Many pundits have thus noted that the lack of greater protest is an interesting, if not surprising, aspect of our current moment. They would be well served by visiting the encampment in Lower Manhattan. The park is kept spotlessly clean, the disparate demonstrators field skeptical inquiries from hecklers and passerby with humor and patience, and their low numbers are steadily supplemented by people that join them for an hour or two at a time.
President Obama took an unusual public stand against the behavior of Republican rank and file this week-end when he condemned their behavior at the debates:
“Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republicans but are puzzled by what’s happened to that party, are puzzled by what’s happening to that party. I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately? You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change,” he said, to applause. “It’s true. You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay.” “That’s not reflective of who we are,” he added. “This is a choice about the fundamental direction of our country. 2008 was an important direction. 2012 is a more important election.”
I think it’s perfectly fair to condemn these people who do this — and those who fail to speak up against these attitudes. It’s a fundamental clash of values and it’s worth fighting about.
In 2008, John McCain (to his rare credit in that race) took people to task when they behaved like cretins. And both Huntsman and Johnson did that with respect to the booing of the soldier, as did Santorum belatedly. But neither of the frontrunners or Ron Paul or Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachman have spoken out.
I suppose that’s par for the course on the issue of letting the uninsured die and executions of the innocent.We have seen evidence of this attitude over and over and over again. I’m honestly not sure why anyone is surprised after seeing things like this:
But booing soldiers, gay or not, is slaying one of their sacred cows in a way that exposes the hollowness of their own rhetoric about what defines conservatism. These are people after all, who claimed that you couldn’t criticize an Army general in public, even when he was playing a blatantly partisan role. (Indeed, some people were making the argument this past week that Democrats criticizing Bush as Commander in Chief was equivalent to booing an active duty soldier in Iraq….)
It’s a free country and people can boo whomever they want without legal sanction. But these people have made a fetish of support for the military to point where one cannot even make mild jokes about it, much less criticize it on anything substantive. But they have shown what really matters to them with this one. And it isn’t the troops.
The cost of health insurance for many Americans this year climbed more sharply than in previous years, outstripping any growth in workers’ wages and adding more uncertainty about the pace of rising medical costs.
A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance on a yearly basis, shows that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year.
“The open question is whether that’s a one-time spike or the start of a period of higher increases,” said Drew Altman, the chief executive of the Kaiser foundation.
The steep increase in rates is particularly unwelcome at a time when the economy is still sputtering and unemployment continues to hover at about 9 percent. Many businesses cite the high cost of coverage as a factor in their decision not to hire, and health insurance has become increasingly unaffordable for more Americans. Over all, the cost of family coverage has about doubled since 2001, when premiums averaged $7,061, compared with a 34 percent gain in wages over the same period.
Any policy analyst with half a brain knows that some form of single-payer or modified single-payer system is the only solution for this mess. Now isn’t the time to rehash old battles over the public option and the ACA debate. More could certainly have been done to create a better outcome from the grand healthcare fight.
But ultimately, the corruption in Washington, particularly in the Senate, is such that no coherent answer to this mess is likely to come at a federal level, nor would it have been possible for President Obama to finagle a single-payer system out of this Congress.
How much the new federal health care law pushed by President Obama is affecting insurance rates remains a point of debate, with some analysts suggesting that insurers have raised prices in anticipation of new rules that would, in 2012, require them to justify any increase of more than 10 percent.
In addition to increases caused by insurers getting ahead of potential costs, some of the law’s provisions that are already in effect — like coverage for adult children up to 26 years of age and prevention services like mammogram screening — have contributed to higher expenses for some employers.
No doubt there’s a little of both: insurance companies are using the ACA as an excuse for more profiteering at the expense of sick and injured Americans. But it also stands to reason that as the burden of cost shifts more to employers, employers are pushing back. Beyond the greedy megacorps, there are a lot of struggling small and medium-sized businesses out there for whom the ACA does legitimately cause a significant burden. In this complex political morass, Democrats won’t get a lot of public relations traction for a law that is mildly beneficial for certain slices of the country, and that bends the cost curve in some places while allowing excuses for cost increases in others.
Ultimately, providing healthcare should neither be on the backs of employers nor at the mercy of greedy insurance companies. Good access to quality healthcare (including preventive care) is a basic human right. That should be the Democratic message. Period.
And since Washington looks like it won’t be providing answers any time soon, the answers are going to have to come at the state level. In that context, state and local races are vastly important, but are often overlooked as everyone concentrates their time and attention on the giant disco ball that is federal politics.
Affordable access to healthcare remains a crisis in this country, and it’s one that only your state senators and assemblymembers are going to be able to solve. At this point, the often overlooked battle for statehouses and governorships is on a par with federal politics when it comes to solving the nation’s problems.
So Mississippi is going to have one of those “blatocysts are people too” initiatives on the ballot, which would outlaw not only all abortions but certain forms of birth control and will likely lead to negligent homicide charges against women who miscarry for reasons the state thinks could have been prevented. It’s been tried in Colorado twice and failed, but Mississippi is a different kettle of fish.
It’s all horrific, but this latest tack by the anti-abortion forces (used in Mississippi and elsewhere) is truly reprehensible. From Robin Marty:
Personhood amendments are constitutional amendments that declare that human life begins at conception, no matter what the circumstances. This human life — no matter what stage of development, including a zygote — has constitutional rights. Terminating the development of a fertilized human egg is akin to murder under personhood amendments. Generally, under personhood amendments, the circumstances of the pregnant women are irrelevant because the fertilized egg has a constitutional right to life.
Under personhood amendments, a woman will not be able to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape.
Proposed personhood amendments failed in Colorado two times. Mississippi will be voting on its own personhood amendment this year. In an effort to promote its cause, Personhood Mississippi has started a “Conceived in Rape” tour featuring Rebecca Kiessling, who says she was conceived by rape and was slated for abortion. Kiessling states on her website,
Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.”? It’s like saying, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life “except in cases of rape” because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don’t put a face to this issue — for them abortion is just a concept — with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.
In reply, some have said to me, “So does that mean you’re pro-rape?” Though ludicrous, I’ll address it because I understand that they aren’t thinking things through. There is a huge moral difference because I did exist, and my life would have been ended because I would have been killed by a brutal abortion. You can only be killed and your life can only be devalued once you exist. Being thankful that my life was protected in no way makes me pro-rape.
Hookay.
Evidently, this person can’t conceive of how awful it is for some people to have to bear their rapists offspring, reminded every day of their pregnancy (and perhaps their whole lives) of the violent event. Or how about giving birth to your own sister? No biggie? Apparently, being insulted at the mere prospect that one might not have come to exist in this world is worse than rape victims being violated and traumatized by rape and forced childbirth. Interesting priorities there.
According to these people fetuses are the only things in this world that deserve protection. Once you’re born you’re on their own.
I admit that I haven’t read him for many a moon (but should have done) and so have likely absorbed much of my interpretation of his philosophy from the evocations of him by conservatives I do read. Imagine my surprise to read this piece by Corey Robin which makes the case that contrary to popular myth, the modern conservative movement didn’t become radical and betray Burke’s true philosophy. According to him, it was always radical.
I won’t excerpt any of it here. Just read the piece, if you’re interested. But from my point of view, it rings very true, mostly because it captures the essence of what I think of as visceral envy on the right — a belief that the other side is just living more fully in the moment, with more commitment and joie de vivre. Indeed, I have long made the case that all these conservative middle aged baby boomers of the Tea Party are just finally having their “woodstock” — which you’ll recall, they literally proclaimed about dozens of their early rallies.The radicals have all the fun.
There’s much more substance to it, of course which Robin’s piece goes into. (There is a fair smattering of fear, for instance, that the Jacobins had nothing to lose so they would do anything, something that Burke believed was a huge strength.) In any case, it’s a fascinating piece that’s worth thinking about as we watch these right wingers fulfill the radical dreams(?) of Edmund Burke.
Update: Everyone’s saying that Robin’s new book on this very subject, The Reactionary Mind is awesome.
On Monday, the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents United pilots, sued the company in federal court, alleging that “revised operating procedures” in relation to the merger are “inadequate to maintain the levels of safety” United passengers expect. The union is asking to postpone the airline’s implementation of its latest phase of postmerger training.
United said the suit is an attempt by the pilots union to tilt current negotiations for a new contract toward the aviators’ interest, according to internal correspondence between the company and the union. It said the complaint “is entirely without merit.”
The suit “is a shameful effort to influence negotiations for a joint collective bargaining agreement, under a false guise of safety,” the company said. Pilots from United and Continental, which both are represented by separate branches of the ALPA, are scheduled Tuesday to protest what they see as the slow pace of labor negotiations. Safety concerns aren’t expected to be voiced in that venue. The pilots are planning a rally outside the New York Stock Exchange to send a message that some of the merger synergies investors want to see won’t be realized until the carriers’ work forces are combined.
I wonder if the police will pepper spray these guys?
Hey guess what? The Democrats won one. Yes, you read that right. Here’s dday:
In the end, the war was called off on a technicality. As explained in the live thread yesterday, the fact that FEMA had enough funds to make it to the end of the fiscal year – which is Friday – eliminated the need for an emergency funding request.FEMA would still need money, but that could be handled in Fiscal Year 2012. With additional FY2011 emergency funding no longer necessary, both sides could take something off the table from the continuing resolution – the $1 billion appropriated to replenish FEMA accounts in 2011, and the offset of Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing and Department of Energy loan guarantees.But make no mistake – this was a victory for Democrats. They preserved a key principle: no disaster relief gets offset. When a hurricane destroys someone’s house, Congress doesn’t have to kneecap someone else’s budget.
It seems like a small victory, but it really isn’t. As dday explains, it proves that the one thing the Democrats are going to hold the line on is institutional norms.If the GOP had its way with this one, there would be no deals that couldn’t be broken. (Perhaps the filibuster abuse has finally awakened them.)
It proved something else too: the GOP leadership can whip when it wants to.
Everybody Wants to Rule the World by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)
Via Crooks and Liars, it’s nice to see a Wall St. hack admit what anyone paying attention already knows: the banks run the show all around the world, and your average stock trader has all the conscience of Jeffrey Dahmer when it comes to economic affairs. Witness Mr. Alessio Rastani, ladies and gentlemen:
Stock market trader Alessio Rastani commented on the current economic crisis to the BBC on Monday, saying, “Governments don’t rule the world” but rather Goldman Sachs does and he “dreams of another recession.”
“This is not a time right now for wishful thinking that governments are going to sort things out,” Rastani told the BBC. “The governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.”
In a candid interview about the Eurozone rescue plan, Rastani said the market is ruled by fear and cannot be saved by the rescue plan.
“They know the stock market is toast,” he said. “They know the stock market is finished.”
Rastani said most investors are moving their money to places it would be more safe, like U.S. treasuries and the dollar, as they simply do not care about the state of the economy but rather about their own pockets…
“For most traders…we don’t really care that much about how they’re going to fix the economy, how they’re going to fix the whole situation,” Rastani said. “Our job is to make money from it.”
Finding optimism in a grim situation, Rastani said he’s been “dreaming” of this moment for years.
“I go to bed every night, I dream of another recession,” he said.
Still, what most people who watch Mr. Rastani wax eloquent about his love of recessions will think of is the man’s sociopathic insouciance about the suffering of millions. We humans are an emotional and intuitive lot, and we can sense an enemy bent on our destruction for his own personal gain. It makes us react out of a sense of self preservation.
But it’s important to move past that and see Mr. Rastani for what he is: an honest man. People who go into the business of buying and selling stock have only one interest in mind: making money at the expense of other people. A stock broker or bond trader creates not one iota of real value to a company; she doesn’t craft a single product with her hands nor yield a single creative insight with her mind. He doesn’t help tailor a single product to a consumer’s needs, save a single life, feed a hungry diner or teach a single child. A financial trader does one thing and one thing only: buy pieces of paper cheap off one sucker, and try to sell it dear to another sucker. It’s a zero sum game: wherever there’s a winner in the financial markets, there’s an equal loser sitting on the other side of the trade. And no product or service of value created in the transaction beyond interest on an investment.
Asking for a display of conscience from people in this business is a waste of time. That’s not to say that a great many of them don’t have consciences. They do, of course. But the industry itself by definition lacks a conscience, and it attracts those of sociopathic disposition. It takes a certain kind of person to celebrate taking advantage of suckers willing to buy dear and sell cheap every single day without thinking about what will happen to their children and their families. Mr. Rastani is simply an honest reflection of his industry.
But of course, the greatest honesty in his rant is not about his love of profit from economic calamity, but rather his frank admission that the financial industry owns the world’s governments lock, stock and barrel. Some would call that arrogance. I would call it a frank assessment of reality. Senator Durbin has already admitted as much for the American government; the only surprise is in hearing such candor from one of the Wall St. players on the inside.
So here’s to Mr. Rastani. The last honest man on Wall St. Thanks for the insight: you’ve been helpful.
Today Blue America wants to give away a thank you gift to one lucky, random donor– a rare autographed promo picture of SpongeBob SquarePants– the one up top– signed by Tom Kenny, the voice of the superstar TV character. As you probably know by now, it’s another end-of-the-quarter mad dash for contributions in DC. You’ve probably gotten e-mails from candidates and the DCCC and the DSCC and DNC and lots of others telling you how important it is that you donate– and donate NOW. Go for it. Blue America will be introducing our newest candidate this Saturday here at 2pm (ET/11 am, PT) and that’s the only e-mail we’re planning on sending out this week.
Now this contest… it’s just a fun thing. Contribute to any Blue America candidate on our House page over the next 24 hours and you’ll be eligible for the thank you gift. Any donation to any candidate or any combination of candidates between now and 2pm (PT) tomorrow will make you eligible to be the random winner of something any kid (or stoner) you know would totally kvell to have. It’s a win-win– especially with Christmas coming up.
James Fallows on the abusive cops spraying corralled protesters in the face with pepper spray:
[A]ccording to the NYT, the chief police spokesman, Paul Browne, said that the policeman used pepper spray “appropriately.” Great. On the video we can’t hear what either side is saying. But at face value, the casualness of the officer who saunters over, sprays right in the women’s eyes, and then slinks away without a backward glance, as if he’d just put down an animal, does not match my sense of “appropriate” behavior by officers of the law in a free society.
Think about it: If this were part of some concerted, “appropriate” crowd-control plan, then presumably the pepper-spray officer would have talked with the other policemen trying to control the women. He would have stayed on the scene; he had done something dramatic to affect a situation, so — again, if this were “appropriate” — presumably he would have talked with the other officers about what to do next. But look at that video and see what seems “appropriate” to you.
Police officers make countless hard decisions every day, often at the risk of their own safety or lives. It’s a harder job than I have. But everything about this scene suggests an officer who has forgotten about some of these hard choices. He just zaps ’em and walks away as they scream.
This is definitely not proper procedure and it isn’t a close call. Here’s an excerpt of an NYPD report on the use of pepper spray:
The spray is designed for use as less-than-lethal force, adequate for incapacitating dangerous or violently resisting suspects. Intended results of the use of pepper spray are inflammation and swelling of the mucous membranes of the eye, nose, and throat and involuntary closure of the eyes. Known side effects include coughing, gagging, and hyperventilation. The National Institute of Justice ranks the use of pepper spray “just above hands-on pain compliance and immediately below the use of impact weapons” on the use-of force continuum.
The NYPD’s Patrol Guide Procedure Number 212-95 governs the circumstances in which pepper spray can be used and the proper procedure for using the spray.
The purpose of Patrol Guide 212-95 is “to inform uniformed members of the service of circumstances under which pepper spray may be intentionally discharged and to record instances where pepper spray has been discharged, intentionally or accidentally.”
Patrol Guide 212-95 lists five situations in which an officer may use pepper spray. Pepper spray may be used when a police officer “reasonably believes” that it is necessary to: 1) protect himself, or another from unlawful use of force (e.g., assault); 2) effect an arrest, or establish physical control of a subject resisting arrest; 3) establish physical control of a subject attempting to flee from arrest or custody; 4) establish physical control of an emotionally disturbed person (EDP); and 5) control a dangerous animal by deterring an attack, to prevent injury to persons or animals present. The Patrol Guide states that officers should aim and discharge pepper spray into a subject’s eyes, nose, and/or mouth in two short one-second bursts at a minimum of three feet for maximum effectiveness.
The Patrol Guide prohibits the use of pepper spray against subjects who passively resist (e.g., going limp, offering no active physical resistance. It further cautions that if possible,pepper spray should not be used against persons who appear to be in frail health, young children, women believed to be pregnant, or persons with known respiratory conditions. In situations where pepper spray is used, the Patrol Guide stipulates several guidelines to ensure the safety of the subject. Officers are required to request the response of the EmergencyMedical Services (EMS) once the situation is under control. If tactically feasipble, according to the Patrol Guide, the subject should be removed from the contaminated area and exposed to freshair while awaiting the arrival of EMS or transportation to a hospital or station house. The PatrolGuide warns that the subject should be positioned on his/her side or in a sitting position to promote free breathing and that he/she should “never be maintained or transported in a face down position.”
Now look again at the video and tell me if that looks like procedure was followed:
Does it look like he felt threatened? Or that those women were resisting arrest or attempting to flee? No. They were corralled behind a net fence when he walked up and sprayed them and then he walked away. He obviously did simply to inflict pain. There is no other reasonable explanation.
I’m not surprised that the NYPD thinks this is appropriate. Most of the country seems to agree that police have the right to mete out physical punishment on the spot when citizens offend them. The cops are always right. Until it’s you.
A new group of police officers arrives in white shirts, as opposed to dark blue. These guys are completely undiscerning in their aggression. If someone gets in their way, they shove them headfirst into the nearest parked car, at which point the officers are immediately surrounded by camera phones and shouts of “Shame! Shame!”Up until this point, Frank and I have managed to stay ahead of the nets, but as we hit what I think is 12th Street, they’ve caught up. The blue-shirts aren’t being too forceful, so we manage to run free, but stay behind to see what happens. Then things go nuts.The white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he’s being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him “What’s your name?! What’s your name?!” One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he’s too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.t this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting “Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You’re fighting your own people!” A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream “No! Why are you doing that?!” The rest of us in the crowd turn away to avoid the spray, but it’s unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground. But no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, “I can’t believe he just fuckin’ maced her.” And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.
I had heard the cops in white shirts were lieutenants and above, but I don’t know if that’s true.
A young woman fields phone calls in the “media cluster” of laptops constantly live-streaming video, Twitter, Facebook, and other feeds.