tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-138759852024-03-07T13:25:27.295-05:00KroydBlogJay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-26733840470467791292014-09-12T21:04:00.002-04:002014-09-12T21:04:51.664-04:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4k-JGv3EwutsT6K_EDVJJZwINA5RIHuOvlhDp_NikdOK45B4n72CGzUcFtV7Jw-eISeZnUFfN8nhmJLUHEtHCa-gZFuYD9qjsMy4XSE6j453SQI0dkYlhYE-fBowB0KVPilRX/s1600/WRBartending.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4k-JGv3EwutsT6K_EDVJJZwINA5RIHuOvlhDp_NikdOK45B4n72CGzUcFtV7Jw-eISeZnUFfN8nhmJLUHEtHCa-gZFuYD9qjsMy4XSE6j453SQI0dkYlhYE-fBowB0KVPilRX/s1600/WRBartending.jpg" height="207" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-45705113463073330532012-01-27T14:47:00.000-05:002012-01-27T14:48:00.825-05:00What Digby Said: CU<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wP-OH40s0Qw?version=3&feature=player_profilepage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wP-OH40s0Qw?version=3&feature=player_profilepage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object><br /><br /><br><br /><p> </p><br /><p>Last night, Digby pre-empted the mistake <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/01/whos-boss_27.html">atrios </a>makes here when he links to <a href="http://bit.ly/w8tmM9">BooMan</a> blaming Citizens United for the SuperPAC attack ad mess that the GOP primary has become. She points out that the money in this case is coming from individuals, not corporations, and so Citizens United played no role. Rather, something else has happened. For some reason, cultural perhaps, or perhaps just the rankness of the corruption in our political system, the money boys are not as reticent as they used to be. They don't care, anymore, if you know who they are.</p>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-62569737189499414312012-01-20T08:31:00.002-05:002012-01-20T09:02:05.741-05:00Corruption<iframe src="http://current.com/bc/1400835797001?linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcurrent.com%2Fshows%2Fcountdown%2Fvideos%2Fmarkos-moulitsas-on-sopa-pipa-and-the-battle-for-control-of-the-internet" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><div><br /></div><div>Redolent. </div><div><br /></div><div>Rank. </div><div><br /></div><div>Foul.</div><div><br /></div><div>Elected Democrats no longer see themselves as representing their constituents. They see themselves as representing their donors. In the teeth of huge, well-organized grass roots opposition--hell, <i>universal </i>opposition, Democrats come down on the side of the MPAA and the RIAA. They'll try to find some other way to take away our internet, trying to put the toothpaste of an open network back into the tube. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is not even a question of stupid or evil. It's stupid <i>and </i>evil.</div><br /><strong></strong><blockquote><strong>MOULITSAS: </strong>It has been a shameful day. Now let me add that Ron Wyden, who was just on, if it wasn't for him, this thing may have passed already. He was the first person in Congress to stand up against this and fight the way he has. He is the reason this is still being debated. That said, you have a bipartisan group of people who supported it. Today, Republican after Republican has backed out and abandoned support for SOPA and PIPA.<br /><br />Democrats haven't. They cling to this fiction that this thing can be fixed, and not only is it incredibly stupid, it's incredibly tone-deaf. You are basically ceding a generation of Web-savvy, Web-immersed people who are obsessed with protecting what they see as their very birthright. And they are watching Republicans come out and see the light on this issue, while Democrats continue to cling to the Hollywood studios. It is unfathomable.<br /><br />I'm embarrassed to be a Democrat, I'm ashamed and I'm angry. You couldn't even begin to believe — because I believe that this legislation is an existential threat to the social Web — that's Daily Kos, that's Reddit, that's Facebook — that's anybody, any time you can interact online, this legislation threatens that ability to do so.<br /><br /><strong>OLBERMANN: </strong>Yeah, that's Red State, that's all the other right-wing sites, as well. This is not a liberal thing.<strong><br /><br />MOULITSAS: </strong>It's not. It's liberal, conservative, greens, libertarians, people who don't even pay attention to politics. I don't think I have ever seen this much consensus around an issue.<br /></blockquote>Unbelievable. The Democratic leadership in the Senate is willing to throw a generation under the bus.<br /><br />Influence by major donors isn't new, of course. Henry (Scoop) Jackson of Washington was referred to as the Senator from Boeing. But, as with the Health Care Reform negotiations, voters don't even have a seat at the table--especially among Democrats. Unless we in the rank and file can find a way to penetrate the Democratic primary system, we are doomed to a future of bad public policy--a neo-feudalist regime run by monopolists and their "elected officials."Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-76513565482350408792012-01-01T15:11:00.002-05:002012-01-01T15:34:55.560-05:00Ron Paul<blockquote></blockquote><iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JGmvdksk5_Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><br /><br />Paul's candidacy creates tremendous cognitive dissonance. Digby, in this VS A-Z clip, explains one source for this cognitive dissonance; he isn't really a libertarian so much as a states' rights <a href="http://bit.ly/t1uS0t">tenther</a>. A libertarian would focus on the "people" part, rather the "states" part of the clause. Moreover, the 14th amendment considerably weakens the "states" part; the Amendment is about the Federal government protecting individuals from oppressive state governments. So Ron Paul is a statist libertarian, or a libertarian statist. Confusing.<br /><br /><a href="http://bit.ly/voOxbl">Glenn Greenwald</a> and <a href="http://bit.ly/ul4zVk">Matt Stoller</a> write about a different kind of cognitive dissonance, the kind that is infesting discussion that are on the "left" or, rather more accurately, are taking place among rank and file Democrats.<br /><br />Glenn notes that there's a problem when an odious candidate advocates policies also advocated by progressive activists--opposition to wars of choice, bloated defense budgets, unwavering support for Israel, torture, warrantless detention, an unaccountable president, a disastrous war on drugs et alia.