NPR just reported that Obama has reversed his position and is willing to start from scratch with Republicans on health care. I left a message for Nancy Ann DeParle with an intern in the White House Office of Health Reform. I asked her to take down my message verbatim. I will paraphrase it here to "Mr. President, oh no you di'nt! Reverse your reversal or I will actively work against your re-election in 2012. The Republicans will decimate reform."

I can't believe this. Seriously.

The column below was just published by Scott Lilly.  I know Scot and knew Jack.  I agree with everything in this appreciation.

 

  Issues › Media & Progressive Values › Progressive Movement

Looking for the Full Measure of Jack Murtha

Remembering a Man Who Spoke the Truth in Tough Times

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) speaks at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event in 2008 on the war in Iraq.

SOURCE: CAP

By Scott Lilly | February 9, 2010

• Print
• .">Email
• Text-size: A A A
• Share:

Twenty years ago I was the staff director of the Democratic Study Group, an organization that among other things provided research to members of the House of Representatives. By 1990 we had expanded our subscriber base to more than 30 House Republicans and every Democrat in the House except one. The hold out was John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. I offer this information simply to point out that Mr. Murtha and I disagreed on a great many things over the decades we knew each other. At the same time, I am deeply troubled by the negative tone of some of the coverage of his passing. Simply put, it does not take full measure of the man.

Jack Murtha fervently believed that the people of his district elected him to go to Washington and find a way to make their lives better. He recognized that the severe economic challenges facing that district required extraordinary efforts from the outside if they were to be solved, and he was in no way shy about using his position and skill as a legislator to try to make that happen. But Murtha was not the father of earmarking on appropriation bills, and he did not preside over the major growth in that practice that has led to recent controversies. In fact, earmarking in the defense bill tripled during the eight years after he gave up the chairmanship of that subcommittee in 1994.

Murtha did take pride in helping his district, but there was so much more to him and his career than that. He was a former military commander who continued to believe when he reached the pinnacles of power in Washington that "if you take care of your troops they will take care of you." Murtha worried more on a day-to-day basis about the well-being of our men and women in uniform than anyone I have ever known. He went into the field at every opportunity permitted by the legislative schedule to go to military bases and forward deployed areas around the world. He ate lunch in mess halls, visited dental clinics, inspected enlisted housing accommodations, and talked to servicemen and women about arrangements to get home to their families and the quality of education their kids were getting in military schools.

I remember looking for him at the end of an 18-hour day in which we flew from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Prince Sultan Air Base in the Arabian Desert and then on to the deck of the aircraft carrier Lincoln in the Persian Gulf. At 11:30 at night it was 100 degrees Fahrenheit on the Lincoln, and Murtha was well into his second hour of a session in the enlisted mess, talking to a packed house about problems in the military health care system--a discussion that later led to a number of the changes contained in the current Tri-Care program.

It was his concern for the ordinary kids being sent through training and shipped off to the far reaches of the world that made him focus on whether or not what we were asking them to do made sense. He was not afraid to ask people to give up their life for their country, but he was appalled when he thought that sacrifice was being asked for missions that were poorly thought out or downright foolish.

He visited the Persian Gulf in the summer of 2002 knowing that preparations were already underway for the invasion of Iraq. He was deeply troubled by what he saw and severely doubted the arguments put forward about why the invasion was necessary and what it could be expected to accomplish. When the decision over the Iraq invasion was put before Congress that fall, he weighed the arguments carefully and in the end let his friendship and respect for Vice President Dick Cheney overcome his strong misgivings. Murtha knew that the evidence presented to him did not support Cheney's contention that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, but he did not believe Cheney would mislead him on an issue of such critical importance.

Murtha was deeply angry when he returned from Baghdad the following summer. The weapons inspectors were finding little evidence of the "imminent danger" that Iraq was supposed to represent, and the occupation was in total chaos due to lack of planning and wildly unrealistic expectations about the options we would face in a post-Saddam Iraq. Worst of all, the Pentagon's effort to provide troops with the equipment necessary to perform their mission and protect themselves to the extent possible was in shambles.

Murtha found--despite assurances to the contrary from the ambassador and the generals ensconced in the Green Zone--that a large portion of the troops did not have body armor, that available technology to detect improvised explosive devices was not being deployed, and that little serious effort was being made to shield the undercarriages of military vehicles from the blast of IEDs. He called Cheney, Rumsfeld, and anyone else he could reach to tell them of his findings and to get their a-- in gear.

That fall, Congress passed a military supplemental that earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars for body armor, and up-armored Humvees and IED detection equipment. Murtha grilled the brass at every hearing about the progress in procuring and shipping the equipment and returned to the field frequently to see if it was getting into the hands of the front line soldiers.

Murtha broke openly with the vice president and the Bush administration over their Iraq policy shortly after the supplemental passed. There was a mutual sense of betrayal. Murtha was bitter for three reasons: the misinformation he was provided as to the reason for war, the lack of a post-invasion strategy, and the total disregard for the troops left sitting in the desert in the wake of a failed post-invasion strategy. The White House for their part felt that a favored member of the opposition party had suddenly transformed into one of its worst enemies.

Murtha worked to transform Iraq policy to provide the military with an achievable mission while reducing our troop commitment and limiting the loss of life.

The White House responded by trying to "Swift Boat" Murtha. Numerous allegations about their old friend suddenly began appearing on conservative websites. A U.S. Attorney in western Pennsylvania began digging into Murtha's past. The "Swift Boat" organization actually held an event in Murtha's district. He took his lumps but never swayed from his goal of working to ensure that what we were asking of the troops on the ground was doable, and that if achieved, would provide a victory commensurate with the sacrifice that they being asked to shoulder.

Jack Murtha did not represent Johnstown, Pennsylvania the way you might represent Montgomery County, Maryland or Westchester County, New York. He was a big, burly, rough-cut guy who fought hard for people who desperately needed help. At the same time, he made the often-difficult life of those who serve in our nation's armed forces a little less severe. He made those who committed our troops to harm's way think a little harder about whether the mission was worth the sacrifice, and he made military planners look more carefully at whether the task assigned could be achieved with the resources being committed. He did so even when it required him to speak truth to power and accept the wrath that resulted.

A country that treats its servicemen fairly and humanely is a better country. It is also, according to Murtha's logic, a safer country. For both we should be grateful to the service he gave.

Scott Lilly is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who once served as a staff director on the House Appropriations Committee. 

Republicans in the House and Senate announced they have come up with ten new ways to say "No!" to President Obama and anything he or the Democrats propose or say. 

No. 1

"The Yawn"

Excessive yawing will show everyone watching on TV that what is being said is boring, boring, boring--especially everything the President says or tries to do. Rep. Michelle Bachman recently had all House Republicans sign a "Declaration to Yawn" when any Democrat speaks. (It is understood that all Republicans were relieved when she did not demand that they sign using their own blood!) 

No. 2

"The Frown"

To be used before No. 3 (see following). The Republicans have said this will show the Tax & Spend Democrats a thing or two. Specifically, how frightfully immature their policies and ideas really are and what all Americans should be thinking about them. Senator Orrin Hatch told Fox TV, "I love this one." 

No. 3

"The Sneer"

This one was created by Senator Mitch McConnell after eating one too many breakfast burritos. The Senate Republican Leadership was so impressed it asked the Minority Leader to repeat the feat so they could film it, wishing not to lose any of his nuanced facial art.  

No. 4

"The Nod"

Not be confused with anything that looks in any manner like it could be viewed as a confirming gesture. This nod is done with the lips pursed tightly together. Senator Lindsey Graham pushed to have this particular expression included. He told colleagues he uses this on the Senate Janitorial Staff when they fail to dust his Senate Office properly. "Just like Democrats...they all are like little children that need to be taught what is right and wrong," the Senator is reported as saying.  

No. 5

"The Glassy Eyes"

It was reported that House Republican Leader John Boehner suggested this.  "The only solution to this President and the Democrats is to make everyone believe their Harvardy solutions are way above the heads of the average hard working American." Simply cross your eyes. "It helps if you imagine Ohio State in the Rose Bowl on January 1st kicking the crap out of one of those Western schools," he told friends.

No. 6

"The Scratch"

Rep. Jeb Hensarling came up with this winner. "You just give yourself a good scratch. That's shows everyone that the itch is more important than some pointyheaded remarks from Obama or any of his Democratic fellow-travelers." The House Leadership advised Rep. Hensarling to be mindful of where he scratched, after one especially embarrassing moment caught on Fox TV.

No. 7

"The Shift"

Senator Saxby Chambliss is credited with this new way to say, "No!" Crossing ones legs, you first shift your weight one way, and then the other.  "It sends a visual message that Obama and the Democrats are shifty. Like them trying to destroy the military and the moral fabric of the country with this 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' change."  Chambliss was seen shifting and then nodding at the same time on CSpan last week. There was a question whether the Senator has mastered two way of saying, "No!" at the same time or was taking a quick power nap.

No. 8

"The Cross Arm"

Senator Tom Coburn said he uses this with unruly teenage patients. "'You want to end up like that?' I'd ask them, pointing at a photo of that Rachel Maddow I have on my office bulletin board." The Senator Leadership liked this so much they have added a new item to the Senator Dining Room menus, "The Cross Arm Flat Steak." Using Oklahoma beef of course. You take a cut of beef, tenderize it for 5 or so minutes (or as long as it takes) then pan-fry it in bacon fat. The steak is covered with brown gravy and served on a piece of white bread sitting on a bed of sage-infused Jalapeno corn grits.

No. 9

"The Head Shake"

A vigorous shake of the head sideways, as opposed to "The Nod" (No. 4).  First proposed by Senator John Ensign as a way to make a strong moral stand evident with clear body language. "I use this all the time with my campaign staff," the Senator is reported as saying. "Saw this with my friend John Sanford. It really worked for him so I thought I'd try it too." 

