Pundit Nation

US President kowtows to foreign leader, traditions

2009-11-15T13:38:00.003-06:00

Going analog for awhile..

2009-11-06T06:15:00.000-06:00

...so go read someone else.

Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were in France last year?

2009-10-24T16:26:00.001-05:00

He does--Zero.

"Fox News and the far right have a race deck and they play the Ace of Spades every day."

2009-09-24T22:27:00.002-05:00

Yep. And, locally, Fred Dooley is the biggest joker around.

Won't somebody please think of the insurance company executives?

2009-09-22T06:00:00.002-05:00

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Goodbye, Mary

2009-09-16T20:38:00.001-05:00

New York Times: Mary Travers of Peter, Paul, and Mary Dies.

Jim Carroll: People Who Died

2009-09-13T22:06:00.001-05:00

New York Times: Jim Carroll, 60, Poet and Punk Rocker, Dies

In speech, Obama will not insist on public option

2009-09-09T19:11:00.003-05:00

So says the New York Times.

I admit to being extremely disappointed in how cowardly this administration has been on the healthcare issue.

I really didn't think I was electing John McCain when I voted last year.

Of course the one thing you can always say about Democrats is that they've always been more worried about upsetting Republicans than they have about turning off progressives in their own party.

Who knows. Maybe the speech will be better than I think.

Unpopular president tries to indoctrinate nation's schoolchildren

2009-09-08T22:13:00.003-05:00

Wankers.

Who's going to save MPS?

2009-08-14T06:34:00.011-05:00

It's no stretch to argue that that the financial and educational crises facing the Milwaukee Public Schools are a direct result of the years of political tensions over the district's management, and yesterday Lisa Kaiser of the Shepherd Express broke the news that it's about to get dramatically worse:

MPS Board President Michael Bonds has submitted a letter to Mayor Tom Barrett announcing his decision to resign from Barrett’s appointed MPS Innovation and Improvement Advisory Committee “immediately.” I just got off the phone with Pat Curley, Barrett’s top aide, who hadn’t heard that Bonds had turned in his resignation letter. “We’re very, very disappointed if that is the case,” Curley said.

It will surprise no one that the cause of Bonds' displeasure appears to be the that the mayor and the governor are no longer being coy about their intentions regarding MPS:

Gov. Jim Doyle and Mayor Tom Barrett both said for the first time Thursday that achieving significant reform in Milwaukee Public Schools would require the mayor to lead the school system and select the next superintendent.
Mayoral control of the school system - a tactic that experts say has improved the academic and fiscal performance of some other urban districts - has been hinted at in Milwaukee since late spring, but wasn't formally endorsed until Doyle did so Thursday in an interview with a member of the Journal Sentinel's editorial board.

In addition to selecting the superintendent, Barrett said, the mayor should also appoint the School Board. Doyle did not commit to that but indicated he was open to new ways for the School Board to operate.
[...]
The comments from Doyle and Barrett, which were supported by state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers, set off immediate criticism from Milwaukee School Board President Michael Bonds.

Actually, serious intimations of mayoral control have been going on for longer than the paper suggests above, but there's no need to quibble. A change in the governance structure of MPS seemed inevitable following Barrett's sharp criticisms of the board following last year's budget deliberations. (And , as a side-note, Milwaukee area progressives who were very supportive of Evers during the spring DPI race are probably sharpening their own criticisms of him today.)

I have no idea why Barrett and Doyle chose to take this issue on now, but it seems strange that they would deliberately pick a fight with Bonds, who, if anything, is sympathetic to the need to introduce significant reforms in how MPS is run. In addition, Bonds understands the complex attitudes Milwaukee's African American community has towards MPS, and is somebody the mayor should have on his side if he wants to have any measure of credibility in moving forward with such a plan.

I'm against mayoral control on principle, but also for practical reasons. There just isn't much evidence that it has any affect on student performance. (pdf) I also doubt that much of the politics surrounding the schools (a large share of which has nothing to do with education policy or management of the district) would change all that much under the model. And parents should probably be concerned about whether they will get a fair hearing if decisions about curriculum and school closings are being made from City Hall.

But individuals who are opposed to mayoral control of MPS underestimate the incredible frustration parents and many others in the community have for a system they see as failing generations of students. This is not, somewhat ironically, due to the district's low achievement scores, but because even casual observers of the district know that many schools and programs are thriving. A main failure of MPS over the years has been its difficulty in replicating the success of high-performing schools like Rufus King and Riverside throughout the district.

As a result, I would posit that if Barrett really wants take over MPS, he'll be hailed for wanting to do so--and by wide margins. This is not to say that other stakeholders like labor, the teacher's union, and some interest groups will be happy. But in a move like this, Barrett can appeal directly to parents and taxpayers.

Part of accomplishing that, however, will be related to patching up his differences with Bonds. Unfortunately, for the mayor, the events of the last 24 hours are going to complicate that effort.

Ted Bobrow has a good take on this issue too.

(Disclosure: Most readers of this blog know that I ran for the school board in the spring.)

Congratulations, crazies!

2009-08-13T18:20:00.005-05:00

Way to go:

The cost of caring for patients who are near death accounts for a big piece of the government's medical spending. But a furor over a provision for government-paid counseling to plan for end-of-life care is steering lawmakers away from the issue.

Tucked inside a sweeping House bill to overhaul the health system is a provision that would require Medicare to pay physicians to counsel patients once every five years. During those sessions, doctors could discuss how patients can plan for such end-of-life decisions as setting up a living will, obtaining hospice care or establishing a proxy to make their health decisions when they are unable to do so.

The end-of-life counseling provision in the House bill is expected to cost a few billion dollars over the next decade. But health policy experts say it could lower medical spending by reducing end-of-life medical care that patients don't want.

The picture here succinctly presents why encouraging living wills and advanced directives is a remarkably good idea and should be a part of any health care reform. It's one of those issues for which there isn't even really a question. You may disagree with the notion of the government paying for it, but like quitting smoking and not drinking and driving, there isn't much to argue about in respect to the benefits for individuals and society.

As a matter of politics, agreeing to drop the provision from the bill is an unmitigated disaster. Democrats have now validated the tactics of the crazy wing of their opposition in this debate. The GOP certainly won't ever return the favor when they're in the majority so I can't think of a single reason why the Democrats should have--particularly in regards to such an important issue.

And of course, as we all could have guessed, as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin encouraged citizens to get advanced directives.

Added--Steve Benen: "And here's the real kicker: it won't make any difference. Lawmakers can take the measure out of the bill, and right-wing critics will continue to equate reform with the Nazi Holocaust, because a) they're unconcerned with reality; and b) they'll assume the measure is still there anyway."

Whether it's Walker or Neumann, Doyle should burnish his pro-Choice credentials

2009-08-13T07:05:00.002-05:00

The above is an ad from a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Virgina, and Governor Jim Doyle should make note of it for his 2010 reelection campaign. Whether he faces Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker or former Congressman Mark Neumann, turning out a large contingent of voters concerned about protecting reproductive freedom rights could play a key role in winning reelection.

Why? While Ken Lamke lays out a few decent (if somewhat routine) reasons why a primary strengthens rather than weakens the eventual GOP nominee, the fact is that a contest in which Walker or Neumann are forced into staking out conservative positions to impress party activists will put them at odds with most state voters, thereby boosting Doyle in the general election.

And why the Choice issue? Both candidates, but particularly Neumann, have taken extreme anti-Choice views. Forcing them to defend these views early, and, perhaps, even encouraging them to compete on the issue, will reinforce how disconnected they are from Wisconsinites

Even as terms like pro-Choice or pro-Life are becoming more nuanced, extraordinary numbers of Americans--nearly 70%--think it's important to preserve the rights women and their families have through the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision. In Wisconsin, the political divide over legislation like the very popular Compassionate Care for Rape Victims bill highlights how reactionary the anti-Choice movement actually is. In pointing out these differences early and often, Doyle can start to establish the very real concern everyone should have about how hostile a Walker or Neumann administration might be for women.

And one has to wonder if Walker and Neumann are aware of this. Walker's Web site makes no mention of the Choice issue, as far as I can tell, and Neuman's has only a brief reference.

Regardless of which GOP nominee faces Doyle, the economic message and the hammering on taxes will be the same. Given the state of the economy, it's possible, and understandably so, that those issues might find some traction with voters. As a result, it's going to be vital to emphasize areas in which Walker and Neumann are well outside of the mainstream. Promoting his stance on reproductive freedom is a good place for Doyle to start.

Video via Crooks and Liars.

The health care debacle

2009-08-13T06:40:00.001-05:00

Emily Mills, as usual, is indispensable:

The most vocally anti-health care reform Republicans have decided that their own political ambition and desire to see Obama taken down a peg or two trumps the well-being of their fellow Americans. That's the cold, hard truth of the matter. Petty backstabbing and one-upsmanship has taken precedence over honest discussion and work toward bettering the health care situation for their country.

How we've allowed this to happen is beyond me. There's plenty of blame to
go around: Democrats too spineless to stand up for what's right or make clear what's really in the bill, politicians too willing to sacrifice work for the great good in the name of ambition, everyday folk too susceptible to the bald-faced lies and fear mongering, a media too ready to spend more time covering nonsense than issues and events that really matter.

The underlying issues are even more complicated. It's fairly obvious that questions of race and class insecurity permeate much of this debate. Selfishness, ignorance, pride, arrogance, and greed play their part, too.

And she's right about this too: This whole mess is "fucking despicable."

Saving newspapers

2009-08-13T06:11:00.000-05:00

John Dvorak

The Internet, of course, has changed everything, they say. Has it? It changed distribution and accessibility. That's for sure. But what else has it really changed? Yes, it changed the way people read because, let's face it, as a vehicle for the printed word, it seriously stinks. Staring at a bright screen to read text is ridiculous and tiresome. Any essay or column over 700 words becomes tedious. I'm already over the limit right now. Stop me!

So, what's the answer to the dilemma? Immediate and drastic downsizing! And I do not mean keeping all the buildings, overhead, and executives while firing reporters. Just the opposite is needed.

Eliminate layers of redundant editors. Turn off the lights, sell the desks, and get rid of the buildings. Reporters should work in the field and file reports over the network. Hire more ad sales people and make them pound the pavement. I know of no major newspaper or magazine that has ever even considered virtualizing the entire operation. The model of having to go in the office and be seen and supervised is one of the things that's killing these companies. It's expensive. If the reporters need to socialize with each other, let them do so at a coffee shop.

Leave the reporters at home where they can watch (or not!) C-SPAN all day. The same Internet and massive worldwide connectivity, which is killing newspapers and magazines, can be used to save them, too, by virtualizing the entire industry. Companies who know how to manage teleworkers have a huge competitive edge. And it's a natural fit for the publishing business. How many book authors come into the office? Would they get less or more work done if they did?

I'm sure this will all fall on deaf ears, as editors read this and say to themselves, "Nah. What we need is edgier writing to get the young reader on board."

Not all of this is sensible. Serious enterprise journalism, for example, requires an infrastructure that can't be replicated in a home office. I also don't think you can compare the resources a book author requires to be productive to the resources required to collect and produce breaking news stories. Centralized work locations are always going to be a feature of the news business, whether the final product is print or digital.

Still, Dvorak's main point that adopting technology solutions to more efficiently produce, as opposed to just distribute, news and information. is a good one.

(H/T: Tom McMahon)

Won't somebody please think of the children?

2009-08-12T21:36:00.003-05:00

Classy.

Seriously, who let's their kid stand next to a guy like that? And why can't they get her a sign that makes sense?

Opium of the people

2009-08-12T20:36:00.003-05:00

Any other institution...

Had any other group or organization in this country been involved in this case, there would be a line of people ready to accuse the group of murder. Religion gets a pass, though, and instead, the girl's parents stand alone in court.

I'm sure the Journal Sentinel's mailbox will be pretty full after that column. One doesn't often see religion talked about in that context in the mainstream press.

Irrational?

2009-08-12T06:40:00.001-05:00

Jim Rowen breaks down yesterday's grotesque, racist rant from Mark Belling:

Rightie talker Mark Belling devoted the entire first hour of his show to a what was even for Belling a relentless attack on Congressman Gwen Moore for scheduling a health care forum scheduled for Tuesday afternoon at North Division High School - - which is a well-known public building landmark in her district, the 4th.

Belling said:

People would be "intimidated" at attending at a central city location.

People who attended at the site would fear "being shot in the head."

Suggested that if he sent his producer, Paul, to cover the event he'd be spotted as "the white guy" attending.

When a caller on the line offered a first-person account of the event, Belling said he was afraid of putting the caller on the air because if the caller were identified calling the Belling show "they might kill him."

And Belling wasn't alone in trying to whip up Whitey over Moore's health care event.

So, do you get it yet, or is this all still too vague? Maybe this will help. It's an e-mail sent to the SEIU recently in advance of a Racine health care event:

You socialist f---s have the nerve to say stop the violence at the town hall meetings when they weren't violent until you p---ies showed up because your n----- leader obama said to?????? When we have ours in Racine, Wi, I want you there. I want one of your little b----- to put his hands on this Marine."

The issue here isn't really health care or the stimulus package or the government's stake in GM--it's about control. And it's about entrenched interests with a deep economic stake in maintaining that control who are now realizing they might be on the verge of losing some of it.

So, naturally, they're upset. They're losing. But some of them are reacting--a small number, I would agree--by reverting to form. Ed Kilgore:

Conservatives are hardly unique in reacting selfishly or self-righteously to political issues, or dressing up personal prejudices with public policy arguments; we all do that from time to time, and to one extent or another. But whether we are talking about gay marriage, government-backed mortgages, or health care reform, there may well be a strongly dynamic relationship right now between privately held feelings of strong disdain for the purported beneficiaries of Obama's agenda, and some of the wilder arguments being made publicly to attack it.

Belling's always been a racist thug, but most of his followers probably lived out their own prejudices vicariously through him. But now, spurred to action by conspiracy theories spun and reiterated by conservative media outlets, town hall meetings are being filled with people who are uninterested in having a rational debate about health care. They're just there to scream.

Putting up with the occasional oddball is part of the job elected officials sign up for when they run for office, but it's hard to see why any representative owes much deference at all to every racist nut job who honestly believes that a public option for health insurance would lead to government death panels.

Rational? (Part 2)

2009-08-12T06:30:00.001-05:00

Via Ta-Nehisi Coates:

According to Public Policy Polling (PPP), a North Carolina polling firm, only 24% of self-identified Republican voters in the state believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. 47% do not believe that Obama is American born, and 29% of Republicans aren't sure.

One part of PPP's data might reassure sentient readers somewhat: 7% of those who voted for John McCain do not believe Hawaii to be a part of theUnited States. Now perhaps this is just another irrational expression of Obama hatred. But, it may also be older voters who never quite absorbed the news that our 50th state is indeed our 50th state.

On the other hand individuals, who self-identify as Republicans these days are at an all time low, leaving not much in the political gene pool, so to speak. As to the geography knowledge of John McCain supporters, North Carolinians can thank years of underfunding public education.

Tonight's Jam: Elf Power

2009-08-12T00:17:00.001-05:00

"All the World is Waiting"

Capitalism

2009-08-12T00:02:00.002-05:00

Shocked at Fox commentator Glenn Beck's racist attacks on the Obama administration, advertisers are starting to flee his program:

Beck's (recent) claim that the president is a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people," was enough to cause three major advertisers to flee. Will his comment about poisoning Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi push more out the door?

Urged on by ColorofChange.org and many of its 600,000 members, who highlighted Beck's "racist" attack, this week NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance announced they would no longer advertise on Beck's program.

Still, Beck still enjoys the support of scores of blue-chip advertisers, and we can't help wondering why brand managers would want to be associated with Beck's hateful and unhinged rants about Nazis and racists. Why would companies like Bowlfex, Nutrisystem, Gerber, UPS, Orbitz, Geico, Vontage, Ameritrade, and Verizon wireless want their products associated with a Beck's race-baiting?

Media Matter is getting in the act too by reminding us which companies are endorsing Beck's program:

Where was all this anger when children were getting blown up by US bombs in Iraq?

2009-08-11T23:39:00.003-05:00

"Send them home with a bullet in the head."

Via, Brawler.

Protesting against their pocketbooks

2009-08-11T22:49:00.002-05:00

Matt Wion has a good comment at this post:

What I find sad about all this is that many, perhaps most, of these protestors are middle and working class people who are hurt the most by the insurance industry.They have the most to gain by health care reform and they are opposing it!

Equally sad is how easy lies and distortion can whip up people into a frenzy AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS! We are seeing democracy badly undermined by this propaganda and the vulnerability of many to it.

Of course they were lying

2009-08-11T21:51:00.005-05:00

The lies, double-dealing, and reports of criminal behavior from the worst presidential administration in history seem to have no end:

The former federal prosecutor at the center of the controversy over the 2006 U.S. attorney firings said today that he feels fully vindicated by newly disclosed e-mails from the Bush White House showing that Karl Rove and his deputies were actively involved in arranging his dismissal from the Justice Department. "This confirms my worst nightmares," David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, said in an interview with NEWSWEEK. "There were improper and potentially illegal—as incriminally illegal—reasons for my removal."
His comments came shortly after the House Judiciary Committee released hundreds of pages of interview transcripts of Bush White House officials and internal e-mails that were obtained by the panel earlier this year and kept confidential until today. The material suggests, at a minimum, an often aggressive effort by Rove's office for more than a year and a half to have Iglesias removed as the chief federal prosecutor in New Mexico following a barrage of complaints from Republican Party officials and members of Congress that he was not doing enough to prosecute voter-fraud cases and bring indictments that would hurt Democrats and boost the GOP's prospects in the key swing state.

Iglesias said today that he was "surprised" last month when Rove insisted in a rare joint interview to reporters from The New York Times and The Washington Post that he was merely a "conduit" of complaints about Iglesias, rather than a driving force behind the decision to fire the prosecutor. "This doesn't sound like he was merely a conduit," Iglesias said about the newly released e-mails and testimony. "This sounds like he had a very active role."
[...]
..."I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM USATTY," Rove's deputy, Scott Jennings, wrote in an e-mail on June 28, 2005, to one of his colleagues, Tim Griffin, complaining about Iglesias's refusal to bring vote-fraud cases that had been pushed by New Mexico Republicans.
In perhaps the most significant passage in the new material, former White House counsel Harriet Miers—questioned by the judiciary committee for the first time in June—described getting a phone call from a "very upset" Rove telling her that Iglesias was "a serious problem and he wanted something done about it."

In June of 2005, when Rove was "very upset" and when some punk in his office was pushing around career prosecutors in the Justice Department, 78 US soldiers died in Iraq in incidents that ranged from accidental weapons discharges to attacks from insurgents to a pair of "non-hostile" homicides. That number is dwarfed by the more than 1,200 civilian casualties who were killed during attacks by American soldiers, in suicide bomb attacks, or just as part of the general chaos caused by the US occupation and invasion.

These people were and still are completely apalling.

Rational?

2009-08-11T17:17:00.002-05:00

LEBANON, PA - AUGUST 11: Katy Abram of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, holds a sign as she waits in line to attend a town hall meeting held by U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter August 11, 2009 in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Specter held the town hall meeting to speak about health care reform. (Photo by Chris Gardner/Getty Images) (H/T: Jezebel)

Upadte: Later, Ms. Abram told Fox News: “I know that years down the road, I don’t want my children coming to me and asking me, ‘Mom, why didn’t you do anything? Why do we have to wait in line for, I don’t know, toilet paper or anything?’ ”

The GOP’s baffling stance on health care reform

2009-08-10T06:51:00.001-05:00

Former Bush 41 speechwriter David Frum has a provocative post about the perils to Republicans should they defeat health care reform:

The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we’ll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.

We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.

Not a good outcome.

Frum is something of an outsider among establishment Republicans and conservatives, so his point will probably be lost among the tea-baggers storming town hall meetings. But he raises, perhaps inadvertently, a central issue in the health care debate worth emphasizing: most Republicans would prefer that we not reform the health care system at all.

And this isn’t just a matter of failing to propose a counter program it’s a matter of being against even rational changes to the system.

Take our own US Representative Paul Ryan, often held out by the GOP as one of its deep thinkers on economic issues, including health care. It’s one thing for Ryan to be tethered to market solutions as an answer to the health care crisis, but Ryan has repeatedly stood in the way any reform whatsoever, no matter how modest or justified, including efforts to provide insurance to poor children under the federal SCHIP program, known as Badger Care in Wisconsin. Helping poor children is a win for most politicians, which is why many Republicans, including Ryan’s colleague, US Representative Tom Petri, supported expanding SCHIP. Despite this, Ryan joined a small band of House Republicans in upholding Bush’s vetoes of extra funds for the program. Passage had to wait until Barack Obama became president.

And the efficacy of Ryan’s own health care proposals just don’t stand up too much scrutiny and wouldn’t, in any event, prevent his constituents from having to exhaust their life savings due to illness. This isn’t reform; it’s maintaining the status quo, just as Frum warns. And Americans don’t much like the status quo.

It’s instructive, as well, to note conservative blogger Rick Esenberg’s recent post suggesting that the practice of rescission—where an insurance company denies, often with little justification, payment for care after a policy holders gets ill—as not a good enough reason to seek reform in the health care system. If there is no justification to chane a system that lets insurance companies takes payments for coverage, but then provides no protection for consumers when the promised care is denied, when would reform ever be justified?

The answer is probably never.

All of the Congressional opposition to health care reform, the shouting and bullying at the town halls, and the seeming unwillingness to accept any reasonable reform is, actually, quite baffling. It’s hard to imagine why any member of Congress running in 2010 would want to run on a platform of denying coverage to poor children, emptying the savings accounts of seniors, and preserving a system that hurts consumers.

Hasn’t it yet occurred to anyone in the GOP how boxed in they are on this issue? If health care reform passes without their support, the nation adopts badly needed reforms to a broken system and Democrats get to take the credit.

But if it doesn’t pass, Republican incumbents will have to run on their record—a record that puts them at odds with most Americans and, as Frum points out, the GOP’s natural constituency.