Charity on Display

The poster shown above (courtesy of The Smithsonian) was used by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to promote its charity a half-century ago. It is meant to tug at your heartstrings; to encourage you to contribute money for a cause.

This past week, our Congress used a similar technique to encourage the passage of healthcare legislation. It used an appeal to charity to get Congressional Representatives to vote for the bill.

It might seem strange, but our anti-Republican culture grants moral authority to the Democratic Party to stand in judgment on issues of charity. The Democratic Party deems who is deserving of charity and who is not.

It’s not that the Democratic Party actually dispenses charity. That function is still reserved for the various religious and non-profit organizations that perform acts of charity with altruism and with no expectation of reward. The Democratic Party uses the display of charity as a political tool.

Examples of the technique were abundant during the floor debate on healthcare last week (3/21/2010). To recap, here is the way the debate played out:

Republican Representatives (working the theme of “bad legislation”):

--This legislation is bad.

--This is a flawed healthcare bill!

--etc.

Democratic Party Representatives (working the theme of “bad Republicans”):

--Republicans support a healthcare system that harms people such as “my childhood friend who lost his insurance when he got prostate cancer and later died too young.” Similarly, Republicans endorse insurance provisions that “exclude children like my own young daughter Francesca who have chronic conditions.” (Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, at 45:05 in the C-SPAN video.)

--Republican actions resulted in the death of Bill Kohler, “a loving and generous man to his friends, family, and those in need. When he lost his job, he lost his coverage. His new job as a pizza delivery driver earned too much to qualify for Medicaid, and private insurance wasn’t going to cover his pre-existing heart condition. He died last year from a heart attack while driving home.” (Mike Doyle, D-Pennsylvania at 51:11 in the C-SPAN video.)

--etc.

This emotional argument is effective, as it links Republicans to killing. However, it only works so long as our culture grants moral authority to the Democratic Party to use it. Without that implicit cultural agreement, this style of argument would be mocked.

Watch for the technique when it is used in “human interest” stories in our major newspapers. These stories are typically written about a person or group that is deserving of charity. In most cases (with very few exceptions) the individual writing the article will be a person associated with the Democratic Party.

What’s the point?

It’s that entwining a political party and its associated ideology with the delivery of healthcare services has a dark side to it. When a political party is arguing for who is deserving of healthcare and who is not, you should start to see “red flags” being unfurled.

Did you notice anything about the individuals listed above as “deserving of charity?”

Not one of them is a Republican.

In fact, Republicans are portrayed as those who are denying these deserving individuals their charity. Republicans are the problem!

Think back to the Keith Olbermann piece arguing for charity for his father. Republicans are the problem, and they are characterized as being “ghouls” and “sub-human.” Do you think Keith Olbermann believes Republicans are deserving of healthcare charity?

Granted, that’s a rhetorical question, but keep in mind I had prostate surgery earlier this month. The healthcare system is on my mind. What if in preparation for surgery I looked up and saw that my anesthesiologist was Dr. Howard “I hate Republicans!” Dean? Would I be concerned? (For the record, I would rip out my PICC line and run barefoot and screaming out of the hospital!)

What if I happen to be gay and Jewish and my only chance of obtaining prostate surgery is at a hospital in Iran? Do you think I would be interested in having surgery at a location where the culture has granted the moral authority to its political class to hang me based on my sexual identity and to casually pursue the goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth?

No, I would be choosing the “watchful waiting” treatment rather than surgery.

OK, enough of the rhetorical questions and histrionics.

This is what I know:

Throughout history, political movements reach a demarcation point. As they become more and more powerful, they cross the line from being just “fascinating” to becoming threatening.

In the twentieth century, we have the examples of Bolshevism and National Socialism. More recently, we’ve seen the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the Taliban. These are political movements, and the Democratic Party has moved from being simply a political party to being a political movement.

Can you hear the Klaxons sounding?

In March of 2010, the American Democratic Party crossed the line.

UPDATE 3/27/2010:
Linked by Tim and the "band of bloggers" at Left Coast Rebel!  Also check out this post by Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.  It seems that when you  label political dissenters as "killers", it makes people angry.

