Today, in a memo to the president, Robert Reich gave some advice to President Obama on how to achieve universal health care despite the cost concerns that came up this week: make health reform a priority, utilize your popular support and don't compromise! He identifies allies (the 76% of Americans who support a public health insurance option) and opponents (Republicans, the medical-industrial complex, the AMA).  And while I certainly support the approach of protecting your allies with a strong plan instead of watering things down to appease opponents, here is my advice to President Obama: you could find much more support for what you do want to do among physicians, if you were to look beyond the AMA.  

The AMA does not speak for all physicians. As a medical student, I was active in the AMA but became frustrated with the disconnect between their mission ("to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health") and what I perceived to be their primary lobbying objective (advocating for higher reimbursement rates for physicians).

The membership in the AMA is declining, and now includes no more than 25% of physicians. In the current debate about the government's role in health reform, the AMA has opposed a public health insurance option, but again, the organization does not represent my opinion, and likely does not represent the majority of physicians.

A study by Aaron Carroll and Ronald Ackerman, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in April 2008, demonstrated strong support for universal health care among a random sample of over 2000 physicians (including all specialties). When asked the question, "In principle, do you support or oppose government legislation to establish national health insurance?" 59% of physicians responded that they supported national health insurance while only 32% opposed. This was a 10% increase from a similar survey conducted 5 years earlier. Now, two years later (the survey was conducted in 2007), I am certain the support has increased further. Physicians are not afraid of government involvement in health care financing.

In the past week, attention has turned to the health reform bills coming out of Congress, and the National Physicians Alliance, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and a coalition representing over 215,000 physicians and medical students released a public statement in support of the President and in support of a strong public health insurance option:

"As doctors who work on the front lines of our fractured healthcare system, we are convinced by firsthand experience that our patients desperately need health care reform that protects them from falling through the cracks. This means reform that creates the freedom of choice to keep their current plan, choose another private plan, or have the choice of a carefully designed quality, affordable public health insurance plan."

While the AMA differs in their approach to health care reform, President Obama has much support within the physician community. As a doctor, it is troubling to me that I take care of extremely sick patients in the hospital but do not know where they will get their follow up care, or how they will pay for their medications, if they are uninsured or underinsured. As a medical educator, it is frustrating to me to waste time teaching medical residents how to fill out paper work and interact with insurance companies when we should be discussing clinical decision making and evidence based medicine. As an American, it angers me that so many other countries have similar (or better) medical care without the hassle or expense of our system. There are thousands of doctors like me who want to provide all of their patients with high quality care regardless of insurance status but just can't do so in the current system.

So, President Obama, be bold and demand universal coverage, including a public health insurance option. There are plenty of doctors who have your back.

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option? There's at least one thing that Republicans do much better than Democrats, and that's marketing their initiatives. It doesn't matter how regressive the idea, Republicans manage to frame it in a way that if you oppose it you look like you're either degenerate, or at the very least, un-American. For example, instead of accurately calling themselves "The Order of Religious Bigots Dedicated to Shoving Our Version of God Down America's Throat," they market their insanity as "The Moral Majority," and instead of being honest and calling themselves "The Public Vagina Brigade," they call themselves "The Right to Life" proponents (even though they're willing to let that very same life starve to death after it's born). Conservatives get a lot of milage out of their creativity in this area, and progressives would do well to follow suit. The initiative to legalize same-sex marriage would have been much more marketable, for example, if it had been dubbed "The Right to Love." And the same is true of healthcare reform. Proponents of a public option for healthcare could make life a lot more difficult for opponents in congress if instead of calling it "The Public Option" they simply dubbed it "The Congressional Option" - that way the issue would be self-explanatory. It would force every member of congress who placed the interest of the insurance industry over the welfare of his or her constituents to explain why they want to deny the American people the opportunity to opt into the exact same plan that congress and their families enjoy. But I only bring this issue up as an introduction to a much more serious problem - demagoguery. All of the public manipulation above is symptomatic of a system that's out of control. It's a clear example of how politicians who are suppose to represent the people, are using marketing and public manipulation to feather their own nests. The vast majority of politicians could care less about abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, or national healthcare reform. The only thing these people truly care about is being reelected - and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. The mere fact that these people, who we sent to congress to represent our interests, are willing to undermine our most fundamental right to long and healthy lives in order to ingratiate themselves with the insurance industry and feather their own nests, clearly demonstrates that our system is broken, and it requires our immediate attention. With our economy in the worst shape that it's ever been since the Great Depression, let there be no doubt about the fact that we're involved in a class war. But the only way that America is going to come out whole is if we come to grips with an objective truth - we're either going to win together, or we're all going to lose together. That makes it all the more important that we have statesmen and women in office, rather than self-serving demagogues who can't see beyond the next election, but the latter is exactly what we've created. We now have an entirely new class of people among us - the political class. With the exception of a handful of legislators, these people don't care about the rich, the poor, or the middle class - all they care about is who's in the best position to get them reelected in the next election cycle. They are totally self-serving, and America is suffering for it. The abject selfishness of these people have either created or contributed to every single problem that we have in America today. But Americans are beginning to recognize that fact, that's why congress is either at, or close to, its lowest point ever in the polls. It's becoming increasingly clear that these politicians have become so arrogant and self-serving that they've lost touch with the people that they're suppose to represent. They've completely forgotten that they're public servants, our employees, not America's aristocracy. The political class has, literally, come to think of themselves as royalty. Hyperbole? Let's look at the facts: During the Great Depression the House of Representatives voted to cut their own salary from $9,000 to $8,500 per year. In contrast, today a regular member of the house makes $174,000 a year. They've given themselves $16,000 in raises over the past five years. In addition to that, while their constituents are losing their jobs, their homes, and struggling to make ends meet, earlier this year congress gave itself an additional $93,000 (in addition to their salary) in "petty cash." Then, at the very same time that they were lavishing themselves in this unconscionable orgy of largess, they were coming up with countless excuses why our children shouldn't receive the same medical coverage as their own. First they tried to cloud the issue by claiming that providing the American people with a congressional option for healthcare was a form of socialism, but then, so is social security. They then claimed that a congressional option would lead to government bureaucrats stepping between patients and their doctors, yet, they don't seem to have any problem in that regard, nor do their families. The truth is, most of the members of congress could care less about any of that. All they really care about is their bottom line - being reelected. Thus, in this case, the best interests of their constituents have to take a backseat while they follow the money - money which is in the hands of large insurance companies that are determined to avoid having to either amend their business practices or lower their rates in order to compete with a government option. These politicians try to cover themselves by touting the virtues of the free market, but they know full well that while there are certain things that the business community can do much better than government, like marketing, manufacturing, and selling, there are other things that business is lousy at, like providing public service. Most of us have an innate understanding of that fact, that's why very few citizens would opt for a private military, police, or fire department. And there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services - there was ample evidence of that during the Bush administration. Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower. The reason for that is our military's top priority was maintaining the troops, while Halliburton's top priority is maximizing its profits. The very same dynamic is at work when it comes to insuring our citizens - and the politicians know it, but they don't care, because again, for them, it's about me first, and only then, the public good. I mean, am I the only one sick of these people dictating what is on and off the table? I don't think so. So what should we do about these demagogues? The only way the people can regain control of the system is by completely cleaning house. We need to use our primary system to vote most our sitting politicians out of office - both Democratic and Republican. That will send an unequivocal message to everyone holding public office who's running things. Thereafter, we need do away with all congressional perks, and instruct the newly elected politicians to vote themselves a salary and compensation package that reflects the median income of a middle class American, and salaries should be capped at an agreed upon percentage above the minimum wage. Only then will we be able to establish and maintain a representative body that is truly reflective of the people. In short, we need representatives who actually feel our pain - those who can only imagine it, just won't do. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com If you really want to be hip, hop into a book.

There is much to honor in Mousavi's statement issued today: his pledge never to hurt a countryman, his call for freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, rule of law.

And yet, he advances those principles in service of a delusion: that to uphold them is to return the revolution coopted by Ayatollah Khomeini to its pure origins, in which these principles flourished. From the start of his campaign, Mousavi has called for a restoration of the rule of law as established by the Islamic Republic. That is, for restoration of something that never was. Today, he laid out a vision of paradise lost, paradise to be regained:

30 years ago, in this country a revolution became victorious in the name of Islam, a revolution for freedom, a revolution for reviving the dignity of men, a revolution for truth and justice. In those times, especially when our enlightened Imam [Khomeini] was alive, large amount of lives and matters were invested to legitimize this foundation and many valuable achievements were attained. An unprecedented enlightenment captured our society, and our people reached a new life where they endured the hardest of hardships with a sweet taste. What this people gained was dignity and freedom and a gift of the life of the pure ones [i.e. 12 Imams of Shiites]. I am certain that those who have seen those days will not be satisfied with anything less. Had we as a people lost certain talents that we were unable to experience that early spirituality? I had come to say that that was not the case. It is not late yet, we are not far from that enlightened space yet.

The "enlightened Imam" would be the man who massacred tens of thousands of opponents and crushed all dissent, who prolonged ruinous war with Iraq for six fruitless years after turning back Iraq's initial territorial gains, and in that war sent teens and even preteens in waves of thousands to clear minefields with their bodies (the first Basiji, today's murderous militia); who imprisoned women in the hijab and generally set women's rights back fifty years: who murdered the leaders of the B'hai and made second-class citizens of the rest; who impoverished the country with his contempt for economic management; who united the people by demonizing the United States (against whom Iranians did have ample cause for resentment) and institutionalizing the murderous Antisemitism that now, adopted in full by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, threatens the world's stability -- who in short, made Khamenei look like a piker when it comes to crushing human rights and subverting the Republican government Mousavi professes to value.

Mousavi casts his current rivals as destroyers of "Republicanism"and hence of the Revolution:

If the large volume of cheating and vote rigging, which has set fire to the hays of people's anger, is expressed as the evidence of fairness, the republican nature of the state will be killed and in practice, the ideology that Islam and Republicanism are incompatible will be proven. This outcome will make two groups happy: One, those who since the beginning of revolution stood against Imam and called the Islamic state a dictatorship of the elite who want to take people to heaven by force; and the other, those who in defending the human rights, consider religion and Islam against republicanism. Imam's fantastic art was to neutralize these dichotomies. I had come to focus on Imam's approach to neutralize the burgeoning magic of these.

He treasures the notion that Islam and Republicanism are compatible. Perhaps they are. But Khomenei united them in demonic form by modeling the Islamic Republic after Plato's Republic -- the oldest blueprint we have for totalitarianism. The Guardian Council that falsified the vote count last week was a real-world enfranchisement of Plato's ruling class of philosopher kings. Khomeini's republicanism like Plato's, is based in absolute faith in the absolute wisdom of an educated elite invested with absolute power.

His rewriting of the history of the Islamic Republic notwithstanding, Mousavi has committed himself to the human rights that Obama today cast as the universal law of humanity:

As I am looking at the scene, I see it set for advancing a new political agenda that spreads beyond the objective of installing [sic] an unwanted government. As a companion who has seen the beauties of your green wave, I will never allow any one's life endangered because of my actions. At the same time, I remain undeterred on my demand for annulling the election and demanding people's rights. Despite my limited abilities, I believe that your motivation and creativity can pursue your legitimate demands in new civil manners.

We advise the authorities, to calm down the streets. Based on article 27 of the constitution, not only provide space for peaceful protest, but also encourage such gatherings. The state TV should stop badmouthing and taking sides. Before voices turn into shouting, let them be heard in reasonable debates. Let the press criticize, and write the news as they happen. In one word, create a free space for people to express their agreements and disagreements. Let those who want, say "takbeer" and don't consider it opposition. It is clear that in this case, there won't be a need for security forces on the streets, and we won't have to face pictures and hear news that break the heart of anyone who loves the country and the revolution.

Leaders can be transformed by the contract forged with their followers in the crucible of events. Mousavi's pledges to institute the rule of law and respect human rights constitute a religious man's strongest oath to his people, made with the world listening, in mortal political combat with those whom he charges with trampling those rights. Let's hope that if by some miracle he does come into power he will work to fulfill these pledges, whatever his delusions about the blood-soaked Khomeinist past -- and his own role in it.

From Nate Silver at 538 discussing the
various polling data on the public option plan.

6.20.2009

Public Support for the Public Option

by Nate Silver @ 3:52 PM

UPDATED at 5:45 PM to include Lake/HCAN poll

A major, though by no means the only, substantive point of debate regarding health care reform is whether the plan considered by Congress will include a "public option" -- a government-run insurance program that would compete with private plans. Barack Obama's plan on the campaign trail included a public option: "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan," it said.

Inclusion of a public option is a sine qua non for many progressives, who believe it would lower costs by increasing competition, or who may have an objection to the notion of requiring that people (since health care would have an individual mandate) purchase something through a private, for-profit entity. On the other hand, the public option has drawn the ire of conservatives and industry groups, who believe that it would gobble up profit margins from private industry and that it might have unfair competitive advantages. Both liberals and conservatives seem to acknowledge some possibility that a public option might gradually evolve into a version of a single-payer system; for liberals this is a big plus and for conservatives a big minus. The revised plan released by Max Baucus's Senate Finance Committee on Thursday did not include a public option, although the House's latest version does.

It is worth evaluating polling on the public option, which has begun to be widely cited in the blogosphere, particularly by liberals who believe most of the polling favors them. The balance of this post contains a summary of the five six polls that I am aware of on the public option, which produce widely disparate results and all of which require careful interpretation.

1. Kaiser Family Foundation Tracking Poll

Who They Are / What's Their Angle: A California based non-profit founded in 1948 by Henry J. Kaiser. The Foundation no longer has any association with Kaiser Permanente, which operates hospitals and insurance programs mostly in the South and the West. KFF released numerous materials on the candidates' positions on health care in advance of the 2008 election which generally took a neutral tone. KFF itself has not given money to political candidates, although its employees collectively donated $11,700 in 2008 and $9,550 in 2006 to Judith Feder, a public policy expert who is an adviser to KFF and ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in Virginia's 10th Congressional District.

Specifications: 1,205 American adults, including cellphone and Spanish-language samples, conducted from June 1-June 8. The sample was split in half, however, for the two formulations of the public option question as expressed below, and so sample sizes for each one are closer to 600.

Question Wording and Results:

"Now I'm going to read you some different ways to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance. As I read each one, please tell me whether you would favor it or oppose it [...]

"Creating a public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans."

Favor: 68% (40% strongly favor)
Oppose: 28% (17% strongly oppose)

"Creating a public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans."

Favor: 65% (32% strongly favor)
Oppose: 29% (17% strongly oppose)

Discussion: One suspects that KFF is pro-reform, but they seem to have taken care to frame their materials in ways that avoid partisan scrutiny. Their question wording is fairly straightforward but does not include the phrase "government", which might provide more clarity to the respondent about exactly what the public option is. Note, however, that they phrase the question in two different ways: to half their sample they include the phrase "similar to Medicare" and to the other half they don't. Responses were about the same between the two question wordings, although the half that had the Medicare language included were notably more likely to strongly favor the public option. Including a sample of cellphones and Spanish-language interviewers are nice perks. Although the sample sizes are not huge, particularly since the sample was split into halves, KFF found nearly identical results in their April tracking poll.

Non-partisanship rating:
Question wording:
Sample size, sample selection and disclosure:
Overall informativeness:

2. Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI)

Who They Are / What's Their Angle: A Washington, D.C. - based nonprofit, which is focused -- as their name implies -- on research on employee benefit programs. I can find no evidence of lobbying activities or campaign contributions by ERBI. They are funded by a largely corporate set of donors such as American Express, Chevron, IBM, Shell Oil and Towers Perrin, although they also receive financing from noncorporate groups like AARP and Blue Cross Blue Shield. An issue brief that EBRI prepared on the public option was neutral to slightly skeptical about it. The poll was conducted in conjunction with Mathew Greenwald & Associates.

Specifications: 1,000 American adults aged 21 and over. Interviews conducted from May 8th through June 2nd.

Question Wording and Results:

"Creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase."

Support: 83% (53% strongly support)
Oppose: 14% (9% strongly oppose)

Discussion: Information about this poll was a little bit harder to come by than it probably should be. For example, I had to look in a separate press release to find details about its sample size. Nor is it clear that the entire battery of questions was released in ERBI's summary brief. The selection of adults 21+, rather than 18+, is also unorthodox, and is a strange enough choice that I wonder about the other decisions ERBI made in constructing its sample. EBRI's poll was also the only one which did not specify that the public option would be designed to compete with private plans.

Non-partisanship rating:
Question wording:
Sample size, sample selection and disclosure:
Overall informativeness:

3. Consumers Union

Who They Are / What's Their Angle: Not a labor union; Consumers' Union is instead a Yonkers, NY-based non-profit group and the publisher of Consumer Reports. They take a somewhat unabashedly liberal view on health care reform and the poll was released in conjunction with Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. The Consumers Union' generally spends several hundred thousand dollars on lobbying activities each year.

Specifications: 2,009 American adults aged 18 and over. Interviews conducted from April 2nd to April 6th, 2009.

Question Wording and Results:

"Congress is discussing several ideas to address healthcare reform. One proposal provides everyone, whether insured or uninsured, an additional choice: the option of a public health plan that people can count on to cover what they need at more affordable rates. This option would allow people with good insurance that they like to keep it. Those without good insurance can gain access to reliable healthcare, regardless of preexisting medical conditions, and obtain a consistent menu of benefits. This public plan would be paid for by enrollees. Those that cannot afford to pay the full premiums would be subsidized based on their income.

Please rate your level of support for this proposal."

Support: 66% (33% strongly support)
Oppose: 16% (8% strongly oppose)

Discussion: This is more or less an explicitly partisan poll, both in terms of the organization backing it and in its question wording, which is leading and highly favorable to the public option. The large sample size is nice, but Consumers Union' should have picked more neutral phrasing.

Non-partisanship rating:
Question wording:
Sample size, sample selection and disclosure:
Overall informativeness:

4. Rasmussen Reports

Who They Are / What's Their Angle: Regular readers of this website will be very familiar with Rasmussen Reports, a standalone polling firm that releases a prolific amount of polling data on elections and public policy issues. Past FiveThirtyEight.com analyses have generally found Rasmussen's electoral polling to be quite reliable. However, some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys. Rasmussen Reports' founder, Scott Rasmussen, is a Republican, although neither he nor Rasmussen Reports have appear to have contributed to political candidates in recent years. Nor to my awareness does Rasmussen Reports conduct a significant amount of polling directly on behalf of political candidates.

Specifications: 1,000 American adults on June 12th and 13th. Assuming that procedures here were the same as for other Rasmussen polling, surveys were conducted via the IVR ("robocall") method and were weighted for partisan identification and other factors.

Question Wording and Results:

"Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?"

Yes: 41%
No: 41%

Discussion: I am not particularly fond of this question wording. For one thing, unlike the other polls, it focuses on the action of setting up the "government health insurance company" rather than the choice of insurance plans this ultimately presents to the consumer. For another, it is not clear that a new program would have to be "set up" in order to provide for a public option (i.e. an existing program like Medicare could be expanded), nor that any such entity would properly be described as a "company". The poll seems designed to juxtapose the terms "government" and "company" in a way that might elicit a negative response. (Note that I actually like the inclusion of the term "government" in conjunction with, or perhaps instead of, the term "public". The problem is not with the term "government" itself but instead with the overall way that the question is phrased.)

Non-partisanship rating:
Question wording:
Sample size, sample selection and disclosure:
Overall informativeness:

5. NBC / Wall Street Journal

Who They Are / What's Their Angle: Presumably you are familiar with NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. The NBC/WSJ polls themselves are conducted by Hart/McInturff, a pairing of Democratic pollster Peter Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff. Likewise, the NBC/WSJ pairing itself is a collaboration between a somewhat left-leaning and somewhat right-leaning news organization. This is an excellent model to avoid partisanship, both in appearance and in practice.

Specifications: 1,008 American adults on June 12th-15th, including a cellphone sample.

Question Wording and Results:

"In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

Extremely Important: 41%
Quite Important: 35% (76% Extremely or Quite Important)
Not That Important: 12%
Not At All Important: 8% (20% Not That or Not At All Important)

Discussion: I have no problem with the formulation of the question; in fact, I particularly like the wording "a public plan administered by the federal government" which makes clear that the public plan is in fact government-run. But I have a big problem with the choice of answers. "Importance" is a notoriously vague concept in public opinion polling and may be separate and distinct from asking someone whether or not they support a particular policy. How might someone respond to this question, for instance, if they had particularly strong feelings against a public option? Would they say that it was "not at all important", or would they say that it was "extremely important"? Conversely, how would someone respond if they had a weak preference for a public option, but didn't consider it an especially important component of health care reform? The 1,008 random adults that NBC/WSJ surveyed are going to interpret these dilemmas in a variety of different ways. In addition, the particular category of "quite important" is somewhat ambiguous and probably falls somewhere in between a favorable response and a neutral one.

Non-partisanship rating:
Question wording:
Sample size, sample selection and disclosure:
Overall informativeness:

6. Lake Research / HCAN

Who They Are / What's Their Angle: Lake Research Partners is a Democratic polling firm. Their poll was conducted on behalf of Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), an advocacy group that wants comprehensive health care reform and strongly favors the public option.

Specifications: Sample of 800 likely voters from January 8-13th, 2009.

Question Wording and Results:

"Which of the following three approaches to health care reform do you prefer: one, everyone getting health insurance through private health insurance plans; two, everyone getting health insurance through a public health insurance plan; or three, everyone having a choice of private health insurance or a public health insurance plan?"

73% choice of public or private
15% private only
9% public only

Discussion: Celinda Lake is an excellent pollster, but she is a Democratic pollster and this is a Democratic poll. I don't hate the question wording, but it really emphasizes the option part of the public option and somewhat de-emphasizes the public part; in this sense, it is sort of the alter ego to the Rasmussen poll. As in some of these other polls, it also may not be immediately obvious to the respondent that "public" means administered by the government. A couple of additional points of critique: the use of a likely voter model (as opposed to all adults or registered voters) is a bit unusual this far out of an election cycle, particularly when it regards how the public feels about a particular policy rather than how they want their elected officials to vote on it. And the poll is now a bit outdated, having been conducted in January.

Non-partisanship rating:
Question wording:
Sample size, sample selection and disclosure:
Overall informativeness:

Summary: The only poll I have a particularly high degree of confidence in is the Kaiser Family Foundation poll, which finds that between 65 and 68 percent of the public support a public option depending on how the question is phrased. The only thing I would change about their poll is to specify, as NBC/WSJ does, that the public plan would be administered by the government.

