You're Not Wrong, It's Pretty Bad!!!

Towards the end of last month, You’re Not Wrong, It’s Politics featured an editorial regarding the American obesity epidemic which called for increased federal attention to a growing problem (no pun intended). “Obesity needs to be identified as a key public health priority for the United States,” seeing as, “more than one-third of the United States population has been declared obsessed or overweight.” Knowing that statistic, it certainly is alarming to consider that the scope of the problem could truly be considered an epidemic. However, as YNWIP mentions, “government policies and programs regarding this problems have been implemented...clinical guidelines, nutrition labeling, social marketing and calorie labeling,” yet, “obesity reduction requires changes to not only improve the food but to also improve physical activity.” 

The executive branch has had some success with Let’s Move, a public program stewarded by First Lady Michelle Obama which promotes youth health via federal and community programs; disseminating diet and fitness information as well as lobbying for policy change in local governments. This is more than a good start, and the First Lady has certainly made admirable steps towards fighting obesity, but...to use the ultimate editorial cliche...is it enough?

Providing children with the means to live an active lifestyle fueled by a healthy diet is one thing; changing the rest of society’s habits is another. America needs healthy seniors as much as healthy children, since often poor health can exponentially worsen one’s lifespan as they age. In the Medicare market, certain plans have begun to offer incentives such as paid gym membership to their enrollees, but senior’s recognition or use of these programs is still up for debate. There is also the matter of modern convenience, often provided by new technology, which enters into the equation. If the public is, by and large, adapting to a technology aided lifestyle which decreases their need for mobility or exercise, we’ll need a lot more than promoting jumping jacks to turn that ship around. 

You’re Not Wrong is not wrong: the obesity epidemic needs a higher profile, particularly on the national level. Let’s just hope we make it one before we get too weighed down to bother.

A Terrorist Can Be Little More than a Noun

Unfortunate, yet utterly predictable: the tragedy in Paris has brought national security back to the forefront of American politics. According to our leaders, the country with the most expansive, well-funded army in the world is actually little better off than an octogenarian hoping to fend off burglars with a flashlight. A terrorist can be “anyone” (i.e. “someone with an abundance of melanin”), while an attack can come from “anywhere” (i.e. “somewhere foreign”) , and, well, one gets the idea.

The attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent federal response have incredible significance to modern US culture, and the “climate of fear” that has persisted in its wake, often hidden in the ebb and flow of public cynicism, has made most Americans intimately familiar with the modern “Big Brother” style of the Executive branch. So before that can of worms spills out again, maybe it’s time to look into some things that got missed the first time around. First and foremost of these: what is a terrorist according to the government?
According to the March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance, an unclassified bit of bureaucratic muck raked up by The Intercept, there are two general classifications for terrorists: Known and Suspected. Known Terrorists are the foremost obvious choice to be included in both TIDE and TSDB terrorist databases (The TSDB being the FBI administered database colloquially known as the “watchlist”). Hey, did you just see that guy blow up a building to make a political point? That’s a Known Terrorist.

However, the second category of Suspected Terrorist is much more troubling. It involves a bit of Minority Report style data aggregation, wherein individuals are linked to terrorists through extrapolated means. Hey, did you just see that guy blow up a building to make a political point? If you weren’t his intended target, you’re now quite possibly a Suspected Terrorist.

It’s not an understatement. The Watchlisting Guidance, which gives government agencies guidelines by which individuals are to be deemed terrorists, is incredibly vague. “Nominators” are allowed to add individuals to the screening process if they meet the strict criteria of “reasonable inference” by the “Nominator” that they are terrorists. The Guidance explicitly states “irrefutable facts and concrete evidence are not necessary,” and that nominations can be made “even if [the source]...is uncorroborated.”

This might be a good time to point out that the Texas Department of Public Safety has an option on their touchtone menu to report any “suspected terrorist activity.” Better make sure to keep the neighbors happy, particularly if you’re a Muslim.

The question is: does this have to happen all over again? A terrorist attack occurs and suddenly “The Land of The Free” starts hemorrhaging all its civil liberties? Reading further into the Guidance makes one wonder if they would qualify to be placed on the list. Indeed, right now Congress is still trying to make sense of which terrorists it’s ok to give guns to (which is, and it must be said, a truly appropriate American political issue). Perhaps, instead of another round of demagoguery and paranoia, it would be more efficient to reform how we track terrorists. Then we can all be a little less terrified.

Response: The Call For Socialized Medicine

Brandon Foley, writing over at Brandon’s Government 2305 Blog, has recently published a blunt, no-nonsense appeal for socialized health care, arguing that the net benefit is undoubtedly greater than the cost. I could not more strongly agree, but as a dyed in the wool liberal, that’s probably not surprising. Oftentimes leftist policies are shot down by conservatives’ attempts to narrow the public’s focus on the immediate costs (figuratively and literally) of implementation. “Your taxes will go up,” or, “You might have to stand in a longer line.” I am hyperbolically understating their argument to be sure, but that’s essentially what much of it boils down to. Foley, however, uses anecdotal evidence to prove that the status quo (with many Americans still uninsured) can just be as immediately awful. Describing a friend’s ordeal, having to crudely remove a tooth with pliers due to the inability to afford a dentist, he asks “Is this the type of care we want?” He follows, “With socialized medicine, we can provide some for all. It won't be high quality care for everyone, but at least it gives people something.”

Now, just to be an obnoxious know-it-all contrarian, I will say there is a definite danger from socialized medicine as Americans have attempted to practice it. Because we are so married to capitalism, government sponsored healthcare is often heavily reliant on the private sector. Personally, it seems the regulations in place are eventually going to force insurance companies to do away with independent agents, or at least consolidate the currently existing infrastructure to further departmentalize sales. Before the ACA shakeup, independent agents were an invaluable asset to the general public when guidance was needed in choosing a plan. This service was doubly beneficial because agents were paid commission by the carriers, making their service at no cost to their clients. Now, agents are getting paid less and many carriers are trying to kill them off, moving sales back to an in-house service. Although technology may help future consumers easily analyze and choose the best plan they can find, there is little doubt that having an experienced expert at your disposal, free of charge, would be a greater benefit.

I think the government needs to do more, particularly in how it helps Americans in their (often tedious and headache inducing) shopping to find an affordable, benefit-rich health plan for them and their family. If agents aren’t to be compensated or utilized, something will need to exist to take their place, easily accessible for anyone who needs orientation on the insurance market’s many twists and turns. Of course, “the government needs to do more” is the exact OPPOSITE of what anti-Obamacare advocates want. Still, maybe if we empowered those who could educate the public on health insurance, more people would understand the net gain of socialized medicine.

The Speaker's Scoring (Wait, So What's in My Sausage?)

As newly minted Speaker Paul Ryan begins officially presiding over the House (as well as the illusion of a unified Republican caucus), all eyes are on the looming slugfest over government spending. Even with a shutdown-stymying budget proposal moving through Congress, the GOP will continue to push for conservative-flavored budget policies. Ryan himself has made reformative budget proposals a hallmark of his political career, being known for authoring "annual budgets that make hard choices about where money is spent (and not spent) by the government." But Ryan's figures have increasingly relied on an analytical process known as "dynamic scoring," and to say "the devil's in the details" would be overstating these particular details' tangibility.

There is a quote often attributed to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck which compares the legislative process to sausage making. The basic premise is that, like sausages, if you knew what went into making your laws you would find them, shall we say, unpalatable.
Dynamic scoring is perhaps the most offensive of ingredients in the current legislative sausage. In essence, it is the metric used to substantiate supply-side economic theory a la GOP policy. Dynamic scoring seeks to predict the theoretical increase in government revenue that would come from spending cuts and other Republican favored economic reforms (such as the re-consolidation of tax brackets and the elimination of the capital gains tax).

As is often with a pungent ingredient, dynamic scoring does have its use in small doses. It can be useful and even necessary for anyone attempting to project the effects of certain variables on economic policy, such as the amount of spending by undocumented immigrants. Beyond such considerations, the accuracy and effectiveness of dynamic scoring in projecting economic growth is highly questionable. Yet, starting with Reagan, it has continued to be used by Republicans in justifying the trickle-downability of their proposed policies. Now Paul Ryan has made dynamic scoring a buzzword again, using it throughout his succession of budget proposals like Paula Deen uses butter. The whole thing makes one wonder if Paul Ryan is stealing a little of his ideas from Amway brochures.

Certainly, the next few months leading into election season are sure to be filled with dramatic displays of economic tug-of-war in the House. As for Paul Ryan, his position as speaker is still too fresh to predict exactly what cards he’s holding, but if his past proposals are any indication, prepare for the wurst.

Spocko on Shootings & Spin

Crooks and Liars’ resident writer Spocko has recently written an interesting editorial on gun control entitled “How To Get More Than ‘Routine Media Coverage’ From Your State’s Mass Shooting.” In it, Spocko argues that the key to changing our national perception on gun control is by seizing control of how mainstream media represents the controversy. This has been argued vehemently before, by Spocko in particular as well as many others writing for Crooks and Liars, but Spocko has found a pragmatic approach to reversing the public numbness towards continual mass shootings.

The idea is to sell the story to the media as sensationalism, since only profitable drama trumps the naive objectivity practiced by much of today’s mainstream media. Spocko advises liberals to keep the political opponents of gun control center stage in the court of public opinion. The goal is to scandalize the American public, creating a viral backlash much like what has befallen certain over-scrutinized celebrities. In a way, this echoes the tactics of Andy Parker, the father of a slain Virginian journalist who has seized the media’s attention by calling out politicians by name, labeling anti-gun control politicians as “cowards.”

It really is not surprising that Crooks and Liars is openly arguing to propagandize gun control and demonize its opponents, since the blog is a bit of a repository for the most unabashedly biased of liberals. That being said, Spocko’s suggestion has the potential to be very effective. As mainstream media turns more towards soft journalism to keep profits coming, it might be worth a trojan horse or two getting through to get the public talking about the welfare of our country. Whether morally dubious or simply practical politics, Spocko’s advice is worth a read.

David Brooks: Correctional Contrarian

In his latest op-ed for The New York Times, David Brooks attempts to interject a more nuanced approach to explaining the exponential growth of The United States’ prison population. Brooks, a founding senior editor of the über-conservative Weekly Standard, has long played the role of center-right Devil’s Advocate in response to liberal talking points. His latest effort provides establishment conservatives and “blue dog” Democrats alike a rebuttal to arm themselves with should Liberals' conventional wisdom on prison reform make its way round the water-cooler.

According to Brooks, the war on drugs and the prevalence of mandatory minimum sentencing are little more than scapegoats for the problem, taking the lion’s share of public attention while deeper, more systemic causes continue to be ignored. In many respects, Brooks is right on the money: there is no easy catch-all solution to be found by simply eliminating the war on drugs or mandatory minimums. There is also plenty need to focus on the other causes he lists, such as the tactics of overzealous prosecutors and the social blight experienced by underprivileged communities.

That being said, it's not too clear what Brooks is advocating, other than a closer examination of the problem. If he believes that the ultimate solution for The United States’ absurdly high incarceration rate is an aggregate of smaller reforms, then why cast aside the push to end the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing? Brooks, quoting an article in Slate, asserts that a mass exodus of drug offenders from the prison population would only reduce it by about 300,000. One must ask, is releasing a group of incarcerated U.S. citizens equivalent to the population of Cincinnati really just a drop in the bucket? Brooks also writes that the theory of mandatory minimum sentencing driving an increase in prison populations is “problematic” because most prisoners only serve three to five years, but many mandatory minimums imposed by federal law range from one to five years for non-violent offenses, and small change adds up.

In the end, Brooks’s editorial succeeds in providing a little more substance to the discussion on prison reform, advocating the need for a myriad of various solutions, not simply one great overhaul. Still, until his argument provides actual suggestions on policy, his incredulity concerning the reforms already touted by many seems to be throwing out the baby while keeping the bathwater.

Redefining Divorce

Tennessee Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton in a state of theatrical tantrum throwing has picked up the bigot baton from No-Homo teammate Kim Davis. In a “six of one, half a dozen of the other” twist on cultural conservative civil servants feigning piety to protest having to perform their duties, Atherton was presiding over the divorce case of an elderly couple wed for nearly twelve year when he deemed that the proceedings were a complete farce, stating that Supreme Court of the United States has been “incompetent to define and address such keystone central institutions such as marriage and thereby at minimum contested divorces,” which is unarguably similar to when Brown v. Board of Education was decided and simultaneously each and every single American forgot what schools were. Should it matter that it seems so effortless for local government appointees to painlessly disregard the Federal Supreme Court’s decisions? 

@DailyKos