I've been away...

I hope everybody has been enjoying their holiday season. I had a very nice, relaxing time with family and hope to get a bit more relaxing in before the first of the year. I just wanted to write a brief post and let everyone know that the reason I have not posted is that I have not read anything topical or of note over the past week and therefore, I have not been inspired to share anything. Rest assured, when I got into my office yesterday I cleared out my Google Reader and printed off a shit load of articles I am now carrying around with me in a folder like a briefing book of sorts. Nothing I've waded through has yet to spike my interest. As soon as it does, you'll know. Stay tuned.

(Don't make fun of me for operating under the fiction that there are people out there checking in on the blog to actually see what I or we have to say. It makes me feel wanted and needed!)

Health Care Costs

I also wanted to post this graphic I came across on Daily Kos since I have been writing a little bit about health care reform:

In preparation for the opening of their State of Working America website, the folks at the Economic Policy Institute have been posting some "snapshots" of how the economy affects workers and their families, including the difference between the upward mobility of whites and blacks, theimpoverishment of children and the dwindling buying power of the minimum wage.

The latest snapshot in their scrapbook shows the rocketing rise in health insurance costs.

Something else Attorney General Cuccinelli should take note of while filing silly lawsuits.

Chet Edwards on Our Media

Here's a quickie from Political Wire since I haven't posted yet on vacation.

"I think people are getting their news from stovepipe sources of information -- where people are basically getting the news they want to hear. Whether it's Fox on the right or MSNBC on the left, it's making it hard for centrist Democrats. It's making it hard to elect centrists, who I think are critical to the functioning of our checks and balances form of democracy."

-- Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), in an interview with ABC News, explaining the political polarization in Congress.

Edwards is stating what is pretty obvious to me - that the 24 hours news networks are really doing more harm than good to our political system. However, the recent lame duck session of Congress makes me wonder it the effect is as pronounced as I thought it was.

TPM's Golden Dukes

Talking Points Memo posted their nominees for the "Golden Duke" Awards the other day:

For Meritorious Achievement in The Crazy:

• Christine O'Donnell: As TPM Reader DC put it: "A GOP candidate, witchcraft, a Satanic altar, masturbation. This was the moment when the natural world and South Park switched places." And that's not even to mention mice with human brainsor whether the separation of church and state was really part of the constitution or not.
• Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX): As TPM Reader FM said, "Two words: 'terror babies.'"There's also "tea party" and "art director" and "government shutdown."

• Tim Profitt, Head Stomper And Rand Paul Volunteer: He came, he saw, he stomped the head of a MoveOn protester, he demanded an apology from the woman he stomped and claimed he was set up. As TPM Reader EO said, "his actions were stone.cold.f------.crazy!"

• Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO): In Tancredo's world, Obama's a bigger threat to America than al Qaeda and should be shipped back to Kenya. Granted, he's been crazy for years, but TPM Reader DB thought his gubernatorial run highlighted one thing we've missed: "How can a person run for governor, claiming he can create jobs and shrink government if he's never had private sector job?"

• Ginny Thomas: Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas whose public affiliation with conservative advocacy groups gave people pause this year, made observers' jaws drop after she called Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused now-Justice Thomas of sexual harassment, at an odd hour and requested an apology from her. TPM Reader DS added, "Ginny's call clearly planted a turd in the punchbowl, embarrassing her husband even more."

What do you guys think? Is there another nominee you would place up there? Have at it in the comments.

Meanwhile. Virginia's Health Care System Fails

While Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is running around the state filing silly law suits to challenge laws that are meant to improve the nation's health care system, Virginia's health care system is, surprisingly, falling behind other states:

A committee advising Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) on issues surrounding health reform concludes that health-care delivery in Virginia is currently only "mediocre" and lags behind other states with much lower income levels.

The committee, chaired by Secretary of Health and Human Resources William A. Hazel Jr., says in a final report submitted to McDonnell on Tuesday that the state has plenty of good hospitals and doctors. But it notes that only 37 percent of small businesses offer employees health insurance -- down from 48 percent a decade ago. The commonwealth ranks 41 among the states in breast cancer death rates and 35th in infant mortality.

