I wrote about this two years ago.

The most polarized electorate ever?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-americans-have-become-more-polarized-in-two-charts/2012/06/05/gJQA255pFV_blog.html

Is it really 2010?

Can we please stop calling The Tea Party a "movement"?

The Tea Party is a "movement" the same way masturbation is a "movement": a self-fulfillment of an utter fantasy.

Check out their core values. Their ultimate goal is a return to a "constitutionally-limited government", as laid out by the founding fathers of this country.

While there may be some sense behind their core values, the timing of this "movement" is questionable. The Bush presidency ran up huge federal deficits (after beginning with a budget surplus), ran two expensive (and possibly illegal) wars, and implemented an even larger stimulus bill than the one passed by the Obama administration, all on top of a series of irresponsible tax cuts. If anything, the Tea Party indignation should have began many years ago; instead, it looks largely like sour grapes, and rings of a prejudiced outlook.

In the aftermath of the health care reform bill, there may eventually come a point when the Supreme Court is faced with questions regarding the constitutionality of the so-called "individual mandate" as possibly a tax on "economic inactivity". Rather, we need to look at this as a piece of legislation that demands social responsibility: it ensures someone does not end up in the emergency room without insurance and without a means to pay for it, which will result in a bill for the taxpayers to pick up, anyway.

Folks, this is a democracy, which doesn't mean the individual desires of every single idiot in this country should be protected; rather, it means we put into place policies that benefit the majority of people. That is what our elected representatives our sent to Washington to do, and this legislation is simply the first step in a process that should eventually benefit the majority of Americans.

By the way, Tea Party, here's what the guys you're voting for in November are up to with your campaign donations.

Meanwhile, sexual abuse scandals by Catholic church leaders continue to pop up.

Stunningly, the Pope has not directly addressed these, and referred to the scandals as "the gossip of dominant opinion".

Whatever eventually comes of these cases, I find it stunning that in this century there are those who would still attempt to sweep under the rug crimes against the innocent. Even worse, they are defending themselves for these cover-ups.

Stated differently, if you were hanging out with a buddy, and he told you he was having some legal problems, like a speeding ticket, issues with his tax return, or getting busted for possession of marijuana, you'd probably say, "hey, everyone makes mistakes".

On the other hand, if your buddy told you he had been watching over a friends' sons, and had decided to engage in sexual conduct with them, what would your reaction be? If it is anything but utter revulsion, then you're probably a cardinal in the Catholic church. Even in prisons, child molesters are viewed with the utmost scorn, and are often treated as the worst of the lot.

I don't mean to single out the Catholic church for such a scandal, but they're certainly in the news. Many religions have long-standing traditions of abusing the innocent. Don't take my word for it; check out Christopher Hitchens' "God is not Great".

And I haven't even gotten to the Christian militias...

Is it really 2010?

Well, maybe we ARE making progess, slowly...

Time to End the Sweeping Rhetoric

We all know how great an orator President Obama is.

And I'm sure he'll kick off the signing ceremony today with some pretty sweeping rhetoric, including some stuff about how this has been 100 years in the making (Theodore Roosevelt initially introduced the idea about universal health care).

I think the time for all that is over. There's quite a bit of reform in this bill, including prescription drug savings for seniors, and we need Professor Obama to communicate all of those changes today. Americans will benefit greatly from this bill, even though it doesn't have a public option, and they need to know about exactly how.

We also need the Senate to pass the Reconciliation Bill, and hopefully the Senate Parliamentarian doesn't find anything to strike down the fixes provided in that. Otherwise, we'll see these past few days repeat itself this weekend, and we'll get a slightly lesser quality bill - the original Senate version - instead.

Anyway, President Obama: save the prose, give us the policy!

Health Care Reform May Have Passed the House...

...but the work is not yet over.

The Reconciliation Bill still has to pass the Senate; otherwise this process will repeat itself starting this weekend.

Inexorably, the bill will move forward, but the revised Reconciliation Bill contains several improvements and liberal sweeteners that the original Senate Bill does not. In either event, swift passage is in most people's best interest.

Call or email your Senators (mainly, the Democratic ones) and remind them to vote yes on this bill.

For cynics who do not believe in this process, I direct you here.

By the way, don't buy any of the "repeal" drivel you're hearing from the GOP. It is an impossibility even if they achieve huge gains this November in both houses of Congress.

Now let the momentum for a public option and Title X begin!

Yes, we did!

After all the silly political grand-standing and delay tactics, the US House of Representatives finally voted to pass a significant piece of health care reform legislation last night.

Ultimately, some semblance of common sense won out, and while the bill does not do nearly enough to combat the damage done by for-profit insurance companies, it is a small step in the right direction.

To those on the left, who lament at how Democrats sold out to conservatives and centrists regarding the public option, relax; this is how politics is played in the current political climate here. Eventually, as this program succeeds, the majority will see the benefits of a single-payer system.

My only concern is that many of this program's initiatives do not come into action until 2014, and it may be until 2019 when the additional 32 million Americans covered in this bill finally get coverage. However, all such bills are subject to improvement, and the Dems having taken one step, hopefully additional ones will follow soon.

To those on the right, thank you - for fear-mongering and turning a popular initiative into one widely feared and increasingly disapproved of; and for contributing nothing of substance and continuing to ignore the reality of health insurance in this country.

And to all of you who put stock in these polls, there is only one poll that matters: the 2008 general election. Since when does a Rasmussen poll gain precedence over voting? Barack Obama and the Democrats were elected into office with a significant majority and controls of both houses of Congress, running on a platform that included comprehensive health care reform. America, you wanted this, and like any major social legislation, it will eventually come to be popular and widely-supported.

By the way, the legislation also includes an incredibly significant bill regarding student loans, one that is not getting nearly enough publicity.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein's smart breakdown of the health care reform bill.
UPDATE #2: NYTimes' breakdown of the bill.

For-profit insurance: A crime against humans

InterGlobal insurance, based in London, defines any "chronic" condition, for which their policies have lower limits, as follows.

“Chronic means a medical condition which has at least one of the following characteristics: has no known cure; is likely to recur; requires palliative treatment; needs prolonged monitoring/ treatment; is permanent; requires specialist training/rehabilitation; is caused by changes to the body that cannot be reversed.”

As Nic Kristof astutely argues, is any illness covered under this umbrella? By this rigorous definition, aging could be established as a "chronic" condition; it certainly has no reverse, and payment for treatment of conditions like arthritis, diabetes, and cancer (as discussed in the article) could be capped far before a patient needs.

Don't let anyone tell you that the current health insurance system needs no reform (and, yes, I went double-negative there). It's a joke, and hopefully today's vote is the first small step towards more comprehensive reform.

One more reason to support health care reform

Reason #78203 to support health care reform in the US

Most Polarized Electorate Ever?

A recent Pew Research Center study showed a wide partisan gap in President Obama's approval ratings. The news media immediately seized upon this, declaring Obama the most divisive president ever. Hyperbole aside, is this really a logical conclusion based on this data?

I disagree with this line of thinking. Rather, I think the polls better reflect what's been happening to the American electorate: right or wrong, this is the most polarized and partisan electorate in memory, and there may not be much President Obama can do about it. This is most clearly reflected by the shift in news media coverage in the last decade or so.

I grew up watching CNN, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and other network news programs which all covered the news in a neutral manner (truly "fair and balanced"). In the last decade or so, there has been a marked shift in coverage: many news programs have opted to lean politically left or right. This isn't some media conspiracy to get you to pick a side; you want this coverage, and this is bourne out in the ratings: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly host the most popular news programs in their time-slot, shows which offer clear opinions in one political direction.

(By the way, is anyone else disturbed by this report? There are way too many people buying into the factually dubious bilge propagated by Fox. And yes, this blog leans a particular direction too!)

TV news isn't the only indicator: conservative radio is wildly popular across the country, while liberal radio continues to make in-roads in this market. Even newspapers have adopted such ideology (e.g. the New York Times versus the Chicago Tribune). People no longer want to hear all the news, presented in an even and unbiased manner, or all the sides of an opinion; they want affirmation of their opinions.

Whether this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it may better account for the polarization of the American electorate. There's no doubt some of Obama's ideas may not appeal to conservatives, but at least he more faithfully subscribes to his political principles than the Bush administration (an exercise in political versus ideological contradictions). The bottom line in all this: the Obama administration won the election, and at the very least the majority supports his ideas to bring a new direction to American legislative policies. We should remember that all of us stand to benefit should he succeed.

UPDATE: This article is along similar lines, published in yesterday's NYTimes.

Just when you think the world can't get any more stupid...

...I think we are running out of adjectives to describe the ignorance in the Republican party.

In the video, Representative Joe Barton, of Texas, questions Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate, about where oil comes from (a question any 4th grader could easily answer). A stunned Chu tries to explain this without insulting the intelligence of everyone present (little did he know, there was no intelligent life present).

What is even more stunning - Barton assumes Chu's hesitation to carefully phrase his words as meaning he is somehow puzzled by the question (did I mention he is a Nobel Prize winner?). If people can get dumber than this, then just shoot me now, please.

'Twas the night before teabagging...

Brilliant stuff from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

More tea-bag humor from the Rachel Maddow show yesterday, which had Conservatives hot and bothered today.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Stewart vs. Cramer

John Stewart's evisceration of CNBC's Jim Cramer is great entertainment, and fulfills the one component of television news commentary that is missing these days: accountability. Here is the interview, broken into 3 parts.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Apparently, science is amoral...

...Or, at least, scientists are, or so claims a Slate columnist.

The whole premise of the article (comparing George Bush's use of torture to Obama lifting the ban on stem cell research) is a joke. In particular, I found this paragraph particularly vile.

"The same Bush-Rove tactics are being used today in the stem-cell fight. But they're not coming from the right. They're coming from the left. Proponents of embryo research are insisting that because we're in a life-and-death struggle—in this case, a scientific struggle—anyone who impedes that struggle by renouncing effective tools is irrational and irresponsible. The war on disease is like the war on terror: Either you're with science, or you're against it."

This is fairly typical conservative spin. It represents all that is wrong with right wing of America: they'll defend you until you're born, and then you're on your own. In reality, we should be doing all we can to fight debilitating degenerative diseases. Lifting the bans on expanding the lines of available stem cells is a critical first step, but we still have a long way to go.

Embryonic stem cells are those that divide, differentiate, and specialize into all of the cells in our bodies. The brilliance of it comes from the fact that these cells are all genetically the same, and as such receive or produce some signals that cause them to become all of the various tissue types (brain, bone, skin, liver, heart, lung, etc.) in our body. Significant challenges remain to actually getting these cells to divide into particular tissue types, and then finding ways to incorporate them into the bodies of those suffering from degenerative diseases. Should we ever overcome these challenges, we may be able to cure diabetes, Alzheimer's, and MS (just to name a few).

Is this not worth the commitment to the research? The moral argument really doesn't hold here. The embryos are not derived from the eggs in a woman's body that do eventually become a person. Rather, they are derived from in vitro fertilization from eggs given by a donor's informed consent. These cells, obtained after 4-5 days of growth, are developed in a specialized in vitro fertilization clinic; bottom line, these cells are never meant to be people, and are never going to be.

And yet, they consist of the means to cure these debilitating diseases, diseases which cost people their quality of life and certainly have a great social and economic burden to all of us (this impact would make a great follow-up study). This really isn't a question of "Are you with us or against us?" Science will always continue to evolve and improve its methods; if one technique doesn't succeed or isn't allowed, others will be explored (as they have been). The primary objection to this one isn't valid, and kudos to President Obama for recognizing it, and not governing by religious ideology.

More Conservative Bilge...

Apparently I am somewhat of a masochist, because I continue to subject myself to the excrement of right-wing shill Charles Krauthammer.

Among the many objectionable statements Krauthammer ejaculates in this swill of an article, a few stood out as particularly retched.

Chiding Obama for lecturing on not finding energy alternatives: "We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?)..."

- Every honest expert has declared neither of those represents a short-term or long-term solution to the energy demands of our civilization.

Apparently, one of the problems of our financial crisis is an increasingly educated population: "Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe."

- Wow. Krauthammer appears to have a major problem with access to education in general, admonishing Obama for wishing to provide "universal access to college". Perhaps he would prefer if people remained dumb; they might find his columns insightful, then.

Finally, he reverts to the McCain-Palin (and now, Jindal) tactic of accusing Obama and Co. of fear-mongering, of taking advantage politically of the tenuous economic climate to forward his own socialist agenda.

"Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society".

Please. After Bush and Cheney stood idly by while the specter of a recession loomed, and refused to acknowledge this impending economic doom, we finally have an administration offering solutions to the ills that plague America post-Bush. Granted the solutions aren't perfect: the stimulus bills are peppered with a variety of earmark and congressional pork. Folks, that is simply politics as it is played all across the world, and no bill will pass in Congress without some sort of political favors. Indeed, if the Republicans were not so steadfastly ideological, and did not continue to appease their radical right-wing ultra-conservative constitutents, it is likely the bill would be less bad and potentially more useful. Universal access to education and health-care should not be viewed as privelege; they are fundamental human rights, and in every developed society (except one) they are treated as such.

"The Great Non Sequitur" blares as the title of the article. Who knew it refered to the writer, and not the subject?

As usual...

...Hitch nails it.

The U.N. resolution to prevent defamation against religions - mainly, Islam - is a joke. Cartoons drawn in Denmark or Teddy Bears named Mohammad should not offend people of "faith" - the absolutist claims of all religions rest on the rather shaky ground of the so-called unshakeable faith of its followers, and we should all not be held to such a demand. Neither is it within the jurisdiction of any governing body to protect against these ridiculous claims (not that the U.N. is a governing body, either).

The first two paragraphs from his piece sum up all that is preposterous with Islam (and all religions, really).

"The Muslim religion makes unusually large claims for itself. All religions do this, of course, in that they claim to know and to be able to interpret the wishes of a supreme being. But Islam affirms itself as the last and final revelation of God's word, the consummation of all the mere glimpses of the truth vouchsafed to all the foregoing faiths, available by way of the unimprovable, immaculate text of "the recitation," or Quran. If there sometimes seems to be something implicitly absolutist or even totalitarian in such a claim, it may result not from a fundamentalist reading of the holy book but from the religion itself."

The last sentence in particular nails the essence of the problem: often people wish to separate the religion from the people who follow it, but that is like putting the cart before the horse. Ultimately, a religion cannot exist without its followers, because it is man-made. Until we all come to accept this prerequisite as valid for all religions, such absolutist claims (and the protections offered to defend it) will continue to be perpetrated.

What a Joke...

...the Republican Party has become. Or at least, the radical right wing, becoming increasingly synonymous with the GOP, has elucidated for the rest of us just how out of touch and desperate they have become. This week offered several revelations.

1) The latest has to be this Alan Keyes' interview.

2) Increasingly, accepting the stimulus package money has become political, with a spate of Republican governors threatening to refuse the funds. The most interesting is Bobby Jindal, whose state is facing a $1.6 billion dollar budget deficit, and who has given hints that he will turn down $3.8 billion dollars in federal funds offered as part of the new stimulus package. One could argue this is putting conservative ideology over the best interests of the state (although Charlie Crist, increasingly unpopular with the national GOP, will accept the funds). More likely, this is a clear revelation that Jindal is putting his 2012 political interests over those of his state, which is disappointing. Jindal has always appeared to be a smart, practical man, but it now seems the most high profile Indian in American politics is not above the conservative ideological fray. He's had a pretty bizarre week that includes, besides his irrelevant response to Obama's Congressional Address, his story about participating in the exorcism of a college classmate. If this is the best the Republicans have to offer in 2012, then the Democrats should enjoy a healthy majority for several more years to come.

3) I wanted to post more links, but the NYTimes' Frank Rich has penned something far more informative, so check it out.

4) I am wholly unimpressed with the U.N.'s latest campaign, and so should all of you who value freedom of speech. This isn't directly related to the week that was GOP-insanity, but it's an interesting issue nonetheless, and I sincerely hope religious zealots will one day learn to ignore what other people are saying about their religions (if you have faith, it really shouldn't matter to you when I make jokes like this:

Q: How can you recognize a well-balanced Muslim?
A: He's got chips on both shoulders.

Haha - at this point you Muslims should put away your machetes and not threaten to open up a can of Fatwa on my ass). It's funny how people of "faith" always feel threatened by those with "opposing" messages (that whole sentence is a joke). This is probably because the relevance of these religions rests on trying to correlate religion with morality, a concept that completely underestimates the ability of humans to recognize fundamental distinctions between right and wrong. The simplest example of this? If you've ever heard a child exclaim "That's not fair!", you are witnessing the most basic assessment of right from wrong, an assertion from a source that lacks an academic understanding of religious philosophy, yet is able make such a judgement nonetheless. Ultimately, religion (and ridiculous campaigns like the UN's to defend it from "profanity") undermines human intelligence and its capacity to learn and grow as it struggles to stay relevant in this information age.