Arthur Silber on the "Supremes" ruling: Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People

Just like most of the rest of the country, I was waiting to see what the "Supremes" would do with the Changeling's so-called signature legislation.  And when the word came down from on high--I said to myself, "Self, there's plenty in this milk that ain't clean!"

And as I trawled the internet to see who was saying what, so I could formulate what I believed should be a necessarily scathing condemnation of the "games people play" at other's expense--I  came upon Arthur Silber's, Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People, and he'd said everything I was thinking, and more.

So, once I finished reading all of it, I emailed Arthur and asked his permission to cross-post the piece.  And no, it's not because I'm lazy.  It's because he hits all the nails on their proverbial heads when it comes to addressing points about this decision that should be considered when one critically thinks; it's all about who's doing what, for whom and most importantly, why.

Take some time and read it slowly (internal links and all).  I'm certain if you allow yourself to, you'll find way more truth here, than anywhere in the mainstream media.  Do enjoy!:

~#~

Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People


The self-satisfied smugness and self-congratulation now exhibited by many liberals and progressives is abhorrent and nauseating. In addition to the general argument I made earlier today, I want to address two further issues.

In a brief article, John Stauber captures the essence of the Supreme Court ruling with full accuracy:

It was a brilliant move by far Right (but oh so likable) Chief Justice Roberts to side with the Dem-appointed Justices and uphold ObamaCare. After all, this is a massive victory for corporate power, forcing citizens to buy an expensive insurance product that won’t serve our needs very well but will profit industry, in lieu of receiving real health care. ...

He and his Dem-appointed colleagues have given huge new powers to corporations, and further reduced the rights of citizens. ...

Any real reform — call it single payer, or medicare for all — is doomed in bipartisan fashion. The “pragmatists” who are for Obamacare are duped if they think it is going to be expanded to single payer. From this point on, it will only be picked over and further reinvented to empower the insurance and drug industries.

In my post from December 2009 -- "How Bad Is The Fuck You Act?" -- I closely analyzed some of the extraordinary mental contortions and distortions engaged in by Digby. I began by noting the following:

First, and this merits strong emphasis, the "health care reform" legislation will fatally undercut all the goals set forth by Democrats and progressives themselves. To restate the point: if the Democrats and progressives are sincere and genuinely committed to what they say their goals are, they should be working day and night to defeat this abomination. That most of them are doing the opposite is deeply revealing. And they are doing the opposite for the most transparent and pathetic of reasons: they are desperate for something they can call a "win" as an alleged demonstration of perceived political power."

After examining Digby's "argument," which is fully representative of "the Horror Hall of Mirrors of the fatally corrupted world now inhabited by the 'leading' progressives" (and not only with regard to this subject, but in connection with every issue of significance), I said:

And the people who won't be helped are precisely those people these same Democrats and progressives endlessly told us they so desperately wanted to help when this wretched, abysmal process began.

This is the very definition of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. In certain respects, it is not possible to go any lower. If you're willing to give up this much -- and as far as "health care reform" is concerned, they've given up everything that matters -- is there anything at all you won't give up? This is the inevitable result of engaging in this manner with a fundamentally corrupt system:

Thus, the lesson: when you choose to
be a critical part of a system that has
become this corrupt -- and the endless
corruptions of our corporatist-
authoritarian-militarist system have
been documented at great length here
and in other places -- you will not
ameliorate or "save" it. The system
will necessarily and inevitably corrupt
you.

That last point is absolutely critical, and it must never be forgotten.

I want to stress that it is a huge error to believe that liberals and progressives who are happy about the Supreme Court "victory," and who generally support Obama and view his reelection as vitally important -- despite the fact (among other similar facts) that Obama asserts that he can murder anyone he wishes, anywhere in the world, for any reason he chooses or invents -- will somehow recognize the truth and come to their senses. I'm not referring here to those Americans who barely follow politics and who vote automatically and without any measurable degree of analysis and consideration beforehand, if they vote at all -- but to those liberals and progressives who follow politics even somewhat closely. And I'm especially referring to liberals and progressives who are active in politics, including writers and bloggers.

It must be understood that they cannot and will not grasp the actual meaning of the Supreme Court ruling, just as they will not grasp the meaning of Obama's other numerous, heinous acts. I explained some of the reasons for this phenomenon in a post from almost five years ago: "Blinded by the Story." I noted the self-proclaimed inability of leading progressive bloggers (including Atrios, and Digby once again) to understand why the Democrats acted as they did, and then wrote:

I suggest we take these leading lights of the progressive blogs at their word: they most certainly do not get it, and they absolutely cannot "for the life of [them] figure out why the congress is doing this."

I also note that, following the Senate cave-in, Atrios has dubbed Harry Reid the "Wanker of the Day." Will all this diminish in even the smallest degree Atrios's, or Digby's, or any other leading progressive blogger's efforts to ensure a huge Democratic victory in 2008? Of course not.

