ASEVoIS: Health Care, Redux

One of the first articles we wrote back in the early days of WDR was an article on health care in this country. Back then, I was arguing that instead of wasting our time talking past each other on immigration (when a real solution would have merely involved a simple compromise), we should spend our time discussing a real problem like health care. It only took us two years to reach this point, but it looks like we've finally awakened to the problem.

Except what we have on our hands is not an argument, but the usual demagoguery and the like. This doesn't even speak to the issue that's been dominant in the media portrayal, the raucous nature of the town halls. To tell you the truth, besides the usual fear of having crazy-ass bastards bringing loaded guns to Presidential events, I don't have a problem with these events as a whole. I don't buy into the "Astroturf" arguments advanced by the left--these are no repeats of the Brooks Brothers riot for the most part, but instead the actions of a (mostly uninformed) citizenry. By attempting to deride the nature of these protests, the debate ends up being nothing but a series of ad hominem attacks that obscure the genuine issues on the table.

We understand the nature of the reforms being discussed at this point, with the main focus being on the public option. We've heard the potential benefits--lower costs, get uninsured on the rolls, free lollipops. So instead we should take the time to address some of the concerns.


Why the public option? We're a republic, we need a free-market solution! Free-markets!

Sure, free-markets are great. In theory, they're just about the best thing we have, and are a brilliant instrument. The problem is, even as it stands now, health care as a free market is broken. Free markets depend on the exchange of information and choice, and what we have now is neither.

Think about this: how much choice do you as a recipient of insurance have in choosing your provider? If you're like me and million of others, you have absolutely none. I just use the one that my school has signed with, and I don't even get dental. You're also probably with whatever provider your employer has made a deal, and they probably did that without any input from you. Or, to take another approach, if you live in some states, there's a 94% chance you're signed with BlueCross or some other conglomerate. In other words, there is no "choice" in this system.

Or think about the possibility of checking out your own insurance provider. You're not going to have any idea how effective they are with their coverage, because it often requires personal experience with the exact crisis--it may be great for that workplace back injury, but you just might get fucked over when that tumor on your pancreas develops. If you were going to make an actual choice, you need information--and it is in scarce supply.

But free-markets are efficient
Our free-market is so efficient that we spend more per-capita on health care than any other nation, yet our health care is only 37th best. Our health care is so efficient that we spend 16% of our GDP on it, while France at number 1 spends 9% (and insures all of their citizens). Clearly, the greatest benefit of the free market has not borne fruit when it comes to health care.

Consider the overhead costs of public versus private plans. Whereas overhead in private insurance (money that is sent to administrators and the like) can reach as high as 30%, the same costs in Medicare and other government health programs are in the low single digits. So much for "government waste".

I don't want someone choosing my doctor/plan/operation for me
Have you ever dealt with an insurance company? That is EXACTLY what already happens--you can only see their doctors, go to their hospitals, etc. And god forbid you ever had to negotiate with an insurance company over whether or not your operation could be covered or not.

The point is that for the most part, these decisions are ALREADY BEING MADE for you. The only thing that will change is that the person that may do this for you will be wearing a different suit, provided of course you end up with the same coverage (and considering the number of people that are currently underinsured, this is unlikely).

Get the government out of my Medicare!
Sir, put down the ether.



DEATH PANELS DEATH PANELS DEATH PANELS
This has been discussed rationally and in-depth by everyone. But people, if you're getting your facts from Sarah Palin, noted language-expert, well...you need a new source.

We need to cut costs
YES. That is exactly what we need to do, thank you. That's why the public option is so integral to the process--by using the government's negotiating power of millions of citizens, better prices can be negotiated, and help force downward pressure on ever-escalating costs. And with an aging population, this is more of an issue than ever before.

So this is an issue that both Republicans and Democrats agree on. Yet the Republicans can only attack the Democrats, and just continue to spout CUT COSTS. Of course, if you asked them about their plans and what costs they would cut, they shut the fuck up and just offer a two-page outline of a "plan". They also create DEATH PANEL rumors. See guys, I'd love to hear your solution, but you have to offer something.

What about tort reform?
Getting at the lawyers is always a good idea. But you know, this is really not the answer to the problem. And this is not just because I'm working to becoming a lawyer myself--hell, I don't think I could stomach doing things like personal injury.

The thing is, medical malpractice suits represent such a minimal percent of total health care costs that reform would barely make any dent on the process. And if you look at this article, it also is explained how despite those extremely large settlements you hear about, it's NOT the driving factor behind rising costs. Of course, those cases represent but the smallest minority of potential malpractice claims, and usually involve a catastrophic injury of some sort--putting a cap on losing your legs at $250,000 sounds pretty ridiculous.

Tort reform advocates also ignore the fact that while there are cases of frivolous lawsuits, these are usually pretty rare. They also ignore how the cards are stacked against the plaintiff in these cases--the reliance on expert medical testimony, the influence of doctor panels, etc., are all heavily biased in favor of the defendant. So when these cases do succeed, there's usually clear and convincing evidence, and many unsuccessful cases may in fact be the result of gross negligence. So yeah, tort reform is not the answer.


Have you read the 1200 page bill
There is no bill. There are multiple bills--one House bill, and probably around four Senate bills. Nothing is final yet, so it's stupid to get in a tizzy over half-made sausage. And for the record, only about a quarter of that 1200 page bill is anything but boilerplate.

Obama is a Nazi Kenyan Marxist Alien!
Who let Lyndon LaRouche into this forum?

Besides, all you people who are apparently so concerned about the Constitution, they should be mad with Obama for other things. I'm not sure what the Constitution said about health care (Ed. Note: it says nothing), but it does say a lot about rights to a trial and use of executive power. Jesus people, read more Glenn Greenwald and get angrier about Obama's preventive detention policy and his Justice Department's attempts to expand the use of the state's secrets privilege. Oh wait, I forgot, this only concerns "fereners," so you don't give a shit.

We are not Canada! We are not France!
True enough. But it is amazing when you have people like Daryl Issa and Jack Kingston, both Republicans, talk about the efficiencies of the French Health Care system (see last week's Real Time with Bill Maher), yet deride the proposed reforms. These reforms are only halfway approximations of those models, yet this is taking the wrong approach. Amazing.

Hopefully this helps answer some of the questions you've had. If it doesn't, I don't know, look it up some place that Glenn Beck won't look into--that'd probably be a good start.

The Death of Intellectual Honesty

Let's take a look at this résumé:

Princeton, summa cum laude
Yale Law School, editor of Yale Law Journal
Prosecutor in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) for five years
Federal Judge for 17 years, 10 of which were on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (nominated by both parties for the positions)
Unanimous "Well Qualified" assessment by the American Bar Association (highest rating)

Sounds like a pretty solid candidate for the Supreme Court. Actually, it sounds like a pretty spectacular candidate. So who's this dude?

Wait a second, she's a woman? Hold the phone buddy...uh huh. A Latina woman? Why on God's Green Earth® is the President playing identity politics?! Clearly this is some sort of Affirmative Action pick, done to fill some undefined imaginary quota for Supreme Court Justices. Why can't the President simply pick the best and most well-qualified candidate for the job?


That's a pretty good summary of the Republican opposition to Judge Sotomayor. Because she is a Latina, this is a sign that someone who was clearly more well-qualified (read: white, male) was passed over in order for the President to score political points with liberal special interests groups. Every spectacular achievement apparently is worth less than nothing if it comes from a minority--every highlight on that résumé was clearly made due to special preference given to minorities, even those that are the result of grades! I mean, they just hand out summa cum laudes like car wash fliers at a school like Princeton, right?

I'm not one to scream racism any chance I get, but every time I heard a Republican make an argument that we don't know enough about her record (besides you know, the 17 years worth of opinions) or that they're not certain Judge Sotomayor is qualified enough for the appointment, I thought I'd just explode. Even when faced with blindingly obvious facts that can't be twisted another way, they continue to maintain the same bullshit, all in the name of politics.

You see, the problem is that we have lost the ability to remain objective about the law, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. Hearings are a charade and two shams, with bogus questions aimed at one thing: will you agree with me on this particular pet issue? And for several Senators, it's only one issue (the one that rhymes with shma-shmortion), and if you don't agree, then you CLEARLY are not qualified.

And this is why I say that Intellectual Honesty has died. There once was a time when candidates with ideologies that were polar opposites would be approved by margins of 90 votes or more. Consider that Scalia was approved with a 98-0 vote by a Democratic Congress, and that Ginsburg came onto the Court after a 96-3 vote in her favor! Alas, those days are long gone.


To be fair, I can't blame this all on Republicans. Consider the nomination of John Roberts. While Roberts didn't have the same amount of experience as a Judge, he was probably the most seasoned litigator to appear before the Supreme Court, winning several high-profile cases. His writings also displayed a great intelligence and solid legal foundation. It's just that these were often based on fairly conservative principles, many of which I find to be anathema. That's why I have to admit that if I had been given the chance, I still would have approved Robert's nomination, despite the difference in personal beliefs--there was nothing in his record that showed that he was unqualified in any way. Even so, though Roberts was approved by a large majority, it was not a near-unanimous vote like his predecessors. And you could find that Barack Obama among the "nay" votes on that one. So it's no surprise that you found that today was the first time many Republican Senators would vote "no" on a judicial nominee. But that doesn't make it any less sad.

* * * * *

But Nic, what about some of the "legitimate" arguments against her? Wise Latina woman? Ricci?! Empathy?!!?

Let's take these questions one by one. The big talking point on the right was how the pick that was made solely to satisfy the liberal craving for "diversity" was herself a racist. This was due to the famous "wise latina woman" statement. Surely this is a shining example of racism--she's literally saying that one race is better than the other!

Of course, it might help to examine the quote in context--you know, that tends to be kind of important in these situations. If you look at the surrounding paragraphs, you'll notice that she's talking specifically about discrimination cases. She brought up the fact that Justices Holmes and Cardozo, though brilliant legal minds, never once found for the woman in a discrimination case during their many decades on the bench. It would seem quite odd that there was never an instance of discrimination, especially in the early part of the century. The idea that Sotomayor was expressing was that due to their societal positions, Holmes and Cardozo just could not understand the indignities of discrimination in its many forms--hence the concept of the wise Latina woman and the richness of her experiences. As a likely target, the Latina woman would know firsthand the pain of discrimination, and would understand better the victim's complaint--which is simply true for many things in life. This was the original (and best) explanation for the statement, but of course, politics rule the day so we must maneuver our way into somehow creating a misstatement. Besides, isn't a "wise" anything better than a plain whatever?



Ricci though proves once and for all that for all the calls about limiting Judicial Activism, the principle itself doesn't count for shit. No, it's about time Republicans own up to the fact that it's merely a code word for "this dude wants to give gays some rights". That's because Ricci was all about applying old precedent, and the Supreme Court reversal was all about creating a new standard. Confused? Well, let's explain the case this way: New Haven was in a position that can be described as "totally fucked", since no matter which way they went they were going to get sued--throw out the results, you get a suit from the white firefighters who passed, but if you keep the results, the minority fighters will sue. How can both sides have a case? Well, that's because of a standard called "disparate impact"--a test can be inferred to be racist if the results of the test bear this out in some kind of statistically significant way. This came about during the 70's, as many employers looked to sly means of maintaining a segregated workforce while avoiding a formal declaration, by requiring things like a college degree regardless of the position--something that was unavailable to the vast majority of minorities at the time. So New Haven decided to be proactive and avoid the lawsuit from the black firefighters, and as a result walked right into this lawsuit. The Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit decision*, but what was amazing about their opinion was the lack of resolution. That's because Kennedy's opinion said that while New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the results, that even if they kept the results, the black firefighters would still be able to sue! Ricci is proof of the maxim "bad facts make bad law".**

As for empathy, well, let's just say there's more room for personal interpretation than the hearings the past two weeks would lead you to believe. In cases that rely on things as seemingly simple as a calendar date, there is STILL room for maneuverability. So that's why it makes sense for Obama to look for that quality, among others.

But you know what, screw the facts, let's just play hungry hungry hippos, I mean, politics. We'll just call Judge Sotomayor a racist, even though there's volumes of evidence that prove just the opposite. We'll try to make an issue that Sotomayor has been overruled on multiple occasions, even though by doing so you completely misrepresent the process of Supreme Court review and its meaning. We will lament the fact that by making this token pick in the name of diversity we are clearly leaving out some unknown "superior" candidate, i.e. white and male. We will bitch about the pronunciation of her name. We will continue to spew bullshit.

Let it be said that I am in no way a total supporter of Sotomayor--she's a former hardass prosecutor, and I tend to be very wary of those types, since they tend to exhibit, ahem, less empathy. But just because I'm sure I'll disagree many times with Sotomayor, that doesn't mean she is unqualified for the job. And even though we can now see that Intellectual Honesty has abandoned us, I will still cling to that principle, even if I have to do it alone.



*It's amazing how an unsigned, unanimous opinion gets singularly attributed to Sotomayor. Just think about that.

**I have my own issues with the facts of the Ricci case. Much has been made about the fact that Ricci spent several thousand dollars of his own money on private classes so that his dyslexia would not be a problem for the test. This raises two issues: 1) Why was a promotion to be an officer in the Fire Department dependent on a test that would be affected by dyslexia? One would think that this hindrance would be irrelevant to the tasks associated with the job, yet it was a factor on his performance on the test (he had scored worse before). Yet if it IS a factor, why should this one-time performance be the standard--do we need to fear the instance where the dyslexia plays a factor? And 2) The paying for expensive classes is an example that is played out in the High School level with the SAT, and is evidence of the Cultural Bias of the standardized test--the more well-off students (the majority of them white) pay thousands for classes that help them in essence game the system, while the poorer ones (of which many minorities fall into) get left behind. This is the exact same thing, yet I haven't heard a pundit mention this.

A Slightly Educated View of Important Stuff: Blogs v. Newspapers

Occasionally WDR finds some subject of importance to chat about that, well, we might actually know a thing or two about. Usually it's Nic who puts these together, but this time Mr. Zhuang is going to contribute.


There's been a lot of talk about the legitimacy of blog news sites versus traditional newspapers. Much of this talk is coming from newspapers which are, if you haven't noticed, drowning like rats on a sinking ship.

First I should say that I am a professionally trained journalist who likes to read information off of a printed page. I'm not exactly sure why I prefer this method and I know that I'm part of a dying breed. But there it is. I prefer print. I'm sad to see newspapers go under, but what hurts me more is the desperate way they're leaving us.

Newspapers have been our primary source of news since the founding of this country. In fact, newspapers (and other print media) are the only businesses specifically protected under the constitution. They have been important to the development of our country. The spread of basic literacy throughout the country can be attributed largely to newspaper production. Several of the Founding Fathers owned and operated newspapers. But now, with the competition from television, internet and blogs, newspapers are dying out. And of all of these competitors, blogs are being targeted most by newspapers. Blogs are singled out for not being professional and lacking the ability to properly serve as news sources.

Now let's think about this for a moment. If we looked back at the newspapers of this country early in their history, we would find something far less professional than even THIS blog. We would see newspapers with minimal stories with a blank back page for people to write in their own stories or comments. Sound familiar? Except that these comments and stories BECAME news! None of these things were cited! Most of them weren't even coherent! There were no fact checkers. The only people who would point out the problems of the paper were rival newspapers who had problems of their own.

Gradually, the press evolved to become more timely and accurate. Rules of grammar were enforced. Facts were checked. Codes of ethics were written and generally followed. It took time for newspapers to become legitimate in the eyes of the public. Even now some people won't trust newspapers. Trust is hard won and easily lost.

So now the newspapers are attacking the blogs for a lack of professionalism. To an extent it's true: Many news blogs pull stories from other sources (i.e. newspapers) but this hardly describes all of them. In all fairness, any semi-educated monkey can track down sources and make phone calls. Local news is easy enough to cover without getting out of the office if you have contacts. If you've got a contact list of trustworthy sources, a computer, a phone and the ability to write something that is reasonably coherent, you've got a local newspaper without a press.

Newspapers have one big advantage in coverage, though: National and International. If you're writing a blog in California (and not getting paid for it) you probably can't afford to go (or send someone else) to Iran and cover what's happening. Newspapers and television can afford to do this. Does this mean that they're more qualified to cover this news? No. It just means that they have enough money to send people they find competent to cover what's happening.

But what newspapers fail to notice (and perhaps it's intentional) is that blogs have the ability to become legitimate news sources if they have reader support and funding. Really, blogs are just another medium for news. They can have editors, fact checkers, foreign correspondents, etc. If blogs can figure out how to make money and hire people, they can essentially become the new-newspaper. Sure, it isn't there now, but it can be there at some point and do it a hell of a lot faster than newspapers did.

Deconstructing Pennsylvania

Once everyone forgot about it...


It is usually best to analyze events once a certain amount of time has passed, so that one can fully take in what has happened and process it. You know, gain some perspective. Of course, this flies in the face of the mantra of Cable News and Media Punditry, who thrive in the world of Insta-Analysis and Whiplash Judgments, so the idea of "perspective" may seem crazy to some of you. But here at WDR, we thrive on the crazy, so we're bringing you analysis...two weeks later. When everyone is concerned about two other states.

The immediate story that everyone picked up on was the fact that with a double-digit win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton had proven that Barack Obama is an intrinsically weak candidate who was destined for failure, and that she had the keys to victory in November. The momentum was now moving in her direction, and we had a new game on our hands. Of course, this was a narrative that while interesting, didn't really mesh with what happened in reality.


First off, Clinton did not win by double digits. Since the media doesn't seem to understand the principles of rounding numbers, most didn't realize that by rounding Hillary's numbers up and by rounding Obama's numbers down, they artificially inflated the distance between their numbers--turning a 9.2% victory into a magical double-digit 10& victory. There's a huge psychological difference between winning by double digits versus single, and Hillary shouldn't have been able to play that up in the days after the primary.

Clinton also loved to play up the underdog angle in Pennsylvania, and the media was willing to eat it up. While in terms of national numbers (and in the progress of the entirety of the campaign) this may be true, that was definitely not the case in the state itself. Nearly two months before the primary, Hillary's lead in the state was mammoth, somewhere in the range of 25%. The fact that Obama was able to chip it all the way down to 9%, during a time in which he was hammered from all sides on various controversies, says more about the failings of Clinton than it does of Obama.

The other overlooked aspect of Clinton's initial advantage in the state was the support that she had by all the top party brass in the state. She had the support of Governor Ed "Eddie Rendazzo" Rendell, an incredibly popular figure in the state, and the support of the Mayor of Philadelphia, among others. This built-in advantage was a key factor in her win, and was too much for Obama to potentially overcome.


The other big story was the issue of capturing the "white working-class vote". Who knew that White Men held any power in the United States? That sure caught me by surprise, boy howdy. Why couldn't Obama latch onto these voters? This of course overlooks the fact that Obama did well in such locales known for their diversity, like Idaho and Maine. The reality is that Obama does not generally have a problem with whites per se. It is just that Hillary Clinton is like the Andromeda Strain of race politics--she only can work within a narrow range of minority populations. The real problem demographic that Obama has had trouble with is voters over 65--if you look at the results across the nation, he consistently loses by huge margins to this group. Of course, when he actually brought this fact up, it was dismissed. Nothing like letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

But perception is often reality, and Hillary was able to use Pennsylvania as a jumpstart to her Quixotic campaign, at least in the media's eyes. We now had to see what the problem was with Obama, pushing the story that "he can't close this one out". Of course, this discounts the fact that Obama's opponent is an incredibly able politician with millions of people who support her--it's difficult to turn off a faucet that powerful, in other words.



In the end, we'll forget all about Pennsylvania and these two weeks leading up to Indiana and North Carolina, as we realize that all along Hillary only had Joementum, not momentum. And Joementum is no way to win a campaign.

ASEVoIS: Race And The Media

Or: Geraldine Ferraro is apparently quite the moron

Continuing our "A Slightly Educated View of Important Stuff" series, Nic Ouzo takes a careful look at one of the big political controversies of the day, Geraldine Ferraro's racist comments and their subsequent coverage


To be honest, I was hoping to hold out on any and all political talk until next week, when I was planning on a blitz of posts that would promote Our Candidate Of Choice. But then this story hit, and I felt I had no choice but to write about it when it was still fresh.

If you are still clueless as to what I'm referring, here's a quick refresher course: former Congresswoman (and VP candidate in the most lop-sided race in Presidential history) Geraldine Ferraro made the following comment about Obama's campaign:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Now, if your first reaction was "that's practically the definition of 'bongtarded'", you'd be on the right track (this would actually qualify under the definition of "kongtarded"). You would have deduced that Ferraro believes that the ascendancy of the Obama campaign was due only to his race--clearly another example of the Black Man Getting Ahead, as we have seen so often in our nation's history. I mean, look at all the African-Americans that have reached the Presiden...oh that's right, that's never happened. In fact, Obama is only the THIRD African-American to become a SENATOR, and the only one who is currently serving. But let's break it down some more.


1. Obama is ahead because of his race--I mean, all the black people are voting for him!

Well, let's look at an electoral map of the United States. Cut it right down the middle, horizontally. Notice where Obama has a lot of support. That's right, Obama has almost the entire NORTH covered. Iowa, Maine, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho...tons of black people over in these states!

I mean, with a country that has a black population of only 13%, is it any wonder that the man can be ahead in the popular vote, in states won, and in total delegates? He's got a built-in advantage! I mean, Hillary being a woman in a country that is mostly women, that's not an advantage at all!

And of course, black people ONLY vote for their own kind. I mean, Hillary wasn't leading the African-American vote 80-20 in South Carolina until a couple of weeks before the primary...oh wait she was. Sorry about that. Did they change their minds because they just found out that he was black, or maybe because they began to hear his message and ideas and believed in those? Nah, impossible.

2. Geraldine Ferraro may not be a racist But what she said was unquestionably racist, in and of itself. The implication is that Obama's campaign has nothing to do with merit, and everything to do with some sort of...I don't know exactly, but apparently massive white guilt amounting to Affirmative Action?

Of course, Ferraro attempts to protect herself by stating that she herself was not qualified to be the VP candidate, which leads to...

3. Geraldine Ferraro's situation was exactly like Obama's Except that it wasn't. You see, Ferraro was appointed to her position. Obama has systematically won more contests, won more votes, won more delegates. Obama has had to prove himself to the ultimate judge: the people (void where prohibited, i.e. Florida 2000). While Obama may not play the "decades of experience card" (certainly overrated, and to be discussed much more in-depth next week), this isn't his first rodeo. I mean, he only has more experience in elected office than his opponent Hillar...oh sorry for that intrusion of fact.

Now let's take a quick look at the coverage of the story. Here is a statement that I actually heard today:



4. We shouldn't care what Ferraro said, because she said it to random local newspaper Because apparently it's okily-diddly-okily to be racist, as long as no one is there to hear it (corollary: How to find out if a person is racist--talk to them in private; man, it's depressing when the truth comes out). At least that is what this argument is DIRECTLY implying. But let's face facts--a lot of people get their daily news from these local sources, and what this argument is stating that we shouldn't care about the quality of news in these sources. The fact that it tends to be the older folk who read these only adds to the issue, considering that these folks are generally pro-Hillary. I mean, what's the point of a fair representation of the facts?


5. This is clearly an example of "Attack The Hildog" strategy that the Media has employed At least according to Ferraro now. You may remember that Hillary was able to brilliantly orchestrate the media coverage in the week leading up to Ohio and Texas. She was able to play both the Bully AND the Victim, in a tightrope walk that would make The Great Blondin proud--claiming that all the media was proverbially licking the Obama's campaign lovepump with their entirely slanted coverage (another topic to be examined in-depth in the future), while at the same time employing her now-famed "Kitchen Sink" strategy, in which in the same week we saw Obama Is A Muslim, Obama Can't Answer a Phone, and Obama Makes A Deal With The Dirty Canucks Over NAFTA, all practically unchallenged by the media. Of course, if you were keeping score at home, the answer to the three-front Clinton campaign war: Bullshit, Bullshit, and Bullshit. And she wants him to be her Veep!

While it's true that there may be some political benefit at some point to pointing out the flaws of the other campaign's supporters (though that may prove to be blunted long-term), one must say turn-about is fair play--after all, Obama supporter Samantha Power immediately resigned for deeming Clinton a "monster" (though it must be pointed out, it should have been off the record (Mr. Zhuang, we're going to have to get a ruling about this in the comments)).


6. Geraldine Ferraro has the right to free speech And she also has the right to be told that her speech was dumb. Nobody is saying that she should not have the right to speak; just that it may not have been the wisest thing to do. Especially considering that she has repeatedly not apologized for it, and in fact continues to compound the problem by claiming to be persecuted because she's white. But we have a responsibility to point out to others when they are in error, and persuade them in correcting their views. Apparently we have failed in that job to some degree, because Ferraro still seems to not get it.

****************

In the end, even though Obama may score some political points right now for pointing out some of the faults of the other side's supporters, this may be a hindrance in the long run. Part of the appeal of the Obama campaign is their effort to rise above the petty mudslinging politics that have turned off half of this country, and to be above the fray. But their reaction to this event may end up being used to prove some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the Obama campaign, and hypocrisy is something that American voters don't tolerate. Obama will have to continually walk the line between this positive strategy and having to deflect the occasional immoral broadside from the opposition, or else his fate may end up mirroring that of Dukakis.



In the end, I hope you realize at least this one point: it's no surprise that Ferraro was able to lose 49 states in 1984, considering evidence like this.

ASEVoIS: Iran (So Far Away)

News is coming in at a fast and furious speed these days, from the ongoing events of the campaign trail to continuing developments as Russia undergoes a power "transition". But the story that had the attention of most people was the revelation in the most recent NIE that Iran had put a stop to their covert weapons program. Surely this would stop the ever-loudening drumbeat for war. I mean, if you eliminate the reason for it, you can't follow through, right? Right?!?!?



Apparently not, according to some politicos. The popular editorial cartoon take on this news is to ask "What to Believe?", and present some comparison scenario between this recent turn of events and that of 2003, when we were told that Iraq had WMDs. Note the added emphasis of mine to contrast the supposed comparison. That difference is paramount to understanding the two situations. The standard line is that since the intelligence was wrong before, what can we trust? Well, for one, to chalk up the failures of the Iraq War to mere "bad intelligence" is simply foolhardy. The problem was not necessarily getting bad information (which did indeed occur), but that information was cherry-picked to try to support a predetermined conclusion (which itself was based on poor assumptions). Since the push by this administration has been for war with Iran, publishing an intelligence report which refutes that conclusion presents an entirely different situation. Making the comparison is then just lazy.

But this willful ignorance is as great a sin as the outright spin-and-deny from the Hawks on this issue. You can find editorials from the likes of people like John Bolton which attempt to put the kibosh on the entire finding, arguing such things that there was no diplomacy involved with Iran (only the war with Iraq has put any pressure) and that should conflate civilian and military technology, without considering that it's probably pretty easy to monitor civilian uses of the technology. But there was error that was particularly egregious, and that was his contention that "the NIE suffers from a common problem in government: the overvaluation of the most recent piece of data." This just makes me laugh, because the exact opposite problem was what led to the mistaken invasion of Iraq--because of "anchoring", we refused to reconsider our assumptions as new information was gathered that challenged our assumption that Iraq had a functioning weapons program. If anything, what Bolton states usually does NOT occur, and shows that a better decision-making skills are taking place.



The funniest part of the backlash by the hawks to this report is their attempt to explain the reasoning behind this sudden change in outlook. There was one feature Op-Ed in The Oregonian which asserted that Bush was trying to wash his hands of the Iran "problem", and was passing the buck to the next administration. This is of course totally in line with the thinking of this administration, which has pushed for war at every opportunity, and warned of a potential WWIII just last week would suddenly change course. We have seven years of evidence that definitively prove otherwise.

Now I'm not saying that everything is totally safe with Iran. As always, it's best to proceed with caution, and to always keep an eye on the situation. That's why we continue to try to obtain intelligence. But we can't repeat the same mistakes that we committed in the past. We can't assume that a regime is "just crazy", and fail to consider the simple cost/benefit analysis that other regimes go through. Iran is in some ways calling plays from the same playbook as Iraq, what with their resistance to international efforts in their powerplay to assert themselves as the regional hegemon. We have to remember that these people still understand cost/benefit analysis and balance-of-power reasoning, and that their decisions are not irrational.



Just don't expect to start a war with even less evidence than you had before.

ASEVoIS--The Riveting World of Governmental Processes

Yesterday I was reading this commentary on the nature of the primary system here in the US, and it got me to thinking. And thinking leads to bad things, like not-studying for LSATS and to ridiculous blog posts. No thinking for me--as my parents told me, "Lord loves a working man, and don't trust whitey".

Now that I assume that you've actually clicked the above link to see what the article proposed, I can make my point without going through a pointless introduction. The idea of a national primary seems like a good idea on its face (for the LatinFolk out there, that's prima facie), but is in practice not a very good idea. It's actually a retarded idea, and gives electoral reform a bad name. Seriously, electoral reform is embarrassed to be mentioned in the same paragraph as this concept.


The idea of the national primary seems to solve the idea of allowing everyone a voice to participate in the nominating process. However, the opposite effect would in fact occur, as the focus of the campaigns would then revolve solely around the delegate-rich states (NY and Cali for the Dems, Texas for the Reps), and leaving smaller states with no attention. Minorities would also get the shaft--there's a reason why South Carolina and Nevada have primaries at the beginning of the schedule, and that's so their issues would get heard.

Which leads to my point that the current process serves as a good representative of the overlooked states. Iowa represents the Midwest (derisively referred to as "flyover country), while New Hampshire covers small-town America. As veterans of the political process, these states are also filled with savvy voters, who are used to poring over candidates and studying the issues instead of just regurgitating force-fed infocrap from the national networks.


The other benefit of having these small states early in the process is that it allows more non-mainstream candidates to have a viable campaign. These are small media markets, so it doesn't take a massive warchest to be able to just stay afloat in the polls in these states. Instead of relying solely on name-recognition and media pimping, campaigns have to be more candid with their answers and more engaged in the actual process. This is why you can have Hildog leading polls nationally, but not doing as well in the early states--the voters in these early states have gotten a more in-depth look at each of these candidates instead of relying on broad assumptions. This may especially work in favor of Democrats, because Hillary would be the absolute worst candidate for the party to nominate (based on the potential of the Republican Attack Machine and her ability to rally the base to support the GOP).

Small states also benefit from personal attention. What is especially true in New Hampshire is that candidates have the opportunity to visit with virtually every eligible voter, and listen to his/her concerns and open themselves up to their questions. This is in direct contrast to the large stump speeches that one would find in the large metropolitan cities that you would otherwise have. As a result, you have an overall more connective democratic experience.

Sorry to bore you with this stuff--when you take a few Comparative Politics classes, the nature of how different forms of government works gets in your head ( "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work"). But feel free to call me an asshat in the comments.

ASEVoIS: Turkey Is Not As Appealing As Its Namesake, The Bird

Or: The Truth Is A Crime


In a seemingly meaningless gesture, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution marking the 1915 slaughter of Armenians by the Turks as an act of genocide. Of course, that's only meaningless if you don't have an appreciation of history, like ninety percent of Americans. However, to the groups involved it is an incredibly significant act. Armenians have fought for the recognition of this tragedy for years, only to see the Turks raise a ruckus and attempt to thwart every attempt.

And boy, do the Turks have a tough time handling the news.

For one, they decided to recall their ambassador to the US. While potentially unrelated to the vote the day before, the timing of it certainly implies otherwise. And because every diplomatic maneuver needs a counterpoint show of force, the Turks decided to launch attacks on their border with Northern Iraq, as they once again attempt to leverage their relation with the US by threatening an invasion. Because you know what we need? The one peaceful region in Iraq to be invaded by an ally at the same time that we attempt to reform the government. The definition of a true ally.

The resolution has come under some fire, since Turkish-US relations could suffer. The timing is not so great, considering Turkey's important position in the Middle East, goes the argument. Well, tough shit--it's never a good time, because we always consider that region critical. Turkey has proven to be such a loyal ally, that even after a bribe of $6 billion to help with the invasion of Iraq, they countered with an offer of $32 billion. That's awesome.

And as for concern about rising anti-American sentiment in Turkey? Well, take a look at US favorability in Turkey. It's at 9%. That's not a misprint. That's single digits. It is the worst mark recorded. To put it in perspective, the Palestinians have a higher favorability of the US, and we're the number one backer of Israel! That rating is probably even lower than what you would find in Al-Qaeda.

Some may say, "let the historians decide history" (actual quote from a Congressman). Of course, if you ask any independent historian about what occurred, they'd side with the Armenian side of events, and have done so on numerous occasions of the year. Turkey talks a big game about "opening up the discussion" of the genocide, but if you say something contrary to the state position, well you'll get convicted of "insulting Turkishness", even if you're the son of a slain journalist who was killed for the same reason. Then again, this is also the same country that imprisons mayors for speaking in the language of their constituents, and also has honor killings continue to this day. Talk about a free and open society.

Then again, this is the same country that produced the wonderful filth that is Valley Of The Wolves. Yes, a friendship with those Cyprus-splitting jerks is truly a friendship to cherish.



So why is this important at all? Well, for one, when the history of what has been done to your family is consistently denied, like it has for many Armenians, it's heartbreaking. They want their suffering to be acknowledged. Of course, we can always look to the example of what happens when you ignore history.

Health Care is Not Funny (And Don't Even Think About Patch Adams)

I apologize for the rambling nature of my previous post. This is what happens when you don't work with an editor, and you just fire things out stream-of-consciousness style. So broad points are made in hopes that something sticks (mainly in an attempt at humor), without really constructing a well-crafted argument. Not to worry, it's not as if I've been spending most of my time the past few years trying to get into law school or anything...

The point that I was trying to make was that the immigration debate by and large has been totally misrepresented. And to tie it into the introduction to this series, even though it is a problem that we should solve, it is not a crisis. Do you need evidence? Well, we didn't pass the legislation. It's probably going to be a long time for legislation to actually get passed, since it takes time to draft it and vet it and so on. And we're still standing, though I do believe we have a few additional pickup trucks selling fresh fruits along our beautiful highways.



The demagogues have been silenced. They have found their victory. It was not in actually succeeding in getting anything done that would fix the problem, no, that would make too much sense. They are content in relaxing now that the process has stalled. That really makes sense.

Bah, enough of that. How about a real problem? Try our nation's health-care system.



The argument has boiled down to two different systems: 1) the private-insurer system that is in place now, done usually through one's employer OR 2) single-payer state-run system that is similar to that of W. Europe and a good portion of the world. Each have their advantages and drawbacks, and they have been rehashed numerous times. Each side decides to repeat the same claims, without taking the time to listen to the other. It's really productive, as you can clearly see.

Well here's my slightly educated contribution.

With the private-insurer system, we have over 12% of our population without any coverage, and with countless more that have limited and insufficient coverage. But we also have the finest medical technology, qualified and well-compensated professionals, among other things.

The irony is, that though we have a market-driven system, it is completely inefficient. In the US, we spend more per-capita than any other country on health care, yet we rank 37th in terms of quality of care (as has been oft-repeated in reviews of Sicko). We are not getting our bang for our buck; in fact we're getting screwed. There is a failure somewhere that is not being corrected.



The single-payer method allows for universal coverage and great service, but the expense is long waiting lists, and well, expenses. Higher taxes, that's the way you got to pay for them. My question is, considering that we already have an abundance of medical facilities and professionals that have the ability to staff these facilities, if we switched the method of payment shouldn't we be able to account for these lines? And how much more inefficient can taxes be, considering that we get so little for what we pay for these days? Shouldn't redistributing some of that burden help out a bit, AND allow for more people to fall under coverage?

My point is that we already know what works and what doesn't in these systems. Why don't we do something like adopting a hybrid--allow for a baseline coverage for all, and allow some to opt out if they choose?

The status quo is crap. We can do something, one way or another. We just need to demand change.



And thanks to both Mr. Zhuang and Joe Reefer, for bringing back the funny. I'll join in again soon.

The Immigration Hobgoblin

Immigration is the great bogeyman of politicians these days. It is responsible for all our social ills, from our crumbling schools to our crowded hospitals to the fact that I now have to dial '1' to receive service in English! Oh the humanity! It's going to be our downfall, because while you were content to just watch '101 Biggest Celebrity Oops!' on your HDTV (or you just had your attention held by that new shiny object with its purty colors), Pedro stole your job and Ahmed bought some fertilizer for his spiffy new bomb. You were asleep at the wheel, while our country was hijacked by foreigners (but not by Foreigner--"Hot Blooded" still is not our national anthem)!



This is an exaggeration of some of the reaction, but not by much. The hyperbole that has flown around this issue has truly been astounding, and demagogues like Lou Dobbs (who amazingly does not understand the basic concepts of international trade), Pat Buchanan, and Jeff Sessions have seized the moment. They prey on a populace that doesn't understand foreign policy and so can't really arrive at any solution to the situation in Iraq and elsewhere, but understand that those darn brown people are moving into their neighborhood! It's unsafe, dammit! So put up that Southern Wall, and keep 'em outta here!

(And forget about the fact about how easy it is to come in through Canada, and that Asians and European communities make up a significant part of the immigrant population. And that the terrorists of 9/11 entered the country through legal processes. These are convenient points to forget.)

And so we have events like what occurred last week, as the Senate debated their plan for comprehensive immigration reform. But the demagogues were able to truly get their message out: it was merely a cover for "amnesty"! I'm not even sure what that means, but I got to tell my Senator that I don't like the sound of that! It's the one sin that Reagan committed in his Presidency! So we had thousands of people jamming the phonelines on Capitol Hill parroting back this claim of "amnesty", coupled with the position that "we need to enforce the laws we already have on the books", without pausing to think what their solution would be.

What was their plan to deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants already in this country?



It sure would be hard to deport the whole lot of them. The logistics of such a maneuver are mind-boggling. And that doesn't even take into account the economic fallout. Yes, the influx of cheap labor keeps a lot of these low-skilled jobs at a stagnant wage label, but the consequence is that prices have remained low. For example, if we got rid of all the illegal immigrants working in the fields, not only would we have a whole hell of a lot less food available at our MegaMarkets, it'd be a lot more expensive as well. The other key area where immigrants help the economy is payment for Social Security--as the Boomers age, we'll have to begin payments for their entitlements, and without the input from immigrants we'd have a significant shortfall in that regard.

As for "enforcing those laws already on the books"--care to name a few? This is reminiscent of the claims during the Bush-Kerry campaign that during all his years in the Senate Kerry never crafted significant legislation. But ask just about anyone to name an example of significant legislation, you would draw total blanks beyond perhaps "McCain-Feingold". But if we repeat things enough, they must be true!

And the complaint that we first need to concentrate on security is also faulty. If we don't solve both ends of the problem, we still fail. Besides, we use one part as a carrot for the other side--we give in a bit on security measures, you give in a bit on the illegals already here. It's called compromise. It's what legislators are supposed to do.

And that is why the "path to citizenship" is a good idea. We can't afford to get rid of these workers, at least those that have been productive. But you can't exactly give them a free ride, so you make the process difficult and arduous.



Of course, this is the point in any commentary that one is contractually obligated to mention that ours is a nation of immigrants, though clearly a lot of people that some immigrants are created more equal than others. This is also the point in the commentary where the people that need to be reminded of this point the most tune out. We have had many points in our history where we've had an influx of immigrants, people panic, and shit goes down.

In the end, we end for the better because of it. The immigrants eventually assimilate, learning our language and adopting a lot of our customs, while teaching us traditions of their own and contributing to our culture.

Before I leave, I want to point out the biggest hypocrisy of the whole debate. Americans want to brag all the time about how great their country is, broadcasting to the world how the USA is #1. Yet when people risk their lives to become a part of that awesomeness, we reject them. We're saying, "Sorry you didn't win the lottery when you were born. Deal." We can't have it both ways. We must share the awesomeness.

A Slightly Educated View of Important Stuff: Immigration v. Health Care

We here at WDR not only bring you random absurd observations, but we bring you all kinds of random observations. You see, we are not tied down to just the absurd, though we do love to revel in it. No, sometimes we take things seriously. Well, not C-SPAN serious, but we at least take it a notch-or-two above barroom banter or stoner discourse. And we do that in items like this new series: A Slightly Educated View of Important Stuff.



If you had paid attention at all to the happenings in DC the past week, you'd know that the hot-button issue has been Immigration Reform. Well, at least it was, since the bill was attempting it got shot down in flames, hardcore.

There was another issue that got some press, mainly because some fat guy in a baseball cap made a movie about it. Yup, Michael Moore sparked some talk about our nation's problematic health care system with his new movie Sicko. However, this discussion was limited basically to magazine writers and newspaper columnists who filled op-ed pages, pushing an agenda one way or another (I'm not naming sides here).



My point is this: while immigration has been the number one priority issue, it has unfairly relegated the more important problem of health care to the backburner. But Nic, you say, the Mexicans are invading our country! We are at risk! How can you say that health care is more important? Well, I can point it out with just plain numbers. The number of illegal immigrants in this country is around 12 million, while the number of uninsured Americans is close to 45 million, nearly 4 times as much. And that doesn't even take into the count the tens of millions of others that have had to navigate the nightmare of making do with atrocious coverage. It's a simplistic view, yes, but it should put the problem into perspective.

And perspective is a huge problem with these issue. So over the next two days I'm going to look at these issues in-depth, and while not offering any dramatic solutions (I am only slightly educated), it should serve as a better primer for discussing these contentious issues.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming: juvenile humour.