A Fitting Response...

The Healthcare plan is dead.  But not because of newly-elected Massachusetts senator Scott Brown.  The plan Democrats had in mind, the plan voters like myself enthusiastically supported, was already dead and has been for over a month.  The whole losing-an-election-on-our-home-turf debacle?  That was just icing on the cake.  Democrats have no one to blame for the Healthcare plan’s failure but themselves.

I’ll say this: a bill will eventually pass, and it will accomplish a couple things.  It will ensure people cannot be denied coverage based on pre-existing health conditions.  It will set up a government exchange to help make healthcare more affordable, which should honestly reduce the number of uninsured people, especially coupled with a mandate that they must have insurance in the first place.  However, these issues were not the crux of the debate.  Private insurance providers and both parties in Washington supported these measures.  It was the public option that was at the core of this bill.  In the initial draft of the Obama-Biden healthcare plan, the public option was the ultimate device for enforcing lower costs and the ancillary private reforms.  Generic drugs are a good example.  Obama-Biden wanted generics to be used ubiquitously to lower healthcare costs.  Having a public government-run option would enforce that.  If a private insurer still used the expensive medication without good reason, people would gravitate toward a cheaper, generics-infused option from the government.  Drops in profits would become motivation to change current policy for private healthcare providers, and generics would become ubiquitously used.  Without a competing government-run option, now what?  How would the government tell insurers to use generics?  Would they simply provide the same lip service they did to the banks during the bailout?  We’ve seen how well that worked in getting banks to lend more money to small businesses.  Namely they haven’t.  There needs to be incentive to drive change, and this public option was as good an incentive as you were going to find, if only it were sold properly.

Ultimately, lack of marketing-consistency is what caused this bill to deteriorate.  The 100% medicare expansion free for the state of Nebraska, the caving on abortion-related policy, etc. were all allowed to happen because Democrats never kept a stalwart position on the public option.  Obama initially championed it, so did Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Howard Dean and others.  Then Blue Dogs publicly debated how cost-effective it would be, stating they would not support a bill with the public option, directly contradicting claims made by Obama and others that it would save money in the long term.  The Congressional Budget Office studies later validated these claims, further embarrassing the President.  He was also resisted in his claims that the public option would not lead to a single-payer plan, when Barney Frank called the option a great “gateway” to a single payer plan (I would’ve called this the Democrats’ gaffe of the year, were it not for Senator Reid’s “negro” comments).  Sensing confusion and loss of the plan’s political momentum, Obama decided to concede on the public option in the hopes of retaining the private reforms.  So he stated the option was not 100% essential, and could be dropped to preserve the other private reforms, only to have Nancy Pelosi heroically claim that there “will be a public option,” in the final plan.  Even when Pelosi and others hopped on board, finally sacrificing the public option, factions within the party resisted melodramatically, and again publicly, stating they wouldn’t support a bill without the public option.  They never once truly aligned, and this constant contradiction fed into Republicans’ hands.

The Republican party held a firm position the entire time, which was that the government-run public option, and the healthcare reform bill in its entirety should be opposed.  Consistency can cover for so many other sins in a political race.  It is absolutely crucial to winning long-term debates.   The steady, constant “Hope and Change” mantra that bolstered Obama’s campaign helped overcome slip-ups such as the “guns and religion” comments, as well as public attacks on his character and capability ranging from “terrorist” to “elitist” to “inexperienced” all the while.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, just look at Bush vs. Kerry from 2004.  Kerry’s “flip-flop” reputation was political cyanide.  Uncertainty is to politicians what alcohol is to Mel Gibson.  When the Democratic party proposed the public option, they needed to stick to it.  Any internal fusion should have been kept INTERNAL.  This was again, done beautifully by Obama’s campaign team in the Presidential elections.  But Obama picked his campaign team.  You don’t get to pick Congressmen and Senators, who are far more intractable and truculent than campaign advisors.

This confusion and miasma of mixed messages made even liberals too confused to truly support anything, option or no option.  Republicans representing moderate states felt zero pressure from their voters to support this bill as a result.  Meanwhile, they had been unanimously and consistently recruiting people to oppose the bill, with success.  As time wore on, even Republicans who initially wanted to support the healthcare bill, such as Olympia Snowe (R-ME) were forced to decline.  Now with only 60 votes to work with, Democrats fell victim to leeching.  Realizing that they were the “C” variable in the median voter theorem, the one who pits A against B such that they are now in a position of power, people such as Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) used their vote as fodder for Medicare provisions for Nebraska and specialized abortion legislation.  Other moderate Democrats began interjecting their own provisions for farm-friendlier states so they could bring bacon back home to their voters and brag about it. By the time it was done, healthcare supporters felt more like whores than like politicians, if there’s any difference.  But to be fair, this was unusual even for them.  They’d just bought off more people than Frank Lucas.

At least something was being passed though.  It was precariously built on buyouts and failed promises, but at least some of the private reforms would still be enacted.  Until January 18th, 2010 happened.  Until Scott Brown won that Senate seat in Massachusetts, replacing the late Ted Kennedy and killing the Democrats’  filibuster-proof 60-40 majority, thus inevitably rendering the Democrats’ healthcare-bill even more impotent in effectiveness, as they’d have to further scale back their ambitions in order to obtain a passable bill.  The Democrats’ fumbling while selling the public option, and then the Healthcare plan entirely, has now lead to an inconsistency in their brand, a brand they’d so magnificently built in the wake of Obama’s Presidential election.  And that brand-inconsistency is coming back to haunt them, as clearly evidenced in the Massachusetts loss, in a state that is supposed to be the Democrats’ home turf.

I voted for Barack Obama last year, and in doing so I implicitly voted for his Democratic allies, the 60-40 majority of Senators and Congressmen that would bolster his domestic and international power.  I supported healthcare reform from the beginning, and with a Senate, Congress and President all in agreement, sailing would be smooth for people like me.  But I was painfully reminded why Democrats can be so unbearable at times, why South Park has made a killing lampooning their leaders and celebrity supporters for over a decade.  Democrats try to portray this higher sense of dignity and intelligence, this help-the-poor, hope-for-all optimism.  They claim to be on the leading edge of social equality and fiscal opportunity.  And at many times they are.  But for all their high-fiving over their similar ideals, for all of their collectively progressive-minded chutzpah, they seem to have had a damned time cooperating on one stinking goal, especially when that goal was at the absolute domestic forefront of social equality and fiscal opportunity.

Republicans of late have usually had bad ideas.  From the Patriot Act to Iraq to the 5% capital-gains-tax, they’ve set the bar about as low as it could go.  But give them credit.  At least they executed their bad ideas.

It seems like only yesterday when middle aged white people were up in arms about a new show on MTV – Jackass. Featuring the now infamous Johnny Knoxville (not to be confused with Bears Rookie WR Johnny Knox), and his pals Steve-O, Wee Man, and Bam Margera.

After 3 seasons Jackass was canceled (not without a few movies being released however). Shortly thereafter Bam was given his own TV series on the network; Viva La Bam, which chronicled the presumably fictional life of his family and friends. Many felt his antics towards his overweight father, and befuddled mother were funny, which is why the show lasted from 2003-2005.

Tired of his act, and looking for new life interests, he become engaged to a young lass and married her in 2008. Then, in a typical move for most gentlemen who get married, starred in a in a pornographic movie produced by Gina Lynn. Yes, you read that right – Bam Margera was in a porno. I asked my pastor at the local church if it was acceptable for me to Google Gina Lynn for this story, but was told my young feeble mind would only be corrupted with sinful images. I’ll have to assume she has a physique men find desirable and want to fornicate with.

Of all the potential outcomes after Viva La Bam, porno was probably not high on the list. Passed out in a ditch from OD’ing? Probably the most likely. Suffering major head trauma which left him as a vegetable the rest of his life? Based on his reckless disregard for his body, I’d have said that’s a definite possibility. But porn – not exactly what most of us had in mind.

This officially marks the end of Bam’s career (not that it was much to begin with). He now can start the healing process, and make more television that appeals to 13 year old punks. God speed Bam.

Google may be dropping their “google.cn” in China altogether, citing frustrations with restrictive Chinese laws regarding content.

Story from AP (Courtesy of Yahoo! News):

BEIJING – China tried Friday to keep its censorship row with Google from damaging business confidence or ties with Washington, promising good conditions for foreign investors but giving no sign it might relax Internet controls…

If a compromise isn’t worked out within the next few weeks, the company intends to shut down Google.cn and pull out of China. Rubin said Google hasn’t set a deadline for breaking the impasse…

Images from the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown on pro-democracy protests cropped up in Google.cn’s search results Thursday, leading some Web surfers to conclude Google had begun to defy censorship rules. But Rubin said Google.cn is still censoring its results to comply with China’s law and protect its employees there.

As is well known, China has a strict set of censorship rules for all content within its borders.  One example of this is obviously… porn.  Just last year alone, over 5,000 people were arrested by Chinese authorities for pornography-related offenses.  While Americans certainly love their porn, turning it into a multi-billion dollar industry, it could be argued that porn itself could be done without.  At the very least, if a country had a moral opposition to porn, American businesses could learn to operate within China on those terms.  It’s not like porn-related concerns are really going to interfere with other ventures, right?

In 2008 “The Dark Knight” became an astronomical success, heightened by a cunning performance from Heath Ledger before his death.  Currently the film has a domestic gross of over half a billion dollars.  Think of the business opportunity available in China, the world’s largest population.  Now remember that opportunity was stanched before ever getting the chance to flourish.

Quoted From CBC News (full article here):

It did not elaborate on what it meant by “cultural sensitivities,” but the New York Times speculated that the Hollywood studio may have been concerned Chinese censors would be offended by scenes shot in Hong Kong, including those in which Batman, played by Christian Bale, nabs a Chinese money launderer.

Another potential point of conflict, it noted, was a brief appearance by Edison Chen, the Hong Kong singer and record producer who appeared in sexually explicit photographs posted on the internet in 2008.

“Memoirs of a Geisha” and “Brokeback Mountain” were also banned citing similar reasons.  So it’s clear that huge opportunities for both creative expression and financial prosperity are losing their legs in China for the sake of hoarding information.  As a result, Google has grown tired of China’s restrictions, and has threatened to drop “google.cn” from its operations and pull out of China entirely.  Keep in mind Google is a company that believes information should be free, and information should be freely accessible, so it’s not entirely unrealistic to see Google do this.

Exacerbating the problem is the fact Google believes they, as well as other U.S. companies were attacked by Chinese hackers.  Specifically, human rights activists were targeted.

From Official Google Blog: (full story here)

…we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

I agree with Google’s take on this, as most Americans probably would.  It is time for American companies to show China that when it comes to free information, there are firm rules.  Either all of it goes, or none of it.  Right now Google is one of the few companies with the international fame and domestic success to both embarrass China with its withdrawal while thriving economically.  More power to them, and hopefully other companies follow suit until China changes the way it handles or hides information.

This kid gets absolutely demolished by a huge runaway snowball going down the hill. Things like this are why for a split second I think “sure is fun to live in the northeast”. Granted, my friends and I did some stupid things back in the day, but nothing quite like this.

Monster Snowball Takes Out Stupid Kid – Watch more Funny Videos

It’s all but confirmed, Conan O’Brien is going to leave the tonight show with a $30 million dollar buyout from NBC (more on them later). With so many potential options for where Conan could end up, one that’s particularly interesting to me is hosting a midnight show on Comedy Central.

It sounds preposterous at first; leaving NBC and broadcast television to work for Viacom / Comedy Central and a cable network. With FOX being a step back, since they are really not known for late night comedy, and ABC/CBS are out of the picture it’s time for Conan to start thinking out of the box. After all, he’ll have millions of dollars if things don’t go well in his next gig.

Seriously... his hair is from another planet.

He is a younger late night comedian, which is why you see so many more “Team Conan” movements on Facebook than you do “Team Leno”. You know who is on Comedy Central from 11:30-12; just a guy named Stephen Colbert, a cult hero amongst the younger demographic. Conan would benefit from a HUGE lead in to the 12 o’clock hour if he were to go to Comedy Central.

It would also let him do a style of comedy he enjoys more. Colbert is a tremendous political satirist; Conan quite frankly struggles with it. With a solid 1 hour of politlcally centered shows before him, he would be under no pressure to feel the need to make jokes about politics. He’d also be able to revert to the days of the Masturbating Bear, and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. I’m not suggesting he dumbs his comedy down, but he would certainly be able to push the envelope on Comedy Central.

This move would benefit the network as well as Conan. They would boast a solid hour and a half of some of the most beloved talk show hosts out there. Landing a big name like Conan would give them a huge ratings boost initially, which if done right would parlay into loyal viewers night after night.

This guy is an idiot. NBC should hire Alec Baldwin for real.

The network is suffering from a lack of good original programming. South Park remains its only watchable show, and John Stewart and Colbert are the remaining two guys keeping the network afloat.

If Comedy Central is serious about drawing in new viewers, providing advertisers more opportunities, and keeping their network relevant, offering Conan a deal he can’t turn down is a no-brainer. Of course, NBC is run by a bunch of idiots (their only watchable programming is Thursday night comedy) so I wouldn’t put it past the suits at Comedy Central to completely overlook this opportunity.

If tabloids are to be believed, then you can currently track the infamous golfer to a sex rehab center in South Africa:

TIGER Woods was last night at the centre of a riddle over claims he has checked into a sex-addiction clinic. The love-rat golfer is said to be on a strict six-week programme at a £5,000-a-week centre in South Africa.

"Number 19 in the books! I LOVE BLONDES!"

The horrible English should be a dead giveaway that this rumor comes from The Sun (a UK based tabloid). I say good for El Tigre – but no matter what happens, AT&T, Accenture, and now GM won’t take you back – let alone your wife.

Tiger can stop with the facade. At this point we know he can sink any putt and nail any slut he wants. Business was good for TW Enterprises, and why not continue it. You can’t tame a tiger, and this one is no different.

Mark McGwire finally admitted to the world what we already knew; he used performance enhancing drugs throughout the 90’s, including 1998 when he set a then Major League Baseball record of 70 home runs in a single season. This naturally raises the question of whether or not the steroids helped him achieve the success he had. To that McGwire said

I’m sure people will wonder if I could have hit all those home runs had I never taken steroids. I had good years when I didn’t take any and I had bad years when I didn’t take any. I had good years when I took steroids and I had bad years when I took steroids. But no matter what, I shouldn’t have done it and for that I’m truly sorry.

Everyone knew he was lying...

When a man faces the nation and admits he cheated, that takes balls. One could argue that he should have done so during the congressional hearings a few years back, but that’s water under the bridge. While I don’t condone what he did, I can certainly appreciate when a person owns up to their faults. It’s not easy to do in the 4 walls of your own home, let alone in front of a camera broadcasting your confession to the world.But that’s about as far as I will go in defending him. The bottom line is he knowingly cheated the game of baseball.

Baseball purists, analysts, newspaper columnists and others will surely parade his head around on a stick, and make an example of him; someone who cheated to get a competitive advantage and will now pay the ultimate price of not being elected to the Hall of Fame. But if you don’t elect McGwire in, you need to refuse Bonds, Clemens, and ARod (just to name a few). The question now becomes whether or not the voters have enough balls to stick by their guns and refuse all of them.

Electing one, and not the other is sending the entirely wrong message to kids, and the mainstream public who pays good money to watch the product MLB puts on the field. Elect all of them, and you’ve basically said “we don’t care about the fact they cheated, everyone did, so no one really had an advantage”, but tell that to the players who have seen their records disgraced by cheaters.

The only option the Hall of Fame has is to flat out refuse anyone who has publicly admitted to taking steroids. If you’re a young kid and getting very good at baseball (good enough to get drafted) seeing an entire era of players get denied the sports ultimate honor because they took PED’s would surely deter you from even trying them.

What about the Mitchell Report you ask? Anyone’s name who has come up numerous times as an alleged steroid user who is being considered for the Hall of Fame should have to go through the equivelant of a criminal interrogation. I’m talking lie detector tests, one-on-one interviews with top interrogation experts, background checks with former clubhouse attendants and trainers. If you pass, you’re in, if not, you are denied with no chance for appeal.

While all of this may seem a bit extreme, it’s the only way in my mind to clean up the game for future generations. By denying the sports ultimate personal honor to those who disgraced and belittled the sport where statistics mean so much, you are sending a clear message that America’s Pastime is a sport we can all trust.