Health Care Vigil in Thousand Oaks: My side of the story

Yes, I was at the health care vigil tonight in Thousand Oaks. Yes, I saw what happened, though it was from across a very large street. I can't tell you who said what to who, but I will tell you what the mood was, what I saw, who instigated things, and what I photographed.

What I won't do: I won't publish the pictures I took of the confrontation. I didn't capture anything other than the people in various states of verbal confrontation, and I have turned those over to the police. Because they are investigating, I won't compromise it by publishing those pictures unless and until they give me permission. I will, however, publish my other photos which will include some taken before this incident occurred.

There were around 150 supporters of health care reform present on the northeast corner of Lynn Road and Hillcrest in Thousand Oaks. I was one of them. To get to that corner, we had to park in the Oaks Mall parking lot, walk to the light, cross a small thruway and then cross Hillcrest, which is a very large street.[photo here looking across to those opposed, posted in real time before the incident].

In order to get from the parking lot to the vigil, we were required to walk through the group of people opposed to health care reform. As you can see in the photo, they were originally staged right before the crosswalk to the thruway, so there was no way to avoid walking through their group.

The mood on our side of the street was passionate, happy, and dedicated. There were no violent words spoken. For the most part, we were supported loudly by passers-by, who honked their horns and waved their support. When someone passed by who disagreed, we actually had conversations with them while they waited for the light.

To be clear here: There were no threats, no dark moods, and there was no mob. I repeat, there was no mob. We were peaceful people holding candles and signs.

One petite woman was also handing out single payer flyers. She was passionate about it, but not rude, not mean, always smiled, and simply offered the flyer. At some point, she crossed back over (she may have run out of her flyer supply. I don't know for sure. But she was not in any way confrontational.)

All of a sudden, I saw a very tall man in an orange shirt (yes, he is in the photo I linked you to) confront her, verbally at first. Her back was to the thruway, and he was shooing her, approaching her, speaking to her in a very aggressive fashion (observation from body language only) and waving his arms in a shooing motion. With each step she took back, he took one forward, shooing her more. From where I was, it appeared as though he were telling her to get on her own side of the street, and backing it up with a very clear physical threat. Even from where I stood, it chilled me. I pointed it out to others and called out for anyone with a video camera to aim it over there. (I had a small Nikon cam with me that does video, but it would have been useless in that light.)

Ultimately, she did cross the street and come back over to our side.

Several minutes later, there was another altercation. My best recollection is that this man saw what happened to the woman and reacted to it. I cannot say with certainty where he was when he saw it -- he may have arrived and was navigating his way through that group, or he may have crossed the street to defend her. He was confronted by the same man. I could tell from where I was that the man was belligerent, angry, and confrontational.

The man in the orange shirt hit the pro-reform guy (I'm going to call him PR Guy just to keep the players straight). Hard. (tweeted in real time) He punched him in the face, knocked him to the ground and into that thruway. As you can see from the photo, cars drive straight through that without stopping. The pro-reform guy could have been run over. He got up, tried to get back up on the curb, but Orange Shirt guy was in his face. Finger in his face, PR Guy standing, steps up to the curb, and there's a scuffle. Orange shirt seemed to have PR Guy in a hold, but again, I was across the street, so won't state that as absolute fact. Next thing I see is PR Guy's hat being tossed into the street, both yelling at one another, then Orange shirt walks away, PR Guy picks up hat and crosses to our side.

When he gets to our side, he tells a story in one sentence: "He punched me hard, straight in the face, so I bit his finger off."

Honestly, I thought he was exaggerating. I guess he wasn't.

I've given this report to the police along with my photos. I am not heralding anyone as a hero here. I certainly do not celebrate the idea of anyone biting anyone else, no matter what the reason. However, there is no question that Orange Shirt guy was aching to fight, was willing to pick a fight, and certainly didn't care who he fought with. He chose people who were shorter than he, and he used his voice, his body, his body language and his height to intimidate them.

Don't be fooled by reports ginning up sympathy for that 65-year old guy or worse yet, reports characterizing him as a senior citizen. He was aggressive and ready to mix it up.

I'll tell you more about the other hour and 15 minutes of peace, wonderful people, and stories in another post. This one is for the benefit of those who might want to hear a different side of what is sure to hit the air as a one-sided story of liberals gone wild. There were no liberals gone wild, nor were there hordes of conservatives behaving badly. There were 9 or 10 people on one corner, 150-200 on the other, and two men who, regardless of their politics, behaved quite badly.

Update: I've posted a wrap-up and correction to this story here.

cross-posted from odd time signatures

Comments

[Donna]

Wow. I do know that section of Hillcrest, so can easily visualize what you witnessed. Thank you for writing up your eyewitness account of this incident.

[Mom101]

Thanks for an honest, fair, first-person account.

All seem to be in short supply these days.

What's frightening to me is that there is a growing climate of physical aggression from conservatives that started at the Sarah Palin rallies. Who on the GOP side is willing to stand up and say "this is not okay."

[Kai Cherry]

I don't think "retaliatory cannibalism" is 1. a measured response 2. lawful 3. a story in one sentence.

Is it really THAT DEEP that we've resorted to beating eatch other in the street (like animals) and gnawing off digits (like animals) under the umbrella of *HEALTH CARE* Debate/Reform?

*Really*?

As a solid Centrist, I personally think both "sides" need to ratchet back the vitriol AND the hyperbole. And maybe have a freakin' nap.

[pudge]

Mom101: I am a conservative Republican. A local chair of the GOP. I've performed songs at Tea Parties (including to 5000 people at the state capitol). I attended a health care town hall put on by my congressman. I post on a regional well-traveled conservative web site, and I've decried violence -- including verbal abuse -- on both sides.

There's lots of us on "the GOP side" who do this.

I didn't see anyone on the left condemn the union man who assaulted a conservative black man at a health care rally, several weeks back. Probably some did. But I presume most people on the left do, because, like most people on the right, you're mostly decent people and patriotic Americans who appreciate and enjoy the free exchange of ideas. Usually, unfortunately, it takes some extreme act -- like punching someone in the face, or biting off a finger -- before people have the "courage" (it doesn't take much courage at that point) to stand up against people on their own side.

What we need is more people on BOTH sides to stand up against the people on their side who engage in damaging rhetoric and verbal abuse, not just acts. We need more conservatives to stand up to Hannity, and more liberals to stand up to Olbermann. If we really want to have civil discourse, we need to stand up for it all the time, not just when it benefits our side to do so.

The problem is that too many people see discourse as a means to an end, instead of in some sense, an end itself. I could talk for a long time about this, but the point is that discourse is not just a way to get what you want, but a way for a pluralistic society to learn to live together as one.

Karoli: thanks for the post.

[Karoli]

You know, this isn't a left or right issue any more. When people feel free to be threatening and violent (by his own admission the bitten one hit the biter twice) over an issue like this it is because they are reacting to their own fears about whatever they fear. This is how it starts: People are told they will lose, the country will die, become socialist, seniors will be put to death alongside Down's syndrome babies and the next thing you know, everyone's out there up in arms with each other. Look at the Civil War...it was, at its heart, about economics, not slavery. About the power the South perceived the North to wield as a result of their economic clout as industry began to supplant agriculture. But slavery was the issue that stirred the war. The South feared losing their advantage if they could not use slave labor; the North was looking to establish an advantage.

Our country has not healed from that Civil War. Add to that the agendas of extreme conservatives who would like to dismantle the federal government entirely, the evangelicals who believe government is an arm of Satan if it's not their chosen candidate, and you have a formula for anger, violence, and hate.

This was an ugly street brawl. No one should be proud of how it happened. It was ugly and unnecessary. But at its root, there was fear.

[Curious]

So why is the VC Sheriff's office identifying Rice (the bitee) as the guy in khaki shirt and olive shorts?

[Karoli]

Curious: because he is the victim. He was also the hitter. Yellow shirt guy was also involved. I shared what I saw. I didn't say yellow shirt guy was bitten. I said he was involved. And he was.

[w3]

What confuses me about your eye-witness account is that the man whose finger was bitten off has been identified as the the guy in olive green shorts and a tan shirt, not the orange "Don't Tread on Me" shirt. So how did the tan shirt guy end up with his finger bitten off if, according to you, the guy in the orange shirt was the one doing the punching?

[cynematic]

As you mentioned on Twitter as soon as you got back from the event the other evening, the stupidity of it all is that between 150-200 people peaceably showed their support for health insurance reform, and a handful of people with opposing views peaceably made their views known.

Yet the altercation between two men has come to dominate the whole event, if not overshadow the need for health insurance reform.

I don't suppose the 65-year old who punched the man who bit him is at all conscious of any irony in that he could get his bleeding finger examined under Medicare, while the man he attacked is left to his own health insurance resources?

No, of course not.

[Curious]

Karoli, your inconsistencies make the entire account suspect. You said, "The man in the orange shirt hit the pro-reform guy (I'm going to call him PR Guy just to keep the players straight). Hard. (tweeted in real time) He punched him in the face, knocked him to the ground and into that thruway." You then said, "When he gets to our side, he tells a story in one sentence: 'He punched me hard, straight in the face, so I bit his finger off.'"

So how can you say now, "I didn't say yellow shirt guy was bitten. I said he was involved. And he was."

According to law enforcement, it was the guy in the khaki shirt who was bitten...not yellow or orange.

[Jen]

It sounds like a dangerous situation if the pro-reform people had to walk through a crowd of the opposition. Just too easy for things to get out of hand, which obviously they did.

Biting someone's finger off is an awful thing to do, but so is punching someone in the face. Both people were out of line. I agree with w3, though, that it's too bad that something like this takes away from the fact that most of the protesters were peaceful and just exercising their rights.

[me]

I think you have your facts wrong cynematic.

[Karoli]

@me: No, she doesn't have her facts wrong.

@w3: The khaki shirt guy did the punching, and was the one bitten. His name is Jack Rice. As I said earlier, the danger of eyewitness accounts is that an eyewitness will be inaccurate. If you look at my photos here, you'll see three people all involved. One in a yellow shirt, one in a khaki shirt, and one in a black shirt. The one in the yellow shirt is taller -- much taller -- than the other two. http://www.flickr.com/photos/drumsnwhistles/sets/72157622107378901/

I obviously erred in who was bitten and who threw the punch, as was pointed out to me yesterday by Sheriff's detectives. However, my version of events squares with his: he threw two punches. The second punch ended with his fist in the guy's mouth, and he was bitten.

[pudge]

Karoli, you write, "this isn't a left or right issue any more."

Agreed. But then you write, "Add to that the agendas of extreme conservatives who would like to dismantle the federal government entirely, the evangelicals who believe government is an arm of Satan if it's not their chosen candidate, and you have a formula for anger, violence, and hate."

Obviously, you're contradicting yourself. But perhaps worse, you are blatantly misrepresenting the "extreme conservatives." The number of people "who would like to dismantle the federal government entirely" are extremely small. I've never met one such person. And the number of people who believe the government is evil if it is not run by their candidate is about the same on the right, and on the left.

Yes, fear was at its root, on BOTH sides. Socialism is a real, valid, fear, as much as any fear you've got. We believe strongly in liberty, and we know that Obama is trying to take away more and more of our liberty: taking control of businesses; firing executives; forcing all private insurers into a government-run "market" that will have strict price, profit, and benefit controls; drastically increasing taxes on many Americans; and so on.

This is real; we see it as a violation of what America is supposed to be; we see it as violative of our rights, and a slippery slope toward the loss of more rights. And we see it this way, because it's clearly true! Now, you might say, "fine, but we think these things are more important than your rights." But we disagree, and we fear the results not only in where we're headed, but where we are right now, based on facts.

There's a lot of misinformation out there (on both sides), but there's a lot of real facts that are worth fearing, too.

[Karoli]

Pudge,

Unless you're an extreme conservative, which I do not believe you are, you were not included in my remark. I am talking about the deep right fundamentalist who believes all government (even the government that builds roads and funds fire departments) is evil.

Let's talk about liberty for a minute, and what I see as limiting my liberty.

I cannot be self-employed because I cannot afford health insurance as a self-employed person, nor will it be issued to my family. That's a restriction of my liberty.

I cannot make a bank deposit and expect access to my funds on the same day because the bank decides they need an extra couple of float days to keep their balance sheet robust. My liberty to feed my family is restricted.

I can own my home, but only as long as I'm healthy. The day I get sick, I lose it. That's a restriction of my liberty.

Now, from my perspective, I have been made to serve as an indentured servant to the medical-industrial complex. Because I choose to live on a cash-only basis (the only debt being our home mortgage), I also choose not to be a wild consumer. Yet, I am unable to save even a penny because everything I don't spend on health insurance and related co-payments is spent on utilities and our house payment. If I don't save, I don't have a chance to protect my home from loss if uninsured.

I am, therefore faced with this choice: Which is the greater risk? To be uninsured and risk losing my home and all that go with it, or to pay for insurance and have nothing.

I've chosen the latter, because it's not all about me. It's about my children and my spouse.

That is not liberty.

Socialism isn't even close to what's been proposed, yet here you are telling me that you are afraid of it. I submit that you are afraid of a concept that isn't reality, and that fear now drives a hysterical wedge into my liberty. Essentially, you argue for having your liberty at my expense.

Are you surprised that I might object?

[pudge]

Karoli: Unless you're an extreme conservative, which I do not believe you are, you were not included in my remark.

I realize that. The problem is, almost NO ONE is "extreme," as you described it.

I am talking about the deep right fundamentalist who believes all government (even the government that builds roads and funds fire departments) is evil.

Right. Almost no one believes that, and such people that do, do not have any political power of any sort whatsoever. Those people are far less powerful on the right than the true communists are on the left.

As to socialism, again: private insurance plans will all have strict price, profit, and benefit controls. Socialism isn't necessarily about government ownership (as we saw in the seizure of corporations in the "bailouts"), it's about control, generally. That control can be through direct ownership, or through significant regulation such as in HR3200's proposed Health Insurance Exchange. And certainly, Medicare itself is a socialist system -- complete control of the means of payment of basic services -- and this is what many Democrats want in a "public option." It's hard to see how the proposed public option is NOT socialist.

However, if you think the word "socialist" doesn't fit what I've described: fine. The point is what is described, not what label you put on it, and it's obvious that such massive government control is, to many people, a bad thing.

I don't want to argue with you about liberty, though I welcome your perspective. All I'd note is that to me, "liberty" does not mean "I get whatever I want, when I want it," which is how you're using the word. Your fears are valid, but to me, they do not amount to violations of your liberty. To me, "liberty" means doing whatever I am able, without other people forcing me to do as they think I should. It doesn't mean I won't lose my house due to lack of ability to pay my mortgage, it means that no one will take my house from me even though I've made all the payments.

But the point is, we disagree. So we fight for what we believe in, which are opposite policies. We are both motivated by fear of losing what we've got, or not getting what we think we should have. And in both cases, our fear is based on the facts (taking away my ability to get private individual insurance without going through a highly regulated government program, or threatening your home because of high medical bills), and shaped by our beliefs and values (our conceptions of liberty).

I don't care whether you object. Someone will! This is America, a pluralistic society. Of course people are going to object, to no matter what happens. I fight for what I think, based on the facts, is best for my family; you do the same. If you take away nothing else from this discussion, please understand that just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean my views "aren't reality" or are "hysterical." I assure you, you are incapable of actually pointing out any flaws in the facts I mentioned: all you can do is say that you disagree with my view of their significance. But my values say they are significant, and who are you or anyone else to say my values are wrong? Just as I can't say yours are wrong.

[Kai Cherry]

Karoli...

Your description of "everyday life" as a limiting factor of liberty is a bit odd to me.

It is as if you are saying that a life with limiting factors is one devoid of freedom and liberty...but I do not want to assume this is what you mean...tho it is certainly what you typed.

Your situation in fact is a perfect example.

You state clearly that you have made a whole host of choices, of your own free will and seem to believe that by your choices and the ability to do so, you are being deprived of "liberty" due to consequences you don't like.

That is a bit disingenuous. "Medical-Industrial Complex?" Inflammatory.

I've read much of the actual bill as proposed. Simply because I do not believe anything Fox Nexs or MSNBC has to say; they are both pretty much AGITPROP as far as I am concerned at this point.

The actual bill in Congress has much in it that as "pudge" there stated actually takes away real liberties...not things you consider as privilege or consequences of personal choices.

Many people are self-employed and choose, for whatever reasons (usually to save money to accelerate moving up the "social class" scale) not to carry health insurance. It is their choice and their right...it is their body, yes?

The bill in Congress, without question, forces individuals to take the proposed public option, even if they do not wish it, and raises their tax rate directly via IRS enforcement an additional 2.5% or so in certain circumstances to essentially make them pay their "premium" for it :(

Additionally, it makes it difficult to impossible for private insurers to compete with this plan by putting restrictions in place that are...let's just say it is the classic definition of "unintended effects".

While I am sure your passion for the *concept* of Universal Healthcare, or whatever we are calling it now, Healthcare Reform I think now, is founded and sincere, I urge you and everyone else here to READ THE ACTUAL BILL. It is written is surprisingly plain English for a modern bill in Congress :)

But really, read the bill. It isn't anything like the "man on the street" types on either "side" of the issue think it is, and is more harmful than good in the current incarnation.

Now, don't argue with me about the "concept"...of Healthcare Reform. I don't know anyone that believes our current system doesn't have some issues.

The problem is about *this particular bill*...at least mine is. I urge you to read the actual bill, and not be swayed by public speeches and TV, because I *assure* you that both "sides" are making some wildly inaccurate claims and telling some whoppers about what it will and will not do.

[Karoli]

I've read all versions of every bill reported out. Every one, every page. I have no idea where you see individual liberties being compromised.

Example: Medicare reforms. No one has to use Medicare, even if they are covered. It functions as a safety net, but there is no requirement for any patient to use parts A or B. Parts C and D are optional anyway.

Example: Advance Directives: Made available under Medicare as a covered benefit. No one had to use them.

Example: Health insurance choice, including a public option: Again, offers a choice of insurers, each offering comparable benefits, one of which is offered by an entity created by the federal government.

Each individual may choose not to be covered by any insurance or by insurance not deemed to be a Qualified Health Benefit Plan. If they choose that, they will be required to make a contribution to the fund established to cover the needs of the uninsured at a later time.

All of these are still choices. Your contention that people are forced into the public option is simply false. It's a choice, like any of the other products which would be offered. If they don't want insurance for whatever reason, a 2.5% contribution to a fund to cover their expenses when they or a family member becomes ill seems like a perfectly viable answer. The only lack of choice here will be the providers, who will have no choice but to give care to the uninsured at public expense, because we live in a country that values human life.

The opposition to the public option and the ensuing hysteria that took place at town halls was never about reform or even about that option being ideologically repugnant. It was and is an effort to undermine a President who was elected by an overwhelming majority.

Now, to address your contention that choosing self-employment without insurance is a choice. I contend that it's stupid and irresponsible, particularly if your business is a service-based business. I would have a great deal of difficulty justifying myself as responsible to any client while not insuring myself and my family adequately against ruinous loss.

Finally, I might be more firmly persuaded on questions of individual liberty if the champions of said liberty had not wantonly wiretapped individual citizens' telephones and other communication devices in the name of 'national security'. It's a disingenuous argument that fails across many issues. Either liberties are at risk or they're not. Vesting unprecedented power in the executive branch to wiretap, arrest, torture, and imprison people without due process of law is clearly at odds with the idea of individual liberties.

Yet, there were no teaparties then. Why?

[Karoli]

Pudge,

I fully respect your right to object. All I ask is that you object with facts at your fingertips. I've seen far too many objections (not from you) that are based on a complete lack of facts. Witness the contention that the public option is mandatory when it's clearly not.

My basic issue with health care reform boils down to this: Insurance companies have had 30 years to do this right. In 2009, their CEOs have been paid more than the income of every citizen combined in some of these United States, while more people have become uninsured, more jobs have been lost to keep costs down, and more individuals have lost their homes to bankruptcies due at least in part to medical debt.

In other words, what exists today isn't working for anyone but the highly-compensated CEOs of these companies, with maybe a little distribution to shareholders.

It needs to be repaired, reformed. Handing insurers all of the uninsured as captives while leaving premiums unregulated is untenable.

[w3]

"The man in the orange shirt hit the pro-reform guy (I'm going to call him PR Guy just to keep the players straight). Hard. (tweeted in real time) He punched him in the face, knocked him to the ground and into that thruway."

"@w3: The khaki shirt guy did the punching, and was the one bitten. His name is Jack Rice. As I said earlier, the danger of eyewitness accounts is that an eyewitness will be inaccurate. If you look at my photos here, you'll see three people all involved. One in a yellow shirt, one in a khaki shirt, and one in a black shirt. The one in the yellow shirt is taller -- much taller -- than the other two."

I'm not sure what his height has to do with anything, but if you impugned the tall man's character with a false allegation of violence, how are we to accept your account that he also verbally berated a woman on the pro-reform side? In fact, after reading again it is clear that you are relating as fact things which could not possibly be known to you: what the woman said to the counter-protesters or the reasons the man in black went to the other side of the street are two examples.

[pudge]

Karoli: "I fully respect your right to object. All I ask is that you object with facts at your fingertips."

Sure, I agree fully. And I did. I've actually posted on a right-wing web site here, several times, correcting misinformation from the right about the health care reform (for example, the incorrect claim that HR 3200 would make private individual insurance illegal, when, in fact, it would only make such insurance illegal outside of the Health Insurance Exchange).

I realize many complaints are not based on facts, but you did accuse me of not basing what I said on the facts, and this was the root of my complaint.

"My basic issue with health care reform boils down to this: Insurance companies have had 30 years to do this right."

First, it has been in a very highly regulated government system. Did you know that in WA, where I live, there's only a small handful of health insurance companies? Less than ten, I believe. And it's because regulation has driven the rest out. We do not have a free market health insurance system.

Second, no one (except maybe some in the insurance companies themselves) thinks there's not problems, but to say that because the current system isn't working we should therefore have a government system not only ignores the fact that we have massive government regulation already that is part of the problem, but it also creates a false dichotomy: if this one incarnation of a private system isn't working, then we therefore let government fix it.

Obama himself has railed often against such false dichotomies (and unfortunately he now is engaging in pushing one).

"It needs to be repaired, reformed."

Almost everyone agrees. We just disagree with how the Democrats, so far, want to do it.

[pudge]

Karoli:

"I've read all versions of every bill reported out. Every one, every page. I have no idea where you see individual liberties being compromised."

I have a long list!

"Example: Medicare reforms. No one has to use Medicare, even if they are covered."

If you try to opt out of Part A, they will try to take away your Social Security benefits! I wish I were joking. This is certainly forcing you into it, by (illegally) penalizing you for opting out.

Further, you're ignoring the fact that if I wanted to OFFER health insurance to compete with Medicare, this excludes me from doing so, because virutally everyone is included. Doing business is an individual right, too.

Not to mention that my tax dollars are taken from me my whole life in order to pay for something that I don't want ... an obvious taking of my liberty.

"Example: Health insurance choice, including a public option: Again, offers a choice of insurers, each offering comparable benefits, one of which is offered by an entity created by the federal government."

Yes, and I am forced to pay for that public option. Further, if I want individual insurance, I *must* (under HR 3200) go through the government to get it, which obviously impacts my liberty.

"Each individual may choose not to be covered by any insurance or by insurance not deemed to be a Qualified Health Benefit Plan."

Exactly! It takes away my freedom to decide for myself what is a good plan for me. If I want individual insurance, it MUST BE only what the government says is a qualified plan.

"All of these are still choices."

Yes, choices severely limited, restricted, and regulated by government. "You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it is from the choices we give you!" That's not liberty.

"If they don't want insurance for whatever reason, a 2.5% contribution to a fund to cover their expenses ..."

It's not a "contribution," it's a forced penalty, that is -- quite obviously -- taking away your liberty.

"The opposition to the public option and the ensuing hysteria that took place at town halls was never about reform or even about that option being ideologically repugnant. It was and is an effort to undermine a President who was elected by an overwhelming majority."

No, Karoli, you are utterly and completely wrong. Please -- again -- stop thinking that we don't have valid reasons for disagreeing with you. As I've shown every step of the way ... we do. Granted, some people were motivated more to turn out because they dislike the President, just as many people under Bush did the same. But I've pointed out many different actual problems with the plans, and I have many more.

Heck, even my Congressman (a Democrat!) is against a public option, because he agrees with our concerns about it. He's been against it since the beginning. And for my part, I've identified some things in the bills I like, such as ending rescission except in cases of fraud.

My biggest concern is that there's no serious attempt to deal with the actual biggest problem we face in health care today: rising costs. All HR 3200 really does to address costs, apart from handwaving at things like electronic records, is to introduce artificial cost reductions through price fixing, just as Medicare does. But it is this sort of price fixing which has driven many doctors to reject Medicare patients. The only solutions Medicare has to remain viable are to increase taxes or cut benefits ... which is precisley what the public option will also lead to.

"Now, to address your contention that choosing self-employment without insurance is a choice. I contend that it's stupid and irresponsible ..."

Feel free! The problem comes when you try to use the force of government to take away his right to make those "stupid and irresponsible" choices. That is -- again, quite obviously -- an affront to liberty.

"Finally, I might be more firmly persuaded on questions of individual liberty if the champions of said liberty had not wantonly wiretapped individual citizens' telephones and other communication devices in the name of 'national security'."

I can't speak for Kai Cherry (though as he says he is "Centrist", I can't think he would've taken Bush's side necessarily), but as for my part, I -- even as a local chair of the GOP -- immediately criticized Bush when the wiretapping story first broke. You won't find hypocrisy on my part, Karoli.

"It's a disingenuous argument that fails across many issues. Either liberties are at risk or they're not. Vesting unprecedented power in the executive branch to wiretap, arrest, torture, and imprison people without due process of law is clearly at odds with the idea of individual liberties."

I agree, which is why I spoke out about many of those things when Bush was President.

"Yet, there were no teaparties then. Why?"

Well, the Tea Parties are about economics. You wouldn't get Tea Parties today even for Obama's non-economic abuses (such as his continuation of Bush's wiretapping policies etc.).

And if Liberty Belle (the local Seattle woman who started the Tea Parties) had started one under Bush, I'd have been there. I heavily criticized the irresponsible fiscal policies of the Bush administration while he was in office. I am not much for organizing, so I can't speak to that. All I can say is that I would've been there to protest the rampant spending, the increased government control over education, and the increased spending on Medicare, all under Bush ... if they had the protests.

And franky, I firmly believe that if Bush were still President and we had TARP 2 and the massive stimulus package Obama signed under Bush, that we would have had those Tea Parties. The Republican base was seriously angry at Bush over TARP; despite the fiscal irresponsibility of Bush in his first seven years, TARP and the stimulus were way, way beyond anything that had come before.

I've performed (sang songs) at three Tea Parties, and at each one, Bush was an object of scorn and ridicule almost as much as Obama (which makes sense, since Obama is the current President). The group that put on the first one I went to on April 15th (the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) is an influential local right-wing think tank that criticized Republicans (including Bush) often during Bush's tenure as President (and they continue to do so today).

In fact, at that event, we had two politicians speak: one, a Republican State Senator, and the other, our Democratic State Auditor. This really -- for most of us involved -- is not about partisanship.

There's not nearly as much disingenuousness and hypocrisy here as you think.

[pop]

Ultimately, she did cross the street and come back over to our side.It needs to be repaired, reformed. Handing insurers all of the uninsured as captives while leaving premiums unregulated is untenable...
San Antonio Dentist http://www.culebranorthdentalcare.com