House Dems Announce $940 Billion Health-Care Bill

At the Washington Post, "House Leaders Announce $940 Billion Health-Care Compromise Bill":

Pushing toward a Sunday vote that could transform the nation's health-insurance system, House leaders announced a $940 billion compromise Thursday that would extend coverage to the vast majority of Americans, cut billions of dollars from Medicare, and impose new taxes on the wealthy and the well-insured.

The proposal, a rewrite of a slightly narrower health-care bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, would also significantly expand the federal student loan program, offering President Obama the prospect of victory on two of his most important domestic initiatives after a year of legislative stalemate. The stakes are so high and the outcome so uncertain that Obama canceled a trip to Indonesia and Australia to continue lobbying undecided lawmakers with phone calls and invitations to White House meetings.

"Our international alliances are critical to America's security and economic progress," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "But passage of health-insurance reform is of paramount importance, and the president is determined to see this battle through."

House Democratic leaders hope to approve the Senate bill along with a separate 153-page package of revisions to that bill that House members are demanding. The compromise would extend coverage to an additional 32 million Americans over the next decade by expanding Medicaid eligibility and creating state-run insurance exchanges and federal subsidies for lower-income families who lack access to employer-provided coverage.

Tonight's "Talking Points Memo" predicts passage of the legislation this Sunday, and mentiond at the clip are the latest healthcare findings from Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, "Fox News Poll: 55% Oppose Health Care Reform" (via Memeorandum):

As Americans wait for Congress to act on health care, a Fox News poll released Thursday finds 55 percent oppose the reforms being considered, while 35 percent favor them.

In addition, just over half of voters think House Democrats are “changing the rules” to get their bill passed.

About a third of voters (31 percent) think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are “playing by the rules” to get health care through, while 53 percent think they are “changing the rules.” Looking at the results by political party, 53 percent of Democrats think their party is playing by the rules, about one in four think they are changing the rules (27 percent) and the rest are unsure (19 percent). Varying majorities of Republicans (78 percent) and independents (57 percent) think House Democrats are changing the rules to pass the bill.

The level of public support for the health care overhaul has remained fairly steady since last July -- 35 percent favor it now and 36 percent favored it last summer. The number opposed -- 55 percent -- is up from 51 percent in January, and from 47 percent last July. Opposition hit a high of 57 percent in December.

Among partisans, the president’s party faithful are alone in supporting the proposed reforms. Sixty-six percent of Democrats favor them, while 53 percent of independents and 88 percent of Republicans oppose them.

Catholics Split on ObamaCare

At Fox News, "Holy War Erupts Among Catholics Over Abortion Language in Health Care Bill":

The abortion language in President Obama's health care reform bill has ignited something of a holy war among Catholics, who are sharply divided on whether the legislation would allow the government to subsidize the termination of pregnancies.

While groups representing Catholic hospitals and liberal nuns have come out in support of the bill in recent days, other groups representing Catholic bishops and other nuns have denounced it, saying the bill contains restrictions on abortion funding that don't go far enough.

The White House has touted the support of a group of liberal Catholic nuns in an effort to win over conservative House Democrats who believe the final health care bill they will vote on contains restrictions on abortion funding that they and Catholic bishops say don't go far enough.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has led the charge to include in the final bill the tougher anti-abortion language passed last November by the House, derided the White House for touting the nuns' support.

"When I'm drafting right-to-life language, I don't call up nuns," he said. Instead, he said he confers with other groups, including "leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee."

See also LAT, "Nuns in U.S. Back Healthcare Bill despite Catholic Bishops' Opposition":

Their numbers and influence may be declining, but American nuns demonstrated Wednesday what generations of schoolchildren already knew: They are a force to be reckoned with.

By sending a letter to Congress in support of the Senate healthcare bill, a wide coalition of nuns took sides against not only the Republican minority but against their own church hierarchy, as represented by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes the bill. The nuns' letter contributed to the momentum in favor of the legislation, despite opposition that is partially rooted in a disagreement over abortion funding.

"We agree that there shouldn't be any federal funding of abortion," said Sister Simone Campbell, the executive director of Network, a national Catholic social justice advocacy organization that spearheaded the effort. "From our reading of the bill, there isn't any federal funding of abortion."

Moreover, she said, the reverence for life that underpins Catholic opposition to abortion also argues for passage of healthcare reform.

"For us, first of all, tens of thousands of people are dying each year because they don't have access to healthcare, so that is a life issue," said Campbell, who is affiliated with an Encino-based order, the Sisters of Social Service.

She said Network, which has long supported healthcare reform, drafted the letter within hours of hearing that the Catholic Health Assn., which represents about 600 hospitals, had come out in favor of the bill last week. The letter was signed by the leaders of more than 50 Catholic women's orders and organizations, including the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which says it represents more than 90% of the 59,000 American Catholic nuns.

More news at Memeorandum.

Regime Change Cuba!

Via Fausta, from Val Prieto, "PUT YOUR FREEDOM TO WORK"

I’m not going to sugarcoat or editorialize or plead or try to tug at your heartstrings today. Enough has been said and written about the the Black Spring Crackdown of 2003 and there is plenty of evidence out there to serve as absolute proof of what I am about to shove down your throat:

THERE ARE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN CUBA.
THERE ARE NO CIVIL LIBERTIES IN CUBA.
THERE ARE POLITICAL PRISONERS IN CUBA.
THERE ARE PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE IN CUBA.
THESE PRISONERS, AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEIR CAUSE, ARE SUBJECTED TO UNIMAGINABLE BRUTALITY AND INHUMANITY AND REPRESSION.

And you know what? You are an accomplice to the above. Yeah, that’s right. I said you are complicit in the violations of human rights and the torture of human beings.

Because you are.

More here.

Also, Marc Masferrer, "March 18, 2010 — 7 Years After the Cuban 'Black Spring'."

See also, "The Plight of Cuba's Hunger Strikers":

Today marks the seventh anniversary of a vicious crackdown on opponents of the Castro regime in Cuba. In the spring of 2003, the news agenda was dominated by the preparations for the US-led invasion of Iraq. In Havana, 90 so-called "agents of the American enemy" were arrested. Among those incarcerated were teachers, doctors, union organisers, journalists, human rights activists and dissidents. Seventy-five of those arrested were tried in circumstances which fell short of international standards. They were given jail sentences ranging from six to 28 years. As bombs fell on Baghdad, few voices were raised in protest at events in Cuba.

The anniversary this year is likely to receive more attention. One of those arrested in 2003, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, died last month following an 80-day hunger strike. Another dissident, Guillermo "Coco" Farinas, who began a hunger strike on February 24, is perilously close to death. A third political prisoner, Ariel Sigler Amaya, who has been in prison for 20 years, is in extremely poor health in a Havana hospital and, according to his family, is receiving inadequate treatment ...

More here.

RELATED: Henry Gonzales, at Pajamas Media, "Cuba’s Unknown Dissidents."

When the Whip Comes Down: GOP Plays Hardball on House Dems' ObamaCare Deals

At Fox News, "Coburn: GOP on High Alert for Sweetheart Deals in Health Bill":

Republicans have a message for Democrats considering switching to "yes" on health care reform: We'll be watching you.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., warned Thursday that he and the staff of several other GOP senators will be monitoring with a microscope any potential payoffs to Democrats that materialize down the road in exchange for their vote on the health bill.

"If you think you can cut a deal now and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen," Coburn said at a news conference. "And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House."

Republicans are playing hardball after several "sweetheart" deals emerged in the Senate-passed health care bill, including the so-called "Cornhusker kickback" -- which would spare Nebraska certain Medicaid costs.

That provision was stripped in a package of changes introduced Thursday, but Coburn suggested Democrats might try to avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo -- giving something in return for votes -- by arranging for juicy payoffs down the road, like a federal appointment or local project.

Video c/o Pundit & Pundette.

Plus, at Michelle's, "The House Vote on the Slaughter Solution" (via Memeorandum). And, Jim Geraghty, "Punish These Fools."

Anarchist-Vegan World in a Cream Over Pie Attack!

At Zombie's, "Anarcho-Left Meltdown as Radical Infighting Turns Violent":

Like starving wolverines in a canvas sack, they tear at each other until there’s nothing left but shredded fur.

That’s essentially what’s happening on the West Coast anarchist scene, as far-far-far-far-left radicals have taken to assaulting the merely far-far-far-left radicals for being insufficiently revolutionary, opening up a huge rift in a political milieu that is now hemorrhaging adherents as we speak.

It all came to a head at this weekend’s Anarchist Bookfair in San Francisco, an annual convention of left-leaning anarchists and anti-civilization activists (which I covered extensively in previous years). One of the invited speakers was Lierre Kieth, a 45-year-old anarchist who spent decades on the cutting edge of environmental extremism, but who recently wrote a book explaining why she abandoned her once strict vegan diet after realizing that it probably wasn’t going to save the Earth after all. She’s still a committed anarchist, mind you, who “believes in militant action, even property destruction, if it can lead to change,” and who wants an end to all mass-production of food (i.e. agribusiness and factory farming), with the goal of restoring the Earth to its pristine pre-civilizational state if possible. Oh, but you see, that’s not radical enough for many of the deranged San Francisco Black Bloc anarchists, who somehow got it into their heads that she was a traitor to the cause and a puppet of the meat industry because she abandoned her vegan diet ...

More at the link.

Those were chili-pepper pies, so not too sweet actually. More at SF Gate:

Many people defended Keith - or at least her right not to be attacked. Others said she was dishonest and abusive to vegans and should not have been invited by the event organizer, San Francisco's Bound Together bookstore.

I've covered some infighting on the left recently, with the dissent among the anarcho-communist "Occupy" cadres (recall the debate over the "White Student Movement," which is a pretty common repudiation heard on the far, far left ...).

Today's Democrats

From Mike Lester, at the Rome News-Tribune:

More cartoons at Reaganite Republican, Theo Spark's, and Wordsmith.

And keep up with today's political news with Sir Smitty.

Planned Parenthood Pamphlet, 1952 - Abortion 'Kills the Life of a Baby'

The abortion industry's "inconvenient truth," at Live Action, "Planned Parenthood in 1952: Abortion 'Kills the Life of a Baby'":

Hat Tip: Kathy Shaidle.

Desperate: Leftists Use Alleged Parkinson's 'Victim' to Smear Tea Partiers

Notice that headline at the video, from AlterNet, "Tea Partiers Mock and Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim."

The full clip was originally posted at Columbus Dispatch, The full story is here, "Supporters, Opponents of Health-Care Bill Square Off Outside Kilroy's Office."

Safe bet says this "Parkinson's Victim" is a well-placed plant, plopped down into the center of the protest to stoke outrage on the left, precisely as the ObamaCare monstrosity's going down. Look at the guy: Are those tremors? How about cognitive dysfunction? Can't really discern physical or cognitive impairment from the clip, so perhaps he's got mild symptoms. No matter. I seriously doubt a genuinely debilitated Parkinson's sufferer would subject himself to such indignity. The dude's a punk prankster. And for what? Shovel-ready ObamaCare. God, that's just awful. I mean, seriously, there's nothing more disgusting than putting someone up for such utter desperation. You've got SEIU thugs at the event (see the full viddy), so it's no surprise. They'd beat your grandmother to establish death panels:

Fortunately a few tea partiers gave this planted "victim" a few dollars. He can sock the cash away for when his medical premiums go up under ObamaCare.

All kinds of outrage at Memeorandum.

'Fix the Schools' @ Reason.tv

Nick Gillespie and Co. are putting on some really good programs. Note the comments of Lyman Millard of the Citizens' Academy, at about 7:05 minutes: "We're trying to save children's lives here."

I've been thinking so much about this, as I see more and more kids with deep, even crushing, educational needs at my college. Things have not been getting better, and I've been teaching at LBCC for ten years. Robert Stacy McCain, in response to my recent piece on school reform, wrote an essay at Hot Air: "The Failure of School Reform." It's powerful. The happy medium for me is somewhere (somehow) between the kind of caring and autonomy at the charter schools and the fundamental attention to students (that only parents can give) discussed at Stacy's essay. Not all families can homeschool their kids. But we as a society have to find a way to break the organized labor/ big union indifference to the needs of today's youth. Remember my entry on Providence St. Mel as well, "'The Providence Effect': Astonishing Educational Achievement, 'The Way It Should Be Done'.'

President Obama's Interview with Bret Baier

I watched it. President Obama refused to discuss process, which by now has infuriated the American public.

The video's at Mediaite, "Bret Baier Keeps Pres. Obama On Track In Combative Fox News Exclusive Interview."

The transcript is here.

Plus, at Fox, "Obama: 'Procedural' Spat Over Health Bill Vote Doesn't Worry Me." And, lots of commentary at Memeorandum, but see NewsReal, "Obama Dodges Every Single Question During FOX Interview with Bret Baier," and especially Doug Ross, "Where's TOTUS when you need him? Baier shreds President Obama on Government-run Health Care and the Shady Deals Used to Buy Off Democrats":

President Obama did some of his best fibbing ever, which is really saying something. Bill Clinton and Dick Nixon look like rank amateurs compared to #44.

Paul Krugman, Neocon?

Not exactly a blog headline I ever expected to see, from Daniel Drezner, "Paul Krugman, Neoconservative":

So I see Paul Krugman has thrown his lot in with the neoconservatives who disdain multilateral institutions and prefer bellicose unilateralism when they confront a frustrating international situation.

His op-ed today is about China's currency manipulation. ... again. After explaining that China has less leverage than is commonly understood on the foreign economic policy front (gee, where have I heard that before), he closes with the following:

In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent.

Whoa there, big fella!! That's a nice but very selective reading of international economic history you have there.

It's certainly true that the dollar was overvalued back in 1971. What Krugman forgets to mention -- and see if this sounds familiar -- is that the Johnson and Nixon administrations contributed to this problem via a guns-and-butter fiscal policy. They pursued the Vietnam War, approved massive increases in social spending, and refused to raise taxes to pay for it. This macroeconomic policy created inflationary expectations and a "dollar glut." Foreign exchange markets to expect the dollar to depreciate over time. Other countries intervened to maintain the dollar's value -- not because they wanted to, but because they were complying with the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates. Nixon only went off the dollar after the British Treasury came to the U.S. and wanted to convert all their dollar holdings into gold.

In other words, the United States was the rogue economic actor in 1971 -- not Japan or Germany.

So, how about acting multilaterally first before engaging in unilateral action that alienates America's friends and allies alike? ...

There's more ... a wonkish post, but interesting.

If you follow Drezne's links to Krugman's NYT essay, it turns out they both agree that it's China that has the most to lose in a currency war with the U.S. (Compare to Drezner's academic article, which I wrote about here when it was published, "Bad Debts: Assessing China’s Financial Infuence in Great Power Politics.") Other than that, actually, I'm more with Krugman on the unilateral/multilateral divide thing, but I doubt we have anything else in common, LOL!

That said, I wonder of my neocon protege GSGF will enter the fray?

And in related neocon news, see Robert Kaplan, "Allies Everywhere Feeling Snubbed by President Obama" (via Memeorandum).

Yes! - Walmart Fires Workplace Stoner for Medical Marijuana on the Job!

Hooray for Walmart, sticking up for principle.

From ABC News, "Walmart Fires Cancer Patient with Prescription for Medical Marijuana: Man Who Earned Associate of the Year Honors Fired by Employer Even Though Medical Marijuana Legal":

Even though Michigan resident Joseph Casias had a prescription from his doctor for medical marijuana, he was fired after a positive test for the substance by his employer, Walmart.

The news last November he'd been terminated was devastating for Casias, 29, who took great pride in his job, once earning the honor of Associate of the Year.

"It hurts. It hurts because I care. I care a lot about the store. I always wanted to make sure I do well," he told ABC News.

Casias started taking the medicine last June to cope with pain from sinus cancer and a brain tumor. He says the rare form of cancer causes him pain constantly and he almost died when he was first diagnosed.

Casias sprained his knee at work last November and underwent the routine drug test that follows all workplace injuries. Questioned about his positive test, Casias told management about his condition and presented a state card authorizing his marijuana use for medical purposes, but he was fired anyway. Casias says management told him Walmart does not honor medical marijuana cards.

"I just can't believe that it has to be this way. I don't see why they have to fire me," he said.

Michigan is one of 14 states where medical marijuana is legal, but employers in the Wolverine state can and do terminate employees who fail drug tests. Walmart policy, like the policy of other companies, indicates that in states such as Michigan which allow marijuana use for medical purposes, the store can still terminate an employee following a positive drug test. The law in Michigan says employers do not have to accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in the workplace or employees working while under the influence.

Walmart is right.

The issue is workers who are on the job under the influence. But I'm impressed that Walmart's bucking the larger trend toward cultural breakdown and the permissiveness of abuse. Here's hoping we see like outcomes in additional cases like this one.

The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution

Megyn Kelley's great interview with Judge Michaell McConnell of Stanford Law School:

McConnell's earlier, WSJ commentary piece is here: "The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution." The bottom line:

According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate" and be "presented to the President of the United States" for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has "passed" both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

Also, we could see a legal challenge. See Mark Tapscott, "Landmark Legal Foundation Readies Constitutional Suit if Obamacare Passes With Slaughter Solution."

RELATED: At ABC News, "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: 'We're Going to Have a Clean Up or Down Vote': Steny Hoyer, Eric Cantor Spar Over Health Care Vote Count, Parliamentary Tactics" (via Memeorandum).

Christiane Amanpour Would Be Disaster for ABC's 'This Week'

I don't know what's gotten into the execs at ABC News, but they should step back from their expected decision to name Christiane Amanpour as the host of the Sunday flagship broadcast, "This Week."

NYT reports, "ABC and Amanpour Close to Deal for ‘This Week’":

Ms. Amanpour has been discussing the possible move with news colleagues — including some prospective ones from ABC — over the last month. One concern raised by at least one of these contacts has been that she is not primarily known for reporting on Washington or American politics. But one ABC News staff member said that Ms. Amanpour had been convinced that she could make the switch from international to political reporting.

I'm not convinced, and the timing for this would be inauspicious, since the network has been doing well with the move of Diane Sawyer to "World News Tonight" and with George Stephanopoulos to "GMA."

I've been watching the network a lot more lately, and I've been pleasantly surprised, frankly. But I don't trust Amanpour. A leftist and critic of the Iraq war, she's married to Jamie Rubin, who was Assistant Secretary of State in Democrat Bill Clinton's administration.

See, "CNN's Christiane Amanpour: Iraq war 'a disaster': Personal opinion from chief international reporter: 'It just gets worse and worse'."

Politics and the Supreme Court

This is an interesting video, worth sharing:

More on this previoiusly at the Los Angeles Times, "Chief Justice Unsettled by Obama's Criticism of Supreme Court."

RELATED: From Jeffrey Toobin, "After Stevens: What Will the Supreme Court Be Like Without its Liberal Leader?"

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

From Patriot Skyline, "Obama: Wanted! An Enemy of this Constitutional Republic!":

WE THE PEOPLE "DEEM" that Barack Hussein Obama is an Enemy of this Constitutional Republic!! He has demonstrated clear disregard of Constitution and shown his disdain for the Rule of Law by indicating his willingness to sign the ObamaCare bill without a vote in the House on the Senate bill itself (a use of illegal and unConstitutional sleight-of-hand called "self-executing" "deem and pass") and by accepting a Senate "reconciliation" vote of only 51 Senators without opportunity of opposition filibuster. Obama has vigorously demanded that Congress to pass ObamaCare by "any means possible" even if such means are unConstitutional and against the Rule of Law. The White House is also invoking "The Chicago Way" to intimidate House members. Will House members be paid a "house call" by members of Obama's union friends? All thuggery all the time for Obama!! And all of this is happening under the backdrop that the American people, based on any poll you look at, OVERWHELMINGLY reject ObamaCare and the tactics used by this Administration to attempt to pass it!

Also, at Left Coast Rebel, "Obama Had His Chance... Now It Is Time To Stand Against Tyranny."

RELATED: From NYT, "States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry for Lawmakers."

NOTE: "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (death to tyrants") is the motto at the official seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Democrats Against Democracy

From Andrew Cline, at American Spectator, "Democrats Against Democracy":

For weeks, President Obama has been demanding an "up or down vote" on health care legislation. So where is the president now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she would like to pass the Senate health care bill in the House without allowing an up or down vote on it?

Pelosi signaled on Monday that she favors Rep. Louise Slaughter's proposal to pass the health care bill, in the words of the Washington Post, "without having members vote on it." Using a House rule called a "self-executing rule," members would vote on a package of amendments to the Senate bill, and the passage of those changes would by rule "deem" the Senate bill passed. But the House would never vote on the Senate bill itself.

That's an awfully peculiar step to take for a party that has spent the last few weeks clamoring about how democratic it would be to do away with the filibuster so we could at last have a simple majority vote on the health care bill in the Senate. What's democratic about voting on a bill without voting on it? And by the way, the self-executing rule also curtails floor debate and disallows amendments. Hail, democracy!

More at the link.

RELATED: At Pundit & Pundette, "Pence on the bill, the process, and the Constitution, in 1.5 minutes." And at the New York Times is loving it. See, "Democrats Consider New Moves for Health Bill" (via Memeorandum).

Obama Thugs Threaten House Dems on Health Vote!

More Obama thuggery!

At Politico, "House Dems Under Pressure to Deliver":

Aides to conservative Democratic lawmakers describe intense pressure tactics, including one who said his office has received calls from donors. Those calls are taken as a thinly veiled threat to withhold future financial support if the member doesn’t vote as the donor wishes.

“We’re having donors, even donors outside of our district, that are being called and asked to urge support” for the bill, said a senior aide to one conservative Democrat, who indicated the tactics could backfire on the health care bill. “If you want to play Chicago-style politics, and that’s what this is, then we will come out firmly against it.”

The aide also targeted the Democratic National Committee, where Vice Chairwoman Donna Brazile used her Twitter account to encourage primary challenges to Democrats who vote against the bill.

“If a handful of Democrats decide to defeat this bill, they deserve to get a primary challenge to defend the status quo and insurance industry,” Brazile tweeted.

The White House said no one there is telling donors to call members, and Brazile later clarified that she wasn’t speaking for the DNC.

Nonetheless, the comments fueled frustration among moderate Democrats who believe their party is working against them.

Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat who remains a firm “no,” said he’s getting calls spurred by Organizing for America, the president’s unofficial outreach arm. He said he’s fine with constituents expressing their opinions — and even with the right of OFA to engage — but noted of the Obama organization, “It’s clear to me they could care less about my political future.”

All thuggery, all the time. God, this administration is the freakin' worst!

REALTED: At London's Telegraph, "Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats'" (via Memeorandum). But see Allahpundit, "Oh my: Dems ask Obama to delay trip for O-Care again."

Iggy Pop Inducted Into Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame

From the New York Times, "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inducts New Members":

Slouched against the lectern at the 25th annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony, a shirtless Iggy Pop snarled, “I am the world’s forgotten boy.”

No more. After years of being named finalists to enter the hall of fame, then getting outvoted, the Stooges were finally inducted this year, in an event held at the Waldorf-Astoria on Monday night and telecast on the Fuse cable channel. “After the seventh time” the Stooges were nominated, said the band’s guitarist, James Williamson, in his acceptance speech, “we were beginning to think we would have to take pride in not getting in.”

Behind him, Mr. Pop, 62, was already unbuttoning his white dress shirt, getting ready to jump, drop to his knees, strut and twist across the stage and down into the black-tie audience. Introducing him, Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day had described him as “the most confrontational singer we will ever see.” In his acceptance speech, Mr. Pop declared: “Roll over, Woodstock. We won.”

The whole thing is here.

I caught Iggy Pop twice in concert. After his show at the Santa Monica Civic, circa 1981, my sister Chris said her ear drums were blown. Iggy played perhaps the loudest gigs I can recall. Pounding and screeching sounds ... and crazy theatrical antics on stage. He's a blast to see.

Genesis was also inducted, who I saw as well, in about 1980. I'll write on them later. Phil Collins was front man by that time ...

Never have seen Green Day. I thought they were wannabes when they first started out, but I like their latest album. More later ...

Top Video: Iggy performing "The Passenger."

RELATED: From Matea Gold and Randy Lewis, "Iggy Pop and the Stooges add life to the Hall of Fame induction ceremony." And, at E-Online, "Iggy Doesn't Ef It Up for the Stooges at Rock Hall Induction," and M-Live, "Iggy Pop delivers one-finger salute as Stooges finally enter Rock and Roll Hall of Fame."

Deem it Passed? The Ultimate Washington Power Grab

At CNN, "House Democrats Weigh Controversial Rule in Health Care Vote":

The House is expected to vote this week on the roughly $875 billion bill passed by the Senate in December. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.

A total of 27 House Democrats, including nine who supported the House plan in November, have indicated they would join a unified House Republican caucus in opposing the Senate plan, which passed in that chamber on December 24 with the minimum required 60 votes.

Included in that 27 are five House Democrats who told CNN Tuesday that they will vote against the Senate legislation. That puts opponents of reform just 11 votes shy of the 216 needed to prevent Obama from scoring a major victory on his top domestic priority.

Pelosi's problem: A lot of House Democrats don't like the Senate bill. Among other things, some House members have expressed concern the Senate bill does not include an adequate level of subsidies to help middle- and lower-income families purchase coverage. They also object to the Senate's proposed tax on high-end insurance plans.

Pelosi's solution: Have the House pass the Senate bill, but then immediately follow up with another vote in both chambers of Congress on a package of changes designed in part to make the overall legislation more acceptable to House Democrats.

Now, Pelosi also may try to help unhappy House Democrats by allowing them to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill. The speaker may call for a vote on a rule that would simply "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. The House then would proceed to a separate vote on the more popular changes to the Senate bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that Republicans will try to block the procedure. They will try to force a vote on a resolution requiring the Senate health care bill to be brought to an up-or-down vote.

The Democratic plan is "the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so," Boehner said.

Defy the will of the public while making the most cowardly arguments ever. See, The Hill, "Hoyer Defends Tactic to 'Deem' Approval of Senate Health Bill" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: Doug Ross, "Democrats: We're so proud of our awesome takeover of health care that we won't go on record as actually having voted for it."

Code Red on Capitol Hill!

Wow!

Things are totally fired up on Capitol Hill! At the screencap is the National Republican Congressional Committee "Code Red Stop Obama/Pelosi":

Plus, here's Michele Bachman and Mike Pence speaking today, via Nice Deb:

And at Fox News, "Tea Partiers Rally on Capitol Hill in Opposition to Health Care Bill" (via Memeorandum); CNS News, "House Republicans Join Tea Party Rally and Promise to ‘Kill the Bill’"; and the Washington Post, "Protesters rally to 'Kill the bill'." Plus, Glenn Reynolds, "TEA PARTIERS RALLY ON CAPITOL HILL." And, Moderate in the Middle, "Tea Party Patriots on Capitol Hill."

And some video from CBS, "Video: Door Closed on Health Care Protesters," as well as, "A Big Week for Health Care Reform: What Could Happen Next?":

More at The Other McCain, "LIVE: People’s Surge vs. ObamaCare 2.0":

Plus, at Pat in Shreveport, "Rush Helps Crash Capitol Phone Lines," and Mediaite, "Should Obama Be Worried? Rush Limbaugh Asks Listeners To Push Back On HCR" (via Memeorandum).

Also, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, at the Wall Street Journal, "ObamaCare and the 'Buzzsaw' of Opposition."

RELATED: At Washington Wire, "WSJ/NBC News Poll: Throw ‘Em All Out."

The Rise and Fall of Humanitarian Intervention

World Affairs, a classic neocon journal of international politics, has launched a new website, World Affairs Daily. The article cited here, Mark Mazower, "Saviors & Sovereigns: The Rise and Fall of Humanitarianism," is available from the March/April issue:

On November 9, 2001, George W. Bush created a new public holiday—World Freedom Day. The United States, he explained, would lead the global fight for “liberty, freedom and the universal struggle for human rights”; it would try to help the “more than two billion people” still living under repressive regimes. The idea that America could, or should, do this had informed a certain kind of Washington mind-set throughout the Cold War. But after the Berlin Wall came down, freedom’s crusaders increasingly set their eyes not so much on Communism as on violators of human rights in general. They unfurled the banner of humanitarianism and, righteously, scorned the cowards and skeptics who wanted to keep America’s powder dry.

RTWT.

Pull the Plug on ObamaCare!

From Michelle Malkin, "When you’ve lost MSM newspaper editorial boards ...":

I worked for the Seattle Times editorial board for several years as the lone conservative. It was a center-left paper then, and remains so today. The board took a few right-leaning positions (opposition to the death tax, for example), but is usually a reliable voice for the Democrat/statist establishment. The paper initially supported Obamacare, but this week, it dropped its support. Sign of the times, White House. Listen up:

This is a change of position for us. This page supported Barack Obama for president, enthusiastically. We have supported the health-care effort until now. We still support universal coverage as a social goal.

But the longer the fight goes on, the more it feels that the timing is all wrong. The economy is wounded. Employers are hurting. The time to think about loading employers with new burdens is when they are strong. Not now…

President Obama has promised that any health-care bill he signs will not add one dime to the deficit, which already has swelled beyond anything since World War II. The president has put himself in a position where he cannot keep that promise. He has let each house of Congress come up with its own health-care bills.

The result has been chaos: The public option is in then out; the Medicare buy-in for 55-year-olds is in, then out. When the congressional dance stops, the Senate may have 60 votes, but for what? It will satisfy neither Obama’s frugal promise nor progressives’ lavish hopes. Already the Democratic Party’s former chairman, Howard Dean, says the bill is not worth passing in this form.

You know he’s right when you hear statements that something has to be passed, for political reasons. This issue is too important for that. It should wait for a unified proposal and an economy on the mend.

Way more editorials at the post!

Heads Explode: Leftist Outrage at Erick Erickson CNN Pick

Steve Benen's the ultimate hypocritical concern troll. See, "THIS IS CNN?...." (via Memeorandum):

This is easily the worst decision CNN has ever made. That the network probably reviewed Erickson's work before hiring him, and offered him a job anyway, suggests CNN's professional standards for what constitutes "an important voice" have all but disappeared.

Check Benen's post for a long hissy fit on how awful is Erick Erickson. Gee, he said bad things. Can you say extremist? Wake up, Steve Dunderhead.

And check the comments at CNN, which have now been closed, "Erickson joins the Best Political Team":

Well, that makes my TV viewing choice easy. No more CNN for me! Erickson is nothing more than ignorant, lying scum who loves to stir up crowds with blatant untruths that do nothing but divide this country. Why would you possibly think that he could add to an intelligent discussion? Or does CNN simply want to turn into a shout fest for ratings? I thought you got over that when you fired Beck. CNN is absolutely foolish to ask him to join their usually reasonable commentators, and CNN will no longer be turned on in this household!

Heads exploding, and lots of 'em!

Associate Dean of Diversity and Inclusiveness?

Geez, I don't think my politically incorrect blogging would go over too well at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

See the Tax Prof, "Law School Names Associate Dean of Diversity and Inclusiveness":

From the Denver press release:

During the course of the next year, the newly-appointed Assoc. Dean Smith will work with Dean Katz on several initiatives, particularly those involving (1) pipeline projects for admissions, and (2) outreach to the local minority bar associations. She will also work to develop a full description of the position as it evolves. Smith is currently an associate professor with tenure at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

“We believe that this is one of the – if not the – first position of this type in the country,” said Dean Katz. “Given the SCOL’s commitment to diversity and inclusiveness, it is particularly appropriate for us to do here. We have the opportunity to be a national leader in this area.”

Screecap: Catherine Smith Profile Page.

Hat Tip: William Jacobson.

Let Your Voice Be Heard: A Message From Congressman Mike Pence

From the House Republican Conference:

RELATED: "GOP Launching Healthcare Attack on Democrats."

BONUS: At National Review, "Dreier: Democrats 'About 10 Votes Off' from Passage in House" (via Memeorandum).

Michele Bachmann at Kill the Bill Rally

Eric Kleefeld's a little wretch, frankly. Pull out one single sentence from a half-hour Michele Bachman speech and you've got a case for hyper-nullification? Hardly.

But Dan Riehl worked on this, and he says:

While she is saying that Americans should not feel compelled to comply with Obama Care if passed via an un-Constitutional manner, using the so-called Slaughter Solution, she also states that, if passed legitimately, it would be the law of the land until repealed.

Listen at about 20 minutes for the key sections.

Obama's Frankenstein

At IBD, "Frankenstein Rx":

How do you make a legislative monstrosity better? By making it worse. Congressional Democratic leaders are now sewing new limbs onto their Frankenstein monster.

The details of what lawmakers are doing as they begin to mark up health reform legislation this week would make you think of a mad scientist and his hunchback assistant trying to bring artificial life to the various components of rotting corpses they collected in the dark of night.

What is described as a "phantom bill" will now be approved in the House and sent to the Rules Committee, where, as the American Spectator describes it, "it will be stripped, and then they'll insert in all of the actual changes that they've negotiated."

This week's new 2,309-page bill — actually an old version that passed some House committees — even contains the public option, to be stripped out as part of this convoluted process.

On top of the big increases in health care premiums that the Congressional Budget Office warns will come if this government power-grab passes into law, and on top of stepping on the gas toward fiscal disaster by in effect establishing a new government entitlement, Democratic leaders have now added, of all things, a student aid bill to win moderate Democratic votes.

Bet you didn't think health reform had anything to do with the establishment of a new "Advisory Council on Green, High-Performing Public School Facilities," as Section 343 on Pages 2,227 to 2,230 of the bill provides for. The new multibillion-dollar bureaucracy "shall be composed of appropriate officials from the Department of Education; representatives of the academic, architectural, business, education, engineering, environmental, labor, and scientific communities; and such other representatives as the secretary (of Education) deems appropriate."

Among the new Green School Council members' duties is "identifying federal policies that are barriers to helping states and local educational agencies make green, high-performing schools." "Health reform" also now features federal grants for things like the "retrofitting necessary to increase the energy efficiency and water efficiency of public school facilities."

This is what it was always about. More at the link, in any case.

Cartoon Hat Tip: Michael Ramirez.

New Poll Shows Concerns of American Middle Class

At ABC News, "New Poll Shows Concerns of American Middle Class: Four in 10 Middle-Class Americans Say They're Struggling in Tough Economy":

A bit fewer than half of Americans count themselves as middle class -- but many of them aren't sure how long it will last: Among people who say they're in the middle class now, four in 10 also say they're struggling to remain there in this difficult economy.

A big factor: educational attainment. Among middle-class Americans with college degrees, 75 percent say they're "comfortably" middle class or even moving up; 25 percent are struggling. But among those without a college degree, this poll ... finds that about twice as many, 49 percent, are fighting to hold their place. (Education relates to income, and it's less well-off people in the middle class who are more likely to be struggling to stay there.)

All told, 45 percent of Americans define themselves as middle class (about what it's been on average in polls since the 1960s), compared with 39 percent who see themselves as working class or less well-off than that, and 14 percent as upper-middle class or better off. Women are slightly more likely than men to consider themselves middle class, 48 percent vs. 42 percent, and more seniors put themselves there -- 51 percent, vs. 43 percent of middle-aged adults. (Seniors have had more time to save, and have smaller households and Medicare coverage, among other factors.) Nearly half of whites call themselves middle class, compared with 38 percent of racial minorities.

While 52 percent in the middle class say they're there comfortably, it's perhaps a sign of the times that very few of those in the middle class -- 6 percent -- see themselves as moving up beyond their current status.

See the survey for additional results. This part's a bit troubling:

Underscoring the depths of the economic crisis, 28 percent of middle-income Americans say someone in their household has been laid off or lost a job in the last year. That jumps even higher, to 39 percent, among lower-income Americans, and drops considerably to 16 percent of those with $100,000-plus incomes. There's a difference in impact at the low end: Less well-off people are much more apt than those who are better off to say the layoff caused them serious financial hardship.

I don't know, but my sense is that more people, at all income levels, would state "middle class" if we had an expanding economy. (And thus I'm not pining for some 1950s-nostalgia like radical leftist Ezra Klein above.) Americans are not a "class conscious people. We stress upward mobility for all groups, and the notion that anyone can get ahead. Polling on healthcare reform has confirmed that spirit time and time again. It's one of the main reason the administration's having so much trouble.

That said, I'd be in serious financial trouble if I was laid off. I don't have a huge amount socked away, and what I do have is tied up in IRAs and other retirement vehicles. They've lost a third of their value over the last few years as well, so what can you do? I guess I'd sell everything and pound the pavement for work of some kind. Strange to think about it.

But we won't likely see layoffs at my campus, and nontenured faculty and staff would go well before professors at my level. Frankly, I'll be working a long time. And I'm lucky to have a job (teachers at Long Beach Unified may be getting the boot ... lots of teachers). Still, teaching is getting more challenging, and not as fun, with today's youth demographic and with a lot of "non-traditional" students who're coming to college. It mixes things up, for sure. Fortunately, I never tire of the diversity and new faces, although sometimes I think I should have landed a job at think tank somewhere, whiling away my time churning out bland policy papers! I doubt that was my calling, in any case ... I like helping students reach their potential. In fact, I wish sometimes that I was making a difference in even more lives than I am ...

The Perverse Effects of the Nobel Peace Prize

Ronald Krebs offers an outstanding piece of political science scholarship, at Political Science Quarterly: "The False Promise of the Nobel Peace Prize."

The essay notes that the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize has changed from its origins in the first few years following Alfred Nobel's death, during the first decade of the 20th century. According to Nobel's will, the award was to go to those whose "accomplishments" had most advanced the cause of international peace. But over the life of the recognition -- and especially in recent decades -- the Nobel Prize Committee has sought to honor those showing the greatest promise of future peace. This is the Nobel's "aspirational" mode -- that is, an award for the best of peace to come. Not only is this a corruption of Alfred Nobel's original vision, it is deadly international politics as well. As Krebs shows:

Of the nine aspirational cases since 1971 aiming at domestic change (see Appendix), six produced the opposite effect of that desired; the other three seem to have had no effect; and in no case does the Prize appear to have played a substantial role in bringing about the changes favored and envisioned by the Nobel Committee. The Committee has the best of intentions in promoting responsive regimes and the protection of human rights, but the consequences can be perverse.

Krebs provides a case-study discussion next, but I want to back up a bit, and share a key section of theory. The perversion Krebs notes is how Nobel is a catalyst to heightened activism among the recipient individuals and groups, while simultaneously increasing government brutality:

... the Nobel Committee has increasingly sought, through its awards, to highlight political repression and human rights violations, in the hope that the brighter media light will lead authoritarian governments to behave better and even take painful steps toward democracy. This goal motivated the Committee to honor activist luminaries such as Andrei Sakharov, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi. But the Nobel Committee thereby has implicitly presumed that regimes from the Leonid Brezhnev-era USSR to apartheid-era South Africa to Deng Xiaopingʼs Peopleʼs Republic of China (PRC) to junta-ruled Myanmar are so sensitive to their international reputations as “good” or “responsible” states that they would sacrifice their most-cherished values to maintain or cultivate their reputations. This is possible, but implausible. The more-likely alternative is that while the prize winners themselves, given their prominence, might be relatively spared, regimes will clamp down harshly on local dissidents to demonstrate their resolve and to prevent local and international activists from taking heart. To the extent that the Nobel Prize is successful in drawing worldwide attention to their plight, it may render an insecure regime even more anxious and thus more brutal and dangerous; regimes desperate to hold on to power are more sensitive to threats to their rule than to the good opinion of the international community. Moreover, insofar as local activists believe that the Nobel Peace Prize confers moral authority, that the world has thereby given its imprimatur to their cause, and that the international community has thereby signaled that it will protect them, they may ramp up their demands or at least intensify their protest activities—intensifying the regimeʼs fears of encirclement and its sense of vulnerability, boosting the regimeʼs desperation, and calling forth still greater repression. Ironically, if the Nobel Committeeʼs aspirations are fulfilled—if the Prize emboldens local actors, if it boosts global media coverage of regime repression, and if it pressures authoritarian regimes—it may produce effects precisely the opposite of those it intends, with moral victories substituting for actual ones. This article contends that this tragic chain of events, in which the Nobel Committeeʼs noble intentions at least temporarily set back the cause of democracy and human rights, is not only plausible, but relatively common in this important subset of cases. In fact, [Francis] Sejersted, the Nobel Committee chairman, has acknowledged that “in some cases the prize has in fact provoked conflict in the short term.” His admission is revealing, but it may understate the awardʼs human cost.

At the conclusion, Krebs returns to international relations theory. He suggests that in many cases, such as the 2009 award to President Barack Obama (a classic example of "aspirationalism"), the prize may have the exact opposite effect anticipated by the Nobel Committee:

In most recently honoring President Obama, the Nobel Committee clearly hoped to encourage his administration to further distance itself from the unilateralist tendencies, confrontational bearing, dismissive rhetoric, and disengaged posture of the George W. Bush years. Whether the Prize will have this effect remains to be seen, but, as this articleʼs analysis might suggest, there is reason for skepticism. Obama is hardly a vulnerable liberal activist in an authoritarian regime, but he must worry about how his Peace Prize will reverberate in Americaʼs domestic politics. To those (more conservative) Americans less enthralled with Obama, the Peace Prize may be seen as a warning sign that Obama perhaps shares the Nobel Committeeʼs international agenda (ultra-liberal, as they see it) and perhaps cares more deeply about advancing the common interests of the international community than about promoting the interests of the United States. The Nobel Peace Prize may thus prove a political liability for Obama and may compel him, in a political environment still deeply shaped by the legacy of September 11, to take steps to counteract the impression that he is some internationalist peacenik. Rather than release his inner dove, the Nobel Peace Prize may force him to brandish his public hawk. He may even feel required to part ways with the international community just to bolster his credentials as a defender of American interests. If this comes to pass, the Nobel Peace Prize may once again help produce a world at odds with the Committeeʼs intent and vision.

It's a PDF documnent (and it's working funky for me), so click the Political Science Quarterly website for the full homepage, just in case.

Jessica Simpson on 'The View'!

With apologies to the ladies (who will, one hopes, graciously indulge this blog's periodic Jessica Simpson fixes), we interrupt our normally academic/high-brow features with this breaking news, at Fox News: "Jessica Simpson Says Men Undress Her With Their Eyes ..."

Jessica Simpson is used to getting noticed. But not quite like this.

Simpson went on "The View" Monday morning and told the gals that life since her ex-boyfriend's "sexual napalm" Playboy interview has not been fun.

"My phone has been ringing," she said. "It's more embarrassing because I'll walk into a restaurant and I'll notice that more men are looking at me and I feel like they're undressing me."

Also, Jessica says she's not dating Smashing Pumpkin's front-man Billy Corgan, although she'd date a plumber?

Hmm ... she looks great, in any case!

Now maybe Sir Smitty will get me linked up, yo!

And check out Camp of the Saints and Daley Gator. Plus, Dan Collins, Theo Spark, and Washington Rebel. And not to forget the Classical Liberal and Chris Wysocki. And the Reaganite Republican's got some Czech hotness!

SOMEWHAT RELATED: Blazing Cat Fur's got some videos from Israel. And with great respect, check out Snooper, who keeps it dignified and honorable.