Jim Cooper's hot seat
The long, hot summer has only just begun for members of Congress. With the House already in recess and the Senate soon to follow, the health-care brawl is shifting from Washington to town hall meetings all over the country. Jim Cooper's sweating already, as well he should.
As a Blue Dog Democrat and purported health-care expert, he's more than a little responsible for the delay in voting in Washington. That has given the insurance industry, talk radio blowhards and all the rest of the president's conservative critics what they wanted all along: Time to unleash scare tactics, drum up public opposition and beat up lawmakers.
So if health care reform collapses, Cooper gets a lot of the blame. The pressure seems to be getting to him.
Compared with 1993-94, when President Clinton tried to reform health care, there's "much less health provider hostility, and much greater citizen hostility," Cooper tells The New York Times. The volume of incoming messages "is about wearing out our 12 interns, plus my regular staff," he adds. "It's probably going to be a rocky August for everybody."
Here's what he told the Los Angeles Times: "We are getting thousands of phone calls and e-mails, many deeply angry. Some want to do nothing, others want to do everything. We can't distinguish between what is just grumbling about change and what is a precursor of an earthquake." Jeff Woods
Tree huggers to the rescue
The environmental movement's campaign to save Dollywood and other tacky stuff in Smoky Mountain tourist towns is gaining momentum. Tree huggers are upset because the coal industry is boycotting Tennessee in retaliation for Lamar Alexander's sponsorship of legislation to ban mountaintop removal mining. So to retaliate against that retaliation, they've decided to come to Tennessee to make up for the lost revenue from the missing coal miners. Are you following this?
The Sierra Club first urged its members to visit Tennessee, and now the Natural Resources Defense Council has joined the call. The NRDC cleverly turned the coal industry boycott into an un-American attack on Dolly Parton, pointing out that she herself hails from the coalfields.
"Well, that's fine," says NRDC. "A handful of miners hell-bent on turning mountains into moonscapes may not visit Tennessee, but you can. Whether you're a fan of Dolly's or someone who believes that America's mountains are worth saving, NRDC urges you to show your love by showing Tennessee the money. Visit Dollywood...hike the Great Smokey Mountains...tour Graceland...hit Nashville's Music Row... there's so much to see and do! And after you visit, be sure to mail a postcard, your receipts or even ticket stubs to Sen. Lamar Alexander thanking him for all he's doing to protect the Appalachian Mountains for future generations of Americans." Jeff Woods
The heart of the birther movement
According to a Daily Kos poll, the birther movement—meaning people who believe Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S.—finds its greatest audience among Republicans in the South.
Overall, 11 percent of Americans believe in the conspiracy. So people like Lou Dobbs, who assert that Birth Certificate-gate is gaining traction, it's really not. But it is a popular belief among Southern Republicans. Here's how it breaks down:
—77 percent of Americans believe Obama is a citizen. 11 percent do not. 12 percent don't know.
—28 percent of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen.
—23 percent of people in the South believe Obama is not a citizen. This, of course, is a little embarrassing, since in the Northeast, the West and the Midwest, the number is in the single digits. In other words, we're like the crazy uncle you can't introduce to your girlfriend because he'll say something awkward. Brantley Hargrove
Death to sports radio
Last week, WNFN-106.7 The Fan announced a format change. Formerly home to ESPN Radio, the new 106.7 will now play top 40. Any move that improves the odds of hearing Daughtry or Vertical Horizon is no reason to celebrate. But it's hard to think the loss of the Worldwide Leader will cause any Nashville sports fans to break their bobbleheads in anger.
ESPN's primary contribution to the airways are their personalities (ranging from the pleasant, like Scott Van Pelt, to the intolerable, like Colin Cowherd) and the way they can somehow turn 15 minutes of national news into 24 hours of coverage. All things you can find on TV or the web. Other than broadcasting MTSU games, local sports were not their forte. (That's primarily the domain of 104.5 FM and 560 AM.)
Still want your Mike & Mike fix? Then it's time to pony up for the Sirius. Caleb Hannan
Nashville, we're not cool
If you're young and single, you'd be advised to stay away from Nashville. According to the exacting science of Forbes, we're not even as cool as—gasp!—Memphis.
In its Best Cities for Singles report issued last week, Nashville didn't even crack the Top 40. And seeing as how there's only about 40 real cities in America, this isn't very good.
New York, Boston and Chicago were the top three in a study that factored in "coolness, cost of living, culture, online dating and nightlife."
But before we embark on a nice round of self-flagellation, we might first question the business magazine's methodology. For example, "coolness" was measured by a Harris poll in which people across the U.S. were asked, "Among the following U.S. cities, which one do you think is the coolest?" But seeing as how cool people usually don't respond to telephone polls—they're way too busy doing cool things—we suspect Forbes' science may be a little off here.
That's demonstrated by the actual rankings. Memphis finished 38th, higher than Jacksonville and Salt Lake City—where it takes three lawyers and a Sherpa guide just to buy a beer. And the hazardous waste sites known as Baltimore (21), Buffalo (18), Cleveland (14) and Milwaukee (9) all finished ahead of Miami, which came in 29th.
Then again, if you work at Forbes, you're idea of a killer date is going Dutch on a six-pack of O'Doul's and staying home to watch Jim Cramer scream at you from the TV. Pete Kotz
No time for sex scandals
We've been wondering why, during all this publicity over Paul Stanley's little fall from grace, we haven't heard a peep from David Fowler, president of the Family Action Council and principal harpist on all things Godly and moral. It turns out he's been very busy trying to beat back Nashville's proposed ordinance to ban discrimination against city workers who are gay. Well, of course! There are only so many hours in the day.
For laughs, check out Fowler's 101 reasons to oppose this ordinance. A sampling:
* "It will impinge on First Amendment religious liberty rights." So if Jesus tells you to hate gays, it's your First Amendment right to treat them shabbily!
* "The ordinance is itself discriminatory because it does not protect other people who are the object of employment discrimination. This is not about discrimination; it is about a political agenda." For example, Fowler continues, what about fat people, short people and crazy people? Where are their anti-discrimination laws?
* "Should the law be expanded to prohibit discrimination generally against this special class of employees, other issues will arise. Employee benefits that may be costly could be required." The city might have to pay for sex-change operations!
* And the coup de grâce: "It could also open bathrooms in Metro buildings to use by people of the opposite sex who 'identify' as a sex other than their biological sex." That's right, you might find yourself standing at a Metro Courthouse urinal next to a cross-dressing tramp. Jeff Woods
Comments (1)
Showing 1-1 of 1
...or, the answer, as usual (surprise, surprise) is in the middle somewhere. It is very difficult to listen to a Senator Edward M. Kennedy speak on this topic and not wind up agreeing with so much of what he says - I do, and I tend to lean right on most (not all) issues. Philosophically, I believe he is right on the money - we cannot abide by the situation we have currently, where millions go without basic and critical medical care due to financial considerations. He is someone who, in my estimation, has great credibility on this issue; he has been at this since the Nixon administration, some 35 years or so. His views haven't wavered, nor has his commitment to them. Say what you want about him on personal or other political issues, he carries great weight on this topic. But, to say we need to SCRAP what we have that works so well just to include more persons in coverage is counterintuitive and stupid. First, WE DO NOT HAVE 47 MILLION UNINSURED IN THIS COUNTRY! Most of those spent an average of 4 months out of 12 not covered this past year, mostly due to transient situations (job CHANGE, not job LOSS, or regional relocation requiring job change, etc.). Many millions are uncovered by choice: small business owners who would rather pay out of pocket than carry coverage that they could afford because they believe the first alternative is more sensible for them, young people who, by virtue of their youth and vibrant health, feel they do not yet need total coverage, and newly employed, who will be covered after their initial time of continuous employment passes by, allowing them to then qualify for a company's offering of full coverage, but, for the time being, happened to be captured under the 'uninsured' category only because of this temporary status. The real number of chronically uninsured due to poverty-related circumstances is much closer to six to ten million people - still way too many, but only enough to have us take a serious cost-cutting approach, not a reconstructive one. Ask vets who have had to make use of a VA hospital for their medical care what they think of government-as-provider medical care. We need the best and brightest going at this (this includes Rep. Cooper, who you so typically and transparently attempt to marginalize and denigrate by way of the sneaky adverb 'purportedly'). When your response to someone stating he is an expert is to go after him personally, you may as well wave a white flag of surrender and just admit that you do not have a substantive response - it is one of the oldest tactics of debate, that actually denotes weakness in position, known to man. If he is not an expert, then all the easier for those of your viewpoint to carry the day based on your positions on this issue, wouldn't you say? This administration is very, very quickly becoming infamous for clouding and/or demogoguing issues, denigrating those with opposing views, and stifling true debate and scrutiny by falsely claiming we have already had that (really - when? Screaming over and over that we need health care reform does not constitute a debate, last time I checked). Their MO is quickly becoming apparent - use, no, exploit every crisis situation and use that "crisis' as cover for radical transformation that would never see the light of day otherwise based solely on issues of legitimacy, fairness, and personal freedom. We routinely tolerate (not accept, tolerate) unemployment of 4-5% (as we should in a free market economy, which history shows time and again works better than socialistic approaches). The number of chronically uninsured is a lesser percentage of those covered - sounds like a call to cut costs (first and foremost - tort reform [no coincidence that you have not heard a word about this uttered by the two most recent Democratic administrations, both of which have had both Presidents and First Ladies who themselves were lawyers - anyone still think lawyers do not constitute the greatest conflict of interest government has ever known?]), not systemic reconstruction. Let's get serious and apolitical about this issue once and for all, and get this done.... Just one great example of how market forces work to cut costs: http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2009/8/3/market_disruption_with_a_smile
like
dislike
