A sunny election day here in Mpls, much like the day one year ago when we made history. Here’s something I wrote the day after the election:
“One thing that struck me about Obama’s speech last night was how somber and restrained it was. I loved the (subtle) references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sam Cooke. But overall, this speech was not a celebration. He obviously knows that all the work, all the fighting against stereotype and distrust and tribalism has just been prelude. Now he has to lead a nation.
“I thought he did a masterful job of reaching out last night to all Americans. But there are some who heard it differently. A conservative woman I know told me today she is distraught because she heard Obama has said his first act will be to sign an executive order legalizing partial birth abortions. And that he has said he wants to redistrubute wealth.
“I asked her if she thought his speech last night tried to extend a hand to people like her who didn’t support him. “No,” she said.
“It’s an example of what President Obama will face. Rumors, myths, misinformation campaigns, and a segment of the electorate determined to see the worst in him, determined not to give him a break. No wonder he was somber last night. The hard work hasn’t yet begun.”
The hard work continues.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
CBO? What's that?
Early in the health care reform debate, conservatives couldn't stop quoting the Congressional Budget Office figures on how reform would affect the deficit. Now that the bills have been roughly hammered into shape, the CBO is finding that health care reform will bring deficits down.
And what do conservatives have to say about that?
*crickets*
And what do conservatives have to say about that?
*crickets*
Fox News Reports the Opposite of Truth (In other news, rain still wet)
"This was pretty classic even for Fox. Fox News managed to go almost two days reporting that Dede Scozzafava had dropped out to help Doug Hoffman beat Democrat Bill Owens. And then they went as far as to report that Scozzafava had endorsed Hoffman. This despite the fact there was no evidence for either and ample evidence that Scozzafava was privately supporting Owens."
TPM catches an amazing sequence of coverage by Fox, where they totally start making stuff up to support their political agenda--and this is their "news" coverage, for anyone who still sees that distinction.
(video added)
TPM catches an amazing sequence of coverage by Fox, where they totally start making stuff up to support their political agenda--and this is their "news" coverage, for anyone who still sees that distinction.
(video added)
A (Very) Simple Plan
One of the lessons of health care reform is that fiddling around the edges -- as we have for decades-- has not been effective in addressing the really big problems we face. Dare I suggest that to fix big problems, you need a big bill? Maybe even a thousand pages or more?
"After months of debate within Republican ranks, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is finally about to release his health care bill, but the outline he gave reporters does little to cover the tens of millions of Americans without health insurance."
Exactly. The Republican "solutions" are like calling the Fire Department when your house is on fire and having them hand you a lawn sprinkler.
"After months of debate within Republican ranks, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is finally about to release his health care bill, but the outline he gave reporters does little to cover the tens of millions of Americans without health insurance."
Exactly. The Republican "solutions" are like calling the Fire Department when your house is on fire and having them hand you a lawn sprinkler.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The rise and fall of political posting on Facebook
For a while, it really appeared that Facebook was going to make this blog obsolete. It was so much easier and quicker to just put something up on Facebook. And it got immediate reaction, which was often quite, uh, lively.
But the "lively" discussion was a little too much so at times. There was more than one discussion that crossed a line or three, and after a while I found myself just not wanting to respond to FB friends' political posts; they knew where I stood, I knew where they stood, it was just becoming an exercise in bickering.
And guess what--that feeling seems to have become pretty common. A lot of my very conservative friends have, like me, cut way back on the political posts. In my case, I still do post occasionally on health care or some other topic, but I try not to provoke anyone with snide comments or pointed rhetoric. Facebook is a place for friends, after all.
So here I am, back at the old Mod Lang, wiping the dust off the shelf, cleaning out the old milk cartons from the fridge, uh, extending metaphors far past their usefulness...
And it gives me an excuse to post (again) the latest Auto tune the news; not as good as some of their stuff, but any lowbrow political satire that namedrops Gilgamesh is still worth seeing, in my book.
But the "lively" discussion was a little too much so at times. There was more than one discussion that crossed a line or three, and after a while I found myself just not wanting to respond to FB friends' political posts; they knew where I stood, I knew where they stood, it was just becoming an exercise in bickering.
And guess what--that feeling seems to have become pretty common. A lot of my very conservative friends have, like me, cut way back on the political posts. In my case, I still do post occasionally on health care or some other topic, but I try not to provoke anyone with snide comments or pointed rhetoric. Facebook is a place for friends, after all.
So here I am, back at the old Mod Lang, wiping the dust off the shelf, cleaning out the old milk cartons from the fridge, uh, extending metaphors far past their usefulness...
And it gives me an excuse to post (again) the latest Auto tune the news; not as good as some of their stuff, but any lowbrow political satire that namedrops Gilgamesh is still worth seeing, in my book.
Wait, um, the pundits were WRONG about something???
It's too early for either side to gloat about the public option. The version that the Senate is considering is pretty weak tea: only a small percentage of Americans will be eligible, and of course states can opt out.
The House version will be a bit stronger; but I expect to see a pretty watered-down version in the end.
Still, it's pretty funny to see how many times the pundits declared the public option dead-dead-dead, and how sure they were it would not be in the final Senate bill. The fact is, it was a popular idea, and even with the barrage of mud thrown at it, still is.
The House version will be a bit stronger; but I expect to see a pretty watered-down version in the end.
Still, it's pretty funny to see how many times the pundits declared the public option dead-dead-dead, and how sure they were it would not be in the final Senate bill. The fact is, it was a popular idea, and even with the barrage of mud thrown at it, still is.
Are NOT fair and balanced! Are SO! Are NOT! Are SO!
The clash between Fox News and the White House has been interesting. Although I am a big critic of Fox, I admit not being real comfortable with a president declaring what is and what is not a news organization. Shouldn't be up to politicians to decide that. However, having said that, I think the Obama Admin. is entirely correct when they say that Fox is the "opposition press" or an arm of the Republican Party.
It's a totally partisan news channel. The attacks against Obama are nonstop, even during news programming (as opposed to their "opinion" shows--which curiously seem to set the agenda for their "news" shows.) When a Fox VP said the White House couldn't tell the difference between Fox' news and opinion programming, all I could say was "Neither can I!"
If Fox admitted to being a partisan media source they'd lose credibility to some degree. That's why they fight the notion so strongly. But I think most people see through the charade. And in the end, I don't think Fox' audience *cares* about that issue. They *want* a news channel that reinforces their politics. Fox is there to serve them. But it's a media form that dare not speak its name.
I also note: regardless of whether it's an "opinion" or "news" show, the "Fox News" symbol is rotating in the lower left corner at all times. Shouldn't they label the opinion programs as such?
It's a totally partisan news channel. The attacks against Obama are nonstop, even during news programming (as opposed to their "opinion" shows--which curiously seem to set the agenda for their "news" shows.) When a Fox VP said the White House couldn't tell the difference between Fox' news and opinion programming, all I could say was "Neither can I!"
If Fox admitted to being a partisan media source they'd lose credibility to some degree. That's why they fight the notion so strongly. But I think most people see through the charade. And in the end, I don't think Fox' audience *cares* about that issue. They *want* a news channel that reinforces their politics. Fox is there to serve them. But it's a media form that dare not speak its name.
I also note: regardless of whether it's an "opinion" or "news" show, the "Fox News" symbol is rotating in the lower left corner at all times. Shouldn't they label the opinion programs as such?
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
The Big Speech
Hey, no pressure, Mr. President. It’s not like your presidency, not to mention the health and welfare of the Republic, hangs in the balance.
OK, seriously. My theory is Obama has taken the best shot that anti-reform forces could muster (and it was quite a shot), and now things are going to start coming together for health care reform. It may not be as comprehensive as some wanted, it may not in the end include a public option, but there’s simply no option for failure for the Democrats. They have to pass health care reform. And they’re going to do whatever it takes to do it.
Something I’d like to hear tonight is a clear, concise attack on the “let’s start over” argument. Something along the lines of:
“Some on the Republican side say we should not rush into this. They say more time is needed, more discussion, more studies. Certainly, we should discuss this thoughtfully. We’ve been trying to.” (slight pause, just to let people remember the town halls) “But we cannot forget that health care has been a drain on our economy and a burden to millions of working Americans for decades. For eight years, Republicans controlled the White House. For six of those years, Republicans controlled Congress. And yet, aside from a well-intended but inefficient Medicare drug benefit, Republican leadership did nothing to address the health care crisis in America. They did nothing to reduce the number of the uninsured. They did nothing to end the insurance industry’s practice of dropping patients for pre-existing conditions. They did nothing to address the high copays and deductibles that make health care prohibitively expensive for millions. They did nothing to control the premium increases that are hamstringing small businesses and forcing them to drop coverage for employees.”
“They had six years. They did nothing. We cannot wait another six years. We cannot wait another 16 years, which is how long it’s been since the last president tried to reform health care. Let’s be clear: we have a plan before us that would address the biggest domestic problem that America faces. On the other hand, the Republican solution is to do nothing. I believe that is not an option.”
Too partisan? I dunno. Certainly is true, as far as I can see.
OK, seriously. My theory is Obama has taken the best shot that anti-reform forces could muster (and it was quite a shot), and now things are going to start coming together for health care reform. It may not be as comprehensive as some wanted, it may not in the end include a public option, but there’s simply no option for failure for the Democrats. They have to pass health care reform. And they’re going to do whatever it takes to do it.
Something I’d like to hear tonight is a clear, concise attack on the “let’s start over” argument. Something along the lines of:
“Some on the Republican side say we should not rush into this. They say more time is needed, more discussion, more studies. Certainly, we should discuss this thoughtfully. We’ve been trying to.” (slight pause, just to let people remember the town halls) “But we cannot forget that health care has been a drain on our economy and a burden to millions of working Americans for decades. For eight years, Republicans controlled the White House. For six of those years, Republicans controlled Congress. And yet, aside from a well-intended but inefficient Medicare drug benefit, Republican leadership did nothing to address the health care crisis in America. They did nothing to reduce the number of the uninsured. They did nothing to end the insurance industry’s practice of dropping patients for pre-existing conditions. They did nothing to address the high copays and deductibles that make health care prohibitively expensive for millions. They did nothing to control the premium increases that are hamstringing small businesses and forcing them to drop coverage for employees.”
“They had six years. They did nothing. We cannot wait another six years. We cannot wait another 16 years, which is how long it’s been since the last president tried to reform health care. Let’s be clear: we have a plan before us that would address the biggest domestic problem that America faces. On the other hand, the Republican solution is to do nothing. I believe that is not an option.”
Too partisan? I dunno. Certainly is true, as far as I can see.
That White House Janitor? Beck’s Doing a Three-Part Series on the “Mop Czar”
As this article points out, the “czar” controversy has in part been manufactured by people too lazy to look up the officials’ real titles.
“Here’s the problem: Some of the people whom conservatives and mainstream media voices alike have labeled “czars” have been confirmed by the Senate. Some of them, and others, hold jobs that were created by previous presidents.”
“Here’s the problem: Some of the people whom conservatives and mainstream media voices alike have labeled “czars” have been confirmed by the Senate. Some of them, and others, hold jobs that were created by previous presidents.”
Who would Jesus refuse health insurance to?
“Opposition to Health Care Reform Revives the Christian Right”
You know, I spent a lot of time with the Bible in my youth. I just can’t remember the part where Jesus said to refuse to help people who were less fortunate. I can’t remember the part where Jesus said that the sick and the poor were on their own. I guess I read a different Bible.
Part of the absolutely crazy, what-planet-am-I-on, quality of the health care debate is that some on the right say, “Oh, the Left criticized Bush and protested and held rallies, why is it wrong now that Obama’s in office???”
Well, one president was taking us into an unnecessary war that killed thousands of Americans and spent trillions. The other one wants to make sure you have access to health care.
Yeah, I can see how those two things are the same.
You know, I spent a lot of time with the Bible in my youth. I just can’t remember the part where Jesus said to refuse to help people who were less fortunate. I can’t remember the part where Jesus said that the sick and the poor were on their own. I guess I read a different Bible.
Part of the absolutely crazy, what-planet-am-I-on, quality of the health care debate is that some on the right say, “Oh, the Left criticized Bush and protested and held rallies, why is it wrong now that Obama’s in office???”
Well, one president was taking us into an unnecessary war that killed thousands of Americans and spent trillions. The other one wants to make sure you have access to health care.
Yeah, I can see how those two things are the same.
You Can’t Handle the Bill!
Politico makes a good point:
“…reading actual legislative text is often the least productive way to learn what’s actually in a bill.”
“…reading actual legislative text is often the least productive way to learn what’s actually in a bill.”
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Health Reform on the YouTubes
Well, I've been coming across a lot of videos on the tubes lately so I thought I'd share some. Here's a clever-yet-simple one about how (BOO!) Socialism (BOO! SCARY!) is indeed at the root of a public option.
Canada and Coburn: which vision do you prefer?
Again, with the socialists... Hey, we could listen to these guys talk about what the Canadian system is really like, or we could listen to Glenn Beck talk about Obama/Hitler some more.
And for a real slice of America; here's a weeping woman, desperate for her injured husband, pleading with Sen. Coburn to help. He says two things: 1)It's not the government's job to help you, and 2) Sure, my office will help you. Gives me a headache thinking about it and a heartache watching it.
And for a real slice of America; here's a weeping woman, desperate for her injured husband, pleading with Sen. Coburn to help. He says two things: 1)It's not the government's job to help you, and 2) Sure, my office will help you. Gives me a headache thinking about it and a heartache watching it.
Pray You Don’t Get Sick
Michelle Bachmann, who is on TV once every nine days(!) calls for prayer and fasting to stop Americans from getting a better health care system. Alrighty then.
From MinnPost:
“Bachmann repeated the myth, adopted early by Sarah Palin, that the health-care plans being debated in Congress would set up “death panels” to determine which old folks are entitled to health care. “Thank God that Sarah Palin said that,” she told the callers. ‘These are true.’
“But it was Bachmann’s fervent call to utilize prayer and fasting to beat back health-care reform efforts that was the true highlight of the call.
“That’s really where this battle will be won — on our knees in prayer and fasting,” she told the listeners. “Remember: faith without works is dead. So we’re asking you to do all of it: pray, fast, believe, trust the Lord, but also act.”
An oldie but a goodie:
“We get to choose, we get to choose…”
From MinnPost:
“Bachmann repeated the myth, adopted early by Sarah Palin, that the health-care plans being debated in Congress would set up “death panels” to determine which old folks are entitled to health care. “Thank God that Sarah Palin said that,” she told the callers. ‘These are true.’
“But it was Bachmann’s fervent call to utilize prayer and fasting to beat back health-care reform efforts that was the true highlight of the call.
“That’s really where this battle will be won — on our knees in prayer and fasting,” she told the listeners. “Remember: faith without works is dead. So we’re asking you to do all of it: pray, fast, believe, trust the Lord, but also act.”
An oldie but a goodie:
“We get to choose, we get to choose…”
“Both Parties Are Responsible for Not Dealing With Health Care…”
A recent Tim Walz town hall had the usual circus atmosphere, signs of Obama as Hitler, cranks who think the Constitution doesn’t allow Congress to pass health care reform, and I think, maybe, I even hear someone talking about lap dances…
I like Walz a lot. He comes from a more conservative area, and he’s slightly in the Blue Dog camp; but he’s honest, passionate, and smart. I think even the “town hollers” here ended up respecting him at least a little.
I like Walz a lot. He comes from a more conservative area, and he’s slightly in the Blue Dog camp; but he’s honest, passionate, and smart. I think even the “town hollers” here ended up respecting him at least a little.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Market Concentration: It sounds sort of like a game, doesn’t it?
Did you know, that for large sections of the United States, a single-payer health care system is already in place?
“There are nine states where a single insurer covers 70 percent or more of the people. In Hawaii, one insurer covers 78 percent. In Alabama, it’s 83 percent. And in at least 17 other states one insurer covers at least half the population.”
Isn’t it funny how some of these town hall protesters are from rural areas and actually have the least choice at all under the current system? And by “funny” I mean “not funny.”
The article also points out how some of the Senators most opposed to reform are from the states with the most insurance plan market concentration (i.e., fewest consumer options). I wonder how much health insurance industry money they get for campaign contributions?
“There are nine states where a single insurer covers 70 percent or more of the people. In Hawaii, one insurer covers 78 percent. In Alabama, it’s 83 percent. And in at least 17 other states one insurer covers at least half the population.”
Isn’t it funny how some of these town hall protesters are from rural areas and actually have the least choice at all under the current system? And by “funny” I mean “not funny.”
The article also points out how some of the Senators most opposed to reform are from the states with the most insurance plan market concentration (i.e., fewest consumer options). I wonder how much health insurance industry money they get for campaign contributions?
Do results count?
As data begins to show how the stimulus plan is working, along with the jobs being reclaimed by the “cash for clunkers” program, it’s beginning to look like the Obama Administration might have known what they were doing, after all. Maybe those successes will convince some on the right to reconsider health care reform? Yeah, I’m not holding my breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)