Germans lose, Spanish win, survey of best lovers

Well, I don't plan on sharing much in this post, but... let me just say that rating the French at the top of the "best" list (right column) is not an outlier :-) Your votes? Read the rest of this post...

Another example of the challenge Obama faces

Liberal pundits are still questioning whether he's got what it takes to be president. It doesn't really matter if you like those pundits or not. They are read by a lot of people, and particularly when the pundit is a liberal, their criticism of the president of their own party holds weight with a lot of people. Interestingly, Cohen weaves a number of other issues into the discussion, including President Obama's words and actions on Afghanistan, Iran, the CIA interrogations, and the public option. This is what has concerned me from the beginning. That a growing case could, and would, be made that our president doesn't have the right stuff. It's just very damaging for a politician to be facing this kind of doubt from within his own party. Hopefully someone at the White House recognizes this, and addresses it. Read the rest of this post...

Rome delivers another surprise

What an amazing city. It's so exciting to see that Rome continues to produce so many wonderful pieces of history that we thought were gone.

Archaeologists on Tuesday unveiled what they think are the remains of Roman emperor Nero's extravagant banquet hall, a circular space that rotated day and night to imitate the Earth's movement and impress his guests.

The room, part of Nero's Golden Palace, a sprawling residence built in the first century A.D., is thought to have been built to entertain government officials and VIPs, said lead archaeologist Francoise Villedieu.

Read the rest of this post...

THIS JUST IN: Top GOP news portal discusses military "coup" against Obama

This is beyond the pale. If the Democrats don't step up and shut this kind of talk down right now, I fear we are going to see violence in this country. And yes, it will be the Republicans' fault. But it will also be the fault of the Democratic party for watching the crazy talk grow, and not doing a thing to stand up to it. At some point, silence abets.

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later."

Read the rest of this post...

Cillizza asks why the Dems don't have an attack dog

Do you agree? Should the Dems be more "attack dog"-ish on health care reform, or are the American people tired of anger politics?

The national debate over President Obama's health care plan has exposed a weakness in the Democratic Party apparatus: it lacks a high profile surrogate to push back -- hard -- against the rhetorical arguments put forward by Republicans.

While people like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin have scored points by hammering the Obama plan hard and repeatedly, there has not been that same sort of presence on the Democratic side. The dearth of attack dogs contributed to the White House losing the message war in September....

But, politics is a game of choices -- the candidate or party that is able to define the choice in terms favorable to them usually wins.

Like it or not, Republicans have been relentless in their willingness to slam the Obama health care plan as -- among other things -- detrimental to seniors, sketchy when it comes to end of life care and almost certain to raise taxes on the middle class.

In politics, an attack with no response is often believed. Democrats' lack of an attack dog has meant that they have left too many Republican hits unanswered -- a problem not only for the remainder of the health care debate but the next several years of the Obama presidency.

Read the rest of this post...

Huckabee attends rightwing conference that tells activists to get their guns ready for ‘Bloody Battle’ with Obama the Nazi

So when is a senior Democrat going to call on Republicans to denounce this hate speech?

Werthmann at How To Take Back America: "If we had our guns, we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. [...] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. [...] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism."

Let's see who was a part of this hate fest:

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum
Janet Folger Porter, Faith2Action
Don Wildmon, American Family Association
Michael Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel
Rick Scarborough, Vision America
Don Feder, World Congress of Families
Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily

That's not really the fringe of the conservative movement - it IS the conservative movement, and a good chunk of the religious right leadership to boot.

And GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attended too. Imagine what the Rs would do if a top D presidential candidate attended a conference where things like this were said about George Bush, including comparing America to Nazi Germany. The Rs wouldn't do nothing, which seems to be the Democratic response plan - always. Read the rest of this post...

GOP congressman: Obama is an “enemy of humanity,” has “no place” in government

An enemy of humanity? That is Hitler. We've now gone from crazy Teabaggers comparing Obama to Hitler, to members of Congress making statements that could inspire some nut to try to harm the president. At what point do Democrats say "enough"? (Via Jed at DKos)

Read the rest of this post...

Concerns grow that Chuck Schumer just screwed the Netroots in his definition of what is a journalist?

Pam has this covered quite well. No point in my repeating it. Just go read it at her place.

I've read the legislation, and it's vague as hell, but sure sounds as if you're only a journalist if you write a blog and publish something in another non-online medium as well. Which might be news to the folks working at the Seattle Post online, the Washington Post online (which is not the same thing as the Washington Post), freelancers in general, and the blogs. Chuck Schumer, in the past, has been quite friendly to the blogs. It's not clear if someone on his staff screwed up, or what. But this is terribly troubling. Read the rest of this post...

Senate Finance Comm. defeated Schumer public option amendment

Chuck Schumer gave a very powerful explanation of his public option amendment today, but it lost anyway by a margin of 10 - 13. Again, all the GOPers, including Olympia Snowe, voted no, as did Democrats Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND) and Lincoln (AR). Democrats control the committee by a margin of 13 - 10.

As with the Rockefeller amendment, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus voted against the Schumer amendment because he doesn't see how it can get 60 votes on the Senate floor. Here's an idea: All the Democrats vote for cloture on an underlying bill that includes the public option. Baucus proves over and over that he's really a fool. It's pathetic that the White House gave him so much control over the process -- and Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina did give Baucus way too much power. (I should say appearance of power. Emanuel and Messina were really more like puppet-masters.)

All hope is not lost. The Finance Committee will finish working on its bill this week. Then, that bill will be joined with the Senate HELP Committee's bill, which includes a public option. And, there will be a floor fight. But, the Senate Democrats would be wise to include the public option and other strong provisions in their bill before it hits the floor. Read the rest of this post...

Huckabee suggests that someone should take out the UN

Yes, he was just joking, I'm sure. It just seems odd that a lead GOP presidential candidate would make "jokes" about someone violently taking out entire NYC monuments. The September 11 parallel is a little too clear. Then again, look at the rest of the conference Huckabee was attending, I think he may have a few other questions to answer:

Conservatives gathered at a Hilton hotel in St. Louis over the weekend for the "How to Take Back America Conference," a Phyllis Schlafly-hosted gathering where the faithful gathered to discuss issues such as "How To Counter The Homosexual Extremist Movement," "How To Stop Socialism In Health Care" and "How To Recognize Living Under Nazis & Communists."

Perhaps some enterprising reporter will ask Mr. Huckabee just how can we recognize when we're living under Nazis and Communists? Read the rest of this post...

Senate Finance Comm. defeated Rockefeller public option amendment

By a vote of 8 - 15, the Senate Finance Committee just defeated Senator Rockefeller's public option amendment. This was the strongest public option language being considered today. All of the Republicans voted no. The Democrats voting no were: Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL) and Carper (DE).

The committee is now considering another version of a public option amendment offered by Senator Schumer. This one intends to provide a "level playing field" (meaning no competitive edge) for the public plan. Read the rest of this post...

Political pain and the economics of insurance companies

A previous post looked at the problem of health insurance from the point of view of sick people who need coverage. There are legitimate concerns with getting everyone covered, since we achieve the lowest costs when the broadest possible pool (i.e., everyone) is included. The problem is that nobody wants to pay until they get sick, so broad coverage can only be achieved by making participation automatic (e.g., as single payer systems do by funding themselves through tax system a la Medicare) or by some sort of enforcement mechanism (a la Max Baucus, who wants to fine people who don’t join up). But there are also some pretty obvious problems with the incentives facing the insurance companies themselves.

Just as individuals don’t want insurance until they get sick, companies don’t want people to have insurance unless they don’t get sick. Insurance companies can make more money by some combination of not covering people likely to become sick (if they can identify them somehow before signing them up) and/or jacking up rates for people who DO become sick. This last part is particularly problematical because once you become sick you have entered the ranks of “those with pre-existing conditions,” and will have difficulty ever getting a new health insurance policy again. That means your current insurer has a de facto monopoly, and can charge you monopoly prices to keep you covered. How to deal with these problems? Other countries have come up with two solutions:

1. Regulate the health insurance companies to make sure they don’t abuse people. This works well in other countries, but runs a major risk in the USA, since one political party takes it as an article of faith that regulations are bad. That means as soon as Republicans get back in power, we can say goodbye to our regulatory oversight.

2. Offer public insurance to anyone who is shut out of the private system, or who doesn’t want private insurance. This is the so-called “public option,” and is the standard economic answer to a monopoly – open up the market to competition and watch the monopoly rents melt away. Note that the idea of opening up competition across state lines tries to achieve the goal of adding competition, but has an inherent problem. Once you get sick, you once again are facing a monopolist since you can’t switch companies with a preexisting condition – unless they are regulated, and forced to accept you, and then we are back to point 1 above, the political problem. It is worth saying that I have no problem with such interstate competition, and think it might have some limited benefits, but it can’t solve the basic problem you have without a public option.

So here is the question. Why are people so scared of the idea of publicly-run insurance? After all, everyone is already eligible for Medicare if they live long enough. There is a very real fear underlying this, and after the last 30 years it should be pretty clear to everyone. For the past three decades of Republican dominance we have seen countless federal programs either starved of the funding they need to operate properly, or run by people who clearly don’t believe in the desirability of the very agency or program they were appointed to run. If a public option health insurance program were run the way FEMA was run during the Katrina debacle, then nobody would be happy.

This also makes it clear why it has been so important to the Republican naysayers to whip up this fear as much as they can -- nobody loves their insurance company (at least I haven’t met them yet), so insurers would make a very inviting political target. So, the Republicans have to make the alternative to insurance companies even more unloved than the insurance companies themselves.

On the other hand, suppose a public system were funded adequately (e.g., suppose we forced Senators and Representatives to get THEIR insurance through this system, or better yet, that it was funded through a dedicated tax like Medicare or Social Security). We would quickly see the public system growing and operating with lower costs than the private system. Why? A whole list of reasons, but among the most important:

- It really is cheaper just to cure someone’s broken arm (or whatever ails them) than to put in place multiple layers of bureaucracy to try NOT to cure it. (Estimates are that around 30% of private insurance costs go to this purpose)

- We ALREADY are paying for the sickest segment of the population (those over 65) on a public system – Medicare. It can only be cheaper to pay for younger and healthier slices of the population.

- We ALREADY are paying for the “uninsured” on the public dime because the law says everyone has to be treated when they show up at the emergency room. Catching them earlier can only be cheaper.

This is why we know we can bring costs down. It isn’t magic or BS or rocket science. But incrementalism wont get us there. The insurance companies themselves are the enemies here because if they behave like capitalists and do their best to maximize profits – which is what they are supposed to do – then they are going to have a built in incentive to try not to cover sick people. But there is the rub – society as a whole is going to pay the cost one way or the other. By admitting this to ourselves and bringing everyone into the system we can avoid all the expense resulting from companies trying to push costs onto somebody else’s budget.

So what the hell is wrong with our Democratic Senators and Congressmen? Can it be that they are so myopic they can’t see that public health insurance is the biggest political winner since Social Security? (Yes, yes, I know the answer to that, many of them can’t see beyond the ends of their noses but I resist admitting it to myself). Message to my own rep, blue dog Mike Arcuri: “Hey Mike! Your constituents will LOVE this if you ever would do it. I know because I have talked to many of them, Dems and Republicans alike, at countless school events, sports events, concerts, parks, etc. Yes, they are afraid that it will only cost them and provide nothing, but it is up to YOU to make sure that the reform is real so that doesn’t happen.”

Finally, there is a very simple plain vanilla economic response to the problem of high cost health care. Increase the supply of health care providers! We should be giving away scholarships to medical students and nurses, as well as allowing qualified immigrants to come here to practice medicine. It can only bring costs down if there is increased competition at the “grass roots” level of medicine. It may not be a silver bullet to control costs but it sure could make a difference. Read the rest of this post...

McConnell: Obama is a push-over

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell:

[T]he president "would sign anything the Congress sent him, provided it had ‘Health Care Reform’ written at the top of the page."

What do you think? Is McConnell right? Or is he just goading Obama (but goading him to what)? Is McConnell saying what he actually thinks? Do you think Obama would sign anything the congress sends him? Should we care about the Republican leader making comments like this at all? Read the rest of this post...

Harkin says he has the votes for the public option

Things are getting interesting:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa.), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said that the Senate "comfortably" has a majority of votes to pass the public plan, and that he believes Democrats can muster 60 votes to break a filibuster.

"I have polled senators, and the vast majority of Democrats -- maybe approaching 50 -- support a public option," Harkin said told the liberal Bill Press Radio Show. "So why shouldn't we have a public option? We have the votes."

The president promised it, and we have the votes, yes, why shouldn't we? Read the rest of this post...

Republicans ignored Afghanistan under Bush, now want "high stakes" hearings

There are many, many hypocritical things that Republicans do. But, when they play politics with national security, it's beyond hypocritical, it's despicable. For almost eight years, including those six when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, the GOP ignored the war in Afghanistan, just like George Bush did. They dutifully -- and without question -- followed Bush into the war in Iraq. And, they let Afghanistan fester. It was national security negligence on the part of the GOP. Now, that Bush is gone, Republicans are pretending to care about the Afghanistan war:

Republicans want to make the idea of a high stakes congressional hearing with Gen. Stanley McChrystal look inevitable.

On Monday, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, became the latest GOP lawmaker to call on the top U.S. general in Afghanistan to come to Capitol Hill to testify about the need for more troops.

Kit Bond and his colleagues weren't screeching about hearings on Afghanistan when Bush was president. FOX News wasn't in a frenzy about that war either. They were all complicit in Bush's failure. But, now they think there's a political reason to talk Afghanistan. Really, they're sick. They don't care about the underlying policy, just the politics. Read the rest of this post...

Baucus bill would let private group, with ties to industry, write the rules for implementing the entire health care bill

The Los Angeles Times has the story. Anybody have any thoughts about that? Read the rest of this post...

Dorgan will try to blow up Big Pharma backroom deal, let cheaper drugs import from Canada, will save $50 billion by eliminating 300% Rx drug tax

Dorgan's amendment would let cheaper drugs from Canada come into the US, so people like you and me would no longer have to pay a 300% to 500% mark-up on the prescription drugs we buy. The administration scotched this possibility in their secret deal they made with Big Pharma, that was subsequently exposed. It will be interesting to see which politicians vote to have you pay three to five times as much for your prescriptions simply because American pharmaceutical companies have a monopoloy in our market. One could almost call that a prescription drug tax, since it's simply a mark-up that you're paying. Will our members of Congress vote to sustain the 300% Prescription Drug Tax? Stay tuned. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The President is spending a lot of time on Afghanistan this week. My god, George Bush left a mess there. That's going to be one prime example of that failed presidency. This morning, Obama is meeting with Secretary General of NATO. He's also got Secretary Gates on the schedule.

The Senate Finance Committee reconvenes today to continue the mark-up of the Baucus health care bill. We should see votes on several amendments to add a public option to the bill. Senators Schumer and Rockefeller are leading the charge on the Committee. We'll see if Democrats are going to Democrats today or if they're still letting Olympia Snowe run the show, which is apparently a key part of the Rahm Emanuel strategy. The Senate Finance Committee should wrap up its mark-up by the end of the week. Then, Harry Reid will have to meld the Finance bill with the much better HELP Committee bill before it hits the Senate floor, which could happen in a couple weeks.

Should be lots of news today... Read the rest of this post...

Income gap widens during recession

Talk about redistributing wealth. The Republicans are masters of the game. What's worse are the number of Democrats who buy into this scheme. Even worse, some of them are hired to run the US economy in a Democratic administration.

The recession has hit middle-income and poor families hardest, widening the economic gap between the richest and poorest Americans as rippling job layoffs ravaged household budgets.

The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans — those making more than $138,000 each year — earned 11.4 times the roughly $12,000 made by those living near or below the poverty line in 2008, according to newly released census figures. That ratio was an increase from 11.2 in 2007 and the previous high of 11.22 in 2003.

Read the rest of this post...

Nazi POW to leave inheritance to Scottish village

Not the most typical story out there. He was taken prisoner in Normandy after D-Day and sent to the Scottish village of Comrie where he remained in prison until the end of the war. He decided to stay until 1956 before going back to Germany but he always appreciated the kindness of the local population. He even wants his ashes to be distributed in the countryside around the old camp. Amazing.

Speaking from his home near the northern German port of Bremen, he said: "I always wanted to pay something back. The people were very kind to us German PoWs. They did not treat us as the enemy. I had so many happy experiences in Scotland."

Speaking about his planned donation, he said: "I've always had it in my mind. I have no children and I live on my own. I came as a prisoner of war and I left as a friend."

Read the rest of this post...

Vatican: we may be bad, but others are worse

Interesting strategy being promoted these days. For starters, it remains questionable how serious they really are about "cleaning their own house." The Vatican initially tried blaming the victims in Boston and explaining it away as an American problem. ("You know how those Americans are with lawsuits", for example.) But of course the problem was everywhere including all over Europe, despite the initial assertions to the contrary. They continue to fight back against it and even in Ireland where they did an extensive study, the church only agreed to the investigation by keeping names out of it.

There's very little to suggest any honest cooperation on their part which is probably why the new strategy is to shrug their shoulders and say "well yeah, but everyone else is worse." Great people at the Vatican.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

Read the rest of this post...

The Catholic Bishops have a new enemy: Reiki

As if the Catholic Bishops don't have their hands full bashing gays, they've taken up a new cause: Fighting Reiki. An article in last week's Boston Globe reads like it's really from The Onion, but it's not. This is true:

Debbie Griseuk is a reiki practitioner and teacher who volunteered her time to elderly nuns in Manchester, N.H., and patients at St. Joseph Hospital in Nashua. In fact, she first became interested in the Japanese hands-on healing technique at St. Joseph, where she attended a lecture along with some nuns. She went through a training course at the Roman Catholic hospital, eventually becoming a reiki master.

But last spring the US Conference of Catholic Bishops announced that reiki - hailed by many as therapy, derided by others as quackery - would no longer be practiced in the church’s hospitals and retreat centers. Reiki, according to the bishops, is not grounded in science or Christianity and is therefore inappropriate for Catholic institutions.

At that St. Joseph's Catholic Hospital in Nashua, a "brochure on reiki called it one of 'the most popular forms of integrated therapies’ at the hospital." Good thing the Bishops are on top of this.

I'm going to suggest that if you've got a few minutes, you should read some of the comments. Hysterical. I posted several after the break.

Here are some of my faves:

dvdoff wrote:

And I wonder how the church feels about the healing benefits of all those beatings the nuns gave me at Sacred Heart in East Boston? Or the healing benefits of covering up for pedophile priests? A bigger bunch of hypocrites NEVER existed.

And:

pinopino wrote:

"Reiki, according to the bishops, is not grounded in science or Christianity and is therefore inappropriate for Catholic institutions."

LOL!!! It is OK to pray to the Healing Saints, but it's not OK to give a massage. What a bunch of morons.

And:

Celts2008 wrote:

It's a bit late for the Church to adopt an "everyone keeps their hands to themselves" policy.

No calming massage but OK on exorcisms?

And, this one nails it:

Rydal wrote:

The bishops seem to lack a sense of irony.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP's House chances seem to brighten

Wash Post:

House races -- with less-well-known candidates and less money flowing through them than Senate contests -- tend to be heavily influenced by which way the national winds are blowing.

Heading into the summer, the political environment had been neutral to slightly positive for Democrats. But it turned in a meaningful way as Labor Day approached and anger over the growth of government under President Obama emboldened Republicans.

The signs of this environmental change were everywhere.

Which is a bit odd, since nationally the polls are pretty bad for Republicans as compared to Dems. So why in Congress are their chances looking up? The supposed "anger" from August was from a very small percentage of the population, and in any case, from people who didn't vote for Obama anyway, and probably never vote Democratic. So why should their "anger" be a harbinger of anything?

I worry that it's something much more nuanced. The Teabaggers did nothing to change public opinion at all, in and of themselves. What they did do, however, was scare the bejeesus out of Democrats and the administration. That got Dem leaders to back off, respond incoherently and weakly, and overall give an impression of fear and incertitude. Those are not qualities the voters like. So, while the Teabaggers may be nuts, and fringe, and small and irrelevant, how our elected officials react to them - to any threat or challenge - is watched very closely by the voters. Read the rest of this post...