(Posting during another electronic medical records class. I still haven't figured out how to include links, so I'll clean these posts up later. sorry)
Earlier this year, most airlines began charging passengers $15 for their first checked bag, as well as increasing fees for subsequent bags. The reason given by the airlines when they introduced these fees was increased fuel costs at a time when oil was $147 a barrel.
At the time of this post, oil is trading at $38.97, which is down over 70% from its peak earlier this year. Jet fuel prices have fallen 60% since July. And yet, airlines are still charging the same fees that they added to "cover increased fuel prices".
Why haven't these charges been rescinded? It's because consumers have already gotten used to the idea of being charged for baggage; they aren't mad about it anymore, so airlines will keep making them pay it, even though the supposed rationale for the fee is long gone.
Similar to the inertia of baggage fees, government programs, once enacted, are very difficult to get rid of because people become accustomed to them. Social Security and Medicare were controversial programs when they were first enacted, and it wouldn't have caused a huge political upheaval if they were never passed. Now that we have these entitlements, however, there would be senior citizens rioting in the streets if the programs were seriously threatened.
This concept shows the potential for huge and long-lasting change Obama and the Democrats in the next few years. Government-subsidized health insurance is a hot issue right now, but once people have a government insurance card in their wallet, they'll be much more likely to favor the program and support candidates who will protect it.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Two Cher-related Questions
Why is it that T-Pain gets credit for starting the whole "digital voice modification" thing when Cher was doing it years ago in that unbelievably irritating "Do You Believe" song?
What is this Beyonce "If I Were a Boy" song if not an attempt by Mrs. Jay-Z to add herself to the hallowed ranks of Judy Garland and Cher as favorite artists to impersonate for drag performers?
What is this Beyonce "If I Were a Boy" song if not an attempt by Mrs. Jay-Z to add herself to the hallowed ranks of Judy Garland and Cher as favorite artists to impersonate for drag performers?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Obama/Dems Need to Be More Aggressive
This whole Blagojevich thing has not been handled well at all by the Obama transition team. Journalists are trying to figure out what the President-elect knew and when he knew it, which is never a good thing to have journalists asking about you. And, as discussed previously, the transition team's response has not done much to assuage concerns.
Obviously it would have been much better if, upon first hearing Blagojevich's ridiculous demands, the Obama team would have called up U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald's office, which was publicly investigating the Governor for months, to inform Fitzgerald of Blagojevich's corruption. That would have kept any of Blagojevich's stink from being passed on to the transition.
Similarly, Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress need to be more aggressive and publicly confrontational in fighting Senate Republicans over the auto bailout. Yesterday, the bailout passed the House mainly due to Democrat support. Its fate in the Senate, where 60% of Senators must support the bill (or at least support a vote on the bill), is murky, with Republicans led by Richard Selby (R-AL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) threatening a filibuster even though the bailout is supported by the GOP White House.
I say, let 'em filibuster, and make 'em actually keep talking on the floor of the Senate; in recent years when a cloture vote fails to end debate, the Senate just moves on to something else, instead of making Senators actually filibuster, which is a shame. Such drama on the Senate floor would lay bare the clear conflicts of interest at play on this issue.
Alabama is home to three Honda and Hyundai plants, which the state attracted by giving the Japanese manufacturer's a bunch of tax breaks and subsidies. So Sens. Selby and Sessions are more than happy to abandon their apparent love for the removing government influence over the free market when it benefits their own state, but not when it helps save millions (or hundreds of thousands, depending on whose analysis you believe) of American manufacturing jobs. Republicans would also benefit from a weakened United Auto Workers, which reliably supports Democratic candidates all over the country.
By drawing attention to Republican opposition to the bailout, Democrats can either a) generate enough public support to get the bill passed, or b) clearly establish that it is Republicans who killed the bill and allowed the companies to fail. Seems like a win-win.
Obviously it would have been much better if, upon first hearing Blagojevich's ridiculous demands, the Obama team would have called up U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald's office, which was publicly investigating the Governor for months, to inform Fitzgerald of Blagojevich's corruption. That would have kept any of Blagojevich's stink from being passed on to the transition.
Similarly, Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress need to be more aggressive and publicly confrontational in fighting Senate Republicans over the auto bailout. Yesterday, the bailout passed the House mainly due to Democrat support. Its fate in the Senate, where 60% of Senators must support the bill (or at least support a vote on the bill), is murky, with Republicans led by Richard Selby (R-AL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) threatening a filibuster even though the bailout is supported by the GOP White House.
I say, let 'em filibuster, and make 'em actually keep talking on the floor of the Senate; in recent years when a cloture vote fails to end debate, the Senate just moves on to something else, instead of making Senators actually filibuster, which is a shame. Such drama on the Senate floor would lay bare the clear conflicts of interest at play on this issue.
Alabama is home to three Honda and Hyundai plants, which the state attracted by giving the Japanese manufacturer's a bunch of tax breaks and subsidies. So Sens. Selby and Sessions are more than happy to abandon their apparent love for the removing government influence over the free market when it benefits their own state, but not when it helps save millions (or hundreds of thousands, depending on whose analysis you believe) of American manufacturing jobs. Republicans would also benefit from a weakened United Auto Workers, which reliably supports Democratic candidates all over the country.
By drawing attention to Republican opposition to the bailout, Democrats can either a) generate enough public support to get the bill passed, or b) clearly establish that it is Republicans who killed the bill and allowed the companies to fail. Seems like a win-win.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Oh yeah, I forgot...
In the taped calls, Blagojevich says at some point, when discussing who he thought was Obama's preferred candidate to take his old Senate seat, "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation."
Let me tell you, that's a great bit of tape for Democrats
Let me tell you, that's a great bit of tape for Democrats
Obama's First Potential Scandal
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested by the FBI this morning. According the the press release put out by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is the man who successfully prosecuted former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, he was attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat, which as Illinois Gov he is solely responsible for appointing the new Senator. Let me summarize the issue as briefly as I can:
Gov. Blagojevich was being investigated by the Feds for corruption, getting campaign contributions from lots of rich folk, including our old friend Tony Rezko, in exchange for your standard slate of government contracts and other favors. As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald, who is widely thought to be the best prosecutor in the country, tapped Blagojevich's personal and office phones, as well as his office and a conference room at "Friends of Blagojevich", his political organization. The Illinois legislature passed an ethics law to make it tougher for Blagojevich to raise money, starting January 1, 2009, so time was a-wastin'.
As it became clear that Obama was going to win, giving Blagojevich the opportunity to appoint his successor to the Senate. Appointing himself to the seat would benefit him, so he made clear to anyone who would listen that he was open to offers. Bribes he was asking for included:
1. Being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Energy, or an ambassador
2. Getting his wife a well-paying position on a corporate board
3. A high-paying job for himself with a political committee and/or a non-profit group
4. Campaign funds
So yeah, it's illegal to ask people for that stuff in exchange for an official decision.
There are two ways this can come back to sting Obama. First off, there's Rezko's involvement. There was a real estate deal involving Rezko and the Obamas in the past that, while probably not anything that will ever be a big deal, it hurts any time "Obama" and "Rezko" are in the same news story.
The more serious issue is a discrepancy between Obama's statements on this issue and those of David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist. In an interview with the Chicago Fox affiliate a couple weeks ago, Axelrod said that Obama had "talked to the governor" about who would replace him. Today, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office." If Obama indeed has spoken with Blagojevich in the past month or two, Fitzgerald would have a recording of the conversation. Let's hope Obama's telling the truth. I think he is, actually. It seems unlikely that Obama would actually personally talk to pretty much anyone directly, especially a corrupt governor. So Axelrod just meant that Obama's people talked to Blagojevich and/or his people.
During Obama's comments today about the issue, he said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Notice that he stopped himself from saying "we were not aware", correcting to "I was not aware". So clearly his team knew what was going on, but Obama at least has plausible deniability. Depending on how close it gets to the man himself, he could be politically hurt, leaving him less able to pass his agenda. Health insurance reform and funding for green energy, infrastructure and higher education got a little less likely. We'll find out how much less.
Gov. Blagojevich was being investigated by the Feds for corruption, getting campaign contributions from lots of rich folk, including our old friend Tony Rezko, in exchange for your standard slate of government contracts and other favors. As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald, who is widely thought to be the best prosecutor in the country, tapped Blagojevich's personal and office phones, as well as his office and a conference room at "Friends of Blagojevich", his political organization. The Illinois legislature passed an ethics law to make it tougher for Blagojevich to raise money, starting January 1, 2009, so time was a-wastin'.
As it became clear that Obama was going to win, giving Blagojevich the opportunity to appoint his successor to the Senate. Appointing himself to the seat would benefit him, so he made clear to anyone who would listen that he was open to offers. Bribes he was asking for included:
1. Being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Energy, or an ambassador
2. Getting his wife a well-paying position on a corporate board
3. A high-paying job for himself with a political committee and/or a non-profit group
4. Campaign funds
So yeah, it's illegal to ask people for that stuff in exchange for an official decision.
There are two ways this can come back to sting Obama. First off, there's Rezko's involvement. There was a real estate deal involving Rezko and the Obamas in the past that, while probably not anything that will ever be a big deal, it hurts any time "Obama" and "Rezko" are in the same news story.
The more serious issue is a discrepancy between Obama's statements on this issue and those of David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist. In an interview with the Chicago Fox affiliate a couple weeks ago, Axelrod said that Obama had "talked to the governor" about who would replace him. Today, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office." If Obama indeed has spoken with Blagojevich in the past month or two, Fitzgerald would have a recording of the conversation. Let's hope Obama's telling the truth. I think he is, actually. It seems unlikely that Obama would actually personally talk to pretty much anyone directly, especially a corrupt governor. So Axelrod just meant that Obama's people talked to Blagojevich and/or his people.
During Obama's comments today about the issue, he said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Notice that he stopped himself from saying "we were not aware", correcting to "I was not aware". So clearly his team knew what was going on, but Obama at least has plausible deniability. Depending on how close it gets to the man himself, he could be politically hurt, leaving him less able to pass his agenda. Health insurance reform and funding for green energy, infrastructure and higher education got a little less likely. We'll find out how much less.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Workers First
My brother, earlier in his career, had a bad habit of working for companies that went out of business while he was still an employee. When Builder's Square went out of business years ago, Greg had built up a couple weeks of vacation time when his employer declared bankruptcy. Since workers come way down the line when it comes to selling the company's assets to pay creditors, he didn't see a penny of his earned vacation pay.
With all the business closings going on these days, hundreds of thousands of workers, like those in Illinois who are occupying their plant after their employers violated federal law by laying them off with only three days' notice, find themselves in the same situation Greg did. But these workers aren't teenagers who miss out on spending money. They include parents trying to support their families and older workers close to retirement.
How about a law that, when a company goes out of business, workers get their money first? After they've received their owed compensation, other creditors, such as banks and shareholders, can be paid. What's the problem with that?
With all the business closings going on these days, hundreds of thousands of workers, like those in Illinois who are occupying their plant after their employers violated federal law by laying them off with only three days' notice, find themselves in the same situation Greg did. But these workers aren't teenagers who miss out on spending money. They include parents trying to support their families and older workers close to retirement.
How about a law that, when a company goes out of business, workers get their money first? After they've received their owed compensation, other creditors, such as banks and shareholders, can be paid. What's the problem with that?
Only the Pentagon
According to the LA Times, since March the Pentagon has reworked the rules for what qualifies as a disability received in combat, which earn the soldier more benefits than a non-combat injury, to no longer include wounds received as a result of land mines or roadside IEDs. This saves the federal government millions of dollars, which they can then turn around and give to banks.
And conservatives have the unmitigated gall to say that it's un-American to tax the bank shareholders' capital gains taxes at the same rate at which they were taxed under Bill Clinton.
Every now and then, conservatives are real motherfuckers. Just utterly indefensible mommy-sodomizers.
And conservatives have the unmitigated gall to say that it's un-American to tax the bank shareholders' capital gains taxes at the same rate at which they were taxed under Bill Clinton.
Every now and then, conservatives are real motherfuckers. Just utterly indefensible mommy-sodomizers.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Does Religious Tolerance Apply?
So, as you might be aware, there's nothing on TV Sunday nights. The Mrs. and I are watching Joel Osteen, who is just about the douchebagiest douche that ever douched a... nevermind. But he does suck. If you've never watched or read Mr. Osteen, he's a televangelist based out of a "church" which is a converted 20,000 seat basketball arena in Houston. That's your first problem right there.
If you've never listened to a couple minutes of one of Mr. Osteen's "sermons", I'm sure there are some on YouTube. Check out any clip you like, and ask yourself "What is the message he is promoting? What is the fundamental "good" he is arguing for?" I haven't actually gone to YouTube to verify this claim, and yet I feel confident in saying that it's not going to be "love", "kindness", or "charity", or anything else I'd describe as "Christian".
Every time (totalling maybe 3 or 4 hours of material, if I had to guess) I've watched Mr. Osteen, the message he's selling, in his obvious used-car salesman way, is relieving anxiety, regaining control over your life, or achieving financial success. Worthy goals, I suppose, but not anything that anyone should be listening to and thinking it's "church".
He's so obviously preaching a message that bears no resemblence to and is in fact often directly opposed to biblical Christianity that I can't have any respect for anyone who follows him. If I ever met anyone who's a member at Lakewood Church, I would discriminate against them. If I'm staffing a practice, and I've got a choice between a nurse who graduated from University X and worked for Y years at Z Hospital, and a nurse who graduated from University X and worked for Y years at Z Hospital and is a member of Joel Osteen's flock, I'd pick the first one. Is that ok? Should I work on that?
Discuss
If you've never listened to a couple minutes of one of Mr. Osteen's "sermons", I'm sure there are some on YouTube. Check out any clip you like, and ask yourself "What is the message he is promoting? What is the fundamental "good" he is arguing for?" I haven't actually gone to YouTube to verify this claim, and yet I feel confident in saying that it's not going to be "love", "kindness", or "charity", or anything else I'd describe as "Christian".
Every time (totalling maybe 3 or 4 hours of material, if I had to guess) I've watched Mr. Osteen, the message he's selling, in his obvious used-car salesman way, is relieving anxiety, regaining control over your life, or achieving financial success. Worthy goals, I suppose, but not anything that anyone should be listening to and thinking it's "church".
He's so obviously preaching a message that bears no resemblence to and is in fact often directly opposed to biblical Christianity that I can't have any respect for anyone who follows him. If I ever met anyone who's a member at Lakewood Church, I would discriminate against them. If I'm staffing a practice, and I've got a choice between a nurse who graduated from University X and worked for Y years at Z Hospital, and a nurse who graduated from University X and worked for Y years at Z Hospital and is a member of Joel Osteen's flock, I'd pick the first one. Is that ok? Should I work on that?
Discuss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)