History Lesson: The Racism of the Southern Strategy

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”  - Republican strategist Lee Atwater in 1981

"I think that typically when you see the, I don’t even remember the term they use, but the gangs of blacks lately that have been just been going down the downtown streets and breaking windows on cars. We played the Milwaukee state fair a couple years ago and these black mobs were just attacking white folks coming out of the fair. And over and over again I watch the news and here’s a rape and here’s a burglary and here’s a murder in Chicago. 29 shot. 29 blacks shot by 29 blacks. At some point you got to be afraid of black and white dogs if the Dalmatian’s doing the biting." - Ted Nugent in July 2013, right after he insists he is in no way racist.

One of the biggest shams in American politics today arises when conservatives claim that racism no longer exists in America and that if you dare bring up the issue, well, you're the real racist. This has been the standard response since the verdict in the Treyvon Martin case, and was especially repugnant after President Obama dared to give his thoughts on the matter (just try googling "racist in chief"). This perspective is so blind and naive that it is astonishing that it persists in an age with so widely available information (I blame the mainstream media for not calling them on it). From Tea Party favorite Louis Gohmert labeling immigrants drug mules, to Sean Hannity dog whistling about Obama phones, to states like Texas and North Carolina immediately ramping up restrictions that will make it harder for minorities to vote after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, it is clear that racism still infects our politics, and society at large. But conservatives have convinced themselves that racism is done (we have a black President!), to talk about it is racist, and that they were on the right side of history all along - the real civil rights heroes. Bullshit. Let's go into the Wayback Machine to learn the truth.

The Era of Politics by Geography, not Party

Republicans love to claim that Abraham Lincoln was one of them, that most Southern supporters of slavery and segregation were Democrats, and therefore Republicans are the real saviors of black Americans.  Rand Paul put this view on full display when he tried to white-splain African-American history to a bunch of black students at Howard University ("Did you know the founders of the NAACP were Republicans?"  Of course they did!)  Well, I'll grant the first two points.  But to realistically compare the political parties of the 1860s to 2013 is staggeringly naive.  Both parties had "liberal" and "conservative" factions, as anyone who saw the movie Lincoln can attest.  Lincoln himself was fairly pragmatic and sought compromise where he could in order to achieve bigger goals (read Team of Rivals, the book which inspired Lincoln).  Parties were much less tied to ideology in those days, and shifting alliances were common.

On slavery, however, it is of course true that most abolitionists were Republicans.  After the Civil War, the Congressional faction known as the Radical Republicans imposed strict Reconstruction rules on the defeated South, including military occupation.  They went farther than Lincoln would have and even overrode the vetoes of Democratic President Andrew Jackson from Tennessee (the conflict between them lead to Jackson's impeachment).  This treatment ensured that the states of the Confederacy would become the "Solid South," voting Democratic in every election for almost 100 years.  After Reconstruction ended, Jim Crow began, and the short-lived careers of black and civil rights-supporting Republican politicians in the South was over.

Thus for decades the Democratic Party constituted a weird, uneasy coalition of openly racist, very conservative Southerners and more liberal Northerners.  At the same time, there were many notable progressive Republicans, such as Bob La Follette of Wisconsin, Alf Landen of Kansas, and Teddy Roosevelt.  Like I said, party and ideology did not always align.  Perhaps the best personification of this was Democrat William Jennings Bryan, who was essentially a theocratic leftist.  He was a strong Prohibitionist, virulently opposed teaching evolution, and yet took positions on economics and foreign policy that would today label him a peacenik socialist.  It's not so cut-and-dried as conservatives would have us believe.  Even Dwight Eisenhower, another moderate, didn't declare himself a Republican until just before the 1952 election (both sides, understandably, badly wanted him on their ticket).

Speaking of which, here is the 1956 presidential election map:

In the landslide reelection of a popular President and war hero, Eisenhower still couldn't carry the Solid South.  Now let's go down the road to just eight years later - 1964, the year after which today's Republicans tend to stop talking about their civil rights record.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended legal segregation across the country (most notably the South, of course).  It passed Congress on a bipartisan vote - opposition was much more based on geography.  Here are the vote totals by region and party: 

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Southerners such as then-Democrat Strom Thurmond led the opposition, including an epic filibuster.  However, the Act was signed into law by a Southern Democratic President - Lyndon Johnson of Texas.  American electoral politics was about to undergo a massive shift.  How did the Southern populace react to one of their own endorsing civil rights for blacks?  Here is the 1964 electoral map:



Nearly the exact opposite of '56 (Barry Goldwater was from Arizona).  With the exception of Southerners Carter and Clinton being able to pick off a few states, the endorsement of civil rights has cost the Democratic Party most of the South for over 50 years.

Enter the Southern Strategy

The Republican Party's attempt to lock down disaffected Southern whites didn't begin officially until Nixon's 1968 campaign.  Nixon campaigned on issues such as "states' rights" and "law and order" that were thinly veiled dog whistles to racist whites, in the vein of the Lee Atwater quote above.  The tactic has continued more or less unabated since - here is a good summary from Salon.  Campaigning in 1980, Ronald Reagan chose the town in Mississippi where three civil rights workers had been abducted and killed in the '60s to talk how he believes in "states' rights," the glorious euphemism of the racist South.  After stealing the South from native son Carter in 1980, he would later talk about "young bucks" and "welfare queens" in Cadillacs as reasons to cut welfare.  Ads against Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988 implied that as governor of Massachusetts he let dangerous black criminals roam free (sound familiar?).

With the rise of right-wing media and the campaign and success of the first black President, the Southern Strategy might be even more calcified to the heart of Old Dixie, but it is no less prevalent or effective on its targets.  The phony fracas that is birtherism implies that Obama is an "other," not a real American, and not to be trusted - and this would most assuredly not happen if he were white.  (Case in point - some Tea Partiers want Senator Ted Cruz to run for President, even though he was born in Canada to American parents - the exact same situation that would be true of Obama, if he weren't born in Hawaii.  Can't wait to hear them justify that.)  Complaints about Obama having "the accent" when talking to black audiences also serve to portray him as "not one of us."  When media figures like Hannity and Limbaugh lambast the "Obama phone" program - which actually started under Bush - and use a black woman as its poster child, they are following in the "welfare queen" stereotype, implying that blacks are nothing more than moochers who live off the backs of real, hard-working whites.  Think I'm being too harsh?  Dare to peruse the comment sections of any race- or Obama-related story on major conservative news websites such as Breitbart.com or WorldNetDaily.  The unabashed racism displayed by "good conservatives" just might surprise you.  It's real, it's out there, and to deny it is insane.  How many other Presidents have been labeled a Kenyan Fascist Nazi Communist Muslim Atheist Socialist Marxist Antichrist by so many of the loyal opposition?

Consider these simple facts:

• Unless you're in the top 2%, federal income taxes are exactly the same as they were under Bush.  Yet 2 months after a black man enters the White House, a entire "grassroots" movement of people who are Taxed Enough Already - but were perfectly happy with the same rates under Bush! - takes over the Republican Party.
• Federal gun regulations are the same as they were under Bush, and show no sign of changing in any meaningful way.  And yet now that there are Scary Black Men in the White House and DOJ, the government is coming for all your guns, buying up all the bullets, and prepping for the coming race war.

These are not fringe opinions.  You can find them plastered all over the 'Net, and are held by major media figures and some Congressmen.  These people influence hearts and minds.  And then those influenced vote.

A brief aside - some argue that the switch of the South to the Republican Party came as a result of Southern whites voting with their economic interests.  As the South became more suburban and affluent after World War II, so the theory goes, Southerners realized they had been hating on their tax-cutting heroes all along.  I call baloney.  As I've blogged about before, pretty much every economic indicator shows the South as the poorest region in the country, as well as leading recipients of government programs that Republicans often oppose - and this includes many Southern whites.  Rather, as argued in What's the Matter with Kansas?, social and cultural issues - race, religion, and guns - have come to dominate the electoral minds of the GOP rank-and-file, to the benefit of the rich who are the real beneficiaries of their economic policies.

A reminder of the 2012 election map, to show how little has changed:



A look at this map - as well as the 2008 map - actually shows that the Southern Strategy may be beginning to backfire for Republicans.  The South still largely goes red - excepting Florida and Virginia (and really, just northern VA and southern FL are blue) - but the tactics and policy of the GOP are starting to dissuade voters in other areas of the country.  Romney received 118 votes from the Confederacy, and only 88 outside of it.  Only 70 of his electoral votes came from non-slave states.  Republicans will likely continue to dominate the South for some time, but those 118 electoral votes (out of 538 total) are not enough to win elections.  Moreover, demographic trends point to Texas being a true battleground by the 2020s - earlier if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016.  If the Republicans lose Texas (38 EVs) and fail to abandon the Southern Strategy - especially with regard to the rise of the Hispanic voter - they are done as a national party.  But here's the rub for them - trying to win new voters by supporting immigration reform or being more gay-friendly alienates the Southern conservative base that they desperately need to have any chance of winning a national election.  Meanwhile, Obama has shown that a Democrat can win the Presidency without the South.  A Republican can't win without it, but might not be able to win with it either.  The racism of the Southern Strategy has come home to roost, and today's Republicans are paying the price.

(P.S. I'm gonna assume Nugent, in his quote, is talking about the Wisconsin State Fair, which is just outside Milwaukee proper.  I've been there.  It was a pleasant time, and this whitey certainly wasn't attacked by black thugs as I left.  Go there and have a good time.  Try a cream puff.)

Remembering Ryan Davis: Mourning Someone We Never Met

In memory of this guy.

This past Monday the video gaming community was rocked by the tragic news of the sudden death of games journalist Ryan Davis.  As an editor at GameSpot, he was a key figure in the evolution of games coverage on the Internet, pioneering podcasting and video shows.  In 2008 he co-founded the site Giant Bomb with GameSpot alum Jeff Gerstmann, and it was at this time that I came to know Ryan through the weekly Giant Bombcast.  Giant Bomb continued to push forward in games coverage, developing a site that is based as much on the charisma of its editorial staff as games themselves - and the Bombcast is the most important component of the site's image.  Each week's 2-3 hour show, hosted by Ryan, is a mix of informative video game discussion and witty banter about everything from short-wave numbers stations to who would win in a knife-vs-bat fight.  Ryan also featured prominently in video features such as QuickLooks - gameplay with commentary of various (sometimes hilariously bad) games and "This Ain't No Game" reviews of movies inspired by or based on video games (Ryan and I share a love for the classic Cold War thriller WarGames).  Ryan's omnipresence, sheer likeability, and obvious passion and talent for his craft made him a beloved figure among the close-knit Giant Bomb community and the gaming industry at large.  His untimely passing thus came as a tragic gut-punch to everyone who enjoyed his online antics, rendered all the more horrible by the fact that his death came just days after his wedding.  He was 34.

When the news broke, the Internet - or at least gaming's corner of it - erupted in an outpouring of grief.  Thousands of people who had never met Ryan felt like they had lost a good friend, and felt the need to express their sorrow and condolences.  Journalists shared their favorite memories.  Ryan's dad took to Twitter, using an account that hadn't been active for months, to thank everyone for their support and share pictures of his son.  And random fans like me just wanted to find a reason for our sense of loss for someone we never knew.  For a time "Ryan" was the 3rd highest trending topic on Twitter.  On last check the post on Giant Bomb announcing his passing had around 7,000 comments.  Ryan's colleague Brad Shoemaker noted that his girlfriend - an oncology nurse - was truly impressed by such a great outpouring of positivity.  Given how cruel the Internet as a medium generally is, it was a nice sight to behold in the midst of tragedy.

But what of us fans?  What is our grief next to the unspeakable misery of Ryan's friends, family, and widow?  Why did we take it so hard?  He was probably the highest profile star in the young gaming industry to be taken before his time - and definitely the biggest since the rise of social media.  Personally, Ryan's death meant more to me than any "celebrity" who's ever died in my lifetime.  I certainly don't begrudge those who mourn celebrity deaths, but I've never felt any real connection to them.  For thousands of gamers, Ryan was different, and the technology of the Internet enabled this difference.  Thanks to the Bombcast and videos, Ryan was a regular fixture in our lives.  He was likable and easily relatable.  He was just one of the guys, talking about games and other stupid stuff.  We grew to knew him and even knew a fair amount about his personal life.

The Internet, and in particular Internet communities and fandom, are weird this way.  The technology enables the development of relationships - even one-way - with people you'll probably never meet.  We share their interests, laugh at their jokes, cheer their successes, and feel for their losses.  Is this unhealthy?  I suppose it could be, if such online relationships replace or damage our in-person ones.  As an unrelated tweet I saw last week noted, "I have relatives I haven't called in years, and I'm arguing with a 13-year-old on Twitter."  Taken in moderation, however, the Internet offers the unprecedented ability to connect with people we'd never meet, perhaps with common interests that none of our in-person acquaintances share.  The increased audio and video capabilities of today's Internet have made such relationships more real and legitimate - no longer just text in a chat room.  Of course, they can also be deceiving and abusive, just like in-person relationships - as anyone who's seen MTV's Catfish can attest.  But they can also have true meaning.  Many fans, while expressing their condolences, noted that the entertainment and camaraderie provided by Ryan and the Giant Bomb crew really helped them through some tough times.  Is it any wonder that these fans felt they had lost a good friend?

Life goes on for the Giant Bomb community.  Almost unbelievably, the crew recorded a 2-hour podcast this week, when no one would have blamed them for taking a week off.  It was a touching tribute to their fallen comrade.  Giant Bomb and the Bombcast will live on, and it's obvious Ryan would've wanted it that way.  And us fans will always remember the positive impact he had on our lives.  Thanks Ryan, for making the work week, my commute, or chores around the house a lot more bearable.

RIP duder.

Let's Reduce the Demand for Abortions

Of all the social issues facing America, probably none provokes more of an emotional response - one way or the other - than the legality of abortion.  It's so heated the two sides don't even agree what to call each other.  This hypersensitivity has made me wary of writing about it extensively to this point.  Moreover, as a dude I feel woefully underqualified to authoritatively discuss something that I"ll never personally have to face.  However, that certainly doesn't stop millions of other men from pontificating about it, and some recent events have now steered me towards the subject.  In short, I agree with former President Clinton that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."  I do not support legislative efforts to ban abortion because they violate the basic rights of women and are ultimately ineffectual.  Rather, that wasted energy should be directed to implementing policies and practices that will hopefully reduce the demand for abortion in the future.

Misguided Anti-Abortion Legislation

There has certainly been an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationally in 1973, in the forty years since.  That ultimate goal is basically impossible, as it would take a Court reversal or constitutional amendment - neither of which is very likely to occur.  The easiest way would be for a committed anti-abortion President to have a committed anti-abortion Senate (for Justice confirmations) and several Court vacancies to fill.  If that didn't happen during Bush's 8 years, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.  And even if it did, it would be reversed as soon as the Court makeup changed again.

And so abortion opponents have turned to crafting laws at the national and state level that chip away at abortion rights either directly or indirectly.  If they can't outlaw abortion outright, they will make it as hard as possible for women to get them, through such tactics as defunding Planned Parenthood or by imposing onerous restrictions on abortion clinics that force them to close (suddenly, conservatives love government regulations!).  Making abortions nearly impossible to obtain in a certain state is extremely biased against poor women - for as long as abortion remains legal somewhere in the US, women of means will be able to get them.  And even if it were illegal nationwide, there would be a way.  Instead such laws end up punishing the women who need Planned Parenthood's services the most (more on this later).

However, the dirty little secret that many abortion foes either don't realize or don't want to admit is that many establishment Republicans don't care about outlawing abortion.  In the 1980s and '90s, they were more than happy to give lip service to the cause in order to win the votes of the large Christian conservative voting bloc.  However, once in government they cared more about tax cuts and deregulation than abortion - "but hey, we'll do a partial-birth abortion ban, lots of people can get behind that.  But otherwise, please, please stop saying stupid stuff about women, rape, and abortion" (remember Todd Akin?).

That trend changed in 2010 when the Tea Party bucked the establishment and seized control of several state governments and the national House of Representatives.  Now, their presence could no longer be ignored - they either could pass what laws they wanted outright, or hold House Speaker John Boehner's job hostage if he didn't throw them some red meat.  And thus we have witnessed a wave of anti-abortion legislation in the past few years, much of it becoming law at the state level.  Let's look at two examples.

Mike Ellis (R-Blowing Gasket)

First, I turn to my former residence of Wisconsin, where I had been genuinely impressed by the openness of its governance and pride in its heritage as a "laboratory of democracy."  That all went south when Tea Party darling Scott Walker was elected Governor and Republicans captured both legislative chambers in 2010.  Suddenly draconian rules restricting peaceful protests at the Capitol and observance of legislative proceedings were put into place (including a dress code, because by God we can't have people in T-shirts in the galleries!).  It was in this environment that a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound beforehand was introduced.  These laws, implemented in some other states, are supposedly about "giving full information" to a patient, but are really about guilting them into not having an abortion.  They are not medically necessary, and moreover, because most abortions are performed early in pregnancy, an invasive transvaginal ultrasound would be required to get the clear image that the bill requires.  The law rapidly moved through the state legislature, featuring the arrest of some protestors in the galleries and an epic gavel-breaking meltdown by Senate President Mike Ellis as Democratic legislators attempted to prolong debate.  The bill passed both houses, and Walker has indicated his enthusiastic support.  A Democratic amendment that would have prohibited women from being physically forced to have an ultrasound was, unfathomably, defeated.  So, I'm not saying it will happen, but it will soon be technically legal in Wisconsin to physically force a woman to have an invasive medical procedure that she doesn't want or need.  Such is the "freedom" of Tea Party governance.

Not to be outdone, my home state of Kansas now requires abortion providers to tell women about the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer, even though no major studies have ever found any evidence of such a link.  Requiring doctors to lie to patients - now enshrined in Kansas law.

Moving to the national level, this week the GOP-controlled House passed a law outlawing abortions at 20 weeks or later.  Such a law is, of course, unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has ruled that abortions before 24 weeks cannot be outlawed.  Focused like a laser on creating jobs and improving the economy, that GOP House is, right?  Actually, it's just as pointless as the chamber's 37 attempts to repeal Obamacare.  It won't pass the Senate and President Obama would never sign it.  It's yet another waste of taxpayer money and Congressional time by those "fiscally conservative" Republicans - a purely symbolic act to please the Tea Party base while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

The bill's 20-week cutoff is based on the highly debated notion that fetuses can feel pain at this point in gestation.  Major medical groups such as the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists dispute the idea of fetal pain at 20 weeks.  The only defenses supporters of the bill could mount once again made them look downright silly, such as the bizarre implication, from an OB/GYN Republican Congressman, that male fetuses at 15 weeks masturbate, and since they can feel pleasure, they can also feel pain.  (If you really want to know, turns out there have been a few documented instances of fetuses making "masturbatory motions," but all much later than 15 weeks.)  In reality, 20 weeks is an arbitrary deadline, based on flimsy evidence at best, that really serves to move the goalpost forward towards the end goal of outlawing all abortion.  Fetal pain today, fetal heartbeat tomorrow, conception next Thursday.  And if you think I'm exaggerating, such measures are already moving forward in the states - North Dakota now bans abortions when a heartbeat is detectable.

Here's what gets me - how are these measures being accomplished?  The free market?  Charitable organizations?  Business entrepreneurship?  No!  It's big government!  I'm tired of these conservatives telling us government is not the answer, government takes away our freedom, government can't do anything right.  Any laws aimed at curbing gun violence are pointless and unconstitutional, you might as well ban rocks and hammers, etc. etc.  But when it comes to abortion - a legal practice for 40 years - they can't get enough government.  More restrictions on clinics!  More requirements on patients and doctors!  Screw freedom!  So, I'm only asking conservative abortion opponents to acknowledge what they supposedly believe in their hearts - government can't eliminate the problem.  You can't legislate abortion out of existence, exactly how you can't erase gun homicide.  So let's look at the situation a different way and actually do something productive.

Focus on the Demand, Not the Supply

Conservatives tackle abortion like they do economics - they're supply-siders.  They focus on legally limiting the supply of abortion while in many cases they actively oppose measures that could reduce the demand for them.  Well, if the general failure of such policies as the war on drugs has taught us anything, it's that you can't legislatively eliminate the supply of a good or service that's fairly easily available and in demand.  It'll just move to the black market, which would be a bad situation for everyone involved.

So, instead, let's focus on lowering the demand for abortion.  This should really be an area where both abortion rights supporters and people personally opposed to abortion could work together.  No one thinks abortion is great.  No one wants to see its numbers on the rise.  Imagine what good could be done if everyone could accept the status quo legality of abortion and direct all the money, time, and attention used to constantly fight both sides of the battle to real action to lower abortion rates instead.  Is this a pipe dream?  Most likely - as it is, politicians have way too much to gain from keeping this divisive issue alive.  But one can dream.

I envision a three-pronged approach to reducing abortion rates by lowering demand for them - comprehensive sex education, universal access to birth control, and better support services for poor parents facing an unplanned pregnancy.  I understand these policies might not be popular with a lot of abortion foes, but if you're genuinely interested in doing something substantive about abortion, I urge you to hear me out.

(I'm well aware that my suggestions also include government action.  However, these ideas are proactive measures that people can actively contribute to and work together on, rather than restrictive legislation that limits the rights of women to make decisions about their health.)

Comprehensive sex education is vital to teenagers understanding their reproductive health and the consequences of their sexual actions.  It is very naive to believe that abstinence-only sex ed properly educates youth about their bodies and is actually effective in getting them to put off sex until marriage.  Even 80% of unmarried evangelical Christians self-report as sexually active.  Abstinence programs may shame teens who have sex, which is only going to exacerbate the problem if they find themselves in a tough situation.  Moreover, studies show that many young people - as much as 60% - are grossly misinformed about the effectiveness of contraception.  A 2008 study found that comprehensive sex ed reduced the likelihood of getting pregnant, or getting someone pregnant, by 60%; compared to no statistically significant results for abstinence-only programs.  Three states with the highest teen pregnancy rates do not require any form of sex ed whatsoever.  The statistics speak loudly on this one.  Comprehensive sex education teaches adolescents to be aware of their sexual health, it reduces the likelihood of teen pregnancy, and thus lowers the potential demand for abortions.  It should be mandated nationwide.

Following naturally on sex ed is universal access to effective birth control.  Now, you might be personally opposed to using contraception.  That's fine, and no one is going to force you to use it.  However, opponents have to realize that in 2013 this is a very minority position to have, and that there is no right to restrict access to birth control based on religious or other beliefs.  There are signs that even some elements of the evangelical community are becoming open to responsible birth control use.  And the stats don't lie here either - birth control works.  Teen pregnancies are declining sharply, and increased birth control use is the reason why.  I'm not saying birth control has to be free for everyone (socialism!) but it should be universally and cheaply accessible.  It should be covered in health insurance plans without exception.  Recently some Christian employers have refused to cover birth control on insurance plans due to their religious beliefs.  They have no such right.  They ignore their employees' freedom of religion.  Insurance benefits are a form of compensation, and an employer has no right to tell their employee how to spend such compensation.  A Jewish employer can't tell their workers not to burn their paycheck on bacon.

As it turns out - not evil.

Conservatives love to demonize Planned Parenthood.  In their vision, it's nothing more than an abortion mill.  They constantly seek to defund it and put it out of business, ignoring the majority of services it provides - even to the detriment of many other citizens.  Texas even refused federal Medicaid funding just to kick PP out of Medicaid.  The state's own health department estimates that this defunding will cause 24,000 additional unplanned births in 2014 and 2015, which could cost taxpayers over $200 million in Medicaid and other expenses.  How is that supposed to reduce abortion rates?  How is that "fiscally conservative?"  Planned Parenthood provides essential family planning and sexual health services for low-income women and men. of which abortion is only a small part - 3%.  71% of PP clients are there for preventive measures.  The organization also provides hundreds of thousands of breast exams and millions of STD tests every year.  It is a vital component of public health and deserves to be supported rather than denigrated.

Last, the best sex ed and birth control access in the world still won't prevent all unplanned pregnancies.  So, we need to provide better support services for poor prospective parents facing the dilemma of an unplanned child.  Conservatives who claim to be "pro-life" often seem to ignore this side of the equation - they care deeply about the unborn, but once that child - that they said you must have because abortion is wrong - enters the world, you're on your own.  This gets into the tired "moochers" business that I'm not going to go through yet again, but I think you get the idea.  They want to cut welfare.  They are hesitant to support family and medical leave from work.  They oppose universal preschool.  Just today the House GOP voted to cut food stamp aid from its already meager levels, except for the portion of Tea Partiers who voted against it because it didn't cut enough.  Now, this doesn't all have to be government assistance - think of what all those funds used to fight the abortion battle could do to help these families in need. Instead, it's wasted on endless legal battles and either pointless or unconstitutional legislation.  If parents knew that there would be a safety net for them to support their child, abortion might be a less desirable solution to an unplanned pregnancy.

Abortion will likely remain the single most divisive issue in politics for years to come.  Due to the emotional real-life impact it has on millions of lives, it shouldn't be that way.  If abortion opponents could accept the legality of the practice - which is not going to change - I think there would be great potential for all Americans to work together toward the common goal of making it as safe and rare as possible.

The Future of Farming: Monsanto Patents and GM Crops

Who Can Plant A Patented Seed? 

Farming is a complex job, but the basis of agriculture is fairly simple: plant appropriate crops for your climate; use tools and techniques that will hopefully produce a high crop yield; harvest the crop, selling most of it for your revenue and keeping some of the seed for use next year.  For most of human history, that's how it worked - and still does in many places.

Enter Monsanto, an agribusiness company that is consistently regarded as one of the most evil corporations on the planet (video gamers who like to fling that label at Electronic Arts really need to get out more).  Monsanto is able to patent the seed that it sells to farmers, which is often genetically modified - such as to be resistant to the Roundup pesticide that Monsanto also manufactures.  Farmers are prohibited, by long-upheld patent law, from using the seed produced from the Monsanto crop the following year.  Thus they have to buy new seed from Monsanto every year, enriching the company and breaking farming methods that date back thousands of years.  Monsanto has targeted hundreds of farmers for using next-gen seed, and it has always won in court.

However, this is a fairly new change - it was only in 2001 that the Supreme Court ruled that patent law applied to living organisms (here, seeds).  Many farmers have had to completely restructure how they run their business, becoming more and more dependent on the seed industry.  This trend is spreading worldwide, even to poor or subsistence farmers in developing countries.

A little bit on the broad economic principles behind patents:  Supporters say that inventors should have the exclusive rights to license and earn profits from an invention for a certain number of years - a patent.  Otherwise, what would drive people to innovate, if they can't make money?  Opponents, however, worry that in certain cases patents can actually go too far - they restrict the competition of the free market - which also harms innovation - and consolidate power in a few companies that hold all the patents.  This is indeed what we are now witnessing in the seed industry - two companies control 60% of the market for corn and soybeans.  They use their market influence to impose strict restrictions on how their seed can and can't be used.

In the end, Monsanto and other seed companies do deserve a fair return on their investment.  However, there should be a compromise that maintains profitability, encourages competition, and preserves the right of farmers to grow crops as they wish.  Possible ideas include establishing "seed use registries" at the state level, forming organic seed co-ops, and amending the federal Plant Variety Protection Act to establish a better "fair use" system of intellectual property rights for seeds.  However, so long the Supreme Court and major politicians of both parties seemingly remain square in Monsanto's corner, the national system is unlikely to change.  It may take state and local efforts fueled by grassroots movements to bring about true reform.

Genetically-Modified Crops

Now to the broader, and bigger, issue of foods that have had their genes modified in some way, a practice that dates back to 1994 and is currently limited to plants on the commercial market.  Monsanto is, of course, a leading producer.  The rise of GM crops is hailed by many as a huge step forward in agriculture, as they are bred to be pest-resistant, potentially increasing crop yields by orders of magnitude and alleviating hunger in developing countries.  While there is general scientific consensus that GM foods are perfectly safe to eat, that hasn't stopped many issues from cropping up around them (pun intended).  There's no way I can possibly go into all of them here; Wikipedia is a good place to start if you want to know more.  Here is a very brief summary of several of the most contentious issues:

Biodiversity: Some are concerned that the widespread use of GM crops will cut down on the natural biodiversity of both those crops and other organisms that may interact with them.  Also, as many GM crops are resistant to agrochemicals such as pesticides, such chemicals may be used more and more, thus harming both biodiversity and the environment in general.

Secondary and resistant pests: New pests emerge to harass GM crops that are resistant to "primary" pests.  Also, there is concern that pests will evolve to be resistant to the GM crops.

Gene flow: It's possible for the genes of modified organisms to pass to non-modified organisms through pollination.  Potential outcomes include the unintentional breeding of "superweeds" resistant to herbicides, interfering with the genes of organic crops, or generally messing up the local ecosystem.  A method to stop this would be to produce so-called "terminator" crops with sterile seeds; however, some fear this technique could be used by outfits like Monsanto to limit the viable seed supply (bringing us back to the above patent issue).  In the US there is no law governing the adjacency of GM and organic crops, meaning that if organic farmers suffer economic losses because their crops are contaminated with GM genes, they're basically out of luck.

Escape of GM crops: Relatedly, strains of GM crops have been known to show up in unexpected places.  It might be part of a shipment exported to a country where that strain hasn't been approved for import - wasting the shipment and a bunch of money.  In the early 2000s a strain of GM corn that hadn't been approved for human consumption due to possible allergenic concerns was found in various corn products, including shells at Taco Bell.  In May of this year a strain of GM wheat was discovered growing as a "volunteer" (i.e. weed) in a field in Oregon.  Monsanto had developed the strain and field-tested it before deciding to halt production out of fears importing countries would avoid it.  Monsanto claims it destroyed all material of the strain in 2004 and is "mystified" by how it showed up in the Oregon field.  Such discoveries could damage the US $8 billion in wheat exports if countries refuse to accept shipments with these strains.  (For this action, Monsanto only faces penalties of up to $1 million for violating the Plant Protection Act, which I'm sure can be found in the couch cushions of the executive restroom.)

Economics and Population Growth: Some claim that the economic benefits of GM crops to farmers, especially in developing countries, are mixed at best, with the bulk of the profits going to companies like Monsanto.  Additionally, while some scientists advocate for a new GM agricultural revolution to feed the world's hungry, others claim that the first agricultural revolution gave us the population explosion that got us here in the first place; another would only make the problem worse.  Rather, the problems lie with food distribution and politics.

Labeling: Many critics of GM foods insist that they should be labeled, and such is required in the European Union, China, India, Australia, and some other countries - not the US.  Both the American Medical Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science oppose mandatory labeling, pointing to the lack of scientific evidence that approved GM crops harm humans and claiming that even voluntary labeling would only serve to confuse people without significant consumer education efforts.  Experience with countries that require labeling finds that it actually tends to limit consumer choice, as businesses stop stocking GM foods, and increases prices.  Proponents of labeling counter by noting that consumers have the right to know what's in their food and that a majority of Americans want the labels.

These brief descriptions only begin to scratch the surface of this complicated issue.  I'm by no means an expert, and this surface-level research is honestly the most exposure I've had to it.  I came away with mixed feelings - there could definitely be some benefits to GM crops, but I do believe that regulators, especially in the US, need to get a better handle on them and stop siding with Monsanto in a seemingly knee-jerk fashion.  The good news - this is an issue that is rooted in science, meaning that there is a ton of good data and research to sort through if you want to become fully informed.  I understand the emotional reaction that GM foods and hatred of Monsanto can inspire in a lot of people, but I would advise a bit of caution before following those impulses down into the realm of conspiracy theories about controlling the world's food supply.  Use the available resources, learn all you can, make an informed decision, and advocate for your position.

The Future of Farming: Water Scarcity

Agriculture is arguably the most important innovation in human history.  When hunters and gatherers figured out that they could substantially increase their food output by raising crops in one place, they stopped their nomadic lifestyle.  Permanent settlements and eventually great cities grew out of the earth.  Increased crop yield created a division of labor whereby people who were good at farming stayed farmers, and others were free to pursue other tasks (within the social constraints of their society, of course).  They became carpenters, architects, engineers, artists, writers, musicians, and scholars.  The world was changed forever - agriculture had enabled civilization.

The Kansas wheat harvest

I'm not a farmer, but it's a major part of my heritage.  My mom grew up on a farm and my dad has worked on them.  Some of my cousins are carrying on the tradition.  Though I was a "city boy" as a kid (by rural Kansas standards), I have a lot of memories of riding tractors, feeding Grandpa's cows, and crawling around in the back of a wheat truck.  I played with dozens of toy farm implements.  Though I would eventually leave the High Plains, the roots I have in agricultural communities stayed with me.  It's a way of life that's vital to the American heartland, and one that I hope does not disappear.  Several issues are threatening to undermine the tradition of the family farm on the prairie, however, and I'd like to discuss two of them, one post at a time (more to follow if they occur to me or are suggested).

(Disclaimer:  Though I'll do my best to get all my facts straight, I'm not an expert on these issues.  I encourage you to do more research if you're interested.)

Chronic Drought and the Disappearing Aquifers

From 1988 to 1995 my family lived in Hays, a town of about 20,000 in west-central Kansas whose primary reason for existence - in the post-rail and post-oil boom era -  is to serve the needs of the farming towns around it through its retail outlets, medical facilities, and state university.  It's a nice town with a lot of rich history, from Wild West luminaries like Wild Bill Hickok and Buffalo Bill Cody, to the arrival of the Volga Germans from Russia who brought polka, Oktoberfest, and bierocks (meat and cabbage-filled buns) to town.

The Ogallala / High Plains Aquifer

Water is a precious resource in Hays' semi-arid climate, where most of the precipitation comes from epic thunderstorms that roll across the prairie in the summer.  Even in elementary school, I remember learning about the Ogallala Aquifer - the vast underground reservoir, covering parts of eight states, that supplies groundwater to irrigate countless farms as well as drinking water for a few million people.  In a region that only gets 10-15 inches of rainfall a year, the waters of the Ogallala are vital to sustaining the crops of western Kansas.  Drought only exacerbates the situation.  The drought of the early '90s prompted the Hays government to impose water use restrictions on its residents.  We couldn't water our lawns during peak daylight, anyone could be fined if they exceeded a maximum water allowance (I believe it was 300 cubic feet of water per person per month plus 100 cubic feet extra), and the city offered rebates to homeowners who installed low-flow toilets.  Those restrictions were eventually lifted.  They've returned in recent years, however - my parents currently live in Russell, 30 miles east of Hays, and can only water their lawn because they have a private well.  And if the town residents live under such rules, think of what life must be like on the farm.

This piece from the New York Times explains the current situation on the Plains and was the major inspiration for this post.  Essentially, chronic drought and farming of water-intensive crops such as corn threaten to render irrigation from the aquifer impossible from Kansas southward.  Even if the drought ended and the region received sufficient rainfall to begin refilling the aquifer, it would take hundreds of years to be meaningful.  Kansas agriculture would likely survive a future without irrigation from the aquifer, but the damage to both crop yields and farmers' incomes would be real and serious.  Combined with other societal and economic pressures on the Plains (an aging population, lack of opportunities for young people, lack of access to amenities available in larger cities), and in the coming decades abandoned farms and small ghost towns may become a common sight in western Kansas.

What or who is responsible for this situation?  As with any complex issue, there are a variety of factors.  The increasing demand and price for corn is a big one.  Corn is very thirsty and as such is naturally unsuited to be raised on the High Plains.  After all, when you think of the Corn Belt, states like Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois come to mind - not Kansas.  But a high price for corn, driven partly by the demand (and government mandate) for ethanol, has prompted farmers in arid areas to grow more and more corn - and I really can't blame them for going where the profits are.  If anything, it reveals the long-term issues with biofuels as a source of green energy.  Of course, America's unending demand for highly processed foods with copious amounts of corn syrup is also a price driver.  As the ability to irrigate corn dwindles, however, many farmers will be forced to make the switch to less water-intensive crops, such as milo and sorghum. 

What about global warming?  Did that cause the drought?  The verdict's still out on that one.  A report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration didn't want to pin much blame on climate change for the 2012 drought, though some scientists claim the report was flawed and ignored several important factors (and different media outlets seem to have drawn different conclusions from the same report).  Many farmers do seem to agree that the climate is changing - and not for the better - they might just be unwilling to finger man-made global warming as the culprit due to the rampant politicization of the issue.    Despite 97% of scientists agreeing that the global climate is warming due to human activities, the rabid opposition by conservative leaders to any policies designed to curb this warming - opposition often rooted in groundless conspiracy theories - will impede any efforts to alleviate the situation.  Many Republicans used to support market-based solutions to climate change such as a cap-and-trade system, whereby "clean" polluters could sell their extra carbon allowances to dirtier outfits.  Not since the rise of the Tea Party.  Now it's deny, deny, deny.

Let's not repeat this.

We've been here before, of course.  The epic Dust Bowl in the 1930s occurred after the western Plains were opened to settlement and agriculture.  High crop prices spurred farmers to grow crops not normally suited for the semi-arid region.  Sound familiar?  Cultivation methods that destroyed native grasses and left fields bare made them ripe for wind erosion.  When severe drought hit, the bone-dry topsoil was lifted by the wind, creating massive dust storms that traveled hundreds of miles, ruining farmland across the Plains, and prompting great migrations of people to places like California. 

As part of the New Deal, the FDR administration responded aggressively to the Dust Bowl.  The Soil Erosion Service (today the Natural Resources Conservation Service) was established within 100 days of Roosevelt taking office.  The government bought up cattle in many areas for better than market price, which helped many farmers, who couldn't afford to keep them, avoid bankruptcy.  The Civilian Conservation Corps planted more than 200 million trees from Canada to Texas to break the wind and hold topsoil in place.  Farmers were educated on cultivation techniques that better preserved the soil, and were paid $1 an acre to try these methods out.  Were these efforts appreciated?  Well, Kansas' solidly Republican voters contributed to FDR's landslide reelection in 1936, even preferring him to native son Alf Landon (himself considered a liberal Republican in his day, who accepted much of the New Deal).  But can you imagine any of these programs making it through Congress today?  Socialism!!!

And that's what concerns me, should another truly severe crisis occur.   I have the most faith in the farmers of the Plains to be stewards of the land.  After all, their lifeblood depends on it, and many of them are outstanding environmentalists.  I have my doubts, though, about a Kansas state government completely controlled by Governor Brownback and the Tea Party to respond effectively to such a disaster.  When your policy positions are based on the core tenets of 1) environmental regulations destroy businesses, 2) government assistance to those in need is almost always wasteful, and 3) climate change is a hoax spread by Al Gore and the UN, I have little confidence that you'll coordinate an effective response.  One of Brownback's top agricultural priorities was to erase almost all restrictions on corporate farm ownership in Kansas.  Fortunately, that bill stalled due to bipartisan opposition.  Allowing corporations like Monsanto unfettered access to Kansas farmland would not only likely crowd out (or buy out) family farmers, but it's easy to contemplate the environmental impacts of megafarms that can afford to do whatever they want to the land within the bounds of whatever regulations are left.

In my next entry in this series, I'll be diving into corporate farming in more detail, as I explore the world of Monsanto and genetically modified crops.  What might be the effects of changing how humans have practiced agriculture for 6,000 years?  That and more in my next entry on the future of farming.
 

The Three Worst Right-Wing Reactions to Disaster

Tragedy struck again in Tornado Alley on May 20 when a monster tornado ripped through Moore, Oklahoma, leveling much of the OKC suburb.  My thoughts go out to all the victims as they struggle to put their lives back together.  In today's hyper-politicized world with instant communication, reactions from politicians and pundits were inevitable.  They've pretty much run the gamut, with the only response I don't think I've heard yet being that God sent the tornado to punish Oklahomans for their sins (though I wonder, if the tornado had struck Minnesota a week after that state passed marriage equality, if we'd be hearing a different tune from hyper-conservative Christians).  There's still plenty of lunacy, though, and here I present the top three worst reactions from the right wing thought bubble, mainly featuring Oklahoma's own hardcore conservative Senators.

3.  Senator Inhofe Not Sure What Might Cause a Huge Tornado

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has made a name for himself as the biggest climate-change denier in Congress, firmly believing it to be a hoax concocted by Al Gore and the UN.  Never mind that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming (or, as Fox News would say, both sides have strong opinions).  Now, I'm not going to say that one tornado in Oklahoma is proof of global warming, as that's the same faulty reasoning employed by skeptics when they claim that one cold snap disproves it.  However, Infofe's complete disregard for science is on full display with this bone-headed comment:

 "So many things happen that are so hard to explain," he told the CNN host. "This thing was huge. This is one of the largest ones that we've had."

Um, actually, Sen. Inhofe, we can explain what happened.  We have created a scientific field dsigned to do just that.  It's called meteorology.  Maybe a dose of climatology for good measure.  If you and your fellow anti-scientists in Congress paid more attention to these, maybe we could focus more attention on the very real environmental threats posed to our country, whether global warming-related or not.  Or feel free to keep your head in the sand, where all you can hear is a monologue from the John Birch Society.

For good measure, here is a good article with lots of links to actual science-y stuff, explaining how climate change could intensify storms like Hurricane Sandy.

2.  Erick Erickson Just...Can't...Help...Himself

While the debris was still being searched Fox contributor Erick Erickson, editor of RedState and supposed deep thinker of the conservative movement, had this to tweet:  "I wonder when President Obama will find out about Oklahoma."  ROFL, right?  A Benghazi / IRS joke while a town is being destroyed.  When other Twitter users pointed out that he was being a classless jackass, he responded with the same tired "liberals don't have a sense of humor" victimhood schtick.  Leave the political comedy to Jon Stewart, Erick.  You suck at it.

1. The Okie Two-Step: Inhofe and Coburn Decide Which Disasters and Aid are Legit

Coburn and Inhofe: Is your disaster worthy?

We've seen this one coming since Sandy.  You might remember that many Republicans refused to vote for aid to Sandy victims unless it was offset dollar-for-dollar by cuts elsewhere (if at all).  Many people pointed out that many of these Republicans hailed from states that had faced disasters and had received federal aid with no strings attached.  Well, guess what?  Put shoe on other foot, Republicans.

 Last week Inhofe raised the possibility of impeaching Obama.  Now he's eager for the hated President to declare Moore a disaster area and deliver the goods.  This is, of course, "totally different" than the Sandy aid.  He claims that bill was full of pork because it included funds for DC and the Virgin Islands - completely ignorant of the fact that the hurricane struck those areas too.

Oklahoma's other Senator, Tom Coburn, is at least ideologically consistent.  As he did with Sandy, he is insisting that any relief funds to Oklahoma - to help his own constituents - be offset with budget cuts.  So the legitimate question to ask - that the press, as far as I know, hasn't - is: budget cuts from where?  The sequester is already taking its toll on programs such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels.  Congress looks set to substantially whack food stamp aid.  Here's a thought - how about instead of robbing one group of disadvantaged people to pay another, we cut subsidies to oil companies making record profits?  How about the annual payments to America's richest corporate farmers?  No?  Oh that's right, they're job creators so cutting their welfare would be wealth redistribution.  I forgot, it's only OK to take money from people that are already suffering.

While doing research for this post I came across one of my favorite Internet comments of all time that perfectly explains the position Inhofe and Coburn are in: "Selective austerity makes an excellent whine pairing with situational libertarianism."

Moreover, recent data from the Congressional Budget Office suggests that DC's obsession with debt is more pointless than ever.  You might have missed this, as it went under-reported during last week's Scandal-palooza, but the CBO reports that the deficit is expected to fall to a completely manageable level by 2015.  This has been possible through the tax increases and spending cuts already enacted as well as the recovering economy.  So, if it turns out that debt isn't a huge problem right now - as economists like Paul Krugman have been saying for years - why not invest more into our economy?  Rebuild our infrastructure?  Put tornado shelters in every school on the Plains?  But no, it's never enough for today's GOP - cut, cut, cut until a government agency can't perform its intended function - and that's the perfect excuse to cut some more.  The ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy of public policy.

Inhofe and Coburn can get away with saying stuff like this because they know full well any needed aid for Oklahoma will come through, likely without any stipulations.  It'll pass Congress easily (thought it'll be interesting to see how many Republicans resist, as they did for Sandy - will the Congress critters from Kansas turn their noses at help for a tornado, as they did for a hurricane?).  At least according to their rhetoric, they have no problem holding aid for their own Oklahomans hostage in the name of unnecessary budget cuts.  It's pure red meat for their hyper-conservative base, and it's pretty sad.  Perhaps Okies will realize how their Senators are using them as political props.  Given how red the Sooner State is, though, it seems unlikely.

P.S.  Credit where it's due: Moore's Republican Congressman, Tom Cole, voted for Sandy aid without condition, and seems relatively sane compared to Inhofe and Coburn.

All About Obamacare

Sec. Sebelius, Kansas misses you.

Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will probably stand as the most important law passed during President Obama's tenure in office.  It's definitely the most significant overhaul of the U.S. health care system since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.  And yet there is a lot of confusion and disinformation among the American public about it - polls suggest that up to 40% of Americans don't even know that it's still the law of the land.  So I'm going to try to explain the most important provisions without much in the way of politics, because it's important for everyone to understand just what the ACA does and doesn't do (the politics might come in a later post).  My sources are generally Wikipedia, the Congressional Budget Office, and www.healthcare.gov of the Department of Health and Human Services (a very useful website for more info).

First, let's clear up two misconceptions about what Obamacare is not:

Obamacare is not "socialized medicine."  This would mean that the government would control pretty much every aspect of health care in the country, including the running of hospitals and clinics.  Great Britain has a system like this - the National Health Service.  It's a matter of great pride for the country, so much so that the UK's conservative politicians would never think of dismantling it.  But to even think of implementing such a system nationwide in the U.S. is pointless - it won't happen.  However, the Veterans Administration provides completely socialized medicine to our vets.

Obamacare is also not completely socialized health care.  Countries such as Canada and Australia have a "single payer" health care system, which basically means that the people pay taxes to the government for health care, and the government pays all health care costs.  Health care facilities, however, are still generally private businesses.  Under such a system, your taxes would be higher, but you wouldn't pay insurance premiums, and your out-of-pocket health care expenses would be minimal.  It would also completely separate health insurance from employment - as in it would no longer be a benefit of such.  Many U.S. liberals wanted such a system for America, but, not surprisingly, the insurance companies fiercely resisted such a move.  However, the U.S. does have a form of single-payer health care - it's called Medicare.  Truly socialized health care would simply extend Medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone.  Instead, the ACA represents a step towards socialized health care, the genesis of which was thought up by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation and - as is widely known - was pioneered in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney.

So what is Obamacare?  It's a middle-of-the-road, heavily compromised attempt to provide every American with health insurance.  Just because it was passed by a Democratic Congress, don't assume it's a liberal's dream bill (that would've been something akin to a single payer system, above).  It still had to be heavily negotiated with insurance companies and other interests.  And, despite the 37  attempts by the GOP House to repeal it (costing US taxpayers $50 million), the ACA is not going away.  The insurance companies are way too heavily invested at this point.  It's the law, and so it's important to know just what's going to happen and when.

Beginning in 2014, the law will require every American to have health insurance - either through their employers or obtained themselves.  Health insurance exchanges are set up in states that will serve as a marketplace for insurance companies to compete for new policyholders.  Subsidies will be available for many people to help afford insurance.  If you don't get insurance, you will have to pay a penalty.  However, numerous other provisions are added to sweeten the deal for those insured.  Insurance companies will not be able to refuse policies due to any pre-existing conditions.  They will not be able to impose lifetime or annual spending limits.  Premiums will be capped.  Many preventive care services must be provided completely free of charge (no co-payments).  All children, regardless of status, will be able to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.  For a bit more detail, here is a timeline:

Key Provisions of the ACA and Their Effective Dates

Effective September 23, 2010

• Children may remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.  This includes children who no longer live with their parents, are not claimed as dependents on tax returns, are no longer students, and are married.
• Insurers must cover certain preventive care and may not charge co-payments or other fees for such.  For example, you can generally see a doctor for a checkup completely for free, probably once a year.
• Insurers may not exclude pre-existing conditions on insurance plans for children under 19.
• All new insurance plans must cover childhood and adult vaccinations without co-payments or other fees.
• Insurers may not impose lifetime dollar limits for essential benefits under newly issued policies.
• Insurers may not drop policyholders when they get sick.

Effective January 1, 2011

• Insurers must spend at least 80% of premium dollars on actual health care costs; anything below this must be returned as rebates to policyholders.

Effective August 1, 2012

• Insurance plans must cover many women's preventive services without cost-sharing.  This includes FDA-approved contraception, which has been controversial with some employers (too much politics to get into more detail here).

Effective by October 1, 2013

• Individuals who do not have health insurance may begin to enroll in state-run insurance exchanges (more below).

Effective by January 1, 2014   (the big day)

• Insurers may not discriminate or charge higher premiums for anyone based on gender or pre-existing medical conditions.  This is a very popular provision - more popular than the ACA as a whole - but keep in mind the insurance companies only agreed to it because requiring everyone to have health insurance makes the pool of risk broad enough to allow for such a provision.
• Insurers are prohibited from establishing annual spending caps.
• Health insurance exchanges are established.  These are state-by-state marketplaces where individuals without insurance may buy it from competing companies.  Subsidies will be given to individuals to buy a plan on the exchange if their income is between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty level.  Premium caps are established based on the insured's income level.
• In participating states, Medicaid will be expanded to cover those who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level (covering everybody below the rate to buy on an insurance exchange).  Note that the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of this provision, and several Republican-run states have (including many that would have large populations with increased eligibility...but I digress.)
• Individuals without health insurance will be assessed a penalty, which starts out at $95 (more with higher income), and rises to $695 minimum in 2016.
• Two years of tax credits are offered to eligible small businesses as insurance premium subsidies.
• Employers with more than 50 employees must offer insurance plans to their full-time workers (more than 30 hours / week) or face a $2,000 / employee penalty.  This will undoubtedly cause some employers to limit full-time hours - we've already seen this happening - and is one of the drawbacks of continuing to tie health insurance to employment for many people.

There are more provisions that take effect in later years (through 2020) but for average consumers, these are the key items to know now.

How the ACA is Funded: Major Revenue Sources

• Increase the Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 (individual) and $250,000 (joint) by 0.9%.  So this is a tax increase, but only for top earners.
• Annual fee levied on health insurance providers
• 40% excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" health insurance policies.  These are very high-cost plans, with annual premiums over $10,500 for individuals or $27,500 for families.  Critics argue these plans encourage overuse of medical services because they have very low co-payments and deductibles, which drives up costs for everybody else - thus necessitating a tax. 
• Annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded (not generic) drugs
• Offsets resulting from cost-saving changes to traditional Medicare programs

Much more information is out there, but those are the basics.  Is the ACA a perfect law?  Hardly, but no compromise legislation that actually gets passed is.  Likewise, there will probably be some rough spots when more-or-less full implementation occurs next year.  Expect these, and don't immediately assume it is broken.  Some states are really taking the initiative in establishing their health insurance exchanges - here is a good article about Oregon's efforts.  Keep in mind that rather than rampant socialism, these exchanges are based on the fundamental principle of free-market economics - companies competing for business lower their prices to attract customers.  And two companies in Oregon appear to be doing just that.

As 2014 nears, stay informed with what's going on.  The HHS website will be a good place to go - yes, it is part of the Obama administration, but they're not going to lie about the basics of the law that anyone could look up.  I only ask, as usual, that you don't get your information from Fox News.  Remember that the GOP's mission (and therefore Fox's) is to destroy the Affordable Care Act before it gets off the ground.  That's not me being political - it is their stated goal (see aforementioned repeals).  Every other industrialized country in the world has some kind of socialized health care system.  Their societies have survived, with first-rate health care intact.  In the end, Obamacare may prove to be a verifiable failure.  But as a first shot at providing every American with the health care they need, I think it's worth a try.