Health Insurance

My last three weeks have been absolutely frantic, so I've missed most of the healthcare "debate." Even so I'll throw in my two cents. The idiotacracy which broadly and self-congratulatorily slaps itself on the back about how much "choice" we Americans have in our healthcare is entirely deceived.

1) Universal healthcare has nothing to do with you if you already have health insurance. None of the proposals have done away with private healthcare.

2) Who gives a flying fuck about your choices, if you have healthcare, you should take a back seat to the 50+ million people who don't. Get over yourself. People are dying, worse, people are suffering completely needlessly over the selfishness of a tyrannical majority.

3) This is what kills me. Very few Americans with healthcare have a choice. Your employer has a choice. If you have a spouse, or you are old enough to be on medicare, you have a choice. Otherwise you are fucked. I think my health plan stinks. To be sure, it's a hell a lot better than not having one. But I can't go anywhere else for care. If my health insurance carrier won't provide for my treatment, I don't get it. How's that for choices.

Moreover, every doctor I've had has told me that the healthcare companies that have provided me with health insurance (two companies over the past few years) have screwed them [the doctors] over at every turn.

But saying that the American "system" is diverse and competitive, and provides people with choices is the worst kind of lie. Like Hitler's "the big lie." It's so grossly untrue, ludicrous even, that you don't even know whether to laugh at it or debunk it. That's right, I brought out Hitler. Swatting houseflies with a cannon? Hardly, the beast that is the opposition to healthcare has reared its ugly head for fifty years in this country. It's disgusting. Mostly, it's embarrassing at how selfish, base, and uneducated the majority of universal healthcare's opponents are.

4) Lastly, I heard a Republican Congressman on Bill Maher's show the other night. He was saying, and I paraphrase, "if a college student, or a teenager doesn't want to have to have health insurance, I think they have the right to make that choice." I heard this and had to turn off the podcast. I was revolted. I went without health insurance for 4 years because I had to. Sure I was a 20 something in New York. And I was very lucky. And the one time I did get really sick, the city's free clinics (socialism!!!) provided respite. But it wasn't a choice. It was pay 600 dollars a month (the same as my rent at the time--and there was no way I could have afforded it) or take a chance with my life, and with my credit. Again, I was incredibly lucky. What is it about Republicans and Blue Dog Dems that means they have utterly lost the capacity to feel empathy for their fellow man?

The other great joke about healthcare in the US is that, my private healthplan is perfectly capable of forcing me to accept or not accept treatment. My employer, and most mid-size to large companies are like this, refuse to employ workers who do not accept healthcare. Why? Liability, plain and simple. So instead of being forced by the oppressive hand of government. You're forced by the oppressive hand of the market. (Part-time and low wage workers are clearly a different story. But they too are forced by the oppressive market)

Quite simply, it's as that great Phil Agre article says. Conservatism is nothing less than a reformulation of monarchial aristocracy. Some people are better than others, some people deserve better than others, and we deserve to maintain control over them. You'd think that would be completely repugnant to most people, considering that the elite is less than 10% of the world. It isn't, clearly. Agre does a better job of explaining it, but I'll say this: It is a testament to the perpetual myopia of humankind that even if they might not be the cats meow, they are perfectly willing to admit that they're a hell of a lot better than someone else.

Vonnegut put it well

Americans, like humans everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue, the monograph went on. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.

Ted Kennedy-The Dream

“The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” Ted Kennedy

I wasn't around for his reckless years. Or for the tragedy and his great shame at Chappequidich. I remember him only as the most inspiring living Democrat I've ever known. And with the exception of Russ Feingold, he seemed the only true liberal in a field of democratic capitulation and appeasment. I know that Kennedy was a smooth operator, I don't judge him harshly for that--it comes with the territory. But his idealism and his often fiery invective have always inspired me, and I will not forget, or ignore, or ever put down the dream of liberalism. He will be missed.

Libertarianism, and the Rise of Right Extremists

So, two New York Times Op-Eds, Paul Krugman and Judith Warner discuss the rise of rightwing extremism. They each cite the murder of the abortion doctor, and the murder of the guard at the Washington D.C. Holocaust Museum. Both have many nasty comments posted by readers suggesting that the articles themselves evince signs of extremism and are hypocritical. Based on the Glen Beck argument that good ol' Americans are getting branded as extremists and having their rights infringed upon. And this relates to yesterday's post: Being an asshole is not, nor should it be, a freedom guaranteed by law.

Those who argue for the freedom to bear arms cannot be separated rationally from those who want guns for no other reason than to hurt people. Regardless of whether or not they espouse the right to hunt, and seek protections for rifles, whether they want to protect their family, and seek protections for handguns, or whether as my libertarian college buddy thinks, think the people need their weapons to rise against facism--there is in all of these justifications an essential desire to commit injury or outright murder.

I can understand that, because after living in Harlem for several years, and had been the victim of violence and the threat of imminent violence, I too had briefly considered the purchase of a handgun. For a liberal, this was a major heresy on my part. And I am intensely grateful to my one-and-only for having the moral strength of character to call me on my moral lapse.

Fiction of all kinds uses violence as a dramatic tool. I am a fan of fantasy fiction, and fantasy without swords, is a complete waste of time. Likewise, horror or war movies without gore. But there is a separation between those who imagine and enjoy imagined acts of violence, and those who argue for it, or commit it. As a pacificist, I am totally opposed to the idea of committing violence on another human being. Even for the worst human beings, incarceration, I believe, is the only morally sound practice. And for those who argue the rationale of self-defense, I say this: Defending yourself is hardwired, and so excusable, in certain cases, by law. I grant that. However, parading that idea as a justification for gun control , or as a justification for keeping the power to take life in a tightly compacted metal object that could fit in a pocket or handbag is absolutely inexcusable. And if you killed a man in defense of yourself or your family. Even though you will have done what you had to do, you have still committed an immoral act, and you should beg forgiveness for it. Yes, even in cases of self-defense. And as Socrates explained in the Gorgias:

Polus: A man who is put to death wrongfully, is pitiable and miserable, I suppose.
Socrates: Less so than the man who kills him, Polus, or the man who is put to death because he deserves it.
Polus: How so, Socrates?
Socrates: Because the greatest of all misfortunes is to do wrong.
Polus: But, surely it is worse to suffer wrong?
Socrates: Certainly not.

So, while I can enjoy righteous vengeance as the hero brings his sword down upon the neck of the villain who slew his whole family, I do not believe that capital punishment is a morally acceptable equivalent. And that is not a contradiction, because what I enjoy in fantasy is a reward whose consequences are only reflected upon myself. And in point of fact--the best fantasy novels being written right now are often morally ambiguous, and make a point of showing that Evil isn't Evil, nor Good simply Good. Take Steven Erikson from Reaper's Gale:

“So the hero wins free. Then what?”
“The hero does nothing of the sort. Instead, the hero catches a chill down in those dank tunnels. Makes it out alive, however, and retreats to a nearby city, where the plague he carries spreads and kills everyone. And for thousand of years thereafter, that hero’s name is a curse to both people living above ground and those below.”

Those who argue, like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and now my libertarian friend, that violence is justifiable are shocking to me. Do I think that my friend would "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them?" I don't know. I think there is a disconnect there. I think that on some level, when you make that argument, you have forsaken the humanity of those whom you wish to conquer. They are no longer empathetic people, and become simple obstacles. And at that point, the dividing line between thought and action becomes one of fear of retribution, not moral repulsion at the idea of the violent act. Not acting for fear of retribution is not moral, in fact, in some circumstances it would be considered immoral. Take Electra, railing against her sister for not attacking the status quo in Sophocles "The Electra."

ELECTRA:
I envy you for your prudence; for your cowardice, I hate you!

She hates her sister for not acting against the injustice done to them. That is a central argument of the revolutionary isn't it? None action is complicit? If you're not with me, you're against me? Sure, and I get that argument for many reasons. But again, these simplified versions of events, indicate more about the mind of the the thinker than about the situation itself. Amongst almost all of the libertarians I've met, and those that I've read, and I include my own flesh and blood in this assessment, is a substancial vein of paranoia. There is a certain willingness to believe that the government is going to control you. When in fact, the government's biggest problem is that it doesn't really give a shit about you in the first place. Now the CIA does monitor extremists groups--and that I believe is a good thing. But the reports during the Bush years of infiltrations of peaceful groups of anti-war activists was just ridiculous. There was no threat of violence there, there was no categorical infringements of rights going on. It was a reactionary us against them, as Rick Perlstein would call it, Orthogonian movement.

All of this comes back to my central point. I think that there are people who want to commit violence against other people. I think that any rationalization for an act of violence, is an obfuscation of that desire. So logically, anyone who posits, suggests, hopes, jokes, writes, or encourages this type of extremism should be regarded warily, as marginally dangerous people. And above all, this behavior should be condemned and discouraged by every moral authority.

Holy (Batshit Crazy) Western Empire

So, the latest news pandemic is on the guy who shot the guard at the D.C. Holocaust Museum. His website is closed now with the investigation going, but it was called Holy Western Empire. We don't need to go into my feelings on this. My topic of discussion here is actually free speech. The link is to a video debate on the matter as it relates to recent events. Like most Americans I was born believing that freedom of speech was sacrosanct. However, like most liberals, I was indoctrinated in the idea that hate mongering is a dangerous and disgusting pastime. Now, we all remember Voltaire's famous phrase, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," and it's celebrated as being one of the pillars of democracy, but I have a bone to pick with free speech.

Ok, first of all, the freedom to speak the way you want is just one of many freedoms, many rights. And there are rights that trump the freedom of speech. Such as the freedom to live free from fear. The right to live free from harm. This is the problem with hate speech: conflicting rights. If I'm a neo-nazi, I'm going to defend my right to free speech. And logically, I'd be right. But if I'm the guy who happens to be near that guy, and his invective is aimed at me, or someone I know, then suddenly, my freedom has been violated. So go somewhere else, the argument goes. Sure. That happens. But that infringes on yet another of my freedoms. The freedom to be/live where I want. I remember, a few years ago, a Jewish family was living down south, and after many members of their community made anti-semitic statements, they felt compelled to leave the community. That's not right.

In someways this blog could be considered hate speech. After all, I've been complaining for years about Republicans and other conservatives. But then again, my own invective, though tainted by "passion and party spirit" (another Voltairism) does not threaten anyone's rights. After all, no one reads this blog anyway. And though I think Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are assholes, I've never threatened them. And even though I think they are both dickweeds. I've never said anything like "Neoconservatives should be dragged out into the street and shot." or "we should put all the neocons on an island together with one nuclear warhead and let them blow themselves up." In fact, I used to condemn people who spoke that way on DailyKos, back when I was a regular poster. That sort of stuff is really awful. And as much as I personally dislike these men--I've never met them. I can't really even comment on them personally. I saw O'Reilly on Jon Stewart once. He was great, smart as a whip and very funny. One of the reasons I dislike Rush, and this is shallow, is I think he looks like a pig. And that's an insult to pigs more than it is to Rush. But again, I want the guy off the radio, not dead.

So here's the rub: Free speech is not sacrosanct. Like everything else there are shades of grey in all measures. When free speech infringes on more integral freedoms, then it is fair game to be called into question, regulated, and in very specific circumstances, banned.

On another matter, I wrote this two years ago.


Things you can be called that are food:

1) I am a ham.
2) Attorney's who aren't lavish with their praise are cold fish.
3) During the Christmas holidays most of us will be on the lamb.
4) Never call your coworkers cows.
5) Or chickens.
6) No one is ever called a swordfish. Unless they are in B-Movies.
7) After hours of making binders, we all become vegetables.
8) But not carrots. No one will ever call you a carrot. And if they did, what would it mean? That you're long and orange. I guess some people can be called carrots afterall: models who have been in the sun too long.
9) Maybe yams. Popeye once said, I yam what yam.
10) Call me crazy, but has anyone else ever been called a lettuce head? Just checking.
11) You sometimes call your boss, the Big Cheese. You might be from Ohio, in which case you are a Cheese Head. You should never call someone a stinky cheese unless you are out of swinging range. I think I'll stop there.
12) I have often been called a turkey.
13) But not a pheasant.
14) If the guy in the teller line ahead of you is really skinny, you might whisper to your comrade, "Ahoy mate, look at yonder beanpole."
15) You might call your significant other, your honey.
17) Or your sweet pea
18) Or the apple of your eye.
19) Or if she's Scandinavian, your Danish.
20) Or your love muffin. I think I'll stop there.
21) When she brings you coffee in the morning, you might say, "You're a peach."
22) Do not call her a pumpkin. But you may someday address your children as pumpkins. But not if they have weight issues.
23) You and your buddies might talk about canteloups at the bar, but that would be rude.
24) Same goes for watermelons. Hello sensitivity training!
25) If you go to the circus you might see people who resemble pretzels. You may call them that. Pretzels are salty, and everyone loves old salts.
26) If you know a spice girl, you might call her Ginger.
27) If you're in China you may eat a four legged friend, if you eat it here, they'll call you a dog.
28) Or if you're a girl, a bi%&*.
29) And here's an iffy one, if you've sent out an irritating email such as this one, to your entire work group, someone might call you (and they would be right) a cad. Err. Cod.

Quick Bits at Econtalk, Plus a little Sotomayor action

So this post will relate to a couple of different podcasts at Econtalk.

1) The second installment of Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments discussion was pretty interesting. Smith made a point of suggesting that happy and successful individuals make a point of modulating what they expect from others. Specifically, expecting too much from others can limit and even hamper your relationship with others. I find that to be very true. One of the reasons I'm such a charming person is that I expect nothing from anyone!

2) As a compliment to that, there was another thought that I felt intriguing. Namely and I'm paraphrasing, "love yourself only so much as you love your neighbor." This is sort of a follow-up point to the earlier one. The point being that self-love comes in many forms. And a need/desire for attention can be such a form of self-love. And if you wouldn't take such attention/needs/desires from your neighbor, you damn well better not being demanding it yourself.

3) Ok this Econtalk post was from a news article interview that Russ Roberts did and posted with the reporter's permission. So I've discussed this before: Roberts, and his ilk, believe that "markets don't lie in the long run." Meaning that prices, as they inflate, or deflate, over time reflect true value. My comment to that is two fold. Fold the first. Who decides the barometer for time? We're human beings, with a typical lifespan of sixty-seventy odd years. So historical value is relative. And the New York Stock Exchange will only be 200 years old in 2015, so even that amount of time isn't that long. But then again. We measure generational time in decades right? And immediately after a decade has passed, it's over the hill. So my decade, the decade where I came of age, was the nineties. I'm an old man now!

I'm getting far afield. Here's the point: True value is a false certainty. Value only has meaning relative to a specific time period. So saying that the market reflects true value overtime really isn't saying much. So why do I have a problem with the statement? Because it was used to justify the fact that the government should do nothing in regards to the current economic crisis. Which leads to fold the second.

4) Time matters! Again, this assertion by economists that the market will balance itself out is fairly heartless. As a RavingLeftatic I must protest! How many lives and livelihoods will be ruined! Now, maybe I'm being alarmist. And that's a fair criticism, but news organizations are already beginning to report that people are beginning to stop looking for work. What about those who were fired from middle class jobs who have to take service jobs to make ends meet? You don't recover from that. Not easily. The stigma of taking a paycut lasts a long time and is very difficult to beat. What about war? Not us per se, but as unemployment in Europe, Russia and China begin to rise, violence will rise too. Lives are affected by economic downturns. And that is why it is not sufficient to simply say, hands off, let the magic market do its work. The government can't do that. No one, not even nobel laureate economists know for sure how the market works. It could take two decades to recover. You. Just. Can't. Wait.

5) Ok. What else. Something came up in the same podcast, but it's my own thought. I talked in my last post about how Don Beaudreaux mentioned "The giant" as an actor in economics, namely the governor. Well, I'd like to advance that notion a bit. The giant is not actually a giant, but a giant squid. Tentacles everywhere, oftentimes acting completely independent from one another. Moreover, state governments are lesser squids, with their own separate tentacles acting everywhere. So Boudreaux's analysis is a bit lopsided. It's so much a giant knocking a fragile mechanism around a football field. It's a giant squid interlaced with every gear and rod in the machine itself! See how economics is like fantasy?

6) Sotomayor. The Reverse Racist. First of all. What an idiotic term. Seriously. Second, she's not, and the evidence provided for this unbelievable allegation is completely specious. It's a total lameass Republican talking point, and Newt has lost his touch if this was the best he could come up with. Oh good, I really need to appeal to the white supremist base of my party. Sheesh. What's worse about it is that anytime that narcisist opens his mouth, it gets recorded. Hopefully this little idiocy will flame out long before the battle begins.

Quick Bits, British Parliamentary Scandal, Econtalk

1. So, this whole British MP scandal is somewhat odd to me. Believe it or not, I don't really have an issue with entitlement spending. And I find it hypocritical that anyone can. We all take our entitlements, whether they're as little as using the office supplies at home, or having dinner on the firm, businesses across the world take these expenses as part of the cost of doing business. To expect government to do less is naive. It all comes down to this notion that the government's money is actually the taxpayer's money. It's just not true. Social Security is a bit different. The money you pay Social Security is ACTUALLY yours, and so you get a statement, each year that you work, for how much you have, and for how much it will pay out in time. But general taxes, they go directly to the state. No longer yours. You elect representatives to govern for you, and they use that money to do so, but it's at their discretion--not yours. Here's the thing, I could understand the anger if the things that these MPs were doing were really egregious, like paying for prostitutes and private jets, large in excess of say 8,000 dollars. But so far, most of the expenses fell perfectly within the rules. The one I heard about today was that an MP used his allowance to buy a fancy TV. So what? The BBC is really milking the people's anger on this subject. I've heard a lot of angry interviews on the subject. MPs for the most part have come out rather quizzical, since very few of them were breaking the law. I think the Brits need to give this horse a rest. You're angry at the politicians for allowing the economy to breakdown, and sure, they did. But as the song goes, when the money keeps pouring in you don't ask how. You only ask how when the money stops.

<>

2. On a related subject, the WSJ had a reporter on their morning news radio discussing how Social Security is paid out. He made the point that Social Security money isn't sitting in escrow anywhere, it's an accounting liability that gets paid out of other budgets. I can say this with smug authority now that I'm an accounting student. No shit. Not that the reporter was wrong, or that he was in any real way to blame for this revelation. The point is that isn't news. All liabilities are columns on papers. Payouts always come out of cash, and from converting assets into cash. My issue is that Social Security is a political issue, and as such, it often gets reported in such a way as to invite criticism rather than encourage reform.

