Earlier this week, when the SCOTUS handed down their decision reducing the restraints on corporate money in politics, it seemed to me to be absolutely the worst thing to happen to our country in a very, very long time. But just maybe there's a silver lining to the decision of the pro-business justices.

The idea that seems to be gathering steam on the internet of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the doctrine of corporate personhood is a good one, but why not just pass a law stating that a corporation is not a person, and defining it otherwise? A Constitutional amendment takes a long time to accomplish, and in the meantime there's a lot of damage that will be done by the decision, as the corporations insinuate themselves into our politics to an even greater degree than they have already.

What I'd like to see is for President Obama to write a very simple proposal for a bill stating that a corporation is not a person (and providing an alternate definition), and send it to the Congress with his strong suggestion that they pass it without amendment - no fiddling around and modifying it endlessly until it turns into something unrecognizable, as Congress is wont to do. And then Obama should get out there and explain the proposal to the American people (why it's so important, what it will accomplish), campaign for it, and call on all American citizens to contact their legislators in support of the bill.

Even the most diehard pro-business Republicans would be put on the spot by such a bill. If they voted against it, they'd reveal themselves for the corporate minions that they are. I don't think they could vote against it, because they'd lose the support of the American people. And if the bill is written very simply, dealing with just that one issue of corporate personhood, their opportunities for waffling and spin would be severely limited. It's so easy for the average person to understand that corporate personhood is an absurdity. Most citizens, from the most liberal progressives on the left to the most far rightwingers, libertarians and even the tea partiers, would be outraged at any legislator who voted to maintain corporate personhood. This is the way that Obama can show that he really meant all that he promised us about change.

It is very likely that should such a law be passed, the corporate powers that be would challenge it in court, and that's why we should also be pursuing the Constitutional amendment route at the same time. But this is an issue that just perfectly encapsulates all that the average American believes is wrong with their government right at this moment, and I believe that the approach that I suggest will bring that in clear focus as nothing else could. This is a proposal that could take the lesson of the MA Senate election and use it for progressive change.

I don't think there's any other issue that has such potential to unite us. The Supreme Court did us a favor! And the time is now to do something about it!

Read more »

We need to move carefully in establishing a national electronic medical records database, since there really are serious problems as it stands now with healthcare records privacy. The fairly recent Privacy Rule (2006) established under The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA, 1996), was touted as a measure that would protect patient records, but turned out to be no more than another GWB/Orwellian type measure - it sounds good, but then one discovers it has an effect that was the opposite of what it ostensibly was supposed to achieve.

In fact, not long after the HIPAA Privacy Rule went into effect, a coalition of medical providers sued HHS because of the more egregious but little-known provisions of HIPAA that, despite all the promises, actually provided less control by consumers over their personal medical data. Unfortunately, the decision was against the coalition, so the questionable rules remain.

Further, although HIPAA did establish some apparently stronger guidelines for records confidentiality, it gives patients no right to file a private lawsuit in order to challenge those who violate the confidentiality rules. Only the Secretary of HHS can sue. So in the years since HIPAA privacy was passed, there have been hardly any lawsuits for confidentiality breaches under HIPAA. Here's a recent article from a Healthcare IT website about the almost non-existant HIPAA enforcement.

So HIPAA appears to be a case legislative of bait and switch: a tedious process (all those forms that we have to fill out) deceives us into thinking that the records are protected, but in reality, many HIPAA protections are illusory, and the lack of enforcement by HHS means it's a law without teeth.

Patient confidentiality is a very serious issue. A study sometime before the HIPAA Privacy Rule was put into place found that around 3 out of 4 (that's 75%!) of medical consumers felt there had been breaches of their medical records. And even after the passage of HIPAA, studies revealed significant concern among medical consumers over records privacy. How much worse would this be if there were a centralized database? Who would have access to such a database? What specific information would it contain? What protections would be put in place to prevent unauthorized access? Would the consumer have access to their personal information, or only medical and governmental personnel? What procedures would there be for correcting errors in the record? Obviously, those with conditions that are subject to substantial social stigma, such as mental illness or HIV/AIDS have a much higher level of concern about how these questions may ultimately be answered, but anyone who visits a doctor has the right to expect effective safeguards of their privacy. So it's reasonable to raise serious questions about the new proposed database, especially in light of the many failures to protect patient info, even after HIPAA was passed. And the questions above are just a start; there are so many questions that need to be asked and answered before we, as citizens, sign off on something like this.

The idea of electronic records may be a very good one, when looked at primarily in terms of efficiency. We do need to find ways to reduce our ridiculously large medical expenditures. But there are potentially very serious problems with records privacy that need to be resolved first.

UPDATE: 2-13-09, 3:51pm PST
I am very happy to report that in researching this issue further, I happened upon additional new information that says the Congress included stronger medical records protection as part of the stimulus. And it looks like the medical records privacy issues made it through the conference committee, so we're almost there. Apparently, Congress wrote in a provision that establishes that advocacy groups will be participating in the regulatory process, a very good sign. (Initially Congress, in writing HIPAA, apparently intended for there to be strong privacy protections for medical records, but it was in the writing of the rules by HHS that things became watered down and dicey.)

Here's an excerpt from an article I found, written just today, on what's in the stimulus bill regarding medical records privacy protections:

Economic stimulus legislation awaiting final approval by Congress, then expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama, includes more stringent medical records privacy requirements along with $19 billion in funding for health information technology (IT).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) would provide grants and payment incentives for physicians, hospitals, nursing homes and other health care entities to adopt and make meaningful use of technology designed to create and manage electronic health records (EHRs).

The legislation also includes provisions intended to shore up public confidence in the use of EHRs and personal health records (PHRs) by beefing up enforcement of and expanding the scope of businesses covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy and security rules.

HIPAA consultant John Parmigiani said Feb. 12 that he expects the health IT provisions in the economic recovery bill to have a "significant impact" on health care privacy and security.

Because it speaks to privacy and security breach notifications, increased enforcement, audit trails, encryption and "a definite concern for driving the attainment of an EHR while protecting patient information," he said, the legislation "emphasizes the critical ingredient in fostering widespread implementation, acceptance and use of e-health -- trust -- among patients, providers and payers to effectively and efficiently deliver health care and share health care information."

http://www.thompson.com/public/newsbrief.jsp?cat=HEALTHCARE&id=2058
 
I'm going to be keeping my fingers crossed...

Say the word that's always missing from White House pronouncements about the situation in Palestine. Say the word that we never hear when the administration talks about how Hamas is a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel. You know the word, Mr. Johndroe. It's Occupation.



O-C-C-U-P-A-T-I-O-N, Mr. Johndroe, that's the word that was curiously missing from your vocabulary in yesterday's press conference and the one you gave today on behalf of President Bush. But your failure to mention this inconvenient word wasn't entirely unexpected, since it's been entirely missing from the vocabulary and understanding of the adminstration over these past eight years.



(A quick note: Are you especially busy this holiday season? Don't become intimidated by this post's length! Just scroll down to nearly the end, click on the link to the J Street petition to end the Gaza violence, go to the page and sign it and viola, you're done! And thank you!)



Without the word, Occupation, it's entirely impossible to truly understand what's going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's not a small oversight. The people of Palestine have lived under brutal Occupation for 40 long years. Under Occupation, they've seen the loss of their property and livelihoods, their very lives and hope for the future. How can one possibly speak about the conflict and overlook the Occupation?



Under Occupation, the Palestinian population has been subjected to daily insults, and far worse, at the hands of the Israelis. They have seen their property confiscated and homes demolished, their people detained and tortured, often on the most specious grounds, they've been subjected to constant insults and abuse from the IDF and violence and destruction of property at the hands of the illegal Israeli settlers, they've been prevented from working to support their families; they've watched helplessly as the olive trees that have provided a source of livelihood to their families for generations are destroyed and the culprits get off with a slap on the wrist from the Israeli authorities, they've had their families torn apart and residency revoked for specious reasons that serve the Israeli goal of eliminating the Palestinian population of Jerusalem, they've waited for hours at checkpoints and roadblocks that they need to pass in order to carry on the regular activities of daily life: work, school, a visit to the doctor.



Fifty-one Palestinian citizens have died during the course of the eight years of the Bush administration because of Israeli restrictions on movement that prevented them from getting needed medical care. To Palesinians, those deaths don't represent mere statistics, they represent real people that they have known and loved. Just this year, 2,222 innocent Palestinian non-combatants were killed in the Palestinian territories by Israeli security forces, the majority of them in Gaza. Compare that to the 19 Israelis who died over the entire 8 years of the Bush administration because of the Hamas rocket fire into Israel. Did the administration never consider the message that's being given to the Arab world about how we Americans value the worth of an Arab life when we simply ignore the deaths of innocent civilians while railing vehemently against the relatively few Israeli deaths? How could our government give Israel the official, if tacit, imprimature of the U.S. to continue the bombings?



Illegal Settlements in the Occupied Territories

A map of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories can be found here. The areas in yellow indicate Palestinian settlements; those in dark purple, mid-purple and light purple indicate the areas of illegal Israeli settlement. Note how the areas of Israeli settlement are distributed throughout the West Bank. If Israel is successful in retaining most of the larger settlements in any final peace agreement, the remaining Palestinian land will be effectively divided into a series of discontiguous areas - Bantustans cut off one from another - and the hopes for a truly viable Palestinian state will be quashed. That's what the ongoing Israeli effort to establish "facts on the ground" by settling illegally in the territories is all about.



In the the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the population of illegal settlers in Palestinian territory has reached 443,702 under the disinterested watch of this administration (download xls spreadsheet - note that this number is based upon the 2007 statistics, the actual number will be higher when the 2008 statistics are released). Further, it's been demonstrated that the the route of the Separation Wall, supposedly constructed for security reasons by Israel, in fact was designed in order to give Israel maximum opportunity to appropriate valuable Palestinian farmland and water resources. And the illegal settlement activity, according to a March 2008 report by the Israeli human rights group, Peace Now, significantly increased after the Annapolis conference, which you claimed today represented a significant step forward and a meaningful accomplishment of the Bush administration. But why should it have stopped, considering the letter Bush wrote to Ariel Sharon in 2004, essentially giving the OK to Israeli settlement activity, something in complete violation of international law and which no other U.S. President ever had done? Why is it that the administration always forgets to mention that all the Palestinian violence you decry has occurred under the constant backdrop of illegal and often violent settlement activity by Israeli settlers on the land that your administration claims is destined ostensibly to become part of the future Palestinian state? Why does the administration constantly call the Palestinians to task, while ignoring all Israeli violations of the agreements that are supposed to lead toward peace?



Occupation has for 40 years deeply and destructively affected the lives of every single Palestinian: Fatah and Hamas, Muslim and Christian, fighter and non-combatant. Recent reports estimate that half of the children of Gaza suffer from PTSD. Now, Israel tacitly has been given the green light by the U.S. for the virtual destruction of Gaza, and there's little real hope in sight. Why did you not demand that Israel stop the bombing?



Today in the press conference, Mr. Johndroe, you made much of the humanitarian supplies from the U.S. that supposedly now will be delivered to Gaza, but we've heard that story before; once the crisis appears over and the eyes of the world turn away, the relief suddenly disappears. And besides, where have we been during all the months of suffering that our own policies in the area have done so much to create in the first place? For how many Palestinians will such aid simply come too late?



You said that President Bush has "laid good groundwork that will ultimately lead to a two-state solution," but came closest to acknowledging the truth when you noted, "it's [the peace process] not something that's going to advance in the immediate near term. However, true to the Occupation-blind approach of the administration (which is no doubt also a result of the Presidential advisors you said were involved in the administration's response - Cheney, and Steve Hadley), you blamed the problem entirely on Hamas' actions. Did you not realize how this delay of any solution in the near term serves the purposes of Israel, by allowing it more time to put yet more settlers in the Occupied Territories, creating more facts on the ground and thereby further destroying any chance of a viable Palestinian state? Not to mention that you're allowing the most intransigent members of Hamas - the ones who are determined to derail any peace process leading to a two state solution - to gain politically from this latest horror when you don't hold Israel responsible for the disproportionality of it's retaliation.



Repeat after me, Mr. Johndroe, The violence is a result of 40 years of Occupation. Oh, I know that Israel claims that Gaza is no longer under Occupation, since Israeli troops were withdrawn in 2005, and the administration appears to agree with that. So here's another term for you, Mr. Johndroe, International Law. Under international law, Israel remains in Occupation of Gaza, because although it withdrew it's security forces and dismantled the Gaza settlements, it has retained complete control over Gaza. It instituted a blockade which has prevented the most basic requirements of human daily life from reaching the citizens of Gaza, many of whom aren't even Hamas' supporters. This amounts to collective punishment, a crime under international law. The economy of Gaza has come to a near standstill. Desperately needed medical supplies cannot reach the people of Gaza due to the Israeli blockade, and the delivery of electricity has been interrupted, seriously compromising medical care in Palestinian hospitals. Fishermen are harrassed when they set out into Palestinian waters in the Mediterranean in order to provide food supplies to Gaza. There are inadequate food supplies in general because of the Israeli blockade. Israel controls the airspace. Practically no one is allowed to leave Gaza. Under international law all these actions represent a continuing Occupation and are illegal, not to mention immoral.



So despite your claims, Mr. Johndroe, about the wonders of the Annapolis conference and the great strides President Bush has made toward a two-state solution, the true Middle East legacy of this administration is represented by that one sadly forgotten word.



Occupation. Say it, Mr. Johndroe.



*********************************************************************************** Take Action! Stop the violence in Gaza! Sign J Street's petition to demand that the United States intervene to bring about an immediate resumption of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. J Street is the new pro-peace Israel lobby.



And/or, sign the Washington Report on Middle East Affair's petition to end Israeli harassment of travelers and journalists in the Occupied Territories



Additional sources: Relief Web's Gaza Humanitarian Situation Report 28 Dec 2008



For some additional information on conditions in the Occupied Territories, check out one or more of the power point slide shows offered by Peace Now on their website.



B'tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, has a collection of photographs that describe the conditions in the Occupied Territories far better than words can do.

Why is it that the U.S. press has not reported on the recent statements by Hamas' leader Ismail Haniya?

GAZA CITY, Gaza -- Following intensive negotiations with Hamas, the de facto leadership of Gaza, a group of European parliamentarians has been told by the organization that it will accept a Palestinian state within the internationally recognized 1967 borders as well as offer Israel a long-term ceasefire.

The delegation of 11 from Britain, Ireland, Switzerland and Italy, managed to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza on Saturday morning after their boat, the Dignity, sailed from Cyprus to Gaza, shadowed part of the way by an Israeli naval vessel.

You'd think such statements would be considered newsworthy by the U.S. press. But no word of this.

Meanwhile, the UN relief agency UNWRA said that if Israel did not open the blockade of Gaza it would have to halt it's food aid to nearly 750,000 Palestinians.

The UN in the Gaza Strip says it will run out of food aid in two days unless Israel's blockade - which it describes as "shameful and unacceptable" - eases.

The UN refugee agency UNRWA, which distributes food to half of Gaza's 1,5m people, called the blockade "a physical as well as a mental punishment".

Israel is now allowing a limited amount of fuel across the border, but it is still blocking food deliveries.

It says it tightened sanctions because of rocket attacks by militants.

The Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, said the rockets were a response to an Israeli raid that killed six gunmen on 4 November.

Gaza's only power plant was closed on Monday, after Israel stopped fuel deliveries.

Aid agencies estimate the new deliveries of fuel will run out within a day-and-a-half.

On his blog, Informed Consent, Mideast expert Juan Cole had this to say about the food blockade:

A food blockade? That is a war crime! Why aren't the people ordering the malnourishment of a civilian population under foreign military occupation being arrested and taken to the Hague for trial?

I mean, people in the US are routinely arrested for animal abuse because they kept their pets malnourished. Wouldn't it be a crime to do that to Palestinian children?

I know that there's a lot of debate right now about what Obama should or will do regarding the I-P conflict, but surely we cannot allow our most important ally in the Mideast to starve Palestinians, including innocent men, women and children who are not even Hamas supporters but are simply trapped in the Israeli Occupation of Gaza. Please write your representatives today and ask them to try to relieve this shameful humanitarian crisis.

Some of you may already have seen the WaPo article claiming that Palin overcharged for her per diem travel expenses. If not, take a look: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html?hpid=topnews

I'm concerned about the story because it seems to me it may not have legs, and if so will only serve as yet another distraction from our need to keep the focus on McCain and substantive issues. So I did a little searching this morning. I found the document from the Alaska Division of Finance that describes the rules for per diems (note this is a downloadable pdf): http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/travel/resource/rates.pdf
And I also found the Finance Division's FAQ regarding per diems, here: http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/sto/3faq.jsp

The problem is I'm operating on only a few hours sleep and the governmentalese seems like gibberish to me at the moment. I think it's really important to understand the actual situation, so that we can damp down any furor over this story, if it turns out to be a red herring. A furor over a scandal that proves false will only play into the GOP's hands and may convince voters to disregard any subsequent negative story, such as the results of the Troopergate Investigation.

Can anyone help to decode the rules and regulations about per diems? What about travel for her family?

For those who may not want to bother with the pdf, this appears to be the relevant information contained in it (please forgive if the formatting turns out all wonky - I don't really know HTML):
<blockquote>

(Under Notes): LTC members assigned to work more than 50 miles from their permanent duty station are entitled to a commuting allowance if they return to their residence on their own time (e.g. weekends). The commuting allowance is 90% of lodging allowance (see chart) plus M&IE (I think M&IE indicates meals and incidental expenses). Commuting allowance and M&IE paid may be taxable.

The following are the rates for in-state travel: For lodging General Government: Short-term Non-Commercial: Traveler's option of actuals or $30 noncommercial Long-term/Non-Commercial: Traveler's option of $45 at commercial or $30 at noncommercial facility

AAM Lodging: Short-term Non-Commercial Reimbursement of actual costs applies if travel is short-term (30 days or less), OR $30 noncommercial when commercial facilities are not available. See Travel Per Diem FAQ #7.

Long-term/Non-Commercial: Applies if travel is more than 30 days. Traveler's option of $45 at commercial or $30 at noncommercial facility. See Travel Per Diem FAQ #7.</blockquote>

Yep, you read that right. From Andrew Halcro's excellent blog on Alaska politics, comes this:

Vetting the Veep...post announcementThe campaign of John McCain has sent a staff of eight people into Alaska to conduct background checks and vetting on Governor Sarah Palin. 

Word is they have have eight rooms reserved at a Wasilla hotel.

I guess I'll keep this short too, because really, what can anyone say at this point? Please read the comments at the Walcro blog. One person suggests McCain's team may really be there for other reasons:

If there are 8 McCain operatives in Wasilla at this point it would be better to suppose they were spin-doctors, records scrubbers, pay-off artists and a host of other types to ensure nothing upsets the applecart in which the unvetted choice is riding.

There's video of the program, part of the Road to the White House series, available on the C-Span website too:
http://www.cspan.org/Series/Road-to-the-White-House.aspx

Obama is wonderfully inspiring, but you aren't gonna believe how much McCain praises Bush and the Iraq War! Enjoy and tell us what you think about it.

Also, the podcast isn't up on the C-Span site yet, but when it is, it really ought to go viral (hint, hint). http://www.cspan.org/Podcasts.aspx

(Saturday, Aug. 16, at 8 p.m. EDT, to be aired on CNN, MSNBC and Fox)

The forum will consist of an hour of questions to each candidate posed by the host, evangelical Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California, author of the best-selling book,  The Purpose-Driven Life. According to Warren, "The primaries proved that Americans care deeply about the faith, values, character and leadership convictions of candidates as much as they do about the issues."

Warren is one of the new breed of evangelicals who care as much about social issues like poverty and AIDs as they do about the traditional hot-button issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, typically associated with the religious right. It's reported that Warren, who is anti-abortion in his own personal beliefs, is facing  intense lobbying from the traditionalists to press the candidates regarding their views on abortion. But Warren is said to be not particularly inclined to focus on abortion in this forum, “I will be raising questions ... beyond what political reporters typically ask. This includes pressing issues that are bridging divides in our nation, such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate and human rights,” said Warren of the forum.

Obama may be able to do himself a lot of good with this. Not only does his participation undermine the "Obama is a Muslim" rumors, but he can make inroads with those younger evangelicals and religious independent voters who may not be entirely satisfied with McCain, and who are increasingly turning their attention to issues like the environment, poverty and education, areas where Obama should shine over McCain.

Yes, celebrity endorsements are usually a yawn, but this is Springsteen. According to an article recently published at the ABC News online site, in the announcement, Springsteen said the following:

Obama "speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit."

"A place where '...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone,'" the iconic musician continued in his letter, quoting from his 2007 song "Long Road Home".

More from Springsteen:
<blockquote>Recent Obama "comments and relationships" the Boss says in his letter to fans "have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision...often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our constitution and the protection and enhancement of our environment."</blockquote>

Coming on the eve of the PA primary, and following the dust up over the "bitter" comment about small towns, this is a very good thing for Obama.

Completely overlooked in all the hoopla over the Clinton-Obama spat in the South Carolina debate, was this letter to Sen. Edwards from the slain civil rights leader's son, written on the day set aside to honor his father's memory:

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are -- a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

I think the letter speaks for itself and I'll let the reader consider it without any further commentary from me. 

"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy

This morning, I downloaded the pdf of the January 12 CNN poll results that's available at TPM Election Central (you can download the pdf yourself here) and I was astounded - CNN has excluded John Edwards from their polling!

Edwards came in second in Iowa, yet Republican candidates who haven't registered more than a blip in the two contests we've had so far were included in the CNN poll. Just what are the criteria for inclusion? I can't think of any that would justify this oversight.

I don't want the media to make my decisions for me, which they've been doing ever since the contest started, when they first crowned Hillary as "inevitable," and then said Obama was "unbeatable." There are still three viable Democratic candidates in this race - there are 48 states to go - and CNN is doing a disservice to our democracy by refusing to consider one of them. Let me state it more strongly: this is undemocratic!

The latest National Head-to-Head Polls (you can view them here, at Real Clear Politics) that included Edwards (as of 12/14/07) showed him doing the best of all the Democratic candidates against every one of the Republicans. This is an important criterion that many Dem voters may wish to consider in making their decision. Note that in the most recent match up polling against McCain (1/10/08), Hillary loses and Obama barely squeeks by with less than a third of a percentage point. But in the earlier polls, Edwards beat McCain from 4% (Zogby) to 8% (CNN). Would Edwards have continued to do better against the Republicans if he had been included in the most recent polling? We'll never know because of the CNN decision.

No matter which candidate one may support, anyone concerned about our democracy must realize that for CNN to simply count one candidate out at this early stage of the primary season is completely unacceptable. It shouldn't be CNN effectively making the decisions for the voters.

If you want to write CNN: CNN@cnn.com

 

I had not really understood the appeal of Ron Paul, who has been generating huge amounts in donations over the last months, until I watched the Meet the Press interview this morning, and heard him speak about the "soft fascism" that he sees as an increasing danger for our country. Here's an excerpt from the MTP transcript of the interview:

Before you go, Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for president, ran this commercial for Christmas and many thought that the shelf in the back looked like a cross. You were asked about it on CNN and this is what you said.

REP. PAUL: It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once says. He said when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.

MR. RUSSERT: What does that mean?

REP. PAUL: What? Fascism or the definition of fascism?

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Mike Huckabee is...

REP. PAUL: Oh, I didn't say that. I said it reminded me--as a matter of fact they caught me completely cold on that. I had not seen the ad, and they just said there was a cross there. And, you know, it was an instantaneous reflex because I knew of Sinclair Lewis about being cautious, because, you know, I--what prompts this is things like the Patriot Act. You know...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back...

REP. PAUL: No, no. If you're not a patriot...

MR. RUSSERT: But let me go back to this ad. You do not believe that Mike Huckabee, that ad commercial represents the potential of fascism in the form of a cross.

REP. PAUL: No. But I think this country, a movement in the last 100 years, is moving toward fascism. Fascism today, the softer term, because people have different definition of fascism, is corporatism when the military industrial complex runs the show, when the--in the name of security pay--pass the Patriot Act. You don't vote for it, you know, you're not patriotic America. If you don't support the troops and you don't support--if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. It's that kind of antagonism. But we have more corporatism and more abuse of our civil liberties, more loss of our privacy, national ID cards, all this stuff coming has a fascist tone to it. And the country's moving in that direction. That's what I'm thinking about. This was not personalized. I never even used my opponents names if you, if you notice.

MR. RUSSERT: So you think we're close to fascism?

REP. PAUL: I think we're approaching it very close. One--there's one, there's one documentary that's been put out recently that has generated a lot of interest called "Freedom to Fascism." And we're moving in that direction. Were not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism. Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous.

MR. RUSSERT: For the record, the Sinclair Lewis Society said that Mr. Lewis never uttered that quote.

REP. PAUL: But others refuted that and put them down and said that--and they found the exact quote where it came from.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Dr. Ron Paul, be safe on the campaign trail. Thanks for sharing your views.

REP. PAUL: Thank you. Nice to be here.

(Here's a link to the full interview.)

I would never vote for Ron Paul, as some of his other libertarian proposals - abolishing Federal taxes, for instance - would be disasterous for our country (although some of his comments on the Middle East and foreign policy generally make some sense). But he nailed it on the issue of the danger of fascism, and I admire his straightforwardness. His message seems to be resonating - I now see why.

I happened to check C-Span to see if there were any political things on TV this afternoon, and discovered they were running a couple of segments about religion in politics. The first was some video of a focus group session regarding Mitt Romney's Mormonism. The respondents were devout Christians and only one out of the three who were asked said they would even consider giving Romney a chance when it comes time to vote. The reasons given were of the "this is a Christian nation" - "I don't trust him because he doesn't share my values" sort.

The second segment was a film recording of a speech that John F. Kennedy gave during the 1960 election, addressing the issue of his Catholicism and the separation of church and state. It was a powerful presentation, and I was left wishing that many of the ideas he expressed could return to guide our modern-day politics (and personal lives, I suppose, as well). I've heard people say that we've idealized Kennedy, and perhaps we have, but yet there was just something special that comes across in this speech that we sadly seem to have lost. So I'm posting some links...

Here is a link to the C-Span page about the program (I didn't see video, which is too bad), here's a page about the speech at the JFK Library (there's a clickable audio link on the page) and here's the text:

Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.

 

Authors Stephen Walt and John Mearshimer speak about their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, on C-Span2 BookTV. It was an excellent presentation; the authors anticipated and thoroughly addressed many of the questions that have been raised by posters here at TPM Cafe. This represents a wonderful opportunity for people to learn more about what W&M really mean, by listening to them explain their ideas in their own words. The program includes a Q&A at the end.

Here is a link to the C-Span Book TV page about the program, which re-airs next Sunday, October 14:

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on C-Span2

I watched the program on C-Span2, so I presume that will be the station on which it airs next week - best to check to make sure.

There's also a video of the entire program available for purchase on the page. I'm on my ancient old thinkpad right now and it doesn't do video, so I'm not certain of this, but it looks like there's a free podcast available, since the BookTV home page says, "Watch LIVE Online Now!" If anyone manages to access a live video link, could you post it in this thread? It may be this: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8619&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No But you might have to change the "No" at the end to "Yes"

Airing as I write this is a different BookTV program featuring Abraham Foxman. director of the Anti Defamation League (ADL) discussing his reply to the W&M book, entitled The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control. The Foxman program also airs again on October 14. He's already labeled Walt and Mearshimer as "bigoted," using claims that W&M refuted in their presentation, and has labeled President Jimmy Carter as "anti-Semitic."

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow