Healthcare roundup: countdown to cloture

            A few things about healthcare reform, now that all the bribes have been distributed and the Senate is about to end the madness (at least, until January):

          First, even though the bill disadvantages low-income women and is way too lenient towards the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, the fact that it was hijacked by moderates in the final weeks is not worth crying over.  Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) may have been the voice of unreason in wanting to match the House’s strict language on abortion, but imagine what the bill would have looked like if he and the other conservative Democrats were not even at the table.  If a rank-and-file Democrat ran for the Senate in Nebraska, rather than a Democrat who matched the constituency, that would have opened the door for a Republican to take Nelson’s place.  Then there would be 41 Limbaugh-lites running around—none of whom would be even receptive to sitting down and negotiating like Nelson was.

            Second, what is it with the Senate’s penchant for allowing states to partially opt out of reform?  First it was the public option, now it’s abortion coverage (states can opt out of allowing plans that cover abortion on the exchange).  I am pretty sure that Roe v. Wade does not read “Women have the right to an abortion, unless their Republican governor or legislature says it’s not cool,” so why are low-income women in conservative states being disadvantaged here?  Members of the House are rumbling that this provision might not be constitutional, I could only presume on grounds of full faith and credit—nevertheless, whatever the justification, it is unfair.

            One other abortion comment: the proposal to mandate everyone to write two separate checks, with the intent of segregating private abortion coverage from premium payments that may be subsidized by the government, is acceptable in principle, but practically is a headache-and-a-half.  For instance, say that my monthly premium is $60 and my insurer charges $1 per month in case I need an abortion (with the other $59 going to routine checkups, money in case of an organ transplant, etc.).  I would have to write one check for $59 and one for $1, which seems to me like it has the potential to increase administrative costs.  However, looking at the access aspect, I don’t believe that many abortions are elective procedures, like cosmetic surgery.  And I think it’s unfair to charge women for the operation above and beyond what they’re paying for other medical services.  If all the Nelson compromise does is slice off a portion of the premium to be accounted for separately as going toward abortion coverage, rather than imposing a surcharge on abortion insurance, I feel that is acceptable.

            Finally, there is nothing the media loves like a good poll showing bad news.  A majority of Americans disapproves of the way Obama is handling healthcare and disapproves of Congress’s bills.  I cannot speak for every respondent to these polls, but had I been polled at any point during this year, I invariably would have registered my disapproval, too.  Does that mean I’m jonesing for a Republican takeover of Congress in 2010?  Of course, not—and I imagine many people taking these polls feel the same way.  My disapproval has stemmed from news like the exorcism of the public option from the bill, the disgusting display of fealty that representatives from both parties show toward the healthcare industry, and the president’s inability to discipline his party.  It would be like taking a person to a slaughterhouse, having him watch a cow being butchered, and asking, “Do you approve of the way your hamburger is being prepared?”  This is what happens when the president does not dictate policy and the legislature is actually allowed to do its constitutional duty: it’s messy; feelings get hurt; but what matters is the result, and no poll at the moment can get a sense of what that will be.

Says who?

            Humans beings are exceptional creatures in that they can speak.  And they can write.  And think.  Well, maybe some people skip the thinking part and go straight to the speaking, but the point is that we do say things and we have developed a sophisticated apparatus of being able to know what other people are saying.

            I don’t necessarily mean this blog, for instance, or your Twitter or your Facebook page, where you can see who is saying what.  Those are your friends—they can see what you are saying and vice versa.  I’m not talking about what any one person says, I’m talking about what people are saying.  People, as in Joe and Jane Q. Public.  The kind of people who you don’t know—and who you probably don’t want to know…but still, you are kind of curious as to what they are saying.

            What are people saying about the stimulus package?  What are people saying about health care?  What are people saying about Rhianna and Chris Brown?  Fortunately, we have a free and functioning (although slowly declining) press to report and contextualize what people think.

            But the problem, see, is that people think different things.  And even when they think the same thing, it may be for different reasons.  So, at any given time, on any given issue, we can only know what some people say.  That’s why news articles are littered with the phrase, “some say.”  That’s awfully vague, isn’t it?  What if only five people are saying what the reporter is saying they are saying?  And the other 302 million people (minus five) in this country are saying the exact opposite?  It would seem to me that there is no way of telling the difference between what “some people” are saying compared to “most people.”

            But on the other hand, there is the chance that you might be one of the people in “some people.”  That’s a nice means of airing what you think.  Now everyone will know what you are thinking, and you will know that some other people are also thinking what you’re thinking.  Of course, they won’t know you are thinking it because you aren’t someone in particular; you’re just…well, some people.

            Of course, some people are more important than “some people”; they are Dr. Some People, Senator Some People…these people are not people, they are “some experts.”  These people are useful for putting up arguments that may or may not pass the muster if just some ordinary people were saying it.  If I were to report that “some people are saying that the Republicans will take back the Senate in 2010,” that’s a lot less credible than if “some political experts say that Republicans will make extraordinary gains in the 2010 election”.

            So where does that leave us?  Well, we know that some people are saying some things.  Dumb things certainly, intelligent things possibly, but we have no way of knowing who is saying what and how many are saying it.  Sure, we can have a little bit of context, if we know for example that 32 percent of people are saying that the stimulus plan will work.  But it’s entirely possible that every person you know is saying that it will fail.  Whom do you believe?  “Some people”?  Your instincts?  The facts?  Personally, I try not to believe too much of anything.  After all, I could be wrong. 

       Though some may disagree.

State of the Blog Address

      August 25 marked the three-month anniversary of The 28th Amendment’s operation.  In that time, this site has received over one thousand visits resulting from Internet searches, WordPress tag surfing, and a few dedicated viewers who check in from time to time.  Countless hours have been spent over the past hundred days reading, reacting to, and revolutionizing the way that news is presented to the blogosphere—hopefully with some historical context and subtle wit (although your mileage may vary).  When that fails, a Barack Obama upskirt photo is not out of the question.

            Now, a question for you: do you like what you see?  Do you have a talent for writing/photography/videography that can be used to crusade for social justice?  You see, far from being another highly opinionated corner of cyberspace, the Amendment’s goal is to be a source of sociopolitical analysis and literary experimentation—both of which are not necessarily able to be met while posting tri-weekly.  Therefore, we are seeking to be an online newsmagazine of sorts, and are looking for talented citizen journalists to help fill our ranks.  Hopefully, in the coming months the Amendment could become a powerhouse in the style of Huffington Post, Slate.com, and the other big players in the news blog industry.

            If you have the motivation to write but have never had the wherewithal, consider joining The 28th Amendment.  The key to building a recurring readership is blog well and blog often—with the addition of more staff writers, we can hopefully bolster our output to daily postings.  With a viewership exceeding many hundreds of visits per week (and increasing geometrically for the foreseeable future), your thoughts would be guaranteed a modest but growing audience.  To join our potentially-award-eligible ranks, drop a note to

msk5n AT virginia.edu

and include a sample of your work.  If you can provide one piece of multimedia journalism each week, that contribution would be welcome.

            Aside from that request, thanks to everyone who has made it a habit of reading the Amendment.  And remember, keep writing to your congressmen: we’re awfully close to getting ¾ of state legislatures to ratify this website; and when that happens, we’ll be living large!

John Edwards: His Final Campaign

            On Friday, former Democratic Senator John Edwards went on the record as having had an affair with a 44-year-old campaign contractor in 2006.  While his interview with ABC’s Bob Woodruff was not an apology (which Edwards technically does not owe to the public anyway), but it offered a different twist from the approaches of Larry Craig (admitting to have a “wide stance”), Mark Foley (admitting to be an alcoholic), or Elliot Spitzer (admitting he was a douche with his wife standing right next to him).  Edwards turned into the defense attorney rather than the defendant; the “closing argument” basically admonished the public for not forgiving him when clearly his two higher authorities—God and Wife—had.  Furthermore, he blamed an adoring society for taking a small-town boy in North Carolina and turning him into a sex-starved egotist.  And besides, John McCain admitted to having made mistakes with his first wife.  So at the end of the Edwards press conference/confessional, the two take-away points were that 1.) his family is dealing with the matter appropriately and 2.) who’s to say that John McCain didn’t bang a whore or two also?

For all of his coolness, Edwards did make a slightly dubious claim.  When asked why his wife was not present for the interview, he responded:

“She’s here, she’s right here (points to heart).  I can promise you that.  She is all the time.” 

You know, if she were inside his heart all the time, she would probably have been screaming, “Hey asshole, what the fuck do you think you’re doing?!” when he was in the process of tapping his mistress.  But besides that, Edwards is right to insist that the details be kept in the family and that the occurrence is not without precedent.  Thomas Jefferson, after all, fathered a shadow family with one of his light-skinned slaves—a behavior which was actually not uncommon among slaveowning patriarchs in the South.  When a scandalous newspaper editor seeking a post office position was shunned by the president, the man revealed Jefferson’s affair with “Dusky Sally,” which Jefferson and his family knew to be absolutely true.  (But it was not, in fact taboo to engage in such a practice in the South; it was merely taboo to talk about it.)  Anyway, the newspaper editor got drunk and drowned two years later and the point became moot until the availability of DNA testing revived the tale.

The editor of the National Enquirer, which broke the story fully in December 2007, told Larry King that he still has more dirt left on Edwards.  I wonder if any of that entails the revelation that Edwards killed Kurt Cobain or that he is secretly an alien.  No offense to the Enquirer, but for every story of senatorial malfeasance they nail, there are thousands of totally craptastic features:

I don’t blame the mainstream media for not picking up the story for more than half a year simply because it appeared in the tabloids (akin to “the boy who cried wolf” scenario), but they also genuinely seemed to have a problem with pinning down the source.  After all, the informant to the Enquirer could have simply collected the tip reward and kept his/her lips shut to anyone else, knowing that the tabloid’s reputation would preclude a full scale investigation.  But now that the details are known, some questions are left unanswered.

For example, which monies were used to pay for Rielle Hunter’s video-editing service—public contributions or private funds?  Hunter is certainly entitled to compensation for the Edwards campaign, but $114,000 paid to a newly-founded company seems exorbitant for four YouTube segments that, frankly, look like they were made by a computer-savvy intern with a basic knowledge of camera work.  Then there is the issue over Hunter’s child’s sire.  Edwards seemed willing to take a paternity test, but since Hunter now refuses, it could have been merely a bluff.  So is the admitted father, Andrew Young (a campaign finance adviser and friend of Edwards), merely a fall guy for the chief?  Was Edwards the second sperm-shooter on the grassy knoll?

Who knows?  But it’s hardly important right now.  His career as a public figure is probably over, and in time America will have its senses shocked by another politician who preaches moral absolutism but then reneges on his principles.  Truth be told, crookedness in the style of Senator Ted Stevens is more worrisome to me because of the direct impact financial coziness can have on legislation and appropriation of the people’s money; if a congressman needs to bang his camera girl in order to better focus on fighting poverty, c’est la vie.  Let’s cast Edwards to moral irrelevance and focus on the escalating Russo-Georgian conflict and innumerable other issues. 

And say, isn’t it awfully convenient that war broke out in Eastern Europe right after Edwards made the announcement?  It’s almost as if he planned the Russian invasion to divert media attention…whether it’s true or not, I hope that the fine investigative journalists at the National Enquirer will explore the connection.

8/12

Obama’s Candid Camera

          I know the media is supposed to be the governmental watchdog, but my goodness, this clip from CNN is downright voyeuristic:

            This just in: Barack Obama is normal guy.  Full story coming up in the Situation Room.

Why on Earth would CNN dedicate a camera crew to just follow Obama around?  Is it so hard to believe that when he is not giving speeches, meeting with foreign leaders, and giving people hope that he is just regular, wealthy American father and husband? 

I can only think of two reasons why Obama walking into a barber shop would merit Michael Jackson-courtroom-level coverage.  The cynical explanation: those people would love to be the first ones on the scene if Obama makes a gaffe—such as if he accidentally gets caught praying to Allah or Michelle calls someone “whitey” or something.  Or the “Animal Planet” explanation: they are trying to catch the candidate in his natural habitat, getting him so used to the media’s presence as to provide a glimpse into his everyday life; it’s similar to a human interest story, if the “storytelling” were reduced to “stalking.”

It is true that politicians are expected to be increasingly open to the public as cameras and new means of communication proliferate.  From 1896 when William Jennings Bryan started the revolution of presidential candidates physically campaigning for office; to FDR’s Fireside Chats over the radio; to the Nixon-Kennedy television debates; and now the discussion over whether the Supreme Court may be the next target for C-SPAN’s cameras.  Government officials find it either mandatory or beneficial to submit to the media’s probes (and often are able to control the terms of engagement).  But following the guy to his daughter’s soccer game and videotaping him yawning, using his Blackberry, and cheering on his daughter?  The guy can’t even scratch his balls without Soledad O’Brien checking in “on the eights.”  Take five, CNN; there’s probably a cat stuck in a tree somewhere that needs to be covered.

By the way, my favorite part of the video is at 1:40, where Michelle Obama starts playfully slapping her husband around and you can hear the gasp of the correspondent.  If a few fake bitchslaps can momentarily shock an intrepid reporter, perhaps she hadn’t noticed the daily “parade of horribles” of death and violence that comprises CNN programming.

8/7