This old adage is often attributed to the Bible though it appears that some credit should go to one Matthew Henry, an English Presbyterian minister, for popularizing the phrase which was a proverbial English saying.

However the saying may have a Biblical origin. Jeremiah 5:21 reads

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

That is exactly how I would characterize many on the far right of our current political spectrum. The willful ignorance of verifiable facts is appalling enough, but to apply preconceived, illogical and factually baseless assumptions to their shortsighted governance is unforgiveable.

Last June when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) the individual mandate to purchase health care coverage from private insurers survived but the provisions requiring the states to expand Medicaid coverage…with the federal government picking up the tab…was overturned. Instead the states were allowed to implement the broader Medicaid coverage if they wished, but could opt out if they so chose.

South Dakota has now joined the list of states with Republican governors who are rejecting participation. They usually cite cost as the controlling factor but the respected and independent Kaiser Family Foundation has determined that those costs generally will not increase more than 3%.

But Medicaid has salutory effects beyond merely providing health coverage to poor people. It is an economic and jobs generator. Generating jobs means people are earning money. People earning money means fewer people are in poverty and in need of Medicaid.

A number of studies support this contention. One examines the issue as to the impact in dollars and jobs in each state if cuts to Medicaid, as some propose, are effectuated.

And a November 2012 study by the University of Missouri reveals that if that state takes on the Medicaid expansion there will be enormous benefits to its economy.

One would think that even Republican governors would be interested in protecting thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of economic activity within their borders.

From the paranoid delusion department on Wednesday the Senate rejected the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).   

This treaty essentially promotes and encourages the full rights of persons with disabilities in the signatory states (nations). Equal access to facilities, education, employment, and other everyday aspects of life are covered. It is up to each state (nation) to establish and protect these rights through their own regular processes and to report on their efforts to a committee. This link provides the full text of the treaty.

Nowhere does the United Nations have the power to determine or impose any standards on individual nations. But that does not mean the blue-helmeted U.N. bogeymen cannot be spotted around every corner.

The CRPD would have created a new layer of bureaucracy on the international level to take care of disability issues. New regulations, ordinances, social services would have been created over the US government without the consent of the American people. Such a massive change could have threatened America’s sovereignty in a clear way, by having to listen to unelected foreign technocrats without popular consent.

That is one example of the nonsense promulgated by the right wingnuts.

Although 61 Senators voted in favor of the treaty, 66 votes are required for ratification. John Kerry and John McCain joined together in calling for its passage and Bob Dole, in a wheelchair and partially disabled due to his WW II service returned to that chamber in support. Former President George H.W. Bush also endorsed it.

This incomprehensible obsession with the nonexistent power that the U.N. holds over us is absurd.

Lastly from the laughingly delusional department comes this. The results of a post-election poll show that 49% of Republicans believe Obama’s return to office was guaranteed due to the efforts of ACORN. Of course that organization became defunct in 2010 so had no role in 2012’s campaign.

Now that number is down from 2008 when 52% of Republicans “blamed” ACORN for Obama’s electoral victory. But at least ACORN was still in business that year (and no proveable fraud was committed by it).

The wingnuts NEVER let facts get in the way of their strange theories and opinions. I could spend the rest of my life submitting evidence of this for your consideration.

All I can say is that these people most definitely are NOT Living In Reality.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • little_minx  On December 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM

    Do you have a list of the names of the Senators who voted against the CRPD, and which of them are up for reelection in 2014? Probably some are from states where opposition to the CRPD is an asset, but maybe a few aren’t, and this could be held against them by a Democratic opponent.

  • little_minx  On December 7, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    Partially answering my own inquiry, here’s the roll call on the bill:
    All the Nays were Republicans, although most seem to be from the reddest states where a vote against the UN could be perceived as a virtue on general principles.

    • little_minx  On December 7, 2012 at 12:15 PM,_2014

      Susan Collins is the only Republican whose Senate seat is up for reelection in 2014 who voted Yea. All the rest voted Nay:
      Jeff Sessions (AL)
      Saxby Chambliss (GA)
      Jim Risch (ID)
      Pat Roberts (KS)
      Mitch McConnell (KY)
      Mike Johanns (NE)
      Jim Inhofe (OK)
      Lindsey Graham (SC)
      Lamar Alexander (TN)
      John Cornyn (TX)
      Mike Enzi (WY)

      Unfortunately, in most of those states a vote against the UN could actually help the GOP incumbent.

      • umoc193  On December 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM

        Glad you took the time to learn the names of the miscreants. They simply feed into the ridiculous views of the U.N. which has largely been ineffectual during its sixty-seven years of existence. Certainly it has been no deterrent to any action the U.S. has sought to undertake.

        Back in October, before the election, an old friend from high school (the same one I had seen JFK with in 1962) posted some nonsense on Facebook about UN soldiers coming to monitor our polling places. Trurns out it was a UN affiliated group, civilians all, who monitor polling places all over the world and did so in the U.S for the first time in 2002. They were simply observers and were to number about 40-50 and be spread out in several states. I told him that but it didn’t make any difference in his narrow-minded world.

      • little_minx  On December 7, 2012 at 11:01 PM

        Lindsey Graham is apparently worried re a Tea Party challenge from the right in the 2014 GOP Senatorial primary, so trying to shore up his conservative props.

        • umoc193  On December 8, 2012 at 12:26 PM

          Graham is a mystery to me in some ways. On occasion I’ve found myself thinking he’s making very reasoned arguments and on others I’ve found myself thinking he’s batty as hell. If that it his fear it does not speak well of the voters in his state. But, we’ve known that for some time now.

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: