ME's Political Rant

Bad Moon Rising Edition

2011-01-10T01:00:00.000-08:00

I see the bad moon arising.
I see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin'.
I see bad times today...
--Creedence Clearwater Revival

"Start your horses..."
Let's start with the Republicans.... A recent piece in the NY Times rates the possibilities for Presidential Candidates in 2012. Please, everyone, hold back your hysterical laughter until the very end, when you can mock the candidates all at once. In that spirit, I thought I'd add my own *ahem* expert assessment on each of the choices the NY Times lists:

• Mitt Romney: Yah-huh. Front runner? Seriously? Frankly, this country had trouble electing a Catholic, so a Mormon? Think not. The closest thing to a front-runner, the 63-year-old former Massachusetts governor has business and economic expertise, is solid in New Hampshire, where he finished second in 2008, and can raise plenty of money. The downside: Some Christian conservatives remain skeptical of his Mormon faith; Iowa, the first test, isn’t friendly, though Tom Rath, the longtime national committeeman from New Hampshire, dismisses the impact of a loss there: “No Republican ever wins Iowa and New Hampshire.” Most of all, the Massachusetts health care measure, enacted when Mr. Romney was governor, looks like a state version of the national plan enacted by President Barack Obama. “It’s hard to distinguish the two,” says one of his likely rival candidates. “Most Americans don’t like Obamacare, almost all Republicans don’t.”

• Sarah Palin: Stellar, Republicans, look no further for your um...leader... thingie. This candidacy can only be improved by adding Michele Bachmann to the ticket. Palin-Bachmann 2012? Made of win. You heard it here first, folks. No candidate arouses the passions and intensity engendered by the 46-year-old, 2008 vice-presidential candidate. She is setting the agenda on issues ranging from the proposed mosque near ground zero in New York City to the Federal Reserve’squantitative easing program; she opposed both, others in her party followed. Many voters, and privately, many Republican politicians, question whether she could win a general election or has the capacity to govern. An abbreviated single term as Alaska governor doesn’t reassure.

• Mike Huckabee: Well, y'know, he has Bill Clinton's endorsement -- hah. Maybe back in 2008 Bill would've been happier endorse Mike than Obama. But seriously folks. The man has a radio show and a hit weekend program on Fox News,with an Oprah style daily show in the works, co-hosting with Bob Barker. I'm thinking the Huckster is pretty well set in his cush spot.The 55-year-old former Arkansas governor won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 and grasps popular culture. Had he won the South Carolina primary — he finished a close second to John McCain — he might have been the nominee. If he runs, he would have more competition for the religious right vote, particularly from a Palin candidacy. He isn’t trusted by economic conservatives, who view him as a closet populist. As governor, he handed down more than 1,000 clemencies, including one for a man who went on to kill four police officers in Seattle.

• Newt Gingrich: Really? No, Really? I thought this was a typo. But I guess now that--after two divorces--he has a properly media-friendly wife in Callista Bisek (see photo, right) he couldn't possibly lose, huh? The 67-year-old former House speaker is the most policy-versed figure in the field. He is comfortable and conversant on any subject. Yet in a party that stresses personal virtues, his two messy divorces and ethical transgressions may be disqualifications. “His personal life probably is an insurmountable liability,” Mr. Land said.

• Tim Pawlenty: If the Republicans were looking for their Al Gore, look no further... I'm so sure he'll get the full support of the GOP machine, especially after exhorting them to prepare their own tax returns...The 50-year-old Minnesota governor could be the strongest of the long shots. He meets the conservative litmus tests on most issues and has moved to the right on matters like immigration. He is devoid of hard edges and his working-class roots are an alluring asset. He is spending a lot of time in neighboring Iowa, and David Yepsen, the former political reporter for The Des Moines Register, believes, “He has a style very appealing to Iowa; he could take off.” Still, even his supporters say the likeable Mr. Pawlenty lacks charisma. There are serious doubts that he can raise the $100 million that may be necessary for the nomination.

Mike Pence: Ah, Mike "We are a Nation of Prayer" Pence. Yeah, the evangelicals like this one, huh? Here is a taste of his fresh ideas. "Freeze federal spending immediately." Government shutdown. Very Ayn Rand. Loves it. Ask me what I'M praying for. No president has come directly from the House since James Garfield in 1881. The 51-year-old Indiana lawmaker, a favorite of evangelical conservatives, would be one of the stronger candidates to try. Some political observers believe that Mr. Pence, aware of this 130-year drought, is more likely to run for governor of Indiana in 2012.

• Mitch Daniels: Nev-ah heard of him? Yeah, me neither. Here he is discussing the deficit: The current Indiana governor would bring the most comprehensive and cogent policy prescriptions. A former budget director under President George W. Bush, he has won wide praise from other Republicans and business executives for his six-year stewardship of his state. More interested in policy than politics, it’s an open question whether the 61-year-old Mr. Daniels would be willing to put in the thousands of hours a nominee is required to devote to fund-raising and campaigning in small hamlets.

Haley Barbour: I admit it would awesome to have a candidate from the picturesquely named Yazoo City, but as charming as this Presbyterian might be -- and nice of him to affirm that Obama is not a Muslim-- I just don't see him as a star. There is no one more connected to the Republican political and moneyed establishment than the Mississippi governor and former party chairman. The convivial, portly 63-year-old looks very much like the part of the big-time special-interest lobbyist he used to be, not a winning credential or look. A recent magazine article, in which he praises an old segregationist Citizens Council in the South, doesn’t help.

• John Thune: Who? The 49-year-old tall, athletic, one-term South Dakota senator looks like the ideal presidential candidate. Yet he has no experience in national politics, and the Senate, where his record is very thin, isn’t a much better launching pad for Republicans than the House.

• Rick Santorum: The "Compassionate Conservative?" Oh, NY Times, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates now. For those of you who are trying to place him in your minds, I have one name for you: "Terry Schiavo." Need more? Intelligent design, support for anti-sodomy laws, and this stellar comments made in 2006, that many women have disclosed to him that it is more "socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children.... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else - or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon - find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism." Defeated in a bid for re-election to his Pennsylvania Senate seat four years ago, the 52-year-old stresses his conservative Catholic credentials, assailing John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech on the separation of church and religion from state. Even in the conservative Republican Party of today, it seems unlikely than an anti-Kennedy message would be a game changer.

==================================

And because you know I love polls, yes, indeedy, they are already polling in this horserace. Actually in light of the fact that we have no candidates to poll about yet, they're polling YOU and whether you're paying attention or not.

=================================================

New Dawn of the Dead

In the category of "this oughta be entertaining," Speaker John Bonehead...er Boehner has proposed "For the first time under the House rules, all bills will be required to be placed online. Committees will post their rules and their votes, as well as information about testifying witnesses in an effort to make public any conflicts of interest." Uh. huh. This from an institution that still doesn't have a Twitter feed or official Facebook page. We'll keep you posted on how that works out.... "Requiring bills to be placed online is 'very, very unusual and groundbreaking,' said Muftiah McCartin, a former staff director of the House Committee on Rules."

And in the Dept. of Unsolved Mysteries, perhaps the explosive impact of the words "Speaker Boehner" had something to do with the massive fish and bird die-off just before the Republicans take the helm. Just saying. Coincidence? I think not.

BTW, if you're a new media freak, did you know you can follow Speaker Bonehead on Twitter? I advise creating a special stream just for Republicans so you can tune it out any time your gag reflex becomes too much to handle.

============================

First Zombies, now Vampires.

And dum-dum-DUMMMMM just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, the specter of Dick Cheney rises again. Now that he has a heart...errr... a heart pump, Cheney is dipping his icy toe back into the world of politics. I was especially amused to read the following: "Mr. Cheney’s heart will never beat at full strength again, doctors say. His new mechanical pump, a partial artificial heart known as a ventricular assist device, leaves patients without a pulse because it pushes blood continuously instead of mimicking the heart’s own beat." Cue heartless jokes. Of course, the moment a liberal blogger goes for the...aorta, wouldn't you know that conservatives are all over him talking about "stay classy." Uh-huh. Cause folks on the tea party side have always been classy.

You know looking at him, I think Cheney's problem is he's just not as cute as that Rob Pattinson guy. Now if they could make him SPARKLY, he'd be a heckuva lot more appealing....

See? Much better.

==========================================

What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by his assassin's bullet.
No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.

Robert Kennedy, April 5, 1968

You know I used to live in Arizona. In Tucson. In the 8th District, Pima County. To say I was saddened by the shooting of House Democrat Gabrielle Giffords is an understatement, saddened, but not shocked. This is where we've come to, people. Words are not just words, violent rhetoric leads to ... well, to this. Sure, Jared Loughner is a crazy person, but from here it certainly looks like he's a crazy person who got inspiration from a toxic political atmosphere, and a crazy person who could get a Glock.
Lest we forget, back in 2008, it was Sarah Palin who whipped up the frenzy against Obama provoking an unprecedented number of death threats against a presidential candidate. It was also Palin who put the gunsights on Democratic districts, including, yes, that of Giffords. You can sign a petition telling Sarah Palin "

Threats of violence have no place in our democracy."
And in the Dept. of Unclear on the Concept, Tea Partier Judson Phillips has described the man who shot Giffords and 18 others as, I kid you not, a "liberal lunatic." Um... yes, well. You may uncross your eyes now.
Keith Olberman had a Special Comment that captured things well. "We need to put the gun metaphors away."
In all seriousness, I call this my Political Rant, but what I hope to do with this ranting is to inform--to amuse, for sure-- but also to get information out there, not to spark mere outrage, but to fuel debate.
If you think I'm not doing that enough, feel free to call me on it!
Til next time, folks!

Stuffing it all in

2010-08-15T13:40:00.000-07:00

I did a survey for the Democrats today, and realized, as I tried to stuff the survey into the envelope, that the paper was just a fraction of an inch too large for the envelope provided. It suddenly seemed emblematic, but of what? That the Dems can't even get it together enough to provide a properly sized envelope for a mass mailing, or that we have so much to do we can't even manage to stuff it into the amount of time/space we have...

This blog has moved

2010-04-28T15:24:00.001-07:00

This blog is now located at http://me-politicalrant.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://me-politicalrant.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

The Campaign To Salvage…Public Option? | The Plum Line

2010-01-29T16:01:00.000-08:00

The Campaign To Salvage…Public Option? | The Plum Line

With health care reform in serious trouble, you’d think the last thing Dems should be doing is wasting their time trying to revive the idea of including a public plan as part of reform. But a growing number of House Dems are pushing an interesting strategy along these lines that’s worth a look.

To wit: Now that the idea of passing a fix to the Senate bill via a majority vote is being considered, why not revive the public option as part of that fix? A simple majority of Senators favors one, so such a fix could presumably pass via reconciliation.

But more to the point, such a move would make it easier for the Senate bill to pass the House, because it could win over enough liberals — many of whom don’t want to pass the Senate bill — to make it easier to secure the 218 needed for passage.

Cameras Roll As Obama Schools GOP

2010-01-29T13:23:00.001-08:00

Cameras Roll As Obama Schools GOP: "Whether it was chutzpah, political savvy, or both, it certainly was refreshing. Reporters were thrilled with the British-parliament-type exchange between president and lawmaker. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder asked that forums like these be held monthly. The Nation's Chris Hayes suggested Obama next go before the progressive caucus. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post labeled it 'the most compelling political television I've seen...maybe ever. NBC's Chuck Todd added: 'The president should hold Congressional 'town halls' more often. Public needs to see this if they'll ever trust Washington again,'"

Transcript of President Obama's Remarks At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore

2010-01-29T13:23:00.000-08:00

Transcript of President Obama's Remarks At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore

Better than the State of the Union

2010-01-29T13:20:00.000-08:00

If you want to see where the real sparks are, watch President Obama at the GOP retreat on Friday. The speech is good, but it's the question and answer session afterwards that really hits home. It was like back during the election campaign. He was funny, he was plain-speaking. He called them out on tactics and partisanship, he was logical and debated hard. It was like watching the Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament!

