Media revive Clinton-era smear, dub White House health care plan "ObamaCare"
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, June 18, 2009
ABC Obama health care special brings out Fox News' hypocrisy
| |||||||
| |||||||
| You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America. | |||||||
Conservative media still promoting Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories
| |
| |
| You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America. | |
Omega 3 Fatty Acids Slow Age-Related Macular Degeneration from FuturePundit
Protect your eyes from AMD with adjustments to your diet.
BOSTON (June 18, 2009) - Omega-3 fatty acids found in fatty fish such as tuna and salmon may protect against progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but the benefits appear to depend on the stage of disease and whether certain supplements are taken, report researchers at the Laboratory for Nutrition and Vision Research (LNVR), Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging (HNRCA) at Tufts University.
The researchers calculated intakes of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) from dietary questionnaires administered to 2,924 men and women, aged 55 to 80 years, participating in an eight-year supplement trial, the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) of the National Eye Institute (NEI). The AREDS trial results suggest taking supplements of antioxidants plus zinc prevents progression of late-stage AMD. AREDS study participants were randomly allocated to receive either a placebo or supplements containing the antioxidants vitamins C and E and beta carotene, the minerals zinc and copper, or a combination of both.
"In our study, we observed participants with early stages of AMD in the placebo group benefited from higher intake of DHA, but it appears that the high-dose supplements of the antioxidants and/or the minerals somehow interfered with the benefits of DHA against early AMD progression," says senior author Allen Taylor, PhD, director of the LNVR at the USDA HNRCA. Taylor is also a professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts and Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM).
The supplements interfere with the protective effects of DHA and EPA at the early stages of AMD progression, not in the later stages.
The antioxidant supplements did not seem to interfere with the protective effects of DHA and EPA against progression to advanced stages of AMD. Participants who consumed higher amounts of DHA and EPA appeared to have lower risk of progression to both wet and dry forms of advanced AMD. The results are published on-line ahead of print in the British Journal of Ophthalmology.
A low glycemic index diet (basically sugars in forms that are slow to break down and be absorbed) provides additional protective effect.
"Data from the present study also shows the supplements and omega-3 fatty acids collaborate with low-dietary glycemic index (dGI) diets against progression to advanced AMD," says corresponding author Chung-Jung Chiu, DDS, PhD, a scientist in the LNVR and an assistant professor at TUSM. "Our previous research suggests a low-GI diet may prevent AMD from progressing to the advanced stage. We hypothesize that the rapid rise of blood glucose initiated by high-GI foods results in cellular damage that retinal cells cannot handle, thus damaging eye tissues."
Take home lesson: get more omega 3 fatty acids in your diet. Also, learn how to eat a low glycemic index diet. Also, the benefits of antioxidant vitamins are overrated.
By Randall Parker at 2009 June 18 07:54 AM Aging Diet Eye StudiesDrug Makers Cash In On Lobbying Efforts (Part of the "Diagnosis: Reform" series) from Capital Eye
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/drug-makers-cash-in-on-lobbyin.html
Total to current members of Congress since 1989: $57.7 million (51 percent to Republicans)Total lobbying expenditures since 1998: $1.6 billion
Pharmaceutical and health product companies, like the insurance industry, strongly oppose any proposal to create a public health insurance option, fearful that private insurers would be marginalized and government price controls would limit what the industry can charge for its products. And with drug companies as the No. 1 all-time spender on lobbying, at $1.6 billion since 1998, Congress is bound to at least entertain their concerns.
As an alternative to the public plan, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry want to see Medicaid, which provides insurance to poor families, expanded to cover more low-income workers. This would mean more people could afford drugs and medical devices, increasing the industry's target market. Similarly, the industry supports the mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance, boosting the industry's customer base by millions.
Lobbying by the Pharmaceutical Industry
The National Community Pharmacists Association has launched a grassroots lobbying campaign, according to the Hill newspaper, that advocates for pharmacists having a greater role in determining the best drugs to treat patients. The NCPA, which spent $210,000 on lobbying in the 1st Quarter of the year, is also up against pharmacy benefit managers, who process and pay prescription drug claims. The benefit managers implement a "byzantine, secretive drug payment system" that should face congressional regulation, the NCPA told the Hill. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents America's pharmacy benefit managers, spent $306,500 on lobbying in the first three months of 2009.
Contributions from the Pharmaceutical Industry to Congress
Like most other industries in the health sector, pharmaceutical and health product companies increased their contributions to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle. During that period, the industry split its contributions exactly evenly between the two parties for the first time ever. The largest chunk of the total haul that Democrats ever collected was 46 percent--nearly 20 years ago. In the first three months of this year, the industry gave $2.2 million to candidates and party committees. The most it ever donated was $29.7 million in the 2002 election cycle. The last cycle proved close, however, at $29.1 million.
Download a list of contributions from drug makers to current members of Congress (including to their campaign committees and leadership PACs) since 1989: Pharma_Contribs.xls
(Note: If you do use this data, please be sure to credit CRP.)
How To Protect Susceptible Relatives From Scams [Scams] from Consumerist
http://consumerist.com/5295329/how-to-protect-susceptible-relatives-from-scams
The Wall Street Journal ran an article yesterday about how to identify and protect loved ones from con artists. One of the problems with being an easy mark—say, because of reduced mental capacity or increasing isolation—is that you get put on a list and passed around to other scammers, says Karen Blumenthal, the author of the piece and a relative of one of these perpetually easy marks.
Her relative, a recent widower, started off by sending checks for $30 or less for fake lotteries and sweepstakes. Eventually he fell for a $4k check fraud scam, and then later sold his car and wired that money to another scammer.
For months, family members wrestled with what to do. When confronted, our relative would acknowledge he had been ripped off and promise it would end — but then he would succumb again, a pattern experts say is common.
The debate ended this spring when our relative, unable to cash out his life-insurance policy, was conned into selling his car and wiring $4,000 to Costa Rica. In May, with his three children and a stepson present, he acknowledged to a judge that he had been financially scammed. The judge granted guardianship to two of his children, taking away his right to manage his own affairs.
The family went to lunch with him, then dismantled his cellphone and redirected his mail to another state. A few hours later, he demanded his phone back. He wanted to call some "friends" who had some money waiting for him.
One thing that becomes clear from her relative's behavior, as well as from this New Yorker profile on a psychotherapist who fell for scams repeatedly, is that regardless of mental capacity, some people seem far more likely to fall for the same cons over and over no matter how rationally you explain the techniques to them. The WSJ has a sidebar that provides some tips on how to help protect these high-risk people, including:
- Provide a printed script to use with telemarketers and leave it by the phone;
- re-route all mail to a post office box and go through it with the recipient;
- change the victim's phone number;
- find other activities to fill up the victim's time so s/he doesn't feel as compelled to engage with friendly scammers (they'll spend countless hours grooming the mark to think of them as friends).
They also point out that AARP has a toll-free number you can call— 1-800-646-2283 —to report fraudulent activity, as well as a special website called AARP Fraudfighters.
"A Family's Fight to Save an Elder From Scammers" [WSJ] (Thanks to Joanne!)Obama Reform Plan Fails to Fix Whats Broken from The Big Picture
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/obama-reform-plan-fails-to-fix-whats-broken/
So much for "not letting a crisis go to waste."
The initial read on the Obama Regulatory plan was an enormous disappointment. Both supporters and critics who expected him to take a hard turn to the Left have been left either surprised or disappointed, depending upon their leanings.
To the pragmatic center, including your humble blogger, what stands out is the number of half measures and omitted actions that were viewed as necessary to prevent a replay.
Some very obvious omissions from the plan include:
1) No major changes for the ratings agencies!
This is a giant WTF from the White House. It implies that the team in charge STILL does not understand how the problem occurred.
The ratings agencies are not the only bad actors, but they are a BUTFOR – but for the rating agencies putting a triple A on junk paper, many many funds could not have purchased them, the number of mortgages securitized would have been much less, the insatiable demand on Wall Street for mortgage paper would have also been much lower.
Why is this important? If mortgages originators couldn't sell a mass amount of loans, they would not have had the need to give a mortgage to anyone who could fog a mirror — and that means no Liar Loans, no NINJA loans, and no huge subprime debacle.
Better Solution: Take apart the ratings oligopoly! Eliminate the Pay for Play/Payola structure. Strip Moody's S&P and Fitch from their uniquely protected status — they have proven they are neither worthy nor competent. Open up ratings to competition –including open source.
2) Turn Derivatives into Ordinary Financial Products: The Obama team does a series of minor steps for Derivatives, but they don't go far enough.
Better Solution: Force derivatives to be traded like option/stocks, etc. (including custom one off derivatives) Trade them only on Exchanges, full disclosure of counter-parties, transparency and disclosure of open interest, trades, etc. REQUIRE RESERVES LIKE ANY OTHER INSURANCE PRODUCT.
3) If they are too big to fail, make them smaller."
That is the famous quote from Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz, and it applies to the banks as well as insurers, Fannie & Freddie, etc.
We have a situation where 65% of the depository assets are held by a handful of huge banks - most of wom are less than stable. The remaining 35% is held by the nearly 7,000 small and regional banks that are stable, liquid, solvent and well run.
Better Solution: Have real competition in the banking secrtor. Limit the size fo the behemoths to 5% or even 2% of total US deposits. Break up the biggest banks (JPM, Citi, Bank of America)
4) The Federal Reserve, Despite its Role in Causing the Crisis, Gets MORE Authority:
Under Greenspan, the Fed did a terrible job of overseeing banking, maintaining lending standards, etc. Why they should be rewarded for this failure with more resposibility is hard to fathom. Yet another example of rewarding the incompetent.
Better Solution: Have the Fed set monetary policy. They should provide advise to someone else — like the FDIC — who haven't shown gross incompetence.
5) Require leverage to be dialed back to its pre-2004 levels. Have we even eliminated the Bears Stearns exemption yet? This was a 2004 SEC decision to exempt five biggest banks from the mere 12 to 1 prior levels. Note that all 5 are either gone, acquired or turned into holding companies.
Better Solution: 12-to-1 should be enough leverage for anyone . . .
6) Restore Glass Steagall: The repal of Glass Steagall wasn't the cause of the collapse, but it certainly comntributed to the crisis being much worse.
Better Solution: Time to (once again) separate the more speculative investment banks from the insured depository banks.
All of which suggests that the status quo preserving, sacred cow loving, upward failing duo of Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithner are still in control of economic policy. The more pragmatic David Axelrod and the take-no-prisoners, don't-give-a-shit-about-Wall Street Rahm Emmanuel have yet to assert authority over the finance sector.
Construction Begins on Spaceport America from Popular Science -
Paralyzed vet denied free park entrance from Raw Story Breaking News
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/06/family_angry_when_paralyzed_ma.html
Joshua Hoffman and his fiancee, Heather Lovell, attend the Memorial Day parade in Middleville.Quadriplegic former Marine Joshua Hoffman waited in a van at Michigan's Adventure, hoping to see fiancee Heather Lovell in the park for an hour or two. Her father, Rockford resident Joel Lovell, explained to park staff that Hoffman is paralyzed and cannot talk. He assumed Hoffman would be admitted free.
But Lovell was told he would have to pay admission for Hoffman and the nurse tending to his medical needs. No exceptions.
"He went to Iraq for all of us and took a bullet in the neck. He sacrificed everything for his country," Joel Lovell said.
"I was just kind of stunned."
According to Heather Lovell, she and Hoffman planned to rendezvous from their home near Middleville on May 29 at the Muskegon County park, before heading to Reed City for the high school graduation of Hoffman's stepbrother.
Lovell had gone ahead to act as chaperone for a niece and others on a school outing. Joel Lovell picked up Hoffman and his nurse and headed for the park.
But Heather Lovell said she got a call from her father telling her to come to the park entrance.
"It was really just outrageous," she said. "He is not physically going on any rides. To me, this is very personal."
Hoffman, 27, was paralyzed from the chest down when he was hit by a sniper's bullet in Iraq in January 2007. He spent more than a year in a Virginia Veterans Administration hospital before coming home in March 2008.
He and Lovell, 22, share a specially equipped house with 24-hour nursing staff to assist Hoffman.
Camille Jourden-Mark, general manager of Michigan's Adventure, said park policy does not allow any non-participants in free.
"We just can't be in a position of picking and choosing. We have grandparents (who pay admission) that come in our park every day that have no intention of ever going on a ride.
"It's not based on the level of participation."
On Tuesday, Jourden-Mark offered complementary passes for Hoffman and a guest to Michigan's Adventure in response to the issue. Lovell said she has not decided whether she and Hoffman will use the passes.
"You want to be appreciative of it, but it took a lot of people complaining to them to realize what kind of mistake they had made," Lovell said. "We weren't looking for a free trip. It's just a problem with the policy."
Jourden-Mark said company policy is meant to shield employees from accusations of discrimination, but added "there are times when we make exceptions and this is definitely one of those times."
She noted the park offers one free admission with a paid admission for service members each Memorial Day. Jourden-Mark said park staff were unaware of Hoffman's condition.
"I don't think anybody was really aware that he was a veteran."
That's not what Joel Lovell, 54, recalled.
"I told (a park official) it is really a crummy policy. I explained that he is an Iraq veteran. He got shot in the neck and can't eat or talk. I thought they were joking."
Lovell said he initially was told he would have to pay the adult admission fee of $25 each for Hoffman and the nurse, then was offered a student discount.
Heather Lovell's sister, Belding resident Rebecca Lovell, said she contacted the park Friday to complain.
"I explained the extent of his injuries, that he was simply going for an hour or two.
"(A park official) said there was no proof of his injury. He could be faking it. She said if we let him come in for free, then we have to change our policy."
"I was absolutely blown away."
-- Press reporter Jacob Carpenter contributed to this story.
Strange Geographies: The Salton Sea from mental_floss Blog
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/26542
As someone with more than a passing interest in ghost towns, abandoned buildings and the apocalypse, the Salton Sea has long been high on my must-visit list. This week I finally had the chance to make the three-hour drive from LA, and my morbid curiosity was not disappointed.
The Salton Sea is the largest inland body of water in California, and easily its most toxic. Once a haven for tourists, fishermen and boaters — in the 1950s it was touted as "the American Riviera" — years of polluted runoff from agricultural and industrial sites, not to mention untold amounts of untreated sewage from Mexico, pumped into the sea via one of America's dirtiest waterways, the Northward-flowing New River, have turned the Salton into a truly foul place.
At one time the Salton Sea was among the state's most productive fisheries. (During WWII, when German submarines made ocean fishing dangerous, most of Southern California's fish were harvested in the Salton.) But steadily increasing levels of toxins, algae, salt and bacteria led to a number of massive die-offs — the largest, in 1999, killed 7.6 million fish — and its once-thriving population of migratory birds are sickened each year with selenium and botulism poisoning. The Sea is 25% saltier than the ocean and getting saltier every year, and despite some residents' claims that its tea-colored waters can "heal your skin," coming into contact with the Salton or eating anything that comes out of it are heartily discouraged.
In the 1960s, there were a half-dozen booming beach towns along the Sea's 80-mile coastline. That was before the days when dead fish littered the beaches — the "sand" along the water's edge nothing more than the crushed-and-rounded bones from millions of fish skeletons — and before the death-and-decay stench of the Salton in the 110-degree heat of summer became unbearable. Flooding in the 1970s buried beachfront structures in several feet of salted mud, hastening people's departure from the area. These days, the beachfront is a post-apocalyptic wasteland of houses, trailers and boarded-up beach clubs slowly sinking into the toxic mud.
Usually when I go to broken-down places like this, there are suspicious people lurking on the margins, wondering what I'm doing poking around with a camera. There was no one in these little towns — though some of the homes looked occupied, there was no one outside, no one walking the streets, and certainly no one on the beach. We saw more border patrol agents than anyone, as the southern end of the Sea is just a short drive from the Mexican border.
The graffiti on this house reads "The Hills Have Eyes." (Click on it, or any of these pictures, for a larger size.) Further reinforcing my feeling that this is not somewhere I'd want to hang around after dark.
Just outside the Salton-adjacent hamlet of Niland, there rises a strange, brightly-painted, man-made hill called Salvation Mountain. It's a pastel shock to the system after hours of brown and gray — an enormous adobe structure covered in 100,000 gallons of paint, all made by one man, Leonard Knight, over the course of 25 years. Salvation Mountain is an amazing place that deserves its own post — I'll do one soon — but suffice to say that it was the ultimate cap on a very surreal journey.
On the outskirts of Salvation Mountain: lacking a proper river for his boat, Leonard painted his own.
Other "Strange Geographies"
A little turnabout: Open Left's Adam Green ambushes Fox's Griff Jenkins and his ambush crew from Crooks and Liars
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/little-turnabout-open-lefts-adam-gre
Adam Green from Open Left spotted one of those Fox News ambush crew outside an ACORN gathering yesterday and decided to have a little fun with them on behalf of Amanda Terkel.
It was Griff Jenkins, there on behalf of Glenn Beck (who barely used Jenkins' stunt on his show, since it was not exactly a success), complete with a small red carpet he rolled out for ACORN officials. Mind you, it was Jesse Watters, not Jenkins, who perpetrated that outrageous stalking of Terkel, but then, the whole ambush-crew approach is such a journalistic travesty it doesn't matter.
Besides, we've seen Jenkins besiege a hapless history prof with bogus misrepresentations of his work, so it's not like he's an innocent in this. And who can forget Griff getting smacked down by Barney Frank?
Indeed, this whole ambush-journalism thing doesn't seem to be working out too well for Griff. He certainly wasn't prepared to deal with Green. Karmic payback and all that.
Arlen And Joe-- Thick As Thieves from DownWithTyranny!
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/06/arlen-and-joe-thick-as-thieves.html
Last night The Hill ran a strange little piece, Renegade Lieberman Works Well With Obama. It piqued my interest because the only stuff I've seen on Lieberman lately was how he had joined his GOP allies in urging Obama to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and then his attack on Obama's concept of health care reform. "Seven months after nearly becoming politically irrelevant, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is working closely with a president he actively campaigned against and is playing a leading role in moving major pieces of legislation through the upper chamber..." Blah, blah, blah and then 'Bottom line, yes, I'll continue to selectively support Republicans.' He supports Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) for reelection and strongly suggests he would have backed him regardless of what political party he belonged to."
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Like Lieberman, Specter also takes immense sums of money from special corporate interests with business before the Senate. Lieberman accepted $2,391,719 from the Medical-Industrial Complex and $1,036,302 from the Insurance Industry; Specter, took in $4,026,933 from the Medical-Industrial Complex and $1,035,530 from the Insurance Industry-- two of the worst hypocrites and biggest crooks to ever disgrace the U.S. Senate. Of course they support each other-- and of course they both oppose-- violently-- single payer health care reform or even the compromise position of a public option. And President Obama supports them both.
And if you wonder how bad of a "Democrat" Specter will be should Ed Rendell, Joe Biden and, sigh, Barack Obama manage to put him over on Democratic primary voters, look past even Joe Lieberman to two of the slimiest political operatives anywhere in the U.S., the Democratic ex-boss of Erie County Steve Pigeon and old pal (and wife swapper) Roger Stone. Why bother? Well, glad you asked.
Pigeon, the worst the Democratic Party has to offer, worked with tax evader Tom Golisano to flip the New York State Senate to the Republicans, axing the first African-American Senate leader in New York state history, the express reason for the fence jump by one of the two treacherous and degenerate Democrats who did the switcheroo. Pigeon is hosting a fund-raiser for Arlen Specter on June 30 in New York City. Roger Stone, a GOP sleazebag, who threw his own funder for Specter in February was in on the NY Senate coup with Golisano and Pigeon. Really revolting. What would you expect from Arlen Specter? Just that he'll show up with Joe Lieberman on one arm and Barack Obama on the other.
Markos has a screenshot of the actual invitation-- in case you want to show up and picket the anti-health care crowd. By the way, Menendez is privating claiming that no one asked him for permission to use his name. Markos also mentions how much more attractive Joe Sestak is looking everyday and points out that "it's not so surprising that snakes without values or convictions end up flocking together. And heck, with Specter, Pigeon knows he'd have a candidate who would switch parties again in a snuff if it came time to protect the prerogatives of his rich and powerful benefactors."
Sirius XM Squanders Opportunity With iPhone App from SiriusBuzz.com
http://siriusbuzz.com/sirius-xm-squanders-opportunity-with-iphone-app.php
The iPhone and iPod Touch application has finally made it to the market, but on a day where satellite radio fans and consumers should be celebrating, we instead see ire and confusion. Sirius XM's app seems cool, but it is missing one of the biggest draws that satellite radio has. The App does not include Howard Stern, and in my opinion, this mistake is huge. How can the "King of All Media" be on the sidelines here?
People are wondering why the absence of Stern. Some seem to think that there is a contractual issue, some think that the company may not have the rights to include Stern, some think Stern wanted more money, and others believe that the company is doing what it can to get additional dollars out of consumers.
In my opinion, there is nothing that should have held back the inclusion of Howard Stern. Stern's show is already available on the Internet feed, and in point of fact, the iPohone and certainly the iPod Touch are basically mini computers. As a consumer, I can buy an AT&T air card, plug it into my computer and stream my Sirius XM Internet subscription that includes Howard Stern. Why shouldn't I be able to do that on an iPhone or iPod Touch?
Sirius XM Radio has squandered a wonderful opportunity by excluding the very content that people are clamoring for. The iPhone and iPod Touch phenomenon is something that Sirius XM needed to embrace, and they needed to do it in a big way. Instead of a wonderful app that gave consumers value in their subscription, Sirius XM's new offering seems to fall short of being a "must have" app. Instead of people talking about all of the great things available on the app, people are focusing on what is not available. That creates a hurdle that makes garnering new subscriptions far more difficult than otherwise would have been the case.
The damage is now done, and it will be hard to recover from. There are already over 200 people who have rated the app with only one star. Overall the app is rated as a two star app. By contrast, Slacker, and Pandora enjoy near perfect consumer ratings on iTunes. People want to know why Howard is not available, and thus far there are no real answers being provided. Consumers may feel slighted because of the missing content, and investors are sure to be angry over this fiasco that they hoped would provide stability to the stock. In the end, as things look at the moment, no one wins.
Long term, the app may provide a boost to the company revenues, and even subscriber numbers, but these results will pale in comparison to what it could have been. It is sad to see such an opportunity squandered. It is sad to see the company make another move that gives the naysayers a stronger voice. Hopefully the company will provide more insight on this, and they will modify the service to include as much of their content as possible. What happens next is anyone guess.
Position - Long Sirius XM, No Position apple, No Position AT&T
Major Media Headlines Pretend That Latest Polls Show Obama’s Policies Are Unpopular from Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/headlines-make-up-poll-results/
Today, two new national polls were released, one by the New York Times and CBS, the other by the Wall Street Journal and NBC. News headlines quickly settled on a theme: The polls showed that President Obama's policies were suddenly unpopular:
"Sticker Shock — Obama still popular; his policies, not so much" [ABC's The Note]
"Polls find rising concern with Obama on key issues" [Reuters]
"Polls Show Declining Support For Obama Decisions" [U.S. News & World Report's Political Bulletin]
"Obama's popularity: Problems testing it" [Chicago Tribune's The Swamp]
"Is 'Smooth Sailing' Over for Obama?" [Washington Post]
The headlines have little to no relation to the actual data in the polls, both of which found broad approval for Obama's foreign policy and economic agendas. From the New York Times/CBS poll:
5. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy? 57% approve, 35% disapprove
8. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the threat of terrorism? 57% approve, 27% disapprove
16. So far, do you think Barack Obama's policies have made the economy better, made the economy worse or haven't his policies had any effect on the economy yet? 32% say better, 15% say worse
And from the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll:
4b. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy? 51% approve, 38% disapprove
4c. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job that Barack Obama is doing in handling foreign policy? 54% approve , 36% disapprove
9. Which ONE of the following statements best describes your feelings toward Barack Obama?
Like personally and approve most policies…………… 48%
Like personally but disapprove of many policies ……27%12. And how confident are you that Barack Obama has the right set of goals and policies to improve the economy––extremely confident, quite confident, only somewhat confident, or not at all confident?
Extremely confident………………………. 20%
Quite confident …………………………. 26%
Only somewhat confident ………………….. 24%
Not at all confident …………………….. 29%
Similarly, 68 percent agree with Obama's view that Guantanamo detainees should be charged with a crime or released back to their home countries, as opposed to only 24 percent who think they should be detained indefinitely. As Glenn Greenwald notes, "The view that detainees should be charged with crimes or released is often depicted as the fringe 'Far Left' view. Like so many views that are similarly depicted, it is — in reality — the overwhelming consensus view among Americans."
Perhaps the most bizarre headline came from USA Today's blog, The VAL: "Poll: Obama down, cousin Cheney up." The poll cited showed that 60 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Obama. By contrast, only 27 percent viewed Cheney favorably — while 30 percent viewed him "very negatively."
U.S. Confirms It Asked Twitter To Remain Open To Help Anti-Government Protesters In Iran from ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM
http://www.roguegovernment.com/index.php?news_id=16087
Source: London Guardian
The Obama administration, while insisting it is not meddling in Iran, yesterday confirmed it had asked Twitter to remain open to help anti-government protesters.
The company had planned a temporary shutdown to overhaul its service in the middle of the night on Monday but the US state department put in a request to postpone this.
Many protesters have being using Twitter to spread information about rallies and to share news.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, asked about this at a press conference yesterday, would neither confirm or deny it, saying only that a free press and a means of communication were important.
But the state department yesterday confirmed a request was made to Twitter.
The New York Times last night identified the author of the request as Jared Cohen, a 27-year-old state department official. Twitter complied with the request, delaying its overhaul until last night.
PJ Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs, told the New York Times: "This was just a call to say: 'It appears Twitter is playing an important role at a crucial time in Iran. Could you keep it going?'"
Obama has adopted a cautious approach to Iran, not wanting to be accused of interfering in its elections for fear of derailing hoped-for direct negotiations with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons programme.
Crowley said the request to Twitter did not diverge from Obama's policy. "We are proponents of freedom of expression. Information should be used as a way to promote freedom of expression."
Over 9,000 Vials Unaccounted For At Fort Dietrick Biolab from ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM
Source: Washington Post
An inventory of potentially deadly pathogens at Fort Detrick's infectious disease laboratory found more than 9,000 vials that had not been accounted for, Army officials said yesterday, raising concerns that officials wouldn't know whether dangerous toxins were missing.
After four months of searching about 335 freezers and refrigerators at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Frederick, investigators found 9,220 samples that hadn't been included in a database of about 66,000 items listed as of February, said Col. Mark Kortepeter, the institute's deputy commander.
The vials contained some dangerous pathogens, among them the Ebola virus, anthrax bacteria and botulinum toxin, and less lethal agents such as Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus and the bacterium that causes tularemia. Most of them, forgotten inside freezer drawers, hadn't been used in years or even decades. Officials said some serum samples from hemorrhagic fever patients dated to the Korean War.
Kortepeter likened the inventory to cleaning out the attic and said he knew of no plans for an investigation into how the vials had been left out of the database. "The vast majority of these samples were working stock that were accumulated over decades," he said, left there by scientists who had retired or left the institute.
"I can't say that nothing did [leave the lab], but I can say that we think it's extremely unlikely," Kortepeter said.
Still, the overstock and the previous inaccuracy of the database raised the possibility that someone could have taken a sample outside the lab with no way for officials to know something was missing.
"Nine thousand, two hundred undocumented samples is an extraordinarily serious breach," said Richard H. Ebright, a professor at Rutgers University who follows biosecurity. "A small number would be a concern; 9,200 . . . at an institution that has been the focus of intense scrutiny on this issue, that's deeply worrisome. Unacceptable."
The institute has been under pressure to tighten security in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17. FBI investigators say they think the anthrax strain used in the attacks originated at the Army lab, and its prime suspect, Bruce E. Ivins, researched anthrax there. Ivins committed suicide last year during an investigation into his activities.
Kortepeter noted that since 2001 the lab has imposed multiple layers of security to check people entering and leaving, that there are now cameras in the labs, and that employees are subjected to a reliability program and random inspections.
"The bottom line is, we have a lot of buffers to prevent anybody who shouldn't be getting into the laboratory," Kortepeter said.
Sam Edwin, the institute's inventory control officer, said most of the samples found were vials with tiny amounts of pathogens that would thaw quickly and die once they were taken out of a freezer, making smuggling something off the base difficult.
The probe began in February, when a problem accounting for Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus triggered the suspension of most research at the lab. A spot check in January found 20 samples of the virus in a box of vials instead of the 16 listed in the institute's database. Most work was stopped until the institute could take a thorough inventory of its stock of viruses and bacteria.
Edwin said about 50 percent of the samples that had been found were destroyed. The rest were added to the catalog. Because the lab will now conduct an inventory every year, "it's really less likely that we will be in a situation like this again," he said.
Procedures have changed, too. Scientists who have worked at the lab said that in the past, departing scientists turned over their logbooks to their successors, but records were sometimes incomplete or complex. As generations of scientists passed through, the knowledge of what was in the freezers was lost. With a comprehensive database, every sample is now tracked until it is destroyed or transferred.
But some scientists are skeptical. Unlike uranium or chemical weapons, pathogens are living materials that can replicate and die. A small amount can easily be turned into a large amount. They said the strict inventories slow their work without guaranteeing security.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
SPOILER ALERT: Here's The Winner of Top Chef Masters from MenuPages Blog
by Helen Rosner
http://blogs.menupages.com/chicago/2009/06/spoiler_alert_heres_the_winner.html
If you want to know who wins Top Chef Masters, YumSugar has spilled the beans (do not click if you don't want a major spoiler) — and we've checked in with a certain prominent Chicago restaurateur who confirmed it to be true.
If you want to know who wins, click through the jump. If you don't want to know, we admire your self-restraint.
Congratulations, Rick Bayless, winner of the 2009 season of Top Chef Masters! Tonight we will eat a tamale in your honor.
Update: We just spoke to Jennifer Fite, Bayless's publicist, who said "You want my comment? I think it's really lame that this is online. Nobody knows who the winner is. It's all for charity, it's for fun. I think it's a disservice to these chefs, a disservice to these charities. I think it's really lame that it's out there, and I think it's lame that you put it up there. It's lame for everybody. It's not nice to Rick's fans, it's not nice to anyone's fans. Why on earth would you put that up when the episode Rick's on hasn't even run? I would never want to ruin that for anyone."
When we asked her to confirm or deny Bayless's win, she hung up on us.
ACTION: Put an End to Backroom Health Care Deals from Open Left - Front Page
http://www.openleft.com/diary/13807/action-put-an-end-to-backroom-health-care-deals
So, what is going on with health care reform lately?
- Today, The Hill reports that Blue Dogs and Republicans are holding secret talks on health care reform:
The talks have been so secretive and politically sensitive that some members interviewed by The Hill refused to name other legislators involved in the bipartisan effort.
- Also today, former Democratic and Republican Senate majority leaders are coming out with plans to tax health care benefits, but with no public option.
- A few days ago, Senators like Mary Landrieu and some Blue Dogs in the House have backed off their public statements in support of a public option.
- Over the weekend, Kent Conrad is telling the world that there aren't enough votes for the public option. He claims that he was instructed to craft a compromise, non-public option plan by Senate leaders.
Pardon my sounding like an angry blogger for a moment, but what the frak is going on here?
For years, candidates for, and members of, Congress told us that we needed to elect and re-elect them in order to lower health care costs and provide universal coverage. And so, for years, we dutifully worked our collective asses off, delivering wide majorities for Democrats--who said they would lower health care costs and provide universal coverage--in both branches of Congress.
Now, when it comes time for them to deliver on health care by providing a public option--the care minimum required to reduce costs and provide universal coverage--what we are getting instead are backroom deals, flip-flops, and cop-outs.
Enough.
Today, along with Health Care for America Now, Democracy for America and numerous blogs, a campaign is being launched to put an end to the backroom deals on health care. We made and delivered on a commitment to bring about wide Democratic majorities in Congress. Now, instead of negotiating in secret, this Congress needs to make a public commitment to us on where it stands on health care.
No more dodges. No more vague, open-ended responses. We need every member of the Senate--main obstacle to reform--to answer four questions on the public option:
Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?
If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?
Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?
As activists and as constituents, answering these questions are the minimum they owe us. We are entitled to specific, clear, written responses to all of these questions.
Email--don't call, but email--these four questions to your Senators now. Make it clear that you want a written response to all four questions. There needs to be as little room for interpretation as possible. The Senate is going to be the biggest hurdle on health care, as it has proven to the biggest hurdle on all legislation in 2009. That is where we must focus our pressure.
When you receive a response, post it on this webpage. We are going to collect all of the responses to find out where every member of Congress, but especially the Democratic members, stand on the public option. It is only with this information that we can prevent backroom deals that will sell us out to insurance companies.
If they don't respond, we will keep emailing until they respond. If they dodge the questions and don't provide specifics, then we will keep emailing until they do. If we keep the pressure up, they are going to have to respond eventually.
Another Failed Republican Roll-Out from Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/17/743676/-Another-Failed-Republican-Roll-Out
House Republicans do it again:
House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.
Remember, it was less than three months ago, to much fanfare, that House Republicans rolled out the "Republican Road To Recovery," their alternative budget to counter President Obama's proposals ... the only thing missing from it was numbers, although it did come with really cool charts, like this:
One would think that after the days of mockery and ridicule that followed that fiasco, House Republicans would have learned their lesson. Obviously not.
Next up, House Republicans will offer plans to cure the common cold and end world hunger. They might even come with charts.
Health Insurers to Americans: Go Ahead And Die from Open Left - Front Page
http://www.openleft.com/diary/13809/health-insurers-to-americans-go-ahead-and-die
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHklw6PV3U
Even Republicans were appalled when "[e]xecutives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive."
This is exactly why we need a public option. A real one. A good one. A plan that's as good as our legislators get, and that would even let their chicken* behinds off the hook for negotiating partner benefits for same-sex couples, because everyone would have access to it.
We need good healthcare, not to be forced into buying a crappy product that kills people by denying them the coverage they've paid for as soon as they get sick enough that their care would bankrupt the typical US household.
Why is Congress protecting these evil bastiches? I'd guess it's because they're bad people who recognize and protect their own kind. But I could be wrong. What do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNuCfD5bICQ
Update: Chris says over 3,000 people have taken action to ask their Senators to say where they stand on a public option. Please join them.Frontline Examines The Bank Of America/ Merrill Lynch Merger from Consumerist
http://consumerist.com/5293904/frontline-examines-the-bank-of-america-merrill-lynch-merger
The merger between Merrill Lynch and Bank of America was sold to us as a marriage made in heaven that would save the financial system. It wasn't, and it didn't. Now Frontline takes a closer look at the now-infamous debacle that cost tax payers billions — and CEO Ken Lewis his chairmanship.
Things we already knew that were confirmed by Frontline:
- John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch, is a slippery mofo.
- Hearing Ken Lewis describe sh*tcanning John Thain is as fun as you think it will be.
- Hearing John Thain describe being sh*tcanned by Ken Lewis is equally fun.
- Bank of America was too eager to show Wall Street who was boss — and ended up stuck with Merrill.
- Merrill Lynch executives were more interested in their own compensation than pretty much anything else.
- Paulson thought the merger would stop the financial crisis and restore confidence to the markets even though Lehman Brothers went under. Paulson was not correct.
- Austan Goolsbee says funny things in interviews.
Career Clinic: Turn Your Career into a Bond Movie from Dealbreaker
from http://dealbreaker.com/2009/06/career-clinic-turn-your-career.php
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing" is a favorite quote of mine from Helen Keller, and it also explains why so many of us have a fascination with characters like James Bond. I have a theory that the reason so many of us love James Bond and other adventure movies is because our own lives and careers lack excitement.
007 clearly loves what he does, and he continues to take risks everyday to continue the work and life he is passionate about. Ok--so it's just a movie--but wouldn't it be fun if your career was a little more exciting and you were equally as driven and passionate about your work?
At the New World Institute we take people on a self-exploration adventure and help them find their true calling and purpose and turn it into a living. Here is how we do it:
- Match you to a highly qualified, accredited TNWI-trained coach who specialized in career realignment and transformation.
- Provide you with tools including an assessment, a workbook, a customized curriculum and post-program analysis to assess your career both past and present and give you clarity around the areas where you need most help.
- Support you in creating a comprehensive transition strategy that will give you specific plan for creating more happiness, career satisfaction and health.
If you are curious about what we do, then try our brand new Career Change Assessment. This assessment is used by our coaches to assess our clients and now it's available to everyone.
The New World Institute specializes in helping executives who are at a career crossroads revitalize their careers. Call us for a free, no-obligation consultation: 347-445-5763.
Laurel Donnellan is the President and Co-Founder of The New World Institute.
www.thenewworldinstitute.com
AMA President: Opposition to public plan is motivated by desire to ‘protect the health insurance industry.’ from Think Progress
from http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/17/ama-insurance-industry/
A week ago, the American Medical Association declared its opposition to a public health insurance option, a key plank of President Obama's health reform plan. Obama subsequently addressed the AMA membership directly, explaining his proposal and telling them that "the public option is not your enemy, it is your friend." It appears that Obama's argument may have compelled the AMA to rethink its position. The organization is now concerned that media reports are portraying them as "opposed to reform" and too favorable towards the insurance industry:
On Tuesday, the American Medical Association considered a resolution that would have opposed any new public plan that would "risk the elimination of a healthy competitive market for private health insurance."
Before its delegates moved toward final passage, AMA president Nancy H. Nielsen intervened and asked delegates to focus on what they could support. […]
"I do not believe it's the position of this House of Delegates of the American Medical Association to protect the health insurance industry," Nielsen said, prompting loud applause from the members.
"I think the health insurance industry pays a lot of money to people who can protect them."
"That was about creating an impression that we are not part of the problem, we are part of the solution," said Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Even as Obama begins to cave on real health insurance reform Blue America will push back from Crooks and Liars
from http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/even-obama-begins-cave-real-health-insu
I wrote some nice words about Kathleen Sibelius the last few days because she was able to articulate the phony arguments against a vibrant public option, but it looks like the administration is pulling her back.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Sebelius said that President Barack Obama does not want to drive health insurers out of business, but make them more competitive by offering working families and small businesses the option of a public plan without the high overhead costs of marketing, administration and profits. "I think there is a lot of understanding that the private market has really failed to provide affordable coverage to Americans," Sebelius said. The industry has had "a lot of opportunities" to get rid of coverage restrictions and other unpopular policies, Sebelius said, and really "hasn't served Americans very well."
However, Sebelius stressed that Obama is open to compromise on the shape of the public plan, which doesn't have to be run by the government. She spoke positively of a compromise idea that envisions consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives, like rural electricity or agriculture co-ops. They would get started with seed money from taxpayers but then compete without government control. The plan by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., may end up in a health overhaul bill to be unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee this week.
---
But White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Obama is not likely to budge on his demand for a public insurance option. Axelrod said Obama isn't wedded to the public plan being either entirely funded or run by the government and is open to "variations on the theme."
Sibelius also said on NPR that the single payer plan is off the table. We knew that already, but for her to articulate it this way is awful. The fact that she says members of Congress didn't understand the health care debate just shows how either how frakkin' stupid they all are or how corrupt. They knew what they were doing when they torpedoed Clinton's plan and it was led by the Jim Cooper's in Clinton's Congress.
I'm still doing my fundraiser as we speak, but I'm also going to focus on putting pressure on all the crummy Democrats like Blanche Lincoln so that the ball is not dropped. Sure, I need to still raise funds, but I think this Blue America action is very important at this time.
We are raising money fast for our Campaign For Health Care Choice, and we plan to push on with your help. It's so saddening that with Americans voting out the teabagging republicans in astounding numbers---President Obama is allowing the debate to get away from him. We don't need the teabaggers votes or input since they already destroyed the global financial markets and everything else in their path. Their allegiance is not to the American people, but to the corporate donors that occupy the Health Care Industrial Complex.
So let's see. On Monday, in a highly publicized speech, the President tells the AMA that he wants a public option that "keeps the insurance companies honest." The leading expert on the public option, Prof. Jacob Hacker (and many others -- e.g., here, here, and here), explain why Conrad's co-op proposal is not a substitute for the public plan because it doesn't achieve the President's objectives.
But AP reports that Obama's HHS Secretary, who had already tried to give away the store, says Obama is now willing to abandon the position he took the day before? And she says the industry will blink? Are these people serious?
Yes it would seem they are very serious. That's why we are turning up the heat.
And we are always screwed by the media on everything policy wise. Whenever a republican talking point comes on the scene, they swallow it whole. Ezra Klein outTweets David Gregory because Mr. Meet the Press instantly adopted their talking points. Why would he so easily accept a falsehood? He doesn't have to worry about health care insurance I'm sure.
You can see their republican ties when as Digby writes: Cokie's Law Is Still On The Books.
Sirius XM Announces Yet Another Rate Hike from SiriusBuzz.com by Charles
from http://siriusbuzz.com/sirius-xm-announces-yet-another-rate-hike.php
Here we go again, it has only been a few months since the March 11th rate hikes that drove subscribers into a frenzy and already Sirius XM is announcing another rate increase for their subscribers. This time around Sirius XM is laying blame to the ever increasing Music Royalty Fee.
In a recently created memo posted on the XM website the company notes that, effective July 29, 2009, a U.S. Music Royalty Fee will be added to subscriber invoices. The fee is slated at $1.98 a month on their base subscriptions ($12.95) and $.97 for base plans that are eligible for a second radio discount.
Sirius XM is quick to point out that "Unlike terrestrial radio, both Sirius and XM are required to pay copyright music royalties to recording artists, musicians and recording companies who hold copyrights in sound recordings." Sounds like the guys at Sirius XM are more then a little bitter about their current situation and for good reason. The bottom line is that both Terrestrial and Satellite Radio generate revenue by playing the works of others and the method in which they generate that revenue (whether ad supported or subscription based) should not matter.
For those of you legal buffs who might be concerned with the legality of this fee increase being consistent with Sirius XM's merger commitment not to raise prices for three years, Sirius XM has this to say "This fee is consistent with our commitment not to raise the base price of specific service plans for three years after the merger. The FCC decision approving the merger between SIRIUS and XM permits the companies beginning July 29, 2009 to pass through to subscribers any increases in music royalties since March 20, 2007, the day the companies first asked the FCC to approve the merger."
You can find further details on the U.S. Music Royalty Fee increase on the XM website.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
CARS Program is Actually a C.R.A.P. Program from Firedoglake
Amid the supplemental appropriations bill (warning, 144 page pdf), currently awaiting vote after a Conference Committee, is the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Program (pages 52-58). Naming bills in deceptive and often cutesy terms has truly become an art form. The CARS Program merits being in the same zone as the ever-so appealing sounding No Child Left Behind or Healthy Forests, an ever-so appealing name that doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. To put it simply, rather than the CARS Program, this might be more appropriate called the C.R.A.P.P.: Consciously Rewarding Augmenting Pollution Program.
CARS is a program to provide incentives to drivers of old, fuel-inefficient vehicles to buy new, slightly less inefficient vehicles. Often called "cash for clunkers", the developed legislation is structured in a way that makes it inequitable, inefficient, wasteful (on multiple levels) and (being very generous) very marginally productive re long-term interests to reduce our oil dependency and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The C.R.A.P. Program is a sad comment on special interest influence on Congress along with the inability of logical analysis to influence a program toward something more intelligent.
For background on the legislation (the Conference Committee seems to have adopted the weaker House version rather than the better, although still problemmatic, Senate version), see A Clunker of a Deal?
In short, the bill is promised to target selling 1 million more vehicles before the end of the year and support these three policy priorities:
- Reduce dependence on foreign oil,
- Reduce air pollution, and
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill does this via "cash for clunkers", vouchers to owners of old vehicles to encourage them to go shopping for a new vehicle and scrap the old one. As an example, when it comes to light passenger vehicles, owners (at least one year registered) of a car rated at less than 18 miles per gallon can receive a $3500 voucher (tax free) for a new car if it gets at least 22 miles per gallon and $4500 if it gets at least 28 mpg.
Why is this a bad bill, on both basic policy and basic analytical reasons?
- The fuel saving requirements are absurdly low.
- The actual oil demand reduction per tax dollar invested is absurdly low.
- The bill, as structured, is overly restrictive in a counter-productive way.
- There is a basic question as to equity.
- This is structured poorly, using "mpg" which provides less visibility on impact than the better "gpm" (gallons per mile).
Absurdly low fuel savings requirements
One way to judge fuel savings links back to the question of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In short, how fast will the fuel savings save enough CO2 and other emissions to make up for the new car's "embedded CO2″ (the pollution it takes to manufacture, sell, and deliver the new vehicle)?
When you scrap an old car for a new one, you actually start out having emitted more CO2 than you would have if you had just stayed with your clunker — about a year and a half's worth. If your new car is more fuel-efficient than the old one, those excess emissions shrink with each mile you drive. Eventually, you reach a break-even point when your new car's embedded emissions are offset by those emissions you avoided by driving that new car. The time for that to occur is called the payback time. It's not until the payback time is over that the cash-for-clunkers swap begins to accrue real greenhouse gas emissions savings.
A rough rule of thumb might be: two years or less for an automobile. Sadly, this bill's parameters mean that this can actually be over 10 years with the parameters of a $3500 voucher.
And, as well, the bill rewards people for making quite marginal increases in fuel efficiency — not creating significant incentives from moving from a gas hog to a truly fuel efficient vehicle.
Reduced oil demand per tax-dollar invested is absurdly low
A reasonable standard to discuss is how much will it cost per reduced barrel of oil. This is rather hard to calculate with precision, due to many uncertainties in how the program will actually work out in the real world. But, let us assume that the average, across 1 million vehicles, will be 200 gallons of reduced fuel use per year. (This is potentially a high end estimate of likely savings.) This translates to 200 million gallons of reduced gasoline demand per annum or a little less than 5 million barrels of cut oil demand. Sound impressive? In fact, this is less than 1/4th of a day's gasoline demand. Across the year, this translates to about 13,000 barrels of reduced demand per day, or less than 1/10th of 1 percent of US oil use. And, the cost: $1 billion. This translates to just about $80,000 of US taxpayer money per barrel of reduced daily demand. This places it well above (more expensive than) many other viable options for reducing oil dependency.
An overly restrictive bill? And basic equity?
If you have an old car, a true clunker, rated at 19 miles per gallon, don't bother getting in line. This suggests both a poor structuring element of the bill and a question of equity. This is an equity issue. Those who bought horribly fuel-inefficient vehicles, in the past, will now receive incentives for buying somewhat less fuel inefficient vehicles. Those who bought more reasonably, even if only slightly, have no such support.
This bill should have been focused on relative fuel efficiency improvements, rather than setting a standard as to the fuel efficiency of the older vehicle. Why not, as part of this, offer a 'cash for clunkers' for vehicles above a certain age (let's say Germany's nine years) where the new car is at least some X% more fuel efficient than the old vehicle's performance? (How about $3500 for at least 30% fuel efficiency improvement and $4500 for at least 50% fuel efficiency improvements? With a top limit for a trade-in?)
Analytically unsound policy
The very underpinning of the bill is broken. Providing vouchers based on "miles per gallon" provides a distortion that confuses as to the actual impact on reducing annual fuel consumption.
"MPG" is far less valuable for an approach for a "FeeBate" or gas guzzler turn in then using a "GPM" or gallons per mile. (Difference between 10 and 20 MPG and 20 MPG and 30 MPG same in MPG but not in GPM. 1st is move from .1 to .05 GPM while second is move from .05 to .033 GPM.) GPM is a much faster tool for understanding actual fuel use (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) impacts of differing automotive performace. GPM is a MUCH better measure if we are worrying about incentivizing, somehow, lower fuel use. And, using GPM (actually, better, is GP100M: gallons per 100 miles), the standard for vouchers could be quite simple: base this on gallons saved per 100 miles driving.
An 18 mpg car is 5.55 gallons per 100 miles. Moving to a 25 mpg vehicle is a move to a 4 g100m, a savings of 1.5 g100m which might be an appropriate minimum savings for the program to achieve a less than five year payback for the embedded energy.
And, if using gp100m, there would be no need for limiting trade-in vehicle fuel efficiency. The question: achieving the appropriate gasoline savings on a gp100m basis. Thus, for the owner of a 25 mpg vehicle to achieve the same gp100m fuel savings as that 18 mpg to 25 mpg move, the new car would have to get 40 or more miles per gallong. This would be a move from 4 gp100m to 2.5 gp100m
If we really want to get cars off lots, lets make them reasonably fuel efficient ones based on a sensible measurement method. And, make this something open to all old "clunker" owners who are able to achieve the appropriate fuel savings.
In short … The CARS Program is a load of C.R.A.P.
As Engineer Poet has summarized the situation
This will help clear dealer lots, but it won't do squat for our real problems:
- It will not significantly reduce our fuel consumption; we will still be burning far too much to accomplish too little.
- It will not fix the bad production mix of the auto companies; it adds demand for guzzlers only slightly less thirsty than the ones they'd replace. But worst of all,
- It will leave us with a brand-new fleet of guzzlers which will not be paid off for years at the exact time when we are facing radical increases in the cost of oil.
It's almost as if this bill was intended to screw the country.
(crossposted on Get Energy Smart Now)
Cops: Accused Sports Webio investor missing from Chicago Breaking News
David Hernandez, the investor in a Chicago Internet radio station who was accused Monday by federal regulators of operating a Ponzi scheme, is missing, according to the Downers Grove police.
Hernandez's wife, Gina, reported him missing after he did not return home from work Monday evening, police said. The couple live in Downers Grove.
Hernandez, 48, was last seen driving an olive-colored 2005 Ford Explorer, police said. He was wearing a burgundy shirt and khaki pants.
Hernandez bilked more than 100 investors in at least 12 states out of $11 million by guaranteeing fixed rates of return as high as 16 percent, the Securities and Exchange Commission said in a civil action filed Monday in federal court in Chicago.
Hernandez told investors that their money would fund a payday lending business but instead he used the cash for personal expenses and other business ventures. One was Chicago Sports Webio, an online site that broadcasts sports-talk shows featuring Mike North, Dan Jiggetts, Chet Coppock and other radio personalities, the SEC said.Any person with information in regards to his whereabouts should contact the Downers Grove Police Department immediately at 630-434-5600.
FLASHBACK: Ensign Called On Clinton To Resign After Admitting Affair — ‘He Has No Credibility Left’ from Think Progress
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza reports that Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), a member of GOP leadership and a potential candidate for president in 2012, will hold a press conference later today in which he will acknowledge having an extramarital affair "with a campaign staffer who was married to an employee in Ensign's Senate office." Ensign flew back to his Las Vegas to make the public announcement.
Since his election to the Senate in 2000, Ensign has been a leading conservative voice who demanded the resignation of former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig in September 2007. Ensign called Craig a "disgrace" after he was arrested in June 2007 in an airport men's restroom on disorderly conduct charges. But when Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) acknowledged having an affair, Ensign he didn't call on him to resign.
Ensign has also been an ardent opponent of gay marriage. In Feb. 2004, Ensign announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Ensign said the amendment, which ultimately failed, was necessary to protect "the institution of marriage":
"Sadly, the effort to redefine marriage against the wishes of a majority of the people is, with help from activist judges, succeeding," Ensign said. "In order to defend the institution of marriage, uphold the rights of individual states, and maintain the will of the people, I believe we are compelled to amend our country's constitution."
"The effort to pass a constitutional amendment reaffirming marriage as being between a man and a woman only is being undertaken strictly as a defense of marriage against the attempt to redefine it and, in the process, weaken it," Ensign said. "Marriage is an extremely important institution in this country and protecting it is, in my mind, worth the extraordinary step of amending our constitution."
In 1998, while running for the Nevada's senate seat against Harry Reid, Ensign called on President Clinton to resign in light of his admitted affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky:
"I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it's because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through," Ensign said Thursday, becoming the first member of the Nevada delegation to call for Clinton to quit. "He has no credibility left."
How much "credibility" does Ensign have left?
Who Is The Lucky Pierre In This Joe Buck Live Rundown? [Media Meltdowns] from Deadspin
http://deadspin.com/5292922/who-is-the-lucky-pierre-in-this-joe-buck-live-rundown
Last night, on The Laugh Hour with Joe Buck: Artie Lange firebombing the set, Brett Favre cursing, Ochocinco and Michael Irvin, and "Amy Sedaris' brother" in a Braylon Edwards moment. The media dissects Joe Buck:
• Mike Francesa, WFAN: This was the worst show I had ever seen until Artie Lange showed up. And then it became, you know, a different kind of show, and one I'm not condoning here because I'm not condoning him coming in there and just firebombing the entire festivities, which is what he did, but what would you expect? You invited Artie Lange here, what would you expect? You got what you expected. I don't know what you expected to get from him, sitting there.... Then I gotta sit through Ochocinco and Michael Irvin, who I wouldn't watch, if they wanted to show up in my living room, I wouldn't let them in. I mean, Ochocinco? Give me a break. How can you actually take a guy seriously who actually changes his name to Ochocinco?... I'm not familiar with the other guy, I guess he's a comic, I'm not familiar with him. Is that Amy Sedaris his sister, brother or something, are they related? I know who she is, I don't know who he is.
• Richard Deitsch, SI.com: On Tuesday's Stern show, Lange claimed that Greenburg told him if Rudd and Sudeikis were boring, he should "go nuts." He then called Greenburg a series of unpublishable names.
Buck said he had not met Lange prior to a quick meeting in the green room ("Don't suck," Buck said to his guests prior to heading on stage for the start of the show.) "We didn't book him to be crude or walk and cross some line," Buck said. "We booked him because he's a funny guy and somebody who loves sports. It's up to any guest on a live show to take it where they want to take it. He decided to take it where he took it."
• Josh Levin, Slate: Despite the ceaseless wretchedness of Joe Buck Live, the show's namesake did win my sympathy in the end. During the final segment-a comedy panel featuring Paul Rudd, Artie Lange, and Jason Sudeikis-Lange commenced to roast Buck, slowly and painfully, over an open flame. (You can watch the even cruder, online-only aftershow here.) While a skilled pro might have out-taunted a guest who accused him of surfing the Web site "suckingcock dot com," Buck's rejoinders-"I just pulled a hamstring looking for a segue"-made him come off like a scared first-grader talking back to a bully. Buck wasn't David Letterman taming Joaquin Phoenix; he was Magic Johnson on The Magic Hour getting taunted by Howard Stern (incidentally, Lange's boss). "Sorry to ruin your fuckin' great show," Lange said before the credits rolled. "I appreciate the apology, because you have," Buck said, pretending to be joking.
•Danny Groner, Huffington Post: You'll notice how little Buck tries to diffuse the situation once it erupts. He's akin to a passer by who spots a raging fire and rather than try to extinguish it, or to alert the authorities to the fire, he glorifies it as a fiasco worth admiration. In that way, Buck shirks his responsibility as the host in charge of keeping order and fair play. He applauds what's taking place on the stage before him, keenly aware that this video will generate buzz for him in the days, weeks and even months to come.
• Richard Sandomir, New York Times: The bookend to the show was a panel show featuring Lange, the actor Paul Rudd, and Jason Sudeikis of "Saturday Night Live." The latter two need not have shown up for this as was Lange staging a hostile takeover. His scatological, homophobic, insult act was delivered with a sort of blithe and gleeful explosiveness that threw Buck a bit. This 10-minute trap on the stage at the Equitable Center's auditorium in Midtown Manhattan was unlike any live TV Buck had ever practiced with Tim McCarver or Troy Aikman.... Lange's shtick, which will be dissected with Stern on Tuesday morning, will be compared - for the attention it has created - to last year's confrontation over blogging on "Costas Now" between the writer Buzz Bissinger and Will Leitch, then of Deadspin. Bissinger kept erupting, creating a fascinating tableau of righteous anger. But the Lange incident - which benefited from the artistic freedom that HBO provides - was not about any particular issue; it was about Lange's decision that the stage was his to seize. Buck said: "It's an unfortunate thing that happened. But it's live. If it were taped, nobody would have seen it."
• Ty Hildenbrandt, SI.com: Dan's right, this was the best possible thing that could've happened to Joe Buck Live. You know, it's supposed to show the whole other side of Joe Buck that we had not previously known. The witty and charming side that laughs with Randy Moss' end-zone celebrations, not the side that scoffs at them. So this was perfect, and it had the shock value of Russell Brand hosting the MTV Video Music Awards. Mark this down as the first and last time that Joe Buck Live will be considered "water-cooler discussion."
But tell us how you really think, everyone!
Hour 3: Rush's New Favorite Falsehood: Obama Wants To Bulldoze 50 U.S. Cities
| |
| |
| You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America. | |
Obama calls for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid
from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pers-j16.shtml
"It is becoming increasingly clear that the essence of the administration's health care policy, under the guise of universal coverage, is a downgrading of care for the majority of the population so as to cut health care costs for business and the government."
Over the weekend, President Barack Obama called for cuts in funding for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health insurance programs for the elderly and the poor, including the elimination of subsidies for hospitals that treat uninsured patients. This proposal, combined with plans to limit medical tests and treatments, underscores the reactionary, anti-working class character of Obama's proposed "reform" of the health care system.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the essence of the administration's health care policy, under the guise of universal coverage, is a downgrading of care for the majority of the population so as to cut health care costs for business and the government.
Administration spokesmen have also indicated that Obama is receptive to the idea of taxing workers for the health benefits they receive from their employers—something for which he denounced his opponent, Senator John McCain, during last year's presidential election campaign.
In a speech before the American Medical Association (AMA) in Chicago on Monday, President Obama made it clear that his health care reform would in no way impinge on the profit interests of insurance companies, hospital chains and drug companies. He added that he was open to limiting the ability of patients to pursue medical malpractice suits.
As he has done before, Obama framed the health care issue entirely from the standpoint of containing rising costs that are fueling federal budget deficits and undermining the competitiveness of US corporations. The fact that nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured and tens of millions more cannot afford adequate health care was chiefly raised to point to the added costs of unpaid emergency room visits.
Rising health care costs, particularly for the government-run Medicare and Medicaid programs for the elderly and the poor, the president said, were a "ticking time-bomb for the federal budget" and "unsustainable." If the health care system was not fixed, he warned, "America may go the way of GM," referring to the bankrupt automaker.
The cost of his plan—estimated to be a trillion dollars over the next ten years—would be "budget neutral," he said, and would be funded through cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, along with "modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level it was at the end of the Reagan years."
The president plans to cut $313 billion over the next decade from the two federal health programs by limiting the growth of Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and health care providers. He also said he was open to expanding the role of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission—a body set up by the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Congress in 1997—to save another $200 billion.
As the Wall Street Journal noted Monday, "New York City offers a window into what could happen when payments to safety-net hospitals are cut. Already running at a deficit, the city's public hospital system is looking at $150 million in state Medicaid cuts for next year. Next month, it will close some outpatient services, such as community-based primary and preventive-care offices.
"'We are in a position already where we are making painful decisions that require us to reduce access and services,' said Alan D. Aviles, president and chief executive of the system, known as the Health and Hospitals Corp."
Under the terms of Obama's plan, the wealthy would still have access to the best medical care while tens of millions of working people would have a choice of lower standard plans available in a so-called Health Insurance Exchange, where coverage was limited to what one could afford. This would include a government-subsidized "public option," he said, which "would inject competition into the health care market to force waste out of the system."
Far from guaranteeing decent health care for the population, the program would create a system, dominated by private companies seeking to maximize their profits, where health care for working and poor people was rationed according to its "cost-effectiveness." Doctors would be under intense pressure from government "advisory boards" not to order tests, use drugs or carry out medical treatments that were deemed too expensive.
Obama recently told the New York Times that prolonging the lives of terminally ill and very old people presently accounts for 80 percent of the total health care bill. He suggested that such outlays might not be cost-effective.
In his speech before the AMA—a body that opposed the establishment of Medicare in the 1960s—Obama gave assurances that his proposal for a public insurance option as part of his reform did not threaten private markets. He said, "The public option is not your enemy; it is your friend." He denounced those who claimed it was a "Trojan horse for a single-payer system" like those in Europe, and said it was "important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States," i.e., to maintain a system based on the profit principle.
Obama brought the AMA delegates to their feet by declaring that he was willing to provide relief to doctors facing the high cost of malpractice lawsuits—long a plank of the Republican Party. "I recognize," he said, that "some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable," he said, assuring them that "evidence-based" guidelines established by the government would allow physicians to "scale back the excessive defensive medicine," which supposedly plagued the health care system.
The socially destructive implications of Obama's health care plan are spelled out in a recent book by Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and a medical advisor to the administration. In a review of the book, Health Care Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America, the New York Review of Books wrote that under Emanuel's proposal, "Employee-based insurance would disappear," and "Medicaid would also end and Medicare would be gradually phased out."
In opposition to this reactionary plan, the working class must advance its own answer to the health care crisis, based on the nationalization under workers' control of the insurance and pharmaceutical giants and the hospital chains, and the establishment of a genuine system of socialized medicine to meet human needs, not private profit.
Jerry White
The author also recommends:
Obama chooses private profit over healthcare needs
[8 June 2009]
The Obama recovery
[6 May 2009]
How GM killed mass transit
from http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw439.htm
"The automobile did not come to dominate American transportation by chance or by public choice. It happened as part of a plan by auto makers to buy up and destroy mass transit companies. General Motors led the way. As recently as the 1920s, many American cities and towns were connected by a network of electric railroads and interurban trolleys. Within cities, electric street railways, trolleys, and elevated trains, moved large numbers of people easily and cheaply, with minimal congestion and pollution. But steel-wheeled electric/rail mass transit systems did not serve the needs of the automobile manufacturers and their allies in the steel, rubber, glass, concrete, and oil industries."
Monday, June 15, 2009
The American Empire Is Bankrupt
FROM http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090614_the_american_empire_is_bankrupt/
Posted on Jun 14, 2009
By Chris Hedges
This week marks the end of the dollar's reign as the world's reserve currency. It marks the start of a terrible period of economic and political decline in the United States. And it signals the last gasp of the American imperium. That's over. It is not coming back. And what is to come will be very, very painful.
Barack Obama, and the criminal class on Wall Street, aided by a corporate media that continues to peddle fatuous gossip and trash talk as news while we endure the greatest economic crisis in our history, may have fooled us, but the rest of the world knows we are bankrupt. And these nations are damned if they are going to continue to prop up an inflated dollar and sustain the massive federal budget deficits, swollen to over $2 trillion, which fund America's imperial expansion in Eurasia and our system of casino capitalism. They have us by the throat. They are about to squeeze.
There are meetings being held Monday and Tuesday in Yekaterinburg, Russia, (formerly Sverdlovsk) among Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and other top officials of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The United States, which asked to attend, was denied admittance. Watch what happens there carefully. The gathering is, in the words of economist Michael Hudson, "the most important meeting of the 21st century so far."
It is the first formal step by our major trading partners to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency. If they succeed, the dollar will dramatically plummet in value, the cost of imports, including oil, will skyrocket, interest rates will climb and jobs will hemorrhage at a rate that will make the last few months look like boom times. State and federal services will be reduced or shut down for lack of funds. The United States will begin to resemble the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe. Obama, endowed by many with the qualities of a savior, will suddenly look pitiful, inept and weak. And the rage that has kindled a handful of shootings and hate crimes in the past few weeks will engulf vast segments of a disenfranchised and bewildered working and middle class. The people of this class will demand vengeance, radical change, order and moral renewal, which an array of proto-fascists, from the Christian right to the goons who disseminate hate talk on Fox News, will assure the country they will impose.
I called Hudson, who has an article in Monday's Financial Times called "The Yekaterinburg Turning Point: De-Dollarization and the Ending of America's Financial-Military Hegemony." "Yekaterinburg," Hudson writes, "may become known not only as the death place of the czars but of the American empire as well." His article is worth reading, along with John Lanchester's disturbing exposรฉ of the world's banking system, titled "It's Finished," which appeared in the May 28 issue of the London Review of Books.
"This means the end of the dollar," Hudson told me. "It means China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran are forming an official financial and military area to get America out of Eurasia. The balance-of-payments deficit is mainly military in nature. Half of America's discretionary spending is military. The deficit ends up in the hands of foreign banks, central banks. They don't have any choice but to recycle the money to buy U.S. government debt. The Asian countries have been financing their own military encirclement. They have been forced to accept dollars that have no chance of being repaid. They are paying for America's military aggression against them. They want to get rid of this."
China, as Hudson points out, has already struck bilateral trade deals with Brazil and Malaysia to denominate their trade in China's yuan rather than the dollar, pound or euro. Russia promises to begin trading in the ruble and local currencies. The governor of China's central bank has openly called for the abandonment of the dollar as reserve currency, suggesting in its place the use of the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights. What the new system will be remains unclear, but the flight from the dollar has clearly begun. The goal, in the words of the Russian president, is to build a "multipolar world order" which will break the economic and, by extension, military domination by the United States. China is frantically spending its dollar reserves to buy factories and property around the globe so it can unload its U.S. currency. This is why Aluminum Corp. of China made so many major concessions in the failed attempt to salvage its $19.5 billion alliance with the Rio Tinto mining concern in Australia. It desperately needs to shed its dollars.
"China is trying to get rid of all the dollars they can in a trash-for-resource deal," Hudson said. "They will give the dollars to countries willing to sell off their resources since America refuses to sell any of its high-tech industries, even Unocal, to the yellow peril. It realizes these dollars are going to be worthless pretty quickly."
The architects of this new global exchange realize that if they break the dollar they also break America's military domination. Our military spending cannot be sustained without this cycle of heavy borrowing. The official U.S. defense budget for fiscal year 2008 is $623 billion, before we add on things like nuclear research. The next closest national military budget is China's, at $65 billion, according to the Central Intelligence Agency.
There are three categories of the balance-of-payment deficits. America imports more than it exports. This is trade. Wall Street and American corporations buy up foreign companies. This is capital movement. The third and most important balance-of-payment deficit for the past 50 years has been Pentagon spending abroad. It is primarily military spending that has been responsible for the balance-of-payments deficit for the last five decades. Look at table five in the Balance of Payments Report, published in the Survey of Current Business quarterly, and check under military spending. There you can see the deficit.
To fund our permanent war economy, we have been flooding the world with dollars. The foreign recipients turn the dollars over to their central banks for local currency. The central banks then have a problem. If a central bank does not spend the money in the United States then the exchange rate against the dollar will go up. This will penalize exporters. This has allowed America to print money without restraint to buy imports and foreign companies, fund our military expansion and ensure that foreign nations like China continue to buy our treasury bonds. This cycle appears now to be over. Once the dollar cannot flood central banks and no one buys our treasury bonds, our empire collapses. The profligate spending on the military, some $1 trillion when everything is counted, will be unsustainable.
"We will have to finance our own military spending," Hudson warned, "and the only way to do this will be to sharply cut back wage rates. The class war is back in business. Wall Street understands that. This is why it had Bush and Obama give it $10 trillion in a huge rip-off so it can have enough money to survive."
The desperate effort to borrow our way out of financial collapse has promoted a level of state intervention unseen since World War II. It has also led us into uncharted territory.
"We have in effect had to declare war to get us out of the hole created by our economic system," Lanchester wrote in the London Review of Books. "There is no model or precedent for this, and no way to argue that it's all right really, because under such-and-such a model of capitalism ... there is no such model. It isn't supposed to work like this, and there is no road-map for what's happened."
The cost of daily living, from buying food to getting medical care, will become difficult for all but a few as the dollar plunges. States and cities will see their pension funds drained and finally shut down. The government will be forced to sell off infrastructure, including roads and transport, to private corporations. We will be increasingly charged by privatized utilities—think Enron—for what was once regulated and subsidized. Commercial and private real estate will be worth less than half its current value. The negative equity that already plagues 25 percent of American homes will expand to include nearly all property owners. It will be difficult to borrow and impossible to sell real estate unless we accept massive losses. There will be block after block of empty stores and boarded-up houses. Foreclosures will be epidemic. There will be long lines at soup kitchens and many, many homeless. Our corporate-controlled media, already banal and trivial, will work overtime to anesthetize us with useless gossip, spectacles, sex, gratuitous violence, fear and tawdry junk politics. America will be composed of a large dispossessed underclass and a tiny empowered oligarchy that will run a ruthless and brutal system of neo-feudalism from secure compounds. Those who resist will be silenced, many by force. We will pay a terrible price, and we will pay this price soon, for the gross malfeasance of our power elite.
Wikimedia Commons
Obama’s Stunning Health Care Reform Speech to the AMA from Firedoglake
I can't predict whether Obama's health care reform speech to the AMA will substantially improve chances for genuine reforms. [Caution: MSNBC video runs 55 minutes]
But I don't think we should underestimate the powerful message the President of the United States just delivered to the people who, if you read the speech carefully, Obama unmistakably identified as having utterly failed the nation's health care needs -- and it's not just the AMA.
The NYT covers the story; the excerpts below are from the as-delivered text released by the White House. Is there any doubt whom the President was talking about in these sections:
Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.
It is unsustainable for Americans like Laura Klitzka, a young mother I met in Wisconsin last week, who has learned that the breast cancer she thought she'd beaten had spread to her bones; who is now being forced to spend time worrying about how to cover the $50,000 in medical debts she has already accumulated, when all she wants to do is spend time with her two children and focus on getting well. These are not worries a woman like Laura should have to face in a nation as wealthy as ours.
Stories like Laura's are being told by women and men all across this country – by families who have seen out-of-pocket costs soar, and premiums double over the last decade at a rate three times faster than wages. This is forcing Americans of all ages to go without the checkups or prescriptions they need. It's creating a situation where a single illness can wipe out a lifetime of savings.
Our costly health care system is unsustainable for doctors like Michael Kahn in New Hampshire, who, as he puts it, spends 20 percent of each day supervising a staff explaining insurance problems to patients, completing authorization forms, and writing appeal letters; a routine that he calls disruptive and distracting, giving him less time to do what he became a doctor to do and actually care for his patients.
Small business owners like Chris and Becky Link in Nashville are also struggling. They've always wanted to do right by the workers at their family-run marketing firm, but have recently had to do the unthinkable and lay off a number of employees – layoffs that could have been deferred, they say, if health care costs weren't so high. Across the country, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits in recent years and one third have dropped their workers' coverage altogether since the early 90's.
Our largest companies are suffering as well. A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were the huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers; costs that made them less profitable, and less competitive with automakers around the world. If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke.
And whom do you think the President is addressing when he lists what needs to be fixed? He first cites the huge regional disparities in costs and practices examined by Gawande in his New Yorker article:
There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I'm talking about. It is a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can't spend much time with each; and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it's not truly necessary. It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession – a calling – to a business.
That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient's bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it'll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers – and that's what our health care system should let you be.
That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren't paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up – because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes – so that we are not promoting just more treatment, but better care.
And we need to rethink the cost of a medical education, and do more to reward medical students who choose a career as a primary care physicians and who choose to work in underserved areas instead of a more lucrative path.
And it doesn't let up. Obama takes on AMA, the insurance/hospital industry, Pharma, all of them. They're all complicit in building and protecting an unsustainable, inhumane system. And he tells them they have to be part of the solution.
It was a stunning, powerful and courageous speech. He didn't back down on the public option or fixing compensation or letting the insurance/Pharma boys escape public compeition. He stroked the AMA for the few positive things they've supported, but he didn't give reform opponents another inch.
Reviews:
AP, Obama presses doctors to support reform, gets booed
Calling them "naysayers,""fear-mongers" and peddlers of "Trojan horse" falsehoods, Obama warned interest groups, lobbyists and others against using "fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine."
"There are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what," Obama said.
Senate GOP Blocking Obama Nominees In Attempt To Delay Health Care And Climate Legislation from Think Progress
In April, ThinkProgress noted that Republicans were blocking an increasing number of President Obama's nominees to pursue ideological witch hunts and to facilitate self-interested horse trades. Two months later, a number of key nominees are still waiting and Senate Republicans are bottling up dozens more of Obama's nominees in order to delay action on key Obama agenda items like health care and climate change legislation by consuming one of the most precious resources in the Senate: floor time. Roll Call explains:
Reid came to the floor three times Wednesday and several more times throughout the week to plead with his Republican colleagues to stop holding up a growing number of President Barack Obama's appointees. The Majority Leader's appeal was his most forceful yet, and aides say he has no plans to abandon the effort anytime soon.
"I would hope that people would search their conscience and try to get these done," Reid said, explaining that procedural motions that he could employ to clear the nominees would eat up too much floor time. "It would take until the summer, until we finish the July recess and beyond, for us to get this done, filing cloture on every one of these. I hope it doesn't come to that."
Absent unanimous consent from all senators, no issue may be considered by the full Senate unless it is given time on the Senate floor for debate. Although such a debate can be cut off by a cloture motion — a vote receiving the support of 60 senators — such a motion itself consumes floor time. Thus, by indiscriminately objecting to President Obama's nominees, a single senator can effectively force Reid to choose between confirming essential government personnel or advancing health care reform, cap and trade, the federal budget or anything else on the Senate's agenda. Floor time is limited and Senate conservatives are running out the clock to ensure that nothing gets done.
Among the nominees conservatives are holding hostage are Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's exceptionally qualified nominee to head the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, Harold Koh, a leading expert in international law who is nominated to be the chief legal adviser to the State Department, and Judge David Hamilton, a court of appeals nominee currently being blocked because of false claims that he gave preferential treatment to Muslims in favor of Christians.
State GOP staffer sends racist image of Obama. from Think Progress
Over the weekend, a GOP official in South Carolina posted a comment to Facebook comparing Michelle Obama to an escaped gorilla. Now, in a second instance of Republicans playing the race card against the Obamas, Wonkette notes that a racist e-mail was sent out by a legislative staffer for Tennessee GOP state senator Diane Black. The staffer, Sherri Goforth, e-mailed this composite picture of the country's 44 presidents, which represents President Obama with only a set of eyes:
Nashville Is Talking asked Goforth about the e-mail:
When I asked her if she understood the controversial nature of the photo, Goforth would only say she felt very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list. When I gave her a second chance to address the controversial nature of the email, she again repeated that she only felt bad about sending it to the wrong list of people.
"I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button," Goforth told NIT. "I'm very sick about it, and it's one of those things I can't change or take back."
20 Years Later Exxon Pays $507 Million for the Valdez Spill from The StockMasters
from http://www.thestockmasters.com/node/1472
Its a drop in the bucket for Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM) but for Alaska, its a big win. Congrats to Exxon for still holding the crown of the worst oil spill in U.S. History. The tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground March 24, 1989, spewing 11 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound.
Worried about your XOM shares? Don't be, with more money than God, Exxon Mobil shares blinked down -10 Cents after-hours on the news, they still remain above $72 a share. Exxon Mobil Corp. has been ordered to pay $507.5 million in punitive damages to Alaska natives, fishermen, business owners and others harmed by the massive 1989 oil spill off Alaska.
The ruling by 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Monday affirms the figure set by the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
It also awards interest payments at 5.9 percent to plaintiffs from the date of the original judgment in 1996.
Plaintiffs originally were awarded $5 billion, but that amount was cut in subsequent appeals by Irving, Texas-based Exxon.
The tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground March 24, 1989, spewing 11 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound. The incident remains the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Exxon-ordered-to-pay-5075M-apf-15530577.html
Ditka helping Fridge from Windy City Gridiron
from http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2009/6/12/907648/nightlink-ditka-helping-fridge
As Dan Pompei starts off the article, he notes that "It was Mike Ditka who turned William "Refrigerator" Perry into an international celebrity and Chicago folk hero. And it is Mike Ditka who is helping Perry, 46, literally get back on his feet and walk again."
Mike Ditka and the Gridiron Greats organization have been helping Fridge prior to, during, and after his hospitalization in South Carolina (Gridiron Greats helps past NFL players with medical assistance). Their support and connections helped Fridge get treatment free of charge.
After losing more than 150 pounds, Perry needed therapy to help his motor skills, hearing and speech. He also needed help walking again.
"William's problems are multiple," Ditka said. "It's not just one thing. I went out there to that autograph show in Rosemont [Feb. 26]. He must have lost a hundred pounds. That's like throwing a deck chair off the Titanic, but still, it's a lot of weight.""He has been very ill," Ditka said. "They think they can control some of it. We tried to bring him up here, but it was cost-prohibitive. We don't have that money. Evidently these people are willing to give it to him down there and they are giving it to him. They'll try to address what is affecting his nervous system. But he has to understand he has a problem."
Unfortunately, Perry has been in rehab for the past three weeks and will continue for three to four more weeks. Kudos to Ditka and the Gridiron Greats for helping our guy, and our prayers are with him during his rehabilitation.
Howard Dean Shoots Down Norah O'Donnell's Republican Talking Points on Health Care from Crooks and Liars
Howard Dean does a great job on MSNBC shooting down every Republican talking point on health care reform that Norah O'Donnell throws at him. Here are the questions she asked him.
- Is a public option a stalking horse for this government control?
- Doctors don't support this plan--then proceeds to read a quote that doesn't say doctors are against a public plan.
- Medicare and Medicaid waste money.
- Doctors don't like it because they only get 80% of what they would under private insurance plans.
- How do you stop employers from dropping employees from their coverage?
As Media Matters has reported, this is nothing new for Norah O'Donnell: Hardball for Dean, softball for Allen: MSNBC's O'Donnell echoed Republican attacks, misleading statements
As Think Progress noted, Dean also did a good job of explaining why Kent Conrad's co-op proposal is a really bad idea and won't work:
He's wrong about this. The co-ops are too small to compete with the big, private insurance companies. They will kill the co-ops completely by undercutting them, using their financial clout to do it. In the small states like mine and like Senator Conrad's, you're never gonna get to the 500,000 number signed up in the co-op that you need to in order for them to have any marketing [power].
This is a compromise designed to deal with problems in the Senate. But it doesn't deal with problems in America. And I think it's time for the Senate to stop playing politics, do what has to be done. … If the Republicans don't want to get on board, then we can do this without the Republicans.
We need more voices like Dr. Dean and Sen. Sanders talking honestly about this issue as long as the media is going to continue repeating the Republicans talking points for them.
Oklahoma Highway Patrol finally releases video of trooper attack on paramedic from Boing Boing
It took a while for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to release a video showing one of its troopers choking a paramedic who was taking an elderly patient to the hospital, and now that it's available on YouTube, you can understand why they tried to suppress it.
I'm in awe of the dignified and articulate ambulance supervisor who bravely stands up to the sickeningly hotheaded trooper who is furious that anyone would dare to "jump out and talk to a State Trooper like that."
Patricia Phillips, Oklahoma Crime Examiner, has been covering the story:
An ambulance, with Maurice White acting as supervisor and paramedic, is taking an elderly woman, who had collapsed, to the hospital for treatment. Her worried family follows.J.D. Tuccille of Civil Liberties Examiner says: "Consider this a test case. If you don't see a paramedic's life-saving responsibilities as at least as pressing as the law-enforcement duties of a police officer, there probably is no limit to the authority you're willing to grant any government employee with a badge." Oklahoma Highway Patrol finally releases video of trooper attack on paramedicTrooper Daniel Martin, who was responding to a stolen car report, came up behind the ambulance on a two-lane country road. In Oklahoma, those shoulders are notoriously tricky for even a car to pull off onto. But there's another factor involved.
As the dash cam clearly shows, a car is on the right-hand shoulder, partially obstructing the highway. Just as the highway patrol pulls up behind the ambulance, the medical unit must swing out to avoid colliding with the parked car.
Let me repeat that, because it's important: if the ambulance's driver, Paul Franks, had immediately pulled over when the racing trooper came up behind him, he would have created an accident. It is impossible to safely pull over while slamming into another vehicle.
After the ambulance gets past the parked vehicle, Franks slows and safely pulls over for the trooper. As Martin zooms by--at a speed that I would call excessive for just a stolen car report--he uses the radio to reprimand the ambulance for not pulling over.
Later in the tape, it's shown that the sheriff's department is already on scene at the stolen car incident. Martin is released from any need to be at the scene.
Then he whips around, guns his car, and goes out hunting the ambulance. When he catches up with the ambulance, what happens next is a textbook case for bad judgment and abuse of power.
