cab drollery

Another Reason To Hate B of A

2012-02-03T04:52:00.000-08:00

Marcos Breton has a gut-wrenching commentary featured at McClatchy DC. It's about an undocumented worker who came to the US as a teenager, got a job as a dishwasher in a restaurant. He worked hard and gradually worked his way up in that kitchen. He paid taxes, opened a bank account, saved his money, married and had children born in this country. He bought a house. And then things went horribly wrong.

Martinez had been a Bank of America customer since 1996. One day 11 months ago, he got a call to go to his branch in Marysville, where he now lives after residing for years in Sacramento, to discuss his accounts.

It was so routine, Martinez took his 6-year-old daughter with him.

When he arrived, the police were called. He was detained in an office at the bank branch, he said. ...

During a routine background check, his undocumented status was discovered and he soon found himself in a federal immigration jail in New Mexico.

He spent two weeks in jail, and his deportation case, so huge is the backlog, is set for June 2013.

Mr. Martinez, who committed no crime after arriving in this country, got ratted out by his own bank. Because he was unable to contact his employer about the arrest, he was fired for absenteeism. His house went into foreclosure, which was stopped only when a couple of lawyers stepped up for him and filed suit to stop those proceedings, but because of the long wait before his case gets heard, it is unlikely that Martinez will be able to work to support his family.

But wait, it gets even worse:

Oh, and according to Martinez's lawyers, Bank of America is still holding his money.

Go read the whole column. Then, after the nausea passes, if you still have a B of A account, seriously consider whether you want to enrich those leeches further.

Nattering Nabob Of Negatism

2012-02-02T04:41:00.000-08:00

David Horsey's latest column focuses on the successful use of negative campaigning by the Romney camp the last few days before the Florida primary. The target of most of the attack ads was, of course, Newt Gingrich.

Mitt Romney won the Florida Republican presidential primary in the nastiest way.

From the beginning of the year to primary election day, the Romney campaign and super PACs allied with Romney paid millions of dollars for 12,768 television ads. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, 99% of them were attacks on Newt Gingrich. In the same period, Gingrich and his supporters bought just 210 TV ads. While the majority of them slammed Romney, at least some were positive advertisements for Gingrich.

CMAG concluded that, with 92% of the total TV ads going on the attack, the Florida promary set a new record for negativity.

What does it say about a candidate who wins this way? Did people really vote for Romney or simply against a monster created from distortions, misrepresentations and mendacity? ...

At least Florida has given us clarity about one thing concerning the man most likely to be the Republican nominee: If he cannot win by swaying our hearts and minds, he'll win by making us fear and loathe whoever stands in his way.

Without going into the issue of who started it, or who provoked it, it's clear that Romney did suddenly shift from the urbane and genial robo-candidate to the swamp monster pictured in the cartoon Horsey used to illustrate his point. And it apparently worked, which wasn't difficult to predict, given Gingrich's rather juicy history. Of course, the press helped the process along by reporting on some of the more inflammatory ads rather extensively, thereby giving those commercials additional and free airtime.

One thing that the burst of attack ads reminded us of is that they generally are successful. People tend to remember the negative message more easily than the positive one, and are influenced accordingly. In this case, the message went to the issue of electability, but it just as easily have gone to the issue of "flip-flopping" on key issues, which appeared to be the subject of most of the Romney opponents' ads. I guess Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment doesn't apply during nomination campaigns.

And, given what appears to be the bottomless pockets of both Romney and Gingrich at this point (thanks to Citizens United), we can expect the attack ads to continue. Gingrich claims he will stay in the race to the convention, or at least for another six months. Whether Gingrich will last after Super Tuesday (March 7) remains to be seen.

So, it's off to Nevada.

Granny Bird Award: Komen Foundation

2012-02-01T04:19:00.000-08:00

This edition of the Granny Bird Award, given from time to time to those who in some impair the rights or welfare of the elders, goes to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization for their weak-kneed yanking of grants to Planned Parenthood.

From an AP report:

The nation's leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress — a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups. [Emphasis added]

As even the anti-choice people must know, abortions comprise a very small portion of the services which Planned Parenthood provides. One of the services provided which is key to women's health is breast exams and access to mammograms to women who could not otherwise afford them. This, of course, includes elders who do not have health insurance and who do qualify for Medicare for any number of reasons, including the fact they have not yet reached age 65.

The Komen Foundation claims that under a newly adopted rule that forbids grants to organizations under investigation by authorities. Planned Parenthood, a favorite target of the Religious Reich, is currently being investigated by a House Committee to see if it illegally has provided abortions with federal money. Launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., the investigation is just a little grandstanding by the right in its attempt to roll back women's rights. That a foundation which claims to be deeply concerned with an important health issue for women -- breast cancer -- would cave in to such a despicable ploy is both astounding and shameful.

It is also worthy of the Granny Bird Award.

Dancing To The Beets

2012-01-31T04:34:00.000-08:00

Generally, whenever we hear of lobbyists and the special interest groups they represent, we think of Wall Street, banks, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and oil and gas companies. Farmers don't usually come to mind, but it turns out that sugar beet farmers are one of the most successful groups at lobbying Congress and have been for quite some time.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribute:

With roughly 500,000 acres of sugar beets planted across Minnesota and North Dakota, American Crystal Sugar is the nation's largest producer of refined sugar through beet farming. It generates 15 percent of the country's sugar supply.

But much of the cooperative's financial success is cultivated in Washington D.C.

American Crystal Sugar has become one of the country's most powerful lobbying groups, doling out cash contributions to lawmakers at levels approaching big-business groups like the American Bankers Association. And it's all for a single objective: To guarantee tariffs and price supports allow sugar beet farmers to make money, even if it drives the cost of sugar above the global market.

"They're considered one of the strongest lobbies there is," said Larry Graham, president of the National Confectioners Association, a candy-makers group which has fought in vain against the sugar program.

Price supports for beet sugar inflate sugar prices for food makers and restaurants, costs the food industry often passes on to consumers in everything from candy and cakes to cereal and soda pop. Some economists estimate that Americans pay at least $1 billion more for sugar a year than they would in an open market. ...

The sugar industry and its supporters, though, say the sugar program -- unlike most farm subsidies -- involves no government payments and keeps consumer prices stable. "It's a stable industry, and that's what's needed in this country, something stable," Rutherford said.

Yes, stability is nice, but at what cost? Even assuming the candy makers have their own ax to grind and have inflated the cost somewhat, there's a lot of money flowing out of American's pockets paying for the tariffs and price supports. That certainly seems to belie the holy mantra of the "Free Market."

And while I don't begrudge farmers being able to make money for their efforts, I do wonder about some of the side effects of their lobbying efforts:

To protect sugar subsidies, American Crystal's political arm gave $1.16 million to 177 House and Senate candidates in 2011, and spent more than $1 million for lobbying. ...

American Crystal Sugar is especially generous with members of the House Agriculture Committee, which plays a key role in food policy and the five-year farm bills that set out subsidies. In 2011, the cooperative contributed to 37 of the committee's 46 members. More than half of the committee, including chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and Peterson, the ranking minority member, received $10,000, the maximum donation allowed in an election cycle. [Emphasis added]

That's a lot of sweetener flowing in the process, and we're paying for it.

Cleavage

2012-01-30T04:24:00.000-08:00

David Horsey's column from Friday notes the nervousness GOP leaders are feeling with respect to the ongoing presidential nomination campaign. So far there have been three winners in the first three contests, but that's not what worries them. What worries them is that one of those winners is Newt Gingrich, a man who appears to be gaining momentum.

After Gingrich, former speaker of the House, hammered the former Massachusetts governor in the South Carolina primary, many Republican members of Congress began to fear for their jobs, or at least for their chance to hold the House and take the Senate in the November election. Gingrich’s negatives are so high and his reputation for erratic behavior so big that they are convinced he could not beat President Obama and would drag down many Republican candidates with him.

Gingrich is not well-liked by many of the people he worked with in Congress. In fact, loathing may better characterize their feelings. [Emphasis added]

It's long been clear that Republican leaders expected Mitt Romney to have an easy time of it. It's also long been clear that this was the preferred outcome. That's understandable. Almost everyone in the nation suspected Gingrich was simply in the race to promote himself and his books. He'd make a few speeches, a few appearances, and then he'd go away after getting trounced by the main candidate. Apparently we all forgot what happened in 2010: the grassroots on the right was tired of business as usual and turned out to elect people more in line with what the Tea Partiers wanted.

Gingrich might lose in Florida tomorrow, but he's not going away anytime soon, according to his comments on Saturday:

On the weekend before the pivotal Florida primary, Newt Gingrich vowed Saturday to stay in the race for the Republican presidential nomination until the national convention this summer even if he loses Tuesday's vote. ...

..."You just had two national polls that show me ahead," he said. "Why don't you ask Gov. Romney what he will do if he loses" in Florida.

Yes, this is typical Gingrich braggadocio, but he has a point. He's doing just fine right now, and he has access to some pretty deep pockets to help keep his campaign up and running. Citizens United has been a boon to him and will presumably continue to work in his favor. Why should he quit now?

Mitt Romney has had to change his approach to campaigning by turning to attack ads and speeches, which gives Newt an opening to do the same. As a result, the two men are making President Obama's job much easier. The Republican candidates are so busy ripping into each other, pointing out flaws and flip-flops, that they are doing the opposition research for the enemy. And that might very well cost Republicans not only the White House, but also the Senate and House of Representatives.

It's a long time to November, but it might very well be the most fun lefty wonks have had in a long time. I know that I've been enjoying myself, although I've had to cut the butter and salt I've been using on the popcorn for health reasons.

Sunday Poetry: Lawrence Ferlinghetti

2012-01-29T16:00:00.000-08:00

Bird With Two Right Wings

And now our government
a bird with two right wings
flies on from zone to zone
while we go on having our little fun & games
at each election
as if it really mattered who the pilot is
of Air Force One
(They're interchangeable, stupid!)
While this bird with two right wings
flies right on with its corporate flight crew
And this year its the Great Movie Cowboy in the cockpit
And next year its the great Bush pilot
And now its the Chameleon Kid
and he keeps changing the logo on his captains cap
and now its a donkey and now an elephant
and now some kind of donkephant
And now we recognize two of the crew
who took out a contract on America
and one is a certain gringo wretch
who's busy monkeywrenching
crucial parts of the engine
and its life-support systems
and they got a big fat hose
to siphon off the fuel to privatized tanks
And all the while we just sit there
in the passenger seats
without parachutes
listening to all the news that's fit to air
over the one-way PA system
about how the contract on America
is really good for us etcetera
As all the while the plane lumbers on
into its postmodern
manifest destiny

--Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Sunday Funnies

2012-01-29T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (January 27, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: African Grey Parrot

2012-01-28T16:00:00.000-08:00

(This photo was snagged from here. This is NOT the picture I wanted to post.

What I wanted to post was a photo of Tlaz's African Grey, Koga, also known as the Kogasaurus. Unfortunately, I couldn't download that photo, but you can check it out by clicking on this link. I think you'll find it worth the effort.

Here's what Tlaz has to say about Koga:

Koga is a subspecies of African grey, called a 'Timneh'. The full species name is Psittacus erithacus timneh. They are smaller and darker grey than the nominate species (which is commonly called a 'Congo'). Timnehs also have maroon tails instead of the bright red ones, and their top beak has a pinkish stripe on it, while the Congo African grey's beak is all black. The different subspecies come from slightly different, though somewhat overlapping, areas of Africa, the Timneh's distribution being more in the northwestern part of the range, and the Congo coming more strictly from throughout the Congo River basin.

Koga had her name when I got her, when she was about 6-7 years old as best as we can tell. It is the Cherokee word for 'crow.' I've had her now for almost 21 years, so she is probably at least 26 years old.)

Some Welcome News

2012-01-28T05:02:00.000-08:00

Another provision of "Obamacare" is about to kick in. It's not as dramatic as required coverage for pre-existing conditions and the opportunity to cover children over 18 on their parents plan, but it is still a very helpful one. It's also one that didn't get much publicity at the time Congress was considering the bill, although I am sure the lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies were busy trying to scuttle it. Fortunately, they failed.

The provision requires that pharmaceutical and medical device companies report most of the gifts and payments made to doctors. Free samples of medication are excluded from the reporting requirement, but free lunches and free trips to exotic places for "seminars" are not.

From a Los Angeles Times editorial:

The proposed regulations, which are going through a period of public comment, are appropriately strict in ways that would both protect patients and reduce medical costs. The payments and gifts would be available on a searchable public website. Free samples of drugs would be exempt from reporting, but otherwise, anything worth more than $10 total for the year would have to be disclosed. ...

Physicians who received research funding and other payments from pharmaceutical companies have sat on advisory boards for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and have recommended drugs made by those companies. A survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2010 found that 71% of doctors had accepted food from drug companies, and that doctors who took payments were more likely to prescribe those companies' expensive brand-name medications rather than cheaper generics. ...

The provision does not ban such payments outright, but it does require reporting, which is a very healthy beginning. Even if patients don't flock to the website before making their decisions on a newer drug or a particular device, it's at least available.

In other words, the website will be a force for good even if few patients examine it. Watchdog organizations and news reporters will use it. For many doctors and pharmaceutical companies, the knowledge that their actions will be held up to public light is enough to curb the potentially troubling behavior.

Exactly so.

And the change is long overdue.

Friday Cat Blogging

2012-01-27T16:00:00.000-08:00

"What? I'm busy right now."

Not A Bad Week, All In All

2012-01-27T04:12:00.000-08:00

President Obama, now in campaign mode, had a pretty good week, all things considered. His State of the Union address struck a populist note, thereby mollifying some of his base. He's continued that populism as he's toured several states and the messages seem to have been well-received. Even the rather strange incident on the tarmac with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer appears to have worked in his favor, although David Horsey suggests in his latest column that Brewer got in her licks as well. She may have indeed scored points with her conservative constituents, but as Horsey's cartoon illustrates, she did come across as a bit of a harridan to the rest of us.

Horsey does note one important thing about that incident: the days of the imperial presidency are over.

The time is long passed when U.S. presidents could expect much deference from anyone, especially from a member of the opposition party. Between appearances with Jay Leno and Oprah Winfrey and the general nastiness of partisan politics these days, the presidency has lost much of its aura of majesty. Presidents now are more like British prime ministers -- open to confrontation, even during an airport greeting.

I think Horsey is right in that respect, especially during an election year. Will that work against the president? At this point, I doubt it, especially since the Republican candidates for his job are making things ever so much easier for him, as Doyle McManus points out his brief response to last night's GOP debate in Florida:

Gingrich seemed a little hesitant to climb into the ring. Asked about his statement earlier this week that Romney “lives in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island bank accounts,” the former House speaker said the charge didn’t merit repeating in the solemn dignity of a CNN debate.

That gave Romney an opening. “Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations someplace else that they weren’t willing to defend here?” he asked. OK, Gingrich replied, have it your way. “I don’t know of any American president who had a Swiss bank account,” he said.

The winner? There wasn’t one -- not onstage, at least. Rick Santorum turned in a good performance, criticizing both Romney and Gingrich for their past support of government-mandated health insurance, but he’s running a very distant third in Florida. Ron Paul slammed both front-runners, too, but he’s running fourth. The polls in Florida show Romney and Gingrich neck and neck. If anyone won Thursday evening, it may have been Barack Obama.

Like I said, for President Obama it was not a bad week, all in all. Of course, November is still a little over nine months away.

That reminds me: I need to pick up some more popcorn.

In The Cross-hairs

2012-01-26T03:28:00.000-08:00

(Picture found here.)

Yesterday, Arizona Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords made her last appearance at the House of Representatives. According to all accounts, it was an emotional occasion.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords returned to the House floor one final time as her colleagues approved her bipartisan border security bill on the day she officially stepped down from office.

Friends have said the Arizona Democrat has never been one to tackle her goals halfway. It was fitting, then, that she closed out her career with a legislative victory.

The day was bittersweet as emotional colleagues said farewell to the well-liked congresswoman, described by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) as an "extraordinary daughter of this House," who announced she would step down this week to focus on her recovery.

House Speaker Boehner accepted her formal letter of resignation with tears in his eyes, although that in itself in not unusual. The accolades from both sides of the aisle were, however, unusual, especially for this Congress. It's clear that Rep. Giffords was indeed well-liked and well-respected, no mean feat in the bitterly partisan 112th Congress.

Giffords, who suffered massive head injuries in a shooting by a crazed young man, might have been better honored if her colleagues had been so moved by the atrocity that they passed some stronger gun and ammunition laws. Alas, they were obviously not that distraught. After all, that would be tampering with the will of the NRA.

Ironically, on the day that the Giffords appearance was taking place at the nation's capital, another appearance took place in Missouri's:

Just hours before Giffords made her way into the nation's Capitol, an unknown provocateur was stalking the halls of the Missouri Capitol, tagging the doors of lawmakers—most of them Democratic women—with images of rifle crosshairs.

The picture which heads this post shows the stickers in question. The stickers are more than a little reminiscent of the symbol used by Sarah Palin in targeting incumbents up for re-election in 2010.

Palin and other conservatives strongly rejected the notion that their imagery and rhetoric had anything to do with the bloodbath in Arizona a year ago. And no one can know what was truly in the deranged mind of Jared Loughner. But common sense says that when enough targeted political vitriol mixes with enough guns, bad things will eventually happen.

Exactly so, especially when the mood of the entire electorate is sour beyond belief. It's clear that we are in for some hard times.

It Could Happen

2012-01-25T03:00:00.000-08:00

President Gingrich?

It could happen, according to David Horsey's latest column.

No matter how much money Mitt Romney spends, money can’t buy him the love of conservatives. His awkward and often tone-deaf performance on the campaign trail has brought him close to becoming an object of ridicule – the kiss of death for any politician.

Rick Santorum’s claim to the hearts and minds of those same conservatives was rejected in South Carolina. And, Monday night during the debate in Florida, his glee at the prospect of war with Iran did not come across as tough, it came across as scary.

And Ron Paul? Well, he performs a great service by injecting an occasional reality check into the debates – as he did on Monday night by knocking down Gingrich’s claim to have willingly and nobly resigned from the speaker’s job in the wake of GOP losses in the 1998 election. But Paul’s anti-war libertarianism will never prevail in the party most enamored of the military industrial complex.

And so there is Gingrich. He has become a contender because he is unusually articulate, spouts lots of intelligent-sounding big ideas and channels the anger of the core Republican electorate. For now, they are overlooking or forgiving his many personal flaws.

Mitt Romney is no longer the "given" in the GOP campaign for the reasons Horsey lists and for one he didn't. After finally giving in and providing his tax returns we learn that Mitt and his wife did in fact pay nearly 15% of his income (all of it apparently from investments)in taxes. The total paid: $3 million, which is more than most Americans earn in a lifetime. When that fully sinks in, no doubt with the help of his Republican opponents and the Obama campaign, a lot of Americans are going to be turned off.

There is a chance, then, that absent a brokered convention, Gingrich will be the Republican nominee. That's a scary thought all by itself.

Does that mean it should be a walk in the park for President Obama?

Not exactly. As Horsey points out, a lot depends on the state of the economy come November. If unemployment and underemployment hasn't eased and if Americans sink further into debt with no hope of ever catching up, they will be in a foul mood. And if President Obama can't pin the failure to grow the economy on an obstructionist Republican party, he will justifiably be held accountable.

Last night's State of the Union address shows that the president is aware of what has to be done. The trick will be to get it done, or at least be seen to have made a valiant effort to do so. That means he has to stop his "get along" approach, and I'm not sure he's capable of doing so.

Needless to say, I would love to be proved wrong.

They Did What?

2012-01-24T03:00:00.000-08:00

Well, slap my face and call me Fanny. The US Supreme Court issued an opinion which both delighted and surprised me in all sorts of ways. Yesterday's opinion came down on the correct side of the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court confronted for the first time the government's growing use of digital technology to monitor Americans and ruled strongly in favor of privacy.

The court said the Constitution generally barred the police from tracking an individual with a GPS device attached to a car unless they were issued a warrant from a judge in advance. But the ruling could limit a host of devices including surveillance cameras and cellphone tracking, legal experts said. ...

Even the justices who most often side with prosecutors rejected the government's view that Americans driving on public streets have waived their right to privacy and can be tracked and monitored at will. At least five justices appeared inclined, in the future, to go considerably beyond the physical intrusion involved in putting a GPS device on a car and rule that almost any long-term monitoring with a technological device could violate an individual's right to privacy. [Emphasis added]

What is so stunning is that all nine justices agreed that the state clearly violated the Fourth Amendment with the warrantless imposition of a tracking device on the defendant's car. That all nine could agree on anything is something of a surprise; that they would all agree that even defendants in a drug case are entitled to constitutional protections is nothing short of a miracle.

But wait, there's more: five justices seem willing to extend the ruling to other technological monitoring such as cell phone tracking. This decision didn't go that far, but the various concurring opinions seem to point in that direction should the right cases come along.

What a wonderful way to start the week.

Giggle Fits

2012-01-23T04:46:00.000-08:00

I've become staid and proper and politically correct in my old age, but I still was reduced to uncontrolled giggling upon reading this AP news story.

With cameras barred from a high-profile corruption trial, a television station has puppets acting out the sometimes-steamy testimony about hookers, gambling and sexually transmitted diseases. In one scene, a furry hand stuffs cash down the shirt of a puppet prostitute.

"I'm horrified," a laughing anchorwoman said after a segment shown this week on WOIO, a CBS affiliate in Cleveland, where the trial of longtime Democratic power broker Jimmy Dimora is the talk of the town. ...

A talking, buck-toothed squirrel "reporter" provides the play-by-play in an exaggerated, "you won't believe this" tone. A black-robed puppet sits at the judge's bench. And in the jury box, the puppets yawn during the trial.

OK, I admit I was a little embarrassed by my response and I guess I still am. I practiced law for over 30 years and, while the judicial system is far from perfect, my experience has been that it has generally worked, often under difficult circumstances.

Further, I see nothing wrong about barring cameras from the trial courtroom. Television cameras can be very intimidating to witnesses and to jury members, which can impede justice. As long as members of the public, including reporters, have access to the proceedings, there is less of a chance of justice being perverted and more of a chance that the parties will get a fair trial.

So why my giggle fit?

Well, first of all, the humorous take on the proceedings certainly looked familiar. Witnesses often can't get their story straight, judges can be arrogant, jurors do nod off. It happens. A little poke at our foibles certainly does not mean the end of civilization as we know it. Stephen Colbert is demonstrating that right now with respect to our electioneering system.

And it helped to know that this was not the only reportage of the trial done by the television station. A straight news summary was done, and the puppet show came only at the very end of the show. This very serious trial did get serious coverage.

Finally, the fun-poking included the news media: the "buck-toothed squirrel" reporter was a brilliant stroke. I never tried a high-profile case (or even middle-profile one), but when I watched television news regularly I was often appalled at the pompous delivery of some reporters who clearly saw themselves well above the fray and everyone involved in it.

Hmmm...maybe I'm not all that embarrassed after all.

Sunday Poetry: T.S. Eliot

2012-01-22T16:00:00.000-08:00

From The Hollow Men

V

Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o’clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

--T.S. Eliot

Sunday Funnies

2012-01-22T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Tom Toles and published 1/19/12 at the Washington Post. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: Rhesus Monkey

2012-01-21T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photograph by W.E. Garrett and published at National Geographic.)

A New Sitcom?

2012-01-21T04:02:00.000-08:00

David Horsey has done it again. He has captured the sense of what the interminable series of debates for the GOP presidential nomination are, both visually and intellectually.

These "debates" are not really debates, but what they really are kept eluding me until Horsey's blog post. He has convinced me that they actually are television shows, scripted by the producer, moderator, and even the candidates. The last debate makes more sense seen in that light.

The appeal of the debates to a surprisingly large audience has to do with far more than civic engagement. They have all the elements of a successful television show: colorful characters, high stakes and comforting familiarity.

For characters, no TV writer could do better than Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain for zaniness. Gingrich himself is a wonderfully pompous know-it-all (haven’t we seen his type on "Downton Abbey"?). And Mitt Romney could walk on to the set of "Mad Men" as a stunt double for Jon Hamm.

Each debate episode has offered the likelihood that one of the characters will be voted off the island. As the losers have been culled, the tension has grown and the remaining actors have gotten better at their game. As was evident Thursday night, each of the four survivors has shown he can steal a scene and command the stage. ...

And the show went on with each person playing his part -- Gingrich, deeply offended that his infidelities were the first topic of discussion (come on, Newt, it's TV!); Ron Paul, like Kramer crashing through Jerry's door, the character who dependably sends the plot in unexpected directions; Rick Santorum, the street fighter in this fight for the South; and Romney, projecting equal portions of Ward Cleaver and Don Draper with just a trace of Gordon Gekko thrown in.

Why, yes. That nails it. Even though the genre is a hodge-podge of all the other currently popular genres, the debates are clearly "made-for-tv." Unfortunately for the voters who take their role seriously, reality tv and the real world are two different things, and this blurring of the lines doesn't really serve the democracy, something Horsey acknowledges left-handedly in his conclusion:

It may be a crazy way to pick a president, but this is must-see TV.

Friday Cat Blogging

2012-01-20T16:00:00.000-08:00

(He's still a cutie, and he's still occupying that part of the bed.)

Marry-Go-Round

2012-01-20T05:47:00.000-08:00

Silly season is in full bloom. I know this always happens in an election year, yet I am always surprised by it. I guess that's just the way Americans like it, although this American is not terribly thrilled by it. I don't like the politics of destruction. Perhaps that's a function of age.

What specifically is gnawing on my last nerve today is the uproar over Newt Gingrich's marital infidelities. Trust me: I am not a fan of this man. His conduct over the years he's been in politics has left me cold, jaded, and more than a little nauseous. Still, I really don't want nor need specific details on his private life, just as I don't want or need his prying into my private life. Therein, I admit, lies a paradox which in a way justifies the current uproar in the GOP campaign for the presidential nomination.

Perhaps Atrios put it best yesterday in his post entitled "Newtered":

I'd like to say it's none of our goddamn business, but Newt made sure that this stuff will be our business for a long long time.

Atrios was referring, of course, to Gingrich's role in the impeachment of President Clinton for getting some extra marital sex in the White House. Ironically, although perhaps not, Gingrich was engaged in a little adultery himself at the same time. And, certainly, karmic justice does seem to be playing out, a sort of "as you sow, so shall you reap" from the universe.

A slight spin on this approach is a bit less vengeful. It points to the hypocrisy of Gingrich and his conservative supporters when it comes to moral matters. Such is the stance taken by the editorial board of the New York Times today:

Multiple marriages and even adultery are not automatic disqualifications for the presidency. If they were, the country would have a very different roster of former presidents and candidates. But when a political party decides that moralizing about personal conduct is as important as public policy, it inevitably makes some of its leaders vulnerable to the worst charges of hypocrisy.

In this political cycle, it is Newt Gingrich who has been unable to escape the toxic combination of infidelity and sermonizing. The stories about his three marriages have been known for years, but every time he seems to have escaped the wrath of Republican voters, they rise again. [Emphasis added]

It is that last sentence which perhaps is rubbing my last nerve raw: the timing of the issue. We've seen how the media has treated each of the rising stars on the campaign trail. Herman Cain's momentum, for example, was stopped cold by allegations of sexual harassment. It's as if the pundits and wonks can't stand seeing someone doing well on the campaign trail without taking him/her down a peg or two. Even Mitt Romney has received a little of that focus, albeit non-sexual in nature, as details about Bain and about his religion just emerge from the mists of time.

I am not saying that past behavior should be ignored by the media. It is important for voters to know about the candidate and past conduct is fair game, but are all these "revelations" really necessary? Especially just a few days before the vote?

I swear, all of this makes me want to go out and shout at the clouds.

New Shame

2012-01-19T03:38:00.000-08:00

The disastrous economy and now the 2012 elections have pretty much shoved other important news off the radar screen, especially when it comes to Guantanamo Bay. That's unfortunate because there's still a lot going on down in the US Gulag, most of it shameful abuse of America's highest ideals. The latest is noted by Kal Raustiala, professor of law and director of the Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA. In an opinion piece written for the Los Angeles Times, Professor Raustiala comments on a devastating change imposed on lawyers for the inmates facing military commission trials.

The order requires all correspondence between the accused and their appointed military lawyers to be reviewed by federal officials.

The proposed order is a mistake, one that threatens to jeopardize the progress made in reversing Guantanamo's tainted legacy as a legal black hole. It likely violates the 6th Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel, which has long been understood to permit lawyers to communicate confidentially with their clients. [Emphasis added]

Imagine: everything discussed by the defendant and his lawyer can now be viewed by the prosecutors. Every detail, every mitigating circumstance, the names of every witness, every possible defense, every theory is wide open and fair game. The whole point of the confidentiality between the lawyer and his client, a frank discussion of the matter, is lost along with any notion of fair play in the proceedings. Up until now, the military defense lawyers have had to labor with one hand tied behind his back. Now both hands are tied.

Woods' order does not simply raise legal concerns, however. By violating the sanctity of attorney-client privilege, it jeopardizes the perception of American military commissions as fair and just, a perception that is crucial if these trials are to succeed.

To see why, consider the fundamental purpose of such trials. Why not simply imprison the suspected terrorists in perpetuity without trial? The chief reason, dating to the landmark Nuremberg tribunal, is the belief that a just and fair trial of even our worst enemies is the best vindication of our nation's values, and the best way to ensure that cycles of revenge are tamped down, individuals are held accountable and the truth emerges.

War-crimes trials have long been tarred by cries of "victor's justice." It is only through scrupulous adherence to fair, neutral and time-honored procedures that we can forcefully refute such criticism. [Emphasis added]

I am one of the critics Raustiala refers to when it comes to these military commission trials. I believe that they are a coy emulation of justice, mere dog-and-pony shows designed to give the appearance of justice with none of the substance. I believe that this latest move merely confirms my worst suspicions.

And I am deeply ashamed of what this country has become.

The Fear Factor

2012-01-18T03:20:00.000-08:00

Yes, it's another cartoon from David Horsey, and, once again, it was chosen because the blog post appended to it is a pretty perspicacious analysis of the GOP campaign in South Carolina. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are basing a great deal of their pitches to conservative voters on the fear factor.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are reading from the same script as they vie to be the “not Romney” champion of the frightened right. Monday, both candidates roved around this city of deserted beach resorts warning conservative voters that the reelection of Barack Obama would bring an end to America as we have known it. ...

Santorum was up first. He talked about American exceptionalism; about how, in an age of kings and emperors, the founding fathers created a Constitution that declared an individual’s rights were derived from God, not granted by government.

“Any rights a government gives you, they can --” Santorum paused and the tea partiers responded in unison -- “Take away!” ...

When it was Gingrich’s turn, he made precisely the same points. “We are the first country in history to say that power comes from God to each of you personally, and your rights are inalienable,” the ex-speaker of the House said. And, as for pursuing happiness, “Happiness in the 18th century meant wisdom and virtue, not acquisition and hedonism,” he said.

These remarkably similar tutorials on America’s foundational ideas set up the crowd for identical campaign pitches: All that is good and unique about the United States is threatened by Barack Obama. Only a man with unflinching conservative convictions can evict him from the Oval Office. And only if South Carolina’s conservatives unite around one candidate as an alternative to the disturbingly moderate Mitt Romney can Americans be saved from a future of servitude and dependency.

The one point on which Gingrich and Santorum diverged was who that candidate should be.

As the cartoon illustrates, Americans have learned to love being frightened by boogey men, real or not. The seeds of this fear had been carefully tended for decades, but they certainly came into full bloom after 9/11. What else could have provoked the speedy passage of the Patriot Act and the cheerful giving up of centuries old civil rights, including habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment? Now the perceived threat is from a Kenyan Muslim Socialist President and an octupus government reaching into the pockets of Americans.

Fortunately for Mitt Romney, the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of the current campaign line-up will split the fearful vote, thereby making his job ever so much easier. Horsey's conclusion nails it:

As I was exiting the tea party convention, I got into a conversation with Joe Klein, Time magazine’s veteran political columnist. I said the problem for apocalyptic conservatives is that they love more than one man. Klein corrected me.

“They like more than one,” he said. “Their problem is they don’t love any of them.” [Emphasis added]

Why, yes. I think that gets it nicely.

[Note: click on the cartoon to enlarge.]

Divine Right

2012-01-17T03:35:00.000-08:00

No, I didn't get the days confused. This isn't a Sunday Funnies post. I included this 'toon by David Horsey and published by the Los Angeles Times because the blog post which went with it was really quite interesting and the cartoon added just the right amount of snark.

Rick Santorum is pulling out all the stops in South Carolina, capitalizing on his conservative religious views in a state known for, well, conservative religious views.

In the race to be the most sincere Christian candidate for president, Rick Santorum looks like the front-runner.

Out on the edge of town here Sunday afternoon, out among the big box stores and strip malls, at a family restaurant called Percy and Willie's, Santorum came by to shake hands and speak to a crowd of diners who had likely spent the morning praising the Lord at one of the area’s many evangelical churches.

"America is a moral enterprise, not an economic enterprise," Santorum declared. The United States is successful not because of its powerful military, its economic system or its form of government, he said; it is successful because of the American people’s faith in God. The news media don’t get it, he said, “and I’m running against a president who doesn’t believe it.” But the good people of South Carolina understand “the obligation we have to lead good, moral and decent lives.”

And he's having some success:

Jamie Thompkins, an attractive, middle-aged teacher from Georgetown, described herself as an ultra, ultra-conservative who is happy to be living in the middle of America’s Bible Belt. Santorum appeals to her, she said, because “he would put God before anything else. He’s going to really rely on God and not rely on what everyone else says.”

Another woman, a local psychologist who, like a lot of people here, didn’t want her name showing up in the media, said religious faith is an extremely important factor in her choice for president. She said she could tell that, with Santorum, it is not just rhetoric: “He talks the talk that we talk.”

What I found amazing about this (as did Horsey) is that both women and all of the other Santorum supporters are aware that Rick is a Catholic, not an evangelical, born-again Protestant. It wasn't all that long ago that the Religious Reich would have had as much trouble with Santorum's and Gingrich's religion as they obviously still do with Mitt Romney's Mormonism. I would have thought that Rick Perry, a bona fide evangelical would get the votes and the imprimatur of the 100 evangelical leaders who decided, after three ballots, to endorse Santorum instead. Maybe things are changing, or maybe, just maybe Rick Perry is seen as too weak to actually get elected in a match with Obama.

Or, and I agree with Horsey on this, the evangelicals still haven't decided on a candidate and all of this hoo-hah is just more evidence of division in the ranks.

...Still, by most reports, Santorum has not sewed up the evangelical vote. And if it stays split, Romney is very likely to come out on top in Saturday’s primary.

If South Carolina is as close as Iowa was, it's going to be a long campaign for the remaining candidates. If Romney cruises to a New Hampshire-like victory, I think the real contest is over.

I'm still going to pick up more popcorn this weekend.

Monkey Brains At Work

2012-01-16T04:25:00.000-08:00

OK, I admit it. I enjoyed this this opinion piece entirely too much. In fact, I roared with laughter at a couple of points, even though I realized that probably was pretty good evidence that I still harbor a wide stripe of sexism. This wonderful little essay was written by Robert M. Sapolsky, who is a professor of neuroscience at Stanford University, and examines the current slate of candidates for the GOP presidential nomination in light of what we know about primates, especially those species which are male dominated.

Now that Michele Bachmann has dropped out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination, we are left with an array of the usual suspects in American politics — namely a bunch of men who seem to spend much of their lives bragging about how tough they are.

We have Rick Perry waxing macho about the number of executions he's overseen in Texas and Rick Santorum threatening to bomb Iran. There's Newt Gingrich proclaiming that the race is going to boil down to being between "Newt and not-Newt." Even the septuagenarian Ron Paul starts his campaign appearances with Darth Vader's theme music, which he uses to emphasize how dangerous he is to Mitt Romney.

As any zoologist would instantly recognize, what we have here are a bunch of male primates vying for dominance. [Emphasis added]

Professor Sapolski zeroes in on one species in particular: the rhesus monkey. He then explains in easily understood terms what studies of those monkey brains show us about the role of the brain in that dominance. That part of the essay is especially engaging because it contains a few surprises. The part of the brain that gets the most workout is not the "beat 'em up" center but the one that understands social connections and interactions. And that is rich with significance.

And there is an instructive lesson here for this presidential season. As the candidates vie to show how tough they are on Iran, the national debt and those suffering polar bears trying to foist the myth of global warming on us, we should think about those high-ranking, bully-boy rhesus monkeys and their large rostral prefrontal cortexes. It's likely that politicians too have developed parts of their brain that could be put to better use than feuding and posturing. Perhaps it's time for humans to demand that our leaders use their brains for more than coordinating the muscles responsible for chest thumping.

From your lips to the remaining candidates' ears, Professor.

Sunday Poetry: C.P. Cavafy

2012-01-15T16:00:00.000-08:00

The Glories Of The Ptolemies

I am the son of Lagus, king. The absolute possessor
(with my power and my wealth) of voluptuous delight.
No Macedonian, or barbarian, can be found
my equal, or even to compare with me. The son of Seleucus
is ludicrous with his vulgar luxury.
But if you want more, see, these too are clear.
The city -- the teacher, summit of panhellenism,
in the word, in very art, the wisest.

--C.P. Cavafy

Sunday Funnies

2012-01-15T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers for The Charlotte Observer (January 11, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: Octopus

2012-01-14T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photograph courtesy NERC CHESSO Consortium and published at National Geographic. Click on the link to learn about the rather interesting form of locomotion this critter uses.)

Elder Belle's Blessing: Mike Freeman and Warren Limmer

2012-01-14T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Patrice Carlton and published at National Geographic.)

This award is given from time to time to those individuals or groups who go out of their way to enhance the lives and interests of the elders. The winners in this edition have dedicated themselves to changing the law in the state of Minnesota. At present, elder neglect, even when it results in serious injury or death, is a misdemeanor, which means the perpetrators get a slap on the wrist and a small fine. Freeman and Warren want to make it a felony.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Caregivers who intentionally neglect the elderly or other vulnerable adults could face felony prosecution for the first time in Minnesota under a legislative proposal unveiled Thursday that would close what proponents say is a gaping hole in state law.

Prosecutors say current misdemeanor penalties don't allow them to properly punish violators, even in extreme cases where months of horrendous treatment ends in serious harm or death.

The paper examined about 50 cases since 2004 where someone was convicted of misdemeanor neglect, including six that resulted in death. That included a mother in Bloomington who died after she was left in squalid conditions in a cold, darkened bedroom by her adult son, who paid a $50 fine and got a year of probation.

"Does this make me sick? You're damn right it does," said Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, a DFLer who is among those spearheading the effort. "Every one of God's vulnerable adults deserves better, and we're going to do something about it." ...

The bill's chief Senate sponsor, Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said the legislation is a reasonable proposal that targets the most extreme cases. Limmer, chair of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, said that with a wave of baby boomers set to retire, it's important to confront abuse and neglect.

It's always been important to confront abuse and neglect, and these two gentlemen, who are from opposing parties, by the way, have joined together to stiffen the penalties to a more appropriate level. What is so deplorable is that getting an reasonable bill through is going to be difficult. In the past, such bills failed because of pressure from some interest groups:

It remains uncertain whether the proposal, outlined by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, prosecutors and Gov. Mark Dayton's administration, will face opposition from nursing homes, hospitals and others in the care industry. For years, an influential group in the industry has blocked efforts at the Capitol to criminalize neglect.

If you are a Minnesota resident, please put some pressure on your state legislators to pass this bill. It's needed and needed badly to protect the elders from predators and negligent health care providers.

Kudos to Freeman and Warren for standing up for us.

Friday Cat Blogging

2012-01-13T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photo snagged from Presto Change-o. Click on the link for more great kitty photos. 250,000 visitors should tell you how great that site and its proprietor are!)

Gaming The System

2012-01-13T04:19:00.000-08:00

We are seeing the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United play out in the GOP campaigns for the presidential nomination, as the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now South Carolina have discovered. The airwaves are filled with commercials purchased not just by the candidates but by Super PACS not directly affiliated with the campaigns. Those spots not only extol one candidate, but attack the others, and while it is fairly obvious who the beneficiary of each ad is, that beneficiary gets to distance himself from the more egregious attacks by noting that it didn't come from his campaign.

One of hallmarks of this new part of electioneering is that most of the time, voters have no idea who actually is behind each ad. The donors supplying the cash for the commercial buys are not listed in the commercial as it takes up viewing space, and that makes the whole process opaque, something that Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, notes in a column she produced for the New York Times.

...the money the candidates raise themselves is only part of the story, and it may not be the most significant part, even with the possibility that the nominees of both parties will forgo public financing for the general election, as President Obama did last time. Every major presidential candidate is being aided by a group now known as a “super PAC” and sometimes by more than one.

Triggered by the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and a couple of lower court decisions, these new groups are allowed to collect unlimited sums of money from individuals, corporations, unions and trade groups — and to use these funds for expenditures that expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Not content with just pouring unlimited amounts of money into campaigns, these Super PACs are finding ways around the reporting requirements to keep the names of donors hidden from voters right before the election, something which the Supreme Court clearly did not intend in its decision. Because the Federal Election Commission hasn't actually caught up with the fallout from the decision, Super PACs are playing games with the system as it currently exists:

...Because 2011 was not an election year, super PACs that opted to file quarterly were not required to submit third-quarter disclosures that would have enlightened the public about their funders. However, the 1970s-era Federal Election Campaign Act does require quarterly filers to make special reports just before primaries. So as 2011 came to a close, many super PACs – including all of the candidate-specific ones – told the F.E.C that from now on they’d be filing monthly, rather than quarterly.

Monthly filers aren’t required to make “pre-primary” reports. So the funders behind the groups’ activities in the electoral contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida won’t be known until after the voting is all over. Three super PACs — Our Destiny, which supports Jon Huntsman; the Red, White and Blue Fund, which is backing Rick Santorum; and Endorse Liberty, a booster of Ron Paul — even made this change after the books had closed on the pre-election reporting period. [Emphasis added]

How convenient.

In other words, unless the FEC changes the rules midstream and quickly, the result of Citizen's United is an increase in opacity. Voters, for whom knowing the identity of key backers might make a difference (i.e., knowing just whom the candidates now owe favors to), are going into the voting booths blind. And unless Congress moves to defang this terrible Supreme Court decision, the fallout will continue through November.

Helluva way to run a democracy.

Speaking In Tongues

2012-01-12T07:10:00.000-08:00

I don't often spend time reading Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum, but I am certainly glad I did this morning. Her latest column examines an issue that has long puzzled and troubled me: the apparent clout of the Religious Reich. She was in Israel when the story about the young school girl in an ultra-ultra Orthodox neighborhood who was spat upon and harassed by some of the locals because, even in her long-sleeved blouse and floor-length skirt, her ankles could be seen as she walked. Ms. Daum was clearly appalled by the act of the ultra-ultra Orthodox men, but (and this is key) she was even more appalled by the fact that the rest of Israel allowed them to behave in such a manner.

She then uses that experience as a backdrop to what is happening in this country, and particularly in the GOP campaigns for the presidential nomination, using Rick Santorum's pronouncements on gays, abortion rights, contraception, and even sex outside of baby-making as a prime example of extreme religious zealotry taking over the affairs of a democracy.

...I couldn't help but notice that just as Israel tolerates, and even cooperates in, the extremist behavior of a minority of its population, GOP leaders, especially in election season in the U.S., seem willing to pander to the furthest reaches of the right wing. ...

Why does Santorum persist with his rhetoric? Well, in fairness, he's a conservative (and an intensely literal-minded) Catholic, and he seems to believe most of it personally, even if hardly anyone else does. But zealots in Israel believe it's OK to spit at schoolgirls, even if hardly anyone else does. In both cases, the problem is what happens to democratic principles when such personal beliefs intersect public policy.

In the U.S., we too often grant the noisiest, most threatening zealots too much power to set the agenda. We're complicit in creating the illusion that religious fundamentalism is so rabid and so monolithic that we must appease it in order to keep it from turning against us. What we have in Santorum, who's clearly banking on South Carolina rolling quite a bit holier than New Hampshire, is a man enthralled with that mythic power — and it's making him speak in tongues. [Emphasis added]

Amen.

Beating The Drums

2012-01-11T04:12:00.000-08:00

Well, another primary/caucus down and just 48 to go. The next one is two weeks away so we get a bit of a breather, but not much. It doesn't appear that any candidates will be dropping out of the race for the GOP nomination for president at this point. Instead, the race will get more heated as those remaining hope to stop the Romney juggernaut or at least slow it down. The dueling will continue via campaign speeches and ugly television ads.

New Hampshire did show us that the key issue there, and presumably a major issue in the rest of the country, is that of the economy. That's really no surprise. What is surprising, however, is the emphasis in the campaigns on other, more "red meat" issues. We've seen the remaining candidates trying to out-conservative each other on immigration and that will probably continue. The same is true on defense issues, particularly on what to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions. It is this issue which continues to be inflated by all the candidates but Ron Paul. He's no pacifist, but he doesn't think the country should be spending the treasury down as Policeman For The World.

The rest of the candidates have all promised to stop Iran at all costs, up to and including war. "All options must remain on the table." "We must have a regime change." We will no doubt continue to hear such phrases and more like them. Apparently at least these gentlemen have forgotten the debacle of Iraq and what it cost this country.

Micah Zenko and Emma Welch have an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times which explores this campaign issue and notes that when it comes down to any kind of specific plans, all of the candidates are woefully inarticulate. None of them have any plan in mind, and with good reason. They, like most of the rest of the population haven't any real clue as to just where Iran is in the quest for a nuclear weapon, or even if the quest is real.

First, does the U.S. intelligence community know where every weapons-related nuclear facility is located? As demonstrated by the revelation of a potential hidden uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom in 2009, it is impossible to know whether Iran is concealing other nuclear facilities.

Second, can airstrikes alone eliminate all nuclear facilities? Even Gingrich acknowledged: "The idea that you're going to wage a bombing campaign that accurately takes out all the Iranian nuclear program … is a fantasy."

Last, but certainly not least, have senior leaders in Iran decided to pursue nuclear weapons? Last February, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted: "We do not know … if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

None of this will stop the candidates, however. They will continue with the glib assertions of the need to flex our national muscle at whatever cost without ever detailing just what they would do. Zemko and Welch have a few cogent words of advice for voters and the press at this point:

Initiating a preemptive military strike against Iran to eliminate its suspected nuclear weapons capability would be an enormously significant — and potentially disastrous — foreign policy decision. As the Republican presidential campaign continues, the media and prospective voters must challenge the candidates for greater explanation on this application of military force. In Iraq, the U.S. discovered the enormous costs and consequences of trying to disarm a country through regime change. It is crucial, therefore, that we demand that those running for president clearly articulate a realistic strategy for preventing an Iranian bomb before placing "all options on the table."

Not a bad idea, that.

Things That Make You Go Wow!

2012-01-10T04:32:00.000-08:00

I know this is the day of the New Hampshire primary and it is very important because it is the first vote for actual delegates. Of course, in a couple of weeks it will be time for the South Carolina primary. That will be very important because it will be the first vote for actual delegates in the South. And then there will be other primaries and caucuses and they will be very important for other reasons. I've decided to take a break from the process, as important as it is, at least for a day or two, primarily because I came across a story that I think is also very important.

Here's the background to Jeannie Mac Donald's remarkable story in her own words:

I was baptized at Our Lady of Hypochondria Church.

When I get a headache, my mind speeds past simple causes, like "sinus pressure," and goes straight to "inoperable brain tumor." If my leg tingles, it's multiple sclerosis; if my heart hiccups, it's cardiac arrest.

Ah, the pointless trysts with Dr. Google, self-diagnosing ailments I didn't have.

That should sound familiar to all of us, either because we suffer from the same condition ourselves or because we know folks just like Ms. MacDonald. But in this story there is, unfortunately, more to it. A shoe fell rather heavily: Ms. MacDonald was diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately the disease was caught early, so the prognosis is good. Still, she required surgery and then a course of radiation therapy.

Let's see — 61/2 weeks of radiation. That's roughly 1,092 hours of worry time. And if worrying was an Olympic sport, I'd be on the Wheaties box.

I had to do something to distract myself.

She decided to take up baking after a casual conversation with one of the people at the hospital giving her the radiation treatment.

Suddenly it hit me: These people eat hospital food every day. While they saved my breast, I could rescue their taste buds from the horrors of lime Jell-O with non-dairy topping that packed more chemicals than antifreeze.

That Monday, I arrived at radiation hauling a three-layer red velvet cake, gussied up with fresh berries. Or, as my family calls it, "crystal meth with cream cheese frosting."

A few days later, I brought a warm-from-the-oven strawberry-rhubarb pie with crumble topping. It was empowering to morph from Frightened Cancer Victim into Aunt Bee delivering a picnic basket to Andy down at the Mayberry sheriff's station. [Emphasis added]

Empowering, and not just to her:

I got lots of double-takes, sitting in my hospital gown in the waiting room with a cake perched on my lap. Yet I quickly discovered that baking wasn't an escape for me alone. Because they're associated with happy occasions, seeing cakes in such an incongruous setting seemed to transport my fellow oncology patients back in time to childhood kitchens and carefree days before cancer hijacked their lives.

She found a way to get through the horrors of a cancer diagnosis and the horrors of radiation therapy and to assist others through that same horror. A small act? Perhaps, but also an example of something that we too often overlook in humans, all humans: the capacity to not just endure, but to endure and to prevail over seemingly impossible odds and to do so with grace and dignity and just the right amount of humor.

Now, whenever I get to the point of absolute disgust with humanity and its crooked politicians and insane power mongers, I will remember Jeannie MacDonald and her cakes. I will also remember that this fighting spirit is available to us all. That it is just as much a part of us as greed is, as meanspiritedness is, as hatefulness is.

And that should take the edge off.

Granny Bird Award: Rick Santorum

2012-01-09T05:20:00.000-08:00

Rick Santorum is the latest winner of the Granny Bird Award, that award given from time to time to those who go out of their way to harm the interests of the elders in this country. The GOP candidate for the 2012 GOP nomination earned this prize in particularly dramatic fashion: by trying to win the duel to see who could gut social security benefits the fastest.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum called Friday for immediate cuts to Social Security benefits, risking the wrath of older voters and countless others who balk at changes to the entitlement program.

"We can't wait 10 years," even though "everybody wants to," Santorum told a crowd while campaigning in New Hampshire and looking to set himself apart from his Republican rivals four days before the New Hampshire primary. ...

This week, he told New Hampshire audiences that Americans over 65 were society's poorest age group in 1937, when Social Security was created. Now that group is the wealthiest, he said.

He also noted that Americans now live much longer, putting far bigger demands on the government retirement program. [Emphasis added]

Like his confreres, Santorum conveniently overlooks the fact that this program is not paid for by the government, but by money which each worker has deducted from his paycheck. Some of us paid into our accounts for nearly fifty years. It's our money they're talking about.

Further, while the Social Security Trust Fund will need some shoring up, that can be accomplished by simply raising the limit of earned income subject to the payroll tax by 5-10%. That will hardly bust those earning more than $106,000 per year.

Finally, as to the assertion that those over 65 years of age compromise the wealthiest group in the country, well, that's one he pulled out of the south end of his alimentary canal. Most baby boomers I know don't have the benefit of an employer-provided pension to supplement social security, and their 401k accounts have been decimated by the economic upheavals of the past ten years.

Little Ricky is playing us, and is doing so just to get votes. He's earned his award.

Sunday Poetry: Bill Mitton

2012-01-08T16:00:00.000-08:00

(What need I the waving flags, introduced by the author, Bill Mitton:

I watch the young men carry the coffins of their comrades and once again I feel the weight on my shoulders as I remember doing the self same thing. I prayed through my tears that before I died the madness would stop... I now know the folly of that prayer, because I now realise that whilst there are young men and women who believe that they are immortal, there will be politicians who will barter and trade the young's misconception without the flicker of an eye.)

What need I the waving flags

I watch these old men march
bereted and badged
as I was in years long gone.
Though I understand
and will honour their need.
I will never join them.

I need no marching or medals
to do honour to comrades dead
the metal would lie heavy
upon my aging chest.

I find no honour in gravestones
the faces in my memory
are still happy and young
I would rather they were here
growing old, honoured by
their children’s children.

I need no military band.
I keep alive within my soul
the music of my comrades’ songs
They are my morning reveille
and my twilights taps

What need I the waving flags
of these patronising politicians,
and hindsight’s patriots
when these self same,
cloaked in self interest,
barter and sell the peace
hard bought by young lives,
whilst their casual neglect
of our injured and our widows
do such dishonour to our dead.

What right have I of medals
For I am here, aging still.
I hold in trust the memories of
such youthful, selfless, sacrifice
their smiles will haunt me ever.
For as our young soldiers still do.
I have, in scaring grief, carried home,
brave men upon their shields.

--Bill Mitton

(Found at War Poetry.)

Giving It Up

2012-01-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

It was a "three-I's" weekend at Watching America: Iraq, Iran, Iowa. There are some nifty articles from the rest of the world's press, and a visit this weekend took a little longer than usual to choose one for today's post. I went with the third I.

I know I've said this many times before, but it's true: I'm amazed at how closely the rest of the world follows our election process. This article from Spain's Pais has an especially astute reading of the state of the Republican Party in the campaign for a presidential nominee.

The joke of the results in Iowa is that the three candidates who have taken the lead, with very little margin between them, is that each one of them personifies one of the three Republican souls that strive to prevail. The conservatism of Mitt Romney is that of business and money, above all pragmatic and mediating, and it goes without saying, reproaches the extremists of his party. Rick Santorum’s conservatism is particularly moral: He defends traditional values and even reactionaries, and is an activist against gay marriage and abortion. Finally, Ron Paul’s conservatism is more ambiguous, to the point that he can make many progressives enthusiastic: He’s a libertarian, highly individualist, enemy of taxes and public spending, and has no interest whatsoever in U.S. participation in foreign war ventures.

I think that analysis captures the current state nicely. The article also correctly notes the fact that the party faithful (and I use that term intentionally) are not happy with the putative leader in the race, Mitt Romney, so unhappy that they may go with one of the other candidates, proving that the great unwashed are far to the right of the party's leadership. That will have some rather profound consequences.

...The American right is suffering from itself, prepared to give up power before the radicalism of its ideas and values. It is the surest path to the victory of the others.

I'm sure the powers-that-be in the GOP are fully aware of that, which means that a brokered convention is not such a far-fetched possibility after all. Or, and this is also a possibility, it means those powers-that-be are willing to give Obama another four years (he hasn't really hurt them, after all) so as to groom a real winner for 2016.

Under either scenario, however, the election is looming large, if only for the down ticket possibilities. The power of Congress has increased in the last three years even if that power has only been used to obstruct most meaningful legislation. A stunning victory by either party could change everything, regardless of who is sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And that means actually voting this time around is very important.

Sunday Funnies

2012-01-08T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/30/11 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: Yeti Crab

2012-01-07T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photograph courtesy NERC CHESSO Consortium and published at National Geographic. Click on the link to learn more about this critter and others found near a heat vent in the Antarctic.)

Some Good News

2012-01-07T05:03:00.000-08:00

It's the New Year, one which is an election year, and I've already found some good news. There may be plenty of crazy racists in California, but not as many as the Republicans were counting on.

Opponents of California's Dream Act have failed in a signature-gathering drive aimed at overturning the new law that will permit some undocumented immigrants to receive publicly funded college aid. ...

The effort garnered 447,514 signatures, not the required 504,760 valid voter signatures required to place the matter before voters ...

The Dream Act allows undocumented students who came to the country before age 16 and attended California high schools to apply for public financial aid, including Cal Grants. Those students already are eligible for in-state tuition, and Gov. Jerry Brown also signed a companion measure this year affording them access to private financial aid.

"Going to college is a dream that promises intellectual excitement and creating thinking," Brown said in a prepared statement upon signing the contested bill, Assembly Bill 131, in October. "The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us." [Emphasis added]

In a state as populous and diverse as California, the right wing couldn't find half a million loonies willing to sign on to the mean-spirited attempt to repeal a decent and compassionate law. Republican legislators, of course, are spinning it a little differently. They promise that the issue won't go away because the state's budget won't allow for such spending. Giving kids a chance for an education is frivolous in their eyes.

Of course, this victory is only half-a-loaf, which while better than no bread at all still doesn't fully solve the problem. Once these students graduate, unless there has been some meaningful immigration reform giving them a shot at citizenship or at least legal residence, they won't be able to secure the jobs which will enrich the state and its citizens.

Such reform has to come at the national level, and it won't come from the 112th Congress during an election year. The various candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to bash immigrants by trying to outdo each other in cementing our borders against the unwashed hordes trying to sneak in and steal our vital essence. Congressional Republicans have already made it clear that anything that smacks of "amnesty" will not be tolerated, even when that "amnesty" is being extended to kids who were brought here before they were sixteen and had no say in the matter. And congressional Republicans control the House and are gunning to take the Senate in 2012.

That means we are going to have to elect Democrats across the country to Congress so that at least we have a shot at humane reform. We might have to hold our noses at voting for Obama, but there is every reason in the world to vote for decent people down the ticket. That way we might finally get the change we voted for in 2008.

Friday Cat Blogging

2012-01-06T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Thanks to Gimlet for sharing the picture.)

Tea For Three

2012-01-06T03:35:00.000-08:00

We haven't heard too much about the Tea Party of late, even during and immediately after the Iowa caucuses. Oh, there were mentions of that movement tagged on to some of the candidates, but nothing really substantive. Doyle McManus, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, had plenty to say in his most recent column, however. He posits that the movement is still alive and kicking.

A year ago, the tea party movement looked like an irresistible wave sweeping through the Republican Party. Anyone who hoped to win this year's GOP presidential nomination, it seemed, would need to embrace tea party activists' stringent demands for smaller government, lower taxes and deep cuts in spending.

But in Tuesday's Iowa caucuses, the three candidates who hewed closest to the tea party line — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich — sank straight to the bottom of the pack. Instead of choosing a rigorous fiscal conservative such as Bachmann, Perry or Gingrich, Iowa Republicans divided most of their votes between Mitt Romney, the tea party's least favorite candidate, and Rick Santorum, a social conservative who voted for big spending and defended congressional earmarks when he was in the Senate. Ron Paul, at third place, was the most successful of the tea party-friendly candidates, but the acerbic libertarian's claim to 22% of Tuesday's caucus votes could well turn out to be his high-water mark for the year.

In national polls too the tea party's allure has been fading. A study in November by the Pew Research Center found that 27% of the public said they disagreed with the tea party, while only 20% said they agreed — a striking reversal from a year earlier, when 27% agreed. The poll's authors said it appeared that voters increasingly blamed the tea party and its champions in Congress for the gridlock in negotiations over the federal budget.

So does this mean the tea party over? Not exactly.

The tea party has changed the political landscape in ways that are likely to last for a while. Every Republican candidate, for example, at least claims now to be a fiscal conservative. Even Romney, whose greatest achievement as a governor was mandatory health insurance, now says he supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would cap spending at 20% of gross domestic product, a deep cut below the current 24%. Santorum goes even further, proposing a spending cap of 18%.

But the Tea Party is still around. Perry and Bachmann may not have benefited much, but probably for reasons unrelated to Tea Party interests: Perry was a stumbler in the debates and Bachmann was, well, just too crazy. Tea Party voters then had to decide among the remaining viable candidates and that meant the votes got divided among those candidates, leaving Romney with an embarrassingly slim victory.

According to the "entrance poll" sponsored by news organizations, about a third of those who voted in the GOP caucus pronounced themselves "strong supporters" of the tea party; of those, 30% said they voted for Santorum, 17% for Gingrich and 16% for Paul.

That fragmentation will continue, but it also looks like that support will keep Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul in the race for a while. The Tea Party is most certainly not dead. In fact, I anticipate that adherents will play at least some role in the 2012 general election, even if not as dramatic a role as it played in 2010.

And speaking of that 2010 election and the Tea Party candidates who made their way into the 112th Congress, the Center for Responsive Politics has issued a report which takes a look at the net worth of our congress critters, including the Tea Party beneficiaries.

The median average net worth of a member of the House Tea Party Caucus was $1.8 million in 2010. (Financial disclosure forms require lawmakers to value their assets and liabilities only in ranges, so it's impossible to know exactly how wealthy a particular elected official is. However, it's possible to calculate an average net worth for each member of Congress.)

That's significantly higher than the comparable number for the median House member: $755,000. It's also more than 130 percent above the $774,280 average net worth of the median, non-Tea Party Caucus House Republican.

Furthermore, the caucus, a group of 60 House members founded by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), includes 33 millionaires and six members worth more than $20 million, according to the Center's research. That means a member of the group is more likely to be a millionaire than the average Republican who isn't in the caucus. [Emphasis added]

That report raised both of my eyebrows. I suspect, however, that such findings wouldn't bother our Tea Party brethren one bit.

A shame, that.

On Targets

2012-01-05T04:31:00.000-08:00

OK, Iowa's over. I had anticipated more of a shakeout among the lesser candidates, but only Michele Bachmann has called it quits. Rick Perry thought about it, and then decided to stay in the race. Apparently Texas doesn't need his presence right now and he has access to money, so he's keeping on keeping on. Newt Gingrich didn't fare too well either, but the pugnacious one is ready for the next battles. After all, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire endorsed him weeks ago and he figures to do better in South Carolina.

Ron Paul made it into the top tier of candidates with his strong third place finish. He also expects to do well in New Hampshire because of his libertarianism, although I doubt he will do nearly as well in South Carolina, the two states that will vote in January. At that point I think he will be forced to consider a third party candidacy.

That leaves Rick Santorum, who almost took Iowa. Some wags have suggested that Santorum did well because it was his turn to be "not Mitt" and the timing was perfect for a victory in Iowa. He won't be as lucky in New Hampshire for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he's now in the spotlight (or the headlights) and will now get the attention that Bachmann, Cain, Perry, and Gingrich got after their surges. That attention, Jon Healey opines, will not be kind.

The Iowa Republican caucuses Tuesday produced one clear loser: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who failed to crack double digits despite campaigning intensively. The winner isn't so clear, given how few votes separated Mitt Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). But Romney's showing was expected and Santorum's was not -- at least not until a few days ago, when surveys confirmed his meteoric ascendancy.

That means Santorum comes out of Iowa with momentum, credibility and new-found attention. But it also means he'll have a huge target on his back.

The Iowa caucuses demonstrated how effectively rival campaigns and independent, well-heeled "super PACs" can sour the public on a candidate. Just look at former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who went from hero to zero (OK, low double digits) in about a week. ...

...it's hard to predict the kind of attacks Santorum will draw, or whether he'll fade as quickly as Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Gingrich did once they drew the media's (and their rivals') withering glare. [Emphasis added]

It's that last comment that bears a little examination: the role of the media in all of this. Santorum was pretty much ignored by the media until the last couple of days of the Iowa campaign, a fact that Santorum lamented throughout the campaign. Now, with a near win, he's a target for "the media's withering glare."

There is, I suppose, nothing wrong with not paying attention to a candidate everyone considers to be from the fringe. Nor is there anything wrong with paying attention once that fringe candidate has some success. What is distasteful, however, is how that "withering glare" is focused, what provides the ammunition about to be discharged. If the coverage goes back to Santorum's past record as a senator from Pennsylvania, that's appropriate. If the coverage parses each of his statements during the remainder of the campaign, that's appropriate as well.

What's inappropriate, however, is letting the candidate's opposition do the press's job for them. Simply reciting the outrageous claims of a television ad run by a super PAC doesn't qualify for anything beyond giving that super PAC more bang for its buck. Noting the jabs issued by the opponent, in this case Mitt Romney, without comment has the same effect. Yet this is exactly what much of the coverage has consisted of as each "not Mitt" was taken down and cast aside. It's as if the press is who's making the selection of the nominee in collusion with that nominee.

And that is bad, very bad, for a democracy.

Meanwhile

2012-01-04T03:55:00.000-08:00

OK, Iowa is over for another four years. I'll let the dust settle and comment on the outcome another day. Suffice it to say that the results weren't exactly earthshaking.

What does come to mind this morning is that one of the themes injected into the last few weeks of the Republican campaigns was the the peskiness of the federal judiciary. Newt Gingrich took the extreme position that as president he would simply ignore any decisions he disagreed with and might even be open to having judges and justices arrested for more egregious displays of judicial activism. Given the current nature of the Supreme Court, it's hard to imagine Newt being terribly dismayed by any decisions emanating from that august body. Still, it's a meme popular with conservatives so it's not surprising he would trot it out.

Sadly, it's also not an entirely frivolous concern. Appointments to the federal bench are for a life time. The only way to remove a judge or justice is by impeachment, which is exceedingly rare and very time consuming. And while judges at the trial and appellate levels are governed by ethics rules, the justices at the US Supreme Court are not bound by those rules. That anomaly is coming into play at the present time with respect to the challenge of the healthcare reform law.

Conservatives want Justice Kagan to recuse herself because she was the Solicitor General when the law was being hammered out. Liberals want Justice Thomas to recuse himself because his wife heads a lobbyist group which wants the law stricken. There is no way to force either justice to do so under the current state of the law.

Chief Justice Roberts doesn't see that as a problem. He has stated that he has the utmost confidence that members of his court will always do the right thing when it comes to ethical considerations. His confidence may be well-placed, but that is hardly comforting, something the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times noted a couple of days ago. The editorial does point to one way to ensure that Supreme Court justices at least think seriously about the issue:

A federal statute states that any "justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The problem is that each justice decides for himself or herself whether to recuse, usually without explanation. A rare exception was a detailed statement issued by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2004 after he refused to disqualify himself in a case involving then-Vice President Dick Cheney, whom Scalia had accompanied on a duck-hunting excursion.

Legislation introduced by Rep. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.) would require a justice who recused himself in a case to provide the reason. If a justice rejected a petition that he withdraw, the reason for that decision also would have to be made public, and that decision could be appealed to a panel of retired justices and senior judges. Finally, Murphy's bill would require the justices to abide by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which they presently consult but are not bound by. Congress should not interfere with the decisions of the court, but judicial ethics are a fit subject for legislation, which would be unnecessary if the court acted on its own.

The decision to participate in — or withdraw from — a controversial case is a weighty one, especially on the Supreme Court, where one recusal creates the possibility of a 4-4 tie. But when a justice complies with, or rejects, a serious request to withdraw from a case, the public deserves an explanation.

Rep. Murphy's bill is hardly an attempt to "rein in" the court and should pass constitutional muster. The problem will be getting passage of the bill, especially during an election year. And that's a shame.

Finally!

2012-01-03T03:00:00.000-08:00

Well, it's here. Finally. Today is the Iowa Caucus, something we've all been waiting for, sorta kinda. At least for the people of Iowa it will soon be over.

It's been rather fun watching the lead-up to this, but I am willing to admit my sense of fun is sometimes a bit skewed. So I've checked out some other blogs to get the opinions of people I respect.

First, there's Atrios at Eschaton:

I suppose I should be providing you with ALL THE LATEST IOWA POLLS because this is the most important thing ever, unless it isn't.

Hmmm... He's probably right, but still ...

Next is Crabby Old Lady at Time Goes By, who is clearly dismayed by the entire proceedings leading up to this day:

And it's not as though there is anyone – even if you're a Republican – to root for. What a field of freaks these candidates are – not one deserves admiration or respect. Not one has a cogent, thoughtful or reasonable plan for a country deeply mired in all kinds of trouble.

Well, that was pretty clear cut.

Finally, there's Andy Borowitz who managed to intercept an open letter to Iowa from Kim Jong-un:

So who do I recommend you vote for on Tuesday? In a word, me.

If you think about it, I am the most Republican candidate of all. In North Korea, we have no taxes. We have achieved that through a conservative policy of no jobs. Also, we have no wasteful “big government” programs providing food, shelter, or safe drinking water. And am I pro-life? Well, try this on for size: I believe that life begins at conception and ends at starvation.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: I’m too young to be President, since I’m under 35. Well, who would you rather have running your country, someone who’s under 35, or someone whose IQ is under 35? (LOL)

I think when you look at all the facts, voters of Iowa, you’ll realize that Kim Jong-un is the Republican who most deserves your vote. And if you’re still not convinced, remember this: at least I’m not Mitt Romney.

Peace out yo,

Your Supreme Leader

I think that captures it nicely. Thank you, Andy.

I must say, however, I'll be a little sadder after the results are in. I think we'll probably lose a couple of candidates, which means we'll lose a little of the fun those loose cannons have provided.

That said, I'm still buying more popcorn. New Hampshire is next.

Mental Health Day

2012-01-02T05:02:00.001-08:00

(Just taking a day off from blogging to enjoy the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl game and the gorgeous weather.)

Sunday Poetry: ee cummings

2012-01-01T16:00:00.000-08:00

pity this busy monster, manunkind

pity this busy monster, manunkind,

not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)

plays with the bigness of his littleness
--- electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh

and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical

ultraomnipotence. We doctors know

a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go

--Edward Estlin Cummings

Papers, Please

2012-01-01T11:00:00.000-08:00

It was fairly predictable at Watching America yesterday. There were lots of articles on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and lots of articles on the Iowa caucus and the sorry state of the GOP's candidates. Meh. One article landed outside those two and turned out to be quite interesting. It was an essay on vote suppression written by Amy Goodman for the "Comment Is Free" section of the UK's The Guardian. She examines the real story behind the elections coming up this year.

All eyes are on Iowa this week, as the hodgepodge field of Republican contenders gallivants across that farm state seeking a win, or at least "momentum," in the campaign for the party's presidential nomination. But behind the scenes, a battle is being waged by Republicans – not against each other, but against American voters. Across the country, state legislatures and governors are pushing laws that seek to restrict access to the voting booth, laws that will disproportionately harm people of color, low-income people, and young and elderly voters. ...

By some estimates, the overall population who may be disenfranchised by this wave of legislation is upward of 5 million voters, most of whom would be expected to vote with the Democratic party. The efforts to quash voter participation are not genuine, grassroots movements. Rather, they rely on funding from people like the Koch brothers, David and Charles. That is why thousands of people, led by the NAACP, marched on the New York headquarters of Koch Industries two weeks ago en route to a rally for voting rights at the United Nations.

Despite the media attention showered on the Iowa caucuses, the real election outcomes in 2012 will likely hinge more on the contest between billionaire political funders like the Kochs and the thousands of people in the streets, demanding one person, one vote. [Emphasis added]

Contrary to the publicity handouts faxed by the GOP minions, voter fraud is really not much of a problem in this country. It's minuscule, hovering at less than 1%. The Republicans, however, know they have a problem given their current candidates for the presidency, and that means they will have a problem in terms of the down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate and for state offices. What better way to ensure victory than to shut out those people who would vote for Democratic candidates. Five million is a lot of voters.

Now that the various state laws are on the books, there's only eleven months to do something about them. The Department of Justice recently successfully defeated portions of a South Carolina law, prompting Newt Gingrich (in a shot right out of Karl Rove's handbook on projecting one's own weakness on the opposition) to accuse Attorney General Eric Holder of attempting to steal the election.

I think we can expect appeals on that holding, all the way up to the Supreme Court which may or may not get around to hearing the case before the election, if it hears it at all. And that case involved just one state, one which falls under closer federal review because of its past voters' rights violations. States like Wisconsin don't fit into that category and I haven't seen any push by the DOJ towards examining that state's recent law on the issue.

It's going to be a rough nine months for democracy in this country.

Happy New Year.

Sunday Funnies

2012-01-01T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Political cartoon by Jen Sorenson and published 12/18/11 at Daily Kos. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: African Elephant

2011-12-31T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photograph by Beverly Joubert and published at National Geographic. Click on the link to learn more about this endangered species.)

Making Them Blink

2011-12-31T04:33:00.000-08:00

The year ended with a victory for our side. Sure, it was just a small victory, but it was still encouraging. A major corporation, Verizon, was forced to blink. Apparently the folks at Verizon decided to ignore what recently happened to Bank of America when it decided to impose a fee on debit card use. Verizon announced a similar fee for the one-time use of a credit or debit card to pay a bill and all hell broke lose.

Verizon Wireless announced on Friday, after one day of consumer backlash and interest from a federal regulator, that it has decided to scrap a $2 "convenience fee" for credit and debit payments made either online or by phone.

"At Verizon, we take great care to listen to our customers," said Dan Mead, Verizon Wireless' president and CEO, in a statement. "Based on their input, we believe the best path forward is to encourage customers to take advantage of the best and most efficient options, eliminating the need to institute the fee at this time." [Emphasis added]

At least it only took Verizon one day to go "Oops!" Maybe the BoA fiasco was suddenly recalled. Or maybe the "interest from a federal regulator" made someone a bit nervous. Me, I think having the issue go viral on the internet, alerting all sorts of customers to the latest corporate rip-off, was the determining factor.

Since the fee was announced Thursday, customers of the nation's largest wireless carrier have complained about the charge on Twitter, in Facebook groups and pages and Google+ too. The $2 charge is set to go into effect starting Jan. 15 for Verizon users not enrolled in automatic bill pay options who pay their bills online with a credit or debit card. ...

Molly Katchpole, a Washington activist and Verizon subscriber, started a petition at the online activism site Change.org calling for Verizon to scrap the $2 fee.

"Verizon just announced a new $2 fee for paying your bills online. Really. Even though paying via internet is fully automated," Katchpole's petition reads. "It's not just about the money (though if you're like me, you don't have extra cash to be sending to a giant phone company in order to pay your own bills.) It's that Verizon thinks it can do anything to its customers, and that we're powerless to stop it. (Spoiler alert: We're not.)" [Emphasis added]

Heh!

That's the spirit. And I hope it's as contagious as the damned flu. It's the only way I can see 2012 being any better than 2011.

Friday Cat Blogging

2011-12-30T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Another kitty pic ripped from Presto Change-o. Go visit this blog for more wonderful cat photos.)

It Is To Laugh, Part 2

2011-12-30T04:44:00.000-08:00

Last week I noted the outsourcing of justice by the Los Angeles City Attorney's office with respect to those Occupy L.A. protesters arrested for occupying the City Hall lawn. This week, the City Attorney has shown more creativity. That office is considering filing a suit against Occupy L.A. to recover the costs of protesters' exercise of their First Amendment rights.

From an editorial in the Los Angeles Times:

With the Occupy L.A. encampment dismantled, the city is left with the task of refurbishing the battered grounds of City Hall and tallying up the costs of the occupation. Officials estimate the city spent $1.7 million in overtime for police enforcement. Graffiti must be removed from three monuments. And it could cost $400,000 to repair the irrigation system and replace the lawn (if the city upgrades to desertscaping). These are not insignificant figures, but suing the Occupy L.A. protesters to foot the bill — an option, according to City Atty. Carmen Trutanich — is wrong.

Of course it's wrong, especially since the City Council and the mayor's office both supported the protesters and welcomed them to stay as long as they'd like at City Hall. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich apparently has other ideas, apparently believing that will end the protests against a disconnect between government and 99% of its citizens. Irony is not dead.

Why the threat of a law suit? Well, it's a tool frequently used by the city:

The protesters did sue first, notes William Carter, Trutanich's chief deputy. In three lawsuits, groups representing the occupiers alleged civil rights violations before they were evicted, asking the courts for an injunction against eviction and for costs associated with their suits as well as any other relief deemed appropriate. Any time the city is sued, its attorneys consider countersuing, according to Carter.

How ... adult. "They started it!"

Once again, the editorial board has gotten it right (something I have to admit is happening more frequently):

... the City Council should drop any thought of trying to get its money back. That's one cost a city must bear for being open to all.

Yes.

Not So Free

2011-12-29T03:56:00.000-08:00

One of the selling points for the healthcare act has been that it will save money for patients and for insurance companies by emphasizing prevention. For example, screenings for colon cancer and breast cancer would have to be paid for by insurance companies, but early detection would save the insurer down the road because early detection means less expensive treatment. That's fine in theory, but that's not how it sometimes plays out, according to an AP report published by the Sacramento Bee.

If a woman has had a positive mammogram in the past, even if it was a false-positive, the next mammogram is a diagnostic, not a screening test. Similarly, during a colonoscopy, if a doctor finds a polyp and snips it out, insurers maintain the test is no longer a screening but rather a diagnostic procedure. Neither scenario is covered by the prevention provisions of the act, so the patient at the very least has a copay to make. If the patient has a high-deductible policy, he or she may very well have to foot the entire bill. That's hardly a healthy incentive to have the testing performed. And that effectively defeats one of the provisions for reducing health care costs.

You've got to hand it to health insurance companies: they have a penchant for finding ways to save money. Unfortunately for policy holders, that cost savings too often has a negative impact on their health care needs.

The more things change ...

This And That

2011-12-28T03:00:00.000-08:00

I really don't have the energy for any kind of original blogging right now. So instead of my bloviating on the news, I thought I'd show you some of the blogs I visit regularly with posts I've read in the last couple of days.

First off is Eschaton, a joint I spend entirely too much time at. The link includes the comment section which the denizens use as a chat room. The host, Atrios (Duncan Black) is an economist, so much of what he has had to say for the last couple of years addresses the various cataclysms. Lots of snark here, and more than a little rough language, usually to hilarious effect.

I think I do have great business idea: poverty porn for our Galtian overlords. Footage of mass misery is just what they need to cheer them up enough to hire another yacht scrubber or two.

Next, Suburban Guerrilla, run by Susie Madrak. Susie posts some wonderful youtubes, but she also has an eye for the political and nails it every single time. This link leads to a post on our desire for "protection" and what that means in a gun-happy culture.

I’d suggest that we all just stay home, but at least two people were shot by stray bullets while they were asleep this past week.

Another daily jaunt is to Ronni Bennett's Time Goes By. I consider Ronni's site to be the best of the elder blogs, full of common sense, wit, and whimsy. This post might very well explain my lethargy this week

It's an odd little season, this week between Christmas and the new year. A feeling of disconnect, a neutral period between past and future, a hanging moment for a few days when our concerns – personal and public – are held in abeyance while our planet's most recent circumnavigation of the sun winds down and the next begins.

For politics, nobody does it better than Libby Spencer's The Impolitic. Her most recent assessment of the Iowa Caucus is succinct but prescient especially for what it portends for campaigns this cycle at least.

The short version is retail politics have changed. The old maxim about all politics being local isn't true anymore. National campaigns are mostly embracing the 50 state strategy now. They can't tailor their messaging to specific audiences because there's a million "citizen journalists" with cell phones just waiting to create a viral video out of even the smallest discrepancy in their talking points. Big media will give them free exposure for any campaign generated messaging with national appeal. And thanks to Citizen United spending, outside interests can tailor the devious attack ads without candidate accountability, which changed their overall campaign tactics.

Finally, a blog that I just recently discovered but have fallen in love with: Phoenix Woman. Phoenix Woman has partners in this endeavor, and they are extremely capable. This post is by Phoenix Woman and points out the malfeasance of the US press when it comes to honest reporting of what's really going down in world finance.

America’s one-percenters — and the media companies they influence and/or control — are too busy pretending that the 99-percenters, the poor and middle-class people, are a burden that needs to be punished and stripped of whatever pennies they have so the one-percent crowd can get even richer. Anything that contradicts that pretense is generally suppressed by US establishment media, especially the media that most Americans encounter regularly.

That’s why, while you’ll hear and see lots of stories in the US media about Stern Germany Punishing Debt Sinner Countries, you won’t hear about German autoworkers getting paid twice as much as US ones. ...

That’s why you won’t hear that, far from dying, Japan is actually doing quite well, thank you very much: because Japan a) has a well-functioning social safety net and b) has reined in its rich people quite effectively.

It’s also why you won’t hear much about how Argentina, which told the IMF and World Bank “Enough!” rather than further hurt its own people at the banks’ request, is now the economic powerhouse of Latin America.

While I hadn't intended to fully retire and depend solely on Social Security, I have had the opportunity to visit sites such as these and to do some solid thinking. And that's a positive.

Not So Equal, Not So Protected

2011-12-27T04:35:00.000-08:00

I've long opposed the death penalty, primarily because I don't believe the state should be in the business of killing people for killing people. There are other reasons for opposing the ultimate punishment, of course, and the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times reminds us of that:

Among the compelling arguments against capital punishment are its inherent brutality and its potential for error. But documented patterns of racial discrimination in sentencing are also well established and deeply troubling, particularly in cases in which the crime victim is white. A 2005 study of homicides in California from 1990 to 1999, for instance, drawing on FBI data, found that 2.1% of the offenders suspected of killing non-Latino whites were sentenced to death, compared with only 0.68% of those suspected of killing non-Latino African Americans.

North Carolina had hoped to offset that disparity:

In 2009, North Carolina's Legislature passed the Racial Justice Act, which allows defendants to make the case — at a pretrial hearing or after conviction — that statistics show that the death penalty has been imposed significantly more often on defendants in their geographical area because of their race or that of the victim. (Similar legislation was introduced in California in 2010 but languished in committee.) If the judge determines that race has been a factor — not in the individual case but statistically — then the death sentence may not be sought or would have to be vacated. Instead, the defendant would be sentenced to life without parole.

That was a rather dramatic, yet sensible approach. Unfortunately, Republicans now control the state's legislature and are busy trying to scuttle the law. While more overt forms of racism are gradually being weeded out, the less visible and often unconscious forms are still in play, which means that the punishment for the same crime differs based on race and/or ethnicity, a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Admittedly, the use of statistical data is a departure from traditional notions of justice, which focus on the facts of the individual case. But it is possible that the system may be skewed as a whole without a judge consciously taking race into account when sentencing. Presenting statistical evidence could give a judge second thoughts about his unconscious biases. [Emphasis added]

Exactly so. It's at least a step in the right direction towards eliminating this barbaric practice.

A Sign Of Hope

2011-12-26T03:00:00.000-08:00

Sometimes people amaze me in a good way, and this is one of those times. Three returning vets decided to make a difference in a Baltimore neighborhood. Against pretty daunting odds, they are succeeding.

Operation Oliver, which began in July, is a one-year commitment to the neighborhood, the veterans say. It involves cleaning up alleys, rehabilitating homes, organizing volunteers and notifying police about illegal dumping sites and drug dealing.

To say the idea has caught on would be an understatement. Word of the intensive yearlong service project has spread throughout Maryland — and the nation.

Some veterans, such as Earl Johnson, a former Army Ranger who served in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan, have moved into the neighborhood. Others, such as Jeremy Johnson and Blake, live elsewhere but visit Oliver frequently. Nearly 1,000 volunteers, including more than 100 veterans, have joined the effort. ...

The improvement is noticeable. Nearly 50 homes are being rehabilitated through Earl Johnson's organization, the One Green Home at a Time Foundation, another of the partners. Five tons of trash have been hauled away, an area that was once a site of prostitution is now a playground, an organic garden is planned for a weed-filled lot, and the veterans take residents on weekly job-hunting trips.

The neighborhood of about 5,000 people is predominantly black, and more than 70% of Oliver's households earn less than $25,000 a year. Of its 2,600 properties, more than 1,100 are listed as vacant by the city.

Because city and states can't or won't do the work necessary to rehabilitate such neighborhoods, the people had to do their own community redevelopment and had to do so without the funds which too often go to gentrification projects and strip malls. Instead of poor families being forced out, they are taking part in their neighborhood.

Glibertarian and other conservative sorts will probably use this as an example of why government assistance in such projects is unnecessary, that the people are capable of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. That's too facile an explanation. The people of that neighborhood needed the help and the encouragement provided by those returning veterans precisely because they had been forgotten and ignored by their own government. Now they're reclaiming what was theirs all along.

Good on them, and good on those vets.

Sunday Poetry: W.B. Yeats

2011-12-25T16:00:00.000-08:00

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

--W.B. Yeats

Jesus Wept

2011-12-25T11:00:00.000-08:00

I thought seriously about skipping any substantive blogging for today, it being Christmas and all, but I am a creature of habit, so I made my weekly trek to Watching America. There wasn't much to grab me until I did a little nosing around. This is what I found.

From Austria's Die Presse:

Every 45th American child was considered homeless in the past year; 42 percent of them were six years old or younger. A study of the National Center for Homeless Families arrived at this result, reporting the number of homeless children for each of the 50 states separately.

According to the study, the U.S. West and Southeast are the hardest hit: The negative frontrunners are the currently Republican-governed states Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona and New Mexico, as well as Democratic-governed California and Arkansas. Every second homeless child is believed to live in one of these states.

The study spotlighted a period of four years and determined that even 2006, the “Year of Natural Disasters,” did not represent the high point of homelessness for children. At that point there were already 1.5 million U.S. children with no roof over their heads as a consequence of hurricanes Katrina and Rita; this number increased to 1.6 million in 2010. According to the study, the cause of the rise is the incipient recession in 2007. The conclusion is drawn that human-made disasters like the economic crisis can have a greater negative impact than natural disasters.

Further results of the study see a direct connection between the diminished ability of children to learn and the constant, traumatic experiences caused by homelessness. Not only do homeless children suffer from hunger, poor health and psychological problems, they also perform more poorly than “normal” children in reading and writing.

Merry Christmas.

While toys donated to the local Fire Departments and to the Marine Corps may take the edge of homelessness off on Christmas Day, those toys are thin soup come December 26th and the days and weeks thereafter.

There's something wrong with this nation, something dreadfully wrong.

Sunday Funnies

2011-12-25T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Ted Rall and published 12/22/11 in the Los Angeles Times. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: Donkey

2011-12-24T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Daniela Londono and published at National Geographic.)

Trump Change

2011-12-24T03:00:00.000-08:00

Some rather amusing news has broken out over the past 24 hours. First of all, Rick Perry didn't gather enough signatures to qualify for the Virginia GOP primary. I guess the dog ate some of his petitions on the way to the mailbox. Then, and this really did tickle me, there's the news that Donald Trump has changed his party affiliation.

After years as a registered Republican, the outspoken real estate mogul has filed paperwork to become an unaffiliated voter in his home state of New York.

Trump made the change official Thursday, a move prompted by his stated interest in mounting a third-party presidential run in 2012.

"Mr. Trump has said for almost a year that if he is not satisfied with who the Republican candidate is, he may elect to run as an independent," spokesman Michael Cohen said Friday. "This change in party affiliation certainly preserves his right to do so, after the finale of 'The Apprentice' in May." [Emphasis added]

That was the same reason he gave for pulling out as moderator of a candidates' debate, although having all but two of those candidates refuse to appear with him probably entered into his decision. Still, it's clear that Mr. Trump has ambitions.

And it's clear that he can mount a third-party candidacy. He's wealthy enough to help fund his campaign, and he has plenty of contacts in the business world to help him out. Then there's the growing success of Americans Elect, the non-party party, which is now ballot qualified in six states, including California, and will probably qualify in most, if not all, of the rest. He has a ready-made vehicle which will have an extensive mailing list to assist him further. I'm certain he's aware of that.

This all has to make the Republican stalwarts nervous as hell, which is always a good thing.

Me, I'm back to stocking up on popcorn.

Friday Cat Blogging

2011-12-23T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Ripped from Presto-Change-o. Click on link for more wonderful cat pics.)

This Makes My Head Hurt

2011-12-23T03:00:00.000-08:00

Here's an excellent example of something that makes me crazy. I am quoting the article in full, "fair use" be damned.

We live in a world of conspiracy theories -- where nothing is as it seems, where even a politician's benign photo op might have a titillating back story.

Which brings us to the Obama family dog, Bo.

Bo was last seen in the company of the president, who took him to PetSmart in Alexandria, Va., on Wednesday as part of a holiday shopping excursion.

So far, so good.

The rest of the Obama family, as we know, has already started vacationing and is in Hawaii awaiting the president's arrival.

Was Bo with them?

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported on Sunday that a neighbor spotted Bo on a walk in the tony neighborhood where the Obama family is staying.

Is it possible? Could the image-meisters at the White House really have insisted that Bo be flown back to Washington for a quick photo-op with the home-alone president?

That would raise pretty valid questions about whether taxpayers paid for the flight.

We asked First Lady Michelle Obama's office and quickly got an answer:

"Bo has been in D.C. this whole time."

I don't know which makes me crazier: the part that saw some kind of devious plot by the White House or the part that the Los Angeles Times saw fit to cover the story.

Maybe I'm just cranky today.

It Is To Laugh

2011-12-22T03:57:00.000-08:00

Now here's an interesting twist on the concept that "freedom isn't free":

Many Occupy L.A. protesters arrested during demonstrations in recent months are being offered a unique chance to avoid court trials: pay $355 to a private company for a lesson in free speech.

Los Angeles Chief Deputy City Atty. William Carter said the city won't press charges against protesters who complete the educational program offered by American Justice Associates. ...

...prosecuting the remaining protesters arrested on lesser charges would unduly burden the city attorney's office, said Trutanich's chief legal advisor, Curt Livesay. The office has seen its budget cut 25% in recent years. [Emphasis added]

Irony is not dead.

Asking the anti-corporate-greed protesters to pay a private corporation for a lesson on First Amendment rights rather than risk additional jail time for exercising those rights in a peaceful manner is clear evidence that the City Attorney just doesn't get it.

The claim that his office can't afford to prosecute all of those cases because of budgetary problems due to the failure of corporations and their wealthy leaders to pay their fair share of taxes is clear evidence that the City Attorney just doesn't get it.

Lewis Carroll would be so proud.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2011-12-21T04:08:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times about the role of religion in the Iowa caucus campaigns by the Republican candidates. Evangelical Christians, who traditionally turn out massively to vote in the caucus, have three candidates vying for their votes. Ironically, that could be a problem for the voters and for the candidates.

Mindful of Mike Huckabee's dramatic win in the 2008 caucus proceedings, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum have all been working hard to capture the Iowa evangelical vote. Each have visited churches across the 99 counties and have sat down with leaders in the hopes of getting endorsements. All three have had some success, which means that they may very well split the usually unified voting bloc.

The candidates who have spent the most time in Iowa — former Pennsylvania Sen. Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann and, lately, Texas Gov. Rick Perry — are faring the worst as the Jan. 3 caucuses approach. There are multiple reasons — money and gaffes among them.

But one key reason for their shared disappointment looms: The three are locked in competition for the state's huge bloc of evangelical voters, which represented 60% of caucus voters in 2008. Potent when undivided, it risks becoming insignificant when fractured in so many shards. Evangelical leaders have tried to push their flock in a common direction, but can't even decide for themselves on one candidate. [Emphasis added]

In other words, evangelical Iowans are facing a surfeit of candidates, and the candidates are facing disappointing numbers because of the three-way split, leaving Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and even Ron Paul far ahead of the three candidates. Just as important, the evangelicals' power is diluted when it comes to crowing the victor.

That doesn't make me unhappy at all.

Thank You!

2011-12-20T02:28:00.000-08:00

This internet thingie is really amazing, but not nearly as amazing as the people who frequent it. My plea for help got an absolutely astounding response, and I'm absolutely stunned and grateful at the generosity of folks, most of whom I've never met in meat space.

As a result, I've dodged the bullet. I've garnered enough money to wipe out a chunk of the money I owed on the rent and the landlord has agreed to back off on the eviction as long as I keep up on the current rent and pay down the money still outstanding in monthly payment.

This whole drama did, however, affect my health a bit, and the cardiologist and pulmonologist both have me on bed rest for the rest of the week. So posting will be sporadic. They both have also ordered me to gain weight, so those of you who offered goodies can still help out. I like cookies and fudge a lot so please feel free to send them on over.

I've gotten some thank-you emails out, and I will be responding to the rest in the next day or two.

Again, thank you all. May we all have a much better New Year.

Will Blog For Food

2011-12-18T17:41:00.000-08:00

Literally.

The hammer fell again, this time harder than usual. The landlord has given me a 3 day notice, and I barely have enough money to get to the local DPSS office to see if I can get a Department 8 grant for this month and next month to offset some of the balance I now owe.

As some of you know, I've not been working for the past 6 weeks at all, which leaves only my Social Security, which would have been fine if I hadn't had a serious pulmonary problem develop, which even with Medicare has tapped me out with all the co-pays for the specialists, tests, and medications. I also have state bar dues to pay if I want/am able to work next year. The main problem is that I only have enough money for that visit to Pasadena tomorrow. The cat has food. I have very little.

What I need is a bunch of small donations from a lot of people. I know it's the wrong time of the year to be asking for this kind of help (as if there's a right time), but I need it and I need it quickly. Please help if you can.

This time I'm really scared.

Sunday Poetry: T.S. Eliot

2011-12-18T16:00:00.000-08:00

Morning at the Window

They are rattling breakfast plates in basement kitchens,
And along the trampled edges of the street
I am aware of the damp souls of housemaids
Sprouting despondently at area gates.

The brown waves of fog toss up to me
Twisted faces from the bottom of the street,
And tear from a passer-by with muddy skirts
An aimless smile that hovers in the air
And vanishes along the level of the roofs.

--T.S. Eliot

KTHNXBAI

2011-12-18T11:00:00.000-08:00

Nothing much grabbed me at Watching America yesterday. I attribute that to the holiday doldrums engulfing us all. One article worth noting, however, came from the UK's Economist. It's a timely piece, especially given the formal ending of the war in Iraq when seen against the backdrop of the US economy.

Around 800,000 veterans are jobless, 1.4m live below the poverty line, and one in every three homeless adult men in America is a veteran. Though the overall unemployment rate among America’s 21m veterans in November (7.4%) was lower than the national rate (8.6%), for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan it was 11.1%. And for veterans between the ages of 18 and 24, it was a staggering 37.9%, up from 30.4% just a month earlier.

If demography is indeed destiny, perhaps this figure should not be surprising. More soldiers are male than female, and the male jobless rate exceeds women’s. Since so many soldiers lack a college degree, the fact that the recession has been particularly hard on the less educated hits veterans disproportionately. Large numbers of young veterans work—or worked—in stricken industries such as manufacturing and construction. Whatever the cause, this bleak trend is occurring as the last American troops leave Iraq at the end of this year, and as more than 1m new veterans are expected to join the civilian labour force over the next four years.

And of course it is also occurring in fiscally straitened times, though it looks as though this will affect veterans’ services less than other parts of the federal government. Though there have been some small fee increases for veterans covered by Tricare, the military health-insurance programme, significant cuts to veterans’ benefits are unlikely, and for good reason. Military pay is far from generous, and the benefits are comprehensive but hardly gold-plated or easy to navigate. Not for nothing is a popular online forum for veterans wending their way through the bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) called HadIt.com.

Those numbers are staggering, yet hardly surprising. Many of these young men and young women don't have post-high school educations, nor did they receive transferable skills while in service. There have been some moves to ease the transition, most notably the recent passage of one sliver of the president's jobs bill that gives employers tax credits for hiring unemployed or disabled veterans. Unfortunately, one of the unintended consequences of the necessary highlighting of the psychological scars soldiers returning from combat carry has been to make employers somewhat leery of hiring the veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq because they just might be walking time bombs. Tax credits may not offset that concern.

The biggest obstacle, however, is the economy. Joblessness overall remains stubbornly high and likely will continue into at least the next few years unless Congress and the White House "pivot" and start pumping money into programs that will benefit the 99% instead of the banksters. That hardly seems likely, given the contentious attitudes in Washington during an election year. The prevailing mantra is "cut the budget", which makes government spending to prime the pump out of the question.

As a result, veterans are returning home to little more than a handshake and some well-wishes, which neither feed nor house them and their families. That's cold comfort at any time of year, but especially so during the holiday season.

Sunday Funnies

2011-12-18T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (December 13, 2011) and featured at McClatchy DC)

Bonus Critter Blogging: Marbled Newt

2011-12-17T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photograph by Joel Sartore and published at National Geographic.)

Elder Belle's Blessing: Congressional Progressive Caucus

2011-12-17T05:06:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Patrice Carlton and published at National Geographic.)

The Progressive Congressional Caucus is the latest recipient of this award, given to people who have gone out of their way to enhance the health and well-being of elders. Thanks to Ronnie Bennett at Time Goes By, I learned of the CPC's efforts in proposing a real jobs bill, one that also protects Social Security and shores up Medicare. Here is part of Ronni's summary:

On Tuesday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus led by its chairman, Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva, introduced H.R. 3638, the Restore the American Dream for the 99 Percent Act.

The Economic Policy Institute says the bill would create 5 million jobs over the next two years and reduce the budget deficit by $2 trillion over the next decade.

H.R.3638 contains the kinds of provisions that would get the country moving forward again. You know, stuff Congress should have been enacting during these past four years instead of lining the pockets of the already rich while American family budgets are circling the drain. And it aligns with much that the #occupy movement has brought to the nation's attention.

What follows this introduction is a summary of the various provisions of H.R.3638, so click on the link to Time Goes By for the details. Then follow the links provided by Ronnie, and check out the press release from the CPC which will lead you to even more specifics on the bill.

The provisions which directly affect elders are summarized deftly by Ronni:

PROTECTING MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND SOCIAL SECURITY

• Public option: allowing a public option to operate with private in the health care exchanges saves $88 billion

• Negotiate drug prices: allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical saves $156 billion

• Enhancing Medicaid rates: the fastest way to support state governments would be to restore the increased federal Medicaid matching rates

• Scrapping Social Security cap: Social Security by law cannot contribute to the deficit; however people making over $106,800 do not pay taxes on the additional income. To ensure long-term solvency, this requires anyone making over $250,000 to pay the normal social security tax on their upper income.

It's not just these provisions which affect elders, however. Putting the country back to work and providing the nation with a sane economic policy affects us as well. We have families, and we want our children and grandchildren, as well as our friends and neighbors, to do well now and in the future.

The CPC and we have a rough road ahead in getting this bill passed in both houses of Congress, but we can move in that direction by contacting our representatives and senators urging them to do the right thing for a change. All of the nostrums we've been sold the past decades have failed us miserably. Now it's our turn.

Friday Cat Blogging: Reprise

2011-12-16T16:00:00.000-08:00

Easily Bought

2011-12-16T03:00:00.000-08:00

I had thought about titling this post "Cheap Whores", but then it occurred to me that such a title would be unnecessarily insulting to decent sex workers everywhere. They at least work hard and provide a service. Some of our congress critters clearly don't do either.

It’s the steal of the century. For the price of buying a condo in Washington, D.C., you can support the political campaigns of members of Congress who support your trillion-dollar program. Talk about return on investment!

On November 9, Reps. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) announced the formation of a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus that they are co-chairing. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive program in Pentagon history, and it has been plagued by delays, cost overruns and defects that have raised eyebrows at the Pentagon and in Congress (the latest official report on JSF problems was made public by POGO yesterday). As of its announcement, the JSF Caucus had 48 members of the House on its roster. ...

The primary contractors building the JSF -- Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney -- have contributed $326,400 to members of the JSF Caucus in the first year of the 2012 election cycle, according to a joint analysis of campaign finance data by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). These firms’ political action committees (PACs), which distribute campaign contributions to promote the contractors’ political goals, gave the average member of the JSF Caucus $6,094 -- nearly double what they gave to the average representative not in the caucus ($3,077).

And, it’s not just the corporate PACs that are funneling money to these legislators; individuals working for these firms also disproportionately direct their campaign contributions to these representatives.

In fact, thus far in the 2012 election cycle, the average member of the JSF Caucus has received nearly twice as much money ($706) from employees of the top four JSF contractors as the average House member who is not in the JSF Caucus ($387).

The F-35, years late and still deeply flawed, is turning out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in Pentagon history. Many in the military are so disgusted that they've made it clear that they don't even want the fighter jet, especially with the latest problems which will cost about $1 million per plane to fix, thereby adding to the cost over-run.

So why are members of the Joint Strike Fighter working so hard to keep the plane in production? The official reason is the program provides jobs in their respective district. I tend to think the "donations" from the contractors and their employees have a great deal to do with it.

What surprises me is how little money it takes to buy off members of Congress. I guess that the corporate cookie jar I mentioned yesterday has all sorts of goodies in it.

Nothing new here; move along, move along.

Information For The Privileged

2011-12-15T02:39:00.000-08:00

It's no secret that members of Congress somehow come out of their service far wealthier than they went into it. What isn't as well known is how they manage that increase in personal worth. As reported in a recent "60 Minute" program, one way has been to engage in a practice that would be illegal if done by the rest of us, and apparently some in Congress want to keep it that way.

House Republican leaders have foolishly sidetracked a bipartisan ethics bill in Congress to ban members from using inside information they gain in private hearings and discussions in stock trades. Insider trading is illegal generally, but Congress’s apparent exception from the ban was never a concern on Capitol Hill until a recent report on “60 Minutes” questioned whether various members were profiting from back-room knowledge.

That report caused lawmakers in both houses to fast-track enactment of an explicit ban. The House version picked up 225 co-sponsors in a matter of days after gathering dust for years in the good-ideas hopper. However, committee action, scheduled this week, was abruptly postponed when Eric Cantor, the Republican majority leader, said unnamed members considered the measure “flawed and being recklessly moved solely in response to media pressure,” according to Mr. Cantor’s spokesman. [Emphasis added]

Apparently Mr. Cantor and some of his cohorts are unfamiliar with the role that a free press has in a functioning democracy. Either that or they want to subvert it for their own personal gain. The "60 Minutes" program raised important questions when it comes to those charged with representing us and not just the financial behemoths. That kind of "media pressure" is exactly what our press is supposed to exert when it is functioning properly.

I suspect that what the House Republicans blocking the bill really object to is being caught with their hands in the corporate cookie jar and having to face a sugar-free diet when it comes to their "just desserts."

Interestingly, the Senate has no such qualms. The governmental affairs committee has approved a bill which explicitly bans such insider trading. Presumably the bill will come to a vote soon (no doubt after the holiday recess), and will hopefully be passed.

Maybe in addition to "media pressure" some "constituent pressure" is in order. It is, after all, an election year.

They're Back

2011-12-14T03:00:00.000-08:00

Getting rid of cockroaches is difficult. Getting rid of congressional earmarks apparently is almost as difficult.

House Republicans banned earmarks, a top symbol of congressional profligacy, after they won control of the chamber last fall in a wave of voter anger over excessive government spending.

But more than half of the amendments to this year's House Department of Defense authorization bill were earmarks, according to Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a leading congressional critic of the practice.

In a report to be released this week, McCaskill said that the House Armed Services Committee's chairman, Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., set up a system that enabled members to "circumvent the earmark ban" by offering pre-approved amendments that outlined the projects and the funds they hoped to secure for their districts.

And it's not just the staid old GOP regulars who are back to business as usual when it comes to larding up bills. The brand new Tea Party spawn and Democrats are doing their part to bypass the normal budgetary process.

Of the 225 amendments to the House defense authorization bill that McCaskill's staff reviewed, aides judged that 115 — totaling $834 million — were earmarks, based on several factors. These included how similar an amendment was to a previous earmark requested by the same lawmaker. To determine that, her staff reviewed the lawmaker's website and press releases, past defense bills and earmark databases maintained by government watchdog groups.

The report found that 75 of the alleged earmarks belonged to Democratic members of the House committee, who, unlike the Republicans, were not subject to a self-imposed ban. Republicans, meanwhile, contributed 40 of the alleged earmarks, including 20 from freshmen elected last fall.

McCaskill said in an interview that she found the number of freshman Republicans surprising because the 2010 election, she said, "was supposed to be about reckless spending, shutting down the favor factory and no business as usual in Washington."

As I've said before, I have no real objection to pork, the gaining of funds for a project to benefit a representative's district. That's part of the deal when we send critters to congress: they represent us and our interests. What I object to is the sneaking in of such pork at virtually the last minute without review by the budget committees and without debate. Most representatives aren't even aware of the existence of the earmarks at the time they actually vote on the bill. That's a bad practice, especially when trimming down the budget is supposed to be such an important thing to do.

I will say this: I'm impressed at how quickly the Tea Party freshmen learned the ropes. In other words, no change here.

WTF?

2011-12-13T03:00:00.000-08:00

I've been hit with some kind of fell winter bug. My head hurts, my chest hurts, I have a dry cough so my ribs hurt, plus I'm running a low grade fever. I am, therefore, justifiably cranky, which makes it a bad time for me to read a Los Angeles Times editorial. I am now absolutely enraged, not by the editorial stance (the center-left editorial board got it so right than I am staggered and would be pleased with them if I felt better), but by the information contained in that editorial.

When Congress enacted the Prison Rape Elimination Act, it did so in the hope of curbing sexual assaults in facilities across the country. But today, with new rules to protect prisoners being finalized, the Department of Homeland Security is demanding that immigrants held in detention centers be exempted. ...

...the Department of Homeland Security is now squabbling over whether it or the Department of Justice has the authority to write rules that protect immigrants.

Isn't it obvious that protecting detainees is more important than who is the boss of whom? Detained immigrants are just as vulnerable to assault as any other prisoners, yet they're especially reluctant to report it. Unlike criminal defendants, detainees have no right to a court-appointed lawyer; that means they're often left with no advocate they can turn to. They are held in remote facilities, often far from legal clinics and family. And language creates an additional barrier to reporting abuse. [Emphasis added]

Homeland Security and Justice are in a freaking turf war over this issue? And their boss, the President of the United States is letting this happen? Is there no one in charge over there? Are there no adults present at that end of town?

Outfuckingrageous.

Here's the editorial's conclusion:

Rape is a crime. To apply the new regulations to some and not others would create a two-tier system of justice. That's not acceptable. Immigrants who are detained while they fight deportation (and who, by the way, have not generally been charged with, much less convicted of, a crime) deserve the same protections provided to criminals sentenced to maximum-security prisons.

Exactly.

Now, somebody needs to take Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder to the woodshed and read them the editorial, after which they should apply a mackerel to both of their heads and shoulders with great force.

Morons.

Look Up

2011-12-12T03:00:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago, I posted on the potential use of drones by our local police departments as if it were a future concern. Well, the future is now, accoridng to this STrib article. I'm going to quote extensively from the article because each of the facts is important.

Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm on June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three counties. He also called in a Predator B drone.

As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead, its sensors helped pinpoint the suspects, showing they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare ...

The drones belong to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which operates eight Predators on the country's borders to search for illegal immigrants and smugglers. The previously unreported use of its drones to assist local, state and federal law enforcement has occurred without any public acknowledgment or debate. ...

That was just the start. Police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since then. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said. [Emphasis added]

First, not only were the drones used by the local police, it was not the first time they were called into play. The aircraft, ostensibly to be used for border protection, is being used for regular local police investigations and busts. As far as I can tell, this issue has not been reported nor openly discussed with the public.

Yes, in this case it was a highly efficient tool and probably saved a lot man hours, but the use of these high tech and arms capable aircraft is still a troubling matter.

Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, said Predators are flown "in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis."

But former Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who sat on the House homeland security intelligence subcommittee at the time, said no one ever discussed using Predators to help local police serve warrants or do other basic work. Using Predators for routine law enforcement without public debate or clear legal authority is a mistake, Harman said. [Emphasis added]

A mistake, indeed.

It goes against the grain of the Fourth Amendment by making all of out-of-doors fair game for surveillance of civilians without a warrant. There is also the question of it being a violation of the Posse Comitatus law which forbids the military from engaging in police activities on American soil. Congress defeated the use of military satellites for such activities on that basis and an argument can be made that the use of the drones for such purposes is similar.

What is so discouraging and so frightening is that this is being done in near-secret. No public discussion, no congressional debate, just being done and reported on after the fact and belatedly. That in and of itself smells bad.

In fact, the whole thing stinks.

Sunday Poetry: Robert Frost

2011-12-11T16:00:00.000-08:00

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

--Robert Frost

Is It Newt's Turn?

2011-12-11T11:00:00.000-08:00

I considered waiting until this morning for my weekly visit to Watching America. I usually drop by on Saturday afternoon, but I also had been invited to a birthday party in the late afternoon which I really wanted to attend. In the end, routine won out. Fortunately I found just the article I wanted very quickly, leaving me plenty of time to help a 6-year-old celebrate.

From Germany's Die Zeit:

And now Gingrich is climbing in the Republican popularity scale. Of all people, the dubious Newt Gingrich, who has changed his political hat more often than Romney — who in blind zealousness wanted to overthrow Democratic President Bill Clinton on account of a false statement in the sex affair with Monica Lewinski, but who secretly committed adultery himself. Like hardly any other, Gingrich is the epitome of political doublespeak and double standards. [Emphasis added]

The writer appears to be as shocked and amazed as many of us here in the US. Who'd have thought that the party which goes on and on and on about family values would ever consider a serial adulterer to lead the nation. Stunning, absolutely stunning, especially when the candidate is casting himself as a "Washington outsider" come to save the country from the evil special interests of unions, socialists, and poor people.

In the '90s, Gingrich helped to break the decades-long majority in Congress. He was a hard-nosed fighter and the archenemy of all on the left. Along with ex-President Reagan, Gingrich is considered the trailblazer of the long-standing conservative hegemony. As speaker of the House of Representatives, he extracted painful compromises from Bill Clinton and the Democrats. The austerity policy of the time, the cuts in the welfare system and a balanced budget, are to his credit.

Party members alone make the decision about the Republican presidential candidate — primarily, the dyed-in-the-wool and staunch. They traditionally think more conservatively than the party as a whole and, in any case, more so than the [average] American voter.

This faction of the Republicans desperately seeks a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who is at the same time anti-Romney and anti-Obama. They first held hope for the staunch ideologue Michele Bachmann, then the Texan, Rick Perry, and finally Herman Cain. Now they turn to Newt Gingrich.

While that second paragraph is a little garbled (possibly because of translation difficulties), I read it as referring to the party's base, especially those who have embraced the Tea Party Rebellion. For that reason, given Newt's life after leaving the House of Representatives, particularly his job as a consultant for the feds for which he was paid over a million dollars, it's hard to imagine viewing him as Mr. Outsider and Anti-Government Crusader. And yet, right now, they apparently do. Their dislike of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama runs that deeply.

The party regulars, those who flinched when Gingrich proposed repealing child labor laws so that school children could replace school janitors in cleaning lavatories and grounds and who dropped their jaws at his statement that Palestinians are an "invented" people, must be getting awfully nervous at this stage, especially since Newt refused to back down on either point and even defended the latter at last night's debate. The Iowa caucuses are only a few weeks away, with the New Hampshire primary shortly thereafter. Newt could conceivably win both.

The Germans clearly think we're nuts. And they just might be right.

Sunday Funnies

2011-12-11T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/8/11 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: Giant Weta

2011-12-10T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Mark Moffett and published at Daily Mail. Click on the link to learn more about this interesting giant. Via Time Goes By.)

Herding Cats

2011-12-10T03:30:00.000-08:00

Here we are, coming up on the end of the year, and Congress has yet to pass the extension of the payroll tax holiday. You'd think that eleven months before an election passage of such a bill would be a slam dunk, but you'd be wrong. Who's behind the failure to get the bill passed? The Republicans, or at least some of them.

The stated reason for the refusal of some Republicans to back the bill is that it is "fiscally irresponsible." The real reason, one suspects, is that the bill requires the shortfall to be paid for by an accompanying tax on higher earners. For whatever reason, if the bill isn't passed by the end of the month (and the Christmas recess is looming), it will cost members of the middle class about $1,000 next year. Republican congressional leaders are clearly worried about that, but they are having difficulty getting their members in line.

Typically it's the GOP that operates from a singular playbook, particularly on tax policy: Republicans want lower taxes, while Democrats tend to hold a variety of positions when it comes to taxes and economic issues. But the payroll tax debate has left congressional Republicans arguing among themselves.

The GOP disagreements are multiple: They don't think that the break, which lowered the payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2%, would help job growth next year. They also say it would harm the retirement system, despite claims by the chief actuary, who said it would have no effect. The trust fund would be replenished through spending cuts or, under the Democrats' plan, by taxing incomes greater than $1 million a year.

Then there are Republicans who just do not want to give the president a victory, calling it "Obama's tax cut."

The fact that Flake, like many of his GOP colleagues, backed the George W. Bush administration's tax cuts for high-income earners in 2001 and 2003 but opposes the payroll tax cut provides an opening for Democrats to level accusations of hypocrisy. In 2010, Flake voted against a legislative package that extended the Bush-era cuts and instituted the payroll tax holiday.

So, heading into the 2012 election year, the GOP is about to hand Democrats a very nice Christmas present. Democrats will be able to point to the fiasco and blame it on Republicans who didn't want to help out the middle class.

What a refreshing change.

Friday Cat Blogging

2011-12-09T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Originally published at Presto Change-0, a blog you should visit regularly for cat pics.)

Granny Bird Award: RehabCare Group Inc.

2011-12-09T03:30:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, it's time for another Granny Bird Award, given from time to time to those who make it a point to harm elders in some egregious way. This time it goes to a fraudster, someone bilking our system.

Intervening in a lawsuit by a Minnesota whistleblower, the U.S. Justice Department has sued a large health care company based in Kentucky, alleging that it paid more than $10 million in kickbacks for access to Medicare and Medicaid patients living in a chain of nursing homes.

In a civil complaint filed in Minneapolis, the U.S. attorney said RehabCare Group Inc. began making illicit payments in 2006 as part of a deal with Missouri businessmen who owned 62 nursing homes in their state and an in-house company that provided health services to the residents. The deal was premised on RehabCare's plan to take control of the services and expand billings under Medicare and Medicaid, the complaint said.

"The suggestion was straightforward: Facilities that contracted with RehabCare could expect [it to] provide more therapy to the facilities' beneficiaries, and as a result, the facilities would make more money,'' said the complaint filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Chad Blumenfield.

The recipient of the alleged kickbacks, Rehab Systems of Missouri LLC (RSM), received an initial $600,000 payment and a cut of more than 10 percent of RehabCare's ongoing billings, which have exceeded $70 million since 2006, the suit said.

The litigation is based on a federal anti-kickback law that makes it illegal to pay others for referrals of Medicare patients. Patients are supposed to receive services based on their medical needs, not as a result of financial inducements paid to their health care providers. The lawsuit seeks fines and financial recoveries. [Emphasis added]

$70 million, much of it for unnecessary treatment. That's a lot of money flowing out of our system. Fortunately, a whistleblower stepped up and reported the scam. We can't, however, always count on some honest soul to do the reporting in each case. Those of us who receive Medicare have a role to play as well.

First of all, we need to remember to guard our Medicare card and our policy number. People offering us a free lunch so that they can offer us some "free tests" don't need either.

Second of all, Medicare sends out regular reports with itemizations of billings they have received for our accounts. We need to read those reports as soon as they arrive and not just toss them as junk mail. If an item appears that doesn't seem right to you, such as a motorized wheelchair when you don't need any such assistance or a diagnostic test you never received, notify Medicare immediately by phone (or on their web site). Medicare adjusters will look into it, and if they see a pattern of such abuse from a provider, they will report it to the Department of Justice.

Third, Congress and the White House keep looking for ways to cut the cost of Medicare. You might let both know that one way to contain costs is to go after Medicare Fraud and to go after it hard. If it means giving more funding to the DOJ, then so be it. The system could save millions every year just by prosecuting and fining these con artists, far beyond what it might cost to fund a special unit to do the work.

We really do need to start making some noise, especially these days.

Politics As Usual

2011-12-08T03:57:00.000-08:00

Kathleen Sebelius, head of the Department of Health and Human Services, has over-ruled the FDA in making "Plan B" pills available to women under the age of 17 without a prescription.

For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. The decision avoided what could have been a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season. [Emphasis added]

This moves comes from an administration that promised in 2008 to stop ignoring science in favor of political expediency. That Plan B has been demonstrated to halve pregnancy if used properly apparently doesn't matter to Barack Obama when an election campaign is underway. That Plan B would obviate the need for abortion doesn't either. Rather than acknowledge that women under 17 just might be having sex (consensual or not), Mr. Obama would rather avoid the battle.

What is so particularly disturbing is the effect this political calculation will have particularly on younger women, according to medical experts:

Several major medical groups reacted swiftly Wednesday to denounce the federal government's decision to limit over-the-counter access to emergency contraceptives for younger teens. ...

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine and American Society for Reproductive Medicine said Sebelius made the wrong call.

“As advocates for the health and well-being of all young people, the AAP recommends that adolescents postpone sexual activity until they are fully ready for the emotional, physical and financial consequences of sex,” said Dr. Robert Block, AAP president. “However, as physicians who care for our nation’s children, it is our responsibility to protect the health of our teenage patients, and an unintended pregnancy can have significant implications for adolescents’ physical and emotional health.” ...

The ASRM issued a statement from Dolores J. Lamb, the organization's president, that said in part: "We are very disappointed that Secretary Sebelius opted to insert herself into what should be a scientific decision made by the experts at FDA. The data are clear that emergency contraception can be safely used by adolescent women without requiring a prescription. Sadly, it appears that once again our leaders are putting political expediency ahead of reproductive health." [Emphasis added]

I guess some things are just more important than the health of women of any age, but particularly younger women. Things like four more years of power, four more years of doing the non-controversial, four more years of taking the easy path rather than the right one.

So much for change.

Elder Belle's Blessing: County Of Los Angeles

2011-12-07T03:30:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Patrice Carlton and published at National Geographic.)

It occurred to me yesterday that I should balance out the Granny Bird Award which flips off those who act in a way detrimental to elders with an award for those who enhance the health and well-being of elders. Like the Granny Bird Award, Elder Belle's Blessing will appear from time to time, whenever I come across something which clearly deserves it. Please feel free to nominate recipients (with a link, if possible) in comments.

The inaugural blessing goes to the County of Los Angeles for its grants to local senior centers to provide low-cost meals to elders. I've been to one at the Arcadia Senior Center, and have been advised that Temple City also has such a program. I'm sure there are others all over the county.

The process is really quite simple. The meals are served weekdays (except holidays) and monthly menus are available. Elders call and make reservations ahead of time. Payment is made upon arrival: in the case of Arcadia the charge is $2 for elders and the disabled. I would assume that is standard.

The meals themselves are quite hearty. On the day I went with my neighbor, we had roast beef, a baked potato, a salad made from steamed zucchini and summer squash, corn, and tomatoes with a vinaigrette dressing, a dinner roll and butter, a small carton of low-fat milk, a small carton of apple juice, and jello. It was more food than I could consume.

A glance at the December menu shows comparable meals, but they are varied, including Mexican dishes, Asian dishes, and even a Polish dish. Desserts are simple, usually fruit, with occasional cookies, pudding, and ice cream. The goal is to provide the elders with at least one substantial and nutritious meal per day. For elders living alone or with just a spouse, cooking often feels like more trouble than it's worth, one of the real hazards facing us as we grow older and our families have left to go out on their own.

But that's not the only goal: it's an opportunity for elders to get out and socialize. The meals are eaten at large tables (8 to 12 at each), and the conversations are lively. Current affairs, sports, fishing lures, movies/television programs: those all got hashed out at my table.

This is a wonderful program, one that I intend to avail myself of frequently. I just hope the County can keep it running. Like all governments at all levels, the county budget is strained. If I dug into it further (and I might), I would imagine I'd find that the County has a state grant dependent on a federal grant. And this is the kind of program which would be an easy target for the dolts in Congress. We need to keep an eye on that.

At any rate, well done, County of Los Angeles.

Not Just The Poorest Of The Poor Neighborhoods

2011-12-06T03:27:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich raised howls of protest for his comments on putting kids from poor neighborhoods to work cleaning their schools (see my post here). I wonder what he'll have to say with about the news contained in this article coming from the Midwest.

More Minnesota students are signing on for free or reduced-price meals, as middle-class families coping with cutbacks and foreclosures are becoming first-time users of the subsidized National School Lunch Program.

Reflecting a surge seen nationally, nearly 33,000 Minnesota kids have joined the program in the past two years. Nationwide, student poverty rose from 59.3 percent in 2007 to 65.3 percent in 2010.

"Middle-class families who never thought they'd be dealing with this kind of hardship and poverty are now having to face it," said University of Minnesota economics Prof. Ben Senauer, who's researched several metro-area school districts' school lunch data. "This is the new face of poverty." [Emphasis added]

It isn't just the "poorest of the poor" urban areas that need help. Job losses have affected the suburbs and even the fancy exurbs. People who never dreamed they'd have trouble feeding their families are now signing up for the lunch program so that their children get at least one meal a day during the week. Some schools, on their own initiative, also provide backpacks to the kids on Fridays so that they get some nutrition over the weekend.

"This is the new face of poverty."

Indeed.

The Shrill One Is Shrill

2011-12-05T04:49:00.000-08:00

I consider Paul Krugman a national treasure. A recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, Mr. Krugman has a regular column with the New York Times. His columns are frequently about economics, but just as frequently about politics as informed by economics. His latest effort falls into the latter category, and he takes no prisoners.

Think about what it takes to be a viable Republican candidate today. You have to denounce Big Government and high taxes without alienating the older voters who were the key to G.O.P. victories last year — and who, even as they declare their hatred of government, will balk at any hint of cuts to Social Security and Medicare (death panels!).

And you also have to denounce President Obama, who enacted a Republican-designed health reform and killed Osama bin Laden, as a radical socialist who is undermining American security.

So what kind of politician can meet these basic G.O.P. requirements? There are only two ways to make the cut: to be totally cynical or to be totally clueless. [Emphasis added]

Mitt Romney is Krugman's example of the cynical politician. He notes that the Republican voter is perfectly aware of that cynicism: after all, the Massachusetts health care plan enacted while Romney was governor is pretty much the basis for what conservatives call "Obama-care." Yet Romney denies that and claims that the ACA represents a huge government intrusion into the lives of Americans. He knows that the budget deficit will not go away without cutting defense spending, yet he urges we continue stuffing hefty morsels into that insatiable maw. This isn't flip-flopping, it's pandering and the GOP's base knows it.

Krugman relegates the rest of the current candidates to the "clueless" category, and after listening to several of the debates I would have to agree. How else would you describe Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and, yes, even Newt Gingrich, a man Krugman suggests actually believes what he is saying while he is saying it.

So, what happens next? Krugman paints a bleak picture:

The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process.

Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed G.O.P. nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?

Here's where Paul Krugman and I have a minor point of disagreement. I don't think the party rulers really expect to win, nor do they necessarily want to. I think that just like 2008 the GOP figures it will lose and is willing to burn a few pesky Republican candidates, the ones who insist that it's their "turn" to lead the party, rather than risk a loss by a really viable standard bearer like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie. Besides, the conservatives have gotten all they've wanted from the current occupant of the White House. If the party works it right, the Senate will fall into Republican hands, thereby ensuring conservative gains for the next four to twelve years.

Libby Spencer has yet a different scenario She thinks a brokered convention will tap Christie as a unifying candidate. I have to admit that this also is plausible.

But regardless of who's right, the 99% are in for a really rocky road.

Sunday Poetry: Marge Piercy

2011-12-04T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Because it appears we all could do with a little pep talk.)

The Low Road

What can they do
to you? Whatever they want.
They can set you up, they can
bust you, they can break your fingers, they can
burn your brain with electricity,
blur you with drugs till you
can't walk, can't remember, they can
take your child, wall up
your lover. They can do anything
you can't stop them
from doing. How can you stop
them? Alone, you can fight,
you can refuse, you can take what revenge you can
but they roll over you.

But two people fighting
back to back can cut through
a mob, a snake-dancing file
can break a cordon, an army
can meet an army.

Two people can keep each other
sane, can give support, conviction.
love, massage, hope, sex.
Three people are a delegation,
a committee, a wedge. With four
you can play bridge and start
an organization. With six
you can rent a whole house,
eat pie for dinner with no
seconds, and hold a fund raising party.
A dozen make a demonstration
A hundred fill a hall.
A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter;
ten thousand, power and your own paper;
a hundred thousand, your own media;
ten million, your own country.

It goes on one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean, and each
day you mean one more.

--Marge Piercy

Just Average

2011-12-04T11:00:00.000-08:00

If the current slate of articles up at Watching America is any indication, the rest of the world is just as edgy as we are when it comes to the US economy and its role in the world economy. That of course is no surprise. A few articles, however, looked at what this means in terms of US foreign policy, and at least one focused on President Obama's leadership in that regard. He didn't get such a high grade.

At the end of the third year of his presidency, Obama is at best one of those average presidents who govern the White House time and time again. He even ranks among those who were below average, a fact that is reflected in poll results. His poll rankings are bad, so bad that he must fear for his re-election — even though the Republicans until now have only been able to summon up laughingstocks instead of true campaign rivals. ...

It almost appears that Obama, the Democrat, is conducting a form of recessive foreign policy that one would associate with “America-first” Republicans. Presumably, this is not a precept of the Obama administration, but rather one that operates according to the motto: “Let’s see what the next day brings.” This motto fits a president who does not govern very effectively but rather nonchalantly.

Ouch! That's got to leave a mark.

Unfortunately, that's a pretty accurate description of the last three years in terms of both US foreign and domestic policy. I admit that part of the disappointment can be attributed to the high hopes the entire world had for the new president. His campaign speeches spoke to a profound change, and given the disastrous eight years of the Bush administration, everyone breathed a sigh of relief. The world even awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize before he barely warmed the chair in the Oval Office in anticipation of a brilliant new era in the US. Expectations were high, even though the circumstances he inherited were daunting.

Even given the unrealistic high hopes, however, Obama's leadership, or rather his lack of leadership, has turned out to be disappointing. Instead of profound change, we've gotten more of the same policies, and even worse, an enhancement of those policies. Yes, Obama has had to deal with the obstructionist behavior of the Republicans in Congress, but he has responded to that challenge by simply shrugging his shoulders and giving in.

We're hearing stronger speeches from the White House these days as the election campaign starts heating up. The president is pushing for his jobs bill (too little, too late) and payroll tax reductions (which underfunds Social Security), but the electorate has heard it before, primarily in 2008. Our memories aren't that short. He might win re-election, but if he does it will be because the Republicans can't come up with a viable candidate. Why should they? They've done just fine with close facsimile of one currently occupying the post.

Either/or, it's going to be another long and painful four years at best.

Sunday Funnies

2011-12-04T03:00:00.000-08:00

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (November 29, 2011) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge.)

Bonus Critter Blogging: African Wild Dog

2011-12-03T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Photograph by Chris Johns and published at National Geographic.)

Another Cagey Move

2011-12-03T03:32:00.000-08:00

This article has been bugging me for several days. It's about Pfizer and that pharmaceutical company's plan to keep sales up for its blockbuster drug Lipitor which came off patent protection this week. At first reading, the article appeared to contain some unalloyed good news for consumers.

Lipitor is so valuable that Pfizer is practically paying people to keep taking its blockbuster cholesterol medicine after generic competition hits the U.S. market this week.

Pfizer has devised discounts and incentives for patients, insurers and companies that process prescriptions that will, at least for the next six months, make the brand name drug about as cheap as or cheaper than the generics. Pfizer also has spent tens of millions of dollars this year on marketing to keep patients on Lipitor, which loses patent protection Wednesday.

Here's a brief summary of this "marketing plan":

—Offering insured patients a discount card to get Lipitor for $4 a month, far below the $25 average copayment for a preferred brand-name drug and below the $10 average copay for a generic drug. Pfizer is promoting this heavily through ads, information distributed at doctors' offices and its www.LipitorForYou.com site. Pfizer, based in New York, said Tuesday that sign-ups have exceeded its goals.

—Paying pharmacies to mail Lipitor patients offers for the $4 copay card and to counsel patients that Lipitor lowers bad cholesterol more than rival drugs and helps prevent heart attacks and strokes.

—Keeping U.S. marketing spending nearly level until the last minute, versus the typical two-thirds drop in a drug's final year under patent. From July through September, Pfizer spent almost $90 million on doctor sales calls and free samples, about the same as a year earlier, according to Cegedim Strategic Data. Ads targeting patients fell about 60 percent to $19 million. All that will soon taper off.

—Negotiating unusual deals with some insurance plans and prescription benefit managers, the companies that process prescription claims for insurers or employers, to block pharmacists from dispensing generic Lipitor. Pfizer is giving them rebates that bring their cost for Lipitor down to the price of a generic or slightly less — if they agree to dispense only Lipitor for the six months before additional generic competition slashes prices. The move has generated some controversy and means many of the 3 million Americans taking Lipitor won't be able switch to the generic. [Emphasis added]

So, what's the problem? For the next six months, patients will have the benefit of much lower costs for the drug and insurers (including Medicare) will have to pay less as well. Surely this is a good thing, isn't it?

Well, yes. At least for six months. Sort of. This time.

Keep in mind that Pfizer has already made its nut on this drug, which indeed has been very successful at lowering cholesterol. Now it's pretty much all gravy, a gravy that is still pouring billions of dollars into the company. Pfizer wants even more of that gravy. This time, and the next time with the next blockbuster drug. And, as a result there are some losers in this deal.

Meanwhile, Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. looks to be the biggest loser in this. It has a deal to distribute an "authorized generic" version manufactured by Pfizer but sold under Watson's brand, with Pfizer keeping an estimated 70 percent of the price.

Watson CEO Paul Bisaro said he had thought Pfizer would retain about 25 percent of Lipitor users for the next six months, but now "it looks like it will be 40 to 45 percent."

Bisaro said that could reduce his company's anticipated profit next year.. [Emphasis added]

So much for honor among thieves, eh? Pfizer makes a deal with Watson to give them access to the formula for a price, and then queers the deal by undercutting Watson's opportunity to make some money on the "authorized" generic. And that's what makes me uneasy.

If Watson had known that Pfizer was going to institute this marketing plan, would the generic company have cut the same deal? That's unlikely. What's the incentive? Indeed, and here's the crucial point, what's the incentive for other company's to jump into the generic market after a patent expires? They won't make any money for another six months at least, and that's a long time in terms of business plans.

In other words, why even bother with manufacturing and marketing generic drugs?

I think this is actually a rather ingenious move by Pfizer to freeze out generic drugs from the market place. With them gone, there would be no reason to lower the prices on the patented drug as Pfizer has done this time. Soon, even that will be unnecessary, and patients and insurers will be stuck with the full price.

Pretty cagey, that.

And, once again, we lose.

Friday Cat Blogging

2011-12-02T16:00:00.000-08:00

(Click to enlarge.)

Are There No Work Houses?

2011-12-02T04:35:00.000-08:00

So, it's Newt Gingrich's turn to challenge Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP nomination. I had a hunch this was going to happen almost as soon as he announced he would be a candidate. I knew that he would run an unconventional campaign, but I figured he would be just the one to at least make things fun, although I certainly didn't think he would pull ahead at a crucial time. After all, serious candidates don't take a luxury vacation cruise around Greece in the middle of a race, thereby angering his senior staff enough to walk out on him. But he's pulled it off.

Newt hasn't changed much over the years (beyond putting more weight on). He still makes statements that make Republicans cringe. For example, at a recent debate he suggested that a more humane approach to immigration was in order and that the defense budget could be cut to eliminate some of the waste (see my post here). Most of the post debate coverage focused on those statements, which couldn't have made party regulars very happy.

More recently, he used child labor laws as an example of federal regulations running amok. Yes, child labor laws. He suggested little kids could replace expensive school janitors by mopping the floors and cleaning the rest rooms and being paid a little money, thereby gaining valuable work and life experience. Pretty radical stuff, that.

Yesterday he went even further in clarifying those remarks, and even I suffered a little whiplash at his audacity.

"Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works," Gingrich replied. "So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal."

As I thought about it a little, however, it occurred to me that such a statement was audacious only because Newt said out loud what a lot of Republicans, especially the 1% and those who worship them, believe. The poor are poor because they are lazy and won't work. They get their money through crime. They do not provide good role models for their children and so the poverty and the life of crime are perpetuated.

The fact that those premises are simply not true and are unwarranted doesn't matter. What matters is lowering taxes by throwing adults out of work and paying their children pennies for doing the same job. What matters is that those at the bottom of the ladder stay there even though more and more Americans are beginning to join them.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Scrooge.

Granny Bird Award: Nursing Home Operators, Doctors, and PHARMA

2011-12-01T04:58:00.000-08:00

It's time for another Granny Bird Award, this time to those doctors, nursing home operators, and pharmaceutical companies who allow the off-label use of powerful antipsychotic drugs to pacify nursing home patients with dementia.

From an AP article:

So-called antipsychotic drugs are designed to help control hallucinations, delusions and other abnormal behavior in people suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but they're also given to hundreds of thousands of elderly nursing home patients in the U.S. to pacify aggressive behavior related to dementia. Drugs like AstraZeneca's Seroquel and Eli Lilly's Zyprexa are known for their sedative effect, often putting patients to sleep.

But the drugs can also increase the risk of death in seniors, prompting the Food and Drug Administration to issue multiple warnings against prescribing the drugs for dementia. Antipsychotics raise blood sugar and cholesterol, often resulting in weight gain. ...

A report by Levinson's office issued in May found that 83 percent of Medicare claims for antipsychotics were for residents with dementia, the condition specifically warned against in the drugs' labeling. Fourteen percent of all nursing home residents, nearly 305,000 patients, were prescribed antipsychotics. The HHS Inspector General's office Medicare claims during a 2007 six month period.(sic) [Emphasis added]

That patients with dementia often display aggressive behavior is not in issue. That's one of the reasons the patients are in nursing homes: families cannot cope with the tirades and physical behavior. What is in issue is how the episodes are treated. Drugging the patient into a zombie state with often lethal results as the preferred regimen is the very lowest of the low. The only reason I can see for the drug usage is that it's paid for by Medicare and therefore cheaper than hiring adequate staffing.

But the fault lies with more than unscrupulous nursing home operators. Doctors and the pharmaceutical industry are also involved:

In January 2009, Eli Lilly & Co. Inc. agreed to plead guilty and pay $1.4 billion for illegal promotion of Zyprexa, including marketing to nursing home doctors. The company told its sales representatives to use the slogan "5 at 5," to persuade doctors that giving 5 milligrams of the drug at 5 p.m. would make dementia patients sleep through the night.

AstraZeneca PLC has paid nearly $600 million in two separate settlements with federal and state prosecutors over alleged off-label promotion of its drug Seroquel.

Although the study involves data from several years ago, Medicare presumably commissioned the study because it is still receiving an untoward number of bills for the drugs. So more elders, unable to fend for themselves because of the very nature of their illness, are continuing to receive the drugs which rather than ease those symptoms will kill the patients.

It's a case of clear elder abuse, shameful and shabby.

The Orderly Raid: Some Initial Thoughts

2011-11-30T04:21:00.000-08:00

After a couple of days' grace, the Los Angeles Police Department moved in and evicted the Occupy LA protesters from City Hall grounds. By all early accounts in the Los Angeles Times, the behavior of LAPD was sensible, orderly, and restrained: no baton swinging, no pepper spraying. Arrests were made, listed only as "dozens" at this point (4:00 AM PDT), but the camp was cleared.

Multiple initial accounts can be found here.

Much of the Occupy L.A. campsite was in shambles early Wednesday morning, with tents uprooted and strewn all over.

Most of the crowd either left or was arrested at about 2:10 a.m., but about three dozen occupiers remained on City Hall's south lawn, seated on the ground with their arms locked together in a giant circle.

Los Angeles Police Department officers pulled out the remaining occupiers one by one by their legs and arms, putting them into plastic handcuffs. Nearly all of the protesters went limp and had to be carried out.

The scene is a far cry from other cities' actions, and certainly a world away from LAPD's behavior at a 2007 immigration rally in which clubs were swung, violent arrests made, and even journalists beaten during the disruption. LAPD has certainly learned the wisdom of restraint in actions such as these, and for that I am grateful.

But, now what?

Will the Occupy LA protesters return to the scene, try to clean up the mess and pitch new tents? Several have filed a federal law suit seeking to enjoin the city from removing the camp after nearly two months of allowing, even welcoming, the protests. It will be a while before even a preliminary injunction issues, if one does. In the mean time, I suspect that the campers will return, or at least try to. And the clearing of the grounds will be a nightly exercise.

If they do return, will there be a further groundswell of support, with more digging in for the long haul? Can the protesters increase their numbers, even in the face of more arrests with the potential of the LAPD reverting to the use of violence? I certainly hope so.

This may be the time that the movement expands its tool box. That federal suit, while potentially a loser, does indicate that at least some of the protesters are willing to use other nonviolent avenues to press their case. The trick will be to avoid getting trapped in the very system which has proven to be so utterly corrupt, to avoid being co-opted by the suits urging them to enter the arena and to work from the inside. We've seen how well that works for the 99%.

This is going to be a very interesting several weeks and months. It's also going to be a very important one.

Putting the Brakes on Tax Breaks

2011-11-29T04:48:00.000-08:00

I seriously doubt that much will get accomplished in Congress before the end of the year, certainly nothing substantive when it comes to the deficit and the economy. When Congress adjourns after the holiday recess, it will be an election year. That means the only business that will get done will no doubt be trivial or involve elaborate posturing to shore up the campaigns. In at least one respect, that just might be a good thing. The Bush tax breaks for the wealthy will expire.

The Bush-era breaks, approved in 2001 and accelerated in 2003, are a mix of rate cuts and deductions that benefit households across the income spectrum. The most controversial part of the package is the reduction of taxes for upper-income households; those account for about $700 billion of the total $4-trillion impact the Bush tax law would have if it were extended for the next 10 years.

Hardly anyone in Congress, regardless of party, wants to end the tax breaks that benefit the middle class. Those include a $1,000 tax break for households with children and lower income-tax brackets for those earning less than $250,000 annually.

It is the breaks for the wealthy that propel the debate — including a reduction of the top individual bracket from 39.6% to 35%. The 35% top rate was the latest in a series of reductions over the last half-century, during which the top income-tax bracket has dropped from the 91% that prevailed during the 1950s to 70% for much of the 1960s and 1970s to the 50% adopted under President Reagan. ...

The fact that all the tax cuts automatically expire at the end of 2012 unless Congress reaches an agreement provides a powerful incentive for both sides to make a deal. Whether that deal leans more toward the GOP or the Democrats will depend heavily on the outcome of the November election, in which the Bush tax cuts will continue to drive the debate, a prospect noted by the credit rating agency Moody's. The credit agency does not take a political position on the cuts but notes that its outlook for U.S. debt will be partly determined by how the issue is resolved. [Emphasis added]

"Powerful incentive to make a deal" or not, this is one time the country would benefit from deliberate inaction by both parties and the White House. Yes, the middle class (what's left of it) would take a hit, but not an insurmountable one. Who will finally have to start paying a fair share would be the wealthy. After all, the whole point of those tax breaks was to reward the "job creators." I haven't seen too many jobs created in the US by those folks. In fact, unemployment continues at around 9% after nearly a decade of rewarding the wealthy in anticipation of all those new jobs. It's a theory that just didn't pan out.

In the mean time, with unemployment high after the ravages of the Wall Street churners got through with round one of the derivatives shell game, the federal budget went from a surplus to a huge deficit, with no end in sight unless people actually get back to work. Instead of rewarding the wealthy for the epic failure, the government should pump some money into real job creation by funding, among other things, improvements to our deteriorating infrastructure.

And the wealthy? Let them eat cake with just a little less government icing. They can handle it. After all, as Libby Spencer pointed out in her usual excellent style, the rich are different.