Just days ago, the Senate voted to censure MoveOn.org for their crappy pun (Petraeus or Betray-us?) by a vote of72-25. 72-25! That's more than enough to beat a filibuster or override a veto.
MoveOn's big sin was to question the veracity of what Gen. Petraeus had to say; in other words, they were skeptical of a politicized military official giving a positive assessment (previously vetted by the White House) which was contradicted by other, independent reports. Those bastards!
Politically, why why why do the Democrats do this to themsleves? Why do they relentlessly attack the people who support them in an effort to reassure the people who hate them and will never vote for them? As vote-getters go, this one is illogical as they come.
A rather interesting interview took place between David Shuster (filling in for Tucker Carlson) and Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn. Rep. Blackburn is minutely informed about advertising rates at the New York Times but can't recall the name of the last soldier (or any soldier) from her district who died in the war. Consideirng that Congress just defeated Sen. Webb's plan to give soldiers as much time at home as overseas, this shouldn't be too surprising.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Addio, Pavarotti
Luciano Pavarotti died recently of pancreatic cancer. He was 67.
While his later years were marred by Three Tenors schmalztiness and jokes about his weight, they couldn't wipe away his decades-long career singing bel canto and verismo in the most beautiful way it's been sung in this or any century.
A younger beardless Pavarotti sings Verdi's Requiem
While his later years were marred by Three Tenors schmalztiness and jokes about his weight, they couldn't wipe away his decades-long career singing bel canto and verismo in the most beautiful way it's been sung in this or any century.
A younger beardless Pavarotti sings Verdi's Requiem
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Da Surge
The pro-war blogosphere, credulous congresspeople, and opinion spitters like Bill Kristol have been chipper of later, bolstered by their claims that the 'surge' is having marvelous effects and we're finally winning the war.
Their first big talking points is that security is better. Better compared to what? TheWashington Monthly has this enlightening table:
June/July 2006 June/July 2007 Change
Iraqi Military and Police Killed 349, 429 Up 23%
Multiple Fatality Bombings 110, 82 Down 25%
# Killed in Mult. Fatality Bombings 885 1,053 Up 19%
Iraqi Civilians Killed 6,739; 5,300 Hard to say
(All violent causes)
U.S. Troop Fatalities 104, 187 Up 80%
U.S. Troops Wounded 983, 1,423 Up 45%
Size of Insurgency 20,000+, ~70,0002 Up ~250%
Attacks on Oil and Gas Pipelines 8, 14 Up 75%
So maybe 'better' compared to what it was in April and May (possibly: i don't have those stats), but not better than a year ago. Some surge.
Two, al-Qaeda has been weakened in Anbar province. While this is certainly good news, it has nothing to do with the surge. it has to do with the US allying itself with radical anti-Shia, anti-Iraqi government militias, who up until recently were fighting us. And it may be in bad taste to point out that al-Qaeda was not a force anywhere in Iraq before the war.
Their first big talking points is that security is better. Better compared to what? The
June/July 2006 June/July 2007 Change
Iraqi Military and Police Killed 349, 429 Up 23%
Multiple Fatality Bombings 110, 82 Down 25%
# Killed in Mult. Fatality Bombings 885 1,053 Up 19%
Iraqi Civilians Killed 6,739; 5,300 Hard to say
(All violent causes)
U.S. Troop Fatalities 104, 187 Up 80%
U.S. Troops Wounded 983, 1,423 Up 45%
Size of Insurgency 20,000+, ~70,0002 Up ~250%
Attacks on Oil and Gas Pipelines 8, 14 Up 75%
So maybe 'better' compared to what it was in April and May (possibly: i don't have those stats), but not better than a year ago. Some surge.
Two, al-Qaeda has been weakened in Anbar province. While this is certainly good news, it has nothing to do with the surge. it has to do with the US allying itself with radical anti-Shia, anti-Iraqi government militias, who up until recently were fighting us. And it may be in bad taste to point out that al-Qaeda was not a force anywhere in Iraq before the war.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
We're Winning (for real this time)
Lately the more pro-war pundits and right-wing blogosphere have switched over from their usual bitter diatribes about how we'd win the war on terror if it weren't for those meddling liberals to, (oddly enough) equally bitter diatribes about how we're just about to win the war in Iraq just when the Dems are about to pull the plug on it.
The fact that the Democratic candidates have at least a year and a half before they could possibly begin to pull the plug on anything hasn't changed this view.
I suppose this has basis in historical fact. We were winning the Vietnam War for at least ten years.
My question is: The neocons have always said we were on the cusp of victory and that things were going well. Only in the past few months with the surge plan did they ever admit that mistakes had even been made. Why should we believe them now when they were always wrong in the past?
The fact that the Democratic candidates have at least a year and a half before they could possibly begin to pull the plug on anything hasn't changed this view.
I suppose this has basis in historical fact. We were winning the Vietnam War for at least ten years.
My question is: The neocons have always said we were on the cusp of victory and that things were going well. Only in the past few months with the surge plan did they ever admit that mistakes had even been made. Why should we believe them now when they were always wrong in the past?
Friday, August 03, 2007
Sicko, the Diagnosis
Having just seen 'Sicko' with my dad, a man who is (unlike me) an expert in the field of health care. Essentially, this is what he told me:
The movie is right to say that other countries with national health insurance do a better job of taking care of their citizens' health. That's the most important thing.
Other countries with 'socialized' or semi-socialized medical systems even manage to spend less money on health care than we do. 16% of US GDP - about two trillion dollars - is spent on health care. Most European countries (and Canada) spend about 6-7% of their GDP on health care. Even socialist Scandanavian countries spend about 9%, and all those systems cover everybody, as opposed to the American system which leaves about a fifth of the population with no insurance at all. Oh, and do you have trouble imagining what two trillion dollars amounts to? Just picture two thousand billion-dollar bills.
So what does all this money buy us? One of my dad's favorite examples is that there are more MRI machines in the greater Washington DC area than in all of Canada. That sounds good for us, but the truth is, we don't have any use for all those freaking MRI machines, and it amounts to a loss for the system. The US medical system puts great value in the newest and flashiest technologies and procedures, many of which are unnecessary.
Plus, more than a fifth of the money goes to administrative costs - the inevitable result of having a myriad of companies providing care. About 20% of Kaiser's budget goes to administration. By comparison, Medicare spends 2% of its budget on the same thing.
What the movie doesn't really talk about is the differences in the health care systems. Basically, he presents Britain, Canada, France etc. as being identical to the US, just with higher taxes in lieu of health insurance costs. Actually, what many of those universal systems have is an emphasis on primary care, and thus less of an emphasis on specialists. So, those famous waiting lists have people on them for exotic or non-urgent procedures.
By far my favorite part of the movie is his interview with former Labour MP Tony Benn. It sums up in clear and unpretentious language, I think, the philosophy not just of universal health care but the whole idea of social democracy.
The movie is right to say that other countries with national health insurance do a better job of taking care of their citizens' health. That's the most important thing.
Other countries with 'socialized' or semi-socialized medical systems even manage to spend less money on health care than we do. 16% of US GDP - about two trillion dollars - is spent on health care. Most European countries (and Canada) spend about 6-7% of their GDP on health care. Even socialist Scandanavian countries spend about 9%, and all those systems cover everybody, as opposed to the American system which leaves about a fifth of the population with no insurance at all. Oh, and do you have trouble imagining what two trillion dollars amounts to? Just picture two thousand billion-dollar bills.
So what does all this money buy us? One of my dad's favorite examples is that there are more MRI machines in the greater Washington DC area than in all of Canada. That sounds good for us, but the truth is, we don't have any use for all those freaking MRI machines, and it amounts to a loss for the system. The US medical system puts great value in the newest and flashiest technologies and procedures, many of which are unnecessary.
Plus, more than a fifth of the money goes to administrative costs - the inevitable result of having a myriad of companies providing care. About 20% of Kaiser's budget goes to administration. By comparison, Medicare spends 2% of its budget on the same thing.
What the movie doesn't really talk about is the differences in the health care systems. Basically, he presents Britain, Canada, France etc. as being identical to the US, just with higher taxes in lieu of health insurance costs. Actually, what many of those universal systems have is an emphasis on primary care, and thus less of an emphasis on specialists. So, those famous waiting lists have people on them for exotic or non-urgent procedures.
By far my favorite part of the movie is his interview with former Labour MP Tony Benn. It sums up in clear and unpretentious language, I think, the philosophy not just of universal health care but the whole idea of social democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)