The US Government Wants to Kill YouTube and Cut Off Your Internet

Have you heard about ACTA? The so-called "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement"? If you haven't, and you like this whole "Internet" thing, you damned well better start paying attention.

ACTA is a secret anti-"piracy" treaty that has been negotiated over the past few years, most recently in Korea. That's "secret" as in "you aren't supposed to know what's in it until it's too late". In fact, when pressed on the contents, the Obama administration has said that they can't talk about it because of "national security".

Fortunately, it's been leaked. And here's a nice brief summary from Cory Doctorow of why they were so desperate for you not to find out what's in it:

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

So your kid watches a few YouTube videos, and all of a sudden you have lost access to the Internet for a year. You don't even get the benefit of the presumption of innocence: they are ordered to cut off ACCUSED INFRINGERS, not convicted infringers.

(How this could be constitutional is beyond me.)

And, hey, here's hoping you aren't blind! Use the wrong reader and all of a sudden you're in the pokey, sucker!

Wired had a good name for all this: "Policy laundering". The White House knows that it can't push this through, so it's going to do it indirectly:

Obama hasn’t asked Congress to implement a three-strike policy, which could anger consumers and watchdog groups. But if the administration gets three strikes written into ACTA, and the United States signs and ratifies the treaty, Congress would be obliged to change the DMCA to comply with it, while the administration throws its hands in the air and says, “It wasn’t our idea! It’s that damn treaty!”

That practice is common enough to have a name: policy laundering.

Language in the leaked text throws open the door to ISP filtering for unauthorized content, though there’s no way for filters to know whether the material constitutes fair use. That plan is similar to a proposal by the Motion Picture Association of America, which wants ISPs to filter for unauthorized motion pictures.

The three-strikes language would be gold to companies like MediaSentry, which browse peer-to-peer networks for infringing content, and identify a user’s IP address and ISP. MediaSentry’s work was crucial in the RIAA’s 6-year-long litigation campaign that amounted to about 30,000 copyright lawsuits against individual file sharers using Kazaa, Limewire and other services.

Until today, the most alarming thing in the proposed ACTA treaty has been the secrecy surrounding it. But now the threat level is higher. It seems the executive branch would rather negotiate with other nations, instead of its own elected officials, about the future of a free and open internet.

Well put. This is a problem with the whole process of treaty-making in general: countries will too often use it as a way of dealing with domestic goals that they know the public won't support. It's a Democratic trick that's a lot like their constant reaches for "bipartisanship": They don't want to wear the policy, they want opponents to just get mad at "Washington", or "The System": or, in this case, the international community.

And, usually, it's the sort of policy that doesn't benefit anybody but their buddies, donors, fundraisers, and future employers/fellow board-members. It's the stuff they know is going to harm ordinary consumers and ordinary workers, like free trade agreements with countries whose "union protection" boils down to "do what we say and maybe we won't liquidate your shop steward". Or, in this case, exploitative and one-sided trademark, copyright and patent treaties.

Fortunately the attempts to keep it secret have not worked. The text is available. You can find it at Michael Geist's site, both as an embedded text and as a linked PDF. (Download the PDF of the text here.)

This is disgusting mischief, and will only harm the public and the cause of online innovation and creativity.The fall of YouTube and other media hosting sites would be an absolute disaster. Families will be cut off from the backbone of modern communications because their kid may or may not have visited the wrong website. ISPs will fear, quite rightly, that the next step is being held responsible for transmitted content. And none of this will dissuade the real pirates in the least, who are already quite adept at evading the privacy-destroying organizations that will be profiting from the adoption of this travesty.

They wanted it to be quiet. They wanted it to be secret. It's not secret anymore, and we clearly shouldn't be quiet about it.

Make a stink, folks.

Health Care BIll Passes House

Great. But that's the House, and even there they needed to pass an odious anti-abortion bill as a sop to the idea of conservative dominance. Digby:

I knew that after all the sturm and drang over the past few months over the public option, the number one liberal priority in the health care debate, there would be a price for its success. The ruling elite could never allow an unambiguous liberal victory. It would endanger their narrative that says fealty to business, religion, military and other authoritarian structures is democratically inspired. They have to maintain the fiction that the people prefer to be subjects. If politicians aren't convinced that there will be a price for being liberals, they might get the idea that they can actually govern liberally...

...Any legislation such as health care reform must therefore be tempered by a liberal sacrifice, something real, a principle that will make them hate themselves and loathe each other for having done it. It cannot be a clean victory, lest they come to believe they can do more. In the end, the "moral" must always be that you cannot go too far left.

The Stupak amendment was designed to do just that, a power move easily predicted by anyone who has watched the way policy victories are managed over the last couple of decades. The one consistent characteristic is that they are never unambiguously positive for the left. The arguments are always self-servingly pragmatic --- "blue dogs have to vote their district" --- but the real purpose is to drive home the absolute certainty that liberals are never really in charge. That is why there is never any desire among the ruling elite to sell the idea that liberalism itself -- its philosophy, its values, its ideology --- is something positive with which a majority of people, including Blue Dogs, can identify. If the public ever came to believe that, who knows what might happen?

There are a lot of issues with how this has worked out, and a lot of issues with what other tradeoffs will happen going forward. The astonishingly terrible Senate Finance Committee bill still looms large, and the public option still looks like a fragile, wan victim of compromise. The House will almost certainly have to stand firm in favor of what it just passed, and it's doubtful that Dems will "stand firm" for much of anything.

(Certainly the Obama Administration hasn't made a habit of it.)

This is a step forward. But a step forward can easily launch you into a pitfall. Don't relax.

Abdullah Pulls Out, Karzai "Wins"

Ah, yes. This will certainly calm the fears of official corruptions.

Liberals Have Compromised Enough

Ezra Klein lays it out:

Was out of the office for a few hours at C-SPAN world headquarters, but early reports were accurate and Sen. Reid will include a national public option that states could choose to offer to their residents -- or not! -- in his bill. In the Senate, this is about to become the "liberal" half of the debate. But it's not very liberal at all. It is a compromise, and a conservative one at that.

For the real liberals, the public option was already a compromise from single-payer. For the slightly less radical folks, the public option that's barred from partnering with Medicare to maximize the government's buying power was a compromise down from a Medicare-like insurance plan. For the folks even less radical than that, the public option that states can "opt out" of is a compromise from the straight public option. Access to the public option will be a political question settled at the state level. It is not a settled matter of national policy.

In many ways, this is a fundamentally conservative approach to a liberal policy experiment. It's only offered to individuals eligible for the insurance exchanges, which is a small minority of the population. The majority of Americans who rely on employer-based insurance would not be allowed to choose the exchanges. From there, it is only one of many options on the exchange, and only in states that choose to have it. In other words, it has been designed to preserve the status quo and be decided on the state level. Philosophically, these are major compromises liberals have made on this plan. They should get credit for that.

They won't. They never do. That's not the game. The game is to exploit the "reasonableness" of too many liberals—their naive (yet oddly touching) belief that everybody is reasonable. They're willing to "meet half-way" with those who have openly declared themselves as unreasonable, unwilling to compromise, and completely hostile to everything that liberalism stands for.

So those enemies of Liberalism just "compromise" long enough to set up a new far-right position, then conveniently forget about the old "compromise" as anything but a starting point for a new "compromise" between their old position and their new one. Then, when they hit THAT point, they just go 'round again.

And if someone questions wingers on this little game? Well, then they rant, and rave, and scream about how the questioner is being "unfair", because they know that at least some will be uncomfortable with the "unreasonable" people in their midst. The liberals are divided against themselves. That is part of the game too.

All that's left is for people like Ezra to tally up the compromises, sorrowfully opine on what might have been, and then ignore it all over again when it happens the next time 'round.

Oh, Hey, Looks Like the "Veal Pen" Broke

MoveOn is running a nice little ad (with Heather Graham in, no less!) that advocates the public option:



I had thought they were still quaking at the thought of taking shots at Dems—they're the ones who will be instrumental in getting a public option, after all—but I suppose the polls have stiffened their spines a bit.

Must be pretty frustrating in the "anonymous senior official" wing of the White House.

Democracy Corps' Terrible Study

Dear Democracy Corps:

Do you really think that even the most ardent Republican is going to use out and out racist language in a research setting?

ARE YOU HIGH?

Seriously, guys, aside from everything else, your methodology sucks. So does your analysis: they spent (as you yourselves put it) an absolute ton of time saying that "I'm not racist but they'll label me as racist if I criticize him", and you don't stop to think that maybe, just maybe, they're being unbelievably defensive for a reason?

Look at this one quote:

You can’t openly criticize Obama. If you do, you’ll be labeled as a racist.

Whatever we say about Obama, no matter what we say about him, it is a racial comment so you know, we can’t say anything, we personally do not like him. I don’t care if he is purple, but whatever we say we’re racist.

As far as a person goes, I don’t want to say I hate him. I don’t like what he stands for… and I don’t like what he is doing and the choices he is making, but I mean I don’t know him as a gentleman so… You would be called a racist. You would not like him because he is black. That is what the media is saying...

...The things that we’ve said have nothing to do with race. They have to do with policy and… an agenda, his agenda… Right… Manipulation.

I think basically we have a lot of the same views of Clinton as we do about Obama but most of us are freer to express it because we are not going to be accused of being racists...

...Actually that is a good thing that he has done. In all the charges of it being racial he has defended, he has come out and said, no I don’t think that comment was meant that way and that was the one thing that I think he has done that you know.

I don’t think he thinks it, but I think other people think it. You know the ones that are really supportive of him. If we don’t like him, and we have something against him, then we’re a racist...

...I think he’s got a hidden agenda… and I’m worried that we won’t be able to undo what he has done in such a short time

I mean that is when you start questioning, what is the agenda? Because they are weakening us as a country to where we cannot afford so we are going to cry out or we are going to take what has been offered to us....

...I just think that Obama was molded and I think that he is being fed what he can and cannot do and what to do next and it seems like he is a puppet in this whole game. I don’t know who the people are behind him really but I don’t think it is him. I think it is somebody, I think he is just the figurehead… I think it is George Soros… I do too… Is he the guy with money?… Yes… They say follow the money.

I think he has a money person behind him that has planned this long before because he has gotten pushed into a position that is unbelievable for a community organizer…I come from Chicago so I know how he got there and I don’t like his tentacles into ACORN and everything else that are subsidiaries and it all goes back… He couldn’t do it by himself.

The parts that were stripped out were generally the DC comments. The quotes are verbatim.

To you or me, what that says is pretty goddamned clear: "There's no way a lazy n----- like that could become president alone, he's got to be a puppet of those big rich j---s". Yet Democracy Corps doesn't even consider that there might be a subtext there. They just blithely repeat what they're told, as if Republicans haven't been using dog-whistle language for years and ratcheted it up against Obama during 2008.

No, racism isn't all of it. There's also the mad fantasies about how he's a big ol' socialist, and the psychotic paranoia about the gigantic liberal media conspiracy that simultaneously grants that "a lot of conservatives have platforms on the radio or television." (Though that last one could easily be tied to the j--- thing if you push a little and mention the word "Soros".)

There's also the creepy personality cult that's coalescing around Glenn Beck, which is honestly worse than anything that ever attached itself to Limbaugh's meaty frame. I won't reproduce the comments here, but it's starting to look like a good ol' fashioned "Uncle Joe" personality cult. At best.

But to discount racism based on what I'm seeing here is ludicrous, and a complete mockery of proper social science technique. There's simply no way that this sort of methodology is going to bring out taboo opinions on race, any more than it would bring out any other taboo. At best you'll find it by reading between the lines, but it's more likely that you could just say "we failed to elicit racist language, but cannot be sure whether racism is or isn't a motivating factor." After all, to believe that there is no racist opposition to Obama doesn't pass the laugh test. That means that either their focus group selection methodology didn't find them, or their survey methodology didn't elicit it. Either way, they didn't acknowledge that.

Very, very disappointing. Whether or not it's an attempt by Carville et al to change the tone of the debate by deliberately trying to take racism out of it, I cannot say. They didn't publish the interviews, only their interpretation. But as it is, all this shows is that dogwhistle politics are alive and well in the Republican party...

...and that I'm starting to become very, very worried about Glenn Beck's fans.

You Have Got to Be Kiddng Me

Forget that nasty Darfur stuff! Let's play with Sudan!

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has formulated a new policy for Sudan that proposes working with that country’s government, rather than isolating it as President Obama had pledged to do during his campaign.

In an interview on Friday, President Obama’s special envoy to Sudan, Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, retired, said the policy, to be announced Monday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would make use of a mix of “incentives and pressure” to seek an end to the human rights abuses that have left millions of people dead or displaced while burning Darfur into the American conscience.

General Gration said the administration would set strict time lines for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan to fulfill the conditions of a 2005 peace agreement that his government signed with rebels in southern Sudan.

Under that agreement, independence for southern Sudan is to be put to a vote in 2011.

“To advance peace and security in Sudan, we must engage with allies and with those with whom we disagree,” said a statement of the policy that was obtained by The New York Times.

General Gration said the administration’s new approach was also intended to prevent Sudan, which once provided refuge to Osama bin Laden, from again serving as a terrorist haven.

