A bipartisan group of six "moderate" US senators, dubbed the "Gang of Six" by news agencies, issued a demand July 17 for a slowdown on Democratic health care reform. These senators - including three conservative Democrats, one conservative Independent who caucuses with Democrats, and two moderate Republicans - asked for a slowdown on health care reform not because their constituents wished it so: recent polls show that a clear majority of Americans want health care reform now including a public health care option such as that proposed by President Obama and progressives in Congress. No, these senators asked for a slowdown on health care reform because the for-profit health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries have bid them to do so in the hope that reform can be stopped, and because these same industries have generously provided them with career campaign contributions totalling more than $11 million.

These six senators - whom I'll call the "Gang of Sickos" in honor of Michael Moore's film on America's health care crisis similarly titled - are Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Ron Wyden of Oregon; Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine (Paul Krugman calls them "the six deadly hypocrites"). Their career total and average daily contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries are summarized by Paul Blumenthal at the Huffington Post based on figures from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Sicko #1: Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the ringleader of the group, has raised more than $2.2 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career according to Blumenthal, averaging more than $700 per day since taking office in January 2001. Public Campaign Action Fund (PCAF) gives a slightly lower career total of just over $2.0 million for Nelson, and provides extensive detail on his ties to the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries. Before entering politics, as PCAF notes, Nelson spent his career as an insurance executive, as an insurance company lawyer and, early in his career, as Nebraska's state insurance regulator. As PCAF also notes, a number of Nelson's former Senate staffers have moved on into lucrative careers as health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Comments may be addressed to Senator Nelson via his Senate contact page (Nebraska residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@bennelson.senate.gov (CRP: Ben Nelson).

Sicko #2: Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has raised more than $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $300 per day since taking office in January 1997. PCAF provides extensive detail on Landrieu's ties to the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries. Like Nelson's former staffers, several of Landrieu's have also gone on to work as health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Landrieu's opposition to the public option was attacked in a TV ad from MoveOn aired in her home state. Landrieu is also listed as one of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Comments may be addressed to Senator Landrieu via her Senate contact page (Louisiana residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@landrieu.senate.gov (CRP: Mary Landrieu).

Sicko #3: Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon has raised more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career, averaging almost $300 per day since taking office in February 1996. Comments may be addressed to Senator Wyden via his Senate contact page (Oregon residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@wyden.senate.gov (CRP: Ron Wyden).

Sicko #4: Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has raised almost $3.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career, averaging more than $500 per day since taking office in January 1989. This former Democrat has been the bane of progressives since his signing onto the Bush war program and his opposition to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Comments may be addressed to Senator Lieberman via his Senate contact page (Connecticut residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@lieberman.senate.gov (CRP: Joe Lieberman).

Sicko #5: Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine has raised more than $1.1 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $200 per day since taking office in January 1995. Unlike the "Democrats" listed above, Senator Snowe and her junior Republican colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, can perhaps be partially excused for their actions based on the fact that they are Republicans, and are only doing what all Republicans do: Deny the needs of the poor, working, and middle classes in favor of the wealthy, while pretending in Bush-Palin fashion to be the champions of "Real Americans." Nonetheless, comments may be addressed to Senator Snowe via her Senate contact page (Maine residents only) or by direct e-mail at: olympia@snowe.senate.gov (CRP: Olympia Snowe).

Sicko #6: Republican Susan Collins of Maine has raised almost $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $300 per day since taking office in January 1997. Comments may be addressed to Senator Collins via her Senate contact page (Maine residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@collins.senate.gov (CRP: Susan Collins).

Based on the average daily contributions given here, Paul Blumenthal estimates that in a 70-day delay in health care reform such as that proposed by the "Gang of Six," these six senators stand to gain a further total of more than $170,000 in contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries, or an average of more than $28,000 ($400 per day) for each senator. While they and their families remain fully insured throughout this period, many of their less-fortunate constituents including children will remain uninsured and at risk, some will grow ill and be unable to receive care, and some will die unnecessarily. But that's not your problem, is it, Senator Sicko?

Throughout this period of bipartisan "moderate" foot-dragging on health care reform, Americans should be encourged to watch or to re-watch Michael Moore's film, Sicko, by which the title of this blogpost was inspired; and which lays bare the reasons why the United States still ranks far below the rest of the developed world in health care for its citizens. With all due respect to Mr. Moore and his intellectual property rights, I think that the urgency of the moment merits mentioning that Sicko may at present be viewed in its entirety for free at Google Video, a link to which should be sent to anyone who has not yet seen it or who may need to see it again.

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

I'm an admin.  And I'm happy with my pay.  I have enough to feed my cats and pay my rent and pay my bills:  Internet, Cable, Gas, Electric, Car Insurance, One Credit Card for Clothes.

I have two cats, one of which has a urinary tract issue that requires special food and some visits to the Vet.

I haven't been to the movies in over five years.  If I want a film I buy it at my local Best Buy or on Amazon.  If I want a book, same.  I buy my groceries at the local deli or supermarket, and I don't buy anything fancy. 

I get by, and I have good friends who make me happy.

When I want to get out and have a real life, I go to a concert, or visit a new state over a holiday with a friend after having saved up tons of money for airfare.

And my life is good.

Now, I look at my life as compared to the lives of these CEO's of companies like my own and Goldman Sachs and Cigna and Aetna and BofA and all these others......and I wonder.

I wonder how in hell they can justify living the way they do. 

I mean, sure, they have more education than I do.  More work experience.  More exposure. 

But to take home millions?  What in hell do they DO with that money?  Well, of course, we know what they do with it, they invest it overseas in secret accounts.  But, the money they disclose on their Form 4's and Form 5's and taxes and such......they take that money home.

How do they live?  They have huge homes, I'd imagine.  Me, I live in an attic apartment and can barely afford to air condition it.  Most times I just keep all the windows open and hope for a blessed cross breeze.

These guys have AC and maids and staff and personnel, just at home. 

If they would just think of people like you and me now and then, I wouldn't rant......but it just seems to me that these folks want to just live their cushy lives and maybe give to charity now and then as a tax write off without seeing US.  US! 

WE exist.  WE work for them.  WE service them.  WE need our jobs in order to live and get by.  WE need our teeth fixed, our vision corrected, our health taken care of.  WE need our jobs. 

And these CEO's and their families just blitehly go on, gliding through life happily without seeing any of this real life shit that goes on. 

Okay, rant off now.  But, Geez.  Shouldn't there be some kinda balance???

I'd like to start a little healthcare Healing Energy action for our dear Rowan.  And this will be a very short blog.  Because it asks you to do one small thing.  Light a candle.  A candle for Rowan's healing.

As many of you know Rowan has had two neurological ailments in the past few months.  One was "taken care of" through radiation.  But radiation to her head!  It was a tangle of nerves, a nerve bundle near her ear.  The other is a very painful condition called Trigeminal Neuralgia.  It causes her severe pain on one side of her face - not even the entire side of her face.  But an irritated nerve - imagine the pain of a toothache in just one tooth.  Well, even if it's just one tooth you're glad when you dentist can do something to take the pain away.  But there isn't a way to just take away Rowan's pain.  Or to speed her healing from the radiated nerve tangle.

Now the purpose of this post is not really to describe Rowan's ailments.  (And I haven't giving away any information here that Rowan herself has not provided here before). But to let you know that I, for one, am concerned about her.  I've been sending her healing energy, positive thoughts and caring feelings.  But I'm convinced we need an all-out campaign - so I'm asking for your help.

In Rowan's case it's not a lack of health care or medical assistance.  It's a need to promote healing - body, mind, soul, and spirit.  To make sure she'll be able to teach this Fall - as she loves to do.  As we know, from Saladin, she does so well.

So here's what I'm asking.  Please light a candle.  Not just any candle.  Click on the one just below:

Namaste

Restful. Deep. Breath. Light a Candle.
 
When you click on the candle, it will take you to a place to "light a candle."  And here's what I suggest.  The site you'll end up at, sponsored by gratefulness.org, has a way to designate a "group" when you light your candle.  I propose the group "Rowan" - and I've already started it. Here's a link to the candle I've already lit for Rowan.  

Once you've lit a candle too, you'll be able to search for the group "Rowan" - and there, for 24 hours at least - we can see a visible sign of our care and concern for the health of one of our own.  Here's a link for the Rowan Candle Group so you can watch the candles multiply.  (You can also light a candle directly from there!  Or from my Nothingness blog - on the sidebar, just scroll down.)

Health care.  It's about more than legislation.  It has to do with caring about your fellow person.

Peace to all.

At least that's what Max Keiser thinks. Great video on Zero Hedge.

"They are literally stealing a hundred million dollars a day.
Goldman Sachs is stealing every day on the floor of the exchange.
They should be in the Hague, they should be taken on financial
terrorism charges. They should all be thrown in jail"

Oh we can only dream.

C

It seems as if I am never where everyone else is. Michael Jackson meant nothing to me. I follow popular music almost as religiously as I do baseball, politics, and a few other things (though, mostly, not religion) but my Motown interests run to other artists. I remember seeing the Jackson 5 on Sullivan, and thought them a throw back to what was once the only acceptable way black people could become famous and in the late 1960s, with the country teetering on the edge of major change, that they repesented comfort to the same people who found Amos & Andy to describe what were once called Negroes. I have more to say on that subject and the month where his death overtook all other news and might do so here one day, but not tonight.

Read more »

Tweet from Mark Sanford: "Just wanted to say, y'all, that there's

no way I'da paid $600 month to stay at 133 C Street when it cost

the taxpayers nothin' to let me sleep on a cot in my office."

This is one of those posts that requires a fairly long preface, so bear with me here.

I will not make the egotistical assumption that all of you know my history, but to save those of you who do the excruciating pain of going into the full bio, let me say "I've come a long way, baby."  My thinking has been so changed since arriving at TPM exactly one year ago yesterday, I hardly recognize the woman I was then. I was a non-thinking sheep, staunch Republican whose mind was closed to anything said by a Democrat. Now, I am a Democrat who fights everyday to avoid becoming a non-thinking, staunch Democrat whose mind is closed to anything said by a Republican. In other words, for really the first time as an adult, I am trying to learn as much as I can and make a decision based on reality, or at least as much reality as it is possible to have when all your information comes from people who have biases, regardless of whether those biases are ill-intentioned or not.

I have admitted on many occasions that I am troubled by the notion of "single pay" although I've warmed to it over the months. I see people struggling with illness and an inability to afford health care. The idea of anyone dying in America because they can't afford a doctor, or losing their homes because of the overwhelming costs of health care brings me to tears, literally. My compassion sometimes overrides logic, and I have gotten to the point where I am almost ready to throw caution to the wind and support single pay. Almost.

I've participated in several discussions here about the pros and cons of single pay vs. reforming the insurance industry. My hesitation about single pay has always been the expansion of the government's role in our health care. I have always been, and continue to be wary of the government. I do not trust our elected officials as far as I can throw them. I have more faith in President Obama than I have ever had in any president before, but trust? I'm not completely there. The point is, our elected officials have done little to inspire my confidence. In truth, the more I pay attention, the more convinced I become that the "republicrats"  do not have the country's best interests at heart, let alone ours as individuals, but rather, their own selfish interests. Be it power, money, sex...they all want something other than seeing this country be the best it can be for ALL of its citizens.

I see most of our elected officials and most, if not all the big wigs in the insurance/pharma/medical arena (as well as most, if not all CEOs of ALL corporations, but that is best left for another post) as being akin to a highly aggressive melanoma. Rather than being simply parasites that latch onto a host, then milk it just enough to get what it needs, but leaving the host healthy enough to survive, these CANCERS just greedily eat away until the host is dead, in spite of the fact that they will die as well (but it'll be a helluva party until then!)

So then, it is no wonder that after reading the essay I will present just a little further down, I find myself rethinking my rethinking. This is not an easy essay to read (It's not hard reading, just hard to ignore the snipes to get to the meat.) It is obviously written by a person who has much disdain for the left and the current administration. I was only able to get through it because I promised my husband I would read the whole thing with an open mind. I almost couldn't get through the third paragraph (the first two were pretty funny.)  As much as I want to disregard the whole essay, it contains some uncomfortable (possible/probable) truths that I think we need to at least examine before we cast them off, in spite of the partisan rhetoric I abhor.

I am tempted to give you a few teasers, but I would truly like to have a discussion on the essay itself, with people who have taken the time to read it. THE WHOLE THING. But I will give you the disclaimer at the end so you can get a taste of the writing style of the author, a man by the name of Clifford S. Asness, Ph.D. (Managing and Founding Principal AQR Capital Management, LLC.


"This is Cliff speaking now. AQR's legal department would like me to add that I am criminally insane and barred by an order of rhetoric protection from speaking on AQR's behalf. Anyone trading on my advice, or a client, consultant, employee or Iraqi insurgent thinking he has been wronged by my attitudes or opinions can have a $250 out-of-court settlement right now if you'll sign a waiver, otherwise we'll break you. Oh, and we lied about the $250, but seriously, we will break you. Please note, nobody can predict where markets will go in the short-run and sometimes even the long-run. When I point out individual things in the marketplace that I think are strange, or wrong, it doesn't mean I have the perfect answer or can easily make money from it for my clients, for myself, or certainly for you reading this essay! Furthermore, if you read one guy's opinion and do anything based solely on that, you are an idiot. Next, as the legalese above alludes to, the actual funds and accounts AQR manages are run using models that may or may not agree with what I'm writing herein, particularly as our models will generally have a shorter time horizon than the things I'll be writing about. Listen to me at your own risk! If you choose to read what I write please only use it as one input for you to critically evaluate in your decision process.

Finally, my style is to write very aggressively and passionately about what I believe. So unless you are a libertarian/objectivist, small government and free market loving, socialist hating, value investing geek you probably won't agree with everything or anything I say. If you find the way I say it insulting, I'm sorry about the first few words you couldn't help reading, but if you read a moment past that (in this disclaimer or later), it is on you. I agree we need to censor things occasionally but only to protect children and madmen (and of course the children of madmen). If you believe in censoring anything else short of a nuclear secret you'd probably look good in hobnail boots and the crooked cross. Thanks for listening."


So, What do you think guys? Is there any of what he says that we need to consider before heading forward? Or is this just propaganda? And if you believe it is, why do you think so? Even though a lot of what he says makes sense, I don't know this guy. I value your opinions.





 

Most people are probably unaware that Canada's Single Payer
system did not originate in Ottawa but in one province and
was eventually picked up by the National Government.
John Nickols explains.

The initial progress came at the provincial
level, led by the Co-operative Commonwealth
Federation's Tommy Douglas when he served from
1941 to 1960 premier of Saskatchewan. The
universal, publicly-funded "single-payer"
health care system that Douglas and his
socialist allies developed in Saskatchewan
proved to be so successful and so popular
that it was eventually adopted by other
provinces and, ultimately, by Canada's
federal government.

For his efforts, Douglas would be hailed
in a national survey as "The Greatest Canadian"
of all time. But Douglas' regional initiative
also offers a lesson for Americans.

Those of us who know that the only real cure
for what ails the U.S. health care system is
a universal public plan that provides health
care for all Americans while controlling costs
recognize the frustrating reality that there
are many economic and political barriers to
the federal action that would create a
single-payer system. This makes clearing the
way experimentation at the state level all
the more important.

And this is probably the most practical way it will
come about. The good news is that a amendment
to the House Bill has been added allowing for this.

By a 25-19 vote, the House Committee on Education
and Labor on Friday approved an amendment to the
House's health-care reform bill allowing states to
create single-payer health care systems if they
so choose.

"There are many models of health care reform from
which to choose around the world - the vast majority
of which perform far better than ours. The one that
has been the most tested here and abroad is
single-payer," explained Congressman Dennis Kucinich,
the Ohio Democrat who proposed the amendment.
"Under a single-payer system everyone in the U.S.
would get a card that would allow access to any
doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors and
hospitals would continue to be privately run,
but the insurance payments would be in the public
hands. By getting rid of the for-profit insurance
companies, we can save $400 billion per year and
provide coverage for all medically necessary
services for everyone in the U.S."

Votes for the amendment came from progressive
Democrats who favor single-payer -- such as
Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs
Lynn Woolsey, of California, and Raul Grijalva,
of Arizona -- as well as conservative Republicans
who have no taste for single-payer but want states
to be able to set their own agendas. 

I know the sentiment is for us to just bite the bullet and get
Single Payer enacted on the Federal Level but I personally
do not see that as happening. But I do see the a few States
doing it since action of that type is more easily done on a
State Level. When It proves to be more viable, then you
will see it on a national level.

C

Would God sue Dick Day for defamation of character?   LisaB for collaborating with said blasphemer?  Murry for misquoting Bo Obama?  It could happen in Italy:

This week in Rome, bloggers and activists wore gags to protest a proposed law that could impose heavy fines on bloggers who don't correct "offensive" comments within 48 hours.

"48 hours"! it takes Day longer then that to wake up from a bender.  And, how could he smoke with a gag?! (Knowing Day he would find a way, especially if it were made of hemp - say hey Billy Mays...)  But I digress...what's this lovely law all about?:

...the law would force bloggers to edit any post denounced to the government as defamatory. If the blogger refused, the denouncing citizen could sue for as much as $18,000.

"$18,000"! that's more then Day spends a week on booze and butts.  This all begs the question are Italians anti-Day rights or...:

"They are trying to reduce the number of bloggers in Italy," said Scorza, a lawyer and expert in digital civil rights. He said the internet has given Italians the tools to question their elected representatives.

"Scorza, a lawyer,"how did he get one name?  I thought that was resirved for like, Madona.   I digress, so who speaks out for the oppressed blogger:

One such Italian, the comedian-turned-blogger Beppe Grillo, has used the web to expose the Italian Parliament's inability to act on crucial issues such as conflict of interest, corruption and the environment.

"Beppe Grillo," what kid of a name is that for a comedian, ours have real names like Patrick J. Buchanan, and Rush Limbaugh, now those are comedians!

 So who is this funny man?:

Every year, Grillo organizes a popular event called "V-Day," which promotes active citizenship, and the use of the web as a news source. Recently, Grillo's popularity won him an online election as the next secretary of the Italian Democratic Party (PD). The party, however, refused his candidacy.

Sounds like, Michael Steele, but I digress.  Surely, someone else speaks for the destitute, despotized, and subjugated bloggers:

Antonio Palmieri, a Parliament member from Berlusconi's People of Freedom Party (PdL), said the Alfano law aims at stopping bloggers from abusing the freedom of the internet.

"How would you feel if you were anonymously insulted on the internet every day?" he said.

My kind of guy... Wait a gosh darn minute doesn't Berlusconi like own Italy?:

In a country where the prime minister owns the three largest commercial TV channels, the biggest publishing house, a leading advertising agency, and -- as head of state -- oversees Italian public television...

Wow a trifecta plus-one of power and control with just one righteous dude, we needed two, Rupert Murdoch and GW Bush.  But I digress... Just how far will this law go?:

Palmieri defended the "Alfano" proposal but also said it was written as an emotional reaction. He is working to improve the language of the proposal by clarifying what kinds of blogs and web sites should be liable. Palmieri thinks bigger blogs and online newspapers that affect public opinion should be regulated.

"Palmieri thinks bigger blogs and online newspapers that affect public opinion should be regulated."  And, you said Mussolini was dead.

So, nu, what brought this all on?:

In 2007, a YouTube video of a recorded phone call between then-opposition leader Silvio Berlusconi and a former RAI director exposed Berlusconi to public scrutiny. In the call, Berlusconi asked the RAI director to hire two women as a favor for a senator of the majority. Berlusconi said explicitly that he expected the senator to return the favor by helping him regain a Parliamentary majority.

The nerve of some people.  What are you going to tell me next, Berlusconi is having an affair with an 18-year-old?

Recently, now-Prime Minister Berlusconi has been under heavy public scrutiny for an ambiguous relationship with an 18-year-old aspiring TV star. Within days, the internet was saturated with satirical renditions of the alleged relationship via print, audio photo and video.

Wow, just like any old Republican.  Hey, it's Italy, it's expected there dudes.

Could it happen here?  Well. if the economy doesn't start creating jobs.  Wall Street pays themselves billions of our dollars in bonuses.  Heath care reform breaks a tailbone.  And, Bo Obama pees on the Presidential Seal (arf), we could have another Bush in the White House.  If I were Josh Marshal I'd get misanthropic, itinerant blogger insurance just in case.

Now back to Dick Day you, Sir, on multiple occlusions, called me a "feline canine."  The nerve of you to offend me in that way!  You can expect a call from Murry's lawyer!

PS I know what you are thinking, we have a Constitution, a First Amendment, Keith Olbermann.  Let me me put those thoughts to rest with two of the scariest words in the English language...Dick Cheney.

Italian bloggers strike: Proposed law would fine web sites denounced for defamation.

UPDATE on the July 30 Single-Payer Healthcare Rally in DC, 
Howdy.
So far, there is $262  (late update: sync sez as of 10:30 we are up $525!! Keep 'em coming!) to in donations towards Gumbun's travel expenses. Read her  personal story to learn why hers is a voice that should be heard on the hill. Also, Gumbun is putting a video together and  requests video clips. Donations are definitely needed now to cover Gumbun's costs. The sooner the airline ticket is purchased, the less it will cost! Your help is needed.
If you are like this chicken, and don't have 2 nickels to rub together until payday, you can still help get the word out. Cut and paste the following, especially the donations link, and send to everyone. Thanks, you all rawk!

Read more »

Walter Cronkite passed away on Friday. The voice of the nation for so many years was 92 years old. From the time he was named the "anchor" of the CBS evening news program, he began to build a reputation for honesty and integrity than set a standard for all the major news anchors who were to follow in his footsteps.

His legacy for me was one of congruence. For decades his reports on so many of the key events here and around the world turned out to be congruent with the eventual meaning we all took to be the core significance of the most important events. In both emotional tone and the facts, his reporting was in agreement and coincided with that of most of the rest of us.

As a kid from the country in Wyoming, I did not experience television until I moved to Texas as a nursing student in 1955. From my first black and white, small screen television viewing I was hooked. And I was always drawn to the hard news. Like millions of others I wanted to know what was happening. I has a curiosity and a need to know, so I always watched the evening news. My choices were NBC and CBS. NBC got on the list because that was the network that would come in on our radio growing up. But CBS quickly became a close second as I listened to Edward R. Murrow, and then watched, his weekly broadcast.

Walter Cronkite succeeded Murrow. The managing editor of his own program, he was trained as a print journalist and comfortable on camera, a dynamite combination. And we soon found that he could tell us what was happening in ways that were congruent, clear, unbiased, simple and believable.

It was Walter Cronkite who told me that John F. Kennedy was dead, and showed his own devastated feelings silently and without shame. He was openly angry when his news crewmen were roughed up on the floor of a Democratic Convention in the searing sixties. He went to Vietnam and said out loud the truth of that awful war. President Lyndon Johnson was convinced of the reality of his lost leadership by that broadcast. Walter Cronkite went to the moon's dusty surface with the astronauts with the rest of us. He gaged it as a most significant event for humankind. But he missed by just a few days the 40th anniversary celebration of the moon landing that will be coming up on Monday. I am moved by the congruence of that. Last night the new NASA administrator, Charles Bolden released a lovely and poetic tribute to Walter Cronkite, noting that it was Walter Cronkite who inspired him to want to become an astronaut so many years ago. And I am moved by the congruence of that, as well.

Walter Cronkite, according to a contemporary, was not happy about having to retire. But he did it without public complaint. Acclaimed by most everyone, he popped up every now and then until he was well up in years. He was a sailor and loved to have the wind at his back and the bow of his craft splitting the waves. He lost his beloved wife, Betsy a few years ago. He was one of a kind and I feel grateful that I was able to find much of my truth from his take on the significance of all those momentous life changing events.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive.  And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news walter cronkite obituary

I'd just like to start out by saying that by nature, I am not a conspiracy theorist. It's just by  training and work experience that I tend to see patterns and to triangulate connections among persons and events in order to reach logical conclusions.
 
Take a look at this blogger's take on "The Family" based on Jeff Sharlet's anthropological research (living among the crazies).

Many folks in the various threads re "The Family" have had many questions to the effect of "I heard Barack Obama and John McCain were also involved in this--can you clarify?". Much of the confusion is in part because of the specific terminology that "The Family" uses to describe its various levels of involvement--terms that not only don't exactly have the same meaning as their plain-English equivalents (another danger sign of coerciveness, by the way) but also refer to specific levels common in "pyramid-based" coercive groups.

Again, my descriptions are in part based on confirmation Jeff Sharlet has provided in regards to how the cell structure in "The Family" operates, combined with my own research and experiences.

Level 0: Recruitment via the National Prayer Breakfast

What I will refer to as "Level 0" is, to my knowledge, not named internally in "The Family" but is the level at which people are invited to the National Prayer Breakfast; Level 0 is the "recruitment level", where people are invited to a seminar and the group scouts likely folks out for potential further recruitment. Attendees don't necessarily agree with the ideology.

Level 0 in other groups (in these examples, I'll be using Scientology's internal structure as well as AmWay's; both are pyramidal coercive groups familiar to most--Maranatha and other abusive "discipling and shepherding" groups also have similar internal setups) would be the "personality tests" given by Scientologists (or the purchase of the book "Dianetics") or "business development seminars" held by AmWay or Scientology frontgroups.

Typically at Level 0 in recruitment, almost no practical info is given re the group save that it's a great way to improve yourself (or to network)--it's pretty much only once folks have joined (and, most of the time, not even then) that they realise the level of mire they have just gotten themselves into.

Inside the Beltway, things are complicated by the fact that the National Prayer Breakfast essentially operates as a semi-mandatory attendance event--at least if a politician wants votes. (In part, we can thank groups like "The Family" for this situation.) It's not a dissimilar situation from a person working for a business who is told by his boss to attend "business development seminars" (which turn out to be AmWay or Scientology recruitment events) and who is at risk for either being fired, demoted, or not being eligible for job advancement if he *doesn't* attend these seminars.

Fortunately, this would also appear to be the maximum extent of involvement of Obama and McCain, according to Sharlet.

Level 1: Indoctrination of "Friends" via cell-groups

Level 1 is probably the initial level at which true involvement occurs with "The Family"; this level is internally referred to as "Friends of The Family" and is the first level we start seeing things of real concern. (The following description should, I hope, explain why I am now gravely worried for Mrs. Clinton and what she's gotten herself into.)

Level 1 in "The Family"--and in most other pyramid-style groups (as we'll get into)--is the level of initial indoctrination and "shepherding". In "The Family", there's evidence (which, again, Sharlet will be discussing in full in his book) that indicate the same coercive practices common across pyramidal cell-groups may be occuring.

In particular, at least one comment by Sharlet has indicated that quite a bit more than innocent "Bible study" goes on in these cells, and that other potentially more coercive activities may go on in the inner circle:

I've never accused them of "conspiratorial mind control" but I do document that this is about a lot more than worship and Bible study, which are just fine. In fact, the inner circle of the Family does very little of either -- Doug Coe rejects church, and elite believers are encouraged to seek the advice of Jesus by direct consultation in a cell group, with scripture rarely consulted.

This is more than a little dangerous. In fact (we'll need to wait for Sharlet's book to come out to document more of it, alas), this is a rather strong hint that potentially abusive tactics may be in use (the use of unethical confession tactics by "Family" predecessor/model Moral Re-Armament are already a concern, and disallowing people to read the Bible for themselves (and requiring specific, leader-inspired interpretations) removes a powerful form of "reality testing" for persons in Bible-based groups). In addition, the specific advise to not participate in mainstream churches is very, very worrisome--it's a classic method to isolate people from communities that might threaten the dogma of what is promoted by Coe and by "shepherds".

The fact that group leaders promote authoritarianism in general also does not exactly relax one--it is extremely common in abusive "cell church" groups for leaders to claim direct personal revelation from God, and opposition to the group leaders to be opposition to God.

Level 1 initiates in pyramidal groups are generally not trusted to leadership positions within the group, are privy to only some of the info, and are essentially seen as "infants in need of instruction" internally--so they do tend to be shepherded and shadowed, in part because the group doesn't yet see them as "loyal faithful" and doesn't trust them not to leave or to bugger up.

There are equivalents to this elsewhere. Level 1 in AmWay is typically the level where people have joined the group, are not yet Diamonds, but are trying to peddle Quixtar merchandise to their relatives et al. (This is also where they are encouraged to join the AmWay "business motivational organisations" where quite a bit of the reports of coercive practices come from.) In Scientology, this is the level where people are in the group, aren't yet privy to the secrets about Xenu et al, are running up their credit cards with "auditing" sessions, and often join the Sea Orgs (a paramilitary/missionary group within Scientology) as a method of alternate payment for their E-Meter sessions.)

In addition, there's a potential *second* form of coercion that "The Family" has in their deck that is rarely available to "level 1" in abusive pyramidal groups (other than groups using org-owned living and working arrangements)--namely, "The Family" really can threaten to derail a political career if their mark gets too out of line. The only comparable *common* level of potential coercion over someone's career and livelihood that I'm personally aware of is with Scientology *after* someone has signed themselves into the Sea Orgs (and that's in part because, at that point, they do often end up in employment with Scientology as well as in Scientology-provided housing as well as force their members to sign coercive (and, likely, illegal) "contracts" where members forfeit their right to sue for damages); generally pyramidal groups do *not* get this sort of ammo until the "Level 2" recruitment stage.

This is the level at which Hillary Clinton is presently a member (and why I have concerns for her at this point).

Level 2: Leaders--what "The Family" sees as its "membership"

Level 2 are the shepherds and "faithful leadership" of pyramidal-style groups--those who've been in it long enough, and indoctrinated enough, to be seen as the "true faithful" and thus privy to the truth of what *really* goes on in the org.

In "The Family", Level 2 is what the group terms "members" (this is, as an aside, how "The Family" can legitimately claim that Hillary Clinton is not a "Member" of the group--"Member" refers to the leadership circles). Most of the skunk-works goes on here; people at this stage are pretty much isolated from religious observances outside of "The Family" (and religious groups approved by the org).

Level 2 in AmWay is roughly equivalent to the Diamond level; Level 2 in Scientology would be the OT VIIs and above who've paid out $400,000 US to hear the "Super Secret of Mankind" (namely, that all of humanity's troubles are the direct result of "enturbulation" (oppression and even frank possession) by "body thetans"--alien ghosts which were the result of a mass genocide by Evil Alien Overlord Xenu when he chucked millions of other aliens in the volcanoes at Kilahuea and Las Palmas some 73 million years ago--and most religions/theologies/etc. outside of Scientology are the result of "engrams" (implanted images) shown to these unfortunates before they were dumped in volcanoes to such a level as to give poor Lady Pele a permanent case of indigestion).

Most of Sharlet's writing (before his book) where he's mentioned politicians by name have involved presumed Level 2 members of "The Family". The Level 2 members have the private Family-owned apartments et al; they also toe the line *very* carefully because it could explode messily if they were to escape.

Fairly confirmable Level 2 initiates (or, as "The Family" terms them, "members") include U.S. Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; and Mike Doyle, D-Pa.; and U.S. Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Sam Brownback, R-Kan. (All six of these lived in Family-provided apartments.)

Other members (present and past) of Congress that may either be "Friends" or "Members" (not much documentation besides Sharlet's writing exists on this) include Senators Don Nickles and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, John Ensign of Nevada, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Conrad Burns of Montana; House members that may be either "Members" or "Friends" include Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.

Level 3: The men behind the curtain

Level 3 are essentially the true leaders of the org--the DeVos clan and the heads of AmWay IBOs would count in the case of AmWay, whilst L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavaige would count as examples in Scientology.

In the case of "The Family", the "Level 3" candidate would be Douglas Coe, who is considered one of the 25 most influential "evangelicals" in the US (in large part due to his leadership in "The Family"). There are potentially other leaders as well that would qualify as "Level 3" management; the group decentralised much of its internal structure in 1972.

Interestingly, "The Family" uses front-groups, but does not use the "church loophole" to avoid filing a form 990 (501(c)3 groups--of which "The Fellowship Foundation", the "core group" of "The Family", is one--are generally required to file a form 990 in lieu of business tax forms, but there is a specific exemption applying only to churches that allows many coercive religious groups to hide their finances almost entirely--Scientology has hidden much of the worth of its assets via this exemption, and so have many of the televangelists now being investigated by Congress).

Because of this, form 990s for the org are available online; Richard E. Carver can thus be added to the list of "Level 3" leaders as can Marty Sherman, Stan Holmes Jr., Frank J. Sizemore III, John May, and Charles McCleod--all of whom are listed as being in upper management of the org. Charles Mendies of New Delhi, India is also listed as a "ministry coordinator"; Douglas Coe is also specifically listed.

An additional listing includes Eric Sanson as VP of "The Family"; Kirk Mitchell as secretary; Leroy Rooker as treasurer; Rod McAllister, Ronnie Cameron, David Parks, David Laux, Denny Pierce, Doug Crane, Robert Perry, Larry Franklin, and Mike Foster as "directors"; and Doug Coe as an "associate". However, this organisational table is more than a little misleading; literally everyone on "The Fellowship Foundation's" board of directors serves all of an hour a week without compensation, with Coe doing most of the running (as the only 40 hour/week board member), and thus can be said to be the true brains of the operation. (He is also the sole paid board member, earning over $51,000/yr based on the 2005 form 990.)

At the end of the form, practically the entire Coe family are listed as employees and "associates" (which may be the term that "The Family" uses in practice for its leadership)--Timothy S. Coe (Doug Coe's son and "associate", $110,000 yearly salary); Janice Coe (Doug Coe's wife and "associate", $2,400 yearly salary); David Coe (another son of Doug Coe and "associate", $110,000 yearly salary); Paula Corder (a married daughter of Doug Coe and "associate", $21,000 yearly salary); Alden Coe (son-in-law of Doug Coe and "associate", $12,500 yearly salary); and finally Elena Cole (daughter-in-law of Doug Coe and "associate", $12,500 yearly salary).

Interestingly, a second frontgroup of "The Family" (listed in the form 990 for "The Fellowship Foundation") is Wilberforce Foundation--it, too, does not use the "church loophole", is apparently a "Young Christian Leader's" training facility (think like Campus Crusade's "Leadership U"), and *is* directly run by David Coe (Doug Coe's son). The group is listed as being in "common management" with "The Fellowship Foundation", and (in addition to Tim Coe and David Coe, who are listed as vice-president and treasurer respectively) Jerry Jonker is listed as president and Marty Sherman as secretary (Sherman is also listed as being associated with "The Fellowship Foundation). All leaders save for Jonker also are substantially paid--Tim and David Coe to the tune of $110,000 yearly, with Sherman being paid $121,200 yearly.

The lack of the use of the "church loophole" is surprising, especially since "The Family" did use this loophole for "C Street Center", the frontgroup that actually manages the apartment housing.

Walter Cronkite was a hero of mine when I was a kid.  I used to love his show "You Are There."  I thought he was great when he announced President Kennedy's death in such a heartfelt way. I admired his courage when he came out for a negotiated settlement in Vietnam.

Looking back I see two flaws in an otherwise wonderful man.  He bought into the Cold War mentality for quite a long time.  I will always remember the sonorous way he would announce what the "Coommmunists" were up to in Vietnam

I also felt he had a real blind spot when it came to accepting the patent nonsense that is in the Warren Report.  Even the follow up specials he did on the single bullet theory were atrocious in my opinion.

However, the sum total of what he did journalistically and what he did as a human being make me feel sharply the loss of a fine human being.

Answer: Bullshit!

1. "We need to stand up to the business lobby that's been getting their friends in Congress and in the White House to block card check. That's why I was one of the leaders fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That's why I'm fighting for it in the Senate. And that's why we'll make it the law of the land when I'm President."

2. Obama blasted the GOP Bush regime as "the most anti-union administration in history," before saying that "if a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union," referring to a key EFCA provision: Enshrining card-check majority recognition of unions in labor law, rather than at the employer's discretion.

3. Still, having spent $80 million to help elect Obama, some unions are counting on the Democrat to deliver on his campaign promise. As Gerry McEntee, head of the American Federal of State, County and Municipal Employees candidly told the Washington Times (much to the delight of Republicans, who broadcast his remarks in press releases), "the payback would be the Employee Free Choice Act -- that would be a vehicle to strengthen and build the American labor movement and the middle class."

4. On his campaign Web site, Obama openly embraced the card check legislation, which is supposed to make it easier for workers to organize unions.

"Obama and (Vice President-elect Joe) Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama co-sponsored and is a strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law," according to the site.

5. The provision of a controversial bill that would give workers the right to unionize as soon as a majority of employees in a workplace signed cards saying they want a union has been dropped, a move designed to make it easier for the legislation to pass.

6. What is close to emerging, according to reports, is a bill that would leave out the original measure's ''card check'' provision but would require shorter unionization campaigns.

And so on.

Previous posts about Cedars, C Street and Fellowship Foundation's close ties to Renaissance Weekend  show interesting connections and a real estate shell game that may reveal even more about Fellowship Foundation's funding sources.

I looked at tax assessment records for Cedars, Ivanwald and Potomac Point properties owned by Fellowship Foundation. This information is readily available through Arlington County's tax assessment database.

There are two single family detached residences near Cedars that house the wait staff and scullery maids needed to run Cedars and the 133 C Street townhouse. Despite being zoned as "single family detached," they function as single-sex dormitories for fresh-faced, pious young people. There's more information about what the Woodmont Civic Association, the local neighborhood group, has to say about group homes in these properties.

Potomac Point (for women) is located at 2200 24th Street North in Arlington. This property sits on a lot that is 17,958 sq. ft. in size, and is owned by Fellowship Foundation, Inc. In 1990, Youth With a Mission (which also owns 133 C Street) bought this house for 580K, sold it to C Street Center in 1992 for $0, and Fellowship Foundation, Inc., bought it for $0 in 2002.

Ivanwald (for men) is located at 2224 24th Street North, and is also owned by Fellowship Foundation, Inc. This house was bought in 1986 by Jerome A. Lewis and Co. who sold it to Wilberforce Foundation in 1987. In 2007, Wilberforce sold it to Fellowship Foundation, Inc. for $1 million.  Jerome A. Lewis and Wilberforce Foundation are significant to this story; more details later.

[I corrected the above to show that 2224 is Ivanwald  and 2200 is Potomac Point]

Cedars (former George Mason mansion, and later called Doubleday mansion), located at 2145 24th Street North, is categorized as church-owned and single family detached, and sits on 6.72546 acres.

I have uncovered some interesting patterns of ownership for the 133 C Street Townhouse, National Prayer Center, City Church and other properties near Capitol Hill, but that will be explained in a future post.

In the meanwhile, take a look at Foundation Fellowship's Form 990 and summary related to their tax-exempt status. In 2006, their revenue exceeded $16.6 million and their assets were more than $11.8 million.

Crossposted at The Whole Delivery  One of the great people in this world is celebrating his 91st birthday. That person would be Nelson Mandela. And how did his 91st birthday go?

Mandela Day is being celebrated by encouraging people to take 67 minutes of their day to do something for the good of humanity and the planet, in recognition of the 67 years Mandela devoted to making the world a better place. The efforts, on Saturday, 18 July, are spearheaded by the Nelson Mandela Foundation and the 46664 Campaign. This year, the day will be widely celebrated across the world "It is our hope that people will dedicate their time and effort to improve the conditions within their own communities. We thank you for participating in Mandela Day." The national celebrations in South Africa for Mandela Day will begin at 9am at Mary Fitzgerald Square in Newtown, Joburg. The City has also planned other celebrations.

Looks and sounds like good times indeed. 

Hopefully Mandela's birthday will continue to ensure that next summer's FIFA World Cup stays in the country. The stadium building strike ended in the mid-week, and Mandela's birthday will hopefully continue the positive momentum heading into next year. 
But besides the football (soccer) talk, just celebrating good news whenever everyone rational can be happy is indeed a welcoming reprieve for what we have been getting lately. 

Especially if it's the birthday of an indelible world figure. 

(From TWD.....Saturday Salutations!)

Oscar Meyer Wienermobile Crashes Into House

Well, the garage to be specific. Naughty Wienermobile!

Greetings to all my friends here at TPM.

Regards,

astral66

 

This is the first in a series of posts examining conventional wisdom about the Madoff scandal.

Myth #1 - Frank DiPascali was the Chief Financial Officer of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

There is no evidence online that DiPascali ever held the title CFO. Plunkett's, a marketing research publication, lists Enrica Cotellessa-Pitz as controller and Charles Wiener as director of administration but not DiPascali. .

The folks at Fairfield Greenwich Group viewed DiPascali as Bernie's go-to guy on the investment side but no one referred to him as CFO in any of the documents provided by William Galvin, Massachusetts Secretary of State and FFG's attorneys, Dwyer & Collora,  which can be viewed here and here.  

The notion that DiPascali was CFO took hold after Bloomberg News published an article about DiPascali on 1/16/09 and commented about a resume DiPascali submitted to the Bridgewater school board in 2002.

On the resume, DiPascali refers to himself as BMIS CFO and director of Madoff Securities International, Ltd., Bernie's London company.  He also claimed to be a former chairman of the Nasdaq stock market options committee.

DiPascali was never a director of the London company, according to reports filed with British authorities and Nasdaq did not trade options until 2007. In other words, Dipascali lied about his credentials to to the local school board because he wanted to become a member.

I don't know who the management at Fairfield Greenwich Group thought had oversight responsibility for financial reporting and internal controls at BMIS. Similar companies usually have a CPA with industry experience heading the finance and accounting department.

It would be highly irregular for the same person who made investment decisions involving billions of dollars to also have control over the accounting function. Plus Frank DiPascali was a high school graduate who had worked for Bernie his entire career. He was not qualified to be chief financial officer.

Although Enrica Pitz was the controller, I have not seen any references to her being so online. She is not named as a contact by anyone at Fairfield Greenwich in any of the legal documents nor has anyone in the media ever mentioned her.

Pitz has a bachelor's degree from St. John's circa 1980. She is not a certified public accountant.

I don't know if she worked anywhere else before joining BMIS but I have the impression Pitz was with BMIS for a number of years. She has long lived in Ozone Park, the next town over from Howard Beach but I don't know if she was brought in by DiPascali or Annette Bongiorno.

Pitz had an office on the 18th floor. Her signature is on Cohmad Securities commission checks so she knew the Cohmad staff was paid for bringing money into Bernie's investment business.  She is also listed as the contact person on financial statements submitted to the SEC.

She probably maintained the general ledger. If she did, she interfaced with David Friehling, Bernie's so-called independent auditor.

If Pitz reconciled the BMIS bank accounts, she knew billions of dollars were not flowing through the investment bank account when treasury stocks were bought and sold. She would have also known that millions of dollars were arbitrarily transferred back and forth to MSIL in London.

If Pitz documented the system of internal controls at BMIS, she would have had to ask the employees on the 17th floor what functions they actually performed.

I don't know if any of the prospective investors who performed due diligence actually saw David Friehling's report on the BMIS system of internal controls that was submitted to the SEC.

But if they had inquired about the qualifications of the finance and accounting staff and asked who had oversight responsbility for the finance and accounting functions, they would have realized the system was materially weak and that Friehling's report wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

I wonder who the SEC thought was running Bernie's accounting department and verifying those t-bill purchases.

Calling Michael Richards a "flash in the pan" and a "politically correct poser," Conservative Leader Pat Buchanan inexplicably lashed out at former "Seinfeld" star during a 20-minute rant on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Asked by colleague David Gregory if he believed the Republican party had lost Hispanic votes for their behavior during the nomination process of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Buchanan's face slightly seized and he began a 21:32 diatribe that began with a verbal volley thrown at Richards.

"Kramer over there goes nuts at a nightclub and everyone goes crazy," said Buchanan, a vital cog in the conservative political machine. "But then he apologizes to anyone who will listen. He's a politically correct poser.

"Me, I'm out here every day, day-in, day-out, 24/7, and I ain't apologizing for jack," said Buchanan, who went on to say that Tiger Woods likely missed the cut at the British Open because of "the crack" and that George Lopez's career is a big lie.

NBC showed the entire rant live, later re-ran it twice in its entirety and is already selling videos of it at it's Web site. MSNBC also said it will be adding a new feature to its coverage called "Pat Buchanan Day-In Day-Out 24/7," which will be Buchanan in a small box on the side of the screen offering live commentary throughout all MSNBC programming.

Buchanan said he was excited about his new show and then went on a 10-minute rant about how there was every reason to believe the Holocaust was a lie.

-WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Does anybody else remember the good old days when TPM ran full time? The weekends were full of Josh and others careful insights and fact analysis from the week? When weekend phone calls were made? When organizing readers to research or blitz the politicians was standard?

I really miss the old TPM; so much so that I wonder how much longer my weekday attention to TPM will be affected by it's new model of corporate journalism. It's sad really to see such a great enterprise devolve into just another blog living off of its past glory.

One last time I say, great job Josh, along with the thousands of TPM'ers that pursued the AG scandal.

Are you happy now? You have received one more kudo. Now get back to work bringing TPM back into the leading blog it should be. News and blogs run 24 hours and they need nurturing to make that happen. Have your people take some laptops home so they can comment, report and blog when events are moving or the readers are moving a story forward past the 7pm news hour quitting time.

Who else is tired of seeing the "Yesterday in 100 seconds" piled on top of one another with little or no current entries between them?

I'm not complaining here just to complain. I want to see TPM succeed and break new ground in online journalism; I'm just afraid it is slipping into the corporate news model instead of what we all hope it can become.

Israel, through its lobby group AIPAC, is suspected of using its substantial congressional clout to try to lift the ban, by American Federal law, that prohibits the sale of American F22 (and F35) fighter/bomber aircraft to foreign governments.

 

A sale of these strike stealth bombers to the Israel Air Force would enable it to attack Gaza and Lebanon with even greater ferocity than previously and inflict huge losses when targeted at heavily populated, civilian areas.

 

It makes no sense that a Democratic Administration under the Presidency of a man who is so highly regarded throughout the world, would acquiesce to demands to supply a state - already the subject of war crime allegations - with increased means of inflicting death and destruction on civilian populations.

Today,"centrist" Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (N-CT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) decided to band together to try to thwart the effors of the administration and the Democratic leadership to get a healthcare bill passed by August.  In typically smarmy coded prose, they leapt on the CBO's inability to measure reductions in health care costs that aren't specifically mandated by Congress to try to stall the bill until after the August recess. 

. . . in view of [CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's] statement [that, based on an incomplete analysis by CBO under rules that don't allow CBO to recognize savings ], there is much heavy lifting ahead. We support the efforts of the Finance Committee to produce a bipartisan bill, despite calls from both sides of the aisle to rush forward or delay indefinitely.  While we are committed to providing relief to American families as quickly as possible, we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every indvidual in the U.S. 

We look forward to working with you to develop legislation that is vital to the well-being of the American people and urge you to resist timelines which prevent us from achieving the best results blah de blah de blah de blah.

July 17, 2009 letter by Slimey Six to Senate Democratic and Republican leadership (emphasis and blah de blahs added).   

 Brian Beutler has a more sophisticated analysis than mine of the motives and actions of the Slimey Six and wisely recommends following Obama's perrenial advice not to get caught up in the breathless news cycle and "turn every microdevelopment into a make or break moment for progressive change"  That's usually my line, indeed my creed.  Hell, I'm even one of the people who kind of rolls his eyes at the word "progressive."  I doubt that these self-important asshats are going to be able to slow down progress. 

But, seriously, the problem is equally on both sides of the aisle?  "bipartisan bill?"  "Bipartisan result?"  Who the hell do they think they're fooling?  They're in the damn Senate.  They know the score.  There isn't going to be any "bipartisan solution."  The Republicans only objective is to kill it.   We know it.  Reid knows it.  Obama knows it.  It is absofrakkinglutely impossible that the Slimey Six don't it because, they're in the goddam Senate.  The mere fact that they sent this letter to McConnell as if he or anyone in his rotting animated corpse of a party have ever, at any point, had the slightest intention of allowing health reform to happen is intself an insult to the intelligence of anyone with half a brain who's been even half-assedly  following this issue.   (A description which, unfortunately, excludes Wolf Blitzer and most of the Beltway MSM). 

So what are the Slimey Six doing this and why today?  Whose side are they on and whose agenda are they serving? 

Well, by the most remarkable coincidence, on the same day the Slimesters sent their letter to Reid and McConnell, good ol' Sen. Jim DeMint made the answer to that question perfectly clear.  Today, DeMint frankly explained how delaying a vote on health care reform until after the August recess is crucial to their plan to both stop health care reform and "break" Obama:

Conservative leaders will push delay any vote on health care reform until after the August recess to capitalize on what they say is a growing tide of opposition to reform measures, they said on a conference call with "tea party" participants today.

"I can almost guarantee you this thing won't pass before August, and if we can hold it back until we go home for a month's break in August," members of Congress will hear from "outraged" constituents, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said on the call, which was organized by the group Conservatives for Patients Rights.

"Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America."

"If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said.

The founder of Conservatives for Patients Rights told the 104 participants in the call, which was organized to coincide with the National Tea Party Patriots group's protests at the offices of members of Congress today, that polling suggests majorities oppose a "government take-over," which is how Scott's group casts the Obama plan.

Rep. Mike Pence, also on the call, also said the tide is turning.

"Every single day more dems are expressing op to government-run health care," he said.

Ben Smith's Politico blog, 7/17/09, 12:31 pm (bold facing and italics added, hyperlinks in original.) 

(Parenthetically, being a Politico tool, Ben, of course, didn't feel the need to note that "Conservatives for Patient Rights" is an astroturf front group funded by the guy who founded HCA and ran it until he was outsted in the wake of a multi-million dollar Medicare fraud scandal and set up by the same folks behind the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.)   

So whose agenda are the Slimey Six serving?  Whose side are they on?  Do the math.  It's easy as 2+2.   

And that's my insight for the day.  The Slimey Six may not be able to affect the timetable and their letter today may be yet another futile corrupt Blue Dog fart in a hurricane, but it crystalized for me that the time has come when sides must be chosen.  DeMint, although completely insane, made both the stakes and the opposition's strategy clear.  Delay health care until after the August recess.  Harness the the teabaggers and the rest of the astroturf battlebots that the sociopathic insurance industry flacks have been buying since the mid-90s  to generate some phony constituient traffic to the offices of selected congressmen or senators from purple states or districts.  Upon receipt of these missives, these congressmen will lose bladder control, ignore the polls showing public approval for a public option remains highand vote to kill the public option and, if they're really scared, the whole bill.  Health reform dies, Obama's political capital is gutted oh, P.S. and by the way, so is the entire liberal agenda . 

Grandiose?  Yep.  Delusional?  Maybe, but we dare not take the risk. 

As former CIGNA PR executive Wendall Potter made clear, the insurance companies have been preparing for this fight since they killed the Clinton reform effort. (Yes, I linked twice.  His interview with Amy Goodman is, in my view, even more important than his Senate testimony  last month.)  In close coordination with their allies in the GOP and conservative media, they are preparing to spend tens of millions of dollars if they can delay a vote until after the August recess.  They want to take advantage of the traditional August MSM Mind Meltdown--the "dog days" period when the cable asshats' brains traditionally turn into liquid shit and ooze out of their ears--to pump so much Luntz-approved disinformation into the air that people get scared and scream for their Congresscritter to save them from the socialists.  And, of course, there will be sockpuppets aplenty on the blog comments (they're already showing up at TPM, did you notice?) and lots and lots of oh so very sincere letters to the editors in the eighteen surviving local newspapers in America. 

And that brings me to my real message tonight, which I offer in the hope that those to whom it is directed will at least give it a little consideration before they rush into the comments to call me a dissent-suppressing jackbooted fascist or a fawning Obama cultist. 

There are still a lot of folks on the left of the ideological bellcurve who are adament about the need for a single player plan or who are otherwise upset with one provision or another in one or another of the bills that they deem "sellouts."  More power to you. If we didn't have all this pesky political, social and historical reality to deal with, I'd be over there with you.  As it happens, we do and, as Howard Dean noted tonight on Democracy Now, whether the continuation of private insurance with regulation and a public option it is the best, most economically efficient or socially desirable plan is quite irrelevant.

Yeah, look, I don't position myself against single payer, but I position myself for giving the American people a choice. I think what the President understands is the country is a conservative country with a small "c." That is, they want change, but like most human beings, they don't want so much that they're uncomfortable. And so, the genius of the Obama healthcare plan is it's not the healthcare plan that an academic would write in the ivory tower, but it starts from where we are, not where we would have been

* * *

The thing I love about Obama's plan is it's politically practical. Instead of saying, "This is the right thing to do," as Dr. Young said, "and this is what we're going to do," he says, "Look, you decide for yourself. We're going to give you an example. We're going to allow people under sixty-five to sign up for what people over sixty-five have. And you make the choice." And what we're all betting is that the private--and I agree with his comments about the private insurance industry. Their behavior has been reprehensible, cutting people off when they have illnesses and charging huge--executive salaries of the big three are over $20 million. The guy that runs CMS, which has a billion claims a year, probably makes $150,000 or $200,000. I mean, it's ridiculous. Let the American people choose. If they make the choice themselves, they will invest emotionally in this system, and I think that the insurance industry will be forced to behave in a much better way, or they will be put out of business. But it will be themselves that's putting themselves out of business, and the American people, not the Congress, doing it.

I highly recommend this broadcast and encourage everyone to listen to it or read the transcript at the link above.  I found Dean's argument tonight to be the most pursuasive one in favor of the way they're trying to do this than any I've heard yet.  He talked me past my own real ambivelence and onto the bandwagon in a way that no one else had managed to do before.  

But DeMint's "Waterloo" statement is what really made me commit.  He's the one who conviced me that, though it makes me gag a little say something so Shrubby, we have arrived at one of those rare moments when the knuckleheaded platitude is true: if you're not with us, you're with them--with DeMint and CIGNA and Luntz. This is the with us or against us moment and its not just healthcare that's at stake.  The Republicans have gathered themselves for this one last counterattack against our agenda--to the extent we can quit squabbling and agree on what that might be.  If they win this, not just healthcare but everything we hope to accomplish over the next decade could set it back for years, or even another generation. 

Conversely, however, if we win this, we break them.  Once and for all.  Or at least for a long, long time. 

So I'm not calling on anyone who's passionate about single payer to STFU and and get on board for the big public option win.  Quite the contrary.  Your pressure is indispensible.  If, by some miracle, you get enough of the public on your side to win the debate, I'll cheer. Even if you don't win, however, the pull you are generating from the left is essential to counter the black hole to the right that's trying to suck reform into annhilation.    

However, if you're in the "no reform would be better than less reform than I demand" camp, you are. Jim DeMint's bitch.  Frustrating though you may find what you perceive as Obama's tepid incrementalism, he is doing something that is absolutely critical to the left's ability to implement its agenda--he is steadily pulling the center line of political opinion leftward.  Everytime he succeeds in accomplishing one of his tepid incrementalist goals with public support, formerly "leftist" ideas becomes mainstream opinion.  Help Jim DeMint kill reform and the mainstream backlashes rightward against the useless, chaotic Democrats. That's their plan.  For that reason alone, if you don't pick a side one will be chosen for you.  The Slimey Six have chosen.  Will you join them?   

David Danzig has a wicked sense of humor, creating post titles that reel me in.

There is no Gitmo dancing post!  So here's my contribution...Bush 43 dancing with the Saudis.

King Abdullah knows how to cut a rug. Good times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoRHLrXmqbc&NR=1

Good evening from America:

Forty years ago this week, America did the seemingly impossible.   We put a man on the moon.    It was probably my earliest memory.   I was three years old and for some weird reason, my nursery school had made us all sit inside during outside playtime to watch TV.  I was amazed when I finally realized that "someone" was flying way up there!    I remember standing outside on the playground that evening waiting for my mother to pick me up.   The moon had risen early that day.   It was one of those magical days that happen only to three year olds... there was a moonrise before the sun had set.  I was certain that it was happening because there was to be a real live man on the moon soon. 

I also remember thinking about that nice man on the TV that day.  I was the only kid I knew who didn't have a grandfather (both my Mom & Dad's Dad had died before I was born) and after spending the day listening to the launch....he was what I knew my grandfather would have sounded like.   And that began my love affair with news.  

I listened to "grandpa" talk about a real live war somewhere in a far off place called Vietnam. He made me realize that I didn't want my Dad to go there to play soldier.   I tried to understand why he talked so much about "WATERGATE"....I mean you open the gate & the water flows through....any farm boy could tell you that.   Through assasinations and natural disasters, it was "grandpa's" voice, listened to over dinner,  that kept me calm whenever the world went mad.   It was his voice  that replaced the screams of the Iranians who shouted "Death to America" in that weird sounding language.   And I always thought the assasination attempt on Ronald Reagan was that much scarier because Cronkite wasn't there.  (He had retired just three weeks earlier.)

Even years after his retirement, he was THE personification of news reporters to my generation.   In the late 90's when he came out of retirement to broadcast the launch of a shuttle, I took a poll of all of the guests at the restaurant I worked at.  I asked everyone if they planned to watch the launch on TV.   An amazing number planned on watching.  And of the ones that did plan on watching, I asked another question, "Why are you watching this time?"     And almost to a person, everyone my age or older said, "Because Walter Cronkite's going to be on the air again".  

You see, he really was "the most trusted man in America" to my generation. Today is Friday, July 17th, 2009...and that's the way it...was!  It will never be the same again.   God speed Mr. Cronkite! 

 

Proposed healthcare reform legislation, including its public option, has provoked intense debate.  I therefore visited the actual text of the House bill as proposed by the chairmen of the three committees with jurisdiction over reform legislation - see

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf.

 

The following conclusions can be extracted from that text, and below them, I've cited relevant text sections as documentation.  I thought that readers discussing the topic might be interested in what is actually proposed, as opposed to second hand reports and circulating myths.

1. The proposed public option is non-profit and self-financing (i.e., paid for by the premiums it collects).  Its non-profit character permits it to be a strong competitive force to drive down insurance costs.  Its self-financing mechanism means that it does not add to federal expenditures - i.e., it is not a part of the costs of reform that are currently debated.

2. The public option can negotiate with drug companies to reduce costs of drugs not already the subject of Medicare negotiated prices..

3. The public option can also negotiate with providers to increase the efficiency of health care.

4. The proposed surtax on high income earners is designed to cover the entire program, but not to subsidize the public option.

Citations:

The public option -

P. 119 and following:

The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option ... at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

Payment rates under this section for prescription drugs that are not paid for under part A or part B of Medicare shall be at rates negotiated by the Secretary.

For plan years beginning with Y1, the Secretary may utilize innovative payment mechanisms and policies to determine payments for items and services under the public health insurance option. The payment mechanisms and policies under this section may include patient-centered medical home and other care management payments, accountable care organizations, value-based purchasing, bundling of services, differential payment rates, performance or utilization based payments, partial capitation, and direct contracting with providers.

To the extent allowed by the benefit standards applied to all Exchange-participating health benefits plans, the public health insurance option may modify cost sharing and payment rates to encourage the use of services that promote health and value.