<>

Ok, econtalk, I'm way behind in my Econtalk listenings. This comment is on the Don Boudreaux interview. Again, the popular economics arguments against control of the market really drive me mad. Most economists will admit, that no administration, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, ever leaves the market alone. What they won't admit is that an entirely free market is, like socialism in its purest form, a complete pipedream. Boudreaux came up with an interesting concept: when calling for the masses to be allowed utmost freedom to move their money in self-corrective patterns, he said the additive of the giant of government hamfistedly acting in the delicate workings of the market mechanism is never good. This idea of the government as a giant is interesting to me. Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts don't want the giant to act in the marketplace. But they won't admit that the giant is ALWAYS acting, ALWAYS moving. And policy, even in non-obvious economic spheres always interacts with the economy both on the macro and micro levels--so what is he talking about? One more gripe: The idea of a self-corrective market is appealing, but it doesn't take into account actual need or hardship. Don and Russ and all of his friends want the businesses that can't survive to fail. Let the market reward the lucky survivors, and let the market reward the new up and comers. The giant can't let that happen. Unlike the giant of the oceans, the whale or the shark, the giant of government must protect as many of its people as often as it can, as quickly as it can. It never sleeps, it knows no respite, it can only go on protecting and providing. And as it moves, certainly a little wanton destruction, and a lot of waste. Unintended consequences and all that.

Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer

So I just finished reading the memoir of Frank Schaeffer, the son of the famous evangelical Francis Schaeffer. A couple of things. I came to the book with the conception that it was a repudiation of the religious right. Though this is true in some part, overall less than fifty pages of the book were devoted to the subject. Rather it is simply a memoir of the man's life. I must admit, I was a bit disappointed. Not by Schaeffer, or his story, or his writing, although he did, or his editors, misspell non-profit at one point. I was disappointed by the fact that I was really hoping for a juicy, American evangelists are batshit crazy, tell all. Schaeffer's experience with American Evangelicalism supports that notion, but again, it only consists of 50-60 pages of the book.

Schaeffer's ministry was called L'Abri and was located in Switzerland. It was austere, and for most of Frank Schaeffer's young adult life relatively poor. They didn't begin to really grow and make money until the 60s when royalties and backlash from the Free Love generation began lapping at their teat. Up until that point, it sounds like a perfectly cromulent place (ha!) Nestled in the alps, they went skiing during the winter, went to Portofino in Italy over the summer. Frank Schaeffer, from the time he was twelve to the day he got married, if I recall, about 20, spent the entire 8 years, not unlike most men, trying to get laid. Most of the girls he slept with were women of L'Abri, but he doesn't really focus on this salacious idea, save to admit that he had a much harder time trying to make it in the Swiss nightclub scene. Schaeffer was spent most of his time painting nudes, listening to rock music, and getting into trouble. Including nearly killing one of the parishioners at L'Abri in a sledding accident. The guy had a very normal life, with the exception that A) his parents spent more time working on the ministry than they did on the kids B) he had almost no formal education, being dyslexic, and having absentee parents, he was kicked out of schools, until he finally ran away and went home. That said, his father was a cultural historian, not by profession, but certainly by professed love, and made his way on a Christian film about the art of the Renaissance.

I won't bother really to describe the abuse. It was mentioned frankly, but not dwelled upon, and since none of it was sexual abuse, I think at the time, it would have been considered fairly standard fare.

Let's skip to the 50 pages of pure red meat. Franky Schaeffer, with his contemporaries, Pat Robertson, and a few others almost created the Religious right. I make this point now, because it dovetails with the two books I've recently started, Rick Perlstein's Nixonland, and Frank Rich's The Greatest Story Ever Sold. Nixonland starts with the "end of the Right" with the death knell of Barry Goldwater's campaign. Frank Rich starts with the rise to power of the Bush administration. Crazy for God, takes it from the angle of a fledgling movement that grew over the course of a few decades--principally on the 60s-90s. That's another disappointment, though Schaeffer discusses Bush periodically, and his parents involvement with the Bushes, the topic is never really given serious consideration. Moreover, since Schaeffer left the movement in the 90s, he really didn't have much to add to what most people consider the height of the religious right. That said, it's a memoir. It does what it purports to do, talk about the man's life.

The ministry at L'Abri began to grow in leaps in bounds after his parents started publishing in the States. The disenfranchisement of the 60s seems to have driven people to excess, in one direction or the other. Schaeffer suggests that it was the freelove itself that drove the people to the ministry. That people saw the excess of the left and grew disgusted by it. I think the reason was a fair bit more complex than that, though I certainly couldn't contest the contrary nature of the spiritual enlistment. With all this new inflow of an extremely diverse body, many of whom were artists, layabouts, and other transitory people, and not simply religious soul seekers, Schaeffer got one of them pregnant. His wife, Genie was one such, who was just a backpacker passing through who happened to fall in love with the bad boy preacher's son. I should say this very clearly, the religion preached by L'Abri at the time of the 60s was very liberal in nature. Though it still sought Jesus Christ as Savior, it appreciated art of all flavor, did not discriminate against homosexuals, and generally kept itself to the goal of convincing seekers that God could exist meaningfully in even a modern life. On the whole, it doesn't sound like a bad place, and I would have loved to sit and have a chat on philosophy with Francis Schaeffer.

When Schaeffer got Genie pregnant he was at a really young age, as was she. I'm guessing because I don't have the book in front of me, but I think he was 20, and she was probably about the same age, maybe a year or two older. Almost immediately after his daughter was born he was won over by the miracle of his own daughter, and immediately began to heat up on the subject of abortion. His father had avoided the issue. At the time, the 60s, evangelical Christians saw abortion as a Catholic issue. And evangelicals, being fairly exclusive, didn't care to discuss it. Francis' son was the person who enlisted him on the project of making the pro-life movement a political thing. Frank Schaeffer, with the help of another religious fundraiser/figurehead, Bobby Zeoli, produced two movies with the beneficent Frank Schaeffer discussing, among other things, abortion. Than they sold it to the Americans. It took a while to gain steam.

One point that Schaeffer makes that I find interesting, but erroneous, is that the ACLU and other liberal, pro-choice organizations made Schaeffer's job a lot easier. According to Schaeffer, pro-choice forces had made abortion an almost romantic, or "in" option, a sort of "abortion-chic." This meant that that they could generate a lot of outrage, and the outrage in turn generated outrage from the left that provided the evangelists an "us against them" vector. Though I am certainly not old enough to really contest this (this movement was built in the 70s and 80s) and my worldly experience in the 80s was fairly limited, I cannot ever believe that abortion was taken lightly by a majority, or even a plurality of American women. Abortion is an awful thing, and it scars all involved, (though 90% the woman whose body it is) in many ways.

Regardless, that was the kickstart of the religious right in this country. Before they were voting for born again Christian presidents, before they were weighing in on foreign policy, or prayers in the public schools, or creationism,or the ID movement (Both Francis and Frank Schaeffer's were proponents of theories of evolution-despite a lack of formal education) there was abortion. And this is what I'll end this post on.

Liberals who are kicking the downed Republican party in the ribs, are being ridiculously shortsighted. This is a party that fights best when the chips are down. And they win by appealing to the base, not the center. Because their vision is moving the center closer to the base. And for the past decade they succeeded at that admirably. So beware abortion, liberals. Obama is looking at choosing a new Supreme Court Justice, and this could well prove the pivot point in the fortunes of the Republicans. That Justice must support Roe v. Wade. But if he/she does, that gives the Republethugs automatic poll points. After all, when it comes to the semantics of Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice, how can we EVER win? If I had to choose between veggie burgers and hamburgers, I'd be bummed if I had to eat a veggie burger, but I could live with it. Living without life? Rhetorically, a liberals best/only answer to that is the rhetorical flair of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death."

Finally, I have very eagerly started both New Left books, I have long been a fan of both Rich and Pearlstein, and I already have a bunch to comment on.