granted, as though they are simply part of the Eternal and Universal Ether. (Assuming some form of universal health care becomes one of those things.)
Though people take those things for granted, once they do, the idea of being opposed to such things looks looney to almost everyone. I’m sure a much higher percentage of people today see those who were protesting against (as opposed to protesting for – if you can do that) school integration in the sixties as being looney than did at the time.
Of course, maybe you were being sort of funny and I’m spending too much time explaining myself.
No, that they’ll be able to sign up for FULL COVERAGE, like everyone else.
Hmm. So the concern is that the bill won’t make something illegal which is already explicitly illegal? This is what makes the President a liar and sentient human beings with triple digit IQs are supposed to consider this an important point of debate? No sale.
Jay. No government puts specific fraud-prevention procedures into every spending bill. That’s the sort of thing that is generally added at the regulatory level, or even at the office-procedure level. If Congress tried to micromanage to that extent, the bill would be 100,000 pages long.
Marty, re Christian charity is based on giving selflessly to others who are more in need. Not passing a law that says everyone else has to give.,
OK, then shouldn’t good Christian voters encourage their reps to pass laws to make it easier and more efficient for each of them personally to give, via taxes & welfare? And shouldn’t the good Christian reps refrain from leading them into temptation by offering to fight such bills on the voters’ behalf?
hilzoy: That, I think, is what happened last night. I do not think most people will be in doubt about which side acted like children last night. And that’s a very big deal.
Are you saying the entire Republican side acted like children because one Republican acted disrespectfully, called the Prez a liar? How do you make that kind of accusatory jump?
And when children make uncalled for outbursts, after chastising them don’t you examine the reason for the outburst, to see if it had some justification? Or do you just smack them side-of-the-head and go on your merry way?
I’ve read a dozen or more liberal blogs and liberal-slant newspaper columnists today, and none of them followed up on Wilson’s accusation — except to dismiss it as disrespectful.
In fact there’s a fatal flaw in the present bill that will, absolutely, allow millions of illegals to sign up for the program, if passed as is: no way to enforce it!!!!!
It’s equivalent to building a new highway with posted speed limits of 65 MPH– and forbidding police to stop speeders or issue tickets.
“OK, then shouldn’t good Christian voters encourage their reps to pass laws to make it easier and more efficient for each of them personally to give, via taxes & welfare? And shouldn’t the good Christian reps refrain from leading them into temptation by offering to fight such bills on the voters’ behalf?”
No, they shouldn’t. The government won’t let them pray in schools, even voluntarily, etc. Why should they believe the government is the right vehicle for Christian charity? Talk about wanting to have it both ways.
Jay: it wasn’t just one Republican.
Also: as I understand it, the sole basis for Republican claims about illegal immigrants is not that they will be able to get free or subsidized health care, except at emergency rooms (there are explicit provisions banning that), but that they will be able to sign up for health insurance and pay premiums, like anyone else. As they can presently do here, in their native countries, or wherever.
It’s equivalent to building a new highway with posted speed limits of 65 MPH– and forbidding police to stop speeders or issue tickets.
Really? Might you be able to point out where anyone would be forbidden to deny coverage to an illegal immigrant by the proposed legislation?
And did you read this, Jay?
Jay. No government puts specific fraud-prevention procedures into every spending bill. That’s the sort of thing that is generally added at the regulatory level, or even at the office-procedure level. If Congress tried to micromanage to that extent, the bill would be 100,000 pages long.
The government won’t let them pray in schools, even voluntarily, etc.
Obviously off topic but more importantly incorrect. The restriction on school prayer has not been used, at least not legally, to prevent students from voluntarily praying whenever and wherever they like. In fact, the ACLU has, on many occasions defended the rights of students to do just that. To the extent that there have been any restrictions in this arena, it has been in the context of school authority figures approaching prayer for an entire student body in a way that could be seen as coercive or mandatory to their charges. So, the ever nebulous government hasn’t restricted voluntary prayer in any significant respect unless one’s definition of voluntary is coercing others to participate in one’s rituals.
Marty: Given the oft-repeated “America is a Christian Country!” claims (of exceedingly dubious truth) by Republicans, then by that logic, shouldn’t they be for the government of their claimed Christian country being for the things they’re supposed to be for?
And the “not allowed to pray, even voluntarily” is bs. What they’re not allowed to do is use SCHOOL RESOURCES to pray for one specific religion/denomination. Because the alternative would be for the government to allow every variation on religion or lack thereof the same access to the same resources, and it’s simpler and better for both religion and politics to keep them mostly separate.
Shorter Brent (if I may): “As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools.” You just can’t have public school mandated prayer.
Marty: After all the politics get stripped away, the vast majority of Christians in this country give regularly to charities focused on helping the poorest and neediest in this country and around the world. The depiction of them as an uncaring horde who worship money is inaccurate and arrogant.
Wow, that’s a leap. I didn’t depict Christians as “an uncaring horde who worship money”: I pointed out that conservative “Christians” who argue that their faith doesn’t actually require them to help the poor, the ill, the needy, or the afflicted, but only to police other people’s sex lives, are an uncaring horde of dicks who worship money. That’s perfectly accurate: they are.
Any “Christian” who stands up and argues that it would be wrong for the government to tax him in order to provide universal healthcare has kind of completely missed the point of Matthew 25 34:40. As Chris Rock said in another context, “You’re supposed to!”
The stated assumption that [conservative] Christians don’t care and don’t give what they can to help the people they believe need it the most is insulting.
How can the truth be insulting? Conservative Christians – right-wing Christians – are all about denying help to those in need, in favor of using their money to score Jesus-points for themselves.
Just because someone doesn’t see the needs you think are greatest as what they think are greatest doesn’t give you the right to question their caring, generosity or intelligence.
Just because a conservative Christian thinks their need for salvation is greater than their neighbor’s need for dialysis? You really think I shouldn’t question the caring, generosity, or intelligence of someone who thinks opposing gay marriage and denying poor people healthcare is what being a Christian is all about?
New Calvinism be damned, along with the Catholic monarchy, most of the people who get lumped in and ridiculed are honest, caring, loving Christian people.
Most conservatives are honest, caring, loving people who like to think of themselves as Christians – they just can’t manage to extend their honesty, caring, or love outwards beyond their own immediate circle of humanity. Which, to those outside that charmed circle, does make them look like lying, callous, selfish bastards.
The government won’t let them pray in schools, even voluntarily, etc.
Obviously off topic but more importantly incorrect.
Agreed. While we’re talking about the decorum of calling people liars, Marty, you should really apologize for making this definitely and demonstrably false claim. In the unlikely event that you were merely ignorant of the truth, you really should make an effort to educate yourself on matters of verifiable fact before spouting off.
Marty: No, they shouldn’t. The government won’t let them [force other people to] pray in [accordance with their own ritual] schools, even voluntarily, etc.
Fixed that for you.
No government on Earth can stop any Christian from praying anywhere that Christian has a legal right to be.
What the US government stops Christians from doing is public prayer in schools – the government forces Christians to go along with Matthew 6:6. A surprising number of Christians in the US apparently strongly disagree with Jesus on this as on many other matters, and badly want to show off how holy they are by making a big deal of how they’re praying, out loud, conspicuously, as part of a group, from which non-Christians are openly excluded.
