MythInformation: More malarkey about health care reform

By GottaLaff

It never ends... Via an e-mail:

The new law is no longer a moving target, but some opponents persist in making false or exaggerated claims about it. Our inboxes are filled with messages asking about assertions that the new law:

* Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)
* Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)
* Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)
* Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)
* Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)
* Gives President Obama a Nazi-like "private army." (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)
* "Exempts" House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)
* Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)
* Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)

Exempt Muslims... and Congress members? What if someone is a Muslim, sex offender, retired Army captain Senator? I sense doomitude in their medical future.

MythInformation Watch: Response to WaPo's "Condescending" liberals piece

By GottaLaff

You must read this op-ed by Robert Parry from OpEdNews.com. It gets into a lot of what I've been ranting about lately (media propaganda, Sarah Palin's speech, the death of accurate reporting), only with a twist: Psy-ops.

The trick, [CIA psy-war specialist Edward Lansdale] said, was to plant propaganda in a publication that was perceived to be open and honest because the readers' defenses would be down and thus they would be more susceptible to the message. In other words, they first had to be fooled about who controlled the outlet and what its biases were.

Several things came to mind as I read this: How do you unfool an entire country? Why can't we control the message?

And how do you educate low-information voters?

Pleaseohplease go read the whole thing:

A key strategy of the Right has been to convince as many Americans as possible that the U.S. news media has a "liberal bias," a canard that has stuck even though newspapers have been traditionally pro-Republican and most media outlets are owned by giant corporations reflecting the interests of wealthy individuals. [...]

Alexander's article in the Post is, in essence, a fancily written version of the Right's "populist" anti-intellectualism. Anyone who insists on checking out facts and applying reason must be an "elitist."

That this "condescending" attack line against the Left is being trumpeted by the supposedly "liberal" Washington Post makes it all the more powerful to many Americans.

Now, with the emergence of Sarah Palin as the latest heir to Ronald Reagan's legacy and as a potential next President of the United States it is clear that empiricism will be snowed under again by a blizzard of half-truths, emotional appeals, historical myths and nasty zingers.

Anyone who dares speak up for facts and reason will be portrayed as a pointy-headed intellectual out of touch with "real Americans." [...]

The American Right again has taken on the "populist" mantle of the plucky underdog facing down the "elitist" Obama and his arrogant entourage of House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, defenders of Big Government, not to mention the "liberal" news media.

In this narrative, Palin, the Fox News personalities and poor Rush Limbaugh are the real victims who must face the cruelty and condescension of an all-powerful, arrogant Left.

Go read. Now.

H/t: Gr8RDH

VIDEO: Al Gore on "Climate-Gate"

By GottaLaff



It's good to see Al Gore getting out there, debunking the usual myths, addressing the current controversies, and being the voice of reason. His vast knowledge and clear message are a welcome respite from the cacophony that has replaced real (and factual) news.

Note to Sarah Palin and her fellow cave dwellers: Weather is different than climate.

H/t: Greg Mitchell

Liberal media, my (bi)as:The Right-Wing Op-Ed Insurgency

By GottaLaff

Oneth again, it'th time to dithpel thome myth-information:

Liberal bias? A Daily Beast investigation crunches the numbers and shows how conservative think tanks have quietly achieved domination over the opinion pages of America’s biggest papers. [...]

[A] Daily Beast review of the archives of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post tells a much different story: Conservative think tanks are pummeling their liberal peers in the race for the most prominent placement on op-ed pages. During the past year, 77 percent of pieces authored by think-tank affiliates came from conservative outfits, 18 percent came from centrist groups, and a tiny 5 percent came from the left wing.

Just for the fun of it, put that info together with what's seeming to (d)evolve on the Tee Vee Machine, specifically this story about MSNBC, Fox, and Richard Wolffe. Keep in mind who the guests have been on The Ed Show (Hint: Tom Tancredeo, Lars Larsen) and The Rachel Maddow Show (Pat Buchanan), among others.

Which think tank takes up the most opinion-page real estate?

The American Enterprise Institute crushes the competition, liberal and conservative, in racking up bylines, scoring 99 of the total 217 pieces published by major think tanks from the third week of July 2008 to July 21, 2009, as shown by a review of the archives of the Times, Post, and Journal. [...]

But it’s important to note that the AEI crowd is not completely confined to the Journal. They also find themselves in the opinion section of the Washington Post more times—16 during the last year—than any other think tank. [...]

Which think tanks does The New York Times seem to crush on?

Unlike the Journal, The Times has no consistent feeder like AEI. The most common partners are fellows from the left-center Brookings Institution, security analysts Michael O’Hanlon and Kevin Pollack, and the centrist New America Foundation, including foreign-affairs expert Peter Bergen.

The Times was generally more resistant to think-tank op eds; in The Daily Beast survey, the Journal had approximately five times more major think-tank bylines than the Times.

This absence may relate more to the approach of liberal policy centers than the direction of the Times. [...]

But when it comes to the byline battles, no matter who is in the White House, Podesta and his allies face an uphill battle. When it comes to influence, conservatives have the broadsheet opinion war won.

So! How's that media push for a public option going?

Health Care in Canada Better Than in the US

By GottaLaff

Yesterday I posted about Canadian health care here, and a whole primer on health care reform myth-busting here. Now this excellent and very convincing first hand account:

Yes, I know, that headline is going to get a ton of “baloney” responses. Not to mention all the “then go back to Canada” replies from people not interested in really looking at the issue. I’ve heard it all before a million times.

I want to be clear about the purposes of this posting. I’m not going to try and argue for Americans to adopt a single-payer system of universal (not “socialized”) healthcare. Like gun control, the American system is too undermined by lobbyists, corporate interests and mythology to ever really grapple coherently with the issue. But as someone who has lived under both health care systems for considerable periods of time, it angers me to hear the misinformation and lies that these anti-single payer advocates love to spread about Canada every time the debate about improving American health care arises.

So let’s look at the opinion expressed in the above headline. It’s not just my personal opinion. It’s the opinion of a recent Harvard Medical School study that studied the health care of more than 3000 Canadians and 5000 Americans. It was based on the first-ever health survey carried out jointly by the two nations’ official statistics agencies.

[big snip]

But this next paragraph is even more important, because it deals with that great bugaboo that those opposed to single payer like to bring up about the Canadian system – waiting times:

“Lead author Dr. Karen Lasser, primary care doctor at Cambridge Health Alliance and Instructor of Medicine at Harvard commented, ‘Most of what we hear about the Canadian health care system is negative; in particular, the long waiting times for medical procedures. But we found that waiting times affect few patients, only 3.5% of Canadians vs. 0.7% of people in the U.S. No one ever talks about the fact that low-income and minority patients fare better in Canada. Based on our findings, if I had to choose between the two systems for my patients, I would choose the Canadian system hands down.’ ”

Dr. David Himmelstein, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and co-author of the study:

“We pay almost twice what Canada does for care, more than $6,000 for every American, yet Canadians are healthier, and live two to three years longer.”

More:

So let’s look at three important myth-busters this report contains: 1) Under the Canadian system, people were more likely to have a regular doctor than Americans, and to have fair fewer unmet health care needs 2) About 2. 8 percent of Canadians have to wait longer than Americans to receive certain kinds of health care. That means of every 1000 people, 28 more Canadians have to wait longer. Not exactly the huge lines portrayed by certain American lobbyists, is it? 3) The author of the study, an American doctor, when asked which system she would choose for her patients, took the Canadian system “hands down.”

There is also the fact that the Canadian system costs a lot less for all this great care.

And that’s just one study. I found several others that stated the same observations. They can be easily found via Google. [...]

But sadly, [Obama's health care reform] won’t be single payer. It would be nice, but I’m not stupid. You can count on an avalanche of even more negative misinformation being put forward in the coming weeks. Facts don’t matter in Washington, nor with the mainstream media inside the beltway, who will be happy reporting this in the Politico-style winners and losers model. It’s all about spin. The best we can hope for is a health care system that will be universal in the sense that everyone will be covered.

Finally, one last personal note. The argument in this debate often boils down to who has better care. As I stated above, I’ve lived in both systems for a long time, and I can honestly say the quality of the care in both countries is excellent. I’ve had great doctors and care on both side of the border. Where the Canadian system fair surpasses the American system is in cost and availability. It’s not a perfect system for sure. But if I was a doctor and I had to choose one of the two for my patients, I would pick the Canadian one hands down too.

Overcoming the spin has always been our greatest challenge.

"Debunking Health Care Reform Myths for Dummeez"

By GottaLaff

All you'll ever need to know do debunk Rushpublic/Blue Dog talking points can be found here (Health Care Reform Myths) and ...

...here (Basic Facts about U.S. Health Care Reform). Make them sound like the dummeez. Here's how...

Some excerpts:

MYTH 1: The current bill would strip 20 million Americans of their private health insurance policy and force them to accept the public option.

REALITY: No one would be forced to leave their current insurance, should they decide to keep it. Up to 10 million people are forecast to voluntarily change their health insurance when more options become available to them.
Link...

MYTH 5: It's too expensive for people to afford.

REALITY: Rates are set based on income as it relates to the poverty level. From the bill itself (HR 3200) :
income levels as a percentage of poverty:

• 133% through 150% pay 1.5% - 3% of income
• 150% through 200% pay 3% - 5% of income
• 200% through 250% pay 5% - 7% of income
• 250% through 300% pay 7% - 9% of income
• 300% through 350% pay 9% - 10% of income
• 350% through 400% pay 10% -11% of income

Link...
Link...

MYTH 6: The bill is being rushed through because [insert paranoid delusion here]

REALITY: More than 1300 Americans die each month because they can't get the healthcare they need because it's too expensive. Something needs to be done soon
Link...

MYTH 10: We will have long wait times for healthcare services if we end up with a public option.

REALITY: This doesn't even make sense. Are we suddenly going to have a shortage of doctors? Is everyone going to make a mad rush to the physician's office? This is usually tied to an anecdotal report from Canada. The reality is that wait times vary from area to area, as well as from service to service in Canada, but it's rarely as bad as reported.
Link...

And the list goes on and on. It's your Official Health Care for Dummeez Primer, Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Thesaurus, Bartleby, Wikipedia, Bible, public library, Border's, Barnes and Noble, TV Guide, and Farmer's Almanac all in one handy post!

You can thank Shoq and me later.

H/t: Shoq

Mythbusting the Honolulu Newspaper Birth Announcement

By GottaLaff

Myth-information debunked. Here's the key graph, but please go read the rest. I didn't want to steal the entire post:

Parents and relatives don’t, and didn’t, get to place birth announcements in the Honolulu Advertiser or the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. As a Star-Bulletin employee explained to WorldNetDaily, the editors “print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System,” and did so in 1961. And the Advertiser worked the same way.

And the birth mirth continues...

9 Conservative Myths About Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism

By GottaLaff

Myth-information:

This is terrorism we're dealing with. We can't afford to let ourselves be distracted by spin. It's time to set the record straight with the facts.

That's for sure. Here are the 9 myths. Follow the link for-- What's that word again? Oh yeah-- the facts.

1. These are just "lone wolf" psychos who are acting alone. You can't hold anybody else responsible for what crazy people decide to do.

True and false. But mostly false.

2. These terrorists are really left-wingers, not right-wingers. Because everybody knows that fascism is a phenomenon that only occurs on the left.

False does not even begin to cover the absurdity of this claim.

3. Public right-wing groups like Operation Rescue or the Minutemen don't advocate violence, so these acts have absolutely nothing to do with them.

4. This is just a minority movement that isn't really capable of changing anything. We don't really need to worry about it.

False, and evidence of tremendous denial.

5. It's not fair to hold right-wing media talking heads responsible for the things their listeners might do.

Riiight.

6. All that crazy stuff you hear on the right -- you can find the left wing saying things just as bad. They're equally culpable for how bad it all its.

False. There is no equivalency whatsoever to be drawn here.

7. "Dial it down?" Don't you mean that you want to use the power of government to forcibly shut up right-wing hate talkers?

False.

8. But what you're suggesting is censorship! You're trying to censor free speech!

Oh, please.

9. What about that guy who shot the recruiters in Arkansas -- isn't that proof that the left wing is just as bad as the right?

False. I mean, really, really false.

Want more detailed answers? Go here.

H/t: Babzter

Myth-information- ABC: Hannity = News

By GottaLaff

I simply must copy and paste the entire Boehlert Media Matters post. I wouldn't want you to miss one scrumptious word of it:

Perfectly capturing the mindset of our 'liberal media', which treats right-wing hate radio hosts as being deeply insightful and important, ABC's The Note posts this news bulletin:

ABC News' Rick Klein reports: Conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity today called President Obama’s speech in Cairo part of “an apology tour” that conveys a sense that America has been “arrogant.”

BTW, The Note offered no context, rebuttal or fact-checking in its Hannity report. It was just Stenography 101.

But did The Note post this Hannity-related newsworthy little tidbit? I'm gonna take a wild guess and say "no".

Mything in action: Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine

By GottaLaff

The Fairness Doctrine isn't what most think it is, but still... way to give more credibility to Rush and Sean, guys:

The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

That librul media is so gosh-darned threatening. They're practically taking over the world.

Myth-information: Because the media is so freakin' liberal edition

By GottaLaff

See, in case you didn't know, see, the media is so liberal that more wingnuts are mandatory to keep things fair and balanced. Via TPM:

CBS: We Still Need More Right-Wingers: CBS hires Dem-hating right-wing consultant as new PR Chief.

More on who this guy is:

Conservatives have complained for years that there are too many liberals in the mainstream media. Starting Monday, though, they'll have at least one of their own at CBS News.

Jeff Ballabon, an Orthodox Jew and political and communications consultant whom The Forward called "the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election effort in the Orthodox community," is the new senior vice president for communications at CBS News. He starts Monday and, according to a CBS press release, will be in charge of "all media relations and public affairs for CBS News, including strategy and planning, day-to-day publicity, internal and external communications" and coordination with the CBS News website. [...]

Ballabon said CBS reached out to him [...]

"The key to success is the ability to be empathetic with a diversity of viewpoints," he said, adding that his background as an Orthodox Jew has sometimes made him feel like "somewhat of an outsider in society" and thus he never thinks that he should be imposing his viewpoint on others.

And he quips that "with the current political environment, the mainstream media actually seemed like the more moderate atmosphere."

[UPDATE: Ballabon's self characterization doesn't fly with Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Forman tells Capital J that during one forum the two participated in, Ballabon said that Democrats in Washington are evil and Republicans in Washington are good.]

There you have it. Another objective member of the corporate media.

It's good to see he won't have much control... except for his fingerprints showing up on anything and everything CBS Newsy.

Full press release here.

VIDEOS: Myth-Information: Cable "news" edition

By GottaLaff

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Here is the full context of Bill Clinton's remarks.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here is a clip of Pat Buchanan making an ass of himself over Alaska's governor (start at about 3:07) on Morning Joe yesterday. It's subtle compared to today's bout of Palin-reflux.

Watching MSNBC and CNN is damaging to one's health. Who's brain wouldn't explode after exposure to Pat Buchanan's unbridled giddiness over the Sarah Palin calendar (he was positively awash in saliva over "Miss September" depicting Limelight Sarah with her shotgun)? The video above doesn't begin to compare to the panting Buchanan's repeatedly calling her "hot" and openly lusting over her on this morning's regular Peter Fenn/Pat Buchanan fest (If anyone can find a clip, I'll happily post.).

That moment was somehow topped by the incessant focusing on an out-of-context clip of Bill Clinton's remarks about President Obama's apparent inexplicably sudden inability to be positive. Yes, according to cable news [sic], the audacity of hope president has lapsed into the audacity of nope. Are these people really so lazy that they can't do any real reporting?

If President Obama were to drop his realistic approach to what's left of our economy, and start morphing into a Hooveresque "prosperity is just around the corner" mantra, he'd be crucified for that, too, for obvious reasons: It wouldn't be true.

Obama hasn't exactly been morose. And in case anyone on the Cable Tee Vee Machine has noticed, he consistently infuses even his most serious speeches with notes of optimism.

News has gone completely tabloid. It's criminal. There is no way to achieve an informed, truly democratic electorate when the media forcefeeds us propaganda, half-truths, and superficial broadcasts laced with stories intended to raise ratings instead of awareness.

At a time when honest, frank, accurate reporting of pertinent information is mandatory for a country desperate for an improved quality of life, this is no time for self-serving, greed-driven synthetic product. Just as a diet of cheap carbs may temporarily satisfy hunger, it is no substitute for a healthy diet. And in the longrun, it's detrimental to our longterm well-being.

Ten Myths About Health Care Reform

By GottaLaff

Daschle. Department of Health and Human Services. Confirmation hearings. Add those up and you get a sackful of Republican bunk:

In a new report released today, the Wonk Room identifies and debunks the right-wing’s most widely-circulated myths about reform.

Truth:

Myth 1: Health care reform will limit patient choice.
Myth 2: Americans will lose their existing coverage.
Myth 3: The government will ration care.
Myth 4: Affordable health care reform will create a government monopoly.
Myth 5: A new public program will only drive-up health care costs.
Myth 6: Health care reform in Massachusetts is “an unfolding disaster.”
Myth 7: Being uninsured is not a problem; it’s people’s own fault.
Myth 8: Illegal immigrants are driving the nation’s uninsured problem.
Myth 9: Health care reform won’t save money.
Myth 10: Deregulating the health care industry will solve the health crisis.

Go here to see the 10 methodical debunkings of the 10 myths.

7 myths about Detroit automakers

By GottaLaff

Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller are all over this list today. It's an article from the Detroit Free Press, listing seven myths about Detroit automakers:

• Myth No. 1: Nobody buys their vehicles:
  

  Reality: General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of nearly 700,000 so far this year. [...] Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.

• Myth No. 2: They build unreliable junk

  Reality: [...] Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers."

  The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high as or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.

  J.D. Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. [...]

• Myth No. 3: They build gas-guzzlers

  Reality: All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans that the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord.

• Myth No. 4: They already got a $25-billion bailout

  Reality: None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.

• Myth No. 5: GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs

  Reality: [...] Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry.

  The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel-economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

• Myth No. 6: They don't build hybrids

  Reality: [...] Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan [...]

• Myth No. 7: Their union workers are lazy and overpaid

  Reality: Chrysler tied Toyota as the most productive automaker in North America this year, according to the Harbour Report on manufacturing, which measures the amount of work done per employee. Eight of the 10 most productive vehicle assembly plants in North America belong to Chrysler, Ford or GM.

  The oft-cited $70-an-hour wage and benefit figure for UAW workers inaccurately adds benefits that millions of retirees get to the pay of current workers, but divides the total only by current employees. That's like assuming you get your parents' retirement and Social Security benefits in addition to your own income.

  Hourly pay for assembly line workers tops out around $28; benefits add about $14.

For more details, go here.

Real America

By GottaLaff

Frank Rich:

Dawn also brought the realization that we were at last emerging from an abusive relationship with our country’s 21st-century leaders. The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place — in cities all over America. [...]

So let’s be blunt. Almost every assumption about America that was taken as a given by our political culture on Tuesday morning was proved wrong by Tuesday night. [...]

There was no "Bradley effect." A higher percentage of white men voted for Obama than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton included. [...] While there are still bigots in America, they are in unambiguous retreat.

And what about all those terrified Jews who reportedly abandoned their progressive heritage to buy into the smears libeling Obama as an Israel-hating terrorist? Obama drew a larger percentage of Jews nationally (78) than Kerry had (74) [...] and won Florida. [...]

Let’s defend Hispanic-Americans, too, while we’re at it. [...] Let us say very carefully that a black presidential candidate won Latinos — the fastest-growing demographic in the electorate — 67 percent to 31 (up from Kerry’s 53-to-44 edge and Gore’s 62-to-35). [...]

Young voters also triumphed over the condescension of the experts. [...] In fact they turned up in larger numbers than in 2004, and their disproportionate Democratic margin made a serious difference, as did their hard work on the ground.[...]

The same commentators who dismissed every conceivable American demographic as racist, lazy or both got Sarah Palin wrong too. [...] There hadn’t been so much instant over-the-top praise by the press for a cynical political stunt since President Bush “landed” a jet on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in that short-lived triumph “Mission Accomplished.” [...] Only after polls confirmed that she was costing McCain votes did conventional wisdom in Washington finally change, demoting her from Republican savior to scapegoat overnight. [...]

Though Rove’s promised “permanent Republican majority” lies in humiliating ruins, his and Bush’s one secure legacy will be their demagogic exploitation of homophobia. [...]

Three state initiatives restricting abortion failed. Bill Ayers proved a lame villain, scaring no one. Americans do not want to revisit Vietnam (including in Iraq). [...] Socialism, the evil empire and even Ronald Reagan may be half-forgotten blurs too. [...]

This is another America — hardly a perfect or prejudice-free America, but a union that can change and does, aspiring to perfection even if it can never achieve it. [...]

But if we’ve learned anything this year, surely it’s that labels are overrated. Those same polls find that more and more self-described conservatives no longer consider themselves Republicans. Americans now say they favor government doing more (51 percent), not less (43) — an 11-point swing since 2004 — and they still overwhelmingly reject the Iraq war. That’s a centrist country tilting center-left, and that’s the majority who voted for Obama. [...]

The actual real America is everywhere. [...] What we started to remember the morning after Election Day was what we had forgotten over the past eight years, as our abusive relationship with the Bush administration and its press enablers dragged on: That’s not who we are.

So even as we celebrated our first black president, we looked around and rediscovered the nation that had elected him. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Obama said in February, and indeed millions of such Americans were here all along, waiting for a leader. This was the week that they reclaimed their country.