The other polls have one or more characteristics that give me pause about them. The question wording in the Consumers Union' poll is push-y and explicitly partisan; the question wording in the Rasmussen and Lake/HCAN polls is strange and probably implicitly partisan. The NBC/WSJ poll is otherwise terrific, but very difficult to interpret because they ask people about the importance of a public option, and not necessarily their support for one. I might be more comfortable with the ERBI poll if I learned more about it, but the comparative lack of disclosure coupled with the unusual choice to exclude adults 18-20 from the sample and a result that appears to be a mild outlier gives me some concerns about it.

Overall, polling points toward the public option being at least mildly popular and indeed perhaps quite popular. But more polling is required on this question, particularly by the news organizations and other unaffiliated groups like Pew and Gallup, and more care should be taken to frame both questions and answers in a neutral and informative way.

 

...see also health care, methodology, question wording, rasmussen

Federal District Judge Samuel B. Kent of Texas had to leave the bench, though not his salary behind.  He will be unable to preside in court because he has been in jail since last Monday, according to Ashley Southall of The New York Times: "serving 33 months in prison for lying to a judicial panel about his sexual assault of two female employees."  The NYT editorialized a week ago that he did not deserve his salary, but needed to be impeached and so he was.  If the U.S. Senate trial of Judge Kent finds him guilty of the House's recent impeachment charges, he will lose his $169,300 salary also.  Federal judges are appointed for life.  Judge Kent refused to resign before going to jail, claiming disability for bipolar disorder and depression, as well as alcoholism.  The judge will be "serving his sentence in a Massachusetts prison that specializes in alcohol and drug rehabilitation," Southall reveals. The House of Representatives, Southall reported,

approved four impeachment articles to remove Samuel B. Kent from the federal district court in Galveston, Tex.: two articles of sexual misconduct, one article of lying during a judicial inquiry, and one article of making material and false statements to federal investigators.

It was quite a journey  for him. As is so often the case it, was not the original offenses that put him away, but the lying about it.  The judge is a sexual offender.  He plead guilty "for lying to an investigative committee of judges about whether he had sexually harassed his secretary. . . In return, the government agreed to drop five charges that he had repeatedly groped his secretary and his case manager," the New York Times reported back in May.  The investigative panel, who did not get the full story,  originally suspended Kent without pay for 4 months, reprimanded him and did not release the details of the abuse.  But then came the indictment and several months later, the guilty plea of lying about it to the original judicial panel.

I was curious to see how he descended so far. In addition to the current impeachment stories, a New York Times search turned up an August 1993 story that I remembered, though I had not made the Judge Kent connection.  Judge Kent, who is from Corpus Christi, Texas,  was appointed in 1991 by George H.W. Bush.  The story concerned a lawsuit brought by Northwest and Continental Airlines against American Airlines for predatory pricing.  American was based at the time in the DFW Metroplex where I live.  Judge Sam Kent presided, famed lawyer David Bois was one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, and Robert Crandall was the colorful head of American Airlines. They clashed and Crandall won, as the jury, following Judge Kent's instructions, turned in a quick verdict for the defendant American Airlines.  To quote:

After an intense four-week trial, jurors decided in less than four hours today that American Airlines did not try to drive weaker competitors out of business with "predatory" prices during the air fare war last summer.

Continental decided not to appeal the verdict, according to a follow-up NYT story.

"I think the fact that the jury came in so quickly and rejected their accusations out of hand probably has had some effect in their thinking," said Andrew B. Steinberg, American Airlines' senior attorney, referring to Continental's decision not to appeal. "It was a clear vindication for American."

Mr. Jamail and David Boies, Continental's lead lawyer, said after the verdict that the only avenues they saw for appeal were Judge Samuel B. Kent's instructions to the jury, which they thought were too specific, and certain rulings on evidence.

. . . Mr. Steinberg also said American Airlines plans early next week to send a bill of its court costs to Judge Kent. He said the costs range from $200,000 to $500,000, which American Airlines wants to recover since it did not bring the suit.

Judge Kent, who said Tuesday he was not inclined to reimburse the costs, told American Airlines lawyers he would take the request under advisement and make a decision next week.

I think of the contrasts in Judge Kent's power and position between 1993 and 2009.  In 1993 Kent presided over a big corporate trial that garnered national coverage , just two years after he came to the federal bench.  After the trial was over he would have been the sole decider as to whether American Airlines would get the $200,000 to $500,000 it lost defending itself against its competitors.

Fast forward to last year and this year. Again it was power and position that came into play.  Sexual harrassment of paid employees is very often rooted in the power-over position of a superior over his subordinates.  I am not qualified to say what part Judge Kent's claimed mental illness paid in the episode.  Perhaps he will get whatever treatment he needs.  But he does not need to continue to collect his salary at taxpayer expense.  Let us hope the Senate acts quickly to remedy this outrageous and sordid saga.

crossposted from Democratic Underground:

 

NYT editorial (June 18):
"We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration's decision to side with Alaska in this case -- continuing the Bush administration's opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19fri1.html?_...

Glen Greenwald (Today, June 20):
"There's one important fact missing from all of that analysis: namely, this was yet another case where the Obama DOJ sided with the Bush administration and advocated the position that the conservative justices adopted. The Obama DOJ aggressively argued before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis. Indeed, its decision to embrace this extreme Bush position caused much controversy and anger back in February."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/20/dna/i...

This is sad. 

Arizona border zealots,white supremacists, and Janet Napolitano
Eighth-grader builds solar-powered trike with GPS, iPod dock
Sea Shepherd victory in Canadian courts
South Africa : mining and water safety do not mix
Smart Grid City
Augmented Reality
Yurt living - getting started
Beyond Paradox - painting with a broader palette
Food Safety Bills  >   Food Safety Enhancement Act HR 2749 advances out of committee
Environmentalism seen as Police State precursor Programming Wingnuttia

I cannot but admire the courage and guts of the people of Iran as I view the pictures of them peacefully assembling in the face of violent repression.  Young and old, male and female they march by the thousands and are being beaten, arrested, and even killed. 

I admire their willingness to literally stand and fight for their right to vote and to have that vote counted. 

Americans can learn from the Iranian people.  Their rights were trampled and their votes stolen and did they simply sit at home and watch tv?  No!  They are in the streets declaring that they will not tolerate their rights being ignored.  Under their law they have the right to elect a President.  They know very well that the election results were fraudulent and they are unwilling to simply accept that their rights are meaningless.  Where would America be today if, in the wake of the unconstitutional intervention of the Republican majority on the Supreme Court, had we the courage, and the willingness the Iranians have demonstrated?

All hail the people of Iran!  May God be with them in their hour of need!

In a previous blog, I discussed my disgust at an organization of women who I believe are nowhere close to feminist ideals but who purport to be feminists. Personally, I think they are neo-cons attempting to draw in the still-disaffected Hillary supporters. I'd like to go the opposite way and talk about my kid.

My daughter was born in 1986. Her father and I, never on stable ground to begin with, married in order to make her legitimate, but we only lasted three years in the marital state. When she was three years old, we seperated.

I wasn't the greatest mom. There were times when I was neglectful, inattentive, and withdrawn. There were times when I would get angry and yell at her. Until I got much older and did some major life changes, my poor choices caused my little girl a lot of pain.

I make no excuses nor will I go into details about that part of my life. I want to talk about what she has become, and why.

For all my faults, there were certain things I adhered to religiously. I never called my daughter names or insulted her or called her "stupid" or criticized her harshly. I swore I would never raise my child that way. Having grown up thinking one of my names was "goddamn kid", I was adamant that my little girl was not going to hear that from her parents. Her father was of the same mind as I. Together, despite our disliking each other for a while after the divorce, we remained united as far as our kid.

Consequently, my kid grew up hearing that she was smart, and funny, and clever, and inventive, and graceful, and that she could do anything. She heard us loud and clear. Here was a child who was born with strabismus (eyes that cross) and was forced to wear pop bottle glasses from age two, yet she never let that physical defect deter her from her own self-image which was that she was cool. She never lacked for friends from the time she was born. Other kids were drawn to her because she was outgoing, assertive, confident, and playful. She wasn't afraid to stand up for what she believed in, either. One of her teachers told me of an incident at school where a few of the kids were making fun of another kid who had a weight problem, calling the boy "fatty" and other derogatory names. My daughter marched up to the chief offender, a boy a few inches and a few pounds heavier than she, and began lecturing him loudly: "Don't you know it's wrong to make fun of people for the way they look? He can't help the way he is, just like I can't help it that I have to wear glasses! It's mean to make fun of people!" She backed that kid up, and the name-calling stopped. She was fearless, especially when she knew she was right.

Because her dad and I told her she could do anything, she decided she could. Every sport she tried, she strove to be the best. When she announced that she was going to join the band at school when she was in the fourth grade, both her father and I knew that she would not only join, but she'd work her butt off to be a good musician. Sure enough, she is now graduating as a music education major and will begin teaching in less than a year. She plays tenor saxohone and clarinet, and is an accomplished jazz musician.

Another thing I knew I wanted to instill in my daughter was a love of all kinds of people. I wanted her to grow up knowing that everyone has a place in this corner of the universe. She grew up around all kinds of people and knew that all kinds of people were just fine the way they were. Her friends are as diverse as her interests, and she is a loyal and steadfast and compassionate friend to them all. I wanted her to be free of the bigotry and hatred and prejudices of my forebears and my own generation. She never picked up on any of those nasty ideas. She and her friends are blissfully free of the diseases of the past.

My daughter never needed to be taught about her rights as a woman, or her place in the universe. She stepped into life with all the authority of one who is positive that nothing can hold her back. She continues to be that way. In a debate, she is a formidable opponent. In Scrabble and music and politics and sports, she is a force to be reckoned with. In many ways, I see that she has surpassed her mother and grandmother and all those others before because of the natural courage she bears inside her. She remains fearless.

Recently, she and her husband gave me the gift of a little boy, my first grandchild. Now, I watch her apply all that she has become and all that she knows to motherhood, and I am moved to tears. This little boy will become a wonderful man. I know he will.

Gender politics and feminism aside---I choose to see my daughter's gifts as being the sum total of those who have gone before her, with her own strong, vital, loving stamp on them. When we, as parents, can raise our children to be better than us---we have succeeded as parents. I look upon my daughter as a marvelous gift that I launched into the world, but she is her own woman, and her gifts will enhance the next generation and those beyond.

If you believe the CIA (and who doesn't?), Mohammad Mosaddeq was deposed as Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 by a handful of brilliant CIA operatives operating in Tehran on a shoe-string budget.

This nonsense is based on a classified "report" (by the otherwise obscure Dr. Donald N. Wilber), which James Risen published in the New York Times way back in April, 2000, and it periodically resurfaces in the progressive blogosphere as a tool for terrifying progressive children with the CIA bogeyman! A current post on Booman Tribune is the most recent example.

Dr. Wilber was on the scene in Tehran with the CIA super-spy Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt, a master of disguises and assumed identities who periodically shouted "Oh Roosevelt!" at himself, even though he was operating under the name of "James Lockridge."

The report chronicled gruesome details of the events in 1953: how, by spending a meager sum of $1 million, the CIA "stirred up considerable unrest in Iran, giving Iranians a clear choice between instability and supporting the shah"; how it brought "the largest mobs" into the street; how it "began disseminating 'gray propaganda' passing out anti-Mossadegh cartoons in the streets and planting unflattering articles in local press"; how the CIA's "Iranian operatives pretending to be Communists threatened Muslim leaders with 'savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh'"; how the "house of at least one prominent Muslim was bombed by CIA agents posing as Communists"; how the CIA tried to "orchestrate a call for a holy war against Communism"; how on August 19 "a journalist who was one of the agency's most important Iranian agents led a crowd toward Parliament, inciting people to set fire to the offices of a newspaper owned by Dr. Mossadegh's foreign minister"; how American agents swung "security forces to the side of the demonstrators"...

According to Dr. Wilber's crazy claims, the CIA must be the most incredibly brilliant bunch of spies in the history of the world.

For a mere $1 million, they made the whole nation of Iran dance like monkeys!

Huge mobs flooded the streets!

Muslim leaders panicked!

Opposition newspapers were destroyed!

Harharharhar!!!

So how did the CIA decline from a bunch of Supermen like Dr. Wilber and Kermit Roosevelt, and turn into those "slam dunk" clowns in Langley who can't find their butts with both hands?

Osama bin Laden was riding around Afghanistan on a white horse year after year, and our CIA Supermen couldn't hit him with cruise missiles, stealth bombers, hired assassins, or even so much as a rock!

And 8 years later, after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and with every conceivable high-tech big-ticket toy that the "intelligence community" ever even dreamed they wanted, the same 6'4" Arab attached to a kidney-dialysis machine is still wandering around somewhere, and those same CIA Supermen have absolutely no idea where that somewhere could be!

Harharharhar!!!

Over at Greg Sargent's blog we are shown this:

CIA Postpones Release Of Big Torture Report That Could Undercut Cheney

And over at the New Yorker , we are shown this: The Secret History, containing this about Panetta:

"The record of outsiders taking over the C.I.A. is mixed. John McCone, a California shipping magnate who ran the agency in the Kennedy and Johnson years, is often cited as being among the most successful directors; having been trained as a mechanical engineer, he was skilled at assessing threats posed by both conventional and nuclear weapons. But other outsiders have been met with intense hostility. James Schlesinger was named C.I.A. director by President Richard Nixon after heading the Atomic Energy Commission. Given instructions to "get rid of the clowns," Schlesinger dismissed or forced into retirement more than five hundred analysts and a thousand clandestine officers. He faced death threats, and his tenure lasted six months. In 1995, President Clinton appointed John Deutch, who had previously served at the Pentagon. Deutch tried to improve the oversight of clandestine operatives after evidence surfaced that an agent in Guatemala had covered up two murders. Deutch was reviled by many operatives, and he left the agency after eighteen months. Eventually, he was accused of mishandling classified documents and stripped of his security clearance. "You pick on the C.I.A. at your own peril," Michael Waldman says."

Note the last sentence: "You pick on the C.I.A. at your own peril," Michael Waldman says."

Are we having an "Oh, really?" moment yet?

Then consider Valerie Plame.

That's politics. You're welcome, and please pass the popcorn.

Where was the medias outrage of the riot police running amok in Minnesota during the rethuglican convention.Orthe London police murdering bystanders just a couple of months ago.Why is it that the same brutality from a white cop from western regimes is understandable and excused as being result of the passion of the moment even when it is known, and proven, that it was planned ( RNC paying special insurance to protect the brutality of the Minnesota uniformed thugs) but outrage is mounted if the thugs are from a Moslem state.Just as the Christianist's of America are the true soul brothers of Al Quaida so are the uniformed thugs of the US the mirror image of the Iranian riot storm troopers( i.e. US Army manuel describing domestic protest as low level terrorism)The difference is that Iranians are showing more commitment and courage to Freedom and elections then the cowering cowards that are the citizens of the US.

Perfect example of how Congress is out of touch and too concerned with their own status.  Senator Boxer is so petty and obviously suffers from low self-esteem.  Congress will never get anything done if they keep up attitudes like Senator Boxer's.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/17/please-call-me-senator/

I think the mistake happened early.  I understand why it happened.  But it was a mistake.  We need to back up.  We started this debate about the millions of uninsured.  How do we get the uninsured covered.  This was an error.

The problem isn't the uninsured.  The problem is that the insured are paying too much and getting too little in return.  We should be offering public healthcare that's cheaper and more generous than what insurance companies provide.  The message always should have been, and this is an honest message that for profit health insurance is a giant rip-off.

Here's how I see it: If we get health reform that gave insurance to every uninsured American but leaves the rest of us with exactly the same coverage we have now, we'll have failed.  I want, at least a public option.  If it's not as good as what I get now, I won't take it.  If it's better, I will.  But we are really far from that at this point.  It looks as if healthcare reform will leave the majority of us right where we started.

I know this sounds a bit ungracious -- covering the uninsured would be a definite accomplishment but it's nowhere near enough.  Everybody in America needs a better deal, not just those who have been left out.

Talk about grasping at straws.

World Net Daily is a Right-wing nutjob Web site run by that Right-wing nutjob, Joseph Farrah. Farrah is, of course, a failed newspaper editor and wanna-be Important Book Publisher.

Well, WND has a writer named Aaron Klein who purportedly writes from Jerusalem. Klein's latest offering on WND.com carries this headline: "Obama Tied to Ayers ... At Age 11."

Ayers is, as you will recall, Bill Ayers, the former Weather Underground member who received so much publicity during the last presidential race, mainly thanks to that Right-wing nutjob in high heels, Sarah Palin.

Anyway, in this ... thing ..written by Klein, the "author" attempts to link Obama -- 11-year-old Obama -- to Ayers in a most circuitous (and idiotic) way.

Rather than me try to explain it to you, let's let Klein exhibit his, um, grasp, of the links:

While Obama's membership as an adult in the controversial Trinity United Church of Christ has received widespread media attention, almost nothing has been reported about his Sunday school attendance at First Unitarian, a far-left activist church that may have helped provide the president's initial political education.

First Unitarian, a member of the Unitarian Universalist denomination, served as a sanctuary for draft dodgers and was strongly tied to the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, during the time Weatherman radical Bill Ayers was a leader in that organization. The Weathermen was an offshoot of the SDS.

So let me get this straight. We should think there's some sort of nefarious, covered-up connection between President Obama and Bill Ayers because Obama, when he was 11, attended Sunday school at a church that Klein alleges was "strongly tied" to Students for a Democratic Society, an "offshoot" of which was the Weathermen, and of which Ayers was a member.

Uh huh.

As is the modus operandi of Right-wing propagandists such as Klein and WND, the whole story is not told. The Weathermen were not an "offshoot" of the SDS in the sense that the former organization supported the latter. Just the opposite. The Weathermen were what was left after a power struggle in the national office of the SDS, and received much of its support from that insular group. The chapters for the most part did not support them and soon disbanded. So it's more accurate to say that the Weathermen were the remains of the SDS after an internal battle.

But Klein clearly isn't interested in accuracy, (as he demonstrates in his Twitter posts, where he can't even remember at what age Obama attended this Sunday school) as he demonstrates in this passage:

The SDS connection to Obama's boyhood church is instrumental. During last year's presidential campaign, Obama notoriously brushed off Ayers' extremism as irrelevant since most of the Weathermen radical's violent actions were carried out when Obama was a kid.

"This is a guy (Ayers) who lives in my neighborhood ... the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago - when I was 8 years old - somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense," Obama said in 2008.

Obama, however, likely learned values during his Sunday school days at the First Unitarian in the early 1970s.

Obama "likely" learned his values during his Sunday school days? What the hell is that, Klein? What kind of hack writer submits this slop? What kind of hack media outlet actually prints it?

To paraphrase a former NJ governor. "Aaron Klein and World Net Daily. Perfect together."

Keep the faith.

Because so much of what we read and write about focuses on what is wrong with X or Y, I wanted to make a contribution, and encourage others to make contributions, about what we consider to be right. 

For example: MSM journalism in general and specific print journalists, in particular, have been under unsparing scrutiny recently and that's fair enough; it's a fact that a great deal of the apologist/puff piece criticism is justified. 

However, it is also true that there are still journalists at work, every day, who combine keen intelligence with careful observation and thorough research whose distilled opinions are those we can respect and in which we can have more than a measure of confidence. Therefore, my original intention in this post was to: a) cite some of the American journalists who still set a standard of excellence amidst their less punctilious colleagues; and, b) offer links to articles they have written that illustrate that point.  

But, as I began to review the recent work of Roger Cohen, Errol Morris and Frank Rich of the NYT, Leonard Pitts, Jr. of the Miami Herald, as well as several others at other publications who, in my opinion, demonstrate both depth of understanding and cut-to-the-chase clarity, I was side-tracked, because I was struck by their coincident examination of the same topic -- personal and/or national responsibility -- which, in their minds at least, is the compelling issue du jour. 

Roger Cohen wrote about the courage that is being demonstrated, quietly, by those who are currently protesting the election results in Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

Errol Morris wrote a series of seven articles that began as a character study of art forger, Han van Meegeren, but which ended in a re-appraisal of the WWII-era Dutch character in general, examining to what degree they, as a people, did or did not collaborate with the Nazis, and to what degree they did, or did not, later rewrite and revise that relationship in an effort to whitewash it: http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/bamboozling-ourselves-part-1/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/bamboozling-ourselves-part-2/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/bamboozling-ourselves-part-3/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/bamboozling-ourselves-part-4/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/bamboozling-ourselves-part-5/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/bamboozling-ourselves-part-6/

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/bamboozling-ourselves-part-7/

postscript http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/ 

Frank Rich wrote about the implicit danger of silence, particularly when the resounding significance of that silence is drowned out by a cacophony of diversionary shouting on matters of little importance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=2             .

And Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote about the inside/out, upside/down posturing of the Right, effectively pointing out that "saying it's so does not make it so":

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1100608.html

Together, these articles quietly, but insistently begin to address two points of real importance that have been studiously avoided for far too long:

1) the fact that personal responsibility versus denial of responsibility  has either always been, or has become, the elephant in our western culture living room - the one we are ever more determined to ignore, sweeping it under the rug, even when its vast size is still apparent, under cover, and its extended tail is still clearly visible, and twitching.

2)  the difference in efficacy between shouting and whispering, and why the quieter option is more effective.

So, is journalism of excellence an anachronism, DOA?

If just these four journalists are an example, I think not. I really have hope. Because all of them, jointly and severally, not only meticulously document facts, but also leave, in their traces, attendant questions that assert themselves later -- after the fact of reading what was written -- a treasure trove of thought-provoking subtext to the finely-wrought syllables these wordsmiths crafted. 

The following questions, for example, are those that these particular articles raised in my mind: 

Beyond the issue of perceived personal danger, why is it our choice to remain silent when we are confronted with irrefutable wrong, when our instinct is to protest it?

Why is denial of responsibility for that silence and its consequences not only so predictable but also so readily condoned?  And why does that denial of responsibility seem to require an externalization of blame?

Why is shouting the preferred cover for complicity?

Is the lamentable tendency to shout (IN ALL CAPS as well as in speaking) not only more prevalent, but also more acceptable today than it was in the past?

Why do we, as Americans, insistently shout to accomplish our goals when we might more effectively whisper?  

What is the fundamental relationship between shouting and denial of responsibility?  Is shouting always a cover for complicity, or is it an indication that frustration levels, regardless of political persuasion, are at a boiling point?

Conversely, why is whispering so underrated? When we all know that we strain to hear he, or she, who speaks softly, lest we miss something important, while we clap our hands over our ears, or walk out, or shout in return, to avoid any version of garlic clove/silver stake worthy shrieking?   

 Please take the time to read these articles by these remarkable journalists. And then jump in, and list the questions raised in your mind, as well as the list of things that, in your mind, are more right than wrong.    

Subject: You fired Dan Froomkin?

Shocked. I am shocked. Tell me; when do you merge with The Washington Times? Any day now?

Pathetic. Hire him back, TODAY, if you want the least bit of credibility with me and literally millions of other readers. Otherwise...the dustbin of history awaits you. Katharine Graham is rolling over in her grave today. You blithering idiots!

His reply:

Thanks for writing. As you may know, as ombudsman I operate independently from The Post's newsroom and management. But I regularly inform them of what I'm hearing from readers. Currently, I'm receiving a large number of e-mails from readers like you who are unhappy with Mr. Froomkin's departure. I appreciate your comment and will share your views.

Best wishes,

Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman

Me:

Thanks for your reply. If I may offer one more bit of advice before the Washington Post falls into irrelevance:

Write a column about it, and take a stand. This is ridiculous, and if you don't know it, you aren't comprehending the situation. Froomkin was the only person in Washington who skewered what needed to be skewered, who talked about what needed to be talked about, who informed us about what we needed to be informed about.

We aren't stupid. If Obama makes a mistake, or if Obama continues a Bush policy that is absolutely abhorrent (and about 99% of them were, that is NO joke), if Obama uses an excuse as lame as 'we wish to avoid Dick Cheney being made fun of on late night television and comedy shows', and nobody else is reporting this...then you NEED Dan Froomkin.

You just lost a lot of readers. Your management needs to know this. If they don't care, then they obviously don't see the direction newspapers are taking these days. They'll be at the elephant graveyard before they ever know it.

The ombudsman's reply was a bit bland, but it could have been worse. Like the response I got from the New York Times in 2001: I wrote and asked their ombudsman why, after eight years of investigating President Clinton for what was ultimately bogus Whitewater corruption charges, they were not investigating Vice President Cheney as intensely for his involvement in Halliburton's $100 million Enron-style writedowns?

I have the email somewhere, but this is the gist of it, swear to God:

We'll investigate Vice President Cheney when the Democrats start hollering about it, and not before.

Some wankering, eh? Swear to God.

Mr Hoekstra, the senior Republcian on the House Select Committee on Intelligence who continues to prove that the Committee is neither select nor intelligent on the Republican side, was recently ridiculed for his Twitter entries comparing the US House Republicans to the Iranian protesters.

 

A Capitol Hill friend advised me that House Republicans have been encouraged to actively use the "new media" to enhance their appeal to the younger voters and that those who have "embraced" Twitter call themselves 'Twits."  Often this gets delegated to young staffers to ghost the entries.

 

Although "Twit" may have a new meaning, it is an old British slang term which is not one of endearment.  The Wiki entry is the "cleaned up" version; the "unclean" version is rather vulgar.  Either is appropriate for the House Republicans.

Noticed this Iowa story about a reported assault.  The fight began when a heated religious discussion moved past the point of appropriate social norms.

Police said Peters asked the victim, who was not identified, a question about Jesus' anatomy. Police said Peters then attempted to grab the victim inappropriately to "save his soul." The victim pushed Peters away and told him numerous times to stay away, police said. Peters then pulled a knife and tried to attack the victim.

I'm not well versed on the particular sect of Christian thinking that exalts this form of salvation therapy.  It's not the Catholics at work again is it?

Enjoy.

When those of us born in the rough wake of World War II were growing up, many of us divided the world and its rules into those which applied to "adults" and those which we were bound to follow. In "their" world, for instance, blue jeans (or dungarees) were "play clothes" not to be warn by an adult ever, and by anyone in even the most semi-formal occasion, let alone in a circumstance where one might meet new people.

As goofy and out of touch as they might be, however, the thing about "adults" which was most essential to our lives was that in a crisis they knew what to do and if worse came to worse, they would be there for you with an answer (maybe not the right one, but something.)

Read more »

Well its been awhile since I last posted anything, Decided today was a good day to start again.

 I'm back at work after my vacation (boy was it nice) and we're back on overtime. The slowdown didnt last long.

  My question for the day is what are friends? And is it better to never have had any then it is to have them then lose them over a small disagreement?

  I have been here a few months and had many friends but here lately a few of them quit talking to me over a small disagreement and I miss them but dont know what to do about it.

 So I wonder if it would have been better to never have met them then I wouldnt miss them .

Now what I need to know is if this is the right way to think about it or am I wrong?  I know that I have had goodtimes talking to them in chatroom before so Im probably wrong

 I know the friends I've lost in life for other reasons like moving or changing jobs have added something to my life by being my friend. So the same thing must apply here.

 Well thats enough whinning for now. hopefully my next blog will be on a better subject, And to the friends I've lost here believe me when I saw I miss talking to you.

  I hope everyone is having a nice day..

This interview was conducted by p-mail, and peetweet (we are working on a nose-to-you-know-what chat in the near future).  Special thanks go out to Sara, Leo, Maxie, Cookie, Rex, Fido, Butch, Taffy, Lilly, Puppy, Watson, and DickDay, their owners, and understanding gardeners for all their help. - Murry

Murry: Bo, thank you on behalf of all your four-legged fans for granting us this, your first interview.  We're all wagging to know, what's it like being FIDOUS (FIrst Dog Of the United States)? 

Bo: It's pretty cool.  We live in a big house with a really big yard and lots of people visit so there are always new smells.

Murry: What are Sasha and Malia like, they look so sweet.

Bo: They are so wonderful, we play all kinds of games like fetch, and hide the treat.  And, they are so loving...

Murry: Do you sleep in bed with them?

Bo: Of course.  I go from bedroom to bedroom.  But I have to be careful to not wander into the hall.  A man wearing sunglasses and a thing in his ear always wants to check my dog tag.

Murry: I smelled that the girls like to dress you up.

Bo:  I'd prefer not talking about that.  I may want to run for office someday.

Murry: What's Michele Obama like?

Bo:  Really loving, and caring.   But tough.  You don't want to cross her.  But she doesn't hold a grudge.

Murry: There was that incident in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Bo: That wasn't my fault, Murry.  I smelled a cat.  It was my duty to leave a scent.  You know.  Sadly, Mrs. Obama did not believe me.  Even after I gave her my best sad look.

Murry: That's not fair, the Clinton's had a cat.  When you see President Clinton ask him if he ever had Socks in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Bo: I really like Mrs. Clinton.  Very nice to me.  You know she just broke her paw.

Murry: Please give her our best.  Does she have to wear one of those plastic cone collars?

Bo: I'll check.

Murry:  Now, for the big question, what's President Obama like?

Bo:  As you know, Murry he is the leader of all our packs.  Except when we go walking.  Then I'm the leader of the leader of the free world.  He has a problem keeping up.  I sent you a picture. (laughs)  He really is a great dad.  You should see how far he can throw a ball.

Murry: Just make sure he picks up your poop.  Don't want to give the Republicans anything to use against him.

Bo: Republicans.  Don't like them.  They smell bad, and are mean to my dad.  Ever watch Fox news?  I would of marked the TV but Mrs. Obama was in the room.

Murry: We know you are new to Washington but do you have any thoughts on politics?

Bo: Well my dad is working really hard on this health care thing for people. Maybe when he's done he can come up with a plan for all us four-legged folk.  Mandatory Veterinary Care. I need to talk to Uncle Teddy.

Murry: I like it.  You're really getting the hang of Washington.

Bo: I've got Kennedy bloodline.

Murry:  We can't thank you enough for spending time with us.

Bo:  It was my pleasure, Murry.  We'll have to do it again.  Now, if you can excuse me, I just heard there is a fly bothering my dad in the East Room.
 
                      Bo Leading The Leader Of The Free World

My Father's family arrived in Canada via steamship from England in 1911.  My Scotch Grandmother was six months pregnant with my Dad.  In tow were two small lads, Grandma's mother, and my Grandfather. With my Grandfather being an ex-Royal Navy man (HMS Tamar), I often wondered why they didn't wait to sail on the majestic, unsinkable Titanic a year later in 1912.  Grandma's mother often chided her that she was just "too bloody cheap", suggesting that she took the opportunity to make the passage while pregnant with my father to save paying an additional fare for him.

My father's dad raised champion Spaniels and sailed the Great Lakes aboard the "lakers".  After a night of drinking with his favorite drinking buddy, a doctor no less, my grandpa died from self-induced poisoning.  He figured my grandma had stashed his whiskey in an old brown Lysol bottle and drank it.   She called Doc when she realized something was wrong and his response was "ah just let him sleep it off."  He never woke from this sleep leaving behind a wife and four boys. 

To help his Mother and brothers, Dad went out on the "lakers" at the age of 16 aboard the New York News and the Chicago Tribune shoveling coal to provide power to run the big ships that plied the Great Lakes.  We lived in St. Catharines, Ontario where the Welland Canal joins Lake Ontario with Lake Erie, essentially carrying boats over Niagara Falls (Niagara Escarpment).  The ships ascend or descend 280 feet via eight locks between the lakes.  Shipping was a way of life for many people in our community.

After Dad met my Mother, it was he who introduced Mom to her own Father. Her dad had left his family when Mom was an infant and his whereabouts were unknown. My Mother had always assumed her father was dead.  Dad realized that a shipmate had the same last name as my Mother as well as a familial resemblance. Through his curiosity my Dad discovered this man was indeed my Mother's father. 

Dad grew up always proud of what he had done and of what he was doing.  He had a great sense of humor, pride, love of life, and a thirst for knowledge that wouldn't quit. He had mastered woodworking skills, home repairs and remodeling, and taking the car's engine apart to clean it.  He left the ships to be home with our family and turned to trucking. Eventually, he went with the CNR railroad for twenty years shuttling local freight between the paper mills, General Motors, and the fruit farms throughout southern Ontario.  As a youngster, I spent many of my summer days riding along on the train after delivering lunch to Dad.  My love of trains is still strong to this day.

My brother and I were very fortunate growing up with two wonderful parents. 

As I reflect on my Dad's upbringing, it is remarkable that here was a man who had no good role models in his own life but mastered being a great Dad himself.  My dad instilled in us a great work ethic, honesty, and love of nature, strong family ties, and fun.  Our lives were full of "free" things.  We had a perpetual ice rink in our back yard for the duration of the winter.  Dad monitored it in such a way that everyone had fun.  Little kids had priority immediately after school and would then relinquish their rights to the older kids and a couple of rough games of hockey.  The evenings were reserved for the adults and Dad thought it was great having the old RCA radio hooked up outside to supply skating music.

The summers were filled with outings, picnics and evenings at the beach (Lake Ontario) four miles away.  The beach was a great place to simonize the old '39 Plymouth, which was his pride and joy.  The neighbors would round up the kids and we would head to the beach.  We had lots of fun swimming, etc. and when darkness fell, we toasted Marshmallows by a campfire.  The kids would fall asleep under the stars and the adults took to "talking stupid" until the wee hours of the morning. 

Sundays were always reserved for a ride in the country or visiting family and friends.  We had two good-sized families and everything was celebrated together.  My dad's side would get a little hectic as the boys were always playing tricks on their mother and all of the grandkids would contribute in some way.

Even though dad's formal years of education were lacking, he always strived to better himself.  He was an avid reader, always listened to the radio and loved to talk to people in all walks of life.  We would tease him about his pronunciation of words but it didn't faze him.  For example, he was talking at the dinner table about the "jew di cal" system.  We teased him re the pronunciation of judicial.  His response was "what's the problem--you knew what I was talking about" as he carried on.

I don't ever remember my dad being angry and I was fortunate that he loved my mother dearly.  Nor do I remember my parents ever fighting.  That was terrific but, as a therapist once told me, I lacked confrontation skills because of it.  That's ok though--I had a childhood that I am so thankful for and wouldn't trade for the world and my memories are priceless.

My parents moved to Ft. Lauderdale Florida (after several vacations compliments of CNR railroad passes) and had a very happy and fulfilling life until they passed away--dad in '86 and mom in 2002 and brother in 2003.  He related to my husband Jeff just what a lucky man he was, as he had done everything in life that he had ever wanted to do.  I miss them terribly and when they died, part of me died too.

My dad left me with an important legacy.  He became friends with Ray Kroc (founder of McDonalds), a friendship that was initiated by my Father who was employed to clean Mr. Kroc's carpets.  Mr. Kroc always invited Dad to eat and to sit with him for sometimes lengthy chats -  a habit that used to drive his co-worker (my brother) crazy.   After his many visits at Mr. Kroc's home in Fort Lauderdale (complete with Golden Arches flag), dad would come home with many stories about their conversations, celebrities basking in the sun by the pool, etc.  I asked dad one time "Dad don't you feel inferior to Ray?"  He quickly responded with "Hell No, he's no better than I am-he just had better opportunities. Besides, I've always been satisfied that I have received anything and everything I've ever wanted or needed. Life is good!"  His response didn't do much for me at the time, but as I grew older, I realized just how wise and what a great man my dad was.  This Man is MY HERO.

For those of you interested in the Food Safety Modernization Act and the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act, you might want to take a look at this comment left by John Serrao on a recent blog of mine.  H.R.875 is gone, replaced by H.R.2749 and it is moving through committee at a good pace.

John Serrao's blog on this is here.

H.R.2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, is here.

The biggest difference I found was that the FDA stays intact.  It's a good bill, especially if you are concerned about food safety. Concerns by small farmers and backyard gardeners were also addressed.  What is most astonishing, is that it was put together in a truly bipartisan fashion.

Will wonders never cease?

I hope not.

A great big Thank You goes out to John for bringing us this information!

Since the early 1990s, the sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ has been on a crusade against illegal immigrants.  Sheriff Joe Arpaio has apparently neglected other law enforcement duties to follow this mission.  His controvertial policies include sweeping up Mexican-american citizens along with undocumented aliens, and holding them in tent cities behind barbed wire in the Arizona heat, feeding them rotten food, and denying medical and mental health care.  People have died there.

The guilty and the innocent have been made to sport pink underwear, and work on chain gangs.  Inmates have been hog-tied, pepper-sprayed and beaten by guards; those who "assault" guards are put on bread and water rations.

Our current head of Homeland Security has had a long relationship with Arpaio, and was in a position many times as a U.S. Attorney, then as governor, to shut down Arpaio's show.  She did not.  Some write it off as good politics on her part; Arpaio's tactics seem wildly popular in the area.  Arpaio claims he may soon get a network teevee reality show (Fox?).  When ordered to investigate his abuses in 1995, most claim Napolitano did so reluctantly, and not much came of it.  She claimed, "We run a strict but safe jail, and I haven't heard from anyone who thinks this is a bad thing." (Not true, and not funny.)

The final report was mainly a whitewash, only demanded Arpaio clean up a few things, and his tactics were essentially given a blessing. He claimed total vindication. In fact, Arpaio stood with Napolitano when she announced her 2002 bid for governor, and his support probably helped her win the 12,000 vote margin by which she won.  As governor, she seemed deaf to complaints about Arpaio's policies, much to the chagrin of the mayor of Phoenix, who also complained that resources were being used for border patrol that were needed in other law enforcement areas, you know, like robbery, murder, etc.

Complaints have been made that Arpaio is cozy with neo-nazis in the area, and the mayor of Phoenix has charged that Arpaio 'directing law enforcement at the request of white supremacists."  Online videos of him schmoozing with them at the roadblock checkpoints are available, and in May he announced the formation of a "posse" by which he could deputize all the thugs he might want.

Protest marches have attempted to shine a light on the disgusting practices, and various civil liberties groups have tried to help, apparently with little effect to date.

Napolitano, to my mind, was a rotten choice for head of Homeland Security.  When her name surfaced as a possible Obama pick for SCOTUS, my hair caught on fire.

• print
• share

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (1) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)

Pray  today, Saturday June 20 2009, for the people of Iran, especially for those brave souls who have placed their lives in jeopardy by taking a public stand for accountability in government.
Who can know the mind and heart of the opposition leader, Mir-Hossein Mousavi?  Not me. Not anyone in west. Maybe not even the Iranian people.  Perhaps they are being manipulated by a demagogue who will prove to be as unfriendly toward open government as Ahmadinejad has been.
I don't think so.  But that's not the issue. The point here is that the people of Iran want to select their number one guy in a free and fair election. That's what they are saying with their bold presence in the streets of Teheran and other cities. 
We need to stand with them in prayer. Yes, I know that their battle cry is "Allah Akbar." But what would you say if you were a Muslim? That's like a Brit saying "God save the queen," or a Frenchman saying "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite." 
It's like an American saying, "In God we trust."  
Pray for the people of Iran.  Pray that their stand against tyranny can prevail. Pray for their safety.  Pray that the heart of  Ayatollah Khameini and  the mullahs will be moved with compassion, and that those leaders will not foolishly call for police or military action against the people. 
Pray for an open an free society in Iran where people can vote in legitimate elections to select their own leaders.
Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full

   Have fun . . .


If you're interested . . . It's only 850 pages in length:

energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090619/ .... discussiondraft.pdf



Or ... If you wish to read a fairly quick overview -- find it below at the LATimes:

latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare20-2009jun20



~OGD~

In a recent column on Huffington Post, Amy Siskind attempted to point out that sexism isn't fair even when it is directed at conservative women. It sounds like such a reasonable idea until you actually read the piece she wrote. The two women whom she chooses to defend are Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean, and she is indignant that two of America's most notorious sexists, David Letterman and Keith Olbermann, are the ones attacking Palin and Prejean.

            Siskind  is one of the founders of "The New Agenda", a supposed feminist organization that is "dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls." According to their website, their organization began in 2008 "...when 30 women met in Westchester, New York, to sketch out plans for a new non-partisan women's rights organization. The attendees were community activists and leaders of women's organizations from around the country, many of whom had met during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. It was the painful lessons of that campaign that provided the raison d'être for the new group: to support women for public office, to draw a line in the sand against the sexism and misogyny so much in evidence in 2008, and to build a broad, non-partisan coalition to advance key goals for women."

            Somehow, an old feminist such as myself should be moved by the plight of Sarah Palin and an empty-headed beauty queen in California. What is their plight? Oh my god! They are victims of SEXISM! Siskind feels that Letterman's stupid joke about Palin's elder daughter getting knocked up at a ballgame was tantamount to torture. Despite the fact that David Letterman has been known for his compassion, even toward the mentally disturbed woman who stalked him, Siskind is going to pick up the Palin/Fox News meme and run with it in an attempt to illustrate how rampant sexism is in America. David Letterman might be guilty of a few sins, but there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he hates women---which is more than can be said about the women who gathered outside the Ed Sullivan Theater and screamed the most vile things about his little boy and his partner, calling his son a "bastard" and his girlfriend "a slut".  How nice.

            Siskind also is horrified that Keith Olbermann was disparaging Carrie Prejean on his show because he mentioned her fake breasts, which were paid for with pageant money. Here we have a young woman who has made a career from her looks. She has been in several beauty pageants, and she's had plastic surgery to enhance the perkiness and size of her boobs. I doubt very seriously that Carrie Prejean participated in beauty contests and got fake breasts because she wants to enhance the lives of women, but Siskind takes up the torch for her and condemns Olbermann for mentioning the very assets that Prejean enhanced in order to impress male beauty judges. It's my assertion that if someone, be they male or female, makes a career on their appearance and their body, and then tries to set themselves up as an icon for freedom of speech---they are fair game for anyone. That isn't sexism. That's comedy.

            Despite the fact that Siskind and her 'feminist' ilk have declared themselves concerned with the welfare of women and girls, they ignore the ugly sexism of Newt Gingrich, who once averred that women would make lousy soldiers because they might get vaginal infections from being in ditches. Or John McCain's lovely joke about Chelsea Clinton---the one where he said the reason Chelsea is so ugly is because Janet Reno is her father. The New Agenda also ignores Palin's own remark during the 2008 campaign when told that Barack Obama had won the Democratic Primary: "So, Sambo beat the bitch?"

            The New Agenda isn't new at all. It's right-wing demagoguery disguised as 'feminism'. It's home page shows a picture of a few women, all of whom are dressed in pure and virginal white, and the articles and comments from its denizens are 75% recycled Fox News garbage.

            In the 70s, when I was coming of age, I experienced sexism on all sides. Men called me a "dyke" or a "bitch" if I had the temerity to refuse their sexual advances. An employer groped me, and when I quit and told my mother why I had quit, she didn't believe me. Men, who I knew had protested the war in Vietnam and were all for civil rights, thought it was perfectly okay to make fun of women and make degrading jokes about the women's' movement. It was men who argued with me about the Equal Rights Amendment, and it was men who spat at me and the other women who marched for the ERA in Springfield, Illinois.

            My feminist heroes were Maya Angelou and Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinam and Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Tubman---women who had a great deal to sacrifice and who were bucking a system so entrenched it seemed impenetrable. These were women who endured bigotry and prejudice and hatred and violence and scorn and ridicule. All throughout history, we can point to women who risked their reputations and their lives to help other women, the poor, the downtrodden, the sick. Does Amy Siskind and The New Agenda acknowledge women of today who are that brave and that dedicated? No. She and they take up the banners of two women who have gained their fame and fortunes through lying, cheating, and grinding their stiletto heels into dirt rather than admit they've ever been wrong about anything.

            It's a ridiculous and insane stance to take. I got very frustrated by the responses of women on The New Agenda's comments page, and attempted to argue these points there, but was barred from continuing. Evidently, they are bi-partisan and open and tolerant---except if someone actually has some facts to back up her point.

            There is nothing wrong with feminism that we need fake feminists to come around preaching a fake doctrine. I don't belong to any organization, including the National Organization of Women. I speak for myself, and for women like myself who grew up poor and afraid to speak out. If it hadn't been for women like those I mentioned above and many others, none of us would have been empowered enough to find our voices and speak out against violence, hatred, and sexism. Amy Siskind and her pals owe their very existences to those who came before and fought like hell to make it possible for women to have the opportunities they have in this age. Sarah Palin is not a feminist. She's not even a decent example of womanhood. Carrie Prejean is a spoiled brat who won't shut up and go away.

            I stand with Keith Olbermann and David Letterman, who are more feminist than Amy Siskind and her heroes.

For over 200 years, the government has provided free health care to Native American reservations. Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary, has received a 13% increase in funding  to provide this service as well as stimulus money to improve clinics.

The U.S. has an obligation, based on a 1787 agreement between tribes and the government, to provide American Indians with free health care on reservations. But the troubled Indian Health Service only has about half of the money it needs, leaving poor tribes in remote areas with severely underfunded facilities and substandard care. Wealthier tribes are often able to supplement the federal budget with their own dollars.

However, just because the government has been obligated to provide Native Americans free health care doesn't mean that it's actually done well.  HHS's Office of Minority Health lists grim statistics showing that Native American health fares poorer than the average American in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, HIV, and infant mortality.  The only bright spot that I see in the list is that they fare slightly better in immunization rate.  Sebelius is trying to address the issue and states:

"One of my challenges to the new head of the Indian Health Service is that we need a multiyear strategy, we need an end goal," she said.

She said health disparities between minority groups and whites are "unconscionable."

"The most severe disparity between quality care and what goes on with health outcomes is in the Native American population," she added.

One reason of many, which include cultural misunderstanding and poverty, for the state of Native American Health include that the health service provider for reservations, the Indian Health Service has "only half the money it needs."  A 13% increase isn't enough to erase years of neglect in their government provided health care system.

Furthermore, doctors and clinic workers often do not understand how most tribes see health care in general. Traditionally, health issues are dealt with by treating the whole body instead of just the problem at hand. Also, because they often are so steeped in tradition, individuals often are averse to change. This ranges from trying new treatments to receiving advice from doctors.

My wife works at an organization that helps sick people get treatment and funds research to cure disease. One problem that always crops up here out West is how hard it is to get Native Americans to get treatment or see a doctor or talk openly about a disease. This problem cuts both ways as doctors often underdiagnose problems with minorities. A really detailed account of the history of government provided health care is here.

Obviously, the problems that plague government-provided Native American health care are different than those we will face in the fight for health care for all Americans. The plight of Native Americans is often ignored by most Americans and our government. President Obama campaigned at reservations and said that he would address these issues. I think a 13% is a start, but a much more comprehensive plan is needed. Of course a nationwide, universal coverage, if extended to reservations, would probably render these problems moot.

This is from my UHC petition blog

I'm reposting it here because the blog was bumped from the site..

I've been getting around to that in my own blogs which have not stirred much interest.

I have no reason to commit to one method of reform, so far, so I'm keeping an open mind and trying to sift through the chaff coming from all sides for the wheat which might be there so as to have a sound opinion.

Single-payer runs up against the distinction of Uniformity vs. Diversity, in addition to Big Government concerns. It offers reduced overhead but the actual savings are not clear (could be as little as under 10% or as much as over 25%) of current overall costs. Medicare is hardly perfect, and studies have shown that over 90% of insured Americans are reasonably happy with what they have.

I think I understand Obama about "single-payer is nice but 'you caint git thar from here'.

I think single-payer is not reform but revolution, in the USA. As such only violence (virtual, economic, or otherwise) is likely to get it implemented. It might warrant a Constitutional Amendement, depending on which flavor of single-payer is under consideration.

2% employee + 7% payroll tax is 9%. What controls costs to keep those from rising? What rations health care which is current rationed by price of premiums, deductibles, and denials of service? Is is National, Federal, State, or what? Citizens only, or anyone at all?

I'm not sure the problem of moral hazard is that significant, but of course checks and balances are necessary to deal with criminal cheating or frauds. And profit motives are stifled by excess uniformity (while of course excess diversity generates waste and is no guarantee of quality either).

I think single-payer is really socialized medicine with a facade of "it's only social insurance".

Things like that.

Thanks for asking.

Posted by eds 

"I think single-payer is really socialized medicine with a facade of "it's only social insurance".

nonsense, single payer is the government collecting the insurance money and paying the doctors without taking a profit for doing so. 
It's non-profit insurance.

eds, said something which got my attention up the comment que. It got me thinking about why I support single payer and nothing else.

The gist of the situation for me is that we are a community, a society if you will, and as such we have a responsibility for the well being of everyone and thus the preservation of the community itself. Each of us should contribute what we are able to a pool that pays for the care of all, in the same way our taxes pay for our defense. The current "private" system leaves health care to those who can afford it only. This allows those who can to only take responsibility for themselves. The power of the collective will is felt through democracy itself. The exercise of democracy is being denied through the force of financial power. The health and well being of the community as represented by our taxes is suffering as a result. No private health system or private army can ever represent the will of the community because it has no responsibility to do so.

Posted by Zeno_of_Citium 

Do you consider yourself a communist? Your paragraph makes it seem so.

I do agree that "the force of financial power" speaks loudly in DC (and in state capitols), but I have to wonder why consumers (and employers who offer a finite selection of plans) don't speak loudly with their pocketbooks.

It's been suggested that there are cartels operating behind the facade of 1000s of "insurance" companies. Got anything on those?

I've probably spent under $1000 on health care in the past 25years, not counting a car accident for which I negotiated a decent settlement from the insurance company on my own. So I am not in touch with the realities of health care costs except via horror stories and the like. While I have libertarian tendencies, I also have socialist tendencies and consider myself a progressive (and except for fiscal stuff usually a liberal).

I don't believe in the Collective except as 1) a statistical ensemble of individuals and 2) a [usually] muddled notion in people's psyches which can range from a delusion to a basis for lemming-like behavior.

Posted by eds
 

A communists expects to take all property for the use of the community. I do not. I see my views a close to Socialism. I believe that as a community, or society if you will, we all have a shared responsibility to look after the health of everyone in the community. I believe there are certain services that are essential to a functioning community such as access to fresh water, food and energy production which should be treated like communal property and regulated to the benefit of the community. The idea of communal space is not Communist in the ridged sense you describe. Communism in the idealistic form you describe is complete abdication of private property and enterprise. Please, explain to me why it has to be an either or dichotomy. Democracy is shared power and shared responsibility. Democracy is a form of socialism. Capitalism as it is practiced in the US is anti-democratic and leads to autocratic rule.

Posted by Zeno_of_Citium 

"I don't believe in the Collective except as 1) a statistical ensemble of individuals and 2) a [usually] muddled notion in people's psyches which can range from a delusion to a basis for lemming-like behavior."
It is not necessary to believe in the power of collective will or responsibility. All idealism operates inside a conversation between people. Community in that it exist at all exists in the shared language and concerns of the people. The separateness of the elite is at the root of the disillusion of the community and the root of the current conflict. Democracy has failed because the power of the community's will has been usurped by the power of money and high status. That is the result of unfettered Capitalism.

It's midnight in America as I write this.   It's 9:30 in the morning in Tehran.   The world waits in desperate hope that the streets of Tehran do not run with the blood of it's people before the sun sets.  The rooftops have echoed all night with the sounds of the people shouting "Allah Akbar" or "God is Great".   This was the cry of the 1979 Revolution in Iran.  A warning to the secular ruler of Iran that God is greater than even the leaders of the country.  And now it is a cry of warning to the religious leadership to remember the same warning.  God is greater than even the religious leaders of the nation.

For the past week, we have watched the events in Iran unfold.  We have heard stories of beatings, riots, marches and protest.   We have read the words of the people on Twitter and somehow have suddenly found ourselves bonded to the people of Iran.   But there is little we can do in practical terms.

We stare at the photos that have surfaced on the web.   The women who stand defiant before the police in their hajib imploring the police to remember that they are all Iranians.   The old men who march silently in protest of an election they feel was stolen.   The young ones who fight back when the police try to make them disperse.

We hear stories of teens who hunt the Basij (a volunteer militia who has violently attacked the reformers) and kill them in the street.  

On Friday, the Supreme Leader of Iran declared the election to be valid.  He ordered the people to stop protesting in the streets.  He has declared that future marches will be met with violence.  The next march is scheduled for today at 6:30 AM our time.   A bloodbath seems inevitable.

And we in the West wait in outraged silence.   Because there is nothing else we can do.   We will not commit troops to protect the citizens.  Our cries of outrage are presented to the people as "interference" and the supporters of Ahmadineja (who are numerous) believe it  Our words do nothing more than incite them to increase their support of the religious leadership of Iran.  Because they still remember that in 1953, the United States overthrew thier government and they have not forgiven us for our meddling.

It is a unique point in the relationship between our countries.   Half a world separates us.  Language and religion define our differences.  We think of them as "the Evil Empire" and they still see us as the "Great Satan".   But perhaps we as Americans have finally seen enough to realize that there is there is much that joins us together in the name of humanity.  

I do not know what will happen at today's march...but we must never again forget that not every Iraqi or every Muslim is evil.   They are humans like us, with beliefs and familys, fears and hopes.   Let us pray tonight that God in whatever form he takes remembers the people of Iran.

ALLAH AKBAR!

World Day to combat drought and desertification special

Who will control Iraq's oil ?

Pakistan's displaced left in the lurch

Tribesmen protest U.S. drone attacks

Spinning civilian deaths in Afghanistan

The global crisis is really about $140/bbl oil

Lawmakers balk as Administration tries to redefine central bank's role

Conservative Justices' strange enthusiasm for punishment of the innocent

Corporate America's two sets of laws

CIA delays release of secret prison report

CIA declassifies report on Israel's nukes

It could happen to Yoo : criminal prosecution and accountability

Support Iranians

'Twitter Revolution' in Iran abetted by old media

Young Iranians use video to tell story

The 'Stolen Elections' Hoax

'There is hardly any election in which the White House has a significant stake,where the electoral defeat of the pro-U.S. candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite...What is astonishing about the West's universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the actual vote count.''

Selected comments on Iranian elections in British Press

Flawed elections : U.S. and Iran

Jobless benefit rolls dip as aid runs out

Peru : Government partly backs off in standoff with native groups

Gasping for Breath

Pesticides in your own kitchen ( whether you use pesticides or not )

Food Safety Bill unanimously approved by House Committee

The truth about Canadian health care

You don't have to believe them - or me - just skip over to 'We Move To Canada' where Americans learn that life above the 49th isn't dogsleds and igloos - and constant scamming. Canadians......SUE !  No sense of ha-ha about ripoffs at all.

Green Tea slows prostate cancer

Columbia coca growing declines

Willie LeClair, on his trip to the Vatican:

"All I wanted to do was show that we as Eastern Shoshone people are no different than anyone else," he said. "Our spirituality runs exactly the same way, and to let them know we are all of one world. We're all of one race, the human race."

A little something different for the weekend from the Wind River Indian Reservation.

When all my corporate friends can't make any more money there.

First, let me say I support our President. But in recent days the White House has presented the American people with a staggering agenda. There does not seem to be an organized thought process being used to prioritize all the items in the agenda. It has been my experience that when you try to accomplish a hundred things all at the same time, the result is chaos, not measurable progress. So I'm asking: Where's the Plan? What are the Priorities?

And the one-trillion dollar question is: How the hell are we going to pay for all of it? No one wants a workable, accessible, quality healthcare plan more than I do, but are our great-great grandkids going to be forced to pay off a HUGE MEGA-DEFICIT to get universal healthcare? I don't think the administration's estimates of cost are going to be close to the actual cost of getting this accomplished, and that worries me.

I want what the President is offering, but let's step back and check our figures, and do a sincere reality check before we rush ahead at break-neck speed.

It seems clear that in order for the protesters to win (or even survive) the coming confrontation some significant elements of the armed forces will need to switch allegiance - or at the very least stand down.

From what I've read it is unthinkable that the militias will do so, and highly unlikely that the Revolutionary Guards will do so.

But I have heard virtually nothing about the army or the police forces. Does anyone know what these force's politics/allegiances are? Or the chances that they will refuse to harm their neighbors?

Until this here place gets its own chat room, we reside here, especially on a Friday night.

All are welcome.  Just be sure to use a user name before jumping in.  Oh, and a sense of humor don't hurt either.

Much love,
Lis

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e20115713045d8970b http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-purging-of-froomkin-ctd.html

Edwin Meese III

 

 

Firedoglake informs us as of June 10, 2009 that the repubs are receiving a 34% approval rating among the American People.  Now mind you, less than 25% of those polled call themselves repubs.  But FDL goes on to say:

 

34% is lower than Americans rate many countries we're constantly told by wingnuts that we're about to go to war with any minute, including Putin's Russia, Chavez's Venezuela and Communist China.

But the silver lining for the GOP is they're still slightly more popular (34%-27%) than the Palestinian Authority. http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/10/new-gallup-poll-finds-republican-party-less-popular-than-russia-china-venezuela/

So what is a mother to do?  This is the party that was going to stay in control for generations according to karl the rover.

Here rover, here rover, speak rover, lay down and die rover.

But now it appears that new geniuses have taken the reins of the new party of despair and desperation?  Yes, new titans of politics that will firmly guide the  propaganda machine for the capitalist oligarchy that either owns or controls everything, everywhere in this country.  And new strategies for attacking the Party of the People; not just the same ole 'Democrat Party' rap.

Prey upon the underdog heartstrings of the voters.

John Stewart reported last night that:

Earlier this week Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) tweeted:

"Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House."

John Culberson (R-Tex.) did the same, referencing an appropriations bill debate:

"Oppressed minorities includeHouseRepubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's D clampdown shutting off amends"

And David Dreier (R-Calif.) (who apparently doesn't know that Twitter is the place to make inappropriate analogies) said out loud:

"I wonder if there isn't more freedom on the streets of Tehran right now than we are seeing here."   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/daily-show-mocks-republic_n_217833.html

 

Iran is a country of seventy million people living under the tyranny of a religious oligarchy with half that population relegated to a semi human status; most living in the most abject of poverty.  Of course this status had a great deal to do with the actions of the West including the good ole USA.  And tens of thousands of people are attempting to stand up to this oligarchy under threat of death.

 

And the repubs have decided to compare their minority status in both Houses of Congress to the plight of these freedom loving protesters. 

 

Yeah that ought to work!!

 

When all else fails attack the media.

 

Huffpo reports:

Fox News has been full of complaints over ABC's plan to air a news special entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," during which President Barack Obama will field questions on his plans for health care reform. Various Fox personalities have complained that the access ABC is getting is "unprecedented" and that "journalism is dead." But yesterday, objectively demonstrating the fatuousness and hypocrisy of Fox's claims was done so effortlessly and completely, that they'd have been well-advised to reconsider whining about it.

As Keith O. reported last night, karl the rover (here rover, here rover, jump through the hoop rover--oh and quit looking like your about to kiss me everytime you open that fascist mouth of yours) has set up the same type of exclusive interview at the White House for Fox when w the idiot reigned.

Send out the best spokesman you can find to represent your interests.

"I told you I'm not going to criticize my successor," he said. "I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that persuasion isn't going to work. Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind."

Government does not create wealth," Bush said. "The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States."

In a recent speech in Michigan, Bush defended his actions in office but did not reference the current administration's policy. I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor," he said at the time. "I wish him all the best."  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/18/bush-breaks-silence-goes_n_217271.html

That's right. They sent out their favorite son once again. The kid who burned down the barn, broke the irrigation system, spent all the reserved savings, killed the neighbor's dog and ran over the sheriff. Yeah, the people are thirsty for the tainted water that motherf....er is selling.

 

Make sure that the Party of Lincoln looks more and more like the Dixiecrats in the forties.

 

So who does the party of hope for Wall Street, Insurance Companies and racists send out to attack the first Hispanic Nominee to the United States Supreme Court?

 

In their battle against Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Republicans in Congress have turned to an old hand. Ed Meese, the Reagan-era attorney general and conservative firebrand, has been playing a behind-the-scenes role in organizing GOP opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Meese was hired before Sotomayor was chosen. According to the Washington Post, which broke the story, he coordinated with Republican Senators on how best to plan for the nomination.

Policy tilted heavily conservative under Meese's influence as well. In January 1982, he helped guide the Reagan administration's decision to reverse a policy that removed tax exemptions from schools that discriminated on the basis of race. "We do not want IRS bureaucrats setting social policy," he reportedly said.

But Meese was known above all for his unbending belief that the conservative movement needed to change the culture of the Supreme Court. He famously declared in 1985 that judges should be "expected to resist any political effort to depart from the literal provisions of the Constitution." Later, he would suggest that it was within the power of the president to circumvent Supreme Court decisions.

"Such decisions," Meese said, "do not of themselves establish the supreme law of the land, as that phrase is known, that is binding on all persons and parts of government henceforth and forever more. HuffPo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/ed-meese-far-right-reagan_n_217954.html

Another old white racist prick. That's who!!!

This new party of the wealthy and powerful has finally found its legs.

Take a look at this woman's face. It could be the face of a family member. Or a good friend. It may even be the slightly stunned expression - with cheap shades cum hair fillet - staring out from the bathroom mirror. (I always look a little side-swiped in the morning.)

Thats' right! Take a good look at the face of Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Today, she's the copyright infringement Joan of Arc who's been broken on the turntable of the music industry!

But, tomorrow, it could be you!

Jammie just got jammed with an almost $2 million fine for downloading and sharing 24 songs on the internet. Don't bother jumping on the Metacalc site - I'll bust down the figures for you ('cause I've already read the story): That averages out to $80,000 per song Jammie must pay to get out of this... well... jam.

That's right!

Read more »

As we approach Father's Day, who can forget Bill Cosby's celebrated monologue on Fatherhood?  Among its many comedic gems, one of the more memorable describes the parent whose patience, having been exhausted listening to loud and endless quarreling among siblings, announces a verdict that displeases one or more of the children.  Their invariable complaint over this perceived injustice - "That's not fair!"

As Cosby observes, "The truth is parents are not really interested in justice.  They just want quiet!"

In the same spirit, I suggest that most Americans are not really interested in Health Care fairness at the national level.  They just want to receive good care that they can afford.  This is not to impugn their inherent sense of fairness, which is likely to operate at a high level in personal relationships.  Fairness in the abstract, however, lacks the potency needed to overwhelm more immediate concerns among Americans who approach the debate without entrenched opinions on Health Care reform.  Their questions are more pragmatic. This is why opposition to a proposed Health Care reform program priced in excess of one trillion dollars has begun to resonate with the public.

What puzzles me, therefore, is the insistence by some proponents on emphasizing the fairness aspect - the need to provide for Americans who have previously suffered because they lacked adequate access.  Matched against a trillion dollars or more, fairness as an abstraction tends to fall into second place - it would be something that would be nice if we could afford it, but we can't.

For full disclosure, I will say that I favor fairness, but I'm not convinced of its power as a political argument among Americans who haven't yet made up their minds in the face of issues of affordability.  Rather, as President Obama has asserted often, but as is increasingly drowned out by the "price tag" noise, it is not reform that we truly can't afford, but rather the perpetuation of the current Health Care system that leaves millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans at risk for catastrophic illness and catastrophic expenses, and which undermines the competitiveness of American businesses in a global market..

The two long-established criteria used worldwide to measure a nation's health are life expectancy and infant mortality.  Among the industrialized nations, we rank close to the bottom when judged by these criteria.  Equally important, almost every one of these nations has achieved better health for its citizens at a cost substantially below ours.  Currently, U.S. healthcare costs us approximately 16 percent of GDP, while these other nations pay percentage points less for a better outcome, and accomplish this with care available universally to their citizenry.  I won't address the debate over the merits of single payer systems vs. those that involve a public component shared with the private sector, as embodied in recent "public option" legislative proposals.  Some nations use one, some the other, but they all do better at health care than we do, at a lower cost - one  that would reflect annual savings of trillions of dollars in an economy the size of ours.  I would only add that these two choices - single payer vs. a public option - appear to be true alternatives.  No nation that began with a public option has later gravitated into a single payer system.  Readers interested in more details of what other countries do can pursue these at the following site and the links within it -
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Perhaps then, proponents of reform might consider putting aside fairness, and promoting self interest as the dominant issue.  The outlay for reform may be one trillion dollars or  more, but the savings will substantially exceed that figure if the experience of dozens of other nations is a guide.

In one sense, though, the issue of fairness remains relevant.  The other industrialized nations have accomplished what health care reformers now propose here - universal care, better health, and lower costs.  One can still ask - is it fair to Americans to claim that we alone are incapable to doing what all the others have already achieved?

 

The Iranian Supreme Leader's assertion that the huge difference in the vote should be proof that the election was not rigged.

                                                     By

                                             Joseph Chez

In the annals of history, Tyranny is short lived.......

 

The Iranian people are taking a cue from the history of struggle for freedom and will not accept less.  This in response to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who today gave recognition to the election results and thereby giving its blessing to Ahmadinejad as the winner of the election.  Additionally, the supreme Ayatollah also gave a stern warning to the opposition to accept the election results - or else.  But reports from within Iran already report a quasi atmosphere of martial law in place.

Still, the world can only watch the events unfold in Iran from the sidelines - for now.  But it should be noted that the Ahmadinejad regime and cleric stronghold on the country truly needs outside intervention to solidify their control of its people and thus justify any means to further squelch any civil unrest.  Consequently, the United States of America should resist any pressure from the political right who is fervently pushing for tougher language against Iran.  The Israeli government has even  criticized the United States for not responding with stronger language.   However, any intervention from the U.S. would be counter productive and would not help the circumstances of the Iranian people.

What is needed is for the United Nations to issue a strong declaration, warning the Iranian government, including clerics, that they will be held personally responsible for the safety of the civilian population and for the opposition leader.

In the meantime, the ayatollahs and present regime sympathizers in Iran, should head the warning of history; there is a prize to pay for freedom, but there is an even greater charge for tyrannical figures - as they usually pay with their lives. 

For neo-cons in the West, who just last year were sarcastically commenting,  "bomb, bomb, bomb,.. bomb, bomb Iran", their present support for the people of Iran is simply disingenuous, if not cheap political tricks.   However, the Iranian people as any other peoples of the world, deserve to be free.  And regardless what finally results, to the Iranian people, your acts of bravery in the face of tyranny makes us all humble.

 

 

O.K. So last year, Obama said he supported gays. In fact, he said he DID NOT support Don't Ask Don't Tell [DADT] and would get rid of it if he got to be POTUS. As a result of that and other statements, a lot of gays supported him. And worked for his campaign. And voted for him.

What a difference a year makes. Here we are, almost 5 months into his presidency and DADT is still very much the law of the land. Still enforced. Two hundred fifty three people have, since Obama took office, had their military careers destroyed--just like they did under Bush and Clinton before him.
These people want to serve their country. And he kicks them in the teeth.

Change We Can Believe In. Uh huh.

Then, last Friday the Justice Department took out the trash [a concept you're familiar with if you religiously watched (as I did) the TV drama, The West Wing.]
In case you didn't, here's the idea: on Fridays, the government releases information it doesn't want people to notice.
The weekend is coming up and fewer people read newspapers on Saturday and Sunday. So, if you want to put out a story --so you won't be accused of hiding stuff-- but you want it to be used only to line the bottom of the birdcage and nothing else, you sit on it till Friday and release it along with a whole slew of other stuff --all at once.

Only, this time, people noticed.
Oops.

Here's what was supposed to leak out under the radar --only it didn't:
A statement was released by the Justice Department supporting the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].
~~~
Here are excerpts from the Act:
Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
~~~
Last Friday's brief was authored by a Bush holdover. A Mormon. And it shows. It equated gay marriage with a marriage between uncle and niece. It equated gay marriage with marrying off children.

Do you see why they wanted to release this piece of garbage on Friday? It could just have easily have come from the Bush administration. Except Bush would have been proud of it and released it on Tuesday morning with a flourish of trumpets.
They were right in one way --the correct thing to do with it was to line the bottom of the bird cage.

Last Friday evening Rachel and others speculated that Obama didn't know this filth had been released. Even that he doesn't agree with it.
I'm sorry, but I'm of the mind that he is, after all, the president. And I'm with Harry Truman--if he didn't know it was coming out, he should have known. It's his buck.
It looks from here as if, when it comes to gays, Obama is an empty suit.
xxx
So, fast forward to today:
All of a sudden, Obama makes the announcement that he is giving 'many of' the same rights to gay federal employees and their partners that 'opposite' married people have enjoyed forever and ever.

This is another of those little items Obama had promised--but not delivered. Now, he's using it to sop up the egg that's dripping off his chin.
Oh, and by the way, what does 'many of' mean?

Nice try, Barry. But you're offering too little too late.
For one thing, this tidbit had come out so precipitously and so recently that Rachel and her staff and the guest she discussed it with didn't yet know what form it had taken. Was it a resolution or a memorandum? I hadn't known the two types of statements existed--let alone the implications involved.
Here's what it boils down to: A resolution becomes standard operating procedure --it remains in effect unless and until a later president repeals it-- and that requires legal action.
A memorandum remains in effect for as long as Obama is president. Once he's out of office it immediately dies.

Maybe I'm being really, really cynical here--but that seems to be pretty nifty if you're trying to bribe a certain constituency to vote for you come 2012.
I don't know how many federal employees are LGBT but, it's a fair number, I imagine. Since 1.5% of the general population is LGBT and since there are a lot of federal employees--it's a good guess that the same percentage of federal employees are LGBT. Add to that number their spouses--who certainly aren't all, themselves, fed employees--well, let's call it 2.5% of the number of feds. Not enough to swing the election, of course, but still--a welcome voting block come 2012.
So, suppose you're one of the people who suddenly had your basic rights acknowledged. And suppose those rights will expire in January unless the guy who [however expediently] signed the measure that recognized them gets reelected. Well? Who are you going to vote for? Yeah. Me too.

But laying all that aside --Mr. Obama, your administration just delivered a deadly insult to a group of people that worked for you, got the vote out for you, voted for you and whom you have ignored since November:
First you invited Rick Warren to offer an invocation at your inauguration. When the understandable hoopla ensued, you hurriedly invited Gene Robinson, too. Shame on you.
During your campaign you promised to repeal DADT.
Even supposing it would take some time to do that, you could, with a stroke of your pen, tell the Pentagon to stop enforcing it. You could stop the practice of ruining people's careers. It would take ten minutes.
You haven't bothered. Shame on you.
Also, during your campaign, you promised to address gay marriage. And THIS is what you did. You ignored it. Then you insulted 1.5% of the population. Then you backtracked by giving the ones among them who work for you "many of" the rights enjoyed by the straight married people in your employ.
Gee, thanks, Mr. President.
And shame on you.

Here are some related articles:
The Village Voice, The CBS Blog, The New York Times, and an article whose headline:'Dept. of Justice defends DOMA, Obama wants it overturned', all by itself, gave me whiplash-- The Catholic News Agency.

By the way, that last article lead off with this statement:
'Although the Department of Justice filed a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last week, the Obama administration has made it clear that promoting same-sex "marriage" will be an important focus of its political agenda.'

Errrrrrmmm--when?
Oh, and that hoity-toity, holier-than-thou Catholic newspaper can remove those condescending quotes around the word "marriage", too.

A few years ago I had four high school history classes- two high-level (college prep), two low-level (remedial). I was curious whether there was any commonality, and I had a little time to kill.
The kids had filled out information cards, and I began to hand-sort them. 

Maybe zip codes, which could be class? Nope, no pattern.

The Lou Dobbs Effect? Ethnicity? No, that wasn't it.

Astrology?- Birthdays? No.

And then I had an idea. I created two piles. One was for kids who had listed as their guardian a male with the same last name. The other pile was everyone else.

And presto. That pile was my top classes, with one exception. The other pile was my low-achievers, again with one exception.

But the first exception was arrested in the winter and left school; the second was a Down Syndrome kid, who was flourishing despite that.

I post this with no conclusion drawn. Just an anecdote.

Happy Father's Day.

Are public opinion polls the only measure of reality? Citing recent polls that "make clear that there are rising concerns about his policies," Congressional Quarterly (6/18/09) declares the honeymoon is over and that "It's on Obama's watch now." The concerns seem to center around spending resulting in big deficits, his interventions with car makers, and closing Guantanamo. Even though these are often the favorite Republican talking points, the story said that "voters view the Republican party unfavorably by a 2-t0-1 margin." The excellent article thoroughly explores the latest polling data from two big recent polls.

It will truly President Obama's watch only when the key members of his administration have been nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Senators are still holding up several nominations, including that of the very crucial head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen.

The Department of Homeland Security is also still without an intelligence chief. Jeff Stein, in his (6/5/09) blog Spy Talk, reported that nominee Phil Mudd's name is being withdrawn by the White House. Stein concluded, "Mudd was going to be questioned sharply by the Senate Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee on his relationship to the CIA's counterterrorism policies and pre-war intelligence on Iraq, committee sources said." Stein wrote previously that "the writing was on the wall," before Mudd withdrew his name from consideration. It seems that Mudd is carrying too much baggage from his service in the Bush administration, according to Yahoo! News (6/5/09).

President Obama's release of the original OLC torture memos is what made all these important Bush administration revelations possible. We all hailed the decision as the correct one. It would seem that the President now, however, is rethinking a number of his commitments to open government and true transparency. Public opinion has not yet been measured on these questions.

Is the Obama administration currently trying to operate in an open and transparent way? There is recent news that the White House is continuing to insist on keeping secret who visits the White House. MSNBC and a nonpartisan watchdog group (CREW) made requests for visitor logs and were denied by the Secret Service, who is subject to the FOIA laws. This is a continuation of the policy of the Bush administration, who claimed in court cases that the records are "presidential," not Secret Service. Federal judges have ruled several times against the administrations' OLC filings and each time the OLC appeals. The current administration has said the the policy is currently under review. This was explained in the MSNBC article with a short transcript of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' comments when questioned by reporters at a regular briefing.

In a related matter, Steven Aftergood covered President Obama's executive order to review the national security classification policy in Secrecy News (6/1/09). Over classification of government documents has been a growing problem for decades. But there are certainly very good reasons to classify information that relates to national security sources and methods. It is hard to say whether the CIA photos of detainee abuse fall into that category. I tend to think they do present a potential danger to troop safety, by providing incendiary arguments that terror networks can use for recruitment. But there are also very good arguments on the opposite side.

That same day Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com posted convincingly against "Obama's support for the new Graham-Lieberman secrecy law," called "The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009." The law would allow the government to suppress the remaining detainee abuse photos that President Obama originally intended to release. Greenwald asks,

What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people?

. . . Is there really anyone who wants to argue that defiance of a federal court's order and enacting a new law authorizing suppression of torture evidence -- the disclosure of which is compelled both by courts and FOIA -- are remotely consistent with anything Obama said he would do, or remotely consistent with what a healthy democratic government would do?"

The mixed bag of approval of, or dissaproval for, President Obama's policies will inevitable follow these same trends. That is normal and natural as the Bush administration's influence fades, and as our President governs, rather than campaigns. My list of disappointments grows as the Justice Department appears to take on Bush's Constitutional assaults as their own in court case after court case. The trend seems to be that of never giving back an ounce of the unitary executive power grabbed by Mr. Bush and his cronies. The same stance is not becoming to AG Holder and to President Obama, fine men who should know better.

My all-in-one Home Page of websites where I post regularly: Carol Gee - Online Universe

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics obama administration national security transparency public opinion

So, the Supremes voted 5-4 against an accused Alaskan prisoner's request to PAY FOR HIS OWN DNA TESTING to prove innocence in a rape case.  You can guess who those 5 troglodytes were.

 

But why oh why did Obama's justice dept. have to sign on to this egregious decision?

 

As the NYT said today:

 

We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration's decision to side with Alaska in this case -- continuing the Bush administration's opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing.

 

Moreover, as former FBI Director Williams S. Sessions wrote in Slate on Monday:

 

It's a generally laudatory goal for a new president to continue the DoJ polices of the previous one when he takes office. But a change in position may be warranted in some cases. Osborne is one of them. The Justice Department's decision is particularly perplexing because when President Obama was an Illinois state senator, he responded to that state's wrongful conviction problem by leading a bipartisan effort to help prevent convictions of the innocent, including laws allowing access to DNA evidence.

 

Only 4 states refuse to recognize prisoners' rights to DNA evidence, and many states don't even require that it be kept!

 

You'd think that in a democracy, lawmakers would find it essential to guard citizens from wrongful imprisonment and execution.  In the good old US of A, you'd be wrong, and this Supreme Court decision, aided and abetted by the Obama Justice dept., is another piece of evidence that the land of the free ain't so free . . .  

Today being Juneteenth, I reflected for a bit on how one says informed about events and stories impacting the African-American community. I realize that given the fact that Barack Obama is President, the issue may seem a tad ridiculous. But, what I am really talking about are those interesting stories that are occuring all around the country that deal with personalities, family, and community issues that deal with African-Americans.. For example, while foreclosures impact multiple communitites, there seems to be a more marked impact on African-American communities. How do you dig out those stories?

Given the impending doom of multiple newspapers and the lack of an African-American news anchor in Prime Time, what journals, websites etc. do you use to stay connected nationally?

I don't tend to get pissed off that often - at myself for my clumsiness and diminishing faculties mainly, however the news that the Post had fired Dan Froomkin made my blood boil. I got into Dan in 2003 which led me here a little while later, so although we are strangers, I've always enjoyed his tone and analysis. I got good and mad last night and wrote a letter to the Editor, then the automated response informed me that many conditions were required for consideration etc etc including a 200 word limit, hence the abbrieviated rant below.

So anyway, I qualified my entry further, and sent it. It won't get a look in, it will be perceived as "left, liberal, socialist" or whatever. I am none of these. I am in the middle, watching the Post veer right, and what a pitiful sight it makes.

So I thought I would at least get it in print, if only virtually, here at my reading matter of choice. I sent it to Dan at Niemann  Watch as a small gesture of solidarity towards his unfortunate situation. It 's all here below.

Subject: White House Watch, no more.

Dear Sir

You have fired Dan Froomkin. He was the reason I felt compelled to register

with washingtonpost.com, his departure the reason for my cancellation. 

I found him cutting, interesting, pithy, rightly critical of US Government

malfeasance and it's enablers, whilst you leant towards the now-bankrupt

politic, in an overtly cosy, increasingly blinkered, unquestioning

relationship with fair and balanced, accurate, in-touch print-edition

luminaries such as Gerson, Krauthammer, Kristol.

Dan's coverage represented, for me, a drive for the essential truth I

associate with the reputation of the Post's Watergate series. Perhaps the

celluloid experience deluded me about the Nobility of Journalism.  I looked

to your .com edition ahead of BBC and other coverage in Britain, for

defining, reasoning, questioning recent issues of great world import, and

tended to find possibly the only counterweight to your institutional

political bent in Mr Froomkin's articles. The general coverage I have read

over the last 6 years has increasingly failed it's duties of major 4th

estate partner, in asking the tough questions on behalf of the world. Mr

Froomkin's end is mine, also. Trusting that you survive the new media

revolution,

Date: 18 June 2009 23:34:52 BDT

To: letters@washpost.com

Subject: White House Watch, no more - further information

Dear Sir

(Redacted contact details)

While I accept it is your rule to ignore Website-only matters, I

felt compelled to write as I am personally disappointed that you have

decided to remove the one writer from your roster who offered points of

view that resonated as honest and truthful with me. Clearly the Idealist in

me is piqued - however I am reasonably certain that in removing him you

will alienate a significant proportion of your online readership. In my

opinion, Mr Froomkin continues to raise issues concerning the G W Bush

regime's allegedly illegal practices, that have yet to be fully addressed.

The decision also appears politically motivated to me, although I can offer

no proof of this, save to say that the Right Wing  and

Neo-Conservative contingent on your payroll  appears to have succeeded in

silencing the one visible critic searching for accountability for what the

Red Cross calls torture, what the UN calls an illegal war and what most of

the world considers to be a distortion and blemish in the United States

moral record. The position that the Washington Post has taken in not

pursuing this issue aggressively as a corporate directive,when one

considers the Post's record on other, older matters of national and

international political importance, is to me indefensible.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, you are in big trouble when you fire the most succesful blog.

I congratulate Josh and all who get involved here. This model is the way forward. It's also why TPM is doing so well, long may it continue. As for the Post . . . . . . . .bye, bye, bye baby bye bye. . . . . . .

Great googly moogly, their latest brief in court is even more absurd than their DOMA brief.

Hell, it's more absurd than the Twinkie Defense, it's the Jon Stewart Defense:

A federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration that former Vice President Richard B. Cheney's statements to a special prosecutor about the Valerie Plame case must be kept secret, partly so they do not become fodder for Cheney's political enemies or late-night commentary on "The Daily Show."

...

....He told the judge that if Cheney's remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern "that it's going to get on 'The Daily Show' " or somehow be used as a political weapon.

Gee, I wish that I could tell police investigating a crime to go pound sand because somehow it might be embarrassing.

Making this even more absurd is that this argument was first put forward by Bush's now disgraced acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel Stephen Bradbury. (See also here and here)

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

It took six years to wait for as good an example as this, but these examples are only going to multiply as long as John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

John Roberts has written that he thinks it's more important to uphold previous judicial rulings that are WRONG than it is for a person convicted wrongly to be able to prove it. Via the Daily Kos:

Although Roberts conceded that "[i]t is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty," he determined that Osburne has no right to pay for a test that could exonerate him for a crime he did not commit. Allowing Osburne to prove his potential innocence, Roberts said, risks "unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice."

Read that last clause. Unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice.

A lot of folks sitting in prison waiting to be exonerated for ANY reason just lost all hope.

In August and September of 2003, a great verbal war was ongoing. On one side, George W. Bush and his Lying Liars all screeched day and night that if we did not invade Iraq, we would suffer another 9-11. Bush put the screws to Congress for an authorization for the war. It was put to a vote in the Senate.

I was against it, but I knew only too well that George would get his way. The two previous years had seen him get everything he asked for and more from Congress, in the name of his 'War on Terror'. I knew this much: No matter HOW Congress voted, no matter what they did, even if they outright FORBADE Bush from invading Iraq, Bush was going to invade Iraq. The Constitution, legal U.S. statutes and two other branches of government be damned, not to mention public sentiment. He was going to invade.

The Senate seat held by my state's only Democrat was not in good hands. The Senator had voted for Bush's tax cuts; voted for quite a few of his draconian conservative issues; she was a decent representative of my very conservative state.

I still maintain that I wanted her to vote FOR the AUMF for one reason only: To be able to hold her seat. If she's going to vote FOR insane wars led by would-be dictators, then what's the point of keeping her in? A DINO?

In order to keep her seat, she couldn't be seen as a pinko hippie war-hater. But there are more important issues to vote on than just one war resolution.

Supreme Court nominees, and Federal judges, too.

(A rerun from January)

The philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson gave an interesting talk in the midst of what was called the "Panic of 1837." At that time, about half of all banks had failed, credit had all pretty much dried up, and the American economy had nearly ground to a halt.

But Emerson did not fear the challenges of the day. He embraced them when he said:

 "If there is any period one would desire to be born in, is it not the age of Revolution; when the old and the new stand side by side and admit of being compared; when the energies of all men are searched by fear and by hope; when the historic glories of the old can be compensated by the rich possibilities of the new era? This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it."

Isn't it amazing how on point this paragraph is, still today, with all we seem to be facing?

It was in a legal writing class 7 years ago when an earth-mother-triathlete-come-adjunct-law-professor introduced me to the tactical necessity of kissing rocks:

When kayaking through whitewater, and upon the discovery of a big honking rock in way, one must bear down and turn into the obstacle in order to avoid it.  By embracing the obstacle, or, indeed, confronting it head-on early in proceedings, you can manage your way around it.  waiting too long or doing too little...you're sure to crack your head, get stuck, drown, or at least dislocate a shoulder. 

This technique, naturally-bleached blonde opined, is urgently necessary when presenting any kind of legal argument.  there are going to be bugs in your case.  So address it early, briefly, honestly, and give people the chance to forget about it.

I am hoping that the dems, when whining about cost of health care reform, are just kissing rocks.

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn admits to having an affair with Jessica McBride. (Or should I fully quote "prominent local journalist Jessica McBride" for full comedic effect?)

Video on TMJ-TV.

(WTMJ is owned by Journal Communications, which also owns the conservative daily paper Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. McBride once wrote for that paper, and had a right-wing talk show on WTMJ. To be clear, the story that was going to break in today's paper instead "broke" on air last night... buteither way, Journal Communications profited off the folly of their right-wing hack. Ain't local media monopolies great?)

This quote on WALLAH! is stunningly clear now:

"If Jessica McBride says she wants to interview your husband for a feature story, don't leave the room."

Let's hear it for journalistic integrity!

For my primary blog's full coverage of Ms. McBride, please see my one and only previous post on the matter.

Also: Brew City Brawler has a very lengthy post on this.  

Also 2: Illusory Tenant thoughtfully pointed out that McBride teaches journalistic ethics at UWM, yet she and the chief committed a Class I felony. We have to wonder if her once-mighty D.A. husband will press charges.

Details are emerging from the investigation into the Arizona murder of a nine-year-old girl and her father tying two of the three accused both to national Minutemen groups and to the white supremacist group Aryan Nations. Since the murders Minuteman groups have tried to distance themselves from the accused, describing them as lunatic loners without genuine Minuteman ties. The facts, however, would seem to indicate otherwise.

San Diego's East County Magazine links accused ringleader Shawna Forde as well as accused shooter Jason Eugene Bush, both pictured here, to the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) founded by Chris Simcox. According to this report, Forde briefly attended a San Diego County MCDC training camp known as "Camp Vigilance" in August 2008. Forde showed an MCDC badge upon arrival, indicating that she had been vetted by the group.

Meanwhile, the Colorado Independent links Forde to former Colorado congressman and immigration firebrand Tom Tancredo, observing that Tancredo's 2008 presidential campaign participated in a July 2007 event in Washington State organized by Forde's group, Minuteman American Defense, in association with conservative group The Reagan Wing. Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist delivered a speech at the event, as did Forde herself, and California congressman Duncan Hunter spoke to the audience by phone (Everett Herald). Representatives of Fred Thompson's 2008 campaign were also slated to participate.

The Colorado Independent notes that Forde and Tancredo also share ties to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Tancredo has a long and well-known relationship with FAIR, and Forde participated in a televised 2006 town hall meeting in Yakima, Washington at which she was repeatedly identified as a FAIR representative (Tancredo has come under fire recently for his harsh attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, including his charge that she is a "racist" and that a respected Latino organization to which she belongs, the National Council of La Raza, amounts to a "Latino KKK." In 2008 Tancredo staffer Marcus Epstein plead guilty to charges of assaulting an African American female passerby in Washington DC, calling her "Nigger" and striking her on the head. Epstein remains executive director of Tancredo's PAC, "Team America.").

Additionally, the Arizona Daily Star reports statements from Forde's immediate family indicating that Forde was actively recruiting members of the Aryan Nations to rob "drug cartels" and to start "a revolution against the United States government." Accused shooter Bush also has long-standing ties to the Aryan Nations, according to a police statement cited in this report.

Materials including photos recently removed from the MAD website also place Forde at an April 15 "tea party" event in Phoenix at which Forde's favorite protest sign was one reading, "Stop the Obama-Nation of America." Forde, Bush, and a third suspect were charged June 12 in Pima County, Arizona, for the murder on May 30 of nine-year-old Brisenia Flores and her father Raul, allegedly in the commission of a home-invasion robbery targeting Mexican Americans thought by Forde to be involved in "drug cartels" or "the Mexican mafia."

Pictured here with the murder victims is wife and mother Gina Flores, who was also shot but survived (KOMO):

(see also Daily Kos, Firedoglake)
 

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Crossposted from jesselava.com.

Krugman: "President Obama's speech outlining the financial plan described the underlying problem very well...Unfortunately, the plan as released doesn't live up to the diagnosis."

Is there a single major policy area for which this criticism of Obama would not be apt? The stimulus. The bailout. Executive secrecy. Torture and civil liberties. Potentially health care (we'll see).  We get wonderful speeches, insightful analysis, accurate rhetoric about what needs to happen.  Then we get the actual plans.  And we go, "That's it?"

As the youngest asks the oldest on Passover, "Ma nishtanah ha lyla ha zeh mikkol hallaylot?" The question is often referred to simply as "Ma nishtanah." It means, "What makes this night different from all other nights?"

In other words: So what else is new?

It was a Sysiphian effort. To this day, it never ends.

But I guess in fairness, we're going to have to start counting Barack Obama's lies, too. So far, not many people have died for those lies. But we'll be watching.

This is yet another example of Obama's lawyers blatantly violating the president's promise not to "protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government."

And for his trouble in reporting this debacle, Dan Froomkin was fired.

We're back to Bizarro-World, politically speaking.

Holy fucking shit.

The only honest voice willing to criticize George W. Bush AND Barack Obama is now gone from the Washington Post. Wow.

Not that it'll do a lick of good...but write the ombudsman and tell him what you think. Mine's already sent.

