President Obama is scheduled to deliver a video message to school children next week. The message, billed as an event to inspire interest in education among students, has created controversy.
Educators, the Department of Education and the White House crafted educational materials to accompany the event. One question in the materials asks students to describe how they could "help" President Obama. It is unclear who designed this particular question, but it has has led to projectile vomiting among conservatives. In response, the White House has instructed educators to delete the offending materials.
Conservatives' Sudden Opposition to "Indoctrination" of Children
Personally, I find the idea of a video message from a president to the nation's young children a bit creepy. I found it even creepier, however, that President Bush was reading stories to children during and after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
But conservatives' sudden opposition to "indoctrination" of children is absolutely laughable -- and pathetically hypocritical. Conservatives have no problem with school officials leading children in Christian prayers or telling them the scientifically impossible myth that the Earth was created in 6 days by an omnipotent being who needed to "rest" after completing the project. They think it is faaah-bulous to force kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag. And they favor blatant restraints on students' First Amendment rights -- particularly when those students do not subscribe to socially conservative notions of morality. Yes -- conservatives are the ones trying to beat the admirably tolerant "Gay/Straight Alliances" out of public schools and to punish students who protest wars and who make political statements favoring drug use. But now, indoctrination is a terrible social harm.
Give me a friggin' break!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
NYT: More Obama, Less Ambition in Healthcare Reform
More Obama
The New York Times reports that President Obama will become much more involved in healthcare debates. For most of August Obama was mysteriously silent while conservatives offered a bucket of lies and distortions regarding various Democratic reform proposals.
According to the NYT article, Obama will deliver a speech to Congress outlining his agenda next Wednesday evening. He will also travel to Ohio to address a Labor Day event organized by the AFL-CIO, which is a strong supporter of Obama and healthcare reform.
Less Ambition?
Although President Obama will become more visible, the NYT reports that he will indicate that Congressional Democrats could slice some controversial elements from their proposals, including the intentionally distorted provision that provides coverage for "end-of-life" counseling between medical providers and patients.
Many medical professional groups, including the American Medical Association, strongly endorse end-of-life counseling and believe that the current level of such counseling is inadequate. Providing coverage could incentivize medical providers to help their patients make important decisions while they are competent to do so -- not when they are incapacitated and unable to do so.
Throwing out the beneficial provision because Neanderthals have distorted it is a terrible reminder of the country's acute fear of honesty. The same nutjobs who think that informing patients about living wills and medical directives constitutes a death panel also believed that Saddam Hussein was running across the globe looking for Uranium to add to his nonexistent arsenal of WMDs. These same people sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans to uphold a lie. So, it is easy to see why they would sacrifice good medical decisions to support another lie.
Although Obama is willing to toss out these innocuous provisions, the NYT article reports that "for now" he remains committed to universal coverage and to a public plan. CNN, however, reports that Obama is talking with moderate Senator Olympia Snow regarding a compromise position that would drop the public plan. Stay tuned.
The New York Times reports that President Obama will become much more involved in healthcare debates. For most of August Obama was mysteriously silent while conservatives offered a bucket of lies and distortions regarding various Democratic reform proposals.
According to the NYT article, Obama will deliver a speech to Congress outlining his agenda next Wednesday evening. He will also travel to Ohio to address a Labor Day event organized by the AFL-CIO, which is a strong supporter of Obama and healthcare reform.
Less Ambition?
Although President Obama will become more visible, the NYT reports that he will indicate that Congressional Democrats could slice some controversial elements from their proposals, including the intentionally distorted provision that provides coverage for "end-of-life" counseling between medical providers and patients.
Many medical professional groups, including the American Medical Association, strongly endorse end-of-life counseling and believe that the current level of such counseling is inadequate. Providing coverage could incentivize medical providers to help their patients make important decisions while they are competent to do so -- not when they are incapacitated and unable to do so.
Throwing out the beneficial provision because Neanderthals have distorted it is a terrible reminder of the country's acute fear of honesty. The same nutjobs who think that informing patients about living wills and medical directives constitutes a death panel also believed that Saddam Hussein was running across the globe looking for Uranium to add to his nonexistent arsenal of WMDs. These same people sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans to uphold a lie. So, it is easy to see why they would sacrifice good medical decisions to support another lie.
Although Obama is willing to toss out these innocuous provisions, the NYT article reports that "for now" he remains committed to universal coverage and to a public plan. CNN, however, reports that Obama is talking with moderate Senator Olympia Snow regarding a compromise position that would drop the public plan. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Details and Triangulation: White House Alters Strategy on Healthcare Reform
The White House lost its voice in healthcare debates during August. Now that Obama is back from vacation, media outlets are reporting a shift in his strategy.
After refusing to take a firm stance regarding particular items in the healthcare reform package, President Obama will soon play a more visible role. According to Politico, the President will specify the elements he wants compromise legislation to contain.
Politico also reports, however, that Obama will remain flexible regarding the public plan. According to Politico, Obama's aides say that a successful confrontation with liberals on the public plan option could gain him points with moderates. The battle would also force the Left to choose between no reform and incremental reform.
During the Clinton administration, people on the left described this type of political trap as nasty, evil, awful, pathetic "triangulation." I wonder how they will describe it now, given that many of them viewed Obama as the antidote to "Clinton politics." My guess: Their analysis will involve use of the word "pragmatic."
What Does This Mean? Possible Political Strategies
I have often wondered whether Obama's snooze period in August was the manifestation of a broader political strategy (rather than bipolar disorder as The Onion satirically reported). There are a few plausible political strategies at play.
Obama could have avoided taking a firm stance earlier in order to avoid the appearance of a bitter defeat if his preferred package did not prevail. Although Obama made specific promises during the presidential campaign, my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than contemporary American voters. Accordingly, he can take new or modified positions during current debates without appearing to betray his campaign promises (at least not to most Americans).
Another possible strategy relates to the first. Obama could have reasonably predicted that the House and Senate would pass wildly different versions of healthcare reform. He could have decided to remain above the fray and return to offer specific guidance only after both versions passed (or were taking shape). Obama could then come across as a conciliator, rather than a divisive partisan.
The only wrinkle in these possible strategy relates to the conservative opposition to and distortion of healthcare reform proposals. Conservatives seized the "debate" (I use the term loosely) over healthcare reform, and their distortions and visibility have eroded some of the President's public support.
Remaining silent during such a gloomy and volatile period is a gutsy move. On the other hand, maybe it was not too risky. Because my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than most voters, a month of agenda-setting by the White House would probably neutralize the recent surge by conservatives. The White House will have the final (i.e., most recent) word in the debate.
Also, never forget that the media outlets view healthcare reform (like most political issues) as a sporting event -- instead of an opportunity for a serious and substantive discourse. So, they will happily fall in line to help construct the White House's "comeback" narrative. I am willing to wager a bet on that one. Whether they were involved from the beginning, I cannot say (and I do not know if I am even that cynical).
After refusing to take a firm stance regarding particular items in the healthcare reform package, President Obama will soon play a more visible role. According to Politico, the President will specify the elements he wants compromise legislation to contain.
Politico also reports, however, that Obama will remain flexible regarding the public plan. According to Politico, Obama's aides say that a successful confrontation with liberals on the public plan option could gain him points with moderates. The battle would also force the Left to choose between no reform and incremental reform.
During the Clinton administration, people on the left described this type of political trap as nasty, evil, awful, pathetic "triangulation." I wonder how they will describe it now, given that many of them viewed Obama as the antidote to "Clinton politics." My guess: Their analysis will involve use of the word "pragmatic."
What Does This Mean? Possible Political Strategies
I have often wondered whether Obama's snooze period in August was the manifestation of a broader political strategy (rather than bipolar disorder as The Onion satirically reported). There are a few plausible political strategies at play.
Obama could have avoided taking a firm stance earlier in order to avoid the appearance of a bitter defeat if his preferred package did not prevail. Although Obama made specific promises during the presidential campaign, my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than contemporary American voters. Accordingly, he can take new or modified positions during current debates without appearing to betray his campaign promises (at least not to most Americans).
Another possible strategy relates to the first. Obama could have reasonably predicted that the House and Senate would pass wildly different versions of healthcare reform. He could have decided to remain above the fray and return to offer specific guidance only after both versions passed (or were taking shape). Obama could then come across as a conciliator, rather than a divisive partisan.
The only wrinkle in these possible strategy relates to the conservative opposition to and distortion of healthcare reform proposals. Conservatives seized the "debate" (I use the term loosely) over healthcare reform, and their distortions and visibility have eroded some of the President's public support.
Remaining silent during such a gloomy and volatile period is a gutsy move. On the other hand, maybe it was not too risky. Because my pet Labrador Retriever has a longer memory than most voters, a month of agenda-setting by the White House would probably neutralize the recent surge by conservatives. The White House will have the final (i.e., most recent) word in the debate.
Also, never forget that the media outlets view healthcare reform (like most political issues) as a sporting event -- instead of an opportunity for a serious and substantive discourse. So, they will happily fall in line to help construct the White House's "comeback" narrative. I am willing to wager a bet on that one. Whether they were involved from the beginning, I cannot say (and I do not know if I am even that cynical).
Is Justice Stevens Preparing to Retire?
The buzz: 89-year-old Justice Stevens is going to retire.
The evidence: Stevens hired only one clerk for next year's term -- instead of the usual four.
The impact: President Obama would have a second pick for the high court. Because the likely outcome would involve switching one liberal for another, the ideological impact on the Court would be limited in the short term.
Any others: Justice Ginsburg?
The evidence: Stevens hired only one clerk for next year's term -- instead of the usual four.
The impact: President Obama would have a second pick for the high court. Because the likely outcome would involve switching one liberal for another, the ideological impact on the Court would be limited in the short term.
Any others: Justice Ginsburg?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Michael Steele Tosses His Remaining Credibility Into the Gutter
RNC Chair Mike Steele has decided to leverage his remaining .01 ounce of credibility by appearing in a Republican smear advertisement designed to inspire panic among the nation's seniors. The commercial will promote the GOP's notoriously false and misleading Healthcare Bill of Rights for Seniors.
FactCheck.Org has the details on this pathetic development: RNC’s Steele to Seniors: “Stand With Us.” Steele has become a huge disappointment.
FactCheck.Org has the details on this pathetic development: RNC’s Steele to Seniors: “Stand With Us.” Steele has become a huge disappointment.
A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste: 62% of Repubs. Believe "Government Should Stay Out of Medicare"!
I have consistently reminded readers that Medicare is the largest public health plan in the nation. It is administered by the federal government, which acts as a single-payer of primary medical expenses for people over 65.
Many Republicans have blasted public plans as "socialized medicine," but they have simultaneously tried to scare seniors into believing that the Obama administration wants to hurt Medicare recipients. Last week, the GOP released a Healthcare Bill of Rights for Seniors that opposes government involvement in medical services, but which promises that the Republican Party will protect Medicare.
Believing the Impossible
Apparently, the contradictory rhetoric has impacted many Republican voters. According to a new PPP poll, 62% of Republicans, as opposed to 24% of Democrats and 31% of Independents, support the idea the the "government should stay out of Medicare." As TPM observes, this is a factual impossibility: The government cannot "stay out" of a government-run health plan. Apparently, a solid majority of Republicans either wants to abolish Medicare or believes that it is a private health plan. Oy vey!
Many Republicans have blasted public plans as "socialized medicine," but they have simultaneously tried to scare seniors into believing that the Obama administration wants to hurt Medicare recipients. Last week, the GOP released a Healthcare Bill of Rights for Seniors that opposes government involvement in medical services, but which promises that the Republican Party will protect Medicare.
Believing the Impossible
Apparently, the contradictory rhetoric has impacted many Republican voters. According to a new PPP poll, 62% of Republicans, as opposed to 24% of Democrats and 31% of Independents, support the idea the the "government should stay out of Medicare." As TPM observes, this is a factual impossibility: The government cannot "stay out" of a government-run health plan. Apparently, a solid majority of Republicans either wants to abolish Medicare or believes that it is a private health plan. Oy vey!
Joe Klein Says Glenn Greenwald Is a Heartless "Bully" Who Does Not Praise the Military
Glenn Greenwald has been taking several mainstream media figures to task recently. Joe Klein of Time Magazine made the list after Klein bad-mouthed leftists, including Greenwald, at a "picnic." Apparently, Klein described Greenwald as "evil," a "crazy civil liberties absolutist" and "crazily anti-national security." Amai of NoMoreMisterNiceBlog, a picnic attendee, wrote about the incident. Greenwald then wrote a scathing critique of Klein that apparently quotes various emails that Klein posted to a listserve.
Remarkably, Klein has responded with a pretty bizarre essay. First, Klein describes the person he talked to at the picnic as a "pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's." Second, Klein condemns Greenwald for not praising the military or Bush's invasive surveillance activities.
We Need More Critical Analysis -- Not "Praise"
If Klein and other journalists had been more critical of United States militarism during the Bush administration, perhaps the country would not have started two unnecessary wars that the public has now come to regret. Even conservative George Will wants the military to give up on Afghanistan, and the public has long discarded the idea that invading Iraq was a good idea. If writers like Greenwald joined mainstream journalists and replaced criticism with praise, the public would lose an important resource.
Are Listserve Postings "Private"?
Klein also describes Greenwald as "thoroughly dishonorable" and "hypocritical" for publishing his "private" emails, while condemning Bush's surveillance activities. Posting analysis to a listserve, however, does not involve the same privacy interests as a telephone conservation. Furthermore, disclosure of "personal" commentary by a private citizen certainly does not have the same political or legal implications as the same action by the federal government.
Listserve readers can and often forward commentary to individuals beyond the list. By contrast, people do not expect the government to intercept their personal conversations. And while I am not sure whether I would quote such commentary, I am definitely certain that I would not call someone dishonorable for quoting statements from a listserve. If Klein is so outraged that Greenwald quoted his listserve comments, then governmental invasions of privacy should upset him even more, particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth Amendment binds state and federal governments -- not private citizens like Greenwald. Instead, Klein apparently believes that people who condemn invasions of privacy in the name of national security are extremists. This sounds a little like Rush Limbaugh suddenly favoring the right of privacy only after prosecutors started examining his medical records for signs of illegal prescription drug use.
Thought Question: Is Greenwald "dishonorable" or is Klein is so unhinged by Greenwald that he cannot control his public commentary (verbal and written) regarding Greenwald?
Disclosure: Although I am a huge fan of Greenwald, I am not an "acolyte" of anyone -- certainly not a "pathetic acolyte." I have even criticized Greenwald in a post or two.
UPDATE: Greenwald's other "pathetic acolytes" think Joe Klein's essay is rubbish. See, e.g., Putting the 'Oh No' in 'Oh No He Didn't'. See also -- the comments section to Klein's essay.
Greenwald thinks it's rubbish too: Beltway culture, checks on journalists and secrecy obligations.
Remarkably, Klein has responded with a pretty bizarre essay. First, Klein describes the person he talked to at the picnic as a "pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's." Second, Klein condemns Greenwald for not praising the military or Bush's invasive surveillance activities.
We Need More Critical Analysis -- Not "Praise"
If Klein and other journalists had been more critical of United States militarism during the Bush administration, perhaps the country would not have started two unnecessary wars that the public has now come to regret. Even conservative George Will wants the military to give up on Afghanistan, and the public has long discarded the idea that invading Iraq was a good idea. If writers like Greenwald joined mainstream journalists and replaced criticism with praise, the public would lose an important resource.
Are Listserve Postings "Private"?
Klein also describes Greenwald as "thoroughly dishonorable" and "hypocritical" for publishing his "private" emails, while condemning Bush's surveillance activities. Posting analysis to a listserve, however, does not involve the same privacy interests as a telephone conservation. Furthermore, disclosure of "personal" commentary by a private citizen certainly does not have the same political or legal implications as the same action by the federal government.
Listserve readers can and often forward commentary to individuals beyond the list. By contrast, people do not expect the government to intercept their personal conversations. And while I am not sure whether I would quote such commentary, I am definitely certain that I would not call someone dishonorable for quoting statements from a listserve. If Klein is so outraged that Greenwald quoted his listserve comments, then governmental invasions of privacy should upset him even more, particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth Amendment binds state and federal governments -- not private citizens like Greenwald. Instead, Klein apparently believes that people who condemn invasions of privacy in the name of national security are extremists. This sounds a little like Rush Limbaugh suddenly favoring the right of privacy only after prosecutors started examining his medical records for signs of illegal prescription drug use.
Thought Question: Is Greenwald "dishonorable" or is Klein is so unhinged by Greenwald that he cannot control his public commentary (verbal and written) regarding Greenwald?
Disclosure: Although I am a huge fan of Greenwald, I am not an "acolyte" of anyone -- certainly not a "pathetic acolyte." I have even criticized Greenwald in a post or two.
UPDATE: Greenwald's other "pathetic acolytes" think Joe Klein's essay is rubbish. See, e.g., Putting the 'Oh No' in 'Oh No He Didn't'. See also -- the comments section to Klein's essay.
Greenwald thinks it's rubbish too: Beltway culture, checks on journalists and secrecy obligations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)