The vote was just held and succeeded 60-39. All Democrats and Independents voted in favor of proceeding, all Republicans opposed. After Thanksgiving we will all have the privilege of hearing debate on the bill, or as I consider it, the same talking points we have been hearing for months already. Since the bill seems very likely to pass in the Senate at this point, it makes sense to speed along debate and get to a vote if any hopes of getting a bill signed into law before the end of the year are to be realized. Compromises in Conference and another round of voting in both chambers could very easily drag the process into 2010.

Senators Brownback (KS), Hatch (UT), and Johanns (NE) have just been having their own round table discussion about abortion as it relates to the health care bill. They have made it perfectly clear they want the Stupak-Pitts amendment added to the Senate bill. The amendment would prevent federal dollars from funding abortions in the public option except for a few exceptions. It would also bar federal subsidies from being used to purchase private plans that cover abortions.

These three senators have reduced the vote on health insurance reform to a vote on abortion. Even though Republicans have been warning for months about a government takeover of health care, socialism, and increased taxes, these issues have fallen to the wayside to the ultimate bill killer – abortion (it killed something as unrelated as bankruptcy legislation in 2002). The point was most clearly made by Senator Johanns when he said, “This vote tonight, on the life issue…”  And I think Johanns just said he would kill himself if the bill passed. After discussing the near certainty that the bill would go on to pass if the cloture vote succeeded and what that would mean for protection of the unborn, he said “I can’t live with that.” The Senators made a point of emphasizing that it would take just one Democrat to break ranks to ensure that the Senate bill would include safeguards against abortions, a sign of things to come for Landrieu and Lincoln (should she vote to proceed) in their next reelection campaigns.

The trio of Republicans have made this seem like the end of the road for abortion. If the bill proceeds to the floor and passes, it will have to face Conference where the House and Senate bills will be combined. Pelosi can make a strong case that any bill will face an uncomfortably slim chance of success if anti abortion provisions are not included. In the end, the final version of health care may very well include something like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, yet Republicans will surely still vote unanimously against the bill.

Update: Lincoln is setting herself up to vote for the motion to proceed but against the bill on the floor. She is emphasizing the need for reform and her responsibility to do the right thing. At the same time she is taking a stand against the public option. The cloture vote needs 60 votes making all the Democrats essential. But only 50 votes are required to pass the bill after that, giving conservative Democrats leeway to vote against the bill in the end.

Update 2: Lincoln has indeed stated she will vote for the motion to proceed tonight. As Olympia Snowe did quite a while ago, she stated that her vote may not be the same in later stages of the process, especially if a public option remains in the bill.

Related

Look at the attention to detail on this poster. It really looks like that excerpt was torn from an 800.5″ x 1100” piece of paper. The Senate floor needs a projector and power point.

At UC Berkeley, many teachers and faculty have been on strike since Wednesday. Students have also joined in the effort, though in significantly smaller numbers than back in September when another demonstration was held.

When I was awoken this morning around 6 by helicopters overhead I knew there’d be some interesting news later when I actually got up. Sure enough, I found out that a number of people barricaded had themselves inside Wheeler Hall early this morning. This was most likely done in an effort to raise the intensity and publicity of the protests and in that regard they have succeeded (or maybe they just didn’t like the idea of protesting in the rain so they took over a building). I don’t agree with these tactics, but that’s a different topic.

Many are worried that we are headed toward the privatization of education which sounds a lot like the Republicans denouncing health care reform by saying that it will lead us to a government takeover of health care. The approach is to persuade people by taking the scariest extreme outcome and declare it will happen unless we change paths immediately. Public education, like anything else that relies on the government, does face many challenges. But the lengths to which people have gone over the past few days to protect it should be proof that if public education ever faces a serious threat of being eliminated there will be enough outrage to stop those actions immediately.

Fees are going to go up next semester, and most likely again in the near future because California isn’t going to fix its budget problems next year or anytime soon. Students are going to get less for more, not unlike other areas where fees have been raised like public transportation. We’ll have to deal with it, and it’ll stink, but people will find a way to do what they need to do. The present is dim, but there’s no reason for the future to be black. There are things we need the state to do to remedy the financial situation which harms things like our educational institutions.

Kill proposition 13 or cut spending. Without more money, the state cannot continue to spend the way that people are expecting it to. After eliminating proposition 13, place strict limits on new spending projects. The state will be able to pay for the services it provides today and prevent annual budget deficits, while at the same time protecting taxpayers from having their property increasingly taxed like in other states. The alternative strategy would be to cut spending (but there’s obviously no reason why we couldn’t have taxes and cuts if they made sense). The primary target of spending reductions should be the prison system.

Similarly, the proposition process should be amended to prevent voters from spending money that that state doesn’t have. Buying things we like with bonds isn’t good for the future (discussed more after the last protest).

Also, protesters are right to demand transparency for the way their money is spent. There are so many construction projects going around just here at UCB that it’s hard not to cry corruption when we’re not told where our money is going. Pressure on the administrators should continue even after this 3-day strike period. A thirty-two percent increase is a hell of an increase for anything.

Perhaps the most drastic alternative would be to split California in half (or in thirds if you want to get a really messy map). Let the blue California tax themselves to death for everything they want, let the red California go to sleep with their money, and let purple California (wherever that might be) figure things out for itself.

It’s 5 o clock and the helicopters are back to do their live reporting for the news. If it weren’t for Berkeley protests those choppers would just sit there collecting dust.

And for a completely different take on California government, the budget, and helicopters, click here.

So they [CW] run a show with the explicit message that a threesome is something ‘every college student should do before graduating,’ knowing it will most affect, and titillate, young teens.

I thought media experts were past the belief that people copy everything they see on TV. Additionally, the whole girls being bad with other girls on TV thing isn’t even close to being a new phenomenon.

Certainly, TV can make people, especially younger viewers, think about all kinds of things. But just like with indoctrination, when parents are around to do what they’re supposed to be doing,  kids will be much more strongly influenced by them. Bozell even recognizes the effect of parents when discussing the apparent success they’ve had in bringing down the high school kids who claim to have had sex. “Somehow, the concerned parents are winning on the trend line.”

Conservatives prefer to have television programming where everything plays itself out in the script. Take 7th Heaven for instance. There are instances where the younger characters have to deal with things, like sex. Luckily, the parents are around to offer their wisdom and to help them make the right choices. This is much easier than having to deal with the threesome on Gossip Girl where a teenager’s real life parents have to go about counseling their children. If only television depicted life and families in their ideal form we wouldn’t have to deal with so many problems in reality.

I blame Fox.

Related Reading

Indoctrinating children? There go conservatives, projecting again (Crooks and Liars)

7th Heaven goes to heaven (Slate)

Watch Stephen Colbert turn the tables on a conservative angry about Sesame Street forcing liberal bias on his kids. Scroll to 3:15 for the relevant section.

Travelers would hope that pilots in charge of the lives of hundreds of people would resist the urge to kill time in the cockpit, especially when something as small as a bird is capable of bringing down a plane. To combat lapses in judgment, rules are specifically put in place to prevent distracting behavior. For example,  “the NTSB said Northwest airline policy banned the use of personal computers by cockpit crews” (Newsweek). Clearly that wasn’t enough to prevent the two Flight 188 pilots from logging on to their computers.

What else could be done to prevent pilots from doing things they’re not supposed to be doing? “A federal flight safety official said he was unaware of any government regulation which imposed a similar ban.” AHA! Suddenly legislators have something to do, or at least something they said they would do. In trying to find the legislation, I have come across many statements by members of Congress either declaring the need for action or that they would pursue legislation banning laptops in airplane cockpits. Senator Bryon Dorgan (ND) intended to file legislation, Senator Grassley (IA) favors such a ban, as well as Senator Franken (MN). Browsing through any local newspaper would probably bring up similar results for most members of Congress not wanting to appear as if they’ve dozed off. In the end, Senator Menendez (NJ) was the victor, his bill (co-sponsored by nobody) has made it to the Senate’s beloved legislative process. Senate bill 2732 is currently in committee.

The bill would “prohibit the use of certain portable electronic devices in the cockpit of commercial aircraft during flight.” Whether or not this particular bill successfully works its way through Congress remains to be seen. On whether or not it would have an effect on cockpit behavior, it’s safe to assume that it wouldn’t. I come to this conclusion from looking at governments’ efforts to ban talking and texting on cell phones while driving, prevent drunk driving, or even stopping parents from leaving their kids alone in the car on hot days. While some measures may be more successful than others (Seat belts), legislation will never save the majority of us from the fools who think they can handle living on the edge (though from their point of view it’s not the edge. I’m sure the pilots were confident in their ability to navigate a plane tens of thousands of miles in the air just fine with their laptops in their faces).

Members of Congress clearly want to be on the right side of action in this case, but it’s all for naught.

Related Reading

String of drinking, safety incidents puts spotlight on airplane pilots (USA Today) – Drinking and driving may not be extreme, but drinking and flying?

AirSafeNews – Site committed to making you rethink your decision to ever get on a plane again.

The amendment has riled up pro-choice groups who are denouncing the amendment as an attack on women’s right to choose. Others are defending the bill by arguing that the amendment does not forbid abortions, it simply prevents federal money from being spent to provide them except in the specified exceptions.

One study found the overwhelming majority of abortions are chosen because of “personal reasons” such as financial hardship, life goals, and relationship problems. Additionally, the study found one percent of abortions occur because of rape and less than half of one percent because of incest. Statistics like these have been used in the abortion debate, specifically regarding federal funding. Since so many abortions are for pregnancies that have not been forced on women and that are not causing physical harm, federal dollars should not fund this majority of abortions because a significant portion of the American public is morally opposed to them. Women can still get abortions and can still seek insurance policies that cover them, but the public option will not fund them.

The argument seems to make sense as a way to keep healthcare reform “abortion neutral” in order to preserve the status quo on federal funding for abortions. There are many opinions floating around about how the Stupak amendment will actually place serious restrictions on a woman’s right to get an abortion (links below), but I want to think about a different issue.

The amendment, in essence, says that the government will pay for a woman’s abortion only if the pregnancy was beyond her control or if it risks her life. Any other reason is beyond the range the government is willing to include. As a part of the healthcare reform debate, this raises the question of whether the bill solves the problems it seeks to remedy. Beyond the exceptions made in the amendment, abortions are painted as something a woman has full control to prevent (by abstinence, use of contraception, making different choices). Basically, it’s seen as a preventable circumstance that will not be covered because of the controversy around abortions.

At the same time, healthcare reform legislation allows the public option to support people suffering from all types of ailments caused by their own decisions in life including smoking (lung cancer), drinking (kidney failure), and owning a firearm (accidental shooting). In light of this, legislation that chooses not to fund a medical procedure such as abortion because it is too touchy politically suffers from the same discriminatory practices it is supposed to be fixing.

Related Reading

Who subsidizes abortion? (The Nation) – (Hint: They hate abortions)

Preserving federal policy on abortion (Washington Post) - Stupak claims that his amendment preserves the status quo on abortion

Abortion amendment would hurt women’s rights (ABC News) – The other side of the Stupak issue claiming that the amendment will cause a domino effect of greater restrictions on women.

I spent a few hours today listening to the droning in the House as I caught up on some schoolwork. “Debate” is hardly the correct word to describe the events of today. For hours on end, members of the House gave statements back and forth about reasons to support or oppose the healthcare legislation. Aside from two (at that time) pending amendments, the bill was more or less set, making the day’s remarks more position taking by representatives than constructive debate.

All day Democrats repeated the urgency of the healthcare situation in this country while Republicans blasted it as a big government takeover. All day politicians talked past each other rather than talking to each other about anything of practical significance.

As I am typing the voting is nearing its end. The bill has passed in the House by a slim margin of 220-215, with one Republican voting in favor and 34 Democrats voting No. As noted earlier, healthcare reform is a long ways away from being passed, and years away from being completely implemented, if passed.

One step closer to reform, but one would wish that the political process we have wasn’t so dependent on superficial appearances. I have a new respect for those responsible for watching CSPAN as a living. Painful.

Watching this begin on C-SPAN, and as it quickly becomes painful to watch, I am reminded that even if the bill passes today (or maybe tomorrow) we are still in store for a vote in the Senate, the process of combining the bills passed by the House and Senate, and yet another vote in each chamber on the combined bill. The endless deliberative process of Congress at work.

Simple requests from the President have never stopped the media from pursuing a story, and the same holds true at Fort Hood. From headlines such as Radical Ties not Ruled Out to more subtle suggestions that Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim,  suffered from chronic discrimination various explanations have been emerging to explain why this man did what he did.

The news media has a tendency to distort and sensationalize as a way of boosting their audience. Unfortunately these tendencies can bring out the worst in people when combined with the type of emotionally charged events that took place yesterday.

For example, in the early part of Fox News’ coverage of the events the anchor was interviewing Texas Senator Hutchinson. They did not disclose the shooter’s  name at the time, but both knew it. The anchor asked Senator Hutchinson, “the name tells us a lot, doesn’t it?” The Senator agreed. Suggesting that having an Arab sounding names tell us that someone is prone to deadly rampages is not the type of thing that should be discussed during a national tragedy (though, in all fairness, the Senator chose not to disclose the name out of respect for the family who might not have been informed yet). That Fox News crushed all television contenders for news coverage of the events leaves little reason to believe that grieving Americans didn’t have their emotions turned against them at the expense of normal, decent Arab and Muslim people.

Gaining more explicit attention than the shooter’s name was the unconfirmed allegation that he yelled “Allahu Akbar” or “God is Great” before opening fire. With the recent (using the term loosely) upsurge of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, thoughts of crazed religious fanatics easily come to mind. This is the image that is being evoked by the media. Islamic radicals on American soil in American military bases? It brings to mind scary thoughts. The media, interest groups, and politicians thrive on fear because provides a unique opportunity to advance their goals. In the aftermath of these events we will surely see the images evoked to persuade people one way or the other on whether we should commit more troops to Afghanistan, gun control, and maybe even gays in the military. Looking beyond the unconfirmed notion that Hasan had an “Islamic agenda,” Americans should be wary of the media’s agenda in reporting events the way it chooses to.

It is definitely possible that the gunman at Fort Hood was suffering psychologically from the difficulties of military life and his approaching deployment to the Middle East. Maybe he snapped. It is also entirely possible that he was a radical committed to causing harm. At this point the jury is still out on why the massacre occurred.

Waiting for all the pieces of the story to be pulled together is the least we should do before coming to conclusions. This shouldn’t be considered a courtesy to Hasan, he is guilty and no excuse will absolve him for killing and injuring innocent people. Rather, this should be seen as our duty as Americans, to only hold those involved accountable for their actions and not to generalize based on what someone looks like or what their name sounds like.

Related Reading:

Information on making donations for the families of those affected (SFGate)

The Fallen At Fort Hood (Washington Post) – Remembering the 13 lost at Fort Hood

Terror at Home (LA Times)

Allahu Akbar: Who says it and why? (Examiner)

Fort Hood Shooter – The Conflicting Realities – The Propaganda (Sniffer Doodle)

Yesterday, an analysis released by the Associated Press of the stimulus job report found that the 30,000 jobs credited to the stimulus are an overstatement by no less than 5,000. Last night the White House quickly responded to the report acknowledging that there were errors with the data they looked at to come to their 30,000 number and that the new data to be released Friday was reviewed much more closely. In fact, the errors were already known by the administration because their numbers were derived from “a small subset of data that had been subjected only to three days of reviews.”

The question becomes how the administration could knowingly use flawed data as evidence of the triumphant success of the single biggest government intervention into the economy. The play of time in politics certainly has a lot to do with it.

The initial reports were released October 15. At the beginning of October reports illustrated an unexpected surge in unemployment during the month of September. In response, Republicans pointed to rising unemployment as evidence of the failure of the massive expenditures of taxpayer money. On top of the poor employment situation, news was trickling in about how executives on Wall Street started raking in money once again. With millions of Americans ailing, the rich were once again indulging themselves, even after the massive bailouts that kept them afloat.

With all of this bad news piling up, it’s not surprising that the Obama administration wanted to inject some positivity into the economic story being told by the media. So, three days after the job reports were available a preliminary analysis was released and the administration used that report to tout the tens of thousands of jobs the stimulus created or saved.

Now that those results have come under fire, it has become convenient to place the highest emphasis on the preliminary nature of the initial reports, even though for the past two weeks the data has been treated as truth in the face of stimulus critics. As things worked out, the complete three week review of the data is set to be released tomorrow, just one day after the AP report made its way around the news circuit. As a result, the political costs of the report will be minimal because of the preoccupation with analyzing the new data and the time spent covering officials once again defending the effectiveness of the stimulus.

Due to the accumulating pressure from economic factors and Republicans, the Obama administration quickly released a report that could portray the stimulus in a positive light. The report was used to combat criticism and in the campaign efforts of various Congressional Democrats up for reelection in 2010. The administration bet against the potential repercussions of the decision to rush an early report, and they lucked out in this case.

The timely release of information, be they official reports or leaks to the media, is certainly not unique to the Obama administration. Presidents never admit to these things while in office, making any accusations the result of careful speculation. Considering the pressures Obama was facing and the central place the state of the economy will play in 2010, as well as the importance of that election to his first term goals, it’s hard to completely discount the notion that he will feed us any good economic news that comes his way.

It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration uses time in its various endeavors. In matters involving the state of the economy, he has clearly been very quick to react. Healthcare reform was also treated this way in its early stages, especially back when Obama originally proposed an August deadline to make sure that the process would keep moving. In contrast, the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan has drawn an Obama that emphasizes the deliberative process despite charges of “dithering” from Republicans. Going forward, and especially as the midterm elections near, the use of time as a political tool (or hindrance) by the Obama administration will become clearer in its patterns. From these patterns we can gain insight into his priorities, the way he hopes to achieve those goals, and how he matches up to his campaign promises to change how Washington functions.