If you have "no place to go," come here!

How Do You Solve a Problem Like La Palin?

madamab's picture

I took a little flak last Friday for focusing on the sexism (which some didn't see) in Wesley Clark's fundraising letter about Sarah Palin, instead of focuing on how scary, scary, SCARY! she is and how what she said about targeting Democrats for death was wrong. Well, whatevah, because I write what I want to write. But some other things came up in discussion about right-wing populism, the TEA Parties and the nature of media distractions, and I thought they were worth more exploration.

Wayyyyyy back in January 2009, I wrote a piece called "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fascism." (I took a lot of flak for that one, too.) I was writing about my biggest concern: Obama's authoritarianism. He has not allayed those fears in his first year "and change" in the Presidency; quite the opposite, in fact. From FISA, to torture photos not released, to keeping the military tribunals intact, to never quite closing Gitmo, to renewing the Patriot Act, to the latest atrocity - coming out in favor of assassinating a United States citizen - Barack Obama has never been shy about showing his Dear Leader potential. (The irony of a man named Barack Hussein Obama deciding that the first official target for CIA assassination should be a brown person with a Muslim name is almost too much to bear.)

To me, it's quite clear where the real threats to democracy lie: with our government, which is asserting more and more authority over our persons and our lives, and our Supreme Court, which has recently decided that corporations are people and can corrupt our dead electoral system even more with massive infusions of cash.

But what about right-wing populism? What about the scary, scary, crazy Sarah Palin? What about those racist, horrible Tea, I mean, Tea Partiers? Where do they fit in? Shouldn't we be talking about them and how awful they are and how we're so glad we're not them because we're so morally and physically superior in every way? After all, it makes us feel so much better about ourselves when we make fun of fat, uncool, ignorant people like them! Right, Rachel Maddow?

Well, personally, I think we are the ignorant ones if we fall for this bait and switch. What power do a few angry people have, really? (I believe the corporate media is vastly exaggerating their numbers in order to take our attention off the true problem, in which they, of course, have always played a major part. For example, the Facebook page supporting same-sex marriage has about twenty times as many fans as the TEA Party Facebook page does; yet somehow, the corporate media never seems to mention how many people think the LGBT community deserves the right to get married.) For that matter, how many millions of angry lefties and PUMAs were there in 2008, and what power did WE have? None. The Dems did what they wanted to, the oligarchy/patriarchy's favorite was elected, the "in" crowd laughed at us, and we were taken over by Republican ratfuckers and destroyed from within.

So it is and shall be with the TEA Party. Does anyone really believe this is not a movement with massive backing by the oligarchy/patriarchy, which will ultimately succeed in moving both Parties even further to the right, thus pushing the country even further towards fascism? Take a look at their website. Come on. Do a bunch of militiamen and out-of-work whackos have the money to put something like this together?

Is Sarah Palin reckless and irresponsible for using the justified anger of American citizens for her own personal gain? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And knowing that many of the TEA Partiers are armed and dangerous, it is disgusting that she would call for the death of anyone, no matter how facetiously.

But isn't Barack Obama, who is busily claiming more powers than Richard Nixon and George Bush ever dreamed of, infinitely more dangerous? Isn't the Congress, which is busily throwing our money into corporate coffers with both hands, infinitely more dangerous? Isn't the Supreme Court, which has been busily destroying any pretense of fair elections since Bush v. Gore, infinitely more dangerous?

When are we going to stop pointing fingers at each other, and start pointing fingers at the assholes who are screwing us all out of our homes, our jobs and our lives?

How do you solve a problem like La Palin? Easy. You don't. You solve the REAL problem. But in order to do that, we have to climb off our high horses and stop demonizing each other.

Will we ever do that? I don't know. But I do know what will happen if we don't. It's happened to every other republic or democracy that has ever existed at one time or another, and it starts with an "F."

No votes yet


votermom's picture
Submitted by votermom on

Palin is painted as an angry woman and there is nothing more scary to men who wield power.

Related thought this morning about why men so fear women and why the patriarchy brainwashes women into being smiling, loving, accepting, ever-forgiving beings. Because the patriarchy knows how much abuse and oppression it has heaped on women for thousands of years -- if women weren't conditioned to accept the injustice their righteous anger would shatter the world. So we have been bound with chains of love and loyalty; every man is a hostage to a mother, a sister, a daughter.

(Sorry for that rant, it was probably brought on by that wikipig article about wife selling.)

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I'm just worried about what they might do.

With respect to the PUMA's and other disaffected Dems from the 2008 primaries, we aren't really the demographic that violently lashes out when we percieve a loss of power and privilege. As was pointed about above, we are the type who's been conditioned to accept oppression and injustice.

Plus, power's not just about numbers. Being straight white men gives them a power disproportional to their size.

And like you, I think that if the Dems could give people concrete improvements in their lives, the threat from the TEA party would evaporate.

Of course, the access bloggers and Versailles know this, which is why they focus on them.

Palin worries me, because she seeks to expand the TEA party's power, which could easily turn them into facism's enforcers in the US. The OFB is bad, but they are mostly on online presence. The TEA party is in RL, they will kick down doors and turn in their neighbors for insuffiecient patriotism. I have yet to see this behavior manifest from the OFB into real world action.

In many ways, I'm sympathetic to the TEA party. I feel that this government is entirely illegitimate, and see no peaceful means of removing it from power. Of course I felt that way about Bush, and they didn't. Now, I won't advocate armed insurrection, but if it comes to that, I'll take my place within it, because I won't leave my country to be led by them. That makes me guilty of sedition, too, so like I said, sympathetic, but at the same time, repulsed and disgusted, because of their motivations.

Back to Palin and Obama again. Like I said, I feel Palin looks at the T-partiers, and sees brawling in the street as an acceptable path to power. While Obama's supporters were all about advocating riots, I feel that for them, a physical brawl is "too messy" and they won't stoop to it.

I know this is kind of sprawling, and disjointed, but these are my rudimentary thoughts on the matter.

Also, in the other thread, you asked if any of us thought Palin should be arrested. I mulled over it for another day, and as much as I might not like it or agree with it, I really think that nothing can be done until someone acts on her rhetoric. If one of the Congresspeople she "targeted" were to be slain by a sniper, I think she could then be arrested for incitement, but until then, she should be allowed to spew her garbage. Just as I'm allowed to rage against it.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

What you said, madamab. Yes. a thousand times yes.

As for this, "When are we going to stop pointing fingers at each other, and start pointing fingers at the assholes who are screwing us all out of our homes, our jobs and our lives?"

There's a pattern. What characteristic do all the classical scapegoats share, women, blacks, Jews?

They're all powerless (at least while they're in the bullseye as the supposed source of the problem).

So they're not scary to fight. Not like going up against the real problem, which looks hopeless.

It's like the old joke (transposed to a vicious key) about looking under the streetlight for the dime that was dropped a block away, because it's easier to see under the light.

You won't find the dime, but it is easy.

Submitted by Anne on

and makes the excellent point that, while lots of people are losing their minds over the latest craziness from the GOP, there are decisions being made at the highest levels of government that are threatening the democracy itself.

The groundwork for those decisions was laid in the Bush years; I always said that the failure of the post-2006 majority Democrats - yes, I'm looking at you, Nancy, and you, Harry! - to hold these people accountable, to draw the line beyond which you get your ass thrown out of office, or, at a minimum, you get exposed and your dirty secrets get exposed, even if we do have to get mired down in hearings when there are other things the Congress needs to address, is what kept the door open for those that follow. Looking at the people on Obama's "team," I was worried; when he started naming people to his administration, the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, because I knew those people weren't going to be taking this country in the right direction.

So, now what? How do you manage to get the attention of people who see more danger in brown people with funny names than in the people running their own government and so are easily persuaded that it's okay to take liberties with democracy in the name of freedom?

What would it take? I shudder to think.

The power we have allowed to accumulate in the hands of the president and his administration is scary regardless of which president and which administration. So, while I think Palin is a dangerous person, is that power more dangerous in her hands than in Obama's, or some other Democrat's? Isn't it dangerous, period?

Is there some - any? - credible, viable alternative to the choices we have in front of us? And how do we go about getting the Congress to DO SOMETHING about Obama's policies? These people wouldn't listen to us on finance, the economy, jobs, health care, privacy rights, reproductive rights, the Patriot Act, FISA, so what are the chances they will listen now? What are the chances Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn't put impeachment on the table for a Republican president, is going to take any action against a Democratic one?

This is a society that does not and cannot comprehend that there is a real and dangerous problem here, because, for the most, part, they don't see it as affecting their lives in any meaningful way. So what if Obama wants to kill an American - the guy's a terrorist Muslim, right? They don't see the "citizen" part of that equation - only the Muslim part.