Cyrus: So should I, actually – I was just struck by Marty’s obviously ludicrous claim, and (not ever having attended a US school, but having been forced to sit through literally hundreds of compulsory Christian services at the schools I went to in the UK) I’d always figured the US system was definitely streets ahead. Why make kids sit through a religious service they don’t want to attend?
Seems like I remember Bush being booed during a state of the union speech.
I don’t think this has anything to do with Christians. And, I suspect this has nothing to do with conservative Christians. This may be more about conservative Christians of a specific racial group.
All of the conservative Christians of color, that I know, are for socialized medicine, or something that looks like it. I’m in Los Angeles. …I think PEW’s got numbers for it nationally.
The obsession over “the right kind of people” benefiting from the State, is a white conservative Christian thing.
“Marty: No, they shouldn’t. The government won’t let them [force other people to] pray in [accordance with their own ritual] schools, even voluntarily, etc”
Thankfully the SC is part of the government or this “fix” wouldn’t even be accurate. My initial point is still valid.
Please don’t quote scripture, it is a long and intricate book which I seldom quote and counter quote from as it is says many things that do require a personal reading. However, I do find this particular chapter/verse pointed and have always believed that in addition to the community of the church, the privacy of prayer is essential to a personal relationship.
“Agreed. While we’re talking about the decorum of calling people liars, Marty, you should really apologize for making this definitely and demonstrably false claim. In the unlikely event that you were merely ignorant of the truth, you really should make an effort to educate yourself on matters of verifiable fact before spouting off.”
Sorry, given the topic I was not very precise. Without the specific backing of the SC there would be no voluntary prayer in schools etc.
I would argue the realistic impact of this more, but again, the point is that there is little reason for Christians to see the government as the best vehicle for Christian charity.
As I say every time the subject of treating illegal immigrants in ERs comes up: US citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship or even identity. If you wish to make it the law that ERs should treat all citizens, there is no way to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, because someone dragged in, bleeding, from the street may not be carrying proof of identity (let alone proof of citizenship, which most Americans do not carry around with them – no, a driver’s license is not proof of citizenship).
So, unless you want a system that denies care to some US citizens in dire need because they happened to forget to carry their passport, you must accept a system that will also treat non-citizens at ERs, because there is no way to distinguish between the two on the spot.
Even if you were to strip-search all Spanish-speaking people (which would be illegal, of course), possession of a Mexican passport (say) is not proof that you are not a US citizen.
That’s all there is to it.
Although I think Jesurgislac’s interpretation of Matthew 6 6 and 25 34:40 aren’t wrong, I don’t think that Jesus ever lobbied to have human charity (or private prayer, even) enacted into law.
Which is really neither here nor there as far as the national healthcare debate goes. We may with equal logic argue for laws requiring the honoring of parents, forbidding of taking the Lord’s name in vain, and against coveting.
And then there’s the penalties for violation, which some may argue that portions of Leviticus may be used as a guide.
School prayer has always bothered me. It has always mystified me how we can advocate closed communion (and sometimes, only-true-religion) in one breath, yet be perfectly fine with praying in public with people whose religious beliefs may be decidedly at odds with our own.
My $0.02, adjusted for inflation. Again: I don’t think any of this applies to the healthcare debate.
hilzoy: “but that they will be able to sign up for health insurance and pay premiums, like anyone else.”
As I understand the ‘exchange’ option Obama is talking about, all US citizens will be required to purchase insurance of some kind — but those who can’t afford it will be given premium ‘credits’ (subsidies based on income). And if you don’t have any income, you won’t pay anything.
Taxpayers will end up paying the difference. As a taxpayer, I don’t mind paying higher subsidies for less fortunate Americans, but I don’t want to subsidize millions of illegal inhabitants. And the way the bill reads now, there’s no way to stop illegal noncitizens from signing up.
“And did you read this, Jay?
Jay. No government puts specific fraud-prevention procedures into every spending bill. That’s the sort of thing that is generally added at the regulatory level, or even at the office-procedure level. If Congress tried to micromanage to that extent, the bill would be 100,000 pages long.”
But HR 3200 has specific enforcement provisions included for other sections of the bill: for instance, see SEC 1173A –for standardizing electronic administrative transactions — which includes investigation of complaints, and monetary penalties for non-compliance.
What’s the objection against including similar safeguard language for citizenship verification? Something simple, like an agency created within a year of passage to cross-reference birth certificates and social security cards?
Simple – right, and that would assuage the concerns many Americans (me included) have about the bill as it stands now.
So what’s the big deal about including that kind of verification mechanism?
Oh, yeah — the Hispanic voting block won’t approve.
I ought to have predicted that SOD would drop in and claim that it’s all about racism. Well, he’s not the first.
And, really, he’s right. Our second black president is getting just as much resistance on the healthcare issue as our first black president did.
I would argue the realistic impact of this more, but again, the point is that there is little reason for Christians to see the government as the best vehicle for Christian charity.
Posted by: Marty | September 10, 2009 at 02:36 PM
Considering that white conservative Christians rush to give much of the State’s “charity” to the military and prison industrial complexes and other industries populated by the right kind of Americans, and their obsession with the undeserving stealing healthcare, and food stamps, I suspect your Christians have a disturbingly elitist view of the role of government.
Slartibartfast,
If you have research which says race is not the determining factor in the way most Christians view the role of the State, I would love to have it.
Sorry, given the topic I was not very precise. Without the specific backing of the SC there would be no voluntary prayer in schools etc.
This is nonsense. The truth, if not for the Supreme Court and Madalyn Murray O’Hair, hundreds of thousands of non-Christians, atheists, and Christians who take seriously Jesus’s admonitions to pray in private would be forced to participate in explicitly Christian prayers every single day.
Yes. Just as soon as you prove to me that I’m not queen of the space unicorns.
I meant to write:
If you have research which says race is not the most influential factor in the way most Christians view the role of the State, I would love to have it.
(My editors would demand “more nuance”!)
Maybe I read that wrong, SOD, but it sounded as if you wanted me to prove a negative.
Marty: Without the specific backing of the SC there would be no voluntary prayer in schools etc.
You really think that no teacher and no student and no school employee would ever pray voluntarily? Well, if you think every single person ever inside in a school is an atheist / unbeliever who won’t pray anyway, why are you so concerned about whether or not the Supreme Court would “let” them pray? If a person wants to pray, no temporal power can stop them doing so..
Space unicorns don’t exist, but the views of Christians of color do.
I would say that race and how Christians see the role of the state (if there’s even a POV that you could say “most Christians” would agree on) are almost completely unrelated.
Which is not to say anything at all about how “most Christians” (again: as if) or even a large-ish chunk of Christians see the role of the state may affect one racial group more than others.
It seems to me that your starting assumption is that white Christians are a uniformly racist lot, and therefore…something.
Which just about says that white Christians aren’t Democrats, or some such.
This is just one of the many pitfalls of excessive generalization, much like the notion that white southern Republicans are all beer-guzzling NASCAR addicts who dropped out of high school after they impregnated their 16-year-old cousin, or whatever the silly caricature de jour is.
This is just one of the many pitfalls of excessive generalization, much like the notion that white southern Republicans are all beer-guzzling NASCAR addicts who dropped out of high school after they impregnated their 16-year-old cousin, or whatever the silly caricature de jour is.
If someone’s got the number for that one, I’d love to see it!
