No kissing the saint's blood in Italy next month

First it was "la bise" in France and now this. Touching with the forehead?

Fear of H1N1 flu will stop devout Neapolitans from performing the time-honoured ritual of kissing the blood of their patron Saint Gennaro when the city's annual festival begins later this month.

The decision to forbid kissing of the glass phial containing the saint's blood was taken reluctantly by ecclesiastical and city authorities Monday, and has brought protests from local politicians.

The phial will be put on display in the city's cathedral for a week from September 19 and the faithful will be allowed to touch it only with their foreheads.

Read the rest of this post...

A reader says that Obama isn't weak at all

Hi John,

You asked:

"Is anyone actually running the show over there?"

I would say, Yes. They're not telegraphing weakness. They're telegraphing that they don't want a public option, and everything they do is consistent with (a) not wanting one, and (b) not admitting that they don't want one.

Calling them weak assumes they have goals that are by now a product, I have to say, of wishful thinking. We know their goals. You can tweak them by calling them weak, but that's not analysis. They're holding firm in their (rotten) goal. Calling them weak actually gives them an out with progressives. Let's stop that (IMO).

I still think that's giving them far too much credit. Yes, it's clear that someone in the White House has convinced the president (and he permitted himself to be convinced) to give up on his promises in order to seek the all-important "political middle" on every issue. But I still think that his decision to do so increasingly appears to be based on an inherent weakness. Namely, a constitutional inability, or aversion (or both), to fighting for anything he believes in. So, yes, their "plan" is to cave on far too many major promises, and their actions are consistent with their plan. But the reason the president agreed to the plan in the first place is because it appears he simply has no stomach for any fight, ever. And that is weakness. Read the rest of this post...

Consumers continue to slash spending

The economy depends upon consumers spending but at the same time, you would have to be crazy to be spending on credit these days. A new record, again.

Consumers slashed their borrowing in July by the largest amount on record as job losses and uncertainty about the economic recovery prompted Americans to rein in their debt.

The magnitude of the drop surprised analysts. Some thought the Cash for Clunkers program — which began in July and aided auto sales and car loans — would have blunted cutbacks in other lending areas.

The Federal Reserve reported Tuesday that consumers ratcheted back their credit by a larger-than-anticipated $21.6 billion from June, the most on records dating to 1943. Economists expected credit to drop by $4 billion.

Read the rest of this post...

George Bush made many mistakes, but excessive "partisanship" wasn't one of them

When the American people think of George Bush, and think of him as a failed president, it's not because he was "partisan" (though he was). It's because his policies failed. Because the war in Iraq didn't work. Because the economy tanked. Because of the scandals. An electorate that voted for the blithering idiot twice (well) turned sour on Bush not because he would routinely roll Democrats - hell, he'd simply ignore them - but rather because his policies, in the end, failed to work.

Do you remember how Bush would simply ignore the Democrats? The tax cuts. The war(s). Domestic spying. The Patriot Act. On issue after issue, Bush would take the lead, tell Congress what he wanted, and the Republicans would simply jam it through, to hell with what the Democrats thought, and to hell with what the Republicans on the Hill thought either.

Bush simply jammed his plans through, regardless of what other people thought.

Now, yes, sometimes he didn't do it legally, like with the domestic spying - no one is advocating that. But jamming legislation through Congress, regardless of opposition from your party or the other, is entirely legal. Is it "nice"? I have no idea, I'm also not sure I care. Read the rest of this post...

GOP Senator from Georgia wants "humility" from Obama

Humility? Really?

First, Saxby Chambliss should look around. He's only got 39 GOP Senate colleagues these days. He used to have a lot more. The Republicans have lost their majority and are a shrinking party. If Obama didn't make them relevant by his futile attempts at bipartisanship -- and if CNN's Dana Bash and her ilk didn't fawn over the Republicans -- the GOP Senate caucus wouldn't matter. And, they shouldn't matter, so this is absurd:

"What you're seeing is folks on my side anxious to see what the president has to say tomorrow night," Chambliss said. "I think he's gonna have to express some humility based on what we've seen around the country this August and that's not his inclination."

Let's be real. Folks on the GOP side don't care what Obama says, they're going to oppose it anyway. But, Republicans are never held accountable for their intransigence.

More importantly, it's not hard to figure that Chambliss really meant Obama is "uppity." He just said it in code. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman is "hoping for audacity" tomorrow night

Paul Krugman wrote an excellent blog post about what Obama needs to do tomorrow night. It's silly for me to summarize it - the post isn't that long. Just go read it. Read the rest of this post...

Uninsured dad has a message for Obama

It's under a minute. Watch it. (H/t Pam's House Blend.)

Read the rest of this post...

China's swine flu situation 'grim', France well above initial estimates

Starting to get a bit anxious about this now. Is everyone else stepping up their hand washing? Yikes.

China said Tuesday the country was facing a "grim" situation in its efforts to stave off fresh outbreaks of swine flu, as monitors in France said the number of cases there was much higher than claimed.

The pessimistic news came as the northern hemisphere prepares for the onset of autumn and winter, which experts believe will result in an expected second wave of the global A(H1N1) influenza pandemic.

China, the world's most populous country, is scheduled to launch its nationwide vaccination programme "this week", Health Minister Chen Zhu told reporters, but he admitted Beijing was facing an uphill battle.

Read the rest of this post...

Ambinder: Obama won August

Oh please, whatever. The White House's personal stenographer penned another direct-from-the-White-House communiqué, this time arguing how great August is turning out for Obama.

Yes, Obama has lost 20 points in the polls, split the party, reinvigorated a dead GOP, caved on his major campaign promises, and AP is now debating whether he's a "wuss." Obama has the Republicans right where he wants them.

Here's a bit of Ambinder's nonsense:

Another irony: the public option debate helped. It helped by offering itself up as a sacrifice. The new Maginot line, drawn by advocates of a single payer system, turned out to be a bit of a feint because it was never the sine qua non of reform. Initially, given the GOP success (aided by progressive elites who essentially agreed) in framing the option as essential to health care, its putative failure and demagoguery seemed to be a significant blow to the White House. But -- and here is the key point -- it became something for the Blue Dogs to "oppose" and thus satisfy their constituents' concerns about reform in general. Sen. Max Baucus's health care plan has been derided by many liberal activists because it seems to be a compromise upon a compromise.

For these activists, the debate itself has been damaging because it exposed the administration's willingness to give voice and legitimacy to sides in this debate that many liberal activists do not believe ought to be afforded those prerogatives, including Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, PhRMA, and the insurers. The charge that Obama didn't stand up for his principals is a hard one to rebut, but the White House would rather have the bill they're probably going to get now and worry about Netroot anxiety later. From the start, the least convincing argument made to the White House about strategy starts with the premise that compromising with recalcitrant Republicans is inherently bad.

With all due respect, this is idiotic, and typical of a lot of the crap we see out of the corporate media when they're not doing their job. The problem much of the country has with President Obama right now is not that he is willing to compromise with his political enemies. It's that he routinely caves to his political enemies. There's a rather huge difference. The first signifies maturity, the second, weakness. No one is complaining that Obama is talking to Republicans. The concern is that he's only talking to Republicans, and seems so desperate for a "win" on every issue that he's willing to cave on any promise, he's willing to accept any GOP proposal, provided it gives him something he can use to claim victory.

Then again, the truth doesn't fit very well in the White House talking points, which tend to criticize, diminish, and otherwise patronize the core of the Democratic party that gave this president his current job. So better for the White House to get their friends in the media to paint Democrats as extremists, and Republicans as folks you can sit down and negotiate with. If the White House is so thrilled with Republicans, perhaps they should rely on them the next time Democrats need help winning an election.

Ambinder notes that the White House says they'll worry later about the Netroots. It's not the Netroots, you idiots. You're at 50% in the polls. People are comparing you to Neville Chamberlain, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis. Keep deluding yourselves that we're the only ones who have doubts about your character and your backbone, and you truly will end up a one-termer.

One final thing: Ambinder says that the conservatives have shot their wad. There won't be any more noise from them after August. Keep deluding yourselves, folks. Read the rest of this post...

Hoyer undercuts Pelosi on health care reform

It's Lord of the Flies time in the Democratic party. Read the rest of this post...

House Liberals told to stand strong: "Don't wave a white flag on public option"

Progressives in the House haven't had much power because they haven't used their power. This year, they were on the verge of being taken for granted by the White House (meaning Rahm Emanuel.) But, they've stood their ground by demanding inclusion of the public option in the final bill (although, several, including Reps. Capuano and Farr, are getting wishy-washy.) Fortunately, there are some Democrats on the Hill who are willing to fight for what they want, instead of caving in like they usually do.

Greg Sargent has the message from Rep. Raul Grijalva, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus:

In a statement emailed to me, Grijalva said that most House progressives would in fact stand firm and still vote against a bill with a trigger:

“The vast majority of CPC is not prepared to wave a white flag on public option. A trigger would be a surrender.”

If the “vast majority” of the five dozen or so House progressives did vote against the bill, as Grijalva vows they would, it wouldn’t pass.

Based on past performance, the DC-based political elite (a.k.a. The Villagers) don't expect the progressives to stand strong on this issue. If the House progressives do, they change the political dynamic in Congress. Already, it's big news that one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs, Mike Ross, won't vote for a public option. The DC pundits all think the Blue Dogs rule the world. But, this is a chance for the progressive caucus to show its power. Grijalva is leading the way for them. This is about more than just the health care bill. This is about progressives having a real voice in policy -- and real power. Read the rest of this post...

Obama deputy campaign manager "losing patience" with Obama

We are truly beyond the "left of the left" now. Ben Smith at Politico has the scoop:

“I am one of the millions of frustrated Americans who want to see Washington do more than it's doing right now,” said Steve Hildebrand, the deputy campaign manager who oversaw the Obama campaign’s field organization and was an architect of his early, crucial victories over Sen. Hillary Clinton in Iowa and South Carolina.

Obama, he said, “needs to be more bold in his leadership.”

“I’m not going to just sit by the curb and let these folks get away with a lack of performance for the American people,” he said, speaking of Washington’s Democratic leadership as a whole. “I want change just as much as a majority of Americans do, and I’m one of the many Americans who are losing patience.”

Hildebrand is by far the most senior member of Obama’s political team to express public doubts about the White House, though he had already begun to part ways with Obama’s other top aides as the 2008 presidential campaign wore on....

“The problem is, Obama isn’t listening enough,” Hildebrand said, according to the report. “I love him, I love Michelle, I want him to succeed, but all of us need to put pressure on him and Congress to do the right things. The American people put confidence in the Democrats because they thought we could get things done, and if we fail, they’re not going to give it back.”

“I gave up a lot to elect Democrats, and I expect them to give it up for me. I’m going to speak loudly. The Republicans don’t have power unless the moderates and the Blue Dogs give it to them — which is what they’re doing now,” he said in the speech.

I rest my case. Read the rest of this post...

A reader writes about his health care experience with Blue Cross

Please read it. It's long. And quite illustrative of the problem. He's one of the people who our president would probably consider "rich." Well, that is until his wife got Multiple Sclerosis and they almost went broke when Blue Cross cut them off...

So here's my problem with the Baucus plan's proposed taxing of hi-end HC plans. Several years ago my wife was diagnosed with MS. Our insurance was thru CareFirst BC/BS which has been chronicled here by John. As reg readers know, self employed folks max prescription coverageis $1500/year. The only drugs that slow the progression of MS are extremely expensive, approximately $2000/month depending on which you take. In other words, our plan which was about $9000/year at the time had about 3 weeks coverage for her. The drug is about it for treating MS, theirs no other treatment like surgery or therapies that offer an alternate route.

So after talking with our congressman (Van Hollen was very helpful) at the urging of several folks we learned Maryland has a highrisk/uninsured pool that would actually cover most of her drug costs. We switched to that for an actual saving monthly on insurance and paid a few few grand out of pocket in deductibles. Cost still several $K/year, I forget the actual total.

6 months later the Maryland MHIP plan was taken over by Carefirst, a brilliant privitization plan with the guarantee there would be no major increases. Another 6 months and the plan renews and the monthly premium essentially doubled while drug coverage plummits. That's right our public option was privatized and the cost to us doubled.

It was so expensive that our best option with approximately $24000/year in drugs was to upgrade to the premium HMO version for about $1500/month and only a $500 drug deductible. So now we pay about $21000/year for healthcare with co-pays, etc.

As a self employed person, I have to tell you it's hard to cover a surprise extra $12,000/year especially when the self employed are largely screwed on tex help for health insurance. But we manage to make it.

But Baucus's plan would tax our "premium" luxury plan in effort to dissuade us from wasting money on needless healthcare. Screw you Sen. Baucus.

Granted we're getting back more that we pay each year in insurance, but that's how insurance works, why did we have insurance for the 15 years before this if all insurance would do is provide a 10% savings on our costs when we got sick?

Not to mention this is supposed to be a public plan (MHIP is still MD-based but admin'd by Carefirst) for folks with chronic health conditions. Basically this funnels cash to the drug co's which use that money to block generic versions of interferons and other MS drugs so that costs could normalize somewhat.

So yes, Baucus's plan would be mildly better for folks who are not yet sick, but if they develop anything even mildly expensive they'll either have massive out of pocket costs or massive premiums. Is that really something to even begin defending?

All this on top of the fact that Carefirst is constantly sending us back checks of $5-7K (3x's now) and then trying to cancel us for non-payment because they credit our payments to the old MHIP plan, our previous Carefirst private plan and my old CareFirst plan from when I worked at BlueStateDigital. This seems to me to be some concerted effort to introduce a break in coverage so they can call "pre-existing condition".

Also as a small business person who would like to offer insurance to employees, I can't even include my own family as we are, for all eternity, uninsurable outside the hi-risk public pool.

Frankly, I'm fed up with the Democrats. Our firm actually works with Dem campaigns including some wankers who now oppose a public option. If you've supported a campaign online in the past 4 years, chances are you've used something we designed or built.

But if my healthcare goes up again under D's who are taking money from HMOs and Drug companies, I'm done. I'm not carrying water and continuing to struggle by working for cynics and opportunists who keep pushing our fees down while they sell us out to stay in office.

Read the rest of this post...

Does Bad+1=Good?

As a Democrat, you get used to hearing people argue that X proposal or Y candidate is good because it or he is better than the Republican plan or the Republican candidate.

And I'm sure that's true. Even with all the mayhem Obama is causing, he's doing more good than John McCain would do in office. But is a marginal improvement enough? Is it acceptable to millions of gay Americans, for example, that Obama appears to be breaking his promises on DOMA and DADT, that they can't get married and can't serve in the military, but at least they can put their spouse's name on their passport?

Matt Yglesias argues that the Baucus health care bill is better than our current system. Matt is a smart guy, and if he says that's the case, I'm prone to believe him. Matt says than were we to adopt Baucus' plan we'd have a better health care system than what we have now - since we're currently the worst in the world - but even with the Baucus plan we'd be worse than every other country in the world except Switzerland. Does that make the plan, thus, "good"?

I've been wrestling with this concept of "better than Bush" and "Better than Reagan" for years. And perhaps I've found the chink in the rhetorical armor: Better is only good when it's the best you can do. Or as the adage goes, don't let the best be the enemy of the good. But what that adage means is: If good is all you can get, then take it. It does not mean: If you can have the best, settle for less.

It's clear that President Obama could have led the charge on health care reform eight months ago - or at least after the stimulus package was passed - and he chose not to. Had Obama taken the lead on his signature issue back in February, he'd have been at 62% in the polls, the Republicans would still be a dispirited mess, Democrats would still be motivated from the election, and Obama could have had any health care reform package he wanted.

But things didn't turn out that way.

Obama squandered his opportunity for real reform, he broke his own campaign promises (as he's done repeatedly on other issues), and now, we're told, there's no chance for a better bill than the Baucus bill. Well, I'm sorry, but if that's true - and it's not clear it is - it's only true because our president refused to lead on his signature issue.

With all due respect to the president, since Joe and I did support him in the primaries and raised nearly $50,000 for the man, a strategy of "I'll always settle for one step better than total crap" is not the kind of presidential thinking we should reward. If we agree that the Baucus plan is good because there's no chance for anything better (because Congress and the President chose not to do their jobs), then we reinforce the notion that it is acceptable for the administration, and Congress, to take a four year siesta on legislating - on leading the nation. We agree to four more years of Republican-lite.

I'm sorry, but I am not as pessimistic on America as our president and his top advisers seem to be. I do not believe that the American people are so stupid that you can't explain to them why our current system sucks and why your campaign promises are better. But the thing is, you'll never win unless you try.

So, no, the Baucus plan is not "better" than what we have now, because "what we have now" should have been legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the president reforming our entire health care system in accordance with his campaign promises.

If we enable the president's aversion to lead, then all we will get for the next four years, if not eight, is the same kind of crap we're being handed today. At some point, friends in trouble need an intervention, not more enabling. And if the White House doesn't turn this disaster around soon, Barack Obama's intervention by his friends on the left of the left will have only just begun. Read the rest of this post...

How insurance companies drop you when you get really sick

They simply dig through your file and try to find anything, regardless how small and irrelevant, to justify dropping you. It's amazing, but not unexpected. Hell, they have politicians they've bought like Max Baucus, who's former chief of staff is now President Obama's deputy chief of staff, running defense for them. So big surprise that they screw people left and right. They know they'll never be held accountable by politicians in Washington. Read the rest of this post...

Just read it

It's about Obama and health care reform, and how he got where he is, and what he should do now. It's long, and worth every word. I had so many paragraphs that I originally excerpted, I finally gave up and deleted them all, save these three. Read this piece. It's brilliant.

The way to win the center is not to continue firing gay Arabic speakers in the armed services and comparing their sexual orientation to bestiality. It is not to issue center-right proclamations at Notre Dame about the need to decrease abortions while failing to mention that the best way to do that is to teach our children about birth control and make it available to people whether they are rich or poor, so they can decide for themselves when to start their families. It is not to continue the policy of sending terrorism suspects to countries friendly to torture. The way to win the center is not to stay silent as right-wing militia members circle Obama's own town hall meetings and speeches with loaded weapons that most law-abiding gun owners find abhorrent. The way to win the center is not to coach Supreme Court nominees to mouth conservative legal philosophies that would have prevented Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade and to tell civil rights leaders to stay silent as conservatives stoke the flames of white resentment by offering the New Haven firefighters case during the Sotomayor hearings as Exhibit A of quotas and "reverse discrimination" (when it was actually an example of neither). And the way to win the center is not to express condescension toward those who elected him, dismissing their concerns about his apparent willingness to compromise on virtually any issue of principle, including genuine health care reform, as "getting all wee-weed up," when in fact it is his messaging team that is wasting the best chance in 70 years to effect real change in America--whether in health care, banking, or energy....

There is no doubt the President can get a compromise health care plan through Congress. He has enormous majorities in both the House and Senate, and they all know the stakes. But doing so would leave him with a compromised Presidency, in which a small minority of Republican lawmakers knows they can bully him at will into half-measures on any issue, and that he'll settle for Pyrrhic victories with the rationalization that he has achieved incremental change.

But the American people didn't vote for "small change we can believe in." And I don't think that's what this President wants--or needs--to be his legacy. Whatever the merits of the "public option," it has come to stand for something much larger: Whether this President really means what he says, and whether he's going to put the public interest over the private interests that dominate Washington and have dominated health care for far too long. We'll probably know Wednesday night.

Read the rest of this post...

It doesn't matter if a public option is in Obama's plan, a veto threat is all that matters

There are some reports that Obama may include a public option in his plan he may announce during tomorrow night's speech.

Don't fall for it.

Politicians all the time mention things that they have no intention of supporting in the end. I worked on the Hill. So did Obama. It's an old trick. What matters isn't whether Obama puts a public option in his plan, or whether he talks about it at all Wednesday night. What matters is whether he issues an unequivocal veto threat over a real public option - not a trigger, but a real public option. It also wouldn't hurt if the White House actually lobbied the Congress on the issue. As some White House employee told the press a few weeks ago, they're planning on buying votes with pork - if that's what they plan on doing, then at least do it for something good, like a real public option.

Stay tuned. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

I still feel like the day after Labor Day is the first day of school.

Today, Obama gives his speech to students. You can read it here. This is the speech that put the right-wingers into a frenzy. But, those hard-core, FOX-watching right-wingers are always in a frenzy these days. And, they are the base of the GOP so it's hard to see how the GOPers in Congress will ever work with the President. They won't. FOX and the base won't let them.

Later this afternoon, Obama and Biden meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This, of course, is in anticipation of the big speech tomorrow night on health insurance reform. This week, we'll find out if Obama is taking control of his presidency and his agenda -- the agenda he laid out during the campaign. Let's hope so. And, it will take more than a speech. We need to see actions back up the speech.

So big week ahead politically. Let's get it started... Read the rest of this post...

Japan targets 25% emissions cut by 2020

If they can back up the talk, this would be fantastic for everyone. Maybe other governments will even start realizing that 10% cuts are nothing. Something is better than nothing but 25% would really set the standard.

Japan's incoming prime minister promised Monday to aim for a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — among the most ambitious cuts proposed by an economic power and significantly more aggressive than the current plan.

The reduction, which will be measured from 1990 levels, was immediately hailed by environmentalists, who are watching target proposals closely ahead of a major international climate conference in December. Prime Minister Taro Aso's current plan was to cut emissions by about 8 percent.

"Japan's change in government will bring a major shift to our climate change policies, through international negotiations for the future of human society, and I want to begin in a way that is said to have made a major contribution," said Yukio Hatoyama, who is widely expected to be named prime minister next week when parliament meets to choose Aso's successor.

Read the rest of this post...

Link between prostate cancer and virus

It's not all of the cases but twenty seven percent (in this study) is substantial. Considering how common prostate cancer is for men, this is big news.

A virus known to cause leukemia and tumors in animals can be found in some prostate tumors and might be one cause of prostate cancer, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

They found xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus or XMRV in 27 percent of the human prostate tumors they looked at, especially aggressive tumors.

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may offer ways to better identify dangerous prostate tumors and to make drugs or vaccines to treat or even prevent prostate cancer.

Read the rest of this post...

UK convicts terrorist plotters

The British justice system can work from time to time. The Independent:

Three British Muslims were convicted yesterday of plotting to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" by blowing up transatlantic airliners in an attempt to kill thousands of people in the air and on the ground.

The terror cell, operating under guidance from jihadist overseers in Pakistan and inspired by al-Qa'ida, planned to simultaneously detonate liquid bombs disguised in soft drink bottles on board at least seven flights from Heathrow to North American cities, a court heard.

Last night, senior Scotland Yard detectives told The Independent that, if the plot had been successful, the death toll could easily have exceeded the 2,752 people killed in the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001.

Read the rest of this post...

Stage props for Sarko

You can't make this stuff up. The Telegraph:

Mr Sarkozy looked far more statuesque than usual as he posed in front of the large group of white coated technicians on a specially erected stage.

In scenes being broadcast across France today, a woman researcher admits on camera that she was chosen because of her small size.

Asked by a TV journalist if it was necessary for her to be no taller than the President's 5ft 5ins - a height which rises to around 5ft 7ins thanks to his trademark stacked heels - she clearly replies: 'There you have it.'

Pictures are then shown of the 20 workers on board a coach which brought them in from other parts of the three mile square Faurecia site.

All admitted that they were among the smallest members of the 1400-strong Faurecia workforce, and had been selected to replace the usual workers in the unit where Mr Sarkozy made his speech about the car industry.

Mr Sarkozy, who is notoriously sensitive about his height, did not want a repeat of the fiasco in June when he was caught using a footstool when delivering a speech alongside Gordon Brown and Barak Obama on one of Normandy's nearby D-Day beaches.

Both the 5ft 11ins British Prime Minister and 6ft 2 ins American towered above Mr Sarkozy when they used the same podium, humiliating him in front of a worldwide audience.

Read the rest of this post...