Nancy Pelosi said she does not think the Senate's version of the health care bill could pass the House. She stated, "I don't see the votes for it as this time." A lot of House Democrats are unhappy about some of the Senate bill's provisions (e.g., against the provision that only benefits Nebraska's Medicaid system, they think the federal subsidies to be offered to uninsured individuals are too small, they're against the excise tax on high-value insurance policies -- which could hurt union members). Pelosi said the Senate would probably have to amend its version of the bill. But some see that as a problem with the election of Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) this past Tuesday, which means Democrats won't have the 60-seat supermajority to override a filibuster (once Brown is seated). Some congressional leaders are talking about starting a new bill from scratch; while others say that would take way too much time. (Full Story)
The Democrats shouldn't over-think the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Just get health care reform passed and move on to the next pieces of legislation. Letting health care reform languish in doubt and frustration will only weaken Obama's political capital and force more strained discussion on the issue. The Senate health care reform bill is a compromise of a compromise; pass it and let it be resolved that it will have to be revisited sooner rather than later. Then use the next year to forge ahead on jobs, while tying them to a sustainable economy (focusing on green, infrastructure building jobs); enacting broad financial reforms and regulations; and refocusing on creating a more transparent and accountable government. Congress also needs to stop saying how the government is so bad at doing this or that. They need to highlight the areas where government works well and then hold all government sectors to that standard.
Air France has said they will offer a free second seat to obese passengers "for their own comfort". Though it's only free when the flight is not full. Previously, at the check-in desk, if the passenger was deemed too large to fit into a single seat, they would be asked to pay for and use a second seat (at a 25% discount). The new policy is that if the flight is not full, they will be refunded for the second seat and essentially get to sit in the second seat for free. The airline also said that if an overweight person came to the check-in counter without having booked an extra seat, the check-in staff would not intervene. Instead, the passenger would continue to the plane and the on-board staff would put them next to an empty seat. They said "in 99% of the cases" they can work something out because the planes are rarely completely full.
The airline also confirmed that they still have the policy, like most airlines, that an obese passenger could still be prevented from flying. This policy is in place to ensure that a flight can be evacuated in 90 seconds. It's up to the captain to decide whether the passenger can fly or not. (Full Story)
I know this decision isn't completely based on compassion. They're trying to improve their image, and it's not a huge cost. Because, really, if the flight isn't full, it's not a huge loss to let an overweight person have an extra seat for free. However, at least it's nicer than U.S. airline policies. I think passengers have to buy a second seat at full price, and I don't know if they get a refund if the flight is not full. France having more compassion for overweight people?! Well, I never!
A survey conducted by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies found that a majority of Americans (57%) say they have no prejudice at all against Muslims (keeping in mind that social desirability -- the desire to not say something "controversial" during a survey that could make them sound bad -- probably puts that number higher than it really is). However, more than 4 in 10 Americans (43%) report feeling at least "a little" prejudice towards Muslims. That is more than twice as many people that say the same about Christians (18%), Jews (15%), and Buddhists (14%) [I'm surprised there's even prejudice against Buddhists, especially in the United States. I think it's terrible, but, I'm sure people are prejudiced against Muslims because of all the terrorism and 9/11 and Bin Laden. And people thinking all Muslims are the same. But Buddhism? They don't really have a bad reputation in the U.S. In fact they pretty much have no reputation. Probably the only reputation they have is that highly-educated, Volvo-driving, LL Bean-wearing, Whole Foods-shopping kind of people are attracted to it. Those 14% probably know nothing about Buddhism and know no Buddhists, but "Buddhism" sounded foreign and thus scary.]
When asked their overall view on each of the religions, 31% of Americans said their opinion of Islam is "not favorable at all" versus 9% who say it is "very favorable." Whereas, more Americans considered Christianity and Judaism to be "very favorable" than "not favorable at all" (Christianity: 66% very favorable, 4% not favorable at all; Judaism: 25% very favorable, 15% not favorable at all). While Buddhism was pretty equal in terms of the two extremes -- 20% very favorable, 21% not favorable at all.
Despite these relatively high numbers of prejudice and unfavorability towards Muslims and Buddhists, a lot of Americans do not know much about these two religions, nor do they know many people that practice these religions. The survey found that 63% of Americans have very little or no knowledge at all of Islam; for Buddhism, the number is 72%. For Christianity, the majority of people knew "a great deal of knowledge" about that religion (67%); only 2% knew nothing at all. For Judaism, a plurality of people had some knowledge about the religion (44%); 19% knew nothing at all. When asked "Do you happen to know anyone in the following religious groups?", 47% said they do not know any Muslims; 68% said they do not know any Buddhists. Only 1% did not know any Christians and 19% did not know any Jewish people. (Full Story) (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment