Watch as much as this video as you possibly can
I had to turn it off after the very first sentence. The taunt, "how's that hopey changey stuff working out for ya?" infuriates me beyond reason. Now granted, that's what a good taunt is supposed to do, but in this case, the taunt is completely unnecessary. Its an attack on my principles, on my beliefs, and I'm not even in the room. Rather than take the high road, Palin decided to take a shot not just at Obama, but at his supporters. It was meant as an insult, and I take it as such.
Of course, this isn't the first time Palin went out of her way to attack voters. In her nomination speech, she took delight in attacking community organizers. Now, say what you will about Obama, and his experience, but community organizers work their asses off, for very little money, to improve our country. Fuck you Sarah, I was a community organizer.
Now, prior to that speech, I rooted for Obama on the sidelines. I wrote blog articles about the race, followed the news, but that was about it. Within 24 hours of that speech, I had given Obama $100, and signed up to volunteer on his campaign. And that's why Sarah Palin, no matter how bad things are in 2012, will not win the Presidency - like so many of my fellow liberals, I hate this woman and I hate her because I know that the feeling is mutual. She views me and others like me with contempt - we are dilettantes at best, traitors at worst. Apparently, I'm not even a real American.
Now, its not like I would have voted for Palin anyway, but let's be clear - if Palin is on the ballot, there's no way in hell I'm not voting for Obama, and there's no way I'm not donating time and money to his campaign. And so long as Palin takes joy in taking pot shots at people like me, I won't be alone in that.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
On Interrogations. . .
I've written about interrogations before, specifically related to torture, but with the Christmas bomber thing ongoing, I felt the need to comment on the idiocy coming from the Republicans on the Hill. The more and more I hear from these guys, the more I realize that they don't care about truth or policy, but rather, are only interested in scoring political points.
So, here's the reality. The Christmas Bomber is in FBI custody, was Mirandized, and like almost all suspects, HE IMMEDIATELY BEGAN SINGING LIKE A CANARY. No waterboarding, no stress positions, and no smearing him with fake menstrual blood was necessary. The only time the guy stopped talking was when he was under sedation for some kind of medical procedure.
Now, you might ask, how did the Feds get the guy to talk? In reality, the question is, how does anyone not talk to the Feds? Like all law enforcement personnel, FBI agents are expert interrogators (or, at least, the guys interrogating terrorists are) who excel in getting confessions from people who they warn not to say anything. The dance of interrogation is a complex one, but this is pretty much all these guys do. And the suspects thank their interrogators when all is said and done.
Its these interrogators that scare the hell out of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. When the Bush Administration was torturing suspects, Al Qaeda could use the whole thing as propaganda, and knew that the tortured would resist by lying to their captors. The information would be shitty.
But the interrogation of the Christmas Bomber is a total nightmare. Here's a guy who willingly strapped a bomb to his junk (for lack of a better word), because he had nothing to live for, and the Feds got him talking in a couple of hours. And since he wasn't tortured, the information he's giving is as accurate as can be. So, if the Feds can get one of the most dedicated to sing, imagine what they can do to someone who's less dedicated (i.e., not willing to strap explosives to his balls).
So, by all means criticize Obama for a fair number of things, but let's lay off the whole interrogation thing. For once, interrogations are back in the hands of guys who know what they're doing.
So, here's the reality. The Christmas Bomber is in FBI custody, was Mirandized, and like almost all suspects, HE IMMEDIATELY BEGAN SINGING LIKE A CANARY. No waterboarding, no stress positions, and no smearing him with fake menstrual blood was necessary. The only time the guy stopped talking was when he was under sedation for some kind of medical procedure.
Now, you might ask, how did the Feds get the guy to talk? In reality, the question is, how does anyone not talk to the Feds? Like all law enforcement personnel, FBI agents are expert interrogators (or, at least, the guys interrogating terrorists are) who excel in getting confessions from people who they warn not to say anything. The dance of interrogation is a complex one, but this is pretty much all these guys do. And the suspects thank their interrogators when all is said and done.
Its these interrogators that scare the hell out of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. When the Bush Administration was torturing suspects, Al Qaeda could use the whole thing as propaganda, and knew that the tortured would resist by lying to their captors. The information would be shitty.
But the interrogation of the Christmas Bomber is a total nightmare. Here's a guy who willingly strapped a bomb to his junk (for lack of a better word), because he had nothing to live for, and the Feds got him talking in a couple of hours. And since he wasn't tortured, the information he's giving is as accurate as can be. So, if the Feds can get one of the most dedicated to sing, imagine what they can do to someone who's less dedicated (i.e., not willing to strap explosives to his balls).
So, by all means criticize Obama for a fair number of things, but let's lay off the whole interrogation thing. For once, interrogations are back in the hands of guys who know what they're doing.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
I think I have Obama figured out. . .
As I ride the train back to San Diego from Orange County (a great way to travel, by the way), I have had time to ponder about Obama during the past few weeks. I’ve often wondered: what the hell is this guy thinking? And I’ve filled this blog with discussions about the failures in health care, etc.
But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.
Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.
This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.
Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.
Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.
But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.
Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.
This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.
Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.
Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
On the State of the Union, and Deficit Spending
So, as a disaffected liberal, I had no real intention of watching the State of the Union. At least, not all the way through. But old habits die hard, and I turned on the State of the Union to catch a few minutes. Well, a few minutes turned into the full hour and ten minutes, plus the post-speech commentary. I did skip the Republican response, but it looked like it didn't suck, so the GOP has that going for it.
Anyway, my quick thought was similar to the iPad - if you're an Obama fan, there was a lot to be happy with. For the first time in a long time, I was reminded of why I voted for the guy. I loved that he told the Democrats to stop being pussies, that he told the GOP that they're going to own the obstructionism, and most of all, I loved that he chastised the Supreme Court for its decision. That Justice Alito reacted was all the better. If ever there was a President who would make a good Supreme Court Justice, it would be Obama.
Now, if you're not an Obama fan, this speech probably pissed you off. It was combative, and sarcastic, and worst of all, really, really good. Obama in a formal speech setting is like Peyton Manning just before the two minute warning: you know he's going the score, and there's not much you can do about it.
That said, I have a nit to pick with Obama - the budget freeze. Per everyone's macroeconomic course, we all know that the GDP is made of up three things: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending. Because of the current economic conditions, consumer spending and business spending is down. Also, local and state governments have cut back their spending as well. So, the only thing that can prop up the economy right now is the Federal Government, and increasing overall spending. Freezing domestic spending in this climate is dumb.
Now, I understand why the GOP wants to prevent any government spending - once the government starts spending money on something, its hard to stop. That's why the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress spent like crazy. And when asked what to cut, most Republicans sound like this.
So, what to do? I think rather dramatic spending on infrastructure is called for, but with clear sunset provisions. The beauty of infrastructure spending is that once the infrastructure is built, the spending stops. However, the benefits last for 10-20 years after. So, let's keep spending for a short period of time.
Anyway, my quick thought was similar to the iPad - if you're an Obama fan, there was a lot to be happy with. For the first time in a long time, I was reminded of why I voted for the guy. I loved that he told the Democrats to stop being pussies, that he told the GOP that they're going to own the obstructionism, and most of all, I loved that he chastised the Supreme Court for its decision. That Justice Alito reacted was all the better. If ever there was a President who would make a good Supreme Court Justice, it would be Obama.
Now, if you're not an Obama fan, this speech probably pissed you off. It was combative, and sarcastic, and worst of all, really, really good. Obama in a formal speech setting is like Peyton Manning just before the two minute warning: you know he's going the score, and there's not much you can do about it.
That said, I have a nit to pick with Obama - the budget freeze. Per everyone's macroeconomic course, we all know that the GDP is made of up three things: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending. Because of the current economic conditions, consumer spending and business spending is down. Also, local and state governments have cut back their spending as well. So, the only thing that can prop up the economy right now is the Federal Government, and increasing overall spending. Freezing domestic spending in this climate is dumb.
Now, I understand why the GOP wants to prevent any government spending - once the government starts spending money on something, its hard to stop. That's why the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress spent like crazy. And when asked what to cut, most Republicans sound like this.
So, what to do? I think rather dramatic spending on infrastructure is called for, but with clear sunset provisions. The beauty of infrastructure spending is that once the infrastructure is built, the spending stops. However, the benefits last for 10-20 years after. So, let's keep spending for a short period of time.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Supreme Court and Corporations
As an attorney, I probably read fewer cases than I did in law school. At least, fewer when it comes to decisions of consequence. There are a couple of reasons for this: first, I read cases for work so reading cases for pleasure ain't fun; and, second, Supreme Court decisions are ridiculously long. So, let me first say that I haven't bothered to read the opinion of the Supreme Court with regard to corporate political spending but I am bothered by it.
Corporations are not natural born anything - they're the creation of lawyers and legislatures around the world. As economic actors, corporations give investors the ability to experiment with new ideas without putting too much of their personal wealth at stake. That's a good thing. But, corporations exist only so much as Congress lets them exist. If Congress passed a law, and the President signed this law, that eliminated all corporations tomorrow, all corporations would cease to exist because their underlying foundation - legal recognition - would cease to exist. Corporations would become essentially partnerships with each shareholder becoming a proportionate shareholder. The protections from company debt would be eliminated, and the partners would put their own fortunes on the line (as opposed to their share prices).
