The Commentariat -- February 12, 2012
My column in today's New York Times eXaminer is on Ross Douthat's riff on Charles Murray's book about the moral decline of working-class white Americans. It's a short-course in how conservatives mischaracterize liberal policies and hide their own true agendas behind policies that sound good or that contains appealing elements. The NYTX front page is here. You can contribute here.
James Fallows, in a long Atlantic article, "explains" President Obama & his presidency. CW: I think you're still going to come away asking, "How could Obama have made such mistakes -- of personnel and tactics -- that even I could see were mistakes?" There's not a chance, for instance, that I would have larded top-tier Cabinet & staff positions with Clinton leftovers, especially since the Clinton people were part of the problem in the first place.
"Kill the Pill." Rachel Maddow in a Washington Post op-ed on the right's war on birth control, one which all the GOP presidential candidates have pledged to lead or embraced "absolutely." ...
... Nicholas Kristof: "I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.... The cost of birth control is one reason poor women are more than three times as likely to end up pregnant unintentionally as middle-class women.... Coverage for contraception should be a pillar of our public health policy — and ... of any faith-based effort to be our brother’s keeper, or our sister’s.... Every dollar that the United States government spends on family planning reduces Medicaid expenditures by $3.74.... We try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can. But we ban polygamy, for example.... Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act."
** Binyamin Appelbaum & Robert Gebeloff of the New York Times: "... many ... residents who describe themselves as self-sufficient members of the American middle class and as opponents of government largess are drawing more deeply on that government with each passing year. Dozens of benefits programs provided an average of $6,583 for each man, woman and child in the county in 2009, a 69 percent increase from 2000 after adjusting for inflation.... The government now provides almost $1 in benefits for every $4 in other income. Older people get most of the benefits, primarily through Social Security and Medicare, but aid for the rest of the population has increased about as quickly through programs for the disabled, the unemployed, veterans and children.... Politicians have expanded the safety net without a commensurate increase in revenues.... In 2000, federal and state governments spent about 37 cents on the safety net from every dollar they collected in revenue.... A decade later..., spending on the safety net consumed nearly 66 cents of every dollar of revenue."
** Rod Nordland of the New York Times: The war in Afghanistan "is a war where traditional military jobs, from mess hall cooks to base guards and convoy drivers, have increasingly been shifted to the private sector. Many American generals and diplomats have private contractors for their personal bodyguards. And along with the risks have come the consequences: More civilian contractors working for American companies than American soldiers died in Afghanistan last year for the first time during the war. American employers here are under no obligation to publicly report the deaths of their employees and frequently do not."
Erik Eckholm of the New York Times: "Far from dissipating, [Occupy] groups around the country say they are preparing for a new phase of larger marches and strikes this spring that they hope will rebuild momentum and cast an even brighter glare on inequality and corporate greed.... Though still loosely organized, the movement is putting down roots in many cities. Activists in Chicago and Des Moines have rented offices...." With photos. CW: this article is pretty negative, but try to read past Eckholm's skepticism for the content.
New York Times Editors: "The $26 billion foreclosure settlement between the big banks and federal and state officials is a wrist slap.... The banks did not get the blanket release they originally sought from legal liability for all manner of mortgage misconduct. But the settlement still shields them from state and federal civil lawsuits for most foreclosure abuses.... The banks are not off the hook for criminal prosecutions ... or for private lawsuits. They are also not off the hook for wrongdoing in their aggressive pooling of mortgages into securities.... President Obama will need to press his own administration hard to deliver an unsparing follow-on investigation that results in more clarity, more money and more justice." ...
... New York Times Editors: "The [Obama] administration has put forth far-reaching proposals to help homeowners qualify for refinancing. But the proposals would be paid for, in part, by a new tax on banks. That requires Congressional approval, which Republicans are unlikely to provide. The White House needs to challenge Republicans to explain why they are more interested in protecting the banks than protecting homeowners.... Too much time has already been wasted."
** Adam Liptak, who reports for the New York Times on the Supreme Court, writes an important op-ed on the "high-tech war on leaks.... "It used to be that journalists had a sporting chance of protecting their sources. The best and sometimes only way to identify a leaker was to pressure the reporter or news organization that received the leak, but even subpoenas tended to be resisted. Today, advances in surveillance technology allow the government to keep a perpetual eye on those with security clearances, and give prosecutors the ability to punish officials for disclosing secrets without provoking a clash with the press." CW: technological surveillance is not only a threat to privacy; it is also a threat to a free press.
Sarah Lyall & Ravi Somaiya of the New York Times: "As dozens of investigators and high-powered lawyers converge on Rupert Murdoch’s News International in the phone hacking scandal, attention has focused on the printout of an e-mail excavated three months ago from a sealed carton left behind in an empty company office. Addressed to Mr. Murdoch’s son James, it contained explosive information about the scale of phone hacking at The News of the World tabloid — information James Murdoch says he failed to take in because he did not read the whole e-mail chain."
Stephanie Coontz in a New York Times Sunday Review article on the changing patterns of men's views on the qualities that make a desirable mate. It's good news all around for well-educated women who want to marry men. CW: Coontz doesn't say so, but obviously men's drastically changed attitudes are a result of the women's equality movement. So, you're welcome, young women, for all of the effort women of my generation made to make your life more fulfilling. And if you're married and your husband is "evolved," figure out a nice way to thank him, too!
Vanessa Thorpe of the Guardian: "A close-knit band of friends and colleagues around Bill Clinton at the time of the Monica Lewinsky affair will speak publicly for the first time of their disbelief and sense of betrayal this month in a much-anticipated four-hour documentary about the former US president." CW: the documentary will air on PBS's "American Experience" February 20 & 21. Here's an extended preview:
Right Wing World
Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post has a long piece on the GOP presidential nominating fiasco: "... what is happening to prevent the party from coalescing? GOP veterans say there are at least five forces at work: unsettled voters, lackluster candidates, muddled messages, an unprecedented inflow of money, and new rules that have prolonged the race."
Rick Santorum tells Sam Stein of the Huffington Post that health insurance should not cover contraception at all. ...
Cartoon by Drew Sheneman. In case you can't read it, the caption says, "Seriously? Him? First Gingrich, and now this? Is this a joke? Am I being punked?"CW: Willard may have won the Maine beauty pageant (nonbinding caucuses) yesterday & the CPAC poll, but Public Policy Polling reports, "Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul." Great. Because contraception is just wrong. *
* Economist Brad DeLong says the poll sample size is too small.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times on Mitt Romney's evolution from abortion rights supporter to anti-contraception, anti-abortion orthodoxy. CW: while Stolberg allows a surrogate to complain that Romney had not signed the "personhood pledge," she does not bother to tell the reader that Romney said he "absolutely" agreed with it.
News Ledes
Reuters: "Greek lawmakers looked set to agree to a deeply unpopular bailout deal on Sunday to avert what Prime Minister Lucas Papademos warned would be 'economic chaos,' and Germany demanded Athens dramatically change its ways to stay in the euro." ...
... New York Times Update: "After violent protests left dozens of buildings aflame in Athens, the Greek Parliament voted early on Monday to approve a package of harsh austerity measures demanded by the country’s foreign lenders in exchange for new loans to keep Greece from defaulting on its debt."
Here's the New York Times obituary of singer Whitney Houston, who was found dead yesterday. Story includes a photo slideshow & links to related stories. Links to the Los Angeles Times obituary and related content are here.
15 Comments
Reader Comments (15)
Priests. Republican candidates and wing nut pundits are painting themselves into a corner. There is no reason for the the low paid, hundreds of thousands of hourly employees of Catholic hospitals to be deprived of the benefits available to all other workers.
This discrimination demonstrates the anti-workers and anti-female position of the Republicans. Being against birth control and also anti- abortion is to many Americans hypocrisy.
This anti-Obama attack feels good now but will be a tough sell to the women of America during the Presidential campaign.
The Catholic hierarchy is as usual off the mark, turning Obama's gift of having the insurance company pay for birth control into a defeat.
@ Carlyle. I thought Kristof's column today was pretty good. And I liked his point that there are plenty of religious beliefs federal & state governments have made unlawful -- like polygamy. As Linda Greenhouse pointed out in her Friday column (linked in Friday's Commentariat), the Supremes also ruled against a Constitutional right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. So much for my plans to be the founder & high priestess of the New Church of the Latter Day Dopers & Polyandresses.
I have said this before and I will say it again and again. People against birth control are in favor of torturous deaths of children. Millions of them every year. The Catholic church and many evangelicals are only concerned with 'proving' their religious convictions and the hell with everyone else. I mean the sun revolves around the earth, right?
THE NEW CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY
DOPERS & POLYANDRESSES
Welcome to the brand New Church
whose doors are open to all
You drug induced smarmy bastards,
you Pollys' with stained dresses ready for the fall.
Our message rings loud and clear,
we accept all your foibles, all your loony beliefs,
Our arms wide open, our hearts so dear.
So bring your drugs and paraphernalia
bring your lust and your blood letting rituals
And we'll have a GOOD time––I guarantee ya!
Speaking of songs, I very much enjoyed "Mitt's Hit's" and signed right up for the CD. This morning, I got a warning from my credit card company telling me that a charge for $3,000,000 had been made on my account. Do you think there might be a connection?
A new social organization composed of pollyandresses and an occasional stud has a great future. Four working women, one house keeper and one stud could afford a home even in this economy.
Unfoutunately, many people might refer to the stud as a pimp. People are so mean.
@ Carlyle. You have your polyandresses and your polygamists mixed up. We potential polyandresses are looking for more than one husband to keep us satisfied. P.S. They have to be like the modern husbands Coontz describes: great lovers who help with the housework and adore
strong womena strong woman.Just finished the Fallow's piece: One of the best overviews of the Obama reign and its plus and minuses. I thank Marie for the link and if she talks to her friend, Jim, please tell him I think he's the cat's pajamas!
I have two questions that I thought I would throw into the mix this Sunday afternoon. I figured that someone among the Reality Chex readers can certainly answer these.
1. Why is there this whole fuss over paying for contraception between the Catholic bishops and the White House? I understand that the bishops don't want to encourage the use of a product that they find morally reprehensible. I get that. But, when the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress I remember being explicitly told by its supporters that if someone likes their current health insurance, they get to keep it.
So, why don't the Catholic charities and hospitals etc. just keep their current insurance? I don't get it.
2. Why did Obama stop the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline? Like the first question, I understand what is being written, but I still don't get it. I read that the environmentalists are against it and that Obama wants to shore up support among that part of the base. So maybe my question is, why are the environmentalists against it? Yes, yes, I know that the oil from the Canadian tar sands is dirty oil. That is it emits more greenhouses gases then other lighter, sweeter oils. Maybe 16% to 25% more. I get that too.
But consider this. Does not building the Keystone XL pipeline prevent this oil from being used? If we (in the US) don't use it, won't it likely go to China? (Do we have anyway of stopping it from going to China?) And doesn't China have much lower environmental safeguards than we do? So if it goes to say China and China refines it and burns it in their cars, trucks and power plants, won't this in fact lead to worse levels of greenhouse gases on a global level than if we burn it here in the US?
In other words, it seems to me that it not a choice about no greenhouse gases being emitted from the Canadian oil and some greenhouse gases being emitted. It's a choice been more or less greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere, and right now, if the US uses it (or really Europe), then less greenhouse gases will be generated.
So then, shouldn't the pipeline be built to take the oil to the Gulf coast where it would be refined with some significant quantity being exported to Europe? (Since I think it is highly unlikely we could ever stop the Canadians from selling it outright.)
@Karl Thompson.
Re: 1: Although anyone will be able to purchase an individual policy thru an exchange, group policies provided by employers are cheaper. Typically, a large employer like a university will give employees several options of policies they can purchase: United Health Care, Blue Cross, etc. Evidently, many RC quasi-public institutions do not offer any policies that cover contraception. Some of these large institutions likely self-insure, & as part of that, they use their own facilities to treat the insureds for some illnesses, checkups, etc. -- e.g., the student health service. I know for certain Fordham U. in the Bronx does not provide contraceptive prescriptions at its student health clinic, as a ferinstance.
Re 2: see the Robert Redford article I linked a couple of days ago, for starters. As for your argument that it's better to burn dirty oil here because we might clean it up more than China will, all I can say is, "For Pete's sake." An economic analysis (here) by a highly-credible expert finds that "a good part of the Canadian oil shipped [via Keystone XL] to Houston will move on to China as crude prices in the U.S. Gulf drop below those received by producers of equivalent grades in Europe."
This is research you should have done yourself and told us about; not asked us to do it for you. Make friends with the Googles. Then do write back & tell us what you've learned.
Marie: You get an attaboy for your response to Karl.There is a world of information pro and con available about this dangerous pipeline through an important aquifer.
Poligamy is I am afraid a male fantasy. Actually, any combination of any gender or one gender with at least three wage earners and a cook will suffice. I am at a loss for a name for a lady with three or four male partners. Madam I suppose.
@Marie Burns
1. What you write is well known. But none of it addresses why the Catholic Charities (for example) just don't keep the health insurance that they have for their employees, whether they are self insured or otherwise. According to the White House Obama said on Aug. 15, 2009:
At the same time -- I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening -- if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care.
(He seems to have said this several times at different venues in fact.)
What exactly does "if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan" mean? Without parsing his words, it is very clear that existing insurance at the time would not have to change.
Obviously that promise went out the Window at some point.
2. Mr. Verieger's paper is interesting. He may or may not be right. (Given all of his predictions, if he is accurate, he should make a lot of money trading oil futures.)
But so what? He is only suggesting that some of the oil will be exported to China. He also says some may go to Europe. Lets assume that if the pipeline is built, things will play out exactly as he says:
Is it not better for world greenhouse gas levels to have the tar sands oil burnt in the US or Europe than just in China? Of course it is.
If environmentalists are truly concerned about minimizing pollution, they should fight to have the oil exported to Europe rather than prevent the pipeline which will almost assure that the oil goes directly to China.
Regarding your final comment. You and your readers of course are free to reply or not. And you are even free to delete my posts. But I will thank you in advance not to tell me what to do or not to do.
@ Karl Thompson. First, I'm sorry for the delay in posting your comment. I do NOT have an approval requirement here, but my host has an override that now not only throws some comments into an approval bin, it doesn't tell me there are comments awaiting approval. I HATE it, and I've told them so.
Re: 1. Obviously, women who (a) work for religiously-backed institutions that don't cover contraception, and (b) would like to have contraceptive coverage, (c) don't like their coverage, at least in that regard. Yes, they can, under the ACA, change it, but if ALL OF THE OPTIONS available to them thru their institution have no contraceptive coverage, then they can't get contraceptive coverage. That's the whole point.
So, yeah, Obama is right. People can keep their coverage if they like it. We're talking about women who DON'T like their coverage. No, the premise did not go out the window, but if you'll check PolitiFact, you'll also find it's never been entirely true, either. I don't even vaguely understand what you're arguing here, but (a) either I'm dense, or (b) your position makes zero sense.
Re: 2. China is going to get crude someplace because they have a demand. Saying Houston refineries should export it to them indirectly rather than letting Canada export it to them directly doesn't make any sense to me, especially since there would be more transportation fuel involved in getting crude to China via Houston -- and thus more damage to the environment.
As for your last point, that I can't tell you what to do, I am closing down Reality Chex as a result of receiving demanding comments like your original one. I do not have time to be your research assistant. You are hardly the only one who has asked me or other commenters to do research on a subject of interest to the requester. If you want to help out here, you're more than welcome. If you want to be a drain on my time resources, as you currently are, you're not so welcome. But I do want to emphasize that I did not purposely delay the posting of your comment, and I would not do so. Any comment that is not abusive and is vaguely about politics is welcome here. But I stronger prefer the stuff of contributors, rather than of those who come asking for handouts, as you have.
Brad Plumer has a post on Ezra's blog today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-is-the-us-exporting-so-much-petroleum-these-days/2012/02/13/gIQAdlivAR_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein
It's likely not the oil that will be exported, but the refined product in the form of gasoline. If Trans-Canada wants to continue clear cutting and raping an area the size of Texas and the Canadian government continue to allow it, then let them build their pipeline in Canada. I for one fail to see why we should allow a pipeline to cross one of the world's largest aquifers in the breadbasket of the US; one that provides 30% of the drinking water in the US; when it would likely be of very little benefit to us in terms of jobs or energy. We know pipelines never leak, just ask the folks in Kalamazoo.
THIS IS GOO SITES