During his campaign, Mr. Obama criticized the Bush administration for doing too little to stop the killing.

So that's it. It looks like the realists have been whispering in a few ears, judging by that section I bolded. They want Sudan on the inside, because a few dead people in Darfur (okay, hundreds of thousands) are less important than another "ally" in the we-won't-call-it-a-War-on-Terror.

The justification they've pulled out is that things are getting better, and maybe the Sudanese government should be brought into the fold. But they're getting better because the Darfur people are thoroughly repressed, and the rehabilitation of the Sudanese government is only going to encourage other governments to murder even more minorities.

(But, hey, it's not really genocide as long as they're nobody I know, right?)

Obviously, people are ticked:

But the new administration policy is likely to inflame an already vociferous chorus of criticism.

In advertisements and letters to the White House, legislators, activist groups and Sudanese rebel leaders have accused Mr. Obama of abandoning his promises to make Sudan a priority from his first day in office and to stand tough against President Bashir, whom the International Criminal Court indicted this year for crimes against humanity.

Some critics have expressed outrage over earlier statements by General Gration in which he raised questions about the effectiveness of imposing sanctions and suggested that a series of rewards might work better at getting Mr. Bashir’s government in Khartoum to cooperate.

In the interview, General Gration disagreed with the critics.

Summing up the administration’s approach, he cited what he described as an old African proverb. “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, you have to go with someone,” he said.

“We want to go far,” General Gration said, “and to do that we are going to have to go with Khartoum.”

Why, yes, I'm sure you do want to go far, Mister General Sir. All the way into Darfur.

Mind the bodies.

Economists Acting LIke Blithering Idiots About Climate Change?

Is it Wednesday already?

Seriously, when economists wonder why the rest of us think they're clueless muttonheads with a dangerous entitlement complex, I think they can rest assured that we're talking about things like this:

“Rogue” is a good word for Levitt, but I think “contrarian” is more apt. Sadly, for Levitt’s readers and reputation, he decided to adopt the contrarian view of global warming, which takes him far outside of his expertise. As is common among smart people who know virtually nothing about climate science or solutions and get it so very wrong, he relies on other smart contrarians who know virtually nothing about climate science or solutions. In particular, he leans heavily on Nathan Myhrvold, the former CTO of Microsoft, who has a reputation for brilliance, which he and the Superfreaks utterly shred in this book:

“A lot of the things that people say would be good things probably aren’t,” Myrhvold says. As an example he points to solar power. “The problem with solar cells is that they’re black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12% gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat — which contributed to global warming.”

Impressive — three and a half major howlers in one tiny paragraph (p 187). California Energy Commissioner Art Rosenfeld called this “patent nonsense,” when I read it to him. And Myhrvold is the guy, according to the Superfreaks, of which Bill Gates once said, “I don’t know anyone I would say is smarter than Nathan.” This should be the definitive proof that smarts in one area do not necessarily translate at all.

I trust you to realize why the quoted bit is absolute blithering idiocy. ClimateProgress goes into great detail if you're wondering, but I doubt you would be, since most people would just respond to this with a hearty "WTF?"

So what's gone wrong here? Well...

The reason I’m calling Levitt and Dubner Superfreaks for short is that Chapter Five of SuperFreakonomics, the “Global Cooling” chapter — aka “What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common?” — has precious little economics, and what it does have is simply wrong. So the book could easily have been titled Superfreaks. [Note: Most of the book is searchable online. At the request of the publisher, I have taken down the PDF of the chapter.]

The answer is that Gore and Pinatubo’s eruption both suggest a way to cool the planet, albeit with methods whose cost-effectiveness are a universe apart.

Yes, the Superfreaks frame this chapter mostly as their (misguided) view of the science versus the views of that famous non-scientist Al Gore (as opposed to the views of all of the scientists who disagree with the crap they are peddling). That straw man approach gives them the “high” ground.

But by embracing aeresols and rejecting mitigation, they have adopted the identical view of that rogue, thoroughly debunked, non-economist Bjorn Lomborg. Unlike the Superfreaks, CP readers know that Ken Caldeira calls the vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus “a dystopic world out of a science fiction story.”

And yet Caldeira is the primary practicing climate scientist the Superfreaks rely on in the chapter! He has responded to many e-mail queries of mine over the weekend so I could characterize his views accurately. He simply doesn’t believe what the Superfreaks make it seem like he believes. He writes me:

If you talk all day, and somebody picks a half dozen quotes without providing context because they want to make a provocative and controversial chapter, there is not much you can do.

This is classic, classic economist behavior, where they move into another science and start babbling whatever crap comes to mind as long as it sounds good and fits their axiomatic dogma. A lot of people have already asked a lot of questions about Levitt's methodology. But as we see here, the methodology doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, because the damned thing didn't have methodology worth the name to begin with!

It used to be that this sort of thing only happened in the social sciences and in historiography, where economists would barge in, brandishing whatever model happened to to be at hand, and proclaim that they have a solution that all the "little people" that came beforehand should just shut up and accept. Never mind that they removed all the evidence that didn't fit with all the surgical skill of a medieval barber. What was worst about this sort of dilletantism was that their statements were inevitably wrong, and did tremendous damage.

That's what we saw with Lomborg. Everybody who knows a damned thing about climate change knows that Bjorn Lomborg was completely off his rocker, and smacked him down multiple times: first when he tried to dismiss global warming, and then again when he tried to pull some sleight of hand by claiming that what he was really advocating was lovely things like malaria nets and childhood innoculation...as if it were climate change that were the problem there. But because he's an economist and therefore part of the "proper" tribe, he gets his sounding board whether he's right or not. Sure, there are other scientists who carry water for the polluters, but they're usually in fields that at least have something vaguely to do with ecology and meteorology. Lomborg is (when you get right down to it) a glorified sociologist! He has absolutely no business even discussing this field! But he does, because he gets the pass. So does Levitt.

And when these people misuse this power, as they inevitably do, it's the real scientists (and the rest of us) that inevitably have to clean up the messes. Except that with climate change, there may not be a "rest of us" to do it. But, hey, as long as it sells books, right?

The hat tip goes to Krugman. I'm a bit uncomfortable about his positioning on this one, though. I remember his old "dismal science" column, where he used to play this card with gusto. He's since recovered from his own bout of economists' entitlement. That's a good thing.

It's still important to remember that this is a serious, serious problem with social science that goes back years, not a "right wing vs. left wing" or "Krugman vs. Levitt" issue. (Privileging economists like that is the entire problem.)

It won't be solved by ideological wrangling. It'll be solved by economists rediscovering a bit of humility, and other scientists rediscovering their ability to tell that obnoxious economist to,

well,

"sit the hell down and shut the hell up".

"But Rae Has Gained Our Trust"

So, hey, here's a story:

One of Michael Ignatieff’s close caucus supporters said to me the other day, “We’re still supporting Michael, but Bob Rae has gained our trust.”

He went on to list some of the reasons he and others now have more faith in Rae than Iggy. At the Sudbury party meeting last month, Rae got it right. He was saying, behind the scenes, that Iggy should not be pushing for an election because it would make him look just as the Conservative attack ads were depicting him — an opportunist. Iggy didn’t take Rae’s advice.

He vowed to bring down the government as soon as possible. But the gambit has done more to bring him down than the prime minister. Caucus members now say they will undercut any order by Iggy to defeat the government by conveniently being absent on voting day.

In June, Ignatieff’s team was pressing for a summer election. Rae cautioned against such a move, saying the party wasn’t ready and summer wasn’t the time. But the leader came out sounding hawkish, ready to go. Then he suddenly pulled back when told his party wasn’t financially ready. In so doing, he looked feckless.

The far more experienced Rae has told associates he is not happy with Ignatieff’s handling of the job. A participant at morning meetings with the leader and some MPs says Rae’s performance there has been noticeably less enthusiastic in recent times.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien, whose old team is replete with Rae supporters, complained recently that he hasn’t been hearing much from the Liberal leader. Even Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he said, calls him more often.

On the weekend, Rae had to come forward to deny he orchestrated a move by a group of Liberal senators to amend a crime bill, a bill that Ignatieff was supporting.

As common sense would suggest, Rae, who fell short in a couple of runs for the crown, still has leadership ambitions. He can protest that he is being loyal, that he is doing nothing to encourage his supporters. But with the party in a free fall, disgruntled caucus members are going to talk and journalists are going to listen.

The last thing the Liberals need at this point is a new outbreak of leadership feuding. But unless Ignatieff reverses his slide, that’s what they’ll get.

Absolutely true. But, to be fair, it is somewhat of a "what goes around, comes around" situation. Stephane Dion is probably howling with laughter right now.

In any case, at least he'll be having that "thinker's conference". Certainly the "wait out the Tory collapse" and "erect a personality cult" strategies haven't took off. Might as well try policy.

No, Richard Cohen, You Did Not Win a Nobel

I know you'd like to pretend that you did, but as one of the greatest apologists for the previous administration and one of the worst "even the liberal" enablers out there, you are everything that the Nobel committee was trying to punish.

Whether you voted for Obama or not is immaterial. You've long since forfeited any claim to this.

Nobel Prize in...Political Economy?

Seems odd, but take a look:

American economists Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson, who study the way economic decisions are made outside markets, were awarded the Nobel Prize in economics Monday.

Ms. Ostrom, who teaches at Indiana University in Bloomington, Ind., is the first woman to win the economics prize, which had been awarded to 62 men since its launch in 1969. The judges cited her analysis of what happens when natural resources are shared commonly.

Mr. Williamson, who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, was cited for explaining why some decisions are made more efficiently inside corporations rather than at arm's length in markets.

Within the economics profession, neither was seen as a likely choice for the award, officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Ms. Ostrom's doctorate is in political science, though she considers herself a political economist. Ms. Ostrom, 76 years old, said that when the phone rang at 6:30 a.m. Monday, she thought it might be a telemarketer. Mr. Williamson's work, meanwhile, has been highly influential on fields outside of economics. The 77-year-old has been described as the economist most cited by noneconomists.

Both have highlighted areas where standard approaches of economics are inadequate at explaining what actually occurs. "They both pay incredible attention to what happens in the real world," said Wharton School economist Witold Henisz, a former student of Mr. Williamson's.

Ms. Ostrom's work challenged the view that when people share a finite resource, they will end up destroying it -- what is known as the tragedy of the commons. That view argues that resources that are important for the common good need to be highly regulated or privatized.

As a graduate student in the early 1960s at the University of California, Los Angeles, Ms. Ostrom researched the way water was being managed in Southern California. Groundwater levels were falling, and saltwater was seeping into the system. But rather than collapsing into a tragedy of the commons, communities and water producers hashed out a solution. That led her to explore situations throughout the world where resources were commonly held, and she found that people often developed institutions, networks and other ways of interacting that solved problems.

Economists had largely ignored the importance of such networks, said Yale University environmental economist Matthew Kotchen, in part, because they couldn't come up with elegant models to describe them.

First Krugman, now this. Something very, very interesting is happening with the Sveriges Riksban.

Going on...

[Williamson] found that many economic decisions that standard theory said would be more efficiently left to the marketplace were actually better left within a firm. "Competitive markets work relatively well because buyers and sellers can turn to other trading partners in case of dissent," the Nobel judges said. "But when market competition is limited, firms are better suited for conflict resolution than markets."

This is a more profound insight than you'd think. A firm is essentially a bureaucracy, just one in a condition of competition with other bureaucracies. The practical upshot here is that markets are not always the best mode of economic organization, which is an astounding idea to even consider.

But what's even more astounding is the fact that thse two people got the award in the first place. A political economist getting the Nobel Prize in economics? Only a few years ago, that would be seen as something like sacrilege. Yet here we are.

That point about a lack of elegant models is important, too. Nobel prizes in the past have been all about elegant models. In fact, your model was probably the fastest and most predictable way to earn a Nobel. Economic history and (until now) Political Economy were nonstarters compared to things like Econometrics and Economic modelling. Yet, again, here we are, where a model-resistant theory takes the prize.

I'm not sure why, exactly, attitudes seem to have shifted. But they have. And good on' em.

An Obama Admin Reality Check:

If one of their people gets caught saying "those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult”, what do you expect them to do, exactly?

Do you expect them to say "hell yeah, that's absolutely where we stand, SCREW the bloggers and the swivel chairs they rode in on"? Hell no.

You're going to expect them to say "that doesn't reflect White House thinking." Which they did say. Because they aren't idiots. That's why they're going anonymous in the first place!

So if you do expect to say that, don't assume that that somehow excuses everything. It doesn't signify that they didn't mean it. It doesn't signify that they've seen the error of their ways. It just signifies that they know enough to deny it on the record. But if you look at their history, like Aravosis does, the attitude becomes perfectly clear:

this isn't the first time the White House has "reportedly" criticized bloggers, or progressives. In August, they dismissed anyone who had concerns about how health care reform as "the left of the left" - which is awfully similar to the current accusation that we're "the Internet left fringe." Then a few weeks later, the president said that blogs don't fact check, and are all "people shouting at each other."

