Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Law Professor at the Washington and Lee University:
What we are learning from the Health Care Town Halls is just how weird and downright toxic the radical right has become in the United States. Their strategy seems to be simply to spread misinformation and to shout down rational debate. These are the birthers and tea-baggers and they have little interest in the real problems facing our health care system--50 million uninsured, uncontrolled costs, and inadequate quality. The faux issues they are raising--a government takeover of our health care system, denial of health care to the sick by the government, the end of private health insurance--demonstrate that they have simply not read the proposed legislation.
Indeed, the basics of the legislation--managed competition, expansion of Medicaid, and public subisidies for the purchase of private insurance--are precisely the solutions that free market advocacy groups have been pushing for years.The Town Hall intimidation campaign seems to be led by a group called Patients First, which in turn is a front for a group called Americans for Prosperity.
Americans for Prosperity, according to Sourcewatch, has in the past opposed tobacco control legislation on behalf of the tobacco industry (making their involvement in health care somewhat ironic). AFPs largest funder has been the Claude Lambe Foundation, which in turn is funded by Koch Industries, the "nations largest privately held energy company," and which has longsupported right wing causes together with other Koch foundations right wing causes.Much of the opposition to the health reform legislation moving through Congress is based on real concerns about how much it will cost the government and whether it will be effective.
One would hope that town halls could provide a forum for rationally expressing concerns and also for responding to them. It is telling that, although some recent polls show that opposition to "President Obama's health care plan" slightly outweighs support, once the elements of that plan are described, support for the plan rises dramatically.
The public clearly needs more information. But this exchange of information cannot take place if the meetings are mobbed by goons trying to shout down rational dialogue. Fortunately, there is every indication that this strategy is backfiring as ordinary Americans see just how ugly right wing extremism has become.
h/t Politico
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
ASTROTURFING AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS: Lanny Davis speaks up.
"The 'shout downs' organized by the Republican right meet one of the classic definitions of 'fascist' tactics--defined as using shouting and disruption to deprive the civil and respectful debate of ideas.
There is literally no defense to these tactics. I don't criticize those who feel genuine anger or fear and show up to meetings to express those emotions. But I do call out the tactic of screaming and disrupting a meeting and the fact that this is a systematic tactic by thugs who want to prevent civil discourse, not promote it.
Let's have the media name names, publish photographs, and do interviews of those responsible for approving, even organizing these techniques. And let's find an investigative journalist - are there any left - to prove these so-called grassroots shouters are, or are not, being paid.
It took a year or more to prove that the so-called grassroots protesters shouting and pounding on the windows of the vote counters in Dade County -- successfully stopping the vote -- were really paid Republican congressional staffers, many then on the public payroll, and from the Republican National Committee and the Bush 2000 presidential campaign staff.
Will that story of paid people to disrupt and block discussion organized by the Republican Party or tacitly encouraged while Republican rightwing organizations organize them at least be investigated?" --Lanny Davis
There is literally no defense to these tactics. I don't criticize those who feel genuine anger or fear and show up to meetings to express those emotions. But I do call out the tactic of screaming and disrupting a meeting and the fact that this is a systematic tactic by thugs who want to prevent civil discourse, not promote it.
Let's have the media name names, publish photographs, and do interviews of those responsible for approving, even organizing these techniques. And let's find an investigative journalist - are there any left - to prove these so-called grassroots shouters are, or are not, being paid.
It took a year or more to prove that the so-called grassroots protesters shouting and pounding on the windows of the vote counters in Dade County -- successfully stopping the vote -- were really paid Republican congressional staffers, many then on the public payroll, and from the Republican National Committee and the Bush 2000 presidential campaign staff.
Will that story of paid people to disrupt and block discussion organized by the Republican Party or tacitly encouraged while Republican rightwing organizations organize them at least be investigated?" --Lanny Davis
The Astroturfing of America's Health Care Reform, Part I
On July 31, 2009, Bill Moyers Journal featured Wendell Potter, former head of corporate communications for CIGNA — the country's fourth largest health insurance company. Moyers introduced Potter to his viewers: "Altogether Potter spent nearly 2 decades playing for the side that has opposed health care reform from the Clintons forward: he sat on policy committees, crafted executive messages, cajoled the press and witnessed firsthand the promises made — and broken."
This is the link to the entire transcript and video, but I will highlight below some of the more important statements made by Potter who knows how the insurance companies and certain members of Congress have worked the system to stop any efforts to bring change to our health care system.
Last month, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, headed by Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, heard Mr. Potter's testimony:
WENDELL POTTER: The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable, publicly accountable health care option as, quote, "government-run health care." What we have today, Mr. Chairman, is Wall Street-run health care that has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it.
And this is to show anyone who believes Potter has exposed the insurance industry's duplicity and anti-health care Congressional representatives' venality because he had an axe to grind:
BILL MOYERS: You worked for CIGNA 15 years and left last year.
WENDELL POTTER: I did.
BILL MOYERS: Were you pushed out?
WENDELL POTTER: I was not. I left-- it was my decision to leave, and my decision to leave when I did.
BILL MOYERS: Were you passed over for a promotion?
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely not. No.
BILL MOYERS: Had you been well-paid and rewarded by the company?
WENDELL POTTER: Very well-paid. And I, over the years, had many job opportunities, many bonuses, salary increases. So no, I was not. And in fact, there was no further place for me to go in the company. I was head of corporate communications and that was the ultimate P.R. job.
BILL MOYERS: Did you like your boss and the people you work with?
WENDELL POTTER: I did, and still do. I still respect them.
BILL MOYERS: And they gave you a terrific party when you left?
WENDELL POTTER: They sure did, yeah.
BILL MOYERS: So then why are you speaking out now?
WENDELL POTTER: I didn't intend to, until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.
BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?
WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.
BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?
WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."
BILL MOYERS: How?
WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
To be continued...
This is the link to the entire transcript and video, but I will highlight below some of the more important statements made by Potter who knows how the insurance companies and certain members of Congress have worked the system to stop any efforts to bring change to our health care system.
Last month, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, headed by Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, heard Mr. Potter's testimony:
WENDELL POTTER: The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable, publicly accountable health care option as, quote, "government-run health care." What we have today, Mr. Chairman, is Wall Street-run health care that has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it.
And this is to show anyone who believes Potter has exposed the insurance industry's duplicity and anti-health care Congressional representatives' venality because he had an axe to grind:
BILL MOYERS: You worked for CIGNA 15 years and left last year.
WENDELL POTTER: I did.
BILL MOYERS: Were you pushed out?
WENDELL POTTER: I was not. I left-- it was my decision to leave, and my decision to leave when I did.
BILL MOYERS: Were you passed over for a promotion?
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely not. No.
