I've gotten a number of interesting posts in my mailbox from a discussion on Arizona blog net. It seems that a few people are punting around an idea to push a recall petition against John McCain because of his stance on the Iraq war.
One argument that has come up has to do with its legality. Because the Senate is a Federal, not a state office it may be that such a recall, even if successful would not cause his removal from office.
I also doubt that this will get very far. The number of signatures needed-- over 380,000-- is way too high a number to collect, especially since we will sooner or later have to be worrying about signatures just to get our candidates on the ballot for 2008. McCain is also still somewhat popular (among people who don't know him), and he did win re-election to the Senate in 2004 with over 70% of the vote.
Nevertheless it is interesting that this is even being bandied about. Just the fact that it is shows how angry people are over the Iraq war, and McCain's stubborn refusal to acknowlege the obvious.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Forty years in prison is a lot to pay for not knowing much about computers.
It's happened to a lot of people. It's happened to me.
I have gone to a website that had nothing pornographic about it, hit the wrong link and all of a sudden a barrage of pornographic pictures shows up on the screen. There is even a term for a link that does this. It is called a 'mouse trap.'.
Should a substitute teacher get forty years in prison because it happened to her?
WINDHAM, Conn. - Until recently, Julie Amero says, she lived the quiet life of a small-town substitute teacher, with little knowledge of computers and even less about porn.
Now she is in the middle of a criminal case that hinges on the intricacies of both, and it could put her behind bars for up to 40 years.
She was convicted last month of exposing seventh-grade students to pornography on her classroom computer. She contended the images were inadvertently thrust onto the screen by pornographers’ unseen spyware and adware programs.
Prosecutors dispute that. But her argument has made her a cause célèbre among some technology experts, who say what happened to her could happen to anyone.
“I’m scared,” said Amero, 40. “I’m just beside myself over something I didn’t do.”
It all began in October 2004. Amero was assigned to a class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, a city of about 37,000 people about 40 miles east of Hartford.
Amero says that before her class started, a teacher allowed her to e-mail her husband. She says she used the computer and went to the bathroom, returning to find the permanent teacher gone and two students viewing a Web site on hairstyles.
Amero says she chased the students away and started class. But later, she says, pornographic images began popping up on the computer screen by themselves. She says she tried to click the images off, but they kept returning, and she was under strict orders not to shut the computer off.
“I did everything I possibly could to keep them from seeing anything,” she says.
I've had to turn a computer off. It's the only way to stop this from happening.
But what really amazes me is how technologically obtuse the prosecutors and those who doubt her story seem to be.
What is extraordinary is the prosecution admitted there was no search made for spyware — an incredible blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at a crime scene,” Alex Eckelberry, president of a Florida software company, wrote recently in the local newspaper. “When a pop-up occurs on a computer, it will get shown as a visited Web site, and no ‘physical click’ is necessary.”...
Principal Scott Fain said the computer lacked the latest firewall protection because a vendor’s bill had gone unpaid. “I was shocked to see what made it through,” he said.
But Fain also said Amero was the only one to report such a problem: “We’ve never had a problem with pop-ups before or since.”
Uh, do you think the vendor's bill has since been paid? Of course he hasn't had the problem since then. And in any case, I've only had that problem once or twice, so it's not a common problem. But it does happen. And tossing someone in prison for up to forty years because she didn't know what a mousetrap is seems the height of idiocy.
I have gone to a website that had nothing pornographic about it, hit the wrong link and all of a sudden a barrage of pornographic pictures shows up on the screen. There is even a term for a link that does this. It is called a 'mouse trap.'.
Should a substitute teacher get forty years in prison because it happened to her?
WINDHAM, Conn. - Until recently, Julie Amero says, she lived the quiet life of a small-town substitute teacher, with little knowledge of computers and even less about porn.
Now she is in the middle of a criminal case that hinges on the intricacies of both, and it could put her behind bars for up to 40 years.
She was convicted last month of exposing seventh-grade students to pornography on her classroom computer. She contended the images were inadvertently thrust onto the screen by pornographers’ unseen spyware and adware programs.
Prosecutors dispute that. But her argument has made her a cause célèbre among some technology experts, who say what happened to her could happen to anyone.
“I’m scared,” said Amero, 40. “I’m just beside myself over something I didn’t do.”
It all began in October 2004. Amero was assigned to a class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, a city of about 37,000 people about 40 miles east of Hartford.
Amero says that before her class started, a teacher allowed her to e-mail her husband. She says she used the computer and went to the bathroom, returning to find the permanent teacher gone and two students viewing a Web site on hairstyles.
Amero says she chased the students away and started class. But later, she says, pornographic images began popping up on the computer screen by themselves. She says she tried to click the images off, but they kept returning, and she was under strict orders not to shut the computer off.
“I did everything I possibly could to keep them from seeing anything,” she says.
I've had to turn a computer off. It's the only way to stop this from happening.
But what really amazes me is how technologically obtuse the prosecutors and those who doubt her story seem to be.
What is extraordinary is the prosecution admitted there was no search made for spyware — an incredible blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at a crime scene,” Alex Eckelberry, president of a Florida software company, wrote recently in the local newspaper. “When a pop-up occurs on a computer, it will get shown as a visited Web site, and no ‘physical click’ is necessary.”...
Principal Scott Fain said the computer lacked the latest firewall protection because a vendor’s bill had gone unpaid. “I was shocked to see what made it through,” he said.
But Fain also said Amero was the only one to report such a problem: “We’ve never had a problem with pop-ups before or since.”
Uh, do you think the vendor's bill has since been paid? Of course he hasn't had the problem since then. And in any case, I've only had that problem once or twice, so it's not a common problem. But it does happen. And tossing someone in prison for up to forty years because she didn't know what a mousetrap is seems the height of idiocy.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Bush proposes to cut Veteran's Health care after this year.
Never unpredictable, our President has proposed, in his attempt to balance the budget while preserving his massive tax cuts and fighting the Iraq war, that we continue cutting veteran's healthcare. Of course his record on veteran's issues is already dismal, having closed several V.A. hospitals and made other cuts in veterans' health care. It has on the whole risen because of the Iraq and Afghan wars, but that is despite the best efforts of this administration to oppose that.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system....
The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about 5 percent a year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5 percent of the VA's patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.
All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans' medical services budget — up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush's proposed 2008 budget — can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that
Yup, support the troops.
Sometimes I don't even have to comment on some things this administration does. They speak for themselves.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system....
The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about 5 percent a year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5 percent of the VA's patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.
All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans' medical services budget — up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush's proposed 2008 budget — can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that
Yup, support the troops.
Sometimes I don't even have to comment on some things this administration does. They speak for themselves.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Paraplegic dumped in skid row by hospital. Without a wheelchair.
Sadly, this isn't the first time I've had to blog on Los Angeles hospitals' unique way of dealing with the homeless. In fact, in my second post on the topic, just this past October, I wrote about how this practice had become the target of a criminal investigation.
How would you like to be discharged from the hospital, still in pain or not completely well, and dropped off someplace where you did not come from, perhaps didn't know where you were, and among people who you did not know? If someone-- homeless or not-- requests to be taken downtown, then it is fine to take them there. But absent such a request, discharge from a hospital is just that-- they can walk out the front door.
We also know that some of the homeless dumped on skid row 'paid' their hospital bill another way-- apparently being abducted, murdered and their bodies 'donated' to UCLA medical center in the infamous UCLA cadaver scandal.
But a story out today makes even that nauseating turn of events seem like old news:
a homeless paraplegic was dumped on skid row by an L.A. hospital:
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A hospital van dropped off a paraplegic man on Skid Row, allegedly leaving him crawling in the street with nothing more than a soiled gown and a broken colostomy bag, police said.
Witnesses who said they saw the incident Thursday wrote down a phone number on the van and took down its license-plate number, which helped detectives connect the vehicle to Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site.
Police said the incident was a case of "homeless dumping" and were questioning officials from the hospital.
Outrage is too mild a word for what I felt when I read this story. No matter how horrid some of these stories have gotten, it's always possible to think 'well, there is still something left they won't do.' Get a hint: NO, there is nothing they won't do. If they will even toss a paralyzed hospital patient out onto the street, then these goons will do anything. In fact, this should be prosecuted as a hate crime.
I know that hospitals lose a ton of money treating the indigent (welcome to America 2007, even as our President submits a budget that calls for another round of cuts in Medicaid) but if this is the best they can do, then there is indeed a strong argument for not just increasing Medicaid payments on behalf of the indigent, but in fact just plain nationalizing some hospitals (this one would be a prime candidate). Obviously the Presbyterian Church (which apparently has lent its name to the medical center) is incapable of running an institution that shows even the most minimal level of decency.
How would you like to be discharged from the hospital, still in pain or not completely well, and dropped off someplace where you did not come from, perhaps didn't know where you were, and among people who you did not know? If someone-- homeless or not-- requests to be taken downtown, then it is fine to take them there. But absent such a request, discharge from a hospital is just that-- they can walk out the front door.
We also know that some of the homeless dumped on skid row 'paid' their hospital bill another way-- apparently being abducted, murdered and their bodies 'donated' to UCLA medical center in the infamous UCLA cadaver scandal.
But a story out today makes even that nauseating turn of events seem like old news:
a homeless paraplegic was dumped on skid row by an L.A. hospital:
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A hospital van dropped off a paraplegic man on Skid Row, allegedly leaving him crawling in the street with nothing more than a soiled gown and a broken colostomy bag, police said.
Witnesses who said they saw the incident Thursday wrote down a phone number on the van and took down its license-plate number, which helped detectives connect the vehicle to Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site.
Police said the incident was a case of "homeless dumping" and were questioning officials from the hospital.
Outrage is too mild a word for what I felt when I read this story. No matter how horrid some of these stories have gotten, it's always possible to think 'well, there is still something left they won't do.' Get a hint: NO, there is nothing they won't do. If they will even toss a paralyzed hospital patient out onto the street, then these goons will do anything. In fact, this should be prosecuted as a hate crime.
I know that hospitals lose a ton of money treating the indigent (welcome to America 2007, even as our President submits a budget that calls for another round of cuts in Medicaid) but if this is the best they can do, then there is indeed a strong argument for not just increasing Medicaid payments on behalf of the indigent, but in fact just plain nationalizing some hospitals (this one would be a prime candidate). Obviously the Presbyterian Church (which apparently has lent its name to the medical center) is incapable of running an institution that shows even the most minimal level of decency.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Taliban making a comeback while we are fixated on Iraq
While all the focus is (still) on Iraq, it seems like no one is paying attention to 'the forgotten war' in Afghanistan.
Like Iraq, the situation is deteriorating and has been for over four years. Like Iraq, we have seen poor leadership from this administration that has played into why we are stuck in such a bad situation. And like Iraq, our troops have become targets in an ongoing civil war.
There is a difference however. Lest we forget, those who actually did us harm on 9/11 were hiding out in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And unlike Iraq, which was simply a war of George Bush's choice, and which was therefore not supported widely within the international community, there was very little opposition from that community to our invading the Taliban-run country.
But Afghanistan has just never been a major concern for this administration. As former President Clinton astutely noted, there are more than seven times as many American troops in Iraq as there are in and around Afghanistan. The whole argument about 'fighting terrorists over there...' falls flat on its face when we see how little the war against al-Qaeda in the place where we know for a fact they are strongest fits into the priority scheme. In fact, we even have President Bush on record:
I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.
-- George W. Bush on March 13, 2002 (more than a year before the Iraq war, but when he was starting to ratchet up the rhetoric against Saddam Hussein).
Obviously he was telling the truth when he made that quote. Because Afghanistan has not been a priority at all. Well, maybe for a few short weeks during election season (as I wrote in a post entitled Terrorism and the Afghan War (written last year, exactly two months before the November election). The President had at the time been talking a lot more about the Afghan war and al-Qaeda than he had for-- well-- since the 2004 election:
I bet that by Christmas, Afghanistan will be relegated to the same second thought that it has been over the past few years.
I was right about that. Came Christmas, and it was. Fortunately, the Bush administration had gone to that well one too many times and the American people didn't buy it.
I believe two (not necessarily contradictory) things about Afghanistan. The first is that we actually have a real reason for being there and we should stay until the Taliban and bin Laden are gone. The second, on the other hand, is that we have already compromised our position in Afghanistan because of the focus on Iraq. If we are not ready to make fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda there our priority then getting out is a much better option than continuing to fight the war of attrition we see going on right now.
Continuing to send American troops to fight and die in Afghanistan while we send the resources they would need to Iraq is the worst of all worlds, and if that is the Bush administration's plan then we owe it to our troops to get them out of there.
Like Iraq, the situation is deteriorating and has been for over four years. Like Iraq, we have seen poor leadership from this administration that has played into why we are stuck in such a bad situation. And like Iraq, our troops have become targets in an ongoing civil war.
There is a difference however. Lest we forget, those who actually did us harm on 9/11 were hiding out in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And unlike Iraq, which was simply a war of George Bush's choice, and which was therefore not supported widely within the international community, there was very little opposition from that community to our invading the Taliban-run country.
But Afghanistan has just never been a major concern for this administration. As former President Clinton astutely noted, there are more than seven times as many American troops in Iraq as there are in and around Afghanistan. The whole argument about 'fighting terrorists over there...' falls flat on its face when we see how little the war against al-Qaeda in the place where we know for a fact they are strongest fits into the priority scheme. In fact, we even have President Bush on record:
I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.
-- George W. Bush on March 13, 2002 (more than a year before the Iraq war, but when he was starting to ratchet up the rhetoric against Saddam Hussein).
Obviously he was telling the truth when he made that quote. Because Afghanistan has not been a priority at all. Well, maybe for a few short weeks during election season (as I wrote in a post entitled Terrorism and the Afghan War (written last year, exactly two months before the November election). The President had at the time been talking a lot more about the Afghan war and al-Qaeda than he had for-- well-- since the 2004 election:
I bet that by Christmas, Afghanistan will be relegated to the same second thought that it has been over the past few years.
I was right about that. Came Christmas, and it was. Fortunately, the Bush administration had gone to that well one too many times and the American people didn't buy it.
I believe two (not necessarily contradictory) things about Afghanistan. The first is that we actually have a real reason for being there and we should stay until the Taliban and bin Laden are gone. The second, on the other hand, is that we have already compromised our position in Afghanistan because of the focus on Iraq. If we are not ready to make fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda there our priority then getting out is a much better option than continuing to fight the war of attrition we see going on right now.
Continuing to send American troops to fight and die in Afghanistan while we send the resources they would need to Iraq is the worst of all worlds, and if that is the Bush administration's plan then we owe it to our troops to get them out of there.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Texas considering the death penalty for child molesters
It seems that Texas, not happy with being the number one state in the country in executions is the latest state to propose the death penalty for some child molesters.
Now, I blogged last year on why the death penalty for child molesters was both a bad idea and a sterling example of political cowardice (which is linked here). In part, I wrote:
What could be more pleasing and more just, than to execute child molesters, right? Well, no actually. I know, it's tough to make any argument against doing something to a child molester, but I will make it here.
Begin with the gut reaction. Yes, what child molesters have done is horrible. And we have to protect our children ahead of any other consideration (one reason I recently added the Code Amber Alert ticker at the top of my screen). But is executing them the answer? It is true, after all, that child molesters are that way by nature, and that they can't be truly 'cured,' even if they want to be (there is ample scientific as well as criminal evidence to back that up.) However, let me make some points why executing them is not the answer.
Start with a bald fact that I have to state anyway and which overshadows the rest of the discussion: It won't hold up in court. That is pretty much conceded by nearly all legal scholars. No one has been executed for a crime other than murder in the U.S. since the Rosenbergs were executed for a 1950 conviction for treason, for giving nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. No one has been executed for a sex crime in the U.S. since the early part of the last century (and then child molestation wasn't even an issue, and the people executed were invariably black men convicted rightly or wrongly or raping white women.) So the courts will virtually certainly strike this down as 'cruel and unusual punishment' not proportional to the crime, and what is really infuriating is that the politicians know it better than anyone, but they are doing this to be popular...
But more to the point here is that it is exactly the kind of 'red meat politics' that has gotten us into the mess we are in today.
I used to live in Texas (only for a year, but it was an educational year, with 'Shrub' running for re-election as governor in a state that seemed to have lost its collective mind. A prime example was the race for railroad commissioner that year. One of the candidates (who ultimately won the race), instead of commenting on anything that had to do with being railroad commissioner ran ads touting his support for the death penalty. Now, it's hard to see what the railroad commissioner would have to do with the death penalty anyway, unless maybe they were considering using 'tying to the tracks ahead of the train' as a method of execution (think Snidely Whiplash) but no matter, apparently it doesn't matter if you get an unqualified lunk in the office, as long as he is pro-death penalty.
And that's the way the death penalty is in Texas. It's a little like when the Dallas Cowboys win on Sunday. People may be falling behind in their bills, have a leak in the roof and Little Johnny may be getting F's on his report card, but if the Cowboys win on Sunday then it seems like everyone in Texas feels much better on Monday. True that the bills still have to be paid, the leak still has to be fixed and Johnny still has to get caught up in school, but people think that because the Cowboys have won, their life is better somehow. The same thing with the death penalty. Never mind that everyone on death row is safely behind bars and away from the general population, or that the murder rate in Texas (6.2 per 100,000 population in 2005) is higher than the national average or for that matter than any of the twelve states that have no death penalty, nor does it matter that the man executed may not even have been guilty, nor the fact that if everyone on death row were executed tomorrow the prison population would catch up to what it is now within two weeks, the fact that some miscreant has been sent to the next life makes people feel better the next day. They still can't pay their bills, the roof still leaks, Johnny is still failing, but doggone it, we sure showed that loser a thing or two.
What is worse though is the cynical politicians who demagogue this issue (and the death penalty for child molesters, though it will be thrown out in court, is a demagogue's dream-- and when the courts throw it out then they can demagogue some more about 'liberal judges' or some such tripe and still avoid having to tackle anything that matters) because they'd rather pass this kind of bill and then bash the courts than deal with the really hard issues (and in Texas, there are a lot of them that need dealt with).
It does make the rise of Shrub a little easier to understand though.
Now, I blogged last year on why the death penalty for child molesters was both a bad idea and a sterling example of political cowardice (which is linked here). In part, I wrote:
What could be more pleasing and more just, than to execute child molesters, right? Well, no actually. I know, it's tough to make any argument against doing something to a child molester, but I will make it here.
Begin with the gut reaction. Yes, what child molesters have done is horrible. And we have to protect our children ahead of any other consideration (one reason I recently added the Code Amber Alert ticker at the top of my screen). But is executing them the answer? It is true, after all, that child molesters are that way by nature, and that they can't be truly 'cured,' even if they want to be (there is ample scientific as well as criminal evidence to back that up.) However, let me make some points why executing them is not the answer.
Start with a bald fact that I have to state anyway and which overshadows the rest of the discussion: It won't hold up in court. That is pretty much conceded by nearly all legal scholars. No one has been executed for a crime other than murder in the U.S. since the Rosenbergs were executed for a 1950 conviction for treason, for giving nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. No one has been executed for a sex crime in the U.S. since the early part of the last century (and then child molestation wasn't even an issue, and the people executed were invariably black men convicted rightly or wrongly or raping white women.) So the courts will virtually certainly strike this down as 'cruel and unusual punishment' not proportional to the crime, and what is really infuriating is that the politicians know it better than anyone, but they are doing this to be popular...
But more to the point here is that it is exactly the kind of 'red meat politics' that has gotten us into the mess we are in today.
I used to live in Texas (only for a year, but it was an educational year, with 'Shrub' running for re-election as governor in a state that seemed to have lost its collective mind. A prime example was the race for railroad commissioner that year. One of the candidates (who ultimately won the race), instead of commenting on anything that had to do with being railroad commissioner ran ads touting his support for the death penalty. Now, it's hard to see what the railroad commissioner would have to do with the death penalty anyway, unless maybe they were considering using 'tying to the tracks ahead of the train' as a method of execution (think Snidely Whiplash) but no matter, apparently it doesn't matter if you get an unqualified lunk in the office, as long as he is pro-death penalty.
And that's the way the death penalty is in Texas. It's a little like when the Dallas Cowboys win on Sunday. People may be falling behind in their bills, have a leak in the roof and Little Johnny may be getting F's on his report card, but if the Cowboys win on Sunday then it seems like everyone in Texas feels much better on Monday. True that the bills still have to be paid, the leak still has to be fixed and Johnny still has to get caught up in school, but people think that because the Cowboys have won, their life is better somehow. The same thing with the death penalty. Never mind that everyone on death row is safely behind bars and away from the general population, or that the murder rate in Texas (6.2 per 100,000 population in 2005) is higher than the national average or for that matter than any of the twelve states that have no death penalty, nor does it matter that the man executed may not even have been guilty, nor the fact that if everyone on death row were executed tomorrow the prison population would catch up to what it is now within two weeks, the fact that some miscreant has been sent to the next life makes people feel better the next day. They still can't pay their bills, the roof still leaks, Johnny is still failing, but doggone it, we sure showed that loser a thing or two.
What is worse though is the cynical politicians who demagogue this issue (and the death penalty for child molesters, though it will be thrown out in court, is a demagogue's dream-- and when the courts throw it out then they can demagogue some more about 'liberal judges' or some such tripe and still avoid having to tackle anything that matters) because they'd rather pass this kind of bill and then bash the courts than deal with the really hard issues (and in Texas, there are a lot of them that need dealt with).
It does make the rise of Shrub a little easier to understand though.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Rush is a racist, and nothing brings that out like the NFL
Today while discussing the Super Bowl, Rush Limbaugh went into a tirade about how the media wanted Chicago Bears quarterback Rex Grossman to fail (which Grossman did, throwing a pair of late interceptions and adding two fumbles to make a strong case for why he should be Super Bowl MVP-- for the Colts.) It is true that last week the media kept asking whether Grossman might be the worst Super Bowl quarterback ever (which he also made a case for yesterday).
Rush then inserted two words that he used to explain why the media was (as he put it) 'rooting for Grossman to fail,' and those two words, almost inserted as an afterthought were 'white quarterback.' Of course words that people casually insert into a conversation often tell much more about who they really are and how they think than what they think through before they say.
His comment is in fact stupid on the face of it. Not only were the media simultaneously commenting on how superlatively good (white) Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning was (so that the notion that they root for white quarterbacks to fail is plainly absurd), but the reason for the negative questions about Rex was because we've seen the 'bad Rex' this year, and he has been really, really bad (as he showed the world last night). It was really a question of which Rex Grossman would show up-- he is inconsistent, and there is no way around it.
There was a racial angle on the game, to be sure, but it had nothing to do with the quarterback matchup-- the notion that black quarterbacks weren't as good as white quarterbacks was ended when Doug Williams and Washington won big almost twenty years ago. The racial angle yesterday was that two black coaches, Tony Dungy of Indianapolis and Lovie Smith of Chicago, both directed their clubs to the Super Bowl and Dungy became the first black coach to win a Super Bowl (which the NFL has done an outstanding job of ending racial hiring preferences across the league-- too bad that college football hasn't done the same).
What is really amazing is that this isn't the first time that Rush has talked about media coverage of a quarterback and added race into the equation. Recall that in 2003 he lost his job providing commentary on Monday Night Football by saying that Eagles' quarterback Donovan McNabb was 'overrated' because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed (again, that was over 15 years after Williams' performance in Super Bowl XXII had ended the race issue in regard to quarterbacks for anyone other than obdurate racists like Limbaugh shows himself to be).
Rush then inserted two words that he used to explain why the media was (as he put it) 'rooting for Grossman to fail,' and those two words, almost inserted as an afterthought were 'white quarterback.' Of course words that people casually insert into a conversation often tell much more about who they really are and how they think than what they think through before they say.
His comment is in fact stupid on the face of it. Not only were the media simultaneously commenting on how superlatively good (white) Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning was (so that the notion that they root for white quarterbacks to fail is plainly absurd), but the reason for the negative questions about Rex was because we've seen the 'bad Rex' this year, and he has been really, really bad (as he showed the world last night). It was really a question of which Rex Grossman would show up-- he is inconsistent, and there is no way around it.
There was a racial angle on the game, to be sure, but it had nothing to do with the quarterback matchup-- the notion that black quarterbacks weren't as good as white quarterbacks was ended when Doug Williams and Washington won big almost twenty years ago. The racial angle yesterday was that two black coaches, Tony Dungy of Indianapolis and Lovie Smith of Chicago, both directed their clubs to the Super Bowl and Dungy became the first black coach to win a Super Bowl (which the NFL has done an outstanding job of ending racial hiring preferences across the league-- too bad that college football hasn't done the same).
What is really amazing is that this isn't the first time that Rush has talked about media coverage of a quarterback and added race into the equation. Recall that in 2003 he lost his job providing commentary on Monday Night Football by saying that Eagles' quarterback Donovan McNabb was 'overrated' because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed (again, that was over 15 years after Williams' performance in Super Bowl XXII had ended the race issue in regard to quarterbacks for anyone other than obdurate racists like Limbaugh shows himself to be).
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Randy Pullen drives away GOP staff.
2006 was a bad year for the Republican party in Arizona. Arizona was one of three states west of the Mississippi river where the GOP lost multiple seats in Congress (the other two were Texas and Iowa). Governor Napolitano and Attorney General Goddard were re-elected by huge margins. Hardliner Len Munsil got absolutely crushed in the Governor's race. And in the legislature the GOP lost six house seats and one in the Senate. Symptomatic of their problems were their steadfast insistence on nominating hardliners. Anti-immigration hardliner Randy Graf lost big to Gabrielle Giffords in the race for an open seat in Congress, after Graf had beaten out two more moderate Republicans in the primary, and in house district 26 the hardline conservatives in the GOP kicked out two moderate Republicans in their primary in order to nominate two hardliners from what can be considered the 'nutbag right,' and ended up with two Democrats instead (here in Arizona legislative districts are represented by two house members and one senator).
One would think that given the disastrous performance of hardline candidates and their issues (even the gay marriage amendment failed here in Arizona) that some common sense would prevail in the party and that members of the GOP would realize that if they want to win in the next round of elections they need to nominate candidates who are more palatable to the voters.
One would think that, but one would be wrong.
Last week they picked ultra hard-liner Randy Pullen as their party chair. It seems as if they have it in their mind that the harder to the right they run, the better it will go for them. They seem to think that if they control the party apparatus of the party with the larger number of registered voters then they will run the state. Only they are wrong. Republicans are overall a diminishing minority in Arizona (the real growth has been among registered independents) and it is hard to see how candidates of the type that a Randy Pullen would support would be very appealing to most independents (or for that matter to a lot of moderate Republicans-- remember that Janet Napolitano got the votes of a third of all the Republicans who voted on election day-- so one out of three Republicans would prefer a competent Democrat to a hardliner like Munsil.)
And the staff at the state GOP is voting with their feet. the paid staff has resigned. They'd rather start sending out resumes than work for Randy Pullen.
It is hard to think of anything other than a guy with his foot on the accelerator thinking only of getting ahead, while the parts of the car are falling out behind him.
Should be an interesting election cycle.
One would think that given the disastrous performance of hardline candidates and their issues (even the gay marriage amendment failed here in Arizona) that some common sense would prevail in the party and that members of the GOP would realize that if they want to win in the next round of elections they need to nominate candidates who are more palatable to the voters.
One would think that, but one would be wrong.
Last week they picked ultra hard-liner Randy Pullen as their party chair. It seems as if they have it in their mind that the harder to the right they run, the better it will go for them. They seem to think that if they control the party apparatus of the party with the larger number of registered voters then they will run the state. Only they are wrong. Republicans are overall a diminishing minority in Arizona (the real growth has been among registered independents) and it is hard to see how candidates of the type that a Randy Pullen would support would be very appealing to most independents (or for that matter to a lot of moderate Republicans-- remember that Janet Napolitano got the votes of a third of all the Republicans who voted on election day-- so one out of three Republicans would prefer a competent Democrat to a hardliner like Munsil.)
And the staff at the state GOP is voting with their feet. the paid staff has resigned. They'd rather start sending out resumes than work for Randy Pullen.
It is hard to think of anything other than a guy with his foot on the accelerator thinking only of getting ahead, while the parts of the car are falling out behind him.
Should be an interesting election cycle.
There are very few things you can get for free anymore, and blogger is one of them. And I appreciate it.
But I've seen how some (mostly right leaning sites) have pitched a hissy fit over the latest round of glitches to hit blogger.
So let me post what I wrote on one of them (specifically Althouse:)
UH, HELLO!!!
This service is, like, FREE!!!
There is an old adage that you get what you pay for.
I expect that the people who complain about blogger are mostly the same kind of people (generally conservatives) who want something for nothing-- they rush to cut taxes but then they are the first ones in line to complain when police patrols get cut back, the school is a little slower about fixing a leak in the roof, or the city starts collecting trash once a week instead of twice a week.
As long as I'm paying nothing for the service, I appreciate whatever the folks at Google do to provide me with this FREE service and I don't complain about the glitches.
I wonder why righties always want to look a gift horse in the mouth?
So let me post what I wrote on one of them (specifically Althouse:)
UH, HELLO!!!
This service is, like, FREE!!!
There is an old adage that you get what you pay for.
I expect that the people who complain about blogger are mostly the same kind of people (generally conservatives) who want something for nothing-- they rush to cut taxes but then they are the first ones in line to complain when police patrols get cut back, the school is a little slower about fixing a leak in the roof, or the city starts collecting trash once a week instead of twice a week.
As long as I'm paying nothing for the service, I appreciate whatever the folks at Google do to provide me with this FREE service and I don't complain about the glitches.
I wonder why righties always want to look a gift horse in the mouth?
Molly Ivins leaves us with a last word:
Molly Ivins died yesterday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was sixty two.
I thought about a lot of things I could say about her. Her insightful columns were all at the same time funny, authoritative, thought-inspiring, fun to read and enjoyable. Certainly we on the left have lost a very articulate voice.
She has been very outspoken about a number of topics during the past few years, especially the Patriot Act. She has wondered openly why we are so afraid that we are willing to sacrifice basic freedoms for the perception of increased security. So I could have done something on that.
But instead I will post Ivins' last column, against the troop surge. In many ways it is classic Molly Ivins, but it also seems more humorless and direct than some of her ealier columns (of course it hard to make light of the horrible situation we now find ourselves in in Iraq, so she can be excused for not being more humorous here). She clearly died much before it was time. She says much in here that I agree with, and she as usual calls it like she sees it:
The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like the dumbest president ever. People have done dumber things. What were they thinking when they bought into the Bay of Pigs fiasco? How dumb was the Egypt-Suez war? How massively stupid was the entire war in Vietnam? Even at that, the challenge with this misbegotten adventure is that WE simply cannot let it continue.
It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost. Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.
His assessment is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who only recommend releasing forces with a clear definition of the goals for the additional troops.
Bush's call for a "surge" or "escalation" also goes against the Iraq Study Group. Talk is that the White House has planned to do anything but what the group suggested after months of investigation and proposals based on much broader strategic implications.
About the only politician out there besides Bush actively calling for a surge is Sen. John McCain. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote: "The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own — impose its rule throughout the country. ... By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed." But with all due respect to the senator from Arizona, that ship has long since sailed.
A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country — we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls (about 80 percent of the public is against escalation, and a recent Military Times poll shows only 38 percent of active military want more troops sent) and at the polls.
We know this is wrong. The people understand, the people have the right to make this decision, and the people have the obligation to make sure our will is implemented.
Congress must work for the people in the resolution of this fiasco. Ted Kennedy's proposal to control the money and tighten oversight is a welcome first step. And if Republicans want to continue to rubber-stamp this administration's idiotic "plans" and go against the will of the people, they should be thrown out as soon as possible, to join their recent colleagues.
Anyone who wants to talk knowledgably about our Iraq misadventure should pick up Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's like reading a horror novel. You just want to put your face down and moan: How could we have let this happen? How could we have been so stupid?
As The Washington Post's review notes, Chandrasekaran's book "methodically documents the baffling ineptitude that dominated U.S. attempts to influence Iraq's fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis."
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
I thought about a lot of things I could say about her. Her insightful columns were all at the same time funny, authoritative, thought-inspiring, fun to read and enjoyable. Certainly we on the left have lost a very articulate voice.
She has been very outspoken about a number of topics during the past few years, especially the Patriot Act. She has wondered openly why we are so afraid that we are willing to sacrifice basic freedoms for the perception of increased security. So I could have done something on that.
But instead I will post Ivins' last column, against the troop surge. In many ways it is classic Molly Ivins, but it also seems more humorless and direct than some of her ealier columns (of course it hard to make light of the horrible situation we now find ourselves in in Iraq, so she can be excused for not being more humorous here). She clearly died much before it was time. She says much in here that I agree with, and she as usual calls it like she sees it:
The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like the dumbest president ever. People have done dumber things. What were they thinking when they bought into the Bay of Pigs fiasco? How dumb was the Egypt-Suez war? How massively stupid was the entire war in Vietnam? Even at that, the challenge with this misbegotten adventure is that WE simply cannot let it continue.
It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost. Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.
His assessment is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who only recommend releasing forces with a clear definition of the goals for the additional troops.
Bush's call for a "surge" or "escalation" also goes against the Iraq Study Group. Talk is that the White House has planned to do anything but what the group suggested after months of investigation and proposals based on much broader strategic implications.
About the only politician out there besides Bush actively calling for a surge is Sen. John McCain. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote: "The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own — impose its rule throughout the country. ... By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed." But with all due respect to the senator from Arizona, that ship has long since sailed.
A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country — we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls (about 80 percent of the public is against escalation, and a recent Military Times poll shows only 38 percent of active military want more troops sent) and at the polls.
We know this is wrong. The people understand, the people have the right to make this decision, and the people have the obligation to make sure our will is implemented.
Congress must work for the people in the resolution of this fiasco. Ted Kennedy's proposal to control the money and tighten oversight is a welcome first step. And if Republicans want to continue to rubber-stamp this administration's idiotic "plans" and go against the will of the people, they should be thrown out as soon as possible, to join their recent colleagues.
Anyone who wants to talk knowledgably about our Iraq misadventure should pick up Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's like reading a horror novel. You just want to put your face down and moan: How could we have let this happen? How could we have been so stupid?
As The Washington Post's review notes, Chandrasekaran's book "methodically documents the baffling ineptitude that dominated U.S. attempts to influence Iraq's fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis."
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Just to show how bad the right's numbers are getting.
Today I listened again to Rush for a little while (not much else to listen to up here, out of range for most radio).
He tried to compare the murder rate in the city of Philadelphia to the country of Iraq, specifically claiming that the 406 murders last year in the city of 1.5 million indicates a much more dangerous environement when compared to the 821 U.S. service members who died last year in Iraq.
Of course that is a meaningless comparison as I'm sure he knows. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq (about a hundred per day) is more than the number of daily murders in America.
In fact the only meaningful way of comparing the two would be what if a person living in the city of Philadelphia were to join the military and spend a year in Iraq. Living in Philadelphia, the risk of being murdered would be 406/1,500,000 X 100 % = .027 %; In Iraq (since last year there were on average 140,000 U.S. troops there at any given time) the risk is 821/140,000 X 100 % = .586% . This means that using Rush's own figures that he gave today, the person in question would have a 20 times higher risk of death while serving in the U.S. military in Iraq than remaining at home in Philly.
Of course the average 'dittohead' probably buys this argument, but Rush is certainly aware that he is intentionally skewing the numbers by comparing only a small fraction of all the violence in Iraq (that which is conducted against U.S. forces) to the base population of the entire country. In other words, he knows darn well he is lying, but is getting desperate to make anyone believe anything.
He tried to compare the murder rate in the city of Philadelphia to the country of Iraq, specifically claiming that the 406 murders last year in the city of 1.5 million indicates a much more dangerous environement when compared to the 821 U.S. service members who died last year in Iraq.
Of course that is a meaningless comparison as I'm sure he knows. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq (about a hundred per day) is more than the number of daily murders in America.
In fact the only meaningful way of comparing the two would be what if a person living in the city of Philadelphia were to join the military and spend a year in Iraq. Living in Philadelphia, the risk of being murdered would be 406/1,500,000 X 100 % = .027 %; In Iraq (since last year there were on average 140,000 U.S. troops there at any given time) the risk is 821/140,000 X 100 % = .586% . This means that using Rush's own figures that he gave today, the person in question would have a 20 times higher risk of death while serving in the U.S. military in Iraq than remaining at home in Philly.
Of course the average 'dittohead' probably buys this argument, but Rush is certainly aware that he is intentionally skewing the numbers by comparing only a small fraction of all the violence in Iraq (that which is conducted against U.S. forces) to the base population of the entire country. In other words, he knows darn well he is lying, but is getting desperate to make anyone believe anything.
There are things I'll never say, unless you tell me it's against the law to say it.
If there is one word I really loathe, it is the 'n' word. I can honestly say that my parents taught me early on never to use that word so I've never used it. I've even been careful to explain to my kids when we read 'Huckleberry Finn' that we don't ever, ever use that word. People who use it show themselves to be ignorant, bigoted fools. I know that the word is deeply offensive, especially to African-Americans as it is what they were called during the days of slavery and Jim Crow.
So is there a situation when I would ever allow that putrid, rotten word to come out of my mouth? Well, yes there is. I might use it if I'm ever in the town of Brazoria, Texas and they make it illegal.
Saying the "n-word" in one Texas town may soon cost people hundreds of dollars. The mayor of Brazoria, near Houston, wants to ban the word.
"This is a melting pot -- this country is, okay? There is no room for any racial slurs, whatever," said Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley.
Ken Corley wants people to face a $500 fine if they say the “n-word” there.
I'm glad the mayor feels that his town is a melting pot and that there is no room for racial slurs. I agree with him that there shouldn't be room for that. Heck, he makes it sound like the kind of progressive place that you don't hear so much about in the Lone Star State, and maybe worth a visit sometime.
But he and I part company when we talk about making a word illegal.
In the United States we have a Constitution, and one which wisely allows people to say the most horrible, disgusting things. That is why while we may regulate pornography, it is allowed. That is why holocaust deniers can feel free to spout off their particular kind of filth. That is why we allow music to be sold in stores that is pretty much one constant stream of profanity, often liberally spiced with the 'n' word, for that matter.
As one of my friends who has a gift for cutting things to the core once told me in regard to free speech (after an incident in which a mutual acquaintance was punished by his employer for complaining about a co-worker), "If I don't have the right to call you an asshole, then what rights do I have?" (I generally try to avoid even that level of language, but that is a direct quote to what he said-- though as an aside I believe that someone who hires you does have some rights to expect you to uphold certain standards of civility on the job.)
So to be honest, as much as I loathe and detest the word, and as honestly as I can say that I've never once said it, if they make it illegal in Brazoria, Texas and I happened to be there, I'd feel obligated to say it, probably right directly in front of hizzoner the mayor. I might not even say it in a way that was connected to anything else, or as part of a sentence, but I'd feel like I had to say the word. And then challenge the ban in court. Because if we can tell people what to say, then can telling them what to think be far behind?
So is there a situation when I would ever allow that putrid, rotten word to come out of my mouth? Well, yes there is. I might use it if I'm ever in the town of Brazoria, Texas and they make it illegal.
Saying the "n-word" in one Texas town may soon cost people hundreds of dollars. The mayor of Brazoria, near Houston, wants to ban the word.
"This is a melting pot -- this country is, okay? There is no room for any racial slurs, whatever," said Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley.
Ken Corley wants people to face a $500 fine if they say the “n-word” there.
I'm glad the mayor feels that his town is a melting pot and that there is no room for racial slurs. I agree with him that there shouldn't be room for that. Heck, he makes it sound like the kind of progressive place that you don't hear so much about in the Lone Star State, and maybe worth a visit sometime.
But he and I part company when we talk about making a word illegal.
In the United States we have a Constitution, and one which wisely allows people to say the most horrible, disgusting things. That is why while we may regulate pornography, it is allowed. That is why holocaust deniers can feel free to spout off their particular kind of filth. That is why we allow music to be sold in stores that is pretty much one constant stream of profanity, often liberally spiced with the 'n' word, for that matter.
As one of my friends who has a gift for cutting things to the core once told me in regard to free speech (after an incident in which a mutual acquaintance was punished by his employer for complaining about a co-worker), "If I don't have the right to call you an asshole, then what rights do I have?" (I generally try to avoid even that level of language, but that is a direct quote to what he said-- though as an aside I believe that someone who hires you does have some rights to expect you to uphold certain standards of civility on the job.)
So to be honest, as much as I loathe and detest the word, and as honestly as I can say that I've never once said it, if they make it illegal in Brazoria, Texas and I happened to be there, I'd feel obligated to say it, probably right directly in front of hizzoner the mayor. I might not even say it in a way that was connected to anything else, or as part of a sentence, but I'd feel like I had to say the word. And then challenge the ban in court. Because if we can tell people what to say, then can telling them what to think be far behind?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Rape victim jailed while police stop looking for the rapist.
There is crime and there is crime.
A 21-year old woman went to Tampa police and reported that she had been raped. They began an investigation, which they immediately stopped and instead arrested her and put her in jail for two days upon learning that she had a juvenile arrest warrant. Most breaks in cases happen within the first 48 hours, and this probably helped the rapist evade capture.
To make matters worse, the victim was denied the second of two doses of a 'morning after pill,' which she only got when local media started reporting on the case. It is still after the time it should have been given so she will have to wait to find out if she is pregnant from the assault.
TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- A college student who told police she had been raped was jailed for two days after officers found an old warrant accusing her of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest.
While she was behind bars, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker's religious convictions, the college student's attorney said.
The 21-year-old woman was released Monday only after attorney Vic Moore reported her plight to the local media.
"Shocked. Stunned. Outraged. I don't have words to describe it," Moore said. "She is not a victim of any one person. She is a victim of the system. There's just got to be some humanity involved when it's a victim of rape."
Moore said the young woman was not allowed to take the second emergency contraceptive pill until Monday afternoon, a day late, after reporters called police and jail officials....
She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, McElroy said. The second dose is supposed to be taken within 24 hours.
Later, as she was riding in a patrol car trying to locate the crime scene in the dark, police found the warrant stemming from a 2003 juvenile arrest for grand theft and burglary. It said she owed $4,585.
"They stopped the investigation right there" and put her in handcuffs, Moore said.
Should the police follow up on the old warrant now that they know where she is? Perhaps, although it is a juvenile warrant and she has not had any trouble as an adult. But that is for a later time. The pressing matter at the time was the fact that she was a rape victim, and that the rapist was out there possibly targetting other vicitms. Any information the police could have gotten and used might have brought him in quickly. At the very least, he has gotten a good head start, and quite possibly evidence, including at the scene that might have helped them catch him has been destroyed by now.
This is the kind of bureaucratic mentality that I find nauseating. Instead of the common sense approach that 1) the crime under investigation at the time was a heck of a lot more serious than the one they learned about from years ago, 2) the evidence was available then and might not be later and 3) the woman in question had just been brutalized by a horrible crime, they followed some ridiculous procedure and shoved aside the more serious investigation to focus on what amounts to a minor one.
Yes, she may have made a mistake when she was a minor. But that is no reason she should have to pay for it by not having the authorities bring all the resources they normally would to hunt for the monster who attacked her.
A 21-year old woman went to Tampa police and reported that she had been raped. They began an investigation, which they immediately stopped and instead arrested her and put her in jail for two days upon learning that she had a juvenile arrest warrant. Most breaks in cases happen within the first 48 hours, and this probably helped the rapist evade capture.
To make matters worse, the victim was denied the second of two doses of a 'morning after pill,' which she only got when local media started reporting on the case. It is still after the time it should have been given so she will have to wait to find out if she is pregnant from the assault.
TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- A college student who told police she had been raped was jailed for two days after officers found an old warrant accusing her of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest.
While she was behind bars, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker's religious convictions, the college student's attorney said.
The 21-year-old woman was released Monday only after attorney Vic Moore reported her plight to the local media.
"Shocked. Stunned. Outraged. I don't have words to describe it," Moore said. "She is not a victim of any one person. She is a victim of the system. There's just got to be some humanity involved when it's a victim of rape."
Moore said the young woman was not allowed to take the second emergency contraceptive pill until Monday afternoon, a day late, after reporters called police and jail officials....
She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, McElroy said. The second dose is supposed to be taken within 24 hours.
Later, as she was riding in a patrol car trying to locate the crime scene in the dark, police found the warrant stemming from a 2003 juvenile arrest for grand theft and burglary. It said she owed $4,585.
"They stopped the investigation right there" and put her in handcuffs, Moore said.
Should the police follow up on the old warrant now that they know where she is? Perhaps, although it is a juvenile warrant and she has not had any trouble as an adult. But that is for a later time. The pressing matter at the time was the fact that she was a rape victim, and that the rapist was out there possibly targetting other vicitms. Any information the police could have gotten and used might have brought him in quickly. At the very least, he has gotten a good head start, and quite possibly evidence, including at the scene that might have helped them catch him has been destroyed by now.
This is the kind of bureaucratic mentality that I find nauseating. Instead of the common sense approach that 1) the crime under investigation at the time was a heck of a lot more serious than the one they learned about from years ago, 2) the evidence was available then and might not be later and 3) the woman in question had just been brutalized by a horrible crime, they followed some ridiculous procedure and shoved aside the more serious investigation to focus on what amounts to a minor one.
Yes, she may have made a mistake when she was a minor. But that is no reason she should have to pay for it by not having the authorities bring all the resources they normally would to hunt for the monster who attacked her.
What else can they do to make it easy pickings for fraud?
What would you think of a law that makes pensions both more opaque and reduces the requirement for who can manage them? In the old days, that usually meant that organized crime had a hand in the till.
Maybe things haven't changed all that much. The Arizona legislature, in its infinite wisdom, is set to pass HR 2147, which among other things will 1) reduce the minimum requirements for who can manage employee pension funds, and 2) makes it clear that proprietary commercial information on Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) investments are not to be made a matter of public record.
So in a nutshell, they are arranging it so that people who didn't used to be qualified to handle pension investments, can do so now, and they can do it in the dark.
And this from the legislature that only four years ago brought you the alt-fuels scandal. And we are expected to trust this crew?
Maybe things haven't changed all that much. The Arizona legislature, in its infinite wisdom, is set to pass HR 2147, which among other things will 1) reduce the minimum requirements for who can manage employee pension funds, and 2) makes it clear that proprietary commercial information on Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) investments are not to be made a matter of public record.
So in a nutshell, they are arranging it so that people who didn't used to be qualified to handle pension investments, can do so now, and they can do it in the dark.
And this from the legislature that only four years ago brought you the alt-fuels scandal. And we are expected to trust this crew?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Splitting up can be messy.
Back in the 2000 election, a lot of people warned against electing George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, 'two oil guys' to the two most powerful offices in the country.
And there is no question that the Bush presidency has been a great six years for Big Oil. The energy bill pushed by Bush and his allies in Congress and passed during the first Bush administration gave away billions in tax dollars to subsidize an industry that, frankly, needs subsidies like Barry Bonds needs nutritional supplements. The administration resisted progress on any number of fronts that the oil companies didn't want to see progress on, everything from higher fuel standards on vehicles and research on alternative fuels to emissions standards and global warming. The invasion of Iraq was supposed to guarantee that the third largest proven oil reserves in the world would be safely under the control of a friendly, pro-American government in a secure, stable country and accessible to exploitation by western firms. Some neo-con planners envisioned using it as a platform to invade Iran and enforce a 'Pax Americana' throughout the middle east, which is why they planned to build fourteen permanent military bases in Iraq-- plans which have since been put into what is hopefully a permanent deep freeze. Although things haven't worked out that way in Iraq, the war was still a boon to Big Oil as prices last year hit $80 a barrel and produced record profits.
But it seems that all things must come to an end, or at least must be re-evaluated. Last year the President said in his State of the Union speech that we are 'addicted to oil.' This year he proposed higher CAFE standards on new automobiles and research into alternative fuels-- which is good, but don't forget how hard this administration and their allies in Congress fought against these things for years, both openly and behind the scenes by cutting funding for alt-fuel research. Oil prices have fallen into the $50 range. It is clear that Iraq will never be the safe haven for American corporations that the oil companies had hoped.
So there were a couple of news stories out today that made it clear that the split is widening. One story was that the Bush administration (still thinking that the way to 'win' in Iraq is to dig ourselves in deeper) is threatening Iran with unspecified consequences if they become more involved in Iraq (see Bush's answer to an intractable war: threaten to start another one for why this is a stupid course of action; if we want to theaten a country we have to have the ability to carry it out, and thanks to Bush we really don't.) The other story is more profound: Shell and its partners signed a $4 billion agreement with Iran to develop oil fields. Shell risks U.S. sanctions by doing so. But it did so anyway, which is a poke in the eye to the Bush plan to isolate Iran economically.
Now granted, Shell is not a U.S., but rather a Dutch company. At the same time it has widespread presence in the United States and close ties to a number of American companies. So what this is really saying is that 1) Shell does not fear whatever George Bush can do (he is toothless, and they already know that) and 2) they consider that given a choice between the U.S. and Iran, they consider that Iran has more to offer. One has to wonder how long it will take before American-owned companies take the same course.
And there is no question that the Bush presidency has been a great six years for Big Oil. The energy bill pushed by Bush and his allies in Congress and passed during the first Bush administration gave away billions in tax dollars to subsidize an industry that, frankly, needs subsidies like Barry Bonds needs nutritional supplements. The administration resisted progress on any number of fronts that the oil companies didn't want to see progress on, everything from higher fuel standards on vehicles and research on alternative fuels to emissions standards and global warming. The invasion of Iraq was supposed to guarantee that the third largest proven oil reserves in the world would be safely under the control of a friendly, pro-American government in a secure, stable country and accessible to exploitation by western firms. Some neo-con planners envisioned using it as a platform to invade Iran and enforce a 'Pax Americana' throughout the middle east, which is why they planned to build fourteen permanent military bases in Iraq-- plans which have since been put into what is hopefully a permanent deep freeze. Although things haven't worked out that way in Iraq, the war was still a boon to Big Oil as prices last year hit $80 a barrel and produced record profits.
But it seems that all things must come to an end, or at least must be re-evaluated. Last year the President said in his State of the Union speech that we are 'addicted to oil.' This year he proposed higher CAFE standards on new automobiles and research into alternative fuels-- which is good, but don't forget how hard this administration and their allies in Congress fought against these things for years, both openly and behind the scenes by cutting funding for alt-fuel research. Oil prices have fallen into the $50 range. It is clear that Iraq will never be the safe haven for American corporations that the oil companies had hoped.
So there were a couple of news stories out today that made it clear that the split is widening. One story was that the Bush administration (still thinking that the way to 'win' in Iraq is to dig ourselves in deeper) is threatening Iran with unspecified consequences if they become more involved in Iraq (see Bush's answer to an intractable war: threaten to start another one for why this is a stupid course of action; if we want to theaten a country we have to have the ability to carry it out, and thanks to Bush we really don't.) The other story is more profound: Shell and its partners signed a $4 billion agreement with Iran to develop oil fields. Shell risks U.S. sanctions by doing so. But it did so anyway, which is a poke in the eye to the Bush plan to isolate Iran economically.
Now granted, Shell is not a U.S., but rather a Dutch company. At the same time it has widespread presence in the United States and close ties to a number of American companies. So what this is really saying is that 1) Shell does not fear whatever George Bush can do (he is toothless, and they already know that) and 2) they consider that given a choice between the U.S. and Iran, they consider that Iran has more to offer. One has to wonder how long it will take before American-owned companies take the same course.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Donald Trump can fly his flag-- on a 42 foot pole like anyone else.
As a liberal, it's always risky speaking against flying an American flag. I'm sure that some right winger, if they read this, will be quick to jump up and cite it as proof that liberals are unpatriotic, or hate America, or some such crap.
If so, they don't know me. I love America, and in fact I have a small American flag right next to my front door. I stuck it up there on September 11, 2001, and it has remained in place since that day. The wind has shredded it to the extent that pretty soon I will have to replace it. To be honest it would bother me to throw it away. The proper procedure for disposal of an old or tattered flag,
according to 36 USCA Sec. 176, Respect for flag:
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
but if I did that then I'm sure those same right-wingers would claim that I was making an anti-American political statement.
But I'm going to speak against flying the flag. Specifically, against Donald Trump flying his.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Officials in the ritzy coastal town of Palm Beach have voted to fine Donald Trump $1,250 a day for flying a large American flag atop an 80-foot flagpole at his lavish club in violation of town codes.
Code enforcement officials have accused the 60-year-old real-estate mogul of violating zoning guidelines with a flagpole taller than 42 feet, for not obtaining a building permit, and for not getting permission from the landmarks board.