So, if a corporation is created by legislative action, can be eliminated by legislative action, then Congress should have the right to regulate the activities of these entities, including their "right" to free speech. Justice Rehnquist used to say that in the law, you have to take the bitter with the sweet, and here, the bitter is the inability of corporations to spend on campaigns directly, followed by the sweetness of existence. This is in contrast with actual people, who's creation cannot be so determined by legislative action.
So, what can be done? Simple, Congress can redo the legislation prohibiting corporate donations to campaigns, and then add a provision stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review the law's constitutionality. Since the Constitution grants Congress the power to decide what the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is (except for those provisions expressly provided for in Article III), Congress can tell the Court that its decision is wrong and tell them to go take a long walk off of a short pier.
Of course, Congress is almost completely owned by corporate interests, so this solution is unlikely. Typical.
Corporations are not natural born anything - they're the creation of lawyers and legislatures around the world. As economic actors, corporations give investors the ability to experiment with new ideas without putting too much of their personal wealth at stake. That's a good thing. But, corporations exist only so much as Congress lets them exist. If Congress passed a law, and the President signed this law, that eliminated all corporations tomorrow, all corporations would cease to exist because their underlying foundation - legal recognition - would cease to exist. Corporations would become essentially partnerships with each shareholder becoming a proportionate shareholder. The protections from company debt would be eliminated, and the partners would put their own fortunes on the line (as opposed to their share prices).
So, if a corporation is created by legislative action, can be eliminated by legislative action, then Congress should have the right to regulate the activities of these entities, including their "right" to free speech. Justice Rehnquist used to say that in the law, you have to take the bitter with the sweet, and here, the bitter is the inability of corporations to spend on campaigns directly, followed by the sweetness of existence. This is in contrast with actual people, who's creation cannot be so determined by legislative action.
So, what can be done? Simple, Congress can redo the legislation prohibiting corporate donations to campaigns, and then add a provision stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review the law's constitutionality. Since the Constitution grants Congress the power to decide what the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is (except for those provisions expressly provided for in Article III), Congress can tell the Court that its decision is wrong and tell them to go take a long walk off of a short pier.
Of course, Congress is almost completely owned by corporate interests, so this solution is unlikely. Typical.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Why I'm Pissed About the Health Care Bill. . .
Under the recent Senate bill, 30 million uninsured Americans will have access to health insurance, and preexisting conditions will be covered. While all of that is great, here's my problem with the bill: what happens if your insurance company screws you?
Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.
And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.
The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.
For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.
Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.
Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.
And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.
The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.
For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.
Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What to do with the Health Care Bill
As a progressive. . .fuck that. I'm not a progressive, I'm a liberal. I believe that the free market/capitalism system is a good system, but the real world being what it is, we need government intervention when the market breaks down. I believe that women should have full autonomy over their own bodies, and that everyone should be free to spend their money on what they want, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. My previous work in housing rights was primarily correcting the market inefficiency of housing discrimination.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Fuck You Joe Lieberman!
In wake of Lieberman's decision to filibuster the health care bill, allow me to point out a few things. First, prior to 2004/2006, Joe Lieberman was a known as a deficit hawk, very pro-Israel, and socially moderate with conservative leanings (hated Hollywood, supports abortion rights).
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Lieberman was killed in the primaries due to his support of Iraq War. Worst of all, he was a pussy about it, and ducked out of speaking at the California Democratic Convention to avoid getting booed (ironically, John Edwards, who we now know to be a swarmy fuck, actually had the balls to show up and take his booing like a man). So he lost. Of course, he would've gotten his ass kicked by Bush in the general anyway.
In 2006, after seeing Lieberman act as a cheerleader for Bush for six years, the liberals of Connecticut (and there are a lot of them), decided to rally behind a political novice during the primary and Lieberman. And he lost on the issue of the day for Democrats - the Iraq War (damn, if it were only that easy now). But Lieberman managed to win in the General Election, thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who CAMPAIGNED FOR HIM.
To repay this debt, Lieberman has decided to rat fuck the Democratic Party by filibustering health care reform. And make no mistake, this is a rat fuck. Unlike the Republicans, who generally disagree with the proposed bill because it goes against their priniciples, Lieberman has promised to filibuster a bill because it lowers the deficit (the public option), and contains a provision he supported and campaigned for (the Medicare buy-in). Oh, and when the most recent compromise was worked out, Lieberman's people were at the table, and agreed with all the provisions.
According to the grape vine, the reason for the Lieberman's disapproval is because he wants to punish liberals for failing to back him in 2004 and 2006. Now its also possible that he wants to protect the health insurance industry of Connecticut, but the insurance industry has been in Connecticut a long time, and Lieberman is just changing his position.
So, what should the Democrats do with Lieberman? I think that anything, and everything has to be on the table. Lieberman should be stripped of everything possible - his Chair position, his committee assignments, his staff, his office, everything. His intransience on health care - which comes from a personal vendetta - will kill thousands of Americans. He is beneath my contempt. Now, will Reid do this? Of course not. If anything, Reid will cave to Lieberman's demands and set up another opportunity for Lieberman to rat fuck the Democrats again. And so begins my near daily ritual of banging my head against a wall.
A quick word on the Republicans and health care - I don't put the Republican Party in the same category as Joe Lieberman. Republicans oppose the current health care reform bill because they believe the bill will make bad policy and harm the country. Yes, there's political reasoning at play (no health care reform bill will hurt the Dems in 2010), but if politics was taken out the equation, these guys would still oppose health care reform. To that extent, they're honest. Wrong, but honest.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Lieberman was killed in the primaries due to his support of Iraq War. Worst of all, he was a pussy about it, and ducked out of speaking at the California Democratic Convention to avoid getting booed (ironically, John Edwards, who we now know to be a swarmy fuck, actually had the balls to show up and take his booing like a man). So he lost. Of course, he would've gotten his ass kicked by Bush in the general anyway.
In 2006, after seeing Lieberman act as a cheerleader for Bush for six years, the liberals of Connecticut (and there are a lot of them), decided to rally behind a political novice during the primary and Lieberman. And he lost on the issue of the day for Democrats - the Iraq War (damn, if it were only that easy now). But Lieberman managed to win in the General Election, thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who CAMPAIGNED FOR HIM.
To repay this debt, Lieberman has decided to rat fuck the Democratic Party by filibustering health care reform. And make no mistake, this is a rat fuck. Unlike the Republicans, who generally disagree with the proposed bill because it goes against their priniciples, Lieberman has promised to filibuster a bill because it lowers the deficit (the public option), and contains a provision he supported and campaigned for (the Medicare buy-in). Oh, and when the most recent compromise was worked out, Lieberman's people were at the table, and agreed with all the provisions.
According to the grape vine, the reason for the Lieberman's disapproval is because he wants to punish liberals for failing to back him in 2004 and 2006. Now its also possible that he wants to protect the health insurance industry of Connecticut, but the insurance industry has been in Connecticut a long time, and Lieberman is just changing his position.
So, what should the Democrats do with Lieberman? I think that anything, and everything has to be on the table. Lieberman should be stripped of everything possible - his Chair position, his committee assignments, his staff, his office, everything. His intransience on health care - which comes from a personal vendetta - will kill thousands of Americans. He is beneath my contempt. Now, will Reid do this? Of course not. If anything, Reid will cave to Lieberman's demands and set up another opportunity for Lieberman to rat fuck the Democrats again. And so begins my near daily ritual of banging my head against a wall.
A quick word on the Republicans and health care - I don't put the Republican Party in the same category as Joe Lieberman. Republicans oppose the current health care reform bill because they believe the bill will make bad policy and harm the country. Yes, there's political reasoning at play (no health care reform bill will hurt the Dems in 2010), but if politics was taken out the equation, these guys would still oppose health care reform. To that extent, they're honest. Wrong, but honest.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
On Sarah Palin
I remember where I was when McCain picked Sarah Palin distinctly - I had just broken up with my fiancee, and for Labor Day, I went to stay with my friends Eric and Jessica, at their place in Santa Clara (speaking of which, St. Joe is a far better name for San Jose than San Jose: it fits the town better). Anyway, I remember the announcement and thinking - wait, isn't she the one who fired her brother-in-law up in Alaska or something. I thank Talkingpointsmemo.com for that.
Anyway, my thinking thereafter was primarily based on strategy - Sarah Palin had very little experience in politics, and that by picking Palin, McCain screwed up his best narrative against Obama - that he was simply not ready to become President. That narrative was so strong that Obama picked Biden to cover his ass. Not only did Palin kill that narrative, but she caused all kinds of headaches for the McCain campaign. It got to the point where McCain wouldn't let Palin give a concession speech (which, as it turns out, is relatively common in Presidential elections).
