November 24th, 2009
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif) daily_kos:
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/O4az_40Bi5E/-I-Will-Pray-For-YouSend-Money Jesus Christ in a jumped up sidecar -- if you thought having abstinence "education" in a health care reform bill was beyond insane, check this out: The calls come in at all hours: patients reporting broken bones, violent coughs, deep depression. Prue Lewis listens as they explain their symptoms. Then Lewis -- a thin, frail-looking woman from Columbia Heights -- simply says, "I'll go to work right away." She hangs up, organizes her thoughts and begins treating her clients' ailments the best way she knows how: She prays. This is health care in the world of Christian Science, where the sick eschew conventional medicine and turn to God for healing. Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress. Leaders of the Church of Christ, Scientist, are pushing a proposal that would help patients pay someone like Lewis for prayer by having insurers reimburse the $20 to $40 cost. The provision was stripped from the bill the House passed this month, and church leaders are trying to get it inserted into the Senate version. And the church has powerful allies there, including Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who represents the state where the church is based, and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who said the provision would "ensure that health-care reform law does not discriminate against any religion." State sponsored prayer to cure what ails you? Words fail. And what do you need on your resume to get a job at dial-a-prayer? In Prue Lewis' case: Her faith in prayer comes from experience. About 10 years ago, she said, before she retired from her job as a federal environmental negotiator, she was cured of what she thinks was breast cancer. Or a sharp jab from an underwire. And I'm guessing that a good chunk of that "faith" comes from getting paid $20 - $40 a pop.
daily_kos:
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/EMM4HeyXXec/-PPP-Polling:-Dems-Must-Pass-HCR,-and-a-Public-Option-Would-Help A new Public Policy Polling report is pretty stark for Democrats and their prospects of hanging on to majorities next year. Here are a couple key takeaways: There is a price to pay with independents if a strong health care bill is passed. Democrats lead 37-30 with them in general on the generic ballot, but they say they'll vote 44-37 for the GOP if a bill with a public option makes it through. Clearly some independents are sitting on the fence waiting to see what happens with health care before they decide how to vote next year and Democrats could push them toward the Republican side by passing a bill without bipartisan support. That said, the price to pay with those independents is not nearly as bad as the damage Democrats would do with their base by not passing a health care bill. Democrats get 86% with their own party on the generic ballot if a bill with a public option passes. They get 84% before health care is even mentioned. They get just 75% without a health care bill. They have to get something done in order to keep the party's rank and file voters in line for next year. What's the big take away? The political damage for Democrats of passing a public option is not as bad as the damage from doing nothing. Those independents maybe wavering now (which is what they do, they're not called swing voters for nothing) but a halfway decent reform bill, that actually accomplishes something for some group in the country--primarily the working uninsured--is very likely to bring them around in 2010. What they like most is to rail about do-nothings in Washington. If the Dems in Washington do something, and do something fairly decent, they won't lose substantial numbers of independents. The PPP numbers show precisely what progressive activists have been saying now for months: if they try to pass off a crappy, totally watered down bill as reform, the base won't show up. Democratic lack of enthusiasm will show up in the committee coffers at the DSCC, DCCC, and DNC, in phonebanks and canvasses and rallies. And in the voting booth. This should embolden Congressional progressives to stand firm in demanding a solid public option. The numbers have always, and continue, to be on the Dems' side if they just do this right.
daily_kos:
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/Q_SwkmpBvgs/-Whither-the-Public-Option Progressive observers of the healthcare reform effort aren't too heartened after the continuing recalcitrance of three ConservaDems and Joe Lieberman on healthcare reform, and the newfound willingness in leadership, as expressed by Dick Durbin to find a way to mollify them. The problem is, anything that works to make these guys happy isn't going to be real reform. Here's Robert Reich: But what more can possibly be compromised? Take away the word "public?" Make it available to only twelve people? Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to ... our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us. Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no pre-existing conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice -- dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don't take our calls. Josh Marshall seems ready to give up on it: Now, there are many people who look at this and say that the bill(s) under discussion are so anemic that they're maybe not worth fighting for at all. And that's certainly a legitimate opinion. But I think there's another question. Considering how down to the wire this is, is it really worth holding up everything else contained in the bill when the point of contention, the public option, is as measly as it is? The problem is, you give up on this and what do Democrats have to exclaim about doing for healthcare reform in 2010? Individual mandates? Making people buy crappy insurance from the same old insurers that will continue to find ways to exclude their claims and jack up their premiums? Giveaways to the insurance industry of upwards of $600 billion in the form of the subsidies and credits given to the people who are forced to buy the crappy insurance? All this, and the Senate isn't even going to end the industry's anti-trust exemption. As symbolic a gesture as revoking seems to be, the symbolism of the Democrats being the party that maintains that exemption is so counter to what the party is supposed to stand for as to be downright pathetic. The problem is, as Greg Sargent points out, is that Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, and Lieberman share a characteristic of the Republicans: they just don't really give a shit that people are suffering. They have no problem "letting the whole thing come crashing down, with potentially catastrophic consequences for their party and, by their own lights, the country as a whole." And the remainder of the Senate, and the vast majority of House members who do care are hanging on to the shreds of a hope that they can make this whole mess just a little bit better, even if just for a sliver of the population. The alternative, of course, is for progressives to be just as willing as the ConservaDems to blow this thing up. Sherrod Brown says he's still committed to the public option, and that it will be difficult to maintain the support of progressive Senators if this gets watered down any further. Two of his progressive colleagues agree. "I strongly suspect that there are a number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option," he said. Not supporting final passage, however, is different than vowing to filibuster it and prevent it from even getting to a vote on final passage, as independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is now doing, hoping to strip the public option. But Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on Saturday night that if the bill bends toward the conservatives, "You'll lose people on the left." One of those could be Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who said Saturday he'd oppose any bill without a public option. "I won't vote for it," he said. Not to mention a very large bloc of Democrats in the House, who would have a hard time holding their noses to vote for an opt-out public option, much less the latest iteration that seems to be in vogue, Carper's triggered co-ops. The most obvious solution is to break the bill up into two, pass the insurance reforms through regular procedure and the public option and other financial pieces through reconciliation. Schumer was all for it as recently as September. It's ridiculous to take it off the table now, both because of how critical it is to do this bill right, and because if the ConservaDems get their way on this, they will hold the leadership hostage on every damned bill down the line. That includes a potential second stimulus, a strong jobs package, any kind of meaningful financial reform. It would also mean a Democratic party that's no better than the Republicans when it comes to prioritizing Main Street over Wall Street, and grim prospects for 2010 and 2012.
sciencedaily:
http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/~3/2JeFT79IP30/091123193606.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123193606.htm The Large Hadron Collider -- the world's most powerful particle accelerator -- circulated two beams simultaneously for the first time on Nov. 23, allowing the operators to test the synchronization of the beams and giving the experiments their first chance to look for proton-proton collisions. 
daily_kos:
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/jqvAF1rfONY/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread What you missed on Sunday Kos .... - In On Cancer Screening, Politics, and Communication, DemFromCT waded into the controversy surround the newest recommendations about frequency of mammograms and pap smears, and wound up tempted to suggest that "if you want people to get mammograms, tell them they can't, and if you want to get people not to get flu shots, tell them they have to."
- In Trick'n, DarkSyde tricked readers into reading an explanation as to how climate change deniers were distorting emails between environmentalists and scientists in order to claim a great global conspiracy concocting global warming had been perpetuated over decades.
- In Resistance is Futile, DarkSyde explained the relationship between our complex immune systems and how evolution contributed to common auto-immune disorders.
- In Strategy Can Be Ideology, But the Party is Not a Movement, Laura Clawson explored the definitional and practical differences between terms that are being thrown around loosely--and often inherently insultingly--in the health care reform discussion.
- In The Atomic Rulebook: Iran and IAEA Safeguard Violations, Plutonium Page discussed the founding and purpose of the IAEA, its rules and how Iran is reacting to notifications from the agency--and what this might mean about that country's activities and the IAEA board meeting slated for November 26.
- In Playing Chess With Russia: An Update on the New START Agreement, Plutonium Page briefly outlined the origins of the first START treaty with Soviet Russia, which has led to a significant reduction in the arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia. A missed deadline looms, however, for a new treaty and she discussed possible scenarios that may result.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) mcmillan:
In today's Minimum Security comic, Bunnista (not surprisingly) favors bunnies: http://ping.fm/x8E6o
daily_kos:
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/jNHXY8xogj0/-Purity-Now,-Purity-Tomorrow,-Purity-Forever-... It's official: the Republican Party has lost its collective mind: Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they "espouse conservative principles and public policies" that are in opposition to "Obama’s socialist agenda." According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement. And in case you were wondering why they settled on three as the proverbial straw, it's based on the gospel according to St. Ronicus, who believed: ... that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent. If nothing else, we must give credit to the GOP for consistency -- three strikes and you're out. So, what are the ten steps to political purity? There's the old, tired pretense that the GOP stands for smaller government, debt, deficits and taxes, never mind their history of doing just the opposite -- unless you're among the very rich -- because then you'll get a tax cut, oppose health care reform because we have the best darn system in the world, even though we don't, drill, baby, drill, screw the unions, English only, and then: (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges; Translation: Republicans want to be ruled by military junta -- oh, and while they're very concerned that some unauthorized brown person might visit a doctor, they are not at all worried about where the next trillion dollars is going to come from to pay for that still undefined "victory." They also must want to bomb the Axis of Evil du jour, make sure their marriages aren't threatened by other people's happiness, oppose non-existent death panels, and they really want to keep their guns even though no one is trying to take them away. In a nutshell? They're all teabaggers now.
jonnynexus:
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter.
November 23rd, 2009
selinker:
What: Werner Hodel's 1997 riverboat navigation game Mississippi Queen, published in German by Goldsieber and in English by Rio Grande Games.  Why: This category is something of a contradiction. The classic definition of an abstract-strategy game is a game with no chance and no concealed information, such as go and checkers. The classic definition of a tile game is one where players place pieces on a surface, such as mah jongg or Scrabble. Hybridizing the two concepts led to a boom of brilliant games in the 1990s, where players built the "board" with tiles to play wildly different games each time. The gold standard is Kosmos's The Settlers of Catan, but for my Deutschmarks, the most enjoyable is Mississippi Queen. Each player helms a paddlewheeler down the Mighty Mississip, picking up Southern belles for delivery to the delta. A boat contains two six-faceted paddlewheels, one controlling speed and the other coal. You start out moving speed 1, and can rotate the speed wheel up or down 1 each turn. If that's not good enough for you, you can burn off coal to accelerate or decelerate some more. The problems you face are twofold: First, turning such a large boat is difficult, and second, you have no idea where you're going. When a player crosses a line on a tile, that player places the subsequent river tile in whichever direction he or she wants. Run out of river and you're gator bait. Glory be. Impact: Mississippi Queen won the prestigious 1997 Spiel des Jahres, the German game of the year. Shortly thereafter, the game was expanded by The Black Rose, which added watery deathtraps and a black boat that the rearmost player could use to disrupt the plans of the leaders. Sadly, both games are out of print now, but copies often become available on sites like BoardGameGeek. If you're the kind of person who likes fun, seek it out. Personal Connection: At some point, my longtime friend Jay Tummelson became the smartest man in American gaming. At Mayfair Games in the early 1990s, he spotted the tremor running through Germany and snatched up games like Manhattan, Modern Art, and of course Settlers. Then he founded Rio Grande and pounded out Mississippi Queen, Bohnanza, Puerto Rico, and hundreds of others, becoming the king of the American Eurogames industry. (I should note that he also published our game Gloria Mundi, so I may be a touch biased.) Other Contenders: Mexican Train, a dominoes game so good I kept an entire trial jury occupied with it for a week; Acquire, Sid Sackson's property-building masterpiece; Cathedral, a tile game where the tiles are 3D medieval buildings; Carcassonne, Klaus-Jürgen Wrede's festive jaunt through a medieval countryside; Agora, James Ernest's game of haphazardly building a Greek marketplace; Blokus, which is the game you would make if Tetris pieces fell on your head; two light games that are literally poles apart, Hey! That's My Fish! and Ice Flow.
daily_kos:
http://rss.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/l82HshEfUPY/-Foes-of-Afghan-Escalation-Step-Up-Opposition Add David Obey to the increasingly vocal foes of General Stanley McChrystal's proposed escalation of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a group that includes Arlen Specter and the 57 Congresspeople who signed Massachusetts Congressmen James McGovern's letter to the President. "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it." Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it. "On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy." Obey isn't alone in proposing a tax for the war. Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has suggested putting a levy on upper-income brackets for this purpose: An "additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000" a year, could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s "Political Capital With Al Hunt," airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added. That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. "They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can" instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said. Since Levin opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan, his tax proposal, like Obey's, seems actually designed to put up a roadblock to escalation, because the chances of such a tax being passed are slim to nil. The chances of blocking an escalation, if that is the path President Obama chooses, may be equally unlikely. During the Iraq war, congressional foes never could get a majority to cut off funding for everything except withdrawal. Such a move would be even less likely for U.S. military action in Afghanistan, a war that has always had more support in Congress and among rank-and-file Americans than Iraq did. Meanwhile, the costs keep rising. As David Dayen reports, U.S. special forces may be spending as much as $1.3 billion to fund anti-Taliban Afghan militia as was done in the Anbar Awakening in Iraq. As Dayen points out, the last time the United States funded local fighters in Afghanistan, it "created the structure for Osama bin Laden to flourish..." This spending, as well as Levin's and Obey's tax idea, spotlight a continuing problem - figuring out how much the war actually costs. In addition to the $65 billion allocated in the 2010 fiscal year budget for military purposes in Afghanistan, the Pentagon is seeking "emergency" funds that could run as much as $50 billion. It is spending billions of already-approved dollars for what appears to be permanent bases there. If Afghanistan really is to be the focal point of "the long war," Obey and Levin better make their proposed tax a really big one. The White House will hold another closed-door session on Afghanistan tonight. [UPDATE]: Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect spoke with Ellis Brachman, Obey's spokesperson, to get more details on the plan: Essentially, below the $150,000 level, the 15 percent bracket for a family, there would be an increase of 1 percent of your current level, so for most people that would be 15.15 percent. Separate changes would happen between the $150,000 to $250,000 income level and above $250,000, which would be set by the president depending on his eventual decision on what to do in Afghanistan; currently, the war costs about $68 billion a year, but that could increase if the White House decides to send more troops or spend more money on development projects. = = = brooklynbadboy had a diary on the Obey tax here.
sciencedaily:
http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/~3/ggpgJ1ELMXA/091120135212.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091120135212.htm Scientists have found a clever way to use traditional GPS satellite signals to measure snow depth as well as soil and vegetation moisture, a technique expected to benefit meteorologists, water resource managers, climate modelers and farmers. 
sciencedaily:
http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/~3/AVV12IWt0qM/091123083658.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083658.htm For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that stem cells found in amniotic fluid meet an important test of potential to become specialized cell types, which suggests they may be useful for treating a wider array of diseases and conditions than scientists originally thought. 
sciencedaily:
http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/~3/qWUEC1KQAtA/091113091453.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091113091453.htm One difficulty with fighting cancer cells is that they are similar in many respects to the body's stem cells. By focusing on the differences, researchers have found a new way of tackling colon cancer. 
sciencedaily:
http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/~3/CviKd1DDr2g/091123132630.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123132630.htm Scientists have developed a new modeling methodology for determining the capacity and assessing the risks of leakage of potential underground carbon-dioxide reservoirs. 
|
sympathetic
