And Still More Good News and Open Thread

 

"Andrew in Drag" - Magnetic Fields

Sorry again for the paucity of posting.  I am up in NYC today and will be heading back tomorrow and then off to Richmond Thursday, so my time in front of the old keyboard is going to be limited.  (I was grateful that I arrived today after the Giants ticker tape parade -- there's only so much a man can stand.) 

On the very positive side, I just got wind of the Ninth Circuit decision on Prop 8 and am very pleased to hear it.  I need to actually do the lawyerly thing and read it before I opine much about it, but my sense is the Court did a wise thing and wrote an opinion that could conceivably be limited on its facts to California, thereby lessening the likelihood of a reversal by the Supreme Court.

This sort of thing has got to be a body blow to the religious right types, who are essentially being told that mere prejudice is not going to cut in the court room or in public policy.  (Although not generally a big fan of corporate influence, I must admit I am enjoying seeing corporate heavyweights like Microsoft, Starbucks, and Amazon weigh in heavily on the side of marriage equality and to pose it as an issue in terms of talent recruitment -- the implication being that states that don't want to be left behind will embrace equality.) 

Anyway, please lend your thoughts and insights about this and other things like tonight's caucuses.  I'll try and join in as much as possible. 

Comments

[kathy a.]

for a good if laywer-geeky summary, scotusblog has the goods.

[oddjob]

Planned Parenthood's Deep Bench

[oddjob]

Love the ending of the Frank Bruni column, Sir C!

"Whenever someone opposes this, I always counsel: you never know. You never know when it will be your child or your grandchild. And you will eat your words."

[oddjob]

Interesting that by ruling narrowly they've given SCOTUS a reason not to review any appeal at all. By relying on the already established precedent in Romer v. Evans they've fashioned an opinion that doesn't really present any pressing national issue for SCOTUS to review.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

They don't have to review it, but I would bet they will. It just takes fur votes to grant certiorari, and if either side thinks it's 'got' Kennedy, they'll vote for review and make te decision nationwide. The onlt way I see it not being taken up is if Kennedy announces he will file a dissent to cert -- which was unheard of but has happened, I believe, occasionally in recent years -- using oddjob's reasoning -- that the case is settled and presents no national issue.

And remember that it will take five votes to reverse, so even were an Obama appointee to recuse herself, or the expected unthinkable happens, they still need Kennedy.

[kathy a.]

yes, oddjob, on the conclusion of the bruni link!

and i think you've nailed it on why SCOTUS will be reluctant to take this one up. the 9th circuit panel obviously thought about the breadth of its opinion; it explained that it would not be reluctant to take on the broader issue, but that it was limiting itself to the precise problem before it. (the 9th circuit is aware that this supreme court thinks it sometimes gets too full of itself.)

it particularly pleases me that this "narrow" ruling nonetheless is a huge victory -- most immediately for californians, but also in shoring up and partly paving the road to equal rights nationwide.

[kathy a.]

yes, oddjob, on the last bit of the bruni link!

and also, i think you've nailed it on why SCOTUS will be reluctant to take this one up on review. the 9th was careful to make this just about california, only under the circumstance of taking away an established right.

huge victory, anyway.

[kathy a.]

crap. my earlier comment was lost, and i tried to reconstruct. sorry for the extra post.

[nancy]

Open thread mostly: Unsurprisingly, the *issue* of contraception now becomes fair game in the political wars, and the White House is indicating a willingness to 'compromise' .

The White House may be open to compromising on a new rule that requires religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control, a senior strategist for President Obama said on Tuesday morning.

David Axelrod, who serves as a top adviser to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that the president would “look for a way” to address the vocal opposition from Catholic groups who say the rule forces them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception.

look for a way? free [!] birth control ? How about defining clearly what women's health care insurance coverage must include in order to be sensible and medically comprehensive.

Wonder if the bishop's are insisting on a list of medications and exclusions for men served by these policies. STD treatment, Viagra prescriptions -- how about vasectomy coverage? And how does this not affront Griswold via other means? Well, I've probably answered my own question since comprehensive health care coverage is still not considered to be free from religious and cultural meddling in this country. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sure I'm missing something.

Lab tech in a Catholic hospital? Oh, well. Them's the breaks and take it or leave it.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I think that this does not fall under the Griswold paradigm because it involves the regulation (and actions) of private actors.

If the Administration really wants to compromise then they shouldn't have staked out this aggressive position to start. It is only going to disappoint supporters and give comfort to those who will never support them.

[nancy]

Sir C -- I thought Griswold established a right to contraceptive privacy though. And once a Catholic hospital is serving a large metropolitan area, as does the one where we've been treated, where my son was born, mere blocks away, does it not become a 'community' actor and ergo quasi-public? I don't sign in there as a Catholic patient, nor do I expect anything other than excellent care provided by a diverse, probably secular and well-trained staff.

So I guess the question I have -- how was this an "aggressive position" on the part of the administration? Sacred Heart Medical Center is one of the largest employers in my community. And secretly, I doubt the Sisters of Providence would approve of these dismissive and mean-spirited measures. Their mission was compassionate care. End of story.

[kathy a.]

another story about prop 8 . scroll on down for the end:

Attorney Ted Olson called it "an important legal precedent for other courts throughout the United States."

"When you take away a right that has been granted to the people … on the basis of sexual orientation, that is discrimination," he said. "This is an important step. We are not at the end of the line yet. But I cannot overstate the importance of the decision today."

ted olson. former solicitor general under the W administration. ain't it sweet?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Nancy: I hope this isn't another case of Obama surrndering on a fight he could have won. Benen/Maddow has a great piece on the actual support this provision gets among various religious groups, and Catholics support the Obama position at a higher rate than the populace in general, 58% to 55% -- only "Unaffiliated" ranks higher among the groups shown.

And -- again following a Benen link in the same piece, Igor Volsky has discovered that the same provision is already law in 28 states, and that Catholic Institutions like Universities and Hospitals routinely offer such coverage to their own employess even if they are exempt legally from having to offer it.

So if Obama (yet a-fucking-gain) backs away froma fight he should know he'll win, well, is 'bone-crunchingly, mind-numbingly dumb' too mild a description? Not only does he lose this fight -- Sir Charles is perfectly right that he gives more supporters a reason to be less than eager to rush to the polls -- and that will be very significant, expesically if the expected landslide becomes obvious early. Obama doesn't need those voters, but the country does, because they will be not-voting for the lower ballot races it is vital for us to win.

Furthermore, if he does push onwards, he'll have a chance to make it clear -- to the country, and to politicians and candidates of both parties -- just how little the Official Catholic Church speaks for its members -- and the stories may embolden still more to think for themselves. (98% of Catholic women already use contraception according to Volsky.)

Can someone slip him a couple of extra iron tablets, and hope they wind up affecting his spine?

He's my candidate, he's infinitely better than any visible Republican -- but he's still far too conflict-averse to be more than adequate.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

nancy: you made my point better, but the extra kick is one I don;t regret.

kathy: remember the original legal case was won by the 'odd couple' Ted Olson and David Boies. Olson handled the brief writing, Boies did much of the examining, and they worked together beautifully.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

In Griswold, the state of Connecticut actually outlawed contraception -- even for married couples. (Massachusetts did too back in those days, believe it or not.)

So there was the necessary state action impinging on a privacy right.

nancy and Jim,

I think the position of the conscience stuff was aggressive considering how the administration has generally conducted itself -- see e.g. Plan B.

I do not think that they should back down and I think we can win on this point, but I would not be surprised to see some backsliding.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

[Here we go again with TP and my long comments. Again, I'm splitting it.]
I can't help it -- any chance I can get away with discussing television a bit? I've wanted to for a while, and tonight marks the 200th episode -- just finished recording, I'll be absent watching it later -- after Em's hockey -- of the show I have no doubt in proclaiming the best TV Drama series I have seen in the 60 years since I first discovered HOWDY DOODY, CAPTAIN VIDEO and Gleason on the Dumont Network.

And for those of you who assume that quality and popularity are negatively correlated, it's also the most watched scripted show on tv, has frequently outdrawn (*yech*) American Idol and even its repeats on cable frequently rate above original episodes of high quality shows, even now.

Furthermore, the star of the show had a quote today that might have been snarkish, but -- judging by the results -- probably was an absolutly accurate portrait of the attotude on the show, and which gives me a beautiful springboard to discuss why tv is a very different medium from any other -- as well as why this show understands and uses the media better than any other I know.

The quote:

From the beginning we were a show that wasn't good enough to get all that noticed and wasn't bad enough to get canceled.

So we had a lot of time just to get to know each other and just do this show and just work on the foundation.

That's what they did on NCIS as the star, Mark Harmon says. (Actually, I'd argue he should have said 'not obviously good enough' or 'not spectacular enough.' The show got better after the first year, but when I went back to discover what I'd missed -- like many people I discovered it in its fifth season, when syndicated repeats started getting viewers unheard of for any syndicated show -- I found the first season certainly good enough as a foundation -- and at least one 'story arc' started in about the tenth show is still relevant and was brought up as recently as the middle of last season -- with a quote that hints that it is still alive.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

[Part 2]
I'd like to go on, with NCIS and with television in general. (If NCIS is 'the best show I've ever seen' -- and it is, including British shows -- there are three more current shows in the Top 10 List (THE GOOD WIFE, SUPERNATURAL, and, from cable, ROYAL PAINS, a truly assorted mix that share nothing but quality and understanding the medium.) and a few more that aren't that far below -- and the 'high-concet failures are so much worse than they've ever been, with FLASH FORWARD, THE EVENT, and TERRA NOVA -- ALCATRAZ is trying, but can't reach their level of stupidity.)

But this is a political blog, and most of you have shown little interest on tv in the past. (The only person who ever joined in was Mandos -- who shares my love of SUPERNATURAL.) All of you know I don't mind writing pages at a time on politics, knowing that many of you will skim or skip it, because I know it is relevant for those who read it. (I didn't say 'right' or 'intelligent' just 'relevant.') But doing it takes time and the occasional extra pain-killer.

So let me know if anyone is interested in me going on at my usual length on the topic, and if you might even be willing to join in.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I'm embarrassed to say that I have become a huge Downton Abbey fan.

I've also seen a few episodes of a new British Sherlock Holmes series which I quite liked.

I remain a sucker for House -- Hugh Laurie is just a great presence.

[Sir Charles]

I've also liked what I have seen of The Good Wife and Royal Pains.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Before I discuss the topic -okay, now add 'tomorrow'- , I just had a chance to watch the 200th of NCIS. I don't know what to say, except that it isn't the place to start. It is extremely self-reflexive, dealing with events and themes from the whole series, even the one essential moral dilemma that I was going to mention in my discussion of HOUSE. It's like nothing they've ever tried before - it is as unique as the final episode of THE PRISONER -- others have tried similar bits, but none with the depth here. But it requires you to know every character who appears -- other than those involved in the 'case' that is not just background at all -- and knowing which are dead, how they died, and the realities that the scenes are playing off of.

Too familiar? Too much "It's a Womderful Life"? No way. These scenes are of the result of choices that Leroy Jethro Gibbs (Mark Harmon, and the center of the show) has made, and how they affected people around them, and none of them is clear and simple, or automatically better or worse than the reality.

I can't go into full detail, because so much depends on the previous 199 episodes, but I have to give two examples, just to show the quality of the thinking on the show. There have been two main threads running through the entire series. One is far too complicated to explain, but one key part of it -- and this thread has continued echoing through at least last season -- involves a mistake Gibbs made, a failure to notice something that wound up getting an agent killed. They show what would have happened if Gibbs' choice had enabled him to perceive and avert the danger.

On one hand, a life would have been saved, a marriage would have occurred, and a baby would have been born. Mostly good things, but things that would have resulted in a total change in one agent's personality -- for the better or worse is up to the reader. More importantly, another agent would never have joined the team, and her life and her personality would have become much uglier and much more painful. (Which would have been the better result is absolutely left to the viewer, with no tilting one way or the other.

But the other thread is the key one. Because, before Gibbs had even thought of joining NCIS, his first wife had been a key witness in a trial against a drug cartel. Gibbs had been worried about her testifying, but she insisted -- and as a result the cartel sent an assassin who killed both her and their young daughter. (Gibbs was married twice more, but they were almost treated as jokes, as obvious disasters. It was his first wife that was his one and only love. And a quick side note. We see an FBI Agent named Fornell in quite a few early cases as a rival, but with some sort of connection to Gibbs. We later learn that he was the second husband of Gibbs' second wife -- and they both regret the marriages.)

Later, Gibbs, who has always been trying to find out the identity of the killer, discovers it during a case, a case which ends up with the killer being sent back to Mexico in a way that assures he will not be prosecuted. (The show is not anti-Mexican, but accepts the existence of Mexican drug cartels and their influence.)

We already know Gobbs was a sniper, a fact referred to frequently, particularly by one regularly appearing character -- not a regular but someone who's been on a dozen or more shows -- his own ex-boss in NCIS who calls him 'Gunny.'

But he is shown using that skill precisely twice, and each is a key scene in one of the threads. He saves a life in the other thread -- some years after the events I've mentioned occurred. In this one, he uses it to kill the murderer of his wife and daughter as he returns to Mexico.

Okay, not a new idea, and most shows would treat it as merely an extreme example of 'in certain circumstances the hero may bend or even break the rules' story over with the endng credits, and maybe it gets mentioned a little later on.

But this is NCIS and they don't take cheap routes. That was not the end of the stpry, the shooting was investigated, other events occurred, but most of all, Gibbs himself visibly never fully came to terms with what he'd done, been no more sure than we were if he'd acted correctly.

And from that episode, Gibbs has changed -- subtly, but totally believably -- as he has struggled with the event. He has become darker, yet also friendlier, more attached to his staff. He's aged a little, and a little less sure of himself. (And yes, that is the show and not me reading into it. That's what they do. To steal my summing up of the show, they have created characters that are not only believable and whole -- and all somewhat eccentric but great at their work and as a team -- but the characters have visibly been affected both by their own interactions and by every major event in the series. Rarely greatly, but always visibly. So much so that one line by one character in a minor sub-plot in one of this year's episodes, literally echoed against every line the character had spoken, and showed a change and maturity that would have seemed impossible even the season before.)

Even in this story, it is Abby Sciuto, the forensic scientist of the team -- who deserves more space than is possible (and who is the only tv 'forensic scientist' played by an actor with a degree in forensic science) -- who is changed the most. She knows the secret. She's told Gibbs she knows, and that she will keep the secret, and she does. But -- again from that episode she becomes much solemner, much less bouncy and cheerfully eccentric, much less 'immature' than she has been before.

I've gone into the detail because it helps with my discussion -- probably tomorrow -- of why I can no longer watch HOUSE and why I find myself literally ashamed at having loved it. But also because it leads up to the single most perfect scene I can recall on tv.

Before that, Gibbs meets his wife, and finds out what could have happened had he succeeded in persuading her not to testify. (And in the rest of the show there is a running refrain of 'look at the good you have done' but it is skipped or downplayed here -- they don't load the dice, ever.)

But then we find out what would/could have happened if he'd stopped himself from pulling the trigger. Now 'Bizzaro World' scenes are easy, with heros overacting as villains, etc. But they are a cliche.

A true 'alternate world scene' is different. To do it properly, you need to have a number of characters. You need to know them, and you need every detail -- even dress -- to be subtly changed by their having lived through the years between. You need every detail of the setting, the dialogue, every gesture to be perfect, to be absolutely convincing so you know and believe that these characters would have been changed in just those ways if the key event had been different.

You can't do hat. Most 'alternate worlds' are ludicrously unthought out, frantic manipuations of the viewer or reader to make a point. But I've read good, even very good ones, and even they slip and stutter and fudge things.

This doesn't. God knows how, but they get every single tiny detail right, every physical detail -- even what Don "Ducky" Mallard is wearing, what s on the wall of Gibbs basement, every gesture and intonation are changed just enough to show that the characters have gone through what hey have gone through -- a slow disintegration of Gibbs as he was eaten up by his failing to pull the trigger (yet, earlier he had said how he had been so unsatisfied by what he had done because the man was dead, but his house was still emoty, his wife and child still dead). Gibbs is the most changed, but every note is believable. And the one major change that is mentioned in passing is a quick shock -- but if you know the show, you know that it is obvious it would have happened, and just as obvious why, in the 'real world' it didn't and won't. The answer is Gibs, but involves nothing he would or wouldn;t have done. His mere presence would have affected matters that much.

(And one final point about them not stacking the deck. There was one question they could have brought up that would have forced the audience to see Gibbs' choice as unquestionably 'right.' They could have shown the victims the killer would have had, if he had survived. They never even hint at it, because the show is about Gibbs.)

And somehow, they manage to tie the whole sequence to the case they are working on. It is someone who was involved with the case that shot Gibbs and they alternate -- and manage it -- between the scenes in the diner/past and the previous day when the team is working on the case. (And during his talk with his wife he sees a newspaper headline that reads 'Injured NCIS Agent Kills Attacker.')

All I will say about the ending is that Gibbs survives, that it, incredibly, manages to link both parts of the show, and that it makes every scene you've just watched echo in your head, with just a slightly different tone.

And that's NCIS -- I'll say more about it, I'm sure. At its best, yes, but I really can't recall even the worst show not being 'very good' and it is usually great. But it is the sum of the series that is so exceptional, so unlike anything I can think of. It understands and uses the format of the medium, uses its strengths -- the building of an ensemble most of all -- and avoids its weaknesses -- so easy to make the ensemble stay the same through the series, comfortably familiar.

Of course, to some people its 'just another police procedural, except that it uses the millitary.'

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Good, I can mumble to myself here on tv -- maybe somebody's listening -- and the politics can move to the next thread.

[MR Bill]

Great news on Prop 8, Happy for the confusion in the Republican field (and looking for a Romney-Santorum ticket).
Was wondering at to Sir Charles' take on the anti union provision of the Senates FAA authorization.

And if you read nothing else today, David Frum's ongoing evisceration of Charles Murray's "The Great Divorce" has cheered me up immensely.
I have hated Frum in the past, mostly in his cheap moralizing over Clinton and weaseling in the runup to Iraq. So to see this book absolutely destroyed by a Conservative (if a heretical one) is great fun.

[oddjob]

(Massachusetts did too back in those days, believe it or not.)

Pennsylvania also had laws about such matters. My dad had to travel to Delaware (we were about a ten minute drive from the state border) to get a vasectomy (back sometime after the summer of '64 when my younger brother was born and my parents knew they wanted no more children).

[oddjob]

Another reason I can think of for SCOTUS not to take up an appeal of the Prop. 8 decision is that it's obvious to any person who pays any attention to politics that our society is undergoing a rapid transition on how it deems same sex relationships and that the underlying reason is a profound difference of opinion between older and younger generations. It's difficult for me to believe there aren't at least a few justices who can see that in as little as ten or fifteen years the legal landscape on this topic is bound to be far different than it is now.

Given that why would it make sense for SCOTUS to wade in now? Doing so will be premature.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oddjob, every time I hear that I cringe. I watched the change after Stonewall, how fast it was, how much was gained, and how much still remains of those gains. And I was lucky to be in Philly between 1970-74, because it was one of the mo9st active gay communities around. The music scene was filled with Bowie lovers who'd fill the alleys around a studio where he was recording, the politicians weren't really fighting hard against us (Even Rizzo wasn't a strong homophobe, and Grace Kelly's brother John, Jr., was a city councilman who was well known for dating a transvestite -- maybe she had had the operation, in fact). And Mark Segal was around -- God, he's now the President of the Gay Newspaper Guild, back then he was an obnoxious, unliked, but very effective nineteen year old. (That emphasis is for me, because I still can't believe he was that young.)

The Stonewall Generation did a lot. It started the ball rolling, it made a lot of immediate changes that would never be turned back, it began to build straight support for gays, it began the process of decriminalization of gay sex -- in 1969 Connecticut became the second state to decriminalize it -- following (oh, take a guess) in 1961. 21 more would follow by 1977.

If you weren't around you don't realize that gays were about as 'respectable' as heroin addicts pretty late in the 60s. By 1980, the NYC Police Force had recognized GOAL as a legitimate organization and were actively recruiting gays to join the force through GOAL -- I had copies of the flyers.

My point? That it was the same generation that became the old folks that you politely hope will 'hurry up and die' that was the Stonewall Generation. I was a little on the old side in my mid twenties, most of the people I knew and saw were younger. (Segal 19????) I'm not arguing anything about why the change, or if there really was a change, or what. I'm just making the point, and still waiting for someone to discuss it.

[oddjob]

At 52, I'm not all that much younger. I'm not trying to make you cringe. I don't know what one does about the demographic divide. It is what it is. A majority of my age cohort isn't cool with marriage equality, either.

Unfortunate as it is, I think what happened was the AIDS epidemic. Very roughly speaking the pivot of the demographic divide happens around those who came of age in the mid-1980's. That's also the first age cohort that when they were first learning about "the birds and the bees" also had to learn about AIDS & HIV at the very same time. It's the Americans younger than that age cohort who are firmly in favor of letting same gender couples marry. The ones older than that just aren't in the same place in their hearts and minds. They don't live in the same reality that their younger siblings & children do.

[oddjob]

And speaking in a brutally tactical way, would you want to face the odds of a national marriage amendment to the Constitution's passing if SCOTUS were to rule now that there's an inherent right in the Constitution for same sex couples to marry?

[MR Bill]

Crud. the Murray book is, of course, "Coming Apart", not "The Great Divorce"...Where that came from i dunno.
Frum is still great, and tears into Murray defender Bryan Caplin: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/08/answering-a-charles-murray-defender.html

[nancy]

WA state, yeah. Gay marriage passes, pot goes on the ballot, yet this disgusting plan is afoot, expanding on changes to medicaid that were already going to be draconian. wtf. And Mitt's not too worried about poor people because of their ever-present no-fail 'safety nets.'

This is what can happen when a state has no state income tax, voters reject the rare ballot measure to support one, and too many people refuse to connect dots. I understand that some few people over-report to ER's. I'd bet my house those same people have no primary care physician at all.

I've not seen this before though -- let's punish the docs or force people to self-diagnose. Surely this has to be a bad first.

[Paula B]

Nancy, I notice something similar in NH, which has no income or sales tax (but very high local taxes). Consequently people complain endlessly about every extra nickel,and nitpick over how every dime is spent. If they spread their tax dollars out, the same amount of money might be better spent across the state, and they might, just might, feel more connected to and appreciative of the services they fund. Instead, they resent anything the state tries to impose on them. And, of course, they detest federal taxes. It's kind of like the super rich resenting anything more being asked of them, even though they have the wherewithal to pay it.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I hope everyone actually clicked through nancy's piece, because it has details she missed or failed to make clear.

They would apply to all adults and children on Medicaid, with no exceptions, such as someone being brought in by ambulance or from a nursing home, or when patients have neurological symptoms or unstable vital signs.

on an earlier proposal to limit 'non-emergency' ER visits:

The doctors and hospitals objected, noting the list contained not only obviously nonemergency conditions such as diaper rash or acne, but hypoglycemic coma, asthma attacks and chest pain — conditions that might indeed be emergencies.

and, in a way worst of all, because of the necessary and ugly responses that hospitals and doctors -- ER doctors, the low-paid ones -- will have to make

Under the new rules, ER services not paid by Medicaid wouldn't be billed to the patient, leaving the doctor or hospital on the hook.

Furthermore:

"The original plan was bad," Schlicher said. "This plan is outrageous."

For Medicaid patients, Schlicher said, the plan suggests that even before heading to the ER, they should know what their ultimate diagnosis will be.

"If we don't know without an X-ray or CT scan, how can they know it?"

For doctors, the plan could place them in legal jeopardy, Schlicher said.

If they turn patients away, "it's not good care and it doesn't meet the legal standard," he said. "I can't tell any provider to commit medical malpractice, no matter how much the state wants us to do that."

But if the doctors provide care for any of the conditions on the state's list, such as an ear infection or a bladder infection, they would have to do it for free.

Schlicher said he and other doctors have offered about 200 conditions they agree are most often not emergencies, but want the state to allow exceptions for a patient's condition — such as when their vital signs are unstable or they have neurological symptoms.

Nancy, this is a prime example of why we have to work and not just talk. I can't do anything on a local matter from here in Brooklyn -- thoguh I might e-mail Rachel about it. You might try that, but there are dozens of little -- and inexpensive -- ways you and your neighbors can get the word around, and get people writing and talking about this. (Right now, what percentage of the people in the hundred houses closest to you have read the article or heard about the problem? They can't act unless they find out, can they. And they aren't going to stumble across COG and learn about it that way.)

But if you've got a dozen friends around the state, and the weather's bearable, get them to hold neighborhood parties to discuss it. Got an artist friend? Have him draw up a simple poster, centering on a doctor, torn between an image of Hippocrates and a political image -- don't know who would be the right choice -- one quoting a suitable passage from the Oath -- maybe include another medical image and a more recent quote as well, the other quoting the law.

The whole focus is on the doctor, confused, scared, however you think his expression makes the most impact.

Below: "We shouldn't be forced to make a choice like this. Write your legislator and State Senator and demand they put a hold on the new ER restrictions. They aren't fair to us, and they aren't fair to you." Run off a hundred, take them to you doctor's office, suggest he put them on a suitable table and contact you if he or his friends want more. Then take up a collection from your friends and neighbors for the toner and paper you'll need.

Then, going back to your parties -- these things are just comng to me as I type them -- create a similar flyer, plain paper, one sided, no need to be fancy, only from the patient's point of view. Don't stress the 'pity' aspect, because you don't need it and it will turn off some people who are reachable -- which isn't nice to say about them but is true. Instead use the one that will resonate with everybody "How am I supposed to know if I've got an emergency if I don;t get it checked out. But I'm no doctor, I don't have my own MRI or CAT Scanner. 'Finding out' is why I go in the first place."

And, if you can, go around to friends and neighbors -- and bring up at the parties -- that if anyone has actually had an emergency room visit that saved their lives or a potentially serious condition they should tell about it. (Ideally, you'd get a doctor working with you who would know the new laws and tell if the visit would be covered.) Get them to write the story of the visit in their own words -- don't edit it at all -- get it notarized, and give permission for it to be circulated. Pass these around, and watch other people add their own testimonies to the pile. Then, after a month, let everyone who is in charge of a group of these stories bundle them up, and send them to legislators, newspapers, and the tv stations.

It took me a half hour from a 'standing start' -- I'd never read about the regulation before -- to come up with these. I'm no genius, you can add to them. (One thing, decide whether the flyers should have name, phone number and snail and e0mail addresses of legislatirs, how you will get the press involved, etc.)

And remember, if this works, it also gives you a real -- not on-line -- network that can be brought to think about -- and act on -- other issues.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One last thing. There are probably organizations working on this as well, unions, doctor groups. But think about deliberately not coordinating with them, making this a parallel example of "People Power." (And if somehow you can make a point, if you get coverage, of how this differs from the blather of the TP, all the better.)

[nancy]

Prup -- FWIW -- I put in the link instead of cutting and pasting, figuring that if anyone here has time or interest, they will click. I'm composing letters to legislators and forwarding aplenty, but at the same time, fighting a decision by my newly ensconsed, GOP bought-and-paid-for city council (courtesy of small-potatoes bucks made available by the RNC to the state party and funneled on to here, confidently) to wrecking-ball a unique old building which will devastate a promising new u-district.

(We dems do actually have a group who gather to plan coordinated responses at a place we call 'Toad Hall' on those occasions. That's 'coordinated' in a Democratic Party sense. :))

Also flyers may work in dense environs like yours. Here mostly, Jon Q. and spouse are in a car way too much. Handing out flyers in the parking lot at Target or in the halls of a shopping mall is going to have one chatting with 'security' in a short time. Fly-leafleting the streets of downtown leave one communicating with the choir.

Where to start when there are only so many hours in the day and one's friends have their own 'issues'? More than sigh.

[nancy]

Toad Hall -- for those of you lacking 'kiddie lit' references, was the manor hall, home of dubious gatherings of 'Wind in the Willows' characters, most especially when the nasty 'weasels' (I guess that's supposed to be us local dems, heh) take up temporary residence before the always self-absorbed and silly Mr. Toad leaves his brief and deserv-ed time in the slammer to return home, a 'new and reformed' Toad. Not. :)

Mr. Toad. Beep, beep.

[kathy a.]

check this out -- a WA republican explaining very eloquently why she supports gay marriage. sometimes i think there really is hope.