Thoughts About Universal Health Care

There are a few important health topics that I did not expect to learn about during my first two years of medical school. One such issue is the multitude of cases when a patient’s symptoms don’t follow the statistically predicted “textbook” course. Another example is the legal dilemmas doctors face while contemplating their practices. However, one matter that is particularly overlooked is a knowledge about the US healthcare system.

This month, a discussion about healthcare emerged as the topic of my ethics small group. Sixty minutes and three articles later, I am not sure how much I gained. One thing that I know for sure- my thirst for knowledge and conversation on this topic is currently much bigger than that for osteology of the skull.

Intellectually and morally, I do not simply want to acknowledge the fact that our health care system needs repair. I want to come up with my own plausible idea that could actually function to make it better. This is a task that no state or country government has been able to perfectly address, so it requires a lot of assessment.

In fact, I’ve been thinking about it for years- even before I decided to go to medical school. The first time I heard of the idea of universal health care, I was a college sophomore attending an event about local NGO organizations looking for volunteers. One such group was advocating “health care for all!” As a young middle-class person who had been covered by my father’s employer for my whole life, it seemed like a strange idea. I never perceived a problem with getting access to care, even despite some complicated medical problems during my youth.

When I later spoke with my father by phone (my main sounding-board for verifying new intellectual ideas), he said, “Oh sure! Of course we should have a national health plan. Don’t you know that every industrialized country except the US provides health care?” His comments rattled me. I felt like I had when I realized that the USA was one of the only countries in the world that allowed the death penalty. Suddenly, the visions of my dad opening letters from the insurance companies with total frustration and dismay poured into my mind. Because I had never personally had a problem with health care, I assumed it wasn’t a big issue.

Furthermore, when I graduated from college a few years later, I thought it would be alright to go three months uninsured as I transitioned from my parents plan to an employer’s plan that I would be eligible for after 90 days. I realized I was wrong about that too when my mother passionately exclaimed that in one moment a car could swipe me off a street corner and cause damage of millions and millions of dollars. Whew! Ok, I conceded.

That fall I had a bicycling accident that took me to the emergency room for x-rays and pain medication. I fractured my olecranon (that means “elbow” in anatomy language), and according to my little brother, had a swollen face that made me look like a monkey, Needless to say, I was humbled as I realized that my life could have been a total disaster had a not been insured.

Fast forward to now, and I am completely convinced the USA needs some type of national plan. I’m not convinced that the health care situation is the worst in the world. After all, we have a good education system, lots of research and experimental treatments, access to anything available if you have resources, and knowledgable doctors who don’t take bribes (as a side not, if you want to read something about the bribe-driven medical system in Eastern Europe to make you feel the USA isn’t so bad after all, see this NYT article).

Actually, the US already has a national plan, but it is disorganized and unrecognized. Medicaid and Medicare provide payment for over 50% of the medical costs in our nation, a number, a number that's about 15.2% of our GNP,as well as the capital which insurance companies pay. All prisoners, soldiers, Peace Corps Volunteers and veterans legally have access to free medical care.

I visited a veterans hospital in Nebraska this winter, and was surprised by the advanced computer-systems- which provide information about any veteran to a variety of hospitals in the region. My own doctor’s office won’t even share within the building. Whether Medicaid or health care systems for prisoners work as well as the veterans system is debatable. However, my own grandparents are receiving plenty of medical treatment (even more than my grandmother can rationalize) covered under their Medicare plan.

The problem is that health care costs are sky-rocketing— the graph shows a sharp line upward, even with all other factors, such as income and inflation, adjusted. I’ve heard that Medicare won’t be left to cover my generation. Additionally, the costs have risen so much that a growing number of insured people are unable to access care and pay their medical bills. This has raised the awareness about creating a national plan—or reorganizing the current plans as the case may be—and I firmly believe that in the next few years we will see some major changes.

According to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25, healthcare IS a right. But whether or not it is a right, we can all agree that morally a government should provide some care for those who can’t afford it. For example, we provide food stamps to those who qualify (maybe it’s not the best nutrition, but the US government gives people food). Our taxes pay for a fire service, regardless of who has fires. They also pay for public schools, even if we don’t have children or send our kids to private schools. So, why not also expand the idea to provide some type of basic care, which would exist as a free option to those who need it? Nobody would be forced to go there. Doctors wouldn’t be forced to work there. And nobody would take away the private care or insurance companies that already exist. It would be an option (and actually I think I’d be honored to work there helping people who really need the care).

However, I’m afraid that the only steps the US will take first is via subsidized insurance coverage—often with private insurers, rather than creating state-owned hospitals. It’s less change, requires less capital and work up-front, and perhaps people can accept it more easily because it seems less-nationalized? Yet, mandating insurance coverage really isn’t the same as providing basic care via a state-run, state-owned operation.

Massachusetts is considered to be “ahead” of the nation with their health care laws that require all people to have insurance. Additionally, laws were passed that guideline basic coverage to protect consumers. For example, in MA no person can be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, and insurance companies must pay for fertility treatments regardless of age. All people of low-income status qualify for subsidized insurance plans- except students (who currently aren’t covered by any subsidized plans, but that’s another long story). Currently the state can’t afford its own legislation because it also has the most expensive care of any state in the country.

I believe this demonstrates that legislature needs to address several areas- not only the coverage of insurance providers, but also the cost for care that is set by private hospitals and clinics. It is ridiculous that most people have no idea how much their treatments will cost before they get them- and furthermore cannot even get a straight answer when they ask. The reason of course is that cost fluctuates depending on whether one has insurance, which insurance, no insurance, which doctor, what complications, how many blankets you asked for (just ask my friend Eva who was billed individually $20 for each blanket she used), etc.

Many Americans are afraid of more government involvement, but frankly, I am afraid of what will happen in our government doesn’t get more involved. Of course the truth of the matter is that most countries with state-run hospitals and completely free care have higher taxes (the current tax rate is about 30% in the USA, and about 60% in European countries –as a rough estimate), and they pay their doctors less (should be noted that they also have free medical tuition).

I think America can devise something new- perhaps even by reorganizing the current budget without raising taxes. One proposal was that people could have a deductible based on their pre-tax salary. Although honestly, I would definitely be willing to pay 5-10% more taxes if I never had to worry about insurance again. Somewhere the line will have to be drawn to decide what care will be free (or partially covered) in order to maintain a sustainable system for all. Obviously, cosmetic and dental care may be out of the question, but this is the part I really haven’t figure out yet—where do we draw a line? The decision should probably be made by a group of doctors and policy-makers appointed by elected officials, and not lowly medical students like myself. Yet, I continue to ponder about this issue, and I wonder what others think.

Absence makes the heart grow fond...

... but doesn't make the internet any cheaper.

Anyway, with a move, new jobs, a new kid, no wireless, and array of art projects, it gets tough to sit down and be Mirthful & Matterful. It's also difficult to compose the rather large essays this blog has become famous for (locally famous at least). That said, here's a few blurbs tugging at my brain.

1. John McCain. If you had run your campaign the way you ran your concession speech the outcome may have been different. Although I will admit that as the season grew on I became less afraid of you and more accepting.

2. Sarah Palin. You are completely justified in calling the media "jerks" for the way you've been treated. That said, it doesn't do any justice to your case when you call the media "jerks" in the same sentence in which you accuse them of being "juvenile."

3. Gay marriage. Maybe I'm wired in an ungodly way, but I just don't get the argument. Saying that allowing gay marriage is a slight to the sanctity of straight marriage is invalid. Combat the growing divorce rate and then you can talk. As I was discussing with my wife I understand the argument that raising children in an unconventional format raises issues in child development, but so far there is no factual evidence to support any such assertion. The only factual evidence that even remotely degrades the existence of homosexuality is the fact that anal sex practices are more succeptible to the spread of disease. Anal tissue is more porrous and allows for greater ease of microbe penetration, the temperature and humidity conditions are more favorable to the incubation of viruses, and the anus, unlike the vagina, is not a self-flushing mucous membrane. Those are facts. Facts that, I contend, should encourage gay marriage, as a willing adoption of monogamy in gay communities would be ideal to prevent the spread of STD's. I am not saying that homosexuality means you're a walking time bomb, nor do I blame homosexuality for the sexually-transmitted ills of the world. I'm just saying that marriage would help. Ignore, for the time being, that straight marriage is a niche and it is unconstitutional to not allow equal rights to all members of American society.

4. Abortion. I contend that, while abortion isn't a pleasant subject, people need to at least grasp the very elemental concept that the people who are opposed to Roe vs. Wade are in no need of its protection. If over-protective fathers didn't turn into a rhinoceros on steroids at the mention of abortion then Roe vs. Wade wouldn't exist. If women didn't have to be retreated to closets with the highly unsafe coathanger method the issue would be different. Our population is out of control and our overly-prideful, dog-eat-dog society is just too threatening to people who have no hope. Yes, adoption is better, but it's not your choice. If religious zealots in opposition to Roe vs. Wade were a little more religious and a little less zealot they might see the hypocrasy in their actions. The paramount of Christianity is God's gift of free will to humans, or to use more fluid terminology: CHOICE. So please, if it's a religious reason you're opposed, consider this notion.

EDIT:

5. Missile Defense Shield. Can someone tell me how both of the candidates made it the entire election cycle without even mentioning it? Perhaps it's my naivete, but it's a big deal, right? Aggravating Cold War sentiments with unreliable technology against enemies who are not Russia but don't have the bomb either just seems foolish.

Fidel Obama

It's amazing to me how much traction the patently ridiculous notion that Obama is going to be another Fidel Castro has in the Miami area. I've encountered numerous people - even well-educated ones - who buy into this ludicrousness, and the only reason why I can fathom it is that, to many Cuban voters, the most important aspect of any candidate is their relationship to Cuba. Obama's a Democrat, the party of Bay of Pigs fumbler JFK, so he's already essentially disqualified for that reason; add to that a comment like "redistributing wealth" and it's Viva la Revolucion. There is no relationship between Obama's history of centrism and Cuban-style communism, but to rile up the bitter old men who sip cafe con leches on Calle Ocho, Obama is being regularly compared to the man who is to Miami Cubans what Hitler is to the rest of the world.

This canard has been circulating for a while among people here, but it's appalling that a senator would make the same completely false comparison. However, this seems to be consistent with the GOP's strategy of drumming up irrational fear about Obama: not only is he an Anti-American, Muslim, and terrorist sympathizer - he is also a communist in disguise.

Ironic, too, that the GOP recently oversaw the biggest socialization of the banking sector in American history. McCain is just as much of a socialist as Obama on this huge count. Offhand comments about "redistributing wealth" aside, the GOP-led government over the last eight years has asserted its muscle into the lives of ordinary Americans in ways that would make Fidel Castro jealous: illegal incarceration at Guantanamo (Cuba!), wire-tapping of citizens, state-sanctioned torture, intimidation and purging at the polls... all of this has a lot more in common with Cuban-style communist totalitarianism than Obama's comments to Joe the Plumber. Senator Martinez and other Cuban-Americans should take a closer look at their own party before declaring Barack Obama the next Fidel Castro.

Re: Idiocracy

Moved from the comment section of Idiocracy.

We need to separate the idea of conservatism from the Republican party (in much the same way, though to a lesser degree, we need to separate the word progressive from the Democratic party, but that's another post). In other words, I don't think we have a conservative party. All we have are Republicans.

The Bush administration is not a conservative administration. Under Bush the national debt has soared and government size and spending has increased dramatically. The Bush Doctrine ratcheted up the level of interventionism in our foreign policy to unprecedented levels. States have lost a good amount of autonomy under an increasingly overbearing federal government. There has been an all out assault on individual liberties, especially privacy. Competition in a free market has given way to a pattern of cronyism, no-bid contracts, and bailouts for those favored firms who are too big to fail. Lastly, the rule of law has been consistently trashed, whether from ignoring democratically enacted laws with signing statements, spitting in the face of international laws and treaties, unprecedented secrecy, a politicized justice department, and the shielding of cronies and lackeys from any accountability. Take almost every idea of the conservative movement, and Bush has done the opposite.

The Bush administration defines the Republican party today, a party that is not liberal or conservative, but rather in a category of its own. I don't mean to be melodramatic, but the combination of an extremely secretive, anti-democratic form of governance, interventionist policies both domestically and abroad, and the open collaboration of corporate and public interests makes the administration almost proto-fascist. If there was ever a time for a genuine three party race, now would be that time.

Interestingly, the Republican primaries started to go in that direction. Each candidate ran against some aspect of the Bush administration, and each candidate embraced Reagan, not Bush, as the party standard-bearer. Reagan brought a lot of disparate factions together under one tent, but under the later Bush years that coalition started to fall apart. The Republican primaries this year were incredibly revealing, in that they showed these various forces battling each other for control of the party. You had Huckabee, representing the Christianist-wing of the party; Paul, the libertarian-wing; Romney, the corporate-wing; Thompson, the personality-wing; Tancredo, the xenophobic-wing; and Giuliani, the authoritarian-wing. (The fact that McCain is not easily categorized is telling).

Each of the candidates exaggerated some parts of the platform at the expense of others. Huckabee was an economic populist, Romney (despite all his efforts) was an elitist, and Mormon (read: not-quite-Christian). Giuliani was too socially-liberal, to metropolitan. Thompson was a joke. Ron Paul, the closest thing the party had to a small-government, fiscally-conservative, non-interventionist, pro-individual rights conservative, was universally dismissed.

In the end, with a fractured base, independents pushed McCain over the finish line. The fact that he was disliked by much of the base would be a short term problem. One of the defining characteristics of the Republican base is a team mentality. During the primary, the talk-radio, Fox-news crowd attacked McCain as not being sufficiently "conservative" enough for the base. No matter. It was only a matter of time before they came around to a his side, especially against the threat of an Obama or Clinton presidency. Again, you don't go against the team. (As an aside, I read on a right-wing blog a complaint from one the readers that too much of the internal disagreement within the party had been voiced to the public. In his mind, you only mention your doubts about a candidate in private, lest you hurt the team)

So that brings us to today. We have a collapsing economy, two collapsed wars, and a President who is giving Nixon's approval rating a run for his money. Congress has single digit approval ratings as well. McCain is clearly going to follow in Bush's policies in every meaningful way. The only thing Republicans have to run on is the team itself. Team McCain must win, team Obama must lose. Is it any wonder that McCain's only approach is to paint Obama as a traitorous Muslim sleeper-agent? Hence, the idiocracy.

So, are conservative principles discredited? Tough to say. We know that Bush's policies are thoroughly discredited. Going further back, I think we can agree that Reaganomics, trickle-down economics, is also thoroughly discredited.

But what about conservatism? I guess that depends on how you define it. Is deregulation all bad, or is the problem simply the mix of deregulation in some areas and tacit/explicit regulation in others? As Andrew Sullivan pointed out on Bill Maher's show a few weeks back, even tax policies such as the home mortgage interest deduction distort the market, encouraging owning a home rather than renting. What about moral hazard? Business' need the threat of failure in order for the market to function properly. My opinion is that we need regulation, but I don't think you can say with certainty that deregulation is entirely discredited based upon the economic crisis. This may be academic, though. Is Communism a discredited philosophy, or simply the way Stalin and Mao practiced it?
I don't think many people have the stomach to answer that question, and the same goes for deregulation.

In sum, the Republican party is no longer the party of Reagan. In the same way I would say the Democratic party is not the party of FDR. We have a political landscape in which the language and party cliches we use have not caught up to the reality of the political situation. Only an intense lack of self-reflection allows McCain to tout his party as the party of fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. Our Republican politicians live in an irony-free zone, unwilling or unable to see that the Republican boat has left the harbor, and conservatism was left on the dock.

Idiocracy

Since many of us were born, the American political map - with blue states on the coasts and Great Lakes region and red states everywhere else - resembled many other maps showing different aspects of American culture and economy. It roughly correlates to the map of obesity rates, with red states being fatter than blue ones; it matches the prevalence of Wal-Marts in US communities; it matches a map of US education levels. Are Republicans really fatter, more prone to shop at Wal-mart, and less educated than their Democratic peers?


Increasingly, yes they are. In today's NYT David Brooks published a revealing article on the shifting culture of political conservativism. When the modern conservative movement started, it was intellectually radical, challenging the status quo academic thinking regarding taxation, the role of government, etc. Its leaders, while weary of the liberal, Ivy League elite, also valued education, achievement, and intellectual rigor. This was the conservativism of William Buckley: populist but sprinkled with erudite sesquepedalianism. Through the mid 1980s, THIS was the conservative moment, and its appeal was broad - in 1984, Reagan took every state but Minnesota. But soon after Reagan, the GOP began to undermine this loose coalition of urban conservative intellectuals and rural voters. Instead of taking on just the liberal academic elite, they began taking on educated, coastal people in general. "Elitism" was not just used to describe liberal NYU sociology professors: it was used to describe any Californian with a good education and relatively high salary. This bargain had a Faustian tone to it: as the shift occurred, most of the intellectual muscle of the United States fled the conservative movement. Now, all the states with the most money (save Texas) are Democratic; lawyers donate to the Dems at a rate of 4-to-1; doctors, 2-to-1; tech workers and executives, 5-to-1; even those in the financial industry, those stalwart Wall Street Journal readers, donate a lot more to the Dems (2-to-1).

