From Pharyngula, this story about a Queensland teenager who performed her own abortion. Now she is facing seven years in prison and has been personally attacked, her home firebombed.
This is something that abortion opponents rarely consider. Aside from do-it-yourself abortions, what abortion laws would lead to generally is young women in prison. And the anti-abortion movement means to impose these penalties in all cases including rape and incest. (Thanks Radioactive Quill for the link) Not only that, but Personhood Florida also wants to outlaw oral contraceptives. They assassinate doctors inside churches. They firebomb houses in Quesnsland. They push their agenda through intimidation and violence. They punish the victims of rape. They oppose aborting anencephalic fetuses. Everywhere they try to limit, restrict, criminalize, harass, intimidate, attack. Vocal opponents of abortion rights support domestic terrorism and are enemies of women's rights.
This isn't a choice issue. Women don't have the right to choose an abortion the same way I have a right to buy the cheapest pair of tube socks from Wal-Mart. It's a personal freedom issue. I can't take away someone's reproductive health rights, and you can't, and the government certainly cannot.
Pam Gellar: Small-Minded Hatred
So, thanks to an e-mail discussion among some friends and family members I got to see an e-mail version of this article by Pam Gellar. The Blogspot version of the article doesn't convey the degree of fanatical shrieking as well as the e-mail did, which was full of underlining, font size changes and font color changes, not to mention the exclamation points in the title, used apparently without an appreciation of the irony.
By e-mail, I weighed in with my $0.02:
She is willing to toss in everything, including the kitchen sink.
Anyway, it all sounds so awful! Who's going to come along to change all this?
What do you mean, why? You just spelled out why we need radical change! Sure, your criticisms of America were largely overblown and inaccurate, but you scared me enough to convince me that we need change!
But seriously, yes, change is coming. During all of Pam Gellar's lifetime, no matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won the election, the one thing she could count on was a white guy in the White House. Change is coming, Pam. Get used to it. And lay off the Hitler comparisons, you're killing rational debate and the democracy that depends on it.
By e-mail, I weighed in with my $0.02:
[I agree that] this is crazy person talk that isn't worth responding to. Except that I can't really let the Nazi comparison pass without comment, since it is so poisonous.I'd like to take a moment to respond to Gellar's article in even more detail here. Other than an accusation that the bank bailout was two trillion instead of 750 billion (without citation) and some vague scary talk about the economic stimulus and health care, Gellar make NO POLICY COMPLAINTS about the Obama administration. Seriously. She has "never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now" but she can't list any action taken by Obama that she disagrees with.
Pam Geller's recounting of Nazi Germany's history is seriously screwy. Hitler didn't accomplish what he did because the media liked him, or because he was charismatic, or because of his economic policies. These things helped him, but they could also be said of almost any politician. Hitler was able to whip his countrymen into a racist, jingoistic fury by portraying Germans as superior and other groups as inferior and evil. Comparisons between Hitler and Obama are particularly offensive considering that if Obama had lived in Hitler's Germany he would have likely been murdered or forcibly sterilized.
Comparing Obama to Hitler is hate speech. Before I take anything Pam Gellar says seriously she'll have to leave the racist rhetoric behind.
Also, how dare the right wing talk about stifling dissent? We're six years into a war that was waged on false pretenses. When people from any part of the political spectrum pointed out how thin or inconsistent the case for war was they were called a traitor and accused of giving aid and comfort to terrorists.
On a second point, Daschle didn't say, "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/ apr/03/chain-email/daschle- didnt-say-seniors-seniors- should-accept-ra/
She is willing to toss in everything, including the kitchen sink.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?1929 x 10?!?! That's almost (*gasp*!) 19,290!!!!11oneone
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago? We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke... (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
Anyway, it all sounds so awful! Who's going to come along to change all this?
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word:? Change...radical change. Why?
What do you mean, why? You just spelled out why we need radical change! Sure, your criticisms of America were largely overblown and inaccurate, but you scared me enough to convince me that we need change!
Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same Nation of Freedom, again.No, we don't want that kind of change!
But seriously, yes, change is coming. During all of Pam Gellar's lifetime, no matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won the election, the one thing she could count on was a white guy in the White House. Change is coming, Pam. Get used to it. And lay off the Hitler comparisons, you're killing rational debate and the democracy that depends on it.
Facts About Healthcare
Writing about David Sirota's comment on the trigger option made me thing about something. I didn't know that a trigger is a method of killing a bill. This is well known inside the Washington elite, but probably poorly understood in the country as a whole. This got me to thinking, how many other things about this issue have I been poorly informed about? I pay a lot of attention, but I'm not willing to read the 1000-page House bill. Even if I did, I'm not a medical or legal expert and there are likely things that I might have a tough time coming up with the correct interpretation.
The media coverage on the health care has focused on mainly superficialities: who's winning, who's losing, who's screaming loudest. Where are the in-depth newspaper and magazine articles that concisely and accurately explain what the various proposals are actually going to mean to a person like me? What are the important figures that are being debated? What's the size of the proposed hardship exemption?
Why can't newspapers and TV stations hire teams of doctors and lawyers without partisan bias (or as a balanced team) to read the bills and tell the reporters what I need to know about the proposals? It's easy to point a camera at people shouting at town halls, harder to read a 1000-page bill and lift the essentials out of it for your readers. But just because it's hard doesn't make it an excuse for shoddy journalism.
I understand that print journalism has taken quite a few hits recently, which unfortunately leaves TV to dominate the coverage. Olbermann and Maddow do their best, but their format doesn't lend itself to the type of in-depth coverage I'm looking for. They can interview experts and give them five or ten minutes to make a case, but I'm more interested in getting the numbers, in black and white, impartially.
The media coverage on the health care has focused on mainly superficialities: who's winning, who's losing, who's screaming loudest. Where are the in-depth newspaper and magazine articles that concisely and accurately explain what the various proposals are actually going to mean to a person like me? What are the important figures that are being debated? What's the size of the proposed hardship exemption?
Why can't newspapers and TV stations hire teams of doctors and lawyers without partisan bias (or as a balanced team) to read the bills and tell the reporters what I need to know about the proposals? It's easy to point a camera at people shouting at town halls, harder to read a 1000-page bill and lift the essentials out of it for your readers. But just because it's hard doesn't make it an excuse for shoddy journalism.
I understand that print journalism has taken quite a few hits recently, which unfortunately leaves TV to dominate the coverage. Olbermann and Maddow do their best, but their format doesn't lend itself to the type of in-depth coverage I'm looking for. They can interview experts and give them five or ten minutes to make a case, but I'm more interested in getting the numbers, in black and white, impartially.
"Trigger Mechanism" a Joke
Tonight Rachel Maddow talked to guest David Sirota about the trigger mechanism, the latest meme to bubble up from the depths of the health care debate. Sirota in his column and on the Rachel Maddow Show clarified for me exactly what a trigger mechanism actually is: it's a way to kill a bill while pretending that you're not killing a bill. For example, the prescription drug bill included a trigger mechanism that ostensibly would have allowed Americans to buy prescription drugs from overseas once the HHS secretary judged them to be "safe". The problem is that no HHS secretary has pulled the trigger. Once a trigger gets put into place, the corporacy just needs to make sure that the trigger doesn't get pulled, by bribing or intimidating bureaucrats. The trigger mechanism will appeal to obstructionist Democrats who want to appear to their constituents that they are in favor of reform, while not endangering industry contributions.
As much as 'trigger mechanism' is actually a way of killing a proposal while looking like you're in favor of it, it's funny that conservatives still oppose it.
As much as 'trigger mechanism' is actually a way of killing a proposal while looking like you're in favor of it, it's funny that conservatives still oppose it.
"YOU LIE!" (Updated)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) has no respect.
Update:
Wilson issued a non-apology apology, stating that his outburst was spontaneous. However he stood by his assertion that Obama was in fact lying. At a cabinet meeting today Obama said that he accepted Wilson's "unequivocal" apology. I beg to disagree, Mr. President. Representative Wilson's apology was not unequivocal, he stands by his nonsense statement, and you should not accept an apology which is neither unequivocal nor truly an apology.
Tonight Keith Olbermann issued a Special Comment wherein he explains that the problem with Rep. Wilson's outburst is not its incivility but rather its stupidity. Indeed the GOP seems to have reached a point where being wrong - not just a little bit wrong, but completely wrong - and being wrong at the top of your voice has been elevated to a virtue, a strategy, and a way of being.
The bedrock of democracy is honest debate, but without honesty debate just devolves into a shouting match. We saw it during the 2008 campaign, we saw it at the tea parties, we saw it during the August town halls, and now we're seeing it on the floor of Congress. I'm open to an honest, earnest, even strident debate with the other side but how is that possible when the other side only has distortions, lies, and anger to offer?
Update:
Wilson issued a non-apology apology, stating that his outburst was spontaneous. However he stood by his assertion that Obama was in fact lying. At a cabinet meeting today Obama said that he accepted Wilson's "unequivocal" apology. I beg to disagree, Mr. President. Representative Wilson's apology was not unequivocal, he stands by his nonsense statement, and you should not accept an apology which is neither unequivocal nor truly an apology.
Tonight Keith Olbermann issued a Special Comment wherein he explains that the problem with Rep. Wilson's outburst is not its incivility but rather its stupidity. Indeed the GOP seems to have reached a point where being wrong - not just a little bit wrong, but completely wrong - and being wrong at the top of your voice has been elevated to a virtue, a strategy, and a way of being.
The bedrock of democracy is honest debate, but without honesty debate just devolves into a shouting match. We saw it during the 2008 campaign, we saw it at the tea parties, we saw it during the August town halls, and now we're seeing it on the floor of Congress. I'm open to an honest, earnest, even strident debate with the other side but how is that possible when the other side only has distortions, lies, and anger to offer?
We'll know you are Christians how, again?
Opposition to Health-Care Reform Revives Christian Right
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ -Matthew 25 NIV
Criminalizing Poverty
Via the AP, we get more details about the Max Baucus health care "plan" that his Gang of Six have been working on.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
I'm Reading: Doubting Darwin? by Sahotra Sarkar
“Sahotra Sarkar lucidly and comprehensively dismantles Intelligent Design creationism in the most powerful way: by explaining the biology. This book summarizes the theory and philosophy of evolution with depth and insight, and in a way that sharply refutes the objections of creationism.”
–P. Z. Myers, PhD, University of Minnesota, Morris, and author of Pharyngula Blog
PZ Myers' quote appears on the back cover of Doubting Darwin. This is a concise, somewhat technical book. I recommend it for readers who have at least a little knowledge of science already. Sarkar cogently and fearlessly wades into controversial waters, taking Behe, Dembski and their ID colleagues to task for their dishonesty, inconsistency, and bad science.
In the first half of the book Sarkar explains and illuminates the theory of evolution and how is has been challenged since Darwin and Wallace first introduced it. Sarkar explains how several serious scientific objections to evolution have been raised in the past and have been given their fair airing. In some cases the criticism was ultimately disproven and rejected, but in others the criticism has helped shape and expand the theory. The theory of evolution today differs in many important respects from Darwin's original idea, so much so that to call it "Darwinism" may be little more than a distracting and pejorative term when used in certain contexts. For example Darwin knew nothing about the work of his contemporary Gregor Mendel whose work on pea plants laid the foundation for modern genetics.
The second half of the book takes on specific arguments that have emerged from the ID movement. The arguments from irreducible complexity, teleology, information theory and others are confronted and shown to be no serious threat to evolutionary theory. Sarkar also discusses the anthropic principle and methodological and metaphysical naturalism.
Intelligent Design is little more than old-fashioned Creationism, dressed up in a lab coat and goggles. It attempts to revive the argument from teleology but has less force and honesty today than it did when Paley made the argument originally. What Darwin's theory did was essentially to dispense with the design argument. The ID proponents seem to be trying to call for a do-over by introducing more modern examples into the argument (like the bacterial flagellum), but these new examples do little to rescue the argument.
This week I'm lecturing my students on evolution. I will probably not talk very extensively about the ID arguments, but I will bring them up as an example of how scientists take new proposals seriously, and toss them out when they have no merit.
The Politics of the Possible
So just today Max Baucus' finance comittee's health care reform plan is out. It's as disappointing as I expected it to be. It includes no public insurance option. The centerpiece of the Baucus plan is a tax on the most expensive insurance plans. It's hard to tell from the kos coverage or the Times article, but basically I think the government will guarantee premium payments to insurance companies for low-income Americans. Under the Baucus plan health insurance will be extended to more people, and it will be regulated slightly more than it is now, imposing caps on deductibles and co-payments. This bill looks exactly like the industry windfall I was afraid it would be. We'll get slightly more people covered, under slightly tighter regulation, at a massive increase in cost.
It's hard to tell where Obama stands on all of this right now. Lately he's been doing head-fakes, preferring to talk about how the current system is broken as opposed to how he'd like to fix it. I mentioned how disappointed I am with Obama, and I'm not alone. But then I listened to this audio essay, which I highly recommend. Go listen to it. Bill Reznik provides a little perspective on just how entrenched corporate interests have become in this country.
Paul Krugman points out the same thing and he wishes he had Nixon to negotiate with instead of Chuck Grassley. The fact is that over the last 30 years America has been a corporacy. No politician can stay in power or advance any agenda without first gathering support from powerful corporations. We've come to think of wealthy lobbyists handing millions of dollars directly to politicians as normal instead of the rank bribery that it is. The power of the people to affect change through elections is almost completely buried beneath the power of corporate campaign contributions.
In any event, Krugman and Reznik have given me a little perspective. It may not be possible for Obama to pursue an openly progressive agenda, to actually do things right away that really help people like guarantee the right to health care. But that doesn't mean that progressives can give him a break. If we're to win "years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system" as Krugman puts it, we'll have to push hard at every opportunity.
What do you think? Has Obama given in to a Clintonite mindset, triangulating and giving up before he starts? Or is he deftly positioning himself for as much reform as he can possibly get, given the state of the American corporacy? Let me know in the comments.
It's hard to tell where Obama stands on all of this right now. Lately he's been doing head-fakes, preferring to talk about how the current system is broken as opposed to how he'd like to fix it. I mentioned how disappointed I am with Obama, and I'm not alone. But then I listened to this audio essay, which I highly recommend. Go listen to it. Bill Reznik provides a little perspective on just how entrenched corporate interests have become in this country.
Paul Krugman points out the same thing and he wishes he had Nixon to negotiate with instead of Chuck Grassley. The fact is that over the last 30 years America has been a corporacy. No politician can stay in power or advance any agenda without first gathering support from powerful corporations. We've come to think of wealthy lobbyists handing millions of dollars directly to politicians as normal instead of the rank bribery that it is. The power of the people to affect change through elections is almost completely buried beneath the power of corporate campaign contributions.
In any event, Krugman and Reznik have given me a little perspective. It may not be possible for Obama to pursue an openly progressive agenda, to actually do things right away that really help people like guarantee the right to health care. But that doesn't mean that progressives can give him a break. If we're to win "years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system" as Krugman puts it, we'll have to push hard at every opportunity.
What do you think? Has Obama given in to a Clintonite mindset, triangulating and giving up before he starts? Or is he deftly positioning himself for as much reform as he can possibly get, given the state of the American corporacy? Let me know in the comments.
The Most Offensive Frakkin Thing I've Seen in a While
I've been having a flame war on my facebook status for a couple of days now. Just today the bloke I've been arguing with posts this over-the-top propaganda image as his profile picture. That's right, this douchebag is now representing himself with an image of Obama-as-Nazi.
A little bit of history: during the Third Reich Hitler regarded Africans and African-Germans as a threat to Aryan racial purity. He accused the Jews of bringing Africans to Germany intentionally in order to dilute white bloodlines. The Gestapo forcibly sterilized many of them. "Mulattoes" were particularly offensive to the Nazi party, a symbol of undesirable racial mixing.
How does somebody make this comparison with a straight face? Obama would likely have been murdered or sterilized if he lived in Hitler's Germany. I'd like to propose a new corollary to Godwin's Law: anybody who posts an image of Obama-as-Hitler, except to point out how ridiculous or offensive it is, is an asshole.
A little bit of history: during the Third Reich Hitler regarded Africans and African-Germans as a threat to Aryan racial purity. He accused the Jews of bringing Africans to Germany intentionally in order to dilute white bloodlines. The Gestapo forcibly sterilized many of them. "Mulattoes" were particularly offensive to the Nazi party, a symbol of undesirable racial mixing.
How does somebody make this comparison with a straight face? Obama would likely have been murdered or sterilized if he lived in Hitler's Germany. I'd like to propose a new corollary to Godwin's Law: anybody who posts an image of Obama-as-Hitler, except to point out how ridiculous or offensive it is, is an asshole.
Public Option More Popular than Obama
The public option: 58 in favor 34 oppose 8 undecided
Obama: 52 favorable 43 unfavorable 5 unsure
Why is this? The public option helps sick people. Obama's just the president. (Turn it around Mr. President!)
By the way, all of Obama's slipping numbers lately are from Independents and Democrats. The Republicans already hated him as much as they could. Pundits who say that Obama's slipping numbers are a signal for him to move to the right are talking nonsense.
Obama: 52 favorable 43 unfavorable 5 unsure
Why is this? The public option helps sick people. Obama's just the president. (Turn it around Mr. President!)
By the way, all of Obama's slipping numbers lately are from Independents and Democrats. The Republicans already hated him as much as they could. Pundits who say that Obama's slipping numbers are a signal for him to move to the right are talking nonsense.
Small-Town Cops Shoot Up Courtroom
You've got to check out this AP story about the tiny town of Jericho, Arkansas. What do you do when you're a small-town police department that's unable to pay the loans on your police cruisers? Set up a permanent speed trap in the center of town and nab motorists who don't slow down to the town's depressed speed limit quickly enough for $150 each.
What do you do when the town's fire chief shows up in court to complain to the judge about the speed trap? Shoot him. Since the shooing, the police force has been disbanded, the city hall shut down, and the county sheriffs are looking for where all the cash from the traffic fines disappeared to.
Certainly there are a lot of well-trained professional officers out there, but some of them are just thugs with badges.
What do you do when the town's fire chief shows up in court to complain to the judge about the speed trap? Shoot him. Since the shooing, the police force has been disbanded, the city hall shut down, and the county sheriffs are looking for where all the cash from the traffic fines disappeared to.
Certainly there are a lot of well-trained professional officers out there, but some of them are just thugs with badges.
Town Hall Protesters Hate on Disabled Woman
Featured on Countdown tonight, a crowd of protesters heckled and booed a woman who was trying to frame her question by relating her medical and financial struggles. "The copay for one of my medications is $389 every two weeks" the woman said as idiots behind her shouted, "What's your question?"
Later one of the protesters said, "I don't know how a handicapped woman in a wheelchair has more rights than I do."
For a long time now the town hall protesters have shown a lack of civility and respect for honest discussion and the democratic process. Now they've reached a new low, revealing a depressing and infuriating lack of humanity. Clearly they don't give a shit about how much suffering their fellow Americans have to endure as long as their ideological purity is maintained. Anything the government might actually do to make life easier for its citizens is called as socialism or even tyranny.
Can we please stop listening to the stupid people now?
Later one of the protesters said, "I don't know how a handicapped woman in a wheelchair has more rights than I do."
For a long time now the town hall protesters have shown a lack of civility and respect for honest discussion and the democratic process. Now they've reached a new low, revealing a depressing and infuriating lack of humanity. Clearly they don't give a shit about how much suffering their fellow Americans have to endure as long as their ideological purity is maintained. Anything the government might actually do to make life easier for its citizens is called as socialism or even tyranny.
Can we please stop listening to the stupid people now?
Here Comes Science!
Just now via Pharyngula I learned about the new They Might Be Giants album, Science is Real. This looks awesome, I must have it for my students (and for me). Fun, catchy music about science and it includes a DVD with videos for all the songs.
Obama Should Stop Chasing Republican Votes
Next week President Obama plans to give a speech to a joint session of Congress on health care reform. 538.com's Nate Silver expects that this may be the biggest moment of Obama's presidency, barring some unforeseen crisis in the future. He may be right. Obama's political future may very well depend on how well he is able to gather votes to pass a health care bill.
The public option remains popular among the public. However, there has been some suggestions by David Axelrod and others that Obama's speech is likely to outline a plan for reform that does not necessarily include a public option. This would be a mistake, particularly if the final bill includes an individual mandate without a public option. This would be a terrible result, forcing people into private plans or co-ops that are unlikely to be large enough to have significant bargaining power with healthcare providers.
Obama's mistake from the beginning has been to seek a "bipartisan" solution to this legislative puzzle. Time and time again the Republicans have made it clear that they will not vote for any bill, no matter how many concessions it contains. We should be talking about compromise in the sense of getting together the progressive and the Blue Dog wings of the Democratic party. Progressives also have the option of running strong primary challengers against Blue Dogs in the next election, and that fact should not be left out of the negotiation process. Max Baucus has a 'gang of six' that includes three Democrats and three Republicans. The 'gang of six' should have included three liberals and three Blue Dogs, since these are the only two parties that matter right now.
The strength of the Blue Dog caucus because of triangulation. I blame Bill Clinton.
The best thing Obama could say at his speech next week is, "on the issue of health care reform, several Republicans and a few Democrats have not been negotiating in good faith. That's okay. We can get this thing done without them. And the voters can let them know what they think about that at the next election."
But it doesn't seem like Obama's ready to play hardball.
The public option remains popular among the public. However, there has been some suggestions by David Axelrod and others that Obama's speech is likely to outline a plan for reform that does not necessarily include a public option. This would be a mistake, particularly if the final bill includes an individual mandate without a public option. This would be a terrible result, forcing people into private plans or co-ops that are unlikely to be large enough to have significant bargaining power with healthcare providers.
Obama's mistake from the beginning has been to seek a "bipartisan" solution to this legislative puzzle. Time and time again the Republicans have made it clear that they will not vote for any bill, no matter how many concessions it contains. We should be talking about compromise in the sense of getting together the progressive and the Blue Dog wings of the Democratic party. Progressives also have the option of running strong primary challengers against Blue Dogs in the next election, and that fact should not be left out of the negotiation process. Max Baucus has a 'gang of six' that includes three Democrats and three Republicans. The 'gang of six' should have included three liberals and three Blue Dogs, since these are the only two parties that matter right now.
The strength of the Blue Dog caucus because of triangulation. I blame Bill Clinton.
The best thing Obama could say at his speech next week is, "on the issue of health care reform, several Republicans and a few Democrats have not been negotiating in good faith. That's okay. We can get this thing done without them. And the voters can let them know what they think about that at the next election."
But it doesn't seem like Obama's ready to play hardball.
Jessica's Law
In 2005 Florida passed the Jessica Lunsford Act after the brutal rape and murder of a white girl by 47-year-old John Couey. Despite the fact that existing law was sufficient to give John Couey the death penalty in this case, legislatures around the country have decided that existing laws against sex offenders were not stringent enough, and many states have passed the JLA or versions of it.
What the Act primarily does is enforce lifelong monitoring for sex offenders and assign mandatory minimum sentences for lewd and lascivious acts against children under 12 and for sexual battery and rape against young children. I have two problems with this law. First, 'sex offender' may be too broadly defined, including acts such as urinating outside or consenual sex with a minor in some cases. It seems unfair to me to condemn a homeless person to a lifetime of electronic monitoring because they don't own a home with a bathroom to pee in.
Second, mandatory minimum sentences tie judges' hands. The whole point of having the system of judges, juries and trials is that not every circumstance can be adequately anticipated by legislation, hence judges have (or should have, they increasingly have less) the power to interpret the law in the light of the facts of any particular case.
In any event, the upshot of all of this is that, in order to take a job where I'll be tutoring through the public school system, I have to go downtown on a weekday during a very narrow range of business hours (8:30-12 and 2-4, Monday through Friday) and pay over 80 bucks to get fingerprinted and run a criminal background check.
John Couey wasn't a certified teacher, he never applied to work at a day care or tutoring company or as a teacher's aide. He worked at a freaking truck stop and grabbed a child out of her own home at 3am and because of that I have to pay 80 freaking bucks? I'm a broke young professional just out of college who is working hard to scrape together rent on a part-time teacher's pay. We have a shortage of good teachers in this state. Why am I and every other educator in this state penalized for the actions of one monster? Next time the FL legislature decides to throw a hissy fit over sex offenders, could they at least pay for the fingerprints themselves?
What the Act primarily does is enforce lifelong monitoring for sex offenders and assign mandatory minimum sentences for lewd and lascivious acts against children under 12 and for sexual battery and rape against young children. I have two problems with this law. First, 'sex offender' may be too broadly defined, including acts such as urinating outside or consenual sex with a minor in some cases. It seems unfair to me to condemn a homeless person to a lifetime of electronic monitoring because they don't own a home with a bathroom to pee in.
Second, mandatory minimum sentences tie judges' hands. The whole point of having the system of judges, juries and trials is that not every circumstance can be adequately anticipated by legislation, hence judges have (or should have, they increasingly have less) the power to interpret the law in the light of the facts of any particular case.
In any event, the upshot of all of this is that, in order to take a job where I'll be tutoring through the public school system, I have to go downtown on a weekday during a very narrow range of business hours (8:30-12 and 2-4, Monday through Friday) and pay over 80 bucks to get fingerprinted and run a criminal background check.
John Couey wasn't a certified teacher, he never applied to work at a day care or tutoring company or as a teacher's aide. He worked at a freaking truck stop and grabbed a child out of her own home at 3am and because of that I have to pay 80 freaking bucks? I'm a broke young professional just out of college who is working hard to scrape together rent on a part-time teacher's pay. We have a shortage of good teachers in this state. Why am I and every other educator in this state penalized for the actions of one monster? Next time the FL legislature decides to throw a hissy fit over sex offenders, could they at least pay for the fingerprints themselves?
Personal News
Now that I've taken a job with a company that does tutoring through federal NCLB funds, I've got three jobs. I'm a part-time teacher, part-time freelance tutor and part-time tutor through a company. My calendar for the next few weeks and months is rapidly filling up, which is not making my girlfriend entirely happy. On the other hand, soon I won't have to be in a perpetual state of fear over paying for rent and groceries.
Meanwhile, at the school my first week went well (I lectured on the scientific method and skepticism) and my second week is looking good (I bought new math books for two of my middle-schoolers. I started using Google Calendar which should help me and my girlfriend keep track of each other's schedules, particularly because mine is so variable. Who knows when I'll find time to sit down and play a game of D&D again?
Meanwhile, at the school my first week went well (I lectured on the scientific method and skepticism) and my second week is looking good (I bought new math books for two of my middle-schoolers. I started using Google Calendar which should help me and my girlfriend keep track of each other's schedules, particularly because mine is so variable. Who knows when I'll find time to sit down and play a game of D&D again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