And the fact that the White House holds conference calls with bloggers is nice. But let's not exaggerate here. Those calls are as much, if not more, for the White House's benefit than for ours.

Bloggers are the only key members of the Democratic noise machine who have been shunned by the president. He met with liberal talk radio, with the partisan pundits on TV (Rachel and Keith), and even invited a conservative blogger (Andrew Sullivan) and conservative writer/activists Bill Kristol and David Brooks. But no such meeting has ever been scheduled with the liberal political blogs.

There is a pattern of disdain for, and distrust of, the blogs that started with the Obama campaign two years ago, and now has extended into the Obama White House. Privately, both the campaign and the White House have been happy to ask the Netroots for help when the going gets tough (Joe and I alone, via this blog, raised $50,000 for Barack Obama - and I suspect Jane and Markos and Duncan and others have raised a lot more than that). And in spite of our differences with Barack Obama, the Netroots have been happy to help the President when called upon. But publicly, Team Obama keeps us, like much of the core Democratic constituencies, at arm's length.

He doesn't pay enough attention to his base because he takes them for granted. Fine. We knew that.

But the bigger story here is that they really, really don't like blogs, or bloggers, or independent, not-for-profit online journalism and commentary in general. They're fine with the Washington Press, since they love their empty little stories about horse racing, parrot the conventional wisdom, and are people that you can intimidate or reward with access to the administration and its officials. They don't even mind the hard right, I suspect, since they're a known quantity and are expected to be the opposition. But loud, unpredictable, passionate, dissatisfied liberals and progressives with a megaphone and an attitude are just dangerous. They write inconvenient things. They either don't know or don't care about what is or isn't "out of bounds" to believe. They don't care about access, and they despise lobbyists as much as the Admin once pretended to.

They aren't playing the game. They aren't to be trusted. So anonymous "pyjamas" it is.

Goddamned Well Took Long Enough, Barry

So apparently the Prez is going to finally get rid of DADT:

President Barack Obama told the largest U.S. gay-rights group that he’ll work with Congress and the Pentagon to end the policy that forbids openly gay men and women from serving in the military.

“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Obama said in an address last night to at the Human Rights Campaign national dinner. “That’s my commitment to you.”

The president gave no timetable for acting and said he realized many in the audience “don’t believe progress has come fast enough.” He said they would look back at his time in office and be able to say that “we put a stop against discrimination whether in the office or in the battlefield.”

Obama spoke the night before the National Equality March, which may draw thousands of people to the National Mall in Washington demanding “equal protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states,” according to the Web site for the event.

Obama promised during his presidential campaign to support equal rights for gays and lesbians, including ending the policy on gays in the military. As a Democratic senator from Illinois, he supported legislation expanding health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. He supports civil unions for gays, though not same-sex marriages.

Not exactly my favored position, though if it opens the door for federal recognition of same-sex marriages in pro-SSM states as "civil unions" under the law federally, I could get behind that.

Anyway...

“Many of us had hung our hats on major legislation including repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ and we recognize those are heavy lifts, but the president had very powerful and strong rhetoric during the campaign and we think his administration has really been uneven,” Darlene Nipper, 44, deputy executive director of the Washington-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said before the speech.

Nipper said the gay and lesbian community “expects concrete policy changes, including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and an executive order to stop the inappropriate release of gays and lesbians from the military.”

In his speech, Obama said progress will be made.

“Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach,” he said.

The president also said that there’s not “a single issue” his administration deals with “that does not touch on the lives” of the lesbian and gay community, citing his efforts to revive the economy, pass health-care legislation and manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In June Obama signed a presidential memorandum allowing domestic partners of civil service employees to be added to the long-term care insurance program and allowing employees to use sick leave to take care of domestic partners and adopted children.

Well, Mr. President, there's a bit of a problem. The progressives out there are a wee bit more skeptical than they used to be. You see, promises are all well and good—but promises aren't enough for them. They want to see results. They want to see policy. They want to see legislation on the table. They want a commitment, one that says "while I may be the President of all of America, I'm going to recognize the beliefs of those that made me President in the first place". They want to know that you're on their side, and that must include ending the ridiculous farce that is DADT.

Don't tarry, Barry.

America Cares About That

Oh HELL yes, Go Grayson Go.



Transcript from DK:

"Madame Speaker, I have words for Democrats and Republicans tonight."

"Let's start with the Democrats"

"We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform. I want to remind us all that Olympia Snowe was not elected President last year. Olympia Snowe has no veto power in the Senate. Olympia Snowe represents a state with one half of one percent of America's population."

"What America wants is health care reform. America doesn't care if it gets 51 votes in the Senate or 60 votes in the Senate or 83 votes in the Senate, in fact America doesn't even care about that, it doesn't care about that at all. What America cares about is this; there are over 1 million Americans who go broke every single year trying to pay their health care bills. America cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that there are 44,780 Americans who die every single year on account of not having health care, that's 122 every day. America sure cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition, even if you have health insurance, it's not covered. America cares about that a lot. America cares about the fact that you can get all the health care you need as long as you don't need any. America cares about that a lot. But America does not care about procedures, processes, personalities, America doesn't care about that at all."

"So we have to remember that as Democrats, we have to remember that what's at stake here is life and death, enormous amounts of money, and people are counting upon us to move ahead. America understands what's good for America. America cares about health care, America cares about jobs, America cares about education, about energy independance, America does not care about processes politicians or personalities or anything like that."

"And I have a few words for my Republican friends tonight as well. I guess I do have some Republican friends."

"Let me say this; last week I held up this report here and I pointed out that in America there are 44,789 Americans that die every year according to this Harvard report published in this peer reviewed journal because they have no health insurance. That's an extra 44,789 Americans who die who's lives could be saved, and their response was to ask me for an apology."

"To ask me for an apology?"

"That's right. To ask ME for an apology!"

"Well, I'm telling you this; I will not apologize. I will not apologize. I will not apologize for a simple reason; America doesn't care about your feelings. I violated no rules by pulling this report to America's attention, I think a lot of people didn't know about it beforehand. But America DOES care about health care in America."

"And if you're against it, then get out of the way. Just get out of the way. You can lead, you can follow or you can get out of the way. And I'm telling you now to get out of the way."
"American understands that there is one party in this country that is favor of health care reform and one party that is against it, and they know why."

"They understand that if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation"

"They understand that if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace they would blame him for destroying the defense industry."

"In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwhich tommorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon."

"But that's not what America wants, America wants solutions to it's problems and that begins with health care, and that's what I'm speaking for tonight."

"I yield back the balance of my time"

There's not much to add. Except that "if Barack Obama solved world human, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation" is hilarious.

Here's the Actblue link if you want to pony up. Can't say he hasn't earned it.

"It's the Retirement, Stupid"

Edit: Added some inexplicably missing links.

There's an excellent exchange between "Mike the Biologist" and digby going on about political corruption.

First, Mike:

I think Krugman, in an otherwise excellent column, misstates the motivations behind the 'centrist' Democrats opposition to the public option for healthcare:

Yes, some of the balking senators receive large campaign contributions from the medical-industrial complex -- but who in politics doesn't? If I had to guess, I'd say that what's really going on is that relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America.

I think he's right in that it's not about the campaign contributions. If their reluctance to support a public option were based solely on the electoral calculus of campaign donations versus popular support--that is, votes--the votes win hands down. Any Democratic senator in a swing state who needs independent and Republican votes can't afford to piss off the ~50% of Republicans and ~70% of independents who support a public option. To the extent that an Evan Bayh is supported by independents and Republicans, does he really think that these crossover voters are the ones who oppose a public option? (Actually, Bayh just might think so, since he's dumber than a fucking sack of hammers). So, if this is simple electoral politics, the obvious move is to screw your donors (of course, we are talking about 'new Democrats' who are the most inept politicians in recorded history, so who knows?).

So, Mad Biologist, how is this about money? It's simple: it's about life after politics. One of the dirty secrets about many, if not most, congressmen and senators is that they like Washington, D.C., rhetoric notwithstanding. They want to stay in town after they leave (or lose) office. Once you've tasted the Capital of the Free World, do you really want to go back to Pierre, South Dakota? (Tom Daschle comes to mind...). It's funny how many politicians, having made a career out of bashing War-Shing-Tun, don't...seem...to...ever...leave.

I can't blame them: I moved to Boston, and would be very happy to stay here. Places do grow on you. The problem comes, for politicians, when they have to find a job. For an ex-politician, there aren't that many 'straight paths' to getting your next job: lobbyist and corporate board member are the easiest and the most lucrative.

But if you get a reputation as someone who opposes large business interests, what chance do you have of getting either of these types of jobs? Sometimes, the quid pro quo is very crude and direct (e.g., Billy Tauzin), but the Village's political culture makes it clear what is acceptable. One should not be 'populist', or, heaven forbid, liberal.

The narcissistic motivation is far more subtle. Many ex-politicians are invited to join think tanks or, at least, be participants on panels and round tables (which often pay a decent stipend for 'marquee' names, such as an ex-senator). This allows them to, once again, for a brief, shining moment, walk into a room and have everyone treat them as a Very Important Person. And you get to blather on about policy without having to the heavy lifting of politics and politicking. Yet if you're tagged as the 'wrong sort', you won't get these perks either.

So, I think we're missing the big picture on corruption: it's the retirement, stupid.

Here's digby:

Dick Gephardt as a former majority leader with more than 20 years under his belt makes 80% of his highest salary which was about $195,000 in pension. Plus a 401k, social security and the congressional health care system. They were given these generous benefits for a reason:

S.Rept. 79-1400 (May 31, 1946) stated that a retirement plan for
Congress:

"would contribute to independence of thought and action, [be] an
inducement for retirement for those of retiring age or with other
infirmities, [and] bring into the legislative service a larger number of
younger Members with fresh energy and new viewpoints concerning the
economic, social, and political problems of the Nation".

Yeah, that worked out.

And apparently that and everything that's come since is such a pittance that a man just has no choice but to whore himself out to Goldman Sachs.

I agree with Mike, but I think it's more than money. It's about staying in the game, being a player. And in American culture, being a real player means being paid huge sums of money. How can anyone possibly be respected otherwise?

It's the culture of power in general in this country that creates these incentives. And I'm still not sure what to do about it except pick up a pitchfork and get busy.

I don't think either are wrong, but I think Mike actually addressed digby's point when talking about the "Very Important Person" angle. There are two things that drive people to Washington: money and power. Power, of the two, is actually the least objectionable, since anybody who wants to make a positive difference needs to recognize that they need to gain the power to do so.

But once you get power, you don't want to give it up, especially if you believe that you're actually "doing good things". (A lot of these guys do, brainwashed as they are by lobbyists 24/7.) So, as Mike said, you start seeking out ways of staying in Washington, where the power is. Yes, there's also money involved, but to a great extent money is power, so there's no incompatibility there, and I suspect that most of them would choose more power over more money in a heartbeat. They already did; the private sector is more lucrative.

This is an old, old problem. It's the one that brought down Japan from its heights of the 1970s and 1980s and is still plaguing them today. It is at the heart of small-scale third-world corruption. It's also why you can't pay politicians a pittance, because the corruption would only get worse.

And, honestly, outside of more progressive and liberal "institutes" and whatnot to soak these guys up, the solution is difficult to foresee. As long as there are lobbyists and corporate board members, politicans will want to become them.

Why is it, to Canadian Columnists, "Bold" Means "Right-Wing"?

So I opined earlier about Canadian opinion journalism. I said it was almost uniformly terrible. (So is the American version, but you've got more Glenn Greenwalds and the like out there.) That isn't quite true: Gwynn Dyer is excellent, as is Antonia Zerbesias, whose old blog on Canadian media was a savage indictment that anybody would be proud of.

What it is more appropriate to say, I think, is that it's bizarrely conservative, to the point where it gives just plain bad advice. Case in point, Jeffrey Simpson:

Their new pitch would be: Elect us and we will eliminate the federal deficit fast and pay down the debt that Canada incurred to fight the recession. Not for us the Conservative approach of stringing out deficits and building up debt, thereby leaving Canada more vulnerable than it would otherwise be to external shocks such as inflation. We Liberals balanced the budget and kept it in surplus when last in government, and we'll do it again.

How? By raising the goods and services tax by two points, thereby bringing in about $70-billion over five years. With that money and reasonable growth, Canada would almost balance the books in 2012-13, and run a surplus the next year.

With budgetary surpluses, Canada would better prepare itself for the aging population. It could invest more money in health care or higher education. It could have some left over for reducing taxes on individuals and businesses....

...Politics aside, the risk of a tax hike is slower growth. But if the Bank of Canada knew fiscal policy would be tightened, because a government had been elected on that platform, it could ease monetary policy in a few years. Or the government could phase in the GST increase if a tax hike would unduly threaten growth. Or it could offset some of the GST hike with lower taxes on incomes – something almost every economist would applaud.

This is all babble. This over-focus on deficits in Canada is absolutely ludicrous: the Great Recession is not over and shows signs of double-dipping, unemployment is sagging (at best) and horrifying in certain regions, inflation is as unlikely there as it is in America and Canada doesn't have that bad a debt-to-GDP ratio to begin with!

He even acknowledges that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be declining in the piece itself!

Canada is now headed for a less-than-optimal postrecession landing. We'll get deficits stretching until almost the end of the next decade, with an accumulation of debt (although a declining debt-to-GDP ratio).

So why the hell are you babbling about debt, Jeffrey?

But more importantly, why on earth would the "bold idea" be to run to the right of the Conservatives on the issue of deficits? Yes, voters worry about such things, mostly because they are pushed to think of state budgets in terms of their own budgets, and aren't told that the situation is completely different. But the ones who may theoretically vote on such things are conservatives. Progressives don't vote based on deficits, because they know there are better things to worry about most of the time.

(Oh, and I didn't miss the veiled attempt to shift the tax burden downward by reducing progressive income taxes and increasing regressive consumption taxation, either. Shameless, isn't he?)

So does Simpson honestly think that conservatives are going to vote for a tax hike? During a recession? Against all historical evidence and common sense? And he thinks that that is how the Liberals should distinguish themselves? Sure, it'd be different. It'd certainly differentiate the Liberals from the Tories or the NDP, since neither of them are blithering idiots.

It just shows how out-of-touch people like Simpson are. They spend their time in that circle of (useless) Canadian elites that actually thinks that people are going to care more about deficits than their taxes or the programs that help them and their families. Regular Canadians (and Americans, and Britons, and Indians, for that matter) are not going to lose their minds over deficits crowding out spending or minor inflationary pressures. They aren't corpulent bondholders and creditors, for whom the prospect of deflation is a glorious windfall—another round at the trough.

I suspect that Simpson's circle are. He has no idea what people think, no more than Iggy does. So he should probably stop trying to give advice. He's got neither the aptitude nor the insight.

Finance Committee Public Option Results

The results were 8 ayes and 15 nays on the Rockefeller public option amendment. Baucus, Conrad, Carper, Nelson, and Lincoln were the Democratic nays. And now they have a vote against a public choice on their record. Considering the polling, I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

The Schumer amendments are coming up.

And just to be clear: I think the majority of the American public's take on all this is quite right. They're in favor of health care reform with a public option. That makes sense. And they're against being forced to give their money to the bloated, lobbyist-ridden private insurers, That also makes sense.

I think the "centrist" Dems are really, really underestimating the extent to which they'll be punished for mandates-without-public option. They're letting their fear of the Republicans and the lobbyists take the place of their politician's instincts for keeping the public onside. The public isn't onside. The public isn't onside at all.

And that may make sense for some. I imagine Baucus has a plump 'n juicy board seat at WellPoint waiting for him. But at least a few are in deep trouble, and Baucus' board seat isn't worth their jobs. I just hope they figure it out before they end up screwing themselves and everybody else.

Edit: Schumer's amendment gets Nelson onside. Baucus et al are going to start looking reeeeally isolated if HELP's bill is stronger, and if Harkin is right about the votes.

Finance Committee Harassment Time!

Okay, as McJoan says over at DailyKos, (and Jane says at FDL) if you live in any of the following states, you've got phone calls to make:

Contact info for all Dem Senators on Finance is below the fold. The focus should be on Baucus, Nelson, Conrad, Lincoln, and Carper. But if you live in any of the states represented by the Senators below, calls to them certainly won't hurt, as well as "thank you" calls to Rockefeller and Schumer.

Max Baucus MT (Committee Chair)
e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-2651
Fax: (202) 224-9412

John Rockefeller WV
e-mail
Phone (202) 224-6472
Fax (202) 224-7665

Kent Conrad ND
e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-2043
Fax: (202) 224-7776

Jeff Bingman NM
e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-5521
TDD (202) 224-1792
Toll Free (in NM) 1800-433-8658

John Kerry MA
e-mail
Phone (202) 224-2742
Fax (202) 224-8525

Blanche Lincoln AR
e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-4843
Fax: (202) 228-1371

Ron Wyden OR
e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-5244
Fax: (202) 228-2717

Charles Shumer NY
e-mail
Phone:(202)224-6542
Fax: (202) 228-3027
TDD: (202) 224-0420

Debbie Stabenow MI
e-mail
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4822
TTY: (202) 224-2066

Maria Cantwell WA
e-mail
Phone: 202-224-3441
Fax: (202) 228-0514
TTD: (202) 224-8273

Bill Nelson FL
e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-5274
Fax: (202) 228-2183

Robert Mendez NJ
e-mail
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4744
Fax: (202) 228-2197 fax

Thomas Carper DE
e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-2441
Fax: (202) 228-2190

Some of these people are supporters, like Rockefeller. That's a good thing. They're right to do so. So if you live in, say, West Virginia, please make a point of calling up Rockefeller's people and tell them that you support his stance. Positive reinforcement is as important as negative reinforcement.

Now, for those who need a bit of encouragement, I'd go beyond the magic phrase ("If you don't support a public option, I'll devote every spare moment and dollar I have to your primary opponent") to highlighting these key things, also from Kos:

• The CBO scoring of the House bill shows an additional $85 billion in savings over the Blue Dog/Energy & Commerce version: the public option will save money and bend that cost curve.
• The public option remains popular with majorities of Americans.
• The public option is popular with swing state voters.
• In national polling, voters oppose a mandate to purchase private insurance by 64% to 34% but support a mandate with a choice of private or public insurance by 60% to 37%.

The only groups that the public option is really unpopular with are insurance companies and hardcore Republicans. Well, guess what? Corporations don't vote, and the core Republicans weren't going to vote for Dems anyway. They're irrelevant.

The people that do matter support a public option. That's the bottom line.

The American Public Will Not Tolerate Being Forced To Buy Private Insurance

It's as simple as that.

They will go along with mandates that allow them to choose between private and public plans, as the Anzalone poll posted on Kos reveals. But there must be a publicly-run choice.

I'd suggest you remind your Congressional Rep—and Senator—that all the insurance money in the world won't help them keep their jobs if the voters find them intolerable.

The Best "Yo Momma" In American History

John Kyl, explaining why he wanted to strip maternity care from BaucusCare:

Kyl: "I don't need maternity care."

Stabenow: "I think your mom probably did."

Brilliant.

A Note on Messaging

Now that Mass. has appointed a temporary replacement for the late Sen. Kennedy, the Dems have 60 votes again. But that might not help them:

One of the toughest Democrats to corral in the Senate confirmed on Thursday that he is not committed to helping his party block a Republican filibuster on health care legislation.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has long been a skeptic of Democratic-led health care reform, specifically the public option for insurance coverage. But in the wake of Paul Kirk's appointment as a temporary replacement for the late Senator Ted Kennedy -- which gives the party 60 caucusing members -- leadership and allied Democratic groups have renewed their hopes that the Nebraskan would commit to voting for cloture, the 60-vote hurdle that would allow health care to be considered by up-or-down vote.

So, the note. Don't use the word "cloture". Using the word "cloture" implies that there the Senate actually requires a super-majority to pass a bill. It doesn't. It's 50 plus the veep, always has been. What "Cloture" does is stop a filibuster. THAT is the word you should be using.

You say "cloture", and people think procedure. They tune out. You use "filibuster", and all of a sudden, it's obstruction. Even better, you can paint those who aren't willing to make the vote happen as supporting the filibuster. On something as vital as health care reform, that makes them sound like asses.

So look at two ways of describing this story:

Ben Nelson won't commit to voting for cloture? "Meh, boring procedure."

Ben Nelson supports a Republican filibuster on health care? "Isn't he a Democrat? Why is he supporting the Republicans? What an ass!"

See? So don't use "vote for cloture". Use "support the filibuster".

(Or, even better, say "He's filibustering", because that's pretty much what you're doing if you won't vote for cloture. But either works.)

Oh, Hey, It's Beck's First Real Victim!

It was only a matter of time until somebody got killed for being a "fed":

The FBI is investigating whether anti-government sentiment led to the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery. A law enforcement official told The Associated Press the word 'fed" was scrawled on the dead man's chest.

The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and teacher, was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky. The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation.

Investigators are still trying to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was related to his government job or to anti-government sentiment. An autopsy report is pending.

Investigators have said little about the case. The law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, said Wednesday the man was found hanging from a tree and the word "fed" was written on the dead man's chest. The official did not say what type of instrument was used to write the word.

FBI spokesman David Beyer said the bureau is helping state police with the case.

"Our job is to determine if there was foul play involved — and that's part of the investigation — and if there was foul play involved, whether that is related to his employment as a census worker," said Beyer.

"Whether there was foul play involved"? What, did the guy scrawl "fed" on his own chest?

Anyway, hands up everybody who didn't see this one coming....

...

...Yeah, I thought so.

Edit: This is the man those redneck pricks killed:

William E. Sparkman’s education story is one of thoughtful parental involvement for his son and for himself, and personal fortitude in the face of very difficult circumstances, including very serious personal illness.

He thought of it as volunteering in his son’s classroom. He never imagined it would lead to a career change.

Sparkman began his career path as a sports editor for the Mulberry Press in Mulberry, Fla. and through various jobs thereafter, landed him in London, Ky., just as his son, Josh (now 18 years old) was entering Johnson Elementary School.

His son could pass any test, but was struggling with completing the required assignments, so Sparkman thought that by volunteering in the classroom, he could help his son’s learning situation.

Eventually, he was offered the job of a paraeducator. Several years into the job, he realized he was doing many of the same things that the teachers were doing. Talking with several other paraeducators, he learned they were all going to school, working on their teacher certifications.

“Being a single parent, I knew I couldn’t quit my job and I would have limited nights to go to school, so it could take a long time to finish, “said Bill. “I checked around and discovered Western Governors University, and began online classes in September 2005. WGU offered everything that I wanted. I didn’t have to sit in class and I could go as fast or as slow as I needed to.”

Bill was making great progress when a life-threatening brick wall popped up. A cyst had formed on the right side of his neck and it was found to be Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Refusing to let that get in his way, he persevered. He began the necessary medical treatment and continued to do his student teaching.

“My mentor and college advisor, Carol Williams, provided me great support through this obstacle and continued leading me down the path to graduation. Carol lives in Atlanta, Ga., but she kept in constant contact with me the majority of my two-and-a half years in online studies through phone calls and e-mails,” Bill said.

Kelly Greene, of the Laurel County School system, is in charge of filling the vacancies for any teachers who are absent on any given day, so Bill kept Kelly up-to-date on his progress throughout his treatments.

“While in the process of getting his degree, Bill was never not available,” said Greene. “He was always very upbeat that early in the morning, willing and ready to go to work.”

Sparkman spoke with Greene at length about his being diagnosed with cancer. Sparkman assured her that he wanted her to continue to call him for work.

They went over in detail what he would have to do throughout his treatment, particularly on Fridays, when he would be unable to work due to the lengthy chemotherapy treatments. Greene said Sparkman was very conscientious as a substitute teacher and did not want his treatment to hurt his chances of being called into work.

Greene described Bill Sparkman as a man with a great attitude and added that someone with his enthusiasm and willingness to work is remarkable, given the situation.

Sparkman graduated from WGU in December 2007 with his bachelor’s degree in mathematics education.

With warnings from his doctor about traveling by plane, Bill took the long way to his graduation ceremony in February 2008 by driving all the way across the country to Salt Lake City to attend graduation in person and to receive the diploma he had worked so hard to earn.

“It took me five days to make the four-day trip, thanks to Mother Nature, and the harsh road conditions in Wyoming,” Sparkman recalled. “But once I got to Utah, it was clear sailing the rest of the way.”

“WGU is the only accredited university where you can obtain a bachelors degree in education,” said Sparkman, “and as more people discover WGU, I believe that more great teachers will be there for more students and be able to provide the support everyone deserves.”

Last Friday was Sparkman’s final chemotherapy treatment. He is happy and hopeful that the treatment worked and is totally successful. He’ll get the news of his final test results on tax day, April 15.

Although he realizes that his doctor will not be able to tell him he is totally cured, Sparkman is looking forward to hearing that his cancer is in remission, enough that he’ll only have to go in for a checkup ever 6-12 months.

Today, Bill Sparkman patiently waits for a math teacher position to open as he continues to substitute teach in various schools throughout Laurel County. Along with his commitment as a substitute teacher he also works evenings at the Campground Elementary in its after-school program.

“I think things are looking pretty good as there are eight schools throughout Laurel, Knox, Whitley and Clay counties,” said Sparkman, reflecting on his future as a teacher. “Working for the U.S. Census Bureau, I’ve become familiar with the numerous opportunities the school systems have to offer. I’m hoping to stay here in Laurel County, but I’d be willing to travel to any of the other schools, if that’s where a position opens. My home, my life is here in Laurel County, and this is where I want to stay.”

Sparkman takes no personal credit for his remarkable recovery.

“I know a lot of people were out there praying for me, and I have no doubt that it was a mixture of God’s will, the doctors, and my friends and family that got me through this,” he said.

“I don’t know who played the biggest part in getting me well, but I’d be happy to bow down and kiss whoever’s feet were in front of me.”

Bill Sparkman was a cancer survivor, a teacher, and a single parent: someone who overcame tremendous obstacles to get an education.

There are no words.

"Michael Moore+NYC Cops=Tru Luv 4-Eva"

Well, THIS was unexpected:

Over lasagna, he told me about an incident that occurred while he was filming that exemplifies how the economic crisis cannot be looked at through a left vs right prism.

It happened while he and his crew were shooting the climax of the movie, where Michael decides to mark Wall Street as a crime scene, putting up yellow police tape around some of the financial district's towers of power.

While unfurling the tape in front of a "too big to fail" bank, he became aware of a group of New York's finest approaching him. Moore has a long history of dealing with policemen and security guards trying to shut him down, but in this case he knew he was, however temporarily, defacing private property. And his shooting schedule didn't leave room for a detour to the local jail. So, as the lead officer came closer, Moore tried to deflect him, saying: "Just doing a little comedy here, officer. I'll be gone in a minute, and will clean up before I go."

The officer looked at him for a moment, then leaned in: "Take all the time you need." He nodded to the bank and said, "These guys wiped out a lot of our Police Pension Funds." The officer turned and slowly headed back to his squad car. Moore wanted to put the moment in his film, but realized it could cost the cop his job, and decided to leave it out. "When they've lost the police," he told me, "you know they're in trouble."

I'm looking forward to the Moore film. They're incredibly polemic, but I'm not exactly in a position to fault him for that, and he drives the point home.

The only problem is that the majority of Americans almost certainly agree with him. Popular rage against the banks and their masters is still inflamed, a year after it was revealed how badly they betrayed everyone. But because of the way the system has been designed, it doesn't really matter how much the public hates them: the "Commanding Heights" are held by them and theirs. That's one of the reasons there's so much inchoate populist anger in the United States right now—anger that's only going to get worse as the "jobless recovery" continues.

It looks like the cops are no exception. Bully for them.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/barack-obama-must-see-mic_b_293407.html

Dion's Final Indignity, and a Return to Form

And now, on top of the Cauchon debacle, there's this:

The controversy is a harbinger for other difficulties in the Quebec wing of the party. Coderre has pressured some long-serving MPs with safe seats to resign, according to a number of Liberal sources. They told CBC News the party wants those seats for star female candidates as part of its renewal process.

The sources said former party leader Stéphane Dion, along with Bernard Patry, Raymonde Folco, and Lise Zarac, have all been asked to step aside.

Well, well, well. So after failing at the one thing that Dion did pull off—winning a leadership election—and working tirelessly to undermine him behind the scenes, Iggy's nasty little Quebec cabal is unleashing the final indignity. That despite Ignatieff not really doing much better than Dion did.

(Well, except soliciting donations from the richest 1% of the country.)

Meanwhile, found in The Hill Times:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is lagging behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper in recent public opinion polls because Canadians still don't know what the Grit leader stands for. To get their leader elected as the next Prime Minister, Liberals should be more proactive in communicating his positions on important public policy issues, political insiders and pollsters say.

"He's put absolutely nothing on the table. It's just empty rhetoric," a top Liberal who supported Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) in both of his leadership campaigns told The Hill Times last week. "It's not enough to say, 'That in good times we're going to bring forward the progress...' If he goes into an election and doesn't really have anything substantive to put on the table, we're looking at a massacre..."

...And a Nanos poll on the leadership approval of party leaders showed that Mr. Harper had the support of 31 per cent of Canadians who felt he was the most trustworthy leader, compared to Mr. Ignatieff whose support was tied with NDP Leader Jack Layton (Toronto Danforth, Ont.) at 14 per cent. On the question of the most competent leader, Mr. Harper had the approval of 36 per cent of Canadians compared to Mr. Ignatieff who was at 20 per cent. In addition, the survey, conducted Sept. 3 to Sept. 11 with 1,002 Canadians and has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20, showed that 32 per cent of Canadians believe Mr. Harper has the best vision for Canada, while only 20 per cent believe that of Mr. Ignatieff.

So iggy's numbers are dropping like a stone. Less trustworthy than Harper? That snake? Yeah, that's very, very bad. And it looks like a few Liberals are no longer afraid of him or his, either.

And in comes whatzisname to build that fear:

She's nicer than me, so she'll never say this: "Hi, I'm Warren. I'm not nice. I intend to find out who you are, little Hill Times source weasel, and I intend to take a chainsaw to your political ambitions, however modest they may be."

Like I say: Susan's nice, I'm not. But I'm going to defend Iggy as vigorously as I defended JC. And, moreover, I'm pretty good at finding people, when I'm focussed.

Which, this morning, I am.

Definitely a return to form. The Liberals have returned to form, being completely unsure how to deal with a united Right under a leader that Canadians have become used to, and presuming that leadership is the problem. (Not that Iggy's leadership has been wonderful, but his factions' greatest sin was assuming that Dion's leadership was the flaw LAST time.)

And Warren's returning to form, proving just how much he despises freedom of expression. He's once again trying desperately to shut people up by using fear and intimidation, thus proving why the source would have sought anonymity to begin with. It's a bit like the campaigns of Joe Klein and his ilk, shooting down those who would disrupt the cozy Village media...except this time with actual consequences.

Iggy Blows Off Another Progressive

In my best Iago-the-Parrot voice:

"Oh there's a big surprise! That's an incredible - I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die of not surprise!"

For those Americans who may not be familiar with Canadian candidate nominations, there are no primaries. Instead there are private members' nomination meetings. But, critically, candidates can be appointed by the leadership. Yes, the people who nominally choose the leader can be chosen in turn by the leader.

(Yes, I said "Canada". Not "Iran". Though I can appreciate the confusion.)

Now, this is generally a tremendously bad idea. If the people on the ground don't get to choose their candidate, they have no stake in the candidate...and if they have no stake in the candidate, they aren't going to do the heavy lifting that turns a candidate into a parliamentarian. So this was kind of an extreme move.

So who, exactly, was so odious that he got turfed aside by the leadership?

Martin Cauchon, the former justice minister who made history with same-sex marriage and his effort to decriminalize marijuana, has apparently lost in his bid to re-enter politics.

The Liberal Party is expected to run a prominent businesswoman in Montreal's Outremont riding, a onetime Liberal fortress Mr. Cauchon once held for 11 years.

And from a relatively prominent Canadian blogger, Adam Radwanski:

On one side, you've got a former justice minister who was at the forefront of his party's socially liberal agenda earlier this decade, and who's taken time off from his law career to contribute thoughtful essays on the future of federalism. On the other, you've got a former immigration minister best remembered for the Shane Doan idiocy, who's managed to veer off-course even as an opposition critic.

If Ignatieff were to choose the latter to the exclusion of the former, it would say a great deal about what he looks for in people, and what he wants his party to look like.

Well, I think it's pretty clear what he wants his Liberal party to look like: "not terribly liberal".

Yep, Iago, heart attacks all 'round.

Hey, Look! Bipartisanship!

Well, okay, it's the kind of bipartisanship where Democrats roll over in yet another pathetic, desperate attempt to get Republicans to stop saying mean things about them. It never works, of course, but surely it'll work NEXT time, right?

Of course, that kind of bipartisanship is terrible. But it's the only one that ever happens— the Republicans wouldn't even bend on the meaningless censure that delusional asshole Joe Wilson! So if you want "bipartisanship", that's the only kind you'll get.

Naturally, to the people whining about bipartisanship, that's the entire point.

Remember How I Said Canadian Opinion Journalism is Terrible?

Here's exhibit "B": Kelly MacParland giving the world's worst advice to Iggy.

See, I can almost respect good concern trolling. For all that he's an idiot, David Brooks concern trolls so well that he can write whole books worth of it and people actually buy it. So if it were competent, believable concern trolling that MacParland was up to, it might be respectable too.

But it isn't. Hoo boy, it isn't. Not only does he sabotage it by saying "don't listen to advisers!" in an feeble attempt to be cute, and not only does take as a given a lot of assertions about the public that he can't even superficially support, he is simply unbelievable. Anybody who writes ridiculous blog entries talking about how Iggy is "trapped in the '70s" because he hasn't joined the Reagan Revolution is going to lack credibility as a concern troll... but if you're going to try, damned well don't LINK to it! They'll just click through, think "welp, this guy's a throwback" and go read Coyne or something!

Honestly, it's more sad than anything else.

More on Cochrane

I suspect that he may have read the last few entries. One of them was linked on DeLong, after all.

Yet I equally suspect that I won't see any response. After all, I am only a pseud, and thus have not proven myself initiated in the Mysteries of his order. I am an outsider, and thus not even a "traitor". I'm nobody.

That this was, and is, the entire point of this enterprise will not have occurred to him.

Snowe Might Back BaucusCare After All? (Also: MoveOn Mistargeting)

Snowe might be for it after all?

I'm wondering who's been leaning on her. Surely not the insurance industry, who absolutely love the bill as a massive, massive giveaway? Or "deficit hawks" who know that the cost of the whole thing will be dumped on the middle class?

A Republican backing the worst damned thing to come out of the Senate since the Dixiecrats. I'm only surprised there aren't more.

Edit: Oh, and MoveOn is apparently targeting Republicans with mean ads.

Whoopdy doo. They aren't the problem. At this point America would be better off with MORE obstructionist Republicans, since they would almost certainly vote for Max Baucus' "crush the middle class on behalf of my health insurance overlords" bill.

If MoveOn was serious, they'd be targeting Democrats, not Republicans. But then Rahm would get all shouty, since the White House has made it perfectly clear what their preferred choice is.

"Critical Thinking is a Detriment to Learning Economics!"

From "Jeff V.", who commented on my earlier post on Krugman and doctrinaire "Freshwater" economists:

I spent the 2007-08 year as a first year student in a PhD Finance program at a Top University. All the classes I took were in the econ department for the first year; I was basically a first-year econ student.

The financial crisis was unfolding while I was there; one might expect that it would be a very interesting time to be in the graduate econ classroom. I can briefly summarize for you how the financial crisis was discussed, both inside and outside the class room:

Nothing at all. The most significant economic and financial event in decades was happening out in the Real World, but it didn't penetrate the bubble of Academia. Rational expectations and Gaussin distributions were still taught as gospel truth, and woe upon the student (me) who questioned the orthodoxy.

I still remember a professor advising me that critical thinking is a detriment to learning economics.

I still remember a professor scolding me that it would be inappropriate to teach anything realistic in his classroom.

I still remember my advisor yelling at me "Have an open mind! Stop questioning things!" after I questioned the relevance of theory in the face of recent events.

Rather than receiving a broad education to develop well-rounded students, it was more of an indoctrination; designed to instruct students what to belive, rather than teach us how to think.

I am no longer a PhD student, largely because I couldn't accept the fact that academic economists I met have no interest in understanding how an actual economy actually works; they just enjoy irrelevant and overly-complicated math models.

The bolding of that earlier sentence was mine. I can't think of any more damning indictment of the current state of economics. Any of you who have seen the inside of a graduate seminar knows that questioning and debate are practically mandatory: a lot of profs will deliberately put out arguments they don't believe just to provoke debate. You won't find one scientist in a thousand who thinks that critical thinking is a detriment to their field. Far from it: they believe, correctly, that it's at the heart of the enterprise.

But that's the issue, isn't it? Enterprise, I mean. As someone else "g" pointed out, this whole thing is heavily supported by the business community—along with their apologists in government and the business media. The whole raison d'etre for funding economics as a field is to support the doctrine of giving corporations a free hand to do whatever it takes. Sure, economists also provide them innovative new tools to game the system and make fat killings by creating collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps and whatnot, but that's not why the money really flows. It flows because only a certain sort of person would actually think that what's going on is right and proper., you need the "Freshwaters" there to indoctrinate them.

That's probably why Krugman (and Keynes!) infuriates them. Marxists, they can handle. Outsiders, they can handle. But people who know economics, believe in markets, know the lingo, yet don't agree with the Holy Axioms?

See for yourself. This is a response to Krugman's blog post:

It’s worse than that. My academic friends, even those outside the core of the fresh-water perspective, think you [Paul Krugman] are a traitor. This is partly because you challenge the academic dogma that the use of math is necessarily the dominant force in economics, and partly because you are airing in public internecine strife they feel is best kept concealed. All those grants could be threatened if anybody saw just how useless the bulk of the profession is.

Just like FDR and Keynes, Krugman is seen as a traitor to his class. And you know what?

Good for him.

Krugman Carving Up the "Freshwater" Economists

(Edit: Welcome to visitor's from Brad DeLong's site. I'm a big fan of his going way back, and he's one of the economists I do respect.)

For those who haven't read Paul Krugman's devastating article about the current state of economics, this may not mean much. But, fortunately, you have the delight of reading it to look forward to.

So don't let me detain you.

For the rest of you, here's his reaction to, well, the reaction:

I gather, though, that the usual suspects are utterly outraged at my suggestion that freshwater macro has spent several decades heading down the wrong path. They’re smart! They work hard, using hard math! How dare I say such a thing?

And all of this, of course, without a hint of irony.

For when freshwater macro took over a good part of the field, its leaders gleefully dismissed all the work Keynesian economists had done over the previous few decades, often with sneers and sniggers.

And that same adolescent quality was evident in the reactions to the Obama administration’s attempts to deal with the crisis — as Brad DeLong points out, people like Robert Lucas and John Cochrane (not to mention Richard Posner, who isn’t a macroeconomist but gets his take from his colleagues) didn’t say that when serious scholars like Christina Romer based policy recommendations on Keynesian economics, they were wrong; the freshwater crowd declared that anyone with Keynesian views was, by definition, either a fool or intellectually dishonest.

So the freshwater outrage over finding their own point of view criticized is, you might think, a classic case of people who can dish it out but can’t take it.

From what I know of your more Randroid economists, this isn't a big surprise. This sophomoric nonsense is the worst damned thing about modern economists, and what makes me automatically suspect the findings whenever its axioms and methodologies crop up in other fields.

But it’s actually even worse than that.

Oh?

When freshwater macro came in, there was an active purge of competing views: students were not exposed, at all, to any alternatives. People like Prescott boasted that Keynes was never mentioned in their graduate programs. And what has become clear in the recent debate — for example, in the assertion that Ricardian equivalence rules out any effect from government spending changes, which is just wrong — is that the freshwater side not only turned Keynes into an unperson, but systematically ignored the work being done in the New Keynesian vein. Nobody who had read, say, Obstfeld and Rogoff would have been as clueless about the logic of temporary fiscal expansion as these guys have been. Freshwater macro became totally insular.

And hence the most surprising thing in the debate over fiscal stimulus: the raw ignorance that has characterized so many of the freshwater comments. Above all, we’ve seen the phenomenon of well-known economists “rediscovering” Say’s Law and the Treasury view (the view that government cannot affect the overall level of demand), not because they’ve transcended the Keynesian refutation of these views, but because they were unaware that there had ever been such a debate.

It’s a sad story. And the even sadder thing is that it’s very unlikely that anything will change: freshwater macro will get even more insular, and its devotees will wonder why nobody in the real world of policy and action pays any attention to what they say.

"Raw ignorance." Rather harsh, but I can't see how to rebut it. Saying that you disagree is one thing. That's perfectly legitimate. Saying that you teach your students one viewpoint in preference to another? That's also legitimate. Spending more time on one school of thought instead of another? Kind of questionable, but still ubiquitous.

But not even teaching what Keynes was about? That's not even wrong. That's just ignorant. No, not "ignorant" as an epithet, it quite literally breeds ignorance. That's not being an educator. That's the game of indoctrinators. Cults do that.

I knew freshwaters was screwed up. But I have to admit, I wasn't expecting cultists.

Edit: Some of the commentators bring up John Cochrane's response, which includes rather a lot of "if markets are irrational, surely government regulators are even MORE irrational!" That strikes me as a clarion call to shut down the FDA. But never mind that. Take a look at this howler:

Paul, there was a financial crisis, a classic near-run on banks. The centerpiece of our crash was not the relatively free stock or real estate markets, it was the highly regulated commercial banks. A generation of economists has thought really hard about these kinds of events. Look up Diamond, Rajan, Gorton, Kashyap, Stein, and so on. They’ve thought about why there is so much short term debt, why banks run, how deposit insurance and credit guarantees help, and how they give incentives for excessive risk taking.

Yes. The problem of widespread speculation in almost totally unregulated markets like CDOs and credit default swaps—by investment banks like Lehman and Goldman Sachs—was the regulation on commercial banks.

Riiight.

What parts aren't "gub'mint is worse!" or "Paul just doesn't understand us beautiful flowers" are generally "you're trying to turn back the clock on 30 years of science!" As seen here:

Imagine this were a respected scientist turned popular writer, who says, most basically, that everything everyone has done in his field since the mid 1960s is a complete waste of time. Everything that fills its academic journals, is taught in its PhD programs, presented at its conferences, summarized in its graduate textbooks, and rewarded with the accolades a profession can bestow, including multiple Nobel prizes, is totally wrong. Instead, he calls for a return to the eternal verities of a rather convoluted book written in the 1930s, as taught to our author in his undergraduate introductory courses. If a scientist, he might be a global-warming skeptic, an AIDS-HIV disbeliever, a creationist, a stalwart that maybe continents don’t move after all.

This is one of the goofiest damned things I've ever read.

It's not even argument from authority. Leave aside the arrogance of assuming that one branch of thought could stand in for the entire field. These sorts of reversals happen all the time, and especially in social sciences. Would linguists get away with this sort of whining if they were trying to rebut Chomsky? Would behavioral psychologists be able to use this as a response to cognitivism? Would IR liberals be able to beat back realists (or vice versa) by saying that they're based on old books? Would the vaunted criminal "profilers" be able to use it to rebut the growing tide of people who question the efficacy of their methods?

No, of course not. Even the crustiest, most hidebound Marxian would laugh at the attempt. Only the most ignorant, closed sort of mind would even try.

But here we are, with Cochrane proving the point about Freshwater insularity and ignorance more eloquently than Krugman could have ever dreamed.

Snowe's Officially Out

Here's a big surprise:

Senate Democrats are going to have to move forward on healthcare without a single Republican supporter after Sen. Olympia Snowe said Tuesday she could not back the Finance Committee’s bill.

Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) failed to win any Republican backer despite weeks of intense negotiations behind closed doors to strike a deal.Snowe (Maine), who was one of three Republicans who backed the $787 billion economic stimulus package, was being lobbied heavily by the White House, and some centrists view her refusal to strike a deal with Baucus as troubling. But concerns about how the plan would be paid for prompted her to back away in the hours before its release.

“I do have concerns and I’m not sure they can be addressed before he issues [legislation] tomorrow,” Snowe said.

It makes sense. "I would be disowned by my caucus and am terrified of going without the Conservative Machine" is an understandable concern.

So what now?

Faced with the prospect of having to pass legislation without Republican votes, Obama’s chief political adviser David Axelrod met with Senate and House Democrats on Tuesday to stress the importance of party unity on healthcare reform — a message most directly aimed at centrists who now are critical to its passage.

Democrats control 59 seats in the Senate. Without a single Republican vote, they would be forced to advance healthcare using a budgetary maneuver that requires only a simple majority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that Democrats are prepared to use budget reconciliation as a last resort.

“We’ve always had a place at the table for Republicans. There’s one there today. We hope it bears fruit,” he said. “If we can’t get the 60 votes we need, then we’ll have no alternative but to use reconciliation.”

Axelrod told senators that passing healthcare reform would give them a boost in the 2010 midterm election, according to a person who attended the meeting.

Axelrod also said that polls showed that public disapproval over Democratic reform proposals — which swelled in June and July — leveled off during the month of August, despite the publicity attracted by conservative protests, said another source in the meeting.

Axelrod’s speech seemed aimed at Democratic centrists who are concerned about the failure to attract Snowe

In August, Obama and Baucus narrowed their focus to winning over Snowe after it became clear that other Republican negotiators voiced sharp criticisms of Democratic proposals during the congressional recess.

Well, that's over. So can Baucus just retire his terrible, terrible "make health insurance exec rich" scheme and let HELP do its job now? It was only even intended to bring Republicans onside, and that's over.

Sure, Axelrod is talking about "centrists" because that's just a habit at this point: but you've already got Rockefeller and others stating unequivocably that they won't vote for BaucusCare in its present form, and a tidy little civil war going on in the House over the prospect of having to sell it to constituents. He needs to worry about progressives, too, because they aren't happy. Not at all.

If the Democrats must own this health care bill, then it is in their electoral interests to set the "win Republicans" mindset aside and make the bill the best possible piece of legislation they possibly can. If they do produce good legislation that helps people, I'm sure that the public will come onside, as it stops being "the unknown" and starts being something that the understand and take for granted. (Like Medicare, Social Security, civil rights, and everything else.)

And, yes, they should stop listening to the lobbyists. Not just because it's right, but because it's in their interests. Lobbyists may deliver potloads of money, but they don't deliver votes. They don't volunteer to go doorknocking, they don't get out the vote, they don't sell it to their neighbours, and they probably won't even spring for television advertising. The best-funded campaign in the world will avail you nothing if you can't win the votes. And, folks, you'd best believe me when I say that BaucusCare won't deliver a single one.

Let the Republicans bail. They're the party of Glenn Beck and signs with Obama-as-Hitler on them at this point. The only reason they're as influential as they are is because Democrats (and, naturally, the media) allow them to be. You fear them, you triangulate them, you adopt their framing—and everybody else follows suit. That's where their power comes from. Without it, they're nothing.

Stop cringing, for once, and take up the power that you always had.

“The Baucus framework is just an absolute joke,”

So, who said that? Pelosi? Ezra Klein? digby? Nope!

It was Wendell Potter. And who's Potter? Well, let's see:

Wendell Potter, the former Cigna executive-turned-whistleblower, told a small group of reporters Monday that the Baucus health care plan is an “absolute gift” to the industry.

“The Baucus framework is just an absolute joke,” said Potter, Cigna’s former head of corporate communications who has been speaking out against insurance industry practices. “It is an absolute gift to the industry. And if that is what we see in the legislation, (America’s Health Insurance Plans chief) Karen Ignagni will surely get a huge bonus.”

Potter said the proposal would not provide affordable coverage. It gives the industry too much latitude to charge higher premiums based on age and geographic location, fails to mandate employer coverage, and pushes consumers into plans with limited benefits, Potter said.

Private insurers “want to have ‘benefit design flexibility.’ Those are three very worrisome words,” Potter said at a briefing arranged by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “By being able to have benefit design flexibility, they will be able to design plans that are so limited that more and more people will be in the ranks of the uninsured.”

Several Senate Finance Committee Democrats have raised similar concerns, saying the health care overhaul could mandate Americans to buy coverage that isn’t affordable and doesn’t offer adequate coverage.

This issue has dominated behind-the-scenes discussions, and several members pledged Monday night to address it with amendments in the Finance Committee markup next week.

"It's very clear, at this point in the debate, the flashpoint is all about affordability,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “I personally think there’s a lot of heavy lifting left to do on the affordability issue.”

Finance Chairman Max Baucus said the bipartisan group was "doing our very best to make an insurance requirement as affordable as we possibly can, recognizing that we’re trying to get this bill under $900 billion total.”

Well, hey, let's hope it works!

I bolded that early section, because it shows the path that America's headed down if Baucus' courtesy-of-WellPoint plan becomes law. We always knew it was going to be bad. We always knew it was going to be a terrible bill. We always knew it was going to be a gift to the health insurance industry whose manifold failures led to this debate in the first place.

But, you have to admit, none of us were expecting a former health insurance exec to call them out on it!

Never mind the Senate, I'm wondering if Baucus even has the committee votes for this. Rockefeller is out, Schumer wants a public option in reconciliation, and the Republicans are all probably going to bail out, including Snowe. That doesn't leave him a lot of latitude, and this new embarrassment is only going to make it tougher.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you. This thing deserves to die in committee. It shouldn't even hit the floor. Harkin's HELP committee is producing the only bill that should see the reconciliation table. Anything that helps that happen is fine with me.

xkcd Is Completely Inaccurate

I've never used Wordpress.

Blogger all the way.

Edit: I find this particularly amusing considering that, at least by today's standards, I was one of the earliest bloggers. (2002 isn't as early as the guys who started in the late 1990s, but political blogging didn't really hit it's stride until 2001, and progressive/liberal blogging until 2002.)

Goes to show how times change.

(Not that there is any shortage of "Demosthenes" pseudonyms out there. I just believe that I was the first blogger to use the name.)

Remember When We Thought America Was Going Progressive?

Those were good times.

Now, of course, Baucus not only gets to let former health insurance veeps dictate what Americans will be forced to buy, but apparently he's going to gut the climate change bill, too. No doubt to make as many Republicans and lobbyists happy as possible.

All this by a man who represents a vanishingly small percentage of the American people.

Forget getting rid of Republicans. The Republicans are irrelevant. Wilson is a sideshow that has been seized upon by Dems like manna from heaven to distract from the realities of the health care situation. The key goal was, is, and will remain getting rid of bad Dems.

The more, the merrier.

A Bit of Clarity

There's a lot going on right about how the public option is off the table.

So let's be perfectly clear. Right here, right now. Mandates without a public option are worse than what America currently has. No ifs, ands, or buts. All the laws against recission, against blocking reform, and even the medicaid expansion pale in comparison.

You want clarity? The government is going to force you to give money to a health insurance corporation. That's clarity. If there's a monopoly or oligopoly in your area? Too bad. If you have a moral objection to the heinous shit that they do? Too bad. If they offer crap coverage at terrible rates? Too bad. If their premiums are ruinous? Too bad. Pay up, suckers, the execs have corporate jets to buy.

You can't vote them out, because they don't listen to you, they listen to their shareholders. You can't avoid them, because they'll be there wherever you go: the scummy corps will quickly crowd out the good ones, as is ever the case with a captive market. All you can do is get your ass out of the country as quickly as possible, and find somewhere that has a sane health care system, crafted by people who think the middle ground isn't between Joe Lieberman and Joe Wilson.

The only people who benefit from this are health insurance execs and institutional shareholders. They know that, with crystal clarity. So should you.

Ugh.

Well, you know the speech had problems when David Brooks is praising it.

Edit: though this bit is funny:

White House officials no longer mask their exasperation with the liberal obsession on [The public option].

That'd be Rahm.

It also shows that the opposition is working. Rahm wouldn't be annoyed if it wasn't a problem.

Far Better Use of Those Dollars

dday today:

John Aravosis uncovers an amazing nugget in TIME Magazine. Apparently, there are Democrats who saw Rep. Joe Wilson yell "You Lie!" at the President of the United States and thought, "that guy has a point." And they happen to be the ones writing the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting out "You Lie!" at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. "We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

So many things wrong with this, starting with caving to an extremist...

...Not to mention the fact that buckling to these demands will not get one Republican vote on any health care bill.

This is the Senate Finance bill, not the overall bill. But Democrats are so wishy-washy when it comes to, well, anything, that we actually could see this rotten, xenophobic, piss-poor policy in a bill supposedly designed to expand access to health care.

I know a lot of money has been flowing to Joe Wilson's opponent in 2010, but a far better use of those dollars would be to funnel them toward primary opponents for Kent Conrad and Max Baucus.

Yeah, funny, ain't it? I saw the things on Kos about raising money for Joe Wilson's Democratic opponent. (The link is here, for those who want to help.) That's a worthy goal, and Miller seems like a solid candidate.

But I can't help but agree with dday that Joe Wilson isn't the problem. After all, idiots like that are hardly in short supply in the Republican party; you're never going to excise them from the House, nor should you expect to. The problem is The Blue Dogs, and their stubborn belief that if only they cave in to everything the Republicans complain about, the Republicans won't have a leg to stand on and will stop being so mean.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

The blue dogs are motivated by fear. They're craven in the face of both noisy Republicans and grasping lobbyists. They've blocked everybody else out. But that isn't a bad thing, not necessarily. You, as progressives and liberals, just have to make them fear you more. It worked for the Republican base, it works for progressives, liberals and social-democratics elsewhere, and it can work for Dems in America too.

That's why Rahm, the patron saint of maudlin centrists, is threatening and screaming at progressive organizations to get in line. Fear, with a touch of greed, is the only thing Rahm and his centrist pets know. If you can't replace them—though they richly deserve it—then you might as well scare them.

And that's why you should think carefully before lending your time and money towards beating bad Republicans, instead of bad Democrats. Things may change. I hope they change. But right now, focusing on beating Republicans would just empower the terrible Dems, and make things that much worse.

Democracy! (Brought to You By General Electric)

Yes, as dday (channelling Dahlia Lithwick) points out, the Roberts court is quite likely to knock down the rules that prevent corps from pretty much dictating public opinion:

The Supremes heard that Citizens United case yesterday, and Dahlia Lithwick sez be very afraid.

When we first met this case, it involved a narrow question about whether a 90-minute documentary attacking Hillary Clinton could be regulated as an "electioneering communication" under McCain-Feingold. The relevant provision bars corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that feature a candidate for federal election during specified times before a general election. A federal court of appeals agreed with the FEC that the movie could be regulated. Citizens United, the conservative, nonprofit advocacy group that produced the film, appealed. The issue last spring was whether a feature-length documentary movie was core political speech or a Swift Boat ad. But the court surprised everyone when it ordered the case reargued in September, this time tackling the constitutionality of McConnell and Austin.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas are already on record wanting to overturn these cases. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts have been inclined to wait. The question today is whether we wait no more [...]

Solicitor General Kagan stands to defend the FEC, not in a frock coat but a tasteful blue pantsuit, and when Scalia pounces on her, two sentences into her opening, she scolds him as if he were an impudent 2-L: "I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case." Kagan is so loose and relaxed, you'd think this was her 100th argument. Which allows Roberts to dispense with the kid gloves and accuse her, respectively of "giving up" an argument she made in her opening brief and "changing positions." When she is asked, in effect, if she wants to lose this case in a big way or a little way, Kagan is eventually forced to reply, "If you are asking me, Mr. Chief Justice, as to whether the government has a preference as to the way in which it loses if it has to lose, the answer is yes."

One of the ways the Roberts Court hopes to make all conflicting case law in the campaign finance realm disappear is to blame all prior bad case law on Kagan. When everyone is thoroughly confused about what rationale the government may advance in order to limit corporate spending, Roberts can gleefully conclude that all of Austin "is kind of up for play. …" Poof. And Austin is a problem no more.

As Kennedy bemoans the "ongoing chill" of limiting corporate speech, Scalia recites a lyric ode to the greatness of America's "single shareholder corporations. … The local hairdresser, the local auto repair shop, the local new car dealer." Kagan points again to the "100-year-old judgment of Congress that these expenditures would corrupt the federal system," forcing Scalia to retort that "Congress has a self-interest" and that "I doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents." Kagan corrects him, noting that "in fact, corporate and union money go overwhelmingly to incumbents." And that this law "may be the single most self-denying thing that Congress has ever done."

Kagan goes on to distinguish humans from corporations by pointing out that "we have beliefs; we have convictions; we have likes and dislikes." When she urges that it's in the corporation's self-interest to maximize profits and that "individuals are more complicated than that," Scalia does another verse on "the new auto dealer who has just lost his dealership." It's a vision of fluffy corporate bunnies so compelling, it makes you want to give Exxon a great big hug and an African violet for the holidays [...]

Olson very effectively uses his five minutes of rebuttal time to taunt Kagan for the government's changed positions. And while it looks as though there are five votes to fundamentally alter the way American elections will work, we've been through enough renditions of the Roberts Court slapping litigants around at oral argument then loving on them in decisions to make such predictions unwise. Of course, as Waxman suggests in his closing, it does take a somewhat "self-starting" institution to be deciding a case about campaign finance laws in which no litigant has directly raised the issues and no factual record even exists.

As Dahlia says, you can't predict the findings from the questions, but it seems pretty clear what side these guys fall on. Elegies for "one-man corporations" don't usually issue from the mouths of those who want to restrict their power.

But I did want to quote something else:

If you read through these arguments, and the general set of opinions of the Court over the last term, you can only conclude that George W. Bush was a successful President. With a legacy that far exceeds his lack of accomplishments in domestic or foreign policy. Bush handed the Court to the Federalist Society right for a decade or more, and while the legal system can still put up a fight with respect to civil liberties, on most issues the ultimate answer will fall on the side of the corporation over the people every single time without question. And that's a frightening prospect.

I'd agree, except to note one thing: for both Roberts and Scalia, the problem wasn't Bush and it wasn't the Republicans. It was Democrats. Remember when they were "keeping their powder dry"? When they were trying to bank "political capital", as if such a beast existed out of the minds of clueless opinion journalists? And how the whole reason America ended up with those guys on the Bench is because of the good ol' Blue Dogs that never met a Republican they didn't like? Me too.

Never forget that the Roberts Court, like the gutted, possibly extinct public option, is the fault of [b][i]centrist Dems[/i][/b]. Good ol' lumbering DINOs, nobody else.

Prez's Health Care Speech: Could Have Been Worse

Not much more to say than that, really. Tort reform is meaningless twaddle that won't pull in any Republicans, but it was a somewhat more spirited defense of the public option than I had expected.

The weakest moment was right at the beginning. Equating advocates for single-payer, the near-ubiquitous system elsewhere, with nutbars who want to tear down employer-based insurance? Good job, thanks a bunch. It did serve as a way of reminding people what progressives have actually bargained down from, but it was still insulting. Not surprising, but insulting. The bit where completely misrepresented how collective bargaining works was almost as bad, but it didn't match up to the dishonest equations being made.

The best bit from Obama was probably when he started calling out the Republicans for being responsible for the debt. Dems don't talk about that enough, and it's one of the reasons the Republicans have been schooling them over the past few months. The Republicans are trying to hide their legislative history, and it's revealing that the Dems have been too terrified or too dense to call them on it.

The best bit overall, however, wasn't from Obama. It was from that unbelievable ass that was yelling "LIES!" while Obama was talking about illegal immigrants not getting insurance. It was supposedly Jim Wilson (R-SC) but it's not confirmed. It was such a ridiculous move that it's probably severely damaged the Republican brand among independents, and even that segment of the Republican party that has reverence for American institutions.

(Clearly not a large group, but they do exist.)

All that said, the mouthpieces on CNN have said that it's an endorsement of Baucus's crappy insurance-veep-authored bill, and not anywhere near as strong a defense of the public option as progressives would have wanted. He DID keep the door open, and he did lay out the rationale. But it's clearly up to Americans to get in touch with their legislators and tell them that they want a public option to be available to keep insurance oligopolies from getting fat on mandated insurance.

The Magic Words are still in effect. That hasn't changed at all. Remember and repeat, everybody who lives in a district/state with a Dem representative:

"If you vote for a bill without a strong public option, I will spend every spare moment and every spare moment helping your primary opponents."

No debate. No discussion. Just that. Obama kept the door open, but he clearly won't pull them through. it's up to you: you'll have to push.

SO GET TO PUSHING.

Krugman on Slaying Reaganism

Paul Krugman on the Public Option:

Let me add a sort of larger point: aside from the essentially circular political arguments — centrist Democrats insisting that the public option must be dropped to get the votes of centrist Democrats — the argument against the public option boils down to the fact that it’s bad because it is, horrors, a government program. And sooner or later Democrats have to take a stand against Reaganism — against the presumption that if the government does it, it’s bad.

Well put.

This is how far America has sunk. Where once people wondered whether or not capitalism was going to survive, we've now seen the resurgence of anti-government kneejerking, as if the government didn't have to rescue the market from itself less than a year ago. Were it just the Republicans, it wouldn't be so much of an issue. But now all are seeing just how deep the Ronnie Rot goes within the Democrats as well.

No Surrender

Greg Sargent quotes CPC head Raul Grijalva:

Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is issuing a strong rebuke to fellow liberals who may be inclined to accept a compromise involving a public option “trigger,” saying it would amount to waving a “white flag” and “a surrender.”

Grijalva made the claim after I checked in with his office for a comment on today’s Roll Call story reporting that some “key” House progressives are open to such a compromise. In a statement emailed to me, Grijalva said that most House progressives would in fact stand firm and still vote against a bill with a trigger:

“The vast majority of CPC is not prepared to wave a white flag on public option. A trigger would be a surrender.”

If the “vast majority” of the five dozen or so House progressives did vote against the bill, as Grijalva vows they would, it wouldn’t pass.

Also noteworthy: Grijalva’s description of a trigger as “surrender” leaves liberals no wiggle room to support it. When it comes to the trigger, House progressive leaders are refusing to budge.

No, there is no wiggle room. Bravo, Raul: you've figured out that the White House must learn that it cannot ever take progressives for granted, and that no amount of screaming Rahm Emmanuel can change that.

The White House has clearly decided it wants to jettison the plan, if not in public: Jane Hamsher points out that behind the scenes the progressives are getting "hammered" by the White House. All the more reason to stand firm.

Baucus Plan Written by former VP of Astroturfing Health Insurance Company

Courtesy of Firedoglake, we have a VERY interesting tidbit from "WilliamOckham" on Emptywheel (another FDL site, but I digress):

Gotta run to a meeting, but I think this is telling. Take a look at the document properties of the pdf that ew links to above. The author is Liz Fowler. The Liz Fowler who was vice president for public policy and external affairs for Wellpoint, the nation’s second-largest health-insurance company, until she re-joined Baucus’ staff in Feb. 2008. She had done an earlier stint with Baucus from 2000-2005.

That smell? It's cordite. It's what tells you that you've found A SMOKING GUN

I just checked, and it's still there. Liz Fowler. And who is she? Well, among other things, she was (prior to working for Baucus) the VP for Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint.

And who is WellPoint? Well, they're a health insurance company. But more importantly, if you give 'em a quick Wiki check, they're this:

In July 2008, WellPoint subsidiary Anthem Blue Cross agreed to a settlement with the California Department of Managed Health Care. In order to resolve allegations of improper rescission (cancellation of policies due to claims), WellPoint paid $10 million and reinstated 1,770 policy-holders whose plans they had cancelled. They also agreed to provide compensation for any medical debts incurred by these policy-holders in the meantime. However, WellPoint did not officially admit liability.^[5]

In August 2009, WellPoint’s Anthem Blue Cross unit, the largest for-profit insurer in California, contacted its employees and urged them to get involved to oppose the Democratic Party-led Congress' plan for health care reform. "Regrettably, the congressional legislation, as currently passed by four of the five key committees in Congress, does not meet our definition of responsible and sustainable reform," Anthem said in a company e-mail last week. The proposals would hurt the company by "causing tens of millions of Americans to lose their private coverage and end up in a government-run plan." Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit watchdog organization in Santa Monica has asked California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to investigate its claim that WellPoint Inc. pushed workers to write their elected officials, attend town hall meetings and enlist family and friends to ensure an overhaul that matches the firm’s interests. According to Consumer Watchdog, California's labor code directly prohibits coercive communications, including forbidding employers from "tending to control or direct" or "coercing or influencing" employees' political activities or affiliations. "WellPoint has not been contacted by the California attorney general and has not seen any complaint; therefore, we cannot respond to any questions at this time,” a company spokesperson said. ^[6]

So, to review. The person who wrote the Baucus plan—the one that Obama is going to use to bring Snowe on board—is intimately tied with a company that engaged in wide-scale "improper recission" around the time that she was employed there, and which (allegedly) all but forced its employees to participate in an effort to astroturf the already-ridiculous town halls.

And MoveOn, CAP, Media Matters et al won't say boo, because they're pants-pissing terrified of losing access to the White House.

But you can. You don't owe them a damned thing. Just remember the magic words.

Quick Question for Kos:

You state in your KO interview that "The notion that Obama is going to abandon progressives is ludicrous".

Hasn't he already abandoned them?

(Well, sure, he sent Rahm to scream at them when they tried to defend progressives' interests against Rahm's pet "blue dogs". But I don't think that's quite what you meant.)

Not that I expect Kos to respond. It's been a good while since he was a commentator on my little YACCS comment system back in 2002. He's got television interviews to do. But one lives in hope.

Oh Christ on a Crutch

Elections are about choices. And the choice that is coming is simple and important. It's a choice between change, or more of the same.

I think I know what choice people will make.

I know you guys have a fixation on Obama's 2008 campaign, and it was a good campaign, but for the love of all that is Holy don't rip off his damned slogans.

Not only does it not suit the milquetoast, Tory-lite persona that your man Iggy has adopted since his return to his frozen homeland—it isn't going to resonate now that progressives think that Obama sold them out, and the transformational aspects of the 2008 campaign are all but dead.

Obama's Washington was "more of the same". Best not remind people of that.

Kleiman Sums Up the Van Jones Thing

Nothing more to say but this:

There’s an important general lesson here: If you want to say batsh*t-crazy stuff and still be treated as a respectable participant in the national debate, you’d better be a Republican. Suggesting that President Bush invited the 9/11 attacks in order to start a war is really no crazier than suggesting that President Obama wants to let terrorists loose in the United States, or that he plans to kill old people and disabled children, or that there’s something sinister about his encouraging schoolkids to study hard.

Actually, no, there is one other thing. The fact of his resignation is going to embolden Republicans and sap the morale of Democrats. Not his statements, extreme statements don't sap a damned thing. His resignation. The hard-right wingnuts like Beck will feel even more emboldened, and Democrats will be even more afraid to speak their minds and call out the Republicans on their nonsense. Why would they? The Republicans will savage them, and the Dems will abandon them.

I just hope that somehow, someday, a Democrat will know what belonging to a real political party feels like.

Pelosi:"A Bill Without a Strong Public Option Will Not Pass the House"

So says TPMDC:

If you weren't already convinced that the House and the Obama administration are on a collision course, you might be now.

The latest statement out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office is unequivocal: "A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House," Pelosi said.

Pelosi has said the same thing in the past, but with the fight over the public option reaching a fever pitch--and the White House signaling left and right that they're walking away from it--her renewed insistence is telling, and will no doubt come as encouraging news to progressives.

"If someone has a better idea for promoting competition and reducing health care costs, they should put it on the table," Pelosi said. "Eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage."

Good. I've been saying a lot about "punishing them". This sort of reaction is what you want, though. Contact Pelosi (snail mail is best, phone is almost as good, email if you must) and tell her that you want her to stand tall on this issue. And contact your rep and remind him or her of the Golden Rule, while also saying that if they DO stand tall, you will stand with them.

And, yes, if there is a better option, than it should be put on the table. But there isn't one, and that's not what this Snowe-job is about.

(Well, there is a better option. It's called single payer. But as it is...)

No, this is about the Broders of the world. The people who fetishize Republican names on Democratic bills so much that they'd be willing to let the world burn before they'd allow the Dems to pass something on their own. This is about keeping them happy.

And they're not worth it.

"It's the Structure, Stupid!" No, It's Not. It's About Power

Ezra responds to the somewhat blistering criticism of his apologism for Obama abandoning his base by arguing, well, this:

Put simply, it's the structure, stupid. The health-care system is like a house. It's easy to add the furnishings later. It's not that hard to upgrade the kitchen, or redo the trim, or re-carpet the floors. Some of that might be expensive, but it's not actually hard. But it's really, really hard to add another room, or rip out all the wiring, or build a bathroom that wasn't previously included.

So too with health care. There's a basic structure that's been present in all of the bills, and for good reason. It's a structure that a lot of good and smart people have put a lot of time and energy into thinking through. It creates a universal system through an individual mandate and an employer mandate, and makes that system affordable and dependable through a mix of subsidies, insurance market reforms, and out-of-pocket protections. It creates health insurance exchanges that individuals and companies can choose to enter if they prove more efficient and consumer-friendly, and that offer an array of different insurance options, some public, some private.

And who, exactly, will be adding these things? Sure, you can add rooms to the house. But you can't walk into somebody's house and start adding things, because you don't have the power and authority to do so. Nobody can do the same thing for your house, either. They don't have the power. And, let's be honest, they don't have the intention, either.

So who, exactly, would have the power and intention to make these changes? Liberals? The way that this is moving, they would have practically no power whatsoever. Remember, power is about consequences: it's about getting people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, and that is all about showing that there are consequences if they don't go along with you. The Republican base has showed that there are consequences to spurning them: you lose primary battles in the House and Senate to people who will go along with you. Pretty soon they don't need to exact any consequences: they can just threaten to do so, and the threat will be credible enough that lawmakers will go along with it. Eventually, you don't even need to threaten, because they know what the base will do and adjust their behavior accordingly.

But the Democratic base won't have that. They can't exact a price for ignoring them, and any attempt to threaten the Dems will lack credibility. They'll be powerless. In fact, they already are powerless, of course—or else Obama, his various White House apparatchiks, and Big Media Types like (tragically) Ezra wouldn't be treating them like a puddle of especially foetid scum that is best avoided when it can't be ignored. Without action, that belief won't change.

What about the people that do have power? Will they have the desire to change things for the better? Well, no, clearly not. The "centrists" won't. Those few who aren't wingers with the wrong letter beside their name are too frightened of the right. The Republicans certainly won't, they'll just change things for the worse. The media won't: their fetish for useless, worthless bipartisanship was half the reason the impressionable, timid Democrats ended up in this horrible mess. And they basically do what the conservative movement tells them to. Corporate America certainly won't.

As for the Obama Administration? If they actually cared, there would be a public option, and this whole debate wouldn't be taking place.

So sorry, Ezra, but your "house" doesn't hold water. Those with the power to change things won't, because they're happy with the way things are.

And those with the desire to change things? We're just scum. Powerless scum. Beneath notice. Beyond contempt.

Straightforward Answers to (Surprisingly) Dumb Questions

"Can you beat centrists at their own game?"

Yes. If you couldn't, the Republican base wouldn't be as successful as it is.

Ezra says that progressive should support the health care bill, no matter how bad it is, because otherwise nothing will pass. Well, yes. That's true. But if we're talking about bad bills, progressives and liberals shouldnt want them to pass. If we're talking about health care bills that are actually worse than the status quo, then we don't want them to pass.

And, more importantly, does Ezra want the base to fight for anything at all? It sure doesn't seem like it. Look at this:

There's no successful model for blunting the power of centrists to write -- or kill -- the final compromise. President after president has found himself foiled by congressional centrists. George W. Bush never truly managed to bring Susan Collins, George Voinovich, or Olympia Snowe to heel. His tax cuts were smaller than he wanted, his Medicare expansion was pricier than conservatives liked, and his attempt to privatize Social Security was batted back. Bill Clinton fared little better. The hardest votes are the people who don't fundamentally want to vote for your agenda, not the people who do. And those are always the votes you get last.

The outcome of this strategy, then, seems to be that the Democratic Party pretty much collapses into infighting and fails to pass its top priorities and loses a bunch of seats in the next election. The media explains that the liberal Nancy Pelosi and her liberal House Democrats caused the electoral disaster, or that Democrats couldn't agree on an agenda. Long term, I'm not sure who that helps.

Honestly, this isn't difficult. The Democratic party is already "infighting". It's just that it's a one-way fight. The "centrists" (read: right-wingers) are mowing down progressives again, and again, and again. Progressives aren't getting a damned thing out of this Administration or this Congress, and they're sick and tired of it.

And Klein's historical analogies don't hold water, either. In ALL of those cases, the Republican base showed tremendous power in holding the government's line. No, they didn't get everything they wanted, but they have got one hell of a lot more of what they wanted than liberals are now.

The reason why? Because they will be obstinate. They will run primary challenges. They will choose to lose a district rather than compromise their principles. They do it, because they know that during the next vote, and the one after that, and the one after that, the reaction of the higher-ups in the party will be "can we sell this to the base". Democrats clearly couldn't give a damn about their base. (Certainly journalistic Washington doesn't.)

Klein (and Yglesias, and a lot of the other disappointing former-bloggers-turned-washingtonians) doesn't get that many progressives see no future whatsoever for them in the curent Democratic party. They aren't going to be listened to, they aren't going to be respected, and the country will just keep moving in the Republicans' direction until the whole damned thing burns.

Whether the Dems lose seats in 2010, or in 2012 is totally irrelevant. Progressives aren't the Democrats. They aren't part of the team, nor will they ever be. Progressives are in it for good policy and good governance. Nothing more.

No, the base has to confront the fact that it will not be listened to, not ever, unless they put their foot down.

So that's exactly what they must do.

"Buy a one-way bus ticket to any city and be poor there."

You know why I embraced Mark Ames' very personal attack on "Jane Galt", Megan McArdle, when others were whining about how it was mean? Because, as digby reminds us four years ago today she wrote shit like this:
(as quoted on Corrente)

“It seems to me that the poor should have had the EASIEST time leaving. They don't need to pay for an extended leave from their home, they could have just packed a few belongings and walked away to start over somewhere else. What did they have to lose?

When the wealthy evacuate, they leave behind nice houses, expensive cars, possibly pets that they treat as members of the family, valuable jewelry, family heirlooms, etc. This makes it emotionally difficult for wealthy people to leave. But by definition, the poor do not have this burden: they either rent their homes, or they are in public housing; their cars are practically junk anyway; and they don't have any valuable possessions. This is what it means to be poor. These people could just pick up their few belongings, buy a one-way bus ticket to any city and be poor there. Supposing they even had jobs in NO, it's not like minimum wage jobs are hard to come by.”

This is not some random douche. This woman has a comfortable sinecure at the Atlantic Monthly. This woman has been embraced by the media establishment.

Hell with THEM, too.

Don't Elect Democrats(?)

One of the most interesting aspects of this debacle, at least from a theoretical standpoint, is the preferences being shown by the Democrats and Republicans respectively. It's a big deal from a strategic point of view.

A significant number of Dems, and at the very least a few in the White House, value bipartisanship over almost anything else. They're willing to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to get an "R" on their side. That's the whole reason the Health Care bill is being gutted and turned into a shadow of what America actually needs.

The Republicans, on the other hand, couldn't give a damn about bipartisanship. Remember, according to Republicans, "bipartisanship is another word for date rape". They'll take the support if it's offered, but they don't need to, because they know that one of these bipartisanship-hungry Dems will do it for them.

So, fine. Dems are gutless cowards. But what does this mean for you, the American citizen? It means that you might not want to vote for a Democratic Senatorial candidate, even if you agree with what he or she believes, if you have a relatively moderate Republican Senator.

Why? Well, think about it. As the Republicans lose seats, the remaining Republicans are going to be more and more extreme in their views. They have to be, otherwise they face serious primary challenges. If the Dems try to go to one of these Republicans for the all-important "R" on the bill, they will have to give up a lot.

But here's the key part: the fewer the Republicans, the more right-wing the legislation will have to be to get that "R". You end up in an odd situation where it doesn't matter how many Dems you have in either house, because the key vote here isn't a Democratic one, it's a Republican one. The Democrats, spineless that they are, have given the Republicans an effective veto, and the key question is what kind of Republican gets that veto.

So what's the incentive for voting in another Democratic Senator? There isn't one. As long as they have a bare majority they'll control the committee appointments. As long as they give the Republicans a veto, it's in your interest to have as many moderate Republicans in the Senate as possible—you have to get past that veto. Voting in more Dems will just mean worse Republicans and worse legislation.

Sure, the House is different. Vote for as many House Democrats as you see fit, nobody in the House supports this idea of a Republican veto. Remember the magic phrase, mind you—"If you vote for a bill without a public option I'll do eveything I can to elect your primary opponent" is still the operating principle here—but this veto thing isn't an issue.

Remember, it doesn't matter to you, as citizens, which team is holding the ball. What you want is good legislation and good government. Whatever gets that is in your interest.

So go ahead. Vote for a moderate Republican Senator, or just stay home, or vote for a third party. If the Dems's ridiculous, insipid embrace of a Republican veto means that their interest in more Senate seats contradicts your interest in a good government, then TO HELL WITH 'EM.

Obama Sells out America

If it is true that Obama is willing to sell out the public option—ensuring jacked-up health care costs for millions of Americans and a windfall bonanza for private insurance companies—then there's only one thing to say:

"If you vote for any health care bill without a public option, I will spend every dime and moment I have on your primary opponent's campaign".

The house must draw a line. And you will have to ensure they do it.