In 1984 Cardinal Macharski, archbishop of Cracow, announced the establishment of a Carmelite convent in Auschwitz in a building on the camp periphery which had originally been a theater but was utilized during World War II to store the poison gas used in the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria. When a Catholic organization called Aid to the Church in Distress issued an appeal to mark the pope's visit to the Benelux countries in 1985 under the slogan "Your gift to the Pope - a convent in Auschwitz," the Jewish community - initially in Belgium - reacted with outrage.
Jews stressed that although others had suffered there, Auschwitz had become a symbol of Jewish martyrdom and while not objecting to a convent devoted to commemoration of Catholic suffering in Auschwitz, it should not be situated within the boundaries of the camp.
POPE ORDERS NUNS OUT OF AUSCHWITZ
Many Jews view the red brick convent just outside the barbed wire perimeter at Auschwitz, where some 1.5 million Jews perished, as an affront to Jewish sensibilities. The World Jewish Congress threatened earlier this year to boycott the ceremonies planned for Monday to mark the ghetto uprising unless the issue of the Carmelite nuns was resolved.
In 1989, a New York City rabbi, Avraham Weiss, contending the Catholic Church had not abided by the agreement, organized a protest against the nuns. He broke into their convent and scuffled with workmen the nuns had hired for renovations. After the episode, Jozef Cardinal Glemp, the Roman Catholic primate of Poland, denounced the "anti-Polishness" of Jews and their "power over the mass media."
Mr. Gebert said that if Rabbi Weiss staged another demonstration at the convent, local anti-Semitic supporters of the nuns, known as the Committee for the Protection of the Carmelite Nuns, would come out and counterattack. "Jewish demonstrators being attacked at Auschwitz!" Mr. Gebert said. "Can you imagine the headlines? I really think that got the Vatican moving."
N.Y. Archbishop Seeks to Help on Islamic Center
]]>"Those who wonder about the wisdom of the situation of the mosque, near such a wounded site, ask what I think are some legitimate questions that I think deserve attention," he said.
Since Obama later "clarified" that he had, in fact, no position on the wisdom of constructing that mosque in that particular location, ..
the president's admonishment on religious freedom will play on Islamist media as a lecture to the American people. With almost 70 percent of Americans opposing this center, his focus has directly fed the false Islamist narrative that most Americans want a war against Islam and Muslims.
Not that it matters, but that quote comes from AIFD, not a group of political appointees intimately involved with a Republican or Democratic Party.
And while the fearless bloggers are busy pasting pretty pictures of Christian Churches in the Muslim world (to expose "the lies", of course), or lecturing us on the critical importance of ensuring freedom of religion and/or separation of church and state, I wonder if this is just another momentary and ultimately irrelevant issue of the day (but surely something to look forward to being disgusted about, while it lasts), and if their concern about protecting Muslims from oppression will disappear as quickly as the Ground Zero Mosque disappears form the headlines.
Meanwhile, it looks like Muslims in Afganistan aren't so lucky to have the support of our fearless freedom fighters.
Afganistan is heading towards chaos and Taliban takeover.
Of course, we don't like theocratic and authoritarian regimes - but that only refers to the US soil and "local issues". Not the soil we're leaving behind.
As U.S. troops begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, an emerging fragile Afghan state under Hamid Karzai appears to be headed for a likely takeover by the Taliban.
So, of course AFID is wrong! We don't want a war on Islam! We'll be more than happy to let Afgan women welcome back the Taliban with open arms. Nothing wrong with no movies or church-only music. Or being stoned, in public.
And when that happens, our fearless bloggers, who are so "concerned" about freedom of religion and separation of church and state, will be pre-occupied with other pressing issues of the day. I have a feeling those issues will probably have something to do with whatever the next political fight is fought at that time and the fight for religious freedom will wait.
So I don't know if it's OK to draw parallels or not. After all, the Ground Zero Mosque is a "local" issue for New Yorkers alone and everyone else should just shut the f**ck up.
As Josh Marshall pointed out, with his typical iron logic, if that general area is good enough for a strip club, surely it can host "Cordoba House".
So my question is to the defenders of the mosque near Ground Zero - what should we do about Afganistan, where a brutal and theocratic regime is likely to regain power and resume ooppressing Muslims, as it had done before, but now as a direct result of our hasty withdrawal?
]]>
The reform is an atrocity. It mandates that every American must buy health insurance, under IRS scrutiny. It sets up an army of federal bureaucrats who ultimately decide for you how you should receive Health Care, what kind, and how much...or whether you don't qualify at all. Never has our government claimed the power to decide when each of us has lived well enough or long enough to be refused life-saving medical assistance.
a welfare state society where most people pay little or no taxes but become dependent on government benefits ... where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise ...
It raises a subtle but real threat to self-government when the few are paying more and more of the bill for government services and subsidies to the majority: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The next chapter is the rule of "crony capitalism," where those who pay most taxes get the privileges, and government by and for the people is replaced by government by and for the few.
When government sends bailout money to Wall Street firms they label "too big to fail," that's "crony capitalism." When government buys shares in General Motors, names their management, and dictates their salaries, that's "crony capitalism." When big health insurance companies, instead of competing for market, team up with Congressional Health Care writers to order every individual to buy their products, that's "crony capitalism."
Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people. They fought for populist reforms like initiative and referendum, recalls, judicial elections, the breakup of monopoly corporations, and the elimination of vote buying and urban patronage. But Progressivism turned away from popular control toward central government planning. It lost most Americans and consumed itself in paternalism, arrogance, and snobbish condescension.
Would you like an example of how successful Congressional oversight is? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (or GSEs), underwrote trillions of dollars in junk mortgages. Year after year their officials and others from HUD, Treasury, and other agencies who supervise them marched up to Congress for hearings. Red flags were raised. The oversight committees had other priorities and dismissed them out of hand. With the housing market already tanking, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said: "This ability to provide stability to the market is what, in my mind, makes the GSEs a congressional success story."
And so on - read the speech if you have time.
A government that expands beyond its high but limited mission of securing our natural rights is not progressive, it's regressive. It privileges the powerful at the expense of the people. It establishes the rule of class over class.
Pretrial conference will take place on December 16 and the trial itself on January 11.
On the heels of the triumphant defeat in New York, events in Maine and the postponement in New Jersey, this increasingly looks like a high-risk, high-reward strategy that happens almost in spite of efforts by gay and lesbian activists.
Olson is famous for his conservatism (albeit with a libertarian streak) and opposition to affirmative action. Obama (formerly known as "progressive" Democrat) is famous for his opposition to same-sex marriage (not to mention his passion to repeal DOMA and DADT).
If Olson wins the case, the irony of our love of political labels will be too glaring to ignore.
Given the recent discussions on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage (with otghand elsewhere and with others), here is the court brief that outlines the case.
For those who support same-sex marriage, it's a must-read. For fence-sitters and opponents, it's a great explanation of how they support discrimination.
And for gay and lesbian Americans, an Olson win will hopefully end their dependency on the phony Democratic "support" and lightning-speed incrementalism. An Olson loss? Back to business as usual....
]]>This sounds a great idea to me so far (at least this element does) because it expands portbability and uses free market principles to drive down costs. I read also that the CBO estimates the bill would reduce cost of health insurance by an additional $1 billion over 10 years and the unions are on the record opposing it.
However, I wasn't able to find any details on this amendment apart from short summaries here and there.
Does anyone have a link to the proposed text and a more detailed description?
Thanks
]]>Section 123 of the House version of the bill mandates the establishment of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. It is supposed to be a panel that will design and recommend three classes of plans: essential, enhanced and premium.
You can read the definitions, but here is a summary of what it means:
A version of this panel exists in most countries often cited as role-models for our reform. In the UK, it is called NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) and in New Zealand it's PHARMAC.
In both cases, these agencies evaluate the efficacy of new drugs, decide which drugs are cost-effective enough for the public system, and then negotiate the rates the public system will pay the manufacturers. In both the UK and New Zealand, the drug cost per patient has been reduced significantly as compared to the US. We spend more than twice on drugs, per capita, compared to New Zealand.
Sounds good, doesn't it? It does - unless you have breast cancer.
Current treatment options for breast cancer include hormone therapy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Mastectomy is a removal of the breast, fully or partially. Despite its enormous psychological toll on a woman, mastectomy can be performed as a preventive measure, to prevent the spread of cancer to other parts of the body.
Genentech, a relatively small biotech company of approx 11,000 people, developed Herceptin in the 1990s and obtained the FDA approval in 1998. The work of one of its developers, Dr. Slamon, was turned into a movie, "Living Proof", that premiered last year and describes the development process (nearly abandoned several times due to complexity and risk).
Herceptin increases the survival rate to 95% in early-stage cases of breast cancer. It cuts the recurrence rates in half. And in combination with other therapies, it offers a possibility of a cure in early stages of breast cancer. A one year Herceptin therapy is currently the accepted international standard.
It costs US $70,000 for one year treatment.
In New Zealand, PHARMAC repeatedly refused to cover Herceptin treatment for breast cancer victims, in keeping with its mission of evaluating efficacy of the drugs versus their cost. In 2002, in response to mounting public pressure, PHARMAC approved coverage of Herceptin - but only in the cases of advanced breast cancer. In 2007, PHARMAC approved coverage of Herceptin for early stages of cancer - but only 9 weeks instead of a full year used in all other developed countries.
Update 1:
Update 2:
Katie Sellars never thought she would be travelling the country meeting strangers from the internet, but breast cancer has changed all that.
News in October that Pharmac had again refused funding for the drug in early stage breast cancer was "like a kick in the teeth," Katie said.
Update 3:
It took a public grass-roots campaign "Boobs on Bikes" and a political pressure by the opposition party to change it. National Party won the election in November 2008 and pledged to fund Herceptin within 100 Days of the new government.
In the UK, NICE - a government organization that we're trying to replicate under the proposed health care reform bill - rejected 4 new drug therapies for kidney cancer, in August 2008, on the basis of their cost.
Update 4:
"This drug and others like it, we think, are a very major advance in the treatment of this disease."
Sutent is also licensed for GIST, the treatment of which has been revolutionised by Glivec. In cases where the tumours become resistant to Glivec, Sutent quadrupled progression-free survival from six weeks to six months. In a third of cases, the disease stabilised.
The new drug is not cheap, at about £2,400 per patient per month -- slightly cheaper than Glivec. Cost pressures in the NHS may limit its use.
The UK doctors were recommending their patients to travel to Italy, where one of these drugs, Sutent, can be bought cheaper, out of pocket - and without the risk of losing their government health insurance.
Update 5:
The move is a major victory for campaigners, patients and cancer specialists. They had described Nice's refusal to approve the drugs - which cost up to £70,000 a year per patient - as unfair, inhumane and condemning patients to an unnecessarily early death.
Oncologists believe Sutent, Nexavar, Avastin and Torisel could benefit about half of the 7,000 people a year who are diagnosed with kidney cancer. No other drugs are as effective at extending life in patients with advanced forms of the disease or in whom cancer has returned after a period of remission.
This two-class system in the UK implies that the wealthy will be able to afford the new drugs while the poor will be stuck with whatever the government believes is worth covering in the name of universal access. In the US, our proposed draft bill requires the creation of 3 classes of plans (essential, enhanced and premium).
If they added Ultimate, it would be just like Windows Vista.
We all know what this means.
- Those who are supposed to sit in the back of the bus - will get an essential plan.
- 300 million people will be mandated to have health insurance - because we cannot find a way to deliver it to the 46 million, many of whom, we admit, have incomes above $50,000 and can afford it
Morpheus:
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Obama:
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?
Well. My liberal friends can believe what they want to believe. I prefer to stay in this Wonderland and find out how deep the rabbit hole goes. This plan deserves only to fail and I hope it does.
]]>Several people on TPM took Obama's statement (as any other statement he makes) on tribunals at face value. But the truth is Obama flip-flopped on his campaign positions and attempted some remarkable window-dressing to cover it up.
1. When Obama voted against the Military Tribunal Act of 2006, he offered the following reasons explaining his vote:
- power to determine what constitutes torture was left with a president, not Geneva Convention
- Combatant Status Review Tribunal doesn't separate innocent "accidental" detainees from all others
- elimination, instead of just a suspension, of habeas corpus
2. In 2008, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision in the MCA, and so
ruled that the detainees can challenge their designation as "enemy combatant" by Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) in federal courts.
Obama proclaimed it, naturally, "a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo" that he said was "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."
3. During the election season, Obama continued to insist that:
- habeas corpus should be restored to detainees
- Gitmo should be closed
- detainees should be tried in US criminal court or by the military court-marshall
- the process was too slow and inefficient
4. But that was all during the heat of pragmatism of the campaign season.
When Obama actually concluded his review of the anti-constitutional and internationally-illegal military tribunals last week, he decided he would continue the Bush policy after all.
And, get this!, he claimed that he actually liked the commissions all along, except for a couple of details:
- evidence obtained under cruel inhuman interrogation methods will not be admissible
- use of hearsay will be limited, shifting the burden of proof
- accused will have greater lattitude in choosing legal counsel
- basic protections to those who refuse to testify
- judges may establish jurisdiction over their own courts
5. With the exception of the choice of legal counsel, all the other points in Obama's statement are pure spin and window-dressing:
- Admission of evidence resulting under torture:
It's already inadmissible under the Military Tribunals Act of 2006 (see $948r (c)). Such evidence had already been rejected by military tribunals. Obama is taking a rule that is already in place and spins it to pretend he's fixing something.
- Admission of hearsay
Again, window-dressing.
The issue of hearsay in civilian courts is admissibility of statements that are made other than inside of the court-room under oath. The problem here is the legally meaningful reliablity of such evidence. Any hearsay admitted as exemption has to overcome the reliability barrier, so the burden of proof is always on prosecution. And even though there are many exceptions to admissibility in civilian courts, the biggest issue for the military courts is recalling soldiers from active duty to testify.
Note two things:
(a) Military Tribunals already do not to accept any evidence that is unreliable. And if they did, there is an appeal process created under the Act that Obama voted against, under which any conviction based on unreliable evidence will be overturned.
(b) Obama doesn't eliminate hearsay, he only limits it. So what is he doing that's different?? He's shifting the burden of proof. But the MCA of 2006 already explicitly provides that any detainee is innocent until proven guilty, so it's obvious that any burden of proof is on prosecution. To pretend that Obama is doing something non-trivial with these rules is just laughable.
- Lattitude in chosing legal counsel
OK, instead of just getting a tax-payer funded lawyer, then can a private lawyer. And the security clearance required under Bush will probably be reduced. I can see a change here.
- Basic protections to those who refuse to testify
What could it mean? That the tribunal will not use the refusal to testify against the detainee? Well, the Bush tribunal rules already provide that "The Accused shall not be required to testify during trial. A Commission shall draw no adverse inference from an Accused's decision not to testify"
Bottom line is this:
the Bush commissions, combined with the Supreme Court ruling on ability to challenge combatant designation, provide more due process to detainee than any military tribunal in the US history.
Instead of sticking to his campaign promises, Obama is tweaking with what amounts to the commas and font of the existing rules.
For a candidate who spoke about Constitution, international law, habeas corpus, civilian courts, Obama is doing exactly NOTHING. His changes to the current system are so insignificant, it's laughable to think anything other than the truth - Obama is continuing the Bush system.
He's delaying again the process that he himself accused of being slow and inefficient. But most importantly, he's clearly admitting that Bush system is the best there is today - he's not offering anything better except for trivial or outright fake "improvements".
Yet another failed policy of the past supported by Barack Obama.
]]>
There is a small group of people (including myself) who believe that torture should be prosecuted and anyone involved should be punished. There is a larger group of people (including, frequently, Obama) who just want to use torture memos as a way to settle a political score - so they only focus on those in power at the time. Then there is another group (including, frequently, Obama) that just wants to move on. Of course, we already know which group will prevail in the end.
So, to those who want the truth, I say - you can't handle the truth. You will have to choose between the truth and Obama, and you will choose Obama.
So most likely, you will make a deal with your conscience and accept his invitation to "move on". At worst, you will cheerlead selective application of the law and focus on rounding up a few scapegoats so you can have a show trial and "move on". You don't have the balls to face the truth that will damage your own party and your own president.
The entire Democratic leadership in Congress has been complicit in torture policy. They have been repeatedly briefed about it. They voted for laws that protected those who tortured. They cared more about being seen as "strong on defense". They cared more about mid-term congressional elections. They care more about power than the truth, and that's why there will be no "truth commission".
And given the partisanship of party politics in America, you will close your ranks, distract yourselves with Bachmann 2.0 and then rush headlong to leave behind exculpatory evidence in the form of grand health care reform.
Please tell me it ain't so.
]]>I understand the need to ridicule the opposition, but Josh - how about you check your moral compass occasionally, just to make sure you're not turning into someone you despise.
]]>
Obama forced out its CEO and replaced him with Fritz Henderson, who has a better relationship with the UAW Chief Ron Gettelfinger. It's obvious that the way Henderson has been installed into GM will make it much easier for the UAW to have more influence on how the company is run.
Media made some noise about the GM bankruptcy, but of course it's never going to happen. UAW is a critical voting block with multiple alliances and the Government will do everything to keep their votes. So instead of just sending the auto workers packing with a pink slip like every other bankrupt industry would do, they are given good buyouts and early retirement. And younger workers who remain will be guaranteed jobs.
The new and improved GM will become a perfect platform to for Obama's green energy vision.
The new management will create a business plan that will shift manufacturing to green or electric cars, away from SUVs and gas guzzlers. The government already promised to honor GM warranties. And it already controls enough banks through TARP to ensure there is plentiful financing to GM dealerships. Of course, "Organizing America" will work tirelessly to show that owning an Obamacar is the best way to help America. They will sell like iPods.
And everyone is happy.
]]>He acknowledges the amount of objection and disgreement over the way he covered AIG bonuses, but his post-rationalization is rather startling to me.
First of all, Josh, some people objected not only to your sensationalizing of the story and engaging in cheap populism. It's great that you recognize this but it's not clear that you care, because today's installment on AIG is not much better than yesterday's.
Most importantly, in my view, people objected to the kind of reporting that deliberately and therefore dishonestly leaves the reader misled and misinformed, while fanning the flames and feeding anger.
Your rationale today is that some people in the financial services industry are tone-deaf and context-blind, while the social contract is under strain. This has been going around the blogosphere for a couple of days now so it's not a novel theory anymore.
But the true essence of that pseudo-argument is this: if the taxpayer money is involved in running AIG, then the taxpayers have the right to change their mind about your compensation at any point in time, for any reasons, without warning. Basically, whenever they feel like it. Or whenever Fox News gets sore throat from stoking anger 24/7. Written legal contracts about AIG compensation have no power, even if we, taxpayers, signed them. Don't like it? Tough shit, don't work for us.
Your (mis) coverage of the AIG mess is dishonest because it purposefully conflates the issue of the specific bonuses with the larger issue of limits on executive pay. It's your choice to follow the blind rage or to see the forest behind the trees.
The DeSantis point is about the taxpayer's anger destroying the company they own. It wasn't about $1.5 million dollars, which he isn't going to keep anyway. Of course, that's not how you reported this, you lumped it with the general "fuck you from Wall Street to DC" as if DeSantis defiantly refused to give up the money he is legally due.
So, when all is said and done, Josh, you own AIG now too. What do you want to see happen with it? And who would do it, under the conditions you suggest the social contract implies?
]]>
Rasmussen thinks the reason is policy:
The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.
He lists the specific concerns (spending too much, raising taxes on everyone, overextending instead of focusing on economy, etc) and shows that more americans oppose Obama's budget now than support it.
The most striking thing to me is this: Republicans have some of the lowest approval numbers and are blamed for many of the problems.
And yet, the specific republican talking points (overspend, overtax, etc) seem to be capturing the mood of what more and more people think.
If this is true, then there is more than bravado to their claims that they will lose on policy but win on message, their polls must be showing the same trends. It also means that Obama is going to become even more like Bill Clinton fairly soon, to triangulate on issues (eat this Theda). And finally, we should expect even more partisanship a-la the WH-coordinated trashing of Rush.
]]>
The speed, brutality, partisanship and bitterness of this "vetting" was breathtaking.
But that wouldn't be so bad, if Josh and his "progressive" friends didn't actively stoke the press and TV to pick up on these stories.
Mike Huckabee said a lot of stupid things in his convention speech. But he was dead on when he said that the Republicans owe the news media a debt of gratitude for uniting their party behind their candidates.
And the American voters will owe Josh Marshall a debt of gratitude for sending Sarah Palin on the path of becoming America's newest Erin Brockovich.
What a disservice to Obama and his message. With friends like this...