President Bush threatening to veto a plan to expand children's health insurance? What a shocker

President Bush threatening to veto a plan to expand children's health insurance? What a surprise:

The Senate plan would expand children's health insurance by $35 billion over the next five years, while the House is expected to take up a competing proposal later in the week that could boost the initiative by $50 billion during the same time frame.

Bush, however, has vowed to veto either plan, saying that the new coverage would encourage people to leave their private insurers for a government-run program. The White House reiterated its opposition yesterday, condemning the Senate bill as essentially extending "a welfare benefit to middle-class households" earning up to $83,000 a year.

On the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Orrin G. Hatch -- an influential Utah Republican and one of two original cosponsors of the SCHIP bill that became law in 1997 -- said "mistakes" by the administration "have caused us a lot of problems here."

"We are trying to do what is right by our children, who are currently not being helped by our healthcare system," Hatch said. "If we cover children properly, we will save billions of dollars in the long run. Even if we didn't [save billions], we should still take care of these children."

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Jr., a Republican from Kentucky and a lstaunch White House ally, said that while the children's health insurance program has been a "tremendous success," the Senate legislation was far too generous.

Silly Orin Hatch! Apparently Hatch, and the other Republicans supporting this bill, didn't get the memo. In today's Republican Party, "family values" means "being afraid of gays," not "giving children health insurance." That's for Democrats like Ted Kennedy. President Bush and Sen. McConnell couldn't care less how effective the plan is, or how many billions of dollars it will save. They're more afraid of the slippery slope. They think it will lead to "government-run health insurance." First health care for old people, then children-- the next thing you know, every American might think they deserve medical care! Then we'll end up like all those other countries!

I can't help but post the World Health Organization's rankings of the world's healthcare systems:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

Hey, what's the difference between all those other countries and America? They have government-run health care systems!

Mitt's Three-Legged Stool

Mr. Romney has long described his view of conservatism as a "three-legged stool," the legs being a strong military, a strong economy, and strong family values. If you take one of the legs away, the stool doesn't stand. He demonstrates in a video provided by the Times.

I know politicians tend to over-simplify things to sound appealing to voters, but this is simply absurd. To describe the proper approach to American government as a "three-legged stool" leaves a lot to be desired. Aren't there other things than military, economy, and "family values" required to make a strong country? How about good schools? Good healthcare? Fair voting practices? Protection against corruption? Hell, why not throw in respect for the Constitution? But, if we admit this, removing the "family values" leg would not make the stool collapse, as the other legs would be sufficient, Mitt Romney's oh-so-effective stump speech would be ruined, and rationality would reign over us all.

If only.

It seems pretty clear to me that abandoning government enforcement of "family values" (which I read as bigotry) would not ruin America. After all, respect for Constitution should allow everyone to pursue their own notions of family values. But that's not adequate, apparently. We all need to have Mitt's family values.

Cindy Sheehan to Take On Nancy Pelosi

Apparently the famous (or obnoxiously infamous) anti-war has decided to run against Nancy Pelosi as an Independent in the next election. See ABC News. Why? Because Pelosi has wrongly taken impeachment of the table. Fair enough; maybe it shouldn't be off the table, but there is a rather large problem with running a one-issue campaign and making that issue impeachment.

The next House election is in 2008, when there also happens to be a presidential election. The newly elected Congress will begin its session on January 3, 2009, leaving 17 days left in Bush's second term. At that point, I think we can just wait it out.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. After all, the idea may very well be simply to hold Pelosi accountable for taking impeachment off the table rather than to actually launch impeachment proceedings. That works to weaken Sheehan's case. Instead of "I will work to impeach Bush," she would be saying "I would have worked to impeach Bush." I know that San Francisco district is mighty liberal, but it isn't liberal enough to go for that.

More importantly, I've never supported the impeachment of Bush. First, if impeachment proceedings were brought and he were found guilty (of what, I don't know), we would have Dick Cheney as President, and I surely don't want that. Second, I just don't see what he would be charged with. The President can be charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors." Unfortunately, "being a bad President" and/or "lying to the American public" do not fit into that category (as a side note, lying to the American public while under oath does fit under that category as perjury - hence the Clinton impeachment).

A Catholic's Paradise: No, Not Heaven, Ave Maria, Florida!

Perhaps you have heard that the founder of Domino's Pizza, Tom Monaghan, is developing a Catholic planned-community called Ave Maria in Naples, Florida to exist alongside the new Ave Maria University. The general idea is to provide a place for good Catholics to coexist with other good Catholics. But, this raises quite a few legal questions.

How exactly can one enforce "good Catholicism" in a community? Monaghan has suggested that commercial leases would not be given to anyone who would distribute contraceptives, pornography, or perform abortions, prompting a quick response from the ACLU. I imagine the community will try to find some sort of loophole to ban these things, but the ACLU will be watching them closely.

The town is planned to have two schools: one private parochial school and one public school. I imagine the ACLU will be keeping an eye on that public school, as well. After all, if parents are insane enough to actually drag their children into a planned Catholic community but for some reason can't send them to the parochial school, they will still want the same "character education" (read: prayer in classrooms) that the parochial school instills. I don't doubt that this public school will raise First Amendment concerns.

Beyond legal questions, this poses some sociological and philosophical questions. Is this kind of living appropriate? Is trying to make believe that the world is Catholic healthy? How will this kind of community affect children? Will this make issues of tolerance even worse in this country? I think the answers are no, no, badly, and yes. I see nothing wrong with wanting to be around similar people, but that is what clubs, organizations, and churches are for. If Catholics want to be around Catholics, go to Church. Don't drag your families to some sort of Catholic utopia. I don't compare people to Nazis very often because it is generally a dirty trick, but this seems rather Nazi-esque. Sure, there is no genocide, but the goal is the same: eliminating people who are different. It's not healthy. Not at all.

Some Musings on the Youtube Debate

CNN held a debate tonight in which viewers submitted questions via Youtube. Of course, CNN got to choose which questions were asked, but still, it was revolutionary... or so CNN tells us.

My favorite point of this two-hour debate came right at the end. There was a ridiculously naïve question posed asking each candidate to say something good and something bad about the candidate to his or her left (it was naïve because Gravel was the only one to actually criticize the candidate to his left). The ever-classy turned to Dennis Kucinich and said, “the thing I like best about you is your wife.”

And I see why.

And she's British! I can’t explain how he wound up with her. Maybe they got stoned and spun into each other at the latest Phil Lesh concert.

On to some specific thoughts on each of the candidates. Mike Gravel. I'm torn about Gravel. He has some legitimate points, and he isn't afraid to speak his mind, but he's really wasting our time. He seems to spend all of his time complaining about how little time he gets. Granted, this is a legitimate point. As Chris Dodd's "Talk Clock" shows, Gravel got the least amount of time in this debate:

And in an earlier June debate:

So, Gravel has a point, but shouldn't he be spending his time making other points besides how little time he gets? This sort of attitude antagonizes the moderator, as could be told when Anderson Cooper was much more willing to let other candidates speak past his call of "time."

To defend Gravel for a second: saying that soldiers in Vietnam died and that soldiers in Iraq are dying in vain is not un-American. Saying that they died in vain is not a criticism of the soldiers; it is a criticism of the policy. It isn't saying "You soldiers failed." It is saying "Your leaders failed." If someone thinks that a war is not worth fighting, then any soldier dying in that war is dying in vain. But, it doesn't sound nice.

Chris Dodd. I wouldn't say Dodd hurt himself (after all, he's been hurting pretty badly as it is), but he didn't help himself either. From waffling on gay marriage (not providing a sincere reason for refusing to go beyond civil unions) to simply sounding like a lecturing old man (approaching Gravel-esque, even), Dodd simply did not seem strong.

John Edwards. I thought it was funny that Edwards said that he did not like Hillary Clinton's jacket. Overall, I think he performed okay. Just okay. He seemed awfully caught off-guard on the gay marriage issue, but his response did sound sincere, unlike Dodd's. He said, rather convincingly, that he has personally wrestled with the issue, but that his religion should not dictate American law. Fair enough. He needs to drop the "son of a mill worker" thing. We heard it in 2004, and it obviously didn't work. It seems unbelievably phony these days. However, he did have a very good "Youtube-style" campaign video (every campaign had to provide such a video):

Hillary Clinton. As front-runner, Hillary generally played it safe, and tried to downplay differences between the candidates, calling the Democrats "united" (sparking a "We are not united!" from Mike Gravel), and saying that any of the candidates would make a great President. However, she still managed to impress me. I think she is getting a lot better at not seeming stone-cold. She spoke with force tonight, but seemed human and passionate. Policy-wise, there was some waffling, like her refusal to say that she would meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When Obama said that he would meet with them as President, Clinton basically said that she would not meet with them without appropriate planning. Well, yeah. Appropriate planning was assumed! But, I am beginning to change my feelings about Hillary. I think she would make a great President.

Barack Obama. I think it's going to be extremely difficult for Obama to gain ground on Clinton without attacking her - besides stressing that he was against the war from the beginning, that is. I don't think saying that he has always been against the war is going to do much these days. It may help him slightly, but people want to move forward, and he will have to show why his Iraq strategy is better than Clinton's. He had some good attacks on special interests (as did Edwards and others, for that matter), but that is not truly setting him apart. I think he's going to have to try to sell himself as a "Washington outsider," to turn his inexperience into a good thing.

Bill Richardson. Richardson is the so-called "resume candidate." He has had an amazing career in American and international politics, but he simply does not have the ability to really connect with TV viewers. He seems uncomfortable in front of a camera, which is a real shame, because he has some great ideas (e.g. sacking No Child Left Behind) and would make a great President.

Joe Biden. I think ol' Joe actually helped himself this time around. I think his humor actually struck a chord this time instead of just making him sound like a sleazeball. And he came across as an authority on foreign affairs (particularly Iraq). Still, he has no chance of breaking out of the bottom tier.

Dennis Kucinich. He sounded like he as hosting an infomercial. It was obnoxious. He kept repeating, "Text peace, 73223" throughout the debate. Apparently these text messages will be sent to President Bush and this will bring the boys back home.

Right.

Evangelicals and republicans: strange bedfellows?

I was reading this very long (but very interesting) article about Ron Paul in the Times, and one passage really struck me:

“I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”

We hear the "this is un-Christian" argument all the time in American politics, but rarely is it directed at the evangelicals. Indeed, it is typically left to the evangelicals themselves to throw that argument around. But, it's refreshing to hear someone say it like it is, and it raises an important question. How much of the Republican party's platform really is Christian?

Now, I should note that I am no religion scholar. I was born and raised a true-blooded agnostic. The only times I have attended Church have been weddings and funerals. I have never read the Bible, but I still think I have a relatively decent grasp of the kind of vision Jesus Christ had for the world, and despite my religious leanings, I agree wholeheartedly with that vision, because here's the deal: it's a liberal vision.

Let's consider, say, taxes. While I cannot point to a specific passage, it seems that Jesus would have generally supported a Robin Hood style "take from the rich and give to the poor" type class system. I have a hard time believing that Mr. Christ would have been a hard-nosed free-market Capitalist. So, it seems to me that the "Christian" system of taxation would be a graduated tax, taxing the rich at a higher level than the poor, for the improvement of the whole community, not a flat tax.

By the way, I realize how silly it is to think about what sort of taxes Jesus would have supported, but I think it's a worthwhile endeavor anyway.

Along similar lines, I don't think Jesus would have supported the "Get a job!" mentality that so many Republicans have when it comes to the existence of the welfare state. The welfare state (while it may very well have flaws) seems to be a shining example of Christian charity.

Abortion. While Jesus may very well have been "pro-life," the definition of "pro-life" has to extend beyond the moment a baby is born, or for that matter, the moment someone sinks into a coma. It seems that the only time Republicans want to "protect life" is when a fetus is in the womb or someone is in a vegetative state. What about all the time in between? Is it pro-life to see to it that a baby is born, but then to kick the mother and newborn out of the hospital for wont of insurance? Is it pro-life to allow poverty to thrive? Is it pro-life to send young men and women off to a foreign country to die for no real reason?

I don't think so, but hey, I'm just a stupid agnostic, right?

Gay rights. I think it's funny that Christians (I'm generalizing, of course, so I apologize to all of you progressive/liberal/sane Christians out there) put so much emphasis on homosexuality being a sin. I'm not arguing that it isn't, but there are plenty of things that are sins that are not as despised as homosexuality. Adultery, for instance. Senator David Vitter has admitted to being an adulterer, but I have yet to hear of evangelicals clamoring for his resignation. But, can you imagine how they would've rallied if he had announced he was gay? The point is this: Jesus taught tolerance, not just for some people, for everyone.

Immigration. "Love thy neighbor."

Free speech. Jesus was a revolutionary. He was counter-culture. To think that he would support the silencing of a vocal minority for the "comfort" of the majority seems absolutely absurd.

This all shows why I am so fundamentally opposed to organized religion. This guy Jesus (or the authors of the Bible) had some marvelous ideas, but once they got mixed in with power and politics, they got corrupted. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Democrats are by any means above this kind of twisting. My point is this: religion and politics have to mix, because people's opinions are informed by their religion. However, people need to take a long hard look at what their religion truly stands for. I don't mean that they need to listen to their priest when he says that pro-choicers can't take communion. I mean that they need to seriously look into the core of their religion and see what the fundamental goals and values are. They need to trust themselves as interpreters of the Bible; not their priests or pastors, and certainly not politicians running for President. They might be surprised what they find.

On the Benefits of Judicial Dishonesty

Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate has an interesting article praising Antonin Scalia's candor in discussing precedents he would like to overrule.

Yes, someone at Slate has praised Antonin Scalia.

No, this is not the apocalypse.

So anyway, Justice Scalia has mentioned that he would vote to overrule New York Times v. Sullivan, which set relatively strict standards for bringing a libel suit (in particular, it established that supposed victims must show that an author of false statements had been acting with "actual malice"). Most Court watchers will say "Hey, Justices can't pre-judge cases like this! He should recuse himself!" Perhaps he should if such a case comes up, but that isn't really the point. Ms. Lithwick argues that this sort of pre-judging isn't inherently bad. Sure, if the two options are pre-judging and principled decision-making, then the latter is clearly better. But she argues that (and I agree that) the options are more like boisterous prejudice and silent prejudice. In other words, the justices act with ideological goals in mind, but most keep them to themselves. Fair enough. So, if these are the choices, she thinks that the out-spoken model is better, because

I'd rather hear the battle plans than not. It's precisely the sort of candor that has been most lacking at judicial confirmation hearings, where each nominee instead takes the fashionable line that precedent is all but sacred.

While I agree that confirmation hearings as they exist now are largely a waste of time, I'm not sure if shouting that the Court is just a bunch of ideological hacks is a good idea either. If we imagine a Court full of Scalias, we would have nine justices saying "I think this case should be overruled; I think this way about this issue, etc." While this honesty may be refreshing, I think there is something to be said about the "Judicial Myth": the belief that judges are somehow "above politics."

The Judicial Myth grants the Court a certain amount of institutional respect; it is viewed as not engaging in the kind of dirty politics that the elected branches so often engage in. I mean, come on, it seems a lot easier to respect John Roberts than Joe Biden, and I'm a Democrat! I think if members of the Court began speaking out about political issues prior to actually getting a case, the Court would lose that prestige. Of course, one can argue, "but Fz, if the Court really is just a bunch of ideological hacks, shouldn't it lose its prestige?" Yes, if that were true, it should. But, it isn't. The Court is engaged in politics, yes. And the Justices all have ideologies, yes. But, the kind of politics they engage in is inherently different than the kind the elected branches engage in. When we hear the term "politics," we generally think of it pejoratively. We don't think of politics as the debate between two sides of an issue, which is what it really is, or at least should be. We think of special interest groups, and lobbyists, and DC Madams. While I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence Thomas's phone number showed up on the DC Madam's list, the Court avoids this sort of politics. Its area of politics involves dealing with inherently political issues. And, like all Americans, judges have deeply-felt opinions on political issues. These opinions will naturally inform their jurisprudence. But, this doesn't mean they're all ideological hacks.

It means they're human.

As long as we have humans serving as judges, we will have to deal with the idea that they actually have opinions about things. However, even though this seems sort of obvious, it does not follow that judges should go on spouting those opinions. While it may be interesting to find out what is truly lurking in the mind of Samuel Alito, it would be harmful to the judicial process. I think it would give the false impression that judges do not make principled decisions. And while I disagree with Scalia on many, many issues, I must admit that his decisions are principled. He may be eager to overrule certain things, but this is because he has put in a lot of intellectual energy thinking about these things. Hell, I would be more worried if a judge didn't think about issues until a case came before him. I think that pre-judging (or at least pre-thinking) is not a bad thing. But, I don't think many people would agree with me on that. If they hear judges saying what they want to overrule, they would not think "this is an expression of principled legal thought," they would think "this is an expression of politics," with all its pejorative glory.

So even though the Court is a political actor (a principled political actor) , we definitely do not want the public thinking that the Court engages in "politics." So, Supreme Court Justices should keep their damn ideas to themselves.

More like, “don’t ask, don’t HELL!”

A brief introduction for our friends at Ursinus: those of you who follow me and Fz’s Communism for Dummies column are probably familiar with our ongoing feud with the Internet sinkhole that is Conservapedia. I did not provide the link for their site because a) giving them more web traffic, even negative web traffic, only encourages them, and b) anything bad that can be said about Conservapedia has already been said. Far be it from Fz and I to beat a dead horse.

Instead, let me reveal to you a little-known fact about our feud. We received an email from a Conservapedia sysop who was irrationally angry about a tiny little mention we made in one of our columns that anyone who vandalized Conservapedia would receive 77 virgins in Heaven. Or something like that.

Now, that in itself is not really worth noting. What is worth noting, however, is that said disgruntled sysop made it a point to mention his considerable stint in the U.S. Navy. This struck us at first as an odd thing to say (something along the lines of “Hey! My irrelevant career qualifies me as an intimidating figure, unhampered even by the anonymity of the Internet!”), but, after we stopped laughing, we soon realized its dire implications. Ladies and gentlemen, there are conservatives in our military.

I was just as shocked as you.

Now, I cannot imagine that recruiters don’t screen for this kind of behavior early on in the application process. What that means, then, is that conservatives are hiding their political affiliations – going into the closet, if you will – in order to infiltrate our armed forces. This clearly cannot stand. Can you imagine the damage that would be done to troop morale if conservatives were allowed to work alongside our normal soldiers? There’d be mutinies left and right! Not to mention, of course, that banning conservatives from the military is really in their best interest, too. Were a solitary conservative soldier put in with a company of liberal soldiers, the harassment and hazing that would inevitably result would not only endanger the conservatives’ life and well-being, but ultimately our way of life, as such disunity would dissolve the cohesive bonds which make our armed forces the effective fighting machine it is today.

On behalf of the American people, I am calling on you, our country’s military recruiters, to throw out your policy of “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” in regards to a soldier’s political affiliations and institute strict background checks and screenings to keep conservatives and lesser Republicans from trying to defend America. Be especially wary of those who have voted for Bush, those who advocate things like “strict constructionism,” “Reaganomics,” or “Jesus,” and especially Toby Keith fans. Remain vigilant - the fate of the nation may depend on it.

A New Contender for the Republican Nomination

Some people think Fred Thompson is the hot new thing in the race for the Republican nomination. However, they are overlooking a new contender who has surged into the lead. Who is this dark horse, this man of mystery? Is it Ron Paul? After all, Paul, the anti-war libertarian, has received more than half of all campaign contribution from members of the military to Republican candidates:

52.53% Ron Paul
35.4% McCain
7.9% Romney
5.2% Giuliani
2.2% Hunter
2.6% Others

Shocking, no? Sadly, Paul still lingers at the bottom of the actual polls. He is not the dark horse of which I speak. Instead, I'm talking about "None of the above." That's right. According to the latest AP-Ipsos poll, almost 25% percent of Republicans chose "None of the above" when asked which candidate they prefer. That's higher than Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain, or any of the other Republican hopefuls. I can only hope that Mr. "None of the above" has the cajones to withstand the inevitable barrage of negative attacks that are sure to follow the release of these new numbers. Good luck, my friend!

Al Sharpton is at it Again (and pictures of Beyonce HOT HOT HOT)

I never thought I would link to FOX News on this blog, but I could not help myself. Al Sharpton went on to Hannity and Colmes and whined about tmz.com's use of the term "roboho" to describe Beyonce Knowles' get up at the BET Awards. First of all, I don't think tmz was too out of line here:





But, hey, the Reverend was there. He knows what he saw!

I happened to have been there that night, because it was the night I did a tribute to James Brown at the BET Awards, and the outfit was a totally clothed outfit. You cannot see anything but her face.

Maybe he had to run to the bathroom during the part shown above. But regardless, the debate focused on two issues. First, whether saying that her outfit was a "roboho get up" is saying that she is a roboho, and second, how exactly free speech plays into this.

Rich Lowry, filling in for the absent Mr. Hannity, asked the Reverend "If a robot were to dress like a prostitute, isn't that the kind of outfit it would wear?" I would have to say the answer is yes. But, this does not mean that I think Beyonce Knowles is either a robot or a prostitute. Indeed, she is neither. She is a performer, who occasionally dresses up like a robotic prostitute. And there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, especially in the context of a joke. Well, the Reverend thinks there's something wrong with it and any use of the word "ho" in any context. Will he go after Santa Clause next?

Har har.

Anyway, the Reverend argues that people are free to use the word "ho" as they wish so long as he is free to express offense. But, as we have seen in the past, Sharpton goes well beyond expressing that he is offended. He campaigns for people who use the word to lose their jobs (or, to make a verb out of a proper noun, he Imuses people). This is not simply engaging in a simple debate about semantics. This is seeking to eliminate a certain set of words from the English language and to punish anyone who does not follow along. He states his goal less harsh tones:

We in the National Action Network have been embarked in a decency initiative.... We're getting ready to do a 20 city vigil where we have asked for the 'N' word, the 'H' word and 'B' word to not be used.

Oh, and just in case you didn't know what the National Action Network means, he provides a helpful explanation:

With the word “National” representing the scope of our activities, and “Network” reflecting the methodology of expansion.

Thanks for clearing that up, Rev.

Of all the problems facing the black community (although the Reverend is quick to say he isn't playing the race card - but the problem is that in Rev's 52-card deck, they're all race cards), the Reverend has chosen this, the use of the term "ho" in off-color jokes, as his crusade. You know, I used to have some respect for the Reverend, when he talked about real political issues and said things that other political figures wouldn't think of saying. He may not have had any relevance in American politics, but at least he was interesting. Now, he's just wasting his and our time.

Sweeping Tuberculosis Under the Carpet

Remember Andrew Speaker?

Remember how he had tuberculosis?

Remember how he threatened the lives of others?

Well, meet Franklin Greenwood. Franklin, a fifty year old citizen of Arkansas also has tuberculosis. You see, he had been held in isolation at the University of Arkansas for Medical Science after X-rays found he had a disease in his lungs that was pretty consistent with TB. However, there was a slight problem. On July 1st, Mr. Greenwood jumped out of his third floor apartment and escaped. According to one health official, there were going to be no plans to inform the public that Mr. Greenwood was on the loose:

"We never would have gone public. This is not our initiative," said Dr. Joe Bates, deputy state health officer. "This is an exceedingly rare experience and we don't have a standard protocol, but its always worked well for us to deal with it like we did with in this way -- find the person and get them under treatment."

That's excellent. I'm really glad the state of Arkansas has the best interests of their citizens in mind. Let the crazy man with a deadly illness that can potentially spread and kill others roam free without warning. What a splendid idea that would've been. Of course, while the Andrew Speaker story is still getting plenty of press (according to Google News Search, there are two thousand or so stories featuring his name), the Franklin Greenwood story has gotten only a minuscule amount of coverage (88 links).

Considering this was a major, major fuck up that is still unresolved (he hasn't been caught yet, folks), you'd think the media could try a little bit more and cover a story that has current relevance.

In Defense of the New York Times (and John Edwards [and liberalism])

The Times has a pretty standard article about John Edwards' trip to New Orleans. It discussed his stated purpose (poverty, of course), listed a few questions from reporters about non-poverty issues (i.e. Louisiana's sad excuses for representatives - particularly Senator Vitter and Congressman Jefferson), and gave his smooth-as-ice responses. It didn't criticize; it didn't cheer. It just told. But, it elicited this response from a reader:

Did he ride into New Orleans in his Porsche, or his private jet?

The Champion of The Poor…as he lives as far away from the poor as possible?

Absurd…only a liberal hallucinator would go for this non-sense…the same crowd that accepts statements like “we voted against the war before we voted for it.”

…same crowd that calls the Iraq war a quagmire, even though we destroyed the 5th largest military in the world in a matter of days, and the amount of casualties sustained thus far is far below any figure that military planners even imagined.”

Liberalism and Islam are the recipe to the destruction of America.

…feel proud liberals.

The NY Times is undermining this nation everyday…this article continues the madness.

I've defended John Edwards against this attack before, but it bears repeating. Someone does not have to be poor to stand up for the poor. Just as it took action on the part of white people to make the goals of the civil rights movement a reality, it will take action on the part of astronomically wealthy people (the only people capable of reaching the highest seats of government) to make any attempt at ending poverty (which is probably a naive goal anyway, but we'll let that slide).

Next, this ridiculous Iraq claim. It isn't a quagmire because we beat the Iraqi army in a matter of days and we didn't have as many casualties as some people thought? First, no one is claiming that the Iraq war is a quagmire because of the Iraqi army. After the first week or two, the war had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraqi army. And second, the quagmire-esque state of a war is not measured by deaths, it is measured by how much progress is being made or is capable of being made. There are plenty of wars in American history that had heaps of casualties but were not quagmires. This guys arguments simply don't deal with the quagmire argument.

At all.

I love that this guy thinks that liberalism and Islam are the harbingers of the destruction of America. Oddly enough, the combination of the two (i.e. Liberal Islam) would solve many of our problems. I, for one, fail to see how equal rights, fairness, and/or worshipping Allah will destroy America, but his conclusion, "...feel proud liberals" has an air of authority, so I'll accept it.

Even if you are a conservative and are offended by the Times' slightly liberal slant (which is nowhere near as noticeable as Fox News' conservative slant), it is a big stretch to say that it is undermining the nation, and that a simple article explaining a candidate's appearance somewhere is "madness." God, what would this guy say if he saw the op-ed page?

Gilmore is Out!

You may be asking yourself "Who is Gilmore?" And hey, that's exactly the reason he just dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for President. See the Times.

Gilmore wasn't the first to go, though. Remember back when Tom Vilsack was vying for the Democratic nod? Ah, those were the days. Even though Vilsack's decision to step down didn't create a domino effect, causing other presidential hopefuls to realize how much time and money they're wasting while embarrassing themselves and their families in the process, I wonder what effect Gilmore's will have. I mean, how long are Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson and Mike Huckabee and Joe Biden going to stick around? (I leave out notables like Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel because they're either there "providing a voice that isn't being heard" or fucking insane).

It is my most sincere hope that Gilmore's decision will cause other candidates to evaluate themselves and say "Hey, you know what? I'm wasting everyone's time here. What a tool I am!" Because honestly, debates can mean something. They don't have to be Chris Matthews looking like a Border Collie being outrun by the sheep he is trying to round up. They can provide useful insights into the candidates' thought processes, and more importantly, their policy proposals. But, as it is now, they look like Brit Hume leading a game of Seven-Up with a class of kindergarteners. It's downright pitiful, and it doesn't have to be that way. If some of these clowns would just realize that their own vain pride is not enough to win an election, this election process might take an important step toward being taken somewhat seriously.

Maybe.

Too Good Not to Post

Check out this music video/editorial cartoon from Nick Anderson at the Houston Chronicle (Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan). It's too good not to post. It's also a bit disturbing, so be warned.

CNN defends Dr. Sanjay Gupta

Remember the Michael Moore-Sanjay Gupta controversy? Dr. Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, claimed that Moore fudged the facts in SiCKO by saying that Cuba spent only $25 per person per person on health care. Of course, it turned out that Moore did no such thing; he had given the correct figure, $251. Outraged, Moore went on Wolf Blitzer's show and gave CNN a well-deserved tongue-lashing. Then Moore posted a long response on his website (here and here) detailing the problems with Gupta's review of SiCKO. I decided to be a citizen activist (as opposed to my usual habit of getting outraged and forgetting to do something about it), and sent off an email to the CNN Situation Room email address requesting that the network issue an apology to Moore.

Now CNN has posted a point-by-point rebuttal to 11 problems Moore pointed out in Gupta's review. Some of the counter-arguments made by CNN are convincing, mostly the ones where they claim that Gupta was actually agreeing with Moore. Two of them merit further discussion:

POINT NO. 6:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

CNN: (PAUL KECKLEY-Deloitte Health Care Analyst): "The concept that care is free in France, in Canada, in Cuba -- and it's not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. As a proportion of their household income, it's a significant number ... (GUPTA): It's true that the French pay higher taxes, and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list."

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

"SiCKO" never claims that health care is provided absolutely for free in other countries without tax contributions from citizens. Former (member of the British Parliament) Tony Benn reads from the NHS founding pamphlet, which explicitly states that "this is not a charity. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers." "SiCKO" also acknowledges that the French are "drowning in taxes." Comparatively, many Americans are drowning in insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and medical debt and the resulting threat of bankruptcy -- half of all bankruptcies in the United States are triggered by medical bills (Medical Bills Make up Half of Bankruptcies, February 2005, MSNBC).

CNN RESPONSE:

On Moore's Web site "Prescription for Change" (http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/health-care-proposal), item one is a call that "Every resident of the United States must have free, universal health care for life."

One of Gupta's overall critiques of the film is that Moore leaves viewers with an impression, as he does on his Web site, that universal health care comes without cost. In fact, substantial taxes are required to pay for such programs around the world.

This is the worst argument CNN makes in the rebuttal. SiCKO repeatedly compares the per-capita health care cost in various countries. It certainly does not give the impression-- and neither does Moore's website, as far as I can tell-- that medical care appears without any money being spent, like a magic pony. No adult would believe such a thing, and SiCKO doesn't say that's how it works. The movie does not deny that universal health care is funded with taxes. It does point out that health care is free at the point of use. If you're sick, you go to the doctor and you don't get charged a thing. You don't get bankrupted by your medical bills. Next point:

POINT NO. 8:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

CNN: "But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts, and he did fudge some facts..."

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

This is libel. There is not a single fact that is "fudged" in the film. No one has proven a single fact in the film wrong. We expect CNN to correct their mistakes on the air and to apologize to their viewers.

CNN RESPONSE:

Gupta believes picking and comparing numbers from different places and times to suit an argument is not the best approach to a complicated issue like this one. Again, as pointed out earlier, by mixing types of data and time periods in some of Moore's comparisons, Gupta felt that the film effectively fudged points that could have been made just as compellingly by comparing data from the same source and time period.

Previously, CNN pointed out that Moore, at least at one point in the film, compared Cuba's health care costs in 2005 to America's in 2007. He did that because he was using the most recent figures for each country, but still, it's not good statistics. A half-point to CNN here.

Despite having at least one decent defense, CNN and Dr. Sanjay Gupta do not come out looking good. The "universal health care isn't a magic pony" criticism is transparently ridiculous, and they have already admitted that they made a wrong "transcription" of Moore's numbers about health care costs in Cuba. Hopefully they will be more careful next time.