No. 10

"The Face Rub"

Passing the open fingers across one's face and then moving them in a circular motion. "As if thinking about something, but at the same time conveying disfavor." Senator John Thune created this "No!" to show the Democrats his displeasure with their softness on national security. A staff member advised the Senator to make sure he didn't have any cherry pie on his fingers when doing this. "It just wouldn't look good on national TV, Senator."

No. 10-1/2

"The Fake Laugh"

"This one is great," Senator Richard Shelby recently said. "And I'm giving these fake laughs until my State gets that damn tanker contract. Screw civility. We're talkin' jobs here." Halfway between a laugh and a guffaw, the "Fake Laugh" can be used in any situation involving a Democrat. "The Tea Party folks should adopt this one," the Senator is reported as saying.

Warning: The Surgeon General's Office advises against trying these at home or displaying them in front of minors.  

Click for image because the image uploader in tmp is broken-> http://ioj.com/v/4d99n

Folks in Minnesota on their way to work Tuesday morning looked up to find a familiar face staring down at them: former President George W. Bush. A billboard with the words "Miss Me Yet?" is causing a stir around the blogosphere, with some claiming it's fake and others curious to know who put it up.

The buzz started after Minnesota NPR's Bob Collins blogged that he had seen it in person as he drove on Interstate 35 near Wyoming, Minn. Pretty soon news stations were clamoring to get an interview with him (though all he did was see something).

After pictures of the billboard were posted, many people are claiming it's just another Photoshop hoax even though Collins says it's real.

Of course, there are these sorts of messages on billboards all over the country, so why all the hubub about this particular one? For one, no one knows who put it up -- and everyone loves a mystery.

Also, as EW points out, we can't really tell how serious the billboard is. GW is giving one of his dufus looks, so that makes it almost laughable when you answer the board's question with a resounding "No."

By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger

On Feb. 1, President Barack Obama unveiled his 2011 budget proposal. While conservative pundits reacted with predictable, yet preposterous, wailing about the federal budget deficit, the short-term U.S. budget outlook is just fine. If anything, Obama's budget doesn't dedicate nearly enough funding to create jobs.

As John Nichols notes for The Nation, Obama budgets just $100 billion for jobs in fiscal 2011. The amount is nowhere near enough to make a significant dent in the epic unemployment rate. The government's fiscal 2011 calendar begins in October of this year, and by that time, the stimulus package Obama pushed through in February of 2009 will have been exhausted, leaving the labor market without serious support from the federal government.

The free market isn't going to take care of the jobs shortage on its own. While the unemployment rate fell from 10.0% to 9.7% during January, the "improvement" is really just a statistical mirage--the economy actually lost 20,000 jobs during the month.

If we had pushed through a bigger, or as Nichols notes, a better stimulus package in the first place, we might not be facing the same situation today. Part of the problem is that Obama redirected about $326 billion of the $787 billion bill away from direct job-creation efforts toward a set of tax cuts intended to appease Republican senators.

Tax cuts do not equal job growth

But as Art Levine emphasizes for Working In These Times, the $100 billion that Obama sets aside for job creation in 2011 appears once again to take the form of relatively inefficient tax cuts. Giving money to businesses, even small businesses, isn't really going to make them start hiring unless there's a real demand for what those businesses produce. When everybody is broke and out of work, that demand doesn't exist, since people don't have money to spend.

If the government wants to create jobs, it has to do it directly by hiring people to help rebuild the nation's infrastructure through institutions such as schools, transportation and green energy. Just as important, the federal government can provide funding to state and local governments to make sure that jobs that serve our communities--teachers, cops, etc.--don't disappear.

Sure, these things cost money. But the short-term budget deficit is nowhere near the current deficits of many European nations, or the deficits the U.S. ran during World War II. The budget deficit only matters to economics insofar as it raises concerns that the government will not be able to pay back its debt. But despite caterwauling from the right, investors just aren't worried about a U.S. debt default. If they were, they would demand very high interest rates on Treasury bonds, and Treasury rates are at their lowest levels in decades.

If policymakers want to keep the jobs bill from running the deficit higher, they could always raise taxes on somebody. Financial speculation on Wall Street seems like a good place to start, but just about any tax on the wealthy would work fine. Rich people don't get hammered by recessions. After all, they're rich.

Overzealous tax cuts hurt communities

In a piece for AlterNet, David Sirota details the budgetary disaster that has already befallen the city of Colorado Springs, CO., a conservative enclave where anti-tax extremists have managed to slash just about every basic government service imaginable. Rather than impose some modest taxes on the wealthy, Colorado Springs is going to lay off cops and firefighters, let its parks go to waste, shut-down rec centers and museums and even allow its streetlights to go out. This is the Republican plan for fiscal responsibility.

But several state governments recognize that shredding the social fabric just isn't a good idea. In Oregon, Sirota notes, voters just approved two ballot initiatives to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals rather than allow their state to slide into social decay.

How to deal with a deficit

There are two ways to increase a budget deficit: You can either increase spending, or cut taxes. If you want to decrease the budget deficit, you can either cut spending, or raise taxes. As Kevin Drum notes for Mother Jones, Republicans both increased spending and cut taxes during the George W. Bush presidency. Now those same so-called fiscal conservatives are feigning outrage over the prospect of the government actually spending some money to put people back to work. These are not serious economic arguments--conservative politicians are just hoping to gut progressive policy priorities.

But while the attacks don't hold any water, conservative media outlets are latching on to them, and Obama isn't pushing back.

What caused the current crisis

Writing for The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner notes Obama's recent support for a proposal from right-wing deficit hawks to create a commission to evaluate the causes of our so-called fiscal crisis. But we already know what put us in the current fiscal situation: Rising health care costs, a brutal recession, and the Bush era. The commission is being pushed by radical conservatives for a reason--it's part of an effort to gut Social Security. It's bad economics, bad public policy and it badly misreads the real source of public discontent. Kuttner explains:

"Public concern about deficits is really a proxy for broader unease that government is not delivering enough practical help . . . . The president should be helping citizens sort this out, not caving in to the fear-mongers."

Fortunately, as Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, Senate leaders appear committed to passing at least some kind of legislation to help put people back to work.

Whatever right-wing pundits say, the U.S. fiscal crisis remains a totally theoretical problem. Someday, if the U.S. budget does not come down, it is conceivable that investors would be reluctant to purchase U.S. debt. For now, that is simply not the case. But the crisis in the job market is very real and requires direct action. Put simply, the deficit is no excuse for inaction.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

While working on another blog I came across this speech from Vaclav Havel in acceptance of the Open Society Prize that I believe brings up some interesting questions to ponder as the Winter Olympics (and the World Cup) approach. 

A few weeks ago the Czech team won the world ice hockey championship. Their victory was widely celebrated in the streets of our country. While following the news coverage of these celebrations, I will admit that I had - as I often have on occasions such as this - rather mixed feelings.

On the one hand, I rejoiced that Czech society of today, otherwise rather apathetic and skeptical, is capable of such an enthusiastic identification with representatives of its State and, thus, with the State as such. I was happy to see that an elementary patriotism is still present in us and that people are still capable of putting their hearts into something and going out into the streets to celebrate a piece of good news even though the success was obviously not bringing them any direct personal gain.

On the other hand, however, a number of unpleasant questions came to mind. For example: While people everywhere were chanting "We have won!" did it not mean that they were claiming credit for somebody else's accomplishment and construing that victory, without justification, as an assurance of their own exceptionality? Who actually won? "We", meaning all, and particularly those who celebrated in the streets; or, the players who represented the Czech Republic? Were we truly witnessing pure joy in the success of our fellow citizens promoting the good name of our country; or, for many people, was it merely an occasion to nurture illusions about themselves? Aren't such massive celebrations simply an expression of an unwillingness to take personal responsibility for the world, and of a need to dissolve instead in the collectivity of a pack with its collective pride and collective irresponsibility? Isn't this merely an outburst of a darkly archetypal love of our own tribe, which appears to us to be the best of all simply because this is the tribe we belong to, without having to do anything for this affiliation? Aren't the boys who asserted, as part of the nation-wide celebrations of that ice hockey victory, our national exceptionality by beating up a few people of a different colour of skin, only a more visible sprout of a less visible, but all the more dangerous, phenomenon which lies dormant in this kind of euphoria?

Read more »

The thought occurred to me just now that I will take the challenge to post a "scholarly" blog based on a topic that has unwittingly been unleashed.  It seemed to have popped up rather stunningly and the fact that I didn't notice it earlier is kind of humorous.  So I've taken the time to look up scholarly journals about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and how it effects social interaction.  I will state what I have found and you can come to your own conclusions. (I will reference all sources at the end of the blog with corresponding number, unlike APA).  

Now to define some behaviors of Narcissists:

"Narcissistic people exhibit an exaggerated sense of self-importance and
uniqueness, an unreasonable sense of entitlement, arrogance, exploitative tendencies,
empathy deficits, and an excessive need for admiration". [1]

According to Vazire and Funder, "Narcissists are a puzzle. Their bragging and arrogance
interferes with the attainment of the status and recognition they so poignantly desire. Why do they continually undermine themselves in this way? The research literature appears to have achieved some consensus about the nature of sub-clinical narcissism' with respect to underlying cognitive, social, and affective processes (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). The
consensual model serves as a solid foundation for integrating narcissism research, and provides a partial explanation for narcissists' perplexing behavior, but it relies
heavily on conscious cognitive processes and omits an important category of explanatory variables: dispositions. We shall argue that one possible key to
the puzzle posed by narcissists' behavior is that they are dispositionally impulsive: They lack the self-control necessary to inhibit the behaviors that thwart the attainment of their goals". [2]

Note the conclusion to the above article does find a correlation with impulsivity and narcissistic behaviors and the authors suggested this be included in the "official" definition.








