With an atmosphere of muted hysteria prevailing after the death of a few star ‘personalities’, I am more aware than usual of our neglect of the issues that are urgent, and will be eclipsed. Today the congress has the opportunity to make vital decisions on the future of the planet.

The energy bill that is at the forefront gives our legislative branch the opportunity and duty, along with the hazards, of giving life to alternative energy production for our business community.

From the malfeasance of the oil companies to date, we can easily see how poor performance can endanger the entire world. In its attempts to counter scientific observation of climate change with its self-centered created counter-arguments, Big Oil has shown a profit motive set against the value and quality of life. Such juxtaposition is overwhelming in its indifference to life, and its enormity.

The influence of the lobby that promotes an interest in fossil fuels so dangerous to civilization can only be a detriment to negotiations. Sadly, it will be a major influence, particularly on the salacious legislators who have embraced it as their abiding interest. Under the influence of that lobby, some members of Congress will fight for their BFFs against the world and its life forms.

The Waxman-Markey climate change bill is now scheduled for a vote in the House by the end of the week, and online there has been much gnashing of teeth andpressing of keyboards over the last-minute deals Waxman and Markey have cut in hopes of securing passage.

Of course, the last-minute dealing is all Democrat-to-Democrat action. The Republicans see the whole thing as fatally flawed. “Waxman-Markey is a 1201-page economic suicide note,” says Ianin Murray at National Review. “Those Members of the House who vote for it are voting for long-term economic decline and for turning the United States into a second-rate economy.”
(snip)
David Roberts takes a more psychological approach to Waxman-Maxwey acceptance:

The green world is grappling with these unpleasant facts right now, fluctuating between rage (kill it!), dread (we’re screwed), and resignation (it’s better than nothing). Or maybe that’s just me.

Writing at Grist, Roberts says he is “reasonably optimistic, despite the flaws in Waxman-Markey, that history is on our side, and that the arguments happening today in Congress will soon be seen as peculiar and archaic.”

At risk in the influence peddling of everyday legislation happens to be the air we breathe, of course.

The process that subjects matters of such import on the lives of the entire world to grappling for power by deeply flawed individuals, with their constituencies, has seldom been exposed as so dangerous. While it’s a topic that is a bit large to throw into a discussion of energy legislating, the depths of political influence are raw and bleeding when our life on the planet becomes a matter for jostling among moneyed interests and their minions.

Today the White House may be able to get a vote, and that is none too soon.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/ )

Complicated guy. He’ll be missed.

This is my favorite tune:

If you are facing an economic meltdown, what do you do? In cases coming to light now, many desperate people lit up the car. Insurance companies are paying on arson, as the times get worse.

Of course, there are a few signs that the fire was intentional, I see. Having removed all your valuables first is a major one. That was true of house fires as well, I have learned from a little reading on the topic. The family pets being out is yet another indicator.

Pressed by the current financial environment car owners render to deceptive tricks to get more money. According to the reports from the Associated Press a growing number of people are torching, sinking or ditching their vehicles and then reporting them stolen to cash in on the insurance.

A number of SUVs were found ablaze in the Nevada desert. Cars were dumped in a Miami canal and a BMW was discovered buried in a field in Texas. Besides, some people deliberately parked their vehicles in the path of a hurricane.

You may well be asking yourself by now exactly why I’m researching burning cars. Actually, I had to file an insurance claim when a truck backed into me, and came on this development of lighting the jalopy, while I was working on that.

Wednesday at the Clay Fire Department, a special seminar was held to help investigators learn how to spot arson.

Two cars were burned at the seminar; one to show what an accidental car fire looks like, and one that was a car arson.

To make a determination between the two, the investigators there were instructed to look for specific clues, like where the fire started on the car, what was missing from the vehicle and the background information — for instance, if the car owner had any financial or insurance problems.

Investigators say any one of those clues would typically point to fraud.

“In the state of New York, there are some signs of an increase of vehicle arsons, and it’s concerning for law enforcement and the industry — and we pay, in New York State, another $350 a year per person because of fraud investigations,” says State Police auto theft investigator Peter Kontos.

About 120 people attended Wednesday’s seminar. Organizers hope investigators will now have all the tools necessary to properly spot car arsons.

Fire investigators say cars intentionally set on fire tend to burn faster and longer because an accelerant is typically used. Accidental fires are usually caused by a catalytic converter.

This is certainly a step beyond refinancing the house, which I understand no longer exists, to make it possible to go on spending more than you have coming in. As my own accident was relatively minor, I am pretty sanguine about it.

The innovation so prized by our financial institutions comes out in innumerable ways. Self-financing by lighter is yet another estimable invention, wouldn’t you say? It’s not going to rock the world economy just yet, though it’s sure to be unwelcome news to insurance companies. The atmospehre toward insurance companies isn’t exactly going to mitigate that inclination to cheat them, after the ‘innovation’ shown toward our pocketbooks.

My insurance company isn’t that AIG that I kinda own, anyway.

As Gov. Sanford confessed his affair during a press conference yesterday, he made a comment I found very revealing.  He said that “God’s law is indeed there to protect you from yourself.”

I have a friend (who I’ll refer to as Pat) who was raised in a traditional Christian household.  Pat was taught that pre-marital sex was wrong–so wrong, in fact, that those who engage in pre-marital sex will go to hell.  Pat told me that Sunday school teachers would drive this point home in detail, explaining what it would be like to burn in hell.

Not surprisingly, Pat was terrified of pre-marital sex.  Also not surprisingly, Pat ended up having pre-marital sex.  Pat now has some pretty confused ideas about sex and about self.  Pat has also had trouble forming relationships.

I think this is the mode of faith Gov. Sanford was referring to when he spoke of religion as something that is there to “protect you from yourself”.  Some people, certainly not all people of faith, are afraid of themselves, of their human passions and feelings, of sex themselves.  They learn that sex is bad, and they believe, like Gov. Sanford, that religious laws are intended to repress human passions and feelings–because, the implication is, human beings cannot do this on their own.  They believe that fear can help them to be good.

This approach–the idea that faith can be based on fear, that religion means repression of self–obviously doesn’t always work.  It didn’t work for Gov. Sanford.  It didn’t work for my friend.  It didn’t work for Sen. Ensign.

Joe Lieberman once said that morality is impossible without religion.  I disagree–I think human beings, with or without religion, are capable of understanding that extramarital affairs are wrong, hurting and embarrassing your loved ones is wrong.  But one thing is clear: religious faith does not guarantee morality.  Another thing is clear from Gov. Sanford’s remark about God’s law.  We ought to be asking questions about a fear-based view of faith that has affected every aspect of politics from stem cell research to marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples to policy in the Middle East.  What does it mean to teach people that fear ought to make them good?  What about abstinence-only education, a policy choice flowing from a fear-based view of faith?  It teaches people to fear themselves, fear their bodies, fear contraception, but, of course, does not actually stop people from having pre-marital sex.

Perhaps something positive can come from Gov. Sanford’s statement about faith and fear.  It’s time to make policy choices based on reason and common sense, not on a fear-based view of faith that, especially when it comes to sexual matters, leads to bad policy choices.  It’s ok to be human–people make mistakes, as Gov. Sanford did, as we all do.  It’s time for people like Gov. Sanford to stop insisting that Americans live by a religious code that aims to make sexuality taboo.

Last month, the crew on Morning Joe “had a field day”, in Free Republic’s view, over the NY Times’ decision not to put a story about Nancy Pelosi accusing the CIA of lying on the front page.  Joe, Mika, and the rest were slavering over the Pelosi story, and couldn’t get enough of what they saw as the Times’ bias in burying the story on page A 20.

The Morning Joe crew are pulling a NY Times themselves when it comes to the Gov. Sanford story.  The explosive account of the Governor’s affair is all over the media, receiving prominent coverage–but not on Morning Joe.  It didn’t even make the headlines that Mika read at the top of the hour, and it took 20 minutes before anyone mentioned the story (it’s 8:20, and Mika just said they’d talk about this “after the break”).

The Morning Joe crew did the equivalent of placing the Sanford story on p. A 20–they put it on at 8:22.  Not exactly a coincidence–the Joe crew has had Sanford on a number of times, and Scarborogh has told the governor that he ought to run for president.

I’ll be out in our nation’s capitol all day today, covering our huge Health Care ‘09 rally. If you’re in town, come by Upper Senate Park for the rally at 11 am.

Otherwise, check out the Health Care for America Now homepage, where all tweets with the hashtag #healthcare09 are being broadcast, as well as my latest iPhone photos, so you can follow along at home!

Let’s go out and win health care for all!

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

Surprise.  Surprise.  Another prominent politician has been caught with his pants down.  The “made-for-tabloid” political drama surrounding Mark Sanford and his Argentinian lover has reignited a debate over whether such indiscretions should even be subject to public scrutiny.  Many claim that who an elected official chooses to sleep with has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to perform the duties of office. 

I disagree.

A marriage does not exist in a vacuum.  Setting aside all sexist and homophobic interpretations of the meaning of marriage, it is nonetheless a union that has far greater significance than the love shared between a couple.  Marriage is a lot more than just saying, “I’m only going to have sex with one person.”

Marriage is a commitment to build a life together, a life that is inextricably bound up in larger commitments: to family and friends, to business and professional interests, to community and faith organizations, and to society as a whole.  To violate the marriage contract, in many ways, is to violate all of these commitments.  As Sanford tearfully pointed out in his press conference, an affair hurts not only the spouse and the family, but it tears at the fabric of all of these larger connections. 

When a prominent elected official is caught cheating, the damage is even greater than it is for the average person.  The commitments that are being violated extend to the public trust, to the faith that we have (or at least would like to have) that our leaders are honest and dependable people who exemplify what is good and right.  They should be held to a higher standard, because they hold incredible power and influence - and if they are being dishonest and immoral in one area of their lives, isn’t that a pretty good indication that they are doing similar things in all areas?

A commentator on one of the cable news networks pointed out the fact that with all of these sex scandals, our politicians are merely reflecting society as a whole.  That may be true, but there are plenty of people out there who are decent enough not to cheat on their spouses and not to spin a web of lies and deception in an effort to cover their sins.  I, for one, believe that our nation’s leaders should exclusively come from this group of people. 

So let’s not gloss over our politicians’ marital indiscretions as if they don’t matter.  Instead, let’s see them for what they are:  Red flags that help show us who doesn’t belong in power.

One of our favorite discredited spokespeople, Betsy McCaughey, was on CNN today, beating her now 20-year-old drum against health reform. Media Matters has the fact check, which CNN failed to deliver:

On June 24, CNN’s American Morning co-host John Roberts did not challenge former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey’s assertions that the Affordable Health Choices Act “basically” “pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan” and that most Americans will have to “go through what they call a ‘medical home,’ which is this decade’s term for an HMO gatekeeper.” However, under the proposed legislation, individuals already enrolled in a health care plan or receiving health insurance coverage are able to keep their coverage and are not “pushed” into “an HMO-style plan.”

McCaughey later stated that “most Americans will have no options. When they file their taxes, they’re going to have to staple a proof, like a W-2, that they’ve enrolled in one of these qualified health plans, with the limits of choice: limits of choices of doctors, limits of choices of when you can see a specialist, when you can have a diagnostic test.” In fact, individuals do not have to enroll in “qualified health plans.” Indeed, the legislation contains a provision explicitly stating that “[n]o individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.” In the bill, “qualified health plans” are plans that must meet certain criteria in order to be offered under a “Gateway.” A gateway is defined as a state-run mechanism that “facilitates the purchase of health insurance coverage and related insurance products through the Gateway at an affordable price by qualified individuals and qualified employer groups.”

For those who haven’t been following along, McCaughey is the serial liar who pretty much everyone has dismissed as laughable. She’s a right-wing hack, and she should be treated as such.

Onto the next conservative lie…

The Republicans on the Ways and Means committee are parading around a false “fact” about the House health care bill - that it would cost $3.5 trillion dollars.

The study they point to for that “fact” is written byt eh HSI network. Here’s a couple of real facts on the HSI network [pdf]:

• HSI’s model of the Obama campaign plan predicted a Federal cost more than 4 times than that predicted by the independent Tax Policy Center.
• HSI’s cost estimate of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) bill was 4 times greater than the estimate of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
• The HSI analysis assumes substantial erosion of private coverage that rests on two likely false assumptions: (1) that private plans sit idly by and fail to offer products at lower prices to compete with the public option for business; and (2) that an employer shared responsibility requirement is ineffective and leads to massive dropping of ESI, despite contrary experience in Massachusetts and in today’s market where the majority of employers already offer coverage on a voluntary basis.
• The analysis says there are no offsets in the discussion draft, yet the bulk of the text consists of payment and delivery system reforms in Medicare and Medicaid that will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in savings.

So, let’s get this straight. Republicans are relying on a study by a group that chronically inflates cost estimates, assumes unrealistic things about the plan that have no basis in reality, and doesn’t factor in 500 pages of legislation aimed at offsetting costs.

The Republican “fact” that the House bill would cost trillions is false. Period.

That’s your conservative misinformation for the day. Expect much more as the debate moves forward.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

For those of you who don’t know yet, health care is coming to Washington, DC tomorrow!

Health Care ‘09, an event put together by Health Care for America Now, will be going on all day tomorrow. We’ve got dozens of Members of Congress coming, and thousands of people as well. We’ll be having a rally at 11:30 with Dr. Howard Dean and actress Edie Falco at Upper Senate Park, and that will be followed by a day of citizen lobbying, where thousands of health reform supporters from just about every state meet with their Members of Congress and share their comments and concerns.

You can get the ful schedule of events here. If you’re in the area, come and join us!

And if you’re not, you can still follow along. On our homepage, we’ll be streaming live updates via the twitter hashtag #healthcare09, and I’ll be updating a photo slideshow with snapshots I’ll be taking throughout the day.

Last week, polls said America was for health reform. This week, all of those people will be showing up in DC to prove it.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

People who turn Adolph Hitler into a political punchline are doing a disservice to political debate and diminishing the monstrous reality of what Hitler and the Nazis carried out: world war, murder of civillians, torture, and genocide, for starters.  Comparing anyone’s fiscal policies to the Nazi reign of terror is truly foolish, but that hasn’t stopped the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County (Maryland).  They solemnly insist that “Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common…”  Their “proof”?  Obama’s policies are “destroying…America”–just like Hitler’s blitzkrieg destroyed European cities.  (thanks to Think Progress for reporting on this).

“Blitzkreig” is German for “lightning war”.  When you use this term in connection with Adolph Hitler, you’re talking about a tactic that was used to conquer countries and slaughter civillians–a sort of “trial run” was used to destroy the Spanish town of Guernica.  Hundreds of civilians were killed.  One military expert has described what happened in Guernica this way: “For the German air force, Guernica was a trial run on how one can spread horror and distress through attacks on cities and towns…Of course the bombing of Guernica was a blatant violation of human rights and had a terrorist character.  It was accepted that civillians would be harmed.”

With Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, the concept of “blitzkreig” was cemented as a method of warfare that included indiscriminate bombing of civillian targets. The tactic was also used in the Netherlands, and in the Battle of Britain.  Thousands of civillians were killed.

There are times when comparisons work and there are times when they don’t.  Comparing Obama’s economic and health care policies to a method of warfare that killed thousands of civillians is a good example of a comparison that doesn’t work, to put it mildly and politely.

One of the oddest things about the comparison made by the Republican group in Maryland was the conclusion they reached: they urged supporters to “fight back” by “Start[ing] a blitzkreig of our own!” Huh?  Their message makes no sense–are they saying “blitzkreig” is an acceptable tactic, just not when Obama does it?  Why would someone who thinks Obama is using the same despicable blitzkreig tactic Hitler himself employed think the correct response is to start their own “blitzkreig”?  The group did make clear that the “blitzkreig” they envision involves contacting members of Congress, but this is not a term one uses lightly, especially after you’ve just gotten through arguing that Obama is like Hitler because he uses the blitzkreig method to overwhelm his “enemies” (Another very poor word choice by the Republican group, by the way.  Supporters of Obama and critics of Obama are not “enemies”, and they’re certainly not “enemies” in the sense that Hitler had enemies).

Five years ago,  then RNC chair Ed Gillespie said it was “despicable” to compare Bush with Hitler.  He’s right–and I hope he, as well as Sean Hannity and John Gibson of Fox News (who also fumed about comparisons between Bush and Hitler) will call out Republicans and rightwingers (the Maryland group is far from the only example) who mindlessly compare Obama with Hitler.