…but Dan thinks…

Jane and I aren’t always on opposite sides of an issue. True story.

Take today, for example. I’m pretty sure if you were to ask an environmentalist (a person for whom the term “nutbag” also comes to mind for me), they’d tell you they want cars to run on rainbows and sunshine.

Not oil from the sand.

Not a well on the land.

Not oil obtained using a bore.

Even when it came from way off shore.

I read the Sarah Palin quote indirectly blaming environmentalists for the BP rig explosion and subsequent unabated oil leak, and I’m reminded of a fight I broke up between my kids yesterday. You see, there was a spider on my son’s arm. So he hit my daughter.

Makes perfect sense, right?

I don’t hang out in the Self Improvement section at the local Barnes & Noble, but I’ve dabbled in Tony Robbins. I think Sarah should meet Tony. First, because he could hold her and squeeze her and pet her and love her like a little Daffy Duck (Tony’s ENORMOUS). But second, he could tell her that everyone’s responsible for their own actions/reactions. That you can’t blame someone else for the way you behave. Your behavior, a 3 year old punching his older sister or an oil company operating in a dangerous manner and not having plans prepared for swift intervention should something go wrong, is on you. Your fault. Nobody else’s. That’s the education my son got, and it’s the education I’d give BP and Sarah Palin. Childish for either to think otherwise. But my son’s three, so I cut him some slack. Palin I would totally spank for what she said. And not in the good way. (Ok, maybe in the good way.)

And here’s the other thing. There’s a finite quantity of oil in the ground. Even if you put everything else aside – the oil leak, combustion engines causing harm to Earth’s atmosphere, the pollution of ground water, etc? It’s still a finite resource. One day there won’t be anymore of it. And we need that oil to make plastic. You know, the mouse to your right? The frame of the monitor you’re reading this on? The thing you use when uh, your husband’s not around? Plastic, plastic, plastic.

We can fuel our daily travels on something other than petroleum, but I’ll be damned if we don’t need plastic as much as a diabetic needs syringes full of insulin (which are also made from plastic!).

Sarah. Sweetie. I’ll never be a member of your double entendre party, but I like to consider myself a conservative on many issues. You make it embarrassing for me to admit that in public.

You’re trying to assign liberal blame to everything, everywhere, and it makes you look either nutbag crazy, party blind or just plain old stupid.

…but Jane thinks…

If NASA engineering had gone into the construction of the now famous “blowoff preventer,” instead of Halliburton’s for-profit manufactured and seriously faulty work, the Gulf of Mexico might not currently be soaked in oil. The list of innovations and creative applications of technology afforded all of us because of NASA’s work is staggering. There is no question in my mind that as far as government agencies go, NASA has its act together more than most. Nevertheless, pursuing space exploration further at this time would be an irresponsible use of resources.

One of the critics of Obama’s “anemic” new space exploration budget, James Logsdon (professor emeritus at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute and author of “The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest) said this in a round table discussion on the topic: ” The principal benefits from human spaceflight are intangible, but nevertheless substantial. The moon missions of the ’60s instilled in Americans a sense of “international prestige and national pride’…”

You know what else instills a sense of international prestige and national pride? Not having an economy on par with a third world banana republic on the eve of a drug cartel supported coup. Know what else? Not mucking up the planet to such a degree that we have to claim responsibility for the extinction of species, holes in the ozone layer, air and water pollution, and the squandering of precious natural resources.

There’s no reason why the innovations that have resulted from space exploration programs needs to come to a grinding halt. Our scientific capabilities allow for simulations of space travel that can yield tremendous benefits. The potential job losses due to the cutbacks in funding are as yet unknown; so many private companies are already massive contributers of parts, services, labor, and support to the space program, that it would be specious to imply, as some have (not Dan) that the entire population of space program associated employees of NASA will soon be out on the streets, pink slips in hand.

And, as Esther Dyson pointed out, “The U.S. Defense Department may have created the Internet, but had it kept control of the technology, it’s unlikely the Web would have become the vibrant public resource it is today. That credit goes to the investment and activity of private citizens and private companies, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”

Exploration of space is cool. No doubt about it. Far more little kids go to bed at night dreaming of riding in a rocket to Mars than drift off contemplating their glorious futures as inventors of non-polluting, clean energy sources. But right now, we have bigger fish to fry (New! Pre-oiled for your convenience!). Beyond merely being cool, space exploration should be a goal for many of the reasons Dan cited. But until we’ve managed to secure our borders from people who wish to do us harm, protect and preserve our planet and its most fragile and defenseless inhabitants, clean up the already more than 6,000 satellites already launched and junking up the stratosphere as well as the debris from prior launches, explosions, and spacecraft breakdowns, steady and grow our economy, and provide for the educational, nutritional, and healthcare needs of all of our own citizens, it’s a luxury we can’t afford. And as for inhabiting Mars? Let’s prove that we can manage the planet we’ve already got before we go and screw up another one.

…but Jane thinks…

Yes, he’s good with PR. But this isn’t exactly news, Dan. I would argue, though, that the beer summit didn’t really help him much. My biggest disappointment in Obama’s performance as POTUS so far is that he hasn’t made better use of those PR skills. He’s got an agile mind and he’s a fantastic orator. He’s been testing his voice again on the road lately to promote health care reform and I’m relieved. He won the hearts and minds of American voters because of his ability to connect and inspire, and he hasn’t been doing enough of that.

It is simply ignorant, how ironic given that “I” am nominally the ignoramus at the table, to say that he hasn’t come through and been able to get things done. The list of his accomplishments thus far is impressive. To say that he mishandled the financial crisis is laughable. Are we in a depression? No. Are housing starts up? Yes. Is unemployment, albeit slowly, on the decline? Yes. Are temp hires, an oft-cited indicator of economic recovery, on the upswing? Yes. The president, no matter who he is, cannot be charged with making corporations fall into line in terms of best practices. Commercial regulation is a legislative task.

And there’s the rub. It’s not that Obama isn’t making headway; he is. The appearance that not much is happening is a function of the smoke and mirrors in place at the other end of the mall in D.C. Congress sucks. As conservative commentator David Brooks said recently, “In a senseible country, Obama would be able to clearly define his modern brand of moderate progressivism without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed. But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect…a lot of liberals think Obama’s been very weak and he’s not forceful enough. I think he’s been amazingly tenacious on Afghanistan, on health care, on education. Pretty tough guy, I think. A lot of conservatives think he’s a socialist, trying ot turn us into Sweden. Give me a break! Is that what this health care is about? But people like that because they want all differences to be 190 degrees rather than 30 degrees. And so they get to pick that reality because it makes them feel good.” The current and tenacious partisan reality is “Block that Kick.”

And speaking of sports and David Brooks, the conservative pundit, on Meet the Press this week, he said this, “My favorite sport is home runs or singles. And they believe in home runs, or the long bomb (the people saying Obama isn’t living up to it). I, I’m more of a singles guy. I remember when the Mets had a guy named Dave Klingman who like 30 home runs a year and struck out like 500 times a year. I’m more – especially in a culture where people are so cynical about Washington, I think you hit a few singles, you go – you get that thing going so people’ll have some faith in government, and hten they can trust you a little more. I, I’ve just become very averse to this home run mentality.” My god. It’s David Brooks. It’s not even like I have to pull out Olbermann or Maddow or even Chris Matthews to get this perspective. And Dan, you can totally call me on not having my own arguments and using New York Times writers to make my case for me. I happily concede that David Brooks is way smarter than I am.

Look at what Obama inherited. Massive debt, two aimless and expensive wars, a disenfranchised and bewildered populace, a financial crisis unlike any seen in decades, a broken health care system, a rising tide of working poor and unemployed poor, and a Congress so dysfunctional they make the Botwins look like the Huxtables.

I think Jock Ewing had was a senile old fictional fart who’d inhaled too many petrochemical fumes. If you can lead with a quote uttered by a character from an 80’s television melodrama, I can certainly close with a quote from someone who actually exists and is attentive to the political process, all the while managing to look hot and make kick ass movies. On Charlie Rose the other night, when asked about his perception of Obama’s performance as president so far, Matt Damon said this: “Look, being American is not about leaving it up to your leaders, it’s just not. It’s about agitating at the bottom, because that’s when your leaders listen to you. Your leaders respond to you, not the other way around. And anybody who’s waiting for Barack Obama or George Bush or anybody to lead them to the promise land is going to be waiting a long time. You’ve got to be involved. And change comes from the bottom and not from the top.”

If you don’t think Obama is getting the job done, maybe you need to be doing more, not him.

…but Jane thinks…

I’m sticking by my original observation about the bandwagon jumpers complaining about the Vancouver Olympics: sour grapes, people. And people, especially Americans who are ever more envious of people who have their act way more together than we do, love to trash the Prom Queen. The truth is, Canada is looking lots more like Prom Queen these days. And the U.S.A., We’re the mean girl who backstabs her friends, assumes she’s going to be the belle of the ball, and spends her night hanging out by the punchbowl alone.

Dan, you imply that there is an inherent problem with having more “government per capita.” Next you’re going to be declaring yourself a teabagger. Use your head, boy man. The only potential problem with having “more government,” which by the way is not what I said, I said that the people had greater representation in government – more elected officials doesn’t necessarily translate to “more government” – , is if that government inserts itself into people’s lives in an way that is undesirable or invasive. Most Canadians aren’t complaining about their national healthcare. They’re also not complaining about government’s role in their daily lives. Americans, on the other hand, are splintered, fragmented, and disgruntled.

Canada has had oil and diamonds, this isn’t new. And so far, they are way more responsible with their natural resources than we are. Our own government fact sheet about Canada highlights a few of the reasons why Canada is thriving while the U.S. is flailing under the weight of its own self-declared dominance:

For a country who occupies more land than any other nation than Russia, their per capita GDP rank is a respectable 25, and they’re not poking their neighbors with their elbows and filling every available acre of land with strip malls. And there are fewer Canadians living below the poverty line than Americans. Crime rates are lower in Canada, despite the fact that vast regions of the Canadian interior are practically lawless – Hey, Dan! You and your teabagger buddies can get behind that! The unemployment rate is lower than ours, and their public debt is lower.

In fact, the only gripe I can muster about Canada at the moment is that their women’s hockey team celebrated excessively after their defeat of the U.S. women for the gold last night. Their over the top and not very gracious celebration was especially surprising given that Canadian athletes and officials were directed to behave modestly and to avoid giving the appearance of hyper-nationalism. See how I did that, Dan? Pretended like I was criticizing Canada and turned it into a comparison with the U.S.A. cultural norm of flag waving “We are Number 1!” mania?

Still doubting the merits of the quality of Canadian life? Watch this video prepared by Tom Brokaw at the start of the Olympic games. And thanks to The Redneck Mommy for the link.

…but Jane thinks…

Dan, choose 1 of the following to describe yourself: a) out of touch b) a repressed Midwesterner laden with Catholic guilt or c) someone practicing Socratic irony – a little too convincingly. I’m praying it’s C.

You are being willfully naïve if you think that the way to prepare or support a military during a time of war is to dump them in some godforsaken desert for YEARS at a time with nothing other than cold steel , a scratchy woolen blanket, and some MREs. I cannot believe that I am in the position here of the Patriot, while you are…I don’t even know what…proposing that we deny fighting men and women the same basic rights that other consenting adults have?

It doesn’t seem as if your objection here is to the morality (don’t even start with me, people, it’s completely none of anybody else’s business) of the morning-after pill, but rather the notion that the military should be acknowledging and responding to the simple fact that soldiers are going to have sex – should the lucky moment strike. Why is that wrong? They aren’t robots – although, there’s an idea – they are human beings, with physical and emotional desires, probably more in need of human contact and comfort than those of us here safe at home stateside. Should they not be able to buy tampons or Diet Pepsi? Those things aren’t necessary to blowing the enemy whoever the hell that is these days sky high. How about pillows? Nobody needs a pillow. Sure it’s NICE to have a pillow, but if you’re really tired, and I’ll bet those soldiers are, they’ll sleep without one. Playstation and Xbox, heck, television, computers, cds, ipods. Those things don’t have much to do with their mission, do they?

Or maybe your point is that we and by we, I mean you and Goody Brown from the old settlement in Jamestown, shouldn’t be facilitating sexual relationships at all unless they occur between married people at home in their own bed. And somehow NOT providing birth control is going to keep unmarried adults from having sex. In a war zone. When they are scared and lonely. And bored. And facing death on a daily basis. Right…that’s about as likely as turning up those missing WMDs and yellow cake uranium.

.

.

…but Jane thinks…

The healthcare reform bills that passed in the House and in the Senate don’t go far enough; Obama didn’t push as hard as I hoped he would in order to provide universal healthcare in the United States. Yes, the House bill does provide for a public option, but conventional wisdom has it that the public option is DOA when it comes time to resolve both the House and Senate versions of the bill. And this is a tragedy.

Have you ever wrestled an octopus? Healthcare reform has eight sticky tentacles and they’re all pulling me right into that funky beak in the middle to chew me up and spit me out.

One octopus arm is reform. Anybody who’s ever looked at a hospital bill to find that she’s been charged $32 for two Tylenol after a C-section – and seriously, Tylenol?? – knows that healthcare costs are ludicrous. EOB’s with charged amounts, discounted amounts, net amounts aren’t even real numbers. It’s like they’re playing with Monopoly money. The hospital picks a dollar figure from thin air. The insurance company laughs at that number but agrees to pay part. The hospital laughs at the payment, writes off some, bills you the rest, and Bob’s your uncle.

Like the famed $640 toilet seat cover from the good old days of unregulated defense contract spending, health care costs are out of control. This is not news. Waiting weeks to see a doctor? Bad. Denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions? Bad. Denial of services because of what some data processor in an office in Hartford thinks is appropriate for your condition according to form 431.B? Bad. There are plenty of opportunities for the cretins we elect to public office reasonable people to come together to hammer out a plan to reform the healthcare system so that it is more accessible and more efficient.

I’ll be damned, but there’s that octopus again, whacking me in the head with the cephalopodic appendage labeled “philosophy.” Do we, as a nation, have an obligation to provide basic health care for our citizens? Of course, the way this question is posed is in terms of financing: do we, as a nation, have the right to levy taxes to PAY for basic health care for our citizens? Though, for the record, to the first question, I believe the answer is a resounding YES. We do have an obligation to provide basic health care for our citizens. And the Constitution tells us that “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (stet) and general Welfare of the United States…” Doesn’t health count as general welfare? If not, we risk lighting our hair afire in an effort to provide for our own general welfare by employing medieval ear congestion relief techniques.

It is in all of our best interests to promote public health. Sick people are gross, but beyond that, they are gross and costly. For those unfortunate enough to not have employer provided benefits, or who are self-employed, or who work for businesses too small to generate enough cashflow to be able to sustain themselves AND provide insurance for employees still need health insurance. Where to get it? They can go to the insurers and purchase such coverage themselves, but…

Another icy, clammy Octopus arm. Welcome back, Bob’s Uncle. Good luck getting insurance for a premium you can actually afford. Insurance carriers know they have you by the short hairs when you apply for individual coverage, and they like to pull. And they hope you’ll get some kind of infected ingrown hair, too, so they can charge you double. (Note: try Tend Skin. Works like a charm. Not that I have any personal experience with nasty infected ingrown hairs or anything.)

Which leads us to perhaps the biggest, ugliest, slimiest of all octopus arms: the political process. The flaws in the system can be summed up concisely: Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. When these two special-interest, solipsistic boobs can hold the entire reform process hostage while they impose their hypocritical and irrelevant demands on all of us, something has gone terribly wrong. The flaws in the system begin and end with campaign contributions. Follow the money.

So, Dan:

As far as funding goes, though I’m unilaterally opposed to acronyms, I’m all in favor of IMAB, as long as it’s actually run by physicians and not moneymen and politicians. Go ahead, increase taxes on the rich. And go ahead and increase the taxes on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Cadillacs are poorly made pieces of crap, anyway. If fraud and abuse are limited, if everyone is insured so that preventative care and primary care can work, if health insurance companies operate honestly and in good faith and are responsibly regulated, the long term savings gained will more than cover the costs.

Unlike you, I am worried BECAUSE there is only still talk of a public option. If healthcare is required, and we can’t (and I agree) expect every small business to pay for it, then how the heck else is it going to materialize? I don’t think that this would lead to government ultimately running all of healthcare. I don’t see how those dots connect. Public universities haven’t led to the demise of private institutions of higher learning. The existence of social security hasn’t squashed the rapid growth of the private retirement investment market. If competition in the market place works as it’s supposed to, the introduction of a competitive public option would only result in the availability of a better private product.

I totally disagree with your claim that a decline in innovation and well qualified doctors would be the natural result of limiting reimbursements – and, in fact, so does the American Medical Association. For one thing, limiting reimbursements doesn’t mean underpaying doctors, it means cutting fraud and. More importantly, the notion that doctors are only in it for the money is incorrect and even offensive. I’m a public school teacher. I’m sure as hell not in it for the money. Some people choose a profession based on future earnings potential, but lots of people do what they love and what they value and what they feel good about doing and don’t put accumulation of wealth first.

As far as tort reform goes, this is another area in which the Democrats in Congress haven’t gone far enough. It’s time for them to wean themselves of their addiction to funding from the Trial Lawyers Association and get serious about limiting frivolous law suits and outrageous damages claims.

I am, ironically, less hopeful than you are about this bill. I don’t think it goes far enough, and I am heartily dismayed by the compromises that those who were vociferously advocating change have been willing to make. If the compromises between the House and Senate bills can be made without the further manipulation of principle and attachments of special interest booty perhaps it will affect real change. If not, I fear that it is doomed to fail to live up to its billing. Given the weak stomach Americans have for anything less than the kind of victory that elicits endzone dancing and ticker tape parades, perceived “failure” would deflate our collective will to continue to try to improve.

…but Jane thinks…

Please, whatever you do, don’t use Jane, You Ignorant Slut letter head on your letter to Obama, Dan.  I have enough problems as it is without the CIA knocking on my door, or worse, every one in the Tri State Area with an Arabic sounding last name showing up in the driveway.

Also, you totally stole my argument about not allowing unscreened travelers whose journeys originated in Lagos, home of the most dangerous airport ever except for that one that Keanu Reeves drove the bus around for an afternoon at high speeds, to enter US airspace.

By the way, are you complaining about the weed bars and legalized prostitution in Amsterdam?  If so, I think I know what we’re writing about after we try to tackle healthcare reform.

TSA already pulls everybody who might bear a vague resemblance to someone of middle eastern dissent off to the side for “special” screening.   I’m pretty sure even a dark tan gets you at least a special trip to the dude who uses the metal detecting wand in addition to the walk-through.  Your calls for anal cavity searches probably say more about you than your desire for enhanced National Security, but I’ll leave that alone for the commenters who google “lube and latex” to remark on.

I am, despite the fact that I actually tried to apply to ACLU for college not realizing that it wasn’t somewhere I could happily spend four years safely ensconced in the warm embrace of lovers of liberty like myself, all in favor of profile-based screening.   I like my travel like I like my men:  safe and without bombs hidden in underpants.

An initial problem I see with posting TSA employees on foreign soil to do screenings is that they are, as near as I can tell, mostly inept.  There are absolutely some airport security workers who are qualified, competent, and on the ball.  I just haven’t met any of them.

Your analysis of this recent situation overlooks the primary issue, though. They don’t hate us because we’re free, they hate us because we are assholes who have treated them like shit for generations, stuck our military bases in places they don’t belong to try to guarantee easier and cheaper access to oil, despite our protestations to the contrary we have chosen a side in the Arab-Israeli conflict – money talks, bullshit walks let’s remember, and generally stomped on everything in our path because we think we’re better than everybody else.  And because we’re not just assholes, but sometimes we are stupid assholes, we armed the entire region.  Doh!

We can profile.  We can screen.  We can require people to empty their bladders and bowels and fly pantsless while handcuffed to the overhead compartments.  But until we do the hard time required to figure out our own role on the world stage that is both respectful and reflects our desire to lead, we’re still going to have to worry about exploding crotches in the not-so-friendly skies.