A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
Think Progress and The Wonk Roomare on top of issues once again that conservatives are wanting their inflamed base to ignore. Top of the pops this week is the fact that most of the states that have pending litigation against healthcare reform are accepting money that is granted to them by................wait for it................healthcare reform.
Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that 45 states and the District of Columbia “will receive $1 million in grant funds to help improve the review of proposed health insurance premium increases, take action against insurers seeking unreasonable rate hikes, and ensure consumers receive value for their premium dollars.” The $46 million are part of the $250 million in rate review grant dollars authorized by the new health care law. Indeed, interest is so high that states that oppose the health law applied for grants. As the Wonk Room points out, 19 of the 22 states that are suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the health care law will receive $1 million each to improve their rate review capabilities.
I'm reminded of a comment that I saw on Twitter some months ago that stated how conservatives desire their social programs and their government intervention but never want to pay for them. This is also seen in how conservatives have viewed the Economic Stimulus - criticize it at every opportunity but cash in when you think no one is looking.
- It's never been surprising to me that conservatives favor discrimination and often full-throated racism. But when a black man actually defends these actions, then that's when you have to start asking yourself "how is this possible".
- After hearing about this private meeting that Obama had with Republican Senators on NPR yesterday, I was fully prepared for one or more of the Republican "leaders" to talk about how Obama was this "angry black man". Didn't take too long for them to get pretty close to that description, as Senator Bob Corker claimed the exchange was "testy" during the NPR segment. It seems clear to me that Republicans ( whether they be elected officials or not ) have a difficult time distinguishing anger from constructive criticism.
- Conservative love Chris Christie. From his standpoint on public school teachers, this doesn't surprise me. But what gets me is his gimmicky nature, his willingness to create this gangster persona, and how he appears to want to take the state of New Jersey in the same direction that came pretty close to killing Colorado Springs.
- Again, the xenophobic and racist nature of the modern GOP comes out. It seems that they think only white Americans born in the US are "patriotic". This has been a key talking point with Republicans since Obama took office last year - that they ( white Republicans that is ) are somehow more patriotic than anyone else in this country. Guess they've never met any non-whites that have served in the military or the families of those that have died protecting the very freedom that allows them to be so insatiably stupid.
- Most everyone within the conservative realm are really wanting Obama to screw up in some fashion that will allow them to crow like Peter Pan on crystal meth for the next few years. Even if there are dead people, animals, and destroyed eco-systems, I think it's a safe bet that there are even conservatives praying to God that Obama fails in regards to the BP oil spill. But contrary to their talking points, the Obama administration has been doing more then most people realize.
That essentially the argument that Missouri State Representative Gary Nodler offered while debating the repeal of DADT.
Nodler at one point suggested that being openly gay in the military "in and of itself" could be grounds for a sexual harassment complaint by another serviceman, and characterized Don't Ask Don't Tell as a way to accommodate gays' service "in a way that doesn't create a hostile workplace."
He later said allowing gays to serve openly could represent a "cultural affront" to societies in which the U.S. military is active, "so you would create specific geopolitical strategic dilemmas for the U.S. military -- specifically in the war in Afghanistan."
To which Schissel replied, "Your argument holds no water in the fact that we currently have women serving in the military. The Taliban are no great fans of women doing anything other than staying at home."
This isn't that suprising, as Republicans are all to eager to politicize terrorism and the continuing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Nodler's ignorance on the matter shines just as brightly since gays are already serving in the armed forced - a point that echoes Schissel's statements regarding the reality of women currently serving as well.
While Nodler is denying he ever made such a statement, this situation provides further context to John Brennan's claims that the GOP uses the spectre of terrorism as a political weapon.
The Conference of bishops reportedly sent the orders out last Thursday, the same day Speaker Nancy Pelosi presented the mammoth 2,000-page House reform bill to lawmakers and the public.
The material explains that the Catholic Church supports reform that will “protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death.”
The insert contains phone numbers and web addresses at which constituents can contact their Representatives.
The League of Catholic Bishops are falling in line with the conservative talking-point that public funds are going to be used for abortions, and that language in proposed legislation actually says this. Unfortunately, this is not true through any interpretation of the language.
However, there has been an approved amendment to the proposed legislation that contained more specific language.
Broader language was contained in an amendment offered by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan the day after the Capps amendment was approved. The Stupak amendment would have overruled Capps and prohibited government funding of "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The Stupak amendment was rejected by the committee 27 - 31.
From this perspective, the League Of Catholic Bishops' claims only have a moderate foothold in reality. But the larger point of this is that, should this reform package pass, women that became pregnant due to one of the specific instances listed would have the option of an abortion. And this is something that all religious groups will ignore with unblushing intensity. They refuse to see how the consequences of their particular dogma are consistently and unequivocally bent against women.
One of the larger points in the healthcare debate as it relates to religious groups is that multiple times in biblical scripture it references caring for people other than oneself. Of course, I'm rather certain that religious groups, the Catholic Church in particular, aren't as concerned with what the scripture they allegedly cling to says as they are political and business interests.
