American Politics 18

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Obviously just calling them social leeches is not the way to go.

Apparently it isn't obvious :P

[Frog Eater]

mcbigski, I find a far more plausible explanation is that most married women in the US have a crap life, and being bitter, vindictive people, they prefer to vote Republican since that's a party that screws over most people.

WTF is this comment? Married Women live a crap life? Are you 12? Or just really out of touch?

[DanteGabriel]

WTF is this comment? Married Women live a crap life? Are you 12? Or just really out of touch?

Turn on your irony detector.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

The weird thing is they've already admitted that report isn't ... thorough: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10...ahip-report.php

Does anyone have a link to the statement itself (is it even online)? My googling only turns up liberalish blogs reporting this, which I don't think will be very useful ammunition.

[Annelise]

Apparently it isn't obvious :P

Yeah I guess. It just amplifies that "if you're not married and producing Christian babies (preferably staying home w/them to forestall the total decay of our society but definitely work if your husband can't bring home a big enough paycheck instead of mooching off the rest of us), the GOP doesn't give a crap about women or their interests" vibe.

[Arthmail]

Max:

Here's a link from CNN - at least its mainstream, reporting on the pushback against the report. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/13...report.fallout/

[Annelise]

On the climate bill:

The pairing of Democrat John Kerry and Republican Lindsey Graham on global warming, even if only to pen an op-ed column and not actual legislation, is a step forward for the climate bill.

Just how big of one and how many more steps there are before a bill becomes law is the subject of debate.

On Sunday, Sens. Kerry (Mass.) and Graham (S.C.) wrote in The New York Times that they were “convinced†they had found a “framework for climate legislation to pass Congress†and a “blueprint for a clean-energy future.â€

As the words suggest, there is still a lot of work to do.

Kerry and Graham drew broad strokes as to what a climate bill could look like: more support for nuclear energy, some mechanism to control energy costs and a tariff on goods from countries without a carbon cap.

But the lack of specifics didn’t dampen the spirits of supporters who have heard for weeks from pundits that a climate bill couldn’t pass this year.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/627...orters-new-hope

Saw Graham was criticized for crumbling and annoying fellow conservatives for nothing (the idea being that a climate bill will never make it through the Senate).

[TerraPrime]

This brings up something interesting. I have heard that part of the reason that the US has not made more of a move to nuclear power is due to environmentalists. Is this true?

Well, more like, NIMBYists. I'm sure they use environmental concerns somewhere in their justification, but, I'm not really buying it.

[alguien]

With regards to the latest news on healthcare, both the Monday's "study" and the bill passed that just passed in the Finance committee of the Senate...

I cannot help but wonder if all of this was timed on purpose. What I mean is, the fairly erroneous and faulty report might have galvanized the Finance Committee into passing the Baucus bill. I mean, it does seem to be firing up the politicians in Washington in faux righteous rage.

But what if that's what the insurance companies wanted? I mean, what if they recognize the fact that change is coming and are trying to cut their losses?

I mean, as I understand the Baucus version of the bill, it would impose restrictions on insurance companies, but there is no public option in it yes? It seems like if insurance corporations, barring no reform, would tolerate any bill to pass, it would be this one.

Maybe this was their way of provoking a bill as sort of damage control? Or maybe I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist. :)

When I read how much campaign contributions and lobbyists from insurance companies senators like Baucus have, it just seems sort of crazy.

On another note, I would sure hate to tell anyone if I worked in insurance right now. It seems like it has become almost as a maligned position as AIG.

[Shryke]

This brings up something interesting. I have heard that part of the reason that the US has not made more of a move to nuclear power is due to environmentalists. Is this true? It actually sounds counter-intuitive to me. Isn’t nuclear clean as Hell (providing that no accidents happen of course)? I know that France has been very successful with their nuclear program and there have been no accidents. I know that lots of people in the US of all stripes have used the “don’t want it in my back yard†argument against nuclear. But I can’t imagine why we could not use more of it as a country.

NIMBY + Anti-Nuclear Hippies + Three-Mile-Island Paranoia => No Nuclear

People are really fucking stupid sometimes.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that idiot Carter banning Breeder Reactors.

[Shryke]

Also, some funnies: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/10/to..._is_fizzlin.php

Top Ten Reasons Why The GOP Website Relaunch Is Fizzlin'

10. In a section devoted to "future leaders," there were none.

9. In the subsequent rush to get up a "future leaders" page, they choose "you."

8. The last GOP accomplishment cited on the accomplishment page was from 2004.

7. The what's up page -- hip! starts with this sentence: ""the internet has been around for a while now"

6. Administrator passwords were accidentally posted.

5. When the RNC hosted a kick-off conference call, the website was down.

4. The website cites Jackie Robinson as a GOP hero. Robinson wasn't a GOPer, and he criticized the GOP on race. Robinson left the party because of its views on race. He had been, as a reader points out, a Republican for many years.

3. The first question on the conference call was from an Hispanic Republican who asked why the GOP site didn't have a Spanish-language page and noted that the White House had one.

2. Bragging about web redesigns is so 2004.

1. It's not timed with the start of any major advocacy campaign -- or political campaign. And it portrays itself as something it's not: diverse and ready to embrace new ideas. That may be what the party leadership aspires to, but, at least when it comes to diversity, a few pictures of Hispanics and African Americans doesn't make up for ... well, the history of the party.

[Elrostar]

Waste disposal is a very serious issue with nuclear power. It's certainly is a NIMBY problem which no-one seems willing to deal with (Yucca Mountain, anyone?), but at the same time, if it were REALLY so safe, then we could be putting these waste disposal sites anywhere, not just under mountains in the middle of nowhere.

The problem is that problems are continually being turned up regarding disposal of waste. Mismanagement of it, bad storage containers, waste disappearing... there are a lot of serious problems that get swept under the rug.

Now I'm not saying that it's a zero-sum game, of course. And nuclear power does have advantages, certainly (over coal, oil, etc.). But waste disposal is really an issue, particularly when it comes to the long-term picture. How do you deal with stuff that's going to be deadly for thousands of years?

[Shryke]

Waste disposal is a very serious issue with nuclear power. It's certainly is a NIMBY problem which no-one seems willing to deal with (Yucca Mountain, anyone?), but at the same time, if it were REALLY so safe, then we could be putting these waste disposal sites anywhere, not just under mountains in the middle of nowhere.

The problem is that problems are continually being turned up regarding disposal of waste. Mismanagement of it, bad storage containers, waste disappearing... there are a lot of serious problems that get swept under the rug.

Now I'm not saying that it's a zero-sum game, of course. And nuclear power does have advantages, certainly (over coal, oil, etc.). But waste disposal is really an issue, particularly when it comes to the long-term picture. How do you deal with stuff that's going to be deadly for thousands of years?

BREEDER REACTORS

Unillegal that shit and you've only got to deal with waste for 100 years, tops.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Also, some funnies: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/10/to..._is_fizzlin.php

Well according to Michael Steele

"It's not even really a website."

[Mad Monkey]

Top Ten Reasons Why The GOP Website Relaunch Is Fizzlin'

Honestly, it's not as if conservatives voices don't have any web presence right now. Couldn't they have linked up with the people behind Little Green Footballs or Michelle Malkin for assistance or support? It's hard to take these guys seriously when they don't even take advantage of their supporters on the ground when they need help with an initiative. If they didn't want that, they could have hired a professional to do it for a fee and waited to relaunch it until they were confident that it was a pretty good effort. It's not like there was an extra special hurry to release it right NOW or anything.

Unillegal that shit and you've only got to deal with waste for 100 years, tops.

Huh. So what's the catch? Does it require grinding up baby bald eagles or something?

[Lord O' Bones]

Waste disposal is a very serious issue with nuclear power.

No, no, a thousand times no. When all is said and done, the total waste from a completely used up rod would fit in a soda can and would probably ony need to be stored for 70 years. Which is magnitudes smaller than the radioactive waste pumped into the air from coal plants every day. Not to mention the fact that if you lived next door to or even in a nuclear power plant, you are still getting most of your rads from the sun, your freaking smoke detectors, and the person sleeping next to you at night.

The "problem" with nuclear power in this country is unsurprisingly, institutional ignorance.

[Annelise]

That PWC report that the insurance industry funded is very interesting. Are they going to start an 11th hour war against reform or are they just trying to deflect some of the blame for rising costs to come (which is fair because while Big Insurance deserves blame, they are not the only problem).

Well, it doesn't appear that report is the only thing..

A health insurance agent and TPM reader sends along this set of health care reform talking points the agent says AHIP is distributing to local insurance offices across the country. Our agent got the talking points from the password-protected agent-only website of a major insurer.

[...]

The AHIP talking points offer several arguments against what the documents call a "government-run plan." Chief among them is that passing a public plan amounts to "turning back the clock on quality, care coordination and disease management." The AHIP memo also says that under a public plan "patients' choices and access to health care will suffer."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10...-option-bad.php

You can read the AHIP document here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents...tion.php?page=1

Sounds like it's on.

[Commodore]

Waste disposal is a very serious issue with nuclear power. It's certainly is a NIMBY problem which no-one seems willing to deal with (Yucca Mountain, anyone?), but at the same time, if it were REALLY so safe, then we could be putting these waste disposal sites anywhere, not just under mountains in the middle of nowhere.

If they would pay me a reasonable amount and seal it properly, they could bury it in my backyard for all I care.

[Lord O' Bones]

If they would pay me a reasonable amount and seal it properly, they could bury it in my backyard for all I care.

Seriously.

Look, drop the veil from thy eyes, ignorant masses. Learn stuff.

[Shryke]

Huh. So what's the catch? Does it require grinding up baby bald eagles or something?

I believe the catch is that they produce weapons grade nuclear waste or something of the like.

I've never been entirely clear on the problems people have with them really.