Health Care Showdowns and Fisticuffs

People rising up and taking their message to the streets used to be one of the most powerful visual statements an organization or movement could make. The Civil Rights movement has been visually epitomized by images of folks like Martin Luther King, Jr., locked arm-in-arm with like-minded brothers and sisters in places like Birmingham and Memphis.

For the uninvolved layman, the nation's capitol and all of its monuments of the country's genesis and origins provides a potent stage, and has carried the messages of numerous movements, such as the Vietnam War protests at the Washington Monument's reflecting pool.

Grassroots movements aim to evoke that imagery and appeal, convincing and educating the common, everyday person to take up their picket and join the fight for whatever it is the organizers or those who have the most vested interest in the movement is proposing. Grassroots hope to appeal to that everyman and in doing so, multiply their ranks exponentially.

It's the whole point of any political campaign in general: Tell your message to as many people as there are willing to listen, and get them to tell others, so that they'll vote for you. That's pretty much the whole ball of wax right there. It's a fine method of pushing not only candidates, but also politically-driven agendas.

Like this health care thing, which has gone from complex and frustrating to loud and raucous. Democratic senators and congressional delegates are being met by what Sean Hannity would call mobs of people at their usually mundane town hall meetings to discuss the goings-on in Washington, with the topic du jour being, of course, health care reform.

They are met with taunts, jeers, and rowdy chants. Some even burn the politicians in effigy, which is not only over-the-line and overly aggressive, but outdated and exceedingly unoriginal. Democrats have been responding with outrage, leading some, like Arkansas' Sen. Blanche Lincoln to say they are "disrespectful and un-American," a statement which she later retracted.

The most common dismissal of these former TEA-partiers-turned "Obamacare"-protesters is that it's "Astroturfing," or fake-grassroots. They accuse the organizers to rile up and organizing these people to get out and throw about 8,000 monkey wrenches into the fast moving gears of the legislative machine.

The problem with that line of defense is that Democrats and Health Care Reform advocates do plenty of grassrooting and astroturfing of their own.

They send out pamphlets. They call people (and, aw horsefeathers, always around dinner time, too!) at their homes to talk about health care reform and why it needs to be done as quickly as possible and why Republicans and moderate Democrats are just wrong about everything, but especially health care reform, etc. etc. etc.

The pot is calling the kettle black, and the kettle is firing back about the pot being black, too. But if the pot and kettle have both been black for as long as cookware has been around, why would the pot or the kettle start acting offended by it (Ed. Note - Rampant Metaphor Running Amok? Check.)?

I think it has something to do with the lack of appeal of the march-on-wherever, or at least the diminishing of its impact. It's sort of like using a really good curse word: If it's used rarely, and only in appropriate situation, it connotes an appropriate amount of emotions or seriousness, or whatever the user is trying to portend. But if it's a guy who uses the word in the rigmarole of daily life, in any and all uses, in any and all contexts or mindsets, it loses its luster.

It'll still grab some people's attention, but for the most part, it'll just be a part of the droning noise. Grassroots movements are still potent, as seen by both health care former advocates and antagonists, and still can rile up a great bevy of those in the middle. But the fighting on either side, I would contend, isn't sneaky, dirty, underhanded, or a sign of a lack of message.

On either side, I say again. Those currently in the spotlight are the rightward health care dissuaders, crashing these town hall meetings. They are certainly going a little overboard, with reports of fistfighting going on over it. But their presence should not only be expected, but if their opposition is worth anything, countered.

And for the record, whining about their organization, when your side is clearly just as organized but not as effective, is not a good parry. Not saying Democrats or health care advocates should harpoon a big, stuffed John Boehner facsimile, but surely they've got some other statement or plan.

The Reddest Blue-State or the Bluest Red-State?

Ask anyone outside of Arkansas whether the Natural State is red or blue. If someone answers "blue," assume they are a political operative or at least someone in the know on Arkansan politicking.

The vast majority will unblinkingly answer "red," and likely look at you like you're an idiot for asking such a weird question.

Yet Arkansas has a deep-seeded identity confusion, one that is rarely addressed, save for every four years, and even more rarely analyzed. I don't think anyone really quite knows why Democrats rule the state with an iron fist, except in the third district, while (hometown elections aside [kinda]) the state is an automatic lock for six electoral college votes to the Republicans.

I've heard many theories, tradition mostly. The Good Ole Boy network that permeates the political process in Arkansas has its roots in the Democratic Party, perhaps from the days when that party was the one discussed as a regional party anchored in the South. That network, a selective one, helps its own for a couple or four generations and viola! You have a tradition of a Democratic reign, fueled by being the right person in the right place at the right time.

Another theory is that the lack of a large metropolis in Arkansas, which altogether has about 2.85 million, aids state Democrats. Metropolises, often populated with a ethnically diverse demographic and universities that have tended Democratically in recent history. The lack thereof in Arkansas' case keeps Democrats from being held accountable to the far left, whereas they would otherwise be scrutinized by them in states with large metropolises.

Not that Arkansas doesn't have any liberal Democrats. But if you take most of these Democrats out of Arkansas and put them anywhere else, they'd be Republicans. I distinctly remember speaking with a former State Rep. about why he was a Democrat, when I knew that prior to his election, he voted Republican. He responded that if he ever wanted to get anything done while in office, he had better be a Democrat to have a fighting chance.

Talk about a Good Ole Boy network.

So the titular question is the same as asking a Zebra whether he's black with white stripes or vice versa. A better analogy would be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or in this case, a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

I'm not sure what all this means, except that Republicans have an underutilized advantage of having a national party that is more congruent with the state's populace than Democrats. The problem Republicans then becomes solely an issue of leadership and roster.

