Remember all those arguments about Canadians crossing the border to escape Canadian single payer health care and coming to the United States for medical procedures?
I debunked that in a post a couple of years ago called, The 'flood' is a trickle' in which we saw that statistics where available actually showed that the number of Canadians coming to the U.S. for voluntary medical prcedures was a vanishingly small number-- far fewer than the number who were forced to seek medical care in the U.S. because of accidents or other medical emergencies they experienced while visiting. The reason people who make that argument typically name names and tell individual stories is that this is the only way they can make the argument, because there are so few that you actually could name them.
What we see now though is that there is another foot for that shoe to be on. An article about an uninsured American man who was forced to go to Wales for medical care due to cost concerns and gets the same treatment at a far cheaper price there gives some statistics further down:
An estimated 878,000 Americans will travel internationally for a medical procedure this year, according to a report from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. That number is expected to nearly double by 2012.
The majority of medical tourists are uninsured; however, the cost of health care in this country has become so expensive that even some U.S. health insurance companies are coordinating with hospitals overseas.
Luckily it probably won't rise anymore after 2012 because then the full force of the recently passed health bill will kick into effect.
But at least for now, it appears that far more Americans are seeking medical care in other countries than the reverse.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Brewer to sign SB 1070
It appears that Jan Brewer has decided that it is more important to her to look good to the Republican primary electorate than to show the kind of leadership that fellow Republican Governor Charlie Crist showed last week when he vetoed a bill that was popular with his partisans because it was a bad bill.
The word is that Brewer will sign SB 1070, which makes it a crime to be an undocumented alien in Arizona and will force all local law enforcement agencies to profile and round up potential undocumented immigrants and force them to prove their citizenship.
This has of course already been going on for several years in Maricopa County (and in fact one of Brewer's opponents in the GOP primary is our good friend the Sheriff of Nottingham himself) and if what has happened there is any indication a lot of people in Arizona who happen to be Hispanic are in for a lot of trouble. Numerous Americans who happen to be Hispanic have been detained and in some cases taken to jail by Sheriff Joe's minions even though they are American citizens-- a clear case of racial profiling.
Arizona already has a reputation (well-deserved, I'm embarrassed to say) for being intolerant. One has to wonder what kind of long term damage this is likely to do to our state-- especially since tourism is supposed to be one of the few 'growth' industries in the state.
The word is that Brewer will sign SB 1070, which makes it a crime to be an undocumented alien in Arizona and will force all local law enforcement agencies to profile and round up potential undocumented immigrants and force them to prove their citizenship.
This has of course already been going on for several years in Maricopa County (and in fact one of Brewer's opponents in the GOP primary is our good friend the Sheriff of Nottingham himself) and if what has happened there is any indication a lot of people in Arizona who happen to be Hispanic are in for a lot of trouble. Numerous Americans who happen to be Hispanic have been detained and in some cases taken to jail by Sheriff Joe's minions even though they are American citizens-- a clear case of racial profiling.
Arizona already has a reputation (well-deserved, I'm embarrassed to say) for being intolerant. One has to wonder what kind of long term damage this is likely to do to our state-- especially since tourism is supposed to be one of the few 'growth' industries in the state.
South Park insults Muhammad and gets death threats
I've never been a fan of the TV show South Park. In fact, even if I watched much television it would generally be a show I'd tune out.
Nevertheless I am now compelled to post the above South Park cartoon of the prophet Muhammad because the show's producers have been threatened with death for putting the cartoon on air.
Apparently the group called, "Revolution Muslim" is based in New York and made the threat to murder producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone and posted on its website the work addresses of both men in New York and California. The threat also included graphic pictures of the body of Dutch film artist Theo van Gogh, who was murdered after making a movie that Muslim leaders didn't like.
Apparently these Islamicists don't understand the American psyche. There have been very few who have been quicker to condemn violence or threats against muslims than I have. But that condemnation is just as much valid in condemning muslims who make these kinds of threats against others. Americans may fight like cats and dogs on everything else but if you issue a death threat (against anyone,) especially over an issue of free speech then as Americans we all stand together.
Monday, April 19, 2010
We can't afford any more GOP control in Arizona
Sometimes when I tell people what a weird, wicked place Arizona has become courtesy of our GOP legislative leadership they have trouble believing it.
Sure everyone in the country knows about Sheriff Joe and his pink underwear, but that's about the extent of what is common knowlege.
But with the new bill that has now been passed it's likely to put more of a focus on undocumented workers. The bill will require local law enforcement to begin investigating, arresting and locking up people who have no proof of citizenship. Of course there is no money forthcoming from the legislature to pay for it (of course local law enforcement has been cut to the bone and beyond just like every other state agency or department,) just the unfunded mandate coming down from Phoenix.
Only in the Arizona GOP is a guy like Buzz Mills, a developer who is spending millions of dollars on the race and promising to revoke all state taxes (That's right, he is pledging 'no tax' and to put the state government, including schools and other agencies effectively out of business) a serious candidate for Governor.
This is a state where the birther bill stands a decent chance of passing the legislature. This bill would not allow a Presidential candidate onto the ballot in Arizona unless (s)he has produced a valid birth certificate showing that (s)he is eligible to serve in that office.
In fact, only a minority of Arizona voters agree with this kind of stuff. But they form a majority bloc in the Republican party, and the Republican party has controlled the legislature for four decades. So not surprisingly we have the results of dogmatic governance, including the biggest by percentage hole in the state government in the country despite ranking below most other states in both per capita spending and taxation rates (courtesy of the Symington-Brewer tax cuts of the mid 1990's combined with a law pushed by the right and passed by the voters in 1992 that makes it virtually impossible to ever raise taxes back again if you find you've cut them too far.
There is an easy solution to that.
Sure everyone in the country knows about Sheriff Joe and his pink underwear, but that's about the extent of what is common knowlege.
But with the new bill that has now been passed it's likely to put more of a focus on undocumented workers. The bill will require local law enforcement to begin investigating, arresting and locking up people who have no proof of citizenship. Of course there is no money forthcoming from the legislature to pay for it (of course local law enforcement has been cut to the bone and beyond just like every other state agency or department,) just the unfunded mandate coming down from Phoenix.
Only in the Arizona GOP is a guy like Buzz Mills, a developer who is spending millions of dollars on the race and promising to revoke all state taxes (That's right, he is pledging 'no tax' and to put the state government, including schools and other agencies effectively out of business) a serious candidate for Governor.
This is a state where the birther bill stands a decent chance of passing the legislature. This bill would not allow a Presidential candidate onto the ballot in Arizona unless (s)he has produced a valid birth certificate showing that (s)he is eligible to serve in that office.
In fact, only a minority of Arizona voters agree with this kind of stuff. But they form a majority bloc in the Republican party, and the Republican party has controlled the legislature for four decades. So not surprisingly we have the results of dogmatic governance, including the biggest by percentage hole in the state government in the country despite ranking below most other states in both per capita spending and taxation rates (courtesy of the Symington-Brewer tax cuts of the mid 1990's combined with a law pushed by the right and passed by the voters in 1992 that makes it virtually impossible to ever raise taxes back again if you find you've cut them too far.
There is an easy solution to that.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Health reform is a BFD.
Unless they call me back to be a courier my work with the census is now done.
So let's make up for some lost time.
First, YES, HEALTH REFORM IS A BFD!! A VERY BFD!!
Republicans are still trying to score political points courtesy of their scare tactics and lies (which I alluded to in my previous post, actually written when I shouldn't have, but it was hard to not make the point.) But as the plan starts to kick in, Americans will see for themselves that the dire changes that were predicted don't happen. Then those who claim there will be death panels and socialized medicine will pay at the ballot box.
So let's make up for some lost time.
First, YES, HEALTH REFORM IS A BFD!! A VERY BFD!!
Republicans are still trying to score political points courtesy of their scare tactics and lies (which I alluded to in my previous post, actually written when I shouldn't have, but it was hard to not make the point.) But as the plan starts to kick in, Americans will see for themselves that the dire changes that were predicted don't happen. Then those who claim there will be death panels and socialized medicine will pay at the ballot box.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The party that cried 'wolf.'
The right had an opportunity to oppose healthcare from a position of principle, and to give their best argument about the morality of the bill, the ideals of individualism vs. a collective modality, or about why the free market could solve the vexing problem of insuring the uninsured if Government were not involved. Though they still might have lost such an argument, they might not have, and would certainly have made their ideals and principles well known through that effort.
But instead, they threw bombast about Marxism and Death Panels. Instead of principled defenders of their faith, we got shrill talk show hosts coming across as the angry, bitter old men that most of them are. Up until the last (and even after that) the 'tea partiers' have come across as a bunch of whiny juveniles. And in having lost that debate they have set themselves up for more problems in the future.
Had opponents of health care reform won, they would in fact have been able to back up every word and prediction they said about it by saying, 'Look what we saved you from.'
But they did not prevail. And the harsh rhetoric they used has probably painted them into a corner. People will be looking for the government takeover of hospitals, insurance companies and the rest of the health care system. They will be looking for a Stalinist police state. They will be waiting for their ration cards before they can see a doctor. They will be waiting with terror for the Death Panel to come knock on their door in the middle of the night.
Of course none of this will happen, and when it doesn't then you will have to wonder how many people will listen the next time the GOP cries 'wolf.'
But instead, they threw bombast about Marxism and Death Panels. Instead of principled defenders of their faith, we got shrill talk show hosts coming across as the angry, bitter old men that most of them are. Up until the last (and even after that) the 'tea partiers' have come across as a bunch of whiny juveniles. And in having lost that debate they have set themselves up for more problems in the future.
Had opponents of health care reform won, they would in fact have been able to back up every word and prediction they said about it by saying, 'Look what we saved you from.'
But they did not prevail. And the harsh rhetoric they used has probably painted them into a corner. People will be looking for the government takeover of hospitals, insurance companies and the rest of the health care system. They will be looking for a Stalinist police state. They will be waiting for their ration cards before they can see a doctor. They will be waiting with terror for the Death Panel to come knock on their door in the middle of the night.
Of course none of this will happen, and when it doesn't then you will have to wonder how many people will listen the next time the GOP cries 'wolf.'
Thursday, March 18, 2010
One down, five to go
Brigham Young 99, Florida 92 in 2 OT. Unfortunately I had to work so I missed the game. But I still like the result.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Repost of 'Hatch Act'
NOTE: THE ORIGINAL POST HAS BEEN INFILTRATED BY A SPAM BOT. THEREFORE I AM DELETING IT AND BEFORE DOING SO HAVE CUT AND PASTED THE ORIGINAL INCLUDING THE COMMENTS AND IT WILL BE REPOSTED ON THE SAME DATE.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Hatch Act
Just in case you're wondering why I haven't been blogging lately, I am now working a job as a census enumerator (in addition to my other two jobs.)
The time involved however is only a part of the reason. As soon as I became a Federal Employee, I was covered by the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act significantly limits what I can do. Among the activities I can't do or can only do in a very limited capacity include partisan political work, soliciting campaign contributions and speaking out in support of candidates or parties, or conversely against candidates or parties.
Luckily this job will end in a few weeks. Until then, it's been an eye opener in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that if you become a Federal employee you lose some of your Constitutional rights. No wonder so many people tee off on the Federal Government, because people who work for the Federal Government could lose their jobs or go to prison if they were to use the wrong words to dispute what is being said.
Labels: census, Federal government, Hatch Act
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# posted by Eli Blake @ 8:26 AM
Comments:
I'm not sure you are correct on this one Eli. You should not do those things *while you are on the job* for the census. On your own time, you can do most of the things you mention - you are a "less restricted" federal employee. I work for the Department of Energy (through a DOE contractor) and I can do those things, and many of my co-workers do, so can't believe you would be more restricted through a part-time temporary census job....
sis.
# posted by Blogger miriam : 14 March, 2010 19:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This actually has little to do with being a federal employee. What private company would approve of employees using company time for political activities?
During your private time, you are free to campaign for a cause (political or otherwise). However, you may not use your affiliation with your employer as part of your campaign.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 15 March, 2010 07:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Hatch Act
Just in case you're wondering why I haven't been blogging lately, I am now working a job as a census enumerator (in addition to my other two jobs.)
The time involved however is only a part of the reason. As soon as I became a Federal Employee, I was covered by the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act significantly limits what I can do. Among the activities I can't do or can only do in a very limited capacity include partisan political work, soliciting campaign contributions and speaking out in support of candidates or parties, or conversely against candidates or parties.
Luckily this job will end in a few weeks. Until then, it's been an eye opener in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that if you become a Federal employee you lose some of your Constitutional rights. No wonder so many people tee off on the Federal Government, because people who work for the Federal Government could lose their jobs or go to prison if they were to use the wrong words to dispute what is being said.
Labels: census, Federal government, Hatch Act
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# posted by Eli Blake @ 8:26 AM
Comments:
I'm not sure you are correct on this one Eli. You should not do those things *while you are on the job* for the census. On your own time, you can do most of the things you mention - you are a "less restricted" federal employee. I work for the Department of Energy (through a DOE contractor) and I can do those things, and many of my co-workers do, so can't believe you would be more restricted through a part-time temporary census job....
sis.
# posted by Blogger miriam : 14 March, 2010 19:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This actually has little to do with being a federal employee. What private company would approve of employees using company time for political activities?
During your private time, you are free to campaign for a cause (political or otherwise). However, you may not use your affiliation with your employer as part of your campaign.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 15 March, 2010 07:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Memo used in GOP fundraising slide admits they plan to use fear and ego stroking as fundraising tools.
Hat tip to Ted at Rum, romanism and rebellion for this one.
It seems as though the RNC has finally gotten honest about one thing-- who their donors are and how to reach them.
Politico reports they have obtained an RNC document focused on fundraising in which they essentially dismiss their own donors as
“ego-driven” wealthy donors [who] can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
And how else besides 'tchochkes' do you get ego-driven, wealthy donors to open up their pocketbooks to the RNC? Well, the document addresses that too:
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
Here is the most amazing part:
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
We all know the GOP has long based much of their fundraising and other appeals on fear, 'access,' ego, etc. But rarely have we gotten such a direct look at it.
It seems as though the RNC has finally gotten honest about one thing-- who their donors are and how to reach them.
Politico reports they have obtained an RNC document focused on fundraising in which they essentially dismiss their own donors as
“ego-driven” wealthy donors [who] can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
And how else besides 'tchochkes' do you get ego-driven, wealthy donors to open up their pocketbooks to the RNC? Well, the document addresses that too:
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”
Here is the most amazing part:
The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.
The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”
Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
We all know the GOP has long based much of their fundraising and other appeals on fear, 'access,' ego, etc. But rarely have we gotten such a direct look at it.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
It's the arrogance, stupid!
Some things are just incomprehensible.
The Arizona legislature, after the unmitigated disaster that occurred last year (when the Governor essentially created a budget out of their failure by vetoing-and-pasting parts of bills together) and apparently unbuoyed by the fact that a poll last year showed their approval ratings are lower than those of Congress has been looking to reward themselves with more power, more prestige and promotions.
It started when they began seeking to change the right of voters to retain or not retain certain judges to it being done by the legislature. Constitutional issues regarding seperation of powers aside (especially since some of those judges have to rule on the constitutionality of laws the legislature passes,) I guess they just don't trust the voters to make those decisions. I can almost understand that, after all look at who we've been electing to the legislature for so many years.
Judges? Why not Senators. Republican lawmaker David Stevens has proposed that
The Arizona legislature, after the unmitigated disaster that occurred last year (when the Governor essentially created a budget out of their failure by vetoing-and-pasting parts of bills together) and apparently unbuoyed by the fact that a poll last year showed their approval ratings are lower than those of Congress has been looking to reward themselves with more power, more prestige and promotions.
It started when they began seeking to change the right of voters to retain or not retain certain judges to it being done by the legislature. Constitutional issues regarding seperation of powers aside (especially since some of those judges have to rule on the constitutionality of laws the legislature passes,) I guess they just don't trust the voters to make those decisions. I can almost understand that, after all look at who we've been electing to the legislature for so many years.
Judges? Why not Senators. Republican lawmaker David Stevens has proposed that
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
This is the kind of thing that makes people doubt the medical establishment
A woman in Columbia was declared dead at a hospital. But then when an employee of a funeral home was about to inject embalming fluid she started moving.
BOGOTA, Colombia - A Colombian woman declared dead of a heart attack moved one of her arms just as an undertaker was about to embalm her, doctors said Wednesday.
Noelia Serna, 45, was rushed to a hospital in the city of Cali, where she was in critical condition in an intensive care unit Wednesday, said hospital director Luis Fernando Rendon.
"Her chances of survival are slim," Rendon said....
On rare occasions, a person's heart rate and breathing can drop to undetectable levels, leading doctors to erroneously declare a patient dead, said neurosurgeon Juan Mendoza Vega, a member of the Colombian National Medical Ethics Board.
"It can happen," he said. "But it's not a matter of coming back to life because the person was never dead."
I guess, but I'd hope that if I ever get pronounced dead, that I'm really dead.
BOGOTA, Colombia - A Colombian woman declared dead of a heart attack moved one of her arms just as an undertaker was about to embalm her, doctors said Wednesday.
Noelia Serna, 45, was rushed to a hospital in the city of Cali, where she was in critical condition in an intensive care unit Wednesday, said hospital director Luis Fernando Rendon.
"Her chances of survival are slim," Rendon said....
On rare occasions, a person's heart rate and breathing can drop to undetectable levels, leading doctors to erroneously declare a patient dead, said neurosurgeon Juan Mendoza Vega, a member of the Colombian National Medical Ethics Board.
"It can happen," he said. "But it's not a matter of coming back to life because the person was never dead."
I guess, but I'd hope that if I ever get pronounced dead, that I'm really dead.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
GOP recruiting class just the same old retreads
It seems as though Republicans are recruiting some candidates for Congress-- many of whom are the same old retreads who were part of the problem before.
Not anything new, but a bunch of former members of Congress who they claim are supposed to be something new. Mostly the same ones who were in Congress during the 1990's and early 2000's and helped put the roots of the present crisis in place.
Epitomatically they are trumpeting former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, who will challenge his successor, Sen. Evan Bayh. Recall that Senator Coats is the Senator who said the day after Bill Clinton launched missile strikes in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden on August 18, 1998 (eleven days after the African embassy bombings and a day when we had some intelligence about where bin Laden was holding a meeting,)
"I think we fear that we may have a President that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.”
Senator Dan Coats, R-IN August 19, 1998.
The full context of the statement is that also on August 18, 1998 Monica Lewinsky was giving a deposition in Manhattan and Coats and other Republicans were apparently upset that the all-important Monica scandal didn't get the headline for that day (though taking a headline from the Monica scandal would have been what would happen if Bill Clinton launched the missile strike against bin Laden on pretty much any day during 1998.)
I'm sure that Coats' statement calling on the President to resign for attacking Osama bin Laden must have been received with comfort and great mirth by bin Laden.
I'm sure that there are some opportunities out there for Republicans, especially given Democrats' failure to pass health care legislation and other items on their agenda that have caused a lot of voters to decide that not much has changed. But the idea that running candidates against them who themselves were part of the last crop of failures, even up to and including a candidate who once said the President should resign for attacking Osama bin Laden, is hardly a recruiting class designed to benefit from voter discontent.
Not anything new, but a bunch of former members of Congress who they claim are supposed to be something new. Mostly the same ones who were in Congress during the 1990's and early 2000's and helped put the roots of the present crisis in place.
Epitomatically they are trumpeting former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, who will challenge his successor, Sen. Evan Bayh. Recall that Senator Coats is the Senator who said the day after Bill Clinton launched missile strikes in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden on August 18, 1998 (eleven days after the African embassy bombings and a day when we had some intelligence about where bin Laden was holding a meeting,)
"I think we fear that we may have a President that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.”
Senator Dan Coats, R-IN August 19, 1998.
The full context of the statement is that also on August 18, 1998 Monica Lewinsky was giving a deposition in Manhattan and Coats and other Republicans were apparently upset that the all-important Monica scandal didn't get the headline for that day (though taking a headline from the Monica scandal would have been what would happen if Bill Clinton launched the missile strike against bin Laden on pretty much any day during 1998.)
I'm sure that Coats' statement calling on the President to resign for attacking Osama bin Laden must have been received with comfort and great mirth by bin Laden.
I'm sure that there are some opportunities out there for Republicans, especially given Democrats' failure to pass health care legislation and other items on their agenda that have caused a lot of voters to decide that not much has changed. But the idea that running candidates against them who themselves were part of the last crop of failures, even up to and including a candidate who once said the President should resign for attacking Osama bin Laden, is hardly a recruiting class designed to benefit from voter discontent.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Six Hundred People at a National 'Convention' is a First Class Flop
The National Tea Party convention had weeks to prepare, a national speakers list headlined by Sarah Palin and wall-to-wall media coverage. They held their convention in the Gaylord Opryland, a venue that has 2,881 rooms available (in addition to tens of thousands of other rooms in surrounding hotels.) In two weeks, the National Wild Turkey Federation, a sportsmen's group is having their convention in Opryland and they anticipate 40,000 visitors.
Six hundred people attended, barely more than the number of people in the House and Senate they want to strike fear into the hearts of.
Every Christmas, more people than that show up to watch the kiddies perform in their annual elementary school Christmas concert. And I live in a town with 1,500 people in it, total.
After all the hype, getting fewer people than you'll find in the stands for the average little league game should make it clear that this 'movement' is a flop. No wonder reporters are interviewing each other.
Six hundred people attended, barely more than the number of people in the House and Senate they want to strike fear into the hearts of.
Every Christmas, more people than that show up to watch the kiddies perform in their annual elementary school Christmas concert. And I live in a town with 1,500 people in it, total.
After all the hype, getting fewer people than you'll find in the stands for the average little league game should make it clear that this 'movement' is a flop. No wonder reporters are interviewing each other.
British court orders man to tear down his 'castle home.'
I now realize what I don't like about this story about a man who violated regulatory laws to build a home that resembles a castle in Britain:
LONDON – A man's home is his castle — but not if British authorities say it has to be destroyed.
That's the situation faced by Robert Fidler, a farmer who lost a High Court bid Wednesday to protect the once-secret castle he built 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of London and kept hidden from planning authorities.
The adverse decision means Fidler's roof must come down. He has one year to comply unless an appeal is successful....
There is no question that he violated what amounts to zoning laws and built it without permission:
"This was a blatant attempt at deception to circumvent the planning process," he said, adding that Fidler now has one year to destroy the castle, remove the ruins and return the property to its original state.
The unusual castle, complete with cannon, ramparts and stained glass, was completed in 2002 and Fidler lived there with family for more than four years before the authorities started legal action against him.
Fidler, who has had disagreements with planning authorities before, anticipated that his request for permission to build the castle would be denied, so he tried to take advantage of a rule that allows a structure to be legalized if it has been lived in for four years.
Nevertheless this bothers me. The reason why is now clear when I read through the article again. Nowhere does it say why (other than the fact that it was built without permission) that it has to come down. Generally building laws have a reason behind them. And I realize that there are a lot of real castles in England and presumably they don't want any tourists getting confused and taking pictures of a house that was built in 2002. But it seems to me that the proper way to handle this would be a (possibly very substantial) fine. To make a man tear down his home, not for any practical reason like safety, complaints from neighbors or illegal use of the land (such as if he were selling merchandise to his neighbors and getting an unfair advantage over merchants who built in designated commercial districts) but simply because they don't approve of the design, seems a bit over the line.
LONDON – A man's home is his castle — but not if British authorities say it has to be destroyed.
That's the situation faced by Robert Fidler, a farmer who lost a High Court bid Wednesday to protect the once-secret castle he built 40 miles (65 kilometers) south of London and kept hidden from planning authorities.
The adverse decision means Fidler's roof must come down. He has one year to comply unless an appeal is successful....
There is no question that he violated what amounts to zoning laws and built it without permission:
"This was a blatant attempt at deception to circumvent the planning process," he said, adding that Fidler now has one year to destroy the castle, remove the ruins and return the property to its original state.
The unusual castle, complete with cannon, ramparts and stained glass, was completed in 2002 and Fidler lived there with family for more than four years before the authorities started legal action against him.
Fidler, who has had disagreements with planning authorities before, anticipated that his request for permission to build the castle would be denied, so he tried to take advantage of a rule that allows a structure to be legalized if it has been lived in for four years.
Nevertheless this bothers me. The reason why is now clear when I read through the article again. Nowhere does it say why (other than the fact that it was built without permission) that it has to come down. Generally building laws have a reason behind them. And I realize that there are a lot of real castles in England and presumably they don't want any tourists getting confused and taking pictures of a house that was built in 2002. But it seems to me that the proper way to handle this would be a (possibly very substantial) fine. To make a man tear down his home, not for any practical reason like safety, complaints from neighbors or illegal use of the land (such as if he were selling merchandise to his neighbors and getting an unfair advantage over merchants who built in designated commercial districts) but simply because they don't approve of the design, seems a bit over the line.
Friday, February 05, 2010
First order of legislative business: packing their own parachutes
After massively bungling last year's budget, members of the Arizona legislature, especially Republican members, have been announcing their retirements and resignations from the body right and left. Many are term-limited out (though that is almost meaningless with the loophole allowing members of the house to bounce to the senate every eight years and back again eight years later.) Others are seeking higher office (though I'd wonder what they've been smoking if they think the reward they deserve for last year's debacle is a promotion) and others are apparently just tired of it all and don't want to take the blame for the mess they've created.
But, Senator Jack Harper is sponsoring a bill that will do one thing: eliminate the one year wait before they can accept jobs from lobbying firms. Of course that law was put in place nearly twenty years ago after seven members of the legislature were caught accepting bribes from an FBI agent posing as a lobbyist. That should be a hint right there why we don't want to get rid of the prohibition.
But Harper's bill appears to have been put on a fast track, clearing a key committee vote today and ready to go to the full senate for approval. Apparently with the mass rush towards the door, it's nice to know that with unemployment near 10% in Arizona and the state suffering form the consequences of the failure of their policies from past years and their failure to even have a policy last year, they are looking out for themselves.
But, Senator Jack Harper is sponsoring a bill that will do one thing: eliminate the one year wait before they can accept jobs from lobbying firms. Of course that law was put in place nearly twenty years ago after seven members of the legislature were caught accepting bribes from an FBI agent posing as a lobbyist. That should be a hint right there why we don't want to get rid of the prohibition.
But Harper's bill appears to have been put on a fast track, clearing a key committee vote today and ready to go to the full senate for approval. Apparently with the mass rush towards the door, it's nice to know that with unemployment near 10% in Arizona and the state suffering form the consequences of the failure of their policies from past years and their failure to even have a policy last year, they are looking out for themselves.
Teeing off on Tebow
(subtitle: Theismann vs. Heisman)
For a guy whose stock has fallen off the table in the NFL draft, former Heismann winner Tim Tebow is sure getting more buzz ahead of he Super Bowl than, say Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, the quarterbacks who are actually in the game. Tebow has not yet played even a single down in the NFL and at least one former quarterback and respected commentator thinks he should keep it that way.
Tebow, who is the son of missionaries and grew up in a very fundamentalist household, is well known for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve (well actually wearing it on his face, writing Bible verses on his cheeks before every game.)
This week there is a big brouhaha over CBS' decision to air an anti-abortion ad featuring Tebow and his mother (who refused the advice of doctors to get an abortion because of her health and had him anyway) during the Super Bowl. Last year CBS said they would start allowing more controversial ads during the Super Bowl, but then they turned around and refused to allow an ad from ManCrunch, a gay dating organization. So apparently their newfound tolerance in advertising only works one way. CBS then got in even deeper when they kept changing their story on the ManCrunch ad. First they said ad space was sold out for the Super Bowl. Then when it was shown that the ManCrunch ad had been submitted to them before some ads that were approved, they questioned whether the company could pay for the ad. When it was shown that they could and had the money available, CBS had to say it was about 'standards.' OK, at least they admit they have more than one set of standards.
There are of course those who claim that the real reason for the controversy over Tebow is his Christianity. But that is ridiculous. Lots of NFL players are Christians and quite open about it. You don't see for example, anything but praise for Drew Brees, a Christian quarterback who actually should be getting more attention before the Super Bowl than Tebow (I mean, like, Brees will actually be PLAYING Sunday, shouldn't that count for something?) Rather, it almost seems as if Tebow is hogging all the attention by putting his personal views on abortion ahead of the game itself, and whether he deserves that criticism or not has now become a punching bag for CBS' hypocritical position on accepting ads.
A bigger problem for Tebow is that even well ahead of draft day he's getting a reception from the NFL that is downright frosty. For starters, scouts have said that he doesn't have the skills to play in the NFL and downgraded his status to a third or fourth round pick at best.
Then, following rumors that the Jacksonville Jaguars might use their first round pick on Tebow (he played at the University of Florida and the Jags attendance is about what you'd expect for an expansion team that has worn out its welcome and is the least competitive team in what might be the NFL's toughest division,) a Jags player, and more specifically an offensive lineman unloaded on Tebow.
according to the Florida Times-Union:
[Offensive lineman Uche] Nwaneri posted on the Jaguars’ Web site that, while cashing a check, a bank teller started talking about how Tebow will save the Jaguars.
So Nwaneri posted his five points on Tebow, with capital letters:
"1. He can't throw, PERIOD.
2. He can't read any coverage other than probably cover 2 or man.
3. The QB Wildcat WILL NOT WORK IN THIS LEAGUE. PERIOD.
4. He doesn’t know how to take a snap from center.
5. HE CAN’T THROW, and that’s really something you either have or not."
Keep in mind that this is from one of the men who is supposed to put his body on the line to protect the quarterback from the Elvis Dumervils and the Dwight Freeneys of the NFL. In fact, he faces Freeney twice a year and wants to feel confident that the guy he's protecting is worth the beating his body takes keeping guys like that out of the backfield every week.
You can hear the frustration in Nwaneri's post. One of the few perks that come with losing is that your team gets a better position in the draft, which in theory should translate to better players. But if his team reaches up to burn their first round pick on a guy who they could probably get in the third round, his frustration would be justified. The idea that Tebow would put fans in the seats is ridiculous. He might for a few games, and as the columnist of the linked article points out,
even if Nwaneri and the legions of critics are right that Tebow is bound for NFL flopdom, I guarantee thousands of Georgia fans would be willing to make the drive down to the site of so many Cocktail Party aggravations for the sole purpose of watching their former tormenter operate behind a line that might not feel much like blocking for him.
Well, there is that. But if Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver is serious about attendance then he should be serious about using his first round and subsequent picks to put together a team that will win games, not bring out legions of anti-Tebow fans who will enjoy it every time Freeney or some other NFL Defensive nightmare blasts through the line and delivers a crunching hit on Tebow.
Nwaneri's comments are downright tame compared to the broadside delivered by a former NFL great. Former Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theismann, who was known as a gentleman in the broadcast booth during an eighteen year stint with ESPN because he is loathe to criticize other players (and recognizing from personal experience what they risk every time they take the field,) said that Tebow should retire before draft day and not even try playing in the NFL.
Via Pro Football Talk, Theismann explained why:
"Rock star status preserved," Theismann said.
"Obviously at Florida they don't teach throwing the football," Theismann opined in explaining that Tebow's mechanics are "poor." Theismann also said that Urban Meyer and his staff have "no clue" regarding the process for preparing a quarterback to play "at the next level."
Retire now advises Joe, so at least he can still claim that he was too good for the NFL instead of too awful. Ouch, that one's gotta sting.
Of course the former Heisman winner will enter the draft, and if he's lucky even get drafted way ahead of where he should be by Jacksonville. And, give him a chance-- a lot of good players have been drafted low and turned out to be better than the scouts predicted (don't forget that Dallas quarterback Tony Romo, who led the Cowboys to the playoffs this year and played in the pro bowl wasn't even drafted at all in 2003.)
But from day one, the spotlight will be burning hot on Tebow. And he'll need to bear up a lot better than he did when he lost to Alabama in the SCC championship game (hint: in the NFL men don't cry when they lose-- add 'crybaby' to the list of insults and ephithets he will hear every time he goes on the road.) And despite what anyone may say, it will burn hot on him because he's invited it.
For a guy whose stock has fallen off the table in the NFL draft, former Heismann winner Tim Tebow is sure getting more buzz ahead of he Super Bowl than, say Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, the quarterbacks who are actually in the game. Tebow has not yet played even a single down in the NFL and at least one former quarterback and respected commentator thinks he should keep it that way.
Tebow, who is the son of missionaries and grew up in a very fundamentalist household, is well known for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve (well actually wearing it on his face, writing Bible verses on his cheeks before every game.)
This week there is a big brouhaha over CBS' decision to air an anti-abortion ad featuring Tebow and his mother (who refused the advice of doctors to get an abortion because of her health and had him anyway) during the Super Bowl. Last year CBS said they would start allowing more controversial ads during the Super Bowl, but then they turned around and refused to allow an ad from ManCrunch, a gay dating organization. So apparently their newfound tolerance in advertising only works one way. CBS then got in even deeper when they kept changing their story on the ManCrunch ad. First they said ad space was sold out for the Super Bowl. Then when it was shown that the ManCrunch ad had been submitted to them before some ads that were approved, they questioned whether the company could pay for the ad. When it was shown that they could and had the money available, CBS had to say it was about 'standards.' OK, at least they admit they have more than one set of standards.
There are of course those who claim that the real reason for the controversy over Tebow is his Christianity. But that is ridiculous. Lots of NFL players are Christians and quite open about it. You don't see for example, anything but praise for Drew Brees, a Christian quarterback who actually should be getting more attention before the Super Bowl than Tebow (I mean, like, Brees will actually be PLAYING Sunday, shouldn't that count for something?) Rather, it almost seems as if Tebow is hogging all the attention by putting his personal views on abortion ahead of the game itself, and whether he deserves that criticism or not has now become a punching bag for CBS' hypocritical position on accepting ads.
A bigger problem for Tebow is that even well ahead of draft day he's getting a reception from the NFL that is downright frosty. For starters, scouts have said that he doesn't have the skills to play in the NFL and downgraded his status to a third or fourth round pick at best.
Then, following rumors that the Jacksonville Jaguars might use their first round pick on Tebow (he played at the University of Florida and the Jags attendance is about what you'd expect for an expansion team that has worn out its welcome and is the least competitive team in what might be the NFL's toughest division,) a Jags player, and more specifically an offensive lineman unloaded on Tebow.
according to the Florida Times-Union:
[Offensive lineman Uche] Nwaneri posted on the Jaguars’ Web site that, while cashing a check, a bank teller started talking about how Tebow will save the Jaguars.
So Nwaneri posted his five points on Tebow, with capital letters:
"1. He can't throw, PERIOD.
2. He can't read any coverage other than probably cover 2 or man.
3. The QB Wildcat WILL NOT WORK IN THIS LEAGUE. PERIOD.
4. He doesn’t know how to take a snap from center.
5. HE CAN’T THROW, and that’s really something you either have or not."
Keep in mind that this is from one of the men who is supposed to put his body on the line to protect the quarterback from the Elvis Dumervils and the Dwight Freeneys of the NFL. In fact, he faces Freeney twice a year and wants to feel confident that the guy he's protecting is worth the beating his body takes keeping guys like that out of the backfield every week.
You can hear the frustration in Nwaneri's post. One of the few perks that come with losing is that your team gets a better position in the draft, which in theory should translate to better players. But if his team reaches up to burn their first round pick on a guy who they could probably get in the third round, his frustration would be justified. The idea that Tebow would put fans in the seats is ridiculous. He might for a few games, and as the columnist of the linked article points out,
even if Nwaneri and the legions of critics are right that Tebow is bound for NFL flopdom, I guarantee thousands of Georgia fans would be willing to make the drive down to the site of so many Cocktail Party aggravations for the sole purpose of watching their former tormenter operate behind a line that might not feel much like blocking for him.
Well, there is that. But if Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver is serious about attendance then he should be serious about using his first round and subsequent picks to put together a team that will win games, not bring out legions of anti-Tebow fans who will enjoy it every time Freeney or some other NFL Defensive nightmare blasts through the line and delivers a crunching hit on Tebow.
Nwaneri's comments are downright tame compared to the broadside delivered by a former NFL great. Former Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theismann, who was known as a gentleman in the broadcast booth during an eighteen year stint with ESPN because he is loathe to criticize other players (and recognizing from personal experience what they risk every time they take the field,) said that Tebow should retire before draft day and not even try playing in the NFL.
Via Pro Football Talk, Theismann explained why:
"Rock star status preserved," Theismann said.
"Obviously at Florida they don't teach throwing the football," Theismann opined in explaining that Tebow's mechanics are "poor." Theismann also said that Urban Meyer and his staff have "no clue" regarding the process for preparing a quarterback to play "at the next level."
Retire now advises Joe, so at least he can still claim that he was too good for the NFL instead of too awful. Ouch, that one's gotta sting.
Of course the former Heisman winner will enter the draft, and if he's lucky even get drafted way ahead of where he should be by Jacksonville. And, give him a chance-- a lot of good players have been drafted low and turned out to be better than the scouts predicted (don't forget that Dallas quarterback Tony Romo, who led the Cowboys to the playoffs this year and played in the pro bowl wasn't even drafted at all in 2003.)
But from day one, the spotlight will be burning hot on Tebow. And he'll need to bear up a lot better than he did when he lost to Alabama in the SCC championship game (hint: in the NFL men don't cry when they lose-- add 'crybaby' to the list of insults and ephithets he will hear every time he goes on the road.) And despite what anyone may say, it will burn hot on him because he's invited it.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Duncan Hunter afraid of hermaphrodite conspiracy to take over the military
Duncan Hunter, a rabid anti-immigration, anti-pretty much anything that makes sense congressman from California did himself one up Tuesday during an interview regarding President Obama's proposal to repeal the 'don't ask/don't tell' policy regarding gay service members.
It is hard to argue against the repeal of the policy, given the established fact that thousands of gay servicemen and women have served in America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. In many cases their comrades in arms were fully aware of their sexual orientation (though they may have declined to 'tell' formally in order to avoid being booted out of the military) and in fact it has been a non-issue in the front lines. What matters in a war is whether someone can do and does do their job, period.
And further, it makes far more sense to integrate the armed services now, when there is no urgent national emergency of the type that might require a draft, than to be forced to do so in a dire national emergency when millions of young people suddenly announce publically they are gay the day after getting their conscription notices. Because let's be honest here-- if there ever is a draft, anyone who wants to dodge it will make such a public announcement and pretty much dare the army to boot them out, and if it happens on a massive scale would force the issue then-- at a time when we don't need to be fighting over it.
So what did Congressman Hunter say, exactly?
"You'll open the military up to hermaphrodites."
WHAT??
Does he even know what a hermaphrodite is? For the record a hermaphrodite has both male and female sex organs from birth, often as the result of a genetic abnormality (such as the presence of three sex chromosomes, XXY -- whereas a normal male is XY and a normal female is XX.) About one in every ten thousand Americans is a hermaphrodite. Hermaphrodites lead completely ordinary lives, with the exception that because they have both male and female characteristics they in some cases are able to decide which gender they would prefer to live as. In fact, in most cases sexual orientation, where it plays a role, tends to lead hermaphrodites to choose the gender opposite to that which they find most appealing.
What does repealing DADT have to do with hermaphrodites? A hermaphrodite is perfectly welcome to join the military right now, and I suspect (though there are no statistics on it that I'm aware of) that some have.
What Congressman Hunter's comment shows is an apalling level of ignorance. He obviously has no clue what a 'hermaphrodite' actually is, he just knows it's a word he can use to scare people who are as ignorant as he is.
What scares me is that there are actually people in the United States who just last year wanted this guy to become President!
It is hard to argue against the repeal of the policy, given the established fact that thousands of gay servicemen and women have served in America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. In many cases their comrades in arms were fully aware of their sexual orientation (though they may have declined to 'tell' formally in order to avoid being booted out of the military) and in fact it has been a non-issue in the front lines. What matters in a war is whether someone can do and does do their job, period.
And further, it makes far more sense to integrate the armed services now, when there is no urgent national emergency of the type that might require a draft, than to be forced to do so in a dire national emergency when millions of young people suddenly announce publically they are gay the day after getting their conscription notices. Because let's be honest here-- if there ever is a draft, anyone who wants to dodge it will make such a public announcement and pretty much dare the army to boot them out, and if it happens on a massive scale would force the issue then-- at a time when we don't need to be fighting over it.
So what did Congressman Hunter say, exactly?
"You'll open the military up to hermaphrodites."
WHAT??
Does he even know what a hermaphrodite is? For the record a hermaphrodite has both male and female sex organs from birth, often as the result of a genetic abnormality (such as the presence of three sex chromosomes, XXY -- whereas a normal male is XY and a normal female is XX.) About one in every ten thousand Americans is a hermaphrodite. Hermaphrodites lead completely ordinary lives, with the exception that because they have both male and female characteristics they in some cases are able to decide which gender they would prefer to live as. In fact, in most cases sexual orientation, where it plays a role, tends to lead hermaphrodites to choose the gender opposite to that which they find most appealing.
What does repealing DADT have to do with hermaphrodites? A hermaphrodite is perfectly welcome to join the military right now, and I suspect (though there are no statistics on it that I'm aware of) that some have.
What Congressman Hunter's comment shows is an apalling level of ignorance. He obviously has no clue what a 'hermaphrodite' actually is, he just knows it's a word he can use to scare people who are as ignorant as he is.
What scares me is that there are actually people in the United States who just last year wanted this guy to become President!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Huppenthal shows arrogance by drilling holes in high school wall.
Last week state Republicans held their meeting at Saguaro High School in Scottsdale.
Senator John Huppenthal, who is running for Superintendent of Schools, decided to hang a banner. Instead of finding out if there was anyone who could help him hang it, he went to work himself, got an electric drill and drilled several holes in the wall for him to hang his banner on.
It's not that he caused much damage; the school administration has said the holes did not affect the building (though what else could they say since he holds their budget in his hands?) and the state Republican Party has offered to pay whatever repair costs there are. Rather it's about his mind set.
Public buildings are owned by all of us. Apparently he feels, as a state legislator that he has the right to damage them for his own purposes. I mean, if I were to visit your home as a guest and take out a power drill and drill holes in your wall, wouldn't you feel a little miffed? What if I pulled out a drill and drilled holes in your local school, police station or other public building? Certainly this would be vandalism, and if I did it I imagine I'd be cited for at least a misdemeanor.
At the very least, don't you think he should have asked permission, or even asked if there was already something there he could use to hang his banner on? Any normal person would, but apparently John Huppenthal believes that he is an unusually privileged person who doesn't have to live by the same rules that he so nonchalantly makes for other people to follow, to say nothing of common decency.
It's the same kind of mindset that Tom DeLay had some years back when he lit up a cigar in a non-smoking building, and when he was told he couldn't smoke there by order of the Federal Government, responded "I am the Federal Government." Apparenly Senator Huppenthal has forgotten that he serves in office at the invitation of the voters, and he no more owns public property than you or I do.
Senator John Huppenthal, who is running for Superintendent of Schools, decided to hang a banner. Instead of finding out if there was anyone who could help him hang it, he went to work himself, got an electric drill and drilled several holes in the wall for him to hang his banner on.
It's not that he caused much damage; the school administration has said the holes did not affect the building (though what else could they say since he holds their budget in his hands?) and the state Republican Party has offered to pay whatever repair costs there are. Rather it's about his mind set.
Public buildings are owned by all of us. Apparently he feels, as a state legislator that he has the right to damage them for his own purposes. I mean, if I were to visit your home as a guest and take out a power drill and drill holes in your wall, wouldn't you feel a little miffed? What if I pulled out a drill and drilled holes in your local school, police station or other public building? Certainly this would be vandalism, and if I did it I imagine I'd be cited for at least a misdemeanor.
At the very least, don't you think he should have asked permission, or even asked if there was already something there he could use to hang his banner on? Any normal person would, but apparently John Huppenthal believes that he is an unusually privileged person who doesn't have to live by the same rules that he so nonchalantly makes for other people to follow, to say nothing of common decency.
It's the same kind of mindset that Tom DeLay had some years back when he lit up a cigar in a non-smoking building, and when he was told he couldn't smoke there by order of the Federal Government, responded "I am the Federal Government." Apparenly Senator Huppenthal has forgotten that he serves in office at the invitation of the voters, and he no more owns public property than you or I do.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Andre Bauer: continuing South Carolina's march to the bottom
Remember a few weeks ago when the South Carolina legislature decided against impeaching Mark Sanford?
Probably the right decision. Sanford's personal infidelity, while salacious and an example of the hypocrisy of right wing politicians who get elected while preaching about 'family values,' was hardly an impeachable offense. His use of state resources to fund his travel may have been unacceptable but probably not all that different from what I suspect you'd find if you looked into some of his colleagues in the legislature there (or for that matter in other states.) Maybe something that should be looked into (after all, Congress has to live according to ethical rules far more stringent than many legislatures or state level office holders) but I doubt if the legislature there wanted to start down that road.
But the real reason it's a good thing they didn't impeach Sanford was that if they had it would have elevated Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer to the Governor's mansion in Columbia.
Bauer, who is in fact running for Governor this year let the mask slip when he said that people receiving Government assistance are like stray animals because they 'breed' and 'don't know any better.'.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer told an audience in the town of Fountain Inn, according to the Greenville News. "You know why? Because they breed."
"You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply," Bauer continued. "They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Keep in mind that South Carolina is a state with a 12% unemployment rate. So if someone lost their job, apparently the man who would be their next Governor thinks no more of them than the the animals housed at the dog pound. What will he propose as an alternative, given the failure of the current Governor and legislature to produce jobs in his state? Spay/neutering poor people, or forced euthanasia?
Yes, the mask slips off of conservatives sometimes. I never thought I'd say it, but I hope Mark Sanford stays in office for the rest of his term.
Probably the right decision. Sanford's personal infidelity, while salacious and an example of the hypocrisy of right wing politicians who get elected while preaching about 'family values,' was hardly an impeachable offense. His use of state resources to fund his travel may have been unacceptable but probably not all that different from what I suspect you'd find if you looked into some of his colleagues in the legislature there (or for that matter in other states.) Maybe something that should be looked into (after all, Congress has to live according to ethical rules far more stringent than many legislatures or state level office holders) but I doubt if the legislature there wanted to start down that road.
But the real reason it's a good thing they didn't impeach Sanford was that if they had it would have elevated Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer to the Governor's mansion in Columbia.
Bauer, who is in fact running for Governor this year let the mask slip when he said that people receiving Government assistance are like stray animals because they 'breed' and 'don't know any better.'.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer told an audience in the town of Fountain Inn, according to the Greenville News. "You know why? Because they breed."
"You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply," Bauer continued. "They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Keep in mind that South Carolina is a state with a 12% unemployment rate. So if someone lost their job, apparently the man who would be their next Governor thinks no more of them than the the animals housed at the dog pound. What will he propose as an alternative, given the failure of the current Governor and legislature to produce jobs in his state? Spay/neutering poor people, or forced euthanasia?
Yes, the mask slips off of conservatives sometimes. I never thought I'd say it, but I hope Mark Sanford stays in office for the rest of his term.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Get Health Care Done, Now.
The GOP and the paragons of the right hve been trumpeting the special election victory of Scott Brown in the Democratic state of Massachusetts as a reason why we should give up on the Obama agenda, starting with health care reform.
However, it means almost the opposite of this.
A lot of the voters who voted for Obama last year and stayed home this year (or in some cases, even voted for Brown) did so because really not much is that different from if John McCain had won last year's election. Obama has hired far too many Wall Street bankers and Federal Reserve retreads to set the course for the nation's financial policy. The Bush wars are continuing. Little has been done on the environment. And health care reform has been continually dragged out and watered down to the point where it is almost unrecognizable. And even this looks like it may be taken off the table and replaced by a bill that everyone can agree on which may clip around the edges of the problem, say by getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion but probably leave loopholes that in the end will make it just 'feel-good window dressing.'
In fact, Brown himself made the best case for why the public still wants meaningful health care reform. He pointed out that the voters in Massachusetts already have universal coverage, so they would only be essentially paying extra taxes to extend to the rest of the United States a benefit they already enjoy. He specifically did not call for the repeal of the Massachusetts law, which despite its warts seems likely to remain in place. Well, as Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local" and Brown was able to take avantage of a progressive local law and turn it to his advantage. He also was very careful not to criticize the President directly, as Obama remains popular in Massachusetts.
The answer is to get health care reform finished. According to some reports, house and senate leaders were 'hours away' from an agreement when Brown's election caused some to get cold feet. They should go ahead and finish the agreement and push it through while Democrats still have sixty Senate votes.
The idea that moving to the center will save Democrats is foolishness. To win, Democrts have to give voters a reason to vote for them, and right now, they haven't yet. Throwing in the towel on health care would make the problem worse, not better.
However, it means almost the opposite of this.
A lot of the voters who voted for Obama last year and stayed home this year (or in some cases, even voted for Brown) did so because really not much is that different from if John McCain had won last year's election. Obama has hired far too many Wall Street bankers and Federal Reserve retreads to set the course for the nation's financial policy. The Bush wars are continuing. Little has been done on the environment. And health care reform has been continually dragged out and watered down to the point where it is almost unrecognizable. And even this looks like it may be taken off the table and replaced by a bill that everyone can agree on which may clip around the edges of the problem, say by getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion but probably leave loopholes that in the end will make it just 'feel-good window dressing.'
In fact, Brown himself made the best case for why the public still wants meaningful health care reform. He pointed out that the voters in Massachusetts already have universal coverage, so they would only be essentially paying extra taxes to extend to the rest of the United States a benefit they already enjoy. He specifically did not call for the repeal of the Massachusetts law, which despite its warts seems likely to remain in place. Well, as Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local" and Brown was able to take avantage of a progressive local law and turn it to his advantage. He also was very careful not to criticize the President directly, as Obama remains popular in Massachusetts.
The answer is to get health care reform finished. According to some reports, house and senate leaders were 'hours away' from an agreement when Brown's election caused some to get cold feet. They should go ahead and finish the agreement and push it through while Democrats still have sixty Senate votes.
The idea that moving to the center will save Democrats is foolishness. To win, Democrts have to give voters a reason to vote for them, and right now, they haven't yet. Throwing in the towel on health care would make the problem worse, not better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
