The one who said this: 'half a loaf' on health care better than nothing; and who was seen here, hanging out with Alan Stanford?

That James Clyburn?

That smells like money.

Sex sells, and so do incendiary phrases. Anyway, some people actually believe that health care is not a human right.

None of the things which lead to technological excellence and expansion of the expression of compassion in the practice of medicine originates with humans. This elegant thing we have accomplished is not a human right.

So tell us: from where do these things come? A cornucopia, perhaps?

How it is that any result of human endeavour (including that result of human endeavour labelled "the set of things resulting from basic scientific research" ; you know, that empirical, evidence-based thingum; EG: medical research...a set of things extensively subsidized by other results of human endeavour) is not a human endowment is beyond me.

But then, I'm not interested in niggardly, stunted definitions of rights screeched into the commons by harpies hanging from the gables of some other academic faction's ivied tower; probably the one of amateur jurisprudence. I am, however, wishing for an effective bug spray; preferably dispersed with an anti-riot water cannon.

People who say this sort of thing boil it down to variations on one thing: No.

These variations take forms like "You can't have that" or "That's not possible, because we have this well-developed and extensively documented (philosophy | theory of jurisprudence | macro-economic policy) that logically rebuts your human needs" or "you really shouldn't hurt the protected class of privileged elites gaming the system to redistribute wealth from those who make it toward that tiny center of capable managers" or "We have an apple cart, stacked just so, and if you want us to sell you apples from the orchard, you'd better not upset the cart" or even: "We have guns" and blah blah blah blah blah.

And BTW: if the choice to reduce the definition of a right to its base, flagitious, state is NOT something that comes from a state of mind disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life, I'll eat my shorts.

From this to this in just under twenty years.

On the other hand, our friend Erkel probably never heard of Public Enemy; never mind 90 miles an hour down a dead end street.

And by the way: I'm out on a limb with this, but I'd put Jacksons to Washingtons that our friend Erkel has a head filled with snarled wiring.

Over here , we find this:

"...shaming the Republicans..."

I confess to incredulity. Slack-jawed incredulity, even. Then peevishness. So I blog.

This is one of the reasons progress is hard: people who fail to perceive the reality that is not merely in existence, just beyond the tip of the nose; but the reality that is the result of multiple blunt-force impacts on said nose.

The Republicans do not know shame.

Be as high-minded as you like, adhere to quaint Victorian mannerisms as you wish...but what you see displayed by the Republicans is nothing other than a profane broadcast by a fading, but still dangerous if not deadly, imperium.

Such a thing knows no shame.

Optionally, the well-mannered seekers of bipartisanship and meaningful dialog may want to consider the utility of "getting it through your thick, thumb-shaped, heads"...or not, as they may wish.