Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's Libertarian assy-ness has finally peeved enough of his shoppers that they're organizing boycotts against him and refusing to shop at his stores. If it goes on for awhile, Mackey will definitely feel the effects of misunderstanding the cooperative nature of the "free" market, or at least of going on and on about it by pumping a health care philosophy best described as selfishness writ large.  

But Mackey's already taking it in the (figurative and stock market) shorts today, as the price of his company's stock has dropped by almost a dollar since the open. Ah, the pinch one feels when individuals of all political stripes see opportunity and go for it regardless of political fealty or brand loyalty, exercising the "Liberty" in Libertarian! Apparently, when the first bell rang this morning, the tune was "Short WFMI" and traders listened.  

What would happen if Mackey's fellow capitalists shorted his stock way down over the next few days? Would Mackey have to appeal to (gasp!) SEC regulators to halt trading? "Dear SEC, all my rugged individualist, free-thinking friends have turned against me, and when I ask them to stop shorting my stock, they say I ought to understand it's nothing personal. Please help!"  

Mr. Mackey may end up combing the shelves of his stores in search of humble pie.

Okay, I am no doubt having an attack of self-worth following the big ol' Stephen Hawking scoop and will trip over my own intellectual feet shortly. But for now, flushed with success, I've just flamed David Axelrod.

Axelrod sent out an e-mail about how to respond the health reform critics that was so wordy, so disorganized, so unhelpful that I jumped into the contact section and typed:

Dear Mr. Axelrod,

I just received your email which starts "This is probably one of the longest emails I've ever sent," and it is, but that's not the problem.

Could the "myths" section of this email BE more disorganized? It's hard to imagine how. For goodness'  sake, you're supposed to state the myth, then dispel it--not switch back and forth between the myth and the assurance. For crying out loud, I know this stuff is complicated but you're a communicator--take a few minutes and crystallize the message before you send it out there.

Or hire me for a couple of weeks and I'll help you with it. Sorry to flame you, but several of the regular posters on Josh Marshall's TPM Cafe could come up with better, more hard-hitting, more concise work than this. And I think a couple of them just lost their jobs, so maybe you should roll on over to Talking Points Memo, click on TPM Cafe, and ask for some help.

I post as erica, and I'm a decent writer but a mere shadow of some of the intellectual giants who post there.

Again, sorry for the flame, but if you are trying to help ordinary people get the message out, you need to do better than this.

Which leads to my question--should the great explainers and sloganeers of the Cafe be more overt and possibly function as a group in helping our gummint get the ideas out there? If somebody comes up with something so useful that most of us are in awe of its pithy greatness or fantabulous explainment properties, should we have a way to get it to the powers that be????

Open to your thoughts...

ps I couldn't find a link to Axelrod's email so the dreadful "myths" section appears below.

8 common myths about health insurance reform

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It's a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
 
We can't afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It's a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
 
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It's a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
 
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It's a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
 
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It's a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
 
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It's myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
 
You can keep your own insurance: It's myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
 
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts.  Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose.  Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you - and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
 
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

So in trying to combat the fake fear being drummed up and thoroughly enjoyed by the right, I've come up with the idea of characterizing the issues/personalities of the day as either "Bush League" meaning on their way out or "Big League" meaning on their way in.

Here's my list so far--feel free to add yours.

Sarah (Death Panel) Palin: Bush League. Stephen (I have received high quality care from the NHS) Hawking: Big League

Starting a dumb war in Iraq: Bush League. Rescuing journalists in North Korea through diplomacy: Big League

George Bush: Bush League. Barack Obama: Big League

Rush Limbaugh: Bush League. Rahm Emmanuel: Big League

Condi Rice: Bush League. Michelle Obama: Big League

Market Collapse: Bush League. Health Care for everyone: Big League.

Please add your own. This list doesn't have to make sense to Republicans; it's not FOR them. It's FOR us, to remind us that doing the right thing is always Big League, and that we don't need to get caught up in arguing about made up stuff that's only out there to throw us off and is on its way out anyway. Let's say goodbye to the Bush Leagues, and hello to the future....... 

Karl Rove is famous for his "the math" political strategy: the idea that at any given point, Republicans only needed 51% of the vote, anywhere, anytime, to hold onto power and control any debate.

There are those who think that the current political situation, with its teabaggers, no-healthers, Palinheads and the general brainlessness of what's coming out of the Republican Party, represents a victory for the Democrats. But in view of the fact that despite having a solid majority the Dems can't seem to gain control of things, I'm starting to wonder if we're seeing "The Math 2.0: a strategy to confuse" and I'm wondering what the actual numbers have to be for the Republicans to prevent the Dems from getting anything done. How many Democrats do Republicans have to make uncomfortable, and by what means?

Harking back to the post 9/11 days, Democrats have huge fear of being called unpatriotic, overly progressive, even "European." It strikes me that all of this nonsense is not aimed at Republicans (who often seem to be enjoying the joke while professing to be terrified of Socialism, Death Panels, whatever) but at x percent of Democrats who are vulnerable to it, apparently not having learned the lessons of the past nine years.

Let's look at this, TPMers, and try to put some numbers on it as we figure out a way to deal with it. Good work is being done, but we're not front and center the way we should be.  What's the math here?

Open for comments.... 

Turns out that the world's best-known and most health-challenged physicist thinks that his single-payer health care system works just fine.

"I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived."  ---Stephen Hawking, August 11, 2009

*******

Here's the background for this comment from Mr. Hawking.

Investor's Business Daily recently wrote an editorial which contained the following statement:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

The statement has been removed from the editorial since its original publication. Apparently the rigorous research team at IBD didn't realize that Hawking is British and has been the recipient of British health care during the whole time he's lived longer than seemingly any other ALS patient! 

I figured that a frequent health care user as smart as Stephen Hawking would probably have an opinion on the subject of "Death Panel" medicine, so I went on his Web site and sent him an e-mail asking him about it. His personal assistant was kind enough to forward his response, which was: