Can You Say "Rickets"? - with updates

Rickets. I am wondering how many know the definition of that word. You can be forgiven if you don't know it. After all, it's a disease that has been nearly eliminated in the United States because of government and educational programs, and better nutrition.

But get ready to learn what it means now - that is, if Republicans get their way.

Rickets is the softening of bones due to a lack of vitamin D and calcium. It is mainly a childhood illness, as it is in childhood that our bones are formed. It is the primary disease of children in developing countries. Here, read this article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets

We've come a long way since rickets was a likely condition of young children in this country whose families couldn't afford proper milk, cheese, etc. for them. In recent years, our progress on eliminating rickets actually has gotten a banner acronym associated with it. That acronym is WIC. It stands for Women, Infants and Children. This is a federal program. In 1974, the year it was established, it served 88,000 people. In 2009 alone, it reached 9.3 million people. Here's the website on it.

WIC ensures that families whose income falls at or below 185 percent of U.S. poverty levels can supplement diets with coupons that buy formula (for babies), milk, cheese, eggs and the like. Pregnant women participate, so that there is sufficient nutrition in the womb for fetus bone development.

The Republicans propose to cut the WIC program by ten percent.

Seriously?

Yes indeed, this is the party that advocates no abortions at any time - yet they'd like to get rid of the program that stands between our children and bone disease. So much for protecting the life of children. (The Repubs also have proposed about a 15% cut to Head Start, which already is underfunded - so, they'd like to cut into the two federal programs most highly lauded as having direct positive and traceable impact on the youngest, and least, among us.)

There are more than enough places we can cut federal monies. Just don't take milk from the mouths of babes.

For astounding of a headline that this makes, there is virtually no news coverage on this very symbolic and miserly cut proposal. The best I could find was this article out of Florida. Comments show people's concerns (other than the ones that call the program "socialism"). Most commenters get the point - these are resources for our children, who make no decisions on how family funds are spent. We are setting up our children for bone disease if we cut WIC in a way that affects their access to formula, milk, cheese, etc.

Sure there are ways to cut government spending. Put me in the "for" column on that. But make these cuts wisely. Don't - literally - cut our children off at the knees in order to make your point.

UPDATE: Okay, I did find this article out of The Economist - which cites to this column by Paul Krugman (great column) - both of which bring up the WIC cuts. The Economist's article also talks about how the House Dems "failed to restore $131 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, facing new responsibilities under Wall Street reforms enacted in the last Congress." Yes indeed - the SEC, which was too overworked to watch over Bernie Madoff, will continue to be anemic. Great. Oh, and I saw that, when asked whether the Repubs' proposed cuts would result in the loss of federal employee jobs, Rep. Boehner answered, "So be it." This brings a whole new meaning to the phrase, "compassionate Conservative." I guess it really means to say that we should be conservative with our compassion? Is that it?

UPDATE: One of my sisters just forwarded this link to a column by David Brooks on how politicians are cutting off children at their knees because that is the easiest target these days. He doesn't really discuss WIC - which is a program that just works, and doesn't have a lot of layers to tweak - but does discuss Head Start, and ways to improve programs if cuts do need to occur. It's worth the read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/larry-crowne-tom-hanks-julia-roberts_n_829540.html

The Tenor of Politics (with update)

I just posted this comment on Huckleberries Online (a news blog at Spokane's Spokesman Review), after reading Kathleen Parker's column in this a.m. I'm cross-publishing it here.

Kathleen Parker has a column this a.m., giving Sarah Palin what appears to be a pass on saying “don't retreat, reload!” in connection with her gun-sights map from last year that targeted 20 democrats across the country (one of whom was shot in the head two weeks ago and has somehow survived), while simultaneously taking to task those who use the phrase “Nazi” when convenient (which was done this week by a democratic congressman).

Here's the thing: I don't want to give anyone a pass on this kind of language and imagery.

A year ago, when Palin's crosshairs map went up on line, I was concerned. When I heard recently that Democrats did something similar in 2004 (at least with regard to the map), I was concerned. When the Dem called Repubs a Nazi last week, I shook my head in disbelief. When I see photos of anyone with a Nazi moustache - most recently it's been President Obama who has been so drawn - I think, people are crazy (and am concerned when political leaders condone the drawings).

Kathleen Parker says that Sarah Palin didn't mean that people should use their guns. But isn't it irresponsible to talk that way in the first place? And if the Dem from last week says that he didn't really mean Nazis - isn't it irresponsible to use the phrase? These are words, people - being said out loud, or typed into a computer. It takes personal action, choices, to reach the point of saying Nazi or of saying “reload.” And if it was just an accident - if Sarah Palin didn't “mean” to evoke the imagery - then why did she leave the map up in spite of people's protests at the time?

I don't care if Sarah Palin's crosshairs map - and her follow-up to “reload” - is what triggered the shooting two weeks ago. If it did, or if it did not, her advocacy for using gun targets on a political map, and her violent rhetoric, was and is a tee-up for potential violence. I don't choose sides when I am concerned about violence metaphors used by our politicians. I don't want ANY of them to do it. But she doesn't get a free pass from me on her graphic symbolism. She gets all the credit in the world - at a minimum, for upping the ante on the vitriol.

I guess what we're saying, if we accept all of this, is that our politicians are immature and/or should pander to the basest emotions in us all. That, my friends, is part of what causes reasonable people to turn away from the entire mess of politics.

When our country first began, we used to hold town halls, where the details of a politican's plan were outlined, and people could evaluate from there. That system has given way to our current soundbite culture. It is what it is. But as the president said at his speech in Arizona, I would rather see us live up to our children's expectations.

I added this:

On the same topic as above: I very much appreciated this op-ed piece by Senator John McCain in the Washington Post recently:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011403871.html

Speaking substantively - having intelligent debates - is a heck of a lot harder than throwing mud. But if you have the debate, I promise to listen.

UPDATE: We went back and forth on the Huckleberries posting yesterday - one thing that struck me as we wrote - few out there know much about that rifle target map - it did list names - and there were three red "splats" on the districts where the Dem had decided to retire - as I mentioned on Huckleberries, I decided to look at the map itself back last March because I thought the article I was reading about it was exaggerating - when I saw the map, I remember thinking: who is going to die as a result of this map? So for me, the concern about that map has been around a very long time.

Restoring Sanity

This Saturday, from noon to 3 p.m. ET, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are hosting a rally on the Mall in Washington D.C. entitled "Restoring Sanity and/or Fear" (Colbert's preference is "fear").

What a great idea.

The rally is for all of us out here who have opinions but shy away from name-calling and stomping on opponents' heads. (Oh, I'm sorry. I mean "shoulder, which crunch into the head, and might as well have been stomping on the head itself.") Poster slogans will include "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."

I am one of the many who gets news from the Daily Show because it is about the only delivery style out there (television, anyway) that is tolerable. That doesn't mean I don't watch "Morning Joe," or sometimes flip on other news shows. And I do like Rachel Maddow - she's smart, and careful with her facts. But I just as often turn the channel than stay with a particular news show, even though I'm tuning in specifically to get headlines from a talking-head perspective. These days, it is just a lot more palatable to get my current events information from the Internet, where I can choose the source - where I can exchange vitriolic spew for even-handed delivery, where I can get the same story from three different viewpoints in an effort to get the full story and not just a part of it.

And then there's the Daily Show. They are - well, just funny. Pithy. And they get to the point of the craziness right away. It's hard not to watch the Daily Show.

So this idea that there are others like me out there - who just want the rhetoric toned down while hearing the news - well, it's so exciting!

And the other very-cool thing: Comedy Central is going to air a live version of the rally for those of us who can't actually make it to the Mall. In Spokane, there's a viewing party at Isabella's (near Main and Division), starting at 9 a.m. I might go.

The Daily Show has been airing in D.C. all week long. It's been really funny, especially for me since I lived in D.C. for years, before coming to Spokane. On Monday, they had their "on-the-street" reporters in various places in D.C. Jason Jones was supposed to be standing out in front of the Supreme Court, but when Jon Stewart caught up with him, he was still fake-driving his car. When Stewart asked him where he was, Jones said, "I'm in a six-lane traffic circle that leads to an underpass! And then that leads to another g-damned traffic circle! I mean this Frenchified city layout makes no f**king sense! How hard is it to lay down a grid!" When Stewart told him that all he needed to do was get to the Supreme Court on Second Street, Jason Jones said, "There are four Second streets! They don't even intersect! And the columns — everywhere! The indistinguishable columns. This town is simultaneously magnificent and useless. It's like they designed the whole thing as a metaphor."

This is very funny, especially if you have spent any time in D.C., because it all is true. Metaphor included. In fact, the D.C. audience roared. They knew exactly what he meant.

The next night was also very funny. Jason Jones went supposedly to the "legendary Avenue of Lobbyists - K Street" but when the camera panned on him, he was standing in front of what appeared to be a dump. Jon Stewart looked quizzical as he said, "Actually Jason, it looks a little more down-market than I imagined." Jason Jones said how the lobbyists "must be true believers - they're spending all their money on advocacy and not on aesthetics..." Stewart asked him, where are you, exactly? And Jones read the "gang-tagged" street sign as saying "K Street S.E." - which, of course, is gang-torn southeast, not lobby-town northwest. Stewart points this out to Jones, who says, "There's more than one K Street, too? Motherf**ker, I hate this town! It's so broken!"

Then last night - and on a more serious note - President Obama was on the show for the entirety of it. In my opinion, it is absolute-must viewing, regardless of party affiliation. For me, it helped put things in perspective. Take a look: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-27-2010-barack-obama

Clinton's Initiative

Bill Clinton's been on the news recently. Just this morning he was on "Morning Joe." (Yes, I'm back to watching Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski - especially when I wake up at 4 a.m.!). He is in the midst of the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual event that he created a few years ago in which he gathers people with money - buy-in - and gets them organized to not only talk about economic problems here and around the world but to propose and then implement plans to fix those problems - or at least improve upon them.

I've seen Clinton now on a couple of news programs - which is nearly a miracle, since I've hardly been able to tolerate the news at all, and so basically have not been watching it. And here's my conclusion: he's good. He's really good. He's clear, he's got practical ideas, and - beyond that - he's working towards implementing those ideas by bringing people together and moving them forward.

One thing this a.m. that was particularly interesting is how he described the "gap." There is what private business does, and there is what government does. Regardless of who you think should do more, there necessarily ends up being a gap between business and government, where things - people - can fall through the cracks. So his Global Initiative targets that gap, with an idea towards implementing experiments on fixing problems that, if successful, can then be adopted and implemented in the future by either government or private business with either government or business taking the risk of failure. As Clinton explained it - if you aren't risking the investment of taxpayers or shareholders, you have a lot more freedom to try innovative things.

What also was fascinating was the relief - felt by Joe (the former Republican congressman who used to fight with Clinton back in the 1990s), by Mika (Joe's co-host, who is always fighting with Joe), and by me - the viewer. Listening to Bill Clinton was like a breath of fresh air - a moment of no fighting, no malicious soundbites - just ideas that answer current-day problems.

