Every good past President has looked to the future, while every failed administration has suffered with the past, in part by their own misunderstandings of the failure(s) and to fully concentrate on moving their own agenda’s forward! Consequently, we the American public are as much to blame, for their failures as they are.
Today in office we have elected a forward looking Chief Executive, tasked with the mission of tackling the previous administrations failures and deceptions; while moving onwards his own vision of how America should be.
To me, this means let the president delegate responsible, for corrective action on the issues concerning Gitmo, torture, Rove, FOIA and FISA to his appropriate cabinet members and select committees within congress.
We as diligent citizens and supposed caretakers of our country should and must be focused on issues such as health care, getting out of Iraq, the economy and perhaps an over looked issued by many, an improved, affordable plan to enhance our current educational system of higher learning.
We have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear over the past several months, will these jobs ever come back? The answer is “No”!
Soon we will have thousands of veterans returning from overseas, will they remain in the military service? Again, the answer is possibly “No”!
So what are the solutions to the aforementioned issues within the Obama Administration? I feel the president has chosen the most correct choice by relying on what made our nation what it was in the “past” – “Education”.
But, as we all know, including the president, both the cost and quality are the downsides for most of us, even the slightly “upper middle class”.
As quoted by President Obama (President Obama on Higher Education and Reforming Student Loans):
Over the past few decades, the cost of tuition at private colleges has more than doubled, while costs at public institutions have nearly tripled. Tuition has grown ten times faster than a typical family’s income, while inefficiencies in the student loan system provide lenders billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies instead of making college more affordable for all Americans.
When we review the 60’s, the days of placing a man on the moon and the golden times of NASA; education was at our country’s forefront, even while the Vietnam War was in progress, education was considered a must for survival in the Cold War overall and personal success in life as an individual(s).
We must not accept taking a backseat within the international community, as we have and again noted by the President in his Remarks by the President at the National Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting:
Our schools continue to trail other developed countries and, in some cases, developing countries. Our students are outperformed in math and science by their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Korea, among others. Another assessment shows American 15-year-olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science when compared to nations around the world. And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.Complementing while confirming the aforementioned is the following from Gallup Polls with an article entitled: “Public Discontent With Quality of U.S. Education, where we can see the American public over the past eight years have been frustrated with the Bush Administration’s progress on education:A three-year aggregate of Gallup data (2002-2004)* on attitudes toward the public schools indicates that 44% of Americans are very (11%) or somewhat (33%) satisfied with public education, but a slight majority, 55%, are either very (25%) or somewhat (30%) dissatisfied. Despite these negative perceptions about the quality of the U.S. education system, past surveys have demonstrated that most Americans are happy with their own educations and the educations their children receive.
Our schools continue to trail other developed countries and, in some cases, developing countries. Our students are outperformed in math and science by their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Korea, among others. Another assessment shows American 15-year-olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science when compared to nations around the world. And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.
Complementing while confirming the aforementioned is the following from Gallup Polls with an article entitled: “Public Discontent With Quality of U.S. Education, where we can see the American public over the past eight years have been frustrated with the Bush Administration’s progress on education:
A three-year aggregate of Gallup data (2002-2004)* on attitudes toward the public schools indicates that 44% of Americans are very (11%) or somewhat (33%) satisfied with public education, but a slight majority, 55%, are either very (25%) or somewhat (30%) dissatisfied. Despite these negative perceptions about the quality of the U.S. education system, past surveys have demonstrated that most Americans are happy with their own educations and the educations their children receive.
So, should you subscribe to the fact our nation’s higher learning institutions are to expensive and our primary education system(s) of public schools are not performing as they should; how is the president and perhaps more selfishly “us the American public” going to resolve the educational systems and turn their services into “jobs” and an increased standard of living for all of us?
The President has prepared congress for needed changes, staring with his Fiscal Budget for 2010 with major investments in broadband networks, clean energy technologies, and health information technology, as I’ve quoted him here (Fact Sheet A Historic Commitment To Research And Education):
President Obama has already made science and technology a top priority: The Recovery Act includes $21.5 billion for research and development, the largest increase in our Nation’s history, and well as major investments in broadband networks, clean energy technologies, and health information technology. The President’s FY10 budget includes sustained increases in basic research, $75 billion to make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent, and funding to triple the number of the National Science Foundation’s graduate research fellowships. The President is committed to restoring integrity to science policy, and making decisions on the basis of evidence, rather than ideology.
Also, the President has enacted steps within his own Executive Branch (President Obama Meets with Family Struggling with College Costs, Underscores Need to Eliminate Wasteful Spending in Federal Student Loan Program, Reinvest Savings in Making College More Affordable):
Today, President Barack Obama met with a family struggling to afford the cost of college and underscored his commitment to cutting wasteful spending on federal student loans by ending taxpayer subsidies to banks. President Obama discussed the strain that rising tuition costs are placing on middle class families and his proposal to end the private Federal Family Education Loans program that lines the pockets of the banks who serve as middlemen while costing the American people $5 billion a year.
As I elated to earlier, since this is a failure of past administrations to attend address the president has wisely delegated this national concern to Vice President Joe Biden, who in my own opinion as been doing an outstanding job for the president in seeing all measurers are brought to the forefront on getting legislation authored and past in a bipartisan manner.
Vice President Biden has implemented “Middle Class Task Force” to find solutions and assist him in seeing colleges become more affordable through a series of town hall meetings. Here in an excerpt from such a meeting in St. Louis, the excerpt is entitled: “Middle Class Task Force Report: College Affordability”
Middle Class Task Force Report: College Affordability
An obstacle to federal student aid is the unnecessarily complicated application process that is often intimidating to families and students seeking loans. In order to qualify for aid, students or their parents must first complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, which contains well over 100 questions on income, assets, family characteristics, personal characteristics, and other items. Completing the FAFSA requires families to sift through paperwork and transfer numbers from tax forms that they may or may not have readily available.
The following is a downloadable pdf report, which bears reading, regarding steps being taken by the Obama administration to lower college cost to the middle class desiring to enter college and making the application procedure more simplified and friendly:
Middle Class Task Force Staff Report (pdf)
So, what’s the Point:
Much “to do” recently has been made in the media over the release of torture memos and the president’s first 100 days in office, which are all constructive concerns and self-servicing pats on our own backs for electing the “right person for the right job”, but lets not get hung-up on the issues of witch hunts and arrogance that got us into the trouble we’re in today.
Lets keep pressing forward in correcting mistakes and apathy of the past with “new ideas” and approaches that will insure we’re never in the fix we are in today.
After all wasn’t it President Bush who said “Fool me once and you’re a fool, fool me twice and I’m a fool”.
The following selections of videos cement President Obama’s commitment to the middle class and his devotion to insuring every American is entitled to higher learning:
Opening the Doors of Higher Education
Taking a defiant stance towards those banks defending the status quo, the President proposes cutting out the middle man in student loans for a savings of almost $50 billion over ten years.
Additional Videos:
Real Tax Cuts Making a Real Difference
Flanked by Americans who have benefited from his Making Work Pay tax credit, President Obama speaks about his tax policy and how it is helping people across the nation.
Taking on Education
The President explains the urgency of changing the way we educate our children, and offers four pillars of reform.
Meet Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan talks about the source of his passion for education reform — and why he thinks it’s about more than education, it’s about social justice.
Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:
I to would like to see Donald Rumsfelt, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and George Tenet face charges, but first I want to see how our current administration handles this black mark on our country’s history, without outside interference. Basically, whose going to align themselves on whose side.
Think about it for a moment – Here’s Dick Cheney with every opportunity he can get a hold of, to voice his displeasure with any and all of Obama’s policies with the media; what other former Vice Presidents has done that? Not a one!
Now his daughter is getting into the act:
Liz Cheney Defends Father ‘Dick Cheney’ Torture Legacy/Policies
So Why, easy, to confuse along with attempting to defuse the issue at hand, his own personal involvement with authorizing torture.
Rice, Cheney Approved Waterboarding Associated Press
The Director of Central Intelligence in the spring of 2003 sought a reaffirmation of the legality of the interrogation methods. Cheney, Rice, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales were among those at a meeting where it was decided that the policies would continue. Rumsfeld and Powell weren’t.
Nuremberg Trials
America, as all countries today, is undergoing a vast amount of change; however there exists a hopefully small number of individuals within our country who in essence mistakenly subscribe to the notion “the Bush doctrine on terror” was correct and righteous, which includes the use of torture to obtain supposed Intel information.
I believe our President is taking the right steps, as he promised during his campaign to “right the wrongs” of our country’s past eight years of injustice regarding our treatment of combative detainees. First by releasing the Bush Administration’s memos condoning torture (listed here and here also here), which he followed up by insuring his release would not produce a witch hunt (as some want) by traveling to CIA’s Headquarters and assuring employees individual prosecution would not be presumed and finally, most importantly turned the entire matter over to our Justice Department and directly to Eric Holder, the Attorney General.
On this past Wednesday (22 Apr 09) an article in the Washington Post, authored by Craig Whitlock, of Washington Post’s Foreign Service Department and entitled: “European Nations May Investigate Bush Officials Over Prisoner Treatment” confirms my beliefs by the following excerpt:
On Tuesday, Obama for the first time raised the possibility of creating a bipartisan commission to examine the Bush administration’s handling of terrorism suspects. He also said he would leave it up to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to determine whether to prosecute senior officials who approved waterboarding and other tactics.
This was further confirmed in a statement published by the American Civil Liberties Union, entitled: “Attorney General Holder Says He Will “Follow The Law” And Investigate Torture” where the following excerpt stated:
Attorney General Eric Holder said today that the Justice Department will “follow the law wherever it takes us” in investigating the U.S. officials behind the CIA torture policies under the Bush administration.
Europe, you have every obligation and right to legally pursue whatever action you feel is appropriate, but please let our present administration do what they can to correct these past “wrongs”; in our way of first and let America reestablish itself under the “Rule of Law”.
A.G. Holder: Investigate Torture
The people who authorized Bush’s torture program shouldn’t get off scot-free. It’s time for Attorney General Holder to appoint an independent special prosecutor.
Update 23 Apr 09:
Clinton Questions Cheney’s Credibility: “I Don’t Consider Him A Particularly Reliable Source Of Information” Huffington Post | Nicholas Graham
The sensitive topic of the release of the torture memos came to the forefront when Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacker asked Clinton if she agreed with Dick Cheney’s request that documents ostensibly showing the efficacy of the torture programs should be declassified. Clinton ultimately replied that she believes “we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter” and that it “is in the best interest of our country” to do so, but not before she took a shot at Cheney’s credibility, saying “I don’t consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information.”
Call Centers - India
During the Presidential campaign we heard numerous politicians expounding on their concepts on ways to retrain our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and fellow Americans workers who saw their jobs outsourced overseas.
Finally we have one brave Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania with a workable plan to introduce a new law that aims to pay community colleges nationwide $1,000 per student to retrain laid-off workers, which Casey says would come from existing funds already allocated to job retraining in the department’s budget.
In an article authored by Anne Fisher of TIME, entitled: “Tuition Help for the Unemployed Gains Traction” the following excerpts regarding Senator Casey’s pending bill:
His inspiration for the bill: Pennsylvania’s community colleges, 10 of which have enrolled 1,062 unemployed workers in free training programs this semester, at a total cost to the schools of $741,788. “They shouldn’t have to foot the bill alone,” Casey says. “My bill will encourage other community colleges across the U.S. to do the same thing.” Senate Democrats are working to build bipartisan support for the bill and expect to move it forward in the coming months. (See TIME’s special report on paying for college.)A few states already have a head start. California, whose 11.2% March unemployment rate is the state’s highest since 1941, is rushing to funnel $415 million in federal stimulus money to 49 job-retraining centers. Most of the training will be designed to qualify people for jobs in infrastructure construction, health care and green industries like waste recycling and wind-farm technology. In Texas, legislators will vote next month on a final version of a 2010-11 budget, already passed by the state senate, that boosts spending on higher education by $1.5 billion. That figure includes $500 million in federal stimulus funding for workforce retraining and a $134 million state-funded increase in financial aid for students.Michigan, whose 12.6% jobless rate is the highest in the U.S., with still more auto-plant closings coming soon, launched its “No Worker Left Behind” program in August 2007. So far the state has footed the bill — up to $10,000 per displaced worker — for 61,434 unemployed Michiganders to learn the math, technology and science skills they need to embark on new careers at companies like Hemlock Semiconductor, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning, which are investing and hiring there. Also in demand: the program’s newly trained nursing assistants, physical therapists and health-care technicians.
His inspiration for the bill: Pennsylvania’s community colleges, 10 of which have enrolled 1,062 unemployed workers in free training programs this semester, at a total cost to the schools of $741,788. “They shouldn’t have to foot the bill alone,” Casey says. “My bill will encourage other community colleges across the U.S. to do the same thing.” Senate Democrats are working to build bipartisan support for the bill and expect to move it forward in the coming months. (See TIME’s special report on paying for college.)
A few states already have a head start. California, whose 11.2% March unemployment rate is the state’s highest since 1941, is rushing to funnel $415 million in federal stimulus money to 49 job-retraining centers. Most of the training will be designed to qualify people for jobs in infrastructure construction, health care and green industries like waste recycling and wind-farm technology. In Texas, legislators will vote next month on a final version of a 2010-11 budget, already passed by the state senate, that boosts spending on higher education by $1.5 billion. That figure includes $500 million in federal stimulus funding for workforce retraining and a $134 million state-funded increase in financial aid for students.
Michigan, whose 12.6% jobless rate is the highest in the U.S., with still more auto-plant closings coming soon, launched its “No Worker Left Behind” program in August 2007. So far the state has footed the bill — up to $10,000 per displaced worker — for 61,434 unemployed Michiganders to learn the math, technology and science skills they need to embark on new careers at companies like Hemlock Semiconductor, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning, which are investing and hiring there. Also in demand: the program’s newly trained nursing assistants, physical therapists and health-care technicians.
Hopefully Senator Casey’s proposed legislation will quickly be approved, in congress, since it won’t be long before our long awaited veterans will finally be returning home and will be in direr need of employment.
The following video concerning outsourcing is a revolutionary twist on outsourcing. American workers have themselves gotten into the act of sending their jobs overseas. For example; there are tasks, such as proof reading that could be accomplished overseas as well as it could be done in the office back in the states, thus allowing more time, useful energy and increased productivity to be devoted to other, more important tasks. Give the video a watch it’s interesting.
More American Workers Outsourcing Own Jobs Overseas
It’s become a depressingly predictable event. Every few months, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a branch of the US Department of Justice, releases new figures showing that the US prison and jail population has grown yet again and has reached a new all-time high. The latest statistics, released last week, show that as of June 30, 2008, more than 2.3 million people were behind bars in this country — an increase of almost 20 percent just since 2000. This gives the United States an incarceration rate of 762 per 100,000 residents - the highest rate in the world, dwarfing those of other democracies like Great Britain (152 per 100,000), Canada (116), and Japan (63).
The aforementioned is quoted from an article appearing within the Huffington Post, entitled: “Prison Nation” and authored by David C. Fathi. This ever increasing prison population demands immediate action as to “why” our country is producing so many incarcerated individuals within our society and “how” can prevent this increasing trend of penalized peoples.
Mr. Fathi’s article also sites:
Of course incarceration doesn’t affect everyone equally. Black men in the United States are 6.6 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated. More than 10 percent of all black males ages 25 to 39 were in prison or jail as of June 30, 2008. And a 2006 BJS study showed that prisons and jails have become the new asylums, with more than half of all prisoners suffering from mental health problems like major depression and psychotic disorders.It wasn’t always like this. For much of the 20th century, the US incarceration rate remained fairly stable. It began to climb sharply in the late 1970s, as a result of policy changes like mandatory minimum sentencing and the widespread abolition of parole. In the 1980s and 1990s, the “war on drugs” and “three strikes” laws fueled further growth. More people were going to prison, and staying there for longer periods of time. By 2004, the incarcerated population was six times what it had been in 1972.Contrary to popular belief, the growing prison population has little or nothing to do with an increase in crime. In fact, crime rates fell steadily between 1991 and 2006, eventually reaching levels not seen since the 1960s. Yet the incarceration rate increased by more than 50 percent in that same period. It’s clear, then, that political choice, not crime, has given the United States its massive prison and jail population.
Of course incarceration doesn’t affect everyone equally. Black men in the United States are 6.6 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated. More than 10 percent of all black males ages 25 to 39 were in prison or jail as of June 30, 2008. And a 2006 BJS study showed that prisons and jails have become the new asylums, with more than half of all prisoners suffering from mental health problems like major depression and psychotic disorders.
It wasn’t always like this. For much of the 20th century, the US incarceration rate remained fairly stable. It began to climb sharply in the late 1970s, as a result of policy changes like mandatory minimum sentencing and the widespread abolition of parole. In the 1980s and 1990s, the “war on drugs” and “three strikes” laws fueled further growth. More people were going to prison, and staying there for longer periods of time. By 2004, the incarcerated population was six times what it had been in 1972.
Contrary to popular belief, the growing prison population has little or nothing to do with an increase in crime. In fact, crime rates fell steadily between 1991 and 2006, eventually reaching levels not seen since the 1960s. Yet the incarceration rate increased by more than 50 percent in that same period. It’s clear, then, that political choice, not crime, has given the United States its massive prison and jail population.
As you can read, our past political environment seems to account for these numbers and hopefully will begin to decrease once attention is directed by our President to these alarming statistics.
Our dysfunctional criminal justice system has been a long time in the making, and no one should have any illusions that it will be fixed overnight. But a National Criminal Justice Commission would be an important first step toward ending our shameful status as the world’s leading prison nation.
The following video presents Janet Reno, former Attorney General in the Clinton Administration presenting her views on concerns within our present day legal system.
Janet Reno: Improving the Legal System
Admittedly before 911 we were open to terrorists and we’ve paid dearly for our lacks and arrogant mistakes in many ways; loss of life of those involved in the twin towers attack, individual freedoms, increased taxes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and international embarrassment on the Bush’s administration policies regarding torture to name a few.
However, we keep reading and hearing, for the past five years, how we’re “winning” the “War on Terror”, and reading an article such as this posted in the New York Times, entitled “N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress”, authored by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen is disturbing to me.
I was taught and agree with the fact; we live in a country governed by the “Rule of Law”, which to me implies our laws were authored for one sole purpose and to prosecute those who break this intended law. Not to use the congressional passed legislation to uncover personal information concerning individuals for storage in a National Database and used for unknown purposes.
Here are a few excerpts from the Post article which I feel are significant:
The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.The Justice Department, in response to inquiries from The New York Times, acknowledged in a statement on Wednesday night that there had been problems with the N.S.A. surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved.The questions may not be settled yet. Intelligence officials say they are still examining the scope of the N.S.A. practices, and Congressional investigators say they hope to determine if any violations of Americans’ privacy occurred. It is not clear to what extent the agency may have actively listened in on conversations or read e-mail messages of Americans without proper court authority, rather than simply obtained access to themAfter a contentious three-year debate that was set off by the disclosure in 2005 of the program of wiretapping without warrants that President George W. Bush approved after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress gave the N.S.A. broad new authority to collect, without court-approved warrants, vast streams of international phone and e-mail traffic as it passed through American telecommunications gateways. The targets of the eavesdropping had to be “reasonably believed” to be outside the United States. Under the new legislation, however, the N.S.A. still needed court approval to monitor the purely domestic communications of Americans who came under suspicion.One official said that led the agency to inadvertently “target” groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority. Officials are still trying to determine how many violations may have occurred.Notified of the problems by the N.S.A., officials with both the House and Senate intelligence committees said they had concerns that the agency had ignored civil liberties safeguards built into last year’s wiretapping law. “We have received notice of a serious issue involving the N.S.A., and we’ve begun inquiries into it,” a Congressional staff member said.And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.Following is a video I produced during President Obama’s Presidential campaign, which I feel outlines the problems associated with the FISA legislation:
The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
The Justice Department, in response to inquiries from The New York Times, acknowledged in a statement on Wednesday night that there had been problems with the N.S.A. surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved.
The questions may not be settled yet. Intelligence officials say they are still examining the scope of the N.S.A. practices, and Congressional investigators say they hope to determine if any violations of Americans’ privacy occurred. It is not clear to what extent the agency may have actively listened in on conversations or read e-mail messages of Americans without proper court authority, rather than simply obtained access to them
After a contentious three-year debate that was set off by the disclosure in 2005 of the program of wiretapping without warrants that President George W. Bush approved after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress gave the N.S.A. broad new authority to collect, without court-approved warrants, vast streams of international phone and e-mail traffic as it passed through American telecommunications gateways. The targets of the eavesdropping had to be “reasonably believed” to be outside the United States. Under the new legislation, however, the N.S.A. still needed court approval to monitor the purely domestic communications of Americans who came under suspicion.
One official said that led the agency to inadvertently “target” groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority. Officials are still trying to determine how many violations may have occurred.
Notified of the problems by the N.S.A., officials with both the House and Senate intelligence committees said they had concerns that the agency had ignored civil liberties safeguards built into last year’s wiretapping law. “We have received notice of a serious issue involving the N.S.A., and we’ve begun inquiries into it,” a Congressional staff member said.
And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.
Following is a video I produced during President Obama’s Presidential campaign, which I feel outlines the problems associated with the FISA legislation:
Senators Obama, Clinton, McCain - The Patriot Act
As one can surmise it is my personal feelings that in the coming November election we will be voting for Senators Obama, Clinton or McCain to be our next President. Also, it is my sincere hope that this newly elected president will restore many of the personal liberties, we as citizens of America have given up over the past eight years. One example of surrendering our liberty, and for me the most important, is our Patriot Act. If I resided or visited a country outside the United States, and this country was on our country’s “watch” list, as being hostile to America; then I would fully support our current Patriot Act, has authored. But, me visiting a “friendly” country, to our nation and electronically communicating to my family, friends or work from this country, then I deem this an uncalled and unjustified surveillance an invasion of my privacy. Over the past six months I have attempted to follow all the candidates closely through their web sites, televised debates (via the Internet wire services) and YouTube; but really do not have a clear understanding of their feelings on this issue. I am not expecting any direct response from any of these three aforementioned candidates, but would like clarification stated within their respective web sites’. The video, produced by the ACLU and distributed by iTV presents our two governmental agencies that facilitate the usage of the Patriot Act and how it is implemented to monitor our electronic communications.
As one can surmise it is my personal feelings that in the coming November election we will be voting for Senators Obama, Clinton or McCain to be our next President. Also, it is my sincere hope that this newly elected president will restore many of the personal liberties, we as citizens of America have given up over the past eight years.
One example of surrendering our liberty, and for me the most important, is our Patriot Act. If I resided or visited a country outside the United States, and this country was on our country’s “watch” list, as being hostile to America; then I would fully support our current Patriot Act, has authored. But, me visiting a “friendly” country, to our nation and electronically communicating to my family, friends or work from this country, then I deem this an uncalled and unjustified surveillance an invasion of my privacy.
Over the past six months I have attempted to follow all the candidates closely through their web sites, televised debates (via the Internet wire services) and YouTube; but really do not have a clear understanding of their feelings on this issue. I am not expecting any direct response from any of these three aforementioned candidates, but would like clarification stated within their respective web sites’.
The video, produced by the ACLU and distributed by iTV presents our two governmental agencies that facilitate the usage of the Patriot Act and how it is implemented to monitor our electronic communications.
Film and video documentaries are beginning to roll out regarding the Bush years of echoing continuous threats to our livelihoods if we didn’t adhere, allow and fellow our vice assistant leader Dick Cheney and his chief adviser on torture assistant Mr. John Yoo, (John can recalled here and here to refresh your memories).
The latest and most popular is entitled “Torturing Democracy” and has been awarded the RFK Journalism Award, where the awards committee calls the film “The definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history”.
National Security Archive Update, April 14, 2009:
Washington, DC - Today, the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights announced that “Torturing Democracy” has won a Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for domestic television and is a finalist for the grand prize. Produced and written by eight-time Emmy winner and National Security Archive fellow Sherry Jones, the RFK Center called the documentary film on the Bush administration’s interrogation and detention policies “the definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history.”
From the RFK Center’s Web site:
“Domestic Television Winner: “Torturing Democracy”, Sherry Jones, Washington Media Associates: Meticulous reporting unravels the inside story of how torture was adopted by the U.S. government as official policy in the aftermath of 9/11. With exclusive interviews, explosive documents and rare archival footage, the documentary has been called the definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history.”The entire film can be viewed at the companion Web site, www.torturingdemocracy.org, along with key documents, a detailed timeline, the full annotated transcript of the show, and lengthy transcripts of major interviews carried out for the film. Hosted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the Web site will ultimately include a complete “Torture Archive” of primary sources.
“Domestic Television Winner: “Torturing Democracy”, Sherry Jones, Washington Media Associates: Meticulous reporting unravels the inside story of how torture was adopted by the U.S. government as official policy in the aftermath of 9/11. With exclusive interviews, explosive documents and rare archival footage, the documentary has been called the definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history.”
The entire film can be viewed at the companion Web site, www.torturingdemocracy.org, along with key documents, a detailed timeline, the full annotated transcript of the show, and lengthy transcripts of major interviews carried out for the film. Hosted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the Web site will ultimately include a complete “Torture Archive” of primary sources.
Please consider giving the website a visit and reviewing this timely and informative film, it’s definitely worth a “watch”.
Prior to the just released nine memos of Bush Administration regarding torture, the following seven highly censored documents were released in the fall of 2008. All furnished documents are in pdf format:
Memo from John Yoo to Tim Flanigan - September 25 2001
Memo John Yoo to William Haynes - January 9, 2002
Letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales - August 1 2002
Action Memo to Secretary Rumsfeld - November 27 2002
Memo from Alberto Gonzales to President Bush - January 25 2002
Colin Powell Memo to Alberto Gonzales - January 26 2002
Memo from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales - February 7 2002
The following uploaded documents were just released by the Justice Department on the 16 of April 09:
Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 USC - 4001-a to Military Detention of United States Citizens 06-27-2002
Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States 10-23-2001at-terrorist-activities-within-the-united-states-10-23-2001
Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty 11-15-2001
Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the -Purpose- Standard for Searches 09-25-2001gence-surveillance-act-to-change-the-purpose-standard-for-searches-09-25-2001
Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention 06-08-2002
Memorandum Regarding October 23 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities 10-06-2008
Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11 2001 - 01-15-2009
Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act 04-08-2002
Memorandum Regarding the President’s Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations 03-13-2002
Update 16 Apr 09:
Richard Armitage On Torture: I Should Have Resigned From Bush Administration (Video) Ryan Grim | HuffPost Reporting From DC
Richard Armitage, the second in command at the State Department under President Bush, told Al Jazeera English in an interview to be aired Thursday that had he known then what he knows now about the torture of detainees, the right thing to do would have been to resign. “I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would’ve had the courage to resign,” Armitage said in an interview, according to a transcript provided to the Huffington Post.
Richard Armitage, the second in command at the State Department under President Bush, told Al Jazeera English in an interview to be aired Thursday that had he known then what he knows now about the torture of detainees, the right thing to do would have been to resign.
“I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would’ve had the courage to resign,” Armitage said in an interview, according to a transcript provided to the Huffington Post.
Armitage: ‘Maybe I should have quit’ Richard Armitage, the former US Deputy Secretary of State, tells Avi Lewis on Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines why he should have resigned from the Bush administration over its lack of respect for the Geneva conventions. From Fault Lines, a new show on Al Jazeera English hosted by Avi Lewis and Josh Rushing. The first episode examines the Obama administration’s emerging policies on detention, rendition and torture.
Armitage: ‘Maybe I should have quit’
Richard Armitage, the former US Deputy Secretary of State, tells Avi Lewis on Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines why he should have resigned from the Bush administration over its lack of respect for the Geneva conventions.
From Fault Lines, a new show on Al Jazeera English hosted by Avi Lewis and Josh Rushing.
The first episode examines the Obama administration’s emerging policies on detention, rendition and torture.
Will Obama Block Release of Key Bush-era Torture Memos?
Huffington Post | Jeremy Scahill
On several occasions, Obama has invoked the “state secrets” doctrine, including to argue that a lawsuit filed against the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out.
Updates 16 & 17 April:
Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos The White House | Office of the Press Secretary
The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.
Obama To Release CIA Interrogation Memos, Defends State Secrets TIME | Posted by michaelscherer
The big news is that at any moment now, the world should know the contents of the once-secret memos that governed President Bush’s harsh interrogation program. The smaller news is that President Obama is further embracing his invocation of “states secrets” to attempt to derail lawsuits over the potentially illegal acts of the Bush Administration. According to a just-released statement.
CIA Off The Hook For Past Waterboarding from CBSNews.com
The Obama administration on Thursday informed CIA officials who used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects that they will not be prosecuted, senior administration officials told The Associated Press.
Obama: Memo release a weighty decision from Politico by Josh Gerstein,Mike Allen
Obama consulted officials from the Justice Department, the CIA, the director of National Intelligence and the DHS.
Obama consulted widely on memos from Politico by Mike Allen
Axelrod says Obama considered it “a weighty decision.”
Annals of Torture: End Of The Story? from CBSNews.com
It was a great day for Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, and Jay Bybee. Those ignominious men and dozens more learned that they would be spared from prosecution either here in the United States, where they formulated our odious torture policies.
Update 18 Apr 09:
Harsh Interrogation Tactics Revealed in Torture Memos from ABC News: Home Page
Memos detail use of insects, confinement boxes and waterboards under Bush.
Ex-CIA Chiefs Slowed Torture Memos Release from Huffington Post | PAMELA HESS | April 17, 2009 04:48 PM EST
The Obama administration’s release of classified Bush-era memos on harsh CIA interrogations was delayed for nearly a month in part because of strenuous objections from four former intelligence directors.
Expedience and the Torture Amnesty from Huffington Post | David Bromwich | Professor of Literature at Yale
President Obama’s statement on releasing the Bush-era torture memos is a curious and depressing document, but it bears the marks of having been revised with care by the president himself. He takes the occasion to assure the country that a dark age has passed. At the same time he assures the agents of that darkness that they will be exempt from prosecution. The statement betrays an odd mixture of frankness and caution; the appearance of resolution, with a good deal of actual equivocation; a wish to channel the conspicuous truth to one’s own cause without revealing a disadvantageous quantity of truth.
Bush Torture Memos: Commercial Diets Used As Justification Sam Stein | Huffingtonpost.com
In an effort to rationalize the use of dietary manipulation on detainees, Bush administration officials turned to Slim Fast and Jenny Craig. In a footnote to a May 10, 2005, memorandum from the Office of Legal Council, the Bush attorney general’s office argued that restricting the caloric intake of terrorist suspects to 1000 calories a day was medically safe because people in the United States were dieting along those lines voluntarily.
In an effort to rationalize the use of dietary manipulation on detainees, Bush administration officials turned to Slim Fast and Jenny Craig.
In a footnote to a May 10, 2005, memorandum from the Office of Legal Council, the Bush attorney general’s office argued that restricting the caloric intake of terrorist suspects to 1000 calories a day was medically safe because people in the United States were dieting along those lines voluntarily.
U.N. Official: No Pass For Torturers from CBSNews.com
President Barack Obama’s decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law, the U.N.’s top torture investigator said.
In a Huffington Post article by Thomas B. Edsall, entitled “Permanent Democratic Majority: New Study Says Yes”, Mr. Edsall points out two areas of growth in the Democratic Party:
As quoted from the article:
In a March, 2009 51-page paper [PDF] “New Progressive America: Twenty Years of Demographic, Geographic, and Attitudinal Changes Across the Country Herald a New Progressive Majority,” Ruy Teixeira makes a strong case that “progressive arguments are in the ascendancy,” that demographic and geographic “trends should take America down a very different road than has been traveled in the last eight years. A new progressive America is on the rise.”To further buttress his case, Teixeira has put together “a very cool interactive map that includes 7 levels of exit poll demographics and county-level vote shifts going back to 1988.”
In a March, 2009 51-page paper [PDF] “New Progressive America: Twenty Years of Demographic, Geographic, and Attitudinal Changes Across the Country Herald a New Progressive Majority,” Ruy Teixeira makes a strong case that “progressive arguments are in the ascendancy,” that demographic and geographic “trends should take America down a very different road than has been traveled in the last eight years. A new progressive America is on the rise.”
To further buttress his case, Teixeira has put together “a very cool interactive map that includes 7 levels of exit poll demographics and county-level vote shifts going back to 1988.”
The only slightly negative point in the report was stated: “The only circumstances that could bring back the Republicans is Obama’s failure to stem the recession.”
“Obama does have to succeed, and so far, he’s pretty much on the right track, and the Republicans are definitely not. That suggests to me that he and the Democrats will be able to solidify their majority in 2010 and 2012,” Judis said. “But again, I don’t fully understand what is going on in the world, and events could defy demography.”
Again a quote from the report:
Perhaps the strongest evidence in support of the Teixeira-Judis-Abramowitz thesis is, however, the current inability of the Republican Party to respond to market pressures. Defeat has, ironically, diminished the GOP’s capacity to respond to loss. As the elected leadership gets smaller, the strength of the most dogmatically rigid and least elastic faction has grown. On issues running the gamut from immigration to the economy, this dominant faction has yet to demonstrate “a wonderful corrective” in reaction to losing. Instead, they have retreated further inside an ideological shell that began to show cracks — Bush I in ‘92, Dole in ‘96, and Bush v. Gore — well over a decade ago.
I follow TIME online reverently for stories concerning TIME’s view on our changing society, so of course I subscribe to their RSS feed.
Last night the following headliner came in from TIME with their title being: “Denny’s: Where The Food Is Free, and Drunks Can Pee”. This is disturbing to me; here’s a restaurant chain prospering and doing a good job of it, while providing food to those who may be homeless at this time or those who could go homeless soon and they’re being criticized by a somewhat elitist magazine.
I’ve never grasp the fact that “all who are homeless, are alcoholics” or those that are only poor always participate in promotions, such as offered by Denny’s. Most of the time for me, it’s been to the contrary, where the rich I’ve had the pleasure to know, sit at home and clip coupons for the supermarkets and restaurants they chose to shop and dine at.
Here’s my point:
Super Bowl XLIII - Denny’s Commercial
Several days ago I posted my feelings in an article entitled: “Embarrassment for Whom - Notre Dame, The President or America” where I questioned the gall of Notre Dame, a well respected university and a trademark of our country; extending an invitation, requesting the President Obama speak at their commencement exercise’s, which was quickly followed by a number of Catholic leaders, along with some school officials, who attempted to have the university retract the school’s invitation for this event.
Arizona State University, ASU, not to be out done by Notre Dame has pulled the same dirty country wide embarrassing trick on our President, only with a slightly differing twist. Their invitation was extended and accepted and afterwards publicly announced that because of “lack of experience” the President would not receive an honorary degree from the university. How childish!
Now, in an article by Politico, authored by Mike Allen and entitled: “Obama may get ASU honor after all” we find the university is reconsidering its position of awarding our president their some what meaningless (in substance) degree.
Here are a few excerpts from Mike Allen’s article:
Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University, tells POLITICO that the school is reconsidering its widely mocked plans not to give President Barack Obama an honorary degree when he speaks at commencement on May 13 and will “honor him in every way possible.”“There was no intended slight,” Crow said by telephone from his office in Tempe. “We had not yet talked about what honors we might give him as our commencement speaker, and we still have a month to work all that out. We don’t want anyone to think we do not recognize what he has achieved and what he means in America.”A formal decision has not been made, but it was clear from Crow’s comments that the university is headed in that direction. ASU risked becoming a national punch line if it did not quickly retreat from its policy against conferring honorary degrees on a sitting politician.ASU’s student daily, the State Press, touched off a firestorm this week when it reported under the headline, “Obama won’t receive ASU honorary degree”:ASU’s president said officials now are considering conferring an honorary degree, regardless of local custom. “We intend to recognize him in multiple ways,” Crow said. “As to this issue relative to the honorary degree, we don’t know where it came from.”
Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University, tells POLITICO that the school is reconsidering its widely mocked plans not to give President Barack Obama an honorary degree when he speaks at commencement on May 13 and will “honor him in every way possible.”
“There was no intended slight,” Crow said by telephone from his office in Tempe. “We had not yet talked about what honors we might give him as our commencement speaker, and we still have a month to work all that out. We don’t want anyone to think we do not recognize what he has achieved and what he means in America.”
A formal decision has not been made, but it was clear from Crow’s comments that the university is headed in that direction. ASU risked becoming a national punch line if it did not quickly retreat from its policy against conferring honorary degrees on a sitting politician.
ASU’s student daily, the State Press, touched off a firestorm this week when it reported under the headline, “Obama won’t receive ASU honorary degree”:
ASU’s president said officials now are considering conferring an honorary degree, regardless of local custom. “We intend to recognize him in multiple ways,” Crow said. “As to this issue relative to the honorary degree, we don’t know where it came from.”
Here’s my point!
ASU refuses to give Barack Obama a Honorary degree
ASU refuses to give Barack Obama a Honorary degree. Because he hasn’t done anything yet!
ASU refuses to give Barack Obama a Honorary degree.
Because he hasn’t done anything yet!
Update 12 Apr 09:
ASU Renaming Scholarship Program After Obama Sam Stein, | HuffPost Reporting From DC
After a day of withering criticism over its decision not to award President Barack Obama an honorary degree, Arizona State University announced on Saturday that it would expand a scholarship program in the president’s name.
Obama Gets Scholarship, But No Degree from ABC News: Home Page
Arizona State announced it will name a scholarship after President Obama.
Update 15 Apr 09:
ASU Honorary Degree Policy For Sitting Politicians Not Documented Dawn Teo, Arizona Politics Posted April 14, 2009 | 08:20 PM (EST)
One sitting politician did receive an honorary degree from ASU and the university has now admitted that the policy was only “verbal” and never documented.
Update 17 Apr 09:
POLL: 79% Of ASU Faculty Say Obama Should Receive Honorary Degree from Huffington Post | Posted April 17, 2009 | 03:38 PM (EST)
When news broke last week that ASU may not confer the customary honorary degree on Obama, it ignited a public backlash and a media firestorm. This week, Thorpe and Menendez, who felt faculty had no voice in the process, sent a poll to all ASU faculty via email asking each faculty member to reply with “yes” or “no” in the subject line.
Over the past eighteen years I have resided, as an expat, in a country where a modern unspoken “Class Society” as existed. I use the word “modern” to empathize what is currently transpiring within the small social economic middle class and much larger segment of society, the lower income earners.
Recently, since 2002 these two aforementioned groups of individuals have experienced opportunities of social advancement in the country by its elected government, which understood; the uneducated, the economically disadvantaged and the hardcore unemployable would only compound this nation’s problems and bring the country more into an unfavorable focus within the international community, thus limiting foreign investment and international trade.
It is difficult for me to believe the country I departed eighteen years ago, America, has digressed to the standards of the country I came to live in and this new country is currently in the process of eliminating its former “class structure” policies and attitude towards its citizens.
America is my home country, my first and always will be the country I recognize as a loyal citizen of, but when I read and follow up on articles I’ve posted, such as, “Our American Society’s Shameless Crime”, I question where our country lost its meaning, to itself and the world community.
We are a huge land, a continental nation, rich in resources with a core belief that your talents and drive can take just about anyone anywhere. “In America, at least, we don’t resent the rich … we want to be rich,” said President Barack Obama.
A recent article authored by Jeff Greenfield on CBS News online points out some interesting observations, which are worthy of note and a large amount of self reflection upon ourselves, here is one of many excerpts from his writing’s entitled “Drawing The Battle Lines Of Class Warfare”
There is a powerful current of anger that runs from Main Street to the Halls of Congress. And it’s raised once again an argument that’s almost as old as the Republic: Is too much wealth and power concentrated at the top? Should the government try to redress that balance?
We see the excesses of wealth afforded to those on Wall Street, corporate executives, professional sports figures and entertainment celebrities. I guess I have to paraphrase a saying somewhere spoken in a movie I once saw where I actor said “How much, is enough?”
My personal feelings are a person should not be limited by the money they earn for their respective talents, but more so, how our elected officials manage the taxes collected from their wages.
Or is that idea nothing but “class warfare”?
Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson denounced “bankers and speculators” as the biggest danger to the Republic.President Andrew Jackson waged war against the Second Bank of the United States, and the “elite circle” of financiers.And Franklin Delano Roosevelt began his Presidency by indicting the “money changers” who he said had caused the Great Depression:“The rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence,” FDR said in his first inaugural address in 1933.“There was a great deal of cultural as well as political resentment at the rich, for having gotten away with murder in effect for too long,” said Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. “One certainly saw that in the 1930s. You can’t look at a popular movie from the early 1930s and feel that palpable sense that the rich, personified by a fat guy sitting on moneybags with a cigar clenched in his mouth … that they are the enemy.”
Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson denounced “bankers and speculators” as the biggest danger to the Republic.
President Andrew Jackson waged war against the Second Bank of the United States, and the “elite circle” of financiers.
And Franklin Delano Roosevelt began his Presidency by indicting the “money changers” who he said had caused the Great Depression:
“The rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence,” FDR said in his first inaugural address in 1933.
“There was a great deal of cultural as well as political resentment at the rich, for having gotten away with murder in effect for too long,” said Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. “One certainly saw that in the 1930s. You can’t look at a popular movie from the early 1930s and feel that palpable sense that the rich, personified by a fat guy sitting on moneybags with a cigar clenched in his mouth … that they are the enemy.”
Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown feels this way regarding corporate America and we the people:
“I think there’s no question that the government sings with an upper class accent,” he told workers in Ohio.“The government has too often sided with the people with great advantage against the least privileged,” Brown said. “In the last three decades, the five percent at the top have done much, much better than the rest of society.”Populists like Senator Brown argue that, according to recent data from the Economic Policy Institute, the top one percent of Americans have more than 22 percent of income, a number that hasn’t been matched since 1929.“Those who have done very well under this system, those who have made huge, huge, huge profits, and not shared those profits with their workers, why should they not pay a higher tax rate?”
“I think there’s no question that the government sings with an upper class accent,” he told workers in Ohio.
“The government has too often sided with the people with great advantage against the least privileged,” Brown said. “In the last three decades, the five percent at the top have done much, much better than the rest of society.”
Populists like Senator Brown argue that, according to recent data from the Economic Policy Institute, the top one percent of Americans have more than 22 percent of income, a number that hasn’t been matched since 1929.
“Those who have done very well under this system, those who have made huge, huge, huge profits, and not shared those profits with their workers, why should they not pay a higher tax rate?”
While Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona is a mirror opposite of Senator Brown:
“When you have the top one percent roughly 35 percent of all income taxes,” he said, “it’s tough to make the case that those at the top aren’t paying their share of income taxes.”America may have a more unequal distribution of wealth than other nations, Flake says, but that misses the point:“Look eastward to Europe: You have a so-called fairer distribution of income there,” he said. “But it’s a lower income, and it’s a lower quality of life than we have here. And I think it would be tough to argue otherwise.”But Flake is no apologist for the Wall Street players who put the global economy in danger:“They knew full well at some point, it would not last. They knew full well at some hint of a bubble bursting in the real estate market that they were gonna be in trouble. But they went ahead knowing they could get theirs and then go away, I guess. And so I think people were justifiably outraged, and still are.”
“When you have the top one percent roughly 35 percent of all income taxes,” he said, “it’s tough to make the case that those at the top aren’t paying their share of income taxes.”
America may have a more unequal distribution of wealth than other nations, Flake says, but that misses the point:
“Look eastward to Europe: You have a so-called fairer distribution of income there,” he said. “But it’s a lower income, and it’s a lower quality of life than we have here. And I think it would be tough to argue otherwise.”
But Flake is no apologist for the Wall Street players who put the global economy in danger:
“They knew full well at some point, it would not last. They knew full well at some hint of a bubble bursting in the real estate market that they were gonna be in trouble. But they went ahead knowing they could get theirs and then go away, I guess. And so I think people were justifiably outraged, and still are.”
Again I insert my own personal feelings about the changes occurring in America and will continue to change until a more equal balance is achieved between “rich” and “poor”. The following are my observations of how we as Americans have divided ourselves into classes:
These are but a few, but I do believe a change in coming and even if it might be difficult to accept, we will all be better off over time.
The following 1957 video represents our class system as it was before when we were a nation of people, not individuals.
1957 Social Classes in America
Social Class In America (1957) Sponsor: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. Producer: Knickerbocker Productions Sociological discussion of ascribed status, achieved status, vertical mobility and horizontal mobility in America. We follow the lives of three men from high school on through their professional lives. Rather pessimistic conclusion on the possibilities of movement across class boundaries. “These three babies are equal under the law, but they are not equal in terms of class…” This sociology lesson breaks educational film taboo by speaking directly about social class, shocking the ears with its frankness.
Social Class In America (1957) Sponsor: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. Producer: Knickerbocker Productions
Sociological discussion of ascribed status, achieved status, vertical mobility and horizontal mobility in America. We follow the lives of three men from high school on through their professional lives. Rather pessimistic conclusion on the possibilities of movement across class boundaries.
“These three babies are equal under the law, but they are not equal in terms of class…” This sociology lesson breaks educational film taboo by speaking directly about social class, shocking the ears with its frankness.
A couple of months ago (February 2nd to be precise), I authored a posting entitled, “John Yoo A Tough Decision to Defend for the President” regarding the redemption of America’s justice system in wake of all the miscarriages of justice which occurred during the Bush Administration and in particular those pertaining to John Yoo. Yoo was Bush’s lead legal adviser authoring legal memos concerning the treatment, incarceration and trial (hearings) proceedings of Iraqi and Afghan detainees.
Following up on my past posting I’ve learned others share equally in my interest of Mr. Yoo’s all encompassing ability of embarrassing our country in the eyes of the international community. In an article posted within Hoffington Post, Mr. Martin Garbus, a Trial lawyer, authored an article entitled: “The Times May Be Changing” where he states some of the following excerpts:
Now six years after Iraq started, nearly one hundred days into the new presidency, more and more information is coming out about the involvement of the Bush people in Iraq-related criminal acts. The legal memos and the statements of tortured detainees are only the beginning of what will soon be a flood of information. The legal machinery is starting to build, case by case, a rejection of Bush’s legal theories. Today’s decision from Federal Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that those detained in Afghanistan will have access to American courts builds on the recent cases that allow Guantanamo detainees access to the federal court. Judge Bates rejected both the Bush administration’s view and the recently articulated view of President Barack Obama that habeas corpus is not available to imprisoned non-Afghans who are arrested beyond Afghanistan. We are seeing a pattern in the Washington federal courts. The judges are not shying away from tacking tough issues. The concept that a man sitting in Baghram has a right he can enforce in an American court seemed impossible a few years ago. The constant rat-a-tat of the media, with pictures of the tortured prisoners clearly influences judges along with the rest of the population. Judges respond also when the president too set a higher standard. Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who must start the criminal process against Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo and the others. He does not shy away from difficult choices, given backing that lets him know he is not alone. He can, and has, taken positions that are ahead of Obama.
Now six years after Iraq started, nearly one hundred days into the new presidency, more and more information is coming out about the involvement of the Bush people in Iraq-related criminal acts. The legal memos and the statements of tortured detainees are only the beginning of what will soon be a flood of information.
The legal machinery is starting to build, case by case, a rejection of Bush’s legal theories. Today’s decision from Federal Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that those detained in Afghanistan will have access to American courts builds on the recent cases that allow Guantanamo detainees access to the federal court. Judge Bates rejected both the Bush administration’s view and the recently articulated view of President Barack Obama that habeas corpus is not available to imprisoned non-Afghans who are arrested beyond Afghanistan.
We are seeing a pattern in the Washington federal courts. The judges are not shying away from tacking tough issues. The concept that a man sitting in Baghram has a right he can enforce in an American court seemed impossible a few years ago. The constant rat-a-tat of the media, with pictures of the tortured prisoners clearly influences judges along with the rest of the population. Judges respond also when the president too set a higher standard.
Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who must start the criminal process against Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo and the others. He does not shy away from difficult choices, given backing that lets him know he is not alone. He can, and has, taken positions that are ahead of Obama.
Attorney General Holder’s decision today is easier than it was yesterday, and as more and more stories of brutalized prisoners come out, it will get even easier, especially with our President’s recent executive order of allowing wider windows to be opened to the public through the “Freedom of Information Act.
Judge Bates, and the judges before him, including the Supreme Court, have rejected the rationale of Bush’s Attorney General and supporting lawyers that gave the President “unitary powers.”
The public should let Eric Holder and the president know they support criminal prosecution of the Bush people. This may be accomplished by contacting the Department of Justice here.
I’m not a Catholic, although I studied the religion, and believe I would have become a Catholic if I didn’t have stronger feelings towards the Christen religion I did choose.
However, I strongly disagree with Notre Dame’s decision to invite the President to speak at their commencement exercise and then follow the invitation up with highly publicized disagreements in the media, regarding the president’s pending appearance – could this be a cruel and very unbecoming way to deliver a political message?
Is it because President Obama is not a Catholic? No, since Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all spoke at Notre Dame graduation ceremonies and the school has an established tradition of having the current president speak at its commencement, extending the invitation to Obama, who is pro-choice and recently overturned the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, has caused a fierce backlash among some Catholic groups.
I strongly believe our president is not going to use this occasion to campaign for his decision and beliefs on pro-choice and stem cell research to those gathered at the commencement.
Furthermore, I believe the Catholic parishioners are both smart enough and loyal to their beliefs to understand the issues of controversy over the aforementioned to listen and absorb opposing view points.
The following is a video I produced and released on YouTube during the Primaries last year, where John F. Kennedy is speaking about his Catholic religion and his personal feelings regarding his roll as President. Please give it a listen and see what this former Catholic had to say.
Senator Obama – Faith
Over the past several months, on the Internet, there had been numerous videos and e-Mails circulated, regarding Senator Obama’s religion, which is currently an unpopular religion in some countries and perhaps here in America. This uncalled for “smear” campaign is totally nonproductive to the issues concerning our country at this time, furthermore, an individual’s beliefs should not affect our important selection for the highest office in our country. The video reflects that of another time in our history where religion was also considered an issue in choosing a President, although the audio quality is poor and portions of the audio reluctantly had to be edited, to conform with YouTube’s requirements for uploading, the message given is absolutely “clear” as to its meaning.
Over the past several months, on the Internet, there had been numerous videos and e-Mails circulated, regarding Senator Obama’s religion, which is currently an unpopular religion in some countries and perhaps here in America. This uncalled for “smear” campaign is totally nonproductive to the issues concerning our country at this time, furthermore, an individual’s beliefs should not affect our important selection for the highest office in our country.
The video reflects that of another time in our history where religion was also considered an issue in choosing a President, although the audio quality is poor and portions of the audio reluctantly had to be edited, to conform with YouTube’s requirements for uploading, the message given is absolutely “clear” as to its meaning.
Lets see how long as it been since last September when Americans first learned of our worst economic crisis in almost eighty years?
It’s intuitively obviously to the most casual observer – not long enough for the GOP boys and girls to come up with a fail-safe plan to rescue us from the Democrats Economic Stimulus Package that’s creating a variety of green jobs, improving just about all facets of our digital and concrete infrastructure, resurrect the doomed “middle class”, render lower income tax payers a break in taxes and restore confidence in our country’s future as a world leader.
Now lets consider the benefits of the GOP’s concept of an economic stimulus package (as presented on the first of April (April Fools Day)):
That’s about it, no more, but the ramifications are great! Please carefully read an article publishing on Huffington Post, authored by Bob Cesca and entitled “Insane Republicans Reveal An Insane Budget Plan”
It only makes sense that a party currently being wagged by fringe crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann would release its alternative budget on April Fools’ Day.Not only does the Republican plan freeze discretionary spending for five years in the midst of a recession which, by most accounts and proved by history, will countermand any sort of economic recovery, but it also cuts taxes by 10 percent for the same Wall Street executives whose actions largely got us into this economic mess in the first place. In other words: Congratulations, Republicans, you just released a budget that rewards wealthy corporate executives while blocking any attempt to dig us out of the economic catastrophe they created.Smart!The only bit of Republican legislation that’d be more ridiculous would be if Michele Bachmann were to introduce a constitutional amendment thwarting a fake plot to eliminate the dollar as the form of currency in the United States.Oh wait. She’s already done that. And 30 Republican congressmembers so far have co-sponsored the amendment. 30 Republicans have irrevocably tethered their wagons to the Bachmann crazy train. Excellent. Next on the agenda: a bill creating the Office of Robot Insurance, protecting us from robot attackers who use old people’s medicine for fuel. Speaking of which, the Republican plan also phases out Medicare.The marquee item, however, in the Republican plan is their inexplicably regressive tax cut for the super rich. Wealthy Americans in the top three tax brackets would see their tax burden cut to a flat 25 percent from previous rates of 35, 33 and 28. According to the Center for American Progress, CEOs from any of the top 800 corporations would receive a tax break of around $1.5 million a year. Meanwhile, if you earn $15,000 a year, your tax break will be around $0 a year.But get this. Under the Republican plan, Americans are given the option of paying the old tax rates instead of the new, expensive and regressive Republican rates. So, for example, if your household income is $100,000, you could pay the same tax rate as someone earning $15,000. Or you could be a swell egg and go back to your old rate. Aside from the utter lack of fairness in the notion of a $100,000 household paying the same rate as a $15,000 household, who in their right mind would voluntarily pay higher taxes?Now you might be asking, given that the Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility, how much does this Republican tax cut for the wealthiest three brackets actually cost? Some estimates, according to Steve Benen, project upwards of a $4 trillion price tag. At the very least, according to their own projections, the Republican plan would run up a $500 billion annual budget deficit through at least 2080. Again, the Republican grasp of fiscal responsibility is about as firm as their grasp of reality and sanity. The subtext here being: The trillion dollar Bush tax cuts weren’t irresponsible enough. Let’s go crazy! WOOO!And by the way, those are annual deficits that factor into the mix a completely insane five year freeze on discretionary spending — a freeze that would surely plunge the American economy into a deep depression. To that point, the Republican plan doesn’t account for such an economic catastrophe, and therefore doesn’t factor such an inevitable consequence into their revenue and deficit projects.All told, imagine if you will the Monopoly man running up and shoving you into a deep precipice. The Republican plan not only gives that Monopoly man a $1.5 million check for his trouble, but it also cuts the rope you were using to climb out of the hole — provided you actually survived the fall in the first place.Speaking of holes, did you see the graph Paul Ryan clearly yanked out of his?Check out that steep blue line illustrating the alleged Democratic budget deficits extending to upwards of 50 percent of GDP by 2060. Put another way, suggesting a deficit that’s 50 percent of GDP is like presupposing a living human being that’s 50 percent marshmallow man. It’s insane. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections only extend out to 2019. Yet the Republican chart somehow extends out to 2080. The steep upwards slope of the Democratic budget begins at around 2030 — 11 years after the furthest CBO projections stop.What does this mean? For starters the claim on the chart: “Out-years based on CBO’s Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario” is a lie. And the text: “Source: House Budget Committee Republican Staff” might as well say: “Source: Paul Ryan’s Ass.” In other words, that steep upwards slope is entirely made up.The graph might as well look like this:Yes, the Democratic budgets will be so out of control they’ll eventually make little curly-cues and travel backwards in time — adding to past deficits — while also looping around the word “government” — you know, because the Democrats love government.At this point, the laughable street vendor pamphlet that John Boehner rolled out was probably less ridiculous than this actual budget plan and its accompanying Wall Street Journal graph. But it stands to reason that given their track record the Republicans would churn out a budget proposal that’s fully in line with their backwards, zero cred reputation.
It only makes sense that a party currently being wagged by fringe crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann would release its alternative budget on April Fools’ Day.
Not only does the Republican plan freeze discretionary spending for five years in the midst of a recession which, by most accounts and proved by history, will countermand any sort of economic recovery, but it also cuts taxes by 10 percent for the same Wall Street executives whose actions largely got us into this economic mess in the first place. In other words: Congratulations, Republicans, you just released a budget that rewards wealthy corporate executives while blocking any attempt to dig us out of the economic catastrophe they created.
Smart!
The only bit of Republican legislation that’d be more ridiculous would be if Michele Bachmann were to introduce a constitutional amendment thwarting a fake plot to eliminate the dollar as the form of currency in the United States.
Oh wait. She’s already done that. And 30 Republican congressmembers so far have co-sponsored the amendment. 30 Republicans have irrevocably tethered their wagons to the Bachmann crazy train. Excellent. Next on the agenda: a bill creating the Office of Robot Insurance, protecting us from robot attackers who use old people’s medicine for fuel. Speaking of which, the Republican plan also phases out Medicare.
The marquee item, however, in the Republican plan is their inexplicably regressive tax cut for the super rich. Wealthy Americans in the top three tax brackets would see their tax burden cut to a flat 25 percent from previous rates of 35, 33 and 28. According to the Center for American Progress, CEOs from any of the top 800 corporations would receive a tax break of around $1.5 million a year. Meanwhile, if you earn $15,000 a year, your tax break will be around $0 a year.
But get this. Under the Republican plan, Americans are given the option of paying the old tax rates instead of the new, expensive and regressive Republican rates. So, for example, if your household income is $100,000, you could pay the same tax rate as someone earning $15,000. Or you could be a swell egg and go back to your old rate. Aside from the utter lack of fairness in the notion of a $100,000 household paying the same rate as a $15,000 household, who in their right mind would voluntarily pay higher taxes?
Now you might be asking, given that the Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility, how much does this Republican tax cut for the wealthiest three brackets actually cost? Some estimates, according to Steve Benen, project upwards of a $4 trillion price tag. At the very least, according to their own projections, the Republican plan would run up a $500 billion annual budget deficit through at least 2080. Again, the Republican grasp of fiscal responsibility is about as firm as their grasp of reality and sanity. The subtext here being: The trillion dollar Bush tax cuts weren’t irresponsible enough. Let’s go crazy! WOOO!
And by the way, those are annual deficits that factor into the mix a completely insane five year freeze on discretionary spending — a freeze that would surely plunge the American economy into a deep depression. To that point, the Republican plan doesn’t account for such an economic catastrophe, and therefore doesn’t factor such an inevitable consequence into their revenue and deficit projects.
All told, imagine if you will the Monopoly man running up and shoving you into a deep precipice. The Republican plan not only gives that Monopoly man a $1.5 million check for his trouble, but it also cuts the rope you were using to climb out of the hole — provided you actually survived the fall in the first place.
Speaking of holes, did you see the graph Paul Ryan clearly yanked out of his?
Check out that steep blue line illustrating the alleged Democratic budget deficits extending to upwards of 50 percent of GDP by 2060. Put another way, suggesting a deficit that’s 50 percent of GDP is like presupposing a living human being that’s 50 percent marshmallow man. It’s insane. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections only extend out to 2019. Yet the Republican chart somehow extends out to 2080. The steep upwards slope of the Democratic budget begins at around 2030 — 11 years after the furthest CBO projections stop.
What does this mean? For starters the claim on the chart: “Out-years based on CBO’s Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario” is a lie. And the text: “Source: House Budget Committee Republican Staff” might as well say: “Source: Paul Ryan’s Ass.” In other words, that steep upwards slope is entirely made up.
The graph might as well look like this:
Yes, the Democratic budgets will be so out of control they’ll eventually make little curly-cues and travel backwards in time — adding to past deficits — while also looping around the word “government” — you know, because the Democrats love government.
At this point, the laughable street vendor pamphlet that John Boehner rolled out was probably less ridiculous than this actual budget plan and its accompanying Wall Street Journal graph. But it stands to reason that given their track record the Republicans would churn out a budget proposal that’s fully in line with their backwards, zero cred reputation.
I’ve always said I’m not an economist, but when it’s presented this simply, as Mr. Cesca as accomplished to do; only a fool would understand this is more of a curse than it really is a plan.
I guess I’m not giving up on AIG until someone is behind bars or there’s some dare good answers to questions of “Who took our money and what was it used for?”
Right now I should be authoring postings on the G20 and how our President is fairing with the European leaders who feel we should report to them on all matters American; but I still hung-up on AIG and how any corporation felt it was above the law and dictated its terms and conditions to us the taxpayers.
Today the Wall Street Jounrnal published this online article, informing its readers there was an auditor that was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
For me the issue is “Why didn’t this come to light earlier”, this could have solved many a questions, time and especially money. So, is there some darkness unknown to the Obama administration, because I’m sure had this administration learned of this auditor’s existence sooner, appropriate action would have been rendered, by bring this auditor into the shinning daylight of our gloomy economic burdens we’re facing.
Below is the article from the Wall Street Journal, authored by Ryan Grim and entitled: “Congress Wants AIG Mole’s Documents”.
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.
The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.
Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”
The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.
“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”
I guess I could be wrong! I’ve always voted for candidates based on bills they have either authored or supported by their vote, and this, with me, has been true at the local state and federal levels of our government.
Now I see there are other things I should have considered besides the “Intent” of the bill introduced by the person I want in office or that person’s beliefs.
As I understand it, Lawmakers in at least eight U.S. states want recipients of food assistance, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing. For me this is a travesty of government, which could lead to serious repercussions. This effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse. Please consider reviewing this online news release by CBS News entitled: “States Consider Drug Tests For Needy”. Subtitled: “Recipients Of Food Stamps, Unemployment Benefits And Welfare Targeted By Plans In 8 States”.
We enact laws to “aid” and “protect” us for specifically defined reasons, when these laws are not used for this purpose, in my opinion we are violating the “Rule of Law”, which our country is based upon.
Suppose in my extreme example: a person is transporting a registered firearm “illegally” (in actuality basically a law bidding citizen with no criminal record) in there vehicle; and while transporting the firearm this person comes to the aid of rescuing another individual from a pending life or death situation, hence saving the person’s life! Should this “Good Samaritan” be charged with the crime of transporting a firearm illegally?
For me, to long, I have witnessed the miscarriage of justice within our country in regards to applying laws authored to service one purposed and used in another to establish the “Law of Rule” as opposed to the “Rule of Law”. Our former Bush administration is an additional example, with to many examples to site within one posting.
So, lets not deny those who need financial assistance at this troubling time in our economy when they need it the most. Especially when you consider we could be hurting innocent family members within a family more so than the person under question. Denying an individual these needed benefits could also lead this person to a more serious crime and with one in every one-hundred Americans serving prison time; our penal system is already heavily over crowded.
The following video is a prime example of the importance the Rule of Law as it applies to our American society and basically what separates our nation from developing and undeveloped nations.
Public Service, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law
Sen. Ted Kennedy delivers the keynote address at the 2006 Conference on Public Service & the Law at the University of Virginia Law School. Founded by law students seven years ago, the conference brings together students, citizens, and attorneys to discuss current public interest legal issues. A graduate UVA’s law school, Mr. Kennedy discusses ‘Public Service, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law’.
Do you find yourself asking this question: How is it that so many ostensibly smart people in the financial world made such terrible choices for so long?
I find myself supporting of our President’s administration when it comes to our country’s economy; however, we must find the answer to this question “Is it “Money or Power”, which drives our banking industry, stock exchanges and multinational businesses, before an absolute cure can be prescribed to the nation’s economic burdens.
I feel we, as a country, we have admitted to our own mistakes to the international community and should they accept our dilemma or not; we must insure both to ourselves and the world this will occur again, if we want to reestablish the country as an economic leader.
An author, Tony Schwartz, writing for the Hoffington Post, offered his views on how we, as a society, must change from a “Me” group of people, to a “Us” society. In other words, for the last thirty years we have been strictly subscribed to the principles of a “Me only” generation of individuals. Mr. Schwartz’s article is entitled: “How Self-Interest Destroyed The Economy” and bares some reading and careful though on our behalf.
Here is an except from his article:
As for Wall Street more broadly, the bubble that finally burst had many enablers: regulatory agencies that failed to play the oversight role they were assigned; politicians from both parties who oversaw the deregulation of the financial markets; ratings agencies who colluded with the banks that paid them by giving unduly high credit ratings to their toxically risky bonds; and the rest of us, millions of investors and borrowers who poured money into markets as if they could only rise, and took out mortgages in order to buy homes we knew we couldn’t afford. We wanted what we wanted, and we didn’t think much beyond that. Bankers and their agents were happy to give us what we wanted in order to get what they wanted, and they didn’t think much beyond that. Far too many of us conspired to get as much as we could while the getting was good, never stopping to consider that if everyone keeps trying to get more - leveraging their bets and running up debt to do so — there will eventually be a day of reckoning.
As for Wall Street more broadly, the bubble that finally burst had many enablers: regulatory agencies that failed to play the oversight role they were assigned; politicians from both parties who oversaw the deregulation of the financial markets; ratings agencies who colluded with the banks that paid them by giving unduly high credit ratings to their toxically risky bonds; and the rest of us, millions of investors and borrowers who poured money into markets as if they could only rise, and took out mortgages in order to buy homes we knew we couldn’t afford.
We wanted what we wanted, and we didn’t think much beyond that. Bankers and their agents were happy to give us what we wanted in order to get what they wanted, and they didn’t think much beyond that.
Far too many of us conspired to get as much as we could while the getting was good, never stopping to consider that if everyone keeps trying to get more - leveraging their bets and running up debt to do so — there will eventually be a day of reckoning.
Again another video, which to me, sways us to believe “every things going to be OK, if Wall Street Manages it own self.” The sad part this is our national media; not presenting the News, instead opinionating what we watch and perhaps for some of us trust in.
CNBC Needs to Change
CNBC should publicly declare a drastic change of direction, committing to responsible journalism in an effort to hold Wall Street accountable in the future. As a first step, it should bring new economic voices on the air with a focus on those who were right about this crisis in the first place. The stakes are too high for CNBC to continue acting as the unofficial mouthpiece of Wall Street. This is not a game. Together we can bring about the much-needed change we seek. That is why it is so important that you sign this petition today and then encourage your friends, family and co-workers to do the same.
CNBC should publicly declare a drastic change of direction, committing to responsible journalism in an effort to hold Wall Street accountable in the future. As a first step, it should bring new economic voices on the air with a focus on those who were right about this crisis in the first place.
The stakes are too high for CNBC to continue acting as the unofficial mouthpiece of Wall Street. This is not a game. Together we can bring about the much-needed change we seek. That is why it is so important that you sign this petition today and then encourage your friends, family and co-workers to do the same.
There was plenty of outrage on Capitol Hill last week over the executive bonuses paid out by AIG after getting federal bailout money. But another money trail could make us voters just as angry: the campaign dollars to members of Congress from banks and firms that have received billions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
That’s right!
While a few big firms, such as Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, have curtailed their campaign giving, others are quietly doling out cash to select members of Congress, particularly those who serve on committees that oversee TARP. In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG “counterparty.” “This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions,” says Brett Kappell, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it’s his “policy to accept legal contributions.”)
Think about this for a moment (that’s all you should need) here elected officials receiving campaign contributions from the same guys in essence they’re investigating. I haven’t looked up the word “kick backs” in the dictionary, but this sure sound’s like a synonym for the word.
The article from Michael Isikoff and Dina Fine Maron appeared in Newsweek and is entitled: “Follow the Bailout Cash”, which is very aptly titled.
Below a video of Fox News, interviewing Eric Cantor, House GOP Whip, videoed on January 15, 09, so could the real questions that need to be asked is when did congressman Cantor receive his campaign contribution, how did he vote on Troubled Asset Relief Program and how much of a fight did he put up before his vote?
TARP Trouble - Eric Cantor on Fox News
House, Senate to vote on release of $350 billion in bailout bucks.
In a post last week I sited excerpts from an article regarding how China is shopping for American businesses at bargain prices within a time piece entitled “Things go Better with Coke”. Well it seems I was a bit far sighted, since I see in the Washington Post today the European countries are coming to the States too.
Not necessarily for business “buy outs”, but instead to start lobbying activities for our $787 billion dollar Economic Stimulus Recovery package. Foreign nations and companies are stepping up their lobbying efforts in Washington and in state capitals, hoping to gain vital business in hard times. Hundreds of foreign-owned companies, many of them with significant operations in the United States, are selling their expertise in clean energy, high-speed transit and other technologies that undergird key aspects of President Obama’s stimulus efforts.
The following is an excerpt from the Post article, entitled: “Foreign Firms May Cash In on Stimulus Act With Expertise U.S. Companies Lack”, authored by Dan Eggen.
Telecoms such as Alcatel-Lucent of France, for example, and its New Jersey-based research arm, Bell Labs, are eligible to seek part of $7.2 billion in stimulus money set aside for upgrading broadband networks. Most global companies specializing in the transit and high-speed rail projects envisioned under the stimulus act are based in other countries — Canada’s Bombardier and France’s Alstom, for example. Transurban Group of Australia, which is helping develop high-speed toll lanes along the Capital Beltway, is a world leader in developing toll roads. Sanyo North America, an arm of the Japanese technology giant, has already broken ground on a new solar-panel plant in Oregon and is readying strategies to tap into stimulus-related business, according to company officials. The firm recently registered as a lobbying organization in Washington for the first time since 2001, Senate records show.
Telecoms such as Alcatel-Lucent of France, for example, and its New Jersey-based research arm, Bell Labs, are eligible to seek part of $7.2 billion in stimulus money set aside for upgrading broadband networks. Most global companies specializing in the transit and high-speed rail projects envisioned under the stimulus act are based in other countries — Canada’s Bombardier and France’s Alstom, for example. Transurban Group of Australia, which is helping develop high-speed toll lanes along the Capital Beltway, is a world leader in developing toll roads.
Sanyo North America, an arm of the Japanese technology giant, has already broken ground on a new solar-panel plant in Oregon and is readying strategies to tap into stimulus-related business, according to company officials. The firm recently registered as a lobbying organization in Washington for the first time since 2001, Senate records show.
I’m not for our government to establish policies of “protectionism”, but as we all know when there’s money to be had and lobbyists are involved, congressional votes are many times purchased at the tax payer’s expense, in this case “jobs”.
Earnestly it’s our civil duty to become politically involved, perhaps more so than we ever have before, to insure our politicians subscribe to a stick code of ethics and we vote our choice by moral character instead of political party in the election two years from now.
Here could be the type of jobs other countries are perhaps attempting to take from us:
Made In America
Hear the story of Troy Galloway, an American whose job and neighborhood have been revitalized by wind turbine manufacturing.
An article published in Hoffington Post by Jeffery Sachs details our country’s problem in dynamic proportion and with crystal clear clarity regarding the plain, unchecked greed that has encompassed those few and selected individuals on Wall Street and residing in Washington.
At one time the word “Capitalism” was understood by all, but this aforementioned greed group of personalities decided among themselves to refine the meaning. It sickens me when I hear the word “Socialism” when used with our current economical affairs; why, because as the article states, we Americans perceive the older traditional meaning, whereas Wall Street and their allies are leading us to believe we are wrong and the President’s Economic Team is leading the country’s banking system into Socialism.
An excerpt from the article:
During the last 20 years Wall Street has had its way with us. On a bipartisan basis it provided the Treasury Secretaries, filled the regulatory agencies, paid itself unconscionable bonuses, and stuffed the campaign coffers. The greed knew no bounds. The distortions of public policy — right up to Greenspan’s infamous decision to leave financial regulation up to the firms themselves — have wrecked the world economy.
Truer words could never have been authored, our President was correct when he clearly spoke the words during his campaign “Change Must Come” and in this case to Wall Street and those who have backed and reinforced that fabled street for the past thirty years.
Another excerpt from this article:
The great scholars of capitalism, from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes, understood full well that a functioning economic system depends not on greed, but on moral sentiments and an acceptable social contract between the rich and the rest of society. The rich can make money, of course, but they must not flaunt it or consume it frivolously. Instead, they must invest their wealth for social benefit, whether in business or in philanthropy, or in both as in the case of history’s most celebrated capitalist-philanthropists, from Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. It is only the dangerously arrogant rich or the servants of the rich who believe that morals don’t matter in the great matters of finance.
Today as never before, if we as a nation are ever to hold our heads up high again, we must challenge our leaders and demand from them “That we the people control government, not those on Wall Street.
The article I’m quoting from is Capitalism and Moral Sentiments.
Lets us not forget these famous words spoken:
Gordon Gekko “Greed is Good”
Gordon Gekko “Greed is Good” http://www.forexsetups.com Trade like a professional. The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.
Gordon Gekko “Greed is Good” http://www.forexsetups.com Trade like a professional.
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.
