Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

No one could have predicted…

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Just a few bad apples.

Everybody saw this coming.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Deploy the moving finger of emphasisity!

This is all too absurd to be reality, right?

‘Forty-two’ said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

We still have time to mess this up!

Nevertheless, she persisted.

The willow is too close to the house.

Let there be snark.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

I personally stopped the public option…

Too inconsequential to be sued

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

This fight is for everything.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

False Scribes! False Scribes!

I’m only here for the duck photos.

You are here: Home / Archives for Kay

Kay

It’s so weird how Obama keeps trying to talk about health care, and somehow the public ends up talking about something else entirely

by | 80 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

New York:

Northeast Health has agreed to abide by Catholic health restrictions upon completion of its affiliation with two Catholic systems, St. Peter’s Hospital (part of Catholic Health East) and Seton Health (part of the Catholic Ascension Health system). That change in hospital policy means an end to abortions, tubal ligations, contraceptive counseling and other services at Northeast Health’s Samaritan Hospital in Troy and Memorial Hospital in Albany. The impact would be particularly severe in Troy, where the only other hospital is St. Mary’s, part of the Seton Health with which Northeast Health is affiliating.
The solution is the Burdett Care Center, a 20-bed maternity facility on the second floor of Samaritan Hospital. It is separately incorporated to insulate the center from the Catholic restrictions that now prevails in the rest of the hospital. As part of the state approval, the center had to be completed prior to the secular hospital’s merger with the two Catholic health systems. The Burdett Care Center consolidates all maternity services from both Troy hospitals and allows women delivering babies to have post-partum tubal ligations. The New York Department of Health approved the Certificate of Need for the Center and provided $6 million in funds from a state grant. It is the first such hospital-within-a hospital solution to a religious/secular merger in New York State, providing an important model for future religious/secular merger situations.

Why are we not talking about these merger accommodations in the context of the bishops’ battle over federal law on health insurance? They’re going on all over the country, and have been for years. Seems ridiculous to claim that President Obama is restricting religious liberty with a rule change at HHS regarding large employers, when the bishops are wheeling and dealing with state regulators all over the country if (and only if) those negotiations are necessary to their continued survival in the health care industry. They can create a “hospital within a hospital” but they can’t structure an employee health insurance benefit that complies with federal law? Come on. How can that be true? They wanted to talk about this. Why do they also get to dictate the limits of the discussion? They follow religious edicts when they act as employers or (maybe more importantly) health care providers. That affects our access to family planning. Discuss.

This is a link to a medical journal library, where you’ll find many articles like this one:

In the US, when one of the two hospitals involved in a merger is a Catholic hospital, comprehensive reproductive health care tends to suffer. The Catholic Church forbids its hospitals from providing and making direct referrals for many reproductive health services (i.e., reversible contraception, infertility treatments, male and female sterilization, abortion, condoms for HIV prevention, and emergency contraception). These mergers are especially severe in small towns and rural areas. Several groups have formed to address this hidden crisis. In Troy, New York, a settlement was reached about 12 months after a law suit was filed against the conditions of a merger between a Catholic hospital and a nonsectarian hospital. After a long fight, the settlement essentially guaranteed that patients who are dependent on religious institutions obtain the contraceptive and sterilization services they need and want, but abortion services and referrals continued to be denied. The state of Montana considered the impact of a merger of a Catholic institution and a nonsectarian institution, yet continued availability of all reproductive health services was not guaranteed. The American Civil Liberties Union asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the merger’s impact on reproductive health care, since the merger created a monopoly on acute care in Great Falls. FTC took no action. Key factors to provision of reproductive health services other than abortion in cases of mergers between a Catholic hospital and a nonsectarian hospital include the type of association the two hospitals enter into, the local bishop’s willingness to accept a creative solution, and the willingness of the state to consider the implications of such a merger and take steps to guarantee the continued availability of services.

This is the reality of health care in the US. It’s big business. Contracts and mergers and lawsuits and huge government subsidies at every level and it’s been like this for decades. Obama’s approach to this tangled-up mess seemed to me to be “first do no harm”. Okay. I see the sense in that. But, can we please at the very least stop pretending it’s 1946 and we all have a neighborhood “doc” and a small local hospital and instead talk honestly about the sorry patched-together corporate-style health care system we actually have, and the huge religious role in this system? What accommodations are we, the public, willing to make? What is the benefit to the public and what are the costs? We’ve been talking about “liberty” since 2009, whether it’s the Tea Party or lawyers or bishops using that word. When do we talk about health care?

It’s so weird how Obama keeps trying to talk about health care, and somehow the public ends up talking about something else entirelyPost + Comments (80)

Two populists and a Republican

by | 38 Comments

This post is in: 

Toledo:

Three years ago, with the auto industry at a near standstill, American Manufacturing Inc. of Toledo was down to its last four employees. Office manager Danielle Letellier said the office employees helped out in the shop to help process the few orders that trickled in because owner Chuck Gotberg had laid off almost everyone else. She helped to operate the drill press and the stencil. Even Ms. Letellier and the company’s chief financial officer took layoffs “When the auto industry took a hit, the orders fell off,” Ms. Letellier said. “It was a scary time.”
Before the sudden collapse of the market for automobiles in 2008 and 2009, the steel-fabricating company at 2375 Dorr St. had 125 people manufacturing industrial steel containers for automotive-parts suppliers. After nearly shutting its doors in 2009, American Manufacturing is now back with more than 100 workers and looking for additional welders.
On Monday, Mr. Gotberg hosted an event with U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) and officials of the U.S. Small Business Administration to give credit to the 2009 American Recovery Act, also called the stimulus package. They also praised the 2009 $80 billion bailout of General Motors and Chrysler with the turnaround in American Manufacturing Inc. — and American manufacturing in general.
“The automotive bailout was the key to my recovery,” said Mr. Gotberg, a Northville, Mich., resident. “If General Motors and Chrysler would have failed I’m convinced the supply base in total would have failed, because once it’s dead, it’s dead. You can’t just say that some other company’s going to take the place of General Motors. They can’t.” He said he considers himself a Republican but has no political activity other than voting.

Sherrod Brown is the top target in the Senate:

Even though it’s only spring, corporate cash is already flooding into the state as big money looks to unseat one of the most progressive members of the Senate, Sherrod Brown. “They see this race as important to getting a majority in the US Senate regardless of what happens in the presidential race,” Brian Rothenberg of ProgressOhio told AlterNet. “Ohio is a swing state in a couple of ways; one is the presidency but the other is the Senate.”
And Greg Sargent at the Washington Post noted recently, “In what may come as a surprise to many Democrats, the Ohio Senate race appears to be the target of more spending by GOP-aligned outside groups than the [Elizabeth] Warren contest or any other Senate race in the country.” “They’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars weekly already but the poll numbers aren’t changing,” Rothenberg pointed out. “In a post-Citizens United world, these are businessmen, you gotta wonder whether they look at the polls.”
When Greg Sargent, with data provided by the Brown campaign, crunched the numbers, he found that nearly $5 million had been spent on ads attacking Brown alone. Those ads have been funded by groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS ($800,000) and Concerned Women for America (an anti-abortion group). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent heavily on the state, and new reporting from Lee Fang at Republic Report traces funding for the Chamber back to corporations such as Coca-Cola, eBay, AETNA and Chevron. The Sunlight Foundation also reports that the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks (another right-wing group funded by the Koch brothers) have ponied up for the race (the Club for Growth is the top donor to Mandel’s campaign) and he’s gotten $283,490 from investment banks.
With so much money pouring in so early in states like Ohio, local activists are starting to wonder if the ads will make a difference in the end. Many people no longer get their news from the TV, let alone from the big major networks, and services like TiVo allow viewers to skip over ads, while web viewing provides audiences an entirely different set of advertisements. Rothenberg wondered if people in swing states are bombarded with so many negative ads that they just end up tuning them out, or decide not to trust any of them.
“It’ll be interesting to see how this goes for the rest of the year, but at some point you would think that if the numbers don’t change, despite all the commercials they’re running attacking a US Senator, that either their messaging is off, or they’re going too negative too early, or they’ve got a bad candidate and people know Sherrod Brown,” Rothenberg said.

Hopefully, it’s “all of the above”.

We have two Obama 2012 organizers in town, and I spoke to one of them last night. She said “it’s a tough county to work in because it’s so Republican, but no one has anything bad to say, ever, about Sherrod Brown”. Someone has something bad to say, because Brown rarely polls higher than 50% but that’s probably the high water mark for a liberal populist whose mere presence in the US Senate inspires this kind of sustained, massive attack from moneyed interests. I wonder myself how effective attack ads that began shortly after Christmas for an election the following November will be, and whether at some point this crazy-expensive attack from 30,000 feet just becomes a dumb investment.

Two populists and a RepublicanPost + Comments (38)

Just follow the leaders

by | 97 Comments

This post is in: , ,

It’s a lot of work following Americans Elect, because one has to delve deep into the weeds of the rules to get any real sense of what the hell is going on there. Don’t do that. Instead, just read the dedicated and self-sacrificing people who follow their every move. This is from AE Transparency, which is only one of the sites that track AE:

We Pay Attention To Americans Elect Corporation So You Won’t Have To

in a surprising new development this week, undeclared ‘draft’ candidate David Walker skyrocketed out of nowhere (OK, out of 25th place) last week to break into our Top 20 candidate list this week in 17th place, leapfrogging all but three declared candidates. This surprise move had nothing to do with actually winning voter support (Walker gained only a lamentable 8 qualifying votes this week, anemic even by Americans Elect’s standards) and had everything to do with back-room funny business.

How can just 8 votes (out of AECorp’s membership of 400,000+) significantly propel a candidate toward success in the Americans Elect beauty pageant? They can’t, of course. But moving the goal-posts sure can, and that is what transpired this week while you weren’t looking, as AECorp insiders quietly upgraded Walker’s ticket to ride.

Americans Elect’s Candidate Certification Committee apparently originally classified Walker as a “contingently qualified” candidate, requiring him to net 50,000 qualifying votes to advance to the next round of balloting. Yet sometime during the past week (in the dark of night, perhaps, while we were all asleep?) Walker’s candidacy status on his Americans Elect web page appears to have been quietly changed to “Former Head of a Federal Agency” without any announcement, and his qualifying vote requirement was accordingly reduced from 50,000 to just 10,000. In other words, AECorp generously upgraded Walker’s ticket from coach to first class. Thus Walker (with only 94 qualifying votes) thereby automatically leapt from 25th place – behindcontingently qualified declared candidates Michealene Risley (454 qualifying votes) and TJ Ohara (141 qualifying votes) to 17th place (ahead of them both). And with just 11 more votes Walker will surpass contingently qualified declared candidate Laurence Kotlikoff (524 qualifying votes), as well.

[UPDATE: Tip of the hat to Irregular Times’ Jim Cook for independently verifying Walker’s Easter Week Ascension (He is Risen!), with an able assist from Bing’s cache. Thanks, Jim!]

All this would be much ado about nothing, but for the fact that David Walker, who has long lobbied for massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other safety-net programs, is an Americans Elect Board of Advisors member (i.e., an AECorp insider himself), as well as for the existence of numerous signals over the past few weeks that Walker is a particular favorite of his fellow AECorp insiders. As Jim Cook of Irregular Times has carefully documented, AE insiders Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Mark McKinnon (George W. Bush’s former campaign manager) have both sung Walker’s praise as a potential presidential candidate lately, as has apparent AE auxiliary, “No Labels”. AE itself has issued a gushing press release extolling Walker’s virtues, and AE’s cheerleader on the New York Times op-ed page, Thomas Friedman, published a shamelessly flattering column in the Times in February imagining the glories of a Walker presidency. This represents a lot of serious firepower being brought to bear in support of a candidate who has, as yet, persuaded only 94 Americans to give him their qualifying votes at Americans Elect. Strange indeed.

‘Kremlin watchers’ here at AE Transparency (that is, the more paranoid among us) suggest that AECorp’s odd move this week…moving David Walker’s goal-posts by re-defining the term ‘Federal agency’…signals a growing impatience within the Americans Elect penthouse with Buddy Roemer’s now clearly established inability to draw votes (one of the major reasons for AE’s embarrassingly unsuccessful ballot thus far). Casting about for another potential draw (or so the theory goes), insiders have set their last desperate hopes on Walker. All that is required in order to save AE’s disastrous first-round balloting would be for humble, self-sacrificing Walker to officially declare his candidacy, for AE to once more rev up its powerful publicity machine in his favor (with reliable support from the Times’ Friedman), and – if absolutely necessary – to ever-so-slightly re-jigger the rules just one more time to, say, automatically advance the top three declared candidates (which could soon easily include Walker) to the next round of balloting, whatever their vote totals might be.

Right now, it’s just a theory. But our hawk-eyed election monitors will be closely observing AECorp’s moves in these final weeks of its first-round ballot, looking for further Walker-promoting skullduggery. Maybe you should, too. After all, “Ninety-Four-Vote Dave” Walker might just be the next leader of the free world, if that’s what Ackerman Elects.

Wouldn’t it be great if someone would ask Tom Friedman just how much he understands about this process he’s endorsed and promoted? Ask him a question. “How does AE work, Tom, specifically?”

h/t Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog

Just follow the leadersPost + Comments (97)

Old tri-corner hat

by | 54 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

I have some sad news:

The tea party may have won Republicans the House of Representatives in 2010, but in 2012, it’s looking like it could help Democrats retain the White House. Now nearly three years old, the tea party has fallen out of favor with Americans, and Democrats are prepared to use it against Republicans in this year’s elections.
A recent Fox News poll showed just 30 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the tea party, compared with 51 percent who viewed it unfavorably.
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll may be more illustrative, though. It showed that Americans were more evenly split on the tea party, with 44 percent supporting it and 43 percent opposing it. But just 15 percent of Americans supported the tea party “strongly,” while many more – 26 percent – were “strongly” opposed to it.
That suggests opposition to the tea party is more strident than the tea party itself, which means the movement may be doing the GOP more harm than good.
In addition, the fervor and enthusiasm spurred by the tea party in 2010 appears to have dissipated, with no major tea party rallies taking place this year and fewer Republican candidates latching on to the label. On the presidential campaign trail, the tea party is rarely mentioned.
The tea party was mostly a blessing for Republicans in 2010. Some less-electable tea party candidates beat Republican establishment candidates in primaries and went on to defeat in the general election. But on the whole, the tea party spurred enthusiasm against President Obama and helped Republicans overcome an emerging problem with their own brand — a problem that persists. The Washington Post/ABC poll showed that just 40 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP, a new low.

I always believed the Tea Party was simply a rebranded part of the Republican base, and that was based on my experience here locally. We didn’t have the situation I kept hearing about, where Tea Party members were organizing and running for local offices. Everyone always says “dogcatcher”. They were running for dogcatcher. Not here they weren’t.

This is an overwhelmingly Republican county, and so we have overwhelmingly Republican local government. All of those Republicans remained in office. They simply went from calling themselves “Republicans” in 2000 and 2004, to calling themselves “conservatives” in 2006 and 2008 (avoiding the term Republican) to calling themselves the Tea Party in 2010. Same people. I don’t know what they call themselves next, but I think I’ll know by June, and I’ll be sure and let you know. My hunch is it involves the phrase “small government”, although that’s a little clumsy, as a brand.

My current House member is the son of a moderate Republican House member who actually beat back a primary challenge from the Right. Grover Norquist’s DC lobbying group helicoptered into town and dropped a primary challenger into the race and created a primary. Latta won that, and went on to win in a bad year for Republicans by pretending to be a moderate, like his dad. He was a moderate Republican for about 15 minutes, and then he magically became a Tea Partier. Same person. Now the word is that the managers of the two largest employers in town (a private hospital and a manufacturing facility) are both donating to his Democratic challenger because he’s “incompetent” which I understand (perhaps cynically!) to mean he doesn’t do anything for the district.

I noticed that the Tea Party could be a powerful motivator for the opposition when I was standing at a rally to repeal Issue Two inside a Teamsters hall in Toledo and periodically and completely spontaneously the chant “fuck the Tea Party” would break out. I was able to pick up that subtle and nuanced feeling of anger from the crowd because I’m so perceptive.

However. I don’t want the Tea Party to fall out of favor with pundits, for two reasons. Pundits were, in my view, always ”the movements” most enthusiastic promoters, and I think Republicans who have to get reelected should have to wear the Tea Party they embraced like a badge. Actions should have consequences, and I’m all about taking responsibility.

GOP strategist Brian Donahue said the Democrats’ strategy is “old hat.” And because the movement isn’t front and center anymore, it won’t matter as much come election time.

We simply can’t let that happen, and not just because it’s probably unconstitutional to ignore or hide or run away from the Tea Party. These images of the Tea Party are an important part of the historical record of the Republican Party.

Old tri-corner hatPost + Comments (54)

To promote the health and welfare of children

by | 32 Comments

This post is in: , ,

I don’t know if you’ll find this comforting or frightening, but I think it’s an interesting take by Andrew Koppelman:

It took decades for Congress to address the problem. When, at long last, federal legislation was passed, some people raised constitutional objections, but few took them seriously. The objections required the Supreme Court to adopt unheard-of constitutional theories, hamstringing well-established powers on the basis of hysterical fears about a tyrannical federal government. Even the law’s opponents were surprised when the Court took those objections very seriously. Some warned that the Court was overreaching, and that its intervention would seriously hurt large numbers of innocent people, but the Court thought it was more important to rein in Congress. You might assume I’m talking about health care reform. I’m not. I’m talking about child labor—and a 1918 decision by the Supreme Court that history has not looked kindly upon.

The parallels between the child labor issue and the health care issue are remarkable. In both cases, the legislation in question was the product of a decades-long struggle. And so in 1916, Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, banned the interstate shipment of the products of child labor. When it defended the law in Court, the government explained that this was an interstate problem: “The shipment of child-made goods outside of one State directly induces similar employment of children in competing states.”

Both then and now, challengers to the statutes had to propose that the Supreme Court invent new constitutional rules in order to strike them down. At the time it considered the issue in 1918, there was nothing in the Supreme Court’s case law that suggested any limit on Congress’s authority over what crossed state lines. On the contrary, the Court had upheld bans on interstate transportation of lottery tickets, contaminated food and drugs, prostitutes, and alcoholic beverages.

That’s why the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the law in 1918 astounded even those who had most strenuously opposed enactment. The Court responded that unlike all the contraband that it had permitted Congress to block, the products of child labor “are of themselves harmless.” This meant a completely novel constitutional doctrine: The Court took unto itself the power to decide which harms Congress was permitted to consider when it regulated commerce.

The decision provoked a wave of national revulsion. Congress responded that same year with a second law, a tax on products of child labor. Here, Congress presumed it was surely acting within its rights. The Constitution gives Congress a nearly unlimited power of taxation. But the Court struck down this law, too, in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., a decision that is unashamedly cited by opponents of the health care mandate (who need to beat back the claim that the mandate is a valid exercise of the taxing power).

Hammer v. Dagenhart was overruled in 1941. That year, in United States v. Darby, the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act, which included restrictions on child labor. Bailey has never been formally overruled, but it has been neglected and regarded as a dead letter—until, that is, it proved useful in challenging the mandate.

The prevailing claim in Hammer was made by a father whose sons had been working sixty hours per week in a North Carolina factory. He claimed that the law violated his rights by depriving him of his children’s earnings. Several years later, Reuben Dagenhart, one of those boys, reflected on the constitutional rights that the Supreme Court had given him. “We got some automobile rides” from the wealthy businessmen’s committee that had financed the litigation. “They bought both of us a Coca-Cola. That’s what we got out of it.”

For all of those optimists who are saying overturning this law will lead to a better law, here’s a handy timeline of the struggle to end child labor you may want to consider. It begins in 1832 and ends in 1938.

h/t eemom, from the comments

To promote the health and welfare of childrenPost + Comments (32)

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.

by | 113 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Complying with the letter mandate:

As promised, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a 3-page, single-spaced letter with the Fifth Circuit outlining the department’s views on the concept of judicial review. Actually, the letter is two and a half pages, but let’s hope Judge Jerry Smith rounds up.

During arguments in a health-care case on Tuesday, Judge Smith demanded the Justice Department produce the letter, in light of President Barack Obama’s commenting that the Supreme Court would be taking an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it struck down the Affordable Care Act.

It’s basically a short summary of the broadest argument to uphold the law, so they used the demand as an opportunity to get it out there again.

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.Post + Comments (113)

Blame game

by | 65 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

When my oldest son was in 4th grade, he had a teacher who spoke to the class exclusively in Words to Live By. I don’t know that she really did this. He said she did and we developed a sort of running joke about it, so he may have been exaggerating to amuse his mother. One of the things she said to her students (allegedly) when they were upset about one thing or another was “we don’t play the blame game here.”

In my experience, kids have a real basic sense of fairness and rough justice, in other words, they’re all about apportioning blame. They’re blamers. She effectively shut down 90% of what they natter on about with her ban on blaming. He’d complain: “They did do it (whatever “it” was). Why can’t we blame them?” Why indeed! Good question. Now of course I’d tell him “both sides do it, that’s why” but this was before that.

I read Angry Black Lady’s post on fear of losing health insurance and some of the comments and the whole thing made me really mad, so I’m ready to play the blame game.

Because I think libertarians aren’t hearing nearly enough condemnation for their central role in the radical turn Right at the Supreme Court, I think it’s time to point fingers in that direction:

When Congress passed legislation requiring nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, Randy E. Barnett, a passionate libertarian who teaches law at Georgetown, argued that the bill was unconstitutional. Many of his colleagues, on both the left and the right, dismissed the idea as ridiculous — and still do.
Professor Barnett, who watched Monday from the spectator seats, was not the first to raise the constitutional critique of the health law, but more than any other legal academic, he is associated with it.
“He’s gotten an amazing amount of attention for an argument that he created out of whole cloth,” said one of his many critics, Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School. “Under existing case law this is a very easy case; this is obviously constitutional. I think he’s going to lose eight to one.”

If we’re apportioning blame (and we are! we will!) and 50 million people end up being denied the access to health insurance or Medicaid that was promised when this law passed Congress, I think libertarians and conservatives should share in responsibility for that situation.

I’m not that fond of slippery slope arguments, but libertarians live by them. Really, libertarianism is basically one big slippery slope argument, as far as I can tell. Slippery slopes can run both ways, so
I’d like to call particular attention to this rather alarming facet of Professor Bartlett’s “intellectual project”:

Professor Barnett’s work on the health care law fits into a much broader intellectual project, his defense of economic freedom. He has long argued that the Supreme Court went too far in upholding New Deal economic laws — a position that concerns his liberal critics.
Even a close friend and fellow Georgetown law professor, Lawrence B. Solum, says that Professor Barnett is aware of the “big divide between his views and the views of lots of other people,” and that his political philosophy is “much more radical” than his legal argument in the health care case. Professor Barnett, for his part, insists that if the health law is struck down, it will not “threaten the foundation of the New Deal.” But, he allowed, it would be “a huge symbolic victory for limited government.”

Yeah, well, Professor Barnett, you’re a big slippery-sloper, what with the broccoli and all, so I’m sure you’ll sympathize with “liberal concerns” on the Commerce Clause. No one predicted we’d be hearing an argument you created out of “whole cloth” coming out of the mouths of one of the justices, either, and we did. Your “fringe” idea out of “academia” may have just gone mainstream, so I wouldn’t be running around making broad assurances about the “foundation of the New Deal” if I were you.

Blame gamePost + Comments (65)