Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris reportedly asked if people were "ready for a second American revolution." Trouble is, they weren't ready for the first one!
Bait and Switch Justice
Much has been said about the moral, and legal imperatives in the Roman Polanski case, and about how important it is that justice be served in the matter. Much has been said about the need for Mr. Polanski to pay his dues to society, but what does society owe us?
Factoring out moral considerations, factoring out celebrity, is it not egregious abuse of power for a judge to accept a plea bargain, with the implicit acknowledgment of guilt by the defendant, and then, for whatever reasons, rescind that offer?
It's true, given that Roman Polanski is internationally known gives him certain advantages. It gives him disadvantages, too. The public cry for blood, and trial by media, that existed when the story broke 32 years ago, rendered a fair trial damn near impossible. Had he been John Q. Public, and not a celebrity, no doubt he would have taken the plea bargain, served a truncated prison sentence, and that would have been the end of it, but we live in a society in which the higher you are, the harder you must fall.
Bottom line: Roman Polanski pled guilty. He admitted culpability in the civil matter, and the victim received a settlement for an undisclosed sum.
Reportedly, the 13 year old victim, who is now a woman of 45, wants the matter droppped, but from a legal perspective, this is irrelevant. A crime was committed, and there must be consequences. Mr. Polanski was under the impression that he accepted those consequences, and did his time--that he ran was the act of a frightened man who happens to be a French citizen, hence he fled to France where, since the days of Oscar Wilde, artists who have committed salacious sex acts have taken refuge.
There are some who say that Polanski should appear in Los Angeles, in person, and plead his case. His attorneys are filing motions in his behalf that address this matter. In the meantime, the 76 year old is sitting in a Zurich jail. We have no reason to believe that he wouldn't be incarcerated, and under far worse conditions, were he to return to Los Angeles, and indeed he would be in the clutches of the criminal justice zoo we've created.
Some say, too, that the fact the victim herself thinks Mr.Polanski shouldn't finish his days in jail is irrelevant from a legal perspective. Is it also irrelevant that a plea bargain was allowed to deteriorate into bait and switch justice, so the judge could have his 15 minutes of fame? This would never happen to you, or me because there is nothing to gain politically for the judge in the matter.
We must not allow our criminal justice system, which is already second only to our health insurance system as a mockery to the rest of the civilized world, to become a puppet of the powerful whose inflated egos incur damage on celebrities, and ordinary citizens alike, and whose practices are essentially no different from those Mr. Polanski allegedly practiced on his victim.
Judicial predators are, in the end, no better than sexual predators.
Factoring out moral considerations, factoring out celebrity, is it not egregious abuse of power for a judge to accept a plea bargain, with the implicit acknowledgment of guilt by the defendant, and then, for whatever reasons, rescind that offer?
It's true, given that Roman Polanski is internationally known gives him certain advantages. It gives him disadvantages, too. The public cry for blood, and trial by media, that existed when the story broke 32 years ago, rendered a fair trial damn near impossible. Had he been John Q. Public, and not a celebrity, no doubt he would have taken the plea bargain, served a truncated prison sentence, and that would have been the end of it, but we live in a society in which the higher you are, the harder you must fall.
Bottom line: Roman Polanski pled guilty. He admitted culpability in the civil matter, and the victim received a settlement for an undisclosed sum.
Reportedly, the 13 year old victim, who is now a woman of 45, wants the matter droppped, but from a legal perspective, this is irrelevant. A crime was committed, and there must be consequences. Mr. Polanski was under the impression that he accepted those consequences, and did his time--that he ran was the act of a frightened man who happens to be a French citizen, hence he fled to France where, since the days of Oscar Wilde, artists who have committed salacious sex acts have taken refuge.
There are some who say that Polanski should appear in Los Angeles, in person, and plead his case. His attorneys are filing motions in his behalf that address this matter. In the meantime, the 76 year old is sitting in a Zurich jail. We have no reason to believe that he wouldn't be incarcerated, and under far worse conditions, were he to return to Los Angeles, and indeed he would be in the clutches of the criminal justice zoo we've created.
Some say, too, that the fact the victim herself thinks Mr.Polanski shouldn't finish his days in jail is irrelevant from a legal perspective. Is it also irrelevant that a plea bargain was allowed to deteriorate into bait and switch justice, so the judge could have his 15 minutes of fame? This would never happen to you, or me because there is nothing to gain politically for the judge in the matter.
We must not allow our criminal justice system, which is already second only to our health insurance system as a mockery to the rest of the civilized world, to become a puppet of the powerful whose inflated egos incur damage on celebrities, and ordinary citizens alike, and whose practices are essentially no different from those Mr. Polanski allegedly practiced on his victim.
Judicial predators are, in the end, no better than sexual predators.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
32 years...
It took 32 years, but the feds finally found Roman Polanski. Now, why can't they find Osama bin Laden?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Inspired?
If Karl Rove is ever inspired to testify, we'll even name a program after him---the "witless protection program."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Santa?
Republicans have finally settled on a name for their health care plan. It's called the Santa Clause.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
from Mark Twain
"Sanity and happiness are an impossible combination."
Mark Twain
(xourtesy of Philip Proctor)
Mark Twain
(xourtesy of Philip Proctor)
An Open Letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein:
I write not only as a concerned constituent, but as the founder of Writers-at-Large, a first ever California writers advocacy group organized to speak up for free speech, a free press, and a federal shield law.
You may recall that in 2004 I invited you to attend "Engaged: Poets for Democracy and Core Freedoms," at the San Francisco Public Library, an event in which several poets assembled to vocalize their opposition to the USA Patriot Act, as well as the reelection of George W. Bush. Obviously, neither objective prevailed. George W. Bush got his second term in which he finalized several sections of that pernicious legislation named for patriots which will someday be remembered as the greatest single threat to constitutional protection ever faced by this nation.
As you are also aware, government surveillance of ordinary, law abiding Americans has increased exponentially since the events of September 11, 2001, and I urge you to support comprehensive and meaningful reform of the Patriot Act and other surveillance laws that have fundamentally diminished our rights.
Senator Russ Feingold, your colleague in the Senate Judiciary Committee, has introduced legislation designed to mitigate against runaway government powers inherent in the Patriot Act.
I urge you to support S. 1686, the Judiciously Using Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act which includes measures:
*Protecting the privacy of records by reining in the government's use of National Security Letters to collect the records of innocent people far removed from an actual terrorism suspect.
*Protecting humanitarian activities by preventing prosecution of people who work with or for charities that give humanitarian aid in good faith to war torn countries.
*Protecting First Amendment rights by requiring that the government convinces a court that a National Security gag order is necessary.
*Protecting privacy of communications. Amend last year's sweeping FISA Amendments Act to better protect Americans' phone calls and emails
Comprehensive reform of the Patriot Act, like all legislation, involves a collaborate effort. I ask that you please support Senator Feingold's JUSTICE Act (S. 1686), and affirm the right to privacy, and due process, that have been in place since this great nation's inception. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is not one that persistently violates the people's rights.
I write not only as a concerned constituent, but as the founder of Writers-at-Large, a first ever California writers advocacy group organized to speak up for free speech, a free press, and a federal shield law.
You may recall that in 2004 I invited you to attend "Engaged: Poets for Democracy and Core Freedoms," at the San Francisco Public Library, an event in which several poets assembled to vocalize their opposition to the USA Patriot Act, as well as the reelection of George W. Bush. Obviously, neither objective prevailed. George W. Bush got his second term in which he finalized several sections of that pernicious legislation named for patriots which will someday be remembered as the greatest single threat to constitutional protection ever faced by this nation.
As you are also aware, government surveillance of ordinary, law abiding Americans has increased exponentially since the events of September 11, 2001, and I urge you to support comprehensive and meaningful reform of the Patriot Act and other surveillance laws that have fundamentally diminished our rights.
Senator Russ Feingold, your colleague in the Senate Judiciary Committee, has introduced legislation designed to mitigate against runaway government powers inherent in the Patriot Act.
I urge you to support S. 1686, the Judiciously Using Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act which includes measures:
*Protecting the privacy of records by reining in the government's use of National Security Letters to collect the records of innocent people far removed from an actual terrorism suspect.
*Protecting humanitarian activities by preventing prosecution of people who work with or for charities that give humanitarian aid in good faith to war torn countries.
*Protecting First Amendment rights by requiring that the government convinces a court that a National Security gag order is necessary.
*Protecting privacy of communications. Amend last year's sweeping FISA Amendments Act to better protect Americans' phone calls and emails
Comprehensive reform of the Patriot Act, like all legislation, involves a collaborate effort. I ask that you please support Senator Feingold's JUSTICE Act (S. 1686), and affirm the right to privacy, and due process, that have been in place since this great nation's inception. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is not one that persistently violates the people's rights.
the past
Those who look for the future through their rear view mirrors are bound to find one thing, and one thing only -- the past.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
What Would a Martian Say?
Ever think about what it might be like to land in a space ship in Times Square, and hear people talk about the Giants, and how Mad Men, and 30 Rock won the Emmys.
Ever think about what it might be like to land in a space ship and watch people driving BMWs pick their nose at red lights, or pull out these funny little machines, that look like calculators, and start tap, tap, tapping away in some kind of re-
morse code?
Ever think about what it might be like to land in the middle of a battlefield with soldiers,and tanks---missiles, and rockets----all manner of weaponry, and get out of the space ship only to find that the people you're firing at look just like you?
Why is it that peace often seems as far away as another galaxy while war is always close at hand.
How is it we find water on the moon, and drought in the county next door. Someday--who knows---we may need that water cause we seem to have depleted much of our own.
Humankind is so meglomaniacal that the obvious eludes us. The planet will revert to its default position, survival, after we're done with it.
For now, we console ourselves with the thought that an "illegal alien" is someone without the proper documentation to be called a neighbor while we ravage that which can rightly be called a neighborhood.
Ever think about what it might be like to land in a space ship and watch people driving BMWs pick their nose at red lights, or pull out these funny little machines, that look like calculators, and start tap, tap, tapping away in some kind of re-
morse code?
Ever think about what it might be like to land in the middle of a battlefield with soldiers,and tanks---missiles, and rockets----all manner of weaponry, and get out of the space ship only to find that the people you're firing at look just like you?
Why is it that peace often seems as far away as another galaxy while war is always close at hand.
How is it we find water on the moon, and drought in the county next door. Someday--who knows---we may need that water cause we seem to have depleted much of our own.
Humankind is so meglomaniacal that the obvious eludes us. The planet will revert to its default position, survival, after we're done with it.
For now, we console ourselves with the thought that an "illegal alien" is someone without the proper documentation to be called a neighbor while we ravage that which can rightly be called a neighborhood.
Punctuation
Teaching punctuation is tough. A student asked me why we have a spastic colon, and not a spastic comma.
Corrections
When they did it in Russia, they called it a revolution. When they did it on Wall Street, they called it a correction.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
More from Blake
"It is not because Angels are Holier than Men or Devils that makes them Angels, but because they do not Expect Holiness from one another, but from God only."
William Blake
(from "A Vision of the Last Judgment," 1806)
William Blake
(from "A Vision of the Last Judgment," 1806)
Friday, September 18, 2009
By Michael Winship
Let's Make a Deal: Beltway Edition
By Michael Winship
If you ever needed proof that Washington is governed by the Golden Rule - the one that says, he who has the gold, rules - you only have to look at the wagonloads of cash being dumped by big business into crushing President Obama's domestic agenda.
Good gosh, how the money rolls in. And I'm not only talking about the millions bankrolling the gang war over health care reform. A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that the energy lobby is barnstorming around the country holding rallies and concerts, giving away free lunches and tee-shirts, spreading the wealth like a drunken oil tycoon - all to defeat the cap-and-trade climate bill that squeaked through the House and now awaits a vote by the Senate.
The paper noted that in the first half of the year oil and natural gas groups spent $82.1 million lobbying Capitol Hill - but that environmental, health and clean-energy interests scraped together less than a quarter of that amount, $18.7 million. Money talks, and it's murmuring in your ear, "Global warming, what global warming?"
Those energy lobby high rollers in denial aren't the only ones who know how to throw a party. Last month, Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy group that was founded by Ralph Nader, released an investigation of the ten banks receiving the most Federal bailout money plus five trade associations fighting government attempts to more closely regulate consumer banking.
In the period between Election Day last November and the end of June, the groups scheduled 70 fundraisers for members of Congress. Along the way, they made $6 million dollars in federal campaign contributions.
Thirty-five of those 70 wingdings - half! - were thrown by the US Chamber of Commerce and its lobbyists. And a third of the money contributed to candidates came from the American Banking Association and affiliated lobbyists. Both organizations are fighting hard to keep the government from clamping down on the financial industry. In fact, the Chamber of Commerce is planning on spending a hundred million bucks to keep the noses of federal snoops out of their business.
It's not hard to figure out why they're so eager to grease palms and throw the regulatory bloodhounds off the scent. On August 31, Bloomberg News reported that Wall Street is getting ready for a major battle to prevent tighter government control of the nearly $600 trillion dollar over-the-counter derivatives market.
According to Bloomberg, "Five U.S. commercial banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. , Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Corp. , are on track to earn more than $35 billion this year trading unregulated derivatives contracts. At stake is how much of that business they and other dealers will be able to keep."
Astonishing to think about when you recall that just a year ago irresponsible derivatives trading was one of the reasons we were being sucked into the vortex of economic catastrophe. Equally astonishing to see the extravagant salaries banking executives are still raking in even while their foolish financial strategies made more and more of us eligible for the breadlines.
Recently, the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, issued their annual executive compensation survey. This year's is titled "America's Bailout Barons."
The institute took a look at paychecks for the top five executives at 20 financial companies - the ones that took the biggest helpings from the taxpayer-funded bailout buffet. From 2006 through 2008, they received an average of $32 million apiece - compensation packages that totaled $3.2 billion.
Just as a reality check, one hundred US workers making the annual average wage would have to work for more than a thousand years to make the money those hundred execs made in three.
Despite the financial crisis that nearly sank us a year ago, the front page of the September 12 New York Times reports that, "Backstopped by huge federal guarantees, the biggest banks have restructured only around the edges. Employment in the industry has fallen just 8 percent since last September. Only a handful of big hedge funds have closed. Pay is already returning to precrash levels, topped by the 30,000 employees of Goldman Sachs
, who are on track to earn an average of $700,000 this year.
Nor are major pay cuts likely, according to a report last week from J.P. Morgan Securities. Executives at most big banks have kept their jobs."
If nothing is changed, MIT's Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, told the Times, the banks "will run up big risks, they will fail again, they will hit us for a big check."
And look at this: while those executives are dancing with your dollars, the foreclosures they helped to bring on continue to rise. According to Moody's Economy.com, nearly 1.8 million American mortgage holders will lose their homes this year - up from 1.4 million in 2008. And the Mortgage Bankers Association reports that the lion's share of those foreclosures has shifted from the dreaded subprime mortgages that triggered this crisis to prime loans. That means people who were employed with sufficient income and security to take out a prime mortgage are losing their jobs and houses, too.
This jump in foreclosures is spreading nationwide to parts of the country previously not as hard hit, such places as Illinois, Idaho and Utah. In Oregon, where joblessness jumped to nearly 12 percent in July, foreclosures have skyrocketed 84 percent from a year ago.
So far, government programs intended to ease the hurt have had little effect. The Associated Press reported a month ago that despite a $50 billion mortgage bailout from Washington, only nine percent of the borrowers eligible for relief have seen their home loans modified.
Many of the banks involved have been dragging their feet, enjoying the bailout bucks but failing to spread them around. Some haven't modified a single mortgage.
No wonder Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois are reviving the reform proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to "cramdown" mortgage principal and interest rates to give homeowners some much-needed relief. Durbin said, "Waiting for banks to 'volunteer' to end this foreclosure crisis is a waste of time... This approach has failed miserably."
Of course, you remember what happened the last time they tried to push "cramdown" through. Last spring, it was rejected by the Senate, 51-45. In anticipation of that vote, an exasperated Durbin told an Illinois radio station that, "The banks... are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, and they frankly own the place."
Like what they've done with it?
Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program
Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS.
Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.
By Michael Winship
If you ever needed proof that Washington is governed by the Golden Rule - the one that says, he who has the gold, rules - you only have to look at the wagonloads of cash being dumped by big business into crushing President Obama's domestic agenda.
Good gosh, how the money rolls in. And I'm not only talking about the millions bankrolling the gang war over health care reform. A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that the energy lobby is barnstorming around the country holding rallies and concerts, giving away free lunches and tee-shirts, spreading the wealth like a drunken oil tycoon - all to defeat the cap-and-trade climate bill that squeaked through the House and now awaits a vote by the Senate.
The paper noted that in the first half of the year oil and natural gas groups spent $82.1 million lobbying Capitol Hill - but that environmental, health and clean-energy interests scraped together less than a quarter of that amount, $18.7 million. Money talks, and it's murmuring in your ear, "Global warming, what global warming?"
Those energy lobby high rollers in denial aren't the only ones who know how to throw a party. Last month, Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy group that was founded by Ralph Nader, released an investigation of the ten banks receiving the most Federal bailout money plus five trade associations fighting government attempts to more closely regulate consumer banking.
In the period between Election Day last November and the end of June, the groups scheduled 70 fundraisers for members of Congress. Along the way, they made $6 million dollars in federal campaign contributions.
Thirty-five of those 70 wingdings - half! - were thrown by the US Chamber of Commerce and its lobbyists. And a third of the money contributed to candidates came from the American Banking Association and affiliated lobbyists. Both organizations are fighting hard to keep the government from clamping down on the financial industry. In fact, the Chamber of Commerce is planning on spending a hundred million bucks to keep the noses of federal snoops out of their business.
It's not hard to figure out why they're so eager to grease palms and throw the regulatory bloodhounds off the scent. On August 31, Bloomberg News reported that Wall Street is getting ready for a major battle to prevent tighter government control of the nearly $600 trillion dollar over-the-counter derivatives market.
According to Bloomberg, "Five U.S. commercial banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Astonishing to think about when you recall that just a year ago irresponsible derivatives trading was one of the reasons we were being sucked into the vortex of economic catastrophe. Equally astonishing to see the extravagant salaries banking executives are still raking in even while their foolish financial strategies made more and more of us eligible for the breadlines.
Recently, the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, issued their annual executive compensation survey. This year's is titled "America's Bailout Barons."
The institute took a look at paychecks for the top five executives at 20 financial companies - the ones that took the biggest helpings from the taxpayer-funded bailout buffet. From 2006 through 2008, they received an average of $32 million apiece - compensation packages that totaled $3.2 billion.
Just as a reality check, one hundred US workers making the annual average wage would have to work for more than a thousand years to make the money those hundred execs made in three.
Despite the financial crisis that nearly sank us a year ago, the front page of the September 12 New York Times reports that, "Backstopped by huge federal guarantees, the biggest banks have restructured only around the edges. Employment in the industry has fallen just 8 percent since last September. Only a handful of big hedge funds have closed. Pay is already returning to precrash levels, topped by the 30,000 employees of Goldman Sachs
Nor are major pay cuts likely, according to a report last week from J.P. Morgan
If nothing is changed, MIT's Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, told the Times, the banks "will run up big risks, they will fail again, they will hit us for a big check."
And look at this: while those executives are dancing with your dollars, the foreclosures they helped to bring on continue to rise. According to Moody's Economy.com, nearly 1.8 million American mortgage holders will lose their homes this year - up from 1.4 million in 2008. And the Mortgage Bankers Association reports that the lion's share of those foreclosures has shifted from the dreaded subprime mortgages that triggered this crisis to prime loans. That means people who were employed with sufficient income and security to take out a prime mortgage are losing their jobs and houses, too.
This jump in foreclosures is spreading nationwide to parts of the country previously not as hard hit, such places as Illinois, Idaho and Utah. In Oregon, where joblessness jumped to nearly 12 percent in July, foreclosures have skyrocketed 84 percent from a year ago.
So far, government programs intended to ease the hurt have had little effect. The Associated Press reported a month ago that despite a $50 billion mortgage bailout from Washington, only nine percent of the borrowers eligible for relief have seen their home loans modified.
Many of the banks involved have been dragging their feet, enjoying the bailout bucks but failing to spread them around. Some haven't modified a single mortgage.
No wonder Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois are reviving the reform proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to "cramdown" mortgage principal and interest rates to give homeowners some much-needed relief. Durbin said, "Waiting for banks to 'volunteer' to end this foreclosure crisis is a waste of time... This approach has failed miserably."
Of course, you remember what happened the last time they tried to push "cramdown" through. Last spring, it was rejected by the Senate, 51-45. In anticipation of that vote, an exasperated Durbin told an Illinois radio station that, "The banks... are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, and they frankly own the place."
Like what they've done with it?
Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program
Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS.
Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Return of Dr. Feelgood
If the president isn't careful, he's going to get the nickname Dr. Feelgood. And, while some may think of Obama as more like Faust than Dr. Feelgood, he's certainly working hard to pacify, and appease those special interest groups he was elected to vigorously oppose.
With the announcement today of FBI chief, Robert Mueller, that rendition of detainees won't happen on his watch, and the appeasement of congressional Republicans implicit in limiting medical malpractice lawsuits, it seems that the president sees his task as that of trying to make everybody feel good.
The health industry isn't the only lobby that had a good day. The gun lobby has cause to celebrate the Senate's passage of a measure that will allow passengers on Amtrak to exercise their so-called Second Amendment rights by packing a handgun in their suitcase. But, what would George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson have to say if they were magically transported through time, and allowed to attend last weekend's teabagger rally? Would they get behind throwing raw meat at the National Rifle Association--a quid pro quo, but for what?
The view from Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, or from the Helmond Province, might give pause to reflect on the greatest natural resource of that area, and one that has been exploited by Taliban, and Afghani police alike, a region from whence 80% of the world's heroin originates.
While this administration is still in its infancy, one can't help but think that what we are seeing is more of a massage than a substantive, and bold move in a new direction.
To be effective, sooner or later any leader must learn that you're going to have to come out on one side or the other, and not capitulate to the same forces one was elected to fight.
Privatizing medical care hasn't worked for generations as evidenced by overpopulation of emergency rooms in county run hospitals. Sooner or later, we're all going to pick up the tab just as we've picked up the tab to rescue the banks, Wall Street, and the oil companies, only to watch their profits grow seismically.
No one is questioning that the road ahead is fraught with danger, but weaving from left to right isn't going to do much of anything except create the illusion of avoiding a road hazard. The object in the middle of the road isn't going anywhere. It's up to the driver to move.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew that. FDR didn't care about walking a middle line to please both sides. He didn't care about making anybody feel good. He saw a broken economy, and tried to fix it. He saw lots of people out of work, and tried to change that. He saw runaway wealth, and corporate carpetbagging, and worked for regulation while recognizing the need to deconstruct, not reward those whose only concern was profit.
In Obama, we have among the most competent presidents since FDR and, just as the stock market undergoes corrections, so must this presidency.
The president's support of faith based initiatives which pose a constitutional challenge to the separation of church and state gives cause for concern as does his acceptance of George W. Bush's state secrets defense, and diehard notion of executive privilege. He needs to stand his ground both as a constitutional lawyer, and as one who most certainly recognizes the moral imperative in defending those most needy, and refrain from the politics of appeasement as there are some beasts that can never be appeased.
With the announcement today of FBI chief, Robert Mueller, that rendition of detainees won't happen on his watch, and the appeasement of congressional Republicans implicit in limiting medical malpractice lawsuits, it seems that the president sees his task as that of trying to make everybody feel good.
The health industry isn't the only lobby that had a good day. The gun lobby has cause to celebrate the Senate's passage of a measure that will allow passengers on Amtrak to exercise their so-called Second Amendment rights by packing a handgun in their suitcase. But, what would George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson have to say if they were magically transported through time, and allowed to attend last weekend's teabagger rally? Would they get behind throwing raw meat at the National Rifle Association--a quid pro quo, but for what?
The view from Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, or from the Helmond Province, might give pause to reflect on the greatest natural resource of that area, and one that has been exploited by Taliban, and Afghani police alike, a region from whence 80% of the world's heroin originates.
While this administration is still in its infancy, one can't help but think that what we are seeing is more of a massage than a substantive, and bold move in a new direction.
To be effective, sooner or later any leader must learn that you're going to have to come out on one side or the other, and not capitulate to the same forces one was elected to fight.
Privatizing medical care hasn't worked for generations as evidenced by overpopulation of emergency rooms in county run hospitals. Sooner or later, we're all going to pick up the tab just as we've picked up the tab to rescue the banks, Wall Street, and the oil companies, only to watch their profits grow seismically.
No one is questioning that the road ahead is fraught with danger, but weaving from left to right isn't going to do much of anything except create the illusion of avoiding a road hazard. The object in the middle of the road isn't going anywhere. It's up to the driver to move.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew that. FDR didn't care about walking a middle line to please both sides. He didn't care about making anybody feel good. He saw a broken economy, and tried to fix it. He saw lots of people out of work, and tried to change that. He saw runaway wealth, and corporate carpetbagging, and worked for regulation while recognizing the need to deconstruct, not reward those whose only concern was profit.
In Obama, we have among the most competent presidents since FDR and, just as the stock market undergoes corrections, so must this presidency.
The president's support of faith based initiatives which pose a constitutional challenge to the separation of church and state gives cause for concern as does his acceptance of George W. Bush's state secrets defense, and diehard notion of executive privilege. He needs to stand his ground both as a constitutional lawyer, and as one who most certainly recognizes the moral imperative in defending those most needy, and refrain from the politics of appeasement as there are some beasts that can never be appeased.
"Give me your tired, your poor...."
There are some who want to change the below inscription on the Statue of Liberty
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses
yearning to breathe
free..."
to read:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses
yearning to breathe
free, so we can
raid their homes, brand them as
illegals,
separate them from
their children, and spouses,
lock them up in detention centers,
deport them
and call this
the American
Dream..."
Stop ICE raids...
Demand federal regulation of private immigrant detention centers...
If Congress can come up with consumer rights for credit cards, they can come up with undocumented alien rights legislation, too.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses
yearning to breathe
free..."
to read:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses
yearning to breathe
free, so we can
raid their homes, brand them as
illegals,
separate them from
their children, and spouses,
lock them up in detention centers,
deport them
and call this
the American
Dream..."
Stop ICE raids...
Demand federal regulation of private immigrant detention centers...
If Congress can come up with consumer rights for credit cards, they can come up with undocumented alien rights legislation, too.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Bloomers and Birthers
When I was maybe five or six, I had a dear friend named Theresa whose parents were from Italy. We hung out for most of the third, and much of the fourth grade.
Often, after school, she'd invite me to her house for milk and cookies, and before indulging I'd go wash my hands. Her family kept the bathroom immaculate, as I recall, and the towels were always folded perfectly, but one thing could always be found hanging from the shower rod -- a pair of behemoth bloomers. They looked to me to be about the size of Cincinnati, and I recall asking Theresa who wore those bloomers. "My grandma," she said rather sullenly.
One day, I went to Theresa's house, and her grandmother opened the door. I wondered why I hadn't seen her at school lately. Her grandmother said "she now goes to parochial school." "What's that?" I asked. "That's where all good Catholic girls go." Somehow, I felt like I needed to wash my hands better or something, so I could go to parochial school. It seemed to me, back then, admittance into that parochial country club came about as a birth right, and not a rite of passage.
That day, I made up my mind never to practice religion of any kind. It was religion, after all, that cost me my best friend. Religion seemed to me a way of separating people, and in the aftermath of the eighth anniversary of 9/11, it doesn't look a whole lot different to me now.
I wandered down the street, and past Woolworth's. On the left-hand side was a barbed wire fence. It was a tall fence, and too steep to climb. A group of children were playing in the schoolyard, and there was Theresa. She ran over to the fence to say hello.
All I could see was her spanking clean uniform. It was rather daunting. I smiled, and wandered off. Somehow, I knew I'd never see her again.
I hadn't thought about bloomers, barbed wire fences, and parochial school until just now. Now I find myself thinking about those who think legitimacy is about wearing a clean uniform, and who keep us separate in the name of a greater good, or a greater god.
The only thing I found divine, back then, was the wonderment at what kind of creature could walk the face of the earth in a pair of bloomers that big.
Now, when I think of all those who try to pass themselves off as righteous because we don't go to their church, or their country club, because we don't have a pedigree, and because, more than anything, we just want to have milk and cookies, I cringe.
The America we want to leave behind is not one that houses extra large bloomers, or late bloomers, not one that separates children based on race or creed, but one that encourages a look at what unites, instead of what divides us.
Often, after school, she'd invite me to her house for milk and cookies, and before indulging I'd go wash my hands. Her family kept the bathroom immaculate, as I recall, and the towels were always folded perfectly, but one thing could always be found hanging from the shower rod -- a pair of behemoth bloomers. They looked to me to be about the size of Cincinnati, and I recall asking Theresa who wore those bloomers. "My grandma," she said rather sullenly.
One day, I went to Theresa's house, and her grandmother opened the door. I wondered why I hadn't seen her at school lately. Her grandmother said "she now goes to parochial school." "What's that?" I asked. "That's where all good Catholic girls go." Somehow, I felt like I needed to wash my hands better or something, so I could go to parochial school. It seemed to me, back then, admittance into that parochial country club came about as a birth right, and not a rite of passage.
That day, I made up my mind never to practice religion of any kind. It was religion, after all, that cost me my best friend. Religion seemed to me a way of separating people, and in the aftermath of the eighth anniversary of 9/11, it doesn't look a whole lot different to me now.
I wandered down the street, and past Woolworth's. On the left-hand side was a barbed wire fence. It was a tall fence, and too steep to climb. A group of children were playing in the schoolyard, and there was Theresa. She ran over to the fence to say hello.
All I could see was her spanking clean uniform. It was rather daunting. I smiled, and wandered off. Somehow, I knew I'd never see her again.
I hadn't thought about bloomers, barbed wire fences, and parochial school until just now. Now I find myself thinking about those who think legitimacy is about wearing a clean uniform, and who keep us separate in the name of a greater good, or a greater god.
The only thing I found divine, back then, was the wonderment at what kind of creature could walk the face of the earth in a pair of bloomers that big.
Now, when I think of all those who try to pass themselves off as righteous because we don't go to their church, or their country club, because we don't have a pedigree, and because, more than anything, we just want to have milk and cookies, I cringe.
The America we want to leave behind is not one that houses extra large bloomers, or late bloomers, not one that separates children based on race or creed, but one that encourages a look at what unites, instead of what divides us.
Friday, September 11, 2009
From Michael Winship
Courtesy of Bill Moyers Journal, and Public Affairs Television:
"Marine's Photo Reminds Us of War that Will Not End"
By Michael Winship
There was a certain ironic and painful symmetry at work last month. As one iconic image of war was called into doubt, another was being created, a new photograph of combat's grim reality that already has generated controversy and anger.
When it was first published in 1936, during the Spanish Civil War, Robert Capa's photo was captioned "Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death." Better known today as "The Falling Soldier," the picture purportedly captures the gunning down of a Republican anarchist named Federico Borrell Garcia who was fighting against the forces of General Francisco Franco. Dressed in what look like civilian clothes, wearing a cartridge belt, he is thrown backwards in an almost balletic swoon, his rifle falling from his right hand.
The picture quickly came to symbolize the merciless and random snuffing out of life in wartime - that murder committed in the name of God or country can strike unexpectedly, from a distance, like lightning from a cloudless sky.
Last month, the veracity of Capa's most famous picture was cast in doubt when Jose Manuel Susperregui, a Spanish academic, published a book in which he alleges that the photo was not taken where Capa claimed, but 35 miles away at a location where no fighting had yet taken place; that the picture was posed, a fake. Others disagree, but his evidence is compelling.
Just as that controversy was being reported in the news, in Afghanistan another man lay dying, another victim of war. His photo created a sensation, too. But no one is questioning its veracity. In this case, the image is all too real.
During an ambush on August 14th, Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan's Helmand province, where the Marines have been engaged in a major offensive, fighting to take territory back from the Taliban. Associated Press photojournalist Julie Jacobson took a picture of comrades trying to save his life. But it was too late.
Over the objections of Bernard's family and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the AP published the photo as part of a series of articles and photographs about Bernard's platoon. Gates protested to AP that the wire service's "lack of compassion and common sense... is appalling..." AP replied that it had made a tough decision to "make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it."
At Bill Moyers Journal, our production team wrestled with the dilemma over whether to show the photo on this week's PBS broadcast. We finally decided to do so, but carefully placed it within the context of other pictures AP's Jacobson took earlier that day of Lance Corporal Bernard and his fellow Marines on patrol.
However your own conscience comes down on this issue, there can be no denying the story the photo tells. It forces us to confront through a young man's violent death the ugly, bloody reality of a war that America has been fighting longer than we fought in the First and Second World Wars combined.
August was the deadliest month for our troops in Afghanistan since we first invaded the country shortly after 9/11. It has been a gruesome summer - 51 Americans died in August; 45 in July.
And to what end? The Taliban is resurgent. Almost two-thirds of the country is deemed too dangerous for aid agencies to deliver much needed help. Civilian casualties this year have reached more than a thousand, including the victims of suicide bombings and so-called collateral damage from American air strikes. The credibility of recent so-called "free" elections has been shattered with charges of widespread fraud and corruption.
As The Economist magazine noted last month, resentment against the Karzai government, NATO forces and Westerners in general is growing. "It seems clear," the magazine reported, "that the international effort to bring stability to Afghanistan, in which a strong somewhat liberal and democratic state can take root, is failing."
And yet, consider this open letter to President Obama from some of the very same neo-cons who used falsehoods, propaganda and manipulation to throw us into Iraq - arguing for invasion of that country even before the 9/11 attacks occurred. "We remain convinced that the fight against the Taliban is winnable," they write, "and it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to win it."
The letter lands just as several European countries have called for a conference to assess the current situation and the commander of our forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, delivers a review to the White House, a report many believe sets the stage for an even greater expansion of the war. But on Monday, the McClatchy news service reported that some top Pentagon officials worry without a clear definition of our mission there, further escalation may be useless.
According to the article, "Some even fear that deploying more U.S. troops, especially in the wake of a U.S. airstrike last week that killed and wounded scores of Afghan civilians, would convince more Afghans that the Americans are occupiers rather than allies and relieve the pressure on the Afghan government to improve its own security forces."
One of that story's reporters, McClatchy's chief Pentagon correspondent Nancy Youssef, recently returned from Afghanistan and was interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers for this week's Journal. Youssef said, "I can't tell you how many Afghans said to me, 'I don't want the Americans. I don't want the Taliban. I just want to be left alone."
Nonetheless, "Either the United States commits to this and really commits to it, or it walks away. But this middle ground of sort of holding on isn't going to work anymore... "We're at least coming to that decision point... And to me, that's good
news, because at least it gives everybody involved some sense of where this is going. I think that's something worth looking forward to. Because what's been going on up until now is unacceptable."
What no one understands for sure yet, she said, is President Obama'position: "That's the big mystery in Washington... Because it will ultimately be his decision."
We should have a better idea of where he stands on September 24th, when the White House is supposed to present a list of metrics by which progress in Afghanistan will be measured, a condition that was set by Congress for the approval of further war funding.
In addition to the theories of generals and diplomats, the President and Congress may wish to pay careful attention to the words of an Afghan villager named Ghafoor. He told a correspondent for The Economist, "We need security. But the Americans are just making trouble for us. They cannot bring peace, not if they stay for 50 years."
Not a pretty picture.
Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program
Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS.
Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at
www.pbs.org/moyers.
"Marine's Photo Reminds Us of War that Will Not End"
By Michael Winship
There was a certain ironic and painful symmetry at work last month. As one iconic image of war was called into doubt, another was being created, a new photograph of combat's grim reality that already has generated controversy and anger.
When it was first published in 1936, during the Spanish Civil War, Robert Capa's photo was captioned "Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death." Better known today as "The Falling Soldier," the picture purportedly captures the gunning down of a Republican anarchist named Federico Borrell Garcia who was fighting against the forces of General Francisco Franco. Dressed in what look like civilian clothes, wearing a cartridge belt, he is thrown backwards in an almost balletic swoon, his rifle falling from his right hand.
The picture quickly came to symbolize the merciless and random snuffing out of life in wartime - that murder committed in the name of God or country can strike unexpectedly, from a distance, like lightning from a cloudless sky.
Last month, the veracity of Capa's most famous picture was cast in doubt when Jose Manuel Susperregui, a Spanish academic, published a book in which he alleges that the photo was not taken where Capa claimed, but 35 miles away at a location where no fighting had yet taken place; that the picture was posed, a fake. Others disagree, but his evidence is compelling.
Just as that controversy was being reported in the news, in Afghanistan another man lay dying, another victim of war. His photo created a sensation, too. But no one is questioning its veracity. In this case, the image is all too real.
During an ambush on August 14th, Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan's Helmand province, where the Marines have been engaged in a major offensive, fighting to take territory back from the Taliban. Associated Press photojournalist Julie Jacobson took a picture of comrades trying to save his life. But it was too late.
Over the objections of Bernard's family and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the AP published the photo as part of a series of articles and photographs about Bernard's platoon. Gates protested to AP that the wire service's "lack of compassion and common sense... is appalling..." AP replied that it had made a tough decision to "make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it."
At Bill Moyers Journal, our production team wrestled with the dilemma over whether to show the photo on this week's PBS broadcast. We finally decided to do so, but carefully placed it within the context of other pictures AP's Jacobson took earlier that day of Lance Corporal Bernard and his fellow Marines on patrol.
However your own conscience comes down on this issue, there can be no denying the story the photo tells. It forces us to confront through a young man's violent death the ugly, bloody reality of a war that America has been fighting longer than we fought in the First and Second World Wars combined.
August was the deadliest month for our troops in Afghanistan since we first invaded the country shortly after 9/11. It has been a gruesome summer - 51 Americans died in August; 45 in July.
And to what end? The Taliban is resurgent. Almost two-thirds of the country is deemed too dangerous for aid agencies to deliver much needed help. Civilian casualties this year have reached more than a thousand, including the victims of suicide bombings and so-called collateral damage from American air strikes. The credibility of recent so-called "free" elections has been shattered with charges of widespread fraud and corruption.
As The Economist magazine noted last month, resentment against the Karzai government, NATO forces and Westerners in general is growing. "It seems clear," the magazine reported, "that the international effort to bring stability to Afghanistan, in which a strong somewhat liberal and democratic state can take root, is failing."
And yet, consider this open letter to President Obama from some of the very same neo-cons who used falsehoods, propaganda and manipulation to throw us into Iraq - arguing for invasion of that country even before the 9/11 attacks occurred. "We remain convinced that the fight against the Taliban is winnable," they write, "and it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to win it."
The letter lands just as several European countries have called for a conference to assess the current situation and the commander of our forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, delivers a review to the White House, a report many believe sets the stage for an even greater expansion of the war. But on Monday, the McClatchy news service reported that some top Pentagon officials worry without a clear definition of our mission there, further escalation may be useless.
According to the article, "Some even fear that deploying more U.S. troops, especially in the wake of a U.S. airstrike last week that killed and wounded scores of Afghan civilians, would convince more Afghans that the Americans are occupiers rather than allies and relieve the pressure on the Afghan government to improve its own security forces."
One of that story's reporters, McClatchy's chief Pentagon correspondent Nancy Youssef, recently returned from Afghanistan and was interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers for this week's Journal. Youssef said, "I can't tell you how many Afghans said to me, 'I don't want the Americans. I don't want the Taliban. I just want to be left alone."
Nonetheless, "Either the United States commits to this and really commits to it, or it walks away. But this middle ground of sort of holding on isn't going to work anymore... "We're at least coming to that decision point... And to me, that's good
news, because at least it gives everybody involved some sense of where this is going. I think that's something worth looking forward to. Because what's been going on up until now is unacceptable."
What no one understands for sure yet, she said, is President Obama'position: "That's the big mystery in Washington... Because it will ultimately be his decision."
We should have a better idea of where he stands on September 24th, when the White House is supposed to present a list of metrics by which progress in Afghanistan will be measured, a condition that was set by Congress for the approval of further war funding.
In addition to the theories of generals and diplomats, the President and Congress may wish to pay careful attention to the words of an Afghan villager named Ghafoor. He told a correspondent for The Economist, "We need security. But the Americans are just making trouble for us. They cannot bring peace, not if they stay for 50 years."
Not a pretty picture.
Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program
Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS.
Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at
www.pbs.org/moyers.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Subsidies for Weapons Programs, but Not for Working Moms
From taking one look at the House during the president's speech on health care this evening, one thing was quickly apparent. The era of bipartisanship is far from over and, clearly, a house divided is a house that can't stand.
At a time when the average working family has taken a harder hit than at any other time in our history with the exception of the 1930's, the U.S. became the world's number one weapons supplier, increasing its share, according to the New York Times, to greater than two-thirds of all foreign arms deals. At a time when both Republican and Democratic members of Congress balk at where we're going to get the money to make health care universally accessible, the U.S. signed weapons agreements valued at nearly $40 billion in 2008, an increase from $25 billion in 2007
One can say that the munitions industry hasn't felt a thing during the recession which forced millions into foreclosure, and food banks.
Thank goodness America wasn't in recovery from eight years of a Republican contract on America back when another president, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed Medicare into law back in 1965, a program that now covers 41 million people.
Still, to hear people talk, one might understand why President Obama is encountering so much opposition to his health care reform bill, one that is modest, and conservative in comparison to the idea which was originally Truman's.
To hear people talk, one might almost believe that Medicare were free, but it is not. There is a deductible, of course, and you have to pay a set fee with a ration averaging about 80/20-- 80% paid by the government.
While President Obama's plan for health reform is conservative, and his vision of a pubic option is like a side dish in a larger buffet that is enough to satisfy his opponents. One of the underlying sticking points in Obama's health reform proposal is the plan for the federal government to subsidize medical insurance payments for those unable to meet their full obligation. So, for example, if Jane Doe, a third year law student and part time corporate training, has a monthly health insurance bill of $170, but she can only pay $100, the government will pick up the additional $70 a month.