Term-limits have opened up the incumbency barrier that allows Good Ole Boy networks to thrive and allows parties such as the Democrats in Arkansas to dominate for decades and decades. If the state GOP ever got some more well-known, respected members of local communities to add to their roster, they'd be formidable with the backing of an overtly conservative populace.

Now who those Republicans would be and how the state GOP would lead them is something else completely. I bet it's the reason behind the party's record as the all-time minority since Reconstruction.

Souter's Out, So Who's In?

David Souter, the Bush I-appointed and admittedly liberal Supreme Court Justice, is stepping down. According to most reports, he just doesn't like Washington anymore, and wants to go back to driving his Subaru while wearing socks and sandals in New Hampshire. Or Vermont. Or Maine? It's all the same really.

I got to meet Justice Souter in March of 2003 while spending time in Washington. I wish I could say it was riveting, something I remember fondly and look forward to telling people about but quite frankly, I'd give anything to have that hour and a half of my life back, as it was the single most boring thing I've ever endured.

And I'm not talking about that sort of boring where you can look at the wall, or daydream, or occupy yourself with some other mental venture. This was that inescapable, painful type of boring that made you want to gnaw off your own leg like a captured bear. It nearly ruined the trip completely, as I was weary that any human contact could possibly be as boring as that man just was, and was in silent seclusion for the rest of the day.

But I digress.

The big story now is what Obama is going to do with this prized gem: A vacant supreme court seat. Appointed by the president, this is often seen — by supporters and opponents alike — as the most tangible legacy any President can leave behind.

The average for a President is just under two justices per administration, so this could be part one of an Obama saga. Here's what to expect:

Minutia vetting: Republicans are going to try and vet whoever this candidate might be to millions of tiny shreds. To, uh, no avail, by the way, as they are mightily outnumbered.

A lot of speculation about the political implications: Well, duh. But people are going to be using this selection, I think, as a barometer of Obama's political intentions. B-Rock has done very well for himself by pushing a liberal agenda while extending a hand to conservatives to come along for the ride (perhaps a mere gesture, knowing full-well that they won't accept and he doesn't need them, but it's still playing nice).

No net gain; no net loss: Souter was appointed by G.H.W. Bush, a Republican, and — gasp! — turned out to be a rather liberal judge. I'm certain it's not what Bush or the GOP had in mind while selecting him (making him especially loathsome to Republicans). Obama isn't going to pick a conservative justice, although he could take a centrist-play-nice approach. That will leave the American people with...exactly what they had before.

The only up-swing is for Republicans, in that there's another gotcha move a la G.H.W. Bush by the justice being a conservative voice rather than the liberally-preferred one that will be selected by the Democrat Obama. I doubt this will be the case, however; There's somewhat of a loyalty that's associated with a justice and the president who appointed him. And Obama is mighty popular.

So let the prejudiced vetting and mindless speculating begin. If Obama's selection is anything like the circus that was his cabinet nominations, we're in for a fun ride here at UFW.

UPDATE: Conservatives are already on the move. Well that took all of about three hours.

Making Tim Tebow Mad By Voting Against His Bill Will Lead To Your Ultimate Demise

Florida's Equal Access Policy — which allows home-schooled children to participate in public school programs — allowed a son of missionaries to fling some pigskin around.

Worked out pretty well for both him and the state which allowed him.

I can't see any reason why Sen. Gilbert Baker's bill to allow Arkansas' home-schoolers to do the same thing should fail.

What's the detriment? So long as the insurance is up, the student academically qualifies according to state standards, and the kid lives within driving distance of the school, what's the rub?

The rub I hear most often is that the school would have to finance a person who is not a student. "They've made their bed," opponents say. "Now they have to sleep in it. Now they have to pay the consequences of this decision."

The argument that the priorities of some outsiders shouldn't take the priority over an insider, who attends the school, has some merit. If there is a roster limitation or something (which I'm not sure there is), perhaps there is a reasonable argument that says if there's no room, the kid who goes to the school in question should get the spot.

But I bet that there will always be enough room for another kid. So long as he can contribute to the team, and he isn't a detriment, and all of the aforementioned qualifications are met, why not let the kids play? Is some legislator worried that his boy won't be in the pocket come fall?

At the very least, we can make the pool a little deeper for those Razorbacks. God knows their running a little thin these days. Although, I heard decent things from Spring Practices this past week.

Guns In Church? Again? Nope.

I've spoken on the matter of Guns in Church before. You can drum it up on these archives, and see what I thought about it then. It's pretty much what I think about it now.

But I have had some good conversations in the meantime. One of which, was very helpful.

I spoke with an officer who was hired by a church to stand guard. The appearance of an officer may be unsettling, he said, but to many, it may be comforting. This officer has guarded numerous churches in Little Rock, and even began attending one on his off Sundays.

Probably needless to say, he had had many a conversation with pastors and other law enforcement officials on the subject.

"The pastors know their flock," said the officer. "They know that there are some people out there who can carry a gun, policemen, maybe."

"I've known of pastors to ask those officers to bring their guns to church," said the officer, with over 20 years of experience. "It's legal. It protects them. And nobody's the wiser. And, the best part, the church can look like a church, without all of those big signs."

A novel idea, I think, from someone in the know. Of course, not every pastor will know his or her flock well enough to tell a guest from an intruder — those people who one really has to worry about. But these things aren't new.

The officer said that on the very Sunday I was questioning him, a man had left a threatening message on the church's answering machine, apparently vexed that one of the pastors didn't want to collaborate with him on some project for television. They had his picture, and if he showed up, he would have been escorted. The officer recognized the member.

We obviously don't want what happened in Illinois to happen here. But I'm not sure allowing registered gun owners to pack heat in church is going to be much of a deterrent. But maybe the pastors can take charge of the situation as well.

It sounded like a pretty good idea to me at the time, anyway.