While Glenn Beck, conservative bloggers, and Fox"Nation" rejoice in that same masturbatory fashion they do everytime they think they've won anything, one has to wonder exactly what it was that Van Jones said that was incorrect.
The conservative Right have wrongly accused Jones of being a race-baiter while discussing Columbine and the role that black youth did not play in that horrible day. So what is so wrong, so evil, with that statement? Can you think of any school shooting that is perpetrated by blacks? Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't blacks that commit crimes, nor is it to say that whites are responsible for all crimes as well.
Also, one has to but merely glance at statements made by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, or even the most marginal of conservative pundits on Fox"News" to realize that Jones' "crackhead" statement about Bush is hardly something to wet your knickers over.
Virtually everytime a black man or woman - actually anyone that isn't white - ascends to a position of even moderate power or influence, the reactionary Right will cry foul over any and everything that they say.
But what of Jones' statement about Sept. 11th? While many people have a wide range of opinions on what happened that day, it is a fact of life that people's attitudes and ideals and points of view change over time. While I once held that the Bush administration had a very prominent role in what happened that day, after researchig for the past 8 years, I now believe that their role was merely tangentical at best. So, is Jones' shift in opinion from several years ago any different that others? Who is to say, who is to judge this? Certanly not Glenn Beck.
And what of Jones' remarks on pollution and the role that "whites" play in polluting minority neighborhoods? It turns out that that statement is actually rooted in factualanalysis.
Though more covert than racism of the past, contemporary racism exists in housing—as discussed with the problems of ghettos—healthcare, and environment. Minorities receive less healthcare than white Americans due to the cost of insurance. A low socioeconomic status prevents them from affording insurance and healthcare in general. This creates a division between the services given to minorities and to white Americans. Also, due to the location of ghettos and other low value housing units, they receive higher amounts of pollution than white Americans. Polluting industries and busy freeways are often located near minority neighborhoods; “The combination of exposure to environmental hazards and unemployment discrimination establishes a sinister correlation between race and health” (White, 68). Thus, contemporary practices contribute to the inequality of the races.
one analysis of data collected by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, conducted by The Associated Press in 2005, found that blacks are 79 percent more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger.
Another study, released by Bullard in March, ranked the top 10 metropolitan areas in the U.S. with the largest number of minorities living in neighborhoods that contain hazardous waste facilities. Houston was second, behind only Los Angeles, featuring 10 such neighborhoods where the total population is more than 78 percent minority. (Chicago ranked fifth, with nine neighborhoods containing hazardous waste facilities where the total minority population is nearly 72 percent.)
While it is inescapable that Glenn Beck is very white and Jones is black, it can be too convenient of a statement to claim that Beck is a dyed in the wool racist. However, this is the trap that conservative continually find themselves in. They are so eager, so on the edge of thei seats to call someone a racist, that they often make rather racially charged statements of their own. But you can't point this out. If you do, you are labeled a "reverse racist". And the definition of that, if there even is one, is continually shifting and morphing dependant on the particular news cycle that people like Beck find themselves in.
The main problem I see in all of this is that Jones resigned. I can understand and appreciate why he did it, but it was ultimately a poor choice, as it validate the inane ramblings of the conservative movement. It has created the illusion that people like Glenn Beck are actually a source of credible information. The Obama administration has to stop giving in to any and everything the conservative Right says and does. They need to be partisan, get things done, and show some fucking spine. I understand that you have to make political decisions in order to secure any chances of attaining goals in the future, but they need to start acting like progressives I thought they were.
It's to be expected that the GOP are going to play the role of obstructionists simply because they are in a position to do so. I won't belabor the very real point that this is not going to help them gain any votes next year, save from the very fringe elements of their voting block, but it should be pointed out that they are perpetuating one of the largest lies in regards to the proposed healthcare legislation. And they are playing on the fears of the elderly and un-informed in order to get what they want.
Here's a sampling of what they are telling people about "end-of-life" issues.
And when one reads the language that conservative appear to be referencing within the bill, they aren't even marginally close to making a semi-valid point. It's rand fabrication and lies from the moment they open their mouths. Take a look.
To substantiate their claims, conservatives point to SEC. 1233 of the House Tri Committee bill, a section titled “ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.” But while the language allows Medicare to reimburse providers for consulting with patients about end-of-life issues, nothing in the section mandates a consultation. On page 429, the bill specifically states that seniors “may” consult with medical professionals — not government bureaucrats.
No mention of a 5 year visit from someone representing the Federal Government. No mention of mandating anything.
Naturally, one would expect the particular language within a bill would be spun in one direction or the other ( dependant upon who wants to make what point ) but this is creating an issue that simply is not there.
End-of-life care is very important and personal. Lest we forget, the Right made quite the issue out of Terri Schiavo.
Michelle Bachman is hillarious. I say that in the context that Louis C.K. uses it in. When a person says something so outrageous that when you hear it, you go insane.
That's right, Michelle, CO2 does occur in nature. But when you have too much of it, it's bad. Here, try this. Put a plastic bag over your head, hold it tight around your neck and see how long you can last before you pass out.
