bogsource.com

We will now be posting our opinions and links on our new site, www.bogsource.com. Hope to see you there.

Sphere: Related Content

Reaction to Mass. Senate election

The fact is that the Democratic party just lost a seat to the GOP that had been held by a Democrat in a liberal state for basically all of history and which previously belonged to THE Democratic Senator, Ted Kennedy, champion of the very concept behind the bill that may have died with him (health care reform). The reactions from the right are predictable. The claims that this is a referendum on the Obama administration were being made before the votes even started coming in. Fox News, bastion of the idiot right, has all but popped the corks on champagne bottles on live TV. The Democrats are, understandably, sheepish. The level of fuck-up demonstrated by this loss can only be described as colossal; ever seen a kicker miss a chip shot FG in a football game? (Charges fans are nodding their heads). Well, this is the political equivalent.

Before the left goes thermonuclear and the right allows their orgy to spill out onto the streets, I think its important to consider what this result actually means right now and what it will mean in the near future.

First, why did Coakley lose? Was it because Massachusetts voters decided that the best way to send a message to Obama was to vote for a Republican Senator? Unlikely. To use a crude analogy, would you vote for Satan over Jesus if Jesus was running for the same party as a President you didn't like? That's absurd.

Was the vote simply an indication of a conservative shift in the politics of Mass. voters? Perhaps slightly, but besides his views on the health insurance bill, Brown is pretty liberal. He's pro-choice, socially moderate, in favor of a Palestinian state (Republicans: say WHAT), and has signaled that he would work with efforts for bi-partisan health legislation down the road. He just doesn't like this particular bill, and frankly a lot of Democrats don't like it either.

The simple fact is that Brown was a pretty decent candidate. And Coakley was not. Despite the fact that she was leading by a huge margin in a state that polls heavily in favor of Obama, she committed gaffe after gaffe in the weeks leading up to the election and ran one of the poorest campaigns in history. Independents sided with Brown and that's all she wrote.

Sorry, GOP, but when the facts are examined, your claims that this is a message to Obama don't ring true and are insulting to the intelligence of Mass. voters, who know better than to waste a Senatorial vote on sending a message. Massachusetts elected Brown because he was the better candidate.

So what does this mean long term? Well, if more Republicans win elections this year, then the GOP and their mouthpiece, Fox News will claim that this was the start, but trying to link political change at the national level with the results of state elections is tenuous at best. In other words, the results of other state elections will not be any different just because Brown won this one and not Coakley. The GOP is a little delusional when it comes to trying to bolster support for itself. In reality, any Democrats that lose elections this year will have done so not because of a public political shift back to "Republican values," but because Congressional Democrats have completely dropped the ball this last year. Say what you will about the Republicans, but they know how to wield a majority the right way. The Democrats wield it like a ten year old kid with a lighter in an oil refinery.

The Democrats losing their majority in Congress may be the best thing that could possibly happen to this administration. I expect the result of that change would light a fire under the asses of the remaining Democrats to stop dicking around and actually get things done. Its not like legislation has never passed before unless there has been a 60 plus majority in one house. Bills can be passed with less than 60 votes, and in spite of the GOP's current plan of "block everything until the black guy is gone." The GOP still remains unpopular among the voting population as a whole, and they aren't going to change that by continuing to act like babies. Sooner or later, moderate Republicans are going to come around and make smart decisions because they want to be reelected. That means health insurance legislation, immigration reform, and LGBT rights bills are not off the table. Not by any means. And yes, moderate Republicans exist. Brown is one of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Let's take a survey!

By Ellipses

Michael Steele sent me a survey from the Republican National Committee. Let's make fun of it.

Monday Morning

Good job staying away from an alpha-numeric date. Play to your audience of lowest common denominators.

Your immediate action is required

Holy fearmongering, Batman!

Please carefully read and complete the enclosed 2010 Obama Agenda Survey which is REGISTERED in your name and affixed with a tracking code to ensure that it is accounted for in the tabulated results.

I didn't add any emphasis there. That whole bit about the tracking code... am I the only one who thinks that if this survey came from the democrats, the right wing nut jobs would use that as proof of impending death camps? Also, you have to marvel at how the GOP makes innocuous words sound terrifyingly evil. Like "Agenda."

As Chairman of the Republican National Committee, I am sending out this questionnaire to guage where you and other grassroots Republicans stand on the critical issues facing our nation-- I need to hear back from you right away.

I thought conservative principles and ideals were eternal. I thought issues were black and white. Who cares where your base stands on individual issues? You are supposed to do what's right no matter what the polls say. Mr. Steele, are you licking your finger and putting it into the wind here?

You know that the liberal media elites and the Obama Democrats are hoping you will put this letter down right now and do nothing...

Oh, don't worry, that is the last thing I'm going to do with it. It's funny, you know... I don't recall any of the democrat propaganda that I get in the mail saying things like "You know that the flannel-farming cousin fuckers want you to ignore this..."

They want you to give up, desert your Party, and walk away from your conservative principles.

You capitalized "party." How apropos.

I'm asking you to please not turn your back on us now.

If you didn't run away from facts and logic, my back wouldn't be turned to you...

I want you to know that the Republican Party is not dead and we are not going away.

If you have to say "it's not dead..." then it's dead.

Our ideals remain sound and our goals remain worthy.

We just need you to take this survey so we know what our ideals and goals are...

We have a strong minority in the U.S. House and in the U.S. Senate. We are using both to actively oppose and expose the truth about the Obama Democrat agenda.

So... you ARE the party of "no?"
Oh, and that "truth" that you are talking about... would your fictional death panels be included in the truths that you are exposing?

We believe that you and every one of the more than 60 million voters all across our country who did not vote for Barack Obama deserve to have a voice in the way this country is governed.

You are right, we haven't heard ANYTHING from conservatives for nearly a year now-end sarcasm

The enclosed 2010 Obama Agenda Survey is your opportunity to let Republican leaders in Washington, D.C. and all across the country know where you stand on the policies and programs being proposed by Barack Obama and his Democrat allies in Congress.

Big buildup, Mike... this better not suck.

As a REGISTERED participant in this important touchstone survey, your questionnaire answers will be used to represent a broad sampling of Republicans in your area.

Your sampling method is broken, apparently. Either that, you you are getting a REALLY broad sample of republicans. So broad, that you sent it to a liberal democrat (me).

There is so much about the Obama agenda that most Americans do not know, thanks to the non-stop, swooning coverage of the ultra-biased media.

I expect you to tell me something I don't know, then. And if you don't, then there's ANOTHER ounce of credibility that you've lost with me. Be careful, you don't have much left.

...That's why we are asking where you stand on Barack Obama's promise to raise taxes...

Vague, much?

...On his plans to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, which could lead to billions of dollars of government handouts and possibly bankrupt Social Security...

Oh, I see... you are going to be intentionally vague and not actually contribute to the growth of my personal knowledge. I got it... I'm sorry, I thought we were playing a different game. Go on...

And how do you feel about Obama's efforts to nationalize health care and have it run by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?

Mike,buddy... Where have you been? Single payer was never on the table. They killed off the public option... and the expansion of medicare was a glimmer in our eyes for all of 10 days. How does a reform bill that increases the saturation and market share of private insurers count as nationalized health care? It's not even a matter of semantics, it's the exact polar opposite of what you are saying. You are saying the president has a vagina WHILE you are sucking his cock, bud!

Holy shit, I'm only half-way through the welcome letter...

Blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah

Oh, here we go...

That's why I'm asking you to include a contribution to the Republican National Committee of $500, $250, $100, $50, or even $30 along with your 2010 Obama Agenda Survey in the postage-paid envelope

You no-talent ass-hat back alley gutter whore. Postage paid, huh? Well, shit... I guess I'll put something in the mail just to transfer some of your coffers to that evil socialist post office.

Even though the media acts as though the outcome of the 2008 election was a unanimous, 100% vote in favor of Barack Obama and his liberal agenda... over 60 million Americans did not support Obama and the Democrats...

You left out the part where 69 million people didn't vote for your guy, either...
Look, you got to play leader for the first 4 years of the last decade even though your guy got less votes than our guy. Now, our guy gets 7 and a half million votes more than your guy and it's ALL about the minority voice...

Alright, here is the survey:

1. Do you agree with Barack Obama and the Democrats that taxes should be raised for the sake of "fairness," regardless of the negative impact it is likely to have on the economy?

I can't agree with them on that because that is not their position.

2. Do you believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry?

No. A very substantial portion of those funds has been repaid and it prevented a full-scale economic collapse. I believe it was prudent and correct and I give equal praise to George Bush and Barack Obama for taking the appropriate action.

3. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?

Yes.

4. Should English be the official language of the United States?

I don't care one way or the other. It would not have an effect on daily life. If English were the official language, it wouldn't make Mexicans learn to speak English. I will say No just to fuck with you.

5. Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship through an amnesty program.

Yes. They've worked here and contributed to our economic power. They should receive the benefits of that contribution.

6. Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility (no time, education or work requirements) that Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass?

Yes. Specifically because your side has said that we are going to have a shitty economy forever because of the big, bad democrats. If what your side says is true, then capping welfare benefits is just cruel.

7. Do you believe that Barack Obama's nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate?

No. But I also don't think they should be delayed forever. There is a difference between moving on with the nomination process and stonewalling the nominations. You aren't providing any more debate on these nominees by holding up the process.

8. Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to rapidly expand federal fudning while eliminating performance standards and accountability?

In short? Yes.

9. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

10. Do you believe that the quality and availability of health care will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals?

Absolutely. Move closer to a European model, get closer to European access, quality, and affordability.

11. Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies?

I didn't follow you on that one... I am a little groggy from my French-developed flu shot.

12. Are you in favor of creating a government-funded "Citizen Volunteer Corps" that would pay young people to do work now done by churches and charities, earning Corps Members the same pay and benefits given to military veterans?

Fuck Yeah! That sounds AWESOME! Where do I sign up?

13. Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed?

Nope... and I will venture a guess that it will never happen... why do you hate the military, Mr. Steele?

14. Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation?

If their positions are critical to the safety an security of the nation, I would definitely not want them preoccupied with worrying about whether they will get arbitrarily shit-canned... so yes.

15. Do you support Democrats' drive to eliminate workers' right to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment?

Nope... hey, we agree on one thing. Go fuck yourself :-)

Time to drop this in the mail...

Sphere: Related Content

Karl Rove, I agree with you *vomits*

by Cylinsier

In one of today's political ticker articles, CNN reports on some of Karl Rove's suggested New Year's Resolutions for Barack Obama and his administration. Shockingly, they are appropriate and far from partisan. Maybe Rove's divorce has caused him to rethink his life. Or maybe I'm just becoming more conservative...nah, Rove must have rethought his life.

From CNN's story, the first suggestion is:

Mr. Obama should work on his habit of leaving a room of people with deeply divided opinions thinking he agrees with all of them. That leads to disagreements over essential issues, like the meaning of his pledge to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011 and the nature of the new military mission there.

Wow. Very insightful, you fat bastard. I agree, President Obama's biggest mistakes so far have often resulted from a lack of initiative in taking sides. Obama needs to tell people where he stands and stop trying to please everyone. Just please the people who voted for you.

Rove on Biden:

Every time he opens his mouth, the West Wing staff uses him to make the president look good by comparison.

Well, yeah. But maybe that's part of the plan! No, seriously, I agree again. Biden has been much better of late, though.

Back to the administration in general:

Why not resolve to have a few less "historic" moments? How many can one president really have, anyway? A little more grace toward his predecessor would help him, as would less TV time. He is wearing out his welcome and his speechwriters—judging by the quality of their work lately.

There's stink of some partisan sniping here, but a grain of truth as well. I get what Rove is saying. There does seem to be a preoccupation with setting this administration up to be the best ever. How about we just get shit done and let history decide how good it was? But fuck Rove on the "wearing out his welcome" comment. He's the President, bitch. Get over it. And "less TV time?" Really? Consider the age we live in.

On Desiree Rogers, who is in charge of White House guests:

[She] should take a lead from Santa Clause and make her list and check it twice...at the White House gates.

El oh El. You rotund fuck. I agree again, though. The biggest embarrassment to this administration so far, in MY HUMBLE opinion, is those clowns who got through the gate at that party. Are you shitting me? Secret Service must have been on crack at the time.

So what does this mean, me agreeing with Karl Rove? Did hell freeze over? Maybe, but neither he nor I believe in hell. Whatever it is, let's put partisan politics aside and admit there is always room for improvement. Thank you Karl Rove for saying some stuff that lightened my day a little. Now go jump off a cliff.

Sphere: Related Content

The healthcare battle nears conclusion, but who are the winners?

by Cylinsier

The highest hurdles have been cleared. Both houses of Congress have passed their mangled, well-intentioned versions of health reform, each resembling a good plan in some ways and yet each bearing the scars of political machinations. The final step is cobbling the two together into something both houses will agree on, and then sending it on to the President for it to become official.

There are a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, calling for this thing to be totally dismantled. They want a fresh start, and I don't totally disagree with them. There is enough in these bills to dislike that I too would like to take it back to the drawing board, but that is unrealistic at this point. One way or the other, there seems to be little if any chance that the Democratic majorities will remain the same in either house of Congress after next year's elections. Considering the paper thin margins by which each bill passed, and the nauseatingly partisan politics employed by the right and conservative left in attempting to stonewall this bill, there is no second chance. If this bill is tossed, then we have to be okay with that being all she wrote on this issue until the system collapses, because nothing is going to be done about it sooner.

There are also a lot of good reasons to see this bill passed. Admittedly, some are going to be of the petty nature; I can't be the only one that allows himself a bit of satisfaction in thinking about how hard the right has fought on their platform of lies and deceit, only to still see a bill passed (wishful thinking in many ways; the GOP is most likely secretly patting themselves on the back for doing so good a job of neutering the bill). But at the end of the day, whether or not this bill is signed and passed should depend on whether or not it improves the system in any way for the people of this country. Nothing else should play into it.

To determine whether or not the bill is an improvement, we need to understand it. It is my opinion that the final product is going to be most similar to the Senate version, as the House is already signaling making concessions to favor it. So what does the Senate version look like? According to Reuters, the bill includes:

• a mandate for US citizens to purchase health insurance.
• Federal subsidies for individuals up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line.
• Federal tax benefits for small businesses.
• Penalties for employers who do not provide plans to employees when said employees tap into subsidies to purchase coverage.
• the creation of State-based insurance exchanges.
• contracting between OPM (which overseas federal insurance plans) and private insurers to create non-profit plans available in the exchanges.
• a medicaid increase in all states who's Senator didn't play mercenary with their vote.
• the removal of the preexisting conditions copout.
• the removal of higher charges based on gender, health history or employment.
• the removal of insurers' ability to drop people when they get sick.
• the removal of lifetime limits on coverage.
• requiring insurers to cover preventative care.
• a provision to streamline paperwork as well as other measures to reduce overhead costs.

Really, the House version isn't terribly different in most ways; its just some of the numbers that differ. The big difference is the public option, which existed in the House version, but which seems dead now. There was also a medicare increase floating around, but Senator Lieberman killed that.

So why are the above things good? Well, the mandate may not make people jump for joy, but its important to understand why that is included before being critical of it. If you remove insurers' ability to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions (and you should), but do not mandate insurance, then you will have a huge number of people who don't buy insurance until right after they get sick, then get a policy quick to cover costs, then cancel. The system can support that kind of use for approximately 3 seconds before succumbing. The mandate is probably the least popular part of the bill excluding debates of cost, but it has to be there or the whole thing falls apart.

The rest should be pretty straightforward unless you're a total asshole. There's nothing there that you can argue doesn't benefit a large number of people. So let's draw the line in the sand right here and make it crystal clear: the people that are against this bill have one argument, and that is cost. Sure, these are all good things, but how much of my paycheck do I have to fork over for it? Well, I don't think we're truly going to know that until the deal is done. Note that most of the above benefits don't kick in until 2014, so we'll sure have plenty more time to talk about it. But to say whether or not the cost outweighs the benefits, we're just going to have to wait and see.

I can tell you that the cost would have been nil, or even negative, if some people had just stopped bitching early on and let us have a public option or single payer, but there was too much money in politicians' back pockets and too much propaganda on Fox News for that to happen. Really, if we get boned by this bill, we have no one to blame but ourselves; for being gullible, for not putting the right people in office, and for succumbing to our own arrogance and selfishness. In a way, this bill failing might be a good thing for us. Americans seem to have a hard time learning by any means but the hard way nowadays.

But the reason I think this bill needs to be passed is twofold: first, I do firmly believe that more people will benefit from this bill than people will suffer from costs. I'm not saying there won't be a few people that see prices go up without a change in quality of coverage. Actually, most people will probably see no change at all. But the people that see their quality of life improve because of this bill will outweigh, probably by far, the people that see any kind of degradation. That's enough reason to support it for me. It seems everyone in support of this bill and reform in general also views the issue that way, while everyone against it seems to think only of how it will affect them personally. Morally condescending comments about being selfish pricks aside, the world and specifically this country does not run on the whims of a select few, regardless of how much money you have or your class status. The needs of the many outweigh that of the few. That's not an argument on what philosophy everyone should subscribe to, that's a law of nature.

The second reason I support this bill's passage is because I firmly believe that the people of this country, when it comes down to brass tacks, have just enough collective intelligence to recognize that any shortcomings of this bill are a result of it not going far enough as opposed to too far. If we start talking about making changes to this bill in a few years, it will be a move towards single payer, not away. I believe that because that is how things have always worked in this country. Just look at Civil Rights. It didn't happen overnight. There were baby steps, in some cases frustratingly and dishearteningly slow steps, towards something that actually worked the way it was supposed to. We might have had a shot at changing this overnight, but we missed it. That's not a reason to stand still for another decade or so. We need to take the first step to complete the journey. Comprehensive reform is still a ways off, but if this bill passes, it'll be just a bit closer.

Sphere: Related Content

House Dem to Switch to Republican

by Cylinsier

Per CNN's political ticker, Parker Griffith of Alabama will switch from Democrat to Republican by the time he runs for reelection next year. If you were wondering, yes, he was a Blue Dog.

I think we're all thinking the same thing here, and that is, "Really? Alabama? You were a Congressman from Alabama and you didn't think we all didn't already know you were a Republican?"

I mean, shit, he was a Blue Dog from the bible belt. Kind of like when Lance Bass came out of the closet. Everyone just nodded and went on with their day. But I do have to give Griffith some credit. At least you came out. The other Blue Dogs still want to pretend they are Democrats. Kudos for wearing your true colors with pride.

Sphere: Related Content

More Alan Grayson Fireworks

By Ellipses

Grayson starts the shame-game of rattling off death stats for specific elected officials at about the 15:00 mark. It's not really a secret if I were able to, I'd cut myself in half so that part of me could live and vote in Al Franken's district and part of me could live and vote in Alan Grayson's district.

Sphere: Related Content

Here's what happened in the Senate today

By Ellipses

A meaningful amendment is actually proposed... and what happens? Coburn shits on it, mashes it into the carpet with his feet, and lights it on fire.

Coburn requires that Sanders' single payer amendment be read in its entirety (767 pages). The clerk reads it for a few hours and then Sanders withdraws his amendment and proceeds to use his 30 minutes to say "Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you're cool, fuck you, fuck you, I'm out!"

Sphere: Related Content

Dick Armey really is a brigade of cocks

By Ellipses

And another charmer by America's favorite lesbian:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sphere: Related Content

Franken Flogs Thune

By Ellipses

Sphere: Related Content

Bend over America, Lieberman isn't done

by Cylinsier

As reported by CNN, it seems that Joey L has had a chat with his wife about how expanding Medicare to cover those 55 and older who do not have insurance will hurt their income from her health care lobbying. After some soul searching, they've decided that they aren't willing to risk that income, and that fucking Americans over is a much more palatable course of action.

Seriously, who is this guy kidding? Just put the R next to your name now and quit being coy. The soon-to-be ex-senator's paper-thin excuse (that's a lot of hyphens) is, and I quote, "We don't need to keep adding on to the back of this horse until the horse breaks down and we get nothing done." Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the argument in favor of reforming the current health care system. You know, the one that's going to collapse under its own weight in, I don't know, about ten years. Which would serve us right at this point. I kind of hope we don't do anything and it comes back to bite us in the ass. We obviously need to learn the hard way.

Let's first establish that expanding Medicare does NOT add things on the back of this so-called horse. The reason most of us pay so much money for health insurance is because you are paying premiums to cover the risk of your entire insurance pool. Yes, that means those of us, like me, who are comparatively young and healthy, are paying higher premiums than we need to to cover the asses of the just-shy-of-medicare aged folks who may or may not be getting their arteries scraped next week on our dime. Now, not even most of those will be eligible for Medicare because you can't get it at 55 unless you are uninsured, so a lot won't even change. All it does is take those high riskers on no or unaffordable plans and give them a new option. Its such a vanilla solution that you have to be a total prick to oppose it. However, theoretically, it puts the high risk patients on a plan that already exists to cover high risk patients and provides incentive for private insurers to lower the rates for the rest of us. Why would they follow through on that? I don't know, they probably won't because they like to make money, but that's the theory. Will it raise the cost of Medicare? Yes, in theory, by a very small margin that should by all rights be offset by the huge savings the private insurers will more likely than not try to pocket instead of passing back to us. So really, Lieberman is right, but not because the plan changes too much. He's right because it doesn't do enough.

Basically, its a plan that plays right into the Republicans' hands; it allows the private insurers a chance to slip even higher profits by us. And they STILL won't vote for it. That's the level of assholery we're dealing with.

Of course, in the long run, it would be beneficial because its one decade's worth of patients closer to covering all of us in a single payer system, and maybe that's what scares them. Another part of this current bill increases the bar for who can buy Medicaid. Yet another increases the age of dependents who can stay on their parents' plans to something absurd like 30 (I guess accounting for the WoW crowd who live in their parents' basements...no offense cause I'm a gamer too). And even another aspect had something to do with a government agency designed to regulate all this. So yeah, it does have its sneaky socialist aspects which can seem scary to old white men who remember when you were supposed to shoot anyone who claimed to be a socialist, the irony of them subsisting almost entirely on social programs at that age notwithstanding.

But the GOP isn't going to be happy until nothing at all gets passed, and they have Lieberman playing the role of inside man in their scheme now. It calls to mind the saying, "beware of the wounded animal." The GOP is cowering in the corner on three legs, but I'll be damned if you can't get within 20 feet of them without getting mauled right now.

As a quick aside, I love Mitch McConnell's quote in the CNN story on the bill: "We do not believe this bill, this nearly 2,100-page monstrosity, is real health care reform." Yeah, and people did not believe the world was round 600 years ago. Its like every time you turn around, the bill has grown another handful of pages all on its own, despite the fact that the Dems make huge cuts to it constantly. I'm setting the over-under of the bill's length by January 1st at 2,300 pages. I'll take the over.

So what's the end game here? Do we get a bill or not? And is it worth it? Well, we're going to get something, considering the Democrats are set on cutting as much of the bill away as it takes to get the needed votes. However, I think its safe to assume that it will not make things better at this point, and in fact might make them worse in the immediate future. But that's okay with me as long as there is a long term outcome that will be favorable. We have to face a fact here, and that fact is there is going to be a difficult period of time ahead for Americans and its going to last about 20 to 30 years. See, when the last of the baby boomers hit retirement age, we're going to be in the unenviable position of going through a couple of decades where the working class is outnumbered by the retired class. This isn't the boomers' fault. Its not like they all got together and said, "hey, let's all get born together so we can fuck the system for our kids and grandkids down the road." But that's what's going to happen. There is no model for a system that can produce more energy than it consumes; we are going to be faced with government programs that hemorrhage money for a while. That doesn't mean the system is broken. It just means the burden is unbalanced.

There will be people who try to imply that the system is broken and will try to have it demolished at that time, and it will be important to avoid that temptation. Its very easy to want to do what benefits you at the expense of future generations, and very difficult to inconvenience yourself for the benefit of future generations, but it is the latter that we must strive for. Its going to be a hard sell. And really, its starting right now. We have a situation where we need to secure the health of our citizens not just now, but for generations ahead, and the opponents are the shortsighted among us. They are those that do not consider or care about those that will come after they die. They care only about themselves. And that's what it comes down to; like all past arguments over government programs and all future ones to come, the health care debate is a fight between doing what is easy and what is right. However, we cannot do both.

In Congress, the motivations are more likely about doing what you think your voters want; let's not pretend that we have close to 60 heroes working for us there (or close to 40 if you are on the other side). They might be generally decent people, but they are political mercenaries at the end of the day. That's just how the system works. That's why, in spite of what the libertarian and anarchists crowds say, we must remember that we as voters do ultimately control what our country does and does not do; we control it by telling our congressmen and congresswomen what to do. If you voted in the last election and you write a letter to your representation, and everyone else does the same, they will listen. They have to, or else they lose their jobs. They are our employees and it works. If you live in Connecticut, where ever other member of Congress from your state does not have their heads buried up their asses, send Lieberman a note and remind him who his bosses are. The rest of the country will thank you for it eventually.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Hanukkah

By Ellipses

Sphere: Related Content

Glenn Beck Pure Gold

by Cylinsier

Oh, this must be why Glenn Beck's show is 20% lunatic ravings and 80% gold commercials. Gotta hold on to that one last sponsor while you can!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Beck - Not So Mellow Gold
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Sphere: Related Content

Grayson Tells Cheney to "STFU"

By Ellipses

This is turning out to be a good week... so far, Rachel Maddow has torn a "Cure the Gay" dude a new asshole and Alan Grayson has advised Dick Cheney to shut the fuck up. If I can get Al Franken to call Glenn Beck a pudding-dicked taint-licker, it will be somewhat of a holy trinity :-)

Sphere: Related Content

This is why the GOP is irrelevant

From Mitch McConnell's Internetz (Notice the dates):

Sphere: Related Content

Rachel Maddow is my Favorite Lesbian

By Ellipses

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sphere: Related Content

Tim Murphy Represents the Town of Selfish, Pennsylvania. Population: about 1,200

By Ellipses

Call it chaos theory, 6 degrees of separation, or simply coincidence. A spur-of-the-moment phone call this past summer resulted in the most entertaining piece of junk mail I've received in a long time.

You may remember the video of a guy chasing congressmen and senators around D.C. trying to elicit a firm yay or nay response to the "birther" question. Some expressed "concerns" that the birthers "have a point," while others bolted in the opposite direction or hung out in a book store for an inordinately long period of time. That last one was Tim Murphy, republican congressman representing the 18th district of Pennsylvania.

Since I didn't have shit-else to do at the time, I gave Mr. Murphy's offices a call (both the D.C. one and his home base office in Upper St. Clair). I spoke to a nice intern named Andrew at the USC office. I asked what Mr. Murphy's official position was on the birther issue and was in turn asked what I thought of the issue. Naturally, I asked if my response would determine Mr. Murphy's position and was told that Andrew could not comment explicitly on Mr. Murphy's position, but he was interested in knowing what his constituency thought of it. I call bullshit, but I'm not going to take this up with an intern. Anyway, I provide the 411 on my identities and get added to a mailing list, apparently.

And on Friday, that tree bore big, delicious fruit!

I feel almost privileged to be the recipient of the 4-color folio-o-horseshit that Mr. Murphy no doubt deposited into my mailbox DIRECTLY from his putrid, gaping anus while balanced precariously out the passenger's side window of his sedan: The RESULTS of his 2009 Healthcare Survey!

So, what do my fellow Keystoners have to say about doctorin' in Amurka?

The mailer I received has some charted highlights, but the pertinent part of this is the url to view the "entire survey and more detailed information."

The .pdf on Murphy's website is what I am using, rather than the bits and pieces in the mailer.

The first major thing I notice is that there is no mention of sample size, level or method of stratification, survey methodology such as survey format, method of data collection, margin of error, date of data collection, or an indication of whether the sample was representative, and if so, representative of what population?

The personal message from Mr. Murphy indicates that "thousands of people" responded to the survey. To put that in perspective, Nielson research extrapolates Pittsburgh DMA viewing statistics from a sample of fewer than 300 households in the Tri-State area. To create a database representative of census demographics for the Pittsburgh Metro Area with a margin of error of +/- 3%, a sample of 1,000 individuals is sufficient. "Thousands" of respondents, if stratafied and representative, would be severe overkill for accuracy of representing the 18th congressional district.

"Similar to the national average, 97% of respondents in the 18th Congressional District do have health insurance."

The word "similar" may have debatable meanings, but when I look at the various numbers on the uninsured in America, 30-45 million is a FAR CRY from 3% of the total population. The national average is more like 10-15%.

Pennsylvania, on the whole, has about 13% of its residents uninsured. Mr. Murphy represents an older, more affluent district, but goddamn! 97%? That's Massachusetts-style coverage right there! I won't call bullshit on this, though, because I can't find stats on health insurance coverage saturation by congressional district. If anyone else knows of a source, please chime in.

Of this near-fully insured population, 29% purchase their own insurance, 52% have employer-sponsored insurance, and 37% have medicaid or medicare. Obviously, there is some overlap in supplemental policies in addition to possessing government-run insurance.

85.8% of respondents rate their coverage as excellent or good, while only 13.2% rate it as fair or poor. On the mailer, the chart shows 1% rating their coverage as "Other." Normally, with a rating question such as this, you would either use a scale of 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, or 1-10, with an option for "don't know." "Other" wouldn't even be a possible response.

40% of respondents "believe America's current healthcare system is not broken." Apparently, 40% of Mr. Murphy's constituency live under rocks. Luckily, 44% believe that it IS broken... and 16% probably can't figure out into which hole they should stick their food.

1 out of 3 respondents think health care should be a top priority of the president and congress. 29% believe it "should be made a medium and low priority."

85% of respondents saw their health care costs increase over the past year. Then, there is this interesting statement: "What causes the increase? This year $2.5 trillion will be spent in the U.S. healthcare system, of which $800 billion to $1 trillion is wasted or misused." First, is that figure DIFFERENT from last year? Has there been an increase, in the last 12 months, in the amount that was wasted or misused? If not... if that figure is static, then why the increase? If 800 billion dollars was wasted last year and 800 billion dollars will be wasted this year, why did health care costs increase? Secondly, isn't 800 billion dollars within the ballpark of the CBO's cost estimate for the most recent incarnation of the public option? Why isn't Mr. Murphy advocating for a public option with a mandate that it be financed in part through savings extracted from eliminating waste and misuse?

More than 58% of respondents oppose the idea of the government requiring an individual to buy coverage. 58%... of a group of people that is 97% insured. So, just about every one of these folks has insurance, but they don't want the government to require all those uninsured people to have coverage... which is exactly the reason that their costs have increased (not because of waste and misuse).

60% of people think that people on medicaid should be able to buy a private policy. 56% of people think people on medicaid should be given tax credits to buy insurance. I'm just wondering... how many people on medicaid pay enough in taxes that a credit would be enough to cover the cost of insurance? Policies can easily cost 500 dollars a month for a young, healthy person. How many people who are eligible for medicaid pay 6,000 dollars a year in taxes?

Bar graph number 10 appears to be constructed with n-size on the y axis, that is, the actual population of respondents for each question. It looks like about 1,200 respondents, total, responding to that question. Of those, 400 (35% of 1,500) cited "high out of pocket costs" as the main concern with their current health insurance plan. The "other" bar is at about 375 respondents (31%). Within the "other" response, at least 7.75% of responses could have been grouped into "high out of pocket costs" since they are responses like "co-pays too high." This puts "cost" as a primary concern for about 43% of respondents.

Graph #14 offers some interesting insight into the perspective of those who responded to the survey. 66% of respondents say that people on medicaid should have the option of buying private insurance. Doesn't everyone have the option to buy private insurance? Can't every one of us go onto Ætna's, or BC/BS's, or Cigna's website and buy a policy? Isn't the reason that people are on Medicaid (and yes, it's medicAID that is mentioned in the question text) that they can't afford private insurance and they don't get affordable insurance from their employer? Again with the poor people!

Graph #16 just evokes a question of semantics. Should people be allowed to purchase policies from different states? 70% say yes and I have no problem with that. My question, though, is this: If an insurance exchange is set up and various insurers can put a low cost plan into the exchange (along with a public option)... if I bought insurance through that exchange, would I only be able to buy insurance from a Pennsylvania insurer? I doubt it. I would expect the exchange to be a central repository of insurance products, which would be offered to all Americans, regardless of what state they live in.

After the aforementioned graphs, we have a string of questions that illustrate how unwilling people are to pay any taxes for reform.

• 76% don't want to pay a national sales tax
• 83% don't want higher payroll taxes
• 91% don't want higher taxes for married people
  
• 93% don't want a tax on their mortgage
• 76% don't want a cell phone tax
• 56% don't want a junk food tax
• 54% don't want an alcohol tax
• 92% don't want a tax on charitable donations
• 86% don't want a higher income tax
• 56% don't want a tax on employers who DON'T offer insurance
• 91% don't want a tax on their health insurance
• 62% don't want to tax people who DON'T pay for their insurance
• 95% don't want a tax on health care services
• 84% don't want a tax on health care savings accounts
• 94% don't want a tax on prescription drugs
• 72% don't want an oil refinery tax
• 87% don't want a power company tax
• 52% don't want taxes on US companies who do business overseas
• 89% don't want a tax on dividend income
• 78% don't want a tax on capital gains
• 93% don't want an inheritance tax

A couple of "poor man cross tabbing" observations:
48% of people DO want to tax companies who "do business overseas" but only 11% want a tax on dividends and 22% want a tax on capital gains. So, some people want to tax the multinationals on the front end but presumably don't want to decrease their own personal income from those companies. I wonder if they realize that "doing business overseas" doesn't actually mean "sending jobs to China."

More people are in favor of "affect me now" taxes (income, sales, payroll, cell phone, investment) than are in favor of an inheritance tax that would be used to pay for health care. Now, I am pretty much opposed to inheritance taxes on principle, but it seems that some respondents are more concerned with what happens to your material wealth after you're dead than they are with your present-day income potential. Maybe if these folks had more of a functionalist perspective, we could get beyond the arguments of abstraction.

38% of respondents want to tax people who don't pay for their insurance. This is where some dialogue with the Murphy camp would come in handy. Who are these people? Are we talking about veterans and old people or are we talking about poor people on medicaid again? I mean, do 1 out of 3 people want a poor tax to reduce the cost of their own health insurance (since 97% of these people are insured)?

I wonder if the 95% of people who don't want a tax on health care services know that they are already paying a pretty hefty hidden tax on every MRI, CAT Scan, lab test, x-ray, and aspirin that they receive to offset the cost of treating a guy who doesn't have insurance.

Sphere: Related Content

We're getting some publicity...

by Cylinsier

So we've attracted the attention of a libertarian blog with my previous post:

The Tenth Amendment Center

I can honestly say I love knowing we're getting peoples' attention. I commented on the above blog but unlike us, they do not have open comments so I am not sure if it will be posted. I hope so though! Anyway, if you want to see what kind of ire I've attracted, follow the link above. Maybe we can start a list of arch nemeses soon.

In all seriousness, they are polite folks so if any stray libertarians are looking for a good blog to frequent, this may be for you.

Sphere: Related Content

Libertarianism as a fashion statement

by Cylinsier

There has been a movement recently among conservatives to identify as libertarian while at the same time blatantly illustrating a total lack of understanding of what libertarianism is. Basically, it occurs when a particularly staunch conservative is railing against some perceived socialist/communist/atheist/islamist/fascist threat and then, as if to remind us that his opinions are not grounded in partisanship (which they are), he adds, "and I'm not just saying this because I'm a Republican. I'm a libertarian." Another thing we can credit Glenn Beck for, by the way.

Here's the problem: what these conservatives are really advocating when they talk about states' rights and small central government is not really libertarianism, its more anti-federalism. Libertarianism is, at is most basic level, the belief that government should not legislate social or economic freedoms. Its more or less a kind of organized anarchy. There are plenty of reasons why that system wouldn't work, but there's no reason to go into that because its not a system that these fauxbertarians are really advocating; ask someone claiming libertarianism if they are in favor of global isolationism, or legalization of all drugs, or gay marriage. You'd be hard pressed to find one that says yes.

The big difference between real libertarianism and anti-federalism is that the latter doesn't support the elimination of government from citizens' lives, just the elimination of the federal government. Its really an ideology of convenience; most of these so-called libertarians were not in favor of states' rights trumping federal law when Bush was President. Rather, its a situation of not wanting the other guy's government to be in control, which signifies a lack of respect for the way our government works in my opinion, but that's another story.

Setting aside the transparent reasoning for supporting anti-federalism, what the fauxbertarians exhibit in their outspoken support of state supremacy is a total lack of knowledge of history. While no other country that I can immediately think of has tried a style of anti-federalist government in modern history (I suppose feudalism might count if you want to go further back), the United States actually did try confederacy as a style of government. It failed miserably. In 1781, our young nation ratified the Articles of Confederation. By 1788, the founding fathers had already convened to replace it. As a Federal Union, we have lasted 221 years. As a confederacy, we lasted 7.

The problem with that Articles was that giving such great power to the different states while giving so little power to a governing body over them allowed each state too much freedom to act in their own personal interests without regard to the common good. States were free to tell their armies what to do without having to confer with other states. They were free to refuse to pay federal taxes. They were free to print their own currency and refuse to accept the currency of other states. The "United States" was more like a collection of 13 individual nations than 13 parts of a whole. Anti-federalists either do not remember learning about this time in school, or they simply refuse to acknowledge it. But just like each individual citizen has a responsibility to maintain personal order for the sake of society, each individual state had a responsibility to maintain order for the Union. And also just like individuals, without some form of governing body enforcing basic laws, there was no incentive for these states to do so under the Articles.

Anti-federalism does have one thing in common with libertarianism; both systems function on the belief that people or individual states are inherently fair and self-regulating and will ultimately make the correct decisions without being forced, and that acting for personal gain and prosperity can be achieved without harming the overall welfare of society. As history has shown us repeatedly, this is not the case by any means. The vast majority of people are short-sighted and self-serving. Allowing a system like anti-federalism to become the rule of the land would lead to eventual collapse. We tried it for 7 years before the founding fathers realized that. We teach our children in schools to learn about government from the fathers' decisions, so why do so many refuse to learn this lesson? Anti-federalism doesn't work.

Sphere: Related Content

A response to '12 reasons Chrome OS will fail'

by Cylinsier

A couple days ago, I read a blog post called 12 reasons Chrome OS will fail, by Patricio Robles on econsultancy.com. This is a point by point response to those reasons and why I disagree with them. If you don't know, Chrome OS is Google's foray into the operating system market. It is geared primarily towards netbooks as a low hassle no frills OS for those that need quick access to the web and not much else.

I will quote each point before responding to it.

The web matters, but so does the desktop. With Chrome OS, Google is betting that desktop apps don't matter to the average consumer. Is that a good bet? Probably not. While there's no doubt that you can do a lot on the web today, but that doesn't mean the desktop is dead. From accounting programs (e.g. Quickbooks) to P2P software (e.g. Limewire) to the desktop software that comes bundled with devices like digital cameras, there are plenty of desktop applications that average consumers still use, or might want to use.

The reason I don't buy this argument is actually twofold. First, Robles' argument here depends on the notion that someone would buy a netbook as a notebook or desktop replacement, but considering how low the prices are getting and the obvious direction of that market, its pretty clear the netbooks are being handled as peripheral devices closer to PDAs and smartphones than actual computers right now. Second, part of Chrome OS is building a large number of applications into the web environment that were previously desktop oriented; Google documents for example. Microsoft is even catching onto this trend, something I might address in a future blog post. But for the most part, people who want a netbook aren't being duped into losing their desktop apps, they just aren't looking for them in this package.

Less isn't more. Even if 95% of what you do is on the web and Chrome OS seems like a viable choice, why buy a machine that can do less than the machine you have today? Unless the machines packing Chrome OS are significantly cheaper, the average consumers is not going to pay approximately the same amount of money for less functionality and flexibility.

I more or less answered this above; you buy this machine to work with your other gear, not in place of it. And the price is going to be pretty cheap. You can already get XP ready netbooks in the $400 dollar area; imagine how much you save with Chrome OS (which is free).

Google's focus on netbooks is short-sighted. Netbooks may not be dying, but the ultrathin is fast becoming the new netbook. Some low-end ultrathins sporting more powerful ultra-low voltage (ULV) CPUs from Intel and AMD cost as much as high-end netbooks with much less powerful processors. The question for a consumer is why you'd want to run an OS clearly designed for yesterday's netbooks on your new, more powerful ultrathin. The obvious answer: you don't.

This again overlooks the difference between notebooks and netbooks. The major draw of a netbook running Chrome is going to be the get-up-and-go speed of starting it up. Since Chrome will run off a SSD drive and is essentially a browser turned OS, you're literally talking about startup times in the seconds. What Robles is doing wrong here is comparing netbooks and notebooks as though they are competing products; they aren't.

Consumers are comfortable with Windows. Love it or hate it, Windows is in a long-term relationship with consumers. Getting them to cozy up to a different kind of OS is a huge marketing challenge. As is getting them to keep their Chrome OS machine once they realize that it's a Chrome OS machine. As an example, consider MSI, which has in the past attributed the high return rates for some of its netbooks to the fact that they were running Linux.

I don't know if I buy this. Netbooks running Windows were XP until recently. But didn't we just spend three years talking about how much we don't like Vista? How many people are already ripe to try something new? If that isn't enough proof for you, consider that Windows also had a significant head start in the mobile market with Windows CE. Where'd that get them? The most popular mobile OS is the iPhone, followed by Palm and, yes, Google Android is quickly gaining attention. Windows Mobile is lingering near the bottom. Apple seems to think this might be a talking point as well; seen all those "switch to Mac instead of Windows 7" adverts? They might be onto something.

Windows 7 rocks. Microsoft's new OS has received a lot of positive press, and as someone who is running it on a new ultrathin ULV laptop, I can say that it's a very decent OS and is much, much faster than Vista. In fact, if I owned an underpowered netbook I suspect I still might be able to get away with running Windows 7 on it. As a fun comparison, consider that (according to Net Applications) Windows 7 has already achieved greater marketshare in the OS market since mid-September than the Chrome browser has achieved in the browser market since December 2008. Yet Google has promoted the Chrome browser on some of the most trafficked properties in the world, including on its homepage. That shows the significant mountain Google faces in penetrating the OS market.

This is all fine and dandy as a talking point, but how are you going to install Windows 7 on that netbook without a DVD drive? Oh, you can't. You just have to settle with Windows 7 Starter pre-packaged on a new netbook, which will cost about $200 bucks more than Chrome by the way. Have you used 7 starter? Its nothing like the 7 you're running on your notebook. And I don't see any reason to draw correlation between browser performance and OS performance; they are very different animals.

Google doesn't have a monopoly on web apps. Chrome OS is a viable option if you can use web apps exclusively. But so is Windows, Mac OS X, Linux or any other operating system that runs a web browser. After all, you can run web apps -- including Google's -- in just about every modern browser. In other words, when you get right down to it Google isn't really offering you anything that you don't already have.

I disagree; Google is offering you a netbook that boots up faster than any other on the market, gives you quick and easy access to the internet, is light and portable, and costs several hundred dollars less than the Windows version.

Support? What support? If you're an average consumer and something goes wrong with your Chrome OS netbook, who are you going to call? Certainly not Google. And without massive usage, it's hard to see local computer techs (or services like the Geek Squad) jumping over themselves to support Chrome OS users.

This is nit-picky. When has anything Google has ever done not received substantial support from their staff AND the thousands of dedicated members of Google's community? Trust me, if something goes wrong, you will be able to Google it and get your answer in no time; who cares if its the traditional customer support phone call or an internet search? At least with the latter, you don't get some one in Asia you can't understand trying to help you with your problem.

HTML5 isn't here. Google's belief in web apps is inherently based on its belief in HTML5. There's only one problem: HTML5 isn't here and it will almost certainly be years before developers really start looking at it seriously.

So is that a death sentence? Internet Explorer 9 is already boasting major HTML5 support, and Mozilla has dropped hints about it too. Safari can't be far behind. HTML5 may still be a ways off, but Google isn't the only entity already hedging bets with it.

The interesting features are technical. Google is bringing some interesting things to the table with Chrome OS but most of them are subtle details that appeal to techies. The problem is that you can't really sell technical details to the layman with enough specificity to be meaningful.

This is really just a matter of opinion. I think a lot of the things Google does appeal to technophiles more than the common user, but they're still popular. There's a substantial market out there for Chrome even if it is only for the tech savvy.

Only 'referenced hardware' will be supported. Chrome OS may be open source but it will only run on hardware Google chooses to support. There are obvious, logical reasons for this but make no doubt about it: this is a huge barrier to adoption and in my opinion will even make it difficult for Chrome OS to compete with Linux. That's bad news for Chrome OS, since we know how well the Ubuntus of the world have fared.

This hasn't stopped Mac OSX.

The Chrome browser hasn't taken the world by storm. While one could debate how respectable Google's results with the Chrome browser are, one can't debate a simple fact: Chrome is clearly not taking over the world. Which begs the question: if consumers aren't flocking to download Chrome the browser for free, why will they flock to pay for machines with Chrome OS when the key selling points are largely the same? Answer: they won't.

Already addressed above, but I'll repeat; I see no reason to draw a correlation between browser performance and OS performance. And this argument is posited as if consumers looking for netbooks have competitive options; price-wise, they won't. The reason someone will buy a Chrome OS netbook is because they're going to spend the money on the netbook anyway and they will spend less on this one. If anything, Chrome browser is a boon for Google, giving users something akin to a free trial of the OS. And say what you will about Chrome browser, but its easy to use.

At the end of the day, Chrome OS is the Chrome browser. When you take a few steps back, all Google has really done is built an 'OS' to run a web browser. Not a big deal.

Still separating the hardware from the software when that is not the point. Chrome OS sells on the fact that there is a market for netbooks and they are already buying; the question is simply which one they are buying. Chrome offers faster startup and simple internet access. Most people who use netbooks don't want to replace their power machine. Google recognizes this and sees that you're not going to want to be doing a lot of desktop work on such a small platform anyway, but if you are swinging by Panera and need to send a quick email or Google map your drive to a friend's house, you can be on that wifi in seconds. That's a huge advantage over other netbooks who still boot to OS with all the extraneous desktop steps despite the SSD. That's why Google has a chance to hit a home run with Chrome OS.

Sphere: Related Content