About The Reckoner

Looking to better frame your political arguments? Step inside.

Search



Links

Site

January 31, 2010

Obama Frames Debate for 2010 at Republican Conference in Baltimore

Obama’s Q&A with Republicans in Baltimore was even better than the State of the Union.

It was inspiring and he laid out progressive principles better than the Democratic party usually does.

One of my favorite quotes:

Now, here’s the point. These are serious times, and what’s required by all of us — Democrats and Republicans — is to do what’s right for our country, even if it’s not always what’s best for our politics. I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this no one can accuse me of not living by my principles.

The full text of this speech is available here.

Chris Weigant also has an excellent breakdown of the speech here.

akadjian

Topics: Political Strategy | No Comments »

December 21, 2009

A Holiday Greeting for Christians

Driving home from the grocery store the other day, I happened to see the following billboard:

Now I’m fine with “Merry Christmas”. I have nothing against saying “Merry Christmas” and I will wish everyone out there a “Merry Christmas”.

But the idea that Jesus actually said something like “I miss hearing you say ‘Merry Christmas’” had me almost choking on my coffee laughing.

Why? Because Christmas was originally a pagan holiday until the Romans declared it a religious holiday. The thinking went that no one would celebrate it if they tried to hold it on a different date. So why not work some religion into an already existing holiday?

I wonder if the billboard designers think that the Christmas tree came from the bible (Hint: it was a pagan ritual).

It also struck me as funny trying to think about which chapter of the bible Jesus would have said this in. Probably the Book of John as his narrative leaned towards the most “imaginative” anyways.

Of course, Jesus never said any such thing.

It just strikes me as funny that they’re putting words in Jesus’ mouth. Doesn’t this go against one of the commandments? Something about worshiping false idols or wrongful use of the Lord’s name?

Funny.

I guess the billboard authors see themselves as some kind of holy warriors in this so-called “war against Christmas”.

The way the ladies at Merry Christmas Billboards say it is: “What was apparent to us was that there was a deliberate effort being made to take Christ out of Christmas.” 

As a card carrying liberal, I’m happy to say that Christmas never comes up at the meetings. There are simply other things that are much more important.

In fact, I don’t know anyone who minds “Merry Christmas.” Not my Jewish friends. Not my Muslim friends. Not my Hindu friends. Not my Japanese friends.

There are, however, a couple of things that worry me about these billboards as a liberal.

One, the amount of fear that has been drummed into some right-wing Christians. Why is this a concern? Groups that feel they are under attack are capable of using this fear to justify just about any action against another group.

In general, liberals do not object to Christianity and are, quite the contrary, big defenders of freedom of religion. But if you talk to many right-wing Christians, you’d think we were the anti-Christ. I never realized where this came from until I tuned into right-wing radio which pumps a daily dose of fear and hate out over the airwaves (Is there any irony here that some of the people purveying this hatred are self-proclaimed Christians?).

Second, God does not scare me. But the people who think God is talking to them do. Because when you start hearing voices, who knows what the voices might say?

So here is my Christmas wish. I wish I could send something like the following letter to all Christians:

Dear Christians,

No one hates you and there is no “vast liberal conspiracy” against you.

Please feel free to worship in any way you would like this holiday season.

When you’re thinking about God, here are a couple messages of peace, love, and understanding I hope you consider:

“Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.” - Matthew 7:12

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you! … If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?” - Matthew 5:43-44

I’m thinking about these things this Christmas. And I’m not Christian.

It’s my Christmas wish that we all remember some of these messages when people on the radio or TV are telling us to hate liberals or hate conservatives.

We are all people though we may sometimes disagree. Here is a message you will not hear on talk radio because this type of message does not generate controversy or increase ratings.

Yet it’s this message I’m sending you this Christmas season.

All the Best in 2010 and Merry Christmas!


akadjian

Topics: Personal Freedom | No Comments »

August 16, 2009

Glenn Beck Versus Glenn Beck on Health Care

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Glenn Beck’s Operation
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Glenn Beck proves that Glenn Beck will say anything for money.

akadjian

Topics: Objective Media, Political Strategy | No Comments »

August 13, 2009

Cincinnati Enquirer Bias Favors Jean Schmidt

I know the Cincinnati Enquirer supports Jean Schmidt, but usually they can at least mask it better.

Today, the Enquirer finally posted some coverage on the Jean Schmidt/David Krikorian hearings before the Ohio Elections Commission.

As I was scrolling through the coverage, I discovered that the Enquirer left an older version of the article online. This allowed me to see an original version and a newer, edited version.

Both were biased. But after the editing, the bias borders on outright lying. I’m posting a side-by-side comparison of different sections so you can see for yourself.

At first, the title is:

Then it was edited to:

Notice they don’t change the Last Updated time. Even though the title has obviously been changed.

Reading the second title makes it sound like officials charged Krikorian with making false statements. Was that the case?

Read on. This introduction, the Enquirer original, stated that Schmidt’s opponent probably made false statements during the election.

How do you “probably” make false statements?

So the Enquirer changed it to read made false statements. Hmmm … that’s different from probably made false statements.

But is it true? Reading further in the original, we find out that what really happened was that a 3-person panel found probable cause to continue the hearings.

Now this sounds like what actually happened: a 3-person panel found probable cause to continue the Schmidt-Krikorian hearings. However, this is very different from made false statements or probably made false statements.

If you’re starting to think the Enquirer may be making some false statements, then you’re not alone.

Well, an editor at the Enquirer must have seen this grain of truth in their story because in the edited version, they take out the statement about what happened - that probable cause was found to continue the hearings.

No one ever said Krikorian made false statements. Except the Enquirer. In the title of the article.

If you’d like to compare the two versions, click the original or the edited version. Since I made these screen captures, the Enquirer changed the edited version back to it’s original. Perhaps even they realized they’d gone too far in bending the truth.

The sad part is that these edits aren’t the most egregious part of the article. The egregious part is what is completely left out. Here’s a few samples:

  1. Sibel Edmonds, a former Turkish translator for the FBI, testified that the Turkish government had bribed members of the U.S. Congress.
  2. Jean Schmidt took over $30,000 in campaign contributions from Turkish lobbyists.
  3. Jean Schmidt became one of the most vocal opponents of a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide (a proposal the Turks wanted squashed).

This sounds an awful lot like a foreign government bribing a U.S. elected official, an issue that I would think would resonate with all Americans. Maybe the Enquirer should, I don’t know, investigate this?

Instead, the Enquirer prints the article in such a way that you would think the $30,000 was made up by Krikorian. No one disputes that she took the money. Not even Jean. This is a matter of federal record which a reporter should be able to verify easily.

The Enquirer also doesn’t mention how witness testimony supported Krikorian’s claims.

The Enquirer also doesn’t mention how Jean Schmidt dropped several of the charges after hearing the testimony.

Krikorian wanted the trial to be held because in libel cases, truth is a defense. He wanted Sibel Edmonds to testify. Schmidt thought that her testimony would be blocked by the DOJ. Instead, her testimony corroborated much of Krikorian’s case.

What happened after the testimony? Schmidt’s attorneys promptly filed a motion to withdraw 4 of 8 alleged “offenses.”

Why did she drop charges? Because the evidence didn’t support them. Did the Enquirer mention this? Not at all.

The veracity of the remaining “charges” will be decided at the next hearing. This is what actually happened at the hearing. To read more about actual events in this strange case go here.

But once again, what does the Enquirer print?

It’s too bad there’s no commission to judge newspapers for making false statements.

akadjian

Topics: Honest and Effective Government | 2 Comments »

August 11, 2009

Jean Schmidt versus David Krikorian

There is something really bizarre going on in Southern Ohio District 2.

Though bizarre and Jean Schmidt (R-OH) seem to go hand in hand, this one takes the cake.

Schmidt has been in Ohio Election Commission hearings this week pursuing a case against David Krikorian, who she accuses of lying in his campaign literature. What did he say?

Krikorian apparently accused her of taking bribes from the Turkish government to kill legislation acknowledging the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

What is so bizarre about this? According to testimony from Sibel Edmonds, a Turkish translator, much of this may be true. Congressmen did take bribes from the Turks.

Here’s some more bizarreness:

  1.  Sibel Edmonds has been banned from giving any kind of testimony whatsover by the U.S. government. In this instance, the DOJ decided to let the hearings proceed.
  2. There is virtually no news coverage of this event. DailyKos seems to have the best coverage. Mainstream media is not touching this.

Will post if I hear anything more on news coverage.

akadjian

Topics: Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »

August 10, 2009

Conservatives Love Government, When It’s the Military

In ranting against the government, one thing you seldom hear conservatives criticize is the military. Even though government, according to them, can’t run anything. Here’s the government conservatives go after:

Here’s the government conservatives love:

I’m sure there’s others, but it’s interesting to me that some government is ok for conservatives while other types of government are inefficient and ineffective.

Why is this? Where is the anti-government hysteria coming from.

A couple thoughts occur to me, but the one I’m going to play with is to think about who is generating most of the conservative anti-government propaganda.

One of the few things I agree with Rush Limbaugh about that most things in politics come down to money. The question I’d ask then is: who is profiting from the anti-government movement?

Here’s a couple industries that benefit:

  1. The big banks wanted to deregulate banking and financial regulations.
  2. The pharmaceutical industry got into Medicare and Medicaid and wants a bigger piece of it.
  3. The private education industry keeps pushing for more “options” in the schools.
  4. The oil industry wants more drilling rights on public land and less regulation.
  5. The book industry would benefit if they could get rid of public libraries.
  6. The health care industry want to put caps on lawsuit payments.

Industry lobbyists have learned that they can stoke public outrage about the government in order to “reform” it to their advantage.

I just wonder why no one seems to question why government programs such as the military, police, and fire departments seem immune from the “free market” propaganda.

Is it because conservatives really have a socialist “soft side”? Or could it be because certain industries have targeted certain government programs first?

For example, public school systems were not initially part of the target until certain businesses started to think about how they could make a profit from privitization.

Will the military ever come under question? Probably not until some business starts to think they can make more money from completely privatizing it.

akadjian

Topics: Political Strategy | No Comments »

August 9, 2009

Why the Public Option Sucks!

Why the public option sucks!

akadjian

Topics: Rebuilding the Middle Class, Political Strategy | No Comments »

August 4, 2009

Representative Driehaus on Health Care

Steve Driehaus spoke to hundreds of supporters and critics of health-care reform last night at the First Unitarian Church.

Tea Party folks were given instructions before the meeting on how to disrupt the event. Apparently, opponents feel they cannot win without resorting to disruptive tactics.

Here’s some samples:

This is straight out of the Ann Coulter playbook which states if you can make a liberal angry, you will distract him/her from their argument.

It’s great to see people so interested in politics, but I find it sad to think that they’re not looking to be part of any solution or discussion, but rather are only interested in games and disrupting discussion.

Watch the video:

Driehaus did a good job in quieting the crowd and, earlier in the session, explaining the reasons for reform:

  1. 40 million people without insurance cost us (through higher premiums on emergency health care)
  2. People denied care because of pre-existing conditions
  3. Families going bankrupt because they can’t pay their health care bills
  4. Cost to small businesses - 50% of Ohio small businesses currently provide health care
akadjian

Topics: Rebuilding the Middle Class, Fiscal Responsibility, Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »

August 2, 2009

What Insurance Companies Want Health Care to Look Like

Last week, I received a mailing from United Health Care about my Health Savings Account.

The front page contained a very friendly letter with a nice green graphic urging me to check out my plan online. By logging into my account, it told me I could help estimate “out-of-pocket costs, potential tax savings and the future value of your account.”

It seemed friendly enough until I read at the bottom that they enclosed a Change in Terms and Conditions Notice and an Annual Privacy Notice.

The Change in Terms and Conditions Notice is one of those fine print documents only lawyers would love. What I got from this document was that, in certain situations, there would be additional new charges and that these charges would be very difficult to figure out when and in what situations they would apply.

The Change in Terms and Conditions Notice referred me to the prospectus for each mutual fund (more fine print) to determine when and in what situations there would be fees.

I spent twenty minutes coming to the conclusion that I would not be able to understand anything further than this in twenty minutes.

But I slogged on to page 3 because now I was suspicious.

Page 3 was the Privacy Policy. This seemed like a good thing. I don’t want my information given out without me knowing about it and I agreed with their statements:

  1. Your privacy is important to us
  2. We have developed policies and procedures in order to keep your information confidential and secure
  3. We restrict access to personal information to those employees and other parties who must use that information to provide services on our behalf

Etcetera.

All of this sounded good until I saw an “Opt-Out Notice” at the bottom of the page. This notice informed me that OptumHealth Bank was going to give out my information to other 3rd party vendors unless I specifically told them not to.

I was glad I kept reading! You have to check a box saying “Please do not share my information with any affiliated or nonaffiliated third parties.”

This is the real catch of the letter. They put it on page 3 so you aren’t likely to notice it. And then they tell you, you have to “opt out” in order for them not to share your information (translation: sell it to other companies looking to market to you).

OptumHealth even goes so far as trying to scare you into thinking if you opt out, you will not reap the benefits of their largesse.

“If you do wish to exercise your right to opt out and limit our ability to keep you informed of beneficial products and services, please complete the attached form …”

And they don’t even give you an addressed stamped envelope. You have to provide your own envelope and stamp. Clearly, OptumHealth Bank does not want you to fill this out and return it.

OptumHealth Bank wants to make money by selling my name and information so other companies can better target market to me and they are making it very difficult for me to figure this out.

This reminds me of the current health care debate and all the money being poured into it by pharmaceutical interests, health insurance companies, and for-profit hospitals.

What they want is the ability to be able to dictate terms to consumers and make large profits. But no one would vote for this type of bill.

Similarly, everyone would opt out from Optum’s wonderful privacy plan if they said: “We want to sell your information to other companies and make more money off your information. BTW- There’s no real benefit to you.”

No matter how hard insurance companies try to spin it, remember that what they want from any health care reform bill is the ability to make more money.

So be careful of any health legislation that the insurance industry supports. It will likely not benefit you so much as it will them.

Send in your “opt out” notification. Tell your congressman that you support health care reform that will benefit people, not just the insurance industry. Tell them you support a public option.

akadjian

Topics: Rebuilding the Middle Class, Political Strategy, Honest and Effective Government | No Comments »

July 26, 2009

The Worst Health Care Option

I read an interesting article in the AP this morning: Are lobbyists silver lining in health care system?

The crux of the argument was that lobbyists were actually keeping the debate around health care alive.

The article argues that the health care industry “sees a strategic opportunity.”

The questions I ask are: Why would they do this and what is this opportunity?

They are after 2 things:

  1. Mandated health insurance - If everyone has to have it, this increases their market
  2. Intermediary status - They want to be in a position to directly receive funds from the government in order to control how these funds are spent

If the insurance companies can act as the middlemen, they stand to make the most profit by taking as much as they can from the government and paying out as little as possible to the insured.

This is the option that no one in America should want.

Costs will be higher, coverage will be lower, and the people who benefit most are the insurance companies.

When I see the spin from all sides, I start to ask questions like, why are the lobbyists so interested in health care reform? Is it because they want to fix a broken system? Or, do they see a way to make further profits and make a bad situation worse?

Sometimes it seems that if we wrote policy according to what the lobbyists fight most against, the public would be best off.

For example, the so-called “public option.” The lobbyists hate this. The hospitals don’t like it because it could cut payments to them. The insurance companies don’t like it because it would cut out the middle man and be a more efficient form of insurance. Rather than the money going from government to insurance companies to insured, it would just go to the insured. No chance to make a profit if you never see the money. And everyone would have insurance.

But they hate it. It won’t profit them. So they send their public relations teams out to put fear into people. It will be “socialized medicine.” Do you want some government bureaucrat deciding how you get treated? Do you want to be like Canada?

Well, Canada isn’t in this crisis. They spend less per person on health care and get more for it. And I’d rather trust a government bureaucrat than a corporate bureaucrat - at least the government bureaucrat doesn’t get compensated based on how much he can NOT pay me.

akadjian

Topics: Fiscal Responsibility, Honest and Effective Government | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries <<|>>