This is so excellent. We are bringing to you, via "live blogging," yesterday's David Letterman show. Remember, as we noted in our previous groundbreaking post on this matter, we are bringing it to you "live," via live blogging.
Well, we are pleased to bring you quite a compelling update. Amy Poehler, who already noted how she got to meet Obama, has now affirmed the fact that, and this is a direct quote:
"Obama leaned over and gave me a [terrorist fist jab]."
Only, Amy called it something, like totally weird!
She called it a "fist bump" or something, like, totally lame and weak like that. That is hard to believe. Sheesh.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
LIVE BLOGGING YESTERDAY'S DAVID LETTERMAN SHOW!!
And this is no small deal. At Donkasaurus, we are exceptionally good at serious, no journalistic holds barred, live blogging.
Returning to our absolutely "live," (and also somewhat groundbreaking) live blogging of Yesterday's David Letterman show, Amy Poehler just said. "Very Exciting. I met President Obama."
Amy, did you get to drink beers with him? We may be overly indulgent here by asking, but you didn't by any chance arrest a prominent professor in his own home for giving you lip about him being a suspect for breaking and entering into his own house, did you?
Returning to our absolutely "live," (and also somewhat groundbreaking) live blogging of Yesterday's David Letterman show, Amy Poehler just said. "Very Exciting. I met President Obama."
Amy, did you get to drink beers with him? We may be overly indulgent here by asking, but you didn't by any chance arrest a prominent professor in his own home for giving you lip about him being a suspect for breaking and entering into his own house, did you?
CROWLEY GATE IV:...and Now Post Incident Cerveza is Involved?
[Note: CROWLEY-GATE(S) I is here. CROWLEY-GATES(S) II is here. CROWLEY-GATE(S) III is here.]]
And now Crowley is suggesting, and the President is contemplating, having him (and Gates) at the White House for a beer?
We have a note for the President. Have one or two of us from Donkasaurus over for a beer. It will be more entertaining, and probably more helpful. (Note to White House: You do have Guinness, right?)
And, also, Mr. President, can you get those d*** reporters off our lawn? Sergeant Crowley, the President most assuredly feels your pain, on that one.
And now Crowley is suggesting, and the President is contemplating, having him (and Gates) at the White House for a beer?
We have a note for the President. Have one or two of us from Donkasaurus over for a beer. It will be more entertaining, and probably more helpful. (Note to White House: You do have Guinness, right?)
And, also, Mr. President, can you get those d*** reporters off our lawn? Sergeant Crowley, the President most assuredly feels your pain, on that one.
CROWLEY GATE III:... And the President Plays Along
[Note: CROWLEY-GATE(S) I is here. CROWLEY-GATES(S) II is here.]
Though frustration is understandable on the administration's part, Obama likely should have said nothing more. But if not, he needed to back up what he said, while very clearly changing the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" part of the comment -- which was poor wording on his part, overly pejorative, far too subjective, and unnecessarily and accidentally appeared to impugn the department, when what Obama was referring to was the officer involved. Short, simple, to the point. Case closed. He should not have involved himself directly in the matter further, by calling the two principals involved (Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley).
Instead, the President, in addition to calling both Gates and Crowley, made another lengthy statement that helps legitimize this as a bigger (and more national) issue than it really is. By so doing -- although his statement was substantive -- it in some way also plays into the media pack rat appearance and sound bite over substance scandal machine, that along with Obama (who did so unintentionally), helped create this issue out of a relative non issue to begin with.
[Update: The President also plays along by trying to patch up something that does not need patching up. See CROWLEY-GATE IV, here.]
Though frustration is understandable on the administration's part, Obama likely should have said nothing more. But if not, he needed to back up what he said, while very clearly changing the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" part of the comment -- which was poor wording on his part, overly pejorative, far too subjective, and unnecessarily and accidentally appeared to impugn the department, when what Obama was referring to was the officer involved. Short, simple, to the point. Case closed. He should not have involved himself directly in the matter further, by calling the two principals involved (Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley).
Instead, the President, in addition to calling both Gates and Crowley, made another lengthy statement that helps legitimize this as a bigger (and more national) issue than it really is. By so doing -- although his statement was substantive -- it in some way also plays into the media pack rat appearance and sound bite over substance scandal machine, that along with Obama (who did so unintentionally), helped create this issue out of a relative non issue to begin with.
[Update: The President also plays along by trying to patch up something that does not need patching up. See CROWLEY-GATE IV, here.]
CROWLEY-GATE II: ...The Lemming Like Swarm of the Media Helps Turn it into a Big Story
[Note: CROWLEY-GATE(S) I is here.]
Police associations were naturally defensive over Obama's ill chosen bit of off the cuff opining. Wth this small bit of incentive, led by the same old chorus of voices on the far right (whose news channel is named after a sly animal that manages to manipulate its audience into thinking it is "fair and balanced," by among other things, constantly telling them this), the media of course jumped all over the "controversial," albeit minor, statement.
This same media, prompted as per usual by mother Fox (the same channel that the active "intelligentsia" on the left and even more moderate Democrats dismiss as largely irrelevant) turned it into another big scandal, turning somewhat of a molehill into a mountain. This is the same media, of course, that has repeatedly ignored actual mountain after mountain. (Links of examples here would extend dozens of pages. Note, not by complete coincidence, these are also usually mountains that mother Fox likes to dismiss or blatantly misconstrue, as well. Links would now extend hundreds of pages.)
The fact of the matters is, a professor, even if he was irate at the officer, got inquisitioned, and questioned, for breaking and entering into his own home -- and when it was ascertained that it was clearly his own home, and he was upset, the officer continued to make an issue of it, instead of simply moving on and apologizing for the mixup. {Note therein that the reference to Gates "opening the front door" means that he was not solely "yelling" at the police officer, who was standing in the back of the house, but working on his front door, which, being stuck, was what led to the mistaken call by a suspicious neighbor in the first place.}
Continuing the matter, let alone the arrest, was probably a mistake. It was probably poor judgment. And the gist of Obama's statement was probably correct, and certainly defensible. The words chosen could have been better. But it was not simply this to much of our media -- which of course decided to make it, because of its potentially salacious appeal, into their latest overblown parroted story of the moment.