What is happening here? I propose two explanations, the first political the second more philosophical. A big reason for this massive shift in allegiances, of course, came about in GOP strategy think tanks. It was observed - and rightly so, as Karl Rove has demonstrated - that if the mass of relatively uneducated, southern and western Evangelicals can be mobilized, they will overwhelm the coastal "elites" in the electoral college. The electoral map from 2004 is stunning: virtually the entire mid-section of the country is red. Although these were the regions affected most by Bush's Iraq War, were decimated most by trickle-down economics, were - in short - losing more from conservative policies than the coasts, these were precisely the people voting the bums back into power. Thomas Frank's great book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" is an intriguing meditation on this important question: why do so many people in red states vote against their own economic self-interest? The answer, of course, are the ever-raging culture wars and the GOP's shrewd manipulation of them to get out the vote while never actual making a dent in the actual issues value voters care about. Herein lies perhaps the biggest stroke of political genius of the last 20 years: divide the people along cultural lines, invent issues that stir up emotional responses, and let the idiots duke it out with the "coastal elites." Joe Six-pack will inevitably overpower the tweed-wearing snob.

This is the political reality of the shift. But there is also an underlying philosophical transformation going on here. Backing up a bit: I've always leaned Democratic my whole conscious life. Indeed, one's family is the greatest predictor of political bent and my family has no shortage of "libruls." However, even in high school and before, I always understood and respected the conservative position. I didn't necessarily agree with it, but it was a consistent, rigorous philosophy with its own logical contentions, approaches, and solutions. Of course, this form of conservativism - the one that makes sense - it still out there. I consider George Will and David Brooks, for example, to be smart, principled conservatives. I don't always agree, but I always read their columns. Pat Buchanan, despite occasional forays into extreme right-wing cant, generally fits into this category as well. But David Brooks doesn't set the political agenda in small towns in Ohio; George Will isn't a commentator on FOX News; Buchanan is far more active on public broadcasting than he is in the screaming head, vitriolic media so frequented by red America. Politics aside, as all of the aforementioned conservatives agree, Republican ideas are in a state of emergency. Real world facts have changed but conservatives keep pounding home the same points they've anchored themselves to for years: cut taxes, keep military spending high, half-assedly pursue "cultural" issues, distrust "Big Government" (what about "smart government"?), etc. ad nauseum. Watching Palin speak is a exercise in beating a dead horse - although the world has changed, the talking points remain the same. The Republican philosophy is starting to rot.

Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can look at the hard realities facing us today and believe that the modern Republican message addresses them at all. I understood back in 1998 - I'm at a loss now. Barring those individuals who will vote for whoever says they're pro-life or pro-gun or anti-gay, the facts are so clearly in the Left's favor that it's a miracle the GOP is still hanging on to 43% of the popular vote. The list is way too long to list here, but over the last eight years many sacred cows of Republican thinking have been completely discredited. The failed wars show the limits of American military power and the tragedy of Empire; the ongoing economic crisis shows the complete failure of deregulation to create a fair, balanced financial system; the $10+ trillion debt shows us the unsustainability of tax cuts to the rich and spending beyond our means. (Ironic that conservative presidents have rung up such obscene deficits in the last 25 years.) The list goes on.

I've come to a certain conclusion: as conservative principles have begun losing their power to express the world, those who know better - ie., the educated coastal "elites" - have fled. Despite the handful of smart conservative analysts, scholars, and writers keeping the old intellectual revolution alive, the primary voices of the movement now are Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, et al. THEY are the ones driving opinion in rural red state areas, not the aristocratic William Buckley. As conservative principles have lost their intellectual power, therefore, the GOP has resorted to the only reasonable strategy they can adopt to maintain power - hoodwink stupid people into voting against their own interests. The ideas can't stand up on their own, but if you get Hannity screaming about the liberals coming to take away your American values, then you might get some traction. The GOP today relies not on southerners, Joe Six-packs, or Christians - it relies on stupid people.

Update: The conservative Wick Allison's assessment of conservativism is right on the money.

Update II: And another recent Op-ed piece by Bob Herbert that amplifies the argument here.

Selling the Bailout

It is clear that, barring a complete overhaul of the Paulson Plan, the bill currently floundering in congress is not going to attract the votes of the stalwart members of Congress (which, it turned out yesterday, are in the majority). Representatives and their constituents are concerned about the philosophical nature of the plan (a drift towards socialism, that bogeyman of American politics); the perception that it rewards greedy and unwise Wall Street managers at the expense of average folk; and the political ramifications of all of this. Clearly, therefore, what we are dealing with here is a PR problem on a massive scale.

Of course, Paulson isn't helping on this front. When his original draft of the bill is three pages long and basically gives him complete, unfettered control over a chunk of money that is larger than the entire GDP of India, he didn't make too many friends. Among the American people especially. The fear that this ex-Goldman Sachs CEO is enriching his friends at our expense really is a valid concern: recent revisions to the bill, however, have softened the original proposal considerably, complete with provisions to limit executive compensation and an equity stake in the companies themselves (plus a vague guarantee that the Treasury is repaid within a certain set period of time). This should calm all those anxious heads (like mine) out there that balked at the original plan.

Something tells me that if Americans truly understood the extent of the problem, there would be more public support for this plan. The problem is that our financial system has spiralled so out of control over the last twenty years (and especially in the last 8) that it is now too exceedingly complex to grasp. Even top Wall Streeters don't understand the depth of this crisis, where all these toxic mortages were bundled off to, how the $60+ trillion derivitives markets (Buffett's "financial weapons of mass destruction") will respond to the fact that there is suddenly less money in the world, etc. They are on tenderhooks just like we are. The media has been doing a truly commendable job explaining global finance over the last two weeks, but some of this stuff is closer to quantum physics than it is to simple supply-demand macroeconomic models we've all learned in high school. Expecting Americans to "understand" what's going on might be too much to ask when nobody seems to get it.

However, this much now seems clear: if we don't act, we face certain financial disaster. The problem here, again, is one of abstraction. I imagine lots of people out there are picturing all the towers in lower Manhattan with "For Sale" signs out front and a lot of guys in Gucci suits waiting in line for some bread. They don't picture themselves in the same situation; after all, it was Wall Street that messed up, right? And despite all the turbulence on the markets these last couple weeks, the majority of Americans still have their jobs, drive to work, plan for retirement, and do everything they were doing before the financial hurricane hit. So why should they bail out Wall Street tycoons? Let them suffer a little bit for their greed.

The problem with this understanding of the situation is that it assumes one can keep away from the tangled mess of Wall Street, could simply open up accounts in banks that are completely independent from the asset-backed securities market, etc. Of course, our financial system don't work this way, and it really is impossible to stay out of the meltdown. Your job security, your ability to buy a new car, your 401(k): all of these are tied to the vageries of the markets. So before we adopt an attitude of Schadenfreude towards the tycoons, we need to understand that, like it or not, we are all bedpartners with Wall Street.

Collapse is an abstract phenomenon until it actually happens. But you don't have to dig too deep to unearth evidence that collapse was imminent two weeks ago (as it might be right now). On Sept. 16, for example, we actually experienced a near seize-up of the credit market. For a day or so, trading in commercial paper - that simple money-market instrument that allows businesses to take large, short-term loans with low interest rates - ground to a halt. Since businesses often don't have the money on-hand to make significant investments, commercial paper is essential to a well-functioning economy. It is the oil that keeps the machine running smoothly. If this market would have remained out of commission for another few days, it would have been ruinous.

Paulson, Bush, Bernanke, Barney Frank, and all the other important parties in the bailout deliberations have talked up the potential for disaster here. But the American public isn't buying it. Our legistators are losing the PR battle, and they're going to need to retool quickly to pull this bill away from certain doom. Here are a couple of PR suggestions to make this bill go down a little easier with regular Americans:

1) Stop using the word "bailout." Yes, that's essentially what it is, but it minimizes the importance to everyone of getting something passed. "Bailout" makes it sounds too contained, like the financial sector exists in isolation from the rest of the US economy and the pocketbooks of Everyman. It also puts the emphasis on saving the asses of a lot of fat cats who, most Americans would agree, don't deserve saving.

2) Ramp up the language. Bush has talked about how "this sucker could go down"; others have said that the consequences of doing nothing "could spell disaster for the economy." Let's cut the qualifiers out here. Bush needs to be saying that unless we act, this sucker will go down. There is a time for communicative nuance and hedging, but now is not it. Our leaders need to be direct and urgent with their message. I'm not suggesting that they fear-monger ("The Depression is coming for your children!!"), but the language needs to be unequivocal.

3) Stop blaming each other. I know that many top pols have talked about the need for bipartisanship here, but who's actually doing it in Washington? McCain "suspends" his campaign to put "country over politics" only to insert himself into a huge partisan circus, holds up the deliberations, and then - gallingly - blames Obama and the Democrats for failure of leadership. Like Paulson getting on his knee in front to Nancy Pelosi, there is a belief here that Democrats are somehow responsible for the actions of House Republicans. The blame game goes the other way. In an act of supreme stupidity, Nancy Pelosi chided the Republicans right before taking a vote on the bailout. (Although it should be noted here that the Republican claims that Pelosi's speech doomed the vote is risably ludicrous.) Our politicians talk the bipartisan talk, but when the rubber hits the road, everything turns rancorous, arguments spill into the Capitol halls, and politics once again reasserts itself as the dominant force. In addition to the financial crisis, our leaders are creating a political crisis in Washington, further eroding confidence in the American system around the globe and domestically. Reps in the House need to stop blaming each other and start working together: we can only handle one major crisis at a time.

Something needs to change quickly in the way Washington is handling the Paulson Plan, for it's not just the fat cats bankers who will be hurting when "this sucker goes down."

Down in Flames

Today was indeed a momentous day in the ongoing financial crisis. With the House rejecting the new-and-improved Paulson Plan and the Dow falling 777 points, its biggest one-day loss in 20 years, once again our economic future is teetering on the edge of disaster. Congressional leaders need to regroup quickly to patch up the dam before it bursts: the Paulson Plan is covered in warts, and it is in no way a permanent solution to our unsustainable financial culture of debt and irresponsible leveraging, but inaction has the potential to be far more devastating than action.

This really is a microcosm of the global warming argument circulated widely on the web: the risks of doing nothing far outweight the potential waste of doing something that's not necessary. Of course, many House Republicans, who voted 133 to 65 against the bill, believe that the bailout plan isn't worth the expense because it probably won't work anyway. This is the equivalent of saying, "our climate is changing too rapidly for us to do anything about it anyway, so trying to stop it is like throwing ice cubes at the sun." Although according to most sources House members are united in the belief that something must be done urgently, the collapse of the bill puts the entire endeavor in jeopardy. Pelosi will call another vote; but why should we expect a different outcome when the nay-sayers are voting primarily on principle and politics, not on the specifics of the bill?

First the principles of the matter. The GOP-suggested provision to the bill - that the bailout basically be treated as a large insurance plan - never made it into the final version. Yet, by most accounts, this is not what's holding up the fractured GOP House members. The primary issue here is one of principle, namely that a bailout of this magnitude is tantamount to an un-American socialist coup. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, fears “the slippery slope to socialism.” In remark after remark by many of the House GOP minority, similar sentiments are expressed. Now, we can all be sympathetic to these comments - very few people in the country actually look forward to putting down their hard-earned money to get liquidity flowing through our markets again. But a time for emergency action based on the facts is not a good time for ideological arguments. Many House Republicans are not just rejecting the bill because they don't think it will work, a legitimate reason; they are rejecting it because it goes against every free-market fiber of their being. Ideology trumps action.

Another divisive issue in the bailout vote today had to do with the contentious politics involved. As soon as this thing passes/crashes, congressmen and women will be returning to their districts to campaign. The fact of the matter is that a majority of Americans are still hostile towards the Paulson Plan (although the margin has been shrinking). Supporting an unpopular bill a month before an election is never good politics. Furthermore, the future political dividends on a bailout vote are complex: if the bill passes and the economy stabilizes, people will still go on criticizing it simply because they never experienced how bad it could have gotten. Republicans, therefore, could argue that they fought against wasteful, socialistic Democrats in the House (net effect - the GOP wins). It is sad to think that in the best case scenario, those who vote for a bailout will probably not get any credit for averting disaster - after all, potential disaster is still an abstract concept. If the bailout passes but then fails to staunch the bleeding and the economy dives into a recession anyway, the GOP's view will be born out and voting "no" shows prescience and wisdom (the GOP wins). On the other hand, if the GOP effectively blocks this bill and the credit markets seize up, lending stops, businesses falter, employees are laid off, foreign central banks reconsider the security of their US treasury bonds in the face of a plummeting dollar that is tied of the plummeting cost of oil, and the ripple continues on down until every American is affected, then I think we could safely say that the Republican party is done for. In fact, David Brooks did come out and say that the other day (if this happens, "the GOP will cease to exist").

Again, getting back to risk assessment: provided the economy is able to creak along and nothing serious happens here, the GOP wins (although, we should remember, John McCain supported the bill today). The dissenters in the House have staked their political careers on this premise. But if our economy starts to go down in flames in the next couple weeks because of congressional inaction, the GOP will be at the center of it.

Update: This cogent analysis of the political crisis that yesterday's no vote represents was published by David Brooks this morning.

The election. From my perspective.

So, there's this election coming up. Its kinda important. On Zach's request, I thought I'd briefly (and finally) offer my 2 cents on it - being an outsider for the time being, a European, holding a passport of this small Northern European nation called Finland. You have to keep in mind though that Finland is a strange European country in that it's unlike any other in there, so a generalization with the opinions of, for instance, Western European countries isn't justified. But you probably knew that. I hope.

The general consensus seems to be that choosing McCain over Obama doesn't get much support; some, like me, go as far as saying that picking McCain would be another huge mistake. The previous one being the election and re-election of "Dubya".

Now, when I say "support" I'm mostly talking about analysts of U.S. politics, some politicians (mostly people who are one way or another connected to foreign relations) and perhaps independent bloggers. The average Joe doesn't bother his mind with it. Why should he, it doesn't consider him, he thinks. But as we've seen (at least) in the recent years, the election of a U.S. president has true global consequences. Apart from news considering the election (like the recent conventions), The Finnish media is very selective in providing information about the candidates themselves, you have to dig that information by yourself. And apart from possible talk show appearances (we get Conan, Kimmel and Letterman on cable) we obviously don't get the televised debates etc that at least give a hint of the man behind the name (I know, politics is politics, but still...). Generally I'd say that both candidates get an equal amount of coverage, and there's no favoring one or the other, even though Obama's racial heritage is obviously an interesting issue. And don't get me wrong, at least the media broadcasts truly international information unlike the local U.S. TV news where "international news" means news about Canada or Mexico. But that's another story...

I think what the Finns do have an opinion on though, is Americans in general, for better or worse. And needless to say, thanks to W., that image could use some polishing. All over the world, not just here, but that goes without saying I'm sure.

The McCain campaign got an unexpected (?) turn for the worse when a certain Alaskan governor was chosen as McCain's future VP-to-come, for purely political purposes it seems, and the media seems to be obsessed with her. A former Miss Alaska, whose former aspiration (according to rumors) was a TV anchor, who was a mayor of a really small town, and the governor of Alaska for two years, and is now running for the "top post of the world" so to speak. Until 2007, she didn't have a passport, and her only following visits abroad were in U.S. military bases in Kuwait for example, where she met and spoke mostly to Americans. What kind of an image does she have of the world we live in? That it consists of three nations, the U.S., Europe, and Iraq? They say that she has "plenty of international experience" because of that trip, and that Alaska is neighbouring Russia and Canada...I rest my case. (You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm told a really small percentage of Americans actually have passports. That's fine, but when running for such an important position, without visiting other regions of the world how can you be aware of the diversity of culture in the world, let alone go to war?)

She seems to be a firm believer of creationism and teaching it in public schools, not interested in environmental issues, is anti-gay rights and anti-abortion - all the "good stuff", then.

It's truly a scary thought that Palin is indeed quite literally "a heart beat" away from being a president. When the primary candidate is a 72-year old man who has battled cancer twice...

In closure, for me personally it's quite a helpless feeling having to "sit at the sidelines" and watch basically the fate and the future direction of this world (if I'm being slightly over dramatic) being chosen in front of my eyes and I can't do anything about it.

My Day Seven Years Ago

I awoke after a fitful night's sleep to Chris, hysterical, shaking me and exclaiming "the twin towers have been hit by planes!" My gut didn't believe him, but I played along, jumping out of bed and running to the TV. At first, the footage looked minor: a plane had crashed into the most massive buildings in the country. How much damage could that possibly do? I thought back to pictures I had seen of the incedent in the 1930s involving a biplane crashing into the newly-built Empire State Building. Still, there was something unreal about it.

We stepped out into the dazzlingly beautiful day, not believing the images we had just seen on TV. On our way to Washington Square - the best Twin Towers vantage point we could think of - we ran into a sea of people, all walking wearily uptown, some covered from head to toe in dark gray ash. The street was crammed; no room for cars or anyone foolhardy enough to be venturing downtown. Their faces registered shock, exhaustion, but most of all, pure bewilderment. Our worlds had just been turned outside down, and people were struggling to reorient themselves. People were lost.

This sense of profound confusion struck me when we reached the park and, looking down the island at a view I had marveled at many times before, I saw a black pillar of smoke suspended in the bright blue. We must have stood there staring for a solid ten minutes: I was waiting for the besmirched sky to clear so I could get a look at the damage to the towers - at the time we watched TV earlier, the only footage shown was that of a firey hole in the side of one of the buildings. But no towers materialized. Surely they were just hiding behind the smoke? They couldn't be gone. My statistician's mind flashed to a TV program I had seen years ago that said that 50,000 people worked in the trade center daily. Where were all of those people? I looked around and saw that a head-scratching mass of humanity was engaging in the same sort of tortured mental juggling I was: this was impossible. They must be there.

Everyone registered their confusion differently. Groups of students huddled together in circles, sobbing uncontrollably; a red-haired girl laughed awkwardly and had her boyfriend take a picture of her smiling with the black devastation behind her; a grizzled old Rastafarian started chanting, "Babylon is falling! Babylon is falling!" We entered this buzzing congregation and asked around: "What happened? Who did this?" Nobody knew a thing. I asked one friend what he had heard, and his eyes took on a distant, glazed look: we were all too busy coping with the enormity of the giant hole in the sky to care. Even as we mingled, expressing our mutual bewilderment, everyone's eyes kept drifting south. Each and every time, part of me expected to see them there, standing arrogantly over lower Manhattan. I imagined the crowds erupting with a sigh of relief over this false alarm and everyone shuffling back home.

It's amazing the banal thoughts that take over in times of crisis. In an attempt to grapple with the unimaginable, we are led to embrace the trivial and the meaningless to block out harsh realities. My big beginning-of-the-school-year audition was scheduled for later that afternoon, and I recall contemplating seriously what I should do about it. Would it be OK to just not show up or should I call? Does the toppling of the World Trade Center warrant a postponement of my jazz audition? Those are the sorts of absurd thoughts that fill one's head when one is confronted with the incomprehensible.

This may seem a strange word to use here, but the experience of the first 24 hours after the towers fell was surreal in a way that bordered on the psychedelic. Seeing the smoke billow up there in Washington Square violently punctured the bubble most Americans my age had lived in until that point. Something unreal was happening in front of our eyes; history was grabbing us and screaming. Like a psychedelic experience, this challenged my sense of what was real and what was not. After the initial shock, we all started grappling for something real, information, news, something. It was impossible to find a newspaper and, of course, things were changing too quickly for the authoritative NYT account to really mean anything anyways. We jumped into the current of bodies and let ourselves be pushed uptown.

Confusion was quickly transforming into fear. Just as soon as the realization that the towers had collapsed hit us, a torrent of anxious questions flowed to the surface. We were under attack. We didn't know by whom, but that made the fear all the more hyperreal. Rumors swept through the shell-shocked streets, and we quickly settled on the obvious truth that "they" were on their way to destroy the Empire State Building. We were a people under siege, or so we felt.

On the journey north to find information, the loud roar of a low-flying plane filled the air. For a few seconds, hundreds of people stopped walking around me, stopped talking, and stared - terrified - into the skies. It was a moment that I instantly felt should not be happening: frightened people on the streets of New York City scanning the horizon for a plane whose pilot wanted to kill us. The fear was palpable, overwhelming - and totally real. For that afternoon, once reality has been intruded upon so horrifically, anything else was on the table. If someone would have shouted that armed gunmen were invading the island and shooting everyone, I'm sure most of us would have believed it. Our senses and rationality were too pulverized to put up a fight. When a solitary F-16 fighter jet emerged over the jagged skyscrapers, you could literally hear a collective sigh. We all turned north and began our march again.

All the newsstands were either boarded up or sold out of the late edition of the Times, but I managed to find a copy of the New York Post, finally. It's a rag, of course, but we were hungry for any information we could get. Tearing into the paper, my eyes fixed on the leading article: "Let's Kill the Bastards." Just as most of us were struggling with the grim reality of the situation and trying to fight back panic, some were already plotting who we should bomb. My heart sank, and I turned to Chris: "This is the sort of stuff that wars are launched over." In a split-second, I understood that this disaster was a game-changer, that my country would never be the same afterwards, and that the bubble of American exceptionalism and isolation had crumbled that day along with the towers. It was a dizzying thought.

That night, putrid smelling smoke blanketed the East Village as we stayed up with a group of 5 or 6 refugee-friends from lower Manhattan (who would end up staying with us for a couple weeks) and watched as the first shots were fired in the battle to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. It would be another two weeks until classes tentatively started up again: we tried to keep ourselves active, despite the complete, hermetic, military sealing off of our neighborhood from the rest of the world. We discussed the incident endlessly and kept the TV running; we joked, played Mario Kart and tried to keep ourselves distracted; we even went down to the West Side Highway with a few bags full of powerbars and tried to help aid workers as they poured into the newly-annointed "ground zero." And we sat around wondering what new world this disaster had created and how it would affect our lives. Everything had shifted overnight.

Within a couple weeks, however, life was starting to return - tentatively - to normal. There was fear in the smoky air, but hearty New Yorkers, despite their intimate involvement with the 9/11 attack, were eager to return to normalcy. In late September, I returned to Oregon for a weekend in an effort to clear my mind and refresh my spirit (and boy was airfare cheap in the days after the disaster..). It was truly surprising, then, to see that Oregonians, through their TVs, had internalized 9/11 in such a completed different way than New Yorkers had. American flags were everywhere; people displayed jingoistic bumper stickers on their trucks; there was a level of aggression that I didn't see at all in New York. You can bet that New Yorkers weren't angrily chanting for bombing strikes on the enemy, yet in Salem, OR, people were. Interestingly, the very people who lived through 9/11 were the first who wanted to simply move on. Of course, the rest of America would have their wars.

To end on a political note: It is deeply discouraging to sit here today during a neck and neck presidential election as the same party that so completely mismanaged our collective goodwill, politicized our national tragedy, subverted our Constitution, and hastily rushed into a bloody and corporatized war that had nothing to do with 9/11, is running against itself as an agent of "change" and actually making some headway. It fills me with disgust when misguided Republicans at the convention chant "Drill, baby, Drill!," even as the regimes that sponsor terrorism have the most to gain from our dependence on this competely destructive form of energy (Rudy Guiliani should know better than that). As we commemorate and memorialize this awful day for America, we should be cognizant of what's at stake this presidential election. Though the GOP has been so quick to capitalize on 9/11 for crass political gain, their botched Middle East policies, unjustifiable military adventurism, and anemic ideas in the aftermath of the biggest terrorist attack on US soil should give us pause as we stand in the voting booth. Let us not forget September 11th on November 4th.

Cutting-Edge Political Analysis

This page kinda sums up the state of the presidential race.

In Defense of the Media

(Updated Below)

The last three days have completely reshaped my understanding of the Palin pick and the McCain campaign strategy in general. When it was first announced that a socially conservative, female governor of Alaska was chosen for the #2 spot on the GOP ticket, I thought (like many of us) that it was a desperate attempt to pull in Hillary supports and the evangelical Christian base so essential to Republican success. But this theory is so three days ago. Recent twists reveal that different forces are at play here.

Palin's speech last night showed her to be an effective communicator: she hit all the big Republican talking points, outlined her biography, attacked her opponenents in searing (and I believe, mean-spirited) terms, and generally came off as competent, serious, and focused. It was a major success for someone who has been defined by competing media interpretations of her over the last week - she took back her identity and showed the nation that she is for real.

Watching the GOP's reaction to her over the last few days has been very revealing, and indeed has shifted my perspective on the issue. The primary reason for chosing her, I now believe, has little to do with pulling in woman voters who will cast their votes for a woman regardless of anything else; she was chosen because she is a social conservative with the ability to excite the base. This decision was not made for the Democrats: it was made for the hard-core GOP faithful. Despite the fact that the nation knows nothing about her, the conservative base has flocked to Palin. (Some conservative Christian leaders have questioned the herd mentality seen at the convention: a prominent Christian leader and former Jerry Falwell aide, Mark DeMoss, puts it this way: "Too many evangelicals and religious conservative are too preoccupied with values and faith and pay no attention to competence. We don't apply this approach to anything else in life, including choosing a pastor.") Even in the early days of the RNC, the party line had been established: Palin was a great choice. Reporters on the floor heard the same handful of talking points and defenses whenever they questioned the new running mate's viability. The GOP, en masse, had made up its mind: Palin is The One.

Let's back up for a moment here. Gender plays a big role here, but not in the aforementioned context of pulling in dissaffected Hillary fans. No, the truth is far more cynical (what can be more cynical than chosing a woman to attract Hillary fans, you ask?). Palin's sex, her traditional values, and her lack of significant experience combine to form a potent strategy to 1) deflect all criticism of her and the Republican ticket as out-of-touch elitism; 2) cast criticism as "sexism"; and 3) allow GOPers to take up the much beloved role of aggreived outsiders and victims of senseless liberal media bias. The gender issue isn't about Hillary - it's about making the media (and by GOP-think extension, the Left) look like misogynistic bullies, thus rallying Republicans to defend their candidate against the smears.

I'll be the first to admit that many (especially in the blogosphere) jumped to conclusions about Palin; I'd also admit that the Obama campaign's initial statement about the VP wasn't the right way to deal with the news. But the strength of this pick is showing itself more and more to be a strategy to unite Republicans around a much-hated foe, the media. They were fully aware that the media would pounce on Palin (how can they not? She's a complete unknown.) - this, in turn, gave them the pretext to reignite the tired old war against urban elites, the liberal media, out of touch and condescending Democrats, pro-choicers, anti-gunners, etc. With a new enemy in sight, GOPers rallied around the flag of self-righteous indignation. The same old game that defined 2000 and 2004 is now once again afoot.

Was the mainstream media coverage (blogosphere aside) of Palin unfair, sexist, or liberally slanted? You can read into media coverage what you want, hence why there has never been a convincing objective study to put the old canard about liberal bias to rest. One man's truth is another man's bias. (Although the fact that Bush was, until about 2006, given a free pass by the press should poke some holes in the idea that all media is hopelessly biased towards the Left.) I didn't see a media that tore someone up for no reason - I saw a media that were performing due diligence on a complete unknown. They were playing catch-up. Barack Obama was vetted by the media over the course of about two years - Palin was hit with all the background checks and doubts overnight. Would it be appropriate for the press to ignore all the negatives that have come to light? Absolutely not. Yet by expressing legitimate doubt, the media seem to have stirred up that old resentment from the Right. Palin's positives were reported as well, but the narrative has already been established: the liberal media hate a pro-life, small town mother. Toss her gender into the mix, and all of sudden the GOP - who would have ever thought we'd see the day - is able to toss sexism arguments into the mix.

Time writer Joe Klein sums up this situation very well, and it bears repeating in full:

Steve Schmidt [McCain's chief strategist] has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair--sexist (you gotta love it)--personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the fact the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media--about the substance of Palin's record as mayor and governor. Sure, there are a few outliers--and the tabloid press--who have fixed on baby stories. That was inevitable....the flip side of the personal stories that the McCain team thought would work to their advantage--Palin's moose-hunting and wolf-shooting, and her admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby. And yes, when we all fix on the same story, whether it's a hurricane or a little-known politician, a zoo ensues. But the media coverage of the Palin story has been well within the bounds of responsibility. Schmidt is trying to make it seem otherwise, a desperate tactic.

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

From a reporter who is often sympathetic to Republican politics, this can't be written off as another piece of liberal bias.

There's a lot to be upset with the media about, but Sarah Palin is not one of them. McCain knew that his pick would be scrutinized closely in the week leading up to her speech; he knew that her sex would make criticisms seem sexist - and all of this works like magic to pull Republicans, with a renewed sense of victimhood, together to rally around their man and chant "USA! USA!" Negative coverage is good for a party that loves to claim that the world is against them. When social conservatives see the press "bashing" a pro-life woman with five kids and an NRA membership, it is just one more instance of the elite attacking people with their values. Before we reflexively follow the line that the media is biased, let's take a moment to stand back and think about the political victory that Republicans receive from a media that is perceived as biased, liberal, and sexist. John McCain has a lot to gain by promulgating this view.

Update I: A great post by the NYT's Judith Warner amplifies these points. And here's another one by Paul Krugman about the politics of resentment.

Update II: This recent Daily Show clip illustrates the rank hypocrisy of GOP spinmeisters beautifully:

One Alaskan's Thoughts on Mrs. Palin

Mirth and Matter is lucky to have a diverse readership from all over the world. An Alaskan friend and fellow blogger generously volunteered the following opinion piece on the topic of the now-infamous governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. (Additional thoughts on the Palin pick can be found at her blog.) Thanks for providing an authentic Alaskan woman's perspective on the issue du jour!

I’ve been given the opportunity, being a vagina-ed human being and a former Alaskan, to write this bit about our future VP (God, I hope not), Sarah Palin. I will start this off with a disclaimer, saying that I’m not totally informed about her doings and evil activities within the state of Alaska; however, I will take this opportunity to merely write a rant, or quite possibly even an incoherent tangent, about this sad occurrence that has come upon us. Please note: I do not bother backing up my statements - this is simply how I feel.

What I did knew of the situation in Alaska back in 2006 led me to vote for Tony Knowles, her “Democratic” opponent, who actually has some worldly knowledge and higher-political experiences behind him. I say “Democratic” simply because any politician in Alaska that says they are a Democrat really means that they are a quasi-Republican, not yet full-fledged.

Another reason for voting for Tony Knowle(dge) was because he had been governor of Alaska before, and while being governor, Tony managed not to mess up the state of Alaska too terribly like Frank Murkowski had when he tried to build “ The Bridge to Nowhere” and when he bought the multi-million dollar jet for himself that was too expensive to fly anywhere.

Regardless of Tony’s knowledge, experience, the ability not to screw Alaska up more than it already is, and the several thousands of votes against her, Sarah Palin won the hearts of female and male voters alike due to her “Alaskan-ess.” By this I mean (and what ran in the Anchorage Daily News): Palin’s ideal day was (and perhaps still is) to go snow machining and then fix up a “mean pot of moose meat chili.” How could any Alaskan pass up this opportunity to have a “babe” and a “typical Alaskan” for a governess? Since this election, I have not returned to Alaska, hence me not keeping tabs on, or giving a shit about Ms. Wasilla 1984.

Of course, other than her terminating her ex-brother-in-law from his position of state trooper, and who can forget her threatening the job of a librarian in the city of Wasilla, when the librarian declined to remove “offensive” books from the shelves, I really haven’t busied myself with Palin. Otherwise, most Alaskans seem pretty pleased with her for reasons I cannot explain. Probably because she doesn’t look like a rubbery, old dinosaur who’s about to die from a heart attack.

McCain announcing that he had picked the power-mongering wenchbot to be his veep about damn near wanted to make me puke. I felt (and still feel) offended that Palin, out of all of the experienced conservative-Christian women in politics today, was chosen despite her blatant lack of knowledge in the world outside of Alaska. Here I should note that in Alaska, the consecutive lower-48 states are even called “the outside.”

On another sad note, we’ve all just read that her travels have only consisted of going to Kuwait, Germany, and Ireland—trips that were primarily to visit Alaskan troops abroad. I’m sure much knowledge was gained from these trips. (For example, that getting a passport is an expensive process.)

In addition to her lack of worldly - and in my opinion - national knowledge, I note that for a woman who proclaims to be for women’s rights, she certainly is very restrictive on what rights women should be allowed to have. Of course, as many of you well know, she is anti-abortion and a firm believer of preaching the glorified rule of abstinence (I shant be bothered to go into the hypocrisy here). How in the bloody hell can a woman say she is for women’s rights whilst opposing them?! This woman may have the same reproductive bits as me, but I certainly do not follow this sort of bull that the rabble masses feed on for faith and guidance in politics. Maybe I’m wrong, but shouldn’t someone who supports women somehow believe that women have the right to decide what their uterus may or may not do in 9 months? I could quite possibly be writing something that someone has written prior to me, and possibly with less-refined eloquence; however, this is obviously beyond infuriating for we female folk who believe we should be allowed a decision on things that may suddenly be inside of us.

