The big debate right now is on health care.  There was a nice little attempt at a distraction a couple weeks ago when a snobby Harvard professor (and our president) acted like an idiot and the media attempted to turn the debate to racism in America.  Black leaders were indignant, police groups were on the defensive, and we all counted down to that damn "beer summit" like it was the new millennium. We learned Harvard professors can be rude, officer Crowley is a really nice guy, and our president drinks pee-pee-water-sorority-girl beer.  Thank God the People pulled the discussion back to health care.  I guess.  It'd be great if the debate was actually about health care, but the debate has changed from the actual bill to discussing just how angry the People are (usually described as "those" people meaning right-wing extremists and GOP operatives) and how rude they're acting to their representatives. 

Rachel Maddow, for instance, (who I used to kind of like, I don't agree with her but at least she mixes her progressive sentiments with some light-hearted laughs here and there) is busy digging through the records of the heads of Freedom Works and American Solutions and other conservative political action committees and showing how they're programing "those" people showing up at the townhalls to thinking all kinds of garbage that's not in the bill, but actually is in the bill.... oops.

Is there top-down tinkering in politics, of course there is, on both sides of the issue.  Just because someone agrees with Obamacare doesn't mean they're paid off by George Soros and is a mindless ACORN lacky, adversely, if someone disagrees with Obamacare, it doesn't mean they're a GOP operative bought and paid for by Rupert Murdock.  Accusing both unfoundedly of conspiring together only hampers what actually matters--the debate.

Republitarded leaders do a service by listing the things in the bill, but then give health care proponents fodder and do a disservice by giving those things extreme names to scare people.  Democraptastic leaders are just as guilty by simply rubber-stamping the legislation without reading it and then blindly calling opponents nazis.

So how about it, gang, can we talk about the bill please?  We all agree something happens to be done.  The politicians are saying "something has to be done, may as well be this" as if there's a crisis.  A crisis?  Really?  A CRISIS?  Buck up!  Moscow pointing missiles at us is a crisis, health care is not at crisis levels!  Plus, even if we pass it now, it won't be effective until 2013!  So, if the crisis isn't so deep that we can wait four years after passing it, I think we can spare a couple months to come up with something better.  With that said, I'll propose my idea!  This idea is so good, it'll make you poop yourself your cheeks will be so relieved after being so tightly puckered for this whole debate!  I have a beautiful idea so that everyone can get whatever they want and be happy and SHUT THE HELL UP! 

Ready?

States' rights.  How about that? 

A huge problem with our health system is that it is all ready highly nationalized.  How about denationalize it?  If California or Massachussetts really wants universal health care, they should be allowed to do it.  If Indiana and Illinois want a public option to "compete" with private insurance, go for it, if Texans and Georgians want to get the government out and further privatize health care, they should be allowed to do so as well.  "We want single payer!"; "We want court reform!"; "We want a public option!"; "We want the government out of health care!"; "We want contract reform!" whatever floats your boat, you can have, and if it's not in your state, hey! you're free to move to a state that has what you want!  Brilliant!

Why is it that the whole nation HAS to be under the same health care system and the same mandate?  We all obviously want different things; why not let us have different things?

Oh wait... Washington wont get new powers...

Well, dammit...  I guess that idea's scrapped.

Wake me when the Death Panel calls me.

-WDP

I've been mulling it over for a while and I believe I've figured out what bothers me so much about Sonya Sotomayor.  I know, I know, I'm annoyed with me too that I'm even talking about it what with health care conform and angry mobs of "nazis" (according to Pelosi), a monetary policy dreamed up by the same losers that brought us the Weimar Republic and a government running so many Ponzi schemes it makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief!  Nothing about the Supreme Court is going to change with Sotomayor in it, the decisions before her were 5-4, they will remain 5-4 unless (God forbid) a member of that 5 decides to retire.  So what bothers me about her?

If you listened to the oh so intelligent debate between the Democraps and the Republitards, you're no better off than you were before she was nominated (seriously, why do we keep paying these losers to explain things to us?).  The Republitards argued that she was an sleeper-communist that performs social justice by killing white people, performing abortions (herself!) with guns she snatched from every gun owner in America and was marrying gay people--"OH NO!  Not marrying gay people!"--oh, yes! 

The Democraps retort: "Nuh-uuuhhh!  She's.... Hispanic!...... Racist doody-head!  And she read... (sob!) Nancy Drew! (sob!).... And (blubber!) she was inspired... (sniffle!) by Perry Mason! (Sobsoobsobsobsobsobbsooobbbb!!)"

Neither one very convincing arguments.  The hearings were an absolute joke (seriously, we vote for these people??) and a mockery of republican democracy, Jefferson just puked in his mouth.  The Republitards came across as redundant, rambling, and bullyish, but within their lost and repetative diatribes there lay a few kernals that could be considered good points like her views on race (which they mentioned twenty THOUSAND times each!).  That, is more than I can say for the Democraps, for they had no arguments.  They just blubbered and fawned. 

However, it was during Chuck Schumer's turn to ask her questions (which he didn't do, mostly answered questions for her, way to be condescending, Chucky) when I realized what it was exactly that didn't set well with me about her.

He was listing a bunch of cases she had decided and finishing each with "that decision is well within the mainstream, yes?" to which she would dutifully nod.  What I noticed is that she seems to decide cases solely on "legal precedent", leading her to side more often than not, with (our enemy) the State*.  Legal precedent is established by norms within case law, which is not necessarily Constitutional.  For instance, the Dred Scott Decision which denied citizenship to all blacks in the United States and denied personship to all slaves was based on legal precedent, but was not Constitutional.  I realized with that and her decisions, which were idealogically inconsistant, why I feel uneasy about her being a Supreme Court Justice.  She doesn't have a bone in her body that understands Natural Law (the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence) or Constitutional protocol (which keeps government moving slow in order to allow the people to make good, debated decisions).

People have been theorizing as to what kind of Justice she'll be--"will she decide from the left?  The right?  The center?  As if we're talking the hokey-pokey, not the Supreme Court!  I'll tell you right now how she'll decide: on the side of the State.  Because it is, after all the State that sets legal precedent, no?  And think of all of the wildly unconstitutional items on the President's agenda (and the last one's and the last one's and the last one's...), she will lay down and allow it as long as Congress passes it! 

The Constitution has within it, a certain protocol that says if you want to pass something that is not in the Constitution, you have to amend the document in order to pass it constitutionally.  Most of the things our government is doing is, in fact, completely unconstitutional and it is allowed because we've had a Supreme Court that simply laid down and allowed it since Lincoln because of "legal precedent".

That's why I don't like her--she's just as spineless and willing to lay down to Congress, the Senate, and the President as most of the other Supreme Court Justices have been for over 150 years, allowing the State to run wild and swallow more and more of our freedoms that it is supposed to protect with the power of the Constitution, not "legal precedent" or "case law".  The Supreme Court is supposed to decide when "legal precedent" and "case law" is Constitutional, not uphold that Scylla and Charybdis of "legal precedent" and "case law".

"Legal precedent" can eat me.  Give me the Constitution.

Um.... The End...
-DubyaDee




reference to: Our Enemy the State by Albert Jay Nock