First of all let me begin by wishing everyone a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Most of us have much to be thankful for no matter what else is going on in the world around us.

This morning I had another "Is it just me?" moment. It came while reading about what is suspected to be the next Republican tactic to thwart democracy and prevent the President from being able to put his nominees on the courts in this country. It deals with a practice known as "blue slip".
This practice began in 1917. Basically it works like this. When someone is nominated to fill a federal judgeship the Senate Judiciary Committee sends out two blue slips, one to each Senator from the state the nominee is from. The blue slip is used by each Senator to signify if they approve or object to the nominee. Traditionally if one of the Senator's objects, or fails to return the blue slip, the nomination does not proceed. 
You can see how this can easily become the next tactic of Republican obstructionism, simply have a Republican Senator withhold his or her blue slip. If the Democratic leadership decides to follow tradition the nomination will not even get past the Judiciary Committee let alone come to a vote. The Republicans will keep all these judgeships vacant, at least until such time as a Republican wins the White House. Then we'll see how often blue slips, or filibusters, are invoked to prevent the winning President from appointing his or her officials and judges. And if the Democrats ever tried the tactic you know the Republicans would scream about how nefarious and unpatriotic this was, and the traditional mainstream corporate media would bleat along with them. 

But that is not the part that struck me and made me ask "Is it just me?"

No, it was the date. 1917. The year the tradition of the blue slip was introduced into the rules of the Senate. That date rang a bell. And then it hit me. That was the same year the Senate introduced the filibuster into its rules as well.
So let me get this straight. There is no mention of filibuster in the Constitution. And for the first 128 years of the Republic (1789 - 1917) there was no filibuster in the Senate. Likewise there is no "blue slip" or requirement to consult and get approval from the Senators of a judicial nominees home state before proceeding with the nomination found in the Constitution either. And for the first 128 years there was no such practice either.
So what is so magical about 1917? It finally hit me. That was when the 17th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect allowing for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected by popular vote. The Constitution had given that power to state legislatures, so it was the state legislatures that elected the Senators. The "people" only directly elected the members of the House of Representatives. 
It would seem that all these rules adopted around the same time have the same thrust. Namely to put a brake on a majority elected by popular vote and protect the losers. It would seem the Senators in office already feared this new found power being given directly to the citizens and were busy putting up roadblocks to keep popular public opinion in check. 
And while there were times when it was frustrating and aggravating (as in the filibusters of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts), there was little visibility or evidence that the filibuster or blue slip rule had dramatic impact on the direction of the country or on the ability of the majority party, or the party who won the White House from being able to govern.
That is until 2007. That is when Democrats regained control of the Congress. The Republicans did not take kindly to their newfound minority status and began using the filibuster at a frequency never before seen. This only accelerated when they lost the White House as well in the 2008 election. There have now been almost as many filibusters by the Republicans from 2007 to present as there had been in the period from 1917 to 2006. Since 1917 there have been 168 filibusters of executive branch or judicial nominees. Over 80 of those 168 have occurred since Obama became President. Clearly the Republicans have abused the filibuster and are prepared to abuse the blue slip tradition as well. 
We now see how a party bent on partisan advantage and putting the good of the nation behind their own political ambitions and ideology can make a government dysfunctional. 
It is one thing to protect the rights of the minority. It is another thing entirely to allow them to abuse rules and protections to completely thwart the majority and attempt to nullify the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
And I believe this is also related to the movement among some Tea Party Republicans and their billionaire benefactors to undo the 17th Amendment and return election of U.S. Senators back to the state legislatures rather than letting people vote for them directly. It is much easier after all to control state legislatures and control local elections than it is to control state-wide elections. Costs a lot less money too. It all part of a pattern to allow corporations and the very rich and powerful to exert ever more control over the politics and economy of this country. 


 

My mother is 84 going on 85 and going through a hard time of it lately. She has several issues that have been exacerbated by losing my father about six months ago. He was her partner of nearly 60 years and had become her caregiver. Recently she began losing weight and so has been seeing her doctor on a near monthly basis as he, and her family, nurse her through this downturn.
She had one of those appointments earlier this week. I took her there and accompanied her into the doctor's office for the examination. 
The exam itself was not remarkable other than she is showing improvement and gaining weight. The part of interest though for this community, was the discussion she and the doctor had on their way out the door. 
Now from comments he has made previously I assumed her doctor is very conservative, to the point of being a tea-party sympathizer, if not supporter. Still my mother and father both liked him as a doctor and he seemed to genuinely like them and be looking out for them, so I let his politics and any comments slide.
On their way out we were talking about his being busy enough to have hired an additional physicians' assistant for the office. The discussion continued, took a few turns about modern economic realities of the medical world,  and eventually my mother made a comment along the lines of "who knows what's going to happen now", meaning the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), usually referred to as Obamacare, on medical practice.
That's all the opening her doctor needed. He told her of hearing of a woman who called in because something that had been covered in the past suddenly wasn't. It was not specified whether this was a procedure or a prescription. When she called on it she was told that because of Obamacare, Medicare no longer covered it because she was older than 80 years of age. So Obamacare was cutting costs by rationing care for the elderly, after a certain age you just get maintenance/palliative care. 
The doctor then went on about how if Obamacare wasn't defunded this is what was coming. That there was a panel of 18 people, named by the President and approved by Congress, who were empowered to do what was necessary to cut costs. They could determine what is and isn't covered and it would take a 3/5 vote of Congress to overturn any of their decisions. Sounded like the dreaded "death panels" all over again.

Now rightly or wrongly I hate to argue from a position of ignorance and I had no facts to engage the good doctor. So I let it ride and we left the office. But since then I burned up the internet tubes checking this out. 
First of all the assertions sounded too ridiculous to be true on their face. If Medicare under Obamacare was going to ration care for seniors it seems very unlikely AARP would have ever climbed on board the healthcare reform bandwagon. Sure enough a trip to their web site found several positives noted that Medicare recipients can expect from the ACA.  
Just to see what it would look like I took the AARP questionnaire at HealthLawAnswers.org. I entered that I was over age 65, already on Medicare, had a household of 2 people, and fell into the middle income range provided (30,000 to 62,000 annual income). None of that is true but I wanted to see what they would tell me. 
I received a 3 page report telling me basically I didn't have to do anything, was not required to get any additional coverage and then enumerating the different ways Medicare is being improved  by Obamacare. More emphasis on preventative care, everything you have been covered for is still covered, can still see the same doctor, if you have Part D the doughnut hole is shrinking so you might save money on drug purchases, and on and on and on...hardly the disaster depicted by my mother's doctor.
I then moved on to the "death panel" claim. I found a post at The Hill that points to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, set up by the ACA as the target of this claim. This group is charged under the law with making recommendations to cut Medicare costs, if the costs rise above a certain level [emphasis mine]. Whatever recommendations the board makes do have to be fast-tracked through Congress (which is different than requiring 3/5 to overturn). But the law expressly forbids the board from recommending reductions to coverage or services to save money, you know, to "ration care".
Now the IPAB is controversial. As noted, it is the source of the "death panel" charge and the charge that this will lead to care rationing for the elderly. Howard Dean wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for it be abolished. Several vulnerable House Democrats have joined with House Republicans introducing bills to strip the IPAB from the Affordable Care Act. The argument seems to be that the board will save money by reducing reimbursements to providers for certain services, which will lead to the providers not being able to afford to perform them. The end result is the same as if you were rationing care by eliminating the service. But the board also has its proponents as being very necessary and not having to lead to rationing of care at all.
But here's the rub vis a vis the comments made by my mother's doctor and that story about "some woman" now denied coverage for something under Medicare "because of Obamacare" that used to be covered. The IPAB doesn't exist yet. It has not been staffed. It has made no recommendations. Not only that, Medicare cost increases have been slowing, so the threshold that would trigger recommendations from the IPAB (if it was operational) has not been met. But as with most things these days involving conservative "thought", why let facts get in the way of a good scare? 
I'll be sure to set my mother straight the next time I see her, she has nothing to fear from death panels or rationed care.  
The real object lesson here though is to stay informed. I know something of the ACA and its highlights. But it is almost impossible to anticipate all the arguments thrown at this or any other issue by the right wing and have the facts all lined up ready for a rebuttal. But it's good to still do the research and be prepared. Of course next time it will be some other nonsense on some other issue.  
 

Most, if not all, of my political postings deal with economic issues. But since Syria and the potential use of force, even if only from the air, is dominating discussions at this time I'd be remiss if I completely ignored it.
I'll admit part of me is torn. The use of chemical or biological weapons is supposed to be one of those international, common across all nations and peoples, no-nos. It violates all sense of human dignity and standards of behavior. 
So on the one hand how can it be done with no consequence, with no outcry or punishment from the international community?
On the other hand there is precedent for that. Saddam Hussein gassed his own people (Kurds I believe) in the late 1980's with very little protest from the United States let alone retaliation. After all back then he was our ally, our buddy, our buffer against Iran and the Ayatollahs. Supplying us with oil also probably didn't hurt. Poor Assad, if only Syria had large oil reserves. 
The other side to the story is that America is not as directly impacted by what is happening in Syria as are the Europeans and others in the Middle East. Why can't the Saudis or Kuwaitis with their air forces get involved? We already know the Europeans won't participate, with the possible exception of the French. So why should we be the ones spending billions and potentially putting our people at risk to enforce an international standard nobody else seems that willing to stand up for.
The final question is what will we accomplish and what are we trying to accomplish? A few missiles won't do much. And if we are trying to strengthen the rebel anti-government forces and bring about the fall of the Assad regime, well good luck with that. Easier said than done. And if he goes who takes his place? There doesn't appear to be any good guys in this struggle. On both sides we find many Islamic extremists, so how does that help anything?
So for all those reasons when I'm finally forced to decide 'yes' or 'no' in internet polls this week I put my distaste for Assad and his use of chemical weapons and slaughter of his people, and my distaste of wanting to hand Obama's opponents or the media any reason to dump on him, and vote a resounding "no". 

I must be psychic or something. Or a master of the obvious.
In my 8/12 posting I noted that the Obamas were now vacationing on Martha's Vineyard and predicted that even though he has taken only about 1/4 of the vacation days at this point in his administration as George W. Bush had at the same point in his, that we would soon be treated to the annual snide faux outrage of the right wing over the travesty of our "goof off in chief" daring to take time off.
We did not have long to wait.
Sure as shootin' one of our local papers, whose editorial page spouts the same far right wing nonsense heard incessantly on FoxNews, reprinted commentary from a conservative site about Obama's vacation.
The site in question is called Canadian Free Press and is the playground of a Canadian journalist who apparently believes there is no free world without the United States so everyone should worship America. The post even refers to Obama as "our President" .
Basically Obama was compared to Nero who legend has it fiddled while Rome burned. The money quote is "Nero fiddled, Obama golfed."
It noted how Obama has played 133 rounds of golf during his Presidency and here he was at it again while the death toll in Afghanistan approaches 2,300 Americans. Obama is also blamed for the poor economic conditions in the U.S., the growing disparity between rich and poor, and worsening race relations in the country. 
Apparently all of us hard-working Amerkans (you know, "white Americans" wink wink nudge nudge...) are invited to be suitably outraged that this uppity man in the White House dares take vacation and relax while there is any suffering anywhere.
So apparently it was alright for W to take over 300 vacation days (don't know how many rounds of golf and bike rides that included but we've seen the pix, we know it happened). Meanwhile the death toll in Iraq was raising as was our national debt thanks to unpaid for record tax breaks for the wealthy and wars fought on a credit card.  Don't even get me started on how Bush was so anxious to go on one of his bike rides on his first month long vacation (after having been in office seven months mind you) that he blew off the intelligence warning titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." with the curt "okay you've covered your ass" response to the presenter and hit the trails.
And we don't even have to go into how the policies of the Bush administration laid the ground work for the economic disaster we still have not recovered from. Or how he fiddled while a great American city drowned. 
But you know damned well none of these conservative sites or pundits or the paper that reprinted this tripe were complaining then about the time off by Bush or calling it an affront and insult to the rest of us.
I never begrudged any Republican President his time off. Hell the fewer days on the job the better as far as I'm concerned. But as usual the conservatives do not give the same courtesy or respect to Democrats as they insist on for GOP leaders. Which makes them nothing more than partisan hacks and hypocrites.