Category Archives: Current Events

Glenn Greenwald reports on a pattern he's discovered: American military forces bomb some enemy turf and triumphantly report that a senior Al Qaeda leader (or other known terrorist) was probably killed. And later, it turns out that the report was false. He says this happens all the time and lists enough examples that…well, if it doesn't happen all the time, it sure seems to happen a lot of the time.

If you still feel the health bill should have been a lot better, read Nate Silver. He makes a pretty convincing argument that it's pretty good.

I was up working at 4 AM Pacific Time so I got to watch live on CSpan as the Senate passed the Health Care Reform bill this morning. I have decided it's a good thing…or at the very least, it will become a very good thing with fixes and amendments yet to come. Conversely, I feel that not passing anything of the sort — and I see no reason to assume that the Republicans currently in power ever would — would be a bad thing. I am not as Liberal on all issues as some of my correspondents believe but, you know, they say a Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged. A militant for Health Care Reform is a middle-of-the-road guy who's had friends go bankrupt or even (literally) die because they couldn't afford or qualify for health insurance. The statistics show it's a common malady verging on an epidemic.

Some of the criticisms of the bill strike me as out-and-out lies; of folks who'll say anything to kill it believing too fervently their own fibs. But some of the complaints are on-target and valid and will need to be addressed. For what it's worth, the Howard Dean contingent convinced me there are flaws but not that we shouldn't take what we can get now, commit to the goal and begin getting more people covered. An awful lot of human beings would lose their lives or homes while we waited for a bill that got all the bugs out…and it probably still wouldn't get more than 60 votes. Heck, if Joe Lieberman didn't see it as a way to make insurance companies richer, it wouldn't even get 60.

Jonathan Chait summarizes why he thinks this is a great bill. I'd like to be as enthusiastic as he is, and I hope he's proven right. Right now, I'm viewing it as just a real good start.

Fred Kaplan thinks nuclear-arms accords are a waste of time.

Chris Cillizza offers up thought on a president's (any president's) first year in office.

I am not displeased by Obama's, though some of that is because Bush lowered the bar so damn low. I mean, Obama could sell a couple of states as cheap Buy It Now offers on eBay and we'd still say, "Well, he's better than the last guy." I am disappointed that he's reversed himself or hedged on some progressive promises like ending "Don't ask, don't tell" and — despite his technical denial that he ever campaigned on the issue — a public insurance plan. But I also recognize that he's facing a Republican wing of Congress that would filibuster his order from Papa John's Pizza…so maybe it's all understandable.

By the way: I am still amazed that this president — who won't mention terms like "single payer insurance" or "more progressive taxation" is viewed as a "Communist" by so many of his opponents. One of the more interesting exchanges during the election, I thought, was when Jon Stewart was chatting with Bill Kristol and Kristol predicted (in a rare instance of William Kristol being right about anything) that Obama would be a fairly moderate, slightly-left-of-center Chief Exec. Mr. Stewart then made the comment, with which Kristol could scarcely disagree, that folks like him knew that and believed that…but were willing to paint the guy as a Commie because they thought it would get votes.

I think that is still the basic operating strategy of the Republican party. What I don't get is why if they're going to call Obama a Stalinist no matter what he does, he doesn't just figure he might as well lean a little more to the left…say, about as far as Richard Nixon did.

Wow. A guy who phoned in to CSpan this morning identified himself as part of a "teabag group" in Waycross (Waycross, Georgia, I guess) and was almost in tears as he asked a question of Senator John Barrasso. The caller had been praying for Senator Robert Byrd to die or be otherwise unable to show up for the Health Care vote. He was concerned that since Byrd had shown up but Senator James Inhofe hadn't, perhaps the prayers got misdirected and took out one of their boys, instead.

Can we count the number of ways this is wrong? I don't believe prayers ever affect this kind of thing either way but this guy obviously does. What kind of sick puppy would you have to be to want to use that "power" to cause the death of another human being? Especially another human being who was on his way to vote to expand health insurance — and to therefore probably save an awful lot of lives?

Let's give the guy the benefit of way more doubt than he deserves and assume he wasn't just worried that the bill would raise his taxes. Let's say he honestly thought this bill would cost lives…which I think is a big lie but let's say the man bought into it. Wouldn't then the appropriate prayer be for all Democrats (not just Robert Byrd) to come to their senses and change their votes? That wouldn't change the outcome either, but at least you wouldn't be turning God into an assassin.

And of course, there's the whole inane assumption here that you pray for the death of Person A and since God is so confused and has such lousy aim, he kills Person B, instead. So he's not only an assassin, he's a stupid, inept one, at that.

But the worst part of the whole thing is that Senator Barrasso just sat there and told the caller that Senator Inhofe was probably fine and that his vote wasn't needed today. He did not say, "You should be ashamed of yourself for praying for the death of another human being!" As any decent person would.

The more I read about the Health Care Reform bill, the more I like it. It's not everything it oughta be but in this political climate, and with the Dem's 60 vote majority including folks like Lieberman and Ben Nelson, it ain't too shabby. There's a chart over at the bottom of this page that summarizes some of the good things to come out of it, particularly as compared to doing nothing, which appears to have been the alternative. I'd also refer you to this piece by Ezra Klein which answers some of the more strident (and not completely unfounded) complaints from the Left. I do think a lot of the critics of the plan are simply caught up in the act of believing their own lies or misunderstandings.

I'm also hopeful that the reform won't stop with this bill. One matter that always rankled me was that Obama had, once upon a time, pledged to reopen the pharmaceutical marketplace to foreign reimports. That's where you and I get to buy medications for the same, lower price that Canadians pay for products manufactured in the same labs to the same specifications. That pledge was forgotten when it came time to get the major pharmaceutical companies on board for the current reform…and perhaps that was necessary. But the White House is making noises like they're going to revisit the issue and that's nice to hear.

How much will the new Health Care arrangement actually cost your typical American family? Well, here's an article that tries to explain that and if you don't have time to read it, here's a chart with a lot of information. Let me know if you come across any assertions of other numbers.

60 Democrats voted a few hours ago for cloture on the Health Care Reform bill. That should signal its imminent passage but I dunno. I just have this feeling that the Republican leadership will come up with some arcane rule or Constitutional issue or something to delay passage on Harry Reid's timetable. Not that they'll be able to block the bill or that they think they can stop it…but I sure get the feeling they think their constituency will reward them for stalling it a bit, making Democrats squirm and sweat a little more. Going to be an interesting week.

Matt Taibbi talks about pork and payoffs that get added to the Defense Bill each year, usually at the expense of things like pay for our soldiers or body armor for our soldiers. Our soldiers are sacred in a curious way. You're not allowed to speak ill of them or to suggest that their leaders have sent them off on the wrong mission. But when someone cuts their benefits or deprives them of equipment that might save their lives, no one on the right or the left has much of a problem with that.

This chart has appeared on a couple of other websites lately. I stole it for mine because I think it summarizes a fundamental problem we have in this country. In every poll, Americans say they want lower taxes, a balanced budget and deficit reduction. Fine. So do you. So do I. So does just about everyone. But when you ask people to get more specific about where they want to see cuts, you find that the answer is "Almost nowhere." They want more money spent on education. They want more money spent on veterans' benefits. They want more money spent on health care. Et cetera. The only place where there's any substantial willingness to slash is foreign aid…and foreign aid is less than 1% of the federal budget so cutting there isn't going to save much cash.

I don't have any great insights or ideas here. I just thought we need to stare this problem in the face. It's political dynamite to start slashing in any of these categories. If you cut education, you're harming children. If you cut veterans' benefits, you hate the troops. If you cut health care, people die. And so it goes.

Much ado was made about nothing yesterday when Al Franken, presiding over the Senate debate on Health Care, refused a request by Joe Lieberman to extend his speaking time beyond the allotted ten minutes. I first heard about it in an online link that referred to a "smackdown" and said something about "payback." But when I clicked and watched the video, it turned out to be a perfectly normal, civil exchange. Franken was enforcing a policy that applied to all, not just to Lieberman, and he said nothing insulting about Lieberman or the speech in progress. Lieberman accepted it with a smile. No fits, no fights, no feuds and no egos.

Two things made this into more than it was. First, tempers are raging about the Health Care Reform Bill and both sides saw a way to spin the exchange to their advantage. If you were for the bill, you could view it as that putz Lieberman finally getting slapped. If you were against the bill, you could see it as Al Franken demonstrating how rude Democrats can be to a fine statesman like Joe Lieberman. But if you think it was either, I think you weren't paying attention.

And then to make it worse, along comes John McCain, who rarely lets not knowing what he's talking about stop him from talking about something. He grabbed the floor and with outrage in his voice, insisted he'd never before seen a Senator refused an extra minute or so to conclude his remarks. In fact, as many have since noted, it has happened before. It had happened an hour or so earlier in the same debate yesterday and there are cases where McCain himself has cut someone off. I am so glad this man is not President.

And yeah, there's this other factor, as there always is: The insatiable lust of cable news for reportable melodrama. They made it out to be a big story…but we don't have to believe it is. And we shouldn't. There are enough real fights going on in Washington — some even about things that matter — that I don't see why we have to make them up.

Foreign Policy magazine picks The 10 Worst Predictions for 2009. I'm kinda bummed that mine about the Washingon Nationals winning the World Series didn't make the list.

For what little the opinion of a guy who used to write Daffy Duck comic books may be worth, I've come to think that the current incarnation of the Health Care Reform bill ain't bad and might even turn out to be fairly good. It's probably bad compared to what it should be but it's not bad compared to what the Republicans (and a few red-state Democrats) want it to be…or to doing nothing, which would be pretty much the same thing. This post and this one by Nate Silver did a lot to bring me around to that viewpoint after I listened to Howard Dean yesterday. I also read a few posts which I can't find right now which dangled the following faint hope; that after they get this passed, Democrats could use the reconciliation process to ram through a few more cost-controlling measures.

I wonder if, by the way, Dr. Dean really meant that the bill should be killed…or if that was just his way of firing a warning shot that said, "Don't weaken it any further." He had to know that if this one went down to defeat, it would be a long time — like not in many substantially-shortened lifetimes — before a better one could be enacted. One hates to think what insurance prices would be then…and how far out of reach they'd be for many.

Yes, much of it probably amounts to a huge bailout/giveaway for insurance companies that are already making mega-profits off our unavoidable illnesses. It was kind of a pipe dream that it could be otherwise. They control this game…and since we get sick and have to play it, we play by their rules. Our elected officials simply get too much money from those interests to ever do anything that will stop them from making more money. That's pretty obvious when you note President Obama's reversal on a campaign pledge to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs. It would save the government a lot and it would save you and me even more…maybe even make life-saving medications affordable for some who need them. But that would cut into Pfizer grosses so forget about it. Ain't gonna happen.

(And don't you just love the rationale? "We couldn't guarantee the safety of imported prescription drugs." In this country, we eat imported cheeses. We drink imported wine. We wear imported clothes. We drive imported cars. But we have to be protected from possible danger if our Prilosec, which is made here, came to us via a pharmacy in Canada.)

So yeah, we're getting screwed. But a lot of people who didn't have health insurance before will have it now. You can't ignore that. It may be expensive but even if it is, think about how much we'd willingly spend to prevent another 9/11. On a cost-per-life-saved basis, this may be a lot cheaper.

Ezra Klein charts some of the stats on how many people die each year in this country because they don't have health insurance. One might quibble with some numbers and their interpretation but clearly, the totals are horrible and well into the "we gotta fix this" category. I think we will eventually…but it'll take much longer than it could or should, with many suffering and/or dying before we do. I honestly do not understand the reluctance to do what has to be done in this area, especially coming from folks who believed everything possible had to be done to prolong a human life when that life was Terri Schiavo's.