The rage is not about health care

President Obama could have proposed a tax rebate of $10,000 and the conservatives still would have gone stark raving mad. When the Health Care Bill passed Republicans and Tea Partiers turned into a raging sea of childishness, insanity, ugliness and stupidity.

Representative John Boehner went apoplectic chanting "Hell no, you can't." Frank Rich, in a New York Times Op-ed piece, The Rage Is Not About Health Care, suggests Boehner "had just discovered one of its more obscure revenue-generating provisions, a tax on indoor tanning salons."
In a debate with David Ploffe on ABC's "This Week," Karl Rove frothed at the mouth and went on a non-stop tirade. Such antics have become less funny and less entertaining.

Republicans have shouted "you lie" and "baby killer" in House chambers, violating every rule of decency and decorum. To steal a phrase from Joe McCarthy, Republican Congressional representatives have become Tea Party "fellow travelers."

For over a year Tea Party protests have attracted increasingly large crowds. They have grown louder, uglier, more threatening and more violent as time has passed. They have shouted racial and homophobic slurs at respected members of Congress and have thrown bricks through their offices - similar to a mini-Kristallnacht in 1938 Germany.

According to Rich, there was heated reaction when Social Security was passed in 1935 and Medicare thirty years later. "When L.B.J. scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism” along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycott from the American Medical Association."

But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill...you have to look to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer...

The election of a black president and a female House speaker, the appointment of a Latino to the Supreme Court, and a gay Congressional committee chairman "would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."

In this writer's opinion, the Tea Partiers - just like the Birchers, the patriot groups, and other extremist groups have a serious case of paranoia. And racism - despite social scientists' claims to the contrary. Maybe they should have read the liberal blogs in the early days - especially those written by southerners.

The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935.By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, some responsible leaders in both parties spoke out to try to put a lid on the resistance and violence. The arch-segregationist (Richard) Russell of Georgia, concerned about what might happen in his own backyard, declared flatly that the law is “now on the books.” Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin’s “reload” rhetoric.

Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too.

In my very humble opinion the Tea Partiers and Beck and Co. are one thin hair away from being seditious. If we were a police state, as that monumental wonder Beck proclaims, everyone of those thugs would be in jail.

Oh no we can't!

I know, the worst thing one can do is to feel shame for your community, your country, your fellow man. Patriotism, being the same as dishonest self-promotion and hyperbolic Chauvinism, I'm certainly being unpatriotic by saying that the relentlessly partisan viciousness, the partisan slander and libel and indeed the abuse of political and religious freedom by my own community is shameful. Certainly others who agree with me have been so labeled.

Recently some local students at the Martin County High School Junior Achievement Club put together a website and planned a "Recovery Rally" to bring attention to the unemployment and the high foreclosure and business failure rate which plagues our county. They put together a video with the object of sending it to the President as an invitation to attend. It ended with a proud "yes we can!" Some would call that sort of community spirit and enthusiasm inspiring, others:

COMMUNISM! MARXISM!

Imagine allowing citizens to petition for redress of grievances! Why that's just like Pol Pot or Ho Chi Min! What kind of good ol' cracker conservatives would permit that without a fight? I mean it would have been OK to invite Bush and indeed when he made a five minute appearance after Hurricane Frances flattened several counties; when he disrupted critical activities at the Red Cross and then promptly forgot about us, he was sold as a hero, but then, he wasn't a Marxist, Muslim, Communist, Kenyan Antichrist who pals around with Terrorists and murders old women, you betcha.

Yes I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed at the letters from idiots who write to the local paper. I'm ashamed of people who want to pull their kids out of a school that allows kids to participate in peaceful attempts to attract government interest -- because Government is, by the Gospel of St. Ronald, all evil. Diana Blackard went on Fox last week to howl at the moon about her daughter's future being ruined by having said "yes we can" in public.

“I’m concerned about this turning up 20 years from now when she’s running for political officer [sic] herself, trying to get a high-profile job,”

Certainly it constitutes paling around with terrorists to promote local businesses. It's almost treason to suggest that the people can do anything at all in a democracy without it being communism and Fascism. It's dangerous to respect the president, said another deranged citizen writing to the paper.

"since the dems think respect is given like all their other entitlements."

Hard to know what he means but then insanity is like that, Republican politics are like that.

"I resent dealing with people who believe they can spit on us and burn our flag "

says the dishonest but passionate Fox-Republican of the President of the United States -- without any apparent concern that he's done neither, or anything remotely like it.

"Filled with vile hatred, there is no common ground"

says a writer of all who support any effort to let the government be the government, all who are willing to use the government to serve the people, all those who reject the cancerous, self-hating, self-defeating Fox-Fundamentalist doctrines choking the life out of our country. Unaware like so many of the brown-shirt thugs of Martin County Florida of being a maggot, a vile worm eating away at the heart of America.

Christ in camouflage

No, we don't have to worry about private militias and of course they don't represent the "conservatives" who jabber and jape, mock and malign the concept that a dark skinned President could be legitimate, election results notwithstanding. They're nothing to worry about.

It appears to be our right to play soldier and prepare to overthrow the government and rave about American being for "Christians" only because Jesus wants it that way. Of course there's no law against believing or teaching that the President of the United States is the child of an imaginary horned god of evil and is here to destroy everything good, including the good Christian militias who train for a mythical battle of the gods cribbed from Zoroastrian splinter sects and Gnostic fantasies. It's a free country -- so far.

It sure is scary shit though. If you're a resident of rural Martin County Florida, you might be a redneck, but even if you're not, there's a chance you're buying all the .223 and 7.65X39 you can get hold of at inflated prices and squirreling it away for Armageddon and the next Presidential election or for whatever the Mayans allegedly forsaw in the stars. There's also a good chance you're just a nostalgic and frustrated old Confederate and that decal on your pick'emup and the flag waving over your cracker shack indicate a serious longing to try it all again.

At any rate, if you're any of the above, you're not alone and you're less alone than you were a few years ago when the right hand of Jesus presided over his crusade and his omnipotent presidential powers. Militias are prospering as they haven't since 1861.

"The only thing on earth to save the testimony and those who follow it, are the members of the testimony, til the return of Christ in the clouds. We, the Hutaree, are prepared to defend all those who belong to Christ and save those who aren't. We will still spread the word, and fight to keep it, up to the time of the great coming."

It's the credo of the Hutaree, a Christian Militia, who are waiting and training in anti-Satan warfare for the end of time just in case God can't handle it himself; all the Jew killing and rapturing and devil chasing ain't easy, and needs reinforcements. The Anti-Christ Obama is damned near omnipotent after all, even if he has such a hard time getting the Republicans to behave like adults. No, if you want to stop Satan you need lots of camo and lots of ammo and it won't hurt to kill some cops and their families either. I know it sounds a bit questionable, but it's all there on their website. Hutaree, explains the camo clad site means Christian Warrior in some undisclosed language. Moronish, perhaps?

It was that plan that prompted the indictments today of 9 self-styled "patriots" after a series of raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. The idea was to spark some kind of war against the police by killing at least one and them blowing up his funeral so as to help bring on whatever it is they think needs bringing on. Sounds a bit like Charles Manson's strategy, but I'm sure they thought of it independently.

Meanwhile, back in Michigan, the allegedly unrelated Michigan Militia still plans to hold their "Open Carry Family Picnic & Tea Party" to be held on April 10, 2010 so while the bomb making classes at the Hutaree house of hate will be on hold for a while you can still take the family to Michigan for a good old family time and play games like pin the mustache on Obama, kill the gun grabbers and Let's Pretend our taxes are going up.

And while we're playing games, does anyone want to bet that more commenters will bash me for "misunderstanding" the teabag patriots than will be concerned about armed madmen and trying to take over the government by killing the police?

The Party of Yes! Oh God, Yes! Harder, Please!! (or, le vice RNC)

A wickedly fun and perfectly frivolous post, no harm intended -- except between consenting adults. Since, after all, “All blogs are quite useless.” (Fake Oscar Wilde quotation.)

Now, I’m sure the Republican National Committee and Michael Steele will have an appropriate response to the topic addressed in Jason Linkins’ HuffPo Article today (namely, if I have understood aright, RNC-paid visits to a bondage-themed nightclub in WeHo), but at the moment they’re, well, you’ll understand -- all tied up.

Hosannah to Our Lord in the Highest for this good man’s tenure as RNC Chair. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I worked at it, uh, “24/7.”

I don’t mind stories like this playing rough with the daily headlines: dominate us, you sexy right-wing sadists, DOMINATE US! All through November 1st -- the day before the election. We just can’t get enough….

PS -- just so y'all don't accuse me of plagiarism, the "Party of Yes" ha-ha headline (without the naughty additions I made) first appeared in HuffPo.

A response to Robert J. Samuelson’s WaPo op-ed column today

Robert J. Samuelson has written a piece today for the Washington Post entitled “With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis”.

Now first of all, let me say that Robert J. Samuelson has an impressive mustache, and this is an important qualification for an economist or an accountant, as anyone who is familiar with the Woody Allen character’s dictum on that issue should know. Especially since I myself have no mustache of any kind -- not even an unimpressive one (dinos have only pin feathers, you see) – I must, in order to maintain any credibility in this area -- agree with Mr. Samuelson in at least one area. It is an important one: notwithstanding certain Republicans’ smugness about the debt not mattering in political terms, I believe Mr. Samuelson is correct in his fiscal-conservative claim that the huge gap between our spending obligations and our tax revenues will at some point become ruinous if we can't close it -- even for a colossus like America, borrowing for a huge percentage of expenditures is dangerous, and hoping that we will always be able to grow our way out of staggering debt is not a viable long-term strategy. I would add that the only reason this borrowing hasn’t been cast as a massive Ponzi-Madoffian scheme – by which I mean in general any scheme that’s viable only so long as everybody goes along with the illusion that fuels and underwrites it – stems from our tremendous economic significance and, of course, from the indisputable fact of our military supremacy. In plain English, America is still a country you don’t want to mess with: in the economic sphere, if we get taken down, a lot of others are going with us. Only certain religious fanatics want to see America burn; everybody else realizes that we are still vital to the global economy even though other countries (China above all) are growing in importance at an astonishing clip.

But Mr. Samuelson’s impressive whiskers only ingratiate him so far with this commenter. I disagree with him about the allegedly reckless quality of the current president’s decision to move forward with health-insurance reform even during an economic downturn. I don’t consider it unfair to point out that the previous administration’s irresponsible fiscal policies and rampant militarism contributed a great deal towards our present difficulties. Their most reckless spending had little to do with social programs. I would even argue (this is not directed at the writer or any particular individual) that the political right’s long-term goal is simultaneously to reduce the tax base and expand military spending to the point where it will no longer be possible to do any meaningful social promising or promise-keeping. So in a sense, running up huge deficits actually furthers the oligarchical right’s interests: it ensures that in the long run, tax revenues can and will only go to economic endeavors that further enrich them but bring no relief to ordinary people just trying to survive.

But on a more congenial note, I suggest that President Obama’s health-insurance changes amount to an advisable realignment of priorities: access to good health care is among the handful of “big things” in which government really should take an interest on behalf of the people, so I don't see why we should call it reckless to put health-care access high on the country’s To Do list. The president has recognized the importance of health to the nation’s well-being, and he has acted accordingly.

If we want to get our national outgo and income into alignment, I suggest, we will need to take a look at revitalizing the tax base (I don't mean this as code for "soak the rich") as well as examining just how many areas of life we think the government really needs to be involved in. But in my view, access to health care is not one of the areas in which the government’s involvement can fairly be labeled unwarranted or merely intrusive.* Whatever one thinks of the insurance reform bill’s particulars, its orientation towards the common citizen who actually pays most of the tax money that will be used for services seems to me entirely appropriate, and I don’t believe its arrival at a difficult socio-economic moment should count against it or lead to charges of fiscal irresponsibility.

*Not that this was necessarily Mr. Samuelson’s point, I should make clear.

No need to fear November

It has become conventional wisdom to expect serious losses for the Democrats in this November's elections, but I'm not worried. While the Democrats will very likely lose a few seats -- that almost always happens to the party in power in midterm elections -- there are important factors working in our favor.

(1) HCR is a plus, not a minus. Polls already show a modest bounce in its approval rating since it was passed. Many who opposed it did so because they felt it didn't go far enough, not because it went too far. Many who oppose the package actually like the individual programs that make it up -- they object to the bill because they are misinformed about what's in it. And some of its provisions will take effect before the election. Voters will then be judging the reform by what they see it actually doing, not by horror-fantasies about death panels and Communism.

(2) The biggest factor influencing the vote will be employment. The job-loss data don't lie -- losses have decreased almost every month since Obama took office. Recent economic growth has been stronger than expected, and although employment is always one of the last indicators to recover after the end of a recession, it will do so. The hopeful-sounding predictions by the administration's enemies that the economy will slide back into recession have the air of an increasingly-desperate clutching at straws. They will come up empty. And Congress has plenty of options for acting to stimulate job growth.

(3) With enemies like these, who needs friends? The Republicans' relentless obstructionism on HCR and their bitter-end negativity may be energizing to the worst of their base, but they can't be appealing to the broad center, which is where elections are won. And Republicans' failure to condemn or even quite acknowledge last week's rash of violence and threats against Democrats is even uglier. Intemperate statements now will turn up in campaign ads later. And don't forget the NY-23 syndrome -- hard-line rightists undermining more electable moderate Republicans. An example is teabagger JD Hayworth's primary challenge to John McCain in Arizona, which has pushed McCain into a series of increasingly extremist statements in an effort to out-loony Hayworth for the sake of base primary voters. Either Hayworth will win the primary and (probably) lose the general, or McCain will prevail, but as damaged goods in the eyes of centrist voters and still viewed with suspicion by the base.

(4) A President should be a strong leader. During 2009 Obama's fixation on bipartisanship, futile in the face of the Republicans' intransigence, made him look weak, dithering, and unable to get things done. Since January he seems to have realized that such efforts were pointless, and the change has affected his image as well as the actual results achieved: Working with Congress to get HCR through despite the lack of Republican support, and using recess appointments to fill essential posts despite Republican obstruction, not only is strong and effective leadership, it also looks like strong and effective leadership. There will be more, and it will all help in November.

It's always possible, of course, that some unexpected major event could happen and change everything. But barring that (and such an event might be one that favors rather than harms our side), I don't think November's going to be all that bad.

Update (29 March): Arthur Greene has more detail on why HCR will probably help the Democrats in November -- benefits for critical groups like the elderly and the middle class will already have taken effect. Greene is a conservative and writes from an anti-HCR viewpoint, but his points on this are solid. Blogger DemWit also e-mails:

The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, otherwise known as CLASS Act, provides for a national insurance program to help cover the cost of long-term care -- something 70 percent of people over 65 will need at some point along the way. The premiums will be much lower than those for private plans, and you won't get screened out because you've already had some health problems.

Class act indeed. So much for the death panels.

Hatred

Back by popular demand and apropos our times.

Christ Carrying the Cross by Hieronymus Bosch

by Wisława Szymborska

Look, how spry she still is,
how well she holds up:
hatred, in our century.
How lithely she takes high hurdles.
How easy for her to pounce, to seize.

She is not like the other feelings.
At once older and younger than they.
She alone gives birth to causes
which rouse her to life.
If she sleeps, it's never for eternity.
Insomnia doesn't take away but gives her strength.

Religion or no religion
-- as long as she's in the running
Motherland or no-man's land
-- as long as she's in the race.
Even justice suffices at first.
After that she speeds off on her own
Hatred. Hatred.
The grimace of love's ecstasy
twists her face.

Oh, those other feelings,
so sickly and sluggish.

Since when could brotherhood
count on milling crowds?
Was compassion ever first across the finish line?
How many followers does doubt command?
Only hatred commands, for hatred knows her stuff.

Smart, able, hard working.
Need we say how many songs she has written.
How many pages of history she has numbered.
How many human carpets she has unrolled,
over how many plazas and stadiums.

Let's be honest:
Hatred can create beauty.
Marvelous are her fire-glows, in deep night.
Clouds of smoke most beautiful, in rosy dawn.
It's hard to deny ruins their pathos
and not to see bawdy humor
in the stout column lording it over them.

She is a master of contrast
between clatter and silence,
red blood and white snow.
Above all the image of a clean-shaven torturer
standing over his defiled victim
never bores her.

She is always ready for new tasks.
If she has to wait, she waits.
They say hatred is blind. Blind?
With eyes sharp as a sniper's,
she looks bravely into the future
-- she alone.

Trans. from the Polish by Joanna Trzeciak.

GOP says NO to civility

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said NO to Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine's proposal to write a joint statement condemning threats to members of Congress.

The draft text of the statement says that while Steele and Kaine disagree on the health care bill, they would "together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry" and ask "all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior."

Sounds civil to me.

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told reporters that Kaine sent the letter to Steele today and then phoned him asking the chairman to release a joint bipartisan statement "condemning the threats and acts of vandalism over the past week, calling for an end to such tactics and urging a more civil tone in our politics." "This afternoon, Chairman Steele, through staff, declined Chairman Kaine's offer," Woodhouse said.

Oops. Stonewalled again.

RNC spokesman Doug Heye whined to TPM, "Gov. Kaine had an opportunity to condemn such activities when he was sitting next to Michael Steele on the set on Meet the Press. He chose not to, and instead decided to use it as an opportunity to raise money,"

Heye added:

Obviously, a large majority of Americans - a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats and Independent - are upset that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid pushed through health care legislation that increases premiums and raises taxes and did so through strong-arm tactics, closed door meetings and sweetheart deals. Voters have a right to be angry. Unfortunately, some have chosen to engage in language and actions that go too far.

So that's it. The Republicans are just mad that they didn't get their way and they want to punish the outlaw Democrats. One thing for sure, the right-wing nuts have learned well from their mentors if their blog comments are any indication. SOS. SOS. SOS.

NO, that's not it. How can the party of "you lie" and "baby killer" say YES to civility? Why, they could never be uncivil again! They could not abuse traditional rules of House decorum! Worst of all, they could not encourage the wing-nuts to get down and dirty!

