I'm not quite so pessimistic as BevD, but it's naive to think you can negate the influence of money in politics.

Loopholes can always be found, and as with the tax code, sometimes complex restrictions work to the advantage of the rich who have the resources to get around them.

Public financing will not stop the wealthy from using the airwaves to influence elections, and established parties will use it to enrich themselves with a high bar stopping third parties from developing.

I want to know who is giving what to whom. Full disclosure of every dollar spent to influence our elections seems reasonable.

Posted at March 14, 2007 11:24 AM in response to A Fresh Start for Campaign Reform

oops

Posted at February 20, 2007 5:59 AM in response to Blogging populism and the political establishment

Oops. Sorry about the multiple posting. Am I a newbie?

Posted at February 20, 2007 5:46 AM in response to Blogging populism and the political establishment

Can we get back to the question Amanda was addressing that so infuriated Bill Donohue?

Is it mere anti-Catholic bigotry for a woman to point out that the Catholic Church openly treats women as inferior as a matter of doctrine?

Do references to God or tradition absolve the Church of this injustice?

(If there were no black Cardinals in the Church at the beginning of the 21st century, I don't think objecting to that would elicit cries of bigotry.)

Why can't a woman be furious at an organization that actively campaigns to restrict her rights with the slander that abortion is murder?

As for Amanda's vulgarity: When the Vice President of the United States tells a Senator to go fuck himself on the Senate floor, I think any discussion about what a candidate's blogmistress (ouch, Amanda) may have said on her private blog has been mooted.

I'm not sure I want to live in a world where people would rather hear Dick Cheney say fuck than Amanda Marcotte say cunt.

Now pardon me (as Scooter will soon be singing), I must go and read my Vulgate.

Posted at February 19, 2007 7:22 PM in response to Blogging populism and the political establishment

Can we get back to the question Amanda was addressing that so infuriated Bill Donohue?

Is it mere anti-Catholic bigotry for a woman to point out that the Catholic Church openly treats women as inferior as a matter of doctrine?

Do references to God or tradition absolve the Church of this injustice?

(If there were no black Cardinals in the Church at the beginning of the 21st century, I don't think objecting to that would elicit cries of bigotry.)

Why can't a woman be furious at an organization that actively campaigns to restrict her rights with the slander that abortion is murder?

As for Amanda's vulgarity: When the Vice President of the United States tells a Senator to go fuck himself on the Senate floor, I think any discussion about what a candidate's blogmistress (ouch, Amanda) may have said on her private blog has been mooted.

I'm not sure I want to live in a world where people would rather hear Dick Cheney say fuck than Amanda Marcotte say cunt.

Now pardon me (as Scooter will soon be singing), I must go and read my Vulgate.

Posted at February 19, 2007 7:19 PM in response to Blogging populism and the political establishment

Can we get back to the question Amanda was addressing that so infuriated Bill Donohue?

Is it mere anti-Catholic bigotry for a woman to point out that the Catholic Church openly treats women as inferior as a matter of doctrine?

Do references to God or tradition absolve the Church of this injustice?

(If there were no black Cardinals in the Church at the beginning of the 21st century, I don't think objecting to that would elicit cries of bigotry.)

Why can't a woman be furious at an organization that actively campaigns to restrict her rights with the slander that abortion is murder?

As for Amanda's vulgarity: When the Vice President of the United States tells a Senator to go fuck himself on the Senate floor, I think any discussion about what a candidate's blogmistress (ouch, Amanda) may have said on her private blog has been mooted.

I'm not sure I want to live in a world where people would rather hear Dick Cheney say fuck than Amanda Marcotte say cunt.

Now pardon me (as Scooter will soon be singing), I must go and read my Vulgate.

Posted at February 19, 2007 7:16 PM in response to Blogging populism and the political establishment

And congratulations on the last election. The returns on election night were the best TV in a decade. Riveting. Must see. A thriller till the last vote was counted in Virginia. Thanks.

Posted at January 29, 2007 3:18 PM in response to Positively American

With all due respect, your goal of reducing childhood obesity by 50% is unrealistic. It is far too early to try to treat a condition for which we have no known treatment or good understanding of the underlying causes.

The evidence that any program of diet and exercise have long term benefits for the obese, is weak at best. And if we had such evidence, we would certainly apply these strategies to the adults who are at more immediate risk. Are we getting thinner yet?

When we came up with the 'statins' to treat high cholesterol, we did not start with the children, but with the adults. Kids aren't dying of obesity, adults are.

The downside to this is that you will encourage a dieting culture which is doing more harm than good. It just makes overweight adult Americans feel they are doing something about obesity--make the kids diet.

Want to help obesity? Spend the millions that this misbegotten idea requires, on research instead.

I am an internist with more than a quarter century experience with this subject. This may play well politically, but know that it is hokum, if not pernicious, from a scientific perspective. And a spectacular waste of resources.

Want to help the kids? Check out the immunization rates in your state. We could use the money there. And why isn't the anti-cervical cancer vaccine (Gardisil) required for entry into high school, when the CDC recommends that it be?

Make the anti-science, anti-sex crowd stand up and say they are against vaccination for children.

Posted at January 29, 2007 3:15 PM in response to Positively American

Certainly there were multiple factors involved, including oil and Oedipal ones, but the over-riding one was electoral. Bush/Rove are NOT committed to any philosophy except money and power. There are many examples (fetal stem cell research, etc) of sacrificing the most sacred beliefs on the altar of politics.

But the GWB whitehouse was LOST after 9/11 until they realized they could milk it. And milk it they have. In 2002 and in 2004. The neocons, and Bush's antipathy for his father's relatively nuanced foreign policy contributed gave political cover and a psychological rationale for Bush, respectively, but if you don't think Rove had the final say, you ain't paying attention to how these guys operate.

Posted at May 2, 2006 1:15 PM in response to Whose Side Are You On?

It was painfully obvious to all but the most naive and self-deluding, around the world, that the Iraq war was a non-sequitur and cooked up for electoral reasons more than military LONG BEFORE the war began.

Matthew Yglesias continues to "educate us" as a way of apologizing for his being conned by Bush before the war.

Conned by Bush. Not easy to swallow is it?

Posted at May 1, 2006 7:22 PM in response to Whose Side Are You On?