 

 

The surcharge (page 197) -

　　

In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed... a tax equal to 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000, 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

 

Are you pulling your hair out over health care "reform?" I know I am, and I don't think Washington - or Obama - are listening. The current plans being discussed have been projected to expand healthcare costs. As I stated in an earlier article:

The short version of all of this is that healthcare reform should dramatically reduce healthcare costs and SAVE us money - not cost us more. If the projection is that a plan will cost us more money, then we can rest assured that private industry is getting its pockets lined at public expense, and that the system created is not truly serving the needs of the people.

Read more »

WHO and U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have figured out how to fix this growing problem.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31962005/ns/health-swine_flu/

They're just going to stop tracking the numbers of infected people.

This fits perfectly with how our government has been working (not).

Could we possibly have dumber people running things than we have?

This must be how they're going to solve all the trillions of dollars lost in workers retirement funds. I was wondering how they were going fix that.

 

                                                        THE DELUGE

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them." 22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. (Gen 6)

Okie dokie. Now with the thought in mind that Bill Cosby began his career with this vignette, we must of course demur as to the accuracy of Genesis 6. I mean it is a fun story. But come on!!!

Oh DD, you are wasting our time. Who believes in such nonsense? Well let me tell you all something.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFdmG-TRxzE  First listen to Izzy and then listen to one of the dumbest people you could ever find yourself listening to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svOCD5jKb5A

I mean the second guy has a LAB COAT on while he spills out his nonsense about how fossils PROVE that there was a world wide flood.

And yet why am I more likely to believe the English guy dressed in drag?

Oooooooooooh, but DD (I will tell you that this is the first time I have spoken to myself since I got on the internet) NOBODY REALLY BELIEVES THIS GUY IN A LAB COAT. He represents some small portion of our electorate and he really is not representative of the right wing nut evangelical literalists.

Brownbeck, Huckabee and Tancredo stated in front of god and the American people that they do not believe in Evolution.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

Oh but believing in evolution and believing that the world is 6000 years old are two different things.

Yeah sure, they are apples and apples, Winesap and Delicious. BULLSHIT

There is a site that spouts a 'geologist' in its midst that publishes all sorts of blather read by millions in this country:

The idiot finds that there are dinosaur teeth in a geological layer that should be 140 million years old even though no dinosaurs would show up until 110 million years ago.

So naturally there is only one thing to conclude:

There never was an "era of smaller T-rex dinosaurs," but there was an unimaginably massive Flood that wiped out whole environments, layering and sorting sediments and fossilizing the creatures buried therein. http://www.icr.org/article/4779/

You can see the problem here. The logic goes something like this.

Geologists surely are at least 30 million years off with regard to dinosaur teeth which means they are most probably 4.5 billion years off in their estimate for the age of the earth and 13.5 billion years as far as the universe..........ergo.......the earth is 6000 years old and there was a mighty flood that killed all the dinosaurs.

These same idiots say it only took 400 years to carve out the Grand Canyon...well really 40 days and 40 nites  (or 180 days if you find the contradiction in times in Bereshit). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html#icr-claims

And, of course 'they' have their own museum http://creationmuseum.org/about/

WHERE DOES THIS CRAP COME FROM ANYWAY?

In 1650 AD, the Archbishop of Armagh, James Usher, calculated that 4004 BC was the date of the creation year. Usher's 4004 BC date has become the most widely quoted for people who hold to a young earth. The reliability of Usher's timeline came into doubt when it was revealed that he failed to include a year zero. http://www.raptureready.com/rr-planet.html

Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq; he lived about 2700 B.C. Although historians (and your textbook) tend to emphasize Hammurabi and his code of law, the civilizations of the Tigris-Euphrates area, among the first civilizations, focus rather on Gilgamesh and the legends accruing around him to explain, as it were, themselves. Many stories and myths were written about Gilgamesh, some of which were written down about 2000 B.C. in the Sumerian language on clay tablets which still survive; the Sumerian language, as far as we know, bears no relation to any other human language we know about. These Sumerian Gilgamesh stories were integrated into a longer poem, versions of which survive not only in Akkadian (the Semitic language, related to Hebrew, spoken by the Babylonians) but also on tablets written in Hurrian and Hittite (an Indo-European language, a family of languages which includes Greek and English, spoken in Asia Minor). All the above languages were written in the script known as cuneiform, which means "wedge-shaped." The fullest surviving version, from which the summary here is taken, is derived from twelve stone tablets, in the Akkadian language, found in the ruins of the library of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria 669-633 B.C., at Nineveh. The library was destroyed by the Persians in 612 B.C., and all the tablets are damaged. The tablets actually name an author, which is extremely rare in the ancient world, for this particular version of the story: Shin-eqi-unninni. You are being introduced here to the oldest known human author we can name by name! http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM

He advised the walls of Utnapishtim's house to build a great boat, its length as great as its breadth, to cover the boat, and to bring all living things into the boat. Utnapishtim gets straight to work and finishes the great boat by the new year. Utnapishtim then loads the boat with gold, silver, and all the living things of the earth, and launches the boat. Ea orders him into the boat and commands him to close the door behind him. The black clouds arrive, with the thunder god Adad rumbling within them; the earth splits like an earthenware pot, and all the light turns to darkness. The Flood is so great that even the gods are frightened:

The gods shook like beaten dogs, hiding in the far corners of heaven,
Ishtar screamed and wailed:
"The days of old have turned to stone:
We have decided evil things in our Assembly!
Why did we decide those evil things in our Assembly?
Why did we decide to destroy our people?
We have only just now created our beloved humans;
We now destroy them in the sea!"
All the gods wept and wailed along with her,
All the gods sat trembling, and wept.

   The Flood lasts for seven days and seven nights, and finally light returns to the earth. Utnapishtim opens a window and the entire earth has been turned into a flat ocean; all humans have been turned to stone. Utnapishtim then falls to his knees and weeps.

   Utnapishtim's boat comes to rest on the top of Mount Nimush; the boat lodges firmly on the mountain peak just below the surface of the ocean and remains there for seven days. On the seventh day:

I [Utnapishtim] released a dove from the boat,
It flew off, but circled around and returned,
For it could find no perch.
I then released a swallow from the boat,
It flew off, but circled around and returned,
For it could find no perch.
I then released a raven from the boat,
It flew off, and the waters had receded:
It eats, it scratches the ground, but it does not circle around and return.
I then sent out all the living things in every direction and sacrificed a sheep on that very spot.

Now compare this clip from Gilgamesh to Bereshit:

15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16 And they that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in. 17 The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; 22 everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days. (Gen 7)

....And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made, 7 and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground; 9 but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more. 13 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. 15 Then God said to Noah, 16 "Go forth from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you. 17 Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh--birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth--that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth." 18 So Noah went forth, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. 19 And every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves upon the earth, went forth by families out of the ark. 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Genesis 8)

Gilgamesh was written (first drafts anyway, 4800 years ago).

ts really not possible to know the age of most texts, including Bible texts.  Much easier is to know, from paleographic, radiocarbon, and stratigraphic evidence, the age of the oldest manuscripts.  That's because while text is an abstract thing, manuscripts are physical and can be put to the test.  The oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which include the oldest copies of biblical books, are from the third century B.C.  There are several scrolls of the Torah or Law (Genesis through Deuteronomy) among these manuscripts that date from the third century B.C. through the first century B.C.

It has been fashionable for Bible scholars to say that the Torah was put into its final shape in post-exilic times, i.e., following the return of some of the Jews from Babylon in the fifth century B.C., so that's where the 450 B.C. date comes from.  Several recent discoveries have made it difficult to maintain that view.  The most important of these is the discovery, in an ancient tomb on the outskirts of Jerusalem, of two small silver scrolls that have quotes from Numbers 6 (the priestly blessing) and another brief passage from (I believe) Deuteronomy.  The paleography and the archaeology of the tomb suggest that the scrolls are from ca. 600 B.C.  This clearly suggests that the Torah, or at least part of it, was already in existence just before the Babylonian exile.

I hasten to add that, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (mostly during 1947-52, though some came later), the oldest manuscripts containing the Torah were from the tenth century A.D.  A text containing an Aramaic translation of Psalm 20 (though written in Egyptian demotic script) dates to the fourth century B.C.  (Aramaic is related to Hebrew and is the language the Jews adopted during the Babylonian exile.)  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pushed the date of the oldest biblical manuscripts back by 13 centuries.  The silver scrolls have pushed at least part of the Torah back nearly four centuries more.  In my opinion, we should not be surprised if even older manuscripts are found, but we should also not expect it, since archaeology is such a serendipitous venture. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Genesis-age.htm

2450 years is about the earliest age claimed for the written Genesis according to this 'biblical scholar'

Me, I have more interest in the story written 4800 years ago. And let us not forget Hesiod who is writing about 750BC collecting poems or songs sung for centuries before.

So we have Christians who claim to not just follow the old time religion but claim to be scholars of the real old time religion--that of the Jews.  These people are NOT JUST CLAIMING THAT EVOLUTION IS HOGWASH. These people are claiming the earth is 6000 years old. WHICH MEANS THE FIRST STORY OF THE FLOOD IS WRITTEN ONLY 1200 YEARS AFTER ADAM AND EVE. And they sure the fuck never read Gilgamesh.

So I calm down. So I breath in and out slowly. And so I say Oooooooooooaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhm over an hour or so.

What kind of sites are available out there?

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=668

 

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

 

https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=802&gclid=CKebltPg3ZsCFRKAxgodSyakbA   They are selling books on this crap and making Money.

 

Half of America believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2680/nearly-half-the-u-s-population-believes-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old

 

Oh and we have politicians, elected politicians who agree with this drivel:  http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/az-state-senate-earth-6000/

MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- ChristiaNet.com, the world's largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads, conducted a recent poll asking, "Is the Earth billions of years old?" Regardless the selection of "Yes", "No" or "Unsure", these Christian voters agreed that, "In the beginning God created..." "A point of confusion seems to be whether there is a gap of time between the beginning of universe and the creation of Adam", stated Bill Cooper, President of ChristiaNet.

Out of 797 polled, 43% believed the Earth is less than billions of years old. The vast majority of this group felt the Earth is between 6,000 and 12,000 years old. Using the Bible as their reference, many Believers cited the genealogies listed in the Old Testament as evidence. One person said, "The years of generations between Adam and Jesus equal about 4,000." While others pointed out in Genesis that "God created all things in six days" and many believed these days are six literal 24 hour periods. Some took a more scientific approach such as using population growth studies and analyzing Biblical timelines to arrive at an age of less than a billion years.  http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5143890.html

CONCLUSION?

1.   There is a SIGNIFICANT percentage of voting Americans who believe in  fairy   tales.

2.    Even if you blame the fairy tales on Persians

3.    There is a significant political force in this country that is using these polls to do evil.

4.    You cannot argue with walls or with people who believe in fairy tales

5.     I am going to run out of tobacco in the next week and what am I to do then?

6.     THE MEDIA IS SCARED TO DEATH OF THIS SHIT.

7.     These people wish to teach our children and grandchildren fairy tales written by Persians as science.

8.      Brownbeck, Huckabee and Tancredo are idiots

9.      Damn, I knew I was smelling smoke again, frickin cigs, I gotta learn how to roll them better.

I was watching Rachel last nite and I am going to tie all this into C-Street the place where all this fun fornication is going on. I just have no room for it right now. 

 

I HOPE TO GOD YOU ARE ALL TAKING NOTES

 

THERE WILL BE A TEST

 

See, I'm trying to get a taste of what gems Sister Sarah may have in store for us tweeters once she leaves office in 10 days. here's another look into what might be, via three tweets:

Great day w/bear management wildlife biologists; much to see in wild territory incl amazing creatures w/mama bears' gutteral raw instinct to protect & provide for her young;She sees danger?She brazenly rises up on strong hind legs, growls Don't Touch My Cubs & the species survives & mama bear doesn't look 2 anyone else 2 hand her anything; biologists say she works harder than males, is provider/protector for the future.

Hmmm. Wonder where she's going with that.

Oh please, PLEASE Sarah, write a book!

Keep the faith.

So she could smack down shit like this:

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2977330

In the video, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) suggests that the mothers of both the President of the United States of American and a sitting Supreme Court Justice may have chosen abortion if only they had been able to access public funding for the procedure.

I've heard a lot of intellectually dishonest arguments in my life. Until today, my favorite was conveniently forgetting the marginal tax rate when calculating tax burden on our beleagured wealthy citizens. Tiahrt has reached a staggering new level of crass and insulting by suggesting that if public funding for abortion had been available decades ago, we'd be deprived of two of our current leaders.

But if the Congressman wants to play the What If game, I've got a couple scenarios for him to consider:

*If Congress had stopped sitting on their collective thumbs in fear of losing elections, and stopped George Bush from launching an agressive war, we wouldn't have been deprived of all of the soldiers killed in Iraq. What if one of them would have been our president some day?

*What if, in 1995 when Tiahrt first went to Congress, instead of using stem cell research as a political football, they would have gotten serious about providing funding for research into cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and a whole bunch of other diseases? How many people have been lost to illness that could have been stopped or slowed since then?

Why doesn't he talk about those hypotheticals on the floor of the House, instead of whose mother would have chosen abortion if only she'd had the money 50 years ago?

This is a man who is running for Senate in 2010. The mind reels.

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

This one is not cross posted at Dagblog, but there is a health care cost savings discussion just itchin' to get started.

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, apologized today for his firm's strong earnings in 2009. In a press statement, he took responsibility for the profit and promised to lose money more aggressively for the remainder of the year.

"We are cognizant of the difficulties faced by average Americans and realize that earning money this year is insensitive and shows a lack of gratitude to the American people. We have had difficulty reeducating our employees to understand that there is a right time and wrong time for profitability. Had we known how much money we would make, we would certainly have taken more drastic steps to avoid this unfortunate situation.

Read more »

UPDATE on the July 30 Single-Payer Healthcare Rally in DC

Here's a link to Healthcare NOW, an organization dedicated to single-payer healthcare.  They are working hard to coordinate with all organizations supportive of Single Payer Healthcare.

There will be a multi-organizational rally in Washington, DC, July 30th to express the voice of the people who demand a single-payer healthcare system.  Do you want your voice to be heard?!?

If you would like to go and have the means to do so, the Healthcare Now link below will give you information on the rally, hotels/places to stay, and help you find a bus from states close by that will take you, and others like you, to this historical event.  Be the difference!

If you can't attend personally but would like to contribute and send fellow TPM member Gumbun to represent us, we are coordinating collecting funds to cover her expenses.  She will bring your voice by proxy to this important gathering/demonstration.  You can use this link to contribute:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=6816319

It is linked to an account set up for this purpose, or contact synchronicity@yeswecan.com if you have any trouble using the paypal link.  (Synchronicity will provide an accounting of all that we accomplish).

Healthcare NOW is coordinating people to ensure every Congressperson on the Hill is individually visited by people who are determined to have a single-payer healthcare system implemented here in the United States .

We are up against a powerful, well-financed lobbying effort, but we beat them with our numbers! We beat them with our votes!  We have a voice that can drown out their dollars, because every Congressperson knows, their job ends when they fail to get re-elected.  We need to remind them who votes and what it is the voters expect them to do... represent the people!  We are the people and we want a single-payer healthcare system.

