The Washington Post offers tips on how to keep your EV battery running in frigid temperatures. The link at the end of this graf is supposed to be a "gift link" (from me, Marie Burns, the giftor!), meaning that non-subscribers can read the article. Hope it works: https://wapo.st/3u8Z705
Monday
Jan122015
The Commentariat -- Jan. 13, 2015
Internal links, graphic removed.
Connie Cass of the AP: "A Texas congressman drew criticism Tuesday for a tweet that used the world's response to terrorist attacks in Paris as an opportunity to compare President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. Rep. Randy Weber's official account, @TXRandy14, tweeted on Tuesday night: 'Even Adolph Hitler thought it more important than Obama to get to Paris. (For all the wrong reasons.) Obama couldn't do it for right reasons'." CW: Relax, people. He wasn't tweeting about Adolf Hitler. He was tweeting about Adolph Hitler. People like Weber are so ignorant & twisted with hate, I can't really get angry at them. The people who vote for these ignoramuses? They have no excuse.
NEW. FreakOut Nation headline: "White People Riot In Columbus After Football Game, Media Calls It A 'Celebration.'" Read the post. The author is right.
James Downie of the Washington Post: The Republicans first week of total control of Congress was mighty "scary."
Julie Davis of the New York Times: "President Obama on Tuesday will unveil new proposals to protect businesses and the government from cyberattacks, including increasing the prosecution of crimes conducted through computer networks and toughening penalties for them. Under the steps to be outlined by Mr. Obama, companies that share information about cyberthreats with the government would be shielded from liability, according to a description of the proposals provided by the White House." ...
... This Is Embarrassing. Katie Zezima of the Washington Post: "President Obama unveiled legislation to help protect consumers and students against cyberattacks Monday afternoon, as the Twitter and YouTube accounts of the U.S. Military's Central Command were apparently hacked." Here's the President's address to the FTC:
... Kim Zetter of Wired: "Twitter and YouTube accounts belonging to the military's US Central Command were hacked on Monday. Hackers supportive of the terrorist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, took credit and issued a warning to the US military. 'AMERICAN SOLDIERS, WE ARE COMING, WATCH YOUR BACK. ISIS,' the hackers tweeted through the account for the US Central Command, which is the military command for the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia."
Julie Davis of the New York Times: "The White House, facing a barrage of criticism for President Obama's decision not to attend Sunday's peace march in Paris, said on Monday that an American official with a higher profile should have been on hand for the show of solidarity.... Asked his response to critics who say a person with more prominence than the United States ambassador to France should have attended, [White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest] said: 'We agree.'... Mr. Earnest ... cited scheduling and security concerns as playing a part." ...
... Dana Milbank: "The conservatives are guilty of a bit of inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, in criticizing the Obama administration for snubbing a people they not long ago called cheese-eating surrender monkeys." ...
... ** In Paris, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu makes a complete ass of himself. Robert Tait of the Telegraph: "The most serious criticism has been levelled at his call for members of France's Jewish community -- the largest in Europe -- to move to Israel for safety reasons following last Friday's attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, in which four Jews were killed." Read the whole story. Bibi is the Chris Christie of Israel.
Matt Apuzzo of the New York Times profiles U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, whom President Obama has nominated to replace Attorney General Eric Holder.
Jonathan Chait of New York: "... history will be very generous with Barack Obama, who has compiled a broad record of accomplishment through three-quarters of his presidency.... Whatever the source of the current disappointment with Obama, the explanation cannot be that he failed to achieve his stated goals."
History Won't Be Very Generous with This Guy. Allison Jackson of the Global Post: "Casual racism, or just a very poorly thought-out remark? Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said a 'trained ape' would have managed the US relationship with Afghanistan better than the Obama administration.... Rumsfeld also said the US-Afghan relationship had been 'first-rate' during the Bush administration, but had gone 'downhill like a toboggan' since Obama took office." ...
... Charles Pierce: "Almost 5000 Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. ISIS was born. And now Donald Rumsfeld, who couldn't manage a toy boat in a washtub, gets to say something cute about the president. Also, it's not About Race because it never is About Race."
Matt Apuzzo: "James Risen, a New York Times reporter, will not be called to testify at a leak trial scheduled to begin this week, lawyers said Monday, ending a seven-year legal fight over whether he could be forced to identify his confidential sources." CW: I thought we learned this last week.
What If the Supreme Court Does Mitch McConnell's Bidding? Linda Blumberg, et al., of the Urban Institute: "The Supreme Court will hear the King v. Burwell case, in which the plaintiff argues that the ACA prohibits payment of premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions to people in states without state-managed Marketplaces. We estimate that a victory for the plaintiff would increase the number of uninsured by 8.2 million people and eliminate $28.8 billion in tax credits and cost-sharing reductions in 2016 ($340 billion over 10 years) for 9.3 million people. With lower cost individuals leaving the market, average nongroup premiums in 34 states would increase by 35 percent, affecting those purchasing inside and outside those Marketplaces." Via Steve Stromberg of the Washington Post. ...
... Ed Kilgore: "... politically, Republicans would have to weigh the severe damage suffered by millions of people -- many of them GOP voters -- who are suddenly facing big premium increases against the excitement of conservative activists (especially the large number who are themselves all warm and cuddly with their Medicare benefits) who will cheer any blow to the Great White Whale of the Affordable Care Act." ...
... CW: But first. There's one important person who has to "weigh the severe damage suffered by millions of people." That guy is John Roberts. The will-he or won't-he is the question for the next six months. This is not a question of law. It is a question of character. Roberts' Choice will be, in some ways, the paradigmatic manifestation of the condition of the elite conservative heart. We'll find out in June if it's dead or still beating, however faintly.
David Goodman & Al Baker of the New York Times: "After largely ignoring many minor offenses for two weeks, the [New York] Police Department's rank and file began to reverse a severe slowdown that began after two officers were killed and that raised questions about command of the department. New numbers released on Monday showed a marked increase in enforcement activity by police officers and traffic agents since the police commissioner, William J. Bratton, told police commanders and union leaders last week that he expected an end to the unsanctioned collective action by officers."
Russell Contreras of the AP: "Two Albuquerque police officers were charged with murder Monday in the shooting death of a knife-wielding homeless man that led to violent protests and brought new scrutiny to the police department amid a federal investigation."
John Schwartz of the New York Times: The West Virginia Board of Education will consider whether or not to change their climate science standard back to one that doesn't favor the fossil fuel industry.
CW: Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. If you were missing David Brooks because I always forget about him, Driftglass brought us up-to-date on Brooks' appearance on "Press the Meat" & elsewhere. Also, if you forgot what NPR stands for, Driftglass has an update there, too: "Nice, Polite Republicans." Exactly right. I think the network should make it official.
Presidential Election
Robert Costa, et al., of the Washington Post: "Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign. Romney's message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he 'almost certainly will' make what would be his third bid for the White House." ...
... Ed Kilgore: "Well, it will be interesting to see how Mitt handles the alleged appetite of Republicans for 'populism' going into 2016; of all his personas, I think he's ever worn that one." ...
... In keeping with the Romney news, Alex Moe of NBC News: "Paul Ryan won't run for president in 2016." Sez he can do more damage as chair of the House Ways & Means Committee (or something like that).
Santorum, that’s Latin for asshole. -- Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), ca. 1995
Jonathan Martin of the New York Times (Jan. 11): "Rick Santorum sharply criticized a group of potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in an interview that indicated he intends to reclaim conservative primary voters ahead of another White House bid in 2016. Mr. Santorum, the runner-up to the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, in 2012, took direct aim Friday at Mike Huckabee, Senator Rand Paul and Senator Ted Cruz, each of whom could offer the party's right wing a fresh alternative to Mr. Santorum in conservative states with early primaries or caucuses." ...
... Charles Pierce: "I don't entirely disagree with Jonathan Martin here in his assessment that there are at the moment two distinct pre-primaries going on among the Republicans. There's the fat-wallet primary between Jeb (!) and possibly Mitt Romney, and maybe Chris Christie. And then there's the one in which Santorum is embroiled. This is a solid analysis as far as it goes, as long as we accept as an obvious given that the latter primary is being conducted exclusively on the terrain of the completely insane."
News Corpse. Dave Weigel of Bloomberg Politics: "Sixteen months ago, to some fanfare, Dick Morris re-entered the anti-Clinton fray with a new PAC. He launched Dick Morris's Just Say No to Hillary PAC, registering it from Tampa. From time to time, stories about the potential hurdles for a Hillary Clinton run would cite the rise of PACs like Morris's. But there is a rather glaring problem with adding Morris to this narrative: No one has been giving money to his PAC. Literally, no one.... His profile has never quite recovered from two events in 2012. First: He went further on a limb than any comparable commentator in saying Mitt Romney would win the presidency. He would take it in a 'landslide,' said Morris on Fox News.... Morris played in the 2010 midterms via his Super PAC, which ended up paying most of what it took in -- close to $1.7 million -- to Newsmax Media." ...
... Ed Kilgore: "... it seems Morris has burned up all his credibility, even with people who live for his sort of jive. It is indeed an inspiring story for anyone wondering if the wicked always triumph."
Congressional/Gubernatorial Races
Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times: California "Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris will announce Tuesday that she is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Barbara Boxer, according to a Harris adviser." ...
... Alex Isenstadt of Politico: California Lt. Gov. Gavin "Newsom, who had left a message with [Kamala] Harris outlining his intentions [to run for governor of California], went ahead anyway and announced on Facebook that he wouldn't be running for Senate in 2016. Newsom's withdrawal capped a furious 72 hours of discussions among the would-be candidates and their advisers over whether to jump at the state's first open Senate seat in two decades, or hold out for a shot at leading a state that is the world's eighth-largest economy. In announcing his plans, Newsom, 47, got out ahead of Harris, 50, who has told friends that she is also interested in the job of governor. Instead, on Tuesday, she will launch a campaign for Boxer's seat, knowing that if she hesitated, it would appear that she was reluctant to choose the Senate over the governorship." ...
... Patrick McGreevy of the Los Angeles Times: "Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who announced Monday that he would not run for U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's seat next year, signaled that he would probably support state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris if she does seek the post. Newsom called Harris on Sunday night to tell her of his decision, but he denied that the two have an agreement in which he would support her for Senate and she would support him for governor -- an office in which Newsom has previously expressed interest."
News Ledes
Boston Globe: "Attorneys for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are asking a judge to suspend jury selection in his trial for at least a month because of the terror attacks in France. The filing late Tuesday says a delay would allow time for 'the extraordinary prejudice' from the attacks last week and the comparisons to the 2013 marathon bombing to diminish."
Washington Post: "A woman riding on a Metro train died Monday and 83 other passengers were taken to hospitals, at least two in critical condition, after the train abruptly stopped, went dark and filled with smoke in a tunnel in downtown Washington, authorities said." CW: Sorry about placing this story on the wrong continent yesterday.
Guardian: "The three police officers killed in last week's attacks were honoured by French president François Hollande at a sombre and emotional ceremony at the Prefecture de Police in Paris on Tuesday."
Guardian: "The front cover of Wednesday's edition of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the first since last week's attack on its Paris offices that left 12 people dead, is a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad.... Zineb El Rhazoui, a surviving columnist at Charlie Hebdo magazine who worked on the new issue, said the cover was a call to forgive the terrorists who murdered her colleagues last week...."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (25)
@James Singer wrote yesterday, "The headline on today’s NYT profile of Loretta E. Lynch, Obama’s nominee to spell Eric Holder as AG, says 'Nominee to Succeed Holder Is Seen as Less Activist.' Less than what? Does this mean she likely won’t even show up at the office?"
Funny. I could be wrong on every count here, but I think if we're to see prosecutions of say, someone like Poor, Pitiful Petraeus, it will be Lynch, not Holder, who gives it the green light. In the matter of Petraeus, Holder has already hinted he might not make a decision before he leaves office. If he makes the decision on Petraeus, it will be "no"; like Dianne Feinstein, Holder flinches at the idea of prosecuting anyone he might have met at a dinner party. If Apuzzo's profile of Lynch is fair, I don't think she will be so squeamish.
Again, I may be entirely wrong.
Marie
Akhilleus
Didn't see the 60 Minutes nor read Brill's book (but did read the links to Daily, Treacher and Gladwell), but I was mightily impressed by his Time piece on healthcare costs and am not ready to dismiss his new book. I do think we are going to suffer some huge blowback when people begin to get bigger bills (or tax bills) on their private healthcare insurance. Remember the hit we took on 'if you like your insurance you can keep it'? It will be like that but bigger. I have the displeasure of following a blog where most commenters are right wing and you should hear the screams of many of these comfortable middle class self-employed people who have had substantial increases in their premiums and their deductions. I don't think their complaints are like the phoney GOP ads to which we were subjected. Less partisan accounts seem to back up their assertions. I think it will get very ugly and we may lose the fight. One big reason is because those who benefit most have no voice. And nobody cares about the silent.
@Haley Simon: The real complaint about "socialized medicine"/ObamaCare is that lucky duckies have to pay for it. The wealthy actually get a tax surcharge, & the upper-middle class get no tax break & may have to pay a bit more for coverage.
News flash! That's how progressive taxation is supposed to work. In fact, it almost would be fair to equate progressive taxation & progressive policies because the better-off bear the highest (or all of the) burden of paying for progressive programs if they are ones that cost $$$.
If you don't like ObamaCare, you must be rich. Congratulations.
In a just system, getting a tax hike is something to brag about, not complain about. It means you're doing all right.
Marie
Curious about Steven Brill I did a little lookie-see: Brill has been a busy beaver––has had his hand in many avenues. One of these was charter schools:
"In August 2011, Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools was published. It described the success of charter schools, using the Success Academy Charter Schools (then known as Harlem Success Academy) as an example, and profiled teacher Jessica Reid as a model of what could be done without union restrictions. He [Brill]described how unions, particularly the United Federation of Teachers and UFT president Randi Weingarten in New York City, protected incompetent teachers, and were opposed to pay-for-performance, and obstructed necessary reforms, a system he had previously exposed in The New Yorker. By the time Brill came to the end of the book, Reid quit. The long hours and stress of her job, with nightly calls to parents, and constant prodding of students, were affecting her marriage. Brill changed his position on charter schools and unions. He said that after two years of researching school reform, he understood the complexities. He reversed his view of Weingarten, and proposed that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appoint her chancellor of the school system." (Wiki)
This speaks for itself.
Re; fair share, wealthy pay a tax surcharge, upper middle no tax break, may pay more for coverage. I don't fit any of those profiles, "lower middle working with hands class", that'd be me. I did not make more money last year, but my health insurance went up, again, like the year before, and the year before and the year before; sensing a pattern? And the year before.
I'm willing to help out, I'll carry the load, but what pisses me off is I'm not helping the disadvantaged, I'm helping the fuckin' medical industry, and by that I mean the whole mess of insurance companies, drug companies, health advocates, adjusters, blood labs, not for profit millionaire doctor groups; the whole ensalada. Fuckem, as I have stated before health should be for all, not for profit. I know we all got to make a living but that large of a living?
@JJG: Points well-taken. You're right.
The answer, a massive restructuring of the medical system, to include a national healthcare system of the sort that most advanced countries have, is not going to happen, especially as long as we have a pay-for-play Congress & presidency.
Vermont thought they could try it & -- at least so far -- have failed. Some New York state legislators want to try single-payer, too, but there's little chance they will get their way. In states the size of New York & California, it probably could work. Of course any state that does initiate such a system can expect an influx of chronically ill "immigrants" from other states.
I'm going to have minor surgery next week; it should probably cost about $1,000 for everything; I bet it will come closer to $15K. I have a deductible, but you'll be paying for it, too. Thanks, all you taxpayers.
Marie
I'm moving forward this comment by Creegr, just posted to yesterday's thread:
Hope & Change wasn't a finite list. My comment was intended to call out the Administration's response to the proposed legislation: "receptive." I do recall hearing Obama speeches that legislation like what was described in the WashPo article would be promoted aggressively asap but have no time to find the footnote.
However, your request for a list does remind me of the answer I have heard Obama offer (at least twice) when asked where he might have failed, why his supporters were expressing disappointment with his administration? His answer: "Well, I thought if we got the policy right everything else would fall into place. Maybe [sic] we could have done a better job of explaining our accomplishments."
When first offered roughly two years into his first term and then again quite recently, I found that answer dumbfounding. Aggressively promoting and defending policies and proposed policies that are being constantly and viciously attacked by the Republicans, FOX and the entire right-wing conservative establishment was not something he saw the need for? This from a guy who led the most high energy, professionally organized and effective campaign - especially in terms of communicating and staying on message with the electorate as a whole, gathering volunteer support and motivating voters - that I have ever observed! Ever, bar none; JFK was my first vote.
However, once in office - in a position to provide leadership and advocacy for those who had so enthusiastically embraced his "Hope and Change" business -, the vibrant energy and the extraordinary professional execution disappeared (think ACA roll-out), replaced by the lackadaisical sounding excuse "Well, I thought if we got the policy right.."
In this political environment, facing the opposition that he, his administration and Democrats generally have from day one, the need to aggressively and repeatedly explain, defend and advocate was overlooked?! Just get the policy right?! Incredible.
Early on John Stewart asked Obama, "But sometimes your manner seems a little, ah - timid?" No, no, no - you don't understand, was the answer. Etc.
Now, six years too late, admittedly with no chance of passage, a bold aggressive plan to assist middle and lower income citizens - which should have been list item #1! - is put forward, not by the President but Members of Congress, and the White House message managers shout back: receptive.
Meanwhile Republicans, FOX, et al attack, 24/7 from all quarters. Thankfully, secretly even, our side has the policy right!
Creegr
I tried to watch the Brill interview with Jon Stewart, but when he started out with "website failed" I had to shut it off. Honestly, that is very old news, and I don't see the point in beating that dead horse (even Republicans seemed to have moved on). Malcolm Gladwell's
lengthy review of Brill's book I thought most informative. He points out that one of Brill's solutions is for "big regional health-care systems that dominate many metropolitan areas to expand their reach and to assume the function of insuring patients as well." Yet he never mentions that such a system already exists: Kaiser Permanente uses the model (integrated managed care), and currently covers about 10 million people - no small potatoes.
There are inevitably many valid criticisms of a system that - overnight - imposed a vast expansion of health access on our citizens. And it would be nice if our politicians on both side of the aisle would work together to institute fixes - or replace the ACA with something better. But when you have one party that offers no fix and no replacement, maybe an imperfect structure of health care delivery is the best we can do for now.
On another note, costs are shared in various ways by those who can afford it so that those who can't could gain insurance. The burden is heavier on wealthier, yes, but also on older people - until they reach Medicare, and then it goes way down. (And of course, they are still eligible for subsidies if they qualify). I could see where this would sting especially since older Americans hadn't much opportunity to plan for the escalating cost. But this should ease as people become accustomed to this reality.
@Creegr: "... have no time to find the footnote."
You can't find the footnote because it likely doesn't exist.
Obama was elected as pretty much a blank slate, a tabula rasa onto which each of us who voted for him put out own imprint. I did. Part of that was certainly latent racism; as far as I know, no one is willing to say so -- except me -- that many people assumed that because Obama was black, he would share our liberal values. If he did, that's not the way he governed during his first term. This was evident from before he took office when he made his Cabinet picks. I was appalled by a number of them -- Tim Geithner, Arne Duncan, Eric Holder, ferinstance.
Nonetheless, I was not particularly surprised; I thought Obama would govern as a moderate, I said so at the time, and he did. (If you read the Obama profile Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker wrote in 2008, you wouldn't be surprised, either; Obama learned young to be a pragmatic politician, & a bit ruthless.)
If Republicans had played along, as Obama thought they would, this could have worked out. No one would have been happy, but quasi-progressive legislation could have advanced on a host of topics: carbon tax, immigration reform, infrastructure repairs, etc. Instead, Republicans took/take a scorched-earth approach, which prompted Obama to move further & further to the right, while sending Robert Gibbs out to belittle the "professional left."
Most of Obama's moves to the right on economics were just plain stupid: promoting the "belt-tightening" & "kitchen table" analogies re: the deficit (in the SOTU, no less); freezing federal hiring & wages; agreeing (reportedly) to raise the Medicare eligibility age (which economists pointed out would actually cost the taxpayer more, not less, except in regard to the people it killed off), "reforming" Social Security.
The major fault here is twofold, then: (1) Obama's strategy (and perhaps his actual MOR preferences) of trying to compromise with Republicans, & (2) Republican intransigence. Perceptually, however, the fault is in ourselves; we thought Obama would pursue liberal causes, even though his commitment there was fairly limited.
It wasn't until late 2011, when Obama was gearing up for the 2012 campaign, that he gave a hint he might remember his Democratic roots in his Osawatomie speech, which coincided, not coincidentally, with the short life of the Occupy movement. But as Arianna Huffington aptly put it, the speech was more about "the fierce urgency of maybe next term."
With some exceptions, like his DREAMers exec order, eventually standing up to Republicans on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012 & non-enforcement of DOMA, most of that fierce urgency was reserved for the post-2014-election period.
As for Obama's failure to promote his policies, I will agree that he was usually too muted -- he would complain about "some people in Washington" instead of "Republicans," & he was verrrry flexible on what he expected Congress to do re: healthcare reform. But he gave speeches on an average of at least once a week, in my recollection. That seems to me like more speeches than most presidents give, but then I never paid any attention whatsoever to what some Republican presidents said, so I could be wrong here. I think to blame Obama for not promoting his policies is probably unfair; the administration & Congressional Democrats certainly could have employed a better organization, however, to counter the Republican Outrage Machine. But I don't see how anyone can finger Obama for a party-wide failure to communicate. That people do so is an example of corruption by the "great-man" theory.
@Creegr: "JFK was my first vote."
JFK was more conservative than Obama on both economic & social issues. Take a look at the legislation he pushed (e.g., lowering the tax rate for millionaires by 20%) or didn't push (civil rights). Meanwhile, he seemed okay with spying on MLK. You seem to be looking back with rose-colored glasses.
Marie
Haley,
What prompted my comment in the first place was not so much Brill's take on the ACA. As I mentioned, I've been a fan of his work in the past and, since I haven't read this book, don't feel able to make any assessments along those lines. I've read the pieces Unwashed suggested. My initial impetus was the feeling that 60 Minutes, once an essential source of hard core investigative journalism, has sprung some pretty big holes, editorial oversight and balance being one of them. It's important to ask hard questions but just as important to not immediately adopt the POV of just one person, and not, certainly, on a subject as complex and multifaceted as healthcare reform.
Over the last couple of years, 60 Minutes has put forward some disgraceful reporting, the Benghazi piece being the worst. On the eve of a report on NSA abuses that came out about a year ago, 60 Minutes offered up a puff piece on that organization which became more of a friendly NSA documentary of their noble work (with plenty of softball questions for then chief Gen. Keith Alexander to knock out of the park) rather than a hard-eyed look at the tactics of an agency that has been collecting and collating data on Americans without their knowledge or consent.
So when I see a business journal like Forbes shaking its head in dismay at this weekend's piece on the ACA which portrayed the president's health care law as disastrous, I'm inclined to wonder whither 60 Minutes. I'm not looking for a puff piece the other way either. There are plenty of problems with the ACA, the biggest of which is that it did not create a single payer system. But a balanced look at what has been accomplished, against astounding odds, is vital if we are to move forward and not succumb to the barbarians trying to pull us back to the former status quo in which millions had nothing.
In its prime, 60 Minutes it was indispensable, and with all the news shows and networks (Fox) beset by faulty wiring, haughty egos, preconceived assumptions, and disdain for factual reporting, we can hardly stand to lose one more reasonably responsible source of information.
Bibi must have been taking notes when Bush and Cheney were painting extreme Islamists as Super Villains who needed to be kept in cages outside the country and whose crimes were too galactic to be accommodated by a criminal court in the United States. Better hurry up with that Mars colony or the rest of the inmates in Gitmo will be dead before they're tried.
"Be very afraid, all you Jews living in France. They can't protect you! You'll all be killed. Come to Israel where we'll keep you behind walls and tanks!"
Great advice, there Bibi. I'm sure the French are happy. As is Jean Marie Le Pen and his wingnut nationalists. This shit plays right into his hands. Of course national security apparatuses should be keeping an eye out on groups whose stated goals are terror and murder. That goes without saying. But ramping up the terror is, in effect, doing their job for them by whipping up even more fear, and is exactly what The Decider and his pet shark were all about in this country.
Good decisions are rarely made in an atmosphere of fear and anxiety. We learned that. But right-wingers here and abroad are all about instilling dread and promoting panic.
The only thing they have is fear itself.
@Akhilleus, et al.: I don't think anybody in the U.S. thinks the ACA is swell. I think it would make a lot of sense to put a big effort into criticizing it -- if there were any chance the criticisms would lead to reform.
Frankly, because meaningful reforms of the ACA aren't possible under circumstances in the foreseeable future, I don't know why anyone who actually cares about the physical well-being of Americans would write & promote a book trashing the ACA, especially since the law itself -- which does help millions of people -- is precariously close to being doomed by one or both of two branches of the government. The reviews & publicity surrounding Brill's book suggest it is irresponsible.
Marie
I see Oregon lost to Ohio State last night in the latest extravaganza created by ESPN.
I watched part of it and would guess that post-game analyses will occupy the sports pages and airtime for the rest of the week. Whether its intelligent, worthwhile or not, there's much that can and will be said about Oregon's loss, for even simple games are complicated enough to provide entree for lengthy, trivial, commentary.
How much more complicated than a game is social policy? And how much different are Brill and other political pundits from the sports reporters busily plying their trade this AM? They all treat us to a succession of play-by-plays and recaps. They present some players as celebrities. They Monday-morning quarterback. They identify the critical plays. They focus on errors. They outline coulda's and shoulda's. Football or the ACA, our media treats it all as a game.
Social policy, though, is not a game, unless we are willing to grant that the struggle over social policy is a game where the losers lose their livelihood and sometimes their lives. Healthcare is a case very much in point. Here the game's markers are definitely the players' lives. One would think with the stakes so high the discussion of alternative policies would always start with those stakes clearly and starkly defined, but for any number of reasons we prefer not to do so.
Any number of reasons, but most likely because to do so at the outset would expose our inhumanity too clearly to ourselves.
Since I've never been eager to look in the mirror or jump on the bathroom scale first thing in the morning, I guess I understand.
Seems we're tough enough to watch the contact sport of football and elevate it to a national mania, but too weak to look the effects of social policy in the face.
So Rick Santorum is back, eh? Shit, I thought he was dead, or at least off to some south seas island to lord it over the monkeys.
So all these other guys are "bomb-throwers" but not Ricky, huh? Is that the idea? He is the soul of probity and common sense and not a charter member of the American Taliban, Is that it?
How 'bout these for bombs:
Comparing gay sexuality to "man on dog".
Declaring that global warming is non-existent.
Blaming liberals for the epidemic of priests raping little boys. Too much TV, I guess.
Trying to force schools across the country--by law--to teach "intelligent design" in place of actual science.
Insisting that contraception be banned in all cases because "that's not how it's supposed to be."
Arguing that food stamps should be taken away from poor people because they're already too fat.
When stumping for continued use of torture, told John McCain he didn't know what he was talking about when McCain discussed that subject.
"Blah people"
Enough bombs for ya? Oh, there are plenty more. Every time this asshole opens his mouth, he's blowing up something, or someone.
Can't wait for him to jump into the GOP Clown Cargo Van. That is, if he can bear to give up his medieval donkey cart.
Hunh, I thought it was National Pusillanimous Radio. (not mine, from a small newspaper out West)
@Marie: I very much appreciated your comment regarding the futility of tearing down the ACA, at least by those who care about the well being of Americans. The rest are just concern trolls - or trying to sell something, books for example.
Interesting piece by Jonathan Turley:
http://tinyurl.com/k7eomzt
Excellent comments, all, regarding the ACA. Brill is definitely shilling his "Pill" and sold one more last night after I finished my latest Nesbø. I'll read it with an open mind realizing that he has his own bias and agenda. (Book report to follow.)
I tried to pick up Goldhill's "Catatrophic Care" that Gladwell mentioned but it wasn't in stock. Found a couple of articles though from when it came out in 2013 in the New York Review of Books Obamacare: How It Should Be Fixed. and with rebuttal by Goldhill (with counter-rebuttal.)
Here's the article from Forbes that Ak mentioned about the episode on 60 Minutes.
All-in-all I believe that passage of the ACA was a good thing and hope that incremental improvements can be made without being dismantled by the Repuglicans and/or SCOTUS. It did give me and the missus a chance to get off "extended" COBRA (don't ask) just before we had to get up-close and personal exposure to the medical/insurance industrial complex.
There is a negative stigma associated with it though. When I tried to make an appointment recently for an overdue pooper-snooper exam I was told by the doctor's office, who had performed my previous exams, that "We aren't part of THAT Anthem plan." So, time to find a new doctor.
Marie
Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, I'm all for ACA. I'm all for paying taxes without complaint. When my taxes go up because I've made more money, I think that is great. I have taught my kids the same things. And you, of course, know these lessons, and more, backwards and forwards.
But if your response to me was your best effort, you are a lousy salesman. Not here in RCland, but out there, the other 75% of the country that hate taxes, hate government, hate the unemployed, hate the 'welfare mother', hate the immigrant, they are seriously not buying your argument. Their team has had the most effective propaganda machine working ever since Reagan said the problem IS government. What the hell have we got selling your argument? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Hillary Clinton? Harry Reid? Sure, Warren is one hell of a woman, but she is not one hell of a candidate - not yet amyway. Take her to The Mall of America. How many people will you find who can identify her?
You're great at meeting your neighbors and asking their opinions. Have you been able to sell them the idea that higher taxes are an indication of how lucky they are? I've had a hard enough time with that with my kids. Hell, one day my daughter told me she didn't think social security would be there for her.
It's a constant battle, Marie. And we aren't winning.
An apology, via The Hill, from Texas genius Randy Weber:
“I need to first apologize to all those offended by my tweet. It was not my intention to trivialize the Holocaust nor to compare the President to Adolf Hitler," Weber said in a statement.”
Weber declined to clarify what his intention was.
God, I love James Singer.
Anyway, I thought some may want to read the Time article that Brill wrote before we beat him up on his book.
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf
Also, I guess there are approximately 150 million Americans that hate Obamacare. They are not all trolls. And I betcha they don't worry about the "futility' of tearing it down. I think they are tasting blood and we should be worried. Here's a newsflash. We lost the Senate. The House is even more right. Cruz heads up the Senate committee on Science and NASA. Some other damn fool heads Intelligence. A gazillion states are completely controlled by Republicans. It's possible that Roe could fall. Voting rights are suppressed. We can't pass simple gun control after 20 six year olds are butchered. Most Americans support NYPD and the NYPD does not like civilian control. The Republicans have forty-two idiotic candidates for president. We have one.
Things are not looking rosy.
Akhiilleus,
With you all the way on hard times at 60 Minutes.
[Paragraph deleted.]
And I don't understand the notion of 'irresponsible'. Do we think if we just shut up they won't see our fuck ups? They've got a million think tanks, a slightly smaller number of 'journalists', bloggers and legal scholars, the number one media outlet, all the Sunday Shozs, and every two-bit reactionary Republican in the country pouring over this bill and its implementation. Is the suggestion that they might not see its short-comings if we just shut up? Don't we need to know what we got wrong so that if we are (or more likely, our grandchildren) lucky enough one day to be able to strengthen or revamp or create anew healthcare reform, we'll have some contemporaneous accounts?
CW Note: I have deleted a portion of this comment that I consider disrespectful to another commenter. Remember, people, you can diss me -- and you do -- but you can't call other commenters names.
Unwashed,
And as I learned from the Brill Time article, when you get the appointment and choose to have anesthesia, be SURE the anesthetist is in network. It is critical - otherwise you are likely to face a huge out-of-pocket bill.
Marie, you may want to stipulate only in-network docs, too. The hospitals have been known to slip in assistant surgeons and anesthetists or other professionals that are out-of-network. And that nice guy that checks you at bedside just to see how you are doing that you will never see again? He will send you a bill for $150.
Haley,
Thanks for the advice. Rather than being a choice, anesthesia will be a must-have. The propofol is the best part of the experience and the closest I'll ever come the emulating Michael Jackson.
Marie,
I'm hoping that your "Gripe of the Day" doesn't refer to me. I've offered comment once (maybe twice) before. I once suggested that Snowden and his cohorts, no matter how personally offensive they might be, had raised civil liberties questions that we should be concerned about.
Your response was that I was being impolite, "a completely obnoxious asshole [on the threshold] to being a 99.9 percent obnoxious asshole." You recommended that I visit a different site. Feeling more than a little chagrined, I didn't reply.
However, as a longtime fan, this past week I decided to risk another comment. I was attempting to make two points: (1) That Obama's response ("receptive") to the recently announced proposal by Democratic members of Congress to shift policies in a way that would benefit middle and low income earners was a typical example that exemplified why many of his supporters had lost faith in his leadership and (2) that we shouldn't be satisfied with this sort of gratuitous, 2016 gamesmanship that the Congress people were putting forward.
Your response doesn't appear to take much away from that assessment beyond the claim that - disappointments with cabinet appointments, "plain stupid" rhetoric signaling a move to the right on economic policy, his apparent willingness to accommodate Republican proposals to reform Medicare and Social Security aside - you had a more clear eyed understanding of the man and saw it all coming. You saw early on that he was a "moderate." But I insist: compared to his campaign rhetoric, that's an understatment.
I otherwise fully agree with your assessment. Indeed I too was impressed when Obama sent Gibbs out to belittle the "professional left" as he moved "further and further to the right" in response to Republicans "scorched earth polices." (The time Gibbs told Ed Schultz, off camera, to "just fuck off" was a high point.) But I didn't understand why he did it, why he veered right instead of at least holding his ground or preferably, pushing back. And I was most certainly disappointed.
I take comfort in knowing that I'm not the only observer to feel this way and that others, presumably far more savvy than I were misled.
When Obama visited Prague (where I live, by the way ) in 2009 he met with the former Czech President, Vaclav Havel. In the course of their meeting, which was played repeatedly on TV here, Havel expressed his concern that Obama had raised expectations to such heights that people were almost certain to be disappointed. Wasn't he concerned? Havel asked. Using the same disingenuous tone that he'd applied when answering Stewart's question about being "timid," Obama assured him it was not the case - nothing to worry about.
Regardless, I voted for Obama all three times. Given the same alternatives, I'd do it again without question, even if - like yourself - I had known what was coming. For whatever that's worth. But I would emphatically second Eugene Robinson's remark at the end of his recent column assessing the currently listed probable candidates for 2016: "In a nation of more than 310 million souls, we can do better. Um, can't we?" I've had the same thought previously, truth be told.
Regarding my mention of JFK: That was not intended to assert a comparison with Obama; only that it was the first time I was old enough to vote. However, now that you mention it I shudder to think how the Cuban Missile Crisis might have played out with Obama at the helm and Curtis LeMay and the Joint Chiefs pressing for immediate air strikes. Although the times are so different I think efforts to draw comparisons are near pointless, I liked the way Kennedy stood down the corporate steel industry's proposed price increases. I can't imagine Obama doing that. Call me a romantic but the Civil Rights Act was proposed by Kennedy, passed by Johnson; it was every bit as progressive and controversial as ACA. Regarding MLK: My recollection is that Hoover did the spying on his own initiative in hopes of persuading Kennedy that MLK was a commie and to not support his Negro civil rights cause.
It's a gray, chilly day here in Prague; my excuse for this long, tendentious, I hope not too impolite response. Your page remains a favorite, the absolute best go-to source available IMO. Thanks much - it must take an immense effort.
Creegr