But I think the numbers do show a correlation between Christians of specific racial/ethnic groups and their views concerning the role of the State and its relationship with citizens and non-citizens.
Slarti,
I think you and someotherdude are talking past each other. Most conservative Christian blacks are social democrats in politics. Very few conservative Christian whites are. That’s all he’s saying, and he’s undoubtedly right.
Ok, now it appears that you’re talking about race as a correlative factor, not as a result of prejudice. Assuming that to be the case, I’m not sure, but I’d expect income/poverty to correlate more strongly than race, and since race and income are correlated, it’s possible that you can’t tell cause from effect.
I could be wrong about any of this, up to and including interpretation of your question. Feel free to correct.
Yeah, I figured that out several minutes ago.
If Republicans had offered a solution to the health care for illegal immigrants issue by presenting a solid plan for an enormous charity organisation to meet that need, I’d be more impressed. In reality, though, every objection to the Democrats’ suggestions is couched in the most dog-eat-dog, money-hoarding terms.
More than any other issue, for the health care debate has proven once and for all that when the rubber hits the road, the vast majority of Republicans give clear precedence to their bogus understanding of Adam Smith at the expense of their bogus understanding of the Gospels.
I do think the obsession with who benefits from the State and who is punished by the State could certainly point to racist impulses… I don’t have the numbers for the impulse, but the obsession can be proven.
I do think the obsession with who benefits from the State and who is punished by the State could certainly point to racist impulses… I don’t have the numbers for the impulse, but the obsession can be proven.
Seems like I remember Bush being booed during a state of the union speech.
So do I, and I remember the faux-conniptions Republicans had about that. Of course I’m old, so I also remember Clinton being booed in his appearances in Congress.
But that’s neither here nor there. Even under Westminster rules, where heckling and booing are common and accepted, MPs are not allowed to call other MPs liars.
did people like the speech?
well, they liked it well enough to give Obama a 14 point boost in the health care debate.
someone needs to tell me why this is good news for the GOP.
“did people like the speech?
well, they liked it well enough to give Obama a 14 point boost in the health care debate.
someone needs to tell me why this is good news for the GOP.”
Well he only picked up 14 points in a poll that was 45% Dems, 37% independents and 18% Republicans. Good jump but not omigosh impressive numbers for a top tier bully pulpit speech.
Good jump but not omigosh impressive numbers for a top tier bully pulpit speech.
please cite the statistics on which you base this assessment.
Actually, it is a pretty impressive jump since Dems were already highly in favor and independents about 50/50. There wasn’t as much room to gain.
And other polls show even bigger jumps. However, as a caveat, it is a little early to get a full picture of the impact.
“Good jump but not omigosh impressive numbers for a top tier bully pulpit speech.”
I can only give you the example from the CNN article on the poll you are quoting:
Really, the way I view it is skeptical about instant polls in general as discussed here
I always feel like the media narrative actually determines the reality of these things. As far as I can tell, the general media narrative is that Obama made a good speech that boosted support for his reforms, so after a few days of reporting that, he actually will get a boost in the polls.
The secondary narrative that the Republicans were non-constructive jackasses during the speech only helps him more.
Jay Jerome,
Thank you for your clarification. You addressed the first part of your comment to john miller, so it seemed that you were speaking to him, and not john thullen in your last comment.
Also, given the discussion of Wilson’s outburst, I was going to let this pass, but calling another commenter a liar, as you did with John miller at the beginning of your comment, without any support to the charge, is over the line, imho. The accusation has to be backed up.
Dear il-liberal japonius
As hilzoy pointed out, people tend to reveal their basic nature over time. I believe most of us passed the make fun of names stage in primary school, so you might want to try and develop a little more maturity.
Or at least learn to spell.
That’s “il-liberal japonicus” to you, dude.
On the topic of charity etc., I often wish that Jesus would pop up now and then when his name is invoked, kind of like Marshal McLuhan in “Annie Hall”, and set us all straight on what his actual intent was way back when he spoke on that mountain.
Wouldn’t that be great? Although I still think we’d find a way to argue about it.
Short of that, I guess we’ll have to settle for the somewhat less authoritative voice of our own conscience as we look our friends and neighbors in the eye and decide if we want to help them out, or not.
And I’m sure we all have the best of intentions, and will chip in whatever we spare, but 47 million people with no health insurance at all, plus additional millions going bankrupt, losing their homes, and dying for lack of readily available treatment is kind of a tall order.
Maybe if we all rise to Jesus’ standard — if your neighbor asks you for your coat, give him your damned coat and ask no questions — maybe our good intentions will be enough to get it done.
If not, then maybe not.
Well, until Jesus decides to shed some light, I think it is important to at least admit that racial and ethnic commitments might have a more profound effect on determining the responsibility of the State, than say…a commitment to what the Messiah “meant”.
Russell: I often wish that Jesus would pop up now and then when his name is invoked, kind of like Marshal McLuhan in “Annie Hall”, and set us all straight on what his actual intent was way back when he spoke on that mountain.
Wouldn’t that be great? Although I still think we’d find a way to argue about it.
God Angrily Clarifies:
” So the concern is that the bill won’t make something illegal which is already explicitly illegal?”
It’s already explicitly illegal for illegal immigrants to come here, and stay here, but they do, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions even. Because the government rather relentlessly will not enforce that law.
It’s perfectly rational to look at this plan, note that it lacks any enforcement mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from getting subsidized health care, note that Democrats have rejected proposals to add such a mechanism, and conclude that, while the plan nominally prohibits such subsidy, the intent is that said prohibition will not be enforced.
I might even go so far as to say that asserting the plan won’t cover illegal aliens is close enough to lying for government work.
Still, Wilson was guilty of a serious breach of decorum; You’re not supposed to mention that the Emperor is naked in his presence.
Brett Bellmore:
You summed it up perfectly.
There are enforcement provisions in other parts of the bill.., but not in the illegal immigrants section.
And if it wasn’t an intended omission, why not correct it now, and remove it as an impediment to consensus?.
“I’m talking to all of you, here!” continued God,
If God was God why would he/she/it have to talk? Wouldn’t the All Powerful Omniscient simply transfer those words/ideas via thought directly in every human brain on the planet? You know, Godly WiFi.
It’s already explicitly illegal for illegal immigrants to come here, and stay here, but they do, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions even. Because the government rather relentlessly will not enforce that law.
Enforcing these laws — especially as regards healthcare — is prohibitively expensive, politically stupid, and immoral to boot. Far cheaper to let them buy healthcare than to deal with the emergency room bills and drug resistant pathogens that enforcement results in.
Brett,
How do we know that YOU ARE NOT AN ILLEGAL ALIEN? I’m serious. How do we know? What proof can you offer? A birth certificate?? Bwahahahaha.
You would not buy health insurance from a government agency, even if it was cheaper and better than any policy available from a private for-profit company. I get that. My opinion of how sane your choice would be doesn’t matter, because it’s YOUR choice.
But if you seriously want various rights and privileges to be reserved for legal residents, then of course you must favor enforcing those restrictions by legislation. Legislation that requires job seekers and insurance buyers to prove their legal status. By presenting documentation of some sort.
Note that “I am Brett Bellmore; look at my face; do I look like an illegal alien, you jack-booted thug?” does not count as “documentation”. So how do you feel about a national ID card?
Show us your papers, Brett.
