Skip to content

Putting things in perspective

Thursday, June 18, 2009

I hadn’t heard about Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R) comparing he and his fellow Republican twitters with the folks storming the battlements in Iran, but he did. And here’s a blog with some great editorial comment about it.


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Stating the obvious

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

It is common for the obvious to be overlooked in political debate. Buzzwords are allowed to fly around without, it seems, anyone slowing things down and examining the reality that is allegedly being discussed.

Double and triple kudos, therefore, to David Leonhardt of the New York Times, who penned a great column this morning about the “medical rationing” shibboleth. A moments reflection will suffice for any thinking person to come to the conclusion that any system of medical care, including the one we have now, rations care. Yes it’s obvious, but a lot of people work very hard to make sure the obvious isn’t noticed, so work like Leonhardt’s is really needed.

Leonhardt points out that there are at least three forms of rationing taking place right now:

There are three main ways that the health care system already imposes rationing on us. The first is the most counterintuitive, because it doesn’t involve denying medical care. It involves denying just about everything else.

The rapid rise in medical costs has put many employers in a tough spot. They have had to pay much higher insurance premiums, which have increased their labor costs. To make up for these increases, many have given meager pay raises.

…

The second kind of rationing involves the uninsured. The high cost of care means that some employers can’t afford to offer health insurance and still pay a competitive wage. Those high costs mean that individuals can’t buy insurance on their own.

The uninsured still receive some health care, obviously. But they get less care, and worse care, than they need. The Institute of Medicine has estimated that 18,000 people died in 2000 because they lacked insurance. By 2006, the number had risen to 22,000, according to the Urban Institute.

The final form of rationing is the one I described near the beginning of this column: the failure to provide certain types of care, even to people with health insurance. Doctors are generally not paid to do the blocking and tackling of medicine: collaboration, probing conversations with patients, small steps that avoid medical errors. Many doctors still do such things, out of professional pride. But the full medical system doesn’t do nearly enough.

He’s overlooking another form of rationing that is so common we tend to forget it: the rationing to which even the insured are exposed when their insurer denies coverage for medical procedures or drugs, often unjustifiably.

As always, the real question is not whether there should be rationing, but who should be doing it. Personally, I’m not impressed with the craftsmanship of the invisible hand.

Again, great column. Wouldn’t it be nice if this sort of analysis made its way onto the tube?


Filed in Health Care | | Comments (1)

New Toy

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Recently the folks who manage my office (I am not a management type) discovered that we could consolidate our mobile phone plans and save enough money to get “free” blackberrys (is that the correct plural in this context?) all around (or at least around all the partners).

So, today, I became the semi-proud possessor of a Blackberry Storm, and I’ve spent a good part of my free time today trying to figure it out, rather than doing something useful like in depth analysis of stuff I know nothing about. I must say, I’m not impressed with the Blackberry. My point of comparison is my wife’s Iphone, which seems superior in every way. The Iphone is far more user friendly and intuitive, which one would expect from Apple. But the Iphone is far and away a better performer when it comes to add on applications.

The Blackberry I got comes with one GB of on board memory, and it came with an 8 GB micro SD card, meaning that, at least in theory, it has more memory that my wife’s Iphone. I downloaded two “apps” to add to those that came pre-installed, and they ran fine. I then tried to download another, and got a dialog box informing me that I had only 4 mb of “application memory” left, and did I really want to waste some of it with this new application. After some searching around on the blackberry I found that I had almost an entire GB of free on-board memory, and all 8 GB of SD memory unused. After a little google searching I discovered that this memory could be used to store pictures, videos, or music, but not applications. Contrast that with the Iphone, which you can stuff to bursting with apps, if that is your wont. I gathered from the forums in which this is discussed (I get the impression that the Blackberry company maintains a discreet silence on the issue) that there is a 128 mb limit on the “application memory” almost all of which is filled out of the box. You can’t run an app off of most of the on board memory or off of an expansion card. I was doing the latter on a Palm Pilot knock off over 6 years ago, so it’s eminently doable.

I can free up space to accommodate other apps, but at this point I don’t know which of the prepackaged ones I need, and I haven’t found a way to store them somewhere in case I want to restore them.

It goes without saying that the software that came with the Blackberry assumes an all Microsoft world.

I shouldn’t complain, of course. I didn’t pay for it, and it does allow me to stay chained to my office email everywhere I go. What more can you ask?


Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

Ari Fleischer: Still Spinnin’ after all these years

Monday, June 15, 2009

Are Republicans deluded, liars or both? Today’s example is Ari Fleischer, who says that George Bush deserves credit for the reformist surge in Iran. On one level these kinds of claims are untestable, but what we know about human nature argues strongly against Ari’s position.

Both Bush and Ahmadinejad were deeply unpopular in their own countries. They depended upon one another; whenever Bush needed to goose his numbers he would trot out a Middle East nasty, often Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, in turn, depended on a United States threat to distract attention from the economic woes that he helped inflict on Iran. Ahmadinejad was probably better served by the scare tactics, since the threat was real. Bush really did want to attack Iran.

Once Obama got in, Iranians could feel somewhat freer to discount the red, white and blue menace and go with anyone but Ahmadinejad, which is what they apparently tried to do. If Bush can be credited with any role in the reformist upsurge, it is a only in a negative sense. He turned the pressure up so high that it was easy for Obama to relieve it by a few words and gestures. The people of Iran felt free to vote their domestic interests because the foreign threat receded. Ahmadinejad couldn’t sell fear, and without it he had nothing left.

That’s a large part of what happened here in the past few years. If any emotion put the Republicans in position to win (with a helping heap of questionable Ohio ballots) it was fear-a waning fear but one that was still strong. By 2008 that fear level couldn’t be sustained, and the other distractions Republicans commonly employ (e.g., fear of the “other”, whether that other be black, brown, gay, or Muslim) lost their effectiveness in light of the looming economic crisis.

So some of the same forces that beat the Republicans in 2008 created conditions in Iran that forced Khamenei to steal an election that his chosen candidate might easily have won had Bush still been in office.


Filed in Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

Sunday Morning Trivia

Sunday, June 14, 2009

I try to write something on this blog at least once a day, and I freely admit that some days it’s mostly filler. For instance, yesterday I heaped scorn on Charles Krauthammer. I admit it: no fruit can hang lower. Well, almost no fruit.

We come now, again, to Maureen Dowd. She only writes two columns a week, and she has people to help her. She writes for the New York Times, and her columns appear on Sunday, perhaps the most prestigious space in the nation.

This week, the following things have happened:

1. The Iranians have had an election stolen out from under them.

2. Another right wing domestic terrorist has committed yet another violent act; the right wingers who have reinforced the crackpot theories that drive these people have run for cover; and Rush Limbaugh has actually tried to paint this racist, anti-Semitic self proclaimed Nazi as a leftist.

3. The health care debate has entered a critical phase.

4. The Republicans have threatened to walk out on the Sotomayor hearings.

5. The supplemental war funding bill is in trouble, due to a combination of Democrats who are leery of the open ended war in Afghanistan and Republicans who don’t want to bail out the IMF (the funds for which have somehow been attached to the war funding bill).

The list goes on, of course. The list above is not necessarily in order of importance, but surely these issues would be at the top of any thinking persons list.

If you extend that list, somewhere around number 10,000 you get to the issue covered by Dowd’s column. What does she deem important enough for the Sunday Times?

Her ability to write a double entendre lead to an article about high definition television, followed by a rambling discussion of the challenges faced by our vacuous talking heads (along with Dowd, of course-it’s always about Dowd) in dealing with the challenges presented by those added pixels. Dowd doesn’t just fiddle, she plays a string quartet while Rome burns.

If this were an aberration, it would be merely puzzling. In fact, it’s the rule. Week after week Dowd (who is, to our shame, often categorized as a left leaning pundit, though how that can be ascertained is a mystery) entertains us with extended meditations on trivia, with herself in the starring role. I realize she was recruited to fill the women’s position so ably filled by Anna Quindlen, but really, how hard could it be to find a woman who has opinions about, you know, important stuff. How hard can it be to write two columns a week that have just a bit of substance? I know we bloggers are objects of journalistic scorn, but can you imagine what Dowd would serve up if she had to produce something every day?

Well, it’s not a total loss. It’s the weekend, and Dowd made my life just a bit easier by serving up such a tempting target.

Update: In case you’re interested, you can read about the war supplemental, and the reason the IMF funding is attached to it here. Interesting, most of those anti-IMF votes are Republicans, who don’t seem at all put off by the possibility of being attacked for not supporting the troops.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Another day, another meme

Saturday, June 13, 2009

One of the latest right wing memes accuses Obama of having a Messiah Complex. Charles Krauthammer runs with that argument in a column reproduced in this morning’s Day. (I will not link to Krauthammer, but you should have no trouble finding it). Krauthammer is actually a psychiatrist, though you’d never know it by reading his drivel. As evidence for Obama’s messianic leanings he cites the fact that when Obama goes overseas he tries to find common ground with others and admits that the United States is not perfect. To be honest, Krauthammer’s argument has a bit of dishonest nuance: he accuses Obama of positing a moral equivalency between the failings of the United States and those of other nations in situations in which one could argue that the faults are not always equivalent. (Though in some cases, one can argue that the U.S. has acted more egregiously). In any event, Obama did not say or imply any equivalency; he just stated the facts and, in any event, the argument doesn’t support Krauthammer’s premise

There are two interesting points here. First, the increasingly weird use of language by the right wing.

Here’s Krauthammer diagnosing Obama:

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or at worst, apostolic.)

What does this even mean? Here are the definitions of messianic:

  • Of or relating to a messiah: messianic hopes.
  • Of or characterized by messianism: messianic nationalism.

For good measure, here are the definitions of messianism:

  • Belief in a messiah.
  • Belief that a particular cause or movement is destined to triumph or save the world.
  • Zealous devotion to a leader, cause, or movement.

Finally, here are the definitions of apostolic.

  1. Of or relating to an apostle.
    1. Of, relating to, or contemporary with the 12 Apostles.
    2. Of, relating to, or derived from the teaching or practice of the 12 Apostles.
    1. Of or relating to a succession of spiritual authority from the 12 Apostles, regarded by Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some others to have been perpetuated by successive ordinations of bishops and to be requisite for valid orders and administration of sacraments.
    2. Roman Catholic Church Of or relating to the pope as the successor of Saint Peter; papal.

Let’s be charitable. None of the definitions actually apply, but maybe Krauthammer means that Obama feels he has been chosen by God to save the world (messianic) or that he feels he is doing God’s work in the world (apostolic). Obama has never stated or implied anything of the sort, though as a Christian he is supposed to do God’s work in the world. The term “Messiah Complex” is not used by Krauthhammer (it’s in the Day’s headline), but the diagnosis is implied, though from the internet we learn that there is no such diagnosis:

A messiah complex is a state of mind in which the individual incorrectly believes he/she is, or is destined to become, a savior. The messiah complex does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)1

So the upshot is that Krauthammer believes that Obama has a serious problem because he went overseas and admitted that everyone has their faults. In doing so, Krauthammer uses words that he has totally liberated from their ordinary meanings.

But my first reaction to this column was: Where was the good doctor when we needed him? I mean when we had a President who could say the following without evoking comment from the sages on the right (there are lots more quotes at the link):

1. I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did. Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003

2. I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.
Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

Similarly, when did Krauthammer sound the alarm about W’s decision to take advice from his “Heavenly Father” rather than the earthly father who got it right about invading Iraq:

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? “I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There’s a higher Father that I appeal to.’”

Umm, I’m no psychiatrist (though I have dealt with the mentally ill for years as part of my job) but I venture to say that if this man hadn’t been president he would have been safely locked up somewhere. I have no doubt there’s a spot on the DSM just for him.

We must pity folks like Krauthammer, who can’t see the beam in their own eyes. Their flailing attempts to bring down Obama tell so much more about them than about him.

One more thing: Obama is the President of the United States. Despite all George Bush could do, it is still the most powerful position in the world. If Obama believes he has been chosen to change the world, it’s because he has been chosen, and because that’s his job. The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama believes he was chosen by the American people (because he was) and Bush believed he was chosen by God (perhaps because he wasn’t really chosen by the American people).


Filed in Hypocrisy, Language | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-All Wet Edition

Friday, June 12, 2009

No pearls of wisdom tonight, since we are committed to going somewhere. However, Friday Night Music being a sacred tradition, I had to put up something.

Given the recent weather, this seemed appropriate. We’ve been slogging through rain all week. You can let it get you down, or cultivate the right attitude.

Gene Kelly in Singin’ in the Rain.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Comments

Thursday, June 11, 2009

One nice thing about the fact that I get few comments is that few people are inconvenienced when something goes wrong with the comment feature. I just attempted to update my spam filter, which keeps out comment spam, which has been on the increase lately. (I see it, but it doesn’t get on the blog). I just upgraded the spam filter, which didn’t install correctly, so I had to re-install it. It is quite possible that anyone who comments legitimately will have their comments held up for me to approve, even if I’ve approved you in the past.

Sorry for any inconvenience.


Filed in Announcements | | Comments (0)

Casting the feature as a bug

Thursday, June 11, 2009

The AMA is opposed to a public option in the health care bill. (It has since tried to soften its opposition, but only rhetorically). The AMA agrees with some Republicans, if there is a public option, people might prefer it:

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

One of the arguments I’ve never understood against public health plans is the one contained in the second quoted paragraph. The last time I checked the taxpayers were already absorbing exploding health costs. They were and are doing it in their capacity as consumers of health care. Insurance companies act as de facto taxing entities, with the disadvantage that consumers don’t get to vote for their overlords, and corporations demand exorbitant profits, something governments don’t do. Nor do governments tend to spend more than 20% of their budget figuring out ways to deny benefits. Added to the direct premiums we all pay are the indirect premiums they pay through their employer and the costs of expensive ER they absorb in one way or another because the uninsured do, in fact, have half assed but costly health care under the current system.

Most people (excluding doctrinaire right wingers) don’t really care where their health care dollars go. What they want is to get good health care for the least amount of money. If a government plan can get them there, then that’s what they want. At this point, most people have concluded that a government plan is the most likely route to that end. Judging by the experience everywhere else in the civilized world, they are, no doubt, correct.

By the way, for all those that would argue that Medicare is in financial trouble, recall that it is an insurance program for that slice of the population that requires the most health care. It’s costs are still rising more slowly that those of private health insurers. Medicare for all would no doubt require more money, but it would be more efficient than the system we have today, and overall it would be cheaper.

It is to be hoped that the public option passes, and that the dire predictions of the AMA and the Republicans are realized: that it drives the inefficient, deny-at-all-costs private companies out of the business. Then we can have decent health care at reasonable cost for everyone. In the final analysis, there are certain goods and services that are so vital that no private company can be given the right to control their distribution. Everyone is comfortable with the concept of public water companies, for instance. Here in Groton we have a public utility, that delivers electricity, cable and internet cheaper than its private competitors. A good argument can be made that in this day and age, all three of those commodities are so vital that government should be at least a player, to keep the corporations close to honest. We have seen the result of leaving health care to the corporations. We spend huge amounts of money for a horrible health care system, though we are constantly propagandized with the baseless claim that we have the best health care in the world.


Filed in Health Care | | Comments (0)

Tweet, Tweet, Tweet

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

The Republicans appear to be dominating the political part of the world of Twitter. This was a self conscious strategy; having been thoroughly trounced in the blogosphere, they were not going to let themselves get beat again. So we get to read about Charles Grassley’s inane non-sequiturs, Gingrich’s fact free claims of Sotomayor’s alleged racism, or McCain’s rants about earmarks.

Whether by accident or design, Twitter is the perfect medium for Republicans. Given the character limit per tweet it doesn’t only encourage, it demands superficial thinking. Thus McCain, Newt, Grassley, et. al., can send a tweet to their media friends, who will dutifully pass it on, unanalyzed, to the public.

McCain, for instance, can tweet about earmarkswithout having to address the merits of the earmarks he attacks, or come to terms with the fact that the spending he attacks is such a small sliver of the federal budget that eliminating all earmarks, as he suggests, would make virtually no difference to the budget. It’s sufficient that the earmarks attacked sound funny, or can be made to sound funny by some creative misrepresentation.

In the political realm Twitter is as close as the Internet comes to talk radio. Thought free repetition of talking points, simplistic slogans about complex issues, mindless reinforcement of preconceived notions, all with no need to ever defend your position with facts and logical arguments. It’s the perfect environment for Republicans.


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (1)