Citizens' Daily Lobby

At long last, Citizens’ Daily Lobby is mobile-phone friendly!!

Blanche Lincoln continues to push the limits of the so-called “Big Tent” the Democratic Party has created.   This week, she voted for an amendment sponsored by Republican Jim Demint that would have permanently extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  The amemdment was tacked onto the states aid bill that passed yesterday.   Senator Lincoln was one of only two Democrats to vote for the measure, which would have cost the US $3.1 trillion dollars over 10 years.   WonkRoom has the full story.

It is interesting to note that some Republicans opposed the states aid bill on the grounds that it  “bails out” the states.  That’s right.  When it’s time to bail out banks, no problem.  When states need help, they can fend for themselves.   The fully offset, deficit neutral bill will provide additional Medicaid funding as well as $10 billion dollars to prevent the layoffs of public servants such as teachers and police officers.

In today’s United States, fear of terrorism is being institutionalized at a tremendous rate.  Both political parties are guilty of fear-mongering for political gain.  As legislation to deny US citizens civil rights simply for being suspected of terrorism is proposed, the technology for detecting suspected terrorists grows more sensitive.

Reminiscent of the psychics in Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report, slaves whose predictions of future wrongdoing held the force of law, new technology being tested for airport security is touted as being able to read the intentions of travelers passing through security.  Dubbed “Malintent” by its inventors, the instrument will read physiologic signs like heart rate, body temperature, and respiration rate.  If a person is flagged as suspicious, a second exam will involve a sensitive scan to read facial muscle movement.

Inventors claim the instrument will read 7 emotions and can distinguish between those who are simply stressed and those with actual terrorist intent. It’s beyond the scope of this blog to discuss this issue in detail, but for most diagnostic procedures increasing sensitivity goes hand in hand with decreasing the specificity of detection.  That means that as the false negative rate (number of terrorists who get through security) goes down, the false positive rate (number of innocent civilians who get harassed without reason) goes up.

Let’s roll this instrument out in a little thought experiment.  I will use myself as the average traveler.  I am extremely unlikely to fall under suspicion of terrorism for the simple facts that 1) I am a woman and 2) it is hard to imagine someone more obviously white and of Anglo-Saxon descent than I.  As an opponent of violence, and someone far more likely to participate in a sit-in than a riot, I have absolutely nothing to fear from any security check.

Even so, I start to feel like a criminal the minute I take off my shoes and put my laptop in the bin.  I can’t help it; it’s just in the air. Something about being treated like a criminal tends to make one feel like a criminal.  There are a number of small deceits in which I will engage as I go through the line.  I’m sure you experience these, too.  No matter what sort of mood I’m in, or whether or not I’m running later than intended, I make an effort to look relaxed.  I make eye contact and attempt to appear relatively friendly or at least disinterested.  I absolutely fail to demonstrate irritation, even when the screeners are rude, as they occasionally are, or the person in front of me has liquid in his carry-on.  There’s no reason to give them a reason to pull me aside.   These survival techniques get me through with minimal inconvenience.This works for visual observation.  But what if they could screen my intent?  It’s hardly benign.  My intent is to get through security, pay much too much for a snack, board the plane on time (to sit there for at least 20 minutes prior to takeoff), and avoid having to get out of the minuscule seat, into which I will inevitably be wedged between two heavy-weight wrestlers, for any reason.   I have something to worry about here.  To my poor body, evolved for open spaces and the freedom of foot travel, what I am about to do is, at least, unnatural, and at worst, criminal.   Add to that possible antisocial feelings about work or bad drivers I had to deal with on my way to the airport, and what you have is a physiologic train wreck waiting to be detected by sensitive facial scanning.  Yes, Big Brother, I have committed thought crime.

Once I am flagged as someone with malintent, things will just go straight downhill from there.  Since they won’t find any evidence of criminal intent in my carry-on, luggage, or corpus, they will probably want to get a search warrant for my house and office.  They won’t find anything there, either, but they will read this blog…  If the Constitution holds, I should be just fine.

Business headlines this week gave health reform opponents, and other proponents of trickle-down economics,  something to smile about.  “AT&T Profits Down 21% Due to Health Care Charges” or some permutation of this announcement hit newspapers and blogs, and almost all focused blame on the recently passed health care reform legislation.   “I told you so,” say the Repealers, ” Governmnent intervenes and health care costs go up.”    But that position is misleading.   What’s missing from their equation is the real reason AT&T is losing this money.  You see, AT&T was actually making money through its provision of some prescription drug benefits for retirees.   It’s a complicated story, according to fastcompany.com, and the problem dates from the administration of GW Bush.

The 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, still in effect, gives a tax deduction to companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees. In fact, these companies, including AT&T, can deduct 100%–every single penny–of the money they spend on prescription drug benefits from their taxable income. Thus, AT&T gets to keep a whole chunk of money from being taxed, which basically means they get to pocket more of it. The government even goes one step further and subsidizes (read: pays for) a whopping 28% of those prescription drug benefits in the first place, to make prescription drug benefits as affordable as possible for the companies. The companies get both a 28% discount and a nice tax break, all to encourage them to provide prescription drug coverage.

But there’s a loophole in the law big enough to drive a Chevy Suburban through. These companies get to write off the entirety of their prescription medication plan, even though they’re actually only paying for 72% of it. The new health-care bill simply closes that loophole, and says that companies can still deduct every penny they pay on prescription drug benefits from their taxes–but only the money they’ve paid, not the 28% that the government hands them. That’s where the billion dollars comes from: AT&T is no longer allowed to deduct things they didn’t pay for in the first place.

AT&T (and other companies are almost certain to follow suit) has announced that it is considering reducing benefits as a result of this policy.     The employee, not the shareholder, will once again be left holding the bag.  Perhaps if a public option had been included in the package, these retirees would have a safety net.  As this particular case demonstrates, in many ways a public option would have entailed shifting money from corporate welfare directly to the public.  Don’t let Big Business snow you on this issue.

Last week I was asked by CREDO to vote for my favorite of three anti-Lincoln billboards, one of which will ultimately be erected here in Blanche Lincoln country.  The billboards aim to call the Senator out for her stance on the Murkowski amendment that would take the teeth out of the Clean Air Act regarding CO2 emissions.  The billboard contest was created by CREDO Action and Friends of the Earth.    None of the three proposed billboards is exactly what I would call a triumph of political advertising, and, let’s face it, none of them would exactly resonate with Arkansas voters.  I have said it before, and I’ll be happy to say it again:  if you’re going to mess with Arkansas politics, you should probably know Arkansans.

Billboard number 1, “Senator Lincoln:  Don’t Choke Our Razorbacks.  Hands off the Clean Air Act” comes complete with a non-official Hog cartoon.    Even if the hog were a genuine, NCAA-approved, legitimate Razorback, the billboard would still strike me as condescending.  Not only that, but it’s just not an effective message.   What the creators of this particular billboard probably do not know is that a football coach from the Fayetteville area once famously declared during a public hearing that his high school team “bows down” to the smokestack of a local coal plant and thanks God for that plant.  Money talks.

Billboard number 2,  “Arkansans Love Clean Air, Why Doesn’t Senator Lincoln?” is better.  The problem with this one is that the photo of Senator Lincoln is virtually unrecognizable.  Judging by the photo, the text should read something like “B-r-a-i-n-s…B-r-a-i-n-s.”

Candidate number 3 is simply an official-looking photo of the Senator with the phrase “Corporate Polluters, I support you-Blanche Lincoln.”  Too detached.   Arkansas voters are simply not concerned about “corporate polluters.”

I think I may be able to help these people out.  Here are two billboards that are almost certain to resonate in Arkansas:

As the President prepares for the State of the Union Address, Progressives across the country are still waiting for Gobama.  Wake us when he shows up.

In better news, it looks as if Trijicon, marketers of tactlessly evangelical rifle sights to the US Marine Corps will stop putting Bible verse references on its weapons of war.  Score one for human decency.  The company has graciously agreed to provide 100 free kits to remove existing Biblical references.  Of course, there are thousands of these weapons already in action…

A short post today, as I am suffering from Friday Fatigue and What’s the Point-itis.

A friend of mine passed me a great link today that provides some valuable insight into the MA special election, with nice graphics.  It seems that overall voter turnout in the state was down, but Republican turn-out was up.   Maybe this makes sense in light of the fact that most people only vote if they really think their vote will make a difference.  Democrats turned out heavily for Barack Obama in 2008, largely because of the promise of change, the sense that things could be different.  After observing the first year of Obama’s presidency, with a “majority” of Democrats in Congress,  those of us who were “Hope Democrats” are almost completely demoralized.  No wonder so many stayed home.

If you are feeling guilty and bloated after the Christmas season gift-fest, you might want to consider some ways to decrease your carbon footprint and up your socially conscious buying during the coming year.   Here are a couple of suggestions that have worked well for me during the past year.

1.  Buy locally when possible.   Local foods can be purchased through food clubs in the area, at farmers markets during the growing season.  Local farmers are responding to consumer demands by growing an increasing diversity of produce and extending the growing season as much as possible.

2.  Buy organic.  Production of organically grown foods results in  fewer agrochemicals in the environment, our food, our water, and our bodies.

3.  Buy certified fair trade whenever possible.  Fairly traded means that workers are treated ethically and fairly.  Vote with your dollars to help companies that don’t exploit labor,  foreign or domestic.

4.  Buy resale instead of new.  Resale boutiques are among the fastest growing retail categories, and with good reason.  Reuse of items is an even higher priority than recyling, and today’s resale shops often carry barely-used, fashionable and even designer clothing at a fraction of the original price.    Make it your resolution to buy at least one category of your wardrobe (jeans, sweaters, whatever) used.  This applies to automobiles, household items, and furniture, too.

5.  Buy from small, locally owned businesses rather than from big-box retailers, and eat at locally owned restaurants.  You’ll meet some great people, enjoy fantastic ethnic foods of all kinds,  and help your local economy at the same time.  (And, no, chain restaurants and fast foods do not count, even though some franchises are owned locally).

6.  Eat meat less frequently this year, and give up fast food for good.  Livestock production uses vast quantities of water and creates much pollution.  When you do eat meat, make it locally grown.  Know your producer, and you can be sure that your meat comes from animals that were well cared for and ethically produced.

7.  Buy items in bulk and avoid single-use containers.  Bottled water is out.

Fairly traded and organic foods can be more expensive than the other stuff.  Americans pay an artificially low price for most foods due to government subsidies.  Small, organic farmers do not get subsidized, and prices for their products actually reflect the real value of the food.   The pay-off is that your food will be fresh and delicious, and you will know you aren’t supporting any sweatshops with your purchases.

Good choices for shopping in the Little Rock area:

Fair trade: Ten Thousand Villages (gifts, coffee, tea).  Many grocery stores now carry fairly traded coffee, tea, sugar, and spices.

Resale Boutiques:  Poor Little Rich Girl, Elaine’s Closet, Kaleidoscope (review here).

Restaurants: Use your imagination and the internet.  Next time you go out, look for a new place that isn’t a national chain.

Local Foods:  Certified Arkansas On-line Market, Arkansas Sustainability Network.  Local foods year-round.

Repurposed items, pet supplies, and local crafts: The Green Corner Store

Local Artists: The gallery at the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies.

I respect the work that Jane Hamsher’s organization (Firedoglake.com) is doing to promote and defend Progressive causes.    I cannot respect some of the tactics she employs.   Today I received a message from Ms. Hamsher entitled “Mrs. Lieberman.”  It seems that Joe’s wife, Hadassah Lieberman, is a former insurance lobbyist.  Today, she is employed in some capacity at Komen for the Cure (Global Ambassador).  Ms. Hamsher is petitioning Komen to fire Hadassah, calling her employment there an “inherent conflict of interest.”

I don’t know anything about Hadassah Lieberman’s position on health care reform.  I think she should be given the right to speak for herself and to remain independent from her more famous spouse.  After all, Wendell Potter was also employed by the health care industry, but today he is a strong voice for reform.  Women in this country continue to fight every day for the right to be seen as an entire person, even when they are married.   For many, and I am among them, even the use of “Mrs.” is offensive.

This is sexism at a not-so-subtle level.  It is also a thinly-veiled attack on a respected charity that does wonderful work for women, and Ms. Hamsher is sinking to the level of the GOP with this action.  Perhaps that’s what it will take to win the battle for health care reform.   Perhaps this is a sign of how desperate the battle has become for Progressives.

Thom Hartmann takes what should be very, very discouraging news (that the Tea Party is more popular than the Republican Party) and draws a preposterous conclusion:  that populists on the left and right have a lot in common and should just play nicely.   After all, the Tea Party Populists are sick and tired of bankers and dirty politicians, too, right?  It might be true that populists on left and right could work together, except for the bit about “left” and “right”.    Then, there’s the fact that the Tea Party has been extremely cozy with Big Insurance and Big Pharma this year.  Oh, and the trend for populists on the Left to be more cerebral (as demonstrated by the tendency for Leftists to show up at protests with correctly spelled signage while the Tea Party…you know).    Progressives and Tea Baggage wouldn’t make it past a discussion (firefight) over the 2nd amendment and gun rights.  When you throw Barack Obama and Sarah Palin into the mix, you do not have a recipe for peaceful collaboration.

I thought Tom was smarter than this.