Julie Chinitz at the OurFuture blog offers "Five GOP Health Care Buzz Phrases You Need to Inoculate Yourself Against." These are: "block grant for Medicaid" (better described as "destroying Medicaid"), "health savings accounts" (better described as "tax shelters for the rich") "high-risk pools" (a.k.a. "high-premium pools,") "per-capita caps for Medicaid" (i.e., "putting limits on your health care"), and "premium support" ("destroying Medicare" or "making seniors' health care cost more"). Seems Democrats could run about a thousand ads against this crap; guess how many they'll actually run.
In a related note, Margot Sanger-Katz at the New York Times comes up with at least two other ways to describe Republican health care proposals: they'd "redirect money from poor to rich," and they'd "chang(e) the winners and losers." I prefer "redistribute" to "redirect," but I'm glad to hear some version of it from our Paper of Record. And it wasn't that long ago that Republicans complained about government "picking winners and losers." What really upsets them is the prospect that government might prevent them from picking their cronies to be the winners.
Janine Jackson at FAIR finds some dirt on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch: he not only ruled against a cancer survivor's request to work from home while her workplace was besieged by a flu epidemic, but he also said that laws and rules protecting the disabled shouldn't "turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work." That's pedantry at best and cruelty at worst, and it's not too much to ask that our next Supreme Court justice come to us without these faults.
Thea Riafrancos and Daniel Denvir write about "moving past" identity politics. To me, the sword that slices the Gourdian knot of identity politics is the fight for economic justice -- anyone can identify with it, no one needs to feel left out by it, and attaining it also makes fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia a lot easier. Of course I find the whole notion of "throwing blacks overboard so we can attract white voters again" to be quite stupid -- it's as if evil people want us to think that's the only choice. But we Americans can make our own choices. That's why we rock.
Cade Metz criticizes Mark Zuckerberg for offering "A World Divided By Facebook" "More Facebook." Always they blame the wrong people! Facebook hasn't divided our world -- Our Glorious Elites have divided our world, and they've divided it a lot harder as their moral and intellectual bankruptcy has become more and more obvious. If you think Facebook is unprecedented in its ability to spread lies, then you've never heard of a whisper campaign, and if you blame Facebook for "help(ing) Americans construct parallel factual universes," then you've never heard of Fox News.
Finally, David Frum describes how Donald Trump could "Build an Autocracy" in America. I don't see the "familiar expansive magic" of "big tax cuts, big spending, and big deficits" as a sure thing -- surely he remembers the, ah, mixed economic record of his old boss, George W. Bush -- but Mr. Frum does a great job imagining the banality of an American autocratic state (and most dystopian thinkers shrink before that task!) as well as describing how incrementally this autocratic state could creep up on us. These are Interesting Times, so I guess I'll have to say it: David Frum's article is essential reading.