<br /><br />That problem is parallel to the problem of a good, well-meaning leader who happens to engage in odious policies:<br /><br /><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; "></p><blockquote><p style="margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/05/asleep-in-afghanistan.html" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">children</a> by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in <a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-30/politics/30095838_1_al-qaeda-qaeda-somalian-islamist" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">numerous nations</a> with<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">drones</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/7806882/US-cluster-bombs-killed-35-women-and-children.html" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">cluster bombs</a> and other <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gen_mcchrystal_weve_shot_an_amazing_number_of_peop.php" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">forms of attack</a>. He has <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/12/u_s_takes_the_lead_on_behalf_of_cluster_bombs/" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">sought</a> to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/30/aclu-sues-obama-administration-over-alleged-assassination-plot/" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">assassination-by-CIA</a>, far from any battlefield. He has <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">waged</a>an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a <a href="http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/493" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">Congressional vote</a> against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-year-secrecy-jumped-shark" target="_blank" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">darkly laughable</a> in its manifestations, and he even worked to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/06/01/photos_8/" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">amend</a> the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.</p><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">He has</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-cheney-fallacy" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">entrenched</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_obama_aping_bush_on_state_secrets.php" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">state secret privilege</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/156997/obamas-drug-war" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">vigorously prosecuted</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">the cruel and supremely</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">racist</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">War on Drugs,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137791944/obama-cracks-down-on-medical-marijuana" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">including</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.thestreet.com/story/11226640/1/obama-wants-schneiderman-to-back-off-banks-report.html" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">efforts to shield</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/07/13/goldman/" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">endless roster</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/covert-war-us-iran/story?id=15174919" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">brought</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the</span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/30iht-politicus30.html" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); "> brink</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15014037" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">subservient</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/with-30-billion-arms-deal-united-states-bolsters-ties-to-saudi-arabia.html" target="_blank" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">most repressive regimes</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Georgia, 'Droid Serif', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: -webkit-auto; ">is as strong as ever.</span> </div></blockquote><div><blockquote></blockquote>This is very confusing. To combat the confusion, many progressives fall back on issues where they agree with the President, and disagree with Paul, which happen to be issues around social policy, and involve more visceral, tribal issues like the right to choose and civil rights. They deride people like Glenn as saboteurs, trying to undermine our last, best hope to stave off the evil depredations of conservative governance. And they bring up the Courts, both the Supremes and the Federal Circuit. It's hard to write about this clearly, but it's even harder to think clearly--the dissonance is internally deafening.</div><div><br /></div><div>Stoller points out that there is conflict in the liberal commitment to a large Federal government that does good because a large government can also do evil:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Optima, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; "></span><blockquote><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Optima, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; ">Modern liberalism is a mixture of two elements. One is a support of Federal power – what came out of the late 1930s, World War II, and the civil rights era where a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC, and human rights were enforced by a Federal government, unions, and a cadre of corporate, journalistic and technocratic experts (and cheap oil made the whole system run.) America mobilized militarily for national priorities, be they war-like or social in nature. And two, it originates from the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, with its distrust of centralized authority mobilizing national resources for what were perceived to be immoral priorities. When you throw in the recent financial crisis, the corruption of big finance, the increasing militarization of society, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse of the moral authority of the technocrats, you have a big problem. Liberalism doesn’t really exist much within the Democratic Party so much anymore, but it also has a profound challenge insofar as the rudiments of liberalism going back to the 1930s don’t work.</span> </blockquote>The other source of dissonance is within the media's reporting. As Stolller notes, part of the current issue is that there really are very few movement liberals among the elected officials of the Democratic Party. The party is dominated by a mix of <a href="http://bit.ly/vvNVyT">centrists</a> and establishment Democrats who are uninterested, if not actively hostile to movement liberalism. There is a natural fit between the political centrist and the media's love of centrism. Both groups love the idea of an unelected elite making tough decisions behind closed doors. This is especially the case with respect to foreign policy, where there is a bi-partisan consensus, shared by the Village, for US policy that involves frequent military interventions, and support for non-democratic regimes that serve America's vital interests.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ron Paul exists outside, and in opposition, to that foreign policy sphere of consensus, as he demonstrated in a<a href="http://bit.ly/uzFutW?r=td"> 2008 interview with Tim Russert</a>. So he is <a href="http://nyti.ms/vgjGJ2">invariably marginalized</a>, treated as a lesser candidate, even though by any objective standard, he should be receiving much more coverage.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's also interesting that the issues that marginalize Paul in the Village--opposition to brutal foreign policy, to an increasingly intrusive security state, run by unaccountable banksters--are also the issues that motivate and marginalize the Occupy movement. On the left, these grass roots issues are represented not by any one leader, but by a mass movement. </div><div><br /></div><div>These <i>are </i>grass roots issues that are simply are not on the table. Without the Occupy movement, and, yes, without Ron Paul, they also would not be part of our political discourse.</div><div><br /></div><div>At all.<br /><br /><br /></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-24754390508471576602012-01-01T12:12:00.001-05:002012-01-01T12:15:11.575-05:00Friedman<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZwFaSpca_3Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />Tom Friedman today:<br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice: Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track? After 9/11, the idea of helping to change the context of Arab politics and address the root causes of Arab state dysfunction and Islamist terrorism — which were identified in the 2002 Arab Human Development Report as a deficit of freedom, a deficit of knowledge and a deficit of women’s empowerment — seemed to me to be a legitimate strategic choice. </blockquote><br /><br />Tom Friedman then:<br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote>What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This.[28][29][30] ..We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That's the real truth...</blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br />This text is provided as a public service. The email address for the Times Public Editor is public@nytimes.com, for LsTE, letters@nytimes.comJay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-48681751056613959652011-12-13T15:05:00.001-05:002011-12-13T15:05:59.560-05:00Premium Support(By Stuart Zechman and Jay Ackroyd)<br /><br />Last Thursday, the New York Times ran a story about Democratic support for restructuring Medicare as a premium support plan, as part of the austerity negotiations:<br /><blockquote>Members of both parties told the panel that Medicare should offer a fixed amount of money to each beneficiary to buy coverage from competing private plans, whose costs and benefits would be tightly regulated by the government.<br />[snip]<br />The idea faces opposition from many Democrats, who say it would shift costs to beneficiaries and eliminate the guarantee of affordable health insurance for older Americans. But some Democrats say that — if carefully designed, with enough protections for beneficiaries — it might work.<br />The idea is sometimes known as premium support, because Medicare would subsidize premiums charged by private insurers that care for beneficiaries under contract with the government.</blockquote><br />Of course, the Democrats all remain nameless, as do most of the "health policy experts." These same people have been trying to drum up support for premium support as a means of<del> cutting Medicare benefits</del> controlling Medicare costs for years, mostly from Democrats predictably wary of how unpopular this would be. That's why any policy discussion takes place in an atmosphere of anonymity, dishonesty and misdirection, using unrepresentative processes like the creation of unelected commissions or the establishment of a specially empowered SuperCommittee.<br /><br />Centrist Democrats --the New Democrat Coalition, Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute and the Brookings Institute-- have been trying to get "Premium Support" legislation in front of Congress for at least a dozen years. It's the other half of what the PPACA is designed to accomplish, to restructure what they regard as obsolete New Deal social insurance policy. The policy recommendations focus on “private/public partnerships” supplanting public sector programs, while messaging focuses on selling ideologically centrist, “market-based reform" to liberal Democrats. They reassure movement liberals by reciting platitudes that seem to affirm Medicare's sanctity with promises to “strengthen" the program for the 21st century. This has been going on since the mid to late 90s.<br /><br />For instance, New Democrat John Breaux, chairing President' Clinton's <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/fiscal.html">Bipartisan Commission of the Future of Medicare</a>, introduced a premium support plan in 1999.<a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=196244090419822"> In an Op-Ed in The Hill</a> (pulled from the memory hole by Republican Congressman Tim Griffin), Breaux wrote:<br /><blockquote>With any restructuring approach, we must preserve Medicare's entitlement and ensure that Medicare does not become a program just for the poor. I would like Medicare, in fact, to become a model for expanding health care coverage to all uninsured Americans. I believe a Medicare premium support system is the best way to achieve that end.<br /><br />What exactly is a premium support model and what does my particular version do? Premium support means the government would literally support or pay part of the premium for a defined core package of Medicare benefits. This is not a voucher program but an alternative to the current system. Today, Congress micromanages Medicare and the government uses fee schedules and thousands of pages of regulations to set prices for specific services. My plan combines the best that the private sector has to offer with the government protections we need to maintain the social safety net.<br /><br />I have proposed a premium support Medicare plan modeled after the health care plan serving nearly 10 million federal workers, retirees and their families. Like that plan, my reform plan would also guarantee that the government's contribution keeps pace with health care costs.</blockquote><br />This history makes it clear why it was so important for national Democrats, and especially Third Way partisans to differentiate their "premium support" from Paul Ryan's "premium support,” as with <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/creator-of-premium-support-says-ryan-has-vouchers-not-premium-support/2011/04/08/AFAVslLD_blog.html">Ezra Klein's interview with Henry Aaron</a>, the Brookings' Fellow who originally developed the premium support idea in 1995. It was crucial to centrist talking points to make the case that the GOP "Path To Prosperity" involved a voucher program, totally different from Aaron's "premium support" plan. But, as this story from the Times makes clear, there are core elements among the centrists who dominate the Democratic party leadership committed to premium support under Medicare, core elements who are well aware that reducing Medicare benefits will be extremely unpopular.Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-66654290442600455342011-12-13T14:58:00.000-05:002011-12-13T14:59:35.378-05:00Vouchers?(By Stuart Zechman and Jay Ackroyd)<br /><br />Last Thursday, the New York Times ran a story about Democratic support for restructuring Medicare as a premium support plan, as part of the austerity negotiations:<br /><blockquote>Members of both parties told the panel that Medicare should offer a fixed amount of money to each beneficiary to buy coverage from competing private plans, whose costs and benefits would be tightly regulated by the government.<br />[snip]<br />The idea faces opposition from many Democrats, who say it would shift costs to beneficiaries and eliminate the guarantee of affordable health insurance for older Americans. But some Democrats say that — if carefully designed, with enough protections for beneficiaries — it might work.<br />The idea is sometimes known as premium support, because Medicare would subsidize premiums charged by private insurers that care for beneficiaries under contract with the government.</blockquote><br />Of course, the Democrats all remain nameless, as do most of the "health policy experts." These same people have been trying to drum up support for premium support as a means of<del> cutting Medicare benefits</del> controlling Medicare costs for years, mostly from Democrats predictably wary of how unpopular this would be. That's why any policy discussion takes place in an atmosphere of anonymity, dishonesty and misdirection, using unrepresentative processes like the creation of unelected commissions or the establishment of a specially empowered SuperCommittee.<br /><br />Centrist Democrats --the New Democrat Coalition, Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute and the Brookings Institute-- have been trying to get "Premium Support" legislation in front of Congress for at least a dozen years. It's the other half of what the PPACA is designed to accomplish, to restructure what they regard as obsolete New Deal social insurance policy. The policy recommendations focus on “private/public partnerships” supplanting public sector programs, while messaging focuses on selling ideologically centrist, “market-based reform" to liberal Democrats. They reassure movement liberals by reciting platitudes that seem to affirm Medicare's sanctity with promises to “strengthen" the program for the 21st century. This has been going on since the mid to late 90s.<br /><br />For instance, New Democrat John Breaux, chairing President' Clinton's <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/fiscal.html">Bipartisan Commission of the Future of Medicare</a>, introduced a premium support plan in 1999.<a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=196244090419822"> In an Op-Ed in The Hill</a> (pulled from the memory hole by Republican Congressman Tim Griffin), Breaux wrote:<br /><blockquote>With any restructuring approach, we must preserve Medicare's entitlement and ensure that Medicare does not become a program just for the poor. I would like Medicare, in fact, to become a model for expanding health care coverage to all uninsured Americans. I believe a Medicare premium support system is the best way to achieve that end.<br /><br />What exactly is a premium support model and what does my particular version do? Premium support means the government would literally support or pay part of the premium for a defined core package of Medicare benefits. This is not a voucher program but an alternative to the current system. Today, Congress micromanages Medicare and the government uses fee schedules and thousands of pages of regulations to set prices for specific services. My plan combines the best that the private sector has to offer with the government protections we need to maintain the social safety net.<br /><br />I have proposed a premium support Medicare plan modeled after the health care plan serving nearly 10 million federal workers, retirees and their families. Like that plan, my reform plan would also guarantee that the government's contribution keeps pace with health care costs.</blockquote><br />This history makes it clear why it was so important for national Democrats, and especially Third Way partisans to differentiate their "premium support" from Paul Ryan's "premium support,” as with <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/creator-of-premium-support-says-ryan-has-vouchers-not-premium-support/2011/04/08/AFAVslLD_blog.html">Ezra Klein's interview with Henry Aaron</a>, the Brookings' Fellow who originally developed the premium support idea in 1995. It was crucial to centrist talking points to make the case that the GOP "Path To Prosperity" involved a voucher program, totally different from Aaron's "premium support" plan. But, as this story from the Times makes clear, there are core elements among the centrists who dominate the Democratic party leadership committed to premium support under Medicare, core elements who are well aware that reducing Medicare benefits will be extremely unpopular.Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-62568062443231490452010-06-27T12:23:00.003-04:002010-06-27T12:54:40.835-04:00VictoryPanetta on victory in Afghanistan (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-panetta/story?id=11025299">This Week transcript</a>):<br /><br /><blockquote>PANETTA: Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safe haven for Al Qaida or for a militant Taliban that welcomes Al Qaida. That's really the measure of success for the United States. Our purpose, our whole mission there is to make sure that Al Qaida never finds another safe haven from which to attack this country. That's the fundamental goal of why the United States is there. And the measure of success for us is do you have an Afghanistan that is stable enough to make sure that never happens.</blockquote><br /><br />My reaction to this has always been "WTF? <b>That's</b> the best you've got?" As <a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/06/whats-it-all-about-then.html">Atrios</a> says this morning:<br /><br /><blockquote>The stability of the state of Afghanistan and its willingness to house bad actors are completely unrelated to each other. More than that, potential bad actors can, roughly, find a "safe haven" just about anywhere they want.</blockquote><br /><br />It's a big world! And they don't need a lot of space:<br /><br /><blockquote>PANETTA: I think the estimate on the number of Al Qaida is actually relatively small. I think at most, we're looking at maybe 60 to 100, maybe less. It's in that vicinity. There's no question that the main location of Al Qaida is in tribal areas of Pakistan.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes. He really did just say that the US is spending annually something like twice or thrice the GDP of Afghanistan, facilitating the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, on the pretense that it will keep five dozen people from holding meetings.<br /><br />It is is easy to think of obviously stupid, silly things the US could do for a tenth, or even a hundredth of the cost of this "war" that would be more effective at keeping these meetings from resulting in successful terrorist attacks on the US.Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-15620689426342909032009-08-24T11:06:00.002-04:002012-01-01T12:12:20.098-05:00Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform<a href=http://shar.es/T4iO><i>Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform</i>—Now an iPhone App</a><br /><br />Posted using <a href="http://sharethis.com">ShareThis</a>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-82202034137065215902009-08-05T15:51:00.004-04:002009-08-05T16:08:20.973-04:00AdviceIf I were an elected Democratic official holding a town hall on health care reform, this is the preamble I'd adopt.<div><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div>So glad to have all you folks here. It shows what an important issue we are talking about today. Now because we are here to share views, I'd appreciate that everyone get a chance to say their piece without interruption. </div><div><br /></div><div>That includes me. Please give me a chance to answer your questions without interruption.</div><div><br /></div><div>Before we start, it will help me to know where you folks are coming from.</div><div><br /></div><div>Who here currently has some form of health insurance? Please raise your hands.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of those, who is covered under a plan provided by your employer?</div><div><br /></div><div>And who covers themselves, pays for insurance out of pocket?</div><div><br /></div><div>Next, who here gets their health care from the government, under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration?</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, is there anyone here eligible for Medicare or VA coverage who has opted for private insurance instead? Please raise your hands.</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-23433953666775149382009-07-31T16:44:00.002-04:002009-07-31T17:54:19.909-04:00RoidsSo the names of the hundred MLB players who tested positive will come out in ones and twos, in declining order of fame and salary level.<div><br /></div><div>There was a time when I was of the "their bodies, let them do what they want" school of thought.</div><div><br /></div><div>That view evolved. I gradually realized that if steroids are bad for people, that permitting them would have two bad implications. The first is we, sports fans, would be taking advantage of people willing to damage themselves for fame and fortune. The second is that we, sports fans, would be collaborating in a policy regime that would exclude more talented or hardworking athletes because they refused to juice. The Mark Caminitis would drive out the Frank Robinsons.</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, that's an exaggeration. What would really happen is the replacement level players who got into the majors would all be juicing. And, if it IS bad for you, then the League would be setting up a system where their most marginal players were risking their health to try to earn enough service time for a pension.</div><div><br /></div><div>The nice thing about evolution is it never stops. Seeing the ubiquity of juice in the baseball (seriously, is there anybody left who would surprise you, after Petite?), I've come to doubt the "if" part of the syllogism above. And if it is true that taking steroids under a doctor's supervision isn't dangerous (as Manny apparently was doing in LA), then what's the problem?</div><div><br /></div><div>Players are permitted to use any number of performance enhancing methods. In the drug realm, they are allowed to use caffeine and nicotine (the latter <a href="http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20021023/harnessing-nicotines-power">proven to enhance concentration</a>), even though the delivery mechanisms for nicotine are mostly life shortening. Amphetamines were rife throughout the majors (there is a story of a pair of coffee urns, labeled "Coaches" and "Players"), use that didn't stop after Jim Bouton went public with this in <i>Ball Four</i></div><div><br /></div><div>They are allowed to have cortisone shots, not just for injuries, but for normal wear and tear on the joints that afflict older players. And, of course, <a href="http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/paindrugs/a/cortisone.htm">cortisone IS a steroid</a>. It is just not an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid">anabolic steroid</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Players are also allowed to have performance enhancing surgery. One of the complaints about the impact of steroids on baseball is that their use allows older players, especially sluggers, to extend their careers by reversing the effect of aging that reduces muscle mass. Bonds hitting 72 home runs at the age of 37, as Hank Aaron remarked recently, is unnatural. But the same is true of Tommy John, whose "injury" was wear and tear on his left arm. How is replacing a worn out tendon any different from using a drug that allows a player to use weightlifting sessions to retain muscle mass as he ages?</div><div><br /></div><div>The performance-enhancing surgery that really gets my goat is Lasix. Ted Williams had extraordinary eyesight. In spring training events, he would put pine tar on the bat barrel, and then call out the number of seams (None, 1 0r 2) the bat had hit. Now a player like Derek Jeter (on everybody's never juiced list) can get surgery to duplicate Williams's genetic inheritance.</div><div><br /></div><div>What is really going here is that the career home run numbers of the players using steroids is wreaking hell with all of the standard Hall of Fame threshholds. It's also raising doubts about win totals of players like Roger Clemens, who would have been a lock for the Hall after he left Toronto. But a key element in evaluating players for the Hall is their career numbers. Jim Rice's rapid fall off hurt him badly in HoF ballotting. Likewise, a compiler like Mussina is helped by the focus on career threshholds.</div><div><br /></div><div>But one is stuck with the world one is in. If steroids aren't dangerous, when properly used in a doctor supervised weight training program, why not legalize their use? That is certainly better than reading stories of high school kids ordering drugs over the internet from fly by night companies in Mexico because scouts have told them they have to get bigger.</div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-49788058020559331732009-07-29T11:01:00.002-04:002009-07-29T11:30:20.721-04:00PassageIn today's NYT<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/business/economy/29leonhardt.html?ref=us"> David Leonhardt writes the following</a>:<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; "><blockquote>Members of Congress have come up with one idea after another to pay for covering the uninsured. But they still haven’t put together legislation that could pass.</blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; ">This is simply false. The House HAS passed legisation that covers the uninsured, and provided funding for doing so.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; ">There is also no doubt that there are at least 51 votes in the Senate for the House bill. A filibuster can be beaten if Reid wants to beat it. Between using strong arm tactics within his caucus, and shutting down business on all other matters while taking cloture vote after cloture vote, he will eventually get the bill to the floor. He will also be able to pick off Republicans who really can't go into a 2010 race being seen as opposed to providing up to a fifth of their constituents with health care services they do not currently have. And, of course, there is the reconciliation process that can be used to circumvent the automatic filibuster Reid has created.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">It's not just Leonhardt. <a href="http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/07/core.html">Scott Lemiux</a> discusses an Ezra Klein post about what compromises are necessary to get passage.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">So let's be clear. A good bill, with a public option, would easily pass in both houses. The insurance lobby, through the Senate Finance Committee doing everything it can to gut the Senate bill, and to slow the process down because the lobbyists are well aware that a good bill would pass easily. Slowing down the process allows the lobbyist's disinformation machine more time to operate, more time to confuse voters with false, even crazy ("the government will kill old people!") information.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">The media is doing us, once again, a tremendous disservice by treating what can only be called lies as legitimate points of debate. The opponents of a good bill don't care about costs, even though they say so, because a bill with a strong public option that removes current insurance industry subsidies is cheaper than either the status quo or a "reform" plan that adds more subsidies to the insurance industry. All the malarkey that is intended to make old people afraid is totally ridiculous; they will be completely unaffected because they <i>are already on a government health plan</i> that was supposed to lead the country down the path to socialism. The US has the worst health care system in the OECD, but the media parrots, unchallenged nonsensical claims about the US having the best health care in the world and about how awful health care is in Canada. And d0n't get me started on why it is that wars don't have to be paid for, but health care does.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Media support for dishonest GOP spokespeople and Democrat Senators fronting for the insurance companies won't do the trick if a good bill, like the House bill, reaches the floor of the Senate. It will pass. There is no reason for Reid to take elements of a bad Finance committee bill into the Senate bill. He has the votes he needs.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">And, in the end,we <i>will </i>get a reasonably good bill.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Really.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-73995829923730123682009-07-26T22:32:00.002-04:002009-07-26T22:49:40.392-04:00Prisoner's Dilemma NOT<a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/07/prisoners.html">John is right that Matt is wrong</a>. The point of the prisoners' dilemma is that it is not a dilemma. It is a trap.<div><br /></div><div>But John is wrong when he says the upshot of the political situation on health care reform is:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br /><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>If congresspeople think that regardless of the success of the healthcare bill, they will be better off having voted against it, then they will.</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>Given a good health care bill with a strong public option, they can:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul><li>Vote for it, and be better off with their constituents, but worse off with their donors/future employers.</li></ul><ul><li>Vote against it, and be better off with their donors/future employers, but worse off with their constituents.</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div>This is independent of whether or not the bill passes. </div><div><br /></div><div>Hence their focus is entirely on preventing a good bill with a strong public option from getting to the floor for a vote. They can vote for a bad bill their donors support, and claim to be for reform when they run for re-election.</div><div><br /></div><div>If Pelosi or Reid are seriously committed to effective health care reform, they will make sure a good bill with a strong public option is what hits the floors. There will be enough Blue Dogs, and Class '10 Senators not willing to risk their seats to kowtow to the lobbies. They'll do all they can to gut the bill behind the scenes. But if presented with a good bill, the majority will vote for it.</div></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-87811229425918970862009-07-04T01:41:00.002-04:002009-07-04T02:11:42.019-04:00Gabba Gabba HeySo it looks like Palin quit in order to get in front of an indictment for some serious corruption.