The most sickening of all is that a few liberal female friends of mine in Alaska are considering changing their vote from Obama to McCain simply because he has a female running mate from Alaska. Their reasoning behind this is that Palin will be sympathetic, in her run in the White House, toward their womanly and Alaskan needs, whatever they may be. Right. Also, they wish to see a woman in the White House. Yes, so do I, but not Palin. I don’t believe she represents a good change for women in America. In fact, I think it shows that male-conservative politicians feel that they can dupe women into believing that they are the better candidate because they are open to having a woman as a running mate and that woman will then represent ALL women, regardless of their political affiliation. Bitch, please! Don’t I think and don’t I do research on who I’m going to vote for? Simply because some of us females would like to see the sexism in politics cease, it does not mean I’m going to vote for someone who may bleed like me but does not share the same ideals as me.

Dear America, This is my Blackberry Speaking

Let's talk for a minute about the motives of the news commentators who are leading the barrage against Palin. I haven't watched TV news for a while, but I flipped on CNN on Friday morning when the commentators were waiting for Palin and McCain to appear. Every time they said something positive about Palin, they countered it by saying, "But the Democrats will be sure to point out that [insert any number of the attacks that have risen against her]." At first, I thought this was just their attempt at being balanced and presenting both arguments.

Then one of the junior commentators said—in what I can't imagine was anything other than a revealing slip—"I have people from the Democratic campaign lighting up my blackberry with emails saying, 'Ask this! Ask this!'"

I know that campaigns try to play the media any way they can, but this is an alarming new byproduct of improved mobile technology. Reporters now have real-time scripts written for them by the campaign—right on their blackberrys! So let's not have any illusions. It's not "GOP spin" vs. "fair-and-balanced media" in this fight. Far from it.

Flashback

I think this post (and the excellent comments) by Zach is worth another look in light of our new potential vice-president.

Current GOP spin says that Bristol's pregnancy actually reinforces Palin's family values credentials because Bristol is having, not aborting, the baby. Having a child at seventeen is a courageous act. But let's take a broader view of this.

Palin's opinion on sex-ed is well known. I don't think we can expect the reality of her daughter's pregnancy to change her view, either. The trouble is, not every teenager who becomes pregnant gets to raise the child with her (soon-to-be) husband and with the financial support of being the governor's daughter. Lots of kids raise kids with no support at all. So Palin, it is great that your daughter Bristol is choosing to keep the kid and get married and all that, but when you force your policies on the rest of the country realize that a lot of kids will not be so lucky.

On this Episode of "The Old and the Restless"...

It's shaping up to be the best show this fall, filled with juicy plot twists, unexpected surprises, and personal sagas. Our heroine tries to get her sister's ex fired in an act of passionate family revenge. She chortles mirthfully when someone publicly calls an opponent a "bitch." She was a beauty pageant winner in high school. Her out-of-wedlock teenage daughter becomes pregnant.

No, this isn't a description of the latest soap opera; and it isn't a series of dramatic happenings from the trailer park down the road. Is is sad indeed that a major, completely viable US presidential candidacy has been reduced to such tawdry and utterly ridiculous news flashes over a VP pick. I know other writers here are preparing posts on Sarah Palin now, so I don't want to step on any toes, but I need to say a few words before the time peg passes. This is simply too spectacularly preposterous a choice to remain silent about.

The appeals of Sarah Palin are transparently obvious, politically calculating, and deeply cynical. She is a social conservative, an "ordinary American" (read: not from a top educational pedigree, socio-economic class, or the liberal and un-American coasts), a "reformer," and - perhaps most importantly in McCain's audacious and irresponsible reasoning - a woman.

But over the last three days, every potential plus (besides the sexual plumbing) of Palin to McCain ticket has been systematically dismantled by a few reporters with laptops. (Nevermind Obama's team of professional biography-divers.) She's a family values social conservative? Um, having your 17 year old daughter get pregnant out of wedlock doesn't seem very "valueful" to me. She's a reformer? It took less than 24 hours for it to be known that Palin supported the corrupt Ted Stevens political machine; she supported earmarks in her state; she supported the "bridge to nowhere." If this is a reformist background (indeed, these are all at the top of her list of credentials on Friday), then the maverick name truly has lost its meaning. Obama's too inexperienced for the job? Great, so let's counter with a newbie governor of a state with less than a million people whose previous job was as a the mayor of a town of under 10,000. In line after a 72 year old man with health problems, this isn't bold and courageous - this is stupid, impulsive, and completely irresponsible. It also demolishes McCain's most forceful argument against Obama - experience. (Although in an amazingly typical act of GOP spin doctoring, the word on the convention floor is that Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. I kid you not.)

So we're left with the two X chromosomes. In perhaps the most foolish move of McCain's candidacy yet, he has gambled that women, upset with Obama and still fuming over the treatment of Hillary in the media, will flock to someone who shares their gonads. Palin herself played this up with reference to the "glass ceiling" in her exceptance speech. First of all, this claim is condescending in the extreme towards American women: multiple recent polls are showing that women aren't fooled by such a blatant appeal to their sisterhood (in fact, if anything this ploy is pushing women towards Obama - see polling data).

If Palin stays on the ticket - a number of commentators are already comparing her to
Thomas Eagleton, a hapless Democratic VP pick in 1972 who withdrew shortly after the general election campaigning began - then the McCain soap opera will devolve into even more of a farce. We've had three days with Sarah Palin, not even enough time to order a book on Amazon.com and get it in the mail, and look at the mess that's been dredged up already. If she stays on the scene, unless she's an exceptional campaigner and debater, she could really prove to be an albatross around McCain's neck. What's the old prescription for vice picks in the generals? "Do no harm." Palin has already harmed the McCain brand irrevocably.

I'm going to stop here. I've barely scratched the surface on this issue, so I hope you add your comments and other writers get their Palin posts out soon. Who knows, the show might not last too long.

Sympathy for the Cowboy

For the second straight year, despite the so-called "culture wars" raging, a significant plurality (about 70%) of Americans agree that George W. Bush is an abject failure. Democrats and Republicans alike are eager to see his backside come January, and McCain is doing everything possible to escape the "Bush-McCain" pairing. In this regard, NYT reported today that GOP officials expressed relief that Bush would not be giving his scheduled speech tomorrow night at the convention - he's too toxic for advisers to want him anywhere near the Maverick senator.

But, returning to a topic that Mark launched on the blog last month that resulted in a spirited discussion, can we really say that Bush did everything wrong and is responsible for all the problems we find ourselves in today? In last week's Newsweek, senior international editor and columnist Fareed Zakaria counters this argument with a cogent analysis of everything Bush actually got right during his presidency. In a very real way, knee-jerk anti-Bushism, especially in the last year, has covered up significant changes for the good in the president's policies. We can all agree that Bush is a lame duck and is leaving an America that occupies a dimished role in the world, a crisis of the rule of law (FISA, torture, habeas corpus, etc.), two Middle Eastern wars, an economic mess, few plans for climate change, and a host of other nasty realities. But, as Zakaria points out, much of today's criticism of Bush is really towards the Bush of his first term and a half. The Bush of today, sidelined and increasingly irrelevant, has moved further and further to the center on a variety of issues. His policies are returning to the world of sanity, but his poll numbers haven't received as much as a bump, blinded as the public is at this point by reflexive Bushaphobia. Of course, the 2008 general election race is the media star now, not Bush-bashing; in many ways, the upcoming 44th president, whoever he will be, has stolen the media limelight from the president (Jon Stewart's "Still President Bush") ever since the Iowa Causus, and arguably before. We've all moved on.

This blog tends towards the liberal side and we've certainly been no friend of George W. Bush, but it is only fair to outline some of the changes for the good in Bush's policy over the last couple years. Here are a few:

- The Surge: Although sceptics were slow to admit it, and it certainly isn't a slam dunk yet, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that this strategy isn't progressively improving the situation in Iraq. In the face of great political opposition, Bush made an unpopular decision that appears now to be leading in a positive direction. While he certainly doesn't deserve all the credit for the stabilization of Iraq (and, of course, his desperado idiocy started the whole conflict to begin with), he certainly deserves a nod.

- North Korea: Bush started his tenure in office with an "under no circumstances will we negotiate with evil North Korea" policy towards the hermit nation. Today, our stance towards Kim Jong-Il is positively Clintonian, with plenty of carrots and sticks instead of resounding and dangerous silence.

- Staff Shake-up: Remember the bad ol' days of Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Rove, and Wolfowitz? One by one, these extremists have left Bush's inner circle, and the staff pouring advise into the porch of the president's ear now are a far saner, more moderate lot (Gates, Mukasey, Paulson, etc.).

- Iraq Timeline: In yet another example of the political world catching up to the proscriptions of Barack Obama, Bush now thinks a withdrawl timeline is a responsible idea. (I'm glad Bush has finally come around to the un-Patriotic "cut and run" strategy.)

