For what it's worth, the t-shirt actually says "Agnostic Front - Skinhead", which is likely a reference to this band:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_Front

I was there and took lots of pictures. Met with Bill Nothstine while there. Mostly respectful behavior by all sides. We also didn't get in.

I counted the line right after the 60 were let in, and I counted, conservatively, 240 people, so there were at least 300 people hoping to get in.

I am the guy in the picture.

I am a socialist in favor of single payer health care and a fan of the band Agnostic Front. I was, in fact, shouting along with pro-health care demonstrators to drown out the man bull horning.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't use me as a poster child to associate the Tea Bag movement with the far right.

I suppose we could all afford to learn the lesson that the ignorance leading Ms. Axtman to fear something she didn't understand just because it appeared to fit a particular stereotype is not very far from the same affliction currently mobilizing the fanatic Right towards destroying the founding principles of our democracy.

Chris23 - that's a good way to put it. Speaking as someone who used to sport unconventional attire and hairstyle (more often than I do now -- middle age conformity now setting in and subverting my will), I can relate.

Kari -

You make a good point about perceptions and tailoring one's message for an audience, however it should be pointed out that skinhead != racist, in a number of contexts.

See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinheads_Against_Racial_Prejudice

Or just look at the history of the term "skinhead" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead

Good job and thanks, Kevin.

Yeah. I guess Kevin and everyone else was too busy taking pictures of the guy with the shaved head and the tattoos to do some JOURNALISM and find out who I am, why I was there, and what I stand for. But again, "Leftist Guy With Shaves Head For Single-Payer Health Care" doesn't make as good of copy as "Nazi Skinheads Shout Down Health Care Protesters."

I have demanded an apology from both blogs, though I suspect that I won't get one. Just remember, everyone- I'm the one being defamed here, and all of this could have been avoided by acting like a journalist and asking some questions.

Welcome to the blogs, Mr. Pell. Don't confuse them with journalism.

Mistakes happen, and not everyone is acquainted with the particularities of various subcultures. But yeah, corrections are in order.

So you edited the post, yet you still insinuate therein that Nick is a Nazi and in league with the megaphone guy.

This is sensationalist, non-fact based "reporting." Way to go, guys... keep up the good work. Take the post down and preserve whatever shred of credibility you have left.

Nick if no one else will say it I will...what you wear does NOT define you, thank you for shouting down the anti-reform protesters and thank you for challenging stereotypes and keeping us on our toes about what we assume.

I have to give props to the PPD. They mostly were just a presence today, but I did see one heated argument develop that dissipated as soon as an officer started to amble towards the trouble spot.

I had a good conversation with this officer, who, I believe, was the officer I saw earlier helping to pick up the sign of an older person. I talked to him about that, and he was a little concerned that it would be seen as taking sides, but I told him it seemed to be to just be community policing, and would applaud the action whether it was a sign promoting my side or the other side.

There have certainly been times in Portland where the PPD has acted poorly, so it's important to give them proper recognition when they behave well.

Nick--was that you who belted out a pretty awesome couple of bars of "Never Gonna Give You Up" at one point?

Carla, despite your corrections, you still assert that Nick is a skinhead and was working in tandem with the megaphone man.

Yes, there are skinheads in the band Agnostic Front. No, they are not racist- as a cursory and not at all time consuming Google search would reveal.

"If that's not the case, then I'm grateful for your clarification here in comments."

Was "I was, in fact, shouting along with pro-health care demonstrators to drown out the man bull horning." unclear?

"They do in fact feature skinheads in their lineup."

Indeed. And you still seem to be somewhat confused about what "skinhead" means in this context. See Wikipedia article above. It's an honest mistake - most people think "skinhead" = Nazi. But that's not the case.

Carla, you lost your opportunity to talk about the town hall when you chose to argue rather than fact check and correct. Way to build a coalition.

Carla, I tend not to make broad, sweeping generalizations about groups of people based upon what the mass media has chosen to report about them. I've known and been very close friends with skinheads for over half of my life, and not a single one of them held racist beliefs.

I don't see what purpose that picture of me on here serves. It is defamatory. It is libelous. You have not printed a retraction or an apology. You have posted a picture of me and made wild accusations, without attempting any kind of journalistic verification. This is, in fact, not at all different from the journalists who led us into war by refusing to question the administration. And yes, I think this is a fair comparison.

And I love how you turn it around on me. It's my fault that you did absolutely no research whatsoever before reprinting a photograph of me which claims that I am associated with right-wing forces that I have recently spoken out against. Because I'm "all that bent about perception in reporting." The problem is that you failed to report. You just went with the most sensational angle possible and ran with it.

But whatever! It's "your bad" and you actually took ten seconds to read my shirt AFTER your printed your smears. You should be apologizing, removing the picture, and hanging your head in shame. Instead you are childishly attempting to cover up your role in slandering me. Whatever gets you through the night.

And yes. I was the man singing Ric Astley.

Hey Chris 23 or any of you bleeding hearts who state;

"...currently mobilizing the fanatic Right towards destroying the founding principles of our democracy"

Please cite for me the exact clause in the Consitution that says you have a right to government health care?

After all the founding principles of our democracy are containing in that document. You know the constitution?

Please review Article 1 section 8 for the only powers that congress is allowed. [That would be the concept of limited government for you big brother types.]

It is a simple question. Please answer it succintly and honestly.

Where contained in the Constitution is there an enumerated right for the federal government to enact health care? Specifically what clause?

I'll wait....

well, this story has gone to hell...

You know, I would have been more than happy to discuss those issues with you if you hadn't publicly defamed someone I care about. Mr. Brainwash is correct- you lost whatever credibility you had when you chose to argue instead of checking facts.

So, he's a skinhead AND a socialist? I think you might have blown it for the poor guy, you should run a correction. You guys are silly, and funny!

just saw the correction -- you're still silly though.

I love this Libtard against Libtard! We got a real purse fight here! Woo Hoo!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

FMJ

Carla, I'm the guy in the brown button-down next to Nick. Please don't turn this into an attack on me- it makes you look desperate.

I sent a message to Kari (and Kevin who originated the story) as soon as I saw this, hoping to have a discussion before it degenerated into a flame war. You can get my contact info if you'd like a reasonably civil talk.

This is the sort of thing that makes people like me want to have nothing to do with so-called "progressives."

Hey Cara;

Why don't you just man up and apologize? Instead of asking more questions!

FMJ

Thats not an apology is it?

FMJ

Exactly what is wrong with having a "bleeding heart," unless one is speaking of a medical condition?

I'm quite proud to be a bleeding heart liberal. More people should be, it would be a much better world.

I, for one, appreciated seeing the first 4 pictures on this posting. Thanks for posting them!

I regret that the misunderstanding/assumptions/escalations/counter accusations regarding the 5th have overshadowed them and the rest of the discussion.

Full Metal Jacket,

"Purse fight", eh? Go f**** yourself, sexist pig.

Hey, 10th Mountain. While you're at it where does it say in the Constitution that we have a right to paved roads, to clean non-toxic food, clean drinkable water, schools, education, workplace safety, safe automobiles and airplanes, safe appliances, libraries, safe medicine, police protection, safe non-toxic clothing, fire protection, an interstate highway system, any of that stuff?

Try Article I, section 8. It's called the General Welfare Clause. Non of the above mentioned issues appear there but all seem to promote the 'general welfare' of our nation.

Having a healthier citizenry while at the same time saving money by diverting the money we already spend into actual health care instead of into the pockets of the giant corporate interests and insurance infrastructure; overhead and profits to the tune of 30% and more of the money spent, will leave us with better, cheaper, more cost effective care and healthier citizens.

It's a win-win for everybody except the corporate executives. It's the smart thing to do.

Otherwise it's just wait your turn until the corporate bean counters tell you 'too bad, now that you're actually sick we are going to cancel your insurance,' or even better, "Although you do have insurance it doesn't cover the astronomical costs of your illness. Too bad, so sad."

From there the next step is bankruptcy court. Good luck with that.

All you have to do to shut me up is remove the picture. I've given up on an apology. I would, however, like to point out that you made this about me when you used my image as a sensationalist bogeyman.

My position on health care is irrelevant to the question of your base slanders, however, for the purposes of showing your readership a snapshot of my politics, and further discrediting you:

So why are you an advocate for single payer?

Because I don't pay cops to catch criminals. Because I don't pay firemen to put out fires. Because I think that no one should have to go bankrupt because they get hit by a car or get cancer. Because I think that America's lack of a single-payer system is a national scandal and disgrace. Because insurance companies rig the system to make people like me pay more for less. Because private health care is another form of "socialism for the rich."

Why did you come out for the town hall today?

I was interested to see what kind of people showed up, particularly which unions would be represented, and which groups on the socialist left, and what their slogans would be. I did not anticipate being able to get into the town hall itself, and was frankly more interested in talking to other regular people about health care than begging politicians to "do the right thing."

Which of the current plans being floated in the federal legislature most closely resembles what you want in health care reform?

I admit to an ignorance of the bills being floated. I apologize if my ignorance of the bills floated makes me a legitimate target for character assassination.

I am fairly cynical about electoral politics and assume that any bill, no matter how touted in the corporate media, will be for the profit of insurance companies and drug companies at my expense. The Obama Administration's clandestine meetings with big pharma would suggest that I am quite possibly correct.

Don't blame me. I voted for the guy who thinks corporate criminals belong in jail.

Why were you singing Ric Astley songs?

It was a tactic used during protests against Scientology called Rick Rolling and part of a broader Situationist tradition of making protest pleasurable. If you're going to drown out a guy with a bullhorn, why not have some fun with it? Mr. Astley really freaks the squares, and I happen to like his music.

What about this event made it worthwhile for you to show up?

I wanted to talk to other like-minded people about health care. I wanted to do my small part to make sure that 912 and the Tea Baggers and right-wing astro-turf groups didn't run roughshod over labor and the working poor, as they have been doing at far too many recent events.

Is this one of the issues you care most about? Why or why not?

I care about it, but I'm not sure where I would rank it. I don't have health care and if I ever get hit by a hit and run driver, I'm totally screwed. I would say it ranks below the Afpak war and the Obama administration's continued attacks on democratic liberties, but above factory farming and global climate change in a purely emotional sense.

In a very immediate sense it is important to me because I lack health care. In a more abstract sense, I consider the American health care system to be one of the more glaring indictments of capitalism generally.

I suspect that my views will be used as little more than excuse to further belittle and humiliate (to reiterate) a working class person in favor of universal health care. The questions themselves carry a pompous tone which suggests that I am not even supposed to have answers.

Whatever. I'm gonna go enjoy my birthday with a nice vegan meal, a 40 oz. of Steel Reserve, and a pack of Pall Malls. And if that makes me a working class yob, so be it. At least I can look myself in the mirror.

The first 4 pictures are new as of 5:10pm, the comments you see before then didn't have the benefit of that context ... so it's not really a case of overshadowing.

In the spirit of getting things on track, I will answer Carla's questions:

Did you actually go to the town hall? No.

Does health care reform matter to you? You betcha.

What is your opinion of the number of current plans floating around? Way too much compromise, but willing to wait and see what kind of sausage comes out of conference committees, while simultaneously continuing to pressure my representatives by phone and email. Would have much preferred if Dems pushed for single-payer from the beginning, and then compromised down from that, rather than starting from an already-compromised position.

Do you advocate for single payer? Used to...

The public option? Absolutely... it's vital, otherwise we're doing necessary and incremental, but ultimately insufficient changes.

Are you insured? Yes, as a self-employed business owner. Insurance costs have gone up 79% over 2 years.

Do you know people who aren't? Yes.

How does that effect their lives and livelihood? Teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Now, back to Nick:

I think nick has every right in the world to wear whatever he wants to a political rally. I am reminded of how the media always focuses on drag queens and leather folk at queer pride events (and I love drag queens and leather folk) -- this creates pressure from some to marginalize those with radical appearance in order to promulgate a more palatable political message.

But the alternative-types among us aren't the real problem: The media is still the problem. Look how the media is treating the right-wing freaks seriously. Our own lovable freaks (not saying that Nick is one) never get such serious treatment.

We need to push back at the media, and when we've found that we're incorrectly attacking one of our own, just apologize and move on, rather than wasting valuable energy fighting.

Let's get health care fixed, and then beat up on each other afterward: That way, our injuries will be covered! :-)

"his tshirt says, "Agnostic UnitedFront - Skinhead". The guy with the megaphone on the left"

Ooooooooh, guy with a megaphone and another with a black t-shirt, sounds like a well-funded operation.

You're right, there's a conspiracy!

Ooooooooh, guy with a megaphone and another with a black t-shirt, sounds like a well-funded operation.

The operation is well-funded and well-documented. The purpose of the operation is to get disruptive angry mobs to run out, and it has succeeded. The fact that an individual member of said mob doesn't appear to be particularly monied does not serve as evidence that there is no well-funded operation.

You're right, there's a conspiracy!

Glad you agree.

"The operation is well-funded and well-documented."

You're right, these two are the same ones that threw the 2000 election for George Bush.

Can't you find a little larger rock to look under?

"Call me crazy, but if you wear a shirt that says "SKINHEAD" you shouldn't be surprised if people think you're a skinhead."

Good point, what do you say about someone who wears a t-shirt that says:

"Meet the Fockers?"

Steve, here's your conspiracy: http://joinpatientsfirst.com/hcan.pdf

Que X-files music.

The truth is out there buddy! I've got my tin foil hat right here!

Carla - thanks for the reply.

Unrepentant liberal;

Sorry... Wrong again. Read the constitution...please!

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause". Unlike most General Welfare clauses, states for instance, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the courts as a <u> limitation </u> on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending.

That would be the concept of <big> limited, </big> government for you big brother types.

<big> GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS! </big>

You DO NOT have a "right" to clean water. You DO NOT have a "right" to safe food. You DO NOT have a "right" safe appliances. You DO NOT have a "right" to health care.

If YOU are responsible for YOUR health, then YOU are responsible for YOUR health care, not me, not big brother, just YOU.

You DO NOT have a "right" to take from my labor and give it to someone else because of a felt or perceived need or yours or anybody elses part.

You pretty much don't have a "right" to anything but what God gave you. life, liberty and the ability to choose and think for yourselves.

You see, the founding fathers were reasoned well educated men. They certainly had knowledge aforethought of what they were doing. They chose their words carefully, they espoused limited government and maximized freedom.

You want the exact opposite of what they envisoned. You want maximized government and minimized freedom.

Don't you understand that a government big enough to give you everything you think you have a "right" to, is also big enough to take all your so called "rights" away.

Having a healthier citizenry is not a "right". It certainly is not within the federal governments power to enact.

The argument could be made that it is a state issue, but that would depend upon the specific language of each of the individual states constitutions.

If you really want to know the what the founding fathers espoused try reading the following;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution by Jonathan Elliot

F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom

The Debate on the Constitution by James Guyett

The concept is simple LIMITED GOVERNMENT = MAXIMIZED LIBERTY

BTW if you are responsible for your health, then YOU are responsible for YOUR health care, not me, not big brother, just YOU

10th

Lots of folks like to mention the European model in these debates, if we can call them that, well the European model is not monolithic and here is an example from the N.Y. Times that some might learn from:

"Not necessarily, if the health systems of the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland are any guide.

None of these countries uses a government-run, Medicare-like health insurance plan. They all rely on purely private, nonprofit or for-profit insurers that are goaded by tight regulation to work toward socially desired ends. And they do so at average per-capita health-care costs far below those of the United States — costs in Germany and the Netherlands are less than half of those here."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/

Yes we need reform. Get rid of licensing. It is there to protect the doctors, not the patients. Repeal the Mccarran-Ferguson Act. It has Balkanized the health system. BTW Does the press even know what the McCarran-Ferguson Act is? Rid us of product licensing. This includes both drugs and medical devises. Repeal certificates of need where they still exist. Abolish the state licensing boards. They are a scam.

That is just a start.

10th mountain

You have been sadly misled. And yes, I do teach Constitution. To the extent that you rely on Hayek you are relying on a discredited ideologue.

And, by the way, capital letters and boldfaced "get this through your head" do not add to the credibility of an argument.

You've pretty obviously inhaled a lot of "information" that is not interpretively useful. One suspects that a lot of shortcuts have been taken. One suspects that lots of the usual conservative pseudo-"news" outlets have been imbibed.

Suggestion: Find yourself an actual course at an actual university (Reed has a good local Poli Sci prof.) and work through the material. Then see if the new material that you've wrestled with has affected your world view at all.

Why does the "megaphone guy" have to be labeled as anti reform? The opposition is NOT anti reform. They are against what is being called reform by this administration because they don't believe it is a good plan.

In fact, those opposed to gov't run health care (both R's, D's and I's) are FOR health care reform .. just not the way it's being proposed. There is a reform option being proposed by Rep Price (R-GA), but the Obama administration isn't listening. So much for debate and bipartisanship.

At least honestly represent your opposition.

Looks like the main point is that, once again, an Oregon townhall went smoothly, with little interruption from the zombies. I'm glad.

For those of you who want to make the whole event about Nick's shirt, you can note one difference between the left and right: Liberals like Carla admit when they make a mistake. Conservatives just chant louder.

Sal; it really is simple.. if the Constitution does not specifically delegate a power to the Federal government is is delegated to the states of the people.

But I'll answer your questions dutifully...

Show me where in the Constitution it says that we can use paper money for trade and commerce.

This was widely debated during the Constitutional convention and widely discussed, but ultimately rejected by the founding fathers. Remember the 10th ammendment? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to emit bills of credit or issue paper money was not delegated to the United States. More, it was specifically not delegated after deliberating upon whether to or not. The power was prohibited to the states. The logical conclusion is that such power as there may be to emit bills of credit was reserved to the people in their private capacities.

Show me where in the Constitution it allows for the formation of political parties, and where it says that parties can benefit from publicly funded nomination processes.

The constitution does not specifically allow for the formation of political parties. Although certainly political parties were extant in the early colonies. Again you have to remeber that if it wasn't specifically enumerated in the constitution it was left to the states or the people respectively. The federal government can not establish nor prevent the formation of a political party.

Show me what part of the Constitution explicitly enumerates an affirmative right to vote in elections.

The Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld.

Once again the Constitution LIMITS the power of the Federal government. Get it yet?

Show me where in the Constitution it permits our government to restrict immigration.

once again the Constitution of the United States is one of limited and expressly delegated powers which can only be exercised as granted, or in cases enumerated [LIMITED]. For Congress, there is no expressed or implied grant of power over the admission of foreign asylum seekers or immigrants to enter State limits - no more then is there the power for them to insist upon say Canada to accept one million refugees. As Jefferson would say of today’s laws over immigration, “is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.”

This was settled in the supreme court when Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases said it was not open to dispute that the federal government had no such authority under the Constitution to force States to suffer from the introduction of foreigners from other countries via its treaty making power, nor would the States be bound to submit to such an unlawful act of Congress

Show me the part of the Constitution that says that "you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

pretty easy this one. The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, it is NOT in the Constitution. This basic right comes to us from English jurisprudence,with which the founding fathers were well aware. It has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury trail.

[read Blackwood on this if your interested.]

As to health care... I'd argue that the "right" to health care flows from the preamble:

Sorry Sal no joy on that one either!

You have no argument.. Plain and simple.

Once again the clear language of the constitution says was is an an enumerated power and what is NOT a function of the Federal Government.

There is no inference. There is no wishfull thinking.

If the states whish to enact a health care plan that is up to them. NOT the federal Government.

Get it yet? Enumerated powers? Limited federal Government?

BTW Sal if being a Patriot and following the Constitution and pricniples of Limited Government, Ordered Liberty and Freedom make me a neo-tribalist I gladly accept the title.

Maybe you'd like to disagree with James Madison he must be a neo-tribalist as well.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected".

....Hey Sal is healthcare in there?

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State".

I wonder what he would call you?

Gods, I can't stand the stupid.

Necessary and proper clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause last. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Linked to the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause and what-have-you - look at the immense literature following this . . .

Why am I doing this . . . ?

If folks paid attention to the language, they would catch on that this skinhead feller was not your usual garden variety neo-Nasty. Agnostic? That's your context clue, folks. :).... I'm glad he did what he did, but if one is going to step out on the skinny twigs at the end of the limb, one must bring one's flappers too.

Hey John - here is why they are labeled anti-reform. I am not hearing ANY press wherein they actually make a case for something else!!!! All I'm hearing is "No, No No" and "Hayelllll no" and even "F*all NO".

But nothing else.

My wideopen question is this: If not, THEN what? Instead of "If not, why not?"

It's tough for an undoctored photograph to be "libelous". If it's in print, then it can't be slanderous--by definition slander is spoken, libel is printed.

Nick, you wore a shirt to a public event, and you were photographed. If I had seen you, I probably would have photographed you, too, and probably would have posted it. That's the risk you take when you wear a noticeable shirt to a public event.

"I love this Libtard against Libtard! We got a real purse fight here! Woo Hoo!"

I'm wondering at what moment Lyndon LaRouche became the spiritual head of the right wingers? The last I'd seen any LaRouchites, they were at the airport next to the Hare Jrishnas trying to convince passerbyes that Queen Elizabeth II was the kingpin of a world-wide crack cartel. Now they're handing out photoshopped pics of Obama shaking hands with Hitler and they-baggers were lapping it up...

Did I actually go to the town hall: Yes.

Did I get in: No. To have a town hall in a place that fits 60 people is insulting and a set-up to keep people out.

Do I advocate for Single Payer Medicare for All: YES!

Public option: No

Single Payer Health Care for All will provide guaranteed Comprehensive Coverage from cradle to grave, in comparison to a " Public Option" plan where over 20 + million people will remain uninsured.

With Single Payer 95% of Americans will pay less for health care, with no co-payments,no deductibles or premiums. With a " Public Option" Americans will be mandated to buy insurance from for profit, greedy companies and pay penalties for being uninsured.

A Single Payer plan will provide choices of doctors and hospitals, with all decisions re care being made only by doctor and patient. While with a " Public Option" only net-work providers can render care which can still be denied.

A Single Payer system will save over $ 400 billion/year by reducing administrative costs, and by purchasing in bulk, while " Public Option" will increase costs by at least $600 billion over 10 years and will not slow health care costs.

Single Payer: Simple, Economical, Humane.

Public Option: Bail-out for the industry. Will not solve our health care crisis.Will not reduce costs.

Am I insured? Yes at this time, through my employer.

Do I know people who are not? Yes. I also know many who are under-insured

I was born and raised in a country with SP. My elderly parents still live there and are very well provided for, not just with excellent health care with all basics covered, ( no standing in line, no denial of care, cheap medicins) but also with a generous pension which make their daily lives worry free. I truly wish for my American friends to experience this type of freedom!

Kari, you may be satisfied with Carla's response, but I'm not. She has taken a belittling and condescending tone towards people you might think about building bridges with. I expressed a legitimate disagreement with her, in civil tones, and she responded with "bully for you" and a questionnaire that entirely dodged the issue. Do I need to pass a political litmus test before you care if you've offended me?

This is why so many of us don't trust "progressives." We don't think you're any more likely to speak for us than the conservatives are if you gain power.

Our group came out today despite our reservations about getting involved with people like you, because we thought we might have enough in common to work together on this. As Carla says so eloquently, "my bad."

I'm a frequent lurker here but don't post much. I like your posts, Carla, but Nick is right. The knowledge that Agnostic Front is a band and that it is entirely possible to be a non-racist skinhead was, I thought, pretty common. The fact that you don't know either of these things is kinda wince-inducing, really.

Making snap judgments on people based solely on their attire and haircut is, well, pretty non-progressive.

You've kind of written yourself into a corner now, but if something like this happens in the future, I think a simple apology (as in "I'm sorry", "my bad" doesn't count) would do wonders.

As a random internet dude, let me say "thank you, Nick" for showing up to the town hall to counter the right-wing misinformation machine.

And thank you Carla, for your posts on just how crazy the right-wing has become. Between the birthers and the people who believe Sarah Palin's "death panel" comments, its pretty obvious the whole party has gone off the tracks.

Returning now into loyal lurkerdom.

So.... How's that attack dog persona workin for you so far, Carla? I must say, it really adds to the discourse here on BO. Not. Congratulations on - once again - distracting from the important issues at hand, like health care and initative reform, with your venom. When over half the comments to your posts are either those upset with your tactics or you defending them, I think the message is getting lost.

To Nick Pell, R, Johnny Brainwash, et al:

It is SOP for Carla to seek out - or create if necessary - the most sensational angle possible and run with it. See her post entitled: "Anti-tax-fairness group using convicted forgers, thieves and sex offenders to gather signatures," to see what I mean.

She routinely takes a belittling and condescending tone towards people who dare to question, disagree with, or otherwise oppose her. Press her hard enough, and she devolves into circular reasoning by which it will always be turned around on you. Criticize her for picking on innocent people, for example, and YOU might get labeled a bully. Simple irony is lost on her. 

Being falsely accused of being in league with "the enemy" is also SOP, and Carla's rarely - if ever - felt the need to do even a cursory investigation to back those claims up in the past. It's her way of avoiding the issues and attemting to summarily dismiss you from the debate.  

I am frankly amazed that you got even the cursory "my bad" by way of apology, as lame as it is, because I've yet to see one out of her. [Could be I missed it somewhere, I'll admit to not reading every one of the posts or comments Carla's written here. I often can't stomach the bile, and skip em after a cursory skim.]   

It seems  to me the only political litmus test you must pass before they care if they've offended you here is if they get work from you or you're a local liberal insider.  That's my perception, and I'm sorry if I'm wrong (see how easy that is?). But such mature and intelligent retorts like, "bully for you" and "get over yourself" are reserved only for we 'useful idiots,' the little people who this party claims to defend and protect. But who Carla will throw under the bus without a second (or even first) thought if it is politically expedient. 

IMO, Carla's only interested in building bridges with those that agree with her or are somehow useful to her. It's a shame because I agree with 95% of her political ideology. But because I disagree strongly with the methods and means by which she attempts to win at any cost, she - and other duplicitous Dems - seem hell bent on destroying bridges to people like me. And perhaps Nick, R and Johnny.

Way to go Carla. You're may not be bringing a knife to a gun fight, but you're mowing down those who would otherwise support you. Way to build a base.            

"It is SOP for Carla to seek out - or create if necessary - the most sensational angle possible and run with it. See her post entitled: "Anti-tax-fairness group using convicted forgers, thieves and sex offenders to gather signatures," to see what I mean."

It's not an "angle," it's the facts. What is sensational about that? You might not like the facts, but that doesn't change them.

"She routinely takes a belittling and condescending tone towards people who dare to question, disagree with, or otherwise oppose her."

Buck up.

"I often can't stomach the bile, and skip em after a cursory skim."

There's always Tums. Then again, how can you comment with authority if you admit that you actually don't even read what she has to say?

"Way to go Carla. You're may not be bringing a knife to a gun fight, but you're mowing down those who would otherwise support you. Way to build a base."

Besides not making sense (a knife to a gun fight?) it is unlikely that you agree with her 95% of the time except for her "tactics."

"You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear."

The Rockman from the animated cartoon, The Point.

"wear a t-shirt labeled "skinhead" to an event where people are watching out for racists"

I have to agree with Mr TA, this whole discussion has been about how bad the other side is.

Pres Obama could really simplify this. Instead of vilifying everyone opposed and galvanizing the opposition, how about taking their talking points and addressing them one by one? The way he's doing it now is making a lot of people think they are being duped by both sides.

Who knows, it might be a learning moment.

"Call me crazy, but if you wear a shirt that says "SKINHEAD" you shouldn't be surprised if people think you're a skinhead."

Good point, what do you say about someone who wears a t-shirt that says:

"Meet the Fockers?"

LOL. That is too wide open.

It's a shame this whole post got derailed. Perhaps someone could start a new post without pics simply to discuss the actual Town Hall that took place.

But since this thing is already off the rails, I'll add my two cents to the Carla/Nick situation:

Carla, I like your work, but I would point out something I was told years ago: An apology is not an admission of wrongdoing, but the acknowledgement that one has offended another person. An apology costs you nothing and can gain you quite a bit.

And no, "my bad", is not an apology. "I'm sorry", is.

10th Mountain,

Is socialized medicine (ala Medicare) for those over the age of 65 funded by those currently working a Constitutional right?

Is taxpayer paid for food, housing and health care when one is a member of the U.S. military a Constitutional right?

Is socialized medicine (ala Medicaid) for indigent women, children and elderly a Constitutional right?

I find it funny how philosophically inconsistent Conservatives are on the issue of health care and socialism. On one hand, your side preaches fiscal discipline with some proposing privatization of Medicaid. However, why do Conservatives never apply the same principle to Medicare and the U.S. military, which is the largest socialist system in the U.S.?

This philosophical hypocrisy that decries after school funding as welfare, yet turns the other cheek to the hundreds of billions of given to the US military to fight political wars in the Middle East against countries who have no chance in hell of ending our way of life, has put me on the other side of the political fence.

If you are for "limited government" then at least have the balls to come out proposing massive cuts to Defense spending and privatizing both Medicaid AND Medicare. Otherwise, shut your little hypocritical mouth up.

I'm quite comfortable with how Carla's handled this.

I'm not. I would be comfortable if Carla apologized to Nick and removed the photograph of Nick that he asked her to remove. It's not that hard to add a note: "Misleading and mislabeled photograph removed at the request of the subject." No need to remove the comments, as anyone late to the post would understand them pretty clearly.

Carla also left up the statement: "Based on Kevin's report, the two are in association." This is clearly false, and has not been corrected. The next note carries the tone of disbelief: Nick "says" he was there to shout down the megaphone. He "says" he's a socialist. When I first read this post this morning, before reading the comments, nothing led me to think that Carla (and Kevin) had just gotten it wrong, seriously wrong, in the original post. It looked like a couple of minor corrections, and a protester making claims that may or may not be true.

i learned NOTHING about the actual discussion of health care

And that's because the original post was so poorly done. Carla shouldn't just be apologizing to Nick, she should be apologizing to all of us for unnecessarily taking us down this road.

"Pres Obama could really simplify this. Instead of vilifying everyone opposed and galvanizing the opposition, how about taking their talking points and addressing them one by one? "

I watched Obama's NH town hall meeting yesterday on CSPAN and it sounded to me like he did that. I don't think "vilify" describes "this is what I stand for, and this is what should be in the plan".

If someone believes insurance companies are infallible, they should say so. How many of these protesters are backed by the insurance lobby? How many are angry Republicans who can't deal with the pace of change? How many are just right wing groups (didn't this country see such groups expand right in 1993 after Clinton was sworn in))

What is going on here is press and others who don't seem to understand representative democracy.

Shouters show up at any event, shout their heads off, and then wonder what happened when they aren't taken as seriously as the people who talk in a civil tone and ask their questions.

LaRouchies or anyone else who paint a Hitler mustache on any president's face aren't going to be taken seriously.

How many of these disruptive folks looked down on protesters at any Bush event? But it is OK to behave in a way they opposed when done to Bush?

One thing that really frosts me is people in national media saying, "What Obama did wrong was allowing Congress to come up with their own bill--he should tell them what it should say".

Oh, these people think if (as with Hillary's proposal) a bill had been written at the White House and delivered to Congress, it would have gotten 60 votes in the Senate even if Sen. Kennedy was out sick?

We do need to talk about the need for electronic medical records which can communicate with each other (incompatible systems aren't worth much) changing the ridiculous Medicare reimbursement rates which treat states like NY better than states like Oregon, the role of mental health (which Obama did address in NH), dental health, vision care, primary care doctors, the scarcity of young medical professionals and those who teach them (is their pay disparity between those with practices and those who teach?)---which was discussed in the Oregon legislature btw, and many other issues brought up by Dr. Kitzhaber, Dr. Bates, Dr. Dean, Dr. Frist, and others.

Yelling at a member of Congress, making a big deal about a protest, etc. doesn't contribute to serious discussion.

But maybe that is the point. "I want my country back" coming from someone who lives in a state which went for Obama but had gone Republican for years may be a cry of "What happened? How did things change so much?".

Unfortunately, that is a fairly common thing that happens after unexpected election results--primary or general.

Miles,

How is the photograph of Nick misleading? He wore the shirt. Perhaps he's ignorant of Portland's history with skinheads, but that's his problem, not Carla's.

The description has been corrected, and the original description really isn't unreasonable. Note that the original description of the photo says "skinhead", not "racist skinhead".

Nick may now feel embarrassed that he wore the shirt to a public event. If so, his bad. That doesn't give him the right to demand that pictures of him in the shirt be taken down.

Biggest news item from yesterday's town hall seems to be that Wu is just fine with women's health services not being completely covered. As such, there should be no coverage for viagra, vasectomy or other men's health services.

By the way, Nick seems to be quite the stickler for "journalistic integrity" in others, but he's a little sloppy on his own blog, with a headline about "slander" (when he means "libel"), and misspelling Carla's name.

Liberals like Carla admit when they make a mistake. Conservatives just chant louder.

I don't recall any admission of wrong doing. Just a weak "mea culpa" non-apology. Considering how most progressives treat poor and working class people (i.e. like garbage) none of this is terribly surprising.

Don't worry, Portland. I won't muck up your health care rallies anymore. I'll stay at home.

For what it's worth, I'm not into hardcore and pretty sure I've never heard a note, but I knew that Agnostic Front was a band. I also knew that skinheads are not all racist. I believe that racist skinheads are usually referred to as such, or by the more affectionate term "bonehead".

I doubt that any anti-racist skinheads will be very interested in Blue Oregon's mainstream, liberal trajectory, but I agree with others that feel like Carla should have corrected the entire original post and made more of an apology.

To inject some reality into this discussion (many people live their lives without knowing the names of all bands or even a term like "skinhead"), this is a great post.

Of course it is about an actual, inperson discussion, not some of the snide remarks here.

http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2009/08/11/a-few-more-town-hall-words/

Nick,

First of all, you lose credibility when you demand that the picture of you at a public event be taken down.

The original descriptions of the pictures have been changed to reflect the new information that you provided.

You have claimed that you were attempting to drown out the man with the megaphone, yet none of Kevin's pictures show you with shouting or chanting when Megaphone Man is at work. Moreover, none of the pictures show body language from you that indicates you are attempting to confront him in any way.

I also notice that you're such a proponent of an open discussion that comments on your blog are moderated, and you've closed comments regarding this issue.

FB: Kevin's pictures show me:

Staring off into space with Greg ZOMFG!

Smoking a cigarette and talking to Greg ZOMFG!

Staring off into space with Greg yet again ZOMFG!

I've closed comments because I've said all that I have to say about the issue. All you and Kevin's supporters have done is snark and nit-pick.

Other people in this thread- including, I might add, those willing to sign their REAL NAME to their comments- think that I am totally justified. So are you Kevin's girlfriend or his college roommate?

Go ahead and get the last word. I know you desperately crave it. Your kind always does.

Nick, it's pretty easy to find my real name.

You seem offended that your picture was published. Here's a tip--if you want to be anonymous at an event, don't wear a shirt that makes you stand out.

Now, I realize that you may not have realized that your shirt would make you stand out. Fine. But it did, and so people took your picture and published those pictures. If I had seen you I would have taken your picture, too.

But you come across as thin-skinned when you demand that those pictures be removed, with threats of libel action.

You do realize that it's tough for an undoctored photo to be libelous, don't you?

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS!

You DO NOT have a "right" to clean water. You DO NOT have a "right" to safe food. You DO NOT have a "right" safe appliances. You DO NOT have a "right" to health care.

Wow. Talk about John Q. Public internalizing the perspective of the ruling class....

How is the photograph of Nick misleading?

Because he's in the center of the picture that is directly below the post that says "[Kevin] did manage to get some great shots of reform opposition craziness." And directly above the part of the post that STILL says "Based on Kevin's report, the two are in association."

You seem to be arguing that any picture taken in a public place can only be objective. But that's clearly not true. Do you remember the picture of Obama checking out the young girl's butt a few weeks ago? Totally misleading once you saw the actual video. Do you remember the picture after 9/11 of the young students looking out at the fallen twin towers, appearing to have a casual, nonchalant conversation? This was the one that conservatives went apoplectic over, decrying the downfall of our great nation. Yet the students in the actual picture tell a very different story of their reactions and conversations.

Pictures, out of context, can be just as misleading as words. Given that we have the subject of this photograph telling a different story than the photo and surrounding text tell, it is incomprehensible to me that Carla would leave it up. Unless she doesn't believe him. You clearly don't, with your post up above saying "Moreover, none of the pictures show body language from you that indicates you are attempting to confront him in any way."

FB, you're reading into these pictures what you want to, ignoring the facts that you are being told from a credible source. That's exactly what the "death panel" believers are doing.

The guy with the megaphone on the left is an anti-reform guy trying to shout down the progressives, naturally. Based on Kevin's report, the two are in association.

Bob T:

I never approve of shouting down anyone, but of using your three minutes to ask a tough question or something. But where were your criticisms of progressives sghouting down people in previous years. Works both ways. Either stop doing it yourselves, or accept it when it happens to you. Which will it be?

Bob Tiernan Portland

dual citizen and Nick Pell speak for me and for all progressives.

The two zombie parties don't understand that they are dead, and the rest of us have to stop them from eating our brains.

Miles, your point about the picture being below the text about "reform opposition craziness" is well taken. Perhaps that text should be edited. I have to say that I'm not thrilled with the apparent BO stylistic norm of always crossing out misinformation. Sometimes it should be removed.

I've looked at Kevin's pictures on flickr, which do put it into context, and they don't support Nick's contention that he was attempting to counter the man with the megaphone.

There are four pictures with Nick where the Megaphone Man appears to be talking into his megaphone. In two of them, Nick is smoking a cigarette, which seems to be more important than countering anything said. In the other two he's looking blankly across the street, and doesn't seem to be paying attention to what MM is doing.

"dual citizen and Nick Pell speak for me and for all progressives."

Um, no you don't.

However, I do speak for many progressives when I ask:

WHAT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED OF DAVID WU AND WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE DURING THE TOWN HALL?

Not to get off topic or anything.

Oh, and Nick - your 15 minutes of fame are over. Move on.

Darrell, I see no accusations from Carla that Nick is a racist. Where did she do that?

She did say that he's apparently quite proud to be a skinhead. And, apparently, he is, as he wore a T-shirt declaring it so.

Now, it's true that there are a variety of skinheads, and wearing such a shirt could prompt many conversations, like the person I met several years ago who has many swastika tattoos.

Nick seems more interested in whining, and he's now making accusations about people working for the police and acting like COINTELPRO. It's hard to have much sympathy for him.

Kari, what about progressives who shouted down Blumenauer at town halls when he wouldn't support impeachment of Bush? Does that count?

My final word on this for any who care:

http://blacksungazette.com/?p=463

"Don't worry, Portland. I won't muck up your health care rallies anymore. I'll stay at home."

Many of the progressives in Portland (most of the folks on this blog don't come close to qualifying, unfortunately) would love to see you again at any rally you care to attend, and bring as many people as you can. We need all the support we can get and will welcome you.

"I watched Obama's NH town hall meeting yesterday on CSPAN and it sounded to me like he did that."

Sorry, only sound-bites I heard were slamming the insurance companies.

Oh noes! You all know my real name now. I was hiding it because I was embarrassed to look so awful in all those pictures. I demand you remove all photos of my belly.

Oh, wait. Now I'm just mocking all of you. My bad.

Seriously, I just want to say the same thing I say to white people who freak out when people talk about racism. When people react this strongly to something you just don't get, you've got a choice. You can retreat into privilege, dismiss your opponent's concerns and take comfort in your own displays of liberal sentiment, or you can pay attention to what people are telling you and consider that you might not be the final arbiter of all discussion. The first path may be more comfortable, if you've got enough power to pull it off. But the second one is where you'll learn something.

Carla, Kari and all the "progressives" who have responded by attacking Nick: you are why I don't work with liberals. You are why I don't trust liberals. You are why liberalism is old and in the way.

Changing one selfish power elite for another is not progress.

Yo Steve, I'm right there with ya bro! While that uppity Obama was slammin' those God-Fearin' insurance companies, hiding his birth certificate, forming his government run Death Panels, and takin' away my guns and ammo the insurance companies were busy:

1. Filing SEC reports that show between the year 2000 and the year 2007, profit of the country‘s 10 largest health insurance companies rose 428 percent. In 2000, they had $2.4 billion in profit. By 2007, it was $12.9 billion.

2. While the 10 biggest health insurance companies were seeing their profits rise over 400 percent between 2000 and 2007, the number of Americans without health insurance grew by 19 percent.

3. By 2007, the CEOs of the 10 largest health insurance companies were taking home an average compensation of $11.9 million each every year, while the number of Americans without health insurance for whom a burst appendix can mean bankruptcy has gone through the roof.

"Changing one selfish power elite for another is not progress."

Well put. As are the rest of both your and Nick's comments. I know Nick didn't want to be the poster boy in this fight, but I want to thank him and his supporters like Johnny (and all the rest) for so articulately and intelligently standing up and speaking out.

Meet the new boss Same as the old boss

Won't Get Fooled Again. - The Who

Sorry, my frame of reference is more aligned with old rock-n-roll than punk. ; )

I just got back from a town hall that DeFazio held in Cave Junction. The venue had to be moved due to an overflow crowd, which reached capacity even at the new, larger location. DeFazio said he held four town halls today, and they were all mostly civil. I think that's a credit to the communities and the people in them, and proof that positive, constructive dialogue is possible--at least in Oregon. We should be proud to be better than those areas in the country where chaos seems to be prevailing over civility.

