A bit o' wit

Here's a chuckle.

Tonight President Obama makes a major speech to the gay community at the Human Rights Campaign dinner in D.C. Many are hoping that he will announce, or at least reaffirm, his commitment to ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Bill Maher says:

"Forget all the good arguments for repeal, like, because it's the right thing to do, or because it was promised in the campaign," Maher said. Instead:

"Do it because it will make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag full of meat dropped from a helicopter," he said. "Do it because it will make Sarah Palin go rogue in her pants."

For whatever reasons, just do it !!!

It's way, way past time. If Truman could order the Army to desegregate, then surely Obama can end DA/DT. Yes, Congress will need to repeal the actual law; but, with the stroke of a pen, the Commander in Chief could at least tell them to stop processing discharges of valuable service men and women until it can be repealed.

Just do it, Obama. You've "Got the Whole World in Your Hands."

Ralph

Obama's message

This message came from President Obama. It is essentially what he said in his news conference yesterday morning, reframed a bit and addressed to his supporters:

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

Once again, Barack Obama fielded an unexpected curve ball -- it was totally a surprise, I'm convinced -- and turned it into a moment of humility and grace, but also one of resolve and hope.

Maybe he doesn't walk on water, but he still stands ten feel tall in my mind.

Ralph

Compromise

There's talk of compromise on the public option that might actually work to bring conservative democrats and progressives together -- and could even bring in a few Republicans, if they can get over their knee-jerk, just-say-no stance.

The plan: have a public option plan on a national scale -- which gives progressives what they want -- but have it be something that individual states can opt-out of. Apparently, like Medicaid, the plan would be administered through state agencies, so any state that didn't want to participate could opt out.

The advantage, as I see it, is that instead of a watered down co-op, which we know doesn't work, those states that participate will provide a solid proving ground for how well this could work.

And at the same time, no one can say that big government is shoving it down people's throats; so it somewhat undermines conservatives' opposition. It seems less like something they can demonize as "socialism."

If this flies, it could be the silver bullet that gets this whole thing moving toward Obama's desk for a signature.

Ralph

Nobel Obama

Perhaps the surprise of the year: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

Reactions are all over the map. "What's he done to deserve it?" "He's a good man but it's premature so early in his presidency."

Absolute blind fury that "The Anointed One" has been handed something else without deserving it. Simple blind fury at anything Obama wins and absolute glee if he loses -- whether it's health care or the Olympics.

My initial reaction was: this is not good. It will just give the haters something else to focus on.

But my second reaction was to realize that he has already accomplished a lot, simply by setting a new tone for the U.S. in the world. And I think that is what the Committee recognized. You could be cynical and say it was simply an award for being the not-bush. It's more than that.

Obama has restored the world's opinion of what the U.S. stands for. Is it not a great accomplishment that following his election and his first few months in office, the standing of the U.S. in the world's respect has jumped from 27th to 1st?

Most Americans simply do not realize how much damage george bush, dick cheney and their crowd did to this country in the eyes of the world. When he was elected a second time, the world thought we had lost our ever-loving minds.

Obama's comments this morning were pitch perfect: starting with a bit of humility about his daughters' keeping it in perspective: reminding him that it was also Bo's birthday and a holiday weekend coming up as being on a par with the big announcement.

And then saying he did not feel he deserved to be included with those who have truly been transformative of the world -- but that he would accept the award as "a call to action."

The only thing I wish they had done would have been to award the prize to President Obama and the American People who elected him.

Ralph

Israeli conflict

My good friend Alan, a Canadian who lives in Vancouver and who happens to be Jewish, as I presume is the writer of the article from The Jerusalem Post, sent this response to my post from yesterday, featuring that article by Larry Derfner:

So what would happen in the U.S.A. if ONE missile landed in San Diego?..., how about two?...or two thousand - which is reportedly what happened in Israel prior to the invasion. How would the U.S.A react?

I think this is a very important question for us to ponder. It's hard to live, as Israelis do, under the constant threat of terrorist bombs and rocket attacks. It's hard for us to really know what that is like. What I took Larry Derfner's stance to be -- as presumably a Jew living in Israel himself -- was "yes . . . but is our response appropriate? What about the Palestinian people"

Here's my answer to my friend Alan's question of what would the U.S.A. do?:

The U.S. has been attacked: in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 in the single most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the world. And for a time we did all experience that fear that terrorism causes, wondering when and where the next attack will come. The terrorists achieved their goal: they instilled fear where there had been none.

But I was not in favor of our military response even then when we attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I felt we should have dropped humanitraian supplies for the people (food, medicine, clothing, agricultural supplies, building materials) instead of bombs and then have concentrated on aid to help this impoverished nation resist the take-over of their country by militant anti-western forces. Think what could have been done with those billions and billions of dollars we have spent on military force, and the people on both sides killed.

That would have been politically impossible, however; our leaders had to show their strength and strike back, they felt. I was in a tiny, tiny minority that felt there had to be a better way of responding than war.

And what good has come of it, eight long years later, as we risk being mired down in the dreaded quagmire of can't win/can't leave?

Then george bush essentially left Afghanistan and went after his preferred target, Iraq and its oil supplies -- even though they had nothing to do with the attack on us. I knew without a doubt that this was the wrong thing to do.

It's easy to sit here, safe and cozy at my computer, and say I think the Israelis should choose a different way than military strikes and bulldozers. Would I feel differently if I lived there? I don't know.

But I do know that, if I lived in Gaza and experienced the prolonged blockade and the destruction of homes and non-military buildings, I would probably turn from my anti-war stance and begin throwing rocks at tanks myself.

I would like to see the Israelis take Derfner's questions to heart and think about whether their retaliatory response is even in their own best interests, or -- like our presence in Iraq -- just creates more terrorists who will attack more and more. What if, instead of tanks, they had removed the blockades and gone in with food, medicine, building supplies, etc. and actually helped these impoverished people rebuild their homes, schools, and hospitals?

My tendency is usually to side with the oppressed and against the oppressors. Historically, that puts me on the side of the Jews. That's been harder lately, because Israel is so much stronger and because I feel their retaliation has been disproportionate to the feeble attempts of Palestinians to stand up for themselves. I begin to think of Israel as the oppressor.

Both peoples have been oppressed, displaced, and attacked. Two wrongs don't make a right. Who owns the land? It depends on how far back in history you go. Each side has its own legitimate grievances and its evidence that the other side is more wrong than they are. There is never going to be a consensus on who is right.

I do not see a solution to the problem unless a different calculus is applied. If enough Israeli Derfners are joined by counterparts among the Palestinians that speak out against their own leaders' refusal to negotiate a peace -- then maybe something can happen.

And now that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a call to action, maybe it will spur him and his representatives on to greater determination to bring peace to the Middle East.

Ralph

Another outrage from the right

An Oklahoma law set to go into effect on November 1 requires that demographic data about women who have abortions must be reported to the state health department, which will then post the data on a public website.

They claim that, since no names will be posted, it does not violate women's privacy. Opponents, who are trying to stop implementation of the law, say that in small communities it will be easy to identify women.

Data required to be reported are: date of abortion, county in which it was performed; age, marital status, race, and level of education of the mother, and total number of previous pregnancies.

I cannot think of any public health usefulness of posting this data on a public website. It can only be another attempt to shame and deter women who have a perfectly legal medical procedure.

I know that they think they are preventing the murder of actual children; but to me it is the creeping movement toward the theocracy that they would really like to turn this country into.

I am just as opposed to the murder of actual children as they are. We differ only in when we think an embryo becomes a human being.

Ralph

A dissident voice from Israel

OK, folks, this is going to be another long article from someone else. But, for anyone interested in Mideast peace and in a more balanced view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, this is an important voice. In an article published in the Jerusalem Post, this is a very hard-hitting challenge to the prevailing governmental position.

The Goldstone Report mentioned here is the report of an investigation of the Gaza conflict, which has apparently concluded that Israel should be charged with war crimes. Israel has denounced the report; the initial plan to have it brought to the UN Security Council was somehow blocked.

Here's the article by Larry Derfner in The Jerusalem Post on Oct. 7, 2009:

Rattling the Cage: Our exclusive right to self-defense

Virtually all of Israel is now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report, against any attempt to blame us over the war in Gaza. We've honed our message to a sharp point and, inspired by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's performance at the UN, we're delivering it with just the right tone of outrage:

How dare anyone deny us the right to self-defense! How dare anyone deny us the right to fight back against terrorism!

