Footin' the Wrong Bill
If 50% of the nation's record bankruptcy filings being caused by medical expense emergencies was not bad enough, now comes this gem--40 of our great 50 states charge hospital patients for incorrect procedures. That's right, in 80% of the country, if you go in to have your right foot amputated and they cut off the left--you foot the bill (pun intended).
Reserve Vet Suicides High
As we've reported before, the suicide rate among returning Iraq War veterans is startling. Recent reports now indicate Reserve and National Guard soldiers are taking their own lives at a particularly troubling clip. More than half (53) of all veteran suicides were committed by Reserve and National Guard members, even though their ranks comprise only 28% of the total force supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We're #1!!
Who says we can't get things done any more? According to the most recent Pew Research numbers, the United States is the world's incarceration leader--with more than 2.3 million citizens behind bars. That's far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million prisoner citizens. America is also the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet Bloc nations, which make up the rest of the top ten. Overall, better than 1 in 100 Americans is currently in prison.
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Bark Bits... Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
More on Hurricane Russert...
It's one thing to be simplistically confrontational on your own show, but to interject yourself into a national forum setup to allow candidates to debate each other on the issues that matter to voters is indeed going from gotcha to just plain insane. I gotta hand it to both candidates for their composure. I would have told him to shove it. All he succeeded in doing was waste everyone's time.
Posted by JohnT
He went off the deep end last night. I used to think highly of him, but this was sheer grandstanding on his part. A quick search on Google News turns up similiar articles today taking Russert to task, like this one here. I'm all for aggressive questioning of political candidates, but a) this was the wrong forum, and b) his line of questioning, especially regarding Farrakhan, was a Bizarro World version of "Six Degress of Kevin Bacon."
Posted by Ken Hart
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Overrated Russert: From Gotcha to Insane
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Has Tim Russert surpassed Chris Matthews as MSNBC's craziest cackler or what? Last night's performance at Cleveland's Democratic Debate was just a classic.
I've been trying to point out what an overrated hack this guy is for years--with his predictable, simplistic "gotcha" style of questioning--where every interview subject's intellect or honesty ends up being judged by how they responded to some out-of-context magazine quote or five-year-old speech line that does not jive with Moonface's previous set-up question.
That habit was bad enough, but his more recent pattern of asking rambling, convoluted and downright silly hypothetical questions that end with requests for "yes" or "no" answers ("Senator Obama--You are president. We are suddenly under major attack by Space Monkeys. We manage to defeat the Monkeys with conventional weapons, but a small colony of the Monkeys is still hiding out in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Would you use nuclear weapons to take them out, even though you knew they were hiding in an orphanage full of children? Would you nuke those orphans-- yes or no?") has made him the funniest newscaster since Norm MacDonald.
He was at his dopey best last night, consistently interrupting both candidates and creating an atmosphere that made the debate more about the candidates answering his writers' fantasy scenarios than directly addressing each other on the issues.
If the debate moderation itself was not enough hysterical theater for the insane, the post debate commentary, with Russert teaming-up with his cackling, hunchback partner Matthews to praise the evening's "tough" questioning was the cherry on top. ("Man Russ--you really knocked Obama off his perch with the Monkey-Nuke thing. Bottom line is, he couldn't answer it. If he can't answer the tough Space Monkey questions, what does that tell us about how he'll handle Bigfoot?")
Check out this hysterical compilation of some of Russert’s best moments, followed by Matthews sucking up to him in the post debate coverage.
SC
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
On the Cleveland Debate...
Yeah, I agree. And that leaves Hillary appearing petty and negative. I really think she's just been desperately trying to highlight her legitimate claims to being more experienced, but has gotten frustrated by him. She really should just stick to her message and not try to break him down. I thought she did well in the other debates by appearing strong, informed, and gracious. But the bottom line is...sometimes you just get beat!
John Tetzloff
Man, Barack Obama is good. No matter what Hillary says or does, her baggage combined with his charm and charisma, just leaves no space for her to gain ground when their stances on the issues are so similar.
SC
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Monday, February 25, 2008
Progressives Owe Nader Thanks, Not Scorn
By Scott Cavanagh
Since his recent announcement that he would run—for a third time—for president, legendary consumer advocate Ralph Nader has taken quite a pounding from most everybody on the left. Although I do concede (despite Nader’s arguments to the contrary) that his 2000 campaign cost Al Gore Florida and that his legacy as the champion of consumers and regular citizens everywhere has been somewhat tarnished by his now annual quest for an unattainable political prize, I take issue with those that ignore the Democrats’ own shortcomings in the 2000 race and belittle the accomplishments of someone I consider a personal hero—painting him as some has-been ambulance chaser desperate for the spotlight.
Unfortunately, 2000 has scarred him forever, but it would not have been so had the shortsighted Democrats embraced his progressive ideas and listened to him during the early parts of that election season. Instead, Gore screwed himself by ignoring Nader's progressive message and ignoring and not utilizing Bill Clinton-- moves that played right into the GOP's hands. Now Barack Obama has not found time to meet with Nader for even one hour, despite Ralph’s repeated requests for just a few moments to discuss issues facing consumers today in the age of unprecedented corporate greed and avarice—requests that began over a year ago.
While I agree that he has developed a huge ego over the years, I have to reiterate that Ralph Nader has not just done some good for some people--He IS THE REASON we have seat belts and air bags in our cars, safety caps on our RX bottles and safe toys for our children. Ralph has started, or had a hand in starting or assisting, virtually every grass roots political action organization in the country. I've worked for two in my lifetime--Citizen's Action and Consumer Awareness Group-- and never even knew he was affiliated with either of them until much later, when I found out he had founded and helped fund both.
This is a great man—a man that has done more for everyday Americans than the past seven presidents combined, and to disrespect him is shameful. Do we want another Republican in the White House? Certainly not, but is Ralph not correct when he says that the Democrats have virtually BECOME Republicans over the past 30 years? Is he not correct that the Dems' decision to abandon all of their core values in favor of becoming "Republican Light" has eroded and destroyed our base so badly that now the Republicans can just treat "liberal" as a dirty word and get away with it? Are all of us not in simple agreement with Ralph that when politicians talk about Social Security solvency and what we must sacrifice in benefits or higher premiums to protect it, they do so knowing that the entire system could easily be made secure by just cutting loopholes that let American companies set up post office boxes in foreign countries to avoid paying billions in taxes?
Both Republicans and Democrats let charades like these go on and on. Ralph's administration would end them immediately, because he would call Congress out on them every day. Every single day he would use that bully pulpit to fight for us. Is that what Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have been doing for the past two years? Is that the party we deserve? We deserve better and he knows it. Would Ralph Nader have supported NAFTA, or GATT, or the Bankruptcy Bill, or the Patriot Act, amnesty for Big Brother or anything to do with war in Iraq? Of course not. He's Ralph Nader. He's not for sale--thank God.
END OF POST
Leave a Message
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Time to End the Cuban Embargo?
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Ike was president and Beatlemania still another five years away. Marilyn Monroe was alive; Ronald Reagan was not yet the Governor of California--George W. Bush was 13. And Fidel Castro was beginning his reign as president and unchallenged dictator of Cuba.
That reign came to a close on Wednesday, when the Cuban leader announced that he was resigning from office. Forty-eight years is a long time no matter how you measure it, but put in modern terms, where public figures enter and leave the arena quickly--where Andy Warhol's prescient prediction that eventually everyone would be famous for 15 minutes seems to have come to pass--Castro's amazing tenure as Comrade #1 is all the more amazing.
Castro outlasted nine U. S. presidents and has outlived six. He survived the botched Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the fall of his Soviet protectors and 46 years of a total trade embargo by the world's greatest economic superpower. Now he is gone from the world stage. While the probable succession of Castro's 76-year old brother Raul, does not bring to mind the prospect of radical democratic change in the island nation, it is an opening--one that has not appeared in nearly half a century.
Has the embargo outlived its usefulness? Has decades of economic hardships, brought on primarily by our actions, produced any tangible results, other than handing Fidel a propaganda club with which to beat us about the head every time the embargo is mentioned?
The powerful Cuban-American community--particularly in Florida-- has fought successfully for years to prevent an open national dialogue on this issue. From the point of view of an expatriate Cuban living in the U.S., the continuation of the embargo makes sense-- to the rest of us, it is nothing more than a silly political football, to be tossed back and forth between the Cuban -American community and the American government every time mention is made of another strategy to deal with the Cuban problem.
Why don't we open trade with Cuba? How would opening up a country that has been living under the grip of communism for nearly five decades, produce worse results than the failed embargo? China is a Communist superpower with a nuclear arsenal--most of which is aimed at us. We grant them Most-Favored-Nation trading status and borrow millions off of them. We lost 53,000 American lives fighting Communism in Vietnam. Now that country is a trade partner and growing tourist destination. They are also unrepentant Communists.
Playing this game with Cuba--a country that sits less than 100 miles off of our shores--for political purposes, is a scenario that has really gotten old. Perhaps there are good arguments for continuing the sanctions, but I have yet to hear them. Nixon opened dialogue with the Soviets and they were gone in less than 20 years.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Obama's Legislative Substance Overlooked?
Post by Ken Burch
Last night on MSNBC, Chris Matthews had a brief interview with a representative of the Barack Obama campaign in Texas. Matthews cornered the spokesman by asking him to name one of Obama's legislative accomplishments. When the man squirmed and tried to avoid the question by talking about the future changes of which Obama often speaks, Matthews would not let him off the hook--insisting that the spokesman name just one legislative accomplishment achieved by Obama, and he couldn't do it.
So this spokesman (his name escapes me) was clearly not qualified to be put in front of a camera on national television to speak for the Obama campaign, but what's just as striking is that Matthews and his cohort Keith Olbermann apparently have not bothered to study Obama's legislative achievements either. Matthews appeared to be asking the question because he himself did not know. Shouldn't a nationally televised political analyst know? If he or Olbermann did know, they kept it to themselves.
As Charles Peters said in a recent Washington Post editorial: "Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that continues to dominate political journalism.) "
In his service in the Illinois legislature, one exemplary bill into which Obama put his full effort addressed the problem of too many criminal confessions being violently coerced by law enforcement. The senator proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. This seemed likely to stop the violent interrogations, but the bill aroused immediate opposition from the police--who were accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes--and, ironically, death penalty abolitionists, some of whom argued that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument against capital punishment.
Peters' article went on to report that Obama proved persuasive enough that the interrogations bill eventually passed both houses of the legislature--the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Governor Rod Blagojevich eventually signed the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
As Peters points out: "Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Republican State Senator Kirk Dillard calls a unique ability to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people. In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric."
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Read More......
Friday, February 15, 2008
Barking Back: Top Reader Comments
John Tetzloff on Clemens and Congress:
"Republicans came to Clemens' defense out of habit: they instinctively defend Texans that butcher the English language. "Misremember?" "Knowingly know?" Sound like anyone else we know? Note to Clemens: you're rich. You can afford to hire lawyers who don't look like they sell used cars on the side."
Carter McCoy on Some Politicians' Defense of Clemens:
"I don't really understand what any politician stands to gain with the public by going easy on an obvious steroid abuser and cheater. The Bush pardon thing however, should surprise no one. "
Ken Hart on McCain's slim victory in Washington:
"Troubling news for McCain when only 26% of Republicans voted for their party's de facto nominee."
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Three Ring Clemens Circus Continues
There have been amazing developments in the Roger Clemens affair in just the past 24 hours. First comes the news that former President George H.W. Bush, a longtime season ticket-holder of the Houston Astros and a personal friend of the pitcher, has been lobbying support for Clemens. Other reports go so far as to suggest that the current Bush to occupy the Oval Office may pardon the beleaguered hurler on his way out of office in January 2009 (see Scooter Libby).
If that weren't enough, now comes the news that Clemens' trainer Brian McNamee tried to contact the pitcher and fellow star Andy Pettitte prior to the release of the Mitchell report--in order to warn them that they would be named in the document. This seems to buffer McNamee's claims that he never wanted to harm Clemens, but was forced to give him up or face jail time for perjury. Despite that fact, the AP somehow interpreted this development as proof of McNamee's dishonesty. Check out the lead from the ESPN story:
In the week leading up to the release of the Mitchell report, Brian McNamee scrambled to warn Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte they would soon be outed as drug cheats -- while at the same time portraying himself as a man who gave up the two Yankees greats only after federal investigators pressured him to cooperate with baseball's steroids probe.