People are complacent and they are kind of stupid; I am not hopeful that it will be possible to convince them that they need to start paying attention to what really matters.

votermom's picture
Submitted by votermom on

at least we have President Palin's Kill List to look forward to.
I wonder if there is a nomination process?

boilermaker's picture
Submitted by boilermaker on

The manipulation is more sophisticated than it appears. Not to sound all tin foily, but I doubt that the vast collection of data, from internet use, to books and magazines read, to credit card use, to products purchased etc., was ever intended to discern patterns that might help the government track a suspected terrorist. The information is collected to better help the government to manipulate the population. Those little supermarket discount cards help the advertisers to better market (manipulate) the customers by providing feedback information on purchases during advertising events. Same concept, throw a scary story up about the Evil Sarah Palin and then see what websites people go to, see how people react,. Eventually you can refine the technique so that when you feed the people a certain story, you know how they will react and you will have the information in place to further manipulate them to do what you want them to do. The threat to the left of Sarah Palin and fascism is the same technique that Bush and Company used to control the right with the threat of terrorist and gays.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I'd be worried about the census, too, if I didn't know that the government already knows everything about me. Anyone who's on the Interwebz ever, or has a Social Security number, is fully accessible by the Black Helicopter Crew, whomever they may be.

I've been waking up screaming, ever since I found out about the assassination plan by Obama. I mean, literally screaming "No! No! No! No!" My husband keeps thinking I'm being attacked, but it's just a fear of Fascism that keeps me awake.

Lately, I've been thinking Obama will institute a fascist state long before any other President takes power. Who will the Left blame then?

votermom's picture
Submitted by votermom on

Hillaristic bitter-knitters, undoubtedly. Along with the TPs.

Are you really getting nightmares? (((hugs)))

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

Yes, I really am. My husband is very worried about me.

My solution last night was: Don't sleep.

I don't think that one's going to work for long.

votermom's picture
Submitted by votermom on

if you can afford a blood test also?
I was whining to my dr (I suspected anemia was back) and she checked-- I need iron and lots of vit D (prescription amount). She said that she started checking all her patients recently and is amazed at how common vit D deficiency is.
Anyway, since I started trying to get more vit D I am feeling better overall (even sleep, hopefulness, etc).

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

Although I, too, have sleepless nights over the future of MY COUNTRY. (As Bobby Goren (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) said in the most recent episode of L&O CI, "Don't question my patriotism; I resent that. I mean, drug me, lock me up, do whatever you want to do, but, don't tell me how I feel about my country." I will miss Bobby Goren, not to mention his partner.)

If you can afford the tests, do them; otherwise, experiment within safe bounds. I personally have also had good effects from moderate supplementation with vitamin D and other things.

ETA: and, MadamaB; we need to be at our best.

MoveThatBus's picture
Submitted by MoveThatBus on

if you use SPF, try skipping it and see if you improve. Can't very well absorb Vit D if the skin is covered with something blocking it.

Submitted by jawbone on

those still Blinded by the Light, True Believer Dems, mislead progs, and Neolibs and Corporatists.

We shouldn't give up the term "Left" so easily. Those clinging to their idealized visions of the Lightbringer are not the Left.

If I understand your comment correctly...or was it satire? Snark?

Submitted by Anne on

Call them New Democrats if one must call them something, but let's stop calling these people "the left."

Hell, force them, whenever possible, to admit to being a New Democrat; maybe a concerted effort in this regard will bright line the difference between them and the real left.

Am imagining a riff on the "You might be a redneck if..." routine, only as..."You might be a New Democrat if..." followed by..."if that's not you, lefties everywhere are cheering."

Submitted by jawbone on

come up with.

Then, reading Madamab's comment about LINO's (Libs or Left In Name Only), I'm torn. But New Dem captures the Neo- aspect of Neolib, Neocon, New Labour, etc.

Both! New Dem for more formal discourse, LINO for venting....

Submitted by Anne on

a party called Democratic Republicans, maybe what these New Dems are are Republican Democrats; the "RD Party" has a certain catchiness to it, no?

Maybe they're Neo-Dems, to connote their perversion of the liberal ideology.

Whatever they are, whatever we call them, they do not represent what I believe and they don't support me as a woman, so, I don't think the term "liberal" or "left" should be associated with them in any way.

Maybe they're the RAH party - Republicans At Heart.

Maybe they're the Whatever Obama Does, We're Okay With It Party - but WODWOWI doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as New Dem, Neo-Dem or something on that order.

If the Obamacrats are "New" Dems - does that mean we're "Old" Dems? There needs to be a way to make "Old Dem" sound like a good thing, instead of what we are being made to feel it is, which is tired, passe, so last century, not cool.

What we are has to be able to be construed as better, as good, as smart-not-bitter, as strong-not-reactionary. As standing for better policy, better ideology.

So, we may know what "they" are, but what are we?

Submitted by jawbone on

to urge support for and from the more prog/lib side of the party.

Now, WODWOWI --that has a certain rhythm to it. As in "wad- WOW-ee" fitting to the shout of the old childhood game of Red Rover. "Red Rover, Red Rover, let Annie come over", etc.

WODWOWI, WODWOWI, let Stupak come the right of center side. Heh.

Or use if for calling forward the Dems' Prime Villain of the day or issue, as Greenwald wrote about in February.

WODWOWI, WODWOWI, let Villain Rockefeller come over! Or Lieberman. Or....

RAH sure fits the pom-pom wavers!

Submitted by lambert on


Those are the meta-riffs on IOKIYAR.

MoveThatBus's picture
Submitted by MoveThatBus on

institute a fascist state long before any other President takes power

I would think he would need more than his unarmed weasle entourage to succeed at keeping probably 250 million opponents of a Facist state away from the WH to take away his throne.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I'm not scared of a fascist dictatorship coming from Obama *or* the Tea Party brigade. To me, that's part of the legacy party construction to SCARE SCARE SCARE to raise money and to be in a permanent campaign. The US people will put up with a lot, but at some point they revolt.

What I'm worried about is the pain and suffering caused by the reverse Robin Hoodism that is going on and also that the dangerous practices of the banksters/corporate cohort will lead to a massive economic failure that will cause hysteria (which will be warranted) as well as pain and suffering.

Really, the way I see a fascist dictatorship (or "oligatorship") taking permanent hold is by the slow steady journey that is probably the inevitable outcome of swapping out D and R legacy parties who share the same goal of fucking us over. The swapping back and forth will cloud the real problem: they are pursuing the same ends.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

All a president needs is a terrorist event - wide spread would be better - to institute marshal law.

I was worries Bush would have the 'opportunity'.

MoveThatBus's picture
Submitted by MoveThatBus on

No military group to defend his new gov't? Never forget, the civilians in this country are armed to the teeth...even I would happily borrow a weapon from the gun owners who I know have more than they need if our gov't tried to move to a dictatorship.

I don't honestly think coming from a position of dramatic panic would be the most effective approach to preventing a major governmental change.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

You're right, I needed scare quotes around the word "Left", since I do think we are the Left and they are, as my co-blogger chatblu put it this morning, LINOs (Liberal/Left In Name Only).

I'm really starting to understand that all the LINOs, who defend Bush policies when they come from a guy with a "D" after his name, are really nothing more than cheerleaders for "the other team." They are knee-jerk, shallow "thinkers" who just look for certain cultural or political identifiers and then start waving their pom-poms furiously. There are no principles or policies involved - it's just, as Chris Bowers wrote in Lambert's (and my) favorite post evah, whether he "drinks PBR and shops at Whole Foods."

The whole "progressive"/LINO blogosphere has that high school flavor to it. If you're not labeled "cool," then you're going to be called every name in the book, then ostracized (banned) completely. This happened to liberal PUMAs and dissenters in 2008, as well as single-payer supporters, and it's still happening now. You don't like Obama? We're banning you, you racist, fat, ugly old bitch/asshole!

The LINOs didn't like Bush because Bush didn't sound or look enough like they did, not because what he did while in office particularly bothered them. How sad I am that I wasted so much time believing they were actually "holding Bush's feet to the fire," when they were actually just taunting him for not being what they considered "cool."

No wonder the LINO blogosphere failed to move the Overton Window any farther to the left. They were never left to begin with.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

You are all very kind and thoughtful. :-) And, I will most definitely try it! Last night I was at a party and drank lots of wine, so I slept like a baby. However, unless I want to become a Friend of Bill, that's not a good solution either. ;-)

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Industrial strength denial and minimization out there since Obama is a black supposed "liberal" -- at least in the land of the hysterics being stoked by the corporate new world order puppeteers out there -- and Congress being so enmeshed, the Republicans, in a gridlock game of "no", also by the puppeteers ... and the corporate bought off Dems who can triangulate the Repubs and Tea Partiers and play "Look How Hard We Are Trying... " but we CAN'T do more.. sorry, citizens.. we have gucci loafers and deluxe healthcare, but what is an oath taking rep of you all, to do?....and Obama doing token things the corporate media cherry-picks to assure the pod people population we are in "presidential" hands meanwhile getting into the black ops "fun".

