Constitution's Defenders for Obama

Please Sign Our Patriot/FISA Open Letter and Petition!

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:33:38 EST

The Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments are under reauthorization review in Congress and we need your help now. Please sign our Open Letter To President Obama and Petition to urge President Obama to tell Congress to provide greater Constitutional protections for all of us!

Here's the story:

Shortly after 9/11, major changes were made to U. S. intelligence gathering laws. These changes were intended to give the U. S. government more effective power to intercept and track terrorists. All of us want the government to be effective in keeping us safe.

Yet, like the unconstitutional and unnecessary wholesale imprisonment of innocent Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, some provisions of these laws were wildly intrusive on innocent Americans. For example, the Bush Congress granted the executive branch the power to search your home not only without a court-approved warrant, but without your knowledge - and furthermore, the power to imprison you if you found out about the search and told anyone, including your spouse.

Such provisions, granted in the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments, still exist. The most controversial provisions are now being reviewed now by the Congress. To our astonishment, the Obama Administration wants these provisions renewed without effective civil liberties protections.

Senator Feingold and others have strongly objected.

The Get FISA Right group here on OFA has, since last July, urged then-candidate and now President Obama to repeal such provisions or to provide effective safeguards to protect us against over-zealous investigations and investigators.

PLEASE SIGN OUR OPEN LETTER AND PETITION asking the President to reconsider. (There are additional links to background information within our Open Letter.)

Many civil liberties organizations have worked with us on this campaign. By sending our respectful message, you'll help strengthen our founding principles for the future, while still ensuring government power needed to keep us safe.

Thanks!

P. S. We're passionate Obama supporters, too. There are over 23,000 hard-working Obama supporters in our OFA group.

Decision time in Afghanistan

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:28:44 EST

After several weeks of gathering as much information as possible, President Obama is reportedly within a few days of announcing his revised approach regarding the war in Afghanistan. Obama has come under a lot of criticism for his alleged “dithering,” as some political opponents have famously put it. Maybe the president could have come to his decision one month earlier, but personally, I would prefer to have him “dither” for a little too long than to make a decision of this importance without first considering all the relevant information and the perspectives of his chief military and civilian advisors. I do not know what the president’s decision will be, but there are two certainties:

Whatever he decides to do will be wrong, in the opinion of many good and knowledgeable people, and
Wishing that we could turn back the clock to reverse past events does no good.

Most observers seem to believe that President Obama will opt to send more American troops to Afghanistan, but probably less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. Even if this is true, that still leaves open a lot of questions regarding where the military personnel will be specifically deployed, and what will be the focus of their mission.

With my usual disclaimer that I have no personal military experience and have little knowledge of military affairs, I am of the opinion that it is time to scale down the mission. Fighting terrorism is important, and I generally supported President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and bring down the Taliban regime that provided a base to Al Qaeda. I thought that it was most unfortunate that Mr. Bush switched his emphasis in his “war on terror” from Afghanistan to Iraq, because we might have had much more success in Afghanistan without the very expensive sideshow in the Middle East. However, as noted above, there is no turning back the clock, and President Obama has to deal with the situation as it now stands, rather than what we might think it should have been.

Advocates of a troop surge in Afghanistan, with a change in strategy focused on protecting the civilian population, note how well this approach worked in Iraq. If I believed that this would work as well in Afghanistan, I would probably support it. However, I am persuaded that an additional 40,000 troops –or even double that amount – will be nowhere near enough to do the job in Afghanistan. Compared to Afghanistan, Iraq is a very advanced country, with a well educated population and a strong middle class. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is hopelessly corrupt. Given the tribal nature of the Afghan population, Mr. Karzai is effectively not much more than the mayor of Kabul. He does not come even close to being widely recognized as the legitimate leader of his country.

One of my major objections to President Bush’s actions in the name of fighting terrorism was that, even if we assume honorable motives on the part of Mr. Bush, he was fiscally reckless. It seems amazing that, while the supposedly “conservative” George W. Bush was president, both the White House and its allies in Congress completely ignored the idea that wars are expensive and have to be paid for. Again, previous events cannot be reversed, but it has to be recognized now that there are limits to most resources. When it comes to the ability of the federal government to spend additional funds, those limits were unacknowledged several years ago, and as a result are more severe today.

This does not mean that we abandon Afghanistan as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences, but it does mean that we have to factor into the decision the costs involved, and honestly explain how we will pay for it. This was largely ignored throughout the Bush years, but there is no excuse for ignoring it any longer (the same principle applies to health care reform and any other major spending proposals, but the subject for today is Afghanistan).

The way I see it, we cannot afford a counterinsurgency strategy of the type used in Iraq. I do not believe that the 40,000 additional troops requested by General McChrystal would be enough to make an effective difference. Besides that, our military forces have already been overcommitted. My impression is that doing the job “right” in Afghanistan would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and that is not going to happen. It is far too expensive, and in any case cannot be accomplished without resuming a military draft. I strongly doubt that there is much of an appetite for that among most Americans.

If General McChrystal or anybody else can make a convincing case that a maximum addition of 40,000 additional troops will produce lasting and positive results by the end of one additional year, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, we have to scale down our goals. We should continue to pursue known terrorists, and otherwise try to work with the less odious factions of the Taliban. America and its NATO allies might find it easier to work with local Afghan groups if it is clear that our presence there is diminishing. What about the argument that reducing the mission from the previously loftier goals to a more simple counterterrorism would mean that so many lives of brave Americans (and our allies) will have been “wasted?” Unfortunately, we cannot get those lives back, no matter what we do. What we can do is to stop compounding past mistakes.

Affairs of state and affairs of the church

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:54:20 EST

The story from Rhode Island about the bishop and the congressman is very interesting. The Roman Catholic bishop in Providence has publicly requested that Rep. Patrick Kennedy not take communion, because Mr. Kennedy's pro-choice position on abortion rights is contrary to church doctrine. Mr. Kennedy, of course, is a son of the late Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, and a member of possibly the most famous Catholic family in America. Bishop Thomas Tobin has not only made this request to Mr. Kennedy, but he has ordered that all Catholic priests in Rhode Island refuse to offer communion to the supposedly wayward congressman.

I have no personal stake in this story. I am not Catholic, and while I am generally pro-choice regarding the permissibility of abortions, I do not have a problem with the government's authority to impose some restrictions after the early stages of a pregnancy. Besides that, I do not have daughters, so the issue is not likely to affect me personally. I say this not to take up the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but only to note that the outcome of the controversy about the bishop and the congressman does not directly concern me, except as an outside bystander.

It seems to me that in America, clerics of any denomination should be cautious about how they wander into political issues. The messages to their flock should focus on how they can do their best when it comes to their personal conduct. Be the best spouse/child/parent/friend/neighbor/etc. that you can be. Recognize that nobody is perfect, but emphasize that people should do the best that they can. The point is that the sermons and other messages should guide the members of the congregation on their personal behavior, not their political beliefs. If Congressman Kennedy was actually performing abortions, or paying somebody else directly for that purpose, I could understand the bishop's response. Instead, the bishop is taking this action because Congressman Kennedy supports others to have the right to make that decision (whether or not to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy) for themselves.

If the reader will excuse the cheap shot, it is my strong impression that in the numerous reported incidents of Catholic priests sexually molesting young boys, the usual reaction of the bishops was to cover up the crime, and quietly transfer the religiously devout child rapist to another unsuspecting community, hoping that the priest had learned his lesson. The lesson? The lesson appears to be that raping a child is a minor embarrassment, which they can hopefully cover up. Conversely, advocating a purely political position that conflicts with church doctrine is a major offense.

Congressman Kennedy is not about to ask for my advice, but in case he does, my suggestion is that he tell that bishop to get a hobby, but only one that is limited to consenting adults.

Sarah Palin and other conservative heroes

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:02:45 EST

The general impression I get from watching news programs these days is that Barack Obama’s popularity is slipping away, and that conversely, Sarah Palin is more popular than the Beatles and Elvis Presley combined at their respective primes. For those of us who admire Mr. Obama and hold little regard for Ms. Palin, it would seem that we are headed for some politically bleak times. This picture may not be completely false, but it is probably much less true than it might seem at the moment.

President Obama’s halo is a bit tarnished, which is inevitable for almost any new president, especially one who entered office accompanied by such high expectations. He has made a few missteps (which will be the subject of a later essay by yours truly) during his first year in office, but nothing he cannot recover from. As long as unemployment remains high – and realistically there is no quick fix for that – President Obama will get the blame. It appears that the economy is already in recovery, and when unemployment goes back down to more tolerable levels, it will likely get Obama’s public approval ratings back to the solidly favorable range. It may not happen soon enough for his party to avoid getting clobbered in the mid term elections next year, but it will happen.

As for Sarah Palin, she is going to make millions of dollars selling her book, but I cannot see her as a credible candidate for President in 2012, or any other year. There is an old cliché about how we underestimate her at our peril. I believe I used that line myself, in reference to Palin, during the campaign last year. Some of Palin’s conservative admirers like to compare her to Ronald Reagan, who also showed great skill with a right wing populist appeal, and was also underestimated by his political opponents. One of my favorite conservative pundits, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, has a great column comparing Sarah Palin with conservative patron saints Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Here is a link to that column:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1119chapmannov19,0,4222240.column

To me, Sarah Palin more closely resembles Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, and in my opinion, Ms. Palin combines the worst qualities of each of them. Mr. Nixon had what I believe psychiatrists would call a paranoid personality. He was obsessed with the idea that anybody who criticized or disagreed with him was a personal enemy, and therefore, because he was the president, a traitor to the U.S. The fact that Nixon was also very bright, well read, and hard working was not enough to compensate for the serious deficiencies in his character. Mr. Bush was (is) almost the opposite of Mr. Nixon. He is more at ease with himself as a person, but was one of the most intellectually lazy presidents we have ever had. He acted out of a gut feeling of what he thought was right, and (being the “decider” as he famously put it) pursued his policies without much serious analysis. When he did receive advice that did not fit into his preconceived notions, he ignored it, often with tragic consequences. Sarah Palin has managed to combine Nixon’s persecution complex with Bush’s incredible ignorance and lack of curiosity .

Ms. Palin has a devoted following – enough to make her a rich author, and if she wants it, she could probably get a very lucrative job at Fox News. However, while perhaps 20% of the country absolutely loves Sarah Palin, I cannot see her ever making serious inroads on the other 80%.

Congress is full of idiots in both parties

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:06:26 EST

Liberal pundit E. J. Dionne has an excellent column in today’s Washington Post. Regarding the ongoing health care reform efforts in Congress, there has been a lot of chatter about “perfect” becoming the enemy of the good. This has been a concern of mine for some months. Here is a link to Mr. Dionne’s column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111122256.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

If any kind of health care reform does get passed into law, the one certainty is that the final product will not be ideal by anybody’s reckoning. I have said in previous blog posts that the biggest obstacles to health care reform are those who insist that the bill contain certain characteristics, such as a “robust public option.” These people – including former Democratic Party leader Howard Dean and interim U.S. Senator Roland Burris (the choice of disgraced former Illinois Governor Blagojevich to fill the unexpired senate term of Barack Obama) – have made clear that they would rather see all reform efforts fail than to have what they believe is half-hearted reform pass. In a way, I have more respect for somebody like Senator Jim DeMint, who at least makes no serious pretense to being anything other than a political enemy of President Obama. If Obama’s presidency fails to achieve its major goals, it will be more due to his supposed allies (such as Dean and Burris) than to his overt opponents (such as DeMint). Reform can pass without any Republican support, but in order for that to happen, the Democrats have to able to unite behind something. As a practical matter, this means accepting the reality that many Democrats representing relatively conservative states and districts cannot support all the provisions favored by their more left-leaning colleagues.

If there is going to be any kind of health care reform bill that clears Congress, it will almost certainly contain some degree of restriction on taxpayer-financed abortions, and it will quite likely not provide for a public option, except perhaps one based on future contingencies. It would still be a major achievement, both in terms of politics and public policy, to get health care reform that extends coverage to all Americans, is fiscally neutral, and controls overall health care costs. This can be done, but not if side shows about the availability of abortions and the public option control the debate.

Public opinion surveys have consistently shown that most Americans have a low regard for Congress, and the contempt is well deserved. Most Republicans in Congress are more focused on opposing Obama, no matter what his policies are. They largely act like Rush Limbaugh, even if they generally do so in more polite language. Like Mr. Limbaugh, they want Obama to fail, even if that would be detrimental to the national interest. Many Democrats are no better. They are so obsessed with their own pet causes (in most cases, their reelection) that they are oblivious to the negative consequences of their own narrow focus. As for President Obama, he has to work with Congress, for all of its imperfections. He has to treat them (both parties and both houses of Congress) with more respect than they deserve… even though that respect does not appear to be rewarded. In the long run, this gives him the best odds for a successful presidency. I think that Obama knows this, and he acts accordingly. He cannot say this, but I can: Congress does not deserve much respect from the American people. If health care reform completely fails, it will be the failure of the Democratic leadership, and they will have themselves to blame if their party is swept out of power in the 2010 elections.

I Will Not Support Health Reform That Includes The Following!

Dr. Julien Arbor — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:06:23 EST

UPDATE: New Health Care Bill Drafted by House of Representatives Filled with Psycho/Pharma Industry Agenda

Information: The newly-forged 1990-page “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (HR 3962) offered by the House of Representatives is filled with mental health provisions intended to prop up psychiatry as well as the pharmaceutical industry with billions in future income. Key mental health components of this House bill:

MOTHERS Act
The bill includes the language of the MOTHERS Act, to “expand treatment for postpartum conditions” and calls for the development of “improved screening and diagnostic techniques,” but makes no provisions to ensure any entities doing such research are free from conflicts of interest or pharmaceutical funding. For example, Screening for Mental Health, Inc., and its sub-organization Signs of Suicide, who heavily promote and conduct mental health screening, received $4,985,925 from pharmaceutical companies prior to 2008, and ten leading psychiatric researchers have been exposed in the last year for failing to disclose millions of dollars in pharmaceutical payments. Despite their conflicts of interest and biased research, many pharma funded psychiatrists and researchers have been used by so-called advocacy groups (Screening for Mental Health, NAMI, etc which are also heavily funded by Pharma) to promote the need for federal laws that will only increase the number of Americans being needlessly targeted for psychiatric treatment and drugged. Yet this bill contains no provisions for full disclosure of conflicts of interest for any “entity” that could receive federal taxpayer funded grants, do research or promotional campaigns – such as the provision in the bill calling for a national PR campaign using TV, radio public and other public service announcements to urge women be screened and seek treatment for postpartum depression. The bill also calls for “clinical research” for the development of new treatments (drugs), but again, no guidelines for ensuring that any researchers/research entities are free from pharmaceutical funding or conflicts of interest. Section 2529, Page 1418

Mental Health Parity
The bill mandates Mental Health Parity, or equal insurance coverage for mental disorders as what are covered for physical diseases, whether under their regular health insurance or whether a person gets their new coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange. Psychiatric patients are traditionally “cured” when their insurance benefits run out. In this bill, those benefits never run out. Considering there are no medical tests to verify the existence of any psychiatric disorder, and without anything other than a psychiatrist’s opinion about whether or not the person’s “illness” is “cured,” this legislation becomes nothing more than taxpayer funded billions to the psycho/pharmaceutical industry who will continue their jihad of mass drugging of Americans. This provision could easily encompass all 374 diagnoses in psychiatry’s diagnostic manual, covering everything from Phase of Life Problem to Arithmetic Disorder. Section 214, Page 100

Home Visitation Programs for Families with Young Children or Families Expecting Children
The bill creates a home visitation program for families with young children or which are expecting children or who have certain “risk factors.” The program provides assessments regarding matters of “age appropriate behaviors,” for children, prevention of family violence and referral to outside services. – Section 1904, Page 1177

School Based Health Clinics
The bill includes funding for School Based Health Clinics that will include subjective psychiatric mental health screening (called mental health assessments) of children, and “referral to a continuum of services including emergency psychiatric care, community support programs, inpatient care, and outpatient programs” as part of their “comprehensive primary health services.” This is a direct feeder line for the psycho/pharmaceutical industry directly into our schools. – Section 2511, Page 1352

Wellness Program Grants for small employers
The grants in the bill serve as an incentive for employers to include “mental health” as part of the Wellness Program Grants to businesses. Part of the program entails a “Behavioral Change Component” that encourages “healthy living through counseling” and may include programs relating to “tobacco use, obesity, stress management, depression and mental health.” – Section 112, Page 67

Federally Qualified Behavioral Health Centers
The bill creates new “Federally Qualified Behavioral Health Centers” and in order for existing community mental health centers to qualify, they have to provide, among other things, “mental health screening, assessment, and diagnosis,” as well as “outpatient clinic mental health services, including screening, assessment, diagnosis, psychotherapy and medication,” in addition to “crisis mental health services including 24-hour mobile crisis teams.” - Section 2513, Page 1367

Your voice needs to be heard in Washington on this outrageous bill. Call, fax, or email your Representative and tell them that you are opposed to the above points in the Health Care Reform bill. To find your Representative and get their contact information, go tohttp://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt to look them up (you need to enter your zip code). You can also call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

I still have hopes for bipartisan health care reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:21:11 EST

One of the points made by President Obama in his speech to the joint session of Congress to advocate health care reform was that he would be receptive to good and constructive ideas from any source, including Republicans who oppose nearly everything he does. It was a fine speech, and it succeeded in raising the prospects of enacting some kind of significant health care reform. If he really meant what he said about considering good ideas from the political opposition, he should make that more clear.

Without a doubt, health care reform is a very difficult challenge. As the saying goes, if it was easy, it would have been done long ago. Obama’s allies in Congress (the Democrats) have major differences among themselves, regarding the merits of different aspects of reform. The Republicans are almost 100% united in opposition, both for sincere ideological reasons and for pure political motives. Obama would like to have a bipartisan bill, but (with very few possible exceptions) congressional Republicans will refuse to back any bill, even if it contains several provisions to their liking. By temperament and political background, Obama has always tried to build a consensus, but neither party in Congress is in the mood. What is a president to do?

In apparent opposition to all conventional wisdom, I still believe that the best solution – both for policy and politics – would be a moderate health care reform bill that uses some of the better ideas from both parties. For the reforms to work, they will have to expand access and reduce overall health care costs, regardless of how payment of those costs is distributed. Reforms that focus on one of these issues while ignoring the other will ultimately fail.

With my usual disclaimer about not being an expert on this or any other subject, the best health care reform at this time would have the following characteristics:

1) No legal resident of the U.S. can have his/her coverage denied or revoked due to personal health issues. [The issue regarding illegal residents is trickier. My inclination is to believe that illegal residents should be included, but I would not insist on it as a condition to support an otherwise good bill.]

2) All persons eligible for coverage must be covered. There can be no “opt out” for individuals or families. Tax credits or similar assistance should be available for those who are too poor to afford coverage, but they have to get the coverage. If insurance companies must accept all applicants and all preexisting conditions, then it makes no sense to allow healthy Americans to stay out of the system before the need for insurance becomes obvious.

3) The tax favored treatment for employer-sponsored insurance should be ended, or at least sharply reduced. People who cannot get health insurance through work should not be disadvantaged the way they are now.

4) Individuals and small groups should be able to join large risk pools, in order to remove cost distortions due to underwriting.

5) Sensible tort reform is necessary. This includes caps on non-economic damages and an effective distinction between ordinary and gross negligence. In return for setting limits, the medical profession must do a better job of policing its members. The current practical necessities of defensive medicine and huge malpractice premiums greatly add to overall health care costs, while doing very little for patient well being.

6) End the interstate prohibition on selling medical insurance. Most states need more effective competition among its potential health insurers. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would be a big help.

7) Emphasis on prevention, as opposed to treatment and cure, needs to be a component of health care reform. There needs to be financial incentives for people to participate in wellness programs and annual physical exams.

8) For all the talk about “death panels,” the fact is that a large chunk of health care costs take place in the last six months of the patient’s life. I am not about write off somebody for being terminally ill, but there needs to be more honest discussion about the costs associated with extraordinary measures to keep somebody breathing for a few extra months, or weeks, or days. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but this is a big element of the national health care bill, and the issue must be faced with more honesty than it has had so far.

9) The public option is not as great an idea as its advocates suggest. This is especially true if there is an “opt out” provision for each individual state. It would likely have the effect of denying coverage for many vulnerable Americans. It will do nothing to contain actual costs, and the notion that it will “save” money by paying doctors at Medicare (or Medicaid) rates makes no sense. Doctors and hospitals can presently treat Medicare as a loss leader item, pushing up the costs to everybody else. They cannot do that if there is no everybody else. The public option either works like Medicare, providing a short term illusion of cost saving, or it works like a private insurance company, with no saving. The “trigger” provision suggested by Olympia Snowe and some other senators, where the public option would be created something like five years in the future if demonstrated to necessary by conditions at that time, might make sense.

Anyway, the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. We need to have some sensible health care reform, but we need to get something that can pass both the House and Senate. Passing a feel good measure that passes only one house of Congress is useless. I believe that a health care reform bill with the characteristics outlined above would be good public policy, and can pass Congress if President Obama makes clear that this is something he supports. It may seem to be too much of half-hearted reform for the liking of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but even a half-hearted reform now leaves open further reforms in the near future, if those are believed to be needed. The reverse is not true. Failure to pass something now will almost guarantee a very long delay in passing any reform. It will also seriously weaken Obama’s presidency. I do not want that to happen.

When public officials abuse their trust

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:35 EST

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear a case involving alleged misconduct by prosecutors in Iowa in a case dating back to 1977. An editorial today in the Washington Post titled The right not to be framed provides useful background on the case. Two black men convicted of murdering a retired white police officer are suing the prosecutors for fabricating evidence to frame the two men, who each spent 25 years in prison for the crime. The convictions were overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court, which concluded that the star witness was a “liar and a perjurer.” One of the two defendants was cleared. The other one initially sought a new trial, but eventually agreed to a conviction, with the sentence limited to time served.

It appears that the prosecutors are not seriously disputing the allegations of their own misconduct, because they are emphasizing not their innocence, but rather that “there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed.” According to the allegations, the prosecutors knowingly coaxed supposed witnesses to fabricate testimony against the suspects. The justification for claiming immunity to lawsuits based on malicious prosecutorial misconduct is based on the idea that if you let this suit go forward, then you would have to allow it for every acquitted defendant and every defendant whose case was subject to minor mistakes by the prosecution. That is ridiculous, and the U.S. Supreme Court should say so.

Prosecutors are an important part of protecting the public from the bad guys, and they should be immune from lawsuits based on innocent errors and “gray area” incidents of possible wrongdoing. Sometimes, the wrongdoing is apparently clear in hindsight, but seemed reasonable at the time it happened. Personally, I am not sympathetic to lawsuits based on alleged misdeeds of this kind. For a lawsuit based on prosecutorial misconduct to have legal standing, the alleged misconduct must far exceed the usual kinds of activity that might be of dubious legality. For the lawsuit to be successful, there should be a high burden of proof by the plaintiff. However, it is outrageous to suggest that such a lawsuit should never have legal standing, no matter how badly the public official abused his authority.

Readers of my past OFA postings might recall that I was opposed to bringing criminal charges against President Bush and/or Vice-President Cheney, as some of my fellow bloggers were inclined to do. As deplorable as some of their (Bush and Cheney) actions were, they can at least make the credible argument that they acted with the motive of protecting the American people from terrorists. I believe that some of their methods were illegal, and they deserve a very harsh judgment by future historians, but I have never thought that criminal charges against them would be appropriate. I mention this now, in order to make clear that I am not a big advocate for legal punishment of government officials for abusing their office. This appears to be one case where it is appropriate.

Here is a link to the Post editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110101950.html?wpisrc=newsletter

A major newspaper's pundit contest

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:44:59 EST

Some weeks ago, The Washington Post announced an op-ed writing contest, where non-professional writers were invited to submit an essay of 400 words or less. The essays would be judged by the clarity of writing, and content with an interesting message, but not on whether or not the editors agreed with the content. There were thousands of submissions, including one from yours truly. Out of these thousands, only ten of these amateur writers would advance to the second round, and the process would gradually whittle down to a single winner, who would get the honor of contributing a regular column for something like ten weeks. The winner would receive a fairly modest fee for his/her columns, but the main prize would be the prestige, not the money.

My essay was not one of the ten that made it to the second round, and of course, I was well aware that my odds were very remote. Anyway, now that I am officially out of the running, I would like to share my essay with my fellow OFA bloggers:

With multiple international crises and a serious economic recession to address, along with an ongoing effort to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, other issues have understandably been set aside for now. It can wait awhile, but I hope that some time before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, there will be a serious examination of the various laws enacted, and enforcement methods used, in the name of “getting tough on crime.” We have the infamous war on drugs, which generally criminalizes the casual possession and use of various drugs, some of which are relatively harmless. We have the “three strikes” laws in many states, which in some circumstances impose long prison terms for minor offenses. Capital punishment is as popular as ever. Politicians frequently try to outdo each other in the contest to appear tougher on crime, because that perception is always a big advantage in elections. Conversely, an American politician who dares to suggest that these measures are ineffective in combating crime have as much chance of getting elected as would a candidate for the Iranian parliament who publicly doubts the existence of God.

I have no problem with being tough on crime, but I believe that many of the actions done with that supposed objective are ineffective at best, and in some cases counterproductive. Smarter and wiser people than yours truly may disagree, but let’s at least challenge some of the cherished assumptions.

Problems with the war on drugs include wasted resources (police, courts, jail), drug classifications which defy common sense (tobacco cigarettes are legal, marijuana is not), enrichment of organized crime (because lawful merchants cannot supply the people with what they apparently want), and the lost opportunity for excise tax revenue.

The three strikes laws remove the ability of a trial judge to use common sense in sentencing a convicted defendant. By imposing a mandatory twenty year sentence (for example) when a much shorter sentence is appropriate under the circumstances, the prisons become overcrowded with inmates who should not be there.

The usual justifications for capital punishment are false. They do not generally deter crime or save the taxpayers money, nor can we be sure that an innocent person is never executed. Execution undeniably does serve one purpose, which is to satisfy our collective thirst for revenge for an especially gruesome crime.

Let’s have some open an honest debate on these issues.

Now, back to the present day (11/2/09). I wrote the above words about a month ago. The Post editors had to sift through thousands of submitted essays – most of them undoubtedly well written – and it cannot have been easy to select the ten best. For the second round, they asked the would-be pundits to write a 750 word essay, on a different subject matter from the one they used in the first round. Two examples are provided in today’s on-line edition of the post:

http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/mara.gay/2009/11/mom_in_chief.html

http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/darryl.jackson/2009/11/sarah_palins_second_act.html

In my own (obviously biased) opinion, their writings are no better than mine, and Mr. Jackson’s is definitely worse.

Keeping Barack Obama human

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:17:48 EDT

The OFA blog today contains a post from somebody, apparently with the moniker “Worship,” with an interesting message:

Our first announcement to all Obama supporters We want to move past being known as an Obama supporter, and move into the realm of an Obama Worshiper. President Obama is the greatest world leader the world has ever seen, and we should worship the ground he walks on out of respect for him and his accomplishments.

While I respect the sincerity of people whose admiration for President Obama seems to extend to the level of elevating the president into a deity, I cannot share the attitude. I want to be clear about my own attitude. I do admire Barack Obama as a person. He is the first presidential candidate to get any direct financial support from me. His campaign was also the first, since I was an idealistic high school student forty years ago, where I volunteered my time. I shared in the excitement of his 2008 election victory. This was not merely a victorious candidate who got my vote, but also (for the first time in my life) my enthusiastic support.

To be realistic, however, it is far too early to be sure that Obama will be a great president, let alone the greatest world leader the world has ever seen. For one thing, a great man (or woman) who happens to be the president is very different from being a great president. The qualities are not the same.

President Obama has, in my opinion, qualities that potentially can make him a great president. He is highly intelligent, a well read student of history, and trained to understand and appreciate competing viewpoints regarding a particular issue or problem. He is secure enough about himself that he does not take political attacks personally. He understands, maybe to a greater degree than nearly any of his predecessors (on a level with the senior President Bush), the role of diplomacy in international relations. While not historically a good predictor of presidential performance, Barack Obama is also (by all available evidence) an excellent family man who lives by an admirable personal moral code. Maybe that is not very important, but if nothing else, the absence of any scandal in his life at least precludes his being a target of personal blackmail. It also could give him some additional credibility when he is trying to push some moral cause.

Great presidents have to be excellent politicians. This means sometimes compromising with ideals in order to achieve something important. It sometimes involves choosing the least bad of several unappealing alternatives (the war in Afghanistan comes to mind). It involves making mistakes. Most historians have judged (correctly, in my view) Franklin Roosevelt as one of our greatest presidents. Despite that, however, there is absolutely no justification for FDR rounding up large numbers of Japanese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps. That is just one example. Jimmy Carter had, and still has, many of the same admirable personal qualities as we see in Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter was not a successful president.

If Obama is going to be a great president, the biggest pitfall he has to avoid is the tendency for presidents to be isolated from conflicting policy arguments. Many of our presidents would not tolerate even private dissent. They surrounded themselves with advisors who only told them what they wanted to hear, and anybody who dared to differ with the president’s inclinations would soon be out of a job. Other presidents became that way after starting out differently. In Obama’s Harvard Law training, he learned the value of competing arguments as a means of ultimately arriving at a good solution to a problem. This does not mean that he will get it right every time, but at least he should be well aware of the legitimate reasons in support of an alternative answer. This is a very good quality for Obama to have, but the surest way for him to lose it would be if he is surrounded by people who worship the ground he walks on. Obama is not right all the time, and when we believe he is wrong, we should say so. To cite one small example, he was wrong to slap a punitive tariff on tires from China. In my own opinion, he has not handled the health care reform efforts in Congress as well as he could, although events in the coming several weeks will make it clearer than it is now whether or not my criticism on this issue is premature.

Interesting allies regarding the war on drugs

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:08:48 EDT

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker has an excellent op-ed in today’s (10/21/09) Washington Post. Ms. Parker is generally conservative, but not right wing, and this column concerns the Obama administration’s decision that the federal government will not interfere with states which permit the use of medical marijuana. I think it is an excellent column, because it articulates the case I have been trying to make in some previous blog postings, but in this case with the skill of a professional writer. She praises the administration for making the first step toward sensible drug policy, but she also advocates going further.

The usual arguments in favor of legalizing (or at minimum, decriminalizing) weed note that it is less harmful and addictive than some other currently legal products, that its illegal status means a huge waste of police/court/jail resources, and various other ways that the “war on drugs” is counterproductive, at least regarding marijuana.

In addition to these things, although the foolishness of the “war on drugs” has a long bipartisan history, self-described conservatives should oppose the long standing U.S. policy on ideological grounds. It is a case of government interference with an individual’s choice regarding a recreational activity. Besides that, it is (or at least was, when the supposedly conservative George W. Bush was president) a case of the federal government overruling the states on matters of social policy. True conservatives should be appalled by such arrogance of big government.

Anyway, here is a link to Kathleen Parker’s column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009102003110

End the war... on Fox News

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:40:59 EDT

I have zero respect for Fox News, and in my own opinion, that organization deserves nothing but contempt. Then again, I can say that, because I am nobody of significance. For President Obama’s top White House aides to say it is quite different. Contrary to the assertions of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, Fox is a news organization. It may be highly slanted and lacking in integrity, but it is still a news organization. It contains legitimate journalists, in addition to the ranting pundits. In my opinion, it is a big mistake for the Obama White House to openly carry on a campaign against Fox News. In doing so, he lowers himself to their level. Maybe I don’t personally think so, but that is the way it looks to a lot of people.

One of the qualities I most admire about Barack Obama is his ability to stay above most of the petty verbal trashing. There can be no serious doubt that at least some of the anti-Obama rhetoric is based on racist motives. By “some,” I do not suggest that most is based on racial fear or anger. A lot of opposition to Obama’s policies is based on pure political differences, and would be no different than if the same policies were being articulated by a white president. On the other hand, I doubt that the ridiculous “birthers” would have gotten much attention if Obama’s ethnic background was similar to mine. Anyway, despite the likelihood that some of the unfair attacks on Obama are based on racism, Obama has never made that accusation against any of his political rivals, nor has he said or implied that the opposition from ordinary voters is based on racism. This is very much to Obama’s credit. Of course, racism still exists, but President Obama is right to never use racism as an excuse for political difficulties or defeats.

So why does he declare war on Fox News? It just makes Obama – or his White House staff, which amounts to the same thing – look as petty as Nixon and Agnew did when they basically accused much of the press of being unpatriotic. Obama should not bring himself down to Nixon’s level. During the campaign, Obama did an outstanding job of remaining good-natured and calmly shaking off the taunts of his political opponents. As a result, he was the one who looked like a statesman, while the others looked like low-class political hacks. President Obama should remember how Senator and presidential candidate Obama handled political attacks.

Here is a link to an essay by somebody who apparently does not agree with me. The writer says the White House is acting appropriately in “fact checking” the various lies by Fox News. That statement may be true, when it comes to false statements of apparent fact, but that does not extend to general disparaging characterizations about Fox News. That goes far beyond fact checking.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090010

Human Rights & Health Care Reform

Dr. Julien Arbor — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:35:27 EDT

Hello:

My name is Dr. Julien Arbor and I have an Acquired Brain Injury that was the result of such over-the-top medical malpractice and human rights violations that it is inconceivable to me that such a thing would occur in the United States!

A bit about my background:

I am a Licensed Clinical Psychologist specializing in Health Psychology, experience in evaluating and working with patients with TBI, a Wellness Counselor, a Natural Healing Consultant, a Researcher, an Author, and a 7 year Volunteer Health Educator & Moderator for one of the largest natural health websites on the internet.

I am also currently disabled and dealing with the challenges of a form of TBI known as an Acquired Brain Injury. The circumstances surrounding the development of my ABI have provided a tremendous opportunity to conduct extensive research that indicates that the psychiatric diagnosis of PTSD is actually a form of an Acquired Brain Injury that results from an acute and severe metabolic disruption that is brought about purely by extreme and traumatic stress. I have done an extensive review of the scientific literature and also gathered data for the past year and will be completing a single case research study as soon as I have undergone my own treatment and rehabilitation that will allow me return to work.

There is already considerable research that demonstrates changes in brain structure in those who have been diagnosed with PTSD. However, this will be the first study that provides quantitative evidence that suggests that it is an underlying metabolic disruption following extreme and traumatic stress that results in damage to the brain. Furthermore, this research also points to treatments that will successfully address the symptoms, halt their progression and also suggests a means of preventing this condition from developing.

This research will also suggest an explanation for connections between a diagnosis of PTSD &/or TBI and a growing number of life-altering, chronic and costly health conditions that are highly correlated later in life such as depression, emotional challenges, hypoglycemia, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, epilepsy, headaches, migraines, chronic pain, sleep disturbances, debilitating fatigue, sensory changes, aggressive behavior, weight problems, skin conditions, hormonal imbalances, sexual dysfunction, respiratory problems, cognitive and memory impairments, substance abuse, skin conditions, balance and gait disturbances, increased susceptibility to infection and cancer. This will point to a large number of additional areas for research as a follow up to this study.

I am also devising a safe, natural, effective and cost-efficient treatment protocol that is a truly holistic integration of mind-body medicine in order to address the underlying metabolic dysfunction as well as address the resulting brain damage.

About that assumed necessity for 60 Senate votes...

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:54:12 EDT

I have not seen anybody discuss the issue so far, so maybe the answer is so obvious that it is not worth the brief time to address this question: Is it really necessary for a healthcare reform bill to get the support of 60 senators? I understand the business about filibusters and cloture votes, but the press has implicitly assumed that, without exception, every senator who does not support the Senate legislation will automatically support a filibuster against the bill. Maybe this is true, but have our Senate leaders (along with former Senators Obama and Biden) even considered the possibility that one or a few senators might behave differently from what is assumed?

One famous TV newsman, who should know better, brought up the issue again yesterday about Barack Obama's "present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate. The implication was that Obama was too much of a weasel to vote for or against a proposed bill, so he voted "present" in a cynical attempt to avoid committing himself. The context of yesterday's reference was in relation to Obama's taking some time to consider his alternative courses of action if Afghanistan. In the Illinois state legislature, "present" has a specific meaning, of which most of Obama's critics are either ignorant or else willfully distorting the picture. In effect, "present" means the same thing as "nay" (or "no"), but is basically a signal that the legislator supports the intentions of the bill, but that the bill as written is too flawed to support. I bring this up now, only to illustrate that what may seem obvious is not necessarily so.

Back to the subject of getting healthcare reform through Congress, it appears that the House will pass some kind of a bill, the Senate will pass a very different kind of a bill, and hopefully a conference committee will work out some unified bill that the president can sign. This process is clearly difficult, and it is not yet certain that anything will eventually pass both houses of Congress. It would be a difficult task in any circumstances, but it is made much more difficult by the fact that a determined group of 41 senators can block any legislation. Even getting unity among the Democrats in the Senate seems impossible. Some of the progressives have indicated that they will absolutely refuse to support a bill that does not contain certain provisions, while some moderates in the same party apparently will refuse to support a bill that does contain those same provisions.

Is it at least possible that a small number of senators could be persuaded, even if the bill that emerges is personally disappointing to them, to invoke cloture? In other words, they might not vote in favor of the legislation itself, but they would agree to kill a filibuster that would prevent the Senate from voting the bill up or down. President Obama's popularity may not be as high as it was when he first took office (those poll ratings were never going to be sustainable), but he is still by far the most popular and admired politician in the country. There have got to be some senators who owe him, at minimum, the opportunity for a Senate bill to come to a floor vote. In addition, some "blue state" Republicans, most notably Olympia Snowe, might find it to their own political advantage to kill a filibuster, even if they do not support the bill. The Senate bill may not really need 60 votes.

I have previously written about my own preferences about what healthcare reform bill I would like to see enacted into law, but I will not rehash the arguments here, because that would confuse the more basic issue. Politically, Obama needs some kind of healthcare reform bill to pass, and I would rather see a disappointing healthcare reform bill pass than to have no healthcare reform pass. While the task is difficult, I believe it is at least possible that support by a slightly under 60 senators could be enough.

The Rich Are NOT Smarter or Harder Working

Henry M — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:09:25 EDT

If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.
- Dorothy Parker

The depression that did not happen

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:01:43 EDT

In a famous Sherlock Holmes story, one of the important clues was a dog that did not bark. In evaluating the early stage of the Barack Obama presidency, one of the significant achievements may be the depression that did not happen. Sure, unemployment is 9.8%, the highest rate since Ronald Reagan's first term, and the U.S. economy at this time is hardly the backdrop for bragging rights. What we will never know for certain is what would have happened in the absence of some of the controversial measures taken by Barack Obama during the first year of his presidency. The U.S. has experienced a nasty recession, but it could have been a great deal worse. It looks like the recession may be technically over, in the sense that the economy could show positive growth in the quarter that ended Sept. 30, 2009. The numbers are not in yet, but it looks likely that the recession is over, or about to be over. High unemployment will continue to be a fact for some time to come, and for those who are unemployed, it has to feel more like a depression than a mere recession that may be technically over.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney tells anybody who will listen at Fox News that the previous administration kept America safe for 7+ years after the "9/11" terrorist attacks in 2001. Given the rest of the legacy of that administration, there is little to brag about. The most significant achievements of the Bush "43" record are the tax cuts and the Iraq War. Both were presented to the American public on a foundation of lies, although I really do not want to rehash the arguments here. My point is that the main positive legacy that Bush "43" officials emphasize is the disaster that did not happen: a major terrorist attack in the U.S. after 2001. I have always thought that this was an overblown claim, and that their careless disregard for constitutional rights was not a necessary component for keeping America safe. Still, for the sake of the moment, let's concede the argument that Bush-Cheney kept us all safe from the terrorists after you-know-what. It is obvious that Bush administration officials, who want to portray their record in as positive terms as possible, are counting on the absence of later terrorist attacks in the U.S. as an important positive element of their legacy. Their biggest credit, in other words, is not for something that actually happened, but for something that did not happen.

In a similar line of thinking, I believe that a major achievement of the first year of the Obama presidency is a disaster that did not happen: an economic depression reminiscent of the 1930's. There has definitely been a serious recession, and unemployment will remain uncomfortably high for many months after the resumption of positive economic growth. The recession was brought on by the collective actions of governments, companies, and individuals over a long period of time. President Obama inherited a bad recession, and irresponsible stewardship from the federal government during both Republican and Democratic administrations contributed to the problem. A long period of very low interest rates discouraged saving and encouraged increased debt. In effect, presidents and congresses continued to put off the needed changes, because it was easier to put off the day of reckoning and let their successors get the blame than to assume the responsibility themselves. It does no good for Obama to blame his predecessor(s) for the conditions confronting him. He knew what he was getting into, and he wanted to be president anyway. The U.S. economy is badly in need of certain adjustments, and there is no way to make those adjustments painless.

The U.S. economy may be starting to recover, but it will not feel very satisfying for quite some time. This would be the case, no matter who was president. Where I believe that Obama deserves some major credit is that the recession did not turn into a 1930's-style depression. It could have happened. The stimulus bill, which I thought was basically a good idea but not well executed, is criticized for being ineffective. It may have been ineffective in bringing down unemployment, but its main effect - and I don't know if Obama will ever get credit for this - is that it prevented a far worse economic downturn than what actually happened.

Economics columnist Robert Samuelson, who is hardly an apologist for Barack Obama, has an interesting column on the subject. Most of us, including yours truly, are not old enough to remember the 1930's, so we may sometimes be naive in characterizing a modern recession as being similar to the depression. This is not at all the case. Here is a link to Samuelson's column in today's (10/5/09) Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nid=top_opinions

AMERICA 10 MONTHS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA

Appolo — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:37:28 EDT

First i want to thank President OBAMA for an outstanding job for the last 10 months in office and when you read this Mr President,i want you to know that all my thoughts and prayers are with you.God Bless you and your family,and God Bless America.

Mr President,these thoughts i am about to outline are both to you and to the American people for as a keen observer of all the ongoing events,i think a good percentage of Americans are either lost in translation,or they are just stupid and stuborn.Mr President i want you to know that you are doing a phenomenal job for some of us who got a brillant mind like you and are great free thinkers.To those of you who don't understand,i am going to help you Mr President,to break it down for them so they can let you go further with your agenda,and achieve these brillant visions that we have for America.

To all readers of my thoughts from the Balcony,you should know by now that RESISTANCE WITHOUT A PURPOSE TO ME IS CONSIDERED FOOLISH AND STUPID.Why?

What is your problem with a PUBLIC OPTION in the Healthcare reform plan?

What is your problem with President OBAMA'S Birth certificate?

What is you problem with LIFE?

Are you DELIBERATELY stopping the President elect from doing his job?

Now let me break it down for those of you who got all these so called issues with President OBAMA.You guys are just IGNORANT,and have idle minds which is the devil's workshop.You don't think,You don't VISUALIZE,and You REFUSE to learn.My fellow WORLD CITIZENS,this is a RECEIPY FOR DISASTER.When i see and read the way some of you critisize him,deform his character and image with no better proposals in return,i feel like we are driving ourselves pretty close to what we call ARMAGEGON TODAY.People let me remind you this:

"Ignorance leads to ego,ego to selfishness,selfishness to resentment,resentment to anger,anger to hatred,hatred to annihilation."Heart of a Buddha.

But this fellow concerned citizens is not going to happen because of ignorance,because we have a President in the person of BARACK OBAMA,who has a perfect VISION for this country and the world as a whole.You have a President with the brightess mind ever,You have a good man who is sacrificing alot for his people,You have a Presidentwho is willing to give you everything you want and as he promissed during his campaign,He is willing to work for America and the World to get better,SO CAN YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND HIM ,AND GIVE HIMA CHANCE TO WORK FOR YOU THE PEOPLE.Open your eyes,ears,hearts so your minds can be free and you would understand him better.

"Hear what is said,retain what is important,speak what is worthy.Attach to nothing."Heart of a Budda.

President OBAMA came to power at a very crucial point and time in world history.He inherited not only a very HUGE DEFICIT,but also a POWERFUL ECONOMIC RECESSION,TWO UN-NECESSARY WARS,and as if it's not enough,CRITICISM from a group of people with unthinkable not to say stupid and crazy reasoning faculties.

"Peace is not the absence of WAR,it is a VIRTUE,a STATE OF MIND,a DISPOSITION FOR LOVE,HONESTY and TRUSTWORTHINESS."Heart of a Buddha.

President OBAMA is here to let his people free.When i say his people,i know very well what i mean.All around the World,peopl are looking up to him for a better situation for everybody i.e Parents,children, and even future generatiopns to come.But the amazing thing is that all Resistance against him is comming from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,which is considered the greatest Power and Democracy in the WORLD.Now i have another question which is WHAT DOES THAT POTRAY ABOUT AMERICA?Peolpe again let me remind you of this:

"In our interactions with others,gentleness,kindness,respect are the source of harmony."Heart of a Buddha

"I THANK GOD HE IS A GOOD MAN,AND HE IS HERE DURING THESE VERY DIFFICULT TIMES TO SET US FREE."

President OBAMA is not a politician for some of you who don't know.First of all he is a parent,then he is a man on the rise with an outstanding vision for AMERICA and the WORLD.He is a free thinker with a brillant mind,he dares to do what most of our leaders before him could not do,he is a GOOD TEACHER if you let him into you hearts,he is a good family man and to add it all up A MAN OF GOD.With his great commonsense,vision and wisdom, he understands the FUNDAMENTAL BASICS OF LIFE.Give him his chance to work and stop what i call "BLIND RESISTANCE"because it's not going to take us anywhere.

WE THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS,GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT FOUNDERS AND ORGANIZERS around the WORLD, are going to continue to give you Mr President,all the support that you need because we understand what time it is.This is a very crucial and important moment in WORLD HISTORY.

Politics is the oldest game in the book,so politicians should stop putting their interests before those of the peolple who pay their salary and put them into office because we the concerned citizens already know the games they are playing.These "POLITICIANS"are mad,angry at President OBAMA because HE DOES NOT WANT TO PLAY THESE GAMES WITH THEM.Another food for thought for you America:IF WE SPEND 1 YEAR ON HEALTHCARE REFORM,HOW LONG SHALL WE SPEND ON OTHER PRESSING ISSUES?Ther is still a lot of work to do for the BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND,so politicians stop "PLAYING THIS OLD GAME"because we the people are sick and tired of it.IT'S TIME TO FACE REALITY.

"As human beings we chase after fleeting pleasures like a child licking honey off a sharp knife or a person carrying a torch against the wind."Heart of a Buddha

PRESIDENT OBAMA,CONTINUE THE GOOD WORK.WE WILL KEEP PRAYING FOR YOU'WE WILL KEEP SUPPORTING YOU,WE ARE THE PEOPLE WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.TOGETHER WE STAND,TOGETHER WE WE SHALL WIN,TOGETHER WE SHALL PREVAIL,FOR THE RULE OF LAW WHICH IS ALSO THE "LAW OF NATURE IS ON OUR SIDE."

"Natural laws are impartial.Only those who are virtuos are in harmony with nature."Heart of a Buddha.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS THE WORLD

The Justice Act

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:26:48 EDT

Today, a group of progressive Senate Democrats led by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI, Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution) introduced the Justice Act, to fix the horid Patriot Act, protect your liberty, protect your privacy, and restore Constitutional principles.

A complete copy of their announcement follows. I will keep you posted as developments proceed; you will need to support this legislation with your own Senators and later, Representative.

- Mark Dorlester

-----

Press Release:

SENATORS INTRODUCE PATRIOT ACT FIXES TO SAFEGUARD AMERICANS’ RIGHTS

JUSTICE Act, Introduced on Constitution Day 2009, Would Fix Long Standing Problems with the PATRIOT Act and Other Surveillance Laws

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) have introduced legislation to fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens. The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect Americans’ constitutional rights, while preserving the powers of our government to fight terrorism.

The JUSTICE Act reforms include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the “sneak and peek” search provision of the PATRIOT Act, “John Doe” roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities. The bill will also reform the FISA Amendments Act, passed last year, by repealing the retroactive immunity provision, preventing “bulk collection” of the contents of Americans’ international communications, and prohibiting “reverse targeting” of innocent Americans. And the bill enables better oversight of the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) after the Department of Justice Inspector General issued reports detailing the misuse and abuse of the NSLs. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 23rd, on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

“Every single member of Congress wants to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to keep Americans safe,” said Feingold. “But with the PATRIOT Act up for reauthorization, we should take this opportunity to fix the flaws in our surveillance laws once and for all. The JUSTICE Act permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. When he was in the Senate, President Obama was a strong ally on these issues, and I look forward to working with his administration to find common ground on commonsense reforms.”

“The Government must use every legal tool available to protect us from the threat of global terrorism. But when those tools override Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties, we run the very real risk of never getting them back,” Durbin said. “As we move toward reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, we’re proposing commonsense changes to better protect our most basic constitutional rights. Our bill strikes a careful balance between the law enforcement powers needed to combat terrorism and the legal protections required to safeguard American liberties.”

"Like a lot of Montanans, I have serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act and how it was implemented,” Tester said. “What this bill will do is add commonsense so we can fight terrorism without ignoring the Constitution and without invading the privacy and civil rights of law-abiding Americans."

“In recent years, I believe our government has failed to protect the constitutional right to privacy for American citizens,” Tom Udall said. “The JUSTICE Act strikes the right balance between respecting the needs of our law enforcement to pursue suspected terrorists and upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to live free from unnecessary government intrusion in their lives. I firmly believe we can keep our nation secure without infringing on the inherent rights of the American people. ”

“We must provide law enforcement with the tools they need to protect our country, and do so in a way that also safeguards Americans’ rights. This legislation addresses both of these important objectives by ensuring our security and upholding our cherished constitutional protections,” Bingaman said.

“Every American understands that we have got to do every single thing we can to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. There is no debate about that. Some of us believe, however, that we can be successful in doing that while we uphold the rule of law, while we uphold the Constitution of this country, which has made us the envy of the world,” Sanders said.

Senator Akaka said: “The JUSTICE Act will allow intelligence agents to monitor terrorism suspects while putting checks in place to ensure that law-abiding Americans’ privacy and civil liberties are protected.”

“The JUSTICE Act rights some of the basic wrongs of the PATRIOT Act, which became a poster child for the Bush Administration’s lack of respect for Americans’ privacy rights,” said Wyden. “This bill is designed to keep every law-abiding American free from arbitrary government surveillance. At the same time, it gives law enforcement the agility needed to go after actual terrorists and spies who would do our country harm.”

Fact Sheet JUSTICE Act Of 2009

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence.

Title I – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Records

Sections 101-106 – National Security Letters

The bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag orders.

Section 107 – Section 215 Orders

The bill would reauthorize the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.

Title II – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Homes

Section 201 – “Sneak & Peek” Searches

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s authorization of “sneak and peek” criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a statutory exclusionary rule.

Title III – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Communications

Section 301 – FISA Roving Wiretaps

The bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of “John Doe” roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving wiretap before beginning surveillance.

Section 302 – Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s expansion of the FISA and criminal pen/trap authorities to cover electronic communications, but would allow pen/traps to be used only to obtain information about people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage. It would impose additional procedural safeguards to serve as a check on these authorities.

Section 303 – Telecommunications Immunity

The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act.

Section 304 – Bulk Collection

The bill retains the new warrantless authorities in the FISA Amendments Act but would prevent the government from using that law to conduct “bulk collection” of the contents of communications, including all communications between the United States and the rest of the world.

Section 305 – Reverse Targeting

The bill would ensure that the overseas warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act are not used as a pretext to target Americans in the U.S.

Section 306 – Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information

The bill would limit the government’s use of information about Americans obtained under FISA Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful, while giving the court flexibility to allow such information to be used in appropriate cases.

Section 307 – Protections for International Communications of Americans

The bill would amend the FISA Amendments Act to create safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that the government knows have one end in the United States.

Section 308 – Computer Trespass

The bill would guard against abuse of a warrantless surveillance authority in the Patriot Act that allows computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking to give the government permission to monitor trespassers on their systems.

Title IV – Improvements to Further Congressional and Judicial Oversight

Section 401 – FISA Public Reporting

The bill would require limited additional public reporting on the use of FISA.

Section 402 – Use of FISA Evidence

The bill would apply the Classified Information Procedures Act to the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases, and allow the use of protective orders and other security measures in civil cases, to ensure that courts have discretion to allow litigants access to information where appropriate while still protecting sensitive information.

Section 403 – Nationwide Court Orders

The bill would permit a recipient of a nationwide court order to challenge it either in the district where it was issued or in the district where the recipient is located.

Title V – Improvements to Further Effective, Focused Investigations

Section 501 – Domestic Terrorism

The Patriot Act’s overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal crime of terrorism.

Section 502 – Material Support

The bill would amend the overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used for terrorist activity.