–TP
A.J. “Enforcing these laws — especially as regards healthcare — is prohibitively expensive, politically stupid, and immoral to boot. Far cheaper to let them buy healthcare than to deal with the emergency room bills and drug resistant pathogens that enforcement results in,”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. We already have an inexpensive enforcing mechanism available: it’s called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements). It’s mostly data entry, punch in names and dates from social security card or license, see if the person checks out.
Or we do nothing, no checks, no verification, and 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants sign up, and the rest of us end up subsidizing them to the cost of 20 or 30 billion dollars annually.
Or don’t you understand how Hr3200 determines how much you pay? It’s a sliding scale — the less you have, the less you pay, and if you have no income, you don’t pay anything. Guess where the majority of those millions of illegals fit in the scale.
While this is a lengthy thread, and my comment wouldn’t add much, I’m still moved to ask Marty – what exactly is the best vehicle for Christian charity? The market?
I’m not laughing.
Finally, the White House got it:
“WASHINGTON – The White House strengthened its stand against health care coverage for illegal immigrants Friday, and a pivotal Senate committee looked ready to follow its lead.”
(from Associated Press)
Good. Now O’Blah has inched one step closer to getting a meaningful health care bill passed…
Jay Jerome seems to carry the notion of the dirty, diseased illegals infecting our body politic. Given the kind of work illegal immigrants do, and the age ranges involved, it is quite probable that they are much healthier than the average, so concerns of illegal immigrants overwhelming the health system with calls for expensive procedures and drug regimes is more a product of irrational fear of the other.
BTW, the white house has already acknowledged the use of SAVE.
Furthermore, the care that illegal immigrants use, emergency care, is less than 3% of the total cost of health care. While uncompensated care is a big problem, one of the reasons health care is being tackled is because of the number of uninsured Americans. I can’t find any stats that breakdown the costs between illegal immigrants and uncovered Americans, but as there are about 7 million uninsured Americans in California and the total number of illegal immigrants is estimated, nationwide, at 12 million, the concerns over the cost of illegal immigrants are not grounded in the current situation.
Additionally, given the problems with flu pandemics, trying to deny illegal immigrants emergency health care has the effect of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
“Enforcing these laws — especially as regards healthcare — is prohibitively expensive, politically stupid, and immoral to boot.”
Congratulations, AJ, you’ve just proved my point, that the prohibition on illegal aliens getting subsidized medical care is, deliberately, about as likely to be enforced as the prohibition on their being here. LJ backs you up on that, too.
So, yeah, for all practical purposes, he was lying.
Sorry, Brett, you don’t get to be part of the deliberative body that continues to hew to a double standard on the enforcement of promulgation and enforcement of immigration laws and then claim that one person is lying.
Frex, Wilson has only been a representative since 2001, but he voted for the the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which authorized reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants.
Of course, I won’t accuse you of lying when I’m not sure if you are actually aware of the current news, such as this and this, but it might help avoid other people unjustly accusing you of lying.
At any rate, I would again suggest that trying to deny health care to immigrants, given the current potentials of both bird and swine flu is pretty stupid. Unfortunately, I can only explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you, so if you don’t see the problem of potential pandemics, I’ll just have to leave it at that.
It’s funny that someone who is so vehemently opposed to the very existence of the state and its exercises of power wants to wield them so strongly against one particular group of people. One might suppose that other motivations were involved.
“Sorry, Brett, you don’t get to be part of the deliberative body that continues to hew to a double standard on the enforcement of promulgation and enforcement of immigration laws and then claim that one person is lying.”
You damned well do if you weren’t in the majority on that decision. Just because you’re a member of a legislature doesn’t make you guilty of things you voted against. Now, show that Wilson voted against enforcing immigration laws, and you’ve got a point.
“At any rate, I would again suggest that trying to deny health care to immigrants”
My wife is an immigrant; Perhaps you meant illegal immigrants?
I am well aware of the medical argument for treating everyone (For pandemic diseases…) without respect to the legality of their status here. It’s perfectly possible to LIE about a pragmatically desirable policy, you know.
In any event, I’m sure you understand the response: That it wouldn’t be an issue if the government weren’t deliberately not enforcing our immigration laws in the first place. And the problem could equally be resolved by kicking them out of the country.
Sorry, I forgot you were going to wave your wife around to prove your non racist street cred.
Brett, you do realize the primary reason for large numbers of illegal immigrants in the US is because the “business community” likes to have a bunch of workers they can pay less than minimum wage, don’t have to worry about reporting the employers for OSHA or other violations, and can basically use as indentured servants (at best) due to their “illegal” status, right? That same “business community” that the Republican party invariably favors when the rubber hits the road.
Yeah, I do realize that. I also realize that both parties are in on the scheme.
Wouldn’t the All Powerful Omniscient simply transfer those words/ideas via thought directly in every human brain on the planet?
Maybe he/she/it is and we’re just not listening.
LJ, that’s a pretty strange attitude to take towards what might be regarded as “evidence”.
In any event, did you really expect me to let slide the usual tactic of deliberately conflating legal and illegal immigrants?
I have to jump in here too…Brett, if you’re looking to take to task any particular body for illegal immigration, cast the fickle finger of blame on the GOP for not collaring large employers for hiring them in the first place. As does not need to be reiterated here, but which I will anyway, the right loves illegal immigration for exactly the reasons Nate posted. Yet it’s Obama that’s getting hammered for a state of affairs he didn’t create, and that, given Liberal Japonicus’ legwork in his 09:36 post, is, if not incidental to the health care reforms, marginal at most.
So quit blaming this prez for this. The GOP had, in the not too-distance past, Congress and the White House, and did nothing about this because it was in their interest not to – in all fairness, aided and abetted by a supine Dem who was too afraid of its own shadow. But now some on the right want to feign outrage and build a despicable fence along the border to placate the know-nothings. Shame on them. The illegal immigrant-coverage meme is nothing more than another scare tactic now that the death-panels one is losing its ‘street-cred.’
You know, my uncle on my father’s side served in Korea and was wounded by shrapnel and awaiting evac. The medic said something to the effect of ‘don’t take the gook’, to which my uncle let loose a stream of profanity. The medic said ‘sorry, I thought you were one of the Koreans’
To spell that out for you, I’m sure you’ve considered the impact on emergency medicine that proving immigration status would bring. In fact, I’m sure that you’ve realized that your wife might be the recipient of increased scrutiny, perhaps after a car wreck or maybe something else sudden and you are comfortable exposing her to that risk. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if it is because you think that when they realize what her last name is, the emergency room staff would automatically know that she deserves the American course of treatment, or if you just think that this is just the price we all should pay for keeping illegals from benefiting from our tax dollars.
I’m well aware of Republican complicity in the flood of illegal immigrants, but I’m not going to pretend that the Democrats weren’t in on it, too. With public opinion being so heavily and persistently on the side of stopping illegal immigration, it took both parties to keep the flood going. Both parties are guilty as hell on this subject.
Both parties are guilty as hell on this subject.
So a Republican representative therefore can claim that a Democratic president who has been in office for only 9 months is lying, but he isn’t. A remarkable ethical system you have there, Brett.
Brett:
“I might even go so far as to say that asserting the plan won’t cover illegal aliens is close enough to lying for government work.”
Ah cripes, I know this is revealing of my character, but could you please have your surgery and recover completely with no side effects before I kick that comment’s sorry butt?