BILL MOYERS: Had you been well-paid and rewarded by the company?
WENDELL POTTER: Very well-paid. And I, over the years, had many job opportunities, many bonuses, salary increases. So no, I was not. And in fact, there was no further place for me to go in the company. I was head of corporate communications and that was the ultimate P.R. job.
BILL MOYERS: Did you like your boss and the people you work with?
WENDELL POTTER: I did, and still do. I still respect them.
BILL MOYERS: And they gave you a terrific party when you left?
WENDELL POTTER: They sure did, yeah.
BILL MOYERS: So then why are you speaking out now?
WENDELL POTTER: I didn't intend to, until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.
BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?
WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.
BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?
WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."
BILL MOYERS: How?
WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
To be continued...
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
THANK YOU PRESIDENT CLINTON
Bill Clinton's 'rock star status' delivers in North Korea
The former president succeeded in securing the release of two American journalists partly because he brought Pyongyang the prestige it craves.
By Howard LaFranchi
Staff writer
The Christian Science Monitor
from the August 4, 2009 edition
Washington - Bill Clinton's successful mission in securing the freedom of two American journalists jailed by North Korea – a testament to the clout the former president still has abroad – could represent something of a two-edged sword for President Obama.
The release of the two journalists removes a thorn from the increasingly irritated relations between the US and North Korea. More broadly, it also constitutes a glimmer of hope for Mr.
Obama's faith in dialogue as a foreign policy tool, some diplomatic analysts say.
But the high-profile talks between the US and North Korea – carried out between a former US president and Pyongyang's dictator, Kim Jong-il – will also raise the discomfort level of US allies Japan and South Korea, both of which worry that a Washington-Pyongyang détente could come at their expense.
Moreover, Mr. Clinton's success could increase pressure for a similar high-profile diplomatic mission to Tehran to secure the release of three Americans detained by Iranian officials after wandering into Iranian territory from Iraq.
Clinton arrived in Pyongyang on a surprise visit Tuesday. By Wednesday morning, Pyongyang time, state media were reporting that Mr. Kim had issued a "special pardon" to Laura Ling and Euna Lee, the two American journalists convicted in June of entering the country illegally.
North Korean media also reported that Clinton had an "exhaustive conversation" with a "wide-ranging exchange of views on the matters of common concern" over dinner with Kim and his top aides.
HEALTH CARE REFORM AND ASTROTURFING
Over at The Swash Zone, fellow blogger, (O)CT(O)PUS, blogs about a crucial subject: Astroturfing, and the GOP. (O)CT(O)PUS describes astroturfing this way:
"Astroturfing creates the illusion of a popular and spontaneous uprising but, in fact, is a carefully orchestrated and covert operation that utilizes deception, disinformation, scare tactics, fear-mongering, and outright forgery to achieve its goals."
These same tactics were used during the recount in the 2000 election. Squads of GOP goons were hired to disrupt and ultimately stop it.
I highly recommend your reading the post to understand what is really behind the fake outrage and opposition over efforts for health care reform.
And speaking of health care reform, here's another instance of hypocrisy and fake outrage over what the Obama administration is trying to accomplish.
Rachel Maddow exposes the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, for his inane response to the administration's push to get the job done, and shows that he's another "All Hat and No Cattle" sort of politician.
Texas has the highest rate of uninsured. Perry's been in office for 9 years, and though he has the power of the governorship and the GOP majority in the Texas legislature, has done nothing to remedy the disgraceful situation.
Maddow nicely shows the country that Rick Perry, like most of the opposition to health care, is a fraud, and also a form of Asstroturf himself:
"Astroturfing creates the illusion of a popular and spontaneous uprising but, in fact, is a carefully orchestrated and covert operation that utilizes deception, disinformation, scare tactics, fear-mongering, and outright forgery to achieve its goals."
These same tactics were used during the recount in the 2000 election. Squads of GOP goons were hired to disrupt and ultimately stop it.
I highly recommend your reading the post to understand what is really behind the fake outrage and opposition over efforts for health care reform.
And speaking of health care reform, here's another instance of hypocrisy and fake outrage over what the Obama administration is trying to accomplish.
Rachel Maddow exposes the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, for his inane response to the administration's push to get the job done, and shows that he's another "All Hat and No Cattle" sort of politician.
Texas has the highest rate of uninsured. Perry's been in office for 9 years, and though he has the power of the governorship and the GOP majority in the Texas legislature, has done nothing to remedy the disgraceful situation.
Maddow nicely shows the country that Rick Perry, like most of the opposition to health care, is a fraud, and also a form of Asstroturf himself:
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sean and Glenn and Lou--Our Very Own National Idiots
There's an endless supply of crazies out there. And many of them have their own conservative radio talk and teevee shows.
I can't decide who's the wackiest of the three in the post title above.
Wait.
I can't decide who's the wackiest of the three in the post title above.
Wait.
Yes I Can.
It's Beck, hands down. No one can beat Beck in the deranged trou de cul category.
Hannity is just plain dumb, and Lou is in desperate need of a ratings boost, hence his foray into Crazy Town.
I'll let Jon Stewart explain it all. (For some reason I can't get the imbed code to work.)
It's Beck, hands down. No one can beat Beck in the deranged trou de cul category.
Hannity is just plain dumb, and Lou is in desperate need of a ratings boost, hence his foray into Crazy Town.
I'll let Jon Stewart explain it all. (For some reason I can't get the imbed code to work.)
And now this next bit of information on how certain regions of this country are influenced by idiots like Hannity, Beck, and Dobbs. This is truly embarrassing:
Only 42 percent of Republican respondents in a Research 2000 survey, conducted for the liberal website Daily Kos, said they thought Obama was a natural born citizen; 28 percent said they did not believe Obama was born in the United States; 30 percent said they were not sure.
The responses, which were gathered after several prominent conservative media personalities fed suspicion that Obama was unconstitutionally holding office, show the extent to which the conspiracy has taken hold in the GOP.
That only a plurality of Republicans were willing to acknowledge the president was born in America is nothing short of astounding, considering the preponderance of evidence that confirms his Hawaiian birth.
The conspiracy has a regional flavor. Overall, even including Democrats and independents, only 47 percent of respondents in the South said they believed Obama was born in America, with 23 percent saying he was not and 30 percent saying they were unsure. In the Northeast and Midwest, the percentage of respondents who believe Obama was born in the U.S. was over 90 percent.
Ninety-three percent of Democrats say the president was born in the United States, as do 83 percent of independents.
The Research 2000 findings were pulled together from a survey of 2,400 adults.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
MYTH vs. FACT: Advance Planning Consultations in HR 3200
Congressman Earl Blumenauer, D-OR, refutes the lies and misrepresentations being put forth by the mischievous rightwingers.
Myth vs. Fact: Advance Planning Consultations in H.R. 3200
Few areas are more vital for honest discussion and careful consideration than end-of-life care
for America’s seniors. Unfortunately, families often do not know their loved ones’ preferences
for end of life care and are not confronted with these difficult decisions until an emergency
arises. This leaves spouses, sons, daughters and grandchildren unprepared; as a result
families struggle to make decisions in the midst of turmoil.
The House health care legislation includes a provision (Sec. 1233) that provides seniors with
better care as they grapple with these hard questions. This provision extends Medicare
coverage to cover the cost of patients voluntarily speaking with their doctors about their values
and preferences regarding end-of-life care. These are deeply personal decisions that take
thoughtful consideration, and it is only appropriate that doctors be compensated for their time.
Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years.
Fact: Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completelyvoluntary. The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversationonce every five years if – and only if – a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to adoctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill orif their health status changes.
Myth: Patients will be forced to sign an advance care directive (or living will).
Fact: There is no mandate in the bill to complete an advance care directive or livingwill. If a patient chooses to complete an advance directive or order for life sustainingtreatment, these documents will help articulate a full range of treatment preferences, from fulland aggressive treatment to limited, comfort care only. Patients that choose to have thesedocuments and can customize them so that their wishes are appropriately reflected.
Myth: Patients will have to see a health care professional chosen by the government.
Fact: There are no government-chosen professionals involved. The legislation simplyallows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patient and their doctors if patients wish totalk with their doctor about end of life care preferences.
Provision Endorsed By: AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine,
American College of Physicians, American Hospice Foundation, Center to Advance Palliative Care,Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association,Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization,
National Palliative Care Research Center, Providence Health and Services,
and Supportive Care Coalition.
Myth vs. Fact: Advance Planning Consultations in H.R. 3200
Few areas are more vital for honest discussion and careful consideration than end-of-life care
for America’s seniors. Unfortunately, families often do not know their loved ones’ preferences
for end of life care and are not confronted with these difficult decisions until an emergency
arises. This leaves spouses, sons, daughters and grandchildren unprepared; as a result
families struggle to make decisions in the midst of turmoil.
The House health care legislation includes a provision (Sec. 1233) that provides seniors with
better care as they grapple with these hard questions. This provision extends Medicare
coverage to cover the cost of patients voluntarily speaking with their doctors about their values
and preferences regarding end-of-life care. These are deeply personal decisions that take
thoughtful consideration, and it is only appropriate that doctors be compensated for their time.
Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years.
Fact: Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completelyvoluntary. The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversationonce every five years if – and only if – a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to adoctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill orif their health status changes.
Myth: Patients will be forced to sign an advance care directive (or living will).
Fact: There is no mandate in the bill to complete an advance care directive or livingwill. If a patient chooses to complete an advance directive or order for life sustainingtreatment, these documents will help articulate a full range of treatment preferences, from fulland aggressive treatment to limited, comfort care only. Patients that choose to have thesedocuments and can customize them so that their wishes are appropriately reflected.
Myth: Patients will have to see a health care professional chosen by the government.
Fact: There are no government-chosen professionals involved. The legislation simplyallows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patient and their doctors if patients wish totalk with their doctor about end of life care preferences.
Provision Endorsed By: AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine,
American College of Physicians, American Hospice Foundation, Center to Advance Palliative Care,Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association,Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization,
National Palliative Care Research Center, Providence Health and Services,
and Supportive Care Coalition.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
CONSPIRACY NUTS OF THE RIGHT: Obama's Health Plan Wants to Kill Seniors
UPDATE:
This is what PolitiFact.com says about the insane claim by wingnuts that President Obama wants to kill our senior citizens.
And here's the money quote by PolitiFact:
"For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire."
Why do these people lie about this? Remember, these are the people who are standing in the way of health care reform, and apparently the only way they know to win an argument is to spread stupid, easily dismissed lies. They must truly believe their followers [yes, Rush Limbaugh's audience] are dumb asses. Gasbag Limbaugh repeated this lie, as did Fred Thompson.
Are they having a stupid contest in GOP radio talk land???
ORIGINAL POST, POSTED YESTERDAY:
Now that Sarah Palin is a private citizen, you'd think we'd be rid of nonsensical crazytalk. No. We still have the the conspiracy nuts of the Right out there saying things we'd expect to hear from unfortunates who have to deal with mental disorders. The newest of these irrational rants is that the Obama Administration's health care plan will systematically kill seniors.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Right Wingers - Government Wants to Kill Old People - Really?
The right wing of American politics, the wing of the Republican party that is in bed with health care lobbyists is desperate to defeat health care. They are so desperate they are pulling out all the stops. What are they doing now you may ask? They are trying to promote the idea that the government is going to have a government worker visit every senior at home and inquire of them how they want to die. I'm not making this up. President Obama attended a town hall meeting with AARP members and the question came up.
Other Republicans are taking to the floor of the House of Representatives and telling Americans that if the country adopts the Democratic health care plan, seniors all across America will be put to death by their government because they cost too much. It's all over right-wing talk radio too, including my favorite (not) Rush Limbaugh.
This is really sick, that the right wingers and the insurance lobby has to go to this extent to scare people into thinking that a public option will include provisions to kill old people.
Republicans and the health insurance lobby will stop at nothing to stop meaningful health care reform. Polls have shown though that 72% of Americans want a public option, 50% of Republicans want a public option. I hope when Congress heads home for their summer break, they get an earful from their constituents and go back to Washington and pass a bill with a strong public option and coverage for all Americans.
This is what PolitiFact.com says about the insane claim by wingnuts that President Obama wants to kill our senior citizens.
And here's the money quote by PolitiFact:
"For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire."
Why do these people lie about this? Remember, these are the people who are standing in the way of health care reform, and apparently the only way they know to win an argument is to spread stupid, easily dismissed lies. They must truly believe their followers [yes, Rush Limbaugh's audience] are dumb asses. Gasbag Limbaugh repeated this lie, as did Fred Thompson.
Are they having a stupid contest in GOP radio talk land???
ORIGINAL POST, POSTED YESTERDAY:
Now that Sarah Palin is a private citizen, you'd think we'd be rid of nonsensical crazytalk. No. We still have the the conspiracy nuts of the Right out there saying things we'd expect to hear from unfortunates who have to deal with mental disorders. The newest of these irrational rants is that the Obama Administration's health care plan will systematically kill seniors.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Right Wingers - Government Wants to Kill Old People - Really?
The right wing of American politics, the wing of the Republican party that is in bed with health care lobbyists is desperate to defeat health care. They are so desperate they are pulling out all the stops. What are they doing now you may ask? They are trying to promote the idea that the government is going to have a government worker visit every senior at home and inquire of them how they want to die. I'm not making this up. President Obama attended a town hall meeting with AARP members and the question came up.
Other Republicans are taking to the floor of the House of Representatives and telling Americans that if the country adopts the Democratic health care plan, seniors all across America will be put to death by their government because they cost too much. It's all over right-wing talk radio too, including my favorite (not) Rush Limbaugh.
This is really sick, that the right wingers and the insurance lobby has to go to this extent to scare people into thinking that a public option will include provisions to kill old people.
Republicans and the health insurance lobby will stop at nothing to stop meaningful health care reform. Polls have shown though that 72% of Americans want a public option, 50% of Republicans want a public option. I hope when Congress heads home for their summer break, they get an earful from their constituents and go back to Washington and pass a bill with a strong public option and coverage for all Americans.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Eugene Robinson, as usual, nails it
Another take on the ongoing controversy of The Professor, The Policeman, and the President: (And, I hope, the last). I believe Eugene Robinson's take on the power dynamics that were in place in this confrontation is correct.
A friend noted that even the Chief of Police and the mayor of Cambridge realized there was an overreaction to the incident on the part of Sgt. Crowley--and how do we know this? All. Charges. Were. Dropped:
"In a joint statement, Cambridge and the police department said they made the recommendation to the Middlesex County district attorney and the district attorney's office "has agreed to enter a nolle prosequi in this matter," meaning that it will not be pursued."
Also, apparently Sgt. Crowley misremembered what the woman who called in the report of the alleged break-in said:
"Police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, released the 911 phone call Monday. In the call, Lucia Whalen reports seeing "two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure, and the other one entered, and I didn't see what he looked like at all."
"I just saw it from a distance, and this older woman was worried, thinking somebody's breaking in someone's house and they've been barging in," Whalen says. "She interrupted me, and that's when I noticed. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all, to be honest with you. So I was just calling because she was a concerned neighbor, I guess." Listen to the entire 911 call »
Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.
"Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."
Robinson's entire column is here.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that Crowley's version of the incident is true -- that Gates, from the outset, was accusatory, aggressive and even obnoxious, addressing the officer with an air of highhanded superiority. Let's assume he really recited the Big Cheese mantra: "You have no idea who you're messing with."
I lived in Cambridge for a year, and I can attest that meeting a famous Harvard professor who happens to be arrogant is like meeting a famous basketball player who happens to be tall. It's not exactly a surprise. Crowley wouldn't have lasted a week on the force, much less made sergeant, if he had tried to arrest every member of the Harvard community who treated him as if he belonged to an inferior species. Yet instead of walking away, Crowley arrested Gates as he stepped onto the front porch of his own house.
Apparently, there was something about the power relationship involved -- uppity, jet-setting black professor vs. regular-guy, working-class white cop -- that Crowley couldn't abide. Judging by the overheated commentary that followed, that same something, whatever it might be, also makes conservatives forget that they believe in individual rights and oppose intrusive state power.
There was a similar case of collective amnesia at the Sotomayor hearings. Republican senators, faced with a judge who follows precedent and eschews making new law from the bench, forgot that this is the judicial philosophy they advocate. The odd and inappropriate line of questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) about Sotomayor's temperament was widely seen as sexist, and indeed it was. But I suspect the racial or ethnic power equation was also a factor -- the idea of a sharp-tongued "wise Latina" making nervous attorneys, some of them white male attorneys, fumble and squirm.
Is a man of Gates's station entitled to puff himself up and remind a police officer that he's dealing with someone who has juice? Is a woman of Sotomayor's accomplishment entitled to humiliate a lawyer who came to court unprepared? No more and no less entitled, surely, than all the Big Cheeses who came before them.
Yet Gates's fit of pique somehow became cause for arrest. I can't prove that if the Big Cheese in question had been a famous, brilliant Harvard professor who happened to be white -- say, presidential adviser Larry Summers, who's on leave from the university -- the outcome would have been different. I'd put money on it, though. Anybody wanna bet?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
CAMBRIDGE COP'S UNFORTUNATE LICENSE PLATE (TAG)
After Barack Obama said Cambridge cops "stupidly" arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates on the front porch of his own home, the police said they "deeply resent the implication" anyone would think they're racists.
Maybe [someone should] clue this Cambridge cop in.
At around noon today, the same time Sgt. Dennis O'Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, gave his press conference trying to push back against perceptions that the Cambridge cops aren't exactly racially enlightened, Harvard student Seth Bannon spotted this cop pull up to a deli on Massachussetts Ave. in what appears to be his personal SUV with a hilarious license plate: WHY-TEE.
We asked Bannon, who first Twittered the picture, to tell us more:
I was eating breakfast at the Gourmet Express Market and Deli (1868 Mass Ave, Cambridge), when around NOON the black SUV pictured backed into that space and parked illegally. The police officer pictured exited the SUV, walked into the Deli, ordered a sub, got back into the SUV, and drove off. I took the picture as the officer was getting back into the SUV.
I'm not nearly as disturbed by the (entirely unnecessary) illegal parking job as I am by the utter crudeness of the plates, especially in the aftermath of the Gates debacle.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
BEING OBNOXIOUS IN ONE'S OWN HOME IS NOT A CRIME
if it were, most Americans would have a police record.
Being obnoxious isn’t a crime.
Maureen Dowd
July 25, 2009
As we reflect on the arc of civil rights dramas from Jim Crow to Jim Crowley, my friend John Timoney, the police chief of Miami, observes: “There’s a fine line between disorderly conduct and freedom of speech. It can get tough out there, but I tell my officers, ‘Don’t make matters worse by throwing handcuffs on someone. Bite your tongue and just leave.’ ”
As the daughter of a police detective, I always prefer to side with the police. But this time, I’m struggling.
No matter how odd or confrontational Henry Louis Gates Jr. was that afternoon, he should not have been arrested once Sergeant Crowley ascertained that the Harvard professor was in his own home.
President Obama was right the first time, that the encounter had a stupid ending, and the second time, that both Gates and Crowley overreacted. His soothing assessment that two good people got snared in a bad moment seems on target.
It escalated into a clash of egos — the hard-working white cop vs. the globe-trotting black scholar, the town vs. the gown, the Lowell Police Academy vs. the American Academy of Arts and Letters.
Crowley told a Boston sports station that Gates “seemed very peculiar — even more so now that I know how educated he is.”
Gates told his daughter Elizabeth in The Daily Beast: “He should have gotten out of there and said, ‘I’m sorry, sir, good luck. Loved your PBS series — check with you later!’ ”
Gates told me Crowley was so “gruff” and unsolicitous “the hair on my neck stood up.” Crowley says Gates acted “put off” and “agitated.” But the strong guy with the gun has more control than the weak guy with the cane. An officer who teaches racial sensitivity should not have latched on to a technicality about neighbors — who seemed to be outnumbered by cops — getting “alarmed” by Gates’s “outburst.”
From Shakespeare to Hitchcock, mistaken identity makes for a powerful narrative.
A police officer who’s proud of his reputation for getting along with black officers, and for teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling, feels maligned to be cast as a racist white Boston cop.
A famous professor who studies identity and summers in Martha’s Vineyard feels maligned to be cast as a black burglar with backpack and crowbar.
Race, class and testosterone will always be a combustible brew. Our first African-American president will try to make the peace with Gates (who supported Hillary) and Crowley (whose father voted for Obama).
I tracked down Gates by phone at J.F.K. on Friday after he had talked to the president and agreed to go to the White House for a symbolic beer with the man he labeled “a rogue policeman.” Gates, coughing from a cold he picked up in China, said he wondered if perhaps “fate and history chose me for this event.” He was pleased with the thousands of empathetic e-mail notes he’s getting, material for a PBS documentary on racial profiling.
He says he’s ready for “marriage counseling” from the “Solomon” in the Oval, who wrote in his memoir that the police pulled him over “for no apparent reason.” “If Sgt. Crowley and the president and I meet, it’s clearly not going to be like Judge Joe Brown, OK? ‘You tell your side, you tell your side.’ We have to agree to disagree. But I would be surprised if somebody didn’t say, ‘I’m sorry you were arrested.’ ”
How can they ever reconcile their accounts? Crowley says he asked Gates to come outside and the professor replied, “Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside.” Gates wryly suggests Crowley got the line from watching “Good Times” as a child.
“Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?” he asked. “I’m 5-7 and 150 pounds. I don’t walk on ice, much less (expletive) with some cop in my kitchen. I don’t want another hip replacement.”
I asked how he felt when he learned that Crowley was the one who gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to Reggie Lewis, the black Celtics basketball star, in a vain attempt to save his life after a heart attack in 1993. He replied: “I don’t stereotype. I never saw him as the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe he was just having a bad day.”
And Gates says that if anyone thinks he’s a fiery black militant, they’ve got the wrong guy, considering he married a white woman, has mixed-race daughters and has white blood himself.
Mike Barnicle warns that the next time Gates needs 911, he should call the Harvard faculty lounge instead. But Gates ripostes, “I have a feeling the Cambridge police will be especially attentive to my needs.” He said that, as he was packing for China, he got a call from the Cambridge police soliciting a donation and told them to try back in two weeks.
“I haven’t quite decided,” he said between coughs, “if I’m up to that right now.”
Being obnoxious isn’t a crime.
Maureen Dowd
July 25, 2009
As we reflect on the arc of civil rights dramas from Jim Crow to Jim Crowley, my friend John Timoney, the police chief of Miami, observes: “There’s a fine line between disorderly conduct and freedom of speech. It can get tough out there, but I tell my officers, ‘Don’t make matters worse by throwing handcuffs on someone. Bite your tongue and just leave.’ ”
As the daughter of a police detective, I always prefer to side with the police. But this time, I’m struggling.
No matter how odd or confrontational Henry Louis Gates Jr. was that afternoon, he should not have been arrested once Sergeant Crowley ascertained that the Harvard professor was in his own home.
President Obama was right the first time, that the encounter had a stupid ending, and the second time, that both Gates and Crowley overreacted. His soothing assessment that two good people got snared in a bad moment seems on target.
It escalated into a clash of egos — the hard-working white cop vs. the globe-trotting black scholar, the town vs. the gown, the Lowell Police Academy vs. the American Academy of Arts and Letters.
Crowley told a Boston sports station that Gates “seemed very peculiar — even more so now that I know how educated he is.”
Gates told his daughter Elizabeth in The Daily Beast: “He should have gotten out of there and said, ‘I’m sorry, sir, good luck. Loved your PBS series — check with you later!’ ”
Gates told me Crowley was so “gruff” and unsolicitous “the hair on my neck stood up.” Crowley says Gates acted “put off” and “agitated.” But the strong guy with the gun has more control than the weak guy with the cane. An officer who teaches racial sensitivity should not have latched on to a technicality about neighbors — who seemed to be outnumbered by cops — getting “alarmed” by Gates’s “outburst.”
From Shakespeare to Hitchcock, mistaken identity makes for a powerful narrative.
A police officer who’s proud of his reputation for getting along with black officers, and for teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling, feels maligned to be cast as a racist white Boston cop.
A famous professor who studies identity and summers in Martha’s Vineyard feels maligned to be cast as a black burglar with backpack and crowbar.
Race, class and testosterone will always be a combustible brew. Our first African-American president will try to make the peace with Gates (who supported Hillary) and Crowley (whose father voted for Obama).
I tracked down Gates by phone at J.F.K. on Friday after he had talked to the president and agreed to go to the White House for a symbolic beer with the man he labeled “a rogue policeman.” Gates, coughing from a cold he picked up in China, said he wondered if perhaps “fate and history chose me for this event.” He was pleased with the thousands of empathetic e-mail notes he’s getting, material for a PBS documentary on racial profiling.
He says he’s ready for “marriage counseling” from the “Solomon” in the Oval, who wrote in his memoir that the police pulled him over “for no apparent reason.” “If Sgt. Crowley and the president and I meet, it’s clearly not going to be like Judge Joe Brown, OK? ‘You tell your side, you tell your side.’ We have to agree to disagree. But I would be surprised if somebody didn’t say, ‘I’m sorry you were arrested.’ ”
How can they ever reconcile their accounts? Crowley says he asked Gates to come outside and the professor replied, “Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside.” Gates wryly suggests Crowley got the line from watching “Good Times” as a child.
“Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?” he asked. “I’m 5-7 and 150 pounds. I don’t walk on ice, much less (expletive) with some cop in my kitchen. I don’t want another hip replacement.”
I asked how he felt when he learned that Crowley was the one who gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to Reggie Lewis, the black Celtics basketball star, in a vain attempt to save his life after a heart attack in 1993. He replied: “I don’t stereotype. I never saw him as the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe he was just having a bad day.”
And Gates says that if anyone thinks he’s a fiery black militant, they’ve got the wrong guy, considering he married a white woman, has mixed-race daughters and has white blood himself.
Mike Barnicle warns that the next time Gates needs 911, he should call the Harvard faculty lounge instead. But Gates ripostes, “I have a feeling the Cambridge police will be especially attentive to my needs.” He said that, as he was packing for China, he got a call from the Cambridge police soliciting a donation and told them to try back in two weeks.
“I haven’t quite decided,” he said between coughs, “if I’m up to that right now.”
Thursday, July 23, 2009
BIRTHERS AND RACISTS AND NUTS, OH MY!
Between the "Birthers" who are trying to keep alive the lie that President Obama is not a legitimate president because, they claim, he was born in Kenya or Indonesia and certain members of the GOP who pass around disgusting racist emails, I can't keep up with who are the nuttier of the two groups.
The election of America's first bi-racial president was historic, for sure, but it seems to have unleashed a brand of hatred, paranoia, and racism that I have not seen in my lifetime.
No one disputes an American citizen's right to criticize his or her president on policies, but what about the sickos of the GOP who continue to spread the lie that Mr. Obama's citizenship is suspect? Who are the sickos who think it's "funny" to pass emails around that dipict the president in the worst stereotypical, racially loaded cartoons and photoshopped images? Apes, witch doctors, watermelons on the front lawn of the White House--all of these images, and worse, have been flying through cyberspace to the delight and hilarity of people who believe they are patriotic Americans.
I'll bet they pat themselves on their backs daily, congratulating each other on their allegience to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our laws as set out in our Constitution. Then when they receive a vomit-inducing cartoon or photoshopped image of Mr. Obama or his wife in a dehumanized and racially insulting image, they snicker up their sleeves, because, after all, it's the way real "Merkins" think of people with dark skin, isn't it?
To those who may believe "it's just a joke" to continue to infect this country with images that racially ridicule and demean the president, or any minority, I have news for you:
You are the joke. And you are a dying breed. Ask most young people today.
Or better yet, read the statistics on the changing population in this country. Read about the people of color and bi-racial Americans who will, in the not-to-distant future, be the majority of America's population.
Then think about your feelings when the nutjobs in that population start passing around stupid and inflammatory cartoons and photoshopped images of pasty old white people. Will it be "just a joke" when it happens to you?
The election of America's first bi-racial president was historic, for sure, but it seems to have unleashed a brand of hatred, paranoia, and racism that I have not seen in my lifetime.
No one disputes an American citizen's right to criticize his or her president on policies, but what about the sickos of the GOP who continue to spread the lie that Mr. Obama's citizenship is suspect? Who are the sickos who think it's "funny" to pass emails around that dipict the president in the worst stereotypical, racially loaded cartoons and photoshopped images? Apes, witch doctors, watermelons on the front lawn of the White House--all of these images, and worse, have been flying through cyberspace to the delight and hilarity of people who believe they are patriotic Americans.
I'll bet they pat themselves on their backs daily, congratulating each other on their allegience to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our laws as set out in our Constitution. Then when they receive a vomit-inducing cartoon or photoshopped image of Mr. Obama or his wife in a dehumanized and racially insulting image, they snicker up their sleeves, because, after all, it's the way real "Merkins" think of people with dark skin, isn't it?
To those who may believe "it's just a joke" to continue to infect this country with images that racially ridicule and demean the president, or any minority, I have news for you:
You are the joke. And you are a dying breed. Ask most young people today.
Or better yet, read the statistics on the changing population in this country. Read about the people of color and bi-racial Americans who will, in the not-to-distant future, be the majority of America's population.
Then think about your feelings when the nutjobs in that population start passing around stupid and inflammatory cartoons and photoshopped images of pasty old white people. Will it be "just a joke" when it happens to you?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
HENRY LOUIS GATES--Returning to his home in Cambridge, Mass., while being black
This never should have happened. But, because we are most definitely NOT post-racial, it did.
By MELISSA TRUJILLO,
Associated Press Writer –
Tue Jul 21, 7:52 pm ET
BOSTON – Prosecutors dropped a disorderly conduct charge Tuesday against prominent black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., who was arrested after forcing his way into his own house in what he and other blacks say was an outrageous but all-too-common example of how police treat them.
The city of Cambridge called the arrest "regrettable and unfortunate," and police and Gates agreed that dropping the charge was a just resolution — though not one that quelled the anger of one of America's top academics.
"I'm outraged," Gates said in extensive comments made to TheRoot.com, a Web site he oversees. "I can't believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge police force would treat any African-American male this way, and I am astonished that this happened to me; and more importantly I'm astonished that it could happen to any citizen of the United States, no matter what their race.
"There are 1 million black men in the prison system, and on Thursday I became one of them," he said. "I would sooner have believed the sky was going to fall from the heavens than I would have believed this could happen to me. It shouldn't have happened to me, and it shouldn't happen to anyone."
Yvonne Abraham, writing in today's Boston Globe, nails it:
Conduct unbecoming
By Yvonne Abraham
July 22, 2009
Imagine you spent most of the day flying home from China. You’re exhausted and probably irritable. You’re at your Cambridge house, trying to open your front door, but it won’t budge. The thing needs a shoulder put to it. So you ask the guy who drove you home from the airport - a middle-aged guy like you, a guy in a suit and tie - to help you. He kindly obliges.
A woman is walking by. She sees you on the porch, a 58-year-old African-American man with a gray beard and glasses and cane, your striped polo shirt tucked neatly into your pants. Even though you are Henry Louis Gates Jr., one of the most prominent academics in the country, and possibly Harvard’s most famous face, she does not recognize you, even though she works for
Harvard Magazine, even though her office is right down the street.
What she sees are a couple of guys trying to break into a house. She calls the police.
By this time, you are on the phone in your own entry hall, asking Harvard’s property managers to come and fix your front door. When you see the police officer on your porch, you assume it’s someone arriving to help you. When he sees you at ease, chatting on a cordless phone, does the Cambridge police officer conclude things look OK? Does he take note of the fact that you make no attempt to run, as a robber might? Does he say anything like this? “We got a call, sir. We’re just making sure everything’s OK. Have a lovely day, sir.’’
Most certainly not. Instead, he goes into your home with his radio and his gun in the middle of the day and acts as if he’s dealing with some perp in a back alley at 3 a.m. He wants your identification. The police officer says you get upset right away, yelling, “Is this because I am a black man in America?’’
The way you remember it, you hand over your ID, and not until he insists you go outside with him do you get upset and accuse him of treating you this way because you are black.
You’ve given him your driver’s license. You’ve given him your Harvard ID. Instead of leaving, he has called the campus police.
What would you do in Gates’s situation? Would you stand for this kind of treatment, in your own home, by a police officer who by now clearly has no right to be there? Most people might not be bold enough to say the things Gates was accused of. (Alas, the classic “I’ll speak with your mama outside’’ attributed to him in the police report was never uttered, his attorney says). But any normal person would have trouble keeping his cool. So Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct.
The whole thing became huge news, because this immensely famous expert on race was charging racism.
Yesterday, trying to avert a public relations disaster over the dunderheaded moves by Cambridge police, the Middlesex district attorney announced the charges would be dropped. A wise move, but too late to stop the damage. Gates, whose great success has allowed him to transcend the racial divide, is now one very high-profile argument for its persistence.
And this:
Carol Rose, writing about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, says we're a long way from a post-racial society and that:
A review of the police report suggests that the police officer arrested Gates not because he mistook Gates for a robber but because Gates condemned the behavior of the officer as racist. His offending remark reportedly was, “This is what happens to black men in America.’’
That’s not disorderly conduct; that’s speaking truth to power - which still isn’t a crime in America.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
RACHEL MADDOW EXPOSES PAT BUCHANAN'S BIGOTRY AND HYPOCRISY
MSNBC political analyst, Pat Buchanan, recently appeared on the Rachel Maddow show and proceeded to make claims about Judge Sotomayor and affirmative action that were simply not true. In addition to that, he angrily asserted that only white men built this country, and only white men served in its wars.
Why this angry white bigot continues to show up on the teevee is still a mystery to me. In this video, Rachel Maddow takes each of Pat Buchanan's irresponisble and inaccurate claims and unconditionally refutes them.
Maddow even reveals a memo Buchanan wrote to President Nixon in which he urges Mr. Nixon to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with a white Catholic--in other words, as you will see, Buchanan suggests that Nixon use affirmative action in nominating someone to fill a vacant seat on the Court.
(Old bigots never die, they just scream loudly when caught in lies and misrepresentations.)
On another note. It appears that certain groups on the right are having a complete mental breakdown, as reported by this conservative blogger.
Why this angry white bigot continues to show up on the teevee is still a mystery to me. In this video, Rachel Maddow takes each of Pat Buchanan's irresponisble and inaccurate claims and unconditionally refutes them.
Maddow even reveals a memo Buchanan wrote to President Nixon in which he urges Mr. Nixon to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with a white Catholic--in other words, as you will see, Buchanan suggests that Nixon use affirmative action in nominating someone to fill a vacant seat on the Court.
(Old bigots never die, they just scream loudly when caught in lies and misrepresentations.)
On another note. It appears that certain groups on the right are having a complete mental breakdown, as reported by this conservative blogger.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
CATHERINE CRABILL, GOPer, ADVOCATES SEDITION
We need to spread this video around to expose this GOP woman and her supporters advocating assassination because she and the people who applaud her don't like how the American people voted in a fair and free election last November.
These people are incensed because the free elections held last November do not reflect their political philosophy. They didn't win at the ballot box, and now they advocate armed insurrection to change the results and negate the will of the American people.
If I remember correctly, this type of incitement is called sedition, is it not?
sedition - an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government
Steven D. over at Booman Tribune asks the question:
"You tell me: is this a direct threat of assassination made against Democratic elected officials (including, but not limited to, President Obama), or not?"
*********************************
This woman is advocating armed insurrection and rebellion because she and her followers don't agree with the policies of a freely elected Congress and President of the United States.
This is the way third-world countries change their governments, not countries that follow the rule of law.
She is a meance and threat to American Democracy. I hope the FBI pays this hysterical nutcase a visit.
And soon.
UPDATE:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/17/754653/-Buchanan-resigns-from-MSNBC,-will-run-Crabill-campaign
These people are incensed because the free elections held last November do not reflect their political philosophy. They didn't win at the ballot box, and now they advocate armed insurrection to change the results and negate the will of the American people.
If I remember correctly, this type of incitement is called sedition, is it not?
sedition - an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government
Steven D. over at Booman Tribune asks the question:
"You tell me: is this a direct threat of assassination made against Democratic elected officials (including, but not limited to, President Obama), or not?"
*********************************
This woman is advocating armed insurrection and rebellion because she and her followers don't agree with the policies of a freely elected Congress and President of the United States.
This is the way third-world countries change their governments, not countries that follow the rule of law.
She is a meance and threat to American Democracy. I hope the FBI pays this hysterical nutcase a visit.
And soon.
UPDATE:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/17/754653/-Buchanan-resigns-from-MSNBC,-will-run-Crabill-campaign
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sotomayor Hearings Continue
On its official witness list, the Senate Judiciary Committee lists Ricci as Director of Fire Services, ConnectiCOSH (Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health). And that's understandable--he boasts as much on his website.
The problem, unfortunately, is that there is no such position.
Seeking to distance themselves from Ricci, ConnectiCOSH has sent a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asking him to correct the record. "Mr. Ricci has posted on his website that he is the "Director of Fire Services for ConnectiCOSH" but there is no such position with ConnectiCOSH," writes ConnectiCOSH Co-Chair Steve Schrag.
Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.
Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.
Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642 (1999), she dissented from the affirmance of the district court’s order appointing a guardian for the plaintiff, an issue unrelated to race. In Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (1999), she would have allowed a black kindergartner to proceed with the claim that he was discriminated against in a school transfer. A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination: In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.
Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.
The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times.
In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.
h/t SCOTUSblog
Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases SCOTUSblog
And on another nutty note:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) :
SESSIONS: "You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit. And in fact your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could’ve changed that case. "
Didn't the Republicans get their knickers all in a twist because they thought Judge Sotomayor was a racist who favored Latinos? Why would Sessions make a point of telling Judge Sotomayor that Judge Cabranes was "himself of Puerto Rican ancestry?" By doing so he's implying she should have voted on that basis alone, the very thing the GOP has been throwing tantrums over since she was nominated by President Obama.
They're nuts.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Good Luck, Judge Sotomayor!
UPDATE BELOW"My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case," Sotomayor told senators at a nationally televised confirmation hearing.
The remarks about judicial philosophy were her first since President Barack Obama nominated the South Bronx-born and Ivy League-educated veteran of 17 years on the federal bench. They appeared aimed at Republicans who have questioned her commitment to impartiality in light of a 2001 remark that experience as a "wise Latina" might give her an advantage over white males.
In her remarks, Sotomayor said, "The progression of my life has been uniquely American," that of a child of Puerto Rican parents who moved to New York during World War II. "I want to make one special note of thanks to my mom," she said. "I am here today because of her aspirations and sacrifices for my brother Juan and me."
"Mom, I love that we are sharing this together," said Sotomayor, whose father died when she was 9.
On the first day of Sotomayor's hearing, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee celebrated the life story of the Bronx-born federal judge who is poised to become the high court's first Latino justice. Republicans warned, however, that she could be an "activist judge" who would "make the law" and may be biased toward disadvantaged minority groups. Several appeared set to oppose her.
Chart of Supreme Court justice...
Sotomayor's judicial philosophy: 'Fidelity to the law'
Chart of Supreme Court justice...
Sotomayor's judicial philosophy: 'Fidelity to the law'
"The president has done his part and made a historic nomination," said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the judiciary committee. "Now it is up to the Senate to do its part on behalf of the American people."At the moment, Sotomayor's confirmation appears likely. With the swearing-in last week of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Democrats have the 60 votes necessary to thwart any Republican filibuster attempt. Leahy went as far as to pledge Sotomayor "will be confirmed," and he suggested that Republicans would oppose her at their political peril.
UPDATE
FOX News' very own Idiot-in-Residence, Glenn Beck continues to embarrass himself and hang on to the title as "DUMBEST PERSON ON CABLE TEEVEE."
There's no doubt now that he is FOX News' pre-eminent clown, and is crazier than radio comedian, Rush Limbaugh:
Glenn Beck is very upset with the softball questions that the Senators offered up to Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her first day of confirmation hearings. To prove his point, Beck played a video montage of Democratic senators praising Sotomayor, notably in statements and not questions.
Unfortunately for Beck, there were no questions today. The first day of the hearings is when Senators and the nominee make opening statements.
Beck did include one clip of a GOP senator, Lindsey Graham, telling Sotomayor "unless you have a complete meltdown, you're gonna get confirmed. And I don't think you will." Beck ridiculed Graham for this: "Does anybody remember when Lindsey Graham wasn't a worm?"
Sunday, July 12, 2009
THE FAMILY by JEFF SHARLET
Are you worried about Muslim fundamentalism? Read about this. This has been around for a long time and until now very few Americans knew about this secretive group that admires the methods used by Hitler, Lenin, and the Mafia:
**********************************
“Un-American theocrats can only fool patriotic American democrats when there aren’t critics like Jeff Sharlet around -- careful scholars and soulful writers who understand both the majesty of faith and the evil of its abuses. A remarkable accomplishment in the annals of writing about religion.”--Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America
"Just when we thought the Christian right was crumbling, Jeff Sharlet delivers a rude shock: One of its most powerful and cult-like core groups, the Family, has been thriving. Sharlet's book is one of the most compelling and brilliantly researched exposes you'll ever read -- just don't read it alone at night!" --Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed, Bait and Switch, and Dancing in the Streets
"Forget what you think you know about the Christian Right; Jeff Sharlet has uncovered a frightening strain of hidden fundamentalism that forces us to revise our understanding of religion and politics in modern America. A brilliant marriage of investigative journalism and history, an unsettling story of how this small but powerful group shaped the faith of the nation in the 20th century and drives the politics of empire in the 21st. Anyone interested in circles of power will love this book."--Debby Applegate, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for biography for The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher
They are the Family—fundamentalism's avant-garde, waging spiritual war in the halls of American power and around the globe. They consider themselves the new chosen—congressmen, generals, and foreign dictators who meet in confidential cells, to pray and plan for a "leadership led by God," to be won not by force but through "quiet diplomacy." Their base is a leafy estate overlooking the Potomac in Arlington, Virginia, and Jeff Sharlet is the only journalist to have reported from inside its walls.
The Family is about the other half of American fundamentalist power—not its angry masses, but its sophisticated elites. Sharlet follows the story back to Abraham Vereide, an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the far right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a "family" that thrives to this day. In public, they host Prayer Breakfasts; in private, they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao as leadership models, the Family's current leader, Doug Coe, declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
Sharlet's discoveries dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the cold war, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not "What do fundamentalists want?" but "What have they already done?"
Part history, part investigative journalism, The Family is a compelling account of how fundamentalism came to be interwoven with American power, a story that stretches from the religious revivals that have shaken this nation from its beginning to fundamentalism's new frontiers. No other book about the right has exposed the Family or revealed its far-reaching impact on democracy, and no future reckoning of American fundamentalism will be able to ignore it.
Part history, part investigative journalism, The Family is a compelling account of how fundamentalism came to be interwoven with American power, a story that stretches from the religious revivals that have shaken this nation from its beginning to fundamentalism's new frontiers. No other book about the right has exposed the Family or revealed its far-reaching impact on democracy, and no future reckoning of American fundamentalism will be able to ignore it.
1. Your exposé on The Fellowship, aka “The Family,” appeared five years ago. Has your understanding of the group changed?
When I was working on that story, I remember debating how much Hitler we should put in the piece. That is, we wondered how fair it was to dwell on The Family’s invocations of Hitler as a model of “total commitment.” As it turns out, it was quite fair. After I left Ivanwald, a team of researchers and I spent years combing through hundreds of thousands of documents in archives around the country. We discovered that as far back as the 1940s, when The Family began organizing congressmen, the group’s founder, Abraham Vereide, was praising Hitler’s “youth work” as a model to be adopted by Americans. He denounced Hitler himself, but he admired fascism’s cultivation of elites, crucial to what he saw as a God-ordained coming “age of minority control.”
The Family has put that concept, which they call “Jesus plus nothing,” into action for decades, from their early successes fighting the New Deal in the 1930s and 40s to their recruitment of war criminals such as Herman J. Abs, known as “Hitler’s banker,” into postwar European leadership, to their facilitation of U.S. support for dictators ranging from Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti to Suharto of Indonesia to Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, now their “key man” for Africa. The fetish for strongman leadership has continued with Vereide’s successor, Doug Coe, who leads the group today. Throughout his letters in the Billy Graham Center Archive at Wheaton College, I found references to the leadership model of Hitler. In one sermon, variations of which he’s given many times, Coe says: “Jesus said ‘You got to put Him before mother-father-brother-sister.’ Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that’s what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn’t murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom.”
2. Given the unbelievable amount of influence brokered by the Fellowship Foundation, and by Doug Coe, why have so few national media outlets have picked up on the story?
The problem is that we just don’t have a press that really wants to challenge power on issues they consider “personal.” Speaking at the 1985 Prayer Breakfast, Ronald Reagan said, “I wish I could say more about it, but it’s working precisely because it’s private.” That should have been an invitation for investigative reporting. Instead, the media, then and now, tends to acquiesce to elite secretiveness, not out of any conspiracy, but due to a culture of reverence for established power, liberal or conservative. Most journalists believe in meritocracy—not merely that it’s a good idea, but that it actually exists. They know some politicians game the system, but they’re committed to the idea that the system basically works. And it does, but not in favor of democracy.
3. It seems like the National Prayer Breakfast, which The Family administers, is a big part of why the press doesn’t pick up on the story. It seems inconceivable that a group that attracts so many powerful public figures from around the world to its annual event could be up to anything untoward.
It’s the Family’s only public event, but the few hours that the press is allowed to attend are the dullest thing imaginable, the blandest kind of ecumenical civil religion, with the main address presented by some figure distinct from the Christian Right—Joe Lieberman, or the Saudi Prince Bandar, or even Bono. How threatening is that? But internal documents tell a different story. “Anything could happen,” reads one, “the Koran could even be read, but JESUS is there. He is infiltrating the world.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)