Links, Feel The Hate Edition

by: Rob Kailey

Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 15:05:11 PM MST

Larry just posted a diary not too long ago.  I'm not going to elevate it directly to the front because it is essentially just a link to a book, a 372 page book.  It's in PDF format, so I suggest it be downloaded and read at whatever leisure you find.  The title of the book is "The Nazi Hydra In America".  I have encountered it before, and I support Larry in giving it a wider promotion.

Duganz, at 4 & 20 Blackbirds, exposes Jeff Laszloffy of the Montana Family Foundation for the hateful man he is.  Laszloffy attempts to use the Bible to deliberately and directly attack one of the Montana InterWeb's greatest friends and allies, Jamee Greer.

Lizard, at 4 & 20 Blackbirds, exposes the efforts in Michigan to install an authoritarian regime.  Are we getting the idea that these people hate us yet?

problembear, you know the drill, shows us what I, David Neiwert and many others have been saying for some time. Hate is right here in Montana, and it's growing. What I truly appreciate about problembear's post is that he states the obvious.  One needn't be embarrassed and should be pissed off when pointing out the truth of one's assertions concerning those who hate.  Many on our side are acting like living in this country is some kind of moderated behavior video game.  The opposition is acting like this is Grand Theft Country.  I'm of the opinion that maybe we need to get over the idea that this is some kind of video game.

Still don't believe that the right hates you?  August Pollack spells it out very explicitly.  They Hate You.

One of the things I keep repeating over and over again is how everyone needs to understand that Republicans enjoy hurting other people. More often than not it's simply how much they enjoy doing things that piss off liberals or make ideological opponents angry but at the core of it, they don't care if it's actual physical suffering. It amuses them. Sometime they're honest about it and sometimes they lie and make cutesy little winks--that's honestly why so many teabaggers love Sarah Palin; not because they actually support a fraction of her incoherent babble but because she makes them feel like it's okay to be mean and bitchy and awful to people if you're the one doing it.

...

Half of Americans who vote, vote for people who hate Americans. When we are open about this factoid, things can start to change.

That was actually most of Pollack's post.  I was tempted to post the whole thing, because his middle paragraph deals with exactly why they hate you.  Anybody ever see the movie Mississippi Burning?  Gene Hackman tells a story about his father and a black neighbor's mule.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's fine.  But the moral of his story is very simple:  If you want to feel better about being kicked down, then kick someone else down farther.  That's hate, my good friends.

Perhaps you're still not convinced. Perhaps you want a more analytic view of the situation.  Fine.  Here it is.  Notice the very specific efforts that are being taken to hurt you and I and the middle class and women and ...

If you need an example, look no further than here.  We are becoming slaves, highly profitable slaves, right at the root of our existence.  To even have our progeny born requires our service to profit.

They have the tools to hurt you, and they're giving those tools a workout.  Our ability to fight back is at best weak.  Our national production is geared only towards mistake and violence.  And our press celebrates that.

So.  How do we fight back?  I wish I had a clue.  Others will tell you to organize!  I think that's a hella great idea.  But it's not certain.  See, I'm a process guy, not a theoretician.  So I can't paint a path out of this malaise, but I can certainly identify how to make it worse.  This is how.  We stand 4 Senators and one President away from giving up the whole ball of wax to those who hate us.

There's an idiot out there in InterWeb land who really doesn't like me.  He posted some nonsense about how anything these GOoPer goons, who really hate us, do can't be undone after we all learn our progressive lesson at the feet of Ralph Nader, presumably. He's wrong.  There are websites and people out there who recognize that damage to individuals can't be "undone".  I'll cast my lot with those folk, if'n you don't mind.

Withholding My Productivity

by: Rob Kailey

Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 16:42:54 PM MST

I have been neglecting LitW.  Gone Galt maybe.  I am shamed.  Sickness to insanity.  Are we the last one's left alive?

Red Sector A

Blogroll Amnesty Day

by: Rob Kailey

Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 14:17:17 PM MST

Yes, hello, and welcome to Blogroll Amnesty Day.  In case you are unfamiliar, here would be the rules.

Over the next ~mumble mumble~ I will be updating the links on this blog to reflect our fallen heroes (no longer blogging) and promote our newest shining stars.

In the spirit of the day, I cajole and implore you to accept these worthy reads.

