Subscribe via RSS Feed

Healthcare…Now With 1 Million Fewer Kids!

[ 0 ] October 14, 2007 |

Just so the consequences of Bush’s veto of S-CHIP are 100% clear: it’s not just that kids who need health insurance but aren’t currently covered are screwed. Kids who are currently receiving health insurance through S-CHIP may also be facing the S-CHOP (har har). Take, for example, some 11,000 kids in New Jersey. But wait! There’s more. Because while New Jersey will sweep 11,000 kids out of healthcare, that’s a small number compared to the nationwide estimates. From today’s Times article:

According to health care experts, an estimated one million children across the country would be phased out of the insurance program over the next few years under the $30 billion five-year plan proposed by President Bush.

Now, I know what some of you are going to say (not pointing fingers, just sayin’). You’re going to say, well, look at the family identified in the article. These are exactly the kinds of people who should NOT be getting government health insurance. She makes almost $50,000/year for goodness sake!

They are not looking at the consequences of this for families and children that are going to lose out,” said Ann Martinez, 28, an administrative assistant. She said that she earns too much money to qualify for Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, but that she cannot afford the $500 a month it would cost her for coverage for her two children.

Ms. Martinez, who earns $47,000 a year, is covered under her employer’s health plan, but her children are covered by New Jersey Family Care….

But figure her take home pay is much less than $47,500; $500/month for childhealthcare for her kids = $6,000/year. A. Ton. of. Money.

Maybe we should stop focusing on who might make just enough to eke by on private health insurance (see: the brouhaha over the Frosts last week, who, btw, do not make enough to eke by), and start asking why insurance costs so damn much to begin with. All you nutters who think Bush’s veto was right (and/or support his new offer — yes, that means you too McCain) go on and get rid of the health insurers’ lobby, then let’s talk.

Share with Sociable

Sunday Deposed Monarch Blogging: House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

[ 0 ] October 14, 2007 |

Like several other major European dynasties, the earliest recorded history of the House of Wettin is found in the tenth century. Through conquest, the family took control of Castle Wettin, and took its name for the dynasty. The family would proceed to control substantial parts of Germany and Poland over the next thousand years, and to provide a pair of kings for Poland, as well as prince consorts for Portugal and the United Kingdom, and kings for Belgium and Bulgaria. Most of these came through a cadet branch of House Wettin named Saxe-Coburg Gotha.

Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg Gotha became Prince Regnant of Bulgaria in 1886, at the age of 25. Bulgaria had acquired de facto sovereignty in 1878, although it nominally remained part of the Ottoman Empire. The first monarch of Bulgaria was Prince Alexander of House Battenberg. Despite leading Bulgaria to victory in war against Serbia, Alexander was deposed by a military coup in 1886. As had been the case with Alexander, Ferdinand was chosen by a combative decision-making process by the Great Powers. Ferdinand was notable mainly for his high position amongst Austro-Hungarian nobility, but was also distantly related to medieval Bulgarian princes. In 1908, the increasing decrepitude of the Ottoman Empire allowed Bulgaria to declare independence, with Ferdinand as its first Tsar.

Bulgaria did very well in the First Balkan War, but lost most of its gains in the Second Balkan War. In hopes of recovering lost territory, Bulgaria joined the Central Powers in 1915. Bulgarian entry into the war doomed Serbia, and in 1916 the Bulgarians made significant gains at the expense of the Romanians. The situation deteriorated in 1918, however, as economic deprivation was intensely felt on the homefront and Allied forces closed in. Ferdinand abdicated in October 1918 in favor of his son Boris, and House Saxe Coburg Gotha was allowed to remain on the throne of a much diminished Bulgarian state.

The twenty-four year old Boris managed to hold power despite almost continuous fighting between far right and far left elements. He married the daughter of Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in 1937, a union which produced two children. After the new war began in Europe, Bulgaria came under considerable pressure to join the Axis. In 1941 King Boris agreed to declare war against Great Britain and the United States, but not against the Soviet Union. Boris and his government limited cooperation with the Germans, irritating Hitler but saving a substantial portion of Bulgaria’s Jewish population. After meeting with Hitler in 1943, Boris died of an apparent heart attack and was succeeded by his six year old son Simeon. Sofia was struck repeatedly by Allied bombers, and in 1944 Bulgaria abandoned the war and withdrew from military cooperation with the Axis.

When the Red Army arrived at the borders of Bulgaria, the Soviet Union declared war. For about a week, Bulgaria was at war with both Germany and the Soviet Union. The Red Army quickly occupied Bulgaria, and the government was replaced by a communist regime. In 1946 a Soviet sponsored referendum abolished the monarchy and exiled young Simeon. Simeon grew up in Spain and the United States, but never renounced his claim to the Bulgarian throne. In 1996, after the collapse of the communist regime, Simeon returned to Bulgaria to general acclaim. In 2001 he took a most unusual step for a former monarch, forming his own political party and engaging in electoral politics. His party won the June 2001 election, and Simeon became the Prime Minister of Bulgaria. He served for four years before being turned out in 2005.

Prospects for a return to the throne remain uncertain. Simeon’s popularity declined across his term as prime minister, although he remains a major figure in Bulgarian politics. Simeon has remained largely mum about his intentions regarding the throne. Still, the prospects for a return to the throne of House Saxe Coburg Gotha are probably the strongest of any deposed monarchical family in the world.

Trivia: Which monarch served as the head of state of his independent country for only five years, but managed during his life to serve as a royal puppet for three different imperial powers?

Share with Sociable

The Long March Through the Institutions Continues!

[ 0 ] October 14, 2007 |

So this is what George Will is up to these days? Taking out hits on the social work profession? To sum up, somebody passed Will a copy of the latest National Association of Scholars’ “report” on the condition of social work education. The NAS — following the rigorous methodological innovations honed by Lynne Cheney and Dinesh D’Souza between 1990-1992 — predictably discerned an elaborate “progressive” agenda within the social work field by examining course descriptions, program statements, and a few stray anecdotes featuring a handful of beleaguered conservative students (one of whom appears to be a free-market department troll whose interest in social welfare exists only insofar as he’s interested in dismantling social welfare spending in his home state of Rhode Island. At least one of the other cases appears to derive from plausible objections to a course assignment; in that case, the university conceded its error and made generous restitution. I’m not sure how this outcome helps the argument that social work programs are intransigently politicized, but I guess that’s conservative logic for you.)

Continuing its anecdotal broadside against social work programs, the NAS apparently stumbled across the decade-old Code of Ethics approved by the National Association of Social Workers, whom Will accuses of promoting a “surreptitious political agenda.” (I’m not sure how “surreptitious” such a code could actually be, given that it was approved in 1997, was revised and amended two years later, and has been available on its website ever since. But I guess that’s investigative conservative journalism for you.)

Will seems especially dismayed that universities would expect their graduates to understand the professional mores of their chosen field. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, this is supposed to be controversial. Among other things — such as requiring that social workers not fuck their clients or charge them for services not rendered (principles of which I’m sure Will would not disapprove) — the NASW encourages social workers to

pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people.

No, wait — it gets worse! Not only do are students of social work expected to concern themselves with human welfare, but they’re also expected to acknowledge that

relationships between and among people are an important vehicle for change. Social workers engage people as partners in the helping process. Social workers seek to strengthen relationships among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the well-being of individuals, families, social groups, organizations, and communities.

Disgusting, really. And like Cap’n Crunch, I’m sure that Stalin would have approved. Lo, that isn’t the worst of it. Behold:

Social workers elevate service to others above self-interest. Social workers draw on their knowledge, values, and skills to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers are encouraged to volunteer some portion of their professional skills with no expectation of significant financial return (pro bono service).

I can’t wait for John Stossel to get a hold of that one! Clearly, social work programs need to be reminded of what the free market and possessive individualism can deliver in the way of social justice and economic opportunity.

Share with Sociable

GOP Values!

[ 0 ] October 14, 2007 |

Roger takes a closer look. One has to agree with his bottom line about the “Value Voters” summit: “Attendees would be well advised to leave their wallets in their hotel rooms and their children in another state.”

Share with Sociable

Coming Soon To An Op-Ed Page Near You!

[ 0 ] October 14, 2007 |

Our “new” troll Fred Jones “unhinged liberal” has managed to distill every idiotic argument commonly seen about anti-Roe countermobilization into one comment! Just for fun, let’s go through every fallacy one at a time:

Issues that are decided in this manner do us no good because the decisions are not accepted by the governed. It’s been 34 years and we are still struggling with this. Quality of decision matters.

Roe, has, of course, been accepted by a strong majority of the governed. But more to the point, the idea that the quality of legal reasoning has anything to do with the reaction to Roe is absurd. (Anybody remember the massive Republican outrage about Bush v. Gore, which makes Roe look like a masterpiece of legal reasoning? Must have missed that.) First of all, nobody without a professional obligation reads Supreme Court opinions. And second, Roe if anything, polls better than the underlying position of legal pre-viability abortions, which is the opposite of what one would predict if the poor reasoning of Roe had the slightest relevance to its public reaction. Roe could have been better argued, but the outcome of the case was plausible, and in any case the quality of Blackmun’s opinion is irrelevant to whether or not it will endure.

Now, just think if this decision had involved the governed such as going through a democratic process. Maybe a referendum….maybe a Senate bill. Win or lose, people would accept the decision more as a legitimate one and chances are we wouldn’t be still doing this.

This would be plausible…if you knew nothing about politics or what abortion politics looked like before Roe. Rather than accepting abortion liberalization, the forced pregnancy lobby got the legislatures of New York and Pennsylvania to pass bills re-criminalizing abortion, which had to be vetoed. The idea that abortion would cease to become a salient issue if the courts would just stop protecting reproductive rights at all and turn everything over to Congress and 50 state legislatures is transparently ridiculous. Abortion is a major issue because there’s a major constituency in this country to punish (poor) women who choose to get abortions and get uppity about their proper place in society; what institution resolves the issue is irrelevant. If Roe were overturned, the issue would still be a major part of politics, except that many states would then have abortion bans, contrary to long-standing privacy and gender equality precedents, which would do very little to protect fetal life and a great deal to endanger women’s health.

Also, like it or not judicial review is a part of the American “democratic process.”

What does it say about the pro-abortion people if they don’t trust the people to make the right choice? It says they think they might be in the minority and can’t take the chance.

Actually, for those of us whose knowledge of politics doesn’t come entirely from bad 5th Grade civics textbooks, it means that 1)we understand that American legislatures are not consistently majoritarian in either theory or practice, 2)the de facto exemption affluent women inevitably have from aboriton bans skew legislative outcomes even more strongly towards the forced pregnancy minority, and 3)fundamental individual rights should not subject to unlimited legislative control in any case.

My question: when does a slightly longer version of this comment show up in Slate?

Share with Sociable

Aw… and I Never Knew that He Cared…

[ 0 ] October 14, 2007 |

Tigerhawk on our masthead quote:

I actually looked at the title banner of the lefty blog Lawyers, Guns and Money and realized why it is a lefty blog…

The founder of that blog is unlikely to succeed in business (were he ever to try), because he has absolutely no clue in the world how important family, friends, and religion (or community, the secular version) are.

I have known a lot of enormously successful businessmen and women in my life, and I have not met one who even hinted that they believed that “family, religion, and friendship” stood in the way of success in business. In fact, most successful people would say the opposite (allowing for a little wiggle room on religion, which is probably optional). At least in real life. In the entertainment industry’s conception of business success you often see this sort of idiocy — bad guy businessmen are a staple of prime time television — but then the entertainment industry is famously left wing.

All righties have something that they most deplore about the political left (and, I suppose, vice versa). For me it is the left’s pervasive view that people in business are less likely to consider the moral implications of the decisions they make, less likely to care about their community, and less likely to help people. Yes, in my years as a corporate lawyer and then public company executive I have encountered a few dirtbags — you find that in any line of work — but the vast majority of people I know think deeply about the rights and wrongs of the tough decisions they have to make literally every day.

One of Tigerhawk’s commenters pointed out that the quote actually comes from Montgomery Burns, and might not be intended as a direct commentary on the value of friends, family, or religion. Really, though, I’m just happy that he cares. I wonder what kind of analysis he would have arrived at if he’d noted some of our earlier masthead quotes (“You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society”, or “The Shit Has Hit the Fan”); I’m almost tempted to change our quote in order to find out.

Share with Sociable

The Only Solution Is To Let the Owners Keep More Money!

[ 0 ] October 14, 2007 |

Damn lack of comeptitive balance in baseball — I don’t see how small market teams can compete when a big market team can acquire a great reliver like Eric Gagne and use him as a setup man!

With all due respect to d., I’m happy that it looks like the Tribe will win; it would be nice to have at least one decent up-and-down series this year, and I really don’t want it to involve Arizona winning…

Share with Sociable

Better than MoDo

[ 0 ] October 13, 2007 |

Maureen Dowd invited Stephen Colbert to write her column for her in Sunday’s paper. Which was a nice breath of fresh air. Colbert’s column is not White House Correspondent Dinner quality, but it’s not bad either. A choice quote, in a discussion of the looming presidential primaries:

Well, suddenly an option is looming on the horizon. And I don’t mean Al Gore (though he’s a world-class loomer). First of all, I don’t think Nobel Prizes should go to people I was seated next to at the Emmys. Second, winning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.

I love it. It brings Gore up and puts BUsh down all at the same time.

Share with Sociable

The War On Gore

[ 0 ] October 13, 2007 |

It never ends.

