I wrote a fundraising letter the other day. Here's how it started:
Have you noticed the virtual flood tide of crap floating around these days? Me too. Turn on the TV and Lou Dobbs is noodling on the air about whether or not Barack Obama was really born in the United States. Open the newspaper and George Will is telling his readers that global warming is just a sham. Listen to Fred Thompson’s radio show and Betsy McCaughey is warning listeners that the House healthcare bill would “absolutely require” end-of-life counseling sessions every five years for senior citizens.
Everyone who reads this blog knows the rest of this story, so I won't repeat it here. But the past couple of weeks have really brought some things into focus, and one of them is how difficult it is for any of us to make a difference all by ourselves. I mean, what can you do when you're competing against Lou Dobbs and FreedomWorks and the entire cast of Fox News?
Answer: contribute a few bucks to Mother Jones! It helps sustain this blog. It helps sustain the magazine. It helps sustain the website. It helps sustain our Washington bureau. Basically, it helps sustain an operation big enough to fight back against the conservative noise machine.
So help us out if you can. You can contribute via credit card here, and if you give more than $35 we'll throw in a subscription to the magazine. If you prefer PayPal, hit the tip jar at the bottom of the post. You'll help make the world a better place.
Welcome to the Army. You're not suicidal, are you?
Questions like this may become routine: the Washington Post reported yesterday that the military is developing required surveys for all new soldiers and the 90,000 already serving. The new panel creating the surveys is also conducting the largest-ever study of military suicides. The study's goal is twofold: prevent military suicides, and determine the causes of suicide.
Last month, Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the Army's vice chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that for veteran suicides, "The most frustrating thing is trying to find a cause." The overwhelming evidence that depression and self-destructive behavior are results of war must have slipped his mind. The $50 million, five-year study that the National Institute of Mental Health and the Army launched earlier this year is what the Post calls "an ambitious attempt to solve the mystery." The research was prompted by a rapid increase in soldier suicides, which reached 143 in 2008—the highest since the Army began keeping count three decades ago. Professors from Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Michigan sit on the panel of experts, ready to crack the case.
VandeHei mentioned the classic pseudo-event: a presidential press conference. At major newspapers like the Post, he said, "you feel this sense of obligation to lead your newspaper the next day with a story about what Bush said at the press conference, even if he didn't say anything that was all that revelatory, and despite the fact that it's pretty damn stale: most news consumers have not only consumed it, they've digested it and moved on."
He contrasted this with a recent Politico story that, he noted, the Post did not touch, that "ten years ago would have been confined to the inside pages of Roll Call": the revelation that Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D., Calif.) had quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and alleged that its chairman, Rep. Joe Baca (D., Calif.), had called her a "whore."
This story, VandeHei said, was "a perfect example of how media has changed. We put it upfront early on the webpage. Instantly it's linked to by Drudge and all the other blogs; Fox News is doing a story based on it; MSNBC is doing a story based on it; and then the next day, on the Colbert Report, he does twenty minutes on 'whore.' So you have just, from this perch, been able to reach significantly more people than I would have reached even at the Washington Post." The challenge for The Politico, he said, is "figuring out how to put things into that pipeline."
Well, good for Politico. But what happens when everyone decides to quit covering the "boring" stuff and just follow the Politico model instead? Is this really a world any of us want to live in?
But I guess what's most remarkable about this isn't that Politico was the first to popularize political gossip. I suppose someone was bound to do it eventually. It's the fact that VandeHei sees their primary task as "putting things into that pipeline." Not just reporting and winning a reputation, even if it's only for gossip, but feeding the outrage machine. Only if a story has done that do they consider it a success. What a sad career choice for a couple of highly regarded journalists to have made.
Remember, for that brief period of time, when the Treasury Department's $700 billion "Troubled Asset Relief Program" was meant to buy up banks' actual troubled assets? You know, those groups of toxic mortgages packaged into securities, or even whole toxic mortgages themselves? (Toxic, that is, because it's doubtful these loans will ever be paid back in full or at all.) Removing those toxic assets, we were told, would bolster banks' balance sheets and free them up to lend more to businesses and consumers and get the economy back on its feet. Yet not long after, the Treasury Dept., led by then-Secretary Hank Paulson, Jr., decided instead to use TARP money to invest directly in crippled institutions. Evidently Paulson hoped this cash infusion would pad their capital reserves, let banks write down losses from these assets, and help them resume lending even with toxic assets still on their books.
The question that has since lingered over the TARP, then, has been this: What happened to those toxic assets? And how are the banks and the government dealing with them now? That's what the Congressional Oversight Panel, one of the leading watchdogs led by Harvard Law Prof. Elizabeth Warren, set out to answer with its August report, released yesterday—along with how financial institutions intend to deal with these assets left on their books going forward.
“It is now twelve days since our children were detained in Iran, when they strayed across the border while on a brief hiking vacation in Iraqi Kurdistan. As loving parents, nothing causes us more heartache than not knowing how our children are, and not being able to talk to them and learn when we will hold them in our arms again. Shane, Sarah and Josh are young travelers who share a great love of the world and a deep respect for different cultures, societies and religions. We believe that when the Iranian authorities speak to our children, they will realize that Shane, Sarah and Josh had no intention of entering Iran and will allow them to leave the country and reunite with their families. We continue to hope that this misunderstanding will be resolved as quickly as possible.”
Shane Bauer, 27, Sarah Shourd, 31, and Josh Fattal, 27, are graduates of the University of California, Berkeley.
Bauer has been living in Damascus, Syria since the Fall of 2008 and is a student of Arabic. He is a freelance journalist and photographer who has written from the Middle East. He has never reported from Iran.
Shourd lives with Bauer in Damascus, where she teaches English and had been studying for the Graduate Record Examination in preparation for graduate school. She has written occasional travel pieces from the region.
Fattal is an environmentalist who worked at the Aprovecho Research Center in Cottage Grove, Oregon, which teaches sustainable living skills. Fattal had a Teaching Fellowship with the International Honors Program’s “Health and Community” study abroad program in the spring semester of 2009. Fattal was visiting Bauer and Shourd in Damascus prior to their hiking trip in Iraqi Kurdistan.
For media inquiries please contact: email@example.com
We'll keep you posted as to the status of Shane, Sarah, and Josh. Please keep them in your thoughts.
Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein are Co-Editors of Mother Jones. You can follow Clara on Twitter here and Monika here.
There are, I think, two essential truths in international health policy. No-one sees fit to copy the National Health Service and no-one sees fit to copy the American system.... The relevance of the NHS to American health care plans seems pretty limited anyway since, as best I can tell (though I try not to pay too much attention to these things) Obama doesn't actually plan on copying the NHS.
That last sentence really is correct, by the way. It's true that some things aren't entirely what they seem: they're Trojan horses for something else, or maybe the camel's nose under the tent that will eventually lead to more fundamental reforms. Both sides do this on occasion. I, for example, happen to think that community rating (along with the cloud of regulations that accompany it) will eventually put private insurance companies out of business — or, at a minimum, turn them into little more than semi-public utilities. I don't know how many other people agree about that, but you could certainly accuse me of pushing for community rating not just because I like it as a policy, but because I think it will eventually lead to more systematic reform of the healthcare industry.
But with the exception of a few outliers, the liberal community really, truly doesn't want a fully government owned and operated healthcare system like the NHS. We want a government-funded healthcare system like Medicare or most of the world outside of Britain. And unless I'm mistaken, this isn't a ruse in any way. That's really what most of us want: basic care funded by taxes, with additional care available to anyone who wants to pay for more. France and Holland, not Britain or Canada.
A reader emails to say he just came back from a town hall meeting in his district and came away wondering if Obama might have bitten off more than he could chew:
It occurred to me that one of the things that helps the opponents of health reform is the complexity of the issue — big omnibus bills give opponents all sorts of opportunity to deceive. Moreover, there's a tipping point with big bills: if you try to get everybody on board by giving everyone something they want in exchange for something they don't want, you can sometime get a big program passed. But if the various interests decide they're better off without the bill, then the enemies just accumulate.
Under the circumstances, sometimes it's better just to try and eat the elephant one bite at a time — a series of bill over the first term that would whittle things down to size:
An initial bill would provide for community rating and pre-existing condition protections. This bill would have the opposition of the insurance industry, but everyone else would be for it.
After you get that done — individual mandate, small business coverage requirements, assistance to those with lower incomes for purchase. Small business would be against this part, but all those insurance lobbyists would be on board.
This is a defensible position, but I think it's also an example of a "grass is greener" approach to political process that's much too common. Basically, whenever something is in trouble, people start to think that it would have worked if only we'd approached it in just the opposite way.
So Clintoncare failed because it was written in the White House and dumped in Congress's lap. Won't make that mistake again! Opponents are vilifying cherry-picked provisions of the House bill? A watered-down bipartisan compromise would have had a better chance. A big omnibus measure is in trouble? We should have broken it into pieces.
Maybe so. But I think this overrates process. The opposition is always going to oppose, and they're going to find a way to oppose effectively no matter what you do. If the White House creates a bill, it was "written in secret." If Congress does it, it's a pork-filled monstrosity. Write a liberal bill and you'll lose centrist Republican support; write a compromise bill and you'll lose Democratic support. Write a big bill and it's confusing; write a bunch of little bills and you expend all your political capital on trivia and never get anything done.
Good presidents understand process and use it to their advantage. But one way or another, you have to have the votes. And one way or another, healthcare won't really be reformed unless, eventually, we pass something big. We've been passing piecemeal legislation for a long time, and it just hasn't added up to much. So every 20 years or so we need to take another crack at serious reform, and every 20 years or so we're going to learn the same lesson: if the public is on our side, we'll be able to pass something. If we can't get them on our side, we won't.
For my money, the current bills wending their way through Congress are about as small as you can get and still call them serious healthcare reform. If we can't pass some version of what's on the table now, there's really no reason to think that Obama has the political capital to pass it little bits at a time as his popularity inevitably wanes throughout his term. It's now or never.
Via Rachel, Samuel Jacobs rounds up Barack Obama's post-campaign reading list here. Usually when things like this pop up, I've read none or, at most, one of the books on the list, but I've read four on Obama's list (Eggers, Alter, Coll, and Goodwin) — and I know Friedman well enough to feel like I've read his latest book even though I haven't. That practically makes us soulmates, literarily speaking.