Honoré: Send Congress to boot camp

(CNN) -- Like most veterans, the men and women who have worn our nation's uniform to defend this country, I am furious with and disappointed in the state of indecision that plagued Washington these past few weeks. Whether or not to raise the debt ceiling so our country can continue to pay our bills and maintain our global credit rating didn't seem like such a difficult decision.

As a retired, disabled soldier who spent 37 years in the Army, I can only see this debacle -- the weeks of haggling to get to an eleventh-hour deal -- as the definition of "mission failure." At this point, even the last-minute deal that is on its way to President Obama's desk will not repair the damage our elected leadership's amateur-hour, worthless grandstanding has caused.

(read full article)

Of course a literal requirement for congressional leaders to first undergo military boot camp would be a sufficiently high barrier of entry to make it nearly impossible to find nonmilitary candidates; a situation that would inevitably lead to a military bias in congress, but the concept of sending the present congress through boot camp has a certain appeal...

Invasion of the Body Scanners

The news these days is filled with stories of the new backscatter and millimeter-wave body-scanners in airport security checkpoints around the United States. Like many things in America these days, the public coverage of this story is very polarized and most of the public is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, TSA insists that these screenings are necessary to deny terrorists access to commercial aircraft; on the other, many among the traveling public are upset for various reasons.

Some worry about the radiation dose, though that has been compared in the research to the dose one would get from about 20 minutes flying at cruising altitude just from the natural radiation present high in the atmosphere (TSA actually claims on their web site that it's equivalent to two minutes). This may or may not be a valid concern, but it's probably overblown.

Others are offended by the invasion of privacy inherent in having total strangers looking over what are effectively naked images of their bodies.

TSA says passengers have 3 choices:

1. Undergo the body scan screening.
2. Undergo what is referred to as an "enhanced pat-down", a procedure that in any other context would be regarded as sexual molestation.
3. Don't fly.

Moreover, once the security process is started, the passenger is required to complete it, so choice #3 must be made ahead of the checkpoint.

The controversy over the use of these devices, ostensibly in the interest of public security, rages on in the media, but much of the flying public seems to actually be ok with it, convinced that the value in terms of improved traveler safety is worth the intrusion.

Others would say that in effect the terrorists win this round,because they have forced the greatest nation on earth to relinquish some of its rights and freedoms.

We in America are nothing if not adaptable. This controversy has only just begun. It will likely make its way into the court system, where it will take some years before a final decision is rendered. Meanwhile time goes on and Americans will get used to it.

Where did the intelligent Republicans go?

I remember a time not so many years ago when Republican was not synonymous with moron as it sadly has become. Republicans were wrong a lot, sure, but for the most part they were intelligent, educated, articulate, serious people. What happened? When did they become such a pathetic bunch? When did they become anti-education, anti-intelligence, actively ignorant, dominated by right-wing Christians? Why?

Democrats certainly have their share of problems, but at least they're trying to deal with reality.

And then there are the Tea Partiers - decrying the entrenched interests in DC, but themselves mostly just an extension of the Republican Moron brigade.

And where the hell is the 80+% of the population not on one extreme or the other? It's time for the real people to stand up and be heard. Someone has to tell all these wing nuts to shut the fuck up and stop vandalizing America.

Alert: Evolution Suppressed in Connecticut

"Mr. Tangarone, a 17-year veteran of the Weston school system, claims that a program he wanted to teach about Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln was rejected by the school administration because it involved teaching evolution -- the scientific theory that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor."

Mark Tangarone, who teaches third, fourth, and fifth grade students in the Talented and Gifted (TAG) program at Weston Intermediate School, said he is retiring at the end of the current school year because of a clash with the school administration over the teaching of evolution.

"Under normal circumstances, I would have retired in two more years. However, I feel that because of an unacceptable administrative action, I can no longer continue teaching in Weston," Mr. Tangarone said.

Full article

Is this the way public discourse should play out?

From CNN.COM:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressman Earl Blumenauer says he's just a regular fellow "trying to get things accomplished." As a result, the Oregon Democrat tells me, he spends much of his time "looking for ideas that can bring people together -- simple, straightforward ideas that would help people and their families."

And so he proposed the infamous "death panels."

Really.

Before they were Palinized -- and turned into those nasty death panels ready to pounce on Grandma (that "goofy stuff," as he now calls it), Blumenauer had a good idea: help people prepare for the end of life.

As he wrote in The New York Times last weekend, the proposition was simple: "I found it perverse that Medicare would pay for almost any medical procedure, yet not reimburse doctors for having a thoughtful conversation to prepare patients and families for the delicate, complex and emotionally demanding decisions surrounding the end of life."

So, when he began work on health care reform, he included a provision that would allow Medicare to cover a voluntary doctor-patient discussion (only once every five years) about things like living wills, power of attorney and end-of-life treatment.

Oh, the horror.

Talk radio quickly got wind of the proposal when ex-New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey excoriated the measure as a depraved idea that would somehow counsel people to just go ahead and die faster. The absurd notion metastasized. And since Congress is the great lagging indicator, the bizarre interpretation predictably headed toward the floor of the two Houses. Republican leaders were unwilling to balk at a juicy opportunity to fan the flames -- even though the fire was fake. They courageously took on this great cause.

(read full article)

Really now. Is this the way our public discourse should play out?

1. Something is proposed.
   
2. Republicans find a way to twist it into something entirely different and trumpet their "message" to their party faithful.
3. Unquestioningly, they accept this as the message, react with righteous indignation, and repeat the message freely, spreading the meme and further obscuring it from its origin. It takes on a life of its own.
4. Politicians respond to this 'public outcry', as if it somehow turns this false message into truth.
5. The proposal goes down in flames.
   

Come on, people. We can do better. We must do better. This is counterfeit democracy at its worst.

Disruptions drown out debate at health care meetings

From CNN.COM:

(CNN) -- The battle raging over President Obama's health care plan has spread from across the aisles in Congress to across the country.

Senators this week joined their colleagues from the House at town hall meetings as they spent their August recess in their home districts.

But disruptive protests are turning town hall meetings into shouting matches and drowning out discussion over what is and isn't in health care plans in the House and Senate.

Videos of the protests have been circulating on the Internet, showing raucous crowds heckling their congressmen, and carrying posters with devil horns drawn on lawmakers' heads, swastikas or Obama with Adolf Hitler's mustache.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, who had a town hall meeting disrupted by angry protesters earlier this month, said he had never experienced such emotion in his 15 years of holding such forums.

Democratic Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina even had a death threat phoned into his office. A caller said that if Miller supported Obama's plan, it could cost him his life, Miller told CNN.

"Of course we want a full debate. Of course we want people who have dissenting views from the administration and Congress to have a full hearing. But that's not what this is about. That's not the intent of most of these people. It's not the way the press is covering it," Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for TIME magazine, said on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

The protesters' gimmicks, Halperin said, are grabbing the public and media's attention, and valid arguments over the cost and content of the proposals are being put on the back burner.

"There needs to be a debate in America on whether we should have universal health care. There needs to be a debate on the president's ideas. If these protesters have ideas, great. Let's hear them. But if they're just stunts to cause a disruption that gets the media tripped in every time, again, I think it's bad for the country whether you want the president's plan or not," he said.

(CNN article)

Debate is a foundational element of a democracy. It is a critical process in order to arrive at reasonable resolution of any significant problem, certainly of this magnitude. Those trying to disrupt the debate rather than participate in it are distracting us from our civic duty; not participating in it. Certainly they are free to protest (provided they do so peacefully), but under the circumstances, their credibility is suspect at best. Protest should be reserved for the times when the necessary debate is not happening or when important parties to it are excluded. To protest the very debate itself is just pathetic; even stupid.

Obama to move ahead on immigration reform

(CNN) -- The White House is planning to start addressing the nation's immigration system as early as May, two senior administration officials said Thursday.

President Obama will rely on a bipartisan, diverse group of experts to help build the framework for legislation, the officials said.

One official noted that immigration will not be "on the same track" as other key initiatives like health care and energy, and "nobody's promising legislation or a vote this year."

There are roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. In addition to making a way for some of them to stay in the country legally, CNN has learned the Obama administration wants to remove incentives to enter the U.S. illegally, beef up border security and work with Mexico to cut down on illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, the administration is dismissing suggestions that taking on immigration this year will put pressure on Obama's already ambitious domestic agenda.

Moving forward on immigration would fulfill another campaign promise. The president acknowledges that tackling this issue will be challenging.

(full article)

(related opinion piece)

Mr. Obama (and Mr. Navarrette):

The Immigration issue is not only about illegals. These are people who, for whatever reasons (and there are many) are here in violation of our laws. Yes, it's a problem. Yes it requires a solution. Perhaps a path to legalization is appropriate; perhaps not. This can and should be debated.

But what of the fate of the many thousands of people who have come here legally, have done all that has been requested of them, have paid their taxes, paid their attorneys fees, worked hard, struggled with our bureaucracy, all for a chance to become American Citizens so that they can carve out their own piece of the so-called American Dream, vote, pay their taxes, and generally participate in and contribute to our society?

Please take a look at their plight. Many have been waiting years, in some cases over a decade just for a "green card". And our immigration "service" seemingly capriciously, bumbles through its tasks, slips its schedules, and generally unfairly allocates from the immigration status quotas. This system needs a complete overhaul. We need to treat people who've been stuck in this disastrous cycle fairly and approve their requests expeditiously. If we wish to limit the numbers of legal immigrants, we need to do that on the front end, not after they've already been waiting patiently and playing by our fickle rules for many years.

To attend to the needs of illegal immigrants before those of people who've always played by the rules sends the wrong message loud and clear.