i'll take the accolades too

There is really no way to describe the Republican reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize other than abject insanity. Granted, given the fact that Obama has been in office for a mere 9 months, the choice was certainly political (and does make one wonder whether the Committee either has absolutely no comprehension of American politics or harbors a wish for Obama's demise). Regardless, I had no idea what an overwhelming threat international approval posed for the United States.

In typical fashion, Limbaugh goes after Obama, "the Nobel people" and the rest of the world by boiling the entire process down to its core: it is an attempt to, essentially, cut off the United States' balls. He accused Obama of "basically emasculating this country" and the Nobel committee of attempting "to neuter the United States of America. They've done it by rewarding the pacifist." (No, not that! That might be even worse than l-word!) He also, in a shout-out to the Birther movement, referred to Obama as "the second Kenyan to win." Glenn Beck on the other hand took the opportunity to bizarrely suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize "should be given to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project." My favorite Republican response, however, may have to be that of Senator Inhofe who said:

This just reemphasizes how this president has moved the United States from a foreign policy of strong national defense to one based on multinational cooperation. That is the kind of change that the Nobel committee believes in.

The Nobel committee believes in a foreign policy based on multinational cooperation?? It does not get much worse than that, folks.

In the midst of this absurdity, however, hats off to PJ Crawley of the State Department for summing up an appropriate response to the Republican charges:

Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.

words words words

Yesterday at a fundraiser for the Human Rights Campaign, Obama renewed his pledge to put an end to the absurdity of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The program has recently come under attack from an unusual source--an airforce colonel, Om Prakash, whose article citing the law's negative impact and urging its imminent repeal won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay contest. Although this earlier turn of events might indicate an legitimate shift in the military's attitude toward homosexuals serving openly in the military, Obama's restatement of his commitment to ending the policy--which failed to present a timetable for doing so--appears to be more of the same. Liberals (or progressives, as the Democrats like to call us when they deign to associate with our ilk) have been disappointed time and time again by Obama's reluctance to push certain issues--gay and lesbian rights, the public option--combined with his apparent about-face on others (see bill, "media shield").

In some ways, of course, this is just good politics--who else will the lefty likes of MoveOn.org vote for? But, on the other hand, Obama got elected not only by appealing to moderates, but in large part by sparking the passions of people (largely of liberal bent) who labored tirelessly to convince the rest of the country that voting for black man who shares a Muslim middle name with a recently executed enemy of the United States wasn't such a bad idea after all. The longer Obama stalls on increasingly uncontroversial issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the more he risks alienating those supporters. Of course, they'll still cast their vote for him in 2012, but they won't campaign doggedly for him--and, as a leader who is (through little fault of his own) presiding over the worst recession in a generation, that's not a chance he should be too eager to take.

death to the public?

Amidst the rejection of not one but two public option proposals by the Senate Finance Committee, the viability of any public option plan appears increasingly dim. Adding insult to injury, these two proposals failed to pass despite the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans on the Committee 13 to 10. if the Republicans are the Party of No then the Democrats appear increasingly the Party of Maybe, Maybe Not. Although Chuck Schumer, the author of one of the flouted proposals, vowed to fight on, it's hard to believe that any plan that includes a public option will pass as long as Democrats remain unable to keep their party in line. Barack Obama, who was never as devout a proponent of the public option as his bygone rivals for the democratic nomination, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, has failed to insist on a public plan. Even if the president changed course now, it's unclear whether it would make much of a difference. now that much of his political capital appears to be squandered (at least for the moment), aligning with a progressive president might not be an appealing option for those wavering blue dog Democrats concerned with their prospects of reelection in largely conservative states.

It's hard to find a silver lining in the current health care debacle. At least the Democrats of the Senate Finance Committee stuck (closer) to their guns on the subject of abortion, rejecting a proposal by Republican Orren G. Hatch of Utah that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to cover “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.” Yes, that's right, Hatch doesn't want to merely prevent federal money given in subsidies from going towards abortions themselves, but from going towards any health care plan that deigns to include coverage for those procedures. Although this is a significant victory for women, it's hard to take much solace in it as it concerns the rest of the health care debate. After all, a party's ability to reject proposals has rarely translated into any ability to pass one.

better than nothing?

This appears to be the new philosophy of Democrats vis-a-vis the health care debate in the wake of Ted Kennedy's death. Instead of rallying around the ultimate champion of health care (as many hoped initially hoped), the White House, at least, appears determined to continue its strategy of seeking increasingly unacceptable compromises with the Republicans. Just when the absurd idea of having a "public option" run by a health insurance co-operative (yes! let's have a non-profit reporting to the government on healthcare--what a brilliant way to cut bureaucracy!) seems to have momentarily blown over, the Obama administration is now investigating the possibility of transforming the public option into a "backup" plan.

Under this version of the plan, the public option would only be offered in states where fewer than 95% of residents had access to "affordable healthcare." Although Congress would set barometers as to what qualifies as "affordable" on a sliding income scale, there is no indication that the government would determine what services need be covered in these affordable healthcare plans. Without a public option that would cover some minimum level of benefits, health insurance companies can easily come up with relatively cheap (read: the maximum amount allowed by Congress's sliding scale of affordability) policies that provide the most meager amount of coverage. Instead of being a legitimate insurance program that would increase competition and bring down costs, the public option would just become another loophole that insurance companies could work their way around.

Furthermore, by only allowing a public plan in states where fewer than 95% of residents have access to affordable healthcare, the plan defeats one of the primary purposes of universal healthcare: namely, that it is, in fact, universal. Although the bills in Congress would provide tax subsidies and other incentives for people to purchase coverage, there is no guarantee that affordable healthcare plans would be available. So, in the end, we're left with a system that will charge people who are not on approved health plans, but refuses to guarantee that affordable coverage will exist.

Will this plan be better than the current system? Perhaps. But, unlike the arguments made by Obama's remaining supporters on the left, that is not enough. The Democrats have the opportunity to truly reinvent how healthcare in this country works, not just to throw on a few Band-aids that leave the current system more or less intact. What the Democrats will eventually regret is allowing this opportunity to provide true, affordable, universal healthcare to slip through their fingers. Furthermore, no matter how much the Dems bend over backwards to accommodate the GOP and the more conservative members of their own party, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Republicans will ever accept any reform. The more the Democrats have been willing to compromise, the more the Republicans have dragged the debate farther to the right. Days after the ill-advised health-care coop plan began to gain traction, GOP leaders in Congress summarily rejected the idea (Jo Kyl, the Senate's number two Republican, dismissed it as "a government plan by another name.")

The Republicans are too afraid of any sort of public option to ever agree to a plan that allows one in any capacity. And for good reason: a government healthcare plan would significantly increase competition for private insurance companies. It would essentially force them to lower prices and improve care or drop out of the business (you know, the way capitalism is supposed to work). It seems that the big, inefficient government is just better at providing healthcare than the private sector: people on Medicare are significantly more satisfied with their coverage than people on employer-based insurance plans. Private insurance is not a solution to our health care problem, it is the problem.

get the u.s. out of my... foreskin?

The amazing thing about the health care debate in this country is that just when you think it couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous (see death panels, Sarah Palin), it does. Evidently, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control is considering whether to encourage universal circumcision of baby boys born in the United States. Now, on the surface, this seems like a fairly reasonable proposal to consider. After all, numerous studies have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV during heterosexual intercourse by as much as 60%. The World Health Organization already recommends that male circumcision be considered as a way to reduce AIDS transmission in parts of Africa.

But--as potential benign as a public health campaign to encourage infant circumcision may seem--it is actually, according to right wing anti-health care crusaders like Rush Limbaugh, the government's attempt to institute a circumcision mandate. Limbaugh went on to warn that: "If we need to save our penises from anyone, it's Obama." So, there you have it: universal health care is really part of Obama's secret mission to wage war against American male genitalia (for that matter, this whole circumcision thing probably has to do with the fact that he's a Muslim).

And if that isn't enough to convince you that Obamacare is an Islamofascist communist scheme, the Republican party wants you to know that you may well not even be covered by this government run "health care rationing system.". That is, if you're a registered Republican. A recent RNC fund-raising survey included the following question:

It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibly concern you?

That's right, now the Democrats can pull the plug on Grandma not only if she's deemed an unproductive member of society but also if she voted Bush into office.

the end of an era

When Edward Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer this morning, it marked the first time in nearly 60 years that there hasn't been a Kennedy in the Senate. Ted Kennedy, as the only Kennedy brother to live past the age of 46 and, perhaps, fulfill at least some of that enigmatic dynasty's furious potential, leaves an undeniable mark on this country. He was, in many ways, the perfect liberal. Hailing from the bluest state in the Union and the most storied political family in American history, reelection was never much of a concern (his smallest margin of victory came in 1994 when he defeated Mitt Romney by a mere 58% to 41%). Tainted by the infamous Chappaquiddick incident and an ill-advised presidential primary bid in 1980, Kennedy fully abandoned any aspirations for national office. Instead, he devoted himself to progressive causes in the Senate, from raising the minimum wage to expanding federal health insurance for children to opposing the war in Iraq. He was an unabashed liberal at a time when Republicans were successfully transforming the concept into a dirty word. He carried out his battles to the bitter end, continuing to serve the people of Massachusetts and the United States as he always had: just last week, he asked the Massachusetts state legislature to change the law concerning Senator succession to allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary replacement upon his death. Ted Kennedy was a deeply flawed man (as evidenced by what can only be generously referred to as youthful indiscretions), but he was a brilliant politician who managed to transform himself into one of the greatest and most influential Senators in American history.

At a time when the congressional Democrats (and even erstwhile champion of the progressive cause, President Obama) seem desperate to back away from anything that smacks of the slightest hint of "socialism" while destroying the best chance for health care reform in the process, it is important to recall what can and has been achieved by a single American legislator. No one can replace Ted Kennedy, but perhaps, in the wake up of his death, some Democrats in congress will be inspired by his example and attempt to carry on his mantle of liberal lion.

about those terror alerts...

Remember those terror alerts under the Bush administration? You know, that delightful color-coded warning system whose meaning seemed to run something along the lines of: "FYI: there may be an increased chance of some heinous attack somewhere in the US at some point. There's nothing you can do to protect yourself (and we're certainly not going to give you any useful details about the threat), but we think you should go about your day with a little more fear in your heart."

Evidently, this scientific approach to fear-mongering was, in fact, politically motivated (who would've thunk? well, you know, other than the busloads of liberal journalists who have been decrying the system for years). In his new book, Tom Ridge, former homeland security secretary, admits that Rumsfeld pressured him to raise the terror alert on the eve of the 2004 election in an effort to improve W.'s reelection chances. Tom Ridge (to his credit?) quit three weeks later because he "wanted to spend more time with his family." On the flip side, of course, Ridge had been vehemently denying that politics played any role in the system up until now (which, out of sheer coincidence, happens to be two weeks before the release of his book "The Test of Our Times"). So, as often happens with the secrecy-shrouded Bush administration, it remains difficult to determine exactly who is lying about what when.