In a recent interview with this site, former CIA Operations Officer, and co-author of "Operation Hotel California," Charles "Sam" Faddis, talked about leading the CIA's first team into northern Iraq in 2002 and what he found. Faddis, now the president of Orion Strategic Services and working on another book about the future of the CIA, says that while interviewing dozens of al Qaeda/Ansar al Islam detainees he saw no signs of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Faddis also talked about battling Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen, why Saddam Hussein might not have attacked an al Qaeda/Ansar al Islam outpost in Iraq and more.

ROT: Before discussing some of the specifics of your assignment in Iraq can you please explain what your official position was at the time of the invasion and what your background was to that. CF: I was Chief of Base Salahalldin at the time conventional forces invaded. I was running all CIA operations in that portion of Northern Iraq controlled by the KDP. I had been in that capacity since the Fall of 2002. Prior to that, for several months, I was responsible for all CIA personnel in Northern Iraq. Once we began to plus up, in the Fall of 2002, and the scope of operations began to grow, we divided the North into two zones. I took KDP territory. My former deputy took PUK territory (ROT: PUK officials talked more of Saddam-al Qaeda linksKDP).

ROT: In an interview with Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein you said that you saw intelligence reports that al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the U.S. led invasion but Saddam Hussein's regime was working against them and working to infiltrate them. Can you talk about what kind intel there was on this? Testimony from members of Saddam's regime who defected or were in custody? Members of al Qaeda/Ansar al Islam who were in custody? Intercepted phone calls or documents? Something else?
CF: There were al Qaeda personnel inside what was technically Iraqi territory. They were located in the area along the Iranian border controlled by a radical Islamic group called Ansar al Islam. This area was not under the functional control of Saddam nor was it under friendly Kurdish control. It was, in effect, an independent mini Islamic state. My team acquired information on this presence and on Iraqi collection regarding it directly. We captured many of the Ansar and al Qaeda personnel and questioned them. I personally did many of these interrogations. We also ran a large number of clandestine sources who reportedl directly to us. Our conclusions regarding the situation on the ground were not based on one or two reports. They were based on literally hundreds of reports that we produced ourselves.

ROT: Where were the majority of the your intel reports on Saddam's regime coming from? It has been reported in the 9-11 Commission and elsewhere that the intelligence community had a lot of difficulty penetrating the former regime when it came to looking at WMD's and whether or not they cooperated with terrorists. Can you comment on this?
CF: We ran a large number of assets. We debriefed defectors. We had Kurdish teams operating across the Green Line. We pulled in a lot of information. That said, I would never be so naive as to think that means we knew everything that was going on.

Rest of story here.

President Obama's approach to the crisis in Iran is courageous.   He deserves credit for it, and needs our vociferous support.

The temptation to leap into the Iranian fray with both feet must be great.  But as president, Obama has to keep his eyes on the long-term security interests of the American people, and is not permitted the luxury of issuing idle statements of support just because they feel good.  Obama has a complex set of interrelated challenges on his Middle East agenda, and needs to remain focused on the ultimate goals, even if that means exercising frustrating restraint at this juncture.  His willingness to endure the incoming taunts and attacks from irresponsible Republicans is brave, and he deserves credit for it.

What some of the Republicans are doing with this issue is beneath contempt.  They are playing games with the lives of Iranians and the lives of Americans, for the sake of their own short-term political fortunes.

And the more radical Republican lovers of violence and creative destruction are doing something even worse: going for a chaotic Persian train wreck, by means of which they can maneuver Obama into an unavoidable military intervention and escalation in the region.  That's what they do.  They engineered an Iraq train wreck to tie the US military into the Middle East for good, and a fiscal and financial train wreck to sink what was left of the US social welfare system.  But right now they are threatening the very lives and security of the next generation of Americans.   They need to be stopped.

I firmly believe President Obama is looking out for the security of me and my family, and I'm grateful to him for it.   This is the job he was elected to do.

Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) and Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) have introduced a resolution expressing support for Iranian citizens, condemning the violence in Iran, and spouting off about the importance of free and fair elections.

Berman said, "It is not for us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election...but we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely, and without intimidation."

When I read this statement, my immediate thought was, "Why?"

Why must we reaffirm our belief in freedom of expression and democracy? It's not exactly a big secret that the United States holds these beliefs. And, current decade notwithstanding, we can be pretty good at working with longstanding and emerging democracies around the world.

Where we fail, again and again, is trying to overlay not only our ideals but how we put those ideals into practice onto countries whose cultures and traditions are different from ours. Our leaders have not, over the long term, shown much imagination when it comes to understanding that other socieities might have their own path to achieving such important ends as freedom and democracy.

Smart, experienced foreign policy experts of all political persuasions have suggested that President Obama has taken exactly the right approach to the situation in Iran, and that any strong response by the United States could be used by the Iranian government against the protesters. Yet, conservative members of the House and Senate, as well as conservative talk show hosts, have been insisting over and over that the President is not going far enough; that he needs to decry the election results and make demands.

In my opinion, these people don't know anything about Iran, don't care about Iran or the Iranian people, and couldn't care less what position they're advocating for as long as it's the opposite of what the President is doing. That's become the Right's MO on all issues since Obama took office. Whatever Obama says is wrong--reason, public opinion, and even public safety be damned.

And here we go again. Iran is reaching a tipping point. After the Ayatollah's speech today, protests are now increasingly dangerous. What will happen on Saturday, when protesters return to the streets? I don't know, but I fear the worst. I fear that the government will put down the protests, brutally and violently.

Pence, Berman, and the like are behaving as if they are blind to this potential outcome. They see an opportunity to score political points, and if it results in the deaths of tens or hundreds or thousands of citizens in a country so far away, who cares? The goal is to undermine the President for the benefit of the Repbulican party.

Such naked narcissism takes my breath away.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross posted at Dagblog.

Having been trained in Economics and Finance, I am a strong believer in the benefits of market based competition. However, I also recognize that there are many markets where for some reason the free market does not lead to economic efficiency which economists often define as producing at the lowest possible cost. The medical industry may fall into this category of non-market based efficiency.

This can be illustrated by the following: About 25 to 30 years ago the Blue Cross/Blue Shield system dominated the health insurance industry. There was sharp criticism because the hospital portion of medical care was paid on a cost plus basis. Those who did not understand the system assumed that this led to uncontrolled growth in hospital costs. Governments forced the Blues into a different payment system and hospital costs skyrocketed. What the critics failed to understand is that the Blues audited hospital costs and refused to include many costs in the payment base. In fact, hospitals were required to get advance approval for major capital purchases. This means that if one hospital had an underutilized MRI the blues would not reimburse another hospital in the area that acquired an additional MRI. The Blues encouraged the second hospital to contract for MRI services with the first hospital. This led to lower overall costs in the system. The elimination of the Blue Cross single payer cost-plus system led to duplication of services and higher per unit costs due to  underutilization at some institutions and higher over-all costs due to scheduling of unnecessary tests designed to justify the acquisition of the equipment at others. In this case competition led to higher costs rather instead of    economic efficiency.

Now we are hearing health insurers and their congressional apologists screaming that a single payer system would not be economically efficient because we would eliminate competition. In addition, they claim that a single payer system would lead to rationing. What they fail to consider is that we already have rationing. In a world of scarce resources the market based system allocates, i.e. rations, resources on the basis of prices. In the realm of health care, those who can afford to pay the price get the care. Medical care is rationed to those with either high wealth or good insurance. Those without either get poor or no care. In addition, as was explained earlier, market based health care leads to higher costs.

The time has come for Americans to join the rest of the developed world and treat health care as a non-market service. Those who claim that the government cannot operate efficiently just need to look at Medicare as a model. I have many friends, over 65, who rail against government involvement in health care. When I ask them if they're going to give up their Medicare coverage their universal response is that Medicare is great. Why would they give it up? When I point out their contradictory attitudes they just ignore me. They fall into the category of those people who dislike economists    because economics often disproves their preconceived notions and people are reluctant to change cherished beliefs when evidence contradicts them.

There's been a bit of a  hullabaloo about banning clove cigarettes (and not menthols!) because those pesky cloves come mostly from Indonesia.  Some argue (including repugs in Congress) that such a ban has a disproportionate impact on foreigners and, therefore, much be protectionist and in violation of our WTO commitments.

The general rule of Free Trade is that governments must treat "like" (similar) products the same way, no matter where they come from.  However, regulators can get away with trade-restrictive regulation that impacts "like" products differently (e.g., those pesky environmental laws) so long as the interest being protected is compelling enough and so long as the regulation is applied evenly across the board.  If you don't implement evenly, it's likely to be (according to the WTO) protectionism in an envrionmental-protection costume.  As an example: under the GATT, you *can* slap a quota on indonesian tuna if indonesian fisherman don't adequately protect dolphins -- even though the indonesian tuna is "like" American dolphin-safe tuna. 

However, if you ban fossil fuel product x because it has toxic chemical y, and y only comes from canada, but you DONT ban toxic chemical z (which is just as toxic as y) which comes from the US, the WTO is likely going to find that you're implementing illegal protectionism. 

Okay, fine.  So hypocrisy is not tolerated by GATT or NAFTA.  But we seem to get tripped up on those incremental measures that *do* have a disproportionate impact on a foreign industry but, had we the time and polictical momentum, would be bigger, better and more widely applied -- and then would smell less like protectionism.  We can't, for example, ban all fossil fuel vehicles all at once, but maybe we can ban luxury cars that use too much fuel.  Well, let's say all those luxury cars come from Germany.  You can't really say that this is protectionist--it's just a first step that happens to have a disparate impact.

Or so the argument goes.  I would suggest a change in the treaty language that allows for this slipperyness in domestic politics. 

In a move that would no doubt make his mother proud, Sen. James Inhofe refused to meet with Judge Sotomayor today saying he already decided to vote against her. I love that Republicans give everyone a fair shot at a job! In his next move to oppose the President he will begin to take away the birthdays of those who believe in Climate Change and live in his state. After that, he says things are open, but he has ideas

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/06/19/inhofe-refuses-to-meet-with-sotomayor/

Read what Inhofe said through his spokesman Jared Young, Inhofe's spokesman, said Inhofe's opposition stems from his belief that "her spoken and written words show a leaning toward judicial activism and a deference to international laws instead of the U.S. Constitution."
Moreover, Young said, Inhofe voted against her nomination in 1998 to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and "this is a promotion and the bar is raised, so he is compelled to vote no."

 

Seriously though, what would we do without old southern dudes like James Inhofe? I would like to say we would be a better world (and we would be), but it might not be as funny to observe. James Inhofe is the same Senator who said he was outraged by the outrage over Abu Grahib photos and was one of the few Senators to vote against the anti torture legislation. James Inhofe, he is a real piece of work isn't he. James Inhofe does his job every day to make Oklahoma proud!

If you live in The Land of Eternal Melodrama, otherwise known as the state of California, you know that the 5th (or 6th) largest economy in the world is going down the tubes. Boom and bust is all California can ever do. Greed runs deep here.

Arnold S has been bashing state workers now for a few months and this week my friend who is a public health nurse who makes a whopping $55,000 ran into some minor hostility in her state car this week. "Megan" helps corporate health care companies find options for health care for the poor which is now all of us. She is also part of a task force to monitor cases of the Swine flu. She enjoys her job and is good at it. She likes serving the public and considers it a noble thing to do. I know, she's a loser.

This week she told me when she parked her car in a not so great neighborhood to visit a local health clinic, she was asked by a nearby white man apparently waiting for someone, "do you like your car?" "What?" she asked. "Do you like your state car?" Thinking he was asking her about it because it is a hybrid Prius, she went on about it being a comfortable vehicle and the gas mileage was pretty good but not quite up to what she would expect..... The man then lit into her how he wished he could have a Prius but he wasn't a state worker like her and he hoped she enjoyed it because he never will. Then he turned away from her and stomped down the block. Nothing like this had ever happened to her before. Ever.

Who knows why it happened but we do have a governor that is in the paper every day bashing state workers. To me it is incomprehensible that the governor of any state would intentionally create hostility between his own public servants and the public they serve. In fact, it is idiotic because the state workers SERVE the citizens so if you cut the state workers you deprive the citizens of services they paid for through their state income taxes.

So after a little too much caffeine this a.m., I called the gov office and spoke to their 13 year old "staffer" (ok maybe she was 18) and was told that Arnold S has to run this state "like any other corporation" meaning "he has to lay off his workers."

I reminded this 12 year old that a coroporation and one of the United States are not the same thing. I also reminded her that most state jobs pay BELOW the national average for state workers and they certainly pay much lower than the private sector. I reminded her many state workers bust their asses to serve their public, like my friend. I reminded her that the state workers work for ALL citizens. They do not work for profit so they are motivated to serve the public and not motivated to, I don't know, "work the system" and lie, cheat, screw people for profit, like, gosh, uhm, what just happened on, ah. Wall Street? Is this a good enough example? Or how about ENRON? Anybody remember ENRON? I think this was a corporation and gosh, what a great job they did (and those traders!) serving the public, huh?

I asked her if the Gov realized that people are tribal and stupid and if he continues to say hostile things about state workers, someone could get hurt.

The 12 year old said, "Oh Governor S would NEVER want that."

So, I guess my worry is that we are now lumping in states which are supported by public tax dollars in with corporations. We have a governor that seems to think California is one giant corporation. It is apparently not one of the United States full of HUMAN BEINGS who have paid into it for services they need and want. I know, it's just terrible that my friend, the public health nurse, isn't working for a corporation doing what she does because then she would be making a TON of money that would, of course, be paid for with TAX DOLLARS but privitization is so sweet because even though it costs the taxpayer 200-500% more, the PROFITS....man. And then the campaign funds? Wow. But no. There is no corporation yet that milks Megan for all she's worth so she can "help people." Apparently this would be the ideal situation in Arnold's warped mind.

The Republican party in this country is now addicted to two things--hysteria as in creating it, and hatred. They are moving into a realm that is creating a kind of poison in our country and our state.  The question always is, why do they constantly get away with it?

I think I am smelling an attempted conspiracy of MSM outlets to ramp up the brainwashing. The news of the Washington Post firing of Dam Froomkin clearly indicates an attempt by the Post to eliminate thinking voices from its pages (and/or its internet airspace).

 

This morning on my way to work, instead of hearing local news talk radio on the single news talk radio in my region of WV (the station, which is slanted right, does allow for call-ins where thinking -aka liberal- views can get aired), I was greeted to a replay of Rush Limbaugh from yesterday.  Rush usually is broadcast live from noon to 3:00 pm daily and I know to avoid it when I am driving to a local restaurant when I take lunch.

Dear God, please make this stop. We have already had enough brainwashing here in WV.

 

WP divesting itself of a non-partisan journalist and replays of Rush on my local talk radio a coincidence? 

 

I think not.  The MSM and those who own it are scared.  

 

     

Health Care for America Now! is staging a June 25th march in Washington.

I'm looking for a ride out of St. Louis.

Let's push for the public option now, before the legislation is finalized. The Iranian people have shown us how.

It's been difficult to watch fetal rights trump women's rights in the abortion debate.  Back in the day, there were chants of "my body, my choice."  Now, we argue at which month the fetus has the right to destroy a woman's health, sanity, family, and even her life, thereby accepting the right-wing frame that the fetus is an entity somehow divorced from and equal to the woman who carries it.

Bill O'Reilly preened when asking Joan Walsh if late term fetuses deserve any form of legal protection.  He preened because he dared her to provide the rational answer in this age of faux sentiment and thoughtless self-righteousness--be they of the Oprah or O'Reilly schools.

It's time to call the bluff and take back this debate.  The answer is a resounding "NO." 

Women deserve legal protection, and as long as a fetus is part of a woman's body, it has protections through her.  No outside person has the right to harm the fetus any more than he/she has the right to harm the woman.  No entity has the right to deny her the fruits of what's inside her body any more than they have the right to deny her the use of her liver.  What O'Reilly and his ilk want is to protect the fetus from the woman who carries it, when in fact, the woman is the only qualified arbiter of what is best for her and her body in the context of life and loved ones in which they exist.

I utterly reject the argument that fetus' are especial because they will be born and thus transform into infants.  I will not argue about a fetus' future state.  Its current nature as a fetus means that it lives inside the body of an existing human being.  That independent living being's needs and trump those of what lives inside its body and the disposition of what lives inside its body is in that being's sole discretion.   Period.  

The argument that fetuses may live to become infants and therefore deserve protection is also ad absurdum.  A cell can be cloned and can grow into an infant.  Should the pulling out of hair be outlawed?   As science matures, artificial means of keeping cells and cell groups alive will doubtless evolve.  What amount to petrie dish blobs will be "viable" outside the womb--with enough help.  This is the ultimate argument of anti-abortion crusaders.  They desperately want to outlaw abortion and even contraception.  To to them, a la Monty Python, "every sperm is sacred."  A woman is simply the subservient, relatively insignificant vessel for something more valuable than she--a fetus.   It's rights trump hers.

Barack Obama said that he rejected the pro-choice argument that there was no societal moral question involved in abortion.  He was right on the substance; he was wrong on the particulars.  It is grossly immoral for a society to so devalue a segment of its population that it reserves the right to force them under law to use their own bodies in ways that are harmful to themselves. 

The abortion debate needs to be brought home to the rights of women--not the rights of fetuses.  Let's face it:  To the anti-abortion crowd, it has been all along.  They have simply couched it in the cuddly swaddling clothes of romantic infancy to win the point:  "Who do you want to protect," they ask?  "this sweet, cooing child, or this selfish bitch who refuses to do what my God says is her biological duty?"

As long as a fetus remains a fetus, it gains the same rights and protections as the woman who carries it.  The fate of what exists inside a woman's body... that is hers alone to decide.  You may think abortion is wrong.  I think it's wrong to raise your child as a Nazi.  What harm can a woman who has an abortion do you?  At best it harms your delicate sensibilities in the abstract.  A child raised as a neo-Nazi will grow up with the will and perhaps the means to do a great many people a lot of physical and emotional harm.  If I don't have the right to stop people from raising their children as they see fit--regardless of the potentially negative impact on my life and wellbeing--you don't have the right to stop a woman from doing what she thinks best for her life and loved ones, especially since the only possible damage is to your delicate sensibilities.  We're both offended.  On both counts: Tough shit.  Man up.  It's none of your fucking business.

The woman's rights/pro-choice crowd needs to stop accepting the right-wing frame for this debate.  When asked if fetuses deserve rights, the answer is: Women deserve rights--including protection from people who would force them to use their bodies in ways they know to be harmful to their wellbeing, their loved ones, and their lives. 

No comment -- details in link.

U.S. funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
Why believe this is done for advertised reasons - when the result of failure of nuclear program would be loss of Iranian domestic electricity supply : hospitals, water supply, sewage treatment, etc. all would fail : Infrastructure essential to a modern state
Bush sanction 'black ops' against Iran
'regime change' left out of later terms of reference
Redirection
'Iran and Syria have made their choices and their choice is to destabilize'
Blaming the victims of surreptitious activity for the results
Canada will not 'stay out of Iranian politics'
crackdown on 'deviant news sites' - Iran
Why should we listen to these conservatives on foreign policy?
'should remember these commentators' previous discredited claims'
Democrats dodge ban on cash from lobbyists
Give kids a beacon of hope
If there's a tip on conflict of interest here - privatization of schools being another known scam - I'll look at posting info
Medical Advisory Commission recommends denial of care as a model
Single Payer Action
ABC News to air Obama interview on health care
Toxic shock syndrome from sinus infection ?
Psoraisis may raise cardiovascular risks
FDA reluctantly admits mercury fillings have neurotoxic effects on kids
VA inspections show continued flaws
Mike Adams is going off the deep end
Newborn weights affected by environmental contaminants
Climate change brings new diseases
Software engineers allow PCs to scan mobile devices for viruses
Lifehacker's Firefox Add-On Packs
Magnetic super-atoms discovered
Taser death : stun gun fired 28 times
It's time to speak truth to power
Two days before 9/11, military exercise simulated suicide hijack targeting New York
20 amazing pictures of Earth as seen from space

On June 19, 1865 Major General Gordon Granger arrived at Galveston, Texas and informed the enslaved Blacks that the Civil war had ended and that they were now free. This was months after Robert E Lee surrendered at Appomattox in April 1865, and 2.5 years after Lincoln's signing of the emancipation Proclamation in January 1.1863. Texas Blacks were unaffected by the Proclamation because there were not enough Union troops in Texas to overcome Confederate resistance. After Lee's surrender, more troops could be freed up to go into Texas.

Why was there a 2.5 year delay? There are difficult to verify stories that slaveholders withheld the news of Lincoln's Proclamation so that the land owners could continue to reap benefits of the labor, or that the Union decided to let the Texans reap the benefits of one last cotton crop. There is even a story that the messenger carrying the news was murdered. The true reason for the delay is lost to history, but the lack of Union troop strength makes as much sense as any. 

Reactions to the news varied from shock to immediate jubilation. One thing that did happen was a large celebration in Galveston. The celebration spread through many townships in the South over the years, probably as a result of Galvestonian Blacks moving to other states. Today many cities have Juneteenth celebrations.

Yesterday the Senate unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and paving the way for a joint Congressional resolution to the same effect. The resolution means that the federal government is acknowledging it's role in 2.5 centuries of slavery in the United States. The Senate resolution's sponsor, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) wanted the resolution to coincide with Juneteenth recognizing the significance of the date.

Happy Juneteenth

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803877.html

.

WASHINGTON -- Car shoppers could take advantage of government incentives worth up to $4,500 this summer to send their old gas guzzler to the scrap heap in favor of a more fuel-efficient new vehicle.

President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law the "cash for clunkers" program, which was approved by the Senate on Thursday. For owners of low-mileage models such as the 1994 Ford Bronco, 1998 Nissan Pathfinder or the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer, the plan could give them a reason to visit their local car dealer during an economic downturn.

"I've been sitting on the fence for about a year," said Jim Seegraves, 44, of East Lansing, Mich., who has been looking to replace his 2000 GMC Sierra pickup truck. "This legislation will help me get over the hump and get the car that I want."

Question: If your car current gets 21 mpg and you trade it in for one that gets 24 mpg -- do you get a voucher too?  How much?

I keep hearing the car must only get 18 or less mpg.  What if it gets 19-22mpg, do these cars qualify too?

You may have noticed a few weekends ago some spammers at Cafe were putting up entries which were redirecting you to their sites as soon as you landed on certain TPM pages. This kind of attack (called cross-site scripting) uses javascript to take command of the browser for malicious ends. To combat that, while we were developing a fix, we disabled self-registration and asked users to email us if they wanted to start an account. That way we could make sure bots weren't signing up and injecting harmful code into Cafe pages.

Last night we deployed a security fix that will prevent these kind of attacks by stripping out certain HTML tags from entries, such as the <script> tag. We're also stripping out the <style> tag, which can alter the legibility and structure of the site. These changes won't affect the majority of users, but please be advised if certain tags "disappear" from your entries on save, this is what is going on.

Another note -- we have elected to whitelist tags that allow embedding videos. Though this allows a high level of freedom (and a certain amount of risk), we felt that sharing videos was an integral part of TPMCafe discussion. If these tags are abused, however, we may have to reconsider.

Please let me know if you see anything funky by emailing me at al@ this domain. Thanks.

Like most of us, I'm not an expert on Health Care. If I claim to any special expertise on anything, it would be in the general area described by the expression, "Common Sense". One of the attributes of Common Sense is that it has the capacity to find simplicity almost anywhere - even deep within the brambles of a thorny, complicated set of expert-laden, statistics-crammed issues like this one.

What are the simplicities here?

 (1)First, focus on the desired RESULT.  Given absolute authority, where do we want to come-out at the end? What is actually RIGHT, in terms of its best long-term benefit to the country? If we can't visualize that goal NOW, we are certain to get prematurely bewildered by the morass of worrisome details standing guard against action on the front-end of ANY complex problem. ("If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there."  - Anonymous philosopher of Common Sense). How did Alexander the Great untie the Gordian Knot?

(2)To make a long story brutally short, here's the result we SHOULD want (I know that's a bit didactic, but I'm keeping it simple):

 Responsible, minimal, economically-sensible, cost-rational, permanent coverage for every Amercan citizen - cradle to grave, with or without either a job or the ability to pay.

(That last part means it must be a Federal program, paid by public taxes. Bill Gates and his gardener qualify equally).

There's our MISSION, in a couple of sentences.

(3)How do we get there?  As Americans with a uniquely American problem-solving sensibility, that's really the LEAST of our problems. If we're broadly agreed on (2), history repeatedly warns not to bet against us. I recall reading about a meeting among the Allies during WW2. The British were not sold on invading France, and were introducing all sorts of detailed negative considerations. After a lot of to-and-fro, a Russian general told the assembly (including Gen. Marshall), "If you think about it, you will do it." Marshall was deeply impressed by the profound simple truth of that statement, and it was that simple observation that put us on the way to what became D-day. This isn't so different. 

(4)A few rough concepts to help cut a little more brush out of our way: (a)Every segment of our society must work for the betterment of the whole, and not the other way around - if physicians, or insurance executives, or individual employers, or ANYONE ELSE is unwilling to do their part to pull the wagon out of the ditch to a better place, to H--- with them. Better to do it with them, but it's going to be done one way or the other. (b)A minimal floor does not have to be a ceiling - any person, or any employer, or any other entity who wants something more or something different should not be prohibited from seeking it out from any private enterprise that cares to provide it. This simply means no one is under any burdensome OBLIGATION to consider these distracting matters in lieu of their normal business.(c)Don't be overly deterred by COSTS. This is a national public crisis that MUST be addressed - no different and no more restrained by an inappropriate concern for costs than WW2 was. It is simply going to cost what it costs, but we are not allowed to ignore the equally valid (and arguably greater) costs of doing nothing. 

 

Be sure to go and watch the video showing how Fox News, Sean Hannity and Karl Rove all get caught with their pants down.

ABC is getting special access into the White House coming soon.  Fox News as usual is crying 'foul' and claiming "Journalism in America is Dead".

ABC News plans to air a news special entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," which will afford President Barack Obama the opportunity to field questions on his plan for health care reform. This has given the good folks at Fox News a big old sad, because of ABC's "unprecedented access" and the very limited opportunity available for Griff Jenkins to dress up like the ghost of Thomas Paine, "ambush" the participants, and blame ACORN for rationing health care, like we were from Saskatoon or something. Karl Rove says that what ABC is doing has never been done before! Sean Hannity claims journalism is dead! Gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, vows to run counterprogramming, loud noises!

I was disappointed to hear the details that the latest version of the comprehensive healthcare compromise excludes a public option. A public option is a sturdy measure in controlling the cost of basic healthcare needs, which in the USA the healthcare industry has exploited for their own (significant) financial benefit.

Here in Germany, we have a successful mixture of public and private plans that compete with each other with the government only mandating what needs to be covered at a minimum, leaving the rest of the details to the public Krankenkassen and private plans to sort out on their own and the consumer the free choice to choose what he-she wants. The result is a far superior system when examining basic healthcare indices, e.g. waiting time, cost, treatment efficacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.

Polling reveals that Americans want a public option available (70%), with the only protest coming from those backing the private companies, claiming "unfairness." Yet, these are the same private insurers who have been robbing the public for years with their exploding premiums. This debate does not seem to be on behalf of a government for the people and by the people, but one for the shareholder and against the people.

The CBO's fear that the droves of people would flee private insurance for a public option, an implicit acknowledgement of the public's desire for a public option, when assessing the impact of such a plan on the budget on the budget, neglects to take into account that a successful public plan would free businesses from the exorbitant yearly raises in the costs of healthcare, in turn enabling higher wages to be paid, which would provide the financing for the government program through increased tax revenue.

September eleventh, two thousand and one.

Why does the idea of closing Gitmo look good on paper, but seems impossible in practice?  We loved the idea when it was simply that ... yet what to do with the terrorists (we all know they are, deep down) when they might end up on our soil?  God forbid.  Not in my back yard.  Just leave things the way they are, I'd really rather not think about it.

Torture?  No, we don't do that unless we need to - and what, pray tell, if we didn't?  It's a terrible thing that we're all naturally against as good and honest working folk, but we must be careful.  If we don't force them to tell us things how else will we find out?  After all, they are all out to kill us, and the professionals are protecting us.  Just leave things the way they are, I'd really rather not think about it.

Read more »

Anonymous Iran - any advice from protest vets would probably be appreciated.

And, I a tole a you to proxy this MFs:
Guy Fawkes In Iran

Undermining Mexico
Songbird 1.2 debuts new features Second thoughts on Iran
America's Iranian Twitter revolution
The Iranian election and the faith-based media
Extreme Canada : ruling party interferes with social science funding
Ethics reform is hard - Texas
Torture : an American legacy
A case of Post-Diplomatic Stress Disorder : U.S. policy on Cuba
Dispatches - Afghanistan's Dirty War
Obama's gift to Pakistan
A plague of snakes - Iraq water shortage
centuries of irrigating the soil without draining it properly have led to a buildup of salt in the soil
Agent Orange continues to poison Vietnam
GOP's trillion dollar reactor plan goes radioactive
urainum mining - an environmental disaster - is running short of potential mines
Congress sends $106 billion war funds bill to Obama
The Rhetorical President
An 'Exit Strategy' that keeps wars going
The Wheels are coming off the Recovery Program
The case for disbarment of the torture lawyers
Guantanamo's hidden history -  shocking statistics of starvation
Beating and Torturing Children - Israel
Israeli loyalty oaths
Israel's angels in America
Who'll get the blame for the expenses blackout ? - UK
Gordon Brown's War Inquiry - public accountability...in private
The Battle against State Secrets privilege
How Fox News is helping to nationalize the GI Sanctuary movement
Finding a stubborn hope to live in a dead culture
Elmer Fudd Nation
Clean diesel comes of age
Big Water's Big Lie comes unraveled

How i learned to stop worrying and love sexism

I have been watching with rapt attention the events of the past week occurring in Iran. At a time, when i am often pessimistic about society, especially in the US, Iran's protest movement provides a ray of warm sunlight through my otherwise cold and dreary conception of humanity. I find in it a glimmer of the nobility of which humanity is capable, even against a backdrop of the dark blemishes to which we are all heirs.

So i watch with admiration as they stand up, these vibrant, learnèd, politically-engaged...intelligent...hot Persian women, i mean, O. M. G., have you seen some of these pictures?

Quit making 'oinking' noises, i'm trying to talk here.


So, i figure that sooner or later there will be some sort of twitter dating service or something, and i'm working on my personal ad to get ready.

Now, i've changed it a bit for the audience, and in deference to the more traditional culture of Iran, i've removed the picture of my engorged genitalia that i usually use for my Craigslist ads, (perhaps you've seen them: "Hot Lover 4 U 2 Nite" and "Curious in Connecticut").

About: Fun, young male, gainfully employed professional, good with children.  Knows the difference between Arabs and Persians. Thinks kababs are a pretty cool idea.
Likes: Enjoys long walks on the beach, religious syncretism, scarves.
Dislikes: Ties, beatings, secret police, foreign women leaving when they realize there are much more attractive guys than me in the States.
Looking for: Hot Persian lady pref. with background in science or the arts who wants to experience the world.

Can anyone give me tips on sprucing it up and translating it into Farsi?

PS. don't make me do my holocaust routine...you don't want to see me when i do my holocaust routine....[Cue Incredible Hulk TV end theme].

PPS. For a less offensive post on the issue see previous entry.

When Senator Boxer asked General Walsh to please, call me Senator it was like a flashback to In Heat of the Night wherein Sidney Pointer famously said, "They call me Mr. Tibbs" as the law enforcement of that small Mississippi town was investigating a murder. 

We haven't heard from Paul Wolfowitz for a long time, but the plight of the Iranian people has brought him out of the woodwork.

Today he has a piece in the WaPo entitled "'No Comment' Is Not an Option", where he says

"Now is not the time for the president to dig in to a neutral posture. It is time to change course.".

Wolfowitz's piece is followed by another star of the neocon constellation Charles Krauthammer, who writes:

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

This is getting more obvious by the hour.

What I think is evident is that the USA, from its own point of view and interest, has no dog in this fight. The question, is what is moving this story, not in Iran, but outside of Iran.

What I think is obvious is that the internal undercurrents and tensions in Iran are being exploited by the foreign corporate media for their own interests... the neocons are piling on too. Reading through the Iranian cast of characters it is also obvious that America does not have a dog in this fight. Simply put, the situation is being used to weaken Obama's ME strategy. The question: qui bono? Answer: the usual suspects.

There are a lot of people who want the USA to attack Iran and many of them are the same people who wanted the USA to attack Iraq. Since very few people in the USA, including the president (take note that I am giving him full credit here) want to attack Iran, especially after seeing what a disaster attacking Iraq was, it is necessary to build public anger.

After the Cairo speech there are people on the Likud-AIPAC circuit that would like to derail Obama's momentum in the Middle East. The same people are very worried by the pressure from Obama on the settlement freeze. This Iranian opportunity could be seen like knocking over the table in a losing chess game. While everybody is picking up the pieces, the one who was losing gets some time to think and his opponents rhythm is broken. Or the corner cutting a groggy boxer's glove so that the fighter can get a chance to clear his head while the ref is inspecting the glove. Playing for time, changing the subject.

I am very impressed by the way that Obama is handling this one. He reminds me of Eisenhower: a practicing adult. If he doesn't cave into all the neocons on this, I may finally come to Jesus and become a fan of his.

I ran into this today on a tech site I read. The article refers to the city of Bozeman Montana and applying for city employment. On the employment application they request not just if you have participated in any social networking sites or other on line participation but also your USERNAMES and PASSWORDS for those accounts. I read this twice and three times just to be sure I read it correctly. There were many commenters on this and one person says he checked it out and confirmed it.

http://www.dailytech.com/City+Requests+Facebook+MySpace+Google+Logins
+and+Passwords+of+Job+Applicants/article15465.htm

This is an indicator of just how much the mentaility of government is changing and how abusive government power can become.

It should come as no surprise that our government has been the driver of so many awful results of late. Our elected officials are truly clueless. This nation is being swept away in a flood of ignorance and stupidity.

Dear TPM community, I know that I have been a bit scarce of late. As many of you know, I have been dealing with trigeminal neuralgia and that has been both time and energy consuming. At the same time I was diagnosed with TN, I was also diagnosed with an auditory neuroma. I am scheduled for radiation surgery tomorrow (Friday) morning. I have been in a flurry of preparation for this "event." While I have high hopes that all will go well tomorrow, there is a possibility that I may take a while to recover. I hope to be functioning normally (Ha!) in no time at all.

I have missed dialoging with you. I feel a sense of community, support, sanity, and yes levity here. Because I feel an attachment and a responsibility as part of this community, I did not want to just "disappear." 

So, I'm thinking of you all, even if I am not here in pixels. I look forward to returning.

Thanks to all of you for your support and encouragement. You are truly special - individually and collectively -  and I love the passion and thoughtfulness you bring to this space.

Proposed new law would let Canadian police snoop in on what you do online Court stiffs veterans caught in privacy breachCrunching Iranian numbers for evidence of fraud
Encrypt the cloud, security luminaries tell Google
Schwarzenegger threatens to shut down government
FDA threatens to seize all products that dare to mention H1N1 swine flu
The only products that may be mentioned are those that don't work or aren't available
Businesses step up sanitizing to stop swine flu
High fructose corn syrup and diabetes : what the experts say
Traditional Chinese foods prevent breast cancer
Genetically Modified crops are harmful to your health
U.S. corn lowers fertility
also at Organic News
swine flu is caused by cheap meat
Monsanto crop fails in Africa
Food needs 'fundamental rethink'
Attack on water leads to sanitation crisis
In Iraq, that meant widespread cholera
Non-gratuitous violence : Iran
Lefty Talk : Sarkozky plays with pensions

http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/index.cfm?uid=7fd59f2e-88e1-477a-8eaf-762a5b050809

Our Supreme Court ruled today that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after found guilty of a crime. (The high court ruled 5-4 against an Anchorage man convicted 16 years ago of vicious attack on woman.)

I subscribe to FindLaw e-mail notifications for Supreme Court Cases and this is link for this case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-6.

I am hoping that someone out there (attorney perhaps) has some pertinent facts to post as to this ruling.   Right now I am so busy, I am meeting myself coming and going - so don't have time to do research. I did skim the findings and found much of the legal rationale to be, at the very least, the polar opposite of the foundation of the (as I understand it) intent of our public justice system. 

However, I hope that all are as appalled and disgusted with this ruling, as well as 'frightened' by the precedent.  This is about much more than this individual case and/or person.

Appreciate any insight and/or thoughts on this issue.

 

 

The Obama administration has released their Financial Regulatory Reform Plan. The various political and pundit responses are being broadcast. I could not get past the introduction without choking over the the misdirection of poli-speak. I guess my hopes are for plain speaking and accountability. I do not see either reflected in this document.

Read more »

Today we get more news that some Democrats are freaking out about the cost of health care reform. CBO has scored the Finance Committee's bill at $1.6 trillion over 10 years, and it will only cover 2/3 of the uninsured.

I have a simple question: Why are we looking at the 10-year cost rather than the annual cost? $160 billion a year is only a little over 5% of the FY 2008 budget per Wikipedia. Relatively speaking, it's peanuts. And why doesn't someone score what individuals are going to save as a result of the spending by the federal government? $160 billion out of a $14 trillion economy is no reason to get scared, especially when the net of government plus private costs will be even lower.

Well to start all this off, I think we should all sing along to the Woo Hoo Pokeman Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-I7Z7swNMs

 

Woo hoo Woo hoo    Woo hoo Woo hoo    Woo hoo Woo hoo        

 

All righty then. Senator John Ensign began his carreer in a similar vein to Lindsey Graham:

 

In 1994, Ensign won the Republican nomination for Nevada's 1st congressional district, based in Las Vegas. He was far behind four-term Democratic incumbent James Bilbray for most of the campaign. However, Ensign gained considerable momentum after reports surfaced that a Bilbray aide stood to make a huge profit from lands legislation sponsored by Bilbray.

 

So basically, Ensign was one of those revolutionaries riding into Congress with Gingrich Wave, capitalizing on the rising tide of fascism in this country with the added benefit of taking on an opponent charged with graft. And like Lindsey, Ensign rose to the level of Senator and had the opportunity to vote for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for moral failings. The Las Vegas Sun has reported:

The one-time mistress and campaign treasurer of Sen. John Ensign saw her salary double during the time of the affair, according to federal election documents.

It seems that Cynthia Hampton, doubled her pleasure and her fun as her salary went from $1400/month to $2800/month during this version of Wife Swap. Her boy even got into the act picking up over five grand for his help on Ensign's campaign.

Doug Hampton had been earning about $160,000 annually since he started on the senator's payroll on Nov. 8, 2006. He was one of the top paid aides in the office, receiving pay equal to the senator's chief of staff. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jun/17/ensign-resigns-gop-leadership-post/J. Patrick Coolican (contact), Lisa Mascaro (contact)

Okay then. Well we gotta lotta things going here, do we not?  I mean we have a man who is a:

Born again Christian (I suppose he could get born again again? I mean what is to stop this? And further mistakes and he could do it again and again and again)

Promise Keeper. Thanks to Steve Katz, I was given a link to this wonderful organization. It claims five and a half million members. Of course this would be hyperbola but it tells me there are more than a million who think they are promise keepers and I would think that Senator Ensign will not be asked to speak at their yearly convention any time soon.

Minority Leadership Positions in the Senate. Not anymore.

Potential Presidential Candidate. Come on, get serious.

Senator from the great State of Nevada. Let us see about that.

 

Well the Senate has its own ethics rules. And it will be fun to see how the ethical considerations play here. Cannot you see the answers to some of the questions without even seeing the questions:

A.         Ms. Hampton showed real development in her role with the campaign and I felt it important that she be rewarded for her new found production.

B.         Ms. Hampton's role in the campaign shifted at the time of her raise, due to her newly discovered talents.

C.         There are others in my Senate Office and in my Campaign that are charged with deciding the proper monies that should be paid to employees, I am above such things.

Well I could go on and on here.  But how best to defend a brother in a situation like this? Well Lindsey has come to the defense:

In an interview with Politico about Sen. John Ensign's recent admission of an affair with a campaign staffer, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had his own secret "sins."

"I think he will be welcomed back by his colleagues and go back to being a good senator," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who said Ensign shouldn't have resigned his leadership spot.

Graham downplayed the political impact this would have on the GOP, saying, "Most Americans look at this as a personal situation."

Graham let out a laugh and said: "I've got plenty of sins that I'm not going to share with anyone else." HuffPo.

Well what kind of sins could we be talking about here?  Both Graham and Ensign gave wonderful speeches about how and why Clinton should have been impeached; one in the House and one in the Senate.

I usually do not go for Chris Rock's style of humor although it turns out he is a great dad and a great husband in spite of his spiels. But he did a great monologue about Clinton during the impeachment process. Basically he was saying:

I mean he cheated on his wife and lied about it. IS NOT THAT WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO?

He was asked about extra marital affairs and he lied about it. IS NOT THAT WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO?

But our friend Lindsey, he thinks that Ensign's problems are personal in nature. And after all, everybody has some sins they are not going to share with anyone else. I mean where is the forgiveness here? Where is the understanding?

Well I checked out the web.  And it appears that our southern friends in South Carolina, the capital of the Confederacy--forget that Richmond stuff--have some misgivings with our bachelor Senator. Well the Charleston City Newspaper has come questions back in September of 2007:

Is Lindsey Graham gay?

At 52, the life-long bachelor has been fodder for such rumors for years, but with the resignation of Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho -- the anti-gay politician who pled guilty to disorderly conduct after allegedly soliciting sex in an airport men's room -- the internet is abuzz over who's next, and they're dying to know what's going on in Graham's bedroom. Is it the latest grasp for the light switch in South Carolina's powerful political closet? Or the inevitable labeling of "closet-clinging self-hater" that befalls any content bachelor?

Mainstream media often avoids asking older, single politicians what they do in their free time. While there were rumors dating back 25 years, it wasn't until blog reports about Craig trolling cruisy D.C. restrooms that The Idaho Statesmen put a reporter on the story. And even though they held the story until after Craig's arrest was made public, some still accused the paper of orchestrating a witch hunt.

When GQ asked last year, Graham wasn't mean, just dismissive. He said he's not gay, just a loner. But that denial isn't stalling renewed interest in the question. In a post on who's next out of the closet following Craig's arrest, blogger Michael Signorile (www.signorile.com) first points a questioning finger at Graham. http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A32974

In another blog site called 'Down With Tyranny" it was noted that:

Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an unmarried/never married 52 year old with a funny, forced way of walking, has been far more fastidious with his homosexuality. Again, "everyone" knows-- except the voters in conservative South Carolina. Not that it doesn't come up from time to time; people talk. In fact, the head of the Democratic Party in South Carolina said something when the effeminate Lindsey decided to run for Thurmond's senate seat. "He's a little too light in the loafers" to succeed Strom Thurmond. Graham got into a really queenie tizzy fit and loudly threatened to sue-- although he didn't. (They never do.) http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-lindsey-graham-homo-does-pope-go.html

Look, normally I would not care if Lindsey is gay or not. But if he is, he is just another son of a bitchin' repub living his double life, projecting phony standards that do not apply to him. He and Ensign speaking out against gay rights, for phony Constitutional Amendments, challenging Democrats as being against 'family values'; its all a bunch of hooey.  But we must remember that Lindsey, he took over the seat of one of the biggest hypocrites in history, old Strom Thurmond. 

'Segregation now, segregation forever.  Except in my bedroom'

As one of the few remaining paper subscribers, I am stunned.  I'm going to wait for more details than appear to be currently available, but if I can get my wife to sign off on it I will cancel my subscription and take great pleasure in explaining why.  I'm perfectly happy to surf the site for free and if I can avoid that, I will do so.

Talking health care...  I have not followed the PO issues closely.  What are the components here?  The following are considered as separable features. 


A public agency could administer the "insurance" -- collect premiums, run the money pool, pay providers.

A public agency could closely regulate contractor administrators doing the above.

A public agency could fund the "insurance" via taxes of some kind.

A public agency could supply providers (hire doctors, own/run hospitals, ...).

A public agency could perform coverage triage, set premiums, ration care and attempt to control provider costs.

A public agency could promote or enforce prudent/responsible conduct related to health care.


Other roles?

Politics and Media News Headlines 6/18/09

Diagnosis: Reform (Capital Eye)
For some individuals, how Congress aims to reform America's health care system is literally a matter of life and death. For some industries, it could mean the difference between weathering the economic storm or shuttering their businesses. Nobody knows yet what the shape or scope of the final bill will be. It may not even make it to President Obama's desk. But one thing is certain: The American health care system is set to get a lobotomy and diverse special interests are spending big bucks to make sure they're in the surgery room when it happens.

Just so you'll know what the parasites are protecting by these donations to Congress:
CEO Compensation: Who Said Health Care is in a Financial Crisis? (by Doctor K at WebMD, thanks to DCblogger at Corrente)
Those of you who are struggling to pay for your generic medicines or wondering why the doctor is charging you a $5.00 co-pay, give some thought to these facts about how our health care dollars are allocated. At the end of this post, there is a list of 23 health companies I found on Forbes.com, what the CEO was paid in 2005, and the average paid to the CEO in the past five years. Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health. [TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil, TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion]

Bill Clinton Sees Hope for Health Care Changes, This Time (New York Times)
As he watches the new Democratic president take on the issue that stymied him 16 years ago, Mr. Clinton has concluded that Mr. Obama has a better chance than he did, both because of the way the new proposals are structured and because of a national mood that is more supportive of major action. "He's got a better Congress, a more receptive climate," Mr. Clinton said in a recent interview. "He also has, frankly, a better -- at least more politically saleable -- set of proposals."
So why is Obama listening only to Blue Dogs, Republicans, and, like Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, servants of the health insurance parasites who make so much money by taking our money and then denying us coverage and care?

Daschle Folds on Federal Public Health Care Plan (The Note, ABC News)
In an attempt at bipartisanship, three former majority leaders of the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole, offered their solution today to the biggest obstacle to achieving health care reform -- a public option... In a blow to President Obama and many of his Democratic allies in the health care fight, the plan recommends that there be no federal public option, but rather state or regional public-sponsored networks that would compete with private health plans, according to the summary released today by the Bipartisan Policy Center. "If you want to stop this thing dead in its tracks, or dead on arrival, in my view you put the public plan in it," Dole said when asked whether there were any non-negotiables to deal with when drafting the bipartisan recommendations.

Daschle beds down with the enemies of health care reform (by Alegre)
There's absolutely no excuse for them to fail in getting at least a public option into a reform package.  This is the kind of thing we elected them to do - health care reform.  It's what people have said they wanted in poll after poll after poll.  If the Democrats in Congress fail to push for a public option and push it hard - and if the WH fails to demand it - then it's time we started asking the obvious question... What in the hell did we elect all of those Democrats for last November? [Emphasis added.] This should be a slam dunk dammit.  We don't need high-profile Democrats bedding down with Republicans to scuttle reform. We need them to grow a spine and get this thing done and done right.

Republicans try to obstruct health care bill. (Think Progress)
[Wednesday], the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee began marking up Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) Affordable Health Care Act. Republicans, who pushed for the incomplete HELP legislation to be studied by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and then pretended that the agency scored the entire bill, tried to obstruct the effort by complaining that the CBO had not yet scored the full proposal. During the hearing, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) argued that the hearing be postponed until a full cost-analysis is available.

The GOP then maneuvered to introduce a host of amendments simply as a delaying tactic. Rather than offering constructive improvements that could lower costs and expand coverage, a good number of the GOP's proposed amendments do nothing to solve the health care crisis. The Wonk Room has the run-down.

Senate Committee Delays Health Care Effort (Political Wire)
The Senate Finance Committee "has postponed the markup of its health care reform bill until after the Fourth of July recess," Roll Call reports. The markup was expected to begin next Tuesday.

House Republicans Unveil Thin Health Care Plan (Political Wire)
Roll Call: "House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it."

All Hat No Cattle

Taking the Hypocritical Oath (by Paul Krugman)
I know it's a tough competition, but this just might be the most hypocritical thing I've seen in the past year: "On Monday, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Pat Roberts (R-KS) introduced the 'Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2009,' a new bill prohibiting Medicare or Medicaid from using 'comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage.'" How bad is it? Let me count the ways.

1. Politicians who rail against wasteful government spending are taking action to prevent the government from reining in ... wasteful spending.
2. Politicians who warn that the burden of entitlements is killing the federal budget are stepping in to block ... the single most painless route to reducing the growth of entitlements.
3. They're doing it in the name of avoiding "rationing of health care" ... but they're specifically addressing taxpayer-funded care. If you want to go out and buy a medically useless treatment, Medicare won't stop you.
4. These same politicians are, of course, opposed to efforts to expand coverage. In other words, it's evil for government to "ration care" by only paying for things that work; it is, however, perfectly OK, indeed virtuous, to ration care by refusing to pay for any care at all.

The Bipartisanship of Fools (by E.J. Dionne)
Where did we get the idea that the only good health care bill is a bipartisan bill? Is bipartisanship more important than whether a proposal is practical and effective?... It's one thing to compromise to pick up votes, which one hopes is what Baucus is doing. It's another to compromise in exchange for nothing at all. The first is bipartisanship with a purpose. The second is the bipartisanship of fools.

Click here for more important articles on health care and other issues.

Carolyn Kay                      
MakeThemAccountable.com

From The Whole Delivery 

Pre-revolution

In the mid 1970's you could not be on a major American university or college campus without being exposed to the ISA: the Iranian Students Association.  And so it was that in the fall of 1976 I was first exposed to the ISA.  The Iranian Ambassador to the United States, Ardeshir Zahedi, was scheduled to speak on the campus of my school which was actually a small school and we had no Iranian students in attendance at that time.  Out of nowhere, early in the day he was to speak, young Iranian students from many places both near and far descended by bus and private car on my campus to protest his appearance.

It was well known back in those days that the regime in Iran was a puppet government of the United States that used brutal tactics to maintain power.  Like other Middle Eastern dictators, the Shah of Iran was a "strong man" whose dictatorship depended upon intimidation and repression.  The Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, was notorious for torturing people, for all sorts of thuggery not unlike one would expect of the Gestapo or the KGB.  Zahedi was, from the moment the US installed the Shah in the early 1950's, one of the top men inside the regime and was very close to the Shah himself.  The Shah, despite being universally recognized as a despot, was generally given credit in the American media for "westernizing" Iran and for holding the line against the USSR and creeping Bolshevism in Iran.  Iran was known as a prosperous, oil rich nation that was an important "strategic ally" of the United States and the west generally. 

The students of the ISA were intense, highly articulate, motivated, interesting, committed to democracy and throwing off the yoke of repression and tyranny the CIA had imposed upon them for the previous twenty years or so.  They made their case in compelling fashion and they were relentless in their organizing efforts and in demonstrating their implacable opposition to the Shah continuing on "The Peacock Throne".  They wanted a democratic government, responsive to the people of Iran and one that would serve the people of Iran instead of an oligarchy.  There was never any "anti-Americanism" coming from the students of the ISA though they did not hide their displeasure over American backing for the Shah or for the US providing all sorts of training for SAVAK in torture and other techniques of "persuasion" and repression generally. 

On the day of Zahedi's speech they chanted literally for hours: "Zahedi! Zahedi! Run!  Run!  Run!  The people of Iran are picking up their guns!"  That chant is forever burned in my memory.  It seemed at the time admirable that the Iranian students would be courageous enough to demonstrate against their government as they were doing, knowing what it was capable of.  It also seemed, at the time, highly unlikely the Shah would ever be going anywhere.  The Shah was facing increased opposition, but with America solidly behind him it was difficult to envision any popular uprising that would be able to withstand the military and police might the Shah could bring to bear on any such movement.  It appeared to most Americans that though he was despised by his people, the Shah was simply too well armed to be dislodged from power. 

But, as it turned out, the revolt against the Shah's tyranny was much deeper and gaining much more power than the American media was reporting.  Thus, few Americans understood the precarious hold on power the Shah had at the time.  Enormous pressure was building in Iran via a broad coalition of all those factions who opposed the Shah.  It was only near the end, when it was becoming clear the Shah's hold on power was not guaranteed that the US media started to cover what was, in fact, going on there.  The images broadcast at the time of vast throngs in the streets of Tehran in front of the freedom memorial were extraordinary and the whole world could see just how unpopular the Shah was with his own people.  His legitimacy was destroyed by those demonstrations.  Regardless of the form of government, all government depends upon the consent of the governed for legitimacy and cannot long last without it.  The government of the Shah was no exception and it was not long before he had to accept that reality. 

Fast Forward 30 Years 

In the past week, it appears the same sort of popular rejection of a new tyranny has been taking place.  This is the first time since 1979 that I remember seeing massive crowds demonstrating against an Iranian government. Even more significantly, we see those vast crowds around that very same memorial where the Iranian people so famously threw off the yoke of the Shah's tyranny in 1979.  Those images are what have made me really sit up and take notice of what is taking place right now in Iran since last week's election.

The protests that have been taking place seem to be being misrepresented (or perhaps more accurately misinterpreted) in the American media to a certain degree.  Our politicians and media apparently want to hope that these protests mean that Iranians reject the revolution of 1979.  I cannot imagine that to be the case because that would mean they are rejecting the decision of the people to get rid of the monarchy, it's repressive ways and American exploitation of Iran.  Despite what I believe to be this misunderstanding, a few voices have been expressing the viewpoint that the demonstrators are looking to restore the revolutionary potential of 1979 which they believe has gone awry for some time.  The former revolutionaries of 1979 who seized power---the mullahs and their fundamentalist supporters have become despots themselves in many ways that the people of Iran have grown weary of.  I could, of course, be wrong, but it seems to me that this revolution is more a social one than a strictly political one.  The Puritanism and intrusive requirements for compliance with many (particularly young people) with an out of date/out of step set of social norms and standards of a new generation are the spark that has ignited these protests.

It appears to me that all the Iranian protesters are demanding is what they see to be their basic rights.  They believe in the meaning of their revolution which was the throwing off of western (specifically American) domination and exploitation of their country.  They also believe, it seems to me, in their democratic rights.  Though the fundamentalist religious faction quickly seized power in Iran and has dominated the government since the fall of the Shah, they were not the only faction that brought him down.  They have maintained their dominant position to some extent by suppressing the other factions that helped bring down the Shah.   

A National Hero 

The great hero of the Iranian people since the early fifties has been Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.  The fundamentalist religious faction that has consolidated its power over the past 30 years fears most, what the Shah himself feared most too and that is the assertion of a genuine democratic form of government along the lines of the vision of Mossadegh.  Soon after seizing power, the mullahs forbade all but the most fleeting and rare references to Mossadegh who is really the father of Iranian democracy and independence from the colonial and western imperial powers.  His vision was of a democratic Iran that protected its culture including its religion but was not ruled solely by Islam.  His was a secular democratic vision.  I believe that is what a vast number of Iranian revolutionaries had in mind back in 1979 despite the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader around which the revolution coalesced.  Certainly the young men and women I met who were members of the ISA were looking for a secular democracy.  One hears references to the coup in 1953 and to the man who was forcibly removed from power in it, but rarely is there any information about this great man in the American media.  He is an important figure in the history of the world during the past 50 years and worth learning about.  If interested, you can find out more about Dr. Mossadegh at this site:  http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/

I have often thought that what happened in Iran after the revolution was not, in one respect, unlike what happened in England in the 17th Century after the civil war there.  The parliamentary faction, in large part energized by the fiery protestant puritans and other religious "dissenters" defeated the King and eventually had him beheaded.  The protectorate formed in the wake of the elimination of the monarchy was dominated by the Puritans who, for a brief number of years, forced their dreary, gloomy, overly earnest form of Christianity, its morals and mores on the entire population to the extent that it could.  But their zealous Puritanism was not shared by the vast majority of their fellow Brits who chafed at the dour and colorless lifestyle of the puritans who held power.  When the monarchy was restored, the general population was overjoyed to welcome back the monarchy and break free of the priggish puritan rules and regulations on personal behavior, etc... as much as anything else.  The English did not want to have their personal behavior and lives regulated to the degree that the dead earnest puritans demanded.  So too in Iran we see a people whose revolution was dominated by overzealous puritans, in this case Islamic, who had played a critical role in the great revolution of 1979.   

Likewise, the fundamentalist domination of the Islamic Republic has been too overbearing for too long and a large swath of the people chafe against this.  The repressive demands have gone too far and so much so that the people are, to a certain extent, now resisting all that excess by proxy in demanding that their votes have real weight and meaning.   

The Iron Law of Oligarchy 

There is a concept in political science known as "The Iron Law of Oligarchy".  This concept is very simple to understand and refers to the phenomenon that all revolutionaries eventually become like the oligarchs they have displaced.  It seems the Iron Law is demonstrating itself in Iran where the fundamentalists have evolved into an oligarchy that uses means and methods not at all unlike those the Shah's regime used to keep people in line, in fear, and unable to challenge their authority.  As they have become an oligarchy on their own they have become increasingly alienated from a large portion of the society they govern. 

The belief of so many Iranians that the regime has manipulated and/or fixed the election results is the opening for giving voice to a plethora of complaints and grievances the people have with those who hold real power in the regime. The people demand that their fundamental democratic right to choose their leaders be respected by the regime and the real powers that be in Iran have obviously not done that.   

Unlike the American population in 2000, the Iranian people are unwilling to give the regime the benefit of the doubt on the stolen election and they are literally demonstrating that this is intolerable and unacceptable to them.  Good for them!  I don't believe, however, that they are rejecting the revolution of 1979, Islam, or much of what the fundamentalist rulers have done and I think it would be a mistake to believe that is what they are doing.  It appears that what they want is to see changes/reforms, they want more freedom, they want a modern vision for their nation, they want less rigidity overall with respect to the personal lives of individuals and families.  Iranians, I would think, want to be treated more like citizens and less like subjects.  At least that is what I see and interpret this all to mean given my limited exposure to Iranian citizens and what I've learned by reading and studying what has been going on there over the past 30 years. 

The Right of Self Determination 

Americans often forget that sovereign nations and peoples abroad have their own viewpoints, their own preferences, tolerances, desires, and ways of doing things that aren't necessarily in common with ours.  But there is nothing wrong with people having their own views and preferences.  Those differences in and of themselves do not demonstrate hostility toward the US.  What is going on in Iran now is the business of the Iranian people alone and they have every right to determine their own destiny free from any foreign influence especially American influence.  This burst of protest in Iran while limited in the strictest sense to the dispute over the election will, it seems to me, inevitably take on greater meaning and scope if it hasn't already whether it is intentional or not.  What the US needs to do is stay out of it.  We need to make sure we don't attempt to project what our desires are upon those of the people of Iran.  We should let them tell us and the world what their desires and intentions are.  In short, we have no role in this.  We are and can only be observers and rightfully so. 

No one can know where current developments will lead Iran and its people.  My own personal hope for Iran is that these protests might eventually push Iran down the path it should have been allowed to freely pursue, and that which it freely chose over half a century ago, and that is the path of Dr. Mossadegh.  If they finally find that path again, Iran will flourish and be able to become the nation it would have become had we not toppled their democracy in 1953: a free, prosperous, democratic, and progressive nation.   

For the past 30 years I have bitterly regretted how horrendously all our Presidents have misplayed our relationship with Iran.  I continue to believe the foolish, overblown hostility toward Iran we still refuse to fully relinquish has been the primary reason the Islamic Republic's rulers have been hostile to America.  President Obama's recent acknowledgement of the CIA coup of 53 was a good start at repairing our relationship with Iran but only a start.  Having said that, even Obama has continued the saber rattling toward Iran though to an obviously lesser degree.   

Our inexcusable imperial ambitions in Iran and our seemingly endless adolescent reaction to their revolution and their determination to govern their own nation in the manner of their own choosing have always been the root of our problems with that country.  Our governments have sabotaged numerous attempts at reconciliation over the years that have only caused the reactionaries in Iran to grow in power.  Perhaps with a little luck, America will begin to adopt a posture toward Iran based on respect for their sovereignty and right to self determination.  When that happens, our relationship with Iran can become not merely just no longer hostile, but we will someday become friends with that nation as we should be.  Demonizing and threatening Iran is a failed strategy.  Our ongoing hostility toward Iran only makes the situation worse.  We will never have any influence (except in the most negative manner) in Iran unless we build a relationship based on mutual respect instead of subservience for Iran.  By cultivating such a relationship we will simultaneously be able to eventually eliminate the potential threat of Iranian attack to Israel and, I would think, substantially diminish the level of armed violence and terrorism against Israel in Lebanon and in the occupied territories. 

As the people of Iran courageously demonstrate their anger at having their democratic rights ignored, I wish them the best of luck and hope fervently this represents a turning point for them that will lead to a return to the vision of a modern, democratic Iran by and for Iranians and one where their government is and remains independent from foreign influence so the people and society of this ancient and accomplished culture can reach its full potential at home and on the world stage.  The entire world is watching, waiting and hoping this will be a positive moment for Iran and her people.

I probably let the length of this post get out of hand.  Sorry for that, but hope some find it worth reading despite the length.

 

One final note... There are many excellent books about Iran, etc...  One that I highly recommend to anyone interested in Iran is a book called "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer.  Kinzer is, I believe,  a retired NYT reporter.  The book looks back at the origins of American involvement in Iran back in the 50's.  It provides a good context for what has occurred in Iran since, how America so foolishly erred in installing the Shah and the roots of Iranian hostility toward and fear of America.  It's not a long book, is a quick read and is well worth one's time.  I read it in a couple of days on the beach.

MINOR UPDATE: Tonight, for the first time, in pictures of today's demonstrations in Tehran I saw pictures of Dr. Mossadegh being held aloft by the protesters.  The more the image of Mossadegh is seen, the greater the threat to the current powers that be.  I am encouraged by this and hope that we see more and more pictures of Mossadegh as the protests continue. 

If you have read any of my previous writings you know I am an atheist.  I personally believe that religion is extremely destructive and counterproductive to a happy life.  And obviously - I believe that this life is the only one we get.  That thought scares the hell out of many people - most of them Christian.  There is a beauty in the brevity and urgency of a finite life.  We have an extremely limited time to do some bit of good for future generations.  

Glen Greenwald points to a recent argument with conservative co-worker Charles Krauthammer over torture as at least one of the factors leading to the dismissal of Froomkin.

Greenwald (6-18-09): One of the rarest commodities in the establishment media is someone who was a vehement critic of George Bush who, applying their principles consistently, has become a regular critic of Barack Obama -- someone who criticizes Obama from what is perceived as "the Left" rather than for being a Terrorist-Loving Socialist Muslim. It just got a lot rarer, as The Washington Post -- at least according to Politico's Patrick Gavin-- just fired WashingtonPost.com columnist, long-time Bush critic and Obama watchdog (i.e., a real journalist) Dan Froomkin.

What makes this firing so bizarre and worthy of inquiry is that, as Calderone notes, Froomkin was easily one of the most linked-to and cited Post columnists. At a time when newspapers are relying more and more on online traffic, the Post just fired the person who, in 2007, wrote 2 out of the top 10 most-trafficked columns. In publishing that data, Media Bistro used this headline: "The Post's Most Popular Opinions (Read: Froomkin)." Isn't that an odd person to choose to get rid of?

Following the bottomless path of self-pity of the standard right-wing male -- as epitomized by Pete Hoekstra's comparison of House Republicans to Iranian protesters and yet another column by Pat Buchanan decrying the systematic victimization of the white male in America -- Charles Krauthammer last night said that Obama critics on Fox News are "a lot like Caracas where all the media, except one, are state run." But right-wing polemicists like Krauthammer are all over the media.

In addition to his Rupert Murdoch perch at Fox, Krauthammer remains as a regular columnist at the Post, alongside fellow right-wing Obama haters such as Bill Kristol, George Will, Jim Hoagland, and Robert Kagan -- as well as a whole bevy of typical, banal establishment spokespeople who are highly supportive of whoever is in power (David Ignatius, Fred Hiatt, Ruth Marcus, David Broder, Richard Cohen, Howie Kurtz, etc. etc.). And that's to say nothing of the regular Op-Ed appearances by typical Krauthammer-mimicking neoconservative voices such as John Bolton, Joe Lieberman, and Douglas Feith -- and the Post Editorial Page itself. "Caracus" indeed.

I am not visiting their website until Froomkin is re-hired.

Contact the ombudsman:

Update, from Politico:

UPDATE (3:50pm): Washington Post Media Communications Director Kris Coratti tells POLITICO:

I think the easiest way to put it is that our editors and research teams are constantly reviewing our columns, blogs and other content to make sure we're giving readers the most value when they are on our site while balancing the need to make the most of our resources. Unfortunately, this means that sometimes features must be eliminated, and this time it was the blog that Dan Froomkin freelanced for washingtonpost.com

Another update, via Greenwald (Froomkin speaks):

I'm terribly disappointed. I was told that it had been determined that my White House Watch blog wasn't "working" anymore. But from what I could tell, it was still working very well. I also thought White House Watch was a great fit with The Washington Post brand, and what its readers reasonably expect from the Post online.

As I've written elsewhere, I think that the future success of our business depends on journalists enthusiastically pursuing accountability and calling it like they see it. That's what I tried to do every day. Now I guess I'll have to try to do it someplace else.

I really did not follow Desidero's multi-posts on Letterman's Palin joke., but I did come across his most recent post "Gollum and Modor: Making The Best Of Hypocrisy" in which Liberals were criticized for not addressing the blatant sexism of the Letterman joke. In reading the responses to that posting I was made aware of a statement that Desidero had used in a prior post concerning Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's Mother.............He of course was the child of a woman who dealt with an unintentional unmarried pregnancy at age 17, and had abortion been easy and approved at that time, we might easily have had President Biden discussing these matters instead. (See the link at the bottom of this post to connect to the post were the abortion commentary was made

That post led to my response..........

When it comes to sexist statements, Desidero's own words...............He of course was the child of a woman who dealt with an unintentional unmarried pregnancy at age 17, and had abortion been easy and approved at that time, we might easily have had President Biden discussing these matters instead........is just as sexist as Letterman's Palin joke. Both statements attack underage girls.

No Palin daughter got "knocked" up by Rodriguez at Yankee stadium. No Obama abortion occurred. Both statements have an undertone of ridiculing the difficult choices women and girls have to make with an unexpected pregnancy. Both Bristol Palin and Ann Dunham choose to go through childbirth and both wind up being part of witticisms from Letterman and Desidero, respectively.

Desidero's statement is an attack on a Caucasian woman who decided to give birth to the child of an African man. Letterman, at least, apologized for his rape joke. Will Desidero follow suit an apologize for talking about a nonexistent abortion?

Posted by rmrd0000

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/desidero/2009/06/gollum-and-mordor-making-the-b.php#comments

 ----------------------------------------------

Desidero responded with...........

Sheer nonsense. I'm just point to statistics.

In 1990, 60% of unmarried pregnancies under age 25 didn't complete. 1 million pregnancies to teenage girls a year, and 80% of them unintentional.

What's the abortion rate for 17-year-old, not-hard-core-religious girls starting college?