Blogs
Tea Party Protesters Berate Apparent Parkinson's Victim
Tea Party protesters campaigning against health care reform on Tuesday berated and mocked a pro-reform advocate whose sign indicates that he has Parkinson's disease.
"Got Parkinson's? I do and you might. Thanks for your help," the older man's sign reads. He wandered over toward the anti-reform teabaggers protesting outside the district office of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio). The Tea Party's responses, captured on video by the Columbus Dispatch, were unflinchingly callous and cruel.
"If you're looking for a handout, you're in the wrong part of town. Nothing for free. You have to work for everything you get," one teabagger chided, bending over to get in the face of the seated older man. The next Tea Partier dropped a dollar in his face, saying, "Start a pot, I'll pay for you. I'll decide when to give you money," in a mocking tone of voice. After some grumbling about "Communism," an offscreen teabagger yelled, "No more handouts!"
This was not the only Tea Party protest where opponents of health care reform forced comparisons to Communism or sounded like lunatics, but the Dispatch video lays bare a primary argument of the Tea Party protesters: America's 45 million uninsured aren't their problem. And they will tell a Parkinson's sufferer just that, with contempt, to his face.
WATCH:
Steve Driehaus, Ohio Congressman, Outraged By Newspaper Ad Showing Daughters
CINCINNATI — A Democratic Ohio congressman said a group opposed to health care overhaul went too far by taking out a newspaper ad that included a large photo of him with his two young daughters.
Rep. Steve Driehaus was upset by the advertisement, which appeared Wednesday in The Cincinnati Enquirer, his spokesman said Thursday.
"Rep. Driehaus thought the ad was outrageous," said the spokesman, Tim Mulvey. "He can take more than his fair share of political attacks, but this one crossed the line."
The ad was paid for by the Committee to Rethink Reform, a Washington-based group. Committee spokeswoman Sarah Longwell said showing the children was a mistake and that the group was taking out another ad to apologize. She said the committee already apologized directly to Driehaus.
Mulvey confirmed the apology. The Enquirer ran its own full-page retraction and apology Thursday.
Driehaus' vote has been the subject of intense lobbying on both sides. He says he will oppose any health care legislation that allows federal funds for abortions.
He faces a tough re-election race in November against Steve Chabot, the seven-term Republican he ousted in 2008. Vice President Joe Biden headlined a Cincinnati fundraiser for Driehaus on Monday.
The Committee to Rethink Reform reported its apology on its Web site, while saying it would continue to urge Driehaus to oppose the bill.
"However, politicians' children should not be involved in public political debates and we deeply regret this mistake," it stated.
___
On the Net:
Committee to Rethink Reform: http://action.rethinkreform.com/
Rep. Steve Driehaus: http://driehaus.house.gov/
Submit this article to The Obama NewsChange to Win backs bill
While the AFL-CIO deliberates, the Change to Win federation, which includes SEIU and the Teamsters, isn't nit-picking on the excise tax.
The group's Anna Burger says in a statement:
This is it. This is the moment of truth for every Member of Congress.
It is time for Congress members to decide on which side of history will they stand. They must choose between working families struggling to get by and an insurance industry that puts profits before the people they are supposed to serve.
For generations, this country has known the need for reform. For the past year, we have as a nation debated and fought for real health insurance reform. Now, it’s time for Congress to deliver.
Philip Lee Miller: Health Care Reform: Myths and Misunderstandings
Too often have I written about the endgame. Shades of Mark Twain -- reports of my death are exaggerated. But this really is the ninth inning. The problem is the president is looking for the long ball -- the out of the park home run. When he should have been hitting singles, or emulating the great Joe Montana -- short yardage high percentage gains -- not Hail Mary passes.
Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutantThe secret fate of all voting democratic House members. The arm twisting in the house rises to epic proportions not seen since the days of the infamous Tom DeLay - the Hammer.
This will be a bad bill. You are all unwitting pawns in this game. It will solve nothing. It cures nothing. It has emboldened the insurance raqueteers and Big Pharma. It has only one potential good outcome -- Rush Limbaugh has promised he will leave the country.
They have rolled Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. Other voices have been marginalized - Bernadine Healy, Robert Reich, Norman Goldman of Talk Left, Marcia Angell. And who will benefit from a fatally flawed passage? The rising unaffiliated -- the independent vote. This is a Greek tragedy. A Pyrrhic victory.
We are all too aware of the right wing echo chamber. A well orchestrated score promoting stereotyped rat a tat answers. How do they do this?
The same may be true in on the left as well. We hear platitudes and assertions over and over again without challenge.
1. United States ranks number 37 in the world in healthcare.
Why repeat this assertion over and over and over again? Because it makes a false point.
This figure is derived from life expectancy in the OECD (organization of economic cooperation and development) countries. The spread is narrow -- less than five years.
My friend Burton Goldberg, one of the most successful publishers of alternative medicine, constantly beseeched me on this issue -- investigate life expectancy derivations. Life expectancy is a highly complex mathematical formula that balances death with infant mortality.
A country with a high infant mortality has a lower life expectancy rate - at birth.
For the most perplexing reasons, the United States still has a relatively high infant mortality rate. If the figures are adjusted for life expectancy after the age of 60 we rate number 5 in the world. If life expectancy figures are adjusted after the age of 80 we rate number 3 in the world.
In other words, as we advance in age, the effect of infant mortality is factored out and the real life expectancy becomes more apparent. We are not number 37 in the world.
We are in the top three. Life expectancy figures beg a revised definition.
