I’m scheduled to be on MSNBC around 3:30 pm eastern, talking about the latest health care battles, which today includes this blockbuster slam on Democrats from none other than Bob Herbert. It’s a must read.
The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.
Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.
Now, Sen. Jim Demint, come on down…
Demint proves what I said in my post over at HuffPost. Whether it’s Democrats or Republicans, our government hasn’t a clue. Can’t wait to hear their newest knee jerk rules to be set in place to combat the threat of loaded underwear.
On another terror angle, a judge has slammed Obama as well as the State department on an alleged Palestinian terrorist attack from 2000.
“The Executive Branch of the United States has been particularly unhelpful in resolving this difficult Motion,” Kessler wrote. “The Court requested that the State Department file a Statement of Interest in order to understand the international ramifications of any order it might enter, and to be apprised of our Government’s position about such ramifications. In this case, as in Knox v. The Palestinian Liberation Organization… the State Department declined to do so. Instead it filed the identical mealy-mouthed Notice there as it did in this case. That Notice, for all practical purposes, said nothing and certainly provided no substantive guidance whatsoever to the Court regarding the Government’s position or concerns about any impact a decision might have on the delicate situation in the Middle East.”
Back to Mr. Demint:
An attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration — if there were one. The post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has held up President Barack Obama’s nominee in opposition to the prospect of TSA workers joining a labor union. … – McClatchy
Demint slogan for 2012: Better to be dead than union. But will tea party activists buy it?
The floor is yours.
I read Bob Herbert’s article. This doesn’t sound promising at all. Basically, the way cost containment is going to happen (if I understand this properly)is for middle class people getting less expensive and weaker plans through their employers that increase out-of-pocket expenses so that they will think twice before going to the doctor. Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy continue on…. and on…. and on…
This is what I worry about backfiring on the Democrats. I try to remain hopeful. I really wonder how this is all going to play out in the next few years. I think the “starter house” has to be added onto, don’t you?
One can only hope. However it might end up a mute point as the repugs have signaled they plan on running a recind Healthcare campaign and cosindering the pathetic job the Dems and in PARTICULAR President Obama did on Healthcare the FIRST time around I am not feeling…..hopeful.
Well, I had dreamed (hoped for) of an America where by now, a year into the Obama administration, unions would have regained most of the power lost during the Bush years so that some semblance of balance and equity was restored and working people had some more rights again. So much so, that by now no one would even dare attack a union. Instead, unions are being sidelined and persecuted under this administration in their quest for bi-partisanship. It is shocking to me that people still dare to attack unions while a Democrat is in the WH, and while Democrats control BOTH houses of congress. If we can’t hold our own now, when can we?
The Netherlands deserve a majority of the responsibility for the bomber who got on board the plane.
However the flat earth society Republican party will attempt to blame the Democrats for an attack that didn’t happen. Nevermind that the biggest attack on American soil happened under the REPUBLICANS watch!
As for health care
http://publicoption.democratz.org
http://drugbenefit.democratz.org
Nice job on MSNBC, Taylor.
I just caught the last few minutes because I was on the phone. Maybe Taylor will put it up later.
Chris Jansen on MSNBC was just reading something that the underwear bomber had written about being sad and lonely. That is the striking impression I get when I see photos of him. Severe depression.Sometimes when young people are suffering depression they try to find a reason for it,that might be how this young man became radicalized. It makes sense that depressed young people would be the ones who are easier to recruit for suicide missions.
I don’t know LL. Sometimes my underwear gets lonely too, but I don’t put explosives in my crotch and try to blow up 300 people. Just don’t think it would be a good substitute.
“kris says:
29 December 2009 at 4:57 pm
I don’t know LL. Sometimes my underwear gets lonely too, but I don’t put explosives in my crotch and try to blow up 300 people. Just don’t think it would be a good substitute.”
OMG!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! TO farkin funny!!!
Thanks Lynnette.
Point to kris.
It’s funny what happens when you begin to shake the trees. First, everybody goes after the low hanging fruit. In this case poor old Janet Napolitano who has absolutely no backround in state security matters. Then we find out that Hillary’s State Department has known about the exploding underware guy for at least six months. Yet never revoked his uber-visa. Now it’s been revealed that the CIA has been watching mister great balls afire since 2004. That tidbit of information forced Obama to interrupt his golf game today to make a statement about a “systemic failure” and “we’re going to get to the bottom of this within 48 hours.” (Yeah, right.) This has nothing whatsoever to do with incompetence. (Oh, that only it were.) It’s all about deceit. “When first we practice to deceive, what a tangled web we weave.” Peace
kris…I was not making excuses for the kid but don’t we need to try and understand what is happening with these people who have all the advantages but decide to go this direction.