What sense does that sentence make? He has claimed all along that he did not want to give anyone up, but was forced to. Now comes the news that he tried to warn them before the report came out. How do those two things not jive? What in the world does the "while at the same time portraying himself as" mean? Those things are not contradictory at all.
While half of the government spends time defending a cheating steroid abuser, pondering whether to even charge him with a crime, another star is preparing to face trial and the prospect of 30 years behind bars for the same offenses. No GOP lawmakers seem to be worried about Barry Bonds' legacy or reputation, even though the majority of the case against him is derived not from a league-sanctioned investigation by the former Speaker of the House, but rather from excerpts from a book by two SF reporters.
The imbalance in the government's approach to both Clemens and Bonds became all the more evident in the past 24 hours. Last night, ESPN (both the TV and internet editions) and other top news outlets devoted major airtime to the government's announcement that Bonds had failed a steroid test in 2001, only 30 days after hitting his season record 73rd home run. Now this morning comes the news that Bonds did not fail that test. Federal prosecutors in the Bonds case claim that a typo in court papers filed Monday mistakenly confused the alleged failure of a 2000 drug test with a confirmed one in 2001. Nice job by the media of running with that story.
SC
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Clemens' Congressional Testimony Comical
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Yesterday's congressional hearings into allegations of steroid and HGH use by baseball star Roger Clemens provided some bizarre questioning from a divided panel and incredibly implausible answers from the embattled "Rocket".
For some reason, Republicans on the committee, particularly Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, took up sides with Clemens--continually insulting and degrading the pitcher's former trainer and star witness Brian McNamee.
Why in the world did they go after McNamee the way they did? What possible reason would this guy have to lie? This was his livelihood and it's probably gone forever because he was forced to testify. If he were going to lie, he'd be doing it the other way around.
Funny how Republicans act so naive when they ask McNamee why he kept the syringes, gauze etc.--and act so repulsed by it. Of course, they found nothing wrong with Monica Lewinsky keeping a cum-stained dress in her closet for years. Acting like you don't understand why McNamee kept those things is just so disingenuous-- any person that's involved doing something illegal for a rich and powerful person always needs to be prepared for they day he or she turns on them.
I honestly believe that the syringes and such were not brought out immediately because he literally did not want to hurt Clemens any more than he was forced to. After that pumpkin-headed cheater tried to completely screw the guy by setting up a leading, taped phone conversation, I think McNamee just said "f-- it, if he's going to pull this crap, I'm just going to give them everything."
What I want to know from all those right-wingers, who for some reason believe everything that comes out of this guy's lying mouth, is this-- are you trying to tell me that McNamee, already without a livelihood and facing jail time for perjury and obstruction of justice, simply made this stuff up about Clemens? For what reason? You also have to believe Chuck Knoblach and Andy Pettitte (Clemens' best friend), who corroborate McNamee's accounts, also lied to investigators--why? You now also have to believe that this trainer was providing Clemens' WIFE with HGH without him knowing about it. That's right, the greatest workout maniac in the modern history of baseball says he knew "nothing" about HGH, other than what he heard on "some TV program", yet his wife knew enough about it to be requesting it from HIS trainer and taking it under his trainer's supervision. Give me a break.
The funniest part had to be the claim that Pettitte must have "misheard" when he said that Clemens told him he was using HGH. Yeah, sure Roger, two millionaire baseball stars getting together for their regular workout and one tells the other that "I heard something on TV last night about a new drug that improves old people's quality of life." I can see how Pettitte could easily have confused that with a conversation where Clemens told him he's using illegal performance enhancers to get an edge--something that could get him thrown out of the game. That is just completely implausible. Only one person had any reason whatsoever to lie about this--Clemens. This case is so open and shut it makes the O.J. trial look like a real whodunit.
So, when do the criminal charges come down against this guy? How many World Series and playoff games did his cheating alter? Barry Bonds' team has not been in contention much. Pete Rose-managed teams never made the playoffs. Who has had a more adverse effect on the game? If Clemens is not charged after this fiasco, and the charges against Bonds are not dismissed, this is an absolute joke.
SC
Leave a Comment
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Campaign '08: Obama Bags Four; Huck Surges
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Illinois Senator Barack Obama backed up his strong Super Tuesday performance with a clean sweep of four states on Saturday--capturing a large majority of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers in Washington, Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska. The wins pull Obama into a virtual dead heat with New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the race to capture the 2,025 delegates needed to secure their party's presidential nomination. Clinton currently leads Obama by a slim 1,100-1,039 margin in overall delegates, with Obama holding a slight edge in pledged delegates--908 to 877. In the critical category of Super Delegates, the former First Lady still holds a 223-131 advantage.
Another three states will be decided on Tuesday, when the so-called Potomac Trio of Virginia, Maryland and DC will cast their ballots. That will be the last pit stop before the big delegate fights in Texas and Ohio on March 4.
While Obama was roughing up Hillary, John McCain was busy receiving another message from unhappy conservatives who just aren't totally sold on their new frontrunner. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee beat McCain in two out of three states yesterday--besting the Arizona senator in Kansas and Louisiana. If not for McCain's razor-thin (26%-24%) victory in the state of Washington, the former Baptist minister would have made it a clean sweep. Despite the losses, McCain still holds a commanding 714-217 lead in overall delegates, with only 1,191 needed to capture the nomination.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Thursday, February 7, 2008
If It's Super Tuesday, This Must Be Blogging
(Excuse the obscure movie reference.) Some information via the Associated Press last night: "Clinton led with 784 Super Tuesday delegates to Obama's 758. In Missouri, the race was so close the two candidates split the state's 72 delegates evenly. A total of 1,681 delegates were at stake in 22 states and American Samoa. There were 139 still to be awarded."
Wow. Could this thing have been any tighter? Very interesting. Clinton held onto the states that she needed, but Obama did extremely well, winning a bunch of states and delegates and apparently drawing a large chunk of Edwards supporters to his side. This is going on for a while. But as long as HRC and Obama continue to play nice like they did last week, a prolonged contest shouldn't hurt the Democrats. In fact, should Obama get the nomination, this roller-coaster ride may only serve to make him a better candidate in the general election. At this point, he also has more money than Clinton does (and most of her big contributors are already maxed out, since Hilary never expected this to continue for as long as it has), which could certainly give him an edge in the remaining contests.
Rush, James Dobson, and pals are apopleptic after the GOP results. As Andrew Sullivan sardonically said Wednesday, the logical ticket for the GOP -- based on how the party has sold itself out to religious extremists over the last decade -- would be McCain/Huckabee. Serves them right. Romney is essentially in third place now, and probably thinking about getting out. He'd need to win just about every single remaining contest to catch up.
Also, late on Tuesday, Clinton's campaign released a press statement touting her "victory" in Missouri. Ooops. Can't blame her too much for that: The AP, Reuters, and MSNBC all called the state for her, even though the polling suggested that more votes for Obama were coming. Only CNN kept quiet and avoid getting embarrassed. Where's an upset Dan Rather when you need him?
Posted by Ken Hart
END OF POST
Friday, February 1, 2008
Barking Back: Top Reader Comments
Kenbob on Last Night's Democratic Debate:
"I thought Barack held his own tonight. Their chummy-ness was a little surprising, to me anyway, but pleasing. They seemed to be setting themselves up to be each other's running mate. I was sorry to see Edwards fall out of the picture so early. The charisma and like-ability factor is an interesting thing."
Franny in New York Obama's Win in South Carolina:
"Let's not overdue the importance of a state like South Carolina. No other state comes near the 50% of Dem. primary voters being black like it does. That is a huge advantage for Obama that won't be present in most Super Tuesday states. Also, if Edwards does eventually drop out, a large portion of his vote should go to Hillary."
Ken Hart on Obama's Win in South Carolina:
"Not only did Obama get a majority of the black vote -- he got 81% percent. Plus a huge amount of young voters. And although Edwards got the majority of the white vote, more white males voted for Obama than voted for HRC. (In fact, one commentator last night said the only demographics that Hilary got were white women and the elderly.) It was a big win. In the exit polls, many people said they made up their minds in the last three days, and the big majority of those people went for Obama and said they were turned off by the Clintons' attacks."
Frank on Debating Democrats:
"Me thinks Obama is a bit gun shy from being double teamed by the shrewd and politically sleazy, oops, I mean savvy, team of Bill and Hillary--masters at work."
END OF POST
