411POLITICS BLOG
Recently I had to get my car inspected. I was surprised to find out that my 95,000 mile car did not require anything. However, while it was there I decided to change the oil, coolant, and transmission fluid. Not surprisingly, while GEICO may have saved me more than 15%, it didn't cover my maintenance. Shit!
Yeah I had to pay cash. But it was okay because I saved money assuming I was going to need new tires and/or brakes. Even if I did need these items, GEICO would not have covered anything. In fact, the only thing it will cover is collision and liability. You know, it covers the areas that I may not be able to afford if shit hits the fan.
So my question is: Why can't my health insurance be like this? Does my health insurance need to cover my yearly physical? Does my health insurance need to be billed when I spend five minutes with my doctor for a stuffy nose and she tells me what I already know that I have a sinus infection. Does my health insurance need to cover the antibiotics? I know my car insurance doesn't cover synthetic oil.
&KFor the past two election cycles, we've seen the excision of the most cancerously corrupt Republicans from the right side of the aisle. Gone is Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who resigned in shame after admitting to accepting bribes from Athena Innovative Solutions. Gone is Mark Foley, who admitted to "inappropriate relations" with his young, male staffers. Gone is former House Whip Tom Delay, whose rap sheet is long and still pending (and just wait until his potential cellmates see his Dancing With the Stars footage). Gone is Bob Ney, who pled guilty of conspiring to defraud the government in the Jack Abramoff scandal.
One would think that, with all of these corrupt parasites gone from our government (and this is just the tip of the iceberg), the newly empowered Democrats would at least give it a few cycles before following the siren song of malfeasance.
One would think that, but one would be wrong.
Welcome to what will hopefully be the first of many roundtable discussions among the 411 Mania Politics writers. Our first subject has taken full center stage in the last week given Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi's announcement of the House of Representatives health care reform bill, The Affordable Health Care Act, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's retreat from a robust public option in the Senate health care reform bill. Both bills include, on some level, a version of the highly controversial "public option", an attempt to stimulate competition in the insurance industry via a government sponsored insurance plan; it is this public option which is the source of today's discussion.
Our panelists include:
One disclaimer: This is a "trial run" for this iteration of the Round Table in this zone, so please do not hesitate to leave any comments or thoughts on the idea, formatting, etc..
With that said, let's get it on!
It's been a long time since I set foot over here, but I've always believed that you should only open your mouth if you have something of importance to say. Failing that, sometimes you need a chance to clarify something you previously said. My news column in the Wrestling Zone this week falls into that category. Recent events have caused political matters to be topics of discussion for wrestling writers, and since I'm well-studied in both wrestling & politics, I can get going on quite the rant when the situation merits. Sometimes people get really unhappy when I do that, but I feel that if I explain my statement in Wednesday's column in greater detail, it will be more easily understood.
Allow me to set the stage for those of you who might not read about the pro wrestling…former WWE CEO Linda McMahon is running for one of Connecticut's seats in the U.S. Senate. The election is to be held next year, but the fallout of her decision is already being felt on the WWE product. In an attempt to not reflect badly on their former CEO and hurt her chances for election, WWE has made several changes to their television presentation. The one change that has most dramatically altered their wrestling matches and has generated the most discussion amongst wrestling fans has been their forbidding their wrestlers to bleed during their matches.
Now, I can get behind the idea that grown men cutting themselves on the forehead with a razorblade is something that should be phased out of professional wrestling. WWE has taken it to extreme levels though…on Sunday's Bragging Rights pay-per-view telecast, John Cena was busted open during a match with Randy Orton. Knowing Cena to be one of WWE's most reliable people in and out of the ring, I can say that it didn't happen on purpose. Vince McMahon sent people down to ringside to rub Vaseline on the cut so nobody could get offended by the blood and use it against Linda in her campaign. Yes, that was actually the reason. So several minutes later, Randy Orton decided that he wanted to incinerate John Cena with pyrotechnics. It didn't happen, but the intent was there. Now, I could be completely insane on this point, but wouldn't somebody getting blown up with explosives be a lot more offensive than somebody getting cut open?
By Enrique on October 28, 2009, at 9:16PM
Violence continues to escalate in Afghanistan, as President Barack Obama reviews the unattractive options involved in managing the War Everyone Used to Love™ (myself included). Meanwhile, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that government-subsidized health insurance is still on the table. The American employment market remains stagnant. At any moment, Nancy Pelosi could start making a fuss. It's a dark time for the empire.
So let's forget all that and turn now to the vexing question – is Obama's White House too much of a boy's club? But more importantly – why won't girls just let boys have our fun?
To begin this article, I want to state clearly that I am writing specifically about Oklahoma House Bill 1595 and its implications, not the larger subject of abortion in general. I can't kid myself; some people will jump at any opportunity to sound off on abortion rights as a whole. I will just say one thing about that. Over several articles, I've communicated many ideas, some of which are highly debatable and stir strong emotions. Because my give and take with those making comments has been respectful and civilized, they have been receptive to my ideas, even when I couldn't persuade them. Whatever you have to say, check the personal attacks at the door, or you're just wasting keystrokes.
Oklahoma HB 1595 can be read in pdf format at http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislation/52nd/2009/1R/HB/1595.pdf if you like. It's not that long at thirty pages, and is written in plain English, so it's at least worth skimming. It has been passed into law but its enactment is currently stalled by a legal challenge. The main points of the bill are stated as banning abortions which are "solely on account of the sex of the unborn child", and to set up information gathering on abortions. There are other implications but for the sake of keeping this shorter than a Harry Potter book I'm focusing on the main points. If anyone thinks I've glossed over something important in the bill I encourage you to expound in the comments section.
First, it should be noted that the federally-funded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, in Atlanta already has collected state-by-state abortion data since 1969, which is available online. Oklahoma state Rep. Dan Sullivan, a Tulsa Republican and co-author of House Bill 1595, said that the law is intended "to find out why people are seeking abortions and see if there is something we can do as a state to have a positive impact." So while on the surface it appears this law advocates redundant information gathering, its sponsors assert that the more specific data they seek will presumably lead to legislation which could lower demand for abortions. Let's turn our focus to the information being sought via a form which the law would require be filled out and submitted for every abortion performed. This list of 37 questions must either be filled out by the woman or verbally asked and checked off by her doctor. The list does not require divulging the patient's name, but asks for info which put together could be used to identify women in rural areas through process of elimination. It could also potentially lead to women being misidentified by nosy neighbors as having gotten abortions. The age of the woman, marital status, years of education, number of previous pregnancies and their outcomes, etc. are all required to be given. Many of the questions are of a nature that a reasonable person could see as keeping with Rep. Sullivan's stated purpose. But then comes the very lengthy section for question 15: Reason given for abortion.
The reports are conflicting, but the word from Washington seems to indicate an unusual situation. While health care reform inches tantalizingly close to the finish line, an unexpected split has developed between the White House and Congressional Democrats regarding the fate of the public option. Regarded over the summer as dead on arrival, the public option has come roaring back to life, with Democrats in both houses of Congress falling in line to support the controversial provision that nonetheless enjoys the support of upwards of 60% of Americans. However, as Congress has tacked leftward on the issue, President Obama seems reticent and reportedly prefers the so-called "trigger" advocated by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the lone Republican thus far to support the Democratic effort to reform health care.
According to Politico magazine, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told her caucus "we're on the five yard line – let's not fumble the ball." Buoyed by cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office that indicate inclusion of a public option would lower overall costs of the House version of the health care reform bill, Pelosi has elected to advocate inclusion of a robust public option with reimbursement rates tied either to Medicare plus five percent, or rates negotiated by doctors and hospitals. There is no question that the House bill will include a public option. In the Senate, the relatively cautious Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself to the left of President Obama, with Reid leaning towards a bill including a public option, but with an "opt-out" provision that would allow individual states to elect not to participate in the program if they can substitute an alternative that would guarantee comparable access to care for those lacking insurance, such as by means of a state-level insurance cooperative.
According to several reports, Obama seemed cool to the opt-out idea at a White House meeting last week and appeared to favor Senator Snowe's trigger concept, in which the public option would not be implemented unless the health insurance industry failed to meet coverage and affordability benchmarks set by the legislation. (Unsurprisingly, the insurance industry favors the trigger idea.) Obama appears to be concerned about the political fallout that may face conservative Democrats facing re-election in 2010 if they vote for reform containing a public option. However, Congressional leaders are grumbling loudly and in the press, with some members remarking off the record that if Obama would simply go out on a limb and publicly commit his support to the public option, it would be enough to lock in wavering Democratic votes. Pelosi likely already has the votes in the House; Obama could help Reid out with moderate Democrats, who are open to the public option but want some political cover from the president.
Obama's insistence on bipartisanship, even in the face of a Republican strategy to block any kind of health reform whatsoever, should now be abandoned.