As we move forward to 2012, Palin is now on everyone's minds. Well, that and the fact that her putative son-in-law is posing for Playgirl, and Palin is putting out a book that she "cowrote" and was on Oprah and everything. So, allow me a few thoughts on Palin, from best to worst:
1) She's got "It" - Most candidates and politicians are like everyone else - they are relatively uninspiring, and modestly charismatic. Some politicians, though, ooze charisma from their pores. Obama's got It, Clinton has It, and Bush, to some extent, had It. And, Sarah Palin has It. When Sarah speaks, people react with cheers or jeers, but no one yawns. That's why, even as Palin created headache after headache, McCain thought, and probably still thinks, that Palin was the best thing for his campaign. The McCain of 2008 didn't have the It factor that McCain had in 2000. Moreover, Palin is the only Republican that has the It factor right now.
2) She's Ruthless - Palin refers to herself as the pitbull in heels, and she is definitely that. Like any good politician, Palin has no qualms about throwing anyone under the bus. That's a good thing.
3) She doesn't have much else - Herein lies the disaster for the GOP: Sarah Palin doesn't have the depth or convictions to run for President. She's not just inexperienced, but she's anti-experience, anti-intellectual, anti-depth. If, however, she buckles down, studies and gains some knowledge, she can be formidible. As we saw in California with Ahnuld, a little bit of knowledge with a lot of charisma is a powerful combination. But she has to be smart enough to pull it off.
And here's where Palin can be a real problem for the GOP - the base of the Party loves her, and is willing to cut her slack and that's the worst thing that can happen. For independents to take Palin seriously, she's going to have to be very strong on at least a few issues. The more popular Palin is, though, the less likely she's going to work hard enough to get strong enough. I could very well see Palin taking the nomination and then getting absolutely crushed by Obama.
4) Drama, Drama, Drama - Obama is fascinating because his talents are otherworldly - he's the Superman of oration - but most politicians who are "fascinating" are trainwrecks who create drama. Does Oprah and her viewers really care about Obama's puppy? Not really, but the idea that Superman washes dishes and puts his pants on one leg at a time is interesting. Palin, on the other hand (like Clinton), has a son-in-law posing naked (or mostly naked), an allegedly abusive brother-in-law, a teenage unwed mother daughter, a special needs child, odd personal expense reports, feuds with the McCain campaign, and the First Dude. Going rogue, indeed. At any point in time, Palin can, and will, go sideways on you. That has to scare the hell out of anyone.
****Of Topic Re:Terror Trials**** - Goddamned right in my opinion. Those bastards should face a New York jury for the crimes committed in New York. This isn't about their rights, its about the right of the People to condemn murderers to death. Yes, I get that terrorists are different, but the last thing we should do is elevate these assholes.
Anyway, my thinking thereafter was primarily based on strategy - Sarah Palin had very little experience in politics, and that by picking Palin, McCain screwed up his best narrative against Obama - that he was simply not ready to become President. That narrative was so strong that Obama picked Biden to cover his ass. Not only did Palin kill that narrative, but she caused all kinds of headaches for the McCain campaign. It got to the point where McCain wouldn't let Palin give a concession speech (which, as it turns out, is relatively common in Presidential elections).
As we move forward to 2012, Palin is now on everyone's minds. Well, that and the fact that her putative son-in-law is posing for Playgirl, and Palin is putting out a book that she "cowrote" and was on Oprah and everything. So, allow me a few thoughts on Palin, from best to worst:
1) She's got "It" - Most candidates and politicians are like everyone else - they are relatively uninspiring, and modestly charismatic. Some politicians, though, ooze charisma from their pores. Obama's got It, Clinton has It, and Bush, to some extent, had It. And, Sarah Palin has It. When Sarah speaks, people react with cheers or jeers, but no one yawns. That's why, even as Palin created headache after headache, McCain thought, and probably still thinks, that Palin was the best thing for his campaign. The McCain of 2008 didn't have the It factor that McCain had in 2000. Moreover, Palin is the only Republican that has the It factor right now.
2) She's Ruthless - Palin refers to herself as the pitbull in heels, and she is definitely that. Like any good politician, Palin has no qualms about throwing anyone under the bus. That's a good thing.
3) She doesn't have much else - Herein lies the disaster for the GOP: Sarah Palin doesn't have the depth or convictions to run for President. She's not just inexperienced, but she's anti-experience, anti-intellectual, anti-depth. If, however, she buckles down, studies and gains some knowledge, she can be formidible. As we saw in California with Ahnuld, a little bit of knowledge with a lot of charisma is a powerful combination. But she has to be smart enough to pull it off.
And here's where Palin can be a real problem for the GOP - the base of the Party loves her, and is willing to cut her slack and that's the worst thing that can happen. For independents to take Palin seriously, she's going to have to be very strong on at least a few issues. The more popular Palin is, though, the less likely she's going to work hard enough to get strong enough. I could very well see Palin taking the nomination and then getting absolutely crushed by Obama.
4) Drama, Drama, Drama - Obama is fascinating because his talents are otherworldly - he's the Superman of oration - but most politicians who are "fascinating" are trainwrecks who create drama. Does Oprah and her viewers really care about Obama's puppy? Not really, but the idea that Superman washes dishes and puts his pants on one leg at a time is interesting. Palin, on the other hand (like Clinton), has a son-in-law posing naked (or mostly naked), an allegedly abusive brother-in-law, a teenage unwed mother daughter, a special needs child, odd personal expense reports, feuds with the McCain campaign, and the First Dude. Going rogue, indeed. At any point in time, Palin can, and will, go sideways on you. That has to scare the hell out of anyone.
****Of Topic Re:Terror Trials**** - Goddamned right in my opinion. Those bastards should face a New York jury for the crimes committed in New York. This isn't about their rights, its about the right of the People to condemn murderers to death. Yes, I get that terrorists are different, but the last thing we should do is elevate these assholes.
Friday, November 13, 2009
My weekly random posting. . . .
So, I've come to realize that this blog will most likely be a weekly post - I'm too busy with work to really post as much as I'd like, and I'm too much of a loudmouth to do short postings. That said, here's another random topics posting:
JFK and Mad Men - I grew up going to Catholic school, with Baby Boomer parents and with a fawning Boomer media, but it wasn't until I saw the JFK assasination episode of "Mad Men" that I really understood the psychic wound inflicted by his death. But rather than being about the Boomer generation, this had more to do with the "Greatest Generation" - my grandfathers' generation who grew up during the Great Depression and fought in WWII. Basically, after WWII, this group of people looked around, realized that the U.S. was the most powerful country on Earth (with the Soviet Union not too far behind) and felt pretty damn good about themselves. JFK's election was about breaking from the past and this generation asserting themselves. When he died, the reins of power fell to LBJ, an older and more traditional politician, and the Generation was denied its rightful place.
Carrie Prejean is now my favorite conservative trainwreck - Talk about local girl not going good. Whether she got screwed or not during the Miss America pagent (I didn't watch, and I don't care), is one thing, but her behavior is downright odd. From the nude pictures to the (no more alleged) sex tape to getting stripped of her title as Miss California to her recent odd behavior on Larry King, I am constantly amazed at what's going on, and I can't get enough.
I blame the "Tyson Zone." The "Tyson Zone" was coined by Bill Simmons to describe when a celebrity has done so many crazy things that it ceases to become shocking. Prime examples include Britney Spears, Mike Tyson, and Tara Reid. But here's the thing - as these celebrities entered the Tyson Zone, everyone was utterly fascinated. I feel the same way about Carrie Prejean - just when I think things have settled down, she gets crazier and crazier. Seriously, the Larry King thing was bizarre - he asked not-too-difficult questions, she demurred, and as he tried to move on, she threatened to leave the set. How bizarre is that?
Does her political beliefs play a role in my fascination? To some degree, yes. Last week, I went to a cheese shop by my house and purchased a really good Gouda. While watching the Chargers game, I paired said gouda with some apples and a Belgian style ale. The pairing of the apple and beer to the Gouda was amazing, but that didn't detract from the fact that the Gouda was excellent. In the same vein, the pairing of a celebrity who became famous for opposing gay marriage and espousing sexual purity with her utter self-destruction is an amazing pairing. But the self-destruction is the thing of fascination, not the conservative beliefs.
Lou Dobbs' Future - In a OMG/WTF move Lou Dobbs suddenly quit CNN. Not the, "I'm going to resign at the end of the month," thing, but the, "Fuck all y'all, I'm out of here." Now normally, I'd think that Dobbs was going to move to Fox, but his resignation statement was interesting - he left because people were pushing him to make a positive contribution. That makes my spidey sense tingling - someone is running for office. So, what office?
If he is thinking about running in 2012, leaving CNN would be an awful idea - he's off of TV too soon, and going to Fox would pigeonhole him. So, I think he's planning a run for office in 2010. Now, there's no way in hell Dobbs is going to run for anything less than a statewide position. He lives in Jersey, but Christie was just elected as Governor, and both Senators aren't up in 2010. So Jersey is out. But two neighboring states, New York and Connecticut, both have Senator and Governor positions up for grabs in 2010.
That said, Dobbs doesn't want to be a Governor - that's too much work, and it takes him too far from his core issues: trade and xenophobia-err-immigration. So, here's my guess, Dobbs is going to run against Chris Dodd for U.S. Senate. With Dodd's unpopularity, and Dobbs' name ID, Dobbs has more than a shot - and that's enough for Dobbs to quit CNN.
JFK and Mad Men - I grew up going to Catholic school, with Baby Boomer parents and with a fawning Boomer media, but it wasn't until I saw the JFK assasination episode of "Mad Men" that I really understood the psychic wound inflicted by his death. But rather than being about the Boomer generation, this had more to do with the "Greatest Generation" - my grandfathers' generation who grew up during the Great Depression and fought in WWII. Basically, after WWII, this group of people looked around, realized that the U.S. was the most powerful country on Earth (with the Soviet Union not too far behind) and felt pretty damn good about themselves. JFK's election was about breaking from the past and this generation asserting themselves. When he died, the reins of power fell to LBJ, an older and more traditional politician, and the Generation was denied its rightful place.
Carrie Prejean is now my favorite conservative trainwreck - Talk about local girl not going good. Whether she got screwed or not during the Miss America pagent (I didn't watch, and I don't care), is one thing, but her behavior is downright odd. From the nude pictures to the (no more alleged) sex tape to getting stripped of her title as Miss California to her recent odd behavior on Larry King, I am constantly amazed at what's going on, and I can't get enough.
I blame the "Tyson Zone." The "Tyson Zone" was coined by Bill Simmons to describe when a celebrity has done so many crazy things that it ceases to become shocking. Prime examples include Britney Spears, Mike Tyson, and Tara Reid. But here's the thing - as these celebrities entered the Tyson Zone, everyone was utterly fascinated. I feel the same way about Carrie Prejean - just when I think things have settled down, she gets crazier and crazier. Seriously, the Larry King thing was bizarre - he asked not-too-difficult questions, she demurred, and as he tried to move on, she threatened to leave the set. How bizarre is that?
Does her political beliefs play a role in my fascination? To some degree, yes. Last week, I went to a cheese shop by my house and purchased a really good Gouda. While watching the Chargers game, I paired said gouda with some apples and a Belgian style ale. The pairing of the apple and beer to the Gouda was amazing, but that didn't detract from the fact that the Gouda was excellent. In the same vein, the pairing of a celebrity who became famous for opposing gay marriage and espousing sexual purity with her utter self-destruction is an amazing pairing. But the self-destruction is the thing of fascination, not the conservative beliefs.
Lou Dobbs' Future - In a OMG/WTF move Lou Dobbs suddenly quit CNN. Not the, "I'm going to resign at the end of the month," thing, but the, "Fuck all y'all, I'm out of here." Now normally, I'd think that Dobbs was going to move to Fox, but his resignation statement was interesting - he left because people were pushing him to make a positive contribution. That makes my spidey sense tingling - someone is running for office. So, what office?
If he is thinking about running in 2012, leaving CNN would be an awful idea - he's off of TV too soon, and going to Fox would pigeonhole him. So, I think he's planning a run for office in 2010. Now, there's no way in hell Dobbs is going to run for anything less than a statewide position. He lives in Jersey, but Christie was just elected as Governor, and both Senators aren't up in 2010. So Jersey is out. But two neighboring states, New York and Connecticut, both have Senator and Governor positions up for grabs in 2010.
That said, Dobbs doesn't want to be a Governor - that's too much work, and it takes him too far from his core issues: trade and xenophobia-err-immigration. So, here's my guess, Dobbs is going to run against Chris Dodd for U.S. Senate. With Dodd's unpopularity, and Dobbs' name ID, Dobbs has more than a shot - and that's enough for Dobbs to quit CNN.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Quick Thoughts Blogging. . .
Top Chef - I'm a big fan of this show, but like any fan, the whole thing annoys me as well. Last week the chefs had to cook French food, and this week they had to cook in the desert. I can understand how a restauranteur would have a love of France because the French perfected how to run a restaurant, including how a restaurant should be run. But it should also be noted that, as any good foodie knows, most of the mother French sauces actually come from Italy, not France. And French cuisine isn't necessarily better than any other country's cuisine. In fact, the best chef in the world, Adria, is Spanish, not French.
The Western focus really does hurt chefs from other cuisines. The Season 3 winner, Hung Huyuh, was criticized all season long for not cooking from the heart (not cooking Asian cuisine), but was given a Western kitchen and only had access to Western ingredients. It was only in the final, when he could use ingredients of his own choosing that his "heart" showed through. Duh.
The desert thing was interesting - but where was the refrigeration? Do the producers want their judges to die? I am impressed by the high level of competition this year, and it is clear that chefs at the bottom probably would've been mid-level contestants in previous years. There are at least chefs who regularly produce high quality food (the Voltaggios, Kevin, Jen) and a couple others capable of doing the same (Mike I., Eli, Ashley, Ash) when motivated. The brother thing is probably driving this show a lot further than in past seasons because the Voltaggios are really pushing each other (to the point where both are keeping track of who wins what), and that, in turn, pushes the other chefs to step up their game.
Baucus Health Care Plan - The Finance Chairman released his proposal for health care reform - which he had been working on with the more conservative members of the Democratic Party and with the Republicans for the past several months - and it stinks. If anything, its going to make health care more expensive for middle-class families. This happened, in large part, because he was more interested in Republican support than writing a good bill. Anyway, with luck, this plan will get redone in committee.
My Health Care Reform Plan - So you know, my plan would essentially be a catastrophic insurance plan. Everyone pays in via an increase in the income tax, and then would be covered for any expenses over 1/3 of their income. So, if you make $60k a year, you pay the first $20k of expenses, and the Govt. pays the rest. If you can't afford $20k, get insurance - which will be cheaper because the insurance company knows its only on the hook for $20k, max. Oh, and the cost of said insurance would count as part of the first 1/3.
Beck and 9/12ers - In response to Joe Wilson's claim that Obama lied about illegal immigrants not getting benefits under health care reform (which is, itself, a lie), the fearful Baucus put in stringent proof of citizenship requirements into his crappy bill. Way to stand up for your President, Max. In the past few months, the Democrats have shown a willingness to be overly courteous to Republicans. As a result, we can't get anything done. So, here's an idea - tell the GOP to go Cheney themselves. Or rather, stop trying to make the opposition happy - they're trying to prevent the Democrats from doing anything. This is their stated goal. Educate the public, but don't be afraid to steamroll the opposition.
The Western focus really does hurt chefs from other cuisines. The Season 3 winner, Hung Huyuh, was criticized all season long for not cooking from the heart (not cooking Asian cuisine), but was given a Western kitchen and only had access to Western ingredients. It was only in the final, when he could use ingredients of his own choosing that his "heart" showed through. Duh.
The desert thing was interesting - but where was the refrigeration? Do the producers want their judges to die? I am impressed by the high level of competition this year, and it is clear that chefs at the bottom probably would've been mid-level contestants in previous years. There are at least chefs who regularly produce high quality food (the Voltaggios, Kevin, Jen) and a couple others capable of doing the same (Mike I., Eli, Ashley, Ash) when motivated. The brother thing is probably driving this show a lot further than in past seasons because the Voltaggios are really pushing each other (to the point where both are keeping track of who wins what), and that, in turn, pushes the other chefs to step up their game.
Baucus Health Care Plan - The Finance Chairman released his proposal for health care reform - which he had been working on with the more conservative members of the Democratic Party and with the Republicans for the past several months - and it stinks. If anything, its going to make health care more expensive for middle-class families. This happened, in large part, because he was more interested in Republican support than writing a good bill. Anyway, with luck, this plan will get redone in committee.
My Health Care Reform Plan - So you know, my plan would essentially be a catastrophic insurance plan. Everyone pays in via an increase in the income tax, and then would be covered for any expenses over 1/3 of their income. So, if you make $60k a year, you pay the first $20k of expenses, and the Govt. pays the rest. If you can't afford $20k, get insurance - which will be cheaper because the insurance company knows its only on the hook for $20k, max. Oh, and the cost of said insurance would count as part of the first 1/3.
Beck and 9/12ers - In response to Joe Wilson's claim that Obama lied about illegal immigrants not getting benefits under health care reform (which is, itself, a lie), the fearful Baucus put in stringent proof of citizenship requirements into his crappy bill. Way to stand up for your President, Max. In the past few months, the Democrats have shown a willingness to be overly courteous to Republicans. As a result, we can't get anything done. So, here's an idea - tell the GOP to go Cheney themselves. Or rather, stop trying to make the opposition happy - they're trying to prevent the Democrats from doing anything. This is their stated goal. Educate the public, but don't be afraid to steamroll the opposition.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Obama and Racism
So it appears that 60,000 to 70,000 people protested yesterday in a somewhat impressive showing of frustration with Obama's policies from conservatives. Now, the reason this is somewhat impressive is because conservatives aren't generally the protesting type. So, its kinda like seeing San Diego State play okay against UCLA - sure, they didn't win, but they didn't lose as badly as you thought they would. Or, in this case, sure 60,000 isn't huge, but its a lot higher than you'd intially expect. On the other hand, lying about the number of people there is pretty pathetic. You had a decent turnout teabaggers, but you didn't match the Inauguration.
Anyway, in the various blogs today (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, etc) a discussion is ongoing about how much of the protests against Obama are race inspired. And if that wasn't enough, "Mad Men" had a scene in which some executives chose not to advertise in Black media because they didn't want to be associated with African Americans. Couple those two things with my past experience as a civil rights attorney, and you got yourself a blog post in waiting.
First off, I loved the whole storyline in "Mad Men" regarding the African American market. The awkwardness of the ad exec when he's questioning the only African American he knows, followed by the executives openly deriding the idea of advertising in African American media (despite being told that it was both cheaper and would increase sales more effectively) was a great example of the dichotomy of racism in the U.S. Pete's questioning of the elevator operator about why the guy bought an RCA television was classic and awkward and there's no doubt that the operator will now think that Pete is a racist. But, Pete isn't a racist, he's just awkward in general, and his pitch to the Admiral TV guys shows that where there's an opportunity, he'll take it. Money trumps race.
The Admiral TV guys, meanwhile, are out and out racists. Even told that they could both increase their sales and lower their advertising costs by reaching out to the African American market, they not only pass at the opportunity, but they look disgusted by the very idea of it. In their eyes, race trumps profit.
And therein lies the dichotomy. Racism can be perceived when actors are, in fact, completely awkward around people of a different race because they don't know anyone outside their race. In that instance, integration can help alleviate the problem. As people get to know one another, the awkwardness ends. I would say that most Americans fall into this area - they're not racist, but racially awkward. Race for these individuals is easily trumped by other considerations.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the true racists. A study undertaken in 2000 indicated that approximately 20% of the time, minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans) received negative treatment when attempting to buy or rent a home. The study was based upon testing - where two people (one white person and one person of a minority group) apply for the same housing around the same time. The person in the minority group has slightly better qualifications than the white person. Yet, in 20% of the housing opportunities tested, the housing provider gave the white person better treatment, and race trumped profit. For individuals such as the Admiral TV guys, there's nothing that can be done to change their minds.
So back to the original issue, are the teabaggers racist? Mostly no. For instance, the socialism charge is dumb, but its the same charge made against every Democratic President since FDR. If anything, I think most of the protesters are racially awkward, abet moreso then most. But I think that people like Glenn Beck are purposely stoking racial fears. The whole thing about Obama seizing guns comes right out of the "Turner Diaries," the racist tome that inspired Timothy McVeigh. Birtherism is a direct result of the fears that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. This fear is stoked by the fact that Obama is African American and has a Muslim sounding name.
One poll done on the birthers, shows that of Republicans, 42% believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen, 30% are unsure, and 28% believe that he isn't. I would state to you that the 28% are racist, the 30% are uninformed, and the 42% are normal people. Anyway, here's my point to the whole blog post - you can work with the racially awkward and people who have honest disagreements about policy. That's 72% of Republican voters. But that 28% will never, ever, relent or compromise. Race trumps all other considerations in their eyes.
Anyway, in the various blogs today (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, etc) a discussion is ongoing about how much of the protests against Obama are race inspired. And if that wasn't enough, "Mad Men" had a scene in which some executives chose not to advertise in Black media because they didn't want to be associated with African Americans. Couple those two things with my past experience as a civil rights attorney, and you got yourself a blog post in waiting.
First off, I loved the whole storyline in "Mad Men" regarding the African American market. The awkwardness of the ad exec when he's questioning the only African American he knows, followed by the executives openly deriding the idea of advertising in African American media (despite being told that it was both cheaper and would increase sales more effectively) was a great example of the dichotomy of racism in the U.S. Pete's questioning of the elevator operator about why the guy bought an RCA television was classic and awkward and there's no doubt that the operator will now think that Pete is a racist. But, Pete isn't a racist, he's just awkward in general, and his pitch to the Admiral TV guys shows that where there's an opportunity, he'll take it. Money trumps race.
The Admiral TV guys, meanwhile, are out and out racists. Even told that they could both increase their sales and lower their advertising costs by reaching out to the African American market, they not only pass at the opportunity, but they look disgusted by the very idea of it. In their eyes, race trumps profit.
And therein lies the dichotomy. Racism can be perceived when actors are, in fact, completely awkward around people of a different race because they don't know anyone outside their race. In that instance, integration can help alleviate the problem. As people get to know one another, the awkwardness ends. I would say that most Americans fall into this area - they're not racist, but racially awkward. Race for these individuals is easily trumped by other considerations.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the true racists. A study undertaken in 2000 indicated that approximately 20% of the time, minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans) received negative treatment when attempting to buy or rent a home. The study was based upon testing - where two people (one white person and one person of a minority group) apply for the same housing around the same time. The person in the minority group has slightly better qualifications than the white person. Yet, in 20% of the housing opportunities tested, the housing provider gave the white person better treatment, and race trumped profit. For individuals such as the Admiral TV guys, there's nothing that can be done to change their minds.
So back to the original issue, are the teabaggers racist? Mostly no. For instance, the socialism charge is dumb, but its the same charge made against every Democratic President since FDR. If anything, I think most of the protesters are racially awkward, abet moreso then most. But I think that people like Glenn Beck are purposely stoking racial fears. The whole thing about Obama seizing guns comes right out of the "Turner Diaries," the racist tome that inspired Timothy McVeigh. Birtherism is a direct result of the fears that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. This fear is stoked by the fact that Obama is African American and has a Muslim sounding name.
One poll done on the birthers, shows that of Republicans, 42% believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen, 30% are unsure, and 28% believe that he isn't. I would state to you that the 28% are racist, the 30% are uninformed, and the 42% are normal people. Anyway, here's my point to the whole blog post - you can work with the racially awkward and people who have honest disagreements about policy. That's 72% of Republican voters. But that 28% will never, ever, relent or compromise. Race trumps all other considerations in their eyes.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Fallacy of Tort Reform in the Health Care Debate
Last night, as a gesture to the Republicans, President Obama signaled that he would be willing to discuss medical malpractice tort reform as part of an overall health care package. In very short order, let me throw some cold water on this idea. Here are two reasons why tort reform is not going to work:
1) Federal Courts don't do Med/Malpractice Cases: Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Federal Courts only take cases where Congress says its okay for them to take cases. The types of cases that go to Federal Court are either cases involving a federal statute (Civil Rights Act), or involve "diversity" wherein two people from different states sue each other. Medical Malpractice cases, by and large, fit neither of these bases of jurisdiction. Med/Mal (as we lawyers call it), is a negligence tort - that is, the Doctor hasn't violated the law, per se, but rather, has failed to act competently. There's no statutory basis for Med/Mal, but its part of the area of law called the "common law" - the stuff that we got from England. So, no statute, no jurisdiction. Additionally, Med/Mal typically involves people who live within the same state. So, there's almost never diversity jurisdiction. Oh, and Federal judges know this, and HATE to take cases they don't have to take. At any point in any federal litigation, even before the Supreme Court, someone can throw a monkey wrench into a lawsuit by questioning federal jurisdiction.
This point is important because Congress and the President only have the authority to change Federal law. You know that 10th Amendment that Conservatives talk about, well, here's where it comes into play. The Feds can create a law that supercedes State law, but that doesn't mean state law goes away. Hence, the California law on medical marijuana, wherein State authorities (the police) will let someone go for possession if they have the medical marijuana card (or whatever it is), but the Feds can, and have readily, arrested people for possession. So even if the Feds were to outlaw all Med/Mal cases, or limit the damages, it would only apply to those cases brought before a Federal judge (which is a ridiculously small amount).
2) Tort Reform Won't Help Much: Since 1975, California has had limits on Med/Mal cases of the kind the Republicans talk about. These limits are found in MICRA, and the details of the law can be found here. Basically, MICRA limits the amount that someone can recover from a Med/Mal case, requires arbitration, etc. Look, read the description. Anyway, since its enactment, MICRA has been the darling of the California Medical Association. The mere mention of changing even a comma is practically a call to jihad. If you ask the CMA, MICRA is the foundation upon which doctors can practice medicine in California.
Strangely enough, though, medical costs continue to go up in California, more or less at the same rate as everywhere else in the country. And one of the worst instances of insurer neglect came from California. Read the sad story here. Even though California has MICRA, the medical malpractice reform that the GOP wants, Californians have the same problems with health care as everyone else - its too expensive to go without insurance, and the insurance they get is bad.
1) Federal Courts don't do Med/Malpractice Cases: Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Federal Courts only take cases where Congress says its okay for them to take cases. The types of cases that go to Federal Court are either cases involving a federal statute (Civil Rights Act), or involve "diversity" wherein two people from different states sue each other. Medical Malpractice cases, by and large, fit neither of these bases of jurisdiction. Med/Mal (as we lawyers call it), is a negligence tort - that is, the Doctor hasn't violated the law, per se, but rather, has failed to act competently. There's no statutory basis for Med/Mal, but its part of the area of law called the "common law" - the stuff that we got from England. So, no statute, no jurisdiction. Additionally, Med/Mal typically involves people who live within the same state. So, there's almost never diversity jurisdiction. Oh, and Federal judges know this, and HATE to take cases they don't have to take. At any point in any federal litigation, even before the Supreme Court, someone can throw a monkey wrench into a lawsuit by questioning federal jurisdiction.
This point is important because Congress and the President only have the authority to change Federal law. You know that 10th Amendment that Conservatives talk about, well, here's where it comes into play. The Feds can create a law that supercedes State law, but that doesn't mean state law goes away. Hence, the California law on medical marijuana, wherein State authorities (the police) will let someone go for possession if they have the medical marijuana card (or whatever it is), but the Feds can, and have readily, arrested people for possession. So even if the Feds were to outlaw all Med/Mal cases, or limit the damages, it would only apply to those cases brought before a Federal judge (which is a ridiculously small amount).
2) Tort Reform Won't Help Much: Since 1975, California has had limits on Med/Mal cases of the kind the Republicans talk about. These limits are found in MICRA, and the details of the law can be found here. Basically, MICRA limits the amount that someone can recover from a Med/Mal case, requires arbitration, etc. Look, read the description. Anyway, since its enactment, MICRA has been the darling of the California Medical Association. The mere mention of changing even a comma is practically a call to jihad. If you ask the CMA, MICRA is the foundation upon which doctors can practice medicine in California.
Strangely enough, though, medical costs continue to go up in California, more or less at the same rate as everywhere else in the country. And one of the worst instances of insurer neglect came from California. Read the sad story here. Even though California has MICRA, the medical malpractice reform that the GOP wants, Californians have the same problems with health care as everyone else - its too expensive to go without insurance, and the insurance they get is bad.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Thoughts on Torture
Over the past year, I've written about torture at a few of my other blogs (and those reading this post probably know what I'm referring to), but mostly I've narrowed in on the issue of efficacy, and not some of the other issues in the discussion.
For those of you who haven't benefited from my prior postings, allow me to sum up the efficacy argument thusly - torture is highly effective in getting someone to talk, but what is said is likely to be false because the motivation is to stop the torture, not to tell the truth. So, in the ticking time bomb scenario, an Al Qaeda operative is probably more likely to lie and give false information to his interrogators, so that he can a) stop the torture; and, b) still manage to complete the mission. And if torture doesn't work in the ticking timebomb scenario, it sure as hell doesn't work in any other scenario.
Of course, there is more to the torture debate then efficacy, and that's what I'm blogging about today. First, of all, there is a moral question - should the U.S. torture suspects? As someone who believes that America can be a shining city on the hill, and that America should aspire to such heights, I absolutely think that America should not torture. As even a nominal Christian, the idea of torturing someone when I am supposed to turn the other cheek is abhorrent.
But imposing my moral qualms is hardly democratic, so let me try to appeal to your reason. Torture, even if effective, hurts us in the War on Terror. One of the things I've heard over and over since 9-11 is that Al Qaeda is different from any enemy we've faced before. While that's somewhat true, Al Qaeda operatives are more willing to die for their cause, the truth is we've faced enemies like Al Qaeda before. The difference is that where Al Qaeda kills for the sake of killing, these other enemies killed for the sake of profit.
I am referring to the Mafia, the KKK and Jesse James. While they weren't necessarily enemies of the State or terrorists, both the Mob and the James Gang depended on local support to protect them. Missouri, post-Civil War was a wasteland, and as was the rest of the South. The James Gang was able to use this deep-seated anger towards the North to their advantage and hide from the authorities. The Klan was able (and still able in some circumstances) to do the same. The Mob, similarly, was protected by the Italian populace in part out of frustration with life in a new country.
In all three examples, the power and/or influence of these groups waned as their supporting populations declined. The James Gang was beaten by a town in Minnesota; prosecutions against the Klan increased as people became more accepting of African-Americans, and the Mafia has seen similar declines as the Italian American population has moved to the suburbs. Now, that's not to say that there are no Mafioso or Klansmen anymore, every population has its nutjobs, but without the support of the community, these guys are quickly rooted out.
Al Qaeda works in the same way. It depends on the populace of Islamic countries to allow it to hide in plain sight. In this, Iraq is a good example. Prior to Iraq War, Al Qaeda had little to no presence in Iraq (except for a base in the Kurdish area), because its target audience - Sunnis - were, for the most part, big supporters of the Hussein regime. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Sunnis lost power, and then turned to Al Qaeda for support in their fight against the Shi'a, and the U.S., and Al Qaeda in Iraq had some pull. From the local population, they got material support, recruits and a place to hide - all resources used to kill American soldiers. But when the Sunni leadership in Iraq cut a deal with the U.S., all of Al Qaeda's Iraqi support dried up, and they became completely ineffective.
Here's where torture comes into play: if we need the support of local populations to eliminate Al Qaeda (and we do), then doing anything to antagonize these populations is self-defeating. Torturing suspects to gather information is absolutely antagonizing, and only serves to create more Jihadists and provide Al Qaeda more support. In fact, Al Qaeda's strategy is to get the U.S. to torture and do other similarly self-defeating things to fire up the Islamic world.
For those of you who haven't benefited from my prior postings, allow me to sum up the efficacy argument thusly - torture is highly effective in getting someone to talk, but what is said is likely to be false because the motivation is to stop the torture, not to tell the truth. So, in the ticking time bomb scenario, an Al Qaeda operative is probably more likely to lie and give false information to his interrogators, so that he can a) stop the torture; and, b) still manage to complete the mission. And if torture doesn't work in the ticking timebomb scenario, it sure as hell doesn't work in any other scenario.
Of course, there is more to the torture debate then efficacy, and that's what I'm blogging about today. First, of all, there is a moral question - should the U.S. torture suspects? As someone who believes that America can be a shining city on the hill, and that America should aspire to such heights, I absolutely think that America should not torture. As even a nominal Christian, the idea of torturing someone when I am supposed to turn the other cheek is abhorrent.
But imposing my moral qualms is hardly democratic, so let me try to appeal to your reason. Torture, even if effective, hurts us in the War on Terror. One of the things I've heard over and over since 9-11 is that Al Qaeda is different from any enemy we've faced before. While that's somewhat true, Al Qaeda operatives are more willing to die for their cause, the truth is we've faced enemies like Al Qaeda before. The difference is that where Al Qaeda kills for the sake of killing, these other enemies killed for the sake of profit.
I am referring to the Mafia, the KKK and Jesse James. While they weren't necessarily enemies of the State or terrorists, both the Mob and the James Gang depended on local support to protect them. Missouri, post-Civil War was a wasteland, and as was the rest of the South. The James Gang was able to use this deep-seated anger towards the North to their advantage and hide from the authorities. The Klan was able (and still able in some circumstances) to do the same. The Mob, similarly, was protected by the Italian populace in part out of frustration with life in a new country.
In all three examples, the power and/or influence of these groups waned as their supporting populations declined. The James Gang was beaten by a town in Minnesota; prosecutions against the Klan increased as people became more accepting of African-Americans, and the Mafia has seen similar declines as the Italian American population has moved to the suburbs. Now, that's not to say that there are no Mafioso or Klansmen anymore, every population has its nutjobs, but without the support of the community, these guys are quickly rooted out.
Al Qaeda works in the same way. It depends on the populace of Islamic countries to allow it to hide in plain sight. In this, Iraq is a good example. Prior to Iraq War, Al Qaeda had little to no presence in Iraq (except for a base in the Kurdish area), because its target audience - Sunnis - were, for the most part, big supporters of the Hussein regime. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Sunnis lost power, and then turned to Al Qaeda for support in their fight against the Shi'a, and the U.S., and Al Qaeda in Iraq had some pull. From the local population, they got material support, recruits and a place to hide - all resources used to kill American soldiers. But when the Sunni leadership in Iraq cut a deal with the U.S., all of Al Qaeda's Iraqi support dried up, and they became completely ineffective.
Here's where torture comes into play: if we need the support of local populations to eliminate Al Qaeda (and we do), then doing anything to antagonize these populations is self-defeating. Torturing suspects to gather information is absolutely antagonizing, and only serves to create more Jihadists and provide Al Qaeda more support. In fact, Al Qaeda's strategy is to get the U.S. to torture and do other similarly self-defeating things to fire up the Islamic world.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Importance of Real Debate
One of the saddest things that have happened over the past several years is the total and utter lack of a real debate over issues in Washington, D.C. There was a time when the leaders of both parties could sit down, have a bourbon (or two) and hash out a solution to a problem Did that solution always work? Hell, no. But both parties were on the same page, and the debate was open and honest. For me, the last time this happened was during the debate on education which lead to the "Leave No Child Behind" bill. Ultimately, the bill was flawed and has been a disaster, but the debate was honest.
In the wake of Ted Kennedy's death, its appropriate to note the lack of a true debate in Washington over health care, torture, or the economic stimulus package. And apparently, the climate change bill is also going to be a rough one. The problem is, essentially as I see it, that the two parties live in two completely alternate universes. So instead of arguing the how - as in how do we fix this problem - the Parties argue whether or not a problem even exists. Health care, for instance, is tremendously overpriced in this country (we spend more per capita than any other country in the world, by far), and that has lead to bankruptcies and poor health. But instead of arguing how health care reform should be structured, Republicans argue that there is no problem, or worse, make up things about health care reform.
Where are the arguments about streamlining the health insurance market? Where are the arguments against burdensome regulation, or tort reform? In short, where is the honest conservative argument about health care? Or torture? Or climate change? The Republican argument seems to be to deny the existence of any problem. And ultimately, these made up facts have become an identity and not a philosophy. And that's a shame because conservatives have good points to make. For instance, the deregulation of the trucking industry was, all in all, a good thing. Welfare reform has been largely successful (I think). In other words, the conservative voice, or the good government voice, has been an important part of the Republic.
What's more, I deeply fear the insanity of identity politics in this country. Every day I see more and more harbingers of political violence in this country. Listen to this:
Now, Glenn Beck is a total nutcase, but he's alleging a coup by election - in other words, Obama has taken over the government by winning an election - something that has been done by both parties since 1801. Beck is practically encouraging the violent overthrow of the United States! We have pastors praying to God for Obama's death, and their parishioners are carrying assault weapons to Obama's events. Only 42% of Republicans are certain that Obama is a citizen of the United States!
True, the Democrats have, in the past, demonized the right. As the years rolled on during Bush's tenure as President, we became more and more strident against him. Though, to be honest, he did a lot to encourage our ire. But that outrage and anger took years to develop, and the anger was over policy - Iraq, torture, climate change, Katrina, etc. And it took even longer for our leadership to even acknowledge the anger we felt - this, by the way, is a continuing theme: Republicans fear their base, and are responsive to them (no matter how crazy the base gets), Democratic Leadership thinks the base voters are a bunch of dirty fucking hippies and ignore them. *bangs head against wall*
Ultimately, the change occurred because the Republicans realized that they could win more debates by being ruthlessly partisan, no matter what the facts were. And politically, that's the right move. What drives me nuts here is that the Democrats having faced this exact problem for the past thirty years have yet to realize that they need to be partisan in return. But despite what the Democrats do, something has to break with the Republicans - they can't keep doing this.
In the wake of Ted Kennedy's death, its appropriate to note the lack of a true debate in Washington over health care, torture, or the economic stimulus package. And apparently, the climate change bill is also going to be a rough one. The problem is, essentially as I see it, that the two parties live in two completely alternate universes. So instead of arguing the how - as in how do we fix this problem - the Parties argue whether or not a problem even exists. Health care, for instance, is tremendously overpriced in this country (we spend more per capita than any other country in the world, by far), and that has lead to bankruptcies and poor health. But instead of arguing how health care reform should be structured, Republicans argue that there is no problem, or worse, make up things about health care reform.
Where are the arguments about streamlining the health insurance market? Where are the arguments against burdensome regulation, or tort reform? In short, where is the honest conservative argument about health care? Or torture? Or climate change? The Republican argument seems to be to deny the existence of any problem. And ultimately, these made up facts have become an identity and not a philosophy. And that's a shame because conservatives have good points to make. For instance, the deregulation of the trucking industry was, all in all, a good thing. Welfare reform has been largely successful (I think). In other words, the conservative voice, or the good government voice, has been an important part of the Republic.
What's more, I deeply fear the insanity of identity politics in this country. Every day I see more and more harbingers of political violence in this country. Listen to this:
Now, Glenn Beck is a total nutcase, but he's alleging a coup by election - in other words, Obama has taken over the government by winning an election - something that has been done by both parties since 1801. Beck is practically encouraging the violent overthrow of the United States! We have pastors praying to God for Obama's death, and their parishioners are carrying assault weapons to Obama's events. Only 42% of Republicans are certain that Obama is a citizen of the United States!
True, the Democrats have, in the past, demonized the right. As the years rolled on during Bush's tenure as President, we became more and more strident against him. Though, to be honest, he did a lot to encourage our ire. But that outrage and anger took years to develop, and the anger was over policy - Iraq, torture, climate change, Katrina, etc. And it took even longer for our leadership to even acknowledge the anger we felt - this, by the way, is a continuing theme: Republicans fear their base, and are responsive to them (no matter how crazy the base gets), Democratic Leadership thinks the base voters are a bunch of dirty fucking hippies and ignore them. *bangs head against wall*
Ultimately, the change occurred because the Republicans realized that they could win more debates by being ruthlessly partisan, no matter what the facts were. And politically, that's the right move. What drives me nuts here is that the Democrats having faced this exact problem for the past thirty years have yet to realize that they need to be partisan in return. But despite what the Democrats do, something has to break with the Republicans - they can't keep doing this.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
About that Public Option. . .and how to deal with the Birthers. . .
One of the great controversies in the current health care "debate" (total and utter panic would probably be the right description of what's going on right now), is over the public option. As a progressive, I'm all for it, but most conservatives are completely against it. Not only is the public option opposed, but its mere mention leads to comparisons to Nazism and Hitler (though, again, the Nazis tried to eliminate Germany's public health care program).
But while the public option has been compared to Nazism or Socialism, I think the public option is far, far different. Its about recreating the American frontier. Okay, bear with me here. Prior to the collapse of the American financial sector, fear of losing health insurance was the biggest reason why people didn't quit their jobs and form new businesses. As someone who had to buy his own health insurance for some time, I can tell you that there's a good reason for that. Individual health insurance is pricey, and if you have a preexisting condition, its almost impossible to get. So a lot of people stayed in jobs they hated.
The public option, which would apply to people without employer-provided insurance, allows people to become insured by the Federal Government. Not only would said plan be cheaper, but would cover preexisting conditions, and there would be no fear of recission - where the insurance company rescinds its coverage because the insured didn't fully disclose his/her health history (including minor conditions that were completely treated). Thus, by offering the public option, self-insureds would have access to quality health care at a low cost.
As a result of having such a plan, people would be more willing to become self-insured, and thus, more willing to open their own businesses than ever before. And that's a good thing for a couple of reasons. First, small businesses, in aggregate, hire more people than big businesses do, so more small businesses = more job growth. Second, and more important for this discussion, small businesses act as a virtual frontier. It allows the worker to change his life and his circumstances and head out on his/her own.
Its the frontier aspect of the public option that I find most appealing. Granted, that may be the romantic in me, but America has always been about the frontier. For over three hundred years, the frontier has been the great safety valve, preventing us from getting trapped the way that the Europeans were. Now, of course, the West is no longer free of development, but the frontier is about a state of mind, not about a place. Its about forging your own identity, and building something with your own hands. The true American dream isn't owning a house, but owning a business. And one of the biggest obstacles is the cost of health insurance - which can be solved by the public option. Hence, my support.
Now, unfortunately, the health insurance bill won't help American industry all that much (no public option for Ford/GM), but the public option is a good start. Why no one else is talking about this is beyond me.
With regard to the birthers - I just saw a poll where only 45% of Arkansans believe that Obama is a citizen. As much as I mock the birthers, we've now gotten out of hand. If the media won't do its job, then someone has to. I propose that that Democratic Party put out ads with Obama's birth certificate and the birth announcements in the Hawaii papers in them. Run the ads in the South. Prosecute those who threaten to kill Obama. If someone shows up to a rally with a gun, arrest them. If this cancer continues to persist, someone is going to get hurt.
But while the public option has been compared to Nazism or Socialism, I think the public option is far, far different. Its about recreating the American frontier. Okay, bear with me here. Prior to the collapse of the American financial sector, fear of losing health insurance was the biggest reason why people didn't quit their jobs and form new businesses. As someone who had to buy his own health insurance for some time, I can tell you that there's a good reason for that. Individual health insurance is pricey, and if you have a preexisting condition, its almost impossible to get. So a lot of people stayed in jobs they hated.
The public option, which would apply to people without employer-provided insurance, allows people to become insured by the Federal Government. Not only would said plan be cheaper, but would cover preexisting conditions, and there would be no fear of recission - where the insurance company rescinds its coverage because the insured didn't fully disclose his/her health history (including minor conditions that were completely treated). Thus, by offering the public option, self-insureds would have access to quality health care at a low cost.
As a result of having such a plan, people would be more willing to become self-insured, and thus, more willing to open their own businesses than ever before. And that's a good thing for a couple of reasons. First, small businesses, in aggregate, hire more people than big businesses do, so more small businesses = more job growth. Second, and more important for this discussion, small businesses act as a virtual frontier. It allows the worker to change his life and his circumstances and head out on his/her own.
Its the frontier aspect of the public option that I find most appealing. Granted, that may be the romantic in me, but America has always been about the frontier. For over three hundred years, the frontier has been the great safety valve, preventing us from getting trapped the way that the Europeans were. Now, of course, the West is no longer free of development, but the frontier is about a state of mind, not about a place. Its about forging your own identity, and building something with your own hands. The true American dream isn't owning a house, but owning a business. And one of the biggest obstacles is the cost of health insurance - which can be solved by the public option. Hence, my support.
Now, unfortunately, the health insurance bill won't help American industry all that much (no public option for Ford/GM), but the public option is a good start. Why no one else is talking about this is beyond me.
With regard to the birthers - I just saw a poll where only 45% of Arkansans believe that Obama is a citizen. As much as I mock the birthers, we've now gotten out of hand. If the media won't do its job, then someone has to. I propose that that Democratic Party put out ads with Obama's birth certificate and the birth announcements in the Hawaii papers in them. Run the ads in the South. Prosecute those who threaten to kill Obama. If someone shows up to a rally with a gun, arrest them. If this cancer continues to persist, someone is going to get hurt.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
One Last Word on the Health Care Debate. . .okay not really. . .
While we can debate the protesters (fucking nutbags), or the terms of the debate, or even what should be in the bill, I have one thing I have to say:
If any Democrat in the Senate votes against cloture, they are fucking dead to me. They will not get a fucking dime from my pockets, nor an hour of my time. I won't pass along an amusing anecdote about them online. If they're on fire along the side of the road, I won't stop to piss on them and put out the fire.
That doesn't mean every Democratic Senator has to vote for the health care bill, but when the debate comes, I don't want any Democrat to help the Republicans filibuster. And these Senators can honestly tell their constituents that they voted against the bill - they just supported the ending of debate on the bill. Voting against cloture, though, is nothing short of a ratfuck of the President and of the Democratic Party, and so those that vote against cloture are fucking traitors.
But then again, that's my two cents.
If any Democrat in the Senate votes against cloture, they are fucking dead to me. They will not get a fucking dime from my pockets, nor an hour of my time. I won't pass along an amusing anecdote about them online. If they're on fire along the side of the road, I won't stop to piss on them and put out the fire.
That doesn't mean every Democratic Senator has to vote for the health care bill, but when the debate comes, I don't want any Democrat to help the Republicans filibuster. And these Senators can honestly tell their constituents that they voted against the bill - they just supported the ending of debate on the bill. Voting against cloture, though, is nothing short of a ratfuck of the President and of the Democratic Party, and so those that vote against cloture are fucking traitors.
But then again, that's my two cents.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Shit is Getting Scary. . .
Whenever I read shit like this (and I suggest you read it), I become very, very worried about this country. If one reads the accounts of the political discourse prior to the Civil War, its filled with Senators fighting each other, and prior to the War itself, people were literally killing each other in Kansas. And to be honest, I see the country going this way again.
For a variety of reasons, political discourse in this country stopped being about which policy is the best to follow, but rather about which reality to live in. For more than a few right-wingers, reality is that Obama was born in Kenya, that he's a Socialist, that he wants to kill old people and children, that global warming does not exist, and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 and had weapons of mass destruction. None of these things are true, but are taken as gospel by too many people.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are, of course, somewhat responsible. Glenn Beck, in particular, has done a lot to stoke the fires of hatred against Obama. And Limbaugh calling Obama a Nazi is not helping either. But let's face it, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are opportunists - if they didn't chase the lunatic fringe, someone else would. That's capitalism. As a moral matter, if anyone gets hurt, because of the hatred these douche nozzles spew, I hope they burn in hell.
Before someone says something about Move-On, and the Hitler ad, allow me to point out that the ad was submitted to Move-On, and they ultimately scrubbed the ad from their site. Oh, and Bush did invade a country for the purpose of spreading his ideology across the world (and was torturing people, and spied on Americans. . .but that's another post). There is a big, big difference between Rush Limbaugh and some random guy. Don't get me wrong, the left has its loonies (goddamn hippies), but our nutjobs don't have institutional support.
So, how do we walk back from this precipice? From this Democrat's perspective, walking back can't mean giving up the store. No, Democrats need to fight harder for what they believe in. And Republicans shouldn't stop fighting for what they believe in either. But we have to start reading from the same page.
For a variety of reasons, political discourse in this country stopped being about which policy is the best to follow, but rather about which reality to live in. For more than a few right-wingers, reality is that Obama was born in Kenya, that he's a Socialist, that he wants to kill old people and children, that global warming does not exist, and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 and had weapons of mass destruction. None of these things are true, but are taken as gospel by too many people.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are, of course, somewhat responsible. Glenn Beck, in particular, has done a lot to stoke the fires of hatred against Obama. And Limbaugh calling Obama a Nazi is not helping either. But let's face it, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are opportunists - if they didn't chase the lunatic fringe, someone else would. That's capitalism. As a moral matter, if anyone gets hurt, because of the hatred these douche nozzles spew, I hope they burn in hell.
Before someone says something about Move-On, and the Hitler ad, allow me to point out that the ad was submitted to Move-On, and they ultimately scrubbed the ad from their site. Oh, and Bush did invade a country for the purpose of spreading his ideology across the world (and was torturing people, and spied on Americans. . .but that's another post). There is a big, big difference between Rush Limbaugh and some random guy. Don't get me wrong, the left has its loonies (goddamn hippies), but our nutjobs don't have institutional support.
So, how do we walk back from this precipice? From this Democrat's perspective, walking back can't mean giving up the store. No, Democrats need to fight harder for what they believe in. And Republicans shouldn't stop fighting for what they believe in either. But we have to start reading from the same page.
Friday, August 7, 2009
On Bipartisanship Take 2
W.O.W. That didn't take too long. In less than 24 hrs after I wrote that the Democrats should abandon all bipartisanship, the right wing partisans went off the deep end. Thus far, we've seen nutjobs start riots in Tampa and St. Louis, threaten the SEIU, and everywhere equating health insurance reform with Nazism.
Quick history lesson - the National Socialist Party had basically two factions - the Fascists who were primarily Nationalists (Hitler) and the Facists who had socialist tendencies (Brohm). When the Nazis were on the precipice of power, Hitler had Brohm wacked specifically to prevent any kind of socialism. Oh, and the Nazis were avidly anti-communist. So, calling Obama a fascist makes absolutely no sense.
Now back to reality. . .actually, let's discuss reality for a second. It seems to me that a good portion of these nutjobs are living in an alternate universe. First off, nobody knows what's in the health insurance reform bill because it hasn't been written yet. Second, there's no way the bill forces anyone to do anything. There are few protections for the most egregious behavior by health insurance companies - like rescinding health insurance when someone gets cancer - and hopefully, there will be a public option (a public health care system that you can use when health insurers won't cover you), but that's about it.
Oh, and for those of you who don't know - like Arthur Laffer - MEDICARE IS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM!!!!!!!!!! And the reforms to Medicare that are proposed in the bill will simply lower costs and were proposed by Republicans. So, please stop with the signs that say "Government Keep its Hands off My Medicare." Its like saying that the Federal Government should stop running the U.S. Marine Corps. Without the Government, there wouldn't be a Medicare. Got it? Oh, and its MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT PAYS FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE YOU DAMN HYPOCRITES!!!!!
The latest is Sarah Palin saying that Obama wants to kill her son Trig because he has Down's syndrome. Really? Really? How ridiculous is that? All this does, quite naturally, is stoke anger to the point where someone is going to get shot.
In this evironment, there's no way the GOP is going to go along with health insurance reform. Not only will the base not vote for the GOP, but at this point, the base might just shoot its leaders. Bipartisanship is nice, but you can't bargain with crazy. And we're looking at a lot of crazy here.
Last point - if there wasn't this level of craziness, and the Republican Party was willing to discuss how to reform health insurance (instead of saying everything is hunky-doory), then we could have an interesting debate as to how to fix health care in this country.
Quick history lesson - the National Socialist Party had basically two factions - the Fascists who were primarily Nationalists (Hitler) and the Facists who had socialist tendencies (Brohm). When the Nazis were on the precipice of power, Hitler had Brohm wacked specifically to prevent any kind of socialism. Oh, and the Nazis were avidly anti-communist. So, calling Obama a fascist makes absolutely no sense.
Now back to reality. . .actually, let's discuss reality for a second. It seems to me that a good portion of these nutjobs are living in an alternate universe. First off, nobody knows what's in the health insurance reform bill because it hasn't been written yet. Second, there's no way the bill forces anyone to do anything. There are few protections for the most egregious behavior by health insurance companies - like rescinding health insurance when someone gets cancer - and hopefully, there will be a public option (a public health care system that you can use when health insurers won't cover you), but that's about it.
Oh, and for those of you who don't know - like Arthur Laffer - MEDICARE IS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM!!!!!!!!!! And the reforms to Medicare that are proposed in the bill will simply lower costs and were proposed by Republicans. So, please stop with the signs that say "Government Keep its Hands off My Medicare." Its like saying that the Federal Government should stop running the U.S. Marine Corps. Without the Government, there wouldn't be a Medicare. Got it? Oh, and its MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT PAYS FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE YOU DAMN HYPOCRITES!!!!!
The latest is Sarah Palin saying that Obama wants to kill her son Trig because he has Down's syndrome. Really? Really? How ridiculous is that? All this does, quite naturally, is stoke anger to the point where someone is going to get shot.
In this evironment, there's no way the GOP is going to go along with health insurance reform. Not only will the base not vote for the GOP, but at this point, the base might just shoot its leaders. Bipartisanship is nice, but you can't bargain with crazy. And we're looking at a lot of crazy here.
Last point - if there wasn't this level of craziness, and the Republican Party was willing to discuss how to reform health insurance (instead of saying everything is hunky-doory), then we could have an interesting debate as to how to fix health care in this country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)