The Illustrated Tea Party Dictionary

[laughingwillow]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/ap_ ... ty_militia

quote from the linked article....

OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty......

.....Tea party leader J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea began soliciting interest in a state militia through his newsletter under the subject "Buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

[dissident]

That is a good thing.  The Fed needs to be put in its place, which is far, far in the background.

[Amomynous]

I'm actually pretty board by politics, so I don't get into too many political discussions (it seems the news media--both alternative and mainstream--has sold the agenda that the only thing important in life is politics, and I think it is wise to reject that agenda).

But:

Well now, Zaka not sure what your point is now, but as a person whose family members are alive only because of the most advanced allopathy I guess my view is different than yours. Tell me what you will do for say acute heart failure or mesothelioma??  Shouldn't the treatment of choice be available for these people?  

I think this point out the fundamental issue and complexity with health care as it is practiced in the US and other modern societies.

That health care has become unsustainable expensive is impossible to deny, regardless of whether ones wants sweeping reform or the status quo. And people from both sides try to argue why there perspective is better for getting those costs to sustainable levels. Everyone in the political spectrum has their own pet theories about what is driving these costs, about who is to blame.

But everyone, as far as I can tell, is ignoring the big, pink elephant that is standing in the middle of the room, and the elephant is this: the cost of health care is inextricably tied to our cultural attitudes about death.

I've often pondered what I would do if I were diagnosed by something, like cancer, that could be very expensive to treat. I have health insurance (and pretty good health insurance), so if I, say, racked up $1.5 million in health care expenses, I could still undergo the treatment.

But would it be ethical for me to do so, even though I could? That $1.5 million could provide basic health care to a small town for a year. Is my single life worth more than the general well-being of an entire town?

We fear death, and we will go through anything to try to beat it back, even for a brief period of time.

I once got into an argument/discussion with a physician at a diner party, and I made some pretty bold assertions, the main one being that we had long ago reached the point of diminishing return in modern medicine. That we have some fabulous procedures that can really help people with horrible conditions is beyond argument--it can make great differences in individual lives--but when we're speaking about public spending, we're speaking about the public, and what are they--in total--getting from it? Her position was that people were increasingly healthy and living longer, and my point was that most of the gains we had gotten from modern medicine happened a long time ago.

Afterwards I felt kind of guilty, so I spent an evening doing research to make sure that my assertions (which felt true to me), weren't totally off-base

And I was right. I looked at mortality data (average life expectancy) and health-care spending, and we have so hit a point of diminishing returns.

There were reasonable returns (in terms of life expectancy) from the civil war until the turn of the 20th century, and there were substantial gains in the first 50 years of the 20th century. But then we hit a brick wall.

We continue to increase the average life expectancy by small amounts, but the cost of doing so it rising exponentially. Whereas in the first half of the 20th century we could get a few years for a small incremental increase in cost (say, 10 or 20%), by the beginning of the 21st century the same kind of increase (when it was possible at all) came with 500-900% increases in health care spending. And it has even gotten worse in the first years of the 21st century.

As long as we keep trying to beat back death in all situations, going to more extreme measures, health care costs will continue to rise. And no pet theory or agenda, on the right or left, has even begun to address that. And it's complicated, because it's not some group or industry who is at fault. You can't point a finger at insurance companies or doctors or lawyers and say "it's their fault!" Because this increase comes from the wide cultural attitudes towards life and death. It comes from us.

But no political group will (or even can) address this, so it's really not worth entering the discussion at all.

Now, I have small children, so in reality I would probably spend that 1.5 million dollars. But at least, hopefully, I would feel a little conflicted about it. To an extent I imagine I would feel guilty about it, feeling that I didn't act in the greatest good.

Like I said, this shit is complicated, and you wont find that subtlety and nuance in any political discussion...

[laughingwillow]

Good points, amom. Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. - Peter Tosh? -

diss: I believe in a small federal government as well. I just don't see the current situation to warrant citizen revolt.

I want a smaller military and less involvement in foreign affairs.

And I'd like everyone to have access to physicians, not just the wealthy, employed and senior citizens.  

lw

[Amomynous]

I want a smaller military and less involvement in foreign affairs.

There are some things that I'm surprised that the "right" and the "left" don't agree on.

I can see there being disagreement on just what the role of government is, and things like the military and foreign aid (as well as health care) are expensive. I can understand disagreement on what a moral society should do.  Is health care a right or a privilege? Should the government become involved in foreign military or humanitarian aid?