Very nice. Puts everyone else on the defensive. The right to self-defense is up there with motherhood and apple pie - who's going to come out against it, especially for us, for Israel, for the Jews, for the people of the Holocaust?

The right to self-defense - perfect.

But I'd like to ask: Do the Palestinians also have the right to self-defense?

We probably wouldn't admit it out loud, but in our heads we would say - again, in one voice - "No!"

This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We're entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defense. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism.

That's the way it's always been, that's the way it was in Operation Cast Lead.

And there are no limits on our right to self-defense. There is no such thing as "disproportionate." We can blockade Gaza, we can answer Kassams with F-16s and Apaches, we can take 100 eyes for an eye.

We can deliberately destroy thousands of Gazan homes, the Gazan parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, courthouses, the only Gazan flour plant, the main poultry farm, a sewage treatment plant, water wells and God knows what else.

Deliberately.

After all, we're acting in self-defense. By definition.

And what right do the Palestinians have to defend themselves against this?

None.

Why? Because we're better than them. Because we're a democracy and they're a bunch of Islamo-fascists. Because ours is a culture of life and theirs is a culture of death. Because they're out to destroy us and all we are saying is give peace a chance.

One look at the ruins of Gaza ought to make that plain enough.

Here is our idea of the "laws of war": When Israeli bulldozers rolled across the border into Gazan villages and flattened house after house so Hamas wouldn't have them for cover after the IDF pulled out, that was self-defense. But if a Palestinian boy who'd lived in one of those houses threw a stone at one of the bulldozers, that was terrorism.

The Goldstones of the world call this hypocrisy, a double standard. How dare they! Around here, we call it moral clarity.
I don't regularly read The Jerusalem Post, but I have heard before that you are more likely to read this kind of dissident voice there than in major papers in the U.S.

Ralph

Do you feel a momentum???

In the past few days, the Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Tompson both came out in favor of health care reform. And today, they were followed by former presidential candidate Bob Dole, who even derided Senate Republicans and Mitch McConnell in particular for their opposing anything coming from the Obama administration.

Along with them, Shepard Smith on Fox News, even, was lambasting the insurance companies and extolling the pubic option.

Now that doesn't mean they're all endorsing the most liberal version with the pubic option, but after all the knee-jerk opposition from Republicans in Washington, this is refreshing and heartening. It even begins to feel a bit like that wonderful tide in politics -- momentum.

Add to that the news today that the much-maligned-by-me bill from Sen. Max Baucus' Senate committee will actually reduce the budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years while covering 94% of the population -- and I begin to feel the rush of a tide.

In such a building climate, and with the public support for a public option still at least 60% -- why not got for it, President Obama?

I just clicked on a web site today that offered me a free lapel pin that says "Another doctor for health care reform." Unfortunately it said allow 3 to 5 weeks for delivery.

That may be too late.

Ralph

Fox News, even

As Jason Linkins of HuyffingtonPost reports today, Fox News' Shepard Smith, had this to say about the public option and insurance company profits. He was saying this to Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) who was presenting the conservative opposition:

SMITH: Over the last ten years health care costs in America have skyrocketed. Regular folks cannot afford it. So, they tax the system by not getting preventative medicine. They go to the emergency room in the last case and we all wind up paying for it. As the costs have gone up, the insurance industry's profits, on average, have gone up more than 350%. And it is the insurance companies which have paid, and who have contributed to Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to the point where now we cannot get what all concerned on Capitol Hill seem to believe and more 60% of Americans say they would support, which is a public option. This has been an enormous win for the health-care industry, that is an unquestioned fact. But I wonder, what happens to the American people when we come out with legislation now which requires everyone to have health care insurance -- or many more people -- but does not give a public option? Therefore millions more people will have to buy insurance from the very corporations that are overcharging us, and whose profits have gone up 350 percent in the last ten years. It seems like we the people are the ones getting the shaft here.

FOX NEWS?!?!?!? Yes, you read that right.

Barrasso's response to this was limp boilerplate, to which Smith replied:

"But every vote against the public option is a vote for the insurance companies, sir, it is."

Bravo, Shepard Smith !!! And -- though I never thought I would say it -- Bravo, Fox News!

Ralph

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/fox-newss-shepard-smith-g_n_311627.html

Health insurance outrage

HuffingtonPost reports:

WellPoint health insurance company, which has encouraged its employees to lobby against health care reform, is now cutting their benefits.