The reason for that is very simple, and it goes to the progressives' central articles of religious faith: The Democrats aren't really like this, not in their heart of hearts. The Democrats don't actually favor a repressive, authoritarian state. The Democrats are good, and they want liberty and peace for everyone, everywhere, for eternity, hallelujah and amen.

People who continue to believe this have evicted themselves from serious political debate, and they have willingly made themselves slaves to their enthusiastically embraced self-delusions. They confess a comprehensive ignorance of history, a stunning inability to understand the political developments of the last century, and a desire to place the story they have chosen, primarily because it flatters their own false sense of vanity and self-worth, above every relevant fact.

None of this has changed in the five years since I wrote it; to the contrary, developments have proven the truth of these observations repeatedly.

But one derivative aspect of this sickening business has changed, and I also described that aspect in the earlier entry:

Whenever a preexisting and preselected narrative assumes primary importance in this way, the longer one clings to the preferred story, the stupider one becomes. This is why the truth or falsity of the stories we tell is so critical, and why our methodology matters so much. If a story that is central to our view of ourselves fails to comport with the facts, and if we refuse to give up or even question the story, this necessitates that we block ourselves off from more and more information that might "undermine" that story ... Rather than eagerly seeking out further facts and trying to find out if a given story remains accurate or needs to be significantly revised (and sometimes even jettisoned altogether), we will lower our heads, narrow the scope of our inquiry, and progressively restrict the kind of data we permit ourselves to examine and even acknowledge. As time goes on, our intellectual curiosity steadily decreases. We won't want certain facts and information, because we might have to wonder whether particular cherished beliefs are correct.

With regard to these issues, people do not stay the same. The intellectual framework within which they operate either increases or decreases; to put it informally, they become smarter or dumber.

In those cases where the preexisting and preferred narrative is crucial to a person's self of self-worth (and often, when it is critical to their livelihood), it is close to impossible that a fundamental reassessment of that narrative will be permitted or seriously considered. The only direction psychologically is steadily downward: the frame of reference constantly diminishes, and the person becomes less and less able to address any issue accurately and truthfully. Neither "side" has a monopoly on this fundamental failure -- and even though both conservatives and liberals furiously deny that they act in this manner, their own commentary and behavior reveals the truth on a daily basis.

The other issue I want to discuss is a contention that was frequently offered during the debate over the health "care" bill, and I'm certain it will put in another appearance in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. A certain kind of commentator would ruefully note the bill's numerous shortcomings (including the fact that it was bought and paid for, and sometimes written, by the major insurance and pharmaceutical interests), but go on to support the bill anyway -- because, they claimed, it would help "some" people.

This is one of the most awful arguments imaginable. I discussed it in detail here: "Concerning Those Who Manufacture and Eat Shit." My particular target was Paul Krugman, but many others proceed in the same manner. So I will simply offer my analysis again:

I would not argue and, in fact, I haven't argued that this bill won't help anyone. I've seen lots of analyses that force me to conclude that the bill will help far less people than its supporters claim, but time will tell as they say. I think it's going to be very ugly, and I also think partisans like Krugman will never acknowledge just how ugly it is.

But the fact that this bill will help some people is a ridiculous, completely asinine standard. It is utterly illegitimate as a matter of analysis, as well as being vile in moral terms, to use the fact that it will help some people as justification for its passage. Think about it for a moment. Any bill in any political system will help some people. This is true even in a dictatorship, and even under totalitarian rule. As I feel compelled to remind people when they appeal to the "sanctity" of "the law" (which I noted only yesterday I myself shit on insofar as what most people mean by such vacuous blather is concerned), even dictatorships have laws. Hey, I'll make it easy for you to ignore this argument by violating a singularly idiotic prohibition. They had laws in Nazi Germany. And guess what? All of those laws helped some people. In some instances, perhaps it was only sadists who enjoyed torturing and murdering other human beings -- but some of Germany's laws certainly helped them do that.

Or to pick a less confrontational example: many laws in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia indisputably helped those who were members of the ruling clique or well-connected to same accumulate wealth and/or power, or benefited them in any number of other ways. So the laws helped some people. Take a more obvious aspect of the same issue: in any corporatist system (such as ours), legislators receive all sorts of payoffs for enacting legislation that benefits certain interested parties. When the legislation is passed, it's passed because it helps those interested parties. That's true of any major piece of legislation you care to name (and almost all minor ones as well). You need only trace back the effects of the legislation far enough, and you'll find an interested party that sought to have it passed. And the payoffs help the legislators themselves. So some people are always helped.

That cannot ever be the standard for judgment. The standard must focus on the primary or major effect of the legislation: on what lies at the heart of the bill. What lies at the heart of the health "reform" bill is a massive transfer of wealth from "ordinary" Americans to an already hugely wealthy and powerful insurance industry via the mandate system, which is made still worse by being a subsidized mandate system (which means that taxpayers are robbed at gunpoint twice). As a result, the legislation in its totality is, right, a piece of shit.

And that's all I have to say about that.

For the moment.

~#~

And when that moment has passed Arthur, I'll be reading. I don't know about anybody else, but I need commentary, critically thought-out (as opposed to what passes for "news" in this country), in order to continue doing my "first works over" as James Baldwin so wisely advised us, so very long ago. Thanks again--very much.

Related:
- Seven Consequences of the Healthcare ruling
- Nobody Wins: High Court Backs 'Obama/Romney Care,'Leaves Public on Life Support
- Drugmakers Wary Despite Apparent Win
- Health Insurers Duck Worst-Case Scenario

From cannon fodder to forever vegetables - courtesy of the good ole U.S. of A.

Congress to Investigate Pentagon Decision to Deny Coverage for Brain Injured Troops.  They need an investigation?  What the hell for?  So they can continue to cherry-pick the results?  And how long will this investigation take?  Until those returning - damaged within or without - die?  Until their families are destitute?  Or both?  Given what it's costing, and has cost, these returning injured and their families - does it matter what it costs the damned government, or Tricare?

A key congressional oversight committee announced today that it was opening an investigation into the basis of a decision by the Pentagon's health plan to deny a type of medical treatment to troops with brain injuries.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the chairman of the subcommittee on contracting oversight, said she wanted to examine a contract issued by Tricare, an insurance-style program used by soldiers and many veterans, to a private company to study cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury. Such injuries are considered among the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The study, by Pennsylvania-based ECRI Institute, found insufficient or weak evidence to support the therapy. Often lengthy and expensive, cognitive rehabilitation programs are designed to rewire soldiers' brains to conduct basic life tasks, such as reading books, remembering information and following instructions. ECRI's findings ran counter to several other studies, including ones sponsored by the Pentagon and the National Institutes of Health, which concluded that cognitive rehabilitation was beneficial.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, McCaskill cited an investigation by ProPublica and NPR in December, which found that top scientific experts had questioned the Tricare-funded study in confidential reviews, calling it "deeply flawed" and "unacceptable."

"If true, these reports raise significant questions regarding the Department's award and management of the contract with ECRI Institute, and may have profound implications for hundreds of thousands of injured service members and their families," McCaskill wrote. "We owe it to our brave service members to find the truth." (emphasis mine)

Ya think Claire??

Now, since I haven't read the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as all of you in Congress commencing this investigation surely have [insert eyeroll here], could somebody explain to me where exactly does traumatic brain injury fit into these pre-existing condition eligibility requirements?  Now it could just be me, but it seems that the active-duty, military person with a traumatic brain injury, now insured by Tricare - is stuck between a rock and a hard place in this master plan.

While the swooners continue to champion the Changeling's health INSURANCE reform bill (which only fattens the pockets of the health insurance industry by giving them a guaranteed pool of people to milk insure through his mandate), the number of  those needing real health "CARE" reform continues to mount.  Guess they'd rather spend up to $50,000/each for domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement, than $50,000 per patient on cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury for their wounded "warriors." {smdh}

UPDATE:  Per this Politico piece, "White House beefs up support for military families."

Along with career counseling for retiring service members and broader availability of services for spouses and dependants, the initiative includes enhanced mental health programs along with safeguards to protect military families from predatory lenders and financial scams, he said. (emphasis mine)

So why the "investigation" again?"

UPDATE II:  In Houston, Rep. Giffords Could Receive Brain Injury Treatment Thousands of Troops Do Not

What the H - E - L - L is he talking about??!!

Mr. Lewis?  The man I thought I knew is definitely gone!!

CBC a long way from being "real tigers" at this point

Back in December, I wrote - Congressional Black Caucus got juice??? - Ah, No...  - and they still don't.  This two-fer of a Politico piece (managing a stab at both "kinfolk and skinfolk"), Congressional Black Caucus: President Obama's not listening, makes that fact perfectly clear. Here we have, the Black CBC begging plaintively asking for attention, while the first, society-identified-cum-self-identified-when-it's expedient Black president pretty much ignores them.  From the piece:

But unlike previous presidents, Obama doesn't need to win over the CBC in order to pick up support in the black community. Polls show that 96 percent of black voters view him favorably - a number the CBC members probably can’t match themselves...

...That point isn’t lost on Obama, who brought up his polling numbers when April Ryan of American Urban Radio Network asked him in December about grumblings among the black leadership."