CBS News US Militias Regrouping

CBS News US Militias Regrouping

bartender, I too hail from the golden age of Rock; but my sons are punkers

The Dead Kennedy's Too Drunk to F@*k I'm about to drop My head's a mess The only salvation is I'll never see you again

We are broke. $12,000,000,000,000.00 broke. China owns our debt. And now instead of making useful changes to make healthcare affordable for all (good ways have been suggested and ignored) we are going to revamp it so the Government can control yet another private sector industry. We must put the brakes on this and slow down. One thing at a time until it works for all of us BUT FIRST WE MUST CLOSE THE BORDING STOP THE SPENDING PAY OFF THE DEBT. If we don't take this to heart, and get educated on what is really going on behind the scenes---then we are selling off America.

Carla-

I know a DeFazio staffer was taping the event. When I get my notes together, I'll be able to throw something together for you. And what the hell are you doing up at 4 a.m.? And Kurt-I'm a reformed punker. I actually bought a Social Distortion shirt yesterday, because the one I had on got dirty. That DK song is awesome!

Scott, thanks for the nod of the head. There are lots of things about me you don't yet know - yes the DK's were one of the really first punk bands to set the tone of angst. I'm sure lots of us look forward to your notes regarding the Defazio meeting. I share your congratulations to people in southern Oregon from both sides of the issue who seem to have been able to meet and have discourse without violence or shouting matches.

Okay...I've gone over my notes and had some coffee, so here goes... DeFazio emphasized that HR 3200 is a work in progress that's been modified by three House committees. The Senate also has two similar proposals it's considering. The bill will be voted on in September, maybe later. Oregon is one of 17 states with low Medicare reimbursements, but those states are banding together to change that. Insurance is the only industry in the U.S. exempt from anti-trust laws, which enables them to "collude." HR 3200 would prohibit insurance coverage denial due to pre-existing conditions. Federal employees, including members of Congress, have their choice of 23 health plans provided by private companies. HR 3200 would give a similar choice to small businesses. Illegal aliens are specifically precluded from receiving any of these benefits. The new system is only for people who aren't already covered, and provides subsidies of up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, but those people would still have to make some contribution. The idea is to make health care affordable, not free. Every plan offered would have base benefits, and an emphasis on wellness and primary care would ultimately save taxpayers money. I hope this all helps!

Scott, you are as refreshing as a cool breeze on a hot day!

Whenever I hear someone say "It is in the bill!" I wonder if they realize how many different bills there are!

Came back to check on this. Thanks to everyone who supported me. And thanks to middle class liberals who have exposed themselves for what they are: people who care not a whit about working people, and whose politics are little more than an intellectual exercise at cocktail parties to impress other people with subscriptions to The New Yorker and The Nation. Your complete emotional disconnect from the fates of working and poor people is evident to anyone who regularly leaves the Pearl District.

Kudos to whoever pointed out that a couple dozen SHARPs uprooted their lives in NYC and moved here to chase racist thugs out of town. This will, of course, fall on the deaf ears of Carla and Kari, who sound quite frankly like someone's hysterical liberal mother. I would like to point out that the notoriously niche and underground media outlets of MTV and The History Channel have covered not only the skinhead movement broadly speaking, but the role of SHARPs in combating racist thugs in Portland (THC featured an hour on just the "Portland Skinhead War"). But, of course, my knowledge is something I should be ashamed of while Kari and Carla's ignorance are a badge of honor. Right.

What if I were a non-unionized Kaiser Permanente employee? What if I told my boss I was sick so I could skip work and go to a rally? What if one of the million reasons I didn't want my picture on a website in conjunction with a protest? Disregarding the fact that some hysterical middle class people are using me as a bogeyman for nascent fascism, there are many ethical issues involved with photographing and publishing photographs of activists. Darrel has pointed out that the PRC used photographs from western media news sources to round up Tienanmen Square protesters. But this is, of course, all noise to people whose politics and analysis runs no deeper than "GO TEAM BLUE!" and a hearty pat on their own back.

Once again, you don't have to be a cop to do a cop's job. Indeed, part of the sick reality of contemporary capitalism is that the servants of ruling class ideology are frequently willing to do mercenary tasks unconsciously, and without pay. Their social interests are closely tied to those in power. I would strongly advise all activists to avoid anyone associated with Carla or Kevin at rallies or public meetings. They seem all too happy to act as intelligence gathering agents and smear merchants without being official agents of the state. Only Buddha knows how quickly they will cave to right-wing pressure when a real struggle hits the streets, or if they're put in a position where they are forced to choose between their own skin and broader social needs.

Tangentially, I am curious to know what the position of Kevin, Carla, and Kari were at the time on the assault on Iraq or the stolen 2000 election. Liberals are notorious for ex post facto whining while accepting the basic terms of right-wing debate. Indeed, the Democratic party seems to function, so far as I can tell, as little more than soft left cover for the Republicans. Kevin, Carla, and Kari seem to be part of a new generation of middle class "activists" doing everything they can to shield right wing agendas, so long as they are painted blue. It is unfortunate that I have been a casualty of their class prejudice and shallow politics. But any chance to expose these people for what they really are is a good opportunity, I suppose.

Wu is worthless, rolls over dead when Pelosi and Obama talk, he is NOT a leader, he must go in 2010. The guy is afraid to take on the Lobbyists and Pelosi.

Wu listens more to the Lobbyists than he does to the people. He votes with the Lobbyists, we must vote him out in 2010.

PLUS he has done nothing to get us our FAIR SHARE of Stimulus Money. Washington is getting 12 times the Stimulus Bucks compared to Oregon. See: http://www.recovery.org

Wu has no clout in Washington, just a bum collecting his check. Vote Wu out in 2010

<h2>Scott in Damascus - bravo. It just takes something shiney to steer this crowd into the unimportant (Nick.)</h2>