Health Care Bleg

Since my sister has so kindly forced many of you to read It's Better Left Said (or at least link to it), I thought someone might be able to help me with a long standing question I have. The argument I see most commonly made against universal health care is that it results in "long lines and waiting lists." Perhaps. But it always seemed to me that the long lines were caused by the addition of millions of potential patients to the system. So what "long lines and waiting lists" really means is that some people who can afford private health insurance who used to get treatment quickly would now be replaced by some people who could not afford private health insurance. Am I wrong? Is there another cause I am missing? I am no expert on health care and insurance, and am curious.

Reasons For My Concern

I just updated my post on the use of the term "dictator" to explain why I think its misuse matters.

Cheney's Mania

I recently saw a t-shirt that reads: "See Dick. Run!" This shirt and Who Are You To Accuse Me accurately express my feeling toward our VP.

Is It A Duck?

It is popular these days to call Ahmadinejad a "dictator." See
here, here, and here. But he is not a dictator. Ahmadinejad has only as much power as the mullahs in Iran give him. He is the President of a theocracy, not a dictator. I am not alone in this analysis. Ezra Klein, MSNBC, and even the CIA agree.

I bring this up only because "dictator" is the misused word of the year. Hugo Chavez, for example, is commonly called a dictator. See this and this. Granted, he has been taking on powers and taken actions that seem to be leading to a dictatorship, but I don't think he's there yet. The CIA labels Venuzuela a "federal republic." I find it odd when people skewer Chavez and Ahmadinejad with the "dictator" label, but let Pervez Musharref off the hook - although the CIA also calls Pakistan a "federal republic." I guess we are back to the Realism of the 70s and 80s - at least he's our dictator.
Why does it matter? As I just wrote to Andrew, who continues to call Ahmadinejad a dictator,

Why do you persist on calling Ahmadinejad a dictator? It gives the American people a faulty conception of the power structure in the Middle East. It gives the impression that if we take out Ahmadinejad that the Iranian government will fall, like in Iraq. But it is fundamentally wrong and dangerous to think so. If Ahmadinejad had a heart attack tomorrow, another nutjob would take his place. I think you are unintentionally aiding the Cheney’s of the world by giving that impression. If Ahmadinejad is a dictator like Saddam, we can invade and just do the post-war planning better. Iraq becomes our lesson. But, in reality, if we oust Ahmadinejad, there is still a very organized (and not completely unopopular) structure that will fight us. Cheney does not need your help.

Authoritarianism From the Right

I have been wondering lately whether the Right Wing is more susceptible to modern Totalitarianism than the Left. Jonah Goldberg would likely disagree, but I wonder. To oversimplify, the Right Wing seems to be more open to Government control of moral values, and less open to Government control of economic systems; whereas the Left has the opposite leanings. In the modern world, dictatorships appear to be more likely to come from a moralist authority, and not an economic one. China is a womderful example of a moral dictatorship, with a lessening of economic control. Robert Reich eloquently points out the Capitalism of China combined with the authoritatianism of its Government. As he puts it, in the war between Communism and Capitalism, "Capitalism won hands down." Is it possible that the US is, through Right Wing control of the Executive - and complacency of the Legislative branch - in danger of reaching a simlar (although distinctly American) situation. The Right Wing is clearly much more concerned with the loss of economic rights than the loss of civil rights. See, for example,the terrified response of some conservatives to the Kelo v. New London decision, as opposed to their equally terrified response to the possibility of civil rights for gays. It seems to me that if the Right Wing had its way, we would have an unfettered market economy combined with what Andrew Sullivan might call a Christianist state.
I am led to this worrisome thought by the Right Wing's unthinking adherence to the "World According to Bush." Apparently, the Right Wing's capacity unquestioningly to accept authority is large. Consider Fred Barnes' hagiographic opinion regarding the President's place in history. The Right Wing is unabashedly fond of executive power in times of war - even an undeclared war against a tactic like "terror." Note Andrew McCarthy's statement:

In wartime, in response to threats against the body politic, all the might of government would be embodied in the president. This alone would ensure that if an adept enemy took unanticipated action, the nation could swiftly respond; or that if the enemy exhibited some sudden vulnerability, the nation could quickly capitalize. It was how wars would be won.

I don't know about you, but that scares the s*** out of me.
So here's what we have. A world-view accepting of Government control of morality but not government control of economics, and blindly accepting the authority of its "Dear Leader." Are we heading towards an autocratic theocracy? No. Are we in danger of giving up many basic human rights so that an economic elite can flourish? You bet.

Rudy and Guns

I know I'm a little late on this one (boy, the blogosphere moves fast), but is anyone taking Giuliani's claim reagrding gun rights seriously? He said:

I also think that there are some major intervening events — September 11, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment, doesn’t change it fundamentally but perhaps highlights the necessity of it.

That's just ridiculous. Does he think some pistol packing citizen would have shot down the planes on 9/11? Or does he think that we should be permitted to carry heat on airplanes to stop terrorists?

How exactly does 9/11 change one's view of the 2d Amendment? It is scary to think that a potential president thinks there are significant parallels between national defense and self defense. If I believe my neighbor is building up a collection of guns, should I be able to invade his house, occupy it, and instill my personal values on him and his family? Especially if I've asked him to destroy those guns on a number of occasions? In Rudy's world, why not?

Ahmadinejad, Ground Zero, and Iraq

I agree with everything Mahablog says about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's proposed visit to Ground Zero and Columbia. Just one other thing I want to mention. Ahmadinejad's request has allowed the Bush administration to once again link 9/11 and Iraq. See, we can't have Ahmadinejad visit Ground Zero becasue he is fighting us in Iraq. Obviously, if he understood the magnitude of 9/11, he wouldn't be fighting us in Iraq.

You can argue that Ahmadinejad should not be allowed in the US because he is complicit in the killing of Americans in Iraq. But once you let him in, his actions in Iraq have no connection to Ground Zero and 9/11.

Everything Old Is New Again

The 21st Century version of the Pina Colada Song.

They Were Against The Troops Before They Were For Them

Just before adopting the amendment discussed below, the Senate rejected an amendment proposed by Senator Boxer. It noted attacks on Senator Max Cleland, Senator John Kerry, and General Petraeus, and then said:

It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

Forty-seven senators voted against the amendment (46 Republicans and Russ Feingold(!?)). I guess they didn't like supporting all the troops and veterans, only those who were criticized by a liberal organization exercising its constitutional right to free speech.

Senate Repudiation of MoveOn.Org

I know I said that I would have nothing more to say regarding the MoveOn.org ad regarding General Petraeus, but I lied. Yesterday, the Senate amended the Defense Appropriations Act to state:

It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

Does anyone else feel a tad uncomfortable with a branch of the Federal Government officially and specifically repudiating the contents of citizens' free speech? I have no problem with individual Senators criticizing MoveOn.org's ad, but with the above amendment, the Congress (if passed by the House) has stated that it is the official policy of the Government that one specific excercise of free speech is off limits. Is it a violation of the First Amendment? I don't think so. But it does make me cringe a bit.

Sunnis vs. Iran and Iraq

Andrew Sullivan has a very good post suggesting that Bush and Cheney are preparing for a potential invasion of Iran. He says:

It's back to the 1980s. Instead of backing Saddam against Iran, we're now in danger of backing the Iraqi Sunnis, in league with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... against Iran.

I have one addition to Andrew's post. It should read:

It's back to the 1980s. Instead of backing Saddam against Iran, we're now in danger of backing the Iraqi Sunnis, in league with Egypt and Saudi Arabia ... against Iran

and Iraq. We are arming the very people who will, as Andrew points out earlier in the post, fight the Shia Iraqi majority as soon as we leave. So, while Andrew is correct that Cheney is always looking for new ways to screw up the Middle East - it is even worse than Andrew concludes.

Brooks and Gates

I've been listening to today's Pentagon Briefing on CSpan. The issue of David Brooks' interview of Defense Secretary Gates was discussed. The critical quote in the Brooks' column was

I asked him whether invading Iraq was a good idea, knowing what we know now. He looked at me for a bit and said, “I don’t know.”

When pressed as to whether that meant Gates thought it was a mistake to invade Iraq, the spokesman said that Gates did not mean he thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a bad idea, but that, knowing what he knows now, would he have done everything the same way, the answer was he does not know.

What an amazing statement! Assuming the invasion of Iraq was appropriate, how can he not know if he would have handled the aftermath differently. It is genrally accepted that the occupation of Iraq has been a disaster. The answer to "would you have done something differently" has to be a resounding yes. To say "I don't know" is either a lie to protect the President's precious little insular world, or incompetence. I think Brooks should have asked Secretary Gates which it was.

OJ Mania

We have officially hit rock bottom. Yesterday, while flicking through channels, I noticed that Fox News had on the helicopter pilot who followed OJ's white Bronco during the famed "chase." He was commenting on OJ being released on bail. Insane.

Fox News and Fuhrman's Chutzpah

Back in 2005, Newshounds noted the rehabilitation of Mark Fuhrman on Fox News, so I won't go into it. But I have to say, it takes a lot of chutzpah for Fox to put Fuhrman on the air to analyze the current armed robbery case agains OJ Simpson. Let's not forget that Fuhrman was caught lying on the stand during OJ's murder trial about using racial epithets. As one of the lead (if not the lead) detectives on the murder case, his lying and racist language was very harmful to the prosecution's case. So now he's analyzing the case against the very person he was instrumental in letting go in the first place. He would seem to have an incredible conflict of interest.

I have the same problem with Ron Goldman's family being called upon to comment on the armed robbery case. Is theere any way they can be unbiased analysts?

Brilliant Move By Bush

It hurts me to say it, but I think the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be Attorney General is a stroke of political genius. The Democratic leadership in the Senate is saying this shows "a new attitude" on the part of the White House. Even some normally skeptical bloggers seem to think it makes a difference who the new Attorney General is.

Let's keep clear heads people. Mukasey will be Attorney General for just over a year. Do we think this administration will allow a short-term lame-duck Attorney General put some checks on its power grabs? They will do whatever it takes to get what they want. If Judge Mukasey puts up a stop sign, what makes anyone think they will pay attention? Basically, this seems like a nice gift to Judge Mukasey, and it allows the administration to claim it is being reasonable. Count me as a skeptic.