So this morning was thinking of writing a blog about the kabuki nuke peace gesture. meanwhile he put in $705.2 billion military budget for 2011 that eclipses all other military budgets even the horribly covert ones. And we are enabling a country that we have decimated to provide heroin to 90% of the world... is that still the statistic.

We are arming lots of unstable countries with guns and horrifying weaponry... because we are that cravenly greedy... and/or.. destabilization helps us crush them, and any attempts at quality of life and hope, we set up or sustain the anti-democracy elite who will play ball with us, and build another military base for empire, even though people back home are starving, homeless, jobless, dying of poor health care... the agenda is set.

Re Afghanistan, how tenuous Obama's war house of cards is ... all the sacrifice of our military and civilian lives over there... and Karzai stamps his foot and says suddenly he may just go Taliban to punish us. Whoa.. Media.. not a big story?

So, we have been played over there and are playing... we are enforcers for the non-Taliban bottom feeding drug lords. People are dying because they are close to or put on a hit list we probably know little about. I was just hearing about people with cameras getting droned in Pakistan was it... cuz to the drone screen looks like a gun. Ooopsie. And if you are an exceptionally tall shepherd with a beard.. well, that breed is probably extinct now in the Mideast.. cuz of Cheney's rules.. 1% chance it is bin Laden (whom I am sure is dead.. kept alive for neocon pr), you have been droned.. just in case.. and anyone around you or even your sheep.

America, you get down with dogs you get up with fleas. Or maybe we are the ones being dogs and carrying the fleas all over the map literally. Dangerous, life destroying fleas.

I have written to Rachel, whom I was such a fan of, to complain and ask WTF? She refuses like Obama to look left also. No critical analysis of the Dems. Pure cronyism. Makes legitimate and astute observations about corruption of Republicans and wingnuts.. but... Obama gets a pass. Is that her enthrallment psychologically, which I see so many in my own life and network have re Obama, despite all you said above, his gutting the constitution or leaving it shredded from Bush. He lies, covers up, stonewalls his own accountability as well as the unignorable infractions from the Bush cabal.

If America ever needed moral leadership, she needs it now. And he is a political creature and also a puppet for fascists it would seem. And the will and welfare of the citizens, except the top 1%, are irrelevant to him. And a constitutional lawyer who doesn't have respect for the constitution.

And you are not sleeping because so much of America is sleeping through this. In my Born article I write about how she couldn't sleep either knowing about the evil credit swappies. And that was over 10 years ago.

Thanks for this.

Bill L.'s picture
Submitted by Bill L. on

Lots of us have been losing sleep these days. Hang in there, madamab. You have my sympathies. Obama's already turning out to be even worse than Cheney/Bush (no mean feat) and it's rather disturbing to think of all the damage this administration has yet to do to our democracy, our planet, etc., in the name of 'centrist bi-partisanship' or political comity or whatever other kind of BS they can dream up next.
Re: the teabaggers/O.F.B. -
This morning I got to listen to a bunch of rabid Obama fanatics paranoiacally try to argue that the "Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan" website (I'd quoted one of their articles) was secretly a right-wing front group paid to drum up fake "left-wing" criticisms on Obama. . because, you know - how could there be any actual/legitimate criticisms of Obama from the left>>??? That just does not compute.
Obama is the most progressive of all progressives, the liberal'est of liberals, don't ya know. . Blah de blah blah. . So anyway, um, the irrationality isn't just coming from the teabagger types it's totally bi-partisan at this point and none of it is good. The choose-your-own-reality bug is contagious and has spread like wildfire. Most of my "liberal" friends have already been absorbed into the O'borg collective. . it's rather scary and depressing.
Right, so how does one solve a problem like the Sarah? My method has been to ignore her - hoping she just just get bored and go away eventually, but that hasn't worked so far.

Um. . Maybe if we all try ignoring her together in concert it'll work better?

Submitted by hipparchia on

This morning I got to listen to a bunch of rabid Obama fanatics paranoiacally try to argue that the "Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan" website (I'd quoted one of their articles) was secretly a right-wing front group paid to drum up fake "left-wing" criticisms on Obama

that's just plain scary. i'd already decided that 'progressives' are mostly stupid and that ofa has done some kind of mind-meld on its members, but believing that pnhp is secretly a right-wing organization?! sheesh.

alternatively, if they don't believe that pnhp is secretly a right-wing group, but they are instead trying to make ordinary citizens believe that, then they're just plain evil.

Bill L.'s picture
Submitted by Bill L. on

I wound up deleting them from my "friends" list after that fun episode. yup.
Who needs those turkeys?

One of them did actually follow the link & read the article and she came back and reported to the rest of the group that the website appeared to be legitimate -- not a right-wing prank, but an actual criticism from Obama's left. . (I was hopeful at this point in the discussion) but then the rest of the group all shouted her down insisting that the statements that P.N.H.P. was making about women's reproductive rights and 23 million people being left uninsured 10 years out. . (etc.) all of this just had to be made up they all agreed - it simply couldn't be true. They all had a gut feeling about it. "Where are they getting those 23 million uninsured people figures from?"/"You're just pulling those numbers out of thin air." "That's all crap," ^ "Barack isn't like that!" so on. . heck, now I wish I'd made a screenshot. I was all darkly amusing I suppose, if you could get past how annoying it was..
Anyway though,
So I tried to suggest that they might want to get their political news occasionally from sources other than they insisted that they did read . . you know, a lot - all the time - lots of articles. . stuff that would totally rebut was I was saying. (But they didn't include any links so I was skeptical). (unfortunately I was running late for work so I thought I come back for a more considered reply. . and when I did get back the pile-up was so bad that I decided it was a waste of time.

I figured that they were just being purposely obtuse, but who knows? Maybe I missed a real opportunity to change some hearts and minds back there. Oh damn.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i sympathize fully. you just can't save all of the ones who need saving, but should you ever decide to wade back into the cesspool, here's a collection of links for you to throw to them if you like ---

the website appeared to be legitimate -- not a right-wing prank, but an actual criticism from Obama's left.


yeah, that dr quentin young, he's a real right-winger [not].

pnhp was founded in 1987, and by 1989 woolhandler and himmelstein had published descriptions of their national health plan [what we now call single payer] in the new england journal of medicine and the journal of the american medical association.

in 1991, the journal of the american medical assn published an issue that appears to be devoted to different proposed plans for fixing the health care system, including pnhp's single payer system [more readable version of the same article is available at pnhp's website].

the 23 million uninsured in the year 2019 comes stragiht from the congressional budget office's analysis of the final legislation [line 11 of table2, pg 7].

the abortion restrictions are ultimately going to become court cases, so there's no telling what will actually happen. still, here's the statement put out by the national organization for women. they are not happy with obama. at all.

Bill L.'s picture
Submitted by Bill L. on

Not sure if the ironic inflection in my 'oh damn' was entirely apparent but nonetheless I appreciate the helpful links/info. you've provided, hipparchia. '& while I honestly doubt that I'll be wading back into these particular dank waters anytime soon, ("mutual" friends of my ex-wife's..ugh.) at least I know that I'm better prepared for the next OFB encounter.

Submitted by hipparchia on


yes, i read it as irony [snark, sarcasm, and irony are my default settings]. but you never know when the next ofb encounter will find you, so i stuck the links in there just in case.

aspen's picture
Submitted by aspen on

Hipp already gave the specs, but yeah. I've had Dr. friends who've been members of PNHP for years, and I was made very aware of them back before I knew who Obama was. Was sent there by my friends after asking how we would be able to pay for drug research without private for-profits - ha @ me back then. When Sicko came out, I pretty much already knew the facts already, was a vocal advocate myself, and could easily rattle off answers to "how are we going to PAY for it (covering everybody)?", largely because of pnhp, their faqs and links. Then, when I'd talk to people about single-payer, they would always say 'oh, you saw sicko, huh?' -- nope. I just read the research on pnhp's website, among others.
I rather think these "OFB" you refer to, Bill, are themselves what they accuse of pnhp.

Bill L.'s picture
Submitted by Bill L. on

I wound up deleting the person from my FB friends list yesterday in annoyance, unfortunately. Sorry, I suck at this stuff.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

They're picking on PNHP now?!

Really, these people lack all semblance of a clue or a moral conscience.