<div><br /></div><div>This is incredibly good news. Because you know what she is going to do.</div><div><br /></div><div>She is going to go around the country raising money for her legal fund, pitching her book. And what will her theme be?</div><div><br /></div><div>That <i>she</i> is the target of a vast media and establishment conspiracy, because they want to silence the only authentic voice on the national political scene. It is already obvious the media is out to get her. But now the establishment Republicans are joining in. They talk a good game, but in the end they are up there in Washington, living lives regular folks will never know, and making fools of regular folks.</div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike those Washington Republicans, she actually walks the walk. Her daughters DO practice abstinence. When one of them gets pregnant, she proudly becomes an unwed teenage mother. She doesn't pretend she thinks the Universe is 6,000 years old. She believes it. She speaks in tongues. She doesn't really bother keeping the heathen foreigners straight, because America is good enough for her, and should be good enough for any real American.</div><div><br /></div><div>She's the real deal. She's one of us, one of the knuckle dragging Know-Nothings. And that is why the media and political elites are out to get her.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Republican establishment has to be terrified. They've run this scam out ever since Nixon, that they are the party of Real Americans, proudly ignorant (dittoheads!) racist jingoists who have a tenuous grasp of reality. Sarah Palin can make the case that she, not Haley Barbour, not, errrr, player to be named later, is just a big phony.</div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-8686850786759123712009-07-01T13:26:00.003-04:002009-07-01T13:56:49.713-04:00Town HallApparently Helen Thomas and Chip Reid had a cow in today's presser with Robert Gibbs. Washington Times reporter Christina Bellantoni tweeted: <div><br /></div><div><blockquote>Helen Thomas to Gibbs re: town hall format argument: "I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency"</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>This is in reference to today's Presidential town hall on health care. Leave aside the pearl clutching demand that only the WHPC should be permitted to ask the President questions. Part of what is going on here is that the WHPC, and their colleagues, are using a narrative frame that is completely out of step with both public opinion and, as Obama said in his last press conference, simple logic.</div><div><br /></div><div>The basic narrative frame the media has adopted is that any policy needs to preserve the existing collection of medical care financing organizations--insurance companies, HMOs--because, well, just because. Here's a <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=public+option&srchst=cse">collection of NY Times articles</a>, of which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/business/economy/28view.html">this one is representative</a>. (Krugman sneaks one in that search with a solid counter-argument.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is this <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/sns-ap-us-obama-health-care-snowe,0,7253018.story"> Olympia Snowe interview</a> with the AP, where she says (no joke) that she is opposed to the public option because it would lower the cost of financing health care:</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," she said.</blockquote></div><div>The media completely accepts that one of the policy objectives in health care reform is the preservation of insurance companies that have created a system where Americans get the worst health care in the OECD, both in terms of covereage and of effectiveness, at the highest cost in the OECD. So they (as in the ABC "town hall") continually focus their questions on the impact on the health finance business, rather than on the health care provided to American citizens.</div><div><br /></div><div>In other words, they are asking the<i> wrong questions</i>, questions that reflect what the President has pointed out, is a completely illogical position:</div><blockquote><div>"Just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic," Obama said.</div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:17px;"></span></div><div>So if the President is going to actually discuss the real policy issues involved with health care reform, he <i>has </i>to take his questions from the public, and not the press.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-11684924531250930332009-06-27T15:16:00.003-04:002009-06-27T15:19:22.506-04:00Small BusinessOne of the things about being a small business person is that you really do want to offer health care to your employees. The public option would help small business development enormously.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ia-U_8DW7Dw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ia-U_8DW7Dw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; white-space: pre;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; white-space: pre;"><br /></span></span></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-63257563842744917562009-06-25T13:49:00.002-04:002009-06-25T14:10:18.198-04:00Executive testmonyWendell Potter, former health industry executive, <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/06/24/potter-tnrtv.aspx">explains how the industry cheats customers</a>.<div><br /></div><div>15 years ago, when reform was last on the table, 95% of the money collected in premiums went to pay for health care. Now it is less than 80%. The term for this value is the "medical-loss ratio." As <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_truth_about_the_insurance.html">Ezra</a> says, this is a telling construction. It means they regard <i>paying medical reimbursements</i> is a cost.</div><div><br /></div><div>George Lakoff made a similar point in an interview I had with him. In most businesses, the more your customers demand, the better off you are. This is true for people who make good things, like high butterfat ice cream, and people who provide services to correct bad things, like autobody shops. In the case of a health insurance company, the incentive is reversed. Providing services reduces your profits. And that is why we are where we are today. </div><div><br /><br /></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-45911584115669985452009-06-20T17:52:00.000-04:002009-06-20T17:53:43.994-04:00HumorOr, actually, reality.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S39MhPrLQz4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S39MhPrLQz4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object></span></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-43049590305636654862009-06-19T14:50:00.001-04:002009-06-19T14:51:36.258-04:00Ezra's 101On this one, Ezra Klein explains how a public plan works in a bloggershead discussion.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T05AjxvxEOY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T05AjxvxEOY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object></span><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-5599574016690960762009-06-19T14:42:00.002-04:002009-06-19T14:46:36.158-04:00Lies RefutedHere <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/howard-dean-shoots-down-norah-odonnells-re">Howard Dean knocks down </a>all the Frank Luntz talking points that Norah O'Donnell recites to him.<div><br /></div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-5641953665455567422009-06-19T14:31:00.002-04:002009-06-19T14:36:11.247-04:00No CoverageThis is not a video, but a National Public Radio Fresh Air podcast. Karen Tumulty discusses her brother's case of <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=101693943&m=101704104">losing his individual catastrophic insurance coverage</a> when he became very ill.<div><br /></div><div>KT (as she calls herself in Swampland comments) is reprising her <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883149,00.html">TIME cover story</a> on her brother's difficulties.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-47106826856554136852009-06-19T14:26:00.001-04:002009-06-19T14:27:32.202-04:00Public OptionThis one, from HCAN, is a simple advocacy ad. But it summarizes the case very nicely.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AILtwX8ez9k&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AILtwX8ez9k&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-66043280060856080842009-06-19T14:20:00.002-04:002009-06-19T14:24:19.808-04:00RecissionI am going to start collecting videos documenting all that is wrong with the current health care system, and and/or advocating a public option. <div><br /></div><div>This one features insurance company executives saying they indeed retroactively rescind converage when a customer turns out to have a serious and expensively treated medical problem. That is, they collect premiums from their customers until they get really sick, then they comb through their medical records to find a reason to remove their coverage.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_29CCVI1ao4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_29CCVI1ao4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-53232347102966370682009-05-21T09:20:00.003-04:002009-05-21T09:39:42.572-04:00TapperSo Jake Tapper of ABC tweets the following:<div><br /></div><div><blockquote>does POTUS think it's safe to put detainees in US prisons?</blockquote> <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Throwing hands in the air I tweet back:</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>@jaketapper You mean as opposed to safely jailing serial killers and domestic terrorists? What is wrong with you people?</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div>I get a direct message saying that I am being "tiresome." Of course, he doesn't follow me, so I cannot DM back.</div><div><br /></div><div>So I'll put the reply here.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jake-- the point is that this is such an incredibly stupid question that I find it disturbing that you and other members of the Beltway media take it in the least bit seriously. The people who are raising the question are lying about their concern, and engaging in fearmongering. They know perfectly well that the US military can transport individual prisoners to secure facilities, where people can be kept locked up. The US is very good at imprisonment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Rather than asking whether Obama thinks it is "safe" to put detainees from Guantanamo in supermax prison facilities, what you should be doing is asking elected Republican officials what the heck they are talking about. Every single Senator's state has a max security prison. Ask them about the rate of jail breaks from those facilities. Ask them if their prisons are so poorly administered that they cannot hold a prisoner.</div><div><br /></div><div>Fecklessly following whatever idiotic talking point that comes out of Republican mouths is destroying your, and your colleagues, credibility, Jake.</div><div><br /></div><div>I suppose it is tiresome to hear that. But it's no less true.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13875985.post-91739069829205836662009-05-08T16:17:00.002-04:002009-05-08T16:39:36.541-04:00Prevention is UnderratedApril 9, 2009 16:38<br /><br />DKos's <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/7/728994/-Health-Care-Friday">public health expert DemFromCT has a link </a>to a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/459009a.html">Nature editorial</a> that starts out:<br /><br /><blockquote>Complacency, not overreaction, is the greatest danger posed by the flu pandemic. That's a message scientists would do well to help get across.</blockquote><br /><br />As I've read in earlier posts by DemFromCT, the key to preventing a large number of deaths from a virulent swine flu virus is to get the reinfection rate down below 1 per infected person. Then it snuffs itself. The trouble is that this is nearly impossible to do if too many people are infected. So you need to act very early in the process of the flu's spread. Judging by the number of joke threads running through twitterstreams, this is not widely understood. The public health professionals appear to be overreacting to a small number of cases. <br /><br />So if the CDC and the WHO are successful in limiting the spread of the disease, they will be seen not as successful managers but as nervous nelliew. And it will be harder, next time, to implement effective measures precisely because they were so effective.<br /><br />This reminded me of the Y2K computer scare. In fact, a lot of work was done, a lot of money was spent, and the crisis was averted. But the very success of the effort led to many people concluding that there really hadn't been an incipient crisis after all.<br /><br />Moreover, not only did the Y2K software repairs prevent a collapse of corporate computer systems, it also forced the creation of systems of off site backups and disaster recovery. This, in turn, was partly responsible for the speed with which Wall Street was able to restart their systems following 9/11.<br /><br />Robust systems that prevent disaster are hard to justify to bean-counters, and taxpayers. But that is the right way to design a system.Jay Ackroyd (@jayackroyd)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17270262597090808369noreply@blogger.com0