Mohitoz’ Law #186

(Courtesy: Satbir)

Rs 2,000 fine for drunken driving. Rs 1,000 for molesting a child – especially, if you’re a top cop.

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Much of what you say is true, Rosemary, but that doesn’t explain why he’s circumventing not only the U.S. Constitution, but international law to give the Bush/Cheney regime a pass on their war crimes. He’s betraying a serious case of American arrogance by declaring that we need to look forward, and not backwards. He’s a constitutional scholar. He knows full well that’s not his call. He swore to uphold the Constitution, and through extension, the rule of law.

So as much as I like the president personally, I can’t ignore such a serious circumvention of the law, and blatant assault on American ideals. So I’m speaking out because I have a responsibility to speak out. It’s not just government’s role to uphold our values, that’s the responsibility of each and every American citizen. We cannot just sit back and expect justice to prevail – we must raise hell to see to it that it does. And we must always give principle priority over politics.  If it were not for malcontents speaking out on principle, President Obama would be in a cotton field instead of the White House.

The man that I though I voted for, and supported so passionately, would be the very first to recognize that his failure to adhere to the rule of law in this matter diminishes America. He’d understand that his failure to act creates a class of people who are above the law, and sets an ominous precedent that will allow future demagogues to act with impunity against both the American people, and the people of the world. Who’s to say that the next group of tyrants won’t start by rounding up ’suspicious’ Muslims, then Black Muslims, then Black people? Why shouldn’t they – we’ve set a precedent saying they can do it with impunity.  Obama is supposed to be protecting us from that slippery slope, but instead, his proposed course of action is to look the other way for political expediency.  That’s not a change I can believe in.

So some things are more important than worrying about providing political ammunition to the opposition. I’m more concerned about becoming so loyal to one man or ideology that we allow ourselves to be caught flat-footed like so many others throughout the course of history. I wonder how many families were destroyed by financial ruin after blindly opposing healthcare reform during the Clinton administration, for example; who put ideology and blind loyalty before common sense when some politician told them that healthcare reform constituted socialism?  Thousands I would guess. So if the Democrats were on their game, instead of anxiously caving in to the insurance industry, they would have gathered up some of these people and featured them in political commercials during this current debate.

Because yet again, the Republican leadership is using that very same tactic to manipulate their base. Yet again, they’re manipulating the people who have blind faith in their leadership to promote the status quo. And once again, they’re actively exploiting the concerns of their base over being displaced by minorities and having ’socialism’ disrupt the lives that they’ve come to know – even though many of them can’t even define socialism.

But while many of us on the ‘left’ like to make fun of these people as dim-witted (as I just did), I actively correspond with many people on the right, and they’re far from ignorant.  The fact is, many of them are quite intelligent. It’s just that they feel such a vested interest in refusing to accept the glaring reality before their eyes, that it’s causing them to cling to a group who is blatantly acting against their best interest. And if we’re not aggressively vigilant, the very same thing can happen to us.

Now don’t get me wrong, I doubt very much that President Obama is a demagogue. I think he’s a good man, and potentially a great president, who’s simply taking a course of action that I disagree with.  But then, the Republican base feels the same way about that people they support. But we can render this issue moot with a simple rule of thumb: We must never forget that we’re dealing with politicians. We must always remember that their very profession centers around the manipulation of smoke and mirrors, which makes it incumbent upon us to always hold their feet to the fire – liberal and conservative alike.

We must never allow ourselves to become so blinded by what a politician is supposed to represent, that we ignore what his actions say he actually represents. History has taught us that we must ALWAYS judge ALL politicians on what they DO, not what they say – and that includes Barack Obama.

So just call me cynical, but I need a very important question answered: If we’re willing to exhaust our treasury and sacrifice the lives of our youth to chase Osama Bin Laden for allegedly killing just under a three thousand Americans, how does that square with president Obama casually waving off the fact that Bush and Cheney killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children as inconvenient to address?

I have a problem with that kind of ‘justice’, as every American should, because it was done in our name. So as much as I like President Obama, simple logic tells me if he doesn’t have a problem with such a glaring injustice, I have to consider him a part of that injustice – an injustice that will never allow America to be completely safe.

This attitude that we have, and that President Obama seems to share, that the United States can walk away from the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people as simply ‘collateral damage’ is nothing short of American hubris. And I cannot be comfortable with any president that’s willing to embrace such a philosophy, because as long as the lives of Iraqis are deemed unimportant, so is mine.

America needs to wake up. While we’re demonizing the people of Asia and the Middle East, we need to recognize that we wouldn’t even have a conflict with these people if we weren’t meddling in their part of the world. They’re not over here – we’re over there.  How can I break into my neighboor’s house, wipe out his family, and have my pockets filled with his possessions, then claim I was acting in self-defense?  There isn’t a court in a America would accept such a defense.

So America doesn’t have to spend trillions of dollars to protect our security. That money could be spent educating our children, providing affordable healthcare, and revitalizing our infrastructure. All we have to do is ‘just say no’ to the military/industrial complex, and stop meddling in the affairs of others.

Thus, when I look at President Obama, even in spite of how much I admire him, I have to ask myself, “doesn’t he know these things?” If he doesn’t, we have a problem with intellectual acuity. But if he does, we have a much more severe problem – why is he continuing to play a game that’s causing the death and suffering of so many people around the world?

So Rosemary, when I speak of President Obama caving in to the Republican party, I’m not just talking about on the single issue of healthcare; I’m talking about caving in to the status quo – which is much more serious, and goes directly to the issue of his overall character. During the campaign he promised change. That leaves me asking, where, and when?

Yes, many progressives in this country are mad as hell, and not just over a frivolous partisan issue. They feel lied to. They know that Obama’s not dumb. He knew exactly what message he was sending when he campaigned on change, and so do we - so we’re going to hold him to it. So while I reserve the right to criticize him, it’s not because I’ve turned on him, but because I’ve begun to recognize that he’s one of those great men that just may have to be dragged up Mt. Rushmore.

Tell Gaddis I said hi.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It’s not that I hate everyone who doesn’t look, think, and act like me – it’s just that God does.

You know what a thousand times more frustrating than trying a homeschool kids who think they’re on vacation? Following the debate among progressives on the Senate giveaway to health insurance companies. It’s making me downright Grinch-y.

I’ve been trying to find a way to imagine that the good will outweigh the bad in the Senate bill. I’ve looked at supportive arguments coming from Ezra Klein and Jeff Fecke and Jill Filipovic and a bunch of other people I respect. I’m all for the expansion of Medicaid, the banning of recission, etc. Yet none of the bill’s progressive proponents has convinced me that the reforms would outweigh the impact of the mandate on the folks who are too well off for Medicaid, yet would be required to buy insurance.

The bottom line is that this bill will guarantee that people have health insurance. It doesn’t guarantee that they’ll have access to health care. The premiums will be pricey enough that many people will not be able to afford to actually use their insurance, since they won’t have enough money left to cover the out-of-pocket expenses. Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel has run the numbers for a couple of hypothetical middle-class families. Here’s her scenario for a family of four at 301% of the poverty level, or an annual income of $66,370, who experience a “major medical event” that would force them to max out their out-of-pocket payments:

Federal Taxes (estimate from this page, includes FICA): $8,628 (13% of income)

State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)

Food (using “low-cost USDA plan” for family of four): $9,065 (14% of income)

Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $19,275 (30% of income)

Health Care: $14,477 ($7,973 out-of-pocket + 9.8% of income; totals 22% of income)

Total: $52,750 (79% of income)

Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $13,620 (or 21% of income)

(The whole post is very sobering; read it here.)

Barring a “major medical event,” that family is likely to minimize their use of health care, to the detriment of their actual health. This will be fine and dandy with the insurance companies, who still rake in their premiums, and with our congresscritters who’ve sold their souls to Cigna and Aetna.

And if that family does end up spending the full out-of-pocket amount? If they’ve already got any significant debt, or a rapacious mortgage, or college education expenses – well, they might very well land in bankruptcy.

There are lots of other problems with the bill, too. Marcy provides a good rundown of how it falls short of Obama’s campaign promises. Even some of the remaining, modest reforms are partly hollow. For instance, people who are older or sicker can be charged premiums that are 300% of those for young, healthy folks, and the protections for those with pre-existing conditions won’t kick in for another four years. Even the language barring rescission is leaky, since it allows insurers to deny claims based on “fraud” or “an intentional misrepresentation of material fact”:

SEC. 2712. PROHIBITION ON RESCISSIONS.

A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).

(via nolakai at the Daily Kos)

Don’t insurance companies already deny claims based on allegedly undisclosed histories of anything from cancer to acne? And would someone please tell me why the industry would need such a loophole if “pre-existing conditions” are going to be irrelevant?

So this is a real pickle of a bill. Calls from the left to “kill the bill” are beside the point, since it looks like it’ll be passed tomorrow anyway. The 60 votes in favor of cloture pretty well sealed the deal for the bill’s passage.

All that left is hope that the reconciliation process will leave us with something closer to the House bill. After all, I can’t remember where it says in the Constitution that only the Senate’s legislation really counts.

I really like Cenk Uygur’s idea that the two bills could be reconciled – and vastly simplified – by allowing anyone to buy in to Medicare.

You only need 51 senators to pass a bill through reconciliation. But theoretically the main problem with reconciliation is that it can only be used for legislation that affects the budget. So, a public option or Medicare buy-in would definitely affect the budget, but getting rid of insurance practices like barring people for pre-existing conditions or denying them care through rescission could not be handled through reconciliation.

So, if you just want one bill you can’t go through reconciliation because you can’t keep many of the important elements of health care reform. That’s conventional wisdom. But here is a radical new idea – how about we just do Medicare buy-in for anyone who wants it and not bother to pass any regulations about pre-existing conditions or rescission or anything else.

(More here.)

I don’t know if I agree that it’s pointless or unnecessary to include regulations designed to prevent abuses. Even if everyone had the Medicare option, the insurance market is intransparent enough that competition won’t solve all of its ills. But for months, now, Badtux the Penguin has been arguing that “Medicare for All” would fix our broken system. (See here, for example – but also everything under his label “health care.”) He’s right. It would also be a miracle of backroom negotiations.

I’d like to think it’s the season of hope and miracles, but they will only happen if progressives get beyond the “kill the bill” rhetoric and start pushing to fix the bill when the House and Senate get into reconciliation.

The title above taken from Rosita The Prole. Here is the link to the individual post. Please visit her site. With such deep subjects to ponder no wonder our country is getting more f$@k%d up by the day. Time for a political diaper change starting in 2010.

Bob A.

Here is a set of simple thoughts whose time may have passed in this current round of debates over health care in this country, but may find a place during the conference committees and/or in a future argument . . .

 If you can’t simply and succinctly articulate “medicare for all” then how about at least noting that:

1. The main point here is for every citizen to have access  health care providers,
2. a second primary concern is to compensate the health care providers,
3. vast sums of money (premiums) are already pouring into “a system” to provide said compensation,
4. these premiums could be directly paid into a system (yes, by way of “taxation” which then makes obsolete and irrelevant any subsequent premiums) that does not first extract the funds for executive salaries/bonuses, dividends, marketing, and other extraneous overhead,
5. stem any potential argument of “Socialism” by reminding people who we do this not only with the VA, Medicare, school systems and the like, but more intimately, locally, and personally with government-run entities like police and fire protection,
6. remind continued naysayers of the “success” that we have had privatizing the military!

The facts are that many of us pay for schools when we have no children, police and fire when we rarely if ever need their protection.  We do it knowing that they are there and paid for when we need them!  In the end, are we not a nation with some national interests that are, dare I say, collective?

Really, how hard is this? . . .

After weeks of running Tiger Woods stories on its front pages, the media has realized the gold mine of revealing the sex lives of athletes. Here comes TMZ.

As Tony Kornheiser said on ESPN Pardon The Interruption (PTI), athletes are physical people. It’s likely that there are many stories to be told that will rivet audiences. If people want to know about actors and actresses and they find out about politicians then of course they would want to hear about sports stars.

When Mets Manager Bobby Valentine said that Major League Baseball would be ready for a gay player, speculation ran rampant for days. Mike Piazza announced that he was not gay. Years later, the media ran the story of the accusation that Roberto Alomar had AIDS and the media recalled the Valentine statement and wondered if the Met he might have been talking about was Alomar.

Titillation and scandal has always sold. There are more outlets for displaying this now. Gossip comes to sports on a regular basis—watch out everyone!

It seems that a new chapter is about to be written with respect to the banking crisis as the cosy relationship between the banks and Fianna Fail politicians starts to come to light.  As reported on Prime Time’s Monday night programme (watch it here), several Fianna Fail senators and TDs were in receipt of bank loans that avoided due process in their granting. The one catching the media attention (see here, here,  here and here) is the €1.6m loan given to former Minister for Finance (and now EU Commissioner), Charlie McCreevy, by Irish Nationwide in 2006 in order to purchase a luxury apartment in the K Club (an exclusive golf resort).  The loan was seemingly given on short notice, avoided the credit committee (which was required for loans worth more than €1m), was processed without the required minimum paperwork, and was approved for a sum €100,000 greater than the price of the property despite the company’s policy of not granting mortgages of 100% or more.  The property is now thought to be worth less than half its original value. 

It seems that neither the bankers nor politicians can be trusted when it comes to money.  It’s little wonder then that the government were reluctant to allow full and transparent regulation of the banks in the lead up to the crisis given that they were some of the main beneficiaries of lax controls.  And it’s also unsurprising that they are now equally reluctant to have a full and open inquiry into the dodgy and fraudulent banking practices that have execarated the crisis.  And heaven knows what would come out if whistleblowers are given the appropriate protection to allow them to speak freely.  As Morgan Kelly noted on Monday night’s programme, perhaps it’s also time that politicians had to declare more than their assets, but also their full personal loan book (as well as their expenses, etc).  If Simon Carswell is updating his 2006 book, Something Rotten: Irish Banking Scandals, he must be pulling his hair out trying to keep up with what’s been coming to light over the last 18 months or so.

Rob Kitchin

The Nacionalista Party has formally welcomed Manny Pacquiao to their fold.

This is the party where the absurd, the improbable and the inconceivable are imaginable and likely to happen now.

We have a world boxing champion who thinks the only way to lick poverty is by running for political office. Whether or not he is aware of his limitations as a lawmaker, the sad thing is that almost all Filipinos know that he is only being used and manipulated for his fame and wealth by desperate politicians and opportunists.

If only Pacquiao realizes how much more he can do to helping uplift the impoverished among us, outside of politics, am sure he will experience a more fulfilling job and life ahead, after he hangs up his gloves.

Politics will only bring Pacquiao ridicule and damnation.

Presidential candidate Sen. Manny Villar hounded Pacquiao all the way to the U.S. before the latter’s fight against Cotto.

In desperation Villar opted for popularity over competence to prop him up in the 2010 elections.

Another unthinkable is the case of Rep. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., a namesake of the despot who violated every right we had for nearly 20 years, who is now back in the limelight more than ever, joining the party his father catapulted to from the Liberal Party, that eventually brought him the presidency.

But, that is not what is remarkable. What is astonishing is that the leftists who fought tooth and nail against the dictator are now in the same platform with the dictator’s son! Gone are the harsh words that pilloried the Marcoses before. What used to be words vilifying the family have now turned into complimenting words.

No wonder, we, as people, are being described as having short memory.

The JHC has faulted the design of BIA and held to account the people responsible ,namely, decision makers in awarding the contract ,okaying the design and not following procedures.No body has denied the mistake pointed out. I do not see any thing objectionable in this.
-NRN should not be criticized-Is he beyond criticism?He is an entrepreneur who made it big and made a power to reckon with in the international arena in IT. That does not make him a God.He can be criticized if he is wrong.May be the media has given him larger than life image. Funnily he has not made any comment, as is proper.Why do others talk crap?
-Private investors will be demotivated.-If private investors commit mistakes, should they be applauded?They must take the rap for their mistakes.Would the private industry let go of their CEO and senior managers, if they make similar mistakes in their companies?How come Hyderabad airport is not censured?Ascribing motive is non sense. The committee has been asked on specific request to go into the affairs of BIA.It has done a job.Now you fault it.At this rate you shall direct the independent agencies or what is left of them,like C&AG and CBI to arrive at conclusions dictated by politicians and industrialists.(unfortunately this is the case). What is sad is the lack of accountability by the industrialists.They do not seem to be different from politicos as for as accountability is concerned.Indications are that the report shall be shelved.
The mistake is to have tabled the report before all members have signed it.
BANGALORE: The state government has landed itself in a spot, as its Joint House Committee report on the Bengaluru International Airport has come
in for severe criticism from industry captains. They believe the report questions the very premise of the public-private partnership model on which the airport project was built.

The Rs 2,500-crore BIA is the first and largest PPP project to have come up in the state. Over Rs 50,000 crore is riding on the back of several PPP projects in road and infrastructure projects. Barring this, the state government is talking of PPP projects in biotechnology, IT, textile and agro-processing, etc.

“How can the state government talk about PPP when this is how they treat their private partners? The government is sending the wrong signal to industry on the future of PPP,” said Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, CMD, Biocon and chairperson of the state’s Vision Group on Biotechnology. “This report will surely create a temporary feel-bad factor in industry. As an industry body, we’ll definitely take up this matter with the government, in the right spirit,” said T Parabrahman, chairman, CII Karnataka chapter.

K R Girish, president, Bangalore Chamber of Industry and Commerce, said, “This report could also damage the state’s prospects for organizing the Global Investors’ Meet in June 2010. Such reports will make it difficult for the government to invite foreign investment and private equity participation for projects in the pipeline.” Harish Bijoor, domain expert, says the Hyderabad airport built with private participation gives you a feel of being in an international airport. So, there is nothing wrong with it.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Experts-slam-House-panel-report-on-BIA/articleshow/5367897.cms

Delightful Fremantle Greens MP Adele Carles held her Christmas party at Kidogo Arthouse yesterday and what a turn-out it was. Fremantle mayor Brad Pettitt and many councilors took part, as did several Greens senators and members of the State Government, including  premier Colin Barnett and treasurer Troy Buswell. Federal Labor MP Melissa Parke was also at the very relaxed and well catered for party.

Mauritian neighbours of Adele and Francois Carles provided fantastic music end enticed many to have a dance.

Quote of the evening came from the Premier when he quipped during Adele’s speech that the Liberals were delighted to have her in Fremantle. I doubt that that sentiment is shared by the Labor party and Peter Tagliaferri.

PHOTOS COPYRIGHT ROEL LOOPERS. WWW.PROFILEPHOTO.COM.AU

TV Election

Good to hear the leaders of the three main parties will have live debates during the election – not before time.

As usual the UK eventually catches up with the rest of the world when it comes to democracy.

But don’t you get that awful feeling that it will be a lot about how the candidates look and the questions will be well rehearsed and a little stale by the third appearance.

I’d like to see more of a Question Time style format where the public ask the questions, preferably live on the phone  and there should be rules set in advance that answers should be real answers and not just the usual fault finding of the other parties policies.

It could be enforced by saying that if a candidate breaks this rule they are removed from the platform – that would be an incentive for them.

Or maybe we could have members of the public, bloggers possibly, on the platform with the candidates and able to contradict and argue with what the candidates say.

I see the SNP and Plaid Cymru are already making legal threats and UKIP has made a (half hearted) attempt to be included – this will no doubt lead to the BNP trying to gain some mileage.

All in all though, this is a good thing.

It’s for the children and the planet of course, you know.

Climate change is very dangerous; time is important according to the California Senatorial Dog & Pony show.

One of the star performers just displayed the urgency of the Eco-idiots position.

Desert Vistas vs. Solar Power

AMBOY, Calif. — Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.

But before the bill to create two new Mojave national monuments has even had its first hearing, the California Democrat has largely achieved her aim. Regardless of the legislation’s fate, her opposition means that few if any power plants are likely to be built in the monument area, a complication in California’s effort to achieve its aggressive goals for renewable energy. [snip]

For Mrs. Feinstein, creation of the Mojave national monuments would make good on a promise by the government a decade ago to protect desert land donated by an environmental group that had acquired the property from the Catellus Development Corporation.  [snip] (emphasis added)

This is quite humorous in the extreme.

To be sure, this message also should be delivered to both Bush I and Bush II, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, and 90 percent of House and Senate members.