In tonight's speech, President Obama resoundingly agreed it's time that federal subsidies which have been going to health maintenance organizations instead go to pay for a public option, but those aren't the only government subsidies that need to be redirected.
Why would there be any objection to the government providing a subsidy to working men and women in this country especially in light of the fact that the federal government already provides subsidies, or "empathy payments," to farmers, and companies like Home Depot, so they can open more franchises in underdeveloped areas, to Amtrak, to airports, to private military contractors, or to companies that build federal prisons? It seems that it's only when subsidies, or tax relief, are intended to go to working families that the Republican opposition becomes most energized.
If the mandated portion of President Obama's health care reform plan passes, every American will be required to carry medical insurance. His plan for the government to supplement the payments of those who are unable to meet their obligation already has opponents screaming "government run insurance," and "socialism."
But, where were the cries of "socialism" when the government subsidized Amtrak? Where was the vitriole when, according to the Cato Institute, as of October, 2006, there were close to 1700 subsidy programs in the federal budget that dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars annually? Why weren't neo-cons concerned about the growing federal deficit then?
Where was the opposition when former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani reportedly gifted the Yankees with $25 million of public funds, as a going away present, by allowing them to withhold $5 million a year in rent?
Clearly, the issue isn't government subsidies, per se. The issue is who is being subsidized. As long as the federal government finances Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Halliburton, weapons manufacturers, and the tobacco industry, all is fine and dandy. It's only when Uncle Sam wants to help a single mom trying to provide medical coverage for herself, and her three children, pay for her medical benefits that you hear terms like "socialism" bandied about, and assertions that Obama is aiming to have the government take over health care and the automobile industry. Nobody seemed to be terribly concerned about government take-overs when subsidies act to distort energy markets in favor of the oil cartel.
War is itself the most egregious government subsidy for military contractors, manufacturers of bombs, tanks, bulletproof vests, and weaponry of all kinds, as well as anyone in the lucrative field of longterm incarceration. We now have the dubious distinction of having the most people in prison of any country in the industrialized world, but fully 45 million Americans, a whopping 12% of us, are without health coverage.
Now that the unemployment rate has officially reached a 26 year high, it's time to take a long, hard look at those crooks and liars who would like us to think they're in favor of smaller government, and lower taxes while sticking their fat little fingers into our pockets, fueling their corporate gluttony while leaving us to our austerity diet. It's time to ask what kind of country gives our tax dollars to those who build federal prisons while, at the same time, denying access to health care to those who can least afford it.
Those of us who wanted to see Obama step up to the plate, and show that he has the power, and fire, to lead can be heartened tonight by a speech that had the dynamism of a Southern preacher. Yet, one can hardly recall a time when the partisan divide was as stark, and as evident, as it was tonight. This president would be ill advised to spend his time working for consensus, but should instead keep his eye squarely on a vision for equal protection, and equal opportunity for all.
At a time when the average working family has taken a harder hit than at any other time in our history with the exception of the 1930's, the U.S. became the world's number one weapons supplier, increasing its share, according to the New York Times, to greater than two-thirds of all foreign arms deals. At a time when both Republican and Democratic members of Congress balk at where we're going to get the money to make health care universally accessible, the U.S. signed weapons agreements valued at nearly $40 billion in 2008, an increase from $25 billion in 2007
One can say that the munitions industry hasn't felt a thing during the recession which forced millions into foreclosure, and food banks.
Thank goodness America wasn't in recovery from eight years of a Republican contract on America back when another president, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed Medicare into law back in 1965, a program that now covers 41 million people.
Still, to hear people talk, one might understand why President Obama is encountering so much opposition to his health care reform bill, one that is modest, and conservative in comparison to the idea which was originally Truman's.
To hear people talk, one might almost believe that Medicare were free, but it is not. There is a deductible, of course, and you have to pay a set fee with a ration averaging about 80/20-- 80% paid by the government.
While President Obama's plan for health reform is conservative, and his vision of a pubic option is like a side dish in a larger buffet that is enough to satisfy his opponents. One of the underlying sticking points in Obama's health reform proposal is the plan for the federal government to subsidize medical insurance payments for those unable to meet their full obligation. So, for example, if Jane Doe, a third year law student and part time corporate training, has a monthly health insurance bill of $170, but she can only pay $100, the government will pick up the additional $70 a month.
In tonight's speech, President Obama resoundingly agreed it's time that federal subsidies which have been going to health maintenance organizations instead go to pay for a public option, but those aren't the only government subsidies that need to be redirected.
Why would there be any objection to the government providing a subsidy to working men and women in this country especially in light of the fact that the federal government already provides subsidies, or "empathy payments," to farmers, and companies like Home Depot, so they can open more franchises in underdeveloped areas, to Amtrak, to airports, to private military contractors, or to companies that build federal prisons? It seems that it's only when subsidies, or tax relief, are intended to go to working families that the Republican opposition becomes most energized.
If the mandated portion of President Obama's health care reform plan passes, every American will be required to carry medical insurance. His plan for the government to supplement the payments of those who are unable to meet their obligation already has opponents screaming "government run insurance," and "socialism."
But, where were the cries of "socialism" when the government subsidized Amtrak? Where was the vitriole when, according to the Cato Institute, as of October, 2006, there were close to 1700 subsidy programs in the federal budget that dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars annually? Why weren't neo-cons concerned about the growing federal deficit then?
Where was the opposition when former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani reportedly gifted the Yankees with $25 million of public funds, as a going away present, by allowing them to withhold $5 million a year in rent?
Clearly, the issue isn't government subsidies, per se. The issue is who is being subsidized. As long as the federal government finances Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Halliburton, weapons manufacturers, and the tobacco industry, all is fine and dandy. It's only when Uncle Sam wants to help a single mom trying to provide medical coverage for herself, and her three children, pay for her medical benefits that you hear terms like "socialism" bandied about, and assertions that Obama is aiming to have the government take over health care and the automobile industry. Nobody seemed to be terribly concerned about government take-overs when subsidies act to distort energy markets in favor of the oil cartel.
War is itself the most egregious government subsidy for military contractors, manufacturers of bombs, tanks, bulletproof vests, and weaponry of all kinds, as well as anyone in the lucrative field of longterm incarceration. We now have the dubious distinction of having the most people in prison of any country in the industrialized world, but fully 45 million Americans, a whopping 12% of us, are without health coverage.
Now that the unemployment rate has officially reached a 26 year high, it's time to take a long, hard look at those crooks and liars who would like us to think they're in favor of smaller government, and lower taxes while sticking their fat little fingers into our pockets, fueling their corporate gluttony while leaving us to our austerity diet. It's time to ask what kind of country gives our tax dollars to those who build federal prisons while, at the same time, denying access to health care to those who can least afford it.
Those of us who wanted to see Obama step up to the plate, and show that he has the power, and fire, to lead can be heartened tonight by a speech that had the dynamism of a Southern preacher. Yet, one can hardly recall a time when the partisan divide was as stark, and as evident, as it was tonight. This president would be ill advised to spend his time working for consensus, but should instead keep his eye squarely on a vision for equal protection, and equal opportunity for all.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Toxic Shock Doctrine?
With apologies, in advance, to Naomi Klein, I think what we're looking at now is not just shock, shock and awe, but a level of toxicity unparalleled in what we like to think of as the civilized world.
Stay tuned as 2010 may prove to be a wake-up call for the Democraps who already have a long, and distinguished history of shooting themselves in the foot. While Dick Cheney is living proof that the Republicraps aren't much better at hitting a target at least the target isn't themselves.
Meanwhile, home on derange, most people would rather watch a Cialis commercial than listen to anything Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, or Keith Olbermann have to say. How does the saying go--nobody ever starved underestimating the intelligence of the American people?
Giving a new twist to the term "bipolar," Dems are now dividing themselves up into liberals and blue dogs kamakaze style. Some might even try to convince themselves it's cathartic, but the Old Testament had the right word for what's going on in Congress these days---onanism.
Even the President can't seem to make up his mind whether he's channeling LBJ or JFK. One day he's talking about stopping nuclear proliferation, and the next day the US and its paltry team of allies are conducting aerial search and destroy missions in Afghanistan.
But, whether it's a failed public option, or a failed profit margin, one thing becomes increasingly more evident day by day. It's getting harder to tell the Dems from the dames. Better keep that Cialis handy. It's going to be a long four years.
Stay tuned as 2010 may prove to be a wake-up call for the Democraps who already have a long, and distinguished history of shooting themselves in the foot. While Dick Cheney is living proof that the Republicraps aren't much better at hitting a target at least the target isn't themselves.
