Quote du Jour: Even Republicans Can Figure It Out

Well, some of them. Eventually.

(Read it -- it's not that long.)

But you came for the quote:

A lot of people read Ayn Rand in high school. Most of them grow up.

I Keep Tellin' Ya. . .

Your message did come through -- that's why you lost.

Paul Krugman nails the "Party of Personal Responsibility" to the wall:

The point, I think, is that right-wing intellectuals and politicians live in a bubble in which denunciations of those bums on disability and those greedy children getting free health care are greeted with shouts of approval — but now have to deal with a country where the same remarks come across as greedy and heartless (because they are).

And I don’t think this is a problem that can be solved with a slight change in the rhetoric.

Via Digby, who elaborates from an exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Ron Paul:

“A healthy, 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: You know what? I'm not going to spend 200 or 300 dollars a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy; I don't need it,” Blitzer said. “But you know, something terrible happens; all of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it, if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

“In a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him,” Paul replied. Blitzer asked what Paul would prefer to having government deal with the sick man.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul said. ”My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not before —"

“But he doesn't have that,” Blitzer said. “He doesn't have it and he's — and he needs — he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?”

“That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.,” Paul said, repeating the standard libertarian view as some in the audience cheered.

“But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die,” Blitzer asked.

“Yeah,” came the shout from the audience. That affirmative was repeated at least three times.

I'd love to ask Paul my basic question: "Why do people form societies?" But I wonder if he'd even get it.

47%? What 47%?

Mitt Romney is backing off the 47% remark. In fact, he's in full damage-control mode:

Unfortunately, according to his running mate, Paul Ryan, the actual figure is 60%. (Apparently, Ryan didn't get the e-mail.) That's how many of us get back more from the government than we pay in, according to Ryan. We're all takers.

From Mother Jones:

"Right now about 60 percent of the American people get more benefits in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes," he said on the June 2010 edition of Washington Watch. "So we're going to a majority of takers versus makers."

Listen carefully, and you'll discover that most of us are not really Americans.

And I do wonder who fed him the numbers, since it's obvious from his comments on his budget proposal that he can't do math.

"Makers" and "takers"? I mean, really. This bullpucky is straight out of Ayn Rand, and to be honest with you, I find it very revealing about Ryan's level of maturity: most of us outgrew Rand by the time we'd left college. Think about it. The prototypical Randian hero is a kind of warped vision of a superhero out of a comic book: gifted with phenomenal powers (greed, insensitivity, greed, lack of empathy and compassion, greed, ruthlessness, greed, self-absorption -- and did I mention greed?), he stands head and shoulders above all others. A perfect image for the teenage male who is finally out on his own (more or less), and whose interpersonal skills are still pretty rudimentary.

And do note the emptiness in his eyes.

Yeah, We're the Greatest.

Sobering article from AlterNet on how Europeans view America during the economic crisis. Key point:

Some social scientists think that making sure large-scale crime or fascism never takes root in Europe again requires a taxpayer investment in a strong social safety net. Can we learn from Europe? Isn't it better to invest in a social safety net than in a large criminal justice system? (In America over 2 million people are incarcerated.)

Everyone is so nervous about fascism rearing its head in Europe that they forgot to think about how to stop it here.

It's also worth remembering that Germany, with strong unions, a strong social safety net, and diligent regulation of the financial industry, wasn't hit as hard by the recession as the U.S. and is recovering more quickly.

Sullivan on Hate Crimes Laws -- Again

I've already made my views on Andrew Sullivan's opposition to hate-crimes laws known -- many times -- but it seems appropriate to revisit this issue again, in light of the current status of the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act. Sullivan is still pounding the same broken drum:

I'm for getting rid of all of these laws, as attacks on freedom of thought. I also think the current proposal is a bit of flim-flam that will likely make no difference in the real world. But the GOP hysteria over this hate crime law, as opposed to all the others, seems obviously a case of prima facie homophobia. That bigotry obscures the serious case to be made that all these laws are unnecessary infringements on freedom of thought and corrosive of equality under the law..

Hey, Sully -- you're free to think what you want. No one's going to put you in jail for it. They may laugh at you (which is what I think Sullivan fears most), but you ain't gonna be prosecuted. That's straight out of the wingnut right hymnal. (I find the idea that you should be able to advocate weird ideas without consequences -- i.e., public scorn, for example -- to be a bizarre twist on "freedom of speech." Excuse me -- the government didn't stop you from saying it. If your peers think you're a screwball, maybe you should re-examine your opinions, but you really do need to get rid of the idea that no one's allowed to criticize you for expressing them. That's called "the free marketplace of ideas.")

Did I mention overstating his position? "Corrosive of equality under the law?" How, pray tell?

As is typical of Sullivan on this issue (as so many others), he doesn't even attempt to present any substance. He's never demonstrated, to my knowledge, exactly how enhanced penalties for hate crimes -- i.e., crimes motivated by prejudice and directed against a class of people -- affect freedom of thought. (Reductio ad absurdum: By Sullivan's standard, any argument against his position on anything represents an attack on freedom of thought.) He titled this post "The Case Against Hate Crimes Laws," but he doesn't build any case: he merely asserts.

And also, by extension, we should eliminate any distinctions between Murder 1 and Negligent Homicide: after all, the difference is in motivation, and by Sullivan's standard, we're not allowed to consider that.

What we're talking about here is enhanced sentences for the commission of what are, in essence, terrorist acts. I doubt that Sullivan would oppose that. (I could be wrong, but I doubt it.)

Is this lame, or what?