Scarborough did say how much everyone listening in today would like Clinton to run for president in 2012 (an impossibility, given our constitutional limitations on presidential terms). And well, it is nice to have Clinton speak of solutions so elegantly. But there's a reason for that, in my opinion, beyond the fact that he is articulate - it is that he is playing the role of Elder Statesman. He is playing it effectively, and he is, as always, really smart. But it's a role. The tone and conversation, from Joe et al, would be completely different if Clinton were currently president. And the games people are playing today would be played on him, if he were president. And the games people did play, back in the 1990s, when he was newly president (in the middle of his first term, when the Dems lost midterm elections...) And it's funny that Joe said how the Obama administration should have been using Clinton before now - given how freaked out the pundits were, back when Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, by the idea that Bill Clinton might meddle (oh my!). So, you gotta love the pundits for their ADHD qualities, and inability to remember what they said a year ago - or yesterday, for that matter. (Though Joe and Mika are better than most.)

But my gosh, Joe's right. It's great to listen to Clinton now. The morass is less, when he speaks - and when his interviewers allow him to speak with concise solutions, and talking points, from which a true and rich debate is begun. I've seen Clinton on a few interviews these past couple of days, so I know.

But even as Joe laments with our former president the tone of politics today - and even as they discuss the impact the Internet has had, to change how messages get relayed - the ticker tape below the talking heads reads how Bob Woodward's new book "exposes" the White House's internal arguments over how to handle Afghanistan. "Exposes?" Not "discusses?" Doesn't the media yet understand that sensationalizing the headline - even by the use of one editorial word versus one more neutralized one - plays right into the hands of those who would prefer that political tones today be taken to extremes? Thanks Joe, for speaking about the need for moderate tones in politics. Now fix your ticker tape so it doesn't say "expose." It's not more descriptive. It's just more inflammatory.

I do think it says something that I'm turning off television news because of extreme tones. I'm not alone. There's a reason Jon Stewart is having the "Million Moderate March" (officially the "Rally to Restore Sanity") in Washington on October 30. There are a lot of us out here who just can't take the extreme rhetoric anymore. You exhaust us. And that goes for sing-songy tones too, by the way. I'm really tired of being treated like a child, whether it be through extreme rhetoric soundbites or reassuring political voices that take on sweet tones but tell me nothing.

This is why I appreciated President Obama's town hall meeting a couple days ago - he was real and spoke in paragraphs, with lots of information (though I wish he'd spoken more about the things that they are doing in the future). And this is why I appreciated Bill Clinton this a.m. - things are being said that I can chew on, digest, understand, use.

I will say this for Bill Clinton - he energized me. He made me imagine possibilities. He spoke of the trillions of dollars that banks and businesses have on reserve, that they could spend if they chose. He spoke of proposals that the president has on the table - small business incentive programs, technological research tax credits, education and training ideas that would allow us to fill the too-many job openings that require more skills than our workers currently have... He pointed out that all these issues have a liberal and conservative point of view - that both are worth hearing - and that it's time to address them, one by one.

I've been so worried about people in this economy. I've had a dream that, if I did have extra money (some day, I will!), I'd want to hire people to do community improvement jobs - a day's wage for a day's work. I've wondered why we haven't done that, as a nation - gone back to the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, that gave jobs to unskilled labor to improve national parks, etc., back in the Great Depression. The CCC provided a public service in two ways - it gave people work that had concrete results. The stimulus - for road construction - does that a bit, I suppose. And the grander scale likely touched more people's lives than person-to-job, one person at a time. But there would be a bigger sense of movement, I think - and more people would be employed - if we went to a one-person-one-job model, even if we had to modernize it for today's times, and even if that work was not permanent. And yes, I understand that if you pay unemployment instead, that frees people up to go out and find a job that lasts. But what about self esteem? It's exhausting to worry about having no job. There's got to be a way that the CCC model can be helpful today, as the economy remains in the midst of its own recovery.

Elena Kagan

I haven't paid much attention to the confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan - she seems eminently qualified and confirmable - but I did see this in the Christian Science Monitor, about her great sense of humor - funny! http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0630/Elena-Kagan-shows-off-sense-of-humor-in-confirmation-hearings

Sixty Votes - and Tom Coburn's Prayer

Early this morning, at 1 a.m., the Senate voted to begin the process of closing debate on the health care reform bill - called cloture. They needed at least 60 of 100 senators to vote yes. There are two more procedural votes before a vote on the bill can be taken. The bill itself needs only 50 votes to pass. But ending the debate takes 60, starting with last night's vote. This means that every Democrat plus two independents needed to vote yea last night. All Republicans voted nay.

Included in this 1 a.m. vote was Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd from West Virginia. He's 92. He's been in and out of hospitals, and was home yesterday because of his weak health. But he was going to attend the procedural vote. He would be the 60th vote needed. It would have been better for his health had the vote taken place at a more respectable time, and not in the middle of a snowstorm. But apparently the Republicans resisted that, so he needed to trudge out of the house, in his wheelchair, in the middle of the night instead.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) apparently wished for his demise earlier in the day. At 4 p.m. yesterday afternoon, Coburn said, "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight. That's what they ought to pray." Later, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called him out on it. "This statement goes too far," Durbin said. "We are becoming more coarse and divided here ... When it reaches a point where we're praying, asking people to pray, that senators wouldn't be able to answer the roll call, I think it has crossed the line... This statement troubles me, and I’m trying to reach him [Coburn] come back to the floor and explain exactly what he meant about a senator being unable to make the vote tonight."

In spite of Tom Coburn's apparent call for prayer for his demise, Sen. Byrd was there at 1 a.m. - like clockwork:

Coburn was wearing blue jeans, an argyle sweater and a tweed jacket with elbow patches when he walked back into the chamber a few minutes before 1 a.m. He watched without expression when Byrd was wheeled in, dabbing his eyes and nose with tissues, his complexion pale. When his name was called, Byrd shot his right index finger into the air as he shouted "aye," then pumped his left fist in defiance.

Here's an article on what happened.

And here is some of the video:



Bottom line - and Tom Coburn's prayers notwithstanding - the 60 votes have gathered. For as frustrating as it's been - and as frustrating as the compromises are - this is a great, great thing, that this bill has moved.

Abortion Statistics

So I'm watching "Morning Joe" in the a.m. again (but only when I wake up at 4, or when I'm getting ready for 6 a.m. boot camp). This morning, Lawrence O'Donnell was on, looking about as sleepy as I felt. They started talking about coverage for abortions in insurance. I guess the RNC found out that it had insurance coverage for abortions in its insurance policy, and has now eliminated that coverage (after Politico reported on it). So Joe Scarborough asked O'Donnell what he thought about that. O'Donnell began by saying that the majority of Americans support abortion rights. Scarborough interrupted him, said it isn't 1972 anymore, and that the statistics show that Americans don't support abortion rights anymore. O'Donnell said to go ahead and show his poll, but O'Donnell remained correct. O'Donnell then cited an interview with John McCain from some time ago. Apparently McCain was asked if he would be against abortion if his daughter was pregnant. McCain said that he'd have to think about that. (I can't find the quote.) O'Donnell rephrased it: so it's fine for everyone else to ban abortion, but maybe not for my daughter, but I'm still against abortion because I'm a Republican. O'Donnell then used that quote to say that politicians treat abortion as a political issue, regardless of personal belief, and it keeps them out of touch with the reality of the country's leanings, to be so black and white about it.

The discussion got me thinking: are Americans against abortion now? So I looked it up and found a great compilation of surveys taken over the years, including recent surveys taken in 2009. Taken as a whole, and not cherry-picking favorite results, I think the polls are pretty solidly consistent: a majority of Americans believe in a right to choose, with some concern about the circumstances (which I attribute, at least in part, to misinformation out there about third trimester abortions) and only a handful believe that abortions should be outlawed in all cases. Another interesting stat: most see it as one of many issues, not the key issue for which they must vote yea or nay on a candidate. Some of those same people who believe in choice also see themselves as pro life, which is perhaps where some of the confusion lies. Bottom line, however, O'Donnell was right, Scarborough was wrong, and Congress is doing what it often does - it is listening to the loudest, most boisterous voices, not the much-quieter majority.

Health Care Moves

What an amazing night for health care. I watched only a little, and then some highlights this morning. I'm sorry to have missed seeing the vote live.

It is just the one step. But I feel glad. And vindicated. And I think - I think - that the paper tiger of the Repubs is starting to look frayed. When John Boehner (R-Ohio) went on and on about how terrible it was that the bill had a provision that would make people pay a penalty if they don't get insurance (which comes with subsidies for people who can't afford the premiums, and is basically the way we already do auto insurance) - well, he just looked dumb. Especially since we all know that those who aren't insured will still get medical care in cases of emergency, which means we pay for their lack of foresight in failing to get insurance in the first place. Isn't that a Republican principle? No free rides? And he's against that provision? Hmmm. Something smells in the state of Ohio.

They also look silly in light of the fact that both the AARP and the AMA have come out and endorsed the bill now. I happened to see an AMA doctor talking in support of it. He was even-handed, but clearly advocated for the bill's passage. I figured he had to be some random doctor, so supportive he was of the bill. Then they flashed his title - head of the AMA. Wow. Really?

It is one of those great times, when people step up and stand for something. It started with Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who hit the gavel to being the proceedings. It was his father who introduced health care legislation for years, and it was his son who took over that legacy for the past 54 years (and who started the proceedings for the Medicare bill back in 1964). Every year, he introduced a health care reform bill. Every year.

And then during the press conference after the vote, Nancy Pelosi made a point of calling up to the podium Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), the late Teddy Kennedy's son - another champion of this cause, up through his death. "My dad was a senator," Patrick Kennedy said. "But tonight his spirit was in the House."

I'm unhappy with the restrictions of funding for abortions. But it seems like a hollow victory for those who want it. At least, I hope it will be, in the end. As in, there's no guarantee it stays in the bill. And even if it does, it doesn't end abortion (though it does affect the poorest of women out there.) We'll have to wait and see what happens. In the meantime, the bill has passed, 220 to 215.

And my brother made a great point last night. Why do they need 1,000 pages? The Medicare bill back in the 1960s apparently was 28 pages. I haven't read the current bill, though am very familiar with its concepts, but the number of pages does seem daunting. I suppose it's the evolution of the times, and the law. When we lawyers write "briefs," they hardly ever are anymore.

Politics. It's the making of sausage, isn't it?

Al Franken's Fun

and I don't mean that in an SNL way (though he's that too).

He's getting known as one of the most prepared senators on the Hill.

Here he is, skewering an arbitration lawyer for arguing against his bill (an amendment to a bill) to keep government contracts from employers who require employees to agree to binding arbitration on disputes, regardless of subject matter, before hiring them. This bill amendment, which addresses harassment/discrimination claims, is in response to the circumstance where a young KBR employee (a Halliburton subsidiary) was gang raped by fellow employees but could not get her day in court because of the mandatory arbitration requirements. Thirty GOP senators voted against this amendment (Jon Stewart did a great job of making them look ridiculous the other night). Here's the video - it's long, but worth it:



And here he is, catching flat-footed a physician from the Hudson Institute who knows not enough of which she speaks. Her line of attack prior to this clip was that the health care reform bill would increase bankruptcies due to medical care costs. Here's a part of the dialogue:

AF: I want to ask you, how many bankruptcies because of medical crises were there last year in Switzerland?

DFR: I don't have that number in front of me but I could find out and get back to you.

AF: I can tell you how many it was. It's zero. Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were last year in France?

DFR: I don't have that number but I could get back to you if you like.

AF: Yeah, the number is zero.

And, just for good measure (and to complete this trilogy), this is just fun because he reads the Fourth Amendment out loud to a Justice attorney who then says, "this is surreal." Thought the attorney held his own, actually, on this one:

And Calling...

Yesterday began an onslaught of calls to Congress from supporters of health care reform, organized through the Organizing for America website. I wrote about my own experience of making the phone calls here.

And the numbers keep rising. People called other people all throughout the country yesterday, to make these phone calls again today. The number, at this moment, of calls made is 319,279. Apparently the president joined up with the people in New York who had been making the phonebanking effort.

And then there were the stories, as people talked to each other about how important it is to make these changes. Here is a sample of a couple of those stories:

This evening I and three other volunteers got together and made calls. As I was calling, one of the women I spoke with told me that she was inspired by my story -- shared in the email earlier that day -- to get her entire family to call Congress. She didn't know it was me on the phone, but she said she just couldn't stop saying "this isn't right" when she heard my story. It gave me so much hope -- during the evening we made 213 calls and got 64 commitments to call tomorrow.

-Jenny U., Missouri Volunteer

Seeing the tally go up, hearing voter after voter agree to call, and listening to the real excitement people have about finally fixing this broken system, I was reminded why we do this. Each of us can only give so much -- but when we all do it together, we move mountains. Health insurance reform, here we come.

-Sean Knox, California New Media Director

And here's a message from Mitch Stewart, director of OFA, where I got the above quotes.

And then here's the president from last night. Really great speech. He starts at about nine minutes in. He starts to get funny at 28 minutes, and then really funny at about 30 minutes.

Calling All Legislators!

So I got a couple of phone calls today, asking me to call my congresspeople and urge them to support health care reform. Sure, I said. Happy to do it. Apparently there were some details I didn't get - like, after I made the phone calls, I was supposed to record that fact at the Organizing for America website, etc., but I figured that out too. I watched to see if my name came up at all on the OFA website - "Beth B. from Spokane, WA, just called Rep. McMorris Rodgers," but after half a minute I let it go. It'll show up or it won't, but I'll never know...

It was an interesting process. I made my phone calls before realizing that I was supposed to ask if they support the health care reform plan. I did of course explain nuances of why it mattered to support the public option in particular. Probably went on too long for some of the folks answering the phones! But then I went to fill out the form that said I'd made my phone calls and realized I hadn't asked the congresspeople's position on all that I was talking about. Oops.

I knew my senators supported it (Cantwell and Murray), so I marked "yes" that they did without calling back. And I mean, for the love of all that is good and right, I was sure Rep. McMorris Rodgers did not. But hey, before checking the "no" box, I should ask, right? So I called back (the D.C. office instead of the Spokane one) and asked that burning question: what does my congresswoman actually support?

Now, I didn't phrase it "does she support the Obama plan," because that would necessarily receive a "no" answer and - besides - I'm mostly concerned about the premium-supported public option anyway. So I asked about that. The nice young woman on the phone (they are so nice at McMorris Rodgers' offices - she hires well) wasn't exactly sure, and offered to have a legislative aide contact me at some point. Great, I said - because I write about this a lot on my blog, and I want to know what she thinks, and where her concerns might lie...

I cannot imagine there will be a meeting of the minds here. But - and to her credit (and I give her this credit), McMorris Rodgers was one of the few Republicans who urged people to stop scaring each other with talk about death panels (which do not exist), and talk about the real issues instead. Have a dialogue. So I guess that's what we might be doing. One way or the other.

Just checked the log of phone calls this afternoon, on the OFA website. 182,774 - and counting.

photo credit: Jeremiah Aguilar, found here

Al Grayson

In the midst of all the health care reform angst and anger - real, imagined, and manufactured - I had started to tune out. I'm sure I'm not alone. I had sort of given up on Congress doing the right thing.

Then on Friday, when we heard that President Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize. I started wondering: is it time to shed the crap and insist, really insist, that Congress move?

Parallel to my personal feelings has come several times in the news recently the name of one congressman from Florida: Alan Grayson. A week (or two) ago, he gave a speech where he said that Republicans' plan for health care reform was, don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly. Republicans were angry at this first-time congressman, and insisted he apologize. So he got on the floor of the House this past Friday and said absolutely not. The following clip gives a lead-in from Lawrence O'Donnell and then Grayson's speech on Friday. He is also the one who has said that the way to beat a Republican is not by being a Republican. It is time for our elected officials to stand up and deliver.

The Silent Years

Jimmy Carter swept up a furor of anger a few days ago, when he talked about the furor of anger at anti-everything protests recently. (Check out his words - he didn't say that everyone who protests is racist. He said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." Some people are mad at the word "overwhelming." But it modifies "intensely demonstrated animosity," making it still only a slice of the people protesting.)

What's interesting about Jimmy Carter's comments to me is that it dovetails with my thought flashes recently. I keep thinking about Jackie Robinson. Started about a week ago. Remember that slice of history? When Branch Rickey met with Jackie Robinson back in 1945, he made a pact with him: for three years, Jackie Robinson would not respond to the jeers and slurs made against him. After three years, he could choose what he wanted to do. And after three years, he was beloved by many, wasn't he? It is how baseball began to integrate. It is also how the country got ready to integrate. It wasn't until 1953 that the Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education. Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson played an important role in this country's ability and willingness to desegregate.

I bet if Jackie Robinson were alive today, he'd agree with Jimmy Carter. After all, spewed hatred and one-liners look like they're coming from some place other than reasoned debate.

Here is a potent article by Henry Aaron, remembering Jackie Robinson. It gave me tears.

All in the Family

Two Saturdays ago, when I was visiting my mom in El Paso, I returned an Idaho friend's phone call from the day before and found myself on his car's speaker phone. When he rushed in to let me know I was on speaker phone, I made the reasonable assumption that there were other people in the car. My assumption was correct - "I have Jim (garble garble) and (garble garble garble) here in the car with me," my friend said, and explained they were on their way back south from Sandpoint. I'd hardly said hello when my friend continued, "Well, we shouldn't keep you - they need to make phone calls home," and I thought - ah. A carload of Republicans, is it? That would be the only logical answer for why he would rush me off the phone like that. (As if I didn't already know that a carload of people with this particular friend would likely be a carload of Republicans.) I felt like texting him: "You don't have to rush me off the phone. I promise not to say anything about how great Barack Obama is..."

I started to say goodbye, But Jim Garble-Garble decided to keep me on the phone. "Yes, we've just come back from campaigning for (garble garble)," he said. Great guy, he said. Oh, that's so nice, I said (wondering who in the heck they had been campaigning for). Sounds great, I said. Jim asked me where I was, then asked why I was in El Paso, and about my family... "Good for you," we said to each other. And then my friend finally got me off the phone. That Jim's a nice guy, I thought as I hung up. Even if he is a Republican.

Later in the day, I decided to check my local newspaper's website to see the news back home. There it was. The headline. "Sarah Palin's father and father-in-law visit Idaho," it said. "Jim Palin and Chuck Heath are here to campaign for Republican hopeful Vaughn Ward, who is running for Rep. Walt Minnick's congressional seat..."

Had I just been talking to Jim Palin?

I checked with my friend later. Yes indeedy, I'd just been talking to Sarah Palin's father and father-in-law. How funny is that? I don't know about Chuck Heath, as he didn't say much beyond hello. But I stand by my first impression of Jim Palin. He's a really nice guy.

Paul Krugman's Right

The past week or two - especially the past week - I've been only slightly interested in politics. The turning point, I think, was a one-two punch. First, they took out the end-of-life counseling in the Senate bill (giving in to the "death panel" baloney). Then, they waved the "no public option" flag, which means that people still will be without health care - or at least effective health care. I would know more if I were paying closer attention. But those two bits of information, coming one day after the other, just has me skimming headlines and hoping someone out there knows what they're doing. I sure don't.

So this a.m., I read a column by economist Paul Krugman entitled "Obama's Trust Problem." In it, Krugman explains how people who voted for Obama are disillusioned with many of his choices. The choice to back big bankers and bonuses, for instance. Or the choice to back away on these extremely important health care reform points. Or the choice to embrace Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) even after he joined the "death panel" scare by saying that people should be scared and that he wouldn't agree to something that would kill grandma.

And Krugman's right. I'm not one to be blinded by ideology. When I campaigned for Obama, I said he would work to find middle ground, even if he didn't need to, because he believes in buy-in by everyone (or as many people as possible).

But there's compromise and there's selling out. As Krugman put it, "There’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line." Or, as I read recently from blogger Matt Taibbi:

I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?

Senator Maria Cantwell and Health Care

Yesterday, I somehow got invited to a health care forum held at Spokane's city hall, sponsored by Maria Cantwell, one of Washington's U.S. senators. This is what happens when you get on one email circulation list - you end up on all of them. But I was glad to get the invitation and attended. As noted in an earlier entry, I'm willing to participate in this push for health care reform. That makes information key.

What an interesting forum! It was a panel of health care experts, and included physicians, nurses, hospital CEOs, and insurers. One of the key points at the outset was how there are fewer primary care physicians now than ever before. This is an issue that my sister (an ER doctor) has mentioned. It impressed me that this panel was on top of that issue, and that Sen. Cantwell has proposed a bill in Congress to attempt to support primary care physicians financially. Apparently Spokane has a lot more primary care physicians (i.e., family doctors) than a lot of places around the country. Also, and I did not know this, it turns out that Washington is a cutting edge state in the medical field in a lot of ways. I did know that my monthly insurance premiums are cheaper here than they would be in other states. Apparently that has to do with various networking and streamlining programs - designed at cutting costs - that the state of Washington has.

It was also interesting to hear how states with the highest per patient medicare costs do not provide better health care. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Here's an article from the New Yorker where the reporter went to McAllen, Texas - with the highest per capita spending of medicare is - to try to figure out why the costs are so high there. The article compares costs in McAllen to El Paso - a similarly situated community where the costs are half the costs of McAllen.

Also interesting was the intention of the panelists and the senator to figure out a way of acknowledging quality care versus quantity care. Right now, the financial reward goes to quantity (number of tests done, procedures, etc.).

There was one guy there, a doctor, who was chosen to be on the panel because of his advocacy for a single payer system (meaning, a publicly funded private health care system). Every time he talked, the audience clapped. Tough crowd for the follow-up speaker, who happened to be an insurance guy. Though he did hold his own. One thing he said, which I think took a lot of courage, was that there are no "sacred cows," that what might be best for the country may not be best for the insurance companies, and that the insurance companies will have to bite the bullet and accept that. He also spoke about how his company (Blue Cross Blue Shield) had promoted a wellness program, and that 1,500 employees had lost a total cumulative of 18,000 pounds through the program. It seemed almost symbolic of what needs to happen with the health care system overall. You know - cut out the fat.

At about the same time yesterday, in Chicago, President Obama was talking to the AMA about the problems with health care costs - too much discussion about insurance, too many tests being run. He told the doctors, "You entered this profession to be healers - and that's what our health care system should let you be." (Here's a short article on his speech, though I don't particularly care for the "corrupt" comment. To me, the health care system is like the legal system, when it comes to the professionals - most doctors, like most lawyers, do a stand-up job. And then there's the few that ruin it for the rest of us.)

Speaking of lawyers... With health care, there is that additional issue of lawsuits, and the cry for tort reform. It came up only briefly in the forum. Personally I've never filed a medical malpractice case (and have turned down several). And I'm sympathetic to doctors who feel they are in front of a firing squad when they practice medicine. I see it, I understand it. I'd like to see control. No sacred cows.

I do have strong feelings, however, against capping jury awards, for at least two reasons. First: the claim that awards are getting larger is only reflecting the change in laws already, since many states (like Washington) have created huge procedural and financial hurdles to even filing a medical malpractice lawsuit so that, now, virtually the only cases filed are the ones where damages are both substantial and easily proven. And those are the cases that we, as a society, would want to see filed - where we want to see some justice done. Second: insurance companies feed on caps. When there is a cap, insurance companies do not settle cases. It is only the threat of a large jury award that brings insurance companies to the negotiation table. And even then, the agents can be so arrogant, and their actuary tables so set up, that they simply ignore plaintiffs until the day the case is set for trial. If there were caps, the insurance companies would no longer have anything motivating them to settle.

Lawsuits only bring money. It is an incomplete system. But money brings motivation, creates accountability down the road. And the losses suffered are often phenomenally real. How much money would you be willing to accept for a doctor amputating the wrong limb by mistake? None, I know. No money can compensate. That doesn't mean that no money should be paid. Luckily, amputating the wrong leg is the extraordinary case, not the ordinary one. It's the kind of case that can be absorbed in a responsible health care system. So - how do we protect those patients with legitimate, significant claims while also giving good doctors relief from bad lawsuits?

I do think there's a difference between negligence and gross negligence - a mistake, versus a mistake of such grand proportions that we all are shocked it could possibly have occurred. Maybe there is a line to draw there, when it comes to medical malpractice cases. But have no doubt - if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely, and insurance companies with capped jury awards is not a world you want to live in.

Coolest Phone Call Ever

So I just got off the phone with the president.

No, not the president of my soccer league. The actual president. He thanked me for all my hard work last fall. Well, me and my 10,000 closest friends (or 20,000, or however many thousands were on the call, I actually don't know).

The whole call was on health care. There are community meetings June 6 all around the country. Sign-up to attend a meeting is here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hckickoff.

This was a conference call by a group called Organizing For America for diehard volunteers. I'm not sure how my name got on this list. Maybe someone in the Colorado campaign office put my name on it. Somehow, I'm on it. And I get email invitations every so often to be on conference calls like this one. First time with the president though.

So here's the thing. Even though I know he doesn't even know me, or that I was on the call, even though I know I was only one of thousands on the call, when he said "thank you" for all the hard work, I got tears. It's not possible that he was thanking me individually. But it felt like that - maybe because I know that he knows how hard we each worked in our little corner of the country. And we did work so hard!

The same thing happened to me the day after the election. I happened to be in the room when he and Joe Biden called all the staff around the country to thank them for their hard work, and the staff let me listen in. But that time, tearing up at the "thank you" - my gosh we were all so exhausted from working round-the-clock non-stop for months, our emotions were on our sleeves, tearing up made sense. (I'm sure my current anemia is partly because I paid little attention to my health while working for the campaign.) But today, I teared up again. I think there's just something very powerful about the words "thank you" for what is a thankless job.

Oh, here's a fun part about today's conference call. We were getting information from the warm-up speakers and the Prez - who was up next - got disconnected, so we were waiting for him to get connected again. And then a voice come on the air and said - I think these were her exact words - "Pardon the interruption. This is the Air Force One operator. We have the president on the line." !! (And we all thought, oh, that's fine, no problem, please - interrupt.) Then someone - I think Reggie Love? assistant to president - says, "We got him right here. One second." Fun.

Back to health care. Apparently we'll be using the June 6 meetings (sign up here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hckickoff) to organize events like "Yes We Cans" food drives or health walk-a-thons, to be held all around the country on June 27. (I reported on a Texas "Yes We Cans" food drive here.) All admirable goals. But also, it's back to pounding the pavement. Like last fall (I'm presuming), we'll be given solid information about the health care plan as well as answers to questions that people have, and then be given addresses and/or phone numbers to talk with our neighbors about the specifics.

I'm thinking I might let my fingers do the walking. My region is pretty much set in stone - in favor of the reform plan for the most part. So I might try to make phone calls to other areas of the country.

What I like about Obama's plan is that it keeps the world of insurance while making other options available. It's quintessential Obama. Work with what you've got, but fix the problems too.

In the conference call, various speakers said a bunch of things that made a lot of sense. One volunteer in North Carolina said that it'll be easy to get people to pitch in. Her experience? "People are just waiting to be asked." She herself was signing up attendees for the June 6 meetings once they knew about the meetings themselves.

David Plouffe (former campaign manager for Obama) said it warmed his heart to be on the phone with us. "You were our campaign," he said. He spoke of how businesses and families are "just being crushed" on health care and that Washington "has talked about this for far too long." He said that real change comes from the country to Washington (rarely the other way around) and that he knew it would be tough but that they needed everyone to find the time to work on this in our communities - to "take ownership in this." He pointed out, too, that this is an issue that touches everyone's lives. To spread the net wide. "This shouldn't be a lonely affair," he said.

And then on came the president. He too talked about how businesses and families are getting hammered each day on health care; about how one particular person he had met (representative of so many people out there) was dealing with her illness while simultaneously fighting every day against an insurance company that wase trying to cut off her health care; about how we need to preserve what works but fix what's broken; and how this is an American issue about needing Washington to make a move. he spoke, like he often does, of change coming from the bottom up - that when people are in their communities talking and persuading and giving each other facts, it makes a difference.