I expect these disagreements. But I'm surprised that neither the right nor the left, having decided what they think is right, spend much time making sure that their priorities are paid for. All anyone seems to do is yell that if everyone else's priorities were cut then there would be enough money to go around, but that's a pretty hollow argument, and it never happens. The ultimate effect is that what both the "right" and "left" agree on is that the government should spend a whole lot of money and not commit to making sure that it has the money to spend.

Bread and circuses on both sides, it's just the food and entertainment are a bit different...

Sorry if I sound like a bit of a fanatic, but it seems to me that if we committed to actually having the money to pay for the things the government wanted to spend on, then we would be forced to actually enter into intelligent discussion as to just what our priorities should be. Instead our entire system of government is like our financial system: a big Ponzi scheme.

Want something today? Issue bonds and let the next generation worry about it.  And they'll do the same. And so on and so forth, until everything collapses.

Want something else that conflicts with what you just bought? No problem! More bonds! After all, it's the other side that is wrong!

Edit: to elaborate a bit....

A popular program (it's good and liberal, but it was really championed by Bush) is the aid we give Africa to combat AIDs (and Zaka, please don't rail on about how AIDs was created as a purposeful biological warfare agent--it is not germane to the conversation at hand). But what if we had to discuss:

"OK. We have this pile of 30 billion dollars. Should we give it to Africa for humanitarian reasons, or Medicare for the US poor?"

A really, really hard discussion, one which we'll never enter into because we don't have to.

[JRL]

lw I think everybody wants to go quote was most likely originally penned by the inventor of rock and roll, Mr Willie Dixon. The reggae guys wanted to play American R and B like everyone in the world. Just check out Toot's doin Dreams to Remember.

[laughingwillow]

I found the results of this poll to be interesting.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/04/15 ... orge-bush/

Poll Reveals All You Need to Know about Tea Baggers: 57% Still Support George Bush – And, Yes, Their Rage Is Fueled by Racism, Fox News
Jon Ponder | April 15, 2010

For pundits and pols who have been casting about trying to get a fix on the true nature of tea baggers, a new poll finally offers definitive insight. According to the new CBS/New York Times poll of self-described tea-party supporters, 57 percent have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush.

Furthermore, 63 percent say they restrict their their news consumption to right-wing propaganda from Fox News. This may explain why they are outraged over the Obama administration's efforts to pull the nation back from the brink of economic collapse while apparently having no clue that the person most responsible for the Bush Recession is their own Dear Leader George W. Bush.

It is a tribute to Fox News' mastery at obfuscating reality with disinformation that these Bush fans are seemingly unaware that the U.S. economy crashed and the Bush Recession began in September 2008, when, indisputably, George Bush was president. Having only been exposed to propaganda from Fox and hatemonger radio and bloggers, tea baggers have no way of knowing that the malfeasant anti-regulatory policies of the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress, combined with Republicans' now-famous incompetence at governing, were directly responsible for the economic crisis.

The history of the Bush regime is being rewritten faster on Fox and in the right-wing media than anyone can keep up with, but let's also recall that George Bush left office with 21 percent approval after being well below 50 percent for years. (About 20 percent of Americans also supported Richard Nixon when he resigned in disgrace.) Bush, Cheney et al lied about the pretexts for invading Iraq, which means that the blood of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi families was wasted needlessly, along with billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars that were flushed away at the very moment that the economic collapse was looming. (Let's also not forget that, under Bush, the United States paid for universal health care for 30 million or so Iraqis while 45 million Americans had none.) But it was Bush's ineptitude — and baldfaced lying about it — in addressing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that finally forced normal Americans to recognize George W. Bush for what he was: Worst. President. Ever. His approval ratings never recovered after that debacle.

It speaks volumes that it's this barely articulate, incurious aristocratic bully that tea baggers voted for — twice — and still support to this day.

Another prime example of the influence of Fox propaganda: A whopping 64 percent of tea baggers believe Pres. Obama has raised taxes on most Americans. As CBS noted in their coverage of this poll result: "[The] vast majority of Americans [95 percent] got a tax cut under the Obama administration."

One unsurprising result from the poll is that tea baggers love Fox News' most popular propagandists. They approve of Sarah Palin by 66 percent and Glenn Beck by 59 percent. This adoration of Beck, in particular, helps explain another aspect of the poll: Like Beck, tea baggers loathe the U.S. president:

Eighty-eight percent disapprove of President Obama's performance on the job, compared to 40 percent of Americans overall. While half of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's job performance, just seven percent of Tea Party supporters say he is doing a good job.

