AZ Politics

UPDATE 5/26/06: The Senate today confirmed Hayden by a 78-15 vote, demonstrating that the majority of Democratic Senators have forgotten their role as constitutional counterweight to the Administration and an investigatory and oversight body. They’re still running scared from a President whom less than 1/3 of Americans continue to support. In short, they’re letting down their party by failing to provide an effective opposition, and worse, they are letting down America.

Senate Intelligence Committee backs NSA’s Gen. Hayden’s CIA confirmation by a 12-3 vote. That means that 4 Democrats, Feinstein, Rockfeller, Levin, and MIkulski, voted to confirm General Hayden, likely giving him exactly the bi-partisan lustre he needs to win confirmation.

The links above are to each Senator’s statement on their votes to recommend confirmation to the full Senate. Every single one of them dodges the real issue that, as Senator Feingold said in his statement on his NO vote, "General Hayden directed an illegal program that put Americans on
American soil under surveillance without the legally required approval
of a judge."

The issue is that Hayden has already proven himself amenable to carrying out illegal directives of the President. He did not resign when asked to break the law, he rolled over and did it. Now the Administration is moving him to the CIA where they can order him to violate American laws and the Constitution again.

I’m disgusted with my party today.

Senators Feingold, Wyden, and Bayh did the right thing and voted against a man, who despite his talents and qualifications, facilitated a massive breach of the public trust and the rule of law. Senator Feingold’s statement explains the case eloquently below the fold…

DailyKos is having a early straw poll on early support for the Democratic nomination in 2008: Daily Kos :: Who do you support in 2008?. The results are trending about as I anticipated. As people search their souls and look over the past 6 years, it has become apparent to the vast majority of Kossacks … Read more

I received an interesting press release which I reproduce here in its entirety and without independent fact checking. The release is from the UFCW. There is some poor quality phonecam video of the incident available, too:

(May
21, 2006 Phoenix, AZ) Two women were arrested Sunday morning as part of
the Bashas corporation ongoing effort to silence worker concern over
unprecedented increases in health insurance premiums.

The two women, Sarah Gresoski, 23, and Teresa D¹Asaro, 39, both members of
the United Food and Commercial Workers union, were meeting with
employees at the Basha-owned A.J.s at Uptown Plaza in Phoenix. Such
meetings are allowed and protected under federal law.

The A.J.¹s store manager made a "citizens arrest" of the two women
apparently after consultation with unnamed company officials. Phoenix
Police Officers then were called to take the women into custody and
charged them with "criminal trespassing.

Following the arrests upwards of 60 employees and union members launched a picket
line in front of the A.J.s store chanting slogans like "Eddie keep your
promise, your workers deserve better" and "Eddie, Eddie you can¹t hide
you just showed your greedy side.

For the past three days UFCW members have been meeting with employees at
Bashas-owned stores across the Valley including Bashas, A.J.s, and
FoodCity.

While Bashas has a history of labor problems, most notably at FoodCity, the
health insurance issue is companywide affecting virtually all of Bashas
10,000 employees.

On June 1st, workers at Bashas-owned stores are being hit with dramatic
cost increases in their health insurance premiums and forces them well
below the industry standard.

Last year Bashas trailed only Wal-Mart and McDonald¹s in taxpayer funded
health insurance "subsidies" paid by the State of Arizona. An estimated
5-percent of Bashas employees were forced to turn to public assistance
for health care according to published reports in 2005.

By loading more of the health care burden on already strained households,
Bashas is only going to be sending more and more of employees to
Arizona¹s taxpayers for their health care," said UFCW Local 99
President James McLaughlin.

Below is an interview with and story of a young survivor of the Haditha massacre. Her entire family was murdered by American soldiers in their home. The following is an interview with Rep. John Murtha regarding the Haditha massacre, intercut with more footage of the young survivor. This story is starting slowly, but it has … Read more

This is a rewrite of an earlier editorial length article on
the subject of ‘tort reform.’ In the prior version, I
stayed within the framing of those seeking to limit the liability of
doctors and insurers. By challenging the frame, I think the argument
becomes more powerful. The facts don’t struggle against the opposing frame, they
support the new one. Rhetorical figures become more powerful and invested with
clearer values. This is not however a complete reframing of the issue; it is only a negative frame. It creates an alternative way to view the opposing policy, but it does not create a solution. The packaging of the right way to approach medical malpractice policy awaits another day. That framing excercise is harder because the policy package is not simplistic – rather it is a complex package of reforms which is difficult to summarize. The reason I’m republishing this article, is a Harvard School of Public Health study of malpractice claims was just published that demonstrates very clearly that the problem of unmertiorious claims is vastly overstated, and is not addressed by arbitrary award caps. Also, I was adding some material to Utah Senate candidate Pete Ashdown’s wiki on health care, and was thinking about the issue of ‘tort reform’.

The
medical malpractice (med-mal) insurance industry, some politicians, and
even some misguided doctors, have of late been misleading the public
about the efficacy of caps on med-mal awards, a.k.a. ‘tort reform,’ to
contain healthcare costs. These people have generated a deluge of
coordinated letters to editor and public relations events in Arizona
recently. They are telling the public that med-mal awards are driving
the high inflation rates in the health care sector we’ve seen over the
past several years. But the truth is that their so-called ‘tort reform’
is just a free ride for insurers and incompetent doctors on the backs
of seriously injured patients.

‘Tort Reform’ is really nothing
more than arbitrary compensation caps protecting doctors who harm or
kill their patients and the companies who insure them. Policy makers
actually interested in reforming the torts process would advocate for
ways to remove non-meritorious claims from the system, not for placing
a strict limit on the compensation a jury can award to victims of
malpractice. The cost of caring for a child paralyzed or otherwise
disabled for a lifetime by malpractice can run into the millions, yet
these so-called ‘reformers’ want to cap all awards at a low level,
regardless of the facts of the case. That’s not justice, that’s risk
management, and it’s not what our court system is based upon. Why is a
legislator, who may be getting campaign contributions from the
insurance industry, better qualified to put a price on a lifetime of
pain than a fellow citizen who is disinterested but knows the facts of
the case?