| L's profileThe Reluctant PunditBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
July 07 wow, he sure nailed that one.The Reluctant Pundit, due to a job change, has been on extended, unannounced hiatus... but he has, at least today, returned with insightful and pointed political punditry... though, today, it's someone else's. The following open letter is reprinted in its entirety from Youssef Ibrahim's article in the New York Sun.
The Palestenians are, to me, strongly resembling Miami's Cuban population, that still slavers after Castro. They're all dressed up with nowhere to go, and nobody's interested in taking them there.
Dear Brethren, the War With Israel Is Over
By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM July 7, 2006 - As Israel enters the third week of an incursion into the same Gaza Strip it voluntarily evacuated a few months ago, a sense of reality among Arabs is spreading through commentary by Arab pundits, letters to the editor, and political talk shows on Arabic-language TV networks.The new views are stunning both in their maturity and in their realism. The best way I can think of to convey them is in the form of a letter to the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab friends: Dear Palestinian Arab brethren: The war with Israel is over. You have lost. Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children. We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel. Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine, but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness. At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan. It isn't going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends. You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa, Haifa, Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem. You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation. Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins. Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win. In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day. What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world's have-nots? We, your Arab brothers, have moved on. Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq, frankly could not care less about what happens to you. Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine, even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab. Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours,Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods — more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives — while your children played in the sewers of Gaza. The war is over. Why not let a new future begin? April 27 Get a dog, Tony. You're going to need a friend.President Bush's chosen successor to Scott McLellan - Tony Snow, of FOX talk-show fame - hasn't even started and he's getting new orifices torn for him out there on the I-net. Quoting from the Washington Post article:
There seems to be only one response to this - as reflected in the article. But they're Harry Truman's words, not mine: "You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog." For what it's worth, Snow is going to have big shoes to fill. I don't think I've ever seen a press secretary spin things, avoid questions, and shape direction - at least inside the press briefing room, a palpable reality distortion field, indeed - as well as McLellan. Or mabye we'll get a different picture of things. Who can say. Whatever. I say... give the guy a chance before you start ripping him. April 14 when the generals talkNow 5 generals - up from three - have publically called for Rumsfeld to resign. Has this ever happened before?
One quote from the article sort of says it all:
You have to wonder at the level of morale and lack of confidence in civilian leadership for Generals to speak out this way. Normally, it just isn't done.
I wonder where this latest development will bring us. April 07 curiouser and curiouser, said aliceSometimes I feel like I followed the White Rabbit down the hole.
Now - from Scooter Libby's own testimony to the Grand Jury, now released by prosecutors - we find that he claims he was authorized to leak classified information by none other than George W. Bush himself, through Vice President Dick Cheney.
I think the best and most balanced compendum of the reaction can be found here, in the Christian Science Monitor's writeup.
I agree with the pundits that assert that it was probably perfectly legal for President Bush to defacto declassify information. He has the unquestioned authority to do so, even if he didn't follow traditional procedures.
But it raises the question as to whether the President misused his national security authority for political gain. More specifically, if the White House felt it important that this material be declassified and released - then why not declassify it, and release it? Instead, they chose what amounts to a clandestine leak campaign. Does this qualify as misuse of office? That one's for lawers and judges and prosecutors, oh my.
For me, this shifts the focus of who had "intent to deceive" from Libby and possibly even from Vice President Cheney directly to the President. One has a hard time forgetting him posturing over the issue, claiming that if they ever found whomever engaged in the leak ten he'd fire them.
At that exact moment, if Libby's testimony is true, then he was blatantly lying to the American public. Perhaps not under oath, but a bald-faced lie nontheless. It's not clear to me how much more tarnished the President's image can get, but this directly questions his honesty and his speaking truth as he knows it - things for which he's traditionally been held in relatively high esteem, I think.
So, now the question is - did he really do that, or did Dick Cheney invent it? Or did Dick Cheney ever authorize Scooter Libby to do anything at all? It seems to me that Vice President Dick Cheney will have to testify as to whether or not he authorized Libby to leak information, and what he authorized him to do, exactly.
That sould be a really, really interesting day in court.
And you can bet it's going to receive a whole lot of media coverage. The Vice President of the United States in the witness stand, either admitting that the administration engaged in what might be considered an abuse of office, denying that he ever authorized Libby to do anything, or - passing the buck, right on up to the place where the Buck Stops Here, on George W. Bush's desk.
Whetting my chops? Sort of. I think these guys are slimy and deceptive, worse than the Nixon administration.
But what's more important to me is that the real, basic, fundamental takeaway from this - if it's true - is that this suggests that the President of the United States is fundamentally dishonest. And that's a huge leap away from his traditional "slow-but-sincere" persona.
Now he appears devious. The figurehead of the Republican party. Coupled with Tom Delay and the Abrahamoff scandal(s), I wonder how that'll affect the elections in the fall. April 04 retrograde actionTom DeLay has announced that he's resigning his seat in the senate.
 What's interesting about this is that he's resigning, rather than duking it out in the general election in November and losing, or retiring. Usually congressmen under pressure to vacate their seat retire gracefully.
Resignation leaves the seat open until the general election in November unless there's enough time to call a special election to fill it for the remainder of the term. DeLay hasn't said exactly when he'll resign, which leaves the question open whether or not there will be a vacant seat open until November. If he waits much past June then there won't be time.
The punditry is flying thick and fast, of course, but it seem pretty obvious that this is clearly related to his former chief-of-staff-turned-lobbyist-turned-confessed-felon Tom Buckner and former lobbyist-turned-felon Jack Abramhoff copping pleas and agreeing to provide more information and testimony to govermnent prosecutors.
Abrahamoff and Buckner's chicanery is becoming clearer, and it isn't a pretty picture. Whether or not he feels at personal risk is immaterial: the politcal equation is based on perception, the scandal is spreading, and it's likely to engulf him - at the worst possible time for his fellow Republicans leading into the Fall election. Whether Republican leadership put the hurt to The Hammer to stand down for the good of the party is probably something we'll never know. Mabye he has some knowledge of what his former associates are telling prosecutors, and this is the first step in battening down the hatches. It's all unfounded speculation at this point. We'll just have to wait for the press conferences.
An interesting side effect of this is that his reelection war chest is now available to him - quite legally, it turns out - to be used for legal defense. As one pundit on the radio put it, this may be a deeper insight as to his motivation to step down before the election. His run was expected to be one of the most expensive contests in congressional history. There wasn't likely to be much money left, win or lose. He may forsee a long, hard legal slog ahead if (when?) more indictments are handed down with his name on them.
In any event, DeLay's final acceptance of the end of his political career marks the end of an era that began over 20 years ago, an era that saw him lead the charge for Clinton's impeachment, the birth and asencion of the K-Street project, and the creation of a powerful, masterfully built, and masterfully played network of interdependent special-interest funding sources and related quid pro quos amongst the Republican party. DeLay's financial machines empowered him to a degree that we haven't seen very often in this country's history.
I think it's safe to say that at least part of that machine is now broken, if not permanantly, then at least, the parts that have been revealed are now open to a much higher degree of public scrutiny. And those sorts of machines don't function well in the dark. The truth of the K-Street project is visible now, and the unfolding network(s) of financial donors, lobbyists, and friendly congresspeople and staffers are now feeling the unyielding glare of the light of Truth... perhaps in the form of investigation, or in the form, however spun, of media investigation.
And as one of our great leaders once said, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. March 31 readingsMy previous post, while I think germaine, was just venting. So I decided I'd try to post something more worthwhile, and constructive.
My current reading list includes two very interesting books:
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - by John Perkins, a self-confessed "economic hit man." If you've ever wondered where all the US Taxpayer dollars labled "foreign aide" go, when they go to third world countries, or the rather specific directions our international economic policy have been driven, or who's driving them, then you should read this book. I'm in the opening pages, and I'll tell you, it's quite an eye-opener. I, for one, had sort of sketched out in my mind some of the things that Perkins essentially documents here - like the fact that the dollars flowing out of the World Bank tend to flow right back into the coffers of Halliburton, Brown and Root, General Electric, and other major American corporations, or how this source of debt basically subjugates much of the third world. It's far from a "liberal" stand on issues. It's quite an interesting story, literally the concience-laden stories of a hit man - an economic hit man.
Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. Ever wondered why the world is essentially dominated by technology and culture that emerged from the eurasian cultures? Not what happened starting from 1400 AD, but more like how we got there from 11,000 BC. Diamond, a biologist with extensive field experience, explores how we got the way we are. How western culture, forging ahead with steel, aided by guns and germs, essentially overwhelmed almost every other culture on the planet. It's especially interesting reading during this period, in part due to what's been evolving since 9/11: the clash of an old-world culture with a new-world culture, faciliatated through guns, airplanes, and, possibly, germs.
Finally, I haven't started this one yet, but I intend to:
Our Endangered values: American's Moral Crises, by Jimmy Carter. Yes, the former president. To listen to a former Democratic president that seems the quintessential secular liberal ponder the spiritual aspects of morality as they relate to our current socio-political issues - war, growing divide between rich and poor, etc. - should be an eye-opener for anyone that professes to be a Christian. His arguments should make you consider, or possibly reconsider, some of the rhetoric being espoused by so-called "Religious conservatives," or "Evangelical conservatives." Carter is, for example, against Abortion on moral and spiritual grounds - but doesn't believe we need to be legislating morality, that it should, in the end, be unnecessary to do so - in a truly moral society.
As for "tough guy fighting," well, from my perspective, it's a sign of our declining civility - if not our declining level of civilization in the United States. If you've ever read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (not exactly bathroom reading, to be sure), this sort of thing should give you chills.
Happy reading! March 28 cultural imperialism at its best
"Welcome, my friends, to the show that never ends, we're so glad you could attend, step inside, step inside..." - Emerson Lake & Palmer.
And now, to add another item to the inventory of America's modern cultural accomplishments: Toughman Fighting. I.e. two guys, just regular guys, go into a ring and get busy until one of them drops.
My reaction is similar to that of Douglas Paul, a trauma surgeon that cared for a dying fighter in Dayton, Ohio, quoting from the article:
I'm not real sure how this is much different from the fight culture in the movie Fight Club. Only this is done in an arena, and they're selling lots and lots of tickets, in prime venues. They also broadcast it on SpikeTV. You have to wonder what this says about American popular culture. I mean, geez, we haven't had real fight-to-the-death gladatorial games in about 1,500 years. Seems like they're on the verge of coming back in vogue. In America.
Hmmm. A trend, methinks?
Let's see. In the last 6 years or so, we've taken to distorting intelligence data, preemptive invasion and war, torturing prisoners of war, holding suspects without access to a lawyer or the courts indefinitely, searching and wiretapping without warrants, did I mention torturing prisoners of war, paying journalists for favorable treatment, dismantling our federal emergency services in the name of "scaling back an entitlement program," appointing incompetent cronies to critical government positions, and, oh, I forgot, did I mention torturing prisoners of war... and now, we're holding what amount to gladatorial games in arenas, and selling tickets, all while people's incomes are declining, healthcare expenses are skyrocketing, jobs are disappearing, and the looming triple-witching-wammy of the balooning federal deficit, the balooning federal debt, the balooning current accounts deficit, and skyrocketing medical and retirement entitlement costs come ever closer to "tipping over" our economy.
Can you say "bread and circuses?"
I knew you could. March 23 timeless perspectiveConsider the following quote, then who wrote it and when:
My, my. How much things change, how much they stay the same.
The other one that I thought was rather painfully accurate and pertinent to today's mode of politcal discourse was:
He pretty much had us made in 1838 when he wrote Democracy in America. There are some real, insightful zingers if you follow the link. Post your favorite, and your thoughts in the comments. March 21 the son also rises President George W. Bush hosted a press conference yesterday.
You can read the transcript directly off the White House web site here, and hear the audio captured by NPR here. I'm sure you can find the video on CNN or FOX or MSNBC if you'd prefer. Ain't the Internet great?!?
This wouldn't be quite so notable except for the fact that he has amost never done this, and almost never takes unscripted questions.
This time, he took some hard questions. And whether you agree with the answers or not, they came across as what he really thought. For one of the very few times in his term in office, the president shared his thoughts being asked hard, critical questions from a skeptical forum of media representatives.
He did something else that was quite remarkable. He called on Helen Thomas, the Grande Dame of white house reporting. Ms. Thomas has written several books, here, here, and most particularly here, detailing her experiences as a white house correspondent. I'll leave her words to her. Go check out the transcript from the White House web site to see her hard-hitting question.
Calling on Helen was probably not one of the first things the President wanted to do. He did it. Good on him.
She said something in an All Things Considered interview afterward that I think is painfully true. She pointed out that the only time in the American brand of democracy that the President can be directly questioned, cross-examined if you will, by a skeptical and potentially hostile audience, and to have this happen on live television and radio, is during a Presidential press conference. Without this crucial form of accountability to the people, the president can, in effect rule by fiat... as if he were a king.
So, President Bush, I appreciate the pro forma act of holding yourself accountable to the people, at least, in this form. Don't be a stranger, eh?
I'll pick on the issues later. Right now, I'm happy to see the President starting to act Presidential. March 20 bang, bangSadness, despair. It wasn't a bad monday until I read this story.
Is this what we're all about?
What if this is true? What does it mean?
Is this my America, my country, acting like this in the world?
~ ~ ~
Update: Runningpol made a comment that was so insightful, I thought I'd bring it out here where everybody can see it:
I think this story is a sign of improvement. People in Iraq are not afraid of the United States. They are willing to report situations they find wrong to the very people who stand accused. How many Iraqis would have went to Saddam Hussein and protested the atrocities committed by his government?
Hear, hear. In every crisis, there is indeed, an opportunity... and I think Runningpol nailed this one. pay me when you fall down
The Law of Unintended Consequences: you can't do anything, anything at all, without it affecting something in an unexpected way.
Some years ago, three doctors in medical school discovered a correlation between below-normal levels of folic acid and anemia, and a B-12 deficiency.
They patented the two-step method of diagnosing the deficiency. So if you run two tests, and make the designated conclusion, you owe the patentholder a fee.
Said patent is No. 4,940,658, and is currently held - that is, owned - by Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. They are suing Laboratory Corp of America Holdings (LabCorp) for not paying royalties to them for this testing combination.
Note: they didn't patent the test. They patented the result of the test.
If you take the time to read the patent, you might note that it covers all "warm-blooded animals," so in theory, I guess, your vet is liable to pay royalties, too.
The Supreme Court has taken up the case, and will be hearing arguments on Tuesday.
Skimming the patent, it appears to me that they've tried to patent the results of their research, not a design for a device, or a chemical process per se. Simply patenting the sequence of tests that can be performed by common laboratory equipment does not produce anything but knowledge, so it's not a chemical process or a formula.
So it will be very, very interesting to see how this plays out. Especially for those, like me, that work in a technologically sophisticated world that is increasingly being patrolled and trolled by lawyers looking for patent payouts. Just for "owning" a vaguely worded patent.
Now, the interesting bit. In hearing the case, the Supreme Court did the unexpected, and specifically asked the Federal Government to answer the question: "had Metabolite Laboratories succeeded in aptenting a law of nature, natural phenominon, or an abstract idea - all no-no's under patent law." The government answered that the question hadn't been answered in the lower courts, hence they should either not hear the case, or send it back to the lower courts for resolution.
In any event, this is the 64-trillion-dollar question, the one that lots and lots and lots of patenholders would really prefer didn't get answered. Because there have been boatloads and boatloads of patents that are on this very shaky ground. Like for example the patent that RIM supposedly violated, which almost cost everybody the use of their blackberries.
Patent litegation has become a hugely lucrative place for lawyers to feast and feed, and whole companies exist simply to exploit portfolios of patents and force companies to pay royalties. Most companies pay up rather than fight it out in court to avoid the lengthy and expensive litigation process. The most notable case I can think of recently has been the SCO Unix challenge to IBM, Novell, and lots of other companies that are using the Linux operating system - which they claim infringes on their UNIX patents.
The net result of this is that the question posed by the Supreme Court is going to be answered, either in the lower courts, or by the Supreme court... and it could have very far reaching consequences, if unintended ones, for patent law in this country - in all probability, good consequences, because the system is so horribly broken today.
And if it goes the other way, then by puckey I'm going to try to patent Gravity.
It's not just a good idea... it's a patent, and if you want the right to use it to keep your feet on the ground, ya better pay me in advance!
Or better yet, mabye I can patent Sex. Or immoral thoughts. Now wouldn't that be sumthin! a simple "no" would do... Scott McLellan, in the long, hallowed tradition of White House Press Secretaries before him, has artfully dodged, reshaped, spun, spindled and mutilated questions through almost two entire Presidential terms. I thought the following question and answer were, rather than classic spinmeistering, just classic a classic work of press secretary art.
From Today's Press Briefing:
Translation: "no, but he's going to keep trying." A sure sign you may have been around the President too long: you start to sound like Yoda. Important role, commander-in-chief is. There's a political firestorm in this comment, if it gets noticed. "Success in Iraq will help inspire reformers in the broader Middle East, and help our efforts to advance freedom in that troubled part of the world." I wonder how the Royal Family of Saud, or General Pervez Musharraf (who suspended Pakistan's constitution a looong time ago) feel about that comment? I don't think we have to ask what Iran thinks about "broader reformers in the Middle East..." to stay or to go, to go or to stay
Quoted from a recent article on the rising violence in Iraq:
I think he asks a reasonable question. Any thoughts, as to how to answer the man? Another quote:
Mr. Cheny disagrees:
And, finally, we have our very own president:
Personally, I think Iraq is teetering on the brink of Civil War. They're not yet there, but they're real close. It won't take much to reach the tipping point. And if the streets erupt with Iraqis killing Iraquis, and if America pulls back and does... what? Sits and watches? Evacuates American troops? What then? As for the President's commentary... well, ya gotta wonder what it is that he sees, that we don't. And he artfully avoided answering his very own question: where did we go wrong on intelligence? Why say that you've asked the question, if you're not prepared to share the answer? March 19 true gritIt's been an interesting week. Lots of new visitors. Some wonderful kind words, and a few that weren't quite as kind. The one comment that just jumped off the page, and ran screaming around inside my head was, quote:
"You must be very brave to post political opinion."
Wow. Think about it.
I post anonymously for reasons I'm sure you understand. The author of the comment sure did.
What country is this, anyway? What happened in the last 6 years, that we have to fear having an opinion that not everyone is going to agree with? Help me understand. I'd really like to know what happened to my America.
You know the one.
Home of the Free and the Brave. Liberty and Justice for All. That place. March 17 inflammusShifting gears a little, I came across the following in the Wikipedia entry on the Roman Historian Tacitus' writings of Jesus, in a paragraph concerning the Great Fire of Rome:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome.
Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
It's interesting to compare this passage to some of the events surrounding 9/11 - the invasion of Iraq, Abu Griab, the passage of the Patriot Act, the Dubai World Port fiasco... think about it.
Think about the casual, repetitive use of the words "war on terror" by our elected leader(s). pro-life = pro-motherhood?The following cartoons probably say just about everything I think about Abortion in the current political climate. Where are the "cookie bakers" when you need them?
What do you think? Post your opinion in comments. (other cartoons collected by Slate are here):
March 16 do-it-yourself abortion kitAs those of us who follow the news know, South Dakota bitch-slapped the Supreme Court and threw down a glove on Abortion a few months ago, passing the most restrictive law - effectively banning abortion except in the situation where the mother's life is threatened - since Roe v. Wade made laws like that unconstitutional. It is effectively a direct challenge to Roe, and it's clearly intended to test the new court's balance - and perhaps precipitate a reinterpretation of the issues of "viability" and "humanity" as the law defines humanity beginning with conception.
A young woman who eponymously posts a blog under the name of Molly, has posted a detailed do-it-yourself recepie for those that still want to get an abortion in South Dakota - in their bathtub, on the kitchen table, or in the closet. The directions are quite complete and explicit. No coathangers in the bathtub in the post-Roe world. We'll have the Internet, complete with pictures. Someone may even sell mail-order kits, in plain brown wrappers.
It's obviously stirred up a lot of debate. There's an excellent article here in the Seattle-times.
Before all the conservatives pile on and decree that she's a baby-killer, or espouse the horrors of abortion and why it should be banned, consider this -
First, before Roe, in states where abortion was banned, it was perfectly feasable to find a doctor and get an illegal one... albiet the risks were higher. You could also resort to the tried-and-true coathanger-in-the-bathtub technique. And it happened, frequently resulting in infection and death. There is going to be a demand for abortions whether they are illegal or not. If they're illegal, they'll simply move to the black market, as they were before... or to adjoining states where it may still be legal, or less restricted.
Second, modern technology - the internet providing Molly's Home Depot Abortion Recepie, and innocuous drugs like Methotrexate combined with Misoprostol - developed to treat ulcers - can be used for effective chemical abortions. While we can effectively ban the distribution of explicitly abortion-targeted drugs like RU-486, these other drugs - and there will be more - are generic, used for general treatment of other conditions... they "just so happen" to produce abortions as a side-effect. It is effectively impossible to regulate these drugs in such a way as to prevent them from being used to cause chemical abortions, without eliminating them from the market.
Third, unless we decide to outlaw publishing guides on how to get an abortion - which would effectively repeal the 1st amendement of the Constitution - people are going to be able to get detailed instructions on how to perform abortions themselves - or which symptoms to feign and drugs to ask for - to get their abortion. Which will in effect make them (somewhat) safer, compared to the coathanger technique. The right to free speech over the Internet, coupled with access to multifunctional drugs or tools, effectively renders abortion unregulateable. But regulating it harshly does make it more dangerous, by driving it underground.
So, if you'll excuse the expression, by hook or by crook, women that don't want to be forced into having a baby by their bodies due to a mistake or personal choices or for whatever reason - are going to get those abortions, one way or another.
Also... from a cultural standpoint, the point is for the most part moot. Excuse the aphorism... having had roughly 30 years of unfettered access to Abortions, the cat's out of the bag. Something like 80% of the population thinks Abortions should be legal. Roughly the same percentage thinks they should be regulated, too.
So, like during prohibition, we have two sides, and both have a valid perspective.
One side - which includes Jimmy Carter - says that it's morally wrong. For SD to reflect Carter's stand on the issue, they would simply have to make a provision for rape, incest, or "health of the mother." Other than that, the position is that the procedure is fundamentally unnecessary in a moral society.
Another side says it's a right no matter what, and the morality of the issue should be sorted out between a woman, her doctor, and her priest, in private, and that the state doesn't get to decide for her whether she can or can't have an abortion.
Who wins? During prohibition, we tried to ban sinful alcohol - and look what happened. Among other things, we got Al Capone, an enourmous black market, and the Kennedy Fortune (grandfather Kennedy was a rum-runner). And speakeasys - illegal bars - were a fixture in every city, across the country.
Aborton won't be any different. There will be a robust black market, people will suffer... and the abortions will continue. The rich will have plenty of options, and they'll get their abortions wherever they can get them legally and safely. The poor will, once again, be left to their own device; obtaining multipurpose drugs, or dusting off Molly's handbook. March 15 There was a crooked man...
Quoting from today's reuters wire:
Hey, not to give him too much credit for being completely disconnected from the realities of being elderly and facing the psychadelic phantasamajorica of choices for drug plans, mabye he's hoping they won't sign up, won't get their drugs, and will just die sooner, helping solve the Social Security crisis. Nah, that's cynical, isn't it? Anyone that's got a parent that's over 75 right now, perhaps struggling with the onset of Alzheimer's or Senile Dementia, or is just slowing down a lot ... I have two ... can't help but shake with anger at this insensitivity. Update: lest someone accuse me of flying off the handle, I'm not the only one voicing concerns about the looming deadline. Since Medicare now offers drug benefits, private insurance can drop coverage... after the deadline. There could be real gaps on coverage, and for some folks this could be life-threatening. Quoting from the article:
I'm amazed that the President could brush this concern off in such an offhand way, especially given the troubles rolling out the program in the first place. In a way, it's almost like we elected Michael Jackson for president. Talk about living in a bubble. Why does this nursery rhyme seem so very... apt?
March 14 like, wowMy stats are through the roof - 500 visits today, and it's only 10:30 in the morning central time! Went to the "best of MSN" andthe first thing I saw on the rotating banner was my site!
Update: as of Wednesday, 3,000 visits to the site, 645 of which occurred today.
Un-freaking'-believeable!
First, thanks for stoppin' by!
Second, thanks for leaving kind - or unkind - words. All comments are welcome here. I don't expect everybody to agree with me... but the right to free speech has to be excersised to be worth anything. So dust it off and say something. Whatever your impression, whatever your reaction - good, bad, hot or cool - all opinions are welcome here, all the time.
I hope you enjoy the space. There's a lot of writing here, some of it mediocre, some of it (I think) pretty good - a lot of it buried in the history. In the next few days I'll post some new material, and survey the old material and add to the list of favorites.
By all means, excersise your constititional right of free speech, and leave a comment!
One favor to ask... please sign this posting and let me know that you stopped by, and your overall impression, good or bad. MSN spaces makes it hard to find more than the last 4 or 5 comments posted - so if you sign this spot, I'll be much better able to see and read your feedback.
Best regards - The Reluctant Pundit February 24 why the ruckus?The dust seems to be settling a little on the UAE-going-to-run-our-ports kerfluffle.
It's worth asking yourself the question, "why all the foorah?"
Well, I think the comic below pretty much sums up both the American public and the US Congress' perception of the matter. Or at least, the reason they have such a negative perception of the matter.
 February 23 what's wrong with this picture?As in preschool, let's play a game - find the things that are "out of place" in this picture.
As for FOX news, I'll give them this: they're fair and balanced, today. I literally cracked up when I hit their page today. Oh, the theater of it all. Remeniscent of the "split screen moment" that both FOX and CNN switched to, during the Katrina disaster: the superdome, with masses of people huddled around it on the left, and on the right, President Bush, Secretary Chertoff both proclaiming that "everything that can be done, is being done."
 Who's he representing, anyway?I've been tracking the media firestorm - excuse me, story, regarding a company in the UAE acquiring the rights to operate ports in the United States, and the Bush admministration's seemingly "routine" approval of the transaction.
The president, in front of his Cabinet yesterday, told reporters gathered for the comment-op that "People don't need to worry about Security" - as the majority of news reports quoe him out of context. But Bush's stand remains the same: "trust us." Well, that's a little hard to do of late.
Yesterday's White House Press Gaggle is hilarious. It literally reads like a script from the west wing. This must be nightmare for Scott Mclellan.
Aside from all the other obvious observations, like that the President and his top advisers appear to have been completely out of the loop on a hugely inflammatory issue, that the admiinistration completely blindsided both the White House and Congress with a huge domestic kerfluffel, and is appearing to say, simultaneously, that they're all for the security of the American people and fighting the war on terror, and that it's OK to sleep with the enemy - just trust us on this one, there was one thing in the Press Gaggle transcript that jumped out at me. A revealing excerpt:
Think about what this means. Take it for what it is: a statement of priorities. The fact that the country, Congress, his party, and his base are in an uproar over the nature of the approval process (secret), the way the approval was announced and handled (as if no one would notice or care), the lack of any awareness by the White House or the President whatsoever regarding the approval or the potential domestic reaction (out of touch, administration beauracracy out of control) - and the President is entrenched behind the position that "it's OK, trust us, my people can be trusted to do their jobs and they did, you don't have to worry about security?" In essence, he's saying our opinion - our reaction to a decision by his administration that he, personally was unaware of and uninvolved in, a decision that has no bearing whatsoever to his administration's goals or priorities - that our reaction to it doesn't matter to him. That's how I read it, anyway. You don't count. We don't even need to tell you what we're doing. This should go through because We Say So. Screw you, if you don't like it. Further, there were other "tells" that I thought said something interesting, consider: Now, forgive me for being a cynic, but I just saw a fundamental contradiction. One, they did hold the UAE company to a different standard during the review "demanding" additional security agreements (while dropping other, routine agreements like requiring them to retain records on US soil that would be subject to supoena). Two, on the other hand, we, the public, shouldn't be holding them to a different standard. Presumably because they already did that for us? They can, they did, but we shouldn't? Yeesh. Going on, consider:
Contradicus, repeatus, ad nauseum. Continuing:
Omigosh. What's the difference?!?
Make up your own mind. Me, I think this is a breathtaking demonstration of the inherent contraditions of the Bush administration, and President Bush in particular. And the thing that bugs me the most about this, is Mclellan's repeated use of the term "this was about the transaction going forward." As if the administration had a vested interest, a higher responsiblity to approving the transaction, than dealing with the domestic perception, providing real, visible and publically accountable security assurances, or even the basic responsibilty of having a plan - to share with Congress - to managing the results of the unpopularity of the decision. Either they didn't care, or they were purely incompetent in managing their own domestic sensibilities. In effect, the message I'm carrying away from Mclellan and President Bush's own words, his own personal statements on the matter, is that The Deal Matters More Than Your Concerns About It. What a hell of a message to send. You can bet I'm going to remember this in November. February 16 would you like fries with that?President Bush stood up on a soapbox at he headquarters of Wendy's fast food chain in Dublin, Ohio touting his healthcare savings account proposal. Quoting from the article:
Well, I'd point out that if you're not making a lot of money, you don't have a lot of decisions to make in the first place, especially if you aren't offered health insurance at all.
And, at, say, $8/hr, you may not be able to sacrifice either $100/month to fund the healthcare savings account, and pay the insurance premimus. Do the math. Who benefits the most?
The president's plan, as he describes it, is the healthcare-equivalent of fast food. It's immediately satisfying, it provides the illusion of robustness, but in the end, you can't live off of it and it fails to provide substantive nutrition - in is, in fact, unhealthy overall. An illusion of healthy eating. An illusion of healthcare reform.
Quoting from the article:
Forgetting for the moment the size of the tax benefit - which basically gives a huge savings benefit to the $120k famly, roughly a 30% tax discount on healthcare services, vs. a 12% discount for the people that make 1/3 as much, a practically negligable savings for the $40 family - stop for a momnent and consider - a $5,000 contribution? Great scott!
I don't know about you, dear reader, but contributing something on the order of $400/month toward a healthcare "savings" account is a pretty big bite for me, and I'm swinging toward the upper end of that scale.
Nor, even if I didn't have insurance, would I spend anywhere near that much for my family of four on average for regular health care.
Healthcare accounts are not a bad idea. But let's call them what they are: healthcare spending accounts. There really won't be much savings in the end, even if they let the balance roll over year after year.
They might well transfer some of the cost of medical care away from insurance plans and directly into the hands of consumers. Sort of like an IRA. But see below, that transfer might not be good for consumers at all. They're not a panacea, and you have to make enough money to be able to spare roughly the same amount that you'd spend on medical insurance premiums in the first place to benefit from them at all.
Worse, the president's characterization of "washington style" thinking isn't accurate, either. Insurance companies are the ones making decisions for us under the current model. They decide what their plans pay, and whether or not they pay. Collective barganing, like unions do. Healthcare savings accounts would definitely move the decisions out of their hands, but would it lower costs for everybody?
Emphatically, I say, no it won't. Costs will go up. Dramatically.
Why? The power of collective purchasing and barganing through insurance companies will be lost, and doctors, labs, and hospitals will be free to charge all the market will bear. I don't know if you've noticed, but none of my doctors have big holes in their schedule. Their prices will rise to what the market will bear, they'll see fewer patients for a lot more money, i.e. the ones that can pay. Doctors and the patients that can afford the fees will love this. Patients on lower incomes that can't make huge contributions to their "savings" accounts certianly won't.
They'll have less access to care in the end. We have fewer doctors than there is demand for their services, and as the population ages, their services are going to be increasingly in higher demand - from a crowd that actually has significant savings, and is willing to pay as much as necessary to cheat death. It's a grisly equation, but it's what happens in free markets. Prices rise to meet demand. There's no dilutive effect here, except in the form of insurance company collective barganing, and removing that will free prices to spiral up and the market will shrink to the most able participants - the wealthy aged. The rest of us are screwed.
To my eye, the healthcare savings accounts are merely a vehicle for the Bush administration to relieve businesses from their legal requirement of carrying expensive, fancy medical coverage - and paying a significant portion of the premiums - for their employees, and make it the responsibility of the individual. Almost exactly the same way that businesses are now shedding pension benefits, and making the 401(k) the universal retirement savings plan. They're not going to change the spiraling costs of medical insurance coverage or medical services at all. Why?
Because, in the end, people can't really shop for medical services when they need them. People aren't going to argue with their doctors over whether medical tests are necessary or not. The supply of doctors and medical services is smaller than demand - which is part of the reason prices keep going up. They go up because people - cushioned by collective purchasing through insurance - are willing to pay more. It's a pure example of almost infinite price elasticity.
People won't argue with a heart surgeon about price when they've had a heart attack, as one rather dramatic example. Nor will they argue with him about the expensive designer antibiotic he prescribes for their sick kiid, if he maintains that it's the right drug to treat the disease.
There is a way, a simple way, to address this, but it's not on the table. The keywords are "federally guaranteed."
Think about it. I'll expand upon it in a follow-up posting. February 15 above the law?The press is presently engaged in a truly magnificent media foorah surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a prominent, wealthy Republican contributor while hunting.
I think what's interesting about this isn't what happened, but what didn't happen.
First of all, the information wasn't disseminated per typical White House policy in the past. When President Bush bopped a Bobby in Scotland, it was on the wire post haste. In this instance the White House reportedly deferred to the Vice President's "preferred handling" of the story... and look what happened. Why the departure from standard operating procedure?
Second, the Vice President personally worked out how to break the story with his host, who then allowed a local reporter from the Corpus Christi newspaper to post the story on their web site. The AP picked it up two hours later. The VP reportely passively did this, allowing his host to leak the story per her own pressing concern to do so, not by his own desire to manage the story. Without her action, the story might have been delayed even longer. Why the delay? Why the passivity?
Third, Sherrif's deputies were reportedly turned away when they tried to interview the Vice President the evening of the shooting. Reports suggest that the Sherrif's office had been contacted and that they had agreed to meet the following day, and that the deputies that showed up had simply been out of the loop, but still, even if that's true, the fact that they were turned away is very strange. Why not meet with the Deputies immediately? Why the delay?
Fourth, the injuries to the shootee are significantly worse than originally reported. Original reports noted, confusingly, that the injuries were "minor," but also that the victim was in intensive care. Then it's revealed that he has a pellet lodged near (or in?) his heart, and one in his liver, and that he's back in intensive care after having a "silent heart attack." I'm from the south; I've shot a 28-guage shotgun. Frankly, I don't buy that the guy was 30 yards - 90 feet - away. But nobody has provided much detail. It'll be interesting to see what the scatter patterns are when various people all go buy themselves a 28-guage, some bird shot, and stand up a side of bacon or something at 30 yards and see how far the pellets penetrate. My guess is that he was standing closer, but unless someone actually took a photograph of the wound to get the scatter pattern (which is one of the few testable facts in this incident), nobody will ever know for sure.
And finally, the Vice President witheld personal appearance or commentary until today, 4 days after the event. His mea culpa is convincing, and I'm sure heartfelt... but why so long in coming? Why allow the media firestorm to build up to truly biblical porportions?
All he had to do - all he had to do - was issue a statement saturday night and this would have been the non-story it should have been.
Now it's turned into a story about how the Vice President's office appears to operate independently and above standard White House operating procedure; how the VP preceives his responsibility for accountaiblity and transparency of office to the American people; and, perhaps most tellingly, how the powerful, secretive VPs behavior is silently and uncritically tolerated by the President.
Personally, I think the guy is sincere when he says it was the worst day of his life when he saw his friend fall.
But what's happening now is purely and simply a function of the VPs own hand, his own behavior, and his own tendency to do whatever he damn well pleases and to hell with the consequences.
And if the guy dies, it's going to get a lot worse. It'll turn into Cheney's Chappaquiddick. And I'm going to guess that if it does, it'll probably be the end of Cheney as VP. Even with this supertolerant administration. The flames will be too high and too hot, with too much to lose going into 2006 and 2008 elections. |
|
|||
|
|