Check it out online on CSPAN It was BRILLIANT. The best
part is not even his speech but the Q&A after his speech:

C-SPAN Video Player - President Speaks at GOP Retreat

Olbermann's special comment on Joe Wilson

2009-09-10T23:45:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama's Address on Health Care to Congress

2009-09-10T09:00:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

PUBLIC OPTION NOW! Edition

2009-09-10T07:46:00.000-07:00

Here we go folks... I'd bang my head against the wall, but I'm unsure about the quality of the health care I'd receive...

Again, I can barely turn on CNN in the mornings because I know someone is going to say something about health care that will make me absolutely livid. Someone will say "trigger option" one more time and I'm going to put my head through the TV in an effort to scream directly at Olympia Snowe that people need %*^&%! health care RIGHT NOW. Like this second. Like twenty years ago. Like ONE HUNDRED years ago.

The Power to Cloud Men's Minds....
The debate -- if you can call it that-- is so freaking contorted now that nobody knows what side is up. August was, if you believe the pundits, a total disaster of town hall brawls. People are out there shouting "Keep your goddamned government hands off my Medicare!"

Voices of reason and logic, like Robert Reich--a former secretary of Labor and now professor at UC Berkeley-- are being practically drowned out in the furor. Here's his explanation of the public option, clear and simple.

But summertime's over, babycakes. It's time for the big B.O. to take things in hand because frankly this bipartisanshit-- sorry, bipartisanship thang ain't working out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Character of Our Country
In case you missed it, the full text of Obama's address to Congress is here. (Video here) Thank God, because just as Obama was getting to the emotional peak -- "That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character." my DVR cut off. Doesn't matter. Here's the rest.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.
Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.

Shape the future. The time to call or email your reps is now.

Contact your individual representatives and senators. Look 'em up, folks -- call your friends in Montana, call your friends in Blue Dog states. It's time to make a squawk --to inform these Congress members that THEIR jobs are on the line. Email is cheap -- health care isn't.

If you're interested in the details of Obama's own plan, visit the White House site.

******************************

In this week's New York Times, Paul Krugman puts out a simple defense of the public option:

Most arguments against the public option are based either on deliberate misrepresentation of what that option would mean, or on remarkably thorough misunderstanding of the concept, which persists to a frustrating degree: I was really surprised to see Joe Klein worrying about the creation of a system in which doctors work directly for the government, British-style, when that has nothing whatsoever to do with the public option as proposed. (Forty years of Medicare haven’t turned the US into that kind of system — why would having a public plan change that?)

==============================

And about the National Health Service...

Much maligned in the news in the month of August was the UK's National Health Service. Eric's mom-- who also sent me a link to this very interesting, and not atypical, story about the NHS-- was out here for a visit last week and happened to be staying in a B&B with a physician from the UK's National Health Service. I'm grateful to her and to Dr. Stephen Shepherd for letting me reprint some of his thoughts on this health care debate.

SOME THOUGHTS OF A VISITING GP
Whilst visiting San Francisco in August 2009 a few thoughts occurred to me concerning the current debate in the US about the proposed changes to the US Health care system and comparisons with the UK's NHS.
In every country in the world there are basically only 3 ways of accessing health care.
The rich simply pay cash for whatever they want.
Those with health insurance received 'managed care'
The poor are thrown on the basic healthcare provided by the State
In the UK the NHS covers both the last two catagorys. The standard of care for ALL is equivalent to the managed care received by US citizens with insurance. A few people in the UK have private health insurance, usually as a perk of their job. In the past this allowed you to bypass some of the NHS queues. Nowadays, with the better financed NHS, private health insurance tends just to allow you to have private room, rather than share a 4-bedded bay, which is the norm in NHS hospitals.
The vast majority of hospital specialists or Consultants do most of their work in the NHS and do private work to supplement their NHS income. Private hospitals are not really set up for complex procedures and if you are seriously ill you are best off with the NHS.

The key to the NHS is the General Practitioner or GP (Primary Care Physician). Your GP will refer you for both NHS and Insurance referrals, but will provide the bulk of your care. Most chronic diseases in the UK are dealt with by the GP, who will know you and your past history and will tailor your healthcare for you personally. Primary Care is very strong in the UK.
Now to deal with a few points:
Rationing: all healthcare is rationed, except for the rich. In the UK most treatments are covered by the NHS and your doctor is free to prescribe any drug or treatment that is marketed in the UK. The exceptions are new expensive treatments whose clinical effectiveness are assessed by an independent body called the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), before they become widely available on the NHS. In the US health care is rationed by the Insurance companies managed care system, or by your ability to pay. I understand it is not unknown for people to die in the US as they lack the money to fund their treatment. I leave the reader to decide which is the better system.
Waiting Times and Choice: in the past the wait for routine procedures could be measured in years, but since the advent of Tony Blair's Labour Government a lot of money has gone to improve matters. As a GP I can use the new Choose and Book computer system to book appointments during a patient's consultation, at a time and date of their choosing. Most routine appointments will be within a month. It is unusual for the wait for surgery to be more than 3 months. If your GP thinks you may have cancer, there is a rapid access system which gets you to see a Specialist within 2 weeks and any definitive treatment started within a month.
Quality: British doctors are trained to the same standard as those in the US and foreign graduates wanting to work in the UK must have a good standard of English and meet the clinical standards set by the various Royal colleges that supervise training in the UK.
Income: when the NHS was set up in 1945 many doctors feared that they would be out of pocket. This has proved to be far from the case. Most GPs earn £120000 from the NHS with very little from private work. Experienced nurses earn from £20-30000. Hospital Consultants earn around £100000 from the NHS, but their additional private income can vary from zero to £100000+ according to their speciality and/or personal choice.
Innovation: the charge that the NHS discourages innovation and invention just makes me laugh. The route to being a hospital consultant is through research. All hospital consultants only get their position once they have done some research and continue to do so once in post. British drug companies are amongst the best in the world and around 40% of current treatments had their origins in the UK.

I admit to wondering what lies behind the opposition to President Obama's health care reforms. I suspect that many Americans realise that sorting out your healthcare system will inevitably lead to other social reforms.

The NHS is a small part of a whole raft of social benefits that make up the British Welfare State.
Benefits are provided if you are unemployed, sick, disabled or caring for someone who cannot care for themselves. Everyone gets an old age state pension from 65. The elderly are one of the main beneficiaries of the NHS. Should you need residential or nursing home care as you get older then the state pays for that and allows you to keep significant personal assets.
The poor and other disadvantaged groups are not left to fend for themselves on the streets. Local government in the UK has a statutory duty to provide social housing for all who need it, together with social services care. The homeless are not left to roam the streets, but are housed in hostels, where they have their own lockable room. These hostels provide temporary accommodation until the local authorities can find somewhere permanent, usually in the form of a one or two bed apartment.
This extensive welfare system is the result of the Socialist Government of 1945 and is the result of the report carried out by Beveridge in the later years of WW2. It is important for Americans to remember that the UK, and Europe in general, is far more left wing than the US. The main British right wing party, the Conservatives, are much more akin to left leaning Democrats. The Labour Party is a left wing party that has moved a little more to the right under Tony Blair. Some of the views I have read from Republicans would have no place in British politics, except in our extreme right wing parties like the British National Party (BNP), who are viewed with contempt by the majority in the UK.
The downside of course to the Welfare state is the cost. Income tax in the UK starts at 20% and rises to 40% on any income in excess of £38000.

On mainland Europe the Social care systems are more generous than the UK, but their income tax rates are higher. In the US it seems you provide very minimal benefits, but have low income tax.

In the UK we have gone for the middle ground between the two.
A UK style system would almost certainly lead to the US middle class losing their mortgage tax relief, as happened in the UK. Perhaps this is the main reason for the opposition?
Benefits in the UK are aimed at providing a comprehensive safety net with benefit levels set to allow you to survive and stay in your own home. No one would choose to stay on benefit as even a modest income will give a better quality of life. For instance, except in times of recession, most people made unemployed would have found a new job within a month. The UK is still a net importer of employees.

A few people do slip through the net, especially in London, but people begging on the street is unusual in the UK and often they are people who have great difficulty engaging with any form of authority. Strenuous efforts are made by many state and charity groups to engage with these individuals.
Remember even these people have the right to see a GP and access all parts of the NHS. I have worked for a practice that provided services targeted at the homeless.

I am shocked whilst in the US, the richest country in the world, to see such affluence along side such abject poverty.

I would like to remind the US: 'No man is an island.'

Dr Stephen Shepherd, GP

Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire

=================================================================

Final words from the Grand Fromage
Watching the funeral of Ted Kennedy last week, I couldn't help but be overwhelmed by how much there is left to do-- and from the top of Ted's list: the "cause of my life", which he outlined in an article for Newsweek last month. As usual, he doesn't just bemoan the opposition they face, but looks at the possibilities.

Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors. As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.

I long ago learned that you have to be a realist as you pursue your ideals. But whatever the compromises, there are several elements that are essential to any health-reform plan worthy of the name.

First, we have to cover the uninsured. When President Clinton proposed his plan, 33 million Americans had no health insurance. Today the official number has reached 47 million, but the economic crisis will certainly push the total higher. Unless we act now, within a few years, 55 million Americans could be left without coverage even as the economy recovers.

All Americans should be required to have insurance. For those who can't afford the premiums, we can provide subsidies. We'll make it illegal to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. We'll also prohibit the practice of charging women higher premiums than men, and the elderly far higher premiums than anyone else. The bill drafted by the Senate health committee will let children be covered by their parents' policy until the age of 26, since first jobs after high school or college often don't offer health benefits.

To accomplish all of this, we have to cut the costs of health care. For families who've seen health-insurance premiums more than double—from an average of less than $6,000 a year to nearly $13,000 since 1999—one of the most controversial features of reform is one of the most vital. It's been called the "public plan." Despite what its detractors allege, it's not "socialism." It could take a number of different forms. Our bill favors a "community health-insurance option." In short, this means that the federal government would negotiate rates—in keeping with local economic conditions—for a plan that would be offered alongside private insurance options. This will foster competition in pricing and services. It will be a safety net, giving Americans a place to go when they can't find or afford private insurance, and it's critical to holding costs down for everyone.

We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days—at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.
Social justice is often the best economics. We can help disabled Americans who want to live in their homes instead of a nursing home. Simple things can make all the difference, like having the money to install handrails or have someone stop by and help every day. It's more humane and less costly—for the government and for families—than paying for institutionalized care. That's why we should give all Americans a tax deduction to set aside a small portion of their earnings each month to provide for long-term care

=================================
There have been lots of tributes to Ted Kennedy of course, but I remember this one as especially lovely, from last year at this time, when Ted Kennedy appeared at the Democratic National Convention. But perhaps even more moving was Senator Robert Byrd's tribute:

I had hoped and prayed that this day would never come. My heart and soul weeps at the loss of my best friend in the Senate, my beloved friend, Ted Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy and I both witnessed too many wars in our lives, and believed too strongly in the Constitution of the United States to allow us to go blindly into war. That is why we stood side by side in the Senate against the war in Iraq.
Neither years of age nor years of political combat, nor his illness, diminished the idealism and energy of this talented, imaginative, and intelligent man. And that is the kind of Senator Ted Kennedy was. Throughout his career, Senator Kennedy believed in a simple premise: that our society's greatness lies in its ability and willingness to provide for its less fortunate members. Whether striving to increase the minimum wage, ensuring that all children have medical insurance, or securing better access to higher education, Senator Kennedy always showed that he cares deeply for those whose needs exceed their political clout. Unbowed by personal setbacks or by the terrible sorrows that have fallen upon his family, his spirit continued to soar, and he continued to work as hard as ever to make his dreams a reality.
In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.

Health wealth and...and...I forget what the other one is...

2009-08-19T16:24:00.000-07:00

Welcome to a very special health care edition of ME's Political Rant.

So, this is how I know that it's time for a political rant -- when I'm standing in front of the TV SCREAMING at CNN and the monologue goes something like this, "What the $^&*!!^% are you talking about, you &*$$*%! ?/&*!%^!&*!! Why don't you ask that ??%!@&^&%@ #$ &*&^ %^$! what he'd do if his OWN !?#$%&# daughter were #&*^!#%^*$ sick and he didn't have his &^%?!$% precious Congressional health care ???? Are you a MORON????"

Now, far be it from me to take a reductionist view of a complex and byzantine issue, but can I just point out that nobody is getting ANYwhere right now? The truth is that I've had a hankering to put out a rant for a while, but now my blood pressure is up, my throat is sore from yelling at FOX news idiocy and yesterday I almost put my middle finger through the TV screen. Clearly, the time has come.

There's a lot to cover here, but I'm gonna put this right at the top. You wanna know what's in H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, or the Health Care Reform bill? Here it is, in its 1018-page glory. Yes, that sounds like a lot, but consider that it's 80 pages shorter than Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (paperback edition) and it's double-spaced and in a larger font.

So the beauty of the Internet is that you can find anything you want if you just look long enough. As this bill wends its way through committees it obviously gets revised, and you can track the changes on Govtrack.org.

A Little Bird Told Me....

I think there should be a new rule: you may not be on TV, you may not be quoted, you do not get to talk about health care, if you are going to use the phrase "I've heard that..." as in "I've heard that grandma will be called up in front of death panels under this health plan....I've heard that kids under the age of 21 with bad acne and frizzy hair will be sterilized under this health plan...I've heard that Barack Obama wants to recycle old people into Soylent Wafers under this health plan."

The "I've heard that" impulse-- which I readily admit is hard to fight-- accounts for so much of the hysteria out there, like this frustrating email that you may have seen around the net:

On Page 425 of Obama's health care bill, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes... They are going to push SUICIDE to cut Medicare spending!!! And no, I am NOT KIDDING YOU! So those of you who voted for Obama have now put yourself and your own parents in dire straights... Congratulations!

If you check on the famous page 425, you can read for yourself what it says about Medicare paying for-- not forcing people to talk about -- a consultation about end of life care with a doctor. Anyone can read it for themselves.

If you're like me (or like Jon Stewart) you howled when there appeared to be hedging on the idea of a public option ( a government -run insurance plan similar to Medicare). I think it was all a ploy to get the rest of us SOOO riled up at the prospect of the public option being taken off the table that we'd get on the horn, and so here I am, on the horn to you, my friends. (Jeez, I sound like John McCain.) I'm sending out this rant with some special resources on who and how to contact in Congress, so please feel free to pass it on through the same channels we used last year at this very time...

Should there be health care for crazy people?

Wow, I guess in principle I'm for mental health coverage in this reform bill, but there are obviously a lot of Crazy People (Sarah Palin) out there barking at the wind (Sarah Palin). People (Sarah Palin) who really need to schedule those 20 visits with a mental health professional.

Yes, I'm talking about Sarah Palin's Death Panel fiesta. By the way, in case you missed it, it was conservative Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) who put the so called "death panel" clause into the health care lottery. His comment on Palin's Death Panel crack? "How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up."

Not content with dissing that bastion of socialism, Canada, the misinformation storm has now swept up Britain too. To the point that they're finally hitting back, after watching their NHS system pilloried in the news, e.g. "Oh God, Americans would NEVER want SOCIALIZED medicine disaster like that SOCIALIST REGIME in BRITAIN forces on its people. They would have KILLED someone like Stephen Hawking under a system like the British." Except that Stephen Hawking LIVES in BRITAIN -- and he's not dead. Yeah. Um... yeah. Says Hawking to The Guardian newspaper: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS." Moving on.

(All figures are for 2007 except for Japan, which is for 2006)

The White House has a website rebutting some of the claims that drive me insane (How many times do you think Obama is going to have to say, "You will be able to keep your own health insurance if you like it"?) But you can also read the excellent Consumer Reports Health Reform blog for up to date and well-researched information -- one of the better reads out there. It's part of their larger website covering Health Care reform, which has other good resources on it.

Consumers Union health policy analyst, Steven Findlay also had an editorial in USA Today back in June that laid out the basics with an historical persepctive pretty clearly. "Socialized medicine. Government-run health care. Rationing. Bureaucrats in charge. "Cookbook" medicine. Waiting lines. It'll break the bank. Welcome to the health care debate 2009. Sound familiar? These notions aim to instill fear. And once again, they bear no more relation to the reality of what is being debated in Washington than was the case when the Clintons had a go at health reform in the 1990s. Don't be misled this time. In fact, far more bipartisan agreement exists on many core elements of reform than you might think... What would be new is that people who don't have access to such coverage (and some who do) would be able to get coverage through insurance "exchanges." They'd be able to choose from a batch of private plans and policies that would have to accept all comers, offer comprehensive coverage, and be barred from "cherry-picking" only healthy people."

Has anyone else noticed that in fact, under he current system, someone-else-who-is-not-you is already making the decisions for us? When your employer gives you a "choice" of either a low-budget, it-would-be-great-if-you-never-get-sick coverage from Kaiser, or pay-through-the-nose-$800-a-month-Blue-Shield-PPO plan, you think you have choice? When insurance companies decide that they don't want to cover someone with a pre-exist, that they don't cover mental-health care, that they don't cover chiropractic, you think you have the power to make choices?

As Consumer Reports observes in their August 2009 issue,

Private health insurance already comes between you and your doctor. And because each company sets its own rules, it’s hard to imagine a more bureaucratic system. Some insurers decide which doctors you can see, which hospitals you can visit, and what drugs you can take and still be covered. And they may require copious paperwork before approving a treatment you and your doctor want. Health-care reform would standardize claim procedures to cut down on all of that. And it would protect you from other abuses, like being rejected for coverage or paying exorbitant premiums if you get sick.

=================================

The LA Times' Noam Levey had a good summary of where everything got left as Congress went on break.

Where does the healthcare overhaul legislation stand?August 2, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Amid a flurry of activity on healthcare legislation, the House left Friday for its monthlong summer recess. The Senate will take off at the end of this week. The break comes as Democratic leaders are working to cobble together complex healthcare bills to bring to the floors of each chamber for votes this fall.

Here is an update on where the debate stands in Washington:

Has Congress agreed on how to ensure that all Americans will be able get health insurance?
The two major bills that have cleared committees in the House and Senate would establish insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, through which individuals and small businesses could compare a variety of plans that meet basic standards to be established by the federal government. The exchanges would include private plans as well as a government insurance program, which advocates say would pressure commercial insurers to lower costs and improve quality. The government would provide subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people afford the insurance.

Does that mean there will be a government plan?
Not necessarily. The government plan faces opposition from some who fear it could ultimately drive private insurers out of business. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, which is charged with evaluating the effects of legislation, has projected that would not happen. But because Republicans and some centrist Democrats object to a government plan, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate Finance Committee is trying to develop an alternative. That might be a system of health insurance cooperatives owned by consumers.

Will these exchanges really control the cost of healthcare?
Not by themselves. The two major bills include other provisions designed to encourage Americans to be healthier, such as eliminating co-payments for some checkups and other preventive care. Many believe that will ultimately save money. The House bill also contains several pilot programs in Medicare to encourage hospitals and doctors to deliver care more efficiently. For example, one committee inserted a provision to reward programs that provide care to chronically ill senior citizens in their homes to prevent costly hospitalizations.

Will that be enough?
Many business groups, labor unions and others believe the legislation must put even stricter limits on Medicare spending to curb unnecessary and inefficient care. The head of the CBO also has testified that the bills do not do enough to slow the growth of healthcare spending. Senior Democrats have pledged to adjust the legislation to do that over the August break.

Would that mean that Congress won't raise taxes to pay for this healthcare overhaul?
That's still not clear. The House bill would assess a new surtax on individuals who make more than $280,000 and couples who make $350,000 a year to raise $544 billion to help offset the cost. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has indicated that she might move to raise those cutoffs to $500,000 and $1 million. In the Senate, where there is little support for a new income tax, lawmakers are talking about other proposals, including taxing some health benefits or assessing fees on insurance companies. Senior Democrats plan to work on those details over the summer.

==============================

Now, who do we need to call...

So here we are again -- are you up late at night scanning CNN and HuffPo? Are you railing at your TV? Are you seething with undirected rage? Here's my thought -- make up a little form letter that encapsulates how you feel and send it to members of Congress. Send a supportive email to the ones whose views you back, send an irate one to the members whose views make you mad. I don't care which is which, but get in there. Attached is a handy list (in Excel Format) with names, phone and fax numbers and email links -- feel free to use it liberally... Thanks to the visi.com site which keeps this sort of thing updated regularly.

The Roll Call of Shame (please feel free to call, fax or email your rants to these guys, click on his or her name to go to a link to email them directly.)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” "We're about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): "I don't know for sure, but I've heard several senators say that Ted Kennedy with a brain tumour, being 77 years old as opposed to being 37 years old, if he were in England, would not be treated for his disease, because end of life – when you get to be 77, your life is considered less valuable under those systems." Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ): Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.” "The Arizona senator rejected the suggestion that Republicans were to blame for any "scare campaigns" designed to derail healthcare, stating that the party instead is simply reflecting public sentiment."
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA): “If it is just another name for government takeover of our health care, I’m not going to be for that,” said on CBS’s “The Early Show.”
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), chair of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, “Patients should be wary of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of seven senators involved in Finance Committee negotiations, left the bipartisan talks. Hatch informed Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) Wednesday afternoon that he couldn't continue to particpate because there were too many aspects of the bill that he could not back, including the employer mandate, individual mandate, Medicaid expansion and tax increase...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): George Stephanapolous reports, "Graham told me that the U.S. Senate will not "go down the government-run health care road" despite a new poll showing 72 percent of Americans want a government role in health care -- and are willing to pay higher taxes for it. "The reason you're not going to have a government run health care pass the Senate is because it would be devastating for this country," Graham told me Sunday in an exclusive "This Week" interview.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.): Former big league pitcher Jim Bunning says he won't run for a third term as U.S. Senator from Kentucky. Bunning says his Republican colleagues have been doing "everything in their power" to dry up his fundraising. Bunning, who is 77, had a narrow win in 2004 and has been clashing with GOP leadership...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): Crapo sits on the Senate Finance Committee, whose members are instrumental in writing what is expected to be the dominant Senate version of the health care bill. Earlier this month, Crapo signed an op-ed in the Washington Post with 12 other senators calling for bipartisan solutions to the nation's health care crisis. He has expressed dissatisfaction with one of the current Senate bills, saying that it fails to provide affordable coverage for people who don't have it without affecting those who are happy with their existing coverage. Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.): opposes "rationed Health Care"...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
Sen. John Ensign(R-Nev.): Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, a leading conservative mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, admitted Tuesday he had an extramarital affair with a woman who was a member of his campaign staff....Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.): Congress should approach health care reform in steps, instead of trying to put together a comprehensive package...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”

And now, Arf Arf: The so-called Blue Dogs (Contact these guys, they need to know how we all really feel!)

Who are these people and why are they doing this anyway? "So far this year, the Blue Dog Political Action Committee is on track to shatter all its fundraising records; in fact, the total for the first six months of 2009 — more than $1.1 million — is greater than what was raised in the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle. Furthermore, according to analysis by the Center for Public Integrity of CQ MoneyLine data, the energy, financial services, and health care industries have accounted for nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC’s 2009 receipts (up from 45 percent in 2004). These contributions poured in as President Obama and the Democratic Congress have been making a major push to reform health care, develop a new energy policy, and restructure oversight of the banking sector. Clearly, these Dogs are having their day."

Any other questions on why the Blue Dogs are stalling health care reform?

Updates on what they were up to this week from the RollCall.com site. Are you represented by a Blue Dog? CALL him or her!!!

Jason Altmire (PA-4)
Mike Arcuri (NY-24)
Joe Baca (CA-43)
John Barrow (GA-12) voted against the health care reform bill last week in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Melissa Bean (IL-8)
Marion Berry (AR-1)
Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
Dan Boren (OK-2) Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.) didn’t plan to hold town halls following a Congressional delegation trip, according to the Oklahoman, but he has now scheduled three meetings for Tuesday.
Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
Allen Boyd (FL-2) "I cannot support this bill in the version it is in now," he said. "We can do better. We can make it better."
Bobby Bright (AL-2)
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) In California, almost 200 supporters and opponents of health care reform gathered outside the Modesto office of Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D) to demand a meeting with the lawmaker, the Modesto Bee reported.
Christopher Carney (PA-10)
Ben Chandler (KY-6) In Kentucky, some of Rep. Ben Chandler’s (D) constituents brought their complaints to a dummy likeness of the Congressman at a town hall in Lexington, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Travis Childers (MS-1)
Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) one of the few Blue Dogs to meet publicly with her constituents this weekend. On Saturday, she tried to “to separate fact from fiction” in Sharon, Pa., according to the Herald in Mercer County. “I’ve read the bill and it does not in any way promote euthanasia,” she told them. “It gives you the ability to sit down with your doctor and talk about end-of-life issues such as will-writing and hospice care, and the doctor will be reimbursed. Before, they weren’t reimbursed for that.”
Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8) (AZ Daily Star editorial)I support reform that allows Americans to keep their current health-care program, keep their doctors and keep their hospitals. I support reform that creates competition through a strong public option that lowers everyone’s costs and competes with private insurers. I support reform that allows Arizonans who lose their jobs to afford insurance so they can get back on their feet without fear of getting sick. I support reform that will slow the growth of health-care costs and does not impose new taxes or burdens on our nation’s most valuable economic contributors, small businesses. I support reform that would allow this father to keep his insurance so his daughter and wife don’t have to go without proper care.
Bart Gordon (TN-6) Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.
Parker Griffith (AL-5)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Tim Holden (PA-17)
Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
Jim Marshall (GA-8)
Jim Matheson (UT-2) voted against the health care reform bill last week in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, voted against the health care reform bill last week in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mike Michaud (ME-2)
Walt Minnick (ID-1) Blue Dogs are choosing to speak with constituents over the phone
Dennis Moore (KS-3) Blue Dogs are choosing to speak with constituents over the phone
Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
Glenn Nye (VA-2) Blue Dogs are choosing to speak with constituents over the phone
Collin Peterson (MN-7)
Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL) Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.
Mike Ross (AR-4) "The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose. Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.
John Salazar (CO-3) There will be a hot time in the old town hall meetings when John Salazar returns to his district for the August recess. Traditionally a time for elected federal officials to touch base with constituents, public meetings this year will be dominated by health care reform. Like The Daily Sentinel as stated in their “Blue Dog Salazar quiet on health care reform” editorial, many voters would like these meetings to “give representatives a chance to learn what their constituents have been reading about the measure and allow for a give-and-take about political, medical and moral choices within the system we have now and any kind of reform that might take place.”
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Adam Schiff (CA-29-Pasadena) During much of the time when Schiff and others spoke, there was yelling from crowd, with individuals calling Schiff a liar and demanding he be recalled. Supporters, meanwhile, repeatedly yelled at the opposition to quiet down. The panel Schiff assembled included a representative from Kaiser Permanente, a consumer advocate, and representatives from smaller health-care groups. All professed some level of support for a public health care option.
David Scott (GA-13)
Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip: addressed 24 questions in a call-in on Thursday night, according to the Asheville Citizen-Times. He also answered two written questions at the Henderson County Democratic Party’s picnic on Saturday, the Times-News in Hendersonville noted.
Zack Space (OH-18)
John Tanner (TN-8) Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.
Gene Taylor (MS-4)
Mike Thompson (CA-1)
Charlie Wilson (OH-6)

Fight the Good Fight!! (If you like what your Senators and Reps are doing, contact them too to tell them to to keep up the good work.)

Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., Nichols, a health-care economist with the New America Foundation, said he believed that Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Republicans' most influential voice on health care, was the "linchpin." If he supports the cooperatives as proposed by Obama and Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus - the Finance Committee chair, with whom Grassley has been working for a bipartisan bill - criticism from the far right will lose much of its power and a bipartisan bill will likely pass, Nichols said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) In an effort to defuse the most explosive issue in the debate over comprehensive health care legislation, a top Senate Democrat has proposed that any new government-run insurance program comply with all the rules and standards that apply to private insurance.(May 2009)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) an early supporter of health care, due to his own ailing health he hasn't been vocal in the debate.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Frank lashed out at protester who held a poster depicting President Barack Obama with a Hitler-style mustache during. "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank asked the woman, who had stepped up to the podium to ask why Frank supports what she called a Nazi policy. Frequently, Frank was interrupted by boos. A man in the back kept calling the congressman a "liar". Frank responded by saying "Disruption never helps your cause. It just looks like you're afraid of rational discussion."
Sen Arlen Specter (D-PA) Specter also told reporters that he still favored the so-called "public option" for a national health care system, despite reports that the Obama administration might be shifting its support to some kind of "co-op" plan. Under the public option, the federal government would act an insurer for many Americans. Under the cooperative alternative, the government would fund start-ups of new types of coverage that could eventually function independently.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., accused Republican leaders of trying to hinder bipartisan progress to deny Obama a political victory.

=============================================

Wanna see a Town Hall for yourself? Here's the updated list of upcoming events -- pull out that oak tag and staple gun that puppy to a stake, then head out and shake it in front of a CNN camera please...

And TOMORROW, Thursday, at 2:30 EDT (11:30 PDT) Obama will be hosting an online forum on the Health Care Reform proposal. Details are here as to how to watch online, or you can Twitter questions to @BarackObama (tag with #hc09).

Special bonus for you Palin watchers out there. Ahh, the good old days of the campaign....

Sarah Palin Resigns

2009-07-26T10:06:00.000-07:00

YouTube - Sarah Palin Resigns
How could I have forgotten to post this -- now a classic example of Palinista nonsense... What next? Reality show? Indictment? stay tuned....

Iran protests go on--Iranian gov't divided

2009-06-21T08:44:00.000-07:00

Meanwhile prominent figures, many who were part of the Iranian Revolution, issued conflicting statements, a sign that Iran's leadership was far from unified.
The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said Sunday an investigation into claims of fraud in the election will be announced by week's end.
But speaking to foreign diplomats in Tehran, he called the possibility of irregularities almost nonexistent.
"The possibility of organized and comprehensive disruption and irregularities in this election is almost close to zero given the composition of the people who are holding the election," Mottaki said.
On the other hand, Iran's influential parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani implicated the same people -- the Guardian Council -- of siding with one candidate.
"Although the Guardian Council is made up of religious individuals, I wish certain members would not side with a certain presidential candidate," Larijani told the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) on Saturday, without naming whom he meant.

Roger Cohen reports from Tehran

2009-06-20T15:52:00.000-07:00

I also know that Iran’s women stand in the vanguard. For days now, I’ve seen them urging less courageous men on. I’ve seen them get beaten and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”

Another green-eyed woman, Mahin, aged 52, staggered into an alley clutching her face and in tears. Then, against the urging of those around her, she limped back into the crowd moving west toward Freedom Square. Cries of “Death to the dictator!” and “We want liberty!” accompanied her."

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Ayatollah Khamenei to lead Friday prayers

2009-06-18T23:20:00.000-07:00

Ayatollah Khamenei Grits.

According to the Iranian state-funded PressTV: "Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei will lead this week's Friday prayers in Tehran University."

Uh-huh, is that such a good idea after you know, the raids on students dorms at Tehran U. and all?

Real question -- have they made the switch to digital?

Read more at Ayatollah Khamenei to lead Friday prayers:

Shadowy Iranian Vigilantes Vow Bolder Action

2009-06-18T23:15:00.000-07:00

Oh I'm not liking this at all...

The daytime protests across the Islamic republic have been largely peaceful. But Iranians shudder at the violence unleashed in their cities at night, with the shadowy vigilantes known as Basijis beating, looting and sometimes gunning down protesters they tracked during the day.

The vigilantes plan to take their fight into the daylight on Friday, with the public relations department of Ansar Hezbollah, the most public face of the Basij, announcing that they planned a public demonstration to expose the “seditious conspiracy” being carried out by “agitating hooligans.”

“We invite the vigilant people who are always in the arena to make their loud objections heard in response to the babbling of this tribe,” said the announcement, carried on the Web site Parsine.
The announcement could be the first indication that the government was taking its gloves off, Iranian analysts noted, because up to this point the Basijis, usually deployed as the shock troops to end any public protests, have been working in stealth.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Will they remove Khamenei?

2009-06-16T23:56:00.000-07:00

Appearing on CNN last night, Iran expert Reza Aslan reported this:

There are very interesting things that are taking place right now. Some of my sources in Iran have told me that Ayatollah Rafsanjani, who is the head of the Assembly of Experts -- the eighty-six member clerical body that decides who will be the next Supreme Leader, and is, by the way, the only group that is empowered to remove the Supreme Leader from power -- that they have issued an emergency meeting in Qom.

Now, Anderson, I have to tell you, there's only one reason for the Assembly of Experts to meet at this point, and that is to actually talk about what to do about Khamenei. So, this is what I'm saying, is that we're talking about the very legitimacy, the very foundation of the Islamic Republic is up in the air right now. It's hard to say what this is going to go.

Keller of 'NYT' in Iran: 'The Iranians Watch Us Closely'

2009-06-16T13:14:00.000-07:00

Executive Editor Bill Keller of The New York Times, who has been in Iran for the past week -- and done some unexpected reporting -- tells E&P in two e-mails today that he originally went there to see his reporters in action, but then "plunged in" when the post-election story grew so big.

Keller responded to a request for information on his trip.

"Too busy to do justice to the subject," he wrote to E&P.

"Briefly, I came to watch our reporters in action and to get a (first) taste of a big subject. I try to get out in the field as often as I can, because nothing else gives you as good a sense of the complexities and texture of a story.

"I usually don't write on these trips, but this story got so big, and the correspondents were so welcoming of an extra pair of hands, that I plunged in. It reminds me why I got into this business. (Also, no one here wants to talk about the future of the newspaper business.)"

