Apparently there is no healthcare problem

This opinion piece from the East Valley Tribune just shows how short-sighted and dumb some people in the news media can be.

The piece entitled "Shadegg has a point about healthcare" argues that no one really goes without healthcare. After all, we have a system that provides reduced or free healthcare if you cannot afford to pay or don't have insurance. Don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of running a system this way.

Ok Mr. Le Templar, while factually true that we do not turn away people in dire need of healthcare would you admit that with about 45% percent of bankruptcies being related to medical expenses that we still have a huge problem.

The problem is that the middle class gets screwed in our current system. If you are very poor, there are programs to help. If you are very wealthy it is likely that you have an employer who provides health insurance. That leaves people in the lower and middle class in a lurch if they lose their job or cannot buy healthcare on their own. I personally have been in the unenviable situation of trying to decide whether it was worth going to the doctor to have something checked knowing full well that my insurance would only cover a small portion of the cost and would likely drop or greatly increase the cost of my coverage the next year.

I doubt I am alone in making that calculation. There are many times when individuals decide to go without vital medicine or avoid going to the emergency room or doctor because they hope their problem will go away without a two or three day hospital stay putting them thousands of dollars in debt.

There is also a larger problem. The only reason I am no longer running my own business is because of healthcare. It was not that I could not afford my premiums, it was that as a two to three person company our insurance was always at risk. I could not ask my family to risk going without healthcare for the sake of my personal ambition. The satisfaction of doing what you love and being your own boss sometimes takes a backseat your family's well being. There is also the fact the no matter how much I wanted to provide insurance to my employees, it was simple financially out of reach.

I think what you are referring to is a distinction without a difference. Your argument is both specious and asinine.

Thomas Watch: Thank God for the New Times

Once again, the New Times runs circles around the Arizona Republic when it comes to political reporting. This article properly covers the on-going State Bar investigation of Thomas. Let's just say that the Republic only reported part of the story. (I know, it is hard to imagine)

Email whisper campaigns and Obama

I have heard a lot of grousing lately about the whisper campaigns happening via email. The part that is bugging me are the supporters that are crying about how unfair and underhanded it is. While that maybe true, I just want to remind everyone that (once again) there is no excuse for losing a political campaign. If Obama's campaign cannot figure out an effective strategy against these sort of smears (assuming the smears are a major factor) then tough, you don't win.

Ultimately, campaigns are a meritocracy. The best candidate and campaign win. I don't care about how underhanded the Republicans become we must respond effectively. Bitchin' is not an effective response...

Nuclear power and Oil

Lately, we hear a lot from conservatives that nuclear energy must be part of our energy solution. The reasoning is usually based on nuclear being a low carbon producing source of energy. There are a couple major problems with nuclear power beyond the obvious environmental issue of how to dispose of waste.

First, nuclear power is not a bargain. Here is why. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build. Regulation is partly to blame, but my right-wing friends you must have regulation when an accident can wipe out a city. Althought the cost of production is relativly low, the up front costs are enormous.

Second and more often overlooked is that uranium is not necessarily a good hedge against energy prices. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear power is not fundamentally different than fossil fuel based power generation. You are still essentially burning, using or destroying a material to produce energy. In the case of nuclear power, the power source lasts longer and contains a lot more power per unit of mass. Here is the problem, uranium is mined in many of the same places that oil is extracted. It is subject to conflict disruptions, speculation and price spikes. I noticed this today on Bloomberg. At the moment, the price of Uranium is quite low historically. But notice that the low price of uranium is spurring the building of nuclear power plants by you guessed it, India and China.


Perhaps it is time for us to take a more innovative approach to energy policy. Everyone in the world needs clean and cheap power. We should lead, not follow... We need to invest heavily in new technologies and license those products to American companies. We should solve our energy crisis and create new jobs and industries here. Perhaps nuclear power can be part of that solution, but the current breed of nuclear power generation is too costly and inefficient to be useful.

Thomas Watch: Once again Andy whimpers when he doesn't get special treatment

I have never known a bigger cry-baby in public office than our good friend Andy Thomas. He has been upset for a while because he being investigated for his misconduct, like every other lawyer. The Arizona Republic has the response from the Bar Association.

Basically the response is cool your jets Andy, we have not even charged you with anything. He objects to the Bar Association even investigating his alleged (real) misconduct. We all know you are special Andy, but we always thought it was in a different short-bus sort of way.

Good time to kill a stupid system

The East Valley Tribune has this article about the crisis in the student loan system. Perhaps it is time to do away with private indentured servitude of the current system and build one that makes more sense.

I have been very clear where I stand on this issue (education should be free), but I am well aware of the slim to none nature of it. Perhaps, if there was less capital in the system we will see the same price drop as in the housing market.

I am curious gentle readers, do you think college costs could be like housing prices? Would a drop in enrollment cause a drop in tuition. Of course, that would be a disaster for our country, but this is more an intellectual exercise.

Oh, Arizona Republic how do you get it wrong so often

This article about offshore oil drilling from the Arizona Republic shows just the kind of problems that exist with reporting today. The Republic has a default bias towards Republicans, but it is not too egregious. The real problem with the Republic is that they no longer have the resources or inclination to take a comprehensive look at an issue.

Oil is a pretty simple issue and I don't understand why the paper payed attention to the least important aspect of the opposition to offshore drilling. Yes, there are tons of environmental problems that go along with drilling for oil. But how can they write an article and not even point out the highly unlikely nature of his ideas suceeding. Primarily, that most experts agree that it will not change oil prices anytime soon, if ever. At best, it probably slows the increase in prices. If George Bush announced he was going to flap his arms for future air travel would the Republic point out that Democrats oppose his wing flapping because they are afraid he would be drunk when he flies or the fact that he cannot really fly?

How about saying that Democrats oppose it for environmental reasons and expert agree that it will do little to change oil prices. Ah, yes the truth...

The oil production myth

Just yesterday George Bush said that he wanted to increase domestic oil production to elevate gas prices. Unfortunately, the idea is laughable. I suspect our oilmen in chief know it...

Here is the basic problem:

• World oil production is 82,532,000/day. The US currently produces 5,102,000/day. The US alone consumes 20,687,000/day. World-wide consumption is 83,607,000/day.

Let's assume that we extract significantly more of than our current output, lets say we make it back to our peak oil production in 1986 of about 10.2 million barrels/day. Since oil would be sold on the open world market it would increase world oil production to 87,634,000/day or an increase of 6%. If you make the likely incorrect assumption that demand does not increase (doing simple math I know) you at best could expect a 6% decrease in oil prices. That would reduce today's price from $136 to $127/barrel. Unless my small government friends want to nationalize all remaining oil reserves and keep them in the country, this will only serve to help oil companies.

• Untapped reserves will take years to begin producing.

Even if we begin today it is likely that market forces will change the game before any of this oil comes on the market.

• Finally, we have picked the low hanging fruit world-wide as far as oil reserves are concerned. The remaining oil reserves are more expensive to extract. Increasing production costs lead to you guessed it, higher prices. It is not inconceivable that we could see the new oil reserves makes their way onto the market with a significant additional cost component (greater than say 6%?).

Want more info: go here and here

So, my Republican friends please spare me your non-sense. BTW -- if you want to advocate off shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, please do it before the election, so we can lock up the state in the Democratic column.

Update: I just ran across this timely article on Salon.com and this one from the NY Times.

Grill? Oh, you mean throw softball questions...

The Arizona Republic has a strange headline on an article discussing questions Joe Arpaio got on a radio show. It is not a huge deal, but it really shows the Republic's thinking on the matter of tough questions to ask a politician.

In case you don't want to read the article, let me give you an overview of the questions:

Sheriff Joe you are doing God's work, why are so many people trying to stop you from protecting our country? Why are you so great Sheriff? Why do immigrants kick their dogs? and so on...

Here are questions I would like to ask him:

Joe your office costs Maricopa County millions of dollars every year because of your gross negligence and mismanagement, should tax payers continue to be responsible for the checks your media-whore ego continues to write?

As Sheriff you have two basic responsibilities, running the jail and serving warrants. Why should we continue to elect you when you don't do a good job running the jail (cost overruns, poor management, inability to get prisoners to court, etc) and there are 40+ thousand unserved warrants? My real question is, what do you do all day?

Why are we helping the good people of Honduras when you have a budget short fall in your office that is affecting the execution of your public responsibilities?

Just a thought...

Relax, HRC supporters are not jumping to McCain

This article from Slate does an excellent job of explaining the whole HRC supporters for John McCain issue. It is not that they don't exist or don't matter, it is just that the Obama campaign should not get lost in trying to convince the unconvincible. Most of the die-hards who don't like Obama will eventually come-around, but there will be a noisy contingent who will not.

Trying to convince them otherwise is a waste of time and frankly not that important to the election. That is very different than the sizable group of HRC supporters that would still prefer her over Obama, they are hugely important. Just like Dean and Edwards supporters were hugely important to John Kerry.

Yes, this guy would make a good President

Don't fear the reaper Bobby (he won't get you)

Bobby Jindal apparently believes in demons and has participated in an exorcism. How did so much dumb stick to him after attending Brown and being a Rhodes scholar?

WOW

There are sooo many jokes here... brain overwhelmed... cannot hold volume of ridicule... overload....

Good discussion of McCain's Arizona problem

While I doubt that Barack Obama will win the state of Arizona, it is certainly possible with right culmination of events. This article gives a pretty good overview of the current situation.

The fact is that many local conservatives despise John McCain. While they are not going to cross-over in significant numbers to vote for Obama, they might stay home in large enough numbers to affect the outcome or at least make McCain sweat.

The simple fact is that Democrats are going to vote for Barack Obama and he is doing well with Independent voters. When you add the fact that many Arizonians have no history with John McCain because they are new residents, it really presents a potential problem.

Having said all of that, unless Obama is headed to a major national landslide I would expect many undecided voters to swing to McCain. I still think the article makes the most likely call that the race will end up 55 to 45 McCain. The prospect of a Ron Paul or some other strong Libertarian candidate has to keep McCain's people up at night.

Feminism has come full circle

This article from Salon is really interesting to me for a couple of reasons. The article addresses the strained relationship of Alice Walker and her daughter Rebecca Walker. It approaches their relationship from a distinctly feminist view point. Basically, the author bemoans how feminist ideology has become another of many possible impediments to mother-daughter relationships.

The interesting thing to me is that the portrait of Alice Walker very much reminded me of my own overly ambitious, distant, uninterested father. I could not help, but think that feminism has largely come full circle. The last step is recognizing that highly talented, passionate and driven people are often cruel, self-centered and egotistical. This is true whether you are a man or woman. While I am sure Alice Walker was also driven by her ideology, I think it is more than likely that, (gasp) all woman are not nurturing, they don't all love children and they can have the same lofty-overwrought ambitions as men. Alice Walker is probably not much different than James Joyce, Pablo Picasso or Miles Davis; all supremely ambitious and fabulously talented and full of contradictions that cared less for domesticity than for making a mark of world. Unfortunately, people rarely make a lasting mark on the world and have a warm and loving home life.

McCain just another politician

I thought this was a really interesting look at McCain. Of course, it came from a foreign paper which explains the balanced and nuanced coverage. My feeling is it that shows John McCain to be your everyday run of the mill ambitious politician, not that different from any other presidential contender in the past. He is certainly no saint or maverick. When you couple his behaviour in this article, his involvement with the Keating 5 incident and his more recent problems with lobbyists, I think it shows him to be someone who maybe has ideals, but has trouble abiding by them when they conflict with his own ambitions.

The contrast with Obama and Rezko, I think is telling. When Obama was asked about Rezko's purchase of property adjacent from his, he admitted that it was a dumb mistake and that it could legitimately raise questions. I believe that Obama sees this as a mistake that he has learned from and aims to avoid in the future. I am not sure you can say the same of John McCain.

Thomas Watch: Our Candidates Talk to You

Democratic Diva and A Democrat's Lament are teaming up to help everyone get to know our County Attorney candidates. I would encourage you to give money and volunteer for one or both of them. In my opinion, this is the most important race in Arizona this year. I listed Tim Nelson first because Gerald Richard is listed first on Democratic Diva.

TIM NELSON COMMENTS:

Hi, this is Tim Nelson, Democratic candidate for Maricopa County Attorney. I want to thank Democratic Divas and A Democrat’s Lament for giving me this opportunity to cross-post on their blogs.

I have been a proud Democrat my entire life. Democratic values — opportunity, justice, and security for everyone willing to work hard and play by the rules – are the core values I was raised with and have embraced throughout my life. I have put those values to work for scores of Democrats at both the state and national level, in both a paid and volunteer capacity.

I have been active in local Democratic politics since the day I arrived in Arizona back in 1994 when my friend, Congressman Sam Coppersmith, was running for the U.S. Senate. Since then I have worked on many Arizona Democratic campaigns.

I am perhaps most proud of my work with Governor Napolitano. I first worked with her in 1987, during a summer internship when I was in law school. When she ran for Attorney General, I was proud to volunteer for her campaign. Two years later, I was honored to join her staff as Special Counsel.

She really epitomizes for me why it is so important to elect Democrats whenever possible. She kept the focus on running the office in a professional manner and working on problems that affect the average citizen trying to pay the bills and raise a family in peace. While I was there, I was responsible for making sure that big tobacco lived up to their promises in the large tobacco settlement of the late 1990s. I sued to force RJ Reynolds remove its Winston brand cigarette advertisements from a racetrack in Arizona. I also held Arthur Andersen accountable for defrauding our senior citizens and secured a settlement of $217 million that recouped much of the money they had lost. Before the Arizona Supreme Court, I won the right for individual citizens to initiate their own antitrust lawsuit, a big victory for consumers.

When Janet Napolitano was elected Governor, she chose me to be her General Counsel and I spent five great years advising her on a wide range of policy and legal issues, writing her veto messages and executive orders.

In February I left that job to take on an important task: defeating Andrew Thomas for Maricopa County Attorney. Andrew Thomas has been a uniquely bad public servant. He has wielded his great powers of issuing subpoenas and convening grand juries in abusive and un-American ways. His office’s attempt to arrest the New Times editors is only the best known example.

He has also corrupted the office by giving millions of dollars in contracts to campaign contributors; using public funds promoting himself; and initiating witch hunts against political opponents like Attorney General Terry Goddard.

The Maricopa County Attorney has several key tasks: issuing legal opinions to guide the actions of county agencies; representing them in court when needed; and most importantly, supervising the prosecution of criminal and civil cases. These are exactly the things I have been doing for the last twenty years at the highest levels of the public and private sectors. I believe that this makes me uniquely qualified to be your next Maricopa County Attorney.

My campaign is off to a tremendous start, I have received a true outpouring of popular support from people throughout the county. I have volunteers phone banking on my behalf, people opening up their homes for fundraisers, citizens telling their family and friends about my campaign.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss my campaign. You can read more (and contribute to my cause) at www.timnelson2008.com. I hope to have the chance to tell you more about my campaign and my ideas about improving public safety in the months ahead.

GERALD RICHARD COMMENTS:

I don’t need to dwell on the reasons we need to defeat Andrew Thomas this fall. As County Attorney, he has diverted resources away from prosecuting violent criminals to persecuting immigrants charged with “smuggling themselves.” His wiretapping of the Serial Shooter suspects without a court order could jeopardize the expected convictions in the case. Thomas has cut training for his staff attorneys by 90-percent, creating the need to spend 11-million dollars hiring outside law firms (that coincidentally helped pay for his election campaign in 2004). He has spent more than two-million dollars on billboards, booklets and TV ads that primarily promote himself. And he has signed off on the arrest of newspaper publishers and invading the privacy of their readers.

So the only question is, who is best qualified Democrat to succeed Thomas?

I have 22 years experience as an attorney in law enforcement. I have prosecuted violent felony criminals before a jury. In my 19 years with Phoenix Police, I have been at the crime scenes at 2:30 in the morning. I have been a credible link between the department and the community. My experience is relevant to the job I am seeking.

The County Attorney’s Office is a multi-million dollar organization with nearly one-thousand employees. With Phoenix Police, I supervised four departmental units with budgets totaling 67-million dollars. I administered federal, state and local grants of another 62-million. Again, my experience is relevant to the job I am seeking.

I ask for your support, your monetary contributions and your vote in the September 2nd Democratic Primary. My name is Gerald Richard, candidate for Maricopa County Attorney.

Gerald’s website is: www.richardforcountyattorney.com.

Others said it better, but this is why HRC lost

I have had this thought for a while, but lucky for me someone said it better than I could. The simple reasons she lost are two fold: the war and bad strategy.

Obama would not have had an opening without the war. Back when he entered the race, the only reason I considered him over HRC was the war. I was simple waiting for her to say it was a mistake to vote for it and that she learned from it. Her inability to admit the mistake pushed me to give Obama a long look. That is how I became a supporter.

The second problem I have written about previously. Her campaign ceded so much ground to Obama in the caucus states that he won the nomination based on that. Argue all you want about the validity of caucuses, but like it or not you don't cede any contest when the delegates are given on a proportional basis. Her campaign never seemed to wake up to the problem.

Congrats to Barack Obama for winning the nomination. It is time for everyone to hold hands, sing kumbaya and then elect a Democratic president.

Now for a little levity...

This article from the Huffington Post made me laugh (in an very adolescent Beavis and Butthead sort of way). No offense to either of the people cited, but here is money quote:

UPDATE 12:25 PM Tuesday, June 3:
Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick and Congressman John W. Olver have endorsed Barack Obama. DNC Members Debbie Dingell and Rick Wiener also endorsed Obama.

I know it is adolescent and immature, but Obama locked up Cheeks, Dingell and Wiener today, so you know he has the nomination in the bag...

A sad state and a good compromise

The Rules Committee ruling yesterday was both sage and fair. However, I fear that we are heading for a very close election in the Fall because of the actions of HRC and her die hard supporters. The wounds inflicted through this process, I fear will not be soon forgotten.

I have to admit that I don't fully understand the ferocity of the anger many of her supporters feel. Anyone involved in politics has felt the disappoint and frustration when our chosen candidate loses a close election, but most of us subscribe to a higher good and we believe the Democratic Party represents the best vehicle for achieving our policy goals. Some of her supporters feel robbed by a fair process that was governed by clear rules. HRC had every advantage going into the process, but chose to ignore caucus states and run as though she was an incumbent.

I want to be unequivocal in my statement: I hope that HRC's supporters will come back to the Democratic fold. They are a large and important constituency in our party (I think most of them will), but let me be very clear, anyone considering voting for John McCain after eight years of Bush and the disasters he has wrought is not a Democrat. If you value the election of Hillary Clinton over the swing of the Supreme Court and the rights at stake, you are not a good American. If you think we are better off with four more ruinous years of Republican policies then you don't care about the future of this country. We have no room for you in our party.