Trump has refused to take down the flag. He has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town arguing, in part, that officials are selectively enforcing ordinances and that flying the American flag at his Mar-A-Lago club is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.
Let's start with why this is not a violation of free speech. The town of West Palm Beach has not said that Donald Trump can't fly the American flag. In fact, he could fly the same flag (oversized as it is) 42 feet off the ground. This is as high as a typical three or four story building, so it's not like he can't fly his flag in a very visible manner. He would have a point that it was a violation of free speech if the law said that he couldn't display it at all, or for that matter that he could only display it in a manner where it could easily be overlooked, but the ordinance does not say that. Further, the zoning ordinance says nothing about the flag itself, but rather about the flagpole. In other words if he wants to, for example, display the flag eighty feet up on the side of a building or some other way of displaying it, he would not be in violation of the ordinance. A limit on the height of a flagpole can be grounded in all sorts of practical reasons, including that an eighty foot pole could, if struck by a vehicle conceivably cause injury to people a signficant distance away, or that people may want an unobstructed view.
The fact is that cities and towns have a right to create and enforce ordinances designed to promote what they see as the quality of life in their communities. There have been times when I have been unhappy about these ordinances (for example several years ago we were all set to buy land and move into a community when they passed an ordinance against single wide trailers. We had one that we were planning to put on the land. When they passed the ordinance we went elsewhere (though things have in fact turned out much better where we are, especially in terms of having much better schools, than they would have there). But whether I liked the ordinance or not, I never felt that the town didn't have the legal right to pass it.
A zoning ordinance can in some cases be considered a restriction on free speech but I don't honestly see how this one is. If I felt otherwise I'd speak out against it, as I have before on free speech issues.
Donald Trump seems to have created this situation intentionally. He could have applied for permission from the landmarks board. It might not have been granted, but then again it might have-- but he chose not to follow the procedure to ask for permission. Perhaps he is creating the controversy because his image has taken a hit lately, between the dust-up with Rosie O'Donnell and his having been fooled by a fraudulent resume submitted by a low level day trader who was hired by Trump to direct his mortgage division. Or maybe it's just a matter of the fact that he hasn't had many headlines since the war with Rosie has receded from the front page.
If so, they don't know me. I love America, and in fact I have a small American flag right next to my front door. I stuck it up there on September 11, 2001, and it has remained in place since that day. The wind has shredded it to the extent that pretty soon I will have to replace it. To be honest it would bother me to throw it away. The proper procedure for disposal of an old or tattered flag,
according to 36 USCA Sec. 176, Respect for flag:
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
but if I did that then I'm sure those same right-wingers would claim that I was making an anti-American political statement.
But I'm going to speak against flying the flag. Specifically, against Donald Trump flying his.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Officials in the ritzy coastal town of Palm Beach have voted to fine Donald Trump $1,250 a day for flying a large American flag atop an 80-foot flagpole at his lavish club in violation of town codes.
Code enforcement officials have accused the 60-year-old real-estate mogul of violating zoning guidelines with a flagpole taller than 42 feet, for not obtaining a building permit, and for not getting permission from the landmarks board.
Trump has refused to take down the flag. He has also filed a $25 million lawsuit against the town arguing, in part, that officials are selectively enforcing ordinances and that flying the American flag at his Mar-A-Lago club is a constitutionally protected expression of free speech.
Let's start with why this is not a violation of free speech. The town of West Palm Beach has not said that Donald Trump can't fly the American flag. In fact, he could fly the same flag (oversized as it is) 42 feet off the ground. This is as high as a typical three or four story building, so it's not like he can't fly his flag in a very visible manner. He would have a point that it was a violation of free speech if the law said that he couldn't display it at all, or for that matter that he could only display it in a manner where it could easily be overlooked, but the ordinance does not say that. Further, the zoning ordinance says nothing about the flag itself, but rather about the flagpole. In other words if he wants to, for example, display the flag eighty feet up on the side of a building or some other way of displaying it, he would not be in violation of the ordinance. A limit on the height of a flagpole can be grounded in all sorts of practical reasons, including that an eighty foot pole could, if struck by a vehicle conceivably cause injury to people a signficant distance away, or that people may want an unobstructed view.
The fact is that cities and towns have a right to create and enforce ordinances designed to promote what they see as the quality of life in their communities. There have been times when I have been unhappy about these ordinances (for example several years ago we were all set to buy land and move into a community when they passed an ordinance against single wide trailers. We had one that we were planning to put on the land. When they passed the ordinance we went elsewhere (though things have in fact turned out much better where we are, especially in terms of having much better schools, than they would have there). But whether I liked the ordinance or not, I never felt that the town didn't have the legal right to pass it.
A zoning ordinance can in some cases be considered a restriction on free speech but I don't honestly see how this one is. If I felt otherwise I'd speak out against it, as I have before on free speech issues.
Donald Trump seems to have created this situation intentionally. He could have applied for permission from the landmarks board. It might not have been granted, but then again it might have-- but he chose not to follow the procedure to ask for permission. Perhaps he is creating the controversy because his image has taken a hit lately, between the dust-up with Rosie O'Donnell and his having been fooled by a fraudulent resume submitted by a low level day trader who was hired by Trump to direct his mortgage division. Or maybe it's just a matter of the fact that he hasn't had many headlines since the war with Rosie has receded from the front page.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Justice later is justice still
Today, James Seale pleaded not guilty to charges that he was involved in two murders in 1964.
JACKSON, Mississippi (Reuters) - A former Ku Klux Klan member pleaded not guilty on Thursday to charges in the 1964 murders of two black teenagers in Mississippi, in a case that highlights violence used by white supremacists during the civil-rights era.
Marshals escorted James Seale, 71, to and from federal court in Jackson for an initial hearing on kidnapping and conspiracy charges.
A three-count indictment says Seale trained a shotgun on the teenagers while his companions beat them. Then they attached heavy weights to the pair and threw them alive into the Mississippi River.
It will be interesting to follow this trial and listen to the evidence. And perhaps the best justice in the case may not be that which will be reserved for James Seale, if he is convicted. Rather, it may be the fact that he pleaded before a black judge today (a female one at that) and even in Mississippi segregation is as illegal as what he did defending it. Black people have the same rights to use the restroom, eat at restaurants and go anywhere that white people do. James Seale lived to see that happen in spite of his efforts.
That isn't to say that there is no more progress to be made, because there is a great deal that still has to be done before we can say that race is no longer an issue in America and that the ugliness of that era is behind us (both in the south and in the rest of America). But this trial shows that no matter how long it takes, justice can be served.
JACKSON, Mississippi (Reuters) - A former Ku Klux Klan member pleaded not guilty on Thursday to charges in the 1964 murders of two black teenagers in Mississippi, in a case that highlights violence used by white supremacists during the civil-rights era.
Marshals escorted James Seale, 71, to and from federal court in Jackson for an initial hearing on kidnapping and conspiracy charges.
A three-count indictment says Seale trained a shotgun on the teenagers while his companions beat them. Then they attached heavy weights to the pair and threw them alive into the Mississippi River.
It will be interesting to follow this trial and listen to the evidence. And perhaps the best justice in the case may not be that which will be reserved for James Seale, if he is convicted. Rather, it may be the fact that he pleaded before a black judge today (a female one at that) and even in Mississippi segregation is as illegal as what he did defending it. Black people have the same rights to use the restroom, eat at restaurants and go anywhere that white people do. James Seale lived to see that happen in spite of his efforts.
That isn't to say that there is no more progress to be made, because there is a great deal that still has to be done before we can say that race is no longer an issue in America and that the ugliness of that era is behind us (both in the south and in the rest of America). But this trial shows that no matter how long it takes, justice can be served.
Note to self: Get the whole story before editorializing on it.
I guess I should take some of my own medicine about wildly speculating.
I did a post yesterday after reading about how the Arizona House was evacuated following a bomb scare. I duly linked to a post on Ted's blog, Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. But I then did something that Ted wisely didn't do and went on a diatribe against the 'fascist right.' Turns out (and I will cut and paste what Ted said today on his blog)
Here's the story as told to me (Ted) by Barrett Marson, spokesman for the House Speaker: suspicious packages were sent to four members, Eddie Farnsworth, Adam Driggs, Ben Miranda and Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema, understandably spooked by the numerous threatening e-mails she's recieved over a bill she's sponsoring that labels groups like the Minutemen domestic terrorists, called the Capitol Police. Miranda, who has not signed on to the bill, also contacted the Capitol Police after recieving a package.
The packages, as it turned out, were pages and pages of court documents from a self-styled "sovereign citizen" in Casa Grande who is out to prove that the State of Arizona has no legal authority over him. The four members may have been chosen because they are all part of the House Judiciary Committee.
So I considered deleting the previous post, but I'm not. And I will say that while I jumped the gun on the diatribe, there have been some recent stories (such as when I blogged on talk show host Hal Turner's suggestion to assassinate members of Congress who voted for immigration reform) that made my assumption, while wrong, not wacky.