- Israel-Palestine: His first years in the presidency were "hands off" when it came to this perennial conflict. He's been much more involved in the past year, even organizing a conference for the stubborn leaders of that region in Annapolis.

- Iran: Again, he's come around to a more reasonable, centrist position that favors direction negotiation about the much-feared nuclear program. (Again, Obama was the bellwether there.)

- PEPFAR: This African humanitarian aid program is praised in most political quarters. Despite the preposterous and deadly insistence on "abstinence only" programs, PEPFAR has been instrumental in fighting diseases in the poorest continent. Last year's funding for the program, in fact, increased from $1 billion in the first two years to a remarkable $6 billion, prompting the NYT columnist Nick Kristof to remark: "George Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did." (I haven't fact-checked that claim.)

It really is hard to feel sympathy for Dubya. In fact, I'm still under the opinion that some of the things that have occurred under Bush's watch are impeachable offenses, but regardless; he should get some credit for turning things around. "Some" - I'm not saying "a lot," but it's only rational that his various policy about-faces are reflected in his polling numbers. Of course, it is certainly arguable that what happened in Bush's first six years are eternally damnable and nothing will get him off the hook now. Part of me certainly feels this way.

In closing, this week's New York Times Magazine features a long article on the final day's of Bush's presidency. The author, Peter Baker, chronicles a man who has become obsessed with his legacy, and for whom poor poll numbers have almost become a mark of courage and honor (doing what's right in the face of unpopularity). Bush's complete lack of self-reflection is troubling; but his total inability to make a dent in his basement-level popularity, despite sensible decisions, gives me - I never thought I'd say it -some level of sympathy for the poor guy. The end of the article outlines a series of public addresses and conferences the president recently attended that, despite his handlers' attempt to publicize "the new Bush," drew zero media attention. Whether it be in front of a White House conference on "freedom," featuring dissidents from around the world, or a conference on faith-based social service programs, nary a television camera is in sight. Even though the White House bills a speech as "major," nobody shows up.

The deep aloneness and complete irrelevance of the president right now is justified, but he should at least be acknowledged for his recent policy changes in the right direction. It is time we put the self-defeating Schadenfreude aside. Today, Bush is a pathetic sight, in the sense that he is couched in pathos. In many ways (against, justifiably), he's been rendered powerless, the political fangs he used to possess removed and safely stored in a formaldehyde jar for the examination of reporters, authors, critics, and the international community. But a defanged snake is a sad sight indeed, even if it did bite us once.

A Wetter and Windier Future?

Tropical Storm Fay, from my window on 8/18

Just as TS Fay sputters out over the gulf coast, having pounded the Florida peninsula with high winds and over a foot of rain last week, two new major tropical storm systems are developing in the Caribbean, raising the specter once again of punishing weather conditions in the gulf region. Violent weather is in no way foreign to the people of Florida and the gulf coast; indeed, people here have been dealing with powerful hurricanes ever since the area was settled. But is the increasing frequency of Atlantic hurricanes - and deadly storms worldwide, for that matter - simply a matter of chance, as some claim? As we brace for another battering down here while the GOP prepares to party in Minnesota next week, this is an important question to discuss.

The claim that hurricanes and related natural disasters are random and human-caused climate change has nothing to do with it is patently false. According to the National Climatic Data Center, the frequency and power of Atlantic hurricanes has increased dramatically over the past thirty years, with the middle of our present decade producing some of the most damaging disasters on record. During 2004 alone, for example, Florida was struck by 4 of the 10 most costly hurricanes in US history; in the same season, Japan was hit by 10 typhoons totaling $10 billion in loses. (For a thorough account of the damages brought about by recent hurricanes, read Lester Brown's eye-opening Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.) The vastness of the Katrina tragedy in 2005 is too well documented to warrant reiteration here. Due to the increasing risk of living along the gulf and in Florida, insurance premiums in the last three years have doubled, tripled, and in some particularly storm-prone areas even increased 10-fold, making it increasingly difficult to afford living and doing business here. In a recent survey, Florida ranked #1 in America for percentage of individuals considering leaving the state (1 in 5).

Yet, even as all credible climatic models suggest an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and their devastating economic toll, the administration and large parts of the Republican party continue to bury their proverbial heads in the sand. John McCain's recent fervent embrace of offshore drilling underscores this gross negligence. (More on this can be found in Ruxton's recent post on McCain's energy policies.) To slow this sort of extreme weather, we don't need more oil - we need radical new solutions. Obama's pledged $150 billion in energy initiatives certainly makes the possibility of a total energy overhaul more realistic.

The political dimensions of climate change and its role in heating the surface temperatures of oceans are highlighted by our present predicament with Gustav. Inconveniently for the GOP, the landfall of Gustav is predicted to coincide both with the three-year anniversary of Katrina and with the Republican convention in St. Paul. Just as the party faithfuls gather to salute their man (and his new running mate, the pro-Anwar-drilling Sarah Palin), residents of the same areas that were devastated by Katrina may very well be sitting in shelters listening in on the radio and trying to keep the ghosts of 2005 at bay (if they are lucky enough to be evacuated to shelters, that is). Hopefully, the irony of the moment will not be lost on them.

One wag recently said: "Today, we talk about weather when there is no other news; in the future, the weather will be the news." Unless our criminal neglect of climate change is addressed and real solutions are forged, I fear that this may be a prophetic warning.

The face value of a John McCain energy policy

Yeah, right.

John McCain understands that, in this post-An Inconvenient Truth era, the environment and energy production must be addressed and used to win over as many voters as possible. Personally, I don't buy it. I used to work for a company that moved its headquarters to Arizona due to Arizona's light regulations on air pollutants, making it easier for the company to get their highly-inefficient vehicles fleet licensing for the lowest possible cost. Arizona is a state notorious for relaxing its environmental standards in effort to attract high-polluting businesses. A primary example is Arizona's shining contributions to the health of the Colorado River.

Take it for what you will, but John McCain has been an Arizona senator since 1982, almost the entire duration of my life. If he cared one iota about the environment he has had plenty of time to do something about it.

If you care about the environment, climate change, or sustainability, please research responsibly.

What Corporate Tax Rate?

A new report from the GAO finds that two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005.

Also from Time.com, John McCain's response to this question:

TAXES: Should Bush's tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 be eliminated?

Wants to keep Bush's tax cuts. Would kill the alternative minimmum tax and lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.

Kind of begs the question: what does it matter what the corporate tax rate is if U.S. corporations never pay it?

False Flags

I hate to venture down conspiracy theory lane, but the revelations regarding Ivins and the anthrax scare have really raised a red flag with me. To reiterate what Zach just posted:

The anthrax had nothing to do with Iraq; instead, a government agency was responsible for 1) sending the anthrax in the first place, framing Iraq, and 2) claiming that only the Iraqis could have done such a thing. This story, then, is much bigger than just that of a psychopathic renegade scientist committing suicide. We're bogged down in Iraq today because of the long campaign of government misinformation and fear-mongering in which the anthrax scare played a key role. Greenwald's post documents the pundits who encouraged the administration to invade Iraq based primarily on Saddam's ties to anthrax. This was a big piece in the puzzle, and to think that the threat was generated by none other than the US government? The implications are jaw-dropping.

The implications are jaw-dropping, but perhaps not entirely surprising. This administration has had a history of contemplating/executing false flag operations. I count three to date.

1. First, we have Bush's proposal to paint an American surveillance plane in U.N. colors in an attempt to draw fire from Iraq, thus starting a war.

2. Next, we have Cheney with a "dozen" ideas on how to start a war with Iran, including disguising some ships as Iranian PT boats, load them with armed U.S. soldiers disguised as Iranians, and starting a fire fight between those boats and our Navy in the Strait of Hormuz.

3. Finally, we have Suskind's recent revelations that Bush order the CIA to forge a letter linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Throw in the Niger yellowcake uranium forgeries, and you potentially have four. Ivins and anthrax make five.

Yes, you say, but these allegations are both denied by the administration and unproven. True, but look at where the information is coming from. Enterprising investigative journalists have such as Suskind and Hersh have had to do all of the work on these issues, because they are the only people (besides bloggers) who have been following these revelations. As Zach pointed out, the rest of the media has taken a pass on any form of comprehensive coverage.

Congress can and should thoroughly investigate what went wrong in the run-up to the Iraq war, and how a war was started on false intelligence. They have both the power and the duty to answer that question. The trouble is, both Congress and the media were negligent in the run-up to the Iraq war, and any behavior that implicates the administration in a way implicates themselves.

Someday we may know the full story. The fact that we have to ask how our country got duped into an aggressive war of choice shows how far our country has fallen.