UPDATE 8/13/2012:
The characterization of Republicans as killers has become a rallying cry for the Democratic Party subsequent to Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan for VP.

I Want to Choose!

A recent Op-Ed in the New York Times (March 9, 2010) caught my attention. It was written by Richard J. Ablin, Ph.D.

In 1970, Dr. Ablin discovered prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme produced by the prostate. The PSA test is now the tool most commonly used to detect prostate cancer in men.

Dr. Ablin uses his Op-Ed to tell us that his efforts have not worked out for the best. He now sees that he has created a medical “disaster.”

In the second paragraph he laments that the popularity of the PSA test has led to “a hugely expensive public health disaster.” In the final paragraph he says he never dreamed that his “discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster.”

Dr. Ablin has come to the realization that prostate cancer is an over-treated disease. He feels that too many men waste the time of doctors in getting screened, and too many men waste money on treatment. He implores the medical community to stop the “inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening.”

Why did all of this catch my attention?

I'm afraid it’s personal. A month ago I was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

A diagnosis like that will focus your attention. It has also made me aware that I have a stake in our current healthcare debate.

If you are a policy-maker, you look at the healthcare data and try to make an informed decision. If you are an individual unwillingly thrust into the healthcare world, you look at it with a “What’s best for me?” point of view.

In my case, I am assured that I am “typical.” I’m 63 years of age, and that is close to the median age for diagnosis of prostate cancer. From a data standpoint, I get to join the “fraternity” at a time when half the people diagnosed are older than me, and half are younger.

I bring this up to point out that, from the patient perspective, I’m not particularly interested in the statistics. They don’t give me comfort. I am symptom free, but a blood test from my annual physical found that my PSA went from 2.8 to 4.0 in a year. That increase was a “red flag” to my physician, and she sent me to a specialist to have a prostate biopsy performed.

The biopsy came back positive for adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

When you get that kind of news, it sets you back. You realize that your life has a looming endpoint, and you become distracted with thoughts of your own mortality. It requires an adjustment in your thinking.

I am now working through the options for treatment, and am amazed to see that politics is at work in the medical profession. I like the option of surgery, because you get the cancer (hopefully) removed from your body. I can get my prostate surgically removed, placed on a petri dish, and checked to see if the margins are clean. I get first-hand evidence of what is going on in my body.

Radiologists feel that zapping the prostate with electromagnetic energy is the better approach, having a smaller probability of negative outcomes such as impotence and incontinence. However, they have to use secondary evidence (PSA levels) to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment.

In my case, I am thankful that I have options. I like that the American healthcare system allows me to choose between treatments.

And that brings me to the subject of this post. It is now clear to me what our healthcare debate is all about. It’s a question of having options.

There is no doubt that if you select a prostate treatment “winner” (Surgery is no longer deemed effective! Radiation is the only approved treatment for prostate cancer!) you will have a more efficient (less costly) healthcare system.

But guess what? When you are the person caught up in that system, you don’t want to be driven to a treatment option by politics. You want to evaluate what’s available and make a personal choice based on what is best for you.

That’s why people come to the United States for medical treatment. We still have treatment options.

Now that this whole issue is a bit more personal, I have to say I come down on the side of choice. Here is what I would tell those political leaders who are working to dictate what healthcare system is best for me:

I WANT TO CHOOSE!

It’s as simple as that.

UPDATE 3/16/2010:
Linked by Left Coast Rebel!  Your kind thoughts are appreciated, Tim.

Above the Fray

Last year, in my first post on this site, I said I would ignore Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow when documenting instances of our anti-Republican culture. My reasoning was that these individuals actively teach Americans to hate Republicans. Documenting their behavior would monopolize the site.

I’ve stayed true to that promise … up until now.

The Huffington Post has a segment from Countdown with Keith Olbermann that is relevant to an earlier post (The Family Guy). The segment is almost 14 minutes in length, with the interesting part starting at about the half-way point. It was broadcast on February 24, 2010, the day before the Blair House Healthcare Summit with President Obama.

Here is the segment. Please watch it. You need to see this first-hand:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The characterizations in the piece are what our culture accepts as appropriate political discourse. Mr. Olbermann is not actually debating a policy issue. He is promoting the theme that “Republicans are bad people.” It is not just Republican ideas that are wrong. Republicans themselves are “ghouls” and “sub-human.”

For those of you into horror films, you know what to do with ghouls and sub-humans. You don’t sit down at a table and negotiate with them; you kill them.

Granted, those anti-Republican words are not expressly stated. Mr. Olbermann is much too polished for that. He phrases the emotion by talking directly to Republicans in this fashion: “My request to you then is that you not come back out of that meeting...go into that room and stay there.”

And how can we be certain that it is Republicans whose presence is no longer requested? Here Mr. Olbermann provides us with an emotional hint. His specific quote is, “That is the God damned death panel, Sarah Palin!”

The presentation draws me to the definition of the word “demagogue.” Mr. Olbermann packages his words to appeal to the prejudices and passions of his viewers. It is a technique that was beautifully on display this past weekend (Sunday, 2/28/10). Louis Farrakhan spoke in Chicago to 20,000 followers and used the occasion to incite hatred against the “white right.”

You might say, “That’s ok, I’m not a part of the “white right.” Unfortunately, if you are a Republican, you are precisely the target of those words. It’s even more difficult if you are a Republican with dark skin tone. Now you are not only a target, you must be certifiably nuts for associating with Republicans.

Why am I so wrapped around the axle over this? If I just happened across the Olbermann piece by watching Countdown, can’t I change my viewing habits?

That’s not the issue.

My agitation comes from Keith Olbermann’s piece being circulated on the corporate e-mail system of a large healthcare organization in Colorado. The 14-minute presentation is being passed around to employees as a legitimate contribution to our healthcare debate.

And that’s the point. A demagogic appeal to hatred is being circulated within a company employing thousands of people as a “right and natural” thing to do.

Contrast Mr. Olbermann’s invective with the criticism leveled at Sarah Palin for calling attention to The Family Guy episode. The Anchoress (Elizabeth Scalia) accuses Governor Palin of being undignified; of not “making the best of a dubious dig.” In defending herself and her family, Governor Palin is attacked for being “outside the box;” for being inappropriate; for lacking dignity.

Does this give you a sense of the asymmetry in our American political culture?

Emotional demagoguery of Republicans is unquestioned; a Republican reaction to an attack is the real problem. Stigmatizing Republicans is legitimate; a Republican rebuttal is undignified.

Here’s a thought for those Republicans who find themselves in the political spotlight:

Maybe it’s time to lose that “dignity” thing.

UPDATE 3/3/2010:
I think I've got to link viewers to the definition of "irony."  The first two comments make me wonder if I'm being too subtle.

In this post, I'm documenting two recent instances of cultural anti-Republican demagoguery, and suggesting that Republicans avoid being "too dignified" to respond.

In response, the first comment tells me that the reader finds any attention being paid to the issue beneath his dignity, and the second comment says that the important issue is really the interpretation of a blog post!

Sheeeesh...

Maybe I should modify the final line into a Republican "call to arms."  How about,  "It's time to lose this 'dignity' thing and focus on the threat!"

UPDATE 3/7/2010
The Left Coast Rebel gets it!  Thanks for the link, Tim.

It's the Culture, Stupid.

This morning, several Internet sites noted reaction to Governor Palin’s comments about an episode of The Family Guy, broadcast Sunday evening (2/14/2010). The episode featured a character with Down syndrome who discloses that her mother is the former Governor of Alaska.

The point to note is that it is Sarah Palin’s reaction that makes the news, not the show itself. The Denver Post headlined its piece: Palin lashes out at “Family Guy.”

The show mocks a Republican figure for entertainment value. It is an “automatic” part of the show, just as the negative characterizations of Republican figures in Julie and Julia were done in a matter-of-fact manner.

The episode points out how much our anti-Republican culture is taken for granted. We don’t notice it. It’s just “there.”

