New Mission Statement

For the life of this blog, I have thought I should be trying to teach people something about what they might find interesting. And then I would be disappointed when no one seemed to be reading. My wife recently said she was reading, and was interested in what I had to say in my blog. Tha is when it occurred to me. A blog is a basically narcissitic exercise. I will now write about anythign I damn well please. Will I link to other web sites? When I feel like it. Will I blog about ridiculous crap? Why the hell not? In other words, I am taking control of my blog as a reflection of my mind, which I think is pretty damn interesting. Ego? You bet your ass!

GOP "Moderate" on Health Care

I was going to contact my Congressman, Mark Kirk, via phone to let him know I supported universal health coverage. But before I made the call, I saw him at the train station in Chicago, trying to elicit support for his Senate bid. Kirk is considered a moderate Republican by many. That is what made my encounter with him so surprising. I have already posted regarding my disgust with the GOP's claim that there is no Health Care problem in this country. But in my short conversation with Mr. Kirk I discovered a new tack - admit the problem but maintain there is no solution that is affordable. The conversation went something like this (I apologize to Mr. Kirk if I have not remembered everything word for word, but this is definitely the gist of the conversation:

Me: I know you won't like this but I encourage you to support Universal Health Care.

Kirk: I am on the other side of that issue.

Me: Why?

Kirk: I am against spending a trillion dollars on it.

Me: Well, what do you suggest we do about the problem?

Kirk: We can't afford it.

Me: Maybe we should give care to the working poor and take some of the cost by means-testing Medicare.

Kirk: I support Medicare.

Me: What about means-testing?

Kirk: I support Medicare.

Me: What about means-testing?

Kirk: I support Medicare [Ed. - He did say it three times].

Me: What about the kids who need health care?

Kirk: I voted for S-Chip.

Me: Good, I appreciate that.

What does this say about the GOP position on health care? One of the "moderates" in the party is now claiming that there is nothing we can do to solve the problem. I guess we should just let it go as it is. That is the modern GOP? Nothing good.

I Am Officially Disgusted

Ok, I was watching Hannity on Fox News (So you don't have to). And I am disgusted by the new GOP strategy to defeat health care reform. Now they are claiming there is not problem. The new claim is that only 7,000,000 people are uninnsured and that the US has the best health care in the world. If that is true, then why are we 50th in life expectancy (just ahead of Albania), and why do we pay so much per capita? But I digress. There are many things to say about the current health care system in the U.S., and you can disagree about the cause of or the solution for the problems with our system, but to deny that there is a problem is either due to delusion or dishonest.

Quick Health Care Query

If the government is so bad a running things, then why are consrvatives so concerned that so many Americans will run to the government run Public Option that the private insurance companies won't be able to compete?

$787 Billion Spending Package?

It has become a popular myth (lie?) among conservative pundits that the stimulus package passed earlier this year is a $787 Billion spending package. But let's get in our way back machine and look at reality. Obama originally wanted to spend somewhere around $700 Billion, or more. But GOP and congressional pressure forced him to agree to a $787 Billion stimulus with $288 Billion in TAX CUTS - which many feel is a much worse stimulus than spending. So, in the end, Obama got only about 50% of the spending he wanted and was forced to include relatively non-stimulative tax cuts. Thank you GOP!

Huh? Fairness Doctrine vs. ABC "Infomercial"

Compare this and this. Which is it?

Does Iran = USSR?

Recently, a number of GOP leaders, most significantly Senator John McCain, have argued that Obama has been too quiet in his support of the Iranian protesters. A common meme is that Obama should speak out against the Iranian regime and for the protesters in the way that Ronald Reagan spoke out against the Soviets and for revolutionaries in Poland. [Note - McCain also credited Reagan with speaking out against the USSR and for the revolutionaries in Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring in 1968. Of course, Reagan was still early in his first term as California governor in 1968. Clearly the solution to the Iranian crisis is for Arnold Schwarzenegger to say something]. Do these people not understand the difference between foreign occupation and internal revolution? Oh wait. Well, anyway, in case it needs to be spelled for them: The Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe from without (regardless of what Gerald Ford said). The Iranians were originally not fighting for the ouster of a regime. They were originally fighting for a "fair" vote (to the extent a vote can be fair when hundreds of potential candidates cannot run because of an oligarchical decision). They only started yelling "Down with Khameni" after it became clear the regime was engaging in a coup. Obama then came out for the safety of the people, and a fair resolution, and against the regime's actions.

Pessimism on Iran

Well, I have no idea what's going on in Iran. But I don't think we should be optimistic, even if Mousavi eventually becomes President. Two reasons spring to mind. First, a recent poll put support for Iran's nuclear program at about 84% among Iranians. Second, while Mousavi might be (and who really knows) more of a "reformer" than Ahmadinjead, he was still allowed by the Mullahs to run for President - one of four. The Mullahs vetoed the right of many others to run. So, while I hope the Iranians get honest results from their limited republic, I don't expect too much of a quick change even if they do.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I have thought for years that a significant problem in the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing two very different issues. The Pro-Choice side argues that a woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit. That is a "bodily integrity," "free will" debate. The Anti-Abortion side argues that you can't kill an innocent life. To them, it is a debate about murder. Each side makes assumptions the other would never agree with.

A good example of this can be found at Bench Memos, a blog at National Review, where Matthew J. Franck responds to a young Medical student who explains her journey from anti-abortion to pro-choice. He wonders:

whether this future obstetrician has learned from her embryology textbooks that every fetus, every embryo, is a unique, distinct, self-directing, living member of the human species. Any rights that our young med student has by virtue purely of her humanity today, she had from the moment of her conception.

Franck assumes that it is self-evident that life begins at conception, and that an embryology textbook should obviously make that point. But not everyone agrees, and unless Franck sees that, and realizes the reasonableness of the disagreement, there will never be a solution. Similarly, if Pro-Choice advocates (which I am) don't understand that Franck's position regarding when life begins is also reasonable, we will never get anywhere. My suggestion? No clue at the moment. Just a thought.

Hello Again!

After a rousing response at Facebook, I have returned. Not quite as triumphant as MacArthur, but a blog ain't exactly the Phillipines. Any way, here goes:

Over at the Corner, their recent economic "expert," Veronique de Rugy posted on the plight of the Boston Globe. First she noted that the members of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the paper's union, had rejected the most recent contract 277-265, which puts the paper at risk. She then said:

What are these guys thinking? To me, this just goes to show the incredible stupidity of organized labor.

I'm at a loss how a Union voting against a contract shows anything about organized labor in general. Should the Guild members have voted to accept the contract? Perhaps. But a Union chose, in a democratic way, to reject a deal. Would de Rugy prefer that the Union leadership simply agree to the deal without input from the members - a power grab of the sort the conservatives like to accuse them of anyway? How elitist! But I guess that's what I should expect from a woman named Veronique de Rugy.

More GOP Contradiction

Dick Cheney has been running around saying that Obama's reversal of some Bush/Cheney anti-terrorism policies will lead to terrorist attacks. But at National Review, the party line is that Obama is trying to change the terminology of the "War on Terror" but keeping intact Bush/Cheney policies. So which is it? Is Obama keeping campaign promises that will cause us to die, or is Obama a liar who is going to keep us safe?

Uber-Competence In the Hudson

Thanks parlty to NY Governor David Paterson, people have started calling the landing and rescue of the US Airways jet yesterday a "miracle." This bugs me. The pilot and flight crew took heroic action to save the lives of the passengers. They deserve all the credit they are receiving. In fact, they deserve more. What I mean is that when we call their bravery and extreme ability a "miracle" we are taking some credit from them and giving it to God (or Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster). We do this a lot in this country. When a doctor takes heroic action to cure a cancer patient, some will call it a miracle. When a volunteer firefighter saves lives, some will call it a miracle. Not only does this take away from the accomplishments of the very human people who save lives, it also denigrates miracles. Parting the Red Sea is a miracle. If you choose a different religious tradition, bringing Lazarus back from the dead is a miracle. If God wanted a miraculous ending to the US Airways crisis yesterday, the plane would have floated down like a feather with no explanation. That would be a miracle. What we saw was not a miracle, but a spectacular act of expertise and steel nerves. Why isn't the amazing accomplisments of mere mortals enough for us.

No One Ever Said They Were Smart

Apparently, the leader of Hamas has said that any settlement with Israel is now impossible. I can not imagine a more idiotic thing to say at this point in time. Think about the current situation for Hamas. A much stronger force is decimating Hamas' infrastructure, and killing many of its fighters. Hamas, as is usual in its fights against Israel, is winning the PR battle. So what is the best result for Hamas? A settlement that is at least as good as the situation ex ante, with strong support from the international community. But now, if Hamas will not settle what is Israel to do? All it can do is to fight until Hamas is mortally wounded. And what of those Americans, like me, who is a supporter of Israel's existence, believes there is no moral equivalence between the ends sought by Israel and Hamas, but who supports some sort of negotiation because he is uncomfortable with Israeli tactics, to do? If both Hamas and Israel are saying ther will be no negotiation or settlement, it seems to me I am left rooting for Israel to fulfill its goal of using force to finish off Hamas. If you have to pick a side in a fight that both sides are determined will be a fight to be the death, you pick the one with the better moral position. Here, that is Israel.

Sports Break

So, Brett Favre is "leaning toward retirement." Remember last winter when Favre cried while announcing his retirement? And then he screwed with the Packers until finally deciding to return and expecting to be welcomed back with no repercussions. And then he demanded a trade to teams that played the Packers twice a year. And finally was traded to the Jets. Only to play poorly when it mattered most. I vote for the media entirely ignoring Favre's retirement "to be or not to be" schtick until a season goes by without him playing. Then someone can give him a car and a rocking chair at a half-time ceremony. Then he can go away again. For good. Please.

Explanation Please

Can someone, anyone, please tell me what the Hell is going on in Israel and Gaza? And why I should support or not support the Israeli invasion (incursion) into Gaza? And please, no "we haev to support Israel because of the special relationship between the US and Israel." And also, no "Israel is an aparthaid state." Look, Hamas was sending rockets into Israel, and you can be damn sure that any other country would go haywire if a neighboring country lobbed rockets onto its citizens indicriminately. But Israel seems to have an insatiable appetite for West Bank settlements. And why isn't Israel biting off its nose to spite its face by going into Gaza? I guarantee you that the world reaction will be overwhelmingly anti-Israel. More money will be funelled to Hamas, and any anti-Hamas sentiment in Gaza is officialy dead. Dammit, what is goign on? And what should a rational person do?