From Eternity To Here.

D. Gregory Smith is pretty much what the Internets were created for (by Fat Al Gore, who is Fat.)  Smith gives us information, peace and insight.  If you haven't already, this is a guy who must be blogrolled.

Eddie, Are You kidding?

Dirkstar.  Its fun in a peaceful kind of way.

I urge people to read the state offerings.  4 & 20  Blackbirds continues excellent coverage of state and Western Montana events.

Right now, possibly the best coverage from the legislature is coming from Intelligent Discontent.

And of course, there is always the Twitter.  I am having a difficult time grasping that blogging may dies in favor of short-attention-span-theater.  But what happens happens.  Happy BAD.

Brief admin notes.

by: Rob Kailey

Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 18:26:24 PM MST

1)  Welcome to Doug Coffin and John Bacino, front page posters.  Post away, gentleman.  Hint, hint hint, I would like and appreciate some feminine influence as well ...

2)  There is a one day wait between registration and the ability to post a diary.  This is an anti-spam measure.  As I'm certain some have noticed, spammers love them some diary space.  I've already whacked two of them.  Forcing them to wait a day helps.  I have also begun deleting accounts that have emails such as "fine.Gucci.handbags at yahoo dot com".  I may be wrongish, but I don't think they're here for the discussion ...

3)  There is a one day wait for being able to post comments after registration.  This is also an anti-spam measure.  But it has an added benefit.  It prohibits drive-by flaming. There will be (have been) times that something written here sparks someone's need to respond.  The wait allows them to consider whether they really want to respond or not.  In most cases, the answer would be "No".  The simple request is simple.  Join the community, or don't.  You don't get to have it both ways.

4)  If a person has a need to comment or diary about an issue they see here, but can't because of the previous rules, then it needs to come through me.  Just because they have a beef does not mean that these requests should come through other users.  That sort of defeats the purpose of why these rules were set in the first place (by Jay and Matt, not by me.)  It has already happened on my watch, and I would gladly have proffered Katte's response to post.  This is not the norm, but rather the exception.  Please, my email is public.  Use it if you can't get what you want when you want it.

5)  Don't spam email me with your pet issue as if I will suddenly be a jumping advocate.  I am very sympathetic to most leftward issues.  But when I get 5 emails in a day from an advocate for issue X as if I'm supposed to use my limited time to promote X, well, that's just not going to happen.  We have front page editors now who can deal with a remarkable range of issues in a remarkable range of manners.  Trust them, and trust me.  If you have something you wish promoted, post a diary.  Or email me as a human, a real live concerned human, and not an issue-bot.  I'm not a robot; I'm a Luddite, remember?  So you don't be one either.

6)  Thank you for the readership.  I couldn't mean that more sincerely.  

Admin Notes

by: Rob Kailey

Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 16:38:39 PM MST

1)  Matthew Koehler has been elevated to front page post status, that is if I have done so correctly (always open to question.)  His issues may often be singular, and his statements may not always meet with approval.  I don't care.  He has a great deal to say of importance to the left.  That I do care about.  Which leads to ...

2)  Thank you all for the well wishes and encouragement you have left in email, comment and link.  I just hope that we are all up front about this.  I am not Matt Singer, or Jay Stevens, and I can't even begin to fill their shoes; nor do I intend to try.  What I do intend is this ...

3)  Keep this site running.  That means we need content, community and activity.  I will treat them in discordant order.  Activity:

A)  Please comment.  Just 'cause I watched Kill Bill 1 recently, I have to quote:  If you have anything to say, now's the f'ing time.

B)  I've already made the plea for diaries, and being a beggar, I will make it again. Post what you have.  Do it under your own name, and that's a huge bonus big plus extra good.  But if you have anything to add, post it.

c)  Rate.  Matt stopped by today and reminded us all of the power we have as a community.  We can rate comments.  If you think someone is trolling, say so.  If you think someone has something great to say, then damned well say so.  The complaints about such?  Well that's my problem, isn't it?  And hopefully you'll be surprised at how easy it is for me to deal with it.  Which also too,

Community.

We're in this together.  I only agreed to take this gig because I believe that the left should have a significant voice.  Matt and Jay built the megaphone.  It seems it's time we use it.  But there is a problem now, isn't there?  Democrats don't like the left, and the left doesn't like Democrats, and radicals don't like centrists, and the blue dogs ... well nobody really likes them.

It's probably time that I clarify exactly where I'm coming from.  I call myself a "moderate", some would say centrist.  Yet every time I've taken a test to peg me on a political scale, I've landed just slightly to the right of Leon Trotsky.  In this Amurkin world, that makes me a moderate, and hopefully won't get me an ice pick through the head. But Montana is truly center right, and moving rightward with every breath we all draw.  So where is this website?

Simple.  It is "Left" in the West.  I've argued before that it is not "Democrats" in the West.  It isn't, and that needs to be known.  I have no intention of administrating this website for the benefit of Democrats at the expense of the left. Some may argue that I am not fulfilling the desires of Matt and Jay.  I'm not convinced that's what I'm doing, nor do I really care.  I have been tasked with keeping this website running, and that I will do.  And for that, I need the left.

(We'll discuss my love affair with Democrats as time goes by.)

4)  People needn't worry about trolls. I know, now more than ever, that many have never commented or participated here, yet read and want participation.  Folks, I've been at this a long time.  I can recognize a troll about a mile away.  A few will stop coming here simply because I am now an admin.  That's a good thing.  The others?  My hammer is named Troll's Bane, and I have no problem using it. Seriously, if you want to be a part of this community, do so. I ask you to trust me to take care of the rest.  That's my job, and that I will do.        

IT LIVES!

by: Rob Kailey

Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 14:42:30 PM MST

Greetings.  I am Rob Kailey.  I will be your host this evening, and hopefully for some time to come.  Matt and Jay have offered me an admin position here at Left in The West; a position which, with no small amount of trepidation, I have accepted.  The effort to keep this blog active is ongoing.  Though Matt and Jay are irreplaceable, hopefully myself and others can continue to provide you greedy fiends the content you crave.

Kindly keep in mind that I am only an administrator here, and a neWb at that.  I'm still trying to figure out the bells and whistles (Hey, Matt!  what does this BIG RED button do?) and all patience would be appreciated.  As time goes on, we'll see about providing a wealth of quality writing for you.  Relevant and insightful diaries are appreciated now possibly more than ever.  Given the rather decisive conclusion to the last cycle of shouting, it should be the perfect time for a rematch.  What say you?

So, belly up to the bar.  The next game is about to begin ...  

And this time I mean it...

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 18:52:55 PM MST

The decision has been percolating for months. I'm tired of my bottomless RSS feed. I'm tired of watching Twitter and Facebook scroll by. I'm tired of combing the Internet for something to write about two, three times a day, every day, whether I feel like writing or not. I'm tired of the ravenous, insatiable trolls, the toxicity that the isolated, anonymity the Internet abets, and all of the stupid little rules we had to make to contain it. But most of all, I need to move on. I need the time and attention back. My job's contract is up at the end of this year, and I'm planning on taking the winter off, doing odd-jobs around the house, and mulling over my options.

Blogging has been a thrill, and it's been a grind. I'll always value the opportunity blogging gave me as a political outsider to have a voice, and have folks listen, push back, create dialog about government and power. But most of all, I'll value the friendships I formed among the activists, politicians, and media I met along the way. There are horrible people in politics, but there are many good-hearted idealists of all ideologies, too, enough to create a tenuous balance. The one solace I have in the wake of these midterm elections is knowing that a few friends of mine with conservative views and honest hearts are happy today. I'd name all these friends here, but not only is there not enough room, but I don't want to stain their reputations by associating them with me in print.

And of the friends I've made on the way, I feel especially connected to my comrades-at-keyboards, the denizens of mothers' basements across the state, the vibrant, eclectic, and combative pajama-clad members of the Montana blogsphere. To Pogie, Wulfgar!, Shane Mason, JC, Cowgirl, Dave Crisp, Ed Kemmick, Cece, Gregg Smith, Eric Coobs, and Mark and Steve Tokarski I owe thanks for their links and comments and observations and support and occasional barbs. Of all the rightie bloggers, none's infuriated me more than Dave Budge; and that fury's driven me to clarify my views, question my beliefs, and work harder at understanding progressivism, all good things - although, to tell the truth, if I ever met him at a bar, I don't know if I'd slug him or buy him a beer. Probably both. Thanks to Pete Talbot for being a good Missoula friend always willing to listen to my bullsh*t and for picking up the slack at the b'birds. A special shout-out goes to jhwygirl and her complete takeover of my first blog, 4&20 blackbirds. If there's one thing I can clearly claim to be proud of, it's convincing her to blog. Montana's a better place for it.

But the one person I owe most of my thanks to is Matt Singer. He got me into this mess in the first place. He told me to start a blog, guided me through the political landscape, and showed me how people can matter in politics. Hanging out with Matt brought me to door-knocking and phone-banking and organizing. He's been like a mentor to me, and a good friend, too, always free with his couch and beer. Plus he happens to be the hardest-working gun-totin', rootin-tootin-est cowpoke activist thar is, bar none! Thanks, Matt.

One thing I think I can say is that I tried to write every post with honesty. I avoided rumors and never made sh*t up. I never wrote a word on anybody else's behalf. I never traded posts for favors. I tried to be the best Jay Stevens I could, and tell you exactly what I thought. I hope it served you well.

So...what about those "parting shots" I mentioned? I thought I'd just write a few last, contemplative posts to leave you with, a kind of last snapshot standing outside the fully packed family wagon before I climb in and drive off...

Update: Just to be clear, I am not quitting progressive politics or writing about politics. Just the daily grind of blogging, and here at LiTW. I live in Pennsylvania; it was always a fool's errand to try to keep up with local Montana politics from here...

About that Cowgirl post...

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 13:19:22 PM MST

Everybody's talking about it. And you probably want to know what LiTWers think about it all, etc & co.

I'll start with the easy stuff first. The "man purse" post was unfortunate; Cowgirl got called out; she apologized. The incident is in no way representative of anything larger, unlike other recent homophobic comments that were representative of a movement's ties to anti-gay activists, militia groups, white supremacists, and other undesirables. The post isn't even representative of Cowgirl's views on LGBT rights, which she ardently supports. My only regret about the whole thing is that I wish I had the thoughtfulness to have called out Cowgirl before Jamee Greer did.

If Matt Gouras had written the incident up for the AP simply to "balance" the recent Tea Party comments, I'd call it bullsh*t journalistic hack-ery and false equivalency. But Gouras - clumsily - used the incident to unload everything he knows about Cowgirl onto the public. Posting the Department of Labor documents that weren't available to the public - the location of an Internet hookup in the state Capitol Cowgirl was using - etc & company. There are implications here - the worst being that Cowgirl is blogging on the state taxpayer dime for unnamed public officials in Helena - but no evidence. After all, Gouras' implications have explanations: Cowgirl's not a state worker; Cowgirl's a state worker, but blogging on personal time; Cowgirl's getting her "scoops" from tips sent her way, not fed to her by an overlord (lord knows my inbox is filled with innuendo, gossip, and tips); etc & co. That is, I don't know how, where, and when Cowgirl blogs. Unless there's proof of wrong-doing, I'm going to assume she's following the law and acting ethically.

As for Cowgirl and Left in the West: well, we aired our opinion about freeing Cowgirl from our front-page status back in July on the blog. Basically we felt featuring an anonymous blogger affected our credibility. Our readers know who we are and our professional political relationships and can easily place our posts in that context. Throwing an anonymous blogger into the mix implied -- to our readers -- that we approved and abetted their views, and that their opinions were being elevated under our "authority." In reality, we don't have the time to impose strict editorial guidelines, and have no interest in dictating the ideology of diarists, and we liked Cowgirl because she wrote posts that sparked  controversy, not because of any camp or faction she may have belonged to. But we were called out by some folks we respect, so we decided to change our policy.

On a more general note, I still strongly believe in anonymity for bloggers. There are people who would face professional or personal retribution for expressing their opinions and deserve a shield for free expression. Some great, well-thought-out commentary comes from anonymous sources, and I'd hate to lose that. That said, I don't think anonymity should be used to free bloggers or commenters from issuing baseless accusations or rumor. But then, that should go for everyone.

But I do find all of this fascinating. The Internet is a big, chaotic place with all kinds of information, little of it regulated or policed. Imposing etiquette, standards, and ethics on all the various sites and writers the way we typically do in print media is impossible. That means the onus of sifting through information and enforcing an ethos of responsibility onto writers falls on us, the reader. We need to read everything critically and reward those who do well with our clicks.