Police associations were naturally defensive over Obama's ill chosen bit of off the cuff opining. Wth this small bit of incentive, led by the same old chorus of voices on the far right (whose news channel is named after a sly animal that manages to manipulate its audience into thinking it is "fair and balanced," by among other things, constantly telling them this), the media of course jumped all over the "controversial," albeit minor, statement.
This same media, prompted as per usual by mother Fox (the same channel that the active "intelligentsia" on the left and even more moderate Democrats dismiss as largely irrelevant) turned it into another big scandal, turning somewhat of a molehill into a mountain. This is the same media, of course, that has repeatedly ignored actual mountain after mountain. (Links of examples here would extend dozens of pages. Note, not by complete coincidence, these are also usually mountains that mother Fox likes to dismiss or blatantly misconstrue, as well. Links would now extend hundreds of pages.)
The fact of the matters is, a professor, even if he was irate at the officer, got inquisitioned, and questioned, for breaking and entering into his own home -- and when it was ascertained that it was clearly his own home, and he was upset, the officer continued to make an issue of it, instead of simply moving on and apologizing for the mixup. {Note therein that the reference to Gates "opening the front door" means that he was not solely "yelling" at the police officer, who was standing in the back of the house, but working on his front door, which, being stuck, was what led to the mistaken call by a suspicious neighbor in the first place.}
Continuing the matter, let alone the arrest, was probably a mistake. It was probably poor judgment. And the gist of Obama's statement was probably correct, and certainly defensible. The words chosen could have been better. But it was not simply this to much of our media -- which of course decided to make it, because of its potentially salacious appeal, into their latest overblown parroted story of the moment.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Live Blogging Update
Earlier we reported on the groundbreaking attempt to actually, via live blogging, "live blog" the earth's rotation.
There is news to report -- and we are bringing it to you now, via "live blogging." The earth, apparently, is rotating, on its axis. (Just not in Kansas). Many wonder why.
Since the earth is rotating very fast, and making it very difficult to hang on, we are finding it a bit more challenging than had previously been envisioned. It is very hard to both live blog, and hang on while the earth is spinning so rapidly, at the very same time.
However -- we could adjust to the great speed of the earth by cleverly using our radio broadcast station up at the north pole for this special "live blogging the earth's rotation live blogging" and (more or less) eliminate this problem of the earth's rapid speed as it rotates on its axis. (Just in case you want to determine just how fast you are moving.)
That we being said, there is even more breaking news to report -- and again, we are bringing it to you live, via "live blogging." But, until we can get our north pole live blogging operational, what with the speed of the earth as it rotates on its axis, and the even faster speed of the earth as it moves through space, it can not be emphasized enough -- it is exceedingly difficult to just hang on, let alone live blog this truly amazing (and apparently, nonstop!) event.
There is news to report -- and we are bringing it to you now, via "live blogging." The earth, apparently, is rotating, on its axis. (Just not in Kansas). Many wonder why.
Since the earth is rotating very fast, and making it very difficult to hang on, we are finding it a bit more challenging than had previously been envisioned. It is very hard to both live blog, and hang on while the earth is spinning so rapidly, at the very same time.
However -- we could adjust to the great speed of the earth by cleverly using our radio broadcast station up at the north pole for this special "live blogging the earth's rotation live blogging" and (more or less) eliminate this problem of the earth's rapid speed as it rotates on its axis. (Just in case you want to determine just how fast you are moving.)
That we being said, there is even more breaking news to report -- and again, we are bringing it to you live, via "live blogging." But, until we can get our north pole live blogging operational, what with the speed of the earth as it rotates on its axis, and the even faster speed of the earth as it moves through space, it can not be emphasized enough -- it is exceedingly difficult to just hang on, let alone live blog this truly amazing (and apparently, nonstop!) event.
Report Alleges Palin Likely to Have Used Official Position for Personal Gain
The Key language from the report, via here:
The real question, assuming the report's assessment is accurate, is whether it really is a problem. We say not much, that it will get short shrift. And that in and of itself, will have little bearing upon Palin's potential ongoing popularity, and probable run for president in 2012, barring the Democratic party finally doing an effective job in framing the case against her, and ending its counterproductive dismissal of and contempt for the fact that this wildly manipulative and incredibly misinformed outgoing Governor, on a populist level, is in fact quite popular.
In Light of the evidence the Governer expressly authorized the creation of the trust and the fact that the trust website quite openly used the Governor's position to solicit donations, there is probable cause to believe that Governor Palin used, or attempted to use, her official position for personal gain in violation of Alaska Statute 39.52.102(a)Yawn, snooze. It seems likely that Palin -- who resigned ostensibly because of all of these (in her and her supporters minds) "unfair,"complaints against her -- does not see it this way at all. She was probably even unaware of the fact that using her position to solicit donations to defend herself from complaints that seemingly arised from a public position, was problematical. After all, this is someone who ran on a campaign last year against "good ole boys" networks in Washington, and yet when in power in Alaska had promptly instituted her own, rather more prominent version, of it.
The real question, assuming the report's assessment is accurate, is whether it really is a problem. We say not much, that it will get short shrift. And that in and of itself, will have little bearing upon Palin's potential ongoing popularity, and probable run for president in 2012, barring the Democratic party finally doing an effective job in framing the case against her, and ending its counterproductive dismissal of and contempt for the fact that this wildly manipulative and incredibly misinformed outgoing Governor, on a populist level, is in fact quite popular.
Did outgoing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin use the Office of the Governership for "Personal Gain"?
Ironical?
It seems to us that Palin's response is public news, and putting it on the website is thus appropriate, but we don't know. More interesting is the alleged preliminary finding of the state ethics commission. After all, this was a Governor who recently announced a very premature resignation, for the "benefit" of Alaskans. (And who has quit a public position prematurely before, based upon similarly "noble" sounding rationales.)
That the official state website would be used to publicize the private response of Palin on Monday to another ethics charge is somewhat ironical, given Tuesday's leak of a preliminary independent report [PDF] from a state ethics commission investigator finding "probable cause" that Palin's "official" legal defense fund violated the Ethics Act in that it made use of her "official position for personal gain."We guess. You just don't see it in writing so much in this contect. But it does seem pretty ironic. We guess.
It seems to us that Palin's response is public news, and putting it on the website is thus appropriate, but we don't know. More interesting is the alleged preliminary finding of the state ethics commission. After all, this was a Governor who recently announced a very premature resignation, for the "benefit" of Alaskans. (And who has quit a public position prematurely before, based upon similarly "noble" sounding rationales.)
Many Thanks to Listeners, Readers, and a Live Blogging Update
Since we ran our first "live blogging"update covering the earth's rotation, we have literally been besieged by readers, as well as listeners of "Donkasaurus radio." Well, first off, the excitement and enthusiasm has just been amazing, and we just want to thank everybody for their continued support and generosity in their comments and well wishes as we continue this rather incredible live blogging of the actual earth's rotation.
Many readers and Donkasaurus radio listeners have also written or called in to express their amazement at what might have appeared to be the truly ground breaking nature of this new, exceptional, exciting, even scintillating, titillating, form of reporting and "keeping it real." Well, it is ground breaking, to be quite candid. We don't know of anyone or any organization, and this includes ABC, CBS, the NY Times, and even the pseudo news but catchy and celebrity riddled Huffington Post,that has live blogged the earth's rotation before. Or even anything as exciting.
But to those of you might have thought that this fantastic concept of "live blogging" was just invented, no, no, no, no, live blogging has been "alive" and well now for a while, providing political and news excitement to otherwise normal everyday Miller beer swilling donut eatin' own oil changin' Americans everywhere. We are a bit hesitant to share this list with you, because the excitement can be a little overwhelming (so certainly take a big breathe before you read much further, this can be quite exciting), but here are a few instances of actual live blogging.
Ah, but first, just say the word. "live blogging." It's like taking a first sip of that freshly roasted morning java, it's like that first bite into a snickers bar in between extra innings, it's like that dewy filled morning when for the first time you... uh oh.... anyway, it is just so cool, isn't it? Here we go:
"Live Blogging the Sotomayor Hearings" --can't ya just feel it? This, is exciting. Say it with me now. So. Toe. My. OAR! She is already one of our favorite Justices. Even if Lindsey Graham, -- despite agreeing that she is moderate, despite having no more opinions overturned than most judges, despite serving as editor of the Yale law review, despite being within the mainstream on her opinions at least as much as most judges -- and more than many -- despite a reasonably rigid adherence to the law first and interpretation second (and again, more so than some recent nominees), despite graduating from Princeton Summa Cum Laude, and being awarded Princeton's top prize for academic and extracurricular achievement, despite serving more time on the federal bench that any other nominee reaching back several decades now -- can somehow vote against Sotomayor on the merits, but yet the rather incredible Washington Post just knows Obama could not have voted against more extreme, objectively less (but still reasonably) qualified nominees himself, for any other reason than that of despicable "political motivation," unlike the honorable Graham. We are not sure how Graham, with far less to support such a decision, can vote against on the merits, but Obama can not (and let alone how the Post can know both of these things). But we digress. It was just so exciting, this live blogging, that we had to take it down a notch. Here's another:
"Live Blogging Obama’s News Conference" Wow, live blogging a news conference!? Now that, is truly amazing. We get such fascinating stuff, at such breakneck speed, no wonder after the initial immediate swarm of lemming like interest, we don't need to pay attention to things that will have as much relevance over the next several years (including by the way, the election of 2012, as the Washington Post gives immediate credibility and legitimacy to a completely fake authority, not to mention an exceptionally misleading and manipulative piece of energy and economics trash), and perhaps decades, or any other day for that matter, as the random day that they appeared.
(Again, we had to take it down a notch. I mean, live blogging an Obama news conference? That is just complete excitement. It's like one of those days that you just know you better opt for the decaffeinated version of your morning Pepsi. )
Can we do some more? Can we do some more live blogging event excitement? We better wait.
We'll try to bring you more examples of actual live blogging excitement, but its hard work live blogging the rotation of the earth, and we have to get back to it. Unfortunately, we have no more immediate updates to bring you on that front, other than to report, it appears that, in fact (although we can't be completely sure), the earth is still rotating. This is live blogging at its finest. Interesting. Relevant. Compelling. Edgy. And brought to you in live time -- particularly important when we are talking about something as fast moving, and constantly changing, as this.
Many readers and Donkasaurus radio listeners have also written or called in to express their amazement at what might have appeared to be the truly ground breaking nature of this new, exceptional, exciting, even scintillating, titillating, form of reporting and "keeping it real." Well, it is ground breaking, to be quite candid. We don't know of anyone or any organization, and this includes ABC, CBS, the NY Times, and even the pseudo news but catchy and celebrity riddled Huffington Post,that has live blogged the earth's rotation before. Or even anything as exciting.
But to those of you might have thought that this fantastic concept of "live blogging" was just invented, no, no, no, no, live blogging has been "alive" and well now for a while, providing political and news excitement to otherwise normal everyday Miller beer swilling donut eatin' own oil changin' Americans everywhere. We are a bit hesitant to share this list with you, because the excitement can be a little overwhelming (so certainly take a big breathe before you read much further, this can be quite exciting), but here are a few instances of actual live blogging.
Ah, but first, just say the word. "live blogging." It's like taking a first sip of that freshly roasted morning java, it's like that first bite into a snickers bar in between extra innings, it's like that dewy filled morning when for the first time you... uh oh.... anyway, it is just so cool, isn't it? Here we go:
"Live Blogging the Sotomayor Hearings" --can't ya just feel it? This, is exciting. Say it with me now. So. Toe. My. OAR! She is already one of our favorite Justices. Even if Lindsey Graham, -- despite agreeing that she is moderate, despite having no more opinions overturned than most judges, despite serving as editor of the Yale law review, despite being within the mainstream on her opinions at least as much as most judges -- and more than many -- despite a reasonably rigid adherence to the law first and interpretation second (and again, more so than some recent nominees), despite graduating from Princeton Summa Cum Laude, and being awarded Princeton's top prize for academic and extracurricular achievement, despite serving more time on the federal bench that any other nominee reaching back several decades now -- can somehow vote against Sotomayor on the merits, but yet the rather incredible Washington Post just knows Obama could not have voted against more extreme, objectively less (but still reasonably) qualified nominees himself, for any other reason than that of despicable "political motivation," unlike the honorable Graham. We are not sure how Graham, with far less to support such a decision, can vote against on the merits, but Obama can not (and let alone how the Post can know both of these things). But we digress. It was just so exciting, this live blogging, that we had to take it down a notch. Here's another:
"Live Blogging Obama’s News Conference" Wow, live blogging a news conference!? Now that, is truly amazing. We get such fascinating stuff, at such breakneck speed, no wonder after the initial immediate swarm of lemming like interest, we don't need to pay attention to things that will have as much relevance over the next several years (including by the way, the election of 2012, as the Washington Post gives immediate credibility and legitimacy to a completely fake authority, not to mention an exceptionally misleading and manipulative piece of energy and economics trash), and perhaps decades, or any other day for that matter, as the random day that they appeared.
(Again, we had to take it down a notch. I mean, live blogging an Obama news conference? That is just complete excitement. It's like one of those days that you just know you better opt for the decaffeinated version of your morning Pepsi. )
Can we do some more? Can we do some more live blogging event excitement? We better wait.
We'll try to bring you more examples of actual live blogging excitement, but its hard work live blogging the rotation of the earth, and we have to get back to it. Unfortunately, we have no more immediate updates to bring you on that front, other than to report, it appears that, in fact (although we can't be completely sure), the earth is still rotating. This is live blogging at its finest. Interesting. Relevant. Compelling. Edgy. And brought to you in live time -- particularly important when we are talking about something as fast moving, and constantly changing, as this.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Best Way to Keep People From Not Having Something is to Force Them to Get It
"CRISIS: Nearly Five Million Adults Have Lost Insurance Since Sept. '08."
Solution: Let's force everyone, by law, to get health insurance.
We know, this is an oversimplification. There are other "parts" to this plan that "make it" work. But what, specifically, are those? And more importantly, what does "work" mean?
We have not seen any solutions brought forward that address the enormous amount of health care money that is going into actual health insurance profit and overhead itself and thus not into health care -- insurance not for catastrophic loss relevant to that particular individual or family, but for simple everyday health coverage that the recipients of hundreds of millions of health care policies could in fact be paying for themselves, if they weren't paying far more, for insurance for them.
Thus we are skeptical of a plan that A) mandates, and tells people what they must do, and B) mandates more health insurance, while not addressing the differential between economically sensible, catastrophic insurance and routine insurance which simply puts in multiple layers of middlemen and cost, while removing control.
Maybe another part of the solution in this country is to stop treating "doctors" like the Gods that, for the most part, they are not. Because we view them as such, some go into medicine for the wrong reasons, which also tends to lead to bad medicine. Many doctors are also overpaid, while some of the better doctors are in fact underpaid. (Much like teachers). But that's another topic. And probably a much more provocative one, at that. Also, doctor pay, and the ridiculous cost of medical school solely for the purpose of learning how to memorize a bunch of rote information, rather than how to think and learn like a doctor as well, is only a small part of the excessive health care cost problem. But seriously, 100k plus to spend a bunch of years simply memorizing facts?
Maybe we need better doctors, for doctor stuff; and more nurses -- male and female, for more routine stuff. Just an idea. Oh, yeah, right, since it's been a few sentences since we mentioned it: And a whole lot less health insurance, with health money not otherwise going to catastrophic insurance going to health care, and policy holders playing a more active role in their own health treatment decisions and expenditures. While we are at it, why not also put a moratorium on all these laws a law happy Congress keeps passing this decade (and even reverse a few) that have created reams of paperwork and administrative overhead, that most in the health business itself (and especially doctors offices) continually lament.
It's a law happy Congress, for sure, yet we could not even pass a cash for clunkers bill that actually subsidized the purchase of vehicles that help solve the overuse of oil (and corollary emissions) problem, and we're finally struggling to pass even a minimum climate change bill -- and one, as being considered, fraught with all sorts of loopholes and inconsistent subsidies.
Here's a side idea, while we are digressing: Apparently very large tax increases are being considered, at least upon the upper tier of income earners. Okay, fair enough, to some, anyway, while providing great fodder for Obama administration opponents. (Opponents who are now, also, suddenly, deficit hawks again, even while the mess we are in is a result of not being even remotely sensible about the deficit for the past eight years, when unlike right now, we had no real reason not to be.)
How about simply taxing the heck out of dirty forms of energy? Too regressive? There are ways of adjusting for that. It's going to "ruin the economy"? Here's news for you -- the economy is already ruined. And we are only continually, and ineffectively, trying to prop it up by artificially subsidzing dirty energy (since none of its real, and excessive costs, are integrated into the pricing structure) while exacerbating the very problems we need to solve.
Let the market and ingenuity and market induced behavior alteration solve the problem, and transition us over to a more sustainable economic growth pattern, while at the same time not trashing the world we live in based upon the myopic view that is somehow a "cost" not to engage in sensible, non self destructive long term policies. Such taxes will increasingly reflect a tax of choice and not compulsion as market parameters and modes of production continally shift toward increasingly cleaner and more ingenius forms of production, while raising considerable revenue at the same time.
Just an idea. But we are paralyzed by this misconception of cost, and the need to artificially prop up what is a stagnating economy that was based in part on this unsustainable model, from doing anything sensible, and absolutely paralyzed over the easiest solution of all: Tax that which is doing the harm -- overreliance upon dirty, unsustainable, atmospheric altering, and national security compromising energy -- and let the market do far more effectively than what a gaggle of well intentioned, and in the long run far more costly, laws, will likely never come close to accomplishing.
_____________
Oh, wait, we almost forgot, our nation's foremost energy expert (and potential if not likely 2012 nominee for President the way things are going) has a different "opinion" -- one based upon as much energy knowledge, as might "fit in a can of 3-in-1 oil and still leave room to fix a whole lot of squeaks." While the shot at Republicans in general is gratuitous and uncalled for (why Democrats have to constantly engage in that is beyond us here), the "can of oil" estimation of Palin's energy knowledge is not that far off. But of course the Wasington Post -- an increasingly excellent reflection for our grandest and greatest ignorances -- has to play into the ridiculous popularity groupthink run amuck version.
For those who thought King George was the emperor who wore no clothes, wait to you get a taste of Empress Sarah Palin, who makes Bush's rhetorical and emotional (clothed as logic) manipulation skills look like child's play.
Solution: Let's force everyone, by law, to get health insurance.
We know, this is an oversimplification. There are other "parts" to this plan that "make it" work. But what, specifically, are those? And more importantly, what does "work" mean?
We have not seen any solutions brought forward that address the enormous amount of health care money that is going into actual health insurance profit and overhead itself and thus not into health care -- insurance not for catastrophic loss relevant to that particular individual or family, but for simple everyday health coverage that the recipients of hundreds of millions of health care policies could in fact be paying for themselves, if they weren't paying far more, for insurance for them.
Thus we are skeptical of a plan that A) mandates, and tells people what they must do, and B) mandates more health insurance, while not addressing the differential between economically sensible, catastrophic insurance and routine insurance which simply puts in multiple layers of middlemen and cost, while removing control.
Maybe another part of the solution in this country is to stop treating "doctors" like the Gods that, for the most part, they are not. Because we view them as such, some go into medicine for the wrong reasons, which also tends to lead to bad medicine. Many doctors are also overpaid, while some of the better doctors are in fact underpaid. (Much like teachers). But that's another topic. And probably a much more provocative one, at that. Also, doctor pay, and the ridiculous cost of medical school solely for the purpose of learning how to memorize a bunch of rote information, rather than how to think and learn like a doctor as well, is only a small part of the excessive health care cost problem. But seriously, 100k plus to spend a bunch of years simply memorizing facts?
Maybe we need better doctors, for doctor stuff; and more nurses -- male and female, for more routine stuff. Just an idea. Oh, yeah, right, since it's been a few sentences since we mentioned it: And a whole lot less health insurance, with health money not otherwise going to catastrophic insurance going to health care, and policy holders playing a more active role in their own health treatment decisions and expenditures. While we are at it, why not also put a moratorium on all these laws a law happy Congress keeps passing this decade (and even reverse a few) that have created reams of paperwork and administrative overhead, that most in the health business itself (and especially doctors offices) continually lament.
It's a law happy Congress, for sure, yet we could not even pass a cash for clunkers bill that actually subsidized the purchase of vehicles that help solve the overuse of oil (and corollary emissions) problem, and we're finally struggling to pass even a minimum climate change bill -- and one, as being considered, fraught with all sorts of loopholes and inconsistent subsidies.
Here's a side idea, while we are digressing: Apparently very large tax increases are being considered, at least upon the upper tier of income earners. Okay, fair enough, to some, anyway, while providing great fodder for Obama administration opponents. (Opponents who are now, also, suddenly, deficit hawks again, even while the mess we are in is a result of not being even remotely sensible about the deficit for the past eight years, when unlike right now, we had no real reason not to be.)
How about simply taxing the heck out of dirty forms of energy? Too regressive? There are ways of adjusting for that. It's going to "ruin the economy"? Here's news for you -- the economy is already ruined. And we are only continually, and ineffectively, trying to prop it up by artificially subsidzing dirty energy (since none of its real, and excessive costs, are integrated into the pricing structure) while exacerbating the very problems we need to solve.
Let the market and ingenuity and market induced behavior alteration solve the problem, and transition us over to a more sustainable economic growth pattern, while at the same time not trashing the world we live in based upon the myopic view that is somehow a "cost" not to engage in sensible, non self destructive long term policies. Such taxes will increasingly reflect a tax of choice and not compulsion as market parameters and modes of production continally shift toward increasingly cleaner and more ingenius forms of production, while raising considerable revenue at the same time.
Just an idea. But we are paralyzed by this misconception of cost, and the need to artificially prop up what is a stagnating economy that was based in part on this unsustainable model, from doing anything sensible, and absolutely paralyzed over the easiest solution of all: Tax that which is doing the harm -- overreliance upon dirty, unsustainable, atmospheric altering, and national security compromising energy -- and let the market do far more effectively than what a gaggle of well intentioned, and in the long run far more costly, laws, will likely never come close to accomplishing.
_____________
Oh, wait, we almost forgot, our nation's foremost energy expert (and potential if not likely 2012 nominee for President the way things are going) has a different "opinion" -- one based upon as much energy knowledge, as might "fit in a can of 3-in-1 oil and still leave room to fix a whole lot of squeaks." While the shot at Republicans in general is gratuitous and uncalled for (why Democrats have to constantly engage in that is beyond us here), the "can of oil" estimation of Palin's energy knowledge is not that far off. But of course the Wasington Post -- an increasingly excellent reflection for our grandest and greatest ignorances -- has to play into the ridiculous popularity groupthink run amuck version.
For those who thought King George was the emperor who wore no clothes, wait to you get a taste of Empress Sarah Palin, who makes Bush's rhetorical and emotional (clothed as logic) manipulation skills look like child's play.
We know that donkasaurus was an actual dinosaur.thats why we named our web blog after one.
Curiously enough, a google search could not find this actual dinosaur. Now, unless one happens to be in Kansas at the time one contemplates the question, we pretty much know that actual dinosaurs existed. Either that, or God put some might cool dinosaur bones for us to find, that carbon date back millions of years or so, more or less. (So we ask, "what's the big difference?"). In either case, just bones, or actual 'saurs, where are all the g* d* earth crushing, animal stomping, stegosaurus eatin' donkasaurs, or, alternatively (again, for everywhere but Kansas), where are their bones?
I mean, we got allesaurs, brontosaurauses [ get list of dinosaurs] . Where the H*** are the donkasaurs?
We know the donkasaur existed. We think it was a cross between allesaurus, a bronchialsaurus, a triceritops, and a tyranisaurus rex. Or maybe it was a pretty much like Dino, from the Flintstones. Where'd they get that dinosaur anyway. And, hey, wait a minute, wasn't the flintstones incorrect? I mean, dinosauries werent around when man came on the scene. (Right?) That leads us to conclude the "Dino" was not a real dinosaur.
But Dino was a dinosaur, not a donkasaur. But we know the donksaurus is, and we are determined to find it.
Maybe Stephen Colbert can help. Stephen? Stephen??
Live Blogging Update - I
Earlier today we reported on a fantastic new development. And we noted that we would, quote, "later today," in fact, begin, actual live blogging, of an actual event. And that even better, we would be blogging on the truly exciting, groundbreaking, and quite timely and almost non stop discussed event that is the rotation of the earth.
True to our promise, we are now bringing you -- although we have to acknowledge that this is very difficult, because this is, after all, live blogging -- our first live blogging report on the earth's current rotation.
There are some preliminary challenges involved in this, of course, technical issues, and the like, but stick with it, we will be bringing you fresh new "news" information. To start out, and we have confirmed this, it does, indeed, appear that the earth is in fact rotating. And yes, we are, quite incredibly, quite excitingly, bringing it all to you right now via live blogging.
More live blogging news on this fascinating event to follow, as it develops. So stay with us here, you will be the first to know.
True to our promise, we are now bringing you -- although we have to acknowledge that this is very difficult, because this is, after all, live blogging -- our first live blogging report on the earth's current rotation.
There are some preliminary challenges involved in this, of course, technical issues, and the like, but stick with it, we will be bringing you fresh new "news" information. To start out, and we have confirmed this, it does, indeed, appear that the earth is in fact rotating. And yes, we are, quite incredibly, quite excitingly, bringing it all to you right now via live blogging.
More live blogging news on this fascinating event to follow, as it develops. So stay with us here, you will be the first to know.
Special Edition -- Live Blogging Event... Live!!!
While we will not be available for our normal morning and evening press briefings, our daily roundtables, fireside chats, to return email or phone calls, or our committee chair duties, etc., over the next days, don't fret -- this is because we are live blogging.
Yes. Don't worry that your hearing (or in this case, your eyesight) is going bad. We are going to be live blogging. Let us repeat that one more time. Live. Blogging!!
That's right. That means we are going to be reporting, live, as only this decade's latest and coolest and most importantest online news reporting sensation can do -- by blogging live!
For those of you not in the know, live blogging means that one blogs not from the grave. Not from the beyond. Not even from inside the womb! (Well, there is a lot of controversy over that last one, with a preponderance of the evidence supporting the idea that at least for a time period inside of the womb, that would also constitute, "live" blogging. Various factions are still furiously, and sometimes violently, debating this.)
And just in case you somehow think it could not get any better than this, live blogging actually means more. So much more.
It not only means blogging while alive. It means blogging from an actual event!!!!!! While alive!
It is so exciting, that words really can not begin to describe the emotions here at Donkasaurus. We are simply besides ourselves with the excitement of this. We literally can not wait to begin sharing our live blogging -- repeat, that is live blogging -- updates from the event itself.
Starting later today, we, again we can not emphasize this enough, but live, are going to be blogging (and folks, it's a big one), the rotation of the earth.
You heard that right. Right here, right here at Donkasaur.us, we are going to be live blogging the rotation of the earth. This means of course that we will be bringing you live updates, actual live blogging updates (we get all goose bumpy just thinking about it) on the earth's rotation. Actual live updates. Via Blogging!
This sure promises to be one fun filled, fact filled, information, ground breaking news gathering and sharing event.
_______________
And, also, note, not to get too far ahead of ourselves here, because this is truly already a monumental event -- but next week we are going to do something even cooler, even more groundbreaking, even more newsworthy, than live blogging. I know, some think that is not possible. But we are. This seems incredible to even contemplate, given that not only are we going to be live blogging starting later today, but that we are going to be live blogging something as exciting as the rotation of the earth. But when that event is over, we are going to be bringing you even fresher, instantaneous, can't get it anywhere else, can't get it any faster, can't get it any fresher, scintillating news coverage about some of the most exciting things on the planet --like live blogging some of C-spans hearings on future soybean crop yields, for example. Or the society of preservationists debate on whether the name preservationist should always start with a capital p or not. And we will be bringing it all to you live. Live!!!! Because if it's not here and now, and if it's not "live," even on the most boring subjects on earth, and even on the most timeless subjects we face today, it's just not news anymore.
Yes. Don't worry that your hearing (or in this case, your eyesight) is going bad. We are going to be live blogging. Let us repeat that one more time. Live. Blogging!!
That's right. That means we are going to be reporting, live, as only this decade's latest and coolest and most importantest online news reporting sensation can do -- by blogging live!
For those of you not in the know, live blogging means that one blogs not from the grave. Not from the beyond. Not even from inside the womb! (Well, there is a lot of controversy over that last one, with a preponderance of the evidence supporting the idea that at least for a time period inside of the womb, that would also constitute, "live" blogging. Various factions are still furiously, and sometimes violently, debating this.)
And just in case you somehow think it could not get any better than this, live blogging actually means more. So much more.
It not only means blogging while alive. It means blogging from an actual event!!!!!! While alive!
It is so exciting, that words really can not begin to describe the emotions here at Donkasaurus. We are simply besides ourselves with the excitement of this. We literally can not wait to begin sharing our live blogging -- repeat, that is live blogging -- updates from the event itself.
Starting later today, we, again we can not emphasize this enough, but live, are going to be blogging (and folks, it's a big one), the rotation of the earth.
You heard that right. Right here, right here at Donkasaur.us, we are going to be live blogging the rotation of the earth. This means of course that we will be bringing you live updates, actual live blogging updates (we get all goose bumpy just thinking about it) on the earth's rotation. Actual live updates. Via Blogging!
This sure promises to be one fun filled, fact filled, information, ground breaking news gathering and sharing event.
_______________
And, also, note, not to get too far ahead of ourselves here, because this is truly already a monumental event -- but next week we are going to do something even cooler, even more groundbreaking, even more newsworthy, than live blogging. I know, some think that is not possible. But we are. This seems incredible to even contemplate, given that not only are we going to be live blogging starting later today, but that we are going to be live blogging something as exciting as the rotation of the earth. But when that event is over, we are going to be bringing you even fresher, instantaneous, can't get it anywhere else, can't get it any faster, can't get it any fresher, scintillating news coverage about some of the most exciting things on the planet --like live blogging some of C-spans hearings on future soybean crop yields, for example. Or the society of preservationists debate on whether the name preservationist should always start with a capital p or not. And we will be bringing it all to you live. Live!!!! Because if it's not here and now, and if it's not "live," even on the most boring subjects on earth, and even on the most timeless subjects we face today, it's just not news anymore.
How Are We Solving the Excessive Health Cost Problem?
Earlier we asked:
How is a health care plan that forces everyone to get insurance (whenoverinsurance is part of the problem) and will cost a small fortune more for a country that already spends far too much on health care, solving this?It seems that the director of the Congressional budget office might have similar questions:
Under questioning from Conrad, [CBO Budget Director Doug] Elmendorf delivered a bombshell, testifying that healthcare proposals drafted in the House and by the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee would not curb healthcare spending, as Obama has envisioned, but instead add to federal spendingTrue, they are not exactly the same thing. But how is simply requiring everyone to get health insurance, and spending more government money on top of that, solving the problem?
Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures
The Post asks:
"Wouldn't you watch a naked video of, say, Chris Berman, just because it was there?"
Yeah, um, sure. If, say, it was a video of sportscaster Erin Andrews, instead.
But the heading and subheading to this article reads: "You Know You Want To Watch That Video. But Erin Andrews Would Rather You Not."
So, Erin, please let us know if that subheading was wrong. Email us at nowwecantwatchit@becausewepostedthisstupidblogpost.com
"Wouldn't you watch a naked video of, say, Chris Berman, just because it was there?"
Yeah, um, sure. If, say, it was a video of sportscaster Erin Andrews, instead.
But the heading and subheading to this article reads: "You Know You Want To Watch That Video. But Erin Andrews Would Rather You Not."
So, Erin, please let us know if that subheading was wrong. Email us at nowwecantwatchit@becausewepostedthisstupidblogpost.com
Is Employer Provided Health Insurance Necessarily a Good Thing?
Simply to introduce another perspective here: whether the public option is a good or a bad thing, how is this necessarily a bad thing?
If the argument is that insurers would "force" consumers to get the "lesser" government health care, what is it about our Constitutional charter that requires employers to provide health insurance for employees, rather than this being a dynamic of the markeplace? And what is that keeps individuals from getting their own health insurance; or better yet, saving a boatload of money, getting only catastrophic health insurance, and taking a bigger role in their own health care?
The fear of a two tiered system --"better" private insurance for the well off, and less quality government run health care-- might be an issue. But how is the simple idea of individuals moving off of expensive, high overhead private industry paid health insurer plans, at the individuals option, to a better (if that can be achieved), less costly plan, a bad thing?
Is it just because it is government provided? Fair enough. But right now, our government is spending hundreds of billions a year on health care. (Which is why we argue that real health care reform should not cost an additional fortune more.)
As for the "independent Lewin Group," a CBO study happened to peg the figure at 11 or 12 billion, rather than the 100 plus million (now revised to 88.1 million), who would move off of employer provided care. (We think both figures are wildly speculative, but that's another matter.) And as for how "independent" the Lewin Group is, see post below.
"The independent Lewin Group analysis found that a new public plan could mean that 118 million Americans will lose their current health care coverage, and 130 million Americans could end up on a government-run health care plan," Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said in a Senate speech in April.Doesn't health insurance cost employers a lot of money? Wouldn't saving them that money be a good thing? And if this is a result of consumer choice, wouldn't this be a good thing also?
If the argument is that insurers would "force" consumers to get the "lesser" government health care, what is it about our Constitutional charter that requires employers to provide health insurance for employees, rather than this being a dynamic of the markeplace? And what is that keeps individuals from getting their own health insurance; or better yet, saving a boatload of money, getting only catastrophic health insurance, and taking a bigger role in their own health care?
The fear of a two tiered system --"better" private insurance for the well off, and less quality government run health care-- might be an issue. But how is the simple idea of individuals moving off of expensive, high overhead private industry paid health insurer plans, at the individuals option, to a better (if that can be achieved), less costly plan, a bad thing?
Is it just because it is government provided? Fair enough. But right now, our government is spending hundreds of billions a year on health care. (Which is why we argue that real health care reform should not cost an additional fortune more.)
As for the "independent Lewin Group," a CBO study happened to peg the figure at 11 or 12 billion, rather than the 100 plus million (now revised to 88.1 million), who would move off of employer provided care. (We think both figures are wildly speculative, but that's another matter.) And as for how "independent" the Lewin Group is, see post below.
The Washington Post Engages in Some Reporting
Normally, the Post has served as cheerleader for misinformed groupthink run amuck -- particularly on its editorial pages. But today, the Post actually engages in some decent reporting. The lopsided nature of the example doesn't hurt, either:
Imagine that you are a huge health insurance company. You make a fortune off of health insurance. One can contend (we do), that our overreliance upon health insurance may be the single largest factor for the excess waste that is our public (think hundreds of billions a year in medicaid, medicare) and private (think, along with the public, close to an astonishing 18 percent of our GDP when "health related" things are taken into account) health care expenditures. So as an enormous health insurer you are at least not unhappy when the one thing everyone seems to agree upon is more mandated government intrusion -- this time making everyone get health "insurance."
Now consider the so called "public option." Forget for the moment whether it is a good idea or not (and here we don't pretend to know, barring more information). The public option, at least in theory, would provide an option -- ostensibly, and one presumes, realistically, to compete with private insurance, in order to bring down costs and increase true competition.
It has the potential to greatly cut into insurance coverage, profits, and even relevance. It might even, in theory at least, provide a more viable, lower cost, quality alternative to what is currently available in the form of health insurance (an idea that there is now otherwise broader support in favor of mandating for everyone), which might cut even further into conventional health care. So as this huge health insurance company, you can't be happy about his, right?
As the Post points out (emphasis all added):
Once again, the Lewin Group, whose work is being widely cited as part of the opposition to a public option inclusion, is part of a subsidiary of an enormous health insurance carrier. (See the Post article for more fascinating revelations regarding that subsidiary).
How is it that Democrats -- the party that seems to be more in support of both health care "reform," as well as the public option if there is going to be such "reform," stand for such misrepresentative framing by those opposed to their proposals?
Imagine that you are a huge health insurance company. You make a fortune off of health insurance. One can contend (we do), that our overreliance upon health insurance may be the single largest factor for the excess waste that is our public (think hundreds of billions a year in medicaid, medicare) and private (think, along with the public, close to an astonishing 18 percent of our GDP when "health related" things are taken into account) health care expenditures. So as an enormous health insurer you are at least not unhappy when the one thing everyone seems to agree upon is more mandated government intrusion -- this time making everyone get health "insurance."
Now consider the so called "public option." Forget for the moment whether it is a good idea or not (and here we don't pretend to know, barring more information). The public option, at least in theory, would provide an option -- ostensibly, and one presumes, realistically, to compete with private insurance, in order to bring down costs and increase true competition.
It has the potential to greatly cut into insurance coverage, profits, and even relevance. It might even, in theory at least, provide a more viable, lower cost, quality alternative to what is currently available in the form of health insurance (an idea that there is now otherwise broader support in favor of mandating for everyone), which might cut even further into conventional health care. So as this huge health insurance company, you can't be happy about his, right?
As the Post points out (emphasis all added):
The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.However, as the Post also points out, the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest health insurers in the country. Nope, no conflict of interest there. Sort of like there would be no conflict of interest if a prominent land developer gave $250,000 in cash to a Congressman, who was later assigned to head the committee responsible for choosing among land developers for a multi billion dollar land project. Or if a judge was ruling in a case where the defendant was his first cousin.
To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, [the "Lewin group"] is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."
Once again, the Lewin Group, whose work is being widely cited as part of the opposition to a public option inclusion, is part of a subsidiary of an enormous health insurance carrier. (See the Post article for more fascinating revelations regarding that subsidiary).
How is it that Democrats -- the party that seems to be more in support of both health care "reform," as well as the public option if there is going to be such "reform," stand for such misrepresentative framing by those opposed to their proposals?
The Washington Post Engages in Some Reporting
Normally, the Post has served as cheerleader for misinformed groupthink run amuck -- particularly on its editorial pages. But today, the Post actually engages in some decent reporting. The lopsided nature of the example doesn't hurt, either:
Imagine that you are a huge health insurance company. You make a fortune off of health insurance. One can contend (we do), that our overreliance upon health insurance may be the single largest factor for the excess waste that is our public (think hundreds of billions a year in medicaid, medicare) and private (think, along with the public, close to an astonishing 18 percent of our GDP when "health related" things are taken into account) health care expenditures. So as an enormous health insurer you are at least not unhappy when the one thing everyone seems to agree upon is more mandated government intrusion -- this time making everyone get health "insurance."
Now consider the so called "public option." Forget for the moment whether it is a good idea or not (and here we don't pretend to know, barring more information). The public option, at least in theory, would provide an option -- ostensibly, and one presumes, realistically, to compete with private insurance, in order to bring down costs and increase true competition.
It has the potential to greatly cut into insurance coverage, profits, and even relevance. It might even, in theory at least, provide a more viable, lower cost, quality alternative to what is currently available in the form of health insurance (an idea that there is now otherwise broader support in favor of mandating for everyone), which might cut even further into conventional health care. So as this huge health insurance company, you can't be happy about his, right?
As the Post points out (emphasis all added):
Once again, the Lewin Group, whose work is being widely cited as part of the opposition to a public option inclusion, is part of a subsidiary of an enormous health insurance carrier. (See the Post article for more fascinating revelations regarding that subsidiary).
How is it that Democrats -- the party that seems to be more in support of both health care "reform," as well as the public option if there is going to be such "reform," stand for such misrepresentative framing by those opposed to their proposals?
Imagine that you are a huge health insurance company. You make a fortune off of health insurance. One can contend (we do), that our overreliance upon health insurance may be the single largest factor for the excess waste that is our public (think hundreds of billions a year in medicaid, medicare) and private (think, along with the public, close to an astonishing 18 percent of our GDP when "health related" things are taken into account) health care expenditures. So as an enormous health insurer you are at least not unhappy when the one thing everyone seems to agree upon is more mandated government intrusion -- this time making everyone get health "insurance."
Now consider the so called "public option." Forget for the moment whether it is a good idea or not (and here we don't pretend to know, barring more information). The public option, at least in theory, would provide an option -- ostensibly, and one presumes, realistically, to compete with private insurance, in order to bring down costs and increase true competition.
It has the potential to greatly cut into insurance coverage, profits, and even relevance. It might even, in theory at least, provide a more viable, lower cost, quality alternative to what is currently available in the form of health insurance (an idea that there is now otherwise broader support in favor of mandating for everyone), which might cut even further into conventional health care. So as this huge health insurance company, you can't be happy about his, right?
As the Post points out (emphasis all added):
The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.However, as the Post also points out, the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest health insurers in the country. Nope, no conflict of interest there. Sort of like there would be no conflict of interest if a prominent land developer gave $250,000 in cash to a Congressman, who was later assigned to head the committee responsible for choosing among land developers for a multi billion dollar land project. Or if a judge was ruling in a case where the defendant was his first cousin.
To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, [the "Lewin group"] is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."
Once again, the Lewin Group, whose work is being widely cited as part of the opposition to a public option inclusion, is part of a subsidiary of an enormous health insurance carrier. (See the Post article for more fascinating revelations regarding that subsidiary).
How is it that Democrats -- the party that seems to be more in support of both health care "reform," as well as the public option if there is going to be such "reform," stand for such misrepresentative framing by those opposed to their proposals?
The Problem with Indefinite Detainee Detention
And the problem with NPR.
But what about indefinite terrorism suspect detainee detentions, or even potential detainment after acquittal?
A strong case can be made that the prior administration did an extremely poor job paying attention to and properly addressing the issue -- from an over focus on Iraq while the real problem in Afghanistan was never effectively rooted out (and continues today), to ignoring warnings alltogether with respect to the initial threat.
Combine this nevertheless with the fascinatingly manufactured point that it is the Clinton administration -- which did far more to address the threat in the face of more imminent warning, and even took unusal steps to overly brief the incoming administration --which often tends to get blamed.
And consider Democrats "caving" on the so called FISA compromise issue, and other alleged national security matters. Here, the choice has often been to avoid "looking" weak, rather than simply being strong, and articulating and selling their case to stand on principles of freedom and justice first and foremost, and why it matters to America and who we are.
Perhaps the Democratic Party is concerned about losing the battle of rhetoric, and so is overly concerned with anything that, rightly or wrongly, might, to Democrats, allow their (perhaps increasingly right wing?) political opposition to miscast them. Recall that during the election cycle, Obama switched his principled opposition to that same misnamed "FISA compromise." Was it a real change of position, or a fear that he and his party during an election cycle simply would not win the battle of rhetoric? At this time, with the weight, responsibility, and worry of being President upon his sholders, as well as an opposition seeking to demonize and even mischaracterize him at every turn, what is Obama's position, now, as President?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
How Are We "Fixing" Health Care?
From a political email: "Last week, Republican Senator Jim DeMint ... told a special interest attack group, 'If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.' Here's how the President responded:
Think about that. This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake.But how is a health care plan that forces everyone to get insurance (when overinsurance is part of the problem) and will cost a small fortune more for a country that already spends far too much on health care, solving this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)