Hullabaloo

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:30:00 PDT

They Can Dish It Out

by digby

I really don't want to write another word about Sarah Palin, but unfortunately people keep saying such stupid things there's no escaping it. Take this for instance from Jonah Goldberg, for example:

I'm getting a lot of indignant left-wing e-mail for my statement yesterday re Palin: "It certainly is true that nobody in public life in recent memory has been as shabbily treated as she has."

The gist of the complaints is that some right-wingers said mean things about Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno or some such. And it's true, some mean and unfair things were said about those folks. But I think a lot of these lefties seem oblivious to the fact that the New York Times, the news networks (minus Fox), David Letterman, et al aren't supposed to be scored as partisan outlets, but they are. And they've gone after Palin and her family in ways that I think are particularly egregious. Complaining about Richard Mellon Scaife's treatment of the Clintons is perfectly fair. But comparing it to the mainstream and "respectable" assaults on Palin is not persuasive.

It's mind boggling, isn't it? First, there's the absolutely insane assertion that the mainstream press was easier on Clinton than they've been on Palin, closely followed by his admission that Fox is a partisan outfit but that the New York Times isn't, which has to have Brent Bozell looking for pistol right about now.

But let's set those two astonishing assertions aside and just look at one outlet, shall we? And we won't even go back to the 90s when Clinton was regularly excoriated by the right wing as a murderer while the mainstream merely portrayed her a corrupt, manipulative harpy who refused to behave like a proper woman.

We'll just go back to last year instead:

National Review Online: In a sentence, what is "the truth about Hillary"?

Edward Klein:Hillary is not a victim (not of sexism, not of her husband, and certainly not of this book); she’s not a moderate (despite her effort to re-brand herself in the Senate). Even my sources on the left admit she’s positioning herself as a victim and moderate in order to win the White House.

NRO: Matt Drudge has highlighted the "rape" claim in your book. Which, to be upfront here, I thought was a terrible story to be highlighting, about a child and her parents. Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book? — that looks to be flimsily sourced at that. But even if it wasn’t — why tell it?

Klein: Let's set the record straight here. Actually, I don't make that claim in the book. I included the story about their 1979 trip to Bermuda because Hillary herself brings it up and spins it in her own book as an example of their supposedly romantic marriage. The point of the story is that my source, who was with the Clintons in Bermuda and quoted Bill’s boastful remarks to me, was stunned when Bill phoned him a few months later and told him he just learned of Hillary's pregnancy by reading about it in the newspaper! Those who read the book will see this is hardly a “rape story” — rather it's yet another example of a bizarre political union where a pregnancy is leaked to the largest newspaper in the state and treated as political gain rather than shared privately as a couple.

NRO: You do relay Bill Clinton claiming he was going off to rape his wife, however — and then a morning-after report that suggests that might, in fact, have happened. Surely you see how that would become the "rape chapter" of the book — and maybe the most obvious headline from the book? Might it have been more trouble than it was worth simply to relay that the Clintons have a "bizarre" relationship? Surely there are more polite examples.

Klein: Here's why it's not a rape claim: I don’t imply the source was in the room with the Clintons, for all my source knows they could have had a massive fight and then reconciled. My source doesn’t speculate, I don’t speculate. This whole story, "the rape story" as it’s being called by others, speaks more to how the Clintons communicate, their bizarre relationship. And, of course, the whole point of the story is how she leaked her pregnancy to the press — didn't talk about it with her husband first.

NRO: Do you think more is being made out of some of the "dirt" — the more salacious gossipy stuff in your book — than should be?

Klein: The Truth About Hillary is a comprehensive biography, encompassing both her personal and political life. Vanity Fair chose to excerpt a part of the book about political life, while other news sources have chosen to focus on the personal. My book is much broader than any representation that has appeared in the media so far.

NRO: How many times do you use the word "lesbian" in your book? Why point out she had friends who were lesbians? Do we need to go there?

Klein: Hillary’s politics were shaped by the culture of radical feminism and lesbianism at Wellesley College in the 1960s. This is paramount in exploring the political life of Hillary Clinton.

How could someone write a comprehensive biography of Hillary Clinton without investigating the rumors that have long circulated about her? I've gone further than any other journalist in exploring the question of her sexuality, which is often the first thing people wonder about her: Is she misrepresenting herself as a doting wife to Bill Clinton? How can she stand his chronic infidelity?

As for the number of times the word appears in the book, I don't know. But I'm sure there are some in the Clinton campaign counting right now.

NRO: One more sex thing. You write: "Hillary Clinton only had herself to blame for the talk about her sex life." Can there ever really be a good reason for this, never mind in her case?

Klein: The Clintons themselves made sex an integral part of our national political discourse at the turn of the century. There’s no way of getting around sex when it comes to the Clintons.

My favorite thing about that interview is that all this dirt came out in the very first questions, as the interviewer (Kathryn Lopez) pretended to be "troubled" by it all. It's such a stereotypical "Clinton story" you almost have to laugh.

Palin has certainly had her share of unfair stories written and said about her, some of it based on gender. But the idea that Hillary got off easily compared to her is totally absurd --- Clinton has been the target of the mainstream press and the right wing noise machine for almost two decades and the things that have been said about her so vile and so outrageous that it's a testament to her guts and her stamina that she managed to become one of the most important politicians in American life in spite of it. Even her legions of enemies have to give her grudging respect at this point. Palin has a long, long way to go before she can claim to be in the same league --- in more ways than one.

.

noreply@blogger.com (dday) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:30:02 PDT

The Lessons Of Robert McNamara

by dday

Robert McNamara died today. McNamara was a smart guy, a business type who rose up through the ranks to run the Ford Motor Company after working at the Pentagon during the firebombing of Tokyo. Kennedy pulled a reluctant McNamara out of Detroit and back to the Pentagon in 1960, and he sought to manage it with corporate precision. But this precise structure and its focus on measurements crashed against the shoals of the Vietnam War. Night after night, McNamara would stand before the press in his rimless glasses, looking very much like Don Rumsfeld would decades later, talking of body counts and targeted airstrikes and victory, disassociated almost completely from the realities of the ground and the futility of the enterprise. If you've seen "The Fog of War" you know that the pressure certainly got to McNamara, and he understood his mistakes after the fact (though he never took full responsibility for them). He directed subordinates to write the study that would eventually become The Pentagon Papers, hoping that future generations would avoid the pitfalls that he and his colleagues did in Vietnam.

Part of the framing of "The Fog of War" as well as one of McNamara's later books was the 11 causes and lessons that he listed coming out of Vietnam. It's worth listing them here again.

We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. We saw in them a thirst for – and a determination to fight for — freedom and democracy. We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values….

Our misjudgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders….No Southeast Asian [experts] existed for senior officials to consult when making decisions on Vietnam.

We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine in confronting unconventional, highly motivated people’s movements. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to …winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did….We had not prepared the public to understand the complex events we faced…confront[ing] uncharted seas and an alien environment. A nation’s deepest strength lies not in its military prowess, bur rather in the unity of its people. We failed to maintain it.

We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action — other than in response to direct threats to our own national security – should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

…We thus failed to analyze and debate our actions in Southeast Asia - our objectives, the risks and costs of alternative ways of dealing with them, and the necessity of changing course when failure was clear….

If this isn't an accusatory note toward the practitioners of American foreign policy during the entire post-war period up through today, I don't know what is. And although I'd like to think that some statesman could learn from these lessons and take America off such a self-destructive course, given the nature of the people who rise to power in this country I don't know if that's possible. Certainly McNamara's lessons represent the experience of a man who lived in the crucible and at least appears to have judged his actions against some moral set of precepts. But the peculiar dynamics of the political world, the need to act tough in foreign policy, the seeming inability for leaders to step outside themselves and view things through the lens of others, the narrow and incomplete renderings of history often at work, and of course the lure of money and power and the industry of war, resist politicians coming to any of these conclusions in the moment. We have so frequently bungled into conflicts, presuming our role in them when the other participants see it differently, making shortcuts while rationalizing ourselves as heroic, changing the rules if found to violate them, and controlling the message of moral rectitude rather than the actions. I find these cautions from McNamara to be crucially important, but even in my most optimistic moments I don't believe America is even wired to live up to them. Just read the post below for proof.

This is from The Fog of War, with McNamara talking about the firebombing of Tokyo in World War II:

Curtis LeMay said, “If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.” And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals.... But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:18:19 PDT

Green Light

by digby

Yesterday, I described Joe Biden's comments about Israel's sovereign right to bomb Iran on Stephanopoulos as "startling" and wondered why everyone seemed so sanguine about what he said. There wasn't any walk back that I could discern and the people I respect on this issue didn't seem to be concerned, so I figured I was off base.

Today, Marc Lynch illuminates the situation saying that regardless of what Biden meant, the middle east is taking the statement as a green light to Israel, which is bad:

UPDATE: a senior White House source tells me that this is being misreported, and points me to this from White House spokesman Tommy Vietor:

"The Vice President refused to engage hypotheticals, and he made clear that our policy has not changed. Our friends and allies, including Israel, know that the President believes that now is the time to explore direct diplomatic options, as with the P5+1."

Good. This needs aggressive pushback though, because the regional media is overwhelmingly reporting the 'green light' headline interpretation of Biden's remark. Time to flex those public diplomacy and strategic communications muscles, folks...

LAST UPDATE (Monday morning): a variety of comments from assorted well-placed worthies have come my way over the last day, some online and others privately. Most suggest that Biden's comments were not meant to change U.S. policy, and that if anything he meant to distance the U.S. from any Israeli strike (though a few speculate that it was actually meant to strengthen the U.S. bargaining position ahead of the Moscow talks). If that's the case, then it is only that much more important to repeat that his comments are being nigh-universally presented in the Middle Eastern media (Israeli and Arab, at least) as a "green light." If that wasn't the intended signal, then the administration needs to recognize that its signaling has gone awry and clear it up before it's too late...

Read the whole post if you are interested in this subject. It's possible that this is what they intended or that Biden himself just misspoke, but it sounds as though this may have been a line they wanted him to give but they misjudged the reaction. (Or maybe not --- it's hard to tell.)

One thing is clear --- it's a very weird thing to have a Vice President who is obviously very close to the president and with a wide ranging portfolio, be someone who has such a history of misspeaking that when he makes foreign policy pronouncements nobody knows if he's carrying an official line. As I wrote yesterday, it's possible that they've decided to use that to their advantage. It's also possible that he's just being Joe.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:33:27 PDT

Krugman On Health Care Reform

by digby

Go 29 minutes in to see the interview. Interesting stuff:

Via The Big Picture

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:42:09 PDT

Tea Service

by digby

I hate to say it, because it's so pathetic, but the tea party movement is actually finding a coherent theme that may just resonate over time, even though it is a perfect example of the rubes being useful idiots for the aristocrats:

Concerned about taxes, bailouts, government "pork," and rising deficits, thousands of Americans will spill out in cities from Atlanta to San Francisco this weekend, as part of a "Tea Party" movement that began earlier this year in protest of the economic stimulus bill.

The recent NY Times poll showed that by far the most important issue to Americans at the moment is the economy, followed by jobs and health care. Unfortunately, the problem with the economy isn't defined and neither is the solution, so the teabag message may very well speak to that broad concern for a lot of people.

But what's interesting is the the melding of the traditional populist messages with the usual elite obsessions with deficits. The bailouts have made that work and it could be quite potent if they can find a way to market it right. If the right can successfully meld concerns with bailouts for the rich with concerns for deficits --- which is actually another bailout for the rich --- they will have a message that serves their purposes grandly. They can blame the Democrats for failing to restore the economy by serving the wealthy (which, frankly, is true, but no less true of them, of course) while at the same time putting in place all the pieces necessary for their successors to also serve the wealthy. If they can wrap it up in a down home, grassroots "movement" package, all the better.

Update: There were lots of signs against cap and trade, as if any of these people have the slightest clue what that means to them or why they should care. Like other obscure pet wingnut slogans such as "tort reform" and "secret ballot," this one seems to have really captured their imagination.

And then there's this funny person who apparently thinks he's really getting off a zinger:

It's possible that it's an ironic infiltrator, but I doubt it. These people really do believe Sweden is a hellhole.

Update: Apparently, this lovely stuff was also heavily featured again, so it looks like we're in no danger of having the teabaggers being taken too seriously any time soon.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:00:17 PDT

Biden Time

by digby

Is it just me or were Joe Biden's comments on Stephanpoulos this morning somewhat ... uhm ... startling?

Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States, Mr. Biden said in an interview broadcast on ABC’s “This Week,” “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”

"Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," he said, in an interview taped in Baghdad at the end of a visit there.

The remarks went beyond at least the spirit of any public utterances by President Barack Obama, who has said that diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program should be given to the end of the year. But the president has also said that he is “not reconciled” to the possibility of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon — a goal Tehran denies.

Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran.

What was not immediately clear was whether Mr. Biden, who has a long-standing reputation for speaking volubly — and sometimes going too far in the heat of the moment — was sending an officially sanctioned message.

I haven't heard any outcry about this so far, so perhaps I'm just not up to speed on the latest thinking. Does this seem like a good idea to anyone at this particular moment? The biggest headline on the front page of the NY Times today was "Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election" Does this strike you as a good moment for the US to be talking about Israel bombing the place?

In other news, in answer to a question about whether the stimulus was adequate, Biden also said that everyone had misread how bad the economy was back in January, which I think is nonsense. Everyone knew that the economy was in very, very deep trouble. It was politics that made the stimulus inadequate, not imperfect knowledge.

I understand why he would say it, but I don't think it rings true considering all the talk about the "worst economy since the Great Depression" at the time. Plus, I think it's a weak play. They knew that even the best stimulus would take time to kick in --- they said so then --- so they should just stick to their guns. "No one could have predicted" excuses are lame in most cases, but especially lame in this one.

It would be interesting to know if Biden is on message or if he did his usual free association. And I suppose it's always possible that the administration has begun to use his reputation for freelancing to get out messages they don't necessarily want to officially endorse. You always get the feeling that Biden is actually blurting out truths that nobody else wants to take credit for so maybe they are putting that to work for them.

