Creep show

Charles Blow tells creep show Congressman, John Shadegg (R-Craven and Repulsive) that, thanks, but we can handle it from here, asshole.

Representative John Shadegg of Arizona really knows how to put on a show.

Earlier this month, he used a live baby as part of a quasi-ventriloquist act on the House floor. Creepy? Yes. Still, we let it slide.

But he doesn’t get two passes in a row. Monday, he took a swipe at Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City for saying that the city could handle the security for the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Shadegg sniped, “I saw the mayor of New York today said ‘We’re tough. We can do it.’ Well mayor, how are you going to feel when it’s your daughter that’s kidnapped, at school, by a terrorist?”

Say what you will about New Yorkers, but question our toughness, you will not.

Whether a civil or military trial would provide the best chances of securing a conviction while simultaneously signaling to the world a righting of America’s moral compass is a fair debate. But questioning whether New York City can handle the trial is an insult.

(By the way, what’s with this business of the mayor’s daughter being kidnapped? It sounds like the plot of a Jackie Chan movie.)

Free agency

A typically terrific post by Doug Glanville, on his own experience of the insecurity and promise of free agency.

Glanville had a good year at Texas in 2003 (as a platoon based on his PAs), and he was traded to the Cubs during their pennant drive (and lost in heartbreaking fashion in the NLCS. Traded back to the Phillies in 2004, the end of his career.

History made on a Saturday

It's Saturday afternoon and we have just come closer to achieving the 60 year Democratic goal of universal health care and meaningful reform then we've ever before come in this country.

How much do you want to bet the consensus on the Sunday morning idiot shows will be why this is good news for Republicans and, of course, President McCain?

Lies that destroy good policy

So, it turns out that there is a growing consensus among economists that the stimulus, while not as big as it should have been, has done pretty well.

These long-running arguments have flared now that the White House and Congressional leaders are talking about a new “jobs bill.” But with roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

“It was worth doing — it’s made a difference,” said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: “I don’t think it’s right to look at it by saying, ‘Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn’t work.’ I’m afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus.”

Certainly, economists who feared the package was too small were probably right and the administration's forecasts were probably too rosy, but all in all, preventing what looked like at the time as an inevitable "Great Recession," seems to have been accomplished.

Among Democrats in the White House and Congress, “there was a considerable amount of hand-wringing that it was too small, and I sympathized with that argument,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com and an occasional adviser to lawmakers.

Even so, “the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do — it is contributing to ending the recession,” he added, citing the economy’s third-quarter expansion by a 3.5 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate. “In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus.”

Politically, however, the president is saddled with his original claim that, with the stimulus, the jobless rate would peak at 8.1 percent — a miscalculation that Republicans constantly recall. While the administration has said its economic assumptions were in line with private forecasts, most of which also underestimated the recession’s punch, it was more optimistic than most.

“That was a mistake,” said Jeffrey A. Frankel, a Harvard University economist and former Clinton administration official who is a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research panel that judges when recessions start and end. “I thought so at the time.”

Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said attention to that too-rosy projection “prevents people from focusing on the positive impact of the fiscal stimulus. So of course I find that frustrating.”

Here are the charts.

Unfortunately, "it coulda been worse," is a tough political platform to embrace, particularly as foreclosures continue to rise and job creation remains elusive.

But making things worse has been the ongoing drumbeat of Republicans who, as Romer understates, prevent us from focusing on the positive. Quite the contrary.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, citing the growing unemployment rate, said Sunday the president's economic stimulus program has done nothing but increase the size of government. He said businesses are "sitting on their hands" because of government spending and proposals for health care and other initiatives he contended would increase taxes.

"Business people are afraid to invest in their business, afraid to grow their business, because they don't know what's going to happen next," Boehner said on CNN's "State of the Union."

All to be expected, I suppose. He is, the "leader" of the opposition. But the mendaciousness, and the constant argument against government stimulus to help jump start a stalled economy, showing either ignorance or cynicism...or both... has no doubt fed into poll results that show 51% of Americans think that canceling the rest of the stimulus would create more jobs. Which is...insane. But reflects the talking points of the Republican Party.

We're seeing a similar dynamic in the recent suggestions that women wait to begin having mammograms until fifty, and to delay pap smears until later in life (I realize I'm simplifying the recommendations in my haste). Although the recommendations are years in the making and are the results of numerous studies, Republicans have inevitably pounced on them as proof of Democrats' dastardly plans to "ration" health care and that effectiveness research -- a key aspect of health care reform -- will result in denying life-saving tests and procedures in order to save money. Despite the fact that medical effectiveness, not cost-effectiveness is the only thing mentioned in the recommendations.

