* * * * *<\/p>\n
The early chapters of Tempting Faith<\/i> form an earnest, honest, candidly confessional spiritual memoir. It reminds me of Blinded by the Right<\/i> \u2014 Kuo is very much like a straight, evangelical David Brock. And he really is<\/i> an evangelical \u2014 that's why the book is structured this way. He knew the book would be strip-mined for the juicy bits, the damning anecdotes that pull back the curtain on the Mayberry Machiavellis, but he wanted anyone looking for such juicy bits to first have to read his personal testimony. It's a bit like the Gospel Mission method in which you don't get dinner until after the sermon.<\/p>\n The endearing and admirable quality that comes through in Tempting Faith<\/i> is the way Kuo's passion and idealism remain intact. He has been disillusioned, but he is still hopeful, still idealistic. And while he recognizes that his own zeal has sometimes been misplaced and misappropriated, he still believes such zeal is necessary. Good for him.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Mike Leavitt sounds pretty far 'round the bend<\/a>:<\/p>\n \"The idea of the government negotiating drug prices really isn't about the government negotiating drug prices,\" Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said. \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Obviously<\/i> not.<\/p>\n \"\u2026 It's a surrogate for a much larger issue, which is really government-run health care.\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The secretary is arguing against<\/i> market forces \u2014 supply and demand, economies of scale, etc. \u2014 arguing that such things are really just a disguise for some kind of socialist\/Canadian scheme. We mustn't use our purchasing power to negotiate the best possible price, he is saying. That's just what They would expect<\/i> us to do.<\/p>\n To be charitable, Leavitt here is having to defend the indefensible, so he's bound to sound like a goofball. There's no good reason, no defense, for the GOP's Medicare scheme's requirement that taxpayer dollars must go to the highest<\/i> bidder. That's just corporate welfare.<\/p>\n I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out, somewhere in the fine print of this bill, that not only does it prohibit any negotiation for lower drug prices, but it also tosses in a 15-percent gratuity with every payment.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n \"The Pooch Is Already Screwed<\/a>,\" Jim Macdonald writes over at Making Light. And I'm afraid he's right. <\/p>\n The best we can hope for in Iraq is some kind of Least Bad Alternative. But even that is likely going to be really, really bad. All the kings horses and all James Baker's men aren't going to be able to uncrack this egg.<\/p>\n Throughout the campaign, President Bush and his apologists tried to distract from their lethal bungling by saying that his critics didn't have a plan either. An often-repeated response to this was to point out that Bush was the guy who drove the car off the cliff, so it wasn't fair now to ask his critics to take the wheel and miraculously prevent the crash.<\/p>\n That analogy seemed apt then, and even more so now. Of course, even with the new majority in Congress, Bush is still behind the wheel.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n The bottom line regarding the Faith-Based Initiative is this: People who claimed to want to support charitable institutions were simultaneously working, far harder, to sabotage the charitable sector by eliminating the estate tax. The estate tax accounted for about $12 billion a year in charitable contributions.<\/p>\n If someone tells you that: A) <\/b>They want government to support and encourage the work of nonprofit agencies, and B) <\/b>They want to eliminate the estate tax, then they are either lying to you or they are too stupid to recognize that $12 billion > $12 million.<\/p>\n Either way, such a person doesn't deserve your respect or attention.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Jack Balkin says<\/a> what I tried to say about Ted Haggard, but he says it better.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Over on The Huffington Post, Bob Cesca has become the Starbucks of \"Shut the F*** Up<\/a>.\"<\/p>\n The whole post is a hoot, but this point touches on a particular pet peeve of mine:<\/p>\n 10) The devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the Democratic Party as the \"Democrat Party\" need to stop it. Shut the f*** up. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party, with the \"ic\" at the end. Yeah, I know. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz invented the idea of saying \"Democrat Party\" or \"the Democrat leadership\" or \"the Democrat voters\" in order to emphasize the \"rat\" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. President Bush, in his so-called \"conciliatory\" [Nov. 8] press conference<\/a>, used this incorrect pronunciation several times.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Considering how popular this childish verbal tic has become among Republican politicians and pundits, I'm guessing that Luntz must've had some polling data to suggest it was somehow an effective \"subliminable\" way of influencing opinion, and that it must sound to some people as something other than what it sounds like to me: People who aren't smart enough to pronounce a four-syllable word properly. This kind of seriously unserious tactic is part of why I'm unwilling to trust these people with serious matters. (That and, you know, Iraq, Katrina, the deficit, etc.)<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Speaking of that new majority in Congress, here's my suggested addition to their agenda: Pass Part II of the bankruptcy reform legislation they passed last year.<\/p>\n Part I, you'll recall, cracked down on irresponsible borrowers<\/a> (you know, those lazy moral midgets who do things like get laid off or seek medical care). So now it's time for Part II, cracking down on irresponsible lenders.<\/p>\n For starters, I'm talking about federal caps on credit card interest rates and fees. Tougher regulation of the sleazeball rent-to-own industry \u2014 including strict limits on total payments. Limits on the cumulative interest charges and late fees charged by so-called payday lenders. Maybe some nice full-disclosure regulations for those lenders as well, requiring prominently placed, day-glo signage with lettering no smaller than six inches \u2014 something along those lines.<\/p>\n This would be both good policy and good politics. (Go ahead, call it \"pro-family\" \u2014 that's what it is.<\/i>) And it would provide an opportunity for the 18 Democratic Senators who voted for the atrocious Part I bill to at least partially atone for their sins.<\/p>\n (Those senators are listed here<\/a>. The Hall of Shame for the House, including the 73 Democratic members who supported the bankruptcy bill, is here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The paper started something called “Story Chat” \u2014 adding the option of reader comments to every story in the online edition. After reading these comments over the past few months, let me just say again that David Neiwert’s Orcinus is Really Important. * * * * * I’ve gotten a bit distracted from it, but […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":111,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/a>I've gotten a bit distracted from it, but I'm working my way through David Kuo's Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.<\/i> The latter half of the book contains the juicy insider stuff about the White House's Faith-Based Initiative and the way it was cynically, disingenuously used as nothing more than a facade for blatant, partisan political gain. But the first half is also fascinating reading.<\/p>\n