"We the People" for Obama 2012

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.

...and this is now, not then...

Fire Is Born — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:23:07 EST

It's been a while that I watched BMJ. When I began watching tonight in the middle of the program I entered into President Johnson's conversation in 1965 with McNamara on escalation of the war, when the troops there were in the range of 45 thousands. I sat pinned down to my chair till the end of the program.

That "while" wiyhout BMJ was a wasted while. God bless Bill Moyers of the USA! fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

A Tale of Two Quagmires

This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers looked back some four decades to his experience as a member of President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. At the time, Johnson made a series of fateful decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam, where eventually over two million American military personnel would serve. Estimates indicate that nearly 60,000 U.S. troops – and more than a million Vietnamese – were killed during the course of the conflict.

With an eye on President Obama’s deliberations on whether to deploy more U.S. troops in addition to the 68,000 already in Afghanistan, Moyers presented a montage of recorded conversations and his personal memories of President Lyndon Johnson’s decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam. He said:

“Our country wonders this weekend what is on President Obama’s mind. He is apparently about to bring months of deliberation to a close and answer General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan. When he finally announces how many, why, and at what cost, he will most likely have defined his presidency, for the consequences will be far-reaching and unpredictable. As I read and listen and wait with all of you for answers, I have been thinking about the mind of another President – Lyndon B. Johnson. I was 30 years old, a White House assistant, working on politics and domestic policy. I watched and listened as LBJ made his fateful decisions about Vietnam... Barack Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and this is now, not then. The situation is different. But listen – and you will hear echoes and refrains that resonate today.”

The nation is divided about America’s mission in Afghanistan. In a new WASHINGTON POST – ABC News poll, 55% of respondents expressed confidence that President Obama will pick a strategy that will work, but 52% said that the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting given the costs versus the benefits.

What do you think?

How does the history of the Vietnam War compare to the present situation in Afghanistan?

What decisions do you think Obama should make regarding Afghanistan? What do you think he's actually going to do? Explain.

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%.

U.S. residents fight for the right to hang laundry

Fire Is Born — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:53:38 EST

I say hang'em!

It is human, silent and unobtrusive. I say, ban the mow-blow-and-go "gardeners"- they are not. One of the special pleasures of travel in Central America are the old fashioned loundry rituals. There, it is not question of choice. Laundry is done by women's hands and is hang outside, watched carefuly, hastily carried inside when rain comes. For many women it is the only source of income. These women, I once thought, should also be awarded all those big green prizes that go to somebody else.

I think more hanging laundry would make our USA neighborhoods safer. Perhaps the sight of children playing ouside would return with it. fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

November 18, 2009 | 1 comments

U.S. residents fight for the right to hang laundry

OAS_AD("x81");

U.S. residents fight for the right to hang laundry

Carin Froehlich has help from her granddaughter Ava as they hang some laundry in the front yard of her residence in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, November 12, 2009. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer

By Jon Hurdle

PERKASIE, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Carin Froehlich pegs her laundry to three clotheslines strung between trees outside her 18th-century farmhouse, knowing that her actions annoy local officials who have asked her to stop.

Froehlich is among the growing number of people across America fighting for the right to dry their laundry outside against a rising tide of housing associations who oppose the practice despite its energy-saving green appeal.

Although there are no formal laws in this southeast Pennsylvania town against drying laundry outside, a town official called Froehlich to ask her to stop drying clothes in the sun. And she received two anonymous notes from neighbors saying they did not want to see her underwear flapping about.

"They said it made the place look like trailer trash," she said, in her yard across the street from a row of neat, suburban houses. "They said they didn't want to look at my 'unmentionables.'"

Froehlich says she hangs her underwear inside. The effervescent 54-year-old is one of a growing number of Americans demanding the right to dry laundry on clotheslines despite local rules and a culture that frowns on it.

Their interests are represented by Project Laundry List, a group that argues people can save money and reduce carbon emissions by not using their electric or gas dryers, according to the group's executive director, Alexander Lee.

Widespread adoption of clotheslines could significantly reduce U.S. energy consumption, argued Lee, who said dryer use accounts for about 6 percent of U.S. residential electricity use.

Florida, Utah, Maine, Vermont, Colorado, and Hawaii have passed laws restricting the rights of local authorities to stop residents using clotheslines. Another five states are considering similar measures, said Lee, 35, a former lawyer who quit to run the non-profit group.

'RIGHT TO HANG'

His principal opponents are the housing associations such as condominiums and townhouse communities that are home to an estimated 60 million Americans, or about 20 percent of the population. About half of those organizations have 'no hanging' rules, Lee said, and enforce them with fines.

Carl Weiner, a lawyer for about 50 homeowners associations in suburban Philadelphia, said the no-hanging rules are usually included by the communities' developers along with regulations such as a ban on sheds or commercial vehicles.

The no-hanging rules are an aesthetic issue, Weiner said.

"The consensus in most communities is that people don't want to see everybody else's laundry."

He said opposition to clotheslines may ease as more people understand it can save energy and reduce greenhouse gases.

"There is more awareness of impact on the environment," he said. "I would not be surprised to see people questioning these restrictions."

For Froehlich, the "right to hang" is the embodiment of the American tradition of freedom.

"If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry," said Froehlich, who is writing a book on the subject.

Besides, it saves money. Line-drying laundry for a family of five saves $83 a month in electric bills, she said.

Kevin Firth, who owns a two-bedroom condominium in a Dublin, Pennsylvania housing association, said he was fined $100 by the association for putting up a clothesline in a common area.

"It made me angry and upset," said Firth, a 27-year-old carpenter. "I like having the laundry drying in the sun. It's something I have always done since I was a little kid."

(Editing by Mark Egan and Paul Simao)

Read Comments (1) | Post a comment

Sez Me at 05:41 PM on 11/18/09
Has it occurred to anyone that when your neighbours can tell you that you can't hang your laundry out to dry, you might be getting a little short on that "freedom" we are all supposed to enjoy in our "free countries" here in North America?Reply | Report Abuse

A letter from a friend in Kabul

Fire Is Born — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:24:41 EST

Some time ago we said good bye to Duston who told us he would be going back to Kabul. So he went. Usually when incidents like the most recent Kabul bombing happen, one thinks of one's friends that could be there, in danger. And so I did as well, thinking he must be well anyway, most likely. Kabul is big (I thought). Not so. It is a small world after all. This is what came yesterday. fib

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Hibiscus Tea and Honey in Berlin

"Dear Friends,

At first, I should offer a quick explanation of this letter: I have not yet read any email replies you may have sent me since my last correspondence back around mid October or so. I am currently drinking Hibiscus Tea sweetened with a little honey in an Army Hospital in Berlin Germany. My Laptop Computer has not had internet for two weeks:

October 28th, 2009 began with a loud bang at exactly 6 AM Kabul time. Actually an explosion at the front gate to the Guesthouse where I was living. I don’t know if it was an RPG or Suicide Bomber, and will truly never know for a fact which one it was. The first explosion was followed by machine gun firing and then an RPG hit the front of the building. The Taleban killed the exterior gate residence guards, entered the front house and proceeded to kill as many UN Election Employees as possible before the Police arrived. A long and intense gun-battle ensued over the next hour and a half and the attackers were eventually killed around 7:30 AM. Some of my friends, and some employees, of the Guesthouse were also killed and many wounded during this incident.

I escaped physically unharmed within 90 seconds of the first sound of the attack.

The media incorrectly portrayed the building as the “UN Guesthouse” whereas technically it was a privately run guesthouse, and I referred to it in earlier email to you as the “Zoo”, because it had lots of animals and birds on the property. I do not know who survived other than I have a “story” of the massacre as I experienced it. I ended up with a large group of UN Election Employees who also survived as we hid together in the neighboring courtyard while the Taleban shot it out with the surviving guards, burned down the place and then shot it out again with the Police.

Around 7:40 AM , I was transferred by the Police to a temporary safe location, and then the Bank security man found me and I was taken to the big famous Hotel ( The Serena ) which is heavily guarded in downtown Kabul. Immediately after I arrived, I was standing in the Hotel Lobby , on the cell phone, calling the Germans who I work for, when a mortar round or RPG hit the Lobby. The glass exploded , and once again, I was not injured and everyone ran to the Hotel bunker to wait for the All Clear sign. The Hotel suffered nothing but broken glass and some jittered nerves, but for me, it was the second attack in less than two hours and I withdrew into my own little brain…..telling myself that no place was safe as it seemed like the terror was following me around that morning in Kabul.

Since then, I have stayed in German Army Hospitals except for the plane rides to Germany where I am now. I am receiving treatment for Psychological Trauma and am getting better quickly. I hope to be released to Outpatient within about 4 days. And then about a month more of Outpatient therapy and then final release back into the employment world when I will be able to totally navigate on my own. The goal is to prevent and reduce the long term possibility or impact of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( “PTSB”) which we all heard of with the Korean and Vietnam War Veterans and other traumatic incident survivors.

I shall not assign my survival that day to my training, skills, experience and quick thinking ( although I am told by many that it was a critical part of my actions and movement within the first minute of the attack ). I have been given yet another chance on the Planet by my Higher Power. I am no more “religious” today than I was a minute before 6 AM on October 28th; however I have grown substantially. My spirituality is stronger now than ever; and I am convinced that God has a Plan for me, I just need to follow the Steps and listen for His guidance on a daily basis.

Only once since then have I wanted or seriously thought of taking a drink, and I asked to be relieved of that notion, and it was granted. I take some light weight sleeping medication and hope to reduce the strength soon, then be totally free of it within two more weeks or so depending on what the Doctors say. I am receiving excellent medical care here in Germany, with three Doctors and a bevy of Nurses. I see a Trauma Specialist MD every other day and I am recuperating well.

My employment contracts ends in February so money is temporarily not a problem, and I have good insurance for the hospital expenses. So, for today, all I ask for is another chance to be free of my Weaknesses and Character Defects and look for the next path I am to take.

I totally and unconditionally TRUST.

Work the Steps. Turn it over to God. Clean House. Help Others.

With ALL my Love,

Duston"

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 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.

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

Things Are Changing!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:51:24 EDT

The WashPost had an interesting article today on the prospects for passing a healthcare bill now:

Dan Balz's Take How Passing Health-Care Reform Could Change the Political Landscape

By Dan Balz
With the Senate Finance Committee vote on Tuesday, the default position for health care has flipped. From the will-it-or-won't-it-pass drama of late summer, there is now a growing presumption among Democrats and a number of leading Republicans that Congress will approve some kind of bill by the end of the year.

The path to final passage is not simple. The fragile and disparate coalition of Democratic liberals and moderates (and perhaps a Republican or two) needed to pass the legislation will be stretched to the breaking point. There will be ample opportunities for the coalition to crack apart. Nothing is yet guaranteed, given the wide gulf that still exists over some key provisions in the bill.

But failure to pass a bill now would be more of a surprise than passage. All year, White House officials have argued that failure on health care is not an option, given the debacle that followed the collapse of health care legislation in 1994. Democrats have gotten that message and are now grinding forward toward a conclusion. White House officials believe President Obama is likely to get the signing ceremony he has long hoped for.

What then are the potential political implications for the president, his party and minority Republicans if the year ends with the president hosting a big signing ceremony to herald a new era for the American health care system? A big win for the Democrats? Despair among Republicans? Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans have sharply different expectations for what may happen.

Democrats assume substantial political benefits, both for getting the job done and for changes that they believe the public will see as improvements in the kind of health care coverage they have. They believe the passage of a health care bill will stand with other landmark achievements that have come under Democratic presidents, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist, predicts that, at a minimum, there will be a huge, short-term benefit for the president and his party. "Big social problems create big political and policy challenges, but also huge political payoffs," he said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was in the Clinton White House when health care failed in 1994, long has argued that there is another potential benefit, which is that Democrats can prove that they are capable of governing and making Washington work.

Given control of the White House and their big majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats should be able to enact their agenda, but the public has come to expect gridlock rather than progress and this has contributed to anger at Washington. "I think that there will be a general sense of satisfaction that we got something done," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said.

Democrats also believe that Republicans' near-unanimous opposition to the bill will provide a double benefit. Not only will Democrats be seen as the responsible, governing party, they argue, but the GOP's image as a party on the sidelines, unwilling or incapable of contributing to a solution to one of the country's most long-standing problems, will be reinforced.

The president, after months of being second-guessed about his handling of the debate and questions about what he has accomplished, may see a boost in his own personal standing as well. White House officials have told Democrats for months that the more popular Obama is, the more their 2010 prospects will be enhanced -- and that a health care bill will be a major positive step toward that future.

All that assumes not only that a bill passes, but also that in its implementation, voters see changes that they like. Democrats believe that in the short term, that is likely to be true, because some of the first changes implemented are insurance reforms widely popular with the public. Provisions that may be more problematic in their impact do not take effect as quickly.

Republicans see the environment far differently. "The sugar high from a signing ceremony just might be as good as it gets for President Obama and Democrats," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. "It could be all downhill from there."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes Obama and the Democrats are heading for major problems if they add a health care bill, with all its complexities, on top of the cost of bailing out the economy. The Democrats have ignored warning signs from the public to go slower. Now, Gingrich argues, the health care bill could further harm the economy and strain health system to the breaking point.

"I think the odds are they'll pass something and I think it will be to the left of [the Finance Committee bill]," Gingrich said. "I think it's beyond trouble."

Republicans see voters potentially recoiling against legislation that would add another $800 billion or more to the federal budget. They discount Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Finance Committee bill won't blow a bigger hole in the deficit, and say the health care legislation will be cost the government hundreds of billions more in the years not covered by the 10-year window. They also argue that the final product will be more expensive, with fewer cost controls, than the Finance Committee bill.

"Even if the CBO blesses this bill, Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress will own the explosion of spending and the federal deficit at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012," Madden argued.

Other Republicans sees the potential for the Democratic coalition to fracture further as the debate nears a conclusion. Liberal and labor union opposition to the Finance Committee bill could collide with the House Blue Dogs and Senate moderates. If, in the middle of these final negotiations, Democrats lose the Virginia and New Jersey governors' races next month, the party could emerge more deeply divided.

Republicans also believe that, in the final months of the legislative debate, there will be growing criticism of the bill, particularly from some of the industry stakeholders who have generally held their fire until now. That could divide the country further and make Americans more skeptical about the implications of a new health care system.

"I'm not sure you can ever resolve that debate or discussion," Axelrod said hours after the Finance Committee vote. "At this point, I think you have to enact it and implement it well. I think people are prepared for us to enact it. I think there are elements of it that will come on line quickly on which those who supported it will be able to campaign on next fall."

Neither side can be too confident in their assumptions. The Bush White House and Republicans anticipated major benefits from passage of a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. Initial reaction was negative. Even when opinion turned more positive, other issues proved more powerful and politically costly in Bush's final years. The same could happen next year, especially if the unemployment is high.

The fact that opponents and proponents now think passage is more likely than impasse marks another important step in the battle over health care. But it is clear that the arguments will not cease with the possible enactment of a bill. The debate will shift to a new arena, but it will not subside for some time.

ObamaDoug Notes:

Gracias, Dan Balz. It is an important time in this debate and our work is not yet done, but this sounds a note of promise. We will have a healthcare reform bill to sign in December!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Medicare spending $1,023 higher for the previously uninsured,

Fire Is Born — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:51:07 EDT

Expanded Health Coverage Could Save Money LaterAfter 65, previously uninsured have more annual Medicare spending than continuously insured
Oct 6, 2009

TUESDAY, Oct. 6 (HealthDay News) -- Expanding health coverage to adults may result in later savings from reduced Medicare spending on these individuals after they turn 65, especially for the uninsured with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or severe arthritis, according to research published online Oct. 6 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
J. Michael McWilliams, M.D., of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues analyzed data from 2,951 adults who were continuously insured before the age of 65, and another 1,616 who were continuously or sometimes uninsured before this age. They assessed annual Medicare spending after age 65 for each participant.
The researchers found that total annual Medicare spending was $1,023 higher for the previously uninsured, which was a significant difference. The previously uninsured had higher annual hospitalization rates for complications related to cardiovascular disease or diabetes (9.1 versus 6.4 percent) and joint replacement (2.5 versus 1.3 percent).
"There are good reasons to believe that insurance coverage in the pre-Medicare years would reduce expenditures during the Medicare years, and health reform advocates will certainly take heart from the authors' conclusions. Unfortunately, because the data and methods used in this study are not capable of supporting causal interpretations, the savings to Medicare are unlikely to be as large as this study suggests," writes the author of an accompanying editorial.
The study was supported by the Commonwealth Fund. Several co-authors reported relevant consulting work and legislative testimony.
Abstract
Full Text
Editorial
Copyright © 2009 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.

Capitalist Case For Nonprofit Health Insurance

Fire Is Born — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:51:06 EDT

Adviser Soapbox

Capitalist Case For Nonprofit Health Insurance

John E. Girouard 10.12.09, 7:09 PM ET

If you want to know what went wrong with our health care system and the best way to fix it, all you have to do is look back a few decades to a time when health care was a community concern, considered as essential as any public utility. It should be again, not just because it makes sense but also because it's the most profitable way to go.

The irony in the current debate over a "public option" health plan is that we once had a form of socialized medicine. Blue Cross, the most recognizable name, began in 1929 as a tax-exempt insurer covering a community of teachers in Dallas. Blue Shield was started as a tax-exempt insurer to cover employees of mining and lumber companies in the Pacific Northwest, with a group of local doctors providing care through a service bureau.

IPOs have been rare in 2009. LogMeIn, Inc. (LOGM) went public in July at $15. Shares are near $19 now. Click here for Jim Oberweis' guidance on LOGM in the October issue of the Oberweis Report.

We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. What we got was a massive conflict-of-interest--profit vs. public good--that has culminated in a dysfunctional health delivery system that has undermined our economy, reduced our national wealth and torn our social fabric.

One might argue whether our estimated 47 million uninsured is a moral shame, but there is no argument that millions of people clogging our emergency rooms and other social services because it's their only option is a crime against our economy, both in direct costs and loss of productivity.

A solution that would have something for everyone and meets the test of minimum government intervention would have three tiers of coverage:

1. Primary Care Community Nonprofits: States, regional groups, hospital consortiums and communities would be encouraged to form nonprofit health insurance companies guaranteeing at reduced premiums a primary level of care--ambulatory, emergency room, routine physicals, and so on. Every citizen would be required to be covered.

This would immediately add 47 million new customers generating premium payments into the pool of available revenue. There would be no qualifying exam nor any discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

Those who paid their mandatory premiums could deduct them on their income- tax returns. Those who failed to pay their premiums might be subject to a minimum tax penalty or some other mechanism to encourage compliance.

These nonprofits might then, like municipalities, be able to turn to the financial markets to raise capital for building projects and other needs, perhaps issuing tax-exempt bonds.

2. Reinsure Catastrophic Risk: Community nonprofits would be required to do what large companies do when self-insuring. They set aside enough reserves to cover their employees up to a set threshold above which they reinsure themselves. Nonprofits could do the same thing, passing risk on to for-profit companies against a financial disaster from big-ticket losses that could result from a single disaster, a disease outbreak, or just having a high percentage of elderly patients needing extensive care.

The for-profit reinsurance business ought to be highly profitable if well-managed. The number of transactions they would have to handle would be vastly reduced, driving down costs. But for this to work, these companies would need to be reinsured as well, much as banks are. That's where government steps in, just as it does in the banking industry.

3. Create a Federal Health Insurance Corporation: Just as we regulate the banking industry because it is essential, requiring banks to pay insurance premiums to guarantee deposits, the role of the federal government would be to act as the insurer of last resort. Such an agency would guarantee claims above a set amount, allowing private reinsurers to calculate their risks more accurately and set competitive, profitable premium rates.

This is not a public option, it is a public imperative. It is what we expect from government after a hurricane or other natural disaster. It seems logical that in the event of a health insurance disaster, Uncle Sam should be ready to step in for the public good. And it seems equally logical that the federal government should be in the business of setting standards and regulating an industry that provides a public service, just as we regulate water, power and public transportation companies.

NoLoad Fund*X model portfolios have beaten the overall market since 1980 by rotating into funds with superior performance and selling those that are beginning to lag. Recent buys have been in emerging markets and small caps. Click here for the complete portfolio in NoLoad Fund*X.

This three-tiered approach contains elements that should appeal to most interest groups. The nonprofit primary care level eliminates the conflict of interest that currently exists between profit and the rendering of a crucial public service. Insurance companies would go back to doing what they are supposed to, managing risk instead of managing care.

This system is close to what members of Congress refer to as "the same health insurance we have." Once a year federal employees get to choose who their health insurer is from a list of a dozen or so approved providers. A covered employee with a chronic disease can switch insurers if he or she decides a different company offers a better plan, without an exam and regardless of pre-existing conditions.

This system should appeal to both sides of the "public option" argument.

Liberals who want to see everyone covered and the profit motive taken out of medical decisions would see their aims met as more citizens would likely seek out and receive preventive care instead of waiting until they need to be rushed to an emergency room at enormous expense.

Conservatives who want government to spend less and do more to stimulate the flow of capital and the creation of wealth would achieve their goals in the form of the private financing of nonprofit insurers and in the presumed net reduction in the cost to taxpayers of providing emergency and social services to the uninsured.

John E. Girouard of Washington, D.C., is a financial writer and the author of "The Ten Truths of Wealth Creation."

Cubans on President Obama's Nobel Prize

Fire Is Born — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:13:01 EDT

No comment. fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Leading Cuban dissidents cheer Obama's Nobel prize (AP) – 8 hours ago HAVANA

— Many of the 75 activists jailed in a 2003 Cuban government crackdown on political dissent are congratulating Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. In a letter released Monday to international journalists, 29 of those imprisoned six years ago said Obama "has become a global symbol, especially for us who, under difficult conditions, are defending Cubans' right to democracy."

In another letter, 21 of their wives, mothers and other female relatives also cheered Obama. Fifty-four dissidents remain imprisoned on allegations they conspired with the U.S. to topple Cuba's government. Those freed were granted medical parole or forced into exile in Spain. One was released after completing a six-year sentence.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOSU7Ew6j4vlEn0d_L0eXG0A1w1gD9B9M09G0

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Fidel Castro congratulates Obama on Nobel win

Zimbabwe News.Net

Sunday 11th October, 2009

Former Cuban president, Fidel Castro, has said he was obliged to acknowledge the Nobel Prize given to US President, Barack Obama, was a "positive measure," and especially important considering the "genocidal policies" of some former US presidents.

He also said the decision was good compensation for the fact that the US had been defeated in Copenhagen when Rio de Janeiro was picked as a site for 2016 Olympic Games.

In an article titled "Reflections," published on the Internet, 83-year-old Castro said while he did not always share the views of those who award the Nobel, Obama’s prize was "an appeal for peace and a search for solutions that lead to the survival of species."

In his comments, he said: "Many will say that Obama has not yet earned the right to receive such a distinction. We prefer to see the decision as not so much a prize for the president of the US, but as a criticism of the genocidal policies pursued by a few presidents of that country, who led the world to the crossroads it is at today."

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://www.zimbabwenews.net/story/553184

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Hope for a Restored Native America

Fire Is Born — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:39:17 EDT

"Dedicated to the seven generations that came before us
and the children of Indian Country today,
so their innocence and laughter may develop into wisdom
as they become the leaders of tomorrow."

Introduction

American Indian and Alaska Native cultures
hold children in a special place of honor. Children
are the gift of the Creator. The birth of a child is
celebrated and honored. Each tribe has its own
world view that tells the children their place
in the cosmos through stories and ceremonies.
The community has a sacred obligation to
instill in them the traditional knowledge of past
generations so their innocence and laughter may
develop into wisdom as they become the leaders
of the future.

For countless generations cradleboards were
used by Indian mothers to keep their infants
secure. Most cradleboards carry an umbilical
cord amulet to connect the child with past and
future generations throughout their life. We
know that in the same way, safe and nurturing
Indian communities enable Native children to
fully achieve their potential so we can honor and
continue the culture and traditions of the past
seven generations.

Unfortunately, all too often Native children
are born into circumstances that may be rich
in culture and love, but fail to meet their basic
needs of health, shelter, safety and education.
Every Indian child should have the right to
community-based, culturally appropriate
services that help them grow up safe, healthy,
and spiritually strong – free from abuse, neglect
and poverty. Our communities – tribal leaders,
parents, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts,
uncles and families – have a vision of a restored,
safer, healthier Indian Country for our children.
Creating safe and supportive tribal communities
for our children today honors our ancestors as
well as the generations to come.

This FY 2009 Tribal Budget Request highlights key
aspects of the vision tribal leaders have expressed
to create a safe and healthy Indian Country for our
children. In developing these recommendations, we
recognize that addressing the years of under-funding
and backlogs that plague Indian Country will be
accomplished over time. The requests that follow do
not reflect the full need in Indian Country, but rather
are achievable first steps that we believe Congress
and the President should be able to support this year.

From Senator Clair McCaskill

Fire Is Born — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:06:18 EDT

I always liked Senator Clair McCaskill. fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

The Twilight Zone

I feel that I’m in an alternative universe. For eight years some people called anyone who disagreed with the President’s foreign policy or war in Iraq unpatriotic. Then in the course of two weeks, those same people cheer when the United States does not get selected for the Olympics and boo when our President is the unanimous choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure.

Congratulations Mr. President for standing up to the scorn and derision of your opponents in the election when you firmly stood for the proposition that strength meant being willing to talk to your enemies, not just your allies. Thank you for the confidence and wisdom to say that a hand will be extended when their fist is unclenched. And thank you for understanding that our national security rests on our principles, the example we set for the world, and our alliances along with the excellence and strength of our military, rather than exclusively the latter. God Bless America.

http://clairecmc.tumblr.com/post/208582433/the-twilight-zone

Link to OrganizingforHealthCareBlog

Fire Is Born — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:52:34 EDT

I notice that the entire site has problems. There is no access to blogs of ANY group.

Hope it is some re-organization. Below is an URL to Chris Hass. fib

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/OrganizingforHealthCareBlog

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Fire Is Born — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:15:02 EDT

I am craying with tears of happiness. Can't say more now. Can you? fib

ps. It is "thick" today!!! Rejoyce!

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Play Video AP – 2009 Nobel Peace Prize goes to President Obama

AP – President Barack Obama speaks about winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Friday, Oct. 9, 2009, in the … By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers Karl Ritter And Matt Moore, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 30 mins ago

OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo to accept the prize, which he said he does not see "as a recognition of my own accomplishments," but rather as a recognition of goals he has set for the United States and the world.

"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize," Obama said.

Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.

Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said their choice could be seen as an early vote of confidence in Obama intended to build global support for his policies. They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."

"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told The Associated Press in a rare interview. Members of the Nobel peace committee usually speak only through its chairman.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.

"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."

After the prize was announced, Jagland compared the decision to give it to Obama to the prize was given to German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 for his "Ostpolitik" policy of trying to find common ground with Eastern Europe, which was under Communist sway.

He said the same thing was true when then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev got the prize in 1990 after he had launched perestroika and glasnost, and allowed Eastern Europe to emerge from Kremlin control.

The selection to some extent reflects a trans-Atlantic divergence on Obama. In Europe and much of the world he is lionized for bringing the United States closer to mainstream global thinking on issues like climate change and multilateralism. At home, the picture is more complicated. As president, Obama is often criticized as he attempts to carry out his agenda — drawing fire over a host of issues from government spending to health care to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan.

U.S. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele contended that Obama won the prize as a result of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.

"The real question Americans are asking is, What has President Obama actually accomplished?" Steele said.

Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.

Asked whether the prize could be seen as praising Obama's reversal of Bush administration policies, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, a senior political adviser to the right-wing populist Progress Party told the AP that: "I guess you could read it like that."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made no secret of his admiration for Obama, called the decision the embodiment of the "return of America into the hearts of the people of the world."

But Obama's work is far from done, on numerous fronts.

He said he would end the Iraq war but has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012.

He's running a second war in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan — and is seriously considering ramping up the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others, too.

"I don't think Obama deserves this. I don't know who's making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity," said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. "Since he is the president, I don't see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Obama has said that battling climate change is a priority. But the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.

Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the prize in 1983, questioned whether Obama deserved it now.

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," Walesa said.

"This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act," Walesa said.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.

The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy," said Valle, the Nobel Committee member.

The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.

"You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase," Jagland said. "And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize."

Until seconds before the award, speculation had focused on a wide variety of candidates besides Obama: Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator, a Chinese dissident and an Afghan woman's rights activist, among others. The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize, though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.

Wilson received the prize for his role in founding the League of Nations, the hopeful but ultimately failed precursor to the contemporary United Nations.

The Nobel committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.

Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100. They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500. The United States now has about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.

But there has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.

Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."

Obama also has attempted to restart stalled talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, but just a day after Obama hosted the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York, Israeli officials boasted that they had fended off U.S. pressure to halt settlement construction. Moderate Palestinians said they felt undermined by Obama's failure to back up his demand for a freeze.

Obama was to meet with his top advisers on the Afghan war on Friday to consider a request by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to send as many as 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as the U.S war there enters its ninth year.

Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan earlier this year and has continued the use of unmanned drones for attacks on militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strategy devised by the Bush administration. The attacks often kill or injure civilians living in the area.

Nominators for the prize include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.

___

Associated Press writers Ian MacDougall in Oslo, Rahim Faiez in Kabul, Celean Jacobson in Johannesburg, George Jahn in Vienna, Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Poland, Matti Huuhtanen in Helsinki and Jennifer Loven in Washington contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

http://www.nobelpeaceprize.org

OAS leaders in Honduras

Fire Is Born — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:46:00 EDT

Honduras talks start, police break up protest

By Frank Jack Daniel Frank Jack Daniel – 2 hrs 17 mins ago

TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) – Talks between representatives of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the country's de facto leader began on Wednesday as top envoys insisted the ousted leftist be reinstated and police used tear gas on a protest.

Foreign ministers and diplomats including the head of the Organization of American States are overseeing the highest-level dialogue to take place in the coffee-growing nation since Zelaya was exiled at gunpoint three months ago.

Shortly before the meeting began, police fired volleys of tear gas to clear several hundred people marching past the U.S. Embassy in support of the logging magnate.

Police and soldiers armed with clubs and automatic weapons chased away demonstrators who shouted "Help us, OAS." Two people were injured, one by a rubber bullet and another by a gas canister, a local hospital said.

Zelaya and the OAS mission insist the president's return to power is a non-negotiable demand. De facto leader Roberto Micheletti previously ruled out that option but in recent days has not mentioned it, in a possible softening of his position.

"Those who thought it was possible to depose a president and normalize life in the country before starting an election campaign should realize that this has not been possible," OAS chief Jose Miguel Insulza said, flanked by the envoys.

A representative of Micheletti called for an end to the international isolation Honduras has suffered since the putsch and said sanctions had cost the poor country $400 million.

Honduras has a presidential election scheduled for November 29 but critics say curbs on media and public gatherings imposed by Micheletti mean the campaign will not be fair. The results may not be recognized without a prior agreement ending the crisis.

Zelaya said Micheletti only agreed to the talks to fend off international criticism and keep the de facto government going.

"They do not have the least intention of reverting the coup, they are just playing for time," he told the Telesur television channel from the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, where he has been holed up surrounded by troops since slipping back into Honduras two weeks ago.

ZELAYA ON CAMPING MATTRESS

Zelaya was toppled after drawing close to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, whom powerful conservatives in Honduras say was advising Zelaya to extend his presidential term.

Micheletti took power after the June 28 putsch and wants his rival jailed. On Tuesday he said political amnesty was on the table but did not mention a return to office for Zelaya.

Peter Kent, Canada's junior foreign minister, said the OAS mission was pushing to have Zelaya live somewhere other than the embassy, where he sleeps on an inflatable camping mattress.

"We are realistic," Kent said. "This is not going to be achieved in a day or two days or perhaps even a week. But we believe there is room for progress."

The de facto government says the ouster of Zelaya, forced from his bed into exile by armed soldiers, is legal because he had violated the constitution.

Pro-Zelaya protests since his return to Honduras have led to clashes with security forces that caused dozens of injuries and the death of at least one protester.

Honduran rights group Cofadeh says 10 Zelaya supporters have been killed since June in violence linked to the coup.

Coups and military governments were common in Honduras for most of the 20th century. U.S. banana importer Sam Zemurray helped bring President Manuel Bonilla back to power in 1912 in return for favorable business conditions.

(Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Miguel Angel Gutierrez and Ignacio Badal in Tegucigalpa and David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Xavier Briand)

Tonight at the White House (for James)

Fire Is Born — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:36:56 EDT

I hope for all of us that the president's job, one day, will include mostly this sort of events. Wouldn't that be a wonderful and normal world? Peace!. fib

ps. Warning: the comments below are from the Earth. Educational, too.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Obama stargazes from the South Lawn

14 Comments

Recommend

After a three-hour meeting on Afghanistan, President Obama gets to have some fun tonight by stargazing with kids and astronauts.

It's Astronomy Night on the South Lawn, and our Oval colleague Traci Watson describes tonight's proceedings (as well as budget challenges facing NASA):

The president will spend this evening not curled up with briefing books but instead studying the heavens through telescopes. This "star party" on the White House lawn is meant to encourage kids to take an interest in science, and to that end Obama and the first lady have invited 150 local middle-school students to stargaze, too.

Unusually in Washington, Wednesday evening was shaping up to be crystal-clear and cloudless -- perfect for viewing the universe.

Much murkier is what's in store for any students who are inspired to become astronauts. In the next few weeks, Obama will have to decide whether to plow billions of extra dollars into NASA's budget. Without that infusion of cash, America's manned space program could not "continue in any meaningful way," according to a September report by space experts convened by the White House.

At the end of the star party, all 21 telescopes scattered across the backyard of the White House will be trained on the moon. That was where astronauts were headed in 2020 in the space plan announced by President Bush in 2004. Now Obama is rethinking that idea.

"We will certainly go back to the moon at some point," John Holdren, the president's science adviser, said as he toured the star party facilities a few hours before sunset. But he couldn't say when.

If Holdren wanted more expert advice, it was easily available. Also on hand for Obama's astronomy night was Sally Ride, the first U.S. woman in space and one of the experts who warned the administration that without significant new funding NASA's human space program is doomed to irrelevance.

Ride, who said she hadn't been at the White House for at least a decade, was enthusiastic about Obama's initiatives.

"There's not very much doubt about the value of science again" in this administration, she said

Ride, an astrophysicist, won't be the only one at the event who knows her way around a telescope. Amateur observers from the Washington area and professional astronomers will be operating the equipment for the first family and students.

Also on hand will be two high school teachers dressed as Galileo and Newton, operating replicas of the telescopes used by those early stargazers.

"We're either really cool or really crazy," said Dean Howarth, a teacher at McLean High School in McLean, Va., who gets to play Newton. "If we're not here this evening, it's because the people at the front gate wouldn't let us in.

(Posted by Traci Watson and David Jackson; photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais, The Associated Press)

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 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

Elizabethan, Now!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:53:19 EDT

How strange! I have, for sure, entered my Elizabethan Age, in Elizabeth CO (named after the sister-in-law of my ancester, John Evans (Governor of Colorado in the 1880's and founder of Evanston (Ill) and the University of Illinois)) and am still getting used to it, because I've been a Glewoodite for so many years. How many people do you know who have lived in one town for 36 years? feel like such an ancient, yet, I'm moving, to be closer to my grandkids and beloved daughter! Tell you what! It feels good, this oneness with changing, even in my old, unhealthy and poverty-stricken ancient age. Lordy, it is strange to live on half my usual income, but, surprisingly, I can, and am!

Choices!

So miserable about what is happening in the Senate with the public option ! So paid for, by the healthcare industry: so rotten, it makes me want to move to another place where public health is more valued than competition! What happened to the valuing of Human life, above all else, in this country? It's, unfortunately, way too much about money for me: I'm about to give up on all of this nutsy politics and live a happy, unconflicted life again, but I just can't leave my freind Primo Pres alone in what he's chosen to take on. What a great man this Mr. Obama is??!!!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

United Cerebral Palsy Association advocates for the universal coverage

Fire Is Born — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:02:26 EDT

I assure you it is very difficult putting yourself in the shoes of someone with cerebral palsy. fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Video about history of the Associaition:

http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=ruarngm0uusx

Help fight the Right-wingers with me:

Fire Is Born — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:31:11 EDT

*** DEADLINE MIDNIGHT TONIGHT -- ONLY $83,231 TO GO. CONTRIBUTE NOW. ***
They rant. Right wingers all over the country spent much of this summer trying to intimidate us by turning open forums into ugly shout-fests. Republican leaders were perfectly happy to encourage this, and while conservative politicians did not themselves exactly rant, they did distort the same, and yes, lie.

I gave my response to these ridiculous tactics at a public meeting in August, and I have since thought that I might have been too harsh -- on dining room tables.

Now you can reinforce the message I gave and send an even stronger one.

With the media closely watching both parties' third quarter fundraising totals, nothing would put fear in the hearts of the right wing extremists who are propagating this kind of nonsense than for us to out-raise them online. Right now we're just $83,231 away from our Million Dollar Goal.

Show your support for President Obama's health insurance reform. Help us raise just $83,231 more by our Midnight Deadline. For every dollar you give, a group of Democrats will match with two dollars of their own.

The lunacy we saw this summer by the right-wing fringe isn't letting up. Following his contemptible outburst at President Obama, Republican Congressman Joe Wilson raised over $2 million in contributions.

But even worse, Wilson's now taking his act on the road, traveling the country to raise money for Republican House Members and candidates. We have to respond.

This is make-or-break time for health insurance reform. With the media closely watching, President Obama needs grassroots Democrats to stand strong. Your support will help us gain the momentum we need to finish the job on health insurance reform.

Contribute $35, $50 or more by MIDNIGHT tonight and your gift will be triple matched by other Democrats.

Thank you,

Barney Frank

P.S. This is make-or-break time for health insurance reform. The media is closely watching to see which side has the momentum. Please give generously.

*A group of Democrats will match your donation today. For every dollar that you donate, these Democrats will donate two dollars of their own.
If you are having trouble with any of the links, cut and paste the following into your browser:
http://www.dccc.org/barneyfrank1

CBO to Blue Dogs, Public Option Saves BIG $$$

bob-pol — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:34:46 EDT

1) The Congressional Budget Office dealt Blue Dogs a blow Thursday by notifying House Democrats that tethering a public option to Medicare reimbursement rates would save the government $110 billion more than a public option in which the government has to negotiate rates with doctors and other health care providers.

The initial projections showed the difference between the two was $65 billion. But this shows it would cost the government a lot more money to heed moderate demands. House Democrats need to trim as much as $200 billion from a bill that most estimates peg at $1.1 trillion in order to meet President Obama's $900 billion target.

An actual robust public option saves money, and it's what the majority of constituents in districts like Rep. Mike Ross's district supports. Will Rep. Mike Ross actually listen to what the CBO says, or act like Senator Kent Conrad in dismissing the CBO's projections about the public option?

2) Competition lacking among private health insurers

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition — just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.

Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.

For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system.

Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies. "There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant."

Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.

Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit.

A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people.

"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report.

"A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates."

"The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan.'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate."

Insurers contend their industry is extremely competitive, and a public plan is unnecessary. About 1,300 carriers operate across the country, although many only have a small share of the market in their states.

"You can have a very competitive market and still have companies with a high market share," said Alissa Fox, a top Washington lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Fox points to the federal employee health program, which also covers members of Congress. It offers a total of more than 260 options and 10 nationwide plans. Despite all the choices, about 60 percent of federal workers pick a Blue Cross plan. "Insurers need to be of a significant size to best serve their customers and make sure that people get the best value," Fox said.

Nonetheless, lawmakers are concerned. Big insurers are getting bigger. Small businesses in particular have fewer and fewer options for getting coverage.

Congressional investigators this year looked at insurers catering to small employers around the country. The Government Accountability Office found that the median _or midpoint — market share of largest carrier increased to 47 percent in 2008 from 33 percent in 2002.

There's widespread recognition among lawmakers that a health care overhaul should foster more competition among insurers. The debate is over how far to go.

The basic framework lawmakers are looking at would encourage competition, even without a government plan. It calls for setting up a big insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. It would be open, at least initially, to individuals and small businesses. The government would offer subsidies to make premiums more affordable.

Consumers would find it much easier to shop for a plan through the exchange. For one thing, they would be able to readily compare benefits and premiums in different plans. Also, participating insurers would have to take all applicants and not charge higher premiums to those in poor health.

Offering the option of a public plan would supercharge the competition, supporters say.

Blumberg envisions a plan that pays medical providers more than Medicare, but less than private insurance. Her study estimated it could grow to 47 million members, leaving 161 million with private insurance. Even so, that would make the new public plan one of the largest insurers in the country, rivaling Medicare, Medicaid and big private companies such as Wellpoint and UnitedHealthcare.

It's a scenario that gives pause even to traditional adversaries of the insurance companies.

"The fear and concern is that the public plan could become the market-dominant plan," said Dr. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. "When you've got the federal government involved, it can infuse money into a plan to keep it solvent even if the premiums are lower than its actual costs."

Snowe, among the few Republican senators still trying to come up with a bipartisan compromise, wants to hold back on creating a public plan for now and give insurers one last chance to show if they can keep costs in check.

That's doesn't go far enough for liberals, who are loath to give the insurance industry tens of millions of new customers supported by taxpayer subsidies.

"It would give the industry a windfall without any countervailing force to require them to lower their costs," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the advocacy group Health Care for America Now. "The insurance companies could continue to jack up premiums while getting a whole new market."

ref (1) http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/24/cbo-tells-blue-dogs-that-the-public-option-will-save/

ref( 2) http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3148749.aspx

I cannot rest for the cry of these great agonies. ~ E.A.P.

Caring is the Key to Life - Healthcare for All ... Rob [bob-pol]

Zelaya in Tegucigalpa!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:31:17 EDT

Quick News: President Zelaya has returned to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, at the head of UN Peacekeeping Forces, and is now housed at the UN Headquarters in Tegucigalpa!!!!!! Michiletti is no where to be seen. No statements have come from the military coup leaders, as yet. Hoohah!

GOBAMA!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Honduras: Day 86

Fire Is Born — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:51:05 EDT

I pray for all Honduran people and for the just peace in Central America. fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

The Road to Zelaya’s Return: Money, Guns and Social Movements in Honduras

Written by Benjamin Dangl

Monday, 21 September 2009

Nearly three months after being overthrown in a violent military coup, ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya has returned to Honduras. "I am here in Tegucigalpa. I am here for the restoration of democracy, to call for dialogue," he told reporters. The embattled road to his return tested regional diplomacy, challenged Washington and galvanized Honduran social movements.

Update on Honduras: Quixote Center for Peace

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:36:17 EDT

There are two bills coming up in DC now, one in support of the coup regime in Honduras, the other calling for the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya. The first, of course, demonstrates our former hypocritical stance in Central America, the "business as usual" model which exports "democracy" only to the elites while economically and politically enslaving the rest of the starving populations. The second is far more 21st century in its support for the rule of law and the voice of all the people of Honduras. It deserves our support: here's The Quixote Center statement:

Thanks to all of you - almost 700! - who sent emails to the IMF asking for a public declaration stating that the IMF will not make funds to the Honduran coup regime. The IMF tells us that your messages have been received and the issue is being discussed. We are still waiting for a stronger response. We will ask you for additional help if a statement is not forthcoming soon.

We have recently been alerted that Rep. Mack has initiated a Pro-Coup resolution on Honduras and has 46 cosponsors. We need you to call your representative and ask her/him to support the Delahunt-McGovern House Resolution on Honduras! The Delahunt-McGovern resolution (HRes 630) calls for the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya as President of Honduras and for international observation of the November elections. Although it is outdated, in calling for international observers for an election which needs to be cancelled or postponed, it is important that we demand that the Congress take a stand against the coup. It currently has 44 cosponsors.

To see a text of the House Resolution and a list of the current co-sponsors go to thomas.loc.gov, select search by bill number, and search for "HRes 630".

Please act today! The Honduran people continue to stand firm against the coup, and need us to demand that our government oppose the disruption of constitutional order in Honduras.

Call the Capitol switchboard, 202.224.3121 and ask to speak to your representative's foreign policy aide.

The Message:

I urge Representative ______________ to join in co-sponsoring the resolution introduced by Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) calling for Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to be returned to office, and welcoming the mediation efforts of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. It is important to your constituents in ______________ that the U.S. Congress be loud and clear in condemning this military coup and supporting democracy in Honduras--and the Latin American region.

ObamaDoug Notes:

It has been the pattern in the past for the State Department to engineer coups when a Central American government begins to sound too "leftist" for DC's taste, even though we support strong "progressivism" within our own borders. While the current coup in Honduras does not seem to be the handiwork of our State Department, this time, anyway, we cannot "speak out of both sides of our mouths" by supporting a military coup in Honduras when we'd all give our lives to keep such a thing from happening here! The 21st century attitude demands equivalence of values to all nations, not only those politically aligned with our "hawks" and multinational corporations.

Send a message to your Congressman today, por favor!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Yes, Jimmy Carter, Racism Exists- A Year in Photos

bob-pol — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:44:14 EDT

Our gracious leader is truly a Man of Peace who turns the other cheek, or he would have a few reasons to get angry.

A few examples over the past year -

Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com

THERE ARE BLACK MEXICANS!

Fire Is Born — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:45:39 EDT

TALKING OF RACISM... fib

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2009 Blacks in Mexico: A Forgotten Minority By Alexis Okeowo / Yanga

The first town of freed African slaves in the Americas is not exactly where you would expect to find it — and it isn't exactly what you'd expect to find either. First, it's not in the United States. Yanga, on Mexico's Gulf Coast, is a sleepy pueblito founded by its namesake, Gaspar Yanga, an African slave who led a rebellion against his Spanish colonial masters in the late 16th century and fought off attempts to retake the settlement. The second thing that is immediately evident to vistors who reach the town's rustic central plaza: there are virtually no blacks among the few hundred residents milling around the center of town.

Mirroring Mexico's history itself, most of Yanga's Afro-Mexican population has been pushed to neighboring rural villages that are notable primarily for their deep poverty and the strikingly dark skin of their inhabitants. Mexico's independence from Spain and new focus on building a national identity on the idea of mestizaje, or mixed race, drove African Mexicans into invisibility as leaders chose not to count them or assess their needs. Now many blacks want to fight back by improving the shoddy education and social services available to them and are petitioning for the constitution to recognize Afro-Mexicans as a separate ethnic group worthy of special consideration. (See graphics of slavery and the Americas.)

"The two races that are most discriminated against here are the blacks and the indigenous — but it is more accepted against blacks," says Hemeregildo Fernandez, a doctor in Yanga and one of the few blacks still living in town. His office is tucked on a narrow street that juts off the main square, where the rotund man with warm brown skin and salt-and-pepper hair receives a fluctuating stream of patients. The majority of the black Mexican population works in agriculture, fishing or construction, and while, like Fernandez, some have achieved notable positions in coastal towns, he says, "Most blacks have no economic power." (Read a story about the indigenous custom of bride-selling.)

Many of the country's mexicanos negros (black Mexicans), as they are called, know that their ancestors arrived in chains on boats that docked at ports in the sultry, steamy state of Veracruz. But they don't know much else. Indeed, Afro-Mexicans say that much of the history of los mexicanos negros is untaught or ignored by the rest of the country. Apart from Yanga, Afro-Mexicans claim Vicente Guerrero, who served briefly as President in the early 19th century and gave his name to the state of Guerrero, as one of their own, as well as revolutionary José María Morelos, who was executed by the Spaniards in 1815. (Read a story about an indigenous mother who might lose her child because she doesn't speak English.)

Black Mexican activists estimate the population of Afro-Mexicans at about 1 million, but there are no official figures. Earlier this year, they petitioned the National Institute of Statistics and Geography to include the Afro-Mexican population as a separate category in the next census, in 2010. Official statistics do not recognize blacks as a separate ethnic group (56 indigenous groups are officially accredited, the largest ones being the Nahuatl and the Maya, numbering more than 2 million each). As a result, Afro-Mexicans say they have been left out of institutional programs and are without a cultural identity. The group Mexico Negro A.C. is linking with similar Afro-descendant organizations in Latin America that have achieved success in securing better treatment. "We no longer want to be detained by security agents in our own country who say that in Mexico there are no blacks," says Rodolfo Prudente Dominguez, an activist with Mexico Negro.

The Afro-Mexicans face considerable hurdles. Prevailing stereotypes paint the group as happy to live the simple life apart from the rest of society, with no interest in education. The all-black shantytowns near Yanga lack schools, and eager young migrants who move to bigger cities for work complain of blatant discrimination. A report released late last year by Mexico's Congress said that roughly 200,000 black Mexicans who reside in the rural areas of Veracruz and Oaxaca and in tourist cities like Acapulco are out of the reach of social programs like employment support, health coverage, public education and food assistance.

Afro-Mexican culture expert Luz Maria Montiel acknowledges that blacks are particularly marginalized and excluded, to the point that it is impossible to find any mention of them in official records. Yet she argues that it is impractical for blacks to seek constitutional recognition. "It would be impossible to make a law for each of the populations that make up our multicultural nation," she says. Dominguez disagrees: "We are a totally different cultural group from indigenous groups and mestizos of our country, with a particular lifestyle and characteristics that do not respond to public policies that are designed for indigenous grouPS.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1922192,00.html

I've had it!

Fire Is Born — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:51:26 EDT

END WAR ON DRUGS! BASTA. NO SOCIAL REFORMS WILL HELP AS LONG AS THIS GOES ON. fib

ps. as a recovering addict of alcoholic preference, i know how tough it has been to recover from my legal addiction. what hope am i going to offer to my active adict friends? this?! fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Gunmen kill 10 at Mexico drug treatment center By ALICIA A. CALDWELL,

Associated Press Writer Alicia A. Caldwell,

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico – Gunmen burst into a drug treatment center in the northern Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and shot to death 10 people, the second such mass killing this month.

Police say nine men and one woman were killed in the attack just before midnight Tuesday at the Anexo de Vida center in Mexico's most violent city. Two people were seriously wounded.

Enrique Torres, a spokesman for Chihuahua state police, said Wednesday the identities of the gunmen and the motive for the attack have not yet been established.

But officials have said in the past that drug gangs may be using treatment centers to recruit dealers, or may be targeting them to eliminate rivals.

Most of the victims are believed to have been recovering addicts staying at the facility.

"Why? Why them?" said Pilar Macias, weeping after she identified the body of her brother, Juan Carlos Macias, 39. "He was recovering, he wanted to get back on the right track and they didn't let him, they didn't give him a chance."

"This is going to kill my mother," Macias said. "She's very sick and this is going to kill her."

Macias said the mother had encouraged her son to enter the facility for treatment of his cocaine addiction three months ago.

Maria Hernandez also had come to the state prosecutor's office to identify the body of her 25-year son.

"He was good, he didn't hang out with gangs, he didn't have 'narco' friends," she said. "He just began with marijuana, and then ... they killed him."

Pools of dry blood and bloodied footprints were visible Wednesday in the courtyard of the drug and alcohol rehab center where the shooting occurred.

The center is located in a poor neighborhood with dirt streets, some of which were impassable due to recent rains.

On Sept. 2, gunmen lined patients against a wall at another rehabilitation center in Ciudad Juarez and then riddled them with bullets, killing 18.

Five men were killed at another rehabilitation center in June, and in August 2008, gunmen barged into a pastor's sermon at a rehabilitation center and opened fire, killing eight people. Authorities have not said if any of the attacks are related.

Ciudad Juarez has seen the worst of the nation's drug violence, with more than 1,300 deaths this year. The bloodshed has continued despite a buildup in troops since March.

Early Wednesday, gunmen burst into a bar in Ciudad Juarez and shot to death five men, police said. They said they knew of no motive for the attack.

Surging gang violence has claimed 13,500 lives since President Felipe Calderon took office in 2006 and deployed extra soldiers across the country to fight cartels.

Also Wednesday, police in the southern state of Guerrero reported they had found the decomposed bodies of four men by the side of a highway. Because of their poor condition, the cause of death and identity of the bodies has not yet been established.

Clean Water Protection Act

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:22:07 EDT

Protecting our environment is a part of HealthCare Reform, too. Just as cigarette smoking contributes hugely to our healthcare costs, so, too, in the long run, does the purposeful "unprotecting" of our headwaters for short-term profit. The Clean Water Protection Act closes a loophole in the Clean Water Act that allowed a mining company near the end of the Shrub administration to pollute a feeder lake with tons of toxic slurry, killing the local ecosystem, polluting downstream. That's still happening. Urge your Congressman to protect our water. The Care2 platform for activist and the Sierra Club have a current petition.

Care 2 is a great site for Internet activists.

"Wouldn't it be loverly?" if, instead of looking for loopholes in environmental laws, our corporations in natural resources would recognize that their customers need to breathe and drink clean water in order to buy anything?

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Handling "The Right Noise Machine"!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:38:32 EDT

A telling WashPost article today has this to say about Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Beck and Fox News (shudder):

As Right Jabs Continue, White House Debates a Counterpunching Strategy

By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Facing a near-daily barrage of attacks from conservative opponents, White House officials are engaged in an internal debate over how hard to hit back, even as they have grown increasingly aggressive in countering allegations they deem to be absurd.

After brushing aside criticism during the presidential campaign that they tried to keep candidate Barack Obama too far above the fray -- and with memories of the abundance of media coverage during the Clinton years -- administration officials are accelerating their efforts to anticipate and respond to the most sharp-edged charges.

The White House officials are eager to avoid the perception that the president is directly engaging critics who appear to speak only for a vocal minority, and part of their strategy involves pushing material to liberal and progressive media outlets to steer the coverage in their direction, senior advisers said.

When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.

The controversy escalated, but by the time it was over, White House advisers thought they had emerged with the upper hand. The speech, they said, was the most-viewed live video on any government Web site in history, and they were pleased with the media coverage of the event.

In private, Obama has developed what his advisers say is becoming a familiar response to new allegations, rolling his eyes in disbelief and asking how his staff plans to counter them. Several senior advisers said in interviews that they are more focused on getting legislation passed than trying to manage the "right-wing noise machine," convinced that voters will react most positively to measurable improvements in their lives.

But at a tactical level, administration officials are taking seriously the potential for damage and are attempting to respond forcefully. In early August, officials stepped up their efforts to link the "birther" movement -- with its contention that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not a legitimate president -- to Republican leaders.

Later in the month, Obama advisers began pushing back against allegations that he would establish "death panels" in his health-care overhaul, calling out former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin for posting that charge on her Facebook page. Obama publicly rejected the charge that he is maintaining an "enemies list," raising the issue to dismiss it at a town hall meeting.

Officials who were interviewed said the goal is to anticipate the conservative attacks and be ready to respond the moment they threaten to balloon into a major story. They acknowledge, however, having limited success so far.

"In a world with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report and everything else that makes up the right-wing noise machine, nothing is clean and nothing is simple," a senior administration official said. "You don't stomp a story out. You ride the wave and try to steer it to safe water."

The level of hostility toward Obama in recent months has been exceptionally high for a new president. Even before Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" during a presidential address to Congress last week, Obama had been accused of wanting to kill people's grandparents (through health-care reform), expose their children to political re-education (through an expansion of community service programs) and use health care to make reparations for slavery (by expanding coverage).

How the Obama White House deals with the frenzy going forward will be a test of its talents, senior administration officials acknowledged.

Although Obama does not pore over the conservative attacks himself, he is not oblivious to them, advisers said. He does not watch cable television regularly, but he reads his news summary each morning, and he often follows up with staff members when he hears what he considers out-of-bounds allegations -- sometimes after learning of them in e-mails from friends outside the White House, for example, or from ordinary voters at rallies. Little of it surprises him, aides said.

"In the fall of the campaign, you could find many similar sentiments at McCain-Palin rallies and certainly at Sarah Palin rallies," communications director Anita Dunn said. "These aren't new arguments. The level of vehemence, the emotional level of it, is at a campaign peak, which is unusual to find in a non-campaign year."

Dunn played down the role that race could have in fueling the rancor. "I think that is less a part of it than some other people might think," she said. "If you look at the history of this country, you see that in times of great stress and change, there are people who are concerned, who are threatened, there are people who are scared."

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel echoed her point. "Father Coughlin called Roosevelt a socialist, the John Birch Society was created in reaction to Kennedy, Clinton had [Richard Mellon] Scaife and others who went after him," he said. "And now they've come after Obama on Socialism and other things. This has always been a creed from those voices dealing with Democratic presidents. But yes, there's an intensity, given the [rapid media] time frame we're all under, that's different."

During the Clinton administration, conservative opposition mounted to such a degree that the Clintons came to view it as a "vast right-wing conspiracy," bankrolled by wealthy conservatives and airing damning claims, such as their alleged involvement in the death of their friend Vincent W. Foster Jr., whose death was ruled a suicide. Partisan warfare became blood sport, and while President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed at times to revel in it, it had a political price: Obama found success in the Democratic primaries in part by promising to move past the fighting.

Now, the challenge for Obama will be to maintain that stance without ceding ground to his most extreme critics, whom administration officials believe are trying to mount an existential threat to the president.

"There's a broader argument that is the underlying argument to all of these attacks, which is a very fundamental struggle about trying to tear this president down and delegitimize his presidency," said one senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "That is really the war. And all of these are skirmishes -- some of them flare up into battles -- but the broader war is about the fate of this presidency and the other side's attempts to delegitimize him and to make him into a failure."

ObamaDoug Notes:

Keep to the High Road and help us here on the ground to martial our strength through political action. God knows, I'm as guilty of seeing what I want to see in the media as the other side in this polarization: so far, Obama's strategy is speaking clearly to all Americans, a new trick in American politics that I appreciate."Now, let's be clear!" rings through his speeches and probably should be a sign on every desk in the West Wing.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Calling for health care reform

Duane Kuehn — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:56:06 EDT

Hi All,

     I am posting a link to a thing I wrote about the need for health care reform. The link, because simply posting the article might be too cumbersome for the site. Anyway, I think it might be too long, boring and lacking of any humor. I hope you will read it and let me know what you think, where is might be corrected (or should I just trash it -to recycled waste of course. : )

     I always do my best to verify information that I use. However, because figures cannot lie but liars can figure, statistics are often hard to verify.

     On that note, I am hoping to find solid, verifiable information on the true cost of health insurance premiums paid to private insurers by individual households and by employers (especially small business).

     Sometimes when a link takes up more than one line, the link will not work and must be copied and pasted into ones browser. I hope this one works as is. The Helium site is safe to visit and does not collect any behind the scenes information or put unwanted junk into one’s computer.

http://www.helium.com/items/1580034-health-reform-universal-health-care-health-legislation-problems-with-universal-health-care

Loveya,
Your friend,
Duane

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.

911 Remembered - Great People Make A Great Country

bob-pol — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:16:59 EDT

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3489/towersa.jpg

SACRED LAND AND SACRED SOULS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snFyt4Kdhl4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdSJFHnbls0

GOD BLESS AMERICA'S BELOVED AND THEIR FAMILIES

A Teaching Moment

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:43:36 EDT

Yes, I'm riled beyond my comprehension at Wilson's disrespect for both the Presidency and this particular President. The man must have had too much of something with his dinner.

Still, this is a perfect opportunity for our Primo Prez to demonstrate forgivenance, to "turn the other cheek," if Wilson would apologize. Such an action on the President's part might defuse the brouhaha surrounding this disrespect before it becomes another dividing factor in the movement towards real healthcare reform. It would teach to the world and this polarized country that forgiving is one of the strongest--and most absent--stances a truly great leader can take. I'd suggest a quiet breakfast with Wilson today or tomorrow, followed by a public moment of reconciliation for the two, despite their differences.

Surely, with all the flack Wilson must be getting this morning, he'd be willing to bury the hatchet, at least for a photo-op and free White House eggs.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Tough, Welcoming, Bi-Partisan and Unifying!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:56:26 EDT

Hooray, Primo Prez! I'm tired or I'd let you know, son, that you are just the best orator and father in our country I can imagine! Great Joint Session Speech! Now, get in the trenches. Go for what you want!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Union membership in California increases despite recession

Fire Is Born — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:37:17 EDT

"It's quite amazing that the recession hasn't caused a decline in unionization," said Lauren Appelbaum, lead author of the study.

Recessions tend to batter union jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, experts say. In the current recession, however, California manufacturing has fared somewhat better than elsewhere in the nation. Appelbaum said the residential-construction sector, which is relatively nonunion, was hit hard.

Union growth in California has been driven by the state's emergence as a hub of grass-roots organization, especially among low-wage employees like janitors, healthcare workers and security guards, said Appelbaum and Chris Tilly, the institute's director and a professor of urban planning at UCLA.

"Unions have developed strategies that seem to be much more successful, and they're adding members," Tilly said.(...)"

How to Watch the Speech

Fire Is Born — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:07:26 EDT

How to Watch the Speech

By David M. Herszenhorn

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

A meeting on health care reform in Reston, Va.

In his speech to Congress on Wednesday night, President Obama will press his case for major health care legislation, not just with lawmakers in the audience, but also with a deeply wary public watching at home.

And while Mr. Obama will probably talk in clear, plain-spoken terms, decoding his remarks and the reaction he gets will require both a careful ear and a keen eye. Here are some of the main things to listen and look for:

Will he reiterate his support for a government-run insurance plan — or finally state outright that he can accept a compromise that might disappoint liberals?

Will the president give a shout-out to influential Republicans like Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa — or threaten to barrel over opponents?

Will centrist lawmakers sit on their hands — or give him a big ovation?

Will Mr. Obama reassure elderly voters worried about Medicare cuts? Can he do that even while explaining how the country can afford to subsidize health coverage for more than 40 million Americans who currently have none?

Beyond those big questions, here’s an armchair guide to watching the president’s big speech at home.(...)"

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

10 Letters A Day!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:17:59 EDT

Up on whitehouse.gov there is a video demonstrating the extent to which our Primo Prez and his staff value our correspondence: there is an Office of Correspondence at the White House which selects, every day, ten representative letters from the hundreds of thousands which flood the WH mail and email, passes them on to the Oval Office, and Barack Obama reads them and writes a hand-written reply to each! He's made it clear from the beginning that he did not want to be isolated in the White House "Bubble" from his people. The thought that this MOST busy man takes the time every day to communicate personally with the American people THRILLS me! Hallelujah! GOBAMA!

He's left-handed, too. I never knew that.

Gracias to our WONDROUS left-handed Primo Prez!

ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Ay,Chihuahua!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:55:59 EDT

I watched that SWEET PRIMO PREZ letting me know that the economy and our nasty repression might be uplifting, and I am so glad. This guy is so forthright!

It's So Great!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:32:36 EDT

I watched, for the first time, the video up on whitehouse.gov on Michelle Obama's wondrous garden at the White House and it made me cry with joy to watch school kids and the White House Chef tending the garden together. Michelle is so beautiful, as are all the greens, and the learning the kids are getting is just the most best thing! Hooray! WATCH IT!

Gracias, ObamaDoug,

PO,F8GY!

As Did Teddy . . . But.

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:19:18 EDT

Our Primo Prez says:

Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system, beloved by liberals, as his plan for broader coverage evolves over time.

Listen up. Single-payer health care might just work. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars.

Many liberals have long embraced the coverage plan, saying it would cover everyone, take the profit out of health insurance and allow for greater efficiencies. But Republicans cringe at such deep government involvement in the private sector, calling it socialized medicine. And many Democrats, including Obama and former rival Hillary Clinton, have taken a much more moderate approach.

Obama’s health-care plan aims for universal coverage by offering a new government-run marketplace where Americans could buy insurance, mostly from private plans. He would offer subsidies to individuals and to small business owners that offer their workers coverage. His plan also would require that parents get insurance for their kids. And he aims to lower health-care costs to make coverage more affordable. His plan includes one small step toward single payer. His new marketplace would create a new government-run plan, like Medicare, to compete against the private plans.

But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

ObamaDoug Notes:

Cute pic of Barack! HealthCare must get affordable for all!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Seems To Me . . . !

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:19:36 EDT

Seems to me that secrecy is counter-productive: it leads more to curiosity than to security.

Washpost suggests:

Administration Seeks to Keep Terror Watch-List Data Secret

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 6, 2009

The Obama administration wants to maintain the secrecy of terrorist watch-list information it routinely shares with federal, state and local agencies, a move that rights groups say would make it difficult for people who have been improperly included on such lists to challenge the government.

Intelligence officials in the administration are pressing for legislation that would exempt "terrorist identity information" from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Such information -- which includes names, aliases, fingerprints and other biometric identifiers -- is widely shared with law enforcement agencies and intelligence "fusion centers," which combine state and federal counterterrorism resources.

Still, some officials say public disclosure of watch-list data risks alerting terrorism suspects that they are being tracked and may help them evade surveillance.

Advocates for civil liberties and open government argue that the administration has not proved the secrecy is necessary and that the proposed changes could make the government less accountable for errors on watch lists. The proposed FOIA exemption has been included in pending House and Senate intelligence authorization bills at the administration's request.

"Instead of enhancing accountability, this would remove accountability one or two steps further away," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.

When the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center disseminates data from watch lists to state and federal agencies, the information is unclassified, though marked "for official use only." Officials said that the information could be obtained under a FOIA request and that such data has been released under FOIA.

Michael G. Birmingham, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said that the intelligence community is seeking "adequate protection from disclosing terrorist identity information" to the public because "no [such] exemption currently exists under FOIA." He said the goal of the proposed exemption was to keep sensitive unclassified information from unintended recipients, including terrorism suspects.

One intelligence official said the information's disclosure creates a host of difficulties.

"Here's the problem," the official said, discussing the matter on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. "If you've got somebody, including a suspected terrorist, who can FOIA that information, you're making intelligence-gathering methods vulnerable. You're possibly making intelligence agents and law enforcement personnel vulnerable. Suspects could alter their behavior and circumvent the surveillance."

David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group, said the government has successfully used existing FOIA exemptions to deny requests for watch-list records. He cited a court case last fall brought by the EFF in which the government, in keeping with it policy, refused to confirm or deny whether a European Parliament member's name was on the terrorist watch list. The government claimed in part an exemption that bars disclosure of law enforcement information on "techniques and procedures" for investigations. The EFF, concluding that the government would win, withdrew the case.

Rather than expanding the list of FOIA exemptions, Congress should pay more attention to improving the procedures for helping people who have been improperly included on the watch list, Sobel said. "There's a serious redress problem," he said. "That's the issue that needs to be addressed."

On Tuesday, a coalition of privacy and transparency advocates led by OpenTheGovernment.org sent a letter to the leading members of the House and Senate intelligence committees urging that the measure be dropped. "We consider this provision unnecessary, overbroad and unwise," the letter said.

A consolidated government watch list was created in 2004 and is housed at the Terrorist Screening Center. As of last September, it included about 1.1 million names and aliases corresponding to 400,000 individuals. The TSC feeds names and other data to the Transportation Security Administration's air passenger "no-fly" list, the State Department's Consular Lookout and Support System list, and the FBI's Violent Gang and Terrorist Organizations File, as well as to state and local agencies.

A person is included in the list if he or she is "known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism," according to the TSC Web site.

A May report by the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General found the watch-list process to be flawed, with the FBI failing to "update or remove watch list records as required." In one instance, an individual remained on the list nearly five years after the after the underlying terrorism case had been closed, the report found.

The FBI later said it had implemented measures "to resolve all of the issues disclosed in the report."

In 2007, the FBI signed a memo with federal agencies to standardize the redress process and to ensure "fair, timely and independent review" of complaints, according to a statement by the bureau.

"We're constantly working to improve our redress procedures," TSC spokesman Chad Kolton said. "We're very proud of the work we've done so far."

Kolton noted that fewer than 5 percent of the 400,000 people whose names are on the watch list are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. "The vast majority of people on the watch list are not currently in the U.S.,'' he said.

ObamaDoug Notes:

The less secrets, the better. No humans like secrets, though most of us maintain them, and none work for our betterment.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Hello

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:28:26 EDT

It feels like quite a while since I've posted, though it's only been two days. What two days! I'm between Elizabeth and Glenwood, incessantly, and I love this move.

Can't wait for Primo Prez's speech Wednesday night. I'm sure he will be as firm and clear and prescient as a President should be. I'm confident that we will weather any storm with this man at the helm.

I'm hoping the HealthCare Reform becomes the Kennedy Act in his speech. It's just so appropriate!

I'll tell you all what: the infrastructure between Glenwood and Elizabeth (CO) is a marvel of the Western Hemisphere. Ain't nothing like it in Nicaragua, that's for sure. I'm cruisin'.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

THE NEW SLAVERY

Fire Is Born — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:01:07 EDT

A must see. fib

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Web_Links&l_op=visit&lid=152

Imagine, the world without the drug war..

Fire Is Born — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:35:50 EDT

"Without the drug war, America's most decimated neighborhoods would have a chance to recover. Working people could sit on stoops, misguided youths wouldn't look up to criminals as role models, our overflowing prisons could hold real criminals, and -- most important to us -- more police officers wouldn't have to die."

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Now, digg this:

http://digg.com/d312kVB

A Radical Solution to End the Drug War: Legalize Everything

One cop straight out of The Wire crunches the numbers with Esquire.com's political columnist to discover that America's prohibition of narcotics may be costing more lives than Mexico's — and nearly enough dollars for universal health care. So why not repeal our drug laws? Because cops are making money off them, too.

Killing addicts in rehabilitation centers - recent strategies in the "war on drugs"

Fire Is Born — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:08:38 EDT

This has been the fifth attack on a rehabilitaion center in Ciudad Juarez. fib

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Arrest over Mexican drug murders

A senior member of a Mexican drug cartel has been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murders of 17 people at a rehab centre, reports say.

Jose Rodolfo Escajeda, a suspected hitman and drug smuggler, was held in connection with the murders in the city of Juarez, near the border with Texas.

He has long been on wanted lists held by both the Mexican government and the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

Meanwhile, a state politician and his family were killed in Tabasco state.

The bodies of Jose Francisco Fuentes - a state congressional candidate - his wife and two young sons were found with many bullet wounds at their house in the state capital, Villahermosa, according to state Attorney General Rafael Gonzalez Lastra.

Authorities in the state have in recent days arrested gunmen suspected of working for Mexico's notorious Gulf drug cartel

Turf wars

According to Mexican media reports, Mr Escajeda was arrested by Mexican troops on Friday.

Thought to be a senior figure in the Juarez cartel, he is suspected of involvement in the attack last week in which gunmen stormed into a drug treatment clinic, lined patients up against a wall and killed at least 17 of them.

The BBC's Stephen Gibbs, in Mexico, says the attack shocked even the violence-weary residents of Ciudad Juarez, where there have been an average of 10 murders every day this year.

Juarez is the setting of a vicious turf war, principally between two gangs - the Juarez cartel, and the Sinaloa cartel, which is led by Mexico's most wanted man and reported billionaire, Joaquin Guzman.

The gangs are fighting for control of the local drug market, and smuggling routes into the United States.

About 1,400 people have died in Juarez's drug violence this year.

Thousands of extra police and troops have been deployed in Ciudad Juarez to try to stem the violence.

More than 13,000 people have been killed since the Mexican government ordered the military to take the offensive against the drug gangs in 2006.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8240213.stm

Published: 2009/09/06 04:17:07 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Speaking of "socialism"..

Fire Is Born — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:48:12 EDT

Capitalism: A Love Story

(Documentary) An Overture Films release of a Paramount Vantage, Overture Films presentation in association with the Weinstein Co., of a Dog Eat Dog production. (International sales: Paramount Vantage, Los Angeles.) Produced by Michael Moore, Anne Moore. Executive producers, Kathleen Glynn, Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein. Co-producers, Rod Birleson, John Hardesty. Directed, written by Michael Moore.

With: Michael Moore, Frank Moore.

By LESLIE FELPERIN

By returning to his roots, professional gadfly Michael Moore turns in one of his best films with "Capitalism: A Love Story." Pic’s target is less capitalism qua capitalism than the banking industry, which Moore skewers ruthlessly, explaining last year’s economic meltdown in terms a sixth-grader could understand. That said, there’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery. Whether "Capitalism" matches "Fahrenheit 9/11" or underperforms like Sicko" will depend on how much workers of the world are ready to unite behind the message.

Pic reaped mostly ecstatic applause at its first press screening in Venice — no great surprise, given the largely leftist persuasion of film-fest auds, especially in Europe. Still, "Capitalism’s" worldview is resolutely U.S.-centric, apart from the odd approving mention of some foreign nation. Nevertheless, pic is likely to make considerably more offshore, where "socialism" isn’t considered a cuss word, than at home.(...)"

UDW Urges Sanctions Against Honduras

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:41:41 EDT

Upside Down World lets us in on continuing pressure from Human Rights organizations against totalitarian oppression and abrogation of human rights by the Honduran coup regime:

Honduran Crisis Necessitates New Sanctions Written by Jennifer Moore Thursday, 27 August 2009

Source: Latin America in Movement

Failure on the part of the Organization of American States to reach an agreement for the return of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya yesterday signals the beginning of a new stage, says Radio Progreso correspondent Félix Molina. As the diplomatic mission left Tegucigalpa on Tuesday without approval for the San José Accord from de facto leader Roberto Micheletti Bain, the Honduran journalist says new sanctions are needed “that should include trade, economic, financing, and migratory elements.”

The seven-member mission accompanied by OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza presented a declaration to the press at the conclusion of their two-day visit to the Honduran capital. It indicated that the de facto leader and his supporters are alone in withholding support. Micheletti expressed discord with the restitution of President Manuel Zelaya and the provision of a political amnesty, key aspects of the proposal made by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. Speaking defiantly to the foreign delegation, he told OAS representatives that his regime is not afraid of sanctions.

For his part, President Zelaya reiterated, in particular through declarations by First Lady Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, his decision to accept each of the twelve points in the accord even though it will truncate the process he initiated to consult Hondurans on whether or not they would like to pursue constitutional reforms.

Indicating that internal pressure could be growing in favour of the Arias proposal, President of the Association of Maquiladoras of Honduras, Jesus Canahuati, told Radio Globo yesterday morning that his group supports the agreement. The armed forces are also reportedly in discussions but have yet to make any declaration.

If a resolution is not achieved, journalist Félix Molina says the situation will become more complicated and more worrisome. He anticipates “stronger social reaction resulting in heightened police and military repression.”

Last week, a delegation from the Inter American Human Rights Commission verified thousands of arbitrary detentions, disproportionate use of state forces against opponents to the coup and serious limits on press freedom during the last two months. It resolved that “only a return to democratic order will create the conditions for effective assurance of the human rights of all residents of Honduras.”

International Federation of Human Rights also urges sanctions

“There are no democratic guarantees, nor guarantees for the freedom of expression, nor individual guarantees in Honduras,” said Secretary General of the International Federation of Human Rights in Colombia, Luis Guillermo Pérez, late Tuesday afternoon.

He described a meeting that he attended this week with independent presidential candidate Carlos H. Reyes and congressman Marvin Ponce. He noted Reyes' fractured hand and Ponce's fractured arm and ribs, injuries inflicted by national police. In this context without democratic guarantees, he said, “We are insisting that electoral results [from upcoming general elections] should not be recognized by the international community, that all manner of cooperation should be suspended for the coup leaders, and that economic sanctions should be applied against those who have supported and who sustain the coup in Honduras.”

“This is the position of the International Federation of Human Rights, of the Centre for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and other organizations who have decided to create an international human rights observatory to monitor the situation in Honduras and about which we will send monthly reports to the OAS, the UN and the European Union.”

Rather than viewing the coup as against Manuel Zelaya who only had several months left in his presidential term, he believes that it was a coup against the majority of Hondurans. He said that the possibility of presidential re-election was never mentioned during the lead up toward a national opinion poll on June 28th that would have asked Hondurans whether or not they were in favour of including a fourth ballot box during upcoming elections to conduct a national referendum over whether or not to strike a National Constituent Assembly to reform the country's political constitution. He says they have been able to determine that 60% of Hondurans would have voted in favour.

He concluded by citing Article 45 of the Honduran constitution: “Any attempt to prohibit or limit citizen participation in the political life of the country is declared punishable.” (Original Spanish: “Se declara punible todo acto por el cual se prohíba o limite la participación del ciudadano en la vida política del país.”) He suggested that this is the real crime needing further attention.

Concrete steps

The US took a further step yesterday to pressure the de facto regime to concede to the San José Accord by adding a suspension on non-emergency and non-immigrant visas from Honduras to earlier cuts to aid. However, Canada's Peter Kent who participated in the OAS mission expressed continuing reluctance on the part of this North American nation to join the US and EU in retracting support.

When asked what sanctions Canada will apply, the Canadian Minister of State of Foreign Relations for the Americas failed to mention any concrete measures and said, “At the moment we are still pursuing agreement and buy in to the San José Accord.” Speaking with Embassy Magazine on Sunday, he explained, "any imposition of sanctions or cutting of aid is going to impact first and foremost the most innocent in this crisis and that is the civilians."

But without such pressure it is unclear how a timely agreement can be reached. Ultimately, Canada's position seriously distances this country from those calling for stronger measures to bring about a resolution to ultimately ensure greater protections for Hondurans already seriously affected by the crisis.

Jennifer Moore is an independent Canadian journalist writing from Honduras for ALAI and FEDAEPS.

ObamaDoug Notes:

Women's Rights in Honduras have gone by the wayside after a decade of progress, as well. NO MORE COUPS!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Get Real, IMF!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:12:43 EDT

This just in from Just Foreign Policy:

1) Secretary of State Clinton, responding to calls to increase pressure on the de facto Honduras government, announced the termination on Thursday of about $22 million in U.S. aid that was suspended immediately after President Zelaya was deposed, the New York Times reports. "Restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras," said the State Department announcement. The announcement came after Clinton's meeting with Zelaya. The State Department announced it was revoking the visas of several people who had been identified as members or supporters of the coup government. Officials said that, as matters stand, the Obama administration would not recognize the upcoming Honduran presidential elections.

2) It's still not clear if the Obama administration is serious about dislodging the coup regime that it continues to support with military and economic aid, said Mark Weisbrot, in a CEPR press release. There is still quite a bit of money that is not food assistance or anything that poor people need that continues to flow to the dictatorship, said Weisbrot. Weisbrot also noted that the IMF decided just a few days ago to give Honduras more than $160 million. Since the U.S. has a veto over IMF decisions, this will be seen by the coup regime as a decision of the U.S. government.

ObamaDoug Notes:

Now, really: that IMF gift to the coup regime in Honduras, whether it stimulates the global economy or not, is a smack in the face of the rule of law and Honduran democracy! Is it to be "business as usual" instead of 21st century values, once more? Hope not! Maybe the IMF/World Bank and Hillary need to have a little breakfast prayer meeting and get on the same page?

Gracias, ObamaDoug

President Obama, For 8 Great Years!

Christian Science Monitor: America Lacks Compassion

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:19:00 EDT

Here's a link and an article which makes the case for healthcare reform as a MORAL need, rather than just an economic fix:

The real US healthcare issue: compassion deficiency The fact that many of us do not feel any urgency to revamp a system that leaves millions of our sick without care is appalling. By Gordon Marino

Northfield, Minn. - During the height of the banking and Wall Street meltdowns, Americans seemed to love clucking about corporate greed. As far as most of us were concerned, the moral debacle was purely the fault of Wall Street, not Main Street.

Yet you don't need a graduate degree to see that the character crisis is not restricted to those summering on Nantucket.

The healthcare debate has revealed that Americans suffer from a compassion deficiency. Many of us would prefer that our fellow citizens go without medical care rather than make even the slightest of sacrifices.

Over the summer, I have heard many groans along the lines of, "I don't want to pay for someone else's visits to the doctor." When pressed, some will retreat to concerns about the degradation of care. But there are plenty who will stick with, "I just don't feel as though I should have to foot someone else's medical bills."

While President Obama insists that changes in our medical system will not require middle-class tax hikes, it is plain that many fear reform will cost them. Apparently, there are a lot of folks who would choose to have young mothers with cancer go without chemotherapy, instead of giving up a bit of that disposable income that is our badge of freedom and individualism.

Those of us who abide below the money mountaintop are acquainted with hardworking people who can't afford some critical medical treatment. Though we are inured to them, I could easily reel off 10 horror stories, including a couple quite close to home.

I reside in a small town and every week there is some kind of raffle or spaghetti dinner to scrounge together the funds to meet the medical expenses of a child with leukemia or a teenager with a brain tumor. We're trying to pay for brain surgery with bake sales!

Back in the late 1980s, I lived in Denmark, where there is superb universal coverage. The rich aside, it is hard to know how anyone could come to the conclusion that Americans are better served by their doctors than the Scandinavians or, for that matter, anyone else in Western Europe. Despite widespread illusions, life expectancy (we rank 42nd) and infant mortality rates (we rank 29th) attest that our healthcare system is not even a contender for the best.

But the issue isn't about the comparative quality of care; rather it's about what we will and will not put up with as a society. As much as the Danes moan about taxes, not many of them would prefer having extra euros over the peace of mind that comes with knowing that they don't have to think of their less fortunate but sick countryman going without medical treatment.

The fact that a significant number of Americans do not feel any urgency to revamp a system that leaves millions of our sick without care is symptomatic of the fact that we must be suffering from a hardening of more than our arteries.

There was a time when highbrows were repulsed by the fact that Americans were not appalled by the levels of violence in films. For a country that loves to moralize, we ought to acknowledge that what does or does not repulse reveals a lot about who we are.

The pandemic lack of compassion for the un- and under-insured is really not that distant from the narcissistic indifference of the avaricious CEOs that we love to sneer at. Anyone who values honesty will have to admit that many of us are not appalled by children dying for lack of medical treatment.

We don't like it, we wish that it could be otherwise, but it doesn't exactly make us sick. And that is appalling.

ObamaDoug Notes:

Once again, we return to the loss in this country of the sanctity of each life as a major value. Maybe we need reminding tonight?

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Tighten, Tighten, Tighten!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:02:14 EDT

The WashPost ran this article on continuing Obama Administration efforts to regularize the current political situation in Honduras:

U.S. May Not Recognize Results of Honduran Vote

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 4, 2009

The U.S. government on Thursday toughened its stance against Honduras's coup leaders and supporters, threatening to put them "in a box" by not recognizing the winner of a presidential election set for November.

The de facto government had hoped that the election would provide an end to the crisis that has gripped the Central American country since the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya on June 28. The balloting had been scheduled well before Zelaya was detained and whisked out of the country by the military.

But U.S. officials said for the first time that they would continue to shun the country unless Honduran leaders went back to a negotiated plan that would allow the return of Zelaya with limited powers until the expiration of his term in December.

"Based on conditions as they currently exist, we cannot recognize the results of this election. So for the de facto regime, they're now in a box," said State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. "And they will have to sign on to the San Jose accords to get out of the box." He was referring to the plan for Zelaya's return, which was negotiated in the Costa Rican capital.

The announcement amounted to a gamble that the threat would finally force the de facto government to back down. So far, that government, led by longtime congressman Roberto Micheletti, has resisted intense international pressure, both economic and political. Its members argue that Zelaya's removal was legal because he had violated the constitution by organizing a referendum that could have allowed him to evade the one-term limit for the presidency.

But the reasons for the coup supporters' vehemence go deeper: They fear that the leftist Zelaya would have introduced the socialist-style agenda promoted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a Zelaya ally and leader of an anti-American bloc in the hemisphere.

"This is a tough call, because I think there are no white hats in this story," said Ted Piccone, a specialist in U.S.-Latin American relations at the Brookings Institution. "But there is a clear bright line around the militarily forced exile of a democratically elected president, and so that has to be addressed."

However, he and other analysts said, if the interim government does not change its stance, the decision not to recognize the election could only deepen the crisis.

The State Department's action "limits our options, a violation of the first law of diplomacy, by taking off the table the one means by which the crisis could naturally be resolved," said Eric Farnsworth, a Latin America expert at the Council of the Americas, a U.S.-based business group.

The announcement came as the State Department also formally terminated about $30 million in aid to the Honduran government that had been suspended. Authorities also said they were examining revoking more visas of Hondurans who participated in, or supported, the coup.

The announcement triggered new opposition from Republicans in Congress who have denounced the Obama administration's policy on Honduras and held up some diplomatic appointments in protest.

"The U.S. approach to friends and foes is completely backwards. While appeasing the enemies of freedom worldwide, we punish those in Honduras struggling to preserve the rule of law, fundamental liberties, and democratic values," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) said in a statement.

The U.S. moves were applauded by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who has encouraged a negotiated settlement. "The coup regime has engaged in undemocratic practices that cast a dark shadow over elections scheduled for November. Those elections will lack legitimacy unless the regime embraces and faithfully implements the San Jose Accord," he said in a statement.

Major Latin American countries have said they would not recognize the results of the November election unless the coup is reversed.

ObamaDoug Notes:

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen's spin is so upside-down from the reality in Honduras, to me, anyway, that it underscores the nature of political debate: people see what they want to see, regardless of what is there. A Coup, by its very nature, abrogates "the rule of law, fundamental liberties, and democratic values"! I'm glad to see the Administration continuing to tighten the screw on Micheletti's "government." Whoever wins the upcoming election, it will mean an illegitimate President will take over from an illegitimate President who stole his Office from the legitimate President, Zelaya: how many levels of illegitimacy does it take to make a bastard?

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

"NETWORK" Might Be Good Tonight!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:51:58 EDT

Should our Primo Prez need anymore reason to work for the individual well-being of all our citizens, I'd suggest watching "Network," with William Holden and Faye Dunaway: the loss of the value of the individual in American corporate and media structure has hardly ever been better expressed, and, unfortunately, somewhere along in this healthcare reform debate, everything else but the sanctity of the individual in America has been yelled and screamed and hollered and divided. Is there an individual power of self that makes a difference in America? I'm praying "Yes."

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

December 17, 2009

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:38:05 EDT

I'm even more sure that I'll be celebrating the passing of a "real" health care act this year. I feel it in my bones. Primo Prez continues to do the exact right thing, regardless of what anyone else says. This man has incredibly GREAT instincts! And GREAT advisors, as well, including CITA, I'd guess. We will have an excellent health care act by my birthday, the day I enter Medicare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ay, Chihuahua!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

"Prescriptive," Eh?!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:28:32 EDT

One would hope so, Primo Prez, because this whole country needs a diagnosis, for sure, and me, too. The whole country is loco, for all the wrong and right reasons, and it's all because we have yet to figure out that we are going through changes here that started during the Carter Administration. God, he got the fierce winds of change in his face, just as you are. More intense, now, but the dynamics are the same.

I await your Joint Session Address. I was so enlightened to hear that you had called for one. Not often done, therefore BOLD< BEING THE BEST< THE CHANGE FROM POLITICS TO TRUTH I KNOW YOU STAND FOR! Gracias, gracias. Oh, yes, I await! If you can, turn it all around. If it doesn't seem possible, do it anyway. What's to lose?

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

So, Here We Are, Awaiting Primo Prez!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:00:33 EDT

I went through quite an angst attack when I realized that my "German/Hitler" post days ago precursed the feelers going out there these days about our former Veep, "Ol' Spin and Terror," seeking the 2012 Presidency.

My stomach churned. I half-decided to move to Nicaragua fulltime, despite the problems I endured this year, because this country under spin and terror again would be devestating to my security as an open-minded leftist in America.

I could go back into "Adolph Hitler Thoughts" and add the former Veep's name, but I see no need: probably anyone who read it before ex-Veep's feelers already knew I was feeling the horrendous shudder of anathema that comes to me when I even think of America under his unfettered regime--and I am so grateful to be living under the umbrella from the storm which I feel Obama is deeply providing. What a miraculous change in my spirit and attitude and levels of trust, to know that selfish greed is not running the WH!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Hitler Thoughts

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:58:13 EDT

Adolph Hitler thought that Germany and the world would be better off if:

Germany was strictly for the Germans;

Germany had no more "illegal" aliens":

Germany's economy had no "foreign"--Jewish--influence;

Germany knew better than any other nation what was right for the world;

Germany could off anyone who disagreed;

Without Obama, where are we going?

To Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and Big Brother. Is that where you want to go?

CITA, Get out there! We are at a crux of civilization!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

How is It?

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:30:15 EDT

How is it that extremely decent Republican people all over this country are silent when Rush Limbaugh and other liers are taking over this country's legislative process? I can hardly believe it is happening in America! Stop. Listen! Think! Rush Limbaugh sounds so much like a Nazi, I can hardly believe it!

If there were ever a time for critical thinking, it is now.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Why 2?

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:14:35 EDT

How could anyone in this very fair country believe that America would not last? That is the scream from the antagonists of Obama, and I just have to say: silly people! God knows, it will last: no one knows what it will look like, bur Barack Obama is the best bet to keep it looking as much like the 50's and the 21st century, too, as anything else you think you have going. The point is, we are going through change. Get real. Get loving it. There is not one thing left but change, so we all might just start loving it.

Why?

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:28:51 EDT

Why is Dick Cheney, that absolutely nasty guy, still showing up everywhere, unless everywhere wants to hear him? It's Mr. "Shock and Awe" and I am tired of that attitude, though the GOP seems bent on slavoring over it. If "everywhere" does want that zombie, what am I doing questioning it, but, heck, it's venom to me. The serpent's tongue. Sting. Ouch! I'm dead!

My really heartfelt question is why the beautiful Republican people, the ones I grew up with, the stalwart independent people I cherished, have given themselves up to Rush Limbaugh and nihilism, saying "NO" to everything, including the health of us all, when the Republicans I grew up with were saying "Yes" to states rights, individual freedoms, less Federal government, healthy living, and America as a beacon of hope in the hinterland? When did Rush Limbaugh take over the Republican Party?

Compassion and Health Costs Reconciled by a PUBLIC OPTION

bob-pol — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:26:45 EDT

Ted Kennedy- Everyone's Senator.

"We shared about the exciting work the NJ Library for the Blind and Handicapped is doing to help support the independent business owners. Highlights of the day included a visit from NJ Congressman Rush Holt and an impromptu reading by Senator Edward Kennedy." (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thewordblog/650915336/)

Ted Kennedy on HEALTHCARE, "We are going to make healthcare what it should be - a fundamental right for all, rather than an expensive privilege for the few".

Who are the uninsured? http://www.truthout.org/082309Z

Up to 46 million Americans are uninsured, because they are unemployed, or their employer does not provide cover, or because they do not qualify for existing government-funded healthcare. People 65 and older can qualify for Medicare, the poor can qualify for Medicaid, veterans and members of the military can qualify for Veterans Health Administration and Tricare and children can be covered under a programme called SCHIP. Those left out by the system include the young just entering the workforce, the self-employed, the unemployed and people who work for small businesses.

Comparison of Canada's Health Care Plan http://www.truthout.org/082709A

It might be helpful for Americans to know about Canada's program. Here are some essential facts.

1. It is a single-payer system, meaning that the government - federal and provincial - pays the bills. But many providers - clinics, hospitals, diagnostic services, etc. - are privately owned. They are reimbursed for services just as doctors - who are mostly incorporated - submit for fees.

2. You get to choose your doctor.

In 2005, all the provincial government leaders reconfirmed their commitment to The Canada Health Act's key principles: that Canadians have the right to timely, high quality, effective and safe health services on the basis of need, not ability to pay, and regardless of where they live or move in Canada. They also committed to a system that is sustainable and affordable and that will be there for future generations.

Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan in the Unites States http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580516633344953.html

Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America's non-system of health care -- private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers -- have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.

Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightening rod. The American Medical Association is dead-set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won't consider it. No other issue in the current health-care debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course, they don't want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That's the whole point.

Critics say the public option is really a Trojan horse for a government takeover of all of health insurance. But nothing could be further from the truth. It's an option. No one has to choose it. Individuals and families will merely be invited to compare costs and outcomes. Presumably they will choose the public plan only if it offers them and their families the best deal -- more and better health care for less.

Private insurers say a public option would have an unfair advantage in achieving this goal. Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. But why, exactly, is this unfair? Isn't the whole point of cost containment to provide the public with health care on more favorable terms? If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans could seek similar deals.

But, say the critics, the public plan starts off with an unfair advantage because it's likely to have lower administrative costs. That may be true -- Medicare's administrative costs per enrollee are a small fraction of typical private insurance costs -- but here again, why exactly is this unfair? Isn't one of the goals of health-care cost containment to lower administrative costs? If the public option pushes private plans to trim their bureaucracies and become more efficient, that's fine.

Critics complain that a public plan has an inherent advantage over private plans because the public won't have to show profits. But plenty of private plans are already not-for-profit. And if nonprofit plans can offer high-quality health care more cheaply than for-profit plans, why should for-profit plans be coddled? The public plan would merely force profit-making private plans to take whatever steps were necessary to become more competitive. Once again, that's a plus.

Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans must not favor the public plan.

Finally, critics say that because of its breadth and national reach, the public plan will be able to collect and analyze patient information on a large scale to discover the best ways to improve care. The public plan might even allow clinicians who form accountable-care organizations to keep a portion of the savings they generate. Those opposed to a public option ask how private plans can ever compete with all this. The answer is they can and should. It's the only way we have a prayer of taming health-care costs. But here's some good news for the private plans. The information gleaned by the public plan about best practices will be made available to the private plans as they try to achieve the same or better outputs.

As a practical matter, the choice people make between private plans and a public one is likely to function as a check on both. Such competition will encourage private plans to do better -- offering more value at less cost. At the same time, it will encourage the public plan to be as flexible as possible. In this way, private and public plans will offer one another benchmarks of what's possible and desirable.

Mr. Obama says he wants a public plan. But the strength of the opposition to it, along with his own commitment to making the emerging bill "bipartisan," is leading toward some oddball compromises. One would substitute nonprofit health insurance cooperatives for a public plan. But such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system.

Another emerging compromise is to hold off on a public option altogether unless or until private insurers fail to meet some targets for expanding coverage and lowering health-care costs years from now. But without a public option from the start, private insurers won't have the incentives or system-wide model they need to reach these targets. And in politics, years from now usually means never.

To get health care moving again in Congress, the president will have to be clear about how to deal with its costs and whether and how a public plan is to be included as an option. The two are intimately related. Enough talk. He should come out swinging for the public option.

Mr. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, is the author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007).

Kennedy HealthCare Reform Act, 2009

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:38:44 EDT

Kennedy HealthCare Reform Act, 2009 |

Hello, Primo Prez and CITA.
I have, I think, a great idea for the Health Care cause. With Vicki Kennedy's permission, it would be more than neat and 21st century for our man in DC and the World to forego what might be called "The Obama Health Care Reform Act, for honoring the late Senator and his family's three generations of inspired contributions to the American Welfare by calling the Bill you sign the Kennedy Health Care Reform Act, 2009.

I may be crazy, but that one act of naming might work Congress back toward a bipartisan Bill instead of a polarized one, as everyone wants to celebrate Ted Kennedy's 40 year fight for healthcare for all Americans.

This Act is what he now would be working toward, the successful passage through the Houses of this legislation, this year, had he not gotten sick. Who could vote down this culminating moment in his public life, the Kennedy Act? I bet he'll be pushing for it, wherever his soul resides, and, in his death, claim the miraculous closure which his life would not let him gain.

Surely, this move might restore some balance and respect for the coming historical moment when this Bill becomes law, a true-North step forward for this country. It might also bind some recent wounds of bi-partisanship, to remember the nimblefooted Teddy crossing the aisle with such finesse.

It could also, I suppose, be named the Kennedy/Hatch Health Care Reform Act, as both men deserve praise for their concerns for the health of America.

Could the Kennedy magic lift the pall over the current bickering? If he had lived more robustly since January, he would have made it happen, I'm sure. I think it would be like lighting a vigil candle in the current darkness of American debate.

Is such a thing possible? Can President's name Bills? At least he could suggest it to the Legislature as appropriate honoring for a transcendent caring model for the Great Politician and Citizen Award, 2009.

I'd be surprised if our Primo Prez hasn't thought of this already.

Gracias, ObamaDoug
President Obama, For 8 Great Years!

Latin American UNASUR Debate at Bariloche, Argentina

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:20:05 EDT

This article, from Associated Press (!) seems balanced, given the usual over-the-top, angry pronouncements about the US from the usual sources. It would be great if Latin America could transcend its anger for our past intrusions, though, Lord knows, we've earned their distrust for 100 years: "Gringo" is still a dirty word to most adult Latin Americans because norteamericanos of the Beltway variety are seen as heartless greed-and-power-heads, south of the border. Perhaps if we extend our hearts to Latin America instead of our egos, the Western Hemisphere might grow in mutuality and greater compassion.

As in all things 21st century, we must walk our talk with Latin America. We cannot help to oppress these populations economically and politically while talking freedom, liberty, democracy, opportunity and justice for all.

Here's the AP article:

Uribe stands ground on US military deal

By MICHAEL WARREN (AP) – 16 hours ago

BARILOCHE, Argentina — South America's presidents ended their debate Friday on a pending deal to expand the U.S. troop presence in Colombia, saying foreign troops should not be allowed to threaten any of the region's nations.

The leaders also instructed their foreign and defense ministers to meet next month and come up with a cooperation agreement that would enable the UNASUR group to inspect military bases in each member country to confirm that promises are being kept.

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe appeared to go along with this base supervision idea, although the presidents began to leave while the summit declaration was still being drafted and there was no signing ceremony.

"There are no guarantees" in life, said Ecuador's Rafael Correa, the group's rotating president. "We hope it works, that this UNASUR defense council will be able to supervise the bases ... what more can we do?"

For hours, Uribe defended his U.S. military alliance against tough criticism, saying the United States was alone in answering his nation's call for help against drug traffickers and terrorists.

"We are not playing some political game," Uribe declared after others accused him of destabilizing the continent by giving U.S. troops more maneuvering room on Colombian bases.

Uribe provided few details about the 10-year base deal, and his rivals spent much of the summit, broadcast live across the continent, painting the U.S. as a menace to peace and security, despite the goodwill generated by President Barack Obama's election.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez read from a document in which he said Pentagon planners saw Colombia's bases as a jumping off point for "expeditionary" forces to secure whatever might be in the U.S. strategic interest in South America.

"They're mobilizing for war," Chavez charged.

"This greatly worries me, and I can't accept that a U.S. document treats us like a back porch," said Correa, who proposed an urgent meeting with Obama.

Uribe said the document was merely a proposal from a group of U.S. academics that is publicly available on the Internet. Strategic defense planning is what they do, he said, but "Colombia's focus is completely the opposite. The only focus that Colombia has is to end its internal war."

The presidents also instructed the UNASUR defense committee to analyze the document before deciding whether to press Obama to provide more explanations.

Uribe urged his neighbors to take more responsibility in the fight against "narcoterrorists" — prompting angry retorts from Bolivia's Evo Morales, among others.

Morales, who rose to power through a coca growers union, said U.S. soldiers accompanying Bolivian troops fired at his union members. "I witnessed this," Morales said.

"So now we're narcoterrorists. When they couldn't call us communists anymore, they called us subversives, and then traffickers, and since the September 11 attacks, terrorists," Morales added. "The history of Latin America repeats itself."

The ultimate responsibility for Latin America's violence lies with U.S. consumers of illegal drugs, Morales said, before answering his own rhetorical question: "If UNASUR sent troops to the United States to control consumption, would they accept it? Impossible!"

Chavez accused Colombia of hypocrisy, saying it harbors the "terrorist" Pedro Carmona, a Venezuelan business leader who briefly served as president when Chavez was ousted in an aborted 2002 coup.

Uribe countered that Venezuela has provided refuge to two leaders of Colombia's leftist FARC rebel army — Luciano Marin Arango, alias Ivan Marquez, and Rodrigo Londono, alias Timochenko. Venezuela has always denied this; Chavez had no immediate response.

U.S. and Colombian diplomats have spent weeks trying to calm fears since The Associated Press reported details of the military contract, which would let U.S. troops use space at seven Colombian bases for 10 years.

The deal, which is done and just awaits signatures, also gives the U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Colombia, and envisions millions of dollars in construction to support warplanes and other U.S. military hardware.

Latin American leaders tend to be suspicious of foreign militaries in a region where U.S.-backed dictatorships killed and tortured their own citizens only decades ago. The unresolved coup in Honduras — by a military with close U.S. ties and training — worries them as well.

Political instability tends to fuel defense spending: the 12 UNASUR nations spent about $51 billion last year on their militaries — up 30 percent from 2007, according to the Center for a New Majority, a Buenos Aires research group.

Fernando Lugo, who came to power after a long career a priest and bishop among Paraguay's poor, criticized the region's defense spending. Peru's Alan Garcia called it "shameful."

Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said he also wants Obama to explain what role the U.S. will play in Latin America. "I think we have to have a good discussion with the United States."

But Silva failed to persuade his fellow leaders to find common ground.

"One person can blame another, but that doesn't solve the problem," he said, shrugging and raising both hands. "When we're together at a table like this one, we must decide beforehand if we want to build an atmosphere of peace or of war. If it's for peace, we could put an end once and for all with all those threats and differences."

At the end, Silva couldn't hide his frustration as the leaders bickered over their joint statement. Three of the presidents were gone before the official photo.

It would have been better, Silva said, to turn off the cameras.

ObamaDoug Notes:

It's important enough to repeat it: Silva: "When we're together at a table like this one, we must decide beforehand if we want to build an atmosphere of peace or of war. If it's for peace, we could put an end once and for all with all those threats and differences." While this is a call from Silva to the other Latin American leaders, it is also a call for the US to begin "building an atmosphere of peace" in Latin America, rather than filling up the countries with military toys as "aid." Everyone in Bariloche would welcome US humanitarian aid, but our aid packages are mostly about war. Let's change that as well as welcome UNASUR's call for greater communication with the Obama Administration.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

A Further Insight on Honduras

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:01:32 EDT

The military junta, all schooled in the CIA's School of America in the 80's at Ft. Benning, Georgia, were pretty quick to back-pedal on their Supreme Court's ruling calling Zelaya a constitutional criminal, once they heard the balance of 2009 US aid to Honduras might be cut if they did not let him back into the country.

Since most of the remaining aid is earmarked as military credits, allowing the Honduran military to shop our WalMart of defense toys for free, it's not surprising that they're starting to cave on their legitimacy as custodians of Honduran Democracy: every one of those elite leaders has been taking personal kickbacks to their secret bank accounts for making their purchases from our defense industries!

This country really needs to examine how our our military aid to Latin America gets spent: NO country in Latin America needs anymore airplanes or baksheesh to the generals. What they need is humanitarian aid distributed by human justice workers to all the starving masses south of us. Who, exactly, is going to attack any country in Pan-America, except us? Our military aid has been going to the elites of each country for 60 years, to support THEM against the people of their countries and to prop up our military/industrial/intelligence/financial complex. How tacky! Hardly AID.

Baksheesh is the Central American way of doing business, and, believe me, I know this is pervasive in Central American culture. Even the campesinos at the bottom of the beanstalk charge 10% baksheesh on every financial transaction I make through them. If I send $1000 to my "parents" for food in care of my sister in Jalapa, nearest to Western Union, who then taxies it to Teote to another sister, who then has other sisters in the family walk the money out to Quacamaya, about $200 goes into at least 3 families' coffers before the diminished amount gets to don Ramon and dona Eva. They accept it as the Nicaraguan way, and at least my money supports the family.

It's just a given, Nica-style, unfortunately. I've stopped sending money. I'll help my "parents" in other ways.

So, no surprise that the coup leaders are filled with anxiety that they won't be able to live in palaces anymore, while their citizens are living hand-to-mouth, if aid is cut. Perfect timing, SoS Clinton and Primo Prez! Turn that screw another iota and Zelaya will finish out his legitimate term, and, then, hopefully, get lost to history, as a more progressive, citizen-chosen candidate becomes President in January. This coup has raised the consciousness of the Honduran electorate to value its vote, rather than seeing it as a way to make money from the highest bidder. Last I heard, a Honduran vote in the provinces was going for $35, enough to feed a family for half a week.

Zelaya should run the elections, and the Devil-Take-Him if he creates fraud or steps in as a candidate. Even he is not foolish enough to try that, now.

The idea that the current cadre of CIA-trained generals could run a presidential election fairly is ludicrous, and everyone in Latin America and North America and the Beltway Bubble knows it! Hardly anyone in Honduras would vote for Michiletti or a henchman, and, yet, he'd win, wouldn't he? Hmmmmmm? Few would vote for Zelaya, either, who has shown himself to be a non-thinking puppet of Chavez, a fool among big-mouthed fools. No Honduran wants to be engined by Venezuela, even despite the cheap gasoline.

Tighten, tighten, tighten! GOBAMA!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY and Hillary, too!

Scrolling Down CITA Is Extraordinary Now!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:11:35 EDT

What a great, meaningful blogsite we have! It takes me almost as much time to scroll down CITA's blog to my last post as it used to take me to scroll the MyBO Community Blog: Thanks to all you intrepid posters! Our passion is working miracles of transformation as we communicate from our hearts with each other, and "That," believe me, "Ain't Shabby"! "Hoo-Hah," from the Cosmic Cowboy!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

More Breaking News from Honduras!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:56:59 EDT

The Quixote Center has just released the following announcement and plea for activism (underlining mine):

Since June 28th, you have joined with our friends in Honduras to help return democracy to their country. As a result, your actions are now bearing fruit.

Earlier this week, the SOA graduate-backed Honduran military coup regime refused all diplomatic options to return democracy. The U.S. State Department responded by asserting that visas to Hondurans would no longer be granted under the coup. Late yesterday State Department officials made it clear that they are considering legally defining the situation as a "military coup." This would create an automatic cut-off of all remaining aid to Honduras. The coup regime immediately responded by saying that they would allow the rightful President Zelaya to return with amnesty, but not as president. Clearly the coup leaders are caving to the pressure. We need you to act now to return democracy to Honduras. Please make two very important phone calls this morning!

1.) Call the State Department at 202-647-5171 or 1-800-877-8339 and ask for Secretary Clinton. Deliver the following message: "Legally define the de facto regime in Honduras as a military coup and cut off all aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is unconditionally reinstated."

2.) Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and repeat the same message "Legally define the de facto regime in Honduras as a military coup and cut off all aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is unconditionally reinstated."

Thanks,

The Staff of the Quixote Center

ObamaDoug Notes:

Just having these phone numbers on your speed dial helps, though leaving a message can be time-consuming. The State Department's answering mechanism is acting crazy; the White House is easier. Go for it, CITA. These calls are what we're on this blog site for, to support democracy, rule of law, and social justice for all Americans, North, Central and South! I'm excited! There was a time, you all may remember, when the United States would have been paying for the coup: not any more! No more coups!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Call SoS Clinton!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:48:23 EDT

This request just came in from Just Foreign Policy. Let's act on it, for the sake of the Honduran people, who have been deprived of the rule of law. NO MORE COUPS!

Here's the request:

Thank you for the actions you've taken to increase U.S. pressure on the coup regime in Honduras. In response to pressure from the U.S. public, Congress, and from Latin America, the Obama Administration is starting to move.

Late yesterday Reuters reported that State Department officials have recommended to Secretary of State Clinton that she formally declare what took place on June 28 in Honduras a "military coup." [1] Under U.S. law, this would cut off all remaining non-humanitarian U.S. aid to the coup regime.

Could you make a phone call today to Secretary Clinton, urging her to follow the recommendation of her staff, and formally declare that a military coup has taken place in Honduras?

Call the State Department at 202-647-5171. Deliver the following message: "Secretary Clinton, please follow the recommendation of the State Department. Legally define the de facto regime in Honduras as a military coup and cut off all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is reinstated."

Please forward this message to anyone you know who you think will take action.

Thank you for all you do for a just foreign policy,

ObamaDoug Notes:

I've just made my call. It's easy, though it took some time getting to an open "mailbox" to leave my message. It was worth it. How about you?

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY (and SoS Clinton, too!)

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine Details CIA Torture Manual

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:38:12 EDT

Anyone on CITA looking for details of CIA interrogation techniques gained through the Freedom of Information Act need look no farther than Naomi Klein's horrifying but very realistic book, The Shock Doctrine (Picador, 2007). Part 1, Chapter 1, "The Torture Lab," details the $25 million dollars the CIA paid Dr. Ewen Cameron of McGill University (Canada) to treat his patients as guinea pigs in psychological investigations centered on electrocution, overdoses of mind-altering drugs, and sensory deprivation, supposedly leading to states of brain-washing mind control. From this disgusting work, the CIA created a manual of interrogation known as KUBARK, which was used by the CIA to teach Central American National Guardsmen how to get information from leftist prisoners during the 80s. The methods so terrify me, sitting in my easy chair, that I know I'd confess to anything. I won't mention them here.

Read this book, CITA members, and you will understand why many in the world consider the United States government to be the PRIMO terrorist nation-state, using shock, awe, and personal trauma to get its way. You'll understand the Bush tactics. You'll understand Iraq and Katrina.

You'll understand, but, if you're like me, you'll hate this information. I love my country but am deeply ashamed at what has been done in the world in our names for the last 60 years. It is, however, better to know the worst in order to work for the best in the future, as Primo Prez is doing. His action to remove interrogation of prisoners from the CIA to the FBI (with government oversight) is a first step. At least the FBI attitude tends to elicit information from prisoners through kindness and better treatment, according to NPR's Amy Goodman, rather than mind/body devestation.

Maybe diehard Beltway Bubble sadists in positions of power, Limbaugh-esque talking heads in media, and CEOs of inhumane mega-corporations need some humanistic counselling prior to their hiring? When did we lose sight of the Golden Rule?

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO.F8GY!

New State Recommendations: Nix Honduran Aid

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:43:48 EDT

I'm sad, but in the long run it might be best to cut current aid to the Honduran government from the US, even though it might hurt the peoples there short-term. Most of it is probably now being channeled into military gang-rapes of female protestors, anyway, rather than the campesinos. This from Just Foreign Policy, an excellent site. I appreciate that State has held off so long on nixing the Milennial Challenge aid, but, now, who knows who is monitoring that funding? From JFP:

1) State Department staff have recommended the ouster of Honduran President Zelaya be declared a "military coup," which could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding, Reuters reports. An official said State Department staff had made the recommendation to Secretary of State Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon. Washington has suspended about $18 million aid to Honduras and this would be formally cut if the determination is made because of a U.S. law barring aid "to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree." The official said that $215 million in grant funding from the Millennium Challenge Corporation to Honduras would have to end should Clinton make the determination. About $76 million has already been disbursed and a second official said this implied the remaining roughly $139 million could not be given to Honduras. Diplomats said the US had held off making the formal determination to give diplomacy a chance to yield a negotiated compromise that might allow for Zelaya's return to power. Such efforts appear to have failed for now and so the US is taking steps to raise pressure on the de facto government. "The recommendation of the building is for her to sign it," said the first U.S. official.

Obamadoug Notes:

I hope she does. Michiletti and the Honduran elites think they have a patsy in the OAS and Obama! Ha! In addition, the cutting off of visas to the States will nix the elites' desire to get their kids out of Honduras. Why on earth would they want to send them off, except that most of the elites' kids hate what their parents are supporting and might get in trouble with the military police? 139 million might be better spent funding refugee camps on all Honduran borders, because none of the bordering nations can afford refugees from political oppression in Honduras: a wave of starving people is heading out of that coup-run nation. They are sick of it, though they won't find much relief across any borders there.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY! (President Obama, For 8 Great Years!)

Ted Kennedy - Goodbye Camelot

bob-pol — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:11:54 EDT

A few photos I took of TV screen of Funeral services for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy Thursday, August 27.

Ted Kennedy's Final Exit from his famous Hyannis Port house.

Kennedy Family watches as Ted's coffin is loaded into hearse.

Camelot- Caroline's loving "goodbye touch" to uncle Ted.

Tribute to the best Senator who has ever served.

God Bless Ted Kennedy and his Family.

Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com

"KENNEDY'S DREAM" - HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

bob-pol — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:58:21 EDT

My Idea for a Town Hall Poster: KENNEDY'S DREAM.

Their mother taught them, "To whom much is given, much is required".

"We must care for those who cannot care for themselves", said Ted Kennedy.

47 MILLION AMERICANS have no health insurance. About 80% of them are working but their job provides no insurance and/or they cannot get or afford private insurance.

rob [bob-pol], Caring is the Key to Life.

racggg@gmail.com

RIP: Senator Edward Kennedy

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:25:18 EDT

Primo Prez sent this email to American Obamans this morning:

Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me. In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy. I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom. His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives. For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family. Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still. Sincerely, President Barack Obama

ObamaDoug Notes:

Ted Kennedy, most likely, will push buttons from beyond the grave to help our President to finally achieve Kennedy's 40 year-old-dream of America accepting the moral obligation to provide health access to all Americans (as every other developed country already does). Perhaps our values of money and power block our hearts from recognizing the mutual needs of our citizens and our culture, something Kennedy never forgot, despite his privileges.

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

Ted Kennedy Made His Mark in Life and Politics

bob-pol — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:45:20 EDT

Ted Kennedy, Man of Great Compassion moves on ... to his Heavenly Reward.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3937/obama3kennedysrh7.jpg

from Boston Globe (1):

No senator in history, many now say, was able to be both his party's most forceful spokesman for its causes and the leader who cajoled colleagues of both parties into agreement.

In what once seemed like a premonition, President John F. Kennedy at his inauguration had given his youngest brother a silver cigarette box engraved with the biblical words from Matthew: "And the last shall be first."

Ted Kennedy did not succeed in following his brother's path, either in cultivating a faultless image or in wielding the powers of the presidency. But by the early 21st century, the achievements of the younger brother would be enough to rival those of many presidents.

That day on the Hyannis Port porch, his father-in-law's advice to relax and bask in his hard-won glory was also prescient. A year later, Kennedy would be diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.

But then, as always in his turbulent life, Kennedy looked to his moorings: the Senate and the sea. He would meet cancer the way he met so many challenges.

He would keep working, and he would keep sailing.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/1248/obamakennedylaughca8.jpg

Our Ted, champion for the people, had seen great success, and had reason to Smile,

(1) from Boston Globe, A seven-part series on the Massachusetts senator ,,http://www.boston.com/news/specials/k ennedy/

May God Bless Ted and his Loved Ones,<Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com

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

Here's the Guy Who's Running OFA: Great!

"Obama Doug" Evans Betanco — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:00:11 EDT

Jeremy Bird, who is the travelling head of Organizing for America, the DNC arm of the Obama Administration, had this profile written about him yesterday:

Grass-Roots Battle Tests The Obama Movement
His Supporters Play Catch-Up on Reform

By Eli Saslow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 23, 2009

RACINE, Wis. -- The last three years had unfolded in an unrelenting series of what Jeremy Bird called Big Moments, and here began the latest on a sweltering afternoon earlier this month. Another rental car, another unfamiliar highway, another string of e-mails sent from his BlackBerry while driving 70 mph. Bird took a sip from his coffee and looked over at Dan Grandone, a co-worker riding in the passenger seat.

"I don't know about you, but I'm running on adrenaline right now," Bird said. "I love this feeling that we're on the verge of something crucial."

Bird had lived at that precipice ever since joining Barack Obama's campaign as a top organizer in 2007, but rarely had he faced a challenge so daunting as the one awaiting in Racine. As deputy director of Organizing for America, a national network of Obama supporters, Bird was scheduled to speak with a group of volunteers who had been threatened at town halls, outshouted at local rallies and weakened by a general sense of post-campaign fatigue. With one 90-minute visit, Bird hoped to leave them confident, empowered and reenergized.

"We want these people to feel like they can control almost anything that happens in government," said Bird, who had traveled from his office at Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington to spend two days visiting volunteers across Wisconsin. "They should feel like there's no barrier between the regular people out in the states and the power players in D.C."

The outcome of the health-care debate weighed partially on Bird's success, and on the effectiveness of Organizing for America (OFA) in general. When Bird was named deputy director of OFA last year, he became the vanguard of much more than 13 million e-mail addresses collected from supporters during Obama's campaign. He became one of the people most responsible for validating Obama's campaign ethos: that grass-roots support can power government and shape legislation.

It is a theory that now faces a defining test. Conservatives have waged an angry and effective battle against Obama's health-care legislation, and OFA has responded by asking its volunteers to visit congressional offices and flood town hall meetings in a massive show of support. This month, Obama sent an e-mail to OFA members: "This is the moment our movement was built for," he wrote.

When Bird arrived at a Racine coffee shop called Cup of Hope and sat down with 10 OFA volunteers, he spoke with similar urgency.

"We need to flex our muscles on this, and we need to act fast," he said. "We always said in the campaign that this was not just about one election but about a chance to make some major changes. Well, here's the chance."

Bird had a lifetime of experience thriving against long odds, and he relished the role. The son of conservative Baptists, Bird grew up in a Missouri trailer park before attending Harvard Divinity School. He organized underfunded schools in Boston, worked for Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004 and started a company that lobbied Wal-Mart -- his mother's former employer -- to improve its benefits and wages. On behalf of Obama, he had moved to five states, helping the candidate overcome racism in South Carolina and Islamophobia in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

When Bird arrived in Wisconsin last week, he recognized all the familiar hallmarks of an underdog fight. Gone were the 44 field offices across the state where Obama organizers had worked during the campaign; now Bird spent his visit searching for power outlets in Wisconsin coffee shops and conducting conference calls at sidewalk cafes. Gone were the 100 paid staffers who orchestrated an Obama victory in the state; now OFA employed one person in Wisconsin, Grandone, who hoped to hire two or three assistants if the budget allowed.

"Right now," Grandone said, "we are kind of building this thing as we fly it."

Around the table in Racine, Bird listened as the volunteers rattled off evidence of OFA's growing pains. Local membership was relatively stagnant because Racine residents were exhausted after volunteering during the long presidential campaign. Newspapers had focused their coverage of health-care town halls on the most vocal conservatives, even when the crowd contained more Democrats. One OFA member said he was now the target of repeated threats. "I've had a guy say to me, 'Why should I be afraid of a liberal when I have a .357?' " said Ryan Gleason, 32.

"It's starting to feel like we're always on the defensive," Gleason said.

Bird responded by citing data aimed at demonstrating OFA's impact. Since the organization sent an e-mail to its members asking for help on health care in May, more than 1.3 million have visited a phone bank, shared their personal health-care stories on the Internet or attended one of 12,000 local rallies. More than 150,000 people have given an average of $38 to OFA's health-care campaign. This month, Obama spent an hour providing OFA members with "bullet points" for the debate during an Internet video.

"Usually, when a campaign ends, everybody is exhausted and people just go their separate ways," Bird told the volunteers assembled in Racine. "But we knew from the beginning that this could be different."

Bird and other top Obama operatives had decided as much during the first days after the election, when they began conceptualizing OFA at a conference held in Chicago. They polled thousands of Obama volunteers through a sequence of surveys and conference calls and sought advice from David Plouffe, the architect of Obama's campaign. By the time of Obama's inauguration, Bird and OFA Director Mitch Stewart had settled on a basic vision: OFA would get by with limited staff by relying on volunteers who would work as many as 30 hours a week to ensure grass-roots activity in each U.S. voting precinct.

Bird and others decided that OFA would succeed almost entirely based on the enthusiasm of its volunteers. In that spirit, he asked each person at the coffee shop in Racine to share a "how-Obama-inspired-me story." There was the mother of two young children who now works as a lead community organizer for OFA, taking her children with her from one event to the next. There was a registered independent voter who had volunteered for Obama only once, on election night. There was Racine's newly elected mayor, John Dickert, who had been inspired to run for office after volunteering for Obama.

These were now the key operatives in OFA's health-care campaign. Bird's visit coincided with the launch of two OFA initiatives. The group's Web site offered artificial appointment times for volunteers to visit their congressional offices, prompting 15 or 20 OFA volunteers to pile into waiting rooms across the country. Bird also asked the supporters in Racine to attend as many congressional town hall meetings as possible in an attempt to drown out the vocal and disruptive opposition.

"Remember to stay classy, like we did during the campaign," Bird said. "We want an educated debate. We are not going to outshout them."

"Do you really think these things will have a big impact?" volunteer Glenda Alexander asked. "I guess it can't hurt to try, but the chances that this debate will be determined by one person showing up at a congressman's office -- and not even seeing the congressman -- seem pretty tiny. It's like buying a lottery ticket."

"It might seem small when it's just you, but it's big when you add up everybody who is going," Bird said.

"But right now, we're getting outshouted," Gleason said.

"We can't let that stop us," Bird said.

"We are battling these false messages every day now," Gleason continued. "It is getting to the point where some people are so angry that our safety is becoming a concern."

"We can't let that stop us either," Bird repeated. "Look, it's nasty because we are on the brink of a change and people are getting scared. If you stick with this, I'll promise you: We will get health care passed this year."

Some of the volunteers stood up and began to applaud. For a moment, at least, Bird had restored their optimism. He thanked the group, picked up his notebook and walked out. There were more volunteers to meet 45 minutes down the road at a restaurant in Milwaukee, another big moment.

"That went well," Bird said to Grandone as they climbed into the rental car. "Now we just have to do the same thing again, and again."

ObamaDoug Notes:

I met with an Obama OFA volunteer today at the Palisades Renaissance Faire outside of Grand Junction. She was dressed as a lady in waiting to the Queen of the Faire. She showed me pictures of the Obama Town Hall meeting, where she was on the stage with HIM because of her OFA volunteerism since the election. She shared with me that looking in his eyes while shaking his hand had concreted her determination to fight for Obama, whatever. The man has the most charismatic, clear eyes, as I know, from shaking his hand in Grand Junction about this time a year ago. HIS EYES CHANGED MY LIFE, from a man who never looked at current events and gave the finger to politics, into an activist.

I'll say, kudos, to Jeremy Bird!

Gracias, ObamaDoug

PO,F8GY!

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.

Sen. Feinstein on private coverage of preventative services for reproductive care in health reform legislation

Fire Is Born — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:28:26 EDT

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Thank you for writing to express your opposition to proposed restrictions on private coverage of preventative services for reproductive care in health reform legislation. I appreciate the time you took to write to me on this important issue, and I welcome this opportunity to respond.

The Senate Finance Committee is currently debating health care reform proposals. One proposal would create a Health Insurance Exchange through which individuals and small businesses could purchase health insurance. In order to assist those not able to afford health insurance, some individuals and families would receive subsidies to help pay for the health insurance. Insurers would provide an essential benefits package, which would be determined by the Department of Health and Human Services after receiving recommendations from a federal advisory committee. The Senate Finance Committee is currently considering restrictions on the insurance packages offered in the Exchange, specifically restricting preventative services for reproductive care, including abortion.

I share your concerns about the proposed restrictions, and I have contacted Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to express these concerns. These restrictions would leave many American women worse off than they are today. I believe that reproductive health services should be treated no differently than any other health care service or benefit in the current health care reform discussions. While I understand that many individuals may not want to purchase health insurance that covers reproductive services, everyone should have the opportunity to select health insurance without those services restricted.

I support preventative reproductive care because I believe that services such as family planning are incredibly valuable. Please know that I will keep your comments in mind as I continue to review health care reform legislation in the 111th Congress.

Again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.

From Time: 5 truths about health care in America

Fire Is Born — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:27:30 EDT

Very interesting and well presented. I wish we learned this much and this way watching television. fib

http://www.time.com/time/2008/health_care/index.html

In 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000

Fire Is Born — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:20:26 EDT

I found this article on a trail of reads that started with CR's post below on the First Family Western touring.That's web browsing for you! Doug, thank you for your passionate posts advocating for the bottom 4% of US to get health insurance too. Here we learn about the TOP "decile". fib

"Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000. "

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY

huffingtonpost.com — Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes.

http://digg.com/politics/Income_Inequality_Is_At_An_All_Time_High_STUDY

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

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

"Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?"

Fire Is Born — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:33:09 EDT

No verbal comment. FIB

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

August 9, 2009

Op-Ed Contributor

Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?

By BARBARA EHRENREICH

IT’S too bad so many people are falling into poverty at a time when it’s almost illegal to be poor. You won’t be arrested for shopping in a Dollar Store, but if you are truly, deeply, in-the-streets poor, you’re well advised not to engage in any of the biological necessities of life — like sitting, sleeping, lying down or loitering. City officials boast that there is nothing discriminatory about the ordinances that afflict the destitute, most of which go back to the dawn of gentrification in the ’80s and ’90s. “If you’re lying on a sidewalk, whether you’re homeless or a millionaire, you’re in violation of the ordinance,” a city attorney in St. Petersburg, Fla., said in June, echoing Anatole France’s immortal observation that “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges.”

In defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalization of poverty has actually been intensifying as the recession generates ever more poverty. So concludes a new study from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which found that the number of ordinances against the publicly poor has been rising since 2006, along with ticketing and arrests for more “neutral” infractions like jaywalking, littering or carrying an open container of alcohol.

The report lists America’s 10 “meanest” cities — the largest of which are Honolulu, Los Angeles and San Francisco — but new contestants are springing up every day. The City Council in Grand Junction, Colo., has been considering a ban on begging, and at the end of June, Tempe, Ariz., carried out a four-day crackdown on the indigent. How do you know when someone is indigent? As a Las Vegas statute puts it, “An indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.

That could be me before the blow-drying and eyeliner, and it’s definitely Al Szekely at any time of day. A grizzled 62-year-old, he inhabits a wheelchair and is often found on G Street in Washington — the city that is ultimately responsible for the bullet he took in the spine in Fu Bai, Vietnam, in 1972. He had been enjoying the luxury of an indoor bed until last December, when the police swept through the shelter in the middle of the night looking for men with outstanding warrants.

It turned out that Mr. Szekely, who is an ordained minister and does not drink, do drugs or curse in front of ladies, did indeed have a warrant — for not appearing in court to face a charge of “criminal trespassing” (for sleeping on a sidewalk in a Washington suburb). So he was dragged out of the shelter and put in jail. “Can you imagine?” asked Eric Sheptock, the homeless advocate (himself a shelter resident) who introduced me to Mr. Szekely. “They arrested a homeless man in a shelter for being homeless.”

The viciousness of the official animus toward the indigent can be breathtaking. A few years ago, a group called Food Not Bombs started handing out free vegan food to hungry people in public parks around the nation. A number of cities, led by Las Vegas, passed ordinances forbidding the sharing of food with the indigent in public places, and several members of the group were arrested. A federal judge just overturned the anti-sharing law in Orlando, Fla., but the city is appealing. And now Middletown, Conn., is cracking down on food sharing.

If poverty tends to criminalize people, it is also true that criminalization inexorably impoverishes them. Scott Lovell, another homeless man I interviewed in Washington, earned his record by committing a significant crime — by participating in the armed robbery of a steakhouse when he was 15. Although Mr. Lovell dresses and speaks more like a summer tourist from Ohio than a felon, his criminal record has made it extremely difficult for him to find a job.

For Al Szekely, the arrest for trespassing meant a further descent down the circles of hell. While in jail, he lost his slot in the shelter and now sleeps outside the Verizon Center sports arena, where the big problem, in addition to the security guards, is mosquitoes. His stick-thin arms are covered with pink crusty sores, which he treats with a regimen of frantic scratching.

For the not-yet-homeless, there are two main paths to criminalization — one involving debt, and the other skin color. Anyone of any color or pre-recession financial status can fall into debt, and although we pride ourselves on the abolition of debtors’ prison, in at least one state, Texas, people who can’t afford to pay their traffic fines may be made to “sit out their tickets” in jail.

Often the path to legal trouble begins when one of your creditors has a court issue a summons for you, which you fail to honor for one reason or another. (Maybe your address has changed or you never received it.) Now you’re in contempt of court. Or suppose you miss a payment and, before you realize it, your car insurance lapses; then you’re stopped for something like a broken headlight. Depending on the state, you may have your car impounded or face a steep fine — again, exposing you to a possible summons. “There’s just no end to it once the cycle starts,” said Robert Solomon of Yale Law School. “It just keeps accelerating.”

By far the most reliable way to be criminalized by poverty is to have the wrong-color skin. Indignation runs high when a celebrity professor encounters racial profiling, but for decades whole communities have been effectively “profiled” for the suspicious combination of being both dark-skinned and poor, thanks to the “broken windows” or “zero tolerance” theory of policing popularized by Rudy Giuliani, when he was mayor of New York City, and his police chief William Bratton.

Flick a cigarette in a heavily patrolled community of color and you’re littering; wear the wrong color T-shirt and you’re displaying gang allegiance. Just strolling around in a dodgy neighborhood can mark you as a potential suspect, according to “Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice,” an eye-opening new book by Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor in Washington. If you seem at all evasive, which I suppose is like looking “overly anxious” in an airport, Mr. Butler writes, the police “can force you to stop just to investigate why you don’t want to talk to them.” And don’t get grumpy about it or you could be “resisting arrest.”

There’s no minimum age for being sucked into what the Children’s Defense Fund calls “the cradle-to-prison pipeline.” In New York City, a teenager caught in public housing without an ID — say, while visiting a friend or relative — can be charged with criminal trespassing and wind up in juvenile detention, Mishi Faruqee, the director of youth justice programs for the Children’s Defense Fund of New York, told me. In just the past few months, a growing number of cities have taken to ticketing and sometimes handcuffing teenagers found on the streets during school hours.

In Los Angeles, the fine for truancy is $250; in Dallas, it can be as much as $500 — crushing amounts for people living near the poverty level. According to the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group, 12,000 students were ticketed for truancy in 2008.

Why does the Bus Riders Union care? Because it estimates that 80 percent of the “truants,” especially those who are black or Latino, are merely late for school, thanks to the way that over-filled buses whiz by them without stopping. I met people in Los Angeles who told me they keep their children home if there’s the slightest chance of their being late. It’s an ingenious anti-truancy policy that discourages parents from sending their youngsters to school.

The pattern is to curtail financing for services that might help the poor while ramping up law enforcement: starve school and public transportation budgets, then make truancy illegal. Shut down public housing, then make it a crime to be homeless. Be sure to harass street vendors when there are few other opportunities for employment. The experience of the poor, and especially poor minorities, comes to resemble that of a rat in a cage scrambling to avoid erratically administered electric shocks.

And if you should make the mistake of trying to escape via a brief marijuana-induced high, it’s “gotcha” all over again, because that of course is illegal too. One result is our staggering level of incarceration, the highest in the world. Today the same number of Americans — 2.3 million — reside in prison as in public housing.

Meanwhile, the public housing that remains has become ever more prisonlike, with residents subjected to drug testing and random police sweeps. The safety net, or what’s left of it, has been transformed into a dragnet.

Some of the community organizers I’ve talked to around the country think they know why “zero tolerance” policing has ratcheted up since the recession began. Leonardo Vilchis of the Union de Vecinos, a community organization in Los Angeles, suspects that “poor people have become a source of revenue” for recession-starved cities, and that the police can always find a violation leading to a fine. If so, this is a singularly demented fund-raising strategy. At a Congressional hearing in June, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified about the pervasive “overcriminalization of crimes that are not a risk to public safety,” like sleeping in a cardboard box or jumping turnstiles, which leads to expensively clogged courts and prisons.

A Pew Center study released in March found states spending a record $51.7 billion on corrections, an amount that the center judged, with an excess of moderation, to be “too much.”

But will it be enough — the collision of rising prison populations that we can’t afford and the criminalization of poverty — to force us to break the mad cycle of poverty and punishment? With the number of people in poverty increasing (some estimates suggest it’s up to 45 million to 50 million, from 37 million in 2007) several states are beginning to ease up on the criminalization of poverty — for example, by sending drug offenders to treatment rather than jail, shortening probation and reducing the number of people locked up for technical violations like missed court appointments. But others are tightening the screws: not only increasing the number of “crimes” but also charging prisoners for their room and board — assuring that they’ll be released with potentially criminalizing levels of debt.

Maybe we can’t afford the measures that would begin to alleviate America’s growing poverty — affordable housing, good schools, reliable public transportation and so forth. I would argue otherwise, but for now I’d be content with a consensus that, if we can’t afford to truly help the poor, neither can we afford to go on tormenting them."

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author, most recently, of “This Land Is Their Land: Reports From a Divided Nation.”

Food for your thought: Why Don't We Globalize Health Care?

Fire Is Born — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:34:44 EDT

Since I have been on the move this last decade I have done a lot of medical tourism - in Poland, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Very helpful, as I was without insurance in this country for a good couple of years. I could not efford to buy COBRA - and Keiser did not want to give it to me in the first place. And I was in a "Let's go!" mood again. Why not globalization? Business is business, after all. FIB

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Why Don't We Globalize Health Care?

By DEAN BAKER

With the rising cost of healthcare now atop the national agenda, one theme rings like a frustrating refrain: healthcare is special, so the tools we use to fix normal economic problems don’t apply. What good is mass production in confronting the complexities of the body? How can cost-benefit analysis grasp the unfixable value of a human life?

There is at least one tenet of modern economic policy, however, that we are excluding from the healthcare debate at our peril: globalization.

It may seem bizarre to suggest that globalization could somehow improve healthcare. After all, the practice of medicine is not only deeply individual, but tightly tied to time and place. Apart from possibly buying drugs from Canada, most people have probably never given any thought to the idea that globalization could have a meaningful impact on healthcare in the United States. But globalization, carefully applied, could reduce costs in the short term and create pressure for the bigger changes our system desperately needs.

There are clear ways to take advantage of lower costs in other countries, making our own system more affordable without diminishing the quality. We could allow more foreign-born doctors to work in the United States, for instance. We could encourage the “medical tourism” that allows Americans to have major procedures performed in other countries, and we could permit Medicare beneficiaries to buy into the lower-cost healthcare systems of other wealthy countries.

From Quinnipac: There is still strong support for critical elements of the Obama/Democratic plan

Fire Is Born — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:40:57 EDT

"There is still strong support for critical elements of the Obama/Democratic plan:

* 62 - 32 percent in favor of giving people the option of a government insurance plan;

* 61 - 36 percent for higher taxes on high income earners to pay for health care reform;

* 60 - 32 percent in favor of insurance subsidies for individuals making up to $43,000 and families of four making up to $88,000;

* 54 - 38 percent for requiring businesses to provide insurance or pay the government.

Voters oppose 68 - 26 percent requiring people to have health insurance or pay a fine and oppose 68 - 27 percent taxing employees for health care benefits from employers. Independent voters, perhaps the key voting group, are more worried about the deficit rising than congressional inaction, 54 - 37 percent. These voters say 59 - 36 percent that overhaul should not occur if it would "significantly" increase the deficit. Independents oppose 63 - 33 percent passing a bill with only Democratic votes."

Big Oil moves into Peruvian Amazon

Fire Is Born — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:41:48 EDT

Weeks after bloodshed, American oil moves into Peruvian Amazon, putting rainforest, possible archeological site at risk

(08/03/2009) "Barely six weeks after a dozen Amazon natives were gunned down by the Peruvian Army in the oil town of Bagua for protesting the cozy relationship between Big Oil and the government of President Alan Garcia, I find myself on the banks of the Mother of God River in Salvacion, Peru, wondering if all those folks died in vain. Any day now, the bulldozers will be moving in as Texas-based Hunt Oil Company – with the full go-ahead of the Peruvian government -- fires its first salvo in its assault against the million-acre pristine rainforest wilderness of the little-known and largely unexplored Amarakaeri Communal Reserve."

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

Unions To Take On Conservative Groups Health Care Town Halls

Fire Is Born — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:22:42 EDT

huffingtonposthttp://bit.ly/VZVd2 - Unions To Take On Conservative Groups Health Care Town Hallsabout 3 hours ago from API

Single Payer Gets A Vote!!

Fire Is Born — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:02:53 EDT

Single Payer Gets A Vote (Updated)

July 31, 2009

"Anthony Weiner is about to be the new hero of the progressive crowd after getting a promise from Nancy Pelosi to debate — and vote — on a single-payer plan to solve health care reform.

Weiner got that promise after he agreed to withdraw an amendment to essentially create Medicare for the whole nation in the Energy and Commerce Committee health care markup session this evening.

The Brooklyn-Queens Rep. looked a little surprised when Chairman Henry Waxman said Pelosi would allow that vote, and made Waxman repeat the deal to be sure it was clear and on the record.

It’s an especially big deal for advocates of a single health care system — who see it as cheaper and simpler than the complicated measure being drawn up — because they have been complaining that they have not even been able to get an airing of their position.

And having the vote of the floor of the House will force members to declare a position, and bring much more attention to the idea.

Update: Weiner, who high-fived Tammy Baldwin after getting the deal, crows in a quick press release:

“It’s a Better Plan and now it’s on Center Stage,” says Weiner

Washington, DC - Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee announced today that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to give Single-Payer an up or down vote when healthcare reform is considered before year’s end.

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Co-Chair of the Middle Class Caucus and member of the Energy & Commerce Committee who led the effort with Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA); Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY); Rep. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL); Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL); and Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), released the following statement:

“Single-payer is a better plan and now it is on center stage. Americans have a clear choice. Their Member of Congress will have a simpler, less expensive and smarter bill to choose. I am thrilled that the Speaker is giving us that choice.”

- Michael McAuliff"

from my friend Kiki: Time to get FIRED UP about Health Care Reform

Fire Is Born — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:52:47 EDT

Sender: Cactus Wren from Tucson
Subject: Time to get FIRED UP about Health Care Reform
Received: 7/28/09 12:59PM EDT

It is a critical time for all of us who voted for change in the country...no matter how discouraged or frustrated you may be, activism is what works. Go to your mybarackobama and sign the pledge to support healthcare, contribute any amount you can to counter the Rs planned million dollar anti health care reform media blitz planned for August.

We can't lose the Public Option!

Use the Women's Law Center (https://secure2.convio.net/...) site to write to your representatives, and get everyone you know back in gear.

This is what we voted for, campaigned for and worked for so hard. Obama can't get this done without us! We can do this if we all come together.

Still working, praying, believing in change - Kiki A.

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.

Military in Honduras Backs San Jose Accord

Fire Is Born — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:14:41 EDT

July 26, 2009 Military in Honduras Backs Plan on Zelaya By GINGER THOMPSON and BLAKE SCHMIDT

WASHINGTON — The Honduran armed forces issued a communiqué on Saturday indicating that they would not stand in the way of an agreement to return Manuel Zelaya, the country’s ousted president, to power.

Meanwhile, in Las Manos, a town along the border between Nicaragua and Honduras, Mr. Zelaya made his second symbolic appearance in two days, defying calls from foreign leaders to avoid any moves that might provoke violence in his politically polarized country.

The communiqué was drafted in Washington after days of talks between mid-level Honduran officers and American Congressional aides. Posted on the Honduran Armed Forces Web site, it endorsed the so-called San José Accord that was forged in Costa Rica by delegates representing President Zelaya and the man who heads the de facto Honduran government, Roberto Micheletti.

The accord, supported by most governments in the hemisphere, would allow Mr. Zelaya to return as president, although with significantly limited executive powers. Mr. Micheletti has steadfastly rejected Mr. Zelaya’s return as president.

In its communiqué, the Honduran military added its support to the proposal. Officials involved said it was meant to dispel any perceptions that the military would block civilian efforts to resolve the crisis.

The officials said the military communiqué was significant because it was the first sign of support for the San José Accord by a powerful sector of the de facto government. And the officials said it could make it more difficult for the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court to reject the accord when they consider it.

American officials who met here with the Hondurans said that they were two colonels who were concerned about the tensions generated by the political conflict.

Joy Olson, executive director of the Washington Office on Latin America, a nonprofit human rights group, said she was told that the officers were showing Congressional aides a recording of the day Mr. Zelaya was detained, as evidence that no abuses had been committed against him.

In the meantime, however, thousands of troops had been deployed to tighten security along the border to prevent Mr. Zelaya from returning. And thousands of his supporters defied government curfews and military roadblocks, by abandoning their cars and hiking for hours to reach the remote border post to see him.

Mr. Zelaya vowed to try a third time to re-enter Honduras. "We are ready to take this to its final consequences," he told his supporters. "We are not afraid.”

Ginger Thompson reported from Washington, and Blake Schmidt from Las Manos, Nicaragua.

I liked this comment on Bill Moyers interview with Trudy Lieberman and Marcia Angell on the health care reform

Fire Is Born — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:00:19 EDT

"If you don't believe Moyers and my conclusion that Single Payer is the only way to fix our problems, then read "Why must health reform be isolationist?" at Slate.com and then watch PBS's "Sick Around the World." After that, maybe we can get some sanity in the debate.

Some say ours is the best system in the world. It isn't, we rank 37th in the world.

Taiwan looked & rejected our system: "American health care is not really a system at all. It's a market. In a market, people with money can buy what they want & many people are left out. So we thought, no, we don't want market-driven health care. We want a real system, something that covers everybody & doesn't depend on how much money you have. "

Over 50% of bankruptcies & many foreclosures are caused because of health care.

Art Finley, a West Virginian & TV & radio host living in Vancouver, writes:

"I'm 82, & in excellent health. It costs me all of $57 a month for health care, & it's excellent. I'm so tired of all the lies & b.s. I hear about the system up here in the U.S. media. I now have 20/20 vision thanks to Canadian eye doctors. & I haven't had to wait for my surgeries, either. I read a Canadian Doctor's Wall Street Journal op-ed that said 'Everyone in Canada is covered by a single payer -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.' That's sheer b.s."

Posted by: Gregory Mann | July 25, 2009 11:14 AM

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I also liked the idea of Maria Angell to introduce the truly universal program incrementally, and start with expanding the Medicare on everyone above fifty five. Well, that would cover me fore sure. I also remember that until I was fifty I often did not know if was insured or not. At 48 my private insurance lowered my premium! because i made no use of the plan. What happened between 50 and 55 is another story, that would fall in the comments to James's post today, but I will tell it another time. I am afraid I get upset and will get migraine (never heard of them before 50, unless badly hangovered).

And I believe in Bill Moyers.fib

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.

Negociations in Costa Rica are continiung today, Sunday July 19

Fire Is Born — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:51:32 EDT

President Arias had proposed certain points of resolutions to be discussed. In the end, however, it will be the two Honduran delegations to give the final proposal of agreement. Arias said he feels that after yesterday's talks the parties became more flexible. In particular Arias hopes that the agreement will contain the clause that Zelaya would regain power as president but will form a cabinet of reconciliation and unity that would offer security to all Honduran people (“un Gabinete de unidad y reconciliación que le da seguridad al pueblo hondureño”).

The two Honduran parties arived yestarday at 10 a.m. And from the airport directly proceded to the house of Arias.

“The delegation of Manuel Zelaya has in it: Arístides Mejía, the ex-minister of Defense; Milton Jiménez, designated for the Vice-presidency and the ex-chancellor, as well as Enrique Flores Lanza, secretary of the Presidency.

The delegation of mister Roberto Micheletti constitutes of Carlos López, chancellor of the Republic; Arturo Corrales, the president of the Party of Unity and Change (Partido Innovación y Unidad - PINU); Mauricio Villeda, a candidate for the Vice-presidency of the Partido Liberal, and Vilma Cecilia Morales, the ex-president of the Supreme Court of Justice.”

Translation from La Prensa edition Costa Rica by fib

Pic from El Tiempo, Honduran edition: