Tuesday - April 17, 2007
Just another day in Baghdad
Without in any way diminishing the horror of the events at Virginia Tech, it is worth bearing in mind that something similar happens in Baghdad almost every single day. Yet for the most part we ignore the profound impact this is having on regular Iraqis, who, like us, just want to go about their lives. I wonder if ever country is as self centered as ours. I don't think so. We appear to have succeeded to the 19th century notion that the British had of their own exceptionalism.
Tuesday - April 17, 2007
Polls
According to the New York Times I am among the most informed people in the country. Why? Because I watch fake news and I know the identity of the man who usurped the office of vice president of the United States:
Americans may have more news outlets today than two decades ago, but they still don’t know much more about current events than they did then, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
But here’s one big difference: the survey respondents who seemed to know the most about what’s going on — who were able to identify major public figures, for example — were likely to be viewers of fake news programs like Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report”; those who knew the least watched network morning news programs, Fox News or local television news.
Only 69 percent of people in the latest survey could come up with Dick Cheney when asked to name the vice president; in 1989, 74 percent could name Dan Quayle. Fewer could name the governor of their state (66 percent now compared with 74 percent in 1989) and fewer could name the president of Russia (36 percent now compared with 47 percent before).
It may come as no surprise that even by these rather lax standards, people who are least informed watch Fox News.
But before my left leaning readers let their heads swell too much, look at whose breathing down our necks:
The six news sources cited most often by people who knew the most about current events were: “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” (counted as one), tied with Web sites of major newspapers; next came “News Hour With Jim Lehrer”; then “The O’Reilly Factor,” which was tied with National Public Radio; and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.
So, while we're number one, two and three, (Gold, Silver and Bronze) they're tied for fourth (Tin, I guess). Of course, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh it stands to reason that you would know the vice president's name, since it's one of the few shows he appears on. Anyway, I'm at sea hear, since I always thought that the people who listen to Rush are the same people who watch Fox. Are there really enough people with dead brains to keep both of those propaganda mills in business?
Speaking of polls, Bush has hit a new low in this LA Times Poll (pdf) , from which we learn that the number of people who strongly disapprove of Bush's performance (46%), as opposed to only disapproving somewhat (16%) exceeds the total number of people who approve somewhat or strongly (36%). While this is surely good news for the Democrats, in terms of the next election, it is very bad or the country as a whole, when one considers the monumental stupidity necessary to produce a 36% per cent approval rating for the worst president in history.
The same poll gives Congress a 34% approval rating. That might sound bad, given that it's lower than Bush's, but in fact it's rather meaningless. It's an American tradition to scorn Congress as an institution. You might be able to get meaningful data by asking people if they approve of the job their own Congressperson is doing, and then do some comparisons Democrat vs. Republican.
Tuesday - April 10, 2007
Fun listening
The lawyers in the audience might get a kick out
of hearing the oral arguments in the case of U.S. v. Thompson, the politically
motivated case out of Wisconsin. You can listen here
.
The case was described by one of the judges on the panel as "beyond thin". Somehow (apparently with the help of a partisan judge-remember they're stocking the courts as well as the Justice Department) they managed to get a conviction against a civil servant for doing her job and trying to please her bosses. The facts are set forth well in the course of the argument, so give it a listen. The judge's bias seems evident from the fact that he was willing to jail the woman pending appeal when anyone in their right mind could have seen the substantial probability that the conviction would be overturned.
Pity the poor Assistant U.S. Attorney who was given the task of arguing this turkey. Just another indication that the U.S. Attorney involved (Steven Biskupic), besides being in Rove's pocket, must be a total [insert word for male appendage here]. It takes a special kind of coward to make a lower level guy take a pounding in a turkey case like this to spare yourself the trouble of facing the music in a situation you created yourself.
The case was described by one of the judges on the panel as "beyond thin". Somehow (apparently with the help of a partisan judge-remember they're stocking the courts as well as the Justice Department) they managed to get a conviction against a civil servant for doing her job and trying to please her bosses. The facts are set forth well in the course of the argument, so give it a listen. The judge's bias seems evident from the fact that he was willing to jail the woman pending appeal when anyone in their right mind could have seen the substantial probability that the conviction would be overturned.
Pity the poor Assistant U.S. Attorney who was given the task of arguing this turkey. Just another indication that the U.S. Attorney involved (Steven Biskupic), besides being in Rove's pocket, must be a total [insert word for male appendage here]. It takes a special kind of coward to make a lower level guy take a pounding in a turkey case like this to spare yourself the trouble of facing the music in a situation you created yourself.
Friday - April 06, 2007
McCain-the maverick that never was
The number of liberals who appear stunned to
discover that John McCain is a right wing hypocrite and not a pillar of
integrity is truly amazing.
Today at Truthout, William Rivers Pitt recounts McCain's recent dissolution as a viable national candidate, but includes this in his piece:
Once upon a time, John McCain was a man who commanded and deserved great respect. Beyond the awe-inspiring courage and strength that marked his Vietnam service was the integrity he displayed, for the most part, in his political life. While his conservative views did not jibe with many, there was something about his conduct in office, his independence of thought within the rigid confines of his party, that made Americans stand up and take notice. Even the scandals involving him, most notably the embarrassing Keating Five debacle, did not permanently tarnish his image.
I have nothing to say about his Vietnam experience. Let's stipulate that it was all anyone could ask. It is, nonetheless a fact, that a person can display great physical courage and be entirely lacking in moral courage. Even if we also stipulate for the moment that McCain was a paragon of virtue at some point, in the last few years he had demonstrated beyond doubt that the ability to withstand physical torture (at least for a while) does not translate into the ability to withstand political pressure or the dark side of one's own ambition.
But, in fact, there is little, if anything about McCain's political career that would lead one to the conclusion that he has ever had more integrity than the run of the mill Republican politician-which is to say, not much. He first made news as a member of the Keating Five, only to resurrect himself as a presidential contender in 2000, where he saw that his best chance at beating the establishment candidate was by portraying himself as somehow different. Easier done than said, given the willingness of the press to swallow his malarky whole.
It was to his political advantage then to take on the Republican insiders (Falwell, Roberts, et. al.) that were backing Bush. If he ran a less dirty campaign than Bush it was only because he hadn't yet been properly schooled. He has no intention of making that mistake again, since he's currently stocking up on the scum of the Republican party (that's very scummy by the way), the most recent addition to his stable being a fellow who "counted Jews" for Richard Nixon. If he had any real objection to these people, he wouldn't hire them.
It comes down to this-just because you say you talk straight, doesn't mean that you do. In fact, only in politics (and maybe only in American politics) is anyone willing to believe that a person who constantly trumpets his own integrity is likely to have much of that quality. Other than proclaim his own un-forked tongue in 2000, what did McCain ever do before that year to earn a reputation for integrity or independent thinking, not to mention independent doing? After 2000, with a higher national profile, he had a habit of maverick talking and herdlike voting. There are a large number of otherwise fairly intelligent people who have a habit of projecting their own beliefs on to certain political figures. The 1992 (or was it 96) boomlet for Colin Powell is a good example. Lot's of people preferred to believe he was on their side, when they had no idea where he stood on anything. There are elements of this tendency in the Obama candidacy.
Fundamentally, people don't change all that much, particularly when they are in their 60s. If John McCain had more regard for principles in 2000 than he did for his own ambition, then he would be able to keep that ambition in check today. He can't, as his shameless courting of the very people that smeared him in 2000 demonstrates.
Today, by the way, we hear from 60 minutes, that McCain is sorry he "misspoke" about his recent trip to Iraq:
Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he misspoke in comments he made about security in Baghdad and acknowledged that heavily armed troops and helicopter gunships accompanied him when he visited a market there. McCain tells this to Scott Pelley in his first interview since the visit for a 60 MINUTES report that will include the only video camera footage of McCain’s market visit, to be broadcast Sunday, April 8 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT).
In two interviews before the Army took McCain and 60 MINUTES on the heavily guarded visit to the al-Shorja market last Sunday, the senator said security had improved in Iraq. Upon his return, he also told a news conference he had just come back from a neighborhood one could walk around in freely. The remarks made headlines and he now regrets saying them. “Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future,” says McCain. “I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that’s just life,” he tells Pelley, adding, “I’m happy, frankly, with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun.”
My little computer dictionary contains two definitions for "misspeak". The first ( To speak or pronounce incorrectly) doesn't seem to apply at all. The second ( To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly. ) is only marginally more helpful, since it implies carelessness at worst. McCain went for a walk in a market guarded by over 100 soldiers, three helicopters, and an unknown number of snipers. After that walk he and his partner in crime said it was like any outdoor market in America. That is calculated dishonesty, the very opposite of rashness. It was also incredibly stupid (McCain can't believe he doesn't have the press permanently snookered), but that's another story.
Today at Truthout, William Rivers Pitt recounts McCain's recent dissolution as a viable national candidate, but includes this in his piece:
Once upon a time, John McCain was a man who commanded and deserved great respect. Beyond the awe-inspiring courage and strength that marked his Vietnam service was the integrity he displayed, for the most part, in his political life. While his conservative views did not jibe with many, there was something about his conduct in office, his independence of thought within the rigid confines of his party, that made Americans stand up and take notice. Even the scandals involving him, most notably the embarrassing Keating Five debacle, did not permanently tarnish his image.
I have nothing to say about his Vietnam experience. Let's stipulate that it was all anyone could ask. It is, nonetheless a fact, that a person can display great physical courage and be entirely lacking in moral courage. Even if we also stipulate for the moment that McCain was a paragon of virtue at some point, in the last few years he had demonstrated beyond doubt that the ability to withstand physical torture (at least for a while) does not translate into the ability to withstand political pressure or the dark side of one's own ambition.
But, in fact, there is little, if anything about McCain's political career that would lead one to the conclusion that he has ever had more integrity than the run of the mill Republican politician-which is to say, not much. He first made news as a member of the Keating Five, only to resurrect himself as a presidential contender in 2000, where he saw that his best chance at beating the establishment candidate was by portraying himself as somehow different. Easier done than said, given the willingness of the press to swallow his malarky whole.
It was to his political advantage then to take on the Republican insiders (Falwell, Roberts, et. al.) that were backing Bush. If he ran a less dirty campaign than Bush it was only because he hadn't yet been properly schooled. He has no intention of making that mistake again, since he's currently stocking up on the scum of the Republican party (that's very scummy by the way), the most recent addition to his stable being a fellow who "counted Jews" for Richard Nixon. If he had any real objection to these people, he wouldn't hire them.
It comes down to this-just because you say you talk straight, doesn't mean that you do. In fact, only in politics (and maybe only in American politics) is anyone willing to believe that a person who constantly trumpets his own integrity is likely to have much of that quality. Other than proclaim his own un-forked tongue in 2000, what did McCain ever do before that year to earn a reputation for integrity or independent thinking, not to mention independent doing? After 2000, with a higher national profile, he had a habit of maverick talking and herdlike voting. There are a large number of otherwise fairly intelligent people who have a habit of projecting their own beliefs on to certain political figures. The 1992 (or was it 96) boomlet for Colin Powell is a good example. Lot's of people preferred to believe he was on their side, when they had no idea where he stood on anything. There are elements of this tendency in the Obama candidacy.
Fundamentally, people don't change all that much, particularly when they are in their 60s. If John McCain had more regard for principles in 2000 than he did for his own ambition, then he would be able to keep that ambition in check today. He can't, as his shameless courting of the very people that smeared him in 2000 demonstrates.
Today, by the way, we hear from 60 minutes, that McCain is sorry he "misspoke" about his recent trip to Iraq:
Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he misspoke in comments he made about security in Baghdad and acknowledged that heavily armed troops and helicopter gunships accompanied him when he visited a market there. McCain tells this to Scott Pelley in his first interview since the visit for a 60 MINUTES report that will include the only video camera footage of McCain’s market visit, to be broadcast Sunday, April 8 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT).
In two interviews before the Army took McCain and 60 MINUTES on the heavily guarded visit to the al-Shorja market last Sunday, the senator said security had improved in Iraq. Upon his return, he also told a news conference he had just come back from a neighborhood one could walk around in freely. The remarks made headlines and he now regrets saying them. “Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future,” says McCain. “I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that’s just life,” he tells Pelley, adding, “I’m happy, frankly, with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun.”
My little computer dictionary contains two definitions for "misspeak". The first ( To speak or pronounce incorrectly) doesn't seem to apply at all. The second ( To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly. ) is only marginally more helpful, since it implies carelessness at worst. McCain went for a walk in a market guarded by over 100 soldiers, three helicopters, and an unknown number of snipers. After that walk he and his partner in crime said it was like any outdoor market in America. That is calculated dishonesty, the very opposite of rashness. It was also incredibly stupid (McCain can't believe he doesn't have the press permanently snookered), but that's another story.
Monday - April 02, 2007
Surging into chaos
While John McCain
takes a casual stroll in Baghdad (accompanied by a mere 100 soldiers
and two helicopters) amid claims of surge success because of a slight downturn
in Baghdad violence, non-Baghdad
Iraq is dissolving further into chaos. Seems to me that just such an
outcome was predicted for the "surge". Bush keeps warning us that setting an
exit date will just allow the enemy (whoever the enemy might be, that's never
really been clear) to wait us out. But announcing a "surge" aimed at tamping
down violence in one place effectively notifies the "enemy" that it ought to
concentrate its efforts elsewhere, which is exactly what is
happening.
Sunday - April 01, 2007
No further comment
These two items appeared in sequence in the
section of my newsreader in which I compile international
feeds:
From the Independent World News:
The Iraqi government yesterday raised its estimate of the death toll in a truck bombing in the northern town of Tal Afar on Tuesday to 152, making it the deadliest single bombing of the four-year-old war.
From the same source, different article, here's the title:
From the Independent World News:
The Iraqi government yesterday raised its estimate of the death toll in a truck bombing in the northern town of Tal Afar on Tuesday to 152, making it the deadliest single bombing of the four-year-old war.
From the same source, different article, here's the title:
Is surge working? US commanders hail fall
in Baghdad killing
Saturday - March 31, 2007
Wal-mart's marketing plan
Last year I wrote a post about Wal-Mart, that I
eventually consigned to the dustbin and never published. I'm not sure why. It
contained this
paragraph:
The other part of the post links to this article which tells the story of a boy who was badly injured by a defective bike sold by Wal-Mart. It seems to me that this sort of thing will be happening more and more, since Wal-Mart's business plan practically guarantees the production of shoddy merchandise. Wal-Mart uses its economic power to force its suppliers to lower prices. It gets hard to achieve savings in labor costs once you have taken the obvious first step of closing your American factory and using slave labor in China. Since Wal-Mart never lets up, the obvious solution is to sacrifice quality. If you think you can get away with using cheaper materials, or one less part, you will. And sometimes, it won't work.
Little did I know that if Wal-Mart can't get an American manufacturer to sell to it at "low, low prices" it simply buys them out, fires the American workers, ships their jobs overseas, and turns the product to crap:
For 122 years, anyone who bought a pair of Herman Survivor boots could be assured of two things: They would pay top dollar, but it would be for a product that would last for years, even under grueling conditions.
All that changed in 2001 when Wal-Mart bought Herman Survivors from a private company. The owners had previously refused Wal-Mart's overtures to let it carry the boots, so Wal-Mart made an offer that Anthony DiPaolo, the CEO of Herman Survivors, couldn't say no to.
Until then, the boots had mostly been made in the U.S. and Poland, sometimes in China, but only with U.S.-made materials, DiPaolo said Thursday in a telephone interview from his offices in Dedham, Mass. He now runs Work 'N Gear, a workers apparel chain.
When his company made the boots, he said, it sold them for $80 to $180 a pair, a lot of money in the 1980s and '90s. Now Wal-Mart sells them for a fraction of that price.
But, he noted, you are not getting the same boot.
"The difference is staggering," he said.
The article, by the Courant's consumer wathdog, tells the story of a Wal-Mart customer who thought he was getting a boot and not just a brand name, only to be disabused in short order.
Some Wal-Mart defenders claim that, while it's true that Wal-Mart pays slave wages, it actually effectively increases income in America as a whole because people can buy previously expensive stuff cheaper. It's quite true that if your dollar buys more, you have effectively enjoyed an increase in income. But the argument only works if the cheaper product is of like quality to the more expensive product. In the case of the late, lamented Herman's Survivors, that is definitely not the case,
The other part of the post links to this article which tells the story of a boy who was badly injured by a defective bike sold by Wal-Mart. It seems to me that this sort of thing will be happening more and more, since Wal-Mart's business plan practically guarantees the production of shoddy merchandise. Wal-Mart uses its economic power to force its suppliers to lower prices. It gets hard to achieve savings in labor costs once you have taken the obvious first step of closing your American factory and using slave labor in China. Since Wal-Mart never lets up, the obvious solution is to sacrifice quality. If you think you can get away with using cheaper materials, or one less part, you will. And sometimes, it won't work.
Little did I know that if Wal-Mart can't get an American manufacturer to sell to it at "low, low prices" it simply buys them out, fires the American workers, ships their jobs overseas, and turns the product to crap:
For 122 years, anyone who bought a pair of Herman Survivor boots could be assured of two things: They would pay top dollar, but it would be for a product that would last for years, even under grueling conditions.
All that changed in 2001 when Wal-Mart bought Herman Survivors from a private company. The owners had previously refused Wal-Mart's overtures to let it carry the boots, so Wal-Mart made an offer that Anthony DiPaolo, the CEO of Herman Survivors, couldn't say no to.
Until then, the boots had mostly been made in the U.S. and Poland, sometimes in China, but only with U.S.-made materials, DiPaolo said Thursday in a telephone interview from his offices in Dedham, Mass. He now runs Work 'N Gear, a workers apparel chain.
When his company made the boots, he said, it sold them for $80 to $180 a pair, a lot of money in the 1980s and '90s. Now Wal-Mart sells them for a fraction of that price.
But, he noted, you are not getting the same boot.
"The difference is staggering," he said.
The article, by the Courant's consumer wathdog, tells the story of a Wal-Mart customer who thought he was getting a boot and not just a brand name, only to be disabused in short order.
Some Wal-Mart defenders claim that, while it's true that Wal-Mart pays slave wages, it actually effectively increases income in America as a whole because people can buy previously expensive stuff cheaper. It's quite true that if your dollar buys more, you have effectively enjoyed an increase in income. But the argument only works if the cheaper product is of like quality to the more expensive product. In the case of the late, lamented Herman's Survivors, that is definitely not the case,
Tuesday - March 27, 2007
Bring back the fifties
The most recent issue of the American Prospect
(sorry, no link, you can download a PDF version, but only if you subscribe)
contains a column by Robert Reich on the increasing disparity in income in this
country. He disparages the notion that CEO pay can be reined in by giving more
theoretical power to shareholders. He's absolutely right about that. You can
give shareholders all the theoretical rights you want, but in reality they
exercise virtually no control over major corporations and, as Reich points out,
they have little incentive to rein in director pay. I wondered if he would get
to what I consider the obvious solution to the problem, and guess what, he
did:
The answer is not to grant more rights to shareholders. It’s to enact a far more progressive income tax, including a sharply higher marginal rate on yearly incomes above, say, a measly million,
It really is startlingly simple. I would venture to say that if you graphed the change in the top marginal tax rate against the disparity between the income of the average wage slave and the typical CEO you would find an inverse relation. During the 50s the top marginal tax rate was 91%. That means the CEO with a $40,000,000.00 payout would hand $36,400,000.00 of that to the government. Need I point out that this high tax rate didn't stop the United States from leading the world economically? And, for myself, I'd be quite happy with the leavings. $3.6 million is not a bad chunk of change for a year's work. What is truly amazing is that the very idea of raising taxes on the rich is simply not an acceptable topic of conversation in today's political discourse, when it was an accepted fact of life in what is often caricatured as a stultifying and conservative decade.
The answer is not to grant more rights to shareholders. It’s to enact a far more progressive income tax, including a sharply higher marginal rate on yearly incomes above, say, a measly million,
It really is startlingly simple. I would venture to say that if you graphed the change in the top marginal tax rate against the disparity between the income of the average wage slave and the typical CEO you would find an inverse relation. During the 50s the top marginal tax rate was 91%. That means the CEO with a $40,000,000.00 payout would hand $36,400,000.00 of that to the government. Need I point out that this high tax rate didn't stop the United States from leading the world economically? And, for myself, I'd be quite happy with the leavings. $3.6 million is not a bad chunk of change for a year's work. What is truly amazing is that the very idea of raising taxes on the rich is simply not an acceptable topic of conversation in today's political discourse, when it was an accepted fact of life in what is often caricatured as a stultifying and conservative decade.
Tuesday - March 27, 2007
Counting corpses
Word
out of England today that British experts advised the Blair government
that the estimates of Iraqi deaths since the invasion in the Lancet
Study were, if anything,
understated:
Immediately after publication, the prime minister's official spokesman said that The Lancet's study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate". The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap". President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report".
Scientists at the UK's Department for International Development thought differently. They concluded that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed, the Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation of mortality".
The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".
When these recommendations went to the prime minister's advisers, they were horrified. One person briefing Tony Blair wrote: "are we really sure that the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies?" A Foreign Office official was forced to conclude that the government "should not be rubbishing The Lancet".
The prime minister's adviser finally gave in. He wrote: "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
How would the government respond?
Would it welcome the Hopkins study as an important contribution to understanding the military threat to Iraqi civilians? Would it ask for urgent independent verification? Would it invite the Iraqi government to upgrade civilian security?
Of course, our government did none of these things. Tony Blair was advised to say: "the overriding message is that there are no accurate or reliable figures of deaths in Iraq".
His official spokesman went further and rejected the Hopkins report entirely. It was a shameful and cowardly dissembling by a Labour - yes, by a Labour - prime minister.
Those quaint Brits still fail to understand that reality is actually a very malleable substance. The Lancet study is flawed because George Bush says that it is. He should know. He went to Yale, didn't he?
Immediately after publication, the prime minister's official spokesman said that The Lancet's study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate". The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap". President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report".
Scientists at the UK's Department for International Development thought differently. They concluded that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed, the Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation of mortality".
The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".
When these recommendations went to the prime minister's advisers, they were horrified. One person briefing Tony Blair wrote: "are we really sure that the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies?" A Foreign Office official was forced to conclude that the government "should not be rubbishing The Lancet".
The prime minister's adviser finally gave in. He wrote: "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
How would the government respond?
Would it welcome the Hopkins study as an important contribution to understanding the military threat to Iraqi civilians? Would it ask for urgent independent verification? Would it invite the Iraqi government to upgrade civilian security?
Of course, our government did none of these things. Tony Blair was advised to say: "the overriding message is that there are no accurate or reliable figures of deaths in Iraq".
His official spokesman went further and rejected the Hopkins report entirely. It was a shameful and cowardly dissembling by a Labour - yes, by a Labour - prime minister.
Those quaint Brits still fail to understand that reality is actually a very malleable substance. The Lancet study is flawed because George Bush says that it is. He should know. He went to Yale, didn't he?
Sunday - March 25, 2007
Bush is Nixon, not Clinton
This morning's Times (Perks
and Perils of a Heavy Gavel) makes the point that the Democrats risk
losing public support if they get too confrontational with Bush, as the
Republicans did when they harassed Clinton. No doubt the point has some
validity, and Adam Nagourney, though it must pain him to do so, does concede
that the Democrats have a more receptive public than did the Republicans. The
article emphasizes the political risks involved, etc., but if fails to recognize
a rather critical difference between the Clinton episode and the present
situation.
Much to the amazement of the Beltway punditocracy, the American people exhibited a fair amount of sophistication during the Clinton harassment episode. The Republicans never made the case (because there was none) that Clinton had done anything politically corrupt, anything that threatened the interests of the American people, or anything that undermined the Constitution. The reality was, and the American people perceived it, that the Republicans were ginning up a case against Clinton when nothing existed that mattered. They may not have approved of his sexual transgressions, but they had the maturity to look beyond them, and also found the Republican's insistence on dwelling on them a bit distasteful. Bear in mind there was never a backlash against Democrats for going after Nixon. People realized it was the right thing to do.
The elite would have conceded that of course sexual peccadilloes probably shouldn't matter, but they could never come to terms with the fact that, for the vast majority of Americans, they actually didn't matter enough to warrant impeaching a perfectly competent president. They just couldn't believe that the American people would not react in the knee jerk fashion that was all they believed the America people were capable.
In the present situation, they fail, and perhaps the Democrats do too, to appreciate that, while it may have taken a long time to sink in, the American people have learned a lesson. They have recognized Bush for what he is- a threat to them with his endless war and his basic incompetence and a threat to the Constitution. In other words, they recognize a basic substantive difference between Clinton and Bush, and they will be willing to see the Democrats go after Bush because they realize that, on the merits, he deserves it in a way that Clinton never did. It's very hard for folks like Nagourney to appreciate that most people make these judgments based on a relatively sophisticated set of criteria.
This disconnect may explain why the pundits simply ignore the widespread support in this country for impeaching Bush, a level of support never reached with respect to Clinton even with much of the media pushing them toward supporting it. Today, by contrast, the subject is taboo in the media while it draws widespread public support.
Long and short: it would take a lot for the Democrats to lose support as they wage war against Bush. People aren't so stupid that they don't realize that investigations are the only way that the Democrats can weaken him, considering the Republican ability to stymie substantive legislation in the Senate. In fact, the Democrats run a risk if they are perceived as rolling over in the face of Bush's dictatorial behavior. The appropriate precedent here is Watergate, not the fake scandals of the Clinton years.
In any event, the political damage suffered by Republicans as a result of the Clinton situation may be overstated. Two years after the impeachment, they took the presidency.
Much to the amazement of the Beltway punditocracy, the American people exhibited a fair amount of sophistication during the Clinton harassment episode. The Republicans never made the case (because there was none) that Clinton had done anything politically corrupt, anything that threatened the interests of the American people, or anything that undermined the Constitution. The reality was, and the American people perceived it, that the Republicans were ginning up a case against Clinton when nothing existed that mattered. They may not have approved of his sexual transgressions, but they had the maturity to look beyond them, and also found the Republican's insistence on dwelling on them a bit distasteful. Bear in mind there was never a backlash against Democrats for going after Nixon. People realized it was the right thing to do.
The elite would have conceded that of course sexual peccadilloes probably shouldn't matter, but they could never come to terms with the fact that, for the vast majority of Americans, they actually didn't matter enough to warrant impeaching a perfectly competent president. They just couldn't believe that the American people would not react in the knee jerk fashion that was all they believed the America people were capable.
In the present situation, they fail, and perhaps the Democrats do too, to appreciate that, while it may have taken a long time to sink in, the American people have learned a lesson. They have recognized Bush for what he is- a threat to them with his endless war and his basic incompetence and a threat to the Constitution. In other words, they recognize a basic substantive difference between Clinton and Bush, and they will be willing to see the Democrats go after Bush because they realize that, on the merits, he deserves it in a way that Clinton never did. It's very hard for folks like Nagourney to appreciate that most people make these judgments based on a relatively sophisticated set of criteria.
This disconnect may explain why the pundits simply ignore the widespread support in this country for impeaching Bush, a level of support never reached with respect to Clinton even with much of the media pushing them toward supporting it. Today, by contrast, the subject is taboo in the media while it draws widespread public support.
Long and short: it would take a lot for the Democrats to lose support as they wage war against Bush. People aren't so stupid that they don't realize that investigations are the only way that the Democrats can weaken him, considering the Republican ability to stymie substantive legislation in the Senate. In fact, the Democrats run a risk if they are perceived as rolling over in the face of Bush's dictatorial behavior. The appropriate precedent here is Watergate, not the fake scandals of the Clinton years.
In any event, the political damage suffered by Republicans as a result of the Clinton situation may be overstated. Two years after the impeachment, they took the presidency.
Tuesday - March 20, 2007
Getting better all the time
The news from Iraq just keeps getting
better.
According to yesterday's Guardian, even our propaganda puppets are turning against us:
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad's Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.
The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: "I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."
...
... he now says he would prefer to be living under Saddam than under US occupation. He said: "The devil you know [is] better than the devil you don't. We no longer know friend from foe. The situation is becoming more dangerous. It's not getting better at all. People are poor and the prices are going higher and higher."
The record will show that the folks who pulled down that statue were imported special for the event, it not being the spontaneous eruption of joy that it was made out to be.
Today the BBC reports anew something that has been obvious for a while:
An Iraqi police chief cannot trust one third of his officers because they are loyal to illegal militias, he has told the BBC.
General Abdul Hussein Al Saffe, head of policing in Dhi Qhar province, told the BBC's Paul Wood he could not sack them as they had political protection.
The British commander on site must be taking lessons from the Americans. See if you can extract any meaning from this comment:
British commander Maj Gen Jonathan Shaw said Iraqi ministers knew the police were "not perfect".
But the Iraqis were making a judgement for "self-reliance", he said.
"There's always a balance when you have a newly created police force and army," he said.
"It's a question of balancing Iraqi enthusiasm for self-reliance with the risk of when they are capable of taking that responsibility, and that judgement really has to be made by Iraqis, which they are doing.
If that last sentence is an accurate, direct quote, then the man has a future. Tony Snow may meltdown any day, and this guy could step right into his shoes.
According to yesterday's Guardian, even our propaganda puppets are turning against us:
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad's Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.
The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: "I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."
...
... he now says he would prefer to be living under Saddam than under US occupation. He said: "The devil you know [is] better than the devil you don't. We no longer know friend from foe. The situation is becoming more dangerous. It's not getting better at all. People are poor and the prices are going higher and higher."
The record will show that the folks who pulled down that statue were imported special for the event, it not being the spontaneous eruption of joy that it was made out to be.
Today the BBC reports anew something that has been obvious for a while:
An Iraqi police chief cannot trust one third of his officers because they are loyal to illegal militias, he has told the BBC.
General Abdul Hussein Al Saffe, head of policing in Dhi Qhar province, told the BBC's Paul Wood he could not sack them as they had political protection.
The British commander on site must be taking lessons from the Americans. See if you can extract any meaning from this comment:
British commander Maj Gen Jonathan Shaw said Iraqi ministers knew the police were "not perfect".
But the Iraqis were making a judgement for "self-reliance", he said.
"There's always a balance when you have a newly created police force and army," he said.
"It's a question of balancing Iraqi enthusiasm for self-reliance with the risk of when they are capable of taking that responsibility, and that judgement really has to be made by Iraqis, which they are doing.
If that last sentence is an accurate, direct quote, then the man has a future. Tony Snow may meltdown any day, and this guy could step right into his shoes.
Monday - March 12, 2007
Republican steps up to protect Bush. What else is new?
The White House has announced that it won't
oppose Dianne Feinstein's bill to restore the U.S. Attorney appointment process
to what it was before 9/11 changed everything. Recall that one backstory to the
U.S. Attorney scandal is a recent change in the law, slipped in by night by an Administration mole on
Arlen Specter's staff. (Whether with or without Specter's knowledge
may never be known). The change in the law allowed the president to fill vacant
U.S. Attorney positions without any Congressional oversight. Previously, in the
bad old days before 9/11 changed everything, when the president was fettered by
a Constitution and separation of powers, new appointments required approval by
the Senate. It is probably the case that no senator, other (perhaps) than
Specter, was aware of the
provision.
Specter the Spineless is now co-sponsoring Feinstein's bill, but another Republican has stepped up to oppose the bill, citing, believe it or not, separation of powers concerns. Suddenly, John Kyl of Arizona has discovered that there is a constitutional problem with the former appointment process, a problem not previously discerned. If there is any constitutional question it relates only to the limited power of the federal judges to appoint an acting prosecutor pending the appointment of a permanent replacement. There is no constitutional problem with the requirement for Senate approval.
Isn't it funny how someone always steps up to do Bush's dirty work when, for one reason or another, he'd rather not have the regular suspects do it? This, in my opinion, is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to frame this issue to their best advantage. Carrying Bush's water is not an activity likely to win you any friends these days. How hard could it be for them to make this type of obstruction the issue, if indeed Kyl sticks with it? If he tries to hold things up, make them vote on cloture. See how many of them are willing to back Bush on this issue. Who knows, once they abandon him on one issue, maybe they'll find it just a bit easier on the next issue.
Specter the Spineless is now co-sponsoring Feinstein's bill, but another Republican has stepped up to oppose the bill, citing, believe it or not, separation of powers concerns. Suddenly, John Kyl of Arizona has discovered that there is a constitutional problem with the former appointment process, a problem not previously discerned. If there is any constitutional question it relates only to the limited power of the federal judges to appoint an acting prosecutor pending the appointment of a permanent replacement. There is no constitutional problem with the requirement for Senate approval.
Isn't it funny how someone always steps up to do Bush's dirty work when, for one reason or another, he'd rather not have the regular suspects do it? This, in my opinion, is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to frame this issue to their best advantage. Carrying Bush's water is not an activity likely to win you any friends these days. How hard could it be for them to make this type of obstruction the issue, if indeed Kyl sticks with it? If he tries to hold things up, make them vote on cloture. See how many of them are willing to back Bush on this issue. Who knows, once they abandon him on one issue, maybe they'll find it just a bit easier on the next issue.
Saturday - March 10, 2007
The Real U.S. Attorney scandal
In recent days both Josh
Marshall and Paul
Krugman have written about what may be the most important, and so far
largely unreported, scandal involving the political misuse of U.S. Attorneys.
Right now, the focus is on the U.S. Attorneys who were fired because they
refused to pervert their offices. Human beings being what they are, it is
natural to conclude that not everyone is impervious to the demands of the
politically powerful, and as both Krugman and Marshall point out, there is
smoke, if not fire, on this front. Krugman reminds us of the
following:
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.
The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
Since that announcement, nothing has happened. Ditto the example Josh cites. Just before the election a Louisville TV station reported that U.S. Attorney Dave Huber had received a "matter" involving Steve Henry, the Democratic candidate for governor. Somehow the TV station got possession of all the documents that Huber had in his possession. After spreading the word about the investigation, Huber recused himself from the case, something he should have done from the start. It has since gone nowhere.
So the real news here, which the Democrats should pursue, is not the fact that U.S. Attorneys were punished for acting professionally, but that there is every reason to believe that many have been acting as instruments of the most rawly political administration in American history. As Krugman points out, a recent study shows that during the Bush Democrats have been three times more likely to be targets than Republicans. This has been largely under the radar because most of these cases do not involve federal officials.
We can only hope and pray that we get a Democrat as president in 2008. It is to be hoped that he or she will appoint an attorney general who will turn the Justice Department back into ... well, how about a "justice" department. My preference would be an appointment of someone who is not a presidential crony or a hack politician; someone who could be trusted to enforce the law without fear or favor, against Democrat and Republican alike. How about Patrick Fitzgerald? An appointment like that would demonstrate more than any rhetoric that the new President was serious about making changes in Washington.
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.
The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
Since that announcement, nothing has happened. Ditto the example Josh cites. Just before the election a Louisville TV station reported that U.S. Attorney Dave Huber had received a "matter" involving Steve Henry, the Democratic candidate for governor. Somehow the TV station got possession of all the documents that Huber had in his possession. After spreading the word about the investigation, Huber recused himself from the case, something he should have done from the start. It has since gone nowhere.
So the real news here, which the Democrats should pursue, is not the fact that U.S. Attorneys were punished for acting professionally, but that there is every reason to believe that many have been acting as instruments of the most rawly political administration in American history. As Krugman points out, a recent study shows that during the Bush Democrats have been three times more likely to be targets than Republicans. This has been largely under the radar because most of these cases do not involve federal officials.
We can only hope and pray that we get a Democrat as president in 2008. It is to be hoped that he or she will appoint an attorney general who will turn the Justice Department back into ... well, how about a "justice" department. My preference would be an appointment of someone who is not a presidential crony or a hack politician; someone who could be trusted to enforce the law without fear or favor, against Democrat and Republican alike. How about Patrick Fitzgerald? An appointment like that would demonstrate more than any rhetoric that the new President was serious about making changes in Washington.
Friday - March 09, 2007
Crazy People in Charge
This
is what happens when the right wing takes control of your
government:
A federal appeals court in Washington today struck down on Second Amendment grounds a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.
The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.
This is an absurd decision, but it was entirely predictable that something like this would happen sooner or later. When you load courts with doctrinaire right wingers, the chickens come home to roost sooner or later. The question is, are there five sane people on the Supreme Court to reverse this, or will the country be sentenced to a constitutional system in which anyone has the right to unlimited access to any weapon they want?
There is a certain amount of hubris involved with trying to speak for the people who framed the constitution, but I think one can say with confidence that James Madison was too sane a person to believe that every person had a right to own any weapon they wished, particularly if he could have conceived of the type of weapons available today.
This is a case involving the District of Columbia. If upheld, it would apparently void all federal attempts to regulate ownership of firearms. If it is extended to the states via the 14th Amendment, all local controls would fall as well.
Interesting questions arise. Is there a limit to the type of weapon I am allowed to own? Am I allowed to have a nuclear weapon, or an M-1 tank? But perhaps I'm being alarmist. These right-wingers are constantly talking about how they want to go back to "original intent" when interpreting the constitution. So I suggest we do just that, and limit the right to bear arms to the right to own a musket.
A federal appeals court in Washington today struck down on Second Amendment grounds a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.
The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.
This is an absurd decision, but it was entirely predictable that something like this would happen sooner or later. When you load courts with doctrinaire right wingers, the chickens come home to roost sooner or later. The question is, are there five sane people on the Supreme Court to reverse this, or will the country be sentenced to a constitutional system in which anyone has the right to unlimited access to any weapon they want?
There is a certain amount of hubris involved with trying to speak for the people who framed the constitution, but I think one can say with confidence that James Madison was too sane a person to believe that every person had a right to own any weapon they wished, particularly if he could have conceived of the type of weapons available today.
This is a case involving the District of Columbia. If upheld, it would apparently void all federal attempts to regulate ownership of firearms. If it is extended to the states via the 14th Amendment, all local controls would fall as well.
Interesting questions arise. Is there a limit to the type of weapon I am allowed to own? Am I allowed to have a nuclear weapon, or an M-1 tank? But perhaps I'm being alarmist. These right-wingers are constantly talking about how they want to go back to "original intent" when interpreting the constitution. So I suggest we do just that, and limit the right to bear arms to the right to own a musket.
Tuesday - March 06, 2007
Monday - March 05, 2007
Health care
All of a sudden, the comments are piling up,
particularly from someone who must be a new reader. In response to a recent
post, that was mostly about religion (but touched on healthcare) this commenter,
after calling me a religious bigot, had this to say about health
care:
And as far as universal healthcare goes, I think we pretty much already have it. I got gravely ill with no healthcare a few years ago – and I got everything I needed. I could not believe the generosity of my doctors. This complete stranger gave me free pills. No one in this country is turned away at the hospital for lack of ability to pay. I still owe thousands but I pay a little bit every month. I have been told that I could pay LITTERALLY one dollar a month and never have it go on my credit rating or the bill to a collection agency. I intend to pay every single nickel. I am profoundly grateful for them making me well again. If we adopt a system like they have in Cuba than I think we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. We want money in healthcare because money fuels Research and Development. We are advancing in leaps and bounds at an ever increasing pace because our system is not run like the post office.
So, let's talk about heath care.
First, let's get down to basics. Health care costs money. It seems self-evident that we should try to get a health care system that gets the most bang for the buck. For some reason, a lot of people in this country seem to feel there is some moral superiority involved in funneling that money through the private insurance industry rather than the government. If the delivery of health care were more efficient that way, then that would be fine. But it's not. As Paul Krugman has pointed out on many occasions, approximately 20% of the money we give to private insurance companies is spent on denying our claims to benefits. (Sorry, in my hasty response to the comment I said 25%). That compares to about 2% spent on the same function in Medicare. That's a lot of wasted money.
Health care is a basic necessity. It is a cost of living and the cost of health care is the functional equivalent of a tax whether paid to an insurance company or the government. The way in which we are currently financing it is grossly inefficient. It imposes a cost on employers not borne by employers in any other developed country. It is literally driving our auto companies out of business. It is a strain on small businesses, like my law firm. We learned recently, for example, that we are looking at a 26% jump in the cost of covering our employees. Believe me we would be ecstatic if this mess were replaced by a single payer system.
The commenter seems to feel that it's wonderful that he got free health care when he couldn't afford to pay. But someone else was paying-the taxpayers and premium payers. As a taxpayer I don't mind paying for his health care, but I do mind paying more than I should have to pay, and the inefficiencies in our cobbled together "universal health care system" make me do just that.
But let me tell you something about the commenter's universal health care system. At least 50% of my legal practice is devoted to Social Security Disability cases. People who apply for disability tend to be poor to start out with. They are the people who work at jobs that wear their bodies down. But even if they don't start poor, they end up that way, given the fact that it takes about 2 years from the day you apply to the final decision from an administrative judge. A goodly number of my clients have no health care, or start out with health care and lose it, or are forced to change doctors because the medical care provided as a stopgap by the state isn't accepted by the doctors of their choice. One of my clients recently broke his leg. He got free care to set it, because it was an emergency, but he had to remove the cast himself because that wasn't an emergency and he couldn't afford to pay for the service. (So much for no one being turned away) Most likely if he'd been persistent he could have found someone to do it, but he had mental problems too, so he wasn't quite up to that. Maybe the commenter will pay for the care he got from that hospital, but most people who get care like that don't pay for it because they can't. I would advise him to look through the files in the bankruptcy court-they're public records, and see how many people take refuge there because of an inability to pay medical bills. Oh, and by the way, guess which group of my Social Security clients gets the best health care. Those vets who qualify for VA health care, a socialized medical system in all but name, that was vastly improved during the Clinton years and which Bush has not yet been able to ruin. And if you think it's just the poor who can't get health care, think again. It's also the middle class sick, as we learn in today's Times. What a great system! Health care for all, except for the sick.
Finally, let's talk about Cuba. Cuba is a poor country. Quite likely rich people here can get better health care than the average person there. But given its disadvantages, the Cuban health care system does a better job of delivering health care in an equitable fashion than does ours. It's hardly a feather in our cap if, with all our money, those with good insurance here get better care than the average Cuban.
The commenter suffers from a peculiarly American disease: the belief that America is number one in everything because -well, just because. We are the richest, we have more freedom, we have the best healthcare, we have the best athletes, we have the best of everything. It doesn't matter that most of it's not true, it's an article of faith so we don't question it.
The cruel fact is that our health care system is not the best in the world, except for the system for the very rich. We have models here at home-the VA, Medicare, that along with the lessons to be learned from other countries, should enable us to come up with an efficient, humane health care system. What we lack is the political will, because what we have is too many deluded people who think that we already have the best of all possible systems in the best of all possible countries.
And as far as universal healthcare goes, I think we pretty much already have it. I got gravely ill with no healthcare a few years ago – and I got everything I needed. I could not believe the generosity of my doctors. This complete stranger gave me free pills. No one in this country is turned away at the hospital for lack of ability to pay. I still owe thousands but I pay a little bit every month. I have been told that I could pay LITTERALLY one dollar a month and never have it go on my credit rating or the bill to a collection agency. I intend to pay every single nickel. I am profoundly grateful for them making me well again. If we adopt a system like they have in Cuba than I think we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. We want money in healthcare because money fuels Research and Development. We are advancing in leaps and bounds at an ever increasing pace because our system is not run like the post office.
So, let's talk about heath care.
First, let's get down to basics. Health care costs money. It seems self-evident that we should try to get a health care system that gets the most bang for the buck. For some reason, a lot of people in this country seem to feel there is some moral superiority involved in funneling that money through the private insurance industry rather than the government. If the delivery of health care were more efficient that way, then that would be fine. But it's not. As Paul Krugman has pointed out on many occasions, approximately 20% of the money we give to private insurance companies is spent on denying our claims to benefits. (Sorry, in my hasty response to the comment I said 25%). That compares to about 2% spent on the same function in Medicare. That's a lot of wasted money.
Health care is a basic necessity. It is a cost of living and the cost of health care is the functional equivalent of a tax whether paid to an insurance company or the government. The way in which we are currently financing it is grossly inefficient. It imposes a cost on employers not borne by employers in any other developed country. It is literally driving our auto companies out of business. It is a strain on small businesses, like my law firm. We learned recently, for example, that we are looking at a 26% jump in the cost of covering our employees. Believe me we would be ecstatic if this mess were replaced by a single payer system.
The commenter seems to feel that it's wonderful that he got free health care when he couldn't afford to pay. But someone else was paying-the taxpayers and premium payers. As a taxpayer I don't mind paying for his health care, but I do mind paying more than I should have to pay, and the inefficiencies in our cobbled together "universal health care system" make me do just that.
But let me tell you something about the commenter's universal health care system. At least 50% of my legal practice is devoted to Social Security Disability cases. People who apply for disability tend to be poor to start out with. They are the people who work at jobs that wear their bodies down. But even if they don't start poor, they end up that way, given the fact that it takes about 2 years from the day you apply to the final decision from an administrative judge. A goodly number of my clients have no health care, or start out with health care and lose it, or are forced to change doctors because the medical care provided as a stopgap by the state isn't accepted by the doctors of their choice. One of my clients recently broke his leg. He got free care to set it, because it was an emergency, but he had to remove the cast himself because that wasn't an emergency and he couldn't afford to pay for the service. (So much for no one being turned away) Most likely if he'd been persistent he could have found someone to do it, but he had mental problems too, so he wasn't quite up to that. Maybe the commenter will pay for the care he got from that hospital, but most people who get care like that don't pay for it because they can't. I would advise him to look through the files in the bankruptcy court-they're public records, and see how many people take refuge there because of an inability to pay medical bills. Oh, and by the way, guess which group of my Social Security clients gets the best health care. Those vets who qualify for VA health care, a socialized medical system in all but name, that was vastly improved during the Clinton years and which Bush has not yet been able to ruin. And if you think it's just the poor who can't get health care, think again. It's also the middle class sick, as we learn in today's Times. What a great system! Health care for all, except for the sick.
Finally, let's talk about Cuba. Cuba is a poor country. Quite likely rich people here can get better health care than the average person there. But given its disadvantages, the Cuban health care system does a better job of delivering health care in an equitable fashion than does ours. It's hardly a feather in our cap if, with all our money, those with good insurance here get better care than the average Cuban.
The commenter suffers from a peculiarly American disease: the belief that America is number one in everything because -well, just because. We are the richest, we have more freedom, we have the best healthcare, we have the best athletes, we have the best of everything. It doesn't matter that most of it's not true, it's an article of faith so we don't question it.
The cruel fact is that our health care system is not the best in the world, except for the system for the very rich. We have models here at home-the VA, Medicare, that along with the lessons to be learned from other countries, should enable us to come up with an efficient, humane health care system. What we lack is the political will, because what we have is too many deluded people who think that we already have the best of all possible systems in the best of all possible countries.
Sunday - March 04, 2007
Rascism on the reservation
It's hard to conclude that anything but racism is
behind this. The
Cherokee Nation is about to hold a vote to amend its constitution to
exclude from the tribe any person whose ancestors were not registered as a
Cherokee on the Dawes Rolls, compiled by the U.S. government in 1906. At that
time the Cherokees were in Oklahoma. Lots of Cherokees had white blood and lots
of Cherokees had black blood. Here's what
happened:
When the Dawes Rolls were created, those with any African blood were put on the Freedmen roll, even if they were half Cherokee. Those with mixed-white and Cherokee ancestry, even if they were seven-eighths white and one-eighth Cherokee, were put on the Cherokee by blood roll. More than 75 percent of those enrolled in the Cherokee Nation have less than one-quarter Cherokee blood, the vast majority of them of European ancestry.
Marilyn Vann said she could not believe that one election could determine whether she was allowed to claim Cherokee blood.
“There are Freedmen who can prove they have a full-blooded Cherokee grandfather who won’t be members,” said Ms. Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. “And there are blond people who are 1/1000th Cherokee who are members.”
Mike Miller, the Cherokee Nation spokesman, agreed.
“We are aware that there are those who can prove Indian blood who are not Cherokee citizens, because they are not on the Dawes ‘by blood’ Rolls,” Mr. Miller said. “But I don’t know of a single tribe that determines citizenship through a bunch of sources.”
Talk about sophistry. The question, of course, is why those not tainted with that single drop of black blood have chosen the Dawes Rolls as the single source for proving membership, when even they admit that source is inaccurate. Since the only thing that distinguishes the folks on that roll from those on the Freedman rolls is the presence of any black "blood", the conclusion is inescapable that this movement is motivated by racism.
It is somewhat ironic that the rolls contain another racist assumption. Besides consigning anyone with a drop of black blood to the "black" category, they consigned anyone with a drop of Indian (but no black) blood to the "Indian" category. That may have turned out to be a benefit for tribal members today, but one wonders if it was an unmixed blessing then.
When the Dawes Rolls were created, those with any African blood were put on the Freedmen roll, even if they were half Cherokee. Those with mixed-white and Cherokee ancestry, even if they were seven-eighths white and one-eighth Cherokee, were put on the Cherokee by blood roll. More than 75 percent of those enrolled in the Cherokee Nation have less than one-quarter Cherokee blood, the vast majority of them of European ancestry.
Marilyn Vann said she could not believe that one election could determine whether she was allowed to claim Cherokee blood.
“There are Freedmen who can prove they have a full-blooded Cherokee grandfather who won’t be members,” said Ms. Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. “And there are blond people who are 1/1000th Cherokee who are members.”
Mike Miller, the Cherokee Nation spokesman, agreed.
“We are aware that there are those who can prove Indian blood who are not Cherokee citizens, because they are not on the Dawes ‘by blood’ Rolls,” Mr. Miller said. “But I don’t know of a single tribe that determines citizenship through a bunch of sources.”
Talk about sophistry. The question, of course, is why those not tainted with that single drop of black blood have chosen the Dawes Rolls as the single source for proving membership, when even they admit that source is inaccurate. Since the only thing that distinguishes the folks on that roll from those on the Freedman rolls is the presence of any black "blood", the conclusion is inescapable that this movement is motivated by racism.
It is somewhat ironic that the rolls contain another racist assumption. Besides consigning anyone with a drop of black blood to the "black" category, they consigned anyone with a drop of Indian (but no black) blood to the "Indian" category. That may have turned out to be a benefit for tribal members today, but one wonders if it was an unmixed blessing then.
Thursday - March 01, 2007
Dumbing down
I couldn't agree more with the person (rumoured
to be a teacher) at 1%
More
Conscious:
The one real-news filmstrip that never left the developing room let alone move to editing revealed yet another stunning reality in America: our high school students’ achievement in reading has gone down, way down, from an 80% reaching “basic” proficiency in 1992 to a staggering 73% reaching “basic” proficiency in 2005. But this is not the only fact that the report, produced by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, projected onto the much manipulated mainstream media news radar screen: more so than ever, high school students are taking the most challenging courses available and, get a load of this, achieving the highest marks in these courses.
Let’s do the math, another academic area in which our students have fallen behind: MORE STUDENTS TAKING “DIFFICULT COURSES” + INFLATED GRADES = DUMBED-DOWN CURRICULUM. In the age of No Child Left Behind and Education through Testing, no wonder the powers that be didn’t want to advertise this fucking horror show of real-news.
My kids went to Fitch High, where you get an Academic Letter (like a letter for sports) if you get an A minus average for a certain number of semesters. In principle, it's a great idea. I watched the awards ceremony in amazement, however, as about one third (by my count) of the kids in the school picked up such a letter. There were four classes in Advanced Placement American History when my younger boy was a senior. It was truly amazing. All those A-Minus averages. All those advanced placement classes. Just like Lake Woebegon, everyone above average.
I graduated with a class of about 750 from Hartford Public High School (biggest class ever, class of 68). I tested well, but being a lazy guy, I was only 18th in class rank. I did not have an A minus average. Bear in mind I was in the top 3% (not 33%) of my class. Given how hard I worked, I didn't deserve an A-minus average. If I were in high school today, I'd have to work at avoiding that average and I'd still learn less than I actually did at good old HPHS. And believe me, in 1968 HPHS was not the shell of a school it is today. It was a quality school with quality teachers, except for the English Department, which was dominated by ..., but I wander.
The present state of affairs is not the fault of the kids by any means, nor do all the teachers buy in to the present system, but the dumbing down process is real and it has to be stopped somehow.
The one real-news filmstrip that never left the developing room let alone move to editing revealed yet another stunning reality in America: our high school students’ achievement in reading has gone down, way down, from an 80% reaching “basic” proficiency in 1992 to a staggering 73% reaching “basic” proficiency in 2005. But this is not the only fact that the report, produced by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, projected onto the much manipulated mainstream media news radar screen: more so than ever, high school students are taking the most challenging courses available and, get a load of this, achieving the highest marks in these courses.
Let’s do the math, another academic area in which our students have fallen behind: MORE STUDENTS TAKING “DIFFICULT COURSES” + INFLATED GRADES = DUMBED-DOWN CURRICULUM. In the age of No Child Left Behind and Education through Testing, no wonder the powers that be didn’t want to advertise this fucking horror show of real-news.
My kids went to Fitch High, where you get an Academic Letter (like a letter for sports) if you get an A minus average for a certain number of semesters. In principle, it's a great idea. I watched the awards ceremony in amazement, however, as about one third (by my count) of the kids in the school picked up such a letter. There were four classes in Advanced Placement American History when my younger boy was a senior. It was truly amazing. All those A-Minus averages. All those advanced placement classes. Just like Lake Woebegon, everyone above average.
I graduated with a class of about 750 from Hartford Public High School (biggest class ever, class of 68). I tested well, but being a lazy guy, I was only 18th in class rank. I did not have an A minus average. Bear in mind I was in the top 3% (not 33%) of my class. Given how hard I worked, I didn't deserve an A-minus average. If I were in high school today, I'd have to work at avoiding that average and I'd still learn less than I actually did at good old HPHS. And believe me, in 1968 HPHS was not the shell of a school it is today. It was a quality school with quality teachers, except for the English Department, which was dominated by ..., but I wander.
The present state of affairs is not the fault of the kids by any means, nor do all the teachers buy in to the present system, but the dumbing down process is real and it has to be stopped somehow.
Thursday - March 01, 2007
Sub prime lending
I took only one economics course, and I don't
pretend to be an expert, but can anyone explain why anyone would think that a
business plan based on subprime lending makes sense. Consider this from
Thursday's Times (Soothing
Words and a Stock Market
Rebound:)
Encouraged by comments from Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and a bounce-back in the Chinese markets where Tuesday’s global sell-off began, stocks rose modestly in the United States.
...
Yet one important concern — that Wall Street’s bet on home loans to people with weak, or subprime, credit is souring quickly as defaults rise and home prices weaken — has not gone away.
Wall Street executives and analysts acknowledged that the subprime segment of the mortgage business has faltered because of the performance of loans issued in 2006, but many contend that the problems are well contained and do not yet pose a significant threat to investment banks or the broader global financial system.
Economists have been warning for years that home prices have become artificially inflated. Isn't it adding fuel to the fire to lend 100% of the purchase price to poor credit risks? That makes sense only if you can be sure that home prices are going up; something that is unlikely to happen in an overheated market. Then, when the suckers default, the bank takes back a property worth more than its loan. If prices go down, or stay steady, the bank loses. Since falling prices were a predictable event given the artificially high prices of the recent past, how could these lenders expect things to work out?
Not that they have my sympathy, but their stupidity is likely to have effects far beyond their limited sector. We all will suffer because of these predators.
Though the article doesn't mention it, that's what they are. The business plan is built around the near certainty, or at least the desirability, of default. In other words, they are ruining people's lives for profit.
And believe me, that's what it's all about. I have a couple of cases now involving these loans. If they were promoted by guys in cheap suits they'd be called scams, but when H&R Block does it, it's subprime lending They loan 100% of the purchase price of a home, but split the loan into two notes. One note is for 80% of the purchase price, with a relatively low interest rate. The other note, for 20%, is at about 11%. There are large, if undecipherable pre-payment penalties, i.e., you can't refinance without penalty for a period of two years. After that two years is up, you better refinance, because the interest rate on the 80% note skyrockets. Of course, you can only refinance if the value of your home has gone up considerably. If it goes down, a likely outcome in this market, you are stuck with a loan you have no ability to pay. Even if it has gone up slightly, you might find yourself in a position where, as a poor credit risk, you are unable to refinance, because after all, you are going to need to refinance both loans.
So it would be great to see these guys go down, so long as they don't take the rest of us with them.
Encouraged by comments from Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and a bounce-back in the Chinese markets where Tuesday’s global sell-off began, stocks rose modestly in the United States.
...
Yet one important concern — that Wall Street’s bet on home loans to people with weak, or subprime, credit is souring quickly as defaults rise and home prices weaken — has not gone away.
Wall Street executives and analysts acknowledged that the subprime segment of the mortgage business has faltered because of the performance of loans issued in 2006, but many contend that the problems are well contained and do not yet pose a significant threat to investment banks or the broader global financial system.
Economists have been warning for years that home prices have become artificially inflated. Isn't it adding fuel to the fire to lend 100% of the purchase price to poor credit risks? That makes sense only if you can be sure that home prices are going up; something that is unlikely to happen in an overheated market. Then, when the suckers default, the bank takes back a property worth more than its loan. If prices go down, or stay steady, the bank loses. Since falling prices were a predictable event given the artificially high prices of the recent past, how could these lenders expect things to work out?
Not that they have my sympathy, but their stupidity is likely to have effects far beyond their limited sector. We all will suffer because of these predators.
Though the article doesn't mention it, that's what they are. The business plan is built around the near certainty, or at least the desirability, of default. In other words, they are ruining people's lives for profit.
And believe me, that's what it's all about. I have a couple of cases now involving these loans. If they were promoted by guys in cheap suits they'd be called scams, but when H&R Block does it, it's subprime lending They loan 100% of the purchase price of a home, but split the loan into two notes. One note is for 80% of the purchase price, with a relatively low interest rate. The other note, for 20%, is at about 11%. There are large, if undecipherable pre-payment penalties, i.e., you can't refinance without penalty for a period of two years. After that two years is up, you better refinance, because the interest rate on the 80% note skyrockets. Of course, you can only refinance if the value of your home has gone up considerably. If it goes down, a likely outcome in this market, you are stuck with a loan you have no ability to pay. Even if it has gone up slightly, you might find yourself in a position where, as a poor credit risk, you are unable to refinance, because after all, you are going to need to refinance both loans.
So it would be great to see these guys go down, so long as they don't take the rest of us with them.
Tuesday - February 27, 2007
Property tax reform in Russia
A few days ago I
wrote about the fact that Moscow is currently struggling with eminent domain
issues. Now, it turns out, that the city
is also thinking about reforming the way it imposes the property tax.
Currently the tax is imposed based on an estimate of value based strictly on a
measurement of floor space, which results in vastly underestimated values. The
proposed new system sounds oddly
familiar:
Currently, homeowners pay an annual charge of 0.1 percent to 2 percent of a property's value estimated on the basis of floor space, which vastly underestimates the actual market price.
This means that owners pay nugatory sums each year, sometimes as low as 150 rubles ($5.70), irrespective of the real value of the properties.
In comparison with current figures, the proposed future rate would take into account such factors as the location and condition of the building, giving a figure far closer to the actual market value of the property.
The new taxes would be around 0.05 percent of the property's value over the previous year minus 30 percent.
Put more simply, an average Moscow apartment worth $400,000 to $500,000 could cost up to $2,000 to $2,500 per year in taxes.
The square footage formula must produce some ludicrous numbers. A tax bill of $5.70 yields a maximum property value (assuming .1 percent mill rate) of $5,700.00. Of course, as one can't say enough, if the yielded property values are accurate relative to one another, the system is fair. All you have to do is raise the mill rate to accomplish what the folks in Moscow are trying to do.
The new system would be much like ours, right down to the seventy percent assessment figure. The tax rate, on the other hand, appears to be a bit lower than ours. The good citizens of Moscow, particularly those that benefit (comparatively) from the current system, are mystified by the new proposal and can't imagine that it could work:
According to the proposals, the exact level of the rates would be determined by local administrations and feed into their budgets. But critics argue that this leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
"I understand why they are trying to do this, and maybe the purpose is quite clear and maybe even good, but I don't really understand how they plan to implement the proposals," said Anna Papakhina, a sales director at DeltaRealty.
Muscovites are apparently being victimized by real estate speculators, and the property tax reform, along with another reform of what is essentially a steep conveyance tax, is meant to dampen that speculation. Whether it will achieve its purpose is another question.
This proves once again that there's nothing new under the sun. The intent is to tax the wealthy, but the critics are claiming, probably with justification, that the tax change will hit a lot of middle income/land rich people hard. The folks in Moscow could avoid a lot of mistakes by examining the situation here. And we can take some small sense of satisfaction from the fact that our system looks good to our former adversaries.
Currently, homeowners pay an annual charge of 0.1 percent to 2 percent of a property's value estimated on the basis of floor space, which vastly underestimates the actual market price.
This means that owners pay nugatory sums each year, sometimes as low as 150 rubles ($5.70), irrespective of the real value of the properties.
In comparison with current figures, the proposed future rate would take into account such factors as the location and condition of the building, giving a figure far closer to the actual market value of the property.
The new taxes would be around 0.05 percent of the property's value over the previous year minus 30 percent.
Put more simply, an average Moscow apartment worth $400,000 to $500,000 could cost up to $2,000 to $2,500 per year in taxes.
The square footage formula must produce some ludicrous numbers. A tax bill of $5.70 yields a maximum property value (assuming .1 percent mill rate) of $5,700.00. Of course, as one can't say enough, if the yielded property values are accurate relative to one another, the system is fair. All you have to do is raise the mill rate to accomplish what the folks in Moscow are trying to do.
The new system would be much like ours, right down to the seventy percent assessment figure. The tax rate, on the other hand, appears to be a bit lower than ours. The good citizens of Moscow, particularly those that benefit (comparatively) from the current system, are mystified by the new proposal and can't imagine that it could work:
According to the proposals, the exact level of the rates would be determined by local administrations and feed into their budgets. But critics argue that this leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
"I understand why they are trying to do this, and maybe the purpose is quite clear and maybe even good, but I don't really understand how they plan to implement the proposals," said Anna Papakhina, a sales director at DeltaRealty.
Muscovites are apparently being victimized by real estate speculators, and the property tax reform, along with another reform of what is essentially a steep conveyance tax, is meant to dampen that speculation. Whether it will achieve its purpose is another question.
This proves once again that there's nothing new under the sun. The intent is to tax the wealthy, but the critics are claiming, probably with justification, that the tax change will hit a lot of middle income/land rich people hard. The folks in Moscow could avoid a lot of mistakes by examining the situation here. And we can take some small sense of satisfaction from the fact that our system looks good to our former adversaries.
Krugman has a dream
Euphemistically speaking
More on net neutrality
From here on in, they're Liberty Muffins-The British are going!
Declare Victory and Leave
Let's Impeach the President for Lyin' (or at least threaten him)
The rules don't apply to Bush, Chapter 367
More on Iran
All hanging separately