Obamacare upheld

[Homer_Rice]

While we're on the old man theme, maybe we should sing the chorus of "Heart of Gold" together! Cuz it sure is true that we're both looking--we've always had that much in common. And it's the responsibility of us older folks to harass nag bitch at encourage younger folks. Lol.

 

Thomas Frank is an onion peeler. He has written a number of books, the only one of which I have read is "What's the Matter with Kansas." But, having read a lot of his shorter stuff, too, I think it fair to say that his organizing theme is to attempt to analyze and understand the flow of power in our time. Of course, he does this with a "leftist" bias. I'd encourage you to at least skim/speed read the article posted for his main points because it's the sort of thing that does not fit into a standard left/right spectrum. It's more suggestive of the capture of power by a limited few and how this capture influences and to a large extent, determines, the limited range of policy options under consideration.

 

I think we'd both agree that the exercise of power by a limited few--who really do not consider the views of the mass of the population--is not healthy. And it does not really matter where on the political spectrum the masses reside. That's the dangerous part. We've reached a moment in our history where it's possible to virtually ignore the will of the people no matter how it is expressed. At best it's a bit of lip service and then "we're gonna do what we wanna do no matter what." This applies to both major parties and Frank is pointing out that those portions of our media that carry water for the left serve as gatekeepers, or perhaps, more like gate guards, who dictate just what is and what is not acceptable to talk about in politics.

 

That has to change is we're ever going to get beyond the lullabies we tell ourselves and is, imo, absolutely a necessary condition of rediscovering the search for that ever elusive heart of gold.

[BengalBacker]

While we're on the old man theme, maybe we should sing the chorus of "Heart of Gold" together! Cuz it sure is true that we're both looking--we've always had that much in common. And it's the responsibility of us older folks to harass nag bitch at encourage younger folks. Lol.

 

 

I think everyone here, and virtually everyone everywhere want basically the same things. Peace, at least a modicum of prosperity and a chance at a good future for our children and grandchildren. We just disagree on how to get there.

 

Thomas Frank is an onion peeler. He has written a number of books, the only one of which I have read is "What's the Matter with Kansas." But, having read a lot of his shorter stuff, too, I think it fair to say that his organizing theme is to attempt to analyze and understand the flow of power in our time. Of course, he does this with a "leftist" bias. I'd encourage you to at least skim/speed read the article posted for his main points because it's the sort of thing that does not fit into a standard left/right spectrum. It's more suggestive of the capture of power by a limited few and how this capture influences and to a large extent, determines, the limited range of policy options under consideration.

 

 

I read it. A lot of truth in it, even if what he hopes for might be a different direction than what I hope for. It was very encouraging to see someone on the left acknowledging the protection given to Obama by the left leaning media.

 

I think we'd both agree that the exercise of power by a limited few--who really do not consider the views of the mass of the population--is not healthy. And it does not really matter where on the political spectrum the masses reside. That's the dangerous part. We've reached a moment in our history where it's possible to virtually ignore the will of the people no matter how it is expressed. At best it's a bit of lip service and then "we're gonna do what we wanna do no matter what." This applies to both major parties and Frank is pointing out that those portions of our media that carry water for the left serve as gatekeepers, or perhaps, more like gate guards, who dictate just what is and what is not acceptable to talk about in politics.

 

 

As I've said before on here, money is power and I think the situation we find ourselves in was inevitable. It's always been the case, but technology has made the world so small that the power is more concentrated among fewer people/entities, meaning fewer puppeteers are pulling the strings than in the past, but in control of more of the people. They let us vote, and control what they want to let us control, but they control what matters to them.

 

That has to change is we're ever going to get beyond the lullabies we tell ourselves and is, imo, absolutely a necessary condition of rediscovering the search for that ever elusive heart of gold.

 

 

There will never be an "after the gold rush". The gold rush is perpetual and is ingrained in human nature. The best we can hope for in the grand scheme of things is for reasonably benevolent kings who realize they can get what they want while still allowing the masses to live in peace and prosperity. It already is essentially a one world government and we are all chess pieces. If the kings aren't so benevolent, we pawns are made to crush each other while the kings smile.

 

Anyone watch Game Of Thrones? Remember when Lord Tyrion is wondering why his addle brained cousin enjoyed crushing beetles so much, an obvious analogy to why the rulers around him including his father seemed to enjoy doing the same to people. Like Tyrion, I just hope for rulers like Daenerys. Or at least what we know of her so far. Speak softly and carry a big dragon.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy this Homer, vintage 1971.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UAGrpw3k5M

[Jamie_B]

I ridicule FoxNews (you know, because they lie), but if you do a deep enough dive I've posted stuff from conservatives (like Former Regan adviser David Stockman) or conservitive websites (like Forbes or American Conservitive)

 

 

You're going to have to do better than that.

[Jamie_B]

When those kings aren't benevolent it isn't uncommon for the masses to rise up and end their reign, often violently.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8

[T-Dub]

 Any current examples of things you disagree with the left, and agree with the right on?

 

 

Probably not, but you might find some comfort in knowing why: I think they're pretty close to the same, and controlled by most of the same people.

 

There are only 3 real issues that come to mind that make me prefer one over the other:

 

1. Civil rights - "the left" (such as it is) tends to be more secular, and I frankly DGAF what the Bible says when it comes to what our laws should be;

 

2. "The right" (such as it is) is pushing the idea of blaming the poor, trotting out the "welfare queen" bullshit when corporate welfare is far more costly and far less altruistic. I am willing to accept a small amount of abuse by individuals when we're doing a much greater good, like feeding & sheltering the homeless for example. I am less willing to accept it when it's a corporation.

 

3. The constant xenophobic jingoism from that side of the aisle. 

 

Combine that with a lack of any realistic platform or ideas other than an increasingly-shrill cry of OBAMA IS THE ANTCHRIST!!!1 & I don't see much from that arena worth supporting.  

 

FYI this is coming from someone that sees Obama as, for the most part, a smug but feckless shill for the plutocracy.

[Homer_Rice]

 

I think everyone here, and virtually everyone everywhere want basically the same things. Peace, at least a modicum of prosperity and a chance at a good future for our children and grandchildren. We just disagree on how to get there.

 

Agreed.
 

As I've said before on here, money is power and I think the situation we find ourselves in was inevitable. It's always been the case, but technology has made the world so small that the power is more concentrated among fewer people/entities, meaning fewer puppeteers are pulling the strings than in the past, but in control of more of the people. They let us vote, and control what they want to let us control, but they control what matters to them.

 

It's not the smallness of the world, imo, though there is that element. It's a concerted effort by those in power to bypass and subvert the notion of the nation-state. There are many loci of power in the world and unfortunately many of them agree, and act more or less in concert, on this point. That's why recent attempts to bull rush the trade treaties causes so much concern.

 

There will never be an "after the gold rush". The gold rush is perpetual and is ingrained in human nature. The best we can hope for in the grand scheme of things is for reasonably benevolent kings who realize they can get what they want while still allowing the masses to live in peace and prosperity. It already is essentially a one world government and we are all chess pieces. If the kings aren't so benevolent, we pawns are made to crush each other while the kings smile.

 

Plato thought this at one time. But significantly, later in his life he jettisoned much of his earlier approaches. So, the Theaetetus on epistemology and on politics, the Laws over the Republic. People tend to make a big deal about the philosopher-king but I think Plato recognized that very few would ever have hope to attaining the virtues he ascribed to the p-k. And, of course, a shitty king can mean really bad news. So, late in his life he wrote The Laws, which he thought was the best possible attainable form of governance. Less emphasis on personality and more emphasis on structural and legal principles.

 

Thanks, hadn't seen that performance. What I really respect about (acoustic) Young is his elegance. Simple, but not simplistic; direct, but via an interesting path; and thoughtful.

 

On health care, this bit of virtually criminal balderdash shows, again, why private interests cannot be trusted and instead must be suborned to, and held accountable by, government and the law:

 

50 hospitals charge uninsured more than 10 times cost of care, study finds

[BengalBacker]

I ridicule FoxNews (you know, because they lie), but if you do a deep enough dive I've posted stuff from conservatives (like Former Regan adviser David Stockman) or conservitive websites (like Forbes or American Conservitive)

 

 

You're going to have to do better than that.

 

 

Lol Jamie.

 

I'll try to do better sir.  ^_^

 

Remember when Fox edited the Zimmerman 911 phone call cutting out the part where they asked him what race Martin was? Oh wait, that wasn't Fox.

[BengalBacker]

 

Thanks, hadn't seen that performance. What I really respect about (acoustic) Young is his elegance. Simple, but not simplistic; direct, but via an interesting path; and thoughtful.

 

I thought it was interesting seeing him do "new songs" like Old Man that the audience had never heard before.

[BengalBacker]

On health care, this bit of virtually criminal balderdash shows, again, why private interests cannot be trusted and instead must be suborned to, and held accountable by, government and the law:

 

50 hospitals charge uninsured more than 10 times cost of care, study finds

 

For as long as I can remember, hospitals have overcharged. Ten dollars for a two cent aspirin. I have no problem with laws to prevent that sort of thing, and I've always said that's why medical care costs so much. I don't think Obamacare fixes that, and I think the abuses will be even worse when we go to single payer. Government isn't very efficient running anything.

[Jamie_B]

[Jamie_B]

Subsidies upheld

[Jamie_B]

upheld 6-3 even...

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102737776

[COB]

 

I think everyone here, and virtually everyone everywhere want basically the same things. Peace, at least a modicum of prosperity and a chance at a good future for our children and grandchildren. We just disagree on how to get there.

 

 

I read it. A lot of truth in it, even if what he hopes for might be a different direction than what I hope for. It was very encouraging to see someone on the left acknowledging the protection given to Obama by the left leaning media.

 

 

As I've said before on here, money is power and I think the situation we find ourselves in was inevitable. It's always been the case, but technology has made the world so small that the power is more concentrated among fewer people/entities, meaning fewer puppeteers are pulling the strings than in the past, but in control of more of the people. They let us vote, and control what they want to let us control, but they control what matters to them.