Joe Wilson is guilty of bad taste, and bad timing

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:17:47 EDT

Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst ("You lie!") during President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress this week was extremely inappropriate by any standard, and in my opinion, such conduct should be reprimanded in some manner. Even if the president was George W. Bush, and the congressman was somebody who I normally liked, there is no excuse for that kind of extreme rudeness on the part of our high government officials. The president is both head of government and head of state (kind of like the combination of temporary monarch plus prime minister). To some extent, I believe in the idea of respecting the office, even if not the office holder. I am not trying to legislate my idea of good taste. People who know me personally know that legislating "good taste" is just about the last thing in the world I would want to do. Hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have the legal right to carry on with their rants about Obama supposedly being a racist, or drawing idiotic comparisons to Hitler. Limbaugh and Beck have counterparts on the left who engage in similar over-the-top verbal attacks against so-called conservative leaders. In spite of the LEGAL rights of these people, which I have no intention of curtailing, I do think that it is reasonable to expect some degree of decorum by our elected officials. Joe Wilson clearly violated that principle. He can think whatever he wants, and if he privately trashes the president while talking with friends/family/congressional staff, I do not think that is a big deal. Within the halls of Congress, I expect better behavior by our esteemed representatives. Actually, I kind of wondered if Mr. Wilson was tempted to throw his shoes at the president. Maybe he was too far away to get a good shot, or maybe he did not want to lose a perfectly good pair of shoes. Mr. Wilson did apologize privately to Mr. Obama, and the president graciously accepted the apology. Then again, it also appears that Mr. Wilson's apology was very half-hearted, and he has indicated that he meant what he said. I think he also owes an apology to Congress, because his outburst is (or should be) an embarrassment to Congress as a whole.

The irony in all this is that Mr. Wilson's chosen moment to accuse the president of lying was in a context where the president was certainly not lying. This was over the question of whether or not the federal government would be forced to include illegal immigrants in its "universal" coverage. Some of the scare mongers make this claim, but it is not true, according to any of the pending bills in Congress, and President Obama made this clear. "You lie" was the shouted out response by Joe Wilson. Besides being in such poor taste, Mr. Wilson is also objectively wrong. I could even say that Wilson is the one who is lying.

One claim made by President Obama that I do find hard to believe is that passage of his proposals will not add to the government's deficit. While I would certainly not suggest that he is lying, I think it is fair to suggest that he is quite possibly being overly optimistic. The truth is that we cannot know with certainty what the effect on future government finances will be as a result of Obama's proposed health care reforms becoming law. I hope that he is right, that we can achieve all these desirable health care goals in a budget-neutral way. I believe that this is not very likely, and I know that nobody in the White House can say with perfect knowledge that this will not add to future deficits.

To take an example from recent history, recall that President George W. Bush assured us all back in 2001 that the budget surplus that he inherited was so structurally solid that his major tax cut legislation would, at most, merely reduce future suplusses by half. Mr. Bush and his top economic advisors were absolutely certain of this, and to emphasize the point further, he said that all this even provided for an economic downturn plus some other as-yet-unknown crisis (today is September 11; I am trying to think of what kind of unknown crisis they might have contemplated in the early summer of 2001). We all know how that turned out, don't we? The point is not that Mr. Bush was lying in his belief that the government would continue to be in fiscal surplus for years to come, but rather that he had no legitimate basis for his tone of apparent certainty. Maybe Obama has better economists than his predecessor did, and maybe their analysis is carried out with greater objectivity. Maybe, but not to the point where I am likely to believe any statements of apparent certainty about the long term future of government finances.

Despite the unfounded hysteria (regarding alleged death panels, illegal immigrants, required abortion services, etc.) about the health care reform proposals, there are legitimate concerns regarding how the program will be paid for. I want to see President Obama meet the issue more forthrightly than I believe he has up to now. For many reasons, I am rooting for health care reform to succeed, but I do not personally believe the program is likely to be neutral on the budget. Hey, I like President Obama. I strongly supported him in his campaign, and I generally give him favorable marks on his performance during his first several months as president. If a supporter such as yours truly does not believe his proposals will not add to the deficit, what must the opponents be thinking? On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, very few of those in Congress who now emphasize the fiscal concerns with health care reform in 2009 expressed any skepticism in 2001 when they were told by Mr. Bush that his tax cuts would not lead to budget deficits. Call them partisan hypocrites if you want to, but the issue is still a matter of legitimate concern.

The last good chance for health care reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:18:48 EDT

I do not know what President Obama is going to say in his address to the joint session of
Congress tomorrow, but I am convinced that the success of his entire presidency is likely to depend on his ability to achieve some kind of health care reform by the end of this year. It is not critical that he get something passed that is as far reaching as he has sometimes suggested that he wants, but he badly needs something that can credibly be called health care reform... at least a good start in that direction. I am beginning to wonder if President Obama, who ran such a brilliant campaign for the presidency just last year and who possesses such extraordinary public speaking skills, has already become so isolated in the White House that he is losing his political touch just a matter of months into his presidency. I really hope that I am wrong in my suspicions. I cannot think of another public figure in America that I admire as much as Barack Obama, but he has not handled the health care reform issue very well. He avoided the Clintons' 1993-94 mistake of trying to dictate a detailed plan to Congress, but he went too far in the other direction by having Congress work out all the details. Now, it appears that we have multiple plans with irreconcilable conflicts, and the very real possibility exists that there will be no health care reform at all. I do not mean to dwell on mistakes already made, beyond noting that Obama should learn from the experience, and hopefully do a better job with his next major initiative requiring congressional approval.

What I want the Obama White House to do is to face certain facts. First, Obama has effectively staked the prestige of his presidency on accomplishing health care reform during his first year as president. Second, any mistakes (or political miscalculations) already done cannot be undone. The political situation is less favorable than it was a couple of months ago, but there is no turning the calendar back. Third, major reforms are often done in stages. Think of the landmark civil rights bills of the 1960's. There were several bills, passed over a period of a few years, enacted to give all Americans certain rights that for many had previously existed in theory but not in practical effect. Fourth, passage of some health care reform bill now, even if more limited than many of its boosters would like, would make possible additional reforms later. Fifth, in contrast to the immediately preceding point, failure to pass any health care reform this year will almost certainly make any reform impossible for many years to come.

I do not believe that any of these points can be seriously disputed. In case any explanation of the last two statements is necessary, look back to the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency. A huge health care reform bill was crafted in the White House, and was presented to Congress with the message, in effect, "Take it or leave it." We know how that turned out. The proposal was rejected, and the 1994 mid-term elections swept the Republicans into control of both the House and Senate, and no health care reform of any kind was even possible for the next fifteen years. If no health care reform passes this year, I think it is very likely that we will see similar political developments. Whether Obama serves four or eight years as president, he would be badly weakened by the failure to pass health care reform during his first year. On the other hand, passage of a health care reform bill, even a bill that omits some of the provisions that many advocates would like to see, will strengthen Obama's political standing, and will keep open at least the possibility that further reforms could be passed later.

The people who argue, as Howard Dean keeps telling us, that "health care reform without a public option is no reform at all" have it all wrong. In my opinion, the members of Congress who hold that attitude are the real enemies of health care reform. This is presumably not their intention, but it is their effect. We have already seen what happens with insisting on "all or nothing." They get nothing. Actually, it is worse than nothing, because the cause of reform is set back for many years, due to adverse political developments that follow this kind of political defeat. President Obama has some very smart political advisors (Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, etc.) who should understand these things, and I hope they are counseling the president appropriately.

What kind of health care reform should still be achievable this year? Drop the public option. Whether it is a good idea or not, it will not pass this year, and its continued presence in the debate makes any kind of reform nearly impossible. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. We are trying to encourage competition, but the current prohibition is a major impediment to competition. Allow all Americans to join large risk pools. This should have the effect of removing most, if not all, individual underwriting issues. Prohibit all companies selling health insurance from discriminating against any members or prospective members due to their personal health issues. Health insurance in America can remain mostly under private enterprise, but only on the condition that nobody's coverage can be denied or revoked due to personal circumstances.

Health insurance reform that has these characteristics, even though it does not contain the public option, would be a substantial achievement, blowhards like Howard Dean notwithstanding. There are other aspects of health care reform I would like to see, but they are less critical for immediate purposes. I would add them if doing so would help pass the bill. If not, I hope they can be put into place in the near future. In the long run, health care reform will only succeed if it has the effect of reducing overall health care costs. Enact some meaningful tort reform. Among other things, this should help attract Republican support to the cause. That would be good politically, but I also favor the measure on its own merits. Excessive malpractice insurance and defensive medicine add significantly to health care costs, without any incremental benefit to patient care. Make it easier to get rid of bad doctors. There are three major hospitals within five miles of where I live. I know of one sadistic and/or incompetent doctor who was booted out of one of the three hospitals. He transferred to a second hospital, then was booted out of that one, too. Now, he is practicing on unsuspecting patients at the third hospital in our area. I really do not know if this kind of situation is subject to a legislative cure, but something has to be done to prevent bad doctors from simply moving to a neighboring hospital with a clean slate. End the tax difference between health insurance from an employer versus individually purchased insurance. A tax credit to individuals should replace the current system where most employer provided health insurance is tax deductible for the employer but not taxable as a benefit to the employee. For people whose incomes are too high for Medicaid, but too low to afford private health insurance, provide tax credits or subsidies. It is bound to be difficult trying to determine the details that make the best sense, but as a general principle, some Americans will need some kind of subsidy.

Anyway, all this has been my effort to make the case that health care reform can still succeed, but at least for the short term, the public option has to be dropped. I hope that President Obama will make a good case to Congress tomorrow, keeping in mind the political realities he faces. In the Sept. 8 Washington Post, Matt Miller has a good essay on the subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702070.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Now is the Time for All Good People to Do the Right Thing and Come to the Aid of the President

Henry M — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:32:18 EDT

Open letter to President Barack Obama: I live near Washington, DC. I understand politics, and I know that the president doesn't legislate, but Mr. President, I believe that you can lead the country from the bully pulpit, and in Congress and it's back rooms, and get them to do the right thing. I just got a new job with benefits that include health insurance, but I haven't had health insurance for years. I can't look my uninsured friends in the eye and tell them to get their own; they can't without a public option. They need your help, and even many of the people against you (and against change in general) need a public option for their health, security, and peace of mind. I know you'll do the right thing.Thank you, Mr. President. Henry MusikarSr. IT Consultanthttp://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20/

Socialism Rears Its Ugly Head in Arlington

Henry M — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:20:34 EDT

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama
Back to School Event

Arlington, Virginia
September 8, 2009

The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today. I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning. Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year. Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn. I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox. I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve. But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide. Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future. You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy. We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country. Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in. So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse. But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right. But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying. Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future. That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America. Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall. And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same. That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it. I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things. But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying. No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in. Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals. And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best. It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country? Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

Health Care Pass it on!

Carole — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:40:53 EDT

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the next 24 hours.

Do not prosecute Bush-era interrogators, unless...

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:28:21 EDT

It is not easy to take the side of the Bad Guys, but on the subject of possible prosecutions for alleged Bush-era torture of captives by CIA operatives, I might be playing for what I would normally consider the wrong team. Attorney General Eric Holder has apparently seen some new information that leads him to believe that prosecutions in some cases might be warranted. Of course, I do not know what his new information is, but I would strongly advise against prosecuting the interrogators themselves, unless there is strong evidence that they went far beyond even the guidelines of the Bush Administration Justice Department. The Bush Administration, as we know, did everything they could to restrict the definition of "torture" as only applying to the most extreme forms of torture, and then basically said that anything short of that was acceptable as "enhanced interrogation techniques." If CIA or military personnel clearly engaged in what even the Bush Justice Department agreed was torture, then I can see a case for prosecution. More likely, the interrogators followed the guidelines they were given, but the guidelines themselves were later (and correctly) revised to prohibit certain actions that had been deemed acceptable under President Bush. Where that is the case, it would be wrong to prosecute the interrogators. Legally, they should only be judged based on the standards in place at the time of their actions.

This was a topic of hot debate a few months ago, and I thought the issue had faded away. Now, it is back, which cannot be welcome news for President Obama. I wrote a blog post back on April 29 on this subject, and so far, I stand by my earlier essay. In case anybody is interested, here is the link:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/georgemartin/gGxpby

Obama NEEDS a victory on healthcare reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:07:15 EDT

One of Barack Obama's heroes in history, Abraham Lincoln, made clear during the Civil War that preserving the Union was his top priority. As for freeing the slaves, Lincoln said that whichever alternative best served preserving the Union (in effect, winning the war) would guide his decision, even though he personally would prefer to abolish slavery. If his main goal of winning the war would be best served by freeing all the slaves, he would do it. On the other hand, if his main goal was best served by freeing none of the slaves, or freeing some and not others, he would act accordingly. In modern terminology, Abraham Lincoln was a practical politician who recognized that achieving his top priorities might sometimes have to come at the expense (whether temporary or otherwise) of his secondary considerations. I raise this issue not to debate the merits of Abraham Lincoln and his priorities, but because his dilemma from the 1860's has been faced by most of his successors, albeit usually in less dramatic circumstances.

Fast forward to 2009, and President Obama needs to focus on his top priority, and what is needed to achieve it. It is apparent that, aside from averting the potential for the recession to become a depression reminiscent of the 1930's, healthcare reform is Obama's top domestic priority. If the general economy was in better health, Obama would probably have a much easier task in accomplishing significant healthcare reform. Unfortunately, we have this recession, and even if it is technically over now (with positive economic growth for the current quarter, and it is not yet clear if this is the case), unemployment will remain high for awhile, and it will be at least several more months before the American people in general will feel good about the general economy. In these circumstances, it is a major uphill battle for any major reforms.

While any reasonable person would have to admit that the success or failure of healthcare reform in 2009 does not have quite the same ramifications as the outcome of the Civil War, President Obama has staked his reputation on accomplishing some meaningful healthcare reform. In my own opinion, it would be better politically for Obama if he is able to achieve healthcare reform with legislation that has bipartisan support. Subsequent efforts to accomplish other goals, such as a good immigration reform bill, will be easier to attain if at least some Republicans participate in the process. On the other hand, if the Republicans are determined to oppose anything and everything supported by Obama, and the signals on this matter are mixed, courting Republican support becomes a waste of time. Democrats have comfortable majorities in both the House and Senate, and if the Democrats can unite behind one healthcare proposal or another, in theory it should not matter what the Republicans do.

The problem is that the Democrats are not even close to being united. The moderates and progressives seem to be insisting on mutually exclusive conditions (I intend no value judgments on the labels "moderate" and "progressive" and I assume equal moral standing to the motives of each group), and it seems highly questionable as to whether or not they can reach a consensus.

I suggest that the fate of Obama's presidency is very much at stake. He needs to achieve healthcare reform, and as a practical matter, he needs to achieve it before the end of this year. Obama is still the most popular political leader in the country, and is far more popular than any congressional Democrat. Obama has indicated a preference for a bipartisan bill, but it is not clear that this is possible. While attracting at least some Republican support is desirable, it is not absolutely necessary. It is essential that the moderate and progressive Democrats reach an agreement that both subgroups can agree on. Obama has got to meet with representatives of each faction and pressure them to reach an agreement. The essential points are as follows:

1. Obama is by far the most popular Democrat in the country.

2. Obama's political strength, or weakness, in 2010 will determine the outcome of many congressional elections next year.

3. The success or failure of healthcare reform in 2009 will be a big factor affecting Obama's (and congressional Democrats') political standing in 2010.

4. Democrats' control of both the House and Senate means that if healthcare reform fails to pass, it will be only due to the inability for Democrats to agree on a bill to pass. Blaming the Republicans for the failure will not come across as believable.

5. The main goals of healthcare reform are health insurance coverage for all Americans, which cannot be denied or revoked due to personal health issues or the change or loss of a job, plus containment of healthcare costs.

In case he reads these pages, my advice for President Obama is to become more directly engaged with congressional leaders than he appears to have done up to this time. He may have to sit down, for example, with Senator Conrad and Speaker Pelosi together and tell them: "I need some kind of healthcare reform bill to pass. My personal preference is closer to what the House is working on, but I need something that will pass both the House and Senate. This will necessarily require compromise from both the moderates and the progressives. If you fail to deliver this, you will wreck my presidency, and if that happens, you and all of your fellow Democrats in Congress stand a good chance of losing your power and influence after the 2010 elections. You could also have the effect of shifting control of Congress to people whose agendas are far different from all of ours. You have the power to prevent this from happening, but if you insist on sticking to provisions that will be impossible to get through, the best opportunity for healthcare reform in 15 years will be wasted. Our party will get clobbered in next year's elections, and it will be richly deserved. I am not trying to dictate the details, but you have got to get this done! I was elected president last year by a sizeable margin, and with long coattails. You and your fellow Democrats in Congress owe me this."

Again, this is a little bit like Lincoln and the slavery question. Lincoln's attitude about race was not very enlightened by modern standards, and his emancipation proclamation in 1863 came after he had already been president for over two years. Even then, it did not apply to the slaves in the border states that were not part of the confederacy. Still, his actions set in motion the ending of slavery by constitutional amendment just a few years later. Obama needs a political victory regarding his healthcare reform efforts, and he needs it badly. If what he gets in the short term is less than what he and his progressive supporters like, he should take his proverbial half a loaf now. Those who argue that "healthcare reform without a public option is not healthcare reform at all" are missing an important point. The public option is a means, not an end. If a more limited form of healthcare reform passes this year, it will be reasonably possible to get the more comprehensive aspects of reform next year. Conversely, if nothing passes this year, no meaningful reform will pass for many years to come, and as I suggested above, Obama will be politically weakened and the Republicans could well retake control of Congress after 2010.

As for the more limited healthcare reform that might become law, I think that Obama can credibly call it a major achievement if a bill passes that assures practically all Americans of access to decent health insurance, regardless of a person's employment, income, or personal health. If a bill that addresses these issues can be passed and signed into law, it will be a major step forward. Even if the bill that passes this year seems incomplete, if it achieves these objectives, or at least goes a long way toward achieving them, it becomes an important political victory for the president, and makes possible other valuable accomplishments in the future, on this and other issues.

How can you tell if someone really reads the news?

Henry M — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:53:25 EDT

How can you tell if someone really reads the news? Well, they support a public health care option.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. [without ever reading Marx or Lenn, hm]
- Ronald Reagan

Henry M

Throwing Out Granny with the Bathwater

Henry M — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:59:23 EDT

Thanks to Palin and her minions, millions of grannies will die in pain. They're throwing out granny's Medicare reimbursement for talking with a doctor about how they want to die in order to keep the people that they think are "bathwater" from being able to get insurance from the government.

What do you call people like that? Children may be reading this, so keep it clean, please.

Henry M

Public Option Opposition: I Hope They're Happy

Henry M — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:57:43 EDT

Looks like they're gonna have to end up taking the public option out of healthcare reform. Nice work by those who opposed it! Unless they're extremely rich, people one or two degrees of separation from them will suffer, as they have for years, but in greater numbers in this economy, and grannies will die without panels. "An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it." - Jef Mallett

Why the Lies Against Reform?

Henry M — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:28:23 EDT

If there is any truth to be told against healthcare reform, then why are crazy lies, e.g. death squads and committees, the only things we hear against it?

There are no lobbyists pushing reform; there's no money in it. On the other hand....

Henry M

Another case for moderate healthcare reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:44:51 EDT

Last week, I posted an essay, which in effect argued that the centrist healthcare reform plan by a coalition of moderate Democratic and Republican senators deserved support. My main points were that:

This bipartisan proposal stands a good chance of passage (if President Obama publicly supports it and the more leftist congressional Democrats can agree to settle for it). The other proposals’ prospects of passing look doubtful.
While it may not be ideal, especially to those who are determined to have a more radical overhaul, this would go most of the way toward meeting the goals of universal coverage and eliminating discrimination based on personal health issues.
Much more than the pending bills in the House, the Senate proposal would credibly address the valid concerns about unsustainable costs, and would therefore be more sustainable for the long term.
Do not confuse ends with means. Single payer and public option are possible means toward achieving certain admirable goals, but they are not the ends themselves.
Do not let the supposed perfect become the enemy of the good. Failure to support a good, if more limited than desirable, healthcare reform bill now could set back any meaningful reform for many years, as we already should know from the experience of 1993-94.
Healthcare reform is the intended crowning achievement for the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Failure to pass such a reform – which is a serious possibility – would seriously undermine Obama’s political standing.

I did not note it at the time, but I also do believe that there is genuine value to passing healthcare reform on a bipartisan basis. It is possible that nearly all congressional Republicans will refuse to support any reform at all, making bipartisanship impossible, but I believe it is worth the effort. If a good effort at bipartisanship fails, it will be the Republicans, not the Democrats, who will be generally perceived to be at fault.

Some of my fellow bloggers reacted as if I was auditioning for a show on Fox News, and of course, they are correct. My job is to make Glenn Beck look like a reasonable and thoughtful intellectual by comparison to my own idiotic rants. Nonetheless, I want to note that Paul Begala, whose liberal credentials are impeccable, is making a similar case for the compromise Senate proposal. He notes that the original Social Security Act of 1935 was very limited in scope, compared to what it became later on, but it was a critical beginning. Here is a link to his article in the August 13 Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081202575.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Hawking Healthcare

Henry M — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:11:49 EDT

If someone tells you that they got their "facts" from "reputable" source, you should still check them, particularly if you want to refute them:

Stephen Hawking receives Presidential Medal of Freedom

But:

In an editorial on July 31, Investor's Business Daily warned of end-of-life counseling in health care reform by saying people like Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance" in the such a system.
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
In fact, Professor Hawking lives in England, where he has been treated by their National Health Service. And by his own account, it saved his life. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
The Hawking reference in the IBD editorial has since been removed, with this correction added: "This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK."
They don't acknowledge that the NHS has kept Hawking alive there.

Henry M

So, I went to a Townhall...

Kim, part of the Greatest lobbying force Washington has ever seen — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:18:07 EDT

First, on an utterly different note-- Et tu Senator Grassley? Good grief, I thought Senator Grassley was somebody who would put Country ahead of party interests... after today, Senator Grassley's own words have proven that false at least on health care reform. I hope Senator Grassley simply misspoke (repeatedly) and will clear this up tomorrow.

Now, for the townhall event....

The GOP is playing with fire here. At our townhall, most of the folks actually supported either a public option, or single payer, but those folks clapped mainly and were not part of the shouting. There was a very vocal minority who tried to speak over everything and shout down the panel. Much of the chanting seemed pre-orchestrated, but if that was done by the GOP, I'd be surprised. There were also folks (in opposition to reform) who alternatively shouted and then approached other people and tried to "convince" them one on one. None of the angry folks around me liked Republicans any better than they liked Democrats-- indeed, it seemed that these folks all believed our 2 largest political parties exist to keep us from "knowing" what is really happening and how we are being turned into "beasts of burden" for "them."

Yet, least you think the loud, protesters were violent, please think again. Indeed, many approached me (even though I had a sign supporting health care reform in my hand) in a vain attempt to "proselytize" me to their cause. I use that word "proselytize" deliberately. All of them were decent folk with some (at least to me) incredible beliefs.

Here is a sampling of some of the beliefs I was asked to "join" last night:

1. Fluoride in our water is for mind control. I asked this person if she was concerned about our "precious bodily fluids", and I don't think she got it because she responded "Yes, you understand!"

2. The New World Order was on track to turn us all into slaves (all of us, regardless of race, creed, or national origin) and this began under President George H. W. Bush. This person sounded a great deal like Timothy McVeigh, which shocked me (I lived in Tulsa, OK for a time and my folks lived there when the horror occurred at the Federal Building in OK City) and before I could catch the words, I said--

"You agree with Timothy McVeigh?"

She replied by shouting "Are you threatening me?" Which was odd since I had not moved, but simply asked a question in a shocked tone. I said "No," and she pulled out a cell phone, stuck it in my face and took my picture "Now, we know who you are!" she finished. I assured her I was not threatening her (and incidentally, since when is it non-threatening to stick a camera in someone's face and take a picture without permission?) but was concerned since her words sounded a lot like Mr. McVeigh's. She told me she had DVD's which would prove to me that the government (no distinction between Republicans and Democrats) was trying to turn us all into beasts of burden and that "They" would come for me soon, too.

3. Most tried to convince me that Lyndon LaRouche had the answers-- he was followed closely by Ron Paul. None of the protestors who approached me, or to whom I spoke, were Republicans. Indeed, they seemed to despise Republicans as much as they despise Democrats.

4. A fellow with a sign of President Obama made up to look like that little jerk who caused World War II and the slaughter of countless numbers of innocents told me that he felt the same way about President Bush, maybe even worse. I got rather worked up about him-- and sang (off key, unfortunately) "My Country 'Tis of Thee" at him until he put the sign down (probably to stop my singing). To give you an idea of how loud it was, I don't think anybody else could hear me singing. When I got home, though, I wished I had not done that. Something about all of the nonsense everywhere got into me, and I wish I had not let that happen. But, comparisons to the little Austrian jerk who has his own special place in hell aggravate the heck out of me since it seems to diminish how truly terrible that little pipsqueak of an Austrian jerk was. And no, I won't use his name-- he does not deserve that dignity.

5. A man asked me if I would personally guarantee that there would be no "death panels," and I said yes. It did not make any difference. He was older, and I think truly scared. I do wish folks like Senator Grassley (WHO KNOWS BETTER!) would not perpetrate that sort of thing. People have quite enough fear already; nobody needs to be creating false things to fear simply to advance their political party.

6. All of the vocal protestors had cameras of some kind and they seemed to be attempting to take pictures only of signs that were opposed to health care reform. Some of the signs were very vitriolic; others were downright dangerous (if believed).

7. One vocal opponent to reform told us he was from Nevada and did not have health care insurance. But, that he would not take government subsidy or a public plan, because that would be a death sentence for him. Another American afraid thanks to demagogues who don't care a thing about him, or anything else but whatever "ends" they are attempting to achieve.

8. All of the protestors to whom I spoke believe that "They" are going to get us all and I was an idiot for not seeing it. When I asked who "They" were I got a mixed bag of answers-- I was told "the government," "the corporations", "Wall Street," and even "insurance companies." Some folks also told me that college is where you get brainwashed for "them."

9. All believed that bad things happen because "they" want bad things to happen-- and disagreed with me vehemently that sometimes bad outcomes occur because individuals can be stupid, venal, even criminal (sometimes on a gigantic scale) but next to no-one actually plans for the WHOLE house of cards to come tumbling down. (Because really, as stupid as Wall Street traders behaved leading up to the collapse, how logical is it to think that individual traders from all over the world went to some meeting(s) somewhere where the collapse of the world's economy was planned-- stupid? greed driven? only short-term thinking? yes, criminal? probably, but organized at some vast conspiracy level? I rather doubt it).

Again, the GOP is truly barking up the wrong tree if they think most of those protestors will follow their banner, but perhaps my townhall event was atypical. The folks to whom I spoke expressed ideas that are opposed to just about every American institution, including the Republican Party. Yet, each one of them professed to love the U.S. Constitution, just not the military, the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, local officials, state officials, prisons, laws, & etc. Their problem with the military is that we have a "standing army" when they believe we should only have militias. Nobody expressed a problem with individual soldiers. The protestors last night were a very agitated group; yet, I don't think any one of them would have harmed me despite the fact that I disagreed with them (endlessly). It was interesting that despite all of the shouting I could hear what the protestors were saying to me.

Other than the cell phone camera in my face, the only tense moments came when some careless person almost stuck me or my better half in the face with his/her sign and I don't believe that was intentional. There also was some shoving at times that was a bit tense, but it soon subsided. Somebody also unzipped my purse, but it was crowded and one should always beware of pickpockets in a crowded place-- and I noticed before the "hand" got my wallet.

If I met most of the opponents to reform on the street, or in my neighborhood, and we did not speak about politics, I just might like them. Some of them were quite charming one on one, even though we could not disagree more about just about everything to do with how the world works.

Amazingly, one was able to hear much of what the panel had to say-- and there were folks there who truly wanted more information.

Most of the folks could not tell me where in my district that they lived and some admitted to coming from Nevada. I think I saw one of the protestors on television today at an event in Maryland-- but surely that could not be true.

There were also some residents in white coats (I think from USC County Hospital) who were attempting to speak to the vocal minority about the real need for health care reform. I don't think that they achieved much-- even though they were very earnest in their attentions-- but nobody seemed to be threatening them.

Well, that is about it.

I live in California District 29 and my representative is Adam Schiff. He held an open air townhall yesterday evening in Alhambra, California. The crowd was big and a small but very vocal part of the crowd was not interested in anything that Rep. Schiff, or anyone else on the panel had to say.

Representative Schiff made clear his support of a public option-- and I was very pleased that I was able to hear that part of the townhall.

Got the Job

Henry M — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:33:32 EDT

I interviewed for the job last Friday. I start on Monday. I get benefits, including health insurance. I haven't had health insurance in years. Just because I'll have it doesn't mean that I'll stop fighting for universal coverage via a public option. I promise that I will never be someone who smugly sits back and says "I've got mine. Go get yours."

Henry M

Living in the USA

Henry M — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:05:23 EDT

From a practical viewpoint, the Dems are doing things in a way that will, or should I say "may very well," have an actual positive effect on healthcare in the USA. Can the purists on the left say as much?

The USA is hardly ready for single-payer or socialized health care. Hell, there's a lot of squawking about even having a public option. Add ILLEGAL immigrants to the debate, and it goes down in flames. The Republicans would love that and they would laugh at how, even with the most left-leaning POTUS (perhaps after Roosevelt) we've ever had, the left still manages to stay disorganized and shoot itself in the head.

I want change, and I want some change now. Insisting on an immediate complete overhaul of the government and society is just as much "pie in the sky" as the bosses, the corporations, and the right-wing feed the masses.

"Here and now, boys! Here and now!"Henry M

WhiteHouse.gov Reality Check on Health Insurance Reform

Henry M — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:31:15 EDT

Please send this to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. Get the word out!

Get the Facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it
Kavita Patel, who works with Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and who worked for years before as a physician, debunks the myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
The "euthanasia" distortion on help for families
Melody Barnes, the President's Director of the Domestic Policy Council, debunks the malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors.
Vets' health care is safe and sound
Matt Flavin, Director of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy, explains that nothing in health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget greatly expands coverage for veterans who have been denied access in the past.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it
Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, debunks the myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

Henry M

A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform

Henry M — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:16:16 EDT

Many people don't know any more about the healthcare reform than what they've been told by one or two pundits. Here's an article from the New York Times that you can give to people to help them get a more balanced view of the issues.

A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: August 9, 2009
WASHINGTON — With the debate over the future of health care now shifted from Capitol Hill to town halls, supporters and critics of the Democrats’ legislative proposals are polishing their sound bites and sharpening their attack lines.
Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.
President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have made the health care overhaul their top priority, putting their political futures on the line. Democrats had hoped to spend the month whipping up support for the legislation, but instead find themselves on the defensive, responding to what Mr. Obama describes as “outlandish rumors” spread by critics.
Many Republicans view fighting the president as a smart political strategy, turning a potentially wonkish debate over Medicare reimbursement rates and subsidies for the uninsured into an ideological battle over the government’s role in health care.
Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.
KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?
Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.
The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.
The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.
”The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies. Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE Or Uniquely American?
Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements. For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations. Whether a public plan would crowd out private insurers depends on details yet to be decided, including its premiums and its payment rates for health care providers.
The public plan is not even a certainty. To win bipartisan support for the overhaul, some Democrats have proposed private nonprofit health care cooperatives, instead of a public plan, to compete with private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, under the House bill, the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance would climb to 162 million in 2016, which is 3 million more than expected under current law. Further, it said, enrollment in the proposed public plan might total 11 million, far lower than estimates cited by Republicans. An additional 10 million people, most of them now uninsured, would enroll in Medicaid, the budget office said.
At any rate, the federal government already holds sway over the health care system through Medicare, Medicaid and various insurance programs for children, veterans, military personnel and other federal employees. The federal government will account for 35 percent of the expected $2.5 trillion in health spending this year, and that does not include subsidies built into the tax code.
BLAMING INSURERS Or Ensuring Blame?
Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.
Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.Most Americans do not know the full cost of their employer-sponsored insurance. And it is easier for Democrats to paint insurers as greedy than to explain the complex math that shows current health care spending is unsustainable.
DEFICIT-NEUTRAL Or Budget-Buster?
Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up. Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules.
At this point, it is difficult to know who is right. Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law. House Democrats say the higher doctor payments should not count in the cost because they fix a problem that predates the Obama administration and Democratic control of Congress.
EUTHANASIA And Abortion
Conservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die.These concerns appear to be unfounded. AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.” The House bill would provide Medicare coverage for optional consultations with doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care. The legislation instructs Medicare officials to propose ways to measure the quality of end-of-life care. Doctors would have financial incentives to report data on such care to the government.
On abortion, the situation is more complex. Opponents of abortion, like the National Right to Life Committee, say the legislation would use tax dollars to subsidize insurance that could cover abortion.Under a bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, health plans, including the new government insurance plan, could choose to cover abortion. But they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries.
Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, “Under either the Senate bill or the House bill, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.
”Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion, but “would not expand the prohibitions, as many Republicans want to do.”
CUTTING MEDICAREOr Preserving It?
To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.
The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Democrats would make “massive cuts to Medicare to pay for more government-run health care.” Mr. Obama told AARP last month, “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.” All the savings, he said, would come from measures to “eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare.” As an example, he cited duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient. But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.

Henry M

The angry mob mentality at town hall meetings

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:22:16 EDT

I have been reading Renegade, Richard Wolffe’s excellent book about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and got reminded about something that I had practically forgotten about. After all, it happened a whole year ago. There were widely circulated rumors that Obama was (and supposedly still is) a Muslim, that he took his Senate oath on a Koran rather than a Bible, that as a child he attended a radical Muslim school in Indonesia, and assorted other complete lies. All this was spread by right wing kooks, who may or may not have believed what they were saying. However, some of Obama’s more decent minded political opponents, including John McCain and Hillary Clinton, assisted in the process by their equivocal “defense” of Obama against the false claims [“There is no truth to those rumors… as far as I know.”]. It was not until very late in the campaign that Colin Powell said what should have been said earlier, that while Obama is not a Muslim, it should not have been a big deal even if he was. Then again, given the general circumstances, a presidential candidate who is Muslim is effectively unelectable. If the facts did not support the candidate’s identification as a Muslim, the next best thing was to spread lies to make that Muslim identity widely believed. Fortunately, in spite of great efforts to create such impressions, it was not enough to prevent Obama’s election.

While I know that all presidents, and most presidential candidates, are targets of false and irresponsible charges, the irrational fears about the Obama presidency make me wonder how much racism in the U.S. has really diminished, and whether it has just taken a more subtle form. The attacks on Obama are different in scale from the attacks on his recent predecessors. I have heard the claim, for example, that George W. Bush knew about the “9/11” terrorist attacks in advance and did nothing to stop them so that he would have an excuse for a big power grab, and an excuse for invading Iraq in order to settle a personal score with Saddam Hussein. While I do believe that Bush talked himself into believing justifications (unsupported by objective evidence) for a war that he wanted based on different motives, the notion that he knowingly stood by while thousands of innocent people got killed by terrorists is ridiculous. The difference between the false allegations about Bush and Obama is that only a small lunatic fringe believes the claims about Bush, and no elected officials or mainstream media personalities ever promoted such a notion. In Obama’s case, the false rumors are given currency by elected officials, and especially by cable news pundits and radio talk show hosts.

Now that the right wing has failed to prevent Obama from becoming president, they have worked to undermine his legitimacy as president, with the “birther” campaign suggesting that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is therefore supposedly not a natural born citizen, and not eligible to serve as president. Again, this has been aided by some members of Congress. If that is not enough, we now have town meetings disrupted by people who were brought in for the purpose of preventing any exchange of ideas and information regarding proposed healthcare reforms. There are legitimate concerns about some of the proposed legislation. The town hall meetings should be a forum for those questions and concerns to be raised, but shouting down speakers with false assertions about “death panels” and other nonsense just serves to prevent the opportunity for the town hall meeting attendees to learn anything about the policy issue.

I expect hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and some of the crowd at Fox News, as the spiritual heirs to communist witch-hunting Senator Joe McCarthy, to engage in this kind of dumbing down of American political discourse. It is very disappointing when Republican office holders encourage this behavior, or at best stand by passively, implying approval. My own congressman, Mark Kirk, is generally regarded as a moderate Republican, and he has recently declared his candidacy for Obama’s old Senate seat (currently being kept warm by interim Senator Roland Burris). I want to challenge Mr. Kirk to denounce all politicians and pundits who encourage the mob mentality at these town hall meetings. There are several competing healthcare reform bills pending in Congress. Whether Kirk favors or opposes a particular proposed bill, he could really distinguish himself by publicly condemning the conduct that has been actively encouraged by Sarah Palin and others. I would further encourage anybody out there who is represented by a Republican in either the House or Senate to do the same thing. Contact your Member of Congress, and let him/her know that you expect a civil discussion of important issues at town hall meetings. Whatever their own positions are regarding healthcare reform, congressmen and senators should stand for the principle that freedom of speech means allowing the discussion of ideas. Conservatives and liberals alike should be able to agree on this. You have a concern that a proposed piece of legislation would have serious negative effects? Fine, raise the issues, ask your questions, but shouting down speakers at these meetings is no more “free speech” than is screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theater. So far, to the best of my knowledge, the mob behavior has not yet descended into actual physical violence, but that seems likely to follow. There have been death threats. When there is actual violence at (or following) any of these town hall meetings, we can blame the politicians and other public figures who encouraged it with rants about “death panels,” but I would also blame the politicians who knew better but who also elected to stand by and let it happen.

On a lighter note, I was surprised to see a very pleasant puff piece in the August 9 Parade Magazine by, of all people, Bill O’Reilly. Whether O’Reilly actually wrote it or not does not matter. He either wrote it or authorized its ghost written content. The message is basically non-political, and suggests that the compelling personal life story of Barack Obama should be an inspiration to America’s children. At least on this occasion, O’Reilly showed that he can separate his opposition to Obama’s policies from his evaluation of Obama as a person. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.parade.com/news/2009/08/09-what-obama-can-teach-americas-kids.html

Capture the Flag: An Open Letter to the Right and the Left

Henry M — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:02:21 EDT

Politicians, pundits, and the public liken America’s continuous two party political competition to assorted sports, but board games are a better analogue of our current system of political warfare.

Put aside baseball, which with its constant pausing and pitting of each singular batter against a team in field, is as much an unusual, one-off game as it is a sport. Our other national sports are all concerned with one team driving deep into the other’s territory and scoring a goal. While players are carefully positioned all over the field for this purpose, there is no value placed on capturing, or even controlling, the center. The summer camp game of “capture the flag” involves capturing the other team’s flag from within the other team’s territory (not from some neutral, protected location in the center), and then returning with it to your own side.

Business and politics have been likened to war for decades now, but they have also been believed to be comparable to the sports above, perhaps owing more to their actual violence than to tactics and strategy. Study chess and checkers for success in the real world. Like many other games, they are concerned with survival. They are territorial by nature, and so eschew the bipolar nature of sports for capturing and protecting as much territory as is reasonable while diminishing the opponent and protecting one’s own king(s).

In the 2008 elections, the Democrats learned the value on including the middle. Like the centrist news outlets, the Democrats were vilified by both the right and the left, but they became a party appreciated by voters who didn’t want the country to experiment with extremity, and those voters, along with a slightly left-of-center “base” returned them to the White House and a bicameral majority that they have not enjoyed for many years.

PETA, Ralph Nader, American Anarchists, and Libertarian Socialist (yes, right-wingers, Obama isn’t all that far to the left: there are Anarchists and Libertarian Socialists, even in America) have all understood the need to capture the excluded middle, but their extreme agendas make that impossible. The Democrats woke up a few years ago, ran the numbers, and learned to control the center, diminishing their detractors on both the right and the far-left while moving the flag closer to the center, which is its rightful place in a democracy. The United States is ill served when either one of its two political parties drives its marginalized base further towards its own goal, i.e. the goal that it is defending. The Republicans would do well to put away sports and learn to play a little chess and checkers.

Quiet Change: Holding the Middle

Henry M — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:21:51 EDT

Obama must be doing something right to be criticized by the left and by the right while, in the mean time, slowly turning around the huge oil-tanker of the USA/World's economy. We know the right thinks he's doing too much. The left isn't any kinder:

Clinton: US Supported Iran Protesters ‘Behind the Scenes’ -- News from Antiwar.comSource: news.antiwar.comIn an interview today on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that while the US didn’t want to come out too publicly in favor of the protesters in the wake ...

I hope that people can appreciate that the current administration is doing more good than was ever done by previous ones. It's quieter, but it appears to be more effective. Any problem with that, or would it be better if they wore their hearts on their sleeves?

Iran is a sovereign nation. Coming out "too publicly" concerning their internal ... Read Morepolitics would be just the kind of intervention that the left has always criticized, except when it suits them to criticize the center for "not doing more."

If the left is so impatient with the current administration that they weaken it, they will empower Palin and her puppet-masters, in which case we may very well see a change that they won't like in 2012.

Compromise needed for healthcare reform

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:24:26 EDT

Yesterday I passed a guy on the road. He was wearing a tee shirt with this message: “13.1 = half of nothing.” I wondered, what does that mean? Oh, yeah, 13.1 miles is half a marathon, and the implication is that somebody who runs “only” half the distance of a marathon might as well have just stayed in bed. As one who has never run more than 3 miles at one time, I believe that anybody who can run 13 miles can claim a major personal achievement. Besides that, I also assume (with admittedly not much factual knowledge on the subject) that the health benefits to the individual are not significantly different, whether he/she runs 13 or 26 miles.

I bring this up because the implied attitude of the guy in the tee shirt reminds me of the healthcare reform negotiations. This is the first meaningful opportunity to accomplish valuable healthcare reform in the U.S. in a long time. In the most recent previous opportunity – during the early part of the Clinton presidency – the Clintons had a decent chance, and they blew it. I say this not to pile on Bill and Hillary Clinton, but as a reminder that the Obama administration and its congressional allies should be careful not to repeat the mistakes made at that time. There is widespread agreement on the general need for healthcare reform, but also a lot of disagreement on the specifics regarding what can and should be done. The most important stumbling block is not Republican opposition to any proposed reforms, or that vested interests in the status quo give large contributions to certain members of Congress. The real barrier to healthcare reform is the seemingly irreconcilable differences between the leftists and the moderates within the Democratic Party. Both groups are interested in healthcare reform, but each of the two groups seems persuaded that only their own side’s proposals are worthy of support.

I realize that most of the bloggers on this web site probably disagree with me, but I am with the moderates on this issue. In the first place, it is important to keep in mind what the goals of reform really are, and not confuse the means with the ends. In the second place, we cannot forget that politics is the art of the possible, rather than the forum for expressing supposedly ideal outcomes that have no realistic chance of becoming law. What are the real goals? They are:

Universal access, or coming as close to it as possible.
Coverage that cannot be denied or revoked due to individual health issues.
Reduced healthcare costs, regardless of the payment sources.

I cannot think of any others. In a way, the first two points are variations on the same theme. We really just need a system where everybody, or nearly everybody, has access, and where the total costs can be reduced. Single payer, public insurance option, and similar ideas are not goals, but rather proposed means of achieving the goals listed above. I do not have much regard for the arguments that the drug or insurance companies are identified as malevolent factors that should be simply regarded as the enemy, which is the strongly implied message in some emails I receive. They may be part of the problem, but they are also part of the solution, if there is to be a solution. The qualifier about “coming as close as possible” to 100% coverage is also important. If 16% of the American people presently have no health insurance, and the only proposal with a realistic chance of passage by Congress would reduce the uninsured from 16% to 5%, is there not still a lot of value to such a plan? This could well be the situation we face. Opposition from the left in this case is the equivalent to saying that “13.1 = half of nothing.”

A focus on universal access alone will not get any reform done. The concerns about the program’s costs are entirely legitimate. The program needs to be paid for, and simply increasing income taxes on the wealthy will not come close to paying for it. One fact that all sides of the healthcare debate can agree on is that the U.S. spends far more on healthcare – whether measured as a percentage of GDP or in proportion to the population – than the other rich countries do. At the same time, we get inferior results in terms of many measurements, such as average lifespan, compared with many other countries. No health insurance reform will be effective without our finding ways to reduce the total costs of healthcare. The ways to make this happen involve changing people’s incentives in the direction of lower cost behavior. These incentives include relatively non-controversial items such as emphasis on prevention, which is far less expensive than treatment after the patient is already sick. More controversial, but very valuable, is tort reform, which could largely eliminate the “need” for defensive medicine: tests and procedures that have little or no value in patient care, but which are done in order to protect against malpractice lawsuits. The presence of a small number of bad doctors, along with the possibility (however slight) of multi-million dollar jury awards for alleged malpractice, raises the operating costs for every doctor and hospital. It should be easier to get rid of bad doctors than it is at this time, and it is also reasonable to establish limits on non-economic damages to a plaintiff in a malpractice suit. Punitive damages should be limited to extreme cases and, even then, should not benefit the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney. The purpose of punitive damages in a lawsuit is to dish out extra penalties to a defendant whose conduct was outrageously reckless, if not criminal. It should not be for the purpose of additional feathering the nest of the plaintiff and his/her attorney. The best form of punitive damage should be loss of license to practice medicine. The continued existence of litigation lottery keeps the total healthcare cost much higher than it needs to be, and with no incremental benefit to the society.

A small group of moderate Democrats and Republicans in the Senate has been working on a bipartisan health reform bill. What they come up with will almost certainly not be anybody’s idea of perfect, but it is likely to be a major step forward in improving the presently unsatisfactory situation. It also stands the best chance of actually getting enacted into law – IF the leftist wing of the Democratic Party can be brought around to accepting it. President Obama has got to show some leadership on this issue now. He was careful to avoid the Clintons’ mistake of crafting a huge piece of legislation and trying to force Congress to accept it, and of course the results then were disastrous. Instead, Obama has let Congress work out the details, but now that competing plans have come to the surface, Obama has got to make clear what he wants, and what he will do to achieve his own policy goals. My feeling is that Obama is sentimentally with the leftists, but as a practical politician, he should also realize that the leftists’ bills will not pass. Opposition to House committee bills is growing every day. It does not matter whether you or I think that opposition is deserved. It continues to build, and I am persuaded that those bills will never make it through. The bipartisan Senate effort has a real chance of success. Obama, along with Speaker Pelosi and her like-minded allies, may regard the bipartisan Senate proposal as a half measure, but it would still amount to a major accomplishment for Obama’s first year in office. Holding out for something they think is closer to the ideal answer will almost certainly result in getting nothing at all done. Obama’s political standing will be badly diminished, which would be a shame for many reasons. If that turns out to be the result, they should not blame the Republicans, the insurance companies, or any other supposed villains. Instead, they should look in the mirror, because that is where they will find the culprit.

Here is a link to an article by the bipartisan Senate group:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080402523.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Follow the Money

Henry M — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:35:46 EDT

It's pretty easy to understand what some companies, and the politicians that are in their pay, get out of health insurance business as usual.

The country as a united people, and the people as many individuals stand to benefit from the public option that is being opposed by the insurance companies and their dupes.
What are the selfish reasons ascribed to Obama for pushing reform?

Birthers

Henry M — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:28:38 EDT

Henry M

Sometimes, we cannot afford to avoid waste

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:59:11 EDT

I want to thank “Obama Doug” for posting an excellent article from today’s (July 30) Washington Post by R. Jeffrey Smith. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902676.html

The article notes a lot of seemingly obvious waste in the $636 billion Defense Appropriations Bill. There are numerous examples of programs that, in the opinion of the president and the defense secretary, are either redundant or have outlived their usefulness. On the other hand, many of these programs benefit certain companies who operate in the districts of powerful congressmen. The earmarks are spread widely enough that overwhelming congressional support is assured, and the notion that many billions of dollars are wasted clearly does not bother most members of Congress.

As we all know, the president does not have the authority to selectively veto the components of the legislation he doesn’t like. He must accept or reject the bill in its entirety. The president can threaten to veto the bill if it contains provisions X, Y, and Z… but as a practical matter he will not do that.

In his own comments, Obama Doug recommended a presidential veto. There are several good reasons to support a veto decision. Some of the programs are widely agreed to be unnecessary, and the justifications for keeping them are lame at best. One justification is that it provides jobs for various people. By itself, that does not seem too bad. All federal spending involves creating or maintaining jobs. Still, if job creation is the goal, there are far more efficient ways to do that than by building a bunch of airplanes that are not needed. One of the dumbest justifications goes something like: “If we drop this program now, the $3 billion we previously spent on it will have been wasted!” Sorry, Mr. Congressman, that $3 billion already spent has been wasted, anyway, and we cannot get it back. Sunk costs are completely irrelevant to the decision regarding future expenditures.

With all that in mind, if I was advising President Obama, I would NOT recommend that he veto the Defense Appropriations Bill. This is a case of knowing when to pick your battles. It is ironic to say that Obama cannot afford to veto a bill that contains a lot of waste of the taxpayers’ money, but that is the situation. For one thing, there should be no doubt that the bill would be easily overridden, so the veto would be an empty gesture. For another, a veto would antagonize many members of Congress, and that is something Obama cannot afford to do. His intended crowning domestic achievement for his first year in office – if not his whole presidency – is healthcare reform. This will be difficult to attain, even while maintaining the best of congressional relations; it will be completely impossible if he makes new congressional enemies.

The value of beer diplomacy

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:32:31 EDT

Just in case anybody out there is not already tired of hearing and reading about the prospect of President Obama having a beer at the White House with a certain professor and a certain policeman, I submitted the following as a prospective "op-ed" piece for the Chicago Tribune. It is highly unlikely that the newspaper will really use it, since they receive many submissions for every one they actually accept for publication. Therefore, I thought I would share it with my fellow bloggers:

AN OPEN INVITATION TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Dear Mr. President:

In your attempt to diffuse the situation between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, Mass. Police Sergeant James Crowley, and between their respective supporters, you have offered to have both Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley over to the White House for a beer. I believe this is an excellent idea, and I want to go on record with an offer to supply the beer. There are two reasons for this.

First, as a public spirited American citizen, I do not want to stick the taxpayers for the cost of the beer. As valuable as beer diplomacy may be, the country is already in a serious fiscal deficit, and I would hate to have anybody opposing the meeting on the grounds that taxpayer expenditure of beer will aggravate the deficit. The issues involved are far too important, and a good teaching moment should not be squandered due to fiscal concerns.

Second (in an example of enlightened self-interest), in case I am invited to join the president, the professor, and the policeman at the White House get-together, I want to be able to choose the beer that I am going to drink. Think about it. In the richest country in the world, many Americans go without any kind of beer, and many others are underserved by their current beer. Now, don’t get me wrong, Mr. President. If you are happy with the beer you are currently drinking, you can keep it. The same goes for Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley. For those who are underserved by their beer at this time, what I am offering might be an appealing alternative.

Under my proposal, no government bureaucrat will be dictating anybody’s choice of beer. As far as I am concerned, my choice of beer should be my own, perhaps after appropriate consultation with my bartender, or my liquor store operator. When government bureaucrats start telling people what kind of beer they have to drink, that is the first step on the slippery slope to socialism… or so I have heard, anyway.

So there you have it, Mr. President. I will supply the beer. I would be happy to make recommendations, but I would also honor any request that you might have, along with the requested beer preferences of Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley. If my offer is of interest, you can contact me. I look forward to hearing from you.

By the way, if necessary, I can prove that I am a natural born U.S. citizen. I have a birth certificate showing that I was born in Evanston, Illinois. There are some kooks on radio and television who, along with their friends in Congress, suggest otherwise. For those people in other parts of the country, Evanston might be best known as the home of Northwestern University, but it is also one of the largest nearby suburbs of… Nairobi. Oops! Okay, you caught me. I cannot live a lie any longer. The truth is that I was born in Kenya, and decades ago, my parents put a birth announcement in Chicago area newspapers, just to make it look like I was born in the U.S. Why did they do this? Obviously, they anticipated that one day, I might want to buy a beer for the President of the United States, and it would look better if I was a U.S. citizen.

Feel Mislead by Administration

Dr Linda Shelton — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:16:03 EDT

I am getting more and more disappointed. It appears the briefing book was just a carrot to get us to vote for Obama, but never was taken seriously by the Administration. Also I don't see any evidence that the Administration has heard the complaints about our corrupt justice system or the excess control over the health care reform package by Insurance Companies and Pharmaceutical Companies.

I fell we are being betrayed, misled, and abandoned. Use us and lose us. This blog is a waste!

Police and race relations

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:00:28 EDT

President Obama says he will not retract his comment that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly,” regarding the incident where well-known Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested last week for disorderly conduct. Although he refuses to back down from his remark, I expect that he privately realizes that he would be better off if he had not said it. The incident is most unfortunate because none of the participants looks very good, although none of them are real villains, either. My best guess (which is all I can do, not being a direct witness to the event) is that the neighbor who phoned the police needlessly created trouble with her initial call, the policeman did not use his best judgment at the scene, and the professor assumed the worst possible motives by the policeman and overreacted. And of course, none of them will admit to even the slightest imperfection in his or her own conduct, so nobody is going to calm down.

Was Professor Gates really a victim of racial profiling in this case? I doubt that many people knowledgeable about the issue would deny that racial profiling is a fact in our society. We may underestimate or overestimate how common it is, but it certainly exists. However, the fact that it exists in general does not mean that it can automatically be fairly attributed to a specific incident where the facts are in dispute. Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley tell conflicting versions of the incident, and I believe that each of them is completely sincere about the accuracy of his own version. Each of them, in his own mind, is the aggrieved party. Professor Gates is a personal friend of President Obama, and it is understandable that the president would take his friend’s side. While it is understandable, Obama should have resisted that impulse, or at least chosen different words. From the point of view of the policeman responding to a call about a break in, he does not know whether or not the people in the house are armed and dangerous. It is a stressful situation. In retrospect, it looks like, at minimum, Sergeant Crowley was not at his best at that moment. Obama could have put it that way at the press conference, and nobody would get very upset about it. Instead, by saying that the police “acted stupidly,” Obama contributed to blowing the incident out of proportion. I am not saying that Sergeant Crowley is innocent of the racial profiling accusation. It is just not at all clear that he is guilty, either.

OK, some of the readers might be thinking: “Hey, Mr. White Guy, what the hell do you know about discrimination or racial profiling?” The answer is that I probably know much less about it than those who are directly affected by it. There are three things I do know about racial profiling. One is that it does exist. Two, our society will be improved if racial profiling would greatly diminish, or better yet, disappear completely. Three, not everybody who is suspected of racial profiling is guilty of it.

I do not want to leave a false impression here. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama since before he became a nationally known public figure. This is not diminished just because I think he makes a mistake once in awhile. Everybody makes mistakes, of course, and this poorly chosen remark was one of his. It has created a big distraction that makes passing healthcare reform and other important domestic initiatives a little more difficult than it was already.

Response to Senate's Lack of Backbone on Healthcare!

Carole — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:22:14 EDT

I don't think the Senate should be allowed to go on recess w/o public option health care! What's with Sen. Reid? What a woozie! Get 'er done! Don't allow the repugs to derail legislation again!

HEALTHCARE, HEALTHCARE, HEALTHCARE! PUBLILC OPTION, PUBLIC OPTION, PUBLIC OPTION!

Legislators that take money from lobbyists or anyone else should be tried for corruption, graft, and accepting money for votes.....lobbyists should be charged with bribery, influence peddling, and corrupting of public servants! I am sick of all this lying about healthcare being quoted by the repugs quoting a source that is owned by the private healthcare interests!!!

Once healthcare is passed, all the other pieces WILL FALL INTO PLACE! Jobs, jobs, jobs! Economic recovery!

Looking for the "racist" in Sotomayor

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:28:30 EDT

The confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is expected to become our next Supreme Court Justice, gives the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee an opportunity to shine in the spotlight. Because it is a lifetime appointment, likely to last twenty years or more, the senators have a serious responsibility. The nominee should be treated with courtesy and fairness, but should not be given a free pass.

I want the senators to show some degree of consistency in their principles. For example, many Republican senators argued – when President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court a few years ago – that the president won the election and should be able to have his judicial appointments confirmed, provided that the nominee’s basic qualifications are well established. That is a reasonable position to take. It implies that the suspicion that a conservative (or liberal) president’s nominee will likely reach “conservative” (or “liberal”) decisions most of the time should not be a reason to vote against a proposed judicial appointment. If that was a guiding principle when a Republican was president, it should be the same guiding principle when a Democrat is president. This does not mean that the Republicans should all passively accept the Sotomayor appointment without question, but they should agree not to oppose her confirmation simply on the basis that they expect her to take the so-called liberal position most of the time. For one thing, those expectations sometimes prove to be wrong. I also want to note that when Bush nominated Roberts for Chief Justice a few years ago, I wrote to my then-senators (Durbin and Obama), recommending that they vote to confirm Judge Roberts. Roberts would not have been my personal choice, but I thought he had excellent qualifications and an appropriate temperament, and that should have been enough for the president to have his choice confirmed.

There should not be any serious doubt regarding Sotomayor’s resume qualifications. She excelled academically at top level schools, served as a prosecutor, and has long experience as a federal judge, both at the trial and appellate levels. The reasons for opposing her confirmation basically boil down to the following:

Her “wise Latina” comment in a speech in 2001.
Her decision in the recent New Haven firefighters case.
Comments by Obama about “empathy” and “what is in the judge’s heart.”
Her comment that foreign laws might in some cases have a bearing on her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice.

It is fair enough to ask Judge Sotomayor about these matters, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that any or all of these tidbits disqualify her for the job. She was less effective than I would have liked in dealing with the “wise Latina” remark. What she said was okay, but she should have added something like; “What I really meant at the time, and continue to believe now, is that a panel of judges – the nine members of the Supreme Court, for example – will likely reach better decisions if they come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, than if they all have nearly identical backgrounds. I did not mean to suggest that one Latina judge is better than one white male judge, or that it would be preferable for a whole group of judges to be Latina or any from other particular demographic group.”

I think that Sotomayor addressed the other concerns very well. The notion that “empathy” is somehow a negative quality is curious. As a former prosecutor, Sotomayor probably feels more empathy for crime victims than she does for defendants accused of crimes. At any rate, I think she effectively refuted the notion that she would ignore the law if there was a conflict between applying the law and siding with the more sympathetic party to a case.

Rush Limbaugh can blatantly call Sotomayor a racist. He has a radio audience consisting of people whose outlook is similar to his own, and as long as his like-minded radio audience listens to him, he can continue his hatefest without constraints. Senators do operate with some constraints. Senator Jeff Sessions is well aware of his political base in Alabama. There are relatively few voting Latinos in that state, so he can better afford to play the “bad cop” than some of his colleagues can. As long as he maintains a relatively polite manner, he can attack Sotomayor all he wants. While not overtly calling Sotomayor a bigot or racist, he implied it when he emphasized her old “wise Latina” quote and asserted that she has “repeatedly over a decade or more” made similar statements. Sessions is playing to his political base, and has little at risk by doing so. Senators Kyl and Cornyn have large Latino constituencies in their states, and they take a bigger risk if they are perceived as treating the nominee unfairly.

Is there any credible evidence in Judge Sotomayor’s hundreds of judicial rulings that she is a racist, or that she sets aside the law in order to steer the outcome of a case to the party that she personally likes more than the other? If so, I want to see the evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I believe that Sotomayor is entitled to a strong presumption in her favor. An offhand comment in a speech might be troubling, but as far as I can tell, her actual record as a judge suggests that she follows the law, does not “legislate from the bench,” and does not treat parties to a case differently based on personal preferences. How many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee can make a similar claim?

Good riddance to Sarah

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:40:42 EDT

Howard Fineman and some other astute political observers have written in recent days that Sarah Palin's announced resignation as Alaska's governor is a clever first step toward a 2012 presidential run. I just do not believe that this is true. If she really expected to run for president in 2012, it is fully understandable that she would not run for reelection as governor when her current term expires at the end of 2010. If she does have presidential expectations, however, it does not make sense for her to resign just over half way through her first term as governor. Although she is a darling of the Republican Right (I am trying to recall who the conservative pundit was who basically admitted to being sexually excited over Ms. Palin during her vice-presidential run), she has almost zero respect or credibility from the rest of the country, and quitting her current job for no obvious reason at this time would hardly help in building up her reputation.

If Governor Palin is resigning early because of family considerations, I can respect that. That could be a contributing factor, although I doubt that it is the primary reason. I think it is more likely that the main reason is that her being routinely lampooned by commentators and comedians caused her to lose her taste for electoral politics. If this is the case, she would have to be quite a masochist to want to run for president, in 2012 or any other year.

The main direct effect of her resignation is likely to be that she will make many times more money (probably something like $50,000 per speech) as a private citizen than she could possibly make as a government officer. As a private citizen with a major fan base among the right wingers of America, she could become something similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. She could articulate her message, make a fortune, and be accountable to nobody. She will be able to raise a lot of money for other Republican candidates, but contrary to the assertions of some political writers, I do not think it is likely that she will be doing that in order to collect a lot of political IOUs. She might be thinking about it, but I think it is more likely that her distaste for the political arena is genuine.

Was some of the criticism and jokes aimed at Sarah Palin unfair? Yes, some of it was. Should we feel sympathy for the governor? Hardly. This is not exactly a nice person we are talking about here. During her campaign for vice-president, Sarah Palin constantly told anybody who would listen that then-Senator Obama was "palling around with terrorists." She did everything she could to suggest that Barack Obama was siding with the terrorists against all decent American people. She belittled Obama's background as a community organizer, as if that was Obama's sole qualification for president. She also made very clear that she believed that the only "real Americans" were small town conservatives similar to himself, implying that those of us who do not fit that description ideally should not have the right to choose our political leaders.

Palin's defenders might argue that the job of a vice-presidential candidate is to attack the other party's presidential nominee, and that some distortion of the opposing candidates' records is part of the way the system works, and that the Republicans are no more guilty of these distortions than are the Democrats. That may all be true, but just as distorting a political opponent's record is as American as apple pie, so is political satire. One of the most famous pearls of wisdom attributed to Harry Truman was: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Governor Palin is simply taking that advice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin combines several unattractive qualities. She is shallow, vindictive, and self-pitying. Perhaps that characterization is (slightly) too harsh, but I am expressing it as a matter of opinion, not fact. Nixon was vindictive and self-pitying in the extreme, but he was not shallow. I would hate to get another president with Nixon's personality traits, but I believe that Palin would be even worse. At any rate, I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out, and that is a good thing.

Happy Independence Day

Henry M — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:37:09 EDT

Happy Independence Day,

Happy Birthday, USA!

Henry M

Republican Women's Group President Says "Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common... "

Henry M — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:34:44 EDT

http://www.juddlegum.com/blog/2009/06/anne-arundel-county-gop-womens-group-compares-obama-to-hitler/

The Republican Women of Anne Arundel County, one of Maryland’s most prominent Republican organizations, has launched an outrageous attack on President Barack Obama. The website currently features a letter from Joyce E. Thoman, the organization’s President, comparing Barack Obama to Hitler.

Heny M

What is Dick Cheney's fondest hope?

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:30:40 EDT

There was an interesting discussion this morning (6/16/09) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program. Conservative pundit Joe Scarborough asked liberal pundit Ed Schultz if he truly believed that former Vice-president Dick Cheney hopes that there will be a successful attack on Americans by terrorists… in order to vindicate Mr. Cheney’s repeated claims that President Obama’s actions weaken America’s security. Mr. Schultz said unequivocally that this is exactly his belief. Mr. Scarborough responded with something like, “I like you personally, Ed, but I could not disagree with you more. I can understand your not liking Cheney, but do you really believe that he wants to see innocent Americans killed, just to prove a point?”

The truth is probably more complicated than that. On one level, Mr. Cheney does not want to see another successful terrorist attack in the U.S. or against Americans anywhere. As much as I detest Dick Cheney, I do not believe he is actively and consciously rooting for another ‘9/11” type of disaster. On the other hand, I do believe that Mr. Cheney bitterly resents the fact that many Americans, including Mr. Obama, have rejected many of the actions used by the Bush administration (and to a substantial degree, directed by Cheney) in the name of fighting terrorism. I believe it is very likely that the Bush presidency will be generally regarded as a failure by future historians. In addition, whether good or bad, there can be no serious dispute that Dick Cheney was an extremely powerful vice-president, and any verdict on the Bush ‘43’ presidency is largely a verdict on Cheney himself. He knows that he is unpopular right now, and he very much wants to be vindicated. There is not much else that is likely to acquit the Bush ‘43’ presidency, and they (Bush and Cheney) are effectively counting on “They kept us safe from the terrorists for 7 years” for their vindication. If they did keep us safe (as they would argue), then how dare the opponents (Obama and his political allies) question the methods they used to keep us safe? If the new administration obeys all laws – constitutional, international, and statutory – and there are still no successful terrorist attacks in the U.S., or against American targets elsewhere, that would cut into the Bush/Cheney argument that their legally and morally questionable methods were necessary.

In summary, while Mr. Cheney does not consciously want Americans killed by terrorists during President Obama’s watch, and he would be genuinely appalled by such a suggestion, I believe that he desperately wants his own record vindicated, and a successful terrorist attack while Obama is president is the only way he is likely to get it. In other words, I believe that Cheney has very mixed emotions regarding the prospect of another major terrorist attack against Americans.

Sarah Palin v. David Letterman

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:20:59 EDT

Was David Letterman's joke about an unspecified daughter of Sarah Palin in poor taste? Absolutely. Is Governor Palin's reaction appropriate? I cannot answer that with a simple "yes" or "no." Apparently, the Palins' 14-year-old daughter accompanied her parents to the baseball game in New York, while their 18-year-old daughter did not. Mr. Letterman probably did not know that. I cannot believe that his joke was intended to refer to the 14-year-old, as Ms. Palin claims to know for a fact. Even assuming that the joke was an intended reference to the 18-year-old, the joke was certainly in poor taste, although in my opinion much less objectionable than if the reference to the younger girl is assumed.

As a group, the children (at least those who are not yet legally adults) of celebrities have my sympathy. They get a lot of press attention, and usually not because of their own behavior, but rather because of their famous parents. Any incident showing their imperfection gets magnified way out of proportion, and it must be hard for many of them to have a normal and well-adjusted life. Their parents have chosen to be famous, and for them an invasive media is a price they knowingly pay for being famous and (in many cases) rich. Their children are innocent pawns in all this, and the unwanted attention is due not to their own choices, but the choices made by their parents. I cannot claim to fully understand Sarah Palin's perspective. I am not at all famous, nor is anybody in my family. I have sons, not daughters, and they are now adults. With that disclaimer in mind, I can certainly understand Ms. Palin's lashing out at a comedian who made a joke on national television ridiculing her (Palin's) child.

I do not remember exactly when it was, but either during the 1992 campaign or early in the Clinton presidency that followed, Saturday Night Live performers (Mike Myers and Dana Carvey) did a Wayne's World sketch that basically noted that the daughters of Al Gore were attractive, and in some way they suggested that Chelsea Clinton was ugly, at least by comparison. Hillary Clinton put Myers and Carvey in their place, not by raising the heat, but by coldly observing that comedians whose idea of "comedy" consists of cruelty to a child deserve nothing but contempt. Without regard to any liberal or conservative political leanings, Sarah Palin would have served her own cause, and that of her family, much better if she had taken a lesson from Hillary Clinton. The Wayne's World incident quickly disappeared, and the Clintons, on that matter, had the unquestioned claim to the high moral ground.

During the recent campaign, Sarah Palin used her whole family as a campaign prop. The older daughter's out of wedlock teenage pregnancy was celebrated for its "pro life" message. In effect, Ms. Palin set up her own family to become objects of ridicule later on. By contrast, Barack Obama kept his own daughters out of the public eye as much as he reasonably could during the campaign. It was a wise decision.

In my opinion, Sarah Palin has overreacted, even though I admit she had something to overreact to. By asserting that Mr. Letterman was "joking" about the statutory rape of an underage girl (I think that no objective observer would agree with that claim), and by claiming double standards in the press, Ms. Palin unwisely has produced the following effects:

· By exaggerating the offense, and by lashing out at the media in general rather than just David Letterman in particular, she undercuts her own claim to the high moral ground.

· She guarantees the story far more attention than it would otherwise receive.

· She reinforces the doubts most of the public already has in her ability to handle adversity.

Reagonomics Revisited

Henry M — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:26:02 EDT

Reagan Did It

By PAUL KRUGMAN
“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. ... All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.” So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.
He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.
Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.
On the latter point: traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.
The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.
The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.
But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.
These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.
Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.
We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.
All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.
Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.
But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.
These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.
There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.

Henry Mu

Give Sotomayor a fair hearing, then confirm her.

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:03:56 EDT

Self-described conservatives are divided regarding how to approach the appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by President Obama. Those who either never held elective office (such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan) or whose public office careers are probably behind them (such as Newt Gingrich) are savaging Judge Sotomayor as if she was some kind of evil force that the sinister President Obama released from a bottle. Those who do hold elective office (such as Senators Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn) are far more cautious, realizing that they have virtually no chance to defeat the nomination anyway, and that there is little to be gained from antagonizing female and Hispanic voters. And let's be honest. Obama has to be enjoying the split between the extremist and realist elements in the Republican Party. The Republican senators, who in nearly all cases are part of the realist faction, all understand that they have to seen as giving Judge Sotomayor a fair hearing. They will ask her some tough but basically fair questions, as they should. Most, but not all, will probably vote against her confirmation. They will make the political calculation that:

1. They cannot attack Sotomayor personally, by accusing her of evil motives or lacking credentials for the job. That would alienate a lot of voters. Instead, they will try to show that her judicial philosophy is, in their view, inappropriate for the Supreme Court.

2. If they are perceived as treating her fairly during the hearings, and in their own public statements, they will not lose votes from supporters of Sotomayor's confirmation, other than the votes they were never going to get anyway.

3. Voting against her confirmation will reassure the party base, which tends to be more doctrinaire than Republican senators themselves are.

4. Barring an unforeseen major scandal, Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, due to the electoral arithmetic. The president is popular, and his party holds a near filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. All Senate Democrats will vote to confirm.

As for Rush Limbaugh and the other non-officeholders with a similar point of view, they make a very different set of calculations. They have no incentive to be respectful toward anybody but those who share their own twisted philosophy. Mr. Limbaugh, among others, blatantly calls Sotomayor a "racist." Some people have apparently alleged, without attribution, that Sotomayor is not very bright, and supposedly a lucky beneficiary of affirmative action. Her graduating summa cum laude at Princeton and being editor of the Law Review at Yale strongly suggest otherwise. Some have claimed, without citing any examples from her 17 years as a federal judge, that Sotomayor is an extreme judicial activist who routinely substitutes her personal preferences over the rule of law. The one controversial case associated with Sotomayor which has been cited by critics is Ricci v. DeStafano, the New Haven firefighters discrimination case. In that case, Sotomayor and her 2nd Circuit colleagues upheld the actions of the city of New Haven, and also the federal district court. Arguably, a ruling that overturned the decisions of the city and the district court would have represented judicial activism.

As far as I can tell, Judge Sotomayor has outstanding resume qualifications. Any attempt to belittle her qualifications would likely backfire. She has made some public statements that could legitimately be questioned at the Senate confirmation hearings. Widely quoted in recent days, she said in California in 2002, after referring to the statement attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that "a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure that I agree. I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not would reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." As a white male with no plausible claim to any "compelling personal narrative," I would regard Judge Sotomayor's statement as fair game for questions by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. What exactly did she mean with that statement? On the other hand, it is quite a stretch to use this statement, and maybe a few others quoted out of context, as a basis to accuse her of being a racist. In any case, I don't think there is much danger (if that is the word) to white males being underrepresented on the Supreme Court any time soon. In the long history of the Supreme Court, we have had well over 100 justices, and all but four (soon to be five) of them were white males, and most of them have been ethnically similar to yours truly. If identity politics is the name of the game, white middle class men whose ancestry is from the British Isles should be able to cope with one "wise Latina woman" among the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

Did Obama choose Sotomayor because she is both female and Hispanic? I don't think there can be any serious doubt that this particular combined identity had a lot to do with her being selected by Obama for the Court. There is usually a political element to Supreme Court appointments, and this one is no exception. Latinos and women mostly supported Obama's election, and have been underrepresented in the Supreme Court. If this was a case of packing the Supreme Court with nine Latina women, critics might have a legitimate complaint. In fact, however, Sotomayor would be the Court's first Hispanic ever, and would be one of only two sitting female justices. Demographics aside, Sotomayor's credentials are excellent. If there is CREDIBLE evidence that her views are unduly biased, that will undoubtedly come out in the Senate hearings. Otherwise, she should be confirmed.

this preventive detention business

Ann — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:30:59 EDT

I draw no judgments or conclusions, but am nervous about this idea.

For background, here is Obama's speech.

For discussion, here is Glenn Greenwald's blog and another, both of which have useful links to more discussion and opinion.

Feingold's letter on the issue.

While the idea of preventive detention makes me uneasy, potential solutions are not forthcoming either.

Some things I ponder:

1) Can the ICC be of any help? [preventive detention and/or military commisions cases]

2) Have we requested info from the intelligence agencies of other countries? I mean anything and everything. And then pursue any charge. Convict on lesser, unrelated charges. Any crime, any country. We collared Capone that way after all.

3) What do the WWII internment of Japanese Americans and the Alien and Sedition Act tell us about what NOT to do?

4) Setting aside the words "system" and "program," there was a time when law enforcement could not prosecute rape, stalking, cyber crimes, hate crimes, etc., but can do so now because laws have been passed addressing those categories of crime.

5) Can't law enforcement collar someone for verbally threatening the life of the President? Can and should that be applied here?

6) Terrorism is not confined within U.S. borders, but a worldwide threat. Should we not solicit the input of foreign nations? Hawks and doves alike. We can use all the help we can get in terms of solutions.

What do you think about these items? Do you have any potential solutions to offer?

He's Like a Train Wreck: Cheney, More Than Ever, is In the News

Henry M — Fri, 22 May 2009 08:21:23 EDT

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68643.html

Cheney's speech ignored some inconvenient truths
Full text of Cheney's speech

Luis Alvarez / AP
Former Vice President Dick Cheney speaks Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute.
By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.
In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy organization in Washington, Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."
He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."
In a statement April 21, however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.
_ Cheney said that President Barack Obama's decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.
However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."
_ Cheney said that the Bush administration "moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks."
The former vice president didn't point out that Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri, remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban.
There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, and Islamic extremists also have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan.
_ Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration's interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on "a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency."
However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees."
_ Cheney said that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.
He didn't mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed's alleged role in 9-11.
The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida," Soufan said. Former State Department official Philip Zelikow, who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.
_ Cheney said that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence," but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.
Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri, who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi, whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002. While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida, which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.
A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.
_ Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."
However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.
_ Cheney said that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.
A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.
In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005, that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri, from Macedonia in January 2004.
Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania.
In January 2007, the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.
_ Cheney slammed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.
The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007, interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo."
_ Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."
Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida, a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.
The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.
The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President (George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait."
A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad, at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida.

Henry M

Today is Blog for Troy Davis Global Awareness Day

Carole — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:04:28 EDT

Today is Blog for Troy Davis Global Awareness Day. Please participate before the tonight at midnight. Troy Davis does not deserve to be sentenced to death. He does deserve a new trial at the very least. He does deserve to have his death sentence commuted. Please speak out, because without public attention this injustice is going to be allowed to slip into our souls and our consciousness. The witnesses recanted, at least, let's find out what really happened, and let's not kill another being. Please pass this out and around. If the final moments come, know that we tried to stop this abomination. Don't kill Troy Davis.

VP Cheney's Lies Resulted in Thousands Dead in Iraq. Why are people going after Pelosi?

Henry M — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:19:55 EDT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090515/pl_mcclatchy/3234269

Then-Vice President Dick Cheney , defending the invasion of Iraq , asserted in 2004 that detainees interrogated at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp had revealed that Iraq had trained al Qaida operatives in chemical and biological warfare, an assertion that wasn't true.

Henry M

Empathy and politics on the Supreme Court

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:13:25 EDT

Last week, Torgny V.O.B. had a concise but elegant post titled Empathy is a Virtue. This, of course, was in the context of President Obama’s statement that empathy is one quality that he is looking for when he appoints a Supreme Court justice to fill the vacancy created by the announced retirement of Justice David Souter. Torgny is correct, of course, and the notion that empathy is not a virtue seems to be based on the concern that “judicial activists” will simply substitute their personal preferences for the rule of law.

It would be a legitimate concern, if empathy was the one and only consideration, but that premise is hardly believable. Judges should rule on the law, and on whether or not a particular law is constitutional. To most self-described political conservatives, the issue is quite simple: Supreme Court justices should be “strict constructionists.” It is not as simple as people such as George W. Bush seem to think. There are a lot of issues facing the courts in the 21st century, which the authors of the Constitution could not possibly have foreseen. In addition, not all of the Constitution’s authors had the same original intent. The Supreme Court justices should not substitute their own preferences in clear contradiction of the law, but they have to do a lot of interpretation, and their own personal experiences enter into those interpretations. This is true of so-called conservatives just as much as it is of so-called liberals.

One of the socially more explosive issues in America at this time is to what extent, if any, abortions should be legally permitted. People on both sides of the issue lobby heavily for the purpose of getting judges who are believed to be nearly certain to rule on their side of the issue. Although the Constitution does not explicitly establish a right of privacy for U.S. citizens, it has been widely accepted that such a right is implied by other rights that are clearly articulated. The controversy is mainly over whether that right to privacy includes a pregnant woman’s right to have an abortion.

I am a U.S. citizen, and I clearly have the right to express my own opinion on this and other issues, but my perspective is bound to be different from people who have to deal with the issue more directly than I do. Can states, or the federal government, pass laws which criminalize abortions? If so, subject to what limitations? Is the death penalty unconstitutional? Where do we draw the line between the rights of a criminal suspect and the ability of the police and prosecutors to put away the bad guys? What are the legal limits of affirmative action, or of eminent domain? Is there a constitutional right to same sex marriage, or its near-equivalent, civil unions? None of these issues has personally affected me, or the people closest to me, in any significant way. I will not state that empathy is, or is not, one of my qualities, but it is fair to say that a person who has had to deal with these issues on a personal level has a different perspective than somebody who has not.

In the more than 200 year history of the Supreme Court, all but four justices have been white men. We have had two black men and two women. We have one black man and one woman among the nine present justices. It is almost as predictable as the sun rising in the east tomorrow that Justice Souter’s replacement will not be another white man. While I generally do not like identity politics, it is a reality that we face. To those who suggest that race and gender should not be a factor at all, and that the president should appoint only the most qualified individual to the Court, I would ask if those people made the same argument when Bush ‘41’ appointed Clarence Thomas. I am not belittling the credentials of Justice Thomas, but it was very much a political appointment. Mr. Bush wanted a young black conservative. If Clarence Thomas was not all three of those things, he would not have been considered. Of the names that get floated in the media now as possible Court appointments, you can forget all the men. It appears to me that the two most likely candidates are New York appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor and solicitor general Elena Kagan. Given the likelihood that Obama will have at least two additional replacements to fill after Souter, I would not be surprised to see both of them on the Court within the next few years. Sotomayor has the advantage at this time of being both female and Hispanic, so I would expect that she will be Obama’s first Supreme Court appointee, unless there is something in her background (e.g. tax problems) that might make her confirmation difficult. Sotomayor and Kagan appear to be political moderates, and would probably be more acceptable to conservatives than other possible candidates who would be viewed as more to the left. Based on the limited information I have about them, Sotomayor and Kagan both appear to be well qualified for the Supreme Court, and would satisfy President Obama’s political considerations.

Cheney backs Limbaugh over Powell on GOP future

Henry M — Sun, 10 May 2009 17:28:55 EDT

Democratic leadership didn't turn their backs on Lieberman, and maybe that's how they're winning seats, hearts, and minds! Should Dems rejoice, or be afraid.... very afraid?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMy6C2AiBsrQQ-jwPliaZANmi7kQD983HB282
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
WASHINGTON (AP) — Dick Cheney made clear Sunday he'd rather follow firebrand broadcaster Rush Limbaugh than former Joint Chiefs chairman Colin Powell into political battle over the future of the Republican Party.
Even as Cheney embraced efforts to expand the party by ex-Govs. Jeb Bush of Florida and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and the House's No. 2 Republican, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the former vice president appeared to write his one-time colleague Powell out of the GOP.

Asked about recent verbal broadsides between Limbaugh and Powell, Cheney said, "If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh. My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican."
Powell, who was secretary of state under President George W. Bush and held the nation's top military post under President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president last year. Nonetheless, since the election he has described himself as a Republican and a right-of-center conservative, though "not as right as others would like."

Henry Mu

Colin Powell on Palin, Limbaugh, and Exclusionary Values

Henry M — Thu, 07 May 2009 10:11:23 EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/11/colin-powell-slams-sarah_n_150394.html

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell took aim at Sarah Palin and the Republican party's emphasis on small-town values during an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakharia that will air this Sunday.
Powell also says that we should rethink its "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military. And he tells Republicans that they should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh:
"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"
As noted by Think Progress, Powell says:
Gov. Palin, to some extent, pushed the party more to the right, and I think she had something of a polarizing effect when she talked about how small town values are good. Well, most of us don't live in small towns. And I was raised in the South Bronx, and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx.

And when they came to Virginia and said the southern part of Virginia is good and the northern part of Virginia is bad. The only problem with that is there are more votes in the northern part of Virginia than there are in the southern part of Virginia, so that doesn't work.

A tortured debate

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:14:42 EDT

For the past few weeks, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been saying, in effect, that the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the U.S. against suspected bad guys was justified because:

When our side does it, it is not torture, and
The methods used were critical to preventing additional terrorist attacks, and
Even if it is torture, the recipients were terrorist murders who deserved it anyway.

It seems to me that the first and second points are false, and the third one, whether true or false, is not a valid justification for torturing suspects in captivity.

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. engaged in practices – not simply by a few low-level rogue operatives, but under guidelines approved by the president – some of which are widely agreed to constitute torture. It can be debated regarding some of the methods used, but there should be no doubt that waterboarding qualified as torture. The U.S. in the past has approved of prosecuting for waterboarding as a war crime. If waterboarding is torture, then it is torture, regardless of which side does it.

The apologists for Mr. Cheney in Congress and the media point to the mildest of the questionable techniques, and then sarcastically ask: “Is that really torture? Should we have risked another ‘9/11’ attack because we were afraid to hurt the terrorists’ feelings?” Fortunately, I have never been in the position of knowing what I would do if I was subjected to torture, but it is not hard to guess. I would say anything to make it stop. If I though it would make a difference, I would confess to the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy, and for a little icing on the cake, Abraham Lincoln.

What surprises me about the Democrats’ reaction to Mr. Cheney is that they have implicitly accepted Cheney’s terms of the discussion. According to Cheney and his friends, torture was effective in getting valuable information about the terrorists’ plans. The other side says that torture is not effective, or that even if it occasionally produces genuinely valuable information, the same information could probably have been obtained by other means. This basis for argument gives Cheney an advantage he should not have. Did the “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually help the U.S. to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? It is probably impossible to prove either way, but the assertion is at least plausible. The problem with presenting the issue this way is that there is an implied assumption that there is no incremental cost to using torture as a means of getting information. Cheney, and everybody else who advocates for torture, should be vigorously challenged on that point. In fact, there is a huge cost to the U.S. when its leaders try to give legal sanction to torturing people. To use economic terminology, in any major decision, the expected benefits should be weighed against the expected costs. Is it worthwhile to waterboard (or otherwise torture) so-called high-level detainees who might be able to provide information that could help prevent future acts of terrorism? If the cost is perceived to be zero, as Mr. Cheney implies, the resulting benefit – even if zero or negligible – should still at least equal the cost.

What is the “cost” of an American president deciding that torture is an acceptable method of interrogating prisoners? Although it would be difficult to quantify, I would say that the cost is huge. The U.S. is still the largest economic and military power in the world, but our relative power is declining, and we need allies. Our ability to influence world events in our favor is largely a function of our ability to persuade other countries to act in a manner consistent with our interests. To a large degree, our power to persuade depends on our continuing to be seen as a force for good, and respectful of international law. If we decide that international law is something to be followed only when it is convenient, and that torture is acceptable as long as we claim to be doing it for lofty purposes, our reputation and moral standing take a big hit. The resulting costs are immense. Simply asserting that “America does not torture” only makes us look like hypocrites if the claim is demonstrated to be false. Pictures and believable journalistic accounts of prisoners under American control being mistreated are effectively a recruiting poster for the terrorists. They also increase the likelihood that Americans will be mistreated when the bad guys have the opportunity. The way I see it, Mr. Cheney greatly understates the cost to the U.S. of using torture as an interrogation tool, and he also greatly overstates the incremental value that results. People are widely debating only the second half of that statement (does it produce valuable information?), but most discussions I have seen on television ignore the first half (what is the cost?).

If we are able to agree that the Bush administration did authorize torture (while claiming the contrary), and that some captives were in fact tortured, who – if anybody – should be prosecuted, either for committing acts of torture, or causing others to do so? There are some well-reasoned arguments in favor of such prosecutions, but based on presently known information, I do not favor prosecuting anybody. Basically, I am weighing political reality more heavily than moral or legal purity. If there is strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing far beyond what is now known, that would be different.

There is widespread agreement with President Obama that the CIA operatives who acted within the guidelines they were given should not be prosecuted. They were following what they had reason to believe were lawful orders. If those orders were later determined to have been unlawful, it is not fair to charge the interrogators themselves for crimes based on ex post standards. Some people have suggested that the U.S. should prosecute the Bush Justice Department lawyers who crafted the morally challenged standards and gave an apparent legal stamp of approval to torture. Although it might be emotionally satisfying to see some of these people in the slammer, I cannot see a legal justification for prosecuting a lawyer who offers morally repugnant advice to a client, even though the client in this case was the Pesident of the United States. If there is a basis for disbarment of some of these lawyers (and I don’t know if that is the case), that would suit me fine, but I think a criminal prosecution would be wrong.

That leaves the question of whether to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and perhaps a couple of other high officials such as Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Gonzales. These are the people who gave the orders. Legally and morally, they probably deserve it. Politically, I think it is a bad idea. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they could argue that preventing further disasters was such a critical priority that everything they did with that objective in mind should be regarded as both legal and proper. If they believed that aggressive interrogation of suspected terrorists, and the equally illegal warrantless domestic spying, were useful in protecting the American people from another attack, they would have been derelict in their duty if they had refrained from such actions. We can argue several years later, with the benefit of hindsight (and of course, no additional terrorist attacks in the U.S.), that some of their actions were illegal, but they should be judged on the basis of what the political atmosphere was like at that time. Personally, I do not buy that argument, but my guess is that most Americans would accept it. The prosecutions would be widely seen as politically motivated, and based on changed standards. I do not want George W. Bush or (even worse) Dick Cheney to get the chance to become martyrs. They do not deserve the moral high ground, and criminal prosecutions against them would hand them that opportunity. Remember that back in the 1980’s, even a contemptible lawbreaker like Oliver North was able to transform himself into a folk hero when it was commonly perceived that he was treated unfairly. It would be much better to let Bush and Cheney live out their remaining years in personal comfort and prosperity… and the disgrace that they richly deserve. The best way to make sure that torture is never again part of U.S. official policy is not to jail the former leaders, but to make sure they are thoroughly discredited. A criminal trial would be counter-productive.

If there is going to be a fact-finding commission to examine some of the possibly illegal actions of the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” it should be set up by the president (not by Congress), and the appointees should be a highly respected group of Democrats and Republicans – people whose integrity is beyond doubt. If the commission is widely perceived to be loaded one way or the other, it would be worse than useless. On the other hand, if the commission is generally perceived as fair to all sides, it could provide a valuable public service.

Aboriginal Jews, Native Jews, their natural rights in their historic homeland VS Arab immigrants ("Palestinians")

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:36:43 EDT

Aboriginal Jews, Native Jews, their natural rights in their historic homeland VS Arab immigrants ("Palestinians")

Their fight against the bigotry by Arabism & Islamism who won't "accept'" them

Contents

Definition

Israel - Rightful Historic Homeland of Aboriginal Jews

Canadian MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler: For Israel, rooted in the Jewish people, as an Abrahamic people, is a prototypical First Nation or aboriginal people, just as the Jewish religion is a prototypical aboriginal religion, the first of the Abrahamic religions.

In a WORD, the Jewish people is the only people that still inhabits the same land, embraces the same religion, studies the same Torah, hearkens to the same prophets, speaks the same aboriginal language - Hebrew - and bears the same aboriginal name, Israel, as it did 3,500 years ago.

Israel, then, is the aboriginal homeland of the Jewish people across space and time. It is not just a homeland for the Jewish people, a place of refuge, asylum and protection. It is the homeland of the Jewish people, wherever and whenever it may be; and its birth certificate originates in its inception as a First Nation, and not simply, however important, in its United Nations international birth certificate.

The State of Israel, then, as a political and juridical entity, overlaps with the "aboriginal Jewish homeland"; it is, in international legal terms, a successor state to the biblical, or aboriginal, Jewish kingdoms. [1]

Historical Roots

Jews

Aboriginal Rights to Israel, Aboriginal Native Jews to Israel "Palestine"

There is an enormous body of archaeological and historical evidence demonstrating that the Jewish People -- like the Greek People or the Han Chinese People -- is among the oldest of the world's Peoples. Thus, it is well known that the Jewish People has more than 3,500 years of continuous history, with a subjective-objective national identity that, in each century, has kept a link to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. For example, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Gospels and the Koran all specifically testify to the connection between the Jewish People and its historic homeland. Like other Peoples, the Jewish People has a right to self-determination. Though the self-determination of the Arab People is expressed via twenty-one Arab countries, Israel is the sole expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People, which of all extant Peoples, has the strongest claim to be considered aboriginal to the territory west of the Jordan River.

Thus, the Jewish People is aboriginal to Israel in the same way that, in Canada, certain First Nations are deemed aboriginal to their ancestral lands. And, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where aboriginals maintain their historical connection with the land, aboriginal title can survive both sovereignty changes and influx of new populations resulting from foreign conquest.Yet, (bigotry by) Arabs, Muslims have denied that the Jews are a People within the context of the modern political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples. Keeping in mind that the Middle East has always had a significant Jewish population, including some Jews who, in each century, continued to live west of the Jordan River. Today, many of the sons and daughters of these Middle Eastern Jews are citizens of Israel, where they have been joined by Jews from many other countries. When In October 1917, the British Cabinet adopted, as a declared war aim, the creation of an entirely new country called "Palestine" to serve as "a national home for the Jewish People," it was done to help realize the Jewish People�s self-determination on its ancestral lands... so was the announcment to the world of Jewish-National-Home Palestine in the November 1917 Balfour Declaration. As the international decision to establish "a national home for the Jewish People" was the sole rationale for the 1922 creation of Jewish-National-Home Palestine which, under the aegis of the League of Nations. While deep into the 20th century, Arab leaders themselves failed to recognize the right to self-determination of a distinct Palestinian Arab People. For example, as principal Arab leader at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference, Prince Feisal specifically accepted the plan to create Palestine as �a national home for the Jewish People� and his father, the Hashemite King of the Hedjaz (later part of Saudi Arabia) was party to the 1920 Sevres Treaty that explicitly stipulated that the newly-created Palestine would be "a national home for the Jewish People." [2]

One has described a "remarkable synergy" between the Australian aboriginals and the Jews: "The Jewish community is an ancient and oppressed people, as the Aborigines are; we were the indigenous people of the land of Israel who were kicked out of our land 2000 years ago." [3]

Jews - Ancient Indigenous Natives in the area

There's extensive research on The Dhimmi: (Indigenous) Jews & Christians Under Islam [4], 850,000 Jews had to flee Arab Muslim lands where they had lived for centuries - often longer than the Arabs who now claim to be its indigenous national people. [5]

JIMENA stands for: 'Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa', it is a human rights organization seeking to educate and advocate for the plight of Jewish refugees from the Middle East. Prior to 1948, approximately 850,000 Jews lived in Muslim countries of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf. Today, 99 percent of these ancient Jewish communities no longer exist due to Arab and Islamic government actions that directly led to their displacement. [6]

Jews are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic people. For about 50 years, the majority of the Jewish population of Israel has been Mizrahim - Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa. Moreover, this community of Jews has lived in the Middle East and North Africa since time immemorial. Until the mid-twentieth century, in the 4,000-year history of the Jewish people, Mizrahim never left the region. (When Arab Muslims conquered the Middle East and North Africa, Jews were one of the few indigenous peoples that resisted conversion to Islam), [7]

Arabs

Arab immigrants and their lies about being "natives"

The Arabs in the Holy Land - Aliens, not Natives! [8], The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians. The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in "Palestine", until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into the Land of Israel displaced the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in the Holy Land for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugee". Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against: "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?" "We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag". "When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out". [9], in fact, the myth of the Palestinian People serves as the justification for Arab occupation of the Land of Israel. [10]

An explanatory film came out to 'dispel Arab propaganda', on the tactics disguising the Arab immigrants as "indigenous native Palestinian" [11]

Even Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas Admits Palestinian Arabs Are Not Indigenous. From a speech given to the PLO [12]

A writer in: 'The Myth Of The Palestinian People,' Only one question never seems to be addressed: Who are the Palestinians? Who are these people who claim the Holy Land as their own? What is their history? Where did they come from? How did they arrive in the country they call Palestine? Not only pre-state Arabs lied about being indigenous. Even today, many prominent so-called Palestinians, it turns out, are foreign born. Edward Said, an Ivy League Professor of Literature and a major Palestinian propagandist, long claimed to have been raised in Jerusalem. However, in an article in the September 1999 issue of Commentary Magazine Justus Reid Weiner revealed that Said actually grew up in Cairo, Egypt, a fact which Said himself was later forced to admit. But why bother with Said? PLO chief Yasir Arafat himself, self declared 'leader of the Palestinian people', has always claimed to have been born and raised in 'Palestine'. In fact, according to his official biographer Richard Hart, as well as the BBC, Arafat was born in Cairo on August 24, 1929 and that's where he grew up. [13]

A writer in "The Real Palestinian Refugees": Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine for 4000 years and those Jewish families who have constantly lived in the country since Biblical times, the mustarabim, are the indigenous Palestinians. (There has never been a 2000 year absence).

The first Arabs came to the country in the 7th century in the wake of their conquering armies after the death of Mohammed. They've been immigrating, and emigrating, ever since, bringing with them their civil wars (in which Jews were severely persecuted by both sides) and their screwed-up environmental concepts that turned forest into desert. Other groups of peoples also immigrated to Israel/Palestine during this time, especially the Druze. (Today, if you call a Druze an Arab, you've just insulted him. This was told to me by a Druze.) Perhaps the earliest Zionist pioneers did have to fight Arab marauders and make the desert bloom, but they did not come to an empty land. Maybe it was sparsely populated, but it was not empty of Jews.

In 1920/1. The first Palestinian refugees were Jews. In the aftermath of WWI, after the Arab riots.

In 1922, in a continuing policy of appeasing the Arabs, 75% of Palestine was taken away from the Jews and the Emirate of Transjordan was created, later to become Jordan. First the British, then the Arabs, banned the entry of Jews from the area - a policy that continued until very recently. [14]

Desolated "Palestine" in the late 1800

The Land of Israel, according to dozens of visitors to the land, was, until the beginning of the last century, practically empty. Alphonse de Lamartine visited the land in 1835. [15]

On a visit to the Ottoman-controlled Holy Land in 1860, Mark Twain described it as "the prince of desolation." "The hills are barren� the valleys unsightly deserts� peopled by swarms of beggars struck with ghastly sores and malformations� Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes� only the music of angels could charm its shrubs and flowers again into life."

Other writers and artists visiting the Holy Land (chiefly from Britain and Germany) � as well as geographers, archeologists, and cartographers � were equally stunned by its utter desolation.

It was only toward the end of the 18th century, when a growing stream of Jewish immigrants rehabilitated the land � draining swamps, reclaiming deserts, and controlling the diseases (chiefly malaria) � that a decimated Arab population began increasing. The resuscitation of the land by the Jews and the economic opportunity they created brought an influx of Arab immigrants from dirt-poor neighboring Arab states to swell the number of Arabs in Palestine, so that by the turn of the century there were about 250,000 Arab Muslims and 150,00 Jews living there. 100,000 Christians and others was common colonial practice: divide and rule. In India, it enabled the British to subdue the subcontinent with few troops by pitting hostile segments of the indigenous population against each other. They employed this strategy in Palestine too. British officials, many of them avowed anti-Semites, fanned Arab resentment over broken British promises to make the Arabian chieftain, Faisal, king of Damascus and Syria, and redirected it against Jewish aspirations in Palestine. Their naming the mandate over the Holy Land "Palestine," rather than the land of Israel, was a deliberate effort to obliterate the Jewish connection to the land by calling it by its Roman name. [16]

In the early 19th century, Palestine was a backward, neglected province of the Ottoman Empire. Travelers to Palestine from the Western world left records of what they saw there. The theme throughout their reports is dismal: The land was empty, neglected, abandoned, desolate, fallen into ruins.

In Jerusalem, all reports and journals of travelers, pilgrims and government representatives during these years, repeatedly record the poverty, filth and neglect and the desolate nature of the countryside. Early photographs show lepers in rags and dilapidated buildings. Jerusalem was surrounded by marauding bands of Bedouin Arabs and had to close her gates at nightfall and reopen them at first light, a practice that was similar in Biblical times.

Some quotes from the writings of these visitors before modern times:

Nothing there [Jerusalem] to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining and all the rest is grass, moss and weeds. [English pilgrim in 1590]

The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population. [British consul in 1857]

There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] -- not for 30 miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. ... For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee ... Nazareth is forlorn ... Jericho lies a moldering ruin ... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds ... a silent, mournful expanse ... a desolation ... We never saw a human being on the whole route ... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country ... Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery Palestine must be the prince. The hills barren and dull, the valleys unsightly deserts [inhabited by] swarms of beggars with ghastly sores and malformations. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes ... desolate and unlovely ... [Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867] [17]

National Liberation

Israel - result of a national Liberation of the aboriginal Jews

Israel can be seen as the result of the national liberation movement of the region's aboriginal Jews. Liberation of the aboriginal Jews (and anyone else lucky enough to find refuge within Israel's borders) from the twin fascisms of pan-Arabism and Islamism which have oppressed and even eliminated so many of the region�s aboriginal ethnic groups. Israel's aboriginal Jews were not unique in accepting outside help (and even immigration) in their liberation struggle, so were Lebanon's Maronites; Egypt's Copts, Iraq and Turkey's Kurds, and Iran's Zoroastrians. [18], as a commentator said: It is immoral to ethnically cleanse Judea of its aboriginal Jews. as It is immoral to ethnically cleanse Australia of its Australian aborigines, It is immoral to ethnically cleanse Judea of its Jewish aborigines (Jews = originally from Judea). [19]

One major difference between the Jews' return to the Land of Israel and the restitution of the title that indigenous groups have to their traditional lands in Australia and Canada is that the latter occurred within the political framework of states that have established legislative and judicial institutions and law enforcement agencies. These institutions draft the principles that define the relationships among all of their subjects, and they settle any disputes which might arise. In contrast, the Jews' return to Palestine occurred in an international context in which such legislative, judicial, and law enforcement institutions were in their embryonic stages. [20]

What a world:: Racist Arabs & Islamic bigots call the victims of their racism - "racists"

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:46:02 EDT

What a world:: Racist Arabs & Islamic bigots call the victims of their racism - "racists"

Forget the fact that Israel is multi-racial for all colors from the whitest of white to the darkest of black, whereas Arab countries (including "Palestinian" authorities") asides from oppressing all non-Arab minorities, are almost entirely "judenrein", but in democratic Israel, an Arab can get the highest office!But the brazenness of Arab racism not only fails to admit of it's racist war on Jews/Israel since the 1920's, but it brands Israel's defense FROM it as "racist"..

___________

Israelis aren't 'racist' - they're worried Op-Ed Contributors ...Israel's Arab citizens are being drawn toward radicalism by their leadership. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1167467807212

[Racism of] Killing Jews in Israel a young Israeli student at Hebron University was gunned down while jogging through a mixed neighborhood of Jews and Arabs. The al Aqsa Brigade, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yassir Arafat's Fatah movement, joyously claimed credit for the killing of yet another innocent Jew. When it was later learned that the jogger was an Arab-Israeli and not a Jew, al Aqsa quickly apologized to the family, calling it an accident. But the killing of the innocent young jogger was not an accident; the murderer had deliberately taken aim at his head and midsection, intending to end his life. The only thing accidental about the murder was the religion of the victim. The al Aqsa Brigade had sent the assassin to murder a Jew - any Jew, so long as he was a Jew.This is racism, pure and simple. And despite efforts by supporters of Palestinian terrorism to justify the murder of innocent civilians as national liberationor by any other euphemism, this case proves that the Palestinian terrorists targeting of Jews and only Jews - as many as possible - is little different in intent than other forms of lethal or exterminatory anti-Jewish murders (I dont use the term anti-Semitic only because some Arabs claim that because they too are Semites, they cant be anti-Semitic). Obviously the numbers are different, because Israel is capable of defending its Jewish citizens, but if it were not, the goal of Palestinian terrorist groups would not be very different from that of previous groups intent on murdering as many Jews as possible. http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israeljewsracismdersh130112.html

The Hamas advocates Killing Jews, simply for being Jews http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14650

If justifying the murder of innocents because they belong to a certain hated group is not abject racism, I'd like to know what is.http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999795.html

______________

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD 'Racist' speech walkout‎ - Apr 21, 2009 Diplomats from across the world have walked out of a speech delivered by Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a global anti-racism conference, ... http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/home/regularieninhalte/world-news-ticker/world/2009/04/21/mass-walk-out-at-un-conference-after-racist-iranian-speech.html

Lebanon news - NOW Lebanon -Western leaders horrified at 'racist ...Western leaders horrified at 'racist' Ahmadinejad speech. April 20, 2009. Western leaders recoiled in horror Monday at a fierce anti-Israel outburst by Iran's president at a UN ... http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=89673

When representatives of many Arab and Muslim nations publicly applaud Ahmadinejad's racist rant, the real losers are the Palestinians. ... http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/durbanII

Islamists threaten terror attacks in Germany (For betraying 'Granddad Hitler' / Islamo-nazism)

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:40:35 EDT

Islamists threaten terror attacks in Germany (For betraying 'Granddad Hitler' / Islamo-nazism)
adnkronos ^ | 04,22,09

Terrorism: Islamists threaten terror attacks in Germany

Berlin, 22 April (AKI) - The Al-Qaeda linked Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan on Wednesday released a video threatening the "criminal" German government and citizens of the Jewish faith, according to German media.

In the video, the third released this year, shows a man identified as "Commander Mohammad", who criticises the presence of German troops in Afghanistan.

The man accuses "the sons of Germany of being in the service of the Jews" unlike "Granddad Hitler".

Investigators believe the video's release may be linked to a major Islamist terrorism trial which opened on Wednesday at a high-security court in the northwestern German city of Duesseldorf .

In the trial, three Germans and one Turkish national are accused of planning a series of simultaneous bomb attacks against discos and pubs and the United States airbase in Ramstein and against Germany's Federal Prosecutor's Office.

Two of the German suspects are converts to Islam while the third is a German citizen of Turkish descent. They face charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation, plotting murder, and conspiracy to conduct a bomb attack.

The trial is expected to last one to two years. If the defendants are found guilty, they could face prison terms of up to 15 years.

Prosecutors claimed the men were planning to use about 10 times as much explosives as were used in the deadly July 2005 attacks on London transport that killed 56 people and injured thousands.

The plot was at an advanced stage and the attacks could have killed over 50 people, according to police.

Around 300 German federal agents were involved in monitoring the cell for several months, before police swooped in on the group in what was one of Germany's biggest anti-terror operations to date.

Three of the defendants were arrested in the Germany's western Sauerland region and the fourth was arrested in Turkey and extradited to Germany in November last year.

Prosecutors say the four men belong to a little-known group called the Islamic Jihad Union with roots in Uzbekistan and ties to Al-Qaeda.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.3239023359

How dare you offer to shake my hand!

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:43:10 EDT

One of my favorite classic movie comedies is Duck Soup (1933). Through some unlikely circumstances, Rufus T. Firefly (played by Groucho Marx) becomes the political leader of a country called Freedonia. Due to an exchange of fairly trivial insults, Freedonia is on the brink of war with a neighboring country, Sylvania. After mediation by a mutual friend of Firefly and Trentino, Sylvania’s ambassador, it looks like war has been averted. All that is needed to secure peace is a handshake. Firefly is glad to have peace, and figures at first that Trentino will shake his hand, and all will be well. But suppose he doesn’t? Firefly quickly talks himself into believing that it is not only possible, but nearly certain, that Trentino will snub the handshake gesture. When the ambassador arrives, Firefly is all worked up, and yells, “So you refuse to shake my hand!” Instead of offering a handshake, Firefly slaps Trentino, and both sides are determined to go to war.

In addition to the usual Marx Brothers gags, Duck Soup was a good work of satire. 1933 was also a long time ago, and we have come along way since then, or have we?. I was reminded about that movie the other day, when several conservative pundits and Republican leaders basically accused President Obama of selling out America’s interests by shaking hands with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega at the recent Summit of the Americas. Supposedly, President Obama sat passively by while Mr. Chavez and Mr. Ortega humiliated America on the world stage. Pat Buchanan characterized Obama’s behavior as one of the biggest disgraces by an American president that he could ever recall. And that is from a guy who worked for Nixon!

For decades, presidents of both parties have engaged in apparently comfortable social relationships with dictators and other unsavory leaders of various countries with deplorable human rights records. This has not been limited to large gatherings by the leaders of many countries, but has also involved wining and dining assorted despots individually. There are often legitimate reasons for doing so. Out of around 200 countries in the world, only a few dozen are liberal democracies, characterized by a free and independent press, due process of law, and fairly contested elections. The U.S. has to deal with the other countries, also, and it is usually in our best interest to show at least some degree of courtesy toward their leaders. Obama has been clear that improved relations with, for example, Venezuela, will depend on more than a simple gesture or two, but shaking hands with Mr. Chavez at a large gathering does absolutely no harm, and might possibly do some good.

