Alexander, Corker Vote No On Punishing Rapists

Tennessee Senators Alexander and Corker decided to vote against a proposal to allow victims of rape to have a day in court - along with 28 other Republican senators this week. I'd bet that vote will not be mentioned in their campaign fliers and stump speeches for re-election. Tennessee voters and Tennessee media outlets should ask them to explain why they oppose allowing rape victims to prosecute their attackers in a court of law.

The case has been lightly covered by the national media, despite congressional hearings which examined the sexual assault of a 19 year old American woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, who was working in Iraq with Defense contractor Halliburton/KBR. Jones was drugged by male co-workers and gang raped in 2005, she was sodomized and her breast implants were ruptured during the attack. When she complained to her bosses, they locked her into a shipping container with no food or water for 24 hours under armed guard. She was able to get a cell phone thanks to a sympathetic guard and contacted her parents, who then contacted Congressman Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, who helped encourage the State Department to remove her from KBR custody.

A long battle then began - KBR argued that Jones signed an agreement that disputes with her employer would be handled via arbitration only - no public court hearing allowed. They added a new policy for employees, too, banning the use of cell phones for personal calls. In September of this year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that she does have a right to bring her case to court, that being gang-raped, drugged and held prisoner are not actions to be regarded as "work-related".

Sen. Al Franken introduced and passed legislation to withhold tax payer dollars and contracts to Defense companies if they restrict employees from taking cases of sexual assault and battery to court. And 30 Republican senators - including Alexander and Corker - voted against the legislation. Even America's Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the legislation.

Senators who voted No include Sen, John McCain and others:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html

Since Jones first brought her case forward, many more other women working with the contractor have told how they too were sexually assaulted by Halliburton/KBR employees.

It's a shame the Senators Alexander and Corker support lawless and brutal crimes, hold Defense contractors above the law and consider rape and assault worthy of secrecy.

Giants Mark 20th Anniversary of the Fall of Berlin Wall

The Boston Globe has some amazing pictures of part of the ongoing celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, part of a massive photo essay. The story being enacted is performed by the French street theater company, Royal de Luxe. It tells a story of a young girl and her uncle, a deep sea diver, who helps to destroy the wall which separates him from his niece and is entitled The Berlin Reunion.

Estimates of the crowd say nearly 2 million people watched the unusual giant marionettes enact their story on the streets of Berlin.

Here's a sample of the images taken as the giant diver strolls past the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building and below an image of his giant niece. The full photo essay is here.

Glenn Beck Sees No Humor In Joke Website

A website which parodies the witless and base tactics employed by radio and TV talker Glenn Beck does not seem amuse Beck, so he's trying to shut it down. The satiric website has the grim name of Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder A Young Girl In 1990?

Very rough stuff, no doubt, and what's worse, the site uses all the exact same rhetorical style Beck himself uses to concoct their outlandish posts, usually by demanding someone disprove or prove a negative comment, akin to the old cliche question of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Representatives from the parody website note "... the owner of the website "has merely presented Mr. Beck with a mirror. If Beck does not like what he sees, the Respondent is not to blame."

Beck filed a formal complaint with an international Internet governing body asking the domain name be stripped from the current owner. And even that action is good material for the parody website, which posts: "We find it ironic that Glenn Beck, realizing that the U.S. Constitution would stand in the way of trying to shut us down via the U.S. court system, decided to bring action against us before an international domain name arbitration panel. We're not saying he's not patriotic, but why would a patriotic American seek relief outside the U.S.? ... [we] will ensure that no matter which panelist is assigned to this case, the First Amendment will illuminate these proceedings like rays of light from the Torch of Liberty."

Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs points out some pretty funny and fierce defense of the owner of the website from their attorney's filing about the complaint:

"There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck's own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused - even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights."

Read more of Ed's take on the controversy here.

Still Some Fun Left In American Politics

Here's a political announcement that's one-of-a-kind. (thanks to Brittney for pointing this one out, and like she says, just watch it through to the end, it is worth it):

Working On "Golden Pond"

Yes, I'm working as a Director again and also I'm in this play in a small role as a dentist who is afraid of bears and afraid of his fiancee's father, Norman. You can get your tickets to the show online right now at LakewayTickets.com. More information available at the Morristown Theatre Guild website

Gorilla Tweets and Space Clowns

It might be called the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest and National Park, but the digital world has penetrated it as part of an effort to raise awareness for the fading population of mountain gorillas in Uganda.

Launched Saturday, the "Friend A Gorilla" campaign is using Twitter and Facebook and blogs to provide constant daily information about the gorillas. Using GPS tracking, users can follow the movements of as many gorillas as they would like -- all for a fee of course.

Wild animal Twitter and wild animal Facebook updates are sure to rise now. (In a world of 24-hour possum and raccoon cam websites, why not gorillas?)

In other odd tech/science news, the founder of Cirque du Soleil, Guy Laliberte, is headed to the International Space Station for an unusual mission he says is meant to blend art and science and environmental issues. Dubbed the "space clown" by the press, Laliberte says he's very serious ... mostly.



"This [nose] is a symbol of my mission, but it is also what reminds me that I should never forget that once I was a kid," Laliberte said. "I'm not a professional cosmonaut, an astronaut, so what I'm bringing up there is what I am. And what I am is an artist, a creative.

"We're doing a multimedia event - the first one from space to Earth - including artists from all over the world talking about the situation of water."

In addition to his passion for the arts, Laliberte has nurtured a passion for social issues. In 2007, he founded the non-profit ONE DROP Foundation to fight poverty by advocating for sustainable access to safe water. Laliberte donated $100 million of his own money to the organization, which uses dance, art, music and acrobatics to communicate water issues.

"Water is a vital resource for a human being and unfortunately it is put in danger," Laliberte said. "In the near future there is a real problem in front of us in regards of access to clean water."

Limited Online Access to Local Government

Sunshine Review is a website tracking transparency in government and it also compiles state by state reviews on how much information is available to the public via local and state government websites. Tennessee has a token presence online but more than one-third of the counties don't even have a website (35 counties have no website).

Hamblen County scores an "F" for their website, despite some recent improvements (more on those new changes is here at noe4acccountability). UPDATE: Speaking with County Mayor David Purkey, he points out there are several errors in the Sunshine Review evaluation, noting that the most recent county audits are available via the Hamblen County website, which the SR scores incorrectly, also that vendor info is available. Other improvements are underway but Purkey again pointed out that the scoring had old information and was not current.

Statewide, the current status of online information has plenty of gaps:

• 21 Tennessee counties put their budgets on their websites.
• 23 counties include information on their websites about public government meetings.
• 51 include information about the county's elected officials.
• 56 include information about the county's administrative officials.
• 12 give information about permits and zoning in the county.
• 16 of the counties put information on their websites about audits that the county government has had performed.
• None of the counties provide information about their contracts with county vendors.
• None of the county websites disclose whether or not they belong to any taxpayer-funded lobbying associations.
• None of the counties provide information on how to request public records using the Tennessee Open Records Act.
• 16 county websites provide some information about county taxes.

Southern 'Birther" Infomercial Scam

The bizarre anti-Obama madness about his birth certificate took a new twist this week as a 28-minute infomercial hit the airwaves in seven Southern states, including Chattanooga, TN. The pitch for this slab of strangeness comes from one Gary Kreep .... yes, Kreep is his name. He claims for a mere $30 from your pocket, he can send some faxes out demanding a copy of President Obama's birth certificate. Oh and you get a free bumper sticker too.

Talking Points Memo has some video from this scam.

"The guy at the center of the informercial is a California lawyer named Gary Kreep, the head of something called the United States Justice Foundation. But it turns out this is not the first time TPMmuckraker has come across the work of the aptly named Kreep.

Back in March 2008 we found him running a robocall operation called the Republican Majority Campaign, then running a scattershot campaign of robocalls against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The RMC also seemed awfully similar to and had a lot of weird connections to those bogus groups has-been Republican luminary Linda Chavez and her husband had recently been discovered running -- the ones that actually did little to nothing in the way of political work but provided Chavez and her family a steady income."

Self-serving money-grubbing for paranoid delusional right-wingers? Guess that is nothing new.

But the ever-rising hatefulness about the president has some eerie coincidences to the angry and eventually deadly screeching which surrounded President Kennedy back in the early 1960s.

A Thursday Web-Walk

I'm still a bit down and out from the Ham flu or the nasty cold or whatever illness has my head in the swamp. Here's a taste of the web-walking I've been doing of late and I hope to be back to a more fortified writing very soon.

-- Newsflash: The regional and national economy is still tanking

-- It should be no surprise that a wise person has started the Cat Cafe franchise - a place for you to spend time doing some heavy petting if you have no pets at home.

-- The endless search for the perfect potato for McDonald's french fries is, well, endless.

-- Are the ever-expanding digital worlds part of a new kind of evolution? Stephen Hawking says: "I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race

-- Is it possible to keep the Internet alive and thriving with the "Net Neutrality" rules? Some new plans pushed by the FCC and the Obama administration wants to make it so.

My Turn At Sickness, No Options Available

It was inevitable, I suppose, given the time of year and the large number of un-well folks I have been around lately that I would contract my own version of a cold or flu or something. Seems like everyone has been exposed to colds and wheezing and breathing woes.

Great - I've got no time to be wasting on being sick.

Likewise, I will not be wasting time or money on visiting a doctor since I do not have health insurance, it costs far too much. And since I already have some sniffles and coughs, all I might be told is to do what I already know to do - drink fluids, rest, wash hands and face often, maybe take some vitamins and wait for 5 to 7 days to feel better. Should I become really, really sick -- I still lack the insurance most doctors would require to see me. Unless maybe I attend a RAM event, which is still the best treatment I know for those who need medical attention: it is free.

I was also reading some today from R. Neal at KnoxViews about the multitude of conditions which insurance providers regard as "pre-existing conditions" which would prevent health care coverage: things like being a victim of domestic violence, having a toe fungus, or pretty much any minor or major medical problems. The list is mind-boggling. Makes me think either a lot of folks are forced to lie to get coverage, or more likely, get an illness and find their insurance abandons them completely.

More than once in recent months, I have been to a few Knoxville area hospitals, amazed at the marble floors, the espresso stands, the vaulted ceilings, the pianist playing a grand piano in some semi-waiting area, the endless hallways and endless referrals and delays in getting an appointment, the voluminous paperwork needed to receive treatment, and on and on it goes.

At this point, it seems reforming health care and health insurance into an affordable system is about as likely to occur as a cure for the common cold. There is very little reason to reform anything on the provider end - it's a way to make billions and billions of dollars and no matter what happens, people will always need medical care. They can only lose and they know it, so the endless howls of fear and anger clog the halls of political change will insure nothing changes for them.

Blackburn and Alexander Can't Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

Congressional Republicans - like Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn and Lamar Alexander - are working very hard to halt any useful duties their jobs require and instead they hold press conferences to promote the witless rantings of talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and Malkin.

Rachel Maddow again points out the lunacy and weird fantasies in the video below, as they echo the hollow and pointless obsessions on "Czars" (a term coined by the media during the Nixon administration as a shorthanded reference to jobs appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress).

But first, some basic facts on the reality of what jobs are held and when they were created:

"But perhaps the most controversial people labeled “czars” by [Glenn] Beck and by reporters have gone through Senate confirmations. Cass Sunstein, whom Politico labels the “regulatory czar,” is waiting for the end of a Republican filibuster so he can lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office created in 1980. John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was confirmed by the Senate, unanimously, six months ago. But none of that seems to matter to their critics. Michelle Malkin, whom, again, Politico credited for making this an issue, relentlessly refers to Holdren as the “Science Czar” as if it was his actual title.

Let’s just go down the Politico list.

Pre-exisiting jobs:

“AIDS Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.

“Border Czar” – Actually the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs, created in 2003 by George W. Bush.

“California Water Czar” – Actually the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who was given this extra portfolio by Secretary Ken Salazar in June.

“Central Region Czar” – The Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the “Central Region,” on the Nation Security Council.

“Drug Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, created in 1989 by George H.W. Bush.

“Faith-Based Czar” – Head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.

“Intelligence Czar” – This is actually the Director of National Intelligence, a position created in 2005.

“TARP Czar” – Actually the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability of the United States Herb Allison, who was confirmed by the Senate in June.

“Weapons Czar” – Not actually an executive branch position, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

New jobs held by eminent people or people previously confirmed by the Senate:

“Afghanistan Czar” – Actually the United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the man holding that job, Richard Holbrooke went through a Senate confirmation hearing in 1999 when he became Bill Clinton’s U.N. ambassador.

“Economic Czar” – Actually the President’s Economic Recovery Board, chaired by Paul Volcker, the deeply uncontroversial former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“Energy and Environment Czar” – This is Carol Browner, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1993 to run the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton.

“Guantanamo Closure Czar” – Actually the Special Envoy to Guantanamo, Daniel Fried, who was the final Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Bush administration.

There are other problems with the list. The so-called “International Climate Czar,” Todd Stern, is actually a special envoy who works in the State Department; several other “czars” were appointed to previously-existing institutions, like John Brennan, given a new portfolio in the 56-year-old National Security Council. But let’s read the list this way, and stop calling “czars” the people who were confirmed by the Senate at one point or given previously-existing jobs. That scary Politico list of 30 names is down to 15 names. It’s down to people like Lynn Rosenthal, the White House Adviser on Violence Against Women.

Now, President Obama has created several new offices and institutions: the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, the President’s Economic Recovery Board, White House Office of Health Reform, and the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board, to name some. But when Pence says Congress must “examine the background and responsibilities of these individuals” and “determine the constitutionality,” what is he suggesting? Should Herb Allison and John Holdren, who were confirmed by the Senate, resign and go through hearings again, just to be safe? Does he wonder whether the job of Director of National Intelligence is constitutional? That would be a shame, because Pence voted for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which created the DNI.

A debate about the power of the executive branch and the collapsing trust between the president and the Senate — it’s the constant filibusters of presidential nominees that really started this process of end-runs around confirmation hearings — would be healthy. But so far this “czars” debate seems like a witch hunt egged on by sloppy reporting.

Blackburn and Alexander - along with most of the nonsensical Conservative blather are offered here:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sen. Alexander Agrees - Domestic Violence is Pre-Existing Condition, Not Suitable For Health Insurance

I noticed this story yesterday via Enclave and again today at Silence Isn't Golden -- insurance companies in 8 states refuse to provide health insurance to victims of Domestic Violence, regarding such victims of spousal abuse as suffering from a pre-existing condition.

Back in 2006, a congressional committee took up the issue to forever change that exclusion, that being assaulted by a spouse was a pre-existing medical condition, but it failed to move out of the committee on a tie vote, with 10 for it and 10 against. Two of those who defeated the more-than-logical adjustment to health insurance were Tennessee senators Lamar Alexander and Dr. Bill Frist.

Protecting insurance companies and blaming victims for being assaulted - will that be a slogan on Sen. Alexander's next run for office?

After all, since the average cost of premiums for an family in America, tops $13,000 a year, maybe the family should save their money, separate and live in single apartments and gather only under the supervision of armed guards. Perhaps marriage itself, or even just living together should likewise be viewed as a pre-existing condition which promotes assault.


Since 1991, the cost of premiums for health insurance for a family have risen 131%.

Year	Single	Family
2000	$2,471	$6,438
2001	$2,689	$7,061
2002	$3,083	$8,003
2003	$3,383	$9,068
2004	$3,695	$9,950
2005	$4,024	$10,880
2006	$4,242	$11,480
2007	$4,479	$12,106
2008	$4,704	$12,680
2009	$4,824	$13,375

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation; Health Research & Educational Trust

Perhaps marriage itself, or even just living together should likewise be viewed as a pre-existing condition which promotes assault.

Sen. Alexander Writes Fairy Tales Heard From FOX and Glenn Beck

Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander has - as a friend of mine says, "Had the cheese fall off his cracker".

Sen. Alexander and a handful of other senators who seems to take all their marching orders from FOX news (see video below) sent a letter to President Obama wailing that our Constitution is on the edge of destruction because (as FOX and Glenn Beck told him) there are "czars" running national offices. And he it utterly wrong. Congressman Joe Wilson might use a different phrase ...