Visit the website and decide whether this is something you want to support.  Buy a ticket and go, or send a donation so we can sponsor Gumbun from TPM.  When?  NOW!  Right now.  This is probably the most important legislative decision that will come from Congress in the 21st century.  Let your voice be heard.

Buy a ticket! Send Gumbun as proxy!  Let your voice be heard in Washington, DC !  It's time to get this done!


Updates:

**Jason Everett Miller lives in the area, will be attending the rally and has offered his services as chauffer.  Miguelito2o is going and can give a ride from Southern PA.   Kfreed is paying their own way from CO and has already actively jumped in to participate in and sponsor the event and has volunteered to take photos etc in chronicling the event for us.  So far, we are sending one person who needs financial assistance, Gumbun.

Read her personal story to learn why we are so excited about sending her to represent us.  That makes four rep's so far... and we are just getting started.  Donations are definitely needed and appreciated to cover Gumbun's costs.  The sooner we buy her airline ticket the less it will cost us!

**Rep. Anthony Weiner of NY is going to offer an amendment for single payer in the Commerce Committee so please take some action in support of that amendment if you would:)

**Healthcare NOW is offering a teach-in in NYC on July 25.  You can link to it live here: 

http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/single-payer-teach-in/

**Need help filling up a bus from Connecticut.  Any Connecticut readers, please get the word out to your friends and family.  Go here for more information about buses.

**So far we're up to $262 in donations towards Gumbun's travel expenses.  Please be sure to check out her blog.  Also, Gumbun is putting a video together and requests vid clips.  Thanks!

***This blog is the idea of and co-sponsored by several bloggers here at TPM.

Cross-posted at River Twice Research.

With a slew of major companies reporting earnings so far, it's clear that expectations were severely skewed to the negative. Once again, Wall Street analysts overshot - this time to the downside. The substantial margin expansion reported by Intel; the higher-than-anticipated profitability of IBM; and the blow-out quarters of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan all stand in contrast to sentiment just a few weeks ago, which was grim and getting grimmer. So what happened?

First, the robust results of some of the banks so far is the result of trading revenue and changes in accounting rules rather than a sudden improvement in losses from bad loans. Still, income is income, and the more they generate, the easier it will be to absorb those losses from consumer, commercial and business loans that will continue to go sour for some time.

Read more »

My previous post about Cedars, the Fellowship Foundation's secretive headquarters on the Potomac, is still a work in progress. I'm trying to find out who financed the properties and who has donated funds to keep this alternate universe solvent.

But as I sorted through various articles and newspaper accounts, I realized that there was a connection between Fellowship Foundation ("The Family") and its activities, and Renaissance Weekend, the toney think tank event founded by Philip Lader in 1981, and held in Hilton Head, SC, or Charleston, SC.

Past attendees and panelists have included Al Franken, the Clintons, Larry Summers, Wesley Clark, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, actor Ron Silver, Barbra Streisand, Elmo Zumwalt, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, Washington Post's Thomas Edsall, and Paul Goldberger of The New York Times. A typical weekend has more than 500 attendees and many of the better known attendees don't want to talk about being there. The invitations are as prized as the ones for the National Prayer Breakfast in DC.

Lader is a former director of the Small Business Administration and former Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Lader founded Renaissance Weekend with his wife Linda LeSourd Lader.

Here's where it gets really interesting. According to a wedding announcement published in the July 27, 1980 issue of The New York Times:

"Miss LeSourd, a graduate of the Emma Willard School and Ohio Wesleyan University, is with the Fellowship Foundation in the National Prayer Breakfast movement, a nondenominational ministry in Washington. Her father, former editor of Guideposts magazine, and her stepmother, Catherine Marshall LeSourd, author of a number of best-selling inspirational books, are partners in Chosen Books, a Christian publishing firm whose titles include Charles H. Colson's 'Born Again.' "

Chuck Colson was a former Nixon aide, one of the "Watergate 7," and is a close friend of Doug Coe, who runs the Fellowship Foundation that runs Ivanwald, Potomac Point and Cedars.

Fasten your seatbelts. Turbulence ahead.

The entire political universe, from the heights of the Washington establishment to the depths of the grassroots, agrees that our presidential nominating process needs to be reformed. But while there is broad consensus that a problem exists, there are myriad diagnoses as to what actually needs fixing. As the parties begin internal and interparty discussions about what elements need tweaking, it's time to take a serious look at more extensive and comprehensive reforms that will truly fix the process. The parties should begin to debate a plan that includes traditional state-based nomination contests culminating in a final, decisive national primary.

Our Analysis

Stop the presses! The Republican and Democratic Parties have come to a major point of agreement that has sweeping, national implications. Both of these normally-opposing factions have recognized that it's time to address the fundamental flaws in a broken, outdated institution. Change may truly be coming to America.

That's right. The parties have begun to take action to fix the presidential nomination process. It's early, but reformers have reason to hope.

It's no secret that both parties have a confusing, hodgepodge mix of caucuses and primaries, divided into closed, open, and even "semi-open" contests, with delegates available in both regular and "super" varieties, and a slew of debates, straw polls, fish fries, and lots and lots of consternation over corn. It's unlikely that much or any of this will disappear in future nomination cycles, but commissions within both parties are now trying to get some sort of handle over this seemingly untamable political beast.

Mainly at issue is the nomination calendar. While oddly continuing the practice of having a handful of states like Iowa and New Hampshire always go first, the parties allowed a free-for-all among states that overwhelmingly chose to vote on the first Tuesday in February. Wearied by the grueling contest between then-senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and hoping to avoid having states frontload their contests almost to the middle of Christmas shopping season, the Democrats are now looking to narrow the window of time in which contests can be held, withholding them until March.

Meanwhile, as The Hill reported in June, Republicans are of a similar mind, but with a different emphasis. The party is actively trying to avoid a de facto "national primary," and is taking steps to spread its contests further apart in an effort to give more voters a substantive say. FairVote research shows that primary turnout for the Republican contest in 2008 dropped precipitously after the nomination was effectively wrapped up on Super Tuesday, going from 12.6% for the primaries on and before February 5th, to a mere 8.4% after. In comparison, the average turnout for the Democrats' months-long battle actually went up after February 5th, from 17.7% to 23.6%.*

Though these reform strategies are a bit scattershot and their ambitions still modest, the intentions are good: starting later to shorten the process (and lessen the chances of, for example, a winter storm changing political history) and even more importantly, allowing time and space for presidential hopefuls-at all levels of notoriety and funding-to make their case to their parties' voters. The New Jersey GOP's David Norcross has hope for progress, telling The Hill, "Now, for the first time ever, we both have the authority to make changes and can actually talk to each other and maybe hope to work things out." Democratic National Committee chair and Virginia governor Tim Kaine has said he would like his party's commission to "focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate." We couldn't agree more.

But well-meaning reform can be a double-edged sword. If the window of time gets too narrow, we approach the oft-dreaded, one-shot "national primary" scenario that favors well-known, well-moneyed candidates. But with contests spread apart, we always run the risk of nominations being wrapped up well before the majority of Americans have even tuned in, essentially disenfranchising them. Meanwhile, polls show that American voters themselves overwhelmingly prefer the idea of a single national primary day (72% in a 2007 New York Times/CBS News poll). What to do?

Why not consider an approach that takes the best ideas from various schools of thought in order to reap their benefits? We think it's time to take a fresh look at a concept proposed decades ago by Republican Senator George Norris of Nebraska, originator of his state's unicameral legislature, and discuss having both a well-organized state-by-state nomination process that then culminates in a National Primary Day.

Under this scenario, the parties would agree upon a set calendar that satisfies the criteria that most agree are necessary for real reform: a schedule that allows states to take turns in being among the earliest contests, gives less well-funded candidates a fighting chance to make their case, and gives all voters a meaningful opportunity to weigh in no matter where they live. As the candidates compete they would accrue delegates as usual, winnowing the field as those who fail to garner enough support gradually drop out. As the cycle reaches the end, the remaining candidates would go head-to-head in one nationwide election in which party voters across the entire country get to choose between the finalists.

More specifically, we like the idea of making that primary a set day in early June - perhaps the first Tuesday, or, more daringly, the first Saturday. States would be encouraged to hold their congressional primaries that day too in order to encourage higher turnout. Parties could, by party rule, limit the number of candidates in the final primary to the top two, but could also allow more candidates to participate if they adopted instant runoff voting, the ranked choice method that preserves majority rule in multi-candidate fields.

For organization of the state-by-state contests, FairVote is particularly supportive of the American Plan, which begins with a group of states with a population no bigger than that of Maryland, and after a set of fixed two-week intervals widens the breadth of the playing field with rotating groups of increasingly larger states. States and parties would need to decide whether these contests should be primaries or party-financed caucuses - given that all party voters would have a chance to vote in the decisive final national primary, the more grassroots-oriented, less costly caucuses might be sufficient for the individual contests - and save tax dollars.

Recent nominations also point to changes in state contest rules we would urge states to make - proportional allocation of delegates, as already required by Democrats, and instant runoff voting to determine the real winner of states. John McCain wrapped up his party's nomination so early largely because many state Republican contests allocate delegates by winner-take-all. McCain won only 39.3% of the popular vote in primaries through February 5th, well short of a majority, but that translated into 75% of the available delegates in those primaries-prematurely ending the race, and leaving no incentive for Republican voters to take part in the later contests. Contrast that with Barack Obama, who had won 45.7% of the popular vote in primaries through February 5th, and 50.5% of the available delegates due to his success in caucuses and the Democratic Party's proportional representation rule. Both parties should be using a proportional method so supporters of all candidates in all states have a reason to show up. In order to retain the notion that winning a state still means something special-a notion already played up by the media-a "bonus" percentage of delegates, 5% for example, could be awarded to the first place finisher, but only if instant runoff voting were used to keep "split votes" from rewarding weak winners.

This idea would theoretically allow for the best of all possible worlds, as all voters across the country would have a chance to play a decisive role in the parties' nominations, and the progressing calendar of state contests would allow sufficient time for a meaningful examination of the candidates. The state-by-state contests would permit considered deliberation and test the candidates' character, skill, and wits under fire. While some states still wind up with more influence than others in the initial filtering out of candidates, under the American Plan (and plans like it), influential positions would rotate from cycle to cycle. Once the competitors have survived their political trials, the National Primary Day would give everyone an equal voice in definitively deciding who will be their standard bearer in November. No one is left out of the process.

This debate is an old one, and it's hard to say with any assurance that any one approach is the perfect solution. Every reform has its benefits and drawbacks. But a comprehensive attempt at reform should actively entertain ideas more significant and far-reaching than slight calendar restrictions or the odd adjustment in the power of superdelegates. What is really at stake is the voice of the American voter in their presidential elections, and with that in mind, it becomes clear that bolder, more innovative approaches will need to be on the table. Significant overhaul of the system is not just about abstract electoral mechanics. Elections, as well as nominations, have consequences.

* These numbers do not take into account caucuses, due to their stricter standards of voter eligibility and other nuances in rules. _ _ _ _

Of course, if we want to play... we know who to pay.

And, in the future, it seems there'll be fewer of 'em.

In a perceptive post yesterday, Robert Reich noted the resurgence of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as the premier investment banks on Wall Street:

...We've ended up with two giants that now have most of the casino to themselves, are playing with poker chips backed by taxpayers, and have a big say in what the rules of the game are to be... When JP Morgan repaid its federal bailout of $25 billion last month it was, like Goldman, freed from stricter government oversight. The freedom has also allowed JP, like Goldman, to take tougher and more vocal stands in Washington against proposed financial regulations they dislike.

It's not like these two will be the only game in town - it's just that most really big deals will be "exposed" to them in some way. And any politician on Capitol Hill undoubtedly will perk up and wag his tail every time their lobbyists and representatives come calling.

Like the U.S. in heady days after the Soviet Union fell, companies like JPMorgan and Goldman are among the sole remaining superpowers of the financial world. And, boy, do they know it.

Read more »

This afternoon I saw Josh's post on EFCA, how the compromise would entail cutting out card check. But the lack of comments on his post means I have to blog about it here where he might not see.

It's not that I want him to see what I wrote, but more importantly is this article by T.A. Frank in the Monthly that made the argument that Card Check was the least important provision in EFCA.

That article can be found here and I would hope Josh would link to it in a post.

It is pretty startling how people can ignore certain facts to fabricate from nothing an argument to support their position, but that is what Pat Buchanan did on Rachel Maddow Thursday night.  He created this imaginary world with selective historical accounts to develop a grand theory of White Entitlement.  I have to type this with cellophane over my key board because I am just spitting mad about how, 140 years later, we continue to fight the Civil War and have such a long road to travel to make a more perfect union because of delusional, old, white men like Pat Buchanan.

For reference, you can watch the debate/shriekfest here. 

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2973685&ref=fpblg

If one agrees with Mr. Buchanan, then one believes that from the very outset the Founding Fathers intended freedom to be a blessing they would keep to themselves, white males, always and forever.  Mr. Buchanan declares that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were composed of 100% white men, implying there was a deliberate effort to keep other races and genders from ever rising out of their unrepresented status. Evidently, these other segments of society would be best represented by white men anyway, in his distorted estimation. 

Mr. Buchanan later emphatically stated that that those killed at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were 100% white males,  It's an interesting proposition, considering that nearly 200,000 black soldiers fought in the Civil War, nearly 10% of the military.  But we can ignore this statistic because these two battles were only a very small part of the four year conflict.  As critical as they were in leading to the final outcome of that war, there were hundreds of battles and within them there are several instances of the United States Colored Troops performing distinguished service, including a horrific engagement at New Market Heights, Virginia, wherein 14 black soldiers were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.  If research is too much for Mr. Buchanan in his senior years, he might consider watching the movie Glory, a dramatic interpretation of an actual regiment of Colored Troops, the 54th Massachusetts, bravely storming Fort Wagner in a doomed assault.  With Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington among that actors, it's really very well done.  And did I mention the movie is based on fact?  I suppose I could also mention another little piece of trivia, that the South lost the War, but let's move on.  Blacks have fought bravely in more wars then that.

Buchanan also falsely announces that whites were "probably close to" 100% of those killed at Normandy.  Well, gee, here's a photo from the archives of the All-Black 320th Battalion on the beach at Normandy, June 6, 1944.  

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/05/2009-06-05_allblack_battalion_that_landed_in_normandy_france_on_dday_to_be_honored_on_anniv.html?CFID=17854669&CFTOKEN=44715724

These guys look black to me!  The caption states that many of these men perished.  If the battallion is All-Black, it is safe to assume some of the soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice at Normandy were killed while black.  Of course, there are all those Holocaust pictures too, and I'm not sure whether Buchanan is willing to admit to that tragedy either, I mean just because there are hundreds of evidentiary photos, but that's another topic.  {Author's note:  I do not know whether these brave men prefer to be referred to as Black, Negroes, African-Americans, Sable Soldiers, Buffalo Soldiers, or some name, but having served in battle, having assaulted the beaches of Normandy, I am willing to call them any name they wish.  They have earned at least that much.  In the meanwhile, I shall refer to them as black. though only for brevity sake.  I certainly mean no offense.}

With the war theme, I could continue to explore our involvement in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.  We could ennumerate the contributions of blacks in these conflicts as well, but I believe that history is so recent, even Mr. Buchanan would be hard pressed to deny blacks have fought in these wars with distinction.   I would simply refer him to General Colin Powell to explain these historical facts over a mint julep on the porch some cool summer evening.  

This post, so far, has been related to Mr. Buchanan's racist bent and focused on blacks, but the Hispanic population is given a similar disdainful and resentful treatment.  This critical moment in history, when a Latina will be elevated to the US Supreme Court, has apparently unleashed Pat's racist genie and his unrelenting fear of people not of his race.  But he fears her gender as well, which may be even more frightening to Mr. Buchanan as can be revealed in this quote regarding Sonia Sotomayor.  "She was appointed because she was a Latina, an Hispanic, and a woman."  Mr. Buchanan is so incensed with this insult to racial purity and so overcome with his sexist tirade, he repeats himself.  Latina already denotes hispanic. Those are not two separate "offenses", and Latina also denotes woman, for that matter, but if you listen to the video, Mr. Buchanan is blinded by his rage against the injustices to white males and fails to realize his redundancy.

In keeping with his fabricationist history, if you will, Buchanan attacks Ms. Sotomayor's education and achievements suggesting that it is probably that her grades were fixed in the spirit of affirmative action.  This is a mean-spirited assumption.  While Mr. Buchanan tries to avoid being labelled a racist because he would not assume the fastest men in this country were not selected for the track team because they were black, but the fastest runners, and that he would not assume that the all white hockey team from MInnesota was selected for being white rather then the best hockey players, he is willing to assume that Mr. Sotomayor was given good grades because she was a Latina, and not because she dedicated herself to studying and deserved them.  He questions her achievement of summa cum laude  when she graduated from Princeton.  Therefore, this is not simply an insult to Ms. Sotomayor, but to anyone graduating with that distincton from Princeton.

This post is about false entitlement.  It is clear Mr. Buchanan feels he is entitled to cast these aspersions around because he is a white male, history's latest victim of prejudice.  Why he is given a national stage to present these lies is beyond my comprehension, but as one commentor noted in my last post, at least now we get to illustrate how twisted and sick these ideas are.  So, in a spirit of unbridled generosity, thank you, Mr. Buchanan, for that.  And thank you, Oleeb, for reminding me of a position I had taken regarding the Reverend Rick Warren when he was invited to speak at the inauguration.  Pastor Warren made a great object of derision and enabled us to express his distorted view of society for days.

Freedom of speech?  Yes, Mr. Buchanan has the right to say what he wishes.  We do not put people in jail for that.  But we also have the right, no, the obligation, to declare that we will not move forward if we cannot face the truth of our shared history and the many contributions that have been made by people of color. 

Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for so emphatically defending a quest for real greatness for this nation in which we can utilize a much greater human population to locate the best and the brightest.  They are not all white and they are not all male, but they are all American, and our best and our brightest can come from anywhere as has been proven historically time and again, whether these fabricationist historian choose to acknowledge this or not.       

 

The American Conservative Union (ACU), which proudly boasts of being "the nation's oldest conservative lobbying organization," proudly demanded $2M+ from FedEx in return for endorsing its position in a legislative dispute with UPS, stating, "We stand with FedEx in opposition to this legislation."

Read more »

House HELP Passes Amendment to Allow State Single-Payer Experimentation

America's registered nurses and other guaranteed healthcare activists are hailing the vote last night by House Education and Labor Committee to amend the national healthcare reform bill and give individual states the freedom to adopt single-payer, Medicare-for-All style reforms.

This bi-partisan vote affirms the best of American democracy.  The exemptions would life federal mandates on healthcare money and free states to act as the laboratories of democracy they are supposed to.  The vote is also an encouragement to progressives who are looking for paths to improve the parameters of the healthcare debate.

Here is Sen. Sanders discussing the Senate version of the amendment, which was recently voted down in the Senate Finance Committee.  And here Rep. Kucinich reports on the vote call.

In addition, nurses and healthcare activists cheer the vote because it gives hope for the kind of genuine healthcare reform that is not based on negotiating with the failed and heartless insurance companies who are the cause of our healthcare crisis--something they should not be rewarded for.

Introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, the amendment would remove the potential "ERISA" legal impediments for states to pass single-payer bills by waiving federal exemptions that apply to employer-sponsored health plans.

The amendment passed on a bi-partisan vote of 25-19, with the support of both progressive, single payer Democrats and many Republicans who endorsed the ability of individual states to pass their own versions of health care reform.

"This is a historic moment for patients, for American families, and for the tens of thousands of nurses and other single payer activists from coast to coast who can now work in state capitols to pass single payer bills, the strongest, most effective solution of all to our healthcare crisis," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.

"There are many models of health care reform from which to choose around the world - the vast majority of which perform far better than ours. The one that has been the most tested here and abroad is single-payer," said Kucinich in urging passage of the amendment.

"Under a single-payer system everyone in the U.S. would get a card that would allow access to any doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors and hospitals would continue to be privately run, but the insurance payments would be in the public hands. By getting rid of the for-profit insurance companies, we can save $400 billion per year and provide coverage for all medically necessary services for everyone in the U.S.," Kucinich said.

The nurses noted there is a long road ahead for the amendment. It will still need approval from the full House and in a final version from the Senate. Nurses and other healthcare and community activists made numerous calls to legislators in support of the amendment, and will continue to press for its enactment in the final bill.

For those who have opposed the proposal, DeMoro called it "a very modest amendment that simply protects choice for residents of individual states who favor more comprehensive reform."

Recent reports from both the Department of Health and Human Services and the prestigious medical journal Health Affairs have documented that compared to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees have greater access to care, fewer problems with medical bills, and greater satisfaction with their health plans and the quality of care they receive.

The reason for improved access, quality, and lower costs under Medicare, said DeMoro, "is that under Medicare, insurance companies, whose central focus is profits for their shareholders not delivery of care,  don't have the ability to deny care, limit coverage, or continually raise prices that endanger the health and financial security of patients."

"The successes and standards of Medicare should be the model for reform for all Americans," said DeMoro. "If the final national bill will not meet that test by establishing Medicare for all, then let's give Americans the tools to pass it in individual states."

Currently, if states were to pass single-payer laws, as California, for one, has twice, only to have the bill vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it could be subject to immediate legal challenge due to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which applies to all employer-paid health plans. The Kucinich amendment would provide an ERISA waiver.

David Danzig is at Guantanamo Bay this week observing military commissions.

Guantánamo Bay, July 16, 2009: At 1:40 PM the court room was prepared for motions to be heard against five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks, except that one of the detainees was talking with his attorney in such a loud tone that it was difficult for the proceedings to begin.



Mustafa al Hawsawi, one of the five so-called "9/11" defendants, claimed that he had been misled about his role in the day's proceedings and said that he wished to leave before motions even began.

Al Hawsawi's abrupt departure followed more than three hours of legal wrangling. At issue were questions regarding the detainees themselves. Did they have to attend their own hearings? If they refused, should the staff judge advocate use force to compel them to be in the court room?

Like so many things at Guantánamo related to military commissions, this was unchartered territory where the officials in charge seemed, at times, to be unsure of the rules.

There is no legal precedent to fall back on. This is the first time that the military commissions were dealing with these issues in a conspiracy case involving multiple defendants.

The morning was filled with motions as the defense and the prosecution jockeyed for advantage.

In the strange world of military commissions, where nothing is what an outside observer might expect it to be, the prosecution argued that the court should do what it could to bring all of the accused to the courtroom. Give them a chance to speak for five minutes each at some point during the proceedings, a lead prosecutor in the case pleaded with the court, but don't allow them to participate in the court's active business.

No, said David Nevin, a legal advisor to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind" of the 9/11 plot, is representing himself in these proceedings but chose not to attend the motions that were argued today.

It was Nevin's view that Mohammed should be allowed to participate in the motions themselves since he was being tried for "conspiracy" and therefore the disposition of the other defendants in the case - were they competent to stand trial? - would have a direct bearing on his standing.

Meanwhile attorneys for al Hawsawi and Ramzi bin al Shibh argued that their clients should not be able to speak if they were to attend. Lawyers for these detainees are arguing that they may not be competent to stand trial, an argument that could be undercut if they began making statements in court.

Got it?

Well, unfortunately the prosecution did not.

When Robert Swann, a lead prosecutor, called the officers in charge of the detention facililty to relay the judge's decision, he got it wrong. The judge was willing to provide the three detainees who are representing themselves five minutes to speak, but he ruled that the other two defendants would not be allowed to speak. The prosecutor said that all detainees who attended the proceedings would have a chance to speak.

To make matters worse, the officer who manages high value detainees then threatened the detainees that their "privileges" (regular meetings with attorneys and access to a laptop to prepare for their trials) "could be" revoked if they did not attend the day's hearing. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor suggested in court that this could be the case.

After al Hawsawi left, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali told the court, through his attorney, that he had only come to the court to protect his privileges. He said that he felt like he had been "blackmailed."

The whole incident took an additional 45 minutes to sort out.

Observers were left scratching their heads.

Why would a system be in place where the jailers and the prosecutor are so intimately linked? Why is it up to the prosecutor to communicate the judge's orders to the detainees?

And, well, wouldn't we be better off in federal court where these sorts of snafus were much less likely to dominate the court's agenda?

At the end of the day, it was unlikely that the cases against the accused could move very far forward this week. Too much depends on changes the Obama administration is mulling to the structure of the commission process.

But what little did happen does not inspire confidence, since even the most basic issues like summoning detainees from their cells for a motion led to mistakes, confusion and frustration.

Throughout the day, the judge and many of the attorneys labored as best they could under a system that is constantly evolving. But at the end of the day many were left wondering if such a complex case might be better off in a more mature setting that is better equipped to handle these issues.

In the last 20 years, U.S. federal courts have handled more than 120 terrorism cases. Federal courts are equipped to try big time terrorism cases- now it is just up to the politicians to recognize that what is happening at Guantánamo is not the best option. 

David Danzig is Deputy Program Director at Human Rights First.

MWM 49 ISO SWF soulmate 40 - 45 for long walks, long-distance relationship

MWM 51 ISO MWF for short walks, large cash gifts

7MWM + 1 MWF w/steady jobs, ISO Single Wise Latina for discreet, measured, but contentious relationships

MWF 45 ISO numerous relationships with real Americans

MWJM 70+ ISO forgiving bunkmate for lifelong relationship

14,700,000 ISO jobs, healthcare - will work for food

The body of Russian human rights activist Natalya Estemirova was found lying in a ditch riddled with bullet holes. She had been shot, execution style. Witnesses saw 4 unidentified men hustle her into an unmarked white car while walking to the bus stop on her way to work. She was a fearless defender of the truth. Her death is a loss to everyone who hungers and thirsts after righteousness.

The circumstantial details tell an intuitive story. She was a thorn in the side of Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin puppet they installed as the Chechnyan president, Ramzan Kadyrov. Qui bono? It seems the Russian state still has the ability to 'disappear' it's critics and it's inconveniences, wherever and whenever they want. remember polonium victim Alexander Litvinenko? Does anyone really believe that Natalya's asassins will be put to justice?

Secret death squads, operating wherever they will--as judge, jury, and executioner.

Is THIS what Cheney had in mind?

by Sara Luckow, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Americans have picked up some interesting habits thanks to the Great Recession. Online dating is on the rise because it's cheaper to vet a date online than pay for a night on the town. Interest in urban farming and community gardening has also spiked, but for different reasons: Home-grown foods taste better, cost less and are better for you.

While technology has made online dating easy, urban agriculture has a tradition of mushrooming during the tough times. During World War II, Eleanor Roosevelt inspired millions by planting the first Victory Garden. That tradition continues today: Michelle Obama planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House Lawn.

But urban gardening isn't just for the movers and shakers. And it's not always easy to get a garden in the ground, no matter how clear-cut the benefits are. As Todd Heywood of the Michigan Messenger reports, residents of Flint, Michigan are appropriating abandoned lots as community gardens, but are running into some big problems in the process. Flint has no zoning laws that allow for urban agriculture, which makes the legality of these guerrilla gardens questionable at best. The city council will review proposals to update zoning ordinances in September, but Flint's troubles are a good example of how, even if urban agriculture seems like a practical solution, it's not always feasible.

In contrast to Flint, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has ordered all city departments to audit unused land that could be utilized for urban farming. City officials have also spent the last year preparing approximately 15 sites for growing produce, according to Mother Jones' Josh Harkinson. As part of an initiative to encourage the spread and consumption of locally-grown foods, a colorful quarter-acre victory garden was planted in front of San Francisco's city hall. Newsom's other creative gardening plans including planting strawberry patches atop bus shelters and fruit trees in street medians.

While Newsom's goals are intended to be in the best public interest, there are legitimate concerns: Contaminated soil, city pollution and vandalism could make the food unfit to eat. And his proposal to require jails, hospitals and homeless shelters to only serve high-quality, sustainable fare might not work in other metropolitan areas.

In an interview with Grist, food writer and urban farmer Novella Carpenter defines urban farming as 'growing enough food to trade or sell for added income. Food security and financial savings are big motivators to plant a plot of land, even if it's just to feed one household.

The popularity of community gardens will likely fall when the economy rebounds, Carpenter says, much like the 20 million World War II victory gardens that disappeared after the troops returned home and convenience foods because ubiquitous. That's because sustaining a, well, sustainable land plot takes a lot of energy, planning and dedication.

But attempting to eat locally and seasonally can be frustrating if you live in a climate with a short growing season. Finding locally-grown tomatoes during a North Dakota winter is out of the question. But Tom Philpott offers a solution: Investing in technology and infrastructure "can dramatically extend growing seasons in almost any climate." (Scroll down for link.)

Appropriate technology doesn't mean complicated or expensive. Chelsea Green's Brad Lancaster writes about how his mentor, Russ Buhrow, has defied dry climate conditions since the 1980s by harvesting rainwater to irrigate his crops. Without money for extraneous equipment or fertilizers, Burhrow's sole significant investment was his time.

Deciding which issue to dedicate time and resources to can be overwhelming: Hard times make plenty of big problems to go around. But urban agriculture has the power to alleviate problems related to both healthcare and the recession, which makes it worthwhile despite political, technological or social difficulties.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment. Visit Sustain.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on the environment and sustainability, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health, and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net, Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.newsladder.net, This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Does Crown Prince of Bahrain Shaikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa exhibit responsible Arab leadership, or reveal himself as a Zionist tool...?

Essentially, we have not done a good enough job demonstrating to Israelis how our initiative can form part of a peace between equals in a troubled land holy to three great faiths. Others have been less reticent, recognizing that our success would threaten their vested interest in keeping Palestinians and Israelis at each other's throats. They want victims to stay victims so they can be manipulated as proxies in a wider game for power. The rest of us -- the overwhelming majority -- have the opposite interest....

Some Arabs, simplistically equating communication with normalization, may think we are moving too fast toward normalization. But we all know that dialogue must be enhanced for genuine progress. We all, together, need to take the first crucial step to lay the groundwork to effectively achieve peace. So we must all invest more in communication.

Discuss....

Former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering's visit with senior Hamas officials, first reported in the United States by the Washington Post, highlights the efforts of a veteran U.S. diplomat to change the course of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

I first encountered Pickering more than 20 year ago at a U.S. diplomatic residence in El Salvador, then in the midst of a deadly civil war. Pickering, a tall man with the pasty demeanor of somebody who spends entirely too much time at diplomatic receptions, entered flanked by  six security men cradling Uzi submachine guns. As U.S. Ambassador, Pickering was then facing a very real conspiracy to assassinate him, organized by the country's leading right-wing politician, Roberto D'Aubusisson who was notorious for murdering political rivals. Pickering deflected questions about published reports of his imminent demise with a mordant joke and launched into a reasonable-sounding rationale for the Reagan administration's policy of support for a government with an atrocious human rights record.

He acknowledged the criticism of indignant liberal congressman and worked to meet it,  articulating a soft-spoken and hard-headed defense of an awful policy. I was skeptical but six years later, as U.N. ambassador, he had the credibility to facilitate peace talks between the government and leftist guerrillas that finally ended the civil war.

Pickering is perhaps best known for helping the first President Bush assemble the multinational coalition in 1991 that supported the first Gulf war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. That was a real joint venture of common interest, unlike the evanescent "coalition of the willing" touted by his more righteous successor, John Bolton, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Pickering's way achieved better results, not the least because he persuaded the Japanese and the Saudis to foot the bill.

Pickering's willingness to engage with Hamas is of a piece with the views of other former U.S. policymakers from both Democratic and Republican administrations. Jimmy Carter has been the most outspoken about the need for the U.S. diplomacy to engage the militant Islamic group. Former Bush I adviser Brent Scowcroft has endorsed the idea. "Within the foreign policy establishment, this is now a respectable position," said Nathan Brown, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told The National, an online news site based in the United Arab Emirates. 

Pickering's track record makes him a tough target for the Israeli government and its defenders in Washington. They can't say that he is a sentimental liberal like Jimmy Carter who doesn't understand the realities of the region. They can't dismiss him, a la Stephen Walt or John Mearsheimer, as an academic theorist unschooled in the violent ways of geopolitics. They can't dismiss him as an anti-Semite. Well, they probably can. But then they'll have to explain why Ronald Reagan appointed an alleged Jew-hater to be U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Pickering's foray into Mideast diplomacy should be seen as more than a bid to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Pickering conceives of engaging Hamas as an aspect of engaging with Iran in order to head off the danger of another war in the Middle East. In March 2008, Pickering and two co-authors wrote a piece for the New York Review of Books laying out a detailed agenda for international control of the Iranian nuclear program as a compromise both sides can live with.

In advocating this approach, Pickering wrote:

The US will have to deal with Iran's fears of regime change, just as Iran must deal with the consequences of the outrageous and inflammatory remarks by its president. Differences over Hamas, Hezbollah, and other regional issues, including threats against Israel, will have to be addressed over the long term, but these matters should be dealt with directly by the US, Iran, and the other parties. Outsourcing US diplomacy to others has not worked and is even less likely to work in the future.

Pickering's meeting with Hamas is another sign that the outsourcing of U.S. foreign policy to the Israelis is coming to an end.

Q. What was the last major health entitlement to be enacted in the U.S.?

A. Medicare Part D, in 2005 by a Republican Congress and Republican President.

 

What's more, the original fears about the explosive costs of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit have turned out to be unfounded. In fact, as this recent article notes, the ten-year cost for the benefit is now expected to be 40% less than the original CBO estimate. And this "government-run" program is working very well, and is extremely popular with those taking advantage of it.

 

Granted, Republicans would undoubtedly say that Part D is only working well and costing less because they created it, not Dems, but I still think it might be worth reminding them of a few of these inconvenient facts.

Watched Frost/Nixon last night. Remembered some of the scandal from my childhood. Watched a few programs about it, some dramatisations, never thought I would see the like of it again.
Wrong.
I only awoke recently from the self-imposed deliberate dis-interest of the the fragmentation between the real world and the political, more fool me.
In watching the film, it struck me that nobody has learnt a thing from the fiasco. The (qualified) admittance of wrongdoing was such an acute political moment, the defining example of the lust for power overcoming decency and mutual interest. Yet here the world stands 35 years later, several cycles of Partisanship trailing in the wake of the political maelstrom that was Watergate and still many questions need to be asked, for the opportunity that was offered, dashed, ignored and bypassed now needs to be addressed.
Some initial questions:-
When is it the time for Obama to dispense with the refusal to deal with crimes against the American People by the last administration?
When is it the right time to admit that for most politicans, the mere fact of wishing to be one is disqualifying of itself?
When is it the right time for the Governance of a country be re-established along the lines of competence, rather than favour, for the privelege of service rather than personal gain?
When is it the right time to support, evenhandedly, Middle East peace?
When is it the time to allow the poorest in society the access to the same basic rights as those who are in a more fortunate position, regardless of earnings ability?
When is it the right time to remind the Banking system that it's responsibility outweighs it's importance?
When is it the right time to leave behind the self, to think of the we, the whole, the survival of our future generations, rather than blinkeredly waste, pollute, spend our granchildren's environmental and fiscal inheritances?
There are so many other questions of equal importance, about war, disease, poverty, society, education, food, water, and a myriad of additional items, but actually the answer is the same.
When is it the right time?
The right time is now.

The Right Wing idiocracy has gotten the Left wrong concerning Sarah Palin.

We are not afraid of Sarah Palin. Far from it. Sarah Palin is the butt of a joke. We wish to continue laughing.

Read more »

I've always been a Rachel Maddow fan but on Thursday nights I have to settle for catching 2 minutes here and there during So You Think You Can Dance commercial breaks (it's an agreement I have with the woman of the house). As luck would have it I switched to MSNBC (now msnbc because lower case letters are more liberal) at the exact moment Pat Buchanan spiraled into an abyss of white pride. A fall from the pedestal so captivating we missed the ever drawn-out and dramatic bottom four announcements over on FOX.

My gut reaction to Buchanan became my Facebook status thanks to a nearby Blackberry - Michael thinks Pat Buchanan's dated mindset is scary for America and represents the epitome of our need for someone other than another white man on the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't go as far as to say I take it back but I'll add an asterisk.

Bigotry creates a philosophical nightmare. In order for me to label Mr. Buchanan as a bigoted old white man I have to make assumptions about him. Assumptions lead to stereotypes. Stereotypes lead to prejudice. Prejudice leads to where we are today. And following that line of reasoning, how fair is it to hang Buchanan by his words when everyone exudes a level of tangible ignorance, even those who think Pat Buchanan is scary for America?

The right-wing-mouth-runner may have been woefully ignorant in what he said and how he said it but so was a co-worker of mine who remarked how shocked she was that a 'white boy was talking black on the metro.' So was the homeless man who told me to 'watch out white boy' as he navigated his overstuffed cart past me and my dog. As were the numerous inappropriate jokes I've made based on stereotypes of blacks, Asians, Jews, Christians and whites.

My coworker doesn't want blacks to eat lunch at a different counter and I'm sure the homeless man doesn't think I cut holes in my sheets and rally regularly. And - for the record - I don't think all Asian men have small cocks (just most of them), just as I'm sure Pat Buchanan wouldn't commission a ship of slaves from Africa even if it were still legal. 

So this philosophical nightmare forces me to ask - Am I as bad as Pat Buchanan?  Are you?

While my jokes do not parlay into outrights acts of bigotry (and I wouldn't tell one on msnbc), the trash the flows from my mouth isn't any less ignorant. My ignorance does, however, underscore my initial observation - our need for someone other than another white man on the Supreme Court. Maybe Buchanan and others don't understand the need because no one is honest about what the need is.

It's impossible for any human to be impartial. I don't care your education, commitment to the law or background. Those things merely shape your bias. In order to appreciate the need to augment the paleness of the Supreme Court we have to stop pretending that bias is a bad thing. It's only a bad thing if there's no counter to it.

So, to put it in words Pat Buchanan can understand - there's an absolute need for diverse prejudices on the bench.

I want a wise Latina and an old white man.

 

How can kids who attend second class schools, without chemistry labs, with outdated textbooks, in substandard buildings, and with disinterested teachers compete with a white suburban kid who has been on a computer since he was born?

It ain't happening!

President Obama is wrong, black parents do not rise their kids to be crack heads, basketball stars, or rappers. Like every parent, they hope that the public school inspires and guides them to become secure and independent. But when you walk into a classroom that emits a careless attitude about your success, then you unwillingly adopt that attitude and fall further into the cycle of engineered poverty.

Wake up Obama. Don't tell me to teach kids with 19th century books in a 21st century world. Don't pull a Booker T. Washington on me. When I 'cast down my bucket', I get polluted drinking water that further inhibits my chance at cognitive thoughts.

I just read TPM's utterly depressing take on the new pecora commission nominees and the republican plans to neuter it and I wanted to repost my call for Elliot Spitzer to head the commission.    I wrote this post originally in April and I find it particularly apt as this week Goldman Sachs, the very bastards who made a fortune both shelling toxic assets and then a fortune selling them short and crippling our economy and JP Morgan Chase, the institution that invented the derivatives and securties which infected our entire system, both reported record profits!

WTF?  They are making billions, you lose your job and watch corrupt senators water down health care reform and whine about racist latinas.  TARP was 750 billion dollars and lets not even talk about the trillions quietly pumped out by the FED.

Make no mistake toxic assets have not gone away.  Banks, flush with your tax dollars (both directly and indirectly through AIG) are sitting on them.  The suspension of mark to market (see Destor's smart take here) means that they do not have any incentive to move the millions of foreclosed properties off the books.  That would mean accepting that the face value 600k condo is really only worth 200k, which would lead to insolvency for thousands of our banks (in case anyone forgot here is a great video explaining the finacial crisis that lead to the 800 billion TARP). 

I had had some hope that the new Pecora Commission would confront some of these facts head on.  Ron Chenow, author of the excellent House of Morgan, wrote a New York Times Op Ed that was one of the earliest calls for such a commission.  In it he wrote eloquently of the 'electrifying' hearings. 

The riveting confrontation between Pecora and the Wall Street grandees was so theatrically apt it might have been concocted by Hollywood. The combative Pecora was the perfect foil to the posh bankers who paraded before the microphones. Born in Sicily, the son of an immigrant cobbler, Pecora had campaigned for Teddy Roosevelt and been imbued with the crusading fervor of the Progressive Era. As a prosecutor in the 1920s, he had shut down more than 100 "bucket shops" -- seamy, fly-by-night brokerage houses -- and this had tutored him in the shady side of Wall Street. ... Bankers had been demigods in the 1920s, their doings followed avidly, their market commentary quoted with reverence. They had inhabited a clubby world of chauffeured limousines and wood-paneled rooms, insulated from ordinary Americans. Now Pecora defrocked these high priests, making them seem small and shabby.

I want Elliot Spitzer to head the new commission.  I know I am not the first to think of it, and I too initially dismissed the idea out of hand.  But I now think that the pros strongly outweigh the cons.

The Pros
1.  He was the NY State attorney general and then Governor when most of this went down.  He knows NY, Wall Street, all the players, and most importantly how they all play the game.  
2. He has repeatedly gone to battle with and defeated All the major investment banks.   Most notably with a 1.4 billion dollar settlement over investment bank stock price manipulation- even Goldman was caught with their hand in the cookie jar and had to pay up. 
3. He has already KO'd AIG and ran former CEO Hank Greenberg out of town.  They fear him.  In the Current Crisis he has been one of the earlist and most vociferous in keeping our eye on The Real AIG Scandal, the 100% payouts and funneling of cash to Goldman and partners (180 Billion and counting...)
4. He has caught mutual funds and their hedge fund buddies red handed in numerous late trading and market timing scandals.  He doesn't have any insane Chicago School free market ideology.  He knows these people game the system because its their job to make money anyway they can, and it was his job to catch them.  He understands the structural flaws endemic to our system.  
5. He has taken on mortgage lenders, their predatory practices, and Bush admin protectors. 
6. Until his self immolation by Dupre, he was largely undefeated.  Not a bad track record.
7. He thinks his current job sucks and badly wants historic redemption.  He will stay up late, do the homework, and fight for it.
.
8. His name is Elliot, I always think of the Elliot Ness whenever I hear about him.  I can't help but think that that's a good omen and its the same era as Pecora so that must count for something
9.  He was never very likeable as attorney general with his snarl and righteous tirades against evil doers.  Now he is human and people can relate to him.   Like Mr. Ness he is now untouchable.- I mean he survived stupid shit like this: 
 

10.  He wants revenge.  'Suspicious wire transfers' reported to the FBI-My ass.  Somebody was gunning for him and he was stupid enough to get caught.  (I know, ...'eight years of W has whacked me out', whatever, but I'm not alone check out this great Alternet conspiracy theory).  
11.  Entertainment & Civic literacy.  Lets face it, most of the country gets its news from comedians these days.  Nominating Elliot guarantees a ton of press from the commission.  Everybody will hear about it and if he plays it right he can use his celebrity as a bullhorn for some perspective.  "Sure I got laid, but Casano and his buddies Edward Liddy and Hank Paulson each have 100 million of your taxes"   Think about it.   

The Cons
1. He had relations with a prostitute.  Does this really destroy his credibility?  I mean Bill redeemed himself, Diapers Dave is probably going to win reelection on the strength of conservative voters.  Would this really prevent him from effectiveness?  Do we need our prosecutors to be without sin in order to take them seriously?  I don't know.  
2. He is too political.  Which leads to number 3.
3. The Democrats don't have the balls.  I mean seriously do we really think that Harry Reid and our Holier-than-thou President will stand for a six months of Jay Leno making Emperor's club jokes.  I don't think so.  Hell, Nancy seems to have the biggest sack of the lot of em but she is still so enamored with the taste of actual real power that she won't rock the boat.   The truth is that it seems our fearless leader doesn't have the stomach to get his hands dirty.
I suspect what we will end up with will be a mild mannered mouse who will make the very occasional roar and then file a quiet report that will say "mistakes were made, shame on AIG and over-leveraging, but really we all participated so its really all of us that are all to blame..."  
Did anyone see Elisabeth Warren on the Daily Show, I like her alot but she is utterly ineffectual and thats probably the best we are getting. 

In the meantime the depression will continue to worsen.   Populist rage will be fomented by Fox's teabaggin and other anti-government lunacy, and the O-team lead by Timmy and Larry will rightly come to be seen as protectors of those doing the looting.    
So thats my list,  please add your own pros/cons or alternative nominations in the comments. 
And for Dickday a fun video: