OpEdNews Pulls Critical Piece on Tasering Attack

by Michael A. Leon

Rob Kall runs OpEdNews.com and does not care for criticism of his fellow liberals and progressives.

In reaction to my piece (posted and then taken down) criticizing the lack of response by Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) who pooh poohed the tasering of U. Fla. student Andrew Meyer for asking impolitic questions of Sen. John Kerry, Kall wrote me a nasty e-mail just now.

[Update: Josh Marshall allows that Meyer is a “… young journalist whose brief career has been devoted writing things to make people really angry … so we shouldn't be surprised that he provoked an extreme response. No way did he deserve to be Tasered, and in fact I'd like to see Tasers banned in most circumstances.”]

That’s some explanation by Marshall’s for his brief apologetics (and previous lack of challenge) for the police assault! [Meyer asked Sen. Kerry several excellent and pointed questions and went on for, gasp, over three minutes before his mic was shut off, and he was dragged away and tasered as Kerry let the assault go unchallenged.]

Anyway, OpEd’s Kall writes of my critical piece on Marshall that “you don't go calling allies (like Marshall) names” and “Do you think you can attack and call names to a fellow progressive who generally does great work and still be considered a trusted author? Hello?”

Actually, yes, disagreement is very good thing, Rob, and fellow progressives, even the mighty Senator Kerry and the great Josh Marshall, should be called to account their perceived political shortcomings or lack of action in the body politic.

For example, I recently finished a long exchange with Xoff at Uppity Wisconsin, and have more respect for Xoff now than I did before the exchange. Xoff took off on a respected member of the Democratic state assembly, the lone Latino whom I really respect. Though I profoundly disagree with Xoff on the issue, I also recognize that he is a brilliant, intellectually honest writer, and is well within his rights to take off on whomever he wishes.

This ethic eludes Kall.

No, Kall is of the rightwing mindset that you never criticize people on your team—a lurid conception of the world of letters and political commentary.

Let’s face it, if the First Amendment were put to a vote, it would go down miserably.

I don't know Andrew Meyer's politics or his past writings; I'm not interested.

I do beleive that in a democracy we ought to stick up for each other's rights, ask questions of our legislators and seek redress when so inclined.

Sounding like a scolding assistance principal, Kall writes, “Now, I have to apologize to Josh Marshall. I want to. And I'm demoting you to member-- for a week-- if you are cool and understand that you violated trust on this one.”

I told Kall to fuck off.

Here’s his e-mail:

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:04:23 -0400
From: "Robert Kall"
To: "Michael Leon" Subject:
Re: AS by Michael Leon: Josh Marshall Fronts for Cops and John Kerry

How about "piss on your trusted author status?

Do you think you can attack and call names to a fellow progressive who generally does great work and still be considered a trusted author? Hello?

It's one thing to send off an email or respond in a forum to someone with a nasty remark. But don't you DARE do it under the masthead of OpEdNews.

I've long advised friends and colleagues to sit on an email for 24 hours before posting it, if it has been written in anger.

Now, I have to apologize to Josh Marshall. I want to. And I'm demoting you to member-- for a week-- if you are cool and understand that you violated trust on this one.

On your blog, you write whatever you want. But when you publish as a trusted author, you don't go calling allies names.

Piss on Josh Marshall? Come on. I sure hope you see that this was poor judgment. If you had objectively discussed your feelings about Marshall's approach to the story, I would have had no complaint.

I don't like to do this, but feel it is part of the process I need to go through, including letting Josh Marshall know about it. I will not mention your name, if he missed it.

It looks like it hasn't shown up on google news and that you DO have it on your blog. I think you're making a mistake. Strong progressive media people are too few and far between. Josh Marshall does a great job overall.

Yesterday I headlined an article that raised the questionable background of the tasered guy, in the article that included Harry Potter in the title. I think our story was more measured and covered the range of issues.

Look, I don't like doing this or sending this to you. But in three years or five, if you are still at this, you may find yourself facing Josh Marshall, or even wanting a job or something from him and he may remember you as the asshole (in his mind, at the least) who wrote ...

I think you ought to plug this into the hold for 24 hours queue, then dump it. I've deleted the article, maybe the third out of 40,000+ that we've published in the past 28 months.
Sincerely,
rob kall

Happy to making history, Rob!
###

University of Florida Police Department’s number is (352) 392-1111

I almost f-arrrr!-got: It's talk like a pirate day.

by folkbum

Really.

I've run that keyboard picture before. But it's a classic. Be gentle with the puns in the comments, please.

It's time to let Healthy Wisconsin go

by folkbum

My pick in the WisPolitcs budget bingo has long passed, so I got nothing on the line here when I say this: My Democratic State Senators, it's time to drop Healthy Wisconsin.

There's a lot that I like about Healthy Wisconsin. It gets close to many of the things I see as necessary to real health care reform and it sounds a lot like the health care reform package I proposed a couple years back. But it was never going to pass this way. You know it, I know it, Governor Doyle knows it.

But now you have the perfect opportunity to do a couple of things. One, get the budget done--that's the most important thing. There are hundreds of municipal and schools employees all over the state losing sleep over this. There are dozens of bills tied up in the legislature yet because the budget isn't done. Forty-nine other states are using us as the Bad Example. It is time to wrap things up, people.

Two, this is a chance to score some points. I know, I know, this isn't supposed to be about political points. This is about the Willothepeople. Fine, whatever (tell that to Mark Rahmlow). Just call it a Happy Accident, a lucky side benefit of tying up the budget process now. The Republicans have convinced (some of) your brothers and sisters in the Assembly to pass a piecemeal budget. This is not acceptable, as Seth explains:

So unless the GOP has also announced a willingness to bend on it's "no tax-increase" policy and strict funding cap, it means that the extra funding is going to need to come out of somewhere else; yet, "somewhere else" is nowhere to be seen.

In other words, while the GOP may be mostly agreeing to the Dem proposal on K-12 funding--as Speaker Huebsch has stressed for the media in recent days--unless they're also bending on their strict stances on overall funding, it just means they're going to agree to even less down the line.

And therein lies the difficulty with piecemeal budgets, which is why state budgets--at least in Wisconsin--simply don't get passed that way.

In the process of getting to the pieces, though, the Republicans have abandoned some of the more significant abominations of their unserious show budget, particularly in the area of K-12 education. It's time to lose the show part of your budget, too.

All you have to say is, fine--now meet us where we are. Give us a complete budget. I bet you Jim Kreuser and Co. could be easily convinced to raise enough hell to get the Republicans back in for a Healthy Wisconsin-less budget. Take what the Assembly already passed, add the remaining Senate or JFC pages, and you have a real, workable, complete budget that Jim Doyle can sign--with the BadgerCare expansion, the cigarette tax, the child care provisions, the Department of Children and Families, and so on.

Two things could happen: One, the Assembly relents right away and passes a complete budget and the Democratic Senate looks magnanimous in victory ("It was important to hold out for a complete budget . . . We're glad the Republicans finally saw fit to serve the people, not the special interests . . . We are happy to see the Republicans agreeing with us about the level of school funding . . ." and so on). In other words, they blinked first, and you can capitalize on it.

Or, two, the Assembly refuses anyway, and the Republicans again look like obstructionists. Doyle on one side ("I'd really like to have a budget to sign") and the Senate on the other ("We set aside our controversial plan to do what's best for the people"), and the Republicans will be the monkeys in the middle. Any further hold-up will seem petty and will serve only to give ammunition to our side for November, 2008.

But it can't happen until, in a big, noticeable way, Democrats drop Healthy Wisconsin. Call a press conference, promise to make it a top priority in the spring, remind people how much health care is sucking out of the pockets of workers and the coffers of business . . . However you do it, just do it.

The aforementioned Seth suggested exactly this several weeks back. It was too early at the time, but Seth makes a good point when he says,

The turn from restless to impatient is clearly coming in the media coverage of the budget, and just as it's in the best interest of the state to get something accomplished, it's in the best interest of the Dems to be ahead of the curve rather than being pulled under it.

That curve is moving fast, and now is the time. Get this done, claim the win, and get back to work passing Healthy Wisconsin as a stand-alone piece. Also, campaign finance reform, please. Oh, and K-12 funding reform. Some pro-real people tax reform would be sweet, too. Maybe some pie. And a pony. Have we talked lately about light rail?

Dennis York just isn't funny anymore

by folkbum

There was little doubt, back in the olden days, when we had to chisel out our blog posts on slabs of granite, that the psuedonymous "Dennis York" was fantastic, a highlight of the Wisconsin blog community. He was conservative, sure, but independent-minded and, more importantly, funny. You can read his stuff here still.

Eventually, he came out as Christian Schneider and got a Real Job working at the decidedly unfunny Wisconsin Policy Research Group. There, he often blogs about health care policy, and seems to be the WPRI's point-man for stupid arguments against Healthy Wisconsin, the Democrats' plan for universal health coverage in the state. For example, he pioneered the argument that Healthy Wisconsin would suck uninsured ne'er-do-wells into the state to bleed us dry. That argument was just demolished by He-Man Seth Zlotocha. Yet it keeps rearing its ugly head, most recently in an op-ed by noted Republican Woman Charlotte Rasmussen, and perhaps most embarassingly by Leah Vukmir. Seth knocked down a bunch of Schneider's other bad arguments against Healthy Wisconsin, in fact titling that post "Healthy Wisconsin Deserves Better." It does--and it could have had it from Dennis York.

Too bad we're dealing with Christian Schneider instead.

His most recent abominable post is a dreadfully painful attempt to make everyone who's ever been screwed by their insurance company feel better about themselves, because of how much worse it could get:

However, free markets aren’t always pretty. Once people are shopping around for cost-effective medical care, the people selling those services will do everything they can to lure people in to their shop. Suddenly, you might see knee replacements being sold on TV by some bald, sweaty salesman with a limp. [. . .]

And what’s next? Are we going to see ads for “Crazy Larry’s Prosthetic Hut?” (Where a new limb won’t cost you an arm and a leg?) Will women be getting their gynecological exams at ”The Love Doctor?” (Cervix with a Smile?) Is Burger King going to offer up a coupon for a free arterial stent with the purchase of five Whoppers? (Of course, it will be the Whoppers that cause you to need the surgery.)

I'm not sure how long he spent on "cervix with a smile," but it doesn't make up for the rest of the post. Believe me, what I elided was no funnier. The best bits are here.

But worse than being unfunny, it's deceptive and painfully wrong. It is an unconscionably poor argument for market-based health care. The worst a market-driven approach can get is not bad commercials; it's killing patients by denying care. I don't think any of us who have ever had to spend hours on the phone, days in a row, months at a time to get legitimate claims covered are even remotely comforted by the thought of bad commercials. ("At least the Muzak was nice--no ads for Crazy Larry while I was on hold!")

In the market, the patients may be the customers, but they are not the ones insurance companies will have to please. (Face it--I don't care how much "competition" there is for any given slice of the medical pie--it's still the insurance companies that will rule the day.) The companies have to please investors, and to do that, they have to turn a profit. Every dollar they pay your doctor (or Crazy Larry) is a dollar they can't count as profit. Their incentive is to spend as little as possible on you. Period.

One of the single biggest expenses for insurance companies is the bureaucracy, between 20% and 25% of total health care dollars, by most estimates. Insurance companies could save a lot of profit there if they could cut that cost. But a significant amount of that spending on bureacracy is designed simply to deny claims or delay them so long that patients give up fighting. The industry must be making a whole lot of return on their investment in that bureaucracy--that's why they won't cut it.

In the end, it's not Crazy Larry we need to worry about when relying on "the market" for health care. It's Christian Schneider, and his lame excuses for what is an inhuman system. When the insurance company's profits are up, you know it's because somewhere, a patient is getting screwed. And that's just not funny.

Is Hillary Clinton a Socialist?

by folkbum

I ask because any time I set foot into any of Wisconsin's more palatable right-wing blogs, I get pelted by that notion, that you can throw a beard on the senator and she'd be a dead ringer for Karl Marx.

Clinton is not my candidate (which is not all that significant, as I probably won't pick a candidate before the primaries), and not the first one I would choose if I had a gun to my head, so this is not some sort of knee-jerk defense of someone I have pledged my time and dollars to. But I do think I can speak with some authority as someone who has watched Democratic politics for some time now, someone who has watched Hillary Clinton since 1992, and someone who knows a thing or two about being a part of the drum-circle left, as we have been labeled.

And I say this: Hillary Clinton is not as liberal as you think she is.

A couple of items in particular prompted this post, the most proximate being comments below this Jessica McBride post. Specifically, someone calling him or herself "lugnuts" came right out and said it: "Bill was almost tolerable, but Hillary is a socialist--just what we don't need."

In response, I expounded on a theme that, if Clinton is the nominee, I'm sure you'll hear more of later: The right's narrative about her for the last fifteen years is that she's some kind of Red Menace in Pumps. But it's a lie, it always was and always will be. She came to national prominence at the time the right was perfecting its politics of personal destruction, and her Baby Boomer sensibility (vs. Barbara Bush's decidedly different affect) created the ideal personality and character wedge to use against her husband. But it was all a creation of the media and the spinners, not an accurate reflection of Hillary's actual person.

Tthe right's treatment of Hillary may in fact be the textbook example of the way it creates caricatures of the left to run against and argue against. (George W. Bush is now perhaps infamous for his straw men.)

Hillary's DLC-flavored centrism is so far from the caricature of her as a socialist, and it's reflected in the fact that she is the least popular candidate with many liberal interest groups, from MoveOn to labor. She often finishes fourth, behind "undecided," in on-line straw-polls.

There on the right is the Political Compass for most of the major-party candidates for president, based on their voting records and public documents and statements. (I threw myself in for comparison.) And while it may not be wholly accurate, as the candidates didn't do it for themselves, it shows quite clearly that Hillary Clinton is not anything like a socialist. It explains why the drum-circle left isn't out beating the pots and pans for her. (It's depressing that people who lack the temperament to be president are those who most closely agree with me.)

But my explanation that "lugnuts's" perception of Clinton as a socialist was just that--a perception--was greeted with derision by McBride herself, who commented later in that same post, "I think Hillary has been very shrewd appearing to move to the center. The shrill anti-war left has helped her in this manner. But she is far to the left of the American mainstream."

That is, of course, false in two ways: One, Clinton has not "moved to the center," because she started out there. If anyone is likely to have listened carefully to the righty-constructed fairy tales about Clinton, it's McBride. It is likely that as McBride sees more and more of Clinton, it conflicts with the caricature she's carried around in her head of what the senator is really like and really believes. McBride interprets this conflict as evidence that Clinton is moving to the center, rather than as evidence that her right-wing media has been lying to her for more than a decade.

Two, it's also false in that Clinton is not "far to the left of the American mainstream." This is just one more bullet point to add to the list of how often conservatives like McBride overestimate how popular their brand of reactionary throw-backism is with the American public, the way they believe that if they like it, then everyone must like it. On perhaps the most important issue of the day--Iraq--Hillary is being left behind as the American people move further and further toward withdrawal from Iraq. Look at the poll numbers and tell me whether Clinton's refusal to insist on a withdrawal timeline is "too far to the left." The American people agree with "the shrill anti-war left," not with Clinton or dead-enders like McBride.

I suppose Iraq may not be the best issue to examine on a left-right scale, so let's try what else was in the news this week: health care. Clinton's new health-care plan is not completely sucky, but, again, from my cymbal-wielding perch in the drum-circle left, it's disappointing. It's not even as "liberal" as the Healthy Wisconsin plan, which is, in its reliance on for-profit insurance companies, also disappointingly conservative (though better than the Republican plan--which is no plan). But she's still not "too far to the left" of anything: In the top poll right now at Polling Report, 55% of Americans want "one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers." More than half of the American people want a single-payer system, and Clinton's plan is far to the right of anything like single-payer. I would call 55% mainstream; I would say Clinton's health care plan is not. And McBride and others who balk at single-payer are not, either.

I could go on, but I have to go to work, and you see my point, I think. I opened, though, with a question: Is Hillary Clinton a socialist? Obviously, I say no. The beautiful thing about the blogs, though, is that I can throw open the comment thread and let all of you who disagree have your say. And I'm interested, seriously, in hearing from you. If you think, as McBride apparently does, that Clinton has "moved to the center" more recently than 15 years ago when I first learned about her and the Clintons' decidedly centerist, triangulating ways, then tell me why you think that.

Things like this--the utter untruths being propagated about Clinton by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about--make me kind of root for a Clinton nomination. The more people see of her and hear the right blabbering about something this observably false, the less credible the right and its candidate will become. I don't think the prospect of a Republican implosion is worth compromising my principles just yet, but if Clinton is the nominee, and if the right keeps red-baiting her, it could be a fun election to watch.

Further evidence that the world really is out to get me

by folkbum

Guido G's pizza, about which I raved here, has closed. They made, simply, the best pizza I've had anywhere in Milwaukee. And they delivered to my house.

I am not entirely sure what to do now.

This is going to hurt

by folkbum

Fire guts north side school

A two-alarm fire Saturday night caused $100,000 in damage to a school building at N. 33rd and W. Brown streets and $20,000 damage to the contents of the building, police said today. No one was injured.

The fire occurred at Lad Lake's Synergy Alternative School and ULTRA Day Treatment Center, police said. The school serves young men and women ages 12 to 21 from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Students who attend the school have had a history of truancy, disorderly conduct or out-of-home placement at a juvenile correctional center.

Lad Lake served the students who couldn't handle traditional schooling--and whose school's couldn't handle them. It will be a tremendous challenge for MPS to re-integrate those students into the regular schools if Lad Lake has to close because of this.

It's because there are more important things

by folkbum

Michael "Elliot Stearns" Caughill, referencing this very blog, opines,

What cracks me up most about the Left's continuing and urgent desire to abandon Iraq is that if the Bush Administration actually brought all the troops home tomorrow, the Democrats' chances of winning the White House in 2008 would drop from virtually certain to just so-so.

Leaving aside the laughable fantasy that Bush would do such a thing, this isn't about him or about the White House. It's about not another American dying in Bush's war.

I would trade that for the White House in 2008, easy. In a heartbeat.

The Unreliable General

by folkbum

Yesterday, Bert pointed out that General David Petraeus, despite how chiseled his jaw or how nice a guy he may seem, ought to be approached with a deserved skepticism. It's the job of the Congress to be adversarial--not in the sense of immediately disagreeing with anyone before them, but in the sense of testing what those people have to say to find if they are trustworthy and, ultimately, truthful. This is ultimately also the job of the media; Bert pointed to Jon Stewart's examination of Petraeus, and it kind of makes me sad the the best adversarial journalism is being done right now by a fake news show.

So it's no surprise that erstwhile media figure and current journalism instructor Jessica McBride is so willing to roll over and abdicate the role of media adversary. This goes back to the "A Challenge for Liberals" post that I mentioned earlier this week. Read the comments following her post, as they are perhaps one of the most concise demonstrations of just how far divorced from reality--and how unwilling to test for the truth--conservatives have become.

If you recall, that post simply asked Democrats to explain how they feel about what she saw as an equivalence between us and Osama bin Laden. The next-to-last comment is McBride's final attempt at a rebuttal to me; it is an all-caps whine-fest. There is a lot of insanity in it, as well, but I want to highlight just a couple of the all-caps pieces.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY USE SUCH HATED, VICIOUS RHETORIC AGAINST BUSH, ARGUING REPEATEDLY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HE LIED US INTO WAR. PROVE IT. HE RELIED ON FAULTY INTELLIGENCE THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND OTHER WORLD LEADERS ALSO BELIEVED.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY DEMOCRATS WOULD TRASH THE REPUTATION OF A MAN LIKE GENERAL PETRAEUS.

The reason, of course, is that in an adversarial system, be it a courtroom, a two-party system of government, or the fourth estate versus the second, that's the other side's job: Test, and if the opposition is found lacking, point it out.

Why would we say that Bush lied? Because, you know, he did. We have known for years, for example, that the intelligence he passed on to the Congress about Iraq in 2002 was incomplete, lacking the dissenting evidence that he and only he saw (i.e., it was collected after 2001 when Clinton left office). That intelligence suggested, in fact, that the public evidence pimped by Cheney, Rice, and Powell was inaccurate and based on unreliable sources. Bush knew that at the time. But he did not tell Congress. Or the American people.

More recent revelations have made it that much more clear. Bush was briefed "on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction." That intel never made it to the Congress, never made it outside of the US intel community. Bush knew. Tenet knew. Cheney almost certainly knew. They knew about the tubes. They knew about "Curveball." But he did not tell Congress. And he certainly wasn't going to tell France.

It is entriely possible, in the most generous interpretation of what happened, that Bush was dissuaded from believing the contrary evidence by strong forces in the White House. Perhaps it was Dick Cheney, who overruled Bush's own orders on at least one, and probably more than one, occasion in this war. (So much for Bush being "the decider.") But to suggest that Bush's picture of the intelligence was the same as everyone else's is just plain false. And I cannot believe that even Jessica McBride would continue to hold such a patently false and easily disprovable belief about the matter.

Why would we say things about "a man like General Petraeus"? It's because, for one, we knew that any written report he submitted would be written by the White House, not Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. And then after that news broke, of course, the White House elected not to issue a report at all. We also saw--watch Jon Stewart above--that despite his claims to have written his own testimony, his talking points were straight from Bush's mouth. We also knew that Petraeus's selective use of statistics (civilian deaths are up, but since they're not "sectarian," the surge is a success!) was ridiculous. The U.S. doubled troop strength in Baghdad, for example, for a minimal change in violence. That, and we know that he obfuscated in an op-ed just before the 2004 election to suggest that the Iraqi troops he was training were stepping up--troops that, three years later, haven't stepped anywhere near "up." We know that Petraeus's immediate boss called the General "an ass-kissing little chicken[something]"--and that "something" isn't "hawk."

We've watched the goalposts move so many times it's hard to see them in the distance any more:

White House press secretary Tony Snow, May 10, 2007: "Keep in mind, benchmarks ... are not new. The president talked about them in [the] State of the Union. We talked about them in Amman in November. Secretary Rice put a list of 17 together in a letter to Sen. Levin. So you do need to have metrics."

White House press secretary Tony Snow, Sept. 12, 2007: "No, benchmarks were something that Congress wanted to use as a metric. And we're going to produce a report. But the fact is that the situation is bigger and more complex, and you need to look at the whole picture."

It is simply stupid--the sign of nothing but pure unthinking vapidity--to accept anything this administration or anyone attached to it says uncritically, passively, without an adversarial mindset. There is a history with Bush, the administration, and everything they say that demands skepticism. (Just this week, the new Director of National Intelligence admitted he just made stuff up in sworn testimony to Congress.)

Last night's speech from Bush is a prime example. You can remind yourself of what the surge was supposed to do; have we made it? But perhaps most upsetting is the plan to bring troop levels in Iraq back to pre-"surge" levels by next July. Bush (and Petraeus) say that's because the surge worked. But the fact is the surge could not have lasted any longer if we'd wanted it to:

[S]enior military leaders -- including Adm. Michael Mullen, incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- have acknowledged that the "surge" effectively will end in April because there are no fresh replacements.

Reminds me of earlier this year when Bush wanted to blame his decision to extend troop deployments by three months on Democrats.

Why do we call him a liar? Because he lies. Why don't we trust Petraeus? Because he hasn't earned it. This is not complicated.

Kagen not cowering in the presence of Petraeus

by bert

The most visible Democratic politicians have also been the most frustrating because their opposition to the Iraq War is limp and flaccid. In the midst of that frustration, reading Steven Kagen's statement today about the Gen. Patreaus hearings is like a cool drink of water. Here's a bit of it:

General Petraeus' appearance confirmed what Americans already knew: President Bush's war and his losing policy of "stay the course" have created more terrorists and made our homeland less secure.

The frank and bold tone of the statement is especially satisfying when it comes on the same week we wearily observed yet another carefully staged snow job by the Bush administration to sell this war. The latest ploy by the White House and its apologists is to hide behind a beatified general, with the obvious but unstated aim being to keep the quagmire going so the war's perpetrators can cut and run from its political damage when Democrats take over in 2009.

The next task for the local apologentsia will be to come after Kagen. To quote a house ad from a local radio station, depend on it.

UPDATE: I take back a little of the bile spewed toward most Democrats here.
Tied to President Bush's speech Thursday night, many of the candidates did not seem bowed in criticizing this war. TPM has a roundup, but the link will be moving on to other things after a while.

Veteran and Marquette Dr., John Zemler, Calls for Action on PTSD

Via MAL Contends

Wisconsin Public Radio’s Kathleen Dunn’s guest knocks down the Sally Satel and American Enterprise Institute's(AEI) attempt to blame the troops suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

John Zemler, visiting assistant professor of Theology at Marquette University, brings home the reality and tragedy of PTSD while Bush and his allies minimize and marginalize its victims.

Zemler will speak this weekend at a workshop in Wheaton, Illinois: “Healing Veterans from PTSD”.

Dunn’s guest Dr. Zemler is well worth listening to, as the war planners make more victims of the troops who serve and then come home and suffer the consequences to a hostile administration and a largely apathetic American public.

###

Weatherman Tells You Which Way the Wind Blows

By Keith Schmitz

Kudos to Channel 4's weatherman Craig Koplien for stepping up on his blog to weigh in on the climate change issue and makes the obvious choice (though others in the employ of Journal Broadcasting will vehemently disagree and as their habit deride this):

I am not a climatologist, oceanographer, glaciologist, solar physicist or expert in any other field related to climate change or global warming. Nor are most meteorologists you see on TV across the United States.

Broadcast meteorologists are, however, the closest most of the public gets to people whose life's work is the study of global warming.

Therefore, it is our responsibility to be up to date on the research and conclusions made by those who are experts. This is imperative so we can present factual and unbiased information to our viewers.

Moreover, it is our responsibility to present information regarding global warming in a fashion that is consistent with the majority of the evidence presented by the experts and adopted by our professional organization, the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

Some broadcast meteorologists don't feel the same way. Some have instead chosen to ignore the evidence and present views contrary to those who have far greater expertise in the field. At the very least, it seems that those who take a position contrary to the prevailing view of the scientific community owe it to their viewers to admit this.

Two heavyweights in broadcast meteorology have recently written about this. Certified Broadcast Meteorolgists Bob Ryan of NBC-4 in Washington D.C., and John Toohey-Morales, AMS Commissioner on Professional Affairs, co-authored a guest editorial that appeared in the August 2007 edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

I agree with their points of view and conclusions.

Here is a sample of their conclusions:

Alarmingly, many weathercasters and certified broadcast meteorologists dismiss, in most cases without any solid scientific arguments, the conclusions of the National Research Council (NRC), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other peer-reviewed research (that would be you State Rep Jim Ott -- R-Mequon).

As outlined in the CBM and CCM programs, a responsible broadcast and/or consulting meteorologist should continue to stay as informed as possible and look to the AMS for leadership. The “AMS Statement on Climate Change” recently adopted by the AMS Council should be required reading for all of us who communicate with the public or seek guidance on climate change. While some of us may disagree with its exact wording, the weight of the scientific evidence behind the Statement is very solid.

As the above indicates, this is an issue that will not be fully settled. But then again science doesn't work that way.

But at some point both the rational ability to sort out facts and a modicum of survival instinct has to kick in.

150,000 visits, revisited

by folkbum


The lucky visitor popped in at a little after 7 PM yesterday. There's no prize, though, no balloons and confetti falling from the ceiling. But there it is, tangible evidence that anything is possible.

I'm Glad I'm Not Her

by capper

Poor County Supervisor Lynne De Bruin. She's got herself into a crossfire.

First, she starts catching grief from the left for inability to decide if she should let her constituents have a voice, as evidenced by Story Hill* and Mobile's Take.

Then, news breaks out about the continuing fiscal crisis at the Milwaukee County Public Museum, and Patrick at Badger Blogger, representing the right, points out that she is part of the "do-nothing Museum Board", that allowed the crisis to start. (Well, privatization did that, the Museum Board just made it worse.)

I may be mistaken, but I do believe that she is up for re-election next year. With that kind of leadership, I hope for the sake of the people in District 15, as well as the whole county, there is a viable opponent.

But Ms. De Bruin, even if she were to lose her seat, should be OK. Her educational and professional background is impressive, and she can always get a few bucks playing the puppet on Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes.

*Story Hill has another great clip about the impact of the proposed transit cuts. Some of the clips can also be found at Milwaukee Rising.

Oh, Yes, He Did Say That

by capper

A lot of the right wing bloggers have been also posting about the upcoming election for Milwaukee County Executive. Doing my civic duty, I pointed out that Walker has yet to formally announce that he is running for re-election. I also pointed out that Walker promised he wouldn't be running for re-election in 2008.

Apparently, Pug J at Daily Takes took umbrage, and posted this comment:

Capper,
You have fallen behind on reading Milwaukee Mags. Bruce Murphy already apologized for saying Walker promised to not run for re election. Awaiting your mea culpa.

He also cited this article from Bruce Murphy, who wrote:

My last column’s contention that Scott Walker promised not to run for re-election as county executive in 2008 was a bit overstated: He said he had no plans to do so, helping to buttress his image as a nonpolitician, but made no outright promise. He certainly fooled this voter.

Not quite an apology, but more of a clarification. But I digress. To Pug J, and others who may disagree with my assertion, I would like to refer you to a post by xoff, in which he quotes from JSOnline:

Walker clarifies '02 re-election comments

County Executive Scott Walker said today that comments he made six years ago about not running for re-election in 2008 weren't serious promises.Walker last week touted his accomplishments in office and strongly suggested he plans to run for re-election next year."I certainly didn't make that as a pledge" in 2002, Walker said in an interview today. "I didn't put it anywhere in my literature."Any remarks he might have made in 2002 about not seeking re-election in 2008 might have been joking references, Walker said...

In a campaign forum on April 24, 2002, Walker was asked if he'd seek re-election as county executive and how long he would hold the office. According to a transcript of the forum, Walker replied:

"I will focus on cleaning up the waste and abuse during the next two years. To put in place reforms to insure these changes stay in place, I am open to a run for a full term in 2004, but will not run beyond that term."

... As pointed out here earlier, Walker also told the newspaper editorial board, in an interview possted on April 21, 2002:

Q: Just so everyone is clear, you do, if you win, plan to run again in 2004?
A: Yes. I don't have an interest in running beyond that.

Now a grammarian might point out that he did not specifically "promise" not to run again, but as they say, "It's good enough for government work."

Calling Osama bin Laden a Democrat is like calling an earthquake a terrorist

by folkbum

A new video by America's public enemy number one might well engender any number of feelings--anger, regret, frustration, maybe even a little fear, certainly concern for what may be afoot in the coming weeks and months from those who wish us harm.

Notably missing from that list is glee. I don't think any reasonable person ought to look at a new video from Osama bin Laden and decide that it is best used, even tailor-made for, partisan advantage.

Which, of course, didn't stop Jessica McBride:

[I]t's worth reading the actual transcript of Osama bin Laden's latest televised diatribe because of the things it clears up.

It's irrefutable: If bin Laden lived in America, he'd be most inclined to vote Democrat. After all, he's pretty much adopted the Democratic Party's rhetoric and platform. However, in fairness to the Democrats, bin Laden is also mightily ticked off at them. So maybe he'd be a frustrated Democratic voter. He could land a job as a propagandist at moveon.org. He'd post angry comments on Huffington Post and Daily Kos. Maybe he'd join Cindy Sheehan's campaign, write a column for the New York Times, or do research for Noam Chomsky. Who knows. But I can tell you one thing. He would never vote Republican.

I'm not really sure at what point the hypothetical voting habits of bin Laden became ripe for speculation (as opposed to, say, where he is and what he might be trying to get from his followers). But it seems to me an unlikely prospect that someone intent on bringing religious government to every land he touches would be likely to vote for a party that staunchly defends the separation of church and state against those who claim it doesn't exist. The Whallah finds the notion that bin Laden is a Democrat unlikely as well, and if you're willing to brave the Great Orange Satan, you can trace the connections one brand of fundamentalism (Islamic) has with another (Christian).

But calling bin Laden a Democrat--like calling him a Republican, for that matter--makes about as much sense as investing all your money in Countrywide Mortgages right now. I suppose that had the Soviets never invaded Afghanistan, and, subsequently, if the US had never trained and armed bin Laden and the Mujahadeen, a wealthy Saudi like Osama bin Laden may have ended up here, and who knows how he would vote. But those things all happened, and now bin Laden believes exactly one thing about the United States: He wants to kill us all. He's no more a Democrat or Republican than an earthquake is a terrorist--he no more discriminates in his destruction than the earth plans its upheavals.

I don't think that he'd bother to stop and ask the people he was about to blow up their political affiliation, their position on abortion or immigration, their plans for fixing Social Security. Osama bin Laden is the enemy of the United States. That means you, me, Jessica McBride, and the 300 million others of us together. All of us. That McBride's instinct upon seeing a bin Laden video is to use it to bash Democrats says a lot more about her than it does about him, the Democrats, or this country. Six years ago, this country was united and singular in its purpose--to track down and eliminate whoever was responsible for attacking us. And now she are using exactly that person to further the divide that has grown since. I feel dirty even having to respond to it.

Perhaps sensing that she was losing that particular battle, McBride later refined her attack:

Challenge for liberal readers
On the Iraq war and George Bush specifically, how does Osama bin Laden's rhetoric differ from your own?

That's kind of a follow-up to one line in that original post of hers, "[T]he left can stop arguing that if America changes its foreign policy, Al-Qaida and other terrorists will suddenly like us." But that whole line of thinking is just as tainted--and just as offensive. At least in part, because "the left" does not argue that changes to our foreign policy would suddenly ally al Qaeda with us. I'd like to know who on "the left" it is who says this, in particular since the line from the left about our fight in Iraq is that it was a mistake to abandon our search for bin Laden. It may be true that bin Laden thinks our adventure in Iraq is a mistake for us, but it is also exactly what he wanted us to do when he attacked us on 9/11/01. Democrats generally stood against the war with Iraq that bin Laden wanted, with the majority of Congressional Democrats voting against the Iraq War Resolution (something Jessica McBride still refuses to acknowledge as true).

If we had listened to people like, say, Russ Feingold back in 2002 (I assume he qualifies as "the left," right?), we would have intensified our efforts against al Qaeda, hardly a strategy to make them "suddenly like us." If we'd elected John Kerry (kind of "the left") or Howard Dean (certainly "the left" in minds like Jessica's), they would have pulled US troops out of Iraq to go after al Qaeda. Even Noam frickin' Chomsky can't believe Bush let bin Laden get away!

This is perhaps the last resort of the last dead-enders. They have no refuge left but to call the vast majority of Americans terrorist sympathizers, a supposition that is not only patently false on its face but is deeply, deeply offensive. It may be the lowest McBride has sunk yet.

(Update: Seems Plaisted beat me to it.)

More Accolades for Jay

Not only is folkbum's rambles and rants about to hit a new plateau, but this morning's MSJ has one of Jay's posts listed as the Best of the Blogs.

Congratulations, Jay.

150,000

by folkbum

Sometime this coming week--maybe even Monday--the SiteMeter will turn over 150,000 hits. That may not seem like a lot compared to many other Cheddarshpereans, but consider that it was just January when I hit 100,000--meaning I've had half as many hits in the last nine months as I had in the previous three years with SiteMeter. Something's going on, I guess.

Getting Thrown Under The Bus, Revisited

by capper

I have already commented on what Walker's draconian attitude towards public transportation would result in, especially for the disabled.

I would strongly suggest to the people who might not have faith in my words, that they actually listen to the voices and see the faces of those who would suffer the most, if Walker would get his way. This is as easy as going to Story Hill. (I think #6 and #7 are especially powerful.)

H/T to Milwaukee Rising.

Will Someone Tell Them That Summer Is Over?

by capper

First, we have Walker again being against providing services to people with disabilities and mental health issues, after he was for it, after he was against it.

Then, we have Sheriff David "Barney Fife" Clarke, being for concealed carry after he was against it.

Add to this, Senator Larry Craig (R-Bathroom Stalls) deciding to resign, after he wasn't, after he was, after he wasn't going to resign.

It is going into the second week of September, school has started, and the air is starting to get cooler. Shouldn't someone tell these guys that summer is over, and that they should put away their flip-flops?

With Presidents Like This, Who Needs Enemies?

by capper

In the comment thread of a recent post by Jay, faithful reader, Dan, tries valiantly, if somewhat ineffectively to defend Acting President Bush's intelligence. Bush does his defender no great favor though, by not knowing who he is addressing, what country he is in, or how to get off the stage without killing himself.

Is it January 20, 2009, yet?

Rick Esenberg Defends William Jefferson Against the Wild Flailings of Fred Dooley and Patrick McIlheran

by folkbum

Now that the Republican Party has turned so viciously and cold-heartedly on Larry Craig (R-Denial), the right-wingéd bloggity true believers have turned to measures so desperate I'm embarassed for them. (Usually, I'm just embarassed by them.)

This, for example, is a post, in its entirety, from Fred, one of our local luminaries:

Hey?
Is William Jefferson (D) still in Congress?

Because, you know, some version of "Democrats do it too!" is all that's left after their claiming of the moral high ground for so long. That very post added insult to the injury that was a recent blog entry by my bff Patrick McIlheran (which reminds me to direct you to this damned good post by Michael Mathias).

I believe, and have argued repeatedly before (here on the blog as well as elsewhere) that William Jefferson should not be in Congress. That he remains in Congress is not so much anything I can control--I will not offer a defense of his being there.

Noted conservative rationalizer (he's a professional, you know) Rick Esenberg, though, offers a surprisingly spirited defense:

[T]o remove or suspend a[n elected official] is to interfere with a choice that the voters have made.

So . . . I guess that's that. Maybe Fred needs to take the William Jefferson issue up with Rick, instead of liberals like me.

Walker Gets It Wrong, Again

by capper

There is another article in this morning's paper highlighting some of Walker's wish list on how to destroy Milwaukee County. It already has been covered on this site as well as numerous others, the poor decisions Walker has made about transportation, the parks, whether citizens should actually be allowed to express their opinions and other sundry topics.

Now, I'm not going to get into the zoo issue, because what he wants is not great, but at least shows a modicum of responsibility. Likewise, I am not going into the child support enforcement, even though he wants to shut down a third of the unit, being a boon for deadbeat dads (or moms), and increasing taxpayers expenses when the cost of raising the child is put on them instead of the father (or mother). This move is stemming from Bush cutting federal funding for this program (I guess enforcing people to be at least financially responsible for their children is neither compassionate or conservative)

Among the topics in the article that I do want to mention, again, is the ongoing crisis regarding Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division (or Mental Health, if you prefer). MSJ has done a series of articles relating how many mentally ill people are living in squalor and sometimes dying from lack of care and support. Then they run an article about how assaults are increasing in frequency and intensity.

Walker responded, for once, decently, by wanting to increase funding to provide decent housing and adequate supervision for the mentally ill in the community. He also wanted to hire up to 25 new staff members to deal with the critical situation at the mental health complex. But today we find out he wants to eliminate 12 positions from there and cut $1.5 million from the contracted agencies that provide supervision and case management for the mentally ill in the community. One cannot help but see the schizophrenic thinking that must be taking place in the executive's office.

This means that the crisis at the mental health complex will continue. There is already a shortage of beds at the complex, and people in psychiatric crisis are being put on waiting lists to just get help. Meanwhile, they are in the community, trying to cope the best that they can, but now without any community support programming to help them make it. Many will resort to self-medication with street drugs and/or decompensate to the point that they are a danger to themselves and/or to others. For those of you on the right, this means that when crime rate continues to climb, don't blame Barrett or Doyle first, but look at who created the scenario for these people to be out in the community, untreated.

If this wasn't bad enough, we read this line:

"It's a matter of shifting budget resources to an area of greater crisis," Walker said.

.

Gee, that would mean that if Walker would start facing the reality of the situation he placed the county in, there may not be any crisis. Instead, he is only worried about the greater crisis. I could just imagine if a firefighter said something like that, "We'll let those two houses burn, while we try to fight these three house fires." People would be screaming about getting more help in there, immediately.

.

But for the humorous pick me up, Walker then goes crying to his ol' friend Chuckles and whines, "Why are they reporting on this now?" Betcha Chuckles didn't tell him "Life is not fair. Get used to it."

[BUMPED with the ANSWER] A Poll! (Class Size)

by folkbum

So, dear readers, what would you say is a good maximum size for a class of high school seniors? An English class, in particular, but if you think it can vary, go ahead and explain it.

After a while, I'll tell you what my class sizes actually are.

UPDATE, Thursday 9/6: Today I had 39 crammed into my 90° classroom, out of the 42 registered for my second-block class. Fourth block was lighter, with 36 of 39 in attendance. I will admit that we were warned that upperclass courses might be a little overstuffed this year because they were trying to keep the 9th-grade classes smaller.

By smaller, they apparently meant 35, because that's how many are in my 9th-grade class.

Just another day in the big city.

(And props to FreeFall for guessing MPS would go for 40.)

How Canadians View Their Health Insurance

by capper

With the ongoing debate about health insurance, there has been a lot of sniping and smug dismissals of other countries' insurance models, especially Canada's. But instead of listening to the fear mongerers, how about someone who has actually experienced it? The following is a letter to the editor of the Waupaca County Post, dated August 30, 2007 (sorry, small paper with no website), verbatim:

How Canadians view their health insurance

To the Editor:

I find it both sad and frustrating that so many good people buy the disinformation spread about universal health insurance by political and corporate interests, without questioning either the source or the logic. As a Canadian resident for 26 years, during the period when Canada's national health insurance program evolved, I have to respond to "Canadians prefer U.S. health care."

First, reputable scholarly (not political) surveys show repeatedly that the vast majority of Canadians are very happy with their health care. On a personal note, my Canadian son, his family and extended in-law family, my friends, former neighbors and former colleagues (a rather wide circle) all value their health care system and are extremely glad it is not like ours! Here people can lose their insurance when they lose a job, or when they develop a chronic illness. Here millions are without health insurance; here a person without insurance is turned away by physicians and clinics; and here good, hardworking people forego life-saving treatment or are bankrupted by medical costs.

Second and incidentally, when travel agents urge special health insurance policies for U.S. travelers abroad, it is because U.S. insurance policies normally do not cover out-of-country expenses. It has nothing to do with the level of care.

Third, Canadians purchase health insurance supplements to get private rooms and such perks. here, seniors purchase "medigap" policies, and insured workers purchase supplements-because the basic insurance is just that: basic.

Fourth, an e-mail testimonial is neither verifiable nor representative. We all know someone who has had a negative experience with Waupaca's hospital. Does that mean we are wrong to think we get excellent care here? Or that all U.S. hospital treatment is bad? We know better.

Fifth, the writer and politicians opposed to universal health insurance repeatedly refer to "the government" providing health care, or they refer to universal coverage as "socialized medicine." Neither is true and both are scare tactics. Neither in Canada nor in the any proposal for universal coverage here (that I know of) is the government the health care provider or the health care decision maker. Currently, however, U.S. insurance company employees with no medical training at all are frequently making health care decisions. Not so in Canada.

We do have excellent medical providers here, and so does Canada. Like here, Canadians have their own physicians, by their own choice, or they can use clinics or groups. They have the whole gamut of excellent specialists, like here. They have excellent nursing staff, physical therapists, occupational therapists, social workers, home care visiting nurses, emergency room sand urgent care physicians. Canadians have regular check-ups, they see their physicians by appointment and they get preventive care. You would find their care just like ours-except that it's available to everyone, bills get paid and no one goes bankrupt because of it.

It's the insurance that is different, not the medical care. We Americans pay more, but fewer of us get it.

Georgia Calvo
Dayton.

Keep the fingers crossed

for Steve Fossett, eh?

Does the job come with a cool hat?

by folkbum

From an emailer who no doubt wishes to remain anonymous:

You have built a zoo full of bark at the moon wackos Jay, and you are the chief moonbatting zoo keeper.

VA Counsel Unilaterally Declares Law Protecting Vets ‘Obsolete’ in Wisconsin Case

Can an attorney from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) declare a federal regulation obsolete because it interferes with the VA denying benefits to a veteran? No.

Yet this is what attorney Carolyn F. Washington, VA deputy assistant general counsel, proposes in the VA response brief opposing U.S. Navy veteran Airman Keith Roberts (1969-71). [Case is presently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) (docket 05-2425)].

VA Attacks Veteran

The VA will go to any length, spend 1,000s of hours, and whatever money it takes to deny Keith Roberts the PTSD disability benefits that he deserves.

In Roberts’ extraordinary case, this veteran has been forced to fight his legal battles simultaneously against the VA and DoJ in two different courts on the same dispute (including fight the gallant US Atty Biskupic).

As stated in his CAVC brief, Roberts notes: “The (VA) Secretary has caused a criminal prosecution in Federal District Court to be initiated against (Roberts) while he was still before (CAVC) litigating the same facts, transactions and occurrences. The VA regulation for initiating criminal charges against a veteran was not followed, 38 C.F.R. § 14.561."

This VA regulation, Title 38 § 14.561 reads: “Before a submission is made to the U.S, Attorney in cases involving personnel or claims, the … Regional Counsel at the regional office, hospital or center, if the file is in the regional office or other field facility, will first ascertain that necessary administrative or adjudicatory … action has been taken.”

In Roberts’ case, the VA regional counsel made no such determination of adjudicatory action; and in fact, top VA officials plotted to prevent such an analysis from taking place by engineering a prosecution by U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic in the middle of the VA claim process, using the denial of VA benefits as evidence in the Grand Jury hearing and criminal trial.

Echoing the former attorney general Alberto Gonzales who decided that the Geneva Convention (which like federal regulations have the force of U.S. law on the land) is “obsolete” and “quaint,” the VA’s attorney (a political hack from a bottom-tier law school) argues in response to Roberts’ CAVC brief that the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) personnel and the VA police, are “responsible for notifying the DOJ or the USA (US Atty) of possible criminal matters. … The authority and duty to refer criminal cases is vested in the VA police and the OIG. … it could be argued that, as it relates to criminal prosecutions, section 14.561 is obsolete.”

The VA police authority and role has been to tend to often-disturbed and violent veterans seeking medical and psychological assistance on VA property after coming home from service.

The VA police have never been charged with investigating benefit claims, much less referring claim cases in the middle of VA adjudication to the US Atty’s office.It should be noted that the US Atty’s office never put forth this argument made by the VA that would undoubtedly be shredded to pieces by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s panel, slated to hear oral arguments in the Roberts’ criminal trial—plotted and pushed on the US Atty’s office by top VA bureaucrats.

But these top VA bureaucrats did not include the regional counsel, and Roberts never received a written statement and a statement of the evidence supporting the charges, as required by Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3.905 (b) Fraud.

Maybe the VA’s attorney will declare that this federal above regulation is also obsolete and quaint.

Legal questions and legal comments can be e-mailed to Robert Walsh at rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net.

Media on Keith Roberts

- Wisconsin Public Radio News (May 10)
- The Lee Rayburn show (June 29)
- Keith Roberts' Atty. on the Lee Rayburn show (June 6)
- WORT Radio - A Public Affair (May 25; begins at one minute, nine seconds)

Update: PTSD Resources

###

More Tax Freeze Silliness

by capper

In The Appleton Post Crescent, it was reported that the Neenah School District have opted out of providing buses for 500 of its students, to save $100,000. Now the parents have to privately contract individually with the bus company at a cost of $306 per student, thus increasing the actual cost by 50%. It boggles the mind to think that spending more money on the same service is cheaper, and that people buy into that nonsense

People who can't read shouldn't be allowed to do math, either.

by folkbum

Looks like I got some wingnut stupidity for my birthday this year! Two of the usual suspects--although there are probably more if I bothered to look--Owen Robinson and Fred Dooley are all a-flutter about John Edwards's health care plan. Here's Owen's version ('cause Fred's just a copycat):

Yikes! Edwards wants a plan to force people to see a doctor on his schedule. [. . .] So much for freedom. This is what I mean when I say that when the government controls your health care, they control everything about you.

But I also found this interesting…

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year,

Really? Healthy Wisconsin, the government-run health care program proposed by the Democrats, is projected to cost $15.2 billion per year.

Wisconsin’s population is about 5.5 million people. At $15.2 billion, Healthy Wisconsin comes out to $2763.64 per person.

The U.S. has a population of about 300 million people. At $120 billion, Edwards’ plan comes out to about $400 per person.

John Edwards proposed his health care plan (.pdf) in February, and Owen's just now getting around to whining about it. The thing that has him most upset--the required preventive care--has been in the news since at least June, according to the clippings on Edwards's website.

Here's Owen's problem: he hasn't freaking read John Edwards's plan. It's obvious, because if he had, he wouldn't have made the stupid mistakes he does. There are at least two: Well, the preventive care thing is not necessarily a mistake, but I think Owen's got it wrong. Edwards would provide incentives to get that care, and, long-run, that's exactly the kind of thing that will bring down health care costs. My employer, for example, has just started mandating some level of preventive care, and it's being hailed as a great innovation! The Edwards plan, as I read it, also does not provide for punishment for not receiving preventive care:

Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at little or no cost. Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs. [. . .] Health Care Markets will encourage plans to monitor patients’ health to keep them out of the emergency room. For example, plans can pay for nutritional counseling for diabetic patients to help them make healthy choices and control their blood sugar levels.

It sounds to me, just like the newly-instituted innovative plan from my employer, that I won't get fired or arrested for not getting preventive care; rather, I just won't get the incentives. (And, you know, die sooner.)

Owen's second mistake is perhaps the most laughable. This is where Owen insists that the Edwards plan will provide health care to every man, woman, and child in the country for $400 a pop. This is the kind of mistake only someone who didn't bother to get his facts right would make. Here's Ezra Klein writing about the Edwards plan (back in, you know, February):

[The plan] puts the onus of the responsibility for funding health coverage on employers, a decision I don't quite understand. The employers can satisfy that responsibility by either providing comprehensive care, or helping employees purchase from a menu of insurance options provided by newly formed, state-run "Health Markets." [. . .]

Where the Edwards' plan takes a big step forward is in mandating, along with the private options, that HMs offer "at least one plan [that] would be a public program based upon Medicare." And the intent is explicit: "Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

In other words, the public sector will finally be allowed to compete with the private sector, and consumers will be able to decide which style they prefer.

The easy answer is that the Edwards plan will not take tax money to pay for everyone in the country. It is universal only in the sense that it requires everyone to be covered, not that we all pay for it. This is fundamental, and easily gathered from even a superficial reading of the plan or even the most cursory googling.

From Fred, it wouldn't be surprising, but from Owen, I expect better.

(Aside: The comments sections at both of those posts linked above degenerated into "YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!" - "YOU'RE A HEARTLESS PIG!" flame wars, and no one really bothered to point out the fundamental error. However, one of the most ardent in there of the "YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!" camp is frequent commenter here Dan. One of Dan's favorite questions is, "why not let the government go into the free market by offering health insurance?" Here is one recent iteration, from the comments to Keith's cancer post. Given the way the Edwards plan explicitly calls for exactly that, you'd think Dan would love it. But it seems Dan didn't bother to read the plan, either. Sigh.)

Tax Freeze, Brain Freeze

by capper

I don't like paying taxes. I don't get all excited on tax day and act like it's Christmas. I also don't like paying more in taxes each year. I also don't like paying more for gas, for groceries, for insurance, for electricity, or anything else. I don't know anyone that does.

But, as an adult, I realize that sometimes I just have to face it and pay the price. If I want to drive my car, I have to buy gas. If I want to eat, I have to buy groceries. I also realize a lot of good things come from my taxes. My taxes paid for the cops who helped my wife when she had a car accident. It was my taxes that paid for the EMTs who helped my father when he fell on the ice and cracked his head open. It's my taxes that pay for roads to be plowed (and hopefully maintained). It's my taxes that help pay for the services that are needed by the disabled, the mentally ill, and the elderly that cannot take care of themselves.

I also realize that, just like my gasoline, my groceries, my electricity and everything else goes up every year, it goes up for everyone, including the government. Now, the government can cut corners, like I do, and do without some of the frivolities and unnecessary items. But the cuts in certain areas can only go so far. While I may not dine on lobster and steak, I still need to eat and feed my family. While I may not be able to go on driving tours of the country, I still need my car for my job. Likewise, the government can only cut some things so far. It goes to far when people are getting hurt and killed for the sake of saving someone a few bucks on their property tax.

When you cut or freeze taxes too much, you end up underfunding things, like services to the mentally ill. Then you get stories like the one in MSJ, chronicling the atrocities that have occurred at the state mental health hospital in Winnebago. Just how much in tax savings is a person's life worth, anyway?

But when one makes a career statement out of tax freezes, while ignoring the realities around you, all that is is a brain freeze.

Commander in Cheat

Or, "The Quarterback of Notre Dumb"

by folkbum

So I'm listening to NPR on my way home (I know! Shocking!), and they were interviewing the guy who wrote the new book on George W. Bush, Robert Draper (listen to the interview there, and read an excerpt from the book).

Draper explained, among other things, Bush's relationship with Karl Rove. He said (I'm paraphrasing here), "Bush and Rove are like the high school quarterback and the nerd who does all the quarterback's term papers."

And this from an author who likes Bush!

Is it 2009 yet?

First Day of School

With school starting today for most of the area, I thought it would be good to share some light on the subject with this thought.

My Ox Is Broken!

by folkbum


The students arrive at school for the first day tomorrow. I am not really prepared. This is roughly how I feel.

(Reference.)

Attention Passengers in the Terminal-- the Bush Administration Doesn't Give a Crap About You

By Keith Schmitz

The Associated Press reports flying has gotten a lot less safer lately because of the usual motivations of the Bush Administration - money (read lower taxes) and its dislike for organized labor.

And you, Mister and Misses airline passenger -- get cuaght in the middle.

"In several places, it (the labor clash between the FAA and the air traffic controller union) has created a safety problem where controllers are working 10-hour days, 6-day weeks and working combined positions because they don't have enough fully trained bodies," union President Patrick Forrey said.

Of course, this hasn't made the job all that attractive.

FAA figures show the number of fully certified controllers dropped to 11,467 in May -- the lowest in a decade the union says. Beside them in control centers are 3,300 so-called "developmental controllers" who are being trained on the job by other controllers. The trainees are not yet qualified for all work assignments required of fully certified controllers.

There have been a number of near misses at airports as a result. Sadly it's only a matter of time.

But hey, according to the head of the FAA has saved $1.9 billion over five years.

Hmmm, that'll cash into money we blow in Iraq in a week.

But just like the planes waiting to arrive at airports across the country we know how the priorities stack up.

Paske's Social Security Flub

by folkbum

I've watched former folkbum guest-blogger Steve Paske's year-long stint as a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Community Columnist" with interest. Not that I take credit for Steve's success--he was a professional writer long before he wandered onto these pages. But because he so often just barely blows it.

For example, Paske wrote a series of op-eds blaming our mutual union, the Milwaukee Teachers' Edication Association, for a variety of failings that are not, in fact, the union's fault. I wrote a long, long post a few months back that I opted to delete, trying to take on those flubs: For example, there was this:

Several years ago, the union clashed with the School Board over suggested changes to the medical plan that would require teachers to pay a deductible and co-payment for services. As part of its strategy, it came up with the slogan "Attract and Retain" as the mantra for suggesting that these benefits cuts would not attract or retain quality teachers within the Milwaukee Public Schools. [. . .]

The union engaged in a public relations disaster by sending members to the picket lines [. . .]. While the issue of our salary and benefits was enough to put thousands on the picket line [. . .]. A deductible of several hundred dollars is worth marching in the streets for [. . .].

And so on like that. I think Steve was making a very reasonable point overall--that there was not enough of a public display of unity and demand from teachers for improved school safety. However, he completely blows the fact that the single biggest motivator to get us onto the picket lines was not "a deductible of several hundred dollars," but rather something much more infuriating: The administration was bargaining in bad faith and the superintendent was bad-mouthing teachers in the press. The district negotiators were prohibited from reaching an agreement with us--they forced an arbitration because the superintendent told them not to settle, period.

So, good point, weakened by a unfounded belief in a media-created myth that makes teachers look bad.

Steve does it again in Sunday morning's MJS, buying into a completely false and destructive media myth:

In the past, you went to school, went to work and a few years later, you were probably dead. Today, odds are you'll last 10 years or more past retirement age. Combine that with the realization that many baby boomers are about to retire, and you're faced with a problem: a multibillion-dollar deficit problem.

It's a problem you're probably sick of hearing about. Politicians have turned the Social Security deficit into political hot item. President Bush tried gallantly and vainly to push for reform. Democrats and Republicans constantly attack the other side for not doing more to fix the system. [. . .]

If we continue to retire as young as we are doing and live as long as we do, there won't be any Social Security for me when I'm 80, let alone 67.

This is utterly untrue. Assuming we do absolutely nothing to the Social Security system--no adjustments to retirement age, no changes in the tax collections--51 years from now when Paske hits 80, Social Security will be able to pay him most of his promised benefits until he falls over dead. Here's the latest trustee report:

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 1.95 percent of taxable payroll, down from 2.02 percent in last year's report. This decrease is due primarily to revisions in key assumptions and to changes in methods. Although the program passes our short-range test of financial adequacy, it continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2017, and will be sufficient to finance only 75 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2041, when the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted.

And, as Paul Krugman notes, that 2041 date isn't even set in stone: "The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social Security Administration projections, has receded steadily into the future: 10 years ago it was 2029." The same for the date at which the trust fund was destined to be dipped into, which is currently slated for 2017; if the predictions of the 1980s had come true, we'd already be sucking the fund dry.

Paske does get one thing right when he says the "crisis" in Social Security is actually a "deficit problem." The easiest way to make sure paying out the trust fund is done with a minimum of pain is to cut our debts, currently pushing nine trillion dollars. The debt service payments we're making by themselves--about 20% of our national budget--could easily cover the trust fund payments.

Check out the chart at that last link. Read the names of presidents. A simpler fix than Paske's solution--raising the retirement age to 75(!)--is repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts:

To meet its unfunded obligations over the next 75 years, the Social Security trust fund needs $3.7 trillion. Equaling about 1.89% of taxable payroll and about 0.7% of GDP over the same period, $3.7 trillion is no small sum. However, it is far less than the 2% of GDP that Bush's 2001 to 2003 tax cuts will cost over the next 75 years if they are made permanent. Indeed, the CBO-projected shortfall for Social Security is only 0.4% of GDP, less than the 0.6% Bush's tax cuts will cost for the richest 1% of taxpayers alone.

In fact, when Reagan and Greenspan did their voodoo back in the 1980s, they designed a system that would place the burden on low- and moderate-income workers in the short term, and on higher-wage workers in the long term. Bush's tax cuts created a situation where the upper class reneges on their part of the bargain:

The federal budget surplus President Bush inherited came entirely from Social Security surpluses resulting from the 1984 payroll tax increase. Bush gave away revenues meant to provide for workers' retirement as tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% of the population.

So, again, Paske makes a mostly reasonable case that Social Security doesn't need to be destroyed in order to save it. But by buying into the myth that Social Security won't be there for him--and by passing up the simplest possible solution to the problem--he misses an opportunity both to get a piece of truth out there and draw attention to the real culprit in all this mess. Instead, he merely reinforces the myths. That's a big flub in my book.