(I'm still not sure why anyone would think that chattering about Israel's sovereign right to bomb Iran at this particular moment is a good idea, but maybe they think this will help lower the temperature somehow?)

.

noreply@blogger.com (dday) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:15:01 PDT

The Village Is Very Sorry For Being The Village

by dday

In the Apology of the Week (all respect to Harry Shearer), Katherine Weymouth requests a mea culpa for trying to profit off of connecting insiders in government to the lobby community.

So what happened? Like other media companies, The Post hosts conferences and live events that bring together journalists, government officials and other leaders for discussions of important topics. These events make news and inform their audiences. We had planned to extend this business to include smaller gatherings, a practice that has become common at other media companies.

From the outset, we laid down firm parameters to ensure that these events would be consistent with The Post's values. If the events were to be sponsored by other companies, everything would be at arm's length -- sponsors would have no control over the content of the discussions, and no special access to our journalists.

If our reporters were to participate, there would be no limits on what they could ask. They would have full access to participants and be able to use any information or ideas to further their knowledge and understanding of any issues under discussion. They would not be asked to invite other participants and would serve only as moderators.

When the flier promoting our first planned event to potential sponsors was released, it overstepped all these lines. Neither I nor anyone in our news department would have approved any event such as the flier described.

The shorter version of this pretty much tracks with my assessment at the time the scandal broke and Weymouth cancelled the dinner: "Now the Post can go back to being influenced by lobbyists and setting conventional wisdom in Washington without all that dirty money changing hands."

The only difference between this proposed salon and the other "conferences and live events that bring together journalists, government officials and other leaders for discussions of important topics" is that the proceeds went more directly into the pockets of the Post in this case. As Marcy Wheeler notes, Weymouth never disavows the actual content of the salons or the even the exchange of money (as long as it's indirect) to set up meetings between lobbyists and politicians - just the fact that this particular salon would be off-the-record.

I don't suspect for a second that lobbyists have much trouble finding their way into the upper echelons of Washington to speak their peace, anyway. The Washington Post simply wanted to charge for drinks to this particular cocktail party. Other than that, they cannot imagine how any of this could be a problem.

One can hardly blame a struggling newspaper wanting to open up another revenue stream. The problem lies in the barely-discernible difference between essentially a pay-to-play scheme and the normal social and political transactions in Washington.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:00:17 PDT

The New Deaniacs

by digby

David Broder is so wedded to the idea of bipartisanship that he's reduced to asserting that begging and borrowing to get eight House Republicans to vote for the cap and trade bill and compromising the economic recovery to get two Republican Senators to vote for the stimulus is a sign that reaching out to the other party is the best way to ensure that legislation is juuust right.

We don't know yet just how much watering down the cap and trade bill will affect its efficacy, but we are already seeing what those compromises with the ladies from Maine have added up to on the stimulus: the money they insisted be cut was mostly money that would have gone to the states to mitigate much of the disasters that are about to hit. As many people said at the time, the stimulus was too small and they will probably need to try to take another bite of the apple, a most daunting task --- all because President Collins decided on some arbitrary number for no good reason other than to please David Broder.

But in fairness, these compromises weren't actually with the ladies from Maine or indeed anyone who is formally affiliated with the Republican party. The true "leadership" on this came from Presidents Nelson and Lieberman and their Democratic cohorts in the Broder Fan Club. Bipartisanship in 2009 has absolutely nothing to do with the political sideshow formerly known as the Republican party. I don't know why he's even talking about them. But he needn't fear that the DFHs have come to town and are trashing the place: there are more than a handful of timorous, corporate owned Democrats who will make sure that things don't get out of hand.

The congress has moved a tiny bit to the left from where it was, which is to say that it is still a deeply conservative institution, by tradition, process, class and ideology. The Dean can sleep well at night knowing that his precious bipartisanship is safe in the hands of the New Deaniacs of the Democratic Party.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:15:26 PDT

Over There

by digby

I wrote an unpopular post last week about health care systems overseas in an attempt to show that there are different ways to successfully deliver universal health care to the US. Jonathan Cohn, a certified health care wonk, has written a much better article on the same subject for the Boston Globe which some of you may find more persuasive:

But no serious politician is talking about recreating either the British or the Canadian system here. The British have truly “socialized medicine,” in which the government directly employs most doctors. The Canadians have one of the world’s most centralized “single-payer” systems, in which the government insures everybody directly and private insurance has virtually no role. A better understanding for how universal healthcare might work in America would come from other countries - countries whose insurance architecture and medical cultures more closely resemble the framework we’d likely create here.

Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching two of these countries: France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn’t their language. Or it might be because they don’t fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.

Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars - plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.

But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.

Again, I'm not saying that what we are going to end up with will be as good as these systems. I have no idea at this point what the final legislation will look like and anyone who says they do is mistaken. All I'm saying is that it's possible. There are systems around the world that do a better job of covering everyone for less money and equal or better outcomes that are not designed like the English or Canadian models. It can be done. Whether we can do it is another story.

.

noreply@blogger.com (Dennis Hartley) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:57:54 PDT

Saturday Night At The Movies

Like we did last Summer: Top 10 Rock Musicals

By Dennis Hartley

Ah, July 4th weekend. Nothing kicks off summer like a time-honored, all-American holiday that encourages the mass consumption of animal flesh (charcoal-grilled to carcinogenic perfection), binge drinking, and subsequent drunken handling of highly explosive materials. Well, for most people. Being the semi-reclusive weirdo that I am (although I prefer the term “gregarious loner”), nothing kicks off summer for me like holing up for the holiday weekend with a case of Diet Dr. Pepper, a decent ration of Wha Guru Chews (I’m partial to cashew flavor) and an armload of my favorite rock musicals.

So, for your consideration (or condemnation) I now submit my Top 10 personal favorites of the genre (and some B-sides as well). As per usual, I present them in no particular ranking order (to prevent fistfights). And for those who are about to rock…I salute you.

The Commitments --“Say it leoud. I’m black and I’m prewd!” Pulling together a cast of talented yet unknown actor/musicians to "play" a group of talented yet unknown musicians was a stroke of genius from director Alan Parker. This "life imitating art imitating life" trick makes The Commitments one of the better “behind the music” movies. In some ways a thematic remake of Parker's own 1980 musical Fame, the scene moves from New York to Dublin (look fast for a sly reference when a band member starts singing a parody of the Fame theme). These working class Irish kids don't have the luxury of a performing arts academy, however, and there's an undercurrent referencing the economic downturn in the British Isles (several band members are "on the dole"). The acting chemistry is superb, but it's the amazing musical performances that really astonish, especially from the 16-year old lead singer, who has the pipes of someone who has been drinking a fifth and smoking 2 packs a day for 30 years. Gritty, realistic and spiced up with a goodly amount of ribald humor (“Fook yew, yew fat fooker!”)-this one’s a winner.

Expresso Bongo - I’ve always wondered if this 1959 British gem from Val Guest gave inspiration to Julien Temple for his Absolute Beginners- from the opening shot that swoops through London's Soho district coffee bar/music club milieu, to its story about naive show biz beginners with stars in their eyes and exploitative agents' hands in their wallets. Laurence Harvey plays his cheeky, success-hungry hustler/manager character with real chutzpah. The perennially elfin Cliff Richard plays it fairly straight as Harvey's "discovery", Bongo Herbert. The film includes performances from the original Shadows (Richards’ classic backup band) which features guitar whiz Hank Marvin (whom Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page have cited as a seminal influence). The smart, droll screenplay (by Julian More and Wolf Mankowitz) is far more sophisticated than most of the U.S. produced rock’n’roll musicals of the era (films like The Girl Can't Help It and Rock Rock Rock!) do feature priceless performance footage, but the storylines are pretty dopey).

Hair -In the hands of a lesser director, Gerome Ragni and James Rado’s late 60s hit stage musical about the peace love and dope generation’s zeitgeist could have easily been laughed off as a dated nostalgia piece when it was belatedly brought to the screen in 1979 (at the very height of the disco era, no less). Luckily for us, Milos Forman was at the helm (he had already proven quite adept at translating theatrical pieces to the screen with a little film called One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest -you may have heard of it). Forman and screenwriter Michael Weller wisely accentuate the more timeless themes from the original play (or at least it’s nice to believe that humanism, friendship and love ultimately trumps dogma, jingoism and war, eh?). The harmonious integration of the choreography with the various New York City locations is comparable to West Side Story (I wrestled with adding that film to this list BTW, but decided that it is really closer to a “jazz ballet” than a “rock musical”). The amazingly versatile Treat Williams brings mucho verve and energy to the screen as the Zorba-like George Berger (when he jumps up on that banquet table and exults “I got my AAAAAsssss!”-you don’t doubt him for a second). The great cast includes John Savage, Beverly D’Angelo and Annie Golden (music geeks may recall her as being the lead singer of an early 80s new wave band called The Shirts). Also look for the great director Nicholas Ray in a cameo as “The General” (he died that same year).

A Hard Day's Night -This 1964 masterpiece has been often copied, but never equaled. Shot in a semi-documentary style, the film follows a “day in the life” of John, Paul, George and Ringo at the height of their youthful exuberance and charismatic powers. Thanks to the wonderfully inventive direction of Richard Lester and Alun Owen’s cleverly tailored script, the essence of what truly made the Beatles…well, the Beatles has been captured for posterity. Although it is in reality very meticulously constructed, Lester’s film has a loose, improvisational feel-and therein lies its genius, because it still feels just as fresh and innovative as it was when it first hit theatres 45 years ago (yes, it’s been that long). There’s much to savor in every frame; to this day I catch “little” things that continue to surprise me (ever notice John “snorting” the Coke bottle?). And then, there’s the music-“I Should Have Known Better”, “All My Loving”, “Don’t Bother Me”, “Can’t Buy Me Love”, and of course the memorable title song (with that opening chord that I STILL have not been able to figure out). Lester and the Fabs teamed up again for Help!in 1965; despite the fantastic musical segments, it suffers overall from a corny plot.

Jailhouse Rock -The great tragedy of Elvis Presley’s film career is how much more exponentially insipid each successive script became. Even the part of the films that mattered the most (which would be the um, music) progressively devolved into barely listenable schmaltz (keep in mind I’m referring specifically to the movie soundtrack fodder, and not to his studio albums, which had more artistic peaks and valleys). Fortunately, however, we can still pop in a DVD of Jailhouse Rock, and experience the King at the peak of his powers before Colonel Parker took his soul. This is one of the few films where Elvis actually gets to breathe a little bit as an actor (King Creolewould be another example). Although he basically plays himself (an unassuming country boy with a musical gift from the gods who becomes an overnight sensation), he never parlayed the essence of his “Elvis-ness” so un-self-consciously before the cameras as he does here. In addition to the iconic (and downright feral) “Jailhouse Rock” song and dance number itself, Elvis rips it up with “Treat Me Nice” and “(You’re So Square) Baby I Don’t Care”.

Ladies And Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains- A sort of punk version of A Star Is Born, this 1981 curio (initially shelved from theatrical distribution) managed to build a rabidly devoted cult base, thanks to showings on USA Network’s “Night Flight” back in the day. As a narrative, this effort from legendary record mogul turned movie director Lou Adler would have benefited immensely from some script doctoring (Slap Shot scripter Nancy Dowd is off her game here) but for punk/new wave nostalgia junkies, it’s still a marvelous time capsule. Diane Lane plays a nihilistic mall rat who decides to break out of the ‘burbs by forming an all-female punk band called The Stains. Armed with a mission statement (“We don’t put out!”) and a stage look that appears to have been co-opted from Divine in Pink Flamingos, this proto riot-grrl outfit sets out to conquer the world (and learn to play their instruments along the way). Music biz clichés abound, but it’s still a guilty pleasure, particularly due to the real-life rockers in the cast. Fee Waybill (surprisingly effective) and Vince Welnick of The Tubes are a hoot as a couple of washed up glam rockers. The fictional punk band, The Looters (fronted by none other than an angry young Ray Winstone) features the talents of Paul Simonon from The Clash and Steve Jones and Paul Cook of the Sex Pistols. There’s also a memorable cameo by Black Randy (“Who?”) Well, he’s exciting to “deep catalogue” geeks like me (what can I say?).

Rock 'n Roll High School-As far as guilty pleasures go, this goofy bit of anarchy from the stable of legendary low-budget producer Roger Corman rates pretty high (and one suspects the creators of the film were, um, “pretty high” when they dreamed it all up). Director Alan Arkush invokes the spirit of all those late 50s rock’n’roll exploitation movies (right down to having 27 year-old actors portraying “students”), substituting The Ramones for the usual clean-cut teen idols who inevitably pop up at the school dance. To this day, I’m still helplessly in love with P.J. Soles, who plays Vince Lombardi High School’s most devoted Ramones fan, Riff Randell. The great cast of B-movie troupers includes the late Paul Bartel (who directed several of his own cult classics under Corman’s tutelage) and his frequent screen partner Mary Waronov (as the uptight, iron-fisted principal). Although no one’s ever copped to it, I’m fairly sure this film inspired Square Pegs, the short-lived cult TV series from 1982. R.I.P. Joey, Dee Dee and Johnny.

Starstruck -Gillian Armstrong has primarily built her reputation on helming female empowerment dramas (My Brilliant Career, Mrs. Soffel, High Tide , The Last Days of Chez Nous, Charlotte Gray), making this sparkling and energetic “feel good” trifle from 1982 a bit of an anomaly in the Australian director’s otherwise serious-minded oeuvre. That being said, it’s the only Armstrong film I’ve watched more than once. In fact, I’ve watched it many times; it’s one of my favorite “movie therapy” prescriptions (I defy anyone to remain depressed after a viewing). It does feature a strong female character, a free spirit named Jackie (Jo Kennedy) who aspires to become Sydney’s next break-out new wave singing sensation, with the help of her kooky, entrepreneurially-minded (and frequently truant) teenaged cousin Angus (Ross O’Donovan) who has designated himself as publicist/agent/manager. Infectiously goofy and genuinely sweet-natured, featuring lots of catchy power pop (with contributions from members of Split Enz and Mental as Anything). Highlights include “I Want to Live in a House” and “The Monkey in Me”.

Tommy-There was a time (a long, long, time ago) when some of my friends insisted that the best way to appreciate The Who’s legendary rock opera was to turn off the lamps, light a candle, drop a tab of acid and listen to all four sides with a good pair of cans. I never got around to making those precise, um, arrangements, but it’s a pretty good bet that watching director Ken Russell’s insane screen adaptation is a close approximation. If you’re not familiar with his work, hang on to your hat (I’ll put it this way-Russell is not known for being subtle). Campy, raucous, garish and gross…but never boring. Luckily, the Who’s music is powerful enough to cut through all the visual clutter, and carries the day. Two members of the band have roles-Roger Daltrey is charismatic as the deaf dumb and blind Tommy, and Keith Moon has a cameo as wicked Uncle Ernie (Pete Townshend and John Entwistle only appear in music performance). The cast is an interesting cross section of film veterans (Oliver Reed, Ann-Margret, Jack Nicholson) and well-known musicians (Elton John, Eric Clapton, Tina Turner). Musical highlights include “Pinball Wizard”, “Eyesight to the Blind” “The Acid Queen” and “I’m Free”. And you haven’t lived until you’ve watched Ann-Margret, covered in baked beans and writhing in ecstasy!

True Stories-New Yawk musician/raconteur David Byrne (that’s MISTER Talking Heads to you) enters the Lone Star state of mind with this subtly satirical Texas travelogue from 1986. It is not easy to pigeonhole this one- part social satire, part long-form music video, part mockumentary. The episodic vignettes about the quirky but generally likable inhabitants of sleepy Virgil, Texas should hold your fascination once you buy into "tour-guide" Byrne's bemused anthropological detachment (some might say, "conceit", but there is no detectable mean-spiritedness here). Among the town’s “residents”: John Goodman, “Pops” Staples, Swoosie Kurtz and the late, great Spalding Gray. The outstanding cinematography is by Edward Lachman. Byrne’s fellow Heads have cameos performing “Wild Wild Life”. Not everyone’s cup of tea, perhaps- but for some reason, I have an emotional attachment to this film that I can’t even explain (shrug).

Encore! 10 more: The Rocky Horror Picture Show , Jesus Christ Superstar, Hairspray (1988), 200 Motels, Phantom of the Paradise, Absolute Beginners The Blues Brothers, Streets of Fire, Pink Floyd , Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

Previous posts with related themes:

Across the Universe

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:00:14 PDT

The American Health Care System

by digby

A friend of mine took this picture in Nebraska last summer:

I guess that's one form of employer based health insurance.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:00:07 PDT

Take A Walk Outside

by digby

...It's the 4th of July

And keep in mind that no matter how gloomy things may seem, at least this we don't have to put up with this:

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:42:51 PDT

Kumbaaya In A Box

by digby

From Ceci:

President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.

In a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama expressed his concern over advertisements and online campaigns targeting moderate Democrats, whom they criticize for not being fully devoted to "true" health-care reform.

"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."

Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system.

In the call, leaders of both chambers expressed optimism that they will hold floor votes on legislation to overhaul the $2.2 trillion health system before Congress breaks in early August.

For his part, the president vowed to use his strong approval rating with voters to continue making the case for sweeping reform, according to one congressional staffer with knowledge of the conversation. Obama also hinted that efforts are under way to discourage allies from future attacks on Democrats, according to the source, who did not have permission to speak on the record about the discussion.

God I hate it when politicians insult your intelligence right to your face. That simplistic kumbaaya bullshit is about as useful as telling us to join hands and think happy thoughts and then we'll all have health care. I hated it when george W. Bush spoke to the public as if they were 5 year olds, but at least it was clear that he actually thought like a 5 year old himself. When Obama does it, it's infuriatingly condescending. (These comments remind me of a month or so ago when the white house official was asked by a reporter why the insurance companies were offering up all these cost savings and replied, "because they're good Americans.")

All you have to do is read the paper to know that the people standing in the way of any workable health care reform are mushy, centrist robots and insurance company whores in the Democratic Party. We have the majority, the Republicans are imploding, there is no debate at the moment among anyone but Democrats. In the middle of this hot negotiation, putting ads on the air that say "let's get some health care!" is a joke.

I suspect that the truth is that he thinks he's clumsily triangulating. But the groups that he's criticizing are actually trying to support his position on the public plan and attacking them undermines the public plan as well. (Of course, it's always possible that's the intention, but I hope not.)

The problem is that triangulation is for the purpose of positioning the president between two poles in the debate. He's just set one of the poles as the public plan, which says to certain wobbly Senators that it's negotiable. I would have thought the better way to deal with this is to assure these congressional twits (who gladly ate tremendous amounts of shit from right wingers for years, but get livid at the tiniest criticism from the left) that he isn't endorsing any of these attacks, but that there's not much he can do about it. It's a free country. These waverers might just realize that he's serious about getting a public plan without him having to explicitly tell them so.

By now it's obvious that dismissing and humiliating the base is a conscious White House strategy and I'm sure it's sometimes quite useful, even though it's a distinctly unsavory political tactic (and one that erodes support over time.) But in this case, if they really want health reform, it's counterproductive. He needs the outside groups to play this role and by publicly reprimanding them he's undermining these groups with their already skittish donors --- and the cause itself.

But again, that's assuming that's not exactly what they want to do. If they want to undermine the public plan then this is one good way to do it.

Update: FYI, I am aware of Ceci's perfidious antics. I wrote about it just last week. She is a Village kewl kid through and through. But it pays to remember that the Village is now in Democratic hands.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:00:12 PDT

For Our Own Good

by digby

This is interesting:

The military officers who rushed deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya out of the country Sunday committed a crime but will be exonerated for saving the country from mob violence, the army's top lawyer said.
In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro.net, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it.
It was the first time any participant in Sunday's overthrow admitted committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who made the decision that has been denounced worldwide.

''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.''

I think this is a natural outgrowth of the example the US has set over the past few years. People no longer believe that the rule of law is something they must adhere to as long as they can justify their actions as being done to "protect the country." I suppose it was always so, but America has made a fetish out of this excuse through this decade so I think it's taken on a new veneer of legitimacy. Certainly, it has made it impossible for any American leader to condemn this sort of thing with even the slightest bit of credibility.

This is the paternalistic view espoused by Henry Hyde during the Iran Contra scandal, in which he claimed that if the executive broke the law for the good of the country it wasn't a crime. (He said this to justify his view that Reagan's breaking of the laws was ok while Clinton allegedly lying in a deposition was an impeachable offense.) I suppose this concept is also an outgrowth of Nixon's famous statement that if the president does it it's not illegal. When President Nixon said that, however, it was shocking to average people. However obvious it was in practice that presidents routinely evaded the power sharing intent of the constitution, very few people thought it was a good thing that the president actually wasn't required to follow the rule of law. I'm not so sure about that now.

For the last several years, many people have been saying that the president has to do whatever's necessary to keep the country safe. That's what both Bush and Obama say to justify something like preventive detention and that's what the Honduran military says it was doing when it deposed a democratically elected president. (Cap'n Ed called it a "military impeachment.") And it seems to me that people are beginning to accept this idea --- when it comes to national security, the president and the military must not be limited by such prosaic concerns as the constitution. Someone might get hurt and that must be prevented at all costs.

Once again, I think we have to ask why, as an individual American, that logic wouldn't then apply to other things. Why should the government be hindered by the rule of law at all when lives are at stake? The police and the FBI and the DEA and the ATF and Homeland Security and the Border Patrol and any of the other agencies in the vast security state apparatus should not be hindered in their jobs to keep Americans safe any more than the president is hindered in keeping America safe from terrorists. Certainly, I can't understand how you could take a chance that someone like Charles Manson or Tim McVeigh or some sociopathic gang member might be released back onto American streets, but the mere possibility that a terrorist suspect could be free anywhere in the world precludes them even having a trial. It makes no sense.

Implicit in the constitution is the understanding that we cannot be safe from all dangers --- and that one of the gravest dangers to our safety is a government which does not respect civil liberties and the principles of democracy. This "protect at all costs" mentality stands that on its head. Once you say that the government doesn't have to adhere to the rule of law for the good of the country, the whole thing loses its meaning --- and unpredictable things start to happen. Like "military impeachments."

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:00:16 PDT

Ammo

by digby

The Urban Institute has released a study on the public plan option that should be of interest to those who are following this debate. They focus on the competition factor, particularly on the fact that consolidation and concentration have already made any complaints on that count moot, something we've written about here a few times:

This paper makes the argument that a public plan is important to health reform because it will contribute to cost containment, primarily by addressing problems caused by increased concentration in insurance and hospital markets. We describe how the public plan might be structured, how many people might be expected to enroll, and how much money the public plan might save. We discuss the most frequent arguments that are made in opposition to the public plan. We conclude that the private insurance industry would survive at about the same size but be more efficient and more effective in controlling health care spending.

Unfortunately, the debate over whether to provide a public health insurance option as a competitor to private plans under comprehensive health care reform seems to have become an ideological litmus test. Conservatives are fervently aligned against the option while liberals are as strongly in favor it. Those who oppose it fear that the public plan will have so many inherent advantages that private plans will be unable to compete, eventually leaving the system entirely in government hands by destroying a competitive insurance market. Supporters believe that a public plan is a critical fallback option in a universal system that would cover many high-need and low-income groups.

The arguments around the public plan too often ignore what we believe is the central reason for including a public plan as a component of reform: that health insurance markets today, by and large, are simply not competitive. And as such, these markets are not providing the benefits one would expect from competition, including efficient operations and consequent control over health care costs. We believe that the concentration in the insurance and hospital industries that has taken place over the past several years has been a significant contributor to this problem. The role of the government plan is to counter the adverse impacts of market concentration and, in doing so, slow the growth in health care costs.

In this paper, we first describe problems with competition in current insurer and provider markets, in particular focusing on the implications of consolidation in both markets. We then discuss how a public plan could help address these problems. Next, we examine how a public plan might be structured and how much money a plan might save. We address how large the public plan would be and what impact it would have on the current private insurance industry. We then examine the most common arguments against the public plan. We conclude by arguing that private insurance plans would survive but be more efficient and more effective controlling health care spending.

The survival of the insurance companies isn't something I personally lose much sleep over, but this info might be useful to those who need to refute the idea that the insurance companies will all be driven out of business if they are forced to constrain their enormous profits and pay their CEOs less than 15 billion dollars in compensation.

* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil

* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil

* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil

* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil

* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil

* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil

* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil

* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil

* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil

* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

* Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil

TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:37:03 PDT

Bizarre

by digby

Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the Governor's Picnic at Pioneer Park in Fairbanks the weekend of July 25, Palin said.

There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Palin made the announcement flanked by Parnell and most, if not all, of her cabinet.

Why not serve out her term? The presidential election doesn't begin for at least another two years. Wouldn't it be better to have a full term as governor of Alaska under her belt? In fact, I assumed she'd want to run for governor again so she could run for president as the second term Governor of Alaska. Give her a tiny bit of gravitas, which she badly needs.

I guess the base loves her so maybe all she has to do is run the megachurch and teabagger circuit for the next three years to get the nod. Who knows what the path to GOP leadership is these days? But whatever she does, it looks like she's going to do it her way. It should be fascinating to watch.

Update: And by the way, to those who insist that Palin hasn't governed as a social conservative, this pretty much proves otherwise.

And I don't know if you saw her press conference, but I almost expected her to start babbling about soul mates and David and Bathsheba. The Republicans are getting more deeply weird every day.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:00:14 PDT

Talk And Action

by digby

Thank you all for being so generous with your time, comments and donations to Blue America's Campaign For Health Care Choice and our project to tell Finance Committee Senator Blanche Lincoln that health care reform without at least a public plan is no plan at all. Now that the HELP Committee has released its report and all the Democratic Senators have committed to it, the action moves to Finance --- and Blanche Lincoln is one of the only Senators on that committee who is up for reelection in 2010. Next week she's going to be hearing from her constituents about her unwillingness to back a quality public plan.

You've been amazingly supportive and we appreciate it. You can still vote for the ad of your choice by clicking here.

But we aren't the only ones doing this sort of thing. Change Congress is also pressuring Mary Landrieu to support a public plan. Landrieu has been pretty strident and explicit in her condemnation of the public plan choice, but needless to say, if there was ever a state that needs more support, not less, it's Louisiana. It's outrageous that she would stand in the way of health care reform:

And the PCCC, DFA and Move On are running an ad in Washington DC with the names of thousands of people who are asking for a public option. You can ad your name to the ad here.

Finally, MoveOn is running this one in California, which is giving Difi heartburn. (The other day she sniffed that it "wasn't helpful," which means, it wasn't helpful to her. And that, of course, is the point.)

Adam Green has written about the various ad campaigns at Open Left today.

Obviously, nobody knows what's going to come out of the legislative meat grinder yet. Everything is very fluid. (What happened to those co-ops?) The devil, as always, is in the details and the details are changing every day. But we're hopeful that we can help guide the basic contours of the debate with this insistence on the inclusion of the public plan. We'll see what happens.

It's going to be a long hot summer.

.

noreply@blogger.com (dday) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:33:29 PDT

He Used To Be The Caucus Whip, Right?

by dday

Harry Reid explains why, I'm guessing, that was a bad fit for him:

Reid says he expects the tactic of gentle persuasion to work best, given the size of his Senate Democratic flock and the political divergences within it. “I don’t dictate how people vote,” he said in an interview this month. “If it’s an important vote, I try to tell them how important it is to the Senate, the country, the president ... But I’m not very good at twisting arms. I try to be more verbal and non-threatening. So there are going to be — I’m sure — a number of opportunities for people who have different opinions not to vote the way that I think they should. But that’s the way it is. I hold no grudges.”

I'm sure that other Senate Democrats would say that this style works well - for them. They don't get pestered into votes they don't like to take, they don't have any consequences for their actions on the floor of the Senate.

But Lyndon Johnson just came back from the dead, read this profile, and stabbed himself in the heart.

Democratic politicians of this age like to speak about raw numbers and votes and lament the lack of the same. Even in this age of 60 Democratic votes, Reid in particular has worked overtime to downplay the significance, in that gentle, not arm-twisting manner of his. Of course, the facts are that 60 votes are only required to end debate, not for every particular bill. And participation in the caucus should mean, almost by definition, not joining in filibusters from the other side.

If I'm not mistaken, there was at one time at least some power in the office of Majority Leader of the Senate, after all. There are committee assignments to dole out, and decisions on funding vulnerable incumbents, or appearing in their states, and legislation that wayward members might need to get to the floor, among other things. There are a whole set of incentives that can work in both directions - carrots and sticks, in the vernacular. Harry Reid's a carrot man in a stick world. And the carrots haven't exactly been enough.

The only person who seems to understand the power of the office of Majority Leader is someone who isn't even in the party, Bernie Sanders, who gets that you can demand the caucus not to participate in Republican filibusters, which would necessarily end them. As soon as we get 40 or so more social democratic-leaning independents in the Senate, I nominate Sanders for Majority Leader. He seems to know what to do with the job.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:14:31 PDT

One From Column A

by digby

One of the best arguments in the health care debate is the one that says every American should get the same health plan that members of congress have. Taxpayers pay for it so why shouldn't they be able to choose the same plan?

Just for informational purposes, for those who may not know, here's a brief primer on what we're already paying for:

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.
Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.

And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium.

That looks like a public plan worth having to me.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:45:38 PDT

Safety Net

by digby

In case you were wondering where the axe is falling first:

People who get California IOUs:

Grants to aged, blind or disabled persons
People needing temporary assistance for basic family needs
People in drug prevention, treatment, and recovery services
Persons with developmental disabilities
People in mental health treatment
Small Business Vendors

People California pays in cash:

University of California
Public Employees’ Retirement System
Legislators, legislative employees, and appointees
Judges
Department of Corrections
Health Care Services payments to Institutional Providers

Thank God the legislature and appointees are being paid. God knows they're indispensable...

.

noreply@blogger.com (dday) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:47:02 PDT

It's Good To Be The King

by dday

The loss of 467,000 jobs last month and the loss of practically every single job created this decade aside, at least some employees are back in business.

Business is back on Wall Street. If the good times continue to roll, lofty pay packages may be set for a comeback as well.

Based on analysts' earnings forecasts for 2009, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is on track to pay out as much as $20 billion this year, or about $700,000 per employee. That would be nearly double the firm's $363,000 average last year, and slightly higher than the $661,000 for the average Goldman employee in fiscal 2007, according to analyst estimates reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Well, that was a close one! For a second I thought the banksters would have to SUFFER for the damage they caused blowing a hole in the global economy. Thankfully, that task will fall only to the rest of the population.

By the way, you really shouldn't miss Matt Taibbi's epic takedown of Goldman Sachs, arguably the most devious actor in this whole mess, in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. They haven't put it on their website yet, but Zero Hedge has a very hard-to-read copy. It's a comprehensive look at Goldman's increasing ubiquity throughout practically all of modern life, and their role in manipulating Wall Street and K Street to get favorable outcomes. Goldman is like the Borg, and the ruling class has been assimilated. Needless to say, Goldman's none too happy about having their agenda exposed. Taibbi responds here. He's one of the only journalists who would dare to write this story, and he should be credited for that.

...Taibbi's article is on the Rolling Stone site. But I agree with those in comments, anything that can be done to support Taibbi's work in this matter ought to be encouraged. Also, he appears to have stumbled upon a very serious issue about Goldman Sachs front-running its clients, which is basically buying a stock before executing a large trade for its clients and taking the profit.

.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:00:35 PDT

Ugh

by digby

That lower one was in 1948-50. If we keep going down at the rate we have been, we'll surpass that in the next two months.

It's bad:

The American economy lost 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate edged up to 9.5 percent in a sobering indication that the most painful downturn since the Great Depression has yet to release its hold.

“The numbers are indicative of a continued, very severe recession,” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. “There’s nothing in here to show that the economy and the market are pulling out of the grip of recession.”

The latest monthly snapshot of the nation’s job situation, released on Thursday by the Labor Department, reinforced a consensus that high levels of unemployment were likely to remain for many months and perhaps years. That will almost surely increase the difficulties of finding work for millions of jobless people while limiting wages and working hours for those employed.

After a May report that showed the pace of deterioration was moderating — with a revised figure of 322,000 net jobs lost for the month — some economists expressed hopes that an economic recovery might finally be emerging. But the June report tempered such visions with the monotony of continued decline.

For another month, manufacturing jobs disappeared, dipping by 136,000, while construction jobs shrank by 79,000 and retail by 21,000. Health care remained a rare bright spot, adding 21,000 jobs.

The losses for June brought the tally of jobs shed since the beginning of the recession to 6.5 million — a figure equivalent to the net job gains over the previous nine years.

“This is the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all jobs growth from the previous business cycle,” Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington, said in a research note. She called this fact “a devastating benchmark for the workers of this country and a testament to both the enormity of the current crisis and to the extreme weakness of jobs growth from 2000 to 2007.”

noreply@blogger.com (tristero) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:39:52 PDT

An Answer For Doug MacKinnon

by tristero

Douglas MacKinnon, former press hack for Bob Dole, asks:

Why do so many on the left have such an unhinged hatred of [Sarah Palin]?

Well, Doug, I just want you to know, that, personally, I don't have an unhinged hatred of Sarah Palin. Repeat: I do NOT have an unhinged hatred of Sarah Palin. Not in the slightest.

My hatred hinges quite sensibly on her advocacy of a psychotic extreme rightwing ideology, her radical christianism, her courting of organizations that ooze contempt for American democracy, her propensity to lie the way normal people breathe, her enormous pride in her blithering ignorance, her sheer incompetence, and her mind-boggling megalomania.

And truly, Mr. MacKinnon, the Vanity Fair article you object to are the least of the reasons to hate Sarah Palin, even if they make the rightwing love affair with such a repellent personality seem rather...unhinged, if you know what I mean.

Updated with a link to a Neiwert post.

noreply@blogger.com (digby) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:26:56 PDT

What Works

by digby

For those who are worried about the health care reform that's being hashed out in congress right now because you believe that single payer is the only answer, I would just ask if you think that France, Holland and Germany should change their systems? They all offer universal coverage, their statistics are far superior to ours and their people would probably kill you before they'd let you change them. And none of them have what we think of as strict "single payer" plans.

Here's a brief overview of what these three countries have:

Holland

Health care in the Netherlands is financed by a dual system. Long-term treatments, especially those which involve (semi-)permanent hospitalization, and also disability costs such as wheelchairs, are covered by a a state-run mandatory insurance. This is laid down in the Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (AWBZ, see article in the Dutch Wikipedia), "general law on exceptional healthcare costs" which first came into effect in 1968.

For all regular (short-term) medical treatment, there is a system of obligatory health insurance, with private health insurance companies. These insurance companies are obliged to provide a package with a defined set of insured treatments [1].

This system came into effect in January 2006. For those who would otherwise have insufficient income, an extra government allowance is paid to make sure everyone can pay for their health care insurance. People are free to purchase additional packages from the insurance companies to cover additional treatments such as dental procedures and physiotherapy. These additional packages are optional.

A key feature of the Dutch system is that premiums are set at a flat rate for all purchasers regardless of health status or age. Risk variances between funds due to the different risks presented by individual policy holders are compensated through risk equalization and a common risk pool which makes it more attractive for insurers to attract risky clients. Funding for all short term health care is 50% from employers, and 45 percent from the insured person and 5% by the government. Children until age 18 are covered for free. Those on low incomes receive compensation to help them pay their insurance. Premiums paid by the insured are about 100 € per month with variation of about 5% between the various competing insurers.

Prior to 2006 (and since 1941) there were two separate systems of (short-term) health insurance: public and private. The public insurance system was executed by non-profit "health funds", and financed by premiums taken directly out of the wages (together with income taxes). Everyone earning less than a certain threshold income could make use of the public insurance system. However, anyone with income over that threshold was obliged to have private insurance instead.[2].

Germany

Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance. Germans are offered three mandatory health benefits, which are co-financed by employer and employee: health insurance, accident insurance, and long-term care insurance.

Accident insurance (Unfallversicherung) is covered by the employer and basically covers all risks for commuting to work and at the workplace.

Long term care (Pflegeversicherung) is covered half and half by employer and employee and covers cases in which a person is not able to manage his or her daily routine (provision of food, cleaning of apartment, personal hygiene, etc.). It is about 2% of a yearly salaried income or pension, with employers matching the contribution of the employee.

There are two separate systems of health insurance: public health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) and private insurance (Private Krankenversicherung). Both systems struggle with the increasing cost of medical treatment and the changing demography. About 87.5% of the persons with health insurance are members of the public system, while 12.5% are covered by private insurance (as of 2006).

France

The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit independent agencies not linked to the State. A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically. An employee pays 0.75% of salary to this insurance, and the employer pays an amount to the value of 12.8% of the employee's salary. Those earning less than 6,600 euros per year do not make health insurance payments.

To allow full reimbursement of health costs, many employees also pay a voluntary premium (up to 2.5% of salary) to a mutual insurer. In the 1960s, 30% of the population paid for supplementary health insurance. This rose to 50% in the 1970s. By 2000, 85% of the population were paying privately for additional insurance coverage.[5]

In addition to payroll contributions, a general social contribution (or social security tax) of 7.5% (known as the Contribution Sociale Generalisée or CSG) is levied on employment and investment income. Most goes to health insurance.[5]

After paying the doctor's or dentist's fee, a proportion is claimed back. This is around 75 to 80%, but can be as much as 85%. Under recent rules (the coordinated consultation procedure [in French: parcours de soins coordonné]) General practitioners ("médecin généraliste" or "docteur") are more expected to act as "gate keepers" who refer patients to a specialist or a hospital.[5] The incentive is financial in that expenses are reimbursed at lower rates for patients who go direct to a specialist (except for dentists, gynecologists and psychiatrists).

As costs are borne by the patient and then reclaimed, patients have freedom of choice where to receive care.[5] Around 65% of hospital beds in France are provided by public hospitals, around 15% by private non-profit organizations, and 20% by for-profit companies.[5]

England and Canada have more straightforwardly government sponsored "single payer" systems.

All of these systems have their good points and their bad points. But every last one of them is better than what we have in the United States right now in one important respect: universal coverage. They all guarantee that everyone has access to affordable insurance and have created systems to make that happen, which are dependent upon the government to regulate and administer. All of them have changed over time and continue to evolve today. Many of them are facing the same financial pressures we are, but still to a lesser degree. (Aging populations, expensive treatments etc...) The satisfaction rate is much, much higher among citizens of those countries than here. I've been sick in those European countries and believe me navigating their systems was a breeze compared to what I've experienced in the health care maze here. I would take any of them over what we have now.

So, while I am a proponent of single payer, (which I am defining as medicare for all, even though that too is a private, public partnership) I recognize that there are other ways to get to affordable, universal health care and I'm willing to see what the congress comes up with before I decide to bail on the whole thing.

I don't know if the plan the congress and administration produces will be any good, but I do know that the concept of having a public plan operating alongside private insurance with mandates, employer contributions and public subsidies did not come out of thin air. Various forms of that kind of system are in place elsewhere and they can work. It remains to be seen if they can pull it off but I see no reason to be reflexively hostile to it at this stage of the game.

I do agree that single payer should have been the leftward position going into this, because it would have given us much more room to maneuver. But then, we all should have backed Dennis Kucinich in the presidential race because he's the only one who ran with single payer in his platform. That ship sailed two years ago as far as legislative strategy is concerned -- and actually probably 60 years ago when Harry Truman lost the first health care battle. I haven't exactly seen liberals organizing around single payer all these years so we could be prepared for this moment so I'm disinclined to blame the politicians alone for that.

There's nothing wrong with advocating for the system you want and I'm not saying people shouldn't do that. I'm not the issue czar telling people what the proper progressive position on things has to be. I'm only pointing out that it is possible to have huge improvement in our system, including universal health care, through other means than single payer (however you define it.) While we debated "socialized medicine" for 60 years, the Europeans have done a lot of experimenting and have figured out various ways to get this done. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Update: Corrente asks a very smart question about the proposed HELP plan and whether or not it will preclude a state or region enacting its own single payer plan. The groups who are whipping the congress on specifics of the public plan should read this. It's a good idea and will tell us a little bit about the legislative intent here.

.

noreply@blogger.com (dday) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:00:09 PDT

Milbank Would Write About This, But He's Busy Scheduling A Listening Session With The NRA

by dday

I don't care about any of this, Nico Pitney is still such a dick:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a staffwide e-mail that the newsroom would not participate in the first of the planned events — a dinner scheduled July 21 at the home of Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth.

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

For all the stories about blogger ethics, I don't have access to anyone at the highest levels of government that I can sell to corporate lobbyists.

These "salons" have already been cancelled, and look what the Publisher says was the real problem:

"Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

Translation: "And I would have got away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

Well, I'm glad that whole mess is over. Now the Post can go back to being influenced by lobbyists and setting conventional wisdom in Washington without all that dirty money changing hands.

Update: from digby --- just curious about one other little matter: who in the allegedly anti-lobbyist White House agreed to this? And did whoever it was think it might be important to include some non-industry representatives, who can't afford to pay 25k to eat some stale canapes with wealthy villagers at this intellectual salon where all the "people who will get it done" were gathering? But then perhaps that would be inappropriate. After all, if you have the media, the titans of industry and the White House all under one roof it would be unseemly to allow any dirty hippies in the door. They could light up a fattie right there in the drawing room and start singing "I want to fuck you like an animal" to Ceci Connolly.

And anyway, they are clearly irrelevant to the process. As are the citizens.

.