The whole phone call was energizing and great. My commitment is to learn the nuances and do outreach via phone calls as the summer evolves (and as my health improves). It's important to get the details, to ensure that the solution is workable. I turn to my sister the doctor often to verify information. But the lack of adequate health care in this country for so many people is horrifying. It's time to make a move.

Torture, Revisited

Two items on torture.

First, love that Obama. Here is what he said today in his speech on national security:

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

(And though I do not quote it here, I also appreciate the part of his speech that outlines his plan on dealing with Guantanamo detainees - very smart, methodical.)

Second - and this fits in a "did you know" category - according to NPR, it turns out that James Mitchell - one of the two Spokane psychologists who formed the basis of the opinions in the 2002 torture memos that torture isn't torture (I've outlined this issue here) - was in daily contact with the White House back then, and apparently with Alberto Gonzalez in particular. Here's an excerpt:

One source with knowledge of Zubaydah's interrogations agreed to describe the legal guidance process, on the condition of anonymity.

The source says nearly every day, Mitchell would sit at his computer and write a top-secret cable to the CIA's counterterrorism center. Each day, Mitchell would request permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah. The source says the CIA would then forward the request to the White House, where White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would sign off on the technique. That would provide the administration's legal blessing for Mitchell to increase the pressure on Zubaydah in the next interrogation.

A new document is consistent with the source's account.

The CIA sent the ACLU a spreadsheet late Tuesday as part of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The log shows the number of top-secret cables that went from Zubaydah's black site prison to CIA headquarters each day. Through the spring and summer of 2002, the log shows, someone sent headquarters several cables a day.

"At the very least, it's clear that CIA headquarters was choreographing what was going on at the black site," says Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who sued to get the document. "But there's still this question about the relationship between CIA headquarters and the White House and the Justice Department and the question of which senior officials were driving this process."

The more we learn, the darker it gets. As the story notes at a later point, it is "highly unusual" for the White House to tell interrogators what they can and cannot do. You can read the entire NPR story here.

Jesse Ventura

Yesterday I had the chance to watch a video of Jesse Ventura (former governor of Minnesota) talking with Elizabeth Hasselbeck on "The View" about torture. Ventura was a Navy Seal, and received SERE (survival) training from the military before going to Vietnam. As I have discussed in the past, it was the SERE training - which taught our soldiers what to expect if captured by an enemy who might use torture to elicit "confessions" to use in propaganda - that got co-opted by our country, via Spokane psychologists, so that torture (and waterboarding) suddenly became a pro-active interrogation tool rather than a training tool to protect our guys, and our information, from illegal torture.

In the "View" segment, Ventura was very articulate. He had been waterboarded through his SERE training, to know what to expect in foreign countries if he got captured. "It's torture," he said. It just is. Hasselbeck attempted to distract in a variety of ways, and Ventura held his own. He also pointed out that this country has only waterboarded Muslims. Fascinating. "Why not criminals, to get a confession?" he said, and then said, because it's torture. (In fact, it goes even further than just that, though that would be enough. In part it is because "confessions" obtained through torture are so inherently unreliable that they are not admissible in courtroom cases, even to disprove a defendant's otherwise inconsistent statements.)

I've never paid a whole heck of a lot of attention to Jesse Ventura. But he was great in this clip. He sussed out the issues succinctly. He just made sense. And he knows of what he talks - he experienced the waterboarding first hand, when our country waterboarded him to help him know what to expect from countries who act illegally, unethically, immorally...

So then this a.m., I was up before 6 a.m. (unfortunately) and thought, hmm, since I'm awake, I might as well take a gander at "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. Sometimes I like this show, though it's sort of a sitting-duck arrangement for the host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican U.S. representative. Joe can be a bully and the show is set up to let him bully whoever when he's in the mood. Still, they have good comentators and sometimes it is worth watching.

This morning? Not so much. I flipped it off about as soon as I flipped it on. His target? Jesse Ventura. I didn't need to listen to much more, after I heard Joe say there should be a law against "being that stupid."

Seriously? Ventura was articulate on "The View." He was real. He was smart. He was compassionate to a different point of view while simultaneously extremely clear that the view was incomplete, misinformed.

It just may be that this a.m. was the last time I watch "Morning Joe." It's one thing to disagree. It's another to be an attack dog, and to laugh arrogantly, when you know - you know (and I believe Joe Scarborough knows) that you are attacking someone who is telling the truth. I thought Joe was better than that kind of blatant partisan line.

Here's a clip discussing Ventura and Scarborough. (Also, interesting note - some of those sticking up for Scarborough say that Ventura "admitted" that this country waterboards because he "admitted" that he himself was waterboarded. Those comments fail to understand the SERE program.)

Final Update - Statute of Limitations Bill

In a somewhat delayed update, last week we got some homegrown publicity on the passage of SB 5832, the Washington state bill extending the statute of limitations on many child sex abuse crimes until the victim's 28th birthday. Rich Roesler, the Spokesman Review's state legislation guy, posted an item on his blog here. Then DFO (Dave Oliviera) at HBO (Huckleberries) posted an item on Rich's posting here. (full disclosure: after I emailed him and said, hey Dave, did you see this?) Then Rich ended up writing an article for the newspaper here.

Here's my perusing these past few days.... A blog can make a difference. I'm sort of amazed. I am the kind of person that has opinions. Through this blog (and through other blogs where I post comments), I now have new avenues to express those opinions. This, I understood. What gives me pause is how having an avenue for expressing my thoughts and opinions may have actually have impact - in getting this bill passed, for example - and at least gives people a chance to expand perceptions - especially if I do my job right and create proper links (and express my thoughts and opinions responsibly).