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.

Seventy-seven percent describe Mr. Obama as "very liberal," compared to 31 percent of Americans overall. Fifty-six percent say the president's policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.

The fact that 56 percent of tea baggers say Pres. Obama's policies favor the poor is telling. While only about 13 percent of Americans are black, a great many white people labor under the misperception that most poor people are black. More about tea baggers' views on race below.

Ninety-two percent of Tea Party supporters believe President Obama's policies are moving the country toward socialism. Fifty-two percent of Americans overall share that belief.

Asked what socialism means, roughly half of Tea Party supporters volunteered government ownership or control, far more than any other answer. Eleven percent cited taking away rights or limiting freedom, and eight percent said it means the redistribution of wealth.

Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in another country, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Another 29 percent say they don't know. Twenty percent of Americans overall, one in five, believe the president was not born in the United States.

Not surprisingly, the poll found that tea baggers deep-seated racist views:

Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Far fewer Americans overall — 28 percent — believe as much. Among non-Tea Party whites, the percentage who say too much attention has been paid to the problems of black people is 23 percent.

A majority of Tea Party suppers believe the Obama administration treats both blacks and whites the same way. But one in four believe the administration favors blacks over whites, an opinion shared by just 11 percent of Americans overall and seven percent of non-Tea Party whites.

As to demographics, no surprise here. The poll that most tea baggers are middle-aged, white and Southern:

Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them — 89 percent — are white. Just one percent is black.

They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).

More than one in three (36 percent) hails from the South, far more than any other region. Twenty-five percent come from the West, 22 percent from the Midwest, and 18 percent from the northeast.

A lot of headlines about this poll focus on the surprising result that self-identified tea baggers claim to be wealthier and more educated than would otherwise be expected from people who are so easily manipulated and duped into believing facts that are easily disproved.

There are no national figures better known for their difficult relationships with the truth than Bush, Palin and Beck, so one plausible explanation for this apparent outlier about tea baggers' income and education levels:

They lied.

[Glider]

LW I could care less who you think is a wacko.  

What was that about Waco?  Oh, never mind.

Most of the tea baggers around here didn't like Bush either.  

As far as feeling the effects of Reagan fiscal policy, I can't image how anyone could be feeling anything older than Obama/Bush spending, with maybe a little of Clinton's bond sales to the Chinese still lingering.

And really, isn't that what the last two administrations are really doing?  Expanding on the administration of the previous two?  Who expanded on the work of the ....  Honestly, I was surprised when I searched this board for the word republicrat, and nothing came up.

lw, I want to go to heaven!  Just, er, not right now.  Maybe I listen to too much country music these days.  (Kenny Chesney)

We have this pile of 30 billion dollars.

Yes, Amom, I am taking your quote out of context.  I agree with the theme of fiscal responsibility.  I'd like to point out that there is yet another aspect to consider.  It is far, far easier to spend money that you didn't earn, than it is to spend money that you did earn.  

Credit cards carry such a risk in part because they represent money that hasn't been earned yet.  And let's face it, a politician's greatest skill, perhaps their ONLY skill, is the ability to get re-elected.  If they had the skill to make their own money, many of them wouldn't have landed in politics in the first place.

-G-

[laughingwillow]

Statistics say most tea baggers are republican. I really doubt the majority opposed BushCo during his term.

No, I'm not a democrat.

lw

[laughingwillow]

A tea bagger favorite in Florida just got trounced. Interestingly, he was running as a republican. As far as I can tell, all candidates favored by the tea baggers are republican. And I'm guessing the majority favor the trickle down economic policy championed by Reagan and continued by the republican administrations since.

Change? I'm all for a housecleaning of the U$ gubmit. But the tea baggers are a right wing joke, imo. And you are fooling yourself if you don't think the tea bag movement is a product of the far right.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/04/15 ... -election/

quote from article linked: Democrats are two for two in special elections to the House. After flipping New York 23 from Republican to Dem last November, they held Florida 19 in a special election on Tuesday, despite tea bagger predictions that the Republican they favored would win the race, thus "sending a shot across the bow" that voter antipathy to health-care reform was going to lead to upsets in House races this fall.

Ted Deutch handily beat his Republican opponent Ed Lynch, 62 percent to 35 percent, retaining the seat held by Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, who retired to join a think tank.

