Money for Iraq But Not For Uninsured Kids

And the public doesn't like it.

House and Senate Republicans are divided over the measure. Polls show the public favors expanding the program to help kids from low-income families who are not poor enough to qualify for government health care, but still lack health insurance. The legislation is backed by 43 governors - including California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - who say the program isn't keeping pace with the swelling ranks of uninsured children.

In California, the legislation would provide 607,000 more children with insurance in addition to the 1.1 million who already benefit from the program.

The timing of the veto sets up an unenviable comparison for the White House. The president just sent a request to Congress for $189 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year. By contrast, the expanded children's health program would cost $60 billion over five years.

"While he continues to demand billions to fund his flawed war policies, he is telling the most vulnerable segment of our society that there just isn't enough money for them to have adequate health care," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek...

Republicans complained that Democrats are delaying the vote simply to get as much political mileage as they can out of the issue.

When one side complains to the media about how mean the other side is, you know they are losing the argument regardless of the veto override outcome. How bad is this for Republicans? According to this Democracy Corps poll:

The President badly loses the debate over S-CHIP, putting at risk Republicans who block the expansion of health insurance for children. Since the Democratic Congress has taken office in January, support for an expansion of S-CHIP has been among the highest testing proposals voters would like to see Congress take action on. Indeed, more than a third of voters mentioned it as a one of their top two reasons to support a Democratic Congress in the future.

While the President vetoed the expansion of children's health insurance because it exceeded the $5 billion increase in funding he has suggested, voters want more. By 60 to 35 percent, voters side with the Democrats on this issue; indeed almost 40 percent strongly agree with a Democratic statement calling for an expansion of the S-CHIP program to insure more than 3 million children and paying for it by increasing the tax on a pack of cigarettes.

As with health care overall, the S-CHIP battle gives Democrats a large advantage with independents, as well as mobilizing Democratic supporters. Indeed, the President has not won over Republican voters on this issue.

  • Among Democrats nearly nine-in-ten favor an expansion of the S-CHIP program and among liberals 86 percent voice their favor. Voters in Democratic held districts favor the expansion by a 33-point margin and even in Democrats’ most vulnerable districts, those which switched in 2006, voters favor the expansion by a 32-point margin.
  • Independents align with Democrats in calling for an expansion of the program by a 34-point margin (62 to 28 percent).
  • Voters in Republican-held districts favor a Democratic statement calling for an expansion of the S-CHIP program by a 16-point margin (55 to 39 percent). Those identifying as Republicans favor the Presidents’ position by a 42-point margin (27 to 69 percent).

When's the vote?

Democratic leaders scheduled the showdown for Oct. 18 to allow two weeks for pressure to build on Republicans. A union-led organization said it would spend more than $3 million trying to influence the outcome. "It's going to be a hard vote for Republicans," promised Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Criticism of the veto was instantaneous, from every quarter of the Democratic political firmament.

Here's Chris Murphy, CT-05 Democrat speaking from the house floor yesterday (press release):

"Let me ask you this.  If you were walking down the street, and you saw a child injured, would you stop and do everything you could to help that child?  I think everyone in this chamber would unequivocally answer yes.  So why can’t we also agree that for the millions of sick children in this country, who have no access to health insurance or preventative health care, that we don’t have a similar duty to everything within our power to help them get healed?"  

Joe Courtney, another freshman from CT-02 (press release):

"President Bush’s veto of this critical reauthorization shows just how disconnected the White House is from the reality of our nations’ health care crisis, specifically for our most vulnerable citizens."

So let's see:

  • Divided Republicans and united Democrats? Check
  • Public siding with Democrats? Check
  • Independents rejecting GOP on health care? Check
  • SCHIP supported by insurance lobby, big business, small business and labor? Check
  • Guns, not butter? Check
  • Republicans can't be trusted on health care, the most important domestic issue in 2008? Put that in bold
I'm not sure why the GOP is doing this to themselves, but it isn't going to go well for them in 2008, particularly with their presidential candidates backing the unpopular George W Bush and his policies on refusing to insure children. Aligning with Bush means we can't trust them on health care, anymore than we can trust them on anything else.

(Via Daily Kos.)

PEBKAC Still Plagues PC Security

Billosaur writes "ARS Technica is reporting on a study release by McAfee and the National Cyber Security Alliance (as part of the beginning of National Cyber Security Awareness Month) that suggests when it comes to PC security, the problem between the keyboard and the chair is even worse. PEBKAC has always been a problem, but the study highlights just how prevalent it has become. 87 percent of the users contacted said they used anti-virus software, while 70 percent use anti-spyware software. Fewer (64 percent) reported having their firewalls turned on, and only 27 percent use software designed to stop phishing attempts. Researchers were allowed to scan the computers of a subset of the users, and while 70 percent claimed to be using anti-spyware software, only 55 percent of the machines of those users scanned showed evidence of the software."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

(Via Slashdot.)

D.C. Commuters to be Scanned With Infrared Cameras

owlgorithm writes "Washington, D.C. area commuters are going to be "scanned like groceries at the supermarket" in order to catch single-occupant vehicles who are illegally using carpool lanes. The article, from the Washington Post, says that infrared cameras capable of detecting human skin will be installed, rather than the visible-spectrum cameras in use today. So much for using dummies in the front seat."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

(Via Slashdot.)

When good toys go bad VIII: Scoble attacked by autonomous helicopter

Filed under:



Generally speaking, we tend to give autonomous vehicles the benefit of the doubt, but we should really come to grips with the fact that not all robotic flying machines have positive intentions. Apparently, one such ill-willed creation managed to lose control of itself and plow right into Robert Scoble's leg while he was out photowalking at Stanford University. Thankfully, no humans were maimed and the chopper did manage to recover from the crash and proceed on its normal, non-threatening flight path, but we're sure Mr. Scoble will be watching any unmanned crafts with extra caution from here on out.

 

Read

(Via Engadget.)

What Republicans Hate

Negativism.  Yessir, any regular listener of Rush Limbaugh can tell you that Republicans can't stand folks what are just agin' everything.  Democrats are aways running down the president.  Running down the generals.  Running down the need for an all-powerful, unregulated, unquestioned, omnipresent government that's the only thing protecting our personal freedom!  

True enough, Bush ran four times as many negative ads as Kerry, but just look at him grin!  And look at his plans for Iraq!  Tell me that boy's not an optimist.

So what positive, upbeat, exciting ideas do the smilin' Republicans have for election 2008?  Just one.  They positively hate Hillary Clinton.

More than the war on terror, more than tax cuts and traditional values, stopping Hillary is the most effective means of energizing the GOP right now. Not even the evils of abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration can whip up the same frenzy as a mention of the woman who was once first lady.

Don't worry.  I'm sure that all the same media folks who jumped out to talk about how there was nothing to the Kerry campaign but being anti-Bush will Rush to attack the Republicans.  

Why are the Republican's targeting Hillaryphobia as the central theme of their fundraisers?  Because the second thing on their hate parade is their own candidates.

If Thompson so far has left something to be desired, the other candidates in the GOP field have also fallen short of the glory — and they continue to do so. Putative frontrunner Rudy Giuliani is the most obvious apostate. His past approval of abortion rights, same-sex unions and gun control put him at odds with the party's most committed activists.

But much of the movement right remains just as suspicious of John McCain and remarkably uneasy with Mitt Romney, the latter in part because he is a Mormon.

...

So Christian conservatives salute and move on, still searching for a winner. Sooner or later, they will have to pick a horse or agree to sit this one out. The same is true for the party in general.

What do Republicans really hate about Hillary?  The fact that she, like every other candidate the Democrats might field, beats the living snot out of their sorry choices.




(Via Daily Kos.)

Random evening thoughts

A picture named grievedPresident.jpgAre we going to start a war with Iran? Listen to the Terry Gross interview with Seymour Hersh. What will Iran do after we attack? The British are evacuating Basra, will Iran invade to fill the vacuum? What will Bush do then? And will Iran move into Afghanistan? They share a long border. Will Pakistan then move into Afghanistan? Hersch says it will be a 20 year war. He can't imagine a President of the US trying everything before going that route, yet, of course, Bush is doing nothing. At this point, knowing what we know about Bush, we are complicit if we do nothing.

Don Park advocates comment gardening.

We have many beautiful streets in Berkeley.

Microsoft announces a new Zune in the NY Times. Okay, but did they seed any bloggers? Feels like they keep going over our heads. I've heard nothing from Microsoft PR. Do I have to buy a Zune to evaluate it? Unless it's an unqualified home run, wouldn't it be smart to first market it to people who might work with them to smooth it out? They say they want to build community. Wouldn't it make sense to use the communities that are already interested in this stuff?? (BTW, it looks like Engadget and Gizmodo didn't get briefed.)

(Via Scripting News.)

★ A Solomonic Solution to Leopard’s Dock Problem

There are a bunch of cosmetic UI changes coming in Leopard; many of them, such as the new window chrome, are for the better. One, though, is clearly for the worse, so bad that one wonders how anyone at Apple can think it’s a good idea: the Dock.

Others have written at length regarding the downright bizarre visual inconsistencies it introduces. E.g. Craig Hockenberry on the fact that it (the Leopard Dock) is rendered in a completely different perspective than the HIG-prescribed perspective for application icons, and that it renders icons with conflicting, contradictory light sources.

It’s bad enough when the Dock is positioned in its default location at the bottom of the screen. But it’s just downright silly when you position it on the left or right side of the screen, as illustrated by Paul Kafasis on the Rogue Amoeba weblog. Kafasis posted an interesting idea to Twitter last week, though:

I know Apple’s committed to the “Shelf Dock” in Leopard. But they
could make a different Dock for use on the sides.

Now that’s a clever idea.

I’m a Dock-on-the-side man, myself.1 Vertical screen real estate is more precious than horizontal on recent-vintage displays. The bottom has always struck me as a silly place to keep your Dock, so, it seems fair for Apple to give the Dock-on-the-bottom a silly look-and-feel.2

But the Dock-on-the-side? That’s a serious Dock. And it deserves a serious, non-silly, look-and-feel. Nothing fancy — the same Dock appearance from Mac OS X 10.4 would do just fine.

It’s a brilliant out for Apple: whoever it is who’s in love with the faux-3D perspective, reflective surface, and conflicting light sources can have them. The promotional screenshots for Leopard’s advertising and retail packaging will all be taken with the Dock at the bottom, with the silly-looking Dock.

But just move your Dock over to the side, and the goofiness goes away. Bonus points if Apple includes a hidden defaults preference to allow the non-silly appearance even when the Dock is at the bottom.





  1. Right side. 



  2. No email from Dock-at-the-bottom lovers, please. 



(Via Daring Fireball.)