I did a post yesterday after reading about how the Arizona House was evacuated following a bomb scare. I duly linked to a post on Ted's blog, Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. But I then did something that Ted wisely didn't do and went on a diatribe against the 'fascist right.' Turns out (and I will cut and paste what Ted said today on his blog)
Here's the story as told to me (Ted) by Barrett Marson, spokesman for the House Speaker: suspicious packages were sent to four members, Eddie Farnsworth, Adam Driggs, Ben Miranda and Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema, understandably spooked by the numerous threatening e-mails she's recieved over a bill she's sponsoring that labels groups like the Minutemen domestic terrorists, called the Capitol Police. Miranda, who has not signed on to the bill, also contacted the Capitol Police after recieving a package.
The packages, as it turned out, were pages and pages of court documents from a self-styled "sovereign citizen" in Casa Grande who is out to prove that the State of Arizona has no legal authority over him. The four members may have been chosen because they are all part of the House Judiciary Committee.
So I considered deleting the previous post, but I'm not. And I will say that while I jumped the gun on the diatribe, there have been some recent stories (such as when I blogged on talk show host Hal Turner's suggestion to assassinate members of Congress who voted for immigration reform) that made my assumption, while wrong, not wacky.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Arizona House evacuated after suspicious package sent to legislator.
The Arizona House of Representatives has been evacuated following the discovery of two suspicious packages.
According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, the packages were sent to Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix). Sinema has sponsored legislation aimed at some of the kooks who try to harrass and intimidate immigrants and pro-immigration activists.
This is the kind of stuff we've unfortunately gotten to see from the far right in Arizona. Recall that last year following the immigrant marches in Phoenix, vandals knocked a spanish language radio station off the air.
In our democracy it is legal to speak out, even vigorously against ideas, people, or even whole populations of people you don't like (so that for example, as odious as their thoughts are, Holocaust deniers are allowed to peddle their particular brand of filth in America much more easily than they are, for example, in Europe-- and I even defended one last year.) But committing acts of violence, physical or verbal harrassment and intimidation are over the line.
But given that it is clear by now that only a minority support the hardline stance on immigration (if you don't believe it, just ask Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth), it appears that these modern day fascists are now adopting fascist tactics. If you are in the minority you have two choices-- you can accept that the people have spoken and move on, or you can plead your case and try to convince a majority that you are right. But violence, threats of violence and terror tactics are not acceptable in the United States.
And we must all stand against it.
According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, the packages were sent to Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix). Sinema has sponsored legislation aimed at some of the kooks who try to harrass and intimidate immigrants and pro-immigration activists.
This is the kind of stuff we've unfortunately gotten to see from the far right in Arizona. Recall that last year following the immigrant marches in Phoenix, vandals knocked a spanish language radio station off the air.
In our democracy it is legal to speak out, even vigorously against ideas, people, or even whole populations of people you don't like (so that for example, as odious as their thoughts are, Holocaust deniers are allowed to peddle their particular brand of filth in America much more easily than they are, for example, in Europe-- and I even defended one last year.) But committing acts of violence, physical or verbal harrassment and intimidation are over the line.
But given that it is clear by now that only a minority support the hardline stance on immigration (if you don't believe it, just ask Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth), it appears that these modern day fascists are now adopting fascist tactics. If you are in the minority you have two choices-- you can accept that the people have spoken and move on, or you can plead your case and try to convince a majority that you are right. But violence, threats of violence and terror tactics are not acceptable in the United States.
And we must all stand against it.
Net effect: 'tax cuts' are GOP code for 'tax shifts.'
Last night in his State of the Union address, the President suggested taxing some people's health care benefits to help pay to make health insurance more affordable for some other people.
What is remarkable is not that his vapid proposal about health care marks the first time he has addressed the problem of the uninsured in six years of his presidency, nor the fact that he suggested a tax increase.
No, it is that he is trying to do something that conservatives were very successful at twenty years ago. Shift taxation away from the wealthy onto the middle class.
The President did not say we should hurry up and get rid of his massive tax cuts that favored the wealthy. Nor did he say we should borrow the money, as he has done for everything from Iraq to the medicare presecription drug scam. No, he wants to fund his program by taxing people with employer provided health insurance. The threshhold sounds high enough, $7,000 per individual and $15,000 per family of health care benefits, but in fact with the rate of increase in premiums it is not unusual for people to receive this much in benefits and he didn't say whether this would just be the threshhold for premiums of whether actual payments made to health care providers would also figure into it.
To understand how profound this is, let's begin with the observation that Republicans are not against government spending, despite all their rhetoric. They have different spending priorities, such as funding wars and major military purchases, and multitrillion dollar giveaways in to already profitable companies in the pharmaceutical and energy sectors, to name a couple, but in the end they are even bigger on spending than the Democrats are (one reason why overall spending exploded under Bush much more quickly than it had had grown under Clinton.)
And if you spend, then there will be taxation. Either it will come now, as Democrats tend to feel, believing that we should pay for what we propose, or it will come later, for future generations to pay off our debt (as we've seen with the massive borrowing over the past few years.)
But what this does is, without revoking a penny of the previous tax cuts, create a new tax on people who may not be the ones who received the Bush tax cuts earlier this decade. So the net effect is that this is a tax shift. So when conservatives talk about 'tax cuts,' over a period of several years it will turn out not to mean 'cuts,' but rather 'tax redistribution.'
And it's not the first time this has worked for the GOP. For example. the 1981 Reagan tax cuts blasted a hole in the deficit that continued to grow throughout the 1980s until Bush I started to get things under control in 1991. Then the Clinton tax rates were set in 1993 with another tax hike (leading to a budget surplus and the most prosperous economy in decades, suggesting that conservatives who predicted a recession were way off the mark.) But the 1991 and 1993 tax hikes were 'across the board.' What this meant was that compared to 1980, the wealthy were still paying far less in taxes while the poor and middle class, who had not benefitted much from the 1981 cut, were now paying more.
And so it is here. I don't dispute the idea that taxing health care benefits to pay for what is officially being billed as an increase in the number of people covered is politically adroit, but in the end let's see how it, combined with the 2001 tax cuts, affects who pays taxes in America. My expectation is that taxes will as a net effect hit the middle class harder while the wealthy will still come out ahead on the exchange.
Why do we keep falling for this 'sucker punch?'
What is remarkable is not that his vapid proposal about health care marks the first time he has addressed the problem of the uninsured in six years of his presidency, nor the fact that he suggested a tax increase.
No, it is that he is trying to do something that conservatives were very successful at twenty years ago. Shift taxation away from the wealthy onto the middle class.
The President did not say we should hurry up and get rid of his massive tax cuts that favored the wealthy. Nor did he say we should borrow the money, as he has done for everything from Iraq to the medicare presecription drug scam. No, he wants to fund his program by taxing people with employer provided health insurance. The threshhold sounds high enough, $7,000 per individual and $15,000 per family of health care benefits, but in fact with the rate of increase in premiums it is not unusual for people to receive this much in benefits and he didn't say whether this would just be the threshhold for premiums of whether actual payments made to health care providers would also figure into it.
To understand how profound this is, let's begin with the observation that Republicans are not against government spending, despite all their rhetoric. They have different spending priorities, such as funding wars and major military purchases, and multitrillion dollar giveaways in to already profitable companies in the pharmaceutical and energy sectors, to name a couple, but in the end they are even bigger on spending than the Democrats are (one reason why overall spending exploded under Bush much more quickly than it had had grown under Clinton.)
And if you spend, then there will be taxation. Either it will come now, as Democrats tend to feel, believing that we should pay for what we propose, or it will come later, for future generations to pay off our debt (as we've seen with the massive borrowing over the past few years.)
But what this does is, without revoking a penny of the previous tax cuts, create a new tax on people who may not be the ones who received the Bush tax cuts earlier this decade. So the net effect is that this is a tax shift. So when conservatives talk about 'tax cuts,' over a period of several years it will turn out not to mean 'cuts,' but rather 'tax redistribution.'
And it's not the first time this has worked for the GOP. For example. the 1981 Reagan tax cuts blasted a hole in the deficit that continued to grow throughout the 1980s until Bush I started to get things under control in 1991. Then the Clinton tax rates were set in 1993 with another tax hike (leading to a budget surplus and the most prosperous economy in decades, suggesting that conservatives who predicted a recession were way off the mark.) But the 1991 and 1993 tax hikes were 'across the board.' What this meant was that compared to 1980, the wealthy were still paying far less in taxes while the poor and middle class, who had not benefitted much from the 1981 cut, were now paying more.
And so it is here. I don't dispute the idea that taxing health care benefits to pay for what is officially being billed as an increase in the number of people covered is politically adroit, but in the end let's see how it, combined with the 2001 tax cuts, affects who pays taxes in America. My expectation is that taxes will as a net effect hit the middle class harder while the wealthy will still come out ahead on the exchange.
Why do we keep falling for this 'sucker punch?'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
