There's no doubt that Senator Al Franken has arrived. Consider his direct accusations aimed at the current version of the United States Supreme Court. In a thumbnail, Franken charges that the Court has worked hard to crank out pro-business rulings that curtail critically important and long-standing individual rights.
I once saw this activity at the turtle exhibit at the local zoo, and it didn't take a biologist to tell me that I was not misinterpreting what I was seeing. These turtles seem incredibly almost-human, even though they didn't smoke cigarettes afterward. Captured here in living color close-up, I'm posting this video as an animals-in the-wild education video: Watching this reminded me of watching David Attenborough "Trials of Life" series with my then four-year old daughter. One of these exquisitely filmed Attenborough videos, which was on the topic of animal reproduction, included more explicit animal sex videos than I could ever had imagined, including elephant sex. At first I wondered whether I should be letting the video keep running. While I was contemplating my options, my daughter looked up and asked, "Daddy, what are those elephants doing?" I found myself saying, "Those are elephants having sex." I didn't offer any further explanation and my daughter didn't request one. We quietly watched the entire video and now, 7 years later, my daughter doesn't seem to be emotionally damaged from having seen the episode. Oh, and according to doctors polled by the U.K. Guardian, having sex before going to bed is the second-best way to have a good night's sleep. The winning solution was for couples to sleep in separate beds.
We can't talk. Or, rather, we can only talk in canned narratives, as Glenn C. Loury writes in the NYT:
[T]his convenient story line is reflected in an all-too-familiar narrative: “Here we are, 45 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with a black man in the White House. And yet, it is still the case that a distinguished Harvard professor, standing on his own front step, can be treated like a common criminal simply because he’s black. Obviously it is way too soon to declare that we have entered a post-racial era ... .” As far as I am concerned, the ubiquity of this narrative shows that we are incapable of talking straight with one another about race. And this much-publicized incident is emblematic of precisely nothing at all. Rather, the Gates arrest is a made-for-cable-TV tempest in a teapot.Therefore, as many people use the Gates incident to teach lessons about race, the reality is that objective people are left to wonder whether the case was about race at all.
Via Daily Dish, here is a well written post from Steamboats are Ruining Everything regarding:
My principle became, roughly speaking, bike in such a way that even relatively inattentive drivers can be expected to see you and know what you’re going to do next. Also: don't be annoying to pedestrians. I began halting at red lights and stop signs. (Later I relaxed this somewhat, almost to Idaho rules.) I made sure to bike in the bike lane, if there was one (or on the outer edge of it, if biking inside it was going to put me within swinging distance of the opening doors of parked cars). I stayed off sidewalks. And I never, ever biked the wrong way down a one-way street.Since having this epiphany, "Steamboats" has loosened up a bit, including his approval of the “stop as yield” law used in Idaho. I admit that I rarely stop at stopsigns such that my feet both come to the ground. At 1 am, I don't sit there waiting for the light to change. On a particularly dangerous overpass, I ride on a sidewalk for a quarter-mile. On the other hand, I am aggravated by the bicycle riding behavior of many riders because it is so often dangerous, not because it's a violation of a law. So often, when you see a cyclist violating a law, he or she is simultaneously breaking five laws. The person I have in mind is the wrong-way rider who violates a stoplight in the dark without any bicycle light, while not wearing a helmet, while failing to signal.
I've been wondering about this for months. What IS the new health care system that we are arguing about? How can I know if I'm for it or against it until I know what it is? That was one of the topics Bill Moyers discussed with his guests, Trudy Lieberman, director of the health and medical reporting program at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, and Marcia Angell, senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School and former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
TRUDY LIEBERMAN: [Barack Obama] has essentially advocated is throwing more money into the current system. He's treating the symptom and he's not treating the underlying cause of our problem. Our problem is that we spend two and a half times as much per person on health care as other advanced countries, the average of other advanced countries. And we don't get our money's worth. So, now he says, okay, this is a terribly inefficient, wasteful system. Let's throw some money into it . . . Into the same system. That's his problem. The other problem, in the press conference, was that he was trying to mobilize public support for a bill, and we don't know what that bill is.Here's a big problem with the current system:
MARCIA ANGELL: Well, that goes to the cause of the problem. We are the only advanced country in the world that has chosen to leave health care to the tender mercies of a panoply of for-profit businesses, whose purpose is to maximize income and not to provide health. And that's exactly what they do.Angell then strongly states that the system that Obama is apparently pushing doesn't change this sad situation, even though 2/3 of Americans prefer the Canadian-style single payor system. Is Obama going to change health care for the better? Angell says she's not optimistic:
But what I would say this time around, and now I am going to be very pessimistic, Bill. This time around, I don't think it's going to happen because of the power the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies. I don't think it's going to happen. But I would rather see Obama go down fighting for something coherent and practical that the public could mobilize behind, than go down fighting for this amorphous plan that tries to keep these private insurance industry in place . . . Well, he will have to fight . . . I think he'll go down. I don't think he's grasped the nettle. And I don't think that even the best of the proposals that he is considering are going to be effective. And I worry about even the public option, because the power of the insurance industry is so great that I believe that they would use their clout in Congress to hobble the public option in some way.What's the only solution? Angell says it forcefully:
I think we have to go for a single payer system. You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state. You could do it decade by decade. You could improve Medicare. That is, make it nonprofit. But extend it down to age 55 and age 45 and age 35. It would give the private insurance industry a chance to go into hurricanes, earthquakes or something. To get out of the health business. It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done.As always, Bill Moyers and his guests give you details and arguments that you won't find in most news sources.