Monday
Jan302012
The Commentariat -- January 31, 2012
The Commentariat, as usual, is open for comments. I've brought these three links forward from yesterday, as I posted them fairly late in the day:
... My column, "Tom Friedman on How the 99 Percent Can Best Serve the One Percent, Corporate Edition," is now up on NYTX. That twerp is really starting to irritate me. ...
... Prof. William Black: "Apple overwhelmingly purchases components from Asian suppliers that are criminal enterprises." P.S. You'd never know this from reading the New York Times. ...
... CW: This article by Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism on Apple's use of Chinese slave labor is excellent, but then she agrees with me, so I would think so.
Zeke Emanuel & Jeffrey Liebman in the New York Times: "Here’s a bold prediction for the new year. By 2020, the American health insurance industry will be extinct. Insurance companies will be replaced by accountable care organizations — groups of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who come together to provide the full range of medical care for patients."
Keith Bradsher of the New York Times: "As the White House prepares for a Washington visit by the man who is expected to run China for the coming decade..., a coalition of big American labor unions, Democratic politicians and trade advocacy groups plans to start campaigning for the Obama administration to file a series of trade cases against China in the auto industry. They accuse Beijing of unfairly subsidizing Chinese auto parts makers and illegally restricting the exports of crucial raw materials that foreign parts makers need to stay competitive. The group says a 900 percent increase in auto parts imports from China over the last decade, to nearly $12 billion a year, is to blame for job losses in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania — three swing states that the administration cannot easily ignore in a presidential election year."
Greg Sargent: key unions are unhappy with a Senate Democratic "compromise" with House Republicans on the FAA reauthorization bill and are demanding Democrats pull out of the deal.
Alex Isenstadt of Politico: "Democrat Suzanne Bonamici holds a comfortable lead over Republican Rob Cornilles in public polling heading into the last day of balloting in the vote-by-mail special election to replace disgraced former Democratic Rep. David Wu [D-Oregon]. Republicans glumly acknowledge there’s little reason to expect the kind of upset the GOP scored last fall.... If Bonamici does come out on top, it will be largely thanks to a Democratic Party-led onslaught targeting Cornilles. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent more than $1.2 million on TV ads slamming the Republican as a tea-party-aligned conservative who is far out of step with the liberal-leaning, northwest Oregon-based 1st District, which has sent only Democrats to Congress since 1974."
Right Wing World
The New York Times Editors Love Those Debates: "... the [GOP presidential] debates have shown the complete lack of interest by all the Republican candidates in the issues of economic fairness. While the candidates argue over their investments and their complex tax returns and who can cut taxes for the rich the most, the contrast to Mr. Obama’s newfound voice on shared responsibility could not be more clear. The long series of debates are an open window onto the failed policies and dubious values of the Republican Party. No wonder some people want to close it."
Sam Youngman of Reuters: "A confident Mitt Romney solidified his lead in Florida polls and ridiculed Republican rival Newt Gingrich on Monday, calling his opponent's attacks 'sad' and 'painfully revealing' the day before the state's crucial presidential primary." ...
... Philip Rucker & Amy Gardner of the Washington Post: "With Mitt Romney appearing poised to win a commanding victory in Florida’s GOP presidential primary on Tuesday, the candidates repositioned themselves on Monday for a series of unpredictable contests to follow, with no end in sight to the rift within the Republican Party. Romney and his chief rival, Newt Gingrich, hurled personal barbs at each other in a final burst of campaigning here, signaling that they will remain at their battle stations as the nomination fight quickly pivots to Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri...." ...
... But if this makes you think Romney is really, really popular with Florida wingnuts and Gingrich is not, consider this report from the Wesleyan Media Project: "Romney ... and [his] allies have dominated the airwaves in Florida, airing almost 13,000 ads on broadcast television across the state, as of Wednesday, the 25th (Table 3). Gingrich and his interest-group allies have aired only about 200 spots, with Paul and Santorum out of the broadcast television game." That would be 65 Romney ads running for every Gingrich ad (and zero for Paul & Santorum). Thank you, Citizens United. You guys on the Supremes are geniuses.
Greg Sargent: "... a new partisan breakdown of some numbers from the new NBC/WSJ poll ... [shows] Romney’s unfavorability rating among independents has spiked 20 points in the last two months.... Pollster Peter Hart, a Democrat, tells me Romney’s multiple gaffes and revelations about his taxes and Bain background have led independents to start making a choice between Romney and Obama, rather than merely looking at Romney as a generic opponent of the President."
Michael Cooper of the New York Times: "A year after a coterie of new Republican governors swept into the statehouses and put in place aggressive agendas to cut spending and curb union powers, sparking strong backlashes in many places, many of them are adopting decidedly more moderate tones as they begin their sophomore year in office."
Michael Gerson, former Bush II speechwriter & Washington Post columnist, writes a column which is slugged on the front page, "Obama declares war on religion." Yeah, right. The Post editorial page remains manned by radical loons. ...
... Update: here's Andy Rosenthal David Firestone of the New York Times ridiculing the Newt for "reaching deep into his bag of bizarre accusations" to make charge against President Obama that Gerson makes, then leveling a similar charge against Romney. And Newt didn't even accuse Obama of "war"; only a mere "attack on religion." Michael Gerson is insane. ...
... AND consider this: could Rosenthal Firestone be pushing back against the views his own columnist -- one Ross Douthat -- expressed just this weekend? I think maybe so.
News Ledes
New York Times: "Mitt Romney rolled to victory in the Florida primary on Tuesday evening, according to early returns and exit polls, dispatching an insurgent threat from Newt Gingrich and reclaiming his dominant position in the race for the Republican presidential nomination." Page includes updated Florida totals. The Times has live, updated coverage here. ...
... The New York Times has a page here where they are updating superPAC disclosures. The deadline for filing is midnight.
New York Times: "The battle over Syria moved to the United Nations on Tuesday as Western powers and much of the Arab world confronted Russia and its allies in the Security Council over their refusal to condemn the Syrian government for its violent suppression of popular protests."
New York Times: "In an effort to regain public trust, the Senate voted Monday to take up a bill that would prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks and other securities on the basis of confidential information they receive as lawmakers. The vote was 93 to 2.... At the same time, Democratic senators moved to tap into concerns about comparatively low tax rates paid by some of the nation’s top earners, introducing a bill that would require households with more than $1 million of adjusted gross income to pay at least 30 percent of it in taxes." Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced the bill, known as the "Buffett Rule"; for billionaire Warren Buffett. Republicans are not interested.
New York Times: "President Obama on Monday defended the use of drones to strike suspected terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere, saying the clandestine program ... enabled the United States to use 'pinpoint' targeting to avoid more intrusive military action. Mr. Obama, in an unusually candid public discussion of the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert program, said the drone strikes had not inflicted huge civilian casualties. 'We are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,' he said. 'It is important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.' The president made the remarks in answer to questions posed by people during a live Web interview sponsored by Google Plus...." See video in yesterday's Commentariat.
New York Times: "Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday are expected to publish a report on the disputed gun trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious, concluding that agents in Arizona — not Obama administration officials — were responsible for the tactics used in the inquiry and for providing misleading information relayed to Congress."
AP: "... for the first time since they started shaping this campaign in earnest, many ... 'super' political action committees are set to disclose just who is financing their pseudo-campaign operations. Many took advantage of a change in federal rules that essentially let them shield their donors' identities until after key primary elections in January. But they still must submit their financial reports to the Federal Election Commission by Tuesday."
Reuters: "A retired general who portrayed the U.S. fight against Muslim radicals as a battle with Satan has withdrawn from speaking to the West Point military academy after a veterans' advocacy group objected, the military academy said on Monday. Retired three-star general William Boykin was invited to speak at a February 8 West Point prayer breakfast."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (5)
@Marie Burns--
I don't follow the Washington Post closely enough to have an opinion as to whether or not its editorial page is “manned by radical loons,” but IMHO, Michael Gerson's op/ed piece, Obama Plays his Catholic Allies for Fools, is neither radical nor looney.
In fact, it's pretty much in the same vein as the op/ed piece written by E.J. Dionne—who is as liberal as Gerson is conservative—and to which you provided a link in yesterday's “The Commentariat.”
Dionne's remark that “Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus” is scarcely less bombastic than Gerson's that “the war on religion is now formally declared [by Obama].” Again, IMHO, both remarks are accurate.
Please don't misunderstand me. I disagree with the Catholic Church regarding its positions on contraception and abortion. But on matters of faith—and that's what these issues are—Catholics are entitled to believe and act as they will as long as it hurts no one else.
Catholic institutions should not be required to offer insurance to their (entirely voluntary) employees, or to provide medical services to their (entirely voluntary) clients, which violate their faith and their conscience. Such insurance and such services are widely available elsewhere through secular employers and hospitals.
Don't like the details of the insurance your employer offers? Find another job. Don't like limitations on the services that a Catholic hospital or charity offers? Go elsewhere.
And similarly, Catholic employees of secular institutions should NOT expect special dispensation NOT to have to perform or provide particular services—expected of all other employees—simply because of their faith. Find another job.
Dionne, in particular, expresses surprise at Obama's apparent betrayal of Catholics by this move, saying that earlier in his administration
“[Obama] showed an appreciation for the Catholic Church’s contributions to American life — particularly through its vast array of social-service and educational institutions — and an instinctive feeling for Catholic sensibilities.”
Still, those of us who remember his “bitter clinger” remarks—which were never intended for the public—have always suspected that there was a hidden side of Obama regarding "primitive" religions, guns, and other things, that has been just waiting to burst out.
@Zee. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I'm working on a NYTX column on this very subject. There is a substantive difference between Gerson's and Dionne's pieces. Dionne says, "shoulda, woulda, coulda." Gerson says the Obama Administration "has declared war on religion." That's what's loony.
Your premise that people go to work for RC hospitals "entirely voluntarily" is naive. If the best hospital in town, or the only one which offers a nurse or a doctor a job, is a Roman Catholic hospital, it makes sense to accept the job offer. Sure, there are some people who are so conscientious they would not work for a hospital run by a group with which they fundamentally disagreed in regard to certain practices, but most people don't have the financial option to be so high-minded. I do not think the vast majority of doctors, nurses and other lower-paid hospital personnel work "entirely voluntarily."
If there's a "war" here -- and there is not -- it's a "war on women." And I would add, it's a war on Roman Catholic women as well. According to a NYT article I'm citing in my column, "... surveys have found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, as in the general population, have used contraceptives."
This is not an issue (the RC hospitals) that I know much about. Recently I had a major surgery in a hospital nominally run by the Adventists but, as a patient, I was exposed to a minimum of their propaganda.
Were the kind nurses who took care of me 'voluntary employees'? They were not slaves, of course. But their choice to 'serve' the Adventists had nothing to do with their religion. It just happens that this hospital is the largest and possibly the best in the area paying decent salaries and giving an opportunity for profeesional advancement.
Technically, the Adventists may not be so obnoxious as some Catholic true believers but I just do not know.
The hospital, I learned from the internet, is actually owned by the Federal Government but the Adventists put it, apparently, together using a lot of subsidies, ultimately our taxes. Nothing wrong with that, in this case it works quite well.
Not necessarily everywhere, of course.
Two points. Regardless of what you believe, if you except funding from public sources you must accept public policy. Second, just because you have insurance does not mean you have to use it for something you don't want.
And a side thought. Does the Catholic Church and many other religions actually believe that the earth can handle an infinite number of people? Sorry Zee but this policy hurts millions of children every day.
I find it highly amusing that Catholics have been using birth control quite successfully and religiously for decades and yet somehow it still holds sway in the church doctrine. Seeds and sex have been a problem for the robed rulers since time immemorial culminating in all the priest scandals. And I agree with Marie in citing the difference between Gerson's and Dionne's responses.
And speaking of wars on women: Just learned that Susan G. Komen is pulling out her funding for breast exams at Planned Parenthood due to political pressure.