Furthermore, life expectancy is dreadful and inadequate measure of the health of a nation. It says nothing about the quality of life. [HDI (Human Development Index) may be a better measure.] It says nothing about vibrancy, activity, mental health, social health, sexual health, or productivity. It simply means that you crossed the finish line at a particular age. No matter whether you dashed across or fell across the finish line and died.
In Anti-Aging Medicine we talk about "squaring the curve." Increased Health Span and not Life Span. A healthy life into old age with sudden death. Not a slow inexorable painful march to the end.
2. The medical system suffers from over utilization.
Not as I see it. Quite the opposite. I see scores of patients who have pleaded for years for adequate and thorough lab testing only to needlessly suffer through unnecessary dysfunctional states. This is a natural consequence of HMO and PPO medicine. Bottom-line cost-recovery medicine is a zero sum game.
3. If you do not pass this bill everybody will end up in the emergency room.
There is such an appalling lack of medical input in this entire debate. Urgent care medicine had its roots in the 1980s. Originally funded and promulgated by astute entrepreneurs and ex-emergency physicians, these facilities answered the need for acute medicine outside of an emergency facility. There are more than 8700 Urgent centers visits vs. 4600 emergency departments. [And by the way, Emergency care represents less than 3 percent of the nation's $2.1 trillion in health care expenditures while covering 120 million people a year.]
This is market-oriented medicine. A workable and elegant solution in response to a market demand for immediate care outside of exorbitant emergency rooms. They are successful and see all comers. In Atlanta alone, my good friend Jordan Rice, one of the leading entrepreneurs in the country boasts of the ability to see Medicaid and cash paying patients.
Even the original Medicare bill of a 1965 garnered 13 Republican votes in the Senate and 70 Republican votes in the House. To pull every legislative trick in the book only underscores the thinness of support for this ill-conceived rewrite of our social fabric. To be honest, Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign could have more far-reaching effects that all 2700+ pages of this legislative lunacy.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsCBO Website Having Issues: DETAILS On Congressional Budget Office's Health Care Bill Report
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Web site is being overloaded, as people flood to read its new report on the health care bill.
The site CBO.gov has been periodically suffering from downtime today, so if you experience issues, it's not just you.
The CBO score on the proposed health care bill released today includes details such as it will reduce the federal deficit $130 billion in the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the 10 after that.
The CBO report also estimated that coverage would be extended to 32 million additional people.
The CBO is an agency "charged with reviewing congressional budgets and other legislative initiatives with budgetary implications," according to its site description.
Read the full details of the CBO report here.
Follow the latest health care discussion and debate live here.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsBetsy McCaughey For Senate Or Governor? Candidacy Floated In Poll Calls
Good news for people who like trial balloons for bad candidates! The New York Daily News' Elizabeth Benjamin heard from one Manhattanite who received a polling call that appeared to be "testing the viability of former LG Betsy McCaughey as a statewide candidate for either governor or the US Senate." That caller tells the NYDN:
"They asked a series of favorable/unfavorable including Cuomo, Levy, Ross, Blakeman, Schumer and Gillibrand followed by an open-ended question of what comes to mind when you think of Betsy McCaughey and then positive or negative on her.I emphasize "Ross" here, because, as Benjamin points out "the pollster referred to the would-be candidate as "Betsy McCaughey Ross," which is how she was known back when she served as former Gov. George Pataki's No. 2 from 1995 to 1998." The call angled to see how well Ross/McCaughey stacked up in both the race for the Senate seat currently held by Kirsten Gillibrand and for the State House. According to the source, the call concluded: "With individual testing McCaughey Ross points: Spent 18 months fighting to stop Obama health care legislation; next Former Lt Gov; then never worked in D.C.; and last launched nationwide effort to stop hospital infections."
Poor New York! Here I thought they'd turned the corner when a mere 27% of voters in New York's 13th District said, "Hey, ho! I definitely think that I should be represented by face-slashing jackass Hiram Monserrate!" (Though maybe that 27% of voters thought themselves to be facing a credible threat of further face-slashing? It's possible: Monserrate is the worst.) Now, they may have to endure the candidacy of Betsy McCaughey, a world-famous liar who we last saw telling world-famous lies on "The Daily Show".
WATCH:
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cBetsy McCaughey Pt. 1www.thedailyshow.comDaily ShowFull EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Reform
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cExclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1www.thedailyshow.comDaily Show
Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Reform
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cExclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2www.thedailyshow.comDaily Show
Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Reform
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
What's behind those CBO number? Process.
You've already heard the news:
- CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.
- REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare’s solvency by at least 9 years.
- EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.
- IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill’s cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).
You've already seen the analysis:
... that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.
Now, here's why the reconciliation bill will have more deficit reduction than either of the previous two bills (in case you missed it in Today in Congress):
Under the arcane rules for budget reconciliation, a bill passed through the expedited parliamentary process must produce a greater deficit reduction than the legislation it amends. Since the Senate health care bill (HR 3590) would produce $104 billion in deficit savings in its first five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the final bill — which will make House Democrats’ desired changes to the Senate bill — must do better than that.
[...]
[T]he deficit-reduction figures Democrats must reach are not trivial: at least $120 billion over 10 years, with most of that — $106 billion — coming in the first five years, according to Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee. (Democratic aides did not dispute those figures.)
Source: CQ (subscription only)
Process matters. Those stupid rules drive substantive outcomes.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsWilliam Astore: The Pentagon Church Militant and Us: The Top Five Questions We Should Ask the Pentagon
Crossposted with TomDispatch.com.
When it comes to our nation’s military affairs, ignorance is not bliss. What’s remarkable then, given the permanent state of war in which we find ourselves, is how many Americans seem content not to know.
