Ft Hood: 13 dead, 30 wounded.

Orlando: 1 dead, 5 wounded.

In both cases, there was a single instigator.  Why were so many more killed and wounded on an army base, where so many people had access to weapons, vs the Orlando office, where so few had access?

(The title proposes a theory, but I'm not actually ready to generalize from a single example.)

WASHINGTON - In a surprise twist, congress members on both sides of the aisle have vowed to reform all aspects of American business in the coming months.

Sources suggest that there is a link between the incredible amounts of campaign cash provided by the insurance industry over health care reform, and the new move.  Given that health reform lobbyists (mainly in opposition) have been spending 1.4 million dollars a day, the connection seems obvious.

Official spokespersons for many congressmembers deny the connection, but unofficial reports say otherwise.  "My campaign coffers have never been so full," said one incumbent, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

[Not actual news.  Yet.  But I would not bet on it not happening....]

Today, several large heath insurance providers have declared that "being alive" is a pre-existing condition that constitutes reason to deny coverage for illness.

"Our statistics show that being alive is usually a precursor to cancer, heart disease, and other major conditions.  In order to stay healthy, we believe that our customers should refrain from living.  Those who insist on living are driving up the costs for everyone," said a spokesperson.

Stocks for insurers closed up 12% on the news.

Glenn Beck is probably congratulating himself right now on getting rid of one of the "czars".

Here's the funny part: in Russia, it was the elimination of the czars that allowed the communists to come to power.

Hence, it appears that Glenn Beck is attempting to bring communists to power in the United States!

I think Stephen Colbert identified this one when he asked "how do I get on one, because I would be merciless."  The reason that so many Republicans, especially the angry town hall types, are so willing to believe in government "death panels" is because if they were in charge, that's what they'd do.  If grandma needs an expensive operation, why, as long as it's your grandma and not my grandma, to hell with you!

The Los Angeles health fair has gotten a fair bit of press lately.

A common comment seems to be "this is the sort of thing that goes on in third world countries".

The fact is, as far as medical care goes, America is a third world country.  That's pretty much all there is to it.

The last time there was a big secessionist movement, it was because the south did not want to think of black people as fully human.

This time, it's ... well, it's pretty much the same.

Oh sure, it gets dressed up with lots of other stuff.  It did then too.  But this thought has been working its way through my head ever since the other day, when either Olbermann or Maddow noted that the failure of the "socialist" label to stick was now causing the wingnuts to attempt to use the "fascist" label, and wondered what they would say when that one failed to stick.  I realized the answer: the Becks and Limbaughs and so on would, if they were really honest, grab hold of the nearest bored-looking voter, shake him vigorously, and yell: "my God, man, haven't you noticed that the President is black?!?"

In an article that also appears in Yahoo!Finance, Gary Fields writes of a couple earning $260k/yr who "want a reality check on what rich means":

Proposed Tax Increases on Six-Figure Earners Highlight Mounting Costs of Living -- and the Relativity of Prosperity
[snippage]
For the Parnells, their perception of themselves is based on the math. The value of their house is down $60,000. Ms. Parnell says the couple's gross income last year was about $260,000. Taxes, premiums for medical care and deductions for Social Security and their 401(k) contributions cut the gross to about $12,000 per month. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month.

Perhaps they need to do a bit of arithmetic, then.

If their AGI is $260k and their marginal tax rate on the last $10k goes from 33% to 36%, their taxes will go up by $300.  $300 total, per year: $25 per month.

Perhaps they could tithe $1275/mo at the church.  (I think God would not object.)  This would keep them with the same amount of left-over pay; they would not even notice the tax increase.

I think people are angry (and justifiably so) about the idea of a bailout because they view the Wall Street situation as: "these guys set fire to their own house; we should teach them a lesson and let it burn."  And in fact, they did set fire to their own house.

The problem is, letting that burn might (or might not) spread the fire elsewhere.  The only way to be sure is to let it happen.  If it does spread to "our houses", then what?

Some weeks ago I was talking to a friend of mine and quoted this line, which is about academia.  It may be more often phrased as a riddle:

Q: Why are the battles in academia so fierce?
A: Because the stakes are so small.

Anyway, he pointed out that this same pseudo-law of humanity may apply to politics as well: if the differences between two particular candidates are small, anyone who favors one over the other has to somehow magnify them.

The Republican party used to (and maybe still does) label itself the "party of ideas", but after eight years of Bush and company, it seems more like the "party of intellectually-bankrupt ideas".  They used to label the Democratic party as "tax and spend", but that doesn't work any more since they are now the "don't tax, spend anyway: steal from our grandchildren" party.  They're stuck with nothing more than name-calling and personal destruction.

On the Democratic party side, there are plenty of policy differences from the Republicans; but between the two presidential candidates, the differences are relatively small.  So here again, Clinton and Obama are limited as to what they can say to distinguish themselves from each other.  This is true for their supporters as well, and hence we get a lot of name-calling and "supporter bashing".

Whoever comes out of the nomination process, I will be voting for the Democratic candidate in November, because the policy differences between either-one and McCain are what matter the most.  Sure, I'd like my guy (who happens to be Barack rather than Hillary) to win this nomination.  But even if he doesn't, I'll take HC over JM.  I'd rather have BO (who I admit has unfortunate initials :-) ) but I will take either one.

There are a number of reasons, including that I think he is more likely to beat McCain, and I think his style is more suitable for a president.  The most important thing of all, though, may well go back to something Molly Ivins used to say: "You got to dance with them what brung you."

Both campaigns have raised huge amounts of money.  Both have some large contributors, but Obama has far more small contributors.  If politicians are beholden to their contributors—and I for one do not doubt Ivins' words—then Obama will have more "ordinary people" both to answer to, and to speak for.