Preview: In America, lying pays better in the private sector.
Or we do nothing, no checks, no verification, and 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants sign up, and the rest of us end up subsidizing them to the cost of 20 or 30 billion dollars annually.
Do you have any idea what a head of lettuce would cost if illegals weren’t picking it? If we had to pay a living American wage for farm labor?
Or what it would cost to keep the nation’s hotels, hospitals, and office complexes clean?
Some number of illegals will find a way to game the system and get subsidized health insurance.
Net/net, it’ll be short money, a very small payment for all the cheap labor immigrants bring.
Not saying good, bad, or indifferent. Just saying there’s two sides.
ill-thinking japonicus said: Jay Jerome seems to carry the notion of the dirty, diseased illegals infecting our body politic
This sounds like something a petulant ding-bat would say. But you’re not, right?
Given the kind of work illegal immigrants do, and the age ranges involved, it is quite probable that they are much healthier than the average, so concerns of illegal immigrants overwhelming the health system with calls for expensive procedures and drug regimes is more a product of irrational fear of the other.
Un oh… I spoke too soon. You are a ding-bat, and a racial one to boot.
Right, illegals (mostly from rural and southern Mexico, where life expectancy is about ten years less then the average here, who grew up on nutritionally restricted diets, and have high incidences of whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, measles and even leprosy) are healthier then Americans from various ethnic and/or racial backgrounds, including Black Americans, Asian Americans, Armenian Americans — all of whom, according to your analysis, are physically inferior.
And the emergency room care argument is a red herring. We’re talking about EXTENDED health care, for as long as that person is illegally on the health care dole — and not only that individual person, but all his or her relatives, and family. $30 or $40 billion a year, for decades. Not emergency services, but regular checkups, blood tests, chest x-rays, physical therapy for sprains and strains etc ad infinitum.
I think Mexicans are entitled to that kind of care — in Mexico. Which has a universal national heath care plan for all eligible residents (but not Americanos, or any other non-citizen, there legally or not) and in some regions even covers dental and mental health care. Instead, they sponge off our system, taking away resources from Americans who need and deserve it.
Mexico Health Care In Mexico, Only For Mexicans!!
American Health Care in the USA, Only For Americans!!!
Well, how come Americans always feel they deserve an extra exclamation point!!!!?
russell: “Do you have any idea what a head of lettuce would cost if illegals weren’t picking it? If we had to pay a living American wage for farm labor?”
You should put that argument where the sun don’t shine.
We do have a guest worker program, in case you’ve forgotten. We can raise or lower those numbers, as necessary. And the price of a head of lettuce isn’t going to change much because of it.
Same goes for hotel workers. The percent of illegals working in Las Vegas hotels, for example, is minimal. Plus you see large numbers of maids and hospitality and maintenance workers from Eastern Europe and Asia. Staunching the flow of illegals from Mexican and Latin America isn’t going to effect room rates in Vegas, we can bring in more guest-workers from other nations, including Africa and Asia, to balance out the racial and ethnic and national mix of peoples we invite here, now way out of whack from the tsunami of Hispanics who have flooded the nation since the last one-time amnesty went in to effect that was supposed to control the problem.
And if we stop the illegal flow of immigrants into this country, and the cost of labor goes up in those industries where illegals tend to find work — construction, landscaping, restaurants — and Americans now out of work, and on welfare or other public assistance because of it, or barely scraping by because the influx of cheap illegal labor depressed their livelihood, go back to work at living wages, won’t we be better off paying a little more at the front end, but benefiting greatly at the back end?
Or are you happy letting us turn into a half Hispanic nation, half ‘other.’??
“Do you have any idea what a head of lettuce would cost if illegals weren’t picking it? If we had to pay a living American wage for farm labor?”
Off hand, I’d guess that, in the short run, it would cost us about as much as we’d save on unemployment benefits for Americans.
Right, illegals (mostly from rural and southern Mexico, where life expectancy is about ten years less then the average here, who grew up on nutritionally restricted diets, and have high incidences of whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, measles and even leprosy) are healthier then Americans from various ethnic and/or racial backgrounds, including Black Americans, Asian Americans, Armenian Americans — all of whom, according to your analysis, are physically inferior.
Some projection on aisle 5. Given that those rural Mexicans are taking up physical labor like harvesting crops and construction and such, chronic conditions might work against them pursuing that kind of work. Do try and keep up with the logic here.
And the emergency room care argument is a red herring. We’re talking about EXTENDED health care, for as long as that person is illegally on the health care dole — and not only that individual person, but all his or her relatives, and family. $30 or $40 billion a year, for decades. Not emergency services, but regular checkups, blood tests, chest x-rays, physical therapy for sprains and strains etc ad infinitum.
Because illegal immigrants are all about getting off work to have these kinds of extended tests done on them. Every hour they are in an hospital bed means more money that they get to send back home. Not to mention physical therapy, extended drug regimes and the delicious hospital food. I’m just surprised that the whole population of Mexico doesn’t move north to take advantage of us.
I’m afraid that you seem to have some problems logically thinking thru some of these points as well as addressing the links and figures I gave that refute the notion that the main or even one of the main problems in increasing medical costs is dealing with illegal immigrants. That you would try to use illegal immigrants (note that you focus on Mexicans, which again suggests you have some issues in that regard) to try and argue against healthcare reform, when there are 47 million Americans currently without insurance, tells me that you are doing the concern troll thing again, but, like when you went off on breasts during your HillaryTroll08, you are losing sight of your main objective by advancing the Hispanic takeover by La Raza meme. (though watch out, the Bellmore household is half Hispanic).
But don’t worry, keep trying, I’m sure you will eventually hit on some playground name to call me that will win you the debate. Cause it sure ain’t going to be logical thinking that gets you there.
Okay, now Jay Jerome AND Brett Bellmore need to prove that THEY are not illegal aliens.
That’s not an insult. I don’t hold the animus for illegal aliens that JJ and BB do. I’m sure that JJ and BB don’t even LOOK like illegal aliens.
But what about Sonya Sotomayor? If SS were applying for a job or for health insurance, do JJ and BB propose that citizens who look like SS must show us their papers, but JJ and BB ought not be required to show us theirs?
Or do JJ and BB propose a national ID card?
–TP
mostly from rural and southern Mexico, where life expectancy is about ten years less then the average here, who grew up on nutritionally restricted diets, and have high incidences of whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, measles and even leprosy
Forgot to note the Dobbs leprosy argument. That’s a winner!
Fixed it for you.
Thanks for that correx. I assumed that the Census Bureau would be exclusive of illegal immigrants, but some googling says that non citizens are somehow included, though I’m not sure how, as it is a survey of about 100,000 households that gives them that number. Here is a discussion of how that figure may under or over count.
liberal confused-icus said: “Do try and keep up with the logic here.”
I’d certainly like to, can you point to it?
And try to understand the flow in context..
.
The comment made was that Mexicans who do those jobs are healthier than Americans. It’s a racist assumption made with no corroborating evidence, and on the face of it stupid and uninformed.
I pointed out that Mexicans from rural and southern regions of Mexico are likely to be less healthy. That doesn’t mean, as you dumbly asserted, they still couldn’t perform the jobs described — only that the original assertion they were healthier than Americans to begin with was unfounded…
I think you’re probably a well-meaning person, but you don’t think clearly, you don’t read clearly, and you constantly misrepresent and distort what people you don’t agree with say.
For instance, you said I’m against ‘healthcare reform’ — but I’m in favor of universal health care reform, and have said so numerous times in comments here.
But I have reservations about some of the suggested provisions. I want a plan that will cover the 47 million ‘Americans’ currently uncovered, a plan that will work, and not collapse like a house of cards because it’s under-financed, or overextended. And no, I’m not in favor of covering an additional 6-million illegal residents in addition to the 47 million currently uncovered.
And what’s your problem with Hillary’s breasts? Do you have problems with breasts in general, or just Hillary’s? Do they frighten you, intimidate you? Do you have bad dreams about them smothering you in your sleep? If and when we do get national health care coverage hopefully it’ll include mental health sessions where you can get some therapy.
Meanwhile I suggest you avoid celebrations like the Macy’s Day Thanksgiving Parade where huge breast-like balloons floating overhead may send you into conniptions of fear.
Tony P: “But what about Sonya Sotomayor? If SS were applying for a job or for health insurance, do JJ and BB propose that citizens who look like SS must show us their papers, but JJ and BB ought not be required to show us theirs?”
I don’t know what BB thinks and won’t speak for him.
Yeah, I think Sonya should show papers. And everyone else who signs up. Like you have to do when you apply for a US passport. Or the same level of identification you have to show when you apply for Social Security benefits.
Plus, there should be random checks, to make sure the documentations presented are authentic, not forgeries, or identification from someone else who died… In other words have mechanisms to check for frauds of various kinds. Same as we do for other entitlement programs now.
Charles WT wrote: “…, when there are 47 million
Americanspeople living in America currently without insurance, …”You ommitted the last paragraph of the article, which restores the number to 47 million AMERICANS…
So Obama is sloppy by saying it is for “Americans” but not accounting for the noncitizens, which leaves him off by about 22 percent. Yet it’s likely his error is counterbalanced to some extent by the large number of people who have lost insurance during the recession. So we rate his statement Mostly True.
“Or are you happy letting us turn into a half Hispanic nation, half ‘other.’??”
This comment from Jay Jerome speaks for itself.
liberal confused-icus said
I guess you didn’t understand that I was suggesting the name calling didn’t work, not that you should keep doing it.
Let me try and explain this to you slowly. Since the population of those seeking work is not the entire population of rural Mexico, your point about them not being as healthy is not relevant. Of course, you may be thinking that because you believe that 3 generation families are sneaking across the border to enjoy what we have to offer here in the U S of A.
We’re talking about EXTENDED health care, for as long as that person is illegally on the health care dole — and not only that individual person, but all his or her relatives, and family.
Logically, it makes more sense to have one young adult come here to work and send the money back than it does to have abuela and abuelo and the rest of the clan come up here and live with the American cost of living. This is also why you don’t see extended families wading across the Rio Grande.
You do see how this logically deflates your claim that it is extended families of illegal immigrants that are costing us?
I also would recommend that you go a little easy on the mental health accusations, that’s considered to be bad form around here.
Last night[Sept 10th], President Obama stated: “We are the only democracy—the only advanced democracy on Earth—the only wealthy nation—that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”
[…]
The Census report indicates that of the 46 million uninsured individuals, 34 million were native born and 2.8 million were naturalized citizens. The report thus shows that there were 36.8 million uninsured U.S. citizens (native born and naturalized) in 2008. An alternative calculation includes legal immigrants, which based on a figure from the Pew Hispanic Center would bring the total to something like 39 million.
[…]
Counting the Uninsured: 46 Million or “More than 30 Million”?
(though watch out, the Bellmore household is half Hispanic).
Filipino, IIRC. But still, yeah, it’s not the magical talisman against racism he seems to think it is. At least JJ makes it quite clear: He does NOT like Latinos.
It’s not about race at all, so far as I’m concerned: My preferred immigration policy would be to throw our borders open to anybody who met three simple criteria:
1. No criminal record. And anything that’s not a crime here shouldn’t count. We’ve got enough native born criminals, we don’t need to import any.
2. English literate. If you’ve got two groups in a country who can’t speak to each other, you’ve got two polities, not one. That’s bad for domestic tranquility.
3. Either college educated, or has some comparable work skill. We can only admit a finite number of people, and we’ve got far more than that wanting to come: We can afford to be picky.
See? No mention of race at all.
My objection to letting illegal immigrants in, while barring most people who are willing to comply with our immigration laws, is that in effect we’ve set up a filter at our border that selects for people who have contempt for our laws. Not too smart, if you ask me.
My objection to letting illegal immigrants in, while barring most people who are willing to comply with our immigration laws, is that in effect we’ve set up a filter at our border that selects for people who have contempt for our laws. Not too smart, if you ask me.
So your “solution” is to ensure that there are even more illegal immigrants? Well, you are a Republican: the more illegal immigrants, the more cheap labor to be exploited. As you say, it’s not smart, but it is profitable, and I guess that’s why you want more people coming in illegally than legally.
Phil said:”He does NOT like Latinos.”
Oh, really… how’d you come up with that asinine assumption?
Hispanics, as people, are like everyone else, some good, some not.
What I don’t like is the uncontrolled, unending Hispanic mostly Mexican migration/incursion we’ve been experiencing over the past four decades.
No other industrial nation on this planet allows unregulated immigration. And if you think an open border policy is a good thing, you’re retarded.
Jesurgislac said to Brett: “So your “solution” is to ensure that there are even more illegal immigrants? Well, you are a Republican”
How’d you come up with that convolution of logic?
And the ‘you are Republican’ comment — very sophomoric. It’s the equivalent drivel you hear on right wing blogs when they’re blanket criticizing Democrats and Liberals…
DNFTT.
My objection to letting illegal immigrants in, while barring most people who are willing to comply with our immigration laws, is that in effect we’ve set up a filter at our border that selects for people who have contempt for our laws.
You refer to our politicians as sociopaths, our government as the mafia, and barely accept the legitimacy of the existence of the state at all, and you worry about OTHER people having contempt for the law? Where are you from originally, Through the Looking-Glass?
What Jes said.
Really.
[i]And the ‘you are Republican’ comment — very sophomoric.
liberal confused-icus said
You should put that argument where the sun don’t shine.
ill-thinking japonicus said[/i]
Also.
Grow up, kid, or go back to the playground.
“How’d you come up with that convolution of logic?”
It does sort of vaguely make sense, IF you are committed to pretending that enforcing immigration laws is categorically impossible. If you make that asinine assumption, then any condition at all on immigration amounts to a decision to have more illegal immigrants.
If you’ve got two groups in a country who can’t speak to each other, you’ve got two polities, not one. That’s bad for domestic tranquility.
since when has everybody in America spoken the same language ?
If you [assume enforcing immigration laws is impossible], then any condition at all on immigration amounts to a decision to have more illegal immigrants.
Erm, no. Not even close. Not even vaguely. That doesn’t even begin to make sense.
Assuming an invariant flow of immigrants (which seems implicit in your asserted hypothetical assumption that enforcement is impossible), any tightening of the the conditions under which legal immigration could occur would be a decision to have more illegal immigrants, and any loosening of the conditions under which legal immigration could occur would be a decision to have less illegal immigrants, even if the loosening was less than removing all restrictions. Period, full stop. It ain’t rocket science. Your proposal is a tightening of immigration conditions. Therefore, it calls for more illegal (and less legal) immigration.
Brett: IF you are committed to pretending that enforcing immigration laws is categorically impossible.
I’m going with the evidence, Brett. I live on an island – England/Scotland/Wales. You don’t. And if the UK can’t stop people from getting in illegally – and we can’t – the US absolutely can’t.
Where you have people who need to come and work in your country to earn a living because they cannot earn a living in their own – usually thanks to your own country’s exploitative economic policies, and the UK is as guilty of this as the US – then either they can be let to come in legally, with the right to work and the right not to be exploited, or you can wave a hand and claim it’s now illegal – so they come in anyway, at a much higher cost to human life, and work illegally, being exploited at low wage jobs in poor working conditions.
This happens in the UK, where we have a natural barrier all around the island. This happens in the US, where there’s no natural barrier, just a line drawn on the ground. Trying to stop illegal immigration by denying legal immigration is like trying to stop illegal abortions by denying legal abortions – it’s as futile, as cruel, and as costly in human lives.
“since when has everybody in America spoken the same language ?”
Since when has a sprained wrist been any justification for volunteering to have your leg broke?
You should put that argument where the sun don’t shine.
Let me begin my reply by inviting you to kiss my sweet white behind.
Now that the niceties are out of the way:
First, I wasn’t making an argument. It was just an observation. A lot of people come to the US illegally. They live here, work here, pay rent and taxes.
The crux of your argument seems to be that Obama’s health insurance proposals are flawed because some of these illegal immigrants will find a way to fraudulently sign up for coverage.
I’m sure that’s true. Some of them will.
Are we going to begin evaluating all of our public policies in terms of whether somebody, somewhere, is going to abuse them?
And WTF to Hillary’s breasts have to do with anything? You’re a strange cat, Jay.
And if we stop the illegal flow of immigrants into this country, and the cost of labor goes up in those industries where illegals tend to find work — construction, landscaping, restaurants — and Americans now out of work, and on welfare or other public assistance because of it, or barely scraping by because the influx of cheap illegal labor depressed their livelihood, go back to work at living wages, won’t we be better off paying a little more at the front end, but benefiting greatly at the back end?
Yeah, I think we would. And illegal immigrant labor is just the tip of the iceberg.
Imagine if WalMart, for an example, charged 5% more for everything they sell, but sourced all of their products in the poor rural communities they claim to be serving so well? Or paid their people a decent living wage?
Wouldn’t that be freaking great? Wouldn’t everyone be better off?
And I’m only singling out WalMart rhetorically here, the same could apply to any of 100 other big-box outfits.
Sadly, the great minds of this nation don’t appear to have any way of thinking about questions of value other than in terms of reducing cost.
I blame the investment capital mindset.
And for the record, my solution to the problem is to let anyone in who wants to come, work, and make a life. With a fast path to official status and, eventually, citizenship, so that the greedy mofos who currently exploit illegal labor won’t be able to.
My father’s people came here in the late 18th C. as indentured labor. That means for the first seven years they were here, somebody else virtually owned their sorry behinds, and no doubt worked them like mules.
My mother’s grandparents came here in the nineteen-aughts from Italy. Neither of them ever became fluent in English. My great grandfather dug holes in the ground for a living.
It’s the American way.
Go to NYC, ride the subway, and you’re traveling through a tunnel that my great-grandfather dug. Next time you go there, say thanks that you didn’t have to do it.
Or are you happy letting us turn into a half Hispanic nation, half ‘other.’??
Who the hell cares?
“Hispanic” people, by which we mean Spanish-speaking people from a variety of ethnic extractions, have been living in large areas of what are now the US since at least 100 years before any permanent English-speaking settlement.
They were here first, dude.
I think JJ and Brett should be worried. A bunch of non-whites who do not share their worldview and their tribal commitments are flooding into the US. These new Americans (who see North and South America as One America) have no respect for the myths of the “individual” (at least in JJ’s and Brett’s understanding) and think market forces are about power relationships and NOT merit, are flooding into the United States. Even politically conservative folks of color are not slaves to that myth. Once white folks like JJ and Brett are revealed for the tribalists they are, and cannot hide behind “limited government” myth, these Brown and Yellow hordes are going to make the United States the rightful social democratic nation it is struggling to become…Canada and Sweden will melt with envy! No wait, Canada ain’t got nothing to worry about, cuz, their American brothers! (Remember those Brown folks consider the Far North “American” as well!)
Yeah, that’s one take on it. Another is that the Democratic party has set out to implement Bertolt Brecht’s “Solution”. And while I don’t think American culture is perfect, of all the countries you could set out to recreate here, why in God’s name pick Mexico?
I suppose it makes sense, if you’ve got yourself lined up to be the PRI.
Another is that the Democratic party has set out to implement Bertolt Brecht’s “Solution”
Who are the American Volk?
Public Radio International?
Public Radio International?
You’ve stumbled onto the great Democratic master plan, Slarti.
Enjoy Rush and Beck while you can, folks. Come the revolution, it’s gonna be Tavis Smiley 24/7.
Brett,
The US is already acting like a third world nation, its final steps before the Latin Americanization process is finished, is about a generation or two away. Your kids will suck at the federal teet, much like you did, except they’ll be honest about it.
The US is already acting like a third world nation, its final steps before the Latin Americanization process is finished
The US may well be on its way to being a banana republic, but the number of people living here whose first language is Spanish has f*** all to do with it.
“teat”
There are some sociologists who agree with many US nativists, that the US will become a type of, or resemble a Latin American nation. Not in language, but in attitudes concerning racial and ethnic hierarchies and religious perspectives. Phenotype, class and “culture,” and not blood, become the dominant forms in which “othering” (or creating the other, I never know what terms are fashionable) is created. This will re-shape the old forms of Anglo-American understandings of “individualism” and capitalism, to resemble the formations developed in other Euro-Social Welfare States.
In this thinking, the right-winger’s fears are totally justified. They are the last gasp of an Olde America.
“teat”
The bountiful bosom that is the American federal government.
A vampire that has to suck blood to fill that bosom.
I thought SOD meant to say federal tweet, given that we will all have our brains wired to receive twitter feeds in the future.
There are some sociologists who agree with many US nativists, that the US will become a type of, or resemble a Latin American nation. Not in language, but in attitudes concerning racial and ethnic hierarchies and religious perspectives.
I may regret asking, but would you care to unpack this a bit?
What are “Latin American nations” like? Are we talking socialist workers’ paradise, or reactionary military dictatorship? Or maybe something in between?
What “attitudes concerning racial and ethnic hierarchies and religious perspectives” are you talking about? Are European looking people going to lord it over their swarthier countrymen? I thought we’d been there and done that, or were still doing that. Are we all going to become Roman Catholic?
In short, what the hell are you on about?
“Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.”
I figured we had a pretty good bulwark against the pernicious aspects of Catholicism, so I was thinking good food, siestas and Mardi Gras was our destiny. Let the Carnival begin!
Spanish colonialism went from genocidal to “absorbing” indigenous cultures.
An example of this is the way the Cherokee Nation was treated by the growing US Empire. Although the Cherokee Nation had adopted most of Anglo-American culture (even having slaves!) they were still “cleared” for Anglo/White expansion. Even though many non-whites embraced the Imperial culture’s religions and philosophies, Anglo-American notions of race and ethnicity prevented non-whites to be, legally, full members. Yellow, Red, Brown, Black, could never be fully “right.” Within the Spanish colonies, the Cherokee nation would have been “absorbed,” since they embraced the culture, and its leaders would have become elites with the myriad Spanish Elites, Portugal in Brazil had similar experiences. It wasn’t ideal, but after a few hundred years of genocide, “absorption” was less deadly. As a result, the notion of mestiza nation (Mexico) and racial democracy (Brazil) became the rallying cry around which nation and ethnicity begin to become forged. Although the US began using the Melting Pot notion as a national narrative, the “one-drop” rule seemed to suggest that the “melting” would be among the European ethnicities, thus whiteness remaining pure/civilized.
The Latin American nations have kind of failed to recognize their own racism, because of the more “aggressive” racism in the US. Whether they are Communist Cuba or right-wing Chile, since the racism was Latin American (which now meant mistiza or democratically racial, Americans aren’t the only ones who practice exceptionalism) it was “better”. But since the Civil Rights, the US has slowly resembled many of the Latin American nations emphasis on “cultures of the poor” and phenotype as “othering” markers.
The Anglo-American myth of the State and the Individual will not hold with the influx of Asian and Latin American migrants and their children. Huntington was paranoid, but it don’t make him wrong!
I don’t fully buy the whole thing, but it’s the most interesting stuff I’ve heard. I think the sociologist who pushes this is, (?) DeSilva and Kaufmann.
sod,
I’m not familiar with the book you are talking about. so I might be misunderstanding the main thesis, but I think a book that gives an opposite perspective would be _How the Irish became White_ by Noel Ignatiev. Given that Irish were initially considered to be ‘blacks’ until they adopted the viewpoint of the dominant majority (Ignatiev notes that the Irish in Ireland were notable anti-slavery advocates, but that was jettisoned in the US) which seems to contradict your assertion.
Another interesting book that I have mentioned here before is _One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race_ by Scott Malcolmson. He identifies the racial problem in America as one more unique to the idea of historical forgetfulness rather than some sort of limits on assimilation, which I think also goes against the thesis you are presenting (though I am not really sure). I also remember that his section on the Cherokee was quite good if you are interested in that.
I guess the main problem I have with JJ’s arguments is that they were more interesting in the original German.
Someone upthread noted that one of his comments spoke for itself. I don’t think that’s true, because people are still engaging him as if he had something interesting to say.
JJ is very concerned about Hispanic immigration to the United States. Near as I can tell, he thinks there is some arbitrary tipping point where the brownness level of the USA becomes such that it is no longer the same country. He asks if we’re happy with the US turning into a “half-Hispanic” nation. I frankly can’t make myself care what the gene pool in the country looks like, and I can think of factors I’d much rather control for than skin color or language.
Like, say, the propensity for being a racist tool.
SOD, if I understand correctly, you’re saying that Latin American countries, unlike the US, have absorbed racial minorities into the mainstream instead of enslaving them, killing them off, or treating them as second class citizens.
I’m not sure that’s historically accurate, but let’s pretend it is. Why is that bad?
The Anglo-American myth of the State and the Individual will not hold with the influx of Asian and Latin American migrants and their children.
What “myth” is that?
And how is that myth going to be undermined by the immigration of Latin and Asian people?
What other “myth” are they bringing with them that is going to change the “Anglo” myth?
Again, can you explain what the heck you’re talking about?
I know Kaufmann references Ignatiev’s research, so maybe I’m being unclear. Kaufmann agrees with Ignatiev (both are working within the “social construction of race” thesis, Omi & Winant), that the Irish and all other European migrants have to negotiate their position within the racial hierarchy of the US.
Northern Europeans (Norwegians, Dutch, Germans primarily Protestant but not exclusively, Scots and Scot-Irish) are absorbed under the Anglo-Conformity regime and this colors (pun intended) the way “white” is understood. So most of the non-Anglo Northern Europeans eventually begin to understand themselves as “Anglo.” Anglo-Conformity forces Southern and Eastern Europeans into becoming socially “othered” however, legally; there is still room within their notion of “White,” but still have to fight for them. Non-Europeans, are never granted full rights, and are never seen as “capable” of having them.
At the turn of the last century, the Melting Pot regime becomes fashionable among the liberal Anglo-Americans (which are primarily descendants of the British and Northern European stock) to develop a more pluralistic US, which includes the rest of the European immigrants. So, legally, constitutional rights are expanded to include them, but they are still socially “othered” in the US, except in urban areas.
The expansion of the definition of “white” means restrictions on non-whites. Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor by Evelyn Nakano Glenn, and Fit to Be Citizens?: Public Health and Race in Los Angeles, 1879-1939 by Natalia Molina demonstrate how local laws have to figure out how to deal with yellow and brown races within the White/Black binary of US racial constructions. The “One-Drop Rule” and other legally binding laws are created to solidify whiteness.
The willingness of liberal Anglo-Americans (Jane Addams, John Dewey, etc.) to embrace pluralistic notions of nation also gives birth to the “stab-in-the-back” attitudes US nativists have for urban elites.
The Spanish Empire and the resulting Nations which eventually kick them out, operate under different slightly different racial logic. After hundreds of years of genocide, radical assimilation/absorption, meant rejection of indigenous culture, and you were expected to help “get rid” of tribes on the periphery of the empire, which refused absorption. So, we have newly converted Mestizos, assisting in the destruction of indigenous tribes. When Latin American nation-states begin to rebel against the Spanish Empire, the Empire would create alliances with the peripheral tribes, warning them that the new nation-states would treat them worse than the Imperial government. Although most of these new Spanish elites were “pure” Spanish, rebelling against ‘cousins,” most of the rising classes were mixed, and they were just as hostile to the “uncivilized” tribes as well as, the Imperial government. (As an aside, the Spanish of New Mexico never considered themselves part of the new Mexican nation-state, while California and Texas Mexicans had a stronger relationship with the Mexican state, this also informs racial attitudes after the Mexican-American War)
I am not suggesting that Spanish genocide was much more enlightened than American genocide, but it was different and that difference informs the way we understand racial hierarchies today.
On the subject of the “individual.” The myth is that we are all individuals plopped into existence without a social context. It is only the ability to rationally come to decisions recognizing universal truths which really matters, despite your social context. However, the more accurate truth within the Anglo-American tradition is that the “individual” is always assumed to be part of a group, and membership within that group would determine how The State would relate to you. The US government (and those who have powerful influence over it) would determine what kind of “individual” you were and treat you accordingly.
Today, as white liberals and leftists begin to align themselves, once again, with the periphery of US Empire and people of color, these relationships will threaten the generation forged on the last battle over who was white and non-white. Since, using “white” is no longer fashionable, “citizen” and “non-citizen,” I suspect, will be code to hide the last battle.
I think the case of Bhagat Singh Thind, who technically was “Aryan” but could not be “white” is an example of the relatively uncertain way race works and citizenship work. See:
White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race
In most of the ex-Spanish Empire, I suspect there would have been no problem for Singh, as long as he was not “purely” Black, from Africa and not “purely” Indian from the Americas. Some say, Latin America had the “one-drop” rule in reverse.
Jeez, sorry if it’s not clear, but I am working on race/ethnicity and religion, in Los Angeles now and I am behind.
SOD, thanks for taking the time to lay it out, I appreciate it.