Are we up to it?

"Bush wasn't an aberration"

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 09:13:22 AM MST

It's not the first message from the White House chiding lefties to get over themselves and come back to the polls in November. In Madison this week, Obama urged students to vote in the mid-terms. "The biggest mistake we can make," said the President, "is to let disappointment or frustration lead to apathy and indifference." And, of course, V-P Biden urged Democrats to "remind our base constituency to stop whining," saying the president has done "an incredible job."

Well...er...hm. I now turn to Peter Daou who, in a post excoriating the Obama administration over its invocation of state secrets in request to dismiss a lawsuit against the assassination order out on US citizen al-Aulaqui, explains why it is liberal bloggers and progressive activists don't "stop whining":

Virtually all the liberal bloggers who have taken a critical stance toward the administration have one thing in common: they place principle above party. Their complaints are exactly the same complaints they lodged against the Bush administration. Contrary to the straw man posed by Obama supporters, they aren't complaining about pie in the sky wishes but about tangible acts and omissions, from Gitmo to Afghanistan to the environment to gay rights to secrecy and executive power...

As president, Obama has done much good and has achieved a number of impressive legislative victories. He is a smart, thoughtful and disciplined man. He has a wonderful family. His staff (many of whom I've worked with in past campaigns) are good and decent people trying to improve their country and working tirelessly under extreme stress. But that doesn't mean progressives should set aside the things they've fought for their entire adult life. It doesn't mean they should stay silent if they think the White House is undermining the progressive cause....

From gay rights to executive power to war to the environment, the left increasingly believes the Obama White House lacks the moral courage to undo Bush's radicalism. If anything, the Aulaqi case is an indication Obama will go further than Bush to "prove" his strength.

When the Obama administration appeared to collude with BP to bury the Gulf spill, squandering a historic opportunity to reverse the anti-green tide, it was a moment of truth for environmentalists. Now, it is dawning on some Americans that Bush wasn't an aberration and that a Democratic administration will also treat fundamental rights as a mere nuisance.

Point.

We'll let Kevin Drum take the counter-point:

If you're, say, Glenn Greenwald, I wouldn't expect you to buy Obama's defense at all. All of us have multiple interests, but if your primary concern is with civil liberties and the national security state, then the problem isn't that Obama hasn't done enough, it's that his policies have been actively damaging. There's just no reason why you should be especially excited about either his administration or the continuation of the Democratic Party in power.

On the other hand, if your critique is the broader and more common one - that Obama has moved in the right direction but has been too quick to compromise and hasn't accomplished enough - then I think you should take his defense of his record way, way more seriously. It's all too easy...to convince yourself that he could have waved a magic wand and gotten a bigger stimulus and a better healthcare bill and stronger financial regulation and a historic climate bill. But honestly, you have to buy into some pretty implausible political realities to believe that (Olympia Snowe would have voted for a trillion-dollar stimulus, there were Republican votes for a climate bill if only it had been a bigger priority, healthcare reform could have been passed via reconciliation, Harry Reid could have unilaterally ended the filibuster, etc.). The votes just weren't there and the president's leverage over centrist Dems and recalcitrant Republicans just wasn't very strong. Maybe he could have done better, but the evidence says that, at best, he could have done only a smidge better.

Putting aside Drum's creepy, amoral dismissal of civil rights as a "primary concern" for a few dedicated individuals, he's got a point. The real stumbling block of reform and institutional change has been the Senate. When the Obama team pats itself on the back for its accomplishments - a stimulus bill, the bailout, financial reg, healthcare - it's because it was d*mn hard to get those bills passed. And they did it.

But...assassination programs against US citizens isn't nothing. Foot-dragging on DADT isn't nothing, nor was his administration's offensive defense of DOMA. His near absence in the healthcare debate wasn't nothing - some pressure here and there might have got us a public option. But that's assuming he even supported a public option, and you get the feeling he didn't. And who can forget the sordid back-room deal the administration cut with Big Pharma? Which is to say, these things matter, and they haven't been entirely out of Obama's hands.

And then there's Drum mulling over the alternative:

Well, if the prospect of ripping apart healthcare reform, shutting down the government, deep sixing START, slashing social spending, and reliving the glory days of investigations over Christmas card lists isn't enough to get you motivated, I guess I'm not sure what is.

Whee.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are out to get you

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 10:13:30 AM MST

Of course, the majority of criticism against Matt specifically have come from a vocal minority with their own agendas and apparent keen insight into the hearts and minds of people they've never met, and normally I wouldn't bother responding, but during the discussion in the comments, I remembered this quote from the Missoula Independent profile on Singer from way back in 2007:

Not everyone in progressive politics feels comfortable with Singer's dual role as progressive political organizer and left wing blogger. Tester spokesman Matt McKenna says it's hard to know how to deal with the likes of Singer, who wears many-and very different-hats from time to time.

"Left leaning bloggers in Montana are trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up," McKenna says. "Do they want to be journalists, activist, insiders, strategists, or critics? You can't be all of those things. Yet that's what a lot of these guys are trying to do."

McKenna says it can be frustrating dealing with Singer, who at times supports Tester publicly, at times criticizes Tester and other Democrats, and at times attempts to reach out as CEO of Forward Montana for support.

I guarantee you that's a common, unspoken sentiment among many political insiders who are still uneasy with blogs, bloggers, and people like Matt.

It's probably worth reminding everyone, but this is a blog, and meant to be the personal political opinions and policy ideas of its writers. Sometimes our opinions change. Sometimes our interest and enthusiasm about different policies or politicians change. Sometimes our opinions don't match yours.

Gernant answers questions

by: Jay Stevens

Tue May 25, 2010 at 12:50:28 PM MST

Last month,  I sent out a questionnaire about domestic issues to each of the Democratic candidates running to unseat Representative Rehberg. While I did receive a full set of responses from the Gernant campaign, I did not get a response from Melinda Gopher or Dennis McDonald. Sam Rankin did call, and told me that he had made a pledge not to speak until after the primary.

Among the answers Gernant supplied to Pogie was this, on climate change:

I believe scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that our actions contribute to global warming. It's our responsibility to find solutions to this problem. A key part of solving the problem is to promote new, sustainable ways of producing energy. There is great potential in the new energy economy, both in helping our environment and in boosting our state's economy and creating jobs. I've been on a New Energy Tour of Montana and have met with businesspeople throughout the state who are already making innovative and productive use of sustainable energy. We need to provide incentives for this type of innovation and make sustainable energy a key part of our nation's energy policy.

Well answered. Especially in light of the Obama administration and Congress' inaction in the midst of environmental catastrophe. And kudos to Gernant for answering Pogie's questions. They were more than fair, and the public should see his answers.

Now the question to the other candidates, why the dodge?

Posting and Commenting changes...

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 21:53:22 PM MST

Sorry for any inconvenience...

I'm on Twitter (finally)

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 11:52:38 AM MST

Is single payer health care unpopular? Or misunderstood?

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:08:03 AM MST

What to make of this? Without seeing the question, it's hard to make much of a conclusion. That's because the public's support of single-payer health care varies wildly depending how the question is asked. (Here's a link to previous polls for an illustration.) In fact, this Rasmussen poll is the first that found single-payer backers in the minority. Is it an outlier - or the result of months of Republican fear-mongering? Certainly those polled aren't overly familiar with the details of single-payer health care: only 24 percent thought that a single-payer system would lower costs.

In another, related poll, Rasmussen found that 51 percent "fear" the government more than private insurance companies. Which is kind of astounding, given that insurance companies have neither arms nor prisons. This poll, of course, is being used to explain why single-payer health insurance is unpopular; but those results belie the polls on Medicare users, who rate their insurance and care consistently higher than those who have private insurance. And we've seen how people react to the idea that Medicare benefits might be threatened. Yet a number of people don't realize that Medicare is a government program.

I have to agree with Steven Taylor:

...public opinion polling is mostly useful under two basic conditions: when there is a clear choice regarding the issue being polled and when public information in the target population is high. Neither of those factor exist in regards to this poll. As such, it really isn't especially useful.

The astonishing ignorance around health care reform is reflected in the right-wing blog reaction to the Rasmussen poll.

Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard writes, "Rasmussen's latest poll shows ObamaCare dropping like a rock," while Howie from the Jawa Report exults in the poll, chirping "Go ahead congress [sic], make the voters [sic] day, I double dog dare you." Of course, that single-payer health care has anything to do with any of the reforms being batted around in Congress has to come as a complete shock to single-payer advocates. We've discussed the details of the various plans ad naseum on this blog, so you know single-payer health care ain't in the equation.

