What to do when you don't hold the opinion of everyone in the room?

I have.  Right here.

What to do when you are accused of being a Republican because you don't agree with a Democrat?

I've been.  Right here.

What to do when accused of being another poster, based on the most speculative of evidence?

I've been.  Right here.

What to do when making an argument and the only response is try to hang out with poor people... even though I am poor myself?

It happened.  Right here.

What to do when claiming to be poor and not being believed?

It happened to me.  Right here.

What to do?

I think no one's political affiliation gives them a right to feel superior to others.  But I think that goes on all the time.   Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have both called out the Democrats this past year.  And this is the year the Democrats have felt so progressive.  Let's hear it from Chomsky himself:

I mean, what's the elections? You know, two guys, same background, wealth, political influence, went to the same elite university, joined the same secret society where you're trained to be a ruler - they both can run because they're financed by the same corporate institutions. At the Democratic Convention, Barack Obama said, 'only in this country, only in America, could someone like me appear here.' Well, in some other countries, people much poorer than him would not only talk at the convention - they'd be elected president. Take Lula. The president of Brazil is a guy with a peasant background, a union organizer, never went to school, he's the president of the second-biggest country in the hemisphere. Only in America? I mean, there they actually have elections where you can choose somebody from your own ranks. With different policies. That's inconceivable in the United States.

What to do?  I wonder if Zinn and Chomsky, if they posted anonymously, would be included in the group or kicked out? 

What to do?  What to do?

 

I have a serious proposal for using the economic stimulus to help small business.

As the owner of a small business, two beauty salons, I employ eight people who would be in desperate circumstances were they to become unemployed.  About half of them have husbands who work in construction (and who are currently underemployed) and the other half are single mothers.  Before this economic downturn I had thirteen employees, but I have had to cut to the bone.  One of the malls where a shop is located is losing tenants at an alarming rate.  Every time a tenant leaves it reduces foot traffic which further reduces my business. 

With the current business income, every month after expenses are paid, mostly labor and rent, I am left with $1000-2000 that I subsidize out of my own pocket.  I am an attorney and have other resources, but the way things are going I may have to close the shops.  I'll keep going until I run out of money, but I'm currently unemployed too. 

Small business is the biggest employer in our economy.  Every other small business owner I speak to is in the same condition or worse.  All of us are struggling to stay open and millions of jobs hang in the balance.  If the auto industry and the banking industry are too big to fail, we are too small to help.

Tax credits are worthless.  Tax reductions are worthless.  If you lose money you don't pay taxes, there is nothing to reduce or credit back. 

My suggestion:  Find some way to give people like me a rent subsidy.  Give us a tax credit for employees even if our own taxes are zero.  Otherwise we will all just keep going out of business until our employees are left without jobs.

Ready fire aim.

All the "leading lights" - Jindal, Crist. Palin's lobbying McConnell this weekend.  The single most important parts of the package are those which provide countercyclical help to states and localities in every state now in the grips of serious budget crises.

GOP govs break with party over stimulus

Most support economic plan that got no Republican votes in U.S. House

Well..looks like the republicans got themselves a genuine
Oreo Cookie  to head up the RNC. It fits.

C

I'm sure most of you have seen this video;

It's Clare McCaskill calling for Wall Street Salaries and compensation (at bailout receiving companies) to be capped to $400k, which is what the president makes. While I certainly agree that Wall Street types get paid way to much, and I would rather see them make that then what they get now, this is a little absurd, especially from McCaskill, who is a blue dog type and never seems to have cared about this stuff before. In fact, this kind of reactionary thinking is bad and does nothing to solve the real problem of outrageous CEO pay, which affects not just tax payers this year, but everyone with a retirement account all the time.

Read more »

OK, I know some of you are sick of me playing town crier regarding a certain person in our midst, and I promise this will be the last such post from me.  By all means move along to another post now if you like.  For anyone who is interested, though, please take a look at the comment I have linked to below, in which that certain someone makes a definitive statement regarding all of her "tormentors" here at TPM.  She has determined that we all have a "commonality".  As always, she is too cowardly to come right out and say the words, so you must read the entire comment, especially the final 2 paragraphs, to get clued in to what she is saying.  Our problem, folks, is that we are all Dirty Jews.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ttarleton/2009/01/illegal-immigration---final-so.php#comment-3359105

Back in 1993, David Letterman cut a comedian's performance from his show. Apparently because the guy made some jokes about pro-lifers.

Last night, Letterman had the comedian's mother on his show, and he... apologized to her. Repeatedly. Talked to her for 10 minutes. Then showed the tape of the routine the comedian had originally done, which Letterman had once censored. The tapes keep getting yanked from YouTube, but the 3 parts are here, here and here. (If you can't see these links, please search for Letterman last night, with Mary Hicks.)

They had to show the performance on tape, because the comedian - Bill Hicks - had died back in '93, just a few months after the censoring episode. He'd been dying from pancreatic cancer at the time of the show (though Letterman didn't know that.) 

Bill was 32.

It interests me how these two actions by Letterman signify how times have changed. The original show was due to air in October 1993, just months after Clinton had been elected, putting an end to Bush 43's (and Reagan's) onslaught. To compare, last night's show came just months after Obama was elected... putting an end to Bush 44's (and Cheney's) destruction.

Maybe it's Letterman's own aging, maybe he's in ill health & is just rethinking some things. But there's also the fact that when Clinton won, there was little sense that the cultural momentum of the Reagan right had been stopped. That Letterman could come on last night, apologize for what he'd done, and then show the entire clip - including the pro-life jokes - says something. In fact, Letterman said it himself, wondering why he'd censored it in the first place. Because, looking at it now, there seemed to be nothing wrong with Hicks' routine. That Hicks was likely just "ahead of his time."

In short, one small sign that perhaps times have changed. Maybe even that the Right is no longer ascendant culturally.

Something else that went through my mind is that what Letterman did, gave us a glimpse into how Truth & Reconciliation processes might work. Yes, yes, it was quite different than a formal process. But. Letterman sat Hicks' mother down, and talked with her, at length. About the fact that he had cut her son off (after 12 previous appearances on his show), and how that must have felt, with she & Bill already knowing he was dying of cancer.

And it was uncomfortable. Mary Hicks was still visibly angry. She stated, outright, what she felt. And a national icon had to take it, directly, publicly, from one he had harmed.

Letterman did extremely well, I thought. He had grace. He dealt with what he'd done directly, face to face. He replayed the whole original performance by Hicks. And he did this all (seemingly, at least) of his own volition. 

It's worth watching, from beginning to end, just for a sense of the dynamic. How the audience initially doesn't "get it." The strain on Mary Hicks' face. Her strength in speaking up, telling Letterman what she thought. And for Letterman's own actions, how he handles this. 

It's a crack, but only a crack, in the wall of wrongs that have been thrown up. But maybe it can show us a way to do some of what we know needs to be done. To right at least some of the wrongs of the past 8.... no, let's tell the truth here... of at least these past 28 years.

My friend Jack sent me the tape this morning. We're part of a group of 7 friends, who meet up for a weekend at least every year, who e-mail daily, who see each other whenever we can. We come from different places, work in different fields, have very different families. But one thing we agree on - Bill Hicks is the greatest comedian of the last 20+ years. And yet, most Americans don't have a clue who he is. This homegrown genius, a blow-the-roof-off voice from Texas, Bill Hicks was - his strength & his destruction - an utterly fearless truth-teller.

The fearlessness that made us cheer out loud was - of course - when Hicks went after our enemies. He savaged consumerism. He went after the viciousness & hypocrisy of the Gulf War with Iraq with a chainsaw. He was our rabid pit-bull on Reagan & Bush 43 and Rush & Jesse Helms. And perhaps because he was raised Southern Baptist, he went after militant fundamentalism with everything he had.

"It Seemed So Plausible." (4:27)

And yes, every clip has bad language.

Read more »

I've been kicking the horrific numbers of proposed jobs lost during the past week around in my head.

 On Monday morning, we started the week with announcements from a number of companies that 43,000 jobs were going to be cut; later in the day that number was revised upwards to 70,000. That is one hell of way to start the week.

We hear on Friday that the new number of jobs lost would be in the neighborhood of 100,000, that's one hell of a neighborhood and it seems that the light at the end of the tunnel just may be an oncoming train.

I am not an economist, but  I am beginning to think that of all jobs in the world, the only ones that fail upwards are the pundit class, Wall Street CEO's and economists. Nice gig if you can get it.  

The sectors involved are varied; from Caterpillar, Inc. to Pfizer, from Boeing to Chico's, a Fort Myers, Fl. women's clothing outlet. That last one may not seem important, but if you're one of the 500 who will lose their jobs, it's important enough.

It's clear that before things get better, they are going to get a bit worse. According to CNNMoney .com on January 29:

·         The U.S. economy lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008, according to government reports. This includes 21,137 mass layoffs, a seven-year high. In a mass layoff, 50 or more workers are laid off at a time.

And from the same piece:

·         The job market isn't expected to get any better any time soon. The Council Board forecast two million job losses for 2009.

I know I may have taken a rather circuitous route to get to the title of this post, but it seems to me that wedapeople could or perhaps should do more to register our discontent.

From the AP: January 31, 2009

MOSCOW -- Thousands of protesters rallied against the government in cities across Russia on Saturday, reflecting mounting anger over the nation's economic woes.

The protests, among the largest yet, posed a challenge to the Kremlin, which faced little threat from the fragmented opposition during the years of oil-driven boom.

The largest march took place in the far eastern port of Vladivostok, where about 3,000 people denounced the Cabinet's decision to increase tariffs on imported cars. Some shouted slogans urging Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to resign.

And from FT.com:

By Ben Hall in Paris

Published: January 29 2009 09:11 | Last updated: January 29 2009 23:17

At least a million striking workers held demonstrations across France on Thursday in protest at the government's reform programme and its response to the economic crisis, demanding extra help for ordinary families in place of state aid for the banks.

 

Now, I'm not sure if the Russian and the French protests will bring about the needed changes, but I have to believe that, at least in the case of the French, mobilizing one to two million people to take to the streets will at a minimum bring to the table some strength in negotiations.

In the case of the Russian protests, Putin has to take into consideration that Russian workers are not to be taken lightly.

Now that we have a new administration in place, we must keep their feet to the fire. President Obama has his Economic team in place and I think he deserves some time to try and wrap his head around the problem at hand.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I must say that I am somewhat underwhelmed by his choice at Treasury and about some of his advisors.  Larry Summers has already made his presence felt in the under emphasis on infrastructure spending and Geithner has been handed the wheel to the shipwreck he failed to see coming. These are people who for the most part live in an echo chamber reinforcing their own ideas and sadly, not allowing different ideas to find root in their imaginations.

They take to the streets, we email...one of the demands of the French workers is that the government provide... 'extra help for ordinary families in place of more state aid for banks'...what a concept.

I do not pretend to know who the French classify as "ordinary families', but I would suspect that their measuring stick is very much like ours, people who do what is expected of them, and in return they expect the  government do what is expected of it.

The Russian protests are demanding that the government step down because of the worsening economic conditions. They were met by riot police

They take to the streets...we email.

 

I honestly believe that except for a handful of people in the upper reaches of government, especially our representatives, have no first hand clue what it means to be without a job, to not know if the next decision is to pay the mortgage or buy medicine. Let's not forget that some of the most vociferous rants against universal health care are from the very same Senators and Representatives that receive the health care they would deny the rest of the population.

The very people who are in charge of the economy are, for the most part, members of the same country clubs as the bankers they are trying keep afloat. It's a funny thing when I read or hear that such and such bank, insurance company, brokerage house is too big to fail, and yet they get bigger and bigger and yet, still they fail.

 

They protest...we email.

I wonder what the odds are in Vegas that someone in the Bush Administration is charged and goes to jail.

The election of Obama and the election of Michael Steele to RNC chair, while certainly not absolute parallels, may symbolize two distinct paths to contrast how differently diversity evolves. 

Cross-Posted FromThe End of the American Century

President Obama called Wall Street bankers "shameful" after reports that they had given themselves some $20 billion in bonuses this year, just as the economy was deteriorating and the government spending billions to bail them out.

Here's a modest proposal: for companies receiving federal bailouts, let's limit the pay of those CEOs to what the President of the United States earns--$400,000.

Once those bailout companies have repaid our tax-paid bailout money, they can return to paying themselves tens of millions of dollars yearly, as they do now.

To give you some context, here are the top ten recipients of federal bailout money under the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).


1. Bank of America, $45 billion
2. Citigroup, $45 billion
3. AIG, $40 billion
4. JPMorgan Chase, $25 billion
5. Wells Fargo, $25 billion
6. General Motors, $10.2 billion
7. Goldman Sachs, $10 billion
8. Morgan Stanley, $10 billion
9. PNC Financial, $7.6 billion
10. U.S. Bankcorp, $6.6 billion

And here are the 2007 total compensations for the CEOs of those same firms:

1. Kenneth Lewis, $20.4 million
2. Vikram Pandit, $3.2 million
3. Martin Sullivan, $13.9 million
4. James Dimon, $28.9 million
5. John Stumpf, $11.4 million
6. G. R. Wagoner, $15.7 million
7. Lloyd Blankfein, $54 million
8. John Mack, $41.4 million
9. James Rohr, $14.5 million
10. Richard Davis, $5.9 million

These men are all multimillionaires, even if you only count their take from last year. They can afford to slum it for a while on the salary of the President of the United States. And if these CEOs are genuinely committed to help their companies, and the United States, recover, then they should be willing to forego a little extravagance for a few years. If they are unwilling to do so, then the federal government should appoint a caretaker CEO until the bailouts have been repaid.

The rules of the game have changed. These companies and their CEOs have brought this country to the brink of economic disaster. The government has stepped in to save these companies, as a means of rescuing the economy. There can no longer be any argument that multimillion dollar compensation packages are necessary to attract "talent." It was not true in the past (when CEO salaries were far lower); it is not true in other countries (where CEO salaries are a small fraction of American ones--see chart below); and it is not true now--when this "talent" drove their companies, and the economy, into the ground.

Congress has talked about limiting the pay of bailout CEOs, but they have done nothing about it. It is time. And this idea--of limiting these CEO salaries to the level of the highest paid government executive--was even profferred by Republican John McCain during the campaign:

"no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government."

CEO Pay as a Multiple of Average Worker Pay, in US and Other Countries
(From The End of the American Century, p. 40)

I just saw the following short news item on yahoo.

I propose moving the sculpture to America.  In fact, why not just make copies and place them in ever major city in the United States to show our solidarity with the victims of the tyrant Bush's war crimes?  It would be a worthy reminder that what continues to unfold in Iraq was not a necessity but a crime against humanity ordered with malice aforethought by an illegitimate tyrant. 

We could adopt the shoe as a symbol of our opposition of the myriad crimes committed under the tyrant Bush and of our demand that those crimes be investigated and prosecuted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_shoe_sculpture

If you ask me to count how many emails and phone calls I made to NPR during the Bush reign, it would probably be over 100. My emails were ALWAYS asking NPR to DO ITS JOB and instead of enabling the corruption, acting as apologists, running superficial political stories, they needed to tell the American people what the hell was really going on be it the lies into Iraq, snowmachines in Yellowstone to Rumsfeld making a kiilling off the Tamiflu vaccine (anyone talking about bird flu now? NO. Because the entire thing was fabricated and Rummy left with millions of dollars from his Gilead Pharmaceutical stock--source: The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein). Now they are boo hooing that some of their shows have to be cancelled like Day to Day and Weekend America.

Well guess up NPR? You are going down with the rest of us, collateral damage from the Bush years and I say you deserve to go down in flames. Maybe if you had reported the truth you would be ADDING shows under the Obama Administration, not cancelling them.

I'm not boo hooing for your damn show cancellations. You asked for it. Next time do your damn jobs in the name of something you seem to have forgotten about--democracy.

 

 

 

 

...they wore a coat and tie.

And this makes sense because...these criminals are very much more interested in APPEARANCES than REALITY.

How can a coward like George W. Bush sleep at night, knowing he is liable to be prosecuted any day or week now? I have one idea: He's got his own pardon sitting in his pocket--backdated. He has either pardoned HIMSELF, or he got Cheney to do it when he turned over the Presidential duties to Uncle Dick while undergoing that famous colonoscopy.

These cowards aren't brave enough to NOT cover EVERY angle. Not if the vast library of their past behavior is any indication.

Criticizing fatcat CEO bailout-baby bonuses ("these people are idiots") and the direction of the stimulus bill ("all we did was just tee up ammunition for the other side to tear this thing down"), Claire McCaskill steps out of the pack to become hero of the day - not by jabbering but introducing legislation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/30/mccaskill-lays-down-law-o_n_162662.html

We'll see who follows. It's one thing for politicians to express continual dismay while taking ineffective measures. It's another to actually try to change the behavior.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/01/31/george.obama.arrest/index.html

I have no comment on this story itself, but it does bring up something I had not considered: are Obama's close blood relatives in Africa vulnerable to harassment (and, obviously, much worse) by folks wanting attention from the US?  Perhaps moving these folks to the US would make sense for security reasons?

There is a bright side to the recent tax troubles of Giethner and Daschle. We now have a solution to our financial problems: nominate tax delinquents to cabinet positions.

Here's how it works. There are 15 cabinet positions. For each position, the administration nominates 10 tax cheats and tells them in private to pay all their back taxes because he or she is the "front runner."

After they pay their back taxes, someone leaks to the press about their tax troubles and slips Rush Limbaugh a deuce of Oxycotin. Boom-media firestorm. The administration holds a press conference: "We regret to have to withdraw the nomination of all people nominated for all positions." Then we start over...with more tax cheats!

Eventually, people will figure out that nomination=tax cheat and the administration won't even need to formally nominate someone. They can just threaten to make them Secretary of State if they don't pony up the dough.

Unfortunately, in Obama's quest to staff his cabinet and other high-level positions faster than any administration in history, he really screwed us over. The only cabinet position open and without a nominee is Secreatary of Commerce, and a Republican senator is rumored to be the pick.

At this critical juncture of America's history, we cannot have an unqualified Republican Senator on Obama's cabinet. We need an unqualified Republican billionaire. Two or three if possible. You know these guys have half-a-dozen tax shelters and as many mistresses willing to rat on them for as little as a Deputy Undersecretary position.

Take this NY Times article on the 400 richest Americans:

The top 400 paid just more than $18 billion in federal income taxes in 2006, or an average of $45 million, on a record $105 billion in total income -- the lowest effective tax rate in the 15 years since the agency began releasing such data. (link)

Sounds like we have some good candidates for Commerce Secretary.

(Source: www.1001words.com)

[Dedicated to Ravenwind from whose vision this story evolved]

Once upon a time there was a boy king, who captured a few prisoners and placed them on a deserted island.  He was desirous of a magnificent robe, the likes of which would frighten his enemies and make him appear all powerful.  Alas, on the deserted island there were only a few pitiful sheep.  Mired in their own offal, their wool became awful with stench.  From this wool, however, the prisoners were forced to spin thread and weave cloth, which was made into a robe for the wearing of the boy king.  "Mission Accomplished," said he!  And pranced around in the ugly, befouled robe with its matching, odious knitted scarf.

Indeed, the awful, offal smell of the wretched robe did put off his enemies, who fled from the scent, whenever the boy king wore the robe.  And the unsuspecting one said:  "Mission Accomplished!"  Again.

Long, dreary years passed and the deathly, greedy, destructive yearnings within the yarn, and born of his evil deeds, worked their way ever into the heart and soul of the boy king's policies, as the people saw more and more clearly his own black deeds - and nothing else - covered the naked body of the perverse adolescent regent.

It seemed that nothing would ever save the populace from this terrible situation.  Until one day there came a tall young man into the kingdom.  This man, ridiculed by the courtiers as "black" and "dangerous," nevertheless won the hearts of the people.  And in spite of all the evil tricks tried by the courtiers, the tall, thin, plainspoken man, who lifted the people's hopes and encouraged them to dare to raise their voices in the pursuit of freedom and justice, overthrew the boy king in a single day - in spite of the supposedly powerful robe, which was made to frighten and subdue all enemies.

The day came when the new guy took over.  And all the people cheered as the boy king stepped down from the throne.  However, by custom, the deposed one was obliged to sit through a speech before he could leave.  A speech from the tall, thin plainspoken guy.  The speech was of such power that people hung on every word.  And right away, word by word, that speech pulled on a loose end of the deathly, greedy destructive yarn with its foul stench.  It left a gaping hole in the robe.  And people could see there was really nothing there - except the odious boy king's nakedness, as he fled from the robe and the scarf and the booing people, who loudly cheered their liberation.

You'd think this was the end of the story.  But no.  What began as a thread unraveling continued day by day, as every day yielded new unraveling of the grotesque robe and its wretched matching scarf.   The fetid yarn was gathered up daily.  And it seemed to multiply, as if it had a life of its own.  As the people demanded more and more of the truth.  And Justice cried out to be served.   Some people called for a huge bonfire to burn the wool and eliminate the stench, which grew by the day as the tortuous yarn unraveled.  Others insisted, that no matter how foul, how awful the offal stench, how wretched and deathly its appearance, of necessity the people should face - without flinching - what previously they had feared and loathed.   That facing that, they would grow stronger.  And justice could be served.

The Republicans want "Social Security reform" to solidify and make permanent the tax gains they achieved in the 1980s and under Bush the lesser.  The Social Security Trust Fund surplus, generated by increases in the payroll tax passed in the 1980s, has made the massive tax reductions for the wealthy possible.  Surprisingly, the wealthy are so greedy they do not want to share this money with the rest of us.

Yes, there is money to pay for our government including Social Security, Medicare, health care for all of us, infrastructure, and whatever else you might need.  Somebody has it, and that somebody is the folks that got the tax reductions paid for with our increased payroll taxes.  Tell those greedy folks you have had it up to here with them.

Whenever you hear anyone propose Social Security reform, there is one and only one reform to support:
1. Raise the ceiling on the the payroll taxes (eliminate it) and expand it to non-payroll income.
2. Continue the benefits under current practices (as if the ceiling were not eliminated).
3. Use the surplus thus generated to solve the health care finance problems.

Now cross posted with more discussion @ dagblog.

In one of the endless number of great West Wing episodes, the biblical story of the shibboleth comes front and center as only WW could do. The point of this diary is not to repeat that story, or its West Wing version, but to talk about today's version: the expression that supposedly establish a reporter as independent, able to criticize the current President as well as the former Fool Who Occupied the Same Office.

Forget for a moment how bogus the premise is: that the criticism of the prior President only began after it became impossible to ignore what anybody with half a brain should have seen no later than the afternoon of September 11 and that the guy was so completely unsuited for the office that it endangered the country. Here is today's shibboleth, repeated almost every minute on some cable television show:

The people do not want the people it sent to Congress to quibble.

Read more »

In most countries there are four (or five) centers of power:
1. The executive
2. The legislature
3. The judiciary
4. The military
5. The church

In the US the church has always wielded indirect power, although in the past four decades there has been an unusually close alliance between certain religious sectors and the Republican part. This is atypical for the US.

What I want to focus on is branch that we are taught in civics class doesn't exist: the military. The idea is that the US doesn't have such a fourth branch of government because the military is under "civilian" control. This is a convenient fiction, 99% of the military structure remains in place from one administration to the next. It is the largest recipient of discretionary federal funds, now at 54% of the budget. To ignore its influence is to make a big mistake.

Until the 20th Century the US tended to have a small military and the general sentiment was for America to stay out of foreign entanglements. There were some exceptions with the Monroe Doctrine and the like, but most military expansionism was focused on continental territory.

When leaders wanted to engage in foreign military action they needed to gin up support by creating a sense of outrage in the public. "Remember the Maine" was used to justify the Spanish American war. Wilson used various claims to get support for entering WWI, LBJ invented the Gulf of Tonkin and even FDR had a campaign of assisting England before Pearl Harbor to sway public sentiment. Recent events have followed this pattern.

There has been a subtle change since WWII, however. Once the military was ramped up to the extent that it became a world player it has never gone back to being only reactive. The first to be affected by the rise of the permanent fourth branch of government was Truman. Enough evidence has now come out over the decision to use the A bomb on Japan to show that he was influenced (or manipulated) by the group that had been working on the bomb and the generals who wanted to use it as a way to signal US superiority, especially to the USSR, in the post war period. Truman was the first modern president to be held captive by the military.

I won't recite all the other examples, but it is clear that LBJ and Nixon were also manipulated. Their mishandling of the Vietnam war was directly related to the poor intelligence information and biased advice they were getting.

The responses of both Bushes to events in the Middle East are just the latest in this chain. The fact that Bush II was happy with false intelligence only shows that some people are content to live in their bubble.

We now come to Obama. Even before he was elected he started to make statements that are right out of the permanent military playbook. This includes the need to expand the military and, now, to ramp up attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The statements that are made by his military advisers sound just like those heard from McNamara and his crew during the Vietnam war. These include the idea that we can pacify the local population, by eliminating the insurgents, that the failure of our programs is due to corruption or lack of adherence to our plans by the government leaders and that an increase of troops on the ground will make a difference.

None of these tactics have ever worked in the past. The evidence of history is there for all to see, not just in wars that the US has fought, but elsewhere. The IRA was not conquered, the parties finally realized that a political solution was the only way out. The rebel forces in parts of Africa have been carrying on civil wars for as long as 40 years. The Kurds have been doing so for centuries.

So what can explain Obama's shortsightedness? Is he a war hawk like Bush? Not likely. Is he in a bubble where all he hears are the daily threat assessments? Perhaps. What I claim is that all presidents are captives of the military branch. They wield so much power, have so many "friends" in congress and control so much of the industrial production of the country that a president isn't able to muster enough support to go against their wishes.

How would he do it? Suppose he proposed a sudden pullout of troops, or a radical downsizing in military spending. Would congress pass the enabling legislation? No. Would he be re-elected. Doubtful.

Is there anything Obama can do to dig himself out of the Middle East quagmire? I'm stumped, recent history seems to indicate not. We only leave after we have not only lost, but been throughly humiliated. When a segment of our government is larger than that of all the other industrialized countries combined to think that its doesn't wield power is naive.

If anyone one thinks they have a way to remove the undue influence of the military on US policy, I'd love to hear it and if you think you have a way to "win" in Afghanistan please explain that too.

Yes, we did what Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Thom Hartmann  and this fall, Barack Obama, told us to do.  We got off the couch and got active.  Back in 2004, We went out and got ourselves three hours of alternative independent very lefty labor oriented talk radio on the same channel as Rush and Sean.  In our area we have 63 hours of right wing Ayn Rand loving talk radio to our 3 hours.

Each week on "Democracy's Edge" (named after Francis Moore Lappe's book by the same name) the Feral Cats of Freedom with co-hosts Diane and Dave call on their listeners to help them cough up fur balls of truth from the baloney that we've all digested throughout the week from the Fat Cat News, the Corpulent Corporate Press and the Bloviators of Blather. 

We have had on voices that were in the wilderness but now seem to be getting heard.  We had on Dean Baker almost 2 years ago.  We've had Glen Ford (blackagendareport.com) on a year ago telling us about the 150 trillion "mother of all bubbles" caused by "the banksters."   Francis Moore Lappe, Sam Pizzigati, Ari Berman and Katha Pollitt of "The Nation", Melvin Goodman "Failure of Intelligence" , Rick Perlstein "Nixonland",  General Robert Gard, NY Times Foreign Correspondent Stephen Kinzer, Harvey Wasserman, Stephen Zunes.

This week we've asked Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute return to talk about the "lost science of money".

Read more »

Let's be honest. We didn't really expect Congress to come up with a "bold" stimulus plan, did we? But do we agree that NO action will only aggravate our current crisis?

The GOP surprised us when it failed to respond more constructively to the bipartisan overture from Barack Obama. I personally witnessed the precedent-setting bipartisan dinner for his defeated opponent (my photo of the President-elect at the dinner honoring McCain, January 19) and noted the subsequent meetings with Congressional Republicans. And what did we get in the way of proposals from the loyal opposition? More of the dogma-driven, supply-side ideology that contributed to our current mess: tax cuts!

On the other hand, GOP critics have a point: the bill that passed the House and was embraced by Obama essentially is an accumulation of favorite Democratic spending proposals.

What is missing is CHANGE. The CHANGE Obama advocated in his campaign for the Presidency. The CHANGE that won him a resounding mandate to govern for four years. The CHANGE from policies that have worked to benefit few and imperil many. Where are the first steps toward affordable health care, a sustainable green economy and alternative energy? And why are we not moving boldly to address the systemic failures that underlie the current crisis in credit markets?

Obama asked for ideas. And Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, among others, obliged. But what these brilliant men offer is predictable: rationales for orthodox Keynesian solutions and concern about labor market distortions, respectively. More is needed, not just in additional spending, but in fresh ideas that advance the President's policy agenda. So, if suggestions are still welcomed, here is my two-cents worth. And please do keep the CHANGE.

 

 

Health Care

Obama has promised the nation affordable health care similar to his own Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), to be available to all by the end of his first term. There is no need to back off this goal. Health care is one of the largest drags on our economy and the stimulus bill provides a real opportunity to begin managing its cost. In addition to the bill's provisions to help state governments fund Medicare and work projects, I suggest that the federal government reimburse all state and local governments for their employer's share of health care for the rest of this year. In exchange, recipients may not fire government workers and must commit to integrating their health care plans with the existing FEHBP starting in 2010. That provides additional and immediate financial assistance to state and local governments, while paving the way for the establishment of a Public Employees Health Benefits Program. By January 2010, the federal government's negotiated health care program would expand its base and economies of scale. The next step will be to apply the system to businesses, and subsequently to capture the un- and under-insured.

Energy Independence

Most honest leaders recognize that in due course government will have to produce the substantial additional revenue to pay for the stimulus.  But good luck finding a politician willing to propose increasing taxes of any kind. So let me suggest instead a hefty tariff on imported oil to fund the "green economy." A tariff of 50 percent or more on the landed cost of all imported energy (probably with some form of accommodation for our NAFTA partners) can be justified because of national security as well as the external costs to our environment inherent in the use of fossil fuels. And such a levy would promote conservation, subsidize domestic production, and help to fund and protect our investments in alternative energy. This is a measure that should be welcomed by Republicans who advocate "drill, baby, drill" as well as environmentalists interested in promoting clean energy. The windfall earned by American producers could be invested domestically or taxed as profits. And while there may be a marginal increase of fuel cost at the pump, it will pale in comparison with the amounts we forked over to foreign potentates rather than our own Treasury these past few years, when oil was effectively 200% greater than its current price.

Reestablish a 'Risk-Free' Investment Benchmark

Explanations for our current credit crisis and financial market meltdown abound, including the Washington Post's excellent series. But absent from all the expert analyses is any mention of the Treasury Department's October 2001 decision to discontinue issuing 30-year Bonds. That decision, on the heels of 9/11 and the cusp of Bush's costly war on terror, both lowered mortgage yields and prompted increased sales of bundled mortgages marketed as alternative 'risk-free' instruments, which in turn fueled the housing bubble and distorted both government and corporate credit point spreads. Treasury Bond auctions have resumed, but a clear provision to finance America's recovery through borrowing would repair yield spreads - both between short and long term sovereign debt and in relation to all other debt instruments. Transparent budget financing will help re-establish more realistic risk pricing and global confidence in the US economy. But the 30-year Bond will not regain its position as a benchmark for 'risk-free' long-term investment if Fed meddling in the market, as it proposes to do with its planned purchase of Treasuries from troubled banks. In fact, this central-bankers-gone-wild approach will only create a greater Treasury bubble that will seriously aggravate our problems.  Once markets are allowed to properly price the cost and risk of our recovery without Fed manipulation, global confidence in the US economy has a chance to be recover.

So Pay the Bill, and Keep the CHANGE

Barack Obama attended his last inaugural event, the Staff Ball, at the DC Armory on January 21. But he arrived after a performance by the opening act, Arcade Fire.   So here are some insightful lysircs from their "Intervention":

You say it's money that we need

As if we're only mouths to feed

I know no matter what you say

There are some debts you'll never pay

I believe, the message is relevant to the stimulus bill now before Congress.  So let's act responsibly and cautiously:

Pay the Bill and Keep the CHANGE.

Look, we have one too!!!

Christianists insist that the United States is a Christian nation. Obama is not a Christianist. He told us in his inaugural address that "our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth." While he believes that moral values absorbed through religion have a place in the public sphere, he imposes strict ground rules on those who would invoke religious teachings:

What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason (The Audacity of Hope).

Obama's religious allusions accordingly are usually of the most universal kind: I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And yet, a second look at his inaugural address made me feel that his thinking is more specifically informed by Christian scripture than I had previously believed. Early in the speech, he swerved into slightly less familiar Biblical language -- the Apostle Paul's "when I became a man, I put away childish things." The full context of that Pauline dictum, I believe, opens a window on the extent to Obama's understanding of America's secular scriptures, the Declaration and the Constitution, are underpinned by his reading of Christian scripture.

Here is Obama's allusion to 1 Corinthians 13:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

The call to put away childish things had a simple denotation, familiar to anyone who has followed Obama's speeches: to get past the Rovian attack politics that according to Obama have paralyzed our policymaking -- "a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism," as he put it in his March speech on race. The way he followed that thread, identifying other "childish"political tenets and practices he asked us to move past, is worth a separate post.

But here, I'm more interested in a family likeness between Obama's historiography and Paul's theology. For Paul, becoming a man means achieving, to borrow a favorite phrase of Obama's, a more perfect union:

1If I speak in the tongues^[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,^[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

For Paul, to become a man means to become perfect in love. It means to fulfill a human potential that can never be completely fulfilled in this life: to love God perfectly. This life is a quest for a more perfect union that will be attained in the next.

Obama, like Lincoln, and the Transcendentalists before him, and countless Americans afterward, asserts a similar movement in American history. The Declaration and the Constitution express political principles as perfect in their way (so Obama's invocations of them imply) as Paul's love. Indeed, Obama has asserted that they are in effect political translations of that love. Here's how he put it in his great speech on race in Philadelphia on March 18:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

The title of that speech was "A More Perfect Union." The premise was that the principles expressed in the Constitution have not been fulfilled but are in process of being fulfilled -- that what distinguishes America is the country's constant progress toward fulfilling them:

This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

In the inaugural address, Obama portrayed our progress toward realizing our ideals as being in midstream, and projected their eventual fulfillment beyond our shores to encompass the world:

And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

Once again, his core message was hope. Faith. Love. Those three. Ultimately, Obama keeps it simple.

Meanwhile in the Southeast, Sir Dobbs arrived at the pavilions with his five hundred troops.  These tents were the headquarters of the Border Reintrenchment Division.  He presented himself inside the largest of the structures.

Yes, yes enter, forsooth. State your station and your purposes soldier!  

Sir Dobbs, from Camelot with reinforcements Sire.

You will address me soldier by my station and name. Understand Soldier!

Yes Sire, but I am not educated as to your name and station. Sire Dobbs was confused. He had understood that he would drop off some paperwork and begin his labors immediately. He was confused by the protocol.

The young leftenant standing to the left of the official-which would be to the right of Dobbs-kicked his heels and stood to attention while he announced:

You are currently in the presence of Duke Duc (pronounced Duke Duck), state your station and your name and present your papers, Soldier!

I am Sir Dobbs, from Camelot Duke Duc and I present these orders for your perusal, handing a large scroll that he had pulled out of a special secret pocket in his pantlettes.  While he was pulling out these orders, Duc looked askance at his leftenant.

Very well Dobbs. Duke Duc took the papers and unrolled them. Mmmmmh. (That is one of those hums that people in charge make that is so hard to spell. Normally you might have noticed that I care not for spelling and I was never very good at those B's so to speak, but readers have informed me that I must work on this personal failing. I point it out here only to demonstrate that a hum is really difficult to spell)

From the third Quadrant at Castle Camelot Soldier.  Say, you must be Fathead Dobbs of the Dobbs fame up north, Soldier. Is that correct?

Yes Sire, er...Duke Duc. Although I go by Sir Dobbs, Duke Duc. And Fathead is a moniker given me by...

Never mind Fathead. It is of no concern to me why your father would choose such a name....

But my name is not Fathead, Duke Duc and....

Look Fathead, we must move along here. Mmmmmmmh (This was kind of a longer hum and therefore the spelling is different, it is an important part of style which my parents informed me I sorely lacked) It says here that you have five hundred strong and hearty men and that your purpose here is to pursue all Angles. Is that correct Fathead?

Just then a senior official entered the paviliion. Duke Duc, I have heard that Fathead Dobbs has arrived.

Lord Marshall, welcome!!! What are thou herest for, LM?

I am here to remind you that I have dibs on Dobbs.

Dibs on Dobbs? But LM I need him on the northwest portion of the Southesast to pursue all Angles.

DD, we have been through this before, we need Dobbs on on the southwest quarter of the Southeast, and I have dibs.

Now hand me the orders.  Mmmmmmmhhh (Lord Marshall had a distinctly different hum, aw you can figure it out, I only have so much space here) Fathead, you are from the third quadrantat Castle Camelot. You will follow me.

Dobbs followed Lord Marshall as they discussed the plans to pursue all Angles.  Lord Marshall noted that the problem was the Angles would congregate in one place and as soon as soldiers showed up in their sights, the barbarians would scatter and jump into small boats made out of large tree trunks and split into two parts and paddle to another spot and enter the border from different places.

Then Lord Marshall was forced to disperse his men into two flanks, pursue the Angles at their
new arrival points and then the illegal Angles would jump into their boats and paddle back to their point of origin.

The problem Fathead, is that these diseased barbarians sneak into our country and take jobs away from our citizens.  You will find them shoveling manure in the fields and they become domestics  at local manors, caring for the chamber pots.  And they never pay their payroll taxes.

Fathead, shook his head. I know Lord Marshall, we actually found illegal Angles at Camelot working on the moat....and thus the discussion continued.

Meanwhile, back at Camelot our hunting party returns with their tail between their legs and a litter trailing between the legs of one of the horses.

Boy, next time we better take a cart with us, noted Gawain.

Yea, but the horses get so tired pushing those carts uphill, responded Gareth.

Gareth, the horses pull the carts. Oh, never mind.

The litter with our Royal celebrity lying face down was laid upon the roundish table.  Merlin was there to greet them as he scowled at the boar' tusk stuck in the King's er..backside, so to speak.

Where is Blaise?

Merlin, he ran to post, he said he was late and must post.  I am not sure, but I think he means he has to write down some of the wonders witnessed by our Christian knights in the dark, dark wilderness this PM.

Well, since Gareth had run ahead and gave me notice of things, I have taken out the star charts in an attempt to get a handle...looking at the tusk buried thus...on how to begin to repair the damage that has been done to the Royal Backside.

Now Orion has been above the horizon for a fortnight and there is a beautiful crescent moon
in the night sky as well as Venus, just above the crescent.  

Now if we understand the hunter as Orion and the King also as a hunter and we take into consideration the crescent.  Merlin looks down again at the crescent shaped boar tusk looking like a reverse comma arising from....We must then look at Venus as....We may have to thrust the tusk, so to speak, further up a..Venus.. Before we will be able to properly remove...

Bedivere screamed, Merlin, that is enough. Enough I say. Get me Beau Manes, immediately.

A huge figure of a man suddenly stepped into the Roundish Room. He was fully 6'6" in his boots and 50 stone if he was a pound. Beau had been a new addition to the kitchen appointed by Kay but under the tutelage of Snerf. Beau was so large that he had to crouch nearly every time he passed through a doorway in the castle.

But his hands were the kicker, so to speak.  They were the biggest hands ever seen by most of the knights, outdone only by the hands noted in spectacular tales of giants and ogres.

Beau, said Bedivere, REMOVE THIS TUSK.

The King was still in his coma and lifeless. Beau, without any inquiry as far as these proceedings went, reached down with one hand and delivered the crescent shaped piece of ivory from the Royal Arse with one pull.

All of a sudden a great wind broke from...well you can guess from whence and a stench the like that had ever been witnessed let loose across the room.

All but Gareth swooned.  Minutes later our cabal woke up and ran outside, wretching onto the Royal Lawn. They looked at each other, after they had recovered and knelt down in prayer to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Bedivere began the prayer: O Lord, a great omen was witnessed through our eyes, our ears and our nostrils. And Thou hast really delivered us from evil in this instance. We give you our thanks and ask for your grace.

All the knights rose and reentered the castle to address the appointed task. The kitchen crew was delivered into the empty roundish room while the knights looked on from afar.

After nearly an hour of cleaning the table and the room the knights returned along with Merlin who had vanished into the air as the tusk was being removed.



    We now turn to the first Quest for the Taxes and join Tristan and Lancelot.

Looked a little sore mounting that mighty steed LL, laughed Tristan as they rode out into the country side. The two were great organizers and had already sent out the guard in five different directions in order to check in, so to speak, at all the local priories, abbeys, monasteries and cathedrals.The directives were to summon the man in charge. Whether the head of the priory or the abbot or the priest who usually rant the monastery. The bishop at the cathedral would also be questioned.

A Letter of Inquiry went with each lieutenant and short letters of introduction had already been sent to each of the individuals of import.

That jousting a fortnight ago has still left a bruise on my arose that Gwen... that some have said is greenish blue. But who am I to complain. It is a beautiful day in the country.  Where is our first mark, TT?

The nunnery at Caerleon.

But I thought there was an ogre or a dragon on that route?

Nah, LL, when was the last time you saw a dragon?

Well, truth be told I have never actually seen a dragon, but many have reported sightings during my many quests.  The convergence of stories told by the eye witnesses is really hard to dismiss out of hand. You know, Uther Pendragon was said to keep a kind of blue book on these sightings.There are sketches and reports of folks who have sworn by the sacred Word of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They triangulate the sightings and...

LL what pray tell is triangulate and why shouldeth I give a....

Both knights duly signed themselves with the cross of Our Lord as betakes all good Christian men.

Say speaking of sacred TT, do you thing that Sister Agnes is still resident in that nunnery? I remember a cool November night with her in the stable what made my lance dance for hours.

LL, I only saw the good Agnes  just two fortnights ago, under a full moon in an open stable.
She had the most prudent face, a true vision of godliness.  She instilled something in me and I gotta tell ya that I instilled something in her...hahahhahahah.

TT took out his lyre and began to strum

There was a lass who was sworn to God
She had knelt in prayer and forsook her bod
She gave to me what she could not to God
And I gave her my all on the old green sod

Agnes Dei Qui Toll Es Pecatta Mundi
Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world
Agnes Dei Qui Toll Es Pecatta Mundi
A woman of god but to me a little girl


You are such a fine minstrel TT.  Surely this is a Cornish thing pray tell.

LL there is nothing corny about it, and do not call me Shirley.

The two grand knights proceeded to the nunnery and as they arrived a man tied to his horse
was just leaving due west.  The two perceived a rag tied around the man's head tied in such a way as to make him mute.

Tying their horses to the posts provided, they approached the door.

I will flip you for Agnes tonight, LL prayed.

This is no time to wrestle TT, what are you thinking?

Just then the door of the nunnery opened and the Grand Abyss appeared. Who pray tell are you knights doing at my door at this time of day? You appear to be men of the Christian Faith and yet you would assail with the mens rea and intent to violate this place of the Lord?

No, no no responded Tristan. I am Tristan and this is Sir Lancelot Du Lac. We are Knights of the Round Table and the Lordly King Arthur as sent us hither for business purposes.  Lancelot blushed just then as he was thinking once again of the Lamb of God.

Well I can tell a man who has impure thoughts twenty paces off in the distance and this Du Lac fellow is not saying his rosary!!!!

All right come in if you will, but maintain the dignity demanded of this sacred place!!!!

The two entered the perilous siege with trepidation and lost aims that they had held only minutes afore. Tristan asked Lancelot in a hushed voice: Pray tell what is An Abyss?

It is a great hold from which no one ever escapes.

If Michael Steele represents a new day in the Republican Party regarding race the first thing he can do is condemn the fact that Ronald Reagan opened his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, site of the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers.  Or is this another ludicrous attempt by the party of white flight and fright to parade  African-Americans in front of the public as W did at the 2000 Republican convention to pretend that the GOP is a multicultural party? I bet we know the answer to that one already.

For general information . . .

 A wee bit of background information about the "Healthy San Francisco" program:

In February 2006, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom created a Universal Healthcare Council (UHC) to develop a plan to provide access to health care for San Francisco's uninsured adults.  This collaborative effort, comprised of representatives from the health care, business, labor, philanthropy and research communities, met for four months. The Council reviewed demographic and actuarial data, and heard from community advocates and employers to identify and quantify the needs of the uninsured.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Tom Ammiano

In a report released June 2006, the UHC presented its recommendations for the development and implementation of a San Francisco Health Access Program (SF HAP).  Shortly thereafter, Supervisor Tom Ammiano incorporated the SF HAP into his Worker Health Care Security Ordinance (WHCSO).  The ordinance, which passed unanimously on July 18, 2006, calls for implementation of SF HAP in tandem with an employer spending requirement.  The date set in the ordinance is July 1, 2007.

In April 2007, SF HAP became Healthy San Francisco. 

Unlike past City and County efforts to serve the uninsured, Healthy San Francisco is not health insurance. It will instead provide a primary medical home to participants, allowing a greater focus on preventive care, as well as a specialty care, urgent and emergency care, mental health care, substance abuse services, laboratory, inpatient hospitalization, radiology, and pharmaceuticals. Healthy San Francisco will be administered by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH).

Then, in September 2008 the program was litigated and  the 9th Circuit Court did not side with the lawsuit brought by the employers and the business community:

Federal court upholds San Francisco healthcare program

The three-judge appeals panel rules that the law does not violate federal regulations on employee benefit programs.

A federal appeals court today upheld San Francisco's first-in-the-state comprehensive citywide healthcare program.

Ruling on a suit brought by the local restaurant association, the three-judge panel found that the year-old San Francisco Health Security Ordinance does not violate federal laws regulating employee benefit programs.

The law, which took effect Jan. 9, requires all for-profit employers with 20 or more workers to either offer health insurance, set aside funds in health reimbursement accounts or pay a fee to the city's Healthy San Francisco program. Nonprofit employers with more than 50 staffers are also covered.

Many San Francisco restaurants have been paying for the plan by tacking a surcharge of 3% to 6% on bills.

Proponents of the program, including Mayor Gavin Newsom, point to the law as a model for the state to provide healthcare for 7 million uninsured Californians.

"This is a pioneering program that is having tangible results and making a big difference in the lives of tens of thousands of workers," said Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, a major booster of the plan. Healthy San Francisco, he noted, has already provided health coverage for 30,000 people who formerly had no access to routine medical and hospital care.

And presently: Not to be denied, the employers and the business community have again requested the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn it's earlier ruling on this issue [note: my highlights below]:

News in brief - Jan. 26, 2009

---

Physicians defend San Francisco universal access program

---

Physicians defend San Francisco universal access program

California physicians are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject a bid to overturn its recent decision upholding San Francisco's universal access program for uninsured and underinsured residents.

The program, known as Healthy San Francisco, relies on a local ordinance requiring employers with 20 or more workers to spend a certain amount on health coverage or put the money into a funding pool. A 9th Circuit panel in September 2008 rejected arguments from the business community that the mandate violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Golden Gate Restaurant Assn., which challenged the ordinance, has asked the full 9th Circuit to review the case.

But the California Medical Assn. and the San Francisco Medical Society say the court got it right the first time. Doctors argued in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in December 2008 that the program has helped relieve the strain of the rising uninsured population on emergency departments, Medicaid, and other parts of the health care system. Such initiatives typically have been left to state and local regulation and do not conflict with federal law, the brief states.

Physicians support comprehensive health system reform at the federal level, said CMA President Dev GnanaDev, MD. But until that is accomplished, "state and local governments must fill the void, when necessary, to avoid a health care crisis."

The battle continues . . .

~OGD~

.

I'm stunned.  Flabbergasted, really.  Flummoxed and flatulent.  Wait ... is that right?  Give me a second.  Yes, seems it is.  Anyway, I'm also grandiosely grossed out (see above) and graphically grumpy.  I have the photos to prove it.  Never in my abnormally absurd and acquiescent actuality have I been so sequentially sickened.  After multiple tries, I might add.  And I sicken sequentially easily.  Ceremoniously.  With flair.

Read more »

What the U.S. Presidency Needs To Know About the Russians

I have been reading for quite some time how bad the economy is.
Job losses, consumer confidence or lack there of, bank bail outs,
foreclosures and on and on. Most of these new items contain only
vague references and few real specifics.  When they do give numeric
data, it's toward ambiguous items or referencing things that most
people do not understand well. We hear of percentage drops in employment
but in relation to what is not always clear. And as far as the financial
sector is concerned, I wonder if even congress or the president knows
exactly and if they do they are not telling.

They use euphemisms like toxic assets, and over leveraged and references
to the depression of the 1930s and the recession of the 1950s.

The point is that without specifics we don't know exactly what is going on
with much of this and we are scaring the living bejesus out of our selves.

The lack of clarity during this who thing is in my opinion having a more
negative effect on people that the reality is. And it's an effect that will
have an even longer lasting consequence that the event itself.

Look what happened after 9/11. The media and government started to
compare it with Pearl Harbor and it wasn't even close. Bad yes.
Catastrophe no. But before long everyone was seeing terrorists
under every rock. Bush gets on the tube and makes a speech
containing generalities about the economic sky falling and everyone
is chicken little.

I'm not saying that I don't think things are bad. But no one says how
bad, bad is. Just really, really bad. The psychological aspects of this
type of news can be just as devastating as the situation, maybe more
so since people over react to it.

Even I have have change my behavior and I have a relatively secure job
at a state university. We are doing relatively well as our enrollment is still
going up. But I have cut back quite a bit though I do not really need to.
And I know there are lots of other people who are doing the same in
similar positions. With out specifics, people will mentally make the
situation worse that it is. As a friend of mine would say. We "awfullize"
it.

If there are banks that are not solvent, Washington needs to say so and
say which ones and then take appropriate action. Give better reference
to the statistics and in a way most people would understand. If there
are companies on the skids, which ones. The people who work for them
know which ones already. What products, specifically are not selling
and which ones are.

Obama keeps talking about openness. How about some clarity too.

C

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2009/01/30/lpactv-pelosi-should-resign.html

LaRouche: Pelosi Should Immediately Resign for Her Role in the Bailout Policy

Party in the chat room:

Fair question? On the one hand when I examine conservative policies and how narrowly they have embraced minorities I would have to say yes.

Then I ask myself if the powers at the center of the GOP are different than what my perceptions would lead me to believe.

In the end when I consider what the GOP has given us, I simply can't see where they are any different than all the evidence indcates. This makes the choice they have made worse than what it may otherwise be. Where the nation made a true and honest choice of Obama to lead us, the GOP has made a cynical choice purely as a political strategy. Maybe I'm wrong with this but the possibility that I'm not is very disturbing. The GOP has lied to the nation with great consequence and I'm concerned this is more of the same.

Sheesh.

Well, Bush/Cheney sure has kept me and mine and you and yours safe during their presidency, at least according to the current Republican talking points. Except of course for that one day in September, but that was only an aberration. You really shouldn't blame someone who only blew it one day out of 2922. Nobody crashed any planes into us for 99.9658% of the Bush/Cheney presidency.

Only a whiner would complain about the suspension of habeas corpus, posse comitatus and the de facto line item vetoes, aka "signing statements".  Who cares if warrantless surveillance of American citizens is against the constitution? I'm not doing anything wrong. We are safer, right? They are telling us so.

We are so safe that Bush/Cheney cut back on the enforcement activities of agencies like the FDA and the SEC. In this enlightened capitalistic age companies can be trusted to do the right thing and regulate themselves. Just ask Sydney, "I'm Shocked, Shocked I Tell You", Greenspan.

Let's see how safe Bush/Cheney and Company kept us.

How about deaths due to no health insurance during Bush/Cheney? According to the Institute of Medicine, http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/17/748/Fact%20sheet%205%20Quality.pdf, 18,000 people died in 2000 because they had no health insurance based on year 2000 data.

After 6 years of Bush/Cheney, [according to the the Health Policy Center of the Urban Institute and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf,] 22,000 people died in 2006 because they had no health insurance based on year 2006 data. I found that info here: http://www.ninenineohnine.org/pages/Real_People#noinsurance.

The difference between the Clinton and Bush/Cheney numbers is that about 1000 more people [per year] died under Bush/Cheney than the 2998 who died on 9/11, or almost equal to the number of Americans who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq since we invaded them. My instinct tells me these results are more a factor of failed economics than the abrogation of the constitution.

If we are safer from terrorism because we gave up some freedoms then it stands to reason that we must be safer from other foreign threats. If that is the case, why did 47.1% of high school seniors say in 2007 that they could obtain cocaine fairly easily or very easily and 29.7% say the same for heroin? Data from US Dept. of Justice http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm

I reference cocaine and heroin because they are not domestically grown and must be smuggled into the US, therefore they are foreign threats.
 
According to he CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm, in this pdf file, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf, drug induced deaths climbed from 1999 to 2005 as follows:

1999 - 19,128 deaths
2000 - 19,720 deaths
2001 - 21,705 deaths
2002 - 26,040 deaths
2003 - 28,723 deaths
2004 - 30,711 deaths
2005 - 33,541 deaths

[The category 'drug-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and non-dependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths due to mother's drug use.]

In the last 2 years of Clinton there were an average of 19,424 drug related deaths. For the first 5 years of Bush/Cheney, the average was 28,144. That is an increase of over 44%.

Again, the above statistics do not differentiate between illegal and legal drug induced deaths. The original document does have the breakdown by code if you are interested in breaking them down.

Let's say that only 10% of those deaths were from cocaine and heroin overdose. I'm guessing that is conservative.

Under Clinton that would average 1,942 deaths per year. Under Bush/Cheney, the 2,814 deaths per year almost equals the death toll on 9/11, and that is every year from 2001 thru 2005. I don't have later statistics. If anyone does, please post them.

If the surveillance etc. that Bush/Cheney has subjected us to is keeping us safe from terrorists because of intercepted communications, did they ignore the communications from the narco-terrorists? If you extrapolate from the years of data I used, you could say conservatively that at least 7 times more Americans died from narco-terrorism under the Bush/Cheney watch than the Saudi/al Qaida terrorists killed on 9/11. That number does not even include injuries, homicides and other indirect deaths related to drug use. Safer? Not so much.

But wait, there's more! The majority of the heroin that comes to the US comes from Afghanistan. "Despite more than 30,000 international troops in the country, Afghanistan now produces 92 per cent of the world's opium, a United Nations report said Tuesday. The 2007 World Drug Report http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2007.html, which was released by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), said that production in Afghanistan increased nearly 50 per cent in the last year. CBS News, Tuesday, June 26, 2007"

Osama bin Laden is where? What if Afghan narco-terrorists know some al Qaida terrorists? I would say it is a given. If you believe the United Nations report and Fox News commentator Col. David Hunt's, "Al Qaeda Profiting From Afghanistan's Production of Opium" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296418,00.html then you might say that 92% of all heroin related deaths under Bush/Cheney since 9/11 have been terrorist attacks on American citizens on American soil.

And then there's this Reuters headline on Jan 14, 2008. "Pakistan Drugs Create Al Qaeda Chaos Under Bhutto Assassination Radar, Say ex-White House Drug Spokesman Robert Weiner and John Larmett; U.S. and Military, with 'No Plan,' Fail to Block bin Laden Funding Source" The full article is here: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS99131+14-Jan-2008+PRN20080114. I am not feeling any safer yet.

It seems to be easy to get literally tons of cocaine and heroin into the country. It also appears to be a fact that many narco-terrorists and plain old run of the mill terrorists are one and the same. Given those facts, I'd say it would be easy for any self respecting terrorist organization to get explosives, biological agents, nuclear material, suicide bombers or whatever else they want smuggled into the USA.

I assert that we haven't had a major attack inside the US because either no one is ready or has wanted to, not because any Bush/Cheney policies have prevented them from attacking.

I don't know about you, but every time someone says Bush/Cheney made us safer, I shall not keep my mouth shut. I will take Molly Ivins advice and "Raise hell!" [Molly died 2 years ago tomorrow Jan 31. She must be loving all this. I miss her.]

Then again, maybe it's just another incredible set of unexplainable coincidences that just happen to make Bush/Cheney look bad.

Reported in the LA Times

A federal judge Thursday denied a request by Proposition 8 supporters to withhold disclosing any more names and addresses of donors who supported the campaign for the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Yes on 8 campaign officials had challenged the constitutionality of the state's Political Reform Act, saying that people who gave money were being harassed and that some received death threats. ....

A judge disagreed, clearing the way for the donors who made contributions in the last two weeks before the election to be made public Monday, the next filing date

Part of their fear is that they'll end up on the Prop 8 donor map. As my mother would say, if you don't want people to know you did something, that's a clue that maybe you shouldn't have done it.

 Of course, the lists for donations AGAINST prop 8 are just as public. But the opponents of Prop8 aren't clamoring to hide them. We aren't ashamed of supporting equality. Indeed, the Pro-Prop8 folks led the way on threats against political opponents.

As reported in the SF Chronicle back in October,

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too. ...

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ...

The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

The letters were signed by the campaign chairman, the executive director of the California Catholic Conference, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and the lawyer for the Yes-on-8 campaign.

The recipients of those letters didn't yield. Instead, they published them. They weren't ashamed of supporting equality, so the attempt to blackmail them fizzled.

So, as the Pro-8 folks complain that we know who they are, they should reflect on that other old saying of Mom's... "Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you".

I've been reading The Shock Doctrine.  It is nominally about "disaster capitalism".  On reflection, I apply the stories to the question of "disaster socialism" or other "disaster Isms".  So I apply it to Obama, whether he's behaving as a socialist, a pragmatist, or something else yet TBD.

The emerging plan comes as the administration seeks to jolt the economy with an $819 billion stimulus plan and a series of additional moves designed to stem foreclosures, overhaul financial regulation and get credit flowing again. - WSJ

One thing which is quite clear from Klein's story so far (chap 1-8), is that the Doctrine is generally a failure despite some partisan claims of success.  Other factors are shown to be significant, or the poster child is shown to have been corrupted if not already corrupt, with both methods and results far from "democratic" (Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Britain and other countries have been discussed so far).

So I wonder if Obama trying to "jolt" or stimulate the economy inevitably faces failure too.  This is not an academic exercise.  Well, since I don't have his ear directly if at all, it's academic, but it isn't merely academic because the answer might have profound implications for national policy and for millions or even billions of people.   Does the country need a punch in the nose? A slap on the wrist?  What?

To paint with a broad brush, the country needs to not be living far beyond its means.  I think many have got that message.  But many are also stuck in the short term with huge debts, deflated assets, and relatively worthless stocks.

If it's true that there is a huge disparity in the wealth of the wealthy vs.  "the rest of us", should Obama be seriously considering a direct wealth tax?  Don't nationalize the banks which are basically insolvent (liquidate them), nationalize the assets of those who've profited greatly (banks or otherwise) to the detriment of the rest.  Or nationalize/confiscate only the assets of the banks, and break the contracts which are the liabilities of the banks except for FDIC covered deposits. That would be a jolt!

The fact remains that except for counterfeiting, money is really conserved in trade.  So the real money is out there, even as expectation values have been severely deflated.
 

(New Headline "Soul Eating Bastards" replaced the word Fuckers. Take your pick, I prefer The F Bomb but didn't want to get dinged. I might change it back if I get worked up again.)

First sorry about the headline but I am steamed!!

WHY DO WE EXPECT NOTHING FROM THE CORPORATIONS WE ARE HELPING?

MC Bill talks about a better stimulus approach:

"There's almost $550 Billion of cash held by US corporations that's currently trapped overseas.  These companies would have to be significant witholding taxes to repatriate the money back to their US subsidiaries.  If President Obama would temporarily suspend the witholding tax, that would be a huge windfall.  It's a way to come up with stimulus dollars without expanding the deficit.

The last time we did this back in 2004, US Companies used 25% of their repatriated cash on US capital investments, 23% for hiring employees, 14% for US R&D and 13% for debt reduction.

If we don't do anything then it's likely that the $550bn of cash will continue to sit overseas and be spent on foreign projects

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310439653922291.html"

 

This may be great but I note the missing 25% and wonder, if they would just use that 25% to pay executives or dividends?

Here are just a few thoughts I posted to MCBills original blog and his responses

ME

SCREW 'EM! TAKE IT and use it as corporation's share of rescuing the financial industry. Didn't all us "people" donate to the rescue? Don't corps claim to be a "person" or have the same rights as persons? Well, as far as I am concerned These UNPATRIOTIC CORPS deserve to have these funds surrendered.

Don't give me the WSJ company line The WSJ is just a BIG lobbying group for corporations.

Really, I mean it Fuck'em take it all it could help a lot of homeowners here in the U.S.

SORRY haven't had a smoke in 9 days and am really cranky.

MCBill:

If you want to propose some real arguments as to why we shouldn't get this money back on US soil, please let me know.

ME

I am making a real argument TAKE IT! If these companies are HIDING money then I don't care. They are using the roads of the America, The Police of America etc. AND THEY ARE HIDING MONEY!

TAKE IT or charge them a fee of about 95% when they have to bring it back.

Question for you now... At what point do you think that those corps should contribute to this bailout? Really I would like to know because I have seen NOTHING, NOTHING that these corps have done to help out ANYONE other than themselves. Aren't they doing what Geithner (sp?) did when it comes to paying the income tax they should NOT what they owe but what they should owe!

Damn this irritates me what would happen to US if we earned money abroad and never reported it or paid taxes on it?

MCBill

Why do you say that they're "hiding" money? The witholding taxes are so high that they have no incentive to repatriate the money unless the company is in dire straits.

These companies do report their foreign earnings and they do pay taxes on it (but just to Ireland, Germany, etc). The pharma companies are doing well right now and sitting on tons of cash that's overseas.

I don't think the performing companies that didn't get us into the mess(Pfizer, IBM, Microsoft etc) need to "contribute" to the bailout.

ME:

BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE!!!

YOU AND I DIDN'T GET US INTO THIS MESS DID YOU? YET WE ARE PAYING!!!!!!!!

Seriously Now, Why do you believe that corporations should be spared helping out?

Now here is the problem with corporations.... THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ME OR ABOUT YOU! Yet we are running to the rescue of these cold bastards!

How many of you think a better stimulus would be for the govt to take over all those bad mortgages that allegedly started this death spiral of an economy.

CAN ANYONE tell me ANYTHING these rescued corps have done to help anyone.

I see no point in throwing good money after FUCKERS THAT COULD CARE LESS ABOUT A PERSON VERSUS THEIR PROFITS.

 

OK, stopping for now I am about break my keyboard with anger. I have 5 or 6  more posts about how we are helping the wrong "PERSONS".

GOD THIS PISSES ME OFF!!!!!!!!

 

If you are a true conservative please make me understand the absolute, undiluted, BULLSHIT of just feeding these soul eating corporations money so they can just try to get more of our money?

 

More to come, after I cool off!

From his two books I get the distinct impression that Obama's pragmatic idea of bipartisanship amounts to dialectical pragmatism.  Traditional dialectic (Plato to Hegel, and others) separates issues into [two] parts.  Traditional political partisanship forgets the next stage, the [re-]synthesis into an improved whole which is neither of the parts but something else, and depending on the parts being healthy. 

Mindless fascination with one part fights the end of pragmatic synthesis.  We can look at wildly anti-pragmatic idealists who would crucify the Fed over fiat money, but who have no viable pragmatic alternative (gold standard cannot work, for instance).  We can look at Republicans who practice cargo cult economics by cherry-picking bits of data and  bits of theory to conjure up an endorsement of tax cuts as though it were the solution to the recession.

How can we bring these self-marginalizing players into the proper dialog?  Or are they best understood as mere marginal noise makers, and left in the dust of history with their "theories" dying when they pass on?

I would consider them untapped, or recalcitrant, resources.  At the very least they provide foils for discussion even if they but remind us of where not to tread.

Related blog entry

If the decline of our demented empire proves we can't kill our way to peace - how 'bout prosperity? Seriously: Can we shoot our way back to flush times?

Because we're so tanked economically - and, evidently, spiritually - there's been a lot of talk of late, pro and con, about Military Keynesianism - economic policy in which a government boosts military spending in an effort to increase and strengthen national economic growth. 

Read more »

I agree with Jimmy Carter that George Mitchell is the best man America has to send as an envoy to the Middle East. To send him at least shows serious intent to revive the "peace process".

The problem is with the quotation marks around "peace process".

Read more »

"What we don't know about Obama" has diminished just a bit since Jim VandeHei and John Harris' piece in Politico last week (1/22). The authors posed some questions "still left hanging as the Obama administration begins:" Their answers of a week ago make for very good reading. To quote the queries:

1. Does he really think Afghanistan is winnable?


2. Do deficits matter?


3. How fast is too fast in Iraq?


4. What's in the files?


5. Do unions wear white hats?


6. Can U.S. power save Darfur?


7. How much does he have to placate the Left?

Today's post looks for clues in the news of the past few days that shed further light on the above questions. How is our new President leading, using his powers of persuasion and his deft touch? In a way, his task is as delicate as it would be if he were driving on the ice and snow of the states he declared weather disaster zones, Arkansas and Kentucky. How is he doing? What do we know?

1. Afghanistan? President Obama told the wider Muslim world, "The U.S. is not your enemy" in an Al-Arabiya TV interview. One of President Obama's principles is that we must win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, and of Afghans. This will certainly be a good first step.

2. Deficits? Yesterday's Obama stern lecture to greedy Wall Street executives, calling their $18 B in bonuses "shameful#," gives a strong clue about how President Obama feels about government waste. He has said repeatedly that the high deficits will be only temporary and that entitlement shortfalls must be addressed next. Time Magazine helpfully explains "how to understand a trillion-dollar deficit#."

3. Iraq? President Obama has said he will take "conditions on the ground" into consideration when finalizing the plans for Iraq. Tomorrow is the day set for Iraq's provincial elections. Juan Cole has some thoughts on the implications and possible outcomes of those elections. So we must wait and see what develops.

4. Accountability? There is rather stark contrast between how the new White House plans to deal with official records and how that was done in the Bush White House. ProPublica has published a comprehensive list of the "Missing Memos," in case you are interested. We have yet to see any movement by the new President to hold wrong-doers accountable. But I have not given up hope.

5. Unions? Though President Obama is reportedly considering Republican Senator Judd Gregg for Secretary of Commerce, today he reversed several of the Bush executive orders that have been considered unfriendly to Labor.

6. Darfur? Presidential appointee, Susan Rice, U.S. Delegate to the United Nations, has had a powerful passion about the situation in Darfur for quite some time. See the Washington Times--"Susan Rice offers Obama promise of 'cooperation'" regarding Darfur.

7. Left Dems? Women's groups reportedly were somewhat upset by President Obama's move to get family planning funds removed from the House stimulus package now in the Senate. CQ Politics is currently saying that a coalition of labor unions and liberal advocacy groups will soon start lobbying for a health care system overhaul that would make the government the "single payer." Democratic strategist Ed Kilgore makes a good persuasive argument that Obama's agenda is truly progressive.

Ending on an idealistic note, I want to quote from AlterNet's -- (1/28/09) story, "The Economic Crisis Isn't All Bad; It's a Chance for Us and Obama to Reimagine How We Live Our Lives#" It begins, "Capitalism is on its knees and now we have a chance to create higher ideals beyond career climbing and mindless consumerism." To continue by quoting the opening:

As America, recession mired, enters the hope-inspired age of Barack Obama, a silent but fateful struggle for the soul of capitalism is being waged. Can the market system finally be made to serve us? Or will we continue to serve it? George W. Bush argued that the crisis is "not a failure of the free-market system, and the answer is not to try to reinvent that system." But while it is going too far to declare that capitalism is dead, George Soros is right when he says that "there is something fundamentally wrong" with the market theory that stands behind the global economy, a "defect" that is "inherent in the system."

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My "creativity and dreaming" post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics obama leadership

You may have missed the rather obscure post in which it made its debut, but a TPM commenter with a deep interest in ethnic, economic and sociological issues has offered a far-reaching proposal for dealing with the challenges of illegal immigration in the US.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/the_media_consortium/2009/01/crying-for-change-from-coast-t.php#comment-3356439

Here is a key passage:

"Two or three hundred acre enclosures could be fenced in to warehouse the illegals. They should be fed coarse foods during their incarceration and provided minimal shelter. No hurry should be made in prosecuting the illegal aliens."

I'm certain that the author would appreciate input from the community regarding this bold proposal.  For greater ease of discussion, please leave any comments on this post (rather than the linked post which is now defunct).

Have his fill of congressional republicans. He righteously bagged Wall Street on the bonus issue and I expect there will come a time when he gets after republicans as well. Obama frames these things perfectly by stating the obvious and placing them in their proper context. For having been portrayed as an intellectual elite, Obama is showing signs of being very down to earth. I guess I was more than a little surprised with Obama's comments. I can't imagine that he will always have that perfect tenor in his delivery and content but if this is any indication of the surprises we can expect I am looking forward to the days, weeks and years ahead. As implausible as it may be he might even get government to do things that actually make sense. Now that would really be a surprise.

I hope Obama fails. I hope his entire stimulus package fails. I do not wish any real republican to back anything coming out of this administration. These were the sentiments of Lush Rimjob just a few days ago. I did a blog about his wonderful metaphor involving bending over and grabbing one's ankles at the time.

Something happened in the last few days. He states in today's WSJ:

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

His first point is that the New President's proposal is

 This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.

Now, I am about as great an expert as Lush is an economic professor, but it seems to me that if one desires to set aside politics, one's opening salvo might be a bit more delicate than this line.  I do not know about you, but this sentence is enough to cause me to beat him to death with a baseball bat and to paraphrase Glenn Beck, if someone else were to do it I would pay for the bat.

But the real beauty of Lush's hubris is that he actually has the balls to divide economists into Keynesians and supply-siders.

Finally he he lumps JFK, Ronald Reagan and w as the brilliant presidents who understood the value of tax cuts and that that is the way to fix this economy.Then he notes that  Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy.

So anyone who wishes to keep the fat cats fat, really knows how to help our country.

And anyone who wishes to repair schools, roads and bridges and put millions to work do so is a putz Keynesian.

Why is it that anyone who wishes to help educate young people, keep America's roads safe, prevent bridges from collapsing and put people to work, is an enemy of the American People in the eyes of a conservative?

Lush finishes his finally crafted essay with this:

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

So basically, Lush thinks the President of the United States should meet with one of the greatest economic minds of the century, namely him in order to forge some sort of legislation for the good of the American People.And Lush's credentials are impeccable:

Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.^[4] As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."^[7] 

He also had a stunning military career to make up for some deficits in his education (draft)

But as a radio announcer we should not forget how he has forged a new place for radio announcers who never scored so much as a c in Civics 101: 

He made fun of Michael J. Fox saying that the actor 'either off his medication or acting',

He dissed Donovan McNabb  and claimed that it was a waste of time for the media to spend so much time hoping for more black quarterbacks or coaches.

Limbaugh was criticized for having condemned drug users and mocking claims of rehabilitation before his own drug problems were revealed.[4]

In October 2003, under criticism and closer scrutiny for his McNabb comments, Limbaugh admitted he was addicted to OxyContin (oxycodone hydrochloride), a long-acting slow-release opiod. Limbaugh checked himself into a rehabilitation clinic in Arizona.

Upon returning to his program, Limbaugh lashed out at investigators who served warrants on Dec. 4 at offices of several physicians who he had visited. Search warrants indicated investigators suspect Limbaugh shopped for doctors willing to prescribe opiods, tranquilizers and anxiolytics.[3]

Limbaugh was criticized for having condemned drug users and mocking claims of rehabilitation before his own drug problems were revealed.[4]

In 2004, Limbaugh provoked controversy by making light of evidence of torture at the Abu Ghraib detention center in Baghdad:

The babes are meting out the torture.... It looks just like anything you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage.... This is something that you can see on stage at Lincoln Center from an NEA grant, maybe on Sex in the City -- the movie. [5]

This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation...

Philiip Morris was using Lush to publish lies about the tobacco industry.

A bullet after this states, "Place commentary ideas with personalities who can then expound on the issue, e.g. Rush Limbaugh." [12]

He also noted that any service member against the war were phony soldiers. Media Matters for America, September 27, 2007.

Now what President of the United States would not wish to take advantage of the talents of a man with such a stunning educational, military and professional background?

WSJ published the following as an end point to Lush's editorial.

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host

Imagine if this were happening in your neighborhood:

A family down the street is slowly starving - because the dad is spending nearly all the household money for a personal arsenal to protect the family.   Defense is eating up the budget. 

And imagine a local farm, where:

Instead of spending the money on seed corn and planting, the farmer is building a huge moat around his property, to protect himself and his family from people seeking food or a place to plant a garden.  The farmer has lost sight of the purpose of the farm.

And how about  a scenario where:

A neighbor has to decide whether to lose the house or watch a family member die of cancer.  It should never happen in America!

Some societies have declined when they ate their seed corn.  Some have declined when they no longer had a place to plant the seed corn.  Some have declined because they went off to war and all the corn went off with them.  And some have apparently forgotten health cannot exist by corn alone.

Can Americans be happy with less?    

Can Americans learn to be happy with less military presence around the world?  Can we not empty foreign bases, occupied since forever?  What is the purpose of "defense" if the money needed to keep us healthy goes for chest-beating?  What are we defending if  we suffer at home to project "authority" abroad?

Who are we kidding here?

LOL..I just love Sam Smith's take on this.

I have argued in the past that
Washington is run these days by high
functioning autistics, suffering a sort
of political Asperger's Syndrome, who
can't seem to connect the data in their
minds with the realities of life.

A example: after clipping all the latest
best stories I could find on the fiscal
crisis, I searched for two words: "small
business." They didn't appear because no
one seems to notice the importance of
small business if you want to create
jobs.

But a year ago the Small Business
Administration reported that small
businesses (less than 500 employees)
employed 51% of nation's private
non-farm workforce. From 2003 to 2004
companies with less than 20 employees
created roughly 1.6 million net new
jobs. Companies with 20 to 499 employees
created around 275,000 net new jobs.
Meanwhile, employment at companies with
more than 500 employees shrank by
214,000. The SBA also reported that over
the last 20 years small businesses have
created roughly 3 out of 4 net new
private non-farm US jobs.

Why this indifference? Three possible
reasons are that small business people
are poorly represented in Congress,
they're weak in lobbying and they don't
give enough money to candidates.

But it is also true that as a greater
percentage of power players become
lawyers, MBAs or financial whizzes, a
lesser percentage even pause to think
about small business. And this is not a
partisan issue; both major parties
ignore the smaller firms.

This is just so true. Both parties are totally out of touch
with the common person. No wonder voter turn out is
generally low.
He goes on to mention the way Washington is dealing
or rather not dealing with the bankruptcies.

Thus we found initially little interest
in decentralizing to bankruptcy judges
the decisions on foreclosures as being
proposed by John Conyers. Today's
Washington Post, for example, shoved the
story onto the business page, noting
that "Democrats have backed off efforts
to include the provision in the economic
stimulus package that's making its way
through Congress."

Why the reticence? Something like it
worked for FDR, it's common sense, and
it would even make Obama look good. But
it's not the sort of thing you learn
about in law and business school. And
it's too close to the ground for
comfort. And the banks don't like it.

Heavens..can't upset the banks. you know those bastions
of financial austerity and competence that are currently
sucking the country dry.

There is absolutely no doubt that if
Lyndon Johnson and Adam Clayton Powell
were drafting a bailout it would be
dramatically different from what Obama
has come up with. And politics has
surprisingly little to do with it. It is
far more about what and who you care
about most. As Roosevelt demonstrated,
you can overcome the liabilities of
intelligence or social and financial
success with common sense, good judgment
and a well directed heart, but you have
to work at it.

Right on Sam. I would dearly love to see a Black, female
common sense "Harry Truman" type run for office. But I'm
afraid such a person would be to wise to ever take the job.

C

McClatchy’s Tim Johnson reports that despite the Lunar New Year celebrations, denizens of Hong Kong fear that the Year of the Ox will be gored.

… there is unsettling news in Hong Kong, where residents set aside their quest for money briefly to consult the feng shui masters. Not good news.

A politician picked a “fortune stick” in an annual Taoist ceremony predicting how prosperous the year ahead will be, and he pulled out the worst possible number — 27.

According to this Deutsche Presse-Agentur report, feng shui masters in Hong Kong said the fortune stick meant the former colony faced a turbulent and unsettled year with possible conflicts between the government and people.

The Learning Cantonese blog goes on to explain the origin of the bad mojo, noting that they entrusted the local version of Rod Blagojevich to draw the fortune stick:

Nobody I know in Hong Kong is rending their garments in despair over the very, very bad Chinese fortune stick drawn by Lau Wong Fat at Che Gung temple in Shatin last Tuesday.

My buddy, Ah Wong, in fact, is laughing. “What did they expect? The most important ritual of the Chinese New Year for the Hong Kong Government, and who do they send to kau chim? A guy who’s under investigation by the ICAC!”

Really, Ah Wong has a point. If I were sending a proxy to pull the stick that determined my fortune for the forthcoming year—pulling it, mind you, in front of the entire assembled Hong Kong media corps—I certainly would hesitate before sending the shifty, scandal-ridden “Uncle” Lau, head of the clannish, secretive and powerful village chief’s association, the Heung Yee Kuk.

Snerf was ruing. He knew he had a tendency to rue too much, especially during the mid day time because he had less to do.  Around noon he simply walked the castle, checking to see if some things were out of place, to discover if something might not be quite right.  It would be two hours before he was back in the kitchen performing his magic on vegetables for the meal of the day.

There was that noise again from the ante room.  Curious how that noise seems to come from there every other day or so.  This was one of those rooms where no peon was ever welcome.
Only maids of royal blood ventured in for cleaning under strict rules. And only those maids who knew not how to speak, the mutes could venture in if some member of the aristocracy was present.

A lot of curious rules in this castle, but that is the way it goes at all castles, I suppose. He decided to listen in by the door of the anteroom.

Oh Tristan, my favorite of the anterooms. You always know how to treat your Lady. Titter, titter, titter. Iseult always liked to titter. Strange habit. Easier to deal with than the habits those nuns wear, but it becomes more tedious as time rolls on.

Iseult I awaited you from the dawn when the King lit out for the hunt. I had in my yearnings my own hunt. The hunt for love before I go upon my taxing quest to loosen the purse strings of the clergy. I reserved this room yesternight from Kay, and as long as he gets his remunerative, he cares not.  He told me that this anteroom is like the Lincoln Bedroom, and that campaign monies flow like water during the wars. But, my love, I await thee now.

Tristan. Titter, titter, titter. I wore your favorite costume under my cloak. She takes off the cloak wearing the latest in see through silks, late from Asia.

Have you brought the key, Tristan? After this I would like to take this thing off while here at Camelot, pointing to her chastity belt. I constantly pee on it and the perfumes merely mask the dank smell.

I will do so, forthright. Tristan undoes the safe as he fondles Iseult's beautiful form with his free hand.  But Iseult, I see the way you stare at Gareth, and I am afraid your wilings may drift from me to him.

Titter, titter, titter. I stare at Gareth because I cannot believe a Knight could be so dumb. But I smell his filth from across the great room and I assure you, that he is never to be in my dreams.

In breeding, I am sorry to say. Too many cousins have met in warm embraces over the generations.  But Gareth is a good sort to have around when gutting is in store.

Let us not speak of gutting when good things of a carnal nature are about!!!

Snerf could hardly believe his ears. Oh if King Mark only knew, he would have Tristan's head, and most probably his bowels.  Why these kings are all so interested in bowels is beyond me.

I wonder if I could make a couple pence off of all of this?  I shall ponder this as I continue my ruing.  But pondering is so much more fulfilling in the end. Macaca, Macaca come hither. COME HITHER MACACA.

Just then a North African monkey, who arrived here via Spain along with a Christmas Card addressed to Arthur, came swinging down from the rafters. Ackkakkackaakkaa.

Where have you been Macaca? Snerf looked around just in case Paladin the Moor showed up.Paladin did not like that word, which merely means monkey child in Morocco. Once he threw his boot a Snerf and hit him right on his hunch.   After that he called his pet Monkey when he was in the midst of the knights.

Snerf thought as he was hit by Paladin, why is this such a big deal. I do not whine when he says he has a hunch about something or other.

Macaca, you better not have been throwing feces at the maids again this morning.

Auh Auh Ahuahu. Said Macaca. That means no. But Macaca had been known to lie from time to time. Last week the silly monkey threw a wad at Gretchen, the kitchen girl and it took Snerf an hour to calm her down.  She will turn 14 in a fortnight and it has been harder and harder to show his love as time and his age draws on. Someone told him that after awhile, all hunchbacks end up with big warts on their noses and it goes down hill after that.

While playing with his monkey, Snerf hit upon a plan. At dinner he would approach Tristan with his nightly mutton leg and hint a little about the ante room and see what he might pocket.

Snerf would never betray Tristan, his hero or Lancelot either, for that matter. But why should both of these heroes have grand steeds and grown up ladies and fine undergarments while he slept in the hay loft?  Spread the wealth and not the rumor Snerf thought....

Meanwhile, in the Royal Forest which had now become the Enchanted Royal Forest...

The darkness had come on suddenly. And the knights were awed at the black starless night which had arrived sooner than thought.

I thought you told me only a few hours ago it was six o'clock. What happened?

Blaise responded, Sire our position was six o'clock and it might be good for your Reverence to keep that in memory, as a rule of thumb.  At that time it was closer to 10:00 AM and now I would have guessed it is one in the afternoon. Surely there is some evil that hath brought this darkness unto us. I feel dank and cold and something smells.

Uh, that was the wart hog, Blaise, Gawain said. He let loose a mighty wind I have never heard or smelt before this time.  A sign of real evil. In the air, so to speak.

All of a sudden there was a rumble from yon and the sky seemed to open up.

I AM THE GOD OF THE PART OF THE FOREST AND ALL YE HAVE TRESPASSED UPON MY SACRED GROUND!!!!!

There was rustling in the forest beyond and all of a sudden the stricken stag stood upright as if it had never been cross bowed or disemboweled.  And the hedge hog arose at the same time and from the forest deep came two more hedge hogs and sixteen humongous boars.  These boars were not like the boars that one must listen to at a supper club when you are forced to go out with your bride and her parents.  Noooooo, these were huge pucines with large tusks and they were grunting and salivating and smoke was coming from their nostrils.

IF THOUEST DOTH NOT PACK UP AND GO HOME, I CAN OFFER NO APOLOGIES FOR WHAT TAKES PLACE HENCE.  THESE BOARS REPRESENT THE GHOSTS OF PAST KNIGHTS FROM THE SCOTTISH ISLES AND THEY ARE HUNGRY FOR YOUR BLOOD.


The King knelt in prayer: We shall pray to Our Lord Jesus Christ for deliverance. Dear Lord..

Why are you still standing Blaise?

Do you not think it would be wiser at this point to listen to the other side for a change? Sire we need to listen to reason and the lead Boar over there, he looks menacing to me.

COWARD. KNEEL AT ONCE OR I SHALL HAVE YOUR HEAD.

At that moment the three hedge hogs stood on their hindies and began to sing:


You have heard the Lord above
No savior do you have here
He gives none his love
He rules with a mighty spear

He shakes the ground neath he walks
He brings the wrath of ages past
And beware that when he talks
Listen to Him if you would last

I wish I were I wish I might
See all the anger of He who says
Put on the head of all the knights
In the Lordly name of ASPCA


Gawain turned to Blaise and asked: How doth thou pronounce this strange name for a God?

Blaise announced: Just as it sounds but the L is silent.

Sire, Sire, what are we to do? Oh what are we to do, asked Blaise. Is it not better for us to listen to this god until we get back to Camelot and then we shall pray all night to Our Lord Jesus Christ?

But Our Lord Jesus Christ is the one God and....

But Sire is he not three gods? We are after all Pelagians.

No wonder we never get along with the Pope, responded the King.
Uh, uh I suppose we could make an exception as long as we all swore..

At that moment all the Christian knights knelt and just then the Head Boar, without an apple in his mouth, caught our Sire in the rear with one of his tusks, and it broke off just then.  The King shrieked in pain and cried out Oh Lord, why hast Thou forsaken me? And promptly went into a coma.  Now a coma is different from a comma because it has only one m and is hardly ever used in sentences.

The Great Voice in the sky at once said:

Fauna of the Sacred Forest, ye hath killed the King, the leader of the invaders. Ye may take your leave now as the chicken Celts are about to leave, and leave forever.  IS THAT RIGHT BEDIVERE?

You bet oh sacred God of the Forest.

And with that the King was put upon a litter, face down naturally and the other knights, packed up their belongings and they headed out of the forest dragging the litter.

Gareth asked Gawain, What pray tell is fauna. It is a funny word?

Do not make funna fauna, at least not until we get the hell out of here!!!!! Gawain responded.

Bedivere inquired of Blaise, Would we not have uh..uh..er..removed the remnant from the sacred Rear?

We might do awful damage Bedivere. We shall wait until we are back at Camelot and consult the mighty Merlin.  Besides we cannot spend more time in this place.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stay tuned tomorrow as we find out how our heroes cover the King's rear!!!!!

An article to today's Wash Post exploring the "just oppose" strategy of congressional Republicans to the stimulus notes they were emboldened to act by, quote, "dozens of emails and phone calls" opposing the stimulus.

 

That's right - "dozens." You know, I get a dozen emails at work before I even finish breakfast. But of course, I'm not an important member of the House of Representatives.

Hear me now, and hear me well--keep thinking that those dozens of contacts really represent the will of the American people. Keep thinking that Rush Limbaugh is an appropriate spokesperson for your party. And please, keep pissing off immigrants, pregnant women, and just about anyone who isn't currently sporting a penis, driving a truck and wearing a John Deere hat. You will make the task of creating a lasting progressive majority that much simpler.

I was going to hand type these entire documents out, over the next few months, a little at a time. So I went and got the little book that is my copy and started typing here.

Then it hit me.

I Invite you to join me in getting the entire record HAND typed on line. The reason for this is that as you set down and start to look at the actual documents you begin to notice things like the punctuation and what these guys capitalized as they laid the groundwork for "US" being here. You might even learn a few things you never knew.

Again, PLEASE ACTUALLY type it out DON'T cut and paste because these deserve better! THANKS in advance if you choose to participate and keep it hand typed. If I think a section isn't actually hand typed I will delete it and  

Who knows we might even start a movement!

So every 24 hours or so I will put all the posts together and have a new point for people to start typing at.

Enjoy and learn.

 

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united State of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one Ppeople to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. --

Economist Michael Hudson has some thoughts on this.

The real question is what the Wall
Street elite will do with the money.
From Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank
through Larry Summers, the Obama
administration hopes that the banks will
lend it out to Americans. Borrowers are
to take on yet more debt - enough to
start re-inflating house prices and
making homes yet more unaffordable,
requiring buyers to take on yet larger
mortgages. Larger mortgages at rising
prices are supposed to help the banks
rebuild their balance sheets - to earn
enough to compensate for their gambling
losses.

But this neglects the fact that today's
looming depression is caused by debt
deflation. Families, businesses and
government having to spend more wage
income, profits and tax revenues on debt
service instead of buying goods and
services. So why is the solution to this
debt overhead held to be yet MORE debt?
Is there not something crazy here?

The government's solution, placed in its
hands by the financial lobbyists, is to
bail out the bankers and Wall Street
while leaving the "real" economy even
more highly indebted. All this talk
about "more credit" being needed, all
this begging of banks to lend more money
and then extract yet more interest and
amortization from the economy, is
leading it even deeper into the debt
hole. It is not helping families repay
their debts. And indeed, homeowners
whose mortgages already exceed the
market price of their property are not
going to be able to borrow more.

And this is one of the problems with this. That there is a
real risk that "priming" the system will simply restart the
mess over again. An economy that is based nearly entirely
on consumerism is simply not sustainable because you
eventually run out of things to consume and ways to pay
for them. America gave up it's manufacturing base decades
ago to pursue a model based on short term profits for profits
sake. The burst housing bubble is simply the latest "Midas
Touch" that has been pawned off on the American people
with the predicable outcome. 

In order to have a viable economy we need to actually produce
something. Bailing out banks so people can just buy more junk
won't do it.

C

It would not be much of a tribute to Molly Ivins, who died January 31st two years ago, if I got all weepy on her. 

Her weapon was wit and her stock in trade, laughter, so she would probably prefer I have a beer in her honor and use my talent to throw pies in the faces of the "blue-bellied full-blooded nincompoop who holds elected office" rather than dropping to my knees with a Wayne's World-type I'm not worthy accolade.

Although it's true.  I'm really not.

It's a damn shame that Bush and his cronies have given the state of Texas such a bad name, because Texas is also the home of some of the greatest broads EVER, like Molly Ivins, Ann Richards, and their suriviving pal, Liz Smith.  Lady Bird Johnson, while not as bodacious as her more vocal Texas sisters Ann and Molly, made a powerful mark on the conservation movement, herself, and not just by beautifying highways.  The Johnson Ranch is home to more wildflower seeds, lovingly preserved and beautifully displayed every spring, than anywhere else in the country.

Boy, do I miss those gals, and none more than Molly Ivins.

Back when W and his Rovian minions were first spreading their sulphurous fumes around the state, trying to unseat Governor Richards by claiming that she was still drinking and doing drugs, (which of course, she hadn't done in decades), Molly wrote that, charming devil though he may be, she thought good ole W was enough of a little-man type of bully that some people needed to take him more seriously.

"Like," she pointed out, "Maybe Saddam Hussein."

And while we miss her delicious scorn and wise laughs to this day, THIS is the kind of prophecy that we really miss from Molly.

Of course, nobody paid attention to her really, at the time.  But she wrote those words fifteen years ago.

Fifteen.  Years.  Ago.

Molly didn't just sit around bloviating like so many pundits and pontificators.  She FOUGHT.  She fought for what was right, fought to expose what she knew was wrong, and by God, she kept fighting right up to the day she died.

My best friend died of breast cancer, so I have some small idea of the toll that particular battle takes.  But in Molly's last column, when I can only imagine how physically weak she must have been at that point, she was fighting--not the disease and the unfairness of it all--but THE WAR:

 

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest... If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on January 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

Who else with her stature had the guts, in 2007, to just yell, STOP IT, NOW!

She noticed Obama, too, and not just in 2006 when he caught the political world's attention, but in 2004.  After watching the famous speech at the Democratic convention, she turned to a friend and said, flat-out, that she thought he would eventually be president.  Later, when he announced his candidacy, she was all for it, saying, "Yes, he should run.  He's the only Democat with any Elvis to him."

Of all the tributes I've read to Molly Ivins, perhaps the most moving was the one that appeared today at Buzzflash.com.  It was written by Betsy Moon, who was Molly's "Chief of Stuff" for six years, worked closely with her, and came to love her.

Writing from Austin, Moon says:

The question I have been asked most often during the last two years is, "What would Molly think about this?" Molly Ivins would have loved this election. She would have loved the beautiful sight of "We the People" finally stepping up to become the real deciders. She would have loved the drama, the comedy and the characters.

We miss her regular twice-weekly comments and insights, and want to hear her dissect, slice and dice, and make fun of the events and revelations of the week. No one could do it like she did. She made us feel like we weren't alone. She made us want to be our better selves and stand up and use our power. She would be so proud that we finally woke up and worked to make this happen.

Molly believed that, as U.S. citizens, we--each and every one of us--possess more power than anyone else in the world.  She believed with all her heart that one voice can indeed change the world.  She was a woman ahead of her time who missed perhaps the greatest of all times to be Molly.

But if I know one thing about my fellow Texan, it is this.  She would be furious with us if we just shook our heads sadly and said, "Too bad she's gone."

Because she's not gone.

As Betsy Moon quotes in her tribute, from a letter Molly sent to the ACLU, a cause to which she donated much of her estate:

"Every time someone down the line is irreverent about authority, I'll have my monument. Every time some kid who was born a nigger, a kike, a wop, a Polack, a gook, a gimp, a fag, or just a plain maverick lifts up her head and dares anyone to stop her, I'll have my monument. Every time they peaceably assemble to petition their government for redress of a grievance, I'll be there. Whenever they worship as they please (or not at all), I'll be there. Whenever they speak up and speak out and raise hell, I'll be there. And every time some blue-bellied, full-blooded nincompoop who holds elected office is called to the floor for deciding to keep us safe by rewriting the Constitution, or by suspending due process and holding a citizen indefinitely without legal representation, I'll be there. Now that is immortality. I don't have any children, so I've decided to claim all the future freedom-fighters and hell-raisers as my kin. I figure freedom and justice beat having my name in marble any day. Besides, if there is another life after this one, think how much we'll get to laugh watching it all."

So Molly, sistuh-girl, here's a beer to ya darlin'. 

We're proud hell-raisers, all of us, and we will continue to speak up and speak out.  We will beat the hell outta those pots and pans.

You showed us the way.  Now we're crashin' our own gates.

Molly died too soon, for example, to find out that, while New Orleans drowned and Iraq burned, W was pitching his little-man fits outside the Oval Office because his staff dared to show up on a Saturday without a coat and tie.

Priorities.

I can just imagine the laugh she'd get out of that one and the razor-sharp word-filleting she'd do right NOW, while the Bushies are going all out to rewrite history and put a warm, fuzzy sheen on their hero.

Molly, I've got my pots and my pans right here and I'm beating the high holy hell out of them.

I KNOW you can hear me.

And THAT'S my tribute.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  A few posts here, articles there, NPR discussions there, and comments from our posters.  I've been thinking about how we can push for health care.  But I'm saving that for another post, soon to come.  In this one, I'd like to look at a piece of legislation that is currently "pending."  

Read more »

Overlay the Geneva, FISA Timelines

The ACLU requested through the FOIA process, US government documents relate to POW abuse and FISA violations. This may take some time for the US government to fully respond to this request. How do we know if we have the information to oversee the US government response?

The Senate Judiciary issued a report, and Senator Leahy sponsored a bill on disclosure of DOJ OLC memos.

In the interim, there is something we can do: Discuss the public information, and prepare for what information should exist.  Indeed, it may appear it is unclear how we will know whether the US government responses are adequate.

Goal

We need to develop a method to know whether the US government responses to this FOIA request are adequate; and develop an independent method to speculate about the content of the still secret, but known memos re POW abuse, Geneva violations and FISA.

There is a way to do this. We analyzed how two different lines of evidence may complement each other, and possibly disclose information about still-secret DOJ OLC memos. We suggest this timeline be interwoven with this. (ProPublica should be commended for creating a useful table.) After the jump, we offer a sample of issues of public interest related to the interwoven timeline.

Read more »

That's what happens EVERY time you impeach a chief executive.

Maybe they're right. We should just let George W. Bush go his merry way. We don't want to experience what Illinois just put themselves through, now, do we?

According to Mitch McConnel, maybe not.

"We're all concerned about the
fact that the very wealthy and the
very poor, the most and least
educated, and a majority of
minority voters, seem to have more
or less stopped paying attention
to us," McConnell said in a speech
at the Republican National
Committee's winter meeting. "And
we should be concerned that, as a
result of all this, the Republican
Party seems to be slipping into a
position of being more of a
regional party than a national
one."

LOL Gee Mitch, ya think ?? Just because you're out of step and out
of touch with the rest of the country. That your policies and
political philosophies have been proven disastrous.   And that
you're totally clueless as to why no one listens to you much any
more.You think this might have something to do with it.

Sometimes these little things can be funnier than the comic pages.

C

Gregg, a moderate Republican from NH, would send a signal of both bipartisanship with an important Cabinet post but also potentially give the Democrats the 60-vote Senate margin in that could be filled by an appointment by the Democratic Governor John Lynch---although knowing NH's streak of independence I could see Lynch appointing an Independent who then could organize with the Democratic Party.

United States Senator. - If a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator, the governor shall fill the vacancy by temporary appointment until the next state general election, when a senator shall be elected for the unexpired term.

This would be be a double stroke bringing in a Republican who essentially is on the fringe of the WingNut Rights while also summarily boxing out the minority in the Senate if they had to once Franken's 225 vote margin is upheld. Sure it will place enormous pressure on the MN court and then the MN Governor to provide the certification but to quote Dick Cheney---"elections have consequences", so does malfeasence.

No question the Gregg appointment would also provide genuine expertise in Banking and Commerce at a time when the best hands need to be on deck.

Bill Clinton's latest title is husband of America's new secretary of state, but that has not stopped him from flexing his own diplomatic muscles while in Davos this week. The New York Observer's Joe Conason reports that Bill's moves at the World Economic Forum -- including a long talk with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin -- reveal that the former president will "continue to be an active figure on the international stage."

While former President Bill Clinton speaks highly of President Obama, this forum is exactly why I didn't want Senator Hillary Clinton to be given the Secretary of State position.  President Obama runs the risk of having Bill Clinton out there making promises, deals and statements that could create problems for us.

We should only have one Sec of State at a time.

Two stories heard virtually back-to-back on the radio this morning.

In the first, the reporter asked a small business owner how he was holding up. The guy said he had stopped paying himself, had eliminated all but essential expenses at home and in his business, but was near having to make a choice between letting employees go or closing the doors.

The second story concerned how some companies are considering pre-emptive layoffs in order to hoard cash. Just in case things get worse, you see.

Want to know why our economy is disfunctional and consumer confidence is non-existent?

Note to cash-hoarding ceos, their boards and shareholders:

For just a moment, look outside the door of your $1.2 million dollar office and past your next earnings release. Your survival depends on consumer confidence, and its collapse is a vicious cycle. If you have not taken every possible step to avoid laying off employees, do so now.

If you are still forced to get rid of employees, do so with a heavy heart and the realization that the actions you are taking may jeopardize the future of your organization.

Then remind yourself that you're not cutting overhead or "rightsizing" or eliminating FTEs. You are turning a person's life upside down. This person may not find employment for a long time. When he does, it will likely be a position that pays less.

He may lose his home. She will eliminate all but the expenses necessary to survive. Consider this before you bank your bonus check and ponder the profit forecast for company and its clever but ultimately nonessential product.

Then realize that the steps you are taking only add momentum to what are already very bad times. The FTE that walks out your door today is the consumer who will no longer be able to afford your product tomorrow.

Take a longer view. And show some humanity. It's in there, somewhere.

What if the current "recession" is not really a recession at all? What if it is something else? Like the beginning of an Ice Age or the natural end to Conspicuous Consumption. In that case would it make more sense to pour money in from the top or in at the bottom?

During the presidential campaign all we heard from the Republican Party was about the media's fascination over Barack Obama.  That it was the media that got Obama elected with their undying love toward the man.  It was because the media never reported the 'facts' about Obama's past that he was elected, etc.. etc...

I have to admit it.  The media can sell an idea or a person by how they cover it or them.  They are as good as any of your favorite commercials.

That is why I've come to the conclusion that a huge part of the reason our economy is tanking is because the media is constantly reporting every little piece of bad news about it and rarely reporting the good news.

Consumer's confidence relies on what they hear and see.  If they see each day news about more jobs being cut or another company going out of business or companies profits dropping, it's only human nature for them to start worrying about their own situation (job, savings, home mortgage, bills, credit cards, etc..).

I am the first person to protect the idea of 'freedom of the press'; but sometimes, like during wars on the battlefields where the media is forced to keep their mouths shut, perhaps that should happen during extreme times such as we are currently experiencing with the world economy.  Or at the very least, they should be forced to report the 'good news' too.  Such as companies still hiring, making large profits or they are expanding.  Balanced reporting I guess some would call it.

Some right wingers are accusing the media of trying to help President Obama and the Democrats get their stimulus bill passed and once they do, the media will start reporting the good news again.  I don't believe this is true.  Keep in mind, these same reporters/commentators work for a living too.  The media outlets are hurting economically now too.  Companies can't avoid to advertise right now, which hurts the media's income.  They are just risking losing their own jobs by doing what the right wingers are claiming.

I heard last night that the television station showing the Super Bowl haven't been able to sale air time for four 30 second spots during the game.  They are hurting too.

So, perhaps the media (radio, TV, newspaper and magazines) should all think about what they are reporting before doing so.  Perhaps they should spend a little more time searching for the 'good' news, instead of spending all their time finding the bad news to report.

Does anyone know how to print out an entire thread - comments and all?  Cutting and pasting a blog is no problem, but I can't seem to include the comments.  As we all know, those are often the most interesting and enlightning contributions.

Forgive the "too much information" to come ... my brother is in prison and loves to read anything I can send to him.  Especially my posts - he's my brother, after all.  Anyway, I hate that I can't send the complete story, so much is missing without your voices.

I suppose, while I'm bothering you, I should mention he's in for driving while intoxicated too many times.  Thankfully he's never harmed himself or anyone else, and is getting help.  While I make no excuses for him - he's my brother, after all.  Sending him small pieces of me seems to help, as well.  I just want to give him the whole picture, if I can.

Thank you!

 

BBC News: Huge crowds join French strikes
Huge crowds have taken to the streets in France to protest over the handling of the economic crisis, causing disruption to rail and air services.
Financial Times: Clashes mar end of French protests
Union leaders said at least 2.5m people took part in 200 demonstrations in what they said was the biggest protest by employees for 20 years. The interior ministry said the number was 1m.
Guardian: A million on strike as France feels pinch
Bloomberg: Sarkozy Faces His Biggest Protest Yet on French Economic Plan

Elsewhere:

 

Read more »

Ok, so this is not the best reason to do something about the foreclosure crisis, but it's an example of one more unexpected effect of leaving many thousands of empty homes just sitting around. Abandoned swimming pools breed mosquitoes, which carry West Nile virus. Some cities are stocking the pools with minnows to eat the mosquito larvae.

At first I thought this must be a hoax, but it seems to be true. (Excerpt from an article about the Phoenix area posted below.)

Gives one pause.

 

: 13-Jun-08
Country: US
Author: Tim Gaynor

Public health workers in Maricopa County, which includes the cities of the Phoenix valley, are breeding thousands of so-called mosquitofish to gobble up larvae that thrive in the green pools of abandoned homes across the county.

West Nile virus, which came to the United States from Africa in the late 1990s, is now endemic in the county. Severe cases can produce high fever, stupor, tremors and paralysis, and can prove fatal.

Michael Lind has some interesting observations concerning
the republicans who voted against the stimulus bill.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2009, President
Barack Obama's $819 billion stimulus plan
passed the House of Representatives,
despite the solid opposition of the
Confederates.

By the Confederates I mean the Republican
Party and their allies among Southern
conservative Democrats. The battle in
Washington is not between liberals and
conservatives; it is between the Union and
the South.

The Republican Party that voted
unanimously against the stimulus bill is,
in essence, the party of the former
Confederacy. In the House of
Representatives, there is not a single
Republican representative from New
England. In the U.S. Senate, there is not
a single Republican from the Pacific
Coast.

The Republican congressional delegation is
disproportionately Southern. Half of the
four congressional leaders of the
Republican Party are Southerners: Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor
(Virginia). (Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl
is from Arizona and House Minority Leader
John Boehner is a relic of the dying
Midwestern wing of the GOP). The Chairman
of the Republican National Committee, Mike
Duncan, is from Kentucky. Half of the
candidates for the RNC chairmanship are
Southerners: Duncan himself, Katon Dawson,
chairman of the South Carolina Republican
Party, and Chip Saltsman, former chairman
of the Republican Party of Tennessee. (The
other three are Michael Steele of
Maryland, Ken Blackwell of Ohio and, Saul
Anuzis of Michigan). If you think most GOP
spokesmen on TV seem to speak with a
drawl, you're not imagining things.

In addition, a majority of the 11 House
Democrats who voted against the stimulus
bill are Southerners or from states that
border the South: Bobby Bright and Parker
Griffith, both of Alabama; Gene Taylor, of
Mississippi; Heath Shuler, of North
Carolina; Jim Cooper, of Tennessee; Allen
Boyd, Jr., of Florida; Frank M. Kratovil,
of Maryland; and Brad Ellsworth, of
Indiana. (The other three are Walt Minnick
of Idaho, John Peterson and Paul Kanjorski
of Pennsylvania). Congressman Boyd, a
prominent Blue Dog Democrat, was the only
Democrat to support President Bush's bill
to partly privatize Social Security, which
he co-sponsored. Appropriately, his Second
Congressional District in the Florida
Panhandle near Georgia and Alabama
includes Dixie and Calhoun counties.

The vote about the stimulus package was
not about economics. It was about
nullification. It was the bipartisan
Confederacy sending a message to the rest
of America, stricken by the greatest
crisis since the Depression. That message?
DROP DEAD.

Yep day for certain gonna teach dem Northern city folk and dat
uppity black man a thing or two. By gum.

Just what you would expect from a bunch of Southern racist
trailer trash. Yes sir..the Dixiecrat Party will rise again.

C

We already know that  Bush and His Evil Minions^™ did their level best to infiltrate unethical ideologues into the department of justice, and I'm beginning to think that the same thing happened in the US Military.

It's clear that General Odierno is doing his level best to box Obama in on Iraq:

Among those consulted by the president was Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, who has developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable, by pulling out two brigades over the next six months. In an interview in Iraq on Wednesday, General Odierno suggested that it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly.

This is borderline insubordinate, and is on a par with his statement following the signing of the status of forces agreement when he basically said that he was inclined to ignore the document.

A president needs his generals to tell him, and congress, the truth, but you don't want them spouting off to the press in order to make the decision of the C-in-C more difficult, but Odierno, this appears to be a feature, not a bug.

Additionally, we have the presiding judge at Gitmo, Army Colonel James Pohl,  refusing to suspend one of the trials, despite the executive order calling for a 120 day suspension, and he has scheduled the arraignment for February 9:

Hours after taking office last week, Obama ordered Guantanamo prosecutors to seek 120-day delays in all pending cases to give his administration time to decide whether to scrap the widely criticized tribunals created by the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists outside the regular U.S. court system.

But the judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, said the law underpinning the tribunals gives the presiding judges sole authority to delay cases. He ruled that postponing proceedings against Abd al Rahim al Nashiri would harm the public interest in a speedy trial.

Note that al Nashiri appears to be one of the "high value" defendants who was water boarded, and he has been held for over 5 years...so much for speedy trials.

Seriously, Bush and His Evil Minions^™ did their level best to politicize every level of government, including the military.

This will be poisoning the military and the civilian bureaucracy for decades to come, but how does one address this?

Obviously, senior staff who allowed abuse of detainees should be let go, but it appears that the officer corps is thoroughly compromised, which at some point might very well be a danger to the republic.

Is there a Pinochet in the ranks now?

In conversations with my wife she would constantly hear me make this statement; "If I were in a leadership position I would pull the trigger". She asked me what did I mean by this. "Pulling the trigger" simply means doing the right thing in my lexicon.

Doing the right thing in life involves paying a price. In most cases it's harder and cost much more consequences to do the right thing. It's always easier to do the wrong thing and it gets you much more stuff.

My wife is at that time of life that she is suffering under the effects of Menopause. Menopause is a "bitch"; I can tell. And I whish that their was a way to help women and to give them relief from this physical problem. And menopause is just one medical problem of thousands that we have to deal with as human beings. We are not perfect; but what if we could move closer to being more perfect and more consistently and formidably healthy as human beings.

Stem cell research really sounds like a possibility. I believe that if we handled stem cell research in the right way it offers the possibility of actually making us more healthy and more resistance to the things that have usually made us sick and killed us. We have clearly realized the possibility of rebuilding body parts like injured spines. And we should be able to think of stem cell as going further in helping our general health situation as humans. Stem cell deals with the cells and it's in the cells that makes us who we are. We could even find ways of helping women deal with the condition of menopause. I look at stem cell as a way to go beyond helping and to cure. What if we did have the chance to cure ourselves in a more all encompassing positive physical fashion.

So I would ask the Doctors and the other folks in the various medical fields "would you pull the trigger" if you had the chance. You see where I'm going with this.

I've faced the fact for a long time that "pulling the trigger" and keeping people healthy in a consistently and ongoing fashion means HMO's and then the Doctors make way less money. One could almost argue the contention that sickness is something the medical pros rely on to make the money from us. One could also make the contention that these same medical pros would look at the chance of us being more consistently healthy , in a formidable way , as a  threat to that same profit. I believe this is exactly the way they would look at this more healthy potential for us. I love my wife and I know what I would do. But to those numerous and very expensive medical professionals I would like to ask would you "pull the trigger".

It was interesting for a while. But now that the stimulus bill has reached the Senate, where in some form or another it seems certain to pass, I've stopped trying to figure out legislative tactics and moved on to meatier issues.

I'm with Krugman. Even assuming the best-case projection of 4 million jobs, $800 billion and change ain't gonna pull us out of this tailspin. The way it's looking, four million new jobs will just about replace what was lost over the past few months. It doesn't even begin to generate the real employment growth that will be needed to drive a sustainable recovery.

So I'm assuming the President will be back on the Hill before long, asking for more. And when he does, I think he should go a moon shot.

If I were asked to come up with something really audacious, I'd take Schwarzenegger's greenhouse gas reduction plan and go national.

It would be wickedly expensive. It would be way ahead of public opinion. It would be reviled by every Republican in Washington, and some Democrats too. But it's the right thing to do. And I think it might just work.

A massive commitment to renewables, rebuilding the energy grid, and upgrading and retrofitting private and public structures would tens of millions of jobs, from unskilled knowledge-based. It would be a boon for education, particularly tech colleges.

A huge public commitment would unlock venture money and turn entrepreneurs loose on everything from batteries and solar panels to fans and ceiling tiles. And it would put additional momentum behind public and private sector R&D.

I'd put a lot more effort into this if I could count on a robust but reasoned debate in the TPM community. I'm neither a scientist nor an economist. Anything I know about energy policy, I got from the New York Times. 

I am, however, open to constructive criticism, starting now. 

CNN is reporting that a group of orphans from the Tikrit Orphanage complex have created a War Memorial.  It's a duplicate of the shoe thrown at former President George W. Bush during his last visit to Iraq. 

Faten Abdulqader al-Naseri, the orphanage director said, "The shoe monument is a gift to the next generation to remember the heroic action by the journalist."

This is really sad and disgusting.  This is what we get for "liberating" the Iraqi people?

I can't really blame the kids.  All they know is what they are told.  They know they lost their mom, dad or brother and sister and it was because of something the Americans did.  I sincerely feel for them.  I can't imagine how I would feel if some other nation were to invade my country and kill my mom or dad in the name of liberating my country.

The memorial however gave me an idea of which I'd like to suggest here on TPM.

Perhaps the Americans and the American supported Iraqi leadership could come up with some money to build another memorial - in support of America and those other nations that "liberated" them from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein?

Remember the photos and videos we were shown of the Iraqi men tearing down the statue of Saddam Hussein and then jumping on it then slapping their shoes against it?

Imagine a statue of the Iraqi people jumping and/or pulling down Saddam Hussein's statue, with a U.S. Soldier(s) standing by watching (or perhaps a U.S. tank sitting nearby).  Try visualizing the famous memorial of our soldiers during WWII atop Mt. Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima raising the U.S. flag, that's the kind of statue I'm seeing should be built in Iraq.  A memorial to the U.S. for their sacrifices in life, loss of body parts, time and money.

Let's make them remember why they are 'free' today to build that now famous -- War Shoe Memorial. 

While the reason we invaded their nation may have been wrong, our treasure was lost there too, for the sake of their 'freedom'.









 

An amazing scene took place earlier today at the World Economic Forum in Davos.  Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Ergogan responds forcefully to a long harangue from Shimon Peres, and walks off after Wapo's David Ignatius tries to shut him up.  Many others in the audience then walk out following Edogan.  Read and watch.

Needless to say, this is an extraordinary departure form the usual civility and posh of Davos.  Obama's close adviser Valerie Jarrett was in the stunned audience.  Hopefully, she will report back to Obama on the incident, and he will finally get a clue.  Does he really want to begin his administration with silence, stonewalling and deflection of attention from the kind of butchery that took place in Gaza?

There's been enormous comment about the House Republicans' unanimous vote against the stimulus package. Most of the discussion has been about whether or not Obama's promises of "bipartisanship" will yield fruit and whether the Republicans in the House will gain anything from this strategy. But it's hardly a strategy; strategy implies a choice. The House vote is more an expression of the remaining House Republican's basic political nature.

The vote against the stimulus bill is very easy to understand: modern American "conservatism," movement conservatism, has never been a philosophy for governing. It has always been, from its very beginning, fundamentally a philosophy of opposition. Which part of "standing athwart history, shouting 'No!'" sounds like a plan to govern? That the modern Republican party actually became the governing party until recently was only an unfortunate accident, and since they chose not to alter their approach to suit their responsibilities, that accident led to horrible damage.

The partisans who had no interest in governance when they were charged with governing, who are philosophically opposed to the idea of government itself, aren't going to become more pragmatic or responsible now that they have returned to their comfortable, natural role in the opposition. In fact, they've been freed from unwelcome burden of actually compromising their principles with reality. They couldn't be happier. And their playbook is now very short, very simple, and very familiar.

The ideological conservatives not going to cooperate with President Obama's efforts of bipartisanship. They are not going to compromise their principles simply because the nation is facing a crisis, and they are not going to offer realistic solutions to America's problems; all of that is the governing party's problem. It isn't pretty. It isn't healthy. But from this point on, none of it should be a surprise.

Acccording to a Mother Jones article by Karen Greenberg from their Jan/Feb edition ("The People vs. Dick Cheney"), the Bush Administration broke 269 laws. 269 Laws.  

So what did you do? Were you speeding? Did you roll through a stop sign?

Not have your seatbelt on? Expired meter?

I'm still grappling with this whole gig. It's ok if psychowhitedudes ran our country into the ground for 8 fing years based on two stolen elections, killed thousands playing neocon war games, maliciously destroyed our environmental laws  (only 267 more to go folks!)...

AND now we are all on clean up duty/doody perhaps for the next 30 years...

Itzzooo-ok. Let's just move on, embrace change...c'mon people now.

BUT YOU better pay that ticket bud and don't you ever break the law again! You damn criminal you.

 

 

 

Part I:  How Ohio Lawsuits Sought to Bring Crimes to Light

Crossposted at Progressive Democrats of America.

    In October of 2004, polling showed John Kerry ahead of or even with George Bush.  Kerry's lead was pronounced among voters making under $50,000 a year--a significant number in blue-collar and low-income Ohio districts.  ABC's detailed poll, published on October 19, noted that the economy and jobs ranked highest among Ohio voters polled, and those voters said they would vote for Kerry over Bush, 73% to 25%.
    On election day, November 2, exit polling favored Kerry, but when the Ohio votes were reported that night, Bush was the winner.  By the next day, Ohioans were already speaking out about touch-screen problems, which registered votes for John Kerry as votes for George Bush; four-hour or longer waits in line to vote; and forced provisional ballots for young and black voters--all of which favored the Republican candidate, since these problems occurred overwhelmingly in low-income and blue-collar precincts.  Other issues included a flier distributed in a predominantly black neighborhood with the Franklin County Board of Elections name on it, telling voters that due to record turnouts they could vote on Wednesday.  More problems were revealed as the days passed, sometimes reported in the media but more often noted on the Websites that followed developments in the wake of the election.
    Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell implemented a rule in Cuyahoga County on November 9, 2004, declaring that no provisional ballots without a written date of birth would be accepted for counting, contrary to previous Cuyahoga procedure, requiring simply the voter's name, voter's address, and a signature that matched the county database.  This resulted in what observers declared was a deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters and students, since these were the groups especially required to use provisional ballots.
    On November 11, the presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties called for a recount in Ohio.  Among the reasons they cited were voter intimidation, ballots that were mis-marked or discarded, and voter suppression and disenfranchisement for black voters.  When a recount became inevitable, the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), representing these plaintiffs, sought to have the recount conducted speedily, so that the results would be known before the Electoral College's results were declared.  When this was unsuccessful, the NVRI amended the suit to challenge the inconsistent methods the various Ohio counties used in the recount.
    Also in November 2004, the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, the Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy, and others united to file suit against Ken Blackwell to, as attorney Cliff Arnebeck commented when interviewed, "conduct discovery and seek to prove that the irregularities in this election, if corrected, would produce a different result, and indeed, John Kerry was the person who Ohioans voted for."  Arnebeck--Chair of Legal Affairs Committee of Common Cause Ohio and a National Co-Chair and attorney for the Alliance for Democracy (AfD)--noted that there was an "attack" on black citizens and black precincts through a shortage of voting machines that resulted in unreasonably long lines at polling stations.  Both black people and students had been aggressively developed for voter interest and registration, he stated, which posed a threat to the Republicans.
    Arnebeck Law Office and Marshall and Morrow LLC filed the suit for the King Lincoln Bronzeville group.  The claims made included:
•    Voting machines were unevenly distributed, disenfranchising minority voters.
•    African-American voters were disproportionately assigned provisional ballots and those ballots were disqualified at higher rates than in nearby white-majority precincts.
•    Provisional ballot rules were enforced in minority districts but not applied to voters in white-majority precincts.
•    Voter purges targeted precincts with high concentration of minority voters.
    The Green Party, the Libertarians, and the Ohio Honest Election Campaign, a group launched by Arnebeck and AfD founder Ronnie Dugger, cooperated in moving their respective lawsuits forward.  The Greens and Libertarians filed for the recount with the support of the NVRI.
    The King Lincoln Bronzeville lawsuit moved forward slowly, being amended as more information came to light.  The final amendment in October 2006 added more charges and emphasized the Constitutional violations it alleged.  The court granted a stay in the proceedings in August 2007, until a status conference among the parties could proceed.  The case had changed with a new Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, and Attorney General, Mark Dann, now "exploring the settlement of other cases filed against the predecessor Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell."
    In the meantime, on July 28, 2005, the League of Women Voters (LWV) in Ohio filed a lawsuit against the State of Ohio--naming Ken Blackwell among the defendants--that sought redress for what it termed was decades of an election system operating in violation of the Constitution.  Blackwell himself was deemed to have "promulgated and promoted, through action and inaction, non-uniform and wholly inadequate standards and processes ... with respect to ... voter registration, absentee ballots, provisional ballots, disabled voters, and poll worker hiring and training."  The LWV emphasized that its suit encompassed voting deficiencies that started in 1971, but it cited specific instances from 2004 in its complaint. 
    On February 10, 2006, the U.S. District judge in Toledo threw out the case brought by the Green and Libertarian Parties.  The judge decided that Blackwell's actions in delaying a recount until the election was certified--thereby producing a result after the Electoral College declared George Bush the winner on December 13, 2004--was not a policy action that could affect future races.
    More than three years after filing, the LWV received a ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that its case should be heard in court.  The State of Ohio had claimed that the LWV case should be thrown out, because Ohio has made changes in its election process since 2004.  However, the November 26, 2008, ruling noted that the LWV's case cites elections problems dating back to 1971.  The LWV's case does not challenge the results of the 2004 election, but, if successful, it could rectify some of the problems cited in the other lawsuits.
    The King Lincoln Bronzeville suit sat inactive until July 2008, when Arnebeck filed a motion to lift the stay on the case.  The case that had lain seemingly moribund for almost a year was revived on September 19, 2008, with an order to lift the stay "for the sole purpose of permitting the plaintiffs to take the deposition of Michael Connell [a Republican media consultant in Ohio] and any other witnesses whose testimony, in the judgment of these parties, may be warranted based upon the deposition of Michael Connell."  This decision, more than any other in these cases, would change lives.

End of Part I

There's almost $550 Billion of cash held by US corporations that's currently trapped overseas.  These companies would have to be significant witholding taxes to repatriate the money back to their US subsidiaries.  If President Obama would temporarily suspend the witholding tax, that would be a huge windfall.  It's a way to come up with stimulus dollars without expanding the deficit.

The last time we did this back in 2004, US Companies used 25% of their repatriated cash on US capital investments, 23% for hiring employees, 14% for US R&D and 13% for debt reduction.

If we don't do anything then it's likely that the $550bn of cash will continue to sit overseas and be spent on foreign projects

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310439653922291.html

These days, everything has started changing for the better now that the Democrats control the While House, the Senate and the House. Well, except one thing. A certain party (that shall remain nameless like all guilty parties), now out of power and very much in the minority, does not realize that it lost big time because it would not do the right thing for this country no matter what. And it's sticking to that same rule now, be what may.

And what do the rest of us do about those obstructionists? What should all the fair-minded, forward-looking people do about this outrage of a party that is now just Old and no longer Grand?

Well, I say we should campaign for disbanding GOP altogether. In these hard times, we have a unique opportunity to make Republican views on all things political so marginalized  that no one, save a few fringe lunatics, would even consider voting for them. They must become the Whigs of the 21st century.

For me, bipartisanship means that we're accepting all reasonably-minded Republicans into the Democratic party. Out tent is so big it can hold all their tent except for all the zealots, racists and other such dregs. Come on in, let the re-education begin.

There's a long and proud science fiction tradition of humanity being subjugated by alien creatures able to infect us in a way that forces us to their will.  Invasion of the Body Snatchers comes to mind as a staple, but the celluloid closet is full of similar examples.  Not all these imagined alien takeover attempts flourish, because there is often some subtle clue, an inappropriate mannerism or reaction, that betrays the aliens, and allows the unaffected a means by which to sort the good guys from the bad guys.

Watching the mindless (positive) reactions to Bush and his thugs early on was somewhat understandable, given the public confusion planted by the criminals in charge directly after TWO terrorist attacks (9-11 and anthrax, both 'unsolved').  As time wore on, and lie after lie was exposed, and the press (blogoshpere) made it possible to see just how deeply corrupt and illegal the Bush administration had become, my reactions to those still supporting same have wavered from total befuddlement, disappointment, outrage, and despair.  These bastards started a fake war and tortured kids for chrissakes!  How hard is that to 'get'?

There are entirely too many people who still are enamored or fooled by the remaining coterie of Republican asshats, that any rational explanation can account for.  That's why I'm asking everybody to keep an eye out for the possibility that we've been surreptitiously overwhelmed by a vast alien cadre, using a virus more sophisticated and advanced than our feeble brains can imagine, to infect us with a combination of arrogance, greed, pride in ignorance, and disresprect for the common good.

If such a thing were occuring, how would we identify it?  Would we even be aware such a dangerous contagen were amongst us?  I'm clearly NOT saying that such a thing is happening, because to do so would bring immediate suspicion as to my motives or state of mental health.  This is purely a thought exercise for those around here who like to think.

Do you suppose we might be able to identify the aliens in our midsts if we could, like in some science fiction examples, find an unusual tick or behaviorial malapropism that would immediately expose them?  This is what we need to keep an eye out for.  Just to be on the safe side if you know what I mean.

If we were being invaded/infected by aliens, and were looking for something to point at that was both statistically unassailable, as well as obviously out of the norm of human behavior, I might be tempted to point at this:

A nearly $820 billion stimulus package passed the House of Representatives Wednesday without a single Republican vote.

How freaking weird is it that the party that just suffered the worst defeat and lost so much political power would continue singing the same songs of failure?  How alien is that?   It's something most normal HUMANS would have enough sense to realize was a lost cause by now.  It's almost as if they've been taken over by some unexplainable mass delusion, something very alien to most of our natures.   Hmmm.

Enjoy.

I am currently working on a new book titled The Political Economy of Investment Incentives: Competing for Investment on a Global Scale. This will mark a  substantial expansion of the study I did for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, with several brand-new elements.

One major addition will be a chapter on Ireland. A lot of economic development officials worldwide tout Ireland as a model for growth through investment subsidies and low corporate income taxes. The problem with this argument is subsidies and low taxes were the centerpiece of Ireland's development strategy since the late 1950s, and for a good three decades they didn't have much to show for it. Only in the 1990s did the economy really take off, and even then many people were left behind.

What changed? That question animates the chapter. Some plausible candidates are greater attention to indigenous industry (rather than just throwing money at foreign multinationals), the accumulation of infrastructure through European Union Structural Funds, better targeting of investment incentives to create clusters, and a social partnership between government, capital, and labor.

Additionally, the chapter will speculate on what the future might hold for the Celtic Tiger. EU state aid rules now sharply limit the subsidies the country can give, its allocation of Structural Funds has been reduced since it became one of the EU's richer countries, and questions remain about whether the country's 12.5% corporate tax rate can sustain the government's budget. There is also a lot of political sniping at the tax rate, which is far below the average of other prosperous EU members. France and Luxembourg have been particularly vocal about Ireland's alleged poaching of investment, and many countries consider it a tax haven. The political pressure is sure to continue.

I don't have answers to those questions yet (that's why we do research!), but I think there will be some interesting lessons to be learned.

A few hours ago, the Illinois State Senate voted to remove Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office, sustaining the articles of impeachment approved earlier this month by the Illinois House.

It should also be noted that the Senate voted to ban Blagojevich from ever holding elected office in the state of Illinois again.  Like the removal vote, the final margin was 59 for, 0 against.

In effect, this is a political death sentence for Pay-Rod.  Which is exactly what he deserved.  I'm proud of the state senators for doing the right thing, even though voting not to remove Blasonofabitch would probably have been tantamount to political suicide.

After that ridiculous and embarrassing "closing argument" he gave today, and given the havoc he has wreaked on my home state, I can also think of something else to call it.  Change Illinoisans can finally believe in.

Now, Governor Quinn, get to work.  You've got one hell of a mess to clean up.

Cross-Posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

by Erin Ferns

After the voters spoke last November by turning out in record numbers, we enter a new year with a new president and multiple new agendas for election administration in the states that bring both excitement and concern from voting rights advocates. Whether the discussion is about  upholding the landmark Voting Rights Act, the disenfranchisement that comes with voter ID, or even the distribution of provisional ballots, the conclusion remains the same: we should work to protect and facilitate every eligible citizens' right to vote, not impede it.

Read more »

At the outset, I'll admit I have never experienced the services of a paid sexual escort.  I've no moral problems with people who do so, and think it ought to be legal everywhere, like in Amsterdam or Nevada.  The idea of paid sex isn't attractive to me, but that's likely a result an innate conversational talent and enchantingly blue bedroom eyes.  I am aware of many awkward men (and women) who would likely benefit from such encounters.

That said, if I were forced to pay for a good screwing, I'd expect my money's worth, because the free sex I've had my entire life has been, on average, pretty fantastic!  With my luck, I'd pay top dollar to some high class call-girl service and end up with some skeezy meth whore sporting spooky dentition.

And on the subject of overpaid whores why are we all paying top dollar to the largest financial corporations in the world?  Isn't it because we were told they are in DIRE circumstances?  

They've gotten huge amounts of money, the likes of which would fund all manner of community good and social need.  We're watching OUR money being  pissed away to pay the crooks who ruined our economy in the first place.  They're giving THEMSELVES HUGE bonuses for what they no doubt perceive as a job well done.  New corporate jets and vacations to the Bahamas are making headlines.  Concrete solutions to the problems that got us here in the first place: "....."it's all so freaking complicated"....,..."we're hopeful that throwing money at pirates will avert disaster"..."continuing to study the underlying issues......

I've got your solution right here.  Regulate the markets like we did after the Crash of '29.  We'll all still suffer greatly, because the bourgeoisie have stolen so much of our public money, but at least the FOUNDATION will be solid again. 

Give me a break.  This ISN'T rocket science.  It's simple accounting.  There's no 'debating the argument' here.  We've been there, done that already, and if schools were as interested in teaching history as some are at teaching creationism, our government would not be able to get away with aiding and abetting the crooks.  We are witnessing the economic equivalent of the lawlessness that led our nation to accept illegal torture.  Denying the obvious isn't going to change the fact that it's happening.



Enjoy.

On CNN just now, Jack Cafferty said Minnesota has no credibility on elections because it elected a wrestler to be governor, Jesse Ventura. Well, Ventura did win, in a three-way race, with about 35 percent of the vote if I recall correctly. And in fact he was a pretty decent governor, despite the occasional silly tantrum; because he owed no one anything, he was free to, and did, appoint the best cabinet we've seen here in decades, and they developed quite good policies overall, certainly better than the mainstream Republican governor we now have.

Cafferty used Ventura as ammunition to pour scorn on the continuing saga of Coleman vs. Franken. I hear this elsewhere, too, and I just don't get it. Sure there is a lot of noise coming from the partisan camps, but the PROCESS is going along just as it should. There was a recount, an automatic recount, and then the candidate who is behind, Coleman, is allowed by law to bring an "election contest," a lawsuit to hear his issues on why he thinks the procedures used in counting the votes were faulty. The three judges appointed to hear the contest are just doing their job in listening to the arguments, however goofy some folks think those arguments are.

I just do not get all the snotty comments about how screwed up this is. I don't think it is screwed up at all. The officials involved, from the secretary of state to the judges appointed to hear this contest, seem to me to be doing their jobs very well. There will be an end when the process has run its course. That may not suit some folks, but it is what the law prescribes.  

I, for one, am going to miss him.  At least he was entertaining.  What a character!

When it comes to the mixed up Senate GOP messages out there at the moment about the stimulus bill which Josh posted about, I would point out that the contradictory and cross-purpose arguments from their side on the stimulus bill is just a continuation of what they House GOP have done from the get-go on this bill. They simultaneously argue that their is not enough "traditional" infrastructure spending and how long it will take to spend out (how many times have they trotted out the bogus 3% on transportation spending figure?) and at the same time rail against the fact that there needs to be more tax cuts since that (in GOP world) is the only legitimate way to get money into the economy quicker than project spending.

So at their core, they are screaming out of both sides of their mouths.

If you spend more on construction and infrastructure projects, they bleat about tax cuts and the length of time it takes the money to spend out, and also that somehow money spent on infrastructure building and refurbishment doesn't create jobs (which Josh rightly pointed out yesterday is patently absurd)...

...yet if you spend money on tax cuts (which are in their in a big way for middle and low-income people) they scream that this is not an infrastructure bill and that somehow tax cuts (be they income tax or payroll tax) when Democrats offer it are now bad.

They offer nothing but a heads I win, tails you lose, rant that is hypocritical and schizophrenic in the most foundational way possible.

My question is, when will the Democrats (be they on the Hill or form the White House) calls them out in the media on this bogus, schizoid posturing and bleating?

Isn't this exactly the childish partisan things we can no longer afford which Obama invoked in his inaugural address?

We all have seen the Republicans in the house ignore Obama's extended hand in the form of corporate tax breaks. We all agree the don't get the new kind of politics Obama is trying to play here. There is one thing i am jealous of in this republican move is there resolve to oppose a measure they don't agree with even if the measure is currently popular they think it has only a small chance of succeding and voted against it.

If only more dems had done that on the Iraq vote...

I think Republicans don't have a clue about what works in this economy or what will save the world from this mess (yes we here in europe are in the same mess...). The only thing republicans have is their retarded idiology which doesn't have any awnsers in this situation but they are sticking to it. It wasn't that long ago Liberals voting against the war in Iraq where seen as such outcasts in their opinion still i wish more dems had this kind of backbone because if the stimulus works this will mean the dems will crush them in 2010 and 2012 yet they stick to their idiology.

This administration should build a stimulus that will woprk incorporating al ideas that work regardless of who came up with the idea but one should never expect the opposition to "shut up and cooperate". Remember what happend in 2002 when the dems did? There is only one thing one can learn from republicans and that is sticking to your own ideological line.

Sam Stein over at HuffPo interprets the failure of any republican to vote "yes" as a "rebuke" to Obama.  WTF?  Thick heads abound.  Obama played the republicans like a fiddle.  He made two separate visits to them on the Hill and made significant concessions to them in the bill. They still voted "no" and were outed as the obstructionist pigs they are.  Further, the measure by which the vote won showed that they are no longer relevant in the House of Representatives.  The bill passed handily without a single republican vote.  That means we don't need them in the House at all for any reason.  They can piss off.  What's more, this gives the Dems in the Senate a rational basis to strip the measure of the unnecessary concessions that were made because they meant nothing anyway.  All Obama needs is one republican vote, by my count, and apparently Olympia Snowe is planning to deliver it.  Obama is, once again, a genius, and republicans can't find their pants.  The media narrative (Andrea Mitchell was doing it too) that this was some sort of defeat for Obama is laughable. When did Sam Stein become such a moron? 

... every time you see "Boehner" and "stimulus package" in the same sentence?

I can't help myself sometimes.  No one else can help me either.

We tried, seems Washington is too tough. After 2 years of proclaiming how important it was to move past the divisiveness that divides us, Obama supporters have now discovered that Republicans are more intransigent than they believed, and have decided to move on to the next step, post-post-partisanship, otherwise known as, "I Give Up". Well, the first 150 hours of the Presidency is the toughest - it had to happen sometime.

A new meme is now going through TPM, if not the rest of the Internets - Obama as chess-master if not kick boxer or Ninja warrior, who suckered the Republicans into looking partisan by compromising with them and then getting zero support. Of course if the Republicans trounce the Dems in 2010 as they did in 1994 by playing on a lame bailout bill they courageously refused to support, we might have to identify 1 or 2 chess-masters on the other side.

And well, the Democrats have had a fun week, arguing that a CBO report that exists doesn't actually exist, defending contraception as "stimulus" (it's actually anti-stimulus, folks, like wearing a French raincoat if you know what I mean), cheering the removal of the international gag rule on abortion while forgetting it still exists at home, feeling our oats with the passage of a stimulus that involves mostly tax cuts and sops to special interests and not too much that feels like it'll kick start the economy within the next 4 years. (Uh, education? Fast spending? Back to construction projects? State money not delivered until end of 2009?). Cram-downs unsurprisingly got eliminated (DC to homeowners: we really like to watch you suffer.) Business tax cuts unsurprisingly rule the day. (DC to business leaders: we got your back, keep those taxpayer-subsidized donations coming). And where's that IT infrastructure money?

And about those TV talk shows - now that the Democrats control all the houses and such, is it too much to get some coaching before they go out and make asses of themselves and forget crucial details in arguing against blatant falsehoods? Admire them as you like, Barney Franks and Paul Krugman don't constitute an anti-disinformation media team by themselves. 

The real winner, the chess master in all of this, is unsurprising. Hillary. Foreign policy? Hard to lose there, not part of the bailout, no embarrassing votes, just the relatively easy job of getting entrenched foreign despot dictators to like us, vs. the impossible task of getting Republicans to like us. If Bosnia was a gaffe, what would "a change to business-as-usual in Washington" be? And while frequently foreign ministers end up better liked abroad than at home, that still serves what's a more likely outcome for her - Secretary General of the UN, rather than President. But in any case, I think I can safely predict that the Clinton brand will be in better shape in 2012 than it is today, something I'd hate to wager for anyone else at this point (okay, it might be when Al Franken gets seated, so make him #2). Alright, will wait until end of February before more optimistic pronouncements, such as how Iranians and North Koreans respond to Hillary love-letters.

So keep on compromising, folks - those Republicans will come around, just as you promised. One day, some day. Maybe they just need another tax cut and a faith-based initiative. Oh yes, Obama just appointed a new outreach minister for faith. Would be nice if he appointed one of those for progressives and stopped kicking sand in Howard Dean's face.  Guess I've always been a dreamer. What about this week's victories? As Dissenting Justice notes, more back to the future, almost all the way to the status quo of the 90's.

That's it, my most audacious optimistic take, Queen to Bishops 4, another below-the-belt play. I've always liked unorthodox openings, and here's my favorite odd entry. Your move.

I think it is time to trot out some old recipes that were popular during the Great Depression of the 1930s. However, as conditions have changed, so the recipes must be brought up to date with more modern ingredients.

The following is an old family favorite and was collected by my late grandmother.

Read more »

I just heard about Take Back the Land. The group is working to put homeless folks into vacant, foreclosed homes. Not through banks, courts, or legislative action, but by break-in!

To be clear, the squatters are not criminal crack-heads. They are foreclosure victims themselves, vetted to insure they will care for the property like--well--homeowners. In addition, the group only appropriates long-vacant homes owned by TARP-endowed banks.

It resonates as the right, the moral, and the necessary solution. It is immoral for institutions to push humans onto the street, and then hold empty homes against future profits. Even more when the institutions are taking our money to do so.

At the same time, it is shocking. I am astounded, not at this solution, but at the state of America! I would never have imagined that America could sink so low. That such drastic means would be needed just to house our working population and maintain our residential neighborhoods. That we continue to accept, reward, & lionize the bankers who have brought us to this pass. For shame! The bankers should be living on the street while the Take Back the Land staff run the banks!

By the way, so far, no neighbors have complained.

How many Republican votes did Obama get from the House after he significantly altered his own economic plan?  Zero.

You know that things are serious when you see economic reporters yelling at their audiences.  Don't believe me?  The host of CNBC's Mad Money was happy to do this on yesterday's broadcast of Hardball. 


If you were to listen to the remaining Republicans in Congress, all you would hear is an echo chamber filled with the cry "Tax cuts!"  Seems that they would rather rally their own base then do what is right for the economy.

Go ahead and ask any economist you can find, or a CNBC reporter, and all that you'll hear is that the government needs to spend "More! More! More!"  Why?  Because right now we are sitting on an economy that could go up at any second.  Americans took out record levels of credit card debt in order to maintain their standard of living while wages stagnated under the Bush Administration.  If too many Americans can no longer pay back their debt, Jim Cramer projects the magic number is around 10%, then you'll see the economy tank even more.

So what do republicans have to do with this?  They seem to have forgotten that it was the Bush policy of tax cuts, less regulation, and less oversite that got us into this mess in the first place.  They seem to ignore the collective wisdom of economists in favor for their own outdated principles. 

Tax cuts may work to stimulate the economy in times of plenty, but right now, there is an increasing number of Americans who don't even have jobs upon which to pay their taxes.  No, in times of serious crisis, it takes defecit spending to get the job done.  That got us out of the Great Depression, and it will get us out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  All Obama has to do is realize that he will find no help from Republicans; all they can do is make it worse.

"Snafu" is probably unfair to Minnesota, they are said to have an excellent system and record.  But I refer to the tragic comedy of the Election Contest Suit before the MNSC, not to Ritchie and the many honest and competent election workers in the state.

I see the philosophical arguments being used, largely willy-nilly and hypocritically by Coleman, as being Due Process for voters versus Due Process for candidates.  The two interests are not 100% aligned or equal.  I believe that the latter is what this Suit should be about.  Did Coleman get a fair shake in the election?  Did any election official cheat him out of a win, that kind of question.  Coleman is grasping at straws to stay afloat, and that's okay for him to try but it's not okay for the Court to validate ad nauseam. 

Every legit vote should count.  But what constitutes "legit"?   And if the focus of the trial is not voters' rights but candidates rights, then random marginal self-disenfranchisement of voters is not a matter for this trial.  While some voters might join Coleman's cause by various means (friends of the court, interested side parties, etc) their interests are not the focus.  MN had a clear policy on absentee ballots.  It violated that policy, so the count of absentee ballots was wrong.  The Court earlier offered a remedy, not necessarily the best but apparently a workable one. 

What strikes me as very odd is that Coleman having willingly agreed (I read nothing about him having qualms at the time) to a method to deal with some questionable absentee ballot rejections, and thereby committing himself, is asking the Court to let him change his mind on this issue.  Since the focus is on Due Process for him, he loses this point.  If the focus were DP for voters, then the Court made a big mistake when it dictated that the candidates come up with a method.    But even if the Court made that mistake, this election contest is not the place to remedy any harm individual voters suffered.

The Court should not reverse itself on this point.

Congressman Heath Shuler from NC who sadly is representing my district voted against the HR 1 yesterday and released this statement:

"Today Congress passed H.R. 1 in an attempt to stimulate our nation's economy and

prevent this current recession from worsening. It is my belief that Congress should use

this opportunity to invest in America's infrastructure for the 21st Century, so that we can

compete in this increasingly global economy. This investment should focus on green

jobs, highways and bridges, railways, a modernized electrical grid, and broadband

Internet: infrastructure projects that create jobs and make America more completive

globally. In my opinion, the legislation before the House today contained too much

additional spending in areas that will not offer immediate economic stimulus. As our

nation faces an historic budget deficit and a national debt approaching $11 trillion, I

cannot in good conscience borrow and spend $825 billion, further burdening future

generations of Americans."

 

He is positioning to run for the Senate seat up in 2010 (Burr). As you can see he is saying that he is for jobs and boosting the economy but all he is doing is playing politics with the well being of everyday people. Blue Dogs are bad for our times!

A few odds and ends that are on my mind today:

I'm wondering if Obama has a better chance of getting some Republican support on other, future legislation than he does on the stimulus bill. After all, there are some Republicans who are not neo-cons and may be up for trying some new approaches in foreign policy, even some Republicans who may get on board with healthcare reform if they can be convinced it's not socialism. But if there's one thing every single elected Republican agrees on - indeed, the only principle the Republican party has left - it's that government is bad, tax cuts are good. So essentially, right out of the box, Obama is asking them to compromise on a bill that, at its core, goes against their one bedrock principle.

It's as if Democrats were asked to...to... I've been thinking about this all day, and you know what? I couldn't think of a damn thing Democrats wouldn't be willing to compromise on. In Glenn's words,

It's very hard to find any virtuous attribute of the contemporary Republican Party, but one thing that can be said for them is that -- unlike Democrats, whose overarching desire in life is to please the needy harmony fetishists by adopting as many GOP views as possible -- Republicans are willing to incur criticisms by opposing what they oppose and supporting what they support.

Ok - I've got one: Social Security. When Bush tried to privatize it right after the 2004 election, the Democrats blocked him. Any others? Seriously, let me know.

Ok, so the Dems have extended the hand of compromise and its been bitten. Can we get on with the people's business now? To quote Glenn once more,

This is what happens every single time: the Democrats do everything possible to "accommodate" the Republican position and then get attacked anyway (they voted in large numbers for the Iraq War in and then got attacked for being soft on Terror in 2002; they voted for virtually every Bush "Terrorism" policy and the same thing happened, etc.). Here, they did everything possible to change their bill to please Republicans and nothing is happening except full-scale GOP opposition accompanied by a constant barrage of GOP attacks against them as big-spending, reckless, wealth-transferring liberals.

The Dems still have a chance, now that it's been proven for the umpteenth time that the current GOP is not interested in compromise, to make this stimulus into the best bill it can be, rather than a watered-down version designed to attract nonexistent GOP support. I've said it before, I'll say it again: post-partisan does not necessarily mean bi-partisan. Obama has repeatedly said he'll take good ideas no matter where they come from, a welcome change from the last eight years. He has not said, I will take ideas equally from both sides of the aisle, no matter what they are, mush them up into a bill, and call it centrism. That's how most mainstream media, egged on by Republicans, have interpreted what Obama said, but I really really hope that's not what he meant.

The key phrase is "good ideas." The current Washington GOP has yet to show that they have any. Obama sitting down repeatedly with GOP leaders and listening thoughtfully to their ideas is post-partisan even if he decides they're not good ideas.

***

A friend writes me, in re the family planning funding that was removed from the stimulus after Republican objections,

Were family planning advocates played? ... Is it a good thing that the lesson was learned this early? Might they rise to the challenge of real politics and establish political clout?

I think family planning advocates may sort of been played. There has been some suggestion that the family planning money was a rope-a-dope tactic - i.e., Dems knew it would catch Republicans' eye and then they could show bipartisan good faith by scrapping it. If true, I think the problem with this is two-fold. One, as I detailed above, Republicans don't respond to good faith bipartisan gestures; they're not going to "appreciate" the Dems' willingness to cave...they'll just see it as weakness.

Two, if the intended audience of the move was not Congressional Republicans but the wider public - to demonstrate bipartisanship in hopes of painting Republicans as partisan obstructionists - then I think Democrats have once again mis-judged public perception. Canceling the family planning money just makes them look 1)weak, and 2)once again, ashamed of their support for family planning.

So I hope family planning advocates will get in there and help the newly-powerful Dems articulate a strong defense of their family planning goals, so they can stop guiltily slipping funding into other bills and looking morally ambivalent.

***

Finally, since we're on the subject today of how Reps and Dems approach politics differently...remember how when Bush would sign some horrific bill into law and all the people on the right would cheer and hail the President for his action?

Yeah, we have a problem with that on the left. Acknowledging that we are all deeply traumatized from decades of Democratic betrayals, that it is our job as liberal advocates to hold Obama's feet to the fire, that it does no one any good to relax into triumphalism...acknowledging all that, reading all the liberal blogs and news sites that I do, I find myself on a regular basis nearly as depressed as I was when Bush was still president. Here's TPM's big headline today:

Obama Signs Ledbetter Act - But What About Broader Pay Equity Bill?

I mean, I'm in favor of more pay equity bills as much as the next guy. But even as the ink of Obama's signature is drying on this bill we've been fighting for for the last year or more, we're already on to another, better bill that's languishing. And look - I think it's good. We can't let our energy flag even for a moment at this pivotal transition.

It's just...I spoke to a friend last night who doesn't follow the news or blogs as obsessively as I do, and she's still totally high on Obama's win and all the great things he's signing and pushing Congress on. I envy that, I really do. I'm exhausted already.

In his well-distilled and explanatory post here. It's always hard to get the gist of any story these days, especially financial ones, and I'm sure glad Josh is thinking mightily on these matters.

The only conclusion I can provide as an answer to Josh's question is this: It's not missing yet, but what WILL be missing is money, from YOUR wallet. As in, a devaluation of the currency, hopefully by enough of a fraction that will not be noticed outright. It worked for Reagan and Poppy Bush when they had to bail out the S&Ls in the Wild and Whacky '80s. To me, the real question is this: Where did all that money GO?

More seriously, if the banks are suffering from a crisis of confidence, or solvency, or both, I'd like to remind Josh that all U.S. banks, if not worldwide, operate on a very slim margin of loans to assets-on-hand. It's all one giant Ponzi scheme, in a lot of ways. Money is only created these days, under the Fed system, when money is loaned out. The banks are allowed to state as assets TEN TIMES what they 'hold in the vaults', so to speak, and in general practice it gets a lot more than that.

So the problem is this: Why did this crisis happen NOW? What is it that's so especially toxic about an asset a bank has swapped for? Even if it's worthless, the bank still has, by law, a ten-to-one ratio of ability to lend money and thereby make interest profits, and stay in business.

Something's missing, all right.

by Nezua Media Consortium Media Wires Blogger

All over the nation, communities are clamoring to be heard. In this worsening economic landscape, migrant communities are being terrorized by violent raids, families are destabilized, wage earners are jailed or detained, and xenophobic pundits continue to fuel a rising wave of hate crimes against Latinos. The stakes could not be any higher: Now is the time to make our voices heard, especially after being ignored for so long by those with the power to make a difference. And so we are gathering in numbers in San Francisco and throughout California:

A coalition of groups that has been working with San Francisco's supervisors, community leaders, social service providers, and faith groups is gathering at City Hall to call for a halt to the raids and for support of fair and humane immigration reform. We will be joining our voices with thousands of others across California and across our country who found hope in the words of our new President Barack Obama during his inauguration speech [...] --Choosing Hope Over Fear in Immigration Policy Reform, New America Media, Jan. 21, 2009

And on the same day, marching on Washington, DC (with photos):

Over a thousand people are gathered in DC, a day after inaugurating our new president, to demand A New Day for Immigration. --Immigrants March for Reform in DC, RaceWire, Jan. 21, 2009

Sending letters from Albequerque, New Mexico:

[C]oncerned New Mexico groups are among thousands of people signed on to a letter to President Obama asking for drastic alterations [in U.S. immigration enforcement policy]. Jo Ann Gutierrez Bejar with t