Without Feathers

Her father Scott got elected or something yesterday.

Doing well on the BC women’s basketball team and still my favorite contestant from AI/5.  Good luck to her dad too.

The President did, quite specifically, say that the public option will be forced to make a go of it out of premiums, not the Federal Treasury.  No ambiguity about it.  It will be just like the USPS, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae… well, maybe those aren’t the best examples, but I get what he means.

He also said that the public option will realize its savings from being a not-for-profit entity (that should lower costs by about six percent) and by not paying the executives who run it — I don’t think that’s quite what he meant to say but, again, I get it.  And, since the program will only be available to those who seek it, there will be no sales, marketing or advertising expenses. 

No word on administrative costs or taxes, but it looks like the public option will enjoy about a 10% cost advantage over the for-profit insurers who will, no doubt, flock to the exchanges to scoop up the otherwise uninsurables for whom that will be the primary market.  What could go wrong?

I have mixed feelings about his assurance that we will no longer be paying the health care costs of the 12 million or so illegal aliens living and working in this country.  On the one hand, I don’t think that people who entered this country illegally should be given anything, let alone free health insurance, on the other hand, come on, we don’t want them coughing and bleeding all over everything while they’re here.  Anyway, I just don’t believe him when he says that they will not be covered in some way (<cough>taxes<cough>).  I’m not calling him a liar, you understand, just sayin’.

President Obama says that  “the Public Option” will be just one of a “basket” of options available to Americans who, if they like their private insurance coverage, will be able to keep it.  “The Public Option” will just be there, you know, sittin’ there and stuff in case there’s anything you don’t like about your private insurance like if it costs too much or requires co-pays or whatever.

There’s absolutely no truth at all to the suggestions that “the Public Option” is a “trojan horse” designed to sneak single-payer national health into the system or that it is in any way intended to undermine the private insurance market.  It will just be another competitor on the same level playing field as everyone else is all.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

OK, just a few points I want to clear up and then I’ll sit quietly (for awhile, anyway) and let the grown-ups work out all this which is obviously way to complicated for my limited capabilities.

• Will “the Public Option” have to pay its way from premiums collected or will it be able to dip into the Federal Treasury if it is unable to pay claims out of its loss reserves and current cash flow?
• Will “the Public Option” have to pay its own administrative expenses or, like the Social Security Administration (which runs the Medicare program), will it be able to coerce health care providers through force of law to cover its administrative expenses out of the remimbursements they receive from it?
• Will “the Public Option” be liable for the same local, state and federal taxes as private insurers or, like Medicare, will it be exempt from all taxation?

Now we know that “the Public Option” will be under no pressure to make a profit — in fact profits will not be part of “the Public Option” at all, so there should be a cost savings of about six percent (the percentage of Earnings Before Interest, Taxes and Amortization enjoyed by the private health insurance industry); but I guess I’m also asking if there will be any pressure to break even?  Or will “the Public Option” just go to the taxpayers whenever it needs a cash infusion?

Because, you see, here’s the thing: If “the Public Option” doesn’t have to pay taxes and doesn’t have to pay its own administrative costs, and doesn’t even have to break even because it can make up the difference out of public funds; How can any private insurance plan EVER compete against it?  I mean, it just doesn’t add up — literally.

So what exactly is “the Public Option” and what exactly is the purpose of offering a “competing” plan that doesn’t have to, uh, compete?

OK.  I’ll keep quiet now while my betters do the heavy thinking.

Enough has been said and written about the Gates/Crowley affair.  I just want to get one more word in.  Two words, really: Exigent Circumstances.  Most Americans mistakenly believe that the police cannot enter your home without a warrant.  That isn’t true.  The police can enter your home anytime they want if they believe exigent circumstances (aka probably cause) justifies it.  The only real problem police have with entering a home without a warrant is the admissibility of evidence obtained without a warrant.

So what does this have to do with Sgt. Crowley entering Professor Gates’ home?  What possible “exigent circumstances” could Crowley have had to enter without a warrant?  Listen to this recording.  It is the Cambridge Police Department dispatcher talking to Sgt. Crowley (who, by the way, never spoke to the 911 operator)

The most significant piece of information relayed to Sgt Crowley is near the beginning of the recording when he asks where the suspects are.  The dispatcher tells him: “Both [suspects] are still in the house.”  Just to be clear, the dispatcher tells Crowley: “Both [suspects] are still in the house.”

Exigent circumstances — black and white.  Crowley approached the front door of 17 Ware St. in the belief — later proved to be mistaken — that two “larger men” (according Lucien Whalen on the 911 recording) were in the house at 17 Ware St.  Had Sgt Crowley simply walked away from the front door when Professor Gates commenced his tirade, he (Crowley) would have been guilty of gross dereliction of duty — and probably worse had the police dispatcher later proved to be correct.

Sgt. Crowley wasn’t just doing his job on that humid July afternoon up in Cambridge town, he was — to the best of his knowledge — putting himself in harms way to protect the lawful resident of that home, because — it cannot be said enough — when he climbed the stairs to the front door of 17 Ware St., he believed that: “Both [suspects] [were] still in the house.”

You want to speculate on Crowley’s white anger and suppressed working class rage over finding this uppity negro the master of such a fine house?  No need to speculate on Crowley’s state of mind, because there is a recording of the police dispatcher telling him that he and the lawful resident of the house were probably in danger.

We also don’t have to speculate on what was on Professor Gates’ mind.  He was quite candid about it in an interview for the Daily Beast (.com) a few days later:

My house. I mean, he was there investigating? He should have gotten out of there and said, “I’m sorry, sir, good luck. Loved your PBS series—check with you later!”

Apparently the professor was miffed that proletarian Crowley failed to recognize his eminence as a PBS auteur.

I’ll let the erudite Professor Gates have the last word here.  I was a little confused at first by this clip.  For a moment I thought it might be an excerpt from an old episode of “Good Times.”  You’ll understand why towards the end.  This is well worth listening to the end, especially the last minute or so. (Say what Skip about “yo’ mama?”)

For me: Unexpected but not surprising. I didn’t expect Sarah Palin to run for a second term as Governor of Alaska. Even if it was a job she enjoyed and arguably executed well, her post November ‘08 tenure has surely been excruciating.

I can’t think of another example of one party hounding an office holder of the other party so relentlessly for simply being a politically successful member of the opposition. True, the pressure on Palin can be considered a politically legitimate effort to short circuit the ambitions of a potentially dangerous adversary. Still the remorseless onslaught against Sarah has a bad odor about it.

You may not be aware of just how pernicious the campaign against Governor Palin has been. It isn’t just dry-drunk Maureen Dowd, professional gossipist Gail Collins, Keith Olbermann (who famously resigned from MSNBC in 1998 because he was expected to report on the Monica Lewinsky, obstruction of justice scandal) and Trig-truther Andrew Sullivan.

The Governor has also been under the constant duress of 15 lawsuits claiming ethics violations since last November, with no end in sight, running up a legal bill of over half a million dollars despite the fact that 13 of those lawsuits have been summarily dismissed and, of the other two, one was settled for $8,200 (reimbursement of travel expenses claimed for family members) and the other appears to be heading for a fate similar to the 13 non-starters..

This — along with simple malicious slander (such as the gross misrepresentation of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s policies on predator control) — has proven to be an effective way to counter a governor who must otherwise be considered one of the most competent and effective in her state’s (at least recent) history. I only wish the Republicans could work up the gumption to challenge the two squalid crony-masters currently looting NY and NJ! What? You don’t think a relentless campaign of ethics challenges would stand up any better against Corzine and Patterson? Bear in mind, both of these guys have already been caught morally compromised.

So if (like me) you are a Palin fan, this looks like the start of bigger things for Sarah. If you curdle at the words “you betcha!” this must look like a hard-won victory to you. Just Remember: More than one moose became moose-burger by underestimating the lethality of that hockey mom.

Sorry, I couldn’t get it to rhyme exactly.

The drawn out victory of Al Franken over Norm Coleman in the Minnesota senate race is interesting to me for exactly one reason: Al Franken won because the rules say he won.

It is almost certain that Coleman received hundreds or maybe even a few thousand more votes than Franken. But more of the valid, countable votes went to Franken, not Coleman. Under the rules that were in effect on November 4, 2008, absentee ballots were required to be cast in a precise, well defined and adequately disseminated manner and, as it turns out, a big clump of absentee ballots cast for Coleman did not meet that standard. Too bad for Norm Coleman.

This reminds me of an election held eight years earlier in Florida in which Republican county commissioners ran their elections a damn sight better than Democrat county commissioners ran theirs. The Republicans focused on making sure that the voting machines in their counties were in good working order and that polling station staff were well trained and knew what to do in the event of an unforeseen issue. They also took the time, trouble and expense to assure that Republican voters knew how to operate the machines and cast their ballots.

The Democrats focused almost entirely on rounding up people who had never voted in their lives and dumped them en masse at polling stations staffed by people with grossly inadequate training. The inevitable results were as predictable as an Al-Qaeda attack using airplanes. Everyone should have known exactly what the outcome was going to be.

Well, this time the chads fell the other way. Norm Coleman won more votes, but Al Franken won the election — fair and square. You won’t be hearing me saying: “Not my senator!” Well, actually, you might, because I don’t live in Minnesota, but you get the point. Should Coleman have disputed the election as vigorously and tenaciously as he did? Absolutely yes! And, apparently, he did a much better job of following the law and leaving no stone unturned than Al Gore in 2000.

Gore might have actually beaten Bush in Florida if he hadn’t tried to finagle his way to victory by cherry-picking Democrat controlled counties in which to fight. But the fact remains: Under the rules in effect on November 7, 2000, George Bush won the Florida Presidential election — both in votes and in allocation of electors. So get over it if you are still simmering about Katherine Harris (whose only role in the election was to certify the results) and some Fox News consultant (who happened to be related to Bush).

DC Metro Trains Collide

It’s hard to see how the Bush administration could have been any clearer about the safety problems of the Washington D.C. Metro (commuter train) system: Railroad Accident Report, November 3, 2004. Regrettably, the Democrat dominated government of D.C. didn’t care.

Three years later Bush’s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) tried again to have the dangerous conditions in that system fixed: Federal Investigators Question Metro’s Safety, (By Eric M. Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, January 9, 2007; Page A01) but by then Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the House (of Representatives) — which has ultimate authority over D.C. — and, apparently, had no interest in the lives and safety of citizens who, after all, aren’t part of her electoral constituency.

On January 20 of this year we got “hope and change” in the White House, but no new concern for the dangerous situation on the rails of the nation’s capital.

How many more have to die, Mr. President, how many more?

And before you assail me with a liberal hissy-fit over my interpretation of events, please show me a single factual error in this post. You see: This game can be played from both directions.

And I think Benny Hill was the funniest man who ever lived.  Now that we’ve gotten past all that, here’s a clip that should go directly into the “Public’s Right to Know Hall of Fame.”

One thing that gets me angry, truly, flames-coming-out-of-the-ears pissed off is when the mainstream media deliberately and maliciously misrepresents the words of a conservative for the corrupt purpose of advancing the liberal, Democrat agenda.  It should piss you off as well regardless of your political affiliations.  It should piss you off regardless of how much you loathe and despise the victim because it isn’t just political.  This sort of defamation strikes directly at the heart of civil discourse and reasoned dissent.

A couple of weeks ago Rush Limbaugh said of the new president:

“Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.  So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

I certainly see room for disagreement in that statement, but there is nothing whatever disloyal or un-American in vigorous opposition to a policy with which one does not agree.  Any rational reading of the entire statement, in context (and, in fact, there is even more relevant context surrounding the above quote), can only conclude that Limbaugh was speaking in opposition to a policy, not the President himself.

Regardless of the facts in the matter, the  impartial, unbiased, objective mainstream media chose to pick four words radically out of context to support a media onslaught — clearly lead by the Democrat political machine — for the deliberate purpose of stifling legitimate political debate.  It doesn’t matter which side of the debate you are on, you should be furious and aghast at this attempt to misrepresent honest — and probably correct — dissent for clearly partisan purposes.

Let me be very clear about this: The mainstream media did not do this in an attempt to inform and enlighten.  The mainstream media did this for the express and only purpose of slandering the opposition in a futile attempt to silence dissent on behalf of the political party — the Democrats — that they (the mainstream media) prefer in power.

Well, what was I expecting?  As our esteemed commenter K once observed:

“Oh, that’s so cute. You were expecting accuracy in reporting?”

What Rush actually said, and I believe this is a case in which context is EVERYTHING:

And here’s a link to the complete transcript.

Seriously, think about this.  Is this really how you want to conduct the debate?

Believe it or not that admonition is intended not for my cousins of the blue state persuasion but for my brethern conservatives and that handful of brave souls who still adhere to the Republican banner (a white elephant lying feet up, trunk akimbo on a field of deficit red).

I am begging, pleading that my conservative chums and right-wingmen allay their partisanship through the next few days and join there adversaries in celebrating the most historic Presidential Inaugaration since the first in 1789.  Left or right, red or blue, black or white, Tuesday, January 20, 2009 will be a day for the ages.  And the oath sworn at noon today will mark a great turning point in the history of U.S. politics — if not the history of the U.S. itself.  So don’t spoil it by acting like a Democrat.

Barack Hussein Obama was elected fairly and squarely and by substantive — though not landslide — majorities in both the popular and Electoral College votes cast by the largest voter turnout in history.  For those who are not taking my point, let me more direct: Barack Hussein Obama is our duly elected President, the head of the Executive Branch of our government, and “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (so, please Will Smith and Oprah, stop refering to him as your Commander in Chief unless you have taken up a uniform of the U.S. armed forces). He is neither the pResident Select nor the Commander in Thief.  Like every other president before him (except probably JFK) he will become president legitimately and lawfully.

He will be my president as much any Democrat’s and I intend to give him a fair shot at it.  And I am asking my conservative and Republican comrades to do the same.  For the 100 days following the Inaugaration, he will have my unqualified support.  I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt for the remainder of this year, but if he hasn’t solved all of my problems by the 2010 election, well, I will consider all Democrats indelibly tainted.

My bill of particulars is drawn in large measure from the criticism of the 43rd administration, much of which — it might surprise you to learn —  I agree with, to a degree.  But these should be no-brainers for the incoming administration:

• Put an end to the morally indefensible “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy governing the participation of homosexuals in the U.S. military. Why this is an issue is simply beyond me. Either homosexuality is such an impediment to discipline and good order that there shouldn’t be the least compunction about prohitibiting it. Or, more likely, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference as long as unsolicited sexual advances are strictly off limits. In either case, this issue could and should be resolved with a simple and swift executive order.
• Close the Gitmo detention center – don’t just order it closed; don’t just lament its existence; close it.  Personally, I have always believed that it was a lousy response to a lousy situation, regardless of how bad the detainees are or were — and they were.
• Bring the troops home — don’t send them to the sinkhole of Afghanistan.  That war was lost the moment the Bush administration decided to engage in nation building.  Focusing on Iraq has had nothing to do with the failure of Afghanistan.  The misbegotten Afgan adventure — I mean beyond the routing of the Taleban — was doomed from the start no matter how many lives and how much treasure we squander on it.  Afghanistan, as a country, never existed before the 20th century and it never will.  The recipe for success there? Let it simmer in its own juices; bomb from time to time as necessary to remind them that there are consequences to bad behavior.
• Cure Parkinson’s, Cancer and AIDS. You can do it now that science will once again be unfettered and solidly on the public dole.  I don’t remember who, exactly, but I remember someone saying during the 2004 Democrat convention that “Christopher Reeves would be walking by [then] if Al Gore [had been] elected in 2000.”  Well, maybe not, but I’m expecting miracles from the scientific community now that there will no longer be restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.  I expect Obama to reverse the Bush administration and return to the Clinton policy on hESC more or less immediately…er, um…maybe not the Clinton policy of no funding regardless of restrictions, but, you know, the policy Al Gore maybe, might have implemented had he been elected in 2000.
• End Gobal Warming! Well, the man-made part of it anyway.  The solar and geophysical trends of the last 20,000 years will just have to work themselves out.  Hopefully, once petroleum exhaust and cow farts are under control, all the other warming that’s been going on remorselessly since the last ice age will kind of work itself out, or won’t matter…or something.
• Save us from economic ruin.  Why should anyone have to suffer the consequences of their own irresponsible actions?
• If you can’t give us all free health care, at least make someone else pay for it, just like the Europeans and Canadians who get all the health care they can handle without ever seeing what percentage of their tax bill goes to “free” medicine.
• And while we’re on the subject of Europeans: Can we please let them pay a little more for their own defense?  I mean, does it seem right to you that these people should be forced to ally themselves with a corrupt empire like the U.S. just to keep the ayatollahs and Russians at bay? Think how much better they will feel about themselves if we just let them take care of their own security problems.

The list could go on, of course, but I’ll settle for just that little to-do list.  I would, however, like to remind the incoming administration of something that should not be overlooked:

Al-Qaeda is determined to attack inside the United States.  They might use airplanes or truck bombs or suicide bombers.  They might highjack airplanes and hold the passengers hostage or they might crash the airplanes into buildings or into other airplanes or for find some other nefarious purpose.

They might use the truck bombs against public or private buildings or just explode them in public places with a lot of people around.  They might do something similar with suicide bombers.  Or they might place cell phone triggered bombs on commuter trains or in hotel lobbies.  They might have guys with machine guns, hand grenades and satchel bombs attack airports, hotels and restaurants.

I don’t know how I can be more specific than this — I mean I’ve just detailed several scenarios that must surely be on AQ’s drawing board right now.  And anyone can imagine this happening at any time.  So President Obama, if any of this happens on your watch: It’s on you buddy — just like Bush is saddled with 9/11.