lowercase thought.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Cowards on Parade
When I noticed that Norm Ornstein (from that noted bastion of right-think The American Enterprise Institute who brought you the musings of compulsive gambler William Bennett) wrote this piece, I nodded knowingly. Ornstein has been working on his terror scare-tactics for quite some time. In fact, BEFORE September 11th he was working on a "presidential succession" project at AEI in order to better protect the "will of the people" (read: make sure a Bushie kept control incase someone offed the guy).
FUD is indeed the operative word today. Did anyone notice that the sonofabitchin' coward wouldn't even get out of his car to face the public until the last block where the people allowed in those stands had to pay $200 a pop? Not surprisingly, there were none of the signs in that crowd that had lined the route earlier like, "Four More Wars" and "ImpeachBush.org". Sure, he can hide behind the guise of "security" all he wants, but the entire 5-block area surrounding PA Ave. was on lock-down in a fashion never seen before. Also, did you see the convoy of black Suburbans and Secret Service? As one of my co-worker's noted, "Jesus, what does this say about American society when the guy is that isolated from the masses?"
The fact is, Bush has always been isolated from any criticism, and that's what burns us (his detractors) up more than anything. If you're going to be "bold" with your agenda, at least have the balls to answer questions at regular press conferences rather than three-hour love-fests with Bill O'Reilly and The Washington Times.
Bush the 41st, for all his misgivings, was still a decent President who would answer the tough questions without hesitating and with minimal ducking. There's also something to be said for his ability to go to war with a true international coalition and with an actual exit strategy, but we'll leave that aside for now.
On to the discussion of the $50+ million pricetag for the inauguration. Many folks have said that it's just sour grapes on the part of Democrats and the "liberal media" for even bringing it up. Let's look at the numbers, shall we? Bush the 41st's inauguration cost $30 million. Clinton's inauguration in 1993 cost $33 million. Bush's 2001 inauguration cost $40 million. So while we're asking kids to scrounge up fitty cent to donate to their school's tsunami-relief collection, the nation's elite are dropping fitty dime on celebrating their benefactor's re-election.
The most troubling is the more than $2.7 million donated as of Friday by the energy industry--the very same group who is benefitting most from Bush's War on Iraq. Needless to say, United Technologies gave their $250K.
FUD is indeed the operative word today. Did anyone notice that the sonofabitchin' coward wouldn't even get out of his car to face the public until the last block where the people allowed in those stands had to pay $200 a pop? Not surprisingly, there were none of the signs in that crowd that had lined the route earlier like, "Four More Wars" and "ImpeachBush.org". Sure, he can hide behind the guise of "security" all he wants, but the entire 5-block area surrounding PA Ave. was on lock-down in a fashion never seen before. Also, did you see the convoy of black Suburbans and Secret Service? As one of my co-worker's noted, "Jesus, what does this say about American society when the guy is that isolated from the masses?"The fact is, Bush has always been isolated from any criticism, and that's what burns us (his detractors) up more than anything. If you're going to be "bold" with your agenda, at least have the balls to answer questions at regular press conferences rather than three-hour love-fests with Bill O'Reilly and The Washington Times.
Bush the 41st, for all his misgivings, was still a decent President who would answer the tough questions without hesitating and with minimal ducking. There's also something to be said for his ability to go to war with a true international coalition and with an actual exit strategy, but we'll leave that aside for now.
On to the discussion of the $50+ million pricetag for the inauguration. Many folks have said that it's just sour grapes on the part of Democrats and the "liberal media" for even bringing it up. Let's look at the numbers, shall we? Bush the 41st's inauguration cost $30 million. Clinton's inauguration in 1993 cost $33 million. Bush's 2001 inauguration cost $40 million. So while we're asking kids to scrounge up fitty cent to donate to their school's tsunami-relief collection, the nation's elite are dropping fitty dime on celebrating their benefactor's re-election.
The most troubling is the more than $2.7 million donated as of Friday by the energy industry--the very same group who is benefitting most from Bush's War on Iraq. Needless to say, United Technologies gave their $250K.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Take a hint from Nike: Just Do It.
Recently I've been speaking/meeting with a small group of young Maryland Democratic activists and professionals with political backgrounds. The overlying theme of what we're interested in is focusing the Democratic party on those areas where the Republican Party has made inroads in the past 10 years and turning them around by creating a Democratic "farm-team" of leaders on the grassroots and local-elected levels. We're also taking a long look at the unified message that Democrats need to form.
These "purple counties" are the front lines of the political battle and can be won if the Party focuses on those values that Rural America shares with Urban America. I like to identify these with the buzzwords Opportunity, Security, and Responsibility.
Opportunity refects the belief among Democrats that we should strive to provide all Americans with the ability to pursue success through adequate education and eradicating discrimination on gender or race.
Security speaks not only to the post-9.11 need for adequate Homeland Security funding, but also a common-sense foreign policy approach. Security also emcompasses our vision of long-term economic strength versus the current Republican approach of short-term gains while mortgaging the future.
Responsibility is the obligation we have to our citizens in need of adequate healthcare, affordable housing, military/veterans benefits, unemployment assistance, Social Security and other areas.
It'd be hard to find to find a rural voter, Democrat or Republican, who disagrees with these beliefs. It's up to all of us to reshape the Democratic Party in this light.
These "purple counties" are the front lines of the political battle and can be won if the Party focuses on those values that Rural America shares with Urban America. I like to identify these with the buzzwords Opportunity, Security, and Responsibility.Opportunity refects the belief among Democrats that we should strive to provide all Americans with the ability to pursue success through adequate education and eradicating discrimination on gender or race.
Security speaks not only to the post-9.11 need for adequate Homeland Security funding, but also a common-sense foreign policy approach. Security also emcompasses our vision of long-term economic strength versus the current Republican approach of short-term gains while mortgaging the future.
Responsibility is the obligation we have to our citizens in need of adequate healthcare, affordable housing, military/veterans benefits, unemployment assistance, Social Security and other areas.
It'd be hard to find to find a rural voter, Democrat or Republican, who disagrees with these beliefs. It's up to all of us to reshape the Democratic Party in this light.
Why do we lose? Because the losers keep leading.
There's an interesting article by Amy Sullivan in this month's Washington Monthly titled, "Fire the Consultants". I'd recommend everyone who is still shaking their heads about the past election cycle read it.
Those of you who know me well enough know that I regularly rant and rave about the need to change the party's leadership and focus.
Well, Amy's hit the proverbial nail on the head--we lose because we keep putting losers in charge. The case studies of Joe Hansen and especially seven-time loser Bob Shrum point to the fact that the Democratic Party can't shake it's "consultocracy".
Seems like our candidates are hooked on a nicotine-laced consultant habit that they just can't shake. The way to start is by making a statement with our race for a new DNC Chair. I've supported Donnie Fowler, Jr. for some time now, and I continue to do so. While I'm well aware that he's a bit of a long-shot for the post, the ideas he puts forth in this area are shared by many of us in the trenches. Regardless of who wins, these issues need to be discussed by the DNC on a broad basis.
It's time to win. Let's kick the habit.
Those of you who know me well enough know that I regularly rant and rave about the need to change the party's leadership and focus.
Well, Amy's hit the proverbial nail on the head--we lose because we keep putting losers in charge. The case studies of Joe Hansen and especially seven-time loser Bob Shrum point to the fact that the Democratic Party can't shake it's "consultocracy".
Seems like our candidates are hooked on a nicotine-laced consultant habit that they just can't shake. The way to start is by making a statement with our race for a new DNC Chair. I've supported Donnie Fowler, Jr. for some time now, and I continue to do so. While I'm well aware that he's a bit of a long-shot for the post, the ideas he puts forth in this area are shared by many of us in the trenches. Regardless of who wins, these issues need to be discussed by the DNC on a broad basis.
It's time to win. Let's kick the habit.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Blame the lawyers? Blame the Bush Economy.
In the midst of this malpractice insurance crisis, I've noticed what has become the conservative credo over the past year or so:
Blame the lawyers.
High HMO premiums? High malpractice premiums for docs? Blame the lawyers suing on behalf of patients who have been the victim of medical malpractice.
High drug costs? Blame the laywers for suing on behalf of class-action plaintiffs who have taken these drugs under the assumption that due diligence was done by the companies and FDA to ensure their safety.
Ted Olsen is on Hardball right now blaming the lawyers at the Justice Dept. for the memo in August 2002 suggesting that various "inhumane" torture methods would be fine when used on detainees who were accused of serious terrorist actions. According to the former Bush Administration Solicitor General, Gonzales is the victim of subordinates who gave bad legal advice which was then passed on to the President. When asked whether Gonzales is simply a "messenger boy" who does nothing but pass on others' opinions as his counsel to the President, Olsen ducks the question.
On the malpractice insurance front, we've got a fight on our hands right now in Maryland where the Governor is blaming lawyers and juries for the 30%+ increase in Med Chi malpractice insurance. He's vetoed the overwhelmingly passed bill from the legislature because it erases the 30-year exemption for HMOs from the state 2% insurance premium tax.
Instead of defending trial lawyers, here's a new tactic for Democrats: Blame the Bush Economy.
The reason HMO premiums have gone up is that insurance companies bought into the BS line from our administration that the economy had "turned the corner". MedChi's Exec. Dir. Michael Preston stated in his testimony last week that the stock market's flatness over the past year has nothing to do with the increase in rates since the majority of their investments are in bonds, including T-bills. However, the Fed's need to lower interest rates dramatically has pushed the yield on these bonds down slightly, although not much more significantly than the rate of decline during the Clinton years. The difference is that during the Clinton years, insurance companies were not forced to go with low-yield bonds as the basis of their portfolios, ans subsequently they saw regular double-digit returns. Now, the best MedChi can hope for is the meager 4.5% yield on T-bills. That has to be taken into account.
Furthermore, let's take a look at states that have passed the kind of restrictions on malpractice claims that the insurers are pushing for. California has, since the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act 1975, had significant caps on medical malpractice claims. However, those caps have had almost no effect whatsoever on malpractice insurance rates.
Blame it on the Bush economy. Blame it on the Bush economy over and over and over again until it reminds you of the repetitiveness of the phrase "flip-flop" during the recent election.
Blame the lawyers.
High HMO premiums? High malpractice premiums for docs? Blame the lawyers suing on behalf of patients who have been the victim of medical malpractice.
High drug costs? Blame the laywers for suing on behalf of class-action plaintiffs who have taken these drugs under the assumption that due diligence was done by the companies and FDA to ensure their safety.
Ted Olsen is on Hardball right now blaming the lawyers at the Justice Dept. for the memo in August 2002 suggesting that various "inhumane" torture methods would be fine when used on detainees who were accused of serious terrorist actions. According to the former Bush Administration Solicitor General, Gonzales is the victim of subordinates who gave bad legal advice which was then passed on to the President. When asked whether Gonzales is simply a "messenger boy" who does nothing but pass on others' opinions as his counsel to the President, Olsen ducks the question.
On the malpractice insurance front, we've got a fight on our hands right now in Maryland where the Governor is blaming lawyers and juries for the 30%+ increase in Med Chi malpractice insurance. He's vetoed the overwhelmingly passed bill from the legislature because it erases the 30-year exemption for HMOs from the state 2% insurance premium tax.
Instead of defending trial lawyers, here's a new tactic for Democrats: Blame the Bush Economy.
The reason HMO premiums have gone up is that insurance companies bought into the BS line from our administration that the economy had "turned the corner". MedChi's Exec. Dir. Michael Preston stated in his testimony last week that the stock market's flatness over the past year has nothing to do with the increase in rates since the majority of their investments are in bonds, including T-bills. However, the Fed's need to lower interest rates dramatically has pushed the yield on these bonds down slightly, although not much more significantly than the rate of decline during the Clinton years. The difference is that during the Clinton years, insurance companies were not forced to go with low-yield bonds as the basis of their portfolios, ans subsequently they saw regular double-digit returns. Now, the best MedChi can hope for is the meager 4.5% yield on T-bills. That has to be taken into account.
Furthermore, let's take a look at states that have passed the kind of restrictions on malpractice claims that the insurers are pushing for. California has, since the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act 1975, had significant caps on medical malpractice claims. However, those caps have had almost no effect whatsoever on malpractice insurance rates.
Blame it on the Bush economy. Blame it on the Bush economy over and over and over again until it reminds you of the repetitiveness of the phrase "flip-flop" during the recent election.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
"Stop Snitching" in Iraq?
Newsday's photog embed Moises Saman reported this today:
Yesterday's morning patrol of eastern Mosul yielded one find: A man carrying a CD titled "Mujahadeen in Fallujah" with images of someone beheading an Egyptian man and insurgents firing mortars at Americans.
It seems that Carmelo Anthony and his boys here in Baltimore have started something.
Yesterday's morning patrol of eastern Mosul yielded one find: A man carrying a CD titled "Mujahadeen in Fallujah" with images of someone beheading an Egyptian man and insurgents firing mortars at Americans.
It seems that Carmelo Anthony and his boys here in Baltimore have started something.