Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced two pieces of legislation on marijuana -- one medical, and one recreational -- that deserve a lot more attention (and support by fellow House members) than they have been getting. The first would change federal law to allow states to experiment with medical marijuana without interference from Washington. And the second would drastically reduce federal penalties for "personal possession" of marijuana.

The medical marijuana bill aims to fix a problem in the federal classification of marijuana. The problem was best summed up in a live performance by Bill Maher I saw a number of months ago, where he talked about medical marijuana laws that states such as California (and others) have passed. I don't remember his exact words, but it went something like this: "It's still illegal to grow it, it's illegal for doctors to prescribe it, it's illegal to sell it, it's illegal to buy it, but if a joint happens to fall from the sky into your lips, then it's OK to smoke it."

Continue Reading »

Welcome back to your weekly Friday Talking Points roundup. This week will be a bit unusual, as instead of the normal list of talking points Democrats everywhere should be using this weekend in conversations (especially with the media), I'm devoting the entire talking points segment to one single issue -- why what President Obama is doing on the situation in Iran is exactly the right thing to do, and why his hands are tied (by the ropes of American history) so that saying anything more enthusiastic than he's already said would actually be counterproductive if you support the Iranians currently marching in the streets. Because there is a giant elephant in the room of the discussion of American/Iranian relations that nobody wants to discuss, and nobody (other than Obama himself) is even admitting exists -- an elephant with the year "1953" painted on its side. But more about that later, let's take care of the weekly chores first.

Continue Reading »

The debate in Washington over healthcare reform seems to be missing an important voice: the public. Where are the crowds of people demanding better healthcare? Where are the voices of those who have healthcare horror stories to tell? Where is the grassroots effort to define the problem adequately?

Sadly, I have no answers to those questions. I suspect, if anyone bothered to find out, the answer would be: "They're busy working at their jobs, terrified they'll be fired and lose what health insurance they've got."

Continue Reading »

My first choice of a headline for today's column was "Obama's Gay Honeymoon Over," but then I thought better of it. President Obama is currently trying to placate a group of supporters who are not in a mood to be impressed right now with mere incrementalism. Gay rights supporters, quite rightly, are now asking Obama point-blank: "When are you going to make good on all those promises you made to us on the campaign trail? How long are we supposed to wait?"

Continue Reading »

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 »