Silence Isn't Golden

A Challenge To Republican Women

2009-11-19T13:39:00.002-06:00

Marsha Blackburn and Mae Beavers have both lodged strong complaints about the new proposed guidelines for mammograms and breast cancer exams. Even though those guidelines don't really have any effect on anything and are unlikely to have any change how we look at breast cancer now, these two Republicans see it as both a form of healthcare "rationing" (which we certainly have now, good luck getting your private insurance to pay for many forms of preventative healthcare) and as further attempts at government control.

Both Blackburn and Beavers want to do something about it, and I have a proposal for them.

I noted last wee k that none of the current healthcare bills being debated before Congress have provisions requiring insurance companies to cover basic women's health services in their basic packages. Mammograms and PAP smears are covered, but not yearly visits to the OB/GYN. This is not only an important form of preventative care that can be critical in catching reproductive problems early on, but a good gynecologist can also assess your risk for breast cancer and determine what precautions you should be taking, apart from whatever the federal guidelines say.

But this crucial form of preventative care has been blocked from receiving insurance coverage throughout the healthcare debate in Congress. Why? Because the Republicans in Congress, particularly in the Senate, seem to equate anything to do with women's health with abortion. A lot of these objections seem to come from Republican men, from John Kyl objecting to a provision covering maternity care to the Republican men on the Senate HELP committee (and to be fair, Democrat Bob Casey as well) trying to block a provision on preventative screenings for women.

Surely though, Congressman Blackburn and Senator Beavers, you understand that there's a huge difference, right? You understand that basic preventative healthcare for women is not the same thing as abortion. You understand that having this in a healthcare plan will not only save money but will save lives.

So that's my challenge. Encourage the rest of the Tennessee congressional delegation, including Corker and Lamar!, to support these provisions. Even if you oppose the healthcare bill overall, point out how it's ridiculous that women's health (NOT abortion) is left out of it. Fight to make sure this is in whatever bill comes out of conference. And if it doesn't, then introduce separate legislation, either in Congress (for Blackburn) or in the state legislature (for Beavers) to make sure women have access to preventative healthcare.

And if you do that, this Democrat will back you 100% in that effort.

Unless, of course, you just want those services covered in the government healthcare plan you currently use, but think it's socialism for anyone else to have it...

Thanks For Clearing That Up, Sarah America

2009-11-17T23:34:00.002-06:00

Sarah America Palin, after letting us know what kind of meat she likes to chew on, now tells us that what we really need in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings is ethnic and religious profiling.

“There were such clear, obvious, massive warning signs that were missed,” she said. “This terrorist, even having business cards” that identified him as an “SoA” or soldier of Allah. Palin blamed a culture of political correctness and other decisions that “prevented — I’m going to say it — profiling” of someone with Hasan’s extremist ideology. “I say, profile away,” Palin said. Such political correctness, she continued, “could be our downfall.” If the upcoming investigations into the attack reveal bad decision-making on the part of senior officials, Palin continued, those officials ought to be fired.

Ignoring the obvious point that there is a big difference between acting on clear warning signs (which they absolutely should have done, although there's no evidence right now that the signs were deliberately ignored because he's Muslim, what's emerging now is that there was serious miscommunication between the FBI and the Army) and actively profiling an entire group, I'm actually glad that Sarah America cleared this up. After hearing the rhetoric from the right over the last few weeks, I have wondered what they'd have us do in response.

Do we forbid all Muslims from joining the military? There were an estimated 3,400 Muslims in the military in 2008, but could be as many as 10,000--not a large percentage, but as has been noted time and time again, we are at war. Do we prevent a qualified individual who wants to serve from doing so, because someone of his religion committed an act of terrorism? Should we require more stringent background checks for everyone who wants to enlist--and if so, considering the number of white supremacists in the military now, why not do that to everyone? Maybe there's another minority out there with members who want to join up, but aren't allowed to now. They could trade places with the Muslims. Someone really ought to look into that.

Do we prevent all Muslims or anyone with an Arabic-sounding name from buying a gun? Nidal Hasan bought the murder weapon perfectly legally off of the base, after all. Funny, I've always been told that putting any restrictions on who can legally buy a gun is just a short step away from forcing us all into the gulag. And again, if you're going to do this one restriction, then why not do it for other individuals belonging to religions or organizations whose members have committed acts of terrorism?

Do we ramp up domestic surveillance and spying on Americans? My conservative friends tell me that of course they opposed the PATRIOT Act back in the day as a huge expansion of federal power, they just couldn't get worked up to actively oppose it then, but fortunately they have more time now. And again, do you just spy on Muslims?

See, in my humble opinion, such efforts could be better spent trying to root out the sources of terrorist ideology and cracking down on those who spread it. Fortunately, Sarah Palin has cleared it up--what we really ought to do is just profile all the Muslims. But don't worry about all those other acts of terrorism committed by non-Muslims, they were just "lone nut-cases."

Sure, Right After I Buy My Winter House In Maui

2009-11-17T23:14:00.002-06:00

So, a New York state assemblyman from Brooklyn (and a Democrat, mind you) thinks that the best thing American Jews could do right now to show support for Israel would be to buy houses in the West Bank and East Jerusalem:

An influential Jewish community leader and Democratic State Assemblyman from New York is currently heading a mission of about 50 Americans through the West Bank and East Jerusalem to promote home purchases in the area and to protest U.S. President Barack Obama's Middle East policy.

"Our goal is to send a clear message to Washington and President Obama that Jews will continue to live in Judea and Samaria and the ultimate commitment American Jews can make is to actually come and buy property in these areas as this will ensure these communities" security and growth," said Dov Hikind, 59, who has been representing Brooklyn's 48th district since 1983.

Ooooookay....

First of all, if the West Bank settlers are correct in that any settlement freeze needs some flexibility for "natural growth" because there is already such a housing crunch, then wouldn't a bunch of Americans coming in and buying up property that many of them will never use just make it worse?

Second of all, even if you accept that settlements need room for natural growth, and this should be an obvious point, this is not natural growth. Not even the assemblyman himself can explain how it would be.

Third of all, is the assemblyman aware that many Americans, including American Jews, cannot afford even one house right now? It's expensive to buy in Israel, and the only ones who would be able to do it and take the initial loss would be the banker-types he represents in New York. And I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do that with the bailout money.

I don't know, maybe Mr. Hikind just wants an American to go over there to replace this guy.

Dilbert Explains News Aggregation

2009-11-17T11:22:00.011-06:00

In this comic strip, picture Dogbert as Adam Kleinheider of Post Politics, Dilbert as Ryan Underwood of the Tennessean's In Session blog, and Alice as...I don't know, someone from the Nashville Scene I suppose.

Cooper V. Obama On Stupak

2009-11-17T00:10:00.003-06:00

Jim Cooper, to the Tennessean last week, on the Stupak Amendment:

Why did you vote for Stupak? “In a confusing situation, it looked like it was coming closer to codifying the status quo than any other approach. … It involves applying a 1977 doctrine [the Hyde Amendment] to a new House bill.

As has been noted, of course, this would drastically change the status quo. It would make it nearly impossible for people within the exchange to buy a plan that covers the same basic service that most private plans do now, even if they're paying for the plan with their own money.

Obama advisor David Axelrod, on Sunday:

“The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn’t believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,” Axelrod told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “He’s going to work with the Senate and the House to try to ensure that at the end of the day the status quo is not changed.”

Asked specifically whether the Stupak amendment changed the status quo, Axelrod replied “I think it’s fair to say the bill Congress passed does change the status quo. But I believe there are discussions ongoing as to how to change it accordingly.”

But I'm sure that the President just doesn't understand the intricacies of the legislative process and all of these difficult questions that need to be asked...

The Trouble With Lawyers

2009-11-16T23:32:00.004-06:00

Georgetown University Law School has announced a new initiative that's going to send shockwaves throughout the legal education system. It'll be interesting to see how many schools will now have to follow suit:

Georgetown Law’s faculty approved a plan that will enable graduates who work in the public sector for 10 years – and earn up to $75,000 a year – to have all of their law school loans forgiven. Georgetown Law’s new version of its Loan Repayment Assistance Program dovetails with the federal government’s new Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which became fully effective this year.

"Many of our graduates work in federal, state, or local governments or in non-profit organizations that serve the public through work in public health, education, environmental protection, criminal defense, human rights and many other areas of need," said Georgetown Law Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff. "Our new loan forgiveness program, together with the federal plan, will enable them to pursue long-term careers in these fields without becoming burdened by student loan repayment."

Over the last year and a half, as the economy tanked and now limps along, the problems with the legal education system have become painfully apparent. During my first-year orientation, they told us upfront that they were not teaching us how to be lawyers, but simply how to think like lawyers. I didn't fully grasp what that meant until recently. What you're taught, through research and writing and memorizing case law to spit back out on an exam, is how to operate when you're an associate at a big law firm. Many law schools, especially top ones like Georgetown, design their curriculum and career recruiting around feeding students into these firms. That's why law schools can charge $50,000+ a year in tuition and students will still agree to take out huge loans--everyone just knows that the students can get the six-figure corporate jobs and pay the loans back relatively quickly. Meanwhile, there's very little support for students who do want to go into the public sector. If you have student debt and still want to go be a prosecutor, you had better either have a trust fund or marry well.

Of course, that system works fine, for the most part, when the economy is doing well. If you go to a decent law school, make decent grades, and are involved in law review or moot court, you can get a job. But when the economy crashes and all of a sudden none of the law firms are hiring anymore--well, that sort of throws a wrench into the whole thing, now doesn't it?

And all anyone in law school can do now is wait and see what happens. But you still have to pay the rent, and the interest on your loans, in the meantime.

What Georgetown is doing, in my opinion, is not just a good PR move or a valuable initiative to help students (although it's those too). It's an acknowledgment that the legal industry is drastically changing and reorganizing due to the economy, and may never fully return to how it was before the recession. And law schools need to evolve with the industry to survive.

(H/t)

Some Things Never Change

2009-11-16T15:27:00.004-06:00

Think the tea-bagger protests over "socialized medicine" and "scare tactics" with the swine flu vaccine are a recent phenomenon? I mentioned to someone earlier today that if these people had been around in the 1950s, they probably would have protested against mass inoculation for polio, by claiming that FDR was a socialist and simply exaggerating the lingering effects of polio to scare the God-fearing freedom-loving Real Sarah Palin Americans into submission.

Turns out I was wrong to assume the same sentiments weren't around back then. Check it out:

The paragraph on the polio vaccine:

Polio serum, it is reported, has already killed and maimed children; its future effects on minds and bodies cannot be gauged. This vaccine drive is the entering wedge for nation-wide socialized medicine, by the U.S. Public Health Service, (heavily infiltrated by Russian doctors, according to Congressman Clare Hoffman.) In enemy hands it can destroy a whole generation.

And don't forget, it's anti-American to accuse anti-Semites pushing conspiracy theories of being crazy.

I'm surprised that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin haven't pointed out that healthcare reform will sap our precious bodily fluids.

Feel Good Friday--Miracles Edition

2009-11-13T14:43:00.003-06:00

Since the Titans are playing Buffalo on Sunday, I'd like to take you down Memory Lane to probably the greatest moment in the history of all Tennessee sports:

Fortunately, if both Chris Johnson and the Bills' rush defense play like they have been all season on Sunday, then we won't need any lateral passes!

As Long As We're On This Stupak Subject

2009-11-11T14:36:00.002-06:00

Look, I realize that abortion is an emotional issue and that everyone has a different viewpoint. But what if the debate were over other issues of women's health, many of which have nothing to do with abortion?

Throughout this healthcare debate, we've heard from both sides that an ideal bill would emphasize preventative care as much as any other form of healthcare. The logic is that it would be less costly and more efficient to try and stop health problems before they happen. But one of the most prevalent forms of preventative care we already have is the yearly gynecological exam for women. You get a PAP smear, a pelvic exam to check for ovarian cysts, some STD testing (my gyno automatically tests everyone for chlamydia), and receive counseling on any other health issues you may have. It's not the most pleasant experience in the world, but it's invaluable in catching reproductive health problems before they happen.

And you know what? I highly doubt that most anti-abortion people would seriously equate any of the above with abortion. I think most of them would agree that preventative care in this context is a good idea. Some of the most extreme would probably object to the fact that gynos will discuss contraception with their patients ("Abstinence-only!") but I still give most anti-abortion people the benefit of the doubt that they would support preventative care. And thank goodness we have Congressional Democrats and pro-choice organizations looking out for us in that regard!

Oh, wait:

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

But surely everyone recognizes that this isn't the same thing as abortion, right? RIGHT?

Consider what happened when the subject of women's preventive healthcare services came up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) in July, after the minimum benefits package had already been determined. Because some essential care for women wasn't included in the list, HELP committee member Senator Barbara Mikulski proposed an amendment that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to stipulate that basic women's health services would be covered. The language said nothing about abortion, referring only to "preventive care and screenings."

Yet the voting on the amendment went exactly along pro- and anti-choice lines. The amendment passed by just one vote, with all the committee's Republicans as well as Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, voting against it.

Ok conservatives (Republicans and conservative Democrats), work with me here. I know you want preventative care at the forefront of a healthcare plan. Personal responsibility and all that. And I know at least a good chunk of you are smart enough to recognize that none of the aforementioned services have anything to do with abortion. If you're a man, I know you probably have a wife or mother that you wouldn't want anything to happen to. And if you're a woman, I'm pretty damn sure you don't want to wake up one morning to discover that, due to ovarian cysts that could have easily been found and treated with a pelvic exam, you can no longer have kids. What we're talking about here is not abortion, but an efficient and inexpensive form of preventative healthcare that can guard against major reproductive health problems down the road.

But as Mary Mancini points out, we've allowed issues like this to be tied to abortion for so long, we've ceded the issue to the Republicans for so long, that we can no longer fight back and say, "No, this is about prevention." And this is going to be a problem for Democrats and the healthcare bill going forward, with or without the Stupak amendment.

(Special h/t to Crooks and Liars for linking to me yesterday. Crooks and Liars, or as we call it in Tennessee, the General Assembly)

Stupak And The Status Quo

2009-11-10T23:37:00.002-06:00

Just to sum up and clarify a few points about the problem of the Stupak amendment and Jim Cooper...

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the entire healthcare bill should have been torpedoed over one amendment. No, it's still an historic bill that on the whole turned out much better than I feared, given the circumstances. It'll be much harder now for the Senate to kill the public option. Nor is anyone arguing that it's the fault of any one representative for pushing it through--the fault lies with the House leadership for being backed into the corner of having to bring it to the floor in order to maintain the votes. And considering that of the 64 Democrats who voted for the amendment, 23 still voted against the final bill, someone did not properly secure the votes. That still leaves 41 who voted yea on the amendment and yea on the final bill, and I do question how many of those votes were absolutely contingent upon passage of the amendment, besides Stupak's own vote--we know Cooper's wasn't. But I'm not blaming the Democrats for doing what they could to save the overall bill.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that Democrats need to purge anti-choicers from their ranks or that we need to start imposing litmus tests on candidates (although I am really disturbed by the author's suggestion that Democrats began losing elections in the late 1960s for the sole reason that we supported civil rights and gender equality, and that this drove conservatives away. Should we NOT have supported those? Should you always look away in the face of injustice when it wouldn't be politically popular to do so? And has the author ever heard of a little thing called Vietnam?). But I don't think it's so much to ask that Democrats live up to their platform--"We will never put ideology above women’s health." I don't think it's so much to ask that we support a basic right to medical privacy. I'll welcome you with open arms into my party if you oppose abortion, but I will ask you what you have done to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to make life easier for working mothers. I don't think it's so much to ask that we leave the empty rhetoric and symbolic gestures to the Republicans.

Here's what I am suggesting--that this is a very rare instance where maintaining the status quo would have been perfectly acceptable. I'm not a fan of the Hyde Amendment, which has banned federal funding for abortion since 1976, but it's something I can live with and that I think most pro-choice people can as well. The healthcare bill, pre-amendment, contained specific language stating that this did not modify or overturn the Hyde Amendment in any way. But as Cooper himself noted, the federal government gives $250 billion a year in subsidies to employer-based healthcare plans, a tiny fraction of which may, at some remote stage, be used to reimburse either a patient or a provider for an abortion. This is no different from what would be happening in a future insurance exchange, but only one form of "indirect subsidy" is being challenged. The fact that the subsidies to employer healthcare could at some remote point pay for abortions has never truly been challenged, and is not being challenged now.

And why has it never been challenged? I'm no fan of health insurance companies, but the government apparently decided that, beyond requiring insurance to cover some critical procedures, the private companies could be left to determine what else to offer under basic coverage. And a large majority of them decided to go ahead and offer abortion coverage. So why should it be any different in an insurance exchange?

To not have amended this bill would have preserved the current status quo with regards to federal funding. This amendment does not do so, but instead creates an entirely new restriction. And it's a restriction that will not have any effect on the wealthy.

I know that Jim Cooper is well aware of all of this. And yet he still talks about it as if he didn't vote for it. He's provided all sorts of reasons, and all sorts of criticisms, but still hasn't answered the one basic question--why did he himself vote for it, when his own vote would not be necessary for passage?

I do not intend on letting up on that question until we get a real answer.

Happy 40th, Sesame Street!

2009-11-10T13:14:00.003-06:00

Today marks the 40th birthday of the best children's show around, Sesame Street. They're marking the event by having First Lady Michelle Obama on the anniversary show, which will no doubt have tea-baggers bitching about "liberal indoctrination" or something. To give you an idea of how much I loved Sesame Street as a kid, there's a picture of me at my grandparents' house when I was 3 or 4, sitting on my Papa's easy chair with my five different Big Bird dolls, ranging in size from Baby Big Bird (I think it was a bath toy) to Big Big Bird, who was bigger than I was. My mom claims that as much as I loved Sesame Street, I ruined it for my younger brother by telling him that only babies watched it. I have no idea what she's talking about.

Anyway, here's my favorite Sesame Street moment, when R.E.M. went on the show and sang a rewritten version of one of their popular songs for the kids:

Lamar! Showing Sanity On Stupak

2009-11-09T17:29:00.002-06:00

Lamar! Alexander downplayed the significance of the Stupak Amendment in the Senate bill to Politico:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the third-ranking Republican in the body, said abortion is an important issue but “the issues that are going to dominate the health care debate are whether we’re reducing costs or whether we’re increasing the costs for most Americans.”

Obviously I'm under no illusion that Lamar! will in any way shape or form support the healthcare bill, but at least he's not using the abortion issue as an excuse. Unlike what Jim Cooper apparently wants you to believe, you can't hide support for the Stupak amendment as something that's going to reduce the costs.

Meanwhile, President Obama finally came out against the amendment, noting that this is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill.

Still Not Mollfied

2009-11-09T15:30:00.003-06:00

In a n interview with Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, Cooper sheds a little light on why he voted for the Stupak amendment, albeit indirectly. He provides two reasons, neither of which are good enough in my book.

First, that it was a necessary compromise:

"One of the papers quoted Rep. George Miller saying there’s a pro-life majority in Congress. That’s painful for a lot of folks, but it’s the reason the Stupak compromise was necessary. The bill would’ve failed without that."

Even if that's true (and again, I know of no one who is anti-life), that justification fails for two reasons. For one, 23 Democrats still voted against the final bill even after voting for the Stupak amendment, and no one has given any indication of how many votes were changed as a direct result of the amendment. I'm guessing it's not that many. Second, even if Cooper wanted that compromise, his own vote on it was not necessary to secure passage. He should know that a majority of his district opposes government attempts to legislate morality.

Second, he comes up with a budgetary reason:

Before the Stupak amendment, many of my friends had not realized that the government gives a $250 billion annual subsidy to employer-sponsored health care. If you understand today’s system, the Hyde amendment bans direct subsidies of abortion. It does not ban indirect subsidies of abortion, in particular the $250 billion that goes to employer-based health care. The bishops never noticed that. But this is the way education works in a democracy. It’s not easy or simple. But when people begin making decisions, they learn about lots of things they never noticed before.

Ignoring the really condescending tone of that paragraph, that's still a bullshit reason. Now, I know that Cooper opposes subsidies to employer-based healthcare. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not private insurance companies offering individual plans within an exchange can still offer coverage for one item that they generally already cover. Not everyone within this exchange is going to receive subsidies from the government, but if even one person receives $1 in subsidies, then the plan they're enrolled in would have to deny reproductive health coverage to everyone, even to those not receiving subsidies.

If everyone was so opposed to these "indirect subsidies" to abortion through employer-based healthcare, then why has there never been any serious attempt to cut if off before, even when the Republicans were in power? Why is there no serious effort to stop it now? What would be the substantive difference between that and what they're proposing in the future exchange? Why has Cooper never couched this argument in these terms before, that the problem is not employer-based healthcare or an insurance exchange themselves but the fact that it could remotely cover this one thing? He's always framed it in terms of the former rather than the latter.

Bottom line--if you're against the government providing subsidies, whether through employer healthcare or an insurance exchange, then vote against the damn bill and stand by what you believe. Don't use the abortion issue to weasel out of it and say, "See, this is better now because we're not providing expensive subsidies" when you still are providing them for everything else. Where's the amendment banning subsidies from being used to purchase Viagra?

Besides, how do you define what is an indirect subsidy of abortion anyway? If someone gets a tax credit (for whatever reason) and uses it to purchase a private insurance supplement in the current system, is that a federal subsidy of abortion? If the government builds a road or funds a mass-transit system that allows patients to more easily get to an abortion clinic, wouldn't that amount to an indirect subsidy of abortion?

As Ezra Klein noted after this interview, this is as much about class as about choice. Employer subsidies remain untouched, but those who need an insurance exchange get screwed over.

Jim Cooper, you are NOT off the hook by any means.

Why Did Jim Cooper Vote For The Stupak Amendment?

2009-11-08T23:21:00.003-06:00

It's been 24 hours since the historic vote to pass healthcare reform with a public option in the House, so I've had a little bit of time to let it all sink in. And after all that, I'm not mollified by Congressman Cooper's decision to vote for the bill.

In fact, I'm furious over his vote for the extreme and unnecessary anti-choice Stupak amendment, stating that private insurance companies participating in a future health insurance exchange may not offer abortion as part of a basic package, even if a woman pays for the policy with her own money and even though 85% of private insurance companies currently do cover it. Cooper's vote makes absolutely no sense.

Look, it may have helped garner a few more votes, including the one Republican vote (although apparently not so much, given that there were 23 Democrats who voted for the amendment but still voted against the final bill, including Bart Gordon, Lincoln Davis, and John Tanner--now really, what were they trying to prove?). And I realize that this entire amendment will either not be in the Senate bill or will get stripped out in committee. But it's just another example of how so many in the Democratic Party believe that a woman's right to autonomy over her own body is something that can be compromised to appease the people who still don't support us in the end.

Which brings me to Jim Cooper.

Congressman, I know you're very smart and have an excellent command of legislative history. I know that you know about the Hyde Amendment of 1976, which forbids federal funding of abortion, and which is the established law in this country. I know you know that there was already a provision in the bill specifically stating that nothing in the bill could be construed as mandating or allowing for federal funding for abortion. I know you know that the Stupak amendment was unnecessary, and that even if you wanted it passed so that a few more people would vote for the final bill, your vote was not needed to make that happen. I know that you know that the whole thing would ultimately be unenforceable and would almost certainly get tangled up in legal challenges. And I know you're generally not a fan of telling insurance companies what they can or cannot offer.

So why vote to tell them they can't offer this one thing, especially when 85% of them offer it now with no issues and when it wouldn't cost the government any money to allow them to continue to do so?

It's not because you have some great love for fetuses. Your record is mostly pro-choice, but you have never demonstrated that you even particularly care about it all that much as an issue. The budgetary issues are much more salient with you, obviously. But it's for that reason that I know that your vote for the final bill was not contingent upon this amendment passing. It wouldn't have mattered to you one way or the other.

Are you trying to build up some "pro-life" (a ridiculous term, I don't know of anyone who is anti-life) credentials for your re-election bid next year in the Fifth District? That might work in Lincoln Davis' district. I personally think that Lincoln Davis is a great representative for his district. But that's not you anymore, and you need to remember that.

Is there a budget issue in here that I'm missing? This does not amount to taxpayer money going to fund abortion, it would still be private insurance companies offering coverage at their expense, and private individuals purchasing insurance through the exchange would still be using their own money. However, at this time I'd like to renew my objection to the provision in the Senate bill that DOES allow for federal funding for Christian Science prayer treatments.

So, why?

Nothing about this vote makes any sense whatsoever. This past summer, members of Congress returning to their districts were greeted by tea-baggers. As the December recess approaches, when the Congressmen will be making a new round of appearances throughout their districts, the Democratic women of the Fifth District who have loyally supported Cooper for so long need grill him on this question and hold him accountable for selling our rights out for a bill he didn't even support that much to begin with!

Did Cooper Get Pressure From Local Electeds?

2009-11-07T14:35:00.004-06:00

As Jeff Woods notes, we'll unlikely know what exactly it was that motivated Cooper to vote yes on a healthcare bill he obviously opposes and obviously doesn't want to vote for. No doubt he got a lot of pressure from his constituents in Nashville, the majority of whom want real healthcare reform.

There's another wrinkle though. Quite a few local electeds made their position known, possibly to let him know that just because the early attempts at finding a primary challenger haven't been successful doesn't mean there won't eventually be one.

Change That Works Tennessee delivered the following open letter to Cooper's office last night (via e-mail):

An Open Letter to Jim Cooper from Middle Tennessee State and Local Officials

It’s no secret soaring health care costs are hurting Tennessee families, businesses and the economy. For those with insurance, the average family cost for premiums has already increased 77 percent since 2000. Out-of-pocket costs are driving families with and without insurance into bankruptcy and foreclosure. Tennesseans who can’t absorb the increasing costs are forced to drop their coverage and as a result are more likely to develop preventable, yet more severe and costly health problems. The treatment for these uninsured are ultimately paid for by those of us with insurance or become the responsibility of local and state governments.

Our current system has become a vicious cycle that only Congress can stop. Across Middle Tennessee, we’ve seen our constituents speak out for health care reform at rallies, over the phone, in person, at our churches, and out in our neighborhoods. It is clear to them and to us that now is the time for real reform. Everyone has to play a role in fixing our broken system and now it’s our turn, as elected officials from Middle Tennessee, to join together and urge Congress to change the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in our communities.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, recently introduced in the House of Representatives, puts us on a direct path to making health care more affordable and accessible for all Tennesseans. As a result, our constituents will have peace of mind that quality, affordable coverage will be there – no matter what happens.

Hardworking families across Tennessee deserve reform. The House bill will provide a uniquely American solution where families have the freedom to keep their current plan and doctor, choose another private plan or choose an affordable quality public health insurance plan. It shares the responsibility of solving this crisis with everyone, ensures delivery of cost-effective preventive and primary care, and allows Americans and their doctor to make health care decisions rather than insurance company CEOs.

Fixing our broken system is the right thing to do and will help revive the small business climate in Tennessee. Currently, businesses that want to do the right thing find they can’t afford to provide their employees with quality health care as prices rise every year. To address this problem, the legislation provides tax credits to assist small employers who want to offer coverage for their workers. The House bill also levels the playing field for small businesses by providing access to large-group rates in the new Health Insurance Exchange, lowering administrative costs and enabling small businesses to offer a larger choice of plans to their employees.

America has debated and weighed health care reform for decades. Soon, the Congress will put an end to the debate and vote. To our elected colleagues in Washington, we have a simple message: Vote Yes. We can and must pass theAffordable Health Care for America Act this year.

But more interesting than the text of the letter is the list of signatories:

Legislature Signers:
Rep. Joe Armstrong – Chair of Health and Human Resources Committee
Rep. Mike Turner – Chair of House Dem Caucus
Rep. Gary Odom – House Democratic Leader
Rep. Sherry Jones
Rep. Mike Stewart
Rep. Mary Pruitt

Nashville City Council Signers
Megan Barry – Member at Large
Lonnell Matthews – District 1
Frank Harrison – District 2
Walter Hunt – District 3
Pam Murray – District 5
Mike Jameson – District 6
Erik Cole – District 7
Darren Jernigan – District 11
Anna Page – District 16
Kristine LaLonde – District 18
Erica Gilmore –District 19
Buddy Baker – District 20
Vivian Wilhoite – District 29
Parker Toler – District 31

All of the Democrats from Nashville in the House (even Mike Turner, wow!) and quite a few Council members--notably, just about all of the African-American members. Cooper does not normally get this kind of explicit statement from the Nashville electeds, so this is quite unprecedented. They're sending a message for sure.

Like A Tea Party, Only Tea-Bagging Is A SI-YIN!

2009-11-07T01:11:00.002-06:00

In news that is not exactly breaking, a bunch of right-wingers are going to Washington to throw a hissy fit. Only this time, they have an identifiable agenda that goes beyond simply hating the President:

A rally is being planned in Washington to raise the alarm over the nation's new "hate crimes" law and to force Attorney General Eric Holder to confront the unconstitutionality of the measure's "thought" penalties, according to a Christian leader working on the event.

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission told WND there are a series of approaches being considered to challenge the restrictions on expression of religion and speech contained in the law signed last week by President Obama.

At the rally, set for 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 16, ministers will preach from the Bible on the prohibition against homosexuality, then will present a letter to Holder demanding that the religious liberty of all Americans be respected.

It'd be useless to point out that the bill specifically protects religious freedom and free speech, so I'll just make this one observation--it's been a week since the hate crimes bill was signed into law, and yet Fred Phelps and the rest of the Westboro Baptist Church, the ones who go around the country with their "God Hates Fags" signs, are still free individuals. The black helicopters haven't swooped in to arrest them, even though if the hate crimes bill said what the fundies think it says, the prosecutors would have a pretty good case against the WBC.

So, no, no one's going to get arrested and no one is going to be "defying the law" for merely preaching against homosexuality. Stand around and look like a bunch of assholes, yes. Get arrested, no. Unless the plan is to tell all the followers to go out and beat up gays, in which case they'd get arrested regardless of whether there's a hate crime bill in place.

But honestly, is that the plan? Because these pastors are not going to get much attention any other way--if it bleeds, it leads, after all. So is the plan to get arrested and get to look like martyrs by inciting violence?

And we're supposed to think Muslims are the only crazy ones?

A Blessing From The Comedy Gods

2009-11-06T10:08:00.003-06:00

I've been waiting all morning for them to put the clips from last night's "Daily Show" online. In a sketch that should at the very least be in serious Emmy consideration, Jon Stewart discussed the medical conspiracy keeping Glenn Beck off the air. You must watch what transpired, this is EPIC.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The 11/3 Project

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Who Exactly Is Rattled, Congressman?

2009-11-06T01:36:00.003-06:00

As I've said before, I'm never entirely comfortable calling out Jim Cooper, because of my own history and because, well, I know he's a smart and generally likable Congressman. So I save it for when he's wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here, we have such a situation (H/T PITW):

Now, as the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate prepare for next year's midterm elections, some moderate Democrats are wondering whether they can afford to follow President Obama's ambitious legislative agenda on such controversial issues as healthcare and climate change. One said the results were a "wake-up call."

"There are going to be a lot more tensions between the White House and Congress," predicted Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats. "They've been under the surface so far -- and they're going to come out in the open."

***************************

Ironically, those same exit polls indicate that Obama remains relatively popular with voters, even among those who chose Republican candidates Tuesday.

But "lesser mortals need to be worried about their independent voters," Cooper said, "because they have shifted strongly against Democrats in recent months. Independent voters tend to look at the issue, not the party, and they don't like a lot of what Congress has done."

Here's the problem--if that were true, then an independent candidate with lots of conservative support would have won against an ordinary Democrat in NY-23. But not only did the Democrat win, he won in with a larger margin than anyone had expected. In a district, mind you, that has not gone Democratic since before the Civil War.

Let me explain, Congressman, what happened to the independent voters. In New Jersey, when faced with a Democratic incumbent who was incredibly corrupt even by New Jersey standards, the independents went for the somewhat less corrupt Republican. In Virginia, where the Democratic candidate could not at any point articulate what he stood for, but only what he stood against, independents went to a Republican who at least stood for something (even if that "something" is that women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen). However, while no one would call Chris Christie or Bob McDonnell moderates, they did not run as "movement conservatives." In the one race, NY-23,where the Democrat faced off against the teabag agenda; the agenda of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the agenda that makes everyone fall in line with a rigid ideology while dismissing issues of local concern as "parochial" (Dick Armey's word s, not mine); the Democrat won--again, by more than anyone had expected. Independents and moderates went to Bill Owens after moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race.

No one's arguing that Bill Owens won that race by being some strong progressive Democrat--he's more conservative on social issues, but ran strong on labor and healthcare issues. He'll be a good fit for his district. And there's the lesson for how to go forward and maintain independent and moderate support--recruit good candidates without a ton of baggage, don't shy away from core Democratic values, stand for something (as opposed to against everything), and then let the tea-baggers embarrass themselves and fall on their own swords. They're now making it their mission to run many more Doug Hoffmans throughout the country, and to try and take out moderate Republicans such as Charlie Crist. Let them do it, and don't provide them with any ammo along the way--if NY-23 is any indication, they'll bring more than enough ammo to shoot themselves in the foot.

Running away from your job lest the tea-baggers say mean things is not the way to win more seats, Congressman. It only makes you look afraid--and of what? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck? The people protesting outside of the Capitol with the Holocaust poster and trying to equate it to the healthcare plan (cue the "Leftist plant!" cry in 5, 4, 3...)? I'm not saying you have to go all Alan Grayson on us, but now is not the time to back down.

By way of a final unrelated question, while I'm still opposed to primarying Cooper at this stage--how come when national liberal groups call for a primary, they're obviously Yankee carpet-baggers, but when Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson and Dick Armey go up to New York to advocate for a particular candidate and national groups like Club for Growth drop serious money into this race, we don't refer to them as reverse carpet-baggers but rather national figures who are just standing up for their principles? Just curious--either it's the same thing, or we agree that everyone is misunderstanding the definition of a "carpet-bagger."

Backlash At Bart Gordon

2009-11-05T14:12:00.004-06:00

Two organizations representing working people in Middle Tennessee remind us of what is at stake with Bart Gordon's decision to vote against healthcare reform for Tennessee.

Change That Works:

The Affordable Health Care for America Act will greatly benefit Representative Gordon’s constituents. The bill’s affordability provisions will finally make health insurance coverage attainable for millions of individuals and small businesses, including 54,000 uninsured people and 12,100 small businesses in Gordon’s district. The legislation will also ensure that 2,200 families are able to avoid a medical bankruptcy.

We believe Representative Gordon is a committed public servant, but we strongly disagree with him over the cost of the bill. This bill is a major step towards reducing health care costs and bringing down the federal deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that the legislation will save taxpayers $30 billion over the next 10 years and eventually create a budget surplus.

Those numbers are important. Those are people who may very well see no reason to vote next year or to vote Democratic, if no one is going to stand up for their interests.

SEIU Local 205 (via e-mail):

“We’re deeply disappointed at Bart Gordon’s decision to vote against meaningful healthcare reform,” said Doug Collier, President of SEIU Local 205. “We know that there are approximately 54,000 families in Bart’s district who are uninsured and will get covered if this bill passes. We know that approximately 2,200 families will not have to file for medical bankruptcy if this bill passes. We also know that for the last eight months, Bart’s office has received thousands of emails, phone calls, and letters from people in his district asking that he support healthcare reform and that there have been pro-healthcare rallies in front of his office that hundreds of people have attended. All of this leads us to believe that he is making his decision based on politics, not on what the people of his district want and need.”

“This isn’t just politics for Bart – it’s bad politics,” said Mark Naccarato, SEIU Local 205’s political coordinator. “Only two days ago there were two special elections for Congress. Democrats won them both by running on a pro-healthcare, pro-public option platform – even in the district that hadn’t voted for a Democrat since the Civil War. I don’t know who Bart thinks he’s going to make happy by voting against this bill. The Tennessee Republicans already have a candidate ready to go against him and he’s angering the Democrats he needs to get re-elected. President Clinton just told Tennessee Democrats at their Jackson Day fundraiser a month ago that the failure to pass healthcare reform was how the Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 and I would think that Bart would remember that. This makes no sense politically, especially in light of the fact that his constituents want reform and that this is a fiscally sound bill – even by the standards of the Blue Dog caucus that Bart belongs to.”

Well, that's an easy question to answer--he'll receive some praise from the Republicans in his district for his "bipartisanship," who will then turn around next year and lambast him as a socialist baby-killer who is really just a male version of Nancy Pelosi.

I Got Yer Narrative Right Here

2009-11-04T00:50:00.003-06:00

Now concludes the most exciting off-year election night in recent memory. And begins the election-cycle ritual of trying to tie disparate results into a grand "narrative."

In what was obviously the most important vote this evening, St. Louis County overwhelmingly voted Yes on Proposition N, to ban indoor smoking in most public spaces (it exempts bars earning less than 25% of their revenue from food, casinos, and bars less than 2000 square feet in area in the city). The City of St. Louis had passed a similar measure a few months ago, but it would not go into affect unless the county passed one too (for those reading this in Tennessee--explaining the difference between the City and the County would take up an entire blog post). So starting in 2011, it will be a little easier to breathe in St. Louis.

I'm sorry, there were other elections tonight?

No surprise in Virginia or New Jersey. They ran a crappy politics-as-usual candidate in Virginia and a corrupt incumbent in New Jersey (although granted, the Republican was only slightly less corrupt). I'm not shedding any tears over these losses. The trends in these states, especially in New Jersey, were in place well before Obama even came into office. I have to wonder, though, if there's a connection between Corzine losing and Michael Bloomberg barely winning re-election for mayor of New York City, in what should have been a cakewalk against an unknown challenger. I'd argue that it's not so much an indictment of their politics as a backlash against the notion that someone can essentially buy an office by throwing money around and hang onto it with the help of friends on Wall Street. It may work (occasionally) for the Yankees but it does create bad feelings in politics.

In the shocker of the night, a Democrat, Bill Owens, won the New York 23rd Congressional seat, a very strong Republican seat, defeating the far-right Conservative Party candidate after the moderate Republican candidate suspended her campaign. I lived not too far away from this area when I was at Cornell, and it's not an exaggeration to say that outside of the immediate areas of Ithaca and Syracuse, this portion of upstate New York is basically rural Tennessee with more snow. It's very conservative. No one would interpret a win by a conservative Democrat to mean that this district is shifting left, but it was by all means a rebuke to Our Lady of Wasilla and her merry band of tea-baggers. I look forward to seeing these people take out their anger on more moderate Republicans. Next up, Charlie Crist in Florida?

And as far as Maine is concerned, once again the ostensibly pro-liberty conservatives feel that it is their duty to infringe upon the liberties of others, and take away rights already conferred. Personally, I think Christian fundamentalists should keep their behavior in the bedroom and not force their lifestyle choices upon everyone else, but you don't see me trying to take their rights away. Just as in California, this isn't over by a long shot.

Praying For Socialism

2009-11-04T00:37:00.002-06:00

Republicans in the Senate totally, absolutely, oppose the healthcare bill--but obviously, they want their slice of the pie too, in the form of making sure that the healthcare bill covers religious based medical treatments:

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."

Ponder that bolded line for a second. If it doesn't mention the Church of Christ, Scientist by name, then what exactly does "religious and spiritual healthcare" mean? What exactly does it entail? Does it just cover Christian prayer treatments, or could it be expanded to cover Wiccan healing rituals? How about yoga classes as a form of preemptive healthcare? How about exorcisms? How about Rastafarians lighting up a nice joint in their rituals?

We're learning about legislative interpretation right now. And although the legislative intent may be that this applies just to Christian Science, the plain text of a statute usually wins out when they contradict. Has anyone really thought through the implications here?

But personally, I just find it outrageous, and beyond hypocritical, that religious conservatives could in one breath oppose the use of their tax dollars to fund anyone else's healthcare and in the next breath demand that I subsidize their prayer treatments.

How American Is "American Enough"?

2009-11-03T23:11:00.002-06:00

While we're waiting to wrap our heads around the results of the most exciting off-year election night in history, here's a story that's making my blood boil.

On Sunday, an American by the name of Meb Keflezighi won the New York Marathon, becoming the first American man to do so since 1982. It was a huge accomplishment for Keflezighi, who won the silver medal in the 2004 Olympics but suffered a hip injury in the 2008 trials. He's someone all Americans should be proud of.

Oh but wait...."some" say that he's not "American" enough. Keflezighi was born in Eritrea, and he came to the United States at age 12. Although he long ago became a U.S. citizen, that still means that he's not an "American product":

Given our disappointing results, embracing Keflezighi is understandable. But Keflezighi's country of origin is Eritrea, a small country in Africa. He is an American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our country.

Nothing against Keflezighi, but he's like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league.

Wait a second! I thought everyone was just opposed to "illegal" immigrants. If you've come to this country legally and become a U.S. citizen, then you're an American and we welcome you here, end of story! How is the ringer comment anything other than pure racism and xenophobia against an immigrant athlete?

The author of that column tried to backtrack earlier today, claiming that he simply didn't understand that Keflezighi was in fact an "American product," spending all of his formative athletic years here and having done all of his training here. But no apology, he still wants an American-born winner. Only by this point, the New York Times had picked it up, claiming that "some" question whether Keflezighi should be considered the first American since 1982.

Oh, and by the way, the winner in 1982? Alberto Salazar, who was born in Cuba. Was he not American enough either, or was that acceptable because Cuba is communist so he has to be ok if he came here? Who decides who is really "American enough" anyway? Is an ethnically-Hispanic runner more American than an ethnically-African runner? Is all this talk about wanting to see an American-born winner just another way of saying that what we're looking for is another Great White Hope?

Point is, it shouldn't matter where he was born or when he came here. He's not running for President, where you have to be a natural-born citizen, although I'm sure a few birthers would argue that the same standard should apply. Keflezighi legally came to this country and chose to become a citizen. And that makes him an American, and the first American man to win the New York Marathon since 1982. Period. End of story.

If you didn't care about this when he was winning a medal in Athens for this country, and if you didn't care about people like Russian-born Nastia Liukin winning the all-around gymanstics gold for the United States in Beijing--in short, if you didn't care where an American athlete was born when they were beating other countries to bring acclaim to the U.S.--then why does it matter now?

The Right To Be Just As Cliche As Straight Couples

2009-11-03T15:01:00.003-06:00

At a hearing before the D.C. City Council on whether to allow same-sex marriage in the city, one witness interrupted the meeting to propose to his partner:

Oh honestly, that's not the way Real (TM), traditional, God-fearing, opposite-sex Americans do marriage proposals. I believe that marriage proposals should be done the traditional way--on the JumboTron at a football game.

I suppose there's a Kanye West joke in here with the interruption--"Hey nice gay couple, I'm happy for you and I'll let you finish, but the Boise State Fiesta Bowl win in 2007 had the best public proposal of all time!"

On State's Rights And The Tenth Amendment

2009-11-02T23:25:00.003-06:00

My dear Aunt B. provides us with an excellent summary of the people who are constantly yelling "state's rights," and how they really don't know what it is that they want:

These states’ rights folks? Who knows what...they want, because they don’t know what...they want. I mean, really, less federal government interference? Come on, Tennessee Republicans, I love you but are you really going to let someone like Stacey Campfield decide whether food is safe enough to be sold in Tennessee? You really want Susan Lynn deciding when your unemployment ends?

Here’s the thing, right or wrong, everyone else in the whole damn world who learns anything about Tennessee and the American South (if they do) has learned that “states’ rights” is shorthand for “we will violently enforce white supremacy.”

(Just as an aside before going on, I don't quite understand why a high school in East Tennessee would have its mascot be "the Rebels." Even if folks in East Tennessee are more conservative now, I always thought they generally took pride in remaining independent from the rich planters in the rest of the state during the Civil War.)

I've been struggling with this issue too. Not only have the state's rights folks not really thought through all of the implications of their arguments, but I've come to the conclusion that the Tenth Amendment (the existence of which is one of the only amendments in the Bill of Rights, aside from the Second Amendment of course, that they'll acknowledge) does not mean what they think it means.

What does the Tenth Amendment say?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Note that the Tenth Amendment does NOT say that states may do whatever the hell they want to the people within their jurisdiction--that they may run roughshod over individual liberties--as long as it does not encroach upon a power expressly delegated to the federal government. That little phrase "or to the people" is a pretty big check on that ability. This interpretation is even more salient in light of the amendment right above this one, the Ninth Amendment, which states that the enumeration of rights within the Bill of Rights cannot be interpreted as a limitation upon other rights retained by the people. Indeed, one of the main reasons why the Federalists opposed the addition of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution was the fear that specifically enumerating the rights of the people could lead to a subsequent enlargement of government power.

This is what I don't understand. Even if you accept that the Framers of the Constitution did not envision a large federal government (as they clearly could not have envisioned the exponential growth of the country in both physical area and population, the transition from an agrarian-based economy to an industrialized and service-based one, and the relatively easy movement of people and capital all across the country), it seems illogical to then say that what the Framers did intend was that states should be all-powerful entities, not bound to uphold individual liberties and not subject to any external checks.

If you think it's a ridiculous notion that anyone would ever argue that states should be all-powerful...well, we had a Civil War and a century of Jim Crow to test that theory. And Tennessee now seems to be on a collision course to test it again, and likely with the same results.

A Tea Party For Halloween

2009-10-31T20:29:00.003-05:00

No, not THAT kind of tea party. A better kind.

See, I'm only KIND OF doing the cliche sexy costume this year.

Have a happy (and safe) Halloween, don't forget to set your clocks back tonight, and get ready for the onslaught of Christmas marketing starting tomorrow morning!