The insurance giant plans to raise deductibles and premiums for some of its employee health benefits.

HuffingtonPost sometimes engages in rather sensationalizing headlines, but reading the text of the article bears this one out. A health insurance company that encouraged its employees to lobby against health care reform then turns around and makes their own existing health benefit worse.

They blamed it on the bad economy that was forcing them to do it.

If they can't meet their obligations to their employees, then they should be lobbying FOR health care reform, not against it.

They're bankrupt. Bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of moral values.

Ralph

Krugman in brief

Yes, my last post about Iran was much too long, so I'll make this one briefer. But I think Paul Krugman's column today is worth reading.

Essentially he's saying the conservatives' glee at "Obama's defeat" in Chicago's failed Olympic bid is just the latest example of their behaving with "the emotional maturity of a bratty 13 year old." I personally think that's an insult to most 13 year olds I know.

He points out that it's not just that they have legitimate differences of political philosophy about the role of government but that there really is a difference in the tactics of opposition by the Democrats and the Republicans when out of power.

In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. . . .In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

Krugman attributes this Republican tactic to the fact that the party has been taken over by radicals and ideologues who do not accept that anyone else but them has the right to govern, no matter who wins elections. Add to this the weakened position of their party, and their frustrated entitlement bursts forth in this outraged lack of consistency with their philosophy that we are seeing.

I would add that, for some of them, the fact of Obama's "inferior" race makes that frustrated entitlement all the more galling. It's bad enough that a Democrat is sitting where they belong, but a black man on top of that?

Ralph

U.S. and Iran

Fareed Zakaria has an article in the latest Newsweek, "Containing a Nuclear Iran," that is must read for anyone interested in our relations with Iran.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216702/page/1

There are three basic options that the United States and its allies have regarding Iran's nuclear program. We can bomb Iran, engage it diplomatically, or contain and deter the threat it poses. Let me outline what each would entail and then explain why I favor containment and deterrence. . . .

One way to get instant gratification would be military force. . . . The first thing that would happen the day after such an offensive begins would be a massive outpouring of support for the Iranian regime. This happens routinely when a country is attacked by foreign forces, no matter how unpopular the government. . . . Recall that George W. Bush's approval rating on Sept. 10, 2001, was about 40 percent. After 9/11, it quickly climbed to 93 percent. . . .

Zakaria then goes on to explain that Iran would respond by activating the militias they support and causing attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. Also of concern would be the reaction on the "Arab Street." This would be the third Muslim country the U.S. had attacked in the eight years since 9/11. At best, Zakaria explains, a military attack would delay but not eliminate Iran's nuclear ambitions. So the gain is simply not worth the cost.

What about increased diplomatic engagement?

So, the feeling goes, Washington needs to make a much more active effort to engage the Iranians, listening and responding to their concerns, allaying their suspicions, ending "regime change" policies and offering the real prospect of recognition to the Islamic Republic and normal relations with the United States. If we lessen their fears and concerns, in this view, Tehran's leaders will be more likely to cooperate on the nuclear front.

There is something to this line of thinking. The Iranians do have some legitimate security concerns. They live in a neighborhood surrounded by nuclear powers—Israel, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan. The Bush administration did needlessly alienate Iran right after Tehran had cooperated with Washington to oust the Taliban and set up the Karzai government in Kabul. And it ignored any gestures or concessions made by the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami, further undermining an already weak president.

But Zakaria then says that this is flawed analysis, because Iran does not really want to open up to the West. Its clerics' grip on power depends on not letting its citizens taste the freedom and modernity of the West. A more open society would inevitably increase the threat to their theocracy.

This leaves deterrence and containment. As I understand Zakaria's point, Iran has lately become something of a pariah (because of its nuclear ambition, the revelation of its deception and lying to the inspectors, and its obvious election fraud) not only in the West, but they are increasingly regarded with suspicion by other Islamic states.

The country is in a box and, if well handled, can be kept there until the regime becomes much more transparent and cooperative on the nuclear issue. To do so, we should maintain the current sanctions but should not add broad new ones like an embargo on refined-gasoline imports. Any new measures should target the leadership and factions like the Revolutionary Guards specifically. . . .

At the same time, we must stop exaggerating the Iranian threat. By hyping it, we only provide Iran with "free power" . . . This is an insecure Third World country with a GDP that is one 40th the size of America's, a dysfunctional economy, a divided political class, and a government facing mass unrest at home. It has alienated most of its neighboring states and cuts a sorry figure on the world stage, with an international embarrassment for a president. . . .

The ultimate solution to the problem of Iran will lie in an Iranian regime that understands it has much to gain from embracing the modern world. That doesn't mean Iran would forswear its efforts to be a regional power—all the losing presidential candidates in Iran endorsed the country's nuclear program—but it does mean that Iran would be more willing to be open and transparent, and to demonstrate its peaceful intentions. It would view trade and contact with the West as a virtue, not a threat. . . .

Can the West do anything to help the current regime evolve into something more open, modern, and democratic? The change has to come from within . . . . But we should not do anything to preclude internal evolution or more dramatic change in that country. The country is clearly deeply divided, and these divisions are not going to disappear.

There is some thoughtful analysis here. Just imagine how much President Obama has to know and understand about this one major problem -- and realize that this is only one of many even more complex issues, like health care reform, climate change, financial crisis, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East -- not to even mention the full-time critics at home and all the political winds trying to blow him away.

Ralph

Who woulda thunk it?

I have always idealized Boston as the fount of intelligence and wisdom, with all those distinguished institutions of higher learning: Harvard, MIT, Brandeis, Tufts, U. Mass, etc. I know, I'm lumping Cambridge in with Boston, which makes a difference to the locals; but to us outside admirers, it's just two sides of a river.

Whatever . . . . . the Boston area has always to me meant high levels of education, with literally hundreds of thousands of college and university students inhabiting the place.

Imagine my surprise this morning, reading an article in the AJC about comparative rates for water/sewer services in various cities of a comparable size to Atlanta, to discover that

Atlanta has a higher percentage of its citizens who are college graduates than Boston.

What does that have to do with sewer rates, you ask? There was a chart comparing eight cities on various demographic scales. Atlanta actually had the highest rate of college grads (43.6%) of any of the eight except Seattle (53.5%). Boston came in at 40.3%.

Now, I should emphasize that this was about populations within the city limits, not metropolitan areas. Which means that the Cambridge side of the Charles River is not included, nor are our northern suburbs. So all those Harvard-MIT folks aren't included in Boston's stats.

But still -- more college grads in Atlanta than Boston?!! Now that's something.

P.S.: We also came out ahead in water/sewer rates ($109.08) compared to Boston ($80.42) and behind Seattle ($113.10). Now that's an interesting correlation: the higher the rate of college grads, the higher the sewer fees. Hmmmm.

Ralph

Another "insurance" outrage

Here is a basic difference in a system that relies largely on private health insurance with relatively little regulation and a system that is either partly or wholly provided by the government.

The core difference? Profit. A private system is based on a business model, and the final answer is the bottom line: how to increase profits. Now today, I'm not talking about the obscene profits and CEO salaries but what the profit-motive leads them to do to their customers.

So here's just one more example of what that leads to:

Having been a victim of domestic violence is a pre-existing condition that would lead some insurance companies to deny coverage.

In 1994, an informal survey by the House Judiciay Committee found that half of the 16 largest insurers in the country considered domestic violence in deciding whether to approve health coverage. The Pennsylvania insurance Department reported a year or so later that nearly one out of four insurance companies factored in domestic violence when deciding whether to issue or renew policies.

Those are old statistics, and its hard to update because insurance companies are reluctant to reveal their underwriting standards. But, shocking as that seems to us, it is perfectly consistent with bottom-line thinking. The same thinking that leads them to employ people whose sole job is to comb through claimants' early records to find some overlooked "pre-existing" diagnosis or some undisclosed trivial doctor visit 20 years ago -- so they can deny the claim.

So what is so egregious about the domestic violence thing? It means that a woman may choose to stay in an abusive marriage because she would lose her coverage under her husband's health insurance and be unable to get her own because of a history of being the victim -- not the perpetrator -- of domestic violence.

You see, it's not the wife-beater who is penalized; it is the beaten wife. Because, if he beats her again, she may need medical care; but he probably won't. Get it? It's totally an a-moral thing; just business.

Long live America !!!

Long live our God, Big Business !!!!

Long live our Heavenly Paradise, Billionaire's Island. !!!!!

Ralph