Democratics Maybe Step Closer To Self-Annihilation, Which Is Fine

Though the fate of the public option remains uncertain, this blog has very little faith in the Democrats to come to the rescue at the last minute. Their track record this summer has not been great, and they really have no one to blame but themselves. We are at a time that Rachel Maddow accurately described recently as a

"[O]nce in a lifetime, stars-aligned political shot at fixing the system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy."

She goes on to say, correctly, that "passing health care reform will never be more possible than it is now." And yet, all the signs show that the public option is becoming more and more unlikely. Equally disturbing is the fact that the insurance companies are actually thrilled about this so-called "reform."

Why?

Individual mandates. There is a good possibility that the final bill will contain individual mandates, which means that all citizens will be required by law to purchase some kind of health insurance. Failure to do so will be punishable by tax penalty. Originally, these mandates were seen as a good thing by those on the left. They were a tool to ensure universal coverage. Now, however, it looks like they will provide for-profit insurance companies with a captive audience.

The question, then, is: Can the Democrats fail more spectacularly than simply failing to pass a health care reform bill that contains a public option? And the answer, of course, is yes. If the Democrats simultaneously fail to provide an alternative to for-profit insurers, and also demand that everyone purchase insurance (that they probably can't afford in the first place)--well, then, that'll be the end of the Democrats. Such a move would go down in history as a political blunder of biblical proportions.

Though I don't put much past them when it comes to disappointing their constituents, I can't possibly see this outcome coming to pass. Handcuffing every American to insurance companies when premiums are increasing at six to eight times the rate of workers wages is beyond the pale, even for the Democrats. For further reading, I recommend this piece by Timothy Noah.

And yet there's a part of me that almost hopes that this happens. It feels like the natural progression of a for-profit health care system in which the explicit goal is to provide as little care as possible. Obviously, such an outcome would be disastrous for the nation's poor, and should be fought against tooth and nail. But for a country that has always lied to itself, claiming to be a bastion of free markets--while simultaneously providing corporations with tax breaks, legal protections, lemon socialism, lucrative (and sometimes exclusive) government contracts both domestically and abroad--there is a kind of poetry to such an outcome.

Under the worst case scenario that the country is now facing, not only would it be unfortunate to be too poor to afford health care, but it would actually be illegal.

Again, I highly, HIGHLY doubt that the mandates will stand and the public option will fall, but if I'm wrong, 2010 will be very interesting.

Here is Maddow rightly giving the Dems a hard time.

Chart Shows That Yes, GOP Are Bunch Of Shitty People Who Lie About Everything

I found this chart over at the Daily Dish, and it confirms what anyone with half a brain is already well aware of. The GOP will lie about literally anything, at any time, for money or power or fun. Democrats do this too, duh, but, seriously, the GOP would throw their collective mothers under the bus for an expenses-paid golfing trip overseas and some caviar made out of Africans.

From the Dish:

"Politifact evaluated the truthfulness of claims by supporters and opponents of health care reform. John Sides made a provisional graph based upon Politifact's data. Not exactly a scientific chart, but it is telling."

Evidence like this highlights the dangers of stenographer-style journalism--as though those dangers had to be highlighted at all.

On a related note, I just received an e-mail a friend informing me about a website called Young Invincibles that's attempting to mobilize 18-34 years old around the issue of health care. Take a look, and if it looks like something you can get behind, please sign the petition.

By Health Care Reform, Dems Mean Not Reforming Health Care

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post are reporting today that the White House is considering jettisoning the "public option" from its health care reform package due to pressure from anti-reform lobbyists, known in these parts as contract killers.

Though talented op-ed writer and president of the USA Barack Obama has previously stated he would veto any bill that came across his desk that didn't include a robust public plan, he seems to be walking away from that commitment now. According to the Post,

"[T]wo top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals."

And, according to the Times,

"The White House, facing increasing skepticism over President Obama’s call for a public insurance plan to compete with the private sector, signaled Sunday that it was willing to compromise and would consider a proposal for a nonprofit health cooperative being developed in the Senate."

The "public option" was never an ideal plan, but the fact that the insurance companies so opposed it was reason alone to believe it was a step in the right direction.

These two reports from today are horrible signs. Once the smoke signals have been sent out that it's on the chopping block, that's all she wrote, at least this time around. It's difficult to imagine the White House regaining control of the debate in the next few weeks enough to bring the public option back to life.

So, where does this leave progressives? Matt Taibbi is gloomy, Paul Krugman is desperately attempting to clarify the terms of the debate, Nader is as unreasonable--suggesting Medicare for all--as ever, and Allison Kilkenny is skeptical that the WH can provide the country with a coherent message of reform. Nate Silver sees some cause for hope down the road.

The main issue, I believe, is ignorance. Health industry lobbyists, with the implicit help of the mainstream media, have confused and disoriented the citizenry to such an extent that honest debate is really not possible in this country. If we want any hope of passing health care reform in this country, then every report on the issue should contain at least the following facts.

Number 1, from the WHO:
"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance."

Number 2, from CBS/New York Times:
"A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds."

Number 3:
"Americans are more dissatisfied than citizens of other nations with their basic health care even while paying more of their own money for treatment, a five-nation survey released Thursday notes."

Only if we constantly remind the public how awful our system is will we be able to marshal enough progressive support to withstand the propaganda campaign that the for-profit health industry is waging and will continue to wage.

On a final note, it is--and always has been--absurd to think that any amount of concessions will bring the Republicans on board with real reform, or that including Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies in the process will result in anything other than furthering the status quo. These parties do not operate in good faith, and will fight to the death to continue to make money off of the sick. They are businesses, and to expect them to operate as anything else, especially charities for christssake, is naive and destructive.

The Times Grows Balls

To give praise where praise is due, the New York Times today has a good report on what it refers to as,

"The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living...."

Earlier this week I wrote about a truly horrendous piece the Times published about health care, and about the ways in which these vicious rumors start and then spread. This new report calls these lies out for what they are, and is as honest and important as the earlier one was deceitful and lazy.

But in praising the Times, we should remember that they are days, if not weeks, behind the blogosphere on this one. Much of the damage of the "death panel" meme has already been done, and although this kind of reporting is a step in the right direction, brave journalism requires publications to get out in front of these rumors and gossip campaigns before they take root in the national dialogue. The Times is right to publish this piece, but in waiting this long to call a spade a spade, they did the country a fantastic disservice.

All Politics Are Local, About Food

It's been getting a little heavy around here lately, so I figured I had to pass this story along as a Friday afternoon pick-me-up. It was originally posted on Wonkette, and I don't have all that much to add, but it is simply too perfect not to post.

The New York Daily News is reporting today that Congress-person Anthony Weiner (ha!) bravely ventured into a lair of hungry old people to explain the intricacies of health care reform, which is the final level before you can advance to becoming a Wizard Senator. When Weiner (ha!) showed up at the death squad screening center, the Daily News reports,

"What he found was about 60 senior citizens fed up with the confusion surrounding the details of the President's plan to provide affordable health care for all Americans - and eager to eat lunch.

"I came to eat and I came to eat on time," said David Figman, an 84-year-old retired postal worker. "They are having chicken marsala today and the food is good.""[emphasis mine.]

Hahahahahaha, oh man that is funny. It's too bad that the reporter didn't write any more sentences about how hungry all these weird old people are OH WAIT YES HE DID!

"As the meeting went on, many of the seniors began grumbling that Weiner was interrupting their lunch."

YES! This is in a newspaper! It's so funny! Too bad all the jokes about hungry hungry old people are over OH WAIT ONE MINUTE NO THEY'RE NOT!

""I'm just hungry," said 76-year-old Albert Fink. "This is a lot of silliness."

Linda Lefton, 61, stared at the clock.

"Usually our lunch starts at noon," she said. "I think he is going to cause us to delay our lunch. That's no good."

Finally, an announcement was made at 12:22 p.m.:
"Seniors are very hungry and some are diabetic. All media needs to clear out of the room so we can feed them on time.""

I know it's not funny, but for some reason "and some are diabetic," has been making me laugh for the last 5 minutes.

Oh, and also, a lot of the elderlies yelled at Weiner (ha!) about how he's a communist and a socialist and probably gay too or whatever.

"Before lunch was served, Weiner took about a dozen questions from the group, including a heated claim that the plan was "Communist."

"Are we going to have a say in this or are we becoming a Communist country?" demanded a 61-year-old man named Bill.
...
One elderly man yelled out, "It's a Socialist country!" Others clapped."

Hahahaha, these hungry old people just wanted their free lunch like honest American capitalists. They don't understand irony, because it was invented sometime after 9/11 right around the time humor died and Communism made a comeback.

The Hateful and the Ignorant

I'd like to make a quick point that I think needs to be injected into the health care debate. Watching the footage of the town hall carnage over the past few weeks has been discouraging, to be sure, but we need to remember that although a lot of the people causing the disruptions are AstroTurf fucks, there is also a sizable part of the population that is simply dreadfully misinformed.

The clearest example of our under-education is the unfortunate appearance of the "Keep the government out of my Medicare" meme. All around the country we've seen and heard instances of the elderly or the poor, many of whom receive insurance directly from the government, demanding that Big Government not mess up their Medicare. It's funny, sure, but it's also sad.

To what extent you blame people themselves for their ignorance and to what extent you blame society is a personal choice, but I will say that with a properly functioning media this meme wouldn't have made it past day 1.

This episode reminds me of a poll taken 5 years after 9/11, where 46%, 46%, of the population still believed that Sadaam Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks. It is very startling to realize that many people in the country simply have no idea at all about basic facts that relate to their lives. How is this possible?

How, and I'm asking this honestly, is it possible that somebody who receives Medicare doesn't know that it's a government program? How can somebody simultaneously love Medicare but hate the idea of government provided insurance? It boggles the mind.

Is it possible to educate the citizenry in this country? I have no idea, but without a massive campaign to discredit the lies issuing forth from insurance lobbyists, the GOP, the Blue Dogs, and in some instances the White House itself, it will continue to be very difficult to distinguish the hateful from the ignorant.

Palin Making Policy Because Stupidity Must Always Win No Matter What [Bang! Thud.]

If anybody out there thinks that breathing-mannequin Sarah Palin no longer affects the political discourse in this country, then I suggest you begin looking for your ass with both hands right now, because it will take you a long time to complete that mission.

She is changing legislation in the Senate by saying idiotic things, and for some reason the Democrats are allowing this to happen. TPM is reporting that the Senate Finance Committee is now stripping from a bill a provision that would reimburse Medicare doctors who provided end-of-life counseling to dying patients. As TPM notes,

"Until a few days ago, the measure--which is included in House legislation--was completely uncontroversial."

It had been in the bill for a long time, and was not a big deal at all. In fact, Matt Taibii has a fanstasic post here about how Newt Gingrich used to LOVE end-of-life services. But then something hilarious happened. Land-monster Sarah Palin referred to this practice as creating "Death Squads," which is the rhetorical equivalent of a toddler going limp in a super market.

Everybody had a good laugh about this, and sort of haha-ed it away, because it is a very stupid and wrong thing to say. Then a few hours later, a standard right-wing practice began. Gingrich changed his mind and started talking about death squads. The media started talking about death squads. Sen. Chuck Grassly started talking about death squads. None of anything that any of them were saying was honest, or supported by facts, in any way. But, next thing you know, everyone in America is talking about death squads.

Once the seed had been planted, conventional wisdom took hold and began to run its course. Here's how the process works: a right-wing insane person says something so patently false and unsubstantiated that merely repeating the statement in its entirety elicits laughter from any non-child; next, the media says, "is what this insane person said something we should be talking about?"; then the media begins "covering the controversy;" and then the Democrats go on the defensive for some reason and begin compromising left and right like they gettin' paid for it (many of them are).

Watching the Democrats fall for this trap time and time again, I feel like I'm watching a horror film screaming, "Don't go upstairs! They're going to continue to define the fucking debate if you go upstairs!"

So, to sum up, toilet-water-drinker Sarah Palin vomited up "death squad," Gingrich ate it on TV, Grassley shat it out in a Senate committee, and now the Senate's health care bill is weaker. And nobody in Washington, in New York, anywhere, could say with a straight face that this is how our legislative process is supposed to work. And, yet, on some level, it's feels completely unsurprising and natural that our national discourse should follow these despicable tracks.

When corporate lobbyists control Congress people, whose campaigns are funded by those very same special interests, and we count on corporate-owned novelty media acts to serve as watchdog, why should we be surprised when this happens? A better question is: how could it not?

Media Jumps to Moronic Conclusions, Surprises No One

Over the past few days, the corporate-sponsored novelty acts who comprise the American media have been in a tizzy over an outburst by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo. The establishment's interpretation of the event can be stated, roughly, as: "Wow, that wife-lady is pretty angry. She must be on the rag or something, or maybe she's just upset because her dish soap is chapping her hands." I know, I know, it's hard to believe that in AMERICA, Hillary Clinton is getting trivialized by the media.

The worst part is, the most recent development in this story is sure to make absolutely no front pages at all. The Lede, the New York Times' fart-blog, is reporting that, "hey maybe that wife of that president isn't so wrong after all guys!" The Times reports:

"Two days after video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pummeled by American commentators from The New York Post to Jon Stewart for getting angry at an apparently rude question from a Congolese student during a forum in Kinshasa on Monday, two reporters who were at the event say that the much-reported idea that the French-speaking student’s question had been mistranslated is incorrect.

In the video of the event embedded below [which I have also embedded below--JK], from Britain’s Channel 4 News, Mrs. Clinton can be seen listening and then responding to a simultaneous translation as the student asked: “We’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country — the interferences from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, and what does Mr. Mutumbo think on this situation?”"

The fact that Clinton was there to bring awareness to the rape epidemic that women face in Congo only heightens the inappropriateness of the question, and further explains Clinton's reaction. The stated purpose of her trip is to seek ways to empower women, yet the media can only focus on idiotic, petty, pop-psycho-drama.

Whatever one thinks about Clinton as a politician, and to whatever extent one believes that this trip actually is about empowering women--not furthering American business opportunities--is irrelevant here. I disagree with Clinton on a host of issues, but that doesn't change the fact that when the media trivializes her, it perpetuates destructive stereotypes about powerful women that have to be challenged. This is true regardless of whether or not one agrees with the woman in question.

Here's the video from the Lede.


This video clearly illustrates that Clinton was not in the wrong, and that this entire controversy is completely fabricated and ridiculous. ComedyandPolitics does NOT recommend holding your breath to see full retractions and apologies from the media stars though. The day the Post runs with the screaming headline: Clinton Right, Post Fucked Up! will be the day that this blog will no longer be needed.

Afterthought: Can you imagine what would've been the reaction if instead of strongly responding to an offensive question, Clinton had held her hand over her mouth and giggled like a school girl? Or if she had said, "oh, here's what my husband might think..."? The television novelty acts would've lost their shit about that too. Questions about her strength, and resolve, and the image that she puts forward to the world would've been bandied about the TV like so many badminton birdies.

Again, there are plenty of policy-based reasons to not like Hillary Clinton. This episode, however, falls squarely outside that category.

NY Times Phones In Health Care Primer

I know I've been writing about health care a lot lately, but August is, um, how do you say, "a month where absolutely nothing happens"? Case in point, CNN ran with a story about Hillary Clinton reacting "testily" to a mistranslated question in Congo. They report that she was "visibly angry" after a question was mistakenly translated as "what does your husband think?" The subtext of this report, if you can call it that, is "ha ha ha look at that uptight bitch!" which is, I suppose, a story that CNN would run any time of the year, not just the slow news days of August. The Post and the Daily News are all over that earth-shattering scoop too.

Remember how when Sonia Sotomayor was first selected as a nominee to the Supreme Court, the media breathlessly wondered if she had the right "temperament?" You know, because she's [stage-whispered] a Latina! Gender roles and ethnic stereotypes are just falling by the wayside every day. Anyhoo.

So, yeah, fuck CNN! I want REAL news, so I read the New York Times! Haha, just kidding. The Times really outdid itself a few days ago in its attempt to be "objective," by which I mean: misleading and factually dubious. If you want a pitch-perfect example of how the media sets the limits of appropriate dialogue by excluding relevant information that runs contradictory to establishment consensus, and valuing other information that has no factual basis, you won't find a more perfect example than the Health Care Primer they published on the 9th. It just came to my attention today because it's in the "Most Read" sidebar, which is really most unfortunate. Not only does it not provide critical information, it actually denegrates the conversation as a whole.

The piece begins innocently enough, vaguely describing how complicated this whole process is, and how this primer will explain the basic facts to you. Ok, fine.

The disinformation begins at the end of the second paragraph.

"It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums."

Oh man, it sounds like THE PEOPLE are angry. Conveniently absent from this sentence is any mention of the AstroTurf organizations who are paying the stooges to disrupt the town halls. So, a casual reader would be lead to think that these "angry protesters" are a sign that, throughout the country, people are spontaneously organizing against the Democratic proposal. This is just simply not the case.

The third paragraph begins with this substance-free sentence.

"President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have made the health care overhaul their top priority, putting their political futures on the line."

OH MY GOD! Between all those protesters, and desperate political situation of the Democrats, it might just be better for everyone if we just kept things just like they are, amIrite?

The paragraph continues, apparently irony free:

"Democrats had hoped to spend the month whipping up support for the legislation, but instead find themselves on the defensive, responding to what Mr. Obama describes as “outlandish rumors” spread by critics."

Rumors! What rumors?! Might it be helpful for the concerned citizen to have these rumors identified and debunked? Well, let's not rush ourselves. The authors do mention one of the most idiotic rumors, concerning forced euthanasia, a mere 25 paragraphs later.

So, as it stands after three paragraphs, the citizenry is appalled, and the Democrats are on the defensive, trying to debunk what they refer to as "rumors." The authors, because they are journalists, can't call a lie a lie. That is simply not their job. They write down what the big fancy people say, and then send it along.

In the interest of time, I'm going to highlight one more passage that deserves special attention, though we could go through the entire piece line by line like this.

The following passage should really be inscribed on a PR Wall-of-Fame somewhere, or circulated to journalism students with a note attached that reads, "stay independent you fucks, or this will be your job." Deep breath, let's go:

"The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts."[don't click that link; it plays into my argument later]

Yeah, thanks New York Times. I had no idea that the fucking INSURERS weren't yet mobilizing, and that, even if they did, they aren't really the main obstacle. That's such fantastic news! I guess the millions of dollars they donate to campaigns and spend on lobbying don't count. I guess it's actually the PEOPLE (remember them from earlier?) who are opposed to all this rig-a-ma-role.

Ok, so that link I told you not to click on. If you had to bet, wouldn't you bet that it would link to, oh, I don't know, a poll about how anxious the people are? Or at least some sort of supporting information to the claim that public apprehension is the main obstacle? You would, but you probably don't work at the Times.

That link, in fact, goes to the general topic of "apprehension." HEY, yeah, real fucking helpful! Man, my levels of anxiety are through the roof right now! Maybe it's because the goddamn paper of record reads like a fucking insurance pamphlet! Someone get me some Xanax! Oh, I bet the company that makes that isn't standing in the way either!

What would be helpful, and, oh, I don't know, informative, is if they linked to a poll like this one, from Nate Silver, that guy who's right about shit all the time.

He describes that how the question of government provided health care is asked can drastically affect the results. He writes:

"It turn out that when you take a poll, most Americans don't want the government to provide health care coverage. But the idea of government providing health care insurance: a lot of folks think that's a pretty swell idea!"

Then he provides this fantastic chart.


If you have a chance, read his whole post.

But hey, remember how Hillary Clinton and that Latina women are bitches?

Public Option Going The Way Of The Electric Car

CNN's strength has always been graphic design, not political reporting, so I'm hesitant to give this latest story too much weight. It is about the Democrats caving to the Right on health care though, so it might be accurate. My thoughts on this subject, namely, how much (read: little) faith we should have in the Democrats to provide the public with substantial reform of the health care industry, can be read here.

As I said, CNN's strength has never been reporting the news, and this body of text is no exception. It contains a proofreading error so embarrassing that one almost blushes at reading it. Come on CNN!

"Both [Democratic Senator Dick] Durbin and Republican Sen. John Cornyn signaled the precarious status of any “public option” in the final version of any health care legislation, with Cornyn calling the idea a deal-breaker [sic] Durbin repeating a reluctant willingness to sacrifice the idea to assure passage of a final bill. The idea is not considered likely to be included in the final Senate version of the bill, although a modified public option remains in the House version of the legislation." [emphasis added]

As near as I can tell, the sentence should read, "...deal-breaker, with Durbin..." Even that is kind of a gross construction. Also, the word "modified" in the above passage should be read as "weakened." Now, back to the content, not the delivery.

Despite overwhelming, OVERWHELMING support for a public option, many Democrats refuse to state, unequivocally, that it will be included in the final bill. Obama, rightly, has stated that he won't sign a bill that doesn't include a public option. That is a difficult move to make and it should be praised. Now more Democrats need to get on board with that. Sadly, that's something that Representative Henry Waxman (who, in fairness, is pretty badass about a lot of things, and has previously stated his support of a single-payer system) refused to do last week on Democracy Now:

"AMY GOODMAN: Public plan, the bottom line for you, that there is a public option?
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: I want a—I want a public option.
AMY GOODMAN: Will you not accept—like the progressive Democrats have written a letter saying they will not vote for anything but a public option.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: I don’t like drawing lines, but I expect we’re going to have a public option." [emphasis added.]

What the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is that the public WANTS them to draw lines. That's why in both 2006 and 2008 the country handed them substantial electoral victories, and it's why 2010 is shaping up to be the same way. Democrats are secure in their seats specifically, and in their control of congress and the White House generally, yet they still refuse to make and to commit to strict demands, like a public option, that are favored by the population.

Again, we won't know for several weeks what this bill will actually look like once it comes out of the House and Senate joint committee, but the prospects for progressive reform look more and more dim with each passing day.

"More Birther Coverage," Demands Party Of Racists

I haven't written about the "Birther" phenomenon because it's all so obviously ridiculous that, until now, I didn't think it really deserved any attention whatsoever.

If you're somehow unfamiliar with the "Birther" movement--and, if that's the case, in many ways I envy you--here it is in a nutshell. Some idiots have refused to accept the fact that Obama has provided a perfectly adequate birth certificate showing that he was born to a human woman in Hawaii. They claim that he is not a citizen and therefore can't be president, even though, as I just wrote, he has provided ample documentation to prove that he is, in fact, an American citizen. You might think to yourself, "well, that should settle it, right?" and you'd be right, but you'd also be so wrong. Birthers are everywhere, and they're loud and angry and racist, three qualities that manifest themselves in tandem oh so often.

As a quick side note, noted Mexican-hater Lou Dobbs has joined the proud ranks of the Birther movement. So...if you needed another reason not to watch him, there you go. You probably didn't though, because that guy seriously hates Mexicans.

So, why bother writing about this collection of morons and racists now? Because, it turns out, that is the majority of the Republican party! Alex Koppelman of Salon reports:

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is out with a new poll that asked, among other things, about media coverage of the Birthers. A plurality of respondents -- 41 percent -- said they believe there's been too much, but 52 percent said either that there's been too little or the right amount. Republicans, unsurprisingly, felt more strongly about that.

39 percent of self-identified Republicans, a plurality, told Pew they believe there hasn't been enough coverage of the debate over President Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the presidency. Another 27 percent said there's been the right amount, while 26 percent said there's been too much coverage.[emphasis added.]

That's right, folks. 66% of Republicans polled believe that the issue of whether or not the president is a citizen, despite that fact that he undeniably is, has gotten either just enough or not enough attention. It's like they're the party of loyal opposition to reason.

Here is an honest question. What happens if the country is unsatisfied with the Democrats and Obama? Can the party of the Birthers really regain power? The Republicans are now best embodied by Palin and the Birthers, which is also the name of a band that Levi Johnson should start. Will the country eventually swing "Right" again? History tells us that it will, but, who will actually do that?

The changing demographics in America have rendered the Southern Strategy--in which you use code words to convince scared white southerners that you're on their side--obsolete. Latinos, who traditionally have voted Republican, are moving to the Democratic party in droves. It remains to be seen if the youth vote will remain as strong as it did for Obama in the coming years, but they certainly won't be the ones to give power back to the GOP. The Republican base is shrinking fast, and there's no reason to believe that that trend will reverse itself.

All that said, I have no faith at all that this country can support a viable, progressive, third-party alternative, though I hope I'm wrong. Corporate media alliances and rigid election laws make meaningful inclusion in the electoral process of anyone but the two major parties very difficult.

So what will happen? Will the Democrats simply retain control of the country for 10 or 15 years? If that is the case, is that something to be praised? Are we now at a time when the country is finally ready to break from two-party politics? And why is Lou Dobbs so fucking crazy?

Learning About Big Pharma Deal Makes Me Want To Eat Vicodin

The New York Times is reporting today that the White House and Congress have promised not to attempt to extract further cost-saving measures for consumers from large drug makers. Progressives have long feared that the Obama administration would go along with this back-room deal, and now it appears that they are. From the Times:

"Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul."[emphasis mine.]

The article goes on to say that Billy Tauzin, former Republican congress-person and current CEO of PhRMA, a pharmaceutical lobbying group, was promised that the administration wanted this deal with drug makers to go forward. Back to the Times:

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.

“The president encouraged this approach,” Mr. Messina wrote.

Sigh. By blocking the government from being able to collectively bargain for drug prices, this deal guarantees that prices will continue to rise. Only the government's massive collective purchasing power--since we're talking drugs, think about buying 100 million pounds of weed; you'll get a discount--will be able to bring soaring costs down. Now, it looks like lobbyists have flexed their muscle to stop that from happening.

Scarecrow, over at FireDogLake, has an excellent analysis that can be read here. Scarecrow writes, in part:

"The White House has been telling the American people that we need to have an insurance Public Option to compete against the private, for-profit insurers to encourage price reductions and to keep the insurers honest. But the same arguments apply with at least equal force to the major drug companies, whose record of deceptive advertising, misrepresentation (here and here), corruption and price collusion (more here, here, and here, and here) are every bit as offensive as the mega insurers' practices.

The Times notes the deal was negotiated by Senator Max Baucus, with WH participation and approval. The LA Times version adds the deal was cut in the White House with Rahm Emanuel. So what should we expect from the WH/Baucus' negotiations with Republicans on the rest of the reform package?"

I highly suggest reading the whole article, and following the links that are embedded in the above passage. Even skimming where those links take you will more than prove Scarecrow's point that drug manufactures are "every bit as offensive as the mega insurers' practices."

In somewhat related news, an animal rights group calling itself Militant Forces Against Huntigdon has claimed responsibility for a fire that burned the hunting lodge of Novartis' CEO, Daniel Vassella. European News reports:

"A group called Militant Forces against Huntigdon (MFAH) Austria posted a message on a US website, claiming it started the blaze because of Novartis' alleged cooperation a with British company conducting tests on animals.

'It hasn't been your week has it, Daniel?,' MFAH wrote on the site www.directaction.info, 'This will continue until you severe all ties with Huntingdon Life Sciences.'

Novartis does not make its cooperation partners public."

Huntigdon Life Science calls itself a research facility, and has been accused of carrying out cruel and unnecessary experiments against animals.

Authorities previously suspected the group Stop Huntigdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) was behind the attack.

MFAH's claim that, "It hasn't been your week," refers to a separate incident that happened last week when animal rights activists stole an urn filled with the ashes of Vassella's mother, who died in 2001, and sprayed "Drop HLS [Huntigdon Life Sciences] Now," on her gravestone. Novartis claims that they don't have any current connection with HLS, despite claims to the contrary by many animal rights groups. Novartis doesn't disclose their partners to the public, though one would certainly expect them to deny any connection with HLS.

These are the people, along with Billy Tauzin and his revolting lobbying ilk, that the Democrats are cowtowing to. Every day, it looks less and less likely that the final health care bill will contain a robust public option that exists to serve the citizens, not the private interests. We won't know at least until September what the bill will look like, but news like today's is not a cause for optimism.

David Angelo Radio

I'll be on David Angelo's podcast tonight with the lovely and bearded Dan St. Germain. Listen in or download the podcast later here.

If Gov't Officials Can Swear Then So Can This Blog

It seems that knife-maniac Rahm Emanuel isn't the only potty mouth in the Obama administration after all. According to the Wall Street Journal, King of Money Tim Geitner also likes to use a bit of the ol' sailor-speak if the occasion calls for it. The occasion in this case was a meeting of the nation's top financial regulators, a collection of the fuck-iest shitstains this side of Horsecockville, if this blog may speak frankly. The WSJ reports:

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner blasted top U.S. financial regulators in an expletive-laced critique last Friday as frustration grows over the Obama administration's faltering plan to overhaul U.S. financial regulation, according to people familiar with the meeting."[emphasis mine.]

Reason #4,893 for the death of print. WSJ, you HAVE to print that "expletive-laced critique." Seriously guys, I would pay the online subscription fee for that sensitive information alone. Also, I assume that once you pay the online fee, you can tell all the members of the editorial board to get their shit-stained short-pants back to Horsecockville, which is worth the $8 a month or whatever it costs to read the Horsecockville Herald (WSJ).

GE, MSNBC, And a General Summary Of The Ways In Which Our Media Is Broken

The recent revelation that GE and News Corp. privately agreed to stifle reporting is just the latest example of how the national press is failing the country. This episode highlights how increasingly difficult it is to find any news outlet that even deserves one's time, let alone one's trust.

For whatever reason, the country operates under the general assumption that although giant parent corporations own every major TV news outlet, they somehow don't interfere in their reporting or shape their editorial content. After the publication of this story from the New York Times on Friday, that fallacy has been laid as bare as possible.

The Times' report describes how the bitter feud between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann was ratings gold for both shows, but also that both parent companies, News Corp. and GE, respectively, were getting worried about the fighting. "But wait," you might be thinking, "the feud increases the viewership of both shows, so what's the problem?" Well, in the process of attempting to beat each other bloody, Olbermann, and probably despite himself, O'Reilly, were doing some real reporting. In an attempt to discredit the other, both were going after their competitor's parent company, which was making the corporate overlords very uneasy.

So, as the Times reports,

"At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.

Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.
...
The reconciliation — not acknowledged by the parties until now — showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations."[emphasis added.]

This story came to my attention via Glenn Greenwald, who has written two fantastic posts about the subject. The first can be read here, and his latest from today can be read here. I highly recommend reading both in their entirety. The first piece also has the added benefit of highlighting MSNBC's disgraceful use of Richard Wolffe, a PR man they bill as an independent "political analyst." Greenwald discusses Wolffe's many appearances on "Countdown," and the fact that he guest-hosted while Olbermann was away, while never disclosing his eggregious conflict of interest. To quote Greenwald:

"When Olbermann is there, Wolffe is a very frequent guest on Countdown, where he is called an "MSNBC political analyst" and comments on political news. All of this, despite the fact that Wolffe left Newsweek last March in order to join "Public Strategies, Inc.," the corporate communications firm run by former Bush White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, its President and CEO.
...
Having Richard Wolffe host an MSNBC program -- or serving as an almost daily "political analyst" -- is exactly tantamount to MSNBC's just turning over an hour every night to a corporate lobbyist. Wolffe's role in life is to advance the P.R. interests of the corporations that pay him, including corporations with substantial interests in virtually every political issue that MSNBC and Countdown cover."

For further reading on the issue, I recommend this post by David Sirota. He provides an excellent history of instances in which parent companies dictate to their media outlets what stories are or are not appropriate on which to report.

If you take this example of GE and News Corp. silencing figures that, for better or worse, are labeled "journalists," mix it in with MSNBC's lack of disclosure of Richard Wolffe's conflict of interests, throw in the Washington Post's recent attempt to whore out its reporters and editors at $25,000 a pop, add to that that Politico (who broke the WaPo story) is in bed with lobbyists as much as anyone, sprinkle on a little program where NBC News (and others) presented retired military generals who were getting paid by companies that stood to earn a shit-ton of money from the war as "independent military analysts" (which the networks still have not disclosed to their viewers), and top it all off with the idiotic stance from NPR that they won't call torture torture, you get a pretty grim image of our media landscape.

Or you draw that same conclusion just by watching Manufacturing Consent.

Really, just think about this list above. It makes you want to just punch a wall or something. That list shows us that a reasonable citizen who spends a few minutes a day trying to keep him or herself informed, is probably being either mislead or lied to from any number of different organizations, regardless of where they are getting their news.

Whether or not these outlets report some accurate stories is beside the point. Once an institution shows that it will sell out for money, or mislead its reading/viewing/listening public out of either cowardice, malice, or incompetence, the whole institution becomes suspect. I'm not arguing that journalists can't be allowed to make errors. That's an insane and unreasonable position. My criticisms, and much of the blogosphere's criticisms, are not about honest mistakes. Rather, the problem arises when these outlets deliberately deceive their audiences for months on end by refusing to disclose conflicts of interest, or by committing any of the other infractions listed above.

I'll leave you with two funny videos concerning this topic. The first is from SNL, and the second is the great David Letterman (thanks to Mike Drucker for the heads up for both).

conspiracy theory rock

Abstinence-Only Events Creep Me Out

Tracy Clark-Flory writes today in Salon about an abstinence-only high school pep rally full of cheerleaders in short shorts leading the crowd in what may be the most disturbing cheer I've ever heard. The costumed lolitas chanted:

""Stop, don't touch me there, this is my no, no square," while drawing boxes in the air in front of their va (clap) jay (clap) jays."

As a side note, in the future this blog will only refer to women's genitalia as "va (clap) jay (clap) jays." Ahem.

Call me a prude, but getting a bunch of sprightly young women in cheerleader outfits to point at and teasingly refer to hoo-has while a gymnasium full of family members and priests look on strikes me as a bit, oh, I don't know, SEXUAL. And also, oh, I don't know, CREEPY. Look, abstain if you want to [note: "abstain" substitutes hilariously for "don't dance" in Safety Dance. "'Cause your friends abstain and if they abstain, well, they're no friends of mine". --ed.], but the idea of gathering an entire community together to gaze at a gaggle of females drawing BOXES around their...you know what word I was going to use, so let's be adults and move on... it's just so obviously meant to titillate.

"This is my no, no square." I mean, come on. This event is only slightly less creepy than the Daddy-Daughter balls that you hear about every once in a while. As I understand these perv-vents, fathers and daughters go to the prom together to gross everyone out or something and then no one can have a healthy sex life because that would be shameful! That description might not be ethnographically responsible, but I think it does the trick. I will not be providing any links, because doing a google search of "daddy daughter balls" might return some hits that are not appropriate for the internet connection I'm using. Ironic, no?

Here's a video of the event, which I haven't watched yet, because I think it might send the wrong message to people I'm sitting next to if they see me watching cheerleaders pointing to their va (clap) jay (clap) jays. So...tell me how it is.

God and Abstinence from Stuart Productions on Vimeo.

As an afterthought, Russell Brand has a good bit about the hypocrisy involved in the abstinence-only business, specifically "purity rings." Can't embed because it's flash, but he makes several good points.

Oh, and also, this sex rally took place in Mississippi, which Clark-Flory reports, "not only has the highest teen birth rate in the country, but also the eighth-highest HIV rate among those in their early 20s." So there's that.

Sunday Afternoon Movie Review

I haven't done this in a while, but it's raining out and I feel like procrastinating on other things I should be doing, so here's another edition of the Sunday Afternoon Movie Review at ComedyandPolitics!

Put simply, In The Loop, a new political comedy from Armando Iannucci, is one of the finest films I've seen in a long time. Excuse the profanity, but, honestly, it's so fucking good. And while we're on the subject of swearing, let me say that In The Loop transforms foul language from the comedic crutch that it often is into a kind of poetry. The movie is so filthy, and so, so funny.

The plot centers around Simon (Tom Hollander)--a mid-level aid to the (unnamed) British PM--who speaks off message, the communications director, Malcolm (perfectly played by Peter Capaldi), who tries to fix the problem, and a handful of other British and American politicos, all of whom are looking out for number 1. The film is set vaguely in the run-up to the Iraq war, but it doesn't feel dated, because the criticisms it levels are more structural than topical.

And it's funny. I can't repeat that enough. As proof, here's a clip featuring Malcolm telling Simon just how much he fucked up when he said that "war is unforeseeable."


"We've got enough Pentegon goons here to stage a fuckin' coup d'etat."

If you have fancy TV, you can watch In The Loop on demand by clicking here.

As long as we're here, I'll pass along another movie recommendation, because why not. Yesterday, Molly and I saw Flame and Citron, a film about the Danish resistance in 1943 and 1944. Holy hell it was awesome! So badass. It's about these two guys, Flame and Citron, who go around killing Nazis one by one. There just two guys, with guns, and a few friends, and the sack it takes to kill Nazis at their door. Do you have that sack?! Do you?!?!?!?!

Here's the trailer.



I highly recommend seeing both of these movies if you get a chance. Movie review time over.

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Beers

I have nothing at all to say about the "beer summit" that this picture doesn't capture perfectly. If you had to choose one image to display how foul, trivial, and embarrassing our national media is, I'm not sure you could find a better one than this.


Juxtaposition, you're a doll. Give me a call when they make Cheney drink a shot of monkey stool for every death in Iraq. Until then, ugh. (via Wonkette)

With Democrats Like These...

This morning, I received an e-mail from FireDogLake, asking people to call progressive members of congress and ask them to support a plan with a strong single payer option. That website, with instruction on who to call, can be found here.

The e-mail from FDL reads in part as follows:

"Dear Friend,
It's working. Your phone calls are making the difference.

The progressive caucus is finally realizing it can stand up for a real public option. Yesterday progressive members actually blocked the Blue Dogs from watering down health care reform - for the time being."

Their article about the "liberal insurrection" in the House can be found here. FDL is "cautiously optimistic" about these new events, though ComedyandPolitics is not optimistic in the slightest, for several reasons. Here is one of them, from the New York Times this morning:

"Efforts to pass sweeping health care legislation took a big step forward on Wednesday as House Democratic leaders reached an agreement with fiscally conservative party members that would cut the bill’s cost and exempt many small businesses from having to provide health benefits to workers.

...

Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, the chief negotiator for the fiscally conservative Democrats known as Blue Dogs, said the changes were “a huge win for us.”"[emphasis mine.]

That juxtaposition should more than speak for itself.

Here's the thing. Anybody who has any faith at all in the Democratic Party to lead the way to a more progressive and just society is delusional. I could link to hundreds of articles that make this point, but Matt Taibbi's blog post from two days ago hits all the right notes. He writes:

Make no mistake, this [watering down of the health care bill] has nothing to do with Max Baucus, Bill Nelson, or anyone else. If the Obama administration wanted to pass a real health care bill, they would do what George Bush and Tom DeLay did in the first six-odd years of this decade whenever they wanted to pass some nightmare piece of legislation (ie the Prescription Drug Bill or CAFTA): they would take the recalcitrant legislators blocking their path into a back room at the Capitol, and beat them with rubber hoses until they changed their minds.

The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done. It doesn’t matter that it’s an urgent national calamity, that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse and needs to be fixed very soon, and that, moreover, the only people opposing a real reform bill are a pitifully small number of executives in the insurance industry who stand to lose the chance for a fifth summer house if this thing passes.

It won’t get done, because that’s not the way our government works. Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters.

That last sentence describes our country and government as accurately as anything I've ever read. And if any Obama apologists are getting upset with me right now, read the following passage from The Hill:

"Within hours of the liberal complaints, Obama was on the phone with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a fellow Illinois Democrat and Energy and Commerce member who is in charge of the healthcare issue for the Progressive Caucus.

He told her the bill should go forward, Schakowsky said."

We now have a country coming out of the most disgraceful period since the administration of Andrew Jackson, a Democratic president with overwhelming political capital, a Democratic majority in the House, a Democratic and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a issue (health care) that will cripple this country if it is not dealt with in a progressive way. And what is happening? The exact same thing that always happens. Democrats make noise about universal health care, and a robust public option, and then when a bill gets put on the floor the lobbyists and special interests are the only groups that really win.

If anybody, ANYBODY, thinks that supporting the Democratic party as an idea after this disgraceful episode will help the poor, the uninsured, and the most at-risk patients, then nothing at all will dissuade them from that delusional position. What possibly could?

On Returning To The City

Vacation time is now over and normal life resumes. My alarm clock this morning was particularly loud, giving further evidence to my belief that that foul machine has it out for me personally. Like Boroughs' typewriter in Naked Lunch, I imagine my alarm clock transforms into a ruthless bug at night, waiting in the wings to torture me from 7:50am to 8:14am, depending on my snooze cycle.

The trip was amazing though. Seattle lived up to, and in some ways exceeded, an already high standard it had set for itself several years earlier. Chop Suey on Wednesday night in Seattle is my new favorite night in comedy. San Francisco was great as well. The Punchline is a fantastic club (thanks again to Ali Wong for the spot) that I'll hopefully get another chance to work sooner rather than later.

And in a perfect example of form fitting content, my trip of comedy shows ended with a marriage, which was both funny and touching, and gave me a chance to see some fantastic people I hadn't been in touch with in far too long.

Big thanks to everybody who put me up for a night, or several, and here's hoping that we all see each other again real soon and dance.