“I think if you look at the polling, in terms of the attitudes of the African-American community, there’s overwhelming support for what we’ve tried to do,” said Obama. (emphasis mine)

After reading that piece and listening to them, during the health care debate - and after the bill passed, I couldn't help but think about that "Killed by a Tiger" stand-up bit from Katt Williams.  Yeah I know Katt offends a whole lotta folk and does some stupid shit - like getting arrested for burglary of all things - but that doesn't mean he's not saying something real [WARNING - I RATE THE VIDEO:  TV-MA (Mature Audience Only -- This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17.) This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activi ty (S), or crude indecent language (L)].

I'm willing to bet there are plenty CBC members who've asked (among themselves of course) - "Are you SURE I'm a Tiger?" - especially after nothing happened after they (through anonymous aides) "roared" in that Politico piece.

Let's be clear.  With the passage of this "health care industry bonanza" of a bill, I am well aware that CBC members aren't the only ones - "juice-less."  In his - Has Rahm's assumption about progressives been vindicated? - Glenn Greenwald makes it pretty plain who has been, and will continue to be, irrelevant to this Administration (Hell, Shrub didn't even pay them any mind - even when THEY had the majority!) and I concur:

What's not debatable is that this process highlighted -- and worsened -- the virtually complete powerlessness of the Left and progressives generally in Washington. If you were in Washington negotiating a bill, would you take seriously the threats of progressive House members in the future that they will withhold support for a Party-endorsed bill if their demands for improvements are not met? Of course not. No rational person would.

Moreover, everyone who has ever been involved in negotiations knows that those who did what most progressive DC pundits did here from the start -- namely, announce: we have certain things we'd like you to change in this bill, but we'll go along with this even if you give us nothing -- are making themselves completely irrelevant in the negotiating progress. People who signal in advance that they will accept a deal even if all of their demands are rejected will always be completely impotent, for reasons too obvious to explain. (emphasis mine). 

I just wish the CBC would take responsibility for their complicity in their own legislative impotency as it relates to issues affecting the Black community.  They are, after all, the Congressional Black Caucus.

But just like sufferers of Battered Woman Syndrome, they fell in love with a man who smelled "insecure neediness" all over them - and set out to exploit every bit of it.  And so happy to have someone "like him," love "someone like them," they denied all the warning signs of the "abuse" to come.  From the link:

FOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL STAGES OF THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

DENIAL - The woman refuses to admit--even to herself--that she has been beaten or that there is a "problem" in her marriage. She may call each incident an "accident". She offers excuses for her husband's violence and each time firmly believes it will never happen again.

GUILT - She now acknowledges there is a problem, but considers herself responsible for it. She "deserves" to be beaten, she feels, because she has defects in her character and is not living up to her husband's expectations.

ENLIGHTENMENT - The woman no longer assumes responsibility for her husband's abusive treatment, recognizing that no one "deserves" to be beaten. She is still committed to her marriage, though, and stays with her husband, hoping they can work things out.

RESPONSIBILITY - Accepting the fact that her husband will not, or can not, stop his violent behavior, the battered woman decides she will no longer submit to it and starts a new life. 

Once the very short "honeymoon period" of the inauguration was over, and the gushing tears (shed to further their "first-Black-president-as-realization-of-Martin's-dream" meme) were dried  - he promptly and continues to let them know, as PatriotDems so eloquently and succinctly put it:  Black People: Obama Is Just Not That Into You (h/t to Cin over at Cinie's World for this gem).

And they heard him.

Then, just like Katt said in the video, they kept "tryin' shit and tryin' shit - don't work - tryin' shit and tryin' shit - switch it up" - quickly moving from the Denial stage to the Enlightenment stage, all the while hoping they could "work things out." 
 
Now I know PTSD of any kind (Post Traumatic Slavery Disorder included) is hard to work through.  Hell, some people never get through it.  But what I know to be true is, unless and until the members of the CBC decide they've had enough of the Changeling's "abusive" behavior and become "real tigers" - the Responsibility stage will never come and there won't be any legislative "new life" - for any of us.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

True Health Care Reform loses as HR 676 withdrawn - and Pelosi wins with HR 3962

Well, well, well!  Weiner folds - Democrat Gives Up Single-Payer Measure to Back Party Leaders...

...and so do Kucinich and Conyers.  Here's what they had to say at commondreams.org (emphasis and link mine)

Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single Payer

by Dennis Kucinich & John Conyers

Dear Friends,

We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. Your work, in communities across America, has been instrumental in helping at least ten states create single payer movements, with many more states to come.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.

The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.

Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich is a Congressman (D) from Ohio. John Conyers is a Congressman (D) from Michigan.

Seems strategy trumps everything and the "urgency of now" is only for selecting empty suits.  Where are those Nextel Firemen when you need 'em???

And this is pretty interesting Ladies:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONDEMNS PASSAGE OF STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT

“Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today. Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977..." (emphasis and link mine)

 Make sure you thank Miss Ann Madam Speaker and all those Dems for looking out for the rights of women, mkay?