 

 

There will never be an "after the gold rush". The gold rush is perpetual and is ingrained in human nature. The best we can hope for in the grand scheme of things is for reasonably benevolent kings who realize they can get what they want while still allowing the masses to live in peace and prosperity. It already is essentially a one world government and we are all chess pieces. If the kings aren't so benevolent, we pawns are made to crush each other while the kings smile.

 

Anyone watch Game Of Thrones? Remember when Lord Tyrion is wondering why his addle brained cousin enjoyed crushing beetles so much, an obvious analogy to why the rulers around him including his father seemed to enjoy doing the same to people. Like Tyrion, I just hope for rulers like Daenerys. Or at least what we know of her so far. Speak softly and carry a big dragon.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy this Homer, vintage 1971.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UAGrpw3k5M

 

Thanks for posting this.  I'm a huge Neil Young fan, and I really, really, enjoyed watching and listening to this.

 

Check it out if you're interested, at the 24:16 mark, I think the camera pans over a 16-year-old Eddie Van Halen in the audience.  He was already into music at that time, though he was 7 years away from recording the first Van Halen album.  

[|Montana Bengal|]

Justice Scalia responds to Obamacare ruling in a blaze of fury

 

By Irin Carmon

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has given up on persuading anyone. Instead, he’s going out in a blaze of fury. His dissent in King v. Burwell, the case that today saved a major portion of the Affordable Care Act, is one sputter and accusation of bad faith after another. 

 

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Scalia sneered in an opinion joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, referring both to King v. Burwell and NFIB v. Sebelius, the 2012 case in which Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the liberals to uphold the act. Rather than merely detailing legal principles, Scalia wrote, “the overriding principle of the present Court [is that] the Affordable Care Act must be saved.” To that end, he added, “Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!”

 

Getting there requires, in Scalia’s inimitable words, “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” in which “words no longer have meaning.”  

 

Scalia all but called his colleagues idiots in analyzing their conclusion that the language of the law means the subsidies are legal in 50 states. “You would think the answer would be obvious — so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it,” he wrote. Many liberals would actually agree with that point, though for different reasons, and they were staggered that the Supreme Court chose to take the case at all. 

 

To add insult to Scalia’s injury, his own words from the last time he dissented on the Affordable Care Act were thrown back in his face by Roberts. 

 

That 2012 case turned on a different legal question, the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. In Scalia’s dissent to Roberts’ opinion in the earlier case, he wrote, “Without the federal subsidies … the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”

 

Today, in King v. Burwell, Roberts quoted those words back to Scalia to illustrate that ”it is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner,” meaning denying subsidies to people in states without their own exchanges. The implication was that Scalia himself had described the act one way when it suited his political ends, and the opposite way when it didn’t. It was subtle, but in his own way, the chief justice was giving as good as he got.

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-scalia-responds-obamacare-ruling-blaze-fury

 

little bit of a burn

[|Lucid|]

 

I think everyone here, and virtually everyone everywhere want basically the same things. Peace, at least a modicum of prosperity and a chance at a good future for our children and grandchildren. We just disagree on how to get there.

 

 

I read it. A lot of truth in it, even if what he hopes for might be a different direction than what I hope for. It was very encouraging to see someone on the left acknowledging the protection given to Obama by the left leaning media.

 

 

As I've said before on here, money is power and I think the situation we find ourselves in was inevitable. It's always been the case, but technology has made the world so small that the power is more concentrated among fewer people/entities, meaning fewer puppeteers are pulling the strings than in the past, but in control of more of the people. They let us vote, and control what they want to let us control, but they control what matters to them.

 

 

There will never be an "after the gold rush". The gold rush is perpetual and is ingrained in human nature. The best we can hope for in the grand scheme of things is for reasonably benevolent kings who realize they can get what they want while still allowing the masses to live in peace and prosperity. It already is essentially a one world government and we are all chess pieces. If the kings aren't so benevolent, we pawns are made to crush each other while the kings smile.

 

Anyone watch Game Of Thrones? Remember when Lord Tyrion is wondering why his addle brained cousin enjoyed crushing beetles so much, an obvious analogy to why the rulers around him including his father seemed to enjoy doing the same to people. Like Tyrion, I just hope for rulers like Daenerys. Or at least what we know of her so far. Speak softly and carry a big dragon.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy this Homer, vintage 1971.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UAGrpw3k5M

 

 

Awesome post!

[Jamie_B]

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-scalia-responds-obamacare-ruling-blaze-fury

 

little bit of a burn

 

 

 

That's funny.

[BengalBacker]

 

Thanks for posting this.  I'm a huge Neil Young fan, and I really, really, enjoyed watching and listening to this.

 

Check it out if you're interested, at the 24:16 mark, I think the camera pans over a 16-year-old Eddie Van Halen in the audience.  He was already into music at that time, though he was 7 years away from recording the first Van Halen album.  

 

 

Good eye, I think you might be right.