Author: Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.

Differences in Colorado and Montana

Later this summer, my wife and I are going to move from our beloved Montana down here to Colorado. We are renting our home in Bozeman, kind of an escape clause in case we want to go back, but the move is meant to be permanent.

We are down here on a visit right now, and several differences jumped out at me:

1) I had to pee, and we stopped at a gas station south of Estes Park. There was only one unisex bathroom with one pot, and four people ahead of me in line. The guy in the stall had apparently been in there quite a while, and when one person in line knocked on the door, he yelled “I’m in here!” I don’t recall ever having to wait for a bathroom in Montana. I finally left, and peeing behind a tree down here will get you in trouble. I endured.

2) Bozeman is going to have a 4th of July tax protester rally, bringing people down from Noxon, I assume. This coming Sunday there will be a nude bike ride rally in Boulder. I assume most of the participants will be men, sadly, so I won’t be watching. The local police have threatened to arrest participants, and if they are arrested, they will have to register as sex offenders. As far as I know, exhibitionists are not the same as pedophiles, but I yield to the better judgment of the local constable.

3) Denver has charter schools, and a controversy is brewing as it becomes apparent that the charter schools are subtly, cleverly avoiding kids with disabilities. One school openly asked applicants if they had ever had special ed, and said lying about it would be grounds for dismissal. Montana doesn’t have charter schools. Bozeman has very good schools, but most public schools in Montana reflect the parents – mediocre. I like the idea of charter schools, to allow bright kids to escape. But they should not be allowed to turn down kids who are more challenging. That’s the private health insurance model applied to education.

4) Driving down through Wyoming these past two days – we came down through Dubois and Laramie – it was very green, but those forests we saw were devastated by pine beetle, as are the forests of Montana. Colorado forests that I have seen are lush and green and largely unaffected. But I haven’t seen enough to know this is universally true – I doubt it is.

5) Bozeman’s Daily Chronicle, for all its faults, is a much better newspaper than the Boulder Daily Camera, which is awful. When given a choice at the coffee shop, I always choose the Onion. The Denver Post is a very good newspaper. My vote for the best newspaper in Montana: Billings Gazette, simply for the fact that it carries more news than the others.

6) Traffic traffic everywhere – we drove down from Boulder to Morrison yesterday around 4:30 – every light back traffic up for blocks. But travel on the freeways is fast. We are going to have to adapt to that fact of life.

Our objective is to move someplace in the foothills like Evergreen where we don’t have to travel much – a self-contained community. We are looking at houses for the next few days.

As a lifelong Montanan, I’ll be able to reflect on the good and the bad about that state, and I will be in the coming weeks. I still have a mother and two brothers and a daughter in Montana. I will be traveling back frequently, but come August 15 forward, I will be a nude bike rider.

Lucy pulls the football again!

I’ve finally figured out what’s wrong with the Democrats’ position on health care, as exemplified by Matt and Jay: They think that they are merely playing politics, log rolling, compromising to get what they want. They think that if they do that, they’ll come away with part of what they want, and we’ll all be better off.

Problems with this approach:

1) If only one side is willing to compromise, then it’s not really compromise, is it. It’s more like, what’s the word – car salesmen have a word for this – they call them “marks”. Someone is being fleeced. It’s hard to watch.

2) If your own leadership is not with you, if your own leadership wants to sell you down the road, if your own leadership has taken millions of dollars from the very people you are supposed to be reining in, then it’s not really compromise, is it. It’s more like, what’s the word – Dick Morris had a word for it – triangulation.

Honestly, we are in deep trouble. The people who have appointed themselves the ‘fixers’ of our problem do not understand the rules of the game they are playing. The best we can hope for at this point is that it all blows up, and that we come away with nothing. That will be better than any of the “compromises” that are being worked out. The idea that we have to get “something” will be our undoing. The Republicans know how to play this game, the Democrat leadership knows how to play it. The followship? Not so much.

PS: In answer to the inevitable “What would you do in our shoes?”, I have two answers: 1) If the only possible outcome is a loss, do nothing. Die another day. 2) Listen closely, Democrats – I will only say this once: Try being clever. Giving up incrementally is not a strategy – it only slows down the losing process.

Incongruous, Bizarre

There was an interesting Supreme Court ruling yesterday – Caperton vs Massey.

A West Virginia coal company, Massey Energy, suffered a $51 million damage award to a competitor, and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Judges to that court are elected, and Massey, using various methods of skirting campaign contribution laws, poured $3 million into the campaign of Brent Benjamin, who won the election to the bench. The $3 million equaled 60% of his total campaign costs.

Benjamin then refused to recuse himself, and sat on the Massey case, casting the decisive vote in a 3-2 ruling overturning the $51 million award.

The Supremes ruled that the conflict of interest was so blatant that Judge Benjamin had to recuse himself. They did not, however, lay out any guidelines on what an appropriate threshold is for conflict of interest.

I have never understood the reasoning behind allowing private contributions to judicial campaigns. Doesn’t that invite corruption? Any significant amount of money (say $1,000 or more) can create an apparent conflict.

Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas all voted against the overturning of the verdict for various reasons. But the bottom line is that they do not believe that the apparent conflict had any bearing on the outcome.

That seems absurd, but I need a better word. My Roget’s suggests ridiculous, silly, strange, illogical, meaningless, bizarre, incongruous. I’ll go with the latter two.

P.S. As Ladybug reminds me below, these four judges are ACTIVISTS!!!

A reasonable compromise?

I’m a “Unitarian”, and if people don’t understand us well, we don’t understand ourselves well either. You can’t say we are “true believers” in that we don’t have a creed. The joke about us that that we are lousy singers because we are always reading ahead to see if we agree with the words.

At our Sunday service there is time set aside for “joys and concerns”, when people step forward to talk about personal matters. A lady stood up last Sunday to talk about the killing of Dr. George Tiller. I got very uncomfortable – I don’t know about the others. It’s a liberal group, and I think it safe to say that most members favor legal abortion.

But Dr. Tiller provided “late term” abortions, and I assume that they were “medically necessary”, otherwise they would be illegal. Killing him was a heinous crime, of course, and justice should be meted out accordingly. But it is hard to be “pro-choice” when the fetus is so obviously well-formed. It seems like … murder.

I’m troubled by abortion – I finally settled on the idea that early-term abortions are a woman’s business, not mine. I know about life and how people are. I know that if abortions are outlawed, they will go on as before, only less openly. I don’t think a woman should have to pay with eighteen years of her life for one night’s foolishness. And I agree with Gloria Steinem who said that if men could get pregnant, abortion would not just be legal – it would be a sacrament.

It’s a woman’s choice up to a point. It should be.

I want to give some support to those who in good conscious decide that they oppose abortion in all cases. That’s an honest and defensible position. These folks should not have abortions, but it stops there. They don’t get to make law for all of us. They are usually driven by religious belief. They should follow their religious beliefs and be true to themselves. Its for them. Not everyone.

I think free and easy access to a morning after pill would be a nice compromise. Are there any out there who are “pro-life” who are willing to make that concession?

Just curious.

Bozeman Daily Chroncle Toolsies

The Tuesday, June 2, 2009 front page headline in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle was about a planned rally by tax protesters that will take place on July 4th here in Bozeman.

The Chronicle does not make its articles available online.

Immediately I wondered – what other groups get headlines when they merely plan an event? The anti-Baucus pro-single payer rally on Friday drew some after-the-fact coverage, but the staff writer, Daniel Person, was rather clueless, not understanding that Baucus opposes a “public option” and going to great lengths to quote all opponents of the single payer idea. It’s as if it was a fringe idea without much public support.

But back to the headline – why? Why does a fringe group warrant a headline more than a month in advance of its planned event?

The only answer I can think of is that the editors of the Chronicle, who are right wing tools, are promoting the event by giving it as much advance publicity as they can. And when it actually happens? More headlines!

The problem with Democrats …

It appears that Sen Max Baucus (D-MT) is failing in the bid to manage progressive opposition in the health care debate. I don’t know how others perceive him, but I cannot imagine that people find him credible or look to him for leadership. I doubt he could inspire a Jehovah’s Witness to ring a doorbell.

So President Obama is taking over the debate, or so says New York Times. This is troublesome – Obama is far more likely to being liberals and progressives into the fold, but just as likely, as we have seen in so many other areas, to sell them out.

Here’s a rough quote from Obama, as relayed by Sen Charles Grassley (R-IA) after meeting with him:

If I get 85 percent of what I want with a bipartisan vote, or 100 percent with 51 votes, all Democrat, I’d rather have it be bipartisan.

What’s wrong with this? There’s no need to compromise, as Democrats already have public support and congressional numbers and the presidency. This is no different from Baucus, who when given the ability to pass his program with 51 votes, still insisted he wanted to compromise with Republicans. In addition, politicians are known to exaggerate, so that 0% or 10% might look like “85%” to them. Finally, how can we really know what Obama wants?

Why compromise when it’s your ball and you can take it home anytime you want? It’s popular in the crowd I run in to brand the Democratic leadership as spineless and essentially different in temperament than their Republican counterparts. But I doubt it – national political office only becomes those with skill and will. There’s something else going on here, and that is that Democrats, most of them anyway, have already bought into the opposition policies, and are so anxious to compromise because they is where they want to lead the followship.

So it’s a game – managing the opposition. Baucus dropped the ball. Now the big boys are playing. It’s dangerous for American health care. We are in great peril.

PS: Senator Bernie Sanders (IN-VT) met with Baucus and urged him to drop charges against the thirteen single-payer advocates he had arrested during his “hearings” on “reform”. Baucus did agree to “fight for leniency”. I doubt that will happen, however, as Baucus is a petulant dick.

The Baucus Shuffle

There is no question that Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) intends to sell out progressives on health care. His containment operation has been successful so far, but there is leakage. So-called “listening” sessions in Montana turned sour has people asked his staff questions the regular media doesn’t touch – what about single payer? What about all that insurance money? The sessions got coverage in the media, but not the usual kind that Max likes.

The latest angle the insurance industry is pulling is called the “trigger“, where the insurance industry would have to fail to meet certain targets before a public option would kick in. Baucus and other Democrats in Congress would give the industry years to meet the goals, in effect killing the public option.

And that would be the goal.

I rarely say this – write to Senator Baucus’s office, tell him that you want a real and viable public option. Just kidding! Max knows exactly what we want. The game plan is to dodge and sidestep like …

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Max can neither sing nor dance, nor does he leave many people wondering what he is about. He is sneaking around looking for a way to appease the insurance industry. For once his cards are on the table, for once he will not be able to fool people into thinking he’s doing their business.

George W. Bush, according to Mark Crispen Miller, lapsed into his famous verbal gaffes – food on the family, etc. – when he was trying to feign something he did not feel, like compassion. Baucus has a similar trait, I think – he stutters when he is being disingenuous. Public speaking is really hard for him because he seldom gets to say what he really believes.

But I did notice that when he kicked the single payer advocates our of his hearing room and had them arrested, his words were sharp and his meaning clear.

Jeff and stuff

Jeff at Speedkill wrote a post in response to mine below which I liked – his traffic is way down right now, so I’m going to reprint the whole thing – his succinct comments and my no-so-succinct response.

Jeff: You can almost hear this blog dying, can’t you?

Anyway, I was thinking about this post by Mark, which is post 93 in his long running anti-hope series.

Progressives like to claim the public is supportive of their agenda based on single issue polling. It seems to me that once public opinion collides with an opposition campaign, things look different. Public opinion is also contradictory. People like more services and they like lower taxes. They can’t have both. California is trying it and it’s not working. Opinion polls show that if you pay income taxes, you think you’re paying too much. So despite the fact that polls also show people will trade taxes for services, they don’t think they’re getting a good deal. That’s ripe territory for conservatives. And if we’re talking about single-payer, it’s hard to see how anything gets past “the government is taking away your health care for some brand new thing that sucks for various reasons.” Even if the various reasons themselves suck, losing your health care is scary.

That’s all obvious, isn’t it?

So single-payer organizing is pointless right now. If we get a public plan, that changes. Are we going to get a public plan? Beats me.

Mark:

You are one of the better writers and thinkers in the Montana blog world, along with maybe Crisp and Budge. I hope you hang in there – you just don’t write enough to keep up traffic.

I keep getting this single payer stuff – as if I did not understand practical politics and the power of propaganda campaigns and the public relations industry. I have said repeatedly that if we are going to have single payer, it is going to be in Canadian fashion, where the barriers were first broken down in Saskatchewan by a dynamic leader, Tommy Douglas, and where it then spread due to its unquestionable success. Perhaps the PR industry and health insurance companies in Canada were not as powerful then as they are now in this country – I don’t know. But I see our best laboratory as being post-Arnold California.

You did not address the central theme of my post – the emergence of the Democratic Party as a mere containment vehicle for opposition movements. Take 2000 – there is absolutely nothing – nothing! wrong with mounting a third party campaign. I don’t give a rat’s ass how effective or smart you think it is. But the Democrats have demonized Nader now, and very wisely so – it’s a message to anyone else who wants to try it – prepare to be ostracized.

That is now the role of the Democratic Party – to geld third party movements, to contain all popular movements and minimize their impact. The practical politicians tell us that we must keep our expectations low, and Democrats like Matt and Jay are perfectly happy with that concept. It’s a distressing situation. Screw your hope comment – let’s talk reality.

The bottom line is that we do not live in a functioning democracy. The Russian people were able to change aspiration to reality. Maybe they aren’t happy with the outcome now, but the point is that they wanted change and got it. Whose system is more democratic?

Regarding polling and health insurance, it seems contradictory that people are both happy with their current coverage and want single payer. Most people aren’t sick, and have not been exposed to how shitty their coverage is. Those that have want something better. Enough information about the 47 million has spread around that people also understand that while they might be OK, many others aren’t. It seems to fit.

And pollsters aren’t stupid – they know how to ferret out information in a sly manner. That’s the object of much polling – to get information that the person being questioned does not know he is after. So they hide their objectives, riddle the survey with protrait and contrait questions – the professionals, anyway. The bottom line: Most people favor a single payer system even if it would cost them more in taxes.

Odds are it won’t – we are ridiculously expensive right now, spending twice what Canadians do per capita. Overhead runs 10% in a good not-for-profit plan, as high as 50% in some for-profit plans. Emergency room care is incredibly inefficient. I doubt it could cost more than we spend now.

And anyway, watch out. When the Democrat leadership embraces a concept, the odds are that they, like pollsters are really after something else. Beware Baucus. He’s not even a good actor or an appealing persona – I don’t know how he fools so many people other than that they want to be fooled.

Sorry to take up so much space. I have my own blog. And I love writing – I am one of those who thinks with his fingers.

A Dark and Gloomy Night

Republicans have proposed their own health care package. I doubt that the Democrats can muster forty votes to stop it.

Democrats are putting together their own health care package, but Republicans (and some usual-suspect Democrats) will easily defeat anything they do. Baucus has made it clear he wants sixty votes for his package, another way of saying in advance that he is willing to give away the store.

So the outlook at this time is bleak – Republicans hold all the cards, Democrats have no leaders. Republcans will insist on certain provisions for passage of a bill, such as no public option, or a horribly weak one, and perhaps no negotiating allowed on policy prices when government subsidizes insurance companies. The Democrats will give them what they want, supposedly just to get a bill passed, but in reality because this is what they want too.

I think it is important to focus on two aspects of the Baucus plan – one, his plan to tax benefits, and two, his intent to use the IRS to force people to buy private policies. In that, many of us can find common cause in opposing him. There aren’t enough progressives in the Democratic Party to stop him, but maybe we could do the odd bedfellow thing.

“Die another day” appears to be our only hope.