Obama's Health Insurance Reform Speech

My gut reactions to the speech:

Overall, I thought it was pretty good. He touched on a lot of issues, cleared up some lies being spread, and made efforts to reach out to Republicans, like including McCain's campaign idea into the legislation and trying to bring tort reform into the legislation. I suppose the one thing that really turned me off was this:

"Ours is not the first generation to understand the dire need for health reform. And I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

This comment just sounds really arrogant and in particular aggravated me. Regardless of what happens this year, we'll still need health care reform in the future. It's inevitable. Whatever changes they may make now, our health care system will still be imperfect, and everyone knows it. It might be better, but there will still be plenty of room for improvement. I sure hope he's not the last president to take on health care reform. And then he repeated this exact comment in an email to supports just minutes after the speech. Ay ay ay.

That said, overall, I think he did a very good job of trying to address as many concerns as possible and citing examples of Republicans being involved in the reform process. I'll be reading more and more post-speech analysis as it becomes available and further digesting it in the coming days.

I followed the fivethirtyeight.com live blog of the speech and enjoyed it. I really agree with Nate Silver's point about the advantage of a congressional address:

The images of Republicans clapping alongside Democrats when Obama mentions something like pre-existing conditions is the upside to doing this from the floor of the Congress, rather than another venue like the Oval Office. Note, though, that many Republicans didn't stand up and clap when Obama said "no one should go broke because they get sick."

Anyway, my favorite solution so far to the health insurance crisis is from one of the professors at UNC, Jonathan Oberlander. He wrote about an "all-payer" system in a great article in the New England Journal of Medicine on September 2. By far, it seems the most effective at actually cutting costs, and seems more politically feasible than most other drastic measures.

FoxNews Headlines

Here are the FoxNews headlines on their website following Obama's speech tonight (all of the headlines pertaining to his speech):

Obama Hits Hope Theme

President walks fine line between honesty about economic crisis, optimism for future | 1ST 100 DAYS

• Obama Errs in Saying U.S. Invented Automobiles

• AP FACT CHECK: Obama Glosses Over Complexities

• Jindal: Obama's Economic Plan Irresponsible

• Obama's Reputation as Good Speaker Debatable

Though I was listening while working, I thought it was a pretty good speech.

Burke and Obama

David Brooks has a warning of caution to the Obama administration about taking on too much at once. I think he makes some good points. The current economic situation certainly requires bold action, but proceding with caution and trying to build off of existing systems is a good way to good.

History

I noticed that the Daily Tar Heel has a thumbs up or thumbs down feature called Quick Hits. They gave the symbolic Obama train ride from Philadelphia to DC a sideways thumb, saying it was a bit "too theatrical and corny" for their taste. As a matter of fact, I agree; it's my understanding that it cost a ton of money to set up given the security concerns, but I can't find any figures for that off hand. The idea was to recreate Lincoln's journey to DC, which sounds symbolic, but also brings up hubris and opulence. Had it zero to little cost associated with it, I think it'd be fine, like how the mayor of New York, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, rides the subway to work (occasionally at least). I think the train ride was unnecessary. The fact that the country elected Obama is in itself very significant and symbolic. The fact that a couple million people attended the inauguration was significant and symbolic. Maybe everyone on the National Mall could have joined in song together. That would have been awesome, memorable, and free (or at least cheap). But adding in an expensive, phony train ride to DC is probably taking away from the history being made.

Presidents

Every time I hear something like, "the President took the oath of office," I just smile and feel happy. He's now "the President." Finally. The Iowa Caucuses were over a year ago. I feel quite proud to be an American. Over the last eigth years, I found my president to be an embarassment, and I was often quick to explain that he didn't speak for me whenever I traveled or met people from other countries. A part of me now feels a little sorry for Bush since he has finally shown some remorse and admitted some errors. Too bad he didn't admit errors earlier or have the foresight to know how wrong his direction was. A least, in admitting errors, he seems more sympathetic, like he was in over his head. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, remains defiant.

Different topic:

Interestingly enough, Obama, who has shown quick wit and skilled oration over the years, totally stumbled through the oath of office, with the help of stumbling Chief Justice John Roberts. I guess they both were a little nervous.

I also noticed that most news outlets were optimistic and excited about the election. So I went over to FoxNews to see what they were reporting. Some of the headlines conveyed this optimism, like "Historic Moment Cast as Victory of Hope Over Fear." Some commentators, however, like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck were skeptical. Hannity could be right that it is the most expensive inauguration ever, but he doesn't cite any numbers.

What was quite interesting to me was a piece about the unhealthiest presidents. Turns out JFK was a health disaster. Eisenhower was also in bad shape, and even developed Crohn's Disease while in office.

Obama's Weekly Address

Obama will have weekly radio addresses, which apparently, will also appear on Youtube. Here is the first one. I'm glad he's doing it, but frankly, it's not all that impressive. I want him talk regularly, but also to show us charts, explain situations, and tell us what he's going to do. I also think he should address the nation from television each week in addition to Youtube because most Americans, particularly those who voted against him, watch television way more than Youtube. I think that if he went on television once a week, it would help Americans get to know him. FoxNews is always talking about how "we don't know the real Obama, I'm so scared" yada yada yada. Well, if he's on TV every week, I think that'd help convince some remaining skeptics.

I don't just want him to talk to America when we're in crisis, I want him to talk regularly, explaining health care, social security, Iraq, and any other major policy issues. I know what the government is doing to make America a better place. I want examples. How is he making the government more efficient? How is he cracking down on corruption? I want a report every week on how things are going.

I know that governments, as well as everybody, has a tendency to evaluate themselves with bias. That's inevitable, but I want more communication between government and people. The news organizations will criticize and look for bias and report what they can find, so I don't think these government reports will come without critique.

Anyway, I'm being very demanding. But I'd really like to know what's going on.

Obama's First Foreign Policy Decision

During his acceptance speech, Obama said he was finally going to get his daughters a puppy. Since one daughter has allergies, they need a hypoallergenic dog. Peru has stepped up and offered the Obamas their own national breed of dog, the Peruvian Hairless Dog, a favorite of the Incas. They have already given it to the US Embassy in Lima.

Now Obama has a choice: accept the dog and win millions of hearts in Peru, or find a way of saing "thanks, but no thanks."

Awkward...

Photo from NY Times

Labels and Politics

From Laugh Lines:

How bad must the G.O.P. feel right about now? It portrayed Obama as a socialist, a communist, a Muslin, and a friend of terrorists, and the majority of American voters said, “Y’know, we’re O.K. with that, as long as he’s not a Republican.” – Jerry Smith

Obama, Japan

The town of Obama, Japan, goes nuts celebrating its namesake's victory in the 2008 election. Tourism in the town is up 20% since the town linked itself to the candidate.

People all over the world are happy about the election result. Here is a related story about the reactions from all over the world:

Mr. Obama “brings the narrative that everyone wants to return to — that America is the land of extraordinary opportunity and possibility, where miracles happen.”

I love you, America

I remember how I believed the country would right itself during the 2004 election. That election left me stunned. I began to worry that there was so much corruption abounding that Democrats might not experience a fair election ever again. I simply couldn't believe they had lost. I figured that somehow, someway, the election must have been stolen. I didn't want to believe Americans could be capable of such an eggregious election decision. I was completely embarrassed.

Following the mid-term 2006 elections, I was actually shocked that the Democrats won seats. I know, that result was projected, but still, I figured that there would be chicanery and at best, they would make no progress. I began to realize that perhaps the electoral system wasn't completely rigged after all. This result gave me some hope about 2008. Maybe some Americans were waking up.

And now, my hope has been pretty durn-tootin' well restored. I know that Obama only won by a few percentage points as far as the popular vote is concerned. Really, the overall number of people voting differently from the 2004 election is pretty small, but just enough to make a huge difference. I know there is still a lot to be done, and I'll blog about that later, but I was getting a little teary eyed watching the acceptance speech. Beautiful.

And Heel yea! NC is blue!

McCain Rallies:

Some quotes from a NY Times article:

When a man told him he was “scared” of an Obama presidency, Mr. McCain replied, “I want to be president of the United States and obviously I do not want Senator Obama to be, but I have to tell you — I have to tell you — he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.” The crowd booed loudly at Mr. McCain’s response.

Later, a woman stood up at the meeting, held at Lakeville South High School in a far suburb of Minneapolis, and told Mr. McCain that she could not trust Mr. Obama because he was an “Arab.”

Mr. McCain replied: “No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man, a citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that’s what this campaign is all about.” (He did not correct her false depiction of Mr. Obama.) At that, the crowd applauded.

...

Crowds in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have repeatedly booed Mr. Obama and yelled “off with his head,” and at a rally in Florida where Ms. Palin appeared without Mr. McCain, The Washington Post reported that a man yelled out “kill him.” At the same rally, a racial insult was hurled at an African-American television cameraman.

...

At one point, after a voter told him he wanted to see a “real fight” at the debate and the crowd responded with a roar, Mr. McCain replied, “We want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful.”

Then he added, “I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments, I will respect him.” The crowd interrupted Mr. McCain to boo, but he kept talking. “I want everyone to be respectful and let’s make sure we are, because that’s the way politics — —”

At that point, Mr. McCain was drowned out by applause.

It appears that McCain is putting some effort into explaining to his supporters that Obama is a respectable person, which I appreciate. His television ads don't seem to do that though. Frank Rich writes that things have gotten way out of hand.

DNC Acceptance Speech

I just watched Obama's 2008 presidential nomination acceptance speech. I thought it was decent, but frankly, it paled in comparison to his 2004 convention speech. The 2004 speech was about the American dream; how people can be accepted and thrive in the US, and how that opportunity is unique, and how that opportunity is a source of pride for our nation. Basically, the speech focused on positives of America and it's potential. Barack talked about the unity of all Americans; we're all in this together. It's impressive to watch how the crowd grows more and more excited as they hear the speech. I remember reading an article about it a day later proclaiming "A Star Is Born," talking about how Obama made an incredible impression. I watched the speech and was impressed with how well he captured the moment. Re-watching the speech now, I found it fascinating to see that he talks about hope, a word which has become synonymous with his campaign this year.

The 2008 speech, however, didn't quite stir me. Sure, I liked the platform planks, his plans for energy independence, getting out of Iraq responsibly, offering college education to those who serve their communities, and many more. I liked that he did mention the American dream. But I suppose that what turned me off were all of the negative comments about McCain and Bush. I think that the hope and positive message in the 2004 speech were what made it so special. I found the shots at McCain to be unnecessary and out of place. A lot of them were from old information, like bring up his economic advisor's "nation of whiners" comment. That was from months ago. If people are undecided or voted for Bush or McCain at some point in the past, but are curious and happen to be tuning into the DNC, they're probably going to be turned off to hear the candidate bashing the other candidate. I think that there is plenty of room for criticizing other candidates, but doing it while the national spotlight is on you isn't really the best timing. I think it'd be fine if Obama created a youtube channel and posted videos of John McCain contradicting himself, saying stupid comments, and generally making himself look bad. Or if he put such ads on television for voters to see. I think that's a better place to criticize someone. But if the country is tuning in for a convention, and times are bad, I think they're going to want hope and encouragement more than seeing the blame game old cracks on Bush. Some people don't appreciate it when you say mean things, but I think appreciates inspiration. Anyway, I'm mostly rambling at this point and I only heard his speech live, so I should think a little more before I write anything else.

Here is the 2004 speech in case you haven't seen it in a while:

Part 1:


Part 2:

Energy Policy

Crooks and Liars had an interesting post about the Republican response to Obama's energy policy.

A Comparison of Bush and Obama

As Obama spoke to over 100,000 cheering people recently in Berlin, I couldn't help remember what happened when President Bush spoke in Germany. A couple days before I arrived in Germany in 2005, Bush had visited. Though I didn't hear much about it in the US, once I got to Germany, I heard that thousands of people showed up to protest his official visit. I have a feeling that these protests were only minimally covered in the American media as I spent some time searching and had a difficult time finding an article about it in English. As reported in the German magazine Spiegel, about 12,000 people protested to show their displeasure with the American president. Turns out that Germans have built a tradition of protesting Bush on every visit he made over the last six years (article in English), until his visit this past June, when the Germans gave up. American foreign relations has come a long way in the last few months.

New Yorker and Obama

Lost in all of the hoopla surrounding this week's controversial New Yorker cover is the fact that the article inside about Obama is quite interesting. The sprawling article discussing Obama's entrance into and ascension in Chicago politics, which is a topic I've heard little about. It hasn't always been easy for the golden boy, and he even lost a congressional race. But, as far as I can tell, he has seemed to be pretty ideologically consistent throughout. I'd recommend reading the physical magazine rather than the piece online just so that you don't have to stare into a computer screen for too long.

Jesse Jackson and Obama

Oh news anchors:

via: NY Times humor

Warning: yet another Obama post

I found this article by Bob Herbert to be pretty representative of a lot of the concerns I've had (along with many others) about Obama lately. As Herbert sums it up, "the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago."

Barack on Ethanol again

In the recent issue of Rolling Stone, there is an interview with Barack Obama. The interviewer, Rolling Stone editor-in-chief Jann S. Werner, asks about Obama's position on ethanol.

RS: You've been a big supporter of ethanol. But studies show it doesn't do anything to reduce global warming, it's actually a less efficient was to produce energy than gasoline, and it's contributing to growing food shortages worldwide. Are you going to continue to back it?
BO: Corn-based ethanol I see as a transitional technology. We've got to invest in alternative fuels.
RS: This one is ranked pretty bad.
BO: I understand, which is why we're going to have a transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, not using food crops as the source of energy.
RS: So you foresee this coming to an end.
BO: What I foresee is us transitioning into other ways of developing these energy sources. The fact that we had corn-based ethanol, and that industry has matured, provides us with distribution networks and infrastructure that can ultimately be used for other ethanol sources.

What to make of all of this? First of all, I had to look up "cellulosic ethanol," which is, according to wikipedia, a "biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants." Here is some more of what wikipedia has to say about cellulosic ethanol:

As of 2007, ethanol is produced mostly from sugars or starches, obtained from fruits and grains. In contrast, cellulosic ethanol is obtained from cellulose, the main component of wood, straw and much of the structure of plants. Since cellulose cannot be digested by humans, the production of cellulose does not compete with the production of food, other than conversion of land from food production to cellulose production (which has recently started to become an issue, due to rising wheat prices.) The price per ton of the raw material is thus much cheaper than grains or fruits. Moreover, since cellulose is the main component of plants, the whole plant can be harvested. This results in much better yields per acre — up to 10 tons, instead of 4 or 5 tons for the best crops of grain.

The raw material is plentiful. Cellulose is present in every plant, in the form of straw, grass, and wood. Most of these "bio-mass" products are currently discarded. It is estimated that 323 million tons of cellulose containing raw materials that could be used to create ethanol are thrown away each year. This includes 36.8 million dry tons of urban wood wastes, 90.5 million dry tons of primary mill residues, 45 million dry tons of forest residues, and 150.7 million dry tons of corn stover & wheat straw.[37] Transforming them into ethanol using efficient and cost effective hemi(cellulase) enzymes or other processes might provide as much as 30% of the current fuel consumption in the United States — and probably similar figures in other oil-importing regions like China or Europe.[citation needed]

Moreover, even land marginal for agriculture could be planted with cellulose-producing crops like switchgrass, resulting in enough production to substitute for all the current oil imports into the United States. [38]

I left the citation notation in so that you could get an idea of how much of that might actually be legit. Cellulosic ethanol actually looks decent so far. Wikipedia goes on to discuss how lots of paper, cardboard, and packaging which is sent to landfills could instead be harvested for its cellulose and turned into ethanol. This development could reduce waste sent to landfills, also a big plus. Wikipedia notes that it is estimated that cellulosic ethanol would cost about $1.90-2.25 per gallon; however, I'm not sure how many miles per gallon vehicles would achieve with that fuel.

Overall, this cellulosic ethanol is looking pretty good: reasonable to create, relatively inexpensive, and possibly reducing landfill waste. So the next important part of the equation is the green house gas effect. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

In comparison to gasoline, ethanol burns cleaner with a greater efficiency, thus putting less carbon dioxide and overall pollution in the air. Additionally, only low levels of smog are produced from combustion.[51] According to the U.S. Department of Energy, ethanol from cellulose reduces green house gas emission by 90 percent, when compared to gasoline and in comparison to corn-based ethanol which decreases emissions by 10 to 20 percent.[47]

Not too shabby. Now maybe that page in Wikipedia was written by conniving cellulosic ethanol lobbyists, but I suspect that most of that information is accurate. It appears that Barack Obama is on the right track with cellulosic ethanol, and that he is isn't really pushing corn-based ethanol after all. However, there seems to be a lot of confusion on that point among the public and media.

As a side note, I just wanted to point out that George W. Bush actually advocated the use of cellulosic ethanol a few years ago in his State of the Union address in 2006:
"We must also change how we power our automobiles... We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."

At the time, I had never heard of switchgrass and had no idea what he was talking about. I'm not sure what has actually become of these promises. Apparently the US government has begun funding cellulosic ethanol production projects, but I have doubts that it is on track to reach goals by 2012.

Say it ain't so, Barack

Muslim voters feel snubbed by Obama
My impression from this article is that many Muslims want to support Obama, but he or his campaign is declining their help out of fear of being associated with Islam. The article points out that he has done a few nice things and made some apologies, but I expect better out of Obama. He is supposed to be a leader, not a panderer. Lots of Americans are wrongly suspicious of anything or anyone connect to Islam. We need a real leader to step up and work to end this prejudice rather than shy away. When his website says that his being called a Muslim is a smear, that wording in itself is offensive to Muslims. If he is campaigning on unity, he needs to walk the walk.

Kudos to Jon Stewart for making fun of Obama for his recent fumblings, like his new campaign logo and the public campaign finance rejection.


It's good to see Stewart is still trying to be a straight shooter. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with publicly financed campaigns, and I wish Obama would explain himself a little better on that issue. Had he said this and explained himself from the get-go rather than changing his mind after having a record fund-raising campaign in the primaries, it wouldn't be an issue. All of the clips of Democrats defending Obama's decision also fail to give explanation of why he declined public finance or explain how his decision is "reforming" public finance.

After a little research, perhaps this is why Obama has turned down public funding, although I still wish he would clarify it a bit more:
"Mr Obama's clear financial advantage over Mr McCain is offset in part by the resources of the Republican National Committee, which has far more money in the bank than the Democratic National Committee. Both national parties can spend money on behalf of the presidential candidates outside of public funding laws."

And lastly, for this post anyway, I'm a little bit concerned about Obama's close ties to ethanol, as written about in the NY Times. This may be an issue to follow more closely in the future as I'm not sure Obama has actually done anything wrong so far, though he appears to support corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel. I'm not entirely familiar with the economics and science behind this issue, but it seems to me that corn-based ethanol is not particularly efficient and may have played a role in the global rise in food prices this past year. Paul Krugman has written about the problems with corn-based ethanol. Sugarcane-based ethanol seems to be much more efficient, but currently all sugarcane ethanol imports are tariffed to protect American corn ethanol. McCain has the exact opposite stance on corn-based ethanol and wants to lift the tariffs on sugarcane ethanol. Although I'm still trying to make sense of all of this, I think that McCain may have a good point.