We have officially entered Cuckoo Bananas Land in the healthcare reform debate, it seems. Because that headline is correct -- some Democrats now think that the way to entice Republicans to vote for their healthcare bill is to raise people's taxes. Well, when I say "some Democrats," I should really use the more technically-correct "Senator Max Baucus." Because his plan doesn't even seem to have impressed many of his fellow Democrats so far.

Continue Reading »

In the debate about healthcare reform, why are the loudest voices in the room the ones who seemingly are against all reform? Where are the champions of the progressive ideas? I've asked this question (at great length) before, and while President Obama has started to (half-heartedly) speak up for "the public option," so far nobody else seems to be defending the idea at all. To say this is a disappointment is an understatement. Part of the problem is that the senator all Democrats are deferring to on the issue is Teddy Kennedy. Who has his own problems with healthcare right now, which precludes his being a leading and forceful voice to the public on the issue.

Or does it?

Continue Reading »

That subtitle can be taken two different ways. To be absolutely clear, I meant it in both interpretations. In fact, it is so exasperating that I feel a rather longish rant coming on (relatively speaking -- which makes "longish" even more intimidating, coming as it is from me). Just to warn everyone, up front.

But back to the subtitle. The first way it can be taken is, of course: "Where are the Democrats on healthcare reform?"

And the second is: "Where are the Democrats on healthcare reform?"

To put it another way (that is less dependent upon how readers personally interpret italics), the first point is: "Where the heck are the Democrats in the public debate about healthcare reform? I haven't been hearing much from them on the news, or the talk shows. Who is leading the effort? Who is supporting the effort? WHERE are all the Democrats out there talking about it in public?"

And the second could be translated as: "What, exactly, are the Democrats ready to label a 'deal-breaker'? Where are the lines drawn in this battle? What is the basic, core Democratic position on how to effectively reform the healthcare industry?"

Continue Reading »

Tomorrow marks the end of analog television in the United States. All analog broadcasting signals will go permanently dark some time tomorrow (times vary by station). But while others are hailing the dawn of the digital television age, I have to say that this is the end of a long road which ultimately led nowhere. The opportunity lost was a big one, too -- nothing more than a complete and far-reaching reform of the way we conduct political campaigns in this country. This was a bipartisan failure, I should add -- Democrats and Republicans both bear the blame for caving to the media conglomerates' interests over the public interest.

Continue Reading »

This column apparently shares a birthday with none other than Donald Duck, who turned 75 years old yesterday. Who knew? Yes, my column turned three years old yesterday, since my first foray into blogging happened on Huffington Post on June 9, 2006. Since I don't follow horoscopes, I have no idea what the metaphysical significance is of this column sharing the date with a duck who doesn't wear pants, so I will leave that for wiser minds to decide.

Continue Reading »

The debate over what, exactly, "healthcare reform" means is about to hit fever pitch (so to speak), and instead of diving into the legislative details of what seems to be emerging from congressional Democrats, I would like to make a broad suggestion in how they should be framing the issue correctly. Some may call this approach naive, but I truly believe that rather than fighting for one species of reform over the other, Democrats need to first adequately define the core principle they are fighting for. Their "values" on healthcare reform, to put it another way. And while it may not be achievable this time around, I think the goal Democrats should loudly proclaim they are attempting is a very simple one: nobody should ever go bankrupt because they get sick.

Like I said, this is a simple idea. Which leads to the naysayers who may call it naive, or even simplistic. But I think it is powerful because it is so simple. It's easily understood by all. And I think it would resonate strongly with all members of the public, no matter what their political stripe. As a bonus, it forces opponents into defending the current system, where medical bankruptcies happen every day in America -- which is a pretty tough position to defend.

Continue Reading »

I have a question for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been staunchly defending the Bush administration's use of waterboarding and other torture against prisoners in our care. My question: Should Scott Roeder, accused murderer of abortion doctor George Tiller, now be waterboarded? Roeder has just gone on the record stating that further violence is coming, in "many similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal." In other words, Roeder is claiming the now-infamous "ticking time bomb" scenario of what can only be termed domestic terrorism. So, Mr. Cheney, doesn't this mean (following your own "logic") that Roeder should immediately be waterboarded to tell us what he knows? Anything less, by your standards, would be hypocritically picking and choosing which terrorists get a pass, and which don't.

Following Roeder's provacative statements to the Associated Press, this seems like a textbook case of a ticking-time-bomb scenario. Anti-abortion terrorism has a long and sordid history in America, meaning that the threat must be taken seriously. But, so far, it has not been. News organizations have mysteriously shied away from calling Roeder what he is -- a domestic terrorist. Or, to assuage journalistic (and legalistic) sensibilities -- an alleged domestic terrorist (by this rule, he's "alleged" or "accused" until he has been convicted in a court of law). To date, I haven't seen this term used once in any of the news reports about Tiller's murderer. But it certainly fits the description of terrorism, as far as I can tell. Yet there has been no talk of charging him with any terrorism crimes (although by now, the law certainly allows this to happen). Arsonists committing crimes as part of the "Earth Liberation Front" have had terrorism enhancements added to their sentences, even though they didn't kill anyone, because they were trying to effect a change in government policy by violence and criminal actions. Meaning the legal precedent is clear for domestic terrorism cases. And Roeder has already killed someone (OK, "allegedly" killed someone), and has now made dark threats of "more actions" to come by people across the country. This, again, is a textbook description of domestic terrorism. And anyone who thinks domestic terrorism isn't a real concern should go to Oklahoma City and stare at the space where the federal building used to be for a few hours.

Continue Reading »

This will be a truncated column this week (which doesn't mean it isn't also a fairly long one). Because every so often I have to devote the entire week's roundup to examining a single speech. And President Barack Hussein Obama's speech to the Muslim world which he just gave in Cairo is important enough to examine without other distractions.

Which means no "most impressive" or "most disappointing" awards this week, sorry. No Democrat really stood out as being overly impressive or disappointing this week anyway, so it's not a great loss. If pressed, I would have given Obama the MIDOTW for his speech, and would have (if the rules did not forbid it) awarded the MDDOTW to myself, for extolling the virtues of the company that made the Hummer, in one of the most outrageously biased columns I've ever written. Bad Chris! Bad! Bad!!

Heh heh.

Continue Reading »

This is going to be a seriously politically incorrect column for much of my usual audience, so I thought I'd issue a warning up front here. I am about to get sentimental over a company whose sole remaining purpose in life is to be a military contractor; and, furthermore, one which (together with Arnold Schwarzenegger) is primarily responsible for the poster-vehicle of the excesses of "the SUV era." I speak, of course, of the Hummer. If that sort of thing is not your cup of herbal tea, then I advise you to immediately close this window before your very browser itself is tainted with such leftist unorthodoxy.

Still with me? Supportively, or just "have to rubberneck at the car accident" with me? Well, in the end it doesn't really matter. Read on, and enjoy or be horrified as you will....

Continue Reading »

In all the hoopla over Judge Sonia Sotomayor being nominated to the Supreme Court, there is one interesting side story that the media is largely ignoring. His name is Senator Jeff Sessions, and he is now (after Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic side of the aisle) the ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee (that's "minority" in the sense of Sessions being a Republican in a Democratic Senate, and not... you know, "minority"... since Sessions is a white male). And Sessions, as well as having a long enough term on the committee to be the ranking Republican, also has his own history with confirmation hearings before the same committee. Because he was the first of Ronald Reagan's judicial nominees to be rejected (before Bork, in other words), and he was rejected for perceived racial insensitivity. So it will be very interesting to see how he acts on Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation.

From an article in The New Republic from 2002 (which is worth reading in full, to understand Sessions' unique position on the committee), here is a list of statements attributed to Jeff Sessions during his confirmation battle:

Continue Reading »