You know what now that I think of it, I have better things to do like write my paper on nursing interventions for HIV disease so I guess we'll just never know whether or not I can write a scholarly article. Oh the humanity! Ah such a disappointment. The world may NEVER know...

This is just too funny ;^) 
 






[1] HARRY M. WALLACE, C. BETH READY, and ERIN WEITENHAGEN Narcissism and Task Preference Self and Identity, 8: 78 - 93, 2009 http://www.psypress.com/sai
ISSN: 1529-8868 print/1529-8876 online
DOI: 10.1080/15298860802194346
[2]Vazire and Funder Impulsivity and the Self-Defeating Behavior of Narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2, 154-165
Copyright © 2006 by Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc. Impulsivity

Eileen M. O'Connor argues persuasively in a recent issue of The Hill that Pakistan and the US are linked together if there is to be success in the ME. But, as O'Connor points out, this must be done with the democratically elected government in Pakistan, and should no way involve the support of those forces that might engineer a coup in Pakistan.

The Pakistan people elected President Zardari with 70 percent of the Electoral College vote. Yet even popular civilian rulers in Pakistan have historically faced repeated challenges to their rule while in office, both from the political opposition and the military leadership. This time is no different but this time the U.S. administration can help support democracy over instability or, worse, military rule.

The Obama administration must be clear that it is uneasy with a Pakistan Supreme Court that appears bent on making subjective and political judgments that interfere in the democratic process. And it must be just as clear -- especially in communications by the U.S. military leadership -- that the peace and security of America and Pakistan depend on the continuation of democracy and civilian rule. 

Those who secretly finance mudslinging ads for or against candidates and issues need not hide any longer.

Now, independent expenditure committees that have repeatedly wreaked havoc on the election process can come out of the shadows without fear of messy exposure - all thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a bombshell ruling, the court has given corporations, unions and special interests, for the first time, carte blanche to spend unlimited millions supporting or opposing candidates for federal office right up to Election Day.

According to Tiburon's Chip Nielsen, one of the foremost election law attorneys in the nation, funding restrictions in state and local elections are also "presumably" unconstitutional.

Candidates can now take advantage of this largesse with impunity regardless of how much dirt gets flung - with the sanction of the highest court in the land."

"We have a George Bush, 5-4 conservative court which has decided to open the floodgates even more in an election system already awash in corporate funds," says Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey.

For what appear to be purely ideological reasons, the court's conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts, with swing-voter Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining them, decided to reverse 100 years of campaign reforms in a stunning display of judicial activism.

Justice John Paul Stevens argued in dissent, "É selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special interest preference to those who spent money on one's behalf."

To which Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, responded, "By definition an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate."

That observation, while legally accurate, has enabled wealthy donors bent on mischief to savage people's reputations repeatedly under the guise of First Amendment protections.

It appears that this merely increases the ability of powerful groups that already enjoy overwhelming financial dominance to exert even greater influence.

Sensing the anger it has provoked in the citizenry, the president took the unusual step in his State of the Union address to admonish the court.

"This diminishes the influence of ordinary citizens," says Sen. John McCain, co-author ten years ago of the McCain-Feingold Political Reform Act.

Declared Illinois Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, "It's political extortion."

With this ruling, wealthy corporate donors need no longer mask their identities for fear of being caught, and in fact are encouraged to have their lobbyists solicit support from lawmakers open to financial favors.

Imagine, for example, the conversation between a bank or mortgage company lobbyist and a struggling first-time candidate with little funds to get the message out or more likely the well-heeled incumbent who sees the way to bury his or her opponent.

Unions are also unleashed, but Woolsey, who has enjoyed their backing, argues they will have no where close to the same amount of money as corporations.

While candidates from both parties will be vulnerable, in the face of rising public discontent over administration policies, Republicans seeking to reclaim their congressional majorities could be the most receptive.

So is campaign reform dead?

"No," says Woolsey, "the Progressive Caucus, which I co-chair, is busy studying several bills that would prohibit expenditures by companies with federal contracts and prevent American subsidization of foreign companies. That is very dangerous."

Sometimes all you can do is cry.

Whenever a talking-head makes over-the-top accusations, it's a useful rule-of-thumb to check whether or not their projecting their own short-comings onto the person they're criticizing.  Projection -- as you learn in psychology 101 -- is an ego defense.  It prevents the self from absorbing the blow of inadequacy by pretending the inadequacy is a property of another.

Rush Limbaugh is masterful -- if you want to call it that -- at projection.  All the pain-killers in the world cannot comfort him in his constant mission to hide from himself.  He loves to talk about the president's "out of this world ego," as if El Rushbo himself were a humble correspondent.  He pretends that the president cannot "make sense" without a teleprompter, as if the president's schooling of Republicans during their retreat never happened.  

I want to pause for a moment and delve into this accusation -- this projection -- that the president cannot "make sense."  We have to ask ourselves, "what is the deepest level in which El Rushbo does not make sense?"  Warning: things are about to get pretty technical.  

Rush often cites Friedrick von Hayek -- the Austrian economist -- as one of his greatest influences.  I would think it's a safe bet that Rush has not moved past Hayek's economic system.  In other words, what Rush would consider the height of his economic knowledge would be no different from that of Hayek.  
This near-worship of Hayek is nothing new.  Here's Lawrence Summers' take on Hayek:

What's the single most important thing to learn from an economics course today? What I tried to leave my students with is the view that the invisible hand is more powerful than the [un]hidden hand. Things will happen in well-organized efforts without direction, controls, plans. That's the consensus among economists. That's the Hayek legacy.

This claim is a partial truth and here's why.  Hayek believed that all economic truth depended on analytic a priori judgments.  All that means is that the frame of reference necessary to detect economic truth is concepts in the mind -- prior to an experience of the world.  

Here's an analogy from mathematics: 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of what happens in the world.  If you find an instance in which 2 + 2 = 1, as it does when 4 drops of water land in the same spot, then the equation refers to something other than mathematics.   

So what right?  Here's why this is crucial: if that same frame of reference is all that's necessary for economics, then nothing that goes on in the world can have any bearing on the "truths" of economics.  If supply and demand determine price, then it doesn't matter that a small number of people determine demand and everyone else in the world pays prices based on their demand.  If the so-called "invisible hand" splits a people into a lower-lower class and an upper-upper class, oh well.  These concepts in our head have spoken.

Obviously this perspective is totally out of touch with reality.  And now the overwhelming irony of El Rushbo.  His entire economic outlook depends on analytic a priori judgments -- judgments which don't touch the external world.  These judgments are -- by definition -- outside the realm of the sensible.  They're concepts which do not extend outside of the head.  They quite profoundly do not make sense.

With the sensibility of projection in hand -- outside the head -- we can now see that Rush Limbaugh is looking into the mirror when he charges the president with senselessness.

Note: this critique applies to more people than Rush Limbaugh.  For more on this line of thinking see here.

There is an old folk tale about a noble lord and his coach driver who threw the lord's new bride to the wolves chasing them in order to survive. The lord and driver reasoned that the bride was less valuable. Madison Avenue, with the permission of CBS, did something similar to women last Sunday.

On Sunday evening about thirty minutes before the Super Bowl game began I decided to place a message in my Facebook update status. The message was simple. "Super Bowl Sunday is the day with the highest incidences of domestic violence against women." I urged my friends to "check themselves" and break the cycle. My friend Ken D. pointed out that increased violence on Super Bowl Sunday is a myth and that women face domestic violence at a higher rate on Christmas and Thanksgiving days. We both reiterated that Super Sunday was still an important day to speak up and speak out.

As I settled into my well worn couch with my snacks at the ready I was dismayed to learn that Sunday's attempt to dehumanize women would come from the minds and focus groups of advertisers on Madison Avenue. So we are clear. Commercials have always degraded women for profit and Super Bowl commercials especially. With that said, let me state unequivocally that in my 44 years of existence (yes, I am as old as the Super Bowl itself) I've never witnessed the level of hatred of women that occurred in between plays on the field this past weekend.

Let's start from the beginning. Before the game begins Snickers tells us that the only way to stop friends from saying we play football like an 88 year-old woman (played by Betty White) is to stuff ourselves with refined white sugar covered in chocolate. Yeah, in the new decade pummeling elderly women to the ground while on a sugar high is the hilarious new way to "man up".

Without a break the next commercial takes the stage. Now we get to view the controversial Focus On the Family ad that not only subtly attacks a women's right to control her own body but gives us the added bonus of being able to watch Heisman Trophy-winning American football quarterback "Tim" Tebow viciously knock his mother to the ground. I'd like to know from Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family when hitting your mother became a family value?

GoDaddy.com's selling of women's bodies in some attempt at soft-core porn is nothing compared to what comes in the second quarter of the game. Dockers tells us that it's time for men "to wear the pants" again and they are even willing to send us a free pair to make it happen. I guess Dockers Brand at Levi Strauss would know a thing or two about keeping women in their place considering that their boards of directors, along with most corporations in the United States, are still made up of a majority of white males rather than reflecting the racial and gender composition of our country.

As the second quarter is well under way I hear myself mutter "don't get me started on the Dove commercial." It was a mutter that only I heard as my partner Jessica had long abandoned the Super Bowl in disgust. As I start praying for the Super Bowl Half Time show to bring some sanity back to CBS, my absolute amazement with these commercials turns to sheer anger.

The Dodge Charger ad appears telling me that treating my girlfriend with basic decency is just "too damn much" for her to ask and that if I don't want to be emasculated by basic good manners I better draw the line when it comes to my car.

Flo TV comes a few minutes afterwards with an ad suggesting that men who spend time with their partners must be "spineless" and "wear skirts." I mean what man would actually want to spend time with their wife/girlfriend/lover when they could be watching commercials debasing them during Super Bowl? Yeah Flo TV, it was difficult to watch you demean the women we love. "I hope whoever made this ad gets an infestation of bedbugs" I said to myself when half time thankfully arrived.

