On Teabaggers Cheering For American Deaths

Latest Newspaper Column:

Remember back during the health care debate when Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson came onto the House floor and presented two posters which he called "The Republican Health Care Plan"?

One of them said "Don't Get Sick," and the other said "Die Quickly."

Remember the outrage? "Appalling," Sean Hannity called it. Bill O'Reilly called Grayson a "pinhead." House Republicans drafted a resolution of disapproval identical to the one approved against Joe Wilson, who became a hero to Republicans after shouting "you lie!" at the president while he was speaking to Congress.

(Remember, the GOP hates disrespect and name-calling, unless it's them doing it. Then it's a fundraising bonanza.).

Well, a few months later, it seems that at least some tea partiers actually think that Grayson's so-called "smear" could actually be the basis of a mighty fine plan.

During the recent TP-sponsored debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer was discussing health care reform with Ron Paul, the Rodney Dangerfield of his party. Blitzer gave Paul a hypothetical situation about a 30-year-old who'd decided not to buy health insurance getting sick and slipping into a coma. Who pays for his care?

Paul started talking about how assuming your own risks is what freedom is all about.

"But Congressman," Blitzer persisted, "are you saying society should just let him die?"

At which point, members of the tea party audience began shouting "Yes! YEAH!" to scattered laughter and applause.

To his credit, Paul at least said "no," but then he began scattering rays of the usual nostalgic moonshine about how the hypothetical coma patient would be taken care of anyway, just like in the Good Old Days. Back in his day, Grandpa Ron said, when he first practiced medicine, churches took care of people and "we never turned anybody away from the hospital."

Maybe not, Congressman, but I'm betting the hospital passed the costs of the uninsured along by charging everyone else more, just as the ERs do now, which is exactly one of the problems health care reform addresses. And I'm not sure how the doctors' offices are going to react when they're told to send the bill for an MRI or colonoscopy to the patient's church.

Actually, that's wrong. I am sure how they're going to react. They're going to tell you to come back when you have some health insurance, or several thousand dollars. In cash, not (as failed tea party candidate Sue Lowden once suggested) in poultry.

So, anyway, it seems that there are at least some Teahadists who not only approve of, but are downright gleeful at, the idea of letting the uninsured simply expire.

Now we see why Sarah Palin was so upset by that hallucination she had about the "death panels" in the health care bill. She wanted to get rid of the bureaucratic middleman and let the Grim Reaper do his work free of all that government regulation they're always so heated up about.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the current ABM (Anybody But Mitt) favorite of the tea party, told reporters the next day that he was "taken aback" by the crowd reaction to the question. I don't know why he was so surprised, though, at the idea that right-wingers would cheer at the mention of people dying.

At the last debate, one of the big applause lines came when NBC's Brian Williams, in the course of asking a question on the death penalty, noted that Texas under Perry had executed 234 death row inmates, "more than any other governor in modern times." The crowd cheered and whistled at the death toll.

Maybe next debate, Perry can put little stickers of nooses on the podium, like a fighter pilot putting his kills on the side of his plane. That'll really get their juices flowing.

See, here's the thing: The only lives wingnuts really care about are ones that haven't been born yet. Once you first see daylight, kid, you're on your own. Don't be poor, don't lose your job, don't get sick, and don't make any mistakes like failing to buy insurance.

Because in the Dickensian nightmare world the Teahadists fantasize about, "E Pluribus Unum" is Latin for "I Got Mine, So Step Off, Jack." And freedom's just another word for "we don't care if you live or die."

Here's What I Remember

Now that all the remembrances of 9/11 are over, I finally felt I could say what I wanted to say. But as usual, Jon Stewart said it better.

Here are my memories of the time since that day:

I remember Falwell's "you helped cause this" comment and what a shock it was to see that kind of hate-as-usual, two days after the event that was supposed to bring us together.

I remember someone writing the local paper  within six months and claiming that, if you voted for Bill Clinton, you helped cause all those deaths and all that tragedy on 9/11. I particularly remember it because that person was my own father. That wound's still as fresh as the day it was so casually inflicted.

I remember being called a "traitor" and "terrorist sympathizer" and people e-mailing me anonymous death threats  for opposing their Dear Leader Dubbya's Wacky Iraqi Adventure (a war I and my fellow liberals were one hundred percent right about, by the way).

I remember Ann Coulter telling people that she thought the 9/11 widows were "enjoying" their husband's deaths.

I remember Glenn Beck saying he 'hated" the families of 9/11 victims--and becoming a hero of the Right. 
So I don't want to hear a damn thing about how 9/11 unified us from anyone on the Right. They were the ones who immediately started waving the bloody shirt and using it to divide us.

After all the hate directed against me personally and against people like me in general, starting before the smoke had even cleared, I don't want to hear a damn thing about how liberals are  hateful or the usual right wing whiny claptrap about "liberal name-calling". I don't know a name worse than traitor, and no one said a mumblin' word against anyone  calling me that since 9/11.

If you didn't stand up against it then, you can sit right the fuck down now. You have nothing to say that I want to hear.

Quote of the Day, or Terrenoire FTW

This morning, I heard someone on the radio claiming that a proposed state Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which, it should be noted, is already banned by state law)  is "the most important issue facing North Carolina right now." 

Seriously. Someone from a state in the throes of a massive budget crisis, still rebuilding from hurricane Irene's damage, with a 10.1 percent jobless rate, had the infernal gall to say that. With a straight face.

 Which prompted this rejoinder from my good friend David Terrenoire on Facebook:

"I don't know about Carthage, but here in Durham I woke up to a fulfilling, full time job, my wife's health costs are completely covered, the education system is so good that our dogs speak English and Spanish, the cat does calculus and we have a unicorn shitting skittles in the front yard. So yes, let's go after gay marriage because everything else is 100% A-OK."

Terrenoire shoots, HE SCORES!

The Tea Party of Love (With Video)

Debate exchange offers window into larger question about role of health care - Political Hotsheet - CBS News:

So Ron Paul was asked in the Tea Party debate last night if a 30 year old without health insurance who went into a coma should just be allowed to die.

Paul, to his credit, said no, but opined that he'd be taken care of anyway.

Several voices from the Tea Party audience, however, cried out "YES!"

Yes. Just let him die.

A new low for the Party of Love.

FAQ Two (And Final): How the Jury Might Have Been Thinking

Latest Newspaper Column:

Last Saturday, a jury found Robert Stewart guilty, not of first-degree, but of second-degree murder for killing eight people at Pinelake Nursing Center in Carthage. I confess, I really didn't see it coming either.

First off, let me say that my heart truly goes out to the families of the dead. It must have been brutally hard to sit through hours of testimony and to relive the pain of that day. But please, I beg you to remember this about the verdict: Degrees of murder are in no way a reflection on the victims.

The life of a second-degree murder victim is worth just as much as that of a first-degree one in the eyes of the law. The degrees of homicide refer to the state of mind of the accused. After a lengthy hearing, ably tried by lawyers on both sides, the jury found that Robert Stewart didn't have that state of mind that could allow him to act with premeditation and deliberation.

Why? How could they do such a thing? Well, unless the jurors decide to talk about it (and there's no indication that they're inclined to do so), we may never know why they decided the way they did. There are a number of possible reasons, but all are pure conjecture.

The simplest explanation is that the jury considered all the evidence as to the prescription drugs Stewart was taking and the potential effects of those drugs on his state of mind and truly had reasonable doubts as to his ability to engage in premeditation and deliberation. The fact that they asked to re-examine evidence about those drugs would seem to bear this theory out.

Another explanation is that it was what we call a "compromise" verdict. Possibly some jurors wanted one verdict, some wanted another, but everyone was just plain worn out and daunted by the prospect of a another few weeks of hearings on whether or not Stewart should get the death penalty (the "guilt or innocence" phase is only the first part of a capital trial; the second, or "penalty" phase can go even longer).

So they came up with a verdict everyone on the jury could live with, one that put Robert Stewart in prison for well over 100 years - effectively life without parole. Again, this is pure conjecture, but it does -happen.

One of the things that shocked a lot of people was that Stewart's lawyers immediately gave notice of appeal. What were they thinking? Why didn't they just take the win and go home? Well, they can still do that. Just because a notice of appeal is given doesn't mean that the appeal itself will be pursued.

I imagine the last thing Messrs. Megerian and Wells would want for their client is another lengthy trial that could result in a different verdict. But you give the notice, because if you don't do it within the time limit, you lose the right to do so. It would be malpractice to just let that right go because you forgot to say the words "defendant gives notice of appeal."

