You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2009.

gave up on anything more serious than that today

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

click image for video

And to keep up with the trivial spirit, but add some balance, since Angel kicked Twilight guy’s ass in a poll

this fantastic video

and the commentary of the author of the remix

Didn’t forget True Blood – waiting for the funny video of it.

But still thinking of Being Human


Click here to add text
Click here to add text

Stalwart Cindy Sheehan still protests, changing location from Crawford to Marta’s Vineyard (which is “a lot nicer”).

“The reason I am here is because … even though the facade has changed in Washington D.C., the policies are still the same,

The one article covering the event goes out of its way to note the absence of the followers:

But Sheehan no longer has the following she once had, when thousands joined her in Crawford and across the country. As CBS News White House producer Robert Hendin reports, there were was only a handful of people in her audience yesterday, in addition to the four speakers. There were more present from the media than there were protesters.

OK, let’s set the record  straight about coverage: How many protesters can you count on this page one? Something tells me there was more media there as well. In the days when anti-war protests were in the millions, the media was reporting “thousands” or maybe “tens of thousands”

That being said, it’s definitely true that most of the anti-war activists went home. Some are still harboring the illusion Obama is anti-war (oops! I almost said “fairy tale for a second. Got to watch for those words!)

Most of them are yet to catch with what Chris Floyd summed up

Obama offered very little that was “progressive.” He was for continuing the War on Terror on Bush’s terms, winding down the war in Iraq more or less on the schedule Bush had negotiated, then expanding the war in Afghanistan and extending it into Pakistan. He threw his support behind Bush’s plan to bail out Wall Street. He took to the bully pulpit to scold black fathers for their failings, and black people in general for blaming the system for their problems. He made campaign appearances with homophobic preachers, while throwing over his own pastor and long-time friend. He surrounded himself with advisers from Wall Street. He pledged to increase the size and reach and power of the War Machine. And so on and so forth. He was, if anything, well to the right of, say, Bill Clinton in 1992 — and Bill Clinton in 1992 was the most right-wing Democratic candidate since Woodrow Wilson.

Obama’s “progressivism” consisted almost entirely of the symbolism of his mixed-race heritage and personal history.

But for those  who used to follow Cindy but are now staying home, it’s not a war if it’s Obama’s.

Asking for 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan has to be righteous if done by Obama.

June, the bloodiest month in Iraq (and I don’t know about July) – has to be W’s fault

Why protest war? We’re told that once upon a time, Obama made a speech.

This Newsday cover made me wonder: just how many tomes did an anti-war march of millions in any given large city of US (or the world) made page one? (Bush referred to us as “focus groups)

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

I suppose the answer would be, we didn’t have this kind of grassroots behind us

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that AHIP — the multimillion dollar lobbying juggernaut for the health insurance industry — has mobilized 50,000 employees to lobby Congress to defeat the public option

As it is, the efforts seem to have paid off better than in 1994

found that 37 percent of Americans are opposed to the Obama plan compared with 25 percent who favor it.

In June of 1994 — just a few months before a White House-led health care reform push effectively died on Capitol Hill — 35 percent of Americans said they opposed the Clinton administration’s plan while 23 percent favored it,

Very interesting that they felt the need to compare.

Maybe it’s karma for those Harry and Louise ads last year?

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

Suddenly, this comment from Krugman becomes more interesting:

And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed.

Of course, I have a sneaking suspicion that the people  who conceived those adds in 2008, are the same who did in 1994

(see proof here) and started writing the bill last December

Come to think of it, the Harry and Louise campaign mailers are proof that the fight against healthcare reform started full force since 2007. To the uninitiated, it appeared to be a presidential campaign.

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

It’s karmic and appropriate in more ways than Senator Byrd or those petitioning for it thought.

Both the idea of reforming healthcare and Ted Kennedy started with noble intentions – meaning to help the people.

Ted Kennedy hang on to it at least until his vote against the war in 2003. Healthcare reform’s original intent still exists in a house bill.

But along the way, Ted also left us No Child Left Behind.

Amd the healthcare reforms underwent many changes – ignoring single payer completely

To recap, here’s what ended up happening with health care. First, they gave away single-payer before a single gavel had fallen, apparently as a bargaining chip to the very insurers mostly responsible for creating the crisis in the first place. Then they watered down the public option so as to make it almost meaningless, while simultaneously beefing up the individual mandate, which would force millions of people now uninsured to buy a product that is no longer certain to be either cheaper or more likely to prevent them from going bankrupt.

and ditching even  it’s weak replacement “public option. It will be something imposing a burden only on those it was originally meant to protect: the parients – which now will have a mandate to buy insurance swelling the insurers’ pockets with a captive market. A bad bill.

And were the two trajectories from good to bad coincidental? No. Ted Kennedy earned the right to have the name on this awful bill by his direct actions

But aides to US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose staff has been meeting with the insurers along with a broad array of health care advocates, employers and providers to develop a major health reform initiative for Congress to consider next year, was encouraged by the insurers’ presentation.

(presentation which looks extremely close to what’s in the senate now)

Insurers oppose the creation of a Medicare-style public insurance option, which both President-elect Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus have proposed, which they believe will force private companies to compete with government on an uneven playing field. The insurers also do not support an employer mandate.

See? It was all there! Last December. It had became  subject of popular revolt only months after that. It;s been a revelation to me too to see the talking points source today.

And just so I don’t leave any confusion about what Baucus and Obama allegedly proposed, they too met with the insurance executives back in February

So, yeah. I may even join that petition. By all means, this healthcare bill, has to have Ted Kennedy’s name on it.

Especially as someone might actually get miffed

Click here to add text
Click here to add text



Someone agrees with me – to a point

Naming a bad bill after Teddy is an insult to his memory.

But then again, Jane missed those meetings with the insurers last December.

One of the NYC tabloids notices the absence of the B0bots

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

and of course draws all the wrong conclusions:

The fact that the 18-29 voting bloc is more likely to be in good health could be keeping it away from this issue, experts said.

So, it’s not because Obama actually has no proposal and some crappy bill that is not inspiring any support is being crafted. It’ because B0bots are so very young and healthy…

Which reminds me of another wrong conclusion the usually astute Ted Rall drew n his animation “liberals are just lazier than RW-ers when it comes to protesting. I t may look that way if you get your news from TV only.

Having marched and protested all the things Rall thinks we didn’t, I don’t buy it. We just never did get coverage, the way they do.

So, it’s not a law meant to give insurance companies a captive market by setting mandates on people  that doesn’t inspire support from anyone.

It’s that the supporters are too young. Or too lazy.

(never thought I’d defend B0bots)

As for what I am going to do? It’s all detailed in here


Not Your Sweetie

August 2009