Whatever happened after half time is still a blur. Sometime during the third quarter an ad by Bridgestone ended Super Bowl Sunday. The commercial is about a man sometime in the future who, in a decision over parting with his life or hisBridgestone tires, decides that his wife is much less valuable than either.

At this point Super Bowl Sunday had long stopped being something fun and entertaining and turned both alarming and telling. My good friend Dan P. put it bluntly toBridgestone in a letter to the company. "My wife and I buy Bridgestone tires primarily to keep our family safe on the road. How can you possibly think than an ad so fundamentally demeaning to women conveys anything but contempt for your customers?" said Dan. "You should be ashamed. I will have to think long and hard before ever again purchasingBridgestone products," he continued. As for me, you can tell Bridgestone that I will never buy another of its tires.

Violence against women is at an all time high. Three women are murdered each day in the United States and one-third of those by their intimate partners according to the National Organization of Women. It should not go unnoticed that the majority of victims in mass killings over the last several years have been women. What drives violence against women is a myth perpetrated by society that woman are less than human and that's exactly the message that these commercials drove home to millions on Super Bowl Sunday.

I wish these ads had been some orchestrated campaign by political extremists seeking to undermine the equality of women. At least then we'd have an organized target for our anger. There was no conspiracy against women occurring on Super Bowl Sunday; rather, each commercial was created individually by men unconnected with one another. I find that even more frightening. So should you.

NSA personnel have access to some interesting records. Unfortunately, these retained records are not connected with a bonafide national security objective, but are files related to personal issues. The improperly transferred files are thought to relate to evidence of improper, non-official use of US government interception devices; and improper use of government resources.

Read more »

When I wrote about how courageously Melanie Shouse of St. Louis fought for health care reform--even as she was losing her battle against breast cancer---it touched a chord in all who read about her life and death. I want to go a step further today, because time is running out to honor Melanie's last wish.

If you haven't already read my first post and clicked some of the links provided by oleeb and myself (we both knew Melanie as an intelligent force of nature), then a few paragraphs of background are in order.

Michael Sorkin, writing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

In addition to advocating affordable health care for everyone, she was an activist for clean energy, economic reform and public transportation.

She took the bus from her home in St. Louis County to chemotherapy in the Central West End and back home. Then she'd pick up a sign or banner and walk a picket line.

"This was an extraordinary woman, who never gave up hope that she could make a difference," said Rabbi Susan Talve of Central Reform Congregation.

Ms. Shouse grew up in Indiana, graduated from high school in Plano, Texas, and then from Texas A&M University with a major in biology.

She moved to San Francisco, where she met her future partner, Steve Hart, on a picket line. They were together for 20 years.

When she and Steve put all their money into opening a new business, Melanie had what she called "hit-by-a-bus insurance," a policy with a $5,000 deductible that discouraged using it for any reason except a clear catastrophe. But it wasn't clear what was happening when Melanie first began feeling ill. A year later, she was diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer. She fought 4 1/2 years against the disease and to get the treatments that she should have gotten. But the company wouldn't pay, not even when friends protested and a congresswomen wrote.

Melanie died January 30th at the age of 41. As she had requested, her body was cremated in an Obama T-shirt in tribute to the president who, more than any other, had sustained her hope, even at the end.

But Melanie's last wish wasn't about a T-shirt. It was that those of us still living would finish the health care fight. Finish it right. And not even for her sake, but for our own. For all who otherwise will die while health care is bought and sold as a commodity--like credit default swaps--rather than provided as a service pursuant to human rights--like national defense or traffic lights.

Please visit Melanie's Facebook page, "No More Health care Deaths. In Honor of Melanie Shouse." The Info tab will show you four ways to help finish the fight.

The most important things you can do are to spread the word and to take action. Sign up to Take It to the Streets on Feb. 17 at rallies across the country.

Re-post this everywhere you can think of.

Get up. Rise up. Tell your government you want the change you voted for. No more lies. No more delays. No more excuses. No more free pass for inaction.

Get up! Do it for Melanie and the thousands like her - friends, sisters, sons - who die every year because our health care system is broken. Do it for the generations to come who will bless our names because we built a health care system that works. Do it for yourself.

Finish Health Care Right. Right now.

Louie Psihoyos wants to win an Academy Award. For the Director of the Oscar-nominated documentary "The Cove," being nominated is great, but when the envelope is opened, he wants to hear his film called out. Mind you, Psihoyos doesn't much care about the award itself ("I'd probably give it to the crew," he said.), but he wants what he sees as the biggest benefit an Oscar offers - a massive audience.

"A billion people will see the Academy Awards," said Psihoyos in a telephone interview. "That's why I'd like to win. Because for 45 seconds you can talk directly to all the key people who are involved in these policies."

What Psihoyos wants to talk about is the subject of his highly praised documentary - the wholesale slaughter of Dolphins in Taiji, Japan. But should "The Cove" not win the Oscar for Best Documentary, Psihoyos has already gotten the word out to millions about the formerly secret slaughter. And just this week, it was announced that the film will now be in front of people he knows can make the biggest difference - the people of Japan.

On Feb. 8, The Works International announced that "The Cove" had been acquired by Japanese distributor Medallion Media which is planning a tentative release date of April 2010 in Japan. Carl Clifton, Managing Director of The Works International, applauded Medallion for taking the film directly to the people of Japan.

"Many distributors screened the film and most decided it was simply too hot to handle even if they all felt it must be seen by the Japanese people," said Clifton in a press release. "Medallion Media has shown real courage in acquiring 'The Cove' for Japan and we look forward to working with them on it."

"The Cove" - which currently has an almost-unheard of 8.5 rating at The Internet Movie Database - highlights the annual, six-month slaughter of dolphins in Taiji. The dolphins are rounded up by fisherman, who use sonar and bang on long poles to frighten and herd the dolphins into a cove. After highly sought-after "show dolphins" - dolphins which will be taken captive and trained at Ocean parks like Sea World - are selected, the dolphins are then herded into a once-secret cove, where they are slaughtered. Each year, more than 20,000 dolphins are killed.

The actual cove where the dolphins are being slaughtered was a long-held secret by the Taiji and Japanese governments. But Psihoyos ("I probably watched too many James Bond movies as a kid," he laughs") put together his own "Ocean's 11″ squad of filmmakers, divers and activists to penetrate the cove under the cover of darkness, hiding cameras and sound equipment throughout the area. The end result was video that is at once educating and blood-curdling.

But despite the video and the film, the killing continues.

"At the beginning of the year they stopped killing bottle-nose dolphins, but they have started the killing again," said Psihoyos, who started the non-profit Oceanic Preservation Society in 2005.

The film follows former dolphin trainer Ric O'Barry, who trained the dolphins in the hit 1960s TV show "Flipper." O'Barry has long felt a responsibility for the popularity of performing dolphins that took off following the TV Show, and sees his own fingerprints on the slaughter. Now the most prominent and tireless defender of dolphins, "The Cove" highlights his fight to free and save the intelligent mammals.

Aside from being a documentation of atrocities against dolphins, O'Barry's fight for redemption, and the cloak-and-dagger operation, "The Cove" also showcases a problem for mankind - the massive elevation of mercury in the systems of sea mammals like dolphins and whales. The problem is showcased in Taiji, where the dolphins have been used as a food source, and where authorities attempted to get dolphin meat into schools across the nation.

"The whole town was mandated for being tested for mercury because of this movie," said Psihoyos, 52. "They found that the males had 20 times more mercury in their blood and the women 10 times more than other Japanese people."

Psihoyos said that thus far, even with the film, the Japanese government has been of no help to either the dolphins, or their own people.

"They are still in denial. They are still trying to hide behind the old tired excuses that it's a tradition," said Psihoyos, who resides in Boulder, Colo. "Well, this 'tradition' started in the 1930s. And their tradition is poisoning their own people."

Which is why getting the movie in front of Japanese audiences is such a coup for the filmmaker. In a time when their government is experiencing the same economic crisis as the rest of the planet, the Japanese government is actually using tax payer money to keep the needless killing of dolphins going.

"If they just enforced their own laws, this problem would end," said Psihoyos. "The Japanese people need to know they are subsidizing these people."

Having already scaled the heights with his first film, Psihoyos is now working on what he calls a companion piece for "The Cove," which will look at the degradation of the world's ocean by humankind.

"To me we're it's like we're living in a science-fiction nightmare we're only beginning to understand," said Psihoyos. "The oceans are getting increasingly acidic, and by the end of this century it will be impossible for coral reefs to even exist."

But despite the harrowing subject matter, Psihoyos takes to his burgeoning film making and activism career with optimism. He can see things turning around with a new generation of Americans.

"I have an extreme amount of hope with the kids. They can read through the BS and see we're destroying the environment," said Psihoyos. "We've signed up nearly 1 million people already to help with this. I know people are getting engaged by this movie."

So come Oscar night, Psihoyos will be in the audience, hoping to receive the Oscar for Best Documentary. But that won't be the true prize he's after.

"We've won a lot of awards. But I didn't get in the business of making films to win awards. The real awards are to solve these problems," said Psihoyos.

More on "The Cove"

• After learning the massive carbon footprint that making a film creates, Psihoyos made the second half of the film using only solar energy, including solar-powered vehicles.
• Psihoyos said the film has already drawn attention from the Japanese media. A recent trip to Taiji by O'Barry was covered by by a large contingent of Japanese media. "He was like a rock star," said Psihoyos. At a Japanese film festival, Psihoyos said "We got more media coverage than "Avatar."

Additional Reading

• What can you do to help?
• "The Cove" Official Web Site
• The Oceanic Preservation Society
• Save Japan Dolphins
• Louie Psihoyos Photography

-WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles