LA Story

I've always wanted to hike Runyon Canyon:

Not my Cup of Tea

I didn't know Glenn Beck's circus was coming to DC when I booked a trip out to California for the weekend. But now that I know, I'm really (really!) glad I'm not going to be here.

I'm hoping to use my travel time wisely and finally finish the last of the Stieg Larsson trilogy. This past week, I've been reading - and watching - other stuff instead. Stuff like...

1. Matt Taibbi on the Tea Party movement and the dangerous media machinery and corporate greed fanning the flames:

In fact if you follow Fox News and the Limbaugh/Hannity afternoon radio crew, this summer’s blowout has almost seemed like an intentional echo of the notorious Radio Rwanda broadcasts “warning” Hutus that they were about to be attacked and killed by conspiring Tutsis, broadcasts that led to massacres of Tutsis by Hutus acting in “self-defense.”

He goes on to give seven terrifying examples of just how bad the rhetoric's gotten.

2. Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair on how and why Washington's dysfunctional. A snippet:

Current law requires someone to “register” as a lobbyist only if he or she spends at least 20 percent of the time lobbying. And yet much of the real work of lobbying is not done by registered lobbyists at all but by the rainmaker lawyers and former politicians, like Vernon Jordan and Tom Daschle, who “counsel” private-sector companies on how to thread the needle and achieve their objectives. If you throw in all the people doing “government outreach” and “congressional liaison” at the countless trade associations and advocacy groups, the total number of people in Washington working to influence the government in one way or another actually runs closer to 90,000.

3. Jon Stewart debunking Beck:



See why I'm psyched to be getting away from what's on its way?

Have a good weekend. I'll catch you back here Tuesday.

Friday Funny

I could do without the crass title, and it totally screams for a "Slinky" jingle soundtrack. But that aside, enjoy. Via Jezebel:

We're On the Air

This morning, I returned to radio and got the chance to chat with Geoff Berg who was filling in for David Sirota on 760AM in Colorado. Here's the blurb on our conversation:

Geoff Berg in for Sirota today. He led off talking about the Florida Governor primary won by Rick Scott. Rick Scott's narrow victory over Attorney General Bill McCollum, the preferred candidate of the Republican establishment, in the Florida gubernatorial primary could cost the GOP a key governorship in a race that could have implications for years to come. The deep-pocketed Scott, who spent nearly 40 million in the nasty and bruising campaign, was the CEO of the Columbia HCA hospital chain, which was fined 1.7 billion for Medicare fraud not long after he left. He has a long history of screwing people over on health care. We then talked to AMERICAblog's Jacki Schechner for further analysis. She is the former National Communications Director for Health Care for America Now and Internet reporter for CNN.

The podcast is here. You have to guesstimate the halfway point, but once you move the marker there, you can hear my assault on the scumbag who's now Florida's GOP nominee for governor.

F is for...

Rick Scott won the Republican primary for governor in Florida last night:

A businessman who became an outspoken critic of President Obama's health care law has won Florida's GOP primary for governor, besting the state's attorney general.

Health care executive Rick Scott, who pumped $39 million of his own money into the race, hammered opponent Bill McCollum with a series of attack ads after jumping into the competitive race this spring and positioning himself as a conservative outsider.

Scott, 57, will face Florida's chief financial officer, Alex Sink, who is running to become the Sunshine State's first female governor. Also in the race: Independent candidate Bud Chiles.

Let's take a quick trip down reminder lane. NYT:

Once lauded for building Columbia/HCA into the largest health care company in the world, Mr. Scott was ousted by his own board of directors in 1997 amid the nation’s biggest health care fraud scandal. The company’s guilty plea and payment of $1.7 billion to settle charges including the overbilling of state and federal health programs was taken as a repudiation of Mr. Scott’s relentless bottom-line approach.

“He hopes people don’t Google his name,” said John E. Hartwig, a former deputy inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services, one of various state and federal agencies that investigated Columbia/HCA when Mr. Scott was its chief executive.

Oh, we Googled. Forbes:

[HCA] increased Medicare billings by exaggerating the seriousness of the illnesses they were treating. It also granted doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. In addition, it gave doctors "loans" that were never expected to be paid back, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.

(...)

Under former Chief Executive Richard Scott, it bought hospitals by the bucketful and promised to squeeze blood from each one.

Scott was forced to resign in the wake of the initial fraud charges in 1997.

Media Matters has a full dossier. Florida voters should be particularly interested in this kind of information:

Columbia/HCA Eliminated 1,000 Hospital Beds In Dade County, Florida. According to the Omaha World Herald, "Columbia/HCA has bought eight general hospitals in Dade County since December 1988. It closed two hospitals and transferred some general medical services out of a third to eliminate 1,000 acute-care hospital beds." [Omaha World Herald, 3/19/95]

Scott sacrificed patient care to cut costs. In Florida. And guess where he made a good chunk of the money he's now spending to run for office:

According to the Florida Times-Union, Richard L. Scott left Columbia/HCA "with a $10 million severance package and 10 million shares of stock valued at more than $300 million." [Florida Times-Union, 6/21/06]

This is Rick Scott:



From my letter to The Hill about Scott published 5/6/09:

In what is perhaps the most outrageous claim of Rick Scott’s latest diatribe, the former hospital chain CEO who was forced to resign just before his company paid out $1.7 billion in penalties and fines — the largest in U.S. history — for defrauding the government, making illegal deals, filing false data, granting kickbacks to doctors, and overbilling Medicare — accuses Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) of wanting to “cook the books” to pay for healthcare reform. Just because Scott ran a corporation that believed in making money at the expense of honesty and good healthcare does not mean anyone else believes that’s a justifiable strategy.

The Nation on Scott from March 11, 2009 titled Healthcare Enemy No. 1:

Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation. You see, the for-profit hospital chain Scott helped found--the one he ran and built his entire reputation on--was discovered to be in the habit of defrauding the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

It took a little while, but eventually the news caught on, and even Fox couldn't ignore Scott's shady past:



When Scott didn't like the TV ad HCAN ran against him, he sent out a fundraising email saying Comcast pulled the ad off the air, and people should give him money. Small problem there. It wasn't true. None of it. The ad came down because the ad buy ended as scheduled, and Comcast had to issue a statement countering Scott's b.s. claims. Here's more from The Huffington Post.

Scott likes words that begin with "f": fraud, falsification, fabrication. Now he wants to be governor of Florida.

I say we teach him one more "f" word. Fail.

Job of the Day

From the listing:

Guns.com is a new startup that will be launching this fall. The site will be made up of news, reviews, community functionalities and other auxiliary content concentrating on the gun world (handguns, rifles, shotguns, hunting, tactical, competitive, military, self defense, 2nd amendment, legal, etc). Guns.com aims to become the central meeting point for all facets of the online gun world.

I don't have a good feeling about this.

The Hits Just Keep on Coming

I was walking home last Tuesday night and saw a small crowd in the middle of a very busy road. They were huddled around a biker who had reportedly been hit by a car. Emergency personnel got to the scene about the same time I did, and I watched as they had the woman wiggle her fingers. It was the only thing I could see from where I was standing on the curb, but I felt alright walking away knowing she was at least conscious and responsive.

It got me thinking about all the close calls I've had as a jogger in this town. Drivers love to make right turns on red without checking for pedestrians in the crosswalk. They also tend to make left turns on green without doing the same. I can't even count the number of times someone has "waved me through" in front of his car as though he's doing me a favor even though I am within the white lines and have the right of way.

I don't know why everyone is in such a rush and so callous about paying attention. I've had my fair share of almost collisions with bad bikers too - those who speed through lights or race down the sidewalk when they should be on the street. But it's the cars that frighten me the most. And as it turns out, I have good reason to be concerned.

After finding this link to a site that keeps track of how many people get Struck in DC each week, I now know it's not just me. This is a big problem. I signed up to follow DC Fire EMS on Twitter. It's not even 3pm, and there already have been three incidents so far today:





Something's got to get done. I don't know what the answer is. No rights on red? More "Yield to Pedestrians" signs? You tell me. I'm game for whatever works.

UPDATE:

Poll Dancing

The new Match.com commercials drive me batty. If you've turned on your TV at any point in the last month, you've probably seen them. They're the ones with footage from "actual first dates" with the following tagline:

Match.com has led to

more dates
more relationships
more marriages

than any other site.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote to Match and asked how they were determining these declarations. They sent me a link to a poll they commissioned themselves. As a smart friend pointed out, all the poll shows is that Match wins the numbers game. More subscribers will inevitably lead to more hook-ups, but accurately gauging anything of substance beyond sheer volume is a huge stretch.

Also, the same company that owns Match.com owns Chemistry.com and Singlesnet.com, and since Match.com just acquired Yahoo! personals, comparing Match.com to these "other" dating sites seems a touch disingenuous and wildly unscientific.

My brief stint on Match was amusing but unimpressive. Here is an alternate tagline culled from personal experience:

Match.com has

more bad spelling and grammar
more desperation and social awkwardness
more guys fudging their (pick one) marital status/body type/height/age/income

than any other site.

Really Shabby Chic

I'm not a huge online shopper - especially when it comes to clothes - because my size varies by brand, and I end up returning a lot more than I keep. But I hopped on the Gilt Groupe bandwagon a while back, and even if I'm not in the market to buy, I do like to log in and browse.

Today I was tempted to take a look at the latest from Charlotte Ronson and came across the following called "Bleach Splattered Shorts:"



They're selling on Gilt for about $50, but check out the original price:



So here is why I find this funny. These are mine:



Similar color. Same white splotches. Not bleach but paint from fixing up my apartment back in August 2007. They're Old Navy, and while I don't remember what they cost, they couldn't have been more than $15, if that. They're comfortable and solid "just around the house" shorts, but at some point I was planning to toss them, assuming they were too destroyed to give to Goodwill.

Apparently not. Apparently I can start wearing them out and calling them all the rage.

You Oughta Be In Pictures

Whether you oughta be consumed is a whole other issue entirely.

Introducing my very first attempt at baking a pie:

Size Matters

I love my humble little corner of the Interwebs, but I am under no illusions as to the size of my readership which has grown slightly over the years but is still relatively cozy in comparison to other sites.

For that reason, I am grateful for the opportunity to voice some of my thoughts on Americablog which enjoys a much larger audience and wields considerably more power in its contribution to political conversation.

This morning, I banged out a piece challenging Maureen Dowd's column in the NYT. It's now posted there. Here's the link.

Mint Condition

I have no idea why it's suddenly tough to find around here, but I'm so addicted that when I finally did, I bought two.

Too Insincere Too Late

Sam Stein's got the latest from Gibbs who appears to be trying to dial back his asinine comments from Tuesday:

"There are a small number of people on cable and elsewhere who will never be happy, who will never give the President credit for anything, and who will always look for some cardinal sin to be upset about," the press secretary said in an email to the Huffington Post.

But, from there, he offered a far more conciliatory if not diplomatic reflection on the riff that briefly dominated macro-political debate within the Democratic Party.

"I also stand by my statement... that the vast majority of progressives and those on the left, whether that's bloggers or groups or what have you, do not hold those beliefs and are pushing in good faith for a better country as they see it," Gibbs added. "The President has urged those who want change to push for it and hold him accountable, and that's how he feels."

The latter remarks are far more tempered than those Gibbs offered during his daily briefing on Wednesday. Pressed then to expand on why he had disparaged the "professional left" -- for demanding, among other things, the elimination of the Pentagon and Canadian style health care -- Gibbs declined to name names but did little backtracking. Not only did he stand by the criticism, he said, he fully expected progressive voters to go out to vote come November.

I can't help but be slightly insulted that Gibbs and whomever he's speaking for (who knows these days?) think progressives aren't bright enough to pick up on the b.s.

Go out and vote come November? Sure. I'll do that for you if you do something for me. Close the gap between what you promise and what you deliver.

I Guess This Thing's On

I cross-posted my opinion on Americablog, and Ben Smith picked it up:

Former HCAN official voices discontent

Jacki Schechner was communications director for Health Care for America Now!, the big, pro-White House coalition organized to push for the passage of a health care bill.

So her disappointment at the outcome, and at President Barack Obama, voiced on Americablog today, is pretty striking:

My personal discontent stems from my experience in the battle for health care reform. I'm glad we got something done. I'm not convinced what passed was good enough. As of last month, my insurance premiums went up once again.

Had Obama run the first two years of his presidency the same way he ran his campaign — with guts and gusto — he would have solidified the full support of his base and the middle. They would have been ecstatic to get what they voted for. But when the president almost instantaneously cloaked himself in compromise and became the guy who just wanted to be liked, he showed a weakness that disenfranchised those of us who truly believed.

We don't want Canadian health care. We don't want the feds to run it all. After 8 years of feeling cast aside, we simply want things to get better. We voted for our elected officials to put our interests first, for civil rights to apply to all citizens, for government to work for us again, and for hope and change to have meant something.

I don't understand why the White House finds that so difficult to comprehend.

I'm glad.

Self-Fulfilling Idiocy

I realize I have to admit I flipped on daytime cable in order to bring you this nugget, but if I tell you I was looking for news on the Stevens crash, I suspect you'll forgive me.

Anyway, MSNBC is switching between coverage of the plane crash in Alaska and the jobs bill that just passed the House:

House Democrats on Tuesday pushed through a $26 billion jobs bill to protect 300,000 teachers and other nonfederal government workers from election-year layoffs.

The bill would be paid for mainly by closing a tax loophole used by multinational corporations and reducing food stamp benefits for the poor. It passed mainly along party lines by a vote of 247-161.

(Note the use of the phrase 'election-year layoffs.' Was 'layoffs' insufficient? Did we really have to inject the assumption of political posturing into the lede?)

But back to my initial frustration. Several times now, MSNBC anchors and reporters have asked whether Rep. Charlie Rangel's comments on the floor will take away from coverage of the jobs bill. I don't know, MSNBC reporters and anchors, will it? How about this: Not if you don't let it.

To be clear, the exact issue they're raising is whether or not Rangel's comments will be a distraction while they are actively making it a distraction.

This is why I should not be allowed to watch this crap. It just makes me angry.

cross-posted on Americablog

Shattered Expectations

I'm paraphrasing here, but a wise boss of mine used to say the way to lead was to "energize the base and inspire the middle," and instead, President Obama has been "alienating the base and confusing the middle."

I disagree with a lot of how this write is framed, but I do understand the frustration many feel when it comes to the President's performance so far. He ran on this incredibly inspirational platform of hope and change. There was a real sense that Obama could be the guy to stop business as usual in Washington and redeem government. I know I'm not alone in believing he recognized the time had come to remind lawmakers whom they worked for - the people - and remind the people that government could be on their side.

However, it's been almost 2 years, and no one feels that way.

What permeates is the sense that the President has compromised his alleged values and backtracked on his campaign promises in a way that jaded insiders would say was to be expected but the general population hoped wasn't the case. We wanted to believe. We really did. I know I did.

Advocates embroiled in the fight for financial reform, marriage equality, climate change legislation, and host of other issues can offer their insights better than I can in those particular arenas. But my personal discontent stems from my experience in the battle for health care reform. I'm glad we got something done. I'm not convinced what passed was good enough. As of last month, my insurance premiums went up once again.

Had Obama run the first two years of his presidency the same way he ran his campaign - with guts and gusto - he would have solidified the full support of his base and the middle. They would have been ecstatic to get what they voted for. But when the President almost instantaneously cloaked himself in compromise and became the guy who just wanted to be liked, he showed a weakness that disenfranchised those of us who truly believed.

We don't want Canadian health care. We don't want the feds to run it all. After 8 years of feeling cast aside, we simply want things to get better. We voted for our elected officials to put our interests first, for civil rights to apply to all citizens, for government to work for us again, and for hope and change to have meant something.

I don't understand why the White House finds that so difficult to comprehend.

UPDATE: John's got a great, more in-depth take on this too.

Define "Anybody"

Huh?

CNN, unlike virtually every other news organization, has not laid off anybody—it keeps hiring—and is expanding its field resources and network of bureaus around the world.

For starters, I'm thinking Michael Wolff should have a little chat with Kelli Arena, Miles O'Brien, Jamie McIntyre, the entire CNN environment and technology staff, Kathleen Koch, Sean Callebs, and - oh yeah - me.

The Shoes You Lose

I will not get the shoes I like
I will not wear them on a hike
You will not see me with a pair
You may not see them anywhere

Converse says there are no more
I wish they'd told me that before
They may come back but 'til they do
The email reads "No Seuss for you!"

Oh The Sneakers You'll Buy

I'm adoring and trying to find a reasonable excuse to purchase the new Dr. Seuss Converse. Leave it to The Today Show (which I never watch but randomly flipped on this morning) to introduce a fashion v. finance dilemma into my day.

Here's the link.

p.s. They're not expensive. They're just not the most practical expenditure for me at the moment.

UPDATE: I caved.

All the News That's Fit to Print 3 Times a Week

Having a bad day at work? It could be worse. You could be covering Sarah Palin in her own backyard. The Frontiersman in Wasilla is looking for help. From JournalismJobs.com (click on the image to see it larger):



They'll give you health insurance and match your 401(k), but you've got to move to Alaska on your own dime.

Where the Sidewalk Ends

As a daily runner and believer that walking is highly underrated, I spend a lot of time navigating city sidewalks. Lately, I've noticed some common obstacles worth identifying and sharing so you'll be prepared in case you care to follow in my footsteps one day.

1. The Wall

This is the most basic sidewalk obstruction, but at times, it can be the most challenging for the uninitiated. It usually consists of four people walking four across - a family, a group of friends, etc. - with complete disregard for the fact that other people may need to pass by at some point. Approaching a wall head on, you can occasionally get through with a simple, "Excuse me" coupled with a small visual sign of frustration. More often than not, the wall fails to separate voluntarily, and you need to get a little more demonstrative with your displeasure. A well-crafted comment while passing can be sufficiently gratifying. In contrast, if you are approaching a wall from behind, all bets are off. A loud "Excuse me" typically scares the wall. When someone jumps with surprise - and someone always will - you can make your way through that hole in the wall. But go quickly because the wall is guaranteed to reform almost instantaneously.

2. The Wandering Wall

This variation on the wall only consists of two people instead of four but can be equally difficult to maneuver past due to its unpredictability. Imagine two people engrossed in conversation weaving from side to side, leaving no room for passing by on either. You can usually get a wandering wall to steady if it sees you coming, but like the basic wall, it's tougher to negotiate from behind. Again, a loud "Excuse me" and a quick scoot through the subsequent hole caused by the shock that someone else actually wants to use the same sidewalk is your best bet.

3. The Low Limbo Leash

Named for its height, this obstruction consists of a dog walker and his or her charge, connected by a leash strewn across the sidewalk like the lowered limbo pole at a bad all-inclusive resort. Since it's impossible to blame and/or move the dog, your only way to get around the rope is to once again use your most forceful "Excuse me" and maneuver around the outside of the human the moment (you guessed it) surprise ensues.

4. The Car Park

Identified by its obstructive position between driveway and road, the Car Park sets up a impenetrable wall overcome by only one of two ways. The walker/runner can maneuver in front of the vehicle, stepping out into the roadway and hoping the driver doesn't decide to hit the gas at the exact same moment. Obviously, that move is dangerous and not recommended. The second option is to pass behind the car, away from the street. However, there is always a small risk that the driver will change his or her mind and back up again. The safest choice is to get the driver's attention and use hand signals to indicate where you're choosing to go. I don't recommend that hand signal being a middle finger no matter how strong the temptation.

5. The Blind Back-up

Found almost exclusively in city commercial districts, the Blind Back-up is fairly easy to spot but challenging to avoid. It occurs when two people are engaged in a conversation, and as one is departing the location of the conversation, he or she backs-up blindly into oncoming foot traffic. The "blind" chatter tunes out his or surroundings and pretends the reverse maneuver is happening in a vacuum of space. As you approach a Blind Back-up, you have to do a quick mathematical assessment of your speed in relation to the speed of the reversee. Calculated accurately, you may be able to beat the back-up. If not, an outstretched hand to fend off the inevitable collision can usually startle the talker into an abrupt stop.

6. The Parent Trap

The Parent Trap is named for the people responsible for rowdy kids running amok - their parents. A mini-wall of tots is most infuriating when you're approaching in full view of the grown-ups, and they fail to corral the herd. An agile, practiced pedestrian can weave through the Parent Trap unscathed, but one sudden unexpected, "Hey Mom, look at me!" and you're on the fast track to collision city. The best you can do is anticipate and be prepared to improvise.