"It is hard to be proud of a system in which nearly one million Virginians -- and 150,000 children -- lack health insurance and timely access to quality care that only it can ensure," concludes the report of the committee, which was composed of 24 political, medical and business leaders.

Among the recommendations of the committee was creating an in-state Health Benefits Exchange and using electronic medical records. So, while Virginia's health care system is failing, its Attorney General is using his position as the Commonwealth's top law enforcement official to drive a fringe political agenda. It would be nice if Mr. Cuccinelli was truly concerned about his constituents who aren't so well off and cannot afford health insurance. These people are dieing of breast cancer and living on a hope that they don't get sick. I'm sure they'd rather see Mr. Cuccinelli channel his energies towards something that will actually benefit the people of the Commonwealth.

A Belief in Rehabilitation... When Commutation Works

This is a very powerful argument for the value of the President using the powers of pardon and commutation.

Ten years ago, days before Christmas, President Bill Clinton changed my life forever. I was in federal prison, serving the seventh year of a 24-year sentence for a first-time nonviolent crack cocaine offense.

Clinton's mercy and acknowledgement that my sentence was unjust led him to grant me a commutation. Had he not done so, I would be in prison until 2016. On December 22, the anniversary of my release, I will join others in a fast for justice to honor those in prison who deserve the same relief from their long sentences for low-level drug offenses.

Many things have changed in the last decade. I graduated from college, attended law school, got married, raised my son who was born while I was incarcerated and gave birth to a daughter. I also established my own foundation to give hope to children of incarcerated parents.

Having a spokesperson like Ms. Pradia can only help this cause. And while I am entirely against federal mandatory minimums, I don't agree with Ms. Pradia that this necessarily means that President Obama should be out performing social justice with his commutation power... at least at this point. This is not to say that it would not be in the interests of social justice were he to do so. The mandatory sentencing scheme is clearly racially skewed with it's punitive emphasis on crack versus powder cocaine. And in a post Booker world, there is certainly a question as to what the federal sentencing scheme appropriately is today. But can you imagine the outcry if Obama were to begin commuting the sentence of black crack cocaine convicts? Okay, to be fair, can you imagine the outcry if Bill Clinton did so? Oh you say, but Bill Clinton DID commute Ms. Pradia's sentence. True. However, 10 years ago today when he issued this commutation, Bill Clinton was in the final month of his presidency and knew he would not face the political backlash for doing the right thing. That's important to keep in mind when reading such persuasive arguments as that from Ms. Pradia on what Mr. Obama should do. We can't let this be a liberal echo chamber without an understanding of the political realities. None of this shit happens in a vacuum.

The sky is falling...

This article dutifully points out the downside of the "chicken little," slippery slope argument against the healthcare mandate:

Think about it. If the asparagus and broccoli are really coming to knock down our doors and kidnap our children, can helicopters loaded with cauliflower really be that far behind? And what of the eggplant in night-vision goggles? If we're soon to be governed by a totalitarian taxonomy of toxic greens, who—one wonders—will sound the warning against the tyrannical field peas?

The Hypocrisy Really Doesn't Surprise Me

I was against President Obama freezing federal pay for a few reasons. First, it's merely a symbolic gesture that I think will do more harm than good. The freeze is expected to save $2 billion in fiscal year 2011, $28 billion over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years. Compared to federal spending as a whole, this is a mere drop in the bucket. Furthermore, that is billions of dollars that will not be pumped into the economy by federal employees' spending, with the DC Metro region as a whole hit the hardest. Second, the pay freeze unfairly targets federal employees. John Gage, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, points out, "This is no time for scapegoating. The American people didn't vote to stick it to a [Veterans Affairs Department] nursing assistant making $28,000 a year or a Border Patrol agent earning $34,000 per year." I won't even get into the my thoughts on the pay disparity between federal government workers and private workers. I will point out that my friend Stephen Losey does a great job covering the issue at the Federal Times Blog, with some examples on this issue here and here.

Of course, Republicans are so concerned about federal pay that they also froze the pay of their own staff. Or not. According to Daily Kos:

Overall, congressional payroll expenses have climbed much faster than the civilian federal work force costs that lawmakers are now clamoring to freeze. Many of the most vocal federal critics have overseen growth that rivals or outstrips the executive branch's, according to data from Legistorm, a website that tracks congressional salaries. For example:

• Firebrand Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has for months pushed legislation to freeze what she calls "unconscionable" federal salaries. Meanwhile, her own payroll jumped 16 percent between 2007, when she came to Congress, and 2009.

• Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican set to chair the House subcommittee overseeing the federal work force, says Washington must "figure out how to do more with less." But the freshman lawmaker gave his own employees an average raise of about 9 percent this year.

• Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has long criticized federal pay, has overseen an average jump of 8 percent per year in his office employee costs between 2006, his first full year in the Senate, and 2009.

Not to be outdone, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had his payroll go up by 81 percent since taking office in 2001 -- an average increase of 8 percent per year.

Of course, Representative Chaffetz thinks federal employees should suffer even more: Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Congress should pass a bill temporarily canceling General Schedule employees' step increases. Never mind that his employees must not factor into the federal budget or for some reason should be exempt from his crusade to penalize federal employees. If these Republican lawmakers are serious about reducing the federal deficit, which they are not, by reducing federal salaries, they should start with themselves (most Members of Congress are millionaires) and their staffs.

Fore!

This story just makes sense:

Slices, hooks and other errant shots are a common hazard on the links and a golfer can't expect to get a warning shout of "Fore!" every time a ball comes his way, New York's top court ruled Tuesday in dismissing a personal injury lawsuit.

I think the Court is ultimately correct that, absent some sign of deviation from normal golfing or other indicia of recklessness or intent, it would be an absurd policy to allow people to collect for injuries that occur within normal play on a golf course. Further, to insist on an audible calling out of "fore" would create a question of fact that would nearly always become a he-said, she-said type scenario. Even if and when you have witnesses, the number of times "fore" is yelled on a golf course would or could make it too difficult of a standard to employ.

What are your thoughts?

Democracy in action?

Source:

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt. They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs. The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel. No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce...

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections. “I thought, ‘Geez, I don’t know if we can seat a jury,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess. And he didn’t. During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement.

 (Hat Tip: The Daily Dish)

Senator Jon Stewart?

Is Jon Stewart making a move from comedy to politics? Slate's Christopher Beam seems to think he used the James Zadroga Health and Compensation Act of 2010 to test the waters:

Presumably Stewart saw the 9/11 health-benefits bill as a test. He could either keep standing on the sidelines, tossing empty beer cans. Or he could suit up. He chose to suit up. The question now is whether he'll pretend it was a clown suit all along.

Stewart has always struck me as incredibly intelligent and the only person to really point out the hypocrisies of politicians across the political spectrum. He also has a potential comedian to politician switch mapped out for him as Senator Al Franken pulled it off in 2008. However, Stewart is blocked by two sitting Democratic senators in New York - Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. This is where I should point out that Jon Stewart grew up in the great state of New Jersey, which happens to be represented by the oldest United States Senator. Frank Lautenberg's term is up in 2014, when he'll be 90 years old. As much as I would love to see Rush Holt step up and run for the seat should Lautenberg retire, Jon Stewart would entertain me as a Senator.

When Did Bob McDonnell Become the Rational Republican?

I've come to expect that Republicans will try to undo any piece of legislation passed through Congress by some form of nullification. They tried it with healthcare by passing laws making it illegal to require anyone to buy health insurance. However, you would have thought that DADT was pretty safe in that it involves the military, which Congress clearly has the constitutional power to legislate (then again, Michele Bachmann claimed that the Census was unconstitutional). Not so fast. Delegate Bob Marshall of the Virginia House of Delegates is drafting legislation that would ban homosexual service members from serving in the Virginia National Guard. Here is his reasoning:

This policy will weaken military recruitment and retention, and will increase pressure for a military draft,'' Marshall said. "After 232 years of prohibiting active, open homosexuals from enlisting in our military, President Obama and a majority in Congress are conducting a social experiment with our troops and our national security...In countries where religions and cultures find homosexual acts immoral, the Obama administration's repeal policy will work to the detriment of all American troops in securing local cooperation with our nation's foreign policy goals.

That's a lot of conclusory statements without any mention of the military's report showing it will have no effect, the support of almost 2/3 of the US Senate, the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the support of the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, and polls showing over 70% of Americans support the repeal. Enter Governor Bob McDonnell. Yes, that Governor Bob McDonnell. The one who wrote a thesis asserting that women working outside the home was detrimental. He still opposes repealing the ban but has agreed to follow the federal policy:

"The governor is a retired United States Army officer, and he knows it is critically important that there be one set of rules for all our men and women in the military, since uniformity of major policy across all branches is essential to effective operations,'' McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said. "We are not aware of a single instance in recent history where the Virginia National Guard has not complied with the policies and procedures of the Department of Defense. Furthermore, approximately 90 percent of the Virginia Guard's funding is federal, and any departure from federal policies may put this funding at risk. The federal legislation contemplates a further certification process by the Department of Defense, and other details and steps that are not known at this time. In his role as commander in chief of the Virginia National Guard, Governor McDonnell expects the Guard to adhere to the final guidelines implemented by the Department of Defense."

Governor McDonnell hasn't really made a good argument why he is opposed to repealing the ban, but at least he's sticking up to the radical fringe in the State House. I never thought he would be even this moderate after his campaign for governor.

Some More on John McCain

Remember when you could hear someone mention John McCain and not clench out of the embarassment he must feel at who he has become? Remember when the Republicans gave us hope by nominating a sensible moderate who could work across the aisles? Now, I just kind of shake my head at the things he comes up with. I might do a post on his crazy non-sensical speech during the DADT debate, but Joe Klein does a good job summing up Senator McCain for me:

McCain distinguished himself doubly this weekend, opposing the Dream Act and leading the opposition to "Don't Ask," despite the very public positions of his wife and daughter on the other side of the issue. I used to know a different John McCain, the guy who proposed comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy, the guy--a conservative, to be sure, but an honorable one--who refused to indulge in the hateful strictures of his party's extremists. His public fall has been spectacular, a consequence of politics--he "needed" to be reelected--and personal pique. He's a bitter man now, who can barely tolerate the fact that he lost to Barack Obama. But he lost for an obvious reason: his campaign proved him to be puerile and feckless, a politician who panicked when the heat was on during the financial collapse, a trigger-happy gambler who chose an incompetent for his vice president. He has made quite a show ever since of demonstrating his petulance and lack of grace.

Klein also points out that McCain was an original sponsor of the DREAM Act and still voted against it, even though he "recently won reelection and doesn't have to pretend to be a troglodyte anymore." It makes you wonder if McCain cannot accept the fact that he cannot be president no matter how much he kicks and screams.

Getting Shit Done!

That's how Sullivan sees the Obama Presidency:

But throughout he has tried, as his partisan critics have complained, not to be a partisan president, to recall, as he put it in that recent press conference, that this is a diverse country, that is is time we had a president who does not repel or disparage or ignore those who voted against him or those who have grown to despise him.

This is particularly important since so many of his opponents are white and disproportionately affected by this long recession. Trying to get them to see him accurately through the haze of Fox propaganda and cultural panic is not easy. But he seems to understand that persistence and steadiness are better tools in this than grand statements, sudden moves or grandstanding attempts to please his own base. He really is trying to be what he promised: president of the red states as well as the blue states. And a president who gets shit done.  

Yet Even More on the Tax Cut Deal

I know this issue is being beaten to death all over the interwebs, but it really does illustrate what makes me, and I think many others, so cynical about some of our politics. Although Burnsy is not a fan, Paul Krugman wrote today "zombie economics." His first few paragraphs caught me, which he used to discuss bad ideas becoming policy:

When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe, is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything — yet they now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever.

How did that happen? How, after runaway banks brought the economy to its knees, did we end up with Ron Paul, who says “I don’t think we need regulators,” about to take over a key House panel overseeing the Fed? How, after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations — the first raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis — did we end up with bipartisan agreement on even more tax cuts?

The answer from the right is that the economic failures of the Obama administration show that big-government policies don’t work. But the response should be, what big-government policies? For the fact is that the Obama stimulus — which itself was almost 40 percent tax cuts — was far too cautious to turn the economy around. And that’s not 20-20 hindsight: many economists, myself included, warned from the beginning that the plan was grossly inadequate. Put it this way: A policy under which government employment actually fell, under which government spending on goods and services grew more slowly than during the Bush years, hardly constitutes a
test of Keynesian economics.

How many times do we have to prove that tax cuts aren't a stimulus? They didn't work under Bush, and they weren't working all that well in Obama's first two years - although the tea partiers will still cry about taxes and how large the stimulus was when it featured mostly tax cuts, ironic right? Under Clinton, we had higher taxes and prosperity, and even Ronald Reagan, the icon idolized by the conservative right even though he wouldn't fit under their tent today, raised taxes.

Granted, Krugman is a firm believer that government spending is the only way to get us out of recessions. However, after two full years of hearing how we're all going to die if we don't cut government spending and get the deficit under control, how do we end up with another policy that adds almost a trillion dollars to the deficit via tax cuts? And why are tax cuts for the wealthy an acceptable deficit spending measure for the right when just about nothing else is, including making sure first responders on 9/11 have access to medical care?

Thus, Krugman continues

None of this stopped the right from denouncing him as a socialist. But it helped empower bad ideas, in ways that can do quite immediate harm. Right now Mr. Obama is hailing the tax-cut deal as a boost to the economy — but Republicans are already talking about spending cuts that would offset any positive effects from the deal. And how effectively can he oppose these demands, when he himself has embraced the rhetoric of belt-tightening?

Although I think we're close to realizing the recovery of the economy, I'm worried that we won't learn from history and that the austerity measures will slow down that recovery.

Have at it in the comments.

On the Virtues of Partisanship 2

It's not just the right attacking the "No Labels" movement, but also the Left, as exemplified by Frank Rich's column in the NYTimes:

The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation. Sure, it would be swell if rhetorical peace broke out in Washington — or on cable news networks — but given that American politics have been rancorous since Boston’s original Tea Party, wishing will not make it so.

What are your thoughts on the varied critique of Will and Frank?

On the Virtues of Partisanship

I think this article by George Will ties in quite nicely with the below discussions relating to healthcare. There is a value in partisanship. However, I think the effort of the "No Labels" movement is also well-intended and not nearly as ridiculous as Will tries to paint it. I think it is perhaps a mislabeled (pun intended) attempt to get at the heart of the animosity that often animates partisanship.

I think the healthcare debate demonstrates the potential of healthy partisanship. It also, unfortunately, demonstrates the potential of the unhealthy partisanship that is real and that the "No Labels" movement attempts to address. Both Epting and Dobber make me believe more in the Will argument--that when it comes to the constitutionality of healthcare, there is no clearly correct or clearly incorrect answer. The Cuccinelli side of the argument, and the smug presumption of constitutionality (regardless of desirability) on the Left, give me pause and make me wish for something successful to come of a "No Labels" type of movement, despite its obvious naivete.

A Green Military...

That's the future TFriedman sees:

Spearheaded by Ray Mabus, President Obama’s secretary of the Navy and the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the Navy and Marines are building a strategy for “out-greening” Al Qaeda, “out-greening” the Taliban and “out-greening” the world’s petro-dictators. Their efforts are based in part on a recent study from 2007 data that found that the U.S. military loses one person, killed or wounded, for every 24 fuel convoys it runs in Afghanistan. Today, there are hundreds and hundreds of these convoys needed to truck fuel — to run air-conditioners and power diesel generators — to remote bases all over Afghanistan. 

Mabus’s argument is that if the U.S. Navy and Marines could replace those generators with renewable power and more energy efficient buildings, and run its ships on nuclear energy, biofuels and hybrid engines, and fly its jets with bio-fuels, then it could out-green the Taliban — the best way to avoid a roadside bomb is to not have vehicles on the roads — and out-green all the petro-dictators now telling the world what to do.

Andrew Sullivan Sees a Grand Design...

... and it's hard to argue with him!

 Like 2009's removal of the HIV ban, which was as painstakingly slow but thereby much more entrenched, this process took time. Without the Pentagon study, it wouldn't have passed. Without Obama keeping Lieberman inside the tent, it wouldn't have passed. Without the critical relationship between Bob Gates and Obama, it wouldn't have passed. It worked our last nerve; we faced at one point a true nightmare of nothing ... for years. And then we pulled behind this president, making it his victory and the country's victory, as well as ours.

It's a great day of celebration for the passage of this repeal and let us not also forget the contribution of Senators Lieberman and Collins. 65-31 sure does feel good!

DADT is Just About Done

The Senate just voted to invoke cloture and end debate on Don't Ask Don't Tell 63-33. Now it needs 50 votes plus Biden to eliminate the policy.

I may have more on McCain's shenanigans later.

Fox News Misinforms? What?

I know, the title is absolutely shocking. Who would have thought that fair and balanced doesn't mean fair and balanced when you have Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as your major on air personalities. Thankfully, the University of Maryland just completed a study that found exposure to news sources correlates to being better informed. In a number of cases, however, greater exposure to a news source lead to greater misinformation.

Key finding: Fox News viewers were were "significantly" more likely than non-viewers to erroneously believe false information about the economy, taxes, climate change, bailouts and whether President Obama was born in the United States.

Again, who would have thought the gin-up-some-anger machine could lead to misinformation?

hat tip to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

Health Care Law Follow-Up

I don't want to step on Burnsy's toes, but I did want to repost what at least one of the legal scholars thinks about the issue. Professor Friedman at New England School of Law makes a compelling argument for the individual mandate's constitutionality:

In the end, you may have chosen not to pay for health insurance coverage, but you have not chosen to avoid an economic transaction. Surely Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the aggregate effect on interstate commerce of all those individuals who have chosen to engage in that particular economic transaction.

You really need to read his whole argument (don't worry, it isn't too long). Part of its persuasiveness is in its simplicity. Anyway, I would like to hear some of those who believe it is unconstitutional. So, have at it in the comments.

If you think the health care mandate is clearly unconstitutional, this is probably over your head...

I don't like talking down to anyone who would read this blog, but it's rather frustrating to hear amateur opinions as to why Congress supposedly lacks the power to enforce the individual mandate portion of the health care bill. It is most definitely not "unconstitutional." It may be unconstitutional in YOUR FUCKING OPINION. But let's not get that twisted with, like, the law...yo.

As this article so adequately details, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about the constitutionality of the mandate, it really only matters what the court concludes:

In his decision this week, Judge Hudson also mentioned the Comstock case, endeavoring to show why it didn’t save the statute. In my view, his effort to wish the case away was unpersuasive, but my view is not the one that matters. The view that ultimately may count the most is that of Chief Justice Roberts. As everyone knows, he was once William Rehnquist’s law clerk. So my question, as the health care debate continues on its path to the Supreme Court, is this: When John Roberts thinks about his former boss and mentor, which Rehnquist does he see? The one who started the federalism revolution, or the one who ended it?

So please, share your opinions and feel however you feel about the mandate as a government intrusion, but try to understand that it really isn't a black and white answer regarding wrong or right. It just sounds like you either a) don't understand "The Constitution," or b) don't understand how the system works.

DADT Must Go!

The vote in the Senate is scheduled for tomorrow. Call your senators and encourage them to vote down this anachronism. And if you don't understand why it matters, read this:

And I'm reminded of the moral courage of my partner, who encourages me everyday to continue to put on that uniform; who believes that some things are worthy of our energies; who quietly plods along and prepares for my deployment as I do the same. I know as a soldier, it is the people we leave behind who bear the real brunt of deployment, who hold it all together, who send the care packages and pray for our returns. He'll have to do it on his own though. There are no support groups for the gay partners left back home.

In the meantime, gay soldiers who are still serving in silence will continue to put on our rucksacks and do what our country asks of us –- and wait.

(Hat tip: The Daily Dish)

The Hebrew Hammer Strikes Again

This guy! NOT this guy!

It is perhaps a bit disconcerting when the only guy who seems to "get it" about the President is someone who stands in 180 degree opposition to him. Reading two columns back to back that laud the President, you get the feeling that perhaps you are being had. But I cannot escape the conclusion that I largely agree with him:

If Barack Obama wins reelection in 2012, as is now more likely than not, historians will mark his comeback as beginning on Dec. 6, the day of the Great Tax Cut Deal of 2010.

Obama had a bad November. Self-confessedly shellacked in the midterm election, he fled the scene to Asia and various unsuccessful meetings, only to return to a sad-sack lame-duck Congress with ghostly dozens of defeated Democrats wandering the halls.

Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.

Compare this with Bill Clinton, greatest of all comeback kids, who, at a news conference a full five months after his shellacking in 1994, was reduced to plaintively protesting that "the president is relevant here." He had been so humiliatingly sidelined that he did not really recover until late 1995 when he outmaneuvered Newt Gingrich in the government-shutdown showdown.

And that was Clinton responding nimbly to political opportunity. Obama fashioned out of thin air his return to relevance, an even more impressive achievement. 

I'm sure Dobber would call me naive, but I think the Hammer is onto something here. I think the President played this the only way he could in order to extract an advantage. It may be a gamble, and it may not ultimately pay off in the way the Hammer (and I) predict, but it was the most clever play the President had in his arsenal. And I think it's downright funny how he is being second-guessed by the Left, which really should only help to secure his re-election chances in 2012.

9/11 First Responders

You can tell the media is ineffectual when Jon Stewart is the only "newscaster" to actually report the news. Here is his most recent reporting on the entire Republican caucus - all 42 members - in the United States Senate refusing to allow a vote on providing healthcare for 9/11 first responders because millionaires haven't had tax cuts yet:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Worst Responders
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

He was even the only "news" program to actually interview first responders, although to give them credit, Fox News found plenty of first responders to interview when they wanted to scare us about an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

According to Open Congress, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, which has already passed the House, is

designed to improve health services and provide financial compensation for 9/11 first responders who were exposed to dangerous toxins and are now sick as a result. It would establish a federal program to provide medical monitoring and treatment for first responders, provide initial health screenings for people who were in the area at the time of the attack and may be at risk, and reopen the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for losses and harm as an alternative to the current litigation system.

Congress uses protection?

Is telling Americans they are getting a bipartisan tax cut simply a prophylaxis? Is this the type of thing that, if it were to break, you would be sued in Sweden?

Is America getting fucked?

I'm pretty sure Dobber thinks so...

'Tis the Season... for Charity!

Hey folks. I know we're just getting started but it happens to be the Holiday Season, which is a great time to think about giving to charity. My wife and I were watching "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC tonight and he had a segment shown here on this fantastic charity through UNICEF called Kids In Need of Desks. The charity helps school age children in Malawi acquire the most basic of education infrastructure. Please check out the link and give if you can!

Big Books Are Scary

From TPM:

Minutes later, in one of the most chortling colloquies of the 111th Congress, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) gloated over the defeat of the spending bill.

Kirk, the most junior member of the Senate asked, "Did we just win?"

McCain responded, "I think there's very little doubt that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate would not have taken the action he just took if we didn't have 41 votes to stop this monstrosity."

Kirk continued, "so for economic conservatives, a 1,924-page bill just died?

"A 1,924-page bill just died," McCain responded laughing.

Can I just ask why the length of the bill is more important to Senator Kirk than the actual spending contained in it? Does a bill become a poor bill at a certain page limit?

This is a test post!

I am just typing out a test post before we fully get started. I want to make sure the proper notices go where they are supposed to go.