Glenn Beck: Health-care reform is just like the
9/11 attacks. And my followers are standing up before it hits

DOWNLOADS: (154)
PLAYS: (359)

Glenn Beck must have been feeling the pressure from Virginia Foxx yesterday in the Absurd Wingnuttery Championships. So, after Foxx compared the liberal health-care reform package working its way through Congress to terrorism, Beck went on his Fox News show and compared the package to the 9/11 attacks:

Beck: On 9/11, we experienced a feeling we had never had before -- when the buildings and our markets and the economy came falling down around our ears, we realized -- 'Oh my gosh. Our country isn't unsinkable.'

We came, on that day, to the understanding that this Republic is fragile. Here we are now, a decade later. I'm on the air again, warning you that our government cannot sustain our massive spending. The system will collapse if we continue down this progressive path.

Ten years ago, I could have shouted every single day about Osama bin Laden and his wacky, crazy threats to kill Americans in New York. And no one would have been willing to stand in line two hours while some security officers made grandma take her shoes off. No one would have done it.

But don't you see -- while the government is still not willing to do these things, today, America is different. America has changed. Washington, we're not going to let you get away with it anymore.

Look, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Conservatives are awake. 912ers are willing to do the hard things. We know what this means. We're taking time out of our busy lives, taking time away from their families, they're attending town-hall meetings -- you think they wanna do that? They are calling their representatives -- how many times do we have to be yelled at by your people in Washington? to work against the enactment of health care reform.

They are reading 2,000-page health-care bills on the weekend. They 912ers are willing to stand in line and take our shoes off before the plane actually hits the tower.

Glenn Beck has a long history of exploiting the 9/11 tragedy for the sake of ratings and rantings. (Who could forget his encomium to the widows? "It took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 victims' families.")

Indeed, you could make the case that his current stellar rise was built on such exploitation. Beck was a nobody until he started making incendiary remarks about Muslims on air and attacking liberals for their insufficient patriotism after 9/11 and cheerleading the Iraq invasion as a post-9/11 necessity. It's what made him famous in the first place.

And now he's springboarding from that to leading an open revolt against the liberal policies Americans just voted to implement, throwing a tantrum because no one believes in disproven and discredited conservative dogma anymore. No one, that is, except Glenn Beck and his hapless followers.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Understanding Turkey's Foreign Policy

The Economist is the latest to weigh in on Turkey's growing diplomatic role in the Middle East and to question whether Turkey is moving away from the West and toward what has been called a "neo-Ottoman" foreign policy that increasingly emphasizes strengthening ties with Turkey's southern and eastern neighbors.

The article provides a thorough and mostly helpful account of Turkey's recent foreign policy, but I think it shares one key misconception with much of the recent Western commentary on this subject.

Here is what The Economist describes as the roots of Turkey's new, eastward-looking foreign policy:

The Turks are now back in the Middle East, in the benign guise of traders and diplomats. The move is natural, considering proximity, the strength of the Turkish economy, the revival of Islamic feeling in Turkey after decades of enforced secularism, and frustration with the sluggishness of talks to join the European Union. Indeed, Turkey's Middle East offensive has taken on something of the scale and momentum of an invasion, albeit a peaceful one.

This explanation, while partially accurate, is incomplete. Turkey's foreign policy posture must be understood in context.

A significant reason for Turkey's increasingly independent, "zero problems with neighbors" policy in its neighborhood is the fact that the United States' recent policy in the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster - particularly since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 over Turkish objections.

Ian Lesser hit the nail on the head when he said back in 2006 that

For decades the U.S.-Turkish strategic relationship was based largely on the defense of the regional status quo, territorial and political - an approach well suited to Turkey's essentially conservative foreign-policy outlook. Today, Turkey fases an American partner with more dynamic, even revolutionary objectives in areas of shared interest

Siding with the United States against the status quo in the Middle East is simply too risky of a strategy for Turkey, which does not enjoy the option of withdrawing to the safety of North America.

Remarking on the divergence of American and European foreign policies after September 11, Tony Judt said that "America's strategy of global confrontation with Islam is not an option for Europe. It is a catastrophe."

The same could be said for Turkey.

-- Ben Katcher

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Lieberman Camp Denies Hill Report

“If you believe this story is true, you will also believe that I am replacing A-Rod in game six of the series. The suggestion reported in the Hill that Senator Lieberman has made a ‘private understanding’ on his votes on health care[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/11/03/lieberman-camp-denies-hill-report/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Republican McDonell wins Virginia governor

Gen JC Christian tweets that "Creigh Deeds proves that if a white man blatantly screws up, you can still blame it on a black guy."

Markos tweets that Deeds took the rest of the Dem candidates down with him.

ABC's Jake Tapper tweets that Obama is not watching the returns.

Media Matters reports that in 2001, during the Bush presidency, the media was convinced that off-off-year elections were insignificant and certainly not a reflection on the sitting president.



Joe says the loss in VA wasn't unexpected. He says Creigh Deeds ran a crappy campaign.

Here we go. I'm sitting in a Holiday Inn room in Portland, Maine with Joe, his sister, and their friend John, waiting for election results from various parts of the city - they have their minions all over the place, calling in momentarily.

Here is a results page for Maine.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Election Live Blog

Markos tweets: Dems pick up Charlotte mayor.

MSNBC now agrees, Christie projected winner.

MSNBC is saying NJ Gov race too close to call. AP is saying that Christie, the R, is the winner.

MSNBC: Bloomberg projected winner in NYC. Or maybe not.

We're covering the three main gay election issues over on AMERICAblog gay. Including the fact that the gays just won in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

56% in Virginia say Obama wasn't a factor in their vote, only 24% said he was, per MSNBC.

In NJ and VA, independents voted for the GOP governor candidates. Can a call for Democrats to move to the middle and ignore their promises during the election be far behind? As if Democrats didn't already move to the middle and ignore their electoral promises.

9pm Eastern: NBC not ready to call race for NY mayor - whether Bloomberg gets 3rd term. NJ governor, too close to call.

Jake tapper tweets that "in VA voters 'very' worried about economy went for [Republican] McDonnell 73-26 percent. In NJ, they went for [Republican] Christie 59-36 percent."

ABC exit poll data for VA and NJ.

Gen JC Christian tweets that "Creigh Deeds proves that if a white man blatantly screws up, you can still blame it on a black guy."

Markos tweets that Deeds took the rest of the Dem candidates down with him.

ABC's Jake Tapper tweets that Obama is not watching the returns.

Media Matters reports that in 2001, during the Bush presidency, the media was convinced that off-off-year elections were insignificant and certainly not a reflection on the sitting president.



Joe says the loss in VA wasn't unexpected. He says Creigh Deeds ran a crappy campaign.

Here we go. I'm sitting in a Holiday Inn room in Portland, Maine with Joe, his sister, and their friend John, waiting for election results from various parts of the city - they have their minions all over the place, calling in momentarily.

Here is a results page for Maine.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Bipartisanship Lives! Eshoo Amendment Embraced by
GOP in Alternative Health Bill

The Republican’s have just released their ?alternative? bill to the Democrats’ health care reform legislation. It is frankly a meaningless, very long press release, filled with some really bad ideas. The Republicans did find basically only[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/03/bipartisanship-lives-eshoo-amendment-
embraced-by-gop-in-?alternative?-health-bill/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

GOP takes Virginia, New Jersey governorships.
Still waiting on NY-23

Read The Full Article:
http://www.tomoveanation.com/2009/11/gop-takes-virginia-new-jersey.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

As The Media Obsesses Over New York Special
Election, It Ignores Leftward Lurch In California Special Election

In the past few weeks, conservatives and their allies in the press have obsessed over the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district. Pundits have claimed that the rise of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman as the likely winner in that race is a “referendum on the Obama-Biden spending agenda” and evidence of a rightward shift in the nation’s politics, despite the fact that this particular district in New York hasn’t elected a Democrat in a century.

While pundits have obsessed over the special election in New York, they’ve completely ignored another race that evidences a progressive resurgence. Today, voters in California’s 10th congressional district will go to the polls to elect a member of congress to replace former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who was brought into the Obama Administration to serve as the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

As The Nation’s John Nichols notes, CA-10 is a far more competitive district than NY-23:

If [NY-23] elects a Republican Tuesday ? and, though Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party line, he is now backed by local, state and national GOP leaders and organizations ? the district will hold to the pattern it has been on since Ulysses Grant was president. On the other hand, California 10 was represented by a Republican until Tauscher beat him in 1996 ? and in the past century, Republicans have represented the core counties of the district more frequently than Democrats. In other words, California 10 is the more historically competitive turf.

Despite the competitiveness of his district, Democrat John Garamendi leads Republican David Harmer by ten points in the latest polling.

What makes Garamendi’s lead all the more impressive is his progressive stances. While CA-10 was previously held by a Democrat, Tauscher legislated as a centrist. A member of the business-friendly “New Democrat Coalition,” Tauscher was a supporter of rolling back the estate tax, tightening bankruptcy rules, and expanding free trade agreements. Following the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2006, she famously warned her colleagues to not run “over the left cliff” by passing too much progressive legislation.

Garamendi, on the other hand, is an unabashed liberal. He is a strong supporter not only of a public option, but of a single-payer Medicare-for-all health care system, supports the creation of an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and actually defeated the hand-picked candidate for the Democratic endorsement.

If he is elected, and he likely will be, it will mark a dramatic leftward shift in CA-10. But with all the media coverage of NY-23, most Americans may never know that.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Encourage Creativity and Expand
Cross-Disciplinary Subjects: Knowledge as a Full Contact Sport

(Cross-posted from The Free Speech Zone) Sir Ken Robinson makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity. Bennington president Liz Coleman delivers a call-to-arms for[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/ki-43X8bobI/expand-interdisciplinary
-subjects-knowledge-is-a-full-contact-sport

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

The Republicans Have A Healthcare Reform Bill!
Sort of.

Well, the House Republicans do. And it's not so much reform, really. The Senate Republicans are still apparently planning to rely on their fallback position of obstructing the Democrats, but the Republicans finally put their "eight or nine" ideas to paper [sub. req].

Under the GOP plan, insurance companies would still be allowed to exclude anyone with a pre-existing medical condition from coverage, there would be no national insurance exchange and businesses would not face any mandate to provide insurance nor individuals to buy it. Boehner also left out tax credits to help the poor and middle class buy insurance — a central pillar of most GOP reform proposals and a key feature of a four-page outline Republican leaders released in June.

You can read the entire draft [pdf].

It also explicitly excludes undocumented workers from any and all of the "reforms," and reiterates again the Hyde Amendment, restricting abortion coverage. It would also expand state-based high-risk insurance pools, the one idea that Boehner pointed to as "innovative." But just a note about those pools--they already exist, as Karen Tumulty points out:

[W]hen you look at what the House Minority Leader is describing as an "innovative" solution, you've got to wonder.

Specifically, he points to the kind of high-risk pools that many states have established for those who find themselves uninsurable as a result of a serious illness. That is not a new idea--some states have had these pools for three decades--or a solution for many. These pools already exist in more than 30 states, but they tend to be too expensive for those with limited means to buy into. And often, people cannot get into them for as long as a year after they apply.

When my brother developed kidney disease and his health insurance refused to pay to treat it, I looked into Texas' high-risk pool and discovered it would be far out of his reach, with premiums that typically run twice as expensive as regular insurance policies. California's high-risk pool has been a disaster, covering only 2% of the medically uninsurable.

So the primary "innovative" idea in the bill has already been tried and has proven lacking. But what the bill doesn't do is more to the point. And here's where we get to the mysterious case of the disappearing WSJ story. As Darcy blogged last night, the Wall Street Journal had the most honest summary of the bill in its headline: "GOP Health Bill Gives Insurers More Leeway" and in its lede.

A House Republican health-care bill wouldn't seek to prevent health-insurance companies from denying sick people insurance, Minority Leader John Boehner said Monday.

That's hardly reform, though the insurance companies will certainly love it. HCAN sums it up.

The Republican bill runs the table on provisions that will increase insurance company profits.

• Make more money by denying care? Check.
• Make more money by ending insurance policies when someone gets sick and actually needs to use the care they paid for? Check. (At least according to the original version of the Wall Street Journal article.)
• Allowing insurers to move to the least-regulated states and sell their junk insurance to the rest of the country? Check.

There's no attempt to expand coverage to people who are dying without it, that would be too costly. And no attempt to shield people from insurance company abuses like denial of care.

Maybe they'd have been better off just following the Senate Republicans' plan of just saying "no" without actually putting something this embarrassing out there. Maybe they figure they can get even more money out of the industry by kissing up to it with this "legislation."

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!