Against the Stream

Palestinian Peace Activist on the Daily Show

Leave it to Jon Stewart to have a serious conversation about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that doesn't reduce the Palestinian position to a cartoon.

The interview as it aired truncated a lot of important points, but fortunately the full interview is available. Watch below (sorry about the commercials):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The heckler in the audience seems to be pretty indicative of U.S. attitudes toward the issue. If you hear something you don't like, shout loudly and then walk out. It's a pity he wasn't able to hear what they both were saying.

I Owe Rachel Maddow an Apology

After saying just the other day that Rachel has a tendency to be too nice when she goes after her creepier guests, last night I watched her absolutely tear into Tim Philips of Americans for Prosperity.

Part One is relatively staid. She goes after him on the relevant points and tries to hold him accountable for AfP's leaders and funders, sounding the usual notes about astroturf groups that are really fronts for Washington lobbyists:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

But Part Two is about as aggressive as I've ever seen Rachel be. She doesn't let up on the guy, goes after his history of overtly slimy political tactics, and then actually calls him and his group "parasites"! Holy cow!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What's really amazing to me is that, after all that, she still comes off nicer than anybody else on cable news these days. But after watching it, I'm beginning to regret wanting her to be more aggressive. I think we all benefit from having at least one person on cable news willing to confront right wingers to their faces while at the same time not coming across as a bully. I don't think I'd like to see Rachel become more like those other commentators, or even more like Keith. I like her just the way she is.

Fat Babies Don't Get Insured

From the Annals of Insurance Malfeasance:

Imagine having a perfectly healthy two month old baby and having your insurance company tell you they won't cover him. One [Grand Junction, Colo.] family says that's what's happened to them.

Baby Alex is a happy, adorable, big baby. And now at three months old, the family's insurance company says he's not eligible for coverage.

Alex eats well, is growing fast and has no pre-existing conditions. But his mom Kelli says their insurance company says he's just too big. "Insurance standards say if he's above 95 percent he's uninsurable."

Because of his size, Alex was turned down for health insurance, his height and weight put him in the 99th percentile according to CDC guidelines.

Thankfully, in the face of bad publicity, the insurance company has backed down, but this raises a troubling question: If this is what insurance companies are doing when they're trying to persuade us that we don't need an overhaul of the system, what do you suppose they'll start doing if they win? What will they start doing if the individual mandate requires everyone to buy insurance, but there's no public option to compete with the private market?

This story illustrates well the absurdity of the system as we have it now: It is actually possible for a supposedly fully insured family to be denied coverage for their healthy baby because it is deemed overweight! How can it be legal for a company to do this? Well, who writes the laws?

It continues to amaze me, in the face of stories like this, that it's even necessary to have a debate about whether we should change the current health care system. Hell, it amazes me that consumers aren't showing up at health insurance companies with torches and pitchforks.

Mark my words, if health reform passes with an individual mandate and no public option, this will get worse. Ideally, we ought to required insurance companies to provide a minimum standard of care on a not-for-profit basis, and require them to cover all claims. The system we have now is rife with moral hazard, and it will only get worse from here.

Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Well, that was surprising. Let the right wing freakout begin.

When Is a Religious Symbol Not a Religious Symbol?

Apparently, according to Justice Antonin Scalia, when it's a secular symbol:

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."

Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"

Far less outrageous is the conclusion that religious symbols are not religious. But that's why these religion cases are always such fun. We believe what we need to believe.

Comments Steve Benen:

Antonin Scalia, a devout Roman Catholic, wants to protest the notion that the symbol of Christianity is somehow inherently religious. 

This is surprisingly common among conservative Christians who seek government sponsorship. The Ten Commandments, they say, aren't really religious, so there's no problem with the government promoting them. Creches (representations of the Nativity) aren't really religious, so there's no problem with the government promoting them, either. Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas have been watered down so much, they can be official government holidays without any trouble at all.

The goal, in each instance, is to ensure official, legal support for their faith. If that means stripping the major aspects of Christianity of their spiritual significance, so be it.

A Short Introduction to Karl Barth

The Mountain Goats

I caught them on Colbert last night, and they were a shot of pure, concentrated awesome. I immediately went to download the album, and this track is easily the best cut:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Mountain Goats - Psalms 40:2
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

The interview segment was good too:

 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
John Darnielle
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow has kind of been a saving grace for me over the last year in the world of cable news stupidity. Keith Olberman is entertaining, but Maddow embraces her inner geek in a way that I have seen no news broadcaster do before in my life -- I mean here genuine geekiness, not sports geekiness, which is considered in the news world to be socially acceptable.

Plus, it's nice to see her dismantle conservatives on her show. She mastered the art sparing with Pat Buchanan, for whom she seems to have a completely unwarrented sense of affection, but she did it again last night with Rick Berman, and it was a thing to behold:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My only real complaint about Rachel is that she often seems to me to be too nice with guys like this. I guess it's part of the strategy that gets them to agree to come on in the first place. But every so often I wish she'd call bullshit on these guys with the force that they deserve.

But this cuts against her public persona. She is, in a lot of ways, the anti-Bill O'Reilly. Where he revels in ignorance, she is always highly informed. Where he bullies, she kills with kindness. Where he shouts, she gently prods. All things considered, I'd much rather watch Rachel be too nice than O'Reilly be a shithead. So who am I to complain.

And, in "me" news

Lots going on these days. Some highlights:

•  Amy and I are trying to buy a house. I've come to realize that this process sucks about as bad a thing can suck.
• I finally turned in the big box o' tenure to my department's personnel committee today. So that's happening. I'll let you all know the result when I do. But it probably won't be till June.
• I took my Macbook Air to the Apple Store today. Have I mentioned that their customer service is great!?! Unfortunately, they're holding it hostage for a few days to run some tests. But hopefully when it comes back to me it will run like it was brand spanking new.
• And, last but by no means least, we're expecting another Baby. Details to be announced, probably some time in December.

My, all of this going on, plus trips to Ireland and Israel over the summer, plus advising and teaching. No wonder I needed to go on hiatus.

Dead Peasants

Here's an enormously disturbing story:

So when Irma Johnson learned that her husband, Daniel, who died of brain cancer, had been insured for $1.5 million, it should have been at least a small comfort.

But she did not receive the money. His employer did.

It's one of the strangest free-market perversions that Michael Moore highlights in his latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story."

In the corporate practice dubbed "Dead Peasants" life insurance, companies wager on employees' lives, expecting to make money when they die.

And it's pervasive, said Mike Myers, an attorney who has uncovered many of these cases and helped angry relatives sue.

Under what circumstances, one might wonder, could this possibly be justified? In some cases, the insurance was kept on employees who no longer worked for the companies that insured them at the time of their deaths, but the company still benefited.

The chief attraction of this practice is apparently a tax break that the company gets for holding the insurance policy.

Welcome to capitalism, American style.