There are many reasons for this state of affairs. Our civilian leaders encourage us to be deferential toward our latest commander/savior, whether Tommy Franks in 2003, David Petraeus in 2007, or Stanley McChrystal in 2010. Our media employs retired officers, most of them multi-starred generals, in a search for expertise that ends in an unconditional surrender to military agendas. A cloud of secrecy and “black budgets” combine to obscure military matters, ranging from global strategy to war goals to weapons procurement. The taxpayer, forced to pony up about one trillion dollars yearly to fund our military, national security infrastructure, and wars, is sent a simple message: stay clear and leave it to the experts in uniform.
The powerlessness of ordinary Americans in military matters is no accident. Recall the one-word reply -- “So?” -- Dick Cheney offered in March 2008, when asked to comment on popular opposition to the war in Iraq. The former vice president was certainly far blunter than Washington usually is, and for that we may owe him a measure of thanks. By highlighting the arrogant dismissiveness of Washington’s warrior-elite when it comes to American public opinion, he revealed more than he intended.
Time for Vatican II at the Pentagon
If military power is the church at which we worship and the Pentagon is our American Vatican, then it is desperately in need of the equivalent of Vatican II which, in the early 1960s, opened the Catholic Church to greater participation by the laity, a vitally important change in ethos. Instead of continuing to pray at the altar of their particular services, we need our Pentagon “priests” to turn to the laity -- us -- and seek our input and sanction. Instead of preaching in unintelligible Pentagonese, with its indecipherable acronyms, secret doctrines, and spidery codenames, it’s long past time for them to talk to us in a language that reasonably informed adults can understand.
Think about this: last year, our country held innumerable public hearings on health-care reform. Congress continues to fight about it. It’s constant news. There’s a debate alive in the land. All this for a program that, in ten years, will cost the American people as much as defense and homeland security cost in a single year.
Yet runaway defense budgets get passed each year without a single “town hall” meeting, next to no media coverage, and virtually no debate in Congress. Indeed, you’d think each Pentagon budget was an ex cathedra pronouncement, given the way Congress genuflects before them and Americans accept them without so much as a peep of protest.
Those “Crazy” Kiwis
Imagine, for a moment, if Pentagon officials, supposedly toiling in our name, actually condescended to ask us for our thoughts. What do we think about global military strategy, garrisoning the planet, the ways in which our forces are structured, and how, where, and for what they should be deployed abroad?
Sound crazy? Here in the U.S.A. it most distinctly does, but not to the citizens of New Zealand. A Kiwi friend of mine recently sent me “Defence Review 2009,” a publication of New Zealand’s Ministry of Defence (MoD). And catch this: it includes a survey soliciting the advice of ordinary New Zealanders with respect to military affairs. It actually asks for the counsel of civilians on a “top ten” list of questions whose topics are remarkably comprehensive, including what the priorities of the country’s Defence Force should be, both now and in the future. Citizens can even present their views on military matters at a public hearing attended by MoD representatives, all in the name of public consultation. And the Defence Minister responds to the people in clear English sans the cobwebs of jargon that typically entangle our military pronouncements.
In case you haven’t noticed, here in the U.S.A., requests from the Pentagon for citizen feedback aren’t flooding our email boxes. So I thought -- since no one in that five-sided fortress on the Potomac has asked a thing of me -- the least I could do was ask a few questions on my own. Here, then, is my own top-five list of questions that we, the American people, should ask the Pentagon, even if none of its officials want to hear from us. Maybe they’re a tad more pointed than those in the Kiwi survey, but that shouldn’t be surprising. After all, they’ve been a long time in coming.
1. Our military is supposed to be a means to an end: national security. Due to its immense size and colossal budget, has our military not become an end as well as means?
2. In World War II, Americans could explain “Why We Fight” in part because the government provided a clear and compelling rationale for war. Why are the goals of today’s wars so opaque to most Americans?
3. If our military provides us with our way of “nation building” abroad, won’t countries and peoples be more likely to copy our military ways and weaponry than our democratic teachings?
4. America is facing painful budgetary belt tightening. Why is the military immune?
5. Why does “support our troops” seemingly end when they leave the service, leading us to tolerate such inequities as an unemployment rate of 21% for young veterans?
Keep in mind that there are 10, 20, 30 more questions where those five came from -- and our military badly needs to hear and respond to them all.
Every recruit is taught to stretch, to go the extra mile, to push until you can go no further. Our military needs some stretching and push-back: this time, from us. Unfortunately, most of us don’t think our opinions matter when it comes to our military -- unless, that is, they consist solely of slavish adoration. The fact is most of us are detached from military affairs precisely because we know in our hearts that the Pentagon serves its own needs, that it may be interested in listening in on us, but certainly not in listening to us.
Challenge the Pentagon Church Militant
Kiwis have the reputation of being practical types with an admirable dash of humility, and I like to think that their Ministry of Defence solicits the views of its citizenry not just because it’s required by statute, but because their officials don’t believe they have a monopoly on good ideas.
Perhaps the MoD recognizes as well the difficulty military professionals have in thinking outside the box. Despite its gargantuan size and its endless advisory committees and boards, our Department of Defense is, in essence, a well-insulated church of likeminded believers, administered by tightly-wound power-brokers. It sees the world only as an arena of, and for, conflict. Wherever it looks, even within its own ranks, it sees rivals and enemies. It cannot help dividing the world into believers and heretics, friends and foes.
And it’s true that the world is a dangerous place. The problem is: the Pentagon is part of that danger. Our military has grown so strong and so dominates our government, including its foreign policy and even aspects of our culture, that there’s no effective counterweight to its closeted, conflict-centered style of thinking.