Meanwhile, home on derange, most people would rather watch a Cialis commercial than listen to anything Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, or Keith Olbermann have to say. How does the saying go--nobody ever starved underestimating the intelligence of the American people?
Giving a new twist to the term "bipolar," Dems are now dividing themselves up into liberals and blue dogs kamakaze style. Some might even try to convince themselves it's cathartic, but the Old Testament had the right word for what's going on in Congress these days---onanism.
Even the President can't seem to make up his mind whether he's channeling LBJ or JFK. One day he's talking about stopping nuclear proliferation, and the next day the US and its paltry team of allies are conducting aerial search and destroy missions in Afghanistan.
But, whether it's a failed public option, or a failed profit margin, one thing becomes increasingly more evident day by day. It's getting harder to tell the Dems from the dames. Better keep that Cialis handy. It's going to be a long four years.
Friday, September 04, 2009
The Rocking Horse War
Earlier this week, the president appears to have been presented with a state of the war report from his new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. Not unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, Barack Obama seems to have taken to the notion of secrecy as the contents of the general's findings are largely classified, but this much is evident. McChrystal is poised, not surprisingly, to request an increase in troop presence, in Afghanistan, to "protect the people."
Given the corresponding escalation in the national deficit which, by some accounts, has reached $3 trillion spent so far on the war in Iraq, our latest military surge in Afghanistan may someday come to be known as the "rocking horse war," a foreign policy fueled by cowboys and continued by those who wish to return to the days of chronic, and conspicuous, consumption.
As in the late 1950's when, you may recall, many drug stores chains kept a mechanical horse in front of the storefront to entertain children while mothers went shopping. For a quarter, one could climb upon the horse, and blissfully ride. A quarter bought 5 minutes of uninterrupted galloping.
Often, while my mother was picking up a few things inside, I'd visit with the rocking horse, and will never forget the sensation of having the horse abruptly stop after, say, about five minutes whereupon it was expected that another quarter be deposited. Needless to say, it wasn't always easy to wrangle quarters out of my mother for a longer ride.
A pay as you go horseback ride is one thing, but it's a hell of a way to run a war, and the meter is definitely running on Afghanistan. We'd better climb off that horse before we lose not just the mortgage, but the house, too.
Given the corresponding escalation in the national deficit which, by some accounts, has reached $3 trillion spent so far on the war in Iraq, our latest military surge in Afghanistan may someday come to be known as the "rocking horse war," a foreign policy fueled by cowboys and continued by those who wish to return to the days of chronic, and conspicuous, consumption.
As in the late 1950's when, you may recall, many drug stores chains kept a mechanical horse in front of the storefront to entertain children while mothers went shopping. For a quarter, one could climb upon the horse, and blissfully ride. A quarter bought 5 minutes of uninterrupted galloping.
Often, while my mother was picking up a few things inside, I'd visit with the rocking horse, and will never forget the sensation of having the horse abruptly stop after, say, about five minutes whereupon it was expected that another quarter be deposited. Needless to say, it wasn't always easy to wrangle quarters out of my mother for a longer ride.
A pay as you go horseback ride is one thing, but it's a hell of a way to run a war, and the meter is definitely running on Afghanistan. We'd better climb off that horse before we lose not just the mortgage, but the house, too.
By Michael Winship
Courtesy of Bill Moyers Journal, and Public Affairs Television:
"Coming Soon to a Democracy Near You..."
By Michael Winship
The envelope, please. And the winner for "most influential motion picture in American politics" is... "Hillary: The Movie."
Never heard of it? Not surprising - very few people saw it in the first place. But "Hillary: The Movie" - a no-holds-barred attack on the life and career of Hillary Clinton intended for viewing during her presidential campaign - could prove to have an impact on the political scene greater than even its producers could have dreamed.
In the world of money and politics, "Hillary: The Movie" may turn out to be the sleeper hit of the year, a boffo blockbuster. Depending on the outcome of a special Supreme Court hearing on September 9th, this little piece of propaganda could unleash a new torrent of cash flooding into campaigns from big business, unions and other special interests. "Hillary: The Movie" may turn out to be "Frankenstein: The Monster."
The film was created by a conservative group called Citizens United. They wanted to distribute the film via on-demand TV and buy commercials to promote those telecasts, but because the film was partially financed by corporate sponsors, the Federal Election Commission said no, that it was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - McCain-Feingold - which restricts the use of corporate money directly for or against candidates.
Citizens United appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was first heard back in March. But the court did an unusual thing. They asked for more time and ordered a new hearing and new arguments, almost a month ahead of the first Monday in October that usually marks the official start of the court's annual sessions.
The reason for the special hearing is to more broadly consider the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform in general; whether it denies a corporation the First Amendment right of free speech.
Those who believe that a corporation is being deprived of a fundamental right feel it should be treated no differently than any individual citizen. Those opposed believe that corporations do not hold the same rights as citizens and that their deep pockets - via political action committees (PAC's) and other avenues of participation - already give them clout and influence dangerous to the health of a democracy.
All of this comes, as The New York Times reported, "At a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal."
More than 50 friend of the court (amicus) briefs have been filed, an unprecedented number for a First Amendment case. The legal wrangling has made for some strange pairings. "The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides," the Times noted, "with the civil rights group fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the National Rifle Association" in support of "Hillary: The Movie's" corporate sponsors.
"Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse."
One of those who will argue on September 9th for overturning the McCain-Feingold limitations is the redoubtable Floyd Abrams, the ardent and vocal defender of free speech who has argued many landmark First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.
On the other side is Trevor Potter, founding president of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. General Counsel to John McCain during his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008, Potter was involved in the drafting of McCain-Feingold and has filed one of the amicus briefs in its defense.
Both appear on the current edition of public television's "Bill Moyers Journal," interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers. "The question here is to what extent, if at all, can unions and corporations spend their money to put ads on or to speak out themselves in their own name about political matters, including even who to vote for," Abrams said.
"I don't think that we should make a distinction on First Amendment grounds in terms of who's speaking. I think that whether the speaker is an individual or an issue group or a union or a corporation, if anything, the public is served, not disserved, by having more speech."
Trevor Potter disagreed. "Corporations exist for economic purposes, commercial purposes," he said. "And the notion that they have full First Amendment free speech rights, as well doesn't make any sense for this artificial creation that exists for economic, not political purposes...
"Corporations just want to make money. So, if you let the corporation with a privileged economic legal position loose in the political sphere when we're deciding who to elect, I think you are giving them an enormous advantage over individuals and not a healthy one for our democracy."
The Supreme Court could rule just on Citizen United's "Hillary: The Movie" case, but the call for the special session and the current composition of the court would seem to indicate that the decision might completely overthrow McCain-Feingold.
Three thousand corporate PAC's registered with the Federal Election Commission in 2007 and 2008 spent more than $500 million for political purposes. And we've seen the hundreds of millions big business already has spent to battle the Obama administration's domestic agenda. A 5-4 decision in favor of corporate interests could mean much, much more money from multinational corporations overwhelming our electoral process.
Think of the September 9th hearing as a sneak preview of coming attractions.
Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program
Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS.
Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.
"Coming Soon to a Democracy Near You..."
By Michael Winship
The envelope, please. And the winner for "most influential motion picture in American politics" is... "Hillary: The Movie."
Never heard of it? Not surprising - very few people saw it in the first place. But "Hillary: The Movie" - a no-holds-barred attack on the life and career of Hillary Clinton intended for viewing during her presidential campaign - could prove to have an impact on the political scene greater than even its producers could have dreamed.
In the world of money and politics, "Hillary: The Movie" may turn out to be the sleeper hit of the year, a boffo blockbuster. Depending on the outcome of a special Supreme Court hearing on September 9th, this little piece of propaganda could unleash a new torrent of cash flooding into campaigns from big business, unions and other special interests. "Hillary: The Movie" may turn out to be "Frankenstein: The Monster."
The film was created by a conservative group called Citizens United. They wanted to distribute the film via on-demand TV and buy commercials to promote those telecasts, but because the film was partially financed by corporate sponsors, the Federal Election Commission said no, that it was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - McCain-Feingold - which restricts the use of corporate money directly for or against candidates.
Citizens United appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was first heard back in March. But the court did an unusual thing. They asked for more time and ordered a new hearing and new arguments, almost a month ahead of the first Monday in October that usually marks the official start of the court's annual sessions.
The reason for the special hearing is to more broadly consider the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform in general; whether it denies a corporation the First Amendment right of free speech.
Those who believe that a corporation is being deprived of a fundamental right feel it should be treated no differently than any individual citizen. Those opposed believe that corporations do not hold the same rights as citizens and that their deep pockets - via political action committees (PAC's) and other avenues of participation - already give them clout and influence dangerous to the health of a democracy.
All of this comes, as The New York Times reported, "At a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal."
More than 50 friend of the court (amicus) briefs have been filed, an unprecedented number for a First Amendment case. The legal wrangling has made for some strange pairings. "The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides," the Times noted, "with the civil rights group fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the National Rifle Association" in support of "Hillary: The Movie's" corporate sponsors.
"Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse."
One of those who will argue on September 9th for overturning the McCain-Feingold limitations is the redoubtable Floyd Abrams, the ardent and vocal defender of free speech who has argued many landmark First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.
On the other side is Trevor Potter, founding president of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. General Counsel to John McCain during his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008, Potter was involved in the drafting of McCain-Feingold and has filed one of the amicus briefs in its defense.
Both appear on the current edition of public television's "Bill Moyers Journal," interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers. "The question here is to what extent, if at all, can unions and corporations spend their money to put ads on or to speak out themselves in their own name about political matters, including even who to vote for," Abrams said.
"I don't think that we should make a distinction on First Amendment grounds in terms of who's speaking. I think that whether the speaker is an individual or an issue group or a union or a corporation, if anything, the public is served, not disserved, by having more speech."
Trevor Potter disagreed. "Corporations exist for economic purposes, commercial purposes," he said. "And the notion that they have full First Amendment free speech rights, as well doesn't make any sense for this artificial creation that exists for economic, not political purposes...
"Corporations just want to make money. So, if you let the corporation with a privileged economic legal position loose in the political sphere when we're deciding who to elect, I think you are giving them an enormous advantage over individuals and not a healthy one for our democracy."
The Supreme Court could rule just on Citizen United's "Hillary: The Movie" case, but the call for the special session and the current composition of the court would seem to indicate that the decision might completely overthrow McCain-Feingold.
Three thousand corporate PAC's registered with the Federal Election Commission in 2007 and 2008 spent more than $500 million for political purposes. And we've seen the hundreds of millions big business already has spent to battle the Obama administration's domestic agenda. A 5-4 decision in favor of corporate interests could mean much, much more money from multinational corporations overwhelming our electoral process.
Think of the September 9th hearing as a sneak preview of coming attractions.
Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program
Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS.
Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.
Subsidies for Wal-Mart, but Not for Working Moms
Thank goodness America wasn't in recovery from eight years of a Republican contract on America back when another president, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed Medicare into law back in 1965, a program that now covers 41 million people.
Still, to hear people talk, one might understand why President Obama is encountering so much opposition to his health care reform bill, one that is modest, and conservative in comparison to the idea which was originally Truman's.
To hear people talk, one might almost believe that Medicare were free, but it is not. There is a deductible, of course, and you have to pay a set fee with a ration averaging about 80/20-- 80% paid by the government.
While President Obama's plan for health reform is conservative, and his notion of a pubic option is closer to mandated health coverage than to universal health coverage that doesn't appear to satisfy his opponents. One of the underlying sticking points in Obama's health reform proposal is the plan for the federal government to subsidize medical insurance payments for those unable to meet their full obligation. So, for example, if Jane Doe, a third year law student and part time corporate training, has a monthly health insurance bill of $170, but she can only pay $100, the government will pick up the additional $70 a month.
Why would there be any objection to the government providing a subsidy to working men and women in this country especially in light of the fact that the federal government already provides subsidies, or "empathy payments," to farmers, and companies like Home Depot, so they can open more franchises in underdeveloped areas, to health maintenance organization, to Amtrak, to airports, to private military contractors, or to companies that build federal prisons? It seems that it's only when subsidies, or tax relief, are intended to go to working families that the Republican opposition becomes most energized.
If, as anticipated, President Obama's health care reform plan passes, and every American is required to carry medical insurance, the plan for the government to supplement the payments of those who are unable to meet their obligation has opponents screaming "government run insurance," and "socialism."
But, where were the cries of "socialism" when the government subsidized Amtrak? Where was the vitriol when, according to the Cato Institute, as of October, 2006, there were close to 1700 subsidy programs in the federal budget that dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars annually?
Where was the opposition when, according to Pulitzer Prize winning reporter David Cay Johnston, former New York mayor Guiliani gifted the Yankees with $25 million of public funds, as a going away present, by allowing them to withhold $5 million a year in rent?
Clearly, the issue isn't government subsidies, per se. The issue is who is being subsidized. As long as the federal government finances Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Halliburton, and the tobacco industry, all is fine and dandy. It's only when Uncle Sam wants to help a single mom trying to provide medical coverage for herself, and her three children, pay for her medical benefits that you hear terms like "socialism" bandied about, and assertions that Obama is aiming to have the government take over health care and the automobile industry. Nobody seemed to be terribly concerned about government take-overs when subsidies act to distort energy markets in favor of the oil cartel.
Arguably, war is itself a government subsidy for military contractors, manufacturers of bombs, tanks, bulletproof vests, and weaponry of all kinds, as well as anyone in the lucrative field of longterm incarceration. We now have the dubious distinction of having the most people in prison of any country in the industrialized world, but fully 45 million Americans, a whopping 12% of us, are without health coverage.
Now that the unemployment rate has officially reached a 26 year high, it's time to take a long, hard look at those crooks and liars who would like us to think they're in favor of smaller government, and lower taxes while sticking their fat little fingers into our pockets, fueling their corporate gluttony while leaving us to our austerity diet. It's time to ask what kind of country gives our tax dollars to those who build federal prisons while, at the same time, denying access to health care to those who can least afford it
Still, to hear people talk, one might understand why President Obama is encountering so much opposition to his health care reform bill, one that is modest, and conservative in comparison to the idea which was originally Truman's.
To hear people talk, one might almost believe that Medicare were free, but it is not. There is a deductible, of course, and you have to pay a set fee with a ration averaging about 80/20-- 80% paid by the government.
While President Obama's plan for health reform is conservative, and his notion of a pubic option is closer to mandated health coverage than to universal health coverage that doesn't appear to satisfy his opponents. One of the underlying sticking points in Obama's health reform proposal is the plan for the federal government to subsidize medical insurance payments for those unable to meet their full obligation. So, for example, if Jane Doe, a third year law student and part time corporate training, has a monthly health insurance bill of $170, but she can only pay $100, the government will pick up the additional $70 a month.
Why would there be any objection to the government providing a subsidy to working men and women in this country especially in light of the fact that the federal government already provides subsidies, or "empathy payments," to farmers, and companies like Home Depot, so they can open more franchises in underdeveloped areas, to health maintenance organization, to Amtrak, to airports, to private military contractors, or to companies that build federal prisons? It seems that it's only when subsidies, or tax relief, are intended to go to working families that the Republican opposition becomes most energized.
If, as anticipated, President Obama's health care reform plan passes, and every American is required to carry medical insurance, the plan for the government to supplement the payments of those who are unable to meet their obligation has opponents screaming "government run insurance," and "socialism."
But, where were the cries of "socialism" when the government subsidized Amtrak? Where was the vitriol when, according to the Cato Institute, as of October, 2006, there were close to 1700 subsidy programs in the federal budget that dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars annually?
Where was the opposition when, according to Pulitzer Prize winning reporter David Cay Johnston, former New York mayor Guiliani gifted the Yankees with $25 million of public funds, as a going away present, by allowing them to withhold $5 million a year in rent?
Clearly, the issue isn't government subsidies, per se. The issue is who is being subsidized. As long as the federal government finances Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Halliburton, and the tobacco industry, all is fine and dandy. It's only when Uncle Sam wants to help a single mom trying to provide medical coverage for herself, and her three children, pay for her medical benefits that you hear terms like "socialism" bandied about, and assertions that Obama is aiming to have the government take over health care and the automobile industry. Nobody seemed to be terribly concerned about government take-overs when subsidies act to distort energy markets in favor of the oil cartel.
Arguably, war is itself a government subsidy for military contractors, manufacturers of bombs, tanks, bulletproof vests, and weaponry of all kinds, as well as anyone in the lucrative field of longterm incarceration. We now have the dubious distinction of having the most people in prison of any country in the industrialized world, but fully 45 million Americans, a whopping 12% of us, are without health coverage.
Now that the unemployment rate has officially reached a 26 year high, it's time to take a long, hard look at those crooks and liars who would like us to think they're in favor of smaller government, and lower taxes while sticking their fat little fingers into our pockets, fueling their corporate gluttony while leaving us to our austerity diet. It's time to ask what kind of country gives our tax dollars to those who build federal prisons while, at the same time, denying access to health care to those who can least afford it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
