Bly Space

We need a public option with a French accent

2009-09-15T12:40:00.000-07:00

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the inefficiencies in the US health insurance system, as compared with what seems to be the amazingly efficient French system. Most talk is centered on inequity here, which is the bottom line, of course. Still, we like to believe that the economy (and all progress in this country) is driven by efficiency, innovation, and productivity, so the contrast in this case seems rather alarming.

Listen here to author T.R. Reid on his experiences in doctor’s offices around the globe, seeking help for a “bum shoulder”. Listen, particularly, to his account of the French system of files and payment processing.

[In France and other ‘Bismarck model” European countries] These are private docs, private hospitals, and mainly private insurance plans…
This business in America where we have the in-network deal or we have to get pre-authorization; any doctor, any clinic, anybody in the entire country, you chose ‘em, you go, and insurance has to pay the bill within two weeks or so…

[French doctor’s offices] are Spartan... What’s missing [...] is the files and files of patient records, and there’s no billing office… the patient comes in, out of her pocket she pulls […] the Card Vitale, he puts it in a reader on his desk and her entire medical record shows up on the screen. He chats with her about her problem, he’s typing down what she’s got wrong, and he says “I’m going to prescribe a course of antibiotic” […] and he’s typing all that up. He’s finished with her, […] he hits one key on his computer and the entire bill has gone to her insurance company, he’s going to be paid in three days, and she’s gonna get her copay back from the insurance company within two weeks. Done. No paperwork.

Compare that to the situation now facing my sister, trying to get her daughter needed treatment for a deforming case of scoliosis. The condition is not, of itself, life threatening, but further deformation could begin to impact internal organs, including her lungs. The girl has, since birth, been very susceptible to lung ailments.

The treatment is thoracic spinal fusion, a 7-8 hour surgery that, while not uncommon, is far from routine. My sister’s search up and down California for a doctor competent to perform the surgery who would also accept Medicaid led to UCLA, where the surgery is performed, apparently, hundreds of times per year.

My sister lives in Northern California, so the team at UCLA worked with her doctor up north to coordinate some of the pre-op work and insurance submittals. There were two necessary pre-op trips to LA. The surgery was scheduled for today, September 15. The family flew down this weekend, mom, dad, the patient, and her twin sister. Dad and sis planned to go home Friday, while the patient would not be clear to travel for three weeks, so she and mom would stay down here.

What do you say to a kid about to go under the knife? I told her it would all be over in two days, and she wouldn’t have to think about it anymore.

So I was sickened yesterday when I heard that the surgery had been postponed for at least three weeks, because her Medicaid paperwork had been lost in some shuffle or another and UCLA won’t do the surgery until it is pre-authorized. In the meanwhile, her parents must find money to change tickets and buy new ones, putting more financial stress on an already stressed family.

“Medicaid is a government program!” I can already hear the screeches. But this situation isn’t unique to public insurance. It’s due to an approval system in use by public and private insurers, and it’s stupid, and it’s wrong, and it wastes time and money.

There is (or there was a couple of weeks ago) language in the current house bill that would enable electronic funds transfers between doctors and Medicare/Medicaid, and presumably other public insurers. That’s a good step.

Now how about language that removes pre-approval from the transaction? The doctor treats, the doctor gets paid. If there is reasonable suspicion of fraud after the fact, it becomes a criminal investigation. If the fraud were committed against a public plan, the charges would be federal, and the penalties would be stiff, and would include prison time.

I’d like it if we followed the Swiss model, and made for-profit basic health insurance illegal. If we can’t do that yet, we should build a strong new public option, while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid. These programs should have zero pre-authorization requirements, and be dedicated to innovating payment and record keeping systems.

If the private sector won’t do it, the government must. And if the private sector wants to remain competitive, it’ll have to go along.

(Here's the NYT story on Reid's book.)

Thanks a lot, asshole

2009-09-03T08:36:00.000-07:00

At the gas station this morning, and this story came over my local NPR station.

One person injured during altercation at healthcare rally in T.O.

TPM's already got a link up, so the story isn't staying local. There are, as well, conflicting eye-witness accounts of the incident, who did what, the usual. The basic facts are not disputed, though: an anti-reformer and a pro-reformer mixed it up, and the anti-reformer got his finger bitten off at the first knuckle.

Depressing that a pro-reform demonstrator committed assault? Oh, absolutely. Here we've been asserting all summer that we just want a discussion based on fact, that we're trying to be rational and democratic (please note the small d), while the opposition is intent on pushing crazy paranoid junk and intimidation. And someone here in my little town just lost it and irresponsibly engaged in confrontation, and committed assault.

Dude, whoever you are: that's MY corner you just shit on, and I don't really care who started it.

That's the corner where we demonstrated every weekend from November 2002 through March 2003 against war with Iraq, the corner we've returned to many times since, to rally or to mourn. That's the corner where we stood silently while people yelled obscenities at us, that's the corner where we stood in pouring rain while Catholic schoolgirls engaged in counter-demonstration across the street.

That's the corner where I stood smiling, eyes full of tears, as teenagers gleefully and proudly joined our ranks in support of marriage equality and against discrimination in all its forms.

That's the corner where we have peacefully gathered and sometimes cried and always been respectful, reminding our neighbors that here in Reagan country, there is a liberal population.

And that's the corner where I have personally engaged in some amazing conversations, like the time a young Army recruit came to ask me to explain if we could support the troops and oppose the war. The Catholic schoolgirls I mentioned above, who were really very brave, out there in the rain, and we talked about Catholic beliefs (Pope John Paul, remember, spoke out against the invasion of Iraq), and how they could support the invasion if they understood that civilians would die.

I wasn't there last night. I haven't been there for a demonstration since shortly after prop 8 passed. I don't respond to the MoveOn organizing emails lately, because there are several people here in the Conejo who are well-connected and can be relied upon to answer the call (in fact, often several people put up the same event). They're very good at this, so I'm not much needed, really.

One thing you can generally count on at larger demonstrations is that there will be a group charged with being peacemakers. Often, their jobs will be to just keep the two sides physically apart. At the 2004 March for Women's Lives in DC, attendees were asked to come to peacekeeper training the night before. During the March, peacekeepers often formed human chains, arms linked, keeping the marchers separated from the anti-abortion protesters who staged a "die-in" at the front of the march (they were removed by law enforcement), and stationed in clumps along the way. At Camp Casey in the summer of 2005, a firm no-man's-land was monitored by both the local police (who were wonderful, and friends of the Camp) and designated campers. In both cases, in addition to the peacekeepers, all attendees were admonished at the start to refrain from engaging the other side in anger.

In TO, the corner has always been so small, 35 to 150 people, and always familiar faces. Organized peacekeeping hasn't been necessary. Individuals reminding each other to behave is really all it's ever taken. There has been no hard fast rule about crossing the street, because people who cross the street do so to shake hands and agree that we all have good intentions.

(Ok, there was the one time I lost it on a neo-Nazi, but I'm only human and anyway once I realized I was screaming I forced myself to walk away.)

So it would seem that the conversation in this country has become so heated that even here, in little TO, the civility of the population cannot be taken for granted anymore. I'm sickened that our corner was disgraced last night. I'm wondering if I feel a responsibility to be there from now on, or if I'm having grandiose notions of just how much help am.

I have no wise conclusions as of this morning. I'm just sad, and angry too.

Incidentally, it's interesting, in a vaguely nauseating way, that the intensity of emotion over health care reform trumps the public concern over the invasion of Iraq.

Anticipation and Expectations

2009-08-19T10:39:00.000-07:00

Wow. Just re-read my 1/20/09 posts for the first time in months.

I still believe that the country voted for transformation. Harder to gauge: whether destructive/dishonest political rhetoric will completely undo the hope, and replace it with ill-informed cynicism.

I still see Obama as the guy I voted for; he's mostly behaved the way I thought he would. I have deep concerns in the areas of civil liberties, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law; but he's been practical, cautious, and wise in most areas thus far.

Mostly, I worry about wasted opportunity, whether wasted by congress or the people or the man himself. But it's only been 7 months, after all, so I cannot say I am disappointed.

Boiling it down for the boy

2009-08-19T09:06:00.000-07:00

My kid is a news media consumer, even at his young age. He listens to NPR in the car with me, he watches The Daily Show and Colbert- which have become media criticism programs as much as comedy shows- he asks for background and then he considers and forms opinions. And we discuss.

These discussions give me a chance to cut through the BS and clean up the points in a way that talks with adult friends often do not. There isn't a self-affirming loop, nor a descent into accusation. Instead, there's the responsibility of clarification, because I will not let him grow up parroting the talking points of either side.

So this morning, NPR's reporting something or another on the health insurance reform debate. Conversation goes, basically, like this:

Him: It's like they said on The Daily Show; Jon said "But Bush supported end-of-life counseling," and Wiley said "Yeah, but he was a guy that I voted for!"

Me: Here's the thing, boy. The debate in congress isn't about "death panels". The debate in congress is simply this: Should government dip its hand into the health insurance industry, or not? And if so, how much will it cost and should that money be spent?

The health insurance industry has a powerful voice in congress, and they do not want to tamper with the market. Fiscal conservatives do not want to spend government money, on principal.

The thing is, politically speaking, it's easier to get the people riled up if you pretend you're debating death panels and government control and who's tactics are worse and which side has more crazies.

And that is, really, all there is to it.

Are there true believers in congress who would hold their positions with or without industry lobbying? I think so, but I don't think their beliefs are grounded in anything common to our society in general.

Are there members of congress who really, on principle, think that the economic health of the country depends on freer markets and less social spending? Of course, but I'd argue that they've held sway for 20 years and the outcomes make a damn good argument for reform.

And there are those who, no matter the outcome, see this as an opportunity for political gain. That isn't part of the congressional job description, and it's a deplorable perversion of power, but again: keep screaming about death panels and maybe no one will notice.

And sure, a few may actually believe in the threat of death panels and the destruction of the constitution. But they're just really stupid.

Today

2009-01-20T21:36:00.000-08:00

Just got home from gathering with friends, a re-watching and champagne, and food. And we all sang, and joked, and the most cynical of friends celebrated hope.

I'm watching Barack and Michelle enter parties and say words and look wonderful. (While I love writing and saying President Obama, I still feel a closeness and an inclination to call him Barack)

When I picked the boy up from school today, he told me about watching the inauguration. And the reason that the schools watched it is clear: this country elected and inaugurated our first black person to our highest office. This represents a closure of wounds, an opening of opportunities, a flowering of inspiration.

Is there anyone who was not moved to tears watching black residents of DC crying and celebrating today? Say to yourself "I don't discriminate". Say to yourself "I am not to blame for slavery or Jim Crow". Whatever you say does not matter. The fact is that in our nation's capital, an entire population has been disenfranchised and mostly invisible- right up to today.

That matters.

But there is more. Today is even bigger thank that.

Today is also the end of the Bush presidency, and everyone should be able to agree, an historic one. This has been a radical presidency, an administration that has not flinched from formulating new arguments, enabling the power of the White House to take steps that were momentous departures from much of what we have seen in our history, and in our system of law.

In his speech today, Barack drew a clear line, he ended it. It was not merely a rebuke- it was in eery sense of the word a place to end and start anew.

That's not even all of it, though. The election of Barack Obama is the result of what I believe is a tectonic shift in American politics. The "villagers" in Washington didn't understand it, maybe they still don't . Barack is the candidate who understood it, who grasped it, who chose to lead a changed people.

He said today that the time has come to set aside childish things, that tired dogmas of the past were done. That the questions posed by the men at our pulpits- is government too big? or too small?- meant nothing anymore, that the question is, what works?

I've been listening all month to pundits wondering if he's a liberal or a moderate, a hawk or a dove, if the "liberal base" would be angered by his pragmatism. And the thing is, they have no idea what all this means, what I really think we have voted for.

We have voted for human dignity and common purpose. We have voted for optimism, not idealism. We have voted for strength, and we have voted for an open table.

We have voted to be competent and practical, but more, we have voted to be one, in this country and with the world.

There are no labels that fit exactly what we have voted for, but our founding documents can speak to it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So today we started anew, and we have a chance to make significant change in the world. We gotta do it together, and I believe we have a president who wants to lead us.

We shall see, we shall see. Today feels really good, though.

01.20.09

2009-01-20T08:18:00.000-08:00

High clouds scattered across blue sky in lovely Thousand Oaks. The air feels clear, not dry as it has been. Watching the former presidents enter the inaugural seating, and really want to remember this. All of it.

My hope: that we are witnessing the return of competency. That the new administration will continue to welcome all voices to the table, while guiding according to solid principle. That the American people hold on to this upswelling of hope and commitment and the desire to work hard and move forward together. That this election is evidence of a paradigm shift in American politics- a shift that was evident throughout the campaign, but Washington insiders did not understand.

Moving vans in front of the WH on the teevee at the moment. President Clinton and his wife, the Secretary of State, have entered. Waiting for President Bush, followed by our President Elect.

What a day.

Update: 8:29
Love to see the mall so full. Love to see residents of DC out and celebrating. Can't imagine what it must feel like.

Update: 8:32
It would really suck to be George W Bush today. He has to go to a party where they're celebrating his departure.

8:39
First glimpse of the man. He looks appropriately somber and perhaps a bit whelmed.
He's just entered, and the tears are starting.
8:46
Di Fi welcoming the croud. "our work is not yet finished, but future generations will mark this morning... the dream that was echoed from the steps of the Lincoln memorial finally (something) the walls of the White House"

Here comes Warren.
While I appreciate the points he is trying to hit, this is actually a fairly uninspiring prayer. I have high standards for prophetic speech.

8:53
'RETHA!

8:59
Vice President Biden

9:03

Tis a gift to be simple
'Tis a gift to be free
'Tis a gift to come down
Where we ought to be
And when we find ourselves
In that place just right
We will be in the valley
Of Love and delight.
When the true simplicity
Is gained
To bow and to bend
We shall not be ashamed
To turn and to turn it will
Be our delight
'Till by turning and turning we
Come 'round right.

9:05

Mister President

Amen.

Epiphany

2008-12-31T08:50:00.000-08:00

So perhaps the secret to keeping down the blood pressure is simply this: get all news in written form. News outlets, blogs, doesn't matter. Also NPR, NPR is fine. The only thing that matters is that one avoids, at all costs, television news.

Because as soon as you turn on the cable, you will see and hear the incestuous paid anchors and analysts and assorted denizens of the echo chamber that is "I get paid to talk about this" TV news, and they will always- always- offer some tidbit, some SURPRISING observation, which will drive up the damn blood pressure once again.

So yesterday, after I had blogged about not having the capacity for shock, outrage, or snark these days, I turned on MSNBC for a bit and got to hear Pat Buchanan (and who isn't surprised that he's on TV at all?) say that we are in a "near 1930 situation in the financial sector, and hoping it doesn't spill over to the larger economy".

What fucking planet does he live on? Why is he ever on my teevee?

So that was, perhaps, my first surprise! for the new year. And the accompanying epiphany: If I need something to get angry about (because anger is often a prime inspiration for action), all I need to do is spend a bit of time with cable news.

Also not surprising

2008-12-30T11:12:00.000-08:00

That the revising of history would start before the history was completed.

Buh bye, assholes.

My New Year's wish: surprise me

2008-12-30T09:47:00.000-08:00

Over a month of no blogging! I think the reason is simple: nothing shocking has happened, and I am waiting for the new era to begin.

Sure, things have happened that are worthy of comment, but my capacity for shock and outrage and snark are seriously depleted.

I mean, really: is it surprising in the least that a candidate for the GOP chairmanship would send out an offensive "parody" disk to republicans around the country this season? We really don't need any more ammunition in the You Pasty Old White Boys Don't Get It And You Never Will argument, and yet, they just keep delivering. Also not shocking: the possibility that this stupid, stupid move will actually enhance his chances for the seat.

Oh but never fear, rank-and-file, your intellectual leadership has a plan! And it includes Twitter! Because Twitter and Republican are two proper nouns I'd like to see forever linked.

Bush, meanwhile, pardons a man whose father's campaign donations might effectively kill congressional republicans Eric Holder/ Marc Rich outrage machine. So then he decides to take the pardon away, within days of issuing it. Was anyone honestly taken aback by this? Has the Bush administration ever properly vetted anyone?

Congressional republicans are demanding "transparency" and there's talk of them shutting down the president-elect's stimulus/recovery plans if they don't pass GOP muster. They want "fiscal responsibility" again. Of course they do. Whatever.

Also, turns out that OSHA hasn't actually been in the business of occupational safety and health for about... 7 years. Question for the 10% of American workers who're injured on the job each year: does it surprise you that your government's chief concern has been not bugging your employer? Thought not.

Then there's the coal ash spill in Tennessee: turns out that no matter how "clean" your coal operation is, the ash still contains toxic levels of arsenic, lead, barium, chromium, and manganese; tens of thousand of pounds per year. Also turns out that the TVA asserted for days after the spill that the sludge was not toxic. Shocking, shocking shocking. Not.

And the situation in Gaza is terrifying, Bush is in Crawford riding his bike, and Condi isn't on a plane yet. Although, even if she got herself over to Riyadh or something, I don't know how much leverage she has left. And all it leaves me with is a sad sense of deja vu. It's been a long time.

So I'm waiting for a new year, and some new stories to open. A whole new cast f characters who maybe won't be so goddamn predictable and obvious and stupid.

(I had an hour or so of dismay over the Rick Warren thing, but ultimately I realize that the man I voted for reaches out in just this way, compromises in just this way, recognizing that the people who admire Warren and didn't vote for Obama and supported prop 8 need a president, too. Note to Barack, though: it'd be swell if you invited Rev. William Sinkford to the White House before his term is up this summer. Just sayin'.)

I'm waiting patiently for New Years Eve champagne, and then I'll be waiting in a cozy wash of ahhhhhh for January 20, 2009. After which I am certain there'll be lots to get worked up about, and hopefully a few surprises.

Hope

2008-11-15T09:15:00.000-08:00

Via SFGate:

Outrage and anguish over the passage of Proposition 8 has spurred massive street protests throughout California, and leaders of the gay and lesbian community believe the backlash could spark an unprecedented nationwide push for gay rights.

Today, same-sex marriage supporters have planned simultaneous protests throughout California and in all 50 states, as well as cities in Canada, England and Australia.

It's a never-before-seen response, surpassing in size and scope even the 1969 Stonewall riots, which started the modern gay rights movement after New York City police raided a Greenwich Village gay bar.

I had planned on heading downtown for the protest, but will instead join the locals in front of City Hall at 11:30 am.

If it's true that this vote has activated a new civil rights movement across the nation, then maybe it was a blessing in disguise. Maybe it leads to the repeal of DOMA and a Supreme Court decision that protects the Constitutional rights of every family, every couple.

We can hope.

Last word (for today)

2008-11-12T22:40:00.000-08:00

Scott's comments are really very good. So here they are:

The day after Prop 8 passed, Vicki asked me some pointed questions about the nature of possible challenges and the validity of her brother's marriage about three months ago. My bottom line reply was that she was asking for $5 Million of legal analysis in 15 minutes, and that as good as I am I don't bill at $20 Million an hour.

Fortunately, the ACLU, LAMBDA, among others have all opened fire with direct review to the California Supreme Court. Along with several highly respected appellate firms, the plaintiffs challenging Prop 8 have the best representation possible.

Interesting issues include the procedural validity of Prop 8's purported amendment to the state constitution, retroactivity (the AG's statement is not precedent, although I agree with his analysis), and one meaty issue I noticed November 5 (apparently validated by ACLU), that Prop 8 speaks only to the validity of same sex marriages, but does NOT address the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Prop 8 could have avoided this thorny issue by adding the words "Notwithstanding the Equal Protection Clause of this Constitution . . ." So there is a patent contradiction between the purported amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

Prop 22, by contrast (which amended the California Family Code, not the state constitution) was struck down by the California Supreme Court as violating the state Equal Protection Clause. The constitutional right of course trumped the statutory restriction.

The absence of the prefatory language in Prop 8 was doubtless intentional, as the Mormon Church also has very good attorneys.

In the end this is purely political, even though the legal issues are fascinating. By not including that prefatory language, the drafters of Prop 8 simply created one more issue to litigate, thereby ensuring the “issue” remain active that much longer.

Not surprisingly, the backers of Prop 8 are in business, and business has been very, very good for them. Unfortunately the product they sell is hate and fear.

The longer they can keep the manufactured "issue" of gay marriage alive (cf. the politically conceived term "partial birth abortion"), the longer they can continue to sell their product: "we hate fags." We shouldn’t be overconfident, however, since in 2004 Karl Rove proved this to be a very, very successful product.

But take heart that the righteous fight for a properly expansive interpretation of equal protection under the law and for marriage equality is being fought by the best available. Until then, let’s raise our voices in righteous indignation.

Playing devil’s advocate is essential to being an effective attorney. I, however, am simply confounded by the opposition, meaning either that I’m lacking professional chops, or that the proponents of Prop 8 and its ilk totally lack logic and merit. I doubt very seriously that the problem is any lack of skill on my part.

ed note: Vicki is a friend of ours. Her brother was married this summer to the love of his life. The family rejoiced that, for the first time since he hit adolescence and knew who he was, he was a full member of society, with all of the rights and responsibilities and sheer joy that accompanies that.

California weeps, Arkansas sticks its head up its ass

2008-11-12T17:58:00.001-08:00

Nate Silver reminds us that the vote for prop 8 was really a generational phenom, rather than a race or class or geography phenom. And Nate is always right, about everything. At least, so far.

And Dan Savage has an oped in the NYT today, reminding us that our state may be full of stupid, but at least we're not Arkansas.

But while Californians march and gay activists contemplate a national boycott of Utah — the Mormon Church largely bankrolled Proposition 8 — an even more ominous new law in Arkansas has drawn little notice.
That state’s Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.” Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Savage was also rather good on Colbert last night.

Sarah!

2008-11-12T17:56:00.000-08:00

I'll be as thrilled as anyone when you run for president in 2012, believe me. But for the time being, just for a few months, maybe, could you just...

GO AWAY?!

A word on prop 8, and what we each do now

2008-11-11T15:23:00.000-08:00

The passage of prop 8 in my state makes me sick. We were right to oppose it, the only arguments made for writing discrimination into our constitution were/are religious, emotional, or outright lies. The Equality For All campaign ran a straight up, honest, and simple opposition, which I think should have been more effective. It was the right campaign to run, and the fight is not over yet. Poised as we all are to continue the fight, I'm concerned now about the anger we're all feeling, and mistakes we may make that will have short and long term impact on our communities.

I spent all day working the polls for No on 8. I worked with a woman who'd just been married. I worked with an 18 year old boy whose conservative religious parents were voting no, for him, and because they realized that prop 8 was not a vote on morality, prop 8 is the denial of civil rights. Period.

I attended two training sessions for the No on 8 campaign, each conducted by very dedicated and talented field organizers, who also happened to be lesbians, who also happened to be married to each other. One of them is a minister, ordained in the Disciples of Christ in the early '80s. Talk about a trail blazer. And the local head of the effort is a good friend of mine. So over the course of the campaign, I became well versed in the aims and focus designed to beat this initiative. It was, and is, very simple. This is about civil rights. This is not about religion, or morality, it isn't really even about marriage. We are free to disagree on all of those fronts. This is about whether we, as a people, believe that our laws should be used to deny certain rights to a specific group, based not on their actions but on who they are. Based on god-given characteristics of their humanity.

The No campaign invested in very sophisticated marketing information. Early on, phone calls were made to the base- people who are almost certainly no votes, as determined by shopping patterns or whatever. Then, the calls shifted to the middle- the people who probably had not made their mind up one war or the other, or who perhaps leaned in our direction and needed to be committed. The press of time, the sheer number of people we needed to reach was the driving reason behind the decision not to engage probable yes voters.

This also meant that we did not intentionally go into the African American community, particularly its churches, and I believe this was the campaign's sole mistake. The African American community understandably does not appreciate it when people try to equate marriage or anything else with slavery and Jim Crow. But I do believe that talking about civil rights and denial of such by law may have touched a portion of the community.

Anyway. We didn't do that, and the courts will probably have to fulfill their traditional role here. Congress could do its part by repealing DOMA. That's worth fighting for. Get used to calling Washington. I think we may even get used to Washington paying attention to us in the coming years.

It's also worth it to get out into the streets, wave your No on 8 signs and rainbow flags, vent the frustration, just mourn the wrongness. Be a presence, a witness, for justice and equality and the values of the American Constitution. Let your heart break wide open with people who share your values, and be a comfort to each other.

While we're venting frustration and seeking our comfort, though, let's not go out of our way to close hearts on the other side. Over the week I've received several suggestions that just don't work for me, and I don't believe they'll do the fight any good.

- When you're painting your signs, refrain from calling people haters and bigots. Some people will change their minds on this issue, probably after some personal experience. They almost certainly will not change their mind because someone called them a name or accused them of bigotry.

- Asking the IRS to investigate the Mormon Church, or any other church, just isn't a good idea. Firstly, churches are within their legal rights to engage in issues based advocacy, and that includes organizing, lobbying, and fund raising. Hell, my denomination has a legislative ministry office in Sacramento and a Washington Office for Advocacy. We're the good guys, and the right loves to threaten us over our tax exemption (FUN FACT! The Nixon Administration even went after us, because our Beacon Press published the Pentagon Papers.). And remember All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena? The right went after them in 2004 after the minister did a sermon on war. They also held an interfaith No on 8 service two weeks ago.

I'm not trying to pretend that churches on the right don't engage in what is clearly disallowed partisan activity. But that isn't what this campaign was. Nothing comes from these IRS attacks, because the churches probably haven't done anything illegal. Don't stoop to the level of the Nixon administration.

- Likewise please don't go marching to churches and calling everyone inside bigots. I think it's wrong when nativists protest outside United Church of Christ in Simi for providing sanctuary, and I think it's wrong to protest outside a church who disagrees with us- even when what they have done is dishonest and hurtful. The marketing decisions were not made by the people who are entering the church for some sacred space and time. Leave them be. Doing otherwise will just harden people in their fears.

- While we're at it: do we really want to attack our local business community? I mean, if they had Yes on 8 signs posted in their windows, ok, avoid that store. I will, too. But what about Lassen's in Ventura, or El Coyote in LA? Lassen's owners, who've been part of our community for years and whose presence has always been positive, happen to be Mormon. And at El Coyote, a Mormon member of the family made a personal contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign. (Jess wrote about this perfectly, please read)

But these are individual, private actions, encouraged by the leaders of these peoples' churches. Will going to war with their employers or their storefronts accomplish anything positive? In the cases of Lassen's and El Coyote, do we really want to destroy places where we experience community bonds, meeting places where we are not merely anonymous consumers? Perhaps, instead, we could strengthen these community bonds by directly addressing the issue: by al means write to the owners of Lassen's and tell them why their support of this issue concerns you. Go to Margie's lunch at El Coyote and talk to her. Provide the kind of personal experience that leads people to change their minds on this issue.

When we win this battle, we will have done so on the merits. Because it is right. Let's not leave bruised and angry churches in our wake, suspicious of thuggery and ever more convinced of some militant "homosexual agenda". It just won't work.

The Constitution is on our side. Discrimination is wrong. We can disagree on religion, morality, and even marriage, but we cannot write discrimination into our laws. It's wrong. It's unfair.

People will change. With personal conversations and experiences, they will change. Like the parents of the boy I volunteered with. People will regret their support of this proposition, like Margie at El Coyote. But not because we bully them. Because it is right.

updated this morning because this is just not a well written post, but it's very important to me.

President Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-04T22:29:00.000-08:00

In 2004, I saw him speak and knew he would be our first African American President. And I am so proud of my country tonight- there are really no words.

I haven't blogged in weeks, I don't know why. Tonight, as I heard him speak again, I heard what I knew I would hear on the day we elected this man.

He said to the people "whose votes I did not earn, I hear you." He will never pretend you do not exist. He will never stand before you and say, "I earned political capital, and I'm going to spend it."

He said to all of us, this is our moment to move- not to stop and rest, this is not the achievement. The work will be pulling our country back together and putting it back on track, and all of us need to work toward that. All of us have to put our shoulders to the wheel.

This day- this is the promise. It remains our task to fulfill it.

And now that I have dried my tears of joy and started looking at California returns, I have to lament that at this moment, Prop 8 seems to be winning.

On the day that we stood up for inclusion and honesty and progress, we may have also written segregation into the California constitution.

I suppose numbers can still change. And I am staying up, for the recently married woman that I worked outside polls with today. I am keeping my fingers crossed and hope alive. But I fear we may have done a really bad thing in this state.

More tomorrow.

Joe v. Sarah!

2008-10-03T07:04:00.000-07:00

Still not recovered from a nasty bug, so my brain isn't churning out sentences of any merit. I am, however, awake enough to weigh in on the much anticipated VP debate.

Of course Biden wins, because he actually merits the place at the podium, because he knows what he's talking about and his debate prep was surely limited to not appearing condescending to the right's delicate flower/pit bull. He did a fine job, was commanding and sure, and human.

Palin, for her part, didn't deliver any huge embarrassments. When she used the phrase "rears its head", she mercifully was not referring to Putin, at the very least. She did the hokey accent and vernacular, blah blah blah. I'm not the person to sell with "I will be a great VP because I have children", but I suppose there are people who think that's a qualification, so she used it, repeatedly. I know when and where she stretched the truth or made outright misstatements, but I understand that a large portion of the country doesn't follow various details.

McCain needed a game changer, though, and she is not the one to deliver it. The campaign is working as though its base of wingnuts can really deliver this thing, but they can't. Not at this stage of the game.

The word all over the intertubes is pretty much the same, some saying it better than others, all in agreement that the race is still Obama's. So rather than delving deeper, I'll leave you with two bits that are off the main story.

Atrios was out last night, but preloaded discussion threads for users to discuss the debates live. Here are the titles for the threads, which cracked me up this morning:

20:15 Time to choose your debate drinking word.

20:55 If you chose "also" as your debate game drinking word, consider calling the ambulance right now.

21:15 "You know" was probably a bad choice, too.

Second item: Yesterday on Thom Hartman, guest Stephen Spoonamore gave a compelling interview on our voting systems, and how very insecure they are. Spoonamore's a life long republican, and a major architect of security systems for Mastercard and various other things you use every day. Last month, he testified under oath that the Ohio vote was probably hacked and flipped for W. In fact, he believes with certainty that Kerry won Ohio. Coverage of the case can be found at Bradblog.

This item is just here to remind you to remind every single person you know of voting age that their vote counts. If it isn't close, they can't steal it and get away with it. For every single point win, there's an opportunity for a stolen state. If you know any voters in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, or any of the light blue to trending red states, remind them of this.

"Breathtakingly Hairbrained"

2008-09-26T14:17:00.000-07:00

Yglesias:

There are very few members of congress with whom I’ve ever had the opportunity to discuss a substantive matter of public policy. But as it happens, one of them — the one with whom I’ve had the second-longest exchange — is Mike Pence (R-IN) who I’ve seen on television today repeatedly discussing the Republican Study Group’s “plan” for the financial crisis. And I can tell you this about Mike Pence: he has no idea what he’s talking about. The man is a fool, who deserves to be laughed at. He’s almost stupid enough to work in cable television.

Ah, but not only is not working for cable, he's proposing "crisis" legislation. Let's see what Wonk Room has to say:

The phrase “breathtakingly hairbrained” comes to mind when considering the apparent tax cut proposal. We know that for the group authoring this proposal, tax cuts for the rich and corporations are the answer to every problem. But even the administration, which has relentlessly imposed that agenda for eight years, has recognized that the well was dry on that front for this crisis. But it gets worse. Not only is this another tax cut for the rich, it appears to be one that is dead-aimed at doing much more harm than good — abolishing the tax on capital gains.
[snip]
The idea of insuring mortgage backed securities almost seems like a cynical ploy to pretend to be doing something when actually doing nothing. The idea is that the government would sell holders of mortgage backed securities insurance against losses—and that it would charge such premiums that the government wouldn’t lose money on the deal. That’s akin to selling homeowners insurance in New Orleans after the dikes broke.
[snip]
What they propose on deregulation isn’t clear, but the fact that they’re even still talking about “deregulation” when it was slipshod regulatory oversight that got us into this mess shows a profound misunderstanding of what’s going on. One rumored target is the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations which, in fact, impose accountability on Wall Street — not something we want to do away with right now.

The whole thing is well worth a read.

I can't decide what the stupid to evil ratio is here. I suppose it depends on the member. Boehner, for instance, is 99% evil, with a touch of stupid to get him through the door.

Party before Country

2008-09-26T08:29:00.000-07:00

Krugman: "Demolition Accomplished"

2008-09-26T08:21:00.000-07:00

From his NYT blog:

How did we get to this point? It’s the culmination of many past betrayals.

First of all, we have the Republican Study Committee blowing things up with a complete nonsense proposal — solving the crisis with a holiday on capital gains taxes. How is that possible? Well, if a party runs on economic nonsense for 25 years, eventually many of its foot soldiers will be people who actually believe the nonsense.

More specifically, though, the failure to get a deal reflects the betrayals of the Bush years. Democrats weren’t going to trust Henry Paulson, because behind him they see the ghost of Colin Powell (and Paulson’s “all your bailout are belong to me” proposal, aside from being bad economics, showed an incredible tone-deafness.)

And after the way the Bushies and their allies double-crossed the Democrats again and again in the aftermath of 9/11 — demand national unity, then accuse you of being soft on terrorists anyway — there’s no way Pelosi and Reed will do the responsible but unpopular thing unless the Republicans agree to share ownership.

So what we now have is non-functional government in the face of a major crisis, because Congress includes a quorum of crazies and nobody trusts the White House an inch.

As a friend said last night, we’ve become a banana republic with nukes.

Now that's egotiscal posturing we can believe in, my friends

2008-09-26T07:04:00.000-07:00

Yesterday morning, principles for the Wall Street bail out seemed to have been agreed upon, by both parties and the White House.

Early yesterday afternoon, ~~Superman~~ John McCain ~~flew mightily~~ snuck onto Capitol Hill, before proceeding to a White House meeting that he had requested.

Late yesterday afternoon, everyone was fighting, Paulson was on one knee before Pelosi. Boehner, who earlier in the week was demanding the congress pass a "clean" bill (GOP shorthand for give Paulson what he wants) was circulating a secret new plan to Blue Dog Dems and rank and file Republicans.

McCain was mostly quiet on the events of the day, humbly saying that America could determine for itself what his role had been.

Ok, so I've determined that McCain has devolved into a small, angry, sneaky, obstructionist fuck.

It's not that I love the bailout plan- even the tidbits of improvement over the original that've been trickling out. It's that you know damn well that Boehner and Shelby should've been pushing their ideas all week, at the bargaining table. If they were good-faith actors, that's what they'd have done.

Instead, they blew up the talks because of what Frank correctly assessed as "a rescue plan for John McCain".

I don't trust these motherfuckers to offer anything helpful- they're talking about insurance instead of cash, but all they're going to want to do is suspend capital gains tax and ensure that consumers get nothing out of the deal, let's be honest- I have no idea if resolution has to happen today to stave off world-wide depression, or if the immediate threat is greatly overblown, or if doing nothing is an option.

I do know that this bomb was a political stunt, that it's bullshit, and that John McCain set it off because his polling numbers are- rightly- diving.

I don't know what will happen today, but I really hope this explodes in fucking Boehner's face. And McCain's.

The bailout, even with strings, is not enough

2008-09-25T08:28:00.000-07:00

So they keep telling us that we have to invest in junk debt to the tune of a few hundred billion or maybe a trillion dollars, because the whole financial system is on the verge of collapse. President Bush explained to us yesterday that the infusion of public wealth into private enterprise is necessary to keep lines of credit open for business, otherwise many of them will cease to exist, and for citizens, who otherwise will not be able to get loans for homes, cars, college.

Everyone and their brother has screamed for oversight, and it looks like that will be part of the package (though having the mechanism does not mean oversight will occur- look at Iraq for a sobering example). Equity stake? Maybe, though that's still opposed by the administration. Limits on executive compensation may be the big "win", if anything in this can be properly called a win.

My laundry list of adds includes things that will, apparently, not gain ground: The ability of bankruptcy judges to reset loan terms, moratorium on Wall Street lobbying, these things will be tossed. Most importantly, I am not hearing anything about investment in the much mourned Main Street.

I think it's important to remember something about the Great Depression: in addition to a needed regulatory regime and insurance structures, the Depression was addressed with substantial investment in the country's Main Street. Infrastructure projects and even humanities projects put people to work, creating wealth at the bottom, which in turn created the need and means for businesses to grow.

The idea that Main Street will recover this time with simply the ability to take on more debt is, I think, deplorable.

Another thing: while the New Deal helped stop the bleeding and enabled the slow healing of wounds, the wealth of the country really only picked up after we entered WWII and commenced massive war spending.

This time around, I think we'd all like to avoid a world war, so we should probably figure out what our government's investing priorities should be outside of the Pentagon and Wall Street.

Apparently, Wall Street does have a suitcase bomb

2008-09-25T08:22:00.001-07:00

Because what else could drag John McCain back to the Senate at breakneck speed (after a Couric interview and a stump speech, that is), when we know because President Bush has told us repeatedly that really, really important work can be done from almost anywhere?

I'm looking forward to Obama showing up for the debate, and telling the assembled press, "I don't know, I've been on the phone with Republican Senator Coburn and Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi and Hank Paulson, and they tell me they have it under control, so I really don't know what John's doing."

Maybe Wall Street has a suitcase bomb

2008-09-23T11:32:00.000-07:00

Via TPM:

Cheney Heads to Hill to Quell Republicans

By Kate Klonick - September 23, 2008, 12:58PM

The White House dispatched Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to help shore up support for the financial bailout of Wall Street.

Wonder what Cheney will tell them this time?

Economists For Obama

2008-09-22T18:00:00.000-07:00

I keep forgetting how much I love Economists For Obama.

You wanna know who either candidate's economic advisors are? Check here. You wanna know how their numbers really play out? Check here. You wanna know what your taxes would look like under Obama's plan?

Check Here.

Good signs- but don't let up yet

2008-09-22T14:35:00.000-07:00

Looks as if Paulson's ready to play, and the Democrats are pushing. Via Calculated Risk, WSJ is reporting that the administration will accept executive compensation limits, and Bloomberg says they're ready to ok an equity stake.