I don’t know the women’s name because I only caught a little bit but Tweety had a American Muslim, woman on tonight who believes that many in the middle east are under the mistaken impression that all the deaths in Iraq and Afganistan are caused by the US. She said that 98% of the deaths have been Muslims killing innocent Muslims.
“It’s all about deceit. “When first we practice to deceive, what a tangled web we weave.”
CONSPIRACY,CONSPIRACY,IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY!CONSPIRACY,CONSPIRACY,IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY!CONSPIRACY,CONSPIRACY,IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY!CONSPIRACY,CONSPIRACY,IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY!CONSPIRACY,CONSPIRACY,IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY!CONSPIRACY,CONSPIRACY,IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY!
There, you don’t have to bother posting any comments on the next 6 threads. All taken care of for ya.
Imhotep says:
29 December 2009 at 7:49 pm
__________________
Do you read/watch Alex Jones’ material @ Infowars?
Yee-haw!
Obama is now spinning away from this PR clusterf**k as hard as he can.
http://english.aljazeera.net//news/americas/2009/12/2009123003057889428.html
A day late and dollar short Big Barry; would you like to try for double jeopardy where the scores can really climb?
spincity –
It took Dubya SIX DAYS before making a single comment regarding the shoe-bomber.
I’m sorry but common people who think they know more than the CIA, the FBI, and the Whitehouse all rolled into one make me simply shake my head.
I have a very simple question, Taylor – One that seriously concerns me as I’m beginning to think the entire world is becoming delusional. Here’s the question:
If I __
A) Had nearly unlimited availability to chemical and weaponry knowledge as well as the inventory I needed _ and _
B) Had no intention of surviving my actions (a suicide attack) _
Do you *honestly* think you could stop me from taking a plane down?
(with myself, this isn’t a big worry as my first rule would be to not TELL you or anyone else about it, of course)
Wow. Merely moments after I asked that – Morning Joe is making the same point – “Thinking we can stop this is an ‘illusion’ (their word)”
That has been my concern since 9/11. They got lucky, very, very lucky with the hits on the tein towers. What have they done since?
Of course innocent people have been murdered and I in no way minimize the criminal nature of or impact these deaths have had on their families. But the shear incompitence and lack of imagination comes close to being mind boggling.
Timothy MCVie comes to mins as to what one, trained individual came do when fanatically motivated. AND he wasn’t even willing to die to accomplish his goal!!!!!!!
I won’t even go into a half dozen scenarios that come to mind in which MAXIMUM numbers of deaths can be generated if one is familiar with our cultural and societal habits.
We should thank the WINDS the people trying to do these criminal acts are so lame.
Lake Lady says:
29 December 2009 at 8:49 pm
________________
LL, that is the question, and I think you are absolutely correct to say that we need to try to understand these people. Not because it’s PC, but because it’s absolutely essential to the fight against Islamic fundamentalism:
“Thus it is said:
He who knows the enemy and himself
Will never in a hundred battles be at risk;
He who does not know the enemy but knows himself
Will sometimes win and sometimes lose;
He who knows neither the enemy nor himself
Will be at risk in every battle.”
Source: Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 3. LL, you’re in good company.
ogenec, ahhh, Sun Tzu, one of my favorite reads. By the way that “lady” that LL was referring to was wrong. As she generally is. Over the past 8 years many, many more Muslims have been killed by Americans than by other Muslims. If this “lady” was including the 1980′s in her analysis it could be argued that Muslim on Muslim deaths in the Iraq/Iran war may have exceeded those Muslims killed by the Russians in Afghanistan. But that’s arguable. Whenever you see that “lady” take whatever she has to say with a grain of salt because she’s a warmonger who probably works for the CIA. Peace
Imhotep says:
30 December 2009 at 10:59 am
____________________
Well, Imhotep, I too think she is wrong, but probably for different reasons than you. “Her” name is Irshad Manji, BTW, and she’s quite the chattering class phenom. I’ve seen her on any number of programs, including Bill Maher’s. She has a very compelling bio, and I find her to be very smart and articulate.
However, here is my problem. Her premise seems to be that something is wrong, not just with Islamic fundamentalists, but with Islam itself. Islam itself needs to be reformed. And the arrogance of that attitude is precisely the thing that Al Qaeda counts on in its recruiting pitch: the West is at war with Islam itself; jihad has been forced upon us by American imperialists. The more she talks, the more she supplies kindling for the al Qaeda fire.
So when I heard her say on Hardball that, to combat Islamic fundamentalism, we must ignore “moderate” Muslims and focus our attention on “reform” Muslims, I became very angry. I know many moderate Muslims, and I’m convinced they hold the key to this thing. They are faithful in their adherence to the Qu’ran, and they firmly believe that violence in the name of Allah is a grievous sin. They should be enlisted into the fight, as they can speak with conviction to those seduced by the siren song of Al Qaeda. But Reform Muslims, to the extent that they argue that the problem is Islam itself, rather than a small minority of its adherents, would only wind up pushing these confused folks into the embrace of the terrorist organizations.
So, with all due respect, I think Irshad is full of it. But she’s a hoot to watch. It’s a rare occasion when Chris Matthews is struggling to get in a word in edgewise. LOL.
“Thus it is said:
He who knows the enemy and himself
Will never in a hundred battles be at risk;
He who does not know the enemy but knows himself
Will sometimes win and sometimes lose;
He who knows neither the enemy nor himself
Will be at risk in every battle.”
Wisw words from a successful practitioner of the Arts of War.
“Whenever you see that “lady” take whatever she has to say with a grain of salt because she’s a warmonger who probably works for the CIA. Peace”
In Iraq arguably the numbers are probably close though the “Insurgency” has definitly killed far more with their indiscriminate car bombs and suicide vest wearers.
In Afghanistan it isn’t even close.
And of COURSE anyone who dosen’t toe YOUR line on things is just another CIA employee.
CONSPIRACY, GETCHER HOT FROM HIS FEVERED BRAIN CONSPIRACY THEORY HERE!!
imhopless, it must TRULLY be depressing if you actually DO know thyself.
ogenec
Serious question here: define “moderate Muslim.” How does that moderation respond to Modernity and Secularism? What are the core values and first principles? Ask your friends or hazard a guess yourself.
Another serious question does not the very term “moderate” assume acceptance of Western cultural norms from the get-go? Granted the assumptions of Locke, Rousseau, Descartes and others are part of the warp and woof of our fundamental assumptions. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness are wonderful fundamentals but they do come from a philosophical, historical and cultural place.
Please do not take this as my usual set point of snark, these are serious questions. If you have the time, please do respond.
spincitysd, I’ll take a whack at it. Let me first acknowledge that your question is the $64,000 question. It’s absolutely the right one to ask, and people who care about solving this problem are thinking about it very deeply.
Now, to my answers. (And these are just my intuitions; I have not yet the opportunity to speak with my Muslim friends about this.) I think that a moderate of any religious stripe responds to modernity and secularism positively, albeit warily. (As as aside, I prefer the word “secularism” to “modernity,” inasmuch as the latter is a culturally loaded term. More below.) You see, if you believe the dogma hook, line, and sinker, it is a very short leap to fundamentalism. Christians believe that there is but one God. (And Catholics, of which I am one, further believe that the only path to God is through Jesus Christ.) Muslims have a reciprocal belief: there is no god but Allah. If you are a religious adherent, and you further belief that it is your God-given obligation to proselytize to the unfaithful, then you have but to go a short distance to convince yourself that, for their sake of their own souls, the unfaithful must yield to force if they will not yield to reason.
Hence the dilemma. How can I, as a person of faith, respect someone whose religious opinion differs from my own? As a kid, I struggled with this question. All the more so, because my paternal grandfather was an adherent of our traditional, polytheistic religion (and had three wives to boot). My dad, who had been taught by missionaries, was a very strict Catholic. And while I admire my dad very much, I have never met a man so spiritual and serene as my grandfather. I was eight or so when I asked our priest whether my grandfather was doomed to go to hell because he had not converted to Catholicism. When the priest answered in the affirmative, some part of me died. Up till then, I’d been an altar boy and contemplated going into the seminary. But it just seemed silly that God would look, not to one’s heart or soul, but to the outward manifestation of belief, to determine whether you were worthy of being in His presence. And if that seemed silly to an eight year old boy, imagine how I feel about the issue as a 41-year old man.
So I imagine my friends feel about my religion the same way I feel about theirs: I believe that mine is the right one, but I concede the possibility that there are many paths to enlightenment. What matters is not the creed, but how one acts in observance thereof. Atheists and agnostics are not apostates doomed to Hell, and Christians are not infidels. A person who espouses such beliefs is, in my view, a moderate. That’s the positive part, and the answer to your core principles question. The “warily” part is that, just as there are fundamentalists of the religious stripe, there also are fundamentalists of the secular stripe. You don’t need to demonstrate that you don’t share my beliefs by mocking them. As an example, I was also incensed by the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. And what fundamentalist secularists sometimes fail to understand is that they are as guilty of the same dogmatic thinking they so deride in organized religion. So moderates are wary to the extent that the point of secularism is the extinction of faith as an archaic, primitive, outmoded concept. That is very offensive and, as I argued above, propagates the very problem of fundamentalism that we are trying to eliminate.
As I think about it some more, there is a second, and corollary, principle of religious moderates. We concede that secularists have a number of legitimate gripes. One such gripe would be the treatment of women. But we believe — and this the source of my disagreement with Irshad’s premise — that these complaints are best addressed within the system, rather than by standing outside and trying to bring the system down. We don’t believe that Christianity or Islam is the problem per se; it is our practice of same, imperfect as we are, that is to blame. Attacks from reformers only push moderates towards the more rabid elements, when we should be encouraging just the opposite.
Given the length of this comment, I’ll respond to your second question in a separate comment.
Your second question is also very important, and I’ll try to be brief. No, moderation most assuredly does not require acceptance of Western cultural norms. That’s precisely the arrogance problem I talked about. To the extent that one defines moderation as a midway point on the path to true enlightenment, as the same is embodied by the reason uber alles crowd, one causes great offense. Rather, moderates try to appreciate that there are limits to faith, and likewise limits to reason. As an aside, I almost went nuts in college pondering the “unmade maker” problem.
However, inasmuch as moderation does not require acceptance of Western norms, I believe it does require awareness of them. Just as moderates accept that there are many spiritual paths to enlightenment, we acknowledge that societies have different answers to how to deal with the religious/secular divide. The American distinction draws from the Age of Enlightenment, and it is a very elegant solution. But it will not work for every society. It would not work in Nigeria, to use a concrete example. Indeed, much of Africa (and, for that matter, Asia) might need a strongman-type, a benevolent dictator, who would press the reset button on endemic issues like corruption and political stability before handing over to a more democratic institution. That, in fact, is the story of Ghana, which is often touted as the model for modern sub-Saharan Africa. Most commentators focus on Ghana’s current democratic institutions, but they ignore or are unaware of Jerry Rawlings’ contribution to the stability of the country.
Anyway, these are my thoughts on these matters. And, now that you’ve made me think way too hard for a holiday night, I’m off to have a drink.
I enjoyed it though, and I’m happy to continue the discussion.
Frankly, I don’t care what the system or superstitious beliefs of the people of these regions are. It’s not my place to tell them one way or the other. Hence my hostility to the “missionary” in the other thread.
If people CHOSE to live according to a bunch of mumbojumbo from the dark ages that’s on them. Just don’t highjack and fly aircraft into our buildings and don’t set your balls on fire in our aircraft.
Secular, I agree they all have their rights to mythology and superstition. To be honest – I have plenty of friends that I’m GLAD they’re fearful of a fiery punishment. I’m not sure if I’d want to be anywhere near them without that (neither provable or disprovable) ‘eternal’ threat.
However – just imagine – how great would it be if those people (Christians and Muslims alike) would simply keep their beliefs to themselves – as opposed to riding around in white shirts and black ties on bicycles and/or throwing bombs in attempts to substantiate their beliefs by convincing everyone else in the universe how correct their pretty stories actually are ?
One can dream.
secularhumanizinevoluter says:
30 December 2009 at 11:41 pm
Just don’t highjack and fly aircraft into our buildings and don’t set your balls on fire in our aircraft.
________________________
We all want that. But wishing will not make it so. There are a lot of disaffected people who are on the knive’s edge, so to speak. It’s in our self-interest to try to reach them before they topple over, and to enlist other Muslims in the effort. It will require cultural outreach as well as increased security measures. And diminishing their faith as “mumbo jumbo” or “pretty stories” hardly helps.
pmichael, are you prepared to abide by the rule you’d like those of faith to live by, and keep your beliefs to yourself? That’s a leading question, because your posts indicate the answer is no. Further, please stop conflating religious terrorists with all people of faith. Again, it doesn’t help.