Q: How can you tell when a Republican is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

Yeah - old joke.
Some of my favorites:

Saddam has operational ties with al Qaeda.

Iraq has WMD.

My favorite from this era:

President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive" ...

W pledged! - Guess we know what W's word is worth!!!

Today?

Obama's "death panels".

Why do they lie... all the time... about everything???

I suspect the simplest answer is the best: They lie because nobody would support 'em based on the truth!

Their lies all have something in common: all their lies are designed to scare us! - that's how Republicans want to rule, by keeping us afraid of everything all the time!
If we're afraid, then they can pretend to protect us.

One of the best brief descriptions of this strategy is from a fictional speech, delivered by President Andrew Shepherd in The American President" [1995]:

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

That about sums up the Republican world-view: make us afraid & tell us who to blame.

For everything.

The sad thing is, this strategy works!!!

When will we stop drinking the Republican Kool-Aid?

A really long post + a story

The story:
I'm told frequently, by folks who don't know me, that I have a really great voice.
So - for about a year-and-a-half, I'm been "working" on taking advantage of this asset: consulting with folks on what it takes to develop a 'voice-over' career, crafting audition scripts, etc.
Yeah - I've been at it for 1.5 years. ("As the ancient Romans said, festina lente." - quote from G&S's Iolanthe.)

Anyway: I've recently (today) crafted an audition script for what I propose as a 10-minute radio harangue for a 15-minute early morning (2:35 a.m.) timeslot on local AM radio station ("Hi! I'm auditioning for a position you didn't know you had!").
The basic idea is to be rancorously, not-at-all genteel response to right-wing talk-radio.

I'll let you know how it turns out.
Anyway, here's my unedited script:

Private Buffoon here.

Tonight we’re gonna talk about health coverage.
Limbaugh, Beck, and the other right-wing talking heads would have you believe that universal health coverage is the first step on the way to totalitarianism – give the Government a say in health coverage and next thing you know we’ll be euthanizing Grandma and killing your kids… well, only the ones who don’t get A’s in the “All Praise Our Glorious Leader” class that will soon be required from 1st thru 12th grades in every public school in America.

Let’s start with a few facts.
I know – facts aren’t a good place to start if you’re on the radio, but let’s give it a try.

Pay attention.

The United States of America is a member of a group called the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD for short. This group consists of 30 developed countries…
committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:

Support sustainable economic growth

Boost employment
Raise living standards
Maintain financial stability
Assist other countries' economic development
Contribute to growth in world trade

It includes Australia, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the U.K., and New Zealand, just to name a few.

Not exactly a bunch of third-world, developing countries under totalitarian despots.

Among these countries, the U.S. is the ONLY country without some form of universal health coverage. The only one.

Not every country has the same system. England – the U.K. – has truly ‘socialized’ medicine: doctors are government employees. Everyone can go to the doctor for whatever medical problems they have. The Government foots the bill and employs the doctors.

Canada has a ‘single payer’ system. Doctors are independent agents – just like in the U.S…. BUT – the Canadian government is the sole insurer. You go to the doctor of your choice, pay a nominal co-pay, and the doctor – he or she – submits the insurance paper-work to a single insurer: the Canadian government.

Other countries do other things… BUT – they all guarantee affordable, high-quality, timely health care to all their citizens…
… Well – all except the U.S.!!!

A comparison of U.S. healthcare to other OECD countries is enlightening.
I’m not making this stuff up – the numbers are from the Congressional Research Service:

A Report on
U.S. Health Care Spending:
Comparison with Other OECD Countries
Prepared for Congress in September 2007.

How ‘bout we talk healthcare spending?
The United States spends more money on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD consists of 30 democracies, most of which are considered the most economically advanced countries in the world. According to OECD data, the United States spent $6,102 per capita on health care in 2004 — more than double the OECD average and 19.9% more than Luxembourg, the second-highest spending country. In 2004, 15.3% of the U.S. economy was devoted to health care, compared with 8.9% in the average OECD country and 11.6% in second-placed Switzerland.

We spend more than DOUBLE the average of OECD countries on healthcare.

So, we have better health than everybody else, right?
Wrong!

What does the United States get for the money it spends? Said slightly differently, does the United States get corresponding value from the money it spends on health care? … among OECD countries in 2004, the United States had shorter-than-average life expectancy and higher-than-average mortality rates. …

… research comparing the quality of care has not found the United States to be superior overall. Nor does the U.S. population have substantially better access to health care resources, even putting aside the issue of the uninsured. Although the United States does not have long wait times for non-emergency surgeries, unlike some OECD countries, Americans found it more difficult to make same-day doctor’s appointments when sick and had the most difficulty getting care on nights and weekends. They were also most likely to delay or forgo treatment because of cost.

The report quantifies these findings.

Life Expectancy. The average life expectancy for a person in the United States is 77 ½ years — slightly below the OECD average, and 4½ years less than toprated Japan. Life expectancy is nearly 2½ years longer in Canada than in the United States. The United States is ranked 22nd out of 30 countries on life expectancy at birth …
Mortality Rates. The United States has a higher rate of deaths from natural causes than 17 OECD countries.

That’s right – of the 30 OECD countries – all except the U.S. with some form of universal health coverage, and all paying LESS than the U.S. for healthcare – the U.S. ranks 18th in mortality – in the bottom half!

Infant Mortality Rates. The United States has the third-highest infant mortality rate in the OECD, after Turkey and Mexico!

Hey – we beat out TURKEY and MEXICO on infant mortality!!!
30 countries in the OECD.
The U.S. ranks 28th in infant mortality!

These are the facts. Not MY facts, but FACTS reported by the Congressional Research Service, for members of Congress.
We spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world, no matter how you measure it.
We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country in the world.
We spend more as a percent of GDP than any other country in the world.

BUT: We are in the bottom half when it comes to basic health outcomes: life-expectancy, mortality rates, infant mortality… and we’re better than only TURKEY and MEXICO when it comes to infant mortality!!!

Sarah Palin worries about Government-sponsored healthcare killing her kids?
She should worry about private insurance killing her kids!!!

Congressional Republicans and conservative talking heads would have you believe that so-called ‘socialized’ medicine would result in healthcare rationing, Grandma being euthanized, and the rest of us subject to arbitrary decisions of government bureaucrats.

Guess what?
We all are ALREADY subject to the not-so-arbitrary decisions of healthcare bureaucrats! They’re called INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Private insurance companies devote tons of money every year to DENYING claims! – I don’t know how much insurance companies spend DENYING claims – if I had the numbers I’d tell you – but my bet is around 20 cents of every premium dollar goes to pay for BUREAUCRATS whose only job is to DENY YOUR CLAIM!

A recent government report, “Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind”, explains how this works: - this is a lengthy quotation from the report -

A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before someone applies for or enrolls in a new health insurance policy. It can be something as prevalent as heart disease – which affects one in three adults – or something as life-changing as cancer, which affects 11 million Americans.
But a pre-existing condition does not have to be a serious disease like cancer or heart disease. Even relatively minor conditions like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries can trigger high premiums or denials of coverage.
…
In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market. Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.

A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adult – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years
In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.
It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.
Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage.

Okay – I’m done reading from the report.

This isn’t my opinion. This is a Government Report!

Even if the pre-existing condition has NOTHING to do with your current ailment – say, you had hay-fever and now have prostate cancer – and EVEN IF you DID NOT KNOW about the pre-existing condition, your insurance company can STILL deny coverage!

You wanna talk about ‘rationed care’???
Sure – let’s talk about ‘rationed care’… UNDER THE CURRENT PRIVATE SYSTEM!!!

Now – I can understand why private health insurance companies want to maintain the status quo: they’re making a mint off of you! – you pay premiums, they get to decide if they’ll pay up when you file a claim.
Maybe they will.
Maybe they won’t.

If they don’t, you’re screwed!

You don’t have a pre-existing condition?
Sorry – you’re still screwed!
A recent Harvard University study found that 62% of personal bankruptcies resulted in part from medical costs and some 78% of those people who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance, in most cases private coverage.
The fine print in insurance contracts frequently precludes the very coverage you THINK you’re paying for!

As I stated earlier – I can understand why private health insurance companies want to maintain the status quo. They’re making a mint off you & me!!!

BUT: why are YOU - presumably sane, ordinary citizens - opposed to reforming this predatory, expensive, non-productive system?

Well… as best I can tell, there is no REASON! – there’s just a lot of corporate-sponsored, ideological fear-mongering going on… and these poor slobs – you, my listeners – are drinking the Kool-Aid!

“Drinking the Kool-Aid” is a metaphor deriving from the Jonestown mass suicide of 1978. Hundreds of perfectly sane, perfectly healthy individuals somehow were convinced by Jim Jones to commit suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. These folks were no different than you and me – honest, hard-working, conscientious citizens who fell under the mesmerizing spell of a charlatan
You – my fellow citizens – have come under a similar spell, of another charlatan.
Not a charismatic individual, but a charlatan nonetheless – Big Insurance and Big Health.

These are the folks you need to fear, not the government!

Just like the residents of Jonestown, you are being convinced, against your better, rational judgment, to “drink the Kool-Aid” – in this case, to oppose what every other developed country in the world has already adopted! – with less cost and better outcomes than the broken system we have inherited – a government-sponsored program to assure affordable, timely access to high-quality health care!
Just as Jim Jones’s followers committed suicide by “drinking the Kool-Aid”, so are YOU being asked to commit financial suicide by “drinking the Kool-Aid” of Big Insurance and Big Health.

Why?

Why have you bought into the irrational propaganda?

Again: Every other developed country in the world has some form of national health insurance, guaranteeing their citizens access to affordable, timely, high-quality health care. Not the U.S.

You folks on Medicare: you’re already GETTING U.S. Government-sponsored access to affordable, timely, high-quality medical care.
Do you hate it??? – No, I didn’t think so!
Has anyone threatened to take it away… well, except for the right-wing, who thinks Medicare is an evil Socialist conspiracy?
There’s NOTHING in the current health-coverage reform bill that threatens Medicare! NOTHING!!! – you’ll still get your United States Government-subsidized health insurance, aka MEDICARE!

There are two (2! – count ‘em!) things on the table:

1. Regulation of private insurance companies so they can’t deny the rest of us coverage based on so-called ‘pre-existing’ conditions.
2. Offer the rest of us – those of us under retirement age – a program similar to Medicare.

You’re happy with Medicare – why can’t we have something similar???

“Rationed care”???
You’re getting it now – with private insurance companies!!!

When Sarah Palin and Senator Grassley talk about “death panels”, they’re lying to you - to put it bluntly.
This should not be too surprising – conservatives lie to you all the time.
(More on this in another installment!)

That’s what the word means – “conservative” – “conserve the status quo.”
Keep things just the way they are.
(Note: I’m okay using the word “conservative” to describe the folks who are lying to you. BUT – I would prefer to use the term “conservative Republicans” – I choose not to use this term because I really do NOT want to alienate any self-identified Republicans among my listening audience.)

A couple of observations.

When the idea of Medicare was first proposed in the late ‘50s, early ‘60s of the last century, who rose up to oppose it?
Conservatives.
Conservative Republicans, to be exact.

If Medicare were enacted, all sorts of horrible things would result!!!
You wouldn’t be able to choose your own doctor.
Medical care would be rationed.
The United States would descend into a godless Communist hell.
(For what it’s worth, Saint Reagan – the patron saint of conservative Republicans – was one of the mouthpieces for this propaganda.
Guess what? – he was wrong!)

Under LBJ, Medicare was created!!! – Yes – a “socialized medicine” program was created under an ultra-liberal Democratic President!

Know what else?

Medicare is one of the most popular, most successful Government programs in history!

Sort of takes you back to 1935 when Social Security was made law.
Social Security is close to the most popular, the most successful social insurance programs ever enacted.
Guess who did it?
Liberal Democrats under a liberal Democratic President – FDR!
Guess who hated it? – conservative Republicans.

Even as recently as 2005, President George W. Bush and his Congressional Republican enablers tried to kill Social Security!
These are the folks you think will lead you into the Promised Land???

Again, when Sarah Palin and Senator Charles Grassley talk about “Death Squads”, they’re lying to you.
They just want you to be afraid.
Afraid of everything, all the time.
They don’t care about you – they just want you to be afraid.

I suppose I ought to dispose of the “Nazi” scare tactics at some point.
How ‘bout now?

Let’s start with obvious.
Yes, “Nazi” is a shortened form of National Socialism. – BUT – words aren’t reality.

Somehow, at the mere mention of “Socialism” we’re all now supposed to run to our caves and cow… shuddering at the word!

Glenn Beck looks forward to Nazi eugenics based on “end-of-life” planning.
That’s a good place to start.
Here’s the exact wording of HR 3200, section 1233 – and, yes, I’m going to read it in full:

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

(a) Medicare-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--

(A) in subsection (s)(2)--

(i) by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (DD);

(ii) by adding `and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

Okay – pay attention! – here’s the definition of “Advance Care Planning”!

`Advance Care Planning Consultation
`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—


`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).


`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State—

`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—


`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.


`(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—


`(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and

`(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.


`(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).


`(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.


`(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—


`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.


`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—


`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.


(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.

(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended—


(A) in paragraph (1)—


(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;

(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and


(B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.


(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.


(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-


(1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)
(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

`(3) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-


`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

`(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.'.

(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-


(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:

(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including--

(I) living wills;

(II) durable power of attorney;

(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and

(IV) health care proxies.

(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including—


(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);

(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and

(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.


(B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(note: i tried to indent this bit appropriately but gave up!)

Okay – so what does all this legalistic jargon mean?

It means – if you don’t want to be the next nationally televised Terry Schiavo, you can decide for yourself, now, today, what to do if you’re deemed to be in a “permanently vegetative state” – and not have your husband or wife or parents agonize over what you may or may not have wanted…

… AND: you’ll be reimbursed for the Doctor’s time helping you to make this decision.

Does it mandate “Death Panels”???
NO!
Does it REQUIRE that you plan ahead???
NO!

BUT: conservative Republicans – and the Health Insurance Industry – would really like it if you could be convinced that this simple promise that you’ll be covered for end-of-life decisions meant that YOU’LL BE PUT TO DEATH!

That’s what THEY want you to believe.
That’s NOT what the legislations says!

As it so happens, I agree with Sarah Palin that a system that required a

“death panel” … to decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

You know what, Sarah?
Such a system would be downright evil.

You know what else?
NOTHING like that is being proposed!

You’re just saying this stuff to SCARE US!!!

It’s what conservatives do – you’re just like the rest of ‘em:
You want us to be SCARED – all the time, of everything!

So – next time one of your conservative Republican friends wants to SCARE THE BEJEESUS out of you with tales of euthanasia and Nazis –
LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!

It’s about time we joined the crowd, adopted some form of universal health coverage, and maybe actually got the “health” we’re paying for!!!

We’re long overdue for reform.

We voted for Democrats because we were sick of Republicans!

It’s time to STOP BEING AFRAID, ALL THE TIME, OF EVERYTHING!!!

Write your Congressman and Senators today!
Tell ‘em that you don’t want to drink the Kool-Aid!!
Tell ‘em that you’re sick and tired of being ruled by Big Corporations!!!

Tell ‘em that you believe in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

“… to promote the general welfare”

Not the welfare of big business and the heartless plutocrats who now rule our country, but the GENERAL welfare – YOUR welfare!!!

Yeah - I'm pissed!

Someone else has noticed...

A few posts back I cited the "war on drugs" as an example of good intentions gone awry.

Someone else has noticed:

The war on drugs needs a timeout
[Christian Science Monitor, 11 Aug 09]

... not that anything'll change...

I just don't get it...

What's so terrifying about govt-sponsored health coverage for all?

Where were Beck & Limbaugh when John Yoo concluded that the President's "commander-in-chief" powers were effectively those of a dictator?
Where were they when we were becoming a police state, with the government happily spying on ordinary citizens, and those same citizens encouraged to spy on each other (anyone recall TIPS?)?
- These represented real threats to the Constitution and to our democracy.

Universal health coverage???

Again - I just don't get it.

Someone says it better than I do

Thom Hartmann: Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

... and here's a link to the original:
Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
[John Gray, July 2004]

My bet is...

... Beck will interpret this as an infringement of his First Amendment right to Free Speech:

GEICO Pulls Its Ads from Glenn Beck Show

But he'll be wrong (what a surprise!).

The First Amendment guarantees (among other things):

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

The Amendment - the first of our Bill of Rights - prohibits the government from restricting our speech.

It doesn't promise that the free market must pay for our speech.
If nothing else, I'd willing to bet that Beck is a big believer in the free market!

Conservative minds at work (2 of 'em!)

Last Friday we had:

Glenn Beck jokes about putting poison in Nancy Pelosi's wine

Yesterday it was:

Dobbs on Howard Dean: "[H]e's a bloodsucking leftist -- I mean, you gotta put a stake through his heart to stop this guy"

Ah, yes - reasoned discourse, intelligent discussion. Just kill 'em all!!!

[I've noted this perhaps disturbing conservative tendency before.]

(I think it sounds better than it reads...)

(... but it's still not very good)

The NAFTA Highway euthanized my Grandma:

The NAFTA Highway euthanized my Grandma.
Hussein Obama’s a-comin’ after me!
Sharia law was good enough for Hitler –
But my AK-47 will keep me free!

Pelosi wears a brooch shaped like a swastika –
Glenn Beck showed me the photo on TV!
Yes – the NAFTA Highway euthanized my Grandma.
But my AK-47’ll keep me free!

I think I’m a-comin’ down with the swine flu -
My wetback yardman passed it on to me!
I’ve asked, and he says he doesn’t have his green-card –
(Claims he was born in Cayce, Kentuck-ee.)

Hussein Obama’s mullah got me fatwahed.
(He used to be a colonel in the KGB!)
Yes – the NAFTA Highway euthanized my Grandma.
But my AK-47’ll keep me free!

(This is only one tiny example of "Why I don't make a living in country-western music"!)

What we need...

... is a catchy country-western song.

I've got a title:

The NAFTA Highway Euthanized My Grandma

If I get any further I'll let you know.
(suggestions welcome!)

If I were in charge of advertising...

... for the DNC, I'd run a spot a long these lines:

Do you like Social Security?
- So do we! We're the Democrats who brought you Social Security in 1935 under FDR... over the strenuous objections of Senate & House Republicans!

Oh - and for what it's worth:

Social Security is run by the United States Government!

George Bush and Congressional Republicans wanted to kill Social Security in 2005!

Do you like Medicare?
- So do we! We're the Democrats who brought you Medicare in 1965 under LBJ... over the strenuous objections of the Senate and House Republicans!

Oh - and, for what it's worth:

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government

Today, Senate and House Republicans are again up in arms against Democrats for suggesting that it is the right of every American citizen to have access to affordable, high-quality, timely healthcare.

You like Social Security and Medicare.
You'll like the Democratic Health Care bill!

Of course, I'm not in charge of the DNC's advertising.

You can't make up this stuff!

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
[How House Bill Runs Over Grandma, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 31, 2009]

Uh... Stephen Hawking DOES live in the U.K. - he holds Newton's old chair at Cambridge (Lucasian Professor of Mathematics)!

As it turns out, he's lived his entire life in the U.K.:

Born: 8 January 1942; Oxford, England.

After Stephen was born, the family moved back to London, where his father headed the division of parasitology at the National Institute for Medical Research.
...
In 1950, Hawking and his family moved to St Albans in Hertfordshire where he attended St Albans School from 1950 to 1953. ...
He enrolled at University College, Oxford with the intent of studying mathematics... After receiving his B.A. degree at Oxford University in 1962, he stayed to study astronomy.
He left Oxford for Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he engaged in the study of theoretical astronomy and cosmology...
...
After gaining his Ph.D., Stephen became first a Research Fellow, and later on a Professorial Fellow at Gonville and Caius College.

Hawking was elected as one of the youngest Fellows of the Royal Society in 1974, was created a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1982, and became a Companion of Honour in 1989.
[Wikepedia entry, Stephen Hawking]

Tell me again how the U.K. healthcare system would've killed him???

... another exercise in futility

My letter to Sarah Palin:

Mrs. Palin:

If you intend to be taken seriously on the national political stage, you might want to start by taking yourself seriously.

Your recent, now well-publicized Facebook posting regarding the various healthcare bills now under debate in Congress is a case in point:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

You're right! - Such a system would be downright evil!!!

Can you identify the sections/paragraphs of ANY version of the current health-care bill in Congress that implies the creation of a “death panel”, or that individual end-of-life decisions will be determined by ANYONE other than the individual and his/her family based on “level of productivity in society”?

No, you can’t. You can’t because THERE ARE NO SUCH PROVISIONS!

Please, if you must speak on issues of national policy, speak with knowledge!
Otherwise, though your ill-informed rantings may appeal to 20% of the electorate, 20% has never won an election.

Sincerely,

I'm not sure why I'm offering sound political advice to Palin, but it was fun to write the letter.

FYI: her address is

1140 W Parks Hwy
Wasilla, AK 99654

An exercise in futility

Rush Limbaugh sees a distinct and sinister similarity.

I just sent him an email with this image:

This is the patch adopted by the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1902.

I suggested that Rush probably sees the caduceus in the U.S. Army Medical Corps patch surrounded by a big "Obama O" - a clear indication that even in 1902 - before Obama's parents were born - the Illuminati had determined to elect Obama the anti-Christ.

Yes, I know this email was futile... but it was fun!

The sub-text: Republicans believe the USA is a small, weak country

[Congressman (R-VA)] Cantor said that instead of focusing on issues such as Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, Obama should concentrate on “the primary issue of import … and that is the existential threat that Iran poses not only to the state of Israel but to the United States.”
[Cantor-led GOP delegation to Israel undermines U.S. policy on settlements. ; emphasis added]

Congressman Cantor believes Iran poses an existential threat to the United States.
Iran!

This is reminiscent of W-era rhetoric that Iraq posed an existential threat to the U.S.
Two small countries on the other side of the globe, posing an existential threat to America!

America must be a pretty weak nation!

Is this what Congressman Cantor believes, that America is a weak nation???

Come to think of it, I should have seen this before.
Psychologists assure us that bullying, bravado behavior covers up deep insecurity.
The only plausible conclusion?
Republicans really do believe that the USA is a weak, threatened nation.
This is quite different from their rhetoric of "American exceptionalism".

The next time you hear a Republican politician citing Iran as an "existential threat" to America, call him on it!
(note: I just wrote a snailmail letter to Congressman Cantor.)

update: here's my letter

Dear Congressman Cantor:

You were recently quoted as saying that President Obama should not focus on settlements, but on:

“... the primary issue of import [regarding Israel and the MidEast]… and that is the existential threat that Iran poses not only to the state of Israel but to the United States.”

Do you really believe that Iran poses an “existential threat” to America?
Do you really believe that the USA is a weak country – so weak that Iran could be a true “existential threat” to it?

If so, you don’t believe in the same America as I do.
Iran may be an annoying fly, buzzing around my face – but an “existential threat”???

Me? I’ll do my best to let the world – and your constituents – know what a poor opinion you have of my country!

Sincerely,

Pragmatism

Many (most?) of my posts betray a liberal/"progressive" ideological bent.
Nevetheless, I consider myself a pragmatist: do what works.
(... with a clear notion of exactly what it is the policy is supposed to achieve. Careful readers will note that I'm big on "strategic objectives": what is it we want the world to look like next year? In two years? In five years? - whether in Iraq or in our economy.)

As a liberal 'pragmatist', I'm generally willing to give just about anything a shot. Does it work? Great! Let's keep doing it.
If it doesn't work, let's honestly admit defeat and try something else.

My conservative colleagues don't see it this way.
They prefer ideology above all else - who cares if it doesn't work?

Stated goal: prevent teen preganancy and reduce incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases.
Solution #1: "abstinence only" education.
Result: Teen pregnancy and syphilis up sharply during Bush years.

Stated goal: reduce Americans' use of bad drugs & reduce the illegal drug trade.
Solution #1: "War on Drugs". (The term was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1969)
Result: Drug use in America unchanged; Mexican & Colombian drug cartels run rampant.
[aside: Prohibition had a similar effect - Americans kept drinking while Organized Crime flourished.]

I'll concede: maybe it's best that teens abstain from sex.
Maybe it's best that no one snorts coke.
BUT: teens WILL have sex and folks WILL snort coke!

Let's find policies that accomplish the stated goals.
You want to reduce teen pregancy & control STDs?
Getting teens to stop having sex is not realistic.
How 'bout we teach 'em about contraception & prophylactics to reduce STDs?
[Even our esteemed Republican opposition seems to concede - by their actions - that prohibiting sex is not a realistic goal!]

Drug use? With absolutely NO corroborating data I assert that the cost to society of unconstrained drug use would be far less than the cost of interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration is today.
... AND: legalizing the trade would put drug cartels out of business! - automatically curtailing the trade in automatic weapons as a beneficial side-effect!
I have a more-or-less relevant analogy to hand: Prohibition.
Yes, alcoholism is bad - but the cost to society of lost productivity & treatment is FAR LESS than the cost incurred by interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration... AND - organized crime was crippled by Repeal! (till they discovered heroin...)

Conservatives oughta love this! - the Evil Government can't dictate what the proud, resourceful individual can or cannot ingest! - It's the proud, resourceful individual's body - let him use it as he pleases!

The neocon 'pre-emptive war' in Iraq? Maybe it was a great idea.
It didn't accomplish the stated goal of keeping us safer!
- If anything, it made us less safe - now we're truly despised by the Muslim world! (... as opposed to simply loathed... )

So, yeah - let's give policies a fair chance to succeed...
BUT: when they clearly fail, let's try something different!

Food for thought

Fellow curmudgeon & ABQ blogger Woody (The Well-Armed Lamb) notes in comments that (slightly paraphrased):

If two female Iranian "journalists"--there are such, of course--were apprehended entering the US through Mexico, where they were ginning up resentment toward the USA...

I don't think it would be an exaggeration to imagine they'd have been sliced, diced, and incarcerated faster than you could shake a stick at. And no visiting Islamic potentate could have EVER arranged for their release.

If we as a county want to continue to assert our moral superiority, it's time for more than a little self-examination, confession, and penance.

this doesn't sound good...

WASHINGTON – On at least a dozen recent flights by U.S. jetliners, malfunctioning equipment made it impossible for pilots to know how fast they were flying,federal investigators have discovered.
[AP Enterprise: Airspeed systems failed on US jets, By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer, 7 Aug 2009]

Good thing I'm not planning to fly anywhere anytime soon!

Where's H.L. Mencken when you need him?

"Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
[H.L. Mencken]

Mencken also noted that:

The Puritan's utter lack of aesthetic sense, his distrust of all romantic emotion, his unmatchable intolerance of opposition, his unbreakable belief in his own bleak and narrow views, his savage cruelty of attack, his lust for relentless and barbarous persecution-- these things have put an almost unbearable burden up on the exchange of ideas in the United States."
[A Book of Prefaces, H.L. Mencken, 1917]

This is probably not an accurate description of 'Puritans', but it does describe today's conservatives:

anti-abortion, anti-contraception (sex for pleasure is bad!)

anti-welfare (lest the undeserving poor benefit!)

anti-drugs (way too cheap a good time!... and you shouldn't be getting high at any price!)

Pointless aside: I'm reminded of an anecdote - source now long-forgotten - regarding St. Paul:

He would've recommended married couples give up sex for Lent,
... but feared folks would then look forward to Easter for the wrong reason!

Among the arguments against universal health-coverage is that illegal aliens would benefit. Again, conservatives would prefer to deny benefits to 99.99% of the population, just to ensure that the "undeserving" .01% don't get a free ride!
Back in the day this was known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

The 'puritans' Mencken attacked are still with us, pretty much unchanged.
And they are still putting "an almost unbearable burden up on the exchange of ideas in the United States."
We need a Mencken to combat 'em!!!

Digression: A friend recently noted that on her trip to Greece she broke her foot. Her total bill to take care of this was something less than $20 - thanks to Greece's evil socialized medicine.
... and - as she noted - she was a TOURIST, not a Greek citizen!

Again I ask: what's wrong with socialism?

Just for fun: St. Reagan & Medicare

The doctor begins to lose freedom. . . . First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then doctors aren’t equally di­vided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him, you can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. . . . All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
...
And if you don't do this [write your Representative opposing Medicare] and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

This is St. Reagan in 1961, opposing Congressional passage of Medicare.

Why does this sound so familiar TODAY?

One of the most successful, most popular Government programs was opposed in 1961 using exactly the same scare tactics being employed today!
Well, the opposition are "conservatives"! - Might as well 'conserve' the arguments, too - makes thinking unnecessary!

Would Boehner & McConnell advocate abolishing laws governing child labor, workplace safety, the 40-hr-workweek, and the minimum wage?
- Just go back to the pure, unbridled capitalism of the 1800s?
... Maybe they would.
Let's find out.

Willful ignorance: pride in and propagation thereof

From a purely etymological perspective, I understand that "conservatives" want to maintain the health-insurance status quo. Yeah - if I were reaping big bucks from the current system, I wouldn't want to change it either.
So, yes: I fully comprehend Big Health's and Big Insurance's desire to kill reform.

But why do average citizens accept this point of view? What's in it for them? They're getting screwed by Big Health & Big Insurance. They'd benefit from the 'public option'. Lots of 'em are benefitting NOW from govt-provided health-insurance in the form of Medicare and Medicaid.

The conservative 'average citizen' seems to take an unfathomable pride in willful, deliberate ignorance.
-Earth?
6000 years old.
(Q: 'Were you there at the creation?'
A: "No! - but I know somebody who was, and He wrote it down!")

-Global-warming?
"Scientific" mumbo-jumbo - and we all know scientists are evil - just watch "Them!" (giant ants created by A-bomb fallout)

-Govt-sponsored health insurance?
Just another liberal trick to euthanize grandma!
(... and force your daughter to get an abortion!!!)

-Socialism? AUGGHHH!!!!! - evil, bad, dastardly, diabolical.
'But what about Medicare?' - "Medicare isn't a govt program!"
... one of Reagan's economic advisers - Laffer [he of the 'Laffer curve'... labeled by George H.W. Bush as 'voodoo ecomonics'] - actually implied this!... recently!)

Why are these folks so willing to believe that Obama is the Anti-Christ, determined to euthanize all non-productive citizens?

Why is government protection from the ravages of unchecked, unbridled capitalism evil?

Again: I can understand Big Health & Big Insurance wanting folks to believe these things... but why are conservative citizens so willing to suspend disbelief and swallow the propaganda???
["Drinking the Kool-Aid" is the expression that comes to mind... and more than just a bit apt: in swallowing the pill, "drinking the Kool-Aid", these just plain average folks are committing suicide - and they don't even know it!]

It baffles me.

From a loyal reader (a long-postponed post)

One of the recent developments in the 'screaming mobs at townhalls' story is the observation that the Dems were completely blind-sided by this Republican strategy.

Back in June, fellow ABQ blogger and loyal reader of PrivateBuffoon, PM Prescott (formerly Captain's Log, now at Family & Friends) directed my attention to an article on AlterNet:

The Far Right's First 100 Days: Getting More Extreme by the Day
By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future. Posted May 6, 2009
Sometime back in February, about three weeks into Barack Obama's administration, everybody on the left suddenly noticed that there was something different going on with the conservatives.

The outrageous screeds and paranoid delusions sounded pretty much as they always had -- but there was a new fury behind them, a strident urgency that hadn't been there before, and a very audible shift of the gears in right-wing behavior and rhetoric.
...
The far right wing has been laying the groundwork for violent action for decades. Long before they turn dangerous, political and religious groups take their first steps down that road by adopting a worldview that justifies eventual violent action.

The particulars of the narrative vary, but the basic themes are always the same:

First: Their story is apocalyptic, insisting that the end of the world as we've known it is near.

Second: It divides the world into a Good-versus-Evil/Us-versus-Them dualism that encourages the group to interpret even small personal, social or political events as major battles in a Great Cosmic Struggle -- a habit of mind that leads the group to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.
...
Third: This split allows for a major retreat from consensus reality and the mainstream culture.
...
Fourth: Insiders feel like they're a persecuted, prophetic elite who are being opposed by wicked, tyrannical forces.
...
Fifth: Communities following this logic will also advocate the elimination of their enemies by any means necessary in order to purify the world for their ideology.

The article (which runs to five [5] pages) goes on to note that:

There's been a quantum leap in the sheer down-the-rabbit-hole surreality of their beliefs about the world.

Since this was written, the so-called "Birthers" have become prominent (at least as measured by the amount of attention paid them by cable news channels), and the rhetoric being generated by anti-health-insurance reform folks is simply loony:
- The Dem's plan mandates euthanasia
- The Dem's plan eliminates private insurance
- Medicare is NOT a govt program
- Obama/Dems are Hitler/Nazis.

[note: the article gets scarier! Read it!!!]

If - as seems the case - our Dem representatives were surprised by the screaming mobs, they simply weren't paying attention.

The question remains: how to counteract the malignant lies and the thuggish 'political' discourse that spreads 'em?

Now here's an idea I could support!

"Maybe we need a netroots lobbying firm."
[We Already Know We Can Win Elections. Now How Do We Keep The Democrats' Attention After They Win?, Susie Madrak Friday Aug 07, 2009, C&L]

The article goes on to note:

"According to the candidates, they don't owe us a damned thing. (We're not alone in getting this kind of treatment, by the way. Women's and LGBT PACs are also invisible - once the candidates have won with the help of their all-important early money.)

We, on the other hand, thought we were supporting transformational candidates, people who would at least give us equal standing with the voters back home, and feel free to ignore the corporate lobbyists, knowing we had their backs. It hasn't worked that way."

Yes - the assumption that the 'netroots' candidates would feel some obligation to pursue 'transformational' policies was naive.
Particularly for House members, the campaign's the thing: the every-two-year cycle of elections pretty much necessitates raising campaign $$$ ALL THE TIME. If the $$$ come from well-heeled, industry-supported lobbyists, well - that's the way the game is played.

If the 'progressive' movement hopes to succeed - 'succeed' as in 'getting what we want' - we need to have a very large bank-account - not just during formal campaign seasons, but ALL THE TIME. It's not impossible, but it'll take some extraordinary organizational skills... just exactly the kind of skills that the diffuse, progressive netroots lack - we're in it for ideas & policies, not for politics!

eBay currency index

That 499.99 GBP item?
Today at $848.21!

The dollar dropping like a stone oughta improve our balance of trade - making U.S. goods cheaper abroad.
Are we still producing any goods for sale abroad???

makes ya miss W

Clinton, 2 journalists depart NKorea for US

What a fiasco! - Private Citizen Bill Clinton frees American journalists from North Korea.

What's the world coming to?
Rumor has it he actually MET with Kim Jong Il - talk about appeasement!

John Bolton is correctly outraged.

"It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists," Bolton told AFP when asked about Bill Clinton's trip to secure the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee."

I'm pretty sure Bolton would have preferred we launch a nuclear attack on Pyongyang.

A digression: in the area of domestic policy, conservatives have a very good grasp of argument & rhetoric - the object of arguing is to win, and 'winning' means getting what you want. They're quite good at this.
Why can't they generalize this to foreign policy? The object is to get what you want. In this case, the U.S. wanted North Korea to release the two journalists. North Korea released 'em. We won!

Needed: strategy & tactics.

How does one combat a well-funded, well-coordinated campaign based on lies, loud shouting, and media complicity?

With Dobbs, Matthews, and all of Fox willing to repeat GOP talking points as facts, with big $$$ insurance lobbyists and right-wing 'think tanks' willing to spend millions of $$$ to sponsor astro-turf mobs, and with no one paying any attention to the simple reality that we spend the most on health care but have close to the worst healthcare outcomes... well, in the face of this, what is the best strategy to adopt to win the war?... and what are the most effective tactics to win the battles??

If I knew the answers, I wouldn't be asking the questions.

... and if I'd produced the ad...

... I'd have focused more on "the party of NO!".

The bits of video coverage I've seen of Dem 'town-halls' being overtaken by screaming mobs have almost all ended with a chant:

Just say NO!

I'd take these "Just say NO!" video clips & segue into brief litany:

The U.S. faces its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Every Republican Congressman said "NO" to the economic stimulus package.

Every day, Americans are losing their homes and going into bankruptcy as a result of crippling medical bills.
Republican Senators are poised to vote "NO" on health insurance reform.

Judge Sotomayor is the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in more than a quarter century. She was named to the Federal Appeals Court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. She will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
Again, Republican Senators are poised to vote "NO" on her confirmation.

The Republican Party has NO ideas. Republicans are the party of "NO!"

DNC almost gets it right

DNC Goes All In: Takes On Birthers, Conservative "Mob" In New Web Ad.

The link includes embedded video of web ad, together with this commentary:

It includes a veritable greatest hits list of conservative attacks on Obama, looping it all together to make the case that "the right wing extremist Republican base" has overrun the GOP.

The bit in quotes is directly from the web ad.

They almost got it right... almost.
"The right wing extremist Republican base" hasn't overrun the GOP.
"The right wing extremist Republican base" IS the GOP!

Krugman says it best...

... regarding the wizards of Wall Street:

"If you aren’t outraged, you haven’t been paying attention."
[Rewarding Bad Actors, NYT, 3 Aug 2009]

Short, simple, to the point.

eBay currency index

The 'watched' item I've been following for some months today lists at $828.91.
The item has been a constant 499.99 GBP - this has equated to as low as about $695 to as high as today's quote: $828.91.
Today's is the highest $$$ equivalent price seen to date.

Not a good time for a European vacation (not for Americans, at least!).

"Let them eat cake."

Wall Street profits from trades with Fed
By Henny Sender in New York
Published: August 2 2009 23:04
FT.com
Wall Street banks are reaping outsized profits by trading with the Federal Reserve, raising questions about whether the central bank is driving hard enough bargains in its dealings with private sector counterparties, officials and industry executives say.

An argument can be made that Wall Street banks caused the current crisis. It is a simple fact that Fed & Treasury assistance kept them afloat through the worst of the financial crisis.
Why are they allowed to reap 'outsized profits' at our - tax-payers' - expense???

Meanwhile:

Prolonged Aid to Unemployed Is Running Out
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: August 1, 2009
Over the coming months, as many as 1.5 million jobless Americans will exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits, ending what for some has been a last bulwark against foreclosures and destitution.

The financial crisis caused by banks making bad loans and packaging these as fancy 'low risk' securities thereafter caused an economic crisis - lending stops, purchases stop, jobs evaporate.

... AND: while the big banks are reaping 'outsized profits' at our expense, Worker Compensation Grows by Lowest Amount On Record!

Seems to me it's time for a 'day of prayer and fasting' - a simple nation-wide general strike by the workers - white-collar and blue - to remind the geniuses of Wall Street just who it is that actually produces the goods and provides the services that drive our economy.
As I've mentioned before, I was for many years employed by a large industrial firm that in fact produced a tangible product - a product you could see, touch... hold in your hand.
The financial wizards of Wall Street? - I challenge 'em to point to their product! - it ain't there!!!
They 'manufacture' bonuses for their executives and traders, but have done a poor job performing the basic service of banking: providing $$$ to keep the economy going.
Without tax-payer generosity, they'd be failed banks.

Why shouldn't we be marching in the streets???

a return to the 19th century?

From HuffPost:

Worker Compensation Grows by Lowest Amount On Record
(AP): Employment compensation for U.S. workers has grown over the past 12 months by the lowest amount on record, reflecting the severe recession that has gripped the country.

The Labor Department said Friday that employment costs rose by 1.8 percent for the 12 months ending in June, the smallest annual gain on records that go back to 1982.

Meanwhile...

Bankers Reaped Lavish Bonuses During Bailouts
By LOUISE STORY and ERIC DASH, NYT
Published: July 30, 2009
Thousands of top traders and bankers on Wall Street were awarded huge bonuses and pay packages last year, even as their employers were battered by the financial crisis.

Most European countries were rocked by popular uprisings during the mid-19th century - mostly folks disgusted with the growing inequality 'tween rich & poor that followed the Industrial Revolution. Marx (with Engels) wrote Das Kapital.
The modern labor movement was born.

Do today's plutocrats really believe that such a popular uprising is impossible in 21st century America?
I don't.

my email to Sen. Bingaman

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is a member of the Senate Finance committee, chaired - as we all now know - by Sen. Max Baucus (D?-MT).

Here's the email (largely cribbed from PrivateBuffoon):

Senator Bingaman:
The U.S. is the only developed country that does not provide some form of government-subsidized universal health insurance.
We pay more per capita and more as a percent of GDP for health care than any other developed country, but on almost all measures of health outcome (life-expectancy, infant mortality, etc.) we are in the bottom half or lower.
(See, e.g., U.S. Health Care Spending:
Comparison with Other OECD Countries
CRS Report for Congress
September 17, 2007
[http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf])

If the Democrats in the Senate - you included - cannot provide a bill that includes a robust public option, what good are you???

I realize that you do not come up for re-election until 2012, but I'll be watching your rhetoric - and your votes - on this issue very carefully, and could well be a 'single issue' voter in 2012!!!

Please - don't be afraid of the 'socialism' epithet!
Socialism is good!
Who's to blame?... for

child-labor laws?
the Pure Food & Drug Act?
the 40-hr, 5-day work-week?
women's suffrage?
the Civil Rights Movement?

Pinko, commie, muckraking liberals, socialists and progressives! - that's who... including socialist, God-hating labor unions!!!

Pure, unbridled capitalism brought us:
- 8-year-olds losing fingers, hands, & arms in industrial looms
- the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire
- 80-hour work-weeks
- the Great Depression... and - oh, yeah! - the current economic meltdown!!!

Me? I'm rather in favor of the government protecting me from pure capitalist greed!

Sincerely,

Some blogger recently noted that the Republicans & Blue Dogs fear no consequences if meaningful health-care/-insurance reform fails. My one vote doesn't matter, but if more folks let their Senators know that position on health-care/-insurance reform is dominant "single-issue", maybe the Senate Dems would get the message.

p.s. note: the threat of "single-issue" vote in 2010/2/4 need not be sincere. ["Always be sincere whether you mean it or not."]

Musings on a subject about which I know nothing

"The T-34-85 in early 1944 gave the Red Army a tank with better armour and mobility than German Pzkw IV and Sturmgeschütz III, but it could not match the Panther in gun or armour protection. To the Soviet advantage there were far fewer Panthers than T-34s, and the T-34-85 was good enough to allow skilled crew and tactical situations to tip the balance."
[Wikipedia entry, T-34; emphasis added]

"At long range, the Sherman was badly outmatched by the Panther's 75 mm gun, which could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor. This contributed to the high losses of Sherman tanks experienced by the U.S. Army in the European Theatre of Operations (ETO)."
[Wikpedia entry, M4 Sherman]

German Panther & Tiger tanks were technically superior to either the Soviet T-34s or America's M4 Sherman: better armored, better armed.
The Allies - with their inferior tanks - won the war.

Both Shermans & T-34s were designed for manufacturability, and both were produced in huge numbers.
The German super-tanks, by contrast, were not easy to produce, and were simply numerically overwhelmed on the battlefields of Western & Eastern Europe.
... In addition, both Soviet and Western tank commanders and crews developed tactics to maximize the effectiveness of their tanks against the superior German machines.

Moving on.
I just watched a Military Channel program, "Planes of the Red Star" focusing on the MiG-21.
Paraphrased/remembered (hence, likely not accurate) commentary from the program:

Originally designed for daytime air-to-air combat, the airframe proved so reliable that it was soon adapted to ground support, light bombing, and night-fighting missions.
...
Soviet military doctrine required that the MiG-21 be reliable, easy to produce, and require little maintenance...
... the engines were not designed for long life, and were simply swapped out on a routine basis, the old engines being sent to the rear for refurbishing and rebuilding.

Wikipedia [Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21] reveals that:

"The fighter has the distinction of holding a number of modern aviation records; it is the most produced supersonic jet aircraft in aviation history, the most produced combat aircraft since the Korean War, and it had the longest production run of a combat aircraft (1959 to 1985 over all variants)."

So... why am I going off on this tangent???

I suggest that the Pentagon's focus on the latest/greatest high-tech weapons systems is foolhardy.
Producing reliable, highly-manufacturable, versatile machines - on the cheap - is a better doctrine.
The Third Reich had the best tanks of WWII.
- Germany lost tank battles to inferior, but plentiful, T-34s and Shermans.
We had the fanciest jet fighters in Vietnam.
- the MiG-21 was a formidable opponent.
Germany lost WWII.
We were chased from Vietnam.

My bet is that there are Military Specifications requiring field equipment to withstand radiation from a multi-megaton atomic blast within 10 miles.
My question: who's going to be operating that equipment after the blast?

Quite a few years ago I read somewhere - no, I don't recall where, or even the context - that 'insurgents' were winning against state-sponsored armies using RPGs & 50-cal machine guns mounted on the backs on light pickup trucks - overwhelming the enemy with numbers.

A recent New Yorker article (again, sorry - I don't recall the title or the date... within past few months) - noted that in publicly sponsored war-games, a Stanford researcher won hands down by deploying LOTS of small vessels - overwhelming the more traditional fleets deployed by the rest of the players.
He was accused of 'gaming' the rules... BUT THAT WAS THE OBJECT!!!
... and after a couple of years of dominance, he voluntarily withdrew from competition.

Why can't we learn from these examples???
Why are war-games rigged to support traditional thinking???

"Best" isn't needed.
"Good enough" will do... and "good enough" is a LOT cheaper!!!

aside: my vote for best bang-for-buck weapons system in U.S. arsenal: the venerable B-52 bomber, vintage 1955... sub-sonic, non-stealth.
It's still flying in active combat.

p.s. okay - my memory is improving... slightly. A focus of the New Yorker article was the coach of a girls' middle-school basketball team who'd been roped into the job somehow. Realizing that his daughter - on the team - and her team-mates weren't exceptional athletes, he coached the team to use a full-court press ALL THE TIME. Challenge the inbounds. Swarm the ball. Don't let the other team get past half-court. It worked. His team of none-too-talented girls made it to the national championships. He was accused of cheating... somehow using a full-court press ALL THE TIME was considered impolite.

Again: why can't our military-doctrine folks learn from these examples? [It's not like they're winning our current wars!]

p.p.s. Returning to one of my favorite subjects.
Even granting that our anti-ballistic-missile system can work (which I don't believe, but I'm willing to grant the premise): so what? Does it protect us?
NO!
Crude cruise missiles (think "V-1 flying bomb") with nukes launched from freighters off our coasts can defeat the system, destroying LA, San Francisco, Portland OR, Seattle, Boston, NYC, Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Houston... heck, with the St. Lawrence Seaway, even Chicago is vulnerable to a "V1 on freighter" attack!
The Maginot Line worked like a charm. The Germans did not penetrate it.
THEY WENT AROUND!

p.p.p.s. I found the New Yorker article!
How David Beats Goliath

p.p.p.p.s. One more note on Soviet MiG fighters.
"In 1976 Viktor BelenkoViktor Belenko, a Soviet MiG-25 pilot, defected to Japan. Subsequent analysis revealed a simple-yet-functional design with vacuum-tube electronics, two massive turbojet engines, and sparing use of advanced materials such as titanium."
[Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25; emphasis added]
Vacuum tube electronics... in 1976!!!
Please note the description: "simple-yet-functional design".
Recall: the Soviet Union did NOT lose to the West militarily!

The day Pat Buchanan saved my soul

17 August 1992.

At the time I was gainfully employed as a statistician with a large industrial firm.
Considering my education (Ivy League), my 'class' (upper-middle), my employment (geeky), and my employer (big industry), I was toying with the idea of voting for George H.W. Bush for a second term - perhaps, after all, the Republicans really did represent my interests better than the Dems... and I was none too sure about Clinton.

Then Uncle Pat delivered his speech at the Repubican National Convention in Houston.
I watched.

Immediately I recalled why I'd never voted for a Republican.

Thanks, Uncle Pat!
I've never wavered since.

Curmudgeons' night out

Thursday, 30 July, 7 p.m.
Ned's on the Rio Grande.
1100 Rio Grande Blvd NW
Albuquerque, NM

Join us!

Family Feud

Iran president defies supreme leader over deputy
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writers
22 Jul 2009
TEHRAN, Iran – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad showed rare defiance of his strongest backer, Iran's supreme leader, by insisting on his choice for vice president Wednesday despite vehement opposition from hard-liners that has opened a deep rift in the conservative leadership.

Where's Richard Dawson when we need him?

If I were betting, I'd bet on the hard-liners to eventually clearly, decisively, and forcefully exert their control. This isn't based on any deep understanding of Iranian politics, but only on the simple observation that "supreme leaders" really don't like to share power with anyone - no matter what the country's constitution might say.

Will they succeed? - If I knew the answer to that I'd be better off putting my ability to see the future to better use... 'better' from a purely personal, selfish perspective: cornering the next Big Deal in the market.

My preference would be for the regime to fall, as the Shah fell to them. Part of this preference derives from a desire for 'poetic justice', part from my antipathy towards theocracies, and part from my naive faith in real democracy.

What I really DON'T want to happen: the U.S. to undertake any military action against Iran - no matter how 'limited'!

[aside: Long ago, while teaching at UT El Paso, I had an Iranian student in my computer science class. This was during the Iranian Revolution, 1979-80. I asked him if everyday life back home seemed 'normal' despite the political upheaval. He smiled. "Normal? NO!"]

Calling all cars!

Friend Woody has suggested that it's about time for another curmudgeon/blogger social event.

If you're interested, let me know in comments!

... for what it's worth [update/edit]

Since 1979 (previous post's starting point), 95th %-ile of household income has increased by 78% (thru 2006).

During the same time, GDP increased by 225%.

Who's getting the $$$???
- the upper 1%!!!

update/edit: why 1979 as base year? My suspicion is that this year was chosen to illustrate St. Reagan's legacy.
Yeah, a rising tide lifts all boats... but the really fancy boats seem to be raised a whole lot more than the dinghies!
Though I'm not an economist, I suspect that Reagan's tax-cuts & 'trickle-down' economic theory can legitimately be cited as the cause of the widening gap 'tween rich folks & the rest of us.

Can we talk about wealth redistribution & socialism NOW?

Executives receive one-third of all pay in the U.S.
... Between 1979 and 2006, the inflation-adjusted after-tax income of the richest 1 percent of households increased by 256 percent, compared to 21 percent for families in the middle income quintile.

Please! - Let's talk about wealth redistribution & socialism!!!

It's a miracle!

U.S. Senate votes to stop production of F-22 jet

Now - can we start dismantling the ill-conceived so-called 'missile defense' program?... and the other very expensive, less-than-effective high-tech weapons programs?...
... and maybe invest defense $$$ in our troops? - the guys fighting - and losing to - under-funded 3rd-world insurgents.

The objective of war is to secure a more-or-less lasting peace.
Winning the peace requires controlling territory and populations.
So-called 'surgical' strikes by high-tech drones might take out bad guys, but they don't control territory or populations.
Boots on the ground just might.

[just for grins: conservative cost estimate of single F-22 = $150Mn. At $50K/troop, this is equivalent to 3000 boots-on-the-ground. The $150Mn does NOT include program cost, just 'sticker price'... excluding maintenance or 'cost of ownership'. The article cited above notes that the F-22 requires 30 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight-time. Me? I'd much rather have the 3000 boots-on-the-ground!]

No comment needed

Teen pregnancy and syphilis up sharply during Bush years

How come?

It's July - the middle of baseball season.
We get some half-dozen sports channels, including the MLB Network.

So how come there's never a LIVE baseball game on?
MLBN devotes its airtime to 'greatest games' of the past.
ESPN? - LOTS of 'World Series'... of poker! +lacrosse +soccer +NASCAR +NFL (??? - it's not even pre-season!)... and, recently, NBA 'greatest games'!... and LOTS of talking heads pontificating knowingly about... well - I can't tell you: I don't watch 'em.

Why no LIVE major-league baseball???

What I get is Fox's Saturday baseball telecast.
Seems to me this is less televised live baseball than I had as a kid, growing up with three (3) broadcast networks.

What's this country coming to???

'twixt Scylla & Charybdis

Pity the poor Republicans!

On the one hand, they are ideologically opposed to any 'public funding' of abortion:

"If you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that would be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that would encourage…single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion. If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our President grew up in those similar circumstances. If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother might have taken advantage of it? Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, if those circumstances were in place, is it possible that we’d have been denied his great mind?"
[Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), as reported by Think Progress]

[Hmmm... Barack Obama & Clarence Thomas - I wonder how he settled on those two examples???]

On the other hand, they're really afraid of the White Race losing its dominant position in America:

MADDOW: Why do you think is that of the 110 Supreme Court justices we've had in this country, 108 of them have been white?

BUCHANAN: Well, I think white men were 100 percent of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Probably close to 100 percent of the people who died at Normandy.

This has been a country built basically by white folks in this country who are 90 percent of the entire nation-in 1960, when I was growing up, Rachel-and the other 10 percent were African-American who had been discriminated against. That's why.
[The Rachel Maddow Show, Thurs, 17 Jul 2009]

... Um... Pat... can you think of any reasons African-Americans might not have participated in the country's founding?... something about "three fifths of all other Persons" comes to mind - or did you miss that day in 8th-grade Civics?
... and - for what it's worth - blacks in uniform DID die at Gettysburg & Vicksburg... and Normandy!
[My bet is Uncle Pat isn't all that crazy about the 15th, 19th or 24th Amendments!... and the Golden Age - 1960 - to which Uncle Pat refers was before the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 prohibited so-called "literacy tests" and the 24th Amendment prohibited poll taxes!]
(... finally: does Uncle Pat really believe that W got into Yale and Harvard Biz School based on his SAT and GMAT scores? What promising, qualified white students were denied the Ivy League for W's "legacy" admissions???)

Then we have Brian Kilmeade on Fox and Friends explaining why a Scandinavian medical study is irrelevant to the U.S.:

KILMEADE: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics--
...
The problem is the Swedes have pure genes. They marry other Swedes, that's the rule. Finns marry other Finns; they have a pure society. In America we marry everybody. We will marry Italians and Irish.

Other species??? Ah, yes - the mongrel race we are becoming as a result of miscegenation!

You'd think these folks would be simply delighted to federally fund abortions to help control the super-libidinous fecundity of the colored races! - ESPECIALLY abortions for poor colored folks!!!

What's a good Republican to do???

... as if we needed another example

Health reform foes plan Obama's 'Waterloo'
... "I can almost guarantee you this thing won't pass before August, and if we can hold it back until we go home for a month's break in August," members of Congress will hear from "outraged" constituents, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said on the call, which was organized by the group Conservatives for Patients Rights.
...
"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said.
[reported by Politico.com, 17 July 2009; emphasis added]

All politics, all the time.

Senator DeMint seems to have forgotten that "We the people of the United States" ordained and established the Constitution to

promote the general welfare.

But who can blame him.

Recall St. Reagan:

"Government is not the solution, it's the problem."
[Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981]

... and 8 years of Republican mis-governance led poor Gov. Jindal to conflate W's incompetent governance with Government in his response to Obama's first State of the Union.

For Republicans it's always all politics, all the time.
Forget that the U.S. pays more for health care than any other developed country, but ranks in the bottom half with respect to health care results. [see U.S. Health Care Spending:
Comparison with Other OECD Countries, CRS Report for Congress, Sep 2007]

No - that doesn't matter.

Forget that medical bills are bankrupting folks WITH health insurance.
[Insured ... and broke
Andrea Orr, Economic Policy Institute, 14 July 2009]

No - that doesn't matter.

All that matters is making Obama look bad.

What a surprise!

Iraq government faces claims of prisoner abuse

Gee - I wonder who taught 'em to abuse prisoners?

There go the ratings!

Tiger Woods misses the cut at British Open

"... and that's the way it was..."

Walter Cronkite, 1916-2009.

Taking over the CBS News anchor desk in 1962 was close to perfect timing. What did he get to tell us about?
- Kennedy assassination
- Civil Rights movement
- moon landing
- Vietnam - both the war & the anti-war movement
- King & RFK assassinations
- Watergate
- the Beatles

... and it was a good time to be in broadcast journalism technologically: the advent of satellite communications, with the microchip just around the corner.

Tho' my memory ain't that great, I don't recall Cronkite - or Huntley/Brinkley, or Reasoner - being either fawning or combative towards the regime. Since I never watch network news today, all I've got for comparison is KO's & BO's shrillness - tho' neither of them really pretends to be a 'journalist'.

For what it's worth, the myth of journalistic objectivity is just that - a myth. For most of the free press's history it has been dominated by parties. Perhaps the mid/late 20th century will stand out to future historians of journalism as an aberration, during which 'news' was supposed by all to be 'objective'.
Simply in choosing which stories to report, which to put on page 1 - or to put at the top of the broadcast - journalists, editors, & producers exercise arbitrary, subjective judgement.

Rest in peace, Mr. Cronkite.

the conservative mind at work

Buchanan: Well, first, with regard to Levi, I think First Dude up there in Alaska, Todd Palin, ought to take Levi down to the creek and hold his head underwater until the thrashing stops.
[from Think Progress]

Good Catholic, anti-abortion guy Buchanan is more than happy to suggest killing someone for saying bad things about Palin.

Why is this always the conservative's response to challenge?
- "Just kill 'em!"

Will this be enough?

... On the subject of oversight, the report particularly criticizes John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote legal memos defending the policy.
...
The report questioned the legal advice used by Bush to set up the program, pinpointing omissions and questionable legal memos written by Yoo, in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The Justice Department withdrew the memos years ago.

The report says Yoo's analysis approving the program ignored a law designed to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance during wartime, and did so without fully notifying Congress. And it said flaws in Yoo's memos later presented "a serious impediment" to recertifying the program.
[Report: Too few officials knew of surveillance; emphasis added]

Will this be enough for UC Berkeley to finally reconsider Yoo's law school tenure???

There's a name for this

Report: Too few officials knew of surveillance

There's a name for a government that asserts the unlimited right to spy on its citizens, in secret:

Police State!

W: the gift that keeps on giving.

Just for fun

Loyal reader writes:

Hey, man, you don't talk to the Buffoon. You listen to him. You read him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll, uh, well, you'll say hello to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you, and he won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say do you know that if is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you . . . I mean I'm no, I can't . . . I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's, he's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas...

Attentive readers will recognize this as Dennis Hopper's rambling tribute to Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) in Apocalpyse Now... with "the Buffoon" replacing "the Colonel".

In fact, I like the idea of "the Buffoon" as "Kurtz"! -
Now: how do I realize that persona via the blog???

eBay currency index

The dollar seems to be rebounding.
eBay item previously listed at around $825 is now at $804.36.
(The price in GBP has been constant: 499.99... once upon a time this was less than $700!)

Lazy man's post (health care)

Finally - healthcare is bubbling up in the news.
Here are a couple of my past contributions:

Public Service Announcement: U.S. Health Care system
Highlight:

Based on OECD ("Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development") statistics, the report reveals that the U.S. spends more per capita ($6102) than any other of the 30 member countries; more on health care as percentage of GDP (15.3%) than any other of the 30 member countries...
YET: ranks near the bottom on several "outcome" measures, including life-expectancy (22nd of 30), and infant-mortality (28th of 30).

Alone... why???
Highlight:

We are the only developed country in the world without universal health coverage.
Why???

... and, NO: I don't want to read any headlines along the lines of "White House caves on public option"!

Pointless

My wife and I have a dog & 5 cats.
While the kids were growing up we always had cats, frequent gerbils, lizards, a boa constrictor, a garter snake, and a few dogs.
We like animals.

Many years ago Time Magazine had a cover, Can Animals Think? [22 Mar 1993]
My thought then and now:

This question was asked by someone who maybe has read about animals in books... but never actually seen one!

Yes! Animals can think.

Happy July 4th (a bit late!)

Your homework: re-read the Declaration of Independence.

Given the recent hysteria regarding immigration, my favorite complaint against George III is:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Darn!... + again, my inattentiveness proves positive

Palin resigns as Alaska's governor.
Darn! - I'd hoped to have Sarah to kick around in 2012!

... then again, my inattentiveness seems to be reaping rewards.
Back when I posted daily, and read & listened to the news, it was all simply depressing.
Since I've been neglecting events, good things seem to be happening.

... and I - with many other commentators - am waiting for the other shoe to drop. WHY did Palin resign???

just for fun... and bragging

70, Girls, 70 had a successful (sold-out) opening weekend...
... including a pretty decent review [login required], from which I quote:

"Russ Sype's rubbery, eye-rolling Harry recalls his years of lame on-stage joke-telling."

I've never before been described as "rubbery"... a description completely at odds with the stiffness I feel at the end of each performance.

Nevertheless, I'll take it as a compliment.

I'll also take as a compliment the remarks of 5 different people from 2 different performances:

"Has anyone ever told you how much you look like Harvey Korman?"

Well... NO!
In fact, I do NOT look like Harvey Korman... but my on-stage persona, Harry, apparently does.
I'll credit my amazing acting ability...
(Though 'Harvey Korman' was not what I'd envisioned, I'm more than happy to learn that that's how "Harry" turned out!)