In fact, the Pentagon’s heft gives new meaning to the term “full spectrum dominance” and helps explain the lack of change in war policy since the 2008 elections. A vote that constituted an unmistakable call to end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and so lessen the military’s influence -- has led only to fresh war “surges” and mushrooming Pentagon budgets. And yet, as the Pentagon charges forward, debate is nearly nonexistent and Congress can muster just 65 votes for a resolution to curtail the endless conflict in Afghanistan.
It’s shameful that only a so-called far left congressman like Dennis Kucinich has enough sense (and guts) to insist on Congressional debate about our forever-war in Afghanistan. Equally shameful: that Congress allotted only three hours to that debate on matters of life, death, and even financial well-being. Do we really need reminding that debate makes democracy stronger? Evidently so. Take it from me as a retired Air Force officer: our troops won’t be demoralized by more debate and greater citizen participation.
Let’s face it, all of this represents a long-term sea change in American consciousness. Sadly, the old idea of the citizen army is dead, and because of this, most of us lack any direct connection to the military (and seemingly could care less). In the name of safety, security, and solidarity, we’ve buttoned our lips. We worship, but don’t partake.
Centuries from now, historians will look back on American history and wonder how so many gave away so much to so few. It should be our right to have a say in what defines the “defense” of our country. That right has been surrendered to the few. Our future may depend on genuine input from the many.
How about it? Are you ready to challenge the Pentagon church militant? Or are you content to mouth the usual catechism, while continuing to dump billions each week into the collection basket?
Citizens of courage will surely choose the path of challenge.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and TomDispatch regular. He currently teaches history at the Pennsylvania College of Technology and may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
Copyright 2010 William J. Astore
Submit this article to The Obama NewsCraig Newmark: The Uncacucus: grassroots effort for Providence RI mayor
Hey, some of the folks in Providence RI are trying something now, a purely grassroots effort to choose a mayoral candidate.
Specifically, they're using social networking, and "guerrilla-style outreach" to get people involved.
Check out their Facebook page and Five Questions With:The Uncaucus:
PBN: So what exactly is the Uncaucus?
JOHNSON: The Uncaucus is an ongoing dialogue about the qualities that we, as citizens and residents, want our leadership and our government to have. The Uncaucus is striving to build consensus around these qualities through open and positive discussion involving as many individuals as possible. The idea is to inspire the next generation of civic engagement in Providence and to direct that engagement in a way that will guide current and future leaders.
PBN: Do you see this as a way of taking on other political actors, or more as an additional voice in the process? WITHERS: Traditional representational democracy - where we essentially elect someone to office and then step back from government altogether - creates a cycle of passive disengagement that is hard to break. The idea that voting is the pinnacle of civic engagement is really shortsighted: as citizens we can do so much more if we are willing to roll up our sleeves and put some skin in the game.Look at the community organizers who make great things happen in Providence. Whether it's those who are helping kids or those who get the geeks jazzed about building businesses here, it's the same story: no one elected them and they don't wait for government to give them permission to do good, high-value things.
Submit this article to The Obama News
Barbara Boxer In Tough Fight To Keep Senate Seat
WASHINGTON — California Sen. Barbara Boxer's re-election campaign is shaping up as the fight of her political career, according to a Field Poll released Thursday.
The survey shows a statistical tie in hypothetical matchups between the three-term Democratic incumbent and two of her potential Republican challengers, former congressman Tom Campbell and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina.
Boxer has won by progressively larger margins in each of her previous re-election campaigns, but this year faces strong headwinds from the recession, which has left California with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
The poll shows 51 percent of likely voters have an unfavorable opinion of Boxer while just 38 percent have a favorable one.
Boxer's standing with voters has crumbled in the past two months, even though it would appear the economy has begun to stabilize.
"Part of what we're seeing in these numbers is the very tough political environment we're in," said Boxer's campaign manager, Rose Kapolczynski. "Voters are frustrated about the pace of economic recovery and are expressing that through this poll."
She said criticism from the Republican candidates also has taken its toll.
"I know when we tell the story of Barbara Boxer's record and her fight to create jobs here, that she'll be re-elected," Kapolczynski said.
Campbell leads Fiorina 28 percent to 22 percent among likely GOP voters in the June primary, with 9 percent favoring state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine. About four in 10 GOP primary voters say they are undecided, indicating the race is still wide open.
Each of the Republican candidates drew positive news from the poll.
Campbell continues leading the primary race despite stepped up attacks from Fiorina and DeVore. They have questioned his past support for tax increases and whether he fully supports Israel.
"He's been attacked by the other candidates for two weeks straight, and it hasn't changed the fundamentals of the race," said James Fisfis, a spokesman for the Campbell campaign.
Fiorina's campaign said Campbell's high name identification with California voters was largely driving the poll results.
"Carly remains relatively unknown to Republican primary voters at this point," said campaign spokeswoman Julie Soderlund. "But over the next three months, we anticipate that will change as she continues to proactively communicate with them."
While DeVore remains far down in the polls, his campaign noted that both Campbell and Fiorina saw their numbers drop slightly since a Field Poll taken in January. At that time, Campbell was the choice of 30 percent of likely GOP primary voters and Fiorina was the choice of 25 percent. Meanwhile, DeVore went from 6 percent to 9 percent.
"It's an improvement. Our arrow is pointing in a different direction than theirs. And the number of undecideds increasingly tells me the front-runners haven't sealed the deal," said Joshua Trevino, a spokesman for DeVore.
The poll was conducted March 9-15 among 748 likely voters in the general election and 353 likely voters in the GOP primary. The margin of error for the questions relating to the general election was plus or minus 3.7 percentage points and was slightly higher for the GOP primary voters
Submit this article to The Obama NewsSam Fulwood: The Zero-Sum Argument that Pits African Americans Against Undocumented Workers is a False Premise
At the heart of this specious challenge to fairness for all U.S. workers is the idea that blacks resent undocumented Latino immigrants for taking away jobs that would rightfully belong to them. Restrictionist opponents to immigration reform seize on this line of attack and exploit it to drive a wedge between the two racial and ethnic communities.
It's not working.
Don't take our word for it. Ask Jose Luis Marantes, an immigrant rights activist in Washington, D.C. who has found some of his most ardent supporters from within the ranks of some of the nation's most frightened future workers: students on black college campuses.
Marantes, a youth organizer for the Center for Community Change, said that a recent encounter on the Howard University campus convincingly demonstrated to him the divide-and-conquer strategy's failure. He was attending an Africana studies class to discuss impending legislation to
change the nation's immigration policies.
"One student stood up in the class and challenged me [on immigration reform]," he said. "This student said he was from Los Angeles and that where he came from Mexicans were the enemy because they took work from black people. 'So why should I listen to anything you have to say?'"
Marantes recalled the air in the room getting thick with tension. But that moment passed as quickly as it came when a second student spoke up to denounce his classmate's comments as uninformed.
For a remarkable hour, Marantes sat back as the predominately black classroom debated immigration policies and U.S. history. The students talked about how blacks were denied worker rights, how some of their ancestors were shut out of jobs and opportunities, and how today's laws cripple a fresh generation of workers. Some students argued that it's unfair--"like slavery"--for contemporary immigration laws to break up families and pit one group against another for seeking a better life.
"That class taught itself," Marantes said. "They were curious about the issue and hungry for information. Once they got the right information, it was clear that the old arguments didn't seem right."
Marantes said he didn't challenge the first student--one of his classmates did with accurate information. That changed the whole mood in the class.
"From that point on, it wasn't about blacks," he said. "It wasn't about Mexicans. It was about employers undercutting workers and when they understood that, it was, like, 'Ah! I get it!'"
The debate and the class eventually ended. And that's when the most remarkable thing happened, Marantes said. One student approached him and said the class discussion opened his eyes. He wanted to know what he could do to help push the immigration effort at the university. That student was joined by others on the Howard campus, which has a long history of student activism for progressive causes.
So when this weekend's march in Washington takes place, some 85 black students from Howard University will be among the activists calling for comprehensive immigration reform for new American families and economic justice for all American families.
They will join tens of thousands of diverse Americans from around the country who will listen to black leaders such as Marc Morial of the National Urban League and Ben Jealous of the NAACP, who both have prominent speaking roles.
They'll groove to the truly American band Los Lonely Boys, whose music is a combination of rock and roll, blues, soul, country, and Tejano. And they will hear from Esther Lopez of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which fights as hard today for black, brown, and white workers as it did generations ago for Polish and Italian immigrants.
The students will also march with those who don't have great titles or the blessings of a college education, but have figured it out. Low-wage black workers from places like New Haven, Connecticut and Milwaukee, Wisconsin are marching because they know their economic futures rely on a fair playing field for all workers.
This requires comprehensive immigration reform that makes undocumented workers legal residents so they can join with black, white, Asian, and Latino workers to bargain fairly for wages, organize unions, and stand up for basic workplace protections. The simple dignity of a hard day's work for a fair day's pay in our shared American journey has built not just a country, but bridges between communities.
Crossposted from Race-Talk.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsChristopher Brauchli: Reading and Writing and 'Rithmetic
He lost the election but probably not the war. Thanks to his enlightened efforts and the efforts of his like-minded colleagues (if the use of the word "mind" in the same sentence as a description of him and his colleagues does not offend) text books around the country will never be the same. I'm referring to Dr. Don McLeroy. In the March 2nd primary in Texas he was defeated in his bid for a second term on the Texas Board of Education of which he'd been a member since 1998 and its chair since 2007.
Students throughout the country will enjoy the benefits of his efforts and those of his colleagues since as Texas goes in the schoolbook world, so goes much of the nation, Texas being one of the largest purchasers of text books in the country.
The every 10-year process of setting standards for Texas textbooks is drawing to a close. One of the areas addressed in 2009 was science and two of the most contentious issues were evolution and global warming. At its meeting on March 25-27, 2009, the board added the requirement to the study of evolution that students must examine "all sides of scientific evidence" which includes the side that says the age of the earth is 6000 years, give or take a couple hundred. This enlightened approach delighted those who have long been troubled by the whole idea of evolution and who are, themselves, living proof that evolution does not occur in all humans. The Discovery Institute that promotes the idea of intelligent design said the board had chosen science over dogma. It called the revised standards a "huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution. In an interview with Mariah Blake of the Washington Monthly, Dr. McLeroy said: "Whooey. We won the Grand Slam, and the Super Bowl ... Our science standards are light years ahead of any other state when it comes to challenging evolution!" The National Center for Science Education, on the other hand, commented that the board "voted to adopt a flawed set of state science standards, which will dictate what is taught in science classes in elementary and secondary schools, as well as provide the material for state tests and textbooks, for the next decade."
Darwin was not the only one to take a hit. Global warming was another. The Board added the requirement to the chapter dealing with Environmental Systems that students should "analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming." Dr. McLeroy said: "Conservatives like me think the evidence [on global warming] is a bunch of hooey."
Almost one year to the day since evolution and global warming were dispatched, social studies found itself under the microscope. Once again, the charge was led by Don, ably assisted by Cynthia Dunbar. In the piece by Ms. Blake she refers to Cynthia's self-published book in which Cynthia says public education is "tyrannical" and "a tool of perversion" and sending kids to public school is like "throwing them into the enemy's flames." Nonetheless, she serves on the board and is involved in rewriting the textbooks.
The changes to the social studies section come as no surprise to those who read Ms. Blake's interview with Don. In the interview he said to her "we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan - he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes." The new standards require that when dealing with the civil rights movement the Black Panthers be studied as well as Martin Luther King. Language was added saying that Republicans supported Civil Rights legislation. That language was added by David Barton, former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party and one of the drafters. He is quoted in Ms. Blake's piece as saying that at one time African Americans owe their civil rights almost entirely to Republicans and were treated atrociously by Democrats.
As was noted at the outset, Dr. McLeroy lost the election but not the war. The new standards will be voted on in May and the new textbooks will appear in 2011. In talking with Ms. Blake about the Texas Board of Education he said: "Sometimes it boggles my mind the kind of power we have." If being able to intellectually impoverish a generation of students is what he's referring to, he's certainly got that right.
Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
Fox News Producer Megan Whittemore Joins Eric Cantor's Office As Deputy Press Secretary
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor has hired a Fox News producer as his new deputy press secretary.
Megan Whittemore was research producer for "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" before joining Cantor's office. Cantor appeared on the show this past Sunday.
According to a press release, Whittemore "played a key role with the Fox News Political Unit producing primary, convention, and election coverage" during the 2008 presidential election cycle. She has also covered Capitol Hill for the network.
"Megan brings exceptional energy, enthusiasm, and experience to our leadership office communications team," Cantor said in an announcement. "We welcome her talents to help deliver our message and manage media coverage. She will play a critical role working with media outlets in Virginia to deliver important and breaking news impacting the Commonwealth and VA's 7th Congressional district. Megan will provide additional support with national media initiatives, appearances, and events."
Submit this article to The Obama NewsPaul Abrams: President's Fox Interview: Zero Concerns About Core Health Care Reform Provisions
Brent Baier came to his interview with President Obama armed with 18,000 emailed questions from fire-breathing Fox viewers, whom the network (unprecedentedly, one might add for any network on any issue) has stirred to high-anxiety over getting improved health care.
Judging by their questions, Fox failed fabulously. There were zero concerns about the core elements of health care reform.
Apparently, among these 18,000 questions, no one objected to preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions nor preventing them from dropping coverage once a person became ill.
None of the Fox viewers objected to people without insurance from being able to purchase insurance in large pools like Members of Congress.
No Fox viewer objected to providing subsidies to small businesses to provide health care insurance for their employees.
No one objected to reducing the deficit by $1+ trillion or extending the solvency of Medicare.
Fox's viewers were, it seems, desperately concerned with the procedure in the House of Representatives, as that question consumed the first part of the interview. They were also concerned about certain of the political deals in the bill, the most egregious of which shall be removed.
The only question that even touched on what seemed like a concern about a core issue -- the $500B reduction from Medicare -- was not even about the bill itself. It had to do with the looming solvency crisis in Medicare, which this bill was not designed to address, but actually helps that too.
Despite more than a year of spewing hatred and spinning lies as "news", Fox News viewers -- at least those who wrote in -- have bought none of it. Their concerns are the distasteful but peripheral deals, and the process in the House of Representatives,
I share those concerns, albeit for very different reasons. By adopting the "deem and pass" approach, Democrats are, once again, demonstrating their abject fear of the Republican attack machine -- so, instead of crafting an attack machine of their own, Democrats cower.
Moreover, have the Democrats not realized that they will have more fodder than Republicans when the latter vote against the bills to remove the special deals and scale-back the taxes of Cadillac health care plans?
Which side of the senseless yapping wars would a Member rather be on -- voting for health care and for the bill to remove the objectionable parts, or voting against health care and against the parts to which they themselves object?
No contest. Bring'em on.
And, just go through normal process in the House. The result is the same, and it is better politically.
Health Care Bill DETAILS: Vote Coming Soon, Follow Health Care Debate LIVE
The final health care bill details are out and a full House vote is coming soon.
The health care bill will lead to a reduction of $130 billion of the federal deficit in the next 10 years, according to analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO also found that the bill would extend Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years and it would extend coverage to 32 million additional people.
Follow the health care debate LIVE below with analysts, activists, and policy wonks focusing on the health care bill and the pending health care vote.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsSusan L. Travis: Health Insurance Fig Leaves, Designed by the Emperor's Tailor
In 2006, my dear, beautiful sister died of misdiagnosis and insurance profiteering... plain, simple, and everlasting. My Huffington Post blog entry, "Gayle's Death: Lovelace Insurance Profit #1067678-00", inspired complete strangers to send me their stories.
They are the stories of health consumers who are insured... stories of doggedly dedicated premium payers whose claims, for so long, never extended beyond those illnesses requiring more than the top ten most common prescriptions. "Don't mess with my insurance!" They've long defended what appeared to be a smooth-as-glass relationship with their insurer. "I've NEVER had any problems!" Before... Until... They are stories of those who learned the sad way that they'd been cruelly played.
Blue cross of faith... blue shield of protection. Symbolism reaches deeply into the psyche, and on the worst of days, faith and fear are cynically and deliberately exploited for profit. The consumer, long conditioned to respond to symbolic associations, too easily succumbs to profiteers ruthlessly tapping the instinct of blind faith in anything powerful and protective enough to serve as a coat of armor against ills and plagues.
Well, please be smarter than to have your faith exploited. Pull your head out into the thinking knock-knock world! The American health insurance consumer is the ultimate mark -- the pigeon. Consider for a moment the notion that perpetuating a mass belief in secure coverage is the strategic foundation of the health insurance company. It's the fig leaf, the modest coverage thinly veiling "barely possible," as my grandmother used to say. It's the necessary bit -- the hook. Insurance covers these essentials, because, of course, otherwise, people might LOOK. It would be a bit too appallingly evident if one's basics weren't covered.
A successful scam relies on testimonials, so, of course, salted throughout public discourse, we hear anecdotes of heroic coverage. It's a convincing illusion; you pay a premium in return for promissory documents. Far cheaper than a non-profit system, you're told. Sign here. It saved the Joneses.
While each story starts with the buy in, "I thought I was covered," people increasingly discover that their faith has been exploited, and the rest of the wardrobe is designed by the Emperor's tailor. Like my sister, those who test their coverage find that as one wheels oneself into deeper weeds and higher costs of critical care beyond those climates where a fig leaf will do, one can't help but notice the chill. There's no protection from blowflies, Tussock grass, and thinning air. You, the consumer, are high in the tundra away from Fig-leaf-ville... underdressed, under-covered, and exposed to the elements of a system purporting to care and provide. Faith has been spent on a false god.
You are not only a victim of your illness, but you are a victim of your insurance company. You have an illness and despite your long history of paying into the system, your insurance rejects your claims in order to expand corporate profits. Your money, their profits -- not your health. Simultaneously, your high health bills compensate for the truly uninsured -- those who, sans figurative fig leaf, must shamefully, as a last resort, beg for care at our emergency room doors. In the face of all of this, the victims vigorously protect their abusers in a politically collective case of Stockholm Syndrome.
Yet despite mounting evidence, the intellectually disingenuous blather from within the warm pockets of the health industry, and the gullible deniers soak it up. The snake oil barker waxes on about the sins of socialism, the damage single-payer coverage would do to the free market, and the dissolution of our very-effective-best-in-the-world coverage. They hawk that if we address intrastate competition and those pesky preexisting conditions, this will demonstrate the fine silky textures of our beautiful warm health coverage. After all, the pockets are warm... for them. Pay no attention to the shivering patient in the tundra -- have another look at this very fine product that will keep you safe.
Well. Please get it. Get that your loved ones are no safer than those of us who have learned the hard sad way. Understand that your insurance is a fig leaf. Understand that when you or your loved ones REALLY get sick, being insured is only a fig leaf away from being uninsured. Understand that regardless of whether you are sick or well, you are casting your money at insurance and health provider profiteers.
Why do we accept this logic: "It will cost too much to care for our ailing loved ones, so we must continue to put money in other people's wallets." Put differently, "Instead of paying this money for real clothes, I will pay exorbitant prices to swindlers for little to nothing -- the kind of clothing that covers, costs money."
Really, why pay? Let the insurance executives wail into their beer - "where have all the fig leaves gone." Put your premiums under the mattress. At least it'll be there when someone you know needs it -- or when we wise to the swindle, eliminate the profit motive, and actually CARE for our suffering brothers and sisters. But, we won't... because sometimes, we welcome the coverage of the fig leaf. It blocks the breeze against our unmentionables, and it's something.
Perhaps my point will be more memorable for the use of a whimsical metaphor, but this issue is no laughing matter. Not when you're sick, or watching a loved one die, or casting their ashes in a canyon.
There are many of us in the tundra, watching loved ones suffer, and even die, at the cold killing hands of their insurers. Yet, from the warmth of Figville, there's everyone else. From the littlest Fig to the top of the Hill, there are those who speak clarity and truth to power, there are fig-leaf clad deniers, and there are the health insurance tailors, promoting their agenda for profit in the guise of providing care. It's as simple as that. So which are you? Wise up. Call "Bull$hit" on those shoddily tailored fig leaves. Their little "Made in America" tags put us to shame, at the very least.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsJonathan Hafetz: The Big Lie About Guantánamo Lawyers
The recent attacks on lawyers who have worked on behalf of Guantánamo detainees have employed the tactic of the "Big Lie"—that is, a lie so colossal that people will believe it because no one could possibly have the impudence to distort the truth so grossly.
The Big Lie here is that ethical and courageous lawyers who defended the Constitution by taking on unpopular cases of Guantánamo detainees are somehow tainted by the accusations against their clients, and that this taint should prevent them from serving honorably in the Justice Department.
This Big Lie is not only false; it threatens the core principle of our democracy that those accused of misdeeds by our government are entitled to due process and a lawyer to represent them. To appreciate how fundamental this principle is, one need only imagine an America in which lawyers refused to represent clients because they might be associated with the actions or beliefs for which those clients are accused.
Like many Big Lies, this one is premised upon lots of other lies that make the Big Lie easier to swallow.
Let's start with the assumption that all detainees at Guantánamo are terrorists. The fact is that only a handful of the nearly 800 detainees held there since 2002 have ever been charged with a crime in any tribunal, civilian or military. The overwhelming majority—more than 500—were released by the Bush administration, the same administration that had branded all Guantánamo detainees "the worst of the worst."
In fact, according to a Seton Hall law school study of government data, fewer than 10 percent of the detainees at Guantánamo were characterized as al Qaeda fighters, while 40 percent were not even alleged to have any connection with al Qaeda whatsoever. Many Guantánamo detainees were simply sold to the U.S. or Northern Alliance forces by bounty hunters eager to claim the reward money the United States was offering.
Yet, for eight years, the Bush administration defended holding Guantánamo detainees without access to habeas corpus—the basic right to challenge their confinement in court. Since federal judges started conducting those hearings in 2008, they have found that the detention was illegal in 33 of 44 cases. In other words, the government got it wrong about 75 percent of the time — and that number does not even include the hundreds of detainees released without charge by the Bush administration.