Maybe the day will come when David Letterman or Nora Ephron pause - just for a moment - before they insert anti-Republican characterizations into their productions.

Sarah Palin calls them out on the ones that demean her family.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our culture gave her some support?

UPDATE:
Getting some support from Left Coast Rebel!  Thanks, Tim.

Mike Littwin Shows "How It's Done."

This site is dedicated to the documentation of our anti-Republican culture. It highlights instances where Americans readily accept the demeaning of Republican points of view as “right and natural.”

In Colorado, we got a dose of that last week with Mike Littwin’s “Morning Brew” in the Denver Post. His column was titled, “A snow job on global warming.”

The article was timely. A major storm had hit the East coast of the United States and records were set for the amount of snow accumulation. The storm caused people to wonder whether record snowfall was possible in a world beset by global warming. Mr. Littwin wrote his column with that context in mind.

The anthropogenic global warming debate is contentious. Not only in America, but around the world, people take one side or the other. In Great Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is concerned. He sees imminent catastrophe.

President Obama sides with Mr. Brown, but others are more sanguine. The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) bills itself as being “dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science.” It finds that climate change is not the most serious issue facing humankind.

In America, the anthropogenic global warming / climate change debate is used to promote the theme that Republicans are destroying the environment. It doesn’t make much difference whether the earth is going through a warming or cooling period. Republicans take the blame.

I have used my blog profile as an illustration of how theme-based characterizations can color political debate. However, if you want to see a true master at work, take a look at Mike Littwin’s article.

Better yet, let me walk you through it. Mr. Littwin uses a three-step process, where he sets the stage, characterizes the opposing viewpoints, and then sums everything up with the appropriate anti-Republican theme. Watch and learn…

* * *
Setting the Stage
Mr. Littwin starts out by characterizing Republicans as inferior people.

He first describes them as willfully uninformed. They are “skeptics/deniers/flat-earthers."

He then illustrates how they lack analytic skills. He depicts them as troglodytes, drawing incorrect inferences from a single data point. Republicans see that “Snow is cold. Lots of snow produces lots of cold. And when there’s that much cold, it must prove, therefore, that global warming is a ruse.”

Characterizing the Viewpoints
Mr. Littwin next introduces the opposing viewpoints and their champions, characterizing the Republican as - wait for it - LOSERS.

He shows us Republican intolerance and defiance. Former Republican Representative Scott McInnis (now running for Governor) makes a critical remark on Mayor John Hickenlooper’s recent trip to Copenhagen, saying “I will not determine Colorado energy policy from Copenhagen.” That statement is described as being representative of America’s political “silly season” and Mr. Littwin follows up with a characterization of Mr. McInnis as being mean-spirited and evasive, citing the former Congressman’s questioning of the validity of global warming science.

In direct contrast, the champion on the anti-Republican side is portrayed as thoughtful and deserving of the benefit of doubt. Mr. Hickenlooper (also running for Governor) is described as one who “knows the science…” and doesn’t “change his views with each audience.” Mr. Hickenlooper himself laments that “the extremes are trying to polarize the issue….” If we are trying to connect the dots, we now know into which category Mr. McInnis is to be placed.

Summing Up
The final act is the summation of the proceedings and reinforcement of the anti-Republican themes.

Republicans are clearly political beasts who will never change their stripes. Mr. Littwin warns us, “Don’t expect the political climate to get any better.” The implication is that Republicans do not operate in good faith.

Meanwhile, the Denver Mayor is recalibrating his global warming message so that his campaign for Governor casts him as a mediator, rather than an advocate. Mayor Hickenlooper tells us, “I’ve said many times before, many of the smartest scientists in the world think this is happening. It would be very short-sighted not to pay attention.” He goes on to say, “there are probably going to be dramatic consequences. We’d be fools not to begin prioritizing and mitigating.”

The posturing moves Mayor Hickenlooper “above the fray.” Republicans attempt the “flip flop” characterization, but it is overworked and stale.

* * *

So there you have it. A story on page two of the Denver Post teaches us that Republicans are bad people bent on destroying the environment, while their political opponents are thoughtful, credible, fair-minded and tolerant.

