It's been awhile since I've been active here. Honestly, after working night and day to get President Obama elected, I thought I'd be able to rest on my laurels...or at least rest. But noooo, his critics started in on him immediately - as in Nov. 5, 2008 immediately. So I have been working unofficially by writing letters to editors, rounding up support for health care, explaining the bill drafts to friends and strangers, correcting the media, etc. But I want to organize my efforts and measure my results. So I'm back. I miss having reinforcements and knowing that I'm not in this fight alone. Most of all, I miss being around doers instead of talkers.I've been easing my way back into the swing of things by attending a few events per week. This past Wednesday, I attended the Northern CA Weekly Conference Call to see what our strategy is for getting health care passed. Last Thursday, I attended my first official Call for Health Care event. It was great! Much easier than Calling for Change :) Partly because we were calling from a list of people who have already claimed to support the President and/or the health care reform bill. Of the 30 calls I made, I spoke to about 10 people who were at home. They were all still on-board with reform and agreed to call their congressional representatives to let them know.
It's been awhile since I've been active here. Honestly, after working night and day to get President Obama elected, I thought I'd be able to rest on my laurels...or at least rest. But noooo, his critics started in on him immediately - as in Nov. 5, 2008 immediately. So I have been working unofficially by writing letters to editors, rounding up support for health care, explaining the bill drafts to friends and strangers, correcting the media, etc. But I want to organize my efforts and measure my results. So I'm back. I miss having reinforcements and knowing that I'm not in this fight alone. Most of all, I miss being around doers instead of talkers.
I've been easing my way back into the swing of things by attending a few events per week. This past Wednesday, I attended the Northern CA Weekly Conference Call to see what our strategy is for getting health care passed. Last Thursday, I attended my first official Call for Health Care event. It was great! Much easier than Calling for Change :) Partly because we were calling from a list of people who have already claimed to support the President and/or the health care reform bill. Of the 30 calls I made, I spoke to about 10 people who were at home. They were all still on-board with reform and agreed to call their congressional representatives to let them know.
One very memorable caller - an 80 year-old man - was so passionate about this issue! He told me a couple stories about falling through the "donut hole" - the gap between health insurance coverage. At the end of our call, he wanted to do more than call his representatives (again), though. He wanted to personally visit their offices so they could SEE just who is in need of new health care. I'm paraphrasing because he used more...colorful language. :) He signed up as a volunteer to help spread the word about health care. That was my last call of the night. I left on a high note to see an elderly person with that much fight in him, who is willing to use his *ahem* gift of gab in a productive way. It reminded me of my 86 year-old grandmother writing 80 postcards to send to people for Obama for America.It was a very encouraging first night back in the saddle, so to speak. I look forward to tomorrow's tabling event to inform shoppers about health care (we created a game to make the information exchange fun). Next week, I'm hosting a couple of events. We'll see if I still have my organizing touch. :) Let's get it done!
One very memorable caller - an 80 year-old man - was so passionate about this issue! He told me a couple stories about falling through the "donut hole" - the gap between health insurance coverage. At the end of our call, he wanted to do more than call his representatives (again), though. He wanted to personally visit their offices so they could SEE just who is in need of new health care. I'm paraphrasing because he used more...colorful language. :) He signed up as a volunteer to help spread the word about health care. That was my last call of the night. I left on a high note to see an elderly person with that much fight in him, who is willing to use his *ahem* gift of gab in a productive way. It reminded me of my 86 year-old grandmother writing 80 postcards to send to people for Obama for America.
It was a very encouraging first night back in the saddle, so to speak. I look forward to tomorrow's tabling event to inform shoppers about health care (we created a game to make the information exchange fun). Next week, I'm hosting a couple of events. We'll see if I still have my organizing touch. :) Let's get it done!
It always amazes me how easily we get scared by negative information, even when, deep down, we know isn't so. At least, not until we check it out, right? This past week has been full of mudslinging and negative invective--on the airwaves and in Lebanon, Pennsylvania.
Here in Fremont, it's been wonderful, full of people happy to declare their support of President Obama's Three Principles for HealthCare Reform and wanting to get more information about it. I will post photos from the Festival of the Arts, from the Farmers' Market, from our HealthCare Forums and Town Hall Meetings so you can see exactly what I mean . . . .
This past weekend wes off the HOOK! The Fremont Festival of the Arts is the premier event in this area for wine tasting, food, artwork, crafts and all those things that good health lets us enjoy to the max. True to the good nature of the people of the Bay Area, our message of HealthCare Reform was embraced by the festivalgoers. We chose a low-profile but effective approach: balancing festival wineglasses for declaration signers and encouraging the beer drinkers to bring their friends to the table!
Over 1500 of the 130,000 attendees talked with us, took our four-color flyers featuring the president himself, and promised to stay alert on this important issue. Many thanked us for volunteering while others partied, and at least 175 gave us a written declaration, healthcare story, or signed a postcard indicating their support of the president's three principles.
Here's to your health!
If you haven't seen this or are not aware, please watch/read this piece. I've found it very helpful in pulling people over to our side.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/profile.html
To all of you who are standing up with us. I salute you and honor you. Let's not get discouraged, the right wing insurance and drug companies are throwing everything at us but the kitchen sink. They are not going to give up without a fight and they are betting that there are many who will just turn and run.
We will not go quitely into the night!!
This past week has been unbelievable! The Oakland Tribune covered our Moss Park event, and my story was told here:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_12901657
I was concerned before, but I'm dead serious now. My name, age and definite uninsurability are now out in the public space.
Who would hire me now?
How can we get this done?
The other side of the story is told here, with the Answers provided by my business colleagues on LinkedIn. I was invited to a Council of Economic Advisors webinar based on this report:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Health-Care-Reform-and-Small-Businesses/
and these are the comments of the other participants:
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/government-non-profit/government-policy/GOV_GPO/517881-50174439
The issue, in my opinion, has spilled over from healthcare to civil rights. Work with me; let's form a group of like-minded professionals to 'link in' the business community (especially the small business community) to the need for serious healthcare reform.
Americans' lives depend on whether we pass the right kind of health care reform. So why is NBC News airing an infomercial that will spread dangerous misinformation?
President Obama is committed to health care reform*, but some Democrats in Congress are already wavering on an extremely important provision - basically, without a public option, the health insurance industry gets to keep getting richer while Americans languish without the care they need.
We need to tell the truth about health care. But NBC is preparing to put lies on the air this Sunday.
Rick Scott is the Chairman of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights, and he has a history of disseminating lies and misinformation. According to the AP, Scott is "the former head of Columbia/HCA health care company who was ousted amid a fraud investigation that ultimately resulted in the firm pleading guilty to charges of overbilling." His "documentary" looks to be an extended version of videos he's been promoting over the last few weeks, which FactCheck.org characterized as "misleading" in part because they misrepresented the opinions of a doctor who actually favors the public option.
Send an e-mail to NBC News President Steve Capus today: Tell him not to air Rick Scott's shameful propaganda. The show is scheduled to air this Sunday, so please act today.
Please pass this on, far and wide. Here's the link:
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/nbc_healthcare/?r_by=-158861-Lw1JRwx&rc=confemail
hmm..."balance". "icon"...? lost for words? fib
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
GOP Seeks Balance With Conservative Icon Limbaugh
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 4, 2009; A01
For a man who expresses no desire to lead the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh has a knack for creating problems for those who do.
Still smarting from consecutive electoral drubbings, Republicans now find themselves caught in a crossfire between Democrats pressuring them to denounce the conservative talk radio host's bombastic criticism of a popular new president and his own denunciations of their party as an embarrassment.
The ongoing controversy over Limbaugh's statement in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday that he wants "Barack Obama to fail" and the aggressive Democratic pushback it drew has emerged as the latest challenge for a party struggling to find its voice and lacking an obvious national leader.
Few Republicans are eager to alienate Limbaugh's millions of avid listeners. But as party officials work to expand their shrinking coalition, they are also vexed about how to contend with his more pointed commentaries on hot-button issues and a president whom most in the party have been reluctant to criticize.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele apologized to Limbaugh on Monday after referring to his show as "incendiary" and "ugly" over the weekend -- statements that led Limbaugh to say the new chairman was "off to a shaky start." Steele said yesterday that he and congressional leaders will be shaping the party's strategy. But he also praised Limbaugh as a "strong conservative voice," adding, "What ticks the left off is he is effective."
Steele's gyrations reflected the delicate balance Republicans are attempting to find with Limbaugh. Party strategists say his listeners include a huge swath of the activist base, but some of his rhetoric leaves GOP elected officials forced either to defend views they may not support or to disagree with a popular conservative icon.
"The influence Rush has is 20 million listeners," said Ron Bonjean, who was spokesman for former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), referring to what Limbaugh says is his weekly audience. "But to get back to the majority, we need to also connect to independents who may not be listeners of his show." Democrats continued to mock Steele for buckling to Limbaugh yesterday, maintained their insistence that Limbaugh is the GOP's de facto leader, and said they planned no letup in their attacks. The White House and the Democratic National Committee have been coordinating their response, and liberal interest groups are planning to expand their television ads highlighting Limbaugh's comments in the days ahead.
"Rush is the bloated face and drug-addled voice of the Republican Party," said Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic strategist who rose to prominence during Bill Clinton's presidency. "Along with lots of others, I intend to continue to turn up the heat until every alleged Republican either endorses or renounces Rush's statement that he hopes our president fails."
Limbaugh, meanwhile, brushes aside the idea that he is the chief spokesman for the GOP. "I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be," he said on his show Monday.
Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), said Democrats should focus less on attacking Limbaugh and more on working with congressional Republicans.
"If Robert Gibbs is worried about the policies Rush Limbaugh is talking about on his show, he should call into the show. I'm sure Rush would welcome it," Dayspring said, referring to criticism from President Obama's press secretary.
Several aides to congressional Republicans declined to comment yesterday about Limbaugh's role in the GOP, saying they did not want to play into the Democratic strategy of pitting Limbaugh against some party leaders.
Washington has been dramatically reshaped since 1994, the last time the GOP did not control the White House, the House and the Senate, but Limbaugh has been a constant, remaining one of the most powerful voices among conservatives. He helped lead opposition to President Bill Clinton's agenda, as well as parts of President George W. Bush's, particularly his proposal to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens.
In the early days of the Obama administration, while congressional Republicans have generally avoided directly attacking the popular new president and instead criticized their Democratic counterparts as not properly implementing Obama's vision, Limbaugh dubbed the economic stimulus package "the Obama 'porkulus' bill" and was credited with playing a role in House Republicans' unanimous opposition to the legislation. In a meeting with congressional leaders, the president complained about Limbaugh's influence.
Some congressional Republicans have defended Limbaugh's comments about wanting Obama to fail, which the talk radio host has explained by saying he wants the president's policies to fail, not the country. (His full statement was, "So what is so strange about saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to reconstruct and reform this nation so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed.")
"I know what Rush Limbaugh meant," House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) said on CNN yesterday. "Look, everybody wants America to succeed, but everyone like me, Rush Limbaugh and others who believe in limited government, who believe in conservative values, wants the policies this administration is bringing forward . . . to fail."
But other Republicans have argued that Limbaugh's style is counter-productive. They say that in looking to woo moderate votes to regain control of Congress and the White House, Republicans must take positions that may annoy Limbaugh and his audience.
David Frum, who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and helped coin the phrase the "axis of evil," wrote on his Web site NewMajority.com that "nothing Steele said will be 1/1000 as harmful to Republicans and conservatives as Rush Limbaugh's now multiply repeated statement that he hopes President Obama fails."
In a recent interview, Frum said: "My main problem with talk radio is things you're doing to excite a loyal audience are very different than things you do to try to win back the departed middle" of the electorate. "We can't win elections by getting our core voters agitated. But if you're a talk radio host and you have 5 million who listen and there are 50 million people who hate you, you can make a nice living. If you're a Republican Party, you're marginalized."
One state GOP chairman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to criticize Limbaugh publicly, said "he is the leader of a niche of the Republican Party that simply opposes anything a Democrat ever comes up with."
But most remain vocal defenders of the radio show host, saying he fires up the GOP base better than anyone else.
"He does far more good than harm," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "The people who listen to talk radio are more politically interested and politically active than people who are listening to ESPN. If you want to get the message out, that's the way to go."
Steele took on the delicate political calculation Republicans face more bluntly, saying yesterday: "I'm not here to tick off my base."
Staff writer Chris Cillizza contributed to this report
Though the topline numbers in the Obama administration’s national security budget for 2010 may not make headlines, there’s a lot of newsworthy moving and shaking happening beneath the surface. The budget gives the Defense Department $533.7 billion, $20.4 billion more than last year but only a two percent jump when adjusted for inflation. However, President Obama has said several programs are on the chopping block, warning just days ago he would cut “Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.” The White House also claims the budget has absorbed some programs funded for the last five years in the wartime supplementals, such as security support for foreign governments and some medical programs. Another $75.5 billion supplemental was also released today, bringing Fiscal Year 2009’s war spending tab to more than $142 billion when combined with the $66 billion supplemental passed last fall. Another $130 billion war funding boost is penciled in for 2010, but the administration says supplementals will eventually be phased out altogether.
The Energy Department’s budget flatlines at $26.3 billion, though nuclear weapons spending is not broken out. Green energy initiatives get a big increase, according to the White House. Nuclear nonproliferation and cleanup programs also get more money, as do programs to extend the life of existing warheads. The Reliable Replacement Warhead—a Bush administration program to rebuild nuclear warheads—is singled out for elimination.
Homeland Security also stays relatively flat at $42.7 billion—only $500 million more than 2009—but the budget brags about more than $100 million in new spending on Transportation Department and Transportation Security Administration programs. The real winner is the State Department, which gets $51.7 million—a 40 percent increase from 2009. Foreign aid is “on a path” to double in size, and global health, USAID and the Foreign Service will all grow. The budget also funds the launch of a new “multi-year counterterrorism and law enforcement assistance program.”
for more information contact Laura Peterson
Enter your Email:
Do More on the Deficit
Pub Date: Feb 27, 2009
In his address to Congress, President Obama pledged to cut the annual budget deficit in half by the end of his term. The problem is, this goal would keep deficit levels higher than the record deficits we have seen over the last eight years.
The bottom line is we have to do better. The largest budget deficit during the Bush presidency was $454 billion in 2008. At the time, that was a record. Everyone knows that record will be smashed to bits with the deficit estimated (pdf) to exceed $1.7 trillion in 2009. Right on the heels of that is a predicted deficit of $1.2 trillion in 2010.
We understand the argument that the country is in a deep recession, committing unprecedented funds to a bailout of the financial system and to stimulate the economy, so there is a need to carry large deficits in the short term. But, the budget the Administration released predicts the economic recovery starting in 2010, thus deficit reductions should and can be more aggressive before the end of the Presidential term in 2013.
Let’s be clear—the recent go-go spending years put the country in a deep fiscal hole. During President Bush’s two terms the debt nearly doubled, from $5.6 trillion to $10.6 trillion. The idea that there are no problems with running large budget deficits in an economic boom is intellectually bankrupt. We should have been saving for lean times in recent years, but we didn’t.
Unfortunately, the proposed budget doesn’t go far enough in reversing the bad habits of recent years. It’s not just that halving the budget deficit by 2012 is an underwhelming goal, it’s that the Administration is betting on significant deficit spending as the right economic strategy even after they predict strong economic growth after 2009. The predicted annual deficits through 2019 all exceed half a trillion dollars, piling nearly $7 trillion on top of the debt over the next ten years.
Budget documents are largely political statements, and even the most honest budgets will be imprecise, based at least in part on policy wish lists. The good news is that the Administration’s proposed budget does away with some budgetary gimmicks. There is a return to 10 year budget predictions (rather than only five years) and the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are finally being included. We welcome these changes to add more clarity to the budget.
But there are still a lot of smoke and mirrors. Like budgets of past administrations, the underlying projections rely on unspecified and unsubstantiated savings from eliminating waste, and counts on future receipts from uncertain programs like a controversial cap and trade proposal to deal with climate change.
When the budget was released, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag argued that Medicare and health care were ticking time bombs that the country had to deal with or else they would break the budget. We don’t disagree. But budgets are about priorities and we have to fiscally walk and chew gum at the same time – make the tough spending and revenue decisions to deal with the deficit and Medicare at the same time. Otherwise, we are crippling the country’s economic future.
Here is the response I have just received from Senator Feinstein. fib
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Dear "Constituent":
Thank you for contacting me regarding the "United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act" (H.R. 676). I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.
On January 26, 2009, Representative John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) introduced the "United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act." This legislation would establish a government program to provide free health insurance coverage for all United States residents. H.R. 676 has been referred to the House Committees on Energy and Commerce; Ways and Means; and Natural Resources. Currently, no companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
I recognize that the large number of people who lack health insurance is a critical problem facing our country. I find it unacceptable that nearly 46 million people in our country are without health insurance. This problem is especially acute in California, where over 6 million people are uninsured. The escalating cost of some premiums continues to make obtaining health insurance difficult, if not impossible, for many Americans. I am working hard to remove existing barriers to health care so that all Americans have access to the services they require. I have noted your concerns and will keep your comments in mind as the Senate considers health care reform proposals.
Again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.
by Tom Ammiano
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
What if California could raise hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue to preserve vital state services without any tax increase? And what if at the same time, we could, without any new expense, help protect our endangered wilderness areas while making it harder for our kids to get drugs?
That is precisely what the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB390) that I recently introduced would do. The legislation is the logical next step in California's and hopefully the nation's public policy toward marijuana.
I introduced AB390 not only to address California's growing economic crisis but, more importantly, to begin a rational public policy discussion about how best to regulate the state's largest cash crop, estimated to be worth roughly $14 billion annually. Placing marijuana under the same regulatory system that now applies to alcohol represents the natural evolution of California's laws and is in line with recent polls indicating strong support for decriminalizing marijuana.
To understand the reasoning behind AB390, it is helpful to understand how we got here. The state first prohibited marijuana in 1913. When Congress later passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, marijuana was temporarily labeled a "Schedule I substance" - an illegal drug with no approved medical purposes.
But Congress acknowledged that it did not know enough about marijuana to permanently classify it as Schedule I, so it created a presidential commission to review the research. In 1972, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse advised Congress to remove criminal penalties on the possession and nonprofit distribution of marijuana.
"Neither the marijuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety," concluded the commission, led by then-Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania. President Richard Nixon and Congress ignored the report. Since then, more than 14 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges and marijuana has remained listed as a Schedule I substance - actually treated by federal law as more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine.
Here in California, enforcement costs for marijuana offenses had become so high by 1975 that the Legislature decriminalized possession of small quantities in the Moscone Act, saving the state $100 million each year. In 1990, the California Research Advisory Panel urged further decriminalization, noting that "an objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes." By 1996, the medicinal benefits of marijuana had been well documented and California voters legalized the medical use of marijuana by passing Proposition 215. Thirteen states across the nation have since followed suit.
With U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announcing last week that the federal government will end raids on marijuana dispensaries in California and other states with medical marijuana laws, it is clear that the tide is turning. Fact regarding marijuana is finally overcoming fiction.
There may be disagreements about what direction to take, but it is clear to everyone involved that our current approach is not working. Regulation allows common-sense controls and takes the marijuana industry out of the hands of unregulated criminals.
As a member of the state Assembly, I believe we must acknowledge reality and bring innovative solutions to the issue of marijuana, not simply wait for the federal government. This is how change happens. Californians lead rather than follow, and we can set an example for the nation as we did on medical marijuana by passing AB390."
Tom Ammiano is an Assembly member from San Francisco.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/03/ED05167QS0.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 13 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Washington, D.C. – Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, issued the following statement today in response the President’s nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and the appointment of Nancy-Ann DeParle to head the White House Office for Health Reform:
“Today the President is putting in place a team that is ready on day one to provide the leadership necessary to achieve health care reform. Governor Sebelius is the right person to move the President’s health care agenda forward. She is a proven leader with extensive knowledge of health care issues and a long history of working effectively across the political aisle. As a former CMS administrator, Nancy-Ann DeParle brings considerable experience and a strong track record working on all of the health care issues facing the nation.
“Reforming the health care system requires strong leadership and a commitment by all stakeholders to be a part of the solution. Health plans are committed to doing our part by offering proposals that ensure every American has high-quality, affordable health care coverage.”
###
Providing Health Benefits for Over 200 Million Americans.
Media advance falsehood that Pentagon has confirmed that 61 former Guantánamo detainees have returned to battlefield
Summary: Since President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the Pentagon's detention facilities at Guantánamo be closed within a year, numerous media figures and outlets have repeated or failed to challenge the claim that 61 former detainees held there have returned to the battlefield. In fact, the figure, which comes from the Pentagon, includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having "return[ed] to the fight."
Since President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year, numerous media figures and outlets -- including CNN's Campbell Brown, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Fox News' Sean Hannity, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and ABCNews.com -- have repeated or failed to challenge the claim that 61 former detainees held at Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield. Hannity, the Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, in particular, falsely asserted that the Pentagon has confirmed this figure. In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, according to the Pentagon, the 61-detainee figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having "return[ed] to the fight." Indeed, during a January 13 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated: "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight." Additionally, as Daily Kos contributing editor Joan McCarter noted, Seton Hall University School of Law professor Mark Denbeaux has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting: "Once again, they've failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies. Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers."
Media repeating or failing to challenge the claim that 60 or more Guantánamo detainees have returned to the battlefield include:
There were more peaceful protests (many) planed for today in the area, so they did it the last minute. Street protests do work. But all this could have been avoided. This killing had me in grips for the last two weeks. It has been two weeks. I am proud of my representatives, especially Barbra Lee (D) who said Monday that Mehserle should have been arrested by then. I can breath again. fib
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Ex-Oakland transit officer is arrested in Nevada
AP – This undated family file photo provided by the Law Offices of John Burris shows Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old (man shot in the back while constrainedat 2:15am New Year's at Fruitvale BART station).
SAN FRANCISCO – A white former transit police officer accused of killing an unarmed black man on an Oakland train platform has been arrested in Nevada on a warrant charging homicide, 12 days after the shooting that sparked violent street protests.
Johannes Mehserle, 27, was being held without bail Wednesday under a fugitive warrant issued from California, law enforcement officials said. Mehserle surrendered Tuesday without incident, according to a statement from the Douglas County Sheriff's Office in Nevada.
Messages left late Tuesday and early Wednesday at the office of Mehserle's attorney, Christopher Miller, were not immediately returned.
Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff was expected to announce details of the charges later Wednesday.
Witnesses say Mehserle fired into the back of 22-year-old Oscar Grant while the man was lying facedown on a train platform at a station in Oakland. Grant and others had been pulled off a train after reports of fighting, as New Year's Eve revelers were shuttling home after midnight.
The shooting, captured on cell phone cameras and widely viewed on the Internet, has inflamed long-running tensions between law enforcement authorities and many African-American residents and black community leaders, who have berated BART officials at several public meetings since the incident.
Hundreds of protesters also have taken to the streets calling for the prosecution of Mehserle, with one rally last Wednesday spiraling into violence and resulting in more than 100 arrests and dozens of businesses damaged.
John Burris, the attorney for Grant's family, said he talked to Grant's mother, Wanda Johnson, on Tuesday night and she was delighted with the news of the arrest.
"However it does not bring her son back," Burris said. "But she is happy and pleased that an arrest has occurred."
Jack Bryson of Hayward, whose sons, Jackie, 21, and Nigel, 19, were with Grant when he was killed, said late Tuesday the family also happy that Mehserle was arrested. He said his sons and others friends with Grant that night remain traumatized from the shooting.
Bryson said he was with his oldest son when they got word about Mehserle's arrest via a text message.
"Jackie said, 'Dad they got (Mehserle)! They got him!'" said Bryson, who then called his youngest son, Nigel.
"He said, 'Are you for real?'" Bryson said. "He called me back and said, 'They did get him.'"
Dereca Blackmon, the co-founder of the Coalition Against Police Execution, which was organizing a protest Wednesday, said she was pleased Mehserle was arrested but still wanted to know more details, including for example, why he was in Nevada. Authorities have not disclosed those details.
"Honestly this situation brings more questions than answers," she said.
Douglas County, where the arrest occurred, is 15 miles south of Carson City in northwestern Nevada and includes Lake Tahoe and Carson Valley.
Mehserle refused to talk to BART investigators before resigning his position last week. The transit authority passed on details of its internal investigation to Orloff's office on Monday. The case also is being investigated by the Oakland Police Department.
State Attorney General Jerry Brown has assigned a prosecutor to monitor the case, and the U.S. Department of Justice has dispatched mediators to help avert violent protests such as one in Oakland last week.
BART board member Carole Ward Allen said she was pleased to hear the news about the arrest.
"I want to know why he did it," she said. "We've heard from everybody else but him. While I can't speak for the entire BART board, we want to make this process as transparent as possible."
(This version CORRECTS the nature of arrest warrant to homicide, instead of murder, per the sheriff's office.)
SIX.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs looks back at the rise and fall of the neocons, who encouraged George Bush to invade Iraq.
With the Bush Administration about to recede into history, a widely asked question is whether the neoconservative philosophy that underpinned its major foreign policy decisions will likewise vanish from the scene.
But the epitaph of neoconservatism has been written before - prematurely, as it turned out, in the 1980s.
Having been apparently headed for extinction at the end of the Reagan Administration a second generation emerged in the mid-1990s.
This was period of post-Cold War overwhelming US military dominance which the neocons anointed as the "unipolar moment". It acted as the incubator for the ideas of modern neoconservatism.
Bold ambition
The main characteristics of neoconservatism are:
Prominent neocons destined to play a major role in the Bush Administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, David Addington and Richard Perle.
Neocon advocates in the media included Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, while in academia, Bernard Lewis and Victor Davis Hanson were among those who provided intellectual heft.
In Washington DC, the favourite neocon think tank was the American Enterprise Institute.
Here they authored a series of papers arguing for a more forceful US foreign policy, the centre-point of which was a rejection of conventional negotiations on the Palestine/Israel peace process.
Instead, they harboured the much bolder ambition of a US-instigated region-wide democratic transformation.
The first phase was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - which, they believed, would have a sort of "demonstrator effect" on the region.
At the beginning of the Bush administration, the neocons' prospects looked dim.
True, several - like Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle - obtained senior appointments, but Bush himself had promised a "humble" foreign policy, the diametric opposite of the neocon approach.
Neither Secretary of State Colin Powell nor Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a neocon.
The neocons did, however, find a crucial ally in Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Although not one himself, Mr Cheney was a founding signatory of the Project for the New American Century, which became the preferred forum for neocon thinking.
A critical crossover point with the neocons was Mr Cheney's commitment to the bold deployment of US military power.
His alliance with the neocons proved critical for them.
High-water mark
Their opportunity came with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
More than anyone else they had a well-prepared strategy which matched the need of the day for a bold, decisive response.
Suddenly, their ideas of democratic transformation looked like a reasonable policy option.
Their proposals to attack Iraq rapidly moved to centre stage.
Clearly, the neocons were not the only - or even the main - actors in bringing about the Iraq war.
But the key fact remains it was their ideas that ensured that the US response to 9/11 would go beyond Afghanistan.
They were, without doubt, the intellectual godfathers of the war.
The first few weeks of the war represented the high-water mark for the neocons.
On the battlefield, everything seemed to be going their way; politically, their protege Ahmed Chalabi seemed on track to accede to power.
But as invasion turned into occupation and the insurgency intensified, the neocon ideas of region-wide democratic transformation were revealed for the fantastical pipedreams they always were.
With the Bush administration ratcheting back its definitions of success in Iraq, the neocons were in full retreat.
They started to leave the administration, as elite and public opinion shifted decisively against the war.
Polar opposite
In many ways, the 2008 election represented a direct repudiation of the neocon style of foreign policy based on military-centred, unilateralist overreaching.
At first sight, the incoming Obama administration appears to be the polar opposite of neoconservatism.
Its instincts are multilateralist, being committed, for example, to adhering to the Kyoto Protocol and to international agreements like the Geneva Convention.
It places a high priority on diplomacy, with President-elect Obama being open to direct talks with long-ignored countries like Iran and Cuba. Defense Secretary Gates, who is remaining in office, has made it clear that he regards military intervention as the genuinely last option.
Furthermore, the financial meltdown and the drains of the Iraq and Afghan wars have chipped away at the pre-eminence of US power. It is difficult to argue today that the US enjoys a unipolar advantage.
The safest bet, therefore, is that we can bid adieu to the neocons and leave their role to be adjudicated by history.
They themselves argue that they form part of the mainstream of American history. It seems more likely that they will come to be seen as an aberration.
Two things may change this. First, the flipside of neoconservatism is what might be called neo-humanitarianism. This is the idea that US military power should be used to intervene on the ground in crises like the Rwandan genocide or in Darfur.
Some Obama officials, for example Susan Rice at the UN, will be making this case. All indications are that the Obama administration will be cautious but, if not, US unilateral military deployment may be back on the global agenda.
Secondly, the Obama administration faces unsettled business on Iran.
The neocons are arguing that Iran is the defining issue for US foreign policy and that, short of an abandonment by Tehran of its apparent nuclear weapons program, the US must use force.
Once again, the early signs are that, for the Obama team, military force is well down the agenda and a new form of engagement is under consideration.
Should this change - possibly on the back of intransigence from Tehran - the neocons will be back in business and will crow that they have survived yet another premature obituary.
Jonathan Clarke is co-author, with Stefan Halper, of America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the World Order
Please call your representatives in Congress today in support of a new legislative proposal for peace in Gaza:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/CenterDoug/gGxFQy/commentary#comments
It is very very important! Exercise your electoral power and give real voice to the humanitarian will of us Americans.
Our new SOS may well be well informed of the will of the American people and our determination to obtain a peaceful coexistence of all the peoples in that region. This just peace is possible and necessary. No need to recall Bible now for historical evidence to the contrary. There has been peaceful life in that region as well. Let's learn from peace, not war.
As an American I want Israel to be an ally that the World respects. The sooner this new terrible war is over the better for Israel's reputation and standing. This war has been based on some error of judgment among politicians striving for power, it was well calculated but in all counts is a loss for everybody. Hear both sides of the conflict, which is not the aim of the MSMs (Main Stream Media). How does this War help Israel's safety in the long run?
Please call! This peace is really in your hands and your voice.
Thank you. fib
