index

What Could Happen on November 3, 2010: One Post Mid-Term Vision of America

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:33:14 +0100

As anyone who is even a casual poll watcher knows, Democrats are not doing well nationally. According to a recent Gallup poll of registered voters Republicans lead by 51% to 41% in a weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. This is in spite of the fact that neither the respondents to this poll nor the rest of America are able to refer to the GOP’s plan for post-election America upon which they can make their decision. This is also in spite of the fact that the respondents of this poll must have watched for nearly two years while Republican office holders have brought the federal government to a virtual stand-still by holding up nominations, filibustering bills that they contributed to etc. Even former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the chairman of the Atlantic Council, recently said of the Republicans in a recent interview:

“I don’t see them presenting any alternatives, any new options or any new thinking. If the Republicans get back in power, what are they going to do? There is no articulation. It’s just a ‘no no no, I’m against Obama because he’s a socialist and he’s taking America in the wrong direction.’ That’s certainly an opinion, but what about you, Mr. Republican? What would you do?”

The appearance of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) on NBC’s Meet the Press earlier this year was apparently not enough proof of a Republican dearth of new ideas for the respondents of this poll. When pressed for specifics on what the GOP would do if there were in power neither Cornyn nor Sessions could name any specifics. Even MTP’s host David Gregory dismissed what he was hearing from Sessions as “gauzy,” and turned to Cornyn said, “I’m not hearing an answer here, what are the painful choices.” There is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) harsh which according to the Citizens for Tax Justice lower federal taxes for the richest 10% among other things and challengers from the Tea Party.

But despite the draconian plan proposed by Ryan and vague non-committal plans from other Republicans, the party of “no” is ahead in the polls – for now. Nevertheless, there are signs abound over what their vision does hold. Just listen to the prattle of Republican office holders like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) whose Roadmap for America’s Future plan’ would, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice lower federal taxes for the richest 10% among other things and challengers from the Tea Party. Reading these signs and listening to this drivel, I have sketched a likely future after a Republican victory in November and it is not a pleasant picture. In this vision, Republicans have won both the House and the Senate.

November 3, 2010 the day after the election. The Republican Victory Nightmarescape

·    Governmental paralysis begins as Republicans make good on their threats to shut down the Government. The Republicans take control of the House and begin to defund the Health Care Law as they will control the purse strings on spending. This in turn leads to a fight with the White House whereby the government experiences another shutdown like the one in 1995 when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton were engaged in an epic battle. This time it is far worse since the Republican’s hatred of Obama is even greater than their hatred of Bill Clinton and because Tea Baggers will demand that they not relent or consider the good of the country over their unreasoning abhorrence of Obama. Some Republicans have even stated that they are even looking forward to such a disruption. For example, Dick Morris at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation Conference told the attendees recently, “There’s going to be a government shutdown, just like in ‘95 and ‘96 but we’re going to win it this time and I'll be fightin’ on your side.”
·    Unending witch hunts begin in an attempt to impeach the President.   Republicans win 39 seats in November to take back the House and immediately embark upon an agenda of issuing subpoenas, repealing legislation, and holding hearings to dig up any dirt they can on the Obama administration. “I think all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another and expose all the nonsense that has gone on,” These are the words of Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) uttered to the GOP Youth Convention in July. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has until now lead a quixotic fight to start an avalanche of hearings and litigation but has been thwarted by not having subpoena power, will be their point man as the Republicans win back control of the House. This political hack and ex-car thief will suddenly, as of November 3, 2010, be empowered and will quickly go about abusing the vital function of governmental accountability. Issa’s mission will be to harass and cause political paralysis for the administration and ultimately - impeachment. This is, by the way, a man who had no problem voting against impeaching Bush for lying about Iraq.
·    The deficit is increased further as the movement to keep the Bush Tax for the wealthiest two percent of Americans grows. Although extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would cost $830 billion in lost revenue over the next ten years, people like Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who has said "you should never have to offset costs" (of tax cuts), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are joined by like minded Republicans to help keep the tax cuts which will nearly double the deficit over the next ten years.
·    Wacky ideas brought to the GOP via the Tea Baggers now come to the table. Ideas such as phasing out social security (Joe Miller, (R-AL)), changing or repealing the 14th Amendment (John Boehner (R-OH)) and others which were once thought to be out of the mainstream are now up for discussion.
·    The GOP wins the House and gains oversight over regulatory bodies. The Republicans go about effectively loosening regulations such as the ones put in place to avert catastrophes like the Wall Street crash and environmental calamities like the Gulf Oil Spill. Bit by bit, these regulations begin to have the kick of a 90 year-old chorus girl.

Scary stuff isn’t it? Yet this nightmarish scenario does not have to become a reality. Already there are a few positive signs on the horizon. First, there is the fact that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has outraised the Republican National Committee (RNC) in funds and can therefore spend more on pre-election advertising. There is even an unsubstantiated report from the New York Times that a sort of political triage has begun. That is, these funds may be pinpointed specifically on key Congressional races to the exclusion of other races. Then there is organized labor’s massive mobilization effort in 26 states in which they will work on Senate races, governor’s races and over 70 House races.

The above scenario will only become a reality if progressives and independents give into this malaise and let the forces of darkness prevail. If independents give into the notion that there would be no difference between the current Congressional make up and a Republican takeover then they would have voted, despite acknowledging the fact that our current economic downturn was caused by the prior administration, to empower Republican once again or as President Obama has said “to give the keys back” to the drivers who drove us into the ditch. If progressives do let their disagreements with Obama’s policies guide them, they will have voted for more gridlock and governmental paralysis or in other words, they will have voted to go backward instead of forwards. To paraphrase Richard Wolffe from an appearance he made on MSNBC a few nights ago, “progressives have to think if not getting everything they have wanted from this administration is enough for them to vote to get nothing from a Republican takeover of one or both houses.”

CM’s Stephen Colbert Restoring Truthiness Rally Watch 2010

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:01:07 +0100

There is a lot of buzz going around the Internet lately regarding the call for Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report to lead a rally that would counter and mock the Glenn Beck rally at the Lincoln Memorial on 8/28/2010. The proposed title for the rally is the 'Restoring Truthiness Rally' and its suggested date is 10/10/10. Sites such as Colbert Rally have been set up to give information about it and a 12,957 strong Facebook group has been established to push for the rally. The Facebook page reads:

“My Fellow Americans, this is a dark time in our history, and only one man can bring the light of Truthiness back to Washington. But first we need to bring Stephen Colbert to DC. So let's get 100,000 of us here to convince The Colbert Show that they should do an event on the DC Mall this Fall.”

Reportedly, the idea for such a rally was inspired by a recent post on Reddit, where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own “Colbert Nation.” Are there criticisms of such an idea? Of course there are. For one, some people are saying that the concept of irony, of satire would escape those on the right it would seek to lampoon. To back this assertion up Ohio State University did a study last year about The Colbert Report that showed many conservatives don’t know that Colbert is doing a send-up of TV and radio conservative personalities. In other words, they thought he was a conservative trying to fool his liberal audience. As journalist Henry Louis Mencken once said, “People believe what they want to believe.”

Another possible outcome from such a rally is that Beck would likely pretend to laugh off such an event as he did when Colbert did his infamous “Terror Bunker 5200” skit in response to Beck’s fear mongering. He would likely use it to further promote himself. But wouldn’t we all really know that Beck gets the point that the event would be designed to mock him, his cheesy, self-promotional ways and his demagoguery? After all, when Sarah Palin was made a fool of by the Canadian comedians who pranked her didn’t we really know that Palin got the message that the rest of us knew she was a fool even though she tried to play it off? When Palin was mocked after making up her word “refudiate” didn’t we all really know she got the message that we all know what an idiot she is? Didn’t she seem even more ignorant when she claimed that she made the word up on purpose to emulate Shakespeare?

I don’t know whether the late night, mock-conservative pundit will allow himself to be drafted for this event or even see the petitions calling for the rally but I for one love the idea. Four nights a week we are treated to some the best observation and commentary on TV and it is not coming from the likes of NBC, CBS, CNN or PBS. It is coming from the unlikely source of The Colbert Report. (I am particularly fond of his “The Word” segment as well as his “interviews” with famous people where he trips up newsmakers conservative and liberal alike.) Colbert has shown in countless sketches that he can eviscerate Beck as thoroughly as the most erudite pundit. What better counterpart to the Glenn Beck self-aggrandizement rally could there possibly be? Why not counteract the poison of the right with the caustic tongue of Colbert? Why not counter these loonies with 100k strong members of the Colbert Nation? So even if they don’t get the joke let’s show that we do.

Obama and the Whole Pesky, Secret Muslim Thing

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:07:06 +0100

Of the many rumors that have dogged President Barack Obama the most persistent one has been the “question” of his faith. (A site called Obama Conspiracy keeps track of these conspiracies and many more for anyone interested in knowing just how insane the right has become.) According to a new survey conducted by Pew Research Center 3 out of 10 Republicans say the President is a Muslim. That is up from last year and higher than the percentage of liberals and Democrats who incorrectly believe this of Obama. Moreover, according to Newsweek a majority in the GOP say Obama likely supports radical Muslim extremists. A clear majority of Republicans, 59 percent, said President Obama favors Muslim interests over those of everyone else. The President in his usual Spock-like, calm recently addressed the mistaken beliefs reflected in these polls on “NBC Nightly News” blaming the “confusion” over his religious beliefs on “a network of misinformation that a new media era can get churned out there constantly.” Answering questions about his the authenticity of his birth certificate the President responded in that same interview, “I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” (By the by, I’ve seen Obama’s birth certificate more times than I’ve seen my own.)

The question is why has this rumor proven to be so tenacious and who is behind its propagation. In the President’s comments to NBC Nightly News, he suggests that the media is to blame. In turn, some commentators have blamed Obama himself for failing to refute the myth. As pointed out in a piece by Political scientist and media critic Brendan Nyhan, The Washington Examiner's Byron York, claimed (absurdly) that “Obama and his aides might also blame themselves for the way they’ve handled the Muslim issue over the years such as saying that his father was a Muslim in 1985 and speaking about his family background during a speech in Cairo.” CNN's Candy Crowley and Time's Amy Sullivan both faulted Obama for not making more public visits to church. However, Republicans have been quickest in helping to spread the rumor some by stating out right that Obama is a Muslim as was the case when Iowa’s Republican national committeewoman, Kim Lehman tweeted “@ Politico you’re funny. They must pay you a lot to protect Obama. BTW he personally told the Muslims that he IS a Muslim. Read his lips” and many others who have merely implied such.

But Nyhan is missing the point and so are a lot of other people. The media is the ether through which this and other rumors about the President have been spread but the main propagators of this myth are Obama’s political enemies. Perhaps, I am giving them too much credit, but I don’t think that even Republicans in this poll are stupid enough to actually believe that Obama is a Muslim. The people who say they believe he is say so because they believe the word ‘Muslim’ to be an insult; an allegation, a charge to be defended against just the same as if one were being accused of being a child molester. It’s less acceptable for conservatives to come right out and call him the n-word, for example, so in today’s post 9/11, anti-Muslim America Muslim is close enough. Think about it: Would the Right spend so much energy labeling the President a Muslim if they thought that it held a positive or neutral association in the public psyche?

Labeling the President a Muslim also shows the racism and xenophobia of the Right. The Right has constantly attempted to make Obama appear to be strange and foreign; they have constantly attempted to make the aura around him appear to be dark and dangerous simply. They have done this simply because he is Black. He’s the Antichrist, a Muslim, the “other,” a man with a foreign birth certificate because he is not White. This thinking demonstrated itself in the motivation for Glenn Beck’s self-aggrandizing, White Fright Fest held at the Lincoln Memorial this past Saturday, August 28th. The attendee’s world is getting darker by the day as the demographics of the country are changing. We are inching towards a society that for the first time since the country’s “settling” will be prominently non-White. This is a horrifying reality to some people and is most reflected by the fact that the President is black. This conjures the notion - in some White people’s minds - of non-white rule from a population that will be hell bent on exacting revenge for the way minorities have been treated low these many centuries. These people imagine themselves in the position blacks were in when Dr. King made his speech that day 47 years ago. (We all know about the segregation, the lynchings that the overwhelming numbers of White Americans are being subjected to in the country as I write this.) This is why the push against Immigration, the Ground Zero “Mosque” and continued challenges to the President’s citizenship and questions about his religion.

I am not giving the press a free pass, in fact if they are guilty of anything it is in recklessly spreading the rumor simply because it is controversial and because it reverberates loudly in the echo chamber of the 24 hour news cycle. But the media can most be blamed for not examining the real root of this “allegation” – an attempt to smear the President.

Why Giving Fox News a Front Row Seat at White House Press Conferences is Just Plain Stupid

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:36:04 +0100

Back in June of this year after veteran columnist Helen Thomas resigned amid remarks she made stating that Jews should, "get the hell out of Palestine" and go home to Poland, Germany, America and "elsewhere," many people wondered what news organization would get her much coveted front row seat in the White House press room. Bloomberg and NPR are rumored to have been top contenders but did not get the position. What few people knew at the time was that a real news organization would not get her seat – instead, in one of the many WTF moments of the summer of 2010, Fox News won the valuable prize. The White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) board members announced Aug. 1 that Fox News would move up to the front row after Thomas’ departure. Now that a lot of the head scratching has ended over this bizarre and unseemly decision, people who are concerned with the integrity of real news are protesting this decision. For example, former president of the WHCA is saying that moving Fox News to the front row is a "travesty of decision." Media Matters, Center for Media and Democracy and Public Campaign are sending a letter to the WHCA asking the group to reconsider allowing Fox to remain in the White House press room. The letter reads in part:

"To Board Members of the White House Correspondents Association:

We are writing today to ask that the White House Correspondents Association reconsider its decision to allow Fox News Channel a front-row seat in the White House briefing room in light of reports that Fox News’ parent company, News Corp., has donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association -- a massive ethical lapse that demonstrates Fox News’ inability to function as an objective media institution."

However, the serpentine nature of Fox News is not the only problem here. The other problem is with the mainstream media (MSM) itself. For example, the MSM’s defense of Fox News in the wake of the White House’s contention that they were not a legitimate news organization shows how the "liberal media" cannot distinguish propaganda from news; ideological slant from active partisan advocacy even in light of revelations of how News Corp – Fox’s parent company - has contributed to the GOP. The MSM shows its fear of being accused of not defending journalistic principles even as Fox has demonstrated that it has none. During the MSM’s attack on White House senior adviser David Axelrod, some in the MSM were even comparing the White House’s position on Fox News to Nixon’s well-known aversion towards the press. This was one of the many false equivalencies the press is fond of. Obama is known even by his detractors to go out of his way to engage people who disagree with him ideologically; Nixon had no such inclination. So the danger in Fox’s new position is not that it offers an ideological challenge to the White House, it is in that fact that it promises to do a disservice to us – the American public. The concerns about how this decision might impact the news are real and they are several.

First, this decision by the WCHA seeks to legitimize this partisan, hate-spewing, propaganda engine of the Republican Party. Axelrod was correct when he said that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news." Official evidence of Fox’s advocacy role for the Republican Party began to emerge when former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan revealed in 2008 that the Bush White House saw "Fox television as a tool" to get their "message out" and that Fox News commentators used their "talking points." Secondly, this decision will give Fox’s propaganda another avenue in which to infest and infect the MSM. From its the hyped up Black Panther story, to the Shirley Sherrod Fiasco, to the ACORN story, to Fox’s promotion - not just reporting – of the Tea Party, Fox News is eagerly awaiting its chance to further contaminate the a MSM who are eagerly anticipating another salacious morsel. Look at how the ginned up Black Panter story jumped the rails and made its way onto the Washington Post. See how even liberal media icon Jon Stewart of the Daily Show fell hook, line and sinker for the ACORN tapes. Finally, Fox News serves to further detract from the discussion of serious issues that need to be addressed. The MSM is already obsessed with trying to obtain easily digestible sound bites from politicians and other news makers, and this already leaves us woefully under and misinformed. Can you imagine how Fox News will contribute to this?

So why did the WHCA do this? Is it out of a mistaken sense of standing up for the free exchange of ideas? Perhaps in part but I suspect it is actually because it knows that it can rely on Fox to deliver controversy. It knows that the home of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and other resident demagogues and race baiters can generate heat never mind the fact that this heat does not generate light. That is, after all, what is important isn’t it?

Welfare Prisons, Drug testing the Unemployed and other Ignorant Proposals

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:35:17 +0100

I’m beginning to think that Republicans candidates who are running for office in November and those who are already in office have a secret contest going on to see who can add the most bizarre proposals to their platforms. In a previous post, I wrote about California Gubernatorial candidate Douglas Hughes (R) who is running on a platform of expelling all convicted pedophiles from his state and relocating them to Santa Rosa Island. Here would be established a self-sustaining colony of pedo-Police, pedo-lawyers, pedo-dentist, pedo-candle stick makers and so on. Earlier this year, Senator Orrin Hatch, (R-UT) proposed that the unemployed be drug tested as a precondition to receiving benefits as if they would be any more inclined to be addicts than any other segment of society. Now a bright light has on come in the head of another Republican candidate for office. Not to be outdone by the towering intellects of Hatch and Hughes, Republican Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino wants to transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in “personal hygiene.”

But where Hughes’ proposal is just plan ridiculous and Hatch’s is just plain demeaning, Paladino’s is ridiculous, demeaning and more than a little creepy. Paladino is the same man who in 2009 compared New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver – an Orthodox Jew, to “Hitler” and the “Antichrist.” Paladino is the same man who this year came under fire for racist and sexist emails he forwarded to friends. Included in these emails was a photo of dancing African tribesmen titled “Obama Inauguration Rehearsal.” In his current ‘Welfare to Prison’ proposal I can’t help but see irony. The Right is constantly comparing elements of the progressive agenda to Nazism and President Obama to Hitler. I don’t know. This separating the poor from the rest of the population and hosing them down sounds awfully – Third Reicish to me. It sounds a lot like the mythical FEMA concentration camps the right invented. Poverty does have a stench to it Mr. Paladino but it is there because people like Paladino and Hatch and Hughes put it there. It cannot be removed by bars of soap or by teaching the unwashed masses how to clean themselves up. It can only be removed when we address the disdain towards the poor that is part of the identity of the right.

All these proposals are symptoms of a condition that afflicts the Right - heartlessness. The right harbor’s this resentment towards the poor and middleclass because they know that their condition is an indictment of how successfully politicians like Hatch and Paladino and Hughes have gamed the system. The right fuels this conflict between the haves and have nots because it is one of the most effective political strategies in history- and the most dangerous. There was the petty game-playing by the right in the unemployment extension fiasco of ’10. There is the idea from the right that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are beyond budgetary scrutiny yet anything as humane, as stimulative in its effects as unemployment benefits designed to help the middle-class are somehow wrong. I don’t expect the ‘Welfare to Prison’ idea will fly but then if it doesn’t the Right has other equally bizarre ideas down the pike – repealing the 14th Amendment, secession, keeping the Bush tax cuts., etc.

The Last Safe Haven for Rapist

Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:21:36 +0100

“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

Jokes about it are a part of every comedian’s repertoire; cops use the threat of it to scare suspects into cooperating with them; prisoners use it to dominate each other and guards use it to humiliate prisoners. The problem: prison rape. Estimates based on a 2007 DOJ survey of inmates suggest that more than 60,000 prisoners -- or about 1 in 20 -- are raped each year. That same study indicates that 1 in 8 juveniles are sexually assaulted in custody. The problem is so prevalent that organizations are diverse as the conservative Focus on the Family, George Soros’s Open Society Policy Center, and the American Conservative Union have allied themselves with the ACLU to form a coalition of sorts to put an end to the only form of rape that is considered acceptable. Members of this unlikely union of have recently accused Attorney General Eric Holder of “dragging his feet” on adopting standards recommended by the National Prison Rape Commission in its 276-page report for preventing rape in prisons.

These groups have reason to be dissatisfied. Despite the fact that The Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed in 2003, despite the fact that California and Oregon and have already began adopting methods that might help to prevent prison rape and despite a letter the ACLU has sent to the Justice Department asking it to act, Attorney General Eric Holder has still not seen that standards that might help prevent this abhorrent act are nationalized. (The Justice Department was required to put guidelines into effect including those that focus on prevention, detection, legal response and monitoring of sexual assault by June of this year.) The Department of Justice has indicated that it expects to take another year to complete its review and adopt the standards.

In the meantime, sexual assault by inmates and prison guards and officials upon incarcerated boys, girls, women and men continues on a daily basis. In the past, groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Interlock Media and Stop Prisoner Rape have sought to bring awareness to the problem. In 2001 the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project convened a conference titled, “Not Part of the Penalty: Ending Prison Rape,” in an attempt to shed light on this disturbing trend. At the time Elizabeth Alexander, director of the ACLU’s Washington-based National Prison Project said of the conference, “This conference is the first ever to address this appalling human rights violation.” As valiant as the efforts are by such groups are one of the many things that compounds the problem - apart from foot-dragging by the Justice Department - are the restrictions on litigation that limit the legal remedies available to prisoners. This means that assault survivors must first go through a labyrinth of internal grievance procedures before they can seek justice in the courts.

We have recently seen the disparity in sentencing for drug crimes addressed and The Supreme Court has already concluded that “sexual abuse is not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society” so why can’t we have faster movement on this issue? So why should people who are not incarcerated care? Because those who are incarcerated remain human beings. We should care because it is too easy for politicians of all stripes to demagogue about the subject of law and order. This fear and the attached disgust we have towards the incarnated gives politicians a certain power over us. We should care because once we let our fear of being victimized and our loathing for the classes of people who are incarcerated lead us to believe that no amount of torture, no amount of humiliation is too great for prisoners then we lose some of our own humanity. We should care because if groups as diverse as Focus on the Family and the ACLU can come together to address this problem then we and the Justice Department can overcome our abhorrence of the incarcerated and make the effort to combat the blight of prison rape. Who knows maybe one day when some comedian gets on stage and jokes about the subject of prison rape he/she will receive the same amount of condemnation he/she would receive if he had joked about any other human being raped. Perhaps one day prison will no longer be the one place where sexual assault is tolerated.

Is S.3706 - Americans Want to Work Act a Lifeline for the 99ers or is it Just an Empty Gesture?

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:46:10 +0100

Well as the House of Representatives is taking another one of its many vacations (August 9 - September 12), they have again left a small matter of massive unemployment behind them. (What a relief it must be for them to escape such a depressing subject.) The high unemployment rate is especially problematic for those who have been out of work the longest and have exhausted their benefits. This group of the long term unemployed is what has come to be known as the ‘99ers’. When Congress returns they will once again face the matter of an unemployment extension in S.3706 or the Americans Want to Work Act sponsored by Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) co-sponsored by an exclusive panel of Democratic senators. This bill, if it passes would create Tier 5 benefits for the 99ers by providing an additional 20 weeks of benefits. In order to qualify, a state would have to have an unemployment rate of at least 7.5%.

So once again the nation is gearing up for an epic battle as Republicans and Ben Nelson, posture that such measures, which have always been approved when the national unemployment rate has been above 7.5%, are budget busters and Democrats argue that they such bills are humane and have a stimulative effect. We all know the positions that each side will take but the question is will those who are fighting for the passage of this much needed help be in any stronger a position than they were with H.R. 4213 which took several attempts to pass. Some people seem to think so. The site All247News has listed 10 reasons why the S3706 may have a fighting chance of passing. Among the most intriguing ones are:

·    There is now a bill in the Senate and the House for a Tier 5 unemployment extension. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) has introduced The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act (H.R. 6091) which has around 12 Democratic co-sponsors. So there are two competing bills which could give much needed help to the long term unemployed that HR 4213 did not address.
·    Election Year politics will make it hard for congress people from states with high unemployment to justify voting no. While this argument has some merit, it didn’t stop 16 Republicans from states with double digit unemployment from voting against HR. 4213 earlier this year.
·    S.3706 should cost less than H.R. 4213. By setting a date range the Senate and House are able to calculate how much it will cost. This may make it harder for Republicans who are suddenly deficit conscious to justify opposing S.3706.

All of the above are good reason but as we know often reason is the last thing that motivates politicians. I don’t mean to question the motives or the veracity of Stabenow and the bill’s other sponsors - especially when compared to the Republicans and Ben Nelson who voted against the previous extension (H.R. 4213) - but congress people who support the bill really don’t have much to lose politically. Even if the bill is defeated, they can go back to their constituents and say that they at least tried to pass it.

Republicans have no interest in helping people who are out of work. They are only interested in pointing out that unemployment is high to begin with and then attributing this to Democrats (even though the rate began increasing under Bush.) They are also philosophically opposed to the idea of helping stabilize the economy and throwing those who need it a lifeline. Just look back to all the callous things said by Republicans who claim that unemployment extensions make people lazy. Think back to Senator Orrin Hatch’s proposal that the jobless be drug tested before receiving benefits.

The only hope that this bill will have is if the many groups comprised of the long-term unemployed let Congress know that there will be a price to exact for those who oppose helping them. People like Issa Decker at Change.org who have started petitions are helping to pressure politicians for a tier V. (This petition already has more than 41k signatures.) There are the Facebook groups started by and dedicated to the long term unemployed. Ultimately, whether or not this bill passes will have more to do with whether groups such as the ones above can prove themselves relentless in the pursuit there goals than in Republicans in Congress suddenly listening to appeals to reason or compassion.

Caution: Videotaping the Police can be Hazardous

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:54:28 +0100

Judging by the TV show Cops you would think that police officers love being videotaped. Every week millions of viewers watch the long running Fox show as gallant, police officers stop and arrest a rouges gallery of seedy criminals. The police stops are always done with probable cause. All the arresting officers seem fair but stern; compassionate but streetwise. They also all seem reasonable in the use of force. Well cops do love being videotaped – when it is they who control when, where, how and why they are being recorded. Otherwise watch out. Citizens are capturing abusive policemen on videotape on a daily basis and cops are not happy about it. Some recent examples include:

·    In July of this year, Adam Whitman, 20, of Portsmouth, N.H., and his brother were charged with wiretapping, for videotaping police on the Fourth of July when cops were called to a party where 20 people were arrested.
·    Time Magazine is reporting that Anthony Graber, a Maryland Air National Guard staff sergeant, is facing up to 16 years in prison on wiretapping charges for videotaping an encounter he had with a state trooper back in March. Graber, who was pulled over for speeding, posted the encounter on YouTube. The police reportedly searched his residence and seized computers. (Incidentally, Graber is not the typical torn T-shirt wearing, wife beating redneck you would typically see on Cops. Graber is a husband and father who had never been arrested and now faces serious jail time thanks to police and their attorneys who are determined that the public not see the police in an uncontrolled environment.)
·    In December 2009 Chicago street artist Christopher Drew, was arrested on charges of not having a peddler’s license and for peddling in a prohibited area. However, after the police found a digital voice recorder which had recorded the actual arrest they slapped Crew with an additional felony eavesdropping charge. An Illinois judge would later reject Drew’s motion to dismiss the case.
·    Last year, Sharron Tasha Ford was arrested in Florida for videotaping an encounter between the police and her son on a public sidewalk. In June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida sued the city of Boynton Beach on her behalf, claiming false arrest and violation of her First Amendment rights.
·    In May of 2007 Brian Kelly of Carlisle, Pa., was riding with a friend when the car he was in was pulled over by a local police officer. Kelly had his video camera with him and decided to record the traffic stop.   Kelly was on charges of violating a Pennsylvania wiretapping law that forbids audio recordings of any second party without their permission.
·    Several Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off, reports WJZ 23 in Baltimore.

All across the country, arrests such as these highlight the growing role of witness video in law enforcement and the fact that the police will seemingly stop at nothing to deprive the public the right to protect itself. Each of these cases shows how law enforcement attempts to hold itself above scrutiny by using wiretapping laws to intimidate the public. In most of these cases police are making the ludicrous claim that a “private interaction or conversation is being breached” when they are being recorded. On top of everything else, some states have made it easier for the police to do so. For example, in Massachusetts and Illinois is it illegal for people to make an audio recording of people without their consent. Not a bad sounding law, but police in these two states have not hesitated to apply this law to the very public act of being arrested.

To make matters worse, virtually every decision that has come from the Supreme Court regarding law enforcement over the last few years has expanded police powers and diminished the rights of the accused. It has limited the public’s Miranda protections such as in the case of Berghuis, Warden v . Thompkins. This decision was such a setback for the rights of the accused that Justice Sotomayor, writing for four dissenters said of it, “the Court today creates an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions that will undermine Miranda’s goal.” The courts have ruled in favor of “pretext” traffic stops. (Pretext stops occur when police become suspicious about a car or its occupants, and then use a minor traffic infraction as a legitimate excuse to learn more.)

Moreover, there is not a court or judge in the land that does not give more credence to the testimony of the police than it does to the testimony of private citizens. Such a pro-police bias would have let the cops who nearly beat Rodney King to death go unpunished had the encounter not been videotaped. More recently, a New York Police Department officer who was thrown off the force — and convicted of filing a false report — would never have laid off had he not been videotaped at a bicycle rally in Times Square when he used excessive force on a bicyclist. The officer can plainly be seen going up to a man on a bike and shoving him to the ground. The officer claimed that the cyclist was trying to collide with him; an amateur video of the encounter told the truth.

But just as the police have their defenders, the people have defenders such as David Rocah of the Maryland ACLU who says, “It’s not that recording any conversation is illegal without consent. It’s that recording a private conversation is illegal without consent. So then the question is, ‘Are the words of a police officer spoken on duty, in uniform, in public a ‘private conversation.’ And every court that has ever considered that question has said that they are not.” Additionally, Edolphus Towns, a Democrat from New York, has introduced legislation that would protect citizens who videotape cops in public from getting arrested on state wiretapping charges. The video camera is the public’s one great equalizer. Technology gives every citizen the ability to make up ground that the Supreme Court has given in to overzealous and sometimes abusive policemen. We should not be left blind. Eyes are constantly on us; we need to have our eyes on the police.

Welcome Back

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:01:24 +0100

After a series of brief technical and personal difficulties, I am proud to announce to those who read this blog that I will be resuming new post shortly. A lot has happened that I have been anxious to write about. I ask that the reader/subscriber be patient as new post will begin this week.

The Health Care Public Option – It’s Baaack

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:27:59 +0100

H.R. 5808 - To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option.

Summation: On July 22, Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) (member of the Progressive Caucus) introduced H.R. 5808 “To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option.” The text of the bill can be read HERE.

For opponents of the Health Care Bill, which was later enacted into law in March 2010, it was most objectionable part of the bill; for proponents it was the most indispensable part of the bill – The Public Option. Stripped out of the Senate version of the bill in December of 2009 and ultimately killed outright, now it’s back - sort of. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and more than 120 co-sponsors have re-introduced the measure that would give consumers a choice between private and public health insurance plans in the new law’s exchanges. The bill, titled ‘To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option’ stated goals are:

“For years beginning with 2014, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall provide for the offering through Exchanges established under this title of a health benefits plan (in this Act referred to as the ‘public health insurance option’) that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high-quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this section. In designing the option, the Secretary’s primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.”

Woolsey, who is co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, has in the past supported some admirable legislation including her vote against authorizing the Iraq War and her vote for Oil Spill Prevention and Response Legislation. Woolsey and the bill’s other supporters are aided by the fact that this much contested part of a national health care plan still remains popular. According to a Newsweek poll taken in February 50% of respondents approved of creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans while 42% opposed such a plan. Facebook has a group dedicated to its passage. A declaration on the group’s page reads: “We are “Fans” of a public option for health care. We are tired of delays, we are tired of ridiculous scare tactics, and we are tired of excuses. America needs a public option for health care -- and it’s time for Americans to stand up and demand it.” Lastly, The Petition site has a petition with 6,000 signatures calling for some kind of public option. Petition HERE.

Woolsey and others have empirical data to back them up as well. A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that it would cut the deficit by $68 billion between 2014 and 2020. The same CBO report also estimates that the public plan’s premiums would be 5% to 7% lower on average than the premiums of private plans offered in the existing exchanges. Finally, Woolsey and the bill’s other supporters may also be emboldened by the fact that Republican vows to “Repeal and Replace”, are more a case of empty promises made to their constituents than a practical possibility. First, not even the most optimistic projection of Republican gains in November would give them enough of a majority to override a presidential veto. Second the law itself does not seem to favor the opponents of the law. Case in point:

Virginia is currently challenging the new Health care law in the courts. Virginia’s argument is that the law is unconstitutional because it a) the mandate makes illegal inaction - that is not having insurance - b) If Congress can require people to buy health insurance; there is no limit to federal power. The government seems to be on firmer footing arguing that a) the mandate is on individuals therefore the state is does not even have the right to sue the government in the first place b) not having insurance is not a ‘non-action’ since the cost the uninsured incur are passed on to the insured c) The non-partisan Congressional Research Service prepared a report that suggests that an individual mandate could pass Supreme Court review under the power the Constitution’s Article1 grants Congress to tax and spend.

Thus given its popularity, its strong legal foundation and the fact that it makes fiscal sense does the Public Option have a chance this time around? It depends a lot on what happens in the midterms I’m afraid. According to most polls, things are not looking good for the Democrats keeping control of the House. If Republicans do make significant gains then they will continue to obstruct with even greater effectiveness. It also depends on whether the President – who showed tepid support for this component of the bill - and others cut and run from the Public Option the first time around do so again or whether they will fulfill the wishes of their constituents. We need a robust, re-invigorated public option and as long as the Health care bill does not seem likely to be repealed despite the bluster of Republicans let’s go for it.