Social Networks Spread Iranian Defiance Online

2009-06-15T22:42:00.000-07:00

As the embattled government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be trying to limit Internet access and communications in Iran, new kinds of social media are challenging those traditional levers of state media control and allowing Iranians to find novel ways around the restrictions.

Iranians are blogging, posting to Facebook and, most visibly, coordinating their protests on Twitter, the messaging service. Their activity has increased, not decreased, since the presidential election on Friday and ensuing attempts by the government to restrict or censor their online communications.

On Twitter, reports and links to photos from a peaceful mass march through Tehran on Monday, along with accounts of street fighting and casualties around the country, have become the most popular topic on the service worldwide, according to Twitter’s published statistics.

Read more at the NYTimes.com.

Iranians Outwit Net Censors

2009-06-15T16:55:00.000-07:00

The Iranian government, more than almost any other, censors what citizens can read online, using elaborate technology to block millions of Web sites offering news, commentary, videos, music and, until recently, Facebook and YouTube. Search for “women” in Persian and you’re told, “Dear Subscriber, access to this site is not possible.”
Last July, on popular sites that offer free downloads of various software, an escape hatch appeared. The computer program allowed Iranian Internet users to evade government censorship.
College students discovered the key first, then spread it through e-mail messages and file-sharing. By late autumn more than 400,000 Iranians were surfing the uncensored Web.
The software was created not by Iranians, but by Chinese computer experts volunteering for the Falun Gong, a spiritual movement that has beem suppressed by the Chinese government since 1999. They maintain a series of computers in data centers around the world to route Web users’ requests around censors’ firewalls.

Obama's Speech to the Muslim World

2009-06-04T10:46:00.000-07:00

As usual, the NY Times has an interactive transcript with video.

The White House is making translations of the speech available in 13 languages including Arabic, Chinese, Dari, French, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Malay, Pashto, Persian, Punjabi, Russian, Turkish and Urdu.

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu weighs in with a statement:

"The government of Israel expresses hope that President Obama's important speech will lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world, and Israel. We share Obama's hope that the American effort will bring about an end to the conflict and to pan-Arab recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.
"Israel is obligated to peace and will do as much as possible to help expand the circle of peace, while taking into consideration our national interests, the foremost of which is security."

Transcript from the White House.

YouTube - President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World from Cairo, Egypt

Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand

2009-05-26T10:25:00.000-07:00

Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand: "California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today."

Bleah.

BASEBALL: Woman in the News; Strike-Zone Arbitrator -- Sonia Sotomayor - The New York Times

2009-05-26T10:13:00.000-07:00

Back in 1992, Sotomayor arbitrated in the baseball strike--from the NY Times article at the time:

In her two and a half years on the bench, United States District Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has earned a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, someone who does not let powerful interests bully, rush or cow her into a decision.

She lived up to that billing yesterday morning, when the fate of major league baseball was thrust upon her. After a two-hour hearing in which she grilled both sides on the fine points of labor law, she took only 15 minutes to issue an injunction that could break the deadlock in the baseball strike.
Ruling from the bench, Sotomayor chided baseball owners, saying they had no right to unilaterally eliminate the 20-year-old system of free agents and salary arbitration while bargaining continues. With those provisions reinstated, striking players have promised to play ball this season under the terms of the previous contract while the two sides try to hammer out a new deal.

"This strike has placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial," the judge said.

Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project, just three miles from Yankee Stadium, in a neighborhood where baseball was revered. Although her friends say she is not an aficionado of the game, she has been known to slip off to the ball park once in a while to catch an afternoon game.

"I hope that none of you assumed on Monday that my lack of knowledge of any of the intimate details of your dispute meant that I was not a baseball fan," the judge said yesterday as the hearing began. "You can't grow up in the South Bronx without knowing about baseball."
Sotomayor, 40, is the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York. She was the first American of Puerto Rican descent to be appointed to the Federal bench in a city where generations of Puerto Ricans have lived, died and, yes, played baseball.

"She's tough and tenacious as well as smart," said Justice Jose A. Cabranes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a mentor and former professor of Sotomayor's at Yale Law School. "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."
...
Since then, Sotomayor has demonstrated a willingness to take the Government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it. She has taken strong anti-Government positions in several decisions, including cases involving the White House, the religious rights of prisoners, and even the Hell's Angels. During her first year, she received high ratings from liberal public-interest groups.

In January, she ordered the Government to make public a photocopy of a torn-up note found in the briefcase of the former White House Counsel, Vincent Foster, who committed suicide. She said the public's interest outweighed the privacy of the Foster family.

Last September, she allowed the Hell's Angels motorcycle club to keep a Manhattan building it owned and called the Government's evidence of drug dealing there "rather scanty indeed."

In May 1994, she ordered New York State prison officials to allow inmates to wear beads of the Santeria religion under their belts. And in December 1993, she struck down as unconstitutional a White Plains law that prohibited the displaying of a menorah in a city park.

Obama Picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

2009-05-26T09:32:00.000-07:00

President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.
Judge Sotomayor, 54, who has served for more than a decade on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in New York City, would become the nation’s 111th justice, replacing David H. Souter, who is retiring after 19 years on the bench. Although Justice Souter was appointed by the first President George Bush, he became a mainstay of the liberal faction on the court, and so his replacement by Judge Sotomayor likely would not shift the overall balance of power.
But her appointment would add a second woman to the nine-member court and give Hispanics their first seat. Her life story, mirroring in some ways Mr. Obama’s own, would add a different complexion to the panel, fulfilling the president’s stated desire to add diversity of background to the nation’s highest tribunal.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Obama's speech on closing Guantanamo

2009-05-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Cheney's Speech on Torture and Security

2009-05-21T13:41:00.000-07:00

What nasty, ugly piece of work this man is. What does he think he has to gain from defending torture? Contrast that with Obama's speech this morning.

Moments after President Barack Obama concluded a sober and wide-ranging address at the National Archives on Thursday, news networks cut to a shot of Dick Cheney stepping up to a podium, set to issue what was hyped as a substantive rebuttal from the former vice president.

Instead, Cheney began by cracking jokes at the length of Obama's speech. "Good morning -- or perhaps, good afternoon," he said to some chuckles. "It's pretty clear the president served in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives because, of course, in the House, we have the five-minute [speaking] rule."

From there, the attacks only became more caustic, vicious, and personal.

Cheney described the president's national security approach as "recklessness cloaked in righteousness." He called Obama's opposition to torture "unwise in the extreme," and accused critics of "phony moralizing" and "feigned outrage" over interrogation practices.
"The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism," Cheney argued. "Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy."

The vice president's speech included other well-worn riffs from the Bush era. Cheney took multiple thinly-veiled shots at the media, noted that Obama has "found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo," and declared that dissent from the Bush national security approach would embolden America's enemies.

Obama speaks on closing Gitmo

2009-05-21T08:47:00.000-07:00

Protecting Our Security and Our Values
President Barack Obama
National Archives Museum, Washington, D.C.
May 21, 2009

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.

It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.

It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration - including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community - that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong - in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is - quite simply - a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center - he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker - he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee - al-Marri - in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded - we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon - and I will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.

Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration - along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security - will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.

This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

The Cassandra of the Glass-Steagall Act:

2009-05-11T20:53:00.000-07:00

The footage of him speaking on the Senate floor has become something of a cult flick for the particularly wonky progressive. The date was November 4, 1999. Senator Byron Dorgan, in a patterned red tie, sharp dark suit and hair with slightly more color than it has today, was captured only by the cameras of CSPAN2.

"I want to sound a warning call today about this legislation," he declared, swaying ever so slightly right, then left, occasionally punching the air in front of him with a slightly closed fist. "I think this legislation is just fundamentally terrible."

The legislation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (alternatively known as Gramm Leach Bliley), which allowed banks to merge with insurance companies and investment houses. And Dorgan was, at the time, on a proverbial island with his concerns. Only eight senators would vote against the measure -- lionized by its proponents, including senior staff in the Clinton administration and many now staffing President Obama, as the most important breakthrough in the worlds of finance and politics in decades.

"It was more like a tidal wave in 1999," the North Dakota Democrat recalled of that vote in an interview with the Huffington Post. "You've seen the roll call. We didn't really have to deal with push back because they had such a strong, strong body of support for what they call modernization that the vote was never in doubt... The title of the bill was 'The Financial Modernization Act.' And so if you don't want to modernize, I guess you're considered hopelessly old fashioned."

Ten years later, Dorgan has been vindicated. His warning that banks would become "too big to fail" has proven basically true in the wake of the current financial crisis. He seems eerily prescient for claiming then that Congress would "look back ten years time and say we should not have done this." But he wasn't entirely alone. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin and Richard Bryan also cast nay votes.

As did Sen. Russ Feingold, who, in a statement from his office, recalled that "Gramm-Leach-Bliley was just one of several bad policies that helped lead to the credit market crisis and the severe recession it helped cause."

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone also opposed the bill, warning at the time that Congress was "about to repeal the economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."

Outside government, doomsday-ing over the repeal of Glass-Steagall seemed far more palatable a position to take. Edward Kane, a finance professor at Boston College, warned that "nobody will be able to discipline a Citigroup" once the legislation passed, because the banks would be too big and the issues too complex.

Read much more at Huffington Post.

Colbert hits a little close to home

2009-05-05T10:22:00.001-07:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Prescott Group Bailout

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

First 100 Days

Torture Memo Probe to be released

2009-05-05T09:54:00.000-07:00

Get ready for the circus o' fun...

The Justice Department is nearing the end of its probe into Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memos approving harsh interrogation techniques.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a letter from the Justice Department informing two members of Congress that a key deadline in the inquiry expired Monday.

The inquiry has become a politically-loaded guessing game, with some advocating criminal charges against the lawyers, and others urging the matter be dropped.

The letter did not indicate what the findings of the final report will be. Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and Steven Bradbury worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and played key roles in crafting the legal justification for techniques critics call torture.

Read more at HuffPo.

Supreme Court Justice Souter to retire ?

2009-04-30T20:04:00.000-07:00

OHHH-- HOOOO... Here we go folks... The Supreme Court Test. Minnesota could you PLEASE get your act together????

Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire later this year, according to two media reports – a move that would offer President Barack Obama his first chance to shape the Supreme Court in his own image.

NPR and MSNBC both reported Souter’s retirement, with NPR saying he would retire at the end of the current term, but only after a successor had been chosen and confirmed. That could take until October.

Obama Family Photos Sent Out By The White House (SLIDESHOW)

2009-04-30T18:03:00.000-07:00

Photos from the White House marking Obama's first 100 days... Wow, a prez that seems so ....normal....

For more slides, visit HuffPo's Obama Family SLIDESHOW.

Sebelius confirmed to lead Health and Human Services

2009-04-28T16:40:00.000-07:00

Well, since we're in the middle of a swine flu outbreak, I guess now would be a nice time to have a Health and Human Services director...

The timely vote will put Sebelius in office as the Obama administration is up against its first public health outbreak.

She steps into the role as swine flu numbers climb worldwide. As of Tuesday morning, at least 90 cases had been confirmed, including 50 in the United States.

Obama on the Washingtonian cover

2009-04-28T11:14:00.000-07:00

Our commander-in-chief...command us...

GOP 's Sen. Arlen Specter switches parties

2009-04-28T09:20:00.000-07:00

Hot Damn!!!

So if Al Franken gets that Minnesota seat in oh, say June or July--geez, we in California will have voted TWICE by then!!-- the Dems have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

He announced it impromptu to constituents who were there for a totally different meeting, and according to CNN, they broke into spontaneous applause.

Several officials say veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania intends to switch parties, advancing his own hopes of winning a new term next year while pushing Democrats one step closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

The sources said an announcement could come later in the day — or Wednesday. The officials who provided the information did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss his plans.

Specter is a 79-year-old veteran of five Senate terms, and one of only a handful of moderate Republicans left in Congress in a party made up largely of conservatives.

UPDATE: Here's Specter's statement--

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

We don't "torture"...

2009-04-24T23:57:00.000-07:00

The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as 'torture' in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce 'unreliable information.'

Palin, Fundraising Firm Part Ways

2009-04-24T10:37:00.000-07:00

Campaign Solutions, a Republican consulting firm advising Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's political action committee, has parted ways with the former Republican vice presidential nominee.

The group had been working with the Palin operation to raise money for SarahPAC but decided to step aside after a series of strategic and philosophic differences, according to a source familiar with the decision.

A present for the rest of us...

2009-04-22T20:00:00.000-07:00

A key House panel on Wednesday advanced a bill to crack down on credit card interest rates and fees amid signs the Obama administration will try to toughen the bill further before it goes to a full vote.

Read more at CNN.com.

Rice, Cheney Approved Waterboarding

2009-04-22T19:56:00.000-07:00

I'm not saying it's a surprise.... I'm just sayin'....

Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice verbally OK'd the CIA's request to subject alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, a decision memorialized a few days later in a secret memo that the Obama administration declassified last week.

Read more at Rice, Cheney Approved Waterboarding

Newsom for Guv

2009-04-21T15:06:00.000-07:00

GM recalls 1.5 million vehicles

2009-04-14T10:52:00.000-07:00

GM just cannot catch a break...

General Motors Corp. is recalling 1.5 million vehicles because of potential engine fires.

Some of the recalled vehicles are no longer in production. The recall includes the 1998-1999 Oldsmobile Intrigue, the 1997-2003 Pontiac Grand Prix, 1997-2003 Buick Regal, and the 1998-2003 Chevrolet Lumina, Monte Carlo and Impala.

Read more at HuffPo.

Franken Had Most Votes, Court Says

2009-04-14T10:26:00.000-07:00

What month is it? April.. Oh yeah... still deciding....If Coleman appeals then there will be even a longer delay before Franken is seated...

A special Minnesota panel of three judges from three separate courts has ruled that Al Franken, a Democrat, won the most votes in his 2008 Senate race against an incumbent Republican, Norm Coleman.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Obama supports the US hosting the World Cup

2009-04-14T10:19:00.000-07:00

Having shown his deft touch on the basketball court, President Obama is now testing his prowess in the politics of sport.

The president recently sent a video praising Chicago in its bid to hold the 2016 Summer Games. Now he has endorsed the United States’ effort to hold the World Cup of soccer either in 2018 or 2022.
Obama seems to understand the implications of the world’s favorite sport, in the same way he gave early interviews to Arabic newspapers, stopped off in Turkey on his first European trip and held the first Seder in the history of the White House.
“Soccer is truly the world’s sport, and the World Cup promotes camaraderie and friendly competition across the globe,” Obama added in the letter, a part of which was released to The New York Times by the United States Soccer Federation with permission from the White House.
“That is why this bid is about much more than a game,” he added. “It is about the United States of America inviting the world to gather all across our great country in celebration of our common hopes and dreams.”

Obama's speech on the economy

2009-04-14T09:58:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Of course, there are some who argue that the government should stand back and simply let these banks fail - especially since in many cases it was their bad decisions that helped create the crisis in the first place.
But whether we like it or not, history has repeatedly shown that when nations do not take early and aggressive action to get credit flowing again, they have crises that last years and years instead of months and months - years of low growth, low job creation, and low investment that cost those nations far more than a course of bold, upfront action. And although there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks - "where's our bailout?," they ask - the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth.

Read more plus the full transcript at HuffPo.

Classy vs. snobby

2009-04-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

As the president stepped up to 10 Downing Street, he leant over, made eye contact, said something courteous, and shook the hand of the police officer standing guard. There’s always a police officer there; he is a tourist logo in his ridiculous helmet. He tells you that this is London, and the late 19th century. No one has ever shaken the hand of the policeman before, and like everyone else who has his palm touched by Barack Obama, he was visibly transported and briefly forgot himself. He offered the hand to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, who was scuttling behind.

It was ignored. He was left empty-handed. It isn’t that Mr. Brown snubbed the police officer; he just didn’t see him. To a British politician, a police officer is as invisible as the railings.

But the rest of us noticed. Because in this country that still feels the class system like a phantom limb, being overtly kind to servants is the very height of manners, the mark of true nobility. Being nice to the staff is second only to being nice to dogs as a pinnacle of civilization. Remember: a butler’s not just for Christmas. Apparently, the Obamas searched every cupboard and closet in Downing Street to personally thank all the servants for looking after them. That’s classlessly classy.

Prez Pup Coming to Obama White House Tuesday - TMZ.com

2009-04-11T10:00:00.000-07:00

At last we know.... it's a Portuguese Water Dog....

We have lots of exclusive details on the Portuguese Water Dog President Barack Obama and Michelle are getting for Sasha and Malia. The pooch will make its grand entrance on Tuesday, and it's coming from a prominent Texas kennel, with the help of Senator Ted Kennedy's family.

Daily Show on Baracknophobia

2009-04-08T09:18:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Baracknophobia - Obey

comedycentral.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Obama Makes Unannounced Visit to Iraq

2009-04-07T10:27:00.000-07:00

President Obama made an unannounced trip Tuesday to Baghdad, punctuating his week-long overseas trip with a stop to talk to American troops and Iraqi leaders.

Addressing hundreds of troops gathered at a military base here, Mr. Obama said that it was time for Iraqis to “take responsibility for their country,” winning enthusiastic applause. His praise for the performance of the troops was effusive.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Obama: "America Is Not a Christian, Jewish or Muslim Nation"

2009-04-06T22:59:00.000-07:00

Hugs and High Jinks, and Protocol Be Damned - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

2009-04-03T01:44:00.000-07:00

As an Anglophile AND an Obama supporter, I can't help but feel the Queen was just disarmed by Michelle, but that's just my opinion...

On Wednesday, Queen Elizabeth II touched — touched! — Michelle Obama on the small of her back with her white-gloved hand and the first lady reciprocated by placing her left arm around the shoulder — the shoulder! — of the 82-year-old monarch, violating the long held No-Touch-the-Royalty Rule.

Once again, those well-sculpted arms of Mrs. Obama set tongues wagging. Only this time they were covered during an eight-second embrace at Buckingham Palace.

There was PLENTY more afoot. Read on at The Lede Blog at the NYTimes.com.

Let's all go to the G-20...

2009-04-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama left for Europe Tuesday, packing a weighty agenda as he heads for critical economic and political talks in his first journey across the Atlantic since taking office two months ago.

Obama's focus: a G-20 meeting of the world's major economic powers and a NATO summit marking the 60 years since the alliance was founded to blunt Soviet aggression in Europe.

Obama's eight-day, five-country trip begins early Tuesday, sending him to meet with European leaders who split with the United States over the war in Iraq and the treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay under President George W. Bush.

Read more at HuffPo.

Republicans Disinvite Palin From Major Fundraiser, Trash Her In Private

2009-03-31T22:19:00.000-07:00

heh.. heh....

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is out, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in as keynote speaker at a Republican dinner this spring.

Palin, the party's 2008 nominee for vice president, had been slated to address the annual Senate-House Dinner in Washington on June 8. The dinner, sponsored by the House and Senate Republican campaign committees, is one of the GOP's biggest fundraisers.

Palin will be replaced by Gingrich. Both are popular figures with the party's base.

A spokesman for the Senate GOP committee, Brian Walsh, said Palin's team informed the campaign committees that her responsibilities in Alaska prevented her from committing to the speech until the end of the legislative session.

Obama talks about auto companies GM & Chrysler

2009-03-30T19:39:00.000-07:00

The president gave another talk about the auto bailouts. I have got to get his schedule so I know when he's speaking!!

Read more at The White House - Blog Post - GM & Chrysler

Seymour Hershalleges secret ‘assassination wing’ � - Blogs from CNN.com

2009-03-30T15:34:00.000-07:00

In an interview on CNN's The Situation Room, Seymour Hersh said the group — called the Joint Special Operations Command — reported to Vice President Dick Cheney and was delegated authority to assassinate individuals based on their own intelligence.

'The idea that we have a unit that goes around and without reporting to Congress — Congress knows very little about this group, can't get hearings, can't get even classified hearings on it…goes around and has authority from the president to go into a country without telling the CIA station chief or the ambassador and whack someone, I am sorry Wolf, yes I have a problem with that,' Hersh said in the interview with Wolf Blitzer."

Obamas to use own cash to redecorate White House

2009-03-30T15:29:00.000-07:00

I like this guy...

The Obamas are using their own money to redecorate the White House residence and Oval Office, the White House confirms, forgoing the $100,000 in federal funds that is traditionally allotted to new presidents for such renovation projects.
The first couple — who made well over $2 million in 2008, largely from book revenues — is also turning down money from the White House Historical Association, the organization that financed a $74,000 set of china for the Bushes.

More at CNN Political Ticker.

Election maps, just for the nostalgia

2009-03-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

CQ politics has sorted out which districts Obama took vs. McCain and generated a nice map of the results.

In winning the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama built his 7 percentage-point popular vote margin over Republican John McCain on widespread appeal across the nation's regional lines.

This is evident in the map, based on CQ Politics' analysis of the presidential vote, which shows Obama finished ahead of McCain in 242 of the nation's 435 congressional districts -- including 34 that elected Republicans to the U.S. House on the same ballot. McCain -- who ran strongest in much of the South, rural Midwest and conservative regions of the Mountain West -- took 193 districts, including 49 that split their tickets to elect Democrats to the U.S. House."

Obama’s Interactive Town Hall Meeting - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

2009-03-26T09:40:00.000-07:00

They're liveblogging the President's online Town Hall. Ah Brave New World as my Dad would say....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

2009-03-25T14:30:00.000-07:00

An interesting OpEd in today's Times

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.
DEAR Mr. Liddy,
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Obama's Global Op-Ed: "A Time For Global Action"

2009-03-24T11:14:00.000-07:00

Obama's Global Op-Ed: More than 30 papers around the world ran an op-ed today by President Obama arguing for 'the urgent need for global economic cooperation.'

Huff Po reports that the op-ed ran in the following papers:

1. Al Watan (Gulf States)
2. Arab Times (Gulf States)
3. Asharq Al Awsat (Arab-wide paper in Arabic)
4. The Australian (Australia)
5. Baltimore Sun (United States)
6. Bangkok Post (Thailand)
7. Chicago Tribune (United States)
8. Clarin (Argentina)
9. Corriere della Sera (Italy)
10. Die Welt (Germany)
11. El Pais (Madrid)
12. El Mercurio (Chile)
13. Eleftyropiea (Greece)
14. Estado de Sao Paulo (Brazil)
15. Gulf News (Gulf States)
16. The Hindustan Times/ The Hindu (India)
17. International Herald Tribune (London)
18. Kristeligt Dagblad (Denmark)
19. Le Monde (Paris)
20. Lidove Noviny (Czech)
21. Los Angeles Times (United States)
22. The News (Pakistan)
23. NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands)
24. Saudi Gazette (Saudi Arabia)
25. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
26. Straits Times (Singapore)
27. Sunday Times (South Africa)
28. Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden)
29. Syndey Morning Herald (Australia)
30. WProst (Poland)
31. Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan)

Read the full text after the jump.

A time for global action
By Barack Obama
Monday, March 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation. Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.

Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.

If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up -- already we've seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.

My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.

Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.

Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.

Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.

Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.

This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.

Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.

The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.

While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.

Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.

All of our financial institutions -- on Wall Street and around the globe -- need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.

Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.

I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.

This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.

The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.

Barack Obama is president of the United States. A Global Viewpoint article distributed by Tribune Media Services.

Teleprompter Vs. No Teleprompter

2009-03-24T11:10:00.000-07:00

More in the category of "They Must Think It's A Slow News Day,"

Critics say Obama relies too heavily on his teleprompter. As Politico notes:

'Obama's reliance on the teleprompter is unusual -- not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.'

More, with hilarious video segment from Dave Letterman at HuffPo.

Colbert's Rap Battle with Michael Steele

2009-03-21T09:03:00.000-07:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Michael Steele's Rap Battle Response

comedycentral.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Mark Sanford

A.I.G. Sues Government for Return of $306 Million in Tax Payments

2009-03-20T15:16:00.000-07:00

Are you KIDDING ME???

While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Obama, Peres and Colbert on the Persian New Year - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

2009-03-20T11:39:00.000-07:00

The man is good. Think about how this sort of reference to Persian literature will play in a place that is so steeped in history and with such a rich literary culture.

Notable in Mr. Obama’s message is his reference to the words of Saadi, a revered Persian poet. Near the end of his remarks, Mr. Obama said:

I know that this won’t be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”

Mr. Obama was quoting from a translation Saadi’s poem “Bani A’dam.” The full text of the poem has been rendered into English in several varying translations. During the siege of Sarajevo in 1994, Anthony Lewis quoted the poem in full in a column in The Times. Marizeh Ghiasi, a blogger in Canada who was born in Tehran, published this translation, beneath an image of the original Persian script on her blog:

The children of Adam are the limbs of one body
That share an origin in their creation
When one limb passes its days in pain
The other limbs cannot remain easy
You who feel no pain at the suffering of others
It is not fitting for you to be called human

Obama on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno

2009-03-19T23:53:00.000-07:00

Obama Sends Iran Message On Nowruz

2009-03-19T23:47:00.000-07:00

Obama speaks in Farsi!

"I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek," Obama concludes. "It is a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It is a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you, and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater peace and security."

...

Obama ended the address with a Farsi saying, Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak -- which translates to 'have a celebratory new year' -- and included Persian captions in the video."

Read more at HuffPo.

The Next AIG Scandal?

2009-03-19T00:15:00.000-07:00

uh oh.

Thomas Gober, a former Mississippi state insurance examiner who has tracked fraud in the industry for 23 years and served previously as a consultant to the FBI and the Department of Justice, says he believes AIG's supposedly solvent insurance business may be at least as troubled as its reckless financial-products unit. Far from being 'healthy,' as state insurance regulators, ratings agencies and other experts have repeatedly described the insurance side, Gober calls it 'a house of cards.' Citing numerous documents he has obtained from state insurance regulators and obscure data buried in AIG's own 300-page annual reports, Gober argues that AIG's 71 interlocking domestic U.S. insurance subsidiaries are in hock to each other to an astonishing degree.

Most of this as-yet-undiscovered problem, Gober says, lies in the area of reinsurance, whereby one insurance company insures the liabilities of another so that the latter doesn't have to carry all the risk on its books. Most major insurance companies use outside firms to reinsure, but the vast majority of AIG's reinsurance contracts are negotiated internally among its affiliates, Gober says, and these internal balance sheets don't add up. The annual report of one major AIG subsidiary, American Home Assurance, shows that it owes $25 billion to another AIG affiliate, National Union Fire, Gober maintains. But American has only $22 billion of total invested assets on its balance sheet, he says, and it has issued another $22 billion in guarantees to the other companies. "The American Home assets and liquidity raise serious questions about their ability to make good on their promise to National Union Fire," says Gober, who has a consulting business devoted to protecting policyholders. Gober says there are numerous other examples of "cooked books" between AIG subsidiaries. Based on the state insurance regulators' own reports detailing unanswered questions, the tally in losses could be hundreds of billions of dollars more than AIG is now acknowledging.

What $165 million could have bought instead

2009-03-18T21:40:00.000-07:00

Those AIG bonuses amounted to $165 million. I've heard a lot of talk about how it was just a drop in the bucket out of the billions AIG got in bailout money -- why should we be so concerned about it?

While it's true that it's several orders of magnitude smaller than the price tags we've been looking at for bailing out failed institutions, $165 million is still a lot of money. What could we have bought for America instead?

National Endowment for the Arts budget for FY 2008 : $144.7 million
Allow the New York City Department of Education to develop 200 schools: $150 million
Improving Health care in rural areas under the president's new plan: $73 million
Mars Polar Lander: $120 million
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Conservation Program: $165 million
TriPoint Medical Center, a state-of-the-art health care facility in Ohio: $150 million

Absolute total idiocy: Priceless.

Obama's bracket picks

2009-03-18T13:45:00.000-07:00

The White House has release Obama's picks and full bracket for the NCAA 09 March Madness. Final Four picks: Louisville, North Carolina, Memphis and Pittsburgh

AIG asks execs to return bonuses

2009-03-18T12:32:00.000-07:00

This morning's word...

AIG asks execs to return bonuses - Mar. 18, 2009: "Liddy, saying he knew the public's patience is 'wearing thin,' said some employees have decided on their own to return their entire bonus to the company.

'It was distasteful to make these payments,' Liddy told members of the House Financial Services subcommittee. 'This morning, I've asked the employees of AIG Financial Products to step up and do the right thing. Specifically, I've asked those who received retention payments in excess of $100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments.'"

I Can't Believe It's Not Insurance

2009-03-18T09:04:00.000-07:00

Watching the AIG hearings this morning.

My favorite line so far is comes from New York's Gary Ackerman speaking before the Edward Liddy panel even started. He noted that there's a great product called "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter," but at least they have the decency to tell you it's not butter... They're calling it "credit default swaps" because if they called it "I Can't Believe It's Not Insurance," he says, maybe no one would buy it.

You can see them live on CSPAN-3 or on the livestream here.

Those AIG Retention Bonuses: dirty details

2009-03-17T14:21:00.000-07:00

Are you freaking kidding me? Andrew Cuomo releases info in a letter to Barney Frank about those AIG bonuses for the brilliant noodniks in AIG's Financial Products division:

• The top recipient received more than $6.4 million;
• The top seven bonus recipients received more than $4 million each;
• The top ten bonus recipients received a combined $42 million;
• 22 individuals received bonuses of $2 million or more, and combined they
received more than $72 million;
• 73 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more; and
• Eleven of the individuals who received 'retention' bonuses of $1 million
or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received $4.6
million

Again, these payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG. Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73
millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome. I hope the Committee will address it head on."

Read more of this irritating stuff at HuffPo.

US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites

2009-03-16T18:00:00.000-07:00

War crimes. That's what we call them when other countries do this...

We think time and elections will cleanse our fallen world but they will not. Since November, George W. Bush and his administration have seemed to be rushing away from us at accelerating speed, a dark comet hurtling toward the ends of the universe. The phrase 'War on Terror'—the signal slogan of that administration, so cherished by the man who took pride in proclaiming that he was 'a wartime president'—has acquired in its pronouncement a permanent pair of quotation marks, suggesting something questionable, something mildly embarrassing: something past. And yet the decisions that that president made, especially the monumental decisions taken after the attacks of September 11, 2001—decisions about rendition, surveillance, interrogation—lie strewn about us still, unclaimed and unburied, like corpses freshly dead.

Warning: There's a lot more, but it's really really ugly...
Read more at The New York Review of Books.

Wait a Second, Monkey Boy . . .

2009-03-16T17:49:00.000-07:00

Barry Ritholz on the best financial thing he's learned:

You’re a monkey. It all comes down to that. You are a slightly clever, pants-wearing primate. If you forget that you’re nothing more than a monkey who has been fashioned by eons on the plains, being chased by tigers, you shouldn’t invest. You have to be aware of how your own psychology effects what you do. This is why we as investors sell at the bottom, get panicked. All the other lessons I’ve learned have come out of that. As has the field of behavioral economics.

Read more at Wait a Second, Monkey Boy . . .

AIG Execs Who Ruined Company To Get $165 Million In Bonuses

2009-03-16T17:17:00.000-07:00

Retention pay" Are you freakin' kidding me? Who needs to retain these people?

The large bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer.

A white paper prepared by the company says that AIG is contractually obligated to pay a total of about $165 million of previously awarded 'retention pay' to employees in this unit by Sunday, March 15. The document says that another $55 million in retention pay has already been distributed to about 400 AIG Financial Products employees.

Right. Sure. As Christine Pelosi says, Let's see you in court. I wanna hear what you think you did to deserve this payment. I want to know who you are!
Read more at HuffPo.

AIG Falling

2009-03-16T16:22:00.000-07:00

More on the AIG bonus debacle. Honest-to-freakin-Murgatroyd, everything was just going to business as usual for these CEOS? Didn't ANYone think, "Hey, maybe it would look better if I said I was going to take that bonus and GIVE IT BACK TO THE COMPANY?"

President Barack Obama declared Monday that insurance giant American International Group is in financial straits because of 'recklessness and greed' and said he intends to stop it from paying out millions in executive bonuses.

'It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay,' Obama said at the outset of an appearance to announce help for small businesses hurt by the deep recession.
Obama spoke out in the wake of reports that surfaced over the weekend saying that financially strapped American International Group Inc. was paying substantial bonuses to executives.

Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

A White House official told the Wall Street Journal that the Treasury Department will "use a planned $30 billion infusion into AIG to compel the company to repay the bonuses promised to employees of its financial-products group, which is responsible for selling the exotic financial instruments that brought the company to near-collapse."
...
In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, [AIG Chairman Edward] Liddy said outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.

More here at HuffPo.

Gibbs: I Thoroughly Enjoyed Watching Stewart Skewer Cramer (VIDEO)

2009-03-13T13:17:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I'll bet he enjoyed it!

Robert Gibbs, who has thrown his share of punches at the CNBC brass, said he took thorough enjoyment in watching Jon Stewart's skewering of CNBC's Jim Cramer during Thursday night's much discussed 'Daily Show' interview.

Read more at HuffPo.

Buffett’s Berkshire Has AAA Debt Rating Cut by Fitch (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

2009-03-13T08:56:00.000-07:00

Damn.

Billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. had its top-level AAA credit rating cut by Fitch Ratings, which cited concern about the potential for losses on the insurer’s equity and derivatives holdings.

Buffett’s role as chief investment officer also puts the company at risk if he becomes unable to do the job, Fitch said in a statement. Fitch cut the so-called issuer default rating on Berkshire to AA , and senior unsecured debt to AA. The insurance and reinsurance units kept their AAA status, with a negative outlook for all entities, Fitch said.

Jim Cramer on The Daily Show

2009-03-13T08:41:00.000-07:00

I almost feel sorry for him, but there is no such thing as bad publicity. Cynically I can't help feeling like, as cathartic as it's been for us, the guy got massive exposure out of this.

But I'm still glad Jon nailed him...

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

More video at The Daily Show on Comedy Central.

Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston Split Up: CONFIRMED

2009-03-11T21:08:00.000-07:00

Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, the teenage daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin, have broken off their engagement, he said Wednesday, about 2 1/2 months after the couple had a baby. Johnston, 19, told The Associated Press that he and 18-year-old Bristol Palin mutually decided 'a while ago' to end their relationship. He declined to elaborate as he stood outside his family's home in Wasilla, about 40 miles north of Anchorage.

He also said some details of the breakup, rumors of which had been swirling on the Internet, were inaccurate.

Bristol Palin said in a statement that she was devastated about a report on Star magazine's Web site that quoted Levi's sister, Mercede, as saying Bristol 'makes it nearly impossible' to visit the teenagers' infant son, Tripp. The baby was born Dec. 27.

"Unfortunately, my family has seen many people say and do many things to `cash in' on the Palin name," said the statement, which was issued through the governor's political action committee. "Sometimes that greed clouds good judgment and the truth."

SarahPAC spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton did not immediately respond to calls seeking further information. The governor's spokesman, Bill McAllister, declined comment.

Sarah Palin revealed her daughter's pregnancy just days after being named John McCain's running mate on the Republican presidential ticket. She had said in December that her daughter and Johnston "are committed to accomplish what millions of other young parents have accomplished, to provide a loving and secure environment for their child."

In an interview that aired on Fox News last month, Bristol Palin said her fiance saw the baby every day and described him as a "hands-on" dad.

Read more at HuffPo.

Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston Split?

2009-03-11T12:49:00.000-07:00

i report. u decide.

According to Star magazine, Bristol Palin and her fiance Levi Johnston are no longer together.

(But raise your hand if you're truly surprised.)

Read more at HuffPo.

Cramer-isms

2009-03-11T10:42:00.000-07:00

Cramer is going to be on Jon Stewart's Daily Show Thursday -- let's hope Jon asks him about this...

-On falsely creating the impression a stock is down (what he calls "fomenting"): "You can't foment. That's a violation... But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it." He adds, "When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment."

-On the truth: "What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances."

-On manipulating the market: 'A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,'

Read more at HuffPo.

Draft Palin Effort Begins In A Denny's In West Haven

2009-03-11T09:41:00.000-07:00

Be afraid... not of Palin, but of the drafters...

First Gov. Sarah Palin Meet-up Held in West Haven, CT
The first meet up for the 2012 Draft Sarah Committee was held Tuesday, March 10th at 6:30 pm in West Haven, CT at the local Denny's restaurant.
The event was covered by Abbe Smith of the New Haven Register. She was interested in the reasons why people were supporting Gov. Palin and took copious notes about our Commitee. A photographer was there, so we might expect a fairly detailed feature article. (will provide a link when available.)

Gov. Sarah Palin Meet-ups will be held in towns and colleges across the country the second Tuesday of every month. The next scheduled meet-up is Tuesday, April 14th.

The idea is for people of like interests to meet informally on the second Tuesday of each month. No official talks, or speeches. Just some coffee, a bite to eat and a chance to chat.

Look on the Meet-up Page for scheduled meet-ups in your state.
Thanks,
Paul Streitz

Read more at HuffPo.

Katie Couric's Sarah Palin Interview Wins Cronkite Award

2009-03-10T15:10:00.000-07:00

And well WELL-deserved!

Katie Couric has won a Cronkite Award for her revealing, multi-part interview of Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

The Cronkite Awards have been presented biannually by the USC Annenberg School for Communication, in honor of CBS News legend Walter Cronkite, since 2000.

Couric won her award in the category 'Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign.' In the awards announcement, judges called Couric's interview with Palin a 'defining moment in the 2008 presidential campaign,' and described it as 'extraordinary, persistent and detailed.'

Read more at HuffPo.

Cramer vs. Stewart

2009-03-10T13:00:00.000-07:00

JIM CRAMER: A comedian's attacking me! Wow! He runs a variety show!
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Okay, but you know what he's saying about you, that you advised investors to buy Bear Stearns. You said you were taken out of context.
CRAMER: On October 6th, 2008, I came on this show and did something you're never supposed to do if you have a stock show. I said people should sell everything. That was thirty-five percent ago. Whatever he says about Bear Stearns, this or that, that was a call that should have wrecked my career, and it would have if the market had gone up.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So Jon Stewart of course, has a reply... Nobody told him that you shouldn't get into a pissing match with Jon Stewart?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

In Cramer We Trust

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Obama Science Memo Goes Beyond Stem Cells

2009-03-09T10:55:00.000-07:00

Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be 'distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.'

Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush.

Read more at HuffPo.

Michael Steele's new implant

2009-03-08T10:56:00.000-07:00

SNL's The Rock Obama

2009-03-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

Please, o ahead, make him angry.

Obama's Health Care Summit

2009-03-05T12:04:00.000-08:00

Looks like single-payer advocates finally got a seat at the table...Almost as if Obama heard my ranting about his early health care positions.

President Obama said on Thursday that though “special interests” and “industry lobbying” had blocked improvements in the health care system for decades, he vowed to end the stalemate this year and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care.
“Those who seek to block any reform at any cost will not prevail this time around,” Mr. Obama said in opening a White House conference, where he promised to reduce health costs and expand coverage.
The conference is drawing more than 150 participants, including members of Congress and leaders of labor unions, business groups, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and consumer organizations.
In his opening remarks, Mr. Obama provided no new details of how he would extend coverage to the 46 million people who have no health insurance. Instead, he expressed his hope that a “transparent and inclusive” process would produce a bipartisan consensus, overcoming the objections of those who had a financial stake in the status quo.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Hillary’s Mystery Woman

2009-03-05T11:33:00.000-08:00

For anyone who's wondered who the gorgeous woman is that serves as Hillary Clinton's personal aide, here's a fascinating story on Huma Abedin.

Indeed, in the insular world of New York and D.C. politics, Huma Abedin has become a sort of mythical figure.

On a day-to-day basis, Ms. Abedin is responsible for guiding the Senator from one chaotic event to the next and ensuring that the many hundreds of situations that arise at each—the photo ops, the handshakes, the speeches—go smoothly. The job of “body person”—industry-speak for the catchall role of an omnipresent traveling assistant—is a notoriously grueling one, requiring unfaltering level-headedness and a zeal for multitasking. These folks are constantly on the move, juggling 20 different chores, and they consequently often appear slightly disheveled (or even sweaty).
By most quantifiable measures, Ms. Abedin has the most challenging of those gigs. In the last 10 days, she has accompanied Mrs. Clinton to more than 20 events, involving nine plane flights and several trains. At each stop, they were mobbed.

“I think she has special powers,” said public-radio broadcaster Katia Dunn, who recently crossed paths with Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton at a café on Capitol Hill.

Ms. Dunn explained that she had heard about the “cult of Huma,” but had never met her. “All of a sudden, I turn around and there was this woman I now know to be Huma. And it wasn’t just that she was gorgeous—she did just sort of have this presence. She stopped me in my tracks for a second.”

The daughter of an Islamic scholar and a Pakistani-born professor, Abedin still works for Clinton at State.

Read more at The New York Observer.

Citigroup Stock Sinks To An All-Time Low Of 97 Cents

2009-03-05T09:41:00.000-08:00

...and A.I.G. is at $0.42. Brilliant.

Shares of Citigroup, once the nation's most powerful bank, hit an all time low of 97 cents on Thursday. It is a 95.56% drop from the same period last year. The bank's 52-week high was $27.35 on April 28, 2008. According to WSJ's Market Watch, the stock reached an all-time high of $57 a share on Dec. 18, 2006.

Read more at HuffPo.

Jon Stewart once again nails exactly how we feel.\

2009-03-05T09:36:00.000-08:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Joe Nocera on A.I.G.’s House of Cards

2009-03-05T00:05:00.000-08:00

Joe Nocera is the Business columnist for the NY Times. Here is his explanation of the A.I.G. sitch...Possibly the best and most apoplexy-inducing thing I've read all week.

Next week, perhaps as early as Monday, the American International Group is going to report the largest quarterly loss in history. Rumors suggest it will be around $60 billion, which will affirm, yet again, A.I.G.’s sorry status as the most crippled of all the nation’s wounded financial institutions. The recent quarterly losses suffered by Merrill Lynch and Citigroup — “only” $15.4 billion and $8.3 billion, respectively — pale by comparison.

At the same time A.I.G. reveals its loss, the federal government is also likely to announce — yet again! — a new plan to save A.I.G., the third since September. So far the government has thrown $150 billion at the company, in loans, investments and equity injections, to keep it afloat. It has softened the terms it set for the original $85 billion loan it made back in September. To ease the pressure even more, the Federal Reserve actually runs a facility that buys toxic assets that A.I.G. had insured. A.I.G. effectively has been nationalized, with the government owning a hair under 80 percent of the stock. Not that it’s worth very much; A.I.G. shares closed Friday at 42 cents.
Donn Vickrey, who runs the independent research firm Gradient Analytics, predicts that A.I.G. is going to cost taxpayers at least $100 billion more before it finally stabilizes, by which time the company will almost surely have been broken into pieces, with the government owning large chunks of it. A quarter of a trillion dollars, if it comes to that, is an astounding amount of money to hand over to one company to prevent it from going bust. Yet the government feels it has no choice: because of A.I.G.’s dubious business practices during the housing bubble it pretty much has the world’s financial system by the throat.

If we let A.I.G. fail, said Seamus P. McMahon, a banking expert at Booz & Company, other institutions, including pension funds and American and European banks “will face their own capital and liquidity crisis, and we could have a domino effect.” A bailout of A.I.G. is really a bailout of its trading partners — which essentially constitutes the entire Western banking system.

Read more at the NYTimes.com.

This grey hair is the financial crisis, that one is from the war....

2009-03-04T19:54:00.000-08:00

Heck, Obama started going grey during the campaign. A little stressed? Y'think?

It happens to all of them, of course — Bill Clinton still had about half a head of brown hair when he took office but was a silver fox two years later, and George W. Bush went from salt and pepper to just salt in what seemed like a blink of an eye.

But so soon? “I started noticing it toward the end of the campaign and leading up to inauguration,” says Deborah Willis, who, as co-author of “Obama: The Historic Campaign in Photographs,” pored through 5,000 photographs of the first head over the last year.

Read more at the NYTimes.com.

Almost Armageddon

2009-03-04T09:51:00.000-08:00

Or is it "Deep Impact"... I always get them mixed up. Hey guys, how's that asteroid early warning program going?

An asteroid about the size of one that blasted Siberia a century ago just buzzed by Earth.

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory reported that the asteroid zoomed past Monday morning.

The asteroid named 2009 DD45 was about 48,800 miles from Earth. That is just twice the height of some telecommunications satellites and about a fifth of the distance to the Moon.

The space ball measured between 69 feet and 154 feet in diameter. The Planetary Society said that made it the same size as an asteroid that exploded over Siberia in 1908 and leveled more than 800 square miles of forest.

Most people probably didn't notice the cosmic close call. The asteroid was only spotted two days ago and at its closest point passed over the Pacific Ocean near Tahiti.

Ooops.

Countrywide Execs making millions off mortgages bailout

2009-03-04T09:48:00.000-08:00

Seriously, folks, seriously? Those millions need to go into the bailout pot.

Fairly or not, Countrywide Financial and its top executives would be on most lists of those who share blame for the nation’s economic crisis. After all, the banking behemoth made risky loans to tens of thousands of Americans, helping set off a chain of events that has the economy staggering.
So it may come as a surprise that a dozen former top Countrywide executives now stand to make millions from the home mortgage mess.
Stanford L. Kurland, Countrywide’s former president, and his team have been buying up delinquent home mortgages that the government took over from other failed banks, sometimes for pennies on the dollar. They get a piece of what they can collect.

Read more at the NYTimes.com.

That's what she said

2009-03-03T11:28:00.000-08:00

Yeah, just reminding you... that's what she said.