By Enrique on October 22, 2009, at 12:00AM
Last week, there was a great disturbance in the 24/7 media world when a saucer-shaped balloon that didn't contain a six-year-old boy captured the attention of the poor folks who have nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon than watch breathless news coverage of non-events. Apparently, the balloon launch was a stunt intended to raise the Heene family's profile because they want to be Reality Show Famous. The local sheriff was not amused by the stunt, which called a "hoax," and said he will pursue felony charges against Richard and Mayumi Heene.
The tawdry business of the Heene family has been great fodder for watercooler conversation and talk radio chitchat, and one issue that's come up is whether or not the Heenes are fit parents. While most of us would agree the Heenes are a little idiosyncratic, at this point there is no evidence their children were physically abused. So why are some suggesting the children be taken away from their parents?
In "Dreams from My Father", Barack Obama wrote "… (The students) number one issue was this: Because the school district couldn't afford to keep teachers for a full school day, (the high school) let out every day at 1:30 in the afternoon? With the abbreviated schedule, there was no time for students to take science lab or foreign language classes. "How come we're getting shortchanged?" They asked me. Seems like nobody even expects us to go to college, they said. They wanted more school."
In 1995, Barack Obama was visiting schools and ramping up for a political career when he wrote this. He was torn between doing what was right for the kids and gaining the support of the powerful Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). The CTU is a sub-organization of the largest union in the United States, the National Education Association. In the giant Chicago Political Machine a Chicago politician needs union support to win elections. Obama had to make a choice to either support the students or the union.
Sometimes I really wonder about Obama and his team. Considering the amount of enemies they have, why are they picking on Fox News? They claim Fox News isn't news. Sometimes that may be the case and sure, they create news such as firing up the tea party crowd or covering an anti-Obama rally at a school that no one attended. They are biased, very biased, but it still is news. I still remember seeing Shepard Smith in the water during Katrina. Yes, many of their shows are commentary but you can say that about the other cable news networks.
In psychology, we study the idea of "the victim." People play the victim to shift attention away from them. If Obama is going to send his advisers to talk shows to whine about Fox News, then it seems they care more about something that draws 2 million viewers rather than the 50 million suffering without health insurance or the millions who have lost their jobs. Do they think we'll forget about many of their broken promises by picking a fight with Fox News? There is nothing to gain by picking on Fox News! It makes Obama look arrogant which is a criticism that he has yet to disprove.
Furthermore, it gives Fox News FREE PUBLICITY! Having the president's team criticize them legitimizes them. I remember when Edwards in the Primary Campaign decided to boycott a Fox News debate and others followed suit; never mind that the network attracts more Democrats than CNN and MSNBC. Those Democrats may like Fox News and now you are insulting them?
One of the great turning points in the 2006 midterm disaster for the Republicans was Bill Clinton blowing up at Chris Wallace for not asking the Bush Administration why they didn't do more to prevent 9/11. It was the first time a Democrat had any balls to blame Bush for not stopping 9/11 or why the media never pressed the Bush Administration and it happened on Fox News.
I choose not to watch Fox News because of the bodacious personalities, (I still remember watching John Gibson tell me to make more white babies) not because the Obama administration doesn't like them. Vince McMahon has always said any publicity is good publicity. If that is the case then shut up and focus your attack on the people who are stalling reform and stand up for those that put you in office.
Memo to George HW Bush: If your son was the leader of any other country in the world, he would have been prosecuted for war crimes. While Olbermann is an asshole, calling him a sick puppy makes you sound as pathetic as David Axelrod. You sure had no problem approving Willie Horton ads and slandering Bill Clinton's draft record so don't get mad when Olbermann does the same crap.
Recently there was a rally in Washington D.C. by gay rights protesters who are fighting, among other things, for the repeal of DADT, or Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This policy, enacted in 1993, was a compromise at the time. It was decided that gays could serve in the military as long as they kept their sexual orientation hidden, and obviously no one could ask them about it. Today Bill Clinton is actually vilified for this policy, which was a major step forward sixteen years ago. Being 32 myself, it feels surreal that in just half a short lifetime attitudes have changed so much on this subject. Actually, a bit of my own background on the subject is in order.
Like most if not all of us, back in my childhood words like "fag" and "queer" were regularly used on the playground as general insults. I heard them long before I even knew what they meant. The phrase "_____ sucks" is actually derived from a negative connotation about homosexuality. So hatred or at least social rejection of gays was being culturally ingrained from an early age. At my first job, working at Target, one of my supervisors was openly gay. It didn't bother me, and I don't remember morale suffering because such a person worked among us for all to see. To be fair, employee morale at Target was pretty low to begin with, but you get the idea. Today I live on the north side of Chicago, about a mile from a neighborhood called "Boy's Town". The annual pride parade is so close I can hear it from my window. It doesn't interest me, but doesn't offend me either. I own a condo with a beautiful lake view largely because their presence keeps property values low enough to be in my price range. Sometimes two guys will kiss in the open. That makes me squeamish, but no more so than two ugly straight people doing the same thing. Having met and known gay people, and actually enjoyed a benefit from their proximity, I'm at a total loss to comprehend the hostility they face. In simplest terms, I can't find any reason to take a personal interest in their sex lives. In fact, when a gay person comes out they basically say "This is who I am, world. Deal with it." As someone who has always marched to my own drummer, I have great respect for that.
By Enrique on October 14, 2009, at 8:37PM
Last week, former Vice President and 2000 popular vote champion Al Gore gave a speech to open the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference in Madison, Wisconsin. Not surprisingly, at the time of Gore's remarks the autumn temperatures in the Midwest could charitably be described as unseasonably cool. Gore said he expects the Senate to pass a bill mandating carbon reductions by the end of the year. Following his speech, Gore donned a caribou-fur parka and departed via dogsled.
One imagines public events featuring Mr. Gore to be fairly tedious, but reports indicate this one had a moment of genuine drama. Gore took a few questions from some of the assembled journalists, which he rarely does. As if to demonstrate why Gore doesn't do Q&A's, one person asked him a less-than-obsequious question about inaccuracies in Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth. When faced with an inconvenient question, Gore drew upon his experience as a career politician and activist and provided a measured, well-considered response. (Read: Gore dodged the question and made some insufferably smug remark about polar bears.)
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.(Revelations 22:19)
That seems fairly straightforward, especially for the Bible.
Since it's Sunday, I thought it would be a good idea to look at the big religious issue burning up the blogosphere. Be prepared for some sacriliciousness.
By Jake G. on October 9, 2009, at 1:59PM
Only in America can so many amazing things happen. Only in America is often a phrase used to describe positives and woes across the great spectrum of issues in our country. Today I think of only in America, can political zealots turn something like the Nobel Peace Prize into a negative. Our country is a strange place.
When George Bush was President, those on the right labeled you as a coward, un-American or poorly patriotic if you failed to agree with any of Bush's policies. It didn't matter if you agreed with 95% of Bush's plans but didn't agree with wire tapping, the invasion of Iraq or government sponsored torture, you were unAmerican.
Yet those same people now vocally cheered when the United States failed to get the Olympics. What could be more anti-American than celebrating that your country didn't get the Olympic games? Right, it was okay to boo America in this instance because President Obama had put fourth some effort to help secure the games for our country. I can't imagine any country being upset that its President had been awarded one of the highest honors for promoting peace and prosperity.
Only in America will you see men with flags on their porch and in their truck, so foolishly proclaiming it's a "bad" thing that our President has received the Nobel Peace Prize. He either didn't deserve it, or it just confirms how terrible he is. Apparently spreading a message of hope and peace isn't something America stands for. Ironic that America is supposed to be a land full of hopes, dreams and promise to promote peace but we now find certain parts of the country booing that idea, presumably in favor of war and destruction? If you're not a fan of world peace, then you must be a fan of world war? How nice.
Of course, right wing blogger Erick Erickson has it all figured out. He claims Obama won because he's black. It makes perfect sense too. Obama's blackness is why he won the presidency, it's why he could mobilize hundreds of thousands of people across the nation and in other nations, but don't you dare say that Erickson and his ilk are racist for saying he won his Nobel Peace Prize off of affirmative action. That would be, unAmerican.
Only in America.
In an early-morning surprise, The Nobel Committee announced President Obama was awarded its prestigious Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples," citing the president's efforts at nuclear disarmament and bridging gaps between estranged world cultures.
Obama was chosen from a record 205 nominees this year.
Will this win make up for the Olympic loss, or will Glenn Beck's troglo-acolytes find a way to label the president a Nazi for bringing home the Nobel bacon?
My previous article looked at how wealth in America has been redistributed over the last twenty years, and the role federal taxes have played. The numbers show decisively that those in the top half hold a higher percentage of income than before, while the bottom half has lost ground. Wages at the lower end of the spectrum have stagnated, with many people having to work two jobs just to make ends meet. Meanwhile, expenses from medical care to utilities to groceries have skyrocketed. College tuition has risen exponentially, and with it the opportunity for those with low or even moderate incomes to improve their situation is slipping away. These are the facts.
A few comments made a statement to the effect that one group gaining ground doesn't necessarily come at the expense of the others. If, for example, GDP goes up significantly, the top 1% could see their income double while the bottom half see their paychecks increase by 30% or so. In this hypothetical situation, everyone is making more money than before, so everyone wins, right? This is where things get more philosophical. Based on the quality of comments last time, I think we can discuss the subjective side of this issue without it devolving into a shouting match. Income and taxes impact all of our daily lives, so it's an emotional subject. The problem with emotions is they can cloud our perception. Certain people have a chip on their shoulder, and are just waiting to erupt about their fiscal pet peeve. They're skimming this article as fast as possible so they can rant about welfare queens, immigration, or whatever ticks them off. I challenge such people to take a deep breath, calmly take in everything here, give it meaningful thought, and THEN offer your own view.
By Enrique on October 8, 2009, at 12:00AM
In our latest edition of "Your Government at Work," the Federal Trade Commission has revised its "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" for the first time in nearly 30 years. And to think, we hapless consumers went all that time without the government issuing new officious regulations dictating how advertisers can inform us about the products/services they sell. It's amazing we haven't devolved back into chimpanzees.
An interesting facet of the new guidelines is they represent the first attempt at government interference with blog content. In a misguided attempt to be helpful, the FTC is requiring bloggers to disclose any material relationships they might have with the sellers of products discussed on the blog, on penalty of fines up to $11,000. While the guidelines might seem inoffensive to people who don't think very deeply, they raise the question – why do we need the FTC to regulate advertising at all?
Everyone in the military has a clear chain of command. It is the first part of the military culture that all recruits are exposed too. The process of learning to take commands from strangers is hard, grueling and humbling. The chain of command keeps people in combat. Leaders have to give orders and the chain of command has follows them. Someone makes the decision to sacrifice the 1st squad so the platoon can take the hill. It's not easy being the leader and most people are not cut out for it.
There is an old military saying "Make the decision before the decision makes you". It means that leaders need to act before inaction forces them to do something that they don't intend to do. Leaders are in positions to make things happen, not manage routine processes. They bring about change. They handle crisis. They are the ones who say "follow me". Leaders are the people who risk their reputations to make things happen, they do so at their peril and those of their followers.
General Stanley McChrystal is one of these people. He is a leader. He makes decisions.
When there is absolutely nothing to watch at 9 or 11 eastern, I like to catch the beginning of the Rachel Maddow show. The problem is that I get to MSNBC around 8:58 and have to endure Keith Olbermann's rant about it being two thousand three hundred and some odd days since the previous president declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq. As someone that works in the Mental Health field I have some advice for Olbermann: GET OVER IT! Furthermore, Bush never declared Mission Accomplished. You can read the text of his actual speech HERE
Yes, I know there was a sign that stated Mission Accomplished. Bush did not order that banner placed there and he even later regretted that it was displayed. When you read more of the text, clearly Bush is not saying that everything is over, but he was addressing a carrier that was deployed for a very long time to troops that did a great job:
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war — after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history — you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time — 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.
Anyone that has read my column over the last five years knows I'm no fan of George W Bush and no fan of the Iraq War. However, Olbermann would be better off rallying his viewers against those in Congress that are CURRENTLY funding the war or maybe make sure Obama keeps his promises concerning Iraq troop pullout dates. I do not expect Olbermann to pretend he's independent like O'Reilly but I do not expect him to carry out a lie for over 2,000 days. How many days has it been since Obama declared "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is wrong? How many days has it been since Gitmo was supposed to be closed? How many days has it been since health care reform has not happened? Maybe then I'll watch your show Keith.
P.S. Would it kill you to put anyone on with an opposing viewpoint?
Historically, the United States loves change. Through our perfection of mass production, agricultural shifts due to the cotton gin, and even our very rise as a world power, punctuated with our usage of the atomic bomb, the country has embraced new technology and new direction to help us climb up the world's ranks. President Barack Obama was elected, functionally, on a platform of change. The Republicans were painted as the party of the status quo, and the Democratic party was painted as the party that would lead us in a bold new direction that would fix our ills. However, once the rubber met the road, it became very obvious very quickly that we have little stomach for sweeping change anymore.
I recently saw the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car". The documentary functionally says that everyone: The state of California, the car companies, the federal government, the oil companies, etc., had a hand in ensuring that the electric car model EV1 was a failure. This seems to be the opposite of the attitude expected by the country that invented the light bulb. The question became "Why were all of these people so scared of an efficient electric car?" My hypothesis on the answer is that the amount of sweeping change that would occur because of the EV1 was not worth it to all parties involved.