You may not be aware of the themes being used, or the role being played by Mr. Littwin, but what is definitely true is that you come away from the article with a vague sense that there is something about Scott McInnis you don’t like.

Somewhere, Mike Littwin is smiling and thinking, “Mission accomplished.”

UPDATE 1/4/2011:
As of today, the Denver Post has modified its format so that Mr. Littwin is no longer on page two.  He is now (correctly) on the op-ed page.  Gregory L. Moore, Editor of the Denver Post, appears to have come to the understanding that newspapers with structural bias are losing their readership.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Why are you attracted to organizations that consider me a racist?

The Denver Post is the “paper of record” for Colorado. Like the New York Times, it tells us “the news,” and then goes on to tell us how we should think about that news.

The second section of the Denver Post, titled “Denver and the West,” is our regional news. It tells about events that are closer to home. On Saturday (2/6/2010), we were treated to a news story on Tom Tancredo.

Mr. Tancredo served as a Congressional Representative for the 6th District in Colorado. He resigned his seat last year, and has been active in defending Republican principles. He was invited to give a speech at the National Tea Party Convention held in Nashville this past week. The front-page story of “Denver and the West” written by Lynn Bartels carried this headline:

“Tancredo blasted for poll test idea.”

The story has a picture of the former congressman, with the caption, “Tom Tancredo wants voters to have to pass a civics and literacy test.”

Ms. Bartels rounds up two individuals to provide quotes for the story. One is the head of the Democratic Party in our Colorado State Legislature:

State House Speaker Terrance Carroll, the first black speaker in Colorado history, said there's a reason Tancredo's remarks are being viewed racially.

"He's saying them in relationship to Barack Obama," said Carroll, a Denver Democrat. "What does he expect people to think?"

Ms. Bartels also quotes a source from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"He's calling for things that, thank God, were banned and were part of Jim Crow life," said Heidi Beirich, research director at the Southern Poverty Law Center. "To me, it's an incredible thing to say. We've been down this road before. It's not a good history for us to follow."

(Please note that when the Denver Post needs a good anti-Republican quote, it turns to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Center fights against “hate”, but finds its “fight” is often against Republicans.)

And so the Denver Post gives us a news story of Republican Tom Tancredo being a racist. The story could have had a different slant, but the Denver Post chose not to go in that direction. When it provides “man-on-the-street” quotations, the Denver Post quotes from central figures in our anti-Republican culture; people described by Mr. Tancredo as having an “…obsession with race.”

Mr. Tancredo is being kind. He should have described them as having “…an obsession with labeling Republicans as racist.”

Let me provide some context.

Every couple of years, I volunteer as an Election Judge in Douglas County. I believe the integrity of the voting process is important, and hope that I can help ensure that process is accurate and verifiable.

When I worked the last general election (2008), we had a greater than normal number of “provisional ballots” cast. Provisional ballots are filled out by voters who have a discrepancy in their voting registration. Voters might have moved into the county and not updated their registration records. As a result, a person might be registered in one Colorado county, but when he or she tries to vote in a different county, that county doesn’t know about them. They cast a provisional ballot, and hope that the registration problem gets resolved in their favor. If the county finds they are not properly registered, their ballot is not counted.  Hence the term, "provisional ballot."

In the 2008 general election, several people at my polling location wanted to vote, but didn’t understand that they had to register with the county to do so. They seemed to have the idea that by virtue of being American citizens, they could vote anywhere in the United States. I remember trying to explain how you could only vote on local issues if you were a resident of that locale. It wouldn’t be fair, for instance, to cast a vote for the mayor of Parker, Colorado if you were a resident of Des Moines, Iowa.  You should be voting on Des Moines issues.

On a couple of occasions, I was met with the response, “It doesn’t matter. I only wish to vote for the President.” The voter wanted to be a participant in a significant national election, and didn’t care about any of the local issues.

Another voter didn’t appreciate that the “one person, one vote” rule required verification. He felt it was enough that he gave his word he would only vote once. If only it were true…

Contrary to Mr. Tancredo, my thought was not that these people needed more education, but that they had been educated incorrectly.