Gateway Pundit ratchets up the ignorance: "Only 32% of Americans favor Obama's plan for a single-payer system," GP writes. "This video shows how ordinary Americans feel about getting socialized health care rammed down their throats by this Congress." Likewise, PowerLine's John confuses single-payer health care with socialized medicine:

Today's Rasmussen survey has data that shed considerable light on the health care debate. The question posed to likely voters was whether they favor a single-payer health care system. ("Single payer" is a euphemism for socialized medicine.) Americans overwhelmingly reject government medicine, 57-32 percent.

Of course, we've been over this before. "Socialized medicine" means that the government owns and runs all of the health care facilities and employs the health care workers. (Think VA.) "Single-payer health care" is a system where there's essentially one insurance provider. (It doesn't even have to be a government insurance provider.) Health care facilities and workers remain as they are.

Other little tidbits of ignorance abound in the reactions, too. Take this:

Obama says you can keep your plan if you like it (interestingly, he keeps saying that the entire system is broken and sucks, yet, you can keep the same health insurance that is broken and sucks?), and, he is correct. You can. Until you decide you want to make a change, even a tiny one. Then you must move into a government approved one. If you work for certain really big companies, you have a 5 year grace period before any change forces you into a government approved plan.

I have no idea what William Teach is talking about. "Government approved" plan? All insurance plans are already "government approved," in that they have to conform to the regulation and laws governing insurance in the various states. Or does he mean, a "government run" public option? Which is also false. I assume he's unclear on the concept of the Health Insurance Exchange, where people meeting certain criteria (right now in the written House proposal, those working in very small companies, the uninsured, and the unemployed) have the right to essentially shop around for the best plan, which might include a public option. But no one will be compelled to take any particular plan - although there's likely to be a mandate to take some kind of plan.

All-in-all, the profound ignorance seeping from these blogs is astonishing. And these are supposed to be the people who are, you know, actually interested in politics and policy. No wonder Tea Baggers are running around interrupting public meetings with slogans about "socialized medicine" and other delusional claims. They have no friggin' idea what they're actually protesting, do they?

Only the innocent enjoy the right of due process?

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 16:44:54 PM MST

Thursday's ruling will inevitably allow some innocent people to languish in prison without having the chance to definitively prove their innocence and with the state never being completely certain of their guilt.

Pretty straightforward, eh?

But then I found a conservative response to the editorial:

As a matter of public policy, there is a legitimate question of how best to chivvy the states along as they legislate access to what amounts to new evidence made available by advances in technology. However, as the WaPo explains, this was an awkward case on which prisoner's rights advocates chose to hang their hats, since the prisoner is almost surely guilty...

Here's the thing, both the innocent and the guilty have a guaranteed constitutional right of due process. Mr. Osborne - the defendant in the case - may, in fact, be guilty. But...why should suspected guilt be a deterrent to the test? Aren't all convicts assumed to be guilty? Should the courts be furthered burdened by resolving requests for DNA tests on a case-by-case basis? Should due process be extended only to the innocent?

As I've written, prosecutors have already fought numerous tests for convicts who were subsequently cleared by DNA tests; those tests, then, serve as a citizen's last recourse for justice against the arbitrary caprices of the state.

There are -- gasp! -- radical rightwingers!

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:22:26 PM MST

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

Rightie bloggers have been apoplyeptic about the news -- Malkin's response is typical -- they claim it's a "hit job" on the right hours before their tax-day protests.

My initial reaction was two-fold. The first was, hey! I've been saying for years that right-wing extremism is a much more real and present threat than Islamic extremism. Or have we forgotten the violence latent in the anti-abortion movement? The militia movement? Timothy McVeigh? That the Bush administration and its agencies were focusing our attention on the Middle East -- and not terrorism, per se -- was a political decision. They used the specter of terrorism to further their foreign-policy objectives, not to actually combat or curb terror. Especially the rightwing domestic kind, because that's kind of embarrassing, isn't it?

Trust me: I link!

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:06:22 AM MST

But why do we trust columnists? Bloggers -- at least the good ones -- link to the information or data that support their arguments. Objectively that makes blogs more trustworthy than print columns. (Yet, still, I wouldn't trust a blogger further than I could throw her.) What guarantee do we have that a syndecated columnist doesn't invent facts to support predetermined political bias?

