I've been as upset as most of my other progressive friends about the changes that have been imposed on the health care reform bill in the senate, and over how the most important measures seem to keep getting stripped out in order to please "moderates", insurance & pharmaceutical industry shills, abortion opponents and, of course, Joe "Look-At-Me-I'm-A-Pompous-Little-Man-With-Shit-for-Brains" Lieberman. But, I have to say that once I took a few deep breaths and did some reading, this is actually exactly par for the course when major social legislation is enacted. I find that a historical view is essential to keep things in perspective:

1) The Civil Rights Act of 1957:

- When Lyndon Johnson (as senate majority leader) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he faced all the same shamelessly hypocritical opposition that health care reform faces today, including hysterical claims that civil rights represented a takeover of states rights by the federal government, etc. This was the legislation that Strom "I Love Black Women" Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours straight, setting a record that sill stands. LBJ had to make so many compromises to win the support of southern dixiecrats, including stripping out anti-lynching provisions, that the final bill was almost completely ineffective. In fact, fewer african americans were registered to vote in 1960 than had been registered in 1956. But, the logjam had been broken, and "It did however open the door to later legislation that was effective in securing voting rights as well as ending legal segregation and providing housing rights. In particular, it established both the Commission on Civil Rights and the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Subsequently, on December 9, 1957, the Civil Rights Division was established within the Justice Department by order of Attorney General William P. Rogers, giving the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights a distinct division to command." (wikipedia). By passing an imperfect bill, LBJ established the framework for later improvements and expansions that provided true civil rights.


2) Social Security:

- When Franklin Roosevelt passed Social Security, it had to be watered down so severely in order for him to get it passed that at first it didn't even cover african-americans. Republicans screamed that social security was socialism and that it would cause the loss of millions of jobs. In the version that was finally passed, women and minorities were excluded from unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Jobs that employed mostly women and minorities were also excluded, including workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. "Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not [initially] covered by Social Security" (Wikipedia). But, as Paul Krugman wrote in yesterday's New York Times "Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans."


3) The Emancipation Proclamation:

- Finally, when Abraham Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation, it was also a very circumscribed piece of legislation that disappointed many abolitionists of the day. Josh Marshall discussed this yesterday in Talking Points Memo (www.tpm.com) and is worth quoting at length:

"Like President Obama, President Lincoln was seen by many of his supporters as something of a disappointment once in office. This was largely due to the number and types of compromises he needed to make, most notably with the institution of slavery. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln came out and said that he was not bound and determined to end slavery, that the President does not in any case have the power to unilaterally change the law of the land, and that his first priority was the preservation of the Union, even if the price of that preservation was to accept the continuation of slavery. During the war, when pressed by a group of ministers about why he had not more forcefully worked to end slavery, he reiterated that his overriding priority was to preserve the Union, and added that there were four slave states which had stayed loyal and which were currently contributing 50,000 soldiers to the war effort; these, he pointed out, were states and soldiers which he could not afford to lose in a dispute over slavery.

"When Lincoln finally issed the Emancipation Proclamation, its scope was remarkably circumscribed: it did not call for the emancipation of slaves in loyal states (for this, Lincoln would need the participation of Congress, and in any event, as described above, he did not seek such an act for fear of worsening the Union's position in the war); it did not call for the emancipation of slaves in those areas under military control by the Union; it limited emancipation to those areas which would be brought under military control subsequent to January 1, 1863, which was about 3 months after the Proclamation itself was issued. As one historian noted, this meant the Proclamation carefully excused all of the slaves which the United States actually had any authority over at the time of issuance! As another historian noted, the Proclamation was in essence the offer of a bribe: any state then in rebellion which would lay down its arms and return to the Union would not be compelled to give up its slaves; any state conquered by force of arms after January 1, 1863 would be so compelled.

"Needless to say, the Proclamation was seen by anti-slavery partisans of the time as wholly unacceptable, a compromise too far, and yet more evidence of the unfitness of their elected standard-bearer in the White House. And yet, as Foote points out, Lincoln is today hailed as the preserver of the Union, which he was, but as The Great Emancipator, which he was not. This is because the Proclamation, while useless in a practical sense at the moment of issuance, was the crucial starting point for the abolition of slavery, a project which was completed just a few years later." (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/pt_appeals_to_history.php#more?ref=fpblg)


Final thoughts:

So - my view, and the view of many people who I respect, is that many, if not all, social insurance programs tend to start out highly compromised, imperfect and incomplete. But, one the precedent has been set, and a framework is in place, then the programs can get better and more comprehensive with subsequent revisions and expansions.
- Obama knows this, he takes a long-term view to these issues, which is why he can maintain such calm and equanimity throughout the process.
- The republicans know this, and they know that social programs tend to be quite popular once they are enacted (you don't see many of the older tea-baggers volunteering to give up medicare, do you?), so they are fighting tooth and nail to deny Obama and the democrats a victory.
- The insurance and pharmaceutical companies know this too - even if there is a short term benefit to them, the longer term trend will be to reduce costs and improve coverage, which will ultimately force change to their industries.

By passing the bill, universal coverage will be established as a goal and the process of cost containment will begin. The internet and 24 hour news coverage allow us unprecedented views of the nitty-gritty of the legislative sausage-making process, and it's ugly up close, but if health reform passes, and I pray with every cell in my resolutely atheist heart that it does, Obama will be on track to be the greatest president since FDR.

Finally!

Ban Lifted On Federal Funding For Needle Exchange
by Susan Sharon
Source NPR

After two decades, Congress has voted to lift a ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs. AIDS activists are cheering the move, saying it legitimizes needle exchange in the nationwide fight against HIV/AIDS.

For years, needle exchange programs in three dozen states have provided clean needles to intravenous drug users as a way to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C. But the programs have relied solely on state and local funding because of a longtime ban at the federal level. For years, some regarded needle exchange as an incentive for drug addicts to continue to use.

Bill McColl of the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group AIDS Action says some are afraid federal backing conflicts with the zero-tolerance policy for drug use.

But he says he sees the vote to lift the ban as a vote for science.

"There are eight federal reports that show that syringe exchange will decrease HIV and Hepatitis," McColl says. "It doesn't increase substance abuse. You know, this is a real opportunity to do some serious outreach to a population that is often overlooked."
( More under the cut )

The current status of the health care reform bill, the one without a public option but still containing a draconian mandate clause, is exactly what the Obama administration wanted all along. At least that's what Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and several liberal bloggers are suggesting. Glenn makes an interesting case for this theory. From the article:

...substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama's occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it. From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House -- hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN). Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn't pass it. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.

He goes on to show the various behaviors over the last several months that back up this claim, as well as a choice quote from Senator Feingold:

"This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold.

I've been convinced that this was the case for awhile now, and articles like this only help solidify my conclusion.

What do you think? Is the Obama administration really working to shape this bill into the steamimg pile of crap it's becoming to appease Big Insurance and Big Pharma so the campaign donations will keep flowing? Has this fiasco changed your opinion of Obama? It certainly has changed mine.

_{x-posted to liberal_talk and talk_politics}

Illusions and Bitterness

Paul Krugman, The New York Times
December 16, 2009, 5:42 pm

There’s enormous disappointment among progressives about the emerging health care bill — and rightly so. That said, even as it stands it would take a big step toward greater security for Americans and greater social justice; it would also save many lives over the decade ahead. That’s why progressive health policy wonks — the people who have campaigned for health reform for years — are almost all in favor of voting for the thing.

The argument about the evil of the individual mandate is, as Jon Cohn says, all wrong. It was wrong during the primaries, when Obama unfortunately used it to demagogue his rivals — helping set the stage for problems now. And it’s still wrong.

And the truth is that health care reform was probably doomed to be deeply imperfect. As Ezra Klein pointed out a few weeks ago, we’re basically in a hostage situation: progressives really, really want to cover the uninsured, while centrists whose votes are needed can take it or leave it. So the centrists have a lot of power — which in the case of Joe Lieberman means the power to double-cross and indulge his pettiness.

Now, in a hostage situation there are times when you have to just say no — when giving in, by encouraging future hostage-takers, would be worse than letting the hostages perish. So the question has to be, is this one of those times? I don’t think so, given the history: as Kevin Drum points out, health reform has come back weaker after each defeat. I’d also point out that highly imperfect insurance reforms, like Social Security and Medicare in their initial incarnations, have gotten more comprehensive over time. This suggests that the priority is to get something passed.

But what’s happening, I think, goes beyond health care; what we’re seeing is disillusionment with Obama among some of the people who were his most enthusiastic supporters. A lot of people seem shocked to find that he’s not the transformative figure of their imaginations. Can I say I told you so? If you paid attention to what he said, not how he said it, it was obvious from the beginning — and I’m talking about 2007 — that he was going to be much less aggressive about change than one could have hoped. And this has done a lot of damage: I believe he could have taken a tougher line on economic policy and the banks, and was tearing my hair out over his caution early this year. I also believe that if he had been tougher on those issues, he’d be better able to weather disappointment over his health care compromises.

So there’s a lot of bitterness out there. But please, keep your priorities straight.

By all means denounce Obama for his failed bipartisan gestures. By all means criticize the administration. But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck — and, in some cases, dead — if it doesn’t.

So here's the lineup:

On one side we have Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, and Kevin Drum. These four men emphasize gradual progress and want very much for the proposed Senate HCR bill to pass while we have the momentum, adding that improvements can be made following the bill's passage.

On the other side, we have Dr. Howard Dean, Markos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, and Senator Bernie Sanders. These four men are pushing for reconciliation, which would require only 51 votes and allow 10 more years for the Senate to work out the kinks in the current HCR proposal before a bill can become a law.

Johann Hari: Republicans, religion and the triumph of unreason
Source

Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarised by the comedian Bill Maher: "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital."

The election of Obama – a black man with an anti-conservative message – as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right's view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin.

When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn't compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of "Drill, baby, drill" have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right's world-view – to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation – has swollen. Now it is all they can see.

Since Obama's rise, the US right has been skipping frantically from one fantasy to another, like a person in the throes of a mental breakdown. It started when they claimed he was a secret Muslim, and – at the same time – that he was a member of a black nationalist church that hated white people. Then, once these arguments were rejected and Obama won, they began to argue that he was born in Kenya and secretly smuggled into the United States as a baby, and the Hawaiian authorities conspired to fake his US birth certificate. So he is ineligible to rule and the office of President should pass to... the Republican runner-up, John McCain.
( More. )

"Move over Snow White. Make room for Disney’s first black princess.
With America’s first African-American president in the White House, Disney is counting on an African-American princess to be a big hit in Hollywood.
But even though The Princess and the Frog isn’t released until later this year, it is already stirring up controversy.
For while Princess Tiana and many in the cartoon cast are black – the prince is not.
Which has led some critics to complain that Disney has ducked the opportunity for a fairytale ending for a black prince and princess."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1162718/Disney-feature-black-princess--critics-complain-falls-love-WHITE-prince.html#ixzz0ZbrV8Pk6


"One fan even notes that, while Disney has made the prince white, the villain is black – “I am very disappointed and I wished Disney had made the prince black, (and the ironic thing is the prince in the movie is white but the evil voodoo villain is voiced by a black actor and is black).”"

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Disney-s-The-Princess-and-the-Frog-Has-Black-Princess-White-Prince-107125.shtml

Warning: unedited rant.

Personally speaking, I'd be offended if I were a black person or a black man watching this film, because essentially, its sending the wrong message that black men can't be viewed as gallant and as handsome as a Prince (as Cinderella's, Snow White's, or The Little Mermaid's prince). I don't see the point in creating this film making it seem like it was some kind of break through to have a Disney Film with black characters who were supposed to be the main characters in the film, only to have a fucking caucasian-looking person as the prince. This is exactly why I would never take my little boy to see a disney movie because it is mainly influenced by the white MAN's patriarchal agenda.

It took them over 50 years to create films about Pocahontas (who also had a white man as her romantic interest, in BOTH of her movies, except for the first one that had a native American Contender); and a fully Chinese/Asian cast Mulan 1 and Mulan 2, and now they had the greatest opportunity to show love between TWO black people, and they portray the knight and shining armour as a fucking white man. Hell, I'm not black and I'm outraged. I'm thoroughly sick of the subtle and inherent racism, sexism, and other isms in this society that the "bigger" heads think the smaller heads are too small to read between the lines. I wish people would be more straighforward and forthright with their sexism or racism instead of going through the trouble to concoct a charade in the hopes of concealing it.

I have never liked Disney cartoons, movies, or fairytales from I was a child, because they almost always show the woman as some weak pathetic victim that needs to be saved, and in most instances the females are portrayed as child-like and petty. This is why I have always loved the Wonder Woman mythos because Diana was portrayed as a princess, heroic, strong (like Superman), extremely skillful and fast; well that is, until her creator died and various men came on the book and fucked up her character. But back to what I was saying initially, its the PRINCIPLE I am against, even though yes I abhor fairytale characters and disney fairytale movies, specifically, if you are going to jump out of your comfort zone, might as well do so completely, than partially, like a coward.

Buying for Equality 2010 helps us support businesses that support us with every purchase we make.

Despite the economic downturn, more businesses than ever rated 100 percent on the HRC Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index — the basis for this guide — through banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, providing benefits for LGBT employees and their families and supporting LGBT equality publicly. Find out more about the criteria.

Consumers can support businesses that support us through everyday purchases, but can also directly thank them for their support, ask them to revise their policies or encourage them to participate in the Corporate Equality Index. Take action now.

More than 300,000 people have used Buying for Equality to make informed purchases. You can do your part to support fair-minded businesses — download the guide or request a copy to be sent to you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/palins-father-she-left-ha_n_381724.html

Did Sarah Palin leave Hawaii because there were too many Asians? In the New Yorker review of "Going Rogue," Sam Tanenhaus writes that Palin's father suggested as much to the reporters who wrote "Sarah From Alaska." The account contradicts the former Alaska governor's own description of her reasons for leaving college in Hawaii after only one semester.

Palin, though notoriously ill-traveled outside the United States, did journey far to the first of the four colleges she attended, in Hawaii. She and a friend who went with her lasted only one semester. "Hawaii was a little too perfect," Palin writes. "Perpetual sunshine isn't necessarily conducive to serious academics for eighteen-year-old Alaska girls." Perhaps not. But Palin's father, Chuck Heath, gave a different account to Conroy and Walshe. According to him, the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders made her uncomfortable: "They were a minority type thing and it wasn't glamorous, so she came home." In any case, Palin reports that she much preferred her last stop, the University of Idaho, "because it was much like Alaska yet still 'Outside.' "

The passage was first flagged by Issac Chotiner at The New Republic, who wondered why it hadn't gotten any media attention.

------------------------------------------

I don't think white liberals (in a general sense) really understand how insulting it is to minorities every time they feel like they need to protect them. Keep in mind the "race" of the large majority of the people on Huffington Post! A website like TownHall.com has a fairly diverse array of columnists (women, asians, blacks, jews, etc), yeah they are somehow the out of touch racists, meanwhile the Huffington Post columnists are mostly white.

New EU Report Finds Racism Prevalent Across Europe - For minority groups living in Europe, everyday pursuits like shopping or visiting the doctor are often soured by discrimination - report says EU racism is deeply entrenched - and, more worryingly still, often goes unreported [and thus not counted in official figures]

- http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,666317,00.html