These are medical recommendations, not directives, and women can make informed choices on what types of preventive medicine they want (especially if they have health care, something Republicans are pretty set on denying them anyway). They are intended to empower women, not deny them of care. But instead it's science be damned. Let's react to these recommendations as if they were political slogans of the other party. It feeds the distrust people have towards the medical community and government in general, making the possibility of informed, useful policy decisions more and more difficult.

Whee.

#31

Sorry for the paucity of posts, but in between demands that I perform "work" for my "employer," I've been on a trip through the world of dental specialists -- an endodontist, a periodontist, an oral surgeon, back to the periodontist -- all in pursuit of stopping the pain of an abscess and still hold on to my rear lower molar. The journey included the fascinating development of a shard of bone, chipped off from the bone where the abscess was doing its evil work, working its way through the gum tissue and emerging like a spicule to rip at my tongue every time I chewed, talked, and, oh yeah, swallowed. This led, on Thursday, to the oral surgeon who, despite not being able to see anything really wrong with the vital tooth, was all ready to extract it. But I resisted and instead went back to the periodontist to have her look below the gum line to see if the damage to the tooth could be found, fully expecting that she'd extract the tooth in the end anyway.

It could not be found. But she removed all the bone shards and determined that the tooth seems fine and there it remains in my mouth this morning. The bad news is she really doesn't know, then, what caused the abscess and infection that caused the initial pain, maybe a fracture in the jaw caused by a childhood chin plant or the removal of my wisdom teeth thirty years ago.

I and my tooth are doing fine.

While the journey was a fascinating look at the marvels of modern dental equipment, including the very cool panoramic x-ray (weird to see my entire jaw bone, roots of all my teeth, and what I think is the stem of my brain), all of this was done "out-of-network," so I now look forward to, in addition to a week or so of eating soft foods (good thing turkey is the worst tasting edible meat in the world), months of dealing with insurance claims.

Noblesville, Indiana

Via Doghouse, I bring you this snapshot on those people to whom Bob Somberby insists we must pay attention.

He pointed out that the statement about Allah did not have a question mark behind it, so he did not think it was an attack. However, Parker also said the church does not have punctuation lettering for the sign.

Iverson

Well, it looks like watching the Knicks this season isn't going to be more interesting after all.

Levon

Must be Santa

Nothing says Klezmer Christmas like Bob Dylan.

Make it stop

Is it me, or is The Atlantic's "Voices'" obsession with ex-gov. Palin and her photos a trifle weird.

Based on the comment trails for Ta-Nehisi, I guess his readers are in to it, but still.

Misunderstanding populism

First, let's get this out of the way:

As for the theory of evolution, the most she really asks is that both sides of the discussion be taught.

And that from a dude who proclaims himself a proud atheist?

And what he calls "populists," Riley explains, we call "Republicans." Those from whom George W. Bush never lacked support, even as his polling numbers with the rest of the country scaped Nixonian lows.

Politics isn't about achieving anything for these people--not anything positive, which has proven to be too damn hard without making concessions to what Nabokov called "reality"--it's about the home team winning. It's about jabbing a stick in the eye of anything that moves differently than they do. Real populism is the last thing they, or Palin, or her PR team, would want.

Exactly. What Palin enjoys in popularity is largely the belief, generally a wrong-headed one, that she pisses liberals off.

Ceding the high moral ground is never a good idea

Jeffrey Toobin explains the long history of abortion (and yes, Scalia, it existed when the Founders were writing the Constitution) and why the Stupak amendment is such a threat to women's rights.

A clear understanding of the structure of the health-care proposals currently under consideration shows why the Stupak amendment is such a threat to abortion rights. At the heart of the proposals is the idea of an exchange, where consumers will be able to select among competing insurance plans. Theoretically, the exchange will increase consumer choice, promote competition, and (somewhat more theoretically) lower costs for everyone. If there is a public option, it will be offered through the exchange. At first, many of the people using the exchange will be those who are unable to pay for health insurance on their own. For them, the government will offer a sliding scale of subsidies. It is largely these subsidies which will increase the availability of insurance; estimates of how many people will gain coverage vary, but it may be close to forty million.

Restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion go back to the Hyde amendment, which became law more than thirty years ago; for example, there has long been a ban on abortions under Medicaid or in military hospitals. But the implications of the Stupak amendment are broader, because of the structure of the exchange. To start with, Stupak states that anyone who buys insurance with a government subsidy cannot choose a plan that covers abortion, even if that person receives only a small subsidy, and even if only a tiny portion of the full premium goes for abortion care. And the influence of the amendment reaches beyond the recipients of federal subsidies. Stupak would prohibit the public option from offering any plans that cover abortion. Further, it is expected that each year more Americans will use the exchange, including people who don’t need subsidies, but under the Stupak amendment insurance companies would have no incentive to offer those people coverage for abortion services, since doing so might cost them the business of subsidized customers. Today, most policies cover abortion; in a post-Stupak world, they probably won’t. With a health-care plan that is supposed to increase access and lower costs, the opposite would be true with respect to abortion. And that, of course, is what legislators like Stupak want—to make abortions harder, and more expensive, to obtain. Stupak and his allies were willing to kill the whole bill to get their way; the liberals in the House were not.

Toobin quotes Justice Ginsberg, "abortion rights 'center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.'”

As for the politics of the issue, Scott Lemieux observes, "The idea that anti-choicers don't actually want to legally restrict abortion for poor people but just want Democratic politicians to give them a pat on the head makes no sense in theory and is pretty clearly wrong in practice."

Diplomad-libs

Very useful:

In light of the latest conservative freakout over diplomatic protocol and following the rule of law, here's a handy fill-in-the-blanks statement you can use for the next one: "I am shocked and appalled that this president would take the unprecedented step of _____ before ______ on his overseas trip to _____. This fits into a familiar pattern of the Obama administration, most recently seen at home in his decision to ______, which emboldens our enemies and further pushes America into a _____ state that would have been unrecognizable just ______ months ago."

I love time-savers.

"He's with us on everything except the war," vol. 842

Last night, not far from my home, something called the Interfaith Fellowship held a candle-light vigil at Stamford High School, Smokin' Joe's alma mater and across the street from Joementum's "Stamford home." I thought about going (about 500 people did, according to the fire marshal), but eventually decided that it would be a waste of time. Lieberman long ago stopped caring what progressive Dem voters thought since he blames us for his primary defeat in '06 and assumes that only Republicans would vote for him in '12. Opposing universal health care (and specifically, a public option), helps him with his insurance industry donors and the only voters in CT that still value him. It's a two-fer for him and no amount of prayer is going to change that.

Blue Monday, Elvis edtion

Little Walter classic.

"With all due respect, sir, shut the fuck up"

In not so many words, David Axelrod tells Mitt Romney that the former governor is an ass.

"You know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people, we ought to get it right."

It would be an encouraging sign if we actually took the time to get our war strategies right before rushing in. It would a cold day hell for a present day conservative to appreciate that.

Nuanced policy discussions

Last night on NPR, though it's not in the transcript, Davey Brooks said, in an aside, that he was "surprised" that fiscal concerns were playing into the strategy discussions of what's next in Afghanistan. No surprise there. War seems to be the one thing the federal government spends on over which conservatives feel there should be no ceiling.

At a stop at a military base in Alaska on Thursday, President Obama told a gathering of soldiers that he would not risk more lives “unless it is necessary to America’s vital interests.” He added during his visit to Tokyo on Friday that he wanted to avoid taking any step that could be seen as an “open-ended commitment.”

The administration said Friday that it planned to cut up to 5 percent at domestic agencies in fiscal 2011 as part of an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit, which rose to $1.4 trillion with the economic stimulus and financial bailouts.

Several leading Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama’s willingness to spend more freely on domestic programs and urged him to provide General McChrystal with the resources he is seeking in Afghanistan.

“Keeping our country safe: Isn’t that the first job of government?” said Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “If we have just a minimalist counterterrorism strategy, the Taliban will come back over the mountains from Pakistan, and they will be followed by their co-conspirators from the Al Qaeda organization.”

The Taliban are already coming "back over the mountains from Pakistan." But that aside, how after eight years of futile war, staying there indefinitely will "keep our country safe," is not mentioned. But nuance isn't the thing for the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Nothing "common" about them

The New York Times gets it right.

Mr. Holder said those prisoners would be prosecuted in federal court in Manhattan. It was an enormous victory for the rule of law, a major milestone in Mr. Obama’s efforts to close the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and an important departure from Mr. Bush’s disregard for American courts and their proven ability to competently handle high-profile terror cases. If he and Vice President Dick Cheney had shown more faith in the laws and the Constitution, the alleged mass murderers would have faced justice much earlier.

Republican lawmakers and the self-promoting independent senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, pounced on the chance to appear on television. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they said military tribunals are a more secure and appropriate venue for trying terrorism suspects. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a former judge who should have more regard for the law, offered the absurd claim that Mr. Obama was treating the 9/11 conspirators as “common criminals.”

There is nothing common about them — or Mr. Holder’s decision. Putting the five defendants on public trial a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center is entirely fitting. Experience shows that federal courts are capable of handling high-profile terrorism trials without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. Mr. Bush’s tribunals failed to hold a single trial.

Left unmentioned is the absolutely predictable rise of the Giuli911 and the absolutely predictable failure of the media to call bullshit on him.

The pet goat operations manual

What can you say, they were both incompetent and mendacious.