Gates, the Nixon niche, and more
Catching up on summer stories
Gates, the Nixon niche, and more
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Regarding a few events that transpired in my absence:
The arrest of black Harvard academician Henry Louis Gates Jr. blew up into a national story, thanks largely to President Obama's ill-considered decision to wax loquacious on the matter. Not that you asked, but here's my take: Gates was wrong to mouth off to the cop. Not morally wrong, just tactically wrong. Given his admirable lifelong sensitivity to racial injustice, Gates arguably held the moral high ground when faced with the embarrassment of producing an ID in his own home. But, as Colin Powell rightly noted on CNN yesterday, it's generally not wise to heap verbal abuse on a cop. A cop has a gun and a badge - and, quite often, a very flexible notion of what constitutes "disorderly conduct." As Gates quickly learned, you can get arrested on that charge if you're pushing 60, walking with a cane, and yelling at a cop on your own property, without ever presenting a physical threat. That's indeed what can happen when you diss a cop and challenge his authority. Gates would have been better off cooperating in the moment...and reserving the right to sue later.
-------
Watch how grassroots liberals react in the days ahead to the health care reform process on Capitol Hill. Democratic negotiators, in their quest for some kind of bipartisan measure, seem increasingly willing to jettison some of the provisions that liberals deem crucial to the cause of reform - namely, any government-run "public option" health plan, and any language that would require employers to provide health care. If a watered-down reform package ultimately passes and Obama signs it, will liberal voters register their ire by staying home on congressional election day 2010? It's worth recalling that liberal base apathy helped sink Bill Clinton and the Democrats in the '94 congressional elections, following the Clinton health care debacle.
But in fairness to Obama, he's stuck on defense at the moment, trying to assuage the public's most irrational fears about health care reform. During a town hall meeting yesterday, somebody actually asked him whether government bureaucrats would go to door requiring people to fill out forms on how they wanted to die. Obama had to spend valuable time hosing down that ridiculous notion: "You know, I guarantee you, first of all, we just don't have enough government workers to send to talk to everybody, to find out how they want to die...I just want to be clear: Nobody is going to be knocking on your door; nobody is going to be telling you you've got to fill one out. And certainly nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on some bureaucratic law in Washington."
How bold can Obama afford to be on health reform, when there are citizens who actually think this way?
-------
Sarah Palin is clearly planning her future and bidding for the GOP's Dick Nixon niche. In her farewell to the governor's job that she adbicated this past weekend, she customized her pitch to the party's conservative populist base, stoking its longstanding cultural resentments. She went after "the media" and "Hollywood" and other "elites," contending at one point that these purportedly monolithic forces are "hell bent maybe on tearing down our nation." (I love the maybe.) There was a line about how the tear-down conspirators like to employ "delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets" to assault the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, which is all a bit rich, considering the fact that Palin would be nowhere if not for her cachet as a celebrity starlet. She understands, however, that an inarticulate, policy-lite politician can potentially go far merely by stoking visceral emotions, reigniting the old culture war, and laying claim to the Nixon-Agnew template circa 1968.
On that score, she's already hard-wired to conservative Republicans, and rivals for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination will succeed only if they can sever her connection to the base.
-------
The Los Angeles Times ran an interesting weekend interview with Ted Olson, the conservative legal eagle best known for successfully arguing the Bush campaign's case in front of the U.S. Supreme Curt, in the matter of Bush v. Gore. After Bush took office, Olson was rewarded with the job of U.S. Solicitor General. His current passion, however, is very different. He's teaming up with his Bush v. Gore antagonist, Democratic lawyer David Boies, to map a federal court strategy that will culminate in the legalization of gay marriage.
...But wait. Didn't Bush cement his '04 re-election by riding the wave of anti-gay marriage referenda in swing states? And how can Olson reconcile his new crusade with the reality that the GOP's social and religious conservatives remain adamantly opposed to gay marriage?
His answer: "This is about human rights and human decency and constitutional law...I hope some people will open their eyes to the decency of getting to the point where we allow gay and lesbian individuals to be married and have a happy life...It is a conservative value to respect the relationship that people seek to have with one another, a stable, committed relationship that provides a backbone for our community, for our economy. I think conservatives should value that."
Either Ted Olson has the correct read on true conservatism, or he has joined forces with the delicate, tiny Hollywood starlets who (in Palin's read on conservatism) are hell-bent on tearing down our nation. "Maybe."
-------
The latest New Jersey political scandal - which has resulted in 44 arrests (including three mayors, five rabbis, and two assemblymen), with disproportionate impact on Democratic big shots (including a top Democratic strategist who conveniently turned up dead yesterday) - is juicy enough to further complicate Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine's uphill re-election bid in 2009. He could be judged guilty by association, as candidate of the seamy status quo.
But forget politics for a moment, and consider this:
If only David Chase hadn't condemned Tony Soprano to eternal vigilance in that Jersey restaurant, he could have tapped this juicy scandal (the bribes, the diner meetings, the money-laundering rabbis) and mapped an entirely new season.
...But wait, never mind. The show had corrupt Hasidic Jews in season two, and assemblyman Ronald Zellman had a sweet stake with Tony in the Museum of Science and Trucking.
So I guess Life imitates Art - as Corzine may discover to his detriment in November.
NE Philly said - "It stands to reason that if we spend more money per capita on healthcare then our citizens would get more timely, more aggressive (again, more expensive) treatment for their deadly diseases!" ** (1) Your logic is absurd when it immediately associates more money with better product. Shall I give you any of 10,000 examples of things that cost more but are no better than other things, and are in some cases worse? (2) I understand you think it "stands to reason." This is no different than the last blog in which you offered that it was only "common sense" that greater wait times "probably" yield higher mortality rates in England. You're wrong. Mortality rates are higher here in the US, and it's not merely because of lifestyle differences. I will quote AGAIN from the research behind the article YOU posted as evidence: "there clearly are causes of death amenable to medical intervention, such as infectious diseases, for which the US has unusually high mortality." These are INFECTIOUS diseases, not cancer from smoking or diabetes from obesity; yet despite this health care system that you claim is much better at dealing with "nasty diseases," we have unusually high mortality rates where these are concerned. PLEASE RECONCILE YOUR CLAIM WITH THIS FACT. (I apologize for using capitals, but you have ignored this quote three times now. I would like to see it addressed, or I would like to see you simply concede that you have no answer for this fact.)— sully64- phrossty, I wanted to let you know I did read this and you make some good points! The reason the US has higher mortality rates is our lifestyle, not our healthcare! When you break it down by survival from terrible diseases the numbers break in the US's favor. In any case, we will have many more blogs to argue the points, God willing:)— NEPhilly
- @NEPhilly 9:22 am post - 1) "It stands to reason that if we spend more money per capita on healthcare then our citizens would get more timely, more aggressive treatment for their deadly diseases!" OK, then why do statistics suggest we get less successful treatment overall? 2) "[W]e shouldn't tear up our health system and rewrite the rules in 6 days just because the President wants to!" I agree. However, you seem to be missing the part where he's working with a mandate from the majority of the US public. Yes, currently most Americans are satisfied with their healthcare. I believe most haven't taken a good look at how rising insurance premiums are sapping their take-home pay and how that trend will continue at an alarming rate that will dwarf "Big Education's" excesses. Worse, on our current track, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to buy coverage which will cover less and less claims. We keep confusing profit motive (status quo) as a good method for caring for the populace (the moral mandate). It isn't - unless you're collecting serious ducats from IBX, Aetna, Cigna, UHC, etc. Again, I agree that we don't need to tear up the whole thing and start from scratch, but the system is in need of a major overhaul, beginning with the notion that insurance companies are looking to take care of people. They're not, nor should they be. They should be trying to make a buck. We should stop imagining that's for our own good and start looking to "promote the General Welfare" of all US citizens.— Phrossty
- In his 1983 book It's Your Choice, Warren T. Hackett quoted Arnold Toynbee as saying the following: "The release of initiative and enterprise made possible by self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again, after freedom brings opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent; the incompetent and unfortunate grow envious and covetous; and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the golden calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."— NEPhilly
- still, it seems it is a combination of several quotes over the years! See that link I provided, it is very interesting:) What stage do you think the US is in now?— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: now I've found it attributed to even moe people.— still_independent
- NEPhilly: Ben Franklin, I think.— still_independent
- Here is a link about that quote; http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html— NEPhilly
- I found this quote on a businessweek blog, if anyone knows who wrote it, let us know:) ***"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependency; From dependency back into bondage."***— NEPhilly
- sully, sorry I am mostly a 9 to 5'er:) Although I am not a medical professional this study seemed to pick br e@st cancer and prostate cancer because they were least likely number wise to be affected by a persons behavior (no other sinister reason). It also seemed to me the authors were saying that in the US these diseases are detected earlier and treated more aggressively (ie.expensively)! Thus the survival rate from just these two disease! My whole argument doesn't rest on soley this study though, it was just my 2nd shot at looking at the research and most is anecdotal at best:) It stands to reason that if we spend more money per capita on healthcare then our citizens would get more timely, more aggressive (again, more expensive) treatment for their deadly diseases! That being said, my point is that we shouldn't tear up our health system and rewrite the rules in 6 days just because the President wants to! I have said before, the President took 6 months to pick the 1st dog and he should spend at least that much time 'fixing' our health care system!— NEPhilly
- @tr88. Yeah. Dem darkies need to learn there place and stop dissin' da man.
Your post is straight outta knucklehead county. 1st you suggest that Blacks suffering is not a fact by positing "if..." Then you blame the victim. I presume the problem Gates has is that he has made a career as an academic studying "Black victimization" and has likely been saturated with intolerance such as yours that he cannot stomach any more abuse, real or perceived. I'm trying to refrain from referring to you as a racist moron who lowered the intelligence of everyone who read this blog with your posting (as I find ad hominem attacks distasteful and ruinous to an argument), but the shoe fits wonderfully, Cinderfella.
— Phrossty - The problem Gates has is that if Blacks suffer so much at the hands of police why do they actually have to go looking for it when a cop is doing his job? It's a great career move for someone in the lucrative Black victimization industry. Gives him a little street cred. Kind of like a thug rapper looking for a flesh wound. It sells tickets.— tr88
- still: Please don't get in the way of SMike & his daily dose of Liberal Accusations with facts. He held off until 10:17, but had to knock one out before he could go to bed.— yobill626
- I don't have a problem with the police screwing around with Gates if it was simply because he was a loudmouth jerk, as long as his race wasn't the factor. The police have a long history of screwing around with loudmouth jerks, which I'm OK with them keeping. Colin Powell was right. For someone so smart, Gates sure did act like a dope.— yobill626
- swedesboromike: it's a conservative (Vandy) that kicked off the whole argument. No one is avoiding talking about Obama. What conservative on this particular blog brought up Obama's record? None. Guess comservatives would rather talk about a local law enforcement issue than Obama's record, too. .. I do agree w/ you about college tuition. Where do they pretend to be socialists?— still_independent
- Vandy: if a police officer arrests someone KNOWING that there's no way the charges will hold up, then he's either a) grossly incompetent, or b) just acting unprofessionally because he's angry. And yes, they are supposed to know the laws they are enforcing. When you arrest someone, they are charged with violating a specific ordinance or penal code. They can't just be arrested and the police say "just let the lawyers figure it out later." What do you thing they do at a police academy? Just learn to shoot? They spend most of their time in the classroom. ... Assuming you know some cops that you trust to answer you honestly, ask them under what circumstances they'd arrest someone for disorderly in their own home. They'll tell you they wouldn't - unless they were just pi**ed off. As for the Spreme Court thing, once they've ruled that way, then in all SUBSEQUENT cases, the police should be aware. By your "logic", police officers are still unaware of Miranda rights, because after all, that was a court ruling, and they aren't lawyers. For !@#$'s sake, give police some credit. They are trained well, and they are intimately aware of the law, and are keenly aware of what will and won't stand up in court - it's their job.— still_independent
- I think this recent series of arrest in Jersey means the end of Jon Corzine. Even though he's been the first NJ Guv (Dem or Pub) in decades who's taken decisive & drastic action to address their disgraceful budget, he will take the hit on this. I don't see him beating Christie now.— yobill626
- wow.. I purposely stayed out of the discussion tonight so I could see how liberals would rather talk about a local law enforcement issue than Obama's record. I think when this grand experiment is over we should trot up all the big education officials and ask them why they raise their tuition rates at twice the rate of inflation. why the pay college coaches make millions and then raise their tuition rates at double the rate of the evil oil companies. tis time to call " big education " onto the carpet for the capitalist pigs they are. At least they should be honest about it. But pretend to be socialists while reaping the benefits that the wonders this country called America bestows upon you is hypocrasy at its worst. .
- "Your whole argument that police are not lawyers is a**inine (and I say this as it's different - usually, while we often disagree, your arguments are logical and backed up) when you write "the state supreme court can overturn a conviction does NOT mean an officer is wrong when using his/her judgment to make an arrest on the spot". Yes it does. Police are extensively trained on the laws of their state and municipality. By your logic, a cop could charge anyone with anything..." Are you serious, Still? This sounds like a slate.com post. Officers are most certainly NOT lawyers...if they were expected to act as such, there'd be no reason for courts at all, right? Arrests would equal convictions on the spot. THAT is asinine.— Vandy
- Vandy: no, if you are playing your stereo loud enough that it's audible inside your neighbor's home, that's a separate issue (plus there are local noise ordinances). Even if a crowd gathered near his home (do responding officers constitute a crowd?) I thought it was his rudeness/objectionable comments that got him arrested, not his volume. Please keep the story straight. And the only reason he was asked to step outside his home was so that he could ostensibly be arrested for D C. Actually, lots of poeple are convicted of disorderly conduct - it always involves a public place, though. Massachusetts does have "Disturbing the Peace" on the books as well. In any case, the less formal name for Disorderly Conduct (and obstruction, as well) is "POP", which stands for Pi**ing Off Police... Your whole argument that police are not lawyers is a**inine (and I say this as it's different - usually, while we often disagree, your arguments are logical and backed up) when you write "the state supreme court can overturn a conviction does NOT mean an officer is wrong when using his/her judgment to make an arrest on the spot". Yes it does. Police are extensively trained on the laws of their state and municipality. By your logic, a cop could charge anyone with anything - if a judge later overturned it, oh well, it's not like the cop was a lawyer. Finally, I am OK with a world where "citizens can verbally insult officers ... in the course of doing their duty without repercussion" - it's called the United States. Especially when they do it in their own home. Perhaps you are OK with a world where an annoyed cop can arrest you simply because you've annoyed him. I'm not. Do I wish everyone was calm and treated police with respect? Yes. Do I also wish that no crimes were ever committed and we didn't even need police? Yes. But we live in the real world. When you accept the responsibility, when you are given a gun, you lose the ability to react like an ordinary citizen.— still_independent
- "I've also found Mass Supreme Court rulings that clearly state that it must be a public place or a private place where the public gathers." Massachusetts sounds like a great place to live...you can play your stereo as loud as you like and there's nothing your neighbors can do about it, because it's not a place where the public gathers. Of course, a crowd had indeed gathered near the home and the officer is fully within his rights to quell said individual, but don't let that get in the way of anything. Perhaps you are comfortable in a world where citizens can verbally insult officers (a tad more than the flimsy "rude" rationale) in the course of doing their duty without repercussion, but I do not. Also, even taking your argument into consideration, policemen are not asked to be lawyers; the fact that the state supreme court can overturn a conviction does NOT mean an officer is wrong when using his/her judgment to make an arrest on the spot: "Almost no disorderly conduct arrests stand up in court. That's not what the charge is on the books for. It's the law enforcement equivalent of giving a little kid a "time-out." Every state has its own variation. Some call it "Disturbing the Peace." Some states use the "Loitering" charge. Massachusetts, if I remember right, actually calls it "Disorderly Person," not "Disorderly Conduct." But it all amounts to the same thing. If you act up around a cop, you'll spend a couple of hours in handcuffs and a couple of days in a cell and then a judge will send you home a little bit sadder and wiser. No assistant DA is going to prosecute a dis-con." http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013813.html— Vandy
Comment removed.- NEPhilly souce : http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/07/mortality_from.html— hejira33312
- Vandy: where did you find that? I belive the massachusetts stutes Gates was arrested for reads "Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment." ... I've also found Mass Supreme Court rulings that clearly state that it must be a public place or a private place where the public gathers.— still_independent
- NE Philly - You've altered your words a bit. What you first wrote was that "If they [English citizens] get put on separate lists, then those with the govt. plan wait longer to see a doctor and probably have a higher mortality rate as a result!" I see now it's "if you have a terrible, life threatening disease, your chances to survive are greater in the US healthcare system than any other!" You should understand, therefore, that I am not "discrediting" your article. Far from it. The research that your blog entry sites is what discredits the blog entry. One can hardly claim "if you have a terrible, life threatening disease, your chances to survive are greater in the US healthcare system than any other!" and then cite a research report that says "there clearly are causes of death amenable to medical intervention, such as infectious diseases, for which the US has unusually high mortality." If infectious disease mortality rates are unusually high here in the US, it cannot be true that "your chances to survive are greater in the US healthcare system than any other!"— sully64
- Still, a portion of the definition of disorderly conduct: "...makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop." Yelling after a cop about his mama seems unreasonable under the situation, as Gates was not being physically assaulted/threatened.— Vandy
- "Gates DID behave rudely. Was it an arrestable offense? Absolutely not." I disagree; again, he crossed the "rudeness" line--shouting at cops who have the temerity to want to confirm your ID is disorderly conduct.— Vandy
- "How bold can Obama afford to be on health reform, when there are citizens who actually think this way?" He has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House. He can be as bold as he wants. Again, (i) eliminating minimum-coverage mandates and (ii) reforming malpractice insurance (won't happen because the Democrats will never go against trial lawyers) will go a long way toward making insurance affordable, and individual mandates are perfectly fine under that scenario, while still keeping the "Cadillac" plans available for those who wish to pay up for them. (Using the auto insurance example, consumers can get as much or as little coverage as they want.) Increase choice for consumers by tearing down artificial barriers.— Vandy
- OK... That does it. I'm swearing off the html tags with my apologies to the commenters. I'm sorry everyone.— Phrossty
- Vandy: exactly what's the statute covering "showing contempt for those in charge of upholding and enforcing the law"? What's the "he mentioned my mama" subsection? Again, I hold police officers (well, most of them, anyway) in the highest esteem. Gates DID behave rudely. Was it an arrestable offense? Absolutely not.— still_independent
- Posted by Vandy 04:26 PM, 07/29/2009 ".... However, I firmly believe that showing contempt for those in charge of upholding and enforcing the law does justify [an arrest]."
@Vandy - Based on this assertion, I presume neither you nor any of your friends have been on the receiving end of a nightstick or blackjack courtesy of an overzealous "enforcer" of the rule of law. If so, you would view showing contempt as an exercise of a US citizen's 1st amendment rights, even though it may be unkind, unwise and unwarranted. I realize VU is in the South, but it boasts an impressive law school. You should know that suspicion of breaking a law is grounds for an arrest, not "showing contempt." (Unless, of course, it's in court. But that is illegal and subjects the offender to more than mere arrest. So, your assertion has merit, but with respect to judges, not cops.)
— Phrossty - "But Vandy, the man was in his own home, after all. I'm not excusing the rudeness..." But Nigel, your first sentence is an attempt to excuse the rudeness. Where we differ is in the term "rudeness." Rolling your eyes at the cops or being curt with your answers is rude; yelling demonstrably at officers who have had the audacity to demand identification after responding to a report of a potential break-in goes beyond rudeness and into contempt.— Vandy
- But Vandy, the man was in his own home, after all. I'm not excusing the rudeness and bad behavior on either side.— NigeltheMastiff
- NE Philly - Check the last blog entry where you'll see the actual research report from Preston and Ho says exactly the reverse of what your blog article claims. I know. I've read the Preston and Ho report. Have you?— sully64
- "Does rudeness justify an arrest?" No, Nigel, I don't believe it does. However, I firmly believe that showing contempt for those in charge of upholding and enforcing the law does justify it.— Vandy
- As far as the Gates bruhaha goes, it seems to me that what we have here are two egotistical, testosterone-filled males who got into a name-calling match. I think they both behaved badly. But arresting someone in his own home after he has presented proof of identity seems to go too far. Does rudeness justify an arrest? Seems to me they both need to grow up a bit.— NigeltheMastiff
- "Vandy - first of all, no, arresting him was over reacting." That's a subjective statement, and I'm afraid that's where we'll have to agree to disagree, Still. Simply looking at the picture, you don't see cops swarming over Gates to physically throw him down, which would have unequivocally been overreacting. You see Gates screaming at cops who are hardly overreacting to anything. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/20136545/detail.html#— Vandy
You forgot Tony's friend Hesh.— georgel- Comment removed.
- lib, i was inviting you and sully to repost from the last blog as I was posting to both and wanted to be fair:) I was just answering sully's post and the Scotland thing came up 1st on google, but I agree it was not very pertinent! The 2nd article, which sully is discrediting & I posted some of it above, more proved my point that if you have a terrible, life threatening disease, your chances to survive are greater in the US healthcare system than any other! I am looking for more examples. Why not just make tweaks to that system, as far as cost controls, extending coverage & primary care delivery systems (ER compared to a clinic) rather than tear up a system that works for 80-90% of the country?— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: solid, not great. 7-9. Last four seasons, Lee (48-31, 3.77 ERA, 472 K, 161 BB). Halladay (63-26, 3.12 ERA, 600 K, 141 BB). Again, Lee's a nice upgrade, but definitely not nearly as good a pitcher. Both pitchers had one more year left.— still_independent
- NE--thank you for inviting me to paste my responses to you here. You're a gentleman and a scholar. To wit:Reporting statistics from Glasgow to illustrate European health care is hilarious to a Brit (to whom I relayed this) since Glasgow is all-out the unhealthiest place in Europe. It's mostly diet and exercise at work. As for waiting times, in the English system (which incidentally I wouldn't recommend for the US--the French and German systems, on which both the Clinton and Obama programs are modeled, are better) there' virtually no waiting for primary care, preventive care or diagnosis. Doctors even make house calls. The waiting comes in elective procedures. I can't find any statistics on how this compares with US practices, but most Brits think that theirs are longer than ours. The purpose of these waits, of course, is to save money by avoiding the duplication of facilities that we have in the US. We are moving in that direction already, in the private as well as the public sector, so I think our short waiting times are going to become a historical relic, except of course for people who can pay to "jump the queue." Report abuse Posted by liberal 03:00 PM, 07/29/2009 NE--I'm confused. Do you or don't you want to have a healthcare system that allows you and your family to get the best care, even if everybody doesn't have this? That's the system we have here now. And, as I mentioned in my post, that's the system in England, too, which has socialized medicine. So what's the issue for you?— liberal
- still, Lee, the 2008 AL Cy Young winner who turns 31 next month, is having another solid season for the Indians, posting a 3.14 ERA while walking just 33 in 152 innings. He will make $8 million in 2010 and then be eligible for free agency.— NEPhilly
- NEphilly: he's nice for a plan B. Lat year was his only really good season, though.— still_independent
- still, it was my 1st crack at finding some basis to back up my claim that 'you survive longer from a nasty disease here, than over there'! I will try and find some more backup:) Although I am upset to not get Halladay, I am excited to keep Happ and Drabek and add an AL CY Young award winner to the rotation, no?— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: firast on health care - you're looking at a study of two types of cancers, and projecting one aspect of that (5 year survival rates) to the entire healthcare industry. And leaving cost out of the analysis. I could also show you studies that the "mammogram craze" (since you mentioned it) is largely a waste of money in this country - we do them too early, too often for those with no history or risk factors. But of course, we pay by the mammogram... As far as Phillies - BOOO. That means no Halladay.— still_independent
- Vandy - first of all, no, arresting him was over reacting. Secondly, you are asserting "Police respond and demand to see identification when coming upon said man in the home. When asked to speak with the officer outside, the egotistical Harvard professor then shouts, "yeah, I'll speak with your mama outside." " My point was that there are other things in the police report that are being hotly disputed. Why should this be more or less true? The charges were dropped because there was nothing to them. Unless Gates either verbally or physically threatened him, once his ID was established, the cop should have just left. Period. Gates acted stupidly. So did the police.— still_independent
- You know, in this debate about health care, one central issue has struck me. The other day, someone commented using statistics and the small percentage of people in the U.S. without health care coverage. His point was that the percentage is very small, and that evil liberals are always interested in sacrificing the majority for the minority. My reaction to that is simply to say that if he (or I) were part of that small minority without coverage, and one of us contracted cancer or some other serious disease, wouldn't we want to have it treated aggressively? Would we feel like we don't count because we are part of a small minority? Being dismissive of people just rubs me the wrong way.— NigeltheMastiff
- Yippee! ***According to Ken Rosenthal at FOXSports.com, the Phillies and Indians have agreed on a deal that will send pitcher Cliff Lee and outfielder Ben Francisco to Philadelphia in exchange for Jason Knapp, Carlos Carrasco and two other prospects.***— NEPhilly
- sully, I think the article does prove my point and that was the 1st one I looked at! If you have a nasty disease, you survive it better here than in any other country! I imagine we could both find evidence to the contrary and we may have to just disagree on this one:)— NEPhilly
- "All of them thought the cop grossly overreacted." So you're accusing me of taking the police report as gospel, but the opinions of people who weren't there is what counts because you know them? Overreaction would have been physically assaulting the good professor, slamming him into the ground before cuffing him, etc. None of that happened. Give me a break: "Cambridge police union officials want a mea culpa from the White House. A racially diverse group of cops stood side-by-side with Sgt. James Crowley Friday, blasting President Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick for their comments about the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates. "President Obama said that the actions of the CPD were stupid and linked the event to a history of racial profiling in America," said Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association. "The facts of this case suggest the president used the right adjective, but directed it toward the wrong party." Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/24/2009-07-24_harvard_prof_henry_louis_gates_daughter_arresting_officer_.html#ixzz0Mfh8XJMz— Vandy
- sully, so in answer to your inarticulate question, "Show me the dead [English]." I say look in England and not here:)— NEPhilly
- Dark days ahead for the dems, almost all of it caused by their own hand.— CD75
- And the last one and makes you think! ***Of course, American health care delivery is much more expensive, so a natural question would be whether the greater apparent benefits are sufficient to justify the greater cost? To get a very rough answer to this question, suppose generously that the American health care system adds 1 life year on average to persons above age 50 compared to what they would have with the average health care system in the 15 comparison countries used by Preston and Hu. Suppose also that people over age 50 value each additional life year by $120,000 since this is a ballpark figure often used for the average American, the dollar value may be lower (or higher!) for older persons. Given that about 4 million Americans reach age 50 each year, the aggregate value placed on these additional life years with these assumptions would be close to $500 billion. This is a little over 4% of American GDP, so this assumed improvement in mortality rates, even aside from improvements in the quality of life, could justify much of the additional spending by the US on health care compared to other wealthy countries. Of course, the assumption that the American health system produces one additional life year for each person over age 50 may be much too generous, and perhaps older people place a much smaller value on an additional year than $120,000. Still, these calculations suggest that America should hesitate without additional evidence of the type I have used before jumping on the European bandwagon, and conducting radical surgery on the American health care delivery system.***— NEPhilly
- Vandy: and you are taking everything in the police report as gospel. The 911 caller (who, btw, also mentioned that there were suitcases on the porch), vehemently denies talking w/ the officer at the scene - which is in the police report. Do I think Gates was out of line? Sure. Does "disorderly conduct" mean anything more than "you pi**ed the cop off"? No. And I'm saying that having multiple members of my immediate family "in the business" (they're police officers). All of them thought the cop grossly overreacted.— still_independent
- Looks like the NJ Democratic party no longer deserves to be in power. I hope the Republicans do a better job. All of this corruption just proves that we need a couple more viable political parties in this country. I won't lose sleep waiting for this to happen however. The only thing the two established parties can agre on is making sure no other parties get started. There all a bunch of snobby elitists who really don't care about the average American. None of this bodes well for NJ or the country.— James TL
- jmc, you just don't get it...what it was, was a dumb citizen asking a stupid question on a non-existent issue that was planted in the questioner's feeble mind by a mendacious and malevolent wingnut radio hatemonger. Doing something constructive about anything with idiots like these underfoot is like trying to run a marathon in waist deep water.— Yersinia Pestis
- Here is the rest, ***The US also more aggressively treats both these (and other) cancers with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy than do other countries. Preston and Hu show that this more aggressive detection and treatment were apparently effective in producing a better bottom line since death rates from br e@st and prostate cancer declined during the past 20 by much more in the US than in 15 comparison countries of Europe and Japan. US death rate rates from prostate cancer went from about 7% above those of the comparison countries in 1990 to over 20 % below the average of these other countries in recent years, or almost a 30% greater fall in US rates. American death rates from br e@st cancer declined from about 10% above the average of these other countries in 1990 to slightly lower. These results suggest that the US health care system does deliver better control over serious diseases than systems in other advanced countries.***— NEPhilly
- One more try, ***A recent excellent unpublished study by Samuel Preston and Jessica Ho of the University of Pennsylvania compare mortality rates for br e@st and prostate cancer. These are two of the most common and deadly forms of cancer-in the United States prostate cancer is the second leading cause of male cancer deaths, and br e@st cancer is the leading cause of female cancer deaths. These forms of cancer also appear to be less sensitive to known attributes of diet and other kinds of non-medical behavior than are lung cancer and many other cancers. These authors show that the fraction of men receiving a PSA test, which is a test developed about 25 years ago to detect the presence of prostate cancer, is far higher in the US than in Sweden, France, and other countries that are usually said to have better health delivery systems. Similarly, the fraction of women receiving a mammogram, a test developed about 30 years ago to detect br e@st cancer, is also much higher in the US.*** More ahead!— NEPhilly
- sully, here is an article that proves my point, but the sensor doesn't like it; http://www.silobreaker.com/mortality-from-disease-and-the-american-health-care-systembecker-5_2262485027050749952— NEPhilly
- "Gates would have been better off cooperating in the moment...and reserving the right to sue later." And what, praytell, would have been the basis of said lawsuit? A woman calls the police and says a man without keys is breaking into a home. (factually correct) Police respond and demand to see identification when coming upon said man in the home. When asked to speak with the officer outside, the egotistical Harvard professor then shouts, "yeah, I'll speak with your mama outside." He was not arrested for breaking and entering, as Colbert & others have been implying this week, but for disorderly conduct. The charges were subsequently dropped. Even in liberal Massachusetts, that's not much of a lawsuit.— Vandy
- Gee whiz, I wish I could figure out which html tag would prevent the mind-boggling, eye-scorching duplication within a post. Better still, how about an edit key? That way I can update "caving in one one's" to "caving in on one's" to avoid confusion.— Phrossty
- Does shouting at a cop, even in your own home, constitute acting "stupidly?"
Does caving in one one's core principles make one a grassroot liberal or grassroot conservative?
Which came first, the media's infatuation with Sarah Palin or Sarah's infatuation with media coverage limelight?
Uh, someone please help me with "true" conservatism. I always rely on Jonathan Krohn for the top four: 1) Respect for the Constitution. 2)Respect for Life. 3) Less Government. 4) Personal Responsibility. I just havn't been able to find a Republican candidate who truly supports these ideals.
Looks like Corzine's goose is cooked. If the author starts equating his future with The Soprano's, it's likely NJ voters will cancel his show (and swedesboromike will dance on his grave).
— Phrossty 
There it is again. Dumb citizens not knowing their place by questioning the foremost expert in healthcare today, Barack Obama. Where do they get the nerve? Well, unfortunately for our liberal betters, the President has to answer to all the rubes. No "public option" in the bill is a catastrophic defeat for Obama. After all, you can't eventually get to a single payer system (what libs want) without the government having a health insurance plan in the first place.— jmc
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
