Lunkhead of the Week
I could have chosen many of the usual suspects, from Rush to Lou Dobbs to Glenn Beck, for spreading fear and falsehood over the healthcare debate, calling it socialism and comparing Obama to Hitler. But you've heard of all those lunkheads. So my choice this week is the spokesman for Americans for Prosperity (via TPM), a group leading a tour of the country to rally rage against reform. Listen to the way he riles up this mostly senior crowd, scares the hell out of them with lies, and incites them into anti-government action.

Did President Bush Let Gog and Magog Dictate Foreign Policy
Here's a post I prepared for the church-state blog, but then thought better of actually hitting the publish button. Might as well put it somewhere.

You might want to go ahead and swallow whatever morning beverage you're drinking before you read this account of President Bush's efforts to rally support for the Iraq War, apparently confirmed in a new book by French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice. We can all at least hope that it's not true.

The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to [then-President Jacques Chirac], asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

Sadly, on the heels of news that Scripture and religious imagery adorned the Pentagon's Iraq War reports to the Bush White House, this very strange story can't simply be dismissed, can it? Perhaps a reporter could follow up with Mr. Chirac and Mr. Bush and determine if it's possible that recent U.S. foreign policy was indeed driven by a 5th-grade reading of Ezekiel.

[UPDATE: Nevermind, published it anyway.]

Must-Read
Stephen Pearlstein writes this in tomorrow's Washington Post:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

A New Approach
Maybe if Paula Abdul hadn't quit American Idol, this speech by John Brennan, formerly of the Bush Administration and now the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, might have gotten into the news. It's a long one, but worth the read.

First, and perhaps most significantly, the fight against terrorists and violent extremists has been returned to its right and proper place: no longer defining—indeed, distorting—our entire national security and foreign policy, but rather serving as a vital part of those larger policies. President Obama has made it clear that the United States will not be defined simply by what we are against, but by what we are for—the opportunity, liberties, prosperity, and common aspirations we share with the world.

Rather than looking at allies and other nations through the narrow prism of terrorism—whether they are with us or against us—the administration is now engaging other countries and peoples across a broader range of areas. Rather than treating so many of our foreign affairs programs—foreign assistance, development, democracy promotion—as simply extensions of the fight against terrorists, we will do these things—promote economic growth, good governance, transparency and accountability—because they serve our common interests and common security; not just in regions gripped by violent extremism, but around the world.
...
Indeed, it was telling that the President was actually criticized in certain quarters in this country for not using words like "terror," "terrorism" or "terrorist" in [his Cairo] speech. This goes to the heart of his new approach. Why should a great and powerful nation like the United States allow its relationship with more than a billion Muslims around the world be defined by the narrow hatred and nihilistic actions of an exceptionally small minority of Muslims? After all, this is precisely what Osama bin Laden intended with the Sept. 11 attacks: to use al Qaeda to foment a clash of civilizations in which the United States and Islam are seen as distinct identities that are in conflict. In his approach to the world and in his approach to safeguarding the American people, President Obama is determined not to validate al Qaeda’s twisted worldview.

Clunker Update
No link, but heard on NPR that a deal has been reached with the House. Senate will vote today to approve the House extension, with the understanding that when they come back in a month, the House will revise to take the $2 billion from new funding instead of from the stimulus bill's renewable energy loan program.

Crazies Out in Force
Democratic Rep "physically assaulted" at event. No details, so that could I guess mean most anything. Still, did anything like this happen even once during our march to war based on a lie? Taken from the Florida recount playbook, nobody expresses violent outrage like Republicans.

Caught!
I admit, I am not the legitimate author of Article 19. No sense lying anymore now that my authentic Kenyan birth certificate has been uncovered.
Make your own here.

Watching Other People Brown
I missed this, but over the weekend Michael Pollan had a feature in New York Times Magazine, his thoughts on our current relationship to cooking after watching the new Julia Child-related film starring Meryl Streep.

That learning to cook could lead an American woman to success of any kind would have seemed utterly implausible in 1949; that it is so thoroughly plausible 60 years later owes everything to Julia Child’s legacy. Julie Powell operates in a world that Julia Child helped to create, one where food is taken seriously, where chefs have been welcomed into the repertory company of American celebrity and where cooking has become a broadly appealing mise-en-scène in which success stories can plausibly be set and played out. How amazing is it that we live today in a culture that has not only something called the Food Network but now a hit show on that network called “The Next Food Network Star,” which thousands of 20- and 30-somethings compete eagerly to become? It would seem we have come a long way from Swanson TV dinners.
...
But here’s what I don’t get: How is it that we are so eager to watch other people browning beef cubes on screen but so much less eager to brown them ourselves? For the rise of Julia Child as a figure of cultural consequence — along with Alice Waters and Mario Batali and Martha Stewart and Emeril Lagasse and whoever is crowned the next Food Network star — has, paradoxically, coincided with the rise of fast food, home-meal replacements and the decline and fall of everyday home cooking.

Don't be fooled, by the way. He does get many of the reasons why we are keen to watch others cook but no so much into doing it ourselves. Much of the piece is spent delving into exactly those factors that explain perfectly well the reasons behind this loss, which he suggests may be far more damaging than even sympathetic readers would have thought. That the reasons for this cultural change may be perfectly understandable though, and the prospect of turning back essentially impossible, doesn't undo or lessen that damage.

You Be A Senator
Your "cash for clunkers" program has helped send car sales suddenly upward. Buyers are lining up for the $3500-4500 rebates, trading in gas guzzlers for more efficient vehicles (61% more efficient, according to the White House). But, they are doing it so much faster than you expected when you initially voted for the program, it's about to run out of money months ahead of schedule. You could have probably set more stringent mileage limits (currently, buyers get $3500 for improving mileage by 4-10 mpg, or $4500 for improving by more than 10) and paid out a little less tax money per rebate, and had an even better success. As it is, though, a win for the economy and a modest win for the environment, right?

So, here is your dilemma: the House has already passed an extension of $2 billion and gone on break for August. The rebate program is set to run out of money by Friday, and you're set to go on your own recess after that anyway. And oh yeah your staff just told you that the House bill secured the money for their extension by taking $2 billion from a renewable energy loan program that probably would have more environmental benefit. You're not really sure how the initial estimate - that this money would fund rebates through September - could have been so far off, and there's not enough time to figure that out before recess.

You never would have been for $3 billion in a clunkers program and $2 billion less in energy loans in the first place, but that's essentially what auto dealers across the state are ringing your phone off the hook demanding you support.

What do you do?

White House Video
I like this inside look - describing what happens to mail sent to the President.

Why Did We Wait So Long
To start calling it "health insurance reform"? Obama started last week, and I'm hearing Senators finally doing the same on my teevee today. It seems obvious and effective. Many many Americans are wary of reforming their health care, but wouldn't mind taking the scalpel to their health insurance. Couldn't they have thought of this during the transition, or the campaign?

Lunkheads of the Week [CORRECTED]
Southerners. Southern Whites.

Quote of the Day
Henry Louis Gates, on his meeting yesterday at the White House:

We hit it off right from the beginning. When he’s not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy.

Only in the South
This excitement was in The Tennessean:

Available online earlier this month, and also at the Hams & Jams Market adjacent to the Café at 8400 Highway 100, Piggy Popcorn is already developing a strong following.
...
One customer was so taken with the snack she ordered 15 pounds for her son’s wedding.
...
Some who haven’t tried the snack, which is a special gourmet popcorn that is popped in bacon grease, coated with a caramel sauce and then sprinkled with lean bits of hickory-smoked country cured bacon, say they are unsure about the flavor.

"American People's Demands of Government Largely Irrational"
That should be the headline of whatever story accompanies this news. Seriously, could we finally get some coverage that forces this recognition?

More Lunkheads Can't Stand the Heat
Blue Dog Democrats have reached a deal with House leadership. Public option remains intact. According to Brian Beutler at TPM, what the conservative Dems got in return are these things:

1) No House vote until September. This part sucks because it gives Republicans an entire month to bash the plan. The good news is that the Waxman Committee will vote a bill out this week. So by the time recess is done, there should be a bill ready to vote on.

2) The version favored by House leadership exempted small businesses from penalties for not covering their employees if their total payroll was less than $250,000. The compromise with Blue Dogs doubles that amount to $500k, allowing many more businesses free to leave their employees uncovered and not having to pay into the public system.

3) Instead of tying payment rates to Medicare, the government's public option will negotiate pay schedules separately through the Secretary of HHS.

4) Individuals whose income falls between 300 and 400% of the poverty rate - hence eligible for government subsidy for health coverage under the House plan - will receive a slightly smaller subsidy, potentially saving taxpayers, Beutler reports, $100 billion according to Blue Dogs.

LOTW Update
I guess the withering shame of receiving Article 19's demoralizing Lunkhead of the Week award took its toll. Paul Stanley has resigned from the TN Senate.

Colbert Says Goodbye to Palin
Clip of her farewell address must be seen to be believed.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sarah Palin Will Be Missed
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

Stimulus Money in Tennessee
When I see that the NYTimes has written an article on Tennessee, I usually cringe as I click the link. Today's though - following the Tennessean's own series (1, 2) on the way the stimulus money is being used - paints our Governor as what he is at his best: forward-thinking and willing to act. Is his a good long-term strategy? Using welfare money to create immediate jobs in heavily depressed, rural areas? I haven't a clue. But it's nice to see positive, job-creating stories from the stimulus money.

Kind of makes me want to take a road trip to Perry County and buy one of those turnovers from the Armstrong Pie Company.

Dear Mitch Albom
Stick to sports and sap. (and maybe learn a little math)

No Guns, No Crying
One unfortunate result from last November's election is that Tennessee Democrats lost control of both the state House and Senate. All of the crazy Jesus and guns legislation that we've kept bottled up in committee for years has come rushing out. Included is one that's sure to do wonders for tourism, making it legal to carry concealed handguns into restaurants and bars. Now, any establishment that wants to limit its clientele to non-gun-carriers has to indicate that with a clear sign out front, a la no smoking. I noticed 3 Crow in East Nashville is trying the humorous route. Made me laugh, anyway.

See also Colbert's very funny/scary piece on this idiocy.

Lunkhead of the Week
Paul Stanley.

Deep Thought After Spending 1 Day on Facebook
Blogging is now long-form writing.

What the...
I turn around and the Red Sox go from 3 games up to 2 1/2 down in a week. Looks like the bats have gone cold all at once. How did that happen so quickly? They've dropped faster than Lance Armstrong this week.

Sell Sell Sell
Now that I've given in just today and activated an account on Facebook, it is a sure sign that the fad is over. No longer cool. Pass the word.

The Crazies
Jon Stewart last night took on the birther crowd.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Honest Questions
This sounds great. Crush Netanyahu indeed. But how? With what leverage?

Shortz (Includes A19 Poll Question)
When I can't sleep, I like to work on the Sunday NYTimes crossword (it's reprinted the next Sunday in the local paper). I usually end up taking a stab at it every week though I almost never finish and rarely get beyond 75-80%. In a sign that declining standards and grade inflation is alive and well into middle age, I count 50% as the fault line of my failure/success. If you try it as well, you may enjoy this ongoing Q & A with puzzle editor Will Shortz. I knew that puzzles were sent in by others who are paid a small amount when they are selected, but I didn't know there were so many submissions (75-100 a week!) and I was shocked at the involved weekly process he describes for how a puzzle gets from submission to publication:

When I select a puzzle for publication, I factcheck it (of course) and edit the clues. On average about half the clues in a Times puzzle are my own. I edit first for accuracy, because it doesn't matter how clever or interesting a clue is if it's wrong. I also edit for the appropriate level of difficulty given the day of the week, as well as for freshness, playfulness, humor and overall balance of subjects.

After I edit and typeset the puzzles on my handy Mac, I send them to three test solvers, one of whom rechecks the accuracy of every clue and answer again. These testers are Frank Longo (a talented crossword constructor and editor himself), Nancy Schuster (a former crossword editor as well as a national champion solver), and Evie Eysenburg (my "everyman" solver). All three call me with their comments and corrections. I polish the puzzles and send completed electronic files, a week at a time, to The Times, where they are test-solved by a fourth person, Ellen Ripstein, who's also a former crossword champion. Ellen prepares the files for online publication and other formats, but also serves as another backup.

This used to be the entire process. Some years ago, though, I noticed a person on the Times's crossword forum, Martin Herbach, who wrote incredibly literate and knowledgable comments about little flaws in the published puzzles. And I thought, why should I wait until the puzzles are published before getting Martin's feedback? So after Ellen finishes her work on the files, she sends PDFs of all the puzzles to Martin. Our understanding is that if he sees a problem, he lets me know immediately, in time for me to make a change. And, if he doesn't, all is well.

The whole thing is pretty fascinating if you are into puzzles. Apparently, he enjoys every kind of puzzle. Here's the question for the day: do you puzzle? Which do you like/hate?

Palin's Resignation Speech
Edited by professionals.

People
What's wrong with them?

Qualms about President Obama's stewardship of the economy are growing, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, as Americans become more pessimistic about when they predict the recession will end.
...
By 50%-44%, they disapprove of how he is handling health care policy.

Who are the morons that approved before, when Obama was proposing his health care plan and challenging Congress to act quickly, and now disapprove, while Obama supports that same plan (basically) and is still challenging Congress to act? If public support dwindles, there is no shot at a public option. Too many very very fearful Congressmen and women. We'll get a bill that outlaws denial of coverage based on pre-existing condition, and a couple of cost-cutting measures and that's it.

Lunkheads of the Week
Nelson, Lieberman, Wyden, Landrieu. We were really making headway, lunkheads.

Franken Watch
It was nice to see Al loosen up a tiny bit today. On substance he was actually quite good as well - though he elicited nothing interesting from the Judge, he made some good points himself. Whether he was actually funny, or just seemed so against the comedy competition on the Senate Judiciary I don't know, but after watching hours of hearings he had me laughing. Didn't overdo it, just some light moments - see for yourself:

Health Care Bills
The good news is that, thanks to the Internet tubes, regular citizens like us can go ahead and read pending legislation like the health care reform bill (pdf) that is moving forward in the House. The bad news is that it's 1018 pages long. But there's good news again, which is that even though we could never read and digest the whole thing in time to be completely informed for the debates to come, we have a brilliant and committed news media who will capably and accurately describe the content. Ha!

If you are interested in reading *some* of it, the Committee's website also has it broken down into summary pages and by topic.

You can read the health care bill that came out of the Senate's HELP Committee - checking in at a slender 615 pages - here. The Senate Finance Committee has yet to get through the mark-up phase of their version of the bill. That is scheduled to start next week.

Verdict on Lindsay Graham
Condescending asshole.

Verdict on Sotomayor
She's smart. Avoids questions in a way that doesn't insult the listening audience as much as most nominees.

From the Church-State World
Ralph Reed is attempting a comeback.

Moment of the Day
Senator Al Franken speaks at Sotomayor's confirmation hearing as a member of the Judiciary Committee. No, he's not saying anything too interesting. But remembering his impression of Senator Paul Simon during SNL sendups of a confirmation hearing (I forget, was it Thomas?), seeing him up there for real is kinda funny.

Movie Recs
Last week, I caught Food, Inc. My earlier fear about being too grossed out to be effective did not bear out. Certainly there are unpleasant images, but nothing as graphic as I expected from the NYTimes review. In general, it's a good film - but not a great one. If you haven't read Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma, and feel confident you never will, perhaps there will be more new perspective here for you than there was for me. If you have read it, some of the images and interviews will reinforce the book (including extensive screen time with Joel Salatin, who runs Polyface Farms, the focus of about 1/4 of the book). There were a few new and horrifying things - or at least I had forgotten them if they are in the book - emphasized here, especially discussion of Monsanto's vigorous - no, ruthless - enforcement of seed patents. For me, that was the emotional apex of the film.

Recommended. But it's not a great, great documentary like, perhaps, the material desperately needs. I have to say, too, that it's pretty depressing. As I've told others, I came out of it in many ways more hopeless than I did walking out of the Al Gore movie, which was pretty darned scary. I had a real sense of having nowhere to honorably turn, just competing bad options to varying degree.

Second, I saw "Moon", which was fascinating and well done as a sci-fi film on a budget. If you can get past a couple of front-end implausible things, it's a compelling story. If anything, I wished it was longer, to spend more time on some of the psychological issues raised which really should have been more intensely explored by the character(s?) in question. As it is, much of that is left to us.

Lunkhead(s) of the Week
Blue-Dog Democrats.

Bruno
The NYTimes' A.O. Scott says that, some laughs aside, Bruno will leave you with a bad taste.

On Returning
I assume nothing happened while I was away?

Thanks to Doug and Farge for livening up the place yesterday. Anyone with the keys should feel free to do that any time. I am, after all, only one man.

I did everything I could to avoid coverage of the Michael Jackson funeral yesterday. 2 media outlets got through my defenses though: ESPN somehow managed to put clips on Sports Center. Before I could get to my remote, Magic Johnson was telling me that his Lakers jersey, like Kobe's, would not have been in homes across America if it hadn't been for Michael being there first, opening up the African-American merchandising barrier... Hmmm. That's just not true, is it? Does anyone (Magic included) really believe that black basketball stars wouldn't be popular and accepted but for the success of Thriller? Does that even make any sense?

Then early this morning I had a dream that Michael Jackson was my older brother and that our dear father was the Reverend Al Sharpton. Waking up in a panic I realized that my radio alarm was dutifully playing NPR, and they were in the middle of a segment on yesterday's ceremony. Sharpton was speaking to the crowd and he was saying that contrary to public opinion there is nothing strange about the Jackson family, and specifically the Jackson father. They were simply coping, he said, with strange situations. That certainly cleared up for me the sleeping with young boys and the giraffes in the backyard.

Maybe the strangest Jackson-related story of the day though was this one.

Taking Matters into Our Own Hands
In the comments thread to Don's last post before giving it all up to become a beach bum, farge had this to say:

This freaky piece makes me wonder if someday I will be looking down from our moon colony at the Lost Red Planet (Earth).

At the Beach
Aren't you jealous? Will be back with posts next week.

Good News
For all their painful questioning at oral arguments, the Supreme Court has ruled the strip search of the 13-year-old was unconstitutional, 8-1 no less (Clarence Thomas of course...). Haven't read the details yet - looks like a couple of concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part opinions as well, but there you go. Decision here (pdf).

Sanford
One truly messed up dude. I feel sorry for his family, and a little sorry for him - irrelevant personal dramas shouldn't have to be played out in public. Still, it's pretty stupid and inviting of scrutiny to abandon your job, with little warning, to address personal dramas.

No Public Option? No Money
This is good advice. I got that e-mail from McCaskill too.

Get 'Em While They're Hot
CafePress

Obama Press Conference
Read the transcript here. No time to excerpt so you have to find the good parts on your own. I'm off...er...hiking the Appalachian Trail or something.

Funny
John Hodgman - who plays PC in the commercials for Mac computers and also author of The Areas of My Expertise - perhaps going over even better to the C-Span crowd than to the gathering of radio and TV correspondents hearing him in person. Either way, the President seemed to like his nerd humor.

Reporting From Tehran
A new piece from the NYTimes' brave Roger Cohen begins this way:

The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley with arms raised and his small unit at his side. “I swear to God,” he shouted at the protesters facing him, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.”

A man at my side threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. There were chants of “Join us! Join us!”

Read the whole thing.

I don't know how effective these protests will be, whether they will - or even should be - continued (not anxious for another Tiananmen). But you have to be moved by the breath-taking, soul-stirring courage on display. They thought they were living under an Islamic Republic, but it has been shown to be a military dictatorship, a rule they are refusing to accept under pain of sticks and tear gas and bullets.

Here's hoping the sentiment of this commander is widespread and growing among police forces; that loyalty to conscience and to family convince them to turn their resentment away from the protesters refusing their demands, and onto those who order their beating.

Why Do I Do It?
Go see movies that I know are going to be bad, that is. Something about the summer makes me think a Hollywood action flick is just what the doctor ordered. Occasionally it works. It didn't tonight. Don't see The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. For the first hour or so there were actually a couple of interesting moments, maybe even poignant in a psychological drama kind of way, but only a couple. The last 30 minutes quickly descend - gratuitous violence, pointless car crashes, logic-defying stupidity.

And what can you say about James Gandolfini? The guy is without question an amazing actor. He made The Sopranos great, and showed sweeping emotional range in the process. I can see why he doesn't want to take parts as a mobster, but why does he keep taking these shitty one-dimensional roles?

Read Robert Reich
And hope the President reads it too.

Lunkhead(s) of the Week
Richard A. Collins (CEO of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.), Don Hamm (CEO of Assurant Health) and Brian Sassi (president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc.)

During a House Committee hearing this week, panels of people told horror stories about losing health coverage after getting sick when their insurance companies searched and searched and finally found some trivial oversight in their application. These 3 health industry executives earn Lunkhead of the Week honors for their unanimous one-word answer to a pointed question about this method of denying coverage. From the LATimes (via Kevin Drum)

Committee members took turns, alternating Democrats and Republicans, condemning such practices.

"When times are good, the insurance company is happy to sign you up and take your money in the form of premiums," said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). "But when times are bad . . . some insurance companies use a technicality to justify breaking its promise, at a time when most patients are too weak to fight back."

"I think a company does have a right to make sure there's no fraudulent information," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.). "But if a citizen acts in good faith, we should expect the insurance company that takes their money to act in good faith also."

Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives:

"No."

If You Want to Have a Decent Day
Don't read this. And especially don't read any of the reports on this page.

But Really
Having a gun in the house is a great idea.

Almost Forgot
Happy Bloomsday, for anyone who celebrates that.

Charter Schools
Kevin Drum has graphs showing exactly when to send your kids to charter schools, and when to remove them. I'm not sure I even understand the charter school phenomenon well enough to have much of an opinion. I'm glad though that locally we have very few, even if that seems about to change.

Oh Well
From the NYTimes

By now, it is a familiar litany. Study after study suggests that alcohol in moderation may promote heart health and even ward off diabetes and dementia. The evidence is so plentiful that some experts consider moderate drinking — about one drink a day for women, about two for men — a central component of a healthy lifestyle.

But what if it’s all a big mistake?

For some scientists, the question will not go away. No study, these critics say, has ever proved a causal relationship between moderate drinking and lower risk of death — only that the two often go together. It may be that moderate drinking is just something healthy people tend to do, not something that makes people healthy.

“The moderate drinkers tend to do everything right — they exercise, they don’t smoke, they eat right and they drink moderately,” said Kaye Middleton Fillmore, a retired sociologist from the University of California, San Francisco, who has criticized the research. “It’s very hard to disentangle all of that, and that’s a real problem.”

I always figured that by the time you found people who are disciplined enough to drink every day - but only ever 2 - you've got people disciplined enough to make lots of other healthy decision. But I never really thought through the ethical and practical problems in running a test thorough enough to settle the matter. The interesting bits of this article get into those difficulties.

Obama to Doctors on Health Reform
Read the speech here.

We know the moment is right for health care reform. We know this is an historic opportunity we've never seen before and may not see again. But we also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what – who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that's worked in the past. They'll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors. We've heard it all before – and because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse.
...
The other day, my friend, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, handed me a magazine with a special issue titled, "The Crisis in American Medicine." One article notes "soaring charges." Another warns about the "volume of utilization of services." And another asks if we can find a "better way [than fee-for-service] for paying for medical care." It speaks to many of the challenges we face today. The thing is, this special issue was published by Harper's Magazine in October of 1960.

Members of the American Medical Association – my fellow Americans – I am here today because I do not want our children and their children to still be speaking of a crisis in American medicine fifty years from now. I do not want them to still be suffering from spiraling costs we did not stem, or sicknesses we did not cure. I do not want them to be burdened with massive deficits we did not curb or a worsening economy we did not rebuild.

All Hell [UPDATED]
may be about to break loose in Iran, so says Steve Clemons in a very ominous warning. Everyone who cares about democracy and who is moved by the courage it takes to - like Mousavi - stand up for reform amid an oppressive hard-line regime should be watching closely and fearfully for the fate of the voices of change.

[UPDATE: Shots fired, one killed, at Mousavi rally.]

Lunkhead of the Week
Frank Gaffney, for his take on President Obama's trip to the Middle East.

The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
...
With Mr. Obama's unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls "the Muslim world"...there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.

Limbaugh made a strong push around the back stretch with his attempts to paint right-wing murdering hate-monger James von Brunn as a liberal. But he faded down the stretch, perhaps worn down by the brief challenge from actor Jon Voight's lunkheadishness. This let Gaffney - whose smears of the President in the Washington Times also got a mention in Krugman's latest column about the "big hate" - cruise in by a length.

Health Care Deep Thought
We need more on the Democratic side making noise about a single-payer plan so that merely a government-run option can occupy the moderate, compromise position. As it stands, Republican obstructionists (which is just to say, Republicans) are painting a competitive government option as left-wing crazy talk. We need to remind moderate Americans that there is actually a considerably more "left-wing" way to go that is in fact supported by a great number of liberal Democrats. The Obama-Kennedy plan would be quite a welcome change but it would not dismantle the insurance-based health care system by any means.

I'm Sure They Will Get Vests Now
But why does it take tragedy to motivate action? The security guard's union had been requesting bullet-proof vests for a couple of years.

Sarah Palin Admits....
Her daughter "could be anyone's"? That's what I got out of her critique of Letterman anyway.

Home-Grown Terrorists
First Roeder, and now von Brunn. Just wondering, and obviously I don't have a bit of evidence here, but is there any doubt they both got their TV news from Fox?

Food, Inc

I've seen this trailer a couple times at the local art house, but did not have the sense that it would likely become a cultural docu-event a la Super Size Me. If this NYTimes article about Food, Inc is any indication, though, it just may. When Martha Stewart is pushing your movie, people could pay attention. And it sounds like what they see will be fairly... uncomfortable to watch.

Viewers who haven’t thought much about how all that food in the grocery store got to be there will likely find it hard to toss a few packages of pork chops and some Froot Loops in the cart and call it a day. Some viewers will undoubtedly look away during the meat cutting and processing scenes. For parents the eye-averting moment will come during repeated slow-motion scenes of a 2-year-old’s last vacation. His mother, now a food-safety advocate, explains in a tearful voice-over the gruesome details of his death after he ate hamburger tainted with E. coli.

I understand why they want to do that, but it would be nice if we could convey a positive message of healthy, organic, locally grown, humane... without having to send viewers through a horrifingly graphic, emotional wringer to get there. Sounds like the film approaches the food problem from many different angles, so hopefully that's just one small element. Speaking for myself though, jarring disgust is not an effective long-term strategy for changing my behavior.

In Which I Turn A New Chapter in Life
Yesterday, for the first time, I bought a CD at Starbucks. No, it does not feel good to have fallen from grace in this way. Please deride me - and the new stage of middle-aged, yuppified, cultural irrelevance this no doubt represents - in the comments.

Lunkhead of the Week
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). Remember the good old days when questioning the foreign policy - and indeed the patriotism - of the Commander in Chief while he is out of the country on a diplomatic mission (and while we're at war!) was considered a no-no? Inhofe has upped the ante and earned the coveted LOTW award by 2 lengths.

You *Are* an Asparagus Lover
Pretty interesting

A team of researchers at U.C. Irvine studying implanted false memories asked 128 undergrads questions about how well they liked certain foods growing up. A week later, the students were called back and shown their results. But the researchers secretly changed the answers of one group of students to say that they loved asparagus the first time they tried it. When these students were later asked to order dishes on a hypothetical restaurant menu, those who had read falsified self-testimony about their childhood love of asparagus were significantly more likely to order it than they had been just a week earlier.

I suspect this tactic works better with a "team of researchers" than with a "team of parents", where you're maybe more likely to get an argument from your kids. But maybe not? Tell 'em they loved broccoli ever since they were born. You can read the study here.

Cairo Speech
Remarkable, I thought. But as you know I'm a sucker for such things. You can read it here. Or watch below.

Arresting the Crazies
One, anyway.

CSpan Sez
Obama's speech in Cairo will start at 6 AM Eastern time. Get up, or stay up, depending on your circumstances...

Al Gore is Wrong!!
The Atlantic's James Fallows has been on a mission the last 2+ years to correct the myth and castigate the myth-tellers when it comes to gradual temperature change. Thanks to Kevin Drum's post, I've just found his impressive work and am thoroughly convinced. See all of Fallows' related posts here.

Article 19 Summer Produce Buying Guide!
This is the time of year when we get delicious and plentiful red bell peppers. Here's a buying tip I, er, picked up today: Don't get one that has a hole - even a small one - and make sure you check! That brown goo that will undoubtedly be inside is probably not a tasty peanut sauce.

If You Didn't Already Know
Don't take Oprah too seriously.

Uhh, California?
What the hell?

In a special election on May 19, voters rejected a batch of measures on increasing taxes, borrowing funds and reapportioning state money that were designed to close a multibillion-dollar budget gap. The cuts Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed to make up the difference, if enacted by the Legislature, would turn California into a place that in some ways would be unrecognizable in modern America: poor children would have no health insurance, prisoners would be released by the thousands and state parks would be closed.

Sotomayor
She said one thing - I suppose in her whole adult life - that the crazies of the GOP have to hold on to. You've heard it by now, but here it is:

...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male...

This statement alone - given in 2001 - has been used by Newt, Rush, et al to brand her as "racist", "un-American", "hateful", and the like.

I read the whole speech finally (so you don't have to, though I recommend it) aiming to demonstrate for myself how the statement has been misconstrued and doesn't really mean what it sounds like it means. You know, the famous out-of-context quote (as if there is another way to quote...). I have to say though that the facial meaning of the statement is not all that far off from what she seemed to have been trying to say, a point she made with remarkable thoughtfulness and admissions of uncertainty. This is an intelligent person, trying to think earnestly about the relationship between one's personal and cultural heritage, and the impact that may have on one's judgment.

As for the statement itself, one thing we can't do is brush this aside as a thoughtless sentence made off the cuff. We've all said stuff out loud we don't mean, don't believe, etc. Sotomayor's was a prestigious lecture - with presumably prepared remarks - given in honor of a famed, apparently, Latino judge at a conference on Latino/Latina "presence on the judiciary".

So what was her point, that being a Hispanic woman makes her smarter than white men? Obviously, no. Or at least, not quite. First things first, let's open the lens a tiny bit and quote the whole sentence:

Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Two things: one ("I would hope"), it is a statement of aspiration, not a confident assertion of racial superiority. Second, and more importantly ("who hasn't lived that life"), her equation emphasizes differences in life experience, moreso than differences purely in ethnicity.

Elsewhere in the speech, it is evident that she believes this impact to be very much behind-the-scenes in the psyche, not that she believes judges should consult an internal WWHD (what would Hispanics do?) in reaching each decision.

Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

And beyond that, she clearly believes this "richness of experience" is only a positive when it is watched.

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is no neutral perspective. Given that, she seems to be saying, the justice we seek - and the justice America demands - is better, and more readily, served by a judge whose life is rich in experience, not because it makes them smarter, or more just in itself - no, in fact, experience most of all leads to "limitations" that may become "assumptions, presumptions and perspectives" that require "complete vigilance in checking". But what rich experience does is make the essential tasks of good judging more likely.

[T]o understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care.

This is a weighty and important discussion - the role of culture and personal experience in our enactments of judgment. It's a shame it's been reduced to such a cartoonish debate over whether she is, seriously, a "liberal David Duke" for uttering it. And I can only anticipate she will be distancing herself from these issues as much as possible - interpreting it in the most antiseptic way possible - in her confirmation hearing. But in actuality it was a bold speech in the questions she was clearly wrestling with. Mostly, though they are presented as questions and hopes. She seems confident only about one thing: our differences impact the way we view the law and apply it. She doesn't pretend to know how, to what extent, or entirely what should be done about it, or even what can be done about it, but it's a fact that she believes shouldn't be ignored. A more proportional diverse judiciary, she says, would give us large enough samples to find out how the law is changing as a result.

The controversial conclusion that frankly can be drawn is that she's at least open to the idea that being a white male brings with it inherent cultural limitations that are less easily overcome (presumably because of a common lack of interest in doing that work), and that left to our own devices white males would not have made critical advances in American justice for all. Yes, she says, Brown v Board of Education was decided by 9 white men, but it was argued by Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP. Yes, advances in women's rights were stamped by all white male supreme courts, but thanks should be given to attorneys like now-justice Ginsburg for showing the way and essentially demanding a moment of empathy.

Wouldn't it be great if the Senate could have a serious debate about such an issue as whether the law (or anything) can be read and applied with a perspective of objectivity? And whether or not, if the answer is no, we should just pretend we can? Are these acknowledgments better left to the academics and out of public view? This question of empathy is essential to justice, but how does a judge's ability on that score rank as compared to abilities in logic, and how are those 2 qualities related?

It could have led to a pretty interesting discussion if we had serious thinkers in charge who, I guess, didn't care about staying in charge. Until I read her speech though I wasn't aware just how directly that conversation was being invited by her selection. We'll see how willing the White House is to let her engage the topic when she faces the all-white-male Senate Judiciary committee later this summer. It will be interesting to see just how completely she disavows the remark.

An Official Article 19 Prediction
I know lots of activists think this Supreme Court challenge of same-sex marriage bans is a bad idea. The cause is making decent progress going state to state in legislatures and state courts, the argument goes, and the last thing we need is the highest court in the land issuing a bad decision it will take years and years to undo. This is just the kind of cautious cynicism that would ordinarily speak directly to my jaded heart.

But not this time.

I would like to make a prediction. I think the Supreme Court will take this case, and I think they will rule that denying marriage status to same-sex couples violates their constitutional rights. Here are my reasons:

1. The argument is just too powerful to ignore. When it comes right down to it, and judges are face-to-face with an equal protection requirement, they have a hard time - California notwithstanding - explaining with a straight face why same-sex couples can be relegated to a different status legally than hetero couples. (See Iowa)

2. The import of having Boies and Ted Olson side by side on this can't be understated I think. Just a few years ago they went through this bitterly partisan battle and now they are coming together not for something trivial but for the idea that the Constitution guarantees equal rights to all citizens. In addition, the conservatives on the court are accustomed to agreeing with Olson. It will be difficult for the court to resist the moment.

3. It's inevitable and everyone knows it. They can be on the right side of history, or on the wrong side. They can be Plessy, or they can be Brown.

4. We only need 5 votes. Presumably, hopefully, the 4 liberal-minded Justices (Souter/Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens) are already there. Thomas and Scalia are already against. That leaves just one out of Alito, Roberts and Kennedy, just one of those three whose general conservative views don't extend to anti-gay sentiment. There are plenty of that kind of conservative out there (see Olson). Importantly, Kennedy already wrote the opinion to invalidate sodomy laws. He got 6 votes for that, and while we lost O'Connor that still leaves 5. I don't see why the same 5 wouldn't come together over this issue. But I could almost as easily see Roberts joining in.

5. Public opinion is already shifting on this issue. By the time the case could wind its way through the courts and be heard by the Supremes, we'll be that much farther along.

6. I know that the ACLU is a proud and essential organization with many important victories. I love what they stand for and almost always agree with them 100%. They say the time is not right for this challenge. Olson says the time is right. And he's won more than 75% of the cases he's taken to the Supreme Court. So maybe he knows a thing or two about where the court is.

Admitedly, there's not much middle ground here. On this timing issue, either I'm right (and Olson is), or the ACLU is right and he's made a big mistake. A loss *would* be a damaging setback. But recently I read "Ellory's Protest", the story of Ellory Schempp who as a teenager decided not to participate in Bible readings and prayer recitation at his Pennsylvania public school in the 1950s and was ostracized and punished by school officials for his refusal. He got a lawyer and after years of legal argument the Court ruled that such religious exercise by public school officials is unconstitutional.

We don't have mandatory Bible readings in schools today because of the decision brought on by a courageous plaintiff and a determined lawyer. And fighting the lawyer all the way? With protests that it was the wrong time and the wrong case? The ACLU.

They were understandably overly cautious then, and I hope and believe they are now too. One thing I know: if they wait until they're sure to win they will have waited too long. The justice of too many will have been denied, and besides, that's no way to make history. Anyway, we don't have Ellery Schempp and his no-name attorney. We have David Boies and Ted Freakin' Olson. That's plenty to kick ass with. Time to do it.

For the Kentucky Fans
Here we go...

The NCAA has charged the University of Memphis with committing major violations during the 2007-08 basketball season under former head coach John Calipari, according to a report by The Memphis Commercial Appeal on Wednesday.

The NCAA's notice of allegations stated that the school was guilty of "knowing fraudulence or misconduct" on an SAT exam by a player on the 2007-08 team.

Guess Who
...is going to challenge California's same-sex marriage ban in the Supreme Court? An interesting combination of lawyers.

Question of the Day
Which of the following will Republican obstructionists allow to take their inevitable seats first, the highly qualified Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, or the popularly elected Al Franken in the US Senate? Which can they drag out the longest?

Aimless and Embittered
So at least we took down an organized cell of top-notch terrorists in New York, planning to blow up synagogues and shoot down planes and the like, right? A-list jihadis? Not so much.

[T]he overall portrait that's emerging is that of a group of struggling, disaffected petty criminals, who bonded at a Newburgh, NY mosque over having spent time in prison, before being taken in by a Pakistani immigrant looking to win leniency for a crime of his own.

There's little doubt the bumbling would-be bombers went far enough with the plot to demonstrate that they had the intention to commit terror, and for that they'll pay the price. But the whole tale comes off perhaps more as a sad glimpse into the lives of a loose group of aimless and obscurely embittered Americans than as a dire illustration of the threat of home-grown terrorism.

Watch Obama's Gitmo Speech
I think he's a bit angry. Defensive, at least. See for yourself.

[UPDATE: After seeing Cheney's speech, the anger/annoyance in Obama's seems perfectly placed.

UPDATE2: Andrew Sullivan really liked the President's address.]

New Legislation Quiz
The credit card reform bill that just passed the Senate 90-5 contains which of the following provisions:
A) Requires credit card companies to give 45 days notice before any rate increase.
B) Prohibits credit card companies from raising finance rates on any debt that is not at least 60 days late. And requires any rate increase in that instance to be lowered again after 6 consecutive timely payments.
C) Allow guns to be carried in national parks
D) All of the above

The Answer is D. Yes, I'm afraid the US Senate couldn't defeat a gun amendment....in the credit card bill. God bless America.

Wow
Through an elaborate media spectacle including a TV special and a book, scientists who worked for 2 years in secrecy are unveiling the complete fossil of a 47-million-year-old creature. "Ida" was a 10-month-old female... something that investigators claim will "change everything" about how we view human evolution. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have done much of a job explaining that to reporters:

About the size of a small cat, the animal has four legs and a long tail. It's not a direct ancestor of monkeys and humans, but it provides a good indication of what such an ancestor may have looked like, researchers said at a news conference.

This is very cool and all. But I do have a minor gripe. I'm not asking for sophisticated scientific analysis here or anything. In fact, if it were here, I probably wouldn't understand it. But, come on, throw us a little bit of a bone here (pardon the pun). If it's "not a direct ancestor", how does it help change the way we view human evolution, and how would it tell us "what such an ancestor may have looked like"? What about it so convinces the scientists who have worked on it that it's instructive at all about human ancestory? Would it be so hard to get just a mini-explanation that takes us a half-step beyond "Trust the scientists; they say this is huuuuge"? I don't doubt that there are excellent answers to these questions, just saying that's kind of the *news part*, right?

I had to rant about that to keep me from ranting about the idea that serious scientific discovery is now being treated like some kind of corporate product rollout.

The film, called The Link, will be shown on The History Channel Monday evening. You can see info on the book here.

One Way to $5 Million
Wonder if Woody Allen's next movie will be as profitable as his lawsuit against American Apparel.

Townes van Zandt
With a new tribute album out, Steve Earle talks about his "tor-mentor".

To all but a handful of his closest friends Van Zandt was a remote, elusive figure, apt to disappear and turn up with equal unpredictability. As mentor to Mr. Earle he was hardly a steady, guiding hand, and he was much too stoic to dispense sage advice about songwriting or anything else. The premise of their relationship was something like, if I didn’t think you were good enough to do it yourself, you wouldn’t be here. He did, however, recommend that Mr. Earle always put the top back on the bottle so that the alcohol wouldn’t spill when it inevitably got kicked over and, when injecting drugs, to use clean needles every time.

He also instructed Mr. Earle to read “War and Peace,” though Van Zandt had not read the book himself, as Mr. Earle discovered to his surprise when he dutifully returned with questions about it. “I just thought you should,” Van Zandt idly told him.

Supreme Court Hopes
Stephen Pearlstein: Forget abortion. It's the anti-trust, stupid.

Earth to Farge, Come In Farge
This seems pretty troubling. Hopefully somebody who reads this blog occasionally has enough breaks in between caring for her newborn(?) that she can shed some light on the real story here.

It's Grading Day
So no time to post. Here, read this good news instead.

It Wasn't a "Remark"!
It was a magazine article, no doubt carefully crafted, with plenty of opportunity to edit, re-think, take back, re-phrase, etc.

And while I'm at it, the people Feherty should apologize to are *not* the Speaker and the Senator, but to the military personnel that, in my opinion, were the most clearly insulted of all in his asinine piece.

Timing
Long-time readers (and I mean really long-time) may remember my fascination with cicadas. That is, fascination with the idea of 17-year cicadas anyway, not that I like hanging out in their presence. I was disturbed to learn that climate change may be altering the characteristic that has kept them going as a species: their peculiar life cycle.

Periodical cicadas best known for their 17-year-long life cycle are emerging four years early in several Atlantic states, including North Caroline and Maryland.
...
[A] paper to be published in the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science suggests that mild winters affect trees that young cicadas feed upon, messing with the insects' timekeeping.

Funny
This check is funny enough all by itself.

But funnier still when you read the story that apparently inspired someone to write the check. At Verizon Math, George Vaccaro details his efforts to get folks at Verizon to admit they quoted him the wrong price because they couldn't grasp the difference between $.002 and .002 cents, including an epic call to customer service. There is audio of the phone conversation as well, but I enjoyed just reading it.

Cell Phones
When did students lose the art of being inattentive the old-fashioned way: daydreaming? At least then you bear some resemblance to a person that's listening - vaguely looking ahead, etc. - with the added bonus that you can get away with it for longer.

Dwindling
On the heels of Arlen Specter's defection, Joe the Plumber is now leaving the Republican Party as well. Hilarious. It's nice to finally see the screwed up coalition that is the modern GOP finally unraveling. If they're not militia crazy, they lose Joe. If they are, they lose Specter (i.e., Pennsylvania). If they try to walk the middle, they lose both.

The Next Supreme Court Justice
First of all, when was the last time a President actually picked the consensus favorite as a Supreme Court nominee? It certainly hasn't happened since I started paying attention (circa Clarence Thomas). Still, I guess that won't stop the speculation business. And so far, the money is on Sonia Sotomayor, presumably because a) she's a woman - which the Court desperately needs, and b) she's Hispanic, which the Court has never had.

As for her actual qualifications, abilities,and judicial temperament, of course Republicans find her lacking - no big surprise. And among Democratic/liberal commentators, either Sotomayor is a horrible choice or an outstanding choice, depending on what you read. Figure it out for yourself.

Either way, and whoever Obama picks, we need more women there. 51% of the population and 11% of the Supreme Court is just pretty ridiculous. And Ginsburg is not exactly a model of health. Let's not forget too that when it came to a cabinet, Obama was not opposed to naming a well-known figure. Hell he wanted Sanjay Gupta to be his Surgeon General. So I think he just might surprise everybody. Oprah for Supreme Court? Judge Judy? Well, maybe not that for out, but may at least break with recent tradition. I guess we'll see.

Oops
Specter screwed up, pissed off his new Democratic colleagues, and now has lost seniority on committees. I wonder if Obama regrets offering such immediate and unqualified support. Still, I don't think his presidential embrace was ever about Specter's campaign for 2010. It's about trying to get things accomplished in the meantime. Obama's not trying to help him win re-election so much as he's trying to win Specter's support over the next year and a half in return for helping him win re-election. That's how I see it anyway.

To that end, if he's really not going to play ball on the issues - and it doesn't look like he is, then cutting down on his committee influence is the better option toward getting things done - from judge confirmations to health care legislation to energy overhaul.

Star Trek
"The best prequel ever." I don't read reviews before seeing the movie, but that would seem to be a glowing recommendation. Consider this your Media Monday post for the week.

Weekend Deep Thought
I guess 50-1 are pretty good odds after all.

Swine Flu Question
We're supposed to cover our mouths when we cough, in case we have the illness, and we're supposed to not touch our mouths, so we don't get it. It seems impossible to follow both rules. Discuss.