Like Steve Benen noted, a correction for Will's column has yet to appear.

And there are monsters under my bed!

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 21:18:34 PM MST

Keep a citizenry in submission to whatever it wants? What, like passing trillion dollar spending package in one month's time?  Like the daily doom and gloom tour, promising that the economy will face an "economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression" unless this spend-ulus bill is passed? (Is President Obama guaranteeing that if the bill is passed, catastrophe will be avoided?)

I have to think that a terrorist attack on the US (which has actually happened) is at least as likely as an "irreversible" recession (which has not).

The US recession began in December 2007.

Job losses in recent recessions:

Note that the green line is not projected job losses, but actual job losses.

Let's see. On one hand, you have the right-wing fantasy of the extinction of Western civilization by "Islamo-fascists" and the need to jettison all of our civil liberties to prevent it...

...on the other, you have an actual recession, thousands out of jobs, foreclosures, and an economic stimulus strategy that's supported by Nobel winners that should, at least, mitigate the effects of the downturn.

Hmm. That's exactly alike!

Update: Marc Ambinder, "It's OK to be Afraid of Something that's Really Scary":

The terrorist threats might have been real, but we know now that a lot of the "facts" marshalled to support the rhetoric wasn't.  In the case of the economic crisis, though, maybe Americans aren't panicking as much as they should: the job market spiraldown continues, and more apocalyptically, the rate of decline is picking up. The labor force is contracting rapidly; the unemployment rate is close to its 1990s peak at 7.8%. (Want higher than that? Go to the 1970s.) Americans are working fewer hours, too. Scary! Christina Romer, the White House's chief economist, noted that of the 3.6 million jobs lost over the past year, most of them have been lost in the last four months. The rate is comparable to the rate recorded by economists in 1938, during the....yep.

Look who got caught up in Obama-mania!

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 19:03:06 PM MST

...she had a kind word for President-elect Barack Obama, who she said called her during the campaign to wish her luck.

"He was cool," Ms. Palin said, with almost a giggle. "He said, 'good luck, but not that much luck.'"

In the interview, she also basically said whether she runs again in 2012 will be up to God. Oh, and she said this, too:

Ms. Palin directed most of her media criticism at liberal bloggers, whom she twice called, "those bloggers in their parents' basement just talkin' garbage."

D*mn, I'd get angry about this if weren't so d*mn cold down here. Gotta talk to my Mom about getting a space heater or something...

The destructive rhetoric from the right, and how to fight it

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 07:42:55 AM MST

Still, the rhetoric emanating from the right over the Obama campaign is, frankly, reprehensible.

Kevin Drum posted a compiliation of some recent examples a couple of weeks ago:

One: Bill Ayers really wrote Obama's book, Dreams From My Father. Two: Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile. (That, by the way, is called "molestation," folks. -- Jay) Three: It's entirely possible that Obama was involved with bombing the South African rugby team while he was at Columbia in the 80s. Four: Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright (via a chain of associations too Rube Goldbergesque to summarize) were engaged in a conspiracy to teach Pan-African "cultural nationalism" to Chicago schoolkids during the 90s. Five: Obama was having an affair with one of his fundraiser babes in 2004 until Michelle found out and banished the woman to a "little Caribbean island."

And then there was serious discussion about whether Obama is a Maoist or a Stalinist...and this was at the Corner, the blog for the National Review, a "reputable" magazine. This week's hooplah is that Obama was accused of altering a United States flag to put an "O" in the field of stars and standing it alongside US flags during a speech in Toledo. Turns out it was an Ohio state flag. To sum it up, apparently Obama is a "black Muslim, anti-Christian socialist plotting with an evil Jewish billionaire."

And let's not ignore the fact that a lot of this is encouraged, if not abetted by the McCain/Palin ticket. It's McCain and Palin, for example, who are pushing the Bill Ayers line of attack. It's McCain/Palin who are pushing the ACORN story. It's Sarah Palin who's identifying certain areas of the country as "pro-America."

All of this has real consequences. All that talk about the "liberal" media? Eastern media elites? Your supporters assault reporters. Accuse ACORN of "destroying the fabric of Democracy," as John McCain did? Death threats start pouring in to their offices.