The district is home to many seniors, and Lynch vigorously campaigned against health care reform law, hoping to make the election a referendum on it, which he claimed was unpopular in the district.

[Glider]

But the tea baggers are a right wing joke, imo. And you are fooling yourself if you don't think the tea bag movement is a product of the far right.

I suppose it depends on how you define right and left.  I'm working with the idea that right = conservative = Favoring "traditional views and values; tending to oppose change"

Now I suppose if you consider what has become common place in the last few decades to be "traditional", then you're a liberal if you want to change it.  

But if you consider a literal interpretation of the US Constitution, the Magna Carta, etc to be traditional, then you're a conservative if you want to change it.

Since I subscribe to the latter, I would consider myself a conservative, and thus a member of the far right.  I agree that the the who Tea Party movement is a product of the far right.  I just don't see where it has anything to do with republicans, as the republican party seems a bit left of center.

Granted there are a lot of ex-republicans in the movement, largely disgusted with 8 years of Bush.  Most of them that I know didn't vote for McCain, because seriously, why would a conservative vote for McCain?  

Maybe things are different where you are.

-G-

[laughingwillow]

I'm forced to make the distinction between what I call the "true" right, which is comprised of folks who just want the gubmit out of our lives, (These folks would be what I call libertarians and I respect that movement) and the current version of "far" right, comprised of folks wishing to legislate morality (religious right) as well as increase the size of gubmit through military spending.

I fail to see Bush as a libertarian, but the majority of tea baggers nationwide still profess support for BushCo policy. And I don't want any part of a movement built by Bush, nurtured by Palin and vetted by faux news.

Trust me, when a true libertarian movement comes along, I'll be the first to join in as a registered independent voter who considers myself fiscally conservative and socially compassionate.

lw

[laughingwillow]

quote from the national tea baggers poll linked above: For pundits and pols who have been casting about trying to get a fix on the true nature of tea baggers, a new poll finally offers definitive insight. According to the new CBS/New York Times poll of self-described tea-party supporters, 57 percent have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush.

Where I come from, that is a majority.

BushCo's failed stint as president was a direct result of corporate deregulation and trickle down economics, first implemented by Reagan after elected in 1980. I find it interesting how republicans have the reputation for fiscal responsibility, yet Clinton, a democrat with reputation of being big spender balanced the budget and brought in a surplus.

As far as  I can tell, the tea baggers are being led by those supporting failed Bush policy and I don't want any part of a movement with those folks in the majority, nationally.

Which begs the question of just how things could be so different where you live, Glider?

lw

[Glider]

I still don't see a lot of difference between republicans and democrats.  Republicans want to drill for oil in national parks.  Democrats opened up national parks to mining operations.   Arlen Specter can't even remember which one he is anymore.

Are things really different here from there?  I really haven't read the polls.  I get the impression you don't associate with anyone in the tea party movement.  Perhaps it is more a difference in perceptions?

And what is wrong with Palin anyway?  Other than she stooped so low as to run with McCain?



-G-

[laughingwillow]

The article linked really sums up how I feel about the current "revolt.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/ ... -u-s-gover

quote: "I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious."

As Klein pointed out, the legal definition of sedition is "a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority." And, sedition has been declared a felony in Supreme Court opinions, thus making Klein's national television accusation a fairly serious one, one of which New York magazine's John Heilemann agreed with. However, Heilemann added conservative talker Rush Limbaugh to that list.

"And Joe's right and I'll name another person, I'll name Rush Limbaugh who uses this phrase constantly and talks about the Obama administration as a regime," Heilemann said. "That phrase which has connotations of tyranny. And what's so interesting about it to me, to get to Norah's point - what is the focus, what is the cause of this? You think back to 1994, there was Ruby Ridge. There was Waco. There were triggering incidents. There's been nothing like that. The only thing that's changed in the last 15 months is the election of Barack Obama. And as far as I can see, in terms of the policies that Obama has implemented, there's nothing."

Heilemann also suggested that the alleged up tick in militia activity is a result of the Obama presidency. Klein said it was not only the Obama presidency, but that he was "African-American," and had "Hussein" as a middle name, along with the "scary" economic crisis.

"Two are two things going on here and one thing is certainly that," Klein said. "One thing is he is African-American, but that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The other we've had a very scary economic crisis. And when people get scared, they get defensive and they get a little crazy."