Of course, whether or not the government's accusations against a detainee turn out to be true, our system demands that the detainee have counsel both to protect his rights and to safeguard the integrity of the entire judicial process. But it's the broad brush of guilt with which all detainees have been painted that has made the Big Lie more saleable.
Then there's the lie that Guantánamo detainees did not have a right to a lawyer because they had not been charged with a crime but were instead being held as "combatants" in the "war on terror."
Take the assertion of former Bush speech writer (now Washington Post columnist) Marc Thiessen: "[Lawyers] were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in time of war."
Thiessen's twisted logic reads like something out of Kafka. If the United States had charged the detainees with a crime under any of more than dozen federal anti-terrorism statutes, the detainees would have had a constitutional right to a lawyer. But by holding detainees in a legal black-hole as "enemy combatants," the United States could deliberately avoid triggering any of the Constitution's protections.
Further, this "new war" conveniently has no limits. As one Justice Department official told a federal judge during the Guantánamo detainee litigation, the president's detention power was so broad that he could imprison as an "enemy combatant" even a little old lady in Switzerland who gave money to a charity which, unbeknownst to her, was providing money to a terrorist organization.
Yet Thiessen and others, like National Review Institute fellow Andrew McCarthy, have the audacity to impugn lawyers — some of them uniformed military officers — for testing these legal claims in court on behalf of individuals facing potentially lifetime imprisonment without charge or trial. Their audacity is all the more shocking since their vision of unchecked and unreviewable executive detention power has now been rejected three times by the Supreme Court.
Finally, the timing of the recent slurs against detainee lawyers must also be considered, coming close on the heels of the release of a Justice Department report assessing the conduct of John Yoo and others who misused, subverted, and circumvented the law to facilitate the United States' torture and mistreatment of detainees in violation of criminal statutes and international legal obligations. We must not let the recent attacks divert our attention from what is, at minimum, a serious breach of legal ethics, or be tricked into thinking that "all these attacks on lawyers" are the same. This is another lie, one that preys upon the public's fear of terrorism and the misguided belief that Yoo and other torture lawyers were helping protecting the country while the Guantánamo lawyers were endangering it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The illegal mistreatment and torture of prisoners has undermined not only our values, but our security as well. As Army Gen. David Petraeus noted, Guantánamo has become an importing recruiting tool for those who wish to do America harm. By contrast, upholding the rule of law helps keep us both safe and free.
The legal profession's representation of unpopular individuals has a long history in the United States. John Adams' defense of the British soldiers accused of carrying out the Boston Massacre is but one example. It is precisely cases involving accusations of the most heinous crimes that test our commitment to our values and legal principles. It is also in such cases that the protections that safeguard all individuals — such as due process and equal protection under law — can be most dangerously undermined.
It is encouraging to see that many, including some well-respected conservative scholars, have stood up to defend the detainee lawyers — have told the truth in the face of the Big Lie. But the lie, in its many forms, shows no signs of retreating any time soon. We must all remain vigilant and armed with the truth so we're prepared when the next one comes along.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsFox caught, again
On Tuesday and Wednesday, Fox breathlessly promoted what it claims to be a new survey from the New England Journal of Medicine showing doctors oppose health care reform, but there’s a problem: the non-scientific survey was conducted months ago, was not published in the NEJM, and, according to a spokesperson for the journal, it has "nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine’s original research."
I've put together a video compilation of Fox's false claim -- it's really a remarkable example of journalistic malpractice.
Watch:
A New England Journal of Medicine spokesperson told Media Matters that despite Fox's claims, such a survey "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine."
Contrary to Fox's claims, the survey had nothing to do with NEJM. Instead, the survey, which was conducted several months ago and was non-scientific in nature, was posted on a career-oriented website maintained by the publisher of NEJM.
But of course the simple fact that Fox's reporting wasn't true did not prove to be an obstacle to getting it on the air. After all, Fox knows how to entertain its audience, and it's 'smart' enough to never let reality never get in the way of a good story.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsLabor loses ground on excise tax
As I reported yesterday, the White House was scrambling to keep AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on board yesterday after making last minute increases to the excise tax on expensive health care plans in response to CBO scoring.
Frates has the details:
The reconciliation bill will contain further adjustments to the tax on Cadillac health plans, according to Rep. Chris Van Hollen.The tax will be indexed to inflation, rather than inflation plus one percents.
House Democrats and labor leaders wanted it to rise higher than inflation to prevent more people from being ensnared each year, but the leadership made the change after they ran into problems this week trying to reach their deficit reduction targets in the bill.
Trumka is meeting this afternoon with his executive committee. A spokesman, Eddie Vale, said the federation will stake out its position then and talk to the press afterward.
Submit this article to The Obama NewsReading the CBO
Carrie Budoff Brown and Patrick O'Connor say leadership thinks the deficit reduction figures on the final bill will bring some waverers along:
Legislative language has not yet been released. But the latest changes to the bill would close the donut hole in the Medicare prescription drug program, boost subsidies for lower-income individuals to buy insurance, and push back the implementation date of the tax on Cadillac insurance plans until 2018.
Democrats wrangled for days with the CBO to get the numbers within their targets. The bill would cost more than the versions that passed the Senate and the House, but Democrats were able to keep the deficit reduction figures at the same levels – a goal that had preoccupied them for much of this week.
Hoyer told reporters Wednesday night that the lack of CBO numbers were a bigger problem than any internal negotiations over outstanding issues, like the Senate's restrictions on abortion.
