Last Call

Things continue to heat up in Iran.

One of Iran’s most senior clerics issued an unusual decree on Saturday calling the country’s rulers “usurpers and transgressors” for their treatment of opposition protesters in recent weeks, in the strongest condemnation by a religious figure since the contested presidential election a month ago.

The decree by Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a dissident who has often criticized Iran’s ruling clerics, did not mention by name Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but was clearly aimed at the clerical leadership.

Posted on the Web site of Mohsen Kadivar, a dissident cleric and former student of Ayatollah Montazeri, the ruling said the recent arrests and shootings of protesters were proof that Iran’s leaders are unqualified to rule the community of Muslims.

“In my estimate this is the strongest criticism ever of the supreme leader,” said Rasool Nafisi, a United States-based academic and Iran expert. “Although it doesn’t mention Ayatollah Khamenei by name, it is clear he is referring to him.”

Things fall apart, the center cannot hold. What rough beast slouches toward Tehran, waiting to be born?

Blood Profits

I've said before that health insurance companies in particular make profits very simply: they take in as much as they can in premiums and reduce costs by doing everything they can to deny claims. When they deny claims, and people cannot get treatment because of lack of money, they suffer. Sometimes, they die. When the Right screams about dire warnings of "rationed care" under a government plan, understand that your health care is already rationed in this country. It is rationed by your ability to pay for it, specifically it is rationed by whether or not the health insurance company will pay the claim.

If you say to yourself "Zandar, you're being overly simplistic, it's much more complex than that" my response is "Don't take it from me, take it from ex-CIGNA Healthcare exec Wendell Potter," a man who worked in the industry for fifteen years, eventually ending up as the company's head of corporate communications as the man behind the company's public relations campaign. Potter left the company voluntarily. Here, he talks to Bill Moyers last Friday about the reasons he left:



Potter was CIGNA's PR point man on the Nataline Sarkisyan liver transplant debacle. Potter mentions the case at the end of the above segment, Nataline died in December of 2007 because CIGNA decided deny her claim for a liver transplant that could have saved her life. After pressure from the California Nurse's Association, CIGNA finally approved the treatment a week later...but it was too late to save Nataline. She died literally a few hours after CIGNA relented when her liver failed. UCLA Medical Center rejected two available donor livers because of CIGNA's refusal to pay. Either one could have saved Nataline's life.

Wendell Potter left CIGNA soon after.

The most interesting part of the interview is here, involving the campaign to discredit Michael Moore's scathing documentary on the health care industry, "Sicko".

BILL MOYERS: So what did you think when you saw that film?

WENDELL POTTER: I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.

BILL MOYERS: What were they afraid of?

WENDELL POTTER: They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore.

BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.

BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?

WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."

BILL MOYERS: How?

WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.

BILL MOYERS: This is fascinating. You know, "Build awareness among centrist Democratic policy organizations--"

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: "--including the Democratic Leadership Council."

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Then it says, "Message to Democratic insiders. Embracing Moore is one-way ticket back to minority party status."

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Now, that's exactly what they did, didn't they? They--

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: --radicalized Moore, so that his message was discredited because the messenger was seen to be radical.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely. In memos that would go back within the industry — he was never, by the way, mentioned by name in any memos, because we didn't want to inadvertently write something that would wind up in his hands. So the memos would usually-- the subject line would be-- the emails would be, "Hollywood." And as we would do the media training, we would always have someone refer to him as Hollywood entertainer or Hollywood moviemaker Michael Moore.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, just to-- Hollywood, I think people think that's entertainment, that's movie-making. That's not real documentary. They don't want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth. They would want you to see this as just some fantasy that a Hollywood filmmaker had come up with. That's part of the strategy.

BILL MOYERS: So you would actually hear politicians mouth the talking points that had been circulated by the industry to discredit Michael Moore.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: You'd hear ordinary people talking that. And politicians as well, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: So your plan worked.

WENDELL POTTER: It worked beautifully.

When insurance companies say no, sometimes people die. The full interview is here with the full transcript here. Do yourself a big favor. Watch the whole thing. It's absolutely stunning. They are terrified of Obamacare. They will do anything they can to kill it.

Remember Wendell Potter when you hear Republicans and Centrist Dems say "We don't need a public option."

Republicans oppose the high cost of health care reform, as well as key components of Democratic proposals including higher taxes on the wealthy. However, some Republicans expressed support for taxing employer-provided benefits of the most expensive health insurance plans.

Translation: Democrats drop the public option completely, we'll let you tax some benefits on employer-based coverage. Nothing changes. Health insurance companies continue to profit off suffering.

No public option, no reform. Remember that. Remember Nataline Sarkisyan. Remember Wendell Potter.

Remember why we must have a public health care option.

An 18 Month Sabbatical

John McCain doesn't believe Sarah Palin quit.

No, really.

John McCain, making his 10 gazillionth appearance on a Sunday morning show, was asked on "Meet the Press" this morning about his former running mate's decision to resign half-way through her only term as Alaska's governor.

"I don't think she quit. I don't know if there was a quote promise [to the people of Alaska to continue serving as Governor]. But I do know that she will be an effective player on the national stage."

Maybe McCain has some other definition of "quit"?

She's not quitting. She's just losing the race ahead of time...and that's something John McCain knows all about.

Deadlines Everywhere

Congress put out the word that they don't expect to have Obamacare done before the August recess, but this again is another shot across the bow of the White House about Eric Holder (emphasis mine):

President Barack Obama's overhaul of the nation's health systems is unlikely to be completed by the White House's August deadline, lawmakers said Sunday as Congress turns its attention to other priorities.

Democrats and Republicans alike said the administration's sweeping health care proposals are moving forward on Capitol Hill but cautioned against rushing into a spending plan that could costs trillions of dollars over the next decade. Obama's health and human services secretary said she remains optimistic Congress would send the White House legislation before the year ends.

"I think everything is on the table and discussions are under way," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.

But the White House's strategy to leave the legislative back-and-forth to Congress has produced varying and sometimes contradictory versions of health care legislation _ along with delays. As the Senate turns its attention to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, the focus will turn away from Obama's top domestic priority.

The administration's Democratic partners in Congress hinted they would not deliver legislation before leaving town for an August recess. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said Obama should be pleased with lawmakers' progress; Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said "there really is plenty of time."

And Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., insisted that lawmakers would have the overhaul in place before leaving town in August. He does not, however, expect Obama to sign it before lawmakers return to their home states.

The delay would be a blow to the White House and to Democrats' electoral prospects.

So...the Sotomayor hearing is supposed to delay health care reform until the end of the year? Hardly. Seems pretty damn clear to me that the unspoken warning here is "Well, suddenly, we've got all this stuff to do here in Congress and we just don't know if we can get to Obamacare...it would be a shame if we never got around to taking it up because there was something else on our plates to deal with."

That something else of course would be Holder's investigation into torture and other unfinished Bush business. Note that these are Democrats hinting broadly at the delay, not Republicans. The implication is the same as in the Newsweek article. Holder's trial balloon is coming back with bullet holes all over it and a note attached saying "Obamacare or Torturegate. Choose." Clearly if Congress is busy with the DoJ, they just won't have time for health care reform, and after all it'll be Obama's fault if that happens. What a shame that would be, the article implies.

Yeah. Another warning from the Village for Obama to seep six Holder's investigation. Will he listen to it?

Sarahcuda Goes Off The Fish Farm

If this Moonie Times "exclusive" interview is anything to go by, Sister Sarah Of Our Lady Of The Media Martyr has finally gone round the bend.

The former Republican vice-presidential nominee and heroine to much of the GOP's base said in an interview she views the electorate as embattled and fatigued by nonstop partisanship, and she is eager to campaign for Republicans, independents and even Democrats who share her values on limited government, strong defense and "energy independence."

"I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation," she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla -- population 7,000 -- where she began her political career.

Stump for Independents and even some Democrats? Why, given her near cult status among some conservatives, is this the beginning of the GOP schism I've been warning of since before the election?

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Does Sister Sarah mean to go rogue and split the GOP? Will the Palinites line up behind her, asking to be led to the promised land? There are signs that the answer to that is yes:

SarahPac, Palin's official fund-raising PAC effort, has printed an excerpt from a commentary by blogger Tammy Bruce, and also linked to Bruce's post in which Tammy Bruce writes,

Enter now Sarah Palin with very encouraging comments that lead one to believe that she is indeed planning to do what she must: build an independent conservative movement and take this nation back from the liberals which now control both parties.Thanks liberals, for provoking Sarah into the national scene while vetting that family at the same time.

One thing I will say, the Washington Times with their headline for this exclusive interview reveal an anti-Palin stance. She is, don't doubt, a threat to every existing political status quo. I hope the Washington Times and their editors realize, sooner than later, that the Palin movement is unstoppable.

Indeed. An "unstoppable" movement, with like-minded "independent conservatives" with the goal of taking this nation back from the "liberals that control both parties".

If you can stop laughing for a moment at people so bat-shit delusional that they think the modern GOP is controlled by liberals, may I remind you that dismissing these people as harmless idiots bound to be disappointed politically is the same mistake Frank Rich made earlier today.

There's nothing harmless about this movement. It is very, very dangerous. It has the fever-bright clarity of those who are true believers. It has been nourished in the darkness, with hatred and blood and talk of revolution. And it just found its poster girl.

Maybe this will die out. Maybe this will turn into the GOP attacking itself, rendering it even weaker than before, assuring a near-permanent Democratic majority. I do not welcome that. We need a strong, intelligent opposition party to keep the party in power honest. That was true in 2000 through 2008. It is true now. It has been true since America's beginning. We need a strong Republican Party to stop the worst abuses of Obama and the Democrats, just like we needed a strong Democratic Party to fight the worst excesses of Bush and the Republicans. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of an opposition party in the last 30 years, and America has suffered for it.

But maybe this will explode into a full-blown revolution. That's the thing with revolutions. They are never easy, bloodless things.

You Can (Not) Take It To The Bank

With California's budget disaster showing no signs of progress, more and more small businesses that do contract work for the Golden State are having to take IOUs...IOUs that major banks will no longer accept. That means small businesses are going to have to start furloughing workers, slash costs, and even trim jobs.

A number of California's community banks and credit units plan to accept the IOUs indefinitely, but in many cases, the terms are tough.

"My community bank will redeem the IOU for a fee, but I have no choice but to do it," says the owner of an 11-person firm who asked not to be named. "It's not worth my while to wait for this thing to mature. I'd be losing money." His company, which does $10 million in annual business with the state, has been providing goods to prisons, state hospitals, and schools for more than 20 years. This is the first time he's been confronted with an IOU.

"If this situation continues to force us to take losses, I'll have to look into furloughing employees and laying some off," he says. Even before the latest crisis, California was firing off distress flares: Last month, he received a letter from the state asking if he would consider voluntarily reducing his company's charges by 15%.

The California Credit Union League reports that most of its member unions are willing to honor the IOUs, but at many branches, new clients would have to open an account to be able to cash in the warrant. The unions say they're offering as much flexibility as they can: Some are considering modifying the terms of loans they're made to small businesses affected by the IOU situation.

"We're a little different from banks," says Jim Ott, CEO of UNCLE Credit Union, a mid-size union based in Livermore, Calif. "We want to be able to help our members."

As a last resort, cash-strapped companies may be able to redeem the IOUs at check-cashing storefronts or via online marketplaces such as Craigslist or eBay, but small business advisors warn against that because of the large fees and face-value discounts that would be incurred.

"I would automatically find a bank that will redeem the IOU for 100 cents on the dollar rather than taking a haircut by going to a check-cashing facility," says Donna Childs, a business consultant and author of Prepare for the Worst, Plan for the Best: Disaster Preparedness and Recovery for Small Businesses. While businesses selling the IOUs might be able to haggle and receive close to face value, the California State Treasurer's office has mandated that the transactions must be accompanied by a notarized bill of sale signed by the payee whose name appears on the IOU.

For vendors that need cash sooner rather than later, losing a few bucks due to exchange fees might be the least of their worries. If California doesn't resolve its budget crisis soon, many more small companies will end up caught in the political crossfire.

And the disaster rolls on, unabated.

Dancing Around The Point

Frank Rich takes a look at the post-Palin resignation presser GOP and actually gets within touching distance of arriving at The GOP Plan, but he doesn't go all the way, dismissing them.

The essence of Palinism is emotional, not ideological. Yes, she is of the religious right, even if she winks literally and figuratively at her own daughter’s flagrant disregard of abstinence and marriage. But family-values politics, now more devalued than the dollar by the philandering of ostentatiously Christian Republican politicians, can only take her so far. The real wave she’s riding is a loud, resonant surge of resentment and victimization that’s larger than issues like abortion and gay civil rights.

That resentment is in part about race, of course. When Palin referred to Alaska as “a microcosm of America” during the 2008 campaign, it was in defiance of the statistical reality that her state’s tiny black and Hispanic populations are unrepresentative of her nation. She stood for the “real America,” she insisted, and the identity of the unreal America didn’t have to be stated explicitly for audiences to catch her drift. Her convention speech’s signature line was a deftly coded putdown of her presumably shiftless big-city opponent: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.” (Funny how this wisdom has been forgotten by her supporters now that she has abandoned her own actual responsibilities in public office.)

The latest flashpoint for this kind of animus is the near-certain elevation to the Supreme Court of Sonia Sotomayor, whose Senate confirmation hearings arrive this week. Prominent Palinists were fast to demean Sotomayor as a dim-witted affirmative-action baby. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, the Palinist hymnal, labeled Sotomayor “not the smartest” and suggested that Princeton awards academic honors on a curve. Karl Rove said, “I’m not really certain how intellectually strong she would be.” Those maligning the long and accomplished career of an Ivy League-educated judge do believe in affirmative-action — but only for white people like Palin, whom they boosted for vice president despite her minimal achievements and knowledge of policy, the written word or even geography.

He's getting closer...

The politics of resentment are impervious to facts. Palinists regard their star as an icon of working-class America even though the Palins’ combined reported income ($211,000) puts them in the top 3.6 percent of American households. They see her as a champion of conservative fiscal principles even though she said yes to the Bridge to Nowhere and presided over a state that ranks No.1 in federal pork.

Nowhere is the power of resentment to trump reason more flagrantly illustrated than in the incessant complaint by Palin and her troops that she is victimized by a double standard in the “mainstream media.” In truth, the commentators at ABC, NBC and CNN — often the same ones who judged Michelle Obama a drag on her husband — all tried to outdo each other in praise for Palin when she emerged at the Republican convention 10 months ago. Even now, the so-called mainstream media can grade Palin on a curve: at MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” last week, Palin’s self-proclaimed representation of the “real America” was accepted as a given, as if white rural America actually still was the nation’s baseline.

Man Frank, if you got any closer to the truth you'd be on fire...

It’s more likely that she will never get anywhere near the White House, and not just because of her own limitations. The Palinist “real America” is demographically doomed to keep shrinking. But the emotion it represents is disproportionately powerful for its numbers. It’s an anger that Palin enjoyed stoking during her “palling around with terrorists” crusade against Obama on the campaign trail. It’s an anger that’s curdled into self-martyrdom since Inauguration Day.

Its voice can be found in the postings at a Web site maintained by the fans of Mark Levin, the Obama hater who is, at this writing, the No.2 best-selling hardcover nonfiction writer in America. (Glenn Beck is No.1 in paperback nonfiction.) Politico surveyed them last week. “Bottomline, do you know of any way we can remove these idiots before this country goes down the crapper?” wrote one Levin fan. “I WILL HELP!!! Should I buy a gun?” Another called for a new American revolution, promising “there will be blood.”

Dude, you're sitting on the volcano here. Make the leap.

These are the cries of a constituency that feels disenfranchised — by the powerful and the well-educated who gamed the housing bubble, by a news media it keeps being told is hateful, by the immigrants who have taken some of their jobs, by the African-American who has ended a white monopoly on the White House. Palin is their born avatar. She puts a happy, sexy face on ugly emotions, and she can solidify her followers’ hold on a G.O.P. that has no leaders with the guts or alternative vision to stand up to them or to her.

My God, has he finally seen the light for what the GOP has been up to for the last year? Can we make the connection that this is what the Republican Party is trying to do, to foment a race and culture war, with emphasis on the war part? Can somebody up there in Villageland finally speak truth to power, that the Republican Party has become a reactionary party of racism and violence, and that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are their face and voice respectively? Has Frank Rich finally gotten the point that the GOP has all but declared war on Those Who Dare Put Obama In The White House?

Has Frank Rich finally, finally gotten The GOP Plan?

For a week now, critics in both parties have had a blast railing at Palin. It’s good sport. But just as the media muttering about those unseemly “controversies” rallied the fans of the King of Pop, so are Palin’s political obituaries likely to jump-start her lucrative afterlife.

...no.

Article ends.

Frank Rich drives up to the edge of the abyss, but fails to call it what it is. Still, this is the closest I've seen anyone in the Village get to the obvious. Rich dismisses this all as a failed and cynical political strategy that might yet still help the GOP down the road. He couldn't be more wrong.

Millions of Americans believe this is war, or soon will be one. And the clock's ticking. They're not kidding when they talk about the revolution. They're not kidding when they say "somebody's got to take matters into their own hands." They're not kidding when they say "We need to arm ourselves."

They're deadly serious. And the GOP Pretty Hate Machine keeps whipping them up into a frenzy on an almost daily basis. If they start assigning messianic status to Sister Sarah there...who knows?

People keep underestimating the depth and pervasiveness of this movement. But it's out there. Millions of them running on emotion rather than logic. Millions of them who see a black man in the White House as the Beginning of the End Times. And their anger and resentment grows daily because it's being fed. It's not just talk, folks.

It's deadly serious.

Missing The Point

Reaction to yesterday's Newsweek piece on Eric Holder considering a special prosecutor on the Bush torture regime has been interesting, but it has all missed the point. The Wingers have gone into a spittle-flecked meltdown as expected, but the folks on the left have completely missed the subtle point of the article. Tim F. at Balloon Juice, Steve Benen, D-Day, and Hilzoy all seem to think (with various levels of cynicism) that the article was some sort of Eric Holder/Obama generated trial balloon to float the idea of going after Bush.

But all of them are missing the obvious point here that I mentioned yesterday: the article was written to in fact be a loud warning to Obama and Holder not to try it or face losing Obama's domestic agenda.

Once again, the article warns:

While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months.

That right there is the most important sentence in the piece. What does going after torture authorizers have to do with health care reform?

Nothing.

But the warning is there, clear as day...if Obama doesn't put a leash on Eric Holder, he risks his domestic agenda in Congress. Ask yourselves who would be able to make this possible.

The GOP? Hardly. They will already vote against Obama's agenda. That leaves the ConservaDems, the Sensible Village Centrists who all believe they are the heart of Congress like Evan F'ckin Bayh, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter and friends. The warning is on behalf of them. If Obama lets Holder do this, then the ConservaDems will sink his agenda. Why nobody else sees this obvious point, I'm not sure. The Wise Folks Of Washington have spoken. "We thought you killed this investigation garbage back in April. Now we find out Holder may do it on his own accord? You will stop his agenda, or we will kill yours. Choose wisely."

The article goes on to describe Eric Holder as an idealist fighting the political reality of the Rahmbo White House, but it calls Holder's pushing on torture memos as "miscalculations", "missteps" and "mistakes".

The article comes not to praise Eric Holder's investigation, but to bury it. It's painfully obvious to me that this is a Village hit piece...and a warning.

[UPDATE 9:51 AM] The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder is again pushing out the same Village warning to Obama and Holder: Don't do it.

Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-era policies of any sort is fraught with risk, even exempting the public and political ramifications. Investigations like these have a way of snowballing. The intelligence community will strenuously reject and resist; there are very legitimate concerns about the integrity of classified information.

If Holder decides to go ahead, he may not entirely satisfy critics of the Bush-era policies; a special prosecutor might not be given a mandate to investigate more than a handful of compartmented programs.

On the one hand, it is tough to see a prosecutor being given a mandate to determine whether former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered CIA officials to not brief Congress on a highly sensitive, classified intelligence collection program given the very real chance that the national security damage resulting from the disclosure of information about the program might be significant.

Alarm bells are ringing loud and clear in the Village today. Watch for the reactions on the Sunday Shows.

[UPDATE 11:44 AM] Amazingly enough, it's Winger MacRanger who finds the brass ring.

Newsweak left out that Attorney Generals also work at the pleasure of the President, and Holder can’t comb his hair without Obama signing off on it. Nevertheless, there will be no investigation, it’s false.

Here’s why. First, note the article comes out while Obama’s out of town, on a weekend. I guarantee you that once he’s back you’ll hear a giant “fizzz” of this story. 1) Obama is banking his entire Presidency on establishing government healthcare, and it’s beginning to look like 1992 again. 2) Obama’s poll numbers are slipping already, and the public polls have already shown a collective “yawn” for a CIA/Congress/Bush/Cheney bash fest, especially in light of growing foreclosures, lost jobs, generally sucky economics.

His reasons are specious (he goes straight into how a probe will somehow end up damning the Democrats and the Librul Media more), but his conclusions are right: Obama really has bet his legacy on health care reform, and MacRanger has put together that a Holder probe is a threat to Obamacare. Not only does he see the warning, but MacRanger fully expects Obama to fold.

Given Obama's performance on national security issues so far, I don't put the odds of an investigation to be very high either.

Bang Bang Blame

This article from Thursday's Bloomberg on the economics of U.S. gun and ammo sales is very interesting reading, but it's most interesting for what it dangerously refuses to say.

“The U.S. is by far the largest importer of pistols and revolvers, sporting shotguns and small-caliber ammunition,” the study said. “Increases in demand in the U.S. explain almost half of the global rise in exports of small arms.” The research group is financed by the foreign ministries of Belgium, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the U.K.

Companies like Austria’s Glock GmbH, the world’s biggest pistol exporter, and Alliant Techsystems Inc., the largest ammunition supplier to the U.S. military, are benefiting from rising sales. Authorized small-arms trades rose 28 percent, or $653 million, between 2000 and 2006, according to the survey.

Researchers used 2006 data because it was the “most comprehensive available,” said Helsinki-based Nicholas Marsh, an author of the report, today in a telephone interview. Countries routinely enter export data into the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database two years after a product has been sold, he said.

“A country can become a major global player just by developing an export market in the U.S,” the report said, citing HS Produkt d.o.o., a Croatian pistol maker that ships 98 percent of its products to the U.S. and increased sales to $27 million in 2006 from $1 million in 2000.

Look at what's selling most in the U.S. to the point where we have to import weapons from f'cking Croatia: pistols, revolvers, shotguns and ammunition for those weapons. But what's the most common reason given for such record-breaking sales?

U.S. gun sales have benefited from the country’s weapons- culture and regulations, according to the survey. A 10-year ban on U.S. assault-weapon sales expired in 2004.

“The production of civilian versions of assault rifles and high-caliber sniper rifles is mainly concentrated in the U.S., where the country’s gun culture embraces, and permissive regulations facilitate, the ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles and sniper rifles by civilians,” the report said.

Americans are buying more guns in anticipation of potentially tighter regulation of firearms under President Barack Obama’s administration, Merriman Curhan Ford & Co analyst Eric Wold said June 19. The U.S. recession, the worst in half a century, has also contributed to gun sales as people seek to protect themselves against crime, he said.

Stop and ask yourselves this: do either of those reasons given, the return of the assault weapons ban or increased violent crime, make any sense right now based on what people are buying?

No. First, the assault weapons ban reason. That one is mentioned in every story about ammo sales and gun sales being up. But pistols, revolvers, and shotguns aren't rifles. It makes no sense whatsoever to stock up on Glocks and 9mm ammo if you're expecting a ban on rifles.

Second, the violent crime reason. Again, violent crimes actually went down in many parts of America over the last fifteen years, and we've had recessions before in that same fifteen year span...how come we're seeing such a dramatic increase in gun sales in just the last eight months?

"Ahh," you're saying. "But Zandar, people are afraid the Democrats are going to ban all guns, that's why people are buying them."

That's ridiculous.

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress back in 2006. If Americans were really worried about Democrats passing "ban all guns" laws, then 2007 should be filled with the same kind of record purchasing for handguns, shotguns, and ammo for those weapons.

It wasn't. From USA Today, May 21, 2007:

Ammunition shipments to local gun shops and police departments are being delayed for months because the Army has more than tripled its demand for small caliber ammunition.

Ammunition plants have dramatically ratcheted up production, but company officials acknowledge delays to police and retailers of up to a year.

"There are millions of rounds backordered because the war has put such a demand on the manufacturers," said Lana Ulner, manager of Ultramax Ammunition, a distributor for several manufacturers. "In some cases, it can take eight to 12 months."

The Army's demand for small caliber ammunition has soared to 1.5 billion rounds in 2006 from 426 million rounds in 2001, according to the Joint Munitions Command at the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois.

The government spent $688 million on ammunition last year, up from $242 million in 2001, said Gail Smith, a Joint Munitions Command spokeswoman. The most common rounds ordered are 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm and .50 caliber, she said.

Wait, what?

Any gun aficionado, cop, military vet, or military history buff will tell you the same thing: those 3 ammo types are all rifle cartridges, not handgun or shotgun ammo. Handguns in the US overwhelmingly use 9mm ammo, or .357 or .45 caliber rounds. Shotguns use 12-gauge shells. It makes sense for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to cause shortages in rifle ammunition...but there's no report of handgun ammo shortages in the article. Not a word about handguns or shotguns.

And yet, the Democrats took over the law-making body of the United States. They could have introduced all sorts of laws...but didn't.

Local gun control legislation makes no sense as a reason either...it's a national shortage of handguns and shotguns and ammo for those weapons.

So, we're left with what changed in 2008. The answer, Obama was elected. But when did Barack Obama ever say he was making gun control a priority? He didn't. He did mention in one debate that he thought the assault weapons ban should have been renewed, but he's also said he respected the second amendment. None of his policy decisions explain a national, massive, complete shortage on pistols, revolvers, shotguns and ammo for those weapons in every state across the country.

So what does explain this?

I have a theory. You're not going to like it.

Handguns and shotguns are inexpensive, easy to use, clean, maintain, and are reliable. They are sold in far more places than rifles. Handguns especially are the kind of thing you teach beginners to use. They're the kind of thing you want around for actually using when you have to use them, not for showing off or for dick-measuring contests. They are the kind of things you teach your wife, your sister, your younger son or daughter to use and keep as a serious tool for protection.

Protection from what, however? Crime is down, we've already said. Yes, it is. Why now? And especially why the ammo sales? There's a reason to purchase lots of semi-automatic and automatic rifle ammunition. You go through a lot of it. Why buy a crapload of 9mm ammo now?

Because you plan to use it. Because you think you'll need it. A lot of it. And soon.

Why? What are all these people doing with all this ammo? These shortages have gone on for months. Ammo manufacturers know they are losing money. They have every reason to ramp up handgun ammo sales and have had months of warning to adjust. There are still shortages.

Why? Why would ordinary Americans stock up on pistols and 9mm ammo like it was, well, the end of the world once Barack Obama specifically was elected President?

Can you come up with another reason? One that so far hasn't been given? One that you most likely don't want to think about?

I'll give you a hint.

Barack Obama represents the first African-American elected to the White House.

Yeah, I said it.

The reason?

Obama Derangement Syndrome on a national scale. And a very, very, very dangerous scale. All the talk about revolution. All the talk about secession. All the talk about "us" vs "them".

A whole hell of a lot of people think this shit is for real, folks. Enough to the point of buying shitloads of guns and ammo in this crapass economy, when middle class Americans are struggling to buy food. Think about that. Americans have nearly limitless extra cash for handguns and ammo in this economy. They are prioritizing.

They have been told to prioritize. They have been told to prepare. All this talk about taking back the country? People are taking it seriously. Deadly seriously. Millions of Americans. Your friends and neighbors. They are listening to the revolution fantasies. They see them as practical, pragmatic realities.

You don't believe me? In 2009, only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. Yeah, 25% of Americans don't believe in it, but 36% of Americans AREN'T SURE. Yeah, that means 61% of Americans doubt evolution. 3 out of 5 of us. Odds are good your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers, your boss, your family members...they doubt evolution. You wouldn't expect that, at least I wouldn't. But there you are.

So yeah, if I can believe Americans doubt evolution, then I can believe they want to be in the Revolution, too. They believe increasingly that Obama is the Enemy. They believe they need to be arming their families with reliable weapons for what's coming next. They've been told to do so.

It's going to get really, really ugly soon, folks. I honestly believe that. It's coming apart out there. The evidence is there if you look.

I'm scared. Honestly and truly frightened. You should be too.

Never Mind The Cheney, Here Comes The Bombshells

While we're on the subject today of investigating unfinished Bush business, here's another in that series of bombshells from what's turning into the longest Friday news dump in history of Friday news dumps. And guess who it involves?

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Yeah, you knew the Nameless One had to be behind all this.

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

An intelligence agency spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, declined on Saturday to comment on the report of Mr. Cheney’s role.

“It’s not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing,” Mr. Gimigliano said. “When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta’s attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect.”

Watch the Sunday shows on this one. We're going to see the usual suspects declare we can't investigate, we can't go back, we can't look at Cheney or his "robust interrogation methods" or anything else, or Obama's agenda will get "hijacked" or "delayed" or "put on the back burner" or pick your own euphemism for "If Obama doesn't kick Eric Holder's ass on this, we will make sure his agenda dies screaming."

Of course, the Village wants to see both Obamacare and climate change legislation deader than Nixon. They're trying to kill it and have been for a while now. But the threats were never this open until today. Watch how the Village will define the torture investigation and Obama's health care and climate change agenda as an either/or proposition. The Wise Villagers will tell us tomorrow on TV that Congress simply will not be able to do both...

And of course, they will say that "he's trying to do too much" and he will get nothing instead. Congress will be "paralyzed by partisan rancor." Obama will risk "poisoning the atmosphere with this investigation."

Which is exactly what the Village wants.

Watch tomorrow.

A Blow For Justice, Or A Naked Warning?

Via BooMan, Newsweek is reporting that AG Eric Holder may be finally ready to appoint an independent prosecutor to look into the Bush torture regime. However, it's clear that the Village is warning strongly against Holder doing so.

These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

Now, let's think about this. We're supposed to imply that there's a choice here, and the implied choice is between Obama's domestic agenda and cleaning up Bush's mess, you can't have both.

Really?

Says who? Says the Village, apparently. The logic here is that if Eric Holder goes against his President's wishes and digs too deep in the past, he may scuttle health care and climate change legislation. Really? What do the two subjects have to do with each other? Why is this an either/or choice?

This is a warning from the Village, plain and simple, and the article is full of subtle and veiled threats, with the White House on one side (represented by Rahmbo) and the DoJ and Eric Holder on the other.

It's a pretty masterful stroke here. In this paragraph, we're supposed to believe that the White House is run by Rahmbo's strong-arm tactics, that he's basically Obama's Dick Cheney, and we're not supposed to root for them.

Any White House tests an attorney general's strength. But one run by Rahm Emanuel requires a particular brand of fortitude. A legendary enforcer of presidential will, Emanuel relentlessly tries to anticipate political threats that could harm his boss. He hates surprises. That makes the Justice Department, with its independent mandate, an inherently nervous-making place for Emanuel. During the first Clinton administration, he was famous for blitzing Justice officials with phone calls, obsessively trying to gather intelligence, plant policy ideas, and generally keep tabs on the department.

But at the same time a few paragraphs down, we're supposed to believe that Eric Holder is a tool of the Left and that he's risking everything to wreck the bipartisanship and comity of Washington, so we clearly can't be on his side.

It was soon clear to Holder that he might have to launch an investigation to determine whether crimes were committed under the Bush administration and prosecutions warranted. The obstacles were obvious. For a new administration to reach back and investigate its predecessor is rare, if not unprecedented. After having been deeply involved in the decision to authorize Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Holder well knew how politicized things could get. He worried about the impact on the CIA, whose operatives would be at the center of any probe. And he could clearly read the signals coming out of the White House. President Obama had already deflected the left wing of his party and human-rights organizations by saying, "We should be looking forward and not backwards" when it came to Bush-era abuses.

The article gets worse with several examples of how Holder "miscalculated" and "made mistakes". We clearly can't trust the guy's decision to install an independent prosecutor, is the bold implication.

Holder and his team celebrated quietly, and waited for national outrage to build. But they'd miscalculated. The memos had already received such public notoriety that the new details in them did not shock many people. (Even the revelation, a few days later, that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and another detainee had been waterboarded hundreds of times did not drastically alter the contours of the story.) And the White House certainly did its part to head off further controversy. On the Sunday after the memos were revealed, Emanuel appeared on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and declared that there would be no prosecutions of CIA operatives who had acted in good faith with the guidance they were given. In his statement announcing the release of the memos, Obama said, "This is a time for reflection, not retribution." (Throughout, however, he has been careful to say that the final decision is the attorney general's to make.)

Note in that last paragraph how Holder "miscalcuated" the "national outrage". This one's subtle but nasty, you're supposed to nod your head and go "Yeah, what national outrage? Nobody really seemed to care about all this torture nonsense, right?"

How quickly we forgot the month of April. You're supposed to. The Village has told you that nothing happened, that the outrage was "miscaluculated". Dirty F'ckin Hippies.

Ahh, but back to out hit piece. In fact the article goes to great lengths to portray the White House and the Justice Department as implacable foes.

The miscues began to reinforce a narrative that Justice has had a hard time shaking. White House officials have complained that Holder and his staff are not sufficiently attuned to their political needs. Holder is well liked inside the department. His relaxed, unpretentious style—on a flight to Rome in May for a meeting of justice ministers, he popped out of his cabin with his iPod on, mimicking Bobby Darin performing "Beyond the Sea"—has bred tremendous loyalty among his personal staff. But that staff is largely made up of veteran prosecutors and lawyers whom Holder has known and worked with for years. They do not see the president's political fortunes as their primary concern. Among some White House officials there is a not-too-subtle undertone suggesting that Holder has "overlearned the lessons of Marc Rich," as one administration official said to me.

And that all goes towards a finishing blow:

The next few weeks, though, could test Holder's confidence. After the prospect of torture investigations seemed to lose momentum in April, the attorney general and his aides turned to other pressing issues. They were preoccupied with Gitmo, developing a hugely complex new set of detention and prosecution policies, and putting out the daily fires that go along with running a 110,000-person department. The regular meetings Holder's team had been having on the torture question died down. Some aides began to wonder whether the idea of appointing a prosecutor was off the table.

But in late June Holder asked an aide for a copy of the CIA inspector general's thick classified report on interrogation abuses. He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as "the dark side." He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution. The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was "shocked and saddened," he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America's name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue.

This is one hell of a hit piece, frankly. It savages Holder as a populist Leftist loon you're supposed to pity for just trying to do his job while being manipulated by Dirty F'ckin Hippies, and impales the White House as being beholden to the same political motives that drove the last Administration. You're supposed to ask "Man, isn't there anyone in Washington we should be listening to on this issue?"

And the answer, also implied, is the Serious Washington Centrists. Look at the disarray in Washington! Look at Obama lose control! Look at Eric Holder about to ruin his President's agenda by looking into the past! If only we had listened to the Wise Men of Washington!

So sayeth the Village. So sayeth us all. The implication here is that the Serious Centrists are supposed to step in and put a leash on both Rahmbo and Holder, and maintain the peace of the status quo. Otherwise, well, if Holder goes through with this, Obama could lose health care, cap and trade, the whole thing...

And you wouldn't want that, would you? Clearly, we need an intervention here from those moderate and well-respected lawmakers in the middle. You'll see this meme played out all over tomorrow's Sunday shows, and all the way up until Holder "makes his final decision". There's no doubt as to what the Village and the Centrists believe that final decision will be. At the same time, they get free shots at the naughty, overly partisan behavior of Rahmbo and the White House. After all, somebody has to rein these guys in, and who else has the credibility and the gravitas for that?

But I'm not falling for it. I don't think Obama is that stupid either. Does Holder have the stones for this? God I hope so. It's the right thing to do and always has been. Obama has left this in Holder's court for some time now. I'm hoping that it meant all along that Holder's job was to clean this mess up and that Obama will not interfere like the Village clearly wants him to do.

We will see. Obama has so far disappointed me on civil liberties. Holder's investigation could have been the card he was holding all along. Perhaps the White House and Holder are outsmarting the Village after all.

Things just got a hell of a lot more complicated. We'll see what happens.

Dear America:

"Now that whatsherface from Alaska is gone for a while, the GOP needs to understand that while everything she said was clearly 100% right like I said during the 2008 campaign, she was the wrong person for the job. I admit that now. So, now that she's gone from the limelight we can work on beating the Dems by coming up with superior ideas to Obama's agenda, like...umm...wait a minute, let me check my notes again...ideas like...well...let's see here...no really, we've got some great ideas here, and as soon at the public hears them they will drop the Democrats like a hot potato...ahh...I'm sure they're around here somewhere...hello? Hello? Wait, where are you going? The Dems are bound to blow it any second now...hello?"

--CNN's John Feehery

The Political Taxonomy Of Geeks And Nerds Like Myself

A new Pew Research poll shows that 81% of professional scientists are either Democrats or lean towards Democrats.

Most Americans do not see scientists as a group as particularly liberal or conservative. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say they think of scientists as “neither in particular”; 20% see them as politically liberal and 9% say they are politically conservative.

In contrast, most scientists (56%) perceive the scientific community as politically liberal; just 2% think scientists are politically conservative. About four-in-ten scientists (42%) concur with the majority public view that scientists, as a group, are neither in particular.

The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal.

Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).

It's an interesting survey, but then again, I'm a geeky kind of guy. Then again after the last 8 years of Republicans treating science as a joke and scientists as the enemy under Bush and the party's continued antipathy towards science in general, I'm not surprised in those numbers at the least.

Obama's Strong Words In Ghana

President Obama's speech in Ghana pulled no punches in a region of the world where Ghana's peaceful and open democracy is the exception that proves the rule.



Steve Benen has more:

"This is about more than just holding elections -- it's also about what happens between elections," Obama said. "Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end."

"Now, make no mistake: History is on the side of these brave Africans, not with those who use coups or change constitutions to stay in power," the U.S. president added. "Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions."

And lest there be any doubts about the audience's familiarity with Obama's rhetoric, the response was especially strong towards the end of the speech: "[H]ere is what you must know: The world will be what you make of it. You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities, and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, and end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes, we can, because in this moment, history is on the move."

The "tough love" aspect of the speech was Obama urging his audience to take responsibility for the continent's future. He conceded the serious consequences of colonialism, "unnatural" borders written by outsiders that have bred division, and unbalanced trade practices.

"Now, it's easy to point fingers and to pin the blame of these problems on others," the president said, adding, "The West has often approached Africa as a patron or a source of resources rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father's life, it was partly tribalism and patronage and nepotism in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is still a daily fact of life for far too many.

What continues to bother me is that Obama gets it. As I have said on many occasions, the guy was a Constitutional Law professor. He clearly understands both the basic and more advanced legal concepts behind the advances in civil liberties and equality, from the Magna Carta up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and beyond. He understands that without a country being a country of laws, there is no country.

And yet, he constantly seeks to expand the same lawless collection of executive powers that the Bush administration proclaimed it had beyond even the limits of what Bush's junta was willing to go.

Part of me knows he's fully cognizant of what needs to be done in places like Africa. But part of me also knows he's guilty of the same crimes he is speaking of here, violations of law, appropriations of power, and abrogations of oversight he continues to commit against the American people.

The argument is there that Obama can only proceed by baby steps, lest he be crushed by the gears and cogs inside the system itself. But we can handle the truth. Why not tell us what's really going on? Why not practice what he is preaching here in Ghana?

Note: Another long overdue location tag: Africa.

Another Taxing Problem

House Democrats are moving forward with their plan to tax health care benefits on those families earning over $350,000.

The proposal calls for a surtax on individuals earning at least $280,000 in adjusted gross income and couples earning more than $350,000, said the chairman, Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York.

It would generate about $550 billion over 10 years to pay about half the cost of the legislation, Mr. Rangel said. As the proposal envisions it, the rest of the cost would be covered by lower spending on Medicare, the government health plan for the elderly, and other health care savings.

With the economy still hobbled and Republicans already sharpening their tax-and-spend attack line, the proposal is perhaps the clearest expression yet of the mandate that Democrats believe they won last November, when voters expanded Democratic majorities in Congress and sent Barack Obama to the White House.

An aide to the House speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said she and other leaders were supportive of the idea, which they concluded would be their main way to pay for Mr. Obama’s top policy priority: expanding health insurance coverage to virtually all Americans and curtailing the steep rise in the cost of medical care while improving patient outcomes.

But it remains unclear whether the Senate will go along. Most Republicans there, or perhaps all, oppose the idea, along with some centrist Democrats.

Even in the more liberal House, where Democrats have a majority of 255 to 178, the tax proposal will most likely cost a substantial number of Democratic votes. The Blue Dog Coalition, made up of 52 fiscally conservative Democrats, expressed apprehension this week about the unfolding health care legislation, and that was before Mr. Rangel’s announcement Friday.

As I said yesterday, this idea's a non-starter in the Senate. It's a good idea, but one that'll never get past our Guardians Of Bipartisanship because Republicans will never go for it...and that means ConservaDems will find a way to oppose it too. If enough of them do so, it's curtains for this one.

It might not even get out of the House, as the Blue Dogs will almost certainly rise up en masse to block it. If all of them revolt, it's dead.

So what's the answer? We do have to pay for this plan somehow. But the argument coming from the right will be that any additional taxes will simply drive America's wealthy to move to other countries. That argument may have play in the Eurozone, but honestly, where are the wealthy going to go, Toronto and commute? To a country that has...gasp...social health care for all citizens? To Mexico and hop across the border once in a while to go shopping?

If a new program results in drastically lower premiums for all Americans (including the rich) won't they save money too? We'll see how this goes, but frankly I somehow doubt a lot of middle class Americans making $35k a year are going to complain too much about the guys bringing down $350k having to help pay for health care.

Of course, pretty much anyone in Congress is going to be making over $350,000 or so. We'll see what the reaction is. Surely we'll see from the right how this plan will lead to health-care rationing. You're already subject to rationing by your ability to afford the costliest health care on the planet.

As BooMan says this morning, your health insurance through your employer has a provider that stays in business by not paying your claims. Our employer-based, corporate-profit based system has to go.