Share with Sociable

The NPT is Dead

[ 0 ] October 13, 2007 |

Well, this does make a certain kind of sense, I suppose. The Israeli strike on what now appears to have been a nuclear reactor at a very low state of construction is preventive war at its most distant; the Israelis have determined that Syria, at least, will never be allowed to have a nuclear program, even under the legal structure of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as long as the current regime or a regime like it remains in power. The implications for a long term peace agreement between Syria and Israel are obvious, but those prospects were probably pretty grim, anyway.

I’m more convinced now than ever that the strike was a direct message to Iran regarding Israel’s capacity to do damage to the former’s nuclear infrastructure. The target itself was of relatively low value, and wouldn’t have had a meaningful effect on the Syria-Israel balance of power for a decade or more. The reason to strike now was to demonstrate to Iran that its air defenses (similar to those of Syria) were insufficient protection from the IDF. We’ll see how seriously the Iranians take this; their nuclear infrastructure is more developed and better protected than Syria’s nascent program, and Iran’s air force larger and better equipped. Of course, this won’t matter if the United States decides on direct participation instead of indirect complicity. As I noted previously, there’s some small hope to be had in the fact that the Israelis may not want war; they’ve decided to flaunt their capabilities rather than hide them, which could mean that they’re bluffing, or that they truly hope the Iranians will be deterred.

The strike, and especially the apparent acquiesence of the United States in its planning and execution, means that the NPT is pretty much a dead letter. The treaty has always been open to charges of unfairness, since it legitimized the nuclear programs of a select number of states while delegitimizing similar programs in other states. This was a deal worth upholding, based on the principle that fewer nuclear states is better than more nuclear states. The deal also ensured that signatories would have the capability to engage in peaceful nuclear activity, some of which is indistiguishable from the opening steps of a long term weapons program. American complicity in this strike means that the deal is as good as dead, and has been replaced by a de facto arrangement in which states that the US approves of are allowed to have nuclear power, while states we dislike get airstrikes. I think this is a tragedy; the NPT has, in my view, worked to minimize the spread of nuclear weapons across the international system through a combination of moral suasion and legal inspection for the last forty years. It only works if the states involved agree that it’s legitimate and of some benefit to all; as I said before, that concept is pretty much dead now. Combine this with the recent nuclear deal with India, and I’d have to say that the Bush administration’s effort to kill a legal cornerstone of international stability have been remarkably successful.

Share with Sociable


[ 0 ] October 13, 2007 |

I know I’m supposed to be mocking Chris Matthews and denouncing Jeneane Garofalo’s many vicious and heinous crimes against humanity in order restore the much coveted “fair and balanced” label to LGM, but for the moment I have to once again marvel at the madness that CNN has unleashed onto its national audience. The blogosphere occasionally and rightly notes and flags the appalling bigotry and racism of Beck, but what’s missed is sheer level of looniness he delivers.

I was at the gym yesterday afternoon, and after the Indians spit out the bit, I started flipping channels, and found myself sucked into the vortex. He evidently found some street-corner lunatic, slapped on a suit, and proceeded to interview him for the entire hour of his show. I came in during an extensive discussion of how the Bible clearly predicted that Vladimir Putin will unite the Muslim world and lead an attack on Israel. He strongly hinted (but didn’t commit to the notion) that Putin may well be the antichrist. Strong stuff, but it couldn’t prepare me for the exchange that followed:

Beck (I’m working from memory here, but this is damn close to the transcript): Now, the last time you were on, you said the Bible didn’t say that America would have a big role in end times. We got lots of email about that, can you explain your comments?

Wingnut preacher: Well, Glenn, one thing we have to remember is that America is a pretty new country….

This is the Beck method; invite the biggest lunatics you can find onto national television, then make them look sane by comparison.

Update: commenters and atrios track this down; it’s Joe Lieberman’s buddy John Hagee, and if anything it’s more bizarre and stupid than I remembered.

Share with Sociable

Abortion Criminalization: It Doesn’t Work

[ 0 ] October 12, 2007 |

Over at TAPPED, Kate Sheppard beat me to my own hobbyhorse: a new study published in the Lancet about the effects of abortion criminalization. The findings are, to people who know something about the subject, not surprising:

A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

This is not to say, however, that criminalizing abortion has no effect:

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

If the goal of abortion is to protect fetal life, criminalization is at best an ineffective and grossly inequitable means of achieving this goal, and the bundle of policies favoring reproductive freedom (including legal abortion) generally produces lower abortion rates than the illegal abortion-no rational sex ed-limited access to contraception-threadbare welfare state usually favored by the American forced pregnancy lobby. If, on the other hand, you’re in it more for the injuring women than for the protection of fetal life, then criminalizing abortion makes good sense.

Share with Sociable