ACK at Post Politics mentioned Alexander's letter today, which says in part:

"We write to express our growing concern with the proliferation of "czars" in your Administration. These positions raise serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight. The creation of "czars," particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of "advise and consent," greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions."

The Senator (and all those who signed the letter, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Chris Bond, Sen. Mike Crapo, Sen. Pat Roberts, and Sen. Robert Bennett) seems to be in dire need of a history lesson. At the least, he could read some of the writing of Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, who wrote on Sept. 7th:

"On Fox News yesterday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the president's use of czars is "an affront to the Constitution."

I did some research last night, trying to find examples of Lamar Alexander criticizing the Bush administration's use of czars. After all, Bush/Cheney not only kept some of the czars left over from the Clinton and the H.W. Bush administrations, but also oversaw the creation of a "food safety czar," a "cybersecurity czar," a "regulatory czar," an "AIDS czar," a "manufacturing czar," an "intelligence czar," a "bird-flu czar," and a "Katrina czar." If Alexander is concerned about this "proliferation" of czars, surely he raised some concerns during the previous administration.

Except he didn't. As far as I can tell, Alexander never said a word. Apparently, Republican czars are fine; Democratic czars are un-American. Just because. Good to know.

I think I have a solution to this meaningless dust-up: stop using the word "czar." It's a meaningless word, anyway. It's not as if there's a single person in the executive branch with the word "czar" in their formal title -- it's just a colloquial political euphemism.

Take this report from last night, for example, and notice the "c" word isn't in it.

'President Obama has named Ron Bloom as the administration's senior counselor for manufacturing policy, the White House said Sunday night. The announcement came ahead of Mr. Obama's planned remarks at the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s annual Labor Day picnic in Cincinnati.

'Since February, Mr. Bloom has been a senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. He sits on the president's automotive industry task force. The White House said Mr. Bloom would continue that position and would expand his role to coordinate the administration's manufacturing policy with the Commerce, Treasury, Energy and Labor departments.'

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? The president wants a special focus on the U.S. manufacturing sector, so he'll have a senior advisor who'll help oversee the White House manufacturing policy.'

"So, is Bloom the new "manufacturing czar" (a position created by George W. Bush)? Only if we choose to use the phrase. The alternative is to say that Ron Bloom will be advising the president on manufacturing policy. The "c" word has been deemed scary, but the job description is innocuous.

"This has broad applicability. The president has a "Guantanamo closure czar"? No, he has a guy at the Pentagon whose focus is on closing the detention facility there. There's nothing "czarist" about it. The president has a "Mideast peace czar"? No, he has a guy whose job it is to focus on negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The president has a "Great Lakes czar"? No, he has a guy heading up the administration's efforts to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.

None of these jobs are controversial. It only becomes "an affront to the Constitution" when it's made to sound unnecessarily nefarious."

It's also worth a mention that it was the Press - not any of the presidents - who coined the term because the long job titles these officials have are awfully long words and long words may give them migraines or something. As for Beck, his goal is to scare the bejebus out of anyone and everyone who likes America and is cognizant of history.

Rachel Maddow notes that the deep-seated and greatly misunderstood ramblings of Sen. Alexander are more akin to a comedy skit via Saturday Night Live featuring the always confused Emily Litella:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

South Carolina - State of Denial

"For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.

The state that fired the first shot of the Civil War has now given us this: Senator Jim DeMint exhorted conservatives to “break” the president by upending his health care plan. Rusty DePass, a G.O.P. activist, said that a gorilla that escaped from a zoo was “just one of Michelle’s ancestors.” Lovelorn Mark Sanford tried to refuse the president’s stimulus money. And now Joe Wilson."

from Maureen Dowd

Lies Make For Constant Media Attention

--- Anti-Obama folks, like Michelle Malkin - depend on making you feel angry and weak if you agree with her. One way she does that is by plain-old South Carolina style lying:

"I suppose it's one of the benefits of occupying a parallel universe like the right-wing blogosphere: facts are truly irrelevant. And I'm pretty sure partisan conservatives prefer it that way. They love just making stuff up.

As we've noted, this afternoon Malkin plucked out of thin air the bogus claim that ABC News reported the 9/12 protest crowd was 2 million strong. False. Nobody at ABC News ever made that claim, and no sane observer of the D.C. event today would claim with a straight face that somehow 2 million people overtook the nation's capitol.

It's pure fantasy.

But did that stop anybody on the right from repeating the hollow claim? Please. Did Newsbusters link to Malkin's phony claim? Check? Wizbang. Check. Gay Patriot? Check. Examiner.com? Check. Right Pundits? Check.

I think Malkin should have just claimed 12 million protesters showed up. Because every one of her willingly gullible followers would have linked to her anyway.

UPDATED: More blogging comedy. Right-wing blogger Stephen Green first claimed that CNN reported the crowd was 2 million story. (CNN did no such thing.) Then later in a "correction," Green, following Malkin's phony lead, reported it was ABC News which claimed 2 million. Of course, ABC News denies that fact, and nobody can find any evidence that ABC News ever made the claim.

Psst Stephen, Malkin made that part up"

-- Others have noted this lie too, citing the fake pictures from this weekend's rally, which is really a photo from 1997's "Promise Keepers" rally.

-- More of the fakery here at DailyKos.

-- And a jewel of a comment from TN Congressman Marsha Blackburn, whose interview shows the crowd is there to express anger at Congress' horrible spending habits (pssst Marsha, that means you.)

And a long essay by Glenn Greenwald ponders why "protesters" and the endless gridlock from Republicans is cheered by the one group of folks who will receive nearly nothing if no changes in health care policy are enacted, the group which cheers to greedy who placed us in this economic nightmare to begin with:

"This is the paradox of the tea-party movement and other right-wing protests fueled by genuine citizen anger and fear. It is true that the federal government embraces redistributive policies and that middle-class income is seized in order that "someone else benefits." But so obviously, that "someone else" who is benefiting is not the poor and lower classes -- who continue to get poorer as the numbers living below the poverty line expand and the rich-poor grows in the U.S. to unprecedented proportions. The "someone else" that is benefiting from Washington policies are -- as usual -- the super-rich, the tiny number of huge corporations which literally own and control the Government. The premise of these citizen protests is not wrong: Washington politicians are in thrall to special interests and are, in essence, corruptly stealing the country's economic security in order to provide increasing benefits to a small and undeserving minority. But the "minority" here isn't what Fox News means by that term, but is the tiny sliver of corporate power which literally writes our laws and, in every case, ends up benefiting.

It wasn't the poor or illegal immigrants who were the beneficiaries of the Wall St. bailout; it was the investment banks which, not even a year later, are wallowing in record profits and bonuses thanks to massive taxpayer-funded welfare. The endlessly expanding (and secret) balance sheet of the Federal Reserve isn't going to fund midnight basketball programs or health care for Mexican immigrants but is enabling extreme profiteering by the very people who, just a year ago, almost brought the global economic system to full-scale collapse. Our endless wars and always-expanding Surveillance State -- fueled by constant fear-mongering campaigns against the Latest Scary Enemy -- keep the National Security corporations drowning in profits, paid for by middle-class taxes. And even health-care reform -- which supposedly began with anger over extreme insurance company profiteering at the expense of people's health -- will be an enormous boon to that same industry, as tens of millions of people are forced by the Government to become their customers with the central mechanism to control costs (the public option) blocked by that same industry. That's why those industries are enthusiastically in favor of reform: because, as always, they will benefit massively from it.

This is what is so strange and remarkable about these tea-party protests. The people who win when government acts aren't the poor, minorities or illegal immigrants -- the prime targets of these protesters' resentment. Their plight only worsens by the day. In Washington, members of those groups are even more powerless than "middle-income Americans." That's so obvious. The people who win whenever the federal government expands its power are the ones who, through their massive resources and lobbyists armies, control what the government does: the richest and most powerful corporations. And yet -- in an extreme paradox -- those are the people who are venerated by the Right: they simultaneously spew rage at what's happening in Washington while revering and defending the interests of the oligarchs who are most responsible.

What's really happening with these protests is that the genuine rage and not unreasonable economic insecurity of these citizens is being stoked, exploited, distorted and manipulated by movement leaders for entirely different ends. The people who are leading them -- Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, business-dominated organizations of the type led by Dick Armey -- are cultural warriors above everything else. They're all in a far different socioeconomic position than the "middle-income Americans" whose anger they're ostensibly representing. Their principal preoccupation is their cultural contempt for various groups (illegal immigrants, the "undeserving" poor, liberals) and their desire to preserve the status quo whereby the prime beneficiaries of government policies remain themselves: the super rich and the interests that control Washington. It's certainly true that many of these protesters are driven by the standard right-wing cultural issues which have long shaped that movement -- social issues, religious fears, cultural and racial divisions, and hatred for "liberals" as Communist-Muslim-Terrorist-lovers. For many, all of that is intensified by the humiliation of being completely thrown out of power, at the hands of the first black President. But much of it is fueled by the pillaging of the corporations and Wall St. interests which own their government.

Image via TPM

Is This The Cure For Health Care in America?

Oh Health Care Debate, is there anything you can't do? You stir up patriotic and religious fervor, you help the public and the elected communicate and/or curse each other face to face, you show off how brilliant and how dim we can be, you shape the nation's economic and physical health, you cause our imaginations to sparkle with dazzling illusions of nightmares or lush dreamscapes of unicorns and rainbows, you take the money from so many and disperse it to so many more as you loom large above us like a fierce king bestowing boons and banes to the worthy and unworthy. Oh Health Care Debate, how can we hate you?

Oh Health Care Debate - where do we go from here?

Last night President Obama pointed out some pointed facts which tend to blunt most of the current back and forth howls heard in the public squares (which now also exist as binary code). Such as the fact that he asked 5 committees to draft legislation and so far 4 have complied and another will soon. So there is no one bill, no one plan, at this point which is being scrutinized and none of them, not one, has been made law by Congress.

I do like it when Obama calls out his critics - "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now."

Much of the key issues being promoted seem quite valuable to me: no exclusions from insurance because of pre-existing conditions, no elimination or dilution of insurance due to illness; no caps on coverage while yet creating a limit on out-of-pocket expenses of the sick.

But what I hear from all of these current proposals are reforms for insurance itself and not really for reforming Health Care itself. I suppose I am part of a small minority of folks because it seems to me the best way to approach the problems are to re-invent the way we see Health Care: I do not think such care should be operated as a for-profit business. But I know such an idea is far, far away from what most people think.

And I did not like hearing from Obama that he thinks Americans should be required to carry health insurance - "... individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. " Although he immediately added in something I do think is worth considering - "There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements."

And here is something from the speech which sounds quite good:

"Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves. ... "But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up."


I suppose I would fall into that 5% crowd.

Maybe the result of all this debate and proposed legislation will be that health insurance costs will be more affordable for more people, that some of the fraud will be ended, and that we'll start to see health care in a different way. Maybe. If that does happen, then maybe we can actually begin work on changing Health Care from a for-profit business to an inexpensive system anyone can access at any time without worry of going broke or being turned away. Of course, maybe I just need treatment for my own delusions.

Beatles For Sale and I'm A Loser

Plenty of publicity surrounds the release today of a new music-based video game and a new digital remastering of all the Beatles albums, and publicity (and lots of it) has been a constant for the Band Heard 'Round the World since they launched their careers.

I don't know if I'll ever play the video game based on The Beatles, though the game controller set made to look like their actual guitars, bass and drums sure look tempting.

So yeah, I'm way past 40 years of age, pining for the new CDs of albums from the early to late 1960s. Of course that also means I was one of millions of people who would actually be there waiting when new albums from The Beatles were released and that was a stunning time to live my friends. Stunning. Their music seemed to take light-year leaps and the mood they set surely changed the world.

I was about 6 years old when I sat and listened to my first full Beatles album (the hysteria of their arrival in the U.S. in 1963 was already a legend in my home by then) and while it was not the first of their music I heard, it was the first time I sat down and just listened. What I heard made me a True Believer and I've been a fan ever since.

The album was called "Beatles VI" here in the U.S. but was called "Beatles For Sale" when the U.K. version hit the shelves and had more songs too -- I did not get to hear that full version until I was around 13 or 14 thanks to some audiophile friends who had gotten their hands on the UK import.

That album - as I learned over the years - was really a major point in their music, showing where they came from, as they covered songs by Chuck Berry ("Rock and Roll Music"), Carl Perkins ("Honey Don't) and Buddy Holly ("Words of Love") and other already iconic rockers and the album also had their own new take on rock music and pointed the way they were going in both style and substance with plenty of wit and romanticism for the last half of the 20th century.

The first three songs were the same on both releases and it was those three which blew my tiny mind (and one of the many cover songs on the album, "Mr. Moonlight", which has John Lennon howling away). Thanks to Grooveshark, I can share those songs with you -- and now I am going to the store and buy (yes, pay actual cash money) a couple of newly remastered Beatles CDs.

You're Making the Mothers In America Angry

I noticed another truck here in East Tennessee this past weekend with the bumper sticker which reads "TN is for Jesus Not Obama". Funny thing though - that's never been a choice anyone I know (or don't know) has ever been given. Ever.

The rising (and highly publicized) anger of some Americans about President Obama has been both shrill and more than a little manic - I'm sensing a lot of fear and paranoia but fear of what exactly? The dissent bellows back the reply: "EVERYTHING!!"

Here's one huge, giant change I've noticed since President Obama has taken office: people who voice loud and angry dissent are not silenced, are not forced to stay inside designated fenced-in "freedom zones", and are even allowed to carry guns to their protests. That's a massive change from the previous eight years, when even sporting a shirt or bumper sticker could get the Secret Service crawling all over you.

I'm betting that's what really has some people terrified - they are being given enormous opportunity to offer their viewpoints but very few Americans are buying it. It's being told you're obsolete and that's always a bitter slab of American pie to swallow.

The last week saw the hysteria emerge anew as Conservative leaders and others of dubious intent whipped up some media frenzy over a speech President Obama was offering to kids in school. That may have been a huge mistake because now the Mothers in America are questioning the source of such hysteria and they're pretty mad about what they have learned. Here's two from East Tennessee:

"Yep, according to Uncle C, all good Christian Americans will reject Obama’s attempt to indoctrinate America’s youth to socialist ideas (you know, ideas such as education is important, stay in school, be responsible, work hard and other pervasively evil, similarly socialist shit like that) by declaring Tuesday “National Keep Your Child Home from School Day.”

In Hawkins County, this will be followed by “Steve, the Republican Attendance Supervisor, Hauls Your Sorry Ass To Truancy Court Day.”

You know, America, I’ve been quiet about a great many things that have occurred in this country since Obama was elected. I guess I’ve been a little dumbstruck by this highly publicized war between the radical factions, by the polarization of the American people, by the resurgence of racism which is poorly disguised as political opposition, by the complete lack of intelligent discussion, mutual respect or common decency and the easy acceptance of the deceitful propaganda, which has taken it’s place – all things which should be insulting to any free-thinking intelligent person, regardless of party, but isn’t or doesn’t seem to be.

Literally. Dumbstruck.

I cannot count the number of times over the past few months that the behavior of the people around me or comments made by those closest to me have been so outrageously stupid, so painfully offensive or were delivered with such a wild-eyed fervor (the type which is normally reserved for snake handling or healing in the name of Jesus) that I cannot find the words to combat it.

---

"But this controversy isn’t about Obama’s remarks or his method of delivery, is it? It’s about Obama, period – and the message you’re sending, I think, is quite simple: OH MY GOD, it’s a scary liberal BLACK guy with a foriegn-soundin’ name – RUN for your LIVES! BEFORE HE DEVOURS YOUR CHILDREN!”

Well, I’m tired of hearing that message. I’m tired of feeling defeated by dumbasses. I’m tired of remaining silent while radicals cry wolf. I’m tired of the media making those idiots spokespersons for us all – and I’m reeeaaallly tired of Republican leadership allowing the moderates, independents and people with half-a-brain to be shoved to the left of the center because that’s the only place where they feel safe from the crazies, the Klan and the state party chairpeople. Don’t believe me? Keep promoting yourself as the party of Grand Wizards and even grander fruitcakes, see how far it gets you."

That's from DeMarCaTionVille

And from Southern Female Lawyer:

"I am sorry, but there is NO WAY that this sort of crap is not at least partially race-based. Where was this fear and rage before? From now on I am calling it like I see it. Gloves off.

These are people who are afraid that they are losing their white christian hetero male advantage. They see a black President. They see hispanic folks at their grocery stores. They see gay couples on t.v. They see women in roles of power. In other words, they see change is coming and that there is NOTHING they can do to stop it. But that isn’t going to keep them from letting the wealthy and corporate interests use their fear and manipulate them. That won’t stop them screaming about ‘healthcare’ or ‘taxes’ or ‘constitution.’ Two of which have always favored the white and the wealthy. But you know what? The Constitution favors NO ONE above anyone else. We are ALL entitled to its protections. So suck it up people. You had your chance.

Change is here."

She also has another post you might like to read here.

Oh, and that speech which the President made today had some pretty basic and concrete typically Conservative components: Individual responsibility, setting goals, deciding to be your own boss.

"But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide."

Full text here.

The Medical Industrial Complex

Journalist and Health Care Advocate Maggie Mahar has a new book and documentary out titled "Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much" and the documentary is starting to shake up some of the current debate about Health Care in America.

Here's some excerpts from the movie, which was featured on Bill Moyer's PBS show last week. She spends some of the film talking with doctors and others in Nashville, which is home to a large number of medical corporate headquarters. Here's some excerpts from Mahar's documentary:

"Maggie Mahar: One time Dr. Donald Berwick called a hospital in Texas and said, "We've heard you have a very good procedure for treating a particular disease. We'd like to learn more about your protocol so other hospitals can use it." And the hospital said, "We can't tell you that. It's a competitive advantage in our market that we're better at treating this disease and it is very lucrative. So this is proprietary information."

Dr. Donald Berwick: We believe in markets, right? Isn't that the American way? Well, markets mean competition. Isn't that the American way? Competition makes things come out right. Well, what does that mean in health care? More hospitals so they compete with each other. More doctors compete with each other. More pharmaceutical companies. We set up war. Wait a minute, let's talk about the patient. The patient doesn't need a war.

Maggie Mahar: The patient isn't the center of a collaboration. The patient is the victim of a competition. There's a saying in Swahili, "When…" I can't remember this one… "When the elephants fight the grass is trampled." The patient is essentially the grass.

Dr. Clifton Meador: Somebody says, "Nobody in Nashville makes anything. We just do stuff and people send us money." I've been told they never had a recession in the history of the place. This is music row. Every one of these houses is now a recording studio. There's Love Monkey Music, Flashville, Sharp Objects Music, Seasac, whatever that is. This is the heart of "music city" USA.

Here's what a nurse told me. "Tell patients to remove the foil from a suppository before insertion."

Maggie Mahar: Clifton Meador has had many careers. He's been an author, a family doctor, an epidemiologist, a health care administrator and the youngest ever Dean of the University of Alabama Medical School. Over the years, he's watched the business of health care turn into a driving force in the US economy. Much of it headquartered in Nashville.

Dr. Clifton Meador: This is Marilyn Way. Marilyn Way is a center road of Marilyn Farms. Marilyn Farms is a huge complex. The predominant business in here is health care corporations of one sort or another. This goes on and on for over a mile here and this is not called for-profit hospital row, or anything like that, but this, this is the equivalent of the music row that we went down for the recording industry.

Dr. Clifton Meador: This is titled "The Nashville Health Care Industry, The Family Tree 2006." Every little square here is a health care business industry or spin-off. We have 3 mother corporations here: HCA, which is the Hospital Corporation of America, spun off all of these. Hospital Affiliates, which is a spin-off of HCA, spun off all of these. And Health Trust, which is a spin of Hospital Affiliates and HCA, spun off all of these. So this is a massive, industrial health complex that's headquartered here in Nashville.

Maggie Mahar: After World War II, while other countries let their government begin to intervene in health care to make sure everyone got care, to regulate it to make sure it was good care, in this country doctors very, very strongly opposed any government involvement or anyone being involved in telling a doctor what to do. After Medicare was passed in 1965, elderly patients were getting far more care than they had been before then.

Then that's when our industrial medical complex, I would say, took off. By the early 70s, there were so much money involved that suddenly people began to say, "You know what? Medicine is too important to be managed by doctors. We all know doctors are bad managers. What we need are businessmen managing health care." And that's when health care went from being physician centered and controlled, to a large degree, by doctors to being controlled by the corporation and the CEOs of those corporations.

And, over time, more and more the CEO of the Hospital would not even be somebody with a MD. He would be somebody with a MBA. And CEOs bent on growth, bent on higher quarterly earnings, quarter after quarter, and year after year, are always pushing for more sales, more revenues, more and more and more. It produces more. But more may not be better for our health."

You can see and read more about "Money-Driven Health Care" here.

And while there is an intense and rising anger among some about the evils of a government medical program like Medicare, surveys show patients are actually happy with the program (via Health Beat):

"Medicare is the second largest health care payer in America, trailing only Medicaid. The program is very popular with its enrollees, with polls showing a higher level of satisfaction than with private insurance.

Medicare is less popular with hospitals.

Opponents of health care reform in general and of a strong public option in particular often cite hospital dissatisfaction with Medicare as a reason why the reform programs won’t work. They report that evidence suggests that overall Medicare pays hospitals less than what it costs them to provide care. Private insurers pay more, and by “cost-shifting,” hospitals use these payments to make up the losses on Medicare. Opponents worry that if a public option linked to or modeled on Medicare becomes the dominant payer for people under 65, hospitals will go broke without the “subsidy” from private insurers, and the health system will be destroyed. Data collected by hospital groups and the insurance industry suggests that this is unlikely to happen.

---

First, according to the American Hospital Association itself, 42% of hospitals make a profit on Medicare overall.

In the remaining hospitals, most Medicare patients are profitable. Losses on Medicare patients are related to a minority of patients who need much more care than average because of longer stays, more complications, and underlying health problems. Since the profits on most Medicare patients are small, large losses on this small number of outliers can drive overall payments below costs.In looking at any data on payments, it is very important to distinguish between Medicare and Medicaid. Payments by Medicaid – the government plan for the poor—are significantly lower. On average, Medicaid pays 72% of what Medicare pays for the same service. Those who oppose any government plan often lump Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements together to argue that Medicare grossly underpays providers. There is no question that Medicaid needs significant revision. Medicaid reimbursements should be hiked; payments to states should cover states’ costs. The House health care bill takes a step in that direction by mandating that Medicaid reimbursement for primary care must be raised to equal Medicare payments, and by providing direct funding to cover that raise and to cover new patients enrolled as a result of reform.

However, it is true that while many hospitals actually make an overall profit on Medicare patients, at the other end of the spectrum some hospitals lose more than average.One reason for some disparities is that Medicare payments to hospitals are not uniform throughout the country. In some areas, Medicare pays far more than in other areas. The differences can be quite large, with the highest paid hospitals collecting twice as much as the lowest paid. In some cases, this variation contributes to losses and has led to political controversy. “Blue Dog Democrats,” whose predominantly rural constituencies contain many of the low payment areas, are especially concerned.

As usual, this is more complicated than partisans would like us to think. Many rural hospitals in Blue Dog districts actually enjoy better than average Medicare margins, partly because of special adjustments to payments specifically for rural hospitals. Critics suggest that much of the focus on hospital payments was at least partially orchestrated by the Blue Cross plans to try to kill the public sector insurance option that progressive Democrats say we need to keep private insurers “honest”—and to give Americans choices.

---

"The other big question regarding Medicare reimbursements to hospitals is whether hospitals are spending their money in appropriate ways. Everyone agrees that hospitals need to spend the money necessary to provide high quality care. However, many hospitals spend a great deal of money that is not directly related to patient care. More and more hospitals have invested large amounts in décor and esthetics, creating marble lobbies and hallways, building large patient rooms with features that mimic expensive hotel rooms, purchasing art installations, and so on. These amenities do not contribute to patient care. A visit to most European hospitals or to most VA hospitals illustrates that excellent care can be obtained in hospitals considerably less elaborate than many “flagship” hospitals. A few years ago I had the experience of visiting a friend who was a surgeon for Kaiser in the Bay Area. When I first saw his hospital, I was startled – it looked a lot more like a Motel 6 than a Four Seasons. Kaiser is a prospective payment system, so that when the money is gone there is no more. Kaiser also has to compete, at least partly on price, with other HMO’s and insurers in its market. That obviously results in closer attention to what is essential and what is not. However, the results attained at the hospital were excellent – according to the Dartmouth Data, better than at some of the “marble palaces” they compete with.

Salaries for hospital administrators have risen sharply in the last twenty years, with many hospital CEO’s now making seven figure salaries (and a few making eight figures,) and with lower ranked administrators paid proportional amounts. This makes its own contribution to costs.

Hospitals often invest large amounts of money in pleasing doctors who will bring them profitable patients. Many hospitals have overbuilt their angiography and OR capacity to make OR’s and angiography suites available at times when doctors prefer to operate, rather than distributing use through the day. OR’s are sometimes built to fit the personal demands of a surgeon, with side by side OR’s for other surgeons. An OR might be used only by a single surgery group or even a single surgeon and stand vacant when they are not operating. Angiography suites and their staffs might be jammed with work from eight AM to noon, but be shut down while the doctors tend their office practices, or take time off, in the afternoon.

Hospital units are customized to please doctors in other ways. Special parking garages for physicians, expensive meeting and dining facilities, and so on are all set up to attract the “right” doctors.

In the last few years, hospital advertising has exploded. In many cities you cannot drive very far, read the newspaper, or watch TV very long without seeing expensive ads for hospitals. Despite the recession, in 2008 total advertising spending by U.S. hospitals increased to more than two and one half times what hospitals paid for ads in 2001. The costs of these ads are added into hospital overhead—in other words, the charge for your appendectomy includes the cost for the ads. Ironically, this type of advertising is often the hallmark of “overbuilding.” When hospitals wind up with excess capacity, they are then forced to compete aggressively to fill the added beds. This gives costs a double whammy, first incorporating the costs of overbuilding, then absorbing the costs of advertising dictated by the overbuilding.
There is also a well documented hospital “arms race” going on in many markets. Hospitals vie to buy the latest and most impressive equipment, regardless of utilization or cost effectiveness. Relatively new and still useful equipment is discarded because of the perception that something is better. A two year old CT scanner may be replaced because a newer and shinier model is available. In a sense, this is a form of advertising aimed at both physicians and patients, trying to sell the notion that the hospital is the best and most modern.

All of this adds significantly to hospital costs without providing any real health benefit to patients."

And The Winners Are ....

As I posted previously, I've been running a contest in honor of this humble but lovable blog's birthday, and now I am happy to announce that two readers have each won a set of six movie posters from Turner Classic Movies -- I'm contacting them both and the winners are Michael Alvis and Ann Lloyd. Congratulations!!!

And my great thanks to all who entered, to TCM, and to each and every reader who takes the time to enjoy the rich, aromatic blend always offered in this Cup of Joe.

And here's to year number FIVE!!!