The Hindsight Factor with Jay Daverth

Welcome to Logorama - quite simply the most enjoyable and provocative short I've seen in Donkey's years!  Logorama was directed by the French H5 collective and debuted at last year's Cannes festival.  It later won an Academy award under the “animated short” category.

It's a bit long (about 16 minutes), and definitely NOT suitable for work, but totally worth it.  I watched it and then watched it again.  I think I might grab a third showing after I post this.  Enjoy!

For the only state in the “union” to proudly lack a single county voting for Obama; whose government employees permit gun safety classes only for registered republicans; whose ranked among the 10th worst state in the country for child well-being,  the fifth worst states for women, and eighth worst state for healthcare; who the BBC identified as the most racist and ignorant state in America – yes, this shining example of America’s heartland is once again leading the race to the bottom:

Image: 9-12 March in DC-58, a Creative Commons Attribution No-Derivative-Works (2.0) image from andrewaliferis's photostream

Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty. …  But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance. Over the last year, tea party groups across the country have staged rallies and pressured politicians to protest big government and demand reduced public spending.

In strongly conservative states like Oklahoma, some legislators have also discussed further action to fight federal policies, such as state legislation and lawsuits.

Excuse me - ‘some’ legislators are talking about fighting back with the law? 

Some??

Image: 9-12 March in DC-71, a Creative Commons Attribution No-Derivative-Works (2.0) image from andrewaliferis's photostream

As the Republican gubernatorial candidate points out, such militias are indeed  permitted by the second amendment (though check out his statement for an accidental denunciation of the gun lobby’s overreach), though it is unprecedented for a state to legislatively enlist a private military to fight against the federal government.  Moreover, it is entirely unclear on what kinds of military actions would be able to repel the evil onslaught of health care. 

But during the 15th anniversary week of the OKC bombing, the money quote comes from J.W. Berry, a Tea Party leader in Tulsa, who argues that since it’s done with the full cooperation of the legislature, that “it's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that.”  Berry began soliciting support for the movement through his newsletter article, “Buy more guns, more bullets.”

Welcome to the growing pains of that hopey-changy thing.

Care to learn more than the AMA’s recommended daily allowance of theories concerning the origin of April Fool’s Day?  The Museum of Hoaxes has you covered, along with the top 100 hoaxes of all time as measured by “notoriety, creativity, and number of people duped.”  At the top of the list is the Swiss Spaghetti Harvest:

1957: The respected BBC news show Panorama announced that thanks to a very mild winter and the virtual elimination of the dreaded spaghetti weevil, Swiss farmers were enjoying a bumper spaghetti crop. It accompanied this announcement with footage of Swiss peasants pulling strands of spaghetti down from trees. Huge numbers of viewers were taken in. Many called the BBC wanting to know how they could grow their own spaghetti tree. To this the BBC diplomatically replied, "place a sprig of spaghetti in a tin of tomato sauce and hope for the best."

My personal favorite came back in 1998 when it was reported that the Alabama state legislature voted to change the value of Pi from 3.14159… to the ‘Biblical value’ of 3.0.  ‘Cause this, you know, could actually happen!

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Seattle police were operating within the law when they tasered a pregnant woman – tasered her again, and then tasered her a third time – while she was strapped into the driver’s seat of a car with no keys in the ignition.  In an unusually strongly-worded opinion, the dissenting judge, Marsha Berzon, called the decision “off the wall” and chastised her colleagues:

“I fail utterly to comprehend how my colleagues are able to conclude that it was objectively reasonable to use any force against Brooks, let alone three activations of a Taser, in response to such a trivial offense," she wrote. … Berzon said the majority's notion that Brooks obstructed officers was so far-fetched that even the officers themselves didn't make that legal argument. To obstruct an officer, one must obstruct the officer's official duties, and the officers' only duties in this case were to detain Brooks long enough to identify her, check for warrants, write up the citation and give it to her. Brooks' failure to sign did not interfere with those duties, she said. Furthermore, Brooks posed no apparent threat, and the officers could not have known how stunning her would affect the fetus, or whether it might prompt premature labor — another reason their actions were inexcusable.

The most stunning aspect of this case – aside from, you know, the electrocution of a defenseless pregnant woman for having the audacity to not be nice to her bullies, is that the defense was able to successfully argue the use of force was justified based on the potential threat the victim might pose at some hypothetical point following the traffic stop.  Hall wrote: "It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment's notice. Nonetheless, some threat she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation."

Yes.  And she also could have also been hiding a bomb in her trunk, been planning to download copywritten materials, or had a genetic mutation allowing her to spit acid out of her eyes.  Yet we are afforded protection by the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution against having to defend ourselves against potential crimes when there is no reasonable expectation that such crimes will be committed.  As the prosecution and single sane judge rightfully argued, being angry at a traffic stop is not a crime, refusing to sign a ticket is not an arrestable offense, nor is it against the law to resist an illegal detention.  It IS, however, unlawful to physically assault a helpless pregnant woman who poses no threat to your safety.  

This trend is disturbing – not simply the fact that wearing a badge seems to make anything you say a de facto lawful order – a fact that most minorities in the U.S. are already familiar with, but that the courts – and worse, the American people – seem to be increasingly willing to bypass constitutional liberties in favor of authoritarianism.  As digby points out - “where are all the anti-authoritarian libertarians now? It seems as if they only care about the constitution when it comes to taxes and guns. Someone else's right not to be electrocuted for refusing to sign a traffic ticket? Not their problem.”

Sod's law, eh? The laptop goes kaputz just when things get interesting. Health care? Baby killers?? Perez Hilton?! I'll never be able to catch up here without quitting my day job, so I'll just rapid-fire some responses here:

The HCR bill stinks up the joint
At the risk of agreeing with the mouth-breathers on this one, the bill does too little, rolls in at an anaemic pace, and suffers from the poor branding of laissez-faire leadership. Worse, an individual mandate without a public option is like ... well, it precludes a clever analogy. I doubt there is precedent for effectively forcing someone to give money to a private enterprise without offering a non-profit alternative. That said, this is an intellectual difference rather than a literal one - our money already gets funnelled to such agencies through our tax revenue. Whether you're unwilling or unable to pay for your health care matters little when the money still has come come from somewhere.  I, for one, would rather not have to share the expense of amputating your leg after you spent months not getting that mole checked out.

The American people don't want HCR
This is an utterly surreal debate. Obama campaigned on health care (including, despite his latter-year politicking to the contrary, a public option) and the voters overwhelmingly approved. Poll after poll showed a population united in a desire for reform that should have sailed through were it not for GOP drones spending the better part of a year dangling the false promise of bipartisanship while slowly whittling away at the most beneficial elements.  After a long campaign to break the bill, I would expect nothing less than the audacity to complain that the bill is broken, but to pull out polling showing how the American people disapprove is disingenuous at best. Despite a barrage of scare tactics and outright lies, we want what we've always wanted - a bill with teeth, a bill with meaningful protections, and, in an unprecedented display of unity, Americans want a bill with a public option. If, like me, you're unhappy with the bill we got, the polls indicate that most of you wish it were more, not less, liberal.

HCR will do nothing until 2014
While it is true that some of the major reforms will take time, there are actually quite a few elements that will benefit all of us. Today. The Huffington Post has a nice run-down of some of the immediate benefits including: an end to pre-existing conditions, better prescription coverage for seniors, no life-time caps, no rescission (i.e. you can't be dropped for becoming ill), and a more regulated appeals process. To paraphrase Joe Biden, "this is a big Cheney deal" and will help America at least start to catch up with the rest of the world. Someday, we may even hope to have a healthcare system as enviable as Rush Limbaugh's new home.

Republicans will campaign on HCR Repeal
Two words: Puh leaze. No matter how much the passive masses spew GOP talking points about waking up in a 'socialist cesspool', the fact is that a vast majority of Americans will benefit from this bill and it's only going to get better. As Dave Johnson points out, over a sufficiently long timeline, facts have a way of catching up with lies:

Like the Iraq War there are facts and there are Republican lies. Over time facts catch up with lies. In spite of what the Republicans had most of the country believing, over time the public came to understand that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Over time the public came to understand that Iraq was not preparing to attack us with nukes ... And just as with Iraq, over time the public will come to understand that Republicans have lied to them about health care. There are no "death panels." There is no "government takeover." Etc. Over time the public will become comfortable with the reform that has passed and it will become unthinkable to go back.

Within 24 hours of this bill being signed, the public is already trending towards approval and even thoughtful conservatives are under no illusions that this bill will ever be repealed. Let the Republicans campaign on taking away grandma's meds.  At this point, the best chance they have, outside of petulant little temper tantrums, may lie with their corrupt buddies in the Supreme Court.