Our culture teaches that voting is a right, and should not be encumbered by such things as verification of identity or proof of registration. It is an outdated Republican principle that the sanctity of the voting right needs protection. Our culture sees Republicans as getting in the way of making things easy and simple.

Sadly, I’m willing to bet that these thoughts I'm sharing will be construed as having racist intent. The characterization would follow a “six degrees of separation” kind of logic:

Howard Towt is a Republican who works as an Election Judge.
Election Judges preserve the integrity of the voting process.
The voting process requires knowledge on the part of the voters.
Poll Tests were used during the 20th century to test the literacy of voters.
These tests were abolished by Congress because they were discriminatory.
People with dark skin tone have been subject to discrimination.
Therefore, Howard Towt is a racist.

So I am a racist, and Tom Tancredo is a racist, and Lynn Bartels writes stories that bring attention to this characterization.

Republicans often challenge the characterization, but then someone like Mike Littwin (a Denver Post columnist) will rise to the defense of our anti-Republican culture. (Mr. Littwin even uses his deceased grandmother to make the point.)

The Denver Post, Mr. Littwin, Ms. Bartels, and Mr. Littwin’s grandmother may all look back and wonder “…what the fuss was about.”

At the risk of being too direct, the “fuss” is about their response to this question:

“Why are you attracted to organizations that consider me a racist?”

UPDATE:

Linked by The Other McCain!  Thanks, Smitty.  Or maybe not: "...by the power of the rectal pluck..."???

UPDATE 2/11/2010:
Linked by Left Coast Rebel.  I must be on to something!  Thanks for the support, Tim.

UPDATE 3/4/2010:
Legal Insurrection and The Other McCain have recent posts that bring transparency to the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The links in the main body of this post (here and here) show how our Denver Post writers reference this organization.  Note how this implies legitimacy for the SPLC and that our anti-Republican culture sees no need to question SPLC motives or behavior.

UPDATE 11/26/2010:
The SPLC is in the news for being an organization worth $190 million and holding a Cayman Islands bank account.  They certainly seem to be well-funded for a tax-exempt organization.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Constitution vs. the Democratic Party

It probably comes as no surprise that the Democratic Party has a vested interest in our anti-Republican culture. That notion was reinforced last week in our 44th President’s State of the Union Address.

During the speech, the President leveled forceful and unprecedented criticism at the Supreme Court for its decision in Citizens United vs. FEC.

The Internet lit up!

The case was of interest to the Court as it involved censorship of a documentary film with a political message. The film (“Hillary: The Movie”) portrayed Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton in a negative light, and was to be screened before the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries.

The President apparently believes that our First Amendment rights should be amended to restrict the viewing of this movie and similar ones. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, sided with the principle of freedom of speech and ruled that censorship of the film was unconstitutional.

While there are specific exceptions to the right of free speech, restrictions on political speech need protection rather than censorship. We carve out exceptions to free speech in our media (defamation – the use of slander and libel – is a notable example) and in our courts (perjury is justifiably restricted). But when we restrict political speech based upon the timing of the message and the messenger, we are on dangerous ground.

Why worry?

In the United States, our federal government has a decidedly anti-Republican slant. Federal agencies, like our colleges and universities, have few Republicans in their ranks. In addition, the Democratic Party now assigns administrative “Czars” to reward and correct (intimidate?) individuals who have business with the federal government. When these influences are combined with the Legislative and Executive branches being led by the Democratic Party, you get a sense of the tilt to the political “playing field.”

The Supreme Court is (currently) balanced by conservatives and liberals, with Justice Kennedy acting as the swing vote on the more significant decisions. The President perceives that with the United decision, the Supreme Court “crossed the line.” He wants to move the court to the correct (left) side of the political spectrum, and intends to work hard to achieve that result.

Our Constitution embraces the concept of Separation of Powers. While that idea in itself is not being challenged, a de facto usurpation of that provision is at work, and our Supreme Court is standing alone.

Increasingly, American politics is coming down to one central question:

Do you wish to be governed by the Democratic Party or by the Constitution?