Obama's trip to Dover

President Obama went to Dover, Delaware to honor soldiers (and DEA agents) killed in Afghanistan. It's really good to see that our President has first hand experience with the tragic effects of his decision to continue the war. It was also good to see that he clearly took the time to get it right.

The military has regs for everything. In basic training you're taught how to march, how to stand, how to salute, all that. Some of these moves are quite stylized; not stylish, just done in a certain way. When a soldier (and I assume, any member of the armed forces)is told to come to attention, the soldier puts the heels together with toes pointed slightly out. Shoulders back, back straight, arms down at the side.

But wait, there's more. Your hand is cupped; your fingers are curled in and your thumb is pressed into the bend of your finger. The thumb is placed along the center line of the pants, essentially where the seam is, causing your left elbow to jut back a bit.

This posture is basic, and so ingrained that you see it all the time, even when it's not expected. Example; recently I was in a staff meeting with various colonels, majors, and some sergeants major. A soldier was to be given an award. We were all kind of milling around, waiting, when the announcer said loudly "Attention to Orders." Instantly, all these soldiers - some who've been out of basic training for over 30 years, like me - snapped to attention and held the posture I described above. To a person. A former soldier who had retired and is employed as a civilian for the Guard also snapped to that same posture. It was instinctive.

Saluting is also stylized; your forearm is a straight line with your hand making a 45 degree angle from elbow to head, your hand touches the brim of your cap, or if not cap, just above your right eyebrow. And on and on.


Anyway, I have been watching President Obama deplane and salute the service member saluting him at the bottom of the ramp. Up to now, Obama's salute has been the kind of a lazy salute a person might make if they only see saluting on TV.

Well, clearly before Dover he took lessons. I watched him pretty closely, and he had it all down. Look the picture here. Heels together, shoulders back, left hand cupped. (He didn't quite get the placement of the thumb along the seam.) He's got a better salute than the soldier on his left, whose hand and forearm don't form a straight line.

Not only did he have some lessons, they practiced. You don't march out as they did, and you especially don't execute a slow salute (part of the honoring process) in unison as they did, without practice.


So for me, it was nice to see him honor the fallen not only with his presence, but with his effort to do it right.

A new party?

I guess beginning with Barry Goldwater and speeding up with Saint Ronnie, the cultural ideologues in the Republican party ascended to commanding heights. It took 40+ years, but eventually they gained enough power and visibility that a backlash began. I'd say they peaked under George Bush, and the backlash began to show up in the 2006 congressional elections.

The cultural conservatives now dominate the Republican party. The most visible of this group are the media types, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk. They have plenty of elected senators and representative who share the same values but who just aren't as visible.

Unfortunately for the Republican party, the ideological attacks are great for ratings, thus ensuring that they will continue. This will also keep the cultural conservatives stirred up and active. Moderate republicans seem to have no place in the party. Anytime they vary from cultural conservative orthodoxy, they get hammered by the wingnut media. Lately, Newt Gingrich, of all people, has been accused of being a RINO.

So now we have the election in NY Dist 23, where moderate GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava is running against Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman. Although Democrats don't win in this district, it's possible that this split could throw the election to Democrat Bill Owens.

To me, this is the interesting part.

national conservative figures like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson (and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh) have bucked the establishment and thrown their support behind the soft-spoken Conservative Party alternative, Doug Hoffman.

It’s also entirely possible the Democrat, lawyer Bill Owens, could eke out a victory amid the Republican infighting. He would be the first Democrat to win that district in 140 years.

I understand that Gov. Tim Pawlenty has also weighed in for Hoffman. To me this looks like the genesis of a new political party. Tea partyers, Palinites, Dittoheads, the whole crowd now has a new party.

The delicious irony is that Republicans spent the last 50 years making "liberal" an epithet and "conservative" the highest badge of honor. It has been branded as the ultimate description of the values that have been espoused by the Republican Party for all these years. So now, the "Conservative" party, helped along by the wingnut right, is poised to capture that brand and all the votes that go with it.

Nationally only 20% of voters identify with the Republican Party. If the Conservative Party catches on, it could take over this 20% pretty easily, as this 20%is the most hard core of the conservative right. The moderate Republicans who now call themselves Independents might migrate back to the Republican party, I suppose, but they'll have lost the south and older white voters. Which will ensure a Democratic majority for a long time.

Bad press for Walt

Statesman has an expose' here:

When a House committee last week passed legislation to create a federal watchdog agency to oversee home loans and other consumer credit, Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho was one of only two Democrats to vote against the beefed-up regulations sought by the White House.

And there's this:

This year, political action committees with ties to the financial services industry are among Minnick's biggest givers. They include the Financial Services Roundtable, Goldman Sachs, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Online Lenders Alliance and the Independent Community Bankers Association. In the most recent quarter, the American Express political action committee gave $1,500. Bank of America's PAC gave $4,000, and National Association of Realtors' political arm gave $1,000.

Read the whole story, including Walt's explanation of his position.

I wonder ...

You've seen and heard any number of drug ads on TV, and they pretty much all have the lengthy description of side effects, like this ad. Some are in normal time, some are voiced by speed talkers. But either way, there is a laundry list of bad stuff than can happen to you.

But there is a notable exception; Viagra and Cialis. They mention only one side effect. Priapism.* If the guy has an er, well, you know, for more than 4 hours, then go see a doc. That's it. One problem. Which got me wondering.

At Viagra.com, you can find lots of potential side effects:

headache, facial flushing, upset stomach. Less commonly, bluish vision, blurred vision, or sensitivity to light may briefly occur. In rare instances, men taking PDE5 inhibitors (oral erectile dysfunction medicines, including VIAGRA) reported a sudden decrease or loss of vision. It is not possible to determine whether these events are related directly to these medicines or to other factors. If you experience sudden decrease or loss of vision, stop taking PDE5 inhibitors, including VIAGRA, and call a doctor right away. Sudden decrease or loss of hearing has been rarely reported in people taking PDE5 inhibitors, including VIAGRA. It is not possible to determine whether these events are related directly to the PDE5 inhibitors or to other factors. If you experience sudden decrease or loss of hearing, stop taking VIAGRA and contact a doctor right away.

Seems to me that Viagra and the incredibly stupid Cialis commercials are trying to fool us. The one side effect they mention might be considered by many who want the drug to be a feature, not a bug.

This also makes me wonder, if these two drugs can mention only one bug/feature and ignore the others that might apply, then why do other drugs ads go to such lengths to list all the side effects. And if they have to list them, why can Viagra and Cialis get away with not mentioning them.

Imponderables.

*And, you gotta love this.

The name comes from the Greek god Priapus, referring to the myth that he was punished by the other gods for attempting to rape a goddess, by being given a massive, but useless, set of wooden genitals.

Walt, now what do you say?

The Congressional Budget Office just "scored" the House plan with a robust public option, and found that it will cost $871 bil over 10 years, will cover 96% of people, is paid for, and, get this, will reduce the deficit.

So Walt, will you vote for it now? It seems to satisfy virtually everything you've said you want.

Yes, it does compete with private plans, but somebody should since they don't compete with each other.

I think this leaves Walt pretty exposed. "A shorn little sheep, shivering in the breeze." If he won't vote for the bill now, he never will. And if not, he obviously has other priorities than saving money, helping Americans get health care, and reducing the deficit.

It's all shades of gray

Adam calls for the alleged killer of Robert Manwill, whoever it might turn out to be, to be subject to the death penalty. He then addresses the paradox of a pro-lifer supporting the death penalty, and said it's all about respecting life.

Many people ask me how I can be pro-life and for the death penalty. The death penalty is about respecting life. One of the best scriptures on this comes from the mouth of God in Genesis 9, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.”

I don't really follow the logic. I guess he's saying that if we allow a person to kill another but don't kill the killer, it cheapens the value of the person killed. He also says that our society does not value children.

I also don't think the conclusion flows from that scripture. For one thing, shedding blood can be something less than death. For another, I don't get anything about respecting life from that scripture.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the death penalty in general, other than if we're going to impose it then let's be damn sure it's imposed on the correct person.

My main concern is that trying to let scriptures dictate something as complicated and important as the death penalty is too simplistic. If I am out hunting, shoot at an animal and miss, and the bullet strikes and kills another hunter that I didn't see, death penalty? Blood was shed. Or, I come upon a man in my home assaulting a family member and I whack him with a bat, or shoot him, or stab him, and happen to kill him, death penalty for me? Blood was shed.

How about if I'm driving a get away car and my partner murders a person in the bank, (felony murder) should I get the death penalty? Blood was shed, but not at my hand.

What if it turns out that Manwill's killer has schizophrenia and voices told him to kill Manwill. Death penalty?

Once you start to allow for the infinite variables, black and white distinctions break down.

Hard times require equal sacrifice

Our state political leadership is struggling with the budget shortfalls, and issuing 1) dire warnings, 2) calls for boldness and innovation, and 3) political chestnuts such as, "you don't raise taxes in a recession."

This is a difficult time, and it will be a struggle to get through it, but I'm wary of their intent. Gov Otter has made it no secret that he would like to reduce government. Indeed, he would be proud to do so. Well, just as the Obama administration said that there is opportunity in crisis, Otter may see his opportunity to shrink government in these hard times.

What better excuse to cut programs than a budget shortfall? I think that the Governor intends to use this opportunity to reduce state government. He was talking about doing away with entire agencies. Well, okay, government is not an unalloyed good. Getting rid of unnecessary or wasteful portions of it is probably a good idea.

The real issue is, will reductions be targeted to unnecessary or wasteful portions of government, or be aimed at accomplishing political goals? So far I haven't seen a lot of ideology, but I haven't heard yet what he's cutting. I guess we'll see.

If you add statement #3 above to this mix, it starts to smell of ideology. Don't raise taxes in a recession, okay, well, when do you raise them? The same people saying that are the ones who always say, don't raise taxes. And I agree with keeping taxes low. What I don't agree with is tax favoritism. Remember when the special committee talked about repealing the numerous sales tax exemptions for the many special interests? The idea fell flat; total non-starter.

I'd feel better about cutting government programs and agencies if all the taxpayers were pulling their fair share. God bless farmers, 'cause I like to eat, but it's pretty rich to see all the howling about closing the Parma research station from sales tax exempt folks like farmers. I've got two kids in Idaho universities right now; tuition and fees are going to go up, the Challenge grant Promise Scholarship is going down, I'll be paying more. Okay. But let's have everyone pitch in.

Why the free market doesn't work in health care

I was chopping onions about a month ago, and managed to slice off a bit of the tip of little finger. About half a centimeter, which wasn't a lot but was enough to really bleed. I was alone and operating with only one hand, but I managed to stop the blood flow and put on a bandage.

The next day I attempted to change the bandage, but this time just couldn't get the blood to stop. (I was at work and didn't have the resource.) It was a mistake to try to change it, but, there you go.

Anyway, rather than bleed all over my desk or the sink in the bathroom, I wrapped it as best I could and headed off to a doc in the box. They, having more than one hand to use, got it stopped pretty easily. They stuck a small piece of "gel foam" on it, bandaged it, and done. 15 minutes. The gel foam was sort of like putting a bit of Styrofoam on my finger, then taping it in place. Simple. Worked great.

The bill came later; $245, of which my insurer paid $0, but was decent enough to apply it to my deductible.

So I scour the CPT manual (which describes the procedure and relates it to a charges) for something less expensive. The code they billed, 12001, included stapling, suturing, etc, much more involved than sticking on a piece of foam and bandaging it.

No luck; that's the simplest procedure going. They won't change it, they won't accept less, I'm stuck.

Was I in a position to bargain as they stopped the blood flow? Not really. Did I have any idea they'd charge me $1,000 an hour to emplace a bandage? Of course not. Will they negotiate something reasonable now? Of course not. Would any of you have stopped them before you got in the door and said, how much will this cost? Had I asked the nurse, would she even have known? Doubtful.

The insurance company won't help me. That's not what they do, negotiate for patients.

I had no knowledge and no bargaining power. That's not the free market at work. It's health care, and it's why insisting in free market solutions for health care is just stupid.

Hoffman misses the point

Wayne Hoffman argues here that insurance companies ought to be able to sell across state lines without all the horrible regulations preventing them from doing so. He marshalls a couple arguments to try to establish it would be cheaper for insurance companies and for purchasers.

But, he either misses or ignores the most salient point. If insurance companies are allowed to operate in every state, they will simply pick the state with the least regulation and move there. Credit card companies (including banks issuing credit cards) did this back when they were deregulated, and the result was an explosion of fees and charges on consumers, along with a general jacking up of the interest charged. Oh, and profits went up for the credit card companies we well.

Insurance companies don't want the federal government regulating them; look at health care, for example. They always try to kill federal legislation. They prefer state regulation because so often they exercise extensive influence on the state government and regulators. It's cheaper to buy a few state legislators than it is a slew of Washington congressmen and women.

Letting insurance companies cross state lines is a bad idea.

Opt Out

The most recent permutation of the public option in health care reform is a beauty, and I hope it passes. Some senators are suggesting that the public option be put in the bill, with a provision for states to opt out. Genius!

Man o man I hope that passes. The "conservative" states will opt out, natch. Our congressional leaders, like CrapoRischMinnick, who have been complaining about the public option, will fall all over themselves arguing in favor of Idaho opting out. Our state Republican leaders will get on the band wagon and then pretty much every Republican in the state will go out of their minds crowing about making a principled stand and how Idaho is doing it right and the libruls are taking us into socialism.

That's at first. However, in pretty short order after the public option kicks in (I understand it's delayed until 1012 or so for some dumb reason), Idahoans will see how they're losing out. Statistics will accumulate showing better health in the non-opt out states, and will probably show health care costs coming into control in those states, and medical-bill bankruptcies declining, and the various other benefits of the plan will become evident.

And then, Idahoans will conclude that Dems had a pretty good idea and that they want a piece of the action. Eventually even Idaho's Republican leaders will come around, quietly eat crow, and opt in. But all in all, this has got to make Republicans look stupid and make Democrats look good. Beauty!

Troglodytes

The Senate recently passed the Franken Amendment, which basically prevents a company who receives a federal contract from requiring mandatory arbitration of sexual assault cases.

Senators Crapo and Risch voted against this amendment. I just checked their websites, and neither has an explanation of this vote. I cannot imagine a good reason to vote against allowing a person a trial in sexual assault cases. Technically, you can file suit after an arbitration, but the issues are limited and it's difficult to get beyond the arbitration ruling and get into court.

The only reasons I can think of that would cause them to vote against the amendment are 1) party leaders spoke and they followed, and 2) they are the Party of No. I guess those two reasons are sufficient to overrule any concern they might have for victims of sexual assault, primarily women.

Cigarettes and whiskey

A Statesman story reports on a recent air quality study that found air in smoky bars is 36 times worse than outside air. A local group is trying to get smoking in bars outlawed. I'm perplexed as to why this has been so difficult.

Washington, Oregon, California, locally outlaw smoking in bars, as do other states. The main rationale is to protect employees of drinking establishments.

With the high LDS population in Idaho, you'd think that an effort to outlaw smoking would be widely supported, but you'd be wrong. They reasons Mormons don't support it is, I think, are fold. One, basic Idaho libertarianism. Leave the smokers alone, plus, if you don't like smoky bars, don't go to them. Two, good Mormons don't spend much time in bars and don't appreciate how nasty and smoky they can get. And three, if you choose to work in a bar, then you choose to suffer the consequence. (These reasons apply across the board, not just to Mormons, but I'm offering these as reasons to overcome their anti-smoking predilections.)

Of these, I most disagree with number three. That argument assumes that the bar employee can just find a job elsewhere and isn't forced of economic necessity to work in a bar. Well, our current economy proves how precious any job is, and how difficult it can be to find work. Also, in Kuna where I live, there are not a lot of businesses, and not a lot of jobs. If you don't have reliable transportation to get into Meridian or Boise and have to work locally, jobs are scarce. A bar may offer the only employment.

Further, bar tending and waiting tables are jobs that can be done without much education or experience, and may be the only option for low skilled workers.

Airline stewardesses (back then it was pretty much women) made the case for outlawing smoking in planes. They showed a higher incidence of respiratory disease, and got smoking banned. Note that all three arguments against banning smoking in bars apply to planes. If you don't like a smoky plane, take a train, bus or car.

I think it is only a matter of time before non-smoking bar-goers get some relief. More and more bars are voluntarily banning smoking, including the new Arlene bar in Kuna. Still, there are lots of fun (and sometimes more convenient) places that I'd like to go but avoid due to the smoke, so I hope some day we can find a way to stop smoking in bars.

How about a "smoking license?" A bar can allow smoking, but must get a license, pay a fee, and show certain measures designed to lessen the smoke, like improved ventilation, etc. That might help.

Another one rides the bus

I was driving into work today on the "superslab," i.e., the downtown connector, and happened to be next to one of Boise's buses. For those of you not familiar with them, they are the standard city-type bus like the one below.



Anyway, I counted 8 people; 7 passengers and a driver. And one bicycle in the front carrier. That is pretty much the usual passenger load that I see on any given bus on any given day. There are some buses coming in from Nampa the are full, but the Boise area busses aren't.

I don't understand why Boise uses such large buses for such small passenger loads. Anybody have any idea?