On the subject of those defense lawyers: I don't know the gentlemen personally, but I do know the -system, and I have to laugh when people claim they did this trial for the big money. I know the court-appointed rates, and I know private rates, and trust me, they'd have made a heck of a lot more staying home and defending private clients.

You don't get rich off court-appointed capital trials; in fact, thanks to the time they take away from -everything else, they can turn into The Trial That Ate Your Practice if you're not careful.

So why do it? Well, as I said, I don't know Mr. Stewart's lawyers except to say hey to, so I can't speak for them. But I can say that everyone else I've ever met who does appointed capital defense does it because they believe that the Constitution's guarantee that everyone is entitled to counsel means everybody and that there isn't a constitutional loophole for really bad crimes.

In the Stewart case, two teams of experienced trial lawyers, under the eye of an experienced and even-handed trial judge, worked very hard to put all the evidence at their disposal in front of an impartial jury, which pondered that evidence for hours before -arriving at a verdict that put the defendant in jail for the rest of his natural life.

We may never know the answer to the question of exactly why they went the way they did, but I hope I was able to answer at least some of your other ones.

FAQ: Why Bother With a Trial, Anyway?

Latest Newspaper Column:

[NOTE: As this column was going to press, the jury came back with a verdict of guilty to second-degree murder. Robert Stewart was sentenced to a minimum of 142 years in prison--effectively a life sentence without parole. More thoughts on this next week.]

As of this writing, the trial of Robert Stewart for killing eight people and wounding Michael Cotten and police officer Justin Garner at the Pinelake Nursing Center in Carthage is about to go into closing arguments.

By the time you read this, the jury will likely be in deliberations. Or they may already have reached a verdict.

I don't comment often about local trials. The reason for this is simple: They're not my cases. As I pointed out a few weeks ago in reference to the Casey Anthony trial, unless you're really involved in a trial, on a day-to-day basis, seeing what the jury sees and being excluded from the stuff they don't, it's hard to comment on them with any degree of real authority (although there are plenty of people who pretend to that authority).

The Stewart trial, however, is inescapable, and if you're in the legal business around here, so are the questions from a concerned, occasionally annoyed, and once in a while downright cranky public. While I'm not going to comment upon specifics, there are some frequently asked questions that I can answer, just from a general knowledge of how things work.

The question I see and hear most often is this: "Why do we even have to have a trial? Why are we paying lawyers to defend him? Everyone knows he did it!" The answer is simple: because the U.S. Constitution says so.

The Sixth Amendment reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

That's in all, repeat all, criminal prosecutions. There's no exception for "really bad crimes" or for defendants who "everyone knows" are guilty. All means all.

Which leads us to the next question: "Why doesn't Stewart just agree to take life without parole?" Yes, I have actually seen this question raised. Friends, I haven't discussed the matter with Mr. Stewart's attorneys, much less with Mr. Stewart, but I would imagine they would take a plea to life without parole in a hot second - if it were offered.

But, like the tango, it takes two to plead, and I haven't heard even a shadow of a whisper of a suggestion that such a plea was even being considered.

Well, you may ask next, why not? Why won't the state just offer life and get this over with?

There are a number of factors that go into the decision by the state whether or not to seek the death penalty and whether or not to consider backing off it. The strength of the particular case is one. The potential public backlash from pleading out a high-profile, emotionally charged case is another. A huge factor is always the wishes of the families of the victims.

But why does it have to take so dadgum long? Believe me, as one of the many folks who have had to navigate around enhanced courthouse security and the courtroom shortage created by this trial, I've asked the same question.

But remember: This is a death penalty case. It's going to be examined and re-examined and re-re-examined by courts, probably all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither side's going to cut corners here to save time.

There's also a concept that comes into play called "harmless error." This is a phrase that crops up in some appeals court decisions in which the court concedes that yeah, maybe the trial judge made a mistake in letting in a piece of evidence or some error of law, but they're going to let the conviction stand because "the other evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that this error was harmless."

As for the defense - again, it's a death case. So neither side, prosecution or defense, is going to leave any horses in the barn.

I'm not going to get into a discussion pro or con about the death penalty here, because, let's face it, no one's opinion ever changes on that. But I'll say this, because it's the answer to a lot of questions about this and other trials: If the state's going to take someone's life for breaking the law, then they need to do it according to law.

Otherwise, we're just a well-dressed lynch mob.