Ordinary World: Monday 11Feb19

Ordinary World: Monday 11Feb19

[OW1] Don’t Let ?µ©%ing Measles Make a Comeback: Pass Legislation to Save The Public Health. Again. by David Koff: “The reality of the world in which we live is that some folks are just stupid: they deny that The Holocaust was real, they deny that we landed men on the Moon, they boldly believe that the Earth is flat and, as you’ve learned, they believe that vaccines are dangerous. Let them be stupid, Senator. Our job-yours and mine-is to craft legislation despite their shocking and dangerous stupidity. Therefore, When you announce that you’re once again sponsoring a bill to protect The Public’s health, you’ll no doubt be confronted with anger, misinformation, and outright lies. Expect that, plan a strategy for it and have a crack team of folks standing by to help you educate The Public and your fellow legislators. I’ll be on that team if you ask.”

[OW2] Beneath Brexit, The British Conservatives Are Changing by Josh Adams: “The next leader of the British Conservative Party will most likely be far removed from Trump’s brand of right-wing politics, which is noticeably less keen on free trade and far more socially conservative. What is not clear is whether or not this slavish devotion to Trumpism from congressional Republicans is an electoral convenience or a sign of a sincere (and permanent) change to the party’s philosophy. What is noticeable is that British conservatives are spending far less time talking up American conservatism as a model to emulate. Trumpism simply doesn’t sell across the pond. This generational change in the philosophy of the Conservative Party has gone largely unnoticed, and understandably so. Britain’s departure from the EU has gobbled up the political bandwidth and left little space for tracking other developments. On the opposite benches, Labour’s leadership transformation in recent years from a mainstream social democratic politics into a Maduro-sympathizing, anti-Semitic radical socialist one has been far more profound and dramatic (and if you’re into a little schadenfreude: entertaining, too).”

[OW3] You’re Living in the America John Dingell Made By Zach Stanton: “Modern America is as much a creation of John Dingell’s life work as anyone’s. If you or a parent or grandparent have relied on Medicare or Medicaid; if you’ve seethed about the lack of gun control; if you’ve cheered that segregation of public places is illegal and employment discrimination is banned; if you’re thankful for the continued existence of the U.S. auto industry; if you’ve raged about gas-guzzling cars contributing to climate change; if your health insurance is purchased on the Obamacare exchanges; if you’ve swum in lakes or rivers or oceans free from toxic pollution; if you’ve drunk a glass of or bathed your children in tap water with confidence that it’s free from contamination; then John Dingell played a role in your life.”

[OW4] Why It Doesn’t Matter if Ralph Northam Wasn’t in That Racist Photo By Lili Loofbourow: “That’s what this “let’s-insult-women-and-minorities” bravado is about, and its function isn’t rebellious. It simply confirms the quiet codes of power and dominance. It’s agreeing not be the killjoy in the group. It signals a willingness to play along with power, celebrate its excesses, affirm its essential privacy. And it’s disquieting—and should be disqualifying—to see that in a governor. It’s popular, these days, to insist that the rules have changed. That suddenly people are being held to standards that didn’t exist before, and that this is all rather unfair. Baloney. The reason that photo appeared in Northam’s yearbook in the first place is because it was violating a social standard, one that was apparently too flimsy to fully take hold in America. If you want to look edgy, blackface seemed like a pretty safe bet, and Northam took it, expecting it to cost him nothing. No one had the power to exact payment at Eastern Virginia Medical School in 1984, and Ralph Northam knew that. But nothing is free forever.”

[OW5] Omar ignites new anti-Semitism controversy with comments on AIPAC By John Bresnahan: “On Sunday night, Omar was responding to a tweet from prominent journalist Glenn Greenwald, who said, “Equating [Omar and Tlaib’s] criticism of Israel to Steve King’s long defense of white supremacy is obscene (McCarthy said it’s worse). In the US, we’re allowed to criticize our own government: certainly foreign governments. The GOP House Leader’s priorities are warped.” In response to Greewald’s post, Omar tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” followed by a music emoji, which suggested that money was calling the tune for McCarthy. When asked to explain where the money she was referring to came from, Omar tweeted: “AIPAC.” An Omar spokesman said the tweets “speak for themselves.” Democratic leadership offices didn’t respond Sunday evening to requests for comment on Omar’s statements. McCarthy and other Republicans have pressed Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and top Democrats to “take action” against Omar and Tlaib, saying he would do so if the GOP were the majority party.”

[OW6] The Trouble With Candace Owens by Cathy Young: “What exactly is that message and what are those values, other than boilerplate rhetoric about personal responsibility? A Trump personality cult? Locking up journalists who report the news in a way the President dislikes? A conservative version of tribalism and victimhood? (Owens has told her followers that conservatives shouldn’t “become skeptics” when they hear negative things about “one of our own.”) Mocking concerns about the resurgence of white supremacism, as she did in a video shortly after the white nationalist march in Charlottesville in which one of the participants ran down and killed a protester? Conspiracy theories such as speculation that white nationalist Richard Spencer is a Democratic plant? If you’re getting the sense that Owens is not a serious person, well…”

[OW7] If Trump Declares An Emergency To Build The Wall, Congress Can Block Him by Tamara Keith: “But that could change if President Trump follows through on his threat. A Democratic leadership aide tells NPR the House will “vigorously challenge any declaration that seeks an end run around Congress’s power of the purse.” That would likely include a resolution like the one Miller introduced back in 2005. If the Democrat-controlled House were to pass it, the Republican-controlled Senate would have no choice but to vote on it under the law. Several Republican senators have been cautioning the president not to put them in that position. “I have real concerns about it, but I’m not gonna start talking about the floor strategy and how I’m going to vote and how the House is going to vote until we get there and I hope we don’t get there,” said Senator Roy Blunt, R-Mo. But if they do get there and a resolution were to pass, President Trump could still veto it. It’s unlikely either chamber would have the two-thirds majority needed to reverse a veto.”

[OW8] Beyond the slogan, ‘Medicare for all’ vexes Democratic presidential candidates by Melanie Mason: “The role of insurance companies is an unavoidable flashpoint. While the Kaiser Family Foundation found nearly 60% of the public said they support a Medicare for all plan, that approval plummets to 37% if it would eliminate private insurers. Many are confused by how such a proposal would affect them. More than half of the respondents believed they could keep their employer-sponsored plan under Medicare for all, which is not the case under Sanders’ bill. Even the vocabulary surrounding the issue can be baffling. Universal coverage, for example, is not the same thing as single-payer. The former is a goal for everyone to have some form of health insurance; the latter is a specific type of system where one entity — usually the government — pays for everyone’s medical care. “Universal coverage is definitely something that gets a positive reaction from people, as does the general concept of the federal government doing more to provide health insurance for people,” Hamel said. “People agree on the goals and don’t agree on the ways to get there.” Single-payer advocates have seized on Medicare as an easily recognizable symbol of government healthcare, albeit one with significant reliance on private insurers. “The branding of ‘Medicare for all’ is so important because the vast majority of Americans know Medicare, they like it, they have family members that are on it,” said Topher Spiro, a health policy expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.”