HELL NO, they don't want civility.

If Gore had won Kentucky. . .

That Al Gore lost the state of Kentucky in the 2000 Presidential election was a bit of a surprise to some of us. Polls had him up as much as 8%, but of course he lost that state and his loss was accompanied by jeers, of course. Republicans love to hate Al Gore although some have since begun to love Lieberman. They'd also love to forget all the accusations of voter fraud and the way they excoriated all who were suspicious that those voting machines with no means to check whether they had been hacked or not might have in fact, been tampered with in several states. Sore losers, we were called by the smug victors who currently are losers sore enough to the point of threatening us all with violence and insurrection.

In a country with a memory, the mockery might haunt Republicans, but of course they live in the moment and reality is created anew every day to suit each day's requirements. The conviction of a former judge and seven others on Thursday gives renewed strength to the argument that the electoral victory in 2000 and perhaps the Bush-Kerry contest were influenced or decided by corrupt Republicans. former Circuit Judge R. Cletus Maricle and former school Superintendent Douglas C. Adams along with five others were convicted of a federal racketeering conspiracy and several of them of other charges, including mail fraud, extortion and laundering the money that was used to buy votes.

Some of the juries are still out but the mockery, the Liberal bashing, the accusations of treason are sounding more and more off key as we move forward from the 8 year reign of the Right and we have to speculate on what might have been, for better or for worse, if the corrupt and unscrupulous, with all the lip service paid to freedom, had had respect for the law and tolerance of Democracy.

The Inestimable Dr. Johnson: Theatre, Bricks, and Tea

Samuel Johnson never had much patience with us revolutionary tax-cheats and tea-crate-tossers back in 1776. Still, some perceptive remarks he made in the context of literary theory may be worth mentioning here. Certain Republican politicians have been all but blaming the Democrats for pointing out that people are wrong to throw bricks through their windows and to call them with death threats. That, you see, apparently amounts to capitalizing on their misfortune. Damn liberals go wah wah wah just because someone threatens to hang, draw, and quarter their entire family (or whatever the specific threats are). Well, here is the good doctor having his say about people who insist on dramatic illusionism at the theater:

He that can take the stage at one time for the palace of the Ptolemies, may take it in half an hour for the promontory of Actium. Delusion, if delusion be admitted, has no certain limitation . . . (Preface to Shakespeare).

The point for us regarding today's political environment would be that the officeholders and talkers on the right who have been spreading lies, innuendo, and baseless fear among the populace have unleashed the floodgates of "delusion"; they have obviously peddled their absurdities and falsehoods in the hope that a large enough percentage of the population would take them literally and act upon them to make reforming health care access impossible. The pols and talkers nearly succeeded, and to at least some extent, they are morally accountable for the persistence and bad eminence of the delusionary state they have encouraged, as well as for the material effects that have ensued and may yet ensue from it.

Dr. Johnson was quite certain that his ideal spectator at the theater was never in any danger of getting taken in by the spectacle, neoclassical precepts about verisimilitude notwithstanding; his remarks on this score are brilliant:

The truth is, that the spectators are always in their senses, and know, from the first act to the last, that the stage is only a stage, and that the players are only players. . . .

It will be asked, how the drama moves, if it is not credited. It is credited with all the credit due to a drama. It is credited, whenever it moves, as a just picture of a real original . . . . The reflection that strikes the heart is not, that the evils before us are real evils, but that they are evils to which we ourselves may be exposed. If there be any fallacy, it is not that we fancy the players, but that we fancy ourselves unhappy for a moment . . . . The delight of tragedy proceeds from our consciousness of fiction; if we thought murders and treasons real, they would please no more.

Imitations produce pain or pleasure, not because they are mistaken for realities, but because they bring realities to mind.

Well, that's the stage, and for Dr. Johnson, who more or less follows Aristotle in such matters, it is a rational, neat affair: if we are sane when we go to the theater, we will know the difference between reality and spectacle or illusion, even though the emotion we feel while watching a play is genuine and refers us back to something real or at least possible. I wish I could believe that the neat scission between reality and fiction holds for "political theater," but I can't. Politics may be theater, but it's always also tied to real life, to material consequentiality. Oscar Wilde's dictum that "life imitates art far more than art imitates life" may hold true for the fine art of politics. If you tell me a lie that preys upon my anxieties, my prejudices, my fundamental assumptions about who I am, or who you or "they" are, etc., it's likely that I'm going to become possessed by that lie; my obsessions may well get the better of me and lead me to do that for which I may be sorry. I find certain Republicans' failure to understand this fact inexcusable.