One of the most universal desires of people is to be treated with respect, and most Latin Americans of all political persuasions believe that this is not what they have received from the United States. Had Obama conspicuously refused to shake Chavez’ hand when it was offered, the insult would have been felt throughout Latin America. Such a snub would have nearly guaranteed poor relations with the whole region. By shaking his hand, and that of Mr. Ortega, along with a small conciliatory gesture toward Cuba, Obama at least provides the possibility of improved relations – not only with those specific countries, but also with all of Latin America. Maybe such an improvement will not happen, but it costs nothing to explore the possibility. Contrary to the assertions of Mr. Buchanan and his ideological allies, Obama acted in the interests of his country. It is his critics who might be well advised to watch Duck Soup to regain some proper perspective.

The race card by Arab Muslim bigots at the UN (Durban II)

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:26:34 EDT

The race card by Arab Muslim bigots at the UN (Durban II)

Even though it’s really Islamism that is the epitome of bigotry and it’s Arabism that Equals Racism against all non-Arabs, including: Kurds, Berbers, Jews (not only inside Israel), Persians, Africans (not only the millions of victims in Sudan), etc. and as an Arab admitted the true Nature of the Twin Fascisms of Islamism and Pan-Arabism’ that dominates the Arab Muslim world , yet the UN, in its Durban proclaiming to be an anti-racism forum, bows to the Arab Muslim lobby control to ignore the above but concentrate rather on anti-Arabism and Islamophobia, both terms which have been used as tools by Islamists to gage any criticism of intolerance in the Arab-Muslim world (and radicals have been politicizing genuine feelings, to call true fear of terror as “racism” ).

______________

Kicking Israel Around [Anne Bayefsky] April 07, 2009 What’s behind all this? The OIC countries are locked in a struggle with EU states over the ability to stifle free speech (such as “defaming” Islam) in the name of protecting religion. The Russian move helps the OIC nations by letting them use the anti-semitism clause as a bargaining chip, to be played in exchange for the EU’s allowing free-speech restrictions. In a related issue, the Danish are unhappy with the mention of something the U.N. invented called “anti-Arabism.” That phrase has been inserted in the paragraph about discrimination in the form of Islamophobia, Christianophobia and anti-semitism. But the rest of the EU has told the Danes to get lost, on the grounds that if the EU proposes deleting anti-Arabism, the OIC will insist on deleting anti-semitism. As EU officials explain to observers, “We want to show restraint.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzk3YjI3NDQxNDMzYzE1ZTQ4NzY4ZjU4Y2VkNTE4ZTI=

Human Rights of Non-believers, Apostates and Free-thinkers “The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed”. General Comment 22 on Article 18, United Nations Human Rights Committee, 1993. We find paragraph 10 of the draft outcome document to be deeply flawed in that it singles out only Christians, Jews and Muslims as named victims of “phobias”. Furthermore, while the term “Islamophobia”, for example, is undefined, it is used to falsely equate disdain for or opposition to Islam with intolerance of, or violence and hatred towards the believer. Secondly, no mention is made in paragraph 10 of discrimination, intolerance and violence towards non-believers, Polytheists, apostates, and free-thinkers. Yet the human rights of non-believers, free-thinkers and those of other faiths are systematically denied in many parts of the world, and many face discrimination, abuse and even death. We urge delegations to recognise that all are entitled to protection from discrimination, whatever their belief or lack of belief. We therefore respectfully suggest either that the list of specific types of discrimination be deleted from paragraph 10, or the list be expanded to include non-believers, polytheists, apostates and free-thinkers. We are equally concerned that anti-Arabism is included in the list, while no mention is made of the anti-Westernism endemic in many parts of the world. Again, we would respectfully suggest that either the reference to anti-Arabism be deleted or that the list should be extended to include anti-Westernism. Our preferred text, which we respectfully offer to delegations, then becomes: 10. Recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions, beliefs and non-beliefs, and the global rise in the number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence. With, as an alternative: 10. Recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religion, beliefs, and non-beliefs, and the global rise in the number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Judeophobia, Christianophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Arabism, anti-Westernism and intolerance and violence towards non-believers, polytheists, apostates and free-thinkers.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025617.php

Islamic Agenda: “Defamation of Religion” The Islamic Group (Pakistan) stated, “Defamation is not about freedom of expression, but the abuse of this freedom.” Iran was very active throughout the week, taking the floor more than any other country on this issue. It consistently advocated “elaborating” legislation to fight racism, proposing further, “Model legislation on the necessity of upholding respect for…reputation, public morals as well as incitement to racial and religious hatred [code for defamation].” As the debate on defamation was getting underway, the chair asked two journalists to leave the room, explaining that members of two regional groups had requested that the cameras be removed from the room in that they have had adequate time for filming. The journalists were from the French-German cultural channel ARTE and were making a documentary about the human rights debate at the UN. Pakistan, South Africa, and Egypt expressed their concerns that these journalists would engage in “selective interpretation” of the discussion. Counter-terrorism, Islamophobia Pakistan wanted to include even more language to equate counter-terrorism with racism. Pakistan, Algeria, and Iran also wanted the words, “Islamophobia” and “anti-Arabism” to remain in the document.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=6645721&printmode=1

I'll Take Mine Black, Thanks

Henry M — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:25:27 EDT

Tea Parties Forever
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 12, 2009
This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.
Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.
Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.But here’s the thing: the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now. That didn’t stop Republicans from taking control of both Congress and the White House. And they could return to power if the Democrats stumble. So it behooves us to look closely at the state of what is, after all, one of our nation’s two great political parties. One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday.
These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so. But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party. Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to the 9/11 terrorists?
Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.
Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials. But while it’s new to have a talk-radio host in that role, ferocious party discipline has been the norm since the 1990s, when Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, became known as “The Hammer” in part because of the way he took political retribution on opponents.
Going back to those tea parties, Mr. DeLay, a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution — he famously suggested that the teaching of evolution led to the Columbine school massacre — also foreshadowed the denunciations of evolution that have emerged at some of the parties.
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
So what’s the implication of the fact that Republicans are refusing to grow up, the fact that they are still behaving the same way they did when history seemed to be on their side? I’d say that it’s good for Democrats, at least in the short run — but it’s bad for the country.
For now, the Obama administration gains a substantial advantage from the fact that it has no credible opposition, especially on economic policy, where the Republicans seem particularly clueless.
But as I said, the G.O.P. remains one of America’s great parties, and events could still put that party back in power. We can only hope that Republicans have moved on by the time that happens.

Henry M

Defending Obama on Twitter - from @chucklasker

Chuck — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:59:53 EDT

I'm not sure if anyone reads these posts anymore. But, if you're a fan of my Obama campaign efforts, and if you're on Twitter, follow me at http://www.twitter.com/chucklasker. I am defending Obama on a regular basis and I could use the help. The Republicans are using Twitter to a high level, even having their own group called TCOT (True Conservatives on Twitter). It's the most ignorant group of people I've ever met, so let's get in there and fight the good fight! It's not over!

Tribal Law Still Alive and Legally Sanctioned in Afghanistan

Henry M — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:47:05 EDT

Afghanistan 'rape' law puts women's rights front and center

Obama called the law abhorrent. Would Bush have? Obama appears to be trying to change things in Afghanistan? Was Bush, really?

If you're a feminist, you can't sanction the cultural relativism that says that "it's part of their tradition, so who are we to say that it's wrong."

Misogyny was part of many societies’ history, including most religions and regions. Women only started to gain rights in the USA 100 years ago. Until then, and for many, even now, their disenfranchisement was traditional and believed to be dictated by their god. If that change was good, and helping women worldwide is required of a nation with the global power/influence of the USA, then the academic posturing of cultural relativism is deservedly dead.

Henry M

The Empire Stops Here

Henry M — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:27:39 EDT

Legalizing weed is good, but not the top priority

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:04:01 EDT

President Obama recently was criticized for casually dismissing a question about the possible economic stimulus effect resulting from the legalization of marijuana. Although I am on the side of those who would legalize marijuana – or at least getting the federal government out of the way of individual states’ efforts to set their own rules on that subject – I can hardly blame Obama for not wanting to address that issue at this time. The new president has inherited the worst economic crisis within the lifetime of most of us, along with two wars that have not gone very well. In attempting to address the economic issue, he is tying in reforms for education, healthcare, and energy policies, so that the economic recovery will hopefully be far more long term than one based on asset inflation and reckless increases in consumer debt. Obama has a lot of good ideas, but I am concerned that he could be trying to do too much at one time. I hope that he manages to prove my doubts to be misplaced.

At any rate, although I agree with the advocates for the legalization of marijuana, this is the wrong time for Obama to push that issue, even if he privately agrees with it. He is using all of his available political capital to push those issues that he (understandably) believes are the most critical at this time. What he can do, and appears to be doing, is to reduce the federal enforcement efforts against users of the “evil weed.” Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune has a good column on the subject. My one implied disagreement with Mr. Page is that I think he does not take into account the practical reality that President Obama would seriously impair his ability to tackle the bigger issues if he added legalizing marijuana to his policy agenda at this time. Still, it is a good column. Here is the link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0401pageapr01,0,1071790.column

Here we go again, Fake "war crimes" by Israel bashers exposed - damning effect still on

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:16:38 EDT

Here we go again, Fake "war crimes" by Israel bashers exposed - damning effect still on

Reports of IDF Crimes: Fiction Based on Rumors - Defense/Middle ...Claims that IDF soldiers deliberately killed civilians during Operation Cast Lead were based in hearsay, a military investigation has concluded. The two soldiers who first reported the alleged incidents several weeks ago had not seen the incidents themselves, and had no personal knowledge to support the allegations... B'Tselem, accused the IDF... ...
www.israelnationalnews.co...

Then again, it (false accusations by the infamous un-reliable radical political group: B'tzelem) reminds us all the UN's such loud & harsh "accusation" of Israel of "killing Kids in Gaza", then later on "woke up" told the truth, AKA retracted it ,

UN retracts claim over Gaza school attack [Feb 4, 2009] ... The UN has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike, which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza last month, hit a school run by a UN ...
www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204...
www.abc.net.au/news/stori...
news.yahoo.com.au/a/-/wor...
www.worthychristianforums...
yet, the damage of the false accusations on innocent Israel is still there, full force.

Give'em Hell, Barack!

Henry M — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:55:25 EDT

Frustrated Americans cheer Obama's tough auto moves

Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:01pm EDT
* Some recall Truman attempt to seize steel industry
* Market fears signal of further intervention
* Public support may help Obama win over Republicans
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK, March 30 (Reuters) - Some frustrated U.S. taxpayers cheered President Barack Obama's tough steps to shore up the reeling auto industry on Monday but critics called his decision to fire General Motors' chief a heavy-handed power grab.
Obama forced out General Motors (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) chief executive Rick Wagoner, pushed Chrysler LLC toward a merger with Italy's Fiat SpA (FIA.MI: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), and threatened bankruptcy for both, marking an escalation in Washington's involvement in rescuing the faltering economy. [ID:nSP207882]
Skeptics asked whether it was an early sign of a more activist administration or an isolated example. GM shares tumbled 30 percent on the news and the Dow Jones Industrial average.DJI sank nearly 4 percent.
Experts called it potentially the most significant presidential intervention in the private sector since Harry Truman tried to seize the steel industry during the Korean War in 1952, only to be rebuffed by the Supreme Court.
"I don't think the president should be running the economy. They should have let the company go bankrupt. The guy would have lost his job anyway," said Edward Prescott, a 2004 Nobel laureate in economic sciences.
As a candidate last year, Obama supported rescuing the financial sector, and since then he has shifted to attacking the bonuses and corporate jets for companies taking taxpayer money to pushing out a CEO and replacing members of the board of directors.
"Politics is certainly entering the process. GM should have gone into bankruptcy in the fall. We would be much further along with the workout by now," added Randall Filer, a professor of economics at Hunter College in New York.
Stephen Schork, editor of an industry report on the energy and shipping markets, feared Obama was trying to engineer a hasty conversion to green energy. "They are expressing abject hostility toward the hydrocarbon industry," Schork said.
WILL POPULAR SUPPORT HOLD?
At the same time, Obama's approval ratings have held firm above 60 percent in most public opinion polls. In a Cincinnati coffee shop, retiree Sharon Schmidt, 74, said she supported the decision to push Wagoner out.
"If GM is going to take a big bailout from the federal government, the people who brought it to this state should probably go," Schmidt said. "These bankers and so on are making million dollar bonuses? They should be gone, too."
In a Dallas suburb, accountant John Shaffer, 47, also approved. "I feel he was fired to force the unions and bond holders to seriously negotiate with the company. So I think it was good," he said.
Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said Obama's action lacked any historical parallel because the circumstances of the financial crisis were unique and he could succeed because he seemed to have a good "internal gyroscope" on reading the mood of the public.
"So far people are with him," Hess said. "There will be a lot of people who say: At last somebody is doing something."
Opposition from Republicans in Congress was fast and fierce.
"With sweeping new power the White House will be deciding which plants will survive and which won't, so in essence, this administration has decided they know better than our courts and our free market process how to deal with these companies," said Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee.
But in a sign Obama may find some support from the Republican minority, Representative Darrell Issa of California said Obama has "struck the right chord in seeking balance between supporting the American auto industry and calling for a much-needed restructuring."
(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro in Washington, Andrea Hopkins in Cincinnati, Ed Stoddard in Dallas and Pedro Nicolaci da Costa in New York; Editing by Vicki Allen)

Henry M

Taking the Pro-Pot Position (Because Somebody Has To)

Henry M — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:50:26 EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/taking-the-pro-pot-positi_b_179653.html

Fast-forward to today's online town hall, and once again, marijuana legalization proved to be one of the most popular questions, with the most-approved-of pro-pot question being: "Should the U.S. legalize pot as a way to grow jobs and stimulate the economy?"
With all of his usual charisma and endearing jocularity, our president laughed off the question, stating "I don't know what this says about the online audience, but, no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow the economy." The mewling sycophants in the East Room audience laughed and burst into applause.
Once again, the Obama administration has greeted this question with an out-and-out rejection, with no reasoning underlying their position. Let's ignore for a moment that Obama's answer, in and of itself, is deeply wrong and ill-informed; moving from zero taxes on weed to any taxes is obviously an increase in revenue, not to mention the shift of growing and supplying jobs from the black market to legitimacy, which means more revenue in income taxes and more jobs.
Now, couple this with the millions, if not billions, of dollars that would be saved without the government being responsible for the care and feeding of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders. From 1965 through the election of Barack Obama, our government arrested 20 million people for possession of marijuana. That, folks, is a lot of stoners.
In 2006 alone -- the last year for which statistics are available -- 829,625 people were arrested on marijuana-related charges, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Of these, 89 percent were arrested for simple possession.
So, couple the tax revenues, both sales and income, with the savings involved in keeping potheads out on the streets instead of in the pen. Now, put that Everest-sized pile of cash aside for a moment and think about this: Who's losing money in the deal?
According to Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, fully 75 percent of Mexican drug cartels' cash comes from the sale of marijuana. Legalizing marijuana would, of course, take away that massive source of income for the cartels, just as ending prohibition cut bootlegging as a source of revenue for La Cosa Nostra.
Combining all of the above effects, the legalization of marijuana means billions of dollars saved or made, the creation of jobs and the curbing of violence along the Mexican border, which in turn means saving thousands of lives.
Barack Obama can certainly be against legalization, but he owes it to nonviolent drug offenders caught in the horror show that is the U.S. prison system, the families of innocent victims of the Mexican drug wars and economically bloodied U.S. taxpayers to explain why. Ganja may cause the giggles, but legalization shouldn't be a laughing matter. And it certainly shouldn't be treated as cavalierly as it has by the current administration, especially when it has been proven to be a popular issue every time Obama has tried to go straight to the people.

More revelations on Arab Palestinians fake "victimhood" - Israel's Gaza toll far lower than Palestinian tally (Pallywood, Jeninitis)

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:45:46 EDT

More revelations on Arab Palestinians fake "victimhood" - Israel's Gaza toll far lower than Palestinian tally (Pallywood, Jeninitis)

Israel's Gaza toll far lower than Palestinian tally (Pallywood, Jeninitis)
Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:56am EDT
JERUSALEM, March 26 (Reuters) - Israel says far more armed fighters and far fewer Palestinian civilians were killed during its 22-day offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in January than reported in widely-used Palestinian figures.
In the first Israeli death tally to appear in an official publication since the Dec 27-Jan 18 war, it said a total of 1,166 Palestinians were killed, not 1,417 as reported by Palestinian human rights activists.
The figures were contained in a briefing paper issued by the public affairs department of the Israeli embassy in London on Wednesday (http://london/mfa/gov/il). They were later confirmed in a press release by the Israeli army.
The tally says 295 civilians lost their lives -- about a third of the figure of 926 reported by Gaza's Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (www.pchrgaza.org), which published a full list of names earlier this month.
The army statement, citing data gathered by its research department, said its count was based on "the names of Palestinians killed". It said at least 709 of the dead in Gaza were armed militants, not 236 as reported by the Palestinians.
The Palestinian group said "255 police and 236 fighters" died in Israeli bombing and shelling -- a total of 491.
Israel has made clear it regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters.
The Israeli embassy paper said the "degree of involvement" in the armed conflict of a further 162 killed in its offensive was "still under investigation". The army statement said they are "162 names of men that have not yet been yet attributed to any organisation".
It did not say how the list of names was obtained.

DIED NATURALLY
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights on Thursday reaffirmed its own figures, saying "extensive investigation and cross-checking .. determined that a total of 1,417 Palestinians died in the offensive" of whom 926 were civilians, including 313 children and 116 women.
The group's Hamdi Shaqoura told Reuters the centre took a long time and employed great efforts to research the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed.
"We have the numbers and the names of the victims. The process was very well and carefully researched and our numbers reflected the truth," he said.
"International law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians," he added.
An Israeli security source said the army's research made clear "about a quarter" of those killed were uninvolved in the fighting "and that's relatively low on any scale" for conflict in an urban environment.
The source suggested that the Palestinian count may have included death by natural causes during the period, which he said statistically would account for approximately 400 deaths.
Shaqoura said Palestinian researchers made sure not to include deaths caused by "internal events" or natural deaths.
He added: "When speaking about Israeli people, Israel regards all people under 18 years of age as children. But when speaking about the Palestinians Israel lowers the age to 16, in order to provide a cover for its army."
The central aim of the Israel embassy briefing paper was to reject charges of war crimes by Israeli forces in Gaza from human rights groups.
Human Rights Watch said this week Israel's use of white phosphorus shells over densely populated Gaza areas was evidence of war crimes, and United Nations investigators said Israel had targeted civilians. Israel rejected both charges.
The embassy paper said there was so far no adequate ethical code of war "to regulate the war on terror" in which "amoral" adversaries flouted the rules of war and used human shields with total indifference to human suffering.

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827

Cook County Jail Staff Daily Commits Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Dr Linda Shelton — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:08:38 EDT

Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of California has indicted a doctor, a nurse, and a pharmacist for elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon for forcing high doses of psychotropic medications on Alzeimer's and other patients to shut them up and keep them in a zombie like state. Three patients died due to results of these wrongful acts.

In Illinois it is illegal to involuntarily force psychotropic drugs like Haldol, Zyprexa, Ativan and even Benedryl by injection on patients unless they are an immediate danger to their own life or someone else's life and then a court order must be obtained to continue the medication involuntarily.

CCDOC officers constantly request nurses to give such medication to shut up complaints by inmates, to quiet them even though they are not harming anyone and are locked in their cells, and in retaliation for disagreements with the officers. Nurses call doctors on the phone and ask for prescriptions and the doctors illegally prescribe the medication without examining the patients. Even if they examine the patients doctors at CCDOC under the direction of the Director of Psychiatry, Dr. David Carrington, continue to violate ethical standards and the law with such prescriptions when they are not needed and when there has not been adequate evaluations or diagnoses that require such medication. Even if the medications may be indicated, they cannot be given involuntarily except under strict guidelines.

I complained to the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commissions Human Rights Authority Branch that by law must investigate complaints of violations of the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. They sustained my complaint that psychotropic drugs were being given illegally to inmates to shut them up. After the HRA warned Dr. Carrington that this illegal practice must stop, Dr. Carrington and his staff with assistance of the officers are continuing to violate the law. Each act of forcing psychotropic drugs on an inmate/patient without proper diagnosis and without documentation that they are a danger to their own life or the life of others is a class A misdemeanor.

For more details about this "Haldol Menace" see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA2S-oOOJyY&NR=1

Dr. Carrington should be disciplined, his license revoked, the nurse's involved licenses revoked, and the officers retrained to understand the law and how to properly help in the mental health care of mentally ill persons without assaulting them.

If this was California, Dr. Carrington would be charged with abuse of patients and assault with a deadly weapon and face up to 11 years in prison. Why is State's Attorney Anita Alvarez doing nothing? Why is the United States Attorney who came to the same conclusion about this medical battery and malpractice doing nothing? We need a public outcry, legislative hearings, and indictments and action by the Illinois Department of Professional Responsibility.

Please complain to:
Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, Cook County State's Attorney, 50 W. Washington, Room 500, Chicago, IL 60602,
Patrick Fitzgerald and Joan Laser, Asstant United State's Attorneys at 219 S. Dearborn, 5 th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, and
the press.

This barbaric medical battery and abuse must stop! Injection of these drugs into asthmatics or others without careful review of their medical records and careful diagnosis is malpractice, assault with a deadly weapon, and medical battery. It may cause death in certain persons (fatal laryngospasm in asthmatics) and permanent brain injury. Haldol has now been documented to cause brain atrophy in long term use and has a half life of 8 days in the brain - and leads to serious complications in at least half of people it is given to.

Torture freak Cheney please shut your mouth!

Robert Lynch — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:22:25 EDT

Dick Cheney has so much American blood on his hands he really needs to shut it. He rammed the Iraq War down the American people's throats, so far almost 5000 of our troops are now dead as a result and 30,000 maimed and crippled for life.

The terrorists who masterminded the attack on 9/11, Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, are still on the loose, basking in the fame that their violence has brought them. Cheney and Bush were totally impotent in their pathetic efforts to bring these murderers to justice.

The torture program instituted by Cheney and Bush has made us less safe. Now every country in the world can justify torture by citing the use of this criminal method by Cheney and Bush. Outlaw nations such as China are now mocking us when we try to pressure them to stop torturing political prisoners. Torture has exposed our troops, our sons and daughters, to greater risk of torture thanks to the ignorant delight Cheney took in savagery.

This torture freak now has the audacity to go on TV and ignorantly proclaim that President Obama has made us less safe because he has started to roll back the War Crimes of torture and is going to shut down the Guantanamo Bay Torture Center.

We have already suffered the loss of thousands of Americans, as well as the loss of our moral authority, because of the treachery and stupidity of Dick Cheney. His personal greed and hatred of the Constitution with its checks on executive power are now clear and infamous. He does not belong on television, being interviewed as if he were a person worthy of respect and attention. He belongs in prison, awaiting trial for War Crimes, at the Hague.

It's Not Over

Henry M — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:27:30 EDT

We have long, hard work ahead of us before people stop being afraid of a diverse USA that is unified in their desire to rebuild America's moral standing in the wold and through that, it's wealth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk is more popular than are videos of Barack Obama. Think about that and do something about it!

Henry M

KCUF, 128 Kb/s on Shoutcast Unlimited: http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-shoutcast-limited/ to play, http://www.urdomain.us/playing.html to see what's playing, and now available on RECIVA Internet-Radio receivers, http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-reciva

KCUF can now be listened to using a Windows Vista Sidebar Gadget: http://gallery.live.com/results.aspx?bt=1&q=KCUF

PLEASE SIGN "TRUTH COMMISSION" PETITION !!

MAXIE — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:38:31 EDT

SIGN SENATOR LEAHY PETITION TO INVESTIGATE THE CRIMES AGAINST OUR COUNTRY DURING BUSHS DICTATORSHIP! FINALLY WE WILL FIND OUT THE TRUTH OF WHAT BUSH DID TO THIS COUNTRY DURING HIS OCCUPATION! GOAL IS 100,000 SIGNITURES THIS WEEK! PASS PETITION ON TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY! THANK YOU !

http://ga3.org/campaign/btcpetition

DICK CHENEYS GREAT IDEAS CAME FROM................

MAXIE — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:23:13 EDT

"THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY" A REPUB THINK TANK WHO'S IDEA OF A BETTER GOVERNMENT WAS TO GOVERN BY FEAR AND WARS! IRAQ WAS THEIR FIRST STEP IN THE PLAN! DIDN'T WORK SO WELL NOW DID IT! RESEARCH THIS "PROJECT" AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT THE REPUBS HAVE IN STORE FOR THE USA IN THE FUTURE! REALLY SICK STUFF!

Obama is the villain

Working Class Slob — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:32:22 EDT

"Obama is the villain"

At least that's what the Right would have you believe.

Ari Fleischer was going head too head with a Democratic commentator (which I dd not know) on CNN today.

Ari Fleischer clearly put responsibility for our current economic situation, and future suffering and difficulties which may arise, on the shoulders of President Obama.

The Democratic Commentator did fire back, pointing out some of the economic damage done by Bush.

But Bushes Whore got in the last word, placing responsibility back in President Obama's court.

My concern is the shear proliferation of Right Wig rhetoric on the air-waves. How many hundreds of sound bights are they getting out per day, depicting President Obama AS THE VILLAIN????

We can not let Democratic Commentators that are not sufficiently prepared to spar with the Talking Heads on the Right, represent the administrations position.

Mr. Fleisher, can you remember back 8 years ago to the condition the economy was in when Clinton left office??? Did he leave it in the Shambles that Bush left the economy in.??? WELL??????

Now President Obama has to come in clean up the economic mess that Mr. Bush left, and your going to blame President Obama for 8 years of the Bush Administrations failed policies??? Is that how it works Mr. Fleisher???? Well ??????

I know that the administration does not want to be viewed in the same light as the Right, but a good parent, though compassionate and empathetic, is also firm, and provides their children with clear boundaries. Saying “NO”, doesn’t make a parent a bad parent..

online petition for a truth commission

Ann — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:47:58 EDT

If you haven't already, please add your name to this online petition for a Truth Commission. What you are signing on to:

I hereby join Senator Patrick Leahy's call for the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's constitutional abuses so we make sure they never happen again. These abuses may include the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws.

A truth and reconciliation commission should be tasked with seeking answers so that we can develop a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past. Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to the truth and finding out what happened -- so we can make sure it does not happen again.
Signed by:
[Your name]

Thanks--we are close to 100,000 signatures! :)

Pelosi Travel Abuse? Not!

Henry M — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:32:11 EDT

"Watchdog Group" Criticizes House Speaker for Travel Perks, but Records Don't AgreeBy JONATHAN KARL AND LUIS MARTINEZ
March 11, 2009
The treasure trove of documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the Department of Defense regarding Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's use of military aircraft doesn't seem to prove the organization's allegation that Pelosi has made "unprecedented demands" for the flights.

In fact, it appears that Pelosi uses military aircraft less often than her predecessor, former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Rush to Failure

Henry M — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:26:30 EDT

That's our answer to Rush. And we'll put it on a billboard right in his home town, so he can't miss it.

Americans know that when President Obama succeeds, we all do. It's time to leave behind partisan attack politics and stand behind the policies that will strengthen and renew America's economy.

Make your online: https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute/billboardwinner

RNC Chairman Steele All-over-the-place, Particularly on Abortion

Henry M — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:53:32 EDT

Trying to retain the old Republican base while recruiting new members, Steele's double-talk on abortion may just alienate everyone.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/12/abortion-a-choice-steele-tells-gq/
In remarks sure to cause consternation among the pro-life Republican base, party Chairman Michael S. Steele called abortion "an individual choice" during a GQ magazine interview, though he also said the Supreme Court "wrongly decided" the 1973 case that struck down state limits on abortion and made it an individual right.
In an exchange with reporter Lisa de Paulo, transcribed and posted Wednesday night on the GQ Web site, the new Republican National Committee chairman described his background as an adopted child as showing him "the power of life ... and the power of choice."
"The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other," Mr. Steele said.
The exchange then went as follows, starting with GQ: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?" "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice." "You do?" "Yeah. Absolutely."
Mr. Steele then elaborated that he thought "Roe v. Wade — as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter," which prompted Miss DePaulo to ask: "But if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"
Mr. Steele responded. "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."

Henry M

KCUF, 128 Kb/s of the Most Eclectic Music on the Internet, now on Shoutcast Unlimited: http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-shoutcast-limited/ to play, http://www.urdomain.us/playing.html to see what's playing, and now available on RECIVA Internet-Radio receivers, http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-reciva

KCUF can now be listened to using a Windows Vista Sidebar Gadget:

http://gallery.live.com/results.aspx?bt=1&q=KCUF

Earmarks were McCain's obsession, not President Obama's

Robert Lynch — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:53:21 EDT

Many Obstructionist Republicans are posting attacks on President Obama for signing the 2008 supplemental budget bill which was supposed to be signed by President Bush last October. There are earmarks in the bill. SO WHAT?

McCain is the one who was obsessed with earmarks, even though they account for only 1 to 2 percent of any funding bill. He lied to the American people by suggesting that he could balance the budget and return us to "fiscal responsibility" by eliminating earmarks. That is pure fraud. 1 or 2 percent is not going to balance any budget, eliminate the deficit, or pay down the National Debt.

Maybe, to give him the benefit of the doubt, McCain didn't understand that eliminating earmarks would do nothing. He admitted that he was totally ignorant when it came to the economy, or to anything financial, so that would explain why he would stupidly proclaim he could balance the budget and "solve the financial crisis" by dealing with 1 percent of spending.

The intelligent person who understands economics, who won the election, President Obama, did not promise to eliminate earmarks. He said he would limit them, but some earmarks make perfect sense, and should NOT be eliminated. Some of the Obama haters who have posted lists of earmarks on this site are making the case FOR the President. Earmarks for building schools, libraries, police and fire stations are great for the economy, and for the people who live in that community.

How is a school built? Does it just appear out of nowhere? Workers build it. They receive paychecks. They spend the money, which "stimulates" the economy.

When a school, library, police or fire station is built, does it stand there empty? Or do many people work inside of it? Police officers, firemen, teachers, librarians, and all of the support personnel who keep these entities runnning earn paychecks, and spend them.

As anyone with sense already knows, President Obama is doing a great job repairing the damage President Bush and the Republicans did to the economy, and the country. It is not President Obama who is telling lies, it is his opponents who are either lying, or are totally divorced from reality because of their ideological extremism.

Surveillance Self-Defense

Henry M — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:43:03 EDT

http://ssd.eff.org

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Surveillance Self-Defense site. You owe it to yourself, your friends, and your family to check it out.

Henry Mu

KCUF, 128 Kb/s of The Most Eclectic Music on the Internet, now on Shoutcast Unlimited: http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-shoutcast-limited/ to play, http://www.urdomain.us/playing.html to see what's playing, and now available on RECIVA Internet-Radio receivers, http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-reciva

KCUF can now be listened to using a Windows Vista Sidebar Gadget:

http://gallery.live.com/results.aspx?bt=1&q=KCUF

Rush to Judgement

Henry M — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:37:31 EDT

How low can Limgbaugh go?

If you don't know what Limbaugh said at CPAC, check it out and be an informed political participant, rather than taking the easy, "I hate Rush," approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qtvtBGWgBc

Know what you're talking about. Don't be one of the uninformed Liberals so effectively skewered by Limbaugh.

Henry M

Regulatory solutions for credit default swaps (CDS)

Brian Diego — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:59:48 EST

Regulatory solutions for CDS:
* A company cannot be covered more than 80% by CDS (as opposed to 500%)
* Full disclosure for all publicly traded companies to investors (and the CEO)
* If a CDS is not used as legitimate insurance to hedge against failure (i.e. a naked CDS), it cannot be bought using leveraged assets by a FDIC insured entity. It's the government's money you're risking.
* If any ratings AAA for a company which is gambling on naked CDS, have the SEC prosecute

Now why 80%? It's worth noting this dilemma existed before the stock market. A boxer might be paid $100 to win a fight, but $500 by bookies to throw a fight. So actually, the boxer is better off losing and collecting the bets!

80% is about the limit to make sure it is at least better not to fail. We do have to balance between stopping ridiculous 500% coverages (i.e 5 fire insurances on one house, where it's better to burn down the house), with the legitimate uses of a CDS as insurance (how novel!). In any case, this kills the vast majority of the problem because there is a huge gap between the risks of 80% and 500%.

Background info on CDS
With a credit default swap you can own insurance on someone else's property. More significantly, you can take out multiple insurances on the same property. So you can have five parties all hoping for your house to burn down, because they will be paid on that gamble!

Traditional insurance is legitimate - health insurance for example pays out plenty when you get real sick, and everybody pays into the premium to cover the one person who is unlucky enough to need hospitalization. CDS on the other hand are pure gambles on someone else's fortunes. Several people are betting on (and hoping for) one individual to get sick.

Someone else had an excellent explanation using a Fantasy Football analogy:
It's like a fantasy football league or fantasy finance. For every MBS, there was a CDS that bet on that security. Instead of there only being one Peyton Manning allowed, there could be as many as you could sell.
That's why the US RMBS market is 10 trillion, but the CDS market tied to it is 28 trillion. There are 18 trillion fantasy CDS out there that aren't tied to the performance of a real mortgage. It's just paper. That's why the banks, pension funds, states, insurance companies and everyone else are failing. And the Federal government doesn't have enough money to plug the hole and they have yet to even admit the problem.

So you see, everybody could be betting on Peyton Manning, even though there is only one in real life. And for that reason, a market can be filled with trillions of dollars of bets by companies who don't have that much money to begin with. These are "naked bets" as some would say.

The only legitimate use of a CDS is to insure yourself. Or, perhaps to gamble with your own money.

Lax regulations allowed companies to hide these liabilities from even their own CEOs and investors.

Chart of current job losses vs. previous recessions - Job losses always happen in a recession

Brian Diego — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:19:37 EST

Job loss chart comparing all recessions since WWII, with the current one in red:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SbE68EIRR0I/AAAAAAAAEuE/VZsWRIT10Vk/s1600-h/JobLossesPercentPostWarFeb2009.jpg

Chart of people working part time for economic reasons:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SbFT8DrR6qI/AAAAAAAAEuM/EP_F9rJt0vk/s1600-h/PartTimeFeb09.jpg

The following post-WWII recessions are being compared: 1948, 1953, 1960, 1974, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2007. So far, peak-to-date job losses for the 2007 recession (still in progress) rank #4 among all post-WWII recessions, exceeded only by 1948, 1958, and 1953. However, unlike those other three recessions which already began job recovery at this point in time, the current recession is still deepening. We are about 3-6 months from breaking all post-WWII records in job losses.

The key thing to remember is that recessions and job losses happen on average every six years, and that job losses are necessary to shift old jobs into new ones and turn businesses around. That should be obvious even to a high school graduate, but somehow most people think the truth is controversial. How inconvenient.

Unfortunately unlike other recessions, the current recession is much deeper and more painful than anything since the First Great Depression. There's a lot of blame to spread around. But rather than shame those people - who are all getting bailed out as we speak - it simply boils down to housing, stock, and credit bubbles. People bought houses they knew they couldn't afford, and banks lent them the money at Fed induced interest rates which turned out to be steeply unprofitable. Insurers such as AIG also made obscene gambles betting they wouldn't default using leveraged money they didn't have, and hid those bets from investors and even their own CEOs thanks to incompetent regulatory rules. As Buffet plainly pointed out, AIG was smart enough to fail so spectacularly that they got bailed out as more honest businesses are allowed to fail.

Ironically, those are the same three bubbles we're throwing money at now. Of course we should all know that a bubble, especially of this magnitude, is essentially a free market Ponzi scheme fueled by speculation going far beyond intrinsic value. For that reason, there literally isn't enough money in the world left to reverse it. Spending money trying to stop a bubble correction is tantamount to giving new money today to Madoff's Ponzi fund in order to restore investment value that never existed. Is the government really willing to spend at least $30 Trillion (and growing) to fund the bubbles? No, because they haven't analyzed the numbers and frankly don't want to know.

In the second chart, you can see the number of people working part time for economic reasons. People are going back to any place that will give them income, because they're honest and hard working enough to do something about their situation. And thanks to Obama's smart move in expanding unemployment benefits, more people have a short term solution as they search for a better long term solution (otherwise known as a job).

Every day, I see a new Republican hatched article trying to link Obama's career to the deteriorating economy or stock market. More alarming is the number of Democrats trying to tie Obama's career to short-term solutions like the stimulus or bailouts. While the stimulus will have a small effect in the big picture, the real road to recovery will be determined by what the White House and Congress do the rest of this year to reverse the arbitrary bailout course and stop funding the housing and credit bubbles. Since Congress definitely won't do that on their own, it all comes down to Obama's Leadership and his willingless to make "tough choices".

Front page of WSJ: "GM More Open to Bankruptcy"

Brian Diego — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:41:25 EST

Excerpts:
"Top General Motors Corp. executives are more open to a speedy bankruptcy reorganization financed by the government"
"a reversal from GM's position late last year, when it sought a federal bailout."
"the disclosure Thursday that GM's auditor has raised substantial doubt about the car maker's ability to keep going" (and recommended chaper 11 just like myself)
"A bankruptcy of any sort could be far more effective than the type of out-of-court restructuring GM is undergoing" (no duh, politicians are incompetent at these decisions)
"[bankruptcy] could circumvent state franchise laws that have long protected its dealers from GM's restructuring knife"

Other points paraphrased
* GM's executives conceded their primary objections to bankruptcy as unfounded, after "months of research"
* Bankruptcy is one effective way to reduce GM's debt by effectively forgiving some of it in bankruptcy court (all using existing laws)
* GM is still hoping for prepackaged bankruptcy (dictated mainly by GM), than chapter 11 (dictated by a judge). The reason is GM is still not willing to make certain tough decisions.

Let's review three of the options GM has. First, GM can go through out-of-court restructuring, which is what they're still holding out hope for. While this could easily work for a healthier distressed company like Toyota or Ford, or a company willing to make deeper consessions, it will fail for GM. The basic reason why it will fail for GM is that it is cutting costs far slower than it is losing income, and this gap is widening at a staggering rate every month. They admitted today that they are about to go bankrupt again without another bailout. Of course, it doesn't help that they were already teetering before the credit crisis, and did nothing about it for years unlike Ford.

Even GM's auditor's agree with me that GM should file chapter 11 bankruptcy. Why is that? First, the cost of bailing out GM at the current rate is at least $60 Billion a year, even assuming they make all the cuts they legally can. This is a generous estimate assuming GM's own financial statements haven't been cooked. Now all of the cuts GM is making come at a cost to GM's revenue, its employees, and business partners. Its investors may choose to write down some debt, but only voluntarily in a mutual agreement of compromise.

By comparison, bankruptcy opens up the possiblility of seriously writing down debt and charging the costs to investors. Unlike all the other proposals that have been made by politicians, this is already the law. It's established and legitimate, and isn't theft (imagine that!). We don't invent some new law for one company or change the rules. The rules have always been that if you invest in a company that fails, you take a loss. If that company goes into bankruptcy, you will lose some or all of it. That's the risk and reward of investment and most importantly investors knew about bankruptcy when they invested so it doesn't shake market confidence. A judge decides this through due process with the utmost attention to legality and fairness.

Now a compromise form of bankruptcy is prepackaged bankruptcy. GM has allowed that they may have to take that route, because they've finally conceded that out-of-court will probably fail. What a surprise. Now prepackaged bankruptcy might work for GM, but I'm highly skeptical because the one requirement is that GM and all parties agree to deep and realistic concessions. So far GM has lied, mismanaged, and outright cooked their financial forecasts to show they need far less concessions than they really need. It's not even close, and the proof is they're asking for another bailout and a new plan months after their first. Some of the other parties are even less realistic in what they think they need to concede.

For those reason alone, prepackaged bankruptcy might do some good, but will lead to a second bankruptcy. When you think of it that way, maybe that's a great idea. Then GM and their parties can blame everybody else for their second failure, except themselves. Nobody leaves feeling guilty and we can all have a good laugh together five years later. Unfortunately, the main cost in that scenario is all the money GM will burn in the interim, and the fact that the second bankruptcy will shrink GM to the smallest size possible under all scenarios and end up cost more tax dollars than every other plan.

Why are politicians afraid of chapter 11? The short answer is we have an election every 2 years, so short term solutions of delaying the problem are highly valued. Compared to prepackaged bankruptcy, chapter 11 will in the very short term cost more in the form of loans and court costs. The main reason for that is because prepackaged bankruptcy defers and hides true losses until later, which are always going to exceed chapter 11 by definition of containing fewer real concessions. And since prepackaged bankruptcy is a wishful thinking form of compromise, it won't solve half the deep problems possible with chapter 11. This is because Chapter 11 is the only action which keeps GM alive at the same time that it forces GM to be profitable, and it forces debt holders to write down as much as necessary! Prepackaged bankruptcy actually won't - concessions are voluntary and it will simply delay until a second failure.

By analogy, it's worth noting that chapter 11 may cost more jobs in the very short term, and save a lot more jobs in the long term. The Unions won't like that, because their duty is not to save jobs in the long term. Their duty is to look busy like they're saving jobs, which always means saving jobs in the short term. I get it.

The auditors also had their say, and they agree chapter 11 is the best and possibly only eventual route. It's worth noting the auditors are the only third party which is objective, has access to all of GM's inner data, and is professional trained to make this very assessment.

Bottom line, chapter 11 is short term pain for longterm gain. Prepackaged bankruptcy is a first bankruptcy, followed by another. And even GM concedes out-of-court restructuring isn't working, and they have a conflict of interest in what route we take. Listen to the auditors and the experts, bankruptcy is necessary and the longer you wait the harder the cuts will be.

Now in the case that we're going to throw billions at them again, at least make them agree in writing that this is the last time and it's up to them or they've failed. Then next time, Obama can pretend to be real sorry and say to GM, Chrysler, and everyone else (AIG cough): "Aw shucks, I know you guys have it bad and I'd love to help but like we agreed last time we've bailed you out twice and it has to be up to you to turn yourself around." With it in writing, this won't even have to be a "tough decision".

"YELLING FIRE IN A PACKED MOVIE THEATRE".

Working Class Slob — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:21:57 EST

This is my first post, though I have been a member for a long time. I guess that I am more than a little concerned. I watch the conservative media to see what the lunatics are espousing, I listen to what my conservative friends say, and I listen to conversations in public places around the country. As you know, a large percentage of the American Populous does not support President Obama, and are clearly threatened by his initiatives. What I see the conservative media doing is a-kin "TO YELLING FIRE IN A PACKED MOVIE THEATRE".

It makes me sick (literally) to listen to the Conservative Propaganda, but despite the fairy tale nature of their rhetoric, they honestly sound like a College Debate Team beating up on a Junior High debate team. Just because a Trial Lawyer may be good at convincing a Jury, this does not assume that the man has any ethics.

I have an observation which I believe has some value, and I would like for it to be heard, at the very least. Sometimes, someone watching a situation from the outside, can more clearly see what is happening in a situation, then those embroiled in it (how is it playing in Peoria?). Obviously there are a lot of people who wish to be helpful, and a lot of Arm Chair Quarterbacks who may be deluded into believing that their ideas have merit (including mine). If someones ideas did have value, is there a place in the Obama Administration for those ideas to be funneled, and then distilled down????

The Conservative Right Wing Media, seem to be winning the Propaganda war. I base this observation on the amount of Air Time they have to spew their lies and rhetoric. I picture Joseph Goebbels (Third Reich’s Minister of Propaganda) looking up from Hell and smiling proudly at the work of Fox News, Rush, Lee Atwater(diseased), Rove, and others. Why can’t the Centrists, the Left, and the sane, lodge a response. There is a psychological concept that if you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. When Ann Coulter called George Soros (One of the most prolific philanthropists and Humanitarians of our time) “A Nazi Sympathizer”, a couple of days ago on Fox News, I thought that it is a necessity that the Right Wings lies and slander, not go unchallenged. We may be standing on the precipice or we may not be. But you don't want to be wrong. The old story (paraphrasing badly) about “they came for the Trade Unionists and I did nothing, then they came for the gays and I did nothing, and then they finally came for me, and there was no one to fight for me”. Obviously, we are no where near there, but we could find ourselves there, rather quickly.

I wonder if you agree with this suggestion? Do you think that this strategy has validity for the

Democratic Talking Heads, because I do not see them doing this.

ONE SUGGESTION -- REPEAT THE FACTS

OVER AND OVER AGAIN -- AND NOTE THAT THIS IS FACT AND NOT JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES FAIRY TALES. The Facts are indisputable, and we have a litany of facts working to our advantage. TWO FACTS --- THE FEDERAL

DEFICIT DOUBLED DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

IT TOOK 42 PRESIDENTS AND 224 YEARS TO BRING THE FEDERAL DEFICIT TO 4.5 TRILLION, AND BUSH MANAGED TO DOUBLE IT, IN 8 YEARS. WE HAD A BALANCED ANNUAL BUDGET WHEN CLINTON LEFT OFFICE, WHAT WAS IT WHEN BUSH LEFT OFFICE? Mr. Conservative answer the question. No answer the question. What do you mean Tax and Spend Democrats?? Yes, you may not agree with all the Earmarks in the Obama Stimulus Package, but tell me Mr. Conservative, the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars which were given to the banking industry without any accountability, what was that money spent on????

Do you have documentation of that????? We know that, at a minimum, 18 Billion Dollars were paid out in bonuses. ASK YOUR YOURSELF Mr. Listener / Viewer , LOOK BACK AND TRY TO REMEMBER, WERE YOU AND THE COUNTRY BETTER OFF WHEN CLINTON LEFT OFFICE OR WHEN BUSH LEFT OFFICE? The left has got to Get Some Balls. Put down the friggen

Man Purse, because the Conservatives have taken off the gloves. This does not mean the voice of reason, has to stoop to the Conservatives level, or compromise our ethics, just push the facts and push them hard. If George Bush could be elected to 2 terms, anything is possible. Clearly there is a large percentage of the American Populous, who’s reasoning and deductive skills could be called into question,

No need to respond to this email.

If you read it, discussed it, or passed it along. THANKS

Arabism - Racism virus spreading in... Venezuela under Dictator Chavez

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:20:56 EST

Arabism - Racism virus spreading in... Venezuela

So... is Hugo Chavez "arab" enough now?

---

From a 2000-2001 Report of Antisemitism And Racism, Responses to the intifada in the media, in wall graffiti and by Arab organizations in Venezuela such as FEARAB (Arab Federation for Latin America) were directed at de-legitimizing the State of Israel, which was accused of causing the Palestinian tragedy.
The radical language used against Israel was not infrequently antisemitic, for example, the comparison of Israeli soldiers with Nazis *.

In January 2009, Venezuela expelled Israeli ambassador over Gaza, due to influence by Chavez's government's Justice Minister Tarek El Aissami, who is of Arab descent * and a sizable population of Arab descent, hundreds of people who marched against Israel * (at Israel's anti terror operation of cast lead * *, Descendants of Arabs thriving in S. America, Venezuela has a flourishing Arab community of about 1.5 million, business and commerce. Shop names like Flower of Palestine are a common *).

In Jan. 1, 2009, Antisemitic graffiti was painted on the corner of Cristobal Colon Sinai Jewish School in Caracas *.

There was worldwide condemnation pouring down on Venezuela After Synagogue Attack in Caracas, with written racist messages like: "Jews, get out," in the worst ever attack on the Venezualan Jewish community *, Death threats against rabbis and the menacing of the Jewish community has apparently led to vandalism of a synagogue in Caracas. Marauders entered the temple and profaned the Torah and Ark, strewing them on the floor and fired shots in the air *, it has been said that 'Palestinian' and Arab supporters in Venezuela were responsible * and Chavez's (described by many as a dictator * * ** * * * * *, who is a new "hero" in the Arab world *) close ties with the radical Islamic Republic of Iran's leader Ahmadinejad (that has called for genocide, to 'wipe out Israel' *** ) * *.

Hugo Chavez - extreme Arabism, he also forged alliances with dictators of rogue Arab states such as Libya' s Qaddafi, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Exhorting his countrymen to return to their "Arab roots" *, he has illegally given more than 270 Venezuelan passports to Arab extremists *, Waleed al-Tabtabai A Kuwaiti Islamist MP called for moving Arab League headquarters from Cairo to Caracas after he expelled the Israel's ambassador, Tabtabai said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "has proved that he was more Arab than some Arabs"
*.

Tough decisions on GM and Chrysler - why bankruptcy is the best way to save the industry

Brian Diego — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:41:32 EST

Saving the auto industry is an important topic that isn't always well understood by politicians and the public who have to rely on the media for information.

If saving the industry was our priority, the best course is Chapter 11 bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler would stay in business and actually be more likely to survive from that point on compared to now. The longer they wait for bankruptcy, the harder it will be to turn them around through any means.

It's worth noting that GM and Chrysler's decline is accelerating.

Right now, the two are bleeding money and idling, unable to make necessary changes that would be trivially easy under Chapter 11. For example GM is bleeding money because of too many dealerships (i.e. salesmen) but can't scale them back for a number of reasons including state franchising laws. Chrysler is in worse shape than GM, and it's either bankruptcy or disappearing off the face of this earth. I prefer the former.

Of course, politicians and people who aren't familiar with bankruptcy hate the B word, especially because it means GM and Chrysler can more easily close unprofitable businesses (i.e. some job losses) and cut through red tape in state laws (i.e. some loss of state income). There's plenty of other objections hardcore Democrats will have too. Of course, the biggest factor stopping chapter 11 is we have to admit GM and Chrysler have failed - the same dilemma with Iraq!

But that's okay since it will happen anyways. The only thing politicians might influence is whether GM and Chrysler go bankrupt now, or later when it may be too late. So far they've been influencing for the latter.

Now about the stimulus, even Obama knows 3 million is not accurate accounting. This is a marketing slogan that tries to count almost everyone who gets paid anything as a job saved. Every President does this, and I understand where he's coming from.

For that same reason, 1 million jobs are not being saved by the auto bailout. In fact, jobs are being permanently lost because we're letting GM and Chrysler bleed money and ambition rather than save them through bankruptcy. We're only holding out for the false hope that they won't need bankruptcy at all. That's the only scenario where even a single job would be saved by periodic bailouts.

Now chapter 11 does cost billions of dollars in backing, but it's ironically cheaper than bailouts every three to six months. I predicted at the end of last year that GM and Chrysler would be back every three to six months for more money, and so far that's been true. Over the years if we keep handing them money, the bill will come out to at least $100 Billion because of their massive debt and money burn.

Now the fact that we may have to go chapter 11 is certainly awful. But a lot better than the notion of handing out money until it runs out and these two companies are beyond hope.

This is a "tough decision", but what would you choose? Without bankruptcy these two companies are not going to survive the Obama administration anyways.

Buffet explains why the housing bubble happened in his annual Berkshire address

Brian Diego — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:01:00 EST

Full letter from Buffet here:
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf

Quoted from page 10:
Why the housing bubble happened
Buffet: At that time, much of the [mortgage] industry employed sales practices that were atrocious. Writing about the period somewhat later, I described it as involving “borrowers who shouldn’t have borrowed being financed by lenders who shouldn’t have lent.”

To begin with, the need for meaningful down payments was frequently ignored. Sometimes fakery was involved. (“That certainly looks like a $2,000 cat to me” says the salesman who will receive a $3,000 commission if the loan goes through.) Moreover, impossible-to-meet monthly payments were being agreed to by borrowers who signed up because they had nothing to lose. The resulting mortgages were usually packaged (“securitized”) and sold by Wall Street firms to unsuspecting investors. This chain of folly had to end badly, and it did.

The government is rewarding bad banks and punishing honest business
Here Buffettalks about Clayton, a subsidiary of Berkshire:

Buffet: [Berkshire]..though not damaged by the performance of its borrowers, is nevertheless threatened by an element of the credit crisis. Funders that have access to any sort of government guarantee – banks with FDIC-insured deposits, large entities with commercial paper now backed by the Federal Reserve, and others who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government’s umbrella – have money costs that are minimal. Conversely, highly-rated companies, such as Berkshire, are experiencing borrowing costs that, in relation to Treasury rates, are at record levels. Moreover, funds are abundant for the government-guaranteed borrower but often scarce for others, no matter how creditworthy they may be.

This unprecedented “spread” in the cost of money makes it unprofitable for any lender who doesn’t
enjoy government-guaranteed funds to go up against those with a favored status. Government is determining the “haves” and “have-nots.” That is why companies are rushing to convert to bank holding companies, not a course feasible for Berkshire.

Though Berkshire’s credit is pristine – we are one of only seven AAA corporations in the country – our cost of borrowing is now far higher than competitors with shaky balance sheets but government backing. At the moment, it is much better to be a financial cripple with a government guarantee than a Gibraltar without one.

Conclusion
Bottom line, legacy Bush and Fed policies are putting honest businesses out of business and replacing them with hand picked government backed banks - the very ones who caused this mess. I know this is a big ship to turn, but this is the wrong course to continue.

Finally, Buffet also emphasizes the need to eventually wean the economy from dependence on subsidies, and that the problem comes down to bad decisions by banks and borrowers who put 0% down or lied on their loans. The solution is to help everybody else, not throw tax money at deadbeats and their banks. The problem with handouts is they're going to demand more money every 3 months and that's where we're at.

Buffet and a number of economists are calling